Some Basic Questions on 3e

Remove all ads!

1. Why do almost everyone think that the Rangers and Bards suck? I mean, they are very good, the only thing they miss is more good feats and a greater number of them, and Bards is good at the most, only that they should have a hit dice of D8, if they had, they would kick ass in a good party.

2. Why doesn't anyone think that the Fighter is bad? I mean, without their extra feats and weapon spezialiation(which only add +2 in damage) they are just much worse than Barbarians without rage and just like Paladin without holy powers and Rangers without spells and favored enemies.

3. Do anyone else thinks it's odd only holy warriors of good exists? I can't understand why no Paladins of Bane nor Kelemvor exists, why shouldn't they have warrior that strife for their cause and fall if they goes against their code. Myself, I plainly change the rules(I am the DM) and edit the Smite Evil unto Smite Good and Protection from Evil to its counterpart. For neutral Paladins it's a pain to give spells and abilities, but fortunatly no-one have become anyone yet.

4. Why didn't those people at WotC decide to scrap 3.5e totally? I mean, Gnomish Bards just doesn't make any ****ing sence!!

More will be added later on.

 

1. In 3E, Rangers are just front loaded. They get three bonus feats at first level, then... just kind of get spells and favored enemies. Not very impressive, if you ask me. I think Bards are good, but only in the context of other allies (since Inspire Courage and Inspire Competence can help a lot).

2. I think Fighters are good. Their problem is that they get less powerful in comparison with spellcasters at high levels. A 20th-level Wizard can summon Succubi; a 20th-level Druid can can a small army of elements; a 20th-level Fighter can... bash stuff a lot better than a 10th-level Fighter.

3. Fighter/Cleric of (insert deity/entity/philosphy)? Blackguards? Prestige Classes (Holy Liberator)? Eldritch Knight? Eh? Eh?

4. Ironically, I think 3.5E answers a lot of 1, 2, and 3. Rangers and Bards were given new perks and balanced out (Rangers have Evasion, can hide in the middle of nowhere, which is pretty cool). Fighters were given a boost with new Fighter feats. Spells and Monsters and other stuff were revised to become clearer and balanced. But if you don't want to play it (because you think 3.5E stinks our just because you don't want to make the trouble of a switch), then just don't.

 

Yeah, the blackguard is one, but then the paladins should as wel only be a prestige class.
And I don't think that Fighter/Clerics is as good as paladins, it just gives you a mediocre fighter and a mediocre cleric instead of a great fighter and a mediocre cleric.
Eldricht and Holy Liberators I have not seen as I do not have Master's of Faith.

 

I guess you could always take a look at Book of Hallowed Might, Arcana Unearthed, and Unearthed Arcana. Those books have variant rules on Paladins of different alignment, a new class called the Champion, and variant rules on the Palaidn being a Prestige Class, respectively.

 

I have started to think that atleast paladins and rangers should be prestige classes instead of pure classes, especially the paladin. Perhaps not with very rigid prerecquisities but still.

As for fighters, yes, they are "underpowered". They are very good at what they do but what they do is so narrow and they are limited to only bashing things. I dont think I would want to play a fighter at high level, all they would do is to hold of the baddies so the other classes can take care of them. However I cant really see what can be done about the fighter and they are dominating at low levels.

 

Fighters: But they do have all those feats. That's what makes them so powerful. Specialisation matters especially with DEX-intense characters using low damage dice weapons. Well, +2 to damage is like from 4 STR more.

Many races have fighter as favourite class, which enables cheap-cost small mix-ins in the type of rogue(2) or monk(1).

Several deities allow clerics or paladins free multiclassing with fighter class. This makes you not lose anything much if you decide to follow divine calling

Paladins aren't a genuinely D&D concept. They're made after the paladins from old tales. Keltic legends, chansons de geste, bards' tales, Arthurian legends, Charlemagne legends...

And the word comes from Latin palatinus, which means of the palace. The monarch's chosen companions, sort of. Thus the 12 paladins of Charlemagne.

Therefore, they're associated with chivalrousness, righteousness and goodness. The warriors of Light. Deities not fitting here can have holy (holy not implying good or right) warriors, blessed champions etc.

BTW, Kelemvor is LN and so can have paladins. He also hates undead, which makes him a good choice. And an interesting one, as I haven't ever seen a paladin of Kelemvor

Why?

 

Well, they make sence, but making them a favored class? That's like making Paladins to Half-Orcs as their favoured class.

 

About the Fighter, my favorite class of all time:

The Barbarian and Paladin outshine the Fighter at low levels in melee combat.

At high levels, Clerics, Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians, Rogues, and even Bards kick the Fighter's ass in melee combat. Heck, even a Wizard or Sorcerer can beat up a Fighter hand-to-hand at high levels, although not so easily.

The only class a Fighter can triumph over is probably the Commoner. And it'll be a close fight at that.

Which should not be the case since that's about the only thing the Fighter is supposed to be good at.

Fighters are severely underpowered. All the other classes need to be drastically weakened or the Fighter class needs a total revamping.

 

Complete Warrior, anyone?

 

@Shura, finally someone agrees on my point.

I have just added the Paladin as a PrC now, not a class anymore. It needs basically the same things as the Blackguard, but now both of them needs to be able to turn undead, and that makes you have at least one cleric level.

Hmm, I am thinking of doing a Wizard-Slayer prestige class, comments?

 

1. Rangers and Bards doesn't suck, with 3.5E that is. I think Ranger/Bards are great, if you create them to be kind of like a Satyr.

2. Fighter, could take any one in a melee battle, because of the tons of feats they get, if a barbarian is tripped his rage is useless. In 3.5E Fighters can get Greater Weapon Focus, and Greater Weapon Specialization, thats two powerful feats.

3. Same as Chevalier.

4. A) Money; B) 3E is fixed. And the gnomish bard, gnomes are tricksters and so are bards, if you dont like this change it back to illusionist.

And why do you despice 3.5E so much? It's a major improvement to the D&D system.
And Half-Orc Paladins, why not? They are savages but they do have some honor, and they are Half-Human, Half-Elves have no problem in becoming paladins, and neither do elves, so why not an Orc Paladin?

The Wizard-Slayer, look up Magic of Faerûn, the Mage-Killer.

 

It turns out that Sean K. Reynolds is preparing a another rant - this one on why non-Lawful Good deities shouldn't have champions like Paladins.

Stay tuned, folks

 

Ah yes. The Fighter and his feats. They're very impressive theoretically. In practice? Not so.

Weapon Spec. only applies to creatures with discernible anatomies. The Barbarian dices undead as easily as he does orcs with rage.

Try Disarming a dragon. Or an otyugh. Or a dire wolf. Tripping a carrion crawler? Sundering a hook horror? A greataxe with rage or a holy avenger with smite works much better in these cases. The Fighter, for all his/her acclaimed versatility, can apply his/her feats mostly to living, weapon wielding humanoids around his/her size category.

Skills: The Fighter has the suckiest skills ever. Ever. The Barbarian and Ranger can track, amongst the other nature-relevant skills. The Paladin has supreme diplomacy equaled only by a bard or charismatic rogue. A Fighter can...swim! Yay! Wow, he can jump! But not as well due to his lousy skill points/level. I bet he can Intimidate very well with a Charisma of 8 (which is fairly standard for most Fighters).

A thundering greataxe +3 becomes obscenely powerful with greater rage. A holy avenger augmented by smite evil basically means an instant 1-hit kill for any opponents of evil alignment. A flaming greatsword/spiked chain +3 with weapon specialization is just...bleagh.

A Fighter using the spiked chain with the Improved Trip, Combat Reflexes, and Improved Disarm feats is pretty sweet at low levels. Until the evil wizard roasts him with a fireball that the Barbarian soaks up easily because of rage and the Paladin is only slightly burnt because of divine grace.

The Fighter has the worst saving throws and defensive abilities ever. The Barbarian has uncanny dodge and damage reduction at high levels, the Paladin has Divine Grace and spells.
Expertise and Superior Expertise won't help when the Balor is smacking you with his vorpal sword. Greater Rage and a level 20 Smite Evil does.

Therefore, the Fighter is underpowered and needs to be redone. Either that, all the other classes need to be weakened. Or more powerful Fighter exclusive feats need to be introduced.

 

If you ask me, I don't think the Fighter (or Barbarian or Paladin) is just weaker at lower levels. A low-level Fighter gets two bonus feats at his first two levels, and is going to have an excellent attack bonus (high Str, Weapon Focus, masterwork weapon, etc., etc.), and probably the highest AC possible at a low level (16-20, most likely). Wizards and Sorcerers are in real danger of getting killed, and Monks and Barbarians have poor AC. At mid-to-high levels, the Fighter begins to get the short end of the stick, but he is going to have a good set of magic items by then anyways.

If it still bugs you that much, Shura, you can always look into Prestige Classes and/or CW

By the way, Weapon Specialization always applies to any enemy so long as you're within 30 feet.

 

I agree that bard as favoured class for gnomes sucks a great deal.

 

I think it's a bit cheating that the all classes but the fighter can become awesome without the need of PrC. I mean, a level 20 wizard is AWESOME, a level 20 fighter is mediocre at best. Then you'll say "be a PrC" but then, so can all the other classes, making them WAAAYY better than the fighter.

 

Not really. Personally, I think most PRCs suck balls. (There are exceptions, but your average supplementbook prc sucks.) You often have to invest skills or feats in places you won't use or are hardly beneficial to your character. That's why I usually stick to the one class, or multiclass between the PHB classes.

 

Well, hey, a 1st level Fighter can take 12 points of punishment (assuming the EL 1 encounters even break his high AC or Fort save), whereas a 1st level Wizard can fling one Magic Missile and then is just a sitting duck with 12 AC and 5 hp (or 8 if he spends a feat on Toughness).

So you might as well say that Wizards suck.

 

Level 1 Wizard VS Level 1 Fighter.

Scenario One: Fighter wins initiative. Attacks Wizard with +1 BAB. High chance of missing. Even if the blow connects, the Wizard might not die from it.

Wizard takes 5 foot step back and casts Sleep/Color Spray. Coup de grace with dagger.

Scenario Two: Wizard wins initiative. Casts Sleep/Color Spray. Coup de grace dagger.