Balance problems with Complete Warrior base classes?

[MerricB]

i'd still like to drop the swashbuckler's hit die to d8 and give them some sort of level-based AC bonus.

in that case, i'd also of course get rid of their escalating dodge bonus class feature.

when i think swashbuckler i don't necessarily think of someone trained for taking on one opponent at a time (that's a duelist) -- i more often think of Cyrano de Bergerac down on the pier fighting off 30 men at once by himself! a dodge bonus that only works against one opponent isn't really going to help in a situation like that.

Certainly - but the ability to wear a magical chain shirt will!

A high level swashbuckler should have an AC similar or better to a rogue, will be able to improve it further with the Two Weapon Defense feats, and has good hit points to boot! For those who prefer no armour, the Duelist prestige class is easily available.

Not to say that your idea is without merit, though. It sounds perfectly feasible.

Cheers!

 

[hong]

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.

That's not a new type of character to play, because you could always play a multiclassed spellcaster of some sort. The MT and EK are hack jobs to fix a hole in the multiclassing rules, which should have been filled in with 3.5E.

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.

Eh. IME, coming up with funky abilities to fill out those 10 levels gets pretty demanding pretty quick. OTOH, a core class is actually much easier to design, especially if you take the route shown in the OA shaman and samurai, and just specify a list of bonus feats to complement the core shtick. Maybe add a few class-specific feats a la Weapon Spec, if you want a "signature" ability.

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.

They are not the same thing. If you modify a normal class, then presumably the only version of that class that exists in your campaign is the modified one. Also, you typically can't multiclass between normal and modified versions, unless you have a very odd game. Neither of these hold when you create new classes; thus if you treated a swashbuckler as a modified fighter, then you could not have fighter/swashbucklers running around. Conversely, fighter/swashbucklers are a distinct possibility if it's a new class.

The CW Samurai is a modified Paladin, fulfilling a different role, but with some correspondences and some significant differences.

The CW samurai is not a modified paladin. There are absolutely no commonalities between the two, except for the fighter stuff (BAB, HD, saves, proficiencies) and the lawful alignment. Even if the flavour text talks about being of noble birth, the class abilities bear no relationship to that. If the CW samurai is anything, it's a modified ranger. No other base class gets TWF as a schtick, even if they've deemphasised this in the 3.5E version.

One thing I detest about the CW samurai, now that I've looked at it a bit more closely, is that it gets staredown as a class-specific ability. You know how too many skills make characters stupid? The first extension to that is too many feats make characters stupid, of which there is a hint in some of the tactical feats in CW. The second extension to that is too many classes also make characters stupid.

Making Mass Staredown a class ability is idiotic. Intimidating a mob of mooks is not something that's specific to one archetype, genre or organisation. The Man With No Name can intimidate mooks, but so can Conan, Aragorn, Raistlin, and Lina Inverse (in the latter case, sometimes even when she doesn't want to). If you wanted to treat this game-mechanically, rather than leaving it freeform, then it should have been a feat, which would open it to anyone. But according to the CW designers, it would appear that if you want to intimidate a mob of mooks, you have to have 10 levels in an obscure class that people will likely never have heard of before they made their current PCs.

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.

I'm kinda hard-pressed to think of any strengths for the CW samurai. If you want to be an uber TWF sword guy, then you certainly don't want the daisho and noble-warrior flavour text as baggage. Conversely, if you want to be a noble warrior, then the TWF thing is irrelevant. It's a half-and-half class. I'm sure it'll work out great for _some_ people, but the same could be said of the Leyland P76.

 

[d4]

Certainly - but the ability to wear a magical chain shirt will!

i'm pretty sure Cyrano never wore a magic chain shirt. (or much any armor at all, to be sure.)

Not to say that your idea is without merit, though. It sounds perfectly feasible.

thanks. i think the swashbuckler is fine as is, but there's always room for variations.

 

[BryonD]

I think the bonuses gained from doing that are small enough that it's not a problem. The extra skill points are really not going to make this multi-class character significantly better - they'll quickly vanish under the mass of low point gains of the fighter.

Against that, the fighter is delayed for two levels from gaining Weapon Specialisation, Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialisation - things that are even more important for the weapon finessing fighter.

Cheers!

Well, like I said, it is a small thing. I certainly do not think that it is disruptive.

But I think you under-rate the value of a DEX fighter being able to dump points into tumble. As you point out, skills are minor to the fighter. But getting 5 ranks in tumble is ten skill points to a normal fighter. Plus they get away from the cross-class max rank cap. Since they don't really need skill points anyway, getting to spend two points per fighter level and maintain tumble at level+3 is quite good for a DEX fighter. Granted, further improvement in Tumble starts to drop off in value eventually, but not before the value in this option is realized.

I agree that the weapon feats are a cost. But the slight delay of that is more than off-set by the gain of resources that would otherwise be completely unavailable.

Plus, it is a reality of gaming that many characters simply spring into being at higher levels. So the idea of waiting for an ability is often a mirage.

Again, I'm not worked up over it. But that's my criticism of this class.

 

[MerricB]

i'm pretty sure Cyrano never wore a magic chain shirt. (or much any armor at all, to be sure.)

I'd have to check.

In the case that no armour is worn, you could multiclass into the Duelist, but probably the "Defense Bonus" idea from Star Wars (which is what you suggested) would be much better. On a certain level, you're talking about a shift in paradigm. Cyrano didn't wear armour because hardly anyone wore armour - a different thing to what you get in a D&D game.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Well, like I said, it is a small thing. I certainly do not think that it is disruptive.

But I think you under-rate the value of a DEX fighter being able to dump points into tumble. As you point out, skills are minor to the fighter. But getting 5 ranks in tumble is ten skill points to a normal fighter. Plus they get away from the cross-class max rank cap. Since they don't really need skill points anyway, getting to spend two points per fighter level and maintain tumble at level+3 is quite good for a DEX fighter. Granted, further improvement in Tumble starts to drop off in value eventually, but not before the value in this option is realized.

I just don't think Tumble is that good. It is wonderful for a Rogue, but without a Sneak Attack ability, the risk of Tumble outweighs its benefits, I deem. Most of the times I've seen it used has been to move the character into a flanking position, but ends up with the tumbling character cut off from the rest of their party and vulnerable to extra monster attacks.

Cheers!

 

[BryonD]

I just don't think Tumble is that good. It is wonderful for a Rogue, but without a Sneak Attack ability, the risk of Tumble outweighs its benefits, I deem. Most of the times I've seen it used has been to move the character into a flanking position, but ends up with the tumbling character cut off from the rest of their party and vulnerable to extra monster attacks.

Cheers!

Well obviously opinions can differ. It sounds to me like you just have not seen Tumble used very well.

But regardless, a small ability that comes at effectively no cost is still an increase.

Tumble can get you OUT of the same jam it got you into. Plus, even without SA you AND at least one ally get +2 to attacks, which pretty well cancels out a slight delay in access to Greater Weapon Focus.

At the end of the day an F6/SwB2 has everything an F8 has, plus slightly better saves, and better skill points. They have the exact same number of feats. The fighter does not gain the full value of GWF. GWF is a good feat, but there are plenty of other good feats, so being forced to pick a different one for two levels is virtually negligible. So ultimately the pure fighter gains nothing at all. Only the subjective value of one feat vs another, and then only for a short period.

It is certainly not a big deal, but I fail to see how you can marginalize an objective permanent gain in resources while praising a purely subjective and temporary gain in a slightly smaller pool of resources.

 

[jasamcarl]

That's not a new type of character to play, because you could always play a multiclassed spellcaster of some sort. The MT and EK are hack jobs to fix a hole in the multiclassing rules, which should have been filled in with 3.5E.



Eh. IME, coming up with funky abilities to fill out those 10 levels gets pretty demanding pretty quick. OTOH, a core class is actually much easier to design, especially if you take the route shown in the OA shaman and samurai, and just specify a list of bonus feats to complement the core shtick. Maybe add a few class-specific feats a la Weapon Spec, if you want a "signature" ability.



They are not the same thing. If you modify a normal class, then presumably the only version of that class that exists in your campaign is the modified one. Also, you typically can't multiclass between normal and modified versions, unless you have a very odd game. Neither of these hold when you create new classes; thus if you treated a swashbuckler as a modified fighter, then you could not have fighter/swashbucklers running around. Conversely, fighter/swashbucklers are a distinct possibility if it's a new class.



The CW samurai is not a modified paladin. There are absolutely no commonalities between the two, except for the fighter stuff (BAB, HD, saves, proficiencies) and the lawful alignment. Even if the flavour text talks about being of noble birth, the class abilities bear no relationship to that. If the CW samurai is anything, it's a modified ranger. No other base class gets TWF as a schtick, even if they've deemphasised this in the 3.5E version.

One thing I detest about the CW samurai, now that I've looked at it a bit more closely, is that it gets staredown as a class-specific ability. You know how too many skills make characters stupid? The first extension to that is too many feats make characters stupid, of which there is a hint in some of the tactical feats in CW. The second extension to that is too many classes also make characters stupid.

Making Mass Staredown a class ability is idiotic. Intimidating a mob of mooks is not something that's specific to one archetype, genre or organisation. The Man With No Name can intimidate mooks, but so can Conan, Aragorn, Raistlin, and Lina Inverse (in the latter case, sometimes even when she doesn't want to). If you wanted to treat this game-mechanically, rather than leaving it freeform, then it should have been a feat, which would open it to anyone. But according to the CW designers, it would appear that if you want to intimidate a mob of mooks, you have to have 10 levels in an obscure class that people will likely never have heard of before they made their current PCs.



I'm kinda hard-pressed to think of any strengths for the CW samurai. If you want to be an uber TWF sword guy, then you certainly don't want the daisho and noble-warrior flavour text as baggage. Conversely, if you want to be a noble warrior, then the TWF thing is irrelevant. It's a half-and-half class. I'm sure it'll work out great for _some_ people, but the same could be said of the Leyland P76.

Don't learn do you? Go back to the earlier thread and read why all your points are based on a dumb assumption, namely that classes need to have flavor or represent something specific.

 

[MerricB]

Well obviously opinions can differ. It sounds to me like you just have not seen Tumble used very well.

Quite possibly.

It is certainly not a big deal, but I fail to see how you can marginalize an objective permanent gain in resources while praising a purely subjective and temporary gain in a slightly smaller pool of resources.

It's very easy to do. Just ignore any objective facts and go with your opinion.

But regardless, a small ability that comes at effectively no cost is still an increase.

True. I thought about it a bit more, and then realised that it didn't actually matter. The point of multi-classing is to allow combinations that don't work under the normal rules, and the Swashbuckler/Fighter combination does that very well.

Is the Sw/Ftr superior to a straight Ftr? Only in the case of a fighter using Weapon Finesse, and then marginally. However, it isn't superior to a fighter who takes advantage of a high strength or who is a bow specialist. You have a multi-class combination that is superior for one type of character, which is the point of the system.

Does that make any sense?

Cheers!

 

[BryonD]

Quite possibly.
Is the Sw/Ftr superior to a straight Ftr? Only in the case of a fighter using Weapon Finesse, and then marginally. However, it isn't superior to a fighter who takes advantage of a high strength or who is a bow specialist. You have a multi-class combination that is superior for one type of character, which is the point of the system.

Does that make any sense?

Cheers!

Certainly. That is all I have been saying. And I made it a point each time to re-state that it is not a big deal in this case.

I disagree that it is ok for a multi-class to outperform a single class. But agree 100% that this specific case is VERY marginal.

Its just a peeve for me. I've actually been through this debate before in play-testing and got a class changed for this very reason. Though in that case the class had more options in the bonus feat as well as better L1 abilities. It was a no-brainer for a fighter to take 2 levels of the new class. (That was also before GWF and GWS, so once you had 4 levels in fighter you were set). The SwB case with its Finesse only feat and very minor L2 ability is a much more restrained case.