1. Why is it called "parry"? A "parry" implies using a weapon to block an opponent's blow. It really has nothing to do with avoiding being tripped or even disarmed. It might be more descriptively called something like "battle maneuvering" or something else that implies the gladiator's superior maneuverability and adaptability against tricky fighting.
2. Doesn't it seem a bit underpowered? A +2 bonus on defense against trips and disarms at level 14, and a +4 bonus at level 19, just doesn't really stack up against the powers available to other classes at those levels. The bonus is contingent on the DM using opponents that try to trip or disarm the gladiator, not on the gladiator activating an ability (ref. the designer's notes regarding the barbarian class vs. the ranger class in the 3.5e changeover), so it's not something that the gladiator has any control over using. It's also a rather miniscule bonus, given the level - a 14th level gladiator already has his +14 BAB, a considerable Strength score, and probably several decent enhancement bonuses; a +2 at 14th level or a +4 at 19th level is a very small amount.
I'm all for having the gladiator as a separate core class, specifically to establish its unique identity in Dark Sun. Since the first boxed set, the fighter and the gladiator have had distinct and different roles: the fighter handles mass combat and warfare, while the gladiator is as much a performer as a man-to-man combatant.
In AD&D2nd I'd agree with you, but not so much with the advent of feats. With the multitude of choices of feats out there, your fighter can be anything from a soldier to a gladiator to a thug. I don't see anything a seperate gladiator class needs to bring to the table that can not be accomplished with what is out there already.
In AD&D2nd I'd agree with you, but not so much with the advent of feats. With the multitude of choices of feats out there, your fighter can be anything from a soldier to a gladiator to a thug. I don't see anything a seperate gladiator class needs to bring to the table that can not be accomplished with what is out there already.
So does pretty much all "Complete X" core and prestige classes... Intead of making a ton of feats, you just make a class dedicated to it, so you don't have to know by heart every single feat and their combination there is.
I have a great idea for a way to revise the parry rules...but I am not sure any of you is ready for it!
I have an interesting "house rule" for parrying and combat styles that may interest you. It works as following:
Combat Styles:
Two Weapon Fight - If you fight with two weapons you have the following combat options that must be declared on your turn:
Make your attacks with each weapon normally (or more attacks if you have a high BAB and improved two-weapon fight).
Make save one or more attacks with your off-hand weapon in order to make an parry maneuver against your opponent`s attack. Basically, you trade an attack in your turn for a parry in your opponents next turn.
The parry check works as following:
Parry = BAB + Str + Feats and Weapon Bonus + d20 vs. your opponent attack roll.
Obs.: As happens with multiple attacks in the same round, if you make multiple parry atempts on the same round each subsequent attempt take a -5 BAB penalty.
Weapon and Shield Style - If you fight with weapon and shield, you can choose to spend your off-hand shield to attack or make a "block maneuver" against your opponent`s attack. The block works as following:
Block = BAB + Str + Shield AC Bonus + d20 vs. opponent modifyed attack roll.
Obs.: In your turn you can also choose to save your attack with your main weapon in order to make a parry maneuver AND a block maneuver. In this case, you trade an attack in your turn for a parry in your opponent`s next turn.
Single Weapon - If you fight with a single weapon and nothing in the other hand you have following combat options in your combat round:
To balance the lack of a "off-hand attack" characteres using the single weapon style can choose between making an "feint move" or a "dodge move", for each off-hand attack his BAB *would* grant him if fighting with two weapons.
Example: 8th level rogue (BAB +6/+1) has two attacks with his short sword and would have two off-hand attacks if fighting with two weapons. In his combat round he may declare to make two attacks with his single weapon and two feints prior each attack, or make two attacks and save the other virtual attacks in order to make two dodge maneuvers against their opponent`s attack rolls.
Dodge check works as following:
Dodge = Tumble + d20 vs. opponent`s modifyed attack roll.
Feint works as following:
Feint = Bluff + d20 vs. opponent`s Sense Motive Check or BAB + Dex + d20.
Obs.: As happens with multiple attacks in the same round, if you make multiple feint or dodge atempts on the same round each subsequent attempt take a -5 penalty.
Two Handed - If you fight with two handed weapons you dont have virtual off-handattacks in order to spend in parry maneuvers. However, you can save some of your two-handed weapon attacks in other to make parry maneuvers. Also, your attacks using two-handed weapons are harder to parry, thus you get a +4 bonus aggainst parry attempts directed against you (check Disarm rules in the PHB and the modifyers for two-handed weapons).
I agree with Jesse that the parry bonuses in the gladiator class are a bit weak for such high-level abilities. They need boosting (and renaming if they aren't really parry bonuses).
(Oh, and if you are the same Jesse Heinig who worked on Mage - tip of the hat to you
- my favourite game of all time, and I loved the work you did on it. Nice one. If you're not him, well, forgive my babbling...)Just because a board group thinks the gladiator is underpowered doesn´t necessarily make it so. I agree, however, that Parry isn´t a powerful ability considering the level it is attained, and that the name doesn´t adequately reflect the mechanics involved. We can´t go about changing rules all the time - it has consequences for all NPCs statted in adventures, accessories and such. We do, however, post revisions of the rules when enough items have accrued to warrant an update. So, hang tight. Maybe your voices will be heard.
So does pretty much all "Complete X" core and prestige classes... Intead of making a ton of feats, you just make a class dedicated to it, so you don't have to know by heart every single feat and their combination there is.
I would rather have feats than more classes to choose from. I think there are way too many classes and prestige classes as it is.
I would rather have feats than more classes to choose from. I think there are way too many classes and prestige classes as it is.
Classes I can understand, but too many PrCs? Why? The DM does what he wants - including disallowing tons of PrCs - and the player is usually happy to have many possibilities instead of few. So the problem isn't one.
You can ignore all the WotC PrCs (except those in the DMG) and instead use those of the Dark Sun PrC Appendix I and II and you'll have a small number of PrCs (compaired to the several hundred that WotC offers us fans) that are appropriate to the setting. Plus, there's a good chance your players won't have those two pdfs....so you can better control what they have access to.
IMHO, more DS-specific PrCs to choose from = better DS-flavored PCs.
IMHO, more DS-specific PrCs to choose from = better DS-flavored PCs.
We are innundated with PrCs. I'm not a fan of many of them. It just seems to me that everyone with an idea is trying to do a PrC. I do allow my players the freedom of picking whatever they want, though, as I do not like to restrict them. As long as their concept is not totally contrary to the campaign, I see no reason to restrict them.
As to DS PrCs, I don't know about them much as I use nothing from athas.org. Nothing there appeals to me very much, sorry to say.
As far as there being too many base classes for Dark Sun, it's not too bad if you limit the classes to the ones that are thematically familiar and appropriate to the setting. I personally use the classes from the PHB, minus the monk, the paladin, and the sorcerer; then I add the gladiator, the templar, the psion and psychic warrior from the XPH, the ardent from CP, and the scout from CV. That's it.
While it's possible to make feats to replicate certain class features, that way leads to just getting rid of classes and using feats to emulate all class features. In such a schema, you'd just use the rules from Unearthed Arcana for the simplified game with only three classes. For Dark Sun, I like the more role-oriented approach of distinctive classes that have distinct class abilities. Thus, the gladiator not only has bonus feats, but class abilities that aren't granted by any sort of feat; the preserver and defiler have special rules for their casting that are not necessarily always feat-oriented; the bard (especially in the athas.org version!) has class features that do things you can't do with feats. This also helps to give each class a "protected niche" that makes it distinctive - even if you play a social rogue, for instance, you cannot get the bard trade secrets without taking bard levels; their roles are therefore delineated and separate. I like doing the same for the gladiator. (In this sense, the fighter's "protected niche" is the fact that it has multitudes of feats, far more than anyone else would ever have.)
(And yes, I'm the same Jesse Heinig who worked on Mage, back in the day.)
At any rate my vote goes towards adding or changing the gladiator class features when possible instead of giving them more feats; I agree with Jesse's post, and the note about feats being the fighter's niche is a really good argument against giving the gladiator a bunch of added feats instead of unique class features.
I agree that there are probably an excess of base classes now, and way too many prestige classes for general campaigning; if one considers prestige classes merely as examples and you use archetypes specific to the campaign to build prestige classes, though, it's much more manageable. What I mean to say is, you don't have to worry about Arcane Archers or Seekers of the Song or Bladesingers in Dark Sun - the world has its own culture and flavor, and the extant prestige classes will spring from those, as shown in the prestige class packet.
As far as there being too many base classes for Dark Sun, it's not too bad if you limit the classes to the ones that are thematically familiar and appropriate to the setting. I personally use the classes from the PHB, minus the monk, the paladin, and the sorcerer; then I add the gladiator, the templar, the psion and psychic warrior from the XPH, the ardent from CP, and the scout from CV. That's it.
While it's possible to make feats to replicate certain class features, that way leads to just getting rid of classes and using feats to emulate all class features. In such a schema, you'd just use the rules from Unearthed Arcana for the simplified game with only three classes. For Dark Sun, I like the more role-oriented approach of distinctive classes that have distinct class abilities. Thus, the gladiator not only has bonus feats, but class abilities that aren't granted by any sort of feat; the preserver and defiler have special rules for their casting that are not necessarily always feat-oriented; the bard (especially in the athas.org version!) has class features that do things you can't do with feats. This also helps to give each class a "protected niche" that makes it distinctive - even if you play a social rogue, for instance, you cannot get the bard trade secrets without taking bard levels; their roles are therefore delineated and separate. I like doing the same for the gladiator. (In this sense, the fighter's "protected niche" is the fact that it has multitudes of feats, far more than anyone else would ever have.)
(And yes, I'm the same Jesse Heinig who worked on Mage, back in the day.)
I agree that the bard's trade secrets define the class, and should not be feated out... but it begs the question to say the same applies to the gladiator, without identifying what gladiators have that's even roughly analogous. Which particular gladiator abilities define the class?
The problem is that 3e has expanded the fighter role, and the old DS gladiator archetype fits well within the options that a 3e fighter can take. The main distinguishing features that we've added are the accumulated exotic weapon feats, and the parry and bluff abilities that some folks are asking that we revise. The basic rogue uncanny dodge and evasion abilities don't really set the class apart when you consider that the barbarian and ranger both have these abilities too.
I agree that the bard's trade secrets define the class, and should not be feated out... but it begs the question to say the same applies to the gladiator, without identifying what gladiators have that's even roughly analogous. Which particular gladiator abilities define the class?
I know that everybody here has its own version of the gladiator class. In my own view, there are three main abilities wich could define the gladiator class:
In our game we made a homebrew gladiator class based on these abilities and we are happy with the final result(Obviously, considering that in our game all classes - even the fighter - are a little bit tweaked so none of then are comparable in terms of balance with the standart classes from PHB. No one could evaluate the balance of our gladiator class without comparing it with other classes and rules of my game, because its a closed systen).
I think we must try to be purist... try to recall armor optimization as it used to be... the ability of the gladiator to be proficient in all weapon just as it was in 2E... everything to make an old dark sun player look to athas.org gladiator and say: Yeah, its very near or better than the version we had in 2E, but has the balance and reasonability of 3.5E.