Balance. Why do we need it?

[Luccan]

Spoiler: Loxagn

Show

The issue of mundane characters' inability to meaningfully contribute past a certain point is a reason I don't really play 3.X anymore. Just taking the issue of skills, for a moment:

Your average Fighter, who is supposed to be a master of warfare, lacks the basic ability to survey the battlefield, and is incapable of knowing anything other than what is directly spoon-fed to him. In 3.5, he can't even have a day job if he wants one, and also wants to be able to, say, be an athletic individual, because a measure of how athletic he is, is divided into Climb, Swim, and Jump. Do you want to have a soldier who enjoys baking in his spare time, but is also a skilled horseman with a working knowledge of siege warfare? What a shame, you can't do that. As a fighter, if you are a human, you are likely to have, at best, four things you can do, assuming you have a 12 in Intelligence. And you can't have Ride, Handle Animal, Knowledge (Architecture & Engineering), Profession (Baker), and be a Fighter; if you have instead Average human Intelligence (10), you even have to give up those things. And you're going to die the instant you encounter water, or, say, an ambush, because as a master of warfare you can't even perceive your enemies.
Contrast a young man who was born to a couple of tailors who through years and years of hard work saved up enough to get their son into a good Wizard University. He picked up a working knowledge of tailoring from his parents, studied hard to become a wizard, anddeveloped a knack for dead languages and took a few semesters of Alchemy into the bargain. With a 16 in Intelligence and as a human, he can be an expert in Knowledge (Arcane), Spellcraft, and Concentration, and have points leftover for Profession (Tailor), Craft (Alchemy), and Decipher Script. The result is a character who is, in fact, already more well-rounded and deeper roleplay-wise. He's not terribly athletic or perceptive, but he can make up for (and even render useless) those weaknesses with spells, while the Fighter has nothing to make up for it.

The Fighter has the same problem as the Barbarian, who gets all the Fighter's limitations except he's even more of a moron because he can't even read.

You can't just say 'so put bonuses in Intelligence', either, because that expressly limits the Fighter's ability to do what his Class ought to be capable of.

If you roll 3d6x6 and get the results 16, 12, 11, 9, 6, 13, and you're playing a Fighter, you rapidly come to the realization that you need a lot of things to be any good as a Fighter. If you don't put that 16 in Strength, you're just gimping yourself. And you need at least a +1 in Constitution, so you stick 12 there. Oh, but you need Dex 13 to qualify for some feats you want to take, so you put a 13 there and... oh. Your choices for mental stats become 11, 9, and 6. You really don't want a -1 in Wisdom, because your Will and Spot are already awful and making them worse will only complicate matters... so you spend your precious 11 on Wisdom. Leaving you with a 9 in Intelligence and a 6 in Charisma. Congratulations, you only have one skill point now. Two, if you're human. And, according to stats, you're also ugly and socially retarded, which you don't need to be effective at Fighting, but leaves little opportunity for roleplay.

Give the same array to a Wizard, and he can freely assign that 16 to his Intelligence. That's all he needs to be good at Wizarding, and he gets five or six (if human) skills into the bargain. He can stick a 12 in Dexterity and an 11 in Constitution, giving him no penalty to any of his saves and even letting him drop that 13 into Charisma and 9 into Wisdom, since he wants to be a little bit social as well. As for the 6, throw it in Strength. Who needs it? The heaviest thing his character's ever had to lift is a spellbook. A wizard who wants to have lots of things to do outside of his class's basic functions just needs to be a Wizard to do it. A Fighter who wants the same has to actively hurt his effectiveness as a class.

Ability score prerequisites are also a thing. Casters have none, and Mundane classes, who will already be stretched thin, have lots.

And the Fighter is, at least, better than the poor Monk. Who has the melee fighter issue of needing Three decent stats, like the Fighter, as well as needing a decent Wisdom. And in exchange for that ludicrous investment, can't even really perform in his advertised role. Someone who rolls the Fighter mentioned above, expecting to have a well-rounded character with a deep set of skills that would be reminiscent of, say, an actual human being with that background, will be sorely disappointed and have to sacrifice aspects of his character's concept, whereas the Wizard's player will have to sacrifice... very little, actually.

There is literally no reason that a Player Character class, that is not a full caster singularly dependent on Intelligence, should be limited to 2+Int Skills. And yet, the Fighter remains an ignorant buffoon who can't climb a rope, ride a horse, and know basic local history at the same time.

Sorry for the long-winded post.
TL;DR version:
If a Wizard wants to excel in combat, the Wizard can do that. If a Fighter wants to excel in combat, the Fighter can do that.
If a Wizard wants to excel outside of combat, the Wizard can do that. If a Fighter wants to excel outside of combat, the Fighter can do that.
If a Wizard wants to excel in and out of combat, the Wizard can do that. If a Fighter wants to excel in and out of combat, the Fighter can't do that.
And that's not fair.

I think this is why "everyone gets minimum 4+Int Skills" is a fairly common houserule. I think the real problem though is that bonus skillpoints are tied to one stat. If you could, say, pick Int or Wis, that'd be better (especially for guys like fighter, who also really need the Will save boost).
This is also why I still like rolling sometimes, since good rolls means you can play a more competent martial.

Also why I like the idea of picking your skill list.

[Psyren]

I agree, Fighters should get more skills. This was one of the patches made to the base PF Fighter, via Advanced Weapon Training -> Versatile Training (which costs them no build resources), and archetypes like Lore Warden take it even further.

[death390]

The table i play at has a couple house rules to patch certain holes.
everyone gets 4+int skills minimum, and no loss of skill points due to low int.
4D6 reroll all 1's. (avg is about 13) for attributes.

all classes get listen, spot, search as class skills. honestly who doesn't NEED these? barbarian hunts, ranger hunts, druid gathers, fighters are the wall watchers, wizards and sorcerers attention to detail, and the bard wants to keep track of the audiences mood.

flaws and traits (2 each) from unearthed arcana are allowed due to the limited number of feats given this was a big boon to everyone. (and gives reasons for certain role play) we do use dandwiki and dnd-wiki traits and flaws as well as te printed ones as long as the balance is there. a ranger in my group had old-wound and bad leg leading to his taking his riding dog everywhere (halfling).

we are also toying with spontaneous divine casters from UA. a few of our group (90% mundanes) are toying with the idea of spellcasting but don't like the prepared caster. i know its subpar but hey they want to try ez caster first good on them.

[Necroticplague]

I agree, Fighters should get more skills. This was one of the patches made to the base PF Fighter, via Advanced Weapon Training -> Versatile Training (which costs them no build resources), and archetypes like Lore Warden take it even further.

Er, how is the bold true? While I agree giving up getting an extra weapon group is usually inconsequential, taking Versatile Training means giving up another Advanced Weapon Training trait, some of which can be very useful.

[Loxagn]

Alas, I can't speak for Pathfinder as I'm not nearly as familiar with it as I am with 3.5. Personally I'd argue Fighter deserves either 6+Int, or the skills need to be greatly condensed. Both would probably go a long way towards making Fighter more attractive. Unfortunately, the problems go a bit deeper than that. Even from a combat perspective, there's a definite disparity in terms of options. A Fighter, for instance, has been investing heavily in being a melee bruiser who wears plate mail and acts as a prickly indomitable wall between the enemies and the other members of his party, who are the quintessential supportive Cleric, backstabbing Rogue, and blasty Wizard. The DM reveals that there's a young Red Dragon terrorizing the local countryside, and the king is begging the party to help. Simple, right?

Except, not so simple. Fighter has absolutely no options available for dealing with a flying enemy. He's been investing into becoming a big strong two-handed Fighter. So, he reasons, he'll grab a Longbow at the next town. Only he's not going to be very good with that bow, is he? If he wants to be anything approaching decent with it, he needs to get it Masterwork, have a Strength Bonus, and he needs to get it Enchanted to at least +1, unless the Cleric has Greater Magic Weapon and is willing to cast it. If he really wants to have even the slightest hope with that bow, he'll need to spend feats on becoming good with it, which means that he needs to wait at minimum until he reaches next level. Possibly two levels from now, at which point the dragon fight might well have already passed. But he still has to invest a significant portion of a finite resource (Feats) to get an ability like Weapon Focus or Point Blank Shot, which are abilities appropriate for a first level character, not a level 5-7 one like the Fighter is now.

Rogue has a similar problem. He's been largely reliant on flanking with the fighter to be a combat contributor, and while he's been investing in Dexterity, he has even fewer feats to work with than Fighter, and even if he's an archer all of his damage output is completely negated if, say, the dragon doesn't approach closer than thirty feet, which for a sapient creature with a survival instinct is, clearly, not something any sane dragon would do. The Rogue might have some low-level wands to contribute to the fight with UMD, at the very least, but he's unlikely to be able to meaningfully contribute against a flying enemy.

Wizard has also run into a problem. He's been favoring pyromancy this entire time, because who doesn't enjoy a good explosion? But, obviously, Red Dragons are immune to fire, and Wizard needs something else to add to his arsenal to be able to Blast like he could before. So he makes a quick visit to the local Mage College, pays a pittance to the College's coffers, and copies an Orb of Cold spell into his spellbook, thus instantly gaining a level-appropriate ability in exchange for a small investment of an infinite resource (there are always ways for an adventurer to get more Gold.) Oh, and Fighter and Rogue have been begging him to help, so he takes their money to scribe two scrolls of Flight.

Cleric has run into exactly zero problems. He's been supporting the party with magic from the beginning, and continues to support the party. He prays for an Energy Resistance spell tomorrow morning, and a Greater Magic Weapon spell at Fighter's request, and calls it a day.

If Feat Chains didn't exist and Feats scaled to level, this would be fine; not quite equal, but fine. But they do, and they don't, and that means that a mundane character is pretty much always going to be behind the curve. The vast majority of characters will never get more than five feats, and when casters can spend feats to gain benefits that will always be level-appropriate (metamagic, crafting, increases to DC) while mundanes must spend feats on useless prerequisites before getting the 'good stuff' (How often is Dodge a prerequisite? Or Point-Blank Shot? Yes, let me have more conditional +1 Bonuses, please.), there's a disparity there, too.

That said: Tome of Battle and some of the PHBII feats are fantastic. We needed more of these!
But to quote Frank Trollman, "A +1 bonus is so pitiful you might honestly forget you had it." And unfortunately, there's a lot of those in 3.5.

[Cosi]

Anyone who thinks the reason the Fighter can't compete is "not enough skills" needs to get their head examined. Skills (with like three exceptions) are garbage. If you can fly, no one cares how big your climb check nominally is. No amount of craft is going to give you a niche comparable to planar binding. And so on. Yes, the Fighter should get more skills. But skills are basically character background, and no amount of character background is a substitute for real, meaningful abilities.

FFS, the Sorcerer gets as many skills as the Fighter, and their list is comparably bad. I think it's pretty clear the skills aren't the issue here.

[Rynjin]

Er, how is the bold true? While I agree giving up getting an extra weapon group is usually inconsequential, taking Versatile Training means giving up another Advanced Weapon Training trait, some of which can be very useful.

AWTs and Weapon Mastery Feats are also unavailable or harder to obtain for many solid archetypes that trade out Weapon Training. They put more pressure build-wise on Fighters IME.

Not that they're bad options, mind, but them needing to be tacked on years later instead of being a core feature that DOESN'T trade out a Fighter feature's progression hurts them a bit.

[Loxagn]

Anyone who thinks the reason the Fighter can't compete is "not enough skills" needs to get their head examined. Skills (with like three exceptions) are garbage. If you can fly, no one cares how big your climb check nominally is. No amount of craft is going to give you a niche comparable to planar binding. And so on. Yes, the Fighter should get more skills. But skills are basically character background, and no amount of character background is a substitute for real, meaningful abilities.

FFS, the Sorcerer gets as many skills as the Fighter, and their list is comparably bad. I think it's pretty clear the skills aren't the issue here.

I'm not saying that more Skills would fix the Fighter. I'm saying that a lack of Skills is one reason they can be unfun to play.

[Psyren]

Er, how is the bold true? While I agree giving up getting an extra weapon group is usually inconsequential, taking Versatile Training means giving up another Advanced Weapon Training trait, some of which can be very useful.

Every single choice you make has an opportunity cost, so I wasn't counting that. The alternative is not making any build choices at all.

What I meant by "build resources" is that it doesn't cost you any feats or wealth, doesn't require a specific race or archetype etc.

Not that they're bad options, mind, but them needing to be tacked on years later instead of being a core feature that DOESN'T trade out a Fighter feature's progression hurts them a bit.

I agree, but rolling that stuff out before they even knew whether Pathfinder would be successful at all is a bit premature. Better late than never.

[Rynjin]

Would have been a perfect fit for Unchained though. Everybody and their grandma wanted UnFighter.

[Psyren]

I mean, for all we know that was the original plan... WMH came out only a few months after Unchained, so it seems likely they were in development concurrently.

I'm liking what they did with the Starfinder Soldier at least.

[Calthropstu]

I mean, for all we know that was the original plan... WMH came out only a few months after Unchained, so it seems likely they were in development concurrently.

I'm liking what they did with the Starfinder Soldier at least.

Magic becomes less of an advantage when jet packs and laser guns come into play.

[death390]

hmm the major point about the fighter building only 1 'good' strategy with his feats is quite important. so collapsing a entire style into 1-2 feats would make them better overall. this would also make them available to more people. so have 4 basic feat styles (several more maybe). note this is all combat oriented and does not help out of combat (unless these styles have some kind of OoC applications)

Melee: two handed fighting (contains power attack), two weapon fighting, sword and board fighting. (maybe a single hand fighting style, unarmed fighting style, grappler style).

Ranged: Volley style, rapid style. (maybe a precision style)

also possibilities could include specific typed styles. Piercing style (maybe DR negation? or AC reduction), Slashing style (bonus damage against un-armored/ soft-armored targets? maybe bleed?), blunt style (AC reduction against hard armors, armorcrush/bonebreak to apply entangle) these would only be useful when using melee weapons that are the correct type. (ranged would have its own damage style probably DR/ reduction since that is its bane)

all of these feats should scale with BaB giving the most to full BaB classes and least to the 1/2 BaB classes.

[upho]

the DC for the ability is the exact same for casters highest level spells (1 level later for spont.)

No, it's typically not even remotely close. I think you're missing two very important factors here:

1. Casters that use spells with saves tend to be of the MAD sort, which usually means that (spell level + mod) > (full ECL).
2. There are numerous options which grant stacking bonuses to spell DCs, so spells with saves cast against enemies typically have DCs above (10 + spell lvl + mod).

but that as a flat DC scales better. because while spellcasters get + attribute to it it is DC 10 + spell level (every odd lvl for wiz even starting at 4 for 9s spont.) up to lvl 9 + attribute mod. note that is HIGHEST lvl spells. its still 11 + modifier for lvl 1 spells, 12+ mod for lvl 2, ext. the modifier makes up the difference later on. @lvl 20 the wizard on average ranges from DC 18-26. depending on spell level (+1-2 for specific schools), while a lvl 20 DC 10 + 1/2 ECL = DC 20 straight.

Huh? I'd say a 20th level wizard's spell DCs can typically be expected to range from at least 21 (10 + 1 spell lvl + 10 Int) to above 38 (10 + 9 spell lvl + 13 Int + 6 or more from feats/items/race/whatever), and potentially a lot higher if also including temporary boosts and more serious DC optimization (for example up to +15 from the Fatespinner PrC).

In addition, a wizard who likes casting spells with saves will of course typically focus on spells which benefit from the same DC boosts. Which in reality means that the average DC of the spells such a wizard casts against enemies in combat is virtually always much higher than the mean of the DCs of all spells in his book. For example, IME a decently built 20th level enchanter will very rarely cast a spell with a DC below 25, but often spells with a DC ranging from 31 to 35 or more.

In contrast, your suggested ability would have a maximum save DC of 20. (Or perhaps 22? I don't remember whether 3.5 has any DC boost options applicable to this ability.) Likewise, at 1st level, the wizard's spell DC is typically somewhere between 15 and 18, while your dazing fighter ability would have a DC of 10.

But more importantly, the average Will of CR 20 monsters in 3.5 is about +19 IIRC. So IMO the save DCs of the above mentioned enchanter seem very reasonable, while the DC 20 of your fighter ability is everything but.

For what it's worth, you're far from the first to cripple an otherwise potentially great martial ability by including a way too weak DC which cannot be meaningfully improved. The formula the WoTC designers typically used for martial abilities IIRC (10 + 1/2 class level (or full PrC level) + Wis/Int/Cha mod) also produce too low DCs in a large majority of cases IME. Again, the main problem is that these DCs are virtually impossible to boost substantially in practice, often making the related abilities only useful against lower CR mooks which rarely present much of a threat anyways. The same is BTW often true even in the case of the few PF abilities - notably Dazing Assault - which use the much stronger DC formula (10 + bab). Although come to think of it, this formula could actually be just about right in 3.5 with its lower average monster saves.

if we added a similar modifier to fighter it would end up DC 27 all the time.

Sorry, but I don't think I understand what you're trying to say here. It seems to me you claim a "+ mod" bonus would always end up being exactly +7. Which would be... weird.

i am guessing Path of War is PoW for pathfinder.

Yep.

i haven't read it, i mostly use DND 3.5. and i was saying that people think those extra abilities are anime/wuxia like. i personally don't find that half the time. even the few that are (EX; shadowhand style ToB) are fine.

Ah, I think I get what you're saying; basically that people find many of the ToB/PoW abilities/mechanics too anime/wuxia for D&D. If so, I've also heard that complaint about ToB. But it also seems to me when these complaints are more closely examined, it becomes evident that a large majority of them actually have very little to do with mechanics, but much to do with flavor. Meaning that if only the strictly mechanical elements of the more offending options, such as many of the Shadow Hand maneuvers, were kept intact and everything else changed into a more classic D&D fantasy style, I believe there would be considerably fewer such complaints.

[Psyren]

Magic becomes less of an advantage when jet packs and laser guns come into play.

Indeed. And thematically, people don't seem to mind when Boba Fett is a challenge for Luke Skywalker.

Maybe that's the key.

[death390]

huh i see what you mean about the DC, to be honest i was mostly just throwing numbers, i sadly have yet to play a game that high let alone one which i am allowed to power game. (my group sadly consists of only martials [yes i count 2 rangers as martials]) though i did convince one of them to try a dragonfire adept (as the sole spellcaster i need help not only overshadowing them.

that said i see what you mean about the attribute modifier being necessary. perhaps 11 + 1/3 ECL + Strength modifier? this would give a +6 ECL which puts it only 2 spell levels away from the wizard with a similar boost about half way between a bards spells and a sorcerers. martials tend to increase Str especially two handers though the type of skill (SU/EX/none/ect) would alter how it could be boosted. my big concern was that it being a static variable keeping it too high would overtake saves. i mean on a all good save class/gestalt the total bonus for a save is +12 for a PC class, let alone the creatures/ beings you are meant to fight at that level.

[Necroticplague]

Every single choice you make has an opportunity cost, so I wasn't counting that. The alternative is not making any build choices at all.

What I meant by "build resources" is that it doesn't cost you any feats or wealth, doesn't require a specific race or archetype etc.

An Advanced Weapon Training slot isn't drastically different from a feat slot. That Advanced Weapon Training takes up one such slot. So if you're considering feats to be a rescource, then Advanced Weapon Trainings should also be considered such for fighters.

[Gnaeus]

I was in a game about a dozen years ago. The play environment was very low op. DMs girlfriend had a swashbuckler. One guy either played a monk and rerolled into Samurai or the other way around. I had a Druid. Granted, I shouldn’t have, and wouldn’t today, but I like Druids. I think they are fun to play, and while I had the intelligence to build a solid one I didn’t have the wisdom to know I shouldn’t.

So, the party fell into this dynamic where DM would clone whatever monster we were fighting. My pet and I would charge/pounce/grapple/murder one, and the other 3 PCs together would fight the other. Most of the time, with average rolls on all sides, I would kill mine first and help them finish theirs off. I was passibly optimized, but basically just self buffed and ate peoples faces.

So, that’s issue 1. A Druid (and when I think of Druid I think of an old guy with a sickle, not a death machine) can casually outfight 3 PCs who are theoretically frontline melee combatants.

So the DM brings his brother into the game. He tells me his brother is playing a fighter and my heart sinks. There must have been fear in my voice when I asked what kind of fighter it was. “Oh, some kind of tripper with some Tome of Battle stuff”. And suddenly everything was ok. I was solid enough at game theory by then to know that casual low op players don’t make spiked chain trippers. And sure enough, that character was a beast. The biggest problem was that we had a hard time remembering his turn because he did so much damage on the enemy’s turns. No, there was never a chance he could scout like the Druid, or heal or teleport or do anything but fight. But I wouldn’t have wanted to melee him because he could do his job.

And that is issue 2. Fighter is so wildly erratic by optimization that it swings from competent to incompetent based on whether he read a guide (or in that case had solid opti-fu himself) and followed it closely. Even wizards aren’t so optimization dependent.

[CharonsHelper]

Even wizards aren’t so optimization dependent.

I'm not sure about that.

A wizard is easier to optimize passably, but I've seen wizards who would be sub-par next to the swash & monk from your anecdote. I ran into one in PFS who had decided that dipping one level into Rogue & one into Cleric were both good ideas, and he spent much of each fight using Magic Missile & Acid Arrow.

[Psyren]

An Advanced Weapon Training slot isn't drastically different from a feat slot. That Advanced Weapon Training takes up one such slot. So if you're considering feats to be a rescource, then Advanced Weapon Trainings should also be considered such for fighters.

But feats are necessary not just for the build itself, but to qualify for the other things you want on time - prereqs for other feats, prestige classes, even crafting the items you need for your build if magic mart isn't available. So I still see AWT as different, even if you count them as resources too. AWT just gives you stuff for the build itself.

[EldritchWeaver]

But feats are necessary not just for the build itself, but to qualify for the other things you want on time - prereqs for other feats, prestige classes, even crafting the items you need for your build if magic mart isn't available. So I still see AWT as different, even if you count them as resources too. AWT just gives you stuff for the build itself.

It's possible to avoid those dependencies, which makes the feats and skills to be simply stuff for the build. Or vice versa, I could easily create a feat which depends on AWT in some way. Overall, I see little benefit in this distinction. You might have different opportunity costs, but in the end, only stuff on your char sheet counts, not where it came from.

[Gnaeus]

I'm not sure about that.

A wizard is easier to optimize passably, but I've seen wizards who would be sub-par next to the swash & monk from your anecdote. I ran into one in PFS who had decided that dipping one level into Rogue & one into Cleric were both good ideas, and he spent much of each fight using Magic Missile & Acid Arrow.

It’s not that they are impossible to screw up. Or to misplay. But honestly, we played that game a surprisingly long time. A wizard 8/rogue 1/wizard 1 I could at least have bought a scroll of polymorph to scribe and that one move would have shot it forever above the T5s.

The optimization standard I now use is (can my 11 year old build it?). She can build a fully competent Barbarian. We could build a stronger one, but hers wouldn’t fail. She would realize Str was key, pick a 2h weapon because she has seen Conan, and find Power Attack pretty quickly. She would probably take some junk feats but nothing fatal.

She can even build a competent wizard. She would know that Int was key. She would be way blastier than most forum goers would prefer, but she would find some of the useful spells on her own and would rapidly adopt others. She’s fully able to stop using underperforming options. She’s smart, just not with a high degree of system mastery.

For her to build a competent, competitive fighter, I would have to step in and stomp on build decisions. You don’t want to focus on TWF because (game mechanics). You don’t want dodge and toughness because (game mechanics). You need these 3 feats from different splatbooks in order to be decent.

[Zanos]

She can even build a competent wizard. She would know that Int was key. She would be way blastier than most forum goers would prefer, but she would find some of the useful spells on her own and would rapidly adopt others. She’s fully able to stop using underperforming options. She’s smart, just not with a high degree of system mastery.

I'm going to tell a small anecdote about the worst wizard I ever saw in play, that was built by a 20 year old man who had been playing 3.5 for at least two years.

He died to an Orc barbarian because he prepared Animate Rope in all of his 2nd level slots because, and I quote, "My character is a transmuter."

I think it's hard to make a fighter literally useless unless it's on purpose. Yeah I could have fixed the wizard fairly easily, but IIRC there's a quote going around in these forums that only a wizard can transport themselves to the plane of extremely painful torture, where the worst a fighter can do is cut their own head off.

[Psyren]

It's possible to avoid those dependencies, which makes the feats and skills to be simply stuff for the build. Or vice versa, I could easily create a feat which depends on AWT in some way. Overall, I see little benefit in this distinction. You might have different opportunity costs, but in the end, only stuff on your char sheet counts, not where it came from.

Very well - let's compare it to the 3.5 Fighter then. AWT has a cost, but its cost is something that 3.5 Fighters wouldn't have gotten anyway. That to me is a distinction worth making - all upside.

[Gnaeus]

I'm going to tell a small anecdote about the worst wizard I ever saw in play, that was built by a 20 year old man who had been playing 3.5 for at least two years.

He died to an Orc barbarian because he prepared Animate Rope in all of his 2nd level slots because, and I quote, "My character is a transmuter."

I think it's hard to make a fighter literally useless unless it's on purpose. Yeah I could have fixed the wizard fairly easily, but IIRC there's a quote going around in these forums that only a wizard can transport themselves to the plane of extremely painful torture, where the worst a fighter can do is cut their own head off.

And that’s just stupid. I’m not saying I don’t believe it happened, but it’s closer to a fighter wandering around naked and weaponless because he’s a sumo wrestler than picking TWF because you want to be the Grey Mouser. Nothing fixes aggressive anti optimization. The Druid could have a bird companion and use produce flame a lot. But a smart, aggressive, system clueless player will still likely find spells like invisibility and immediately realize how being invisible can help you.

I was in another game where we had a player who had a necromancer Sorcerer. Literally all his spells were necromancy. He sucked as a sorcerer, but still outperformed the muggles. When he died, his next Sorcerer has all evocation spells (not kidding). He also sucked as a Sorcerer, but still outperformed the muggles.

[AvatarVecna]

I'm going to tell a small anecdote about the worst wizard I ever saw in play, that was built by a 20 year old man who had been playing 3.5 for at least two years.

He died to an Orc barbarian because he prepared Animate Rope in all of his 2nd level slots because, and I quote, "My character is a transmuter."

I think it's hard to make a fighter literally useless unless it's on purpose. Yeah I could have fixed the wizard fairly easily, but IIRC there's a quote going around in these forums that only a wizard can transport themselves to the plane of extremely painful torture, where the worst a fighter can do is cut their own head off.

This is probably at least a vaguely-fair point. Fighter and Wizard both have heaps and heaps of trap options, but the Fighter's trap options are in the range of "makes you better, but not nearly enough" (Weapon Focus, TWF, Toughness), while the wizard's trap options are scores and scores of nigh-useless spells. Sure, there's tons of gems and decent spells scattered through, and the lists are expansive enough that you easily prepare a list that was nothing but broken-ass bull**** char-op darling spells, but there's not really any spells that are considered the "obvious meta" option the way Weapon Focus is for Fighter (except maybe Fireball?). Wizards and Sorcerers are kinda thrown into the deep end. "Pick your spells known/spellbook spells, hope you don't screw up". Wizard is slightly better off if they make bad decisions (since they can spend money on extra spells), sorcerers are screwed. Clerics and Druids are better off since they can prepare from their whole list every day, so bad decisions have a maximum life expectancy of 24 hours. Bad Fighter feats are forever, but they're rarely as wasteful of feat slot as Read Magic is a waste of a spell slot, if only because of how much better a spell could've been in that slot compared to how good a feat could've been in that feat slot.

[CharonsHelper]

(Weapon Focus, TWF, Toughness),

Actually - Weapon Focus is awesome, and while I haven't run the #s in 3.5, in Pathfinder TWF builds have the highest DPR in the game, being 15-20% higher than a two-handed build. (though with drawbacks due to feat cost, DR, and lower damage on single attacks)

[Necroticplague]

Actually - Weapon Focus is awesome

Err....can you explain how this is true? Even assuming the only weapons you use are ones WF applies to (which is a fairly reasonable assumption), the feat only benefits you in one situation: when it turns what would be a hit, into a miss (i.e, your attack roll is one less than their AC). This mean it's relevant on 5% of all attacks (barring weirdly weighted/crappy/loaded dice). This sounds like its very non-preferable compared to something that affects all attacks, or all attacks that hit.

[CharonsHelper]

Err....can you explain how this is true? Even assuming the only weapons you use are ones WF applies to (which is a fairly reasonable assumption), the feat only benefits you in one situation: when it turns what would be a hit, into a miss (i.e, your attack roll is one less than their AC). This mean it's relevant on 5% of all attacks (barring weirdly weighted/crappy/loaded dice). This sounds like its very non-preferable compared to something that affects all attacks, or all attacks that hit.

It boosts your damage by about 10% (variable depending upon your attack bonus & target's AC). How is that NOT a good feat?

With a VERY modest average damage of 2d6+23 (17-20) damage per two-handed swing at level 11 , Weapon Focus is giving you (based upon the above 10% estimate) an additional 10.8 damage each round. (14.4 with Haste since you get a fourth swing)

Seems like a very good feat to me. (I can go more detailed with the math if you need.)

Is Weapon Focus an exciting feat? No. But mathematically it's nearly always worth taking for any martial or gish unless your build is extremely feat starved.

[Zanos]

And that’s just stupid. I’m not saying I don’t believe it happened, but it’s closer to a fighter wandering around naked and weaponless because he’s a sumo wrestler than picking TWF because you want to be the Grey Mouser. Nothing fixes aggressive anti optimization. The Druid could have a bird companion and use produce flame a lot. But a smart, aggressive, system clueless player will still likely find spells like invisibility and immediately realize how being invisible can help you.

I was in another game where we had a player who had a necromancer Sorcerer. Literally all his spells were necromancy. He sucked as a sorcerer, but still outperformed the muggles. When he died, his next Sorcerer has all evocation spells (not kidding). He also sucked as a Sorcerer, but still outperformed the muggles.

I think it's harder to accidently anti-optimize a Fighter. Even your example naked weaponless fighter isn't technically useless if he has good physical stats and IUS, where the wizard is actually doing nothing, and has the potential to actually be detrimental. I've seen badly played BFC wizards be actively harmful to parties before. Overall point being that I think spellcasters have both a higher floor and a lower ceiling, it's fairly easy to pick spells that will make you actually useless and it's not exactly intuitive, whereas "strong man with stick and armor" is pretty simple.

For the record this player actually thought animate rope was useful, because he looked through the PHB transmutation spells and just picked that because magic rope sounded cool without realizing it had no combat abilities.

Seems like a very good feat to me. (I can go more detailed with the math if you need.)

I would like to see the math. Not that I don't believe you. Trust but verify and all that.