The Cleric, The Paladin, and Multisysteming

[Tovec]

While I don't want to rehash the usual ToB debate here, let me just state for the record that ToB is only unbalancing if you think the monk, fighter, and paladin are balanced (they aren't), it's only too odd if you think named maneuvers are an Eastern thing (German fencing styles had named maneuvers too), and the only quasi-magical maneuvers in the book belong to the class meant to replace the already quasi-magical monk.

No debate necessary. It is my personal feelings and experience with TOB that is the issue. An issue that will not be solved by laying out the deficiencies or extremities involved in an argument. I will clarify the "unbalancing" and "odd" statements as there seems to be some confusion.

When used together, TOB is designed to elevate fighters to the wizard or cleric level. They greatly increased the power of these martial characters and made them superheroes in adventurers clothing.
I had a character named Dusty who happened to happened to trip like no ones business. He would trip you all day long and there was nothing you could do about it. He was by far the most powerful damage dealer, he could control the field with trips and he could soak whatever got through because he was a fighter too. That is what I mean.

Now, used in pieces. There is no other mechanics of DnD that resemble fighter stances. The wizard does not have to go into a fireball stance, the rogue does not need to perform the flying dungeon kick maneuver to sneak attack. They just do it and there is no naming needed. So when used, not as as whole book, but in pieces instead then it becomes odd to see the fighter become a shaolin monk while everyone else is a regular adventurer.

BO9S is only unbalancing if you don't want your martial classes to be able to compete at higher levels. And I was actually referencing 4e's Slayer/Knight stances, sorry I didn't clarify. It's unfair and frankly plain silly to argue that martial classes should be bound by reality while caster classes should not. And it's not like the stances or Bo9S maneuvers were very powerful anyway.

This confusion was caused by you NOT mentioning 4e's knight and slayer stances but instead raising Bo9S.

Also, I didn't say martial classes should be bound by reality ... but they SHOULD. All things should be bound by reality. Magic should be the trump card which violates reality for a short time. Believe me, go look at my other posts if you don't, I think that mages need a serious power downgrade. What I saw in Bo9S was the opposite. Instead of reigning in the insanity of the casters they increased the insanity of non-casters. They made non-magic into magic, in order to balance things out. This is actually my root problem with 4e too.

Sure, we mounted up for traveling, but we didn't fight on horseback, which is really difficult. It mostly involves a lot of charging and hitting on the move. Sitting on the back of a horse standing still isn't much of a benefit.

Exactly, you didn't fight on horseback, because it is really (overly?) difficult. We absolutely agree on this charge. My problem with you, that you quoted, was that nearly all my games take place outside a dungeon where having a horse would be monumentally helpful. I would LOVE to see some light shined on mounted combat in the future as it is unnecessarily difficult to use mounts.

If that were the case, if they were so limiting and required so much training then, as I said, cavalry would be all but unheard of in history. But, as with better armor and weapons, horses were a staple to those who could afford them. They would serve countless functions in combat as well as outside them.

I still stand my ground on that nothing really needs to be "done" with the fighter, aside from some minor improvements. The fighter serves two purposes as the Essentials slayer demonstrates, damage, and defense. The fighter should be the best class when it comes to martial weapons and hitting things with them. The fighter should be a good choice(not necessarily the best) when it comes to having high AC, high health, and protecting your allies.

The most the fighter needs is a few tweaks. The reason these don't seem like enough if because we're still comparing it to completely unfettered casters. It's casters that need to come down a notch in order to balance the fighter.

While I'm sure we differ on HOW those things are achieved I can't imagine that we disagree that those are priorities. I would love to discuss, perhaps in PM, how those goals are best represented. It seems clear to me, as per your first post, that you think it is best achieved by stances and maneuvers and that I disagree with these assessments.

I also agree that casters need to be toned down in one sense or another but I do not want to see fighters and wizards to have similar powers and power levels. That goes to creating balance but at the expense of interest.

 

[Sunseeker]

This confusion was caused by you NOT mentioning 4e's knight and slayer stances but instead raising Bo9S.

Yes, I meant to reference both but I forgot the partiulars of the 4e reference, which although they both have stances, I think 4e's stances are much more "mundane" feeling when compared to the BO9S.

Also, I didn't say martial classes should be bound by reality ... but they SHOULD. All things should be bound by reality. Magic should be the trump card which violates reality for a short time. Believe me, go look at my other posts if you don't, I think that mages need a serious power downgrade. What I saw in Bo9S was the opposite. Instead of reigning in the insanity of the casters they increased the insanity of non-casters. They made non-magic into magic, in order to balance things out. This is actually my root problem with 4e too.

It's difficult to nerf already-written content. In a video game, no big deal, just re-write the files, bam the old way never existed. But you can't do that with a book, the people who don't like the new power nerfs will just keep on using the old material. So the only other option is a power buff, and the power differences between the Fighter and the Caster were so great, they had to turn the dial to 11.

I agree to an extent that BO9S may have taken things too far, but again, it was their only option. I do however, think the general ideas presented in it are a good jumping-off point for improvements to the fighter.

Exactly, you didn't fight on horseback, because it is really (overly?) difficult. We absolutely agree on this charge. My problem with you, that you quoted, was that nearly all my games take place outside a dungeon where having a horse would be monumentally helpful. I would LOVE to see some light shined on mounted combat in the future as it is unnecessarily difficult to use mounts.

I agree, like the whole taking points in "ride". Now I'm totally down with "Ride" as a class-skill feature, you can skill into it or not, your choice, your class is just naturally more proficient in it than others. But that Ride skill needs to mean something other than just a better DC. It should give access to better feats, better mounts, better types of attacks while mounted.

It was pretty cool when the Cavalier in my 4e party got himself a Celestial Tiger mount, whose intelligence was actually higher than his own, and he did a few neat tricks with it. Not a lot of attacks really....but some battlefield movement that was really sweet.

If that were the case, if they were so limiting and required so much training then, as I said, cavalry would be all but unheard of in history. But, as with better armor and weapons, horses were a staple to those who could afford them. They would serve countless functions in combat as well as outside them.

True, and calvary are great in big, flat, open battlefields. It's a major setting/game-specific issue which is why I'd be happy to see mounts as a skill-intoable option for all, but not used to replace some otherwise useful-at-all-times features for Paladins. A Bard on a horse strikes me as pretty cool.

While I'm sure we differ on HOW those things are achieved I can't imagine that we disagree that those are priorities. I would love to discuss, perhaps in PM, how those goals are best represented. It seems clear to me, as per your first post, that you think it is best achieved by stances and maneuvers and that I disagree with these assessments.

I also agree that casters need to be toned down in one sense or another but I do not want to see fighters and wizards to have similar powers and power levels. That goes to creating balance but at the expense of interest.

Sure, if you'd like to PM me on the subject I'd appreciate the reminder to expound upon it to you. I have to leave here in a bit so I won't be able to write up my thoughts.

 

[gyor]

Having reread the Blog post, is it just me or did it imply that the Priest is a seperate class, instead intergated with the Cleric?