(Trying to) fix 3.5 - how to.

[KingofDiamondz]

IMO in pretty much every single RPG... Fighter types are only as good as the sword or axe they are swinging and the armor they are wearing, they are gear dependent... while casters can run around naked and still do pretty good. How to fix, just gear your fighters better. Im sure the casters in your group will be glad to know you gave those fighters awesome gears to boost there effectiveness. If there jelous... well then there just selfish and probably jerks. As long as people are having fun. Magic is supposed to be powerful.... its magic!

[Gercho]

Stop. Right there. Here's the problem. Would you get mad at a math teacher who told you the correct answer? Why no, or at least I would hope you would not because you aren't taking it personally. You know it's the right answer, but not his right answer.

But because you are you're thinking that the right answer here is my right answer as if this were me vs you, and not correct vs incorrect. It isn't. I'm just a messenger. My role in this, while important is also fully interchangeable. If someone else gave the same message it would mean the same thing. And it wouldn't be their message either, but simply the correct message.

Lol, you sound like a religious fundamentalist now, your dont discuss, you are right, and carrier of a high true that nobody can argue with!!! its really funny, you at least admit that if someone else says exactly the same than you, then they will be right aswell.... :P

Note that i m not arguing if you are right or not, but your attitude makes impossible to argue with you, in your mind you are right and no argument can convince you otherwise. If there is something i have learned, is to allways question my own convictions, more if i see evidence that other people think different.
If you are so sure of yourself, dont post in a forum, just make a blog.

[Aesop]

Stop. Right there. Here's the problem. Would you get mad at a math teacher who told you the correct answer? Why no, or at least I would hope you would not because you aren't taking it personally. You know it's the right answer, but not his right answer.

But because you are you're thinking that the right answer here is my right answer as if this were me vs you, and not correct vs incorrect. It isn't. I'm just a messenger. My role in this, while important is also fully interchangeable. If someone else gave the same message it would mean the same thing. And it wouldn't be their message either, but simply the correct message..

Faulty analogy. You are not a teacher. You are some jerk on an internet forum who gets his jollies by trying to make people who play a game feel bad about what they enjoy as though they were into kiddie porn. Sadly your attitude only makes it less and less likely that any good information that you may provide will be accepted. You don't have to blow happiness and sunshine up the collective asses of the people here but being moderately polite wouldn't kill you...

If they want at least half the party sitting out then they shouldn't be reading a thread about letting everyone play the same game

irrelevant. If you don't want to address them in conversation about a game they enjoy you shouldn't post a thread in a forum.

You like casters being better and fighters being worse? If that is true, why are you reading this thread?

You missed what I was saying. Admittedly I was tired when I wrote this. I meant that individually I like the general feel of the classes (Fighters fight barbarians are crazy and wizards have nifty magic stuff), but I do recognise that they don't play well together and that those without magic need someway of becoming better.

So in other words, replace the Fighter with the Warblade anyways but do it in such a way that involves a lot more work and is a lot more likely to fail? That's Pathfinder quality logic there.

No not really. Warblade has a different feel to me than Fighter does. Warblade feels wrong. It feels like a caster that has a full base attack bonus... big deal. A fighter isn't the same. Even a fighter that learns special techniques to get more bang for his buck isn't a caster with full BAB... its a Fighter with special techniques... there is a difference, and amount of work is irrelevant to this discussion. Faster and Easier is not the same as better. You have to maintain the same feel of the class while improving it.

Ya know, Rangers and Paladins are actually weaker than those who completely lack spellcasting. Half CL means you can't do anything meaningful with the few spells you do have, not even a +5 bark or 30 point resist and the fact you get so few of them and so slowly means by the time you can buff yourself without running out of slots the game is near epic levels. But what do they get in return?

Rangers: Forced to pick between gimp combat style A and gimp combat style B. Using the only valid combat style (THF) requires ignoring all your own class features... so you do it at a Warrior level. As in NPC Warrior. Favored enemy is inferior to weapon specialization, despite the fact that feat line is very weak.

Paladin: Only worthwhile feature here is Cha to saves... except there are better ways of getting that. Smite evil is 'Hey, let's give him weapon specialization for 1-5 attacks a day!' An even worse deal than the Ranger, to be sure.

When your features can be compared to the FIGHTER'S class features and found wanting, you have a problem.

You are probably right about that ... or at least partly. You seem to have analyzed the game from a purely numbers standpoint. I do perfer the Pathfinder way of handling Caster Level for the fighter casters. Class Level -4.

There are a number of problems with all of the systems out there. No one has perfected it yet.

Aesop

[GramercyRiff]

No not really. Warblade has a different feel to me than Fighter does. Warblade feels wrong. It feels like a caster that has a full base attack bonus... big deal. A fighter isn't the same. Even a fighter that learns special techniques to get more bang for his buck isn't a caster with full BAB... its a Fighter with special techniques... there is a difference, and amount of work is irrelevant to this discussion. Faster and Easier is not the same as better. You have to maintain the same feel of the class while improving it.

While Warblades and the other martial adepts use a similar mechanic with maneuvers that casters use with spells, I can't see how they feel similar. Warblades are limited to melee (Bloodstorm Blades are basically melee with better reach, even though they throw their weapons and are made of win). Casters live outside a world where melee is necessary. Casters can melee (in fact casters can be better at melee than "true" melee characters), but they don't need to. Warblades can never perform Miracles and Stop Time. They can't blind/stun/paralyze tons of enemies with a word and flick of the wrist. They can't kill legions of monsters with mind bullets. They can't send enemies to the depths of the Nine Hells. They can't connect two planes of existence. They can't create universes. And they can't fly. Flying is a big deal.

Rangers: Forced to pick between gimp combat style A and gimp combat style B. Using the only valid combat style (THF) requires ignoring all your own class features... so you do it at a Warrior level. As in NPC Warrior. Favored enemy is inferior to weapon specialization, despite the fact that feat line is very weak.

Paladin: Only worthwhile feature here is Cha to saves... except there are better ways of getting that. Smite evil is 'Hey, let's give him weapon specialization for 1-5 attacks a day!' An even worse deal than the Ranger, to be sure.

When your features can be compared to the FIGHTER'S class features and found wanting, you have a problem.

Rangers get better pretty fast with alternate class features. Wild Shape Ranger will help get into Planar Shepherd (you have to also take spontaneous summoner and another feat). Planar Shepherd is broken six ways from Sunday. Yep you're jumping through hoops, and Druid does it so much better obviously, but it's a way to make a Ranger not suck. Tack on Sword of the Arcane Order and Mystic Ranger and you stop sucking fast. This'll give you access to wizard spells up to level 5 and more spell slots. You get full caster level too. There was some way to get a better caster level and achieve 9th level spells, but the way has been lost to me with time. It was pretty obscure and convoluted.

Paladins are pretty screwed, but they too can take Sword of the Arcane Order. They can also become Ruby Knight Vindicators, Ordained Champions, and Bone Knights; two awesome PrC's, and one solid one. Of course, the almighty Cleric can too, making the Paladin obsolete. The almighty Cleric obsoletes most of classes, so the lowly Paladin has plenty of company.

I noticed you didn't even bother to mention Monks. I was amused. Monks do start to suck less with gish flavor, but yeah...Monks.

[ristretto93]

I have been a D&D player for more than 20 years as a DM & a player and I cannot fathom how your PnP game experience has led to the creation of this post. Ouch! You may have been permanently damaged by your DM. Did you actually have a DM or have you been playing a MMORPG converted to table-top play with no hint of a story or story line? Plot?? What is it exactly that makes you want to even play PnP? You would probably have no idea what to do, even with an optimized blah blah caster blah blah in any game that contained a story. I am so sorry for your affliction, because I doubt it was your fault.

Sounds like your gaming is all work and no play...

I am pretty sure you have been ENTIRELY misled as to the idea behind a role-playing game, even one with combat and strategy and die rolls as elements. I would start by playing the game with FRIENDS and not people who get emotionally attached to their character's stats and would sooner sacrifice the quality of the game and the interaction between other players for the sake of their UBER yet IMAGINARY character.

Whatever it is you have been playing, it isn't really D&D, but instead just uses the D&D rules to the detriment of game play. I wish I could offer help, but I wouldn't know where to begin and I am afraid I wouldn't let you near one of my games with this kind of approach.

OUCH!

[GramercyRiff]

The point that seemingly eludes you ristretto93 is that role-playing is separate from the actual rules in the books of DnD. SquelcHU is only concerned with what is in the 3.5 rules books with this thread. 3.5 is flawed and he's trying to fix that as he sees it. I'm not sure what's the big deal.

[Aesop]

The point that seemingly eludes you ristretto93 is that role-playing is separate from the actual rules in the books of DnD. SquelcHU is only concerned with what is in the 3.5 rules books with this thread. 3.5 is flawed and he's trying to fix that as he sees it. I'm not sure what's the big deal.

Honestly its his presentation.

which is more likely to be received better and thus actually have a chance of being discussed.


"Stop. Your opinion is wrong and the fact that you think that just proves that you have no clue what you are talking about"

or

"I disagree. If you take a look at the rules on page xx you will see that that power doesn't grant a sufficient bonus to override the negative"


SquelcHU has done basically the same thing in most of the threads he posts. Instead of presenting his ideas and having an actual discussion he throws his ideas down everyonwes throat and says if -we can't understand why he is right then he is obviously smarter than us and we should take his word for it.


That's the big deal. No one likes internet bullies. He has a storng point but it gets hidden by his attitude and lack of reasonable social interaction.

Also it gets hidden by twisting rules to his own desires ... like Bonus Feats being able to be used to acquire Epic Feats without meeting the prerequisites... it was a cute arguement that even the staunchest rules lawyers wouldn't try to pass.

Aesop

[ristretto93]

The point that seemingly eludes you ristretto93 is that role-playing is separate from the actual rules in the books of DnD. SquelcHU is only concerned with what is in the 3.5 rules books with this thread. 3.5 is flawed and he's trying to fix that as he sees it. I'm not sure what's the big deal.

I guess I can see why you would think that they are separate, but I assure you that a well run PnP game is the seamless integration of both combat (rules/tables/methods) and fantasy role-play elements and includes also creativity and problem solving which go beyond playing 'in character' or a static rule systems. Yes, all of this can/should be experienced at the same time (as one game, not a 'role-playing part' and a 'rules part' and all the while operating on the assumption that everyone wants to enjoy the experience. I can be a rules lawyer from hell, but with the goal of creating engaging and interesting gameplay. Entertainment above all. To cook everything down to 'everyone who doesn't play casters is useless to the group' is a really, really sad conclusion to come to - though I am sure somebody else had a hand in twisting his/her 'game' into that kind of experience. This whole discussion would never EVER need to come up in games with a half-decent DM with even a little creativity.

OP, sorry if I sound condescending or harsh, but I swear you would understand if you ever get an opportunity to play D&D. For what its worth, I really hope you enjoy whatever it is you have been playing, and it sounds like you do for one reason or another or you wouldn't get so...hung up...to begin with - but it deviates in ways which are impossible to measure from the game as it is presented in the books, though I have not read any of the 4th ed books yet.

I am not just trying to be a troll either, or to give anyone hassle for the way they play games, but it strikes me as...well, frightening, that people are involved in gaming experiences like this and think it is D&D they are playing. I hope I can at least offer the comfort of assuring you that it is NOT the game rules or books that are messed up here, but its all in the execution. In the same way that some people are compelled or drawn to check out a fatal car accident up close out of morbid curiosity just to witness it, I would be curious to see how a gaming session with this kind of approach would run. No, I wouldn't want to play, but it might be intriguing to behold.

[GramercyRiff]

Honestly its his presentation.

which is more likely to be received better and thus actually have a chance of being discussed.


"Stop. Your opinion is wrong and the fact that you think that just proves that you have no clue what you are talking about"

or

"I disagree. If you take a look at the rules on page xx you will see that that power doesn't grant a sufficient bonus to override the negative"


SquelcHU has done basically the same thing in most of the threads he posts. Instead of presenting his ideas and having an actual discussion he throws his ideas down everyonwes throat and says if -we can't understand why he is right then he is obviously smarter than us and we should take his word for it.


That's the big deal. No one likes internet bullies. He has a storng point but it gets hidden by his attitude and lack of reasonable social interaction.

Also it gets hidden by twisting rules to his own desires ... like Bonus Feats being able to be used to acquire Epic Feats without meeting the prerequisites... it was a cute arguement that even the staunchest rules lawyers wouldn't try to pass.

Aesop

Opinions can be wrong. Someone who thinks a Fighter plays by the same rules a Wizard does is delusional. Their opinion is wrong. At one point, I didn't think 4E DnD was that bad. Through playing the game (and dealing with constant massive "updates" to the game), I proved myself wrong. I was delusional that 4E wasn't **** and a failure as a system. Can it be enjoyed? Yes, but that's different and subjective. Enjoyment of the Fighter class is subjective. The Wizard's superiority is objective.

Yeah, SquelcHU can be abrasive and a bit over the top in his delivery, but that can't be taken too seriously. The essential arguments and points he puts forth have merit for the most part. I've discussed things with him in the past, and I don't pay attention to the "fluff" of his post, but rather, the "crunch".

As for bonus feats qualifying as epic feats, it can be read that the bonus feat qualifies if you don't have to meet prerequisites. It's ridiculous, but it's the way the game works if going by the strict wording of the rules. That's why DM adjudication and house rules exist.

I guess I can see why you would think that they are separate, but I assure you that a well run PnP game is the seamless integration of both combat (rules/tables/methods) and fantasy role-play elements and includes also creativity and problem solving which go beyond playing 'in character' or a static rule systems. Yes, all of this can/should be experienced at the same time (as one game, not a 'role-playing part' and a 'rules part' and all the while operating on the assumption that everyone wants to enjoy the experience. I can be a rules lawyer from hell, but with the goal of creating engaging and interesting gameplay. Entertainment above all. To cook everything down to 'everyone who doesn't play casters is useless to the group' is a really, really sad conclusion to come to - though I am sure somebody else had a hand in twisting his/her 'game' into that kind of experience. This whole discussion would never EVER need to come up in games with a half-decent DM with even a little creativity.

But see you're having to be creative to come up with solutions to keep everyone relevant. I'm all for that. This clearly means, however, there's a fly in the ointment. It might be a sad conclusion, but it's the ugly truth.

That said, the story is more important than the crunch and optimization of any character. The characters are the protagonists of the story. Their actions are far more important to the story than what they can do in combat. The stories end bad for classes that can't survive in the world of the caster. We'll just disagree here.

[Aesop]

However. In the same way that SquelcHU believes he isn't helping anyone by "sugar cotaing" his responses, you do not help him in getting his point across by ignoring his abrasive and condescending nature.

He will continue to have a hard time getting his point across because of it and further alienate those that would have likely embraced his ideas. There are pathways to the same destination he is trying to get to that would be easier and better, but instead he choses to push through a wall of briar. Its like tying to push your way through a wall instead of opening the door and walking through.


Going back a post... I don't know how to explain it really. Its mostly just a feeling, but Warblade just feels wrong. Infact all of the classes from the ToB feel wrong somehow. Swordsage feels least wrong and Warblade is in the middle. Probably just personal preference there. However, that does color the way I look at things.

which brings us back to the original point. The way you precieve things colors your perspective. SquelcHu's presentation causes people's view of him to color how they accept his ideas.

He has some decent ideas once they are rewritten to not insult anyone that doesn't agree with him.




Aesop

[SquelchHU]

Lol, you sound like a religious fundamentalist now, your dont discuss, you are right, and carrier of a high true that nobody can argue with!!! its really funny, you at least admit that if someone else says exactly the same than you, then they will be right aswell.... :P

Note that i m not arguing if you are right or not, but your attitude makes impossible to argue with you, in your mind you are right and no argument can convince you otherwise. If there is something i have learned, is to allways question my own convictions, more if i see evidence that other people think different.
If you are so sure of yourself, dont post in a forum, just make a blog.

*headdesk*

Were I adopting this stance for opinion oriented matters you are correct. But as I am sticking to simply relaying the facts there is indeed a definitive correct answer and a definitive incorrect answer. And all of the questioning occurred before I made this thread, or even before I began posting on these forums. For example had you talked to me years ago about it I would have told you something like the uber builds are evoker sorcs and duelist type rogues. Obviously anyone with the slightest bit of experience knows those are not only not uber, but are incredibly gimpy. Well, years ago I didn't have that experience. And obviously the questioning got me far.

Faulty analogy. You are not a teacher. You are some jerk on an internet forum who gets his jollies by trying to make people who play a game feel bad about what they enjoy as though they were into kiddie porn. Sadly your attitude only makes it less and less likely that any good information that you may provide will be accepted. You don't have to blow happiness and sunshine up the collective asses of the people here but being moderately polite wouldn't kill you...

Correct analogy. The teacher is leaving his opinions out of it and simply sticking to relaying the facts. When he tells you that 2 + 2 = 4, that's just him telling you how math works. Same for me, except replace teacher with me, 2 + 2 = 4 with a D&D fact, and math with D&D.

While it is true I am a jerk to those who act as if they cannot learn I see no problem with this whatsoever.

irrelevant. If you don't want to address them in conversation about a game they enjoy you shouldn't post a thread in a forum.

Nope. Either you want everyone playing the same game, and you read stuff that helps you do that or you don't and you don't.

No not really. Warblade has a different feel to me than Fighter does. Warblade feels wrong. It feels like a caster that has a full base attack bonus... big deal. A fighter isn't the same. Even a fighter that learns special techniques to get more bang for his buck isn't a caster with full BAB... its a Fighter with special techniques... there is a difference, and amount of work is irrelevant to this discussion. Faster and Easier is not the same as better. You have to maintain the same feel of the class while improving it.

If a Warblade who uses... I dunno, Pearl of Black Doubt (an evasive stance) is different than a Fighter that does the same thing then you cannot be helped, as Warblade fills exactly the same flavor niche as Fighter. It just actually does what it is supposed to.

It's the Swordsage who does all the obviously supernatural stuff.

Amount of work is very relevant, because in both cases what you have is a Full BAB, D10 character using ToB maneuvers. But one involves renaming the Warblade to 'Fighter', and one involves copy pasting everything else about the Warblade over 'Fighter'.

You are probably right about that ... or at least partly. You seem to have analyzed the game from a purely numbers standpoint. I do perfer the Pathfinder way of handling Caster Level for the fighter casters. Class Level -4.

Then they are still wrong. Rangers and Paladins should simply have a caster level equal to their class level. They ALREADY get far weaker spells than the other casters. They ALREADY get far fewer spells than the other casters. And they ALREADY get the spells they do get later in life. Making those few, weak, limited spells even weaker then they are used? The Druid has had Barkskin for 5 levels. Does anyone care at all that when the Ranger gets it finally it's just as good? Is there anyone out there who is actually offended that a Paladin 11 can throw 30 point resists like everyone else? Especially given how weak of a threat elemental damage is in D&D?

I would hope the answer to all of those is a resounding no, as both Rangers and Paladins are gimped enough, even by gimp standards as is.

Rangers get better pretty fast with alternate class features. Wild Shape Ranger will help get into Planar Shepherd (you have to also take spontaneous summoner and another feat). Planar Shepherd is broken six ways from Sunday. Yep you're jumping through hoops, and Druid does it so much better obviously, but it's a way to make a Ranger not suck.

I had to go afk for a full minute in order to stop laughing. Best part? It's true. Planar Shepherd would fix Ranger gimpiness... of course the fact it takes something broke by even DRUID standards to do that...

I noticed you didn't even bother to mention Monks. I was amused. Monks do start to suck less with gish flavor, but yeah...Monks.

Intentional. Though this was about the 4 level casters, and before that the full BAB types. But yeah. Monks are so gimpy that nothing short of a full rewrite (think: What DDO did) will ever fix them.

Let's see...

Main combat class who for some reason has less than full BAB? Check.
Inability to keep your weapons at par, due to it costing triple normal price to add the weapon stuff to your fists? Check.
Extreme Multiple Attribute Dependency? Check.
Class features that actively conflict with each other, instead of synergizing? Check.
Lack of reach? Check.

So what you get is a character that can't really do anything. They can't hit things, as the 3/4th BAB + lack of mitigating buffs + lack of a basic enhancement bonus + MAD + class features that further lower to hit gives them approximately the same melee accuracy as an 8 Str Wizard swinging a quarterstaff around. And only a little more damage. So they can't hurt the things they do hit.

And they're supposed to be caster killers, but with only average saves, the liability that is spell resistance, and the best option they have being tied to something other than a primary stat and therefore having too low a DC to matter all that really happens is they think they're a caster killer, until they waste their stun on an image, or he saves on a 2, or is simply immune to stun, then counters with an I win spell and well... wins.

I didn't even bother mentioning them because I consider them beyond hope. That and a lot of people think they're out of place in the world anyways. I don't, because in any world where I can accept man like creatures larger than men and magic I can accept people flipping out and killing people with their hands. But it does mean there isn't much of a 'market' for it.

The point that seemingly eludes you ristretto93 is that role-playing is separate from the actual rules in the books of DnD. SquelcHU is only concerned with what is in the 3.5 rules books with this thread. 3.5 is flawed and he's trying to fix that as he sees it. I'm not sure what's the big deal.

I have no idea what he's even talking about. Apparently, because I'm saying there is a baseline for competence... I came from MMOs? Nope, I was playing D&D long before I touched an MMO. Thing is, 3.5 has what is called Ivory Tower Design. The principle of ITD is system mastery. Players are rewarded for learning the system by not falling into traps, traps defined as options that seem valid, but that actually aren't. In other words, until you figure the system out the system is probably deliberately wasting your time.

So what happens is you start off making gimp builds like evoker sorcs and duelist rogues, learn the hard way these builds fail at life, and then either leave the game, or learn what builds DO work. I did the latter, and it was that line of thought that led me to determine what the minimum baselines for competence were, and to find all the other balance flaws therein.

And to cut off the obvious troll responses: Pathfinder is absolutely no different than 3.5 in that respect. They've made casters better and everyone else worse, but the same design philosophy is there.

4th edition is worse than 3.5, as the game outright expects you to grub around for every little +1 just to keep up. And it doesn't give you any actual cool abilities to distract you from the number crunch treadmill.

Honestly its his presentation.

which is more likely to be received better and thus actually have a chance of being discussed.


"Stop. Your opinion is wrong and the fact that you think that just proves that you have no clue what you are talking about"

2 + 2 does not equal 5. It equals 4. The only correct response to that is to provide the correct answer, and if the wrong answer continues to be presented to get harsh with them.

SquelcHU has done basically the same thing in most of the threads he posts. Instead of presenting his ideas and having an actual discussion he throws his ideas down everyonwes throat and says if -we can't understand why he is right then he is obviously smarter than us and we should take his word for it.

That's funny.

Also it gets hidden by twisting rules to his own desires ... like Bonus Feats being able to be used to acquire Epic Feats without meeting the prerequisites... it was a cute arguement that even the staunchest rules lawyers wouldn't try to pass.

The Rogue class ability to get a bonus feat does not stipulate you must meet the prerequisites. Other bonus feats do. Between that, and the fact so called epic feats are actually very, very weak it's not hard to justify at all. Certainly easier to justify than Planar Binding used straight RAW instantly winning the game at level 11.

To cook everything down to 'everyone who doesn't play casters is useless to the group' is a really, really sad conclusion to come to - though I am sure somebody else had a hand in twisting his/her 'game' into that kind of experience. This whole discussion would never EVER need to come up in games with a half-decent DM with even a little creativity.

So in other words, you have never, in however many years you have played D&D actually bothered to read the rulebooks? And so it is 'twisting my experience' when someone whose only option is 'run up and hit it' is shut down by a combat encounter that cannot be defeated so simply due to actual abilities that do that, or by something that is not a combat encounter at all? Um, no. That's called the facts. And there's no twisting involved - the system simply does not support non casters by DEFAULT. Which is kinda the whole reason for making a thread to fix it so it does. Now you can try to blame shift and present false arguments like 'the DM needs a little creativity'. Nevermind that creativity only benefits those who can adapt. Hint: That's not the guys with one option.

Ignoring the rest of your post, and any other troll posts you make.

And to the people who constantly get caught up on my 'abrasive' attitude. Get over yourselves. If you are not objective enough to separate an idea and its merits from your personal feelings towards the speaker then you aren't objective enough to do any mechanical work here anyways... which means there is no reason for you to read this thread, as you cannot apply the methods therein. While I am quite capable of being nice my goal here is not useless fluff but results. And sometimes that requires not being so nice. Such as when filtering out those who couldn't apply the knowledge. Or simply to tell off an idiot.

I for one have had quite a few meaningful discussions, often with people I don't quite agree with or like. Why? Because a good idea is a good idea, regardless of who says it.

But if you don't want to see an abrasive, I'm right type attitude, perhaps you should try reading the threads I post in where there isn't one correct answer and one or more incorrect ones where everything I say is being discussed on the basis of facts. When the number of correct answers is more or less than 1, perhaps you won't take the relay of facts personally, because I won't be doing it. Example: A thread about 3.5 casters. Plenty of ways to make those work. It simply comes down to what you want to do, and as long as that thing isn't HP damage you're fine.

[GramercyRiff]

However. In the same way that SquelcHU believes he isn't helping anyone by "sugar cotaing" his responses, you do not help him in getting his point across by ignoring his abrasive and condescending nature.

He will continue to have a hard time getting his point across because of it and further alienate those that would have likely embraced his ideas. There are pathways to the same destination he is trying to get to that would be easier and better, but instead he choses to push through a wall of briar. Its like tying to push your way through a wall instead of opening the door and walking through.

It's clear he's set in his ways. Trying to change the way he posts is a waste of time. I know I'll rarely get anywhere arguing with him, as he rarely concedes a point. I just like discussing DnD now and then. Call me crazy.

I had to go afk for a full minute in order to stop laughing. Best part? It's true. Planar Shepherd would fix Ranger gimpiness... of course the fact it takes something broke by even DRUID standards to do that...

I'm glad to see you have a sense of humor.

The point was that to make something not suck, you try to make it like a caster. Planar Shepherd wasn't a serious example though. That was an extreme way made in jest.

And yeah Monks suck. Hard. That was what I was eluding to when I said I was amused you didn't bother to mention them. If you make them more like a caster, they start sucking less.

[timberhick]

The Op is going about this in the wrong way. It is not about the non-spellcasters being bad, it is the spellcasters being too good. It is far, far easier to limit the options(spells and feats) of spellcasters than trying to armchair design better benefits for non spellcasters.

Spellcasters have far too many spells to choose from and they range far to well across the system mechanics to make. Slashing the spell lists by two-thirds is a start, limit the feats, slash and burn PrCs, is a good place to start.

[GramercyRiff]

The Op is going about this in the wrong way. It is not about the non-spellcasters being bad, it is the spellcasters being too good. It is far, far easier to limit the options(spells and feats) of spellcasters than trying to armchair design better benefits for non spellcasters.

Spellcasters have far too many spells to choose from and they range far to well across the system mechanics to make. Slashing the spell lists by two-thirds is a start, limit the feats, slash and burn PrCs, is a good place to start.

Yuck. No, I think the way is to "give the Fighter good stuff". Taking stuff away is just not fun. Though I admit fun is subjective. For anyone that perceives the problems of 3.5, they can deal with it how they chose. There really is no "right" way. Well there kind of is, but I'm not going to knock anyone's opinion as long as it's subjective. Your solution could certainly work, but it's not something I would do.

I'm going to shill Frank and K's Tome again. If anyone wants to read a version of the Fighter that doesn't suck, look it up. The do other versions of classes too. I just use the Fighter because it's the archetypal class of melee.

[Corebreach]

Lol, you sound like a religious fundamentalist now, your dont discuss, you are right, and carrier of a high true that nobody can argue with!!!

People can argue with him. Largely, however, people in this thread aren't arguing with him. They're simply saying "you're wrong", which isn't an argument. One or two are trying the more influential "I'm an expert at this, and you're wrong," but that's still not an argument. It's a logical fallacy. Even if they're right — and they could be — their words carry no argumentative weight.

The people saying "Well, players in my games all have fun regardless of class" aren't directly refuting Squelch's points, by the way. They may not be stressing the game's weak points as much as Squelch's players do, or care as much. Some DMs are also (apparently) skilled at compensating for balance problems by adjusting encounters as they come up rather than establishing different class and advancement rules from the get-go.

[timberhick]

Yuck. No, I think the way is to "give the Fighter good stuff". Taking stuff away is just not fun. Though I admit fun is subjective. For anyone that perceives the problems of 3.5, they can deal with it how they chose. There really is no "right" way. Well there kind of is, but I'm not going to knock anyone's opinion as long as it's subjective. Your solution could certainly work, but it's not something I would do.

I'm going to shill Frank and K's Tome again. If anyone wants to read a version of the Fighter that doesn't suck, look it up. The do other versions of classes too. I just use the Fighter because it's the archetypal class of melee.

Not surprised. All of the changes in the thread is an illusion of making non-spellcasters better. They will never compare to what spellcasters have until what spellcasters have is reduced.

[GramercyRiff]

Not surprised. All of the changes in the thread is an illusion of making non-spellcasters better. They will never compare to what spellcasters have until what spellcasters have is reduced.

Or non casters have ways to cancel/negate caster's attacks that actually work, and have a chance of working.

What you suggested takes away way too much. I could see getting rid of some problematic stuff, but not to the extent you proposed. A meet in the middle solution could be something that I'd be open to taking a look at.

I don't know what's in this thread. It's way too much to read, and I don't care enough to read it.

[SquelchHU]

It's clear he's set in his ways. Trying to change the way he posts is a waste of time. I know I'll rarely get anywhere arguing with him, as he rarely concedes a point. I just like discussing DnD now and then. Call me crazy.

I concede points when I am incorrect. This doesn't happen often, as I rarely open my mouth if I am not already at least 95% sure of myself but it certainly has happened. Don't expect to see it much here, as most of the holes in my arguments have already been found, and fixed before I ever even came to the DDO boards.

I'm glad to see you have a sense of humor.

The point was that to make something not suck, you try to make it like a caster. Planar Shepherd wasn't a serious example though. That was an extreme way made in jest.

And yeah Monks suck. Hard. That was what I was eluding to when I said I was amused you didn't bother to mention them. If you make them more like a caster, they start sucking less.

Even an unarmed based gish would suck. They would suck a bit less granted, but unarmed still gets the shaft. Even as a wild shape Druid, you're more focusing on Wis to AC from a Monk's Belt, and attacking with claws and teeth than unarmed strikes.

And I always have a sense of humor. Just usually that sense of humor comes at someone's expense. Sometimes mine, sometimes someone else's.

The Op is going about this in the wrong way. It is not about the non-spellcasters being bad, it is the spellcasters being too good. It is far, far easier to limit the options(spells and feats) of spellcasters than trying to armchair design better benefits for non spellcasters.

Spellcasters have far too many spells to choose from and they range far to well across the system mechanics to make. Slashing the spell lists by two-thirds is a start, limit the feats, slash and burn PrCs, is a good place to start.

This has already been addressed and proven false.

Your options are: Change non casters or change everything except non casters. There is no third option. The latter is much harder than the former, is much more likely to fail, and what do you get if you succeed? Oh yeah, 4th edition, with its spam X to victory. And while I am not at all surprised that a 4th edition player would find actual options threatening and move to nerf them, even going so far as to lie and say revamping the majority of the game is easier than just making fighters valid, this advice is neither productive nor useful to anyone. Not even those who like that sort of thing, as they would simply go play 4th edition for that instead of rewriting 3.5.

And what's more, he doesn't even do it right. See, he never mentions the monsters, who scale at a roughly spellcaster rate. And that's unfortunate, as it simply would mean no one is able to deal with the encounters. Like taking 4th edition PCs, and putting them against real threats.

People can argue with him. Largely, however, people in this thread aren't arguing with him. They're simply saying "you're wrong", which isn't an argument. One or two are trying the more influential "I'm an expert at this, and you're wrong," but that's still not an argument. It's a logical fallacy. Even if they're right — and they could be — their words carry no argumentative weight.

The people saying "Well, players in my games all have fun regardless of class" aren't directly refuting Squelch's points, by the way. They may not be stressing the game's weak points as much as Squelch's players do, or care as much. Some DMs are also (apparently) skilled at compensating for balance problems by adjusting encounters as they come up rather than establishing different class and advancement rules from the get-go.

Exactly. Very few people have actually formulated a meaningful response at all. There was the initial bits of less than useless advice like 'play Pathfinder' or 'play 4th edition' or some other useless one liner, a whole lot of claims that I am wrong that were never substantiated or backed by any form of facts or examples whatsoever, a whole lot of factually incorrect claims that fighters are just fine, coming from people who claim to not be making the problem worse and yet are moving to hide it. A few people here have attempted to directly address the points therein, either to add to them or to debate them. But mostly, the responses have been completely useless. You could delete 90% of the posts in this thread and maintain 90% of its content.

Hell, most of the content is in the first post.

[Krag]

Spellcasters have far too many spells to choose from and they range far to well across the system mechanics to make. Slashing the spell lists by two-thirds is a start, limit the feats, slash and burn PrCs, is a good place to start.

QFT
The only way to fix spellcasters is to give them limited spellist. No more generalist wizards that can learn every spell in existance, but rather Dread Necromancer, Warmage and similar classes that have handful of thematical spells.

[GramercyRiff]

Even an unarmed based gish would suck. They would suck a bit less granted, but unarmed still gets the shaft. Even as a wild shape Druid, you're more focusing on Wis to AC from a Monk's Belt, and attacking with claws and teeth than unarmed strikes.

Enlightened Fist doesn't suck. It's not a top tier PrC by any stretch, but it's a vast improvement over the basic Monk. It actually helps make the Monk worth playing. Being able to transform rays into touch attacks adds a lot to the arsenal. You can also deliver them with full attack actions. Greater Mighty Wallop and Superior Unarmed Strike makes the Monk's unarmed damage actually worth using. Kung-Fu Genius allows the Monk to be SAD, basing all his abilities off of INT.

There are a lot of other ways to make an unarmed gish that kicks ass too.

Plenty of stuff sucks in PnP, but there are plenty of ways to make them suck less without resorting to house rules. Again, if you want something to suck less, make it more like a caster. Gishes are pretty hardcore if you know what you're doing.

QFT
The only way to fix spellcasters is to give them limited spellist. No more generalist wizards that can learn every spell in existance, but rather Dread Necromancer, Warmage and similar classes that have handful of thematical spells.

Why not find a solution where you don't take away anything? I'd hate to have to play a Warmage as a Wizard replacement. That would suck. It's your game of course. Cook the chicken to your taste.