Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Chincymcchilla 05-13-07, 03:19 AM	So, a friend and I joined an already in progress game, at 3rd level going through the shackled city campaign. Before character creation, I asked if I could use tome of battle, and if swordsage would be acceptable, and lent the dm my copy of the book for him to look through. When we joined, everything seemed to be going well, the DM and other players liking the flavour of the swordmaster and such, until we entered our first combat. It was against two raptors, and with one charmed I focused everything on the remaining one, using burning blade + flashing sun, and then finishing it with a fire riposte when it attacked on its turn, getting rediculously lucky and hitting with every attack. Suddenly, the DM decides that the swordsage is irreparably broken, which surprised me because in the party we also have a psion, a druid, and a clerc. Yes, all of them. It transpires (of course) that even though I gave him the book 2 weeks before hand, that he had not so much as opened it. I was able to talk him into letting me continue to use the class with only the loss of fire ripost, but I worry that he will once again not read anything and continue to ban maneuvers as they come up/I learn them. So, this thread is for advice on convincing DMs something isn't broken (unless, of course, it is), and for tales of when you had a spell or ability banned from use when you felt it was unjustified.
calronmoonflower 05-13-07, 03:52 AM	In the thread when a DM dislikes.... the monk got banned for being overpowered. :rolleye2:
Optimized_Commoner 05-13-07, 06:20 AM	So, this thread is for advice on convincing DMs something isn't broken (unless, of course, it is), If you know your DM personally and they have some respect for your opinion, prepare a solid case and present it to them. This isn't complex or something you can really say much about. You convince them the same way you would convince anyone else. If you have difficulty with this, then you should study debating or find a well written essay by someone else on the topic and give it to them to read. If you don't know your DM and they have no reason to respect your opinion, then you have no chance and should give up. Either leave the game or learn to enjoy the setting they provide. and for tales of when you had a spell or ability banned from use when you felt it was unjustified. I once wasn't allowed to play a psychic warrior. I didn't mind too much, I just wrote up a sorcerer with the same concept. Then another player joined a few months later, and the DM allowed them to play a half-dragon/half-fae psychic warrior. Which they then preceeded to cheat with. I wasn't happy.
AffableDoomwalker 05-13-07, 06:47 AM	I really don't see why people don't go for the obvious +1 god of amazingness race: Aasimars. They're like, totally broken, look at all the stuff you get for the low, low price of +1 ECL! Three 5/energy Resistances! 4 Ability Points! The ability to cast Daylight as a level 1, or your highest caster class level! Make an Aasimar Cleric or Paladin (or both... Pleric? Claladin?) in a point buy game, add a few levels of Fighter&Divine Champion, or Divine Emissary, proceed to win at D&D. Long story short, Aasimars are kinda banned but not banned because of me. I guess the point is that a simple show of numbers is usually enough to prove your point. You could try showing your DM a Druid on the mechanical level, just make one using 28-32PB (or whatever you use) and take it to level 20, then project the same on your Swordsage and take him to level 20, compare them side by side. "Well, my swordsage has a few neat abilities, some nifty skills, HP, the BAB, and good combat prowess... but my druid... well... he's got the kind of "No Save" spells a Druid has access to in the late levels, *cough*Reverse Gravity*cough*Create Wind*cough*oh look, you're 100 feet above the ground, hey some wind blows, whoops, you're quickly entering the magical world of crash landings, what? Oh yeah, I can do that three more times*cough* Never mind the fact that the guy can woodshape a tree into Full Plate, and then turn it into Ironwood, and then get the Wild enchantment (and a few others, for kicks) on it, and then turn into a Celestial Dire Ultimate Legendary Death Rabbit, and still cast his spells (which all involve me and my companion, and summons being bigger, or stronger, or meaner, or some combination of the three, oh, and healing too) with the proper feat, which he can spontaneously turn into a Summon Nature's Ally of the equivalent level, oh, and his animal companion, what with the higher BAB, HP, and AC than most meleers. I hope you have something juicy in store for us once we hit the late teens and get into epic, otherwise I might need to retire this guy early... so, about that swordsage, what was wrong with him again?" Try that, and tell me how it works out for you. Edit: This defense, coming from me, is kind of ironic, as I really dislike splatbooks in general, much less their classes and feats.
Fatalis_902 05-13-07, 06:53 AM	Amen, brother, amen! Druids...just break the game. Any DM who has no problem with druids, but has a problem with anything outside of core either hasn't read the material, or is a moron. Or quite possibly both.
Chincymcchilla 05-13-07, 11:31 AM	I think his main problem, talking to him about it, is that the desert wind discipline has many abilities that are touch attacks, deal very good damage for that level, and of course you get them back at the end of the level. He says that since their touch, its akin to 4 to 6d6 of free damage every combat, but thats outmatched by what nearly every caster can do. I tried juxtaposing this with the warlock, but he says he has no problems with warlocks, who get infinite eldritch blasts at a touch as well. I will try to show him a comparative druid and cleric as someone suggested, but if that doesnt work, I will most likely leave the game. He told me I could play the class, its not my fault he didnt read it before he said yes.
Tempest Stormwind 05-13-07, 01:35 PM	His problem is DESERT WIND? The WORST of the nine schools? It only deals decent damage at the lower levels. As you climb in them, the damage doesn't scale (except by adding your Wisdom modifier to the attacks a la Discipline Focus, and there are FAR better disciplines to do that with! The most powerful strike to use that with is Flashing Sun -- which is second level!) and remains purely fire-based (in that nearly everything resists it). The CO boards generally laugh at you if you focus on Desert Wind. Exceptions can be made in a party based around breaching such defenses (we have a Desert Wind swordsage and a debuff-based illusionist in one of my games; Energy Vulnerability and related effects work wonderfully well here), but in general it's a poor idea. Speaking of the CO boards, we actually compiled a giant list of things that are truly broken. These are the Campaign Smashers (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=587555). You might find that useful. (By the way, when I DM, I insist on the shapeshift druid, and I turn the animal companions into feats (which the ranger gets as a bonus feat). That seems to solve 85% of the druid problems right there, as the druids I've tested it with fall in line with the rest of the team until your gear gets too critical to game with. I'm toying around with a spell that grants your gear the Wilding property, but haven't balanced it out yet.)
Drag0nUL 05-13-07, 01:42 PM	I assume the other 3 players are not very good at the mechanical spect of the game. No offense, but I just don't see how a swordsage can outperform any of the cleric/druid/psion classes. I mean these guys play what IMHO are the best classes in the game(CoDzilla definitely) and you appear to be the overpowered one.
Optimized_Commoner 05-13-07, 02:42 PM	I assume the other 3 players are not very good at the mechanical spect of the game. No offense, but I just don't see how a swordsage can outperform any of the cleric/druid/psion classes. I mean these guys play what IMHO are the best classes in the game(CoDzilla definitely) and you appear to be the overpowered one. Emphasis added by me.
Maekrix_Waere 05-13-07, 02:44 PM	Tales about banned classes/etc.? I once was in a campaign where Wizard and Fighter were both banned, Cleric was strictly regulated, and it was core only.
Chincymcchilla 05-13-07, 02:54 PM	To Maekrix... I'm sorry man. Thats terrible. How did you manage to stick with it? As to his problem being with desert wind: yeah, hes looked through the other schools and this appears to be the only one that bothers him, and again he says because "touch attacks are too good". Not sure why this means i should be singled out when we have 4 casters in the party, but whatever. I think I'm going to drop desert wind and pick something else up since he'll let me, I dont think he'll realize that what im doing is better since he appears to only see big huge numbers as a problem and nothing else. :rolleyes:
Tempest Stormwind 05-13-07, 03:04 PM	To Maekrix... I'm sorry man. Thats terrible. How did you manage to stick with it? As to his problem being with desert wind: yeah, hes looked through the other schools and this appears to be the only one that bothers him, and again he says because "touch attacks are too good". Not sure why this means i should be singled out when we have 4 casters in the party, but whatever. I think I'm going to drop desert wind and pick something else up since he'll let me, I dont think he'll realize that what im doing is better since he appears to only see big huge numbers as a problem and nothing else. :rolleyes:If anything, he should have a problem with White Raven. The single strongest effect in the game is the granting of additional actions, and White Raven has the only technique in the Tome capable of doing that (White Raven Tactics). Or is your wizard not using Celerity, and your druid not using his companion? Let me guess, he thinks Inferno Blast is a powerful effect.
Chincymcchilla 05-13-07, 03:11 PM	He's already ruled out inferno blast, and as I said I'm going to drop Desert Wind. I do wish there were a way to explain that straight damage is by no means the best effect in the game.
Drag0nUL 05-13-07, 03:27 PM	He's already ruled out inferno blast, and as I said I'm going to drop Desert Wind. I do wish there were a way to explain that straight damage is by no means the best effect in the game. Tired pointing out to him some of the cleric/druid spells for comaprison with your maneuvers?
Tempest Stormwind 05-13-07, 03:43 PM	He's already ruled out inferno blast, and as I said I'm going to drop Desert Wind. I do wish there were a way to explain that straight damage is by no means the best effect in the game.Play a wizard instead. Ban Evocation. Dominate every encounter without rolling a single die of damage (or if a damage die is rolled, it's going to be a secondary effect; Evard's Black Tentacles, for instance). Barring that, spray him with a water bottle, like a misguided pet. "It learns the math of the game or else it gets the hose again!"
Salla 05-13-07, 05:01 PM	The thing about knee-jerk reactions is ... well, we already know you have knees. That just proves the 'jerk' part, too. :)
DyloniusFunk 05-13-07, 08:00 PM	The thing about knee-jerk reactions is ... well, we already know you have knees. That just proves the 'jerk' part, too. :) This dosen't sound knee jerk. This sounds like a guy who couldn't be bothered to read a book he allowed in his game then allowed the class then *****ed about it. This is the worst kind of horse hockey IMHO. To allow something and to even have the material right there to go over, then say you didn't go over it and then ban it after the character has already been made. I know DMs have a lot more work to do than players so if you don't have time to read extra material tell the player that. Don't tell them it's cool then they make a character then you decided it's not allowed. Contrary to popular belief not everyone likes making characters, it takes time and for me at least is extremely boring.
Maekrix_Waere 05-13-07, 08:04 PM	To Chincymcchilla: How did I stick with it? Well, after forcing the DM to let us use all the books he was allowed to use, I was able to make a Natural Spell Druid with a 2 level dip into Master of Many Forms for Wild Shape (Giant). I stuck mainly with Troll, as it is my favorite Wild Shape because of the whole "Can't Die by anything but Fire and Acid" thing. It was a Cold based campaign, so that worked out pretty well for me. Later I transformed into a Crystalline Troll. I was never even close to dying against the monsters we faced after that. After all, how many creatures which live in an arctic climate can use sonic? The Large size, +12 Str, and +12 Con were very nice. The gods tried to smite that Druid...he survived the first time. (They forgot to use sonic.) The second time they succeeded, though... After that I made a Psion/Pyrokineticist and he dominated (yay for x1.5 damage against cold subtype), but not so much as to make the gods angry.
Shadowmind64 05-13-07, 10:16 PM	Barring that, spray him with a water bottle, like a misguided pet. "It learns the math of the game or else it gets the hose again!" ROFL! sigged.
darkeness 05-14-07, 12:49 AM	Yes it was a knee jerk reaction by the Dm and bad form on his part to allow the class in without reading about it's abilities. Most Dm's that see a ToB class in action the first time are ussually blown away. Truthfully they are much more powerful than a core class fighter type of equal level (especially at low levels) and a Dm that expects a low level fighter (3rd I believe the OP said?) to do 1d8+2 (or maybe +4) damage will be shocked. I have a Dm that thinks an orc Barbarian (22 str) with a great sword is too tough at level 4. I tried to bring in a nerfed crusader and shocked him with it's abilities. I should note that I tend to optimize my characters and my "nerfed" is often as powerful as the average player. :D
danielinthewolvesden 05-14-07, 03:34 AM	I assume the other 3 players are not very good at the mechanical spect of the game. No offense, but I just don't see how a swordsage can outperform any of the cleric/druid/psion classes. I mean these guys play what IMHO are the best classes in the game(CoDzilla definitely) and you appear to be the overpowered one. Well, Cleric usually gets forced into the very weakest and least fun role of all: Heal-bot. So I call this the "CoDZilla fallacy". Sure once a druid gets Wildshape/Large he is pretty darn tough and can out-tank some warriors, depending on the foe. But in a party with both a Cleric and a Druid, the Druid should get the chance to be a melee Monster.
Drag0nUL 05-14-07, 06:39 AM	Well, Cleric usually gets forced into the very weakest and least fun role of all: Heal-bot. You say this as if the cleric player had no word whatsoever in this matter. I mean everybody is supposed to have fun. And if I don't have fun playing a heal-bot I won't play one(I don't say I won't heal at all, I just won't be the walking band-aid).
Witch 05-14-07, 06:43 AM	No offense, but I just don't see how a swordsage can outperform any of the cleric/druid/psion classes. I mean these guys play what IMHO are the best classes in the game(CoDzilla definitely) and you appear to be the overpowered one. Things go different in real life games than they do on these boards.
Drag0nUL 05-14-07, 06:56 AM	Things go different in real life games than they do on these boards. My affirmations were based on my actual gaming experience, rather than boards talk. In almost every game I play that features a cleric or a druid they tend to be at the top of the power scale.
WinDReiN 05-14-07, 07:20 AM	I really don't see why people don't go for the obvious +1 god of amazingness race: Aasimars Look at Lesser Aasimars, they have almost all the qualities of an Aasimar and a LA+0.
Witch 05-14-07, 07:34 AM	I really don't see why people don't go for the obvious +1 god of amazingness race: Aasimars. They're like, totally broken, look at all the stuff you get for the low, low price of +1 ECL! Three 5/energy Resistances! 4 Ability Points! The ability to cast Daylight as a level 1, or your highest caster class level! Make an Aasimar Cleric or Paladin (or both... Pleric? Claladin?) in a point buy game, add a few levels of Fighter&Divine Champion, or Divine Emissary, proceed to win at D&D. Long story short, Aasimars are kinda banned but not banned because of me. Allow me to not be impressed by the junk that is an Aasimar. It's absolutely worthless for its level adjustment, unless you accept that it has free martial weapon proficiency by virtue of its type. Then it's useable.
RainerNader 05-14-07, 02:16 PM	Here's the thing -- at 3rd level, any melee class is still outshining all the caster classes, whether that melee class is a fighter or a swordsage. Nearly an identical situation happened in my group. We had someone playing a swordsage among caster classes. At early levels it did seem like the swordsage was doing some pretty absurd damage/maneuvers, but by the time my cleric got 3rd level spells (ie. 5th level), things like Fire Riposte didn't seem to be nearly as dramatic. Now we're 7th level and it's clear that while the swordsage is much more effective than a fighter, it still really can't do anything close to what a caster class can. My suggestion is to appeal to the DM and let you progress your character to 5th or 6th level with the rest of the party. If he still thinks your character is overpowered, then he's probably beyond reason and there's not much you can do in the way of logical arguments.
Kursk 05-14-07, 07:26 PM	Amen, brother, amen! Druids...just break the game. Any DM who has no problem with druids, but has a problem with anything outside of core either hasn't read the material, or is a moron. Or quite possibly both. Or, enforces the role of a Druid within the Druidic hierarchy and responsibilities, much like a cleric. OR, the DM is someone who thinks they are just like a NON-DIVINE caster. Hmm...
Tempest Stormwind 05-14-07, 07:54 PM	Or, enforces the role of a Druid within the Druidic hierarchy and responsibilities, much like a cleric. OR, the DM is someone who thinks they are just like a NON-DIVINE caster. Hmm... 1) Find a rule that suggests or even implies a druid hierarchy. 2) Find a rule that describes exactly what "revering nature" means. 3) Find ANY form of code of conduct for a druid. 4) Find ANY form of code of conduct for a CLERIC. Roleplay requirements are NOT balancing factors, especially if they aren't defined. According to the rules, when the druid casts a spell, that spell happens. He does NOT cast a spell and ask the DM if it happens. There is, at a fundamental level, no distinction between an arcane spellcaster and a divine one as far as spellcasting is concerned.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 05-14-07, 09:18 PM	I think his main problem, talking to him about it, is that the desert wind discipline has many abilities that are touch attacks, deal very good damage for that level, and of course you get them back at the end of the level. He says that since their touch, its akin to 4 to 6d6 of free damage every combat, but thats outmatched by what nearly every caster can do. I tried juxtaposing this with the warlock, but he says he has no problems with warlocks, who get infinite eldritch blasts at a touch as well. I will try to show him a comparative druid and cleric as someone suggested, but if that doesnt work, I will most likely leave the game. He told me I could play the class, its not my fault he didnt read it before he said yes. No it isn't your fualt. he made an error, a mistake, bad judgement if you will. Whining about it won't help, and if you leave the game, your still not playing the swordsage. Damn I hate the mentality of whiny players at times. I assume the other 3 players are not very good at the mechanical spect of the game. No offense, but I just don't see how a swordsage can outperform any of the cleric/druid/psion classes. I mean these guys play what IMHO are the best classes in the game(CoDzilla definitely) and you appear to be the overpowered one. Well now that all depends on the other three players. They may or may not be playing up to boards standard we don't really know that at all. However i will comment that perhaps the other players are playing something the DM is familiar with, and thus more comfortable with. Here's the thing -- at 3rd level, any melee class is still outshining all the caster classes, whether that melee class is a fighter or a swordsage. wizard maybe, sorcerer definately, cleric, doubtful and druid not a chance. I think what your major problem is, is that your DM is unfamiliar with the material your playing. The TOB is a bit of an odd ball, you have to read it, and then separate out the mechanics and the flavour to judge its power. Most of the posters do that by comparing the classes in it to spell casters. Which esseintially is more along the lines of what the swordsage is. Indeed compared to most/all of the other melee classes the swordsage is overpowered. Now doubt about that. Piont for point the swordsage, and its elk are more powerful then barbarian, monk, fighter, paladin, ranger, etc. However the same could be said about the wizard, druid, cleric, or any other full progression caster. However we don't have too many threads rialing on the full progression casters. i think that is becuase of two reseasons: 1) we have had a chance to get used to, and more comfortable with the casters, and 2) the casters normally do not pretend to be the melee tanks. Granted there are natural gishes, like the eldrich knight, and the duskblade. however with the case of the knight multiclassing is required, and it power is tempered by it being a PrC, and not gaing the fighter feats. With the duskblade it only goes up to 5th level spells. Now the thing with the sword sage is you have have something masgrading as a fighter class, but it gains abilities that are so close to spells or spell spell like abilities you'd swaer they were the love child of the two. That can be kind of scary becuase fighters are not sapposed to get spells, not like a wizard all the way up to ninth level. To over come that I'd recomend that you stop presenting the swordsage as "fighter" like class, and instead present it as full progression caster. That way when you pull off your jedi voodoo the DM is not going: "OMGourzzz that is way better then power attack. Holy palour on a crutch batman I have to ban this before it breaks my game." And instead compares it to say fireball, or scroching ray.
DFoster 05-14-07, 09:31 PM	1) That I don't really see. 2) That as always comes down to what the DM feels revering nature is, I can think of a few things I'd require of a druid to qualify. 3) A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). Clearly the first one needs to be defined by the DM, but the other 2 are obvious. 4) A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. Once again not clearly defined although I'd assume anything pushing him outside of the acceptable alignment of a cleric of the god in question would qualify. As always with a Paladin, Cleric, Druid, or any other class with a code of conduct the DM should discuss it with the player before play and provide written guidelines for staying inside the code. If the player doesn't wish to be restricted by the guidelines presented he should be free to pick another class without a code of conduct (or in the case of a Cleric perhaps look at a different god with a different code one that would be more acceptable to him).
Maekrix_Waere 05-15-07, 12:43 AM	2) That as always comes down to what the DM feels revering nature is, I can think of a few things I'd require of a druid to qualify. 3) A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). Clearly the first one needs to be defined by the DM, but the other 2 are obvious. Another note: Revering nature does not necessarily mean you quail at the sight of someone chopping down trees. I could play a Druid which reveres the destructive and rejuvenating aspect of Fire. My type of reverance could involve staging a controlled forest fire a few times a year, thusly causing new life to grow amongst the rich, ash filled soil. 4) A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. Once again not clearly defined although I'd assume anything pushing him outside of the acceptable alignment of a cleric of the god in question would qualify. Clerics do not HAVE to worship Gods. It is POSSIBLE for them to worship an Ideal. That would have to be extremely regulated, of course, and the Domains have to be allowed by the DM (no Clerics wandering around with both the Undead and Sun domains), but there's no reason why it shouldn't be allowed.
Splendide 05-15-07, 12:59 AM	`Lifeward' from the Spell Compendium. It reads like its intended to be used to bolster undead to avoid turning and such, but in reality it is the perfect way to foil a PC Cleric. Dump a Lifeward on the PC Fighter, and suddenly his maximum hitpoints really are his maximum hitpoints. No heals for tanky! I was DMing when I noticed this and banned myself from using it.
Cold Napalm 05-15-07, 01:05 AM	No it isn't your fualt. he made an error, a mistake, bad judgement if you will. Whining about it won't help, and if you leave the game, your still not playing the swordsage. Damn I hate the mentality of whiny players at times. He may not be playing his swordsage but he could be spending that time playing something more fun instead of with an unfair DM. Yes he's an unfair DM. He said yes. He could have said, I didn't have enough time this week to read it. He didn't. He then has a knee jerk reaction and puts all the blame and negative effects on the player who did what he was told was okay. Damn I hate the mentaility of whiny DM at times.
maharai23 05-15-07, 01:53 AM	Amen, brother, amen! Druids...just break the game. Any DM who has no problem with druids, but has a problem with anything outside of core either hasn't read the material, or is a moron. Or quite possibly both. Or quite possibly has read the rules, and disagrees with your not-so-bright observation. Druids have a whole host of abilities from levels 13-20 that are great. They have several at level 5-10 that are good. But Druids lack the focus that makes most characters truly powerful. Unless you take them the MoMF route, wherein you lose much of that 13-20 high end casting stuff. But it's not always even about balance. It's quite understandable to not allow Alienists in realms with no access to extraplanar locations, and yet still allow druids, being neither a moron, nor someone who doesn't read. Not all decisions on what should/shouldn't be in a world are based on the "OMG THAT IS TEH BORKEN" rule. Incidentally, I've seen very little that can't be turned into a powerhouse character. Even bards can get 50-100 damage/round averages at levels 11-15, while staying hard to hit. Before people complain about the brokenness of a class, keep in mind that it's the resourcefulness of the player that makes a concept effective. Have a problem with something? Be resourceful. The DM has more to play with than the player. Is a character wrecking shop in combat? Try a few environmental or trap based challenges... Try using ranged attackers that have the advantage or cover or high ground... There's so many options out there. From 400 feet away, a giant can land rocks with passable efficiency, and the average plate mail warrior will take 5 rounds of bombardment to close to melee. Even a light fighter with run will have to endure 2 full rounds of rocks to close. Without run, 3 rounds. If all else fails, make some enemies who aren't idiots. Even minor illusions can mess up unwary parties. level 1 illusion spells can hide something that's not there easily, and they can certainly hide something that isn't there. Namely ground. Illusions of ground work really well for pits, and illusions of walls can hide troops and such for ambushes. Don't let the party always have surprise and such. Complaints about overpowered classes are generally the excuse of a weak DM. The only possible exception I can see to that is Hulking Hurler, but it's pretty difficult for a PC to run one without playing an alternate race (half-giant, goliath, or monstrous race). And even they can be mitigated by placing key encounters in areas with less than optimal maneuvering room, or by placing them in areas without a ready supply of ammunition.
maharai23 05-15-07, 02:12 AM	wizard maybe, sorcerer definately, cleric, doubtful and druid not a chance. Do you READ the caster material? A fighter at 3rd level outshines ever caster class and you say THAT above? Let's look at this example: Fighter2, Barbarian1, 18 strength, 14 con, 14 wis. 10 dex. around 30 hp. Attack in melee: +7 (+9 raging), add in power attack, and weapon focus, and we're looking at a character who can kill the average caster in 1, MAYBE 2 rounds. Passing saves at low level is relatively a hit or miss thing, but the char has at least a passable chance of passing anything unless it's a reflex, and that's just damage, which the character can take. High movement, and the caster's inability to fly make this a no-brainer. Druids at 3rd level are nothing. Wiz at 3rd, not much. Sorceror at 3rd, you've got 2 spells to cast, are they the right ones? doubtful. Cleric? Actually has an AC, so could possibly last through healing past the rage. but that's an iffy thing. Cleric, of all primary caster classes, has the best shot of being able to tangle with a basic tank. And that's BASIC.
Magon 05-15-07, 02:23 AM	Amen, brother, amen! Druids...just break the game. Any DM who has no problem with druids, but has a problem with anything outside of core either hasn't read the material, or is a moron. Or quite possibly both. or play with a druid that dont try to break teh game
Tyraxus 05-15-07, 03:13 AM	Do you READ the caster material? A fighter at 3rd level outshines ever caster class and you say THAT above? Let's look at this example: Fighter2, Barbarian1, 18 strength, 14 con, 14 wis. 10 dex. around 30 hp. Attack in melee: +7 (+9 raging), add in power attack, and weapon focus, and we're looking at a character who can kill the average caster in 1, MAYBE 2 rounds. Passing saves at low level is relatively a hit or miss thing, but the char has at least a passable chance of passing anything unless it's a reflex, and that's just damage, which the character can take. High movement, and the caster's inability to fly make this a no-brainer. Druids at 3rd level are nothing. Wiz at 3rd, not much. Sorceror at 3rd, you've got 2 spells to cast, are they the right ones? doubtful. Cleric? Actually has an AC, so could possibly last through healing past the rage. but that's an iffy thing. Cleric, of all primary caster classes, has the best shot of being able to tangle with a basic tank. And that's BASIC. Oi. You're assuming that it's a 1v1 fight starting with the fighter right up next to the caster. How about putting some distance, and letting them roll for initiative (which the caster will probably win because you need Dex to hit with ranged spells). Then the caster proceeds to Sleep, Web, Grease, or something else the fighter so that he's practically helpless (sleep actually works wonders here, since your fighter/barb has a +1 to will when not raging, which he hasn't got a chance to yet, and the save DC is going to be 15 or better, so you're slept 75% of the time). Hello Mr. Coup de grace, that's a nice spear you have there, and let us know how your level 3 fighter with +5 fort makes that DC 34 save v death, mmk? Meanwhile, the Cleric casts Hold Person and the outcome is the same, while a Druid casts Entangle and lets his pet eat your face while he turns you into a pincushion from range (or out of reach, if he casts Spiderclimb). Casters win because they can do things that make you and your sharp metal stick useless. You hit something and it can hit back; they remove it from the fight (or hamper it very seriously) and kill it later, when it's convenient.
danielinthewolvesden 05-15-07, 04:01 AM	Then the caster proceeds to Sleep, Web, Grease, or something else the fighter so that he's practically helpless (sleep actually works wonders here, since your fighter/barb has a +1 to will when not raging, which he hasn't got a chance to yet, and the save DC is going to be 15 or better, so you're slept 75% of the time). The Warrior above has a 14 Wis, so his save is +3. And a Fighter can easily have Iron will- and that is now 50/50. Not to mention the Save DC is only going to be an 15 if the Wizard has a INT of 18, but I will grant that as the assumed warrior above has an 18 STR. If the BBn gets Init (and that can be a 50/50, since warriors need Dex too and the Fighter has the extra feats)) he has another +2 to will and forget about your sleep spell. Druids are pretty much 2nd rate healers (with a darn nice Companion!) until they get Wildshape,and they really need Wildshape/Large to get dangerous. But yes,once Full spellcasters get high level spells, only BoNS/ToB warriors can hope to keep up.
Steely_Dan 05-15-07, 04:33 AM	Depending on the campaign setting, I sometimes disallow genre specific classes (no ninjas on Krynn etc). As for spells, my group and myself choose not to use save or die spells.
darkeness 05-15-07, 10:56 AM	Complaints about overpowered classes are generally the excuse of a weak DM. As a Dm of nearly 30 years all I can say to that is AMEN! :D
On_the_wings_of_TPK 05-15-07, 12:04 PM	Do you READ the caster material? A fighter at 3rd level outshines ever caster class and you say THAT above? Let's look at this example: Fighter2, Barbarian1, 18 strength, 14 con, 14 wis. 10 dex. around 30 hp. Attack in melee: +7 (+9 raging), add in power attack, and weapon focus, and we're looking at a character who can kill the average caster in 1, MAYBE 2 rounds. Passing saves at low level is relatively a hit or miss thing, but the char has at least a passable chance of passing anything unless it's a reflex, and that's just damage, which the character can take. High movement, and the caster's inability to fly make this a no-brainer. Druids at 3rd level are nothing. Wiz at 3rd, not much. Sorceror at 3rd, you've got 2 spells to cast, are they the right ones? doubtful. Cleric? Actually has an AC, so could possibly last through healing past the rage. but that's an iffy thing. Cleric, of all primary caster classes, has the best shot of being able to tangle with a basic tank. And that's BASIC. Oi. You're assuming that it's a 1v1 fight starting with the fighter right up next to the caster. How about putting some distance, and letting them roll for initiative (which the caster will probably win because you need Dex to hit with ranged spells). Then the caster proceeds to Sleep, Web, Grease, or something else the fighter so that he's practically helpless (sleep actually works wonders here, since your fighter/barb has a +1 to will when not raging, which he hasn't got a chance to yet, and the save DC is going to be 15 or better, so you're slept 75% of the time). Hello Mr. Coup de grace, that's a nice spear you have there, and let us know how your level 3 fighter with +5 fort makes that DC 34 save v death, mmk? Meanwhile, the Cleric casts Hold Person and the outcome is the same, while a Druid casts Entangle and lets his pet eat your face while he turns you into a pincushion from range (or out of reach, if he casts Spiderclimb). Casters win because they can do things that make you and your sharp metal stick useless. You hit something and it can hit back; they remove it from the fight (or hamper it very seriously) and kill it later, when it's convenient. This pretty much sums up my retort. Although i was thinking more along the lines of colour spray... but sleep is just as effect. Also if i were to do this up for a 1 v 1 fight my arcane caster would prolly bring in a scroll of nastyness. Phantasmal killer, evards tenticles, and the like. Same for the cleric, but maybe slay living, or flame strike. The check for them aint too hard (Dc = caster level or some such), and it pretty kills the fighterish thing 75% of the time (flame strike is like avergae 31.5 dmg and reflex save DC 19ish to the fighters +0) . The druid would prolly go with your entangle, and then summon in the the wolves. And that is just with core only. Non-core and the druid is flying (master of air), dropping in wolves. The cleric and arcane plans are pretty much unchanged. The Warrior above has a 14 Wis, so his save is +3. And a Fighter can easily have Iron will- and that is now 50/50. Not to mention the Save DC is only going to be an 15 if the Wizard has a INT of 18, but I will grant that as the assumed warrior above has an 18 STR. If the BBn gets Init (and that can be a 50/50, since warriors need Dex too and the Fighter has the extra feats)) he has another +2 to will and forget about your sleep spell. <snip> Ok the barbarians base will save at first level is +0, the fighters at second level is +0. Counting his +2 from wisdom his save is looking like a +2. It is unlikely that iron will would have been taken in replace of something power attack, cleave, weapon focus. But even if they did take it then their will save is still only a +4. However if the wizard is human then the DC is 15, 16 with spell focus. Our fighter has 55-60% chance of failing that. If the wizard is a grey elf then the DC riases to 16-17, 60-65% of failing. If however our wizard is using a a second level level slot, such with hieghten spell, or a second level spell such as ghoul touch, blindness/deafness, and glitter dust the fighter must make a save DC 16-17 if human, 17-18 if elf. and if the wizards has but one round to buff there is most likely going to be a fox's cunning up, Our save just went up to 18-19. So worst case seniario for the fighter he has to make a Save DC 19 with a +4. He now fials on 14 or lower or 70% of the time. And thats assuming that the wizard is inclined to play nicely. The fight could always go something like this: round 1: wizard pops potion of fly 750gp round 2: wizard casts invisiblity round 3 - 53 wizard uses wand of summon monster 1 1st cl 750gp net cost 1,500gp. remaining gold 1,200gp easily enough for a scroll, or two of dispell magic to knock the fighter back down to the earth if he gets any funny ideas.
danielinthewolvesden 05-15-07, 12:08 PM	barb base will save at level 1 = +0 fighter basewill save at level 2 = +0 base will save = 0 +2 from wisdom, and ok iron will +2. although it is doubt full that that they would take that feat. . Well, most every DM I know uses the Partial rules for Saves and BaB from UA. Fighters in two of my groups have both taken Iron Will @3rd.
RainerNader 05-15-07, 12:51 PM	Man, is it possible to bring up any topic without getting into fighters versus wizards? I'm not talking about fighters outshining wizards in 1v1 combat. I'm talking about fighters outshining them IN THE GAME, where at 3rd level they're fighting goblins, orcs, and grimlocks, NOT DUELING EACH OTHER TO THE DEATH. And at 3rd level, a fighter will probably outshine a wizard! All caster classes only have a half-dozen spells, so in most battles they have to decide between casting a bunch of spells or using mundane weapons. And 3rd level fighters are better than 3rd level wizards if they're both using mundane weapons. Could a 3rd level wizard still paste a 3rd level fighter in combat? Maybe, but that's not the point. Could a 3rd level wizard still paste 4 wererats better than his 3rd level fighter buddy? That *is* my point, because I don't think they can (especially if it's not the first encounter of the day and they have few/no spells left). Which is why the 4d6 damage from Fire Riposte seems so uber at 3rd level.
Clawhound 05-15-07, 02:05 PM	Well, Cleric usually gets forced into the very weakest and least fun role of all: Heal-bot. So I call this the "CoDZilla fallacy". Sure once a druid gets Wildshape/Large he is pretty darn tough and can out-tank some warriors, depending on the foe. But in a party with both a Cleric and a Druid, the Druid should get the chance to be a melee Monster. It may be least fun, but it isn't weakest. Ever been in a party where people are hurt and no one wants to attack? Ever been in a party with one person down? Losing either characters or morale is a BIG nerf. Healing looks boring, but it is EXTREMELY powerful.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 05-15-07, 03:42 PM	Well, most every DM I know uses the Partial rules for Saves and BaB from UA. Fighters in two of my groups have both taken Iron Will @3rd. By the RAW it is +0. I did not account for variant rules, as they are nearly infanite. However with a 14 wis, iron will, and the UA variant the fighterish thing still only has a will save of +5. Still not much against save vrs blindness DC 19. Man, is it possible to bring up any topic without getting into fighters versus wizards? I'm not talking about fighters outshining wizards in 1v1 combat. I'm talking about fighters outshining them IN THE GAME, where at 3rd level they're fighting goblins, orcs, and grimlocks, NOT DUELING EACH OTHER TO THE DEATH. And at 3rd level, a fighter will probably outshine a wizard! All caster classes only have a half-dozen spells, so in most battles they have to decide between casting a bunch of spells or using mundane weapons. And 3rd level fighters are better than 3rd level wizards if they're both using mundane weapons. Could a 3rd level wizard still paste a 3rd level fighter in combat? Maybe, but that's not the point. Could a 3rd level wizard still paste 4 wererats better than his 3rd level fighter buddy? That *is* my point, because I don't think they can (especially if it's not the first encounter of the day and they have few/no spells left). Which is why the 4d6 damage from Fire Riposte seems so uber at 3rd level. Again the wizard will shine here. the werrats have will save of +4, and one hitdia each. The wizard need not deicded on one, or a bunch of spells, as both sleep and colour spray will defeat this encounter, on round one. And with the wererats int of +0-+3 the wizard is most likely going first, and the wererats are done before the fight begins. However they have ACs of 15-17 depending on form, and about 12hp each. So the fighter will have to deal 12+ damge with each hit inorder to one hit them, and then cleave into the next one. With a greatsword swords avergae damage of 7 the fighter will need to find at least +6 to damage to do that. A str of 18 will do it, but most likely he's gonna power attack. So with +3 bab and +4 str, and we'll say +1 from weapon focus, and +1 from a master work weapon the fight hits a little over 55% of the time, and has to deal avergae or better damage. Now the fighter prolly has an init of +0 so the rats are going first, which means 4 attacks against the fighter, and they most likely have flanking, which means a couple will hit. fighter takes damage.
RainerNader 05-15-07, 03:55 PM	Again the wizard will shine here. the werrats have will save of +4, and one hitdia each. The wizard need not deicded on one, or a bunch of spells, as both sleep and colour spray will defeat this encounter, on round one. And with the wererats int of +0-+3 the wizard is most likely going first, and the wererats are done before the fight begins. Again, this fight isn't taking place in a bubble. There are a half-dozen reasons why that scenario would not unfold as straightforward as you proposed: - Some wererats make their Will save. - The wererats got surprise. - The wererats beat the wizard to initiative. - The wizard is confronted in a corner where he's forced to cast defensively. - The wizard does not have those spells prepared. - The wizard had those spells prepared, but used them in an earlier encounter. I could go on. The point is that in an ACTUAL D&D game and not an arbitrary gladiator battle to the death in an enclosed arena, the 3rd level wizard still has many limitations that will prevent him from being effective as the fighter.
Drag0nUL 05-15-07, 04:00 PM	The point is that in an ACTUAL D&D game and not an arbitrary gladiator battle to the death in an enclosed arena, the 3rd level wizard still has many limitations that will prevent him from being effective as the fighter. The point IMHO is that at 3rd level there are many situation in which a wizard is more effective than a fighter, and many situations in which a fighter is more effective than a wizard. At high level however, the situations in which a fighter is more effective than a wizard are extremely rare(the only one I can come up with right now is AMF).
On_the_wings_of_TPK 05-15-07, 04:14 PM	Again, this fight isn't taking place in a bubble. There are a half-dozen reasons why that scenario would not unfold as straightforward as you proposed: - Some wererats make their Will save. Unlikely, but possible. However it is more possible that the fighter rolls low on damage, and must endure yet another round of being pounded by the rats. In either event there is a 45% the fighter will miss one of his 4 attacks. there is only a 30% one of the rats will make their save. - The wererats got surprise. Possible, but don't forget in "actual" D7D the wizard is not alone, and the some/most of the attacks will be directed at other party party memebers. - The wererats beat the wizard to initiative. Again unlikely as the wizard could have anything from a +3 to a +9. but the rats have a max of +3. It is far more likely that the fighter will lose initiative as his iniative is a max of what +4, if he took improved iniative. - The wizard is confronted in a corner where he's forced to cast defensively. DC 15....max ranks 6, Con mod of +2, so thats +8 vrs Dc 15, +12 if the wizard has combat casting. Not a hard check to make. - The wizard does not have those spells prepared. About as likely as the fighter forgetting his sword at home. Sure the wizard could suck, but so could the fighter. I'm assuming an equal level of competentence between the two. - The wizard had those spells prepared, but used them in an earlier encounter. Third level wizard has 2 1st level spells, and 1 second as a base. On top of that it will have an addition spell from high int in each score. If its that grey elf again it'll have 2 bonus first level spells. And another bonus spell if it specializes. So that's as much as 5 first level spells, and 3 second. Again unlikely that the wizard is completely out of spells. Especially given that the wizard was able to nuetralise an EL 6 encounter with one spell. I could go on. The point is that in an ACTUAL D&D game and not an arbitrary gladiator battle to the death in an enclosed arena, the 3rd level wizard still has many limitations that will prevent him from being effective as the fighter. The piont is that the fighter really has only two options when it comes to combat. 1) run away 2) Swing metal sword. the wizard has spells, and then its mundain weapon. And given the varying amount of spells, those options are almost limitless. beucase the wizard has so many more options to do in fight the fighter, it will almost always have a better solution. In actual D&D.
darkeness 05-15-07, 04:33 PM	What was the point of this thread again? :confused: I am sure it wasn't fighter vs wizard again :P
Drag0nUL 05-15-07, 05:06 PM	What was the point of this thread again? :confused: I am sure it wasn't fighter vs wizard again :P It's always fighter vs. wizard:D
Optimized_Commoner 05-15-07, 05:53 PM	What was the point of this thread again? :confused: I am sure it wasn't fighter vs wizard again :P I'm not sure, apparently I've posted in it before, but I clicked to view the last page and all I can see is fighter vs wizard. Anyone remember what it's about? Actually, now I remember. The OP's DM wasn't letting them play a psion or a monk because... they think monks are broken! :rofl: Ah, good times.
Fatalis_902 05-15-07, 06:26 PM	Or quite possibly has read the rules, and disagrees with your not-so-bright observation. <click> Alright, alright, I should rephrase, explain what I meant. What I was trying (and apparently failing) to say was that any DM who has no problem with druids (or clerics, soon enough) but considers something broken just because it uses a different set of rules than basic core material (psionics, incarnum), or it appears outside of core, is either a moron, or has not read the material to the point of understanding. Or quite possibly both. If they see someting outside of core, that is at all different than core in any meaningful way, such as mechanics, and they sream "OMGzorz!!!1!!one! TAHT IS TEH BROKEN-ness!!!!!!!!111!!!!11!!!1!!!!!!!!one!!!! !!" without even trying to understand the material and see how it works, they are morons, and probably deserve hammergunnings. If they dissallow something on the premise of, "I haven't read it/don't have the book and it's not in the SRD, and I don't want to use mechanics that I don't fully understand," then fine. I accept that. If they call something broken because it appears outside of core, and they haven't even tried to understand it, they have a problem.
Kursk 05-15-07, 06:44 PM	1) Find a rule that suggests or even implies a druid hierarchy. 2) Find a rule that describes exactly what "revering nature" means. 3) Find ANY form of code of conduct for a druid. 4) Find ANY form of code of conduct for a CLERIC. Roleplay requirements are NOT balancing factors, especially if they aren't defined. According to the rules, when the druid casts a spell, that spell happens. He does NOT cast a spell and ask the DM if it happens. There is, at a fundamental level, no distinction between an arcane spellcaster and a divine one as far as spellcasting is concerned. All I can say is read the PHB. The basics are covered in there. INCLUDING a Drudic hierarchy. Have you read the book?
Tempest Stormwind 05-15-07, 07:03 PM	All I can say is read the PHB. The basics are covered in there. INCLUDING a Drudic hierarchy. Have you read the book? Yes. None of them are in there. It's not part of the rules. It doesn't apply to rule-based arguments. I could insist that rogues have to steal stuff to gain XP, and must be a member of a thieves guild, and must kill the thief one level higher than they are if they want to gain a level. This is patently absurd, and it isn't in the rules, so I can't insist it applies to everyone. Similarly, they haven't had that whole druid hierarchy-by-level thing instituted since 2e, and they don't discuss cleric or druid hierarchies in the book at all. Druid code of conduct isn't present (beond the very vague "revere nature"). Cleric code of conduct isn't present (beyond "don't p*** off your god" which varies from DM to DM). Either we have drastically different PHBs or you're directing me to the PHB without an adequate quote because you know it isn't in there.
CryoSilver 05-15-07, 07:09 PM	I think some DMs make the mistake of judging the power ofclasses based on their perception of how difficult a fight should be. A fight at CR of monster = party level should deplete about a quarter of their daily resources. The swordsage is unique (along with warlocks and other martial adpets) in that their main power (their maneuvers and stances) are more or less infinite, and closer to par with casters in terms of power. This forces DMs to rethink combat a bit and deal with that fact that other than hp damage, a swordsage doesn't really have 'daily resources' to deplete.
Tempest Stormwind 05-15-07, 08:11 PM	I think some DMs make the mistake of judging the power ofclasses based on their perception of how difficult a fight should be. A fight at CR of monster = party level should deplete about a quarter of their daily resources. The swordsage is unique (along with warlocks and other martial adpets) in that their main power (their maneuvers and stances) are more or less infinite, and closer to par with casters in terms of power. This forces DMs to rethink combat a bit and deal with that fact that other than hp damage, a swordsage doesn't really have 'daily resources' to deplete. At the same time, it makes adventures easier to plan, since novas aren't an issue. On any given encounter, the ToB PCs will be able to have comparable impact to encounters earlier in the day, with the singular exception of hit points. This means, in part, you can design challenging encounters with an immediate sense of urgency that lead into other encounters, and assume that the PCs will have comparable strengths in both of them (though their HP will be more of an issue in later encounters). You don't need to balance these encounters out on the thought of "Well, the wizard *could* utterly flatten any one of these encounters, but he'd be worthless in all the others." because the classes balanced on per encounter always have the same degree of potential contribution (again, barring HP).
CryoSilver 05-15-07, 08:27 PM	I don't plan based on what the players might do. I plan base don what the monsters would do. The best time to attack is right after the wizard novas, so that's when attacks tend to happen.
Tempest Stormwind 05-15-07, 08:48 PM	I don't plan based on what the players might do. I plan base don what the monsters would do. The best time to attack is right after the wizard novas, so that's when attacks tend to happen. That assumes that the monsters have some good methods of surveillance and the PCs aren't used to being spied on. It also reeks slightly of metagaming. Don't get me wrong, in some cases, NOVAS reek of metagaming ("I've been saving this move for the last boss!" or "Meh, this is a mook encounter, I'll hold back"). Furthermore, I'm not talking about TACTICS. I'm talking about ENCOUNTER LEVEL here. If I'm DMing for a team with a particularly powerful wizard with incredible spell DCs and a lot of high-level save-or-dies, then I can probably send a few really strong creatures (strong enough that they'll leave a serious dent but weak enough that they're vulnerable to the spells) at them and expect the wizard to take them down. The problem is, I can't use a lot of them, as the wizard (and thus the party) can't handle more than the wizard's spells. I also have to make sure that they show up early enough to drain the wizard's spells -- a not-so-hidden way of making him think about ways to use his less powerful effects against the BBEG). ...Meanwhile, if they were all ToB characters, all I'd need to make sure is "Do they have enough healing to survive one more encounter?". I don't need to send single strong superopponents against them to challenge the party in the presence of such characters, because the party always has a set operational capacity. I can design easy encounters and be confident that they'll always be easy (which isn't the case with per-day characters; if they're dry, those "easy" encounters might be LETHAL). I can design tough encounters and be confident they'll always be tough (not so with per-day characters who could nova and drop them, or be TPKed by them if they run into it later in the day. This leads to a degree of verisimilitude in the dungeon design, by the way. The weaker monsters aren't always on the top floor by the entrance, and the BBEG isn't always in the last room of the lowest level. Sometimes you turn the corner and find... TARRASQUE! (okay, bad example, but that's a common joke we've used ever since an old DM actually DID pull that on us). With a per-encounter balanced party, all you need to make sure is that they have enough healing to get to the next encounter. All of a sudden, the dungeon itself could have any layout I imagine, and the PCs can handle the rooms in any order they choose to navigate them in. THAT is the nice thing about per-encounter balancing from the DM side of the table.
Maekrix_Waere 05-15-07, 09:01 PM	That assumes that the monsters have some good methods of surveillance and the PCs aren't used to being spied on. It also reeks slightly of metagaming. Don't get me wrong, in some cases, NOVAS reek of metagaming ("I've been saving this move for the last boss!" or "Meh, this is a mook encounter, I'll hold back"). Furthermore, I'm not talking about TACTICS. I'm talking about ENCOUNTER LEVEL here. If I'm DMing for a team with a particularly powerful wizard with incredible spell DCs and a lot of high-level save-or-dies, then I can probably send a few really strong creatures (strong enough that they'll leave a serious dent but weak enough that they're vulnerable to the spells) at them and expect the wizard to take them down. The problem is, I can't use a lot of them, as the wizard (and thus the party) can't handle more than the wizard's spells. I also have to make sure that they show up early enough to drain the wizard's spells -- a not-so-hidden way of making him think about ways to use his less powerful effects against the BBEG). ...Meanwhile, if they were all ToB characters, all I'd need to make sure is "Do they have enough healing to survive one more encounter?". I don't need to send single strong superopponents against them to challenge the party in the presence of such characters, because the party always has a set operational capacity. I can design easy encounters and be confident that they'll always be easy (which isn't the case with per-day characters; if they're dry, those "easy" encounters might be LETHAL). I can design tough encounters and be confident they'll always be tough (not so with per-day characters who could nova and drop them, or be TPKed by them if they run into it later in the day. This leads to a degree of verisimilitude in the dungeon design, by the way. The weaker monsters aren't always on the top floor by the entrance, and the BBEG isn't always in the last room of the lowest level. Sometimes you turn the corner and find... TARRASQUE! (okay, bad example, but that's a common joke we've used ever since an old DM actually DID pull that on us). With a per-encounter balanced party, all you need to make sure is that they have enough healing to get to the next encounter. All of a sudden, the dungeon itself could have any layout I imagine, and the PCs can handle the rooms in any order they choose to navigate them in. THAT is the nice thing about per-encounter balancing from the DM side of the table. QFT
CryoSilver 05-15-07, 09:03 PM	When I run dungeon crawls, I base it on 4 encounters per day; at the end of the day, 4 at EL battles will deplete a party's resources. And in a dungeon crawl, if even one monster runs away, or watches hidden from a distance, the other monsters will have a fair idea of whether or not the party is prepared.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 05-15-07, 09:12 PM	Yes. None of them are in there. It's not part of the rules. It doesn't apply to rule-based arguments. I could insist that rogues have to steal stuff to gain XP, and must be a member of a thieves guild, and must kill the thief one level higher than they are if they want to gain a level. This is patently absurd, and it isn't in the rules, so I can't insist it applies to everyone. Similarly, they haven't had that whole druid hierarchy-by-level thing instituted since 2e, and they don't discuss cleric or druid hierarchies in the book at all. Druid code of conduct isn't present (beond the very vague "revere nature"). Cleric code of conduct isn't present (beyond "don't p*** off your god" which varies from DM to DM). Either we have drastically different PHBs or you're directing me to the PHB without an adequate quote because you know it isn't in there. A cleric who grossly voilates the code of conduct required by their god (generally acting in ways opposed to the gods alignment or propase) loses all spells and abilities... And the druid: A druid who ceases to rever nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities. (including animal companion but not including weapon, shield, and armour profiencies.)... You did actually check the PHB before posting that said rules aren't in there, right? As for the planning thing.. part of the fun, and skill of playing a caster is managing your resources. Deciding when to use your show stopper, and when to hold back. You may call it metagaming, but then when I DM I try to make it less odviouse wheather a fight is a bunch of mooks, or something more.
DarkRhystar 05-15-07, 09:12 PM	When I run dungeon crawls, I base it on 4 encounters per day; at the end of the day, 4 at EL battles will deplete a party's resources. Per Encounter abilities mean that you can have 2 encounters in a day or 12 as long as the party has enough HP to keep going. Per Day abilities mean that if you have 2 encounters, they can easily be blown away and that if you have 12 encounters, they are well more than enough to be a TPK. Per Encounter yields more freedom for the DM in some respects.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 05-15-07, 09:20 PM	Per Encounter abilities mean that you can have 2 encounters in a day or 12 as long as the party has enough HP to keep going. Per Day abilities mean that if you have 2 encounters, they can easily be blown away and that if you have 12 encounters, they are well more than enough to be a TPK. Per Encounter yields more freedom for the DM in some respects. Again not really. All per encounter abilities mean is that the characters with them can go nova every single encounter. The DM could still fire off 12 encounters a day, however the party just had to be more careful about how they spent their resources. And when planning the DM now has to take into account that the characters can and will go nova with every encounter. In responce monsters will need to be tougher, and strong to survive the initial on sluaght. (That is if they are wanted to survive beyond to first round.) Which only adds to the power creep, and all that accomplishes is a higher blow-out factor.
Omnicronwarlord 05-15-07, 09:35 PM	And the druid: You did actually check the PHB before posting that said rules aren't in there, right? Actually he's right( Tempest is) For clerics, He just said ealier all clerics must do is not **** of their god or change alignment. That qoute proves what he said. Frankly, its easy to not **** of Pelor (for example) just be a freakin nice guy. For druids, yes, they can't teach druidic (wow, big problem there) cant change alignment to non-nuetral (again, wow, its easy to keep some nuetral.) and, as tempest already mention "revere nature". Tempest admitted it says revere nature. Which doesn;t mean happy tree hugger all the time, as tempest pointed out, I could revere fire and its natural destruction, or the wolf as it kills and hunts to survive. He's also right, you said stuff about respect druidic hierchy ect. Nowhere does it mention a druidic heirchy in the PHB (well, its mentioned in the flavor text but it doesn;t say you must obey them or anything) As for the planning thing.. part of the fun, and skill of playing a caster is managing your resources. Deciding when to use your show stopper, and when to hold back. You may call it metagaming, but then when I DM I try to make it less odviouse wheather a fight is a bunch of mooks, or something more.[/QUOTE]
Maekrix_Waere 05-15-07, 10:46 PM	(snip) Which doesn;t mean happy tree hugger all the time, as tempest pointed out, I could revere fire and its natural destruction, or the wolf as it kills and hunts to survive. (snip) I was the one who mentioned the Fire thing.:D Also, just a reminder to everyone that 99.9% of all actions can, in some way, be done in the name of "Revering Nature." Personally, I can't think of a single one that can't (except Epic Level stuff, but those generally aren't issues), but I kept an option in case anyone can find one. About casters and planning:I have personally never played an Arcane Caster, and I have only played Druids and Clerics one time each, but I can tell you that I never faced a situation where I ran out of spells at a critical time. I find that casting spells starting with the Highest Level you can cast -1 and never casting you Highest Level spells unless they are absolutely necessary is a good rule when playing a caster in a multipule encounters (4-10)/day campaign keeps you pretty safe. Of course, my Cleric was a Necromancer and Master of Shrouds and my Druid was a MoMF, so they never really NEEDED to cast their spells (except for healing), so take what I say with a grain of salt.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 05-15-07, 10:48 PM	Actually he's right( Tempest is) For clerics, He just said ealier all clerics must do is not **** of their god or change alignment. That qoute proves what he said. Frankly, its easy to not **** of Pelor (for example) just be a freakin nice guy. For druids, yes, they can't teach druidic (wow, big problem there) cant change alignment to non-nuetral (again, wow, its easy to keep some nuetral.) and, as tempest already mention "revere nature". Tempest admitted it says revere nature. Which doesn;t mean happy tree hugger all the time, as tempest pointed out, I could revere fire and its natural destruction, or the wolf as it kills and hunts to survive. It's not part of the rules. It doesn't apply to rule-based arguments. The codes may be light, and they may be easy to aviod breaking, but they are still part of the rules as writen, and thus apply to rules-based arguments. I am not arguing the extent of what "revere nature" implies, nor whether or not it is difficult to follow the tenants of ones religeon. I am simply saying that a cleric, and druid must do these things in order keeping being druids and clerics. Further if you had read my post you'll note that I have not mentioned anything about the hiegharchies or the like. Please do not imply that I have.
Tempest Stormwind 05-15-07, 11:16 PM	You did actually check the PHB before posting that said rules aren't in there, right?Yes, I did.Again not really. All per encounter abilities mean is that the characters with them can go nova every single encounter. The DM could still fire off 12 encounters a day, however the party just had to be more careful about how they spent their resources. And when planning the DM now has to take into account that the characters can and will go nova with every encounter. In responce monsters will need to be tougher, and strong to survive the initial on sluaght. (That is if they are wanted to survive beyond to first round.) Which only adds to the power creep, and all that accomplishes is a higher blow-out factor.Except that the "nova" is significantly weaker than a per-day balanced class' nova, and since it's a constant output between encounters, it's easy to plan for. They always bring the same baggage to every encounter, with HP as the only limiting factor. The thing is, I can balance on 4 encounters of equal CR per day of adventuring. With per-encounter balancing, I don't need to. I can just build the dungeon however I feel like it (and if that includes NO safe spaces that they can easily rest in, so be it), and the PCs go as deep as they feel like they want, provided they keep their HP up. Do note that healing is still generally provided by per-day balanced classes. This means they can press on and fight for longer than 4 encounters if they feel confident without forcing one or two of their party to restrict themselves to weak tactics. The difference between "We gotta rest, guys, I'm out of spells" and "We gotta rest, guys, I'm getting tired" is essentially negligable. The only difference is per-day classes enforce that limit after 4 equal CR encounters, while per-encounter gives me the freedom to up it to however many I want or however many the players think they can handle (which may be 4 or more or less). The codes may be light, and they may be easy to aviod breaking, but they are still part of the rules as writen, and thus apply to rules-based arguments. I am not arguing the extent of what "revere nature" implies, nor whether or not it is difficult to follow the tenants of ones religeon. I am simply saying that a cleric, and druid must do these things in order keeping being druids and clerics. Further if you had read my post you'll note that I have not mentioned anything about the hiegharchies or the like. Please do not imply that I have.They're not just light. They're subjective. To one DM, I might have to constantly praise my god in order to follow his code of conduct, since the code of conduct for any god isn't actually specified (you can take a guess from their godly title and domains, but that's about it), having violated my oath if I don't actively follow every step necessary to personify my god (i.e. with Pelor, I could never tolerate undead and must heal all the wounded nonevil creatures I see at the very least). To another DM, I merely might have to not use things opposed to my god (i.e. no [Death] spells for a deity like Pelor). Similarly, to one DM, revering nature might mean saving the life of every animal and plant I see wounded, for it is a sacred part of mother nature. To another, it might mean never saving the life of another being (let natural selection run its course; they were weak and deserved to die). Note that nature doesn't care about your individual alignment; the Code of Conduct (not) specified for the druid doesn't say anything about it being personalized, so long as you don't change to a non-neutral alignment. Two radically disparate interpretations of the same vague non-rule that lead to two totally different types of divine caster, for each type of class. And there's more. This is what I meant about it being subjective and ill-defined. The code of conduct the cleric references isn't actually in the rules. The druid one is impossible to define subjectively.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 05-15-07, 11:51 PM	The same could be said for the paladins code of conduct (COC). What exactly constatutes an evil act. What justifications there may or may not be, so on and so forth. The fact that it is ill defined does not mean that it is a non-rule, nor that it may be completely ignored. It does however mean that you auto clarify these things with your DM. Especially if it is something that differs from Dm to DM, as that would indacate that you and your DM stand a good chance of having a different opion on the matter.
Tempest Stormwind 05-16-07, 12:31 AM	The same could be said for the paladins code of conduct (COC).If you apply real-world morality (which doesn't exist in D&D with its objective, quantifiable alignment), perhaps.What exactly constatutes an evil act.An act that registers as Evil. This is objective in the D&D universe, but isn't in our own (which is exactly why alignment often leads to so many arguments.)The fact that it is ill defined does not mean that it is a non-rule, nor that it may be completely ignored.If it can easily be interpreted as "whatever I'm doing", which it can in the case of the cleric or druid one if the player is even half-awake, it's effectively a non-drawback. Which means it doesn't actually limit anything's mechanical potential. Claiming it does actually balance something because the DM will remove your powers if he thinks you broke it is essentially an Oberoni fallacy, to boot. Think about that one for a minute. Besides, on an unrelated note, I hate Codes of Conduct. It's essentially "I'm gonna give you all these cool toys then take them away if you don't act exactly as I tell you." It's classic Gygaxian gaming design, which I dislike since it breeds hostility.It does however mean that you auto clarify these things with your DM. Especially if it is something that differs from Dm to DM, as that would indacate that you and your DM stand a good chance of having a different opion on the matter.Ah, good, we do agree completely on this.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 05-16-07, 01:22 AM	If you apply real-world morality (which doesn't exist in D&D with its objective, quantifiable alignment), perhaps.An act that registers as Evil. This is objective in the D&D universe, but isn't in our own (which is exactly why alignment often leads to so many arguments.) So you define an evil act, as an act that is evil? Do I really need to piont out the probelms with that? We'll just say that it was a poor attempt to side step my question. However we do agree that what is, and is not an evil act is open to interpretation, and thus variouse from DM to DM, simmiliarily what is and is not revering nature, or the tenants of a particular diety are open to interpretation. Thus both grey areas, and well just becuase the pallies code is grey, does not mean it is a non-rule, by the RAW. Feel free to house rule it. If it can easily be interpreted as "whatever I'm doing", which it can in the case of the cleric or druid one if the player is even half-awake, it's effectively a non-drawback. Which means it doesn't actually limit anything's mechanical potential. That depends on the "what-ever I am doing" is. If it is say raising some zombies in the name of palour, I could see there could be a problem. Simmiliarily while a controlled burn to clear out dense, and over populated forest is revering nature, clear cutting the forest so that one can start up a strip mine would not be revering nature. Regardless of that whether or not it comes up very often, or at does not mean it is not a rule. Further I am not arguing its merits as a drawback, or even its merits as a rule. I am simply stating that clerics and druids do indeed have codes of conduct, and that they are rules according to the RAW. Claiming it does actually balance something because the DM will remove your powers if he thinks you broke it is essentially an Oberoni fallacy, to boot. Think about that one for a minute. Firstly I am not claiming that said COCs balance anything. Secondly the Oberoni falacy is regarding the use of rule zero as a balancing factor. Enforcing the rules as writen is not using rule zero, and thus the oberoni falacy does not aply here. Besides, on an unrelated note, I hate Codes of Conduct. It's essentially "I'm gonna give you all these cool toys then take them away if you don't act exactly as I tell you." It's classic Gygaxian gaming design, which I dislike since it breeds hostility.Ah, good, we do agree completely on this. I agree with you on that as well, however "becuase i don't like it" is not a reason to claim the rule does not exist.
Tyraxus 05-16-07, 01:52 AM	So you define an evil act, as an act that is evil? Do I really need to piont out the probelms with that? We'll just say that it was a poor attempt to side step my question. I think he's saying that an evil act is one that the game defines as Evil (as evidenced by his use of the capital E in his point), such as using poisons or creating undead. Remember those [Evil] spell descriptors? Those are Evil acts, too. Some things are up to the DM as well, but there are certain things the game defines as Evil, RAW, and they are very definitely not subjective nor open to interpretation.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 05-16-07, 02:51 AM	I think he's saying that an evil act is one that the game defines as Evil (as evidenced by his use of the capital E in his point), such as using poisons or creating undead. Remember those [Evil] spell descriptors? Those are Evil acts, too. Some things are up to the DM as well, but there are certain things the game defines as Evil, RAW, and they are very definitely not subjective nor open to interpretation. Not that I intent to continue this past this post, but... Some things in the game are defined as an evil, such as using as spell with the evil discriptor, and others are not but could be considered evil. Say like burning down the orphanage, with innocent children inside, for the propases of roasting marshmellows. No-were in the PHb will you find that explicitly stated as an evil act. Same with stabbing badies, and about 90% of the things that are likely to come out as evil. Now stabbing badies, and burning orfanages is clearly evil. But w3hat about some one the less clear things, such as say lieing to protect a child. C-D-Ging an odviousely evil opponent. What if the legitamite authority is an evil tyranny? So on and so. These are the things that are not clear, and well defined by the RAW, yet still must be considered when adressing the paladins code.
Bellegante 05-16-07, 03:12 AM	To the OP: First, you should understand your DM's perspective. He didn't expect this to happen, and the swordsage is an impressive class in actual play. Secondly, you shouldn't try to argue balance with him over these particular maneuvers. Instead, make a Psion, Cleric, Druid and Fighter that can defeat your character, while he's got the powers your DM considers broken. Use the same stats that your character has rolled up, and different feats. If you lose 2 or 3 out of four of these encounters, you should have no real problem convincing him that you're fairly balanced. If you build them specifically to kill your swordsage build, even if it's played well you will likely lose 4 out of 4. The Fighter, ironically, will have the easiest win here. He's at his place of power, low levels, and as a human will have five(!!) feats. He's also got enough starting wealth for decent nonmagical gear. You'll ask why not Barbarian1/Fighter2? Well, you can do that, but if you pull a win with Fighter 3 you can point out that it wasn't even as good as you could have made it.. There are a couple good ways to do this. The most straightforward involves: Equipment: Glaive or Ranseur, Crossbow, Longsword, Dagger, Large Shield, the best Armor you can afford after that, with armor spikes. Go high dex, high strength. Feats: Quickdraw, Improved Initiative, Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip, Improved Grapple. If you win initiative, ready an action to him him when he charges with the Glaive, then get the attack of opportunity for his movement. This gets much better the more supplements you have available - but I'm assuming core only, since I don't know otherwise. Complete Warrior, switch out something for Hold the Line - another attack on that first rush. The others are a bit simpler, hopefully. -------------------------------- Psion - Human, again? Feats: Armor Proficiency Light, Medium, Sheild Proficiency. (Think Cleric) These aren't good feats, but it saves work finding better ones. And, Extend Power for your bonus feat, if you mean to go with the Astral Construct Powers: Astral Construct, Energy Ray, Energy Adaptation, Dissipating Touch Base 11 PP at 3, 3 more with a 14 intelligence. Open with an extended Astral Construct, with the Tripping option if you can't think of something better - assuming, of course, you are far enough out that this is an option. If so, follow with the gambit of.. Another Astral Construct. I'm not as sure about victory here.. another option is the Dissipating Touch Attack with heavy armor.. conserve power points since the touch attack will stay around until it's used (probably) unlike the maneuvers. Honestly, I'm not as sure with the Psion. ------------------------------------- I am, however, quite certain of the Druid's capability here. Someone posted, erroneously, that the Druids greater power lay in later levels - not so. Consider, first, a single class feature: the Animal companion. Let us take the standard wolf. At level 3, it gains two bonus hit dice, to be applied as stated under 'advancement' in the MM. There, it states, that a 4 HD wolf is large. When enlarging a creature, you must look at the 'increasing size' table, which reveals the wolf gets +8 strength, -2 dex, and +4 con, on top of the +1 str/dex from the druid animal companion table. So, we have a 'companion' with: HP 38, AC 15, Attack of Bite +9 Melee for 1d8 + 6 that gets a free trip attempt with every successful hit.. STR 22, DEX 14, CON 20. I don't think it gets reach, but I don't know why. This thing is actually a serious threat - enough so that the Swordsage, if he ignores it, could still die after killing the Druid! A 14 Wisdom nets you a bonus first and second level spell. 3 1st, and 2 second. This is plenty. Resist energy is great, also Flame Blade or Summon Nature's ally 2.. really, this battle should be an easy win for the druid. Note I didn't even bother with feats for this one.. you should use some, of course, unless you want to go for the 'and this is without feats factor'. ------------ The Cleric is a little harder than the druid, but I'm about out of time.. without going in depth, you know the drill. Buff up, good feats and equipment, and you should win. Sound burst is excellent at second level. ------------ So, do this. Even if you don't want the flame maneuvers anymore, do this, to help your DM understand the game better. You'll be happy you did. Do it away from the normal session! Don't interrupt everything else for it.
maharai23 05-16-07, 06:06 AM	Oi. You're assuming that it's a 1v1 fight starting with the fighter right up next to the caster. How about putting some distance, and letting them roll for initiative (which the caster will probably win because you need Dex to hit with ranged spells). Then the caster proceeds to Sleep, Web, Grease, or something else the fighter so that he's practically helpless (sleep actually works wonders here, since your fighter/barb has a +1 to will when not raging, which he hasn't got a chance to yet, and the save DC is going to be 15 or better, so you're slept 75% of the time). Hello Mr. Coup de grace, that's a nice spear you have there, and let us know how your level 3 fighter with +5 fort makes that DC 34 save v death, mmk? Meanwhile, the Cleric casts Hold Person and the outcome is the same, while a Druid casts Entangle and lets his pet eat your face while he turns you into a pincushion from range (or out of reach, if he casts Spiderclimb). Casters win because they can do things that make you and your sharp metal stick useless. You hit something and it can hit back; they remove it from the fight (or hamper it very seriously) and kill it later, when it's convenient. Starting at a distance of 10-80ft puts it at the roll. If the fighter wins init, he wins, hands down. The 80 ft charge allows for an Additional +2 to hit, further allowing for power attack brokenness. With a diff of likely +1 to dex, it's gonna be close to a dice off, unless the fighter took improved init as one of his bonus feats (not my ideal choice for a feat, but still). Basically, it boils down to: 55% of the time the wiz will win 75% of the time. 45% of the time the Fighter will win 90% of the time. Cause frankly, a +11 to +13 to hit allows for a pretty safe power attack for 3. That's +6 damage on the Greatsword, for 2D6 + 15 damage. Darn near a pasting, round one. This is also the result if the wage wins init and the fighter passes his save. So basically, we have, in rage, a +10 to hit for an amount that will kill the average level 3 mage with an 18 con in 1 hit. +10 bonus means a very likely kill. Heck, against most mages, a power attack for 1 will do it. Especially with leap attack feat. (which is one of my more liked feats) Basically, at low levels, a bad roll will mess up either side, but the fighter is more forgiving than the wiz. Better win odds, about 3 to 2 odds, by the numbers of the mage tactic you described, in an open ground arena with less than 85 feet between them.
Optimized_Commoner 05-16-07, 06:14 AM	This leads to a degree of verisimilitude in the dungeon design, by the way. The weaker monsters aren't always on the top floor by the entrance, and the BBEG isn't always in the last room of the lowest level. "We'll find the princess in the highest room of the tallest tower."
Omnicronwarlord 05-16-07, 07:24 AM	I was the one who mentioned the Fire thing.:D sry, when 2 people sargue the same side I get confused.
northern_bear 05-16-07, 08:33 AM	tales of when you had a spell or ability banned from use when you felt it was unjustified. The DM banning a spell or ability is never unjustified. He decides what will work in his campagne. What is unjustified is when a DM bans something in mid game. Or when he bans something that he knew about well in advance. Or when he bans something you have already built into your character, with his permission. There's nothing wrong with banning things in advance. Banning things retroactively sucks. Give the DM you copy of the book. AGAIN. Ask him to actually read it this time, and make a list of everything that he won't allow. Then decide if you still want to play a swordsage with those bans in effect. If he tries to ban anything else later, tell him he is being a jerk. Then find a better DM. . . . until we entered our first combat. . . .Suddenly, the DM decides that the swordsage is irreparably broken, which surprised me because in the party we also have a psion, a druid, and a clerc. You DM is an idiot.
Kraleck 05-16-07, 08:35 AM	With my old DM I almost enforced one of my "DM-Player contract clauses": DM and Player must learn all mechanics of a rule before DM can pass judgement. If either party fails to do so the offended party proceeds to smack the offending party upside the head with the book containing the rule in question. Repeat for each rule as needed. Now, if you have met me, then you know how much of an information sponge I am and how easy new information comes to me. I also know why some things are not as bad as many people on the forums say like the Hideous Blow Warlock Invocation (it's a "blast shape" (many people forget that) and is effective when combined with the Repelling Blast blast essence and a reach weapon) and the Frenzied Berserker PrC (non-lethal damage will knock him/her unconscious like any other person). Unfortunately I tend to put people off because of my psychological condition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger%27s_Syndrome). Also, if you have met my old DM, then you also know how hard he tries and fails to understand new mechanics (Incarnum was out since he couldn't wrap his head around its most basic workings) and how closed minded he is (Psionics was deemed bad because his old DMs said so). Unfortunately he happens to be one of my best friends.
Steely_Dan 05-16-07, 09:36 AM	The DM banning a spell or ability is never unjustified. He decides what will work in his campagne. What is unjustified is when a DM bans something in mid game. Or when he bans something that he knew about well in advance. Or when he bans something you have already built into your character, with his permission. There's nothing wrong with banning things in advance. Banning things retroactively sucks. Totally agree. Any bans/nerfs/house rules should be laid out before the campaign begins so everybody knows what they're getting into.
RobbyPants 05-16-07, 10:27 AM	So, this thread is for advice on convincing DMs something isn't broken (unless, of course, it is), and for tales of when you had a spell or ability banned from use when you felt it was unjustified. Make sure that when you talk to him, do it outside of the game, preferably on a different day, or at least before everyone else shows up. You don't want him to feel on-the-spot. Besides, you said the group has a psion, cleric, and druid. Just start comparing abilities you will have at about 5th - 7th level to things they can do: Psion - Repeated energy attacks for 5d6 - 7d6 damage, spontaneously choosing the energy type and save type. Overchanneling for extra dice. Scism and two powers at once! Full manifester. Druid - Wild shape ('nuf said). Spells during wild shape. Solid animal companion. Full caster. Cleric -Divine Power ('nuf said). Full caster. Also, does the DM allow Divine Metamagic? If so, that just made your argument a lot easier.
Maekrix_Waere 05-16-07, 10:58 AM	Tyraxus, Poison Use is not Evil. OTWoTPK, we can get into another discussion about D&D morality, but that really isn't the point of this thread. All I'll say is that because D&D contains tangible forces of Good and Evil, D&D morality is much less subjective than IRL.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 05-16-07, 10:59 AM	The DM banning a spell or ability is never unjustified. He decides what will work in his campagne. What is unjustified is when a DM bans something in mid game. Or when he bans something that he knew about well in advance. Or when he bans something you have already built into your character, with his permission. There's nothing wrong with banning things in advance. Banning things retroactively sucks. Give the DM you copy of the book. AGAIN. Ask him to actually read it this time, and make a list of everything that he won't allow. Then decide if you still want to play a swordsage with those bans in effect. If he tries to ban anything else later, tell him he is being a jerk. Then find a better DM. You DM is an idiot. As a DM I really hate this line of thinking. You honestly expect the DM to be so allknowing or some crap to as never make a mistake? Or if they do make a mistake they can't correct it mid camapign. What players right to play something the DM isn't comfortable with, becuase they slipped it through during creation night? Get a life.
northern_bear 05-16-07, 11:53 AM	As a DM I really hate this line of thinking. You honestly expect the DM to be so allknowing or some crap to as never make a mistake? Or if they do make a mistake they can't correct it mid camapign. What players right to play something the DM isn't comfortable with, becuase they slipped it through during creation night? Get a life. Get a life? You should get a clue. Nobody is talking about players who have secretly snuck something into their character in an attempt to wreck the campagne. We're talking about a player who says "this is what I want to play" the DM who says "ya, I'm fine with that", and then changes his mind. DMs put a lot of effort into creating their campagns. But guess what, players put a lot of effort into their characters. When a DM changes his mind about a character he has already allowed, he has wasted a lot of the players time. The player probably spent hours thinking up his character, not to mention all the in game time invested in that character. And now the DM has turned around and ruined that character, because he was too lazy to read what the player handed him. Imagine the shoe was on the other foot. The DM tells his group of players "hey guys, I'm thinking of setting the campagne in a desert, what do you think. The players say ya, that sounds great. So the DM spends hours developing towns, NPCs, writing adventure plots, etc. Then they have their first game. Afterwards, the players say "you know what, we changed our minds. We don't want the campagne to be set in the desert. We would prefer to play an ocean based adventure. Please prepare one for us for next week." All that preparation by the DM, wasted! Well that's how players feel when a DM starts messing with the abilities of a character that already exists, and one that he approved. Sure DMs are allowed to make mistakes. But it would be nice if they actually make the effor to limit mistakes by taking the time to look at a character concept before approving it.
Kursk 05-16-07, 12:19 PM	And the druid: You did actually check the PHB before posting that said rules aren't in there, right? As for the planning thing.. part of the fun, and skill of playing a caster is managing your resources. Deciding when to use your show stopper, and when to hold back. You may call it metagaming, but then when I DM I try to make it less odviouse wheather a fight is a bunch of mooks, or something more. No he didn't. In the Druid section it talks about higher level Druids and performing services for them. I don't think he has read the character descriptions beyond HP, Spells & attacks, etc.
TwistedPuppy 05-16-07, 12:43 PM	Well that's how players feel when a DM starts messing with the abilities of a character that already exists, and one that he approved. Sure DMs are allowed to make mistakes. But it would be nice if they actually make the effor to limit mistakes by taking the time to look at a character concept before approving it. I believe what TPK was saying is that sometimes the DM may look over the character, allow it, and then find out (after actually making the effort, as you put it) that it really causes problems. It has probably happened to quite a few DMs, I know it has happened to me. Yes, the DM should go to the player, explain that he made an error in letting the character in, and ask him to change the character. If the player has a few shreds of maturity they'll understand the problem and work with the DM. Here's one: A player comes up with a character concept using a new sourcebook, and asks the DM to look it over. DM spends an hour or two looking over the material, and says fine. Three sessions later the character is not as much fun as the player thought it would be, and he wants to make another character, this time a core style character. Should the DM force the player to stick with the original character because all the effort he went to before approving it [edit: and working the character into the campaign]? By your logic, the DM would be justified in doing so.
danielinthewolvesden 05-16-07, 03:22 PM	Consider, first, a single class feature: the Animal companion. Let us take the standard wolf. At level 3, it gains two bonus hit dice, to be applied as stated under 'advancement' in the MM. There, it states, that a 4 HD wolf is large. When enlarging a creature, you must look at the 'increasing size' table, which reveals the wolf gets +8 strength, -2 dex, and +4 con, on top of the +1 str/dex from the druid animal companion table.. Except that the Companion does NOT get an increase in size due to extra HP. Nor does the Companion change types into a Magical Beast. Read the FAQ. But yes, at the levels where the Companion gets bonus HD, it can beat out a non-optimized warrior in many situations. It is a very nice class feature.
Tyraxus 05-16-07, 06:20 PM	<snip> Basically, it boils down to: 55% of the time the wiz will win 75% of the time. 45% of the time the Fighter will win 90% of the time. <snip> So you're backing away from your "Fighters at level 3 own every caster ever with no difficulty" comment towards a more sane "Well, it depends on build, tactics, and die rolls" stance? Good, it seems I've gotten through your fighter fanboi exteriour and taught you something. Tyraxus, Poison Use is not Evil. I thought I had read that somewhere, but I can't find it now. Thanks for correcting me.
Tempest Stormwind 05-16-07, 07:56 PM	I thought I had read that somewhere, but I can't find it now. Thanks for correcting me.It's not that poison use is evil; it's that using poison is against the paladin's code. The two are not synonymous, but people often think they are. Unless you read the Book of Exalted Cheese. There, it does claim that poison use is unquestionably evil, despite insisting that animals (such as those with natural poison) are beyond question neutral in spite of this. It then goes on to provide ravages, which are exactly the same except their use is good, and you can only make them by poaching the bodies of unspeakably good creatures. The BoED doesn't have a very good idea of what "Good" is.
Tyraxus 05-16-07, 08:42 PM	That may have been it. I don't have the BoED (and don't plan on getting it), so I probably saw an excerpt that said "poison use is always evil" and didn't see the contradictions. Thanks, Tempest.
windscar18 05-16-07, 09:21 PM	Hmm...well, if these two, VERY simple comparisons don't work, then he's obviously braindead. If he complains that the discipline in general is broken, go compare the stupid Wyrm's Flame to a Fireball and note that Fireball is 3rd level compared to whatever ridiculous level Wyrm's Flame is... If he complains that Inferno Blast is overpowered, simply say that a Maximized Delayed Blast Fireball deals 90 damage, which is close, and can be made even more gay with some magic equipment, which can not be said about Inferno Blast.