Elder-Basilisk
First Post
That's not really true. For the Ftr/Clr/Monk/Pal/Pious Templar character, for example, I noted that she doesn't actually have access to any magic tricks of significance and none of the tricks I mentioned involved her spellcasting ability. Now, I would really like to get access to fell the greatest foe with her because that would be her style and swift march would simultaneously boost allies and solve the speed problem that she sometimes has. But she's managed to be a very interesting and flexible character without looking at her spellcasting capability. (In fact, the only spells she cast in the last few adventures were bless weapon (on weapons that she then did not end up using), cure light wounds (after combat healing), and endure elements--not exactly a stirring set of spellcasting based options).
The other reason why that isn't a fair analysis of the characters is because the casters are also the highest level characters. Therefore, the analysis ignores the 5th level warrior types and the abilities they have at 5th level (which give them good options as varied as my fighter/wizard had at 5th level (though not as varied at the low end of the power spectrum)) and the projected options available to them at higher levels. A character without magic may not expect to be able to teleport or balance on bamboo stalks and fight a duel in the clouds (indeed, having those abilities would rather defeat the purpose of being a character without inherent magic), but between shield charge, shield slam, three mountain style, improved bull rush, improved sunder, shock trooper, and combat brute, there are actually quite a few different things that I expect the fighter character to be able to do. Likewise, between grant move actions, varying auras, intimidating strike, power attack, cleave, a couple other feats I haven't picked yet, and any additional options based on magic items (for instance, there is a magic item compendium item that lets a martial give all his allies an extra attack instead of a move action with the grant move action ability), the characters will have enough options to remain interesting.
Just because the five of the six highest level characters I've played in 3.x are spellcasters (and it requires a lot of stretching to consider my halfling holy warrior a caster) of one stripe or another doesn't mean that non-spellcasters are boring. (As it happens, it means that for the first character I wanted to see if I could make an effective fighter/wizard in 3e after I had watched a player in my home campaign make a fighter/wizard and fail to be terribly effective, for the second character the party lacked a cleric when everyone had put their stuff together and I wanted to try out Shadowbane Stalker, for the third, with my second Living Greyhawk character I wanted to contribute to solving the "our table needs a cleric" problem. For the 10th level Inquisitor, I first wanted to try out a non-physical combatant cleric that I had enjoyed playing as a cohort in Living Arcanis and see if it would work as a primary character and, at the same time, I wanted to create a character who was in touch with the flavor of the theocracy of the Pale which is my Living Greyhawk region since I thought that I was seeing too many characters that really should have had no place in the Pale. Thus my Pholtan Inquisitor was born.
The interesting part in the equation is my 9th level character who, despite his hexblade levels is not a spellcaster (it's a bit hard to cast hexblade spells with only two levels and a 10 charisma). He's not over-the top game-dominating, but he is pretty effective in his role of dealing damage, keeping the bad guys off the spellcasters and not getting killed by his enemies while doing all that. In terms of being effective in his role, he doesn't have a problem "keeping up with the casters." But he certainly doesn't have one schtick that he sticks to like glue. In terms of his feat choices, and class abilities, the only schtick that he has stuck to is that A. He hasn't taken any classes that don't give him BAB, B. He has taken the fighter class feature chain of feats (weapon focus, weapon specialization, and melee weapon mastery: slashing), and C. He has Power Attack. The rest of his feats--Iron Will, Improved Initiative, Exotic Weapon Proficiency: bastard sword, Cleave, and class abilities (hexblade's curse), rage, fast movement, uncanny dodge, and whatever he gets from the first level of Occult Slayer are options and defenses that could easily be traded out for other feat and class ability choices without impeding the character's essential effectiveness. The character would, of course be less effective if I traded Iron Will and Cleave for Skill Focus: Underwater basket weaving and skill focus: Swim, or if I traded the barbarian levels for warrior levels, but within the range of non-stupid choices, I could have pretty dramatically different combinations of classes, feats, and abilties and be just as effective in his chosen role. (For instance, the character would not be any less good if I traded Iron Will and Exotic Weapon Proficiency for Endurance and Steadfast Determination or if I had Improved Toughness instead of Improved Initiative (which would probably then go with fighter or ranger levels in place of hexblade and maybe exotic weapon master levels in place of Occult Slayer). For that matter, I suspect that a Knight 5/Fighter 4 could do just fine in the same role. That's hardly sticking to one schtick like glue.
The other reason why that isn't a fair analysis of the characters is because the casters are also the highest level characters. Therefore, the analysis ignores the 5th level warrior types and the abilities they have at 5th level (which give them good options as varied as my fighter/wizard had at 5th level (though not as varied at the low end of the power spectrum)) and the projected options available to them at higher levels. A character without magic may not expect to be able to teleport or balance on bamboo stalks and fight a duel in the clouds (indeed, having those abilities would rather defeat the purpose of being a character without inherent magic), but between shield charge, shield slam, three mountain style, improved bull rush, improved sunder, shock trooper, and combat brute, there are actually quite a few different things that I expect the fighter character to be able to do. Likewise, between grant move actions, varying auras, intimidating strike, power attack, cleave, a couple other feats I haven't picked yet, and any additional options based on magic items (for instance, there is a magic item compendium item that lets a martial give all his allies an extra attack instead of a move action with the grant move action ability), the characters will have enough options to remain interesting.
Just because the five of the six highest level characters I've played in 3.x are spellcasters (and it requires a lot of stretching to consider my halfling holy warrior a caster) of one stripe or another doesn't mean that non-spellcasters are boring. (As it happens, it means that for the first character I wanted to see if I could make an effective fighter/wizard in 3e after I had watched a player in my home campaign make a fighter/wizard and fail to be terribly effective, for the second character the party lacked a cleric when everyone had put their stuff together and I wanted to try out Shadowbane Stalker, for the third, with my second Living Greyhawk character I wanted to contribute to solving the "our table needs a cleric" problem. For the 10th level Inquisitor, I first wanted to try out a non-physical combatant cleric that I had enjoyed playing as a cohort in Living Arcanis and see if it would work as a primary character and, at the same time, I wanted to create a character who was in touch with the flavor of the theocracy of the Pale which is my Living Greyhawk region since I thought that I was seeing too many characters that really should have had no place in the Pale. Thus my Pholtan Inquisitor was born.
The interesting part in the equation is my 9th level character who, despite his hexblade levels is not a spellcaster (it's a bit hard to cast hexblade spells with only two levels and a 10 charisma). He's not over-the top game-dominating, but he is pretty effective in his role of dealing damage, keeping the bad guys off the spellcasters and not getting killed by his enemies while doing all that. In terms of being effective in his role, he doesn't have a problem "keeping up with the casters." But he certainly doesn't have one schtick that he sticks to like glue. In terms of his feat choices, and class abilities, the only schtick that he has stuck to is that A. He hasn't taken any classes that don't give him BAB, B. He has taken the fighter class feature chain of feats (weapon focus, weapon specialization, and melee weapon mastery: slashing), and C. He has Power Attack. The rest of his feats--Iron Will, Improved Initiative, Exotic Weapon Proficiency: bastard sword, Cleave, and class abilities (hexblade's curse), rage, fast movement, uncanny dodge, and whatever he gets from the first level of Occult Slayer are options and defenses that could easily be traded out for other feat and class ability choices without impeding the character's essential effectiveness. The character would, of course be less effective if I traded Iron Will and Cleave for Skill Focus: Underwater basket weaving and skill focus: Swim, or if I traded the barbarian levels for warrior levels, but within the range of non-stupid choices, I could have pretty dramatically different combinations of classes, feats, and abilties and be just as effective in his chosen role. (For instance, the character would not be any less good if I traded Iron Will and Exotic Weapon Proficiency for Endurance and Steadfast Determination or if I had Improved Toughness instead of Improved Initiative (which would probably then go with fighter or ranger levels in place of hexblade and maybe exotic weapon master levels in place of Occult Slayer). For that matter, I suspect that a Knight 5/Fighter 4 could do just fine in the same role. That's hardly sticking to one schtick like glue.
Mort said:
).
