I think I get it now. Do your mages tend to primarily use blasts in combat?....or blast a bunch of foes almost as well as a mage.....
I wouldn't say primarily...but it is certainly one of their strengths. I thnk my main point is, the ToB classes have the best o both worlds (at least) they can deal out physical dmg on par with a fighter, can blast nearly as well and for longer than mages, can use other maneuvers to duplicate other spells like hold person, etc., have good defenses, good hps, good babs, etc. The swordsage is the least powerful from what we've seen in our campaigns mostly due to his lower bab, and he's still incredibly brutal.
Can you build a one trick pony in another class that using that one trick is superior to them? Of course. But if you're talking about a realistic campaign where you will encounter a large multitude of situations, in our experience the ToB classes shine on par or at most slightly behind the classes that do the best in each individual scenario in every scenario. Need to make a std attack? No problem they do that better than anyone else by far. Need to hit multiple opponents at once? No problem. Need to immobilze a foe? No problem. Need to wade in where you'll be making full attacks? No problem. Need to kill something immune to magic? No problem. Need to kill something with an insane DR? No problem. Nothing is a problem for them.
I wouldn't say primarily...but it is certainly one of their strengths. I thnk my main point is, the ToB classes have the best o both worlds (at least) they can deal out physical dmg on par with a fighter, can blast nearly as well and for longer than mages, can use other maneuvers to duplicate other spells like hold person, etc., have good defenses, good hps, good babs, etc. The swordsage is the least powerful from what we've seen in our campaigns mostly due to his lower bab, and he's still incredibly brutal.
This is your problem, you have not seen casters played to thier potential. It is true, that ToB class are EASIER to make powerful, but they are not more powerful then any primary caster even the lowely sorcerer.
Need to make a std attack? No problem they do that better than anyone else by far. Need to hit multiple opponents at once? No problem. Need to immobilze a foe? No problem. Need to wade in where you'll be making full attacks? No problem. Need to kill something immune to magic? No problem. Need to kill something with an insane DR? No problem. Nothing is a problem for them.
You just described a 3.5 druid and cleric, and if you exclude the 'wade in' part, you described current druids, wizards and clerics.
I would definitely agree, and this is coming from someone who for a long time banned TOB classes from my games. Swordsage and the rest ARE powerful, and at lower levels yes they can outpower some of the other classes. However even a halfway optimized fighter or a mage who is intelligent about the spells he chooses will out damage him. The damage seems impressive when you see it at the table and with a roll+con check you see him do 50-80 points damage on one attack, but he can't do that every round. Let a TWF fighter with power attack and weapon focus and he'll eclipse that or at the least come close. Add in cleave, or vital strike and the damage goes up along with the ability to hit multiple opponents.
You feel the swordsage and such are overpowered? Then make them roll against SR like other caster classes on their blasty manuevers (I did mainly so they would be on par with the mage in that regard) and don't boost their hit die. The combination of melee and magic certainly justifies a slightly squishier hit point total.
ANY class in the hand of a good player can be deadly, but the TOB classes while overpowered for 3.5 core, fit right in with a minimum of alteration with PF core classes.
I would definitely agree, and this is coming from someone who for a long time banned TOB classes from my games. Swordsage and the rest ARE powerful, and at lower levels yes they can outpower some of the other classes. However even a halfway optimized fighter or a mage who is intelligent about the spells he chooses will out damage him. The damage seems impressive when you see it at the table and with a roll+con check you see him do 50-80 points damage on one attack, but he can't do that every round. Let a TWF fighter with power attack and weapon focus and he'll eclipse that or at the least come close. Add in cleave, or vital strike and the damage goes up along with the ability to hit multiple opponents.
Check out the Warblade I put up on DPR Olympics. He can do 102.6 DPR using a double weapon.
This is your problem, you have not seen casters played to thier potential. It is true, that ToB class are EASIER to make powerful, but they are not more powerful then any primary caster even the lowely sorcerer.You just described a 3.5 druid and cleric, and if you exclude the 'wade in' part, you described current druids, wizards and clerics.
I disagree, clerics, druids, and wizards have to choose their spells every day. Many times they are goig to run into something they don't have the spell set they need to face. Especially if they went with spells for wading into melee. And they run out of spells after a few encounters.
ToB classes never run out of their abilities. If they had any real healing abilities they would be completely unstoppable. Even getting hold of a ring of regeneration would make one ridiculous because they would only need to stop for sleep once a day so they didn't become fatigued.
I am curious what you think a caster played to their potential is... They seem to do just fine in our campaigns, but they have limitations, especially in the area of limited rsources and selective versatility...things which many seem to think they don't suffer from and which ToB's definitely lack.
I disagree, clerics, druids, and wizards have to choose their spells every day. Many times they are goig to run into something they don't have the spell set they need to face. Especially if they went with spells for wading into melee. And they run out of spells after a few encounters.
I agree that they have limitations, but there are and always have been ways to mitigate these. Scrolls, Rods, Wands, Staffs, and now since crafting in pathfinder is pretty simple the only limitation on these items is time in a campaign. Not to mention any prepared caster can use A Feats like alacritous (spelling?) cogitation, or a bonded item to add flexibility, or B leave slots open and prep them later in 15 minutes when they realize what they are up against, they are not as limited as you say. Besides in most games, when the caster runs out of spells its time to rest. In a 3-4 encounter day, it is unusual for a caster to be left without spells.
ToB classes never run out of their abilities. If they had any real healing abilities they would be completely unstoppable. Even getting hold of a ring of regeneration would make one ridiculous because they would only need to stop for sleep once a day so they didn't become fatigued.
The per encounter bit makes it a little complicated, I had a long conversation about this in another thread. One of the options if you feel they are too powerful is to eliminate the recharge mechanics for the 3 classes (and crusaders just get manuevers readied) so in long encounters they eventually run out. It was recommended by the writer of ToB a long time ago in Errata that are not seemingly lost to time. But I have become far less convinced that it's needed. Martial classes are supposed to outlast mage's. Thats part of the original deal. And magic is still superior to everything any manuever can do for the level, so the trade off is still there, its just alot closer now.
I am curious what you think a caster played to their potential is... They seem to do just fine in our campaigns, but they have limitations, especially in the area of limited rsources and selective versatility...things which many seem to think they don't suffer from and which ToB's definitely lack.
Tome of Battle Classes are no where near as versatile as a primary caster. It just isnt the case. Its a case of anything you can do I can do better. With maybe an exception on overall damage, but casters dont need to do damage, in fact that is almost always a poor route to take.
As for what I think a caster played to its potential is, here you go:
So... Clerics and Druids should have a d6 hit die?and don't boost their hit die. The combination of melee and magic certainly justifies a slightly squishier hit point total.
Did I mention anything about clerics or druids? No. We're talking about converting/importing/overpowered or not class from a non core book and previous edition. What I'm saying is that the TOB classes are just fine as is and don't need the power boost to keep up. They WERE overpowered in 3.5, they fit in just fine in pathfinder. Read the post, keep the snark at home.
I would definitely agree, and this is coming from someone who for a long time banned TOB classes from my games. Swordsage and the rest ARE powerful, and at lower levels yes they can outpower some of the other classes. However even a halfway optimized fighter or a mage who is intelligent about the spells he chooses will out damage him. The damage seems impressive when you see it at the table and with a roll+con check you see him do 50-80 points damage on one attack, but he can't do that every round. Let a TWF fighter with power attack and weapon focus and he'll eclipse that or at the least come close. Add in cleave, or vital strike and the damage goes up along with the ability to hit multiple opponents.Check out the Warblade I put up on DPR Olympics. He can do 102.6 DPR using a double weapon.
Which would require a full attack. Any TOB class with a similarly equipped warrior class is doubtful to surpass them. Its also unlikely that a double weapon fighter would be fully equipped either since both ends have to be enchanted separately.
I'm not saying the TOB classes aren't juggernauts. They are. Incredibly powerful, incredibly versatile. But are they truly overpowered? I'd say no. I'm not a genius at optimization, but it wouldn't be hard for me to build a straight fighter with pathfinder and equal the DPR of a TOB class. I won't do area effect, this is true but round for round giving the same enemies, and the same circumstances the damage will be fairly comparable. Give me a paladin of equal level and an evil foe and I'll probably surpass it.
Everyones milage varies, if the TOB classes as written don't work for you (as they didn't work for me under 3.5) feel free to tweak them, but overall I've found them to be relatively balanced now.
Did I mention anything about clerics or druids? No. We're talking about converting/importing/overpowered or not class from a non core book and previous edition. What I'm saying is that the TOB classes are just fine as is and don't need the power boost to keep up. They WERE overpowered in 3.5, they fit in just fine in pathfinder. Read the post, keep the snark at home.So... Clerics and Druids should have a d6 hit die?and don't boost their hit die. The combination of melee and magic certainly justifies a slightly squishier hit point total.
I read the post Michael, I wasn't trying to be adversarial. Just having a little fun joking around about the fact that the same logic you used to excuse dropping the swordsage's HD applies to clerics and druids. That's all.
Sorry if I upset you.
You didn't upset me, but your post had no merit only a popping in with a snarky comment which serves no purpose aside to create a more adversarial situation. And here you do it again, you insinuate a point I am not making. I nowhere suggested they get their hit dice lowered, I merely suggest they don't need a conversion to a higher dice as their power levels are just fine for the game. NOT getting an increase is not getting a penalty. Other classes were brought up to level the playing field. The TOB classes have had their camp on that plateau for quite a while.
It was recommended by the writer of ToB a long time ago in Errata that are not seemingly lost to time.No, it wasn't; Rob Heinsoo (not an author of TOB) said that they tried TOB-like recovery methods for 4e and they were clunky and didn't work very well. That's completely different.
The article/Comment I read was not about 4E but specifically about making ToB 'playable'. I unfortunately cant find it anymore but when we had our argument about the ToB classes previously there was at least one other person in the thread that Remembered it. Regardless of whether or not you think its a good change (i am no longer convinced not in small part because of my debate with you), it was recommended as a way to 'tone down' the classes. And for a DM that is on the fence about the classes it may help bring them around.
I nowhere suggested they get their hit dice lowered, I merely suggest they don't need a conversion to a higher dice as their power levels are just fine for the game. NOT getting an increase is not getting a penalty. Other classes were brought up to level the playing field. The TOB classes have had their camp on that plateau for quite a while.
Both the wizard and the Sorcerer's Hit Die were increase to fall in line with Pathfinders BAB HD standardization. Do you feel they too need a boost to even the playing field? To me its about consistence in the game then about power. I would probably bring the warblade's HD down to D10 from D12 to fall into line with the standard as well (and because i think its appropriate for only Barbarians to have a d12 hd).
The article/Comment I read was not about 4E but specifically about making ToB 'playable'. I unfortunately cant find it anymore but when we had our argument about the ToB classes previously there was at least one other person in the thread that Remembered it. Regardless of whether or not you think its a good change (i am no longer convinced not in small part because of my debate with you), it was recommended as a way to 'tone down' the classes. And for a DM that is on the fence about the classes it may help bring them around.If you want to chill out the classes, making them less exciting is probably the worst way to go about it. You're probably better off cutting down or removing stances entirely if you want to reduce the power level. They're the least-exciting part of the classes, but they tend to have the largest impact over time. You could drop all of the +damage stances (like Punishing Stance or the sneak attack stance) as a start.
I dont think that will help with someone taking the 'they have inifinite resources' stance which is what I was originally suggesting that to. Personally untill i see evidence otherwise I dont think the classes need changing at all. I wont see any evidence though, as despite a bunch of players saying for some time now that they wanted to play a ToB class, none of them are playing one in my upcomming game [as an aside i never disallowed ToB, i just havent run a DnD game in a long time and our other DM's dislike ToB].
Both the wizard and the Sorcerer's Hit Die were increase to fall in line with Pathfinders BAB HD standardization. Do you feel they too need a boost to even the playing field? To me its about consistence in the game then about power. I would probably bring the warblade's HD down to D10 from D12 to fall into line with the standard as well (and because i think its appropriate for only Barbarians to have a d12 hd).
I nowhere suggested they get their hit dice lowered, I merely suggest they don't need a conversion to a higher dice as their power levels are just fine for the game. NOT getting an increase is not getting a penalty. Other classes were brought up to level the playing field. The TOB classes have had their camp on that plateau for quite a while.
At higher levels? No. At lower levels? Yes I think the hit dice upgrade was a good thing. Would I be against updating the TOB classes hit dice? No. Do they need it? No. Of course all this is an opinion, and mine is no better than yours (except of course in my opinion J/K ;) )
I dont think that will help with someone taking the 'they have inifinite resources' stance which is what I was originally suggesting that to. Personally untill i see evidence otherwise I dont think the classes need changing at all. I wont see any evidence though, as despite a bunch of players saying for some time now that they wanted to play a ToB class, none of them are playing one in my upcomming game [as an aside i never disallowed ToB, i just havent run a DnD game in a long time and our other DM's dislike ToB].
I once disallowed them in my games, but don't now. Took a lot of convincing to let them in the game under pathfinder as they dominated the field in 3.5 while I let them in. In pathfinder (even with just the core books) two TOB classes were about equal in damage to the other two party members so I overall consider them balanced. I don't find them interesting enough for ME to play but if others find something interesting in them, go for it.
I do find it amusing though on a private level to be defending their overall power level when for so long I refused to let them in my games though
I once disallowed them in my games, but don't now. Took a lot of convincing to let them in the game under pathfinder as they dominated the field in 3.5 while I let them in. In pathfinder (even with just the core books) two TOB classes were about equal in damage to the other two party members so I overall consider them balanced. I don't find them interesting enough for ME to play but if others find something interesting in them, go for it.I do find it amusing though on a private level to be defending their overall power level when for so long I refused to let them in my games though
Well on paper they LOOK powerful, and they come pre optimized. For alot of groups where people dont crunch the numbers, and go with whatever feats seem interesting, and their casters tend to be easy going about thier spells, and how they use them, they ARE overpowered. Compared to the 3.5 barbarian ubercharger, the Druid wildshaper with natural spell, clerical codzilla, or Treantmonks school of Being God (as a wizard), they were still weaker, though much closer. In pathfinder again its much easier to make a passable character from most classes, so the simplicity of awesome that comes from ToB manuevers no longer seems as over the top, because the rest of the classes are easier to optimize.
I dont think that will help with someone taking the 'they have inifinite resources' stance which is what I was originally suggesting that to.Speaking of which. TOB classes do have limited resources; just like fighters, rogues, and rangers, they have to stop when they run out of HP or healing. Those three classes don't rely upon X/day abilities, yet nobody complains that they can do infinite encounters per day, because they clearly cannot.
Fighters are clearly overpowered, Power attack and Weapon spec should be usable on a vancian system ofcourse. And rogues.....they can only sneak attack twice a day, and only once on tuesdays. Barbarians also need to attend anger management classes.
Fighters are clearly overpowered, Power attack and Weapon spec should be usable on a vancian system ofcourse. And rogues.....they can only sneak attack twice a day, and only once on tuesdays. Barbarians also need to attend anger management classes.I dont think that will help with someone taking the 'they have inifinite resources' stance which is what I was originally suggesting that to.Speaking of which. TOB classes do have limited resources; just like fighters, rogues, and rangers, they have to stop when they run out of HP or healing. Those three classes don't rely upon X/day abilities, yet nobody complains that they can do infinite encounters per day, because they clearly cannot.
/rage
Why when someone mentions ToB or Psi does everyone come out of the woodwork to trash talk and whine about "uber swordsages" and "omg [insert class ability] so imbalanced"?!? While ignoring the incredible stuff that exists in Core (3.5 or PF, take your pick) and the expanded 3.5?!?/end rage
Anyway, to the OP's question: Little conversion is necessary.
Consolidate Skills, give Diamond Mind Perception as a primary skill, call it a day. Theoretically you could toss in Adaptive Style as a free feat in a dead level somewhere, but it isn't strictly necessary.
Speaking of which. TOB classes do have limited resources; just like fighters, rogues, and rangers, they have to stop when they run out of HP or healing.
I thought that when a Tome of Battle character gets hurt, he finds some wimpy creatures to beat up in order to heal himself.
As for what I think a caster played to its potential is, here you go:
This is what I would call played to potential
Interestingly I would say that most of the wizards I see in our groups tend to favor the spells he recommends so highly. That said, a lot of his tactics don't work indoors in fairly cramped tactical conditions where there are often choke points etc.
I would say our wizards tend to memorize a balance of battlefield control, summoning, and blast spells, leaving the buffing generally to others or making potions beforehand.
While a 5d6 fireball seems weak in his interpretation, it's still pretty potent when you're facing 6 CR worth of ghouls for example. Indvidually that fireball is going to wreak havoc on them and they are immune to a lot of your other typical control spells.
I rarely see it where a wizard can get through the night without needing to contribute damage-wise at some point due to tactical situtations. Still, I agree with many of his points.
I am surprised he doesn't see the value of Acid Arrow though. At 2nd level it is one of the best anti-caster defensive offenses there is. Does dmg and causes concentration checks to cast for multiple rounds. That's gold in my book.
|
I thought that when a Tome of Battle character gets hurt, he finds some wimpy creatures to beat up in order to heal himself.
Speaking of which. TOB classes do have limited resources; just like fighters, rogues, and rangers, they have to stop when they run out of HP or healing.
Only Crusaders. And obviously the DM would never allow such things, so it is not broken. ;)
As for what I think a caster played to its potential is, here you go:
This is what I would call played to potential
Interestingly I would say that most of the wizards I see in our groups tend to favor the spells he recommends so highly. That said, a lot of his tactics don't work indoors in fairly cramped tactical conditions where there are often choke points etc.
I would say our wizards tend to memorize a balance of battlefield control, summoning, and blast spells, leaving the buffing generally to others or making potions beforehand.
While a 5d6 fireball seems weak in his interpretation, it's still pretty potent when you're facing 6 CR worth of ghouls for example. Indvidually that fireball is going to wreak havoc on them and they are immune to a lot of your other typical control spells.
I rarely see it where a wizard can get through the night without needing to contribute damage-wise at some point due to tactical situtations. Still, I agree with many of his points.
I am surprised he doesn't see the value of Acid Arrow though. At 2nd level it is one of the best anti-caster defensive offenses there is. Does dmg and causes concentration checks to cast for multiple rounds. That's gold in my book.
A 5th level fireball does 5d6 damage, averaging about 17.5 damage. How much damage does a 5th level fighter do with 5 extra attacks? (haste). Not to mention, no need to worry about saves, or evasion.
And fireballs are just as problematic in those cramped indoor spaces you were talking about. In fact it is rare for me to ever see a fireball really have a big impact, because generally the wizard isnt going first (rogues like to do that), and enemies are not always going to be packed into neat little groups (most dms i play with specifically avoid that). Making the blast spells a pretty poor choice since they also have a chance to hurt your allies. Summons for instance wont harm your allies and can often dish out just as much damage if not more, and take damage as well.
In your example, if you manage to get all the ghouls in a fireball, yes if they fail their save you have a good chance of killing them. But if you could fireball them, you could glitterdust them (a lower level spell) and win the fight if they fail the save. That is why blasts are sub-obtimal.
As for acid arrow, it does make you make a concentration check, but that check starts out having only a decent chance of success and quickly becomes trivial. Average of 5 damage so DC is 15+level of the spell. At level 3 with an 18 casting stat, (+7) you need to roll a 10 to cast a level 2 spell. At level 10 with a 20 casting stat (+15) you need to roll a 5 to cast a level 5 spell.
If I was going to import the Tome of Battle classes into my game, I'd take a long and heavy look at feats like Gloom Razor. I'd probably also make the ToB maneuvers work like... for the warblade, a sorceror, for the crusader, a cleric, and for the swordsage, a wizard.
Swordsage has maneuvers he has in his manual that he has to prepare for the combat. One of the schools is favored and one is forbidden, and one of his maneuvers per maneuver level has to come from his favored school. Costs two maneuver levels to get a maneuver from his forbidden school. Fringe benefits with his favored school, but that's literally already in the game with the +wis to damage on that school's maneuvers.
Warblade has maneuvers known, and he has a good amount of maneuvers to use that he can use from any of his known maneuvers. I'd give him more bonus feats and a "Prodigy" selection where he can choose to be a prodigy of a certain school or fighting style for fringe benefits including extra known maneuvers.
Crusader knows all of his maneuvers but has to prepare certain ones for the combat. Depending on what god he worships, I'd give him access to extra maneuvers as per his "domains," and possibly either give him access to one domain's powers or the paladin spell list.
That would "bring them in line" with the other classes. Pretty much every class has a limited resource now except for rogues, fighters and rangers, and it would enhance the game to allow the swordsage character to have to pick and choose maneuvers and have to pick and choose when to expend his limited spell slots.
I'd probably even give the warblade and swordsage Sudden Recovery as a class ability, something like 9th or 11th level, usable once per day.
If I was going to import the Tome of Battle classes into my game, I'd take a long and heavy look at feats like Gloom Razor. I'd probably also make the ToB maneuvers work like... for the warblade, a sorceror, for the crusader, a cleric, and for the swordsage, a wizard.
Swordsage has maneuvers he has in his manual that he has to prepare for the combat. One of the schools is favored and one is forbidden, and one of his maneuvers per maneuver level has to come from his favored school. Costs two maneuver levels to get a maneuver from his forbidden school. Fringe benefits with his favored school, but that's literally already in the game with the +wis to damage on that school's maneuvers.
Warblade has maneuvers known, and he has a good amount of maneuvers to use that he can use from any of his known maneuvers. I'd give him more bonus feats and a "Prodigy" selection where he can choose to be a prodigy of a certain school or fighting style for fringe benefits including extra known maneuvers.
Crusader knows all of his maneuvers but has to prepare certain ones for the combat. Depending on what god he worships, I'd give him access to extra maneuvers as per his "domains," and possibly either give him access to one domain's powers or the paladin spell list.
That would "bring them in line" with the other classes. Pretty much every class has a limited resource now except for rogues, fighters and rangers, and it would enhance the game to allow the swordsage character to have to pick and choose maneuvers and have to pick and choose when to expend his limited spell slots.
I'd probably even give the warblade and swordsage Sudden Recovery as a class ability, something like 9th or 11th level, usable once per day.
This would cripple those classes to the point of unusability. Warblades and Crusaders already have it horribly when it comes to resource management -- they know fewer maneuvers than Sorcerers know spells, and have fewer maneuvers readied than Sorcerers have spell slots.
It wouldn't "bring them in line", it'd bury them. They're already in line. Heavy-handed nerfs like this are no better than banning the classes outright.
This would cripple those classes to the point of unusability. Warblades and Crusaders already have it horribly when it comes to resource management -- they know fewer maneuvers than Sorcerers know spells, and have fewer maneuvers readied than Sorcerers have spell slots.
I would... give them more maneuvers? For a warblade, at least so they know as many as a sorceror knows spells, and they have as many per day as a sorceror can cast spells.
I just dislike the "refresh" mechanic that leaves the class with wasted actions during combat, and the feat tax of Maneuver Mastery or w/e that lets them replace maneuvers with other maneuvers on the fly-- but also makes the swordsage, by RAW, recover all of his maneuvers. Warblades, Crusaders and Swordsages were meant to be in line with the intense power creep of the 3.5e splatbook classes, and now, really, there's no reason for them to have all of these ridiculous maneuvers that require so much intense micromanaging.
Just overall re-evaluate the classes, give them something every level like the PF classes, balance them out and see how they play and then play them. I don't see anything "heavy handed" about that.
|
The real problem I had was with Warblade in 3.5. D12 HD, a kick ass skill list, good skills per level, good Int a requirement to using most of their stuff and to be honest the replace a certain check with a skill check was nuts in play.
Swordsage had some of the same problems but at least was balanced by how it recovered manuevers. Warblade had swift action recovery.
technically rangers have a limited resource (arrows) if playing realistically. I haven't looked through the book too much but I noticed that despite a few stances and what not here and there it seems like the classes suffer from fighter syndrome, their borderline magic abilities are mostly combat oriented. Sure spider climb at will is versatile (something the dragon shaman could get in 3.5) and the invisibility things are too but as a whole it seems mostly damage, Maybe make the recover not usable in combat or take a few rounds. I realize this is off topic (and at a huge risk of revealing my newbieness) but did I read that prepared casters can leave slots open and prepare on the fly? Is that true?
I agree that the warblade should be dropped to d10's. d12's are Barbar turf.
technically rangers have a limited resource (arrows) if playing realistically. I haven't looked through the book too much but I noticed that despite a few stances and what not here and there it seems like the classes suffer from fighter syndrome, their borderline magic abilities are mostly combat oriented. Sure spider climb at will is versatile (something the dragon shaman could get in 3.5) and the invisibility things are too but as a whole it seems mostly damage, Maybe make the recover not usable in combat or take a few rounds. I realize this is off topic (and at a huge risk of revealing my newbieness) but did I read that prepared casters can leave slots open and prepare on the fly? Is that true?
I agree that the warblade should be dropped to d10's. d12's are Barbar turf.
Yes prepared spellcasters can leave slots open and prepare later, though it still takes time, just much less then normal.
Making the manuevers not recoverable in combat would be a little silly, they are per encounter, not per day abilities. So they reset every combat anyway.
technically rangers have a limited resource (arrows) if playing realistically. I haven't looked through the book too much but I noticed that despite a few stances and what not here and there it seems like the classes suffer from fighter syndrome, their borderline magic abilities are mostly combat oriented. Sure spider climb at will is versatile (something the dragon shaman could get in 3.5) and the invisibility things are too but as a whole it seems mostly damage, Maybe make the recover not usable in combat or take a few rounds. I realize this is off topic (and at a huge risk of revealing my newbieness) but did I read that prepared casters can leave slots open and prepare on the fly? Is that true?
I agree that the warblade should be dropped to d10's. d12's are Barbar turf.
Yes prepared spellcasters can leave slots open and prepare later, though it still takes time, just much less then normal.
Making the manuevers not recoverable in combat would be a little silly, they are per encounter, not per day abilities. So they reset every combat anyway.
Well there you go my suggestion was already made by the design team lol. That is interesting about the prepared casters, it's an hour to prepare spells right?
That is interesting about the prepared casters, it's an hour to prepare spells right?
It's an hour to prepare all of your spells. It's one minute per spell level (minimum 15 minutes) to prepare other spells outside of that one-hour window in the morning.
That is interesting about the prepared casters, it's an hour to prepare spells right?It's an hour to prepare all of your spells. It's one minute per spell level (minimum 15 minutes) to prepare other spells outside of that one-hour window in the morning.
So am I getting this right? 15 min + spell level minutes? (sorry about derailing the thread)
So am I getting this right? 15 min + spell level minutes? (sorry about derailing the thread)
No. Here's an example:
I'm a 19th level wizard. I leave one 1st level, two 2nd level, one 5th level, one 6th level, and one 9th level slot open when I'm preparing spells in the morning.
We come across a locked door that the Rogue just can't seem to open, and we don't want to smash it for fear of setting off an alarm elsewhere. So, I prepare knock in one of my open 2nd level slots. Knock is a 2nd level spell, so it takes a base of 2 minutes; however, the minimum amount of time you can spend preparing spells is 15 minutes (it takes time to get into the right state of mind and be able to concentrate on the spells), so 15 minutes later I cast knock and the door opens.
Now say I run out of other prepared spells and want to fill in the unprepared slots so I can continue adventuring. I have a 1st, a 2nd, a 5th, a 6th, and a 9th level slot open. That's 23 total spell levels, which will take me 23 minutes to prepare. This is larger than 15 minutes, so I've exceeded the minimum required prep time and 23 minutes later I'm ready to go for another encounter or two.
So am I getting this right? 15 min + spell level minutes? (sorry about derailing the thread)No. Here's an example:
I'm a 19th level wizard. I leave one 1st level, two 2nd level, one 5th level, one 6th level, and one 9th level slot open when I'm preparing spells in the morning.
We come across a locked door that the Rogue just can't seem to open, and we don't want to smash it for fear of setting off an alarm elsewhere. So, I prepare knock in one of my open 2nd level slots. Knock is a 2nd level spell, so it takes a base of 2 minutes; however, the minimum amount of time you can spend preparing spells is 15 minutes (it takes time to get into the right state of mind and be able to concentrate on the spells), so 15 minutes later I cast knock and the door opens.
Now say I run out of other prepared spells and want to fill in the unprepared slots so I can continue adventuring. I have a 1st, a 2nd, a 5th, a 6th, and a 9th level slot open. That's 23 total spell levels, which will take me 23 minutes to prepare. This is larger than 15 minutes, so I've exceeded the minimum required prep time and 23 minutes later I'm ready to go for another encounter or two.
Oh okay I've got it now, geez now it seems they are much more versatile haha.
Oh okay I've got it now, geez now it seems they are much more versatile haha.
This isn't a new rule, for what it's worth. You could do this in 3.5 (and I believe in 3.0, although I cannot swear to that as I don't have a 3.0 PHB laying around).
Oh okay I've got it now, geez now it seems they are much more versatile haha.This isn't a new rule, for what it's worth. You could do this in 3.5 (and I believe in 3.0, although I cannot swear to that as I don't have a 3.0 PHB laying around).
Yeah by "now" I meant "as per my perspective"