Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - bobtheapple

Pages: [1]

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Fun Finds v7.0 - Now with +15% more reposts!

« on: March 11, 2016, 07:31:12 AM »

(click to show/hide)

If the update that you are referring to that "gives the artificer an effective spellcaster level" is the update in MoI, no it doesn't. That update only states "an artificer can qualify for prestige classes with spellcasting level requirements", that "an artificer’s caster level for his infusions fulfills this requirement", and gives provisions for how a prestige class that progresses levels in a spellcasting class interacts with the artificer's non-spellcasting caster level. It does not change the artificer's caster level into a spellcaster level, and it makes no mention of feats. In fact, it goes to great length to keep the artificer's caster level and spellcaster levels separate, as a rules blurb consisting of "Despite not casting spells, Artificers possess an effective spellcaster level equal to their class level" would have done the job nicely if that was their goal. Thus, this update does absolutely nothing to resolve the issue with crafting feats, nor was it intended to. I see no admission of there being a problem with the class, other than WotC realizing that an artificer might like to prestige, and essentially copy-pasted the warlock rules into the MoI for them.

I never asserted that artificers have a spellcasting level or that they are a spellcaster, quite the opposite, I point out quite clearly that if we are to go with the strictest RAW (i.e. semantics, the study of meaning) they certainly do not have one, despite their infusions functioning in all ways like spells. Nor did I ever, or will I ever, plead to not talk about things in detail. I would think that writing a three paragraph statement regarding the matter was a sign of that. If you you are referring to the line that I wrote regarding the mechanics of emulating a spell, I was speaking to the fact that "emulating" is poorly defined in the contexts of the rules, and thus difficult to adjudicate, and in the end it was ancillary to my point so I decided to not write on it. In the most liberal of sense a person emulating casting the spell actually casts the spell as a spellcaster. In the most strict of sense the person goes through the motions of casting the spell but accomplishes nothing, begging the point. Most likely the true meaning falls somewhere in the middle, but it is very difficult to tell and would require extensive research into other references of emulation in the rules, and again, it is besides the point as there is a straight-forward and rules-legal mechanism for the class functioning. If you would like me to write up a full post on the mechanics related to an artificer emulating a spell, I'm game.

As for 'the lack of text not proving me right,' all I can really say is... yes, yes it does. The presence of a statement that says the artificer gains a feat and the lack of a statement that lists the conditions in which they do not gain the feat means that the artificer gains the feat unconditionally, by the very definition of the word. There is no blanket rule in D&D that says 'if a class grants something you can't use, you don't get it' and there is no rule in the class that deprives the artificers of the feats, thus they have the feats whether they can use them or not. It is the same logic that allows us to say that by RAW characters that close their eyes don't instantly turn into pandas. Why? Because the game designers didn't include a rule that characters closing their eyes turn into pandas, thus they don't. The most fundamental tenant of RAW interpretation is if a rule is not present in the text then the rule doesn't exist. I pointed out for the benefit of others that the class doesn't have text backing up the unconditional granting of the feats, but as I said this is an unnecessary clarification, just like how we don't need a rule that says that "characters don't turn into pandas unless a rule says otherwise," because the absence of any rule to the contrary in a self-contained rule system precludes the need for a rule. Its fine if the author chooses to include clarifications if they think the rule is confusing, but it is not needed: even in the strictest RAW the bonus feats are granted.

As for the poor wording of Artificer, it really only stems from applying the strictest RAW interpretation, a casual reader would have no issue understanding the class, what it does, and how it works. The only possible mechanism for the artificer's crafting in the strictest RAW, Item Creation, and the intended method of an artificer's crafting in RAI are one and the same. From the standpoint of strictest RAW most classes are as poorly written as Artificer. Warlock, for an easy example, is actually broken when given the same level scrutiny: warlocks also do not have a spellcaster level and yet they have imbue item, a class ability they can never use because they can never qualify for the crafting feats, and aren't granted them as bonus feats like an artificer is.

In the end, Artificers have the feats and cannot use them, but they do not need to use them and instead use their Item Creation class ability. The feats are granted only to qualify the Artificer to make the item, and cannot be used normally. If an artificer gains a spellcasting class they may craft as normal using the feats. The class works fine even in the strictest RAW, and it doesn't even require referencing anything more than class itself (and the PHB if you aren't clear on what happens when you aren't qualified for a feat). That's better than I can say for quite a few classes. And in RAI, there isn't even an issue, because the intent is clear. Now, whether the class works the way people want it to work is an entirely different matter, but that is what house-rules are for. I find artificers to be decently powerful even with the minimum caster level rule, they just aren't the uber-gods that people desire them to be.

I realized after writing this that we are debating two entirely different things, you merely pointing out that in the strictest RAW you find the artificer class confusingly worded, which is not really something I can debate. I am debating that whether or not the RAW seems confusing, it is mechanically sound as written, and conforms nicely to the intended use of the class. I'll leave this here anyway.

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Fun Finds v7.0 - Now with +15% more reposts!

« on: March 09, 2016, 06:46:00 PM »

Actually, Artificers have a caster level just fine.

(click to show/hide)

While infusions are not spells, "they function just like spells and follow all the rules for spells" (third line of the infusion ability). One of the rules for spells from the PHB is: "A spell’s power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to your class level in the class you’re using to cast the spell," which was further clarified in RC to "A spell’s power often depends on its caster level, which is usually equal to your class level in the class you’re using to cast the spell." Note that only classes that do not fall under 'most spellcasting classes' or 'usually', for example Ur-Priest, have any text defining how caster level is granted to that class, so for the 3.5 rules system to work at all the default case must be that caster level equals class level for classes with class features that follow the rules for spells. Since Artificer is not singled out as a class whose caster level does not equal its class level, and infusions follow the rules for spells, an Artificer's caster level is equal to its class level.

Now, we can of course argue semantics along the lines of that since an Artificer is not a spellcaster, even given that it has a caster level it still cannot apply a non-spellcaster caster level to qualify for the "spellcaster level 3rd" requirement of Craft Wondrous Item, due to the poor wording choice used in the PHB which was never corrected (crafting feats that were printed later reference plain old caster level instead, which makes it is clear this was an error). However, this is still fine, Artificer receives these feats as bonus feats, and do NOT have the line common among other classes that receive bonus feats, that "the [class] must still meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat." Artificer also lacks the line saying that it can ignore the prerequisites, which was likely an omission stemming from the fact that the designers thought it was clear that the artificer already qualified for all the granted feats, but is nevertheless an unnecessary clarification; the class grants the feats unconditionally, thus the Artificer has them unconditionally.

We could then extend the argument that while an Artificer has the feats unconditionally the class is still unable to use the feats due to not having a prerequisite spellcasting level, as per PHB page 87. At this point the counter-argument gets slightly more tenuous, as it can stem from one of two questionable rulings. The first is that Artificers actually do not use item creation feats to craft items, they use the Item Creation class feature. Thus, even though an Artificer may not "emulate skill or feat requirements[...] including item creation feat prerequisites," because the Artificer possess the feat the Artificer can use it to qualify for the item creation prerequisites, and then uses Item Creation (Ex) to craft the item. The rules do not actually explicitly forbid qualifying for things with feats that you cannot use from what I can find (Which in and of itself is a fun find. Topical!) The second counterargument goes into semantics about what it means to emulate a spell for purposes of item creation, what impact that has on the rules system, etc, which is a very messy business that I'd rather not touch.

To contribute to the topic, other than that bleh find in the paragraph above, this is hard... Really, even Bane of Infidels? ...Unfinished Savage Progression Vampire into Vampire Lord... no, PBMC got that... hrmm... Okay, here is a weird situational item a player pulled out on me a while ago:

Illithid Mindscorch, a poison from DotU, has the following rules text: "Illithids immediately try to devour the brains of anyone they catch with this substance." By RAW this item works as an Illithid detector when displayed openly, as any Illithid that sees it will instantly drop everything they are doing, drop all illusions and disguises, and rather than perform any action in their better judgement will attempt to melee the individual to extract their brain. Essentially, it turns reasonably powerful psionicists and spellcasters into Romero zombies with no save. Hang a vial (clearly labeled, of course) of it around the neck of Billy the Torchbearer and you even get a free turn on the suckers with no risk to the party as they busy themselves ripping his skull open. It'll run you 1000gp, sure, but in a mindflayer heavy campaign it will easily save your life, and its not even consumed (unless Billy drinks it by mistake.)

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Crusader/Cleric without RVK

« on: November 15, 2013, 08:36:40 AM »

Really, Iron Guard's Glare and Shield Block with a heavy or tower shield (or a spell that gives a shield bonus to AC, for that matter) is a really solid tanking combo. Assuming the enemy's to-hit doesn't completely outclass the party's AC (and that's on your GM) and decent reach, you can easily give opponents a -4 to -12 (or -20% to -60% chance) to hit allies. Rapidly your GM (and through him, the monsters) will learn that to hit anything he will have to attack you. I have been running a campaign from 5th level up to 8th now, and so far the party Crusader has been very effective at "taking aggro" in this manner. Note that enemies are aware of the effects of iron guard's glare, and they will become immediately aware of the potency of shield block the first time you use it in combat. Both of these need only one level of Crusader to take, as either your 5th or 9th level (or so I recommend).

I second Dictum Mortuum's idea for divine Abjurant Champion (if it is acceptable to your GM) coupled with Divine Magician, which would allow you to add 9 wizard spells to your cleric spell list, notably shield. Note that shield block can be used with spell shields, so that would give +13 AC to adjacent allies with 5 levels of Abjurant Champion. I recently made a build that did this and used Shield Specialization(Spell) and Shield ward to get the +10 shield bonus to a slew of things, but mostly touch AC. If using shield specialization for spells is too cheesy for you or you want to cut down on feats, Parrying Shield is a great alternative (Shield to Touch AC only, but only 1 feat). For armor you would cast luminous armor or the greater version, of course. This allows you to have high dex as well, to fuel combat reflexes and thus lock-down.

When combining Tome of Battle with other classes without using the ToB PRCs, I would always recommend only dipping 1 or 2 levels of your initiator class. The thing about ToB is that it is amazingly friendly to dipping, in a way no other classes are really. A Cleric 18/Crusader 2 is maneuvers-wise competitive with an 10-11th level character. A Crusader 18/Cleric 2 is spell-wise equivalent to a second level character.

Another note about the role of healer: what many people overlook is that in D&D, "Healing" is not strictly, and even not often, a matter of hit point restoration. The party can deal with HP loss: through magic items such as wands and potions, class abilities, feats, maneuvers, and even good old fashion bed rest. Even arcane casters and psionic characters get a limited array of hit point healing spells. In my mind, a true healer in D&D is able to handle the more potent afflictions that characters aren't able to cure readily on their own: Negative levels, Ability Damage/Drain, Petrification, other long duration or permanent crowd control, and the big one: Death. Often times, you wont even GET a chance to heal a character before he dies: some trap will trigger, some group of monsters will get a lucky string of rolls, or a spellcaster will nuke the party with high damage or save or dies. And at that point you will realize that what a Crusader grants is not healing exactly but sustainability, and there is a big difference. I'm not saying Crusader is bad (in fact I love the class) but their capstone healing ability is Heal, not True Resurrection.

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Wrestling with early entry Mystic Theurge and Arcane Hierophant

« on: October 30, 2013, 06:22:27 PM »

Quote from: Sjappo on October 30, 2013, 03:16:51 PM

BTW, Strongheart Halflings have prefered class Rogue, like all Halflings, according the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. So unless it is errata-ed somewhere ... to bad.

Oh no! I guess I'm just too use to thinking of them as little humans. My bad. Okay, races: Several of the anthropomorphics have druid as a favored class, but they all take a charisma hit and are likely banned. Killoren from races of the wild and bamboo folk from OA, but they are both medium sized... I'm actually surprised that there are no 0 LA small races with sorcerer as a favored class other than kobolds, and none with druid except the anthros.

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Feat selection

« on: October 30, 2013, 12:55:24 PM »

DR does not come into play with Stand Still, nor does, in fact, any immunity or resistance to the damage that the creature possesses. The damage roll is simply the result on the damage dice, plus any bonuses you might have. Note that Stand Still requires that you forgo an Attack of Opportunity and is not an additional effect on AOOs, Knock-Down gives you an additional trip attempt and not an AOO, and Improved Trip must replace an attack and does not generate an extra attack with knockdown. I am fairly certain you cannot use Stand Still and Knock-Down for the same attack, nor make a Trip Attempt with your Stand Still attack. You can, however, perform a Trip Attempt off of an AOO without using Knock-Down and replace the generated attack with a Stand Still attempt (as per the wording of improved trip, the melee attack is as if you hadn't used a trip attack). And of course, you could always use Stand Still with the AOO that they provoke by standing up.

My preferred feat for lockdown is Large and in Charge from Draconomicon. It requires 10' reach and large size, but it IS an additional effect added to an attack of opportunity, so it works with Knock-Down. Instead of rolling damage and them making a reflex save, you make an opposed strength check, where you get +4 for each size category larger than them you are, and +1 for every 5 points of damage you dealt with the AOO. They receive no bonus other than their strength no matter how large they are. Like Standstill, it also prevents them from moving any farther, and pushes them back to the square they just left.

As for getting your size up, there is always Giant Size, a Wu Jen spell that is also on the Hero Domain. It sets your size based on the spell's caster level, so it doesn't matter what your starting size is. Unfortunately it's range is personal, so you'd have to try your luck at buying a custom item of Giant Size, or get a party member to craft one.

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Wrestling with early entry Mystic Theurge and Arcane Hierophant

« on: October 30, 2013, 12:14:23 PM »

Knowledge(Religion) is a tough one, and with those parameters its even harder. The Educated feat would save you all of the cross-classing waste. Apprentice(Spellcaster) for a wizard apprenticing a sorcerer or a cleric apprenticing a druid would work, which would give you 1 knowledge and UMD on your spell list, as well as some spell swapping. For elves, Aereni Focus would work: it both adds the skill to your skill list and gives you a +3 bonus, counting as skill focus. In my games, I allow the 3.0 version of cosmopolitan, which is similar, but is available to anyone, only a +2, and doesn't count as skill focus.

As for small races that fit your requirements, Strongheart ~~Human~~ Halflings have Favored Class: Any.

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Fun Finds v5.0

« on: October 04, 2013, 11:06:27 PM »

Well, to add some fuel to the Ability Focus(Spells) debate (which seems to be as old as the first Monster Manual itself), Ability Focus was updated in MM4 and MM5 to include any special ability that allows a saving throw, not just special attacks. Regardless of your stance on what type of special ability spells are, I feel its pretty safe to say that the general consensus is that the natural spellcasting abilities of creatures ARE special abilities. As such, there is no longer any need to reference antiquated monster stat blocks.

The question now comes down to whether you need to specify a particular spell (such as Ability Focus(Finger of Death)) or whether Ability Focus(Spells) gives a +2 save DC to all spells of that creature. Towards that end, I would like to put forward a few examples:

Mindshredder Zenthal from MM3 has Ability Focus (NOT spell-like ability focus) taken for each of its spell like abilities individually. Witchknifes (MM3) also have Ability Focus, taken only for one of its SLAs but not the others, as does the Vitreous Drinker from MM4. Those were the only examples I could find from the books I have at hand of monsters taking ability focus with regards to "lumped" abilities. What I was really hoping to find was something like a beholder with Ability Focus(Gaze) or some other notable counter-example, so if anyone could come up with a creature like that it would be appreciated.

Anyway, I think it should be fairly clear that at least as far as SLAs go, one must take Ability Focus for each individual "spell", which is in keeping with the Spell-Like Ability Focus feat. From there we can use some logical extensions. Obviously warlocks would have to take ability focus for each "spell" individually; to do otherwise would go against all known examples of AF(SLA), the spirit of feat balancing, and the RAW of SLAF. Phaerrim and Sharns, who transform their spellcasting ability into SLAs, would also have to take the feat for each spell individually. Likewise, a wizard who shapeshifts into a phaerrim would have to take the feat individually for each spell. Following the pattern, it would make sense that such a wizard would have to take the feat individually for each spell when not a phaerrim as well, and by extension, all spellcasters have to take ability focus for each spell individually. (And yes, this is a hasty generalization, but I can't find any examples except from SLAs.)

To get back on the main topic, I guess I'll dust off an old Fun Find: Widen Supernatural Ability from Tome of Magic is missing a critical line that appears in Enlarge Supernatural Ability: "A continuous use ability (such as a gaze attack) can only be enlarged for 1 round." This means that any ability widened with Widen Supernatural Ability stays widened for as long as it is active. There are a whole slew of uses for this, though my particular favorite is for aura-like abilities. YMMV on how you interpret 'Using' the ability that you are widening, and whether WSuA can be applied to innate supernatural effects (for a random example, an Atropal's negative energy aura, which can never be turned off, thus might be interpreted as never 'usable').

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Wall of Inlindl

« on: June 16, 2013, 05:16:43 PM »

A few problems. First of all, a team roster can have no more than 8 members (DMG2 pg190), and to qualify for wall of steel each team member must have a BaB of +2, so no level one cohorts (Also, one team member other than the leader must have 4 HD, but you can cheesily chain people in from there). Therefore a leadership score of 19+ is required to get the full benefits of this, or another means of gathering seven Intelligence 3+ creatures capable of wielding shields (or intelligence 1-2 creatures with the appropriate tricks).

Second, the Hellforged template AC bonus does not apply to shields. The bonus AC from formation expert is not a shield bonus (I know, what the hell?). Giantbane... why is this here? Because its cool? (Don't get me wrong, it is cool). It doesn't grant shield bonuses, requires 6 BaB, and can be pretty specific. Similar for Daring Outlaw. Why focused shield, when you can take shield specialization?

I seriously doubt anyone would allow/believe that shield wall stacks for each person that possesses the feat, as both the similar effects clause and common sense rules it out. (1 person has the feat, tower shields become +6. Two people have the feat, +8... 8 people have the feat, tower shields are at +20). As such, with swarmfighting, only the leader needs shield wall.

Divine shield requires turning to get, which means your minions will most likely have to be level 3 to have it and have BaB +2. That being said, its benefits are good.

Paired shield is up in the air whether that enhancement bonus to armor class is part of the shield (which would mean the first adjacent paired shield wouldn't count, because enhancement bonuses don't stack), whether its an enhancement bonus to your armor (in which case it wouldn't stack with magic armor), or whether it is a third enhancement bonus directly to armor class, that stacks with armor and shield, but that might be stretching the rules as written a bit. Its a good argument for swarmfighter if its the first option, otherwise it doesn't do much for the core of this build.

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Tomb of Horrors! Ok I'm going cleric, I NEED HELP!

« on: May 05, 2013, 07:14:24 AM »

First of all, Tomb of Horrors: Is this the WotC third edition Tomb, or some sort of revamped version of the Tomb made by your GM? In the case of the former, you really don't need to optimize, the dungeon is actually rather easy going. I ran it for a party of two and they ultra-stomped it with half-way optimized characters, except for one trap which cost them a single party member due to poor decisions and poor rolls.

I second DMM: Persist, though I will note that my interpretation would not allow you to persist an extended divine power to result in 48 hours, as DMM: Persist sets the duration of the memorized spell as you cast it to 24 hours. DMM: Extending a memorized persistent spell, or DMM: Extending a DMM: Persisted spell would increase it to 48 hours, however that takes another feat and more turn attempts. I'm not saying that I'm right, just that you should always ask your GM before writing your character sheet in ink. But really, go crack open a Complete Divine and take a look at Divine Metamagic, its probably the route you are expected to go anyway. I'd also recommend taking the ACF "Spontaneous Domain," as it is almost always better than converting spells to cure spells, and then talking to your GM whether casting substitute domain (Complete Champion) would allow you to spontaneously cast spells from the substitute. The RAW is hazy, but I have always ruled for it, and if so, select undeath as your spont. domain and substitute it for any domain you please after persisting your spells for the day.

For advice a little more ToH specific, I would strongly recommend two levels of Divine Oracle, persisting Delay Death from Spell Compendium, and preparing at least one Swift Etherealness (PHB2). Let your party members do everything for you outside of combat; if they ask why you don't open doors or take point explain that you can bring them back from the dead, they can merely drag your corpse back to town, if they even make it that far without your help. I know it sounds like a dickish thing to do, but I've had more parties wipe to random encounters on their way back to town after they insisted their party cleric was "A CoDzilla" then I'd care to recall.

Addendum: I missed the part that you claim to be bad at making characters. Point buy for a cleric can be rather difficult, actually. The first problem is whether you intend to cast offensive spells or not, and whether this campaign is a one-off adventure, where you'll make new characters later, or an ongoing campaign. If you intend to cast buff spells, heal spells, and res spells more than casting directed spells that allow a saving throw, and this character has no potential to reach 17th level or so, Wisdom actually becomes less important in comparison to other stats. In this scenario, I would consider something like 8/10/12/8/16/18 with stat bumps to charisma. Actually, further input on what min/max thinks a good 32 point buy for a cleric is would be helpful.

Min/Max 3.x / Re: How does a Glaivelock do damage?

« on: February 12, 2013, 07:51:47 PM »

Quote from: Empirate on February 12, 2013, 05:13:06 PM

DM is an idiot.

Hey now, no need to be rude. I will say that Power Attacking with a Eldritch Glaive is not support by RAW at all; Complete Arcane lists all of the feats from the PHb that function with weapon-like spells without so much as a word about power attack, and Eldritch Glaive never says it creates a weapon, just that you may make an attack "as if wielding a reach weapon." It also never specifies whether its a two-handed or one-handed weapon either, but the entry on Weapon Finesse in CArc says you may treat melee touch attack spells as light weapons (a rule your build uses), and you may not use Power Attack with light weapons except for unarmed strikes. Even ignoring that, the damage calculation is up in the air, and if the DM gives you 2:1 returns on PA because it is glaive shaped, expect to get your character banned the first time you use it.

Consider asking your GM if you can play the adaption version of Ur-Priest, where they worship a dead or lost god (and no longer have to be evil). If so, take 2 levels of UP for your Eldritch Disciple entry. That will net you a huge cleric casting boost (no duh, ur-priest hur hur) while also snagging you +2 levels of warlock for damage.

You don't NEED MoI or ToM to take Hellfire Warlock, they are just the best options to negate the down side. Exalted Raiment (BoED), a 6th level sanctified spell, gives you a Strongheart Vest effect for 1 min/level, as well as some other decent effects. Body Ward (CC) is a 2nd level spell that preemptively blocks the next 5 damage, and lasts 1 min/level as well. You could also, *gasp* *shock*, just TAKE the damage as the book intended: lesser restoration pretty much covers it, no problem. Still doesn't fix the fact that Hellfire Warlock is a high entry PrC though.

Pretty much anything I can add other than that has been mentioned in the guides I'm sure. I do note that you don't have a Chasuble of Fell Power (CArc) though, which is pretty much a warlock staple (also works with [chaos] damage spells).

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Psion and Sorcerer - Who gets the better deal?

« on: September 23, 2012, 01:31:27 PM »

Quote from: Endarire on September 06, 2012, 09:58:01 PM

The Psion and Sorcerer are similar in theory: They use metaphysical abilities spontaneously, and are both tier 2. They can occupy similar roles.

At least so far, they seem balanced against each other.

Disregarding PrCs, substitution levels, Dragonspawn, and Loredrake (because they aren't the heart of the classes), which class is most likely better overall? (If they're too close to tell, also note that.)

Case 1: Standard
It's a Psion with your discipline of choice compared to a standard Sorcerer. Remember, Psions are INT-focused while Sorcerers are CHA-focused. Many Sorcerers still need an INT of 12 or higher to get the skill points they need, or to fulfill other prereqs. Psions can usually dump CHA and call it a day.

Case 2: Sorcerer++
Like case 1, except all Sorcerers are treated as 1 level higher for purposes of spells known and spells per day. This Sorcerer boost requires you have at least 1 Sorcerer level. (The Greater Draconic Rite of Passage is nixed.)

Case 3: Psion++
Like case 1, except all Psions get to ignore the nerfs in Complete Psionic.

First of all, I'd like to point out that Feats, Skills, and Magic Items are also not "the heart of classes," they, like alternate class features and racial selections, are options a player has to augment the base class' abilities. I also note that Kalashtar, the race required to use power-linked shards and has a bonus 20pp (not much, but its there), is not off the table, but Kobolds with Draconic Rite of Passage, Loredrake, and Dragonspawn all are. Thus, for the purposes of this thread, one can take races that make Psion better, but not races that make Sorcerer better. What's more, Sorcerers benefit more from PRCs than Psions do: psionic prc options are limited, where there is a vast amount of options for Sorcerers, and Psions get class features as they level while Sorcerer is a front loaded class (though this last point is an important component in comparing classes, so I will concede its validity.). Also, when taking 20 levels of a base class you don't NEED skills at all, and its unnecessary this shortcoming of the Sorcerer class in posing the question, especially without pointing out any shortcomings in the Psion. Unless, of course, it was your intention to shape the debate.

Moving along, as I see it, the points in favor of Psion over the Sorcerer are as follows:
1A. They receive a higher power/spell level earlier than Sorcerers.
1B. They can know more high level powers/spells than Sorcerers can.
1C. They have more versatility in how they spend their power points than Sorcerers have in spending their spells/day.
1D. They receive more skill points than Sorcerers in normal play.
1E. They have better skill options than Sorcerers, in particular UPD, Autohypnosis, and Social skills depending on discipline.
1F. They receive bonus feats.

Likewise, as I see it, the advantages a Sorcerer has over a Psion are:
2A. At 1st, 6th, 8th level and higher, they have more 'points' per day than Psions.
2B. There are more arcane spells to choose from than psionic powers.
2C. Their metamagic mechanic is slightly better than Psion's metamagic mechanic.
2D. They do not need to pay to augment their spells.
2E. They have more support in general, for feats, prcs, and itemization.
2F. They have cantrips and a familiar.

Now for a more in-depth look.

(click to show/hide)

1A. They receive a higher power/spell level earlier than Sorcerers.
Psions hold a similiar advantage to Wizard's that make them superior to Spontaneous casting classes; that is, they recieve each new spell level beyond the first one level earlier. Psion was most likely never intended to be compared to Sorcerer, Wilder was supposed to be the Sorcerer's psionic equivalent, while Psion was more likely supposed to be an analogue for Wizards. So the question is how distinct is this advantage? Well, in normal play, you will definitely notice the power shift as characters level, but with a Psion and a Sorcerer the differences are harder to notice than with a Wizard and a Sorcerer. The reason for this is that Psions learn powers from a different pool than Sorcerers, so there is less overlap. With a Wizard and a Sorcerer in the party, the difference is apparent and soul-crushing.

Quote

Wizard: "I just got a rocket launcher, and me and the other wizards were having so much fun playing tag, it was awesome!"
Sorcerer: "Ah man, I haven't got mine yet."
A while later...
Sorcerer: "Hey man, I got my rocket launcher, can I play now?"
Wizard: "Oh, I'm already bored of that. Besides I'm getting my nuclear fission reactor next week anyway, so I wont have time for rocket launchers anymore."

Because Psions and Sorcerers don't draw powers/spells from the exact same pool, its harder to compare, you would have to pick out equivalent spells and powers, and this gets into subjective opinion. No matter how you slice it, Energy Ball does not equal Fireball, its just very similar. But generally speaking, knowing a level 9 power is better than knowing a level 8 spell. This gets muddled in standard play, where players will be gaining powers left and right. A Dungeon Crasher Fighter gains his power ups at level 2 and 6, like a Sorcerer, while a rogue gains its extra damage at 1, 3, and 5. A Cleric gets higher spell levels on odd numbers, a ranger gets improved combat style on even numbers. So forth and so on. Their power relative to the party fluctuates, and the advantage that Psions show is not as distinct as it might appear on paper; especially if you don't know whether you are going to fight the boss at level 7 or 8. However, this can be a trap for comparing classes as a whole, especially early on when there are more marked differences in spell levels, such as ECL 3 and 5. A psion might crush a sorcerer at those levels in particular because a sorcerer does not have the versatility base to compensate for the power difference in gaining a new spell level. This is not necessarily a very good judge of strength of classes however; fights at odd levels favor the Psion, fights at even levels favor the Sorcerer... but the fights at even levels do tend to favor the Sorcerer less than the odd levels favor Psion. A higher level power>more spells of the same power level for the most part.

1B. They can know more high level powers/spells than Sorcerers can.
Both Psions know 36 total spells by level 20, Sorcerers know 34. This should be roughly the same, but psions pick their last 3 powers available to them from any power level 9 or below, while sorcerers were forced to spend their 34th on a 2nd level spell a while back, and so have no such freedom. This difference in high level versatility is a clear advantage to Psion, as they have both more high level powers, and more powers known, thus more versatility and more strength.

1C. They have more versatility in how they spend their power points than Sorcerers have in spending their spells/day.
The power point system does have flaws, but the versatility in what spells you can cast can't be ignored. Putting aside augmentation and point differences, using the power point system is better than Versatile Spellcaster and Arcane Manipulation combined. If you wanted to you could break down a 9th level spell into 17 first level spells, or combine 17 first level spells into a 9th level, all on the fly, naturally, with no extra book keeping. This is clearly a point in the favor of psion.

1D. They receive more skill points than Sorcerers in normal play.
Psions are Int based. Sorcerers are charisma based. Psions will already have as much int as possible, giving them more skill points, Sorcerers have to go out of the way to get more skill points, and their cha will only help them with Bluff. A Sorcerer can, however, easily have just as many skill points as a Psion, depending on the ability generation system.

1E. They have better skill options than Sorcerers, in particular UPD, Autohypnosis, and Social skills depending on discipline.
More importantly, Sorcerers don't care about having skill points. Why? Their skills suck. Aside from concentration for casting defensivly, spellcraft and knowledge arcana for when you hit epic, and bluff (admitadly one of the best skills in the game) they have nothing. Shapers have UPD, which, while not being as good as UMD, still can be great. They also have Bluff and Disguise. Egoist has autohypnosis and balance, both situational but godly when they come up. Telepath has all the main social skills. And the other disciplines have good skills as well.

1F. They receive bonus feats.
Enough said.

(click to show/hide)

2A. At 1st, 6th, 8th level and higher, they have more 'points' per day than Psions.
Sorcerers have a lot of spells per day. To be able to compare that to Psions one would have to convert this into point values (and no, I'm not talking about the spell point system here, I'll give my opinion on that elsewhere). This gets a little wonky because presumably Psions recieve extra points to help them augment spells, but just by taking the spells per day a sorcerer has at a given level and converting those into power points, we recieve the following chart

Code: [Select]

Lvl	Sor	Psi
  1	  3	2
  2	  4	6
  3	  5	11
  4	 15	17
  5	 18	25
  6	 36	35
  7	 44	46
  8	 70	58
  9	 98	72
 10	114	88
 11	130	106
 12	174	126
 13	194	147
 14	244	170
 15	268	195
 16	326	221
 17	354	250
 18	420	280
 19	452	311
 20	486	343

From this we see that Sorcerers have more 'points' at levels 1, 6, and every level 8 at beyond, culminating with just over 1.4 times the 'points' of Psion. While Psions can manifest more powers per day than Sorcerers can cast spells by manifesting 343 1st level powers, and can produce more 9th level effects than a Sorcerer, and Sorcerer does have more total 'spell power' at level 20.

2B. There are more arcane spells to choose from than psionic powers.
WotC decided to not to support psionics nearly as much as arcane spellcasting in 3rd edition. Their reasons, good or bad, don't matter; this is the way it went. More support means more spells are in print than powers. More spells being printed means more variety, and more variety means an increased difficulty in maintaining balance, giving more powerful spells a chance to crop up, while psionics sit stagnant. Struggle balancing Sorcerer with Wizard led to a collection of Sorcerer-only spells, some of which are rather strong. Since Psions weren't being supported, their was no effort given to balancing them with Wizards. All in all, this is a point in favor of Sorcerer.

2C. Their metamagic mechanic is slightly better than Psion's metamagic mechanic.
We are not looking at feats or ACFs here, just a raw mechanic of the class. Psions have to expend their focus to use metamagic, Sorcerers have to use a full round action. Regaining your focus takes a full round action that requires a DC 20 concentration check and provokes an attack of opportunity, so if a Psion wants to use a metamagic twice in an encounter, he has spent the equivalent of 3 standard actions and a move action over 3 rounds and potentially provoked an AOO, where a Sorcerer has used 2 move actions and 2 standard actions over the course of 2 rounds. Advantage: Sorcerer.

2D. They do not need to pay to augment their spells.
As I stated earlier, its hard to exactly convert spells into points because you do not need to augment spells. If we included the points that Sorcerers have from 'augmentation' they would have 1080 points at level 20, over three times that of the Psion (not factoring for bonus spells or power points), and Sorcerer would be on top point-wise from level 1. Psions often get bonuses for augmenting their damage spells by gaining increased DCs, but this is not nearly as big of an advantage as one might think, and being limited to manifesting 17 powers at max caster level a day hurts. Again, all of those powers could be 9th level powers due to the versatility of the power point system, but you are still sacrificing versatility and endurance to be able to keep up with the damage out put of a Sorcerer. And at the end of the day, if a sorcerer used all of his spell slots 3rd level or above to cast fireball, and a Psion used all of his power points to throw energy balls, the Sorcerer would put out on average 2940 fire damage, and the Psion would put out 1543.5. And the Sorcerer would still have 1st and 2nd level spells. One point for the Sorcerer.

2E. They have more support in general, for feats, prcs, and itemization.
While the Psion has a few very notable and powerful feats and items, and some decent prcs, Sorcerers have access to the strongest prcs in the game and an enormous variety of feats and items. This goes right back to the whole support issue. In order to sell more copies of books they printed, WotC tried to put things that would interest everyone in each one. This meant that almost every book, and even most adventures, came with stats on magic items, prcs, and/or feats, because they found people were more likely to buy books with character options than pure fluff books. Because spell casting was receiving support and psionics weren't, this means that almost every book printed has at least one spell casting class in it, one item that helps spellcasting, and/or one feat that benefits spellcasters, and odds are it doesn't have anything for a Psion.

2F. They have cantrips and a familiar.
Enough said.

In my mind Sorcerers and Psions are roughly equal, in so much as they belong on the same tier together. Saying with absolute certainty that one is better than the other is just not possible, they are both different classes that draw from two very different spell lists, and have different features, feat options, skill lists, and prcs. Saying anything else will just start endless pointless arguments over whose favorite pet build can beat whose, whose spell combo is most broken, and whose penis is the largest. In the end, no one learns anything, no opinions are changed, and everyone moves on convinced in having met one more idiot/jackass/whatever on the internet. Which is great by the way, don't get me wrong, and its part of the reason we love the internet so much.

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Ultimate Magus build

« on: September 23, 2012, 06:21:44 AM »

I'm rather fond of the oft-overlooked adaption of Ultimate Magus if you can get it allowed, which lets the class progress two spontaneous casters instead of Wizard + X. A Sorcerer/KoTW or a Sorcerer/Nar Demonbinder entry loses the versatility of the wizard, but functions off of a single stat.

Residual magic is something to consider at some point, to help you stop burning through all your beguiler spells/uses of augmented casting. I would argue that empower is a weaker choice of metamagic for a wizard/beguiler ultimate magus. Beguiler benefits very little from it, and augmented casting can only add metamagic on spells up to 1/2 you Ultimate Magus level; in this case, 2 spell levels below your highest known spell at any given time. I've found more utility oriented metamagic works best, so you may want to consider Fell Drain, Reach, Chain, or even Quicken (for later levels) in its place.

The reason armor is mentioned in the Ultimate Magus handbook is that Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage's Amoured Casting ability isn't granted to any other class.

Quote from: PHB2, Page 7

This training does not extend to any other form of armor, nor does this ability apply to spells gained from other spellcasting classes.

As for hitting things... I wouldn't be too worried about it. First of all, invisibility (and later greater invis) can be shifted from you beguiler list, so you can negate dexterity. That makes a vast majority of creatures AC 11 or lower for touch spells. Really small things that end up with higher AC from size usually have inversely low hp and come in large packs, so an AOE damage spell should suffice. Casters and Incorporeal Undead already have other powerful defenses, so their high touch AC is probably going to be the least of your worries in those cases. There are exceptions of course, so if you really need options, Sure Strike from PHB2 is a swift action, +1/3 CL to hit. There is also Quickened True Strike, probably best at high levels or if you want to shell out for a rod of lesser quicken.

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Crusader, Hellreaver, Deepstone Sentinel build

« on: August 29, 2012, 03:54:00 AM »

Personally, I'd take the Incarnum dip over the Binder dip for a couple of reasons. First of all, while Naberius is generally more useful, if you are regularly using Heroic Sacrifice you are plinking yourself for 10-20 damage every 5 rounds due to the con loss. You heal that temporary hp loss back in 1-2 rounds, so its nothing major, but it still is a weakness you wouldn't have with Strongheart Vest. Secondly, dipping Incarnum opens up Therapeutic Mantle at low levels, doubling (or 2.5x depending on ruling) the effectiveness of the Martial Spirit stance, and also contributing to other Crusader abilities. Early game survivability is apparently the most pressing problem, and the Hellbreaker healing doesn't kick in until level 7 at the earliest, and isn't replenishable mid-fight until 10 at the earliest. Something like:

Code: [Select]

Azurin or Other
01 - Crusader    1 - Stone Power, Extra Granted Maneuver
02 - Incarnate   1 - 
03 - Crusader    2 - [Combat Reflexes]
04 - Crusader    3 - 
05 - Crusader    4 - 
06 - Crusader    5 - Bonus Essentia
07 - Hellbreaker 1 - 
08 - Hellbreaker 2 - 
09 - Hellbreaker 3 - [Improved (S)trip]
10 - Hellbreaker 4 - 
11 - Hellbreaker 5 - 
12 - Crusader    6 - [Mage Slayer]
13 - Crusader    7 - 
14 - Crusader    8 - 
15 - Crusader    9 - [Robilar's Gambit]
16 - Crusader   10 - 
17 - Crusader   11 - 
18 - Crusader   12 - [Defensive Sweep]
19 - Crusader   13 - 
20 - Crusader   14 - 
Feats marked in brackets are suggestions, power attack can be subbed for stone power.
Highest Level Maneuver: 8th
Highest Level Stance: 8th

Would cost a level and a feat, but it allows you to heal 5 hp on every swing at early levels (2-5), 7 hp at 6, and makes your crusader's strike heal for +2 until level 7-8, where you get the Hellbreaker heal. It also gets eighth level stances and maneuvers, such as Immortal Fortitude and Greater Divine Surge, which when combined with Strongheart Vest, is a free extra +4 TH, +14d8 damage on an Azurin, less on a non Azurin, and more if you really want to dump. Naberius can do it more often, but Strongheart Vest can do it with more burst or for free.

Regardless of what dip you choose (they both work great with Hellbreaker) I would strongly advise against Deepstone Sentinel. Their lack of stance progression alone is damming enough, but it restricts your highest level maneuvers (unless you go into another initiator class afterwards) to Stone Dragon maneuvers, which cannot be used off the ground... and in high level D&D, that's where fights tend to take place. Since its a ECL 11-15 class, that is very problematic. This is in addition to the flaws in the class abilities that Tonymitsu described. The only good that comes from it is Dragon's Tooth's UNLIMITED PILLAR WORKS (which is a glorious ability, mind you. The uses for an unlimited amount of 5/5/5 or 10/5/5 non-magical stone pillars that are dismiss-able are staggering in number. But even this is flawed: it can only be used on unworked stone or earth.)

General D&D Discussion / Re: What Would/Has Made You Quit The Game?

« on: August 22, 2012, 03:12:48 PM »

I can only really think of one game that I flat out quit as a player, though there have been several that I just allowed to die as either a player or a GM.

A friend of mine and I were invited to play with a group of people we had never played with before, and from the outset it seemed fine. All books were allowed, and we could make any character we wanted, but it was going to be a viking-esk campaign. I made a Valkyre-Bear-Viking themed character, mechanically a stalwart battle sorcerer with designs on going into Exalted Arcanist and Sentinel of Bahari. The GM said that was fine, and he liked the idea. My friend made a piratical Dwarf named Saltbeard; I think he was going for Dread Pirate. The day before the game session I was informed that I wouldn't be able to get into 2 prcs, because 2 prcs was 'too overpowered.' I tried to tell him that my character wasn't overpowered, and that the strength of a character depends more on WHICH prc you had, not how many. He'd have none of it, and I had to change my character if I wanted to play. So I switched my character to a Sorcerer/Incantatrix instead, which made him happy because it wasn't 2 prcs, whatever. The day of the game, he told my friend that his dwarf couldn't be named Saltbeard, because there were no sea-dwelling dwarves, and he had to change his name.

At this point, both my friend and I got rather upset, because dammit, if the Dwarf wanted to be called Saltbeard, even if it wasn't his birth name, he should be able to be called Saltbeard. Its a fine dwarfy name. Again, the GM essentially laid down an ultimatum: if we wanted to play, the name would have to be changed, because there couldn't possibly, EVER be a dwarf named Saltbeard in this game. Very upset, we decided to give the game one session, since we were already there.

The very first thing in the game had us tossed into a pitched battle between Vikings (who were our allies) and a land-lubing group. The GM turns to me and tells me that since I'm the party mage, he expects me to deal with most of battle, and it should be fairly easy. I blink at him a few times, write it off as nothing, and cast a non-lethal fireball into the largest group (I had a focus in metamagic so I was packing a bunch of weird feats that I planned to use with Arcane Thesis with Wings of Flurry when we got to that level, we were only level 6 though. Being a good character, and not really understanding the whole combat situation because we received no backstory, I figured it was a reasonable course of action.) The GM went off about since I didn't specify I was only aiming for enemies, the roaring flames engulfed the soldiers and vikings alike, and they screams of agony fill the air as they die horribly, at which point I remind him that it was a non-lethal fireball. He ignores me and starts talking about the viking leader turning on me, axe in hand, demanding to know why I killed so many of his men, to which both my firend and I say at once "IT WAS A NON-LETHAL FIREBALL." To which the GM responds, "Huh?" And I show him my character sheet and the book I got it from. He then asked all the other players if they had heard me say that it was non-lethal, and they all say yes, they had, and then I point to my blurb of a character backstory, which says I refrain from lethal violence as much as possible. He finally caves and lets the non-lethal fireball pass, and has the vikings all run up and coup-de-grace all of the unconscious enemies.

To which I think, oh well, it must be really important that those enemies die. Only no, its not important at all, because those enemies and the viking allies we had were never mentioned again. After that we got into the real heart of the GM's style. You see, he already had everything planned out. And I'm not just talking about railroading, but the results of every single action was already decided before dice were rolled. To wit, as a sorcerer, I had bad to hit and bad AC; I was a bookish, weak character who is good at spells. The party fighter was a strong brute that's good at hitting things. My friend was a sneaky rogue who was good at attacking from shadows, but not good at fighting otherwise. That was all nice and all, only I was a stalwart battle sorcerer with primarily self buffs to help me in combat and 18 strength. The party fighter was something like a drow fighter, high dex and light armor, and was mainly focused in tripping and disarming. And my friend was a flanking focused rogue, because he saw we were mostly melee oriented. We had a fourth player who was forced to play a divine caster because we needed 'party balance,' but I don't remember them much. What I do remember is getting into a one-on-one fight with soldier, and to the GM's surprise, I tried to attack him with a weapon! I rolled a 19, to which the GM immediately announces I missed, and moves on to the fighter, who hits a different soldier on a 12. Since for me, a 19 is a 27, I ask what armor the enemy is wearing, and the GM says standard chainmail. Already realizing what was up, I reminded him about my total bonuses from strength, and how I had a rogues BaB, to which he didn't really listen. So the next round I cast true strike (after being beat on several times, he didn't say their attack rolls and never asked for my AC, I figured at the time they rolled high, but now I think otherwise) and then the round after that, I attack, and roll a 14 or something, to which he says I miss again. I remind him that True Strike is a +20 to hit, to which he says "Oh, then I guess you hit then." Meanwhile the fighter is going fine with average rolls, and hasn't been hit once despite our AC being about the same.

After the fight, we get to do some roleplaying, and the GM ignores us and talks to someone who wasn't even playing, just happened to be hanging out. Whatever. I manage to convince the group with liberal use of prestidigitation and some other nifty spells that I was a minor deity, sent to lead them to greatness in battle. We then sat around for while waiting for the GM to get back to the game.

After that, we had one more fight against a big monster. The fighter swings at it, trying to trip it, and rolls low. "Oh, I probably missed, I got a 14 total." "Oh no, its big and slow, you hit it fine. Roll damage." "Actually, I want try to trip it, I get a..." "Its too big to trip." "I'm going to try anyway." "Oh, well... *rolls dice* Nope, you can't trip him, he's too big." "Okay..." I'm up, and I go to hit the creature. I roll a 10... "Oh, you missed. You should really try casting a spell." "With my bonuses, I got an 18, that's higher than the fighter." "What? Let me see your character sheet... why is your strength so high?" "Because this is what I do, I hit things with a spear." "Umm... okay, I guess you hit then." Rogue's turn, he tumbles around for flanking, and attacks the creature's back. "Well, you hit because of flanking, but you don't get sneak attack." "Really? Why not?" "Because you only get sneak attack from the shadows." "You get sneak attack from flanking too." "Err, what I mean is that you don't get flanking on this creature, so you don't get sneak attack." At this point, we were getting pretty exasperated (there had been a lot of other stuff that I can't remember) so my friend gave up and let it go.

The final straw was in the next room, however, where we met an npc dwarf that was supposed to guide us to some treasure or something. He informed us of the backstory of the dungeon, and the war, and all of the other setting stuff, just a giant plot dump basically. At the end of all of which I ask the dwarf his name. "Umm..." The GM pauses, and it becomes obvious that he never figured anyone would ask such a basic question. Suddenly, he gets this huge $%&*-eating grin, and says, "I'm Saltbeard, the sea dwarf." My friend and I stood up, and without a word, left the table.

General D&D Discussion / Re: Gary Gygax's thoughts on the Books of Vile Darkness and Erotic Fantasy

« on: August 22, 2012, 01:08:40 PM »

Quote from: ariasderros on August 21, 2012, 11:49:32 AM

But reading through them for guidelines on Good and Evil (and the Champions of Valor / Ruin) is sometimes useful to help reiterate that Good & Evil in D&D are not philosophy, but universal powers with their own rules, that at times have less to do with our views on the subjects than some would think. It also helps in other ways. I have brought in a Bardic-based build that I plan to eventually have take Words of Creation ("more-broken bits of crunch being used") into a party that is mostly evil. When some of the other players were worried that I might become the "babysitter" or the "morality pet", I brought out the BoED, and read out some of the more pertinent parts on Good working with Evil (under "Ends and Means" on page 9 and "Relationships" on page 10).

Actually, as I often point out to my players who consider Vow of Poverty or Vow of Peace to be too strong of feats, there is a large difference between being Exalted and being 'just a good guy.' BoED is rather explicit on this point. While teaming up with evil people for good ends can be fine for a good character, strange bedfellows and all that, it is absolutely NOT okay (according to BoED) for an exalted character. Under ends and means: "Good ends might sometimes demand evil means. The means remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about their good alignment and exalted status cannot resort to them, no matter how great the need." And under relationships: "Paladins, of course, are prohibited from associating with evil characters, but other exalted PCs should also steer clear of evil companions, unless the evil character is attempting to reform herself and making progress toward neutrality at least." So unless your character constantly keeps an eye on your companions, making sure they do not commit evil deeds and stay on the path to good-old-fashioned-good, you risk losing your exalted status. Which, in turn, is exactly what the other players are afraid of. Now, whether your group actually runs exalted status that strictly or not is a completely different matter.

Frankly, I find BoED as juvenile in its cartoon-ish and limited view of goodness as BoVD is in its view of evil. Both go about things in a rather silly way, BoED espousing a clearly reactionary (and extremely flawed) code of morality to combat BoVD's childish indulgence in "the dark side." That being said, I happen to use BoVD quite a bit at my table, and BoED sits on the shelf gathering dust. The reason for this is probably that I find BoVD's material to be interesting, its just that its at some points poorly written. Its at it's best when talking about the alignment system in D&D, the implications of elements that crop up in just about every fictional setting (Vengeance, Lies, Betrayal, Murder) in a setting that has polar morality backed by hosts of incarnations of good and evil, law and chaos. And yes, it does talk about rarer (and in poorer taste) elements too, such as cannibalism, necrophilia, and bestiality, but in the books defense I find these are fascinating subjects in a world of Half-Dragon Liches with a taste for Worg. Now, they could have been handled better than they were, but whatever. In the end its a rulebook, not a philosophy textbook.

As for using the content, I often run games where the players want to play evil characters. Now, my games are usually more character driven than story driven (I make settings, not campaigns), so this isn't really a problem. Sometimes the group decides they want to take over the world, starting by subsuming a small bandit organization and working their way to the top, other times they just go on rampages of mayhem and destruction. I had one particularly fun campaign where the group decided they wanted to all play monsters, and when I agreed, I was astonished by how much they got into roleplaying MONSTERS (I assumed they just wanted to play races not normally allowed to players, so I came up with rules for it... I ended up with a Tsochar, a Neogi, and a Cloaker infiltrating and battling against a city of righteous adventurers as they each tried their best to impress the others with the horrors they could wreak. The Tsochar won.) Often times the group will implement BoVD material into their characters (human sacrifices have shown up at least twice as a Malus-Ex-Machina, resulting in the summoning of a pit fiend for a wish, and each time ending in the party's inevitable destruction as the not-so-proverbial deal with the devil turns sour.) I myself have played a chaotic good character that used the execution rules to publicly dispatch evil-doers.

But to get to the main topic, I understand Gary Gygax's point completely. D&D was probably something like a child to him: its his creation, which he made to have fun with his friends and family. Just look at the adventures he himself wrote; they are almost exclusively light-hearted, Good vs Evil scenarios, where the righteous players pit themselves against the forces of darkness, and goodness prevails. He probably never intended the game to be used as a devil-worshiping, baby-sacrificing, mad-dog-killer simulator. What's more, he had to deal with the hoards of irate parents and concerned citizens, scared their children were doing the exact things that BoVD facilitates their characters to do. Luckily, most of that has died down these days, but it is still around, and for someone who lived his adult life fighting these people, it probably is rough seeing something that could potentially start the whole thing up again.

However, in the end the most important thing is that people have fun. As long as everyone at the table is having a good time, no one's feelings are hurt, and no offense is taken, it really doesn't matter what kind of game you run, or how you run it. If BoVD is offensive to you, and you don't want it at your table, that's fine, don't buy it. I myself don't own or use BoEF because I don't have much interest in running a highly sexual game. But if that's something that's important to your group.... I still wouldn't recommend Erotic Fantasy. Honestly, if you really need sexual magic or whatever, anything you can come up with is more mature (and more mature) than whats in there. It really is an irredeemable book, and not in the nature of its content, in that its just a bad book. (Aside: Metaphysical Spellshaper is a good class, why is it even in that book?)

Introduce Yourself / Re: Obligatory Introduction

« on: June 05, 2012, 10:16:14 AM »

This is actually the second time I've ran it; the first time didn't go too well, heh. The second adventure, Faces of Evil, really doesn't care whether the players live or die, and I plan to tone down a few things there. Especially the Kenkus, oh god, the Kenkus... though that encounter essentially boiled down to NPCs with a necklaces of fireballs is rather unfair. First of all, it deprives the players of precious loot, and secondly it does a great deal of bang for the monsters buck, whereas it is a lot more situational in the hands of a player. That coupled with a pack of low level rogues with crossbows ended up with very few survivors. We kept going after that, and we ended shortly before the 'final confrontation' of adventure 2... but that was because one player decided to derail the campaign and well, anyway, that's a different story.

We haven't quite gotten to that point in the adventure yet, and it was going rather well up until session before last. I've been putting up an effort to have the adventure challenging, but not deadly (which it very dearly wants to be), and its a gestalt game with 5 players when everyone shows up, which always helps when it comes to surviving. But a few of the players got into their head that they were "behind in xp" and in a very power gamer-y fashion went out into the woods looking for trouble. I had informed them numerous times that the woods were dangerous, and that they shouldn't go out there unprepared, even seeded some conversations with people in town with stories of evil dragons and horrible undead that lurk the forests, and then also informed them out of character that I was just going to use a random generator for any encounter 'off the beaten path,' since I a) Didn't want to pre-generate encounters for every location they might visit in an area on the off-chance they decided to camp under the stars, and b) I don't really want to encourage 'banging helmets together' as it were, since it takes time away from the adventure and in this case, the other players. Anyway, they ended up facing off against a Very Young White Dragon as a pair of 2nd level characters (a Factotum/Wizard and a Dread Necro/Marshal Human Paragon) and after it nearly killed them both with its breath weapon in the first round (they both failed their saves and I rolled high, a 14 I think), they got lucky and managed to frighten it off with a cause fear. So I gave them partial xp for the encounter and let them limp home.

But that wasn't the end of it, because the next day (after buying healing at the local temple) they went and grabbed their fighter companion (A goliath Crusader/Something, maybe fighter for dungeoncrasher) who was still suffering from brutal ability damage from an encounter with a ghost and some poison. Practically dragging him from the hospital bed, they slapped him with a lesser restoration from the temple and demanded he come with them on another expedition into the woods. This one didn't go so well, as they stumbled upon a convocation of fiendish eagles (11 'regular' fiendish eagles, and one advanced one, their leader). I love my random generator, but it can be quite unforgiving. I'm working up a whole backstory behind why their was an evil cult of hell eagles out in the woods, but more to the point my players instantly recognized the unholy death that stood assembled before their weak, hapless sortie. The party was not making any kind of effort for stealth, and the eagle's eyes were keen, so that dropped any chance to run in the surprise round, so it came down to iniative. The two spellcasters rolled really high, and the crusader rolled something like a 2 (he had 4 dex damage left over still, I believe earlier one the wizard said something like 'but you don't use dex, so it'll be fine). Anyway, the two spellcasters ran, leaving the crusader to fend for himself. Some of the eagles took to the skies and tried to hunt the casters down, but the crusader decided to stay and fight, alone, against the remaining 8 eagles. He made a good show of it, but sadly didn't make it. The two spellcasters went to grab food after that, and left the two other players (A psion/swashbuckler and an Archivist/Warblade) to their own devices. So they decided to advance the story on their own! There was some encounter that for the life of me I can't remember, all I know is that the psion ran out of power points and the warblade lost half his life. And then they decided it was time, the party split, the warblade at half hits, and the psion out of juice, to challenge a Dire Ape. See, way back in the first session the crusader had scouted out Balabar Smenk's mansion based off a tip he had gotten from the townsfolk, and found it to be filled with a troop of ferocious Dire Apes. He immediatly ran, and warned the party, and they have been keeping their eye on Smenk ever since. However, now was the time for critical investigation! And they sauntered off, marched right into the mansion, walked up to a Dire Ape and wacked it hard with a greatsword. The psion survived.

Last session we didn't get much done. One of the key remaining players had work, so the group decided to figure out something else to do until he showed up, and we ended up making deadlands character, actually. We'll be running that in the off hours I guess, and should be fun; we have a mad scientist (I think that was what he ended up with), a Texas Ranger, and a kid that inherited twin magical artifact revolvers from his dead father (that are also cursed, I think I have them so they give bonuses to hit, but in times of need they always fire at less-lethal locations, like the feet or arms of the opponent). Anyway, should be fun. For the little bit that we were actually on track, the Crusader's player didn't show up, so I haven't gotten to see what he's making (he was talking about a Jottenbrut Dungeoncrasher fighter so he's probably going to be fine, lol.) The former Warblade made a Bear Totem Bear Totem Barbarian/Totemist (we ruled that you can choose to gain the CC totem options instead of the first level of the UA totem options). The group is resisting the inevitable bear puns. So we got through new character introductions, and the confrontation with Filge, the evil evil necromancer of adventure 1, which our Dread Necromancer tried to join up with, but the wizard of the party refused to give up the spellbook which he had stolen, and everyone else decided that they probably shouldn't be hanging out with villainously evil necromancer and fought him. They ended up disabling him with his own skeletons armed with crossbows from downstairs (pro-tip for the evil megalomaniacs of the world, if you happen to have a low fort save, and happen to have low strength, don't arm your easily turn-able undead minions with strength damage poisons, it wont end well) so next session we are gearing up for the interrogation of Filge, the restoration of the Land family bones, and the finale with the Wind Dukes, which hopefully goes better than the first time (which also ended with two PC deaths, heh).

TL;DR: Its going better than the last time I ran it, but my players are lemmings.

Min/Max 3.x / Re: How to boost and improve tracking ability (aside from simply boosting surrvival

« on: May 25, 2012, 09:12:49 PM »

Quote from: RobbyPants on May 23, 2012, 08:09:36 AM

Quote from: The_Laughing_Man on May 22, 2012, 10:45:02 AM
I vaguely remember a prc from one of the completes that is tracking based. Bloodhound or something.
I'm pretty sure it's Complete Adventurer. I think it's a reprint from Masters of the Wild. I haven't looked at either version in years, so I don't remember which is better.

Yes, its Complete Adventurer. Bloodhound gets swift tracker at level 1, 3 levels earlier than Ranger, and gets the ability to track creatures under the effect of trackless step at 5. Also has extra tracking speed for creatures he's studied (or studied the likeness of) for at least 10 minutes (may require autohypnosis to be actually useful). Pretty sure the Masters of the Wild version was better though.

Other Track boosters:
Shaaryan Hunter from PGtF can track while mounted, initially at half her mount's speed without penalty, then at 6th level at her full mount's speed.
Consecrated Harrier from CDiv allows you to always know the direction and approximate distance (within 10%) of any creature you've ever wounded at level 8 (ECL 13) and at 10 can track across planes as well. Other than that a sub-par class.

Spell-wise, there is Bloodhound (Ran 1) from CAdv, which lets you re-roll a failed track check; Implacable Pursuer (Ran 4/ Blk 4) from CDiv, which is pretty mediocre for its level because you must target the creature initially, but after that you know its exact location every round, or even what plane it traveled to if it changes plane. Living Prints (Ran 3) from MoF negates any passage of time since the tracks were made, which is essentially just a bonus to track, but it can be massive if it has rained a lot, snowed, or just been a long time (max 30 days). Also the duration is 1 hour/level.

Introduce Yourself / Obligatory Introduction

« on: May 25, 2012, 06:26:08 PM »

Hello Min/Max. I posted on the old boards (very) infrequently, and will probably continue to lurk these ones as well. To be concise, I want the ability to search, and figured its a bit more polite to leave an actual introduction rather than just a one word post somewhere. So following the recommended template:

Name: Bob is fine, my given name is Aaron

Favorite games: I like all games, but if I have to name favorites... D&D 3.5, Arkham Horror, Mahjong, and Deadlands.

Non-gaming Hobbies: Things... to do... that aren't game related? Are there such things? Well, a little bit of everything I guess. Rock-climbing, hiking and camping (I bring games), I used to paintball but haven't been in a while (err, that's a game), random travel trips (on which I play games), movie marathons (often with drinking games)... oh, and I drink a lot (especially when playing drinking games).

Where you live: Tacoma, Washington, United States of America

And the other stuff is useless to list since I never stick around a forum for long and I don't check facebook/what not. I do have a crappy gaming blog that I haven't updated in over a year (http://templeofbob.blogspot.com/) which I plan on updating with my group's progress through Age of Worms... someday. Other than that... yeah. Introduction.

Pages: [1]

Min/Max Boards

News:

Show Posts

Messages - bobtheapple

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Fun Finds v7.0 - Now with +15% more reposts!

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Fun Finds v7.0 - Now with +15% more reposts!

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Crusader/Cleric without RVK

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Wrestling with early entry Mystic Theurge and Arcane Hierophant

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Feat selection

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Wrestling with early entry Mystic Theurge and Arcane Hierophant

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Fun Finds v5.0

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Wall of Inlindl

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Tomb of Horrors! Ok I'm going cleric, I NEED HELP!

Min/Max 3.x / Re: How does a Glaivelock do damage?

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Psion and Sorcerer - Who gets the better deal?

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Ultimate Magus build

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Crusader, Hellreaver, Deepstone Sentinel build

General D&D Discussion / Re: What Would/Has Made You Quit The Game?

General D&D Discussion / Re: Gary Gygax's thoughts on the Books of Vile Darkness and Erotic Fantasy

Introduce Yourself / Re: Obligatory Introduction

Min/Max 3.x / Re: How to boost and improve tracking ability (aside from simply boosting surrvival

Introduce Yourself / Obligatory Introduction