31 réponses à ce sujet

[Grani]

After analyzing all arguments for and against, I'm seriously beginning to consider removing CoT altogether from my module in the making.

 

There are several things that made me think it might be a good choice.

 

1. Virtually no difference lore-wise between paladins and CoTs - if you showed abilities of these classes to someone not familiar with NWN or D&D and asked them which one is a paladin, they'd probably have to guess. Other classes, even when similar, still have their characteristic traits that differentiate them. Shadowdancers, for example, while proficient in hiding just as rogues are, manipulate shadows to accomplish this. Fighters have versatility that Weapon Masters lack, while WMs, in turn, are focused on a single aspect of fighting, dealing high damage. Paladins and CoTs, on the other hand, have no such notable difference. As such, I can't get rid of the feeling that CoTs do not serve to fill any niche.

2. Pointlessness of taking more than 20 paladin levels - there is virtually no reason not to multiclass once you reach paladin lvl20. Even those who want to stay as "pure" paladins most often decide to multiclass with CoT, since lore-wise there's almost no difference between the two anyway. If CoTs are removed and paladins are given their Divine Wrath spanning paladin's epic levels, levelling pure paladins will be a viable option.

 

3. Sacred Defence is too good - CoTs might not be as powerful by default as Weapon Masters, but they're not far behind, and the reason for this is mainly Sacred Defence. (Of course I'm not for removing any class that is too powerful, but it's still one of the arguments I have for removal of the class.)

 

4. My module is a non-FR one - so there's no such deity as Torm here. I could, of course, rename the class to generic Divine Champion, but then there would be even fewer differences between them and paladins, see point 1.

 

 

So, to sum up, I'd want to remove CoTs altogether and give paladins Divine Wrath in return. In a single move (well, two moves, to be exact) I'd make high paladin levels useful, remove imbalance in the form of CoT's Sacred Defence and remove a class that basically shares the exact role of another class.

Now, since such stuff is not just a slight modification of game rules, but something bigger, I'd like to hear your opinions on that. If you're a player, would you feel limited by having CoT unavailable to you? If so, why?

If you're a builder, do you see any other complications or downsides of doing this?
Tell me whatever you think.

[MrZork]

I don't disagree with the flavor of some of your comments. But,

 

1a. Lorewise, your point about fighters and weapon masters applies here as well: CoTs have a versatility the Paladins lack. The primary benefits if CoT for paladins is the feat progression. There is also the advantage of a nice save bonus for paladins who are not CHA builds and the possibility of an attack buff feat that works against non-evil opponents.

 

1b. Lorewise, the role of CoTs isn't limited to a paladin add-on. CoT gives other classes a little access to some divine abilities without having to be lawful good and (even for LG toons) without having to take a feat-starved class. If the only purpose for CoTs were to provide a multiclass option for paladins, then one might simply give paladins some bonus feats and be done with it, but there are lots of non-paladin CoTs out there. Not to mention that, once again, the bonus feats are much of the draw for CoTs, particularly to non-humans (and non-half-elves) and anyone concerned about experience penalties for multiclassing with base classes.

 

2. There are a few reasons for taking paladin levels above 20. One obvious one is resistance to dispels, which can be important in any environment where enemy casters attempt to debuff buffed PCs (true on many worlds and on PWs and other modules that use Tony K's popular AI mod). The other obvious benefit is that Turn Undead will lose relative effectiveness if one quits advancing as a paladin (or cleric). Since one of the areas that paladins shine is in being able to wade into a horde of undead and blast them to smithereens, this is sort of an archetypal paladin ability. And, of course, post-level 20, paladins start getting bonus feats at a faster rate, which is significant for a class often thought of as low on feats.

 

3. I am not sure I see your point here. Sacred defense is a good feat. "Too good" is too subjective to mean much without some context. At least half of the CoT builds that I have seen only take CoT to level 10 (where the feat progression slows), for which sacred defense  gives a +5 save bonus, subject to the +20 cap. Quite nice, but hard to justify as too good in the face of other class abilities. Consider that a paladin with only a 14 CHA can buff himself to +5 or +6 saves (+3 or +4 long-term), without CHA gear, not subject to the cap. Any actual smite build will have at least +7 or +8 saves, +9 to +12 self-buffed, all uncapped and that's still without gear. Then another +2 from protection from alignment and another +2 from magic circle against alignment and we are looking in the neighborhood of a +15 save buff, only +4 subject to the cap, all before gear. Not that there is anything wrong with that, either, but I think it provides a bit more of a benchmark against which to think about whether sacred defense is too good or not.

 

4. I agree; the name is overly specific. Change it. Even in the Bioware official campaigns, which are all set in the Forgotten Realms, there is zero requirement that a CoT be a follower of Torm.

 

Anyway, it's your module, so mod it to fit your vision. My tendency is to stay away from modules that make many changes to the game that go beyond bug fixes.

[Gruftlord]

As a player i would not play such a game. Mostly because i like adding cot to my fighter character. I think melee characters lack in strength compared to casters anyway, so whatever trick i can (not literally of course, especialy online) use to make up for it, i'll use it. As a second aspect, i think anyone who thinks that cot is the first and foremost issue in balancing their module will make further bad decission, and the module is probably not worth my time even with other classes.

[Grani]

If you don't like heavily modified rules, MrZork, you won't like my module whether I leave CoT in the game or not.

But anyway, uou make some very good points and I might reconsider removing the class altogether.

 

 

i think anyone who thinks that cot is the first and foremost issue in balancing their module will make further bad decission, and the module is probably not worth my time even with other classes.

 

Looks like you added something yourself, since I never said CoT is "the first and foremost issue in balancing".

[Gruftlord]

I assumed, since it's the only issue you asked about, that it's probably the hardest for you to make your mind up. You present it as the issue, where you care about outside input the most. I hope the CoT issue is the most important one to you, since i think the issue that is most important to you should also be the issue where it should be most important to get feedback on.

[Shadooow]

There are other viable CoT builds, Bard CoT RDD, Druid Cot Monk, Bard CoT BG  Cleric CoT Monk etc.

 

not just Paladin+CoT

[Grani]

It's true, I suppose too many builds would be lost if I took such drastic measures.
Ok, then, I'll find some means of making CoTs stand out more.

 

Thanks.

 

Out of curiosity, however, as MrZork said he generally stays away from modules with many modifications, I'd like to know the reason for this.

Do you simply like to have everything the way you're familiar with? Or do you think any change would be a change for the worse? Do you avoid PWs for this reason, since almost every PW has its own house-rules, sometimes going as far as changing every spell in some way or even allowing only base classes and no multiclassing?

Since the subject of this thread was the last thing I had to consider as far as house rules go, I can already tell how many modifications I made in my module: 19 feats modified, 26 spells modified, 17 base weapons modified, 11 classes modified and 4 other modifications implemented.

[Aelis Eine]

To be in line with vanilla D&D3 or 3.5 you could simply cap it at 5 levels and remove the alignment restriction - it's based on Divine Champion

[Grani]

To be in line with vanilla D&D3 or 3.5 you could simply cap it at 5 levels and remove the alignment restriction - it's based on Divine Champion

 

The problem is, I'd have to create Smite Infidel feat, since CoTs were given Smite Evil, whereas, according to vanilla rules, they should have Smite Infidel instead.

[Aelis Eine]

That should be easy enough. Just make it an instant self buff like PDK's skills. Use it to create an on hit cast spell effect on the caster's weapon/glove that does the damage it's supposed to on the correct target and removes itself once it hits.

[MrZork]

Out of curiosity, however, as MrZork said he generally stays away from modules with many modifications, I'd like to know the reason for this.

Do you simply like to have everything the way you're familiar with? Or do you think any change would be a change for the worse? Do you avoid PWs for this reason, since almost every PW has its own house-rules, sometimes going as far as changing every spell in some way or even allowing only base classes and no multiclassing?

Well, not everything has to be what I am familiar with for me to want to play it. New is fun. But, the "new" thing that I am excited about is typically a new story more than new game mechanics because, at some level, I play NWN expecting to play NWN. So, I am hesitant to invest my limited playing time into some other game that has been rebalanced according to someone else's necessarily subjective notion of what that means. That isn't to say that many people can't have gotten it better than Bioware did, but it's a risk each time. For all of its quirks, I have played NWN since 2009 and feel like I know my way around most of the pitfalls and know how to design a character I will enjoy playing. And - though perhaps this is more a quirk particular to me than to others - I like to understand what us going on behind the scenes with the game mechanics. Modules that change too much require a greater investment of time before I can know what I am doing and feel competent playing again. In that regard, playing a new module is a little like reading a new book and tweaking the rules is like tweaking the language the book is written in. I enjoy reading a new book and it doesn't bother me if there are some thees and thous in there and it adds flavor if the author has invented some new words or interesting colloquialisms for his world. But, I am mostly reading for the new story and, if every few pages I have to deal with a paragraph of Sanskrit, then I am out.

 

Obviously, not all changes are changes for the worse. For sure, I am fine with any change that is a bona fide bug fix. There are things like Evard's that sometimes don't do what they are clearly supposed to (where there is an obvious bug in the code that Bioware never would have implemented that way deliberately) and things like the UMD check that breaks scroll casting for several classes that Bioware knew about but decided was okay to ship because they were worried that a better implementation would cause lag on slower machines (probably not true then and definitely not true now). Et cetera. I am not opposed to bug fixes.

 

And, as I have stated in some other threads, there are many instances of things where a changed spell or feat can take something that pretty much no one uses (Bioware's Tenser's Transformation spell or Blinding Speed feat) and at least make it part of the mix. And, there are plenty of ideas for improvements that would suit my sensibilities quite well. As an example, it seems like Bioware never rewrote most damage spells after HotU came out so that they scale into the epic levels. Because of that, despite the fact that Fireball and Lightning Bolt are archetypal mage spells, most of my epic mages never use them and many don't even have them in their books. So, if someone wants to rewrite those scripts so that those spells are at least useful against mobs at level 30, then he isn't likely to hear too much complaining. But, here is where the water can get muddy because it's in this realm where one person's "this change makes things better" can at the same time be someone else's "this change is not an improvement, overall, and it's something new that I have to learn" or even "this change goes too far or makes things worse for the way I like to play".

 

I don't play many PWs. For one thing, aside from issues of changes, I tend to prefer low-magic environments and I am more comfortable in action settings than RP settings. So, that can already be sort of a thin slice of the pie. Then, I have to search for quite a while before I see a PW whose changes are either fairly minimal or which luckily happen to correspond to changes I think are mostly improvements. And, to be honest, there are several PWs that look very interesting but that have so many custom systems that I really feel like I ought to learn them before I start playing. Sadly for me, that often means I may never have time to try many of them out.

[MagicalMaster]

There are other viable CoT builds, Bard CoT RDD, Druid Cot Monk, Bard CoT BG  Cleric CoT Monk etc.

 

Those all could be accomplished with Fighter, however, with the only cost being slightly less saving throws and possibly a 20% XP penalty.  Champion of Torm is simply like a "super fighter" at the moment that has no downside and merely gives extra benefits (up to level 10, at least).  I mean, there's literally no downside to Fighter 30/CoT 10 over Fighter 40.  Even something like Fighter 36/Rogue 4 has 16 less HP and 2 less feats (minor and irrelevant as those downsides generally are).

[MrZork]

Champion of Torm is simply like a "super fighter" at the moment that has no downside and merely gives extra benefits (up to level 10, at least). 

Simply a "super fighter" with no downside? None? I am not sure how you mean that in the context of real builds.

 

Regardless, there are many, many build situations where CoT is a less viable option than fighter. Building an AA? Fighter is usually a better third class. Need Weapon Specialization and already have two class slots occupied? No way to do it without fighter. Need some extra melee presence for an assassin or blackguard for a module that enforces alignment restrictions? Forget about CoT. Putting together a open-hand monk toon on a tight feat budget? There is a good chance fighter is better than CoT.

 

BTW, nothing that I am saying here implies that CoT isn't a powerful class or that it isn't overpowered by some metric or other. And, for sure, there are many situations in which taking CoT levels instead of fighter levels is a much better choice. But, "no downside" is a very strong statement.

[WhiZard]

There are downsides when comparing COT to fighter.  COT does not give weapon specialization; if you combine fighter and COT to get it, you will only have one class left to multiclass.  COT gives one less feat pre-epic compared to the fighter, and is much worse at giving feats after level 10.

 

EDIT:Looks like MrZork posted this before I did.

[MagicalMaster]

Simply a "super fighter" with no downside? None? I am not sure how you mean that in the context of real builds.

Consider it modified to something more along the lines of "90%+ of the time it has zero downside." Just about every class has at least SOME downside period, minor as it may be, in every situation it's used -- whether it's losing HP, saves, spell progression, bonus feats, class feats, skill points, etc.

If you already have Fighter levels then taking CoT levels over more Fighter levels is pure gain until CoT 11+ (if you don't have all class slots filled and have melee focus).

Building an AA? Fighter is usually a better third class.

Sure, though potentially at the cost of 20% XP penalty or having to go half-elf.

My AAs tend to be fighter based, though -- fighter for 6 levels, wizard for 1 level, AA the rest of the way except for 1 more fighter level for EWS in epic levels. So CoT isn't remotely an option at that point since you can't start with it, hence I wasn't considering it. Though if you're going Bard heavy AA I'm not sure it's even worth taking Fighter -- taking 5 levels of fighter is losing 3 AB and 3 damage, which is better than 6 damage.

Need Weapon Specialization and already have two class slots occupied? No way to do it without fighter.

"Need" is a strong word and the value of (E)WS is often severely overrated, but sure. If you really want (E)WS and your other two classes are set in stone then you need Fighter.

Need some extra melee presence for an assassin or blackguard for a module that enforces alignment restrictions?

That's not a downside of taking CoT, that just means you can't take CoT.

Putting together a open-hand monk toon on a tight feat budget? There is a good chance fighter is better than CoT.

I'd be rather interested in seeing that monk, since it's usually dual-wielding monks that tend to be more feat starved.

And, for sure, there are many situations in which taking CoT levels instead of fighter levels is a much better choice. But, "no downside" is a very strong statement.

Indeed. I was thinking of it from the perspective of having fighter levels already and having an open class slot (and ignoring builds that open with fighter since obviously CoT isn't a viable replacement). So let's go with my modified statement at the start of this post if you prefer.

EDIT:Looks like MrZork posted this before I did.

He's a ninja.

[Aelis Eine]

Thing is, if you really wanted to eliminate redundancy you'd have to redo everything from the ground up. Rogue and Assassin, CoT and Fighter, Sorcerer and Wizard... even DD and Barbarian are all very mechanically similar classes that, in a typical CRPG, would likely be handled as a different specialization of the same class rather than a new class altogether.

 

It's bottomless rabbit hole that you'll end up jumping into.

[Terrorble]

CoT bonus feats taken in epic levels give access to Great Wisdom feats, iirc.  It's one way to get dragon shape.

 

Before 1.69 Paladin level was more important since it was used to determine the power of the Holy Avenger dispel.  Now, I suppose it doesn't matter unless you've rescripted HA to grant an OnHit dispel and the full paladin level.

 

 

Unless it's really breaking something in the module or being abused, I would keep CoT.  If your module uses haks, you could change the levels at which CoT gets its Sacred Defense feats.  Spread it out to every 3rd level instead of every 2nd up to 10.

[MrZork]

Consider it modified to something more along the lines of "90%+ of the time it has zero downside." [...]

Indeed. I was thinking of it from the perspective of having fighter levels already and having an open class slot (and ignoring builds that open with fighter since obviously CoT isn't a viable replacement). So let's go with my modified statement at the start of this post if you prefer.

Hehe. Fair enough. IMO, that's a pretty restricted set of circumstances. I don't know if 90% of the builds I have seen (or even just 90% of the builds where fighter is an option) would fit those criteria, and even then there is some downside to CoT, though it might be the better choice for the build, overall.
 

My AAs tend to be fighter based, though -- fighter for 6 levels, wizard for 1 level, AA the rest of the way except for 1 more fighter level for EWS in epic levels. So CoT isn't remotely an option at that point since you can't start with it, hence I wasn't considering it. Though if you're going Bard heavy AA I'm not sure it's even worth taking Fighter -- taking 5 levels of fighter is losing 3 AB and 3 damage, which is better than 6 damage.

I am not fully following you again on either part of that. You can't build an AA with only 7 non-AA levels pre-epic. If you are looking to maximize AB in the pre-epic stage, then presumably you are going 6 fighter, 1 wizard, 10 AA, and then either 3 more fighter (in order to take EWS on a fighter bonus feat in epics) or 2 fighter and 1 more wizard (to cap off spellcraft for saves). Then round out the build with 19 AA levels in epics, with one fighter level set aside for EWS.

(BTW, I am no AA build-master, so that's just the most obvious class split for that build to me. If there is a way to get a better result for pre-epic fighter-wizard-AAs, I would love to learn about it.)

And, with the bard AA, how is taking 5 levels of fighter costing you 3 AB and 3 damage over the non-fighter AA? Once again, you would be taking no more than 10 AA levels pre-epic either way. I am not saying it can't be done with buffing (bard song, curse song, Cat's Grace, and Bull's Strength with mighty bows, both possibly empowered), but that's adding a whole other level of complexity to the discussion...

[MagicalMaster]

Thing is, if you really wanted to eliminate redundancy you'd have to redo everything from the ground up.

 

That's a bit of an overstatement.

 

Rogue and Assassin, CoT and Fighter, Sorcerer and Wizard... even DD and Barbarian

 

Rogues and Assassins are a perfect example of what I'm talking about.  If you go rogue, you gain 4 more skill points per level.  If you go assassin, you gain special abilities to enhance your attacks.  Delving into assassin versus staying rogue (or dipping into assassin versus dipping into rogue) offer that clear tradeoff (even if assassin doesn't actually offer all that much).

 

CoT and Fighter, sure.

 

Sorcerer and Wizard are redundant in role, perhaps, but drastically different in playstyle.  Each approaches spells in a very different way.  Removing one from the game would remove a preferred spell system.  If anything I think this kind of redundancy is good -- call it active preference redundancy versus passive redundancy if you like.

 

DD and Barbarian are somewhat redundant in practice, in theory Barbarian should gain more benefits from higher level rage and more offense while DD should gain more defense.

 

Unless it's really breaking something in the module or being abused, I would keep CoT.  If your module uses haks, you could change the levels at which CoT gets its Sacred Defense feats.  Spread it out to every 3rd level instead of every 2nd up to 10.

 

The problem is the bonus feats, not the Sacred Defense.  Feat like every three levels would make more sense.  Extra feats compared to paladin but less spells, less feats compared to fighter but more saves.

 

Hehe. Fair enough. IMO, that's a pretty restricted set of circumstances. I don't know if 90% of the builds I have seen (or even just 90% of the builds where fighter is an option) would fit those criteria, and even then there is some downside to CoT, though it might be the better choice for the build, overall.

 

I'm also thinking of it from the perspective of a campaign, not just a level 40 world.  Imagine you're a level 8 Fighter and your campaign will last for 4 more levels.  Do you keep going Fighter or switch to CoT?  There's literally no reason NOT to go CoT at this point.  Taking rogue levels for skill points/UMD/tumble would lower your HP and AB, for example, but CoT is nothing but bonuses.

 

I am not fully following you again on either part of that. You can't build an AA with only 7 non-AA levels pre-epic. If you are looking to maximize AB in the pre-epic stage, then presumably you are going 6 fighter, 1 wizard, 10 AA, and then either 3 more fighter (in order to take EWS on a fighter bonus feat in epics) or 2 fighter and 1 more wizard (to cap off spellcraft for saves). Then round out the build with 19 AA levels in epics, with one fighter level set aside for EWS.

 

9 fighter/1 wizard/10 AA pre-epic, yes.  Which means there's no possible way to take CoT instead of fighter.  Ditto for something like 7 fighter/3 wizard/10 AA if you're spellcraft obsessed or something.  Hence comparing CoT to Fighter in this case is irrelevant since CoT is not a possible alternative to Fighter.

 

And, with the bard AA, how is taking 5 levels of fighter costing you 3 AB and 3 damage over the non-fighter AA? Once again, you would be taking no more than 10 AA levels pre-epic either way. I am not saying it can't be done with buffing (bard song, curse song, Cat's Grace, and Bull's Strength with mighty bows, both possibly empowered), but that's adding a whole other level of complexity to the discussion...

 

Let's say you're going something like 16 Bard/24 AA.  If you want to get EWS, then you'd switch that to something like Bard 16/Fighter 5/AA 19 -- in other words, the fighter levels subtract from the AA levels, not the bard levels.  Thus you'd be losing Enchant Arrow bonuses in exchange for EWS (in this case you'd only lose 2 AB/2 damage for EWS since you ended on an even AA level and are subtracting 5 levels, but you get the general idea).

[MrZork]

 

Hehe. Fair enough. IMO, that's a pretty restricted set of circumstances. I don't know if 90% of the builds I have seen (or even just 90% of the builds where fighter is an option) would fit those criteria, and even then there is some downside to CoT, though it might be the better choice for the build, overall.

 
I'm also thinking of it from the perspective of a campaign, not just a level 40 world.  Imagine you're a level 8 Fighter and your campaign will last for 4 more levels.  Do you keep going Fighter or switch to CoT?  There's literally no reason NOT to go CoT at this point.  Taking rogue levels for skill points/UMD/tumble would lower your HP and AB, for example, but CoT is nothing but bonuses.

 

 
I was thinking of campaign situations as well. But, campaigns allow a toon to take up to three classes, so there are still opportunity costs for taking CoT in that third class, instead of some other class. I would agree that generally one benefits from not diluting a build at lower levels. But, you are contriving a situation in which the toon can take CoT levels in place of additional fighter levels and saying there is no cost. I would agree that for a toon with 1) at least 4 fighter levels, 2) at least one class slot open, and 3) no option but to take additional fighter levels or start taking CoT levels, then he is better off with CoT. But, that's hardly the only situation (even in campaigns) and in the vast majority of other situations, there is at least some downside to taking CoT levels. (Once again, I am not saying CoT won't be a good choice overall for many cases where one of those three criterion aren't met, but there will be some trade-off for it.)
 

 

I am not fully following you again on either part of that. You can't build an AA with only 7 non-AA levels pre-epic. If you are looking to maximize AB in the pre-epic stage, then presumably you are going 6 fighter, 1 wizard, 10 AA, and then either 3 more fighter (in order to take EWS on a fighter bonus feat in epics) or 2 fighter and 1 more wizard (to cap off spellcraft for saves). Then round out the build with 19 AA levels in epics, with one fighter level set aside for EWS.

9 fighter/1 wizard/10 AA pre-epic, yes.  Which means there's no possible way to take CoT instead of fighter.  Ditto for something like 7 fighter/3 wizard/10 AA if you're spellcraft obsessed or something.  Hence comparing CoT to Fighter in this case is irrelevant since CoT is not a possible alternative to Fighter.

 
Got it. I misread the context of your comment. I agree that there is little opportunity/incentive to take CoT levels in AA builds, which is why I mentioned that earlier in the thread.
 

 

And, with the bard AA, how is taking 5 levels of fighter costing you 3 AB and 3 damage over the non-fighter AA? Once again, you would be taking no more than 10 AA levels pre-epic either way. I am not saying it can't be done with buffing (bard song, curse song, Cat's Grace, and Bull's Strength with mighty bows, both possibly empowered), but that's adding a whole other level of complexity to the discussion...

Let's say you're going something like 16 Bard/24 AA.  If you want to get EWS, then you'd switch that to something like Bard 16/Fighter 5/AA 19 -- in other words, the fighter levels subtract from the AA levels, not the bard levels.  Thus you'd be losing Enchant Arrow bonuses in exchange for EWS (in this case you'd only lose 2 AB/2 damage for EWS since you ended on an even AA level and are subtracting 5 levels, but you get the general idea).

 

I see what you are saying, "the fighter levels subtract from the AA levels, not the bard levels" because you are choosing to do it that way. One could easily take those 5 (or 4 if one is being conservative) fighter levels from the bard levels and not lose AA levels. I assume that you mean that the resulting build wouldn't be as much of a bard-heavy build. And I agree.

Meanwhile, even if the player chooses to take all the fighter levels in place of AA levels rather than in place of bard levels, the net change isn't exactly -2 AB and -2 damage because EWS gives +4 damage. So the net change is -2 AB and +2 damage. Whether or not that is worth it depends on the environment. If the toon is rarely encountering high-AC opponents and hitting most opponents on all but natural 1s for most of his attacks, I would tend to take EWS for better damage on opponents with DR or piercing resistance.

[Aelis Eine]

 

Rogues and Assassins are a perfect example of what I'm talking about.  If you go rogue, you gain 4 more skill points per level.  If you go assassin, you gain special abilities to enhance your attacks.  Delving into assassin versus staying rogue (or dipping into assassin versus dipping into rogue) offer that clear tradeoff (even if assassin doesn't actually offer all that much).

 

Sorcerer and Wizard are redundant in role, perhaps, but drastically different in playstyle.  Each approaches spells in a very different way.  Removing one from the game would remove a preferred spell system.  If anything I think this kind of redundancy is good -- call it active preference redundancy versus passive redundancy if you like.

 

I don't think a Ranger 9/Shadowdancer 1/Assassin 30 switching to Ranger 10/Shadowdancer 1/Rogue 29 loses a lot of special abilities to enhance attacks. Especially since both Rogue and Assassin are both UMD classes, the buffs that Assassin gets are quite redundant.

 

In fact, depending on how you spread your levels, the Rogue build gets 16 more skill points from being able to start as Rogue at level 1, gets 1 more BAB from being able to do pre-epic as Rogue 12/Ranger 8 and gets 1 more bonus feat at epic level as well.

 

And in practice, many players start off as Wizard in a PW and then switch to Sorcerer once they know the server and its spells inside out. Barring RP restrictions e.g. settings like Dragonlance, PWs, especially action servers, struggle to make Wizard an attractive option vs Sorcerer. The inverse applies for Single Player modules, although it's less of an issue.

[MagicalMaster]

 I was thinking of campaign situations as well. But, campaigns allow a toon to take up to three classes, so there are still opportunity costs for taking CoT in that third class, instead of some other class.

 

How many characters actually have three classes prior to level 15ish, which is what most campaigns entail?

 

 But, that's hardly the only situation (even in campaigns) and in the vast majority of other situations, there is at least some downside to taking CoT levels.

 

I think you're vastly overestimating how many people powerbuild.  Most people don't skill dump or even triple class at all.  They're not going with the goal of 12 fighter/3 rogue/25 WM or 38 sorc/1 paladin/1 monk or whatever.  You (and I) are in this "elite bubble" where that stuff seems to be second nature but most people do not play that way.

 

So the whole situation of "Hey, I'm a fighter...and I guess I'm automatically qualified for CoT which is literally the exact same as a fighter plus extra saves for 10 levels" is quite common.  Or "I'm a fighter/rogue hybrid...and I guess that CoT thing which I apparently qualified for is straight up better than more fighter levels."  Etc.  You can basically stumble into CoT and see it as nothing but an improvement over what you're already doing.

 

In an absolute sense, there is the opportunity cost and playing a weaker character overall...but if we're judging by that standard then there's like half a dozen or so power builds and everything else is just flat out weaker anyway, so that's kind of moot.  I was speaking in a practical sense for what the typical situations most people encounter.

 

 I see what you are saying, "the fighter levels subtract from the AA levels, not the bard levels" because you are choosing to do it that way. One could easily take those 5 (or 4 if one is being conservative) fighter levels from the bard levels and not lose AA levels. I assume that you mean that the resulting build wouldn't be as much of a bard-heavy build. And I agree.

 

You approach such a build by saying "I want X bard levels and what I can do to fill in the rest?"  It'll always be subtracted from the other levels.

 

 Meanwhile, even if the player chooses to take all the fighter levels in place of AA levels rather than in place of bard levels, the net change isn't exactly -2 AB and -2 damage because EWS gives +4 damage. So the net change is -2 AB and +2 damage. Whether or not that is worth it depends on the environment. If the toon is rarely encountering high-AC opponents and hitting most opponents on all but natural 1s for most of his attacks, I would tend to take EWS for better damage on opponents with DR or piercing resistance.

 

If only I had said something along those lines originally!

 

Though if you're going Bard heavy AA I'm not sure it's even worth taking Fighter -- taking 5 levels of fighter is losing 3 AB and 3 damage, which is better than 6 damage.

 

And 2 AB will be better than 2 damage 99% of the time (at the point at which we're discussing, aka epic levels).  Can show the math if you want.

 

I don't think a Ranger 9/Shadowdancer 1/Assassin 30 switching to Ranger 10/Shadowdancer 1/Rogue 29 loses a lot of special abilities to enhance attacks. Especially since both Rogue and Assassin are both UMD classes, the buffs that Assassin gets are quite redundant.

 

Use Poison, Darkness, Ghostly Visage, (Improved) Invisibility, Death Attack (the paralyze part).  Whether you think those abilities are worth losing the 4 skill points per level is irrelevant -- the intent is completely clear that it's supposed to be an alternative, regardless of actual tuning.

 

I mean, think about the inverse -- imagine that Assassin gave 1d6 Death Attack damage for EACH level, gained 1 Dexterity per 2 levels or something, and poisons were actually good.  Clearly that's not redundant -- it's a matter of tuning, not of intent.

 

And in practice, many players start off as Wizard in a PW and then switch to Sorcerer once they know the server and its spells inside out. Barring RP restrictions e.g. settings like Dragonlance, PWs, especially action servers, struggle to make Wizard an attractive option vs Sorcerer. The inverse applies for Single Player modules, although it's less of an issue.

 

Which again is a problem of tuning.  There's a clear effort to make Wizards distinct from Sorcerers.

 

That's a lot different from CoT being "Fighter...but with extra saves!"

[Aelis Eine]

 

Use Poison, Darkness, Ghostly Visage, (Improved) Invisibility, Death Attack (the paralyze part).  Whether you think those abilities are worth losing the 4 skill points per level is irrelevant -- the intent is completely clear that it's supposed to be an alternative, regardless of actual tuning.

 

I mean, think about the inverse -- imagine that Assassin gave 1d6 Death Attack damage for EACH level, gained 1 Dexterity per 2 levels or something, and poisons were actually good.  Clearly that's not redundant -- it's a matter of tuning, not of intent.

 

Which again is a problem of tuning.  There's a clear effort to make Wizards distinct from Sorcerers.

 

That's a lot different from CoT being "Fighter...but with extra saves!"

 

Use Poison - doesn't actually let you use Poison, only use Poison without a check. Easily compensated by using more poison, therefore the only advantage is economy.

 

Darkness, Ghostly Visage, Invisibility - Would be relevant if they weren't UMD classes, or if they were short duration buffs. As it is, three out of the four spells are long duration buffs and easily replicated with UMD. The last one is an area debuff good for a single fight, so UMD can come in too. Again the only advantage is economy.

 

The only differentiator is Death Attack, which makes Assassin a Rogue... but with less skill points, no Evasion, no Defensive Roll, no Slippery Mind... but it gets a bunch of abilities to help you save gold! Also a special type of Sneak Attack that needs you to engage ahead of the rest of your party, uses the most commonly stacked save and requires the target to not be immune to Sneak Attacks. In the meantime the RDD is cleaving things down with DC 53 Dev Crit.

 

Btw you can unlock Epic Spec with just 4 Fighter levels. A Bard 16/AA X could go Bard 8/AA 10/Fighter 2, take the 4th Fighter level on an epic feat level and get +6 damage in 4 levels to finish Bard 16/Fighter 4/AA 20 with 18 BAB. The alternative would be Bard 16/AA 24 with 17 BAB. The Fighter build gets 1 less AB but 4 more damage.

 

A build that allows for a straight up comparison between Fighter vs CoT would be a Monk 6-10/Cleric 26/Fighter or CoT 4-8. In that instance, it'd be +2-4 saves on a build with multiple save buffs that might already be reaching the +20 cap after items are factored in, along with a likely short duration Divine Wrath vs +6 damage. I think Fighter is ahead there.

 

Alternatively, Bard 26/RDD 10/Fighter or CoT 4. In this case, I think Fighter is significantly ahead because you don't need to focus in a weapon before gaining martial proficiency, and it's 6 damage vs +2 saves towards cap with no room for Divine Wrath.

 

IMO, CoT only comes out ahead when 1) You take 5-10 levels of CoT and 2) You can either use the Great Wisdom bonus feats or have enough Charisma and melee focus to get a good duration out of Divine Wrath. Otherwise, as a prestige class, CoT is competing with the likes of Weapon Master, AA and RDD. And like RDD, it runs out of juice after 10, especially since its saves count towards the +20 cap, meaning there's no point stacking too much of them. In contrast, by being a base class, Fighter already fits into places CoT cannot.

[MagicalMaster]

Use Poison - doesn't actually let you use Poison, only use Poison without a check. Easily compensated by using more poison, therefore the only advantage is economy.

 

Darkness, Ghostly Visage, Invisibility - Would be relevant if they weren't UMD classes, or if they were short duration buffs. As it is, three out of the four spells are long duration buffs and easily replicated with UMD. The last one is an area debuff good for a single fight, so UMD can come in too. Again the only advantage is economy.

 

Did you...like...just miss this section?

 

Use Poison, Darkness, Ghostly Visage, (Improved) Invisibility, Death Attack (the paralyze part).  Whether you think those abilities are worth losing the 4 skill points per level is irrelevant -- the intent is completely clear that it's supposed to be an alternative, regardless of actual tuning.

 

I mean, think about the inverse -- imagine that Assassin gave 1d6 Death Attack damage for EACH level, gained 1 Dexterity per 2 levels or something, and poisons were actually good.  Clearly that's not redundant -- it's a matter of tuning, not of intent.

 

Btw you can unlock Epic Spec with just 4 Fighter levels. A Bard 16/AA X could go Bard 8/AA 10/Fighter 2, take the 4th Fighter level on an epic feat level and get +6 damage in 4 levels to finish Bard 16/Fighter 4/AA 20 with 18 BAB. The alternative would be Bard 16/AA 24 with 17 BAB. The Fighter build gets 1 less AB but 4 more damage.

 

At the cost of a two feats, though.  Bard 16/Fighter 4/AA 20 gets 9 epic feats.  If one goes to spec, then that leaves Armor Skin, Epic Prowess, EWF...and now you have five feats.  Could drop EP for Great Dex VI (same AB, 1 more AC) or drop AS (one more AB, two less AC).  Overall benefit is either +5 AB and +5 AC or +6 AB and +3 AC.

 

A Bard 16/AA 24 has 10 epic feats, with EWF/AS/EP you have 7 remaining for Great Dex.  Which means you could drop AS or EP to get 8 Great Dex and for either +6 AB and +6 AC or +7 AB and +4 AC.

In essence, you always have a guaranteed 1 AB/1 AC advantage...so we go back to -2 AB in exchange for 4 damage PLUS losing an AC.

 

In contrast, by being a base class, Fighter already fits into places CoT cannot.

 

Which, as previously mentioned, is irrelevant in this case.  The question isn't whether Fighter should be removed, it's whether CoT is effectively redundant.

[Aelis Eine]

Even if you "tuned" Poison, it would still be usable by Rogues and the only advantage is still economy. If you made a new Assassin-only poison, that'd be going beyond tuning and adding something completely new, like making a Fighter-only scripted item that buffs a proc effect on a weapon/armor/shield.

 

As for Death Attack, as I said, Death Attack is the only differentiator and I don't think it's good design to make a class whose sole raison d'etre is one class ability - look at Shadowdancer. That said, I don't understand Shadowdancer as a class. Shadow Evade, Improved Evasion, Defensive Roll are essentially tanking abilities, but the one ability unique to it, HiPS, effectively drops aggro.

 

On the other hand, 1 Dex per 2 levels is you adding something completely new into the mix. You could just as well say Fighter only needs "tuning" by giving it +1AB and +1AC per 4 levels.

 

AC is pretty irrelevant to the archery build in question, considering it's essentially a support DPS role. It has no Uncanny Dodge, no Monk AC and incurs AoOs in melee range - which ignore Dex and Dodge bonus, so that's easily >20AC lost there. In melee against mobs designed to challenge a Monk/SD, PM or DD tank with healing support, it would be toast either way. Its best defense is to maintain distance and avoid getting aggro.

 

So it's 2 AB for 4 Damage which is still different from the 2 AB for 2 Damage you originally posted. On top of that, since you're going into this level of detail, the Fighter build gets 2 more pre-epic feats, and the to-buy list for this kind of Archery build typically looks like:

 

Point Blank Shot

Rapid Shot

WF Longbow

Improved Crit

Blind Fight

Toughness

Lingering Song

Curse Song

Extend Spell

Called Shot

 

So the pure AA build would have to give up two of those feats if it were indeed going for max AB. First 5 are non-negotiable. Toughness would more than compensate for the loss of 1 conditional AC for survivability, not to mention the higher base HP on Fighter compared to AA. Curse Song and Called Shot would much, much more greatly compensate. Lingering Song and Extend Spell on the other hand help with uptime for longer engagements and are harder to measure.