Talk:Threat (3.5e Class)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Very minor issues[edit]

First off, awesome class. It does things my half-orc barbarian only dreamed of doing when I was little. My only suggestions for changes are these:

1. In Mighty Blow, it is unclear whether the bonus damage based on Strength supersedes the normal Strength damage bonus or is added on (the latter of which I suspect to be the case). In addition, when you say that "he cannot declare any single attack to be a mighty blow more than once", does that mean that the threat cannot use two uses of mighty blow on the same attack, thus dealing his bonus damage twice? I think I'm right, but the explanation is still somewhat vague.

2. This is extremely minor (and I cannot stress "extremely" enough), but in Greater Titanic Force, the SRD link says "two size category" when it should say "categories".

All in all, a great match-up for a strong combat class. Good job. - ThunderGod Cid 09:08, 23 June 2009 (MDT)

Well, first off, thanks man, this class is rather awesome, after all (ego swells), but to answer your questions:
  1. Yes, the bonus damage is added on on top of the normal bonus from the characters strength score, and yes, the second part means that he cannot gain the bonus damage more than once on a single attack. I'll go back through and clarify those two points.
  2. Good catch there, I'll fix that (and fix the epic-level class features too, since they appear to be the same).
Again, I thank you, once it's complete, feel free to rate it. → Rith (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2009 (MDT)
Greater unnatural force is also listed twice in the class features. Mighty Unnatural Force is listed in the epic features. --Aarnott 08:00, 3 August 2009 (MDT)
Good catch, thanks much Aarnott. → Rith (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2009 (MDT)

Rating[edit]

Power - 2/5 I give this class a 2 out of 5 because gaining +10 natural armor over 20 levels is overpowered; it's basically like getting the equivalent of 2 million gp for free. Also, people can already get their grapple/trip modifier into the sky, increasing that even more seems a little redundant. --76.169.236.139 09:48, 25 June 2009 (MDT)

Bah! It is the equivalent to a cleric casting Magic Vestment a couple times, not 2 million gold. +10 natural armor doesn't even come close to spells. Not even close... --Aarnott 10:01, 25 June 2009 (MDT)
I agree with Aarnott, +10 to AC at level 20 is absolutely nothing, considering that that is the point where the game starts breaking down. Honestly, look at any 9th level spell, and tell me if you would perfer it, or a single +10 bonus to AC. Also, usually, with characters who get thier grapple/trip modifiers into the sky, as you so put it, it's done via classes, and done at a much faster rate than this class grants it's benefits. → Rith (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2009 (MDT)
Having spoken with the designer about it, the natural armor is not supposed to stack with an amulet of natural armor. As such, to be a REAL bonus, it has to eventually be higher than +5. The +10 bonus is more like a +5 bonus, and not all that big of a deal. And it's possible to get those bonuses up, but how many work with a new class, and in the end, will they let you trip a great wyrm? If not, they need to be there. Also, please do the wiki a favor and never mention epic rules when rating other people's classes - they just don't work, and it's unfair to use that giant kludge to make rating decisions. Dragon Child 14:25, 25 June 2009 (MDT)
If it doesn't stack with items like an Amulet of Natural Armor, then it should be an enhancement bonus to natural AC. Furthermore, Greater Vestment is a bad comparison because the character could have the +10 natural armor, another +5 from an amulet (as the wording stands now), AND a set of +5 full plate. Also, I wasn't comparing it to casters who are overpowered. I was comparing it to other melee classes such as the Psychic Warrior or the ToB classes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.169.236.139 (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!
Unrelated point: Please sign your posts using the signature button at the top, or typing --~~~~
The ToB classes are much stronger than this one. Don't kid yourself on that. If anything, the +10 natural armor makes up for this class being a little underpowered (in a non-broken way). This class is somewhat a 1-trick pony. That's fine for a melee class, but it comes with consequences in a lot of situations. As such, it should at least be good at its trick. --Aarnott 18:04, 25 June 2009 (MDT)
That depends on what you mean by overpowered. If you mean "versatile", I agree. But as far as damage goes, you can easily get around the same with the usual Leap Attack + Shock Trooper followed by Combat Brute for this character. Furthermore, the effective size increases make it far more adept than virtually any other character at tripping and the like. Be a goliath on top of that, add on a level or two of something that gives the Expansion power, and you've got a character who trips virtually everything, and has to do one of two things; charge or trip. 76.169.236.139 21:42, 25 June 2009 (MDT)
Two effective size category increases do not stack. If you are medium, you are effectively large twice. Powerful Build will not stack with this class' Unnatural Force ability. --TK-Squared 22:17, 25 June 2009 (MDT)
Okay, I have to leave for about two weeks today, and I will not leave this page with a rating it does not deserve, and so, seeing that not a single other person has even seemed about to agree with you, and your arguements have all been refuted in one way or another, I am nullifying this rating. Also, please respond to the wording rating response below, so that it is feasable for me to clarify what you had trouble understanding. → Rith (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2009 (MDT)
Despite the fact that I don't agree with the rating, I don't think that is the way things are supposed to work. The idea is that more people will rate it to balance out a bad rating. Just because you disagree, does not mean the rating is invalid. The rater did substantiate his reasoning (even if we do find it to be flawed logic)... --Aarnott 17:37, 26 June 2009 (MDT)
Sorry, I typed a reply to this before the comp left me a week ago, but it seems not to have gone through. I'll simply repeat what the main points of that post were:
  1. By the IP's logic, you could call the rogue overpowered because it gets sneak attack.
  2. That rating was a misrepresentation of the page, it may be slightly off balance, but it is most definently not deserving of a '2'.
  3. If it really needs to be done, go ahead and un-nullify the rating. → Rith (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (MDT)

Wording - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because for the most part it looks well-worded, though there was a place or two where I needed to reread an ability again. --76.169.236.139 09:48, 25 June 2009 (MDT)

Would you mind pointing them out so that I might be remotely capable of fixing them? → Rith (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2009 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it appeared to conform to the formatting guidelines. --76.169.236.139 09:48, 25 June 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it seems flavorful enough, but also seems limited to special combat maneuvers (trip, bull rush, etc) and taking damage. --76.169.236.139 09:48, 25 June 2009 (MDT)

Rating nullified, gave a none flavor reason for for a flavor rating. → Rith (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2009 (MDT)

Rating[edit]

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it hits the author's balance point dead-on. --Dragon Child 16:50, 26 June 2009 (MDT)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the ability wordings are clear-cut, and I can't see any improvements that could be made now that the NA is cleared up.--Dragon Child 16:50, 26 June 2009 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the class has all the necessary interwiki links and sections. --Dragon Child 16:50, 26 June 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - <4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because while the flavor is essentially "big tough guy", it does have a new, interesting take on it. --Dragon Child 16:50, 26 June 2009 (MDT)

Mighty Blow[edit]

This ability worries me a little bit. At levels 1 and 2 it seems pretty okay, but once you hit level 5 or so, pretty much every attack you make in a day is going to be a mighty blow -- you're basically adding your strength modifier to your attacks again with every attack you make. I don't think that sort of drastic numerical increase is a good thing. Surgo 01:29, 3 August 2009 (MDT)

Well, lets compare to a rogue in damage ouput. At level 3, a human rogue will be dealing +2d6 damage on (ballparking it) 50% of their attacks. At the same level a human threat will be dealing +4 damage on 6 of their attacks out of a day (and yes, I agree that it'd be difficult to find a reason to make more than 6 attacks in a day, so lets call that 100% of attacks). Now then, the rogue gains an average of +3.5 damage to their attacks, the threat will be dealing +4 damage to their attacks. That seems about even to me. At level 5 in turns into +5.25 versus +4 damage. Level seven it becomes +7 versus +4. At level 9 is becomes +8.75 versus +5. The rogue stays generally ahead of the threat, the only superiority that the threat has is that there is no 'minimum', or rather, no chance that the threat will roll a 1 or one of his d6's. Also, I pmed you on Salin, not sure if you got it though. → Rith (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2009 (MDT)
Note though that the rogue has medium BAB, and also usually takes more penalties to attack due to TWF. However, I don't think this ability is a problem, since it's limited to a number of times per day and at higher levels you're making many iterative attacks every round. Furthermore, the number of times you can do so is based on your Threat level--which is an incentive to stick with the class, a good thing IMO. --Ghostwheel 03:25, 3 August 2009 (MDT)
Very good point Ghostwheel, on all accounts. → Rith (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2009 (MDT)
Thanks. The only real problem I have with this class is that it doesn't lend itself to any role in particular--most non-casters don't become Arcanists, and it doesn't have too many innate skills to become a Defender, or extra damage to become a real Striker, which (IMO, though I could be wrong) leaves you trying to fulfill either role with feats, going Thicket of Blades + Stand Still + Combat Reflexes for Defenderishness, or Shock Trooper + Combat Brute + Leap Attack for Strikerishness. Perhaps adding some sort of, "Hit me, hit me!" mechanic could benefit the class, what with their traits that focus on durability? (Perhaps an aura that forces enemies to make a Will save DC 10 + 1/2 threat level + str mod or must target the Threat as far as attack rolls are concerned (perhaps simply giving a -5 penalty to attacks against characters other than the Threat), until he's down & out? This would both make him a primary target for enemies, allowing him to show off his durability, and give another incentive to continue leveling in Threat.)
I personally think that classes should have abilities that exemplify one of these roles, allowing newbies to fill one of the roles with relative ease without having to go dumpster-diving through books--though if you disagree, then there's nothing really to change. --Ghostwheel 05:09, 3 August 2009 (MDT)
Well, it doesn't actually have a concentrated focus, but, neither does the wizard, the druid, or the fighter (fighter is bad example, but I didn't wan't to simply list 3 spellcasting classes). Wizards fill roles depending on which spells they take, and can be as diluted as you could possibly imagine, though, should you take the correct spells, you could range anywhere from the guy who says, "Here buddy, have a sword that tears through time-space with every swing," to the 'Nuclear-Explosion-Waiting-To-Happen'. Druid can fill the role of Tank, long distant field controller, Striker, or even the 'Nuclear-Explosion-Waiting-To-Happen' mentioned before, yet is just as easy to dilute. Fighter, take the wrong feats, and suddenly the class is worthless, but if you take the proper feats, you can be a master of tripping, grappling, AoO's, whatever you want. This class is like those classes, it can be rather focused, and deal damage like no other, or it can zone control, tripping everything that comes within range, or it could even be the part tank, and walk up to Mr. 'Nuclear-Explosion-Waiting-To-Happen' without any apprehension. At the same time, it is easy to dilute. Though, I'm proud that it seems you could have difficulty making a bad threat build. → Rith (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2009 (MDT)
Heh, lemme rant a bit too ;-)
For the wizard, it's true that they can easily be unoptimized by taking spells like Acid Arrow or Fireball instead of Glitterdust or Haste, and that's why I usually advise newbies to stay away from them. However, with the correct spell choice, they perfectly fall into the Arcanist role, being able to do any of the things Arcanists should do.
The druid... ugh, druids. We hatesss them, lol. They can be an arcanist, striker, or defender, switching between roles on a round-to-round basis, and stepping on the toes of all the others who dedicate themselves to a single role. I personally don't like the class, and never play it. But played right, it's a monster that can fill any role, and that generally makes me go >_<
Finally, the Fighter can fill a role well (the Lockdown v2 build on the wotc forums is a good example), but has to dumpster-dive for feats out of a number of books--not a good class for beginners either.
Good classes for beginners, on the other hand, include ones such as the beguiler, warblade, or swordsage. Each one can easily fit into a role, and newbies can pick feats or maneuvers intuitively without losing too much power. While these aren't the most powerful classes, in my mind they're close to being the most balanced while being newbie-friendly, something to which just about every class should aspire to IMO.
The threat doesn't really fill any role, and if a newbie picks "Whatever looks good," (Improved Toughness, Two-Weapon Fighting tree, etc) they can easily end up a WoS since the Threat has no source of extra damage to fill the Striker role, and no way to get enemies to attack it apart from, "I'm going to attack you every round for piddling damage." They can basically ignore it until the end of combat unless it does the same thing as the Fighter and goes through books to find feats that are powerful. The only real combat abilities it has that affect enemies are damage from Mighty Blow and the ability to make your Medium Greatsword a 4d6 damage weapon--neither of which will do much IMO past level 6ish. Thus, the power of the Threat is based on the feats it takes, not so much on its class abilities, from what I'm seeing--though I might be wrong (please point out abilities that help it fulfill a role--Numb for example allows it to take hits, but doesn't make enemies try to attack it, so they could just as easily treat it as they do the Dwarven Defender--ignore it until everyone else is dead, going for the squishies).
Edit: I'm reading Unnatural Force and its upgrades as only being active when someone is trying to trip/grapple/whatever the Threat--is this right, or does it apply when they attempt to trip as well? This might be what I'm missing.
Finally, let me say that I'm not trying to be malicious in my critiques, so please don't take my tone as one that's attempting to be offensive/aggressive :-3 Just pointing out the things I see, though my perceptions may certainly be off. --Ghostwheel 06:10, 3 August 2009 (MDT)
Well, whenever you make a trip/grapple/disarm attempt, you have to make an opposed roll, no matter if you are the aggressor, or the defender, so yes, it activates when you make an attempt too. As for the druid, yes, I know what you mean, but it can be rather fun to run a party solely of them. As for damage ouput, Merciless is rather good for that purpose, being able to double the damage you deal without a second thought, effectively giving you the ability to be dealing up to 4d8+(x5 your str mod) on damage, which isn't exactly too shabby. Then, Numb, combined with the d12 HD, makes this class particularly good at taking damage in the middle of battle, which is good, in the spirit of the Tome Barbarian (though, it's not anywhere near that good at it). Also, don't worry about it man, I can see that you are attempting to simply give a critique of the class, and not bad mouth it or anything. → Rith (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2009 (MDT)
Ah, didn't see Merciless either; so that basically means that the Threat will specialize in two areas; either as a Tripper (one-trick ponies make me go a little ugh, but it works, and I find that most non-martial adept attackers fall into that role), putting everything they have into tripping better (perhaps dipping into PsyWar for Expansion), or a charger, coming into their own at around 9 with Shock Trooper + Leap Attack + Merciless (perhaps with a Valorous Lance and Spirited Charge to boot). So either way they'd need to be fairly specialized. Still, thanks for clearing it up. --Ghostwheel 06:55, 3 August 2009 (MDT)
Well, in builds that I make that involve PsyWar, I usually dip once into Exemplar for skill mastery, twice into Kensai for Power Surge, and then go to PsyWar for Hustle, and the ability to get an auto +16 to strength each round, in exchange for not moving while you 'power up', but thats besides the point. I agree as a matter of fact, being the man of a thousand and then some sunderings is useful, but 'ugh' inducing. Though yeah, this class, I like. → Rith (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2009 (MDT)
Just wondering, how is it +16 to Strength? Thought it was only +8... Also, unless you invest heavily in Kensei, don't you need to remake the check every other round or so? Seems a bit limiting, especially with how quickly the DCs can rise. --Ghostwheel 07:43, 3 August 2009 (MDT)
Hustle man, you get an extra move action, and then simply use both to boost the strength score by +8 each. The flaw with the wording of power surge is that is based off of his class level, not his Kensai level persay, meaning that, at level 10, it lasts for 5 rounds no doubt. If you go 3 rounds doing this before you grab a surprise round, then you'd eventually wind up with +40 str and be able to smack foes around with +30 to damage or each attack, and the highest concentration check you will have to make will be DC 35. Combine this with a diamond soul warblade, use that manuveur that multiples damage by 4, and you suddenly got +120 damage ridiculously easily. As for the building on concen. check, thats what exemplars for, you put max ranks in concen, take skill focus (concen.), grab a high constitution score, a masterwork concentration skill tool, and one level in exemplar, and suddenly you can make a DC 35 concentration check without thinking twice about it. I personally call this build the 'Constapated Warrior', since he's concentrating very intensely all the time. There are a few variations of it, one using F&K's samurai, insightful strike, and a +5 collision scythe to deal +280 damage on each attack, but thats another tangent altogether. → Rith (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2009 (MDT)
The only part I don't get is how you're getting bonuses from the same source to stack--sure, they're unnamed bonuses to Strength, which means that they'll stack with virtually everything else, but generally even unnamed bonuses don't stack with themselves if they're from the same source. --Ghostwheel 12:41, 3 August 2009 (MDT)
Well, thats another thing, the class feature does not say that it grants a +8 untyped bonus to strength, it says it increases strength by 8. No 'bonus' is ever mentioned, therefore, it is possible to get +40 to strength with it. → Rith (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2009 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

From the text: "If he succeeds, he gains +8 to his Strength for a number of rounds equal to one-half his class level." Since it's a bonus, and not "increases by 8", wouldn't it count as a bonus from the same source? --Ghostwheel 10:39, 4 August 2009 (MDT)
I guess it's just the way you interpret that line then. The way I'm reading it, it isn't a bonus, seeing that no 'bonus' is ever mentioned. → Rith (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2009 (MDT)

Rating[edit]

Power - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because, having played in several games with players using this class, it proved all to easy to break. Although everything epic is hard to track, I think this particular epic class is just too hard to keep in check. I think more sporadic abilities may have been better, and fewer skill points. --99.31.13.82 14:45, 17 October 2009 (MDT)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because nothing seemed confusing, and I was able to understand everything fairly well. --99.31.13.82 14:45, 17 October 2009 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because Everything was easy to find, all of it --99.31.13.82 14:45, 17 October 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because I don't really feel it's very established. When I read this, I get to perspective on where this class came from, and rp-wise what separates them from most fighters/barbarians?--99.31.13.82 14:45, 17 October 2009 (MDT)

Rating[edit]

Power - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because before the higher levels it is balanced, but afterwards not so --Whydoibover 09:11, 21 November 2009 (MST)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it's good --Whydoibover 09:11, 21 November 2009 (MST)

Formatting - 4.5/5 I give this class a 4.5 out of 5 because see above> --Whydoibover 09:11, 21 November 2009 (MST)

Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it's quite good, but could do with a little work. --Whydoibover 09:11, 21 November 2009 (MST)

Rating[edit]

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because Brokenly powerfull when you add the feats every 3rd level>>> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.165.18.98 (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

I'll admit, this is the first time I've ever seen a 5/5 given for the reason that it was overpowered. But honestly, feats are only good when you actually pick good ones. The fighter deserves to have something every class level, so honestly throwing in some bonus feats for this class is no big deal. It's not that overpowered at all, unless of course you compare it to an SRD Fighter (which, and I'm sorry if this offends your sensibilities, sucks major donkey balls. - TG Cid 20:23, 8 December 2009 (MST)

Wording - <<<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>>> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.165.18.98 (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

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>>> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.165.18.98 (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

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>>> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.165.18.98 (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

Unnatural Force[edit]

So, does this only apply when someone else grapples/trips/whatevers a threat, or does it apply when the threat uses these maneuvers as well?


Rating[edit]

Power - <<<3>>>/5 I give this class a <<<3>>> out of 5 because <<<to be honest the class is way to powerful to be a legit base class it basically takes the barbarian and puts it on steroids if i were you i would take some of its abilitys or at the verry least lower the hit die>>> --198.111.16.32 16:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wording - <<<4.5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<4.5>>> out of 5 because <<<just little things here and there>>> --198.111.16.32 16:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Formatting - <<<5Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<nothing wrong here>>> --198.111.16.32 16:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Flavor - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<it was really cool and i like the back round to class>>> --198.111.16.32 16:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Rating[edit]

Power - <<<4>>>/5 I give this class a <<<4>> out of 5 because <<>> --some IP

Wording - <<<4.5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<4.5>>> out of 5 because <<<there are words missing in places and it lacks over all continuity>>> --some IP

Formatting - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<the format is fine and needs no improvement>>> --some IP

Flavor - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<I like the over all word chose and description of the class >>> --some IP

Ideal bad guy[edit]

Might be useful to put as your hunter if you have the Hunted trait.Missingno 13:03, 20 December 2010 (MST)

' That's what I thought as well... . -Dr. Seymour 22:29, 14 August 2011 (MDT)


Rating[edit]

Power - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --90.19.61.12 17:37, 1 February 2013 (MST)

Wording - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --90.19.61.12 17:37, 1 February 2013 (MST)

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>>> --90.19.61.12 17:37, 1 February 2013 (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>>> --90.19.61.12 17:37, 1 February 2013 (MST)

Rating[edit]

Balance - 4.5/5 I give this class a X out of 5 because <<<it's nice but there are somethings that seem a little overpowered and im not sure how to improve it without taking to much away from it.>>> --68.189.35.56 23:43, 3 October 2013 (MDT)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a X out of 5 because <<<I can understand it perfectly.>>> --68.189.35.56 23:43, 3 October 2013 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a X out of 5 because <<<it seems to be just fine.>>> --68.189.35.56 23:43, 3 October 2013 (MDT)

Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a X out of 5 because <<<ummm...not sure what to put in this one.>>> --68.189.35.56 23:43, 3 October 2013 (MDT)

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