Balance problems with Complete Warrior base classes?

[Darklone]

Actually, the 3.5 ranger is in most cases a better swashbuckler than the swashbuckler class. Especially if you get some Urban Ranger variant by exchanging some wilderness class skills into social skills or get some new class skills with feats.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I am of the view that its not a balance problem for Samurai/Swashbuckler/Hexblade to be slightly less powerful than a Fighter/Ranger/Paladin. In exchange for a slightly less powerful character, you get a character that is very useful (i.e. specialized) for a particular circumstance.

Right. My point was a bit tongue-in-cheek; if the new classes are better in particular circumstances, and not so good in others, then they're probably balanced with (IOW, as powerful as) the core fighting classes. That's a good thing. I'm just tired of others (not you, Endur!) assuming that underpowered is somehow more "balanced" than overpowered.

Not? There are as many complaining about the poor wizards who are much weaker than melee monsters as we have threads about the poor fighters who are much weaker than the mighty spellslingers.

Which doesn't make the former camp correct.

 

[Remathilis]

Has anyone tried the OBVIOUS swashbuckler/duelist combonation? It seems like it would work well, maybe a bit too well.

 

[MerricB]

Yeah, the CW Samurai IMHO doesn't need to be a seperate class...better a PrC or feat chain or both....but as it is, it's not unbalanced, just....badly rationalized.

I don't think you can build a CW Samurai with a feat chain or a Prestige Class. Certainly not with the standard stat array.

The CW Samurai is built around two ability scores: Strength and Charisma. Their skills (Diplomacy, Intimidate, Knowledge nobility & royalty) are inspired by the idea of the noble knight sworn to a liege, along with a particular take on the Japanese Samurai. Heavy Armour is used, as are two weapons. They have a commanding presence.

This is not the be-all-and-end-all of Samurai classes; in fact, it probably is a badly chosen name. It is a particular take on a Samurai, but not one that precludes other variations on the concept. However, the naming of the class has little to do with its execution or balance.

Two-Weapon Fighting, one of the core concepts behind this class, requires a 15 Dexterity. For someone who is primarily a melee fighter in heavy armour, this is a terrible burden. To lose your highest ability score to something that does not particularly benefit you? Not good.

Is this class rather specialised? Absolutely. It it unsuitable for many campaigns? Without a doubt. However, these are not flaws in the class. The standard classes in the PHB fill the generic roles. If you want to do something unusual - and allowing two-weapon fighting without requiring a high Dexterity score is one of the unusual aspects of this class - then you need either a new class or a new prestige class.

Unfortunately, this key feature of this class - the two weapon fighting without a high Dex - precludes the use of a prestige class. By the time you became a Samurai PrC you would be 6th or 7th level, and the character would be supremely specialised in some other form of fighting.

WotC have moved away from giving us purely prestige classes. Just as all prestige classes will not be suitable for a campaign, neither will all classes. (I don't allow the Monk or Barbarian in my current campaigns, and I wouldn't allow a CW Samurai either, for setting reasons). However, every so often one of the new classes will fit well into a campaign and thus enrich it.

This, I think, is a good thing.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Has anyone tried the OBVIOUS swashbuckler/duelist combonation? It seems like it would work well, maybe a bit too well.

It should work very well. Of course, the loss of all armour reduces the AC a certain amount at the start.

Ed Stark said, "The Swashbuckler makes a good base class for entrance into the Duelist prestige class." in this thread on the WotC boards.

They had thought about it when designing the Swashbuckler.

Cheers!

 

[A'koss]

IMO, they should have made the swashbuckler the two weapon fighting class (rapier and main gauche/cloak) which makes much more sense than this highly unlikely two weapon samurai core class... I can think of just one style, Musashi-ryu, that actually utilizes this and I can't even think of any cinematic samurai that uses two blades at once.

A'koss.

 

[MerricB]

IMO, they should have made the swashbuckler the two weapon fighting class (rapier and main gauche/cloak) which makes much more sense than this highly unlikely two weapon samurai core class... I can think of just one style, Musashi-ryu, that actually utilizes this and I can't even think of any cinematic samurai that uses two blades at once.

Nor I. But that's just a naming problem; I think the class works fine on its own merits, and I could quite easily see an order of noble warriors in a D&D campaign using the CW Samurai class.

Cheers!

 

[A'koss]

Originally posted by MerricB
Nor I. But that's just a naming problem; I think the class works fine on its own merits, and I could quite easily see an order of noble warriors in a D&D campaign using the CW Samurai class.

True. But then it becomes, almost by definition, a textbook case for a Prestige Class...

A'koss.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't think you can build a CW Samurai with a feat chain or a Prestige Class. Certainly not with the standard stat array.

Paladins have social skills. Paladins are based around Strength and Charisma. Paladins have a code of honor. Paladins are mounted knights.

The Samurai could easily be a PrC for a Paladin or Paladin/Fighter. Or a chain of Intimidation feats for them, with perhaps one feat that allows you TWF without a high Dex...an alternate...

The CW Samurai is built around two ability scores: Strength and Charisma. Their skills (Diplomacy, Intimidate, Knowledge nobility & royalty) are inspired by the idea of the noble knight sworn to a liege, along with a particular take on the Japanese Samurai. Heavy Armour is used, as are two weapons. They have a commanding presence.

=Paladin. Paladin/Fighter if you don't want the extra god-baggage.

Two-Weapon Fighting, one of the core concepts behind this class, requires a 15 Dexterity. For someone who is primarily a melee fighter in heavy armour, this is a terrible burden. To lose your highest ability score to something that does not particularly benefit you? Not good.

ONE feat could solve this. Call it Mighty Two-Weapon Fighting. It requires maybe a better BAB, and limits you to only two weapons...you don't need a class.

Is this class rather specialised? Absolutely. It it unsuitable for many campaigns? Without a doubt. However, these are not flaws in the class. The standard classes in the PHB fill the generic roles. If you want to do something unusual - and allowing two-weapon fighting without requiring a high Dexterity score is one of the unusual aspects of this class - then you need either a new class or a new prestige class.

Isn't specialized, elite, and campaign-specific the role for prestige classes? Otherwise, why the heck have ANY? And TWF with heavy armor is not that mind-boggling. The only 'new' thing the class brings to bear is the intimidation powers, which still work well as a feat chain, or PrC ability progression.

Unfortunately, this key feature of this class - the two weapon fighting without a high Dex - precludes the use of a prestige class. By the time you became a Samurai PrC you would be 6th or 7th level, and the character would be supremely specialised in some other form of fighting.

OR, he could be specialized in excactly that form of fighting without having to multiclass in an elite, specialized, campaign-specific BASE class...or qualifying for an elite, specialized, campaign-specific PRESTIGE class.

WotC have moved away from giving us purely prestige classes. Just as all prestige classes will not be suitable for a campaign, neither will all classes. (I don't allow the Monk or Barbarian in my current campaigns, and I wouldn't allow a CW Samurai either, for setting reasons). However, every so often one of the new classes will fit well into a campaign and thus enrich it.

I'm happy they've moved away from the glut of PrC's, but PrC's DO have a role, and should be utilized to fill that role. Base classes are just that -- bases. Basic. Defining of a character from a low level, a pedestal on which to build and ornament with feats and possibly Prestige classes (which represent focus, elitism, or a specific campaign role). I love the Swashbuckler and the Hexblade as base classes, and wouldn't want to take them out of that role.

The Samurai, however, brings nothing *base* to the table. It's not a pedestal, it's a fully ornamented statue already. That's what a PrC can do. That's not a role for the base class....

This is all just IMHO, but if base classes are used for campaign-specific, elite, specialized warriors what, excatly, do PrC's do?

 

[MerricB]

Isn't specialized, elite, and campaign-specific the role for prestige classes? Otherwise, why the heck have ANY?

...

This is all just IMHO, but if base classes are used for campaign-specific, elite, specialized warriors what, excatly, do PrC's do?

This is one of my pet peeves about people's attitudes to Prestige Classes and Classes: they separate them for the wrong reasons.

Originally, there was an attempt to say "Prestige Classes must be special and campaign specific". That is a statement that seeks to limit their application and their usefulness. It was quickly disproved by the plethora of Prestige Classes that appeared in both WotC and d20 System books, and the enthusiasm players had towards them.

Prestige Classes are a tool to allow game abilities to be used in a way that the normal system of classes, multi-classes and feats do not allow. There is far more significance to taking a level in a class than taking a feat; and more is possible there. The fact that you can do some pretty nifty role-playing and story-telling tricks with Prestige Classes is a great bonus, but underlying it all is the mechanical reason they work: they make full use of the multi-class system to allow great variance to how players may approach their characters.

WotC have realised this, and so you have the Mystic Theurge and Eldritch Knight in 3.5E: not campaign specific, but providing a way allowing players a new type of character to play.

However, there is a fundamental difference between a class and a prestige class: the prestige class is easier to design. Designing only 3, 5 or 10 levels is far easier than designing the full 20 levels of a normal class.

There is a flaw in prestige classes: they are designed to be taken at level 6 or above. As a result, if you want to have some core abilities at the lower levels, such is not possible.

If you want such to happen, you must either modify a normal class, or create a new class. In my mind, they are the same thing. The CW Samurai is a modified Paladin, fulfilling a different role, but with some correspondences and some significant differences.

Conversely, the base classes have a flaw that Prestige Classes do not share: you must go through the low level abilities before reaching the higher level abilites. This becomes a flaw when you start multi-classing. There are times when you want only one or two class abilities of a normal class, but if you need 7 levels of a base class before acquiring them, this causes a problem. In this situation a Prestige Class is the best option - primarily because it can be approached from many different paths.

There is a distinct mechanical difference between Prestige Classes and base Classes. There are several roles that may be represented as either a Prestige Class or a base Class, depending on your personal vision of that role.

That the CW Samurai role could be approximated by feats and a Prestige Class is not in doubt; that does not invalidate the base Class version of that role, for each has different strengths.

Cheers!