Jotunbrud --> Powerful Build+?

[Arkhandus]

Edited to remove pointless balance argument that never would've been resolved.

 

[kris_kapsner]

No, those feats are blatantly overpowered if ported over to D&D. They do not address whatever weaknesses you perceive warrior-types to have in D&D, they just make warriors more powerful against each other. And all a fighter needs to deal with a spellcaster is 1) winged boots or the like, 2) cloak of resistance or the like for Will saves, and 3) possibly a Periapt of Wisdom for additional Will save reinforcement. And at low levels, none of that is needed (the Iron Will feat will suffice).

Now, as I said, I don't know what other feats or combat system changes that book Swashbuckling Adventures must have, but if Brawny and Giant were imported to D&D, they'd be blatantly overpowered and most warrior-types, at least, would take them at 1st-level (and probably play humans to do so). From your description, Brawny is better than the DR a barbarian gains over the lower to middle levels, and available right away. Giant is better than Weapon Focus, and possibly equal or better than Weapon Specialization, and Improved Grapple, combined, plus the addition of 10' reach. I don't know if SA is meant to be a higher-lethality setting (than D&D) or not, but changes like this would seem to indicate such.

If you haven't seen a warrior-type in 3E D&D yet who could kill a spellcaster in one hit with little trouble at all, then you just haven't seen any decent warrior build yet. Or a warrior-type who could ping a spellcaster to death easily with archery.

The person who started this thread was just asking if a feat he was making up was too powerful. I was simply pointing out that it is already out there if he chooses to use that book.

I happen to feel differently than you do in regards to the power level of the fighter class. Your examples only take place at very low levels with respect to wizards against fighters. At higher levels, a fighter gets out paced quickly. And, even archers have a very tough time. But, since you bring them up, I'd like to point out that all of my previous references were to melee fighters as the feat doesn't benefit an archer.

Archers have always had an incredible advantage over the melee fighter and this is an example of a way to even the field a little. Killing someone before they even have a chance to get to you is always an advantage. That's why you don't see any trench warfare anymore. It just isn't as effective being within reach of someone you wants to kill you. So, by the time our giant of a melee fighter actually arives into a fray against an archer and a mage, the mage is teleporting to another location getting ready to continue blasting him from a distance and he's already taken 4 arrows into him to even the melee between he and the archer. It was the commoner longbowman who did away with the mounted heavy cavalry nobleman in wars centuries ago. Why is D&D any different?

The melee fighter just isn't able to be on his own. Sure he's the tank that the rest of the group needs to just absorb damage so the rest of the party isn't put in mortal danger. And, yes, he can dish out a good amount damage once there. However, he needs his ranged friends to get by a number of times.

I like to play in a lot of campaigns where I'm 1 on 1 with the DM or with one other player. We have to maximize our fighting capability because we don't have much back up. My campaigns involve a great deal of role playing and less "roll-playing". Forgive me if I don't get excited about using one of my very few feats to take a feat that gives me a +2 will save or a +1 to defense against one opponent.

That's just a difference in our games I guess. I hope you enjoy your adventures. I enjoy mine. Keep in mind that this isn't a game like warhammer or something where the rules are very much set in stone. I believe D&D goes out of their way to make sure everyone knows that the rules are "guidlines" for the game. Don't get too stressed about them. Balance is important but it should also favor your heros. Isn't that what most of us want to play? And, isn't it fun to create a powerful character that can do great things at low levels? I for one would rather have a campaign where my character went up levels fewer and still gained more feats as he could learn them through "role playing" and still have to worry about his lower hit points and survibility.

Alas, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Enjoy your game my friend. I hope you have many evenings filled with fun.

 

[Arkhandus]

Well, whatever. Obviously your experiences are rather different and not in keeping with some of the broad range of what's possible in D&D (fighters can use Helms of Teleportation or Capes of the Mountebank too; and most casters can't TP spontaneously). I would hazard to guess that your groups' caster players/NPCs have just been more clever with magic use than the warrior players/NPCs have been with tactics and magic items. There are plenty of ways to bolster one's magic resistance (saves, SR, HP, or whatever).

A warrior who doesn't account for the strengths and resources of his enemy does not live long in any era or genre; so any sensible warrior would train to better resist magical forces, or seek out decent anti-caster items. Also, most battles in D&D don't take place in an open field where archers and casters can lay waste to meatshields with impunity. Iron Will is no waste if you bother to make your fighter reasonably wise, to cover tactical knowledge and alertness.

In any case, I'll just have to agree to disagree with you, since apparently you're not going to see my point. I'm deleting my other stuff from the thread to reduce clutter, and I hate arguments. It was obviously in vain.

 

[kris_kapsner]

I'm not trying to be argumentative but, you're changing the variables now. I was talking about one class verses another class. Adding magic items can level the playing field a bit. But, I don't typically play in campaigns that have magic shops around every corner and that I can just purchase whatever I feel like from them. I do see a little irony that you are arguing that a feat that gives a character a 10' reach is broken but having a magic helm that can teleport you around isn't.

Alas, I can see you are putting down the gloves in this one and I commend you for that. We obviously have very differing opinions with regards to the power level of feats verses magic items.

I didn't just join this forum to start making enemies of anyone and I do respect your opinion.

I truly wish you a good day.

 

[Arkhandus]

One last point, regarding the magic items: I just go by the standard assumptions of D&D. The core rules assume PCs will have a certain amount of wealth in the form of magic items, based on their level, and that should always be considered as the baseline when discussing rules balance. Changing the amount of magic items (I do it too) alters the balance significantly, so you have to be careful in considering them for rules balance. By the time mages can teleport on their own, fighters can probably commission a Cape of the Mountebank or whatnot from a local wizard or find one in a warlord's treasury after defeating them. That's all I meant.