Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lago AM3P 11-25-03, 11:34 PM	Okay, first off, not all min-max builds are created equal. For example, a Forsaker / Vow of Poverty guy, while really strong numerically, actually sucks eggs in a party situation given that he not only does not use treasure usefully but also has to actively destroy the treasure of other party members. Further, since you shun magical aid and can't get even get basic, basic equipment like bow and arrows, mounts, healing kits, etc.., this means that you can't participate in almost any high level adventures and the ones you do participate in means that you're often more hosed than a Sacred Fist fighting an eriynes patrol or a rogue fighting a gaggle of invisible stalkers. The War Hulk is pretty much a suck PrC, because you gain no real abilities other than pumping up your strength stat, which translates roughly into an always-on damage bonus compared to a character with a real BAB, other than the fact that you don't get extra attacks and you're curiously weak against feinting. The fact that the only two combat manuevers you're better than a fighter-type with real BAB at (Bull Rush and Tripping) pales with the fact that by about the time you finish this class, the party wizard can slap a Polymorph Any Object on the party fighter to turn him into, say, a STONE GOLEM. You get the phat strength of a War Hulk AND you keep your BAB and class abilities, so you're strictly better. The only reason why a War Hulk stands up remotely to having real BAB is because min-maxers are under this weird macho rule that you can only help yourselves, even though the game is in a party context and your boost costs almost nothing. On a lighter note, this also means that most monks in most builds are spending way too much money. The Amulet of Mighty Fists is barney compared to the fact that the higher-end bonuses can be supplied to you by a wizard or a cleric at no real cost which will last all day. Since a prayer bead of karma is much cheaper than Amulet of Mighty Fists +5, by the time you can afford it your primary spellcaster can give your monk an enhancement bonus that will last for all relevant encounters at a low opportunity cost, anyway. Then you get 150,000 gold to play with, which you can use to make your monk crazy-powerful with. But this reasonable option is excluded if we're balancing things against the fact that this character is supposed to participate in silly one-on-one arena duels, and so can't get 'help'. This shouldn't happen often in D&D, BTW. So when we make more min-max builds, let's consider how this character would fit into a PARTY, and how his abilities would interact with average PARTY (which the game suggests consists of a rogue, wizard, fighter-type, and cleric).
Lago AM3P 11-25-03, 11:41 PM	Also, though we don't like to admit it, there's just a certain amount of respectability in terms of multiclassing and PrCing that most DMs will allow. While I can't speak for everyone, here's what, IMO, flies in the face of respectability for most DMs: Taking a second prestige class when you haven't finished the first. Multiclassing with more than 3 classes. Radically shifting your alignment (taking two levels of monk then going barbarian). In 3.5E, taking note of the fact that you only have to qualify for the first level of the PrC EVER; a human with a polymorph slapped on him qualifies for 9 levels of bladesinger even if the spell wears off when he takes the 2nd level. Taking one level of a prestige class, for whatever reason. Taking more than 2 prestige classes, finished or no. Taking prestige classes that don't fit 'thematically'. While I have no problem with a build that does any or all of the above (check out my elven archer god or Sacred Fist beatdown master sometime), it's just good to note these things sometimes when you're suggesting a generic build. Also, I find that when you're trying to achieve a certain goal that it's often best to use a generic of an array as possible. Except for world famous builds (3.0E Incantatrix, anyone?), it's probably best to suggest PrCs and feats in the basic splatbooks (I haven't read Complete Warrior yet)--the more obscure the source is, the less likely the build will actually fly when you take it to the table. So even if your character build gets a +2 to hit and damage over the generic guy, sometimes you'll just have to go the generic guy route because he only uses one PrC to your four. (When I DM, I do not agree with any of the above, BTW.)
sereg 11-26-03, 12:36 AM	Those are some good points, especially the team sport one. Too many builds seem built around as much power as YOU can gain for YOUR character, not how much power you can gain to help overcome generic party obstacles. This of course, is also the failure of certain class's (See Monk, Survival? Yes. Help Party? Hell No). The problem however, as I see it is, spells are just too strong. Its that simple. I play pretty much exclusively levels 10-20, and its always a struggle as a melee. Without lots of prestige class's, it would be even worse. Based on this, I'm inclined to say it wouldn't be much of a min-max board without heavily prced melees. There's only so many elengant yet powerful melee builds. Like 6, maby. Where does that leave the rest of the game? Sereg
MoogleEmpMog 11-26-03, 01:00 AM	Personally, I think only taking a PrC that doesn't fit thematically or a class that makes you a poor team player are in any way disreputable. Four level, two level or one level dips, a dozen prestige classes, wild and crazy templates... if it can be fit into a characterful build, what's the problem? An elegant 'Level' line on my character sheet is not among my objectives when I make a PC...
chris7476 11-26-03, 01:03 AM	Unfortunately, you can't make broad statements like that in here. Regardless if I agree or not, making a comment that a certain build is not viable or an inferior style of play is wrong. You don't know how everyone plays the game and no single person is the voice of reason. There is room for all types of builds, play styles, etc, especially in this board. If more people in the boards had this mentality, the boards would probably be a better place. The "anything goes" concept in this board is one of the things that make it great.
Lago AM3P 11-26-03, 01:07 AM	A character, IMO, should do the following things in D&D, not in any necessary order. 1. Help the party overcome generic challenges. 2. Advance his schtick. 3. Realize his In-Character goals. 4. Be able to play with the big boys at any level. 5. Be able to participate in as many plot hooks as possible. Even though the bard is weak in min-max discussions, I don't rag on the bard that much because the bard, depending on how you value things, does all those things except for maybe 4. But the bard does so much of the other 4 that this is acceptable for a lot of people, unless your party puts a lot of emphasis on beating things with a sword. Similarly, the Forsaker / Vow of Poverty guy sucks, because even if we accept 2 and to an extent 4 (I say that this guy is hosed in too many common combat situations to say for sure), this guy is so, so hosed in areas 1 and 5 that they are generally not worth considering being able to play. Plain fighter-types suffer the same problem, but since this is a team game, other party members can slap teleports and invisibility on them and suddenly the fighter is the head assault team member on a secret raid on the Atlantis home base. The fighter-type's ability to beat the spoon out of things goes along with their ability to crash into the throne room before the ruler of Atlantis forces the captured king of Golfraun to sign a surrender treaty. The fighter helps the party overcome the generic challenge of beating the crap out of the dictator and his guards and since they don't die like dogs right then and there, the plot goes on. The fighter gets fame far and wide, and the grateful captured king gives the fighter a +4 sword of wounding, which advances his schtick of being the best swordfighter in the world. The fighter hates water dwellers and is pleased by preventing his home country from being run over by mermaids. So your fighter can achieve all 5 goals, with the help of a party. And this comes from something as simple as just being able to hit things well with your weapon. Similarly, if the fighter has good enough saves so that he can survive the spells of the visier accompanying the Atlantis king, he nonetheless overcomes the challenge and advances his character. If he doesn't have good saves, then despite his attack bonus of +29, his story ends there and then. This element is often seen missing in a lot of min-max discussions, and I find it puzzling. I can respect valuing a lot of things, but I generally submit that people with even widely varying goals in D&D want to accomplish at least 3 of the things on that list. Unfortunately, the way a lot of characters are set up is so that it SEEMS that they can't accomplish everything, but since this is a team game, you actually can. So I support more of a team-based view towards D&D than what we have right now.
JosephKell 11-26-03, 01:08 AM	Where in all of this is there any sort of standard suggested? Standards are like what a build will be formatted so it is easy to comprehend. Lago, is this another of your "things people do that **** me off" rants? like the Dragon one? Remember how that backfired?
Lago AM3P 11-26-03, 01:14 AM	To above: Well, yeah. While I think that there's nothing wrong with taking 10 PrCs as long as you don't annoy your teammates or the DM, the fact of the matter is that from what I see is that it does often annoy your friends at the gaming table. Telling someone the best way to accomplish their goals is to take a Shiba Protector / Maho Buijin polymorphed into a golem doesn't do a lot of good if no one will let you play the character in the first place. While you're right that a lot of gaming styles differ, it is my supposition that the more generic and less 'reaching' (I.E. you don't stray too far from the Core Books), the more likely it is to be accepted at almost any gaming table. A Wizard 20 is about as powerful as a Wizard / Mindbender 1 / Loremaster / Sacred Exorcist / Alienist numbers-wise. A tiny bit less powerful, but it's still fair in the context of D&D more or less. But the Wizard 20 is available in almost any game, while the latter is probably recreatable (IMHO) in only very few games. So while this is a very subjective way to value things, the Wizard 20 is often the better suggestion, because a build that can't be brought up to the table and used is no good. Sometimes this means taking less than optimal levels, like having a Drunken Master 10 instead of a Drunken Master 9 / Knight of the Middle Circle 1. While there's nothing really bad about the second one, the former is almost guaranteed to be allowable in any game that allows published PrCs. Realizing this would make the world a more min-maxxed place.
Lago AM3P 11-26-03, 01:15 AM	Where in all of this is there any sort of standard suggested? The standard is basically that I feel that treating your builds more in the context of a team game rather than an arena fight and realizing that you're going to have to quite often give up power for acceptability when making a build should come up more in min-max discussions. Why this is making you feel hostile, I do not understand.
sereg 11-26-03, 01:37 AM	and realizing that you're going to have to quite often give up power for acceptability when making a build should come up more in min-max discussions. This is ludicrous, imo. We actually had a game where the GM said One prc, only, period, no matter what. Guess what happened? Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Wizard. Imagine that. He never had such a ruling again. The truth is, the less complex, less level dipped, less far fetched builds get, the stronger casters grow. You even said it yourself. Wizard 20 is just about the same as Wizard / Mindbender 1 / Loremaster / Sacred Exorcist / Alienist numbers-wise. Would you agree that Barbarian 20 or god Forbid Fighter 20 is anywhere NEAR the power of a heavily multiclassed fighter? Of course not. Thus your desire for simpler builds is ludicrous if applied to melee, and since you can hardly get away with having a double standard for melee and casters (although we have just that in our houserules), you must simply drop the idea, however laudible it might be. It simply is not practicle in this stage of Dungeons and Dragons, unless your entire group is full of people bad at math. You'll end up with 3/4 casters, every time. Sereg
goblinhero 11-26-03, 01:50 AM	as it was said in another thread, most of the time we see what is possible, ie Otto's highest AC build or LordShades crazy Iaijutsu Master, doesn't mean we play such builds. another thing is when new posters come to the boards asking for help, they specify what is allowed and what isn't. you'll notice that anyone asking for help on core build, gets a core build. if somoene else asks for help on a build and doesn't lay down the rules of his game, then it's open season. suggestions will come from everywhere.
Trydan 11-26-03, 02:23 AM	Some interesting points, on all fronts. As a complete min/max newbie (despite having been at it for ages, I'm still hopeless), it seems to me that this board is not so much about playing D&D as playing with D&D rules. As an example, most builds here are quoted at level 20. No progression, no order, just level 20. Ocassionally, I'll see a build that details levels 1-6 or something. Then I know that that character is being played. However, I'd be curious to know how many people actually play all the way to level 20. when new posters come to the boards asking for help, they specify what is allowed and what isn't. you'll notice that anyone asking for help on core build, gets a core build.I disagree with this. I've done it on several occasions, and the very few replies I've had have told me to more-or-less go and buy <some arbitrary splatbook> in order to take <some obscure prestige class> or <some even more obscure feat>. It is not that the people who reply are trying to be antagonistic... just that that is how most of them think, and how they enjoy playing with D&D rules.
Raene Jagad 11-26-03, 05:55 AM	Well I can see your point about group characters but I am unsure whether it is a particular problem. There are a number of very good designers of team player characters here like Snow Savant (Welcome back!) who are not only good on builds but on how to use those builds. There are others like LordShade who have produced some superb tuned up characters which are excellent demonstrations on how to go about min-maxing a particular aspect or ability. Both of those angles are covered by this board. Every game I have ever played or GM'd was completely different and a different set of standards were applied by the GM and players to each. For example when we played RttTOEE our GM was very good at ruthlessly exploiting any weakness we had. Not only did every character have to be able to stand on its own feet but they had to be tactically careful and able to "close in" when we lost someone. In that game we ended up with 5 hard core killers and a single min-maxed geomancer who was configured as a battlefield control/buffing/healing person. The margin between our survival and destruction was indeed the "team player" but then they enabled the rest of the characters to act as "non-team players" and be configured to beat the snot out of the bad guys. If I hadn't been reading this board my geomancer would have never existed so to pretend that support builds like that can't be found here is rather strange. Sadly, spell casters will always be better in terms of party support but I really don't want to start seeing people specifying all cleric and mage groups or trying to imply that what they prefer in THEIR game is somehow a standard for OTHER people's games. I thoroughly accept that there are some problems with some posts that can get irritating (not quoting sources is my bugbear ;) ) but this is the Character Optimisation board. If you search there have been a number of builds that looked at ideal parties or team players but I plain hate the idea of forcing peoples hands about what they can and can't take or design. The game I play in on Thursday has a druid 5/shifter 8, 2 pure clerics and an arcane trickster (rogue/AT mix only). That is the most balanced party we have ever had but the GM actually banned us from discussing in advance what characters we wanted to take! How do you set standards for that sort of game? You can't. Only the individual GM can. You simply rely on people being sensible when they actually play. Incidentally one of the players in that group still managed to whine about the shifter so you will never satisfy everyone however strictly you set the limit on classes! "As an example, most builds here are quoted at level 20. No progression, no order, just level 20." Actually that is generally reserved for non-regular posters or builds that are so straight forward that nothing else is needed. Examine someone like LordShade's Iaijutsu Master if you want an example of a good build which was thoroughly explained and even had a RP background. Frankly, if the build was not originally yours (i.e. me discussing someone elses build) or a standard (e.g. a 3.0 wizard 5/Incantrix 10/Archmage 5) then it seems rather strange to waste space with a fully itemised 20 level progression with feats etc. The level 1-6 builds tend to be really useful starter blocks for anyone new and as such are really useful and usually quite strong. They're not full builds but are generally aimed at showing a good entry point to a career such as Frenzied Berzerker and explaining the advantage of min maxing the hero careers. PS: Sorry that turned into rather a ramble but I think this board has a lot of strengths and often people don't value it enough for what it does and what it teaches you to do! PPS: No 6. The player and GM must enjoy the game! Far more important than 1-5 IMO but then I love camping it up and gently winding up the more serious players in our groups. :rolleyes:
Funny Slaughter 11-26-03, 06:46 AM	wow, just another basic topic here. Lago, seems that you are backdrawing most of the stuff from your initial posts anyhow, but i think i will comment them nontheless. Forsaker/VoP, Warhulk etc i agree here. but i dont think that stuff like this should be banned. that warhulk is not really good was clear for me, but hopefully many other people got this while others was discussing it. forsaker/VoP, i found the discussions rather good and helpful, and i think knowing how to abuse feats within the rules, and i know its doubtable that you dont violate the spirit of them with the build, is helpful. i cant imagine anyone wanting to play a forsaker or worse one with a VoP... if there is somebody announcing "max my forsaker/VoP-build" it should be in the line to tell a bit about the serious drawbacks when party is involved, but max his build, if he has fun playing it: thats the deal. we should not judge upon others Radically shifting your alignment (taking two levels of monk then going barbarian) puh. i dont like alignment shifting and i dont think something like this should be incoorperated into a build. its pure roleplaying for me, if you plan to take blackguard after 11 levels of paladinhood you are metagaming a lot to get the opportunity to do evil things. a paladin is not looking for trouble, but eventually he has to make descisions that drive him away from his good alignment. tell your DM you want to be a blackguard and eventually your char gets the opportunity, thats it. Taking a second prestige class when you haven't finished the first. thats not up to me. if a DM forces such restrictions: fine with me. the poster includes it into his post, happens from time to time. we should spend a bit more attention to such guidelines, happens all the time that somebody (including me) overlooks a "core only" statement Multiclassing with more than 3 classes. heck, why not? beside the fact that it is weaker compared to other things most of the time classes have nothing to do with your character per se. a fighter/barbarian can be a noble warrior or a frenzying brute, thats up to you, not your build. paladin is an exception, but if you read the class you may get why :) a human with a polymorph slapped on him qualifies for 9 levels of bladesinger even if the spell wears off when he takes the 2nd level. thats just the missing of some old ruling. i ignore it the 3.5-way and imo its plain stupid, rule0 it. in the 3.5 rules there is nothing contradicting the old way so i think its ok to stay within this path. eventually we can find some agreement over the board here, until now it seems that there are not many people trying to abuse this. Taking one level of a prestige class, for whatever reason. no. no. no. if your DM says this, fine. if not: why not? its just a class... Taking more than 2 prestige classes, finished or no. thats your personal opinion. its wrong to force this upon others. its something every group and DM have to rule for themselves. PrCs are optional per the DMG, thats more restriction then you can ever make here. Taking prestige classes that don't fit 'thematically'. again, up to you and the DM... on the other hand i could have just quoted chris, its an old legend that we share accounts because we have many opinions in common, eventually it is because of this i slept so long and am feeling tired ;) Lago, i think you made a point with the usefulness towards the party, but i dont think this point should be included as a min/max guideline. there are people out there that play no clerics because they hate to heal their partymates, there are people that have most fun with a blastermage with a charisma of 4 that just ignores other people being within his fireballs. who am I to judge? on this world we live in there are uncountable people that have fun with things i will never understand. let them do it and do yourself as you like it. i think a guide how to play a party efficient would be the right place to adress this. if you like to write something about this, Lago, you are hereby invited. but please do not place rules, its called guidelines. and every time i start a new character with a chaotic alignment i know that i dont like rules. oh, beside the DnD ones, most of them :) gs Funny
Kolo 11-26-03, 07:46 AM	Hm? What's wrong with taking only a few levels in a PrC and then going off to do something else? The levels in a PrC usually mean how far you've gone on a certain path of training. Not everyone finishes that path or has the endurance to stay on it, and everyone's outlook on life can change suddenly. No more than one PrC per character? I couldn't really play like that in many cases... Sometimes, being caught between disciplines can be an RP opportunity too! (Case in point; an elven Bladesinger who takes a few levels of Kensai, and then is forced to choose; Continue the family legacy and finish his Bladesinger training, or going off to do his own thing and continue the Kensai progression. Or maybe he finds a way to do both. Fun all around!) To me, more prestige classes=more RPing. At least that's the way my DM does things... gaining a prestige class can be an endless source of adventures, not to mention incresing the effectiveness of your character. I do agree that a party's strengths and weaknesses are even more important than the individuals', and should more often be taken into account. This is why I love PrC's like the Loremaster, who with a little tweaking can be a pretty damn good second-line spellcaster/party booster, especially if there's no bard in the party. (I don't think I'd consider taking it as readily without being able to take Archmage too, either.) In parting, I'd like to say that there's nothing wrong with building your character a certain way, even with a few (dozen) PrC's. as long as the guy works as a person and isn't all about doing his own thing, it's all good. Standards are fine, but they're also very different for each person, so let's not say that everyone should accept anyone elses' standard out of hand, mmkay?:)
Scud-O 11-26-03, 09:47 AM	Just thought that I would point out that at the beginning of the prestige class section of Complete Warrior under the Meeting Class Requirements heading (last paragraph before the Bear Warrior entry), it states "If a character no longer meets the prerequisites for a prestige class, he or she loses the benefit of any class features or other special abilities granted by the class. The character retains Hit Dice gained from advancing in the class as well as any improvements to base attack bonus and base save bonuses that the class provided." I'm guesing that no one is going to argue that this rule pertains ONLY to the prestige classes found in Complete Warrior and not to all prestige classes for 3.5...
Ranthanas 11-26-03, 10:37 AM	No- it applies to all classes as long as you are using the Complete Warrior i.e. it's not a core rule, and as long as there is nothing in the class description that trumps it. This should be made core with errata but that's another issue. Back on topic: I have nothing against starting a PrC and giving up half way in the same way that people start a degree and give up or the like (or even just set themselves a challenge of learnign to drive ratehr than learning to be a racing driver). As for PrCs, the Warriors usually do need more of them, which is why there are comparatively many more builds for warrior PrCs than for Wizard/Cleric/Sorceror/Druid ones. (The bard is a special case, partly because it is wonderful for qualifying for odd things and partly because it is a challenge to PrC well, with its varied but synergising abilities) Also of the primary spellcasters, the only ones that get lists of builds are the combat wizard (see the Gish thread) and the regular attempts at the Divine Trickster, mostly because they are hard to pull off. It's quite dificult to do better than Wizard/Loremaster/Archmage or Wizard/Incantatrix/Archmage (and even these classics are only slightly better than Wizard 20). On the other hand, a core fighter is not really very effective after level 12 or so When I'm min-maxing I'm not playing D&D- I'm playing a game that uses D&D rules. I'd never plan to play a fallen paladin, but if the DM wanted a fallen paladin I might play one. I also think that some (especially my blackguard/nar demonbinder) would make truly formidable BBEGs (I tend to min/max my BBEGs just slightly better than the party has min/maxed itself). For that matter, I wouldn't play most of the more intricate builds I turn out, other than in a highly min/maxed game Oh, and finally the bard isn't weak- it just requires thought when playing one. If you want a weak character, I'd point out the specialist Evoker wizard (or the L7 sorceror in my current group who has Lightning Bolt and Fireball as his third level spells (and Melf's Acid Arrow and Scorching Ray at second). My arcane trickster (sorc 4/rogue 3) is doing a better job as a mage, despite also being a sorceror and three caster levels behind, with only ray of frost for direct damage)
Trydan 11-26-03, 10:40 AM	Originally posted by Kolo To me, more prestige classes=more RPing. :eek: Well, this would be an interesting question to debate, but I'll take it to the CD board, rather than derailing this thread. (see Prestige classes - Opportunity for roleplaying or power? (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=138578))
Lago AM3P 11-26-03, 12:12 PM	I hate to pull this out, but did everyone like not read what I said? I said nothing about something being morally right or rules-allowable or nonsensical to take multiple PrCs, I just said that IMX that most DMs (check out the rest of the boards if you want to see what most people think about multiple PrCs) don't allow you to build your character that way. Since we're often throwing out generic builds then it's quite reasonable to limit certain things based on what is generically permissable at most tables. No one ever posted a build on abusing simacrulum or getting the most out of gate cheese--because no matter how effective you were at this, if it wasn't allowed at most game tables, then it fails as a template for generically useful builds. Prestige Classes are the easiest and most generic targets for highlighting the difference between 'What Happens in Min-Max Discussions' and 'What Actually Happens in a Game', because we use them so often. So that's why I put them out, see?
Ranthanas 11-26-03, 12:31 PM	I don't think that most can be called by either side here. Many do not but that is a House Rule and the number they allow is not consistent (usually somewhere between one and four). For that matter, few of the builds here have more than four prestige classes. Since we are throwing out generic builds, it is necessary to ignore house rules because they are different for each individual game. Not all these builds would be allowed at all tables and we all know it. They should all be acceptable under the rules of D&D and that is what we play to on these boards. I hope that this has enlightened you.
Lord Arkhaven 11-26-03, 03:17 PM	I agree with the spirit of this thread. There is nothing wrong with 'wonky' builds but the ones that I have brought to my game from this board are the more sane and well rounded ones. I'm tired of seeing a build with Ninja in it. Where do all these Ninja come from? Ninja is a culturally significant class that belongs in an oriental or asian game. The whole dwarf or elf ninja thing bugs me unless the build specifically states that its for an oriental game filled with oriental characters. When I see a Forgotten Realms PrC built up with an Oriental Adventures PrC I tune out. Dragon Disciple bugs me because most of the builds that include the class have nothing to do with dragons. It's not a sorceror build, it's always some wonky barbarian build. It's easy for a player to say: 'Dragon Disciple is for me because my character is the decendant of dragons.' That's not roleplaying. That's justifying a munchkin build with an enviable background. Sure, we'd all like to be decendants of dragons, it's a no-brainer. Template builds are also near useless to a player. Every game I start begins with Level 1 characters and we haven't got deep into Savage Species. These crazy half-dragon/half drow who was biten by a Were-Tiger builds are wack! Templates on this board come with no baggage. All the templates are pulled off here like they're well adjusted citizens that everyone appreciates when in reality they would be viewed as unholy abominations that would be destroyed on sight. Just my opinion though. :D
eudas 11-26-03, 04:17 PM	Originally posted by sereg This is ludicrous, imo. We actually had a game where the GM said One prc, only, period, no matter what. Guess what happened? Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Wizard. Imagine that. He never had such a ruling again. The truth is, the less complex, less level dipped, less far fetched builds get, the stronger casters grow. You even said it yourself. Wizard 20 is just about the same as Wizard / Mindbender 1 / Loremaster / Sacred Exorcist / Alienist numbers-wise. Would you agree that Barbarian 20 or god Forbid Fighter 20 is anywhere NEAR the power of a heavily multiclassed fighter? Of course not. Thus your desire for simpler builds is ludicrous if applied to melee, and since you can hardly get away with having a double standard for melee and casters (although we have just that in our houserules), you must simply drop the idea, however laudible it might be. It simply is not practicle in this stage of Dungeons and Dragons, unless your entire group is full of people bad at math. You'll end up with 3/4 casters, every time. Sereg what i find interesting about all this is that, if the above analysis is considered true by the majority of players (melee is weaker at high levels than casters by a considerable amount), is it a) considered balanced due to melee being stronger at low levels by a considerable amount or b) an example of a flaw in the design of the game? if (b), then what do you fellows think needs to be addressed to remedy the situation? also, if (b), then is it a function of spellcasters needing modifiction, spells themselves needing modification, both, or something else (such as a game mechanic that needs modification)? ie, where exactly does the problem lie? eudas
bitnine 11-26-03, 04:27 PM	Meh, mainly I just see it as another factor worthy of note. Someone wants a great basketweaving character. First person comes along and suggests a Wiz 3/Qyz 6/Mzo 5/Pop 1/Nog 3/Ksl 1 as being truly sick in the basketweaving tricks it can pull off. Next person comes along and suggests a Exp1/Drd 9/Wvr 10 and may mention that it's probably a lot easier to get a DM to allow. Third person comes along and suggests a Bar 1/Drd 9/FB 4/Wvr 6 for a berserking basketweaver, which has great basketweaving skills and a nice twist. Fourth person mentions you might want to be careful about the last person's suggestion because if someone interrupts your basketweaving, even an ally, you'll likely try to make their limbs into a basket. Or, alternatively, the OP could request the best core basketweaver with no more than one or perhaps two PrCs. So, as I said, I think it's just something to try to be aware of and note in the builds that are presented more than to exclude or restrict the things that you present, so long as they fall in the OP's specifications. Heck, even if they end up too problematic to be used, they may spark an idea that someone else can build off of.
catharz 11-26-03, 04:29 PM	Originally posted by Lord Arkhaven I'm tired of seeing a build with Ninja in it. Where do all these Ninja come from? Ninja is a culturally significant class that belongs in an oriental or asian game. The whole dwarf or elf ninja thing bugs me unless the build specifically states that its for an oriental game filled with oriental characters. When I see a Forgotten Realms PrC built up with an Oriental Adventures PrC I tune out. I actually agree with this to some extent, though for different reasons. Ninja is the only non-WotC official class comminly used on these boards. Why is it used? Because it grants things that No WotC-official class does There simply aren't any low-prerequisite classes or PrCs that grant full BAB and sneak attack (and the ability-stacking is just gravy). The combo is just too good to give up, and so peoply justify its use through some sort of logic that WotC made a book (Oriental adventures) for Rokugan, dosen't that make Rokugan semi-official? Whatever the supposed motivation, it is the only major deviation from the "Official only" unofficial rule that most posters follow. As for the roleplay aspects of Elf, Dwarf, or Mindflayer ninja, I find them pretty easy to justify (as do I find it easy to justify western-type builds carrying the Ninja class). The only thing as far as flvor/RP that bugs me is when people try to justify Samurai/Ninja. Just because they're both "oriental" dosen't mean that they belong together, period. If the alignment/flavor text restrictions didn't tip you off, you're just being stupid. As far as totally insane 5-PrC/3-base class builds, they are balanced by the fact that the character will most likely have no free feats or skills to speak of. I think that is a reasonable tradeoff, and a DM who disallows purely based on the number of PrCs is being willfully ignorant or just stubborn (like there is anything wrong with a Wizard/Acolyte of the Skin/Alienist/Nar demonbinder :rolleyes: ).
Funny Slaughter 11-26-03, 04:57 PM	a Wiz 3/Qyz 6/Mzo 5/Pop 1/Nog 3/Ksl 1 as being truly sick in the basketweaving tricks it can pull off. meh, i didnt know this. have to adjust all my basketweaving builds now. if somebody makes a build here just for fun its total crap to suggest that he should limit himself. if he is abusing rules or the spirit of them he will get some comments about this. if somebody asks for a build he is not following the CoC of the boards, so screw him ;) if somebody asks to improve his build he is free to limit sources, number of PrCs or anything else. no reason to do this beforehand, as it is now the needs of the "everything goes" can be pleased as well as the "core only, no PrCs and only dwarven commoners allowed" gs Funny
sereg 11-26-03, 06:38 PM	**what i find interesting about all this is that, if the above analysis is considered true by the majority of players (melee is weaker at high levels than casters by a considerable amount), is it a) considered balanced due to melee being stronger at low levels by a considerable amount or b) an example of a flaw in the design of the game? if (b), then what do you fellows think needs to be addressed to remedy the situation? also, if (b), then is it a function of spellcasters needing modifiction, spells themselves needing modification, both, or something else (such as a game mechanic that needs modification)? ie, where exactly does the problem lie? eudas** I can't speak for the majority, but i'm fairly confident that while people might feel good about Barb/HolyLiberator/Runescarred at 20, they'll be less apt to argue Barbarian 20 vs Druid 20, which is of course my point. Furthermore, I'd argue that Druid 20 is actually stronger in nearly all ways than the heavily multiclassed barbarian who took genius dips and prcs. I consider it a Design Flaw. Fighters went from having the best saves (2nd edition) to the Worst. Spells got stronger, and fighters best abilities were spread out between all class's. Those are all heavy design flaws. In truth, casters are overpowered at lower levels too, assuming you make proper use of spells. Sleep is save or die at level 1. Not a large difference between this and finger of death, ect. As to B, I feel that a pretty sweeping revamp of the melee class's is in order. Monks, Paladins, Rangers, Fighters, Barbarians. They just don't fight well enough at level 10+ without dripping in magic items. Finding treasure and high magic is an integral part of dungeons and dragons, but honestly, you shouldn't have to have 3+ prestige class's as a fighter to stay MILDLY comptetative with casters. Its not fun. Certain spells and mechanics also need change, in my opinion. A GREAT example of this is true strike. Without true strike, extremly nimble fighters would actually have a CHANCE to dodge the no-save ray spells. Not guaranteed, as most people don't have touch ac that high, but a chance. Truly though, the spells are not the problem. The mechanics are. Too many spells are "Screwed-either-way" where making the save just makes you LESS screwed. The fighting class's fight pathetically, save pathetically, and in general only contribute with incredible support from magical casters. If you enjoy that, more power to you. I, and many, do not. To summarize: The problem lies in two key areas: #1 Fighter types do not fight well enough to make up their total lack of options and powers casters gain via spells. #2 Fighter types generally have the WORST defense in the game, instead of the best. With moderate to high stats, heavy armor is a detriment, not a benefit. Furthermore, the more fighterish you get (ranger-->barb-->fighter), the WORSE your saving throws get. Fighters need the BEST defense, not the worst. Fighting is ALL they have. Sereg
Funny Slaughter 11-26-03, 07:29 PM	sereg, you are of course right with your complaints, but unless you can sign up at wizards there is nothing going to be changed. a caster who supports the rest of the party is way better then the blastermage you picture. i agree that druids and clerics are just plain more powerful then any fighter, but i know many people that just do not want to play a caster and why? because its a full wagon of work. some people have fun with being powerful, others have more fun with enjoying their free time instead of developing epic spells or putting a spell-list together. i like DnD the way it is, but i would never ever play a fighter so it seems that there is some truth within the need of rebalancing even from my point of view. gs Funny
Lago AM3P 11-26-03, 07:32 PM	The fact that a straight primary caster or a rogue is often the equal of even a highly PrCed fighter is an interesting point of view, and one I've championed since coming to the boards. Unfortunately, this thread isn't about the fairness towards fighter-types. Now. I would really like to start a post like that but this thread is not the place. In fact, you guys have almost given me the motivation to resurrect my extremely controversial 'expiration dates of classes in 3.5E' thread. Here's the link, anyway. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=124578&highlight=expiration
Funny Slaughter 11-26-03, 07:47 PM	extremely controversial seems so. go over to mean_liar and tell him the monk is useless, i think he will be thankful for this information and stop wasting his time for all these builds. i just read your first post, and beside the point that fighter is weak i do not agree with most of your points. anyhow, i wont resurrect anything, i dont think i need to discuss these things. before the thread rides further into off topic land: you called for a new min/max standard and it seems that you stay alone. i hereby state this thread useless beside the information that i dont agree with lago and that fighter is weak :eek: (where is the irony-vb-code?) gs Funny
mean_liar 11-26-03, 11:06 PM	Originally posted by Funny Slaughter seems so. go over to mean_liar and tell him the monk is useless, i think he will be thankful for this information and stop wasting his time for all these builds. Ah. And to think this whole time I could have been dating models. Oh well. I have nothing else to contribute to this barney thread. Ha! I hate that word.
ShadeFlame 11-27-03, 01:27 AM	Though I've watched what's happening here for a long time, I haven't really contributed much (in fact I think this is my first post). I consider myself pretty well versed in the books I own, mainly because of the posts I've read here. I'll just say this: Though I agree with a lot of what Lago says, it really depends on the game the people are playing in. I've read alot of posts about people wanting to MinMax their character. Most provide some, but not most, of the information needed to do a good job in this. They leave out information or don't provide enough information about their ideas about the character. I've seen a number of ideas that spark my creative side. While I wouldn't use a large amount of characters that I've seen posted, they show the potential a character can become. Deciding what sort of campaign I'm and what rules apply (other than DnD rules) would hinder that greatly if I haven't spelled that out from the beginning, especially when considering the absolutes that are usually posted here. I've bought books just because of what I've seen on this board. I'm the dm of the game I play in and also design the character my wife plays, so I wear both hats. I'm overjoyed at their recent attempts to counteract my plans because what they've done shows that they're working together as a group, but that doesn't mean that they should always plan on being with the group and not realize that they have to stand on their own sometimes. The overall rules for my group aren't strictly following all of DnD's rules, but I let them know that and they can come here for ideas that they can modify their characters for my game. I only allow 2 prestige classes unless they justify it very well. I also don't like lots of base classes unless they have a good reason for it. Beyond that, I have to have the source for at least a week to digest the information before allowing it in my game. I try to let my characters maximize their potential within that structure; to the point of offering them pointers on designing their characters so that everyone is on par with each other and add something to the game. For all this rambling, all I have to say is if the original poster specifies issues they are playing in, pay attention to them. If they don't, feel free to go wild because it might give them the "spark" they need to realize their character in the way they want to. And pointing out "uber" builds is a good way for me to gauge how broken something is or might become.
JosephKell 11-27-03, 02:26 AM	Originally posted by Funny Slaughter you (Lago) called for a new min/max standard and it seems that you stay alone. What standard? You mean that "must be a team player" thing? His "standard" is opinion based, and thus open to interpetation. But I do think that players that have fun at the expense of all the others in the game should be thrown out on their ***es.
Funny Slaughter 11-27-03, 03:43 AM	But I do think that players that have fun at the expense of all the others in the game should be thrown out on their ***es. i think you can have fun with your char alone without harming your party. in fact i know some people who play very egoistic characters and there was never an issue with it. maybe except the cleric of gond who was all about trading and wanted his buddies to pay for an healing even while laying around and dying... but there is absolutely no need to form rules about min/max, the way we develop characters over here will not make egoists to social wonders. gs Funny
mean_liar 11-27-03, 09:29 AM	On reflection, not that people should feel the pressure of self-censorship, but when someone pops into a discussion about monks with 'take Shiba Defender for a level', I just know that somewhere a DM is cringing. Of course, the player could pull it off, so ... never mind. I'm not as crotchety as I appear.
Lago AM3P 11-27-03, 10:17 AM	See, and that's unfair. A level of Shiba protector requires barney feats and dilutes your BAB. In return, you get to add your wisdom to attack and damage. Unless you're playing on some sort of ridiculous die rolling scheme, this usually, by the end of a PC's career, translates to a stackable +6 to attack and damage (accounting for the -1 you lost for your BAB), unless you're a monk, druid, or cleric, then it can get as high as +12. And yet, Shiba Protector is a lot more fair than some of the spells DMs will let people have for no reason, like Nature's Favor, Briar Web, and Spikes. Spikes gives you a +10 to damage and doubles your threat range for free. Briar web, well, it just kills anything without freedom of movement, even dragons. Especially if you layer it.
Qwanga 11-27-03, 11:58 AM	Lago, I dig your threads (I mean on these boards, not in a 70's 'Shaft' kind of way) and I often agree with what you're saying, but I find you really hard to follow. As Funny points out, you've called for a standard and then failed to draw one up. That said, despite your inability to solve all of D&D's problems and bring the COB into harmonious consensus through this thread, I agree with (what I perceive to be) the thrust of your points. Convoluted builds that strain credibility and campaign consistency should be viewed with suspicion. I've always been closer to the "character defined by classes" end of the spectrum than the "character defined by abilities" end. (Incidentally, I'd argue that the makers of D&D are on the same end as me - otherwise, D&D wouldn't use a class-based system for PC advancement). As such, it's always bothered me when 'dips' are made into classes that have significant RP requirements (e.g. Ninja of the Crescent Moon, or Drunken Master), because I sense those requirements are typically ignored. Similarly, I have difficulty accepting builds that incorporate quick dips into classes that are 'callings', such as paladins and monks. (For those police officers, military folks, and teachers out there, you know what I mean - your job isn't just what you do for a paycheque, it's part of who you are. A guy who sells insurance probably doesn't have the same sense of self-identity with his job.) I don't know if I've contributed constructively to this thread, but I figure if the thread can be started with a minor rant, then my little rant is, at worst, thematically consistent.
Kwyn 11-27-03, 12:45 PM	Shiba Protector is one of those single level dips that get suggested here often and it's probably the single most annoying one to me. Shiba Protector pretty much defines the "ignore any pre-reqs that are annoying" aspect of this board. The Shiba Protector has *brutal* pre-reqs but since this is a "numbers only" board, they are completely ignored. Not only do you have to have Alertness, Expertise and Iron Will, you must also have klnowledge (religion) 4. On top of that, you have to be a human of the Phoenix Clan. The entire purpose for this prc's existence is because they are servants and bodyguards of the Shugenja masters of the Clan. The majority of their abilities are built around this purpose. In fact, their "primary" feature is a skill called "aid shugenja" which gives their shugenja masters the ability to beef up the buff spells they cast on the Shiba Protector. But, the only thing people care about the Shiba Protector is the level 1 ability, No Thought, which allows Wisdom to stack with with strength for to hit and damage. It should have been later in the build because it's the single most abused and cheesy monk dip out there. So, while I understand that campaign context is of zero importance to the "anything goes" philosophy here on this board, I'm still disappointed by it. I think that in many cases, the campaign specific requirements can't be ignored. In this case, you might as well just make No Thought a feat available to anyone, since no one outside of Rokugan is going to give a second thought to the real intent of the prc. Just because a prc exists, doesn't mean that it should be available to any character that meets the "crunchy" requirements. They've been balanced with the campaign specific, and RP, elements in mind. Stripping those aspects of the pre-reqs is not much different than completely ignoring something like Dodge and Mobility as pre-reqs for Spring Attack.
mean_liar 11-27-03, 12:48 PM	Originally posted by Lago AM3P ...And yet, Shiba Protector is a lot more fair than some of the spells DMs will let people have for no reason, like Nature's Favor, Briar Web, and Spikes. Spikes gives you a +10 to damage and doubles your threat range for free. Yeah, I have yet to play a game where Ironwood arrows with Spikes on them have gone over too well AFTER ALL ITS TOTALLY NOT ALLOWED BY THE RULES DON'T CHEAT. Agreed that there are dubious spells and builds that concentrate on maximizing their abuse are going, much like Shiba Defender druids/monks, to raise an eyebrow in a game or not. But I think that they have their place on the boards since every once in a while a GM will either not care or a game will be designed to be over the top, in which case those builds look a lot more viable. Just because I don't think they'll make it into a game isn't a good reason to discourage people from posting them, though. I think that I've made it a point not to critique the monk builds on my monk thread, regardless of what I think of them, precisely because someone out there may really like it besides the initial poster. I think the point of the CO board is to be found in its openness and wild ideas, and even its untenable ideas. This is in contrast to the Combat or Spells boards, where rule paradoxes and ambiguities are fought over in an attempt to find the most consistent interpretation. I think there they are more focused in their posting, whereas the CO board benefits more from a constant chatter. So, I think encouraging any self-censorship on the CO board is a bad idea.
Kwyn 11-27-03, 12:53 PM	I think Spikes was the victim of an editing error. Brambles, it's predecessor was 1 minute per level. Spikes, not only increased the stats of the enhanced weapon, beyond what Brambles did, it is listed as 1 hour per level. It's just the duration that makes it a broken spell. I don't think the spell appears in any other sources, and I bet if they updated it, it would be corrected. Someone screwed up there.
mean_liar 11-27-03, 12:53 PM	Originally posted by Qwanga ...I have difficulty accepting builds that incorporate quick dips into classes that are 'callings', such as paladins and monks. If there was an offense-heavy class low on defense that emphasized martial arts, there wouldn't be dips into Monk. If there was a generic Holy Warrior class that was a more martial aspect of the Cleric, there wouldn't be dips into Paladin. You're mistaking people's workarounds to shortfalls in the system as problems originating with the players, rather than problems with the system thats inadequate for their purpose. And though the PHB encourages the creation of new core classes to suit your purposes, I imagine that a character created from cobbled-together custom core classes that fits a concept (characterwise and minmax-wise) is going to raise more hackles than a simple dip into Paladin or Monk. And this is a fine reason why any 'standard' for minmax is only going to end up being a collection of opinions of arguable merit.
Kwyn 11-27-03, 01:06 PM	I think one thing that could help with the annoyances of folks who are bothered by builds that completely ignore rp/campaign specific requirements, is to list those requirements, or at least acknowledge their existence. For instance, Hunter Of The Dead. One of the pre-reqs is that you be level drained at some point in your past. I never see this mentioned and I think that for those few people who work it into a build here, it's completely ignored. Similarly, the Wolf Berserker, from UE. The campaign specifics of that feat are completely ignored and never even mentioned. You have to be a member of a specific tribe that invented the fighting style. Now, you certainly don't have to say no one but someone from this tribe can take the feat, but I think that their campaign world should have a similar background available to someone wanting to take it. Just mentioning these pre-reqs along with the other "crunch" pre-reqs, would go a long way in helping players and DM's alike make decisions about how their games will go. I still see Jutunbrud listed as a build for non-humans, and that for instance should be a *hard* rule, since I would hope that racially restricted feats and prcs would at least be respected here. That doesn't even address the fact that the feat is restricted to a particular tribe of barbaric humans who are decended from giants. I would never tell anyone "your campaign can't allow this", but I think it's doing a disservice to the game to not at least present the campaign and rp requirements of a build when posting it, or offering suggestions to an existing build. Then the player and dm in question determine whether they want to house rule an exception to those requirements or stick to them.
Funny Slaughter 11-27-03, 01:39 PM	Similarly, the Wolf Berserker, from UE. The campaign specifics of that feat are completely ignored and never even mentioned. You have to be a member of a specific tribe that invented the fighting style. i think you should be a bit more careful with words lile "never" or "completely" wolf berserker and/or jotunbrud are both feats that can (have to) be taken at first level. you have to give a background for your char, of course, but there is no need to justify your selection by roleplaying. you play a human barbarian from some special tribe that joined the wolf berserker lodge. (btw, lodges are not tribes) now you have a character that is not running around by thousands, but in a game like DnD its all about playing a hero, not a commoner. half-celestial drow, eventually you will be the only existing one, but where is the problem? moaning about the shiba protector is alright, but you could also mention that its something mostly suggested by newbies that take the opportunity to add something apparently useful. i dont see the problem there, give a short comment about clan and shugenjas and thats it, some new knowledge for some kid reading only the tablechart of a PrC For instance, Hunter Of The Dead. One of the pre-reqs is that you be level drained at some point in your past. I never see this mentioned and I think that for those few people who work it into a build here, it's completely ignored. its nothing you can make into your build. i mean, listing the need to run around and get leveldrained at the buildchart by level 4 is kind of strange, dont you think? its a roleplaying requirement you and your DM have to talk about. making builds is making builds, and listing all the prerequisites for a PrC is eventually seen as a violation of copyrights by some strict minded WizOs. (ask chonjurer wo got slapped for linking to crystalkeep) Just mentioning these pre-reqs along with the other "crunch" pre-reqs, would go a long way in helping players and DM's alike make decisions about how their games will go do it if you like. i think if somebody reads about a cool build he should take a look for the PrCs himself before starting to play. if you level as an hospitaler and get surprised by your DM who forces you to help some wandering monks while your party is getting into the nearest dungeon its not the fault of somebody over here who posted a build. adding a philosophic section to a build is nothing i like to do, but i would never go so far to forbid it on the boards. and i would really dislike it if anybody tries it the other way round. its not elementary school over here, readers can take care for theirselves, and if not its not my fault just because i missed to mention some flavourtext in my newest powerbuild. gs Funny
Qwanga 11-27-03, 01:44 PM	Originally posted by mean_liar You're mistaking people's workarounds to shortfalls in the system as problems originating with the players, rather than problems with the system thats inadequate for their purpose. I know, I know. Min/Maxing, oops, I mean optimization is a means to get around clunky classes. And I understand that people's creativity is not bound by the classes presented by the PHB. This is the crux of the issue, I think - whether you're defining a character by class or abilities. I tend toward the former. That said, it was hammered home to me that if you constrain your players too much, you won't have anyone to play in your game - so a DM is wise to give the players as much leeway as they can with PC creation/evolution without completely losing control. And though the PHB encourages the creation of new core classes to suit your purposes, I imagine that a character created from cobbled-together custom core classes that fits a concept (characterwise and minmax-wise) is going to raise more hackles than a simple dip into Paladin or Monk.Personally, I think I might be more amenable to a homebrew PC than taking several 'dips' into unrelated/thematically divergent/RP-restricted classes. It would allow the player to explore his character concept, and I could manage any potential powergaming/munchkinism. But I guess that flies in the face of the accepted min/max 'standard' of using core only.
Kwyn 11-27-03, 02:21 PM	you play a human barbarian from some special tribe that joined the wolf berserker lodge. (btw, lodges are not tribes) Actually, you have to be from Rasheman in FR *and* be a member of the wolf berserker lodge. i mean, listing the need to run around and get leveldrained at the buildchart by level 4 is kind of strange, dont you think? its a roleplaying requirement you and your DM have to talk about. making builds is making builds, and listing all the prerequisites for a PrC is eventually seen as a violation of copyrights by some strict minded WizOs. (ask chonjurer wo got slapped for linking to crystalkeep) No, I don't think it's "strange" at all. It's a requirement of the class. It's not even really a "roleplaying" requirement. Having level drains or stat drains as a pre-req is pretty bottom line rules don't you think? I mean, level loss specifically results in your character losing EXP. It's not roleplaying, it's the rules. Your bit about not listing all the pre-reqs due to the board rules is cheap. Defending the omission of certain requirements out of fear of the wiz-os is a weak defense for leaving out valid requirements of a class. It may indeed be against the board rules, but no more so than saying that Dodge is a pre-req for Spring Attack. adding a philosophic section to a build is nothing i like to do, but i would never go so far to forbid it on the boards. and i would really dislike it if anybody tries it the other way round. It's not a "philosophic" section. It's about the rules. The roleplaying or campaign specific requirements of a build are just as much a rule as any other. If the CO board wants to decide that these rules should carry no weight on the CO board, then *that* is something that needs to be put into any "standards" created here. In fact, I think it would be far easier to just say "ignore any pre-requisite related to character background, or campaign specificity" and add it into the board FAQ. The point is that the board has worked hard to overcome the impression that it's the haven for "munchkins". It even went so far as to rename the board from "min-max" to "character optimization" in the hopes of further distancing itself from that stigma. The overall direction of the board though continues to downplay anything that isn't just raw stats. That's perfectly fine and it fits in with what I perceive as the most popular opinion on the board. However, if the intent of the thread is to talk about "standards" for the board, then I think that coming to a consensus on this issue should be at the top of the list because these are the character building rules that are most frequently ignored. It's the don't ask don't tell version of character building. The CO Boards dirty little secret so to speak.
catharz 11-27-03, 03:13 PM	Originally posted by mean_liar Yeah, I have yet to play a game where Ironwood arrows with Spikes on them have gone over too well. Which makes sense, because Spikes and Brambles are restricted to meele weapons.
WillieStyle 11-27-03, 03:37 PM	Originally posted by mean_liar Ah. And to think this whole time I could have been dating models. Oh well. I have nothing else to contribute to this barney thread. Ha! I hate that word. But mean liar, haven't you claimed before that if a DM doesn't allow OA or Rokugan stuff, then a monk isn't worth playing?
WillieStyle 11-27-03, 03:48 PM	I don't want to drag this thread too far off topic so if you don't agree with the premise that melee classes are weacker, kindly ignore this. However, if you do agree that melee classes are tremendously weaker than spellcasters, the question I have is why? 1) Is it because WoTC doesn't realize that they're weaker. The fact that the folks at WoTC took a look at the Cleric and the Duelist and decided to nerf the Duelist strongly suggests this is the case. 2) They realize it but there's so much legacy stuff like Time Stop and Shapechange that can't be removed or else the faithful will mutiny. or 3) They realize it and like it that way for some reason. Which do you folks think it is?
mean_liar 11-27-03, 08:12 PM	Originally posted by WillieStyle But mean liar, haven't you claimed before that if a DM doesn't allow OA or Rokugan stuff, then a monk isn't worth playing? Well, Rokugan is ignorable, but playing without OA limits your options. Complete Warrior gives you some replacements, but essentially I still agree with this statement. I'd extend it to say that a core-only game with core-only feats is a great way to shaft Fighters and Barbarians, and that in such a situation playing a Fighter or Barbarian is clearly a less-than-optimal choice.
newblar32 11-27-03, 08:20 PM	he's right..spikes only work on melee weapons...
sereg 11-27-03, 10:46 PM	Happy thanksgiving and "If there was an offense-heavy class low on defense that emphasized martial arts, there wouldn't be dips into Monk. If there was a generic Holy Warrior class that was a more martial aspect of the Cleric, there wouldn't be dips into Paladin. You're mistaking people's workarounds to shortfalls in the system as problems originating with the players, rather than problems with the system thats inadequate for their purpose" Amen. Spells are too strong, by A ****ING MILE. Saves are too low. Period. Spells, being too strong, either aleviate the need for martial combat OR make the caster a better martial combatent, depending on what he wants. Magic is the best offense, the best defense, the best utility. Spell > everything. Due to this, I laugh every time i see anyone restricting ANYTHING to do with melee, exploiting charge builds/bizzare rules to get 1000 damage a round aside. Oh wow, the monk has wisdom to hit and damage, he might be 1/9 as useful as the non prced druid. HEAVEN FORBID. Some of you need to take a long, hard look at the power of melee vs non melee, before you make any sort of statement reguarding overpowered. You don't know the meaning of the word. Sereg
Lago AM3P 11-28-03, 12:10 AM	Before this thread spins completely out of control, I would like to say that we can never have game balance if we balance feats the same way we balance spells. Feats build off of each other, have a limited amount, and can only be taken at very specific points in a character's advancement--furthermore, they tend to let you do very, very specific things unless they're a direct boost to spellcasting or item creation (with a few exceptions, such as Jack of All Trades and Leadership). Spells, on the other hand, exist in a virtual vaccuum, and spells after level 5 (exception: Bard) are so similar to each other that you can practically do anything you want to with your spells once you're a high-level person. That said, whenever I run a game and people want to pump up their already crazy primary spellcasters with optional things like ghostform, spikes, nature's favor, etc. I always ask if they're okay with the fighter-types picking up PrCs at whatever rate. Usually, fighter-types only compare to everyone else because they pick feats that don't give a one-time bonus or define their role very narrowly. The gigantic bonus given to your combat abilities by a karmic strike + combat reflexes + That One Feat in Minatures that let you take AoOs with two-weapons + improved disarm + snatch weapon combo makes you so completely out of this world crazy that the only way clerics and druids can even hope to compete against you in your realm is with abusing the broken stacking system in this game; but you can play at that game, too, by endlessly taking levels that give you bigger and better stacking abilities. A Ranger / Sohei / Fighter / Tribal Protector (of aasimar, so you can be LG) / Knight of the Middle Circle / Singh Rager / Bear Warrior lets you compete in games where a quickened nature's favor + nature's avatar is thrown up in the first round. Unfortunately, and this goes back to my main point, what's acceptable in games usually tends go to back to how things LOOK, not by what's actually FAIR, unless it's blatantly obvious (like throwing out 5 briar webs). Since lazy druids and clerics and Eldritch Knights and rogues get their combat mojo just by staying awake and surviving fights, while the fighter-types have to fight against the horror of empty levels AND the continual stacking improvement of rogues and primary spellcasters, guess who this setup favors? Do I agree with this? Hell no. I think that numbers are numbers, no matter how you get them. Do people need to be aware of this silly reality when making characters? Why, yes. This means that your Drunken Master / Templar / Holy Avenger can't be compared on the same level as a Paladin Cavalier, even though there's no mathematical or mechanical reason at all.
strange_person 11-28-03, 04:05 PM	How about an Illithid Savant that isn't actually an illithid, just a mid-level human Rogue with maxed-out UMD (who's mostly in it to aquire a Blink Dog's ability to use Dimension Door at will, plus maybe a few of the Gambol's tricks)? Emulating a race conistently isn't too tough if you've got high charisma and customized magic items for skill bonuses, and you don't need tentacles to eat brains… anyone who's seen Hannibal knows that much.
megamonker 11-29-03, 12:59 AM	Can you use your higher standards here: New game character help (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1952613#post1952613) Thanks for your time. --C
Robert N. 11-29-03, 01:19 AM	I would argue that the game actually encourages multiple prestige classes, even without completing them. For an example, see the multitude of classes that have a progression of 2,3,5 or 10 levels. For an even better example, check out the Dragonlance Campaign setting, namely, the Knights of the Sword, Crown, and Rose. -Robert
Kwyn 12-01-03, 07:36 AM	I know one standard for sure that needs to be reinforced. This is not a rules question board. So many people don't even make the vaguest stab at including a "build" in their post or even ask questions associated with a build. More and more, this is becoming the place to ask spell questions, encounter strategy sessions, items, etc. There are entire boards here at wizards.com to ask about spells, items and general rules questions.