What is it with Sage Advice & Tome of Battle?

[AllisterH]

I agree that a paladin has a lot more baggage than most clerics. Do you agree that clerics have more baggage than most fighters?

I wouldn't.

Honestly, people pick a deity on two basis I've seen.

a) Which domains they give access to.
b) Which deity is the easiest to roleplay.

The thing is, the only "code" that is mentioned in the PHB (doesn't matter WHAT edition so one can't blame 3.x) is that they lose their powers for grossly violating their god's alignment and interests (the 2E PHB only mentions, "Can't shed blood" which of course is ludicrous since they had mace as a weapon).

In a normal party, how often does this even come into play?

EDIT: The only book in prior editions that explicitly mention what the ethos and code would be for each deity would be arguably one of the "best" IMHO D&D books ever and that is Faith & Avatars.

 

[Technik4]

That is not, in itself, power creep. That simply indicates the class is designed around a different set of assumptions to other classes. For it to be power creep, those assumptions would have to be a worse fit to how the game is played than what the other classes used, thus allowing the warlock to abuse its abilities in ways that weren't intended. All the evidence thus far indicates this is not the case in most games.

What evidence? How many times would a warlock have to be abused to get the power creep stamp of approval?

Demonstrate that this is, in practice, superior to what an archer of the same level can do, taking into account the ease with which archers can obtain ammo.

I'd rather compare it to a caster of the same level, but its really irrelevant. The point is its an effect that never expires short of character becoming unconscious. I believe there was an adventure at a 'con where the sole surviving PC was a warlock, and he survived merely because he had a ranged attack for rounds and rounds past everyone else's ability (even archers). In extreme situations (read: situationally more powerful than other casters) the warlock is more powerful.

If you want me to show you how playing one in a module yields greater power than that of a wizard or sorcerer, I can't. But the game is more than just modules.

Demonstrate that these "situations" are those which will arise in the game as it is played.

-A castle is under siege and the PCs are on the walls defending it. Everyone runs out of ammo and/or spells, yet the warlock blasts on.
-A prolonged series of events prevents the PCs from resting to regain their spells, yet the warlock blasts on.

Do those really sound so contrived? I didn't say those situations would come up in every session, but the fact that they can come up proves that the warlock is situationally more powerful than anything before it.

 

[hong]

What evidence? How many times would a warlock have to be abused to get the power creep stamp of approval?

Now, now. If you can't show the evidence yourself, just say so.

I'd rather compare it to a caster of the same level, but its really irrelevant.

Actually, it's entirely relevant. 4 encounters a day is the baseline, and quite often you'll see even less than that at high levels.

The point is its an effect that never expires short of character becoming unconscious. I believe there was an adventure at a 'con where the sole surviving PC was a warlock, and he survived merely because he had a ranged attack for rounds and rounds past everyone else's ability (even archers). In extreme situations (read: situationally more powerful than other casters) the warlock is more powerful.

Extreme situations that, for me anyway and it appears most people, have yet to actually take place. Heck, I've even played in a module where we were trapped in a pocket demiplane meaning my archer was in danger of running out of arrows, and even then, the wiz could still regain spells.

If you want me to show you how playing one in a module yields greater power than that of a wizard or sorcerer, I can't. But the game is more than just modules.

Fine. Show me how the game, taken as a whole including more than modules and a single convention adventure, leads to situations like those above being commonplace.

-A castle is under siege and the PCs are on the walls defending it. Everyone runs out of ammo and/or spells, yet the warlock blasts on.
-A prolonged series of events prevents the PCs from resting to regain their spells, yet the warlock blasts on.

Do those really sound so contrived?

Yes. Tell me how many times your PCs have defended a castle, or been unable to recover spells, in the 7 years since 3E's release.

I didn't say those situations would come up in every session, but the fact that they can come up proves that the warlock is situationally more powerful than anything before it.

And if there was ever a scenario where all the PCs turned into toads, a class that had the special ability "cast 100-dice fireball when in toad form" would be situationally more powerful.

Prove that these situations are those that anyone besides yourself should care about.

 

[NilesB]

I realize this is exageration - and I'm not claiming that the fighter in a core-only game is the most powerful character - but I still believe that feat-every-other-level is not chump change.

I agree, but the people attempting to "prove" that martial adepts were overpowered assumed that the fighter would have no more than 4 relevant feats by 10th level. thus proving only that giving a Warrior d10 hit points and access to weapon specialization doesn't bring them up to par.


When asked to reduce the number of variables and compare a d12 hit die, 4 skill points per level, medium armor proficiency class to a d12 hit die, 4 skill points per level, medium armor proficiency class, they persistently refused.

 

[Technik4]

Prove that these situations are those that anyone besides yourself should care about.

They're unprovable. You want me to poll the entirety of d&d'ers to sate your stance on power creep?

As far as care about them, it's the objective truth. Twist it all you like, it's hard to disagree that in certain situations (far less fanciful than the party being turned to toads) the warlock has a capability that is ridiculous given the precepts of magic in the game and goes far beyond what magic has enabled casters to do previous to it coming into existence.

The fact that it is balanced for play (which I've said a few times) does not mean it did not creep forward the potential and expectation for what a spell-caster can do.

 

[hong]

They're unprovable. You want me to poll the entirety of d&d'ers to sate your stance on power creep?

Well, if you didn't want to be called on it, you shouldn't have said it, yes?

As far as care about them, it's the objective truth.

And so is the fact that water is wet, and George W. Bush is President of Americaia.

Twist it all you like, it's hard to disagree that in certain situations (far less fanciful than the party being turned to toads) the warlock has a capability that is ridiculous given the precepts of magic in the game and goes far beyond what magic has enabled casters to do previous to it coming into existence.

And those situations are, in the context of the game as it is played, not that much less fanciful than being turned into a toad. After all, there is a 5th level spell that does exactly that. The "precepts of magic in the game" are a matter of profound indifference in the context of power creep, which is a metagame concept to do with how players treat character abilities in play, as opposed to hypothetical ramblings about pretend people in a make-believe world.

The fact that it is balanced for play (which I've said a few times) does not mean it did not creep forward the potential and expectation for what a spell-caster can do.

The fact that it is balanced for play is all that matters. Perhaps it's produced a greater expectation for more at-will powers for everybody, including wizards (cf reserve feats in Complete Mage), but as said before, that's just a shifting of design parameters. The 4-encounters-per-day paradigm has a bunch of problems when it comes to actual gaming, so the designers are going to a new paradigm. If you want to call that power creep, that's your business.

 

[Sound of Azure]

Swordsage Advice?

 

[Particle_Man]

-A castle is under siege and the PCs are on the walls defending it. Everyone runs out of ammo and/or spells, yet the warlock blasts on.
-A prolonged series of events prevents the PCs from resting to regain their spells, yet the warlock blasts on.

I think you are right. Perhaps we should add a limited resource to all character classes, including the warlock, that cannot be infinitely renewed. I would relate it to over-all character health, luck and well-being, and call it "hit points". When these "hit points" got low, due to "damage", then all characters, including the Warlock, would do well to rest and recharge their "hit points", no matter how many invocations a Warlock can do .

Oh, wait...

 

[Engilbrand]

I love the idea of a Warforged Warlock. He could literally blast every round FOREVER. Well, he might need a tiny Homunculus on his back healing him when he needs it. Or a Warforged scout. Good times. THAT'S how you attack a castle.

 

[IanB]

Man, the warlock would totally break A4!