Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 babcock3030 Jul 19, 2013 0:52:14	I'm still just learning the game, but I've been doing a bit of work with a L20 Fighter. Right now, I have his static damage up to +28/attack with just the core books (STR 36, Greatsword +5, Greater/Weapon Specialization). With Power Attack that can go up to +68. So, I'd like to ask:   1) What other items, enchantments or feats will boost my modifiers (when not using Power Attack)? 2) Will multiclassing or taking a Prestige Class contribute significantly to my damage output? 3) Is there an expected minimum damage a melee character should be doing by level 20? I've started with Fighter because it's relatively simple, but I am aware that it's not the best for melee combat. But for just figuring out how things work, I like it fine. Any and all help is much appreciated!
#2 babcock3030 Jul 19, 2013 2:14:05	Good to know. Thanks! I have a question about your breakdown. You list your bonus from Strength as 24. With a +13 mod plus 6 (half rounded down via two-handing a weapon) that's +19. Where is your extra 5 coming from? Also, I'm assuming that a feat or enchantment is allowing you to triple your Power Attack bonus? Lastly, are you applying two enchantments (Valorous and Vaulting) to your weapon? Like I said, I'm a total noob.
#3 babcock3030 Jul 19, 2013 5:47:21	With Power Attack, you can double the bonus to damage rolls with a two-handed weapon. Is 'normal damage' as defined by the Leap Attack feat always the one-handed bonus, or does the definition change depending on the weapon used? In other words, can I get 80 damage with Leap Attack instead of 60? Also, how many enchantments can be added to a single item?
#4 draco1119 Jul 19, 2013 6:33:20	Leap Attack changes Power Attack's x2 to x3 for a 2-handed weapon. Your weapon can have total enhancements equalling +10 - that's a +5 weapon with enhancements being the other +5 (with varying levels, depending on the enhancement itself).
#5 Andarious-Rosethorn Jul 19, 2013 6:46:22	If you're talking about going to level 21 and you have Improved Initiative you've got an interesting option, Dire Charge. If you're talking about getting things sorted before playing you can take a 1 level dip of Barbarian and use the Complete Champion substitution feature that replaces your Barbarian Speed with the Pounce ability. That will allow a full attack when charging, which increases your damage hugely. Another interesting option is to smack on some Swordsage levels, since your BAB doesn't matter after 20 you can benefit from an elevated starting Iniator Level (10+Swordsage levels) and immediately qualify for some decent stuff including Pouncing Charge (which works similarly). This option also opens up Burning Blade and later bigger damage boosters (you'd be adding 1d6+11 fire damage to all your attacks for a round).
#6 babcock3030 Jul 19, 2013 6:58:57	Okay, so for example, water orc fighter at 1st level, then at second level take my first level of barbarian and take the pounce and whirling frenzy alternate options, then at level three continue on with fighter? Would I get all first level barbarian features including a feat? Or is a feat ultimately not that important? EDIT: How does Char-Op feel about UA options?
#7 Caker Jul 19, 2013 7:34:29	On the subject of bloodlines, how exactly do those work? In ashardalon reborn, it is assumed they can all be taken at level 1, is this a normal interpretation? I have also seen them used as effectively "LA" by being used as dead levels in builds. I have also seen that they can be "bought off" like level adjustment. Now obviously the first option is the most favorable for the most part, but what is the argument for it?
#8 Tempest_Stormwind Jul 19, 2013 9:31:22	Minor point: Battle Jump is regional to a racial region (the taer) and orcs aren't taer. It's an interesting feat (any multiplier in this context is), but I'm leery about it in that example as a result. Bloodlines are not LA; I have a link I'll find once I'm not on a phone that the explains how they work (basically they don't raise your ECL, and the cost in XP to go up a level is based on your ECL). If you're worried about the quick acquisition in Ashardalon, you can go slower without too much lost XP (one bloodline level per ECL is a workable compromise). Most builds don't care that much; all it does for Ashardalon Reborn is help him qualify for a feat at level 9, I believe, and you should definitely have all three before that. (The snapshots I wrote use bloodlines earlier as an example, not a requirement.) And I'd argue that some of the stronger UA options - gestalt, flaws, bloodlines - should be considered off-limits unless explicitly approved in advance. Most of the rest of what CJ mentioned can probably be argued for in an "average" game unless the DM blanket bans UA. I'd also like to second the notion of getting in on the Tome of Battle. It's an outstanding book, and has a remarkably high optimization floor (meaning it's hard to make a bad adept).
#9 babcock3030 Jul 19, 2013 10:14:44	Sorry, but I'm not familiar with some of the terminology being used. What do 'LA' and 'ECL' mean?
#10 Caker Jul 19, 2013 10:35:43	So after reading the text of bloodlines a couple of times, I can see the logic in being able to take all three "levels" at first level. All it says is that you have to take the "level" before you reach the required level, so instead of leveling at a normal rate you have to pay the "tax" of exp, if I am understanding this right. Are there any resources that show what can be done with bloodline levels? The most obvious being the incarnum and pact classes. Sorry for hi-jacking the thread, but I figured there was no need to make another.
#11 Tempest_Stormwind Jul 19, 2013 11:34:24	So after reading the text of bloodlines a couple of times, I can see the logic in being able to take all three "levels" at first level. All it says is that you have to take the "level" before you reach the required level, so instead of leveling at a normal rate you have to pay the "tax" of exp, if I am understanding this right. Are there any resources that show what can be done with bloodline levels? The most obvious being the incarnum and pact classes. Sorry for hi-jacking the thread, but I figured there was no need to make another.  I'm not sure if a dedicated bloodline handbook exists, but the basic idea is to look at anything that relies on class level in a function, and especially those that rely on multiple classes put together (not so much incarnum, since that's dependent on character level rather than class levels, but pact magic is amazing for this, and the martial adepts from the Tome of Battle do so in an unusually strong manner as well). CJ: I don't have my FR books with me here; I thought the knowledge:local rule had an exception for "racial" regions. (Even if it didn't, there's the slight issue of needing to get it at level 1, but I see nothing in your build to suggest you didn't. It's just something I felt I should mention, since I often saw Battle Jump used as if it were a normal feat back in the day.)
#12 daedhaed Jul 19, 2013 14:49:53	I would argue that the "Normal Bonus Damage" from Power Attack on a THW sacrificing 20 BAB would be 40. Thus Leap Attack would turn that into 80. That is how our group plays anyway.  Also, definitely take Warblade lvls if you're going Whirling Frenzy Pouncing barbarian as you can snag Dancing/Raging Mongoose for even more attacks. Also, if can get Battle Jump, check how you DM rules the wording on that feat as you may be able to charge and get a full attack as a Move Action, or even a swift action with a particular Warblade Maneuver. I would also argue that Dragonborn of Bahumut may be worthwhile in this build with the wing build due to wing aided movement boosting jump. Of course at the same time it's really not hard to boost jump.
#13 babcock3030 Jul 19, 2013 18:00:40	Yeah, Warblade looks really cool. Is there even a point in being a Fighter? Besides the bonus feats, that is.
#14 babcock3030 Jul 19, 2013 19:09:19	So, Whirling Frenzy/Pouncing Barbarian for first level, then Warblade from second level. Do you have a recommendation for a Prestige Class?
#15 babcock3030 Jul 19, 2013 21:15:23	So it's either/or? Either Fighter/Barb or Warblade/etc? Is charge-op better than what Warblade gives you? Or is it charge-op + Warblade?
#16 daedhaed Jul 19, 2013 21:26:15	For utility in situations in which you can't just lolpouncechunkysalsa Warblade is leaps and bounds better. If you just want raw damage ubercharger is the way to go but it's excessive and unnecessary. You'll have more success and fun with Warblade than any of the builds here.
#17 Andarious-Rosethorn Jul 19, 2013 21:53:46	In Tempests sig you'll find plenty of fun with Tome of Battle. Consider that you can do something like Barbarian 2/Fighter 2/Warblade lots and make a really solid Pouncing Charger that doesn't get into anything too silly and can do lots of things other than charge. You can get by on just straight Warblade but you will be a few levels behind for feats. For purposes of qualifying for things you're best to level something like Barbarian 2/Warblade 3/Fighter 2  and then proceed with more Warblade. This way you'll be able to get both Leap Attack and Shock Trooper at level 6. After that if you want to move your Power Attack into the realms of absurdity just go with Frenzied Berserker. That costs a lot of feats though and only really pays off in Power Attack multipliers, add to that the fact you need to perform a morning ritual of going off into the woods or a chamber with nothing nearby that you don't want to kill while you burn off your frenzies. It's a pain in the ass at the end of the day.
#18 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 20, 2013 3:01:44	Or is it charge-op + Warblade? Waste of investment. Charging sucks up too many resources to mesh well. To give a bit of background, a big reason meshing the two doesn't work well is that the Tome of Battle works hard to fix the previous reliance on full attacks by making a lot of martial strikes function as Standard actions. So charging with pounce plays up to full attacks, while most martial strikes deliberately avoid them in favour of more powerful individual attacks.  Tiger Claw has a bit towards multiple attacks, but even there it doesn't leap all over them.
#19 babcock3030 Jul 20, 2013 6:44:26	With more powerful individual attacks you still need to have equivalent damage output to charge+full attack, though, right? Or is there enough versatility with the Warblade to make damage+effect equal to crazy high damage? It could be that I'm looking at it from the wrong angle, though. I'm of the mindset that more damage=better, but is that really the case?
#20 daedhaed Jul 20, 2013 7:52:51	I actually like boosts over strikes past 10th level. Just power up your attacks and then full attack with the boosts up. Most of them are swift actions (don't know many boosts that aren't). IDK though as I don't own a TOB so I haven't really spent much time looking at Martial Adepts. I have some experience with Daring Swordsages and Hoods but aside from that I have limited knowledge. Mainly because I've spent all my free time recently researching playing a god wizard efficiently and correctly.
#21 Tempest_Stormwind Jul 20, 2013 12:49:12	I think CJ overestimates the number of idiot crusaders seeing play (as that's the only way I can think of that the tome "casually disregards the action economy"), but other than that I agree with him completely.  ...It also occurs to me that this phrase was used multiple times without a definition; although a build was provided earlier, it takes a bit of practice with the tome to realize what it does. Normal martial adepts select a subset of their maneuvers known to have "ready" for any given encounter; it takes a feat to change the loadout mid-battle. Crusaders are a bit different - they don't get all their readied maneuvers at once. Instead, they shuffle them and draw them randomly each turn (flavored as divine inspiration being inherently unpredictable, or the gods telling you that you should charge when your mortal mind is telling you you should block). When the "deck" you're drawing from is empty and you try to draw from it, your maneuvers automatically refresh. An "idiot crusader", though, has as many, or more, readied maneuvers than known maneuvers. (This is a bit tricky to build, as it involves taking martial prestige classes and assigning their known maneuvers to a different class, but their readied maneuvers to crusader, or by taking non-crusader base classes and choosing to replace crusader known maneuvers whenever you get a maneuver swap.) In effect, all of their crusader maneuvers are available all the time without caring at all about recovery.
#22 Tempest_Stormwind Jul 20, 2013 13:53:35	I think CJ overestimates the number of idiot crusaders seeing play (as that's the only way I can think of that the tome "casually disregards the action economy"), but other than that I agree with him completely.  Not really. As awesome as Idiot Crusaders are, they aren't the only way to laugh at the action economy. A boost-centered Warblade can spam WRT quite well as well, and White Raven has other ways to laugh at entire concept of "turns," and that's without counting the more fun Tiger Claw boosts as mocking the action economy, something you could certainly make a case for. Ah, right, dedicated White Raven does have a lot of ways of generating extra actions, and I appreciate that most of them aren't free to trigger (they usually rely on specific ally placement (Flanking Maneuver, Swarming Assault, etc) or the White Raven adept himself being badass on the frontlines (Clarion Call), as opposed to the "I do this, and now I do this,this,this,this,this and this" style of action abuse you find in magic. The only two "just take your extra action" effects are the awesome that is WRT, and the less awesome but still useful (because, uniquely, it's a move action and reaches further than WRT) Order Forged From Chaos Maybe my mind's not fully up to it, but I can't see how you can get warblades to use WRT more often than once every other round, and that still prevents him from countering (and given WRT's short range of 10'...). WRT on an idiot crusader, though, is just stupid awesome - particularly if you use Mo9, base-class maneuver swaps, and similar to add Shadow Stride to the crusader. Every turn, teleport to within 10' of an ally, fire off WRT, and your standard is still open for something amazing. (I have a prototype build I'm working on involving mixing THAT in with the Edge of the Light build's tricks, but it's proving very, VERY difficult to get everything in at a reasonable level. My familiarity with idiot crusader building isn't all that impressive, it seems.)
#23 piggyknowles Jul 20, 2013 13:54:11	My own favorite melee version of the "casual disregard for the action economy" warrior is Factotum 8/Warblade 2/Legacy Champion 10, with as many instances of Font of Inspiration as my intelligence will allow.  Uses Legacy Champion to bootstrap IL (similar to the Weekly Opt Showcase's Gun Fu), so that the end result is a build with Cunning Surge, IL 19 and 9th-level maneuvers.
#24 Kingofswing Jul 20, 2013 20:57:49	Was leap attack not nurffed in an errata or something like that. I think WOTC nurffed all most all the charging builds to a point they still do major damage but I would double check everything . Second he said that he was working with core books only most of the stuff you guys are giving him is not in core, do not get me wrong the stuff they have given is good but not core. Third and final point you can have as many enchantments on a weapon as you can afford, but you can only have a +5 to attack and Damage aside from being epic and then I think there is a greater value allowed, but I'm not sure. Good luck in you build
#25 babcock3030 Jul 20, 2013 21:05:14	True, I do only have the core books. But I can find out what some of the features and feats are through wikis or whatever. How does the weapon enchanting work? It was mentioned earlier that you can have a +5 enchantment and then others equivalent to an additional +5. So if I have a Valorous enchantment for +5, can I then add Vaulting +3 and Impact +2? Is that how it works? (Obviously only the highest enhancement bonus will count for attack and damage.)
#26 Kingofswing Jul 20, 2013 21:32:38	Yeah joker has good point there so I will try to brake this down for you a little more so it is totally clear. +1 weapon is a plus 1 to strike and damage this is the basic enchantment that you need. From here you can add another +1 to strike and damage or you can keep that first +1 and add a plus 1 enchantment to it such as keen or in your case valorous. This make your weapon equal to a +2 weapon but with only a +1 attack and damage bonus. So you can have a +5 weapon that deals an extra +5 damge on striking and gives you a extra +5 to strike plus has the vaulting and valorous enchantments for a total weapon enchantment of a +7 weapon that would leave you 3 available enchantment to add too your weapon. This is of course before epic levels as I said before I do not know if the strike and damage modifiers are higher in epic.
#27 Andarious-Rosethorn Jul 20, 2013 22:07:21	If you've got a Transmutation God Wizard that just spends his time making you way cooler than you aught to be, don't expect to need more than a +1 weapon and then go into all kinds of nifty weapon enhancments. Your buddy will just GMW your **** a few times a day for you as needed, eventually only once a day.
#28 babcock3030 Jul 21, 2013 0:15:44	Okay, so I could have basically up to 10 different enchantments if I kept the first at +1 (leaving room for nine more), or I could have one at +5 and then five more? Each would cost the equivalent of a +10 enchantment, but the first would only be +1 to hit and damage whereas the second would be +5 to hit and damage. Something like that?
#29 Tempest_Stormwind Jul 21, 2013 0:26:36	It's much easier to break the weapon down into enhancement equivalents. You can have a +5 Vorpal sword (say) or you could have a +5 Valorous Vaulting Collision Keen sword. Both are exactly the same cost (+10 equivalent - vorpal is +5, collsion is +2, all of the others are +1). You can also try it progressively. You find a +1 sword and want to have it enhanced. (+1 weapons cost 2000, +2 cost 8000, and +3 cost 18000, for reference). You could spend an extra 6000 to raise the sword to +2, or to add Keen, or to add Valorous. You could spend an extra 16000 instead to raise it to +3, or to add Collision, or to raise it to +2 *and* add Valorous, and so on. You could NOT add ten separate +10 enhancement bonuses to the sword, though, whihc is what i think you are saying here.
#30 babcock3030 Jul 21, 2013 3:58:50	I may have said it poorly, but I was trying to ask if a weapon has ten 'slots' for enchantments. A +1 enchantment would take up one 'slot', whereas a +5 enchantment would take up five 'slots'. But only the initial enchantment would count as the enhancement bonus for the weapon. I'll reread the rules in the DMG, but right now, the concept isn't really clicking for me.
#31 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 21, 2013 4:41:32	You don't have separate limits for each enchantment (except the +5 limit on the basic enhancement bonus), you just have one limit that applies to the total number of "slots".  It may help if you think of them as adding up to a certain weapon bonus, instead of as slots. For example, a +3 dancing speed longsword has a +3 enhancement bonus (+3 bonus), a dancing enchantment (+4 equivalent bonus), and a speed enchantment (+3 equivalent bonus).  Since that's a total of +10 for its overall bonus, it cannot be given any more enchantments that use bonus amounts; it already has the maximum for a single magical weapon. Likewise, a +4 vorpal greataxe has a +4 enhancement bonus (+4), and a vorpal enchant (+5), for a total + bonus.   So it could have its enhancement bonus raised to +5, or you could add a special ability with a +1 bonus (such as frost or ghost touch), to reach the +10 bonus limit, but you couldn't add a +2 special ability (like holy or flaming burst), nor could you give it two +1 special abilities. Of course, epic weapons can have more than 10 "slots", and there are enchantments that have a set gold piece cost, which are only limited by how much you want to spend on one weapon.
#32 babcock3030 Jul 21, 2013 6:24:06	Ah, 'enhancement' and 'enchantment' are different things. So, you have the base enhancement bonus, which contributes to your attack and damage. Then, you have the enchantment which adds special properties and effects to the weapon. And each enchantment has an equivalency to a certain enhancement bonus.  So if you have a +1 enhancement on your weapon and then a dancing enchantment, it's equivalent to a +4 plain-jane enhancement bonus with no other properties or effects? Similarly, a dancing longsword +5 would have an equivalency of +8?
#33 draco1119 Jul 21, 2013 9:15:04	They are equivalent only for price and determining things like the weapon's HP & saves. A +1 Dancing longsword is still only a +1 weapon when it comes to attack & damage bonus.
#34 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 21, 2013 10:32:53	Ah, 'enhancement' and 'enchantment' are different things. So, you have the base enhancement bonus, which contributes to your attack and damage. Then, you have the enchantment which adds special properties and effects to the weapon. And each enchantment has an equivalency to a certain enhancement bonus. Yes, they're different terms.  The enhancement bonus is really the most basic kind of magical enchantment; it directly improves the weapon's attack, damage, hardness, and hit points, instead of doing anything flashy like making the weapon burst into flame. But you've got the right idea about the equivalency, and people tend to mean just the special abilities when they talk about adding enchantments to a weapon. So if you have a +1 enhancement on your weapon and then a dancing enchantment, it's equivalent to a +4 plain-jane enhancement bonus with no other properties or effects? Similarly, a dancing longsword +5 would have an equivalency of +8? Yes.  The total bonuses are mainly used for price (as Draco says) and the limit on enchantments. They are equivalent only for price and determining things like the weapon's HP & saves. Improvements to hardness and hit points actually come only from the enhancement bonus, not the equivalent bonus from all enchantments. The weapon's saving throws (if it needs to resist an effect) use the default calculation given for all saving throw bonuses on all magic items; specifically 2 + 1/2 caster level + Wisdom (if an intelligent item).  More powerfully enchanted magic weapons do tend to have better saving throws, but only because they also tend to have a higher caster level as a magic item.
#35 daedhaed Jul 21, 2013 11:03:45	The only issue that I have with GMW is from the way I read it you only get up to +5 at CL 18. Edit: Also worth noting that Vaulting is not actually and enchantment but a specific weapon called a Halberd of Vaulting. It's a +2 Halberd. I do not know what that is equivalent to when looking to improve upon by adding Valorous and others. My guess is that it is the equivalent to a +2 weapon thus it would be equal to the cost of a +3 bonus - a +2 bonus to add valorous to it.
#36 Andarious-Rosethorn Jul 21, 2013 11:37:47	As a rule of thumb find the nearest +X equivilent (that the price is over), and then subtract that for the misc price adjustment. So if something costs 10450 the nearest equivilent is +2, leaving 2450 as misc adjustment to follow any additional enchantment cost of making that instead a +3 or better.
#37 daedhaed Jul 21, 2013 13:21:59	As a rule of thumb find the nearest +X equivilent (that the price is over), and then subtract that for the misc price adjustment. So if something costs 10450 the nearest equivilent is +2, leaving 2450 as misc adjustment to follow any additional enchantment cost of making that instead a +3 or better. Is that rule of thumb also used for max bonus? The Energy Bow says that it's a +2 composite longbow but the price range would put it at +3 with an extra 4600; does that mean that you can only add another +7 to that weapon?
#38 Andarious-Rosethorn Jul 21, 2013 17:19:34	Yes indeed that's what's outlined in MIC if I'm recalling correctly anyway.
#39 babcock3030 Jul 21, 2013 17:50:42	The only issue that I have with GMW is from the way I read it you only get up to +5 at CL 18. Edit: Also worth noting that Vaulting is not actually and enchantment but a specific weapon called a Halberd of Vaulting. It's a +2 Halberd. I do not know what that is equivalent to when looking to improve upon by adding Valorous and others. My guess is that it is the equivalent to a +2 weapon thus it would be equal to the cost of a +3 bonus - a +2 bonus to add valorous to it.  If the Halberd of Vaulting is at +2, is there a way to boost it to +5? In 4e, your most important number is your attack bonus (and Will defense). Is that not the case with 3.5? What should I be putting my resources into?
#40 Tempest_Stormwind Jul 21, 2013 18:03:50	Yes indeed that's what's outlined in MIC if I'm recalling correctly anyway. That's not what the MIC says - it doesn't talk about reverse engineering weapons like this. In fact, reverse engineering is difficult at the best of times. Here's an example using the Halberd of Vaulting (A&EG, 3.0 not 3.5). It's a +2 halberd with a Jump/charge combo ability pasted on. (The Jump ability is +30, which 3e allowed but 3.5 did not; I'll address this later.) The market price is  20,310. The price of a +2 halberd is 8310; in 3e, the price of a +30 bonus to a particular skill was (bonus ^2) * 20gp, so that's 18,000. This is already higher than the halberd's entire market price, and we haven't even got to its "double damage on a jump charge" effect yet - so we can't actually figure out how much it's worth! (Note: I used "vaulting" earlier as if it were a +1 bonus equivalent ability that was reprinted somewhere. If it was reverse engineered from that halberd, then I shouldn't have used it.)  In other news... There are two requirements for when you need epic feats to advance a weapon: one is if its total effective bonus is higher than +10, but the other is if its total price is over 200,000gp. (Some enhancements only cost gold and do not increase the effective enhancement of the weapon or armor - a DMG example is Fire Resistance (or any of the other energy resist enhancements). In fact, a suit of +1 leather armor, enhanced with Greater Fire Resistance, Greater Cold Resistance, Greater Electricity Resistance, Greater Acid Resistance, and Greater Sonic Resistance would cost over 300,000gp and would thus be an epic magic item despite an effective enhancement bonus of only +1.) In the context of the energy bow, the cost to raise a +2 weapon to +10 (equivalent) is 192,000, while the energy bow itself is 22,600. Thus, a +10 Energy Bow is already  an epic weapon by virtue of costing over 200,000 - and in fact trying to go from a +9 energy bow (176,600) to a +10 energy bow would require Craft Epic Magic Arms & Armor.
#41 Tempest_Stormwind Jul 21, 2013 18:23:05	If the Halberd of Vaulting is at +2, is there a way to boost it to +5? Yes. It's described here. In 4e, your most important number is your attack bonus (and Will defense). Is that not the case with 3.5? What should I be putting my resources into? The most important resource in 3.5, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is your ability to act (For instance, a Belt of Battle is godlike because it gives a passive initiative boost and also gives you the ability to take more actions in one round.). And as for resource dedication, it's usually taking your team's magic into account, which is something 4e often can't do (because 4e doesn't have super-long-duration buffs, as I recall). I rarely see weapons with actual enhancement bonuses beyond +3 (due to greater augment crystals); typically they get up to +5 through Greater Magic Weapon (which lasts an hour a level, so cast it and forget about it). Here's an example of something related that might interest you. Click the Dead for Nothing link in my signature. I'm playing a hexblade - arguably one of, but not the, worst classes in 3.5. I'm focused on numerically hosing the enemy, and making good use of Intimidate + the Imperious Command feat (basically, if I demoralize someone with Intimidate, they cower for a round and then are shaken for 1 round, instead of simply being shaken for 1 round. Shaken just gives a penalty on their attacks, saves, or checks; Cowering foes are unable to act). I have, many times, run into the center of enemy formations (which weakens their saves and skill checks due to my debuff auras, Dark Companion, and curses), triggered my Never Outnumbered skill trick (think of it as a free-action encounter power that says your next Intimidate check affects everyone within 10 feet of you), and roared an Intimdate check out - and instantly half of the enemy line is not a threat for an entire round. During that round we can easily dogpile on whoever they were protecting, or just rip them to shreds while they can't fight back. And this is with a weak-ass melee class.  (Caveat: Won't work on targets that are immune to fear, but will work on targets that aren't, so long as you can make the check. But there are other ways to damage an enemy's ability to act than this - I just wanted to pull out a rather simple one that I've had a lot of experience with, and one that will work on a warrior character.) Simply put, what you want to do in melee is prevent the enemy from acting. You can do this by killing them, yes, but HP scales faster than damage output in the "standard" case (this is NOT true for "uberchargers", which CJ illustrated earlier, but most non-uberchargers will find this to be true), so you will waste time whittling down HP and not impeding their actions. You'd be better off tripping the enemy (prone enemies are vulnerable to followup attacks and must stand (read: waste a move action, and provoke another attack of opportunity) if they want to do much) or using Tome of Battle maneuvers, such as the Setting Sun throws - an enemy that is no longer in position to attack must waste time to get back into position, and since Setting Sun throws work like trips, they tend to waste more time standing up as well.  Many of the other Tome maneuvers often lock down the opponent in other ways, such as Entangling Blade, the Stone Dragon stop-movement strikes, the Iron Heart dazing strike, or the Diamond Mind "can take no actions" strike. (Mages are often better at doing this (i.e. typically banishing or killing it outright with a single spell), but melee has improved stamina over extended encounters, and can do stuff like this from a lower level. (The mid levels in particular are great for this, when a good Attack-of-Opportunity based warrior can be pretty deadly but the wizards don't have enough slots for their superkiller spells to be spammed yet.) But they DO play similar games in that they should pay attention to preventing the enemy from acting. And occasionally, your DM may surprise you with something that your mage probably can't banish or kill in one spell, or you simply wish to conserve magic, or you need to attack on multiple fronts very quickly for any number of assorted reasons. THIS is when damage comes into play, not sooner. And even then, Power Attack is the main source of your damage, not your attack bonus or your base damage.) Basically, 4e is a game about optimizing damage per round. 3.5 has aspects of this, but it's much more largely a game about maximizing your abilities to act as you wish, and minimizing your opponent's ability to do the same (either denying them actions outright or forcing them to act on your terms). It's a game of opportunity management, not one of DPR calculations.
#42 babcock3030 Jul 21, 2013 23:43:19	Thanks for the explanation! So far everyone's advice has been much appreciated. As far as source books go, it looks like Tome of Battle is a must. What else do you think I should look for?
#43 piggyknowles Jul 22, 2013 6:56:57	For a melee character?  The only source that might be more important than Tome of Battle is the Magic Item Compendium.
#44 Tempest_Stormwind Jul 22, 2013 10:04:50	Emphasis on "might"; I think the Tome outperforms the MIC, but the MIC still matters. The rest of the "required" fighter-type options are scattered about other books (I.e. Shock Trooper in Complete Warrior, Robilar's Gambit in Player's Handbook 2, etc) and it's hard to pick a single standout in particular after ToB and MIC.
#45 piggyknowles Jul 22, 2013 14:41:38	Emphasis on "might"; I think the Tome outperforms the MIC, but the MIC still matters. The rest of the "required" fighter-type options are scattered about other books (I.e. Shock Trooper in Complete Warrior, Robilar's Gambit in Player's Handbook 2, etc) and it's hard to pick a single standout in particular after ToB and MIC. Yeah, I guess if I was forced to pick only one non-core book for a melee character I'd prefer core + ToB to core + MIC, but either way it would be painful.  The MIC is probably the second best thing that ever happened to mundane characters in 3.5, though.
#46 Tempest_Stormwind Jul 22, 2013 14:49:36	Emphasis on "might"; I think the Tome outperforms the MIC, but the MIC still matters. The rest of the "required" fighter-type options are scattered about other books (I.e. Shock Trooper in Complete Warrior, Robilar's Gambit in Player's Handbook 2, etc) and it's hard to pick a single standout in particular after ToB and MIC. Yeah, I guess if I was forced to pick only one non-core book for a melee character I'd prefer core + ToB to core + MIC, but either way it would be painful.  The MIC is probably the second best thing that ever happened to mundane characters in 3.5, though. Concurred. XPH, ToB, and MIC together create probably the most dynamic gameplay with the fewest possible books and minimal opportunity for brokenness. (Most of the absurd stunts you can do with those books is obvious at face value, too, which means it's easy to detect and block them from happening before they see play. It's easy to see that effects like Bestow Power, Affinity Field, and White Raven Tactics (if you count yourself as an ally) can bust things open, while it's harder to see, for instance, that the Locate City spell does more than locate cities and can be used as a nuclear bomb with the right feats and a handful of snow.) This means that newer (or more casual) groups can get a pretty fine game experience relying more or less just on common sense rather than an intricate array of system masteries (particularly if they restrict or ban the core full-casters).
#47 Tempest_Stormwind Jul 22, 2013 16:27:18	Doesn't work. Locate City is a dysfunctional spell, because it's a circle, rather than a sphere, so everyone gets sent upwards an infinitesimally tiny bit. However, Fell Drain does work, so you can still make it a WMD. Although, seriously, let's be honest; if we're going to Fell Drain a divination spell, the Wire Hanger is much more interesting. Eh, you got my point. The Wire Hanger is another of those examples where the strength is its interaction (spotted through system mastery), rather than being evident at face value, although in one case it's a worse example (because the spell in question is very high level, (slightly) open to argument, and patently quite powerful even at face value) but in another case it's a better example (because the spell needed is rather obscure - a 3e Spellbook article - and the exact combination of effects is both scattered across several sourcebooks and not immediately obvious from reading any one of the other components of the trick). For those joining us late... In my habit of explaining when CJ uses terms that most of this board might not remember, the "Wire Hanger" uses the Hindsight spell linked above (nutshell: It's similar to Scrying, but instead of moving to a different place you instead look back in time) to scry on a target before they were born (or slightly thereafter, but that loses the narrative oomph), and links it to a damage-dealing divination spell (the same basic logic behind the Locate City Bomb, except using Blistering Spell) as a kill move. Fell Drain simply adds extra Zombie Babies to the mix. You know, for style.
#48 babcock3030 Jul 22, 2013 18:50:52	'Wire Hanger'? Wow, that's really dark. XPH= Extreme Player's Handbook (y'know... for bros)?
#49 draco1119 Jul 22, 2013 19:07:56	XPH = Expanded Psionics Handbook
#50 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 23, 2013 4:09:54	XPH, ToB, and MIC together create probably the most dynamic gameplay with the fewest possible books and minimal opportunity for brokenness. (Most of the absurd stunts you can do with those books is obvious at face value, too, which means it's easy to detect and block them from happening before they see play. It's easy to see that effects like Bestow Power, Affinity Field, and White Raven Tactics (if you count yourself as an ally) can bust things open, while it's harder to see, for instance, that the Locate City spell does more than locate cities and can be used as a nuclear bomb with the right feats and a handful of snow.) This means that newer (or more casual) groups can get a pretty fine game experience relying more or less just on common sense rather than an intricate array of system masteries (particularly if they restrict or ban the core full-casters). Though, much as I love psionics, the XPH is the most disposable of the three if you're not banning core full-casters, since it largely overlaps the existing spellcasting system, unlike ToB, and doesn't offer the MIC's sheer volume. Of course, it would be a different answer if spellcasting and psionics had to compare on equal footing, instead of one being thoroughly woven through the core material, and the other being an extension. Locate City is a dysfunctional spell, because it's a circle, rather than a sphere, so everyone gets sent upwards an infinitesimally tiny bit. It actually does work, because two-dimensional objects don't have an edge in the third dimension, instead of having a three-dimensional volume that is infinitely flat but does have edges (it's not a problem for three-dimensional creatures to occupy the area, since they do have a two-dimensional component). There's also a weird Flatland effect where you've got a circle area that uses three dimensional folding to locate cities around corners in three dimensional space, leading to it effectively occupying all possible orientations and arrangements (as it searches for all possible cities) and being functionally identical to a spherical spread.  And, ironically, it performs the spread-like cornering perfectly because , as a two-dimensional shape, its shape is unaltered by bending that occurs three-dimensionally. Technically, it still pushes targets to a two-dimensional edge when behaving like a spherical spread, that edge just exists simultaneously at every possible extreme.
#51 babcock3030 Jul 23, 2013 9:15:00	How do Psionics fare compared to martial or arcane classes? In other words, are they viable as a stand alone power source or do they need to be combined to be made effective?
#52 draco1119 Jul 23, 2013 9:21:31	They're fine on their own. Psionics is essentially a powered-down version of spell casting. You'll generally find psionic classes in Tier 2-3; that excludes the soulknife (Tier 5, IIRC), lurk (same), and Divine Mind (Tier mind-blowingly horribad). Ardent, wilder, and most of the psion specializations are Tier 2; psychic warrior and the other psion specializations are tier 3 (again, IIRC).
#53 Tempest_Stormwind Jul 23, 2013 9:37:23	Also, if the Tome of Battle's Diamond Mind school interests you at all, you will love the psionic focus mechanics. Psychic Warrior / Swordsage is rather badass considering how simple it is. If Draco's 'tier' term wasn't explained before, here's the general source and broad (but not universal) consensus. www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=658...
#54 babcock3030 Jul 23, 2013 10:22:07	So can two classes in for example tier 2, when combined, jump up to tier 1? Or, if you combine a tier 1 with a tier 3, will it remain tier 1 or go down to tier 2 (or lower)?
#55 Andarious-Rosethorn Jul 23, 2013 10:36:38	The classes remain in their tier, however your build may fall down a tier or climb one with the right synergy or simply by getting enough levels of a higher tiered class. It's a lot less cut and dry with multiclassing because often you fall behind in levels, but sometimes things happen that make your class much better than it would be if you had single classed it.
#56 daedhaed Jul 23, 2013 10:43:31	That really depends on the combination and what you are trying to accomplish.
#57 Tempest_Stormwind Jul 23, 2013 12:43:37	So can two classes in for example tier 2, when combined, jump up to tier 1? Or, if you combine a tier 1 with a tier 3, will it remain tier 1 or go down to tier 2 (or lower)? That's discussed lower in the link I provided. Before I answer this, I should say that 3.5 multiclassing is NOT like 4e hybrids or any such mechanic. Instead, each individual character level, you choose what class to advance. It's rare that you end up with many different base classes together, though, since often they only support each other to a point (i.e. a warrior might - depending on his build - benefit from a couple levels of Fighter, and will almost always benefit from a single level of Barbarian (particularly if Complete Champion is on the table), but a wizard gains nothing from advancing any other base class that he couldn't get as a pure wizard.) Under standard multiclassing strategies, you pick classes that support each other and give you more bang than your existing build would get if it remained as it was. Because of this, a typical multiclass build using, say, Tier 3 / Tier 4 classes works out to about tier 3 as well, unless the dip is particularly potent for what the class does, in which case the build might go up to Tier 2. A badly done Tier 3 / Tier 4 multiclass would be Tier 4, or possibly even Tier 5.  (Note: The tiers are NOT linear! This basic logic probably will not work if you're mixing Tier 1 classes with anything else, because those classes are so damn powerful on their own and gain very, very little (if anything) from any other base classes. The basics there mostly hold at 3 and below, and loosely hold at 2, to a point. This is still approximate, as the tiering is wont to be, but you should still be aware of it.) Of course, comparing a character on a tier system for classes is a bit of a mismatch. That's why there's a different system for rating prestige classes (typically +2, +1, +0, -1, -2, but this varies depending on qualification strategies as well as the usual tier estimations), which are more inherently connected to a build than as a standalone game component.
#58 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 23, 2013 15:51:20	So can two classes in for example tier 2, when combined, jump up to tier 1? Or, if you combine a tier 1 with a tier 3, will it remain tier 1 or go down to tier 2 (or lower)? In brief, the Tier system evaluates the variety of adventuring challenges that a class can handle (flexibility/versatility), and how well it can handle them (power).  It rates classes as a whole in the same way that you might rate entire breeds of dog, so while one specific wizard character might be bad, in the same way that a specific greyhound might be slow, the Tier 1 rating given for the wizard indicates the general performance you can achieve. At the high Tiers (1 and 2) you have classes whose abilities can handle almost any problem easily, while at the lowest Tiers (5 and 6) you have classes that may struggle to manage what is supposed to be their area of adventuring expertise, and most NPC classes, which weren't designed to handle adventuring challenges in the first place. Unless the DM is mucking around with gestalt rules (a variant that combines all the abilities of two classes, to make a hybrid class) or making homebrew adjustments to the normal design of a class the Tiers of a class won't change.  It actually does work, because two-dimensional objects don't have an edge in the third dimension, instead of having a three-dimensional volume that is infinitely flat but does have edges (it's not a problem for three-dimensional creatures to occupy the area, since they do have a two-dimensional component). Yes, it does have edges, including the one on top. You don't move enough to trigger explosive spell. A circle has no three-dimensional aspect; no inside or outside in that dimension, and no edge between the two.  It has no top or bottom unless you mean across its diameter in two dimensions.  It's a circle, not an extremely flat cylindrical prism. Once you start treating a two-dimensional shape as if it had a three-dimensional volume or edge, you might as well ask why creatures aren't pushed to the (spatial) 4th-dimensional edge of a spherical area, which is presumably much closer than any of the three-dimensional ones. We seem to have very different definitions of both two-dimensional and circle. If it helps, think of a circle drawn on a piece of paper.  You can fold and bend the paper any way you like, but the circle remains a circle because its only existence is as a two-dimensional figure.  The circle itself is the shape drawn, not the smudging of ink or graphite that represents it. The complication with locate city is that it, by its own text, locates cities in three dimensions, and the only way to do that with a circle is to rotate or fold it three-dimensionally (which fortunately does not disturb its design as a 2-dimensional shape). It's part of the more general ideas that describe how things like D&D's self-contained planes can work by folding a three-dimensional space into a fourth dimension (the official explanation is that they magically teleport people when they pass one edge, presumably because explaining dimensional geometry is beyond the normal scope of D&D). EDIT: There's also the cool side-effect that the blast pushes creatures around three-dimensional corners, because two-dimensionally they're moving directly towards the nearest edge.
#59 aelryinth Jul 24, 2013 20:47:25	Oh, that's funny, and true. The blast would shoot them up the sides of houses, across, down, across the street, up the next, etc repeat, all the way to the city's walls...or to the center of the circle if it was a 'safe zone', whichever is closer, all because it has to adhere to 2-dimensional standards. LOL. ==Aelryinth
#60 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 25, 2013 4:09:52	It does also mean that part of the inevitable perimeter of dead wildlife (accompanying the light rain of dead birds) could end up deep underground.
#61 piggyknowles Jul 26, 2013 21:43:36	OK, I'm just playing devil's advocate at this point, because I actually agree with Cyclone_Joker that the standard locate city bomb doesnt work. But...... Will locate city pick up an underwater or underground city?  Will it pick up a city on a mountain?  What about a city that is floating thirty feet above the ground?
#62 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 27, 2013 4:20:54	OK, I'm just playing devil's advocate at this point, because I actually agree with Cyclone_Joker that the standard locate city bomb doesnt work. It's really an issue that exists directly with locate city, than one that specifically arises when it's made into a bomb. As a start on the 2D/3D understanding, imagine that I take a piece of paper, draw a circle on it, and fold it in half, right down the middle.  Is it still a picture of a circle? Likewise, if I take an ordinary paper map of a city and fold it in that same way, is it now a picture of a deformed city with an upper and lower side and useless for navigation, or is it still a perfectly usable map because only its two-dimensional relationships between the different parts are important? It's flat out 2-d. It doesn't go over things, it just goes through them. It is a a circle. not some super-thin circular object dropped ohn the area. The error you've made there is assuming that a two-dimensional object has to be perceived as "flat" in its third dimension, which is incorrect.  You're forcing a three-dimensional quality (flatness in the third dimension) on a two-dimensional object. As a two-dimensional object, its orientation and folding in the third dimension is irrelevant to its two-dimensional nature; it remains a circle in two-dimensions no matter what happens in the third.  If your definition of a two-dimensional figure includes a three-dimensional requirement, you're no longer describing a two-dimensional figure. Re:Slagger: And, no, it does not "have" to be 3-dimensional, because the rules say it isn't. You're, once again, confusing the rules with what you think they should be. And that 4th-dimensional argument is stupid and you know it. I'm not even going to dignify it with a serious response. You're ignoring what locate city gives in its own text; it measures the distance to a city as one would have to travel without moving through solid objects.  And it does that with a circle, because that's its area.  The circle is not three-dimensional, it simply locates objects in three dimensions using a two-dimensional area. Will locate city pick up an underwater or underground city?  Will it pick up a city on a mountain?  What about a city that is floating thirty feet above the ground?  Assuming they have no area that exactly lines up with you? No, although I'd guess one could make the argument that you could orient the circle. Not that it helps, the spell is still completely dysfunctional. You're halfway there; you've realized that you can orient the circle in the third dimension, and once you understand that it can also fold in the third dimension (while remaining an undisturbed circle in two-dimensions), you'll understand how it can trace a three-dimensional travel path, and the four-dimensional sphere reference will make more sense. Think of a typical globe of the world; you've got a 2D map wrapped around a 3D shape; normally the sphere represents the three-dimensional shape of the world, but it can be a direct representation of how a 2D world is interacting with a three-dimensional curve, or can instead serve as a representation of a fourth dimension to us 3D folks (basically leaving one dimension undescribed for the map and sphere). To a 2D person in that 2D world, the bends of the third dimension simply don't exist.  There is no up and down for them, only moving forward and back, or turning left and right; they don't see a blackness instead of the 3D sky or ground, they simply don't notice them at all.  Even on a really tiny world where a 3D person would see the ground curving down, the 2D person sees no such curve; if they head far enough in one direction, they will end up back where they started and will not understand how.  The equivalent in 3D would be for us to fly off straight into space and eventually end up landing on the other side of the Earth, never noticing our complete curve through the fourth dimension.
#63 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 27, 2013 8:49:47	The spell is a circle. Dead stop, the end. This "what if" about paper and maps doesn't matter, because it's completely irrelevant to the spell. No-one is claiming that it's not a circle; it doesn't end there, however, because the spell performs a function that tells us more about how its effect applies to that area.  The three-dimensional folding is entailed by the spell's behaviour as described within its text (without folding, a circle would be unable to establish distance to a city as travelled by navigating around objects, making a non-folding use incorrect). The paper and maps are simply an analogy to help explain how it remains a two-dimensional circle no matter how you manipulate it in the third dimension. I am stating that it  effectively has such a trait because of its interaction with Explosive spell. Explosive Spell doesn't apply any trait that alter the basic behaviour of a circle.  Its movement to the "edge" of the area is being applied appropriately to the edge of a circle; a circle has no edges in the third dimension. Because it's still interacting with three-dimensional space. Being represented within three-dimensional space doesn't cause a circle to become three-dimensional or behave like a three-dimensional object. You obviously didn't closely read the spell. If it were to "ping" multiple cities, it gives you the easiest to travel to. Quite the contrary.  That exact point is critical to its behaviour as a psuedo-sphere.  In order to be able to "ping" multiple cities, its circular area not only needs to be able to orient and fold in any direction, it must do so in order to obey the described operation of the spell. And fortunately, as a two-dimensional object with no set orientation or other described three-dimensional characteristics (apart from its point of origin, which is centred on the caster) this is its natural state. Is its circular "face" (as perceived by a three-dimensional observer) looking east/west, north/south, up/down, or some more complicated direction?  Without a given definition the answer is "yes".
#64 Tempest_Stormwind Jul 27, 2013 9:41:38	Except that really is how circles, or any other 2D figure, behaves in 3D. The behavior you're describing is appropriate not for a circle, but for an infitessimally short cylinder. I doubt the author intended it this way, where a simple radius with barrier penetration would have done the trick, but it certainly does not act as a cylinder. Setting topology aside, though, the whole point I was raising was that the nuke trick requires many sources and system mastery, while looking at, say, Affinity Field will raise alarms on its own even among newer groups.
#65 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 27, 2013 9:59:42	I doubt the author intended it this way, where a simple radius with barrier penetration would have done the trick, but it certainly does not act as a cylinder. I do agree that it's incredibly unlikely the author intended it to work this way. Though it's even less likely that they intended to make a nonfunctional spell, if we were to judge it on intent. You are simply making that crap up. I'd certainly like to have been the one who "made it up", but I'm not the first person to determine the consequences of such dimensional interactions.  I'd even directly quote a more complete description of the 4D sphere example if I could find a good link to it (it definitely made a reference to Flatland, but I don't recall it as part of that book); here I'm simply working off memory. I do, however have the advantage of having determined how it works beforehand, since I've used a variety of the LCB in my campaign.
#66 Tempest_Stormwind Jul 27, 2013 10:47:36	I'd certainly like to have been the one who "made it up", but I'm not the first person to determine the consequences of such dimensional interactions.  I'd even directly quote a more complete description of the 4D sphere example if I could find a good link to it (it definitely made a reference to Flatland, but I don't recall it as part of that book); here I'm simply working off memory. Flatland is a wonderful book, definitely, but I know I first heard about this as a kid through Carl Sagan, who might be able to explain it in a different manner. (That explanation isn't perfect: it doesn't show what happens if the 2D Flatland is curved through 3D, where the square could see "inside" some of his 2D companions but would just see the "outside" of others, depending on the curvature. Then, of course, you can go on into full-scale cosmology by wrapping Flatland back on itself, on the surface of a balloon. He discusses these points later in that particular Cosmos episode, but I don't have the full episode available at a quick search.)
#67 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 27, 2013 11:09:53	Flatland is a wonderful book, definitely, but I know I first heard about this as a kid through Carl Sagan, who might be able to explain it in a different manner. (That explanation isn't perfect: it doesn't show what happens if the 2D surface is curved through 3D, where the square could see "inside" some of his 2D companions but would just see the "outside" of others, depending on the curvature.) That also depends on the 3D terrain that's around (I assume that the 2D person is gaining 3D vision). The reason the kind of 3D curvature matters is because the curvature itself could get in the way (so he'd be seeing the 3D obstacle instead of the inside of the person behind it).  If the 3D curvature were transparent, the 2D person would almost always be able to see inside his companions to some degree, except when perfectly level with them.  Since they're 2D, he could see into them just as easily from a lower vantage point as from a higher one. For normal functioning, you'd also have to assume that he can see light moving in both 2D and 3D at the same time.  If he only had 3D vision, his companions could sometimes be completely hidden behind a 3D "hill" while they could see him perfectly thanks to the 2D light travelling "straight" to them along the curvature of that hill.
#82 babcock3030 Jul 21, 2013 23:43:19	Thanks for the explanation! So far everyone's advice has been much appreciated. As far as source books go, it looks like Tome of Battle is a must. What else do you think I should look for?
#83 piggyknowles Jul 22, 2013 6:56:57	For a melee character?  The only source that might be more important than Tome of Battle is the Magic Item Compendium.
#84 Tempest_Stormwind Jul 22, 2013 10:04:50	Emphasis on "might"; I think the Tome outperforms the MIC, but the MIC still matters. The rest of the "required" fighter-type options are scattered about other books (I.e. Shock Trooper in Complete Warrior, Robilar's Gambit in Player's Handbook 2, etc) and it's hard to pick a single standout in particular after ToB and MIC.
#85 piggyknowles Jul 22, 2013 14:41:38	Emphasis on "might"; I think the Tome outperforms the MIC, but the MIC still matters. The rest of the "required" fighter-type options are scattered about other books (I.e. Shock Trooper in Complete Warrior, Robilar's Gambit in Player's Handbook 2, etc) and it's hard to pick a single standout in particular after ToB and MIC. Yeah, I guess if I was forced to pick only one non-core book for a melee character I'd prefer core + ToB to core + MIC, but either way it would be painful.  The MIC is probably the second best thing that ever happened to mundane characters in 3.5, though.
#86 Tempest_Stormwind Jul 22, 2013 14:49:36	Emphasis on "might"; I think the Tome outperforms the MIC, but the MIC still matters. The rest of the "required" fighter-type options are scattered about other books (I.e. Shock Trooper in Complete Warrior, Robilar's Gambit in Player's Handbook 2, etc) and it's hard to pick a single standout in particular after ToB and MIC. Yeah, I guess if I was forced to pick only one non-core book for a melee character I'd prefer core + ToB to core + MIC, but either way it would be painful.  The MIC is probably the second best thing that ever happened to mundane characters in 3.5, though. Concurred. XPH, ToB, and MIC together create probably the most dynamic gameplay with the fewest possible books and minimal opportunity for brokenness. (Most of the absurd stunts you can do with those books is obvious at face value, too, which means it's easy to detect and block them from happening before they see play. It's easy to see that effects like Bestow Power, Affinity Field, and White Raven Tactics (if you count yourself as an ally) can bust things open, while it's harder to see, for instance, that the Locate City spell does more than locate cities and can be used as a nuclear bomb with the right feats and a handful of snow.) This means that newer (or more casual) groups can get a pretty fine game experience relying more or less just on common sense rather than an intricate array of system masteries (particularly if they restrict or ban the core full-casters).
#87 Tempest_Stormwind Jul 22, 2013 16:27:18	Doesn't work. Locate City is a dysfunctional spell, because it's a circle, rather than a sphere, so everyone gets sent upwards an infinitesimally tiny bit. However, Fell Drain does work, so you can still make it a WMD. Although, seriously, let's be honest; if we're going to Fell Drain a divination spell, the Wire Hanger is much more interesting. Eh, you got my point. The Wire Hanger is another of those examples where the strength is its interaction (spotted through system mastery), rather than being evident at face value, although in one case it's a worse example (because the spell in question is very high level, (slightly) open to argument, and patently quite powerful even at face value) but in another case it's a better example (because the spell needed is rather obscure - a 3e Spellbook article - and the exact combination of effects is both scattered across several sourcebooks and not immediately obvious from reading any one of the other components of the trick). For those joining us late... In my habit of explaining when CJ uses terms that most of this board might not remember, the "Wire Hanger" uses the Hindsight spell linked above (nutshell: It's similar to Scrying, but instead of moving to a different place you instead look back in time) to scry on a target before they were born (or slightly thereafter, but that loses the narrative oomph), and links it to a damage-dealing divination spell (the same basic logic behind the Locate City Bomb, except using Blistering Spell) as a kill move. Fell Drain simply adds extra Zombie Babies to the mix. You know, for style.
#88 babcock3030 Jul 22, 2013 18:50:52	'Wire Hanger'? Wow, that's really dark. XPH= Extreme Player's Handbook (y'know... for bros)?
#89 draco1119 Jul 22, 2013 19:07:56	XPH = Expanded Psionics Handbook
#90 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 23, 2013 4:09:54	XPH, ToB, and MIC together create probably the most dynamic gameplay with the fewest possible books and minimal opportunity for brokenness. (Most of the absurd stunts you can do with those books is obvious at face value, too, which means it's easy to detect and block them from happening before they see play. It's easy to see that effects like Bestow Power, Affinity Field, and White Raven Tactics (if you count yourself as an ally) can bust things open, while it's harder to see, for instance, that the Locate City spell does more than locate cities and can be used as a nuclear bomb with the right feats and a handful of snow.) This means that newer (or more casual) groups can get a pretty fine game experience relying more or less just on common sense rather than an intricate array of system masteries (particularly if they restrict or ban the core full-casters). Though, much as I love psionics, the XPH is the most disposable of the three if you're not banning core full-casters, since it largely overlaps the existing spellcasting system, unlike ToB, and doesn't offer the MIC's sheer volume. Of course, it would be a different answer if spellcasting and psionics had to compare on equal footing, instead of one being thoroughly woven through the core material, and the other being an extension. Locate City is a dysfunctional spell, because it's a circle, rather than a sphere, so everyone gets sent upwards an infinitesimally tiny bit. It actually does work, because two-dimensional objects don't have an edge in the third dimension, instead of having a three-dimensional volume that is infinitely flat but does have edges (it's not a problem for three-dimensional creatures to occupy the area, since they do have a two-dimensional component). There's also a weird Flatland effect where you've got a circle area that uses three dimensional folding to locate cities around corners in three dimensional space, leading to it effectively occupying all possible orientations and arrangements (as it searches for all possible cities) and being functionally identical to a spherical spread.  And, ironically, it performs the spread-like cornering perfectly because , as a two-dimensional shape, its shape is unaltered by bending that occurs three-dimensionally. Technically, it still pushes targets to a two-dimensional edge when behaving like a spherical spread, that edge just exists simultaneously at every possible extreme.
#91 babcock3030 Jul 23, 2013 9:15:00	How do Psionics fare compared to martial or arcane classes? In other words, are they viable as a stand alone power source or do they need to be combined to be made effective?
#92 draco1119 Jul 23, 2013 9:21:31	They're fine on their own. Psionics is essentially a powered-down version of spell casting. You'll generally find psionic classes in Tier 2-3; that excludes the soulknife (Tier 5, IIRC), lurk (same), and Divine Mind (Tier mind-blowingly horribad). Ardent, wilder, and most of the psion specializations are Tier 2; psychic warrior and the other psion specializations are tier 3 (again, IIRC).
#93 Tempest_Stormwind Jul 23, 2013 9:37:23	Also, if the Tome of Battle's Diamond Mind school interests you at all, you will love the psionic focus mechanics. Psychic Warrior / Swordsage is rather badass considering how simple it is. If Draco's 'tier' term wasn't explained before, here's the general source and broad (but not universal) consensus. www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=658...
#94 babcock3030 Jul 23, 2013 10:22:07	So can two classes in for example tier 2, when combined, jump up to tier 1? Or, if you combine a tier 1 with a tier 3, will it remain tier 1 or go down to tier 2 (or lower)?
#95 Andarious-Rosethorn Jul 23, 2013 10:36:38	The classes remain in their tier, however your build may fall down a tier or climb one with the right synergy or simply by getting enough levels of a higher tiered class. It's a lot less cut and dry with multiclassing because often you fall behind in levels, but sometimes things happen that make your class much better than it would be if you had single classed it.
#96 daedhaed Jul 23, 2013 10:43:31	That really depends on the combination and what you are trying to accomplish.
#97 Tempest_Stormwind Jul 23, 2013 12:43:37	So can two classes in for example tier 2, when combined, jump up to tier 1? Or, if you combine a tier 1 with a tier 3, will it remain tier 1 or go down to tier 2 (or lower)? That's discussed lower in the link I provided. Before I answer this, I should say that 3.5 multiclassing is NOT like 4e hybrids or any such mechanic. Instead, each individual character level, you choose what class to advance. It's rare that you end up with many different base classes together, though, since often they only support each other to a point (i.e. a warrior might - depending on his build - benefit from a couple levels of Fighter, and will almost always benefit from a single level of Barbarian (particularly if Complete Champion is on the table), but a wizard gains nothing from advancing any other base class that he couldn't get as a pure wizard.) Under standard multiclassing strategies, you pick classes that support each other and give you more bang than your existing build would get if it remained as it was. Because of this, a typical multiclass build using, say, Tier 3 / Tier 4 classes works out to about tier 3 as well, unless the dip is particularly potent for what the class does, in which case the build might go up to Tier 2. A badly done Tier 3 / Tier 4 multiclass would be Tier 4, or possibly even Tier 5.  (Note: The tiers are NOT linear! This basic logic probably will not work if you're mixing Tier 1 classes with anything else, because those classes are so damn powerful on their own and gain very, very little (if anything) from any other base classes. The basics there mostly hold at 3 and below, and loosely hold at 2, to a point. This is still approximate, as the tiering is wont to be, but you should still be aware of it.) Of course, comparing a character on a tier system for classes is a bit of a mismatch. That's why there's a different system for rating prestige classes (typically +2, +1, +0, -1, -2, but this varies depending on qualification strategies as well as the usual tier estimations), which are more inherently connected to a build than as a standalone game component.
#98 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 23, 2013 15:51:20	So can two classes in for example tier 2, when combined, jump up to tier 1? Or, if you combine a tier 1 with a tier 3, will it remain tier 1 or go down to tier 2 (or lower)? In brief, the Tier system evaluates the variety of adventuring challenges that a class can handle (flexibility/versatility), and how well it can handle them (power).  It rates classes as a whole in the same way that you might rate entire breeds of dog, so while one specific wizard character might be bad, in the same way that a specific greyhound might be slow, the Tier 1 rating given for the wizard indicates the general performance you can achieve. At the high Tiers (1 and 2) you have classes whose abilities can handle almost any problem easily, while at the lowest Tiers (5 and 6) you have classes that may struggle to manage what is supposed to be their area of adventuring expertise, and most NPC classes, which weren't designed to handle adventuring challenges in the first place. Unless the DM is mucking around with gestalt rules (a variant that combines all the abilities of two classes, to make a hybrid class) or making homebrew adjustments to the normal design of a class the Tiers of a class won't change.  It actually does work, because two-dimensional objects don't have an edge in the third dimension, instead of having a three-dimensional volume that is infinitely flat but does have edges (it's not a problem for three-dimensional creatures to occupy the area, since they do have a two-dimensional component). Yes, it does have edges, including the one on top. You don't move enough to trigger explosive spell. A circle has no three-dimensional aspect; no inside or outside in that dimension, and no edge between the two.  It has no top or bottom unless you mean across its diameter in two dimensions.  It's a circle, not an extremely flat cylindrical prism. Once you start treating a two-dimensional shape as if it had a three-dimensional volume or edge, you might as well ask why creatures aren't pushed to the (spatial) 4th-dimensional edge of a spherical area, which is presumably much closer than any of the three-dimensional ones. We seem to have very different definitions of both two-dimensional and circle. If it helps, think of a circle drawn on a piece of paper.  You can fold and bend the paper any way you like, but the circle remains a circle because its only existence is as a two-dimensional figure.  The circle itself is the shape drawn, not the smudging of ink or graphite that represents it. The complication with locate city is that it, by its own text, locates cities in three dimensions, and the only way to do that with a circle is to rotate or fold it three-dimensionally (which fortunately does not disturb its design as a 2-dimensional shape). It's part of the more general ideas that describe how things like D&D's self-contained planes can work by folding a three-dimensional space into a fourth dimension (the official explanation is that they magically teleport people when they pass one edge, presumably because explaining dimensional geometry is beyond the normal scope of D&D). EDIT: There's also the cool side-effect that the blast pushes creatures around three-dimensional corners, because two-dimensionally they're moving directly towards the nearest edge.
#99 aelryinth Jul 24, 2013 20:47:25	Oh, that's funny, and true. The blast would shoot them up the sides of houses, across, down, across the street, up the next, etc repeat, all the way to the city's walls...or to the center of the circle if it was a 'safe zone', whichever is closer, all because it has to adhere to 2-dimensional standards. LOL. ==Aelryinth
#100 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 25, 2013 4:09:52	It does also mean that part of the inevitable perimeter of dead wildlife (accompanying the light rain of dead birds) could end up deep underground.
#101 piggyknowles Jul 26, 2013 21:43:36	OK, I'm just playing devil's advocate at this point, because I actually agree with Cyclone_Joker that the standard locate city bomb doesnt work. But...... Will locate city pick up an underwater or underground city?  Will it pick up a city on a mountain?  What about a city that is floating thirty feet above the ground?
#102 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 27, 2013 4:20:54	OK, I'm just playing devil's advocate at this point, because I actually agree with Cyclone_Joker that the standard locate city bomb doesnt work. It's really an issue that exists directly with locate city, than one that specifically arises when it's made into a bomb. As a start on the 2D/3D understanding, imagine that I take a piece of paper, draw a circle on it, and fold it in half, right down the middle.  Is it still a picture of a circle? Likewise, if I take an ordinary paper map of a city and fold it in that same way, is it now a picture of a deformed city with an upper and lower side and useless for navigation, or is it still a perfectly usable map because only its two-dimensional relationships between the different parts are important? It's flat out 2-d. It doesn't go over things, it just goes through them. It is a a circle. not some super-thin circular object dropped ohn the area. The error you've made there is assuming that a two-dimensional object has to be perceived as "flat" in its third dimension, which is incorrect.  You're forcing a three-dimensional quality (flatness in the third dimension) on a two-dimensional object. As a two-dimensional object, its orientation and folding in the third dimension is irrelevant to its two-dimensional nature; it remains a circle in two-dimensions no matter what happens in the third.  If your definition of a two-dimensional figure includes a three-dimensional requirement, you're no longer describing a two-dimensional figure. Re:Slagger: And, no, it does not "have" to be 3-dimensional, because the rules say it isn't. You're, once again, confusing the rules with what you think they should be. And that 4th-dimensional argument is stupid and you know it. I'm not even going to dignify it with a serious response. You're ignoring what locate city gives in its own text; it measures the distance to a city as one would have to travel without moving through solid objects.  And it does that with a circle, because that's its area.  The circle is not three-dimensional, it simply locates objects in three dimensions using a two-dimensional area. Will locate city pick up an underwater or underground city?  Will it pick up a city on a mountain?  What about a city that is floating thirty feet above the ground?  Assuming they have no area that exactly lines up with you? No, although I'd guess one could make the argument that you could orient the circle. Not that it helps, the spell is still completely dysfunctional. You're halfway there; you've realized that you can orient the circle in the third dimension, and once you understand that it can also fold in the third dimension (while remaining an undisturbed circle in two-dimensions), you'll understand how it can trace a three-dimensional travel path, and the four-dimensional sphere reference will make more sense. Think of a typical globe of the world; you've got a 2D map wrapped around a 3D shape; normally the sphere represents the three-dimensional shape of the world, but it can be a direct representation of how a 2D world is interacting with a three-dimensional curve, or can instead serve as a representation of a fourth dimension to us 3D folks (basically leaving one dimension undescribed for the map and sphere). To a 2D person in that 2D world, the bends of the third dimension simply don't exist.  There is no up and down for them, only moving forward and back, or turning left and right; they don't see a blackness instead of the 3D sky or ground, they simply don't notice them at all.  Even on a really tiny world where a 3D person would see the ground curving down, the 2D person sees no such curve; if they head far enough in one direction, they will end up back where they started and will not understand how.  The equivalent in 3D would be for us to fly off straight into space and eventually end up landing on the other side of the Earth, never noticing our complete curve through the fourth dimension.
#103 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 27, 2013 8:49:47	The spell is a circle. Dead stop, the end. This "what if" about paper and maps doesn't matter, because it's completely irrelevant to the spell. No-one is claiming that it's not a circle; it doesn't end there, however, because the spell performs a function that tells us more about how its effect applies to that area.  The three-dimensional folding is entailed by the spell's behaviour as described within its text (without folding, a circle would be unable to establish distance to a city as travelled by navigating around objects, making a non-folding use incorrect). The paper and maps are simply an analogy to help explain how it remains a two-dimensional circle no matter how you manipulate it in the third dimension. I am stating that it  effectively has such a trait because of its interaction with Explosive spell. Explosive Spell doesn't apply any trait that alter the basic behaviour of a circle.  Its movement to the "edge" of the area is being applied appropriately to the edge of a circle; a circle has no edges in the third dimension. Because it's still interacting with three-dimensional space. Being represented within three-dimensional space doesn't cause a circle to become three-dimensional or behave like a three-dimensional object. You obviously didn't closely read the spell. If it were to "ping" multiple cities, it gives you the easiest to travel to. Quite the contrary.  That exact point is critical to its behaviour as a psuedo-sphere.  In order to be able to "ping" multiple cities, its circular area not only needs to be able to orient and fold in any direction, it must do so in order to obey the described operation of the spell. And fortunately, as a two-dimensional object with no set orientation or other described three-dimensional characteristics (apart from its point of origin, which is centred on the caster) this is its natural state. Is its circular "face" (as perceived by a three-dimensional observer) looking east/west, north/south, up/down, or some more complicated direction?  Without a given definition the answer is "yes".
#104 Tempest_Stormwind Jul 27, 2013 9:41:38	Except that really is how circles, or any other 2D figure, behaves in 3D. The behavior you're describing is appropriate not for a circle, but for an infitessimally short cylinder. I doubt the author intended it this way, where a simple radius with barrier penetration would have done the trick, but it certainly does not act as a cylinder. Setting topology aside, though, the whole point I was raising was that the nuke trick requires many sources and system mastery, while looking at, say, Affinity Field will raise alarms on its own even among newer groups.
#105 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 27, 2013 9:59:42	I doubt the author intended it this way, where a simple radius with barrier penetration would have done the trick, but it certainly does not act as a cylinder. I do agree that it's incredibly unlikely the author intended it to work this way. Though it's even less likely that they intended to make a nonfunctional spell, if we were to judge it on intent. You are simply making that crap up. I'd certainly like to have been the one who "made it up", but I'm not the first person to determine the consequences of such dimensional interactions.  I'd even directly quote a more complete description of the 4D sphere example if I could find a good link to it (it definitely made a reference to Flatland, but I don't recall it as part of that book); here I'm simply working off memory. I do, however have the advantage of having determined how it works beforehand, since I've used a variety of the LCB in my campaign.
#106 Tempest_Stormwind Jul 27, 2013 10:47:36	I'd certainly like to have been the one who "made it up", but I'm not the first person to determine the consequences of such dimensional interactions.  I'd even directly quote a more complete description of the 4D sphere example if I could find a good link to it (it definitely made a reference to Flatland, but I don't recall it as part of that book); here I'm simply working off memory. Flatland is a wonderful book, definitely, but I know I first heard about this as a kid through Carl Sagan, who might be able to explain it in a different manner. (That explanation isn't perfect: it doesn't show what happens if the 2D Flatland is curved through 3D, where the square could see "inside" some of his 2D companions but would just see the "outside" of others, depending on the curvature. Then, of course, you can go on into full-scale cosmology by wrapping Flatland back on itself, on the surface of a balloon. He discusses these points later in that particular Cosmos episode, but I don't have the full episode available at a quick search.)
#107 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 27, 2013 11:09:53	Flatland is a wonderful book, definitely, but I know I first heard about this as a kid through Carl Sagan, who might be able to explain it in a different manner. (That explanation isn't perfect: it doesn't show what happens if the 2D surface is curved through 3D, where the square could see "inside" some of his 2D companions but would just see the "outside" of others, depending on the curvature.) That also depends on the 3D terrain that's around (I assume that the 2D person is gaining 3D vision). The reason the kind of 3D curvature matters is because the curvature itself could get in the way (so he'd be seeing the 3D obstacle instead of the inside of the person behind it).  If the 3D curvature were transparent, the 2D person would almost always be able to see inside his companions to some degree, except when perfectly level with them.  Since they're 2D, he could see into them just as easily from a lower vantage point as from a higher one. For normal functioning, you'd also have to assume that he can see light moving in both 2D and 3D at the same time.  If he only had 3D vision, his companions could sometimes be completely hidden behind a 3D "hill" while they could see him perfectly thanks to the 2D light travelling "straight" to them along the curvature of that hill.