Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scion" data-source="post: 1706620" data-attributes="member: 5777">No, it is not obvious. Not all of the same designers worked on each. Plus, it could very well be that their changes went too far. Do you like everything that was changed? if so you are definately in the minority.Haste was strong because it gave an extra partial action which had uses to every class (unlike the new version) and it upped your ac. It is a short term buff though and a third level one at that.So for a short period of time you gained some benefit out of it. Great, many short term buffs are very strong.As far as the actual spell goes they could have simply changed it to not give the ac bonus, kept the extra partial action, clarified it to not give the extra partial action until the next full round gained, and the spell would have been perfect. They could have even cut the duration down a bit if that was the problem (concentration + 1 round/2 levels) or something like that. Making it even more interesting <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Extra opportunities for everyone, but it is not overpowered.Just because there are people who complain about something does not make it unbalanced. Everything can be unbalanced in different peoples games. I have been in games where fighter types were considered horribly overpowered as compared to casters, where they were both equal, and where casters were considered horribly overpowered. It all comes down to how the dm runs the game, any of the three can be true. The closer you run to the guidelines presented the more likely one is to have them as balanced.No more than anything/anyone else. It sounds like you are trying to imply magic takes more effort than other parts, it does not.Some people have a harder time dealing with magic than other things, sure. But then some have trouble with the other things over magic. Some people cant handle high level play, some cant handle low level play, some cant handle mid level play.It just comes down to what you can deal with and then dealing. Making the game run to the lowest common denominator is a great way to destroy it.You are making up the free power manifestation whole cloth. Quicken and schism both have a very definate cost associated with them.I said that an unbuffed psychic warrior is vasly inferior to a fighter. That you should have no problem agreeing with. d8 vs d10, 3/4 BAB vs full BAB, 7 bonus feats vs 11. If they cannot bring their powers to bear then they are well below the curve, when they can bring them all to bear they are slightly above. Which means they average out to be about the same as the fighter. This is most unfortunate.As I said before, skills can be used both in and out of combat. The fighter gets effectively none. Point against the fighter (both in and out of combat). His prowess inside of combat is not greater than other classes, another point against the fighter. He is very lackluster and boring, this is more of a personal feeling so it doesnt matter. His feat choices (and thus viability) is heavily into dm territory and it takes great intervention to give enough choices for the fighter to be able to simulate being a decent class, massive point against the fighter.::sighs:: I have been completely conistant, your reading of my points has been horribly lax however.Says the guy who wants to take out schism because it is 'overpowered'? Have you even read what it does? It does almost nothing. Especially when you find out what the designer of the power itself has to say about it ;/ at that point it actually does do 'nothing'. Well, other than burn some pp and waste a power slot.4 feats for a single weapon isnt 'overspecialization'?????I am afraid that what you have just said makes no sense at all. That is a major investment. About a quarter of his feats for one thing, one very specific option.The choices are weak because they are things he could have picked up before. Hence they are lower level options and not always as good. So if his choices tend to get weaker as he increases in level guess what happens to him?Say that he has picked up all of the 'improved' line of feats. Is he really that much better at combat? sure, he can do a few different things, but nothing all that much better than a much lower level fighter could do anyway. He has gained a few extra combat options (well, slightly improved already existing ones) but nothing really concrete or useful.Much like how a mage can have every first spell in the entire universe in his book, but it doesnt really make him that much more powerful than a mage who only has 10. You only get to use a very small amount of them at any given time.Most people get 7 feats total. The fighter gets his 7 as well and then 11 bonus feats. But these bonus feats arent worth as much as a normal, regular feat because they are much more limited. In essence however the fighter trades all of his class abilities in for feats. That is how he is desinged. However, other classes benefits get stronger as they go up. The fighters do not.I have said before that the fighter class can work out for people fine if they take only a couple of levels in it. That way they get the maximum benefit with the least about of suckage. So the poll is woofully incomplete. People will go on there and say, 'well, the fighter is great because I love getting into this prc so fast!'. That does not make the fighter great, it makes the prc great, because you want to get out of anything else as fast as possible to get into it.We are reading the same boards but you are having a different interpretation. I felt that the barb builds I made in there beat the fighter builds hands down. They were able to do more damage, they had more interesting choices in combat, they were able to avoid certiain situations better (like flanking), had more skills to play with (and actual useful ones), and were more fun to play.The barb won that one pretty easily.You cant see the connection between, 'this sucks as it is' and 'if we add things it will become better'?Then again, you are once again overstating what I have said before. The fighter is mainly just currently a glorified npc class.It wouldnt take a lot to fix them up properly. Just like it didnt take much to fix the bard or the ranger.A general is not a class, it is a profession (or job in today vernacular). Which class should best fit into the roll of a general? Fighter seems like it would be the best choice here, but of course it isnt.If this is true then it is a poorly made prc. Any choices should wind up being roughly equal on average over the course of a carear. If class X/prc Y is vastly superior in every way to class X then either there is something drastically wrong with the class, the prc, or both. Prc's are generally about specialization in a certain style or picking up rp opportunities and, well, prestige (but in that case it is effectively the same in abilities as not taking it).As for the archmage I have little experience with it.. but it looks like you have to basically throw away 4 feats and a bunch of spell slots. I think someone could probably come up with something comparable for either build.Barb? great guys to take for a full 20. Higher level abilities are very nice for them. DR 5/- is pretty nice, not being fatigued after you rage is nice, +8 str/con and +4 will saves is pretty incredible.Ranger? Keeping your progression of 6skill points per level, full bab, two good saves, and some extra spells is not worth it? wow..Fighter? well.. he gets a couple more feats.. which might wind up having to be a couple of first tier feats.. good thing you came all this way and got your prize of improved initiative or something. woo.But still, even then the point is not that it isnt nice to multiclass for certain build types. The point is that you are pretty much required to multiclass out of fighter. You will run out of whatever feat tree you had really wanted to do pretty early on, then you are done. Try for a second feat tree (if there is one)? Why? while useing one tree you likely cannot use another. Having the ability to only use a fraction of your feats in any given battle makes those unused feats pretty worthless.As I said above, if the prc is too strong that is a problem. But then, if the base class is too weak that is also a problem. Fighter = too weak. Comparing a prc to the fighter and saying, 'but look! it is stronger than the fighter!' just isnt useful since the fighter is so low on the totem pole to begin with.There is a big difference between, 'most powerful choice' and 'powerful enough'. As it is they are well under the curve. Some people really like them, sure, but then some people really like the half orc as is.A class only being useful as a multiclass option does not a good class make. Just the opposite in fact (remember the whole ranger level dipping in 3.0?).The fighter will likely have a few more combat tricks to use than others, but does this slight (and it is very slight) advantage balance them out? Nah. It is like the mystic theurge only worse.. you pick up some lower level stuff here and there, but rarely any higher level stuff.They need more skill points and a couple of real skill choices. They need a few more feats tossed in there for them. A couple of special abilities would be nice as well.But the really big thing is needing to have trees for them to climb, feat trees and large amounts of useful feats is this guys only way to really be a useful class.As it is they have no real niche. One can be specially made for them to sit in, but others can do it better.</blockquote>

Verification