Post/Author/DateTime	Post
zuul88 04-04-07, 03:12 AM	Would it be "Overpowered" to allow a character that multi-classes/PrC to take different feats. Having recieved martial weapon proficieny 3 times or the light armor 2 times seems redundant. Using the retraining rules out of the PH2 or choosing when you take the class to take different feats seems "smarter." It is a class ability so why would the PC take the time to learn it if he/she already knows it. Martial classes as a whole seem to get bashed on here compared to spell casters so this seems reasonable. Maybe putting some kind of limits like bonus only or movement only. Yes, taking the whole power attack feat tree is overpowered I get it, Dont want to hear about it. But save bonus or maybe luck feats, stuff like that. I am talking to my DM about doing this so I would like to hear other peoples opinoin on it as well. Respect Nathan
Fireclave 04-04-07, 03:37 AM	It is a class ability so why would the PC take the time to learn it if he/she already knows it. The retraining rules allow you to reselect options. The weapon and armor proficiencies you get from entering a class are not feats or class options. They are as much part of the class as its BaB and save progression. You can't retrain them because they are not options. And a character going into a class is not taking the time to learn stuff they already know. They skipping the stuff they already know and are instead learning the new stuff, often in much less time then it took them to learn their base class in the first place. Example: A human rogue has been training in her craft for, assuming she started at age 10, 5+1d4 years, but it only takes a few sessions to become a fully qualified wizard (as opposed to an additional 5+2d6 years). Would it be "Overpowered" to allow a character that multi-classes/PrC to take different feats...Yes, taking the whole power attack feat tree is overpowered I get it, Dont want to hear about it. But save bonus or maybe luck feats, stuff like that. I am talking to my DM about doing this so I would like to hear other peoples opinoin on it as well. Well, you already convinced with yourself that it would be overpowered with certain feats. I don't see how you can logically justify arbitrarily allowing this houserule to work with only certain feats. Personally, I would the houserule make sense first, then ask if its overpowered.
zuul88 04-04-07, 04:58 AM	Personally, I would the houserule make sense first, then ask if its overpowered. The houserule does make sense thats why I am asking if it is overpowered. I do not want to give warrior of whatever kind acess to bonus fighter feats. But to give them more options in-between slashing things. Is that arbitary to say no bonus fighter feats? Skill bonuses or save bonuses +2 or the luck feats or movement feats. You do have a good point about the armor and weapons are part of the class but still a wizard with NO armor or martial weapon that takes a level of fighter gets all of those profiecenies for the same effort that a ranger who take a level of fighter(dont have a ToB but there are a bunch of martial classes) but the martial character who "skipped" those aspects of the class recieve nothing for skipping them. What about trading up? Sheild specializtion or Heavy Armor Optimation for free. Is that more balanced then just some random feats? That way you could say you train more in something you already knew. That way you still recieve something.
tarkin 04-04-07, 11:25 AM	These ideas make zero sense to me. You are looking at things backwards. The things you get are NOT something you get to choose. You are supposed to get some things from your classes that you never use. Many a wizard does not get/use a familiar, does not make scrolls, and does not use proficiency with club. That does NOT mean they can trade them away for something better. Similarly, a Wizard that takes a level in fighter can not trade away his proficienciyes in club, dagger, (which gets duplicated in fighter), for other things. ------------ When you play a multi-class spell caster you usually get screwed by not being able to access the same high level spells you get when you play a single class caster. But fighter types that multi-class often get the same maximum BAB. The fact that they get proficiencies in things they already have proficiency is FAIR, as it keeps them in check as compared to the pure casters multi-classing. ------------------ Part of the issue is what I call the bulk buyer discount Pretend there is a book series with 7 books. You can buy each book seperatly for $6/book. Or you can buy a complete set of all books for $30. Some bright genius might say "I already own the first book, that is why I know I want to buy the entire series, can I substitute out another book by the same author for the first one?" The answer to that is NO. The 7 book set already includes a discount ($12 off), this is because they realize you might not want all the books. Similarly, those fighter type classes already include a discount. The proficienicies you are trying to trade away/upgrade? They were thrown in for FREE, just in case you did not already have them, as part of the bulk discount for taking the class. You want those classes, you take what they offer. If not, go take another class.
StevenO 04-04-07, 02:33 PM	There are times I would let a character forgo gaining those bonus armor/weapon feats but the benefit of doing so would be lost when using the things you chose not to get. With weapons (namely the All Martial bonus) there is nothing that justifiably replaces that. If a character doesn't wish to gain the new class's normal armor proficiencies (and doesn't already have them) I make give them other bonuses instead but would make those bonuses worth less if the armor they gave up is worn. Examples: A character going into cleric may be allowed to not learn some of the armor feats for various benefits/drawback such as these. No Med/Hvy Armor - additional skill points and expand skills affected by ACP. No Armor - Monk like AC bonus, Divine Spells suffer normal arcane spell failure chance.
Fireclave 04-04-07, 02:49 PM	The houserule does make sense thats why I am asking if it is overpowered. No, the houserule may sound reasonable to you, but the logic is arbitrary and doesn't follow through. What about trading up? Sheild specializtion or Heavy Armor Optimation for free. Is that more balanced then just some random feats? That way you could say you train more in something you already knew. That way you still recieve something. Again, that's not retraining. Retaining allows you to rechoose options. Options are things you had a choice in picking. Multiclassing into a different class does not "upgrade" the stuff from the first unless, as in the case for many prestige classes, it explictly states that it does. At any rate, what you are trying to accomplish with this houserule is not retraining, nor can it be accomplished with retraining.
liquidhypnotic 04-26-07, 11:28 PM	In response to the question: I like your idea, but in order for it not to be overpowered there would have to be a lot of work. Retraining does not seem to permit it, but especially considering that retraining is around, I'd say what Zuul suggests makes a lot of sense in some situations; I can think of a variety of house rulings and such that might seem reasonable. *** But first, there ARE some things in the RAW that seem to set precedent for your idea: 1) Take a look at the Other Class Variants from Unearthed Arcana (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#otherClassVa riants), which is included in the OGL. It allows you to trade out certain elements of your class identity for other ones. The one that's closest to your idea is the Druid variant. 2) Secondly, I think it was Races of Stone that said that although fighters normally get proficiency with tower shields, it would be perfectly reasonable to switch that out for some other exotic shield proficiency if it fit the flavor of the character better. For example, my fighter/paladin/cavalry charger shipped out with a Rider's Shield, and the sky hasn't fallen in yet. 3) Also, consider that when certain spellcasting classes get metamagic feats that are hardcoded into their level progressions, they also include text that says "If you already have this feat, then you may choose any other metamagic feat for which you qualify." The best example of this is the Warmage from Complete Arcane. This certainly seems similar. ****** Tarkin - I disagree with your idea that you're *supposed* to receive some things from your class that you don't use; I'd say that that often is the case, but it certainly doesn't have to be that way. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc? The material I've found certainly challenges your idea that you cannot ever trade things away just because they'd be useless to you, and while I'm not advocating all out madhouse munchkinry, my take is that it's about character development and having fun first, rules lawyering being a CLOSE second, and that in the end, it's all about PC-DM arbitration. I'm running a Wizard/Cloistered Cleric/Mystic Theurge, and especially since it's the Cloistered version of the cleric, who is more wizardly, AND he worshiped the goddess of magic in his campaign, my DM allowed my MT levels to stack for determining familiar abilities. Why not. On the other hand, he rules that MT wouldn't stack with CC levels for Turn Undead, and I asked if I could switch out the TU ability for perhaps something else (since I'd be Turning as a Clr3 forever), and he said "well, sorry, but there are feats that take care of that for you". The simple counter to your book-buying analogy would be cases in which you ARE allowed to swap things out in package deals, like buying cars with different options, or, hell, swapping onion rings for fries at Burger King with no extra charge. I mean, you found one object that works a particular way, and then found some similarities between that one and this one, and then concluded that all pertinent properties of that system hold in this one, and then called it a day. Doesn't work like that. *** Fireclave - Some of your logic is just as arbitrary. Namely: "Well, you already convinced with [sic] yourself that it would be overpowered with certain feats. I don't see how you can logically justify arbitrarily allowing this houserule to work with only certain feats." I certainly can... choose the ones that don't seem overpowered. Make some decision regarding the relative power levels of feats, and then allow ones beneath a certain threshhold, and disallow ones above it. It's how you make any quantified decision. Now, as to how to make that decision, I don't have a definite answer for that. However, the real logical fallacy here is to say, "well, overpowered for some, thus, overpowered for all", which seems to be what you're doing. *** And yes, I AM a logician. It's what I do all day long. *** Reasonable Scenarios Here are some scenarios that make some sense: start off with a few levels of monk, and then the character switches to pure fighter (maybe for story reasons, or an alignment change, or whatever). Perhaps he decides to continue to forego weapons, and could he perhaps take some weak substitution feat, like, I don't know, Dash. Game breaking? Stretching reason? I don't really think so. (I especially chose Dash, because, hey, monk, faster movingness, that kinda works). Even better: Let's say some chick is an elven ranger for, say, 6 levels, and then decides to dip out to fighter (maybe she moves to a city). There are a zillion archery feats available, so maybe she has her heart set on a particular one. Perhaps the player and DM could agree that the character would be heading towards taking Improved Precise Shot later on, and then in "place of" re-receiving the Martial Weapons Proficiencies, the DM decides to allow use of the Sharp Shooting feat. Maybe she can't even cite it to pre-req for other feats. Or, for God's sake, something like a fighter who then (mission of vengeance, perhaps) decides to be become an undead hunting ranger and wants to be able to wear Gnome Twist Cloth (swapping that out for the redundant armor profs). An entire feat (Exotic Armor Proficiency) to be able to wear an armor that gives +1 AC? Ehhhh, ouch. But would that be cool as hell? My sources say, totally. *** What I'd be down with as a DM One thing that I would certainly allow in place of re-receiving a proficiency might be Combat Focus, from PHBII (though only that one, not just any Combat Form feat). I dig those feats, but I'd HATE to waste a feat slot on Combat Focus, and it encourages players to look at that tree. That's one I bet hasn't gotten a lot of love yet. Secondly, I think that a house ruling like this would be a nice way to incorporate Improved Weapon Familiarity, which allows you to treat all racial weapons for your race as martial weapons, and I think really should have been called Racial Weapon Familiarity. If the name of your race is in the title of the weapon, then you're good to go (although there may be more weapons that count as racial, and of course you can houserule in more: Mauls aren't Goliath weapons? Bah to that!) I would restrict the move to be being mostly lateral, as in mostly dealing with other, similar proficiencies, with very very light improvement if any, and only a different type of benefit if it makes sense. I'd say that Optimization and Specialization feats represent too powerful of a change, as would some movement feats (Fleet of Foot), and even the save feats (Most of which open up prestige classes or pre-req for other things). Now, as a solution: maybe gimped versions of some of these things that only offer a +1 to a save, or +n AC/attack that only counts in certain situations, but doesn't count as a pre-req for any other feat, might not be too bad (and actually would add some flavor). Finally, I personally dislike the weapon proficiency system as written, and I'd much prefer something like the Weapon Group Feats from UA, which could do away with your problem altogether (whenever a character goes into a new class, just gain as many extra proficiencies as that class normally would gain. For example, a sorc/fighter would have basic + spears or crossbows + 4 other groups). Go to d20srd.org, check Variant Rules, and then look at Weapon Group Feats. Since most characters just pick a few weapons max during their careers, it's usually not that hard to overhaul an existing campaign to include this variant ruling, AND it allows smooth incorporation of weapons from newer splatbooks (just throw them into the corresponding existing weapon group). *** Final words: I think in some cases it makes a lot of sense, and the bottom line is that if it makes the players and the DM happy, then of course go for it (though I STRONGLY urge restraint and maturity). I'm not really big on the idea of creating THE fighter or THE Barbarian and rolling with it; I'd much rather make MY ranger who throws javelins and tomahawks, and MY paladin who fights with spears and other pole-arms like a crusading knight. If you're a DM with this problem, I hope this helps you solve it, and if you're a player trying to convince his DM to allow it, then I hope this helps you convince him. Good luck ;) *****Oh wow, I just wrote a five page paper by accident. Ha ha; and to think that once I found a two-pager difficult.
legowarrior 04-27-07, 12:29 AM	There are substitute feats you might want to consider. Dragon Magic has one that replace armor feats with weak natural armor. Try something like that.
Fireclave 04-27-07, 02:55 AM	Fireclave - Some of your logic is just as arbitrary. Namely: "Well, you already convinced with [sic] yourself that it would be overpowered with certain feats. I don't see how you can logically justify arbitrarily allowing this houserule to work with only certain feats." The OP actually had admitted that some feat that combos would be a bit too good and admitted as such. However, my primary concern was that the OP's idea rested on the flawed assumption that weapon and armor proficiencies gain by acquiring a class were bonus feats. Most of my post was directed at correcting that assumption. I certainly can... choose the ones that don't seem overpowered. Make some decision regarding the relative power levels of feats, and then allow ones beneath a certain threshhold, and disallow ones above it. Allowing only certain feats, without some kind of metric or rule for providing consistency of the chosen feats in terms of power/type/etc, would be arbitrary. The OP's idea, unlike your class variant examples, lacked any such consistency. However, the real logical fallacy here is to say, "well, overpowered for some, thus, overpowered for all", which seems to be what you're doing. Woah! Time out! I never said anything of the sort. Never had, never will. I didn't even comment on the OP's idea being overpowered or not because the idea was still unpolished. In fact, I asked for polish before asking whether or not the idea might be overpowered or not. See the last line of that post. And yes, I AM a logician. It's what I do all day long. Did someone ask :confused: . Because it really sounds like you're trying to make yourself sound holier-than-thou. But I'm sure that's not your intent ;)
zuul88 04-27-07, 03:14 AM	*****Oh wow, I just wrote a five page paper by accident. Ha ha; and to think that once I found a two-pager difficult. WOW!!! I spent 20 minutes doing the same thing but it didnt post so I quit. Thanks for posting since everyone else just wanted to say I was illogical and munchkinish. I will look up the variant rules you described. Respect Nathan
runestar 04-27-07, 03:29 AM	My take on these redundant prc features is that it is not meant as a bonus for people taking said prc, but more of an insurance against those who somehow lack these features, so as to retain the flavour of the prc. Take for example a fighter-oriented prc which grants martial weapon and heavy armour prof. You may say that this provision seems stupid as any fighter entering said prc will already have those features. But what if the PC was not a fighter to begin with? What is to stop a rogue, a cleric or even a wizard from taking it if he qualifies for it and feels so inclined? Do you want to see him wielding a simply weapon and light armour when the very flavour of the prc screams greatsword and fullplate?:P It is more of a "If you already have it, then good for you. If not, then here you go" sort of provision, IMO.:)
zuul88 04-27-07, 04:39 AM	The OP's idea, unlike your class variant examples, lacked any such consistency. That was WHY I ASKED????????? If I kew the answer I would have typed it up polished it myself and said Ta-Da!!! You did not help. You said it was arbitrary(I can cast a F*CKING fireball within the rules) the whole game is arbitrary so I wanted to see what would fit with the "spirit of the rules." Thank You for nothing productive. Have a nice day!!!!!!!! Nathan
Forged_Fury 04-27-07, 07:27 AM	The boards do so appreciate maturity...
zuul88 04-27-07, 07:53 AM	The boards do so appreciate maturity... So do I. That is why there are two posts. One with thanks and respect for helping and contributing and a second one with sarcasm and mockery for contributing nothing productive. I believe it is nessecay to respond in kind.(Screw that turn the other cheeck-Eye for an Eye All Day.) Also it seems that threads that go on and on with fighting and bickering stay at the top for days while everything else barely gets commented on. That says alot about human nature, I wish it was not so but it is. Respect Nathan
Forged_Fury 04-27-07, 08:12 AM	Actually, As a completly disinterested 3rd Party, I saw no sarcasm or mockery in Fireclave's posts. All I saw was disagreement with your idea. There is a difference. -Forged_Fury
Karla 04-27-07, 11:05 AM	Well, you already convinced with yourself that it would be overpowered with certain feats. I don't see how you can logically justify arbitrarily allowing this houserule to work with only certain feats. Why do the Warmage or Duskblade have restricted spell lists? Why does the Warblade have a restricted bonus feats list? Simple answer - because they would be overpowered if the choice were unrestricted. I'm not saying the OP is right or wrong in his suggestion - personally I tend to think that martial weapons or heavy armour proficiency should be pre-reqs of such a PrC, not provided by it as a bonus! But there would seem nothing wrong with the principle of restricting open choice to retain balance.
Fireclave 04-27-07, 11:43 AM	That was WHY I ASKED????????? If I kew the answer I would have typed it up polished it myself and said Ta-Da!!! You did not help. You said it was arbitrary(I can cast a F*CKING fireball within the rules) the whole game is arbitrary so I wanted to see what would fit with the "spirit of the rules." Thank You for nothing productive. Have a nice day!!!!!!!! Nathan I gave you what you asked for. You asked for opinions, so I gave you my opinion. If you wanted a more specific opinion on how to expand upon, implement, or polished the idea, you should have been more specific. I would have gladly tried to help. No need to bite off my head after 20+ days after the fact. I admit that my words may not have had the effect I was going for, but my point remains valid. The houserule you were trying to implement rested upon a faulty understanding of how weapon and armor proficiencies worked. But if you realized this, fine. And the game is not arbitrary. If it were, there would be no need for 956 pages of core rules. Why do the Warmage or Duskblade have restricted spell lists? Why does the Warblade have a restricted bonus feats list? Simple answer - because they would be overpowered if the choice were unrestricted. But those restrictions aren't arbitrary. They were established with a definite purpose and goal in mind.
zuul88 04-27-07, 01:45 PM	Actually, As a completly disinterested 3rd Party, I saw no sarcasm or mockery in Fireclave's posts. All I saw was disagreement with your idea. There is a difference. -Forged_Fury My post was sarcasm and mockery...........Nevermind. And the game is not arbitrary. If it were, there would be no need for 956 pages of core rules. Yes the game is at some base level arbitary. It "assumes" things. The fireball for instance, that is a rule, right? Where did the "rule" come from? Nature? History? No it was created within a scheme. That was what I was trying to do, work within a scheme. That, Why do those who already have something not get something ,different-better-exotic, then someone who does not have it to start with? I had a bad day yesterday then I saw this thread had resurfaced so maybe I was wrong but if I was able to be more specific then again I would not be asking. I had an idea that makes logical sense(in the world of CoD probably not a good idea) to me. You just said it was wrong and gave examples that did not fit. There was nothing productive in your post. Why just come on here and tell me I am wrong? Even if I do not agree I still try to contribute with whatever someone is trying to create. It might not be much but at least it would be "constructive criticism." So fine disagree that melee combantants are unequal with spellcasters and should be empowered, contrary to my own opinoin and 98% of everyone else. But at least try to add something that is all I am saying. Or just say That Is Stupid And Overpowered!!! Then you waste less of your time writing it and less of my time reading it when that is all you are saying. Respect Nathan
Fireclave 04-27-07, 03:47 PM	My post was sarcasm and mockery...........Nevermind. Sarcasm and mockery is not going to get your houserule written any faster. Yes the game is at some base level arbitary. It "assumes" things. The fireball for instance, that is a rule, right? Where did the "rule" come from? Nature? History? No it was created within a scheme. Just because the system was created, or because its abstract, does not make the game, as a whole, arbitrary. That, Why do those who already have something not get something ,different-better-exotic, then someone who does not have it to start with? I had a bad day yesterday then I saw this thread had resurfaced so maybe I was wrong but if I was able to be more specific then again I would not be asking. It's hard to give constructive criticism when your query doesn't convey the information you are looking for. I can understand your frustration at not being able to be more specific, I can't help you be more specific. I can't read your mind and tell you your intentions. I can only meet you halfway. I had an idea that makes logical sense(in the world of CoD probably not a good idea) to me. You just said it was wrong and gave examples that did not fit. There was nothing productive in your post. You didn't ask for anything "productive." You did not ask "help me houserule/balance/implement/make this idea work." You asked for an opinion. I gave it. You may not like it, agree with it, or find it useful, but it is what you asked for. And what I said could have been used productively if you had taken the time to do so. I pointed out how your logic did not flow, and that how you decide to fix that logic flow might influence whether your idea is overpowered or not. If my post was not productive because you were already aware of that, then the fault lies on you from not stating so in your post. If my post was not productive because it was not the answers you were looking for, again, the fault lies on you for not being specific with your query. Why just come on here and tell me I am wrong? Because I don't think you are "wrong". The underlying logic behind you idea is flawed, but I understand what you are trying to accomplish and why. It is a reasonable idea. Even if I do not agree I still try to contribute with whatever someone is trying to create. It might not be much but at least it would be "constructive criticism." That's a nice habit to have. Good on ya. So fine disagree that melee combantants are unequal with spellcasters and should be empowered, contrary to my own opinoin and 98% of everyone else. Never said anything of the sort. But at least try to add something that is all I am saying. I did. The underlying logic you are using to justify your houserule is flawed. Where you take your houserule after that realization is ultimately up to you. Or just say That Is Stupid And Overpowered!!! Then you waste less of your time writing it and less of my time reading it when that is all you are saying. But I don't think it's stupid and overpowered, and I never said that. I appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth. Respect Nathan Again, sarcasm and mockery is not going to get your houserule written any faster.
zuul88 04-29-07, 06:27 AM	The last part was not sarcasm or mockery. It is how I sign my posts. Check the first one in this thread, check any post of mine. I was just trying to see if it was unreasonable to allow shield spec, HAO, GHAO, shield ward, focused shield, deflective armor,etc. instead of armor profiencies that a PC already has. Just one of those instead of useless "class abilities" even though they also happen to be feats, and are treated as such like the fact it is a feat tree. Here is an analogy that fits instead of your book buying one. I am in college and I have 32 credits. I transfer to a different college, does it take the same time to get my degree as someone who has no credits? No. In the same amount of time I am at the college w/this other guy I will have more credits then he does. I have already learned my freshman year. I am finishing my Masters Degree when he is getting his B.S. Or another one. It is a punishment if one brother gets a cookie for cleaning his room while the other brother doesnt get a cookie for cleaning his room because he got a cookie for mowing the lawn. He should recieve 2 cookies. He did 2 chores. So maybe it is arbitrary and overpowered by RAW but CoD exist because of RAW. It is already a highly unbalanced system, in spell-casters favor. Anything that stregthens melee combantants is "overpowered," whatever. My logic is solid. My only flaw may be that I can not express what I want to say as clearly as I want to say it. Respect Nathan
Fireclave 04-29-07, 11:13 AM	The last part was not sarcasm or mockery. It is how I sign my posts. Check the first one in this thread, check any post of mine. In the context of your last post, it sounded as such. I was just trying to see if it was unreasonable to allow shield spec, HAO, GHAO, shield ward, focused shield, deflective armor,etc. instead of armor profiencies that a PC already has. Just one of those instead of useless "class abilities" even though they also happen to be feats, and are treated as such like the fact it is a feat tree. Ah. Now I better understand how you are trying to implement this rule. For what it's worth, yes it does sound reasonable (although, I've already said that). Here is an analogy that fits instead of your book buying one. That was tarkin's analogy, not mine. Although, tarkin's book analogy is a good explanation of how weapon and armor proficiencies actually work; which is not how you demonstrated your understanding of the current system in your initial post. I am in college and I have 32 credits. I transfer to a different college, does it take the same time to get my degree as someone who has no credits? No. In the same amount of time I am at the college w/this other guy I will have more credits then he does. I have already learned my freshman year. I am finishing my Masters Degree when he is getting his B.S. Or another one. It is a punishment if one brother gets a cookie for cleaning his room while the other brother doesnt get a cookie for cleaning his room because he got a cookie for mowing the lawn. He should recieve 2 cookies. He did 2 chores. Those analogies match what you are trying to do, but not how proficiencies currently works. So maybe it is arbitrary and overpowered by RAW but CoD exist because of RAW. It is already a highly unbalanced system, in spell-casters favor. Anything that stregthens melee combantants is "overpowered," whatever. If you think is overpowered, then why you are doing it? I never thought it was overpowered. Especially not now since you clarified how you want to implement this rule. My logic is solid. My only flaw may be that I can not express what I want to say as clearly as I want to say it. Then your expressed understanding of how proficiencies work was flawed (at least it was in your first post), and basing your rule on that flawed understanding weakened the stance you were trying to take.
zuul88 04-29-07, 07:56 PM	Well, Thank You, Fireclave I was not able to express what I wanted to clearly enough. Once done it was easy to understand what I was saying and makes sense. Good Day. Respect Nathan
zuul88 04-29-07, 09:12 PM	*Double post*
liquidhypnotic 04-30-07, 10:32 PM	Runestar - that's probably not a bad analysis of it. Me, though, I would personally like to customize things like weapon groups to talk about flavor; spear, sword, axe and hammer are all very different types of characters, IMHO. Like, you ask me, give the friggin' wizard longsword proficiency. C'mooooon. Gandalf did it, and I doubt he multiclassed. Sword and staff, like, wizard proper. And with a crap BAB, like it's a real concern. Doesn't Elminster pack steel? Anyway, I'm glad the Zuul/Fireclave thing is over. The faster people learn that No One *Ever* Admits That They Were Wrong over the Internet, the better. "Facts" have no place here, and you can thank the "Why, yes! Of course you're entitled to your opinion!" culture for that.
runestar 04-30-07, 11:16 PM	Gandalf could have spent a feat on longsword prof. Elminster has a bab of +11, for a final bab of +19 when you factor in his epic bab bonuses. This easily puts him on par with higher lv fighters. The faster people learn that No One *Ever* Admits That They Were Wrong over the Internet, the better. "Facts" have no place here, and you can thank the "Why, yes! Of course you're entitled to your opinion!" culture for that. Sadly, I would still like to believe that intelligent debate has a place on the internet. While people may be too enamored with their original stands to concede initially, this could hopefully with constructive discussion proving otherwise. I admit I too can be a little hardheaded at times. But I would still like to see hard cold facts and logic prevailing over "I am right and you fail for disagreeing with me:.:P