Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ginyu549 03-02-06, 09:15 PM	Seems to me, now that we have all the different books and all, that for every defense for a spell, or magic, there is now a spell or effect that can overcome that defense. In some ways it makes defense against magic worthless since there is always a way around it, why bother? There are even quite a few spells that will work in an antimagic field. Next time you fight a beholder don't forget your arc lightning or orb spells, they will fly right into the central eye, no prob. Is there really even such a thing as magic immunity? It is really just unbeatable SR anyway, and SR can be overcome, or stolen, or whatever, and there are pleanty of spells that ignore SR to begin with, so what use building a golem that isn't really immune to spells? Seems the only way to really have any actual defense for spells is to have a huge collection of convoluted spells and magic items yourself that cover all the different angles and then hope they don't get supressed or dispelled and are actually useful in your current situation. I remember when an antimagic field actually eliminated magic, and a minor globe actually protected you from the best lower level combat spells, when a golem was a fearsome and almost unstoppable opponent for low-mid level PC's. I remember when PC's were scared of demons and devils with high SR, and a rod of absobtion was a players best friend. Now all those things are much diminished, much easier for the players to overcome. Hardly a challenge at all unless masterfully DM'd. I don't know, maybe I am just jaded, or an elitest, or whatever, but I long for the days when magic and spells were only part of the game, not everything. Now it seems like magic and spells are just completely dominating in the game to the detriment of the rogueish and fighterish aspects of the game. The more spells the better, so there is hardly a PC alive that can't cast spells, or doesn't depend on spells in some way. A fighter has even lost his edge in an antimagic field where "conjuration evocations" let you do great damage from afar. Is it ruining the game? Will WOTC try to make up for it by making the rogue-fighter aspects of the game just as over the top? Will there ever again be a real defense against magic? Am I just off my rocker? I don't know. I just know that this is diminishing my enjoyment of the game.
Seeker95 03-02-06, 10:25 PM	Seems to me, now that we have all the different books and all, that for every defense for a spell, or magic, there is now a spell or effect that can overcome that defense. In some ways it makes defense against magic worthless since there is always a way around it, why bother?'Cause maybe you want to play the game? In boxing, for every punch, there is a counter. For every counter, there is a better punch. In tennis, for every serve, there is a return. For every return, there is a counter-attack. In football, for every offensive play, there is a defensive play. And vice-versa. None of this makes the game any less fun to play. The challenge is knowing when to bring which defense/offense. And the difficulty in D&D is having the right counter in the first place. And if you really are having less fun, then perhaps it is time for you to go find another game. At least for a while. You'll come back. We all do.
runestar 03-02-06, 10:27 PM	I on the other hand, find it ludicrous that there used to exist spells which would singlehandedly shut down magic without any chance of retaliation. Also, you would think that since anything was theoratically possible with magic, it was conceivable that new means would be developed to bypass traditional means of magical protection. Its all part of an ongoing cycle of continuous research and development. :) Erecting an anti-magic barrier should not be like wielding an invincible weapon. Nothing is unbeatable really, it would be fallacious to think so. That's the challenge. What's the fun in becoming immune to your enemies' blows with the snap of a finger? Any person could do that, and the game would quickly become boring when all spellcasters start prebuffing themselves according to some predetermined guideline that promise invulnerability if the following spells are cast in some order... :( Magic is like a game of rock and scissors. You use a powerful spell, opponent uses a spell to counter that, you come up with another spell to negate that defense, and so on and so forth, with the victor finally emerging when on party finally runs out of means to curb the other's defenses. That in itself is half the fun, IMO.
Ginyu549 03-02-06, 10:51 PM	Yeah, I understand all that, the new magic cycle, etc... but you know it just seems to me that there Shouldn't be a way around anti-magic field for magic. I mean isn't that the purpose? That is the time for those of the party who don't depend on magic to shine. The fighter and rogue or monk who don't need magic and are worthy opponents without it. That whole skill-side of the game is diminished by the easy-out of a spell or two in an expansion sourcebook. That is supposed to be your rock that beats the wizards scissors, teamwork, character, hard work to tune a PARTY of DIVERSE characters into a well-oiled machine to deal with adgversaries and situations that arise in the course of adventuring. Now I just see all that work and characterization and story go out the window with one simple spell here or there. It's too easy. On a side note I will probably take a break from D&D and play some PARANOIA when I am done with my current campaign. I'm sure I'll be ready for the spell-jumble-shuffle when I'm done with that...:)
VirgilCaine 03-02-06, 11:00 PM	Maybe you shouldn't allow so many spells then.
teclis 03-02-06, 11:09 PM	my DM sent monsters that generated an anti magic feild at us once. we had to run. whithout magical gear, the fighters and rogues couldn't hold a candle to the mobs.
Shatteredtower 03-03-06, 09:35 AM	In boxing, for every punch, there is a counter. For every counter, there is a better punch. In tennis, for every serve, there is a return. For every return, there is a counter-attack. In football, for every offensive play, there is a defensive play. And vice-versa.The trouble with these analogies is that they bring it all back to the idea that the entire game is about spells. Look at the boxing analogy this way: spellcasting is the equivalent of your right hand. Would you say that the answer in a fight is to always find a different way to use your right hand, or are there times that the solution should come from swinging your left instead? I on the other hand, find it ludicrous that there used to exist spells which would singlehandedly shut down magic without any chance of retaliation.There's never been such a spell. What, antimmagic field? You're standing in the middle of a dead magic zone with no other form of magical protection available to you. Many people would argue that you don't even have any means by which to magically attack your opponents in such a condition. Meanwhile, an attacker standing outside of the field can erect a dozen other magical defenses and pump the party chock full of bonuses to attack rolls, damage, and rate of fire that you only wish (assuming you could cast it from within an antimagic field) your enemies had no means of retaliating against you. If spell immunity means nothing vs. spells that ignore spell resistance, you're doing nothing to encourage teamwork by spellcasters. Why cast a spell that enhances your ally's combat potential when you can just melt that golem down in a deluge of acid? No, creating spells that ignore defenses and allow the wizard to always have a direct means of attack is bad design. The fighter doesn't get a weapon that automatically punches through every form of damage reduction (including x/--), incorporealness, and concealment. Rogues don't have a sneak attack that works against every creature in the game in all conditions. Why make similar limits for spellcasters meaningless with spells that ignore said limits?
Seeker95 03-03-06, 10:11 AM	The trouble with these analogies is that they bring it all back to the idea that the entire game is about spells. Look at the boxing analogy this way: spellcasting is the equivalent of your right hand. Would you say that the answer in a fight is to always find a different way to use your right hand, or are there times that the solution should come from swinging your left instead?I'll play with your line of thinking. If spells are your right hand, swords are your left. Somewhere between them is a brain (although this might not always apply to boxing!). The brain is what lets you decide if your counter to a right hand is a right hand or a left hand. The analogies still hold. Sometimes you overcome a spell with a spell. Sometimes you overcome a spell with a sword. Making the best decision involves using the brain.
Ginyu549 03-03-06, 04:23 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 Sometimes you overcome a spell with a spell. Sometimes you overcome a spell with a sword. Making the best decision involves using the brain. And my brain says that looking at all the options in the game that the easiest solution to most problems is a spell. Hardly ever is the best answer to anything in D&D these days NOT a spell or magic item. Why do things the hard way? If you are good with your right, then you will use it all the time and the left isn't needed. Case in point, why have a fighter when a cleric is just as good or better? In fact, using spells at various levels, domain abilities, and feats, a cleric can do anything any of the other classes can do, including cast arcane spells and have a fighters BAB. Thats just not right. Contiuing with the above analogy, with magic you can strike from your left with your right hand. That is the smart thing to do. Use your strongest attack and make it count. It is almost impossible to defend yourself against it. There are so many options open to spellcasters that they can find a way to get around almost anything without anyone elses help. In fact most often the mundne characters go to the spellcasters for help, and they look through their swiss army knife of spells and memorize it the next day and "poof" no more problem. I guess I just miss the days when if you wanted to go up to the cave on the mountain and fight a dragon you actually had to journey up the mountain to the cave instead of flying or teleporting, then fight a dragon that was a difficult adversary whose SR high AC and damage reduction actually meant something, instead of being ignored by new spells. May as well take away the dragons DR, SR, and high AC and just give it more HP's, then it might be scarey again. As it stands now a party of four 10th lvl sorcerers could probably take out a great worm in like 5 rounds just by throwing orbs at it. (I realize thats a jaded remark but I am kinda bitter about it I guess - also i think it is probably true) Don't get me wrong, I love D&D and magic in D&D. I just wonder if things are getting out of hand magic-wise. I mean I see it kinda like MTG how WOTC would put out a certain set of cards or something that kind of messes up the game for a while, so then they ban certain cards or sets, or create new sets that help balance things out again. But it is like screwing with the game, and as a long-time player/fanboy it kinda screws with me. the 3.0/3.5 version of the game is actually AWSOME in my view. I love the way you can get such diverse characters out of the system, but I just wish that skill and profieciency were a bigger part of the game. Some classes like fighter get so few skill points and so few class skills that the skill sytem is a joke for them. It doesn't add anything to those characters. Only characters with a large allotment of skill points even really use their skills. And once again, with spells you can be more skilled than your average skilled character anyways (at least at lower levels). Most times it is magical abilities and spellcasting class levels that add to the diversity of characters. Fighters, Rogues and Monks have all become dipping classes. Not to mention that MOST prestige classes are in fact designed to be spellcasters (prob way over 2:1) and there is just no way to even compete with a skill-based charater. Add to that the many actual role-playing experiences and team-building opportunities that are simply circumvented by a spell or two and I am just too disappointed to know what do... I really appriciate everyones resopnses, I'm sure I'll get over it....
Gallem 03-03-06, 08:12 PM	I am with you on this one Ginyu. I have been DM'ing for quite some time now. It is becoming increasingly difficult to manufacture suitable challenges for PC's due to the versatility of magic. Any character without magic is nearly useless. Straight fighters, barbarians, rogues etc.. are just... garbage, unless they are combined with a spellcasting class and given some rorty Prestige class(es). WotC have to keep producing books to make money. They have to make money in order to pay their employees. The cycle goes on. My opinion doesn't mean much, but this is what should be done: Erratta everything they have produced thus far and place it all in various compendiums (eg Spell Compendium). Then simply concentrate on creating adventure modules, campaign source material and leave the mechanics alone. No more Prestige Classes, no more spells (as if there are not enough already), no more feats etc... Maybe they could introduce a new concept, any non-spellcasting character has a spell resistance equal to 10 + his character level?
Nail 03-03-06, 08:28 PM	Hardly ever is the best answer to anything in D&D these days NOT a spell or magic item.The game, at high levels, is very magic item dependant. That's a separate topic, and a separate rant. Case in point, why have a fighter when a cleric is just as good or better?If you think that, then you haven't seen a well-built Ftr. In my current group, with an APL of 18.7, my Clr 19 wouldn't even think of going on without the Ftr and the Rog. That'd be suicide. (And this is coming from a serious cleric min-maxer.)
Ra-Tiel 03-03-06, 08:38 PM	Hi. === I know exactly what you mean. Nowadays it's far to easy for a spellcaster to not only overcome mundane protections, but also those specifically designed against spells. Saves? --> "No save" spells. AC? --> ranged touch spells. SR? --> "No SR" spells or assay resistance. Miss chances? --> AoE spells or true seeing. and so on, and so forth... Perhaps you should try and take a look at Iron Heroes from Malhavoc Press? I think that game could become your favorite, as it basically focuses only on skill and proficiency. :) I personally do also wish WotC would step away from publishing one wizard's/druid's/cleric's wet dream of supplements after the other, and focus more on what makes DnD fun for all: the cooperation of a party of adventurers, overcoming their adversaries with a combination of skill, knowledge, sword and spell - and not one or two characters stealing all the spotlight and totally pwning every monster/NPC with the latest "screw gamebalance completely over" spell... :waits: === Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
Vanigo 03-03-06, 11:58 PM	As it stands now a party of four 10th lvl sorcerers could probably take out a great worm in like 5 rounds just by throwing orbs at it. (I realize thats a jaded remark but I am kinda bitter about it I guess - also i think it is probably true) If they live that long, maybe. Orb spells are pretty ideal for dragon killing, but they don't do much to help you stand up to the dragon's attacks. 10th level sorcerers don't have much by way of defense unless they're heavily buffed, and even with buffs they probably can't stand up to the dragon's breath weapon. Only protection from energy could save them from instant death, and the dragon can get around that with breath weapon substitution easily enough.
smrtgmp 03-04-06, 02:07 AM	As it stands now a party of four 10th lvl sorcerers could probably take out a great worm in like 5 rounds just by throwing orbs at it. (I realize thats a jaded remark but I am kinda bitter about it I guess - also i think it is probably true)It is in no way true, given that a single 4th level spell protects from the orbs (and all ranged touch attacks, for that matter. And like Vanigo said, how exactly are said sorcerer's going to stay alive long enough to make things interesting?
Ginyu549 03-04-06, 02:12 AM	OK, I give on the dragon thing, it was just a stupid remark (although I bet if you turned it over to the Char Op gang they could get pretty close)...
allenchan 03-04-06, 02:33 AM	OK, I give on the dragon thing, it was just a stupid remark (although I bet if you turned it over to the Char Op gang they could get pretty close)... The CO group would tell you ever mentioning sorcerers is the most idiotic thing ever. :P And no, I dont think that the defense against magic has been erroded as much as you claim. Golems might be the exception, but they suck anyways, imo.
ManTimeForgot 03-04-06, 05:50 AM	Golems sucking is a VERY 3e+ viewpoint. If you tried to make that comment in 2e you would have been lynched by the mob of angry geeks who all had a mudhole stomped in their characters by golems. But the problem isn't golems. It isn't defense spells. Strategic placement of golems is well... extremely inconvenient. And with the right use of wards and illusion spells you can make people VERY miserable. What is out of whack with D&D is the design-reward ratio for classes. A rogue, fighter, paladin, ranger, monk, etc can all be a force to reckoned with but it requires a high degree of min-maxing and in the case of the fighter and to a slightly lesser extent the paladin require bringing in splatbook material. Sure the skill master rogue or combat master fighter can and do fill a niche; that I don't think can be contested. But, that all said a sloppily built wizard or druid character is on par with those well built rogue or fighter characters. The only real casting class that isn't EXTREMELY friendly to poor design is the sorceror. Now I'm going to try and avoid posting my opinions about the relative powers of classes as that is actually a separate thread. This is a "power of magic" thread. So with that in mind lets just try and discuss the "power of magic." At first glance it would seem to crazy to put expect any substantial limits on magic; I mean a dude in real life who could toss fireballs or create zones of anti-gravity would be EXTREMELY dangerous. But what is a problem is when magic in general supercedes the need for non-magic sources of influence. When a wizard is capable of single-handedly stopping an encounter of his level something is wrong. In 2e if i wanted to affect a golem I would need to use some creative applications of spells to affect them indirectly. Anymore I just need a way to contain the golem and then conjure acid all over it. The ability of magic to DIRECTLY deal with all challenges IS a problem. At low levels you don't need rogue search skills to find traps. And by the time you need rogue search find traps spell is a viable alternative. Perhaps not as good since you don't have it always at your disposal, but it is not unworkable. Now maybe I'm biased when I say this, but I definitely think the item creation pricing guidelines for skill bonuses is WAY off. If a group of all clerics found itself having problems with traps then just craft a search bonus item. Problems disarming: disable device bonus. And so on... In the realm of +5 bonuses the cost is negligible at most levels. And +20 bonuses are only 40k. A +20 bonus can take you from a 1 rank nobody to a +21 bonus force to be reckoned with in no time flat... Sure a +20 bonus for a class skill user is going to result in a higher check, but there is such a thing as diminishing returns. You don't need a +60 disable device check to be an effective trap disarmer under most circumstances. I won't go so far as to say that having a +60 wouldn't have any utility, but I will say that the magic user who can prop up a +30 to a check is going to be a viable replacement under most circumstances and this begs the question of why do I want the +60 user to begin with since he isn't coming with all the other stuff that magic users can do. To sum up my contention here: The "power of magic" is causing the barriers between the iconic classes to disappear, and that I'm pretty sure that can only be a bad thing. MTF
Ra-Tiel 03-04-06, 07:30 AM	Hi. === Golems sucking is a VERY 3e+ viewpoint. If you tried to make that comment in 2e you would have been lynched by the mob of angry geeks who all had a mudhole stomped in their characters by golems. [...] Oh yes! I still remember my Baldur's Gate days (I know it's a CRPG, but still...) where some clay and iron golems were a real threat to your party of six. And the flesh golems in BG1 in Highhedge... :gah: :eek: Mmmm... golems dangerous.... :cloud9: --- [...] To sum up my contention here: The "power of magic" is causing the barriers between the iconic classes to disappear, and that I'm pretty sure that can only be a bad thing. I think somewhere this phenomenon was called "archetype theft". And I agree, that this is a very big problem with v3.5. Clerics and druids fighting as good as fighters, wizards making almost all other classes obsolete with their spells, and so on. In my opinion each class should have its own nieche, where no other class intrudes. To make a point: a ranger with spells from CAdv is a better arcane archer than a fighter with actual levels in the PrC. And that really makes me vomit! I just wonder when we are going to see spells that emulate High Arcana, or Calaidoscopic Doom, or Instant Metamagic. :rolleyes: :nonono: If one just plays Core3 with selected few things from the supplements, it's not a real issue. But the moment you just allow all supplements (or for that matter, the "Complete X" series is sufficient), you have absolutely no reason to play a rogue, fighter or barbarian. Also, in my opinion the new spells really take away from the game, as they allow spellcasting classes (or characters with a high UMD) to simply "cheat" away their classes' weaknesses, or simply throw logic out of the window. Take golem strike as an example. Not only would every rogue be really stupid to not carry a wand of extended golem strike (or grave strike, or vine strike), it also makes no sense. A golem just doesn't have any vulnerable spots. It's a freaking stone (or iron, or clay) statue, no matter how much you divine about it! :rant: Or take a look at the spell arrow mind. Before CAdv there was a time when an archer had to worry about positioning and was forced to have a backup plan should enemies close to melee range. But with this spell (even more considering casting time and duration... :waits: ) these tactical decisions are simple negated. Removed. Cancelled. It just seems WotC is trying to make a computer game out of DnD, where you have a mechanical solution for every problem instead of moving your brain and thinking of a solution yourself. And note, all these options are only available to spellcasters, yet again! :noway: === Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
Neverwrong 03-04-06, 08:08 AM	They are making magic technology. Always, when us humies have a problem, we fix it. Well, i can understand how you can breed a dog for some purpose or build a machina but magic SHOULDN'T be like that. They have stopped it being:"Hmm, lets think of alot of thing to do with one spell,, To: "Hey, i now just the spell for this thing! Give me 8 hours to pray!,,. Magic SHOULDN'T be able to solve every problem. It's supposed to be an uncaring force that we have learned to use, but not somekind of Lego block fix-it. But then again, the company is called WIZARDS of the coast....
Nyaz 03-04-06, 08:40 AM	Not trying to oppose anyone's opinion, I'm joining the rant: Magic does tend to get out of hand, and it takes a tremendous amount of effort in the behalf of the DM to stop it from doing so. And it's not so much spells that I'm talking about, but also magic items and weapon/armour/ability enhancements. The "power-play" effect they produce can be one of the greatest pains in the behind in a DM-ing career. I've DM-ed campaigns in five different game settings for years, and nowhere have I found such a frustrating element as magic is in DnD. While you can obviously restrict magic items in your campaign, that tends to raise arguments of the kind "but I have an item creation feat; why can't I make a +6 Belt of Giant Strength and +6 Periapt of Wisdom for my character to use? They're both in the core books". Restricting money is a second option, but it's pretty unrealistic that characters raid a major dungeon or a dragon's hoard and come out with 1000 gp apiece. So there is no way around magic. It is my sole hope that the fourth edition, when i finally comes out, will be something like the Conan the Barbarian setting - little magic, lower hp, higher weapon damage, damage reduction for armour instead of AC bonuses (completely unrealistic!), Parry and Dodge bonuses rising per level and no magic items for the players to find, buy or create. In that kind of setting the rogue can prove his worth, and the fighter/barbarian doesn't wait around for the cleric to cast 2-3 enhancing or protective spells on him before he enters combat. Chances are pretty slim, but hope never dies. However, I've noticed that players prefer DnD to all other settings. What can you say. People love to power-play. And it's marvellously developed and playtested.
Morotis 03-04-06, 08:47 AM	I think the only way to really be completely spell proof, is counterspell and a rediclous Knowledge Arcana and spellcraft modifyer... Once had a friend who made a Sorcerer with Improved counterspell and the vow of non-violence feats, awsome character IMO, He'd just cancel out everything they threw at us, and since magic is so abundant as you say it is, there should be very few encounters without casters of some sort. And on those occasions, he happened to take 2 levels of paladin so he'd acctually be at least decent for use in melee and ranged combat...
VirgilCaine 03-04-06, 12:26 PM	So there is no way around magic. It is my sole hope that the fourth edition, when i finally comes out, will be something like the Conan the Barbarian setting - little magic, lower hp, higher weapon damage, damage reduction for armour instead of AC bonuses (completely unrealistic!), Parry and Dodge bonuses rising per level and no magic items for the players to find, buy or create. In that kind of setting the rogue can prove his worth, and the fighter/barbarian doesn't wait around for the cleric to cast 2-3 enhancing or protective spells on him before he enters combat. Chances are pretty slim, but hope never dies. Try GURPS. Or gee, the Conan RPG itself? D&D is not the only game system out there and complaining that it doesn't suit your tastes is ridiculous. _______________ And how does Find Traps help you DISARM THE TRAPS people? Explain THAT one for me.
Ginyu549 03-04-06, 01:50 PM	I am not complaining that it doesn't suit my tastes, I am complaining that it USED to suit my tastes, and the more WOTC has worked on it, the farther it has gotten from my liking. It's like someone painting your dog pink. "Hey, thats my dog! what the hell do you think you're doing?"
Seeker95 03-04-06, 03:32 PM	It's like someone painting your dog pink. "Hey, thats my dog! what the hell do you think you're doing?"I'm going to disagree with your analogy, but only marginally. The problem is less someone painting your dog pink than it is a bunch of someone's making products your dog *can* use, but all of them are pink. Most people griping / complaining / lamenting various aspects of the game do so in a largely supplement-trend environment. The direction supplements take the game is further and further away from Core. Since most people tend to treat WotC products as "default" it gets easy to have your game move away from the center as each new further-from-Core supplement explores an area not addressed by the Core rules. And the nature of spell/feat/variant designers has consistently -- throughout the history of the game -- been "bigger/badder/faster" rather than simply "more" or "better".
Vanigo 03-04-06, 04:22 PM	But, that all said a sloppily built wizard or druid character is on par with those well built rogue or fighter characters. The only real casting class that isn't EXTREMELY friendly to poor design is the sorceror.Well, a sloppily built caster is fine, but the tradeoff there is that a sloppily played caster is pretty useless. Your spells are a limited resource, and you have to know when and where to employ them if you want to be useful beyond the first battle of the day. (Less so for sorcerers, of course, but they have to select their spells known carefully.) A fighter's job, on the other hand, is simple: kill stuff. Sure, there are plenty of variations on the theme, but that's just finesse for added effectiveness. (Straight blaster mages are straightforward to play, but they aren't really that useful. They're great against swarms of weak enemies, but their damage output against small numbers of strong enemies is sometimes actually inferior to a decent fighter's, and they'll run out of good spells in a hurry.) At low levels you don't need rogue search skills to find traps. And by the time you need rogue search find traps spell is a viable alternative. Perhaps not as good since you don't have it always at your disposal, but it is not unworkable.Well, sure, if your cleric has a decent search modifier and somehow gains the rogue's ability to disarm traps. Both are rather difficult. Now maybe I'm biased when I say this, but I definitely think the item creation pricing guidelines for skill bonuses is WAY off. Well, the item pricing guidelines, if applied indescriminately, will ruin any campaign. I think the skill bonus guidelines are actually one of the least game-breaking parts - look at the periodic "OMG TRU STR1K RNG = L33T" threads we get. Those guidelines have probably caused more problems than anything else WotC has published. They really should have plastered giant yellow and orange warning signs all over that table: "DO NOT USE IF YOU'RE AN IDIOT". Any decent DM who wants to allow custom items needs to ask himself two questions about anything a player wants to make: "Should I allow this at all, or will it detrimentally affect the game (perhaps by breaking down class roles)?" and "How much should I deviate from the price the guidelines give?". Really, items that exactly adhere to the pricing guidelines should be the exception, not the rule. Oh yes! I still remember my Baldur's Gate days (I know it's a CRPG, but still...) where some clay and iron golems were a real threat to your party of six. And the flesh golems in BG1 in Highhedge... :gah: :eek: Mmmm... golems dangerous.... :cloud9:That one adamantine golem in the Astral Sphere or whatever it was called was pretty funny. It was too big to cross those bridges to get to the party, so I just sat back and killed it with that returning throwing dagger that did a point of fire damage and the lightning bow. It was immune to the physical damage, but not the energy damage. Took forever, though. To make a point: a ranger with spells from CAdv is a better arcane archer than a fighter with actual levels in the PrC. And that really makes me vomit! I just wonder when we are going to see spells that emulate High Arcana, or Calaidoscopic Doom, or Instant Metamagic. :rolleyes: :nonono:To be fair, arcane archers suck. They've never been good for anything, really. If one just plays Core3 with selected few things from the supplements, it's not a real issue. But the moment you just allow all supplements (or for that matter, the "Complete X" series is sufficient), you have absolutely no reason to play a rogue, fighter or barbarian.Fighter or barbarian, maybe, thanks to Divine Metamagic and Persistant Spell, but the rogue is still pretty important as skill-monkey. Also, in my opinion the new spells really take away from the game, as they allow spellcasting classes (or characters with a high UMD) to simply "cheat" away their classes' weaknesses, or simply throw logic out of the window. Take golem strike as an example. Not only would every rogue be really stupid to not carry a wand of extended golem strike (or grave strike, or vine strike), it also makes no sense. A golem just doesn't have any vulnerable spots. It's a freaking stone (or iron, or clay) statue, no matter how much you divine about it! :rant:Sure it does. Stone golems are going to have some small flaws and impurities in the stone, or perhaps hairline cracks.
Ra-Tiel 03-04-06, 05:14 PM	Hi. === [...] That one adamantine golem in the Astral Sphere or whatever it was called was pretty funny. It was too big to cross those bridges to get to the party, so I just sat back and killed it with that returning throwing dagger that did a point of fire damage and the lightning bow. It was immune to the physical damage, but not the energy damage. Took forever, though. It wasn't an admantine golem. Those bastards were introduced in the Throne of Bhaal addon and were some hell of opponents. An adamantine golem took only one point of damage from any attack. One. Freaking. Point! :eek: Not that they didn't have something like 90 or 100HPs :rolleyes: Did I mention they had 100% magic resistance and an AC of -9? ;) --- To be fair, arcane archers suck. They've never been good for anything, really. Irrelevant! No matter how sucky a PrC might be, it's absolutely stupid and cheap from WotC to provide spells that absolutely and in all ways makes that PrC obsolute. If you find that ok, I guess you wouldn't have a problem if WotC introduced a spell that copied the FB's Supreme Power Attack, would you? So.. let's see... duration 1min/level... casting time 1 immediate action... spell level... hmm... I think "cleric 3/druid 4" should be alright. :noway: Also, it depends what you want to do with the arcane archer. If you go fighter6/wizard1/arcane archer10 than you're sub-par. But something along the lines fighter1/wizard5/eldritch knight 4/arcane archer10 could be quite interesting. You could also replace eldritch knight levels with 3 levels spellsword and 1 more wizard level, which would give you the following: fighter1/wizard6/spellsword3/arcane archer10. --- Fighter or barbarian, maybe, thanks to Divine Metamagic and Persistant Spell, but the rogue is still pretty important as skill-monkey. A single level of rogue is sufficient, as he gains the "Traps" ability right there. And a wizard has the intelligence and therefore the skill points (at least he should) to be able to afford to put a few points here and there in cross-class skills and supply the rest with his spells (or more likely, his magic items: scrolls, wands,...) --- Sure it does. Stone golems are going to have some small flaws and impurities in the stone, or perhaps hairline cracks. And how do "hairline cracks" make that 5 ton golem vulnerable to your non-magical dagger? Because all the sudden, you can get past it's DR, as the weapon base damage plus your strength plus Xd6 sneak attack damage is very likely to go past that DR 10/adamantine, while you'd fail miserably without that additional handful of d6s. Even more when you have only tained in slitting throats and severing arteries and piercing organs? It's like saying a hairline crack makes a Class 5 (http://www.jeetglassindia.com/bulletproofglass.html) bulletproof window vulnerable to your derringer. Not really... === Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
Vanigo 03-04-06, 10:31 PM	Irrelevant! No matter how sucky a PrC might be, it's absolutely stupid and cheap from WotC to provide spells that absolutely and in all ways makes that PrC obsolute. If you find that ok, I guess you wouldn't have a problem if WotC introduced a spell that copied the FB's Supreme Power Attack, would you? So.. let's see... duration 1min/level... casting time 1 immediate action... spell level... hmm... I think "cleric 3/druid 4" should be alright. :noway:Well if you want to go that way, arcane archers are still the only ones with Imbue Arrow, Seeker Arrow, and Phase Arrow. And Imbue Arrow is actually kind of nice. And how do "hairline cracks" make that 5 ton golem vulnerable to your non-magical dagger? Because all the sudden, you can get past it's DR, as the weapon base damage plus your strength plus Xd6 sneak attack damage is very likely to go past that DR 10/adamantine, while you'd fail miserably without that additional handful of d6s. Even more when you have only tained in slitting throats and severing arteries and piercing organs? It's like saying a hairline crack makes a Class 5 (http://www.jeetglassindia.com/bulletproofglass.html) bulletproof window vulnerable to your derringer. Not really...Presumably, it works in much the same way that a high level rogue can break someone's spine with a nail file. It shouldn't be physically possible, but they do it anyway. As for training, it's a divination spell. Divination spells tell you things. Things like where to hit a big piece of rock to do the most damage.
Linkrulesx10 03-05-06, 04:47 AM	And don't forget that constructs are still magical and hitting certain area's could disrupt that magical energy that flows around the constructs body. Thats the way I view how the spell works, but thats all fluff isn't it...
Nyaz 03-05-06, 07:18 AM	Try GURPS. Or gee, the Conan RPG itself? D&D is not the only game system out there and complaining that it doesn't suit your tastes is ridiculous. _______________ And how does Find Traps help you DISARM THE TRAPS people? Explain THAT one for me. I would have thought that it was obvious from my post that I did try other settings. And I loved the Conan setting. To translate it for additional clarification: I prefer the other settings, but it is extremely hard to persuade players to try them out. Because everyone prefers dealing 60+ damage per round at mid-level and fireballing the hell out of a problem instead of trying to think their way around it.
VirgilCaine 03-05-06, 09:45 AM	I would have thought that it was obvious from my post that I did try other settings. And I loved the Conan setting. To translate it for additional clarification: I prefer the other settings, but it is extremely hard to persuade players to try them out. Because everyone prefers dealing 60+ damage per round at mid-level and fireballing the hell out of a problem instead of trying to think their way around it. Get some new players then. Either way, it's not D&D's fault at all. YOU run the game.