I have gotten her to lighten up on issues like nerfing Powerful build (She didn't want to give it the +4 to bull rush and grapple, which would have ruined my build since I rely on Bull rushing to knock enemies around and cause havoc in combat for my allies to finish off). She then decided to give EVERY ENEMY high ranks in tumble to completely negate my field control and pratically gank the entire party (whom I was protecting with the Knockback, Rampaging Bullrush combo) from around me. I actually about quit when she gave some skeleton-like fighters (I guess these ones had an Int score of 6 or 10) tumble.
We've also had a several month argument over the Ring of Sustanance, and ocean tattoo, and the application of power they have. She wanted to argue the use of it in an economical system (which D&D is full of flaws and loopholes on that aspect.) and how it could increase productivity of a farmer by 50%. I proved, based on the monthly income of a pesant that it would take a stupid long time for 1 ring to pay off for a farmer, and that includes living to well over 70 without getting sick once. Now she's playing it with "It's a lost magical art that has to be found and you will only find them in random dungeons". For the record: I still oppose this rule, but she loves to quote Gygax and Rule 0 on me, over and over.
We've also had arguments over alignment and how heavily she was weighting my characters lack of desire to break laws in the town as being "Lawful" only because I don't want to spend my life in jail (Chaotic Good, not Chaotic Retard)
I have many more examples, but I think I paint a good picture with that, there.
I'm into the idea of building custom magic items. I like the idea that some of my stuff isn't pre-made in the book. One of the items I want to create is a Ring of Cure Light Wounds. According to the book, I can do a Command Word Cure Light wounds ring that would cure 1d8+1 HP as many times as I want. In combat this item would not be a pratical effect since AoO and 1d8+1 is not much HP at 10th level. I looked at the item as a nice way to just heal the party post-combat and prevent us from using up a ton of resources each encounter on healing. This would allow us to adventure more and save money on the purchase of better gear. As it stands: We have spent a large sum of our resources on wands, potions, and spell slots just to heal party members (I have over 140HP, it takes a bit). Her argument is that it would be used in excess in wars to keep their soldiers alive and wars would drastically change. My view on this whole thing is "So what? Are these NPC's plot critical? Or are they PC's you're doing this with? If not, then all we have here is useless flavor text in an already pre-determined world. I don't need to know or care the details of a war, just that it happened and someone won!"
So, now I ask you all: Am I wrong to ask for an item like this? I don't see it as "Brokenly over-powerful" I just see it as a means to save the party a lot of money and time, instead of resting after every major encounter. I also see it as a way she can add more encounters in the game and an opertunity to give us suspense by limiting the rounds we have before another group attacked us because of [inset reason they're responding to the fight here]. The fact that it will not heal us all that much means it will not void the usefulness of Cure Serious or Cure Critical wands in combat, or even the spells of that, but would save us a HORDE of charges out of combat which means I might actually AFFORD a second enchantment on my weapon!
You do not mix well, thus the arguments.
It's her game. You are being honored for participating in it. Yet you compain about "Gygaxing, and Rule 0"
If fact, if you don't like her rulings, and you don't seem to like a lot of them, such to the point of coming here to complain and find support again the "Iron Fist".
Why do you persist in playing, when it is patently obvious you will not submit to her DMship, and you want her to run a game your way, not her way?
Accept her rulings, or run your own game, since you are coming at her story from a way different, and not seemingly compatible direction.
Best of luck.
And I don't want her to run it "My way" I want her to relax on the reins and allow for us to have a little more fun with our items. A lot of what she is doing is a "Chose your own adventure" and not working with us to make a story. She seems to have everything planned out down to the economic system of the town and my ideas on how to optimize the party's potential cause her to scream frantically and slam rule 0 in front of me.
I finally got a RoS after nulling her argument. And all it has achieved is that my Barbarian can now offer a second spot and listen check during watches to prevent ambushes and we're spending a little less on rations (I've also used my survival to further add to meals to save more money when we break for camp).
From here, I see that you are not wrong, nor is she. Your style is a type of combat efficiency. Hers is a type of storytelling-History.
You do not mix well, thus the arguments.
It's her game. You are being honored for participating in it. Yet you compain about "Gygaxing, and Rule 0"
If fact, if you don't like her rulings, and you don't seem to like a lot of them, such to the point of coming here to complain and find support again the "Iron Fist".
Why do you persist in playing, when it is patently obvious you will not submit to her DMship, and you want her to run a game your way, not her way?
Accept her rulings, or run your own game, since you are coming at her story from a way different, and not seemingly compatible direction.
Best of luck.
Actually no. This is not a conflict of game styles. It's pure GM douchery. If EVERY encounter has the correct skills, feats, magic items to thwart a players build it's cheating. Pure and simple.
From here, I see that you are not wrong, nor is she. Your style is a type of combat efficiency. Hers is a type of storytelling-History.
You do not mix well, thus the arguments.
It's her game. You are being honored for participating in it. Yet you compain about "Gygaxing, and Rule 0"
If fact, if you don't like her rulings, and you don't seem to like a lot of them, such to the point of coming here to complain and find support again the "Iron Fist".
Why do you persist in playing, when it is patently obvious you will not submit to her DMship, and you want her to run a game your way, not her way?
Accept her rulings, or run your own game, since you are coming at her story from a way different, and not seemingly compatible direction.
Best of luck.
Actually no. This is not a conflict of game styles. It's pure GM douchery. If EVERY encounter has the correct skills, feats, magic items to thwart a players build it's cheating. Pure and simple.
But Ryndar! He should feel honored, NAY, privelaged to be part of her game! I know you'll hear things like "shared story" or "positive gaming experience", but these are new age hipster tomfoolery. D&D should be an arduous chore and soul sapping experience.
Kidding aside, yeah, it sounds like you have a DM who doesn't quite get it. She tries to be "realistic", so naturally, tumbling skeletons. What is her problem?
I've tried to quit a few times. Once over the tumble checks on every encounter (We're talking fighters, mages, and undead using it) and a second time over alignment nit-picking. It ended up in a large drama war with my roommate (mutual friend) getting involved in wearing me down into playing again (Mostly, I suspect because everyone refuses to play anything remotly combat-centered and I end up taking AND DPSing while everyone else looks for ways to add a +2 skill to their necromantic research or knowledge obscurity skill). I do have fun in the game, when I'm allowed to be creative in situations.
The thing is maybe she as balanced combat for the non combat centered characters...and here you go throwing it for a loop. Ask her if she takes into account the others cambat abilities when designing adventures...if so then your character is throwing it for a major loop. Her reactions is bad....but work with her.
As for the alignment I find you are right in this...but it is her game world...so what she says go. Ask her what alignment she thinks your character is playing and just change it to that.
I don't get the thing over the Ring of Sustance and the ocean tattoo and farmers thing though...can you explain more?
Again, I posit that this is a conflict of styles.
You seem to want players first, she seems to want DM and DM's world first. Are the other players who have rare, obsure skill sets complaining?
You asserted yourself to your friend that you wanted to leave, because of these problems. Yet you get the drama, and get dragged back.
(Fixed) RyndarLocke Wrote:
If EVERY encounter has the correct skills, feats, magic items to thwart a players build it's cheating. Pure and simple.
Not every game is about player's builds. And if every encounter was thwarted, why do other players want to remain, and even want to drag 5m4llP0X Back to it?
And I'm at a loss to understand if players are being put upon, frustrated, and the DM is so, so new-agey, old-schooley, Iron-fisted, BAD, then Ahem, why not Leave. Which I what I'm saying.
If she's a bad DM, she's not gonna get fixed anytime soon. If she's good, it's a fun game.
It's up to the OP to decide to stay and tough it out, or leave / found a better game, with the special magic elements he desires for iproved combat and efficiency.
I've tried to quit a few times. Once over the tumble checks on every encounter (We're talking fighters, mages, and undead using it) and a second time over alignment nit-picking. It ended up in a large drama war with my roommate (mutual friend) getting involved in wearing me down into playing again (Mostly, I suspect because everyone refuses to play anything remotly combat-centered and I end up taking AND DPSing while everyone else looks for ways to add a +2 skill to their necromantic research or knowledge obscurity skill). I do have fun in the game, when I'm allowed to be creative in situations.
The thing is maybe she as balanced combat for the non combat centered characters...and here you go throwing it for a loop. Ask her if she takes into account the others cambat abilities when designing adventures...if so then your character is throwing it for a major loop. Her reactions is bad....but work with her.
As for the alignment I find you are right in this...but it is her game world...so what she says go. Ask her what alignment she thinks your character is playing and just change it to that.
I don't get the thing over the Ring of Sustance and the ocean tattoo and farmers thing though...can you explain more?
I guess I should explain more.
We have a Necromancer/Cleric/True Necromancer (3/3/4) that will drop summons into combat for flank bonuses and additional AoO's. She's also house ruled that Necromancy is not evil and the class True Necromancer can be played by a good-aligned character (Even with the zone of desicration they get). We have a Druid/Wizard (NPC, don't know the levels) that will cast splinterbolt to all hell and back and do ok in combat. There's also a bard1/wizard?/bunch of other stuff that is a focused skill build and uses Fire Burst Reserve feats as a primary source of combat. Then there's this cracked-out Dragon Shaman she's altered to give Monk damage and flurry progression along with Rogue sneak attack and skills at the cost of breathweapon and some other very minor things because the player does not like to multi-class. And Finally there's the scout3/ranger2/highland5 stalker I helped build to be both effective in combat (Thank you favored enemy construct and undead with Swift Hunter feat) and in other applications.
We have some combat potential, but not much. I did not design my character to be powerful in combat, in any way. I actually made it to support the party in combat. His entire build works around ground-control for party AoO, chaos in the battle field, and more interesting stratagy. (Goliath Barbarian 2/Fighter 4/Gwyn 4) The ONE thing he is built for she was cicrumventing on every combat. (Hell she even ruled that I could not use my Over-sized Duom within the 15 foot band until I took Exotic Weapon Proficiency for it, even though the feat states that I could with an unfamiliarity penalty)
I have to disagree with the "It's her game world. You need to deal with her rules" attitude. This game is supposed to be fun for all, not a pissing contest over small details that will ruin a character progression.
As for the RoS and ocean tattoo: She once house ruled that she would not allow them in game because they break the economic system of D&D. If a kingdom gave it to their peasants they could tend to crops and work on various tasks 20 hours of the day and make 50 to 75% more money then normal. It would also allow an army to march 20 hours non-stop and get to places faster, and some other things I stopped listening to because it was just nit-picking BS. So, I got bored and looked up the latitude where the earth gets the most sunlight in a year, knowing full well farmers in the middle-ages could not work in the dark, calculated their wages based on a 10 hour day then multiplied it based on the extended day they could now do, and factored in the estimated cost of annual food. I then worked all this out and found it'd take 74 years of no profits to pay off that ring for each farmer. I then took the cost of food a farmer would save by not eating, and calculated that and found it'd NEVER pay for itself if given to soldiers to save on food costs.
She's now saying it is a "lost magic" that no one can reproduce but the rings still exist in the world.
She seems to have everything planned out down to the economic system of the town and my ideas on how to optimize the party's potential cause her to scream frantically and slam rule 0 in front of me.
Again, I posit that this is a conflict of styles.
You seem to want players first, she seems to want DM and DM's world first. Are the other players who have rare, obsure skill sets complaining?
You asserted yourself to your friend that you wanted to leave, because of these problems. Yet you get the drama, and get dragged back.
(Fixed) RyndarLocke Wrote:
If EVERY encounter has the correct skills, feats, magic items to thwart a players build it's cheating. Pure and simple.
Not every game is about player's builds. And if every encounter was thwarted, why do other players want to remain, and even want to drag 5m4llP0X Back to it?
And I'm at a loss to understand if players are being put upon, frustrated, and the DM is so, so new-agey, old-schooley, Iron-fisted, BAD, then Ahem, why not Leave. Which I what I'm saying.
If she's a bad DM, she's not gonna get fixed anytime soon. If she's good, it's a fun game.
It's up to the OP to decide to stay and tough it out, or leave / found a better game, with the special magic elements he desires for iproved combat and efficiency.
Others have complained. Her girlfriend actually stopped sleeping with her (For a while) because of some of her actions as a way of telling her to calm the hell down. My roommate chewed her out, once, over a conversation we had via IM she sent him about the alignment issues because she was acting very aggressive and not listening to reason. We've had entire game sessions where everyone said they'd stop playing if she kept giving everything a tumble check because it entirely kills what I do. She is willing to back off, but it takes a LOT of teeth pulling to do so.
Now, she is a friend. Cool as all hell to hang out with. I do like her as a person. And as a player in a Vampire game I ran she was awesome.
They want to drag me back into it for a few reasons: 1) I'm the most adept at combat. 2) I'm very involved in the main story 3) My character offers a great deal of humor and insight on situations. I also tend to bring a lot of control and focus to the parties actions. 4) We're also all friends and we enjoy playing with one another.
I don't mind it when she presents me with combat challenges. I actually enjoy that. I do dislike it when I am entirely made useless because she wants to find every way to shut me down (Dwarf Warebear that tumbled past my threatened space!!).
I do understand why a Use Activated (On swing) True Strike weapon is broken, but I'd never ask for such an item.
I guess we're getting a little off-track. My big question comes down to: The custom ring of Cure Light Wounds. Not over-powered? Or am I just not seeing the full potential I can do with it?
I do understand why a Use Activated (On swing) True Strike weapon is broken, but I'd never ask for such an item.
A Ring of Functionally Infinite Cure Light Wounds is pretty broken, yes. It means you'll be at full hit points every battle without expending a single resource, be it spell slots or item charges or money (aka potions/scrolls), every battle, all the time unless the DM interrupts you while you're using it. It's significantly better than a Ring of Regeneration, which only heals damage taken while the ring is being worn.
I guess we're getting a little off-track. My big question comes down to: The custom ring of Cure Light Wounds. Not over-powered? Or am I just not seeing the full potential I can do with it?
I do understand why a Use Activated (On swing) True Strike weapon is broken, but I'd never ask for such an item.
The item pricing guidelines are not item creation rules. They are a secondary measure of figuring out how much an item could cost. The DMG explictly states that your first method for determing an item's price is to compare it to similiar items first. An item's function is the ultimate factor in determing its cost.
A ring of infinite CLW is broken for the reasons Salla mentioned. If you want more healing without spending consumable resources, investing in some Belts of Healing is probably the simplest solution (but keep in mind that they're debatably broken as well). And I assume that your Dragon Shaman has Healing Aura as well.
I guess we're getting a little off-track. My big question comes down to: The custom ring of Cure Light Wounds. Not over-powered? Or am I just not seeing the full potential I can do with it?
I do understand why a Use Activated (On swing) True Strike weapon is broken, but I'd never ask for such an item.
A Ring of Functionally Infinite Cure Light Wounds is pretty broken, yes. It means you'll be at full hit points every battle without expending a single resource, be it spell slots or item charges or money (aka potions/scrolls), every battle, all the time unless the DM interrupts you while you're using it. It's significantly better than a Ring of Regeneration, which only heals damage taken while the ring is being worn.
It isn't my fault that the pre-fab items in the books are seriously weak. And what is wrong with the idea of saving money and much-needed spells between encounters? Is it wrong to want to conserve resources for major battles? Or to even want to purchase items so that you can better handle larger battles? I happen to like going against large groups of ogres, trolls and giants. I just dislike costing out how much more money I lost as opposed to goblin hunting.
I guess we're getting a little off-track. My big question comes down to: The custom ring of Cure Light Wounds. Not over-powered? Or am I just not seeing the full potential I can do with it?
I do understand why a Use Activated (On swing) True Strike weapon is broken, but I'd never ask for such an item.
The item pricing guidelines are not item creation rules. They are a secondary measure of figuring out how much an item could cost. The DMG explictly states that your first method for determing an item's price is to compare it to similiar items first. An item's function is the ultimate factor in determing its cost.
A ring of infinite CLW is broken for the reasons Salla mentioned. If you want more healing without spending consumable resources, investing in some Belts of Healing is probably the simplest solution (but keep in mind that they're debatably broken as well). And I assume that your Dragon Shaman has Healing Aura as well.
The dragon Shaman does not get auras or breath weapons. That was some of the things it lost in order to gain the monk damage AND flurry AND the rogue-progression sneak attack AND the 6+int skills a level while keeping 1d8 HD and 3/4 BAB.
It isn't my fault that the pre-fab items in the books are seriously weak. And what is wrong with the idea of saving money and much-needed spells between encounters? Is it wrong to want to conserve resources for major battles? Or to even want to purchase items so that you can better handle larger battles? I happen to like going against large groups of ogres, trolls and giants. I just dislike costing out how much more money I lost as opposed to goblin hunting.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to save resources. Regardless, healing was never intended to be that easy to have access to. At the very least, a Ring of Infinite CLW would be a high level or epic item because its free healing for everyone forever.
And honestly, wands of CLW are cheap. But they should normally be supplementing your healing, not be the primary source. And it seems that your party is lacking in healing abilities. You might want to instead look towards defensive and mobility items to prevent damage instead. Damage you never take is effectively the same as it being healed.
Protip: Wands of Lesser Vigor heal more HP per charge than wands of CLW. With a caster level of 1, CLW heals 5.5hp on average (max 9), while LV heals 11hp over the course of 11 rounds. For out of combat healing, the latter is superior.
The dragon Shaman does not get auras or breath weapons. That was some of the things it lost in order to gain the monk damage AND flurry AND the rogue-progression sneak attack AND the 6+int skills a level while keeping 1d8 HD and 3/4 BAB.
Nani? Auras and dragon breath are what make a Dragon Shaman a Dragon Shaman. Your fellow PC might have some draconic aspects, but he's no Dragon Shaman.
It isn't my fault that the pre-fab items in the books are seriously weak. And what is wrong with the idea of saving money and much-needed spells between encounters? Is it wrong to want to conserve resources for major battles? Or to even want to purchase items so that you can better handle larger battles? I happen to like going against large groups of ogres, trolls and giants. I just dislike costing out how much more money I lost as opposed to goblin hunting.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to save resources. Regardless, healing was never intended to be that easy to have access to. At the very least, a Ring of Infinite CLW would be a high level or epic item because its free healing for everyone forever.
And honestly, wands of CLW are cheap. But they should normally be supplementing your healing, not be the primary source. And it seems that your party is lacking in healing abilities. You might want to instead look towards defensive and mobility items to prevent damage instead. Damage you never take is effectively the same as it being healed.
Protip: Wands of Lesser Vigor heal more HP per charge than wands of CLW. With a caster level of 1, CLW heals 5.5hp on average (max 9), while LV heals 11hp over the course of 11 rounds. For out of combat healing, the latter is superior.The dragon Shaman does not get auras or breath weapons. That was some of the things it lost in order to gain the monk damage AND flurry AND the rogue-progression sneak attack AND the 6+int skills a level while keeping 1d8 HD and 3/4 BAB.
Auras and dragon breath are what make a Dragon Shaman a Dragon Shaman. Your fellow PC might have some draconic aspects, but he's no Dragon Shaman.
Cost of creating a Command Word Cure Light Wounds Ring:
Command word Spell level × caster level × 1,800 gp
So, 1x1x1800gp. I'm looking at 1800gp. That's not epic level, that's second level.
They used the base Dragon Shaman class and still call it a Dragon Shaman. She also wants to call this balanced because it does not multi-class (I can rant about her not allowing me to play a new character that takes advantage of Primeval while allowing this SEVERELY crack-headed house created character). I, honestly, think it's being allowed because the player hates combat in games and has made this character as useless as possible in combat (skill feats over monk combat feats and a 13 strength with a 12 con while having a 18 in both Int and cha).
Also: because of my HP and DR 2 I'm the party tank. Having over 140HP by level 10 pretty much means cure light or vigor is going to take a LOT of charges. We've been forced to buy cure mod and critical wands to save charges both in combat and out.
The whole ring...and tattoo thing. She have every right to do so. Her reasons are completely wrong as you found out, but her in game thinking is perfectly acceptable. Magic can be lost. But is it that big of a deal that you can't get one made? Heck have the skill build Bardic knowlkedge check or some such thing and go adventure for it...Personaly I would get a little tick if a player questioned why they couldn't find something...came back to me with alot of calcucation to prove me wrong...when you could have just gone looking for it in game.
Though I thought the Ocean tattoo you needed levels in Tattoo Monk?
She does not have the right to do this because it is a basic item that is in the book. At this point, it'd be like saying the base class "Fighter" is not allowed because the feats make it "too powerful". It does not add to the game to cripple and limit the players, it makes for a very boring story.
If I wanted to emerse myself into something that eliminated my options or actions I'd imagine myself as one of the characters in a book that I'm reading.
And yes, I was actually thinking of scrapping my character to get the tattoo monk because I wanted to help out with spot checks and listen checks at night (she has attacked us many times when we broke for camp, I didn't like the idea that I was the ONLY character with ranks in Spot and listen and I had to sleep). That, seriously, is the extent to which I wish to use these abilities and items. I dislike having my head lopped off while I snore away because the mage, bard (skill monkey), druid, and "dragon shaman" refuse to pick up ranks in spot or listen.
Cost of creating a Command Word Cure Light Wounds Ring:
Command word Spell level × caster level × 1,800 gp
So, 1x1x1800gp. I'm looking at 1800gp. That's not epic level, that's second level.
And again, the item pricing guidelines are not item creation rules, and were not intended, nor are very good good at, determining balance. Again, I say that the price of an item depends on the actual effect. And again, your first method of pricing an item is to compare it to other similiar.
Item Pricing Guidelines are not Item Creation Rules
Pricing Guidlines are not Creation Rules
Guidelines are not Rules.
Lets compare your proposed ring to a Ring of Regeneration (thankyou Salla). The Ring of Regeneration has a CL of 15 can cost 90,000. With it, you can heal 1hp per level per hour. Let's assume you're level 20. That's 480hp of healing spread throughout 24hrs. The ring can only heal one creature per hour interation since the creature has to where it for at least an hour before it can befit. And only damage incured while wearing the ring can be healed by the ring, so you can't pass it arround to other members to help them heal faster. And the high caster level means such an item will not be available until late-game unless the DM is generous with treasure.
With a Ring of Infinite CLW, you can heal an average of 5.5 HP per round. That's 55hp per minute, 3300HP per hour, 79,200 per day. That healing can be spread out as needed to any and all party members. Even for just a single hour, you heal more HP than what most parties have combined.
And you think all that should be available to low level adventurers for the low, low price of 1,800gp? No. Just no.
You would probably benefit from reading the item-related Rules of the Game articles achived on the main site. IIRC, they cover pricing items, including the mythical Ring of True Striking, which would apply to this situation as well.
They used the base Dragon Shaman class and still call it a Dragon Shaman. She also wants to call this balanced because it does not multi-class (I can rant about her not allowing me to play a new character that takes advantage of Primeval while allowing this SEVERELY crack-headed house created character). I, honestly, think it's being allowed because the player hates combat in games and has made this character as useless as possible in combat (skill feats over monk combat feats and a 13 strength with a 12 con while having a 18 in both Int and cha).
One of those kind of players, eh?
It sounds like that player would be happier playing a support class, and your party would probably be all the better for it. A straight-leveled bard or cleric, for example, would add some significant healing and support spells. It certainly sounds like your party could use more support. A wizard wouldn't be able to add much healing, but the utility and damage mitigation it would bring would be a boon. And with reserve feats, a primary spellcaster can still bring their A game each encounter without having to invest much into the combat role.
Or be a druid. Nuff said.
Also: because of my HP and DR 2 I'm the party tank. Having over 140HP by level 10 pretty much means cure light or vigor is going to take a LOT of charges. We've been forced to buy cure mod and critical wands to save charges both in combat and out.
Healing during combat is normally a trap option, and the math has been done many times to demonstrate this. Typically, you take far less damage by using buffs to negate damage completely and ending an encounter quickly with a strong offense than playing damage control. The difference between the amount of damage a Cure X spell can heal and the damage a creature can deal to you is very often small at best. You only want to heal during an encounter if its absolutely neccesary. Smart tactics and preventative measures are the best cures (pun intended).
On top of that, cure wands higher than CLW are increasing less economical. HP for GP, you're far better off buying multiple WoCLW than investing in higher level wands. Maybe keep a few WoCSW for in-combat emergancies, but only for that.
You should also take a look at the Touch of Healing reserve feat for your party's cleric. This Complete Champion feat basically gives you a single target version of the Dragon Shaman's healing aura. Or you could just multiclass into (original recipe) Dragon Shaman for a level.
I also see the math on the healing, but why does it matter? Why do I have to spend excessive amounts of my own money to purchase these damn things when it is better spent on other items? And don't say I don't have to because that is going to kill the party.
The necromancer doesn't have cure spells. All the spells he has are inflict only (GM ruling!). He can use wands, or scrolls, but cannot cast the spell.
Also: I'm not really interested in house rules, forum or otherwise. Thanks, though.
also, gloves of use activated cure minor wounds are cheaper... "healing backrub gloves"
We did speak with her. It took me nearly quitting and forcing a sitdown with everyone to talk to her about the way she handles things and the way she will clamp down on things on my end while offering such open-ended freedom towards others.
How did this go...did anything get resolved?
I mean maybe it is time for someone else to DM for a little bit. That is another way to go.
Ok, if they didn't want people to create these sort of items, then they should have left that section entirely out of the game. The item pricing rules just tell you that you can create these sort of items and that it is possible. It also gives you the base cost of what it would be. It still does not change the fact that this item can be made.
Gah! Not rules. Rules are mandates. Guidelines are suggestions. And they're included because, when all else fails and you have no idea how to price something, you still have a reference of the pricing formulas used for the items in the DMG. You still, as a homebrewer, have to exercise some judgment in a item's creation. Scrolls, potions, wands, and staves are straight forward enough, but everything else needs to be scrutinized to some extent. Especially when it comes to non-spell trigger items. Even more so when they allow spells to be used at-will for dirt cheap.I also see the math on the healing, but why does it matter? Why do I have to spend excessive amounts of my own money to purchase these damn things when it is better spent on other items? And don't say I don't have to because that is going to kill the party. The necromancer doesn't have cure spells. All the spells he has are inflict only (GM ruling!). He can use wands, or scrolls, but cannot cast the spell.
Okay. Then normally you don't have to. Between spells, abilities, tactics, and the odd consumable, a typical party in a typical campaign should have no problem surviving encounters. That you need to constantly purchase consumable to survive is atypical.
Between your group's houserules, your DM's anti-player-tactic tatics, casters that lack full casting progression (which extremely hurts casters), a cleric that can't cast cure spells (really? really?), and probably lots of other issues you have yet to enlighten us on (such as party cohesion and tactics, num encounters/day, etc), you group is severely lacking in survivability on several fronts where a typical group in a typical game functions just fine.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that 3e's item economy is perfect. No, I'm definitely not saying that. However, your group is working outside the norms expected by the game rules, so its no surprise at all that standard solutions aren't working for you. What you really need are solutions tailored to your unique, atypical gaming situation.
I liked keeping command word to specifically keep this item out of combat.
Command word items can be used as easily within combat as without. It's a standard action either way and provokes no AoOs.
We did speak with her. It took me nearly quitting and forcing a sitdown with everyone to talk to her about the way she handles things and the way she will clamp down on things on my end while offering such open-ended freedom towards others.
How did this go...did anything get resolved?
I mean maybe it is time for someone else to DM for a little bit. That is another way to go.
No one else wants that but me. They say it would be "too confusing" for roleplaying. Also: if I ran it it would be very combat heavy and I know one player would hate the game (the one who took the Dragon Shaman insanity and took every anti-combat ability possible)
Ok, if they didn't want people to create these sort of items, then they should have left that section entirely out of the game. The item pricing rules just tell you that you can create these sort of items and that it is possible. It also gives you the base cost of what it would be. It still does not change the fact that this item can be made.I also see the math on the healing, but why does it matter? Why do I have to spend excessive amounts of my own money to purchase these damn things when it is better spent on other items? And don't say I don't have to because that is going to kill the party. The necromancer doesn't have cure spells. All the spells he has are inflict only (GM ruling!). He can use wands, or scrolls, but cannot cast the spell.
Okay. Then normally you don't have to. Between spells, abilities, tactics, and the odd consumable, a typical party in a typical campaign should have no problem surviving encounters. That you need to constantly purchase consumable to survive is atypical.
Between your group's houserules, your DM's anti-player-tactic tatics, casters that lack full casting progression (which extremely hurts casters), a cleric that can't cast cure spells (really? really?), and probably lots of other issues you have yet to enlighten us on (such as party cohesion and tactics, num encounters/day, etc), you group is severely lacking in survivability on several fronts where a typical group in a typical game functions just fine.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that 3e's item economy is perfect. No, I'm definitely not saying that. However, your group is working outside the norms expected by the game rules, so its no surprise at all that standard solutions aren't working for you. What you really need are solutions tailored to your unique, atypical gaming situation.I liked keeping command word to specifically keep this item out of combat.
Command word items can be used as easily within combat as without. It's a standard action either way and provokes no AoOs.
I'm not asking for my sword to have "Use Activated True Strike on Swing", nor am I getting items "As cast by Hexor" or "As cast by Ur Priest" items. I'm also not trying to "rice out" (It's a term used when you see sport cars completely kitted out to go as fast as possible) my combat attacks by doing Use activated Scorching Ray with Sonic Admixture (Lowest resistance). The item takes a standard action to use, so it will limit attacks in combat making it rather inefective compated to actually attacking.
As far as tactics go: I'm in the front (And I shouldn't be) and the necromancer spams summons to give me flank bonuses. The Druid/Mage does some combat (Little less damage then me unless splinter bolt is cast), and the bard does Firey burst for 3d6 (fireball is the highest spell she has) or suggestion. The Monk/rogue/whatever they want to call it flurries a wide storm of misses or minor hits for 3-17 damage (13 strength, yo! with gloves that allow 1d6 lightning damage!) each, while I'm stuck doing 29-39 damage a hit from Power attack with an over-sized Duom.
The only other combat-useful character was the scout/ranger/Highland stalker I designed for a friend. She wanted skill points and some rogue abilities and I made that. I also gave her a riding dog so she can do a full attack progression, with rapid shot, on a 20 foot move. She's the ONLY one that has damage that consistantly compares to me. (I say was because she's going to be leaving to the National Guards, soon).
She does try to say she "scales down" the fights because the players aren't as combat apt as mine is (though she likes to compare the damage potential of EVERYONE to mine like its some great thing they can break 30 damage a swing!!) but I am consistantly down around 30-40 HP on moderate encounters and knocked out, a lot, in major fights.
Also: with the healing item I'm offering, it is still possible to limit the number of heals a party can get into before another encounter, or before someone gets away. These are challenges I am perfectly ok with and enjoy. In fact: I encourage dramatic situations where I'm forced to think critically instead of situations where we're entirely boned due to a large investment of my resources being tanked into heal items.
It sounds like everyone is pretty unhappy with the dm since they've all had complaints against her/have had seperate out of game issues from playing with her. I can't speak for the personalities of everyone else in the group, but you're the type who enjoys combat, you have a player who is heavily against combat and I'd classify your DM in the story over combat group. You're all friends, so leaving isn't really an option...in a situation like this the best way to avoid bad blood is sadly just stop playing all together, if it comes to that.
My personal suggestion is run two different games, dmed by two different people. One which is more story based, and one thats a little more action heavy. I'd suggest neither be dmed by your current dm, unless everyone really wishes to continue the campaign you're in now as you did mention something about them not wanting a DM since it would mess up the RP. If that's the case I'd probably recommend that you leave as staying means there's just going to be more clashing, and if you go the two game route you still get to play with everyone in a less frustrating enviornment.
It's not that I don't want to DM a group, it's that no one wants a second D&D game going, or even another game in general. We already alternate between D&D and In Nomine (Alternating games when story arcs finish) and adding a third would bring far too much downtime between sessions.
The basis of the post was "What makes this over-powered?" I'm seriously not seeing it. As a DM I'd allow this item in the game because it gives me more avenues to throw players into with less fear of overwhelming them. I can see the various aspects of where I could limit it and even see people using in times they shouldn't. Since there is a mechanic to create it, my job would be to find a mechanic to limit it (from time to time). We'd still have healing items, but they'd be used in a crunch instead of normal downtime.
It's not that I don't want to DM a group, it's that no one wants a second D&D game going, or even another game in general. We already alternate between D&D and In Nomine (Alternating games when story arcs finish) and adding a third would bring far too much downtime between sessions.
You seriousy can't see why an item like that would be overpowered?
Even when you already know of the Sword of True-Striking?!
Well then, if you just upped the cost by a measily 200 gp you'd have the effect be continuous. Do you see it now?
No?
How about if I told you that for the exact same price you'd make an item that could only cast CLW 5 times/day?
Or you could make one that would make you permanently invisible to undead? Or you could do it 5 times a day.
Shall we explain it economically? You seem to have a grasp of figures.
Right now a wand of CLW costs 750gp, having 50 charges that heal about 5.5 hp/casting.
So that's 15 gp / casting. Which means 1 hp is worht about 3 gp.
An item such as that would make hp in effect worthless.
In general, the first RULE of item creation is this:
Compare it to an existing item that does about the same.
For you that would be the ring of regeneration, an eternal wand of CLW or just your basic wand of CLW.
There's a huge difference in efficiency and pricing.
I'm not asking for my sword to have "Use Activated True Strike on Swing", nor am I getting items "As cast by Hexor" or "As cast by Ur Priest" items. I'm also not trying to "rice out" (It's a term used when you see sport cars completely kitted out to go as fast as possible) my combat attacks by doing Use activated Scorching Ray with Sonic Admixture (Lowest resistance). The item takes a standard action to use, so it will limit attacks in combat making it rather inefective compated to actually attacking.
Even if you could never use it in combat, it would still be infinite out of combat healing, which is still far too good for 2000gp. And I already established that you'll likely hurting yourself if you're attempting to heal mid-combat, so that point is largely moot.
The basis of the post was "What makes this over-powered?" I'm seriously not seeing it.
Because it seriously messes with the balance assumptions of the game. The game is balanced around PCs being required to use a certain amount of their resources per adventuring period. A Ring of Infinite Healing forever stretches a party's resources far beyond normal limits. In addition, it is grossly overpowered for its price. Not just a little bit, but a lot.
Quick balance test: Ask yourself, "how likely would I take this option over other similar options?", where the option is a item, class, feat, spells, ect. If your answer is "Always" or "Never", you're likely have a overpowered or underpowered option. "No Sane Player" would ever, ever, ever pass up Infinite Healing 4ever for less than the price of a +1 weapon.
As a DM I'd allow this item in the game because it gives me more avenues to throw players into with less fear of overwhelming them. I can see the various aspects of where I could limit it and even see people using in times they shouldn't. Since there is a mechanic to create it, my job would be to find a mechanic to limit it (from time to time). We'd still have healing items, but they'd be used in a crunch instead of normal downtime.
And there's nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all. In fact, not only is that a valid gaming style with definite merits, that's basically how 4e handles healing (you basically meet encounters head on at "full hitpoints" so that combat can be closer and more dynamic).
However, that's not the game style that 3e assumes. That you would be willing to design your encounters around such an item does not make the item balanced from an objective standpoint under the assumption that the item is intended for standard 3e. Anything can be balanced if the DM is willing to make it work. But a DM is not obligated to do the extra work of making room for a item that grossly overpowered by standard conventions and changing her DM'ing style to fit if she chooses not to.
Power creep happens. Please go back to second ed if you dislike customization.
There's a large difference between power creep and blatantly overpowered material. The Belt of Healing could be considered the former. The Ring of Infinite Healing 4evar is definitely the latter.
As far as tactics go: I'm in the front (And I shouldn't be)
It seems that your character is the main melee character. I don't know what "Gwyn 4" is, but unless its something decidely primary casterly, you should be the most likely candidate on the front lines. What with at least 6 levels is front-line melee classes, with a front-line melee build, and especially with +140HP.
and the necromancer spams summons to give me flank bonuses.
I'm not familiar with the True Necromancer prestige class, but if by Necromancer you mean a wizard specialized in necromancy, then this character has sacrificed a large chunk of effectiveness. Being 3 caster levels behind is a pretty big deal. Even with Practiced Spellcaster, the character is greatly delayed in getting access to higher level spells and additional spell slots. And while flanking is nice, if those summons aren't contributing some meaningful damage or utility beyond a simple +2 attack, its time to consider additional options. And the "can't cast cure spells" houserule isn't helping either.
The Druid/Mage does some combat (Little less damage then me unless splinter bolt is cast), and the bard does Firey burst for 3d6 (fireball is the highest spell she has) or suggestion.
Wizard is good. Druid is really good. Wizard/Druid, not so much. Delayed casting progression, spell slots, and features hurts really hard unless you are getting something superb to make up for it. And you're not. That's not to mention that splitting caster stat focus between two different classes hurts your DC's. And really, if the wizard isn't tossing stuff like Grease, Glitterdust, and other standard "I win" spells, he's doing it wrong.
The Monk/rogue/whatever they want to call it flurries a wide storm of misses or minor hits for 3-17 damage (13 strength, yo! with gloves that allow 1d6 lightning damage!) each
Yes, monks are well known for being behind the curve. Even with a Monk-Rogue-Shaman unholy amalgamation, it matters not if you can't hit your foe. So you have at least one, possibly two, gimped casters and a 1-ounce paper weight that increases the effective encounter level without contributing meaningfully to an encounter...
while I'm stuck doing 29-39 damage a hit from Power attack with an over-sized Duom.
The only other combat-useful character was the scout/ranger/Highland stalker I designed for a friend. She wanted skill points and some rogue abilities and I made that. I also gave her a riding dog so she can do a full attack progression, with rapid shot, on a 20 foot move. She's the ONLY one that has damage that consistantly compares to me. (I say was because she's going to be leaving to the National Guards, soon).
...and one sole tank to protect them all, which is part of our problem. I'm willing to bet that the party looks to your to absorb nearly of the damage coming their way. If so, that's simply unrealistic and dangerous, as your role is to help keep the heat off, not burn yourself to a crisp.
And to top it all off, you're soon to lose your ranged damage support, which is your only other source of steady, reliable damage.
Yeah...your group has some focus issues. Cheaper healing would only treat the symptoms.
You cannot make the ring continuous since the spell effect is an instant. The best you could do is Use activation upon being attacked. THAT would be broken conscidering you'd get 1d8+1 back every time someone swung at you (hit or miss). I'm also looking at COMMAND WORD and NOT changing that. I do not want to change that, and will not change it because I want to keep the item more as a post-combat item. Yes, I am nerfing it because I don't like the idea of making it more powerful then it is. So, please keep the argument to the idea proposed.
And I do go back to the fact that is is not my fault the developers where short-sighted in their own work and did not know how to properly create items (use activated Scorching ray on attack for weapons instead of a lame 1d6 fire attacks). I also would like to point out that if they DID NOT want people to do this, then charts would not have been put in the books to create custom magic items. They would have left it to what items are in the book and made a note about not allowing custom magic items.
Ring of Regen is seriously weak. Who really wastes that much on the damn thing? I supposed being immune to non-lethal might be nice, if you're being attacked by bloodhounds and justicars. *scoff*
So, that being said: what is wrong with wanting to save the party some money? Please answer me this.
What is wrong with trying to save the party some money:
Turn to page 135 in the DMG.
Look at Wealth by Levels. (Notice that once again these are GUIDELINES.)
Since you are saving 3 gold/hitpoint healed through your item, which will soon enough be a significant amount, you will very quickly overshoot those amounts.
Allowing you to buy/craft more powerfull items then you should have access to.
This is especially true if you are planning to make more broken-ass items such as that ring.
Now, it's all fine and dandy that you would allow this in a campaign if you were the DM, but you are not.
Your campaign would be more combat oriented, this one just has real bad combat.
I'm sorry for the way your DM runs things, but she has final say in things. This goes double for custom magic items.
You are blaming the devellopers for putting in the possibility to make items such as these, while the book nearly literary says the formulaes should be taken with a grain of salt.
Stop doing that and open your eyes, just realize that if it looks too good to be true for it's calculated price, it probably is.
There are enough examples that don't match the formulae, just have a look at the ring of invisibilty for instance.
Am I wrong to want more creativity in games? I thought part of roleplaying is a way to test critical thinking, wits, and creativity?
I have also seen that table and I can see where you'd say it would drastically over-shoot those estimated numbers but have wondered if people have ever actually had that little cash by those levels? I guess if you're a career rat catcher and end up taking on direrats and wererats at highter levels?
But with that it does also state that these items are possible. Again: the major limitation is the GM saying "Do you want someone else using that against you?" which goes back to save vs death or sunder, or trip/disarm or true strike.
I can see how true strike on use is over powered. +20 to all hits is insane. It shuts down AC builds, and makes it near impossible to miss (except on a 1). That was established. This is especially bad if given to an enemy that has a high strength. You can kiss your tank goodbye. This is much to the reason why most GM's will use the agreed terms of "You don't force a Save vs Death and I won't force a Save vs death" or "You don't sunder items and I won't sunder items".
Actually, there's lots of reasons that people avoid sunder and Save-or-Die rules. The Sword of True Striking is probably the least of them because no DM would add such an item to their game with any seriousness anyway.
I'm seriously ok with an NPC using CLW ring. It means I have to make sure they don't escape.
Like I said, you're willing to work around such an item. That doesn't make it any less broken for normal play.
You cannot make the ring continuous since the spell effect is an instant. The best you could do is Use activation upon being attacked.
You can do anything you want with a homebrewed item. You can do anything you want with homebrew material in general. You don't need permission to homebrew. But that's a moot point.
I'm also looking at COMMAND WORD and NOT changing that. I do not want to change that, and will not change it because I want to keep the item more as a post-combat item. Yes, I am nerfing it because I don't like the idea of making it more powerful then it is. So, please keep the argument to the idea proposed.
For some reason, you think that an item being a command word item prevents you from using it during combat. This is false. You can use command word items during combat. This is probably another of our DM's houserules. If not, I'd welcome a page and paragraph reference that states otherwise.
You are not nerfing anything by making the item command word item. You can propose that the item only works outside of combat if you wish, but you will have to explicitly state that restriction since categorizing it as a command word item does not achieve that end at all.
Further, such a restriction would not be much of a nerf because any moderately experienced player already knows the folly of using such an item mid-combat. It would likely never see much, if any, use doing combat anyway
And I do go back to the fact that is is not my fault the developers where short-sighted in their own work and did not know how to properly create items (use activated Scorching ray on attack for weapons instead of a lame 1d6 fire attacks). I also would like to point out that if they DID NOT want people to do this, then charts would not have been put in the books to create custom magic items. They would have left it to what items are in the book and made a note about not allowing custom magic items.
Your taste in items is far different than what 3e was built around. Perhaps you are playing with the wrong system.
And again, those charts are not for creating...you know what, nevermind
Ring of Regen is seriously weak. Who really wastes that much on the damn thing? I supposed being immune to non-lethal might be nice, if you're being attacked by bloodhounds and justicars. *scoff*
Maybe, maybe not. But at the moment, your issue seems to be more of a matter of taste than anything objectively wrong with how the ring is balanced. Now if you're willing to bring some substantial, concrete mathmatical comparison into the argument, then an earnest discussion about the balance of the Ring of Regen could be had. But that would probably need its own thread.
So, that being said: what is wrong with wanting to save the party some money? Please answer me this.
Your question has been answered many times. The item is simply far too powerful. At least at the price you propose. That you don't like the answer is not the fault of anyone here. And that you would allow an item in your campaign does not make it a balance item for standard play. The power level of 3e's items simply does not fit your ideal of what items should be capable of, which is much more powerful than what 3e was built around.
And typically, when you bring up ideas on these boards, people are going to assume that they are intended for standard play unless you express otherwise. And while I don't think anyone here would disagree that you could make the Budget Ring of CLW 4evar work for your own game, until you state that your DM feels likewise, people are going to assume that standard balance conventions apply.
You can, of course, do what you will in your own game. And nothing prevents you from making it work. If it fits your style, go for it. But don't assume that your gaming preferences are the norm.
2 If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. If the duration of the spell is 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2, and if the duration is 10 minutes/level, multiply the cost by 1.5. If the spell has a 24-hour duration or greater, divide the cost in half.
That is the caviat on Continuous. Nowhere does it have a cost for instantaneous duration so you'd have to look at use activation or command word.
Also: Making it command word limits the actions one can make in combat. So, I know the item can be used in combat, but it's not a viable option since we're already fighting things that do 3-5 times that in damage. It'd be like a mage with a 15 AC taking a defensive stance against a Hill Giant. Really not worth it.
It's also not the price I proposed. It was the base price the book has for it.
But since this is going nowhere, I am going to drop this and ask a different question.
What the heck can I do to save us from spending several K a town trip on curative items? The idea of Lessor Vigor is a good, but what else?
I know I also need to up my AC since it's hovering around 23 (+2 chainshirt already maxed the dex for that. Ring of prot +2), and getting a better DR then 2 might not be bad, either. Bracers of Nat Armor are insanely over-priced.
Item creation rules are not guidelines in the sense 'everything created with this rule works fine in the game and costs this much gold' but rather 'if something created with thise rules works fine in the game, this is how much it should cost'. There are a whole lot of broken items that you can make with this rules: rihg of True Strike, Ring of wraithstrike, Ring of Magic Circle vs Evil (immunity to Charm and Compulsion for 4000 gp or so, etc.).
Secondly, I don't consider ring of CLW overpowered in any way past a certain level. Complaining about an item that grants free healing out of combat in a game where out of combat healing is almost free anyway (a Wand of Lesser Vigor CL 1 heals 550 HP and costs 750 gp if you buy it, or 282 gp if you have an Artificer in the Party) seems to me shomewhat moot.
Third, regarding your problems with the DM: obviously you like a style of play, she likes another. It's not about right or wrong, it's preferences. You can eitehr talk to her and reach a compromise, or leave if you feel she's being unreasonable.
But it is still a mechanic that can be countered by mechanics. All it takes is the skill and a little foresight on how to do this.
Am I wrong to want more creativity in games? I thought part of roleplaying is a way to test critical thinking, wits, and creativity?
I have also seen that table and I can see where you'd say it would drastically over-shoot those estimated numbers but have wondered if people have ever actually had that little cash by those levels? I guess if you're a career rat catcher and end up taking on direrats and wererats at highter levels?
But with that it does also state that these items are possible. Again: the major limitation is the GM saying "Do you want someone else using that against you?" which goes back to save vs death or sunder, or trip/disarm or true strike.
Ok let me try this.
Your ring costs 1800 gold. Has infinite useage. Takes a standard action. Heals 1d8+1.
Wand of Cure Light Wounds costs 750 gold. Has 50 uses. Take a standard action. Heals 1d8+1.
So you want to spend a measly 1050 gold to make a cure light wounds wand curve into a circle, fit on a finger and have infinite charges?
Not gonna happen "normally", I support you on your every enemy is an acrobatic circus performer. I support you on the GM lets people play retarded homebrew classes so they don't suck in combat when they build a character that sucks in combat. I do not however support your attempt to further break the game by being a munchkin.
You stated you have csw and ccw wands that you use? Buy a few extra wands of cure light wounds. It'll save you more money then buying higher level wands.
Hell buy a wand of Faith healing, keyed to your god. That will heal 9 damage every cast. Instead of 1d8+1.
You can't do constant effect on instantaneous spells
Nowhere does it have a cost for instantaneous duration
Then apparently YOU CAN'T MAKE THE ITEM YOU WANT!
Thank you, Drag0nUL. You saw what I was going for.
We use the ccw wands when I drop below 50HP (Near 100 damage taken at that point, now). I'm looking at ways we can get some items that will heal us post-combat and not cost 3 fingers and a leg in expense.
We've already gone through 10 50 charge CLW wands several CSW and a CCW plus items we've found in dungeons (not many, the gm is finally giving us reasonable loot).
And yes I can. It's called command word. Does not have that caviat. Or Use activation works. Either one allows for instant duration spells to be used over and over. This is how wands are made.
I know what you're shooting for 5m4ll and I also understand why the "aggression" towards what you are saying.
Their are alot of groups out there where noone wants to be the the healer. Mostly cuz they don't know how to play the "healer classes", they think Clerics sit in the back and cast Cure Wounds all fight, every fight. We usually compensate this by the DM running a Cleric NPC with the group that is just heal-heavy.
When you start getting up in levels, it sucks roleplaying out sittin on yer bum for a week cuz you need to regen your hit points. You DO have a level 3 Cleric in your group, does (s)he tend not to load up on heal spells?
I'd suggest this: Instead of "no ring" vs. "Broken ring"...why not just compromise the ring you are asking for by capping it at like 10/day charges of the CLW? IF the purpose is to be able to continue on your adventure after a full nights rest...you shouldn't need endless instant CLWs.
And she did allow me a ring of CLW use activated (Touch) with 5 charges a day for 2K. It was nice at level 3, but is useless now and I'm not spending 4K on 10 charges a day because it is just not economically viable.
Issue- You have no way to heal out of combat aside from wands of lesser vigor, and that takes forever and gets kind of pricey.
Solution- Buy an Eternal Wand of Heal (lvl6)/ Heal, Mass (lvl9) per encounter you would like to do each day.
Each one will heal you a good chunk of Hp, and can be used forever. You save loads of money in the long run as these will be useful forever, but might have to cough up a decent chunk up front.
I'm not gonna price them out for you, but it can be found in the magic item compendium.
I'm not going to explain why a ring of infinite healing is stupid broken, that is probably obvious to everyone.
I do disagree with that. Although it does make things a bit easier by not having to worry about healing out of combat (already doable past lvl 5 or so via wands of Lesser Vigor) I don't find it game breaking. From my gaming experience at least (both as a player or DM) the limiting factor in how many encounters can PCs face is not hitpoints (and healing) but rather the number of offensive spells they can use in a day. To make stuff clear, I'm only referring to out of combat infinite healing. Viable infinite healing in combat is an entire different matter altogether (although if you need to heal in combat you probably are doing somethign wrong already )
I will give you an alternative that will solve your problem. Issue- You have no way to heal out of combat aside from wands of lesser vigor, and that takes forever and gets kind of pricey. Solution- Buy an Eternal Wand of Heal (lvl6)/ Heal, Mass (lvl9) per encounter you would like to do each day. Each one will heal you a good chunk of Hp, and can be used forever. You save loads of money in the long run as these will be useful forever, but might have to cough up a decent chunk up front. I'm not gonna price them out for you, but it can be found in the magic item compendium.
Sadly, eternal wands are limtied to 3rd level spells.
I'm not going to explain why a ring of infinite healing is stupid broken, that is probably obvious to everyone. (even if technically legal within the rules) I will give you an alternative that will solve your problem. Issue- You have no way to heal out of combat aside from wands of lesser vigor, and that takes forever and gets kind of pricey. Solution- Buy an Eternal Wand of Heal (lvl6)/ Heal, Mass (lvl9) per encounter you would like to do each day. Each one will heal you a good chunk of Hp, and can be used forever. You save loads of money in the long run as these will be useful forever, but might have to cough up a decent chunk up front. I'm not gonna price them out for you, but it can be found in the magic item compendium.
Few issues with this:
An eternal wand holds an arcane spell of 3rd level or lower with a maximum caster level of 6th.
Cure is divine.
And...
an eternal wand allows any character who can cast arcane spells to use the spell contained in it twice per day.
That is less then the ring I made and does not have a scaling price for if it was cast at a higher level then listed (IE Cleric of 5th casting CLW for additional HP).
Also: These things are severely weak and limited. And if I could get it houseruled for divine: we'd have to cary around 30+ of these in order for them to be useful. Plus they're more expensive then a 5 charge a day CLW ring on command word (1800 vs 2050 for 5 charges worth of these). I'm trying to save money, not spend more.
I'm not going to explain why a ring of infinite healing is stupid broken, that is probably obvious to everyone. (even if technically legal within the rules) I will give you an alternative that will solve your problem. Issue- You have no way to heal out of combat aside from wands of lesser vigor, and that takes forever and gets kind of pricey. Solution- Buy an Eternal Wand of Heal (lvl6)/ Heal, Mass (lvl9) per encounter you would like to do each day. Each one will heal you a good chunk of Hp, and can be used forever. You save loads of money in the long run as these will be useful forever, but might have to cough up a decent chunk up front. I'm not gonna price them out for you, but it can be found in the magic item compendium.
Few issues with this:
An eternal wand holds an arcane spell of 3rd level or lower with a maximum caster level of 6th.
Cure is divine.
And...
an eternal wand allows any character who can cast arcane spells to use the spell contained in it twice per day.
That is less then the ring I made and does not have a scaling price for if it was cast at a higher level then listed (IE Cleric of 5th casting CLW for additional HP).
Also: These things are severely weak and limited. And if I could get it houseruled for divine: we'd have to cary around 30+ of these in order for them to be useful. Plus they're more expensive then a 5 charge a day CLW ring on command word (1800 vs 2050 for 5 charges worth of these). I'm trying to save money, not spend more.
Not to totaly disagree with you...a Bard Cure spells are Arcane. You can put cure spells into a Eternal wand. It still might not be worth for you just pointing that out.
Yes, you're wrong. You're the problem, not her.
He'll argue that as well. Come for advice, get advice hate the advice ignore the advice and ask for advice until the advice you want is given.
No, I'm asking you guys reasonable healing items, since you find my so moronically over-powered, that will not cost an arm and a leg. So far, everything is going to cost more then what she has approved or is already being consumed faster then a hobo goes through a ham sandwhich.
The one thing I have thought of, while out, is to start requesting her to drop an extra item in game that is a CMW wand or CCW wand, just so we're not on our last charge by the time we reach the half-way mark of an adventure.
My only other option is to just scrap the only combat character in the game to play a frekin cleric with the healing domain.
Also: What I'm looking for is others to help me think "outside the box". Find creative ways to do things that the mechanics support. What I've been given are nothing but "Pay out the nose" comments.
It breaks the game.
Therefore, you're the problem. Deal with it.
If that's too expensive for you guys, you should take it up with your DM.
Tell her that her storytelling style of play is all fine and dandy, but you need some mechanical help to make it across the obstacles she laid out for you guys.
Try to genlty remind her that in 3.5 character wealth is a crucial component of a character/party's power, refer her to the Wealth by Level guidelines in the DMG, AND the example NPC's that are listed there.
(Don't forget to tell her that these NPC's are equiped with even less magical gear then the devellopers intended for PC's to have.)
And oh yeah; never pick the Healing Domain. +1 hp/spell is just not worth it.
Instead you could take 1 level in Dread Necromancer, have everyone take the feat Tomb Tainted Soul and you have free unlimited healing.
Also: You're blowing the usefulness of this item way out of proportion. It's not like I will gain infinate HP in combat from it, or will I gain the ability to deal 4000 damage a hit, or even a +200 in skills. It does a simple 1d8+1 once a round and takes a standard action to use. Yes it makes limited-use items more worthless, but it is not as exaggerated as you like to think.
Also: how am I the problem when she's taking the best of 2 classes (rogue and monk) and splicing it onto another class and calling it balanced while trying to remove a racial feature (Powerful build on the Goliath) that she approved me having from the start of the game? Read back. What I'm doing is seriously finding a way out of the deminishing return we're getting from questing.
And just to lighten your mood:
Yes, you have a bad DM for doing all those things.
But the only thing we at the boards here can do for you is give you advice.
That consists of saying:
- talk to your DM
- here are some arguments you could use
- try to tell her this way
- give you mechanical advice
- this will never include custom-made items, reason herefor should be obvious right now
- will always be limited to feats, classes, items, spells, combinations or dirty tricks
- tell you "Oh that's awfull, your DM is the suxxor, just leave (... after punching her in the face...)"
Notice how nobody yet used the last option.
Your situation right now:
- DM didn't keep to her word concerning Powerfull Build
- Your party is terrible/ not interested in combat
- To still keep a player interested in the game, she gave him a broken character, ironically he still chose to minimize participation in combat
- DM is effectively hampering you/ your combat style
- DM is being cheap on treasure
Did I leave anything out?
* Seems to me the broken class is just a measure she took to actually keep one player, who would rather play a different system.
* She probably has no real idea on what balanced treasure is, instead of wheining about how little you get, help her comprehend the necessity of treasures in 3.5.
* If she really won't allow Powerfull Build, say that this was a crucial part of your character build that is legal, ballanced and was agreed upon up front and that if she won't allow it, ask for compensation. Don't forget to ask her what part of it bothers her so you can find a compromise.
* You have already adressed her about the tumbling-thing and many fellow players agreed on this. The only thing I can say about this is, if she continues doing so, just stand up, pack your bags and leave.
Oh and did you just say you got a +6 STR item? You do know that's above your level, don't you?
So no more complaining about being stingy with the loot.
Spell research does nothing for the guy's spells. It just means he can research his own spells, which costs gold.
Now go ahead and go have a mature discussion with her.
I eagerly await your report.
Her issue with it was that I could use over-sized weapons, get the bonus to bull rush AND grapple. I explained to her it was given in compinsation to Energy resistances, low-light and dark vision, plus the once per day spells others get (Compated to tiefling and aasmar).
My total treasure in items comes to 55.5K with my +6 item. Minus the item I'm looking at 19.5K. It would be above my level IF it wasn't the same as if I just horded the resources until I could afford it (Which is a perfectly viable option to do in the game).
Done the necessity of treasure option. Her reply was "I don't think it's realistic that Player characters end up with a larger treasury then kingdoms!" I tried to point out that kingdoms don't go out to kill dragons, they hire us for that, but she had none of it.
I was just looking at finding a way to keep the game interesting while saving cash, but you guys are right. I do need to look at this as more of a lost cause and just write it off as "compatable friend, incompatable playing styles"
She allowed me to play a Goliath (+1 LA game) and allowed me to make a bull rush build that grants AoO's to the allies. Then she told me she wanted to take away the powerful build mid-game. Everyone jumped down her throat for that one and she backed off. This is when she started tumble on everything, then the alignment insanity. Both of which caused me to walk and be drug back by my roommate and several others.
Her issue with it was that I could use over-sized weapons, get the bonus to bull rush AND grapple. I explained to her it was given in compinsation to Energy resistances, low-light and dark vision, plus the once per day spells others get (Compated to tiefling and aasmar).
My total treasure in items comes to 55.5K with my +6 item. Minus the item I'm looking at 19.5K. It would be above my level IF it wasn't the same as if I just horded the resources until I could afford it (Which is a perfectly viable option to do in the game).
Done the necessity of treasure option. Her reply was "I don't think it's realistic that Player characters end up with a larger treasury then kingdoms!" I tried to point out that kingdoms don't go out to kill dragons, they hire us for that, but she had none of it.
I was just looking at finding a way to keep the game interesting while saving cash, but you guys are right. I do need to look at this as more of a lost cause and just write it off as "compatable friend, incompatable playing styles"
So your arguement was you had to spend to much gold to buy healing items. Yet you have more the treasure then anyone else at the table and then want to build a broken healing item to save the party gold?
You're a horrible player. I would have killed your goliath, with tumbling megadon sharks and tyranasaurus encounters. Made you build your next character out of the Player's Handbook, and had a talk with you about fair party play.
No wonder you do all the damage in combat you have 3 or more times the equipment then any other character.
God people like you are what break games.
On the item, it's probably something you should just give up on and look for another solution.
As for the original issue with the DM, she needs to loosen up and be more flexible rather than stapling on solutions that are illfitted or unwarranted. If you have a player that is overpowering your encounters, but are legal, it's less prudent to strip them down than it is to just toss things in to combat them at times. For example, if you have Cold mastery shutting down every encounter, sending Red Dragons at them isn't going to end well, while a White Dragon might let someone else shine. Nothing but Cold immune guys would just be childish, though, just as having everything trained in Tumble is.
She allowed me to play a Goliath (+1 LA game) and allowed me to make a bull rush build that grants AoO's to the allies. Then she told me she wanted to take away the powerful build mid-game. Everyone jumped down her throat for that one and she backed off. This is when she started tumble on everything, then the alignment insanity. Both of which caused me to walk and be drug back by my roommate and several others.
Just wanted to add...she is correct here...to a point. Just because you allowed something into the game...does not mean later you can't see it has broken and remove it. Thoiugh when I am unsure about something but am willing to give a player a chance to use it I make sure they know my stance.
If I where actually playing a combat build I'd care less about wealth because I could compinsate with my character abilities. But I'm playing a support character because I didn't want to hog the combat scene.
And again: had it not been that ONE item I'd be at 19.5K worth of loot at 10th level. Other characters do have items like Monks Belt, +1 Shocking Burst prayer beads (Glove slot weapon for monk, house rule), Firey Burst +1 Long Bow, intelligent cloak that does greater invisability once a day, +3 ring of protection, +2 darkwood breastplate, the 10K house that allows a +2 research bonus, and several K in onyx that he has blown and is blowing in creating ghouls he just sets free out of moral obligation.
I'm not the only one with items. I am probably the highest because of that one item, but take it out and I'd easily be the lowest.
Look at the numbers: that contribites to 4 points more damage an attack (+3 one handed, strength and half adds +4). Big whoop. I'm doing 29-39 at 10th level with maxing out power attack. And I had to about refuse a plot arc to get her to lighten her grip on it.
If I where actually playing a combat build I'd care less about wealth because I could compinsate with my character abilities. But I'm playing a support character because I didn't want to hog the combat scene.
And again: had it not been that ONE item I'd be at 19.5K worth of loot at 10th level. Other characters do have items like Monks Belt, +1 Shocking Burst prayer beads (Glove slot weapon for monk, house rule), Firey Burst +1 Long Bow, intelligent cloak that does greater invisability once a day, +3 ring of protection, +2 darkwood breastplate, the 10K house that allows a +2 research bonus, and several K in onyx that he has blown and is blowing in creating ghouls he just sets free out of moral obligation.
I'm not the only one with items. I am probably the highest because of that one item, but take it out and I'd easily be the lowest.
You asked it if you are wrong here in the titles of this thread. Just pointing out there is some...not much mind you...support for her thinking. Personaly she sounds like somebody who makes a great player...but a poor DM...I know a great DM...but he is a lousy player.
I don't see anything changing here...except letting somebody else run the game.
As for the custom item issue, the item creation rules are just a rough guide, and as such you should try to base the price around other existing items of similar effect. The closest that I've found when looking for one is Ring of Mystic Healing in the Magic Item Compendium. However, I remember a better example out there, I just cannot find it. It was a worn item that gave cure spell and had charges per day. If you find it, it should serve as a good price guideline.
Thanks, guys, for helping me blow off steam and bounce around ideas.
You're right, though. In a normal campaign we should not be going through nearly as much healing as we are. We should be taking some damage on minor encounters but nothing that would nearly drop me in every room. Do I still think the item isn't over-powered? Less so, but like I said: I like to think of ways to limit downtime between encounters and not kill parties. I like to keep things fast-paced and focus on action-drama rather then the "Fight, rest, heal, Fight, rest heal" that so many campaigns are ran with.
Please keep your posts respectful and on topic.
Then don't. If you can't muster a response that doesn't delve into name calling, don't respond at all. There are people I don't agree with or want to interact with, so I don't. It's not worth the headache or the flaming.
Thank you.
Seriously. I have actually made effort into avoiding flame wars, and name calling. And trust me, I could have gone very far with it.
And, yes. I do dislike 4th ed. All of it screams as a way to appease 2nd ed fanboys who thought 3rd ed was over-powered.
Then don't. If you can't muster a response that doesn't delve into name calling, don't respond at all. There are people I don't agree with or want to interact with, so I don't. It's not worth the headache or the flaming.
Thank you.
Seriously. I have actually made effort into avoiding flame wars, and name calling. And trust me, I could have gone very far with it.
And, yes. I do dislike 4th ed. All of it screams as a way to appease 2nd ed fanboys who thought 3rd ed was over-powered.
Eh, some of it may be that way, though I love 4th. Then again, having both DM'd and played as a PC, it helps that I am very familiar with its rules, and how smooth it can be to run if you know it.
I really hate the Once a day usefulness that 4th ed made. It was a bad version of Tome of Battle and I really disliked Tome of Battle.
IMO having all the classes have a mix of daily/encounter/at will powers is a nice balancing act.
In previous editions, spellcasters (especially lower level ones) would have their two or three useful spells/day. Once those were used up, the cleric could at least charge into battle, but the wizard generally had to hide behind the meat shields and feel useless.
Thanks to at-wills, spellcasters can now be quite useful throughout any battle.
As for melee classes, I read their at-wills to be their "normal attacks" but once per day/encounter they can draw on special reserves (or manage to find that perfect moment in battle to turn the tide) by using their encounter/daily powers.
Having certain powers you can only use once a day hopefully means that those will be held out until most needed.
The only related issue that I'm not wild about is that healing potions, etc, let you use a healing surge, but don't give you extra surges.
I had a chance to read the PHB on PDF when someone hosted it on a site. I came real close to emailing Wizards and demanding a refund for that.
So, instead of making casters more powerful (IE: Psions) they just nerfed melee fighters? I dislike that idea.
I had a chance to read the PHB on PDF when someone hosted it on a site. I came real close to emailing Wizards and demanding a refund for that.
Wha? Naw, a lot of melee characters are very strong. Hell, 4th's Fighter is probably THE most supported class.
Sure beats 3.5's "Epic level, huh? Hope you didn't think those levels in Fighter are going to amount to anything."
of course, I also like to play without magic items when I play pure combat. Hehe. I actually want to see if I can make a solid build around Forsaker. I'm thinking Denying stance Monk then barbarian to bear warrior with forsaker and vow of poverty. Just tackle people and chew their faces off. The stats would be dead sexy if I can make this work.
Did you even read those things right?
ToB had nothing of the kind. Everything was 1/encounter AND you could refresh those DURING combat.
In 4e you start with a single 1/day power AND 2-3 at-wills AND 1-3 encounter-powers.
In 3.5, EVERYTHING for your wizard was 1/day.
You like to play without magic items in pure combat?
Well guess what: in 4e that's actually mechanically more viable then in 3.5, where most of your character's power lied with his magic items.
They didn't nerf melee/martial classes, on the contrary. Arcane on the other hand ... got hit with a reality check.
Don't get me wrong, I much prefer the feeling that magic brought up in 3.5 over the stuff that's in 4e's PHB.
I loved playing a caster in 3.5 and hated what they'd done with spells in 4e, but the craziness of 3.5 had to end some day.
I can only urge you to look over it again, because going from your explanation, you must have missed/misunderstood some parts.
(Both ToB and 4e in general I mean.)
*goes back reminiscing about his kick-ass warforged crusader ... then remembers the awfull DM and annoying player...*
They didn't nerf melee/martial classes, on the contrary. Arcane on the other hand ... got hit with a reality check.
Don't get me wrong, I much prefer the feeling that magic brought up in 3.5 over the stuff that's in 4e's PHB.
I loved playing a caster in 3.5 and hated what they'd done with spells in 4e, but the craziness of 3.5 had to end some day.
QFT. Having played only spellcasters (and loved them) for quite a long time in 3.5, I must say stuff was way off balance (although fun). Past a not vey high level (7-8 or so), the fights would go something like this:
Melee player turn: 'I rolled high, so I hit the mosnter and deal 50 points of damage. Yay!'
Caster's turn: 'I cast this spell over here, then I qucken this spell over there, they affect so-and-so area, saves(if any)are too high for the DM to bother, and I win the encounter'.
That's the main reason that got me into 4.0. Being able to play a fighter/pala/rogue and not to be known as 'that guy in the corner that sucks'.
Monk with 2 weapon fighting is quite nice.
Barbarian/Fighter with Monkey griped Great axe and Over-sized 2-weapon fighting using the class Disciple of Therym's powerful grip.
Also: Every GM I know allows use-activated spells off weapons (Including the one I just stopped playing with). So, monks can use shocking grasp on bracers, and I can get scorching ray or splinterbolt off my melee weapons.
Bear Warrior and Primeval, yo.
Breaking 50 damage a hit isn't hard. Now, breaking 150 a hit by 10th requires a bit of work.
Oh, I sent her an email about my thoughts and wishes to drop the game. I tolder I did it mostly because I wanted to keep her as a friend (which is true). She thanked me for the email and felt a lot of the same things I did (We where fighting too much and she wanted to keep me as a friend). So she asked me what I wanted to do with the character. I've pretty much gave all my gear and cash to the group, sans a helmet that gives +5 intimidate and my weapons, and left.
That should help them out, a bit.
Lance-chargers can do way more then 50 before 7th level. Put that on a paladin with Awesome Smite and you also negate miss chance from Blink, Blur, and Displacement.
Monk with 2 weapon fighting is quite nice.
Barbarian/Fighter with Monkey griped Great axe and Over-sized 2-weapon fighting using the class Disciple of Therym's powerful grip.
Also: Every GM I know allows use-activated spells off weapons (Including the one I just stopped playing with). So, monks can use shocking grasp on bracers, and I can get scorching ray or splinterbolt off my melee weapons.
Bear Warrior and Primeval, yo.
Breaking 50 damage a hit isn't hard. Now, breaking 150 a hit by 10th requires a bit of work.
.
I know, the 50 damage was used more as an example of the typical melee char's ineffectiveness compared to spellcasters
Liot totem Barbarian, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, Combat Brute, Spirited charge, Valorous Lance make a pretty nice combo that can one-shot anything in the MM but Great Wyrm Dragons and Tarrasque around lvl 10. Also, Clarion Commander+Sneak attack+multiple arms; Or hulking hurler. All of these make some pretty ridiculous damage builds, but not the lack of damage is the issue of melee builds. The problem is they're one-trick ponies. And their trick is easily negated.
Mettle & Improved Evasion counter a lot of spellcaster prowess.
Getting objects with a silence aura on them.
Also: spell books are combustable. So anything that does fire will force that save vs burning.
Most people I see playing spell casters tend to just cast levetate, greater invisibility, and then fly away casting spells. There isn't much creativity with Spellcasters, either.
Hell, the only reason why my bullrush build was killed by tumble was because she "house ruled" I couldn't attack anything with my duom that was within 15 feet from me until I took exotic weapon prof. (Duom) instead of just allowing me to take a -2 from using an unfamiliar weapon and allowing the pull-back feature. Without that issue, I still would have ground-pounded any tumbler.
Also: Isn't hulking hurler pretty much agreed to be the least creative and most window-licker way of dealing damage?
You can do the same thing with spell casters. MageSlayer feat with over-sized spike chains.
This assumes getting in melee with a spellcaster. And the only time you are going to get in melee with a good spellcaster is when he's buffed enough to mop the floor with you.
Mettle & Improved Evasion counter a lot of spellcaster prowess.
Getting objects with a silence aura on them.
Also: spell books are combustable. So anything that does fire will force that save vs burning.
Most people I see playing spell casters tend to just cast levetate, greater invisibility, and then fly away casting spells. There isn't much creativity with Spellcasters, either.
Most good spells allow no saves. Mettle/ Improved Evasion does exactly nothing vs. stuff like Evard's Black Tentacles, Solid Fog, Forcecage, Wall of Sand or the like.
Also, every round you spend casting a defensive spell is a round in which you're not putting your awesome offensive magic to use. Most spellcsters I've seen in our games tend to win initiative (Improved init+Nerveskitter/Sign/High dex wildshape) and then open up with some AOE battlefield control or summons to tie down the enemy.
Also: Isn't hulking hurler pretty much agreed to be the least creative and most window-licker way of dealing damage?
Pretty much, I never said I liked it, just that it's another way to deal damage. Personally, I think it's about as retarded as Extraordinary Spell Aim+AMF for casters
Forcecage has to be one of the most retarded spells ever written in D&D. "You can only get out by doing X" The person who thought of that should have just make a "No Save I play your character" spell.
I'm not going to argue that spellcasters aren't powerful, but I've only seen 1 build that really makes them shine: Incantatrix 9 or 10 and Arcane Devotee. Getting a 1 slot spell reduction on all meta-magic (min 1 or 0 if it already is 0) and 2 free uses of metamagic feats a day makes it pretty damn crazy. Then add in the free use of Enlarge and you're a damage platform.
I just want more creativity with my builds.
I gotta disagree with that. Tensers Transformation is nice, but it doesn't offer the feat payload you can get by being a damage build.
I'm not talking about Tenser's Transformation. **** down your own spellcasting is pretty retarded. What I mean when I say 'buffed for melee wizard' is something along the lines of Polymorph+Bite of the Werebear+ Divine Power+ Righteus Might (via Arcane Disciple: War)
Also: A charge or full run will get you in range of a caster.
Assuming that spellcaser is not under the effect of Overland Flight or something similar.
Forcecage has to be one of the most retarded spells ever written in D&D. "You can only get out by doing X" The person who thought of that should have just make a "No Save I play your character" spell.
Agreed, ' no save, just die' spells are pretty retarded.
I'm not going to argue that spellcasters aren't powerful, but I've only seen 1 build that really makes them shine: Incantatrix 9 or 10 and Arcane Devotee. Getting a 1 slot spell reduction on all meta-magic (min 1 or 0 if it already is 0) and 2 free uses of metamagic feats a day makes it pretty damn crazy. Then add in the free use of Enlarge and you're a damage platform.
I just want more creativity with my builds.
Initiate of the 7thfold veil (almost immune to both melee and spells unless you have daylight prepared).
Malconvoker (2x the number of really strong summons and walking around with a Balor/Pit Fiend bodyguard at lvl 15)
Shadowcraft Mage (your illusions are more real than reality)
Any of the many possible gish builds.
And that's just for wizards
If you have to ask "Am I wrong here?" you probably are.
It also limits you. Non spellcasters work well for extended periods of time, spellcasters work best in short bursts. 4th Edition mixes that. Each character has some pretty powerful things (although not enough to break the game), but they also have useful abilities they can use any time they want. All of the really game breaking stuff such as clairvoyance and their ilk are tied to Rituals, and even those won't do too many crazy things.
Oh, I sent her an email about my thoughts and wishes to drop the game. I tolder I did it mostly because I wanted to keep her as a friend (which is true). She thanked me for the email and felt a lot of the same things I did (We where fighting too much and she wanted to keep me as a friend). So she asked me what I wanted to do with the character. I've pretty much gave all my gear and cash to the group, sans a helmet that gives +5 intimidate and my weapons, and left.
That should help them out, a bit.
That's good. I have a friend with whom I disagree almost categorically about D&D, and it makes some conversations....strained.
Malconvoker looks awesome. I was wondering if they'd ever make summoners not suck. I should probably read that one, more. The downside is that you're still using d4 HD, suseptable to ranged attacks, and strength drain poison (Weak Fort Save).
Shadowcraft Mage isn't bad. But goggles that have truesight on them or Awesome Smite auto-kills your concealment.
I'd still rather look at Incantatrix 8-10 for the damage output of spells.
By 12th level you can easily get the featload you need just taking wizard 5 Incan 7. By 13th all your metamagic is reduced by 1 because of Improved Metamagic. Then with Arcane Thesis to further reduce this on 1 spell and you're looking at a solid damage platform.
And since there are additional feats available, you might as well take AT on other damage spells to give you some virsatility or to round out your spell slots with enough DPS to level a castle.
Yeah. I could tell there was one last attempt to prevent me from leaving when she had me spell out the details on how I left to see if anyone could stop me because "they'd do it in character". Not doubting this, but I finally just left everything to a trusted priest to hand to them days after I left. I hope that ended that issue.
Inrteresting ideas, Drag0nUL. There's still the issue with the limited HP. IotSV is interesting. But Monk+Pious Templar+Superior Unarmed Strike+Snapkick+2 weapon fighting can get the saves high enough to negate and ignore all of these effects. There is also the other issue that you can do the same thing of this class with Prismatic sphere.
Although that build probably has saves to ignore the effects of the veils, it doesn't have the effective offensive and mobility potential to reach a buffed wizard, not to mention disposing of it in a timely manner. Also, Prismatic Sphere is lvl 9. An IotSV can pull this trick off a good 5 levels earlier IIRC, and at no expenditure of spell slots.
Malconvoker looks awesome. I was wondering if they'd ever make summoners not suck. I should probably read that one, more. The downside is that you're still using d4 HD, suseptable to ranged attacks, and strength drain poison (Weak Fort Save).
Malconvoker is pretty awesome indeed. IMHO is the only pure caster PrC that is worth losing 1 caster level for. The Planar Binding stuff is almost broken IMHO (with the right tactics you can pretty much negate the Charisma checks involved by imposing a -20 or so penalty to it). Also, d4 hd is largely offset by ways to buff your AC, gain concealment and generally stay out of reachwhich make you much harder to hit than the average melee class with high HP. Also, oisons have pretty crappy DCs (can't recall anything higher than 25 or so). With 16 con, save enhancing items, save enhancing buffs when appropriate and the rerolls granted by a Luck Blade and Mantle of Second chances you can't really fail one.
Shadowcraft Mage isn't bad. But goggles that have truesight on them or Awesome Smite auto-kills your concealment.
The main strength of the Shadowcraft Mage is not the concealment, but rather the ability to keep illusions partially real even if you recognize them as illusions (witht he right combo I think you can make them 120% real or so).
I'd still rather look atIncantatrix 8-10 for the damage output of spells.
By 12th level you can easily get the featload you need just taking wizard 5 Incan 7. By 13th all your metamagic is reduced by 1 because of Improved Metamagic. Then with Arcane Thesis to further reduce this on 1 spell and you're looking at a solid damage platform.
And since there are additional feats available, you might as well take AT on other damage spells to give you some virsatility or to round out your spell slots with enough DPS to level a castle. .
To each his own.
I never like pure damage wizard builds for 2 reasons:1) You can't really compete with a Psion that knows what he's doing.
2) I consider save-or-die much more effective. An optimized wizard can get 39 int at lvl 20 (20 starting+3 age+6 item, +5 level bonsues+5 from tome). Coupled with greater spell focus for 38 DC for 9'th leve spells (which can be augmented further with classes and items). In comparison, the usual good fort save char only has around 28 con at that lvl (18 starting, 4 tome, 6 item) for a total of 26 fort save(12 base +9 con +5 cloak of risistance). You can see the diference
I consider save-or-die much more effective. An optimized wizard can get 39 int at lvl 20 (20 starting+3 age+6 item, +5 level bonsues+5 from tome). Coupled with greater spell focus for 38 DC for 9'th leve spells (which can be augmented further with classes and items). In comparison, the usual good fort save char only has around 28 con at that lvl (18 starting, 4 tome, 6 item) for a total of 26 fort save(12 base +9 con +5 cloak of risistance). You can see the diference
Just curious...how are you going to be age category in which you gain a total of +3 to Int by 20th level? I mean even the slowest game I have seen lasted about twenty years in game time...also with the fact yout Int is starting at 20 I have to ask what race? You are either a gold elf(which makes even more unlikely that you will get to that age in the length of the campaign) or a Tiefling...or a couple of the Gensai which is a level adjusted race. I mean your arguemnt is stacked...atleast it is feasible that a dwarf will start with a 20 Con...
Of course you could start the character in that age category...but then I really have to ask how are you suriving to 20th level with a -6 to Str, Dex, Con? Anyway I think your build is a little stacked to prove your point...as are most builds out there to prove casters are vastly superior to non-casters.
I consider save-or-die much more effective. An optimized wizard can get 39 int at lvl 20 (20 starting+3 age+6 item, +5 level bonsues+5 from tome). Coupled with greater spell focus for 38 DC for 9'th leve spells (which can be augmented further with classes and items). In comparison, the usual good fort save char only has around 28 con at that lvl (18 starting, 4 tome, 6 item) for a total of 26 fort save(12 base +9 con +5 cloak of risistance). You can see the diference
Just curious...how are you going to be age category in which you gain a total of +3 to Int by 20th level? I mean even the slowest game I have seen lasted about twenty years in game time...also with the fact yout Int is starting at 20 I have to ask what race? You are either a gold elf(which makes even more unlikely that you will get to that age in the length of the campaign) or a Tiefling...or a couple of the Gensai which is a level adjusted race. I mean your arguemnt is stacked...atleast it is feasible that a dwarf will start with a 20 Con...
Of course you could start the character in that age category...but then I really have to ask how are you suriving to 20th level with a -6 to Str, Dex, Con? Anyway I think your build is a little stacked to prove your point...as are most builds out there to prove casters are vastly superior to non-casters.
It was a theoretical build. While you can survive with -6 str dex con if you start at a higher lvl (past 7 or so) it's not something i'd usually do. And yeah, 20 int weas for tiefling/gray elf.
if you want playable char: venerable dragonwrought kobold(as a dragon he gets the bonuses from age categories but not the penalties, and also, according to Draconomicon can take epic feats from lvl. 1 since he qualifies as a 'vey old or older dragon').
However, in most capaigns the DC will probably be around 35 or so, but that doesn't change sutff much, since every good caster willt target your weakest save (probably a good deal 6 to 10 points lower than the 26 I posted as an example). Also, if you're starting with 20 con as a dwarf, you're severely killing your other stats on any Pb lower than 32. A wizard can go jsut fine with 18 starting int and dump the rest, but there's no class based on con, you need eitehr str/dex or a mental stats do attack anything.
Inrteresting ideas, Drag0nUL. There's still the issue with the limited HP. IotSV is interesting. But Monk+Pious Templar+Superior Unarmed Strike+Snapkick+2 weapon fighting can get the saves high enough to negate and ignore all of these effects. There is also the other issue that you can do the same thing of this class with Prismatic sphere.
Although that build probably has saves to ignore the effects of the veils, it doesn't have the effective offensive and mobility potential to reach a buffed wizard, not to mention disposing of it in a timely manner. Also, Prismatic Sphere is lvl 9. An IotSV can pull this trick off a good 5 levels earlier IIRC, and at no expenditure of spell slots.
Have you seen Superior Unarmed Strike? It gives you Monk Damage for non-monk classes and gives you to your effective monk level if you have a level of monk. You could also take Boots that give you expiditious retreat and a ring that gives flight. Take that with 2 weapon pounce from PHB2 and you'll chip away at the d4's real quick.
Malconvoker looks awesome. I was wondering if they'd ever make summoners not suck. I should probably read that one, more. The downside is that you're still using d4 HD, suseptable to ranged attacks, and strength drain poison (Weak Fort Save).
Malconvoker is pretty awesome indeed. IMHO is the only pure caster PrC that is worth losing 1 caster level for. The Planar Binding stuff is almost broken IMHO (with the right tactics you can pretty much negate the Charisma checks involved by imposing a -20 or so penalty to it). Also, d4 hd is largely offset by ways to buff your AC, gain concealment and generally stay out of reachwhich make you much harder to hit than the average melee class with high HP. Also, oisons have pretty crappy DCs (can't recall anything higher than 25 or so). With 16 con, save enhancing items, save enhancing buffs when appropriate and the rerolls granted by a Luck Blade and Mantle of Second chances you can't really fail one.
But that's items you'd have to use to keep a Fort save from not being in the toilet when you could be using them to buff other aspects of combat. Using the Gold restrictions of the DMG, you still have a good deal of limitations. This build does seem like an amazing party support build, though. I'd just have to make extra sure to shut down archer fire.
Shadowcraft Mage isn't bad. But goggles that have truesight on them or Awesome Smite auto-kills your concealment.
The main strength of the Shadowcraft Mage is not the concealment, but rather the ability to keep illusions partially real even if you recognize them as illusions (witht he right combo I think you can make them 120% real or so).
No, that is cool, but Metamagic+Metamagic reduction>>>>Shadowcraft.
I'd still rather look atIncantatrix 8-10 for the damage output of spells.
By 12th level you can easily get the featload you need just taking wizard 5 Incan 7. By 13th all your metamagic is reduced by 1 because of Improved Metamagic. Then with Arcane Thesis to further reduce this on 1 spell and you're looking at a solid damage platform.
And since there are additional feats available, you might as well take AT on other damage spells to give you some virsatility or to round out your spell slots with enough DPS to level a castle. .
To each his own. I never like pure damage wizard builds for 2 reasons:
1) You can't really compete with a Psion that knows what he's doing.
2) I consider save-or-die much more effective. An optimized wizard can get 39 int at lvl 20 (20 starting+3 age+6 item, +5 level bonsues+5 from tome). Coupled with greater spell focus for 38 DC for 9'th leve spells (which can be augmented further with classes and items). In comparison, the usual good fort save char only has around 28 con at that lvl (18 starting, 4 tome, 6 item) for a total of 26 fort save(12 base +9 con +5 cloak of risistance). You can see the diference
Psions win all, man. They're insane when it comes to damage platforms, they have stupid-crazy buffs and can transform into 55HD Radiant Dragons. It's just as bad with Soulknives (Knife to the soul+Illumin Soul+Mind Bow, yo).
Save Vs death should be ommitted from game, man. These sort of things give the GM allowance to use them. I don't like my Characters's minds going pop in the middle of combat because I rolled a 1 on my will save.
Have you seen Superior Unarmed Strike? It gives you Monk Damage for non-monk classes and gives you to your effective monk level if you have a level of monk. You could also take Boots that give you expiditious retreat and a ring that gives flight. Take that with 2 weapon pounce from PHB2 and you'll chip away at the d4's real quick.
The damage here is not the issue (although monk damage is not that grat compared to charging build damage, it's enough to kill a wizard). the problem is hitting said wizard. You need items to fly, stuff to get past concealment and greater blink, and then be able to hit a really high AC (ony shapechange to Balor+Mithral Chain Shirt+Bite of the wereboar=a starting AC of 55 at lvl 20).
But that's items you'd have to use to keep a Fort save from not being in the toilet when you could be using them to buff other aspects of combat. Using the Gold restrictions of the DMG, you still have a good deal of limitations. This build does seem like an amazing party support build, though. I'd just have to make extra sure to shut down archer fire.
No, that is cool, but Metamagic+Metamagic reduction>>>>Shadowcraft.
.
Luckblade is 20k gold, and mantle of second chances is 12k gold. That's pocket change compared to the hundreds of GP you have at higher levels, and i always buy them anyway since they help a great deal with save-or-dies.
As for the Shadowcraft mage, it is worse than Incantatrix (best wizard PrC in the game IMHO, although I like IotSV more) but it provides an interesting(and by no means underpowered) variation from the typical wizard (sepecially beguiler/shadowcraft mage).
Psions win all, man. They're insane when it comes to damage platforms, they have stupid-crazy buffs and can transform into 55HD Radiant Dragons. It's just as bad with Soulknives (Knife to the soul+Illumin Soul+Mind Bow, yo).
Save Vs death should be ommitted from game, man. These sort of things give the GM allowance to use them. I don't like my Characters's minds going pop in the middle of combat because I rolled a 1 on my will save.
I agree with the save or die/impose-other-codition-that-practically-equals-death spells. That's why i swithced over to 4th Edition. But this kind of spells were the one of the main reasons spellcasters were overpowered in 3.5
I'm just saying: while it is another option to do more damge it's just not nearly as impressive as it can be.
The best option is to just ignore those spells. Make it a general agreement that no one uses them to prevent the story from getting severely boring
Those sort of things are why I switched over to Weapons of the Gods and GURPS 4th ed.
Having those abilities means they're available as magic items to the monk. Rings of flight, Truesight, and it's not hard to pump your attack to that point. Also: it'd take multiple rounds for you to cast all these buffs. Each round you have to cast a standing buff us one round I get to attack with. Mages have their limits and it's lack of time.
No sane caster will enter the combat unbuffed. Mid to high level it's pretty easy to get a pretty accurate 'scan' of the dungeon&opponents via scrying/divination/commune/other scouting spells, so you know what&when to expect.
Also, most buffs last 10 min/lvl(shapechange, shield and the like). Tha's almost 7 hours extended at lvl 20(or 3 and a half non-exntended). as for the buffs that last rounds/lvl, you can either cast them bfore combat, or just quicken/persist them.
Also: most scouting spells do have limitations like "1 inch of led, 1 foot of stone, ect..." It's not hard to have thise spells limited because of terrain.
What about during night watch? Or when they are scrying? These things do take time.
Also: most scouting spells do have limitations like "1 inch of led, 1 foot of stone, ect..." It's not hard to have thise spells limited because of terrain.
You don't really need to sleep in the wilderness. At low level you have rope trick, which very few(if any) low lvl monsters can penetrate, while at high level you can just teleport to safety and then teleport back next morning.
As for scouting spells. Most have limitations like the ones you mentioned, but there is very little stuff a DM can do to foil all divination/scrying spells and not look like he's out to get the PCs.
Also, contingency works wonders
It's all about the styles of play. In the end, the aim of the game is to have fun.
Or, you know, see if a GM will house rule that getting multiple enchanted armor spikes on a warforged juggernaut will actually deal additional damage when bull rushing, then prance through a field of goblins as blood coats the sky!
(spikes on armor spikes, yo!)
It's all about the styles of play. In the end, the aim of the game is to have fun.
Or, you know, see if a GM will house rule that getting multiple enchanted armor spikes on a warforged juggernaut will actually deal additional damage when bull rushing, then prance through a field of goblins as blood coats the sky!
(spikes on armor spikes, yo!)
I once played (terribly OP campaign just for the f**k of it) with a DM that thought multiple defending items stacked. Then everybody was walking around with +1 (made +much more via Magic Weapon) Defending Armor Spikes, Spiked shields, boot blades and any other weapon they could find not occupying hand slots (some dude actually found a Tongue Blade in some obscure 3.0 book).