Tired of seeing Barb 1 on every melee build in the game

[noob]

not necessarily. If there was a system built in that gave the fighter the extraordinary ability to push his body to the limit and slow his descent the allow him to absorb the impact of a fall without damaging himself, he's effectively mimiced feather fall, but without mirroring it exactly. If a fighter had a system that would allow him to surge and take a turn as an immediate action, he could effectively mimic celerity. It's not really all that difficult to mimic most spells through extraordinary ability, but there needs to be a system and measurable mechanic for it to be usable in a game.

There is such as system and it is tome of battle.
that you do not like it means that you will have to create one yourself or find one created by the community but then it is not wizard of the coast 3.5 dnd.
and the wizard have hundreds of spells that are all very useful(from teleport to create food while going through stone to mud and fabricate) so if you plan to give extra-ordinaries abilities to do all those roles the spells have then you will need hundreds of extra-ordinaries abilities on your fighter.
Most people become too tired while doing their homebrew and stop at 50 or less.
Which is why there is few fighter classes that match the wizard in usefulness.(ps: mimicking feather fall only on yourself is not useful most of the time the reason the feather fall spell is good enough for being prepared is that you use it on everybody at once thereby solving the problem for the whole team)
Even tob only reach tier 3 and not tier 1 or 2 like wizards or mindbenders(they got their tier raised in the latest tier system decided by vote).

[AnimeTheCat]

There is such as system and it is tome of battle.
that you do not like it means that you will have to create one yourself or find one created by the community but then it is not wizard of the coast 3.5 dnd.
and the wizard have hundreds of spells that are all very useful(from teleport to create food while going through stone to mud and fabricate) so if you plan to give extra-ordinaries abilities to do all those roles the spells have then you will need hundreds of extra-ordinaries abilities on your fighter.
Most people become too tired while doing their homebrew and stop at 50 or less.
Which is why there is few fighter classes that match the wizard in usefulness.(ps: mimicking feather fall only on yourself is not useful most of the time the reason the feather fall spell is good enough for being prepared is that you use it on everybody at once thereby solving the problem for the whole team)
Even tob only reach tier 3 and not tier 1 or 2 like wizards or mindbenders(they got their tier raised in the latest tier system decided by vote).

Tome of Battle doesn't fix the underlying problem that Spellcasters have options and Martial characters don't. It tried, but Tome of Battle boils down to "I hit it with my stick in a really cool way that did something else kinda cool". There are very few maneuvers or stances that actually give a character more options aside from hitting things. I was saying that there could be a system built (Yes, i'm fully aware it would be homebrew... That's obvious) that would give further, non-combat options to martial characters. That's where they are distinctly lacking.

EDIT:
This isn't the thread to do it, but if you want to go more into detail about my opinions about Tome of Battle and such, either PM me or start a new thread asking. I'm happy to share my opinions and views on the matter.

[noob]

Yes basically if you want out of battle maneuvers you just get that maneuver that gives an extra turn(for races against the clock) and that maneuver that allows to teleport.
Then there is some stances that can get an out of battle effect in some situations such as getting to turn any roll in a 11 once per turn(really solve problems with gms that bothers you with rolls at each action until they decide you have only one chance on three to succeed to eat a trail ration)
Then there is that heal maneuver which is very useful out of battle because they forgot people can use at will healing on people other than their own team(it probably was not meant to be used for curing all the villagers of the pest)
That adds stuff to do out of battle but not many.
Still you get like 3 times more options than a tobless fighter.
Which is why some people instead of trying to make their fighter fix redo all the abilities it needs as ex abilities take the tob system and some tob schools and add a bunch of extra schools and also give a bunch of extra ex abilities.
Then there is some people who also tries to do fighter fixes from scratch such as the hypermundane veteran or the veteran(not the same one at all I assure you) which somehow stills lacks abilities when compared to a wizard(but which gets to be quite polyvalent and include a wide range of abilities including stuff like shouting furiously at people making them obey you for weeks or just being so fast you always have two turns per turn or being able to go anywhere in the universe or to follow someone who teleports by entering the rift he left because you are really good at twisting yourself or yet inventing flying machines or making potions that heals without magic)

[Deepbluediver]

3.x doesn't consider CR to be equal to ECL, so a monstrous opponent will appear far earlier than that same monster as a PC.

I thought I remembered reading somewhere that a single PC was supposed to have a 50/50 chance of victory against an equal-CR monster. Now obviously the classes vary wildly in power and many monsters are badly mis-CR'd, but the point was supposed to be that to reliably beat equal CR'd monsters you needed a group.
Unless I'm completely mistaken about what I thought I read.

I'm sure there are groups out there that follow all the things you've mentioned, but I try my best to keep the PCs following the same rules as NPCs in my games. My players, (and I), wouldn't want a special treatment for the PCs.

Just to clarify something, is the issue you are trying to address that you don't want all your players to have Pounce, or are you OK with them having Pounce and you just want them to get it from other sources? I didn't really stop and think about it much when I made my first reply, but the answer would kind of direct us in two different directions. One to nerf pounce and/or buff alternatives (i.e. making Pounce less attractive), while the other would look for a way to keep dips from being as attractive.

In the vein of the second, what about this for a suggestion: Pounce is an extraordinary ability that you can use a number of times per day equal to your Barbarian level (or for monsters, equal either their CR or HD). That way anyone going straight-Barb should get all the Pounces they need by mid level at the latest, but it's less attractive to other classes as a 1-level dip.

[Pleh]

I thought I remembered reading somewhere that a single PC was supposed to have a 50/50 chance of victory against and equal-CR monster. Now obviously the classes vary wildly in power and many monsters are badly mis-CR'd, but the point was supposed to be that to reliably beat equal CR'd monsters you needed a group.
Unless I'm completely mistaken about what I thought I read.

Not sure if this was ever a direct claim from the books, but it certainly is a consequence of how CR is described.

If an NPC is defined as a playable core race with X levels in a core class, it's defined as a CR X encounter assuming a neutral playing field.

Ergo, a 10th level Fighter is supposed to be a CR 10 encounter and a fair fight for a party of four 10th level PCs. Of course, "fair fight" in this case is meant to represent about a fourth of a standard adventuring day. For D&D CR, "fair fight" is meant to represent nearly a guarantee of having to expend party resources with minimal chance of losing a party member, while a "fair fight" where either side could win it all or lose it all is actually defined as "overpowering."

A PC party comprised of only a single 10th level adventurer constitutes a Party Level 6th, which against a CR 10 threat is an "overpowering" encounter (like a party of four 6th level adventurers against a CR 10 monster), which means 50% chance of losing the combat or higher.

I don't remember how explicitly the DMG says it, but the math works out that way. A 10th level PC is a 50/50 fight with an equal level NPC, but a fight at 50/50 odds are meant to be much harsher a combat than D&D was intended to present for most encounters, which are meant to be a battle of attrition, not a duel between peers.

[Aetis]

In the vein of the second, what about this for a suggestion: Pounce is an extraordinary ability that you can use a number of times per day equal to your Barbarian level (or for monsters, equal either their CR or HD). That way anyone going straight-Barb should get all the Pounces they need by mid level at the latest, but it's less attractive to other classes as a 1-level dip.

I'm perfectly fine with them having pounce. I think limiting pounce to X per day is a bad idea.

[Elkad]

I like your idea but I think it should be scaled down a bit, not allowing a full move and full attack just because it's a straight line.

Charge/Pounce (Full round action) - as is. Maybe allow Pounce to be gained as a feat, and add it to FBF list.
Engage (Full round action) - Move up to 1/3 your speed and make a full attack. Can't move over difficult terrain. -2 AC vs AoOs and -2 to Reflex saves while you are moving in this manner.
Move + Standard (Move action and Standard action) - as is.

If you want to allow a straight-line full attack, it should be limited to 1/2 speed or something like that.

1/3rd speed means the armored guys can't use it at all. Speed 20' and you get 5*(ceil(4/3))=10'. The poor halfling in medium armor gets 5*(ceil(3/3))=5', gaining NOTHING over a 5' step.
They might as well still take the Barb level and Pounce-Charge everywhere 40'-60' at a time.

If people are going to have full-attacks with movement, it shouldn't be something that requires Haste to work.

I'm perfectly fine with them having pounce. I think limiting pounce to X per day is a bad idea.

Almost anything / day is a bad idea. Encounter powers work much better. It's a lot easier to balance Nova vs running out.
If people want a limit, how about "Pounce tires you rapidly. You can Pounce a number of times equal to your Con Mod, then become Fatigued until (you spend 10 minutes resting? / the encounter is over?)."

[Aetis]

Yeah, restricted-speed mini-pounce doesn't really work when we consider 20ft speed characters.

Now that I think about it, even move + full attack folds to pounce users in the open field. They got outranged.

I think I'll just give everyone pounce. No exceptions.

[Elkad]

I like the split.
Pounce and you get the Charge bonuses, AC penalty, and double-move.
Advance and you get a full move and full attack, but no bonuses or penalties. And it doesn't take a feat/feature.

[Aetis]

So give both?

[Elkad]

Yeah. If they want to dip for Pounce, let them have it.
Give everyone something not-quite-as-nice. Like the poor monk or paladin who can't dip Barb because of alignment restrictions.

[Deepbluediver]

Almost anything / day is a bad idea. Encounter powers work much better. It's a lot easier to balance Nova vs running out.
If people want a limit, how about "Pounce tires you rapidly. You can Pounce a number of times equal to your Con Mod, then become Fatigued until (you spend 10 minutes resting? / the encounter is over?)."

I used to not really like "encounter" powers because the limit felt to meta-gamey, but if you instead just have some sort of refresh mechanic that isn't good to use in combat I feel like that fits better (it's what I think they should have gone with for ToB).


My groups never used Pounce that much, how often to players really use it within a single combat? Is it something that they do every round, and you're setting yourself up for a scenario where the whole group fights like grasshoppers? Or could you get away with just having it as an opener/gap closer for occasional use?
I'm still thinking about other ways to limit it, like maybe a 1d4 round cooldown. Or 1d6-Con bonus or something like that.

[Nifft]

I thought I remembered reading somewhere that a single PC was supposed to have a 50/50 chance of victory against an equal-CR monster. Now obviously the classes vary wildly in power and many monsters are badly mis-CR'd, but the point was supposed to be that to reliably beat equal CR'd monsters you needed a group.
Unless I'm completely mistaken about what I thought I read.

You may be correct about the intent -- honestly I don't know -- but what I'm talking about is the mechanical difference between PCs and NPCs, so even if you were correct, it wouldn't be relevant to my argument.

Here's another example:

For an NPC, every class level is either associated or non-associated. Non-associated levels "cost" half as much CR.

For a PC, every level costs one full ECL.

PCs and NPCs do not use the exact same rules.

[Cosi]

If everyone is dipping Barb 1 to get pounce, that is probably because everyone needs pounce. That's the problem you should be trying to solve. The alternative is just beating people over the head for daring to try to solve the problems their characters have. Do you get really angry that all the Cleric buy holy symbols, or that everyone is carrying around trail rations?

[noob]

Trail rations are obviously overpowered and waterskins are overpowered too.

[Deepbluediver]

If everyone is dipping Barb 1 to get pounce, that is probably because everyone needs pounce. That's the problem you should be trying to solve. The alternative is just beating people over the head for daring to try to solve the problems their characters have. Do you get really angry that all the Cleric buy holy symbols, or that everyone is carrying around trail rations?

Giving melee-types unique and interesting class abilities and/or subsystems that let them participate to a similar degree as casters is a good goal, but it requires a lot more homebrewing. If your game is running mostly fine, it may not be a good idea to sit down and try to rewrite massive chunks of the rules right in the middle of a campaign.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I nerfed Lion Spirit Totem to only let you pounce for a charge distance of 10 ft per Barb level, and at Barb 5 it becomes pounce w/ no restrictions.
Of course, I also nerf casters a lot.

I think it's also fine to just give pounce for free. I would at least ask that you throw archers a few bones then, since they already get the shaft in 3E, even worse than melee.
At a bare minimum, giving non-magical ranged attacks the effects of the Arrow Mind spell for free (ranged attacks don't provoke AoOs, and you threaten your natural reach and can make the AoOs w/ a ranged attack) seems totally fair since the main benefit of archery being dangerous in melee reach was that it was supposed to have the benefit of "always full attacking," and now melee pretty much has that, too.
Applying Power Attack to ranged attacks would also be totally fair at that point.
(And...regardless it should be nerfed, but definitely get rid of wind wall's ridiculous archery negation....I make it 30% miss chance for any ranged attack, myself)

[Cosi]

Giving melee-types unique and interesting class abilities and/or subsystems that let them participate to a similar degree as casters is a good goal, but it requires a lot more homebrewing. If your game is running mostly fine, it may not be a good idea to sit down and try to rewrite massive chunks of the rules right in the middle of a campaign.

Then it's also a bad idea to ban something because "people are using it a lot" without thinking about the consequences.

[RoboEmperor]

Giving melee-types unique and interesting class abilities and/or subsystems that let them participate to a similar degree as casters is a good goal, but it requires a lot more homebrewing. If your game is running mostly fine, it may not be a good idea to sit down and try to rewrite massive chunks of the rules right in the middle of a campaign.

Isn't this ToB?

[Aetis]

Guys, I'm not trying to balance casters vs melees, or trying to buff ranged weapons or whatever. I'm already happy with where they are right now.

I like pounce and I support everyone having it. I'm not trying to take that away either.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

@The subsystem discussion

I again suggest Spheres of Might (possibly in combination with ToB/PoW) as that subsystem. It won’t give a Fighter the power/versatility of a 9th level Vancian caster, but if you also use Spheres of Power to rein those in a bit that isn’t a problem.

[Kobold Esq]

Eh, I just slapped some nerfs onto full casters (no Natural Spell, no druid companion, no DMM, no Divine Power, extremely limited scroll access for Wizards, etc.) and let everyone full attack as a standard action. Doesn't seem to have changed things much - actually, it makes beatstick monsters a bit more of a threat.

I've played 3.5 off and on for 15ish years. I can count on one hand the total number of DMM using clerics (1), and Natural Spell using druids (2). This is over a span of 50+ characters over 3-4 extended campaigns. Ditto the "pounce barbarian 1" issue. You guys are playing very different games from me.

[Kish]

I've played 3.5 off and on for 15ish years. I can count on one hand the total number of DMM using clerics (1), and Natural Spell using druids (2). This is over a span of 50+ characters over 3-4 extended campaigns. Ditto the "pounce barbarian 1" issue. You guys are playing very different games from me.

THANK YOU.

Sometimes I really feel like not being obsessed with hyperoptimizing makes me alone on the GitP forum.

[Deepbluediver]

I've played 3.5 off and on for 15ish years. I can count on one hand the total number of DMM using clerics (1), and Natural Spell using druids (2). This is over a span of 50+ characters over 3-4 extended campaigns. Ditto the "pounce barbarian 1" issue. You guys are playing very different games from me.

Sometimes I really feel like not being obsessed with hyperoptimizing makes me alone on the GitP forum.

Yes, the majority of my games never had any serious issues either. But homebrewing usually falls into one of two categories: making interesting new content, or fixing old problems. Since 3.5 was out for so long it tried out a lot of different things in the official material and accumulated a lot of imbalanced combos, particularly when optimization is brought into the question. This means that there's a natural push to at least consider those sort issues when homebrewing.

[RoboEmperor]

THANK YOU.

Sometimes I really feel like not being obsessed with hyperoptimizing makes me alone on the GitP forum.

So many people telling everyone they're playing the game badwrong for using material not in core...

[magicalmagicman]

So many people telling everyone they're playing the game badwrong for using material not in core...

Amen to that.

[Deepbluediver]

So many people telling everyone they're playing the game badwrong for using material not in core...

I think the parts of the game that have the most math applied to them (i.e. your mechanical build) are the things that can most objectively be said "you're doing it wrong sub-optimally". Even if you're here for the role-play and not the roll-play (which often includes myself), there's a tendency to say things like "if you just swap this one feat and dip this one class and exchange this one item, you can be 95% of the same character you want to be, but twice as powerful so why not take it?" It's not so much "you're doing it wrong!" as it's "let me help you do you, but better". It may me misguided and/or unwanted, but in my experience the majority of the time it's not done with an intent of malice.

[RoboEmperor]

I think the parts of the game that have the most math applied to them (i.e. your mechanical build) are the things that can most objectively be said "you're doing it wrong sub-optimally". Even if you're here for the role-play and not the roll-play (which often includes myself), there's a tendency to say things like "if you just swap this one feat and dip this one class and exchange this one item, you can be 95% of the same character you want to be, but twice as powerful so why not take it?" It's not so much "you're doing it wrong!" as it's "let me help you do you, but better". It may me misguided and/or unwanted, but in my experience the majority of the time it's not done with an intent of malice.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying there's lots of people that say optimization in any form is playing d&d badwrong.

DMM:Persist, Natural Spell, and Pounce are all fine unless the players go out of their way to optimize these to hell and back, and even then, I really only see DMM:Persist as a possible problem, never Pounce or Natural Spell, yet we have lots people who say those are OP, anyone who uses them is a TO player set out to break the game, and you're playing d&d wrong if the DM includes them in his game.

Notice the person I quoted. He's claiming these mid-op strategies are "hyperoptimization".

[Aetis]

They are not broken, and I see them at my table all the time.

Even DMM Persist is pretty manageable as long as you don't let the PCs double dip turning attempts/eat nightsticks like french fries.

Casters aren't broken, as long as you ban the obvious abuses.

[Deepbluediver]

They are not broken, and I see them at my table all the time.

Even DMM Persist is pretty manageable as long as you don't let the PCs double dip turning attempts/eat nightsticks like french fries.

Casters aren't broken, as long as you ban the obvious abuses.

If you have to ban obvious stuff to keep the balance in check, it's broken (and even leaving out the truly game-breaking stuff there's still a lot of things that are pretty badly balanced). Can you play a fine game without homebrew and have the casters get along with everyone else? Yes, so long as people abide by the gentleman's agreement. But that's because the players are playing well, not because the mechanics aren't abusable.

Most people operate under a "worst case scenario" type of mindset, and try to take that into account.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying there's lots of people that say optimization in any form is playing d&d badwrong.

I'm still not sure I get what point you're trying to make, then; could you please explain it another way?