Is there any way I can make him let me just choose my feats and have them stay that way?
I suggest the hammergun.
No, but seriously, he's limiting something that's frankly kinda silly to limit. You're not doing some crazy multi-feat monstrosity, you're taking two feats and getting abilities that expend your resources. Tell him he's being unreasonable; is he limiting a fighter's power attack feat to only 1:1 damage with two-handers?
(P.S - If anyone comments about my "over powered" comment about sorcerers I shan't respond as I can't be bothered getting into an argument involving equations.)
ashmanonar- No, he doesn't. And the only other thing he's limited is taking away the Paladin's right to smite at 1st level. Of course, the paladin's player hasn't seen the class in more than a glance, so he's fine with that. Still, it's sorta a pain when we're in the encounters he puts us in (which are 3-5 levels higher in CR!)
Adst - I think not.
My impression of your DM is that he's either inexperienced and/or a control freak who has no idea what is actually overpowered. Sorc sacking spells for dragon breath is weak. Paladins who can smite is still pretty dam weak.
If he lets you change your feat to something else, then he's at least trying to be a decent DM. If he forces you to keep your DM-weakened feat, he's just a jerk DM.
My advice is just to get someone else to DM.
well, he was gonna nerf any Draconic feat I took. He hates them because they aren't from the PHB
This is the point in a thread where someone will suggest you play a druid to teach your DM a lesson.
good luck.
This is the point in a thread where someone will suggest you play a druid to teach your DM a lesson.
Yes, yes it is.
CoDZILLA TIME!
More seriously, if the DM doesn't want players to pick options outside the PHB, the correct thing to do is say 'PHB options only', not punish the players for choosing stuff outside the PHB.
Also, I think the PHB grdge is limited to me, because he let another guy (gnome illusionist) pick a feat outside of the PHB, no problem! (The feats is Spellgifted: +1 caster level to all illusion spells, -1 to all others)
Yes, yes it is.
CoDZILLA TIME!
More seriously, if the DM doesn't want players to pick options outside the PHB, the correct thing to do is say 'PHB options only', not punish the players for choosing stuff outside the PHB.
Yes. This.
There are a few valid reasons for sticking to core (bunch of newbies in game, don't want too much rule complexities, don't have all the books etc.), but the DM should tell the players up front about houserules and restrictions before the game starts, not spring some surprise nerf after character creation.
Discuss it with the DM. Explain that the weapon is yes, strong but it is also a double edged sword. You harm both friend and foe, and if you wish not to hit friends then you can't use it most of the time. Also it has a limited range and area of effect. You can only hit things that are near you and that are in a line of effect to you. You can't hit people that are hundreds of feet away the way you can with magic missile or fireball. Explain how dangerous and damaging it can be to the group but not only that but you have to spend a spell slot to use it, which means one less spell you are good for. Yes it is powerful, but the chances are that in almost every fight the rest of the group will be standing in front of the sorcerer. I don't think you will want to burn the entire group to death just to kill a couple of kobolds.
Um, Question? How would being a druid teach my DM a lesson?
Also, I think the PHB grdge is limited to me, because he let another guy (gnome illusionist) pick a feat outside of the PHB, no problem! (The feats is Spellgifted: +1 caster level to all illusion spells, -1 to all others)
Your DM seems a like jerk.
The deal with druids is that a) they're full caster with unlimited access to a pretty good spell list, b) they have an animal companion that fights almost as well as a fighter of their level, and c) once they get wildshape and natural spell, they can also fight as well as any melee class of their level, while still retaining their casting ability.
Look up CoDzilla in this board and you'll see more detailed explanation. Just because they're core, doesn't mean they're not broken.
Um, Question? How would being a druid teach my DM a lesson?
The druid, like the wizard, is an easily broken class (but what class isn't in 3.5). The main broken portion to it in many of the broken builds is the wild shape ability.
Also, I think the PHB grdge is limited to me, because he let another guy (gnome illusionist) pick a feat outside of the PHB, no problem! (The feats is Spellgifted: +1 caster level to all illusion spells, -1 to all others)
Illusionists are hard to use but if used correctly they are probably on of the strongest types of casters. At higher levels an illusionist has no need to cast any spells other than illusions for they can mimic all other schools of magic. Is the illusionist a gnome by any chance? If so then the character can get overpowering very quickly.
Your DM seems a like jerk.
The deal with druids is that a) they're full caster with unlimited access to a pretty good spell list, b) they have an animal companion that fights almost as well as a fighter of their level, and c) once they get wildshape and natural spell, they can also fight as well as any melee of their level, while still retaining their casting ability.
Look up CoDzilla in this board and you'll see more detailed explanation.
Not to mention they get access to some very powerful divination spells. A good druid has good combat abilities, healing capabilities, and the ability to summon for support if need be.
Yeah, the gnome is an illusionist. And I also considered being a druid, but I didn't think I could get the DM to change my spells from being divine to arcane, so that I could use Draconic feats.
If he's going to nerf the Draconic feats, don't bother with them. Just go straight human Druid 20, PHB options only, and you will be the most powerful character in the game. It's basically a way of saying 'No, the PHB is not balanced'.
. If done right during each combat your cleric will have a higher defense than the fighter, with the same bab, with a higher strength, and you will have magic casting capabilities. Also, make sure that you have your concentration maxed. Also it would likely to go heavy armor and shield so that you have extra AC (especially when you have enchanted armor later on) and make sure that you improve your armor before your weapons. Your spells will help you hit so you don't need the strongest of weapons, plus it wont matter how strong your weapon is if your almost never hit. I have seen some very game breaking battle clerics. Tell you the truth I think that the draconic feats are actually kind of weak and mainly for flavor purposes.
Now... That aside...
Tell him you feel the nerf is unfair. Or use a different concept. I mean, everybody's basically gone over the different things you can do. Some DM's are unreasonable for no apparent reason at random times.
Is there any way I can make him let me just choose my feats and have them stay that way?
Very likely not. There are a lot of warning signs, just in your OP:
Okay, Me and a couple of my friends just started a 3.5e gaming group.
I'm not looking to start an edition war, but this is a personal red flag. 3.5 has serious balance issues, and there's an extremely prominent alternative that fixed many of them; the fact that the DM is running 3.5 isn't a death sentence for the group, but it's a risk factor.
It consists of a... neutral evil halfling rogue, lawful good paladin...
This one actually is a death sentence. In eight years of D&D, I've never seen this situation turn out well. A DM that allows it to develop is simply not doing his job.
(since the DM hates psionics, shadow magic, incarnum, amongst other things)
If it requires effort to understand or creativity to integrate into the campaign, he bans it out of hand. Gotcha.
Anyways, he limited my feat's breath weapon damage to 1d6/ spell slot level.
You might try this logic: your first 3rd-level spell slot, instead of being used to cast a 6d6 fireball, can be spent to do a 3d6 breath weapon. Draconic Breath was arguably a sub-par choice at 6d6; now it's an obviously terrible one.
Unfortunately, it really looks like your DM is simply making rulings based on his gut feeling and first impression, rather than any sort of reasoning or design. Banning unbalanced material is perfectly appropriate; arbitrary post-hoc changes to player choices are not. You should ask him for a list of acceptable rules sources before you build your next character--but don't expect his game to be less frustrating than character creation has already been.
Um, Question? How would being a druid teach my DM a lesson?
It wouldn't. A lot of people seem to advocate being a total jerk and playing a broken character to ruin your DM's game in an attempt to get back at him. The only "lesson" to be learned by the DM in this case is that you're a munchkin and you need to be strictly regulated anytime you choose anything.
But this is a stupid way of doing things because it will only make your DM trust you less in the long run and therefore be more liberal with the nerf stick.
If you want a DM to stop clamping down on things he feels are overpowered, making a broken character is a terrible way of getting that done.
Adst - I think not.
Compared to the Ranger, the Rogue, the Paladin, and the Fighter in the party? I think so. :P
Just show your DMs some comparisons between this breath weapon and spells you can cast with those slots instead. The 3rd level example somebody gave about Fireball was a good one...
Just show your DMs some comparisons between this breath weapon and spells you can cast with those slots instead.
Damn, I think I might have just found the glitch. So yeah, blowing a 1st-level spell slot to deal 2d6 fire damage in a 30-ft. cone doesn't sound like much, except when you compare it to, say, burning hands. The kicker is that it's a supernatural ability and not a spell (so you could do it in melee, while [Prone], with your hands full, etc.). Burning Hands has one thing going for it, and that's setting flammable materials ablaze...
That said, the feat's power isn't THAT immense, and I'd say a decent compromise would be tacking on a 'Caster level 3rd' requirement to keep things in line with very low-level core.
This is no advantage. You can cast spells while prone.
So yeah, blowing a 1st-level spell slot to deal 2d6 fire damage in a 30-ft. cone doesn't sound like much, except when you compare it to, say, burning hands.
Oh no, +1 average damage and +30 to the cone size. How broken.
Yeah, it's a little bit better, sure, but you had to take a feat to do it. If it were exactly as powerful, the feat wouldn't be very useful, would it?
An appropriate 2nd level comparison would be Scorching Ray.
3rd level Fireball.
4th Shout
5th Cone of Cold
6th Chain Lightning
7th Delayed Blast Fireball
8th Polar Ray
9th Meteor Swarm
This is no advantage. You can cast spells while prone.
Only if there's no somatic components...is what I wanted to say. Now that I just checked the rules, I'm wondering where I got that idea from originally.
Well, in that case, strike the 'while [Prone]' text and replace it with 'while [Grappled].'
yada yada
All these silly high-level spell examples. I'm talking LOW-LEVEL here. At 1st level, throwing a 2d6 30-ft. cone is far superior than a 15-ft. 1d4 cone. Still better at 2nd level, too. Hence, 'caster level 3rd,' as in "Take it at 3rd level."
There is a difference between *broken* and being a little too good at 1st but just fine at 3rd.
A human anything straight just using the PHB can be over powering.
Hardly. In the hands of equally skilled players, the Big Three (Cleric, Druid, Wizard) are certainly not going to be overpowered by the weak classes such as fighter, monk and paladin.
I would say go cleric of of Corellon or Heironeous and take the war domain. Dump your stats into strength and then wisdom.
Even for a combat cleric, the first priority should be Wis - the spells are what makes you a better fighter than the fighter, so getting more of them (and having your offensive spells be harder to resist) is more important than a bit of extra Str.
Go with a cleric with the Spell domain (from the spell compendium) and for flavor the magic domain. Then you can multiclass into wizard (regular wizard would be best) after a few levels. The only thing that you need that is not in the core books is the spell domain. Then take the Mystic Theurge prestige class in the DMG. This combination will allow for you to have access to all wizard spells while still having all your clerical spells. Take a lot of item creation feats and some craft and profession skills. You will be an item creating machine and you could possibly see about opening up some sort of shop for extra cash flow. You can now have most every spell prepared with magic items, you can make many items for the group, and you still have your daily spells (which can be basically any spell in the book). :D
Item creation is a powerful option, especially with a stingy DM. However, it only works if the DM gives the PCs enough downtime. Given what we've heard about the DM in question, that doesn't seem likely.
Also, the Mystic Theurge is a very weak PrC, especially in the low (prerequisites) to mid levels.
At 1st level, throwing a 2d6 30-ft. cone is far superior than a 15-ft. 1d4 cone. Still better at 2nd level, too.
Yeah, it's better. I get that. The question is that of how much better it is. To me, it seems like the type of better that costs a feat, which it does. :P
Is there any way I can make him let me just choose my feats and have them stay that way?
Well.... You could cry & pitch a fit, or you could try discussing the matter with him in a more rational way. One of those might work.
Seriously, what do you expect? The RPG police to come strongarm him?
The DM guild to pronounce him guilty & expell him? The voices of random people on-line to mean anything? Just go talk to your friend already.
Of course you could also look at in a more positive light.
At least he told you up-front that he was limiting your power. See, I've known DMs who'd just arbitrarily adjust the damage from your breath weapon & never mention it.
You'd go into a combat, roll xDx, state the damage - and they'd simply note down whatever total they felt like.
You at least know of your limit & can plan accordingly.
All these silly high-level spell examples. I'm talking LOW-LEVEL here. At 1st level, throwing a 2d6 30-ft. cone is far superior than a 15-ft. 1d4 cone.
Both, however, are inferior to casting Color Spray or Sleep, which is saying 'I win'.
If he's going to nerf the Draconic feats, don't bother with them. Just go straight human Druid 20, PHB options only, and you will be the most powerful character in the game. It's basically a way of saying 'No, the PHB is not balanced'.
Why are you giving BAD advice?
You've already been informed (indirectly anyways) that the DM does realize he controlls the horizontal & vertical here. That he already knows he can change things....
Ok, let's assume for the sake of argument that he's unaware of CoDzilla style fun, druidic brokeness, etc. And he discovers them the hard way.
What do you think will happen? Go ahead, take a guess.
Here, I'll help you out;
A) The DM will nerf those. Probably in mid-play.
B) This will not go over well.
C) The original poster will now certainly be branded a trouble-maker by the DM (and maybe other players) & will be under constant scrutiny for anything he does.
D) This will not go over well.
So your advice to intentionally break things? It'll result in things breaking alright - a gaming group, all enjoyment of the game, a circle of friends.....
But hey, that's ok though becuase that DM learned not to nerf a certain feat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the original poster:
Your best course of action is to talk it over with your DM.
If you can't sway him, simply play the feat his way whenever he DMs and make sure you talk to him about other feats so as to avoid such surprises in the future.
And remember; few games last forever. Eventually this one will end & maybe views will change or someone else will DM.
Oh, and if you do decide to try out the petty game-breaking tactics others around here are (foolishly) advocating? Make sure and note who gave you that advice - that way when things get worse you'll know where to place at least some of the blame....
It'll result in things breaking alright - a gaming group, all enjoyment of the game, a circle of friends.....
The DM is doing a fine job of that on his own, by showing blatant favoritism and being utterly arbitrary and unfair.
The CoDzilla thing is absolute last resort. It definitely gets the point across, but it's generally a bridge-burner.
It wouldn't. A lot of people seem to advocate being a total jerk and playing a broken character to ruin your DM's game in an attempt to get back at him. The only "lesson" to be learned by the DM in this case is that you're a munchkin and you need to be strictly regulated anytime you choose anything.
But this is a stupid way of doing things because it will only make your DM trust you less in the long run and therefore be more liberal with the nerf stick.
If you want a DM to stop clamping down on things he feels are overpowered, making a broken character is a terrible way of getting that done.
Honestly, the lesson that it can teach is "core is just as broken as anything else". But that presupposes that the DM starts out thinking that the problem with the game is that everything non-core is broken, and that this rationale is guiding his decisions regarding restrictions. In this particular case, it seems doubtful that that's actually the rationale; more likely, the DM has control issues, and, to be completely frank, it's also possible that he's exercising a bit of favoritism, as well*. And, yes, in that particular case, creating a broken core-only character is much more likely to backfire than anything.
*My reasoning here is this: not only has the DM not restricted all splats, but he's already forayed into restricting core, with the de-smited Paladin. Further, Paladins are a *notoriously* weak class, overall; yes, they peak at relatively low levels, but even *at* those low levels, they're no more powerful than a Rogue or Fighter of the same level. There's no way a DM could allow a Fighter his first-level bonus fighter feat (which is to say, Power Attack) and credibly claim that it makes sense to de-fang the Paladin for "balance" reasons; It sounds much more like he's trying to put one over on a player that's too unfamiliar with the game to cry fowl.
And, at the same time, he *has* allowed non-core material in the game, for the Gnome Illusionist. Further, it's patently obvious, noting the feat selection, there that that player picked it with the intent to pump up his save DCs as high as he can get them -the best way to break the game with an Illusionist- so any thinking DM would immediately cry fowl at that point, if he were actually concerned with game balance. So, yes, while there's some conjecture included in there, it seems fairly likely that the DM is playing favorites with the players in terms of what he is and isn't willing to allow.
Compared to the Ranger, the Rogue, the Paladin, and the Fighter in the party? I think so. :P
I'm inclined to disagree re: the first two. I think you misjudge just how dissynergistic (spellcheck be damned, that's a word) the Sorcerer's abilities are, and how much of a disservice that does the class in the long run. The constellation of abilities the Sorcerer has force them to emphasize Cha (their spells), Int (their ENTIRE skill list, as well the capacity to *have* any skill ranks to spend on the usual Spellcasting Taxes of Concentration, Spellcraft, and Knowledge: Arcana), and Dex (their AC and attack rolls) at the same time. Oh, and having a Con score helps them not die as quickly. By comparison, it's relatively effortless to make a Ranger or a Rogue that relies solely on a single ability score, or, at worst, two scores. Same with Wizards.
And at the same time, the fact that their spellcasting progression is a half-step behind that of Wizards guarantees that they're only going to be able to cast spells appropriate for the encounter difficulty they're facing about *half* the time, the fact that they can't modulate their spells by day means they are forced to learn context-neutral direct-damage spells which typically break even, at best, against other damage-dealers, the fact that having to sink more points into more ability scores ensures that their casting stat will suffer (guaranteeing that the Sorc's must-have, Shadow Evocation/Conjuration, will always be strictly worse than our friend the Illusionist's), and the fact that they have fewer feats that effectively augment their primary class ability of *any* class in the PHB... and, yeah, they're pretty weak. Honestly, they basically break even against a decently-made SAD Rogue or Ranger.
Yeah, it's better. I get that.
Man, folks boast about how powerful spellcasters are, then screech the moment someone objectively compares similar splat material with core...
Both, however, are inferior to casting Color Spray or Sleep, which is saying 'I win'.
30-ft. cone affects 24 squares.
Color Spray I'll grant you - You can target either 6 or 7 squares worth of creatures to [Stun] them for 1-13 rounds. Of course, there are a number of defenses against it (Will, SR, blindness, less effective against 5 HD+ or nonliving creatures), but that doesn't keep this spell from being broken as **** (and not something I'd like to balance other spells or abilities off of).
Sleep is a pretty terrible combat spell, as creatures will often just leave the 12-square AoE before it takes effect (if anyone on the enemy's side identifies what the PC is casting). It only affects 4 HD of living creatures, and two defenses stop it cold (Will & SR). Highly overrated.
Yrogerg - I think you're emphasizing the need for Intelligence a little too strongly, here. Really, Sorcerers just need as good a stats as a Wizard (Con, Dex, and primary casting stat). None of their Int-based skills will make or break the game, as the Sorcerer only needs Concentration pre-epic. Also, being one step behind in spellcasting would be completely debilitating if it weren't possible to purchase scrolls and wands. A 3rd-level Wizard will have two, rarely three 2nd-level spell slots; tell me you can't make up that difference with consumables.
. A 3rd-level Wizard will have two, rarely three 2nd-level spell slots; tell me you can't make up that difference with consumables.
You mean the ones that the Wizard can make for half price, as a free feat? Using his more spells known?
Note also that Spellcraft is still a necessary skill to get the most out of Detect Magic, to decipher the aforementioned consumables *without* burning an extra spell, and for ID-ing spells to counterspelling, one of those places where a Sorcerer otherwise has a relative strength.
You mean the ones that the Wizard can make for half price, as a free feat? Using his more spells known?
If a wizard wants to spend XP and cash to spam the same two 2nd-level spells over and over, he can do that. The point is, if a spell is necessary to complete a quest (a divination or some other utility spell), they're up for sale. If you're worried about combat power...well, we are talking about a guy with wizard spells. He might not be a pair of flinging 4d6 scorching bolts or hideous laughterat 3rd level for free, but he can throw six 2d8 lesser orbs of fire or color sprays.
Note also that Spellcraft is still a necessary skill...
Thankfully Spellcraft utilizes static DCs (relatively low ones, to boot).
Hardly. In the hands of equally skilled players, the Big Three (Cleric, Druid, Wizard) are certainly not going to be overpowered by the weak classes such as fighter, monk and paladin.
yes the big three are "big" because they are the most broken but the other classes are able to kill them quick. A well made rogue can kill a god like wizard in 1 hit.
Even for a combat cleric, the first priority should be Wis - the spells are what makes you a better fighter than the fighter, so getting more of them (and having your offensive spells be harder to resist) is more important than a bit of extra Str.
Wis doesn't need to be maxed right away and doesn't need to be an 18 or 19 until the character is at level 18 or 19. Strength on the other hand is incredibly important and can be unbalancing at low levels. Focusing on strength as a battle cleric with wisdom as a secondary stat that can be improved over time would be the best choice. Plus all your spells will be buffs so you don't have to worry about DC so the super high wisdom is not needed, especially at low levels.
Item creation is a powerful option, especially with a stingy DM. However, it only works if the DM gives the PCs enough downtime. Given what we've heard about the DM in question, that doesn't seem likely.
I see that the DM would likely not allow it but it is something that can be tried. If the DM doesn't allow it then the DM sucks because the adventure is suppose to be made for and around the characters not the DM ego.
Also, the Mystic Theurge is a very weak PrC, especially in the low (prerequisites) to mid levels.
Yes it is weak but it is the best choice for this combo when only using the core books, seeing as the DM only seems to be comfortable with these books and little else.
If a wizard wants to spend XP and cash to spam the same two 2nd-level spells over and over, he can do that. The point is, if a spell is necessary to complete a quest (a divination or some other utility spell), they're up for sale. If you're worried about combat power...well, we are talking about a guy with wizard spells. He might not be a pair of flinging 4d6 scorching bolts or hideous laughterat 3rd level for free, but he can throw six 2d8 lesser orbs of fire or color sprays.
Umm, it's more that he can expand his spells known list by as much as he has cash for, and then spend cash and exp to spam whatever 2nd level spells he wants.
Thankfully Spellcraft utilizes static DCs (relatively low ones, to boot).
Uhh, a fair number of the uses scale with spell level, and you probably care somewhat up until DC 34. Which still constitutes a fairly heafty investment, if you have low int and 2+int skills/level.
Man, folks boast about how powerful spellcasters are, then screech the moment someone objectively compares similar splat material with core...
WTF are you talking about?
I have no idea what you just said or why or how it relates to what I posted.
The constellation of abilities the Sorcerer has force them to emphasize Cha (their spells), Int (their ENTIRE skill list, as well the capacity to *have* any skill ranks to spend on the usual Spellcasting Taxes of Concentration, Spellcraft, and Knowledge: Arcana), and Dex (their AC and attack rolls) at the same time. Oh, and having a Con score helps them not die as quickly.
I think you've vastly overestimating the value of INT to a Sorcerer. They "need" (and I use that word here very loosely) Concentration and Spellcraft. That requires a 10 INT, hardly a big deal. DEX isn't really that big a deal either, because you're AC is going to be so abysmal anyways that a couple extra points isn't really going to help. If you really want AC, take Mage Armor and Shield as spells. Only CON and CHA are really critical.
And at the same time, the fact that their spellcasting progression is a half-step behind that of Wizards guarantees that they're only going to be able to cast spells appropriate for the encounter difficulty they're facing about *half* the time,
I don't think so. What it means is that the Wizard gets to cast spells above what is appropriate for the encounter difficulty they're facing half the time. Yeah, Wizards are better than Sorcerers. What else is new? Too many people make the mistake of thinking that means that the Sorcerer sucks. :P
the fact that they can't modulate their spells by day means they are forced to learn context-neutral direct-damage spells which typically break even, at best, against other damage-dealers,
If you want to play a caster that's a damage dealer, I'll point you in the direction of the Warmage. The sorcerer has better things to do than direct damage, and there are quite an abundance of very useful, context-neutral, multi-use spells the sorcerer can pick from.
and, yeah, they're pretty weak
-er than the Wizard? Yeah. That doesn't mean they're weak. That's like saying Bill Gates has more money than Oprah. So what? :P
Umm, it's more that he can expand his spells known list by as much as he has cash for, and then spend cash and exp to spam whatever 2nd level spells he wants.
I guess, but that's a pretty hefty investment.
Uhh, a fair number of the uses scale with spell level, and you probably care somewhat up until DC 34. Which still constitutes a fairly heafty investment, if you have low int and 2+int skills/level.
34...to try and identify a 9th-level spell after getting hit by it? ;) With an Intelligence of 12 (not difficult with the elite array), max ranks, a masterwork tool, and synergy from Arcana, a sorcerer will have a modifier of 8 + HD. That makes it possible to hit a DC 28 using "Take 10" at 10th level (DC 31 if you're a freak and take Skill Focus, DC 33 if you're a superfreak macking out with Magical Aptitude).
CC - Sorry about that. For some reason, I feel like I'm constantly on the defensive on these boards these days, and you caught the backlash unfairly.
I'm inclined to disagree re: the first two. I think you misjudge just how dissynergistic (spellcheck be damned, that's a word) the Sorcerer's abilities are, and how much of a disservice that does the class in the long run. The constellation of abilities the Sorcerer has force them to emphasize Cha (their spells), Int (their ENTIRE skill list, as well the capacity to *have* any skill ranks to spend on the usual Spellcasting Taxes of Concentration, Spellcraft, and Knowledge: Arcana), and Dex (their AC and attack rolls) at the same time. Oh, and having a Con score helps them not die as quickly. By comparison, it's relatively effortless to make a Ranger or a Rogue that relies solely on a single ability score, or, at worst, two scores. Same with Wizards.
A sorcerer is really no different than most other class. Lets take ranger and rogue as examples.
Ranger(Two-Weapon Fighting): Needs STR for Melee damage, CON for HP, INT for skill points, WIS(14 to get level 4 spells) for spells, and Dex for armor and bonuses to skills(hide, move silently, etc) doesn't hurt.
Ranger(Ranged): Needs Dex for ranged attack, AC, and bonuses to useful skills like Hide and move silently. INT for Skill points, WIS for spells(again 14 for level 4 spells), decent STR doesn't hurt when using composite bows, and CON for HP(not as important as with a TWFing Ranger).
Average Rogue: Dex for AC, Ranged and Melee Attacks(Assume weapon finesse is taken ASAP) and skill bonuses, INT for Skill points, CON for HP and CHA for skill bonuses.
And let's look at a wizard while we're at it: INT for spells and skill points, CON for HP, and Dex for AC and ranged attacks(also useful for spells using ranged touch attacks).
So in hindsight, it's really not that "effortless."
yes the big three are "big" because they are the most broken but the other classes are able to kill them quick. A well made rogue can kill a god like wizard in 1 hit.
This is a fallacious argument. D&D class balance does not depend on whether a character can kill another (unless you play PvP exclusively).
Also, your assertion is baseless. A wizard who knows what he's doing will never give the rogue a chance to get that hit off. I do not want to further derail this thread, but if you doubt it, please refer to the 3.5 Character Optimization boards and look/ask for the myriad of "Can X kill a Wizard?" threads.
Wis doesn't need to be maxed right away and doesn't need to be an 18 or 19 until the character is at level 18 or 19. Strength on the other hand is incredibly important and can be unbalancing at low levels. Focusing on strength as a battle cleric with wisdom as a secondary stat that can be improved over time would be the best choice. Plus all your spells will be buffs so you don't have to worry about DC so the super high wisdom is not needed, especially at low levels.
The problem is that you never again get the opportunity to distribute your die rolls to your stats. If you don't pick Wis for your highest stat, you are giving up your potential to make it as high as possible. Also, with buff spells it is ridiculously easy to improve strength, and very difficult to improve Wis (for things like bonus spells per day for example).
The strength of a battle cleric is not the measly +1/+2 he gets to hit from the higher strength score or the +1-3 to damage. It's his spells, which blow this minute strength difference completely out of the water. High Wis increases the number of spells you can cast per day.
Also note that relying entirely on buff spells is a very poor tactical choice for even a battle cleric - the flexibility and power of battlefield control, save-or-die/suck and even the occasional direct damage spell is not to be underestimated.
Yes it is weak but it is the best choice for this combo when only using the core books, seeing as the DM only seems to be comfortable with these books and little else.
Given that a Mystic Theurge is weaker than both a single-classed cleric or sorcerer (and wizard, of course) - especially at low to mid levels - I do not see how this is good advice. Both cleric and wizard are better choices if you want to do item creation without seriously screwing yourself power-wise.
This is a fallacious argument. D&D class balance does not depend on whether a character can kill another (unless you play PvP exclusively).
How about this, I've seen rogues kill monsters 3+ CR over their level in one hit, from a distance. Quite devastating.
The problem is that you never again get the opportunity to distribute your die rolls to your stats. If you don't pick Wis for your highest stat, you are giving up your potential to make it as high as possible. Also, with buff spells it is ridiculously easy to improve strength, and very difficult to improve Wis (for things like bonus spells per day for example).
The strength of a battle cleric is not the measly +1/+2 he gets to hit from the higher strength score or the +1-3 to damage. It's his spells, which blow this minute strength difference completely out of the water. High Wis increases the number of spells you can cast per day.
Also note that relying entirely on buff spells is a very poor tactical choice for even a battle cleric - the flexibility and power of battlefield control, save-or-die/suck and even the occasional direct damage spell is not to be underestimated.
By battle cleric, I mean, designed to function like a fighter not a wizard. This means everything will be focused for melee not damage spells. If you want to be more like a wizard then play the cleric in more of the traditional style.
Having an extra first level spell isn't going to help out much early on when they all suck as far as boosting goes. You don't get your good boosts for the most part until you have access to your 3rd level spells. By this time you can have raised a 16 wis to a 17 wis, but it doesn't really matter because if you had an 18 wis you wouldn't be able to get the 4th level bonus spell until you could cast 4th level spells. By level 8 you have another bonus to wis raising it to an 18 and you get your extra 4th level spell that you can now use. By level 12 you raise your wis to 19, and at this point it doesn't need to be raised any more. More the most part, after this point you're really only getting more uses of low level spells which are, for the most part, useless. You can cast the spells that you would need, not being to cast a couple of extra spells isn't going to hurt, especially when you can really on your own capabilities most of the time. Focus can now go into important things such as con and str and helping out ones combat ability.
If possible it is always good to get the feat Somatic Weaponry, which would allow for a spell caster to cast spells with their hands full. This is good for a battle cleric because it allows for them to cast buffs while wielding a two-handed weapon.
Given that a Mystic Theurge is weaker than both a single-classed cleric or sorcerer (and wizard, of course) - especially at low to mid levels - I do not see how this is good advice. Both cleric and wizard are better choices if you want to do item creation without seriously screwing yourself power-wise.
Take Practiced Spellcaster once for your divine class and once for your arcane class and you will now be able to cast spells at a higher level. This means spells will be as strong as if you didn't multiclass. Now, yes, you don't progress as quick as if you stayed in a single class but I don't think that really matters if you now have access to nearly every spell. Of course this character build would not be for power, such as destroying everything like other builds are for, it is for having the ability to always be prepared. Not only would you have access to every spell, but you can also make nearly every item. With enough down time you know have a much better array of casting ability than a single classed spellcaster. Why? because you can cast most spells, you have double the spells per day, and you can make these spells into items to further augment the amount of spells you have at your disposal. Plus you can also craft cool gear for your group, so not only are you prepared but so is your group.
Moreover, MT is only a 10 level class. After level 16, you're kinda stuck. And the amount of spells you know doesn't matter unless you can cast all of them that day. A MT has lots of spells, but he's limited by the number of actions (and therefore the number of spells) he could take in combat. Each of his potential actions (ie. each spell) is gonna be weaker than an action by a normal wiz/cleric.
How about this, I've seen rogues kill monsters 3+ CR over their level in one hit, from a distance. Quite devastating.
A Wizard can stop time. :P
I think that's a little bit more impressive...
A Wizard can stop time. :P
I think that's a little bit more impressive...
At high levels;)
Regarding mystic theurge, it really is pretty bad unless you're using a non-conventional entry (ie. ur-priest etc.). Even if you take practiced spellcaster, you still lag behind by about two spell levels. At level 7, when a full wiz/cleric is casting 4th lv spells, you're only casting 2nd levels. For spells, the spell level is much more important that the caster level.
Moreover, MT is only a 10 level class. After level 16, you're kinda stuck. And the amount of spells you know doesn't matter unless you can cast all of them that day. A MT has lots of spells, but he's limited by the number of actions (and therefore the number of spells) he could take in combat. Each of his potential actions (ie. each spell) is gonna be weaker than an action by a normal wiz/cleric.
The OP wants to have fun. I don't think that he needs to have a god like character. Yes there are drawbacks to the MT, but what class doesn't have them. Also, once you run out of MT levels you either level up as your individual base classes or you take a similar prestige class if the DM will allow it at this moment.
The thing about the MT is that you are sacrificing overall strength for more variety. It would be to unbalancing to make a prestige class that allowed the caster, with different caster classes, to cast spells as if he/she had never multiclassed in the first place. I don't see why everyone is always about optimization.
Okay, Me and a couple of my friends just started a 3.5e gaming group. It consists of a neutral elf ranger, neutral evil halfling rogue, lawful good paladin, neutral good dwarf fighter, chaotic good illusionist, and me : a neutral good human sorceror
That is a recipe for disaster down the road. Unless all the players are reasonably experienced roleplayers, mature, and/or generally willing to play well with others the DM is not doing himself any favors. Evil characters do NOT EVER belong in a party of good-aligned characters and even LESS sensible is to have evil characters in the same party with a paladin who is all about the open, rabid, eradication of everything evil. But that's what's in store for the future...
(since the DM hates psionics, shadow magic, incarnum, amongst other things). Anyways, during character creation, I, being a human, chose 2 feats: Draconic Heritage(gain dragonblood subtype and a few other benefits), and Draconic Breath(sacrifice a spell slot to use a beath weapon like your draconic ancestor, does 2d6 damage per level). Anyways, he limited my feat's breath weapon damage to 1d6/ spell slot level.
People have been giving you some very bad advice here in suggesting that you attempt to subvert, antagonize, and make the DM's job harder than it already is. It doesn't matter if he IS being a complete jerk - suggesting that being a BIGGER jerk is a good way to resolve problems is just ridiculous.
And there's some interesting character optimization advice which is not ridiculous but certainly seems to me to be quite beside the point.
Is there any way I can make him let me just choose my feats and have them stay that way?
COMMUNICATE. Talk to the DM. Ask him to explain his motivations. Provide HIM with the counter-arguments, not us. Does he even know yet that you have an issue with this?
By rights your DM should be providing a list of approved material - or at least advising players that there can and will be a lot of material that he will spontaneously disapprove or alter so that as a player you know what kind of nonsense you're getting into and how he's going to run the compaign from this point forward. If there's too much for him to provide a "pre-approved" list of what you can and can't use, or of changes he insists on, then he's got no business running a kitchen-sink game in the first place and should probabaly stick to core or a very limted list of optional materials. Yes, as people have said core can be abused too, but at least you're less likely to have the DM spontaneously nerf things in core than in "optional" supplements.
TELL the DM that given the spontaneous nerfing of your choices you are going to spontaneously make NEW choices. No need to be snide or especially antagonistic, but accept no arguments in this regard. If you have to pass every feat, spell, skill, and so forth that you choose before the DM to see if he spontaneously makes changes then you have every right to change your mind AFTER he does so. It is not your responsibility as a player to try to GUESS what he's going to let you do and then be forced to live with the consequences if you guess incorrectly. If he doesn't like certain things and doesn't want them used then he needs to SAY SO - and BEFORE a player even thinks to try to use it.
This IS a matter of communcation between you and your DM. You need to tell him that you have a problem and work with him to resolve it. HE needs to communicate to ALL his players a specific listing of what he likes and allows, what he dislikes and disallows. He also needs to accept the fact that his job generally comes down to losing to the player characters CONSTANTLY. It means he should be enjoying seeing the player characters be good at things they do, and to watch them frequently defeat in humiliating ways the opponents and obstacles he puts in their path. He needs to save the nerf bat for AFTER something proves to be a disruption to the game, not used as a daily tool for maintaining iron-fisted control.
How about this, I've seen rogues kill monsters 3+ CR over their level in one hit, from a distance. Quite devastating.
What a rogue can do with a lucky shot doesn't tell much about game balance either - nor does it make a rogue comparable in power to one of the big three.
By battle cleric, I mean, designed to function like a fighter not a wizard. This means everything will be focused for melee not damage spells. If you want to be more like a wizard then play the cleric in more of the traditional style.
Even for battle clerics, the main source of power is their spells. More spells = more power. As I said, you might feel good about your high strength at level one. After that, you'll regret not having used that good roll for Wis. And again, battle clerics also use spells that are not buff spells - if they are clever. Feel free to check any of the Cleric guides on the 3.5 Character Optimization board if you feel the need to debate these points.
Take Practiced Spellcaster once for your divine class and once for your arcane class and you will now be able to cast spells at a higher level. This means spells will be as strong as if you didn't multiclass. Now, yes, you don't progress as quick as if you stayed in a single class but I don't think that really matters if you now have access to nearly every spell. Of course this character build would not be for power, such as destroying everything like other builds are for, it is for having the ability to always be prepared. Not only would you have access to every spell, but you can also make nearly every item. With enough down time you know have a much better array of casting ability than a single classed spellcaster. Why? because you can cast most spells, you have double the spells per day, and you can make these spells into items to further augment the amount of spells you have at your disposal. Plus you can also craft cool gear for your group, so not only are you prepared but so is your group.
You are using age-old, disproven arguments here.
Caster level is not the issue - spell progression is. If you are playing a core MT, you are going to hate yourself forever for the three levels you are behind in spell acquisition. It means that your fellows cast spells 1 or 2 spell levels higher than you. Spell power goes up exponentially with spell level, and this is what makes the core MT so abysmal. The power difference between Time Stop / Shapechange / Gate and Mass Hold Person / Limited Wish and even Reverse Gravity is obvious. Even for the early levels it's painful to still be casting Acid Arrow while your mates (and possible opponents) have access to Evard's, Evervation and Polymorph.
More spells are not a mitigating factor. Don't forget that you can only cast one spell per round - perhaps two, but in core that's highly unlikely as you too far behind in spell progression to readily pay the Quicken Spell level adjustment.
The caster level option (Practiced Spellcaster) is non-core. Give the DM's dislike for non-core material, it's not certain it will be allowed. Also, you have to pay two extra feats just to have the same caster level as your single-classed friends, and even then you are still behind on the spell acquisition.
There are two mistakes in your post: first, you do not have "access to every spell" with your build, just wizard and cleric spells (which, however, is plenty for crafting). Second, you do not have double the spells of a single class build, but less. It's somewhat comparable to double the spells of a single class build three levels lower than you are.
Crafting: it can be fun, but we've already been over the issue that it's highly DM-dependent. If you do not get sufficient downtime, it simply won't work. Give the DM butchered a fairly low-powered feat because it was supposedly too powerful, I imagine him having issues with crafting a lot of items, too. And don't forget that crafting costs XP, too, so if you really are crafting a lot (say for your party, as your suggest), you'll end up being even further behind with levels and therefore spell acquisition.
The OP wants to have fun.
[...]
I don't see why everyone is always about optimization.
It is about fun. Being far behind the power level of the rest of the party is usually not fun.
In summary, I'd stay away from the MT. If you like crafting very, very much, first make sure your DM is willing to play ball. Then double-check that the items you like really require both arcane and divine magic. Only if that's the case, consider the MT - otherwise, simply play a wizard or cleric. However, with the seemingly senseless changes to the Draconic Breath feat, I would avoid everything that is largely DM-dependent (crafting downtimes, non-core material).
Pyro, do what you want to have fun. You don't need to have the best character but just one that is OK. Pick something that seems fun. If the DM wont let you, then go for something farther down on the list of what you want to play.
I stay away from optimization boards because playing with game breaking characters is an ass move. It is good to have a strong character but one does not need the best character ever made to have fun. If my character is by far much weaker than the rest of the group, even after I made an over powered character, I will leave the group because everyone is being an ass.
CharOp's purpose isn't breaking games. If you "stay away" from CharOp, why would you comment on its content and/or purpose?
Pyro, do what you want to have fun. You don't need to have the best character but just one that is OK. Pick something that seems fun. If the DM wont let you, then go for something farther down on the list of what you want to play.
Always good advice. If you're not having fun, go do something else.
CharOp's purpose isn't breaking games. If you "stay away" from CharOp, why would you comment on its content and/or purpose?
CharOp means to make your character the best it can be mechanically. This means exploiting every loophole there is to make your character better. Characters at their best are better than what they were suppose to be, thus game breaking.
I stay away from CharOp because I don't find it fun to be the only one in the group doing anything. I just don't seem to have much fun when my character is basically a god, nor do I want to be nerfed by the DM because of it. Why do I talk about it and give it as advice? I talk about it because I can see many different ways in which to optimize things. I give people advice to be a jerk because I'm a jerk. I think it would be funny if someone decided to be a jerk right back to their DM and think it would get them somewhere. I know it isn't great advice, but it is still advice and that's all that the OP was asking for.
It's not a board that deliberately sets out to break people's game and ruin people's fun. In fact, if you go to CharOp and post a thread asking for a god character just to break your DM's game, most replies would be variations of GTFO.
What the CharOp board does is to analyze the game mechanics. They test the rules and see where they break. Run the numbers to find out which options are better than others. They are a board devoted to analyzing and troubleshooting the rules and mechanics of the game.
If you aren't into analyzing the math and mechanics of the game, then you might not frequent the CharOps board very much, but to ignore their findings is like ignoring a doctor's diagnosis because you don't like the results.
While it's true that certain gamebreakers have came out of the CharOps board (pun-pun et al.), most of them aren't meant to be used in a real game. What these thought experiments do is to highlight where the rules are ill made or where rules interactions have unexpected results. Just because you know about this stuff doesn't mean you have to use it to to make a world-wrecking character. Knowledge of the game mechanics allows people to make an informed choice of what they want to play, so they don't accidentally make something that's too weak or too strong.
In a more general note, character optimization doesn't necessarily mean finding loopholes and exploiting them. It just means you want to build a character who's good at doing something you want it to do. It's can be as simple as taking power attack instead of toughness if you want to make a good attacker. What then follows are simply looking at options that make your character do what you want it to do. ie. if you're using power attack, you should use a 2handed weapon; you may want to take shocktrooper to boost your hit rate; leap attack to do more damage etc.
There are degrees to character optimization. It's not an on/off switch.
If you aren't into analyzing the math and mechanics of the game, then you might not frequent the CharOps board very much, but to ignore their findings is like ignoring a doctor's diagnosis because you don't like the results.
And doctors are quite often wrong.
There are degrees to character optimization. It's not an on/off switch.
but most people seem to try and go all out.
And doctors are quite often wrong.
So...what's your point? Do you go to a car mechanic to get a second opinion if you don't like your doctor telling you that you have cancer?
No, you go to another doctor. And if ten doctors all tell you that you have cancer, you probably have cancer.
but most people seem to try and go all out.
Not what I've seen. Most people have an idea of what they want to play and either set restriction on themselves or have restrictions by their DM. They then go to CharOps and ask for help in making their character within the limits of their restrictions. If you go and ask for help building a meleer, the board will offer builds, based on what you say you want to play, like chain trippers, uberchargers, warblades etc., not "go play a wizard" or "play pun-pun". What CharOps offers is the most effective way to build your character according to your vision.
but most people seem to try and go all out.
There's a reason we used to have a Theoretical Optimization board. Character Optimization is making a character as powerful as possible within given bounds. A person who wants to make the best fire wizard using Core and Completes is doing CharOp. Is he trying to go "all out"? Yeah, all out in the sense that he wants to be as good as he can within the theme.
Theoretical Optimization is making a character as powerful as possible within the Rules As Written. This is where the loopholes, literal interpretations, and such come in. A person who wants to break the world damage record is doing TheorOp. Is he trying to go "all out"? Yeah, and he's using every rule he can to get there.
You know what the difference is? TheorOp is not meant to be used in actual games. The place you're most likely to find someone say "Don't use X or your DM will be ticked off" is the CharOp boards themselves, because they understand the game inside and out and can tell whether something will break the game.
CharOp means to make your character the best it can be mechanically. This means exploiting every loophole there is to make your character better. Characters at their best are better than what they were suppose to be, thus game breaking.
"CharOp means to make your character the best it can be mechanically." Okay, that works; that's the definition of optimization. Every time you take Power Attack instead of Toughness, you're optimizing.
"This means exploiting every loophole there is to make your character better." Does not follow. The most powerful possible wizard is a crowd-control/GOD wizard who slaps on tons of status effects. The second-most powerful wizard is a blaster wizard who uses Arcane Thesis and metamagic to blow things to pieces. Which one is exploiting a loophole there, huh? The one who can end combat with a single spell and let his allies coup de grace the enemies, or the one who uses Arcane Thesis, a feat which many people complain about as being far too powerful?
"Characters at their best are better than what they were suppose to be, thus game breaking." No, not quite. The mechanical construct behind your character is at its best when it's game breaking. Your character, however, is most often at its best far below that. If you're making a fire wizard, the mechanical construct behind your character is at its best if you scrap your concept and make a controller. Your character is at its best when you can handle fire-immune and -resistant foes, know as many fire spells as possible, and still contribute utility to your party. The difference between your character and the numbers behind it is the difference between CharOp and TheorOp.