Duskblades were considered "overpowered" because people put way too much emphasis on damage and tried comparing everything to the pathetically weak core fighter. They see "He does more damage then the fighter, OP!" The problem is, under this view, almost everything is overpowered.
QFT
Yeah in 3.5 fighters had it rough damage wise. However spiked chain was their saving grace, as it was the only exotic actually worth taking in the core book, and the fighters had the feats to make full use of it. Still though compaired to casters, and especially the CoDzilla, they needed the upping they did, but so many of their feats, and the spiked chain got nerf, so I think class wise they are to par with most other melees, but casters are still champs.
Poor OP. Are you still out there?
The pseudogishes can't get him there. Maybe I can send a fruitbasket up.
What if he has to stab something while he's doing it? No way.
Only if he brings fish
You want him to WALK? Wizards don't walk, silly!
No, but he might need to stab something when he gets there.
Ninja apples
I keep seeing this word. What does it mean?
Also, is there a site somewhere that has a glossary for obscure gaming terms?
thanks.
On page 43 of the 1981 Edition of TSR's FIEND FOLIO is the earliest recorded reference of 'Gish' as it relates to Dungeons & Dragons that I can find. The entry is part of the 'Githyanki' entry. The specific line reads thus:
2 'gish': fighter/magic-users of 4th/4th level [sic]
Charles Stross was the one who submitted the entry for inclusion in TSR's Fiend Folio, so I daresay Charles Stross is the one who coined the term 'Gish' in the first place. For those brave enough, you may wish to ask Charles yourself if he did/why he did/what the hell was he thinking at the time.
For more information on Charles Stross and his version of the Githyanki, please have a look at the wiki link. It makes for some interesting reading, especially its origins in a George RR Martin novel.
I hope that this puts to bed some of the prevaricating. If you want more proof, I suggest people locate a copy of the original FIEND FOLIO and verify it for themselves.
I keep seeing this word. What does it mean?
Also, is there a site somewhere that has a glossary for obscure gaming terms?
thanks.
On page 43 of the 1981 Edition of TSR's FIEND FOLIO is the earliest recorded reference of 'Gish' as it relates to Dungeons & Dragons that I can find. The entry is part of the 'Githyanki' entry. The specific line reads thus:
2 'gish': fighter/magic-users of 4th/4th level [sic]
Charles Stross was the one who submitted the entry for inclusion in TSR's Fiend Folio, so I daresay Charles Stross is the one who coined the term 'Gish' in the first place. For those brave enough, you may wish to ask Charles yourself if he did/why he did/what the hell was he thinking at the time.
For more information on Charles Stross and his version of the Githyanki, please have a look at the wiki link. It makes for some interesting reading, especially its origins in a George RR Martin novel.
I hope that this puts to bed some of the prevaricating. If you want more proof, I suggest people locate a copy of the original FIEND FOLIO and verify it for themselves.
It looks like the name githyanki was coined by our man GRRM, but the actual D&D race is far different than pictured. However, I will endeavor to read that novel for clarification :)
The Githyanki: Accept No Fauxgish
You can't say "Putting aside CoDzilla or wizards" or claim that Duskblade is imbalanced because things in other books were too powerful, when the balanced was screwed right from the Core book.
Even if damage does solve all your problem, Duskblade can't beat ubercharger, which is more then doable with Core + Completes. If damage does solve all your problems, Duskblade can't beat druids or clerics.
You claim being banned is a sign of overpoweredness. What about the bloody warlock? In either this or a nearby thread, someone claimed warlocks were overpowered - a claim I've seen before. Do you agree with that? There's a reason there's a several page long bloody thesis on why psions aren't overpowered. People scream about things being overpowered all the time without actually grasping what they're saying. Have you ever played an MMORPG? You can't objectively state things are or are not overpowered based entirely on the reactions of players. The level of aggression people have towards a class means nothing more then the level of aggression people have towards a class.
You're trying to come from the angle of "most DMs understand and know the mechanics of the game," but if anything it's the opposite. Indeed people tend not to complain about the beguiler, but that's because the beguiler isn't all about damage. Beguiler is a stronger class, but because it doesn't roll as much die, people ignore it. If people were really the masters of math and mechanics you take them to be, casinos wouldn't exist.
It's why sneak attack is rated so highly - higher then it deserves. Throwing down 6 dice on your attack is a big, flashy thing. Throwing die on the craps table is pretty flashy too - and that's the draw. The flash, the glitter, the roll of the die. Being the guy who throws down so many dice. But DMs don't balance things on a razor's edge; when a DM starts banning classes, they typically do it with the subtlety of an ogre.
Your entire claim is based on "Well DMs ban it because they know what they're doing." As a DM? No, we don't. We really aren't kings and scholars of dungeons and dragons. Usually we're just the unlucky sod who decided to play umpire. Balance is a sticky thing and varies between groups. If the entire group is playing all super powerful optimized characters, then the Core fighter sticks out as being super weak. If the entire group is playing as unoptimized as possible, with mages multiclassing into sorcerers, the duskblade stands out as being too powerful. Balance is something rated in perspective to others, not as a stand alone thing. And compared to Core + Completes, as you yourself threw out? No, duskblade isn't overpowered.
I keep seeing this word. What does it mean?
Also, is there a site somewhere that has a glossary for obscure gaming terms?
thanks.
On page 43 of the 1981 Edition of TSR's FIEND FOLIO is the earliest recorded reference of 'Gish' as it relates to Dungeons & Dragons that I can find. The entry is part of the 'Githyanki' entry. The specific line reads thus:
2 'gish': fighter/magic-users of 4th/4th level [sic]
Charles Stross was the one who submitted the entry for inclusion in TSR's Fiend Folio, so I daresay Charles Stross is the one who coined the term 'Gish' in the first place. For those brave enough, you may wish to ask Charles yourself if he did/why he did/what the hell was he thinking at the time.
For more information on Charles Stross and his version of the Githyanki, please have a look at the wiki link. It makes for some interesting reading, especially its origins in a George RR Martin novel.
I hope that this puts to bed some of the prevaricating. If you want more proof, I suggest people locate a copy of the original FIEND FOLIO and verify it for themselves.
Also, Planewalker.com did an interview with Charles Stross about his D&D contributions just as he was getting his fiction writing career going. It seems to have disappeared from the main site, but an archived version can be found here.
Yes, I can, in fact, because I am discussing the DB power level relative to all but the very top of the power curve. Whether balance was correct in the beginning or not, the DB is a class with powers close to the most powerful classes with no appreciable drawbacks.
Except it doesn't have powers close to the most powerful classes. It's spell list is brutally short, as is it's number of spells learned. It's not analogous to a wizard at all.
And you must build a comprehensive build to make an ubercharger. DB, you only need to use the class out of the box. And DB’s DO beat Druids and Clerics. The CoD and NC are very good, but what makes them great is they can do the damage AND other things with no penalty. Come on, now. DB’s do more damage, but are more limited, and cannot use the best tactics as a result of their limited spell list. That much should be obvious.
You don't need a comprehensive build to make an ubercharger, you just take charging feats - and there's only like two or three of them. What makes CoD so powerful in melee is it's ability to buff itself and give itself more and more modifiers to it's attacks - hell, druids can launch themselves into obscene strength scores without blinking, Duskblades can't do that. And yet, they can ALSO then cast spells and do other stuff.
For the record, I do not play MMORPG’s. I refuse to pay someone for the privilege of playing a game I already purchased. And people DO claim this and that are OP. But when you see a great number of people say it, it’s a good indication there may be something there. Smoke and fire, you know? The level of aggression towards a class tends to be made of edge cases (this happened, and not I hate them). When “this happened” comes up a lot, the class might have an issue. Sort of like a Jeff Foxworthy joke…
No, you don't. I do bloody statistics and studies for a living. When a great number of people say something, it's an indication that these people in question believe there is something there. But we don't even know how "great" this number of people are. We don't know that "this happened" comes up a lot. We know a few people here on the Paizo forums hate the Duskblade. That's it. I've known, met, and seen more people who don't have a problem with it. Does that make me right? No, because it's still just circumstance.
You're right, it is a Jeff Foxworthy joke. Unfunny and unfactual. BOOSH!
Actually, when you work in finance, you see that even the best math geniuses gamble. I submit Goldman Sachs as evidence. And Beguiler is a stronger class situationally. IME, most games have challenges that are solved through brute combat. This places an undue emphasis on damage oriented combat. However, some games either prioritize tactical/non-combat thinking or the DM’s do not react well to situational changes (ad lib is a difficult skill). Beguiler is better in those games. DB is better where damage is Queen. They are equal where neither condition exists.
You keep saying "where damage is king." The problem is, damage is never king. There is never a situation where the only answer is bigger numbers in damage. Beguiler isn't stronger then Duskblade because he has social skills, beguiler is stronger because his spells are far better and give him much more flexibility in a fight. Damage is not king. Period.
Most DM’s throw out non-core. Most accept that core is fine. Few need pages of houserules designed to nerf perceived imbalances. I have played a game where SA was limited to once per round. I played with guys that felt the Warlock was uber. This has more to do with perceptions, as you say. But just rolling dice does not make people think something is OP. If that were so, where are all the message boards discussing how OP the Evocation school is?
Many DMs do indeed accept that core is fine. And they're wrong. Core is not fine. Core was unbalanced right from the start. If anything, the farther from Core you go, the more non-casters can actually start to catch up - in other words, the more from Core you drift, the more balanced it gets, not less. And yes, rollind dice does make people think something is OP. And yes, people do discuss how "awesomely powerful" Evocation is. Where? Here. The same place they claim Duskblade is overpowered. The same place someone whinges that Duskblade can cast Frost Ray at as a level 5 spell...at level 16.
First, my actual argument is that DB gain a number of strengths of the fighting classes AND arcane casters while having none of their weaknesses. This put’s their damage dealing potential near the top with solid defensive and non-magical abilities. Weaker than Druids, to be sure, but comparable. Wiz:Brd as Drd:DB, IMO. However, DB>Brd, likely DB=Sor. If we accept the tier system, this places the DB in tier 2, which, btw, means they are still more powerful than they should be, since the ideal power balance is Tier 3.
Except they aren't in Tier 2, they're in Tier 3, and for a good reason. Duskblade is not better then the bard. Duskblade is not equal to the sorcerer.
Now, the DB is not OP, but not for the reasons you think. Damage is one of the highest, and compared to all other base classes in Core+Complete+PHB2, almost nobody can consistently do more damage than an optimized DB. This is what get’s it banned; they get great potential with few weaknesses. But, they are not OP because they are easily shut down. A Wiz/Clr/Drd can build a strategy to defeat them. Many monsters are unimpressed by sheer damage and will eat the DB. When damage cannot overcome an obstacle, the DB is playing second string. THAT is what makes them ok. And, in PF, the power advantage is less than it was in 3.5.
I've already shown you to be wrong about DB being the "highest damaging." There's plenty of other classes that can do more damage.
This is, again, your big flaw that undermines your entire argument - shut the hell up about damage. Damage is, in the large scale, not the big deal you're making it out to be. It's why uberchargers still aren't tier 1. Damage is the most limited aspect of D&D, second only to AC. The tier system isn't about who deals the most damage.
Stop whinging about damage already.
Ok, let's see if I understand the argument here. The duskblade falls below the super-powerful core classes (full casters) and above the weak core classes (fighters, monks, barbarians). Now the duskblade was meant to be a hybrid class of these two groups. Thus the duskblade's power level should fall in ... nope, I don't quite get the argument. What is it again?
Ok, let's see if I understand the argument here. The duskblade falls below the super-powerful core classes (full casters) and above the weak core classes (fighters, monks, barbarians). Now the duskblade was meant to be a hybrid class of these two groups. Thus the duskblade's power level should fall in ... nope, I don't quite get the argument. What is it again?
You got me, i'd say let them keep fighting and they'll tire eachother out but I dont think thats the case.
Ok, let's see if I understand the argument here. The duskblade falls below the super-powerful core classes (full casters) and above the weak core classes (fighters, monks, barbarians). Now the duskblade was meant to be a hybrid class of these two groups. Thus the duskblade's power level should fall in ... nope, I don't quite get the argument. What is it again?
Yes, that's more or less my argument :p
Duskblade is a very well balanced class. He's a magical fighter, and he does it well - but he doesn't overshadow other well made fighter classes, such as ToB style characters.
Mirror Mirror is arguing that, because Duskblade can do a lot of damage, he's overpowered. I'm sharply disagreeing.
I believe the correct spelling is "whinge"
Good thing I never made that arguemnt, then ^__^ What I DID say what that the ability to match the upper tier damage potential coupled with the asvantages of full BAB, armor, good HD, etc. without ANY drawbacks, either RP (faith/alignment) or mechanical (armor/weapon) places them in the upper part of the old 3.5 power curve. On par with Sor, but still below Wiz/Clr/Drd. Moreso, I argued that the ability to do damage had NOTHING to do with the reason the tier 1 classes are tier 1, and THAT is why the DB falls to a lower tier.
See now you are just being tricksy, if its not in the top tier, it is less powerful then a tier of classes. That tier still exists in pathfinder. So do you or dont you think that the duskblade is more powerful then the druid/wizard/cleric in pathfinder? What about the sorceror or paladin (in pathfinder)? Are you really trying to make the argument that a class is overpowered when it is less powerful then existing core classes?
See now you are just being tricksy, if its not in the top tier, it is less powerful then a tier of classes. That tier still exists in pathfinder. So do you or dont you think that the duskblade is more powerful then the druid/wizard/cleric in pathfinder? What about the sorceror or paladin (in pathfinder)? Are you really trying to make the argument that a class is overpowered when it is less powerful then existing core classes?
Good thing I never made that arguemnt, then ^__^ What I DID say what that the ability to match the upper tier damage potential coupled with the asvantages of full BAB, armor, good HD, etc. without ANY drawbacks, either RP (faith/alignment) or mechanical (armor/weapon) places them in the upper part of the old 3.5 power curve. On par with Sor, but still below Wiz/Clr/Drd. Moreso, I argued that the ability to do damage had NOTHING to do with the reason the tier 1 classes are tier 1, and THAT is why the DB falls to a lower tier.
A class can be overpowered when compared against the classes that fill a similar role and yet not be as powerful when compared to classes that fill different roles. It would still be an overpowered class. Now, I have never really seen duskblades in play, so I can't comment on if they are OP, but it is quite possible for them to be imballanced even when not as powerful as other classes.
A class can be overpowered when compared against the classes that fill a similar role and yet not be as powerful when compared to classes that fill different roles. It would still be an overpowered class. Now, I have never really seen duskblades in play, so I can't comment on if they are OP, but it is quite possible for them to be imballanced even when not as powerful as other classes.See now you are just being tricksy, if its not in the top tier, it is less powerful then a tier of classes. That tier still exists in pathfinder. So do you or dont you think that the duskblade is more powerful then the druid/wizard/cleric in pathfinder? What about the sorceror or paladin (in pathfinder)? Are you really trying to make the argument that a class is overpowered when it is less powerful then existing core classes?
Good thing I never made that arguemnt, then ^__^ What I DID say what that the ability to match the upper tier damage potential coupled with the asvantages of full BAB, armor, good HD, etc. without ANY drawbacks, either RP (faith/alignment) or mechanical (armor/weapon) places them in the upper part of the old 3.5 power curve. On par with Sor, but still below Wiz/Clr/Drd. Moreso, I argued that the ability to do damage had NOTHING to do with the reason the tier 1 classes are tier 1, and THAT is why the DB falls to a lower tier.
Druids and Clerics both fight and cast spells. The general role is the same.
You crazy Houstonians. Whinge is such a great word, and I love how it goes with cringe. Ex: This usage of "gish" makes me whinge and cringe.
See now you are just being tricksy, if its not in the top tier, it is less powerful then a tier of classes. That tier still exists in pathfinder. So do you or dont you think that the duskblade is more powerful then the druid/wizard/cleric in pathfinder? What about the sorceror or paladin (in pathfinder)? Are you really trying to make the argument that a class is overpowered when it is less powerful then existing core classes?Actually, I did mention that I did not think the DB was OP. I was offering the reasons others commonly think it is. I think in 3.5 the DB was suspect, possibly OP, but that it is probably just fine in PF due to the class rebalance.
I still do see it doing more damage than the other damage-dealing classes, which still may be a problem, but it overal is only slightly out-doing the Fighter. With the Bloodline Powers, I think the Sorc pulled ahead a bit in terms of utility, so the DB is likely closer than ever to the Bard.
In 3.5, the conversation goes like this:
Person 1: Is the duskblade more powerful than the fighter?Person 2: Well it casts spells.
Person 1: Then it is more powerful than the fighter.
Good thing I never made that arguemnt, then ^__^ What I DID say what that the ability to match the upper tier damage potential coupled with the asvantages of full BAB, armor, good HD, etc. without ANY drawbacks, either RP (faith/alignment) or mechanical (armor/weapon) places them in the upper part of the old 3.5 power curve.How is full BAB an advantage separate from the ability to do damage?
Duskblades do about as much damage as druids and clerics, have similar HD and armor proficiencies, but don't do all the other stuff that clerics and druids can do on top of doing damage.
Thus, they're not even in the same ballpark.
Then I think the real point, going back to all the conversations about Tiers, is that the Duskblade class seems outside of the bounds of Tier3, because they are quite good out of the box at being a melee armored warrior with arcane spells, and very solid at damage, but actually fit into the box, because the spells known and limited spell list are not sufficient to give the duskblade enough flexibility to boost them over the line into tier2. This comes back around to the fact that the Bard spell list and casting and the Beguiler spell list and casting are more flexible than the Duskblade.
I will then posit that the PF Paladin is awesome, and the ideal Arcane/Warrior should fall somewhere near the powercurve and versatility of the PF Paladin.
Then I think the real point, going back to all the conversations about Tiers, is that the Duskblade class seems outside of the bounds of Tier3, because they are quite good out of the box at being a melee armored warrior with arcane spells, and very solid at damage, but actually fit into the box, because the spells known and limited spell list are not sufficient to give the duskblade enough flexibility to boost them over the line into tier2. This comes back around to the fact that the Bard spell list and casting and the Beguiler spell list and casting are more flexible than the Duskblade.
I will then posit that the PF Paladin is awesome, and the ideal Arcane/Warrior should fall somewhere near the powercurve and versatility of the PF Paladin.
I agree, a PF gish, should be in line with a paladin. Full bab 2 good saves, D10 hit dice, and a bunch of x/day abilities that make it to par with all paladin's abilities. You get more uses, but they are not as good, but you are more versatile at dealing with different enemies.
On that end I think the amount of effects should be in line with a fighter feat. You get the same equivalent effect, but they are great specialized to deal with specific targets; such as ice on a fire dragon doing better than a fighter feat. This would be balanced with the limited use per day issue.
|
Then I think the real point, going back to all the conversations about Tiers, is that the Duskblade class seems outside of the bounds of Tier3, because they are quite good out of the box at being a melee armored warrior with arcane spells, and very solid at damage, but actually fit into the box, because the spells known and limited spell list are not sufficient to give the duskblade enough flexibility to boost them over the line into tier2. This comes back around to the fact that the Bard spell list and casting and the Beguiler spell list and casting are more flexible than the Duskblade.
I will then posit that the PF Paladin is awesome, and the ideal Arcane/Warrior should fall somewhere near the powercurve and versatility of the PF Paladin.
I agree, a PF gish, should be in line with a paladin. Full bab 2 good saves, D10 hit dice, and a bunch of x/day abilities that make it to par with all paladin's abilities. You get more uses, but they are not as good, but you are more versatile at dealing with different enemies.
On that end I think the amount of effects should be in line with a fighter feat. You get the same equivalent effect, but they are great specialized to deal with specific targets; such as ice on a fire dragon doing better than a fighter feat. This would be balanced with the limited use per day issue.
Sounds good. The Pf arcane stabby guy would get a paladin progression on spells as well? Out to 4th level, mainly self buffs and touch spells cast through a weapon?
I would like to see a "bonded weapon" type mechanic where the arcane stabby (or shooty) guy can only cast through it. Kinda adds to the flavor I think. But he should also get a bonus to CMD with said weapon against sunder and disarm attempts as well, reflecting the strength of the bond.
Sounds good. The Pf arcane stabby guy would get a paladin progression on spells as well? Out to 4th level, mainly self buffs and touch spells cast through a weapon?I would like to see a "bonded weapon" type mechanic where the arcane stabby (or shooty) guy can only cast through it. Kinda adds to the flavor I think. But he should also get a bonus to CMD with said weapon against sunder and disarm attempts as well, reflecting the strength of the bond.
Spells could be from level 1 is a must, and a lot of them wouldn't be so bad. So bard, or some new progression with less spells would be in order.
This isn't a paladin where spells isn't the focus of the class. We are talking about 1st trier feat equivalent spells, so the fact that they can't be used unlimited is an actual down side.
I too like the bonded weapon idea, I also like a possible bonded armor, which I commonly like putting into my home grown PrCs.
PS: A 1st tier feat equivalent spell would be 1D4 elemental damage spell for melee or ranged hits. Seeing how we have weapon specialization that grants +2 damage, a D4 deals 2.5 average roll. elemental type fire, acid, cold, and electric are both good and bad, mostly bad, as monsters usually have some sort of resistance, so unless you get info or have a really good knowledge checks, there is always a chance you would be stuck not getting effect for your x/day used ability. While in some rare occasion you would get bonus damage due to a variability, or they are immune to most everything else.
|
Sounds good. The Pf arcane stabby guy would get a paladin progression on spells as well? Out to 4th level, mainly self buffs and touch spells cast through a weapon?
I would like to see a "bonded weapon" type mechanic where the arcane stabby (or shooty) guy can only cast through it. Kinda adds to the flavor I think. But he should also get a bonus to CMD with said weapon against sunder and disarm attempts as well, reflecting the strength of the bond.
I've got a not quite completed class I've been working on with this sort of concept. Full BaB, d10 hd, martial and up to medium armor proficiency, and something like Paladin casting. I give them cantrips, and they gain full CL instead of CL-3, but they get no higher than 4th level spells.
I also have class abilities that they may choose. 2/4 may be taken to the highest of three "tiers" of ability, a third can only be the lowest tier. The abilities to choose from are weapon enhancement, a spell like ability that acts as a shield, at first against attack, later against spells, the ability to magically enchance combat maneuver checks, and the ability to enhance their movement magically.
Spells generally are buffs (transmutation), necromancy attack/buffs and ranged or melee touch attack damage spells. There are a few utility spells as well.
I"m trying to work out how to allow faster casting to allow arcane/melee synergies without allowing multiple spells/round for another class ability, and I need a capstone. :)
I agree, a PF gish, should be in line with a paladin. Full bab 2 good saves, D10 hit dice, and a bunch of x/day abilities that make it to par with all paladin's abilities. You get more uses, but they are not as good, but you are more versatile at dealing with different enemies.
check Tejon's Iron Mage
'findel
I agree, a PF gish, should be in line with a paladin. Full bab 2 good saves, D10 hit dice, and a bunch of x/day abilities that make it to par with all paladin's abilities. You get more uses, but they are not as good, but you are more versatile at dealing with different enemies.
check Tejon's Iron Mage
'findel
That to me does not fulfill my idea of a gish, to be honest I think the duskblade is my ideal gish, so if it does not get spells at 1st level I generally don't want to play it. However the class looks really good.
That to me does not fulfill my idea of a gish, to be honest I think the duskblade is my ideal gish, so if it does not get spells at 1st level I generally don't want to play it. However the class looks really good.I agree, a PF gish, should be in line with a paladin. Full bab 2 good saves, D10 hit dice, and a bunch of x/day abilities that make it to par with all paladin's abilities. You get more uses, but they are not as good, but you are more versatile at dealing with different enemies.
check Tejon's Iron Mage
'findel
Spells at first level definately a point of contention for many gish character ideas, but i think there is room in the concept of the gish for both something like tejon's iron mage and something like the duskblade. The more the merier I say.
Spells at first level definately a point of contention for many gish character ideas, but i think there is room in the concept of the gish for both something like tejon's iron mage and something like the duskblade. The more the merier I say.
That to me does not fulfill my idea of a gish, to be honest I think the duskblade is my ideal gish, so if it does not get spells at 1st level I generally don't want to play it. However the class looks really good.
True, True.