Talk:Gravity Warrior (3.5e Class)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Comment[edit]

Dude, I really want to see this class develop. It looks promising! --Gedren56 08:33, 27 October 2008 (MDT)

Well thanks, I'm still working on some of the finer details of the class, but I'm glad to hear that someones interested in my work → Rith (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (MST)

Rating[edit]

Power - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because I feel it is slightly under-powered in some aspects and slightly over-powered in other aspects. Although this class can do some neat "show-off" abilities with Pseudo-Strength (like throwing a cow across a field - as mentioned in this class), I feel that the Pseudo-Strength would not actually come into all that much in-game combat use. Maybe Pseudo-Strength could also be used for modifying the carrying capacity of the character. I feel that Leaden Weight is very overpowered. Become a large-sized (LA 1) character wielding a Greatsword with Monkey Grip, and we are looking at 6d6 base damage every round at 4th level, and then at 7th level (BAB +6/+1) the base damage becomes 6d6/6d6 with a full-round attack. That's overpowered. Personally I would just remove Leaden Weight (seeing how Impact follows the same idea), and maybe replace it with something which decreases the "weight" of an opponents weapon (treat it as a size category less - the gravity warrior is "changing" the gravity around their opponents weapon, making it less lethal or something). Also, in an in-game perspective, I do not see how Improved Impact has anything to do with gravity. It seems to just change the game mechanics. --Green Dragon 08:26, 8 November 2008 (MST)

Yes I can see how that can get out of hand quickly now, I guess I hadn't thought about that, but I would still like for the character to have that ability to increase the damage done by size category, maybe push it back to a much later level, maybe level 18 or 20. As for the current ability of Improved Impact, it was meant to further the theme of a "heavy weapon", but I was actually thinking of changing it, now that I think about it, I could replace it's function with the current fuction of Leaden Weight. As for Pseudo-Strength, I had forgotten to change that part, it was actually meant originally to affect the carrying capacity of the character, I'll change that today. → Rith (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (MST)
Quick question: How long does the effect of Leaden Weight work for? --Green Dragon 12:41, 8 November 2008 (MST)
Well, I'm probably rewording that whole thing again, since I don't really like the whole "increase their weight" idea, but I'm having trouble coming up with a class ability that would be balanced for that level. → Rith (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (MST)
I removed my power rating, since this was changed since I gave it. --Green Dragon 07:33, 20 November 2008 (MST)

Wording - 4.5/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it uses the incorrect third person. The SRD standard is use a gender-specific third person (he, she, etc). This class currently uses a gender-neutral third person (they, etc). Also I quickly read through this class and fixed a few grammatical mistakes, however I am sure a few more are present. Finally this does not always follow the When to Italicize and Capitalize (DnD Guideline); for example one thing which really stood out to me was that "gravity warrior" was capitalized throughout. --Green Dragon 08:26, 8 November 2008 (MST)

As for the incorrect third person part, heh, I didn't know that you needed to have it be gender specific, I'll go through and fix that, same with the capitalization. → Rith (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (MST)
I'd just like to point out that in the section "combat" and at the beginning of the larger sections "Gravity Warriors in the World" and "Gravity Warriors in the Game", I am referring to gravity warriors as a group, so I have to use terms such as they or the like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rithaniel (talkcontribs) 11:16, 8 November 2008 (MDT). Please sign your posts!
I only know, for certain, that in the class features WotC uses a gender-specific third person. I do not think it really matters all too much in the other sections, although I would take a look in some of the more modern source books (seeing how the older ones do not use this format for their prestige classes), and see what they do their. They may only use a gender-specific third person in the class features. --Green Dragon 12:37, 8 November 2008 (MST)
Changed it to a 5. --Green Dragon 07:33, 20 November 2008 (MST)

Formatting - 4.5/5 I give this class a 4.5 out of 5 because it has some redundant links (like three links to DnD Deities in the same sentence), or some of the links do not link to the correct area of the SRD page. For example "fortitude save" is a better link then "fortitude save". --Green Dragon 08:26, 8 November 2008 (MST)

As for the formatting, hee hee hee, I'll fix that. → Rith (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (MST)
Changed it to a 5. --Green Dragon 07:33, 20 November 2008 (MST)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because not only does it bring a unique idea to the gaming table, it also is fully flavored-out (interesting example NPC, campaign information, and much more). I would really like to say great work, this class is awesome, and I would love to see this as a Featured Article. --Green Dragon 08:26, 8 November 2008 (MST)

Thank you very much Green Dragon, that's a huge compliment to me. All in all, thank you for the rating. → Rith (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (MST)

Doesn't have much going for him.[edit]

I guess it's okay until level 4 or so, but after that he really doesn't have much going for him. Look at Improved Impact (level 18) ability for an example. Are you seriously telling me that when the mage is killing everyone in a 60' radius, that this ability compares at all? Surgo 07:41, 20 November 2008 (MST)

Well, actually, I originally had the class ability leaden weight do what Improved Impact does now, and vise-versa, but then Green Dragon pointed out a flaw that is listed above in his original power rating, though possiblly if I amped up the power of the "hammer" class abilities to suit the levels (seeing as I've thought about that part myself), set leaden weight back to what it originally was and push it back up a few levels, maybe level 7, and increased his speed enhancement, as is mentioned below in Genowhirls comment, then do you believe he would be more balanced? → Rith (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (MST)

Featured Article Nomination[edit]

No mark.svg.png — This article did not become a featured article. --Green Dragon (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2013 (MDT)
Please feel free to re-nominate it once it meets the FA criteria and when all the major issues brought up in this nomination have been dealt with.

This article is completely well rounded, with balanced game play information, roleplaying flavor, and has been properly wiki'd. Would make a great impression to wikiviewers on the main page as to the potential quality of the site.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   10:10, 20 November 2008 (MST)

I nominated it because as an article it is of amazing quality and to me personally its alot more balance than alot of the stuff found here on the wiki that is homebrew. I, however, am a underpowered gamer, and maybe thats why I think it is balanced. But the article is amazing, if anyone disagrees with that then I'd call them retarded (in a nice way).   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   08:01, 21 November 2008 (MST)
Well I was mainly so amazed that it got nominated because I've only been using this wiki for 3 months now, I didn't realize I was making my articles that well, but yeah, as for the power of the class, I've added some damage to the "hammer" class abilities, and changed leaden weight, so now people who want a character with a little more kick should be able to find it in this class hopefully. → Rith (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (MST)
  • Opposed - Balanced, really? This guy has nothing going for him past level 4 or 5. Surgo 14:06, 20 November 2008 (MST)
I'll change this to support when 3 things happen -- the missing levels get filled out, I see the class is playable at every level of the game (1 to 20), and a serious reconsideration of the picture happens (that picture doesn't really scream "gravity warrior" to me -- it just looks generic fantasy). Surgo 13:04, 21 November 2008 (MST)
  • Support - It's interesting enough, and I look forward to seeing it improve. -- Genowhirl 22:13, 20 November 2008 (MST)
  • Comment- Surgo's got a point. For one thing, the speed boost is so minor that it's a joke. It could really scale a lot faster--aim for +50 or +60 feet at the end, and just for the variety, have it always apply--I don't really see how heavier armor would interfere with his ability to do this.

The various Ground Slam powers don't really do anything except knock people nearby on their ass; they could really do with some damage to go with that effect--At high levels, this should be a LOT of damage.

And the ability to wield a weapon as if it were a size larger...at level 18. The. Heck. You could play as a Half-Giant and get that ability right from the start. You could seriously bump that to class level 4 or 5 (when people and enemies start getting a good amount of hit points), and then have it scale so they can work up to Huge and Gargantuan weapons.

I'd add an ability that lets them violently ground flying foes with a certain range (snatched out of the air, take falling damage; no, you don't get to pull into a spiral even if you have wings) along about...level 7 or 8? Oh, and the ability that increases their Str bonus to melee is nice, except, that it should bump off-hand weapons up to 1x Str bonus instead of leaving it with half. Offhand, I see these other uses for Gravity in combat: 1) Increase an enemy's encumberance/effective weight they're carrying to reduce their mobility. Same could be done with Armor Check penalties. 2) Atomic Grapples of Doooooooooom 2) Setting someone in mid-air to have them tumble helplessly until they're grounded again. 3) Featherfall and other weight reduction. 4)Telekinesis-like effect at level..10 or so? 5) Making an area difficult terrain. -- Genowhirl 15:47, 20 November 2008 (MST)

I am personally simply amazed that I got a featured article nomination at all, and my brain is still reeling in shock, but you raise some good points Genowhirl, I agree with the idea of increasing his enhancement bonus to speed, and I'll do that today, though with increasing his offhand damage, well, I was basing the original calculation off of the fact that the reason you deal ×1.5 your Str modifier with a two-handed weapon is because you add your strength modifier from your primary hand with .5 of your str modifier with your offhand, and so I was trying to keep the numbers straight, 1.5 from your primary, .5 from your offhand, adding up to a total of ×2, if I am missing something, then I'm all up for changing it. As for adding damage to the "hammer" class abilities, it seems fair, although it also would make the class somewhat dangerous, because that damage would affect everyone, friend and foe, within the radius, and it's a pretty large radius. And as for your ideas for additional class features, the idea of making an airborn opponent fall out of the sky, I think that would be quite funny, and I may try and work it into the "hammer" class abilities, and the featherfall like ability isn't half bad, though the others, I've turned most of them around in my head already, before I even made the class, and they would make the class seem to much like a mage for my personal tastes, manipulating the battlefield instead of attacking and all. Though I thank you Hooper for the nomination wholeheartedly, and if anyone has any ideas as to how I could change this class and gain support for it being a featured article, please speak up, I'm all ears. → Rith (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (MST)
You're very welcome. If I didn't care about the class, I wouldn't even bother to comment--and this definitely has potential.
I really think you need to work the gravity-bender angle more, to give the class some more versatility and a little bit of, dare I say it, flash--and my suggestions were towards that end. After all, it's pretty cool to play a character who can throw down some magic-like effects.
I just had an idea about expanding the megapunches...But I'm going to write something concrete before I shoot my mouth off... -- Genowhirl 19:43, 20 November 2008 (MST)
Well, what did you have in mind for the "hammers"?
Well, of course, but you don't want to swamp the character with choices either, cause if just one of his class features requires a standard action to initiate, then thats a round that this character who is meant to be a combat focused character, didn't attack at all. → Rith (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (MST)
Thing is though, fill in some of those empty levels. The Anti-Airborne ability, for example, could start off with a range of 60 feet, then go to Medium Range, then Long Range, and fill in 3 levels. The weapon size increase could start at level...5? 6? And then just increase every five levels ( Along about 10 and 15?) --Genowhirl 19:43, 20 November 2008 (MST)
Well, with the size increases you have to take into account people using feats like monkeygrip, playing large sized characters and so on, it could get out of hand very quickly, and so I might set that up at maybe level 8 or 9, and have it increase again once before level 20. And the "throw down" class ability is interesting, I'll give it that, but the actual mechanics need to be a bit more concrete before I add it to the class. → Rith (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (MST)
Think...Supernatural ability standard action to "strongly increase the pull of gravity on a flying target". Flying target takes falling damage as appropriate to their height, winged targets are not pulled into a spiral by their wings and therefore take the same falling damage as everyone else. Starts off at 60 feet at, say, level 7 or 8? Four levels later, becomes effective within medium range. Four levels after that, becomes a long-range effect. Range scales to character level. I think this would help out the class, because it forces those pesky flying enemies into taking on the Gravity Warrior on the ground and in melee.-- Genowhirl 20:27, 20 November 2008 (MST)
Taking that ground-splitting force and applying it to someone's forehead as a melee attack, for much more focused damage to a single target.
Interesting point about combat classes, but I have to disagree. Just taking attack actions every round isn't interesting--it's an exercise in dice-rolling, and there's just so many ways the monsters can avoid being attacked. Plus, they don't need to be completely swamped with options--just have some options to do things in different situations. If they're facing a crowd of enemies, they can slow down half the crowd by dividing the group with a high-gravity zone (difficult terrain, slow movement through it) to ensure that all the enemies can't attack the party at once. If an enemy is flying, the Gravity Warrior would be unique in his ability to ground the foe (and inflict some damage in the process) and force it to fight on the ground and in melee. The ideas of which I prefer a lot more to "Full attack, full attack, full attack..." -- Genowhirl 20:27, 20 November 2008 (MST)
Well, I've had that thought myself, about using the hammers to hit an opponent, but then I thought about it, the character has just made their fist so heavy that it causes a kind of a mini-earthquake when it hits the floor, he honestly wouldn't be able to do anything but let his hand fall at that point. As for the part about attack options, I'm all in for adding in more choices, but I want to keep with a theme of "attack choices", so as few "I make you heavy" or "I change the direction gravity pulls you" abilities as possible, It's also why I like the "Throw Down" class ability idea, as it's an attack. → Rith (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (MST)
Easy enough. He greatly increases the gravity attraction between someone and his fist. And, okay, you want attack abilities? Then you're looking at...Oh, say, Implosion as a spell-like ability at whatever level it appears on the Wizard Spell List, and then maybe the ability to make a singularity. at level 18 or so. -- Genowhirl 21:04, 20 November 2008 (MST)
Lol, thats actually pretty funny, "He greatly increases the gravity attraction between someone and his fist" but anyways, I'm going to make a few of the changes you mentioned now, while they're still fresh in my mind, and I'd like to say thank you for all your help, I'm still staggered by the fact that someone actually liked my work enough to nominate it for a featured article, but also, may I ask if this article has your support for it being a featured article? → Rith (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (MST)
I have to say it does...Although I am partial to that Living Dead picture at the front. -- Genowhirl 22:13, 20 November 2008 (MST)
From Genowhirl on a school computer--Well, I appreciate you added the grounding ability, but I *did* suggest Medium and Long ranges with some logic behind the idea. As it stands, a wizard could cast fly, hang back 400-600 feet, and use a Wand of Fireballs to kite you to death before you could even touch him. And it doesn't have to be a classed race--it could just as easily any of a variety of monsters. The Grounding ability is kinda meant to counter that tactic, and to do that effectively, it needs the same range as the abilities it'll be up against--which tend to have a range of 400 feet + 40 feet per character level. 69.85.217.243 10:03, 21 November 2008 (MST)
Well, yeah, I did include details on that, which are listed in the class ability description, though you are correct about the range being a little short, I'll extend it, but anyways, can't you log in from a school comp? → Rith (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (MST)
The ones in the Geology lab are kinda erratic, and I was just grateful to be able to get on here without having to fix the room's Internet--again. Anyway, I'm home now. The gravity warrior's looking much better. I'm still trying to think of something tactical to suggest, because gravity lends itself to that sort of thing. Aside from the high-gravity/difficult terrain ability I suggested earlier, I suppose you could also make an argument for them being able to use a Dimensional Anchor-like effect to keep enemies from teleporting into or away from something, which is handy at high levels. And I'd be tempted to give them a Zero-Gravity effect, which in range and scale would probably be like the Portal Gun's carrying function. I'm also wondering how to handle immovability and unstoppability (if those are even words. :P) for this guy.-- Genowhirl 11:57, 21 November 2008 (MST)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

Geology lab sounds aggravating, but yeah, I've already included immovability (Steadfast), and unstoppability (Pseudo-Strength) seeing as they both affect the Bullrush option, which is the best interrpretation I've found, I may still include that feather-fall ability, since it would be quite useful really, and the dimensional anchor thing would be interesting, but wouldn't fit, cause moving between dimensions isn't technically motion as far as gravity can affect, unless we're going for the element that any extra-dimensional movement is simply extra-spacial movement. → Rith (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (MST)
Note: After this most recent edit I will no longer be editting this class with the idea of increasing its power further, seeing as it already borders on being overpowered. If anyone has any recomendations for either lowering the power level yet keeping it powerful, or merely balancing out the class they are welcome to make a statement. If anyone disagrees with my statement that the class borders of being overpowered, then they are free to voice their opinion, though I ask them to voice it in a constructive way, instead of ridiculing the class. → → Rith (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (MST)
Still not strong enough. What the class needs is not more numbers, but more options. Let's look at a level 10 Gravity Warrior. I won't have any concrete numbers, and am just doing this qualitatively, because I don't really have the time for that right now, sorry. A level 10 character is expected to have a 50/50 win/loss ratio with the following challenges:
  • A hall of magical runes: No actual way to bypass these, or disarm them (no UMD, or Disable Device, or any other feature that would let you work with traps). Definite loss.
  • A fire giant: This is as close to a straight-up fight as you can get. Your Gravity Well is useless here because knocking them prone doesn't really do anything for you (and they have a really nice fort save anyway). Your best weapon is probably a greatsword (3d6 + 2x strength + whatever magic bonus + whatever you power attack). The problem here is that the giant is better at straight-up fights than you are (though not by much); it has more hit dice, more reach, and one more attack. And it has power attack too. Probable loss.
  • A young blue dragon: You can Gravity Well it to stop it from circling and just breathing on you, which is good because it would otherwise own you. Once you manage to get it on the ground, you can beat it in a straight-up fight. Probable win.
  • A bebilith: Despite having a bonus to the checks of +6, you probably won't have more than a 50% chance of bursting the web (18 str + 2 orc + 2 level-up + 4 item = 26 = +14 total to strength checks). That is also a nasty poison (DC 24 and tons of con damage). However, you can burst the web half the time! If you can get past the damage reduction, this is probably an even fight.
  • A vrock: Spore shuffles you. There's no way you're getting past that one. Definite loss.
  • A tag-team of mindflayers: Bad will save versus two mind blasts. Definite loss.
  • An evil necromancer: You have no crowd-killing abilities to deal with a horde of skeletons, and he could just hit you with a Charm Person anyway. Definite loss.
  • 6 trolls: You have no abilities to deal with crowds. It probably takes a while due to their small numbers, but I don't see how you could take them down fast enough to keep them from taking -you- down. Probable loss.
  • A horde of shadows: You have more strength to keep you alive longer, because that's the attribute you focus on, but you can only take out one shadow a round (one hit should kill them, but 50% miss chance). If we assume two hits a round from the shadows for simplicity (their attacks are incorporeal), that's 7 strength damage a round. You'll probably run out of strength first. Numbers would help here. Probable loss, IMO.
Totals: 0 definite win, 1 probable win, 1 even fight, 3 probable loss, 4 definite loss. Really not looking good, even if you bump the Bebilith up to win and the Fire Giant up to even. The problem here is that your class abilities really just don't mean much at level 10. Gravity Well manages to stop you from getting owned by dragons (a good thing), but the bonus to strength checks just doesn't do enough for you. It's very rarely applicable, and even when it is (against a Bebilith) you still have a 50% chance of failure! What you need is more class features that are a bit more widely applicable, so you can actually fight level-appropriate monsters. Surgo 16:42, 25 November 2008 (MST)
They do stay prone for a few rounds, giving the Gravity Warrior free licks in on them. That's something fairly nice. Cheap, but nice.
Suggestions:
  • The earth punches should have a wider area. Much wider, in the case of the first one. 10 feet/class level in that first case? Also, remember what I said about the recharge rather than being an encounter power? Gravity doesn't keep tabs on how many fights you have that day. 1d4 rounds would be fine.
  • High-Gravity Zone: The Gravity warrior spend a move action to designate an area as a high-gravity zone. The high-gravity zone is difficult terrain, which may affect any squares the Gravity Warrior wishes as long as the affected squares are contiguous. He may affect 4 squares per character level within medium range.
  • Weight of the World: the Gravity Warrior uses the same theory behind the High-Gravity Zone, and applies the full force to one, unfortunate target. Several things happen:
  • The Target must make a Fort Save (DC 10 + 1/2 Character Level + Str Bonus) or instantly drop to the ground, unable to take any actions but speech and purely mental ones. The target loses their Dexterity bonus and any Shield Bonus to AC. This lasts for a number of rounds equal to the Gravity Warrior's Str Bonus. After it ends, he cannot do it for 1d3 rounds.
  • if the Fort Save is a success, all Armor Check penalties are doubled, movement is halved, the weight carried is considered to be doubled, and spells with somatic components have a 10% spell failure chance. Mettle does not negate this.
  • Mass Punch: The Gravity Warrior can put his full powers of gravity behind an all-out blow. As a standard action, he may perform a melee touch attack (not that he's merely trying to touch them, but the blow is so powerful that armor is of no help at all). Should it hit, it deals damage equal to the damage weapon used, plus a number of d6's equal to the Gravity Warrior's Strength Bonus plus his Pseudo-Strength Bonus. After being used, it may not be used again for 1d4 + 1 rounds.
Just what I think would be useful. Genowhirl 17:35, 25 November 2008 (MST)
Okay, I can understand your argument now Surgo now that you have explained your reasoning (though the picture isn't going to change btw, just so you know), and I guess I can try and even it out a little so that it can handle those encounters, but not today, I don't really want to handle a class right now, and thank you genowhirl on your further contributions to this class, most of those ideas I actually like, quite a bit, maybe a little tweaked, but thank you both on your continued interest in this class, I'm glad that my work interests people this much. → Rith (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (MST)
It's not being able to handle *every* one of the encounters, but being able to hold your own in about half of them. Since you have a guide to 10th-level challenges right there, decide which types make more sense for a GW to be good at. I'd say handling groups would be more in a Gravity Warrior's line of work--and so would being able to out-bruise the bruisers. So add a bit more damage to the earth-punches for groups, and keep the Mass Punch for one-on-one, and those're set. Furthermore, the slowdown or incapacitating of enemies helps in a variety of situations, allowing, for example, the GW to buy a bow and kite a few kinds of enemies--especially since he can move faster than they can, thanks to the speed boost. Genowhirl 19:10, 26 November 2008 (MST)
Well, hopefully with my most recent edit , I have managed to balance this class out thoroughly enough, I believe it may because after looking back at the description of the battle condition "prone", I realized that was not all I had intended for the "hammer" abilities to do, therefore I have gone back and adjusted them accordingly, increasing duration at the same time, hopefully this is enough to make the class effectively playable. → Rith (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (MST)
To be honest, the stun effects and the exhausted condition are better than the damage the Gravity Warrior hands out, especially because they can last for multiple rounds, giving the Gravity Warrior and the party time to gank the enemy good. And I know 8d10 looks like a lot of damage for a single hit...But it's really not. That's, what, 44 damage on average? At level 20. On an attack which you can only do every few rounds. When you have Balors which have 290 HP, and dragons which can have well into the three and four hundreds of HP. The recharge time pretty much ensures that any given Hammer ability will only be used once in an encounter, but the only thing that would justify the limited use is the status effects riding on the Hammers. It's certainly not the damage. Just by doing some figuring on a piece of paper, I figured out that I could make an Orc Gravity Warrior who had 42 Str and does 8d6 + 29 with each melee hit. So that's...what...53 damage a hit, on average? That's 9 points higher, and you can try to get that damage four (or more) times a round. I'm under the impression that the Hammer abilities are meant to Teh Godly Smite of Pain.
I'm not saying that the Gravity Warrior is useless. Far from it. He's got several tactical tricks which will easily help him and a party outmaneuver the enemy. But in doing what appears to be his core concept--handing out heavy damage--he gets no power which does that by itself. I mean, 8d6 + 29 damage is solid, but not heavy. Also, the flat damage rates on the various hammers means the damage they do quickly becomes even more irrelevant to the outcome of a fight--because they're taking relatively less and less out of an enemy's life bar (to borrow a video game metaphor) as you go up in level. Now, I could see doing something like Ground hammer: Xd6, X being equal to Str modifier. And then 'Earth Hammer could Yd8, with Y being equal to Strength Mod + 1/2 Pseudo-Strength mod. And Tectonic hammer could be Zd10 with Z equal to Strength Mod + Pseudo-strength modifier. So even at level 20 (to keep the example going), our super-maxxed Orc (at level 20) would be doing...26d10 damage, which would be 143 damage on average, by my figuring. Which is pretty good for something he can only do every few rounds. If you want the Gravity Warrior to be able to hand out damage that the other players will care about, that's the kind of damage formula you need to be looking at. Otherwise, they're going to care a lot more when the GW stuns or exhausts or slows down an enemy--becuase those effects are legitimately superior to the amount of damage he does right now.
I'm sorry if that seems overly harsh; it's my honest assessment though, and I'm considering spending a few hours running some solo playtests at levels 5, 10, and 15 (at those levels at the very least,) both with the GW as written, and then experimenting with ideas to bring up the current shortfall (which isn't as bad as it was when Surgo ran his analysis). Genowhirl 17:27, 21 December 2008 (MST)
Don't worry about sounding overly harsh when your talking about my works, I can take criticism, though only if you phrase what you belive is wrong with the article, and don't just say, "this sucks, it just sucks" (I hate those people), well anyways, tell me how the playtesting goes, would you? → Rith (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (MST)
Of course. That's kinda the point of me doing playtests. :B --Genowhirl 23:27, 21 December 2008 (MST)
Well, I meant "Mol me" but yeah, you get the picture → Rith (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (MST)
  • Support - This article is a FA in quality standard.--Lord Dhazriel 13:40, 17 February 2009 (MST)

Comment — {{Needsbalance}} needs to be addressed, and this class has not done so in a considerable time. --Green Dragon (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2013 (MDT)

Questions[edit]

Why doesn't the gravity warrior get Balance as a class skill (considering he later becomes adept at not being pushed around in combat)?

Why are all the class abilities Extraordinary abilities when some seem like they would make more sense as Supernatural abilities?

Is the High-Gravity Zone dispelled if the gravity warrior moves out of range of the affected area? Since the description makes the effect ground based, does this ability affect aerial creatures at all?

Why is Ground Hammer a Fortitude save and not a Balance skill check? Does it also only affect land-based creatures?

Gravity Well especially sounds like a Supernatural ability, perhaps even a Spell-like ability. What is the basis for the balance of this power?

Under Improved Impact it allows for &times5 critical multiplier. a I thought that official rules kinda had something against ever having a ×5 critical multiplier. Could you show me an instance of it being allowed? (I'll try to find the passage about ×5 being bad mojo as well). In any event, it's not a big deal, just curious.

Psst... also check under Starting Age to see a quotation missing. --Ganteka 17:44, 11 February 2009 (MST)

Oh, and I forgot, one more thing... has this been playtested in its current form? --Ganteka 18:45, 11 February 2009 (MST)
You raise some good points, and to answer your last one first, I don't usually get to playtest things since most of my friends dislike homebrew when they DM, but it is currently supposed to be being playtested by Genowhirl, though that is taking longer than I had expected. I'll get that quotation mark in a sec. As for the ×5 multiplier, the only problem I see with it is that on a sucsessful crit, with a pure strength build, you're approaching death due to massive damage immediately right there, but, then again, when I first made this class, he didn't have all the neat powers he's got right now, so I had assumed a ×5 crit wouldn't hurt too much if he kept it. Gravity Well and High-Gravity Zone were added after the long discussion above took place, and were not entirely thought through, they are probably going to be some holes in them. I made Ground Hammer be a fortitude save because you can't put ranks into fortitude unless you have access to diamond mind manuveurs. Anyways, now that you mention it, I'm probably going to add balance to his list of class skills, since that does in fact make sense. → Rith (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2009 (MST)
I really like that the time and effort is clearly visible in both the class description and on the discussion. I simply had a couple questions regarding his survivability and buffing:
1) Would it be possible with Leaden Weight to choose to reduce the weight of an enemies weapon? Maybe by the same factor that you would increase your own weapon? If this ability was on a recharge timer of, say, 2d4-2 rounds then it would not be a battle breaker but perhaps a tide-turner if used at a opportune moment.
2) Would it be possible given the idea of High Gravity Zone and Pseudo-Strength to be able to grant a temporary (on the order of a couple minutes at max) enhancement to strength as well? Or at least a lightening of their load? As with the above suggestion it would likely need to be on a recharge timer that would be at least twice as long as the duration, I'd say at minimum 10-20 minutes. --Jpaq25 14:11, 30 March 2009 (MST)
Well, leaden weight is a passive ability and always active, and therfore, not actually activatable. It affects whatever weapon you hold as long as it is in your hands, that is why it says in the class feature description that the weapon is only considered one size category larger in the hands of the gravity warrior. As for your second question, I honestly have no idea what you are asking, are you suggesting that there be a benifit for using High Gravity Zone and Pseudo-Strength in conjuction with each other or something? Sorry if I'm being thick and have missed something obvious, but I'm just not clear on what the question is even asking. → Rith (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
What was referring to was a possible buffing ability that is in many regards the opposite of High gravity zone, it could also be a form of ranged Psuedo-strength in that you apply it to an ally for a limited amount of time. It would grant an ally increased strength or perhaps a temporary boost to speed. As far as the Leaden weight, i am suggesting an activatable ability that is in effect the opposite of Leaden weight. It would decrease the weight of a weapon about to connect with the Gravity Warrior, calling it something like "Feather Weapon" or some such. --Jpaq25 12:23, 31 March 2009 (MST)
Well, now that you mention it, I personally think a low-gravity zone would be interesting, but possible have it grant a bonus to speed mostly, and descrease the weight of something, have some of the main benifits of a low gravity planes in the area or whatnot, yeah, that might be interesting. As for the feather wieght idea, well, I'm not sure I like it, seeing as it would be a beam-ish thing, and this class isn't about shooting beams out everywhere. But yeah, thanks for the ideas, they're really helpful man. → Rith (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2009 (MDT)
No problem man. The "Feather Weight" could be, instead of a beam, perhaps its just that he keeps a small low gravity field around him that reduces the weight of weapons and projectiles that come within, lets say, a few inches of his body. This might also help to explain the fast movement bonus. --Jpaq25 15:22, 31 March 2009 (MST)
Well, I'm also kinda worried about implementing some of these ideas man, since the class is currently getting 5s on it's power rating, I'm kinda unsure if adding things onto the class will keep it balanced or not. Not to mention that this class is in the running for FA, and one of the criteria for becoming a FA is that the page isn't changing from day to day. On top of that, people may already be playing this class in some of their campaigns, and if I add something new on now, and then they get on and see that there's a new class feature 2 levels earlier than their current level, well, thats not too fair to them. → Rith (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2009 (MDT)
I understand completely. Perhaps there could be in a variant setup for this class. I understand that it is going for Featured Article, and I would not want you to lose that distinction. Also for those currently playing it could be an issue and that would be hard on both DM's and on the players themselves. Definitely not something I would like to be responsible for. --Jpaq25 19:40, 2 March 2009 (MST)
I will be playtesting this as a DM, starting the group at level seven. The rest of the group will be playing Player's handbook races and classes. Would you like me to keep you updated as far as balance/game mechanics? -xhado123 7:44, 12 April 2009 (EST)
Feel free to, just make sure you hit the party with as wide a range of situations as possible, from traps to flying wizards to armies, and keep track of where the gravity warrior succeeds and where he fails in each situation. Also, thank you for doing so, it is greatly appreciated. → Rith (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2009 (MDT)
Do the abilities of the Gravity Warrior, such as Gravity Well or Ground Hammer, effect objects and creatures without constitution scores? --Amber 21:37, 30 June 2009 (MDT)
Funny, the other day I found my notes for the build for the Gravity Warrior and I left a big red mark on my forehead. As near as I can recall, I toyed with an Orc Gravity Warrior who'd eventually get that artifact hammer that lets you use both a belt and gauntlets for Str enhancements, then got sidetracked by a petrology test and forgot about it. I'm sorry about that. I'll review them and then try to make something decent to run through the Same Game Test and put up for review. --Genowhirl 02:53, 1 July 2009 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

Heh, it's no problem Genowhirl. As for your question Amber, yes, gravity well can affect objects, constructs, undead, etc. Though, I personally wouldn't want to roll a hundred fortitude saves if you used Tectonic hammer in the middle of a cramped and crowded warehouse, of course, if you were attempting to damage objects, then it ought to be fine. → Rith (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2009 (MDT)
Lets jumpstart and get a final answer - we need a new FA!   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   20:20, 2 September 2009 (MDT)

Rating[edit]

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because this class is designed EXTREMELY well and i have made it one of my favorite classes to play. It is not overpowered like some classes are and it is detailed vividly. --gravLover —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.88.236.53 (talkcontribs) 14:25, 17 March 2009 (MDT). Please sign your posts!

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because you spelled everything correctly as far as i could tell and it was very clear on what everything means --gravLover —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.88.236.53 (talkcontribs) 14:25, 17 March 2009 (MDT). Please sign your posts!

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because everything was laid out perfectly and it was very easy to read through --gravLover —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.88.236.53 (talkcontribs) 14:25, 17 March 2009 (MDT). Please sign your posts!

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because no one has done this before! I love the idea of using gravity and manipulating gravity! Great job! --gravLover —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.88.236.53 (talkcontribs) 14:25, 17 March 2009 (MDT). Please sign your posts!

Comment[edit]

Hey, this class is pretty awesome, I've been playing it and have really liked it. My DM looked at and determined some of the things were way overpowered, and after playing it I'd probably agree. He changed some stuff, I'll put his suggestions up here:


Pseduo-Strength: Skill checks do not increase every 5 levels (they are always +2), the rest increases the same

Ground Hammer: Radius is always just 5 feet, increases to 10 at level 6, and if they fail the fort save they are stunned for 1 round - no prone, you can also only use it every 1d4 + 1 rounds

Gravity Well: Using this causes the target to become stunned for 1d4 rounds and has only a 25 ft range, not per level. I am trying to convince him that it would makes sense to make a concentration check or something and/or a melee touch attack for prone-ing.

Earth and Tectonic Hammers: The changes here are essentially the same as with ground hammer, smaller radii's, and no prone. The usability is also 1d4 + 1 for these too.


That's it, he's mostly opposed to the proning, and I'll say that a prone and stun combo is kind of ridiculous since you could just ground pound and then coup de grace on your next round all the time. Otherwise, this is an awesome concept and a real cool class. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.21.99.60 (talkcontribs) 01:29, 12 April 2009 (MST). Please sign your posts!

Hmm, interesting ideas. Well first, I'd like to say thank you for posting your Dm's revamp on the class, it's very good to know that people care enough about it to try and see it improve in their eyes. My only point is that, this revamp seems rather nonsensical. Why limit the bonus to strength based skill checks but not anything else? Is there a fear that the gravity warrior will jump so far that he'll make his enemies' heads explode? On the note of limitting the radius of ground hammer, earth hammer, and tectonic hammer, well, all that does is manage to do two things, and they are to disallow the gravity warrior the ability to catch very many opponents in the blast radius and, at the same time, allow the gravity warrior to avoid hitting his allies with the blast with greater ease. Making the blast radius smaller merely exchanges range for fexibility. The matter of the stunning and prone, is again, nonsensical, since an enemy being prone does not allow you to coup de grace them. In order to coup de grace an opponent, they must be physically incapable of defending themself (As detailed here). As for the duration, well, in D&D, a fight is only going to last a few rounds, unless you are fighting in an enormous battle, and in that situation, you are going to need to use the hammers in quick succession in order to survive. Gravity well, well, by limiting the range to 25 feet, you eliminated the actual intent of the ability. Gravity well is intended to make the wizard that is flying 300 feet above you and smacking you with lightning bolts get down out of the sky, evening the battlefield a bit, and punishing them for using a stupid (but useful) tactic. Again, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to post your opinion on the class, and to wish your gravity warrior luck in his campaign. (Also, please finish off your posts with 4 tiddles (or ~~~~) in order to sign your posts). → Rith (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2009 (MDT)
Yeah, some of it might be a little off for rp-ing or the 'why' of the powers, I think he wanted to make it a bit more even in terms of how it gets its power. If you look around D&D, free skill points are somewhat hard to find, and as for all the ranges - it's more of the sort of thing where it seems a bit ridiculous when a range can get that far and make people prone. If you spread out your party and groundpound, those who survive the fort save can easily coup de grace all the enemies in the area, another thing that isn't so easily done (at least not en mass). While I do think he limited the range by a bit too much, I would still say this class is overpowered until the proning is gone -even though that means you can't coup de grace them, the ac reduction for however many rounds make it alot easier to hit, and not as insanely powerful. Characters that can make everything prone or that are coup de grace monkeys are usually the result of a crazy build, not an ability you get at level 3. I really dig the class, it's definitely one of the better ones on this wiki, but I don't think some tone-downs would be too absurd. Paggot Styles 13:54, 24 April 2009 (MDT)
Well, as for the rp-ing part or the "why" of the powers, well, the gravity warrior has the ability to loosen the effects of gravity upon their body, allowing them to jump absurd distances, climb things with unusual ease, and swim through torrential rivers, that is the rp-ing part and "why" of the powers. On the note that free skill points aren't easy to come by, I simply direct you towards the rogue, who can get skill mastery on at least 3 skills at 10th level, skill mastery is like getting a bonus 10 skill points, and loosing the ability to "natural one" a check. There are also several feats that give bonuses to skill checks (skill focus comes to mind, granting the player 3 'bonus skill points', as you so rightfully put it). Not to mention that the exemplar (from Complete Adventurer) gets both skill mastery and another class feature that grants a +4 bonus to a paticular skill check (total of +14 'bonus skill points') at first level, it even has skill focus as a prerequisite (making it +17 'bonus skill points'). Of course, I'm getting off point; getting a good sized bonus to a few skills isn't going to break the game, no matter how you look at it. Of course, you also bring up another good point, the fact that you must make a fortitude save or fall prone. This is a good point because, there is no telling whether or not an opponent is going to make that save or not, not the mention that most close-range combatants have good fort saves, and so are more likely to shrug off the proning and stunning. As for the AC reduction, until 12th level, they are only going to be down for 1 round (if they even fall at all), and if your allies can wipe out an entire group of opponents in a single round, then bravo to the entire group. After 12th level though, things start getting crazy bonuses to their fortitude save, and so, those that do fail their save by a fluke and fall, need to be dealt with quickly. Also, thanks for the compliment, it really seems that this class is something of an attention getter. → Rith (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2009 (MDT)
Yeah, I suppose so. I don't think that the whole rogue thing is that valid since a rogue gets a large number of skill points to begin with, and an even larger number of choices of skills to spread them amongst, and this also matches the design of how a rogue should play - the Gravity Warrior seems much more of a fighter than a skill guy. And feats are so valuable, I really can't see the value of taking that feat unless your a skill user, and again the exemplar is another class, not a fighter who can control gravity. About the fort saves, that's how saves work with any class, that's kindof one of the big things about D&D - one is very rarely guaranteed a successful attack or save or anything. If you note my first post, my DM and I agreed to change the feature so that they were stunned for 1d4 rounds, rather than making them prone, because regardless of the likelyhood of a foe making the save or not, a character who can make multiple enemies fall prone with the use of a single ability is unarguably overpowered. Paggot Styles 12:02, 26 April 2009 (MDT)
Well, the skill bonuses are, honestly, there soley for the purpose of fluff and rp-ing related matters, and they have practically no affect on the actual balance of the class, if you disagree with this point, then please explain why you feel that way, instead of stating that this class isn't a skilled class. Now then, you state that the likelyhood of a character falling prone doesn't matter. I must respectfully disagree, considering that a class feature is balanced on how useful it is, and, for the most part, if an opponent just shrugs off the effects of said class feature, then that class feature has become pretty much useless in that situation. Now then, would you please elaborate on why you say these things don't matter, instead of saying that an argument that I presented simply is irrelavent and avoiding the point? Also, please, keep in mind that this class is meant to be a "crowd-control" class, and is supposed to be able to take care of large groups quickly, and that a single opponent (of a proper CR) would more than likely give this class a splitting headache, since they would resist the majority of the classes primary abilities, and the game would boil down to the "I hit it again" mentality. Also, I didn't know that the original post was you also. I'd also like to say that I've really enjoyed this discussion (despite the fact that there hasn't been much actual discussing going on), it shows that people really care about this class. → Rith (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2009 (MDT)
I understand that skill bonuses are fluff, that's the reason I suggested them not advancing beyond the +2 gained at first level. When a player adds skills to their character for backstory, +2 is the standard amount, and further increase is up to their own ranks per level. If you insist on making it increase, have it start at 0 and advance to 1 soon after, and then another 1 increase every few levels, but with a max +5 at 20. A class' balance isn't only about how it does in combat, otherwise rogues would be much more fight-ready, free skill points are a very nifty thing and shouldn't be handed out so easily. I would like to hear why you think the gravity warrior IS a skill-based class, I understand you give him 4+int (twice what a regular fighter gets), but if (as you said) this is a crowd-control class, then skills should not be focus. Since some WotC classes are designed for skill-focus (rogue, exemplar, etc.), giving a fighting-based class free skills DOES make it considerably more powerful. The same goes for the the grapple and bull rush checks - you're essentially increasing his size class for those checks every 5 levels, making him what, gargantuan at 20? I know he is able to control gravity, but that's a bit ridiculous (that's the size of an elder dragon).
My next point will, once again, be the issue of proning. In order to validate giving this class the ability to make multiple foes at a 5ft/level radius prone - or even better, the at-range prone with just full/standard rounds, I would like you to show me a class from a WotC book that gets multiple/at-ranged proning as a class feature in addition to other abilities, as this class does. Characters do not get free proning, hands down (and a Monk's trip doesn't count - yours is a free prone/stun). The other issue with yours is that usually a prone enemy can spend his turn getting up - however, if he is stunned he must stay down. This gives plenty of time for your entire party to autohit/autocrit all the enemies. A stun for 1d4 (or even 1d6 if you really think he's being undercut) renders them unable to attack and easier to hit, a level 3 character should be able to provide autohit/crit like that. Crowd control isn't about killing everything right off, it's about keeping them together (stunned). Crowd CONTROL, not crowd AUTOKILL.
I have already stated why the issue of making saves is invalid - look at spellcasting. Instead of checking for AC, spells often will require saves of all sorts - this is not something unique to your class here. It is more than reasonable to require a save. The likelyhood of making the save is completely dependent on the type of enemy, CR, and DM's choice of how the enemy plays out. It is true that fighters may be able to make the save, one is not always fighting fighters (even if you're crowd control) Saying that the chance of not making an opposing save balances an ability is not good reasoning, D&D is based on the principles of unguaranteed successes.
I have consulted with a few DMs and all of my comrades who play D&D and we agree that free proning is unheard of. If you change them to stunning it would be much more reasonable. In order to keep the prone (because for rp's sake, it does make sense) I propose a different option of gravity well (the other changes would be less range - no fighter should be able to make an 'attack' at 100ft at 4th level, and fatigued not exhausted - making something exhausted is a 3rd level spell, not a 4th level ability):
The gravity warrior can make a melee touch attack against an opponent as a full round action, if they hit, the enemy falls prone for 1 round and is fatigued for 1d5 rounds.
When I first found this class I was very excited, it seemed really good. But I was new to the game then, and after playing for a while, reading countless books for hours trying to make things work and finally coming up with a couple builds I am very proud of I ultimately must say that looking back, this class is very overpowered. This wiki has more than enough OPed classes on it, why not be different and make it reasonable? Paggot Styles 14:59, 27 April 2009 (MDT)
Good thing the party will be also prone and stunned, right? Everyone is, after all, everyone. --TK-Squared 15:41, 27 April 2009 (MDT)
The Psuedo-Strength MUST scale if it is to be any good. You simply cannot bull rush, grapple, etc, the majority of high level opponents unless you're a spellcaster. Remember that strength-based checks are the things that the casters absolutely ROCK the warriors at - when a wizard turns into a giant dragon, or the druid a fricking bear, the warrior simply cannot compete even with a high natural base strength. In addition, there are no strength-based skills that are of crucial importance that can't be overwritten by some simple spells. Fighting classes with no skills are also a bad idea - at no point during a game should the player be forced to pull out his gameboy and start playing pokemon, because he can't contribute. A fighting class with some skill niche is doing something right that WOTC did wrong. Remember, you're saying it's "equivalent to that size", and the Gravity Warrior is actually going to have to FIGHT enemies that size - so either he's equivalent to it, or he can't do it at all.
And just because no WOTC book did something before doesn't mean a new class can. Let me point out that at the lowest levels, a wizard can instantly win a battle with Sleep/Color Spray, which is outright better. At medium levels, the stun only buys your party one round, assuming the enemy fails a fortitude save. At high levels, the Cleric summons up some outsider that has Holy Word/Blasphemy/Etc at will, and they just keep spamming it, making your enemies permanetely stunned, no save. You also seem very confused about the mechanics, to a degree that it calls your judgement into question. The stun lasts 1 round. There is no 'Auto-crit'. You're also totally right that this isn't an autokill. It is, in fact, an ability that buys you a single round assuming the opponent fails a save. Again - compare to abilities that instantly kill the opponent if the opponent fails a save, or are similiar such as Entangle and Web.
Are you suggesting that the chances of not making that save should be taken into account? At best, the ability will only work 50-75% of the time (note that I said AT BEST). Other times, it may be totally useless. Not to mention the fact that the ability is totally, 100% counterable by a 3rd level spell, or an expendiature of about 5k gold.
There is NO "free" proning. None. At all. And spells don't cause creatures to go prone usually for a damn good reason - they do things that are much, MUCH more effective. Also, TK has a fantastic point. Dragon Child 15:55, 27 April 2009 (MDT)
Both Dragon Child and TK raise good points in this discussion, though, I find myself at a loss for words since they stated most of my arguments already. → Rith (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2009 (MDT)
It seems like the debate that is occurring here between Styles and Rith is Styles believes that the lower level gravity warrior is relatively too strong, and Rith is claiming that higher level enemies that you would fight require the massive strength bonuses the gravity warrior gets. The parties are arguing different sides of the spectrum, one at the beginning of the class and one at the end.
And Dragon Child you are right, there is NO free proning except in this class at levels much lower than a caster casting level 3 spells. MasterBowman 20:35, 27 April 2009 (MDT)
Casters get 3rd level spells at level 5. → Rith (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2009 (MDT)
And a gravity warrior can do more than a 3rd level spell at level 3. 129.21.119.235 06:09, 28 April 2009 (MDT)
I made the claim about higher level enemies. There is nothing to really argue about lower levels. You're a one trick pony who makes people fall down, and makes sure they can't shift around if you're in melee. There is no goddamn free proning, period. There's a SAVE. Why the hell are people complaining about the prone bit? The STUN is much, much more powerful than the prone. I honestly don't get it. And IP - the gravity warrior cannot. Try actually reading what casters do sometimes. Dragon Child 16:58, 28 April 2009 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

I think by free proning everyone who has used that term can agree they meant it as the ability to make an enemy go prone with the use of a class feature that can be used often enough to make it powerful. Having a character that can run around making things prone left and right is usually something people make builds for, not hand out at lvl 4 for taking a base class. Prone is so useful because of the coup de grace (auto hit, auto crit or autokill depending on your dm), and even more so since they are prone AND stunned (for 1 round) as the class currently exists. Normally a prone character will get up before your next turn, but since they are also stunned they are lying prone for more rounds, giving your party monk or anyone else who can move or is nearby ample time to get ready to coup de grace them - or at least score some hits. And yes, casters can do lots of stuff at level 3 or whatever, I was just trying to clarify MasterBowman's point up there - it's an early ability, and with a class designed as a fighter (right?), it seems a bit much to have full-fighting capabilities along with some very powerful tricks. 129.21.119.235 21:52, 28 April 2009 (MDT)
To quote:"Prone is so useful because of the coup de grace" Read the fucking book. You can't CdG prone people. You're critisizing the class for baseless reasons because you don't know the very basic mechanics of the system. There's just a MINOR diference between "Auto-kill" and "slight penalty against melee attacks, bonus against ranged attacks". You ought to be embarassed at this point, and I think this proves your judgement is trash. Dragon Child 22:04, 28 April 2009 (MDT)
Please note: prone DOES NOT mean you can Coup de Grace an opponent. An opponent must be HELPLESS in order for you to Coup de Grace them, and in order for them to be helpless, they must be paralized, unconcious, or some other status condition that renders them unable to use their muscles. → Rith (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2009 (MDT)
Hey there, let's not get personal, DragonChild. The DMs I have played with have allowed coup de graces (auto-hit, auto-crit or autokill depending on your DM) on prone people - makes sense to me, on the ground seems pretty helpless, and I apologize if this is not the case for ya'll, but if you'll note the first comment in this strain was my (I have a dynamic IP, I changed it to say Paggot Styles a couple times but I forgot on the most recent 2) DM's suggestions, based on his experiences. Sorry if it's different from how you play, but lordy calling a person's judgment trash based on how they've always played is a bit harsh, you know the books aren't always law. And frankly I think you should be embarassed for attacking someone making legitimate comments on a dungeon and dragons wiki of places like that. 129.21.119.235 22:15, 28 April 2009 (MDT)
I haven't really begun attacking you. I can start now, if you want. I made a truthful statement - your judgements on this class are trash. You're insisting that the class is overpowered because of your poorly thought out houserules. Thus, they are meaningless in the context of how this class should be changed on this page. Your comments are not legitimate. Dragon Child 22:23, 28 April 2009 (MDT)
Well, if the only real problem that is had with this class is founded on the "Coup de Grace" argument. Then I'm afraid this entire discussion has been a ridiculous waste of time, since the balance of a class when a paticular house rule is in play does not have any reflection on the actual balance of the class. (also, where should the indent restart be inserted?) → Rith (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2009 (MDT)
Yeah my apologies on that, but I still think this class is overpowered without the fact that prone doesn't mean you can coup de grace things based on the range of the abilities and free skill points (my other 2 arguments). And still, wouldn't prone AND stunned be helpless by the books? No idea for indenting, this is my first real comment sort of thing. 129.21.119.235 22:32, 28 April 2009 (MDT)
No. Only conditions specifically marked helpless count as helpless. Neither prone nor stun count. Surgo 22:37, 28 April 2009 (MDT)
Well, as Dragon Child stated above, the skill points help the class by making it so they aren't totally useless in anything other than combat, and the ranges actually hurt you more than they help you. (and yay, I figured it out) → Rith (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2009 (MDT)
Not even in conjunction with each other? I mean it seems more logic than anything else, but then who am I to try to fully apply real-world logic in a game where a guy can manipulate gravity, eh? 22:42, 28 April 2009 (MDT)
Helpless essentially means the character is incapable of using their muscles to defend themselves. A coup de grace is essentially a character taking the time to steady their hand, aim, and slit their opponents throat (or stab them through the heart or whatever), hence why it's a full round action. A coup de grace, in that sense, would have to require physical contact between the two people. Now then, wouldn't it make sense for a character who is laying on the ground and dazed to at least attempt to get away from their enemy should they get too close and grab hold of them to steady them or what not? (they aren't blind deaf and dumb after all) → Rith (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2009 (MDT)
Haha yea you seem to have beaten me to it on the page. Yeah I get that now Rith, thanks, but doesn't stunned mean you can't take any actions? So you wouldn't be able to get out of the way if say, you groundpound, an ally fails and is prone and stunned and then an enemy right next to him goes next. Even if the ally could go, he is stunned and unable to act, and also on the ground. That sounds pretty helpless to me. Dragonchild, I don't think calling someone trash is a very nice thing to do and is an over-reaction, my other arguments are still valid. Besides, they were my DM's rules he's played with that he brought into it when I started, not things I agreed on, I'm not one to argue against a DM with years more experience than me. While skill points make him better outside of battle, I feel like the 4+int are more than enough, as I said before that's twice as much as a fighter gets, I also agree that the skill points make sense, give it some, but not as many or not as fast or both. I understand the ground-pound abilities are worsened by the greater range, but for the gravity well it seems like it becomes a very high range very quickly. I just feel like this class is a fighter that, while lacking bonus feats, is given powers and other such abilities unchecked by lessened fighting abilities at low levels. As MasterBowman excellently observed, my issue with this class is it being overpowered at low levels. It gains very powerful and useful abilities very quickly that then increase at a standard rate thereafter. I think it's a great class, as I've said I'm having a blast playing it, but after having some more experience with the game I feel like the rate at which it gains abilities early on is much greater than other classes. I'm sorry if I wasted your times with the whole prone/coup de grace thing, but I wasn't aware my DM's rules were houserules, I don't own any of the books and make due with reading his when we play. 129.21.119.235 23:05, 28 April 2009 (MDT)
Well thank you for the compliment, I really enjoyed making the class, and it seems that a good many people like the concept. Though, as for range of gravity well, I must simply point you to the spell 'Acid Arrow', with, at the level when you first get it (3rd level), has a range of 520 feet. It deals 2d4 damage, and then, another 2d4 damage the very next round. This damage is without a saving throw. Gravity Well is there to be the anti-mage gun, catching the guy who is standing as far away as he can and annoying you offgaurd (also, gravity well ought to be gained at 6th level, not 4th, thats a typo). Besides, it can only affect a single opponent at a time anyways. → Rith (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2009 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

Having a character that can run around making things prone left and right is usually something people make builds for, not hand out at lvl 4 for taking a base class.
This was hilarious, fyi. Improved Trip, boom level 1 character designed to make things prone. Knock-Down, boom level 2 Fighter designed to make things prone in a slightly different way. Making people prone is so hard. It's not like a fortitude save is much harder to make against a set DC then opposing strength checks. Your "issue" with the class is not the class. It's your house rules. Your arguments AREN't valid. Much greater ability gaining than any class? Poor Paladin, eh? I mean, it gets ALL it's abilities in the first five levels (all decent abilities in the first three). Twice as much skills as the fighter gets? Shame the fighter is terrible class, especially in skill development. You should probably focus more on Barbarian comparison with this class. --TK-Squared 05:47, 29 April 2009 (MDT)
That's all well and good with those feats, TK, but here's 2 big differences: The gravity warrior can make multiple enemies prone at melee or more distance or at a (rather large) distance, and, while tripping an opponent requires first an unarmed melee touch attack and then opposing strength checks, the gravity warrior just does it. Boom! Fort save. Even a concentration check or a ranged touch attack would make it more balanced, but it operates now like a spell, not some sort of ability. It requires nothing on the gravity warrior's part, suggesting that at low levels he has complete control over gravity. This doesn't make much sense in terms of rping or balance - shouldn't his powers begin sort of shaky (perhaps even random with some d100 miss chance to the wrong spot), and over time they grow more focused, powerful, and focusable. On the note of rping, one of the reasons the Paladin is so powerful is because you are so restricted into how you develop the character. The requirement to be lawful good (or evil for those slaughter and tyranny variants) and the nature of a paladin means you have to react to situations in a very specific way. Granted there is leeway in what sort of way, but it must follow a pattern (the same goes for the druid, arguably the best base class, but on the same token by far the most difficult to rp). The gravity warrior, on the other hand, has no race or alignment restrictions, and given the fact that he bends the laws of physics I would say it makes more sense to be chaotic. Also, it has been stated before that this class' purpose is for crowd control, not the multi-purpose holy meatshield paladins provide. Fighter is not a "sucky" class, a fighter with well chosen feats can easily dish out more damage than a barbarian, and their general versatility in battle is more than enough reason to have them not get as many skills. Likewise should be the case here. The gravity warrior has so many different abilities it makes sense for them to not get as many skills - I have no qualms with the 4 + int, or the initial pseudo strength, however the increase rate is far too high for a combat-focused class. Also, given that the gravity warrior isn't a complete run-in and beat the living hell out of your enemies sort of class, and given its lower hit die and total lack of rping requirements (a barbarian's brute-ness and illiteracy require a decent amount of thought) make it seem much more like a fighter. I mean, the read the page, it sure looks a lot more like a focused battler than a raging strongman. Also, Rith, the fact that it gets that ability a 6 not 4 seems much more reasonable to me, but I still feel like the range advancement and fact it doesn't require more than a fort save make it too powerful. 129.21.119.235 18:44, 29 April 2009 (MDT)
As has been stated over and over and over again, there is no "Boom" about the class feature, it doesn't nothing without a requirement as you are so thickly attempting to assert. In order for the class feature to be of any use, the opponents must fail their saves, and so, the class feature is dependant on the enemies in question, whereas the ranged touch attack vaiant you suggested is actually more powerful than the current version, seeing as you simply must make an attack roll and "Boom" they are down, no save. The range of gravity well is already inadequate. A class's roleplaying implecations have no influence on the balance of the class, the class's abilities are what influence it's balance, please do not bring that back into this discussion. Class features are not restricted to a specific kind of class, why are you trying to assert this in the pseudo-strength arguement? Could it not be possible to at least contribute outside of combat instead of sitting there looking stupid until the swords start swinging? (Though, thats all the arguements I can seem to type right now) → Rith (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2009 (MDT)
The paladin is not "so powerful". It's one of the weaker classes. Requiring someone to be lawful good doesn't mean you can make them stronger. People would just play the paladin as lawful good anyway - or as some other alignment. Also, paladins are not a "multi-purpose holy meatshield". They utterly FAIL at tanking. Clerics and druids and wizards are better tanks than paladins, flat-out. And honestly, the gravity warriros don't get a lot of abilities - one of my critisisms of the class was that it was a one-trick pony that couldn't do much. Honestly, the idea that some people should just sit out for large sections of the game is downright INSULTING - are you honestly suggesting, with a straight face, that some people shouldn't have fun, and shouldn't participate during some of the game? Does that sound like good game design? You also continually suggest we compare it to a fighter - a fighter is underpowered, and Rith does not want this class to be underpowered. In the end, you're not going to convince anyone. Between your houserules, CdG sillyness, poor sense of balance (paladin as a good tank), bad design principles ('fighters should just sit the game out half of the time'), and so on... nobody is going to listen, even if you did have valid points, which you don't. Dragon Child 21:37, 29 April 2009 (MDT)
Well this is clearly a losing battle for me, I suppose I'll just give, I'm just giving my opinion as a person who's been playing this class for a while. We apparently have some fundamental misunderstanding about how the game is played (my party's paladin has been tanking like the dickens, and I think if you build a fighter that doesn't do anything in combat, that's your own damn fault). One of the great things about D&D is that so much is up for interpretation, like a good book, and for one to simply assert that are right and the other wrong isn't the best way to go about it, especially in a dynamic thought-sharing place like a wiki. I would also say, DragonChild, before you go around saying who's points are valid if you can't use right grammar and spelling. I would like to thank everyone commenting on here, it was nice to hear your points (except for DragonChild, you're a dick and I hope everyone else here realizes it). Everyone have a nice day, you probably won't be hearing from me again. tildetildetildetilde
I would simply like to state my rebutal to Paggot Style's argument to everyone who reads this discussion in the future; If D&D is great because so much is up for interpretation, then there is no sense in the discussing of the balance of a class, since the rules could be interpreted to be overpowered on underpowered in any given situation, and this entire discussion is a waste of page. (Also, any character who has high constitution and d10 HD or better can tank, it doesn't make them perfect at it though, for someone who can "tank like the dickens", look to the Crusader class from The Tome of Battle, and, the arguement about Fighters was that they were useless in anything but combat, not that they couldn't do anything) → Rith (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2009 (MDT)
And here you go with another fallacy. Just because a character can tank well, doesn't mean the class is good at it. It means the character is. There's a huge difference. And I'd just like to point something out: I would also say, DragonChild, before you go around saying who's points are valid if you can't use right grammar and spelling.. *facepalm*. Dragon Child 18:46, 30 April 2009 (MDT)


2,000 Views![edit]

I am amazed that this page has actually accumilated 2,000 views, I would have never thought that it would have become this popular when I first made it, and I must simply say, thank you. → Rith (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2009 (MDT)

I am amazed that this talk page has gotten over 1,000 views already. Sigh, like, none of my articles have that many viewings. Keep up the work, Rith. --Ganteka 23:34, 29 April 2009 (MDT)

Comment[edit]

This is a very interesting and well made class. I think it would be interesting to change the class from completely bent on increasing gravity to include decreasing gravity.--Axaj

It does include decrese gravity, it gets an enhancement bonus to its speed, which relates to decreasing gravity. It also gets a bonus to str for a lot of abilities, which relates to decreasing gravity. It even has the ability to take an easier time when travelling long distances, which relates to decreasing gravity. All of the instances of decreasing gravity though, relate to ambient affects, or, defensive abilities, and increasing gravity relates to aggressive abilities. (also, please sign your posts with 4 tildes (or, ~~~~)) → Rith (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2009 (MDT)
Epic. Simply epic. I agree with a few of the people above in that it the class should include making an opponent's weapon lighter, or you should at least have some description of why that won't work (like in D&D tems -- *ahem* "Due to the incredible focus required, gravity warriors find it harder to decrease the weight of items as opposed to increase them. Because of how difficult it is to focus, they cannot use gravity-decreasing powers while in combat." Done.). At least in my opinion, it's good to have something like that, even if it's BS (though I'm a noob-ish... maybe you shouldn't listen to me.).
I'm going to playtest this class... well, I'll offer it to my players. I don't see why someone wouldn't take it, though they're all slobbering over psionics right now. I want to try and playtest your Time Walker and Time Walker Variant (with some minor adjustments). You're truly a genious. Get a job with Wizards of the Coast. No, wait, don't. Then we'd have to pay for your work...--For Valor 00:27, 9 June 2009 (MDT)

3,000 Views![edit]

Wow, and now this page has actually managed to collect over 3,000 views. I must simply say, once again, "Thank you". → Rith (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2009 (MDT)

Pffft. That's only because of the flamewars. :P Dragon Child 16:15, 1 June 2009 (MDT)
Thats what you think. :DRith (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2009 (MDT)

Comment[edit]

Ok, i've read the whole class. :D
And i just have to say *clap clap*... I believe that this is the perfect class for me :D so far anyways :D
I've been looking all over for a class that is combat based not some slow slug with heavy armor, but has some ac because he is fast and can take some dmg :D..
Truthfully this is great, nice dmg output, nice strength has some special abilities so it's not a regular warrior-i take my sword and i swing- speed nice nice nice :D

I've read almost whole discussion now and my head kind a hurts hehehe :D
About pseudo str+ does it apply on dmg rolls? i didn't quite get that :D
and when person is in Prone and stunned on the ground can you cup the grace?
ty :D
Zerathul

Well, thank you Zerathul, for the comment. Though, to answer your questions, no, pseudo strength does not apply to attack rolls or damage rolls, but does apply to everything else relating to a gravity warriors strength score, hence the name 'pseudo' strength. As for coup de gracing, no, an opponent must be helpless in order for them to be coup de graced, and stunned and prone does not fall into the category of 'helpless'. Now then, if your DM says that you may as a houserule, then feel free, though, it's not in the normal rules. (Also, you can sign your posts by simply typing four tildes (~~~~) :D) → Rith (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2009 (MDT)
Heh , my lack of knowledge :P heh :D
I think that this class has nice power balance.. even thou it somehow seems that he doesn't get a lot of skills :D
Not that it's needed it would be fun to add something meaningless just for the fun of it and to make role play more interesting :D but still it's the best i found as i said before :D
Well, thank you again for the interest and the compliments to the class. I hope you have plenty of fun playing it. :DDDDDD → Rith (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2009 (MDT)
Erm , do you think it's appropriate for dm to give some kind of misc intimidate bonus when grav.warrior uses that ability that weights down an opponent ? Perhaps on commoners and such? nothing special but it is unusual ability ?
Especially for a Warrior :D
And oh yea one more question, what would hammer if i was to lets say use hammer on opponents head? Scenario: Opponent is on ground, sleeping or whatever doesn't really matter and i use that hammer thingy to punch his head? XD i mean if something can create a small tremor / earthquake wouldn't that split his head open? XD
Well, to start out, yes, I think that a DM giving a circumstantial bonus to a skill check is fine, considering that they are circumstantial. In fact, they are rather common-place. For example, if a player makes a bluff check and goes through, talking about how they try and convince whoever they may be bluffing, and their walk through makes sense, the DM may give the player a circumstantial bonus to the bluff check. What you are asking is essentially the same thing. Secondly, sure, of course that would burst open the characters head, though, there are no stats for it, and it would probably be a general coup de grace anyways. perhaps with a circumstantial bonus to damage. → Rith (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2009 (MDT)
Heh nice :D Btw ty for answering my questions. Here is one unrelated one , hope you don't mind, i'm not into this site so much and i was wandering if there are some more Undead races here? I found only a few which i didn't really like. Perhaps you know of a site or a book that can help me with that ?
Well, I have personally made my own undead race, the Vithui (in fact, it's the only undead RACE I've ever personally seen, considering that they are born undead, ect, ect.). Though, as for undead from sourcebooks, the best one I know of is the Necropolitan template from the Libris Mortis. It's the lowest LA undead-maker in all of WotC, but it's still LA+1. → Rith (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2009 (MDT)

4,000 Views[edit]

Wow, 4,000 views, I don't believe my eyes. → Rith (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2009 (MDT)

Improvement[edit]

NeedsBalance: This class comes off as a class which mainly manipulates gravity in a battle field scenario, manipulates gravity for himself, his weapons, or somehow becomes a more stoic character (as represented in Endurance and Devastator). Personally I feel that the gravitational change to his weapons should be changed to something else (as has been discussed on the talk page a few times) and/or that the stoic aspect and how he manipulates gravity for himeself should be changed to something more practical and more balanced. Occasionally this class comes off as a 20-level Monstrous Weapon Master (3.5e Prestige Class) type class (especially if one looks through the history of that class for older editions and older builds (maybe even the versions with different names)). --Green Dragon 15:57, 26 July 2009 (MDT)

I don't see what's so unbalanced. Can you please specify what you find unbalanced, with exactly why you find it so? Dragon Child 18:44, 26 July 2009 (MDT)
Well, as DC above me stated, I fail to see what is unbalanced about this class, it can wield a bigger weapon perhaps? That ability is handed out like candy, and as TK so often points out, 'Wield a Large Weapon' plus 'Wield a Large Weapon' does not equal 'Weild a Huge Weapon', it equals 'Wield a Large Weapon because of 2 different things'. As for the ability to add more str mod to damage, that should not be considered overpowered, considering that half your str mod to damage isn't that big of a boost. As for increasing the crit multiplier of a weapon, I already pointed out my points for that above. The hammers are the main boost in power that this class gets, and it needs it. It seems to me that you seemed to notice the wielding of larger weapons more than anything else, considering that you compared it to the monsterous weapon master before others. I must simply point out that wielding a colossal weapon will never be the best -or even an acceptable- route to go with. To wrap up, I've gotten a virtual flood of attention on this class, a thousand comments that say it's perfect, a comment or two from people who believed it to be OP, and several comments, from people whose opinions I trust, who say it's slightly UP. I believe that it has struck a level of balance that is extremely difficult to hit, where most everyone, WotC and Tome alike, think the class is just about perfect. You are the only one who thinks otherwise though. → Rith (talk) 08:27, 27 July 2009 (MDT)
I really like the class features, like High-Gravity Zone, which the gravity warrior gains an understanding of gravity and uses gravity to change the world around him for a combat advantage. All the class features where the gravity warrior just changes his weapon to be larger, more precise, or the ones where he makes himself less caring of the elements just seem to not work with gravity. For example if one could change gravity around himself how could one make his weapon more precise? Or how could one make his weapon hit harder? Or how could one make himself less caring of the elements? When I first start reading this class I start to think of images such as [1] (just change the earth for ones character and then this class could manipulate the gravity around the character). Is that the kind of class you had in mind when you were making this or did you have something else in mind? --Green Dragon 18:21, 27 July 2009 (MDT)
As far as the larger bit/hitting hard, I think something like this. The elemental part? It's a thirtieth level character getting a first level spell. Does it really need a gravitational explanation. Can't he just be a tough SOB? Also, gravity doesn't necessarily have to manipulated in terms of it's magnitude, but the direction of the vector could be changed, too, if that's something you hadn't considered. -- Jota 19:00, 27 July 2009 (MDT)
Every class needs to have some sort of versatility. If they don't, they end up only making boring, one-dimensional characters. There's nothing wrong with a class giving powers that tie into the THEME (toughness!) even if not the overall flavor. Even then, this stuff does. He's a gravity warrior, he trains in super strong gravity DBZ style to make himself amazingly tough and powerful! Dragon Child 19:11, 27 July 2009 (MDT)
And nothing even mentioned has to do with the class's balance, making me wonder what the hell are people thinking here. Surgo 20:21, 27 July 2009 (MDT)
Surging Man has a point there, these are not matters for the classes balance, and are instead hinging on flavor/ability agreement. As is, everything this class does, makes perfect sense in my head (and other peoples too, it seems), so I'll try and translate my thoughts into words to have it make sense in everyone's heads. → Rith (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2009 (MDT)

Wording: A few issues I found on a first glance.
<tasks> [ ] Making a Gravity Warrior should be checked over for grammatical problems (one has to read it multiple times to understand the meaning and to me it comes off as if it uses a few different tenses). [ ] Event Horizon Hammer sounds more like one wants to put the gravity warrior on a pedestal and not how a class features should sound. [x] In Playing a Gravity Warrior "Other Classes" an explanation as to why they work well with Sorcerer and Wizards would be helpful. [ ] Gravity Warriors in the World comes off a bit cheezy and seems to incorporate a lot of "gravity warrior" propaganda. I feel that Gravity Warriors in the World either needs a lot of improvement or should just be rewritten. [ ] Gravity Warriors in the Game in the "Sample Encounter" part the bottom half needs to be looked over for grammatical mistakes. --Green Dragon 15:57, 26 July 2009 (MDT) </tasks>

I already talked with Rith about his wording at times (regarding a different class), but I don't see what's so bad about Making a Gravity Warrior. I made a few small changes (revert if you don't like, Rith), and I noticed it does get a little repetitive in the abilities section, but it isn't really bad. -- Jota 18:48, 26 July 2009 (MDT)
Did you write that sample encounter story? Zerathul 19:41, 26 July 2009 (MDT) - Zerathul
Well, as I stated on the Bishop's talk page, I have no eye for grammar, though, I'll sweep through once today and try and clean out the biggest psrt of grammartical errors I can find, but, once that's done, my resources will be depleted in that department. What do you mean by put the gravity warrior on a pedestal exactly? Do you mean that the class features sounds too grand, that it sounds to fantastic, perhaps? Please specify your qualm with the class feature's wording, if you wouldn't mind. Also, if, by "gravity warrior" propaganda, you mean the notables section, then I simply say that the section asked me for notables, and I made up some notables who would be notable. Again, I'll look through for grammatical mistakes, but I'm not promising a miracle → Rith (talk) 08:27, 27 July 2009 (MDT)
My grammatical skill is less then par however I think the Making a Gravity Warrior part needs to be rewritten. I want to understand it as if I was reading a book and not as if I was reading the laws of the land. Also with the Gravity Warriors in the World pedestal/propaganda/cheezyness issue I just think some of the more aggravating words needs to be removed so it sounds like all other class features (people will understand it is epic because of its placement on that page in any case). --Green Dragon 18:04, 27 July 2009 (MDT)
Also, if you feel strongly enough about it, why not register your disagreement with a rating? Words can only go so far, one of the reasons why I'm somewhat ambivalent about the whole new rating proposal (for another topic, please don't address here). But if you want to call it out for suspect wording and power, rate it, then your opinions will be recorded and factored in with the others who don't have any qualms with the class as is. I mean, I see that you've already rated it, but you've nullified portions of that rating. Hell, you even gave it 5/5 on the wording. So which is it? -- Jota 19:41, 27 July 2009 (MDT)
Ok, maybe these will help.
  • Ground Hammer has one confusing sentence at the very end, where it says the ability “can only be used once every d6 rounds.” I would suggest changing this to say that he must wait a certain number of rounds after using it before he may use it again (if I understand it right, that’s what it already means, but we’re doing this for the sake of clarity). The same thing can be said for Earth Hammer and Tectonic Hammer
  • Gravity Well has the same issue as gravity hammer. It’s not bad as is, but it could simply be a little clearer.
Other than that, all of the class features are in present tense and concisely worded. I have made tiny, minor spelling/grammatical edits, but it’s only adding in a few characters at a time. - TG Cid 20:09, 27 July 2009 (MDT)
I'll attempt to make those bits a bit more clear. Though, as for everything else, I'll try retyping the fluff bits to make it read more 'like a book', and I'll try and deal with the aggressive bits, but I can't find any more grammatical errors myself. → Rith (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2009 (MDT)
I'm going to remove the template at the top of the page until Green replies, considering that the wording has been massively overhauled on this page as is. → Rith (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2009 (MDT)

Mass and Weight Distinction[edit]

If you're going to be using the word gravity, it is of (fairly minor) importance to get the physics right. Gravity does not increase or decrease mass--it changes weight. This may seem limiting, but is actually just a semantic issue in this context (albeit an important distinction for any players who wish to suspend disbelief). In general, when dealing with weight, we speak specifically of the force downward, but if gravity is being manipulated freely, there is no limit on what direction weight can be applied. As a result, any effect that is described as being due to "increasing an object's mass" can instead (usually) be read as "increasing an object's weight". This works well enough for the leaden fist (and related) abilities. For combat effects, the distinction is slightly more subtle; rather than changing the mass of the weapon at appropriate times, you will be changing the forces that are applied to it. This is important, because changing the mass of a weapon at specific instants would not have any effect on the damage it does--the energy in the object would be the same (velocity would decrease to make up for the increased mass). However, changing the forces that gravity applies to the weapon 'would' increase the energy in that weapon, and thus increase the damage dealt. -> 66.207.92.2 11:04, 30 July 2009 (MDT)

If you're going to be using the word gravity, it is of (fairly minor) importance to get the physics right.
—That Dude
No, it's not. This is fantasy. --TK-Squared 13:59, 30 July 2009 (MDT)
Well that was blunt. Anyway, I think both sides have a point here, but given the probable lack of in-depth understanding for most readers, TK is more correct, mainly meaning that the article does not need to go through wholesale changes to reflect the reality of physics. Those with a more detailed grasp of the subject matter can still use the class as designed, since it is only the flavor justification, rather than the the actual mechanics that would be changed. -- Jota 14:37, 30 July 2009 (MDT)
TK-Squared: "No, it's not. This is fantasy SPARTA!!"
Fixed it for you! ^_^ (Heh, j/k) --Ghostwheel 14:40, 30 July 2009 (MDT)
I agree with what Jota said. Though, feel free to correct the wording if you believe it is needed. → Rith (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2009 (MDT)
Why is this called "Gravity Warrior" then if it insteads deals with DBZ ideas with large weapons, etc? --Green Dragon 15:03, 2 August 2009 (MDT)
Because it isn't based off of these things, it just seems logical that someone who can increase somethings weight should be able to make bigger impacts. Controversely, perhaps you wish to lift something extremely large, you can simply decrease it's weight to make it more wieldable. At the same time, it would simply be stupid for a person who can decrease his own weight to not be able to persist longer (Endurance) or move faster (Fast Movement) than other creatures of his own race. At the same time, he is able to increase his own weight, and eventually make his skin denser, hence the endure elements part at level 30. This isn't a DBZ based class, it's just logical that the things a 'gravity warrior' would do would translate to the mechanics that are listed here. → Rith (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2009 (MDT)

Rating[edit]

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it is a well balanced class —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.230.235.220 (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it's very clear and to the point. As far as I can tell there are no loop holes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.230.235.220 (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because Excellent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.230.235.220 (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

Rating nullified, no justification given. - TG Cid 08:03, 6 August 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because Need new classes and more diversity, this class is perfect for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.230.235.220 (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

While I'm in agreement that this class is an example of what there should be more of on this Wiki (at least in terms of the obvious effort the author puts in if nothing else), that's not all that flavor is. Flavor could also be readability and creativity of the fluff text, which kind of seals the deal on whether you want to play the class or not. That's at least part how I think of it, even though I suppose the definition of flavor is highly debated here. - TG Cid 08:03, 6 August 2009 (MDT)
By the way, you need to remove the Nowiki tag before you post this. Because it was just a jumple of text, I couldn't give you credit for the post without the unsigned markers. - TG Cid 08:03, 6 August 2009 (MDT)

Rating[edit]

Power - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it cannot hold it's own against other heavily combat classes. I am currently playing one however, because I liked the idea so much, and it does work well with combat reflexes, but in single combat loses out somewhat I find. --Amon 09:03, 27 November 2009 (MST)

Wording - 5/5 --Amon 09:03, 27 November 2009 (MST)

Formatting - 5/5

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it is finally a completely unique class that does something which cannot be achieved through multiclassing in D&D --Amon 09:03, 27 November 2009 (MST)

Rating[edit]

Power - 2/5 I give this class a 2 out of 5 because this class offers very little in the way of flexibility and adaptability, as well as a lack of raw power. --130.71.83.35 04:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it is very well written, and clearly explained. --130.71.83.35 04:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it is clearly written, easy to read, and interesting. --130.71.83.35 04:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the class is oozing with interesting flavour. --130.71.83.35 04:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


Minor Thought[edit]

Would it be overpowered to add in a finishing move at level 20? There's a certain distance above the Earth, where you fall but miss the ground, so you're constantly in freefall but still fall towards the Earth instead of breaking loose. Would it be possible to put something like that in at lvl20? No need to do it, it'd just be fun. Although.. It could work with a mage class speccing for telekesis.. CJ 02:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

rating[edit]

Rating[edit]

Power - 2.5/5 I give this class a 2 out of 5 because, while the abilities are good, the damage needs to be ramped way up if they want to be able to do anything valuable. I mean, 12d10 damage at lvl 29? Not going to cut it. It's one saving grace is what it wasn't designed to do as much, tactical use of disabling enemies. From what I can tell by reading the talks from earlier, it was designed to deal damage. Lots of damage. It can't manage it, when wizards are blasting giant groups for 20d10 damage or more every other round, if not every round. Same thing earlier. Needs some serious upgrading in damage. Everything else about balance seems great. --enigma 23:50, 4 September 2010 (MDT)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it's an original idea, and it fleshes out the attacks to the point where I wouldn't want to change the flavor in any way if I played this class. This is incredibly unusual. --enigma 23:50, 4 September 2010 (MDT)


Rating[edit]

Power - <<<5/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --

Wording - <<<5/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --

Formatting - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> -- 01:52, 11 December 2010 (MST)

Flavor - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --

Looks like someone tried to post w/out filling anything in. Why would they give a rating if they weren't going to give a rating? --enigma

Rating[edit]

Edit: I went to fix a small error made by another contributor (not removing that top line) and wound up getting my username all over the place. :(

Power - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<Because there class bonuses to there strength, and how to improve it hm-mm to tell you the truth I don't think you could. >>> --Keegan 01:52, 11 December 2010 (MST)

Wording - <<<4>>>/5 I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<There's Slim to no typo's but you could improve it be using more lively words, if you know what I mean. >>> --Keegan 01:52, 11 December 2010 (MST)

Formatting - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<>> --Keegan 01:52, 11 December 2010 (MST)

Flavor - <<<...>>>/5 I give this class a <<<...>>> out of 5 because <<<since when do classes have flavor, well anyhow i think it would taste like like light and various computer fragments.>>> --Keegan 01:52, 11 December 2010 (MST) Word to all, Mhuhahahahahahahahaha

Forgot Comma[edit]

You forgot a comma between Unarmed Attack and Endurance. --Keegan 01:52, 11 December 2010 (MST)

Edit: I went to fix a small error made by another contributor (not removing that top line) and wound up getting my username all over the place. I don't know the original usernames that were there (if any) --Keegan 01:57, 11 December 2010 (MST)

Rating[edit]

Edit: I went to fix a small error made by another contributor (not removing that top line) and wound up getting my username all over the place. I don't know the original usernames that were there (if any) --Keegan 01:56, 11 December 2010 (MST)

Power - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because because it can do devastating blows to multiple enemies, but only moderate effects on single enemies. --Keegan 01:52, 11 December 2010 (MST)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because I can understand it --Keegan 01:52, 11 December 2010 (MST)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because I can understand it. --Keegan 01:52, 11 December 2010 (MST)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because I like how the page is arranged and I especially like the picture. --Keegan 01:52, 11 December 2010 (MST)

Rating[edit]

Power - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the hammers are a bit overpowered. The fact that the hammers don't replace each other at all is quite powerful. The fort save doesn't get easier as the power of them gets lower. He can just keep firing them off round after round, most likely able to use the biggest again before he's even done the smallest. The knockback is a good counter to it, but I'd give it an even greater knockback or a smaller range (not as drastic as was suggested by Paggot Styles' GM) so they can't be used in such great succession. --Keegan 01:52, 11 December 2010 (MST)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because everything's very easy to understand. All the questions are answered as they should be. The only tiny complaint I have is that Pseudo Strength isn't clear in its first description as to what exactly it boosts. Though, the epic level version - assuming it's the same stuff - is. --Keegan 01:52, 11 December 2010 (MST)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because everything that's been printed or is close to something printed is perfect by my recollection. --Keegan 01:52, 11 December 2010 (MST)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because you covered a lot of what gravity can do. There are probably a few more areas unexplored in the final, but the class really doesn't need more stuff. --Keegan 01:52, 11 December 2010 (MST)

Rating[edit]

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because of the hammer abilities. They might not do as much damage as any mage of the same levels could, they give a melee combatant some flexibility to take on crowds of enemies. The Psuedo-Strength though I believe should affect the damage from an attack. It would not make sense for it to allow the Gravity Warrior to hit better but I could see it hitting harder. --Erix 15:25, 6 January 2011 (MST)Erix

Wording - 4.5/5 I give this class a 4.5 out of 5 because Psuedo-Strength does not explain itself unless you read the epic-level version. --Erix 15:25, 6 January 2011 (MST)Erix

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because because it felt like the class came straight out of a book. --Erix 15:25, 6 January 2011 (MST)Erix

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because of the example story and the background and detail you went through just to make it sound good. --Erix 15:25, 6 January 2011 (MST)Erix

Rating[edit]

Power - 2/5 I give this class a 2 out of 5 because broken to a degree needs some balancing --Warforgemonkey 19:46, 30 July 2011 (MDT)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because nice wording very well done. --Warforgemonkey 19:46, 30 July 2011 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because its very nice and well organized --Warforgemonkey 19:46, 30 July 2011 (MDT)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because very unique and cool idea. --Warforgemonkey 19:46, 30 July 2011 (MDT)

Additions[edit]

With all the talk about making a class fun in AND out of combat I figured I would make a few suggestions. With a warrior who is adept at bending gravity I think a few additions would make sense for this class, as well as providing some out of combat functionality and flavor.

1st: Add Slow Fall, as the Monk ability to the class. Culminating at a permanent Feather Fall effect (as the spell) at level 20. 2nd: Add Abundant Step, also as the Monk ability at or around lvl 14-ish 3rd: Add an Improved High Gravity Zone (lvl 15-ish) that reduces damage done by enemies due to it being harder to swing weapons. 4th: At lvl 20 or perhaps epic level, The Gravity Warrior can choose which targets are affected by his area-of-effect powers at will, doing so requires a standard action on the round prior to using the area-of-effect power.

Just suggestions, but I think they would fit. The last one is mostly just functional to keep you from knocking over your buddies all the time. ~Fyren

Rating[edit]

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because a Gravity Warrior would have good melee damage output and an ability to take down enemies that would normally be out of a melee characters expertise. The Hammer abilities are not very usable in a party because of their excessive range, which balances them out. <Enialis 10:26, 25 September 2011 (MDT)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because there are little or no grammar problems, and what the abilities do is clearly stated. <Enialis 10:26, 25 September 2011 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because there are no formatting problems. <Enialis 10:26, 25 September 2011 (MDT)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the powers of the class are original, as is the concept behind them. <Enialis 10:26, 25 September 2011 (MDT)

Rating[edit]

Power - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the class was not overpowered to the extreme but was nicely balanced between strengths and weaknesses, for the most part. You might want to balance out the speed a bit, maybe make it, same as monk 1/2 his/her level. --173.245.56.248 06:24, 7 October 2011 (MDT)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it was beautifully written. --173.245.56.248 06:24, 7 October 2011 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it was easy to understand and went according to most SRD classes. --173.245.56.248 06:24, 7 October 2011 (MDT)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it was a very original character design and it gave very detailed and beautifully written examples. --173.245.56.248 06:24, 7 October 2011 (MDT)

Featured article needs[edit]

Alright here are major issues I see to make this a featured article. 1. speed bonus should be like the warrior monk (it already gets the hand to hand as a monk for free which I am iffy on) and a ton of strength. This thing should not be a one stop shop for everything. 2. All abilities - 1/2 (or max 3/4) of levels of gravity warrior. not 1 per hd (you shouldn't reward people for dipping out of the class) and as it stands at level 20 you would easily have fort saves of 40+ which is way too high (CR20s should not need 20s to stop an effect.) With the fact that the higher level abilities do crazy amounts of stuff I would lean towards the 1/2 (I knock you down do 6d10 and stun you for d4 turns against pretty much any class at level 12? oh and my minimum bonus before my attribute division is 19?) not to mention the radius on some of the abilities (i.e. 20 where it would affect out to 300 feet.) is really high. If it is a Tome we can yank off FA and slap a symbol on it but this isn't for standard 3.5e. So my vote is Oppose.

Personal tools
d20M
miscellaneous
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors