A Fighters skill points....

[Storminator]

The argument is getting nowhere. I have two problems with the Fighter. One, is it is nearly impossible to build a character concept with the class that is interesting and effecient. Two, there is rarely a reason to continue taking levels in the class once you hit mid to high levels. I have yet to see anyone refute either of these two problems.

Actually, both of those points were addressed, you chose to ignore that.

PS

 

[FrankTrollman]

Everything is underpowered, when you compare with those spellcasters. That's simply because there are just too many spells resembling class abilities, which effectively give you all the benefits the other character needs to take several levels in a certain class for. And, of course, since spells have a greater impact than most other abilities, with the reasoning, that they are limited-resource abilities mostly.

Actually, single classed spellcasters (except Druids) can generally be on a pretty even footing a mid-to-high levels with massively multiclassed and PrCed Warriors. Neither single classed warriors nor multiclassed spellcasters can especially keep up.

It is my contention that therefore single classed warriors and multiclassed spellcasters are under powered - and need to be jacked up.

The really nice thing about jacking up them, is that it won't affect the power of the current leaders (multiclassed Warriors and single classed Spellcasters) at all. A Single Classed spellcaster doesn't benefit in any way from rules permitting easier multiclassing, and a Multiclassed warrior doesn't benefit from the later levels of Fighter and Paladin being better because he will never see them.

So I don't see the problem with attacking the power paradigm in this manner - it doesn't even affect the most powerful characters, and therefore would have to go a long way before it could possibly unbalance anything.

-Frank

 

[reapersaurus]

The really nice thing about jacking up them, is that it won't affect the power of the current leaders (multiclassed Warriors and single classed Spellcasters) at all. A Single Classed spellcaster doesn't benefit in any way from rules permitting easier multiclassing, and a Multiclassed warrior doesn't benefit from the later levels of Fighter and Paladin being better because he will never see them.

So I don't see the problem with attacking the power paradigm in this manner - it doesn't even affect the most powerful characters, and therefore would have to go a long way before it could possibly unbalance anything.

NOW you're talkin', Frank!

I see you added in the Paladin to your underpowered classes. Good man. I guess my words did make a difference, perhaps.

I have no doubt that single-classed fighter-types (Bbn, Ftr, Pal - I'll neglect Rgr for now, even though I'm pretty sure they should be included as well) are underpowered at higher levels.
The only question is, what exact changes should be made to the game to fix it?
I have proposed some suggested changed in House Rules, some serious, some more tongue-in-cheek, but I think the major thing that would help higher-level fighter-types would be substantial SR.
The fact that their entire strengths that they have battled years for, can be taken away with one simple spell (even low level ones), is a slap in the face to the heroic fantasy character ideal.

There is a simple logistical proof for the need for this change:
BAB and fighter-type class abilities are linear, while spellcasting is geometric in its progression.

 

[Crothian]

So, why do people assume the spellcasters are balanced and the fighter types are weak? Why not declare the spellcasters too powerful and bring them down in ability.

 

[KarinsDad]

So, why do people assume the spellcasters are balanced and the fighter types are weak? Why not declare the spellcasters too powerful and bring them down in ability.

I assume that spell casters are (relative to same level fighters) weaker at low levels and can die easier.
I assume that fighters are more powerful at low levels and can survive easier.
I assume that fighters are weaker at higher levels and can die easier.
I assume that spell casters are more powerful at higher levels and can survive easier.

I assume this is balanced. For some reason, people think that it should instead be:

Spell casters are weaker at low levels and can die easier.
Fighters are more powerful at low levels and can survive easier.
High level fighters and spell casters should be at the same level of power and have the same level of survivability.

I do not hear anybody getting their panties in a bind over the fact that low level Wizards will typically have half or fewer hit points of a same level low level Fighter.

Why isn't THIS unbalanced?

 

[Crothian]

I do not hear anybody getting their panties in a bind over the fact that low level Wizards will typically have half or fewer hit points of a same level low level Fighter.

Why isn't THIS unbalanced?

But wizards have about half the HPs of a fighter no matter what level they are. And there's more to balance then just HPs.

While the low level fighter might be better, that's only till about level 5 or so. The wizard seems to be better for well more then half the levels going one through 20.

 

[FrankTrollman]

I see you added in the Paladin to your underpowered classes. Good man. I guess my words did make a difference, perhaps.

Paladin has always been on the list - just that it sucks at level 6 instead of sucking at level 3. That's a big difference in many games - although of course in the long run it's not.

So, why do people assume the spellcasters are balanced and the fighter types are weak? Why not declare the spellcasters too powerful and bring them down in ability.

Two reasons:

1> It is always easier on a gaming group to add power than it is to take it away. That is, if you give a character too much bonus it's not a big deal when you have to take it away. When you nerf someone too hard it just breeds hard feelings.

2> It is easier to modify the non-spellcasters than it is to modify the spellcasters. A warrior class has 20 levels which can have their abilities adjusted. The Spellcasters have hundreds - even thousands of spells available to them - each of which is available to be plugged in to a spellcaster at any relevent level.

So it's easier on the gaming group and on the designer to increase the power of the single classed warrior rather than decrease the power of the single classed spellcaster. Really, once the infinite power loops are all closed for the spellcasters and their buff-tastic crap goes away - I'll be happy.

BAB and fighter-type class abilities are linear, while spellcasting is geometric in its progression.

That's not entirely true. While it is true that a Wizard continues to get more spells and that his spells become more powerful - there is a whole seperate issue where his lower level spells don't. A wizard experiences spell obsolescence, and a Barbarian's Uncanny Dodge never goes away.

What this leads to, is the wizard spending a higher and higher proportion of its spells on buffs - because the spells become useless for anything else. That's also a problem - but one that I don't think can be as easily solved as the current basic power inequality.

A Wizard keeps getting power at every level - but the rate of that growth is not itself expanding in any kind of regular fashion. However, when compared to warriors - whose rate of power growth decreases - it certainly seems to.

-Frank

 

[reapersaurus]

In 3.5, they spread out the Paladin's powewrs even WORSE.
In 3.0, the pally sucked at level 3 also (because who gives a rat's &* about Remove Disease, and unless he's using Divine Feats, his sucky Turn Undead is almost a non-benefit.
Notice I'm ignoring his spells - for good reason.
Other than Level 5's mount, there's nothing for a paladin in 3.0 after Smite.

The real brutal thing about balancing a paladin that I haven't mentioned is: A Paladin is almost required to be a single-class character to be any good, due to all his abilities being level dependant.
However, the real kick in the nuts is that unlike a mage, the Paladins abilities are strictly linear (you notice I'm ignoring his spells).
So a Paladin, unlike any other class in the game, is the one that has the most restrictive roleplaying flexibility, has among the least multi-class flexibility, yet doesn't gain exponential benefits at high paladin levels.

If I could dream of a Paladin tweak, it would be that Paladins would gain kick-ass abilities at higher levels (drop the stupid spellcasting that's triply-handicapped: slow progression, crappy spell-list, and half-caster level) that would compare with what mages get at high level.
Give them enough power at high level to actually cause the EVIL forces to quake in fear at his presence - make him a legendary figure, make him worthy of tales to be sung for centuries, give him the ability to shrug off the worst spells that Evil can throw at him.
Give his sword the ability to cut thru a ForceCage, for example.

Do some damn work to make this game heroic, for god's sake, WotC!

 

[reapersaurus]

Oh, I almost forgot -
The Paladin is the ONLY class in the game that does not currently have a viable prestige class.

 

[Thanee]

Bards and Clerics don't have much either.

Bye
Thanee