Post/Author/DateTime	Post
D&D addict 08-08-07, 08:50 PM	3.5 introduced alot of changes that I mostly welcomed. The nerf of Haste and heal were good moves. So was upgrade of bard and druid, and so on. But then (as usual) the nerf bat seemed to swing a whee bit much: Spell focus dropping to +1, damaging spells are less, damaging, time stop is nerfed, etc, and worse of them all Power attack 2-H is now Double damage (um thats bit over done!). This in my experience has turned the game into a "melee" centric game. Druids and clerics do melee buff (for others) and melee combat (themselves) than others. Sorcerer is not really that great nuker, wizard is now a mostly utilitarian class than a generalist. Please hold off your "if you combine this and that class" argument since there is always some munchkin combo if you scoure the tons of expansion books. Focusing on the core D&D 3.5 books, I see this over nerf. While this is not as bad as Hast/Heal 3.0 past, it is note worthy and should be addressed! If you disagree please post and enlighten me about your experience. :) And if you agree, oh please post too! :):):)
Tempest Stormwind 08-08-07, 09:05 PM	Melee-centric? Have you seen what casters can do, even with the reduced DCs and supposedly "nerfed" spells? Sticking to strictly core, the strongest class is the druid (unless you have a specific opponent/goal in mind, and have time to prepare; in such a circumstance a wizard can out-perform a druid at accomplishing that goal), and the weakest class is arguably fighter, monk, or paladin (oh, look, most of the melee classes right there!). The most broken effects in core are all spells -- Gate, Mordenkainen's Disjunction (and in some ways most of the Mordenkainen spells, since almost all of them involve absolute "cannot possibly be overcome" elements to them), Shapechange, and Polymorph Any Object are often cited as some of the strongest effects in the game, splatbook or not. If you equate the mage role to the one who drops lots of area damage spells, then you're in for a rude awakening. By far, the strongest spells in the game were those that bypassed damage altogether, typically save-or-die. This is still the case in 3.5, even with the lower Spell Focus and Spell Penetration values. It's just because outside of levels 5-7 or so, damage spells, by and large, are not worth it. It is significantly more effective in battle to control enemy movement, lock down enemy actions, drain enemy effectiveness (I prefer ability damage and flat save penalties, myself), and so on -- this takes the enemy out while maximizng your chances at survival. Give me an Evard's Black Tentacles + Solid Fog over two Cones of Cold any day of the week. There are some changes in 3.5 I didn't like all that much. Most of the ones that were balance-related, however, I *did* appreciate. It's a lot better than it was in 3e, by and large (although it isn't perfect by far).
ArcTan 08-08-07, 10:54 PM	3.5 introduced alot of changes that I mostly welcomed. The nerf of Haste and heal were good moves. So was upgrade of bard and druid, and so on. But then (as usual) the nerf bat seemed to swing a whee bit much: Spell focus dropping to +1, damaging spells are less, damaging, time stop is nerfed, etc, and worse of them all Power attack 2-H is now Double damage (um thats bit over done!). This in my experience has turned the game into a "melee" centric game. Druids and clerics do melee buff (for others) and melee combat (themselves) than others. Sorcerer is not really that great nuker, wizard is now a mostly utilitarian class than a generalist. Please hold off your "if you combine this and that class" argument since there is always some munchkin combo if you scoure the tons of expansion books. Focusing on the core D&D 3.5 books, I see this over nerf. While this is not as bad as Hast/Heal 3.0 past, it is note worthy and should be addressed! If you disagree please post and enlighten me about your experience. The point was to try to make melee better, because there wasn't that much reason to play a melee character before. Even now, the higher-level you get the more pointless being a melee-based character is, as the casters get better and better area save-or-dies.
NoldorForce 08-08-07, 11:25 PM	The point was to try to make melee better, because there wasn't that much reason to play a melee character before. Even now, the higher-level you get the more pointless being a melee-based character is, as the casters get better and better area save-or-dies.Except when you hit epic; then things shift to no-save/no-SR damage effects and buffing. Otherwise, you're running into either really high saves, hefty SR, or blanket sets of immunities. (See abominations, for instance.)
nightside_samurai 08-09-07, 12:14 AM	worse of them all Power attack 2-H is now Double damage (um thats bit over done!). You should look at Leap Attack :P
Redeemed777 08-09-07, 12:45 AM	I came in expecting this to be something about mixing Nerf toys into D&D..... Needless to say I am disapointed :(
Optimator 08-09-07, 01:12 AM	D&D 3.5 over nerf?... I could see that. "Do you prefer D&D over Nerf toys?" Those were the days. I liked the ball-shooters the most. They had way better range than the various darts and arrows one could shoot.
RobbyPants 08-09-07, 09:36 AM	and worse of them all Power attack 2-H is now Double damage (um thats bit over done!). It actually works quite nicely. If you don't give a 2:1 return, people will just use two weapons and get 1:1 on each attack, which would effectively work out to 2:1 (assuming they are making double the number of attacks). I'm pretty certain that's exacly why WotC did this.
DoveArrow 08-09-07, 11:50 AM	To tell you the honest truth, I think posts like this are amusing. You think spellcasters are weak, and that the game tends towards melee characters. That's certainly an opinion that many people would agree with. However, I think you'd find that there are several other people on this board who would say the exact opposite. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't find posts about how weak the fighter is from some time in the last two days. Personally, I think it all has to do with individual playing styles. Take me as an example: I have a hard time playing melee characters, I don't know why. I can never hit anything, I can't deal much damage, and I can never seem to get my AC above 23. The rest of the people at my table, however, can create straight fighters with high attack bonuses, that can crank out an average of 60 points of damage with each swing, and who have no problem putting together an AC of 37 or higher (by the way, this is all using core rules too). What's my point? My point is, that if you had asked me whether fighters were a weak class, and I hadn't seen people put together builds like the ones I've described above, I would have told you yes. However, I recognize now that a lot of the reason that fighters seem weak to me is because I really don't have a mind for them. I think the same may be true for you and spellcasters. Spellcasters can be amazingly powerful. Using the right spells (and I'm just talking core here), and you can have a wizard with an AC that will rival any fighter's, who can increase the abilities of his allies to ridiculous proportions, and who can deal so much damage on the battlefield, that it makes a nuclear strike look like someone with a head cold. The thing is, though, you have to have a head for spellcasters. If you don't, it will feel like spellcasters are only really good in very select situations, and even then, it will feel like they aren't particularly effective because of things like energy and spell resistance. Anyway, that's just my :twocents:
Count Arioch the 28th 08-09-07, 02:06 PM	It actually depends on what your style is. For example, I am running Red Hand of Doom. The module in general seems to favor melee combat. There are precious few skilled ranged combatants, very few spellcasters and all of them have selected their spells poorly, and nearly nothing has any sort of advanced maneuverability. Combine that with the fact that the module tends towards large numbers of inferior foes and you'll have an environment where melee types really shine. However, if I had written the adventure, it would be different. There'd be more spellcasters and skilled archers, more classed NPCs would have at the very least potions of fly, the spellcasters would have spells chosen primarily from the infamous "Spells that [edited] kill people" list, and so forth. A melee fighter would drop like a paralyzed falcon.
D&D addict 08-10-07, 04:09 PM	It actually works quite nicely. If you don't give a 2:1 return, people will just use two weapons and get 1:1 on each attack, which would effectively work out to 2:1 . Thats a valid point. But you need to note that A) 2 weapon attack is never as many attacks as primary (4 attacks primary hand, 3 attacks secondary is max I believe in Core) B) you incure a -2 to all attacks C) in order to power attack you can't wield a light weapon, so you'll incure a -4 on all attacks. These penalties are pretty steep at low levels, but I suppose at level 10+ for a fighter it maybe worth it but still X2 power attack is too good. So perhaps a X1.5 power attack would had been best or a new feat (Greater Power attack, Base attack 10?). It's just because outside of levels 5-7 or so, damage spells, by and large, are not worth it So there is my point exactly. So wizards are now utilitarian/crowd control (enchanters class in WoW any one?), and where does that leave a "nuking" sorcerer. Originally wizards/sorcerers were rear loading in terms of damage. That is in first several levels they were puny, then haste would kick in and somewhere in mid to high levels, they would shine. Now, a sorcerer has a hard time justifying being sorcerer: fighter out damages him from level 1-20 & wizard out utility him from level 1-20. Also wizard is not a front or rear loading charachter any more. Just mid-rear loading utility (enchant/crowd control ... etc). Which is fine if thats how wizards shall be in 3.5. Classes change and priorities shift, but this shold now call for addressing the "rear loading" aspect of the wizards. After all we got the meat shield, scout, healer, and enchanter/crowd-control, and no nuker. So lets unti the hands of our chanter. ;) The most broken effects in core are all spells -- Gate, Mordenkainen's Disjunction .. I concede that I forgot to mention a given: Game breaks down when 9th level spells are cast by players. I know people try to tweak it, DMs try to make allowances for it, there is epic level material for people to play, etc. But I have always viewed the game mostly ending once level 9th spells are introduced and realistically with out draconic restrictions from DM, game can't continue. Balacing charachters won't help it really unless we totally throw out AD&D and 3.x and start a new (and I think 3.5 really didn't touch that unspoken game ending aspect of 9th level spells). But yes, there is always that. Thanks for noting it. :)
zorgling25 08-10-07, 07:37 PM	Its worth noting though, that he said that combat was melee-centric, not the classes. His complaint isn't that "fighter is number 1" (yeah right...), but that even the caster classes are centered around melee. A Druid's strength isn't Fire Storm, its its Wild Shape. A Cleric's strength isn't Flame Strike, its Divine Power and Righteous Might. Still, I would argue that 3.0->3.5 didn't make so many changes that this didn't change. In fact, IIRC in 3.0 we had to deal with crazy druids with Wizard friends casting the broken version of haste on them (instead of just crazy druids now).
D&D addict 08-10-07, 08:18 PM	Thank you zorgling25 for crystalizing my point. And thats why druids (I personally would say clerics) are viewed as the uber class now. They can melee as good as if not better than a fighter and oh they have spells.
TorgSmackie 08-10-07, 09:52 PM	I find it to be a perspective thing. Sometimes people post things like this: "D&D 3.5 nerfed too many things or nerfed them too hard. And OMG Power Attack!" What they're really telling you is this: "In 3.0, I mostly played spellcasters." If you only played casters in 3.0, then 3.5 will feel like a nerf. If you spent more than half your time playing physical combat (fighters, barbarians, monks, rangers), 3.5 will feel like a godsend of game balance that allows you to crawl out from under the party casters' shadows.
Optimator 08-10-07, 10:05 PM	... 3.5 will feel like a godsend of game balance that allows you to crawl out from under the party casters' shadows. A bit.
Thunder Dragonbane 08-10-07, 11:08 PM	A bit. Only when you have multiple attacks, and somehow manage to crit on all of them.
SirUrza 08-10-07, 11:50 PM	Yes because Arcane Protege (+1) combined with Spell Forcus (+2) combined with Greater Spell Focus (+2) for a total of +5 on spell dcs was working so well for the monsters. Seriously, the nerfing of the focus and feats from +2s to +1 wasn't so bad. Fact is, those feats combined with 3 or 4 prestige classes that had Spell Power really made spellcasters overbearing at higher levels. What the change did was make your choice in low level spells more important instead of every spell being a damage spell that never missed. BTW.. you don't need Spellfocus to cast Magic Missile. :P Oh oh oh! And there's this feat.. hmm.. I forget what it's called.. it's in Lost Empires of Faerun, it lets you break down spell slots into lower level spellslots. So for the damage bunnies, that means you can make a level 5 spell slot.. 5 more magic missiles you can cast per day.
ORC_Sinister 08-11-07, 12:09 AM	BTW.. you don't need Spellfocus to cast Magic Missile. :P no but you need blindfight to cast magic missile at the darkness...
Tempest Stormwind 08-11-07, 12:16 AM	Oh oh oh! And there's this feat.. hmm.. I forget what it's called.. it's in Lost Empires of Faerun, it lets you break down spell slots into lower level spellslots. So for the damage bunnies, that means you can make a level 5 spell slot.. 5 more magic missiles you can cast per day. Arcane Manipulation. Call it what it is, though. A cheap attempt to capture the versatility and elegance of the psionics system without rewriting the sacred cow of Vancian magic.
Dazzer 08-11-07, 12:33 AM	First of all, Power Attack, as written, is perfectly balanced. If the enemy has lots of hitpoints, but low AC, it likely isn't the main challenge, this kind of encounter rewards players with power attack. If the enemy has high AC, but low hitpoints, power attacking is usually not a good option. An enemy with a mix of the two, or high hitpoints and armour class, is very difficult to determine, generally power attacking is a bad idea. Power attack allows fighter-types to really put the grind on those 20HD zombies and other such lesser foes, and really put the 1 attack per round murderous encounters to the dust quickly. Second, Spellcasters are as powerful as their DM allows them to be. In a campaign where most enemies have poorly selected spell selections, lots of melee ability, and poor ranged options, the PC spellcasters will really out-shine everything since they'll just be blasting all things to high heaven. In a campaign where enemies have smart spell selections, where casters are uncommon but not rare, but non-casting types have access to one shot items that boost their effectiveness against casters...you'll see a HUGE difference in effectiveness. Ever seen an encounter where the main villain (level 15 total badass) has two greater invisibility rogues (or warlocks since they are better for this purpose) with wands of CL 10 dispel magic aimed at the party spellcasters in a "counter-spelling" or "targetted dispelling" way? See invis won't help you now, it's gone. Those fog clouds, gone as well. Melees shine here, every time. In a campaign where ranged attackers constantly ready actions against spellcasters...you'll see a HUGE difference in effectiveness. Try casting a spell when 1-5 arrows are hitting you a turn...oh what, prot arrows? Yeah, their 1st level adept cast magic weapon on 50 arrows prior to the combat, or better yet poured an oil of +3 greater magic weapon on those arrows just to spite you. The lesson today is, smart DM tactics, end casters, fast. Melees have hitpoints to go through usually, and can usually keep fighting even when completely disarmed (even if it draws AoO's, I've seen them still win!) Not to mention certain effects can just end a wizard instantly. Sure at level 12, you got your 15 buffs up that make you invincible...right?? CR 10 trap, disjunction. All of them are gone, do you have the 15 buffs prepared twice that day? No, too bad, now fight the dragon who set the trap in such a way that it alerts him if anyone comes within 50ft of it, let alone disarms or sets it off, he breathes on you for around 70 damage, make a saving throw for half.... With no buffs, most wizards who fail, die at this level. If they don't die, they are normally really hit-pointy, and go unconcious or are unable to put up a good defense in future rounds (having to worry more about being in the less than 15 hitpoints catagory). Remember, all your buffs are gone from the trap, what do you do? Also note, the guy who wouldof played a rogue, played a cleric instead, and the fighter is actually a druid, and the wizard is...well a wizard, and the cleric is another cleric because they are cool! Casters are better remember *eaten by traps, dragons and whatnots due to constantly fighting under the eye of summoned beholders*
runestar 08-11-07, 12:53 AM	The lesson today is, smart DM tactics, end casters, fast. Melees have hitpoints to go through usually, and can usually keep fighting even when completely disarmed (even if it draws AoO's, I've seen them still win!) You make it sound like the player controlling the wizard is a retard. But I admit it is difficult yo contest your point without it degenerating into a race to see who one-ups who (wizard knows DM is throwing a MDJ trap, he readies a tower shield, DM knows he is using a tower shield, "insert counter-counter tactic here" and so on...) Nor do spellcasters walk around with 10+ buffs up on them at all times. I do not know who perpetuated that myth, but my wizard typically has only 1-2 buffs active at any 1 time.
DoveArrow 08-15-07, 08:02 PM	Its worth noting though, that he said that combat was melee-centric, not the classes. His complaint isn't that "fighter is number 1" (yeah right...), but that even the caster classes are centered around melee. A Druid's strength isn't Fire Storm, its its Wild Shape. A Cleric's strength isn't Flame Strike, its Divine Power and Righteous Might. And I would say that only taking into consideration the amount of damage that a character can do to a single enemy is an extremely limited way of looking at what makes one successful at combat. Dealing damage is important, but so is altering the battlefield, buffing up the melee fighters, weakening the enemy's ability scores, preventing the enemy from attacking, providing additional targets for the enemy to attack, and softening up several enemies at once with one attack. If you leave all of those other factors out, then yes, combat is melee-centric. However, I think that doing so would be an error. You know, now that I think about it, I would say that your argument has even gone and validated my point. Some people have a mind for dealing the most damage possible in a single attack. Some people have a mind for other things, like altering the battlefield. I'm not saying that one is better than the other, I'm saying that just because you can't figure out how to use the one effectively, doesn't mean that the other one's better. It's all just a matter of playing style.
ArcTan 08-16-07, 12:10 AM	no but you need blindfight to cast magic missile at the darkness... ITYM "blindsight".
Sroblin 08-16-07, 12:13 AM	About Power Attack- the fact that it's objectively better in 3.5 doesn't bother me as much as the fact that it's been made so much better for a specific weapon combo- the two-handed weapon wielding fighter or barbarian(especially)- than any other weapon combo. At this point, I wouldn't mind a few bones being tossed in the direction of shield-and-hand-weapon warriors or two-weapon fighting- the 'great weapon' option, while cool, is just too effective when combined with power attack now. Don't reply that it's balanced with casting- my complaint is that it's not balanced with other melee options.
yrogerg 08-16-07, 12:27 AM	At this point, I wouldn't mind a few bones being tossed in the direction of shield-and-hand-weapon warriors or two-weapon fighting- the 'great weapon' option, while cool, is just too effective when combined with power attack now. Honestly, I'd say TWF more than Sword-and-Shield: with the extra AC provided by an independently enchantable shield, it's fairly effortless to get a good gish class a stratospheric AC that more than makes up for the lesser effect of power attack. Admittedly, we're not talking about pure warrior classes at that point, though.
Dazzer 08-16-07, 02:48 AM	It is balanced with other melee types. Power Attacking with a Two-Handed Weapon, bars you from the following Using a light/heavy shield, using a tower shield. Having an off-hand weapon The use of many feats (like Deflect Arrows) The use of a free-hand. You can still use a buckler, but all your attacks will suffer a -1 penalty (assuming you have Impr. Buckler Defense). Another Melee Type, the Two-Weapon-Fighter He will have many more attacks than the above fighter who has few attacks that deal muchos damage. The two-weapon-fighter can specialize in weapons that do special things on critical hits, which is much more likely to happen. Compare the 4 attacks of the power attacking two-handed fighter, which are all penalized and therefore the last 2 are unlikely to hit (and much more unlikely to crit) To the 7 attacks of the Two-Weapon-Fighter, which have a small penalty, but the first 4 will likely hit, and the last 3 are maybes. Assuming he wields weapons that are good at critting, he may end up having an average of one threat per round. (15-20, 4 attacks that will hit, 30% chance of threat per attack roll...etc..). Flaming Burst and all those goodies, will have more chance of going off. Thus his damage potentially is equivalent. Not to mention the fact, that 7 attacks per round, could turn into, easily, 7 trip attempts this round. With Improved Trip, he could in theory (using two weapons that can trip, or unarmed strikes...need I mention the monk TWF?) give out up to 14 potential attacks (1 trip, then free attack, rinse and repeat 7 times). This is compared to the 4 attack per round, power attacking two-handed fighter, who is GOOD, but is equivalent. Sword-n-Shield Fighters A fighter who specs with a sword and a shield, could specialize in either sword, shield, two-weapon-fighting, or none of those. Shield Focus/Ward, are excellent feats for this man, it raises his low touch AC. It gives him bonuses against being forced to do things he doesn't want to do, and it allows him to have a secondary damage type at the ready. Assume he uses a longsword (the generic). He could have a piercing, or bludgeoning weapon in his off-hand (piercing for spiked shields). Conversely, this fighter could have spiked armour, a normal shield, and a longsword. All 3 bases covered, and all of them ready, all the time. The Sword n Board fighter will also, usually, have higher armour class. Sure the TWF, or the THF (two-weapon, or two-handed, fighters), could have improved buckler defense. Note that bucklers are the easiest shields to eat and break, and disarm. A heavy shield doesn't drop to the floor, it hangs off your arm until you spend a move action to put it back on properly (which doesn't provoke AoO's). Tower Shields? Very good. Heavy Shield + Longsword fighter, does suffer from the "no free hand" syndrome, but feats like Shield Block (deflect arrows except with a shield), make up for this. Also, lets assume he is smart. He can have a backup weapon in a shield-sheaf (50gp), and have a light slashing or piercing weapon at the ready, as a free action on his turn...just in case he gets swallowed whole, or gets disarmed of that awesome longsword.... All in All, I find in my games, the most powerful fighters use shields and a one handed weapon (usually axes or warhammers). The next most powerful fighters, are specialist-types (tripping, disarming, bullrushing etc...). Followed by two-handed fighters, and lastly two-weapon fighters. I have seen many strange things done however. Barbarians owning up battle-fields with longspears and potions of enlarge person. Two-Weapon-Fighters with an average damage per round equivalent of the power attacking barbarian with a greataxe. Unarmed fighters who are more feared than said greataxe man, and greataxe men who's main function is the ability to take hits, rather than dish them out.... This is of course, ignoring ranged fighters, who I don't even bother comparing, their are advantages and disadvantages to both styles....deflect arrows being a major pain in the butt. I find, in the games I play in, that although casters are "more powerful" overall. Fighters can hold their own, and in many situations, out-do casters. It's a wonderful thing you knew you were gonna fight the dragon today, and it's red, and it's vulnerable to cold, and etc... It's too bad that you had to fight the dragon in the middle of a lightning storm with severe hurricane like winds....make concentration checks to cast your spells please. What do you do fighter? You jump off the cliff onto the dragon? Got any feats to help you out in this situation? Power-Attack? Improved Grapple? and you have the belt of grappling +8 bonus? Well, looks like you are on relatively even terms....the dragon has a little higher than you, but I think at worst you can take the -4 to hit and smash it with your fists, which are treated as magical and deal 1d10 + 8 (+2 amulet, +6 strength, superior unarmed strike). My favourite thing I ever did to a caster, was have the dragon quicken a dispel magic (dispelling all the anti-breath weapon buffs), and then ready his action to disrupt the spellcaster using his breath weapon.... "You see the dragon casually flick a clawed hand, and your magical protections drop...you keep haste and....bulls strength after the checks are done...then he seems to wait for you to make your next move, studying you all intently with an envious eye towards your magical items..." Wizard-: "I cast my empowered piercing cold orb of cold at the red dragon, oh and I sudden Maximize it for good measure..." DM-: "The dragon takes it's readied action, breathing on the party, specifically making sure to include you in the area...you take....65 damage...oh you saved? 32 damage then. Make me a concentration check to keep your spell casting...25? No, sorry you fail, DC was 42...." Wizard-: "Oh...fudge...that's...broken...that will require a tetanus shot..." *taken from simpsons*
runestar 08-16-07, 06:41 AM	Except that there is little reason to go sword+shield fighter when your fighter could be fighting with a 2-handed weapon and using an animated shield. My favourite thing I ever did to a caster, was have the dragon quicken a dispel magic (dispelling all the anti-breath weapon buffs), and then ready his action to disrupt the spellcaster using his breath weapon.... That's odd...given the dragon's crappy caster lv, he should have very little chance of dispelling your buffs...were they derived from a wand or something?:confused:
yrogerg 08-16-07, 07:56 AM	Except that there is little reason to go sword+shield fighter when your fighter could be fighting with a 2-handed weapon and using an animated shield. Which is, admittedly, why so many DMs smack animated shields with teh banstick.
RobbyPants 08-16-07, 09:24 AM	Thats a valid point. But you need to note that A) 2 weapon attack is never as many attacks as primary (4 attacks primary hand, 3 attacks secondary is max I believe in Core) B) you incure a -2 to all attacks C) in order to power attack you can't wield a light weapon, so you'll incure a -4 on all attacks. I'm not going to say you don't have to work for it, but all of those can be overcome. It's true that you'll cap at three off-hand attacks with Greater TWF, but even still, that's only one behind the primary attack, and the 4th attack is at -15 from the BAB. You can use a non-light weapon in your off-hand without the extra -2 penalty, but that requires the use of Oversized TWF (Complete Adventurer). Although, I'll be honest with you: even if Power Attack only had a 1:1 return, I wouldn't blow through all these feats just to get more milage by using TWF. The best way to tweak TWF is to get your per attack damage as high as possible. Things like Sneak Attack work much better for this.
runestar 08-16-07, 10:06 AM	You could also throw 2-weapon rend into the mix, possibly making that the 8th attack (sorta). Champions of ruin also has feats which allow you to deal extra damage on each successful attack after the first, meaning you get more mileage out of more attacks. But then, the problem comes as to how consistently you can get in full attacks.
DoveArrow 08-16-07, 11:50 AM	ITYM "blindsight". I think he means an Intelligence of 2.
Dazzer 08-16-07, 04:50 PM	Yes, One of the things I usually put into a dragons hoard is a wand of dispel magic, at caster level 10 (for very big dragons...not pansy adult ones). I'm talking about the really old ones. They have the money; and it will always help them out. Conversely, I have the dragon have a few minions, which are smart, and invisible themselves when they hear a party coming in the front door. Then they dispel magic (becoming visible as well); with a readied action to do so JUST before the dragon breathes. That way nobody expects it. I'm a heartless, cruel, and unforgiving DM recently. My PC's adapt quickly.
ArcTan 08-16-07, 06:10 PM	I think he means an Intelligence of 2. That's an Intelligence too low to prepare or cast magic missile.