Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Stormonu 03-29-07, 11:09 AM	There was an thread floating around a short bit ago about "Mastery of the Game" - the concept that the more you played the game, the more you learned that certain options in the game were better than others. Well, lately, I've been running a lot of playtest with mock combats against monsters I've been creating, and in the course of doing so, I've learned a few things. I'd thought I would share my experiences, if nothing for starting a discussion, or perhaps passing some advice on to new players. Of course, this is advice, and probably differs slightly from game to game. Also, my advice only assumes you're using the Core 3 books (PHB,MM, DMG / SRD) for your game, and this all relates to combat only, not the roleplaying/skill aspect side. To the veterans of the game, a lot of below is going to be "duh" advice. This is aimed more towards the newbie players or those who are wondering why their characters aren't so good at fighting. Additional books will change the paragrim greatly. 1) The best combat style for fighters is Two-handed weapon + Power attack. When power attacking, it's best to power attack for 1/2 your BAB -1 (example: if you have a BAB of +14, Power Attack for 6). Too much Power attack will cause you to miss more often and you end up overall dealing less damage with a single hit than you could have dealt with more, slightly lesser blows. Even better is a weapon that can be wielded one-handed + shield or two-handed (such as longswords or bastard sword). Longsword is superior in the fact you don't have to spend a feat to use it two-handed and lose only 1 point of damage average. 2) Two-weapon fighting is a subpar choice for the fighter (and the ranger). While the rogue gets much better effect out of it (via sneak attack), if the rogue isn't taking advantage of invisibility or hiding, his chances of connecting with attacks is subpar. The rogue is most effective as a 30 ft. sniper instead of a flanker due to his glass-like hit points. The rogue should be looking for items that grant invisibility as early and often as he can. 3) Improved Initiative is the absolute best combat feat in the PHB. No rogue should be without it really, really is a good idea for battlecasters to have it. I'd say its so powerful that it can actually bump the CR of a creature by +1. 4) Rogue characters (or anybody with Sneak Attack) should always carry a wand as a backup weapon/item for those times you run across enemies who are immune to sneak attack. Creatures with immunity to sneak attacks cut the rogue out of being able to deal level-appropriate damage, basically cutting a group's firepower by 1/4. 5) In a single round, a full-attacking fighter can generally deal MORE damage than the wizard casting his single most powerful spell. At the same time, a first-round strike attack spell from the wizard often allows the fighter to get a cleave attack in against multiple enemies. If the spellcaster knows which save his enemy is weak too, a save-or-die/save-or-disabled (SoD) spell is always a better choice. Some of the best SoD's: Color Spray (1), Sleep (1), Web (2), Dominate, Baleful Polymorph 6) Metamagic feats are rarely worth the cost. Even quicken can be of dubious worth. It's almost always better to just take a higher level spell, unless your expecting some unusual situation to occur where you need the metamagic feat (silent, still or extend). 6) Iron Body is one of the worst spells in the PHB for wizards. Tenser's Transformation is perhaps the 2nd worst for non-gish (fighter/wizard) builds. 7) Perhaps the most powerful trio of spells in the PHB for wizards are Web, Evard's Black Tentacles and Forcecage. Each of these spells effectively can take multiple opponents out of the fight with a single casting. However, their biggest weakness is against creatures of Huge size or that can Fly or Teleport. 8) The Sun Domain has some of the most effective attack spells I've seen for the cleric. Fire Seeds (as Acorn Grenades) is one of the best direct damage spells I've seen, if the cleric has had the presence of mind to pre-enchant several acorns. 9) Turning is NOT accounted into an undead creature's CR. Whenever possible, the cleric should ALWAYS attempt a turning against undead to take advantage of this; it tends to make most undead encounters a joke. There's so much more; I think this is a good place to start for counter-comments and additions.
Steely_Dan 03-29-07, 11:25 AM	-Most combats don't last longer than 4 rounds -At higher levels death from massive damage becomes silly, because you can only fail on a 1 and taking 50 + damage becomes commonplace -Keep an eye on Diplomacy …I'll get back with some more later.
Tempest Stormwind 03-29-07, 12:06 PM	See the Ten Commandments of Optimization in my sig. (not the practical ones; those are intended for actual gameplay and courtesy in optimization, while the original ten commandments are based strictly off of the game system.) If you're a spellcaster, use direct damage only between levels 5 and 9, and even then only if you really like rolling lots of dice. Direct damage is always outclassed by battlefield control and save-or-lose effects (i.e. level 1: Magic Missile versus Color Spray or Sleep), and except for those levels, it's always outclassed by melee damage as well. If you are playing a class with limited daily resources (which, on some levels, is everyone, given hit points... but usually means spellcasters), always assume there is one more encounter coming for the day. Don't "go nova" unless you have a solid and secure escape plan. Nothing sucks more than being a superstar for one fight and a commoner with a crossbow for the rest of the day. Learn to target archetype disadvantages. Fighting a caster-type? Grapple him, preferrably with a poisoned dagger. Fighting a rogue or fighter? Mind-control time! Up against an obvious divine caster? Shatter or sunder on the holy symbol (also works with a spell component pouch). Big and slow monster? Cast Fly and bust out the bows. This works because the game rewards specialization -- being the best of each archetype often involves spending all your resources to turbocharge your advantages without covering your disadvantages (i.e. an incredible caster probably has a hojillion spells per day at an obscene caster level and a Will save in the stratosphere, but still has a piddly Fortitude save). The notable exception is at higher levels, when there's a spell to counter everything (typically Contingency, Freedom of Movement, Mind Blank, or similar).
Man in the Funny Hat 03-29-07, 11:54 PM	I've learned that _I_ don't need to "master" the game in the least to enjoy it, and that (IME at least) those who do seem to need to "master" the game to enjoy it have issues beyond the game that are tedious to deal with. YMMV, and actually I've no doubt it will.
escuincle7 03-30-07, 02:05 AM	Hey, your post is very interesting, it really help me, I’m a rookie DM, still learning the art of storytelling. :D
HouseElf 03-30-07, 04:41 AM	Power is not measured by how much you do each round, but this is what will most appear to be powerful. The best spells have no save or to hit rolls. Many of the best spells are non combat spells. Options, knowledge and Planning are the most important spells functions. DM's only call the shots in Call of Cathullu. Mundane combat is a hangover from wargames. Dnd is all about spell slots. Caster > DM > Skill Monkey > MeatHead. The main joy of the game comes from not being the naieve player who chose ranger. Character options are a trap for wishful minds who want the barbarian to be a legitimate choice. Even if you dont like the idea of wizards/ clerics, you'll just have to make do. It is best to be the power behind the throne, this will mean being prepared to be content with a smaller limelight time, but the payoff is that you are now a 'team player' rather than one of those whose desires are at odds with the 'team's. You can consider the 'team's success your success.
Leo 03-30-07, 08:38 AM	DM's only call the shots in Call of Cathullu. Mundane combat is a hangover from wargames. Dnd is all about spell slots. Caster > DM > Skill Monkey > MeatHead. Wait, for what I know, the caster can't actually bring an half gome celestial vampire tarrasque to kill the guy who keeps annoying him. And even if he can, there is nothing limiting the DM power but his imagination and sense of fairness, wich normally keeps up with the player's sense of fairness. This is the biggest thing I learned in D&D.
a_psh 03-30-07, 08:48 AM	Wait, for what I know, the caster can't actually bring an half gome celestial vampire tarrasque to kill the guy who keeps annoying him.I agree here, but I will point out that you can probably find someone to argue that a mage can do all that stuff with Gate. (Which is when you should just stop listening because you really don't want to hear about the Celestial Cascade or how you can make Solars cast wish for you for free or any of that other stuff.)
Kresalak 03-30-07, 12:45 PM	WotC hates you if you try to play the character you want, and so will 90% of the people on this board. No one actually reads the rules. WotC hates you if you're not a spellcaster. The most powerful things in the game can be found right in the SRD.
Bowmore 03-30-07, 01:27 PM	WotC hates you if you try to play the character you want, and so will 90% of the people on this board. No one actually reads the rules. WotC hates you if you're not a spellcaster. The most powerful things in the game can be found right in the SRD. QFT! Except for the "No one actually reads the rules" part, people tend to read too much into the rules and treat RAW (Rules as Written) as some kind of holy text that you're a bad DM if you break. What I've learned: - House-ruling things on the spot is actually a lot of fun and can get things moving again when a player decides to do something unexpected and not covered by the rules, grinding the game to a halt. "You throw dirt in his eyes? Okay, umm... gimme a ranged touch attack, and I'll have him spend a move action next round to get it out of his eyes so he doesn't have a miss chance... you'll need to make a bluff check if you wanna do it again, though." - There is a conspiracy to keep spellcasters powerful and melee characters weak. The signs are all there, you just have to put them together. - The longsword is, mechanically, one of the best weapons in the game. It also looks stylin' to use. - Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords isn't nearly as powerful as people think it is. The big draw to it is that it makes melee classes FUN to play again. Isn't fun what the game is all about? - Not all young players are horrible powergamers / munchkins who try to apply MMORPG mechanics and metagaming to D&D. Just most of them. - The best background music for D&D games lack lyrics and should be played at a volume where you don't have to raise your voice (even a little bit) to be heard. - Experienced players tend to have superstitions about dice. Even the most logical, level-headed, atheistic individual could have a weird little twitch when it comes to dice. ("Don't touch them, you'll ruin my mojo! Use those ones!") - Advice as a DM: Preferably before the game begins, establish what books you will allow material from for what is appropriate for your setting. This prevents someone from playing a half-celestial werebear tiefling vampire in your low-magic steampunk game. - Advice as a DM: Don't be afraid to say no. If a player throws a tantrum, then he's probably immature enough that trying to stay his friend just isn't worth your time.
HouseElf 04-01-07, 08:22 AM	Wait, for what I know, the caster can't actually bring an half gome celestial vampire tarrasque to kill the guy who keeps annoying him. Except the fact that a dnd group would dissolve with this sort of dm. The boards would call him a killer dm etc. My general experience is that most groups consider the dm to be nothing more than a punching bag, and feel free to ignore the plot, background etc he makes while expecting the dm to be able to deal with the players demands to set up a burlesque or whatever random request. While blaming him for slowdown or aimlessness. As a simple rule, bring in anything with a cr of 4 more than the players and you'll have a mutiny- (sometimes even less). Whereas in cathullu the players follow the dm's clues and expect a random traffic cop to beat them senseless, and for giant archfiends to be watching there moves etc.
WayneTheGame 04-01-07, 09:44 AM	Sadly what I've learned from "mastery" of the game is that people look for a pure mechanical benefit and the optimal solution to everything and never simply play things for fun regardless of what this so-called "mastery" of the game says. It used to be someone would have a cool idea for a character (whether it's optimized or not) and would enjoy playing it, and everyone in their group would enjoy the character. Now it's "I want to build a character that can do X. What is the perfect combination to do X?" Sadly for me the game has boiled down into the "numbers game". Gone are the days you'd take TWF as a Ranger because you think its COOL and like the imagery; whenever you mention it some birdbrain is right there to point out (usually with a slew of statistics) why TWF sucks for a ranger and you shouldn't bother, completely ignoring the "cool image" part. Nobody seems to play cool, interesting concepts anymore, its all the same garbage designed to take advantage of what the system offers. Very few people play sword-and-board (i.e. sword and shield) warrior types because "statistics show" that a greatsword + power attack is simply better. It might be better, but it's boring and droll. Half the freaking things in the game are NEVER used simply because there's something more economic/cheaper/useful. Why bother including them in the first place if nobody's ever going to use it? Just remove them from the game so you don't have to watch new and interesting choices go to waste for the tired old cliche that gives you the best ROI (Return On Investment). This might be hard to swallow for some of you, but it's something I've noticed quite often since coming to the boards (and not once before I started visiting here). This "mastery" of the game has ruined it by stripping everything down to "If I take this, I can do this much damage per round. But if I take this other thing, that damage exponentially increases by Y. Therefore my best bet is to use this and that and someotherthing and I can effectively up my standard output by Z." instead of "I think it'd be cool to have a character that uses X and Y. It's a fairly unique concept so it should be interesting." and then have someone else bring up the statistics to demonstrate why that character is going to be "useless" (a subjective term, anyways, since what is useless to a die-hard powergamer is certainly not useless to an "average Joe" gamer) in the rest of the group, and typically call the person wanting to play it a selfish jerk for "not pulling his/her weight". "Mastery" is bad, plain and simple (although I think the general opinion agrees with me on that).
Tempest Stormwind 04-01-07, 12:16 PM	Wayne, the difference with, say, your ranger concept example is that you're actually making a mechanical statement there. I can easily play a ranger... without any actual levels in ranger. Or with a minority of levels in the class called "ranger". If I want a ranger who fights with two weapons, I'll probably build him using maybe a few levels in ranger and, of all things, levels in rogue -- because that class lets me realize my vision of my character without being mechanically subpar (the bonus damage from Sneak Attack synergizes greatly with the TWF concept, which I get as a bonus feat from the same ranger levels I use to boost my base attack. Furthermore, the rogue levels provide a LOT of useful skills, many of which are the same as the ranger's -- and those few that aren't, I can spent up to four of my class skill points cross-class on ranger skills and still have the same gain in skill ranks that I would have as a ranger). I could have a character concept that could be realized in many different ways -- I'm currently playing a shadow mage, for instance, and that could come up in several different mechanical expressions (in my case, he's currently an illusionist 5 / shadow adept 1 / geometer 1 / shadowcraft mage 1, but that's just one of many approaches). What I am not doing, however, is making a mechanical descision about my character (i.e. if I want to play a ranger, I do not assume that I am forced to play a single-classed member of the Ranger class). If I DO make such a mechanical assertion, then I am bound by the limits of those mechanics (i.e. if I want to play that ranger with only levels in Ranger, I will accept that the class isn't as strong as people think and I will adapt my vision to work with what the class provides). You'll find it's far more rewarding to take your concept, divorce all mechanical ideas from it, and then build the mechanics to suit your concept as necessary. This may involve dipping, this may involve reflavoring abilities all willy-nilly, and it may involve realizing that a few ideas just plain ol' don't work in D&D (or do work, but not at the levels you wanted them to). And guess what? None of those are playing the game "wrong". People who couldn't understand that simple fact, that you could do something like play a ranger without levels in "Ranger", were the people who led to me having to formalize the SWF, by the way. Whereas in cathullu the players follow the dm's clues and expect a random traffic cop to beat them senseless, and for giant archfiends to be watching there moves etc.And this is why the only way to come close to "winning" with Call of Cthulhu is to not play at all. "Everyone got your characters ready to start?" "Yes! Let's go! "Okay, they're all dead! Got your backups?" Yes, right here!" "Okay, they all go insane, and then they die!" "Thank you, Standard Call of Cthulhu Game Master!"
WayneTheGame 04-01-07, 12:28 PM	You'll find it's far more rewarding to take your concept, divorce all mechanical ideas from it, and then build the mechanics to suit your concept as necessary. This may involve dipping, this may involve reflavoring abilities all willy-nilly, and it may involve realizing that a few ideas just plain ol' don't work in D&D (or do work, but not at the levels you wanted them to). You know, this is the single best thing I have ever read on the boards. I mean that seriously. I think I am going to take this to heart. :D You're a good man, Tempest Stormwind. Consider that quote sigged.
Tempest Stormwind 04-01-07, 12:55 PM	And now here's the kicker -- knowing what mechanics to draw from to suit your idea, which ones work well together to produce the best way of implementing your concept, and which to flat-out avoid even if they seem to be a decent match... comes from mastery of the system. It can't be all bad. The problem comes when people assume that mastery is a goal in and of itself instead of a means to an end. Similar problems emerge when people assume that high roleplaying is the goal of D&D as well, instead of just a part of making your character. They're both part of the game, and to deny one of those is to deliberately handicap your character from reaching the full potential he could (in both mechanical and thematic senses).
Someone 04-01-07, 01:50 PM	I kinda have to disagree on a few (okay, all) of the points. But how else would they be counter-comments, eh? 1. Two-handed and power attack is only viable for those with a strength over 12. Such fighters exist, though they are usually of the smaller variety. Why are you suggesting always reducing your effective BAB to wizard levels? If a wizard could reliably hit things in combat, they wouldn't bother with spells (including touch spells, which don't need much BAB to hit often). I'd rather take my guaranteed 10 damage than a 50/50 20 damage, especially if that means my next attack is an additional 50/50 10 damage instead of a no chance 20 damage. 2. TWF was meant for fighters, who actually have the feats to pursue it. And the style itself does well when you need quantity of attacks, as opposed to quality of damage. Against anything with a miss chance (invisible, incorporeal, blinking, blurred, etc.) TWF gets you a lot more chances, and a missed attack isn't as much of a potential damage loss. 3. Uh, no disagreement here, Improved Initiative is excellent. But I wouldn't have a +1 CR just for a feat choice. 4. Not sure why a rogue wouldn't be using the higher damage "backup weapon" to make sneak attacks in the first place. Because backstabbing with a ballista is just fun. 5. A full-attacking fighter in melee ought to do more damage. However, when denied a full attack (spring attack, et al) that damage can go way down. Same goes when denied melee (flying, 300 yards away, etc.). 6. Sometimes, there just isn't a useful spell at that spell level. This is easier when just sticking to core, but when a sorcerer has a choice between empowered fireball and cone of cold, I'd take the metamagic and spend my 5th level known spell on something else. 7. What makes those spells "worst"? Their spell level? Their duration? Their side effects? I might agree with you... 8. Any blanket immobilization spell is like that. Grease, darkness, or even sleet storm fits that category. 9. I always thought the Sun domain's big thing was its granted power. Which leads to- 10. Undead being susceptible to turning is countered by their being immune to a whole bunch of other effects. And in some cases, the undead's CR takes into account turn resistance. (If only I had Tempest's eloquence...)
The White Sorcerer 04-01-07, 07:02 PM	I can easily play a ranger... without any actual levels in ranger. What? Eww... I, personally, hate divorcing class and concept. If I want to play a ranger, I pick the ranger class. If I pick the rogue class, I at least try to play a rogue.
Tempest Stormwind 04-01-07, 07:29 PM	What? Eww... I, personally, hate divorcing class and concept. If I want to play a ranger, I pick the ranger class. If I pick the rogue class, I at least try to play a rogue. I've played a brigand before. What class was he? (Hint: No levels in rogue or fighter.) I've played a merchant before. What class was she? (Yes, "merchant" was her signature, what she called herself, what she did, how she thought, and what others called her.) I've played alongside a paladin before. What class was he? (Hint: No levels in "paladin".) I've played a monk before. What class was he? (Hint: only one level in Monk) I've played alongside a fighter/mage type before. What class was he? (Hint: No actual "fighter" was involved.) I'm currently playing an artist with a heart of gold and a silver tongue. What class is she? (Hint: Not Bard.) Unlike some people, I'm capable of seeing beyond class distinctions when I come up with character concepts. Do note that just because you CAN divorce flavor from class doesn't mean that you MUST. You seem to assume that I'm saying that you must when that really isn't the case. However, though, what if my idea of a ranger (say) doesn't involve an animal companion, magic, two swords or a bow, but rather just someone who's very, VERY good at getting along in the wild and striking from the shadows? Wouldn't a rogue with the Track feat and plenty of ranks in Survival do the trick just as well? Once you divorce class and concept, infinitely many more options become available to you. Some of those are the same as those listed in the book. Others are significantly different, and match *your* character instead of the one the books force you to play. It's kind of like adopting 3e multiclassing -- your thug might have levels in both rogue and fighter, but won't have any of the flavor elements listed under fighter. He's just a strong thief with a good amount of experience crackin' skulls, which is *your* concept, but isn't mentioned anywhere in the rules.
Lecen_of_Mitran 04-01-07, 07:46 PM	I've played a brigand before. What class was he? (Hint: No levels in rogue or fighter.) I've played a merchant before. What class was she? (Yes, "merchant" was her signature, what she called herself, what she did, how she thought, and what others called her.) I've played alongside a paladin before. What class was he? (Hint: No levels in "paladin".) I've played a monk before. What class was he? (Hint: only one level in Monk) I've played alongside a fighter/mage type before. What class was he? (Hint: No actual "fighter" was involved.) I'm currently playing an artist with a heart of gold and a silver tongue. What class is she? (Hint: Not Bard.) Unlike some people, I'm capable of seeing beyond class distinctions when I come up with character concepts. Do note that just because you CAN divorce flavor from class doesn't mean that you MUST. You seem to assume that I'm saying that you must when that really isn't the case. However, though, what if my idea of a ranger (say) doesn't involve an animal companion, magic, two swords or a bow, but rather just someone who's very, VERY good at getting along in the wild and striking from the shadows? Wouldn't a rogue with the Track feat and plenty of ranks in Survival do the trick just as well? Once you divorce class and concept, infinitely many more options become available to you. Some of those are the same as those listed in the book. Others are significantly different, and match *your* character instead of the one the books force you to play. It's kind of like adopting 3e multiclassing -- your thug might have levels in both rogue and fighter, but won't have any of the flavor elements listed under fighter. He's just a strong thief with a good amount of experience crackin' skulls, which is *your* concept, but isn't mentioned anywhere in the rules. You´re just a min/maxer that cares only for mechanics and not for RP in reality. You just hide yourself behind an old and unnecessary excuse of "I can play a concept and not having any actual levels from such class". If you want to play a Paladin, play with a Paladin, and not with a Cleric 5/Divine Crusader 2/Master of Exotic Weapons 1/ Righteous Fist of The Luminous God 5/ Good Guy 2. The class has a name on it for a reason, BTW. That´s just one little step farther from munchikinism. Be carefull with the dark side! :D
Always-Late 04-01-07, 08:09 PM	You´re just a min/maxer that cares only for mechanics and not for RP in reality. You just hide yourself behind an old and unnecessary excuse of "I can play a concept and not having any actual levels from such class". If you want to play a Paladin, play with a Paladin, and not with a Cleric 5/Divine Crusader 2/Master of Exotic Weapons 1/ Righteous Fist of The Luminous God 5/ Good Guy 2. The class has a name on it for a reason, BTW. That´s just one little step farther from munchikinism. Be carefull with the dark side! :DPlease, please, please, please, please be an April Fools Joke.
Dragonteuthis 04-01-07, 08:23 PM	1. Two-handed and power attack is only viable for those with a strength over 12. No, really? It's not like Power Attack requires a Strength of 13 or higher, right?
Archtyrant Terevoth 04-01-07, 08:25 PM	The divorcing of flavor from class is actually a symptom of a problem with the rules. Ironically, the class with that given name doesn't do what it's supposed to do the best. For instance, a swashbuckler 20 isn't the best at fighting with a rapier and light armor. Other classes can outclass him. Thus to make a character do what you want him to do, you've got to take different mechanical combinations, then rewire the flavor so that it goes with your original concept. It kind of sucks, especially when it means your swashbuckler now has to be casting divine spells or some crap. But that's all WotC's fault for making casters complete gods.
Toran_A_Sunder 04-01-07, 08:49 PM	In response to the above threads: The one thing I've learned in 15 years of playing D&D is ~ It doesnt matter how you play it It doesnt matter if your Paladin has levels in Paladin, or no levels in paladin and levels in cleric and knight and good guy (btw, need to make that a class) It doesnt matter if your ranger is chaotic good and named Robin Hood, and he steals from the rich to give to the poor It doesnt matter that my ranger is neutral evil and steals only from woman and helpless children alone on the roads and I call him Ted the childslayer It doesnt matter if its the DM or the Wizard 20 summoning the half-dragon half celestial half golem half fiend gelatinous pixie of DOOM! from the nether realm It matters that everyone is having fun As long as everyone in volved in your game, DM and players alike, is having a good time, you're playing the game right. And that's my humble fact.
Kresalak 04-01-07, 09:05 PM	Having to divorce class from concept is stupid. If you want to be a Ranger, then the Ranger class better damn well be able to accommodate you, and if it can't then someone screwed up the design. So yeah, it's WotC's fault. Another problem is that many people believe multiclassing has to be done through PrCs. That's stupid-PrCs are special, since they only become available at the point where you can actually retire and start your own town. The Eldritch Knight, for example, is ********. If you have to wait until level 7 before you can be a Fighter/Mage, then you've spent about half the game not playing the character you want (very few games go over level 14). Now, waiting until level 14 to be an Archmage is fine, because an Archmage is by definition a high level character.
WayneTheGame 04-01-07, 09:26 PM	If you have to wait until level 7 before you can be a Fighter/Mage, then you've spent about half the game not playing the character you want (very few games go over level 14). I never thought I would say this, but AMEN, Kresalak. :clap:
Nihzlet 04-01-07, 11:47 PM	Posted by Toran_A_Sunder: As long as everyone in volved in your game, DM and players alike, is having a good time, you're playing the game right.couldnt agree more. that said, im still happy i dont have any munchkins/twinks/that kind of people in my gaming group :P i actually still have players that come up with a cool concept and play it, and who cares if theyre not "level appropriate" or if theyre "mechanically subpar".
Someone 04-02-07, 12:26 AM	No, really? It's not like Power Attack requires a Strength of 13 or higher, right?I think you missed my point. It was a counterpoint to the advice that two-hand + power attack is always the best. It's obviously not the best for you if you don't qualify for it.
Roxlimn 04-02-07, 12:34 AM	In all fairness, WotC did kinda think that multiclassing spellcasters would be a good idea. In retrospect, they should've expected it not to be. It's probably a knee-jerk to the ultra-good multiclassing in 2e, just as the nerfed TWF was also an extreme knee-jerk. They've been pursuing means to amend that. Eldritch Knight was an okay effort. Some people DO start playing at level 7, you know, but apart from that, WotC's been releasing more and more Gish base classes, so you can be a Fighter/Mage from level 1.
Stormonu 04-02-07, 01:10 AM	I think you missed my point. It was a counterpoint to the advice that two-hand + power attack is always the best. It's obviously not the best for you if you don't qualify for it. It's practically unthinkable to me that anyone would run a fighter with a Str of less than 13, but I guess it can happen. Not that I would do it. Why are you suggesting always reducing your effective BAB to wizard levels? The fighter gets plenty of bonuses from other things (Weapon Focus, magic/masterwork weapons, Str bonus [or Dex for finesse] that you can take off the 1/2 BAB -1 and *usually* still hit with just about all your attacks, or enough attacks that any you miss with you still do about the same damage. (I've worked up the math in a spreadsheet for some quick monster playtesting determinations). TWF was meant for fighters, who actually have the feats to pursue it. And the style itself does well when you need quantity of attacks, as opposed to quality of damage. Against anything with a miss chance (invisible, incorporeal, blinking, blurred, etc.) TWF gets you a lot more chances, and a missed attack isn't as much of a potential damage loss. I don't agree with this assessment. If it had been meant for fighters, there would have been a BAB requirement for Two-Weapon fighting, instead of just a Dex requirement. Also, TWF is an obviously inferior choice when battling creatures with DR. As for the miss chance, I'd rather rely on Ghost Touch or Blind-fighting with a two-handed weapon. Another problem is the cost of getting/keeping two magic weapons is pretty steep, and usually the off-hand weapon is going to be a plus behind the main weapon, if you're building a higher level character. For me, the final nail in the coffin is to compare a TWF fighter fighting with say longsword/short sword vs. a rogue doing the same thing. The rogue is getting +1d6 to +9d6 per weapon hit. The fighter? No extra bonus, and if he for some reason should start using Power Attack while TWF his chance to hit starts plummeting much faster. If you average the damage a greatsword fighter vs. a longsword + shortsword fighter does on average, the damage average is about the same, but the greatsword fighter could Power attack for 2, dealing 4 more damage than the TWF, and with the same chance to hit.
Rocketboy13 04-02-07, 01:34 AM	My Mastery notices. Grease, Color Spray and Sleep are really good spells at low levels, and should really be considered aamoung the most powerful spells in the game for their effects on the early game. The extra damage granted by a two handed weapon usually is not worth sacrificing the AC bonus of a sheild. I've played a brigand before. What class was he? (Hint: No levels in rogue or fighter.) I've played a merchant before. What class was she? (Yes, "merchant" was her signature, what she called herself, what she did, how she thought, and what others called her.) I've played alongside a paladin before. What class was he? (Hint: No levels in "paladin".) I've played a monk before. What class was he? (Hint: only one level in Monk) I've played alongside a fighter/mage type before. What class was he? (Hint: No actual "fighter" was involved.) I'm currently playing an artist with a heart of gold and a silver tongue. What class is she? (Hint: Not Bard.) Unlike some people, I'm capable of seeing beyond class distinctions when I come up with character concepts. That is just epistimological differences. There is really no reason the Paladin with no Paladin levels couldn't have called themselves Devoit Knight, or the Fighter Mage couldn't have just been called Warrior Mage. For the most part there is the title you give a character, and the technical terms you use for the rules. I don't understand the conflict with this, it seems rather like tomato/tomato, potato/potato arguement.
HouseElf 04-02-07, 03:17 AM	That is just epistimological differences. Please don't. Theres no good reason why anyone should understand the word epistemology. Not to mention a rather innacurate use of the idea. The 'Just' makes it worse
Sajek 04-02-07, 12:27 PM	Uh oh. Looks like this is turning into a flame war. *casts resist elements* Can we stop contradicting each other and just post tips and tricks that you have learned?
Optimator 04-02-07, 01:13 PM	You´re just a min/maxer that cares only for mechanics and not for RP in reality. You just hide yourself behind an old and unnecessary excuse of "I can play a concept and not having any actual levels from such class". If you want to play a Paladin, play with a Paladin, and not with a Cleric 5/Divine Crusader 2/Master of Exotic Weapons 1/ Righteous Fist of The Luminous God 5/ Good Guy 2. The class has a name on it for a reason, BTW. That´s just one little step farther from munchikinism. Be carefull with the dark side! :D Oh my...
Tyraxus 04-02-07, 02:06 PM	You´re just a min/maxer that cares only for mechanics and not for RP in reality. You just hide yourself behind an old and unnecessary excuse of "I can play a concept and not having any actual levels from such class". If you want to play a Paladin, play with a Paladin, and not with a Cleric 5/Divine Crusader 2/Master of Exotic Weapons 1/ Righteous Fist of The Luminous God 5/ Good Guy 2. The class has a name on it for a reason, BTW. That´s just one little step farther from munchikinism. Be carefull with the dark side! :D Right, because there's only one way to be a Knight or Paladin, and every single example of both of the concepts should be exactly the same, barring differences in equipment. The class has a name on it so you can get some kind of basic, quick-and-dirty concept of what the mechanics/flavour is designed to do, NOT so that you're pigeonholed into one set of mechanics because your concept can be described by the same word. When is a Samurai not a Samurai? When it's a Paladin. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html) Things I've learned, even though I haven't "mastered" the game: -Anything can be overpowered when combined with good tactics/strategy. -No matter what character you're running, INT should never be a dump stat. Skills are simply too valuable. I guess it helps that I don't see the appeal in running the "Grog smash" idiot fighter. -DMs are inconsistent (or rather, have an inconsistent view of what's "broken"). Just because he encouraged the use of the spiked chain doesn't mean he won't ban other things, even out of core. -You can learn far more about a person in one hour at the table than you can in one year of hanging out with them. You just have to know what to look for.
StormKnight 04-02-07, 04:58 PM	has a name on it so you can get some kind of basic, quick-and-dirty concept of what the mechanics/flavour is designed to do, NOT so that you're pigeonholed into one set of mechanics because your concept can be described by the same word. Since the name is intended to give the concept of the mechanics flavor, describing a character by a word that is normally a class is confusing unless you are that class. Thinking of oneself as a "fighter" is odd to begin with. You probably consider yourself a "mercenary" or a "soldier" or a "gaurd" or whatnot. The exceptions are when a class name happens to describe something that is a valid occupational/societal description. For example, its very reasonable for a character to describe herself as a 'Duelist' because she is a fighter and makes her living (before she got caught up in whatever adventure is going on) fighting in duels over bets or when hired to stand in for nobles. Sometimes people may have different perceptions of where a class description lies. To me, a paladin is very much defined by the class abilities. A paladin gets abilities X, Y and Z. If you don't have X, Y and Z, you are not a paladin, and its silly to call yourself one. On the other hand, a basically Paladin order is likely to include support members with other abilities. A "Member of the Order of Light" might or might not be a paladin, a "Paladin of the Order of Light" is either a paladin or badly misnamed. Of course, a particular campaign might define this in many ways.
journeyman777 04-02-07, 05:39 PM	1. CR only applies to surprise encounters. If you know exactly what you're going to be up against and have time to go shopping, the fight is already won. 2. The balance of anything and everything is based entirely on the style of game and books allowed. 3. Choosing your concept before choosing your class nearly always makes for a better character. 4. Mechanically sub-optimal choices will often prove surprisingly effective, simply because npc defences are generally based on the assumption that you are using standard tactics. 5. Being willing to change your character concept or build in response to in-game events is rarely a bad thing, it will almost always make you more effective in the end. See lesson 2 6. Character retraining and rebuilding rules are excellent, every campaign should use them as needed. 7. Optimization is a means to an end, not an end in itself. That end can be anything you want it to be. 8. Mastery makes nearly any concept at least playable in standard games. 9. Being mechanically superior or inferior to the rest of the party is highly disruptive to play. The greatest speed and fun are nearly always found when each party member is contributing equally to the success of the group. 10. 1+1=>2 When a party cooperates, the whole is always greater than the sum of its parts. 11. Direct damage never stops being useful. 12. A party that has only one type of class (even primary spellcasters) will not survive for long. 13. Strength through versatility is better than direct power, but only if you have the intelligence, skill, and foreknowledge to take full advantage of it. Without those things, the fighter will kill the generalist wizard pretty much every time just because he has less wrong choices available.
Rocketboy13 04-02-07, 05:58 PM	Please don't. Theres no good reason why anyone should understand the word epistemology. Not to mention a rather innacurate use of the idea. The 'Just' makes it worse I think this is a rather literate crowd. And you obviously got it. But anyway, sorry.
tetebetson 04-02-07, 07:17 PM	Things Are Not Always As They Seem