Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
I think it Might be the Mage; Not the Fighter that's broken
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Eldritch_Lord" data-source="post: 4939429" data-attributes="member: 52073"><p>[sblock=Spoilering the off-topic ToB discussion<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":]" title="Devious :]" data-shortname=":]" /></p><p></p><p>Here's where I think we differ: You view building a "balanced" ToB character to be building one with similar capabilities to the core melee classes. I see building a "balanced" ToB character as building one that's closer to the core casters. Given that we're talking about how to bring magic and melee closer together, I'd think the latter approach would make the most sense--if you already acknowledge that magic > melee, why would you want to keep some melee characters that can almost keep up back with the rest?</p><p></p><p>Building ToB characters has the same problem as building casters when it comes to balance, ironically enough. If you're a core melee character and choose Toughness and Weapon Proficiency (siangham) as your first level feats...oh, well! You're going to suck! Conversely, the wizard can basically pick spells at random and have a negligible chance of picking a bad spell (yes, direct-damage is subpar compared to other spells, but it's not <em>bad</em> in a way some feats are just plain horrible). Likewise, it's hard to screw up a ToB character: pick a maneuver, and chances are it's good for you.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Actually, I <em>am</em> the DM for my group. One of the main reasons I like ToB is that, while an optimized core melee character can almost always vastly outshine a ToB character in pure damage, AC, or other straight numerical comparisons, (A) the ToB character is usually more interesting/flashy and (B) the ToB character is easier to throw together quickly, both of which are good for BBEGs.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, the issue of the universality of ToB has been raised by the devs in interviews and such, and the reasons they didn't simply revise the combat system is pretty simple: (A) people would complain that it's yet another incremental revision, and no one would buy "3.8" and, more importantly, (B) ToB was a "test run" for 4e ideas--4e combat wasn't inspired by ToB, they were testing out encounter powers to see how people liked it, hence the different disciplines (Iron Heart/Shadow Hand/Tiger Claw -> Fighter/Rogue/Ranger) and different maneuver recovery (which they ended up ignoring for 4e, but they were testing it).</p><p></p><p>There are the Martial Study and Martial Stance feats for dabbling in it if you want that. In one game, I tried out a system where anyone can take a number of maneuvers up to 1/2 your BAB (1 swappable every levle), your IL is your BAB, and you have your choice of warblade or crusader recovery. It worked out pretty well.[/sblock]</p><p></p><p>Another idea for changing spell acquisition just occurred to me--if casters progress quadratically, why not give them spell access quadratically? x[sup]2[/sup]/2: 1st level spells at 1st level, 2nd level spells at 2nd level, 3rd level at 4th, 4th level at 8th, 5th level at 12th, 6th level at 18th--sort of like the bard's progression, but faster spells towards the beginning and slower towards the end. Haven't thought of the ramifications yet, but it could work for some groups who don't like the wizard's limited spells in the starting game but hate having too much toward the later levels.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Eldritch_Lord, post: 4939429, member: 52073"] [sblock=Spoilering the off-topic ToB discussion:] Here's where I think we differ: You view building a "balanced" ToB character to be building one with similar capabilities to the core melee classes. I see building a "balanced" ToB character as building one that's closer to the core casters. Given that we're talking about how to bring magic and melee closer together, I'd think the latter approach would make the most sense--if you already acknowledge that magic > melee, why would you want to keep some melee characters that can almost keep up back with the rest? Building ToB characters has the same problem as building casters when it comes to balance, ironically enough. If you're a core melee character and choose Toughness and Weapon Proficiency (siangham) as your first level feats...oh, well! You're going to suck! Conversely, the wizard can basically pick spells at random and have a negligible chance of picking a bad spell (yes, direct-damage is subpar compared to other spells, but it's not [I]bad[/I] in a way some feats are just plain horrible). Likewise, it's hard to screw up a ToB character: pick a maneuver, and chances are it's good for you. Actually, I [I]am[/I] the DM for my group. One of the main reasons I like ToB is that, while an optimized core melee character can almost always vastly outshine a ToB character in pure damage, AC, or other straight numerical comparisons, (A) the ToB character is usually more interesting/flashy and (B) the ToB character is easier to throw together quickly, both of which are good for BBEGs. Well, the issue of the universality of ToB has been raised by the devs in interviews and such, and the reasons they didn't simply revise the combat system is pretty simple: (A) people would complain that it's yet another incremental revision, and no one would buy "3.8" and, more importantly, (B) ToB was a "test run" for 4e ideas--4e combat wasn't inspired by ToB, they were testing out encounter powers to see how people liked it, hence the different disciplines (Iron Heart/Shadow Hand/Tiger Claw -> Fighter/Rogue/Ranger) and different maneuver recovery (which they ended up ignoring for 4e, but they were testing it). There are the Martial Study and Martial Stance feats for dabbling in it if you want that. In one game, I tried out a system where anyone can take a number of maneuvers up to 1/2 your BAB (1 swappable every levle), your IL is your BAB, and you have your choice of warblade or crusader recovery. It worked out pretty well.[/sblock] Another idea for changing spell acquisition just occurred to me--if casters progress quadratically, why not give them spell access quadratically? x[sup]2[/sup]/2: 1st level spells at 1st level, 2nd level spells at 2nd level, 3rd level at 4th, 4th level at 8th, 5th level at 12th, 6th level at 18th--sort of like the bard's progression, but faster spells towards the beginning and slower towards the end. Haven't thought of the ramifications yet, but it could work for some groups who don't like the wizard's limited spells in the starting game but hate having too much toward the later levels. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
I think it Might be the Mage; Not the Fighter that's broken
Top