Show Posts

1

Handbook Discussion / Re: DISCUSSION: Core-only Wizard20 vs a Splatbook-Enabled Fighter20 - Lycan's Duel

« on: February 18, 2014, 04:56:09 PM »

Quote from: snakeman830 on February 17, 2014, 11:42:59 PM

Wouldn't call it a useless example, but a good example, it is not.

Well, it certainly has the use in my view to show why many people think wizards are so powerful - rules misinterpretations (or at least wizard-friendly interpretations) as well as what opponents can do to thwart wizard tactics (thanks, phaedrusxy for providing the link to a long dicussion thread on that).

Quote from: snakeman830 on February 17, 2014, 11:42:59 PM

And are you actually the same Sir Giaccomo? That was incredibly well reasoned and I have come to expect the exact opposite from this name.

Yes, it is really me

(the same who defended core monks so devotedly over at Giant in the Playground).
I have had some to time to think about the whole game balance issue within core rules again, but it is not complete yet...
But thanks that you liked my analysis in this thread - maybe you wish to read some of what I said in earlier posts, at brilliantgameologists and in giant in the playground; you'll notice some similar lines of argument there (and similarities to some tactics and suggestions that SorO_Lost just ported over, already back in 2008/2009), although certainly not without mistakes.

Quote from: mthor on February 18, 2014, 01:43:22 AM

I would argue that given the proper level of optimization any character can pull off game breaking combos and maneuvers. But the chassis that the wizard comes with makes it very easy for it to reach a very high power and flexibility level without going outside of the intent of the game designers (And thus what most dm's will allow).

As I said above, a lot is often ruled in favour of wizards and that makes the balancing thing not really easier.
Versatility and spell choices are great in theory, but in practice often fail to deliver - at least that's my gaming experience, and also reflected often in game reports that I saw on some boards.
There is no question, though, that the more rules material and splatbooks you play with, the more versatility and power the wizard gets.

2

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Gauntlet - Break the CR

« on: February 18, 2014, 04:41:46 PM »

Hi meyer_william,

this looks quite interesting!

I'll think up a character to run to the gauntlet and come back when I got enough time.

- Giacomo

PS: in case you have been also meyer_william over at WotC, I was known there under the name of "Themistokles" once...

Was a great discussion on monk unarmed damage back then...

3

Handbook Discussion / Re: DISCUSSION: Core-only Wizard20 vs a Splatbook-Enabled Fighter20 - Lycan's Duel

« on: February 17, 2014, 05:31:55 AM »

Quote from: SorO_Lost on December 28, 2013, 11:19:42 AM

Nice, cool, collected set of rebuttals.

gj.

Thanks a lot!

Checking here after a while I see that there are no more comments so far.
Therefore, I think, we can finally put at rest this useless example of why wizards are allegedly more powerful in core than fighters (though there may be other evidence still upcoming at some point, but I doubt that...

)

- Giacomo

4

Min/Max 3.x / Re: SAD monk

« on: December 29, 2013, 10:55:05 AM »

Quote from: Arkslayer on December 26, 2013, 11:43:15 AM

I was thinking of making a new character, a monk (as the title suggests), and I wanted to optimize him at least a little bit. The campaign will probably be a long one (at least level 15, probably level 20). We'll probably be doing advanced start (starting at level 3). I want my monk to be as SAD as possible (the single attribute being Wisdom), hopefully with a wisdom based spellcaster class. The fewer books beyond core I have to go, the better. Thank you!

Hi Arkslayer,

I'd second SorO_Lost's idea of a Shiba Protector build. In case you do not like paladin as a wisdom based spellcaster class, you may consider:
Monk 2/Spirit Shaman 4/Sacred Fist 1/ Shiba Protector 1/Sacred Fist 9/Spirit Shaman 3
Note: Shiba Protector is setting-specific and you have to be human, plus no use druid or cleric as a divine spellcasting class (OA p.32)
Also needs only 2 books beyond core as SorO_Lost's idea (OA, plus Complete Divine instead of OA and Unearthed Arcana for the spirit shaman base class and sacred fist prestige class)
Spirit shaman grants Alertness via the spirit guide, you can use the monk bonus feats stunning fist and combat reflexes for Sacred Fist, meaning the following feat choices:
Iron Will (lvl 1), IUS, Stunning fist (monk 1), Combat reflexes (monk 2), Alertness (spirit shaman 1), Combat expertise (lvl 3), Combat Casting (lvl 6, another sacred fist prereq), any (9&up). As Human Bonus Feat, I'd take Zen Archery to get you WIS to attack at least until you enter shiba protector at level 8.

This nets you by level 20:
12 levels of monk unarmed damage (can be boosted futher with feats or magic items), WIS to damage and attack (including double WIS to attack with ranged weapons), 17 levels of spontaneous druid list spellcasting and 9th level spells via spirit shaman (in case you go by RAW reading of the sacred fist spell progression) or 15 levels of spontaneous druid list spellcasting and max 8th level spells (in case you follow the possible RAI of the table progression). Your spellcasting progression interpretation will likely be decided by the DM, depending on the power level of the group.
Your unarmed attacks should also get the ghost touch ability via the ghost warrior class feature of the spirit shaman (again, a DM call, since the ability refers to "held" weapons).

Some alternatives in case you have some preference for a Lawful good or lawful evil monk:
If lawful good, you could take intuitive attack feat from book of exalted deeds (another source). This feat will add your WIS bonus again on attack rolls with your unarmaed strike. You'll need to talk to your DM on this one, since your character then needs to be a shining example of good (also radiating good like a paladin)
If lawful evil, you may wish to replace the spritit shaman divine spellcasting class with the ur-priest prestige class (also from the complete divine rules). It is a faster road to spellcasting power (this time from the cleric spell list, and prepared, not spontaneous), since you'll get 9th level spells already by level 16 or 18 (again, depending on how the spellcasting progression of the sacred fist is interpreted). To achieve the necessary feat requirements, the build is somewhat different (also yielding higher monk unarmed damage, or lvl 12/14 plus potentially some monk damage advancing prestige class in levels 2-4, possibly also from the OA to keep sources limited to core +2 books):
Monk 4/Fighter 1/Cleric (Trickery Domain, to get the Ur-Priest skill reqs) 1/Ur-Priest 1/Sacred Fist 1/Shiba Protector 1/Sacred Fist 7 or 9/Any 2 or 4
Feats taken:
Zen Archery (Human), Iron will (lvl 1), IUS/Stunning Fist (monk 1), Alertness (lvl 3), Combat Expertise (fighter 1), Spell Focus: Evil (lvl 6), Any (9&up)

- Giacomo

5

D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Niche Rating For Classes

« on: December 28, 2013, 12:12:39 PM »

This niche ranking system sounds like a good idea. The original thread by Person_Man (with slight differences in methods, layout and ranking results/discussion) is here btw: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314701.

What imo is better with this niche ranking approach than with the traditional tier system by JaronK is that there are more detailed categories to measure, making the different gaming experiences more comparable. The categories themselves also look good at first glance, although I would probably put Dominator and Summoner into one category (meaning providing the pc group with allies that are more loyal than “helpful” or somehow compelled magically to fight for the group).

Still, there are some caveats for rating class efficiency/utility/power this way, similar to the traditional tier system:

It does not allow for different experiences at different levels
It ignores wbl effects in that it does not allow for how easy it is to replace a certain class ability with a magic item, boost a class ability with a magic item synergy, or overcome class weaknesses with (cheap) items.
It does not include the effect that races, feats and (cross-class) skills have which everyone can take, including potential synergies and weakness coverages they offer.

Having said that, I’ll try at some point provide ideas on ranking on the still open entry of the duskblade first – and of course a different view on the monk

- Giacomo

6

Handbook Discussion / Re: DISCUSSION: Core-only Wizard20 vs a Splatbook-Enabled Fighter20 - Lycan's Duel

« on: December 28, 2013, 09:28:33 AM »

Well, I’m back…
I had already discovered this thread in the handbook/handbook discussion section a while ago, but did not have enough time to comment on it to the necessary extent. Granted, doing it now is a bit of a thread necromancy, but maybe I can add some more perspectives to this duel.
Note to mods: I have seen in the reply function that usually after 120 days of not posting in a thread, a new thread should be considered. However, this is the handbook discussion section, and I hesitate to start a second discussion thread on this issue. In case this is a problem, this post (and any answers to it) could be moved to form a new discussion thread in the handbook section). Thanks.
Now on, to my remarks:
Basically, the main points Endarire brought up with this wizard vs fighter duel – and supported by the majority of posters here - are that such a duel can show two things:

How much more powerful a wizard is than a fighter,
And that this already happens with just the core rules, illustrating how broken the core rules are.

I disagree that the duel is proof for this.

Those who know my earlier posts of course may not be much surprised.

However, maybe the reasons why I see such a duel not upholding any of the above two assertions are – at least in part – new.
I’ll go through Lycanthromancer’s duel description step by step and will point out areas where I think the rules were interpreted wrongly, plus general remarks/other observations (e.g. on tactical oddities that I perceive).
This fresh perspective on the duel is also needed imo since this duel, ever since it first appeared on the WotC boards, is often used as the standard benchmark for the two assertions above and is quoted so often with little or even without any questioning in the typical fighter vs wizard debates (like in this thread….).

Pre-duel-preparation

(click to show/hide)

The buff round – wizard actions

(click to show/hide)

The gate spells should imo not have worked as intended. There are quite a few problems, actually:

It is difficult to imagine how the core wizard would even know about such creatures. The DC for identifying a half-celestial great wyrm gold dragon is 51. Even a level 20 wizard with INT 34 and maxed ranks will have difficulty to know about them (and arguably he cannot take 20 on the knowledge roll). But let us assume a wizard able to boost in core his knowledge arcane skill to a 41 for safely identifying the dragons by taking 10 ahead of combat (I guess it should be possible).
Secondly, and more importantly, the gate can only be max 20ft wide. Thus, the colossal (30ft space) dragons will not fit through. Both spells fail, and no golden dragons appear (and thus the only noteworthy offense of the wizard for the first rounds is no more since the fighter had a rod of absorption. And as an afterthought, the gate spell calls such CR 30 creatures “willing or unwilling”, so it is likely that at least one of the dragons will seek revenge/just punishment for the wizard afterwards, resulting in a likely death of the wizard.)
Another problem is that while in time stop, the wizard cannot communicate with the dragons (or other creatures) that appear. So, they appear but have no task set for them when the time stop ends – arguably this mean they leave at that moment, making the gate spell redundant.
A (potential) problem would be – depending on your interpretation of “invulnerable” in the time stop spell description – whether the calling function of gate could be used in a time stop at all.
Finally, the spell does not at all mention that the wizard can give the called creature(s) continually orders of any kind – he can only command a 1 round/lvl service, but nothing more. Fighting for the wizard is one such service, but the exact way is open for the DM – likely the called creature(s) will buff first/check what powers the enemy has before attacking blindly. Certainly the called creatures are no slaves, and this becomes even clearer when comparing the wording of the gate spell with that of the monster summoning spells (where, for instance, the expression “to the best of its ability” is used).

Other issues of the buff round (that likely do not affect the duel as much as the gate spell, but would still in some cases make the wizard lose or weaken his power):

The familiar, when fixing the ring gates on the heads of the 30ft space dragons, and giving them rings of spell storing, actually leaves the 5ft necessary distance from the caster for time stop to still affect it. Thus, the familiar will fail to equip the called dragons with items and is on its own from the buff round onwards (and possibly a target for the fighter?).
Tossing the ring gates on the ground to look through only AFTER erecting a prismatic wall and wall of stone means that – even when during the time stop – line of effect was not maintained to the called creatures and thus they are no longer controlled. Might have been handled a bit differently, though, by holding them in the hand and looking at them all the time.
The wall of iron can only be tipped intentionally with a DC 40 STR check. But it will randomly fall to where the wizard will be able to turtle, anyhow (without hitting one of the called creatures). I think.
The limited wish emulating the contingency effect will imo not automatically bring along a dimension door (another spell that needs to be wished for or cast from memory separately). Also, it can be argued, that the casting time of the contingency (10 mins) still applies for combining it with the other spell, and not the casting time of the limited wish. I’m not sure here. Otherwise a nice idea to get a contingency spell up quickly in combat.
Having said that, the condition for the contingency “go off any time my opponent was about to hit me with something that could actually affect me” is way too vague and thus will not work with many DMs. Or worse, it would work the moment the fighter does something that remotely has a chance to affect the wizard, but is extremely unlikely to happen. Anyway, the contingency spell is not an interpreter of anything (it is not sentient) and will only react to events that can be objectively described (“whenever something comes within 10ft of me” or “when I cast feather fall” etc.).
Shapechanging into an incorporal creature like a greater shadow is probably not a good idea, since the wizard’s equipment is corporal and will thus meld into the new form as per alter self spell (on which shapechange is based) and becomes non-functional. This means, for instance, that the contingency no longer works, since the focus circlet will meld into the new form (more complicated would be what the non-functionality of the bag of holding with the original body entails when it merges with the incorporal body, considering the fate of the astral chord as discussed above). The ioun stone of +1 caster level is an exception as, while corporal, will still orbit the head of the shadow wizard. However, this will no longer be the case the moment it moves into the ground (where it cannot follow), such as when the contingency is triggered. That will mean the caster level is 20 again and thus the wizard will be unable to control 42 HD creatures. Ah, and line of effect will end, anyhow, since the ring gates are also corporal and can no longer be held by the incorporal wizard (or meld into his new form).

Some observations at this point:

It is noteworthy that in general, one of the major disadvantages of the allegedly “broken” spell shapechange is that in most cases the equipment becomes non-functional with the most powerful forms. That is a quite a drawback at high levels when items from wbl constitue a large proportion of any character’s power.
We can also conclude from the prep round that the wizard through various imo justifiable rules interpretations likely miscast the gate spell, completely neutering his only meaningful offense vs the fighter. Gate as an allegedly “broken” spell has many problems when actually used in practice – and at high-level play, a harsh DM may have/should have no problem at all to let the wizard player face the consequences of his casting mistakes. Sometimes great power necessitates great understanding of how things work!
Most importantly, the actions of the prep round and even before can be easily interpreted in such a way that the wizard either died before combat started (astral body disconnected from original body) or lost due to the rules set (wizard having left the prime material plane as per astral projection spell), or cast gate and contingency in such a way to have likely lost control of the dragons (in case they had appeared at all, so insert other random high-HD core monster like two solars), also ending in his likely defeat without the fighter having to do more than just turtle, too (or doing nothing at all).

The buff round – fighter actions

(click to show/hide)

Round one/take 2 – wizard actions

(click to show/hide)

Round one take 2 – fighter actions

(click to show/hide)

Round two take 2 – wizard actions

(click to show/hide)

Roundup of the duel from a rules perspective

(click to show/hide)

Some more observations from a tactics perspective

(click to show/hide)

The setup of the duel was heavily biased in favour of the caster:

an infinite plain for the wizard
being allowed a buff round,
having full spells and
enough XP to craft and cast XP cost spells without losing a level.

This greatly favours a caster because

Concealment and cover by natural or inhabited terrain make spellcasting more difficult (which needs line of effect and sight for most attacks)
A caster, with a buff round, can make more use of said buff round, say to shore up his greater vulnerabilities (e.g. for a wizard low AC, low hp, low fort save etc)
Full spells available allows to nova which is not the standard for the game and thus reveals little about balance
XP spent at no penalty for character (like, being a level lower with lower wbl as well) means just cheating wbl and sidestepping the restrictions set on the most powerful spells like gate.

Other observations of note illustrating how little impressive the performance of Lycanthromancer’s wizard was in this duel:

The mentioned alternative spell combos of rock to mud and mud to rock or reverse gravity and prismatic sphere do not convince me. The fighter had a flying speed of 100’ (and likely escape pods like a dimension door effect or whatever). Thus I do not see these combos as endangering this level 20 fighter (or most lvl 20 builds known to me, for that matter).
Interestingly, the ring gates and the rings of spell turning (if it had been possible for the familiar to actually put them on by the rules) vanish with the called creatures after 20 rounds. Possibly the wizard can ask them back – but this already transcends the “fight for me” service that he asked of them (and the ring gates won’t come off easily). So, near 280k of gold gone in this duel – even if successful, that is a cost of 1/3 of the wizard’s wbl. I doubt even a joker monk at level 20 spends more in just one fight

Finally, on the fighter:

While Lycanthromancer committed many rules mistakes imo that would have with strict interpretation resulted in his loss, the fighter player apparently had no idea how to either build a level 20 character with the core rules (and splatbook effects I did not perceive at all, excepting the raptorian race), nor to play one at such a high level.
The fighter was supposed to KNOW all his life that one day he would go against a wizard. Strangely, he acted as if he had no clue at all what spells can do and how to interpret them when he sees their effect (the spellcraft skill, even when taken cross-class, has fixed DCs and is quite affordable for a level 20 character to boost; and apparently the fighter even had arcane sight on). It is as if the wizard would have considered staying next to the fighter (not knowing about his ability to full attack) would be a great idea to start combat so as to better use his touch spells.
Having said that, going to and staying in the vicinity of two apparently gated massive creatures next to you is utterly absurd (note that the fighter would have heard the command for service given by the wizard). Even more absurd is to play the wizard’s game and exchanging full attacks with said creatures that are likely only present temporarily.
As already hinted by my assessment above, a better strategy of the fighter would have been to turtle as well and thus let the only real offensive strategy of the wizard (i.e. gate spell) dissipate harmlessly. Likewise, all buffs but the stonewall would have gone away over time on the wizard’s side – whose standard “scry-and-die” tactic or “withdraw to other plane/MMM, relearn spells and nova again” strategy were blocked by the duel’s rules not to leave the plane.
It is very unfortunate that the fighter’s player never even posted or voiced his opinion on any thread, nor is the exact build and tactics available. So we are all quite dependant on Lycanthromancer’s perspective on this, which may be biased.

So, taking everything together, I have no clue why such a bad performance on both sides of the duel (fighter on the tactical side and wizard on the rules side) is paraded time and again as evidence of wizard superiority in the core rules.
But maybe there are some explanations and/or different rules interpretations that I’d like to hear, or something that I overlooked. In the thread above, so far, some of my concerns have already been raised, but most were not.

- Giacomo

7

General D&D Discussion / Re: New Fallacy - splatbooks are overpowered

« on: January 11, 2012, 02:47:29 PM »

Ah I see, littha, only because OA is not 3.5 apparently you found my whole post lacking. And haven't OA elements like Iaijutsu Focus been transferred to 3.5? Sigh. Will delete it in my post.

@Unbeliever:
I did not maintain that there are no splatbooks that contain weaker or similarly powerful game elements as that in core.
Only that when taken together, more broken results/imbalances ensue.

Quite likely there are combinations of core rulebooks and some splatbooks that hardly change the playing field of the core rules.

But the tendency is clearly in favour of spellcasters, because nearly every additional rulebook outside core provides new options for them, while leaving non-casters behind. The (clearly non-core) power to actively act (not just a preset contingency or with a readied action) outside your turn with immediate action magic, also at low levels, is only one such thing.

- Giacomo

8

General D&D Discussion / Re: New Fallacy - splatbooks are overpowered

« on: January 11, 2012, 12:43:30 PM »

Hmmm.
I always had the impression that most broken builds out were mainly made of non-core material (not counting the basic mechanisms like having hit points and saving throws, for instance). Just check out the GOD guide or other handbooks here.

The problems of overpowerdness of the splatbooks/non-core rules are numerous. Just to name a few:
- I guess they are hardly playtested at all in their interaction with the rest of the core and the other non-core rules, in particular not at the higher levels. See, for instance, the persistent spell/metamagic/nightstick example brought up above.
- they favour core caster classes, since I guess all the new material adds new spells and thus way more options for spellcasters (as opposed to more feats for, say, fighters, which are much rarer than new spells, and also will have to fit in a more limited number of feat options available).
- they introduce many new classes and prestige classes which, of course, to appear more attractive to players to play them (and buy the books), will have a certain power creep (example the ToB warblade)
- they introduce completely new game mechanisms which are more powerful than the mere core rulesset like intermediate spell actions (removing the low-level vulnerability of wizards, for instance, a typical core balancing factor) or new kinds of magic (like Psionics)

So, whatever brokenness or imbalancedness can be attributed to the core rules, it is certainly made worse by the non-core rules.

- Giacomo

9

D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Magic vs Mundane: Third Wheel Solution?

« on: December 30, 2011, 05:06:54 AM »

Quote from: SorO_Lost on December 29, 2011, 12:45:53 PM

Quote from: Sir Giacomo on December 29, 2011, 06:45:13 AM
But yes, anticipate teleportation (if up) can be a good method against it. Then, other methods can be found. And so on. And so on. (as I already mentioned).
What you already mentioned was:
Quote from: Sir Giacomo on December 28, 2011, 07:51:49 AM
Of course, by level 12, a wizard can also have more defenses, to which a monk at that level can again have countertactics and so on and so on...
But it is by no means a clear result in favour of the wizard, I daresay.
Which is like saying "with this, I will always win even if my monk's current and next forty thousand tactics suck! I AM RIGHT ON THE INTERNET!"

It's not impressive. At. All.

Yes, of course. Because a wizard at level 12 is absolutely unbeatable.

Sure.

Let's enter the first "and so on" loop.

Monk in world with anticipate teleportation does not abundant step, but simply moves towards wizard and double stuns. What is the mighty wizard going to do about this?

EDIT: Nevermind. It's best I stop posting in this thread.

- Giacomo

10

D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Magic vs Mundane: Third Wheel Solution?

« on: December 29, 2011, 06:45:13 AM »

Quote from: Vasja on December 28, 2011, 09:03:28 AM

Edit: Just read that Sun School feat. That's pretty nice. Still not great - gets shut down by Abrupt Jaunt, Greater Mirror Image, and ruined completely by Anticipate Teleportation, but it's solid at least. Then again, it's a feat I'd almost never take - buffing a 1/day ability (that's extremely situational) isn't a good use of a feat for a monk.

It is not only the dimension door ability of the monk that you can use. Any teleporting ability that the monk might acquire (item or otherwise) can be used in combination with it.
But yes, anticipate teleportation (if up) can be a good method against it. Then, other methods can be found. And so on. And so on. (as I already mentioned).

Quote from: SorO_Lost on December 28, 2011, 11:57:29 AM

Quote from: Vasja on December 28, 2011, 09:03:28 AM
Anyone else feel like Dimension Door is brought up in every bloody 'x vs. magic' discussion?
Nope, it comes up only as often as gia posts and that only happens when he sees the word Monk.

Really, SorO? Only me bringing up the idea to use dimension door against a wizard? Interesting.

- Giacomo

PS @X-Codes: Sun school feat does not have anything to do with ToB and the setting sun school. I also often confuse that.

11

D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Magic vs Mundane: Third Wheel Solution?

« on: December 28, 2011, 07:51:49 AM »

Quote from: X-Codes on December 27, 2011, 10:43:58 PM

Quote from: SolEiji on December 25, 2011, 12:04:56 AM
...monk...monk...monk...
Quote from: Sir Giacomo on December 27, 2011, 10:16:07 PM
(something)
WHYYYYYYY!?

Giacomo, the monk would need heavy modifications to be a useful anti-caster. Shadow Blend + Improved Evasion is nifty, but do nothing to take out the caster. 1/day Dimension Door, even with an attack at the end, is not going to do enough damage to take out the caster. The monk needs more.

More? Really?
Consider this:
Sun school feat, plus rapid stun feat and snap kick feat (you may also get intuitive attack feat to really focus on WIS for the monk, plus ability focus and ki straps to make stunning really hurt).
This means that at 12th level, the monk can do a dimension door, attack TWICE with TWO stuns vs the wizard's weak fort save. The wizard better has some good contingency (still) up to get out of this one.

Of course, by level 12, a wizard can also have more defenses, to which a monk at that level can again have countertactics and so on and so on...
But it is by no means a clear result in favour of the wizard, I daresay.

- Giacomo

12

D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Magic vs Mundane: Third Wheel Solution?

« on: December 27, 2011, 10:16:07 PM »

Quote from: SorO_Lost on December 25, 2011, 12:50:13 AM

Quote from: JohnnyMayHymn on December 24, 2011, 11:59:51 PM
ok so we have a few approaches, mechanics aside(not asking who does it best), what class would make the most sense having some kind of anti-caster ACF?
Monk.

So true. But you'll receive a lot of resistance to such an idea, SorO... as I did

- Giacomo

PS: Grappling, dimension door (get that sun school CW tactical feat to attack after abundant step!) and etheralness are also quite good anti-caster options for the monk

13

D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Just for fun: Worst Character Concept In Four Words

« on: November 17, 2011, 02:01:21 AM »

Quote from: Halinn on November 16, 2011, 02:41:56 PM

That's a bit more than four words, Giacomo.

(just leave out the flavour text...

)

illegal metamorphosing psychic warrior

- Giacomo

14

D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Just for fun: Worst Character Concept In Four Words

« on: November 16, 2011, 01:49:18 PM »

Quote from: Lycanthromancer on November 14, 2011, 06:11:32 PM

Giacomo's stupid UMD monk.

Yeah, a melee character getting more ways to buff is really a horrible idea.

Allow me to return the courtesy and nominate your illegal metamorphosing psychic warrior build.

- Giacomo

15

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Monk without monk (Core build)

« on: November 16, 2011, 01:56:25 AM »

@carnivore:
the attack bonus of +20 for the monk contains +1 weapon focus, +1 haste, +1 enhancement from amulet+1 and +2 from a +4 STR enhancer. BAB is 15.
Good point on the blood bond - confused that.

Otherwise:
- if people take offence with leadership, replace it with any other feat.
- the reason why I saw some use in Solo's parody monk build can be found in my posts in the original linked thread. Anyhow, it is not a monk without monk

- Giacomo

16

D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: The Role of the Fighter in a Party

« on: November 15, 2011, 08:26:08 PM »

In agreement with nachofan99 here on the usefulness of the tower shield.

A question (jumping into the discussion at this point):
What would convince the "fighter is useless" side of the fighter's capability?

For instance, a (core) build getting through the same game tests?

- Giacomo

17

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Monk without monk (Core build)

« on: November 15, 2011, 07:52:15 PM »

Writing a book
Dating my favourite TV moderator (EDIT only once...a shame...)
Looking a shark into its gaping maw
Meeting Sting (EDIT only once ... even more shame ... )
Discussing core builds with carnivore

Hey, that list now is complete!

Anyway, carnivore – the thread originally is about how builds can emulate the monk in core, not whether they are better in a certain aspect. And I think your build still misses a lot of important monk class aspects.

Also, I am not even sure about the combat part...

Here’s a simple human core monk lvl 20, also with 80k gold equipment (note that you do not need a ring of feather falling, the assassin already has it as a spell).

FEATS
Weapon Focus Unarmed Strike (Human)
Improved Unarmed Strike (Monk)
Improved Grapple (Monk)
Improved Initiative (level 1)
Combat Reflexes (Monk)
Blind-Fight (Level 3)
Improved Trip (Monk)
INA (level 6)
Leadership (level 9, to equal the blackguard’s minions)
Stunning Fist (level 12)
Improved Critical – Unarmed Strike (level 15)
Power Attack (level 18, or take flyby attack in case of flying speed)

EQUIPMENT (80k max)
Ring of Freedom of movement (equals blackguard spell, 40k)
Belt +4 STR (equals blackguard bull’s strength, 16k)
Amulet of natural attacks +1 (6k)
Boots of speed (12k)
Permanent buff for large form, either enlarge (3.1k+, when polymorphing is out) or RAW PaO (when morphing spells are allowed) into large outsider (1.2k). Assumption here: an enlarge effect despite perfect self restriction (or polymorph ban would disadvantage monk too much)

ATTACK COMPARISON

(click to show/hide)

RESULT ATTACK COMPARISON: Advantage monk

DAMAGE COMPARISON

(click to show/hide)

RESULT DAMAGE COMPARISON: A draw (somewhat more damage from MWM, but less reliably so – and if you ask me, I’d here go for the monk damage)

DEFENSE COMPARISON

(click to show/hide)

RESULT DEFENSE COMPARISON: Advantage monk

SKILLS COMPARISON

(click to show/hide)

RESULT SKILL COMPARISON Advantage MWM

AND ALL THE REST....

(click to show/hide)

RESULT REST COMPARISON: Draw

OVERALL COMPARISON/RESULTS
Carnivore, your build is interesting. However...
... it does not really achieve „monk without a monk in core“...
... nor does it appear better to me.

What do you think?

- Giacomo

PS: Glad that you liked my rogue-without-rogue.

What about this one:
Barbarian-without-barbarian:
Bard 8/Fighter 2/Dragon disciple 10
Spam rage spells, get total higher STR bonus (also 24/7) from DD, light adamantine armour gets a bit of damage reduction, and you are a scholar instead of an illiterate!

18

Introduce Yourself / Re: Oh...a reincarnate spell...what will I be now?

« on: November 15, 2011, 05:10:21 PM »

Quote from: vitkiraven on November 15, 2011, 11:22:27 AM

Will the monk guide be ported to here?

Hmmm ... probably I'll do an update when I have time (including non-core stuff).

- Giacomo

19

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Monk without monk (Core build)

« on: November 13, 2011, 05:54:38 PM »

Hm.

quite possibly when resorting to use multiclassing, prestige classes, and 80,000+ gold (as the builds here), you can emulate quite a few classes in core without taking any levels in them, more with non-core rules.*

In this case, there are still some quite powerful class features of the monk that remain non-emulated
- the monk's unarmed damage is much higher than that of this build (2d10 eventually vs 1d8 of the monk's belt). This also means the plain vanilla monk is always ahead for all unarmed damage dice enhancer (size etc). Note also that sneak damage is situational and useless vs foes immune to such damage, which more, the higher the level. Ah, and the off-hand attacks get full STR bonus to damage for the monk.
- the monk's flurry of blows eventually comes without any penalties, so it beats even mutliattack or the two-weapon fighting feat tree. Also, you can add a haste effect (for instance, via boots of speed) or TWF feat tree to the plain vanilla monk, which the two builds presented cannot do (i.e. speed does not stack with haste).
- the monk has immunity to poison, which the two builds do not have
- the monk has improved evasion, which the two builds do not have
- the monk gets way faster than any of these two builds
- the monk has spell resistance, which the two builds do not have
- the monk has a 9th level spell effect (etheralness), which the two builds do not have (and I do not even count the fairly rare ability to have no age penalties here)
- the monk has permanent tongues, speak with animals and plants, which these two builds do not have.
- the monk has a lot more stunning fist attempts per day than these two builds
- the monk has four bonus feats without requirements, which these two builds do not have (and the class gets them at low levels)

That should about balance out the advantages outlined of the two builds above.

- Giacomo

*For instance, rogue without rogue levels and "getting about everything a rogue 20 gets, and more":
Ranger 4 (TWF tree), Bard 1, Assassin 7, Arcane Trickster 8
Magic items: skill-enhancers, ring of evasion, sword of subtlety
BAB 13 but spells to buff, 8d6 sneak plus subtelty bonus of +4 (and impromptu/death attacks besides); ranger, bard etc class boons (incl assassin/bard spellcasting) equivalent to rogue spc abilities etc

20

Legends of the Heroes / Some links to interesting campaign journals out there

« on: November 13, 2011, 02:18:12 PM »

Hi everyone,

I wish I had the time and the skill to write longer journals of some of the groups I played in. However, I can still provide links to the campaign journals which I think are just great.

1. Oakspar77777's description of his campaigns (over at the WotC forums)
This includes a journal on a 1-on-1 game with his girlfriend to introduce her to D&D. Apart from being a very nice read, it also contains a wonderful guide on how to play the game with complete beginners.
Something even better is a camaign journal on a zombie campaign of his (started stylishly enough on halloween iirc). Highly thrilling and entertaining read!

2. Saph's campaign journal of the Red Hand of Doom (over at GitP)
Probably the best campaign journal/DMing advice on the Red Hand of Doom campaign out there, including some comical highlights (I am still laughing about the one where the group mis-teleports and gets into the stratosphere, alongside the druid's dire wolf animal companion, which just goes "woof?" when everyone then falls down to the earth again.)
Another good thing in there for DMs is to see some experiences on the vulnerabilities and powers of character classes (levels 5-10 iirc).

3. The test of spite "monkening" started by Doc Roc, and DMed by Saph (over at GitP; a very short part two of it is here)
Actually, at least here is one thread where I at least contributed (playing a monk). This is not a real campaign journal with all the fluff, but rather a test thread on how the monk performs in a group (core rules, level 12) in a series of special dungeon challenges. It may also offer some hints as to how combat can play out in such an environment.
There was also a discussion thread on that test game.
Needless to say that the test was interpreted quite differently, depending on those thinking the monk class is any good and those who do not

Will update this list when I come across other threads not part of this forum.

- Giacomo

Min/Max Boards

News:

Messages - Sir Giacomo

Handbook Discussion / Re: DISCUSSION: Core-only Wizard20 vs a Splatbook-Enabled Fighter20 - Lycan's Duel

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Gauntlet - Break the CR

Handbook Discussion / Re: DISCUSSION: Core-only Wizard20 vs a Splatbook-Enabled Fighter20 - Lycan's Duel

Min/Max 3.x / Re: SAD monk

D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Niche Rating For Classes

Handbook Discussion / Re: DISCUSSION: Core-only Wizard20 vs a Splatbook-Enabled Fighter20 - Lycan's Duel

General D&D Discussion / Re: New Fallacy - splatbooks are overpowered

General D&D Discussion / Re: New Fallacy - splatbooks are overpowered

D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Magic vs Mundane: Third Wheel Solution?

D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Magic vs Mundane: Third Wheel Solution?

D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Magic vs Mundane: Third Wheel Solution?

D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Magic vs Mundane: Third Wheel Solution?

D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Just for fun: Worst Character Concept In Four Words

D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Just for fun: Worst Character Concept In Four Words

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Monk without monk (Core build)

D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: The Role of the Fighter in a Party

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Monk without monk (Core build)

Introduce Yourself / Re: Oh...a reincarnate spell...what will I be now?

Min/Max 3.x / Re: Monk without monk (Core build)

Legends of the Heroes / Some links to interesting campaign journals out there