Discuss any 3.5 related here.
>What are you doing in your campaign?
>What have you homebrewed lately/brilliantly?
>How are you fixing class imbalance?
>What's the best 3.5 module?
And of course
>Did anyone ever put out a good patch for 3.5?
Pic related, it's the silliest chart from "Trailblazer", a mixed-quality fix that tried to quantify the issues in core with good hard math. ..
Never noticed it.
We've got a good group.
Caster "supremecy" isn't something we have ran into.
Can a mage be deadly? Yes. They're supposed to be deadly. Are they "better" than other classes? Depends on what you like to play.
We don't use homebrew classes, or supplements written for "high magic" campaigns.
I don't "homebrew" per se, since everything I use is based on existing rules. But I do house-rule. It is fun to experiment.
>Did anyone ever put out a good patch for 3.5?
No, and I don't believe they could, since the best stuff for 3.5 is not covered by the OGL and people cower before the wrath of America's legal system. The OGL is wonderful in that it made a whole vast ecology of 3.5 products available, but nobody ever actually beat Wizards at their game while they played it. That, indeed, is why WotC was okay with making the OGL in the first place.
With all the "patches" only working on Core and unable to even use the alternative class features WotC put out, you might as well not bother. You are better off making your own (unpublishable) mods to 3.5 that suit your table and play style.
>Caster "supremecy" isn't something we have ran into.
There's always been a subset of 3.5 players who say this. (Not sure how numerous they are relative to the imbalance guys, but certainly less vocal.)
One thing you wrote does make me wonder, though - how are your spellcaster players aiming at being "deadly"? By casting damage-dealing spells like Magic Missile, Fireball, etc? By flinging save-or-dies? Or something else?
Our DM is sorta brutal. A mage needs to spend about half his spells on defense. But ya, by deadly I mean most of them are blaster types.
Some NPC bad guy mages that are enchanters are trouble. But most of our group do the " mage who wants a tower and books and an apprentice " types. So breaking open the planes and destroying the world isn't a goal.
Good DM work? Bad players? I dunno m8. We have fun, going on 8 years now. With no major issues.
Right. That was usually considered a soft option.
>no major issues
Yeah, it sounds like you guys basically worked your way into a decent fix through playstyle.
Easy tiger. The folks who had negative PLAY experiences were playing, too.
Here's the real question, what are their favorite combat spells?
What is their favorite trick to circumvent problems?
Finally, what levels do you play at?
I guess a bonus question would be how many long-term bad guys are spellcaster a?
We always start at lv 1. No exceptions.
In our settings, things you will never see; magic shops, mages selling spells, scroll shops. Magic is rare-ish, guarded jealously by mages, items are hard to find. Not impossible, but rare and limited.
Creating items, scrolls ; costs time and coin. And a lab.
PCs will get pick of new spells with lv gains, but finding new ones are difficult.
I GREATLY enjoyed Trailblazer, as I love everything game design and analyzing probabilities and such.
But two things STICK IN MY CRAW,
1. The idea that a 60% (or whatever) chance to survive a save vs instant death or disablement is remotely acceptable,
2. Sorcerers as being rated above wizards. You can argue sorcerers are only cruddier than wizards, but aside from their crippled spell selection, they get their spells a level behind -- they're just plain weaker.
Long term bad guys as spell casters.
Well several. And attacking a wizard on his home turf, is deadly. Good team effort usually let's us prevail. ( a rogue seems to be the biggest threat to them).
The WORST bbg, was a lv 3 fgt, who was a noble...old money is the toughest challenge to overcome. I will gladly face high lv wizards over that fucking rich guy, anytime. The most annoying shit ever.
Trailblazer on class balance was pretty out there. (Monk is better than Bard?! Really?)
But their view on saves is closer to yours than you think. As the image shows, that 60-70% success rate is what they wanted for the "non-catastrophic" saves, with the save-or-lose stuff going to action points.
CoD means "Cleric or Druid". CoDzilla refers to a cleric or druid that chooses to not be shit.
You curbed spell access for wizards (frankly, they can EASILY manage with 2 spells/level but w/e), but clerics and druids have access to their full spell lists anyway.
Doubt it. If their arcane casters were focusing on blasting, their divine casters probably focused on combat healing.
"Do what you're meant to do" does work as a playstyle fix, although it can be a bit hard to take seriously for those in the know. (D20 kayfabe?)
There is no need to be upset.
What your group has is a playstyle that avoids or mitigates some of the issues in 3.5. Style is not wrong or right, it's just style.
What we can discuss more or less objectively are the rules, and how they relate to the issues that arise in some games. Just as your group is not wrong to play your way, the people who have issues are not wrong to play their way.
Pretty accurate really.
The clerics heal and try to spread the influence of their god.
Mages blast and do some long range divination and utilities.
Rogues scout, backstab and deal with traps.
Fighters guard and kill stuff.
5th character classes(bard, druid, psionics,etc) do their thing.
You claim there is no balance issues with casters and you don't follow WBL... So yeah, you guys are just really bad at optimization.
Ignore tg, fun is he most important part though.
How did that come across as upset?
I asked if you saw that we were doing something incorrect. Honest question, we don't know everything. Asking is a way to get ideas and tips.
And I haven't said anyone was doing anything wrong. Just that we did (x), and didn't have (x) problems.
We stay pretty close to wealth by level m8.
Most of us blow coin on building castles, land, etc. More long term goals maybe? If we want a specific magic item, we can get it, by finding it, or having it made ( for a fee).
Right. So what happens in other campaigns is something like this:
Clerics generally don't heal until after the combat is over. Instead they use their combat spells to increase the rate at which the party eliminates its threats, reducing the incoming damage. They still try to spread the influence of their faith.
Mages summon and disable enemies. They also do the utility stuff, including scouting and dealing with traps.
Rogues feel extremely inadequate.
Fighters also feel inadequate, because
Druids come along with their animal companions and kill stuff extremely quickly.
The internet has no tone, so I can only guess at your emotional state.
>Clearly we're doing it wrong?
You're doing it in a manner that is nonresilient, which is a bit of a touchy subject. Different people with different emotional impulses look at groups like you having a good time, decide they can also have a good time, and then they go and play in the ways they want to play and faceplant into the problems with 3.5
Hell, it could even happen to you, if you ever need to integrate a new player
but anyway this caster supremacy talk is edition war garbage and leads nowhere
this general needs something more productive to talk about, like how /pfg/ has paizo's love for bestiality
WBL is designed in for balancing characters - ideally you would have that amount of cash on you in items and general stuff at all times, to the point of when you consume a potion you find that much more treasure later.
I guarantee a Druid in your game could easily be noticeably stronger than anyone else easily - especially once level 5 hits.
Ya, I've read lots of threads about that.
Never seen it in person tho.
We're pretty laid back as a group. Not sure if that helps.
I can see HOW, some of this shit could be an issue. I have no concept of the WHY anyone plays it that way.
Different strokes n' all that I guess.
>always have that much coin on you
No, we do not play that way.
We spend coin as needed to get what we want/need.
Like I said, building a castle ain't cheap. That eats up a lot of coin.
>I have no concept of the WHY anyone plays it that way.
Let me lay out a naive scenario for you.
There's four players and nobody wants to play a fighter. Mary wants to be a Druid, Keith wants to play a Cleric, Alvin wants to play a Rogue, and Sara is going to be a Wizard because of course she is. Mary and Keith agree that their characters can probably handle the absent fighter together because the Cleric has the same armour proficiences and the animal companion can help out too.
So that's fine. The group plays for several months with no fighter and Mary and Keith spend time devoting more of their attention to getting rid of combat threats (because there's no fighter, so they have to). They find that it works really well. In fact, they suspect that Mary's Druid and animal companion are doing even better than Keith's Fighter did in the last campaign.
What should they do from here on out? Forget that they can play this way? Write it off as "just an experiment"?
(And worse things happen when people just stumble into the Druid invalidating a Fighter that's actually there.)
>this general needs something more productive to talk about
Best module? I've attached Robert Wiese's clever freebie "Wreck Ashore".
Everything will make the sloppily made fighter cry, including level appropriate monsters. That... isn't druid related.
The various summons and forms are decent, but overrated (except against the universally shitty unoptimized fighter). Their damage is spread across multiple attacks, screwing them up with regards to damage reduction, and tend to either lack or have substandard power attack. Druids aren't going to disrupt most game except if played ferociously.
>Shouldn't they just play what they're into playing?
OK, but then - what happens when Keith joins another group and decides to play a Druid. The other three players (trying to be accommodating) play Fighter, Sorcerer, and Bard. Although the other players have made an allowance for Keith, everyone is playing what they're into playing.
Now, Keith's not trying to cause a problem, and his new group's not trying to cause a problem, but one is brewing because either Keith will be having to forget what he learned previously and consciously avoid stepping on the fighter's toes, or just do what he saw Mary enjoying last time and risk giving someone else a negative experience.
That module is great. I used the suggestion to run it in reverse, have the party crash on the rocks and deal with the pirates and then struggle overland. Used it to launch a pretty good year-long 3.5 game.
I see it as GM's not doing their job.
If these casters are so awesome that they end all encounters with one spell, its the GM's job to step it up.
If an encounter is too easy, no xp should be awarded.
>d20 3.5 game
>player makes a druid
>horse as his animal companion
>brags about how great the horse attacks, and how its better than a fighter
>first encounter finds us climbing a ladder into the sewers...
>druid whines about DM being a dick
And an optimized caster will still likely be able to solve that encounter in the first turn - I just find it easier to make sure everyone's character as approximately of equal power, with the better optimizers and more assertive players getting lower tier characters so everyone can contribute, at least in theory.
Its just seems a simple solution.
>PCs face a bandit pack
>wizard fucks them all off easily
>next time the bandits fight smart
>stealth, target mage, distract others
>if PCs win again...assassins, arrows with a silence spell, etc.
My question is, why wouldn't bad guys target the most dangerous of the party? If magic is common and uber powerful, expect bad guys to be prepared for it.
It's a good point, but I'd say it's hard to make it to the most dangerous party members when they have more than enough to end an encounter alone. Even harder to make enemies capable of doing that without completely unfair moves (like "NO-SPELLS-FOR-10-MINUTES arrows" or other stupid shit that simply disables the whole caster character). Fighters as of 3.5 are like walls, their only real use is to keep critters and attackers at bay while casters do the hard work. And they do even that poorly, as they're as big as everyone else.
Also, it sucks to make a tanky character to protect your party, only to have every other bandit run past you to get to your squishy bomber.
I'd say a good way to make progression is having the party be kinda well-known by the local underground backstabbing community, so the first group come armed with swords and get wrecked, the second one brings a net to immobilize the Druid's bear, the second one appears with a specific magic jammer that only cancels Fireballs, then maybe a commander that has a highly-efficient jammer that cancels level 3 magic, and so on. This motivates the party to keep changing tactics and hold on their cards until it's actually necessary instead of just blasting their highest level spells around. That's just me, though. I don't claim to have all the answers and said progression might get harder to pull off, but it certainly is a fun mind game to have with players.
Personally, I feel like a bit of class imbalance is crucial to the feel of D&D. If your group actually has some amount of cohesion to it then the most "unbalanced" it gets is when the whole party has to wait on the Wizard to cast some relevant spell, which is functionally no different from waiting on the Ranger to use Track or the Rogue to search for traps.
Besides, if you put meaningful limits on your players' in-game time such that spells "per day" really matters, it not only closes the gap on sorcerers and wizards but lets your martials shine and forces your whole party to work together to figure out how to best spend their most powerful resource, which is undeniably awesome.
I've never seen a caster player do any of the things people normally point at as being broken. I think it's just an unwritten rule at most of the groups I've played in that we all try to match each other's level of optimization.
The only group I've been with that had a blatant powergamer in it was a guy who preferred playing rogue types, and he actually put more thought into roleplaying his character than anybody else at the table so I let his absolutely disgusting sneak-attack-every-turn-for-THIS-MANY-DICE damage builds slide.
As for myself, I can't bring myself to play a broken caster. There's something so incredibly satisfying about throwing fistfuls of dice on the table that, for me, trumps any concern of not being optimized or whatever. Focused Specialist (Evocation) for life.
People with some experience tend to fluctuate towards less optimized, more fun builds. Sure, a save-or-die skill is attainable as soon as lv7(Phantasmal Killer) as a common caster and before that you have many sleep, paralyze and entangle spells that effectively lock an enemy in place waiting for its time on the chopping block... but that's not fun for anyone other than a caster with a power fantasy. Most people could have some of those as last resort spells, but filling all your slots with stuff like that is just making the game duller and less interesting. Even when they achieve the same result (most of the time, killing), it's way more satisfying and interesting to blast someone with 10d6 damage than a "touched, rolled 3, he's dead".
I really disagree with this. Being able to cut through the (boring) combat with optimised casters means that more of the session can be devoted to exploration and interaction. I mean, role-playing is a social event - let's spend it being social, rather than throwing bits of plastic around.
>casters are overpowering, gives more time for non-combat rp
>casters are op, combat is boring
>casters are op, fighters and rogues are useless
>casters can not be stopped!!!
>DM can easily tailor encounters to counter casters, but doesn't because reasons
>3.5 is broken!!!!
I see some good points about balance here. I've yet to see anything that makes me think a certain core class is groosley op'd.
If casters end encounters too easily, the DM needs to get creative. This can be done without fiat or blatant moves to fuck casters ( ex. all enemies have mr or immunity).
I believe you're kinda missing the point here. D&D is pretty much a combat simulator at this point, the roleplay load is a "per-table" thing. If the story is roleplay-focused, combats can be made faster with less opponents or simple mechanics, but the combat itself follows the same rules. Combat time will always exist, and it's way better to be 15 minutes of cool and well-thought war simulation than 8 minutes of instant kills and martials sitting around on their medieval phones. Having 100% minmaxed characters speeds up the combat, but makes it dull and boring, just the way you see it. See my point?
>D&D is pretty much a combat simulator at this point
No, it's not. It's still an operational dungeon-cracker, with the dungeon rather broadly interpreted, and 3.0 added a "deck building" engine to the game.
>Combat time will always exist, and it's way better to be 15 minutes of cool and well-thought war simulation
Again, this is laughable. Even if you had no spellcasters, it's just not a "war simulation". If you want to say it's a cool "war game", that's more believable - but if you really want to do that kind of rollplaying, why not play a proper war game?
>than 8 minutes of instant kills and martials sitting around on their medieval phones.
If that's meant to be my group when we're playing full casters, there aren't any "martials".
>See my point?
No. You're beating up on a straw man.
The problem is that the system should not require the GM to get creative to deal with players using core material entirely as intended.
Just as a basic example, Glitterdust and Web. Both disable all enemies within a twenty-foot radius with only a single save and offer no spell resistance. And they're second-level spells. A 3rd-level conjurer can fire off three per day, without even dipping into his 1st-level spells. That's three encounters resolved, or at least crippled, and that's not even mentioning the Color Sprays or Greases that can also shut down encounters. And on top of being the best in combat, our little conjurer swiftly becomes the best out of it, whether he's crafting items, Charming NPCs for information, and using Levitate, Shatter, and Knock to invalidate obstacles. Even if you try to put pressure on him, all he needs is to keep Rope Trick in reserve for the end of the day.
Yes, you can push the caster until he breaks. But the same can be said of literally any class - and not only is the caster harder to counter, he's even harder to permanently counter. You can have every single enemy our Glitterdust-and-Web-spamming conjurer suddenly be replaced by enemies with Blindsight and perma-Freedom of Movement, but all he has to do after suffering through that is switch out his spells (summons and fogs, just for instance). Meanwhile, all you have to do to fuck over a fighter is to call in an enemy that he can't reach, something that you'll usually do anyway (unless you go your whole D&D campaign without ever introducing a flying enemy).
Thanks for that grotesque strawman of my position, but my point was not "some classes are not useful at all times and therefore the system is ruined." It was "One class will almost always be useful in encounters, if not outright trivializing them, both out-of-combat and in, and another class in the same book and often mentioned in the same breath is only useful in combat, and even then, can be shut down entirely by accident, and therefore the class system is broken."
And again, I was talking about third level. At 9th level, the wizard learns Teleport, which has an absurd number of applications even if he doesn't just use it to pop into the BBEG's sanctum and kill him in his sleep, ending the campaign in under a minute. The fighter... will get a bonus feat next level.
Getting ready to run a 2-player game in Forgotten Realms. New player will probably play a Crusader, old hand is just mulling over his options. My premise is that the PCs supplant Randal Morn in liberating Dagger Falls from the Zhents and go on to solidify the Dalelands against the various dangers about them.
There may also be some stuff about liberating the Drow from Lloth.
That's precisely what happened when I started playing in a new group. I wanted to try out a druid, while the other characters were a cavalier, a rogue and an inquisitor (who was badly built, so still subpar).
My animal companion, a roc, was a better tank than the cavalier, much more mobile than the rogue and killed off enemies quicker than the rest of group combined. And I was a full caster to boot. During the session, I felt pressured to make poor combat decisions so as not to constantly steal the spotlight.
Have any of the designers commented on what went into making the druid?
Because I find it really hard to believe that making a class which has minor class features stronger than other entire classes can really come about by pure accident, either someone fucked up big time, or someone did this on purpose
The companion's power doesn't rise as quickly as a PCs, supposedly letting them catch up at higher levels. Small consolation for martials in the lower single digit levels, though. Also, keep in mind that the Pathfinder Druid is a much nerfed version since 3.5, where wildshape not only gave you a couple of buffs, but literally swapped out parts of your statblock.
So druids, a full-caster class that, thanks to being a full-caster, reaches obscene levels of player power at higher levels, was balanced against martials because their animal companion was only a total upgrade over martial classes at lower levels
That explains nothing, it's still unbelieveable that they got through playtesting at all
>hey, let's fix the game!
>give noncasters a bunch of utility sidestuff, a whole lot of save bonuses and some retarded stuff like 30 attacks per action with full BAB and feats!
>oh, casters can cast spells! That's absurd! Make them fail every time they're not 100m away from their opponents AND make it nearly impossible to find anything magic-related for them! That'll teach those pesky library rats how great and awesome are common axes and swords!
I honestly laughed.
I think that, if you want a 3.5 general, "fixes" aren't the best starting topic. The people who play 3.5 generally don't do that much to "fix" it, because they LIKE 3.5.
Anon is playing Pathfinder (you can tell from the mention of an Inquisitor). Animal Companions work differently under those rules (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid/animal-companions) but the basic issues are the same as in 3.5.
>I am sorta shocked that there isn't an inquisitor class in so 3.5 supplement
There were only, like, forty base classes if I recall correctly. There are inquisitor prestige classes, though.
>stronger than other classes
I don't think classes were designed with a flat comparison to other classes.
Its all situational.
A rogue vs an unprepared fighter, and the rogue is at a big advantage. Toe to toe, the rogue is at a big disadvantage.
Rogues do best when getting their backstab in. Thus as a rogue, the PC should attempt to gain that edge.
This doesn't make the two classes " hugely imbalanced ", its the nature of the game.
The class strength analysis is not about pvp. It's about the tools that each class has for solving a range of adventuring problems. One of the main reasons for saying that (for example) the Cleric is all kinds of strong is that they have such a varied toolkit.
To address your particular example, the rogue is a stronger class than the fighter because the rogue has tools for dealing with a variety of different encounter types, while the fighter is only (somewhat) useful in combat.
What makes them hugely imbalanced is that they are about even in a fight, while the rogue has such a wealth of out of combat options that he's at least as good out of combat as the wizard, outside of PF.
Handy outside of combat has always been a rogues thing. Not handy out of combat had always been a fighter thing.
Need info? Bards can shine. Got animal issues? Druids and rangers shine.
If I am understanding you correctly, the fighters lack of out of combat skills, is a problem. I can see why that would be annoying to some. To me, its just the life if a fighter.
Each class has its niche.
>If I am understanding you correctly,
You are not.
The fighter is only good at fighting, and not even that good at it. If your party is Rogue/Fighter/Healer (or a Cleric played like a Healer)/Warmage (or a Wizard played like a Warmage) then the gap between classes isn't that big.
But if that Healer is replaced by a Druid that also does combat (in a scenario like >>44550345 & >>44551308), then not only is the fighter no help outside of combat, they're distinctly second-fiddle in their own area of expertise.
And maybe, just maybe, in your group that wouldn't be a problem. But if you can't see why people would find playing "party member #4: no relevant skills" somewhat unrewarding, I gotta ask why you don't use Commoner as a PC class.
>Not handy out of combat had always been a fighter thing.
Eeh... its really just a 3e (and I guess 5e thing, but its not a big deal) thing. Fighters hardly lacked in proficiencies compared to the rogue, hardly had a worse grasp on social interaction, and had little reason to be jealous of the thief's abysmal out of combat skills.
>If I am understanding you correctly, the fighters lack of out of combat skills, is a problem. I can see why that would be annoying to some. To me, its just the life if a fighter. Each class has its niche.
3e crippled the fighter and kicked in its teeth. The rogue's niche is, like the wizard, "everything in and out of combat." The fighter's niche is just level appropriate monsters without reach or anti will attacks.
>>How are you fixing class imbalance?
Many would think its too much work but our group dont care,
First we changed how XP works and leveling works.
When you are creating a character, you get the amount of XP needed to go to next level, so when creating a level 1 char you get 1000 xp, when creationg a level 2 you get 3000 xp.
When creating a character (and after it), you spend XP into classes, you dont need to spend all XP on a class needed to get to the next level, but when creating an character you must have at least level 1 into one class.
The amount of XP to get a level in a class, is the amount needed (while playing usual d&d) to reach this level + 1, so you need 1000 to get level 1 on a class.
Now, lets talk about caster class
When you spend XP on a caster class, you get magic points on this class, Those points MUST be assigned to one a school (universal is a school now), those points can be spread between the schools in any way possible.
The amount of magic points on a school is used to check the max spell level from this school you can cast.
To find the max spell level you can find from some school, first you find the amount of MP you have on this school lets say 15000 on necromancy, now 15000 XP is the amount of XP needed (on usual d&d) to reach level 6 subtract 1 and you will have level 5.
Now, on usual d&d a 5th level wizard would be able to cast at max a level 3 spell.
So this means a guy with 15000 magic points on necromancy will be able to cast a level 3 spell at max from this school.
As some example a level 20 sorcerer would be able to spend his magic points in a way that make himself able to cast a level 3 spells from any of the 9 schools.
Anyway to find the amount of spells per day (on a specific level), you do the same.
The difference here is that the amount of spells per day on specific spell level, is shared. You get the sum of spells per day you on all schools and multiply by 2
So a sorcerer with just, level 4 on necromancy (3 spells per day of level 2) and level 4 on conjuration (3 spells per day of level 2), can cast (3 +3) * 2 = 12 spells per day of the level 2
He can cast more than the limit, but he will receive magic damage, this amount is 10 when you pass your per day limit and + 10 to each time you cast again while not fully healed.
Anyway magic damage is not real damage.
You heal 20 magic damage points per week.
When sleeping you do a test
100 - (Amount of magic damage / con)
You roll a d100 and must roll less than this you pass the test.
If you fail the test, you max spell per day on all spells is halved (rounded down always) for the next 6 months.
If you fail the test, you will also heal magic points at a rate of 10 per week instead of the 20 per week (until you heal all your magic damage points)
You cant spend XP on a caster class if you have magic damage points higher than 0
You're just throwing words to mask the fact that Fighter is a bad class. It's barely as good as other martial classes in combat, no special situation involved, straight-out 1 on 1 fighting(which he should excel at). It's actually the class that's gimped the most by almost any special situation. It's also useless out of combat, as it can't roll for shit and doesn't have any skill that can't be easily covered by any other party member. It's not a matter of choice, it's a matter of any combination you choose still giving you a below-average result.
When comparing classes, you always look at them on the same level. Setting is common D&D settings, Forgotten Realms and such. Even if you have a super-specific setting that forbids anything other than Fighter-specific actions(attack, full-attack, feats), other classes can and will outplay the Fighter without problems.
Just accept it, Fighters are bad and an adventurer should be ashamed to start adventuring as one.
Expanding on this. New player is more inclined to play a drow cleric, so I'm going to indulge that by making Eilistraee an important part of the campaign.
But because Eilistraee is boring and her faith is boring, I'm going to kill her way before any of that "Masked Lady" stuff can crop up. If you look at real world religion, getting killed is often a good move for the upwardly mobile divine entity. It worked for Osiris, it worked for Dionysus, and it worked pretty well for Baldr, too. So it can work for Eilistraee. She died in the Time of Troubles, trying to protect some of her faithful from orthodox drow. Of course, that's the sort of "death from portfolio" that doesn't tend to be a career-ending injury for a deity in Faerun. So Eilistraee's body floats through the Astral, awaiting a new champion.
Enter the PCs.
Thoughts? Is this radically stupid? If not, what kind of gifts should a reborn Eilistraee bestow on her new champion(s)?
You're making some nice buzz words.
Yet offer nothing to support those words.
As for "out-play", is that like a high score? Like a video game score?
Is that how you d&d?
How many people honestly play RAW PHB. I just use this thing
with a few tweaks and some other stuff, like merging Listen/Spot into Perception and Hide/Move Silent into Stealth
I remember some jackass spammed /tg/ with threads about this thing months ago but what do y'all actually think of it.
>merging Listen/Spot into Perception
Although this one's common, I think it might be a bit of a mistake. (Though less of a mistake than rolling in Search as well!) Spot & Listen are such common checks that rolling them into the one skill starts the slide to pseudo-choice.
My feeling is that if you're going to have Perception as a pseudo-choice, it might as well be a function of character level with several of the more alert classes giving a Perception bonus as they level up. (e.g. Rogue might get +1 Perception at Levels 4, 8, 12, 16, 20...)
It looks OK, but the class fixes suffer from that same "let's make everything more complicated in the hopes of balancing it out!" mentality that most homebrews (Pathfinder included) seem to be cursed by. The changes to spellcasting are a real strong point, though I think the writers have only gotten to general principles for damage-dealers and save-or-dies when they need to look at the spells case by case.
All in all, I don't hate it - but I'm not sold on it as a real alternative to Tier Play.
>players still not acknowledging that magic items are cooked into the game's math
I can't believe there are still retards that think this. Monster design outstrips BAB increases without giving PCs the magic items they should get. I know 3.5 math is shitty to begin with, but adhering to WBL is the only think that keeps martial classes a little competitive in combat.
My group suddenly decided to make an evil counterpart to our good-natured party and since the original was pretty standard (Sorcerer, Ranger, Bard, Fighter, Barbarian) we decided to use some varied classes.
So far, we have a Goblin Artificer (me), Human Cleric (that wants to focus on delivering touch spells unarmed), Human Factotum and a Warforged Crusader.
The last player is still coming up with what he'll play, and he is showing much interest in those horrible homebrews on D&D wiki (like Black Knight and Advanced Warforged). Problem is, our DM is too much of a nice guy to just say no if/when he comes up with a character with one of those classes. Should I expect a bad time or am I worrying too much?
>>Did anyone ever put out a good patch for 3.5?
Here, replacement rules for the following areas:
Lower Planes characters, mechanics and Wish
Skills, Rogues and Monks
Martial Characters and Feats
All solid and well written, with good analysis of the original material's flaws. Incomplete, so does not cover items beyond a quick wealth fix.
The end result is more powerful (bringing martials up to rough parity with spellcasters), stranger (requiring the setting to fit to characters actually doing high-level things) and almost balanced.
It's the best you'll ever get out of 3.5
Has anyone ever put serious effort into sorting monsters by the actual challenge they pose rather than the wildly inaccurate CR?
I feel like class balance can be handled quite nicely by tiers, but CR is still a hideous fucking mess and a god damn nightmare for new DMs
Constitution is an odd thing in D&D.
There are only a few things it is used for: Hit Points, Fortitude Saves, the Concentration skill, and endurance checks (long marches, holding your breath, etc). All together, it represents "toughness". Which creates the odd situation that the characters who most fit the "tough guy" stereotype (martial combatants) are likely to have less Constitution than "weedy gitz" (spellcasters), since the spellcasters need Constitution more and have less need of other ability scores apart from their primary casting characteristic.
I recommend this: instead of having a Constitution score, merge its properties into Strength, except for hit points (which will be based solely on your class). Concentration will be based on Intelligence.
Another ability score merger I suggest is to group Charisma and Wisdom into one ability score: Spirit. Both Charisma and Wisdom are often-dumped, relatively weak stats, and Charisma has the added problem of being poorly-defined.
The final ability score house rule I use is to make Weapon Finesse free for all, rather than a feat. This compensates for how the other scores got boosted. I rename Dexterity to Agility, since Agility more accurately describes what Dex does in the game.
End result: a four-stat game, two physical/two mental. Strength, Agility, Intelligence, and Spirit.
Yes. Has a different way of assigning XP etc as well.
People will freak out when they read that balors are now CR 25-30 or so -- but isn't exactly the same measurement and will make sense if you examine the encounter guidelines.
It can go either way, and Spirit has enough skills as it is. I think the ability to concentrate fits more with high-Int archetypes than high-Spi ones, but it isn't a big deal.
>Rogues feel extremely inadequate.
My most successful character was a rogue in a party if 2 full casters and a partial caster, because I played to their strengths and they played to mine, because we aren't all shitheads.
>because either Keith will be having to forget what he learned previously and consciously avoid stepping on the fighter's toes, or just do what he saw Mary enjoying last time and risk giving someone else a negative experience.
I've never understood this. How does another party member rolling similar numbers to me negatively impact my roleplaying experience?
I have. For some races, you have to switch up the scores (dwarves get +2 Str and -2 Agi instead of their normal mods, half-orcs +2 Str and -2 Int with no penalty to Spi). Most races try to have a "neutral balance" for their ability scores, so it is easy to re-write. Easier than before, even, because ability scores are closer to each other in value.
Well, some people like to feel like they're contributing to the party's success. If another player is better at everything you can do, and more, it might feel demoralizing and make you wonder what you're even doing there.
>>kill the ten minute workday
>>every encounter at cr -1 or higher places a charge counter on the mirari
>>at four charge counters, allies in a 30 foot radius gain the following benefits: +1 to attack and damage, spell points cost one less, but cannot cost less than 1. (A free augment)
>>gain +1 use of other items with charges or daily abilities (this recharges wands, though doesn't add "charges" to consumables)
>spend five charge points
>>heal your level/d6+constitution hp, this is treated as natural healing and not temporary healing. Make a fortitude save against any ability damage
>gain level/d4 + wisdom (specifically wisdom) spell points
>at 7 charge points, characters get a total +2 to attack and damage. Spells cost a total of -2, though again this can not go below 1. All spells cast through items are Empowered, as the metamagic feat.
>gain +1/day use of a class or feat ability (smite, wild shape, sudden metamagic)
>By spending 8 charge points, the party heals equal to full health - constitution modifier.
>>spell points are replenished fully
>spending charge points takes a full minute, except at 11+ charge points when it's a swift action. Spell points are not accumulated In Anti-magic fields
This is a secret mirari ability/quest hook
>>at 11+ charge points
items with charges or per day abilities stop costing usage points and change from standard actions to activate to swift actions to activate. Characters with spell points cast spells at a -5 cost. This can bring the cost below zero. All characters attack with +5 to hit and +5 damage. Characters gain a +5 deflection bonus. Their eyes glow. Add 1d6/5 levels electrical damage to melee attacks. This damage may not be stopped from activating, and applies to any touch. All potions not in an extra dimensional space on the players body are destroyed by Non magical clothing is destroyed in one round. Nonmagical metal items are destroyed in 5 rounds.
>>Spending charge points at this point becomes very difficult. An attempt to activate the charge points requires a DC 20+level will save. Attempts may only be made once per charge gained. There are stories about mirari users who burned off into the night like storms.
>spend 11+ (all) charges
>>gain XP as if defeating a creature 2 higher than your level. Heal fully. Regain all spell points
Rogues are absolutely not underpowered with regards to other classes. For one thing, you can make dungeons that will utterly slaughter anyone who can't detect traps, so long as you put in a way that sending a zombie to walk across that suspicious checkered floor won't spring 100% of them, and for another, int and cha based casters tend to be unable to perceive mid level and up rogues at all.
While it is PvE, not PvP, having someone that can obliterate enemy casters unfailingly while they cannot be detected, who foils ambushes, and who keeps the party from being wiped out by traps has its uses.
>Did anyone ever put out a good patch for 3.5?
Trim class list to Crusader, Psion, Psychic Warrior, Soulknife, Swordsage, Wilder, and Warblade.
Make psionics and magic synonymous concepts, abandon dividing arcane/divine/psionic/etc. Make alchemy able to produce healing potions and the like.
Take away "4x skill points at 1st level", skill points and half-ranks. Make max ranks = character level, do the "class skills get a +3 trained bonus" thing.
That's interesting. I feel like you can go a step further than this, though. What if Intelligence and "Spirit" (WisdomCharisma) were one score?
Think about it. Intelligence is used for a few skills, and for skill points. The new ability score, like your merged StrCon score, would not give bonus skill points. Instead, all classes get some extra skill points (like 2/lvl, maybe). That way, you have three ability scores: Strength, Agility, and Intelligence.
Might, Motion and Mind.
It all works out. When you have three ability scores, each has a save attached to it, and each is associated with one of the classic roles (combat, stealth and magic). Each has one of the three effects of ability damage to zero: death for StrCon, paralysis for AgiDex, and unconciousness for IntWisCha. They're each approximately equal in value (by itself, Int and Spirit still aren't as good as Agi or Str unless you are a caster), and nobody is screwed out of skill points because of their role.
I'm using this.
>For one thing, you can make dungeons that will utterly slaughter anyone who can't detect traps
What skill is the rogue using to do that? Knowledge (engineering)? Or maybe profession (trapsmitting)? Both things that key off of stats that Wizards/Clerics pump into the stratosphere.
>and for another, int and cha based casters tend to be unable to perceive mid level and up rogues at all.
Rogues also fail to perceive and approach them, thanks to overland flight and greater invisibility... except of course that the wizard/sorcerer also has a familiar, so he gets to roll twice to catch the rogue, and also gets alertness while the familiar is there, because why not.
>having someone that can obliterate enemy casters unfailingly
You can't even oneshot a level appropriate caster reliably. You can't even get past blur, mirror image, stone skin, etc. by yourself.
I seriously mean this, I'm happy for you that you had fun. But not everyone is playing wearing blinders.
>What skill is the rogue using to do that? Knowledge (engineering)? Or maybe profession (trapsmitting)? Both things that key off of stats that Wizards/Clerics pump into the stratosphere.
You can't even find most traps, no matter how high your skill, unless you have trapfinding.
Okay, and I'm saying everyone can do that. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant but I thought you meant that as a bonus poitn for the rogue, being able to make traps. Also
Also, you only need 1 level dip, or any of the other ways to get trapfinding. There's still no reason to take more levels of rogue over anything else.
Search. The wizard can't find the traps, period. All he can do is hope that whoever spent thousands of golden dollars making the traps wasn't a spellcaster himself who knew about the capabilities of spellcasters, ie. to send a goblin or zombie through the dungeon to trigger them all.
Not really a generous duration, so its dependent on the wizard finding him first -- which after a certain point he flat out can't.
>You can't even oneshot a level appropriate caster reliably.
Its very hard to do anything against an enemy you cannot ever detect, period, who in a worst case scenario can ready actions to do a mountain of damage to you each time you try to cast.
>You can't even get past blur, mirror image, stone skin, etc. by yourself.
Again, relying on the assumption of the wizard figuring out that his enemy is there well in advance, despite that he will never, ever be able to detect him.
>that you had fun
Not the rogue guy. I'm pointing out that past a certain point rogues are essentially invincible to wizards, and that wizards are nearly helpless to ambushes/traps/etc.
Couple of questions:
1. When you use tumble to evade an enemy, and his AoOs, squares cost double the movement even if you aren't provoking anymore?
2. Can you flank with improvised weapons and even AoO with them? see arrow that you didn't shot yet.
I don't see why people hate 3.5, it's awesome, the books are awesome and the devs are very honest
That spell is scant help to the wizard, has short duration, and is a wisdom based spell that enhances an intelligence based skill. So its not great help for the cleric, but can occasionally work.
>Also, you only need 1 level dip, or any of the other ways to get trapfinding.
That's more than most wizards are willing to give up, and not a practical solution.
>Search. The wizard can't find the traps, period. All he can do is hope that whoever spent thousands of golden dollars making the traps wasn't a spellcaster himself who knew about the capabilities of spellcasters, ie. to send a goblin or zombie through the dungeon to trigger them all.
Okay, so what do they trigger on? If a humanoid walking down doesn't trigger the traps, couldn't the wizard (who is a humanoid) just walk down the halls and not trigger traps? This is ignoring the fact that that still only excuses the first level of rogue, non of the later ones. Also ignoring that any magical trap the wizard can just detect and dispel.
>Again, relying on the assumption of the wizard figuring out that his enemy is there well in advance, despite that he will never, ever be able to detect him.
The rogue attacks him. He doesn't die, because the rogue simply can't oneshot him. He defensively or quickened casts one of the defensive spells/invisibility/etc.
Or he turns into a fucking dragon that has blindsense and the rogue is literally unable to hide from.
Warforged monks have good SR, good saves, immunities to a lot of bullshit, and various other mobility and defense things.
They can't actually contribute to combat in any way whatsoever other than by being a distraction and a 5' chunk of slippery magic resistant adamantine, but...
>Okay, so what do they trigger on?
Its up to the trap maker. There are any number of configurations. Detecting Abjuration and Transmutation is my favorite -- its almost guaranteed no player will be able to figure out why it blows up PCs in particular.
>Also ignoring that any magical trap the wizard can just detect and dispel.
He detects a magical presence. Then he dies, is incapacitated, or suffers an utter shitload of concentration wrecking damage, preventing him from figuring out what just happened.
> This is ignoring the fact that that still only excuses the first level of rogue, non of the later ones.
If you want to multiclass willy nilly, that's fine. The insulation from enemies that don't have perception stuff as a class skill, and from enemies that rely on ambushes (ie that can kill wizards at will), and other skill utility is generally enough, with his other suite of abilities being icing on the cake.
>He doesn't die, because the rogue simply can't oneshot him.
He's going to get a surprise round and probably win initiative, more than enough time for him to bury the wizard under a wheelbarrow of d6s. He can even ready action with his surprise round, if he wants to be extra cautious.
We have to remember the wizard is walking around the dungeon, blind to skill based stealth, vulnerable as fuck with his d4 hp self and his half a d4 hp magic toad or whatever.
Are wizards etc great? Certainly. Are rogues etc underpowered? Hell no.
You know I always hear people say "Caster supremacy isn't an issue if you have good players or play/run it correctly" but they never elaborate on HOW you're suppose to do it correctly.
"It's different from person to person" they say but that's only in relation to how people get along. When it comes to actually inputting the mechanics I'd like to know what traps/things GM's are actually suppose to be avoiding here.
Guys, I got an idea
What if we just give the Trapfinding feature to the Fighter, let the Fighter have 8 skill points and the Rogue's class skills, and make Sneak Attack available as feats (like the ones in Unearthed Arcana generics)?
'cause if the whole argument for keeping rogues hinges on TRAPS of all things, then that isn't a reason to keep the class. Traps are a small portion of the game.
two things have proven greatly unbalancing in my 3.5 campaign. The first the Monk1/Psywarrior18 who utilizes metamorphosis and size boosting, on top of full monk damage from his Tashalatora feat. This monk regulalry deals 500+ damage a round. His powers are incredibly versatile, allowing him to heal himself, pump up his damage, teleport and render himself immune to most magical tricks. This PC has broken my game.
The second build that was incredibly broken was the Druid/PlanarShepherd with the Aberrant Wildshape feat. His primary forms were Thoon Elder Brain and then Moonbeast. He had over a dozen tentacle attacks, and regularly had over 25 different buff spells active (holy shit is the druid spell list repetitive). This character's AC was also 60+ most of the time, and also had a wide array of immunities.
Between the two PCs, the others looked like chumps. The single classed Gnome Monk barely does any damage. The Halfling Rogue fairs decently well. And the Kobold Bard just makes everyone else kick a lot more ass.
The campaign is going to end soon. As a DM, I'm glad. Designing challenging encounters is a fucking chore. The Monster Manual does not provide enough high CR monsters, considering the monk can kill a Pit Fiend in a single full attack.
Caster supremacy is an issue, but the issue is better described as "people who have barely any defenses or offensive abilities in a fight, and who cannot do anything out of a fight, vs people who are great in and out of a fight."
Wizard vs fighter is just shorthand. An artificer "technically" doesn't have spells (infusions are probably not spells so that they can't be wand'd/scroll'd) and a warmage does, but the former is grossly superior.
Better idea, why don't we give trapfinding feature and track feature to everybody?
>Its up to the trap maker. There are any number of configurations. Detecting Abjuration and Transmutation is my favorite -- its almost guaranteed no player will be able to figure out why it blows up PCs in particular.
What if they just give the summon a trinket to carry? What if the wizard casts Magic Aura on all the gear they carry? (which isn't as farfetched as it sounds, Magic Aura is a 1st level spell that lasts days/level).
>He detects a magical presence. Then he dies, is incapacitated, or suffers an utter shitload of concentration wrecking damage, preventing him from figuring out what just happened.
How? He can detect magic up to 60ft away. 120ft with arcane sight, which he can freaking permanency. Do your traps kill everything in a 120 ft radius?
>He's going to get a surprise round
Does he have 0 magic items and/or Magic Aura on everything he owns? If not, see above.
>and probably win initiative
Its a 50/50. He has no more initiative boosters than the wizard.
>He can even ready action with his surprise round, if he wants to be extra cautious.
If you ready an action, you aren't attacking. It works out the same, except the wizard can walk the fuck away (eating maybe a what, 10-15 dmg AoO?) and cast from somewhere else.
Fuck. Oh fuck. I just got trolled, didn't I.
Oh well, no point in deleting this now, may as well send it.
>The whole argument
I guess you have poor reading comprehension, as traps is just one of them. The wizard being generally blind, deaf, squishy, and with a d4 for hp while the rogue can prey on any who lack the perception skills as a class skill is a pretty big deal. Its not just PvP either -- traps are just an example of shit that the wizard can't detect and is almost always going to hit him first.
Not gonna lie, the druid sounds awesome.
That's actually a pretty good idea. Just have the trapfinder be whichever character has the highest Search skill and the tracker whichever character has the highest Survival.
The mistake Pathfinder made wasn't giving everyone Trapfinding, the mistake was keeping the Rogue as a separate class.
Happens the same with rangers, I made one in my first game in PF ever and I couldn't even track better than the druid...fucking useless I felt. Also his bear was better fighter than me.
> blind, deaf, squishy
Divinations and abjurations
Rogue's d6 is only one point higher per level, and tends to have lower HP because he's MAD and doesn't have spare points for Con.
The Planar Shepherd could have done so much worse to your game than they actually did. He could have easily chosen to shit on the game with the ability to give himself and his party several rounds worth of actions for every round that passes.
Lots depend on levels.
Lv 1 rogue vs mage, the mage has low chance to ever see the rogue coming.
Assuming a simple short sword, rogue on a backstab is doing 2-12+ strength. Likely more than enough to fuck off a mage.
Higher levels will vary a bit, but not much. Mages will have more defensive spells, rogue will have better weapons and tricks also.
At any level, rogue will likely be teabagging the mages corpse when battle ends.
>What if they just give the summon a trinket to carry?
If the wizard manages to guess the criteria used for the traps, more power to him. Fuck, if the wizard manages to survive the first trap, more power to him. This is a game where the protagonists are generally supposed to win, afterall. You are still probably going to take that ballista bolt or whatever to your d4 hp face first, but if you can intuit the way traps work on your own, that's 100% in the spirit of D&D. There is also no guarantee that all the traps in a given dungeon will use the same mechanisms.
>How? He can detect magic up to 60ft away.
If he can detect the trap, the trap can detect him.
>Does he have 0 magic items and/or Magic Aura on everything he owns?
By the time round 3 rolls around, the fight is over long ago. Even if you maintain concentration for three rounds, doing nothing else, all you have done is pinpointed the rogue -- maybe. For Arcane Sight, I'm not exactly concerned about the idea of wizards just happening to pop spells with a duration of 1 minute exactly when they need it.
This also doesn't help against the more pressing PvE portion of wizards being ultra vulnerable to ambushers.
>Its a 50/50. He has no more initiative boosters than the wizard.
Dex primary, and if the wizard wins inits, he loses his action due to eating a boatload of sneak attack.
>It works out the same, except the wizard can walk the fuck away (eating maybe a what, 10-15 dmg AoO?) and cast from somewhere else.
He doesn't even know he's got a readied action aimed at him, and he doesn't have a clue where he has to go to negate said readied action that he doesn't know exists from an enemy he doesn't know the location or number of.
Still blind and deaf from ambushes, which is the point.
Lorewyrm shit is discarded. Additionally, overpowered niche builds do not render other classes underpowered.
That may (depending on if the DM likes you) help you against the largely nonexistent threat of PvP, not so much against the hordes of ambushers that merely share the rogue's high ambushing skills, which is much more relevant.
You are saying that the class that can literally sit down and ask the universe "am I going to be attacked?", has a pocket minion it can send ahead to scout, has the option to summon MORE pocket minions to send ahead and scout, can teleport/dimension door/fly/earth glide to wherever he pleases (for example, away/past ambush sites) is vulnerable to ambushes?
>That may (depending on if the DM likes you) help you against the largely nonexistent threat of PvP, not so much against the hordes of ambushers that merely share the rogue's high ambushing skills, which is much more relevant.
Also against magical traps. Also, are you seriously saying that a bunch of low level assholes with 0 magical items are a threat to the 11th level wizard (as that's the level he can permanency arcane sight at).
In which case the Rogue is shit on by the fact that they can't get Weapon Finesse and the fact that the Wizard's familiar has scent, which auto-defeats stealth, and gives the Wizard himself Alertness.
This really isn't hard.
>You are saying that the class that can literally sit down and ask the universe "am I going to be attacked?",
You're going into a dark and scary dungeon, so the universe says "no shit." That was hard.
>has a pocket minion it can send ahead to scout,
And is vulnerable to being vaporized or having any number of things done to it. It is an awesome way of survival at low levels, however.
>as the option to summon MORE pocket minions to send ahead and scout
Its not always the smoothest move to loudly broadcast your location to the entire facility.
> can teleport/dimension door/fly/earth glide to wherever he pleases (for example, away/past ambush sites)
That will be of help if he isn't instantly vaporized by the aforementioned ambush, can pull it off and has no party members -- though that is the one advantage of a solitary wizard.
>is vulnerable to ambushes
Well yeah, being blind, deaf, naked, and d4'd with regards to skill based ambushes has its drawbacks.
>Also against magical traps
That tend to also use magic to find their targets, may be in an area where everything is magic, etc.
>Also, are you seriously saying that a bunch of low level assholes
I'm not sure why you think ambush monsters are necessarily low level. That's perplexing as hell.
>I'm not sure why you think ambush monsters are necessarily low level. That's perplexing as hell.
Because they have no magical auras. That means they auto-lose to a number of tactics/spells available to an 11th level wizard .
The fighter is blind and deaf and naked (with regards to will) vs skill and magic oriented fuckery, the wizard is just blind and deaf and naked with regards to skill oriented fuckery.
Also, remember that this all started because someone argued that the rogue is so inferior that he's unworthy of participation, bringing down the party, and if you didn't feel useless then you were lucky to have a shit party, etc.
1st level human wizard has toughness, a toad familiar, and positive CON mod.
Alternatively improved initiative and same DEX mod as the rogue, but also as >>44586383 >Wizard's familiar has scent, which auto-defeats stealth, and gives the Wizard himself Alertness.
Rogue isn't a bad class, but most of its competence comes from its access to UMD, which is pretty irrelevant when you're being compared to classes that can naturally use magic items.
Pathfinder was the biggest betrayal for anyone hoping that something nice could come from 3.5 falling apart. They had everything they needed to make a good game from it and chose to repeat every mistake made by the original developers, that shit is unforgivable, the 3.5 devs can be understood because they were covering new ground and didn't know what they were doing, but the Pathfinder devs had to explicitly choose to keep the game hideously balanced.
I gotta confess here.
I never have actually played pf.
We bought some books, I read them. Never played it though.
It just seems like a lot if the stupid supplements from 3.5 were mashed into a heap and renamed pathfinder.
Almost all willy-nilly. Imo
>You know I always hear people say "Caster supremacy isn't an issue if you have good players or play/run it correctly" but they never elaborate on HOW you're suppose to do it correctly.
Upthread someone actually gave a believable answer to that. The arcane casters play as blasters, the divine casters play as healbots, everyone is about even. This lines up with what the CharOp guys are saying about the effect of bad optimization on Tiers.
They didn't answer it directly, but there was something vague about druids handling "nature stuff". If they're sinking their abilities into being based animal handlers and tree fondlers, then I can believe that they're not tearing up the battlefield.
One guy I had a druid vs fighter debate on a forum said something like "well, obviously if they take bears and shit as animal companions/forms I could see how they could be okay at combat, but most druids just have like ferrets and shit".
I have never, ever, seen any one who wanted to play a druid, play a druid in order to be a ferret.
Even without 3.5, most people who want to be a shapeshifter who turns into animals, want to turn into a big dangerous mammal, bears, gorillas, rhinos, those sorts of things
And they told him his group just didn't know how to optimize correctly.
I disagree with that train of thought myself. But to each their own I guess.
I expect our group to do some optimization. But we usually do it in a way that sorta fits our charc. Not make our character to fit our optimization choices.
Example: last mage I made took all the ranks he could in healing and medical knowledge. Skill focus healing. He was a necromancy specialist, who was the only doctor in a small-ish village. No fireballs, no charms. He wasn't trying to turn the world undead. He was happy protecting the village, and studying spells. Boring? Not at all. Was great fun, working with a ranger and two fighters solving problems around our hometown.
Wolves, bears, apes, there're lots of low level animals that can wreck shit, PF even have spinosaurus, allosaurus and shit that make almost any non optimized as fuck martial look like shit with a cherry on it.
When my party wants to do that sort of thing, we don't play DnD 3.5
3.5 is the game where we make an optimized character, then fit a backstory and personality around that. Which is quite fun in of itself.
Maybe they're playing a nature lover? Instead of a "druid" that summons natures animals as his meat shield/trap springers. Focused on working with the farmers to get better crops, instead of summoning an army of bears. Different settings and styles.
The reason why Rogues get considered somewhat weak (Tier 4) has been explained in some detail. The basic issue is not "can you jimmy the campaign to make the rogue the star of the show?" It's "how well does the rogue contribute to a range of adventuring situations?" So let's look at the 3 situations from JaronK's tier analysis:
>Situation 1: A Black Dragon has been plaguing an area, and he lives in a trap filled cave. Deal with him.
>Well he can certainly help get the party to the dragon, even if he's not totally optimized for it. His stealth and detection abilities will come in handy here, and if he puts the less stealthy people in portable holes and the like he's good to go. During the combat he's likely not that helpful (it's hard to sneak attack a dragon) but if he had a lot of prep time he might have been able to snag a scroll or wand of Shivering Touch, in which case he could be extremely helpful... he just has to be really prepared and on the ball, and the resources have to be available in advance. He's quite squishy though, and that dragon is a serious threat.
> Memorize Greater Floating Disk, Shivering Touch, and Spectral Hand. Maybe Alter Self too for stealth reasons. Kill dragon. Memorize Animate Dead too, because Dragons make great minions (seriously, there's special rules for using that spell on dragons). Sweet, you have a new horsie! Or, you know, maybe you Mind Rape/Love's Pain and kill the dragon before he even knows you exist, then float down and check it out. Or maybe you create a horde of the dead and send them in, triggering the traps with their bodies. Or do the haunt shift trick and waltz in with a hardness of around 80 and giggle. Perhaps you cast Genesis to create a flowing time plane and then sit and think about what to do for a year while only a day passes on the outside... and cast Explosive Runes every day during that year. I'm sure you can come up with something. It's really your call.
>Situation 2: You have been tasked by a nearby country with making contact with the leader of the underground slave resistance of an evil tyranical city state, and get him to trust you.
>With his stealth and diplomacy, he's all over this. Maybe not 100% perfect, but still pretty darn solid. An individual build might not have all the necessary skills, but most should be able to make do.
>Check your spell list. Alter Self and Disguise Self can make you look like whoever you need to look like. Locate Creature has obvious utility. Heck, Contact Other Plane could be a total cheating method of finding the guy you're trying to find. Clairvoyance is also handy. It's all there.
>Situation 3: A huge army of Orcs is approaching the city, and should be here in a week or so. Help the city prepare for war.
>Perhaps he can use Gather Information and such to gain strategic advantages before the battle... that would be handy. There's a few he's pretty likely to be able to pull off. He might even be able to use Diplomacy to buff the army a bit and at least get them into a good morale situation pre battle. Or, if he's a different set up, he could perhaps go out and assassinate a few of the orc commanders before the fight, which could be handy. And then during the fight he could do the same. It's not incredible, but it's something.
>Oh no, enemy army! Well, if you've optimized for it, there's always the locate city bomb (just be careful not to blow up the friendly guys too). But if not, Love's Pain could assassinate the leaders. Wall of Iron/Stone could create fortifications, or be combined with Fabricate to armour up some of the troops. Or you could just cast Blinding Glory and now the entire enemy army is blind with no save for caster level hours. Maybe you could Planar Bind an appropriate outsider to help train the troops before the battle. Push comes to shove, Gate in a Solar, who can cast Miracle (which actually does have a "I win the battle" option)... or just Shapechange into one, if you prefer.
Note that this analysis doesn't say the Rogue is useless. It's simply noting that the Rogue's way of dealing with things is more limited, to the point that in some situations characters of that class are going to be relying on other members of the party to deal with the encounter. The Wizard isn't in that boat: that class always has something to contribute and - with a very small range of exceptions - they have a range of strong options.
>Maybe they're playing a nature lover?
Then why are they an adventurer? Wouldn't it make more sense for the nature lover to just stay in natural surrounds, rather than go adventuring? Without any more elaboration it sounds like they're a shitty role-player trying to force their own "special snowflake" onto the rest of the group.
Of course, some groups are all about a veritable snowstorm of special snowflakes, so it can work - as you say, there are different settings and styles!
A 3.5 general was set up because other discussions showed many people still playing the game and thinking that Pathfinder was no substitute. There is a Pathfinder general for discussing the other game, so you're not limited for places to talk about it. Are you just edition warring?
At 8th level they get giant octopus, dire ape & dire lion. Nothing is more ludicrous than a giant octopus' 8 auto-grappling 20-ft reach attacks per round on dry land thousands of miles from the sea.
>If he can detect the trap, the trap can detect him.
So hey, lets say the wizard is fucked by this trap. But what does the rogue do with magical murderrapetraps that can detect him magically from 120ft (which is the range of Arcane Sight)?
Use 120ft poles to disable them?
When you create your character, what is your process?
1) roll stats
2) pick basic class
3) back story
4) pick skills feats to support backstory
Thus if I have an 18,12,16,9,12,11
I would say a fighter. Strong, not quick, so 2hnd weapon feats ( cleave etc). He isn't clever really so crafting and such wouldn't be his thing. Average charm and wisdom.
I'd end up with a guy that favors big weapons, and had a few fights under his belt. Or knew a few tricks. Perhaps his father is military? Or a guard? He is leaving home to make his mark on the realm. Hoping to out shine his brothers, or to gain fame and impress a stoic father.
No wrong answers, just curiosity.
Is that normal?
>Its up to the trap maker. There are any number of configurations. Detecting Abjuration and Transmutation is my favorite -- its almost guaranteed no player will be able to figure out why it blows up PCs in particular.
So I guess if the rogue is not wearing items it could work... but then the same goes for the wizard so w/e.
If that's the definition of minmaxer. Then yes.
At least for character start. What he picks later on, will be based on what he needs. ( blind fight if underground for example). Or more health if he is getting KO'd. Or saving throw boost if he's facing lots of magic.
Detecting...as in magically detecting, is how I read that.
A magic item wouldn't trigger it, unless used. Knowing detection spells wouldn't trigger it, casting it would.
I think is what the intent is.
For me, it's more like
1. Talk to the DM about the game. Not just houserules and setting, but also their expectations.
2. Brainstorm a bit and come up with a few ideas for a character. Generally these are both build and theme.
3. Talk to the other players, find out what they're doing and what is missing in the group.
4. Go back to my ideas, pick out the best fit (or come up with something that fits better).
5. Explain what I'm thinking about to the whole group. Make sure to discuss any controversial rules material with the DM before play starts.
6. Take their feedback and draw up a final draft.
7. Play the first session.
8. Touch base with the DM, ask if they think I need to make any changes and/or pitch any adjustments to the character that would better fit how I've actually been playing them.
Well, if you follow the conversation back, it was about "traps that don't get triggered by a summon going down the hall, but do get triggered by characters", I think.
So if the summon didn't trigger it, the characters would walk down the hallway and also don't trigger it.
It's a joke.
No worries m8. I am just trying to grasp how others play.
Min max is tossed around a lot. I wondered if I fit the description.
Our DM had the rule of " no snowflake ". So if you make up some powerhouse build, expect bad guys to do the same. So we usually just sorta flesh out our concept, by picking approiate feats/skills.
If that makes us minmaxers, that's fine. None if our group, after years of weekly play, have ever managed to invalidate other PCs.
Well, at times we have. Like a barb that kicked in every door before it was checked for traps. Shit like that.
We had a druid do that. He turned bear, and charged ahead to kill the bad guys. He found a door, tried to crash it, and failed. Got shot with xbows, and had a spear rammed into him. Dead. By a few lower level npc warriors.
Door wasn't even locked. Opposable thumbs are handy.
This scenario only makes sense if the group has failed to work together - which is a problem regardless of character class and build. So basically, you're just telling us that you and your group are idiots.
We never did. So I don't think it means that.
Not to us anyway.
Our DM doesn't really "forbid" much of anything. He tells us the consequences of it, and leaves it to us.
Like our guy who kept wanting to play a drow. DM said "OK, but you won't be accepted or liked till you earn it". And the PC made a drow, then got buttmad because he wasn't able to go into the city.
Where's the animal companion? by the time a druid can do that he actually is TWO bears.
Also irl bears are very skilled with their hands and can totally open doors, will never tell this to druid fags though, fuck them, I'll do the same as your GM.
I can't stop a party member from charging off. That's his issue, not mine.
The humor was after he died..he cried on Skype that no low level NPC should be able to touch him because " druidbear".
The next guy to play a druid, argued that putting ladders into the game forced him to not have His horse animal companion with him at all times, and thus shouldn't be allowed because it gimped his class.
Roll20 random groups. Good times.
>I can't stop a party member from charging off. That's his issue, not mine.
If you're the DM, sure. If you're in the party, it's also your issue - because you're inviting defeat in detail.
>Roll20 random groups.
Though this basically confirms the "bunch of idiots" theory.
So what you're saying is that the player was mentally handicapped and this has nothing to do with the class...so here's my question, why bring this anecdote that has nothing to do with "druid with bear and natural spell is totally fine but fighter with 2hd, power attack and cleave is a nono"?
How did they touch him though? where's barkskin and other defesive spells that every druid has? where's AoO due reach with the spear guy? who a couple of crossbows and a spear from few lower npc warriors killed a, at least, 5th level druid?
Oh, I know, this actually never happened
I can't answer about why someone did or did not do thing. Because stupid? I dunno.
It was an example of what I've seen druids who thought they were uberpowerful and that they invalidated the other PCs, had happen.
It was one game a couple years ago anon, I do not remember exactly what spells he used or had at the time. I know we told him to wait..and he said "why, I can kill the rest". And then died.
>ladders are GMs being a dick
Horse is not a powerful animal companion, so yes, he gimped himself. That's like having a robin as animal companion and put tons of cats trying to eat it every 5 minutes. Next time have a wolf or bear, who actually can climb ladders, and be better.
>bear attempts to charge door, gets a spear set to receive charge in the gut. The only crit of the battle.
The rest were just regular xbows shooting. I think.
No, I don't remember the health if the druid, or the items he had, or what color his hair was.
>And then died.
?? If you kill a druid in wildshape you don't actually kill it, he heals back 2xlevel HPs and then can turn into another bear in his turn, so those "couple of dudes with crossbows and one with a spear low level warriors" seem more like a fucking army or high level npcs instead.
Congrats though, if whatever was in that room killed a bear druid any martial in his place would have died too.
What I'm understanding from this thread, is that a rogue can disable traps if the DM caters exactly everything so that the rogue can get past, meanwhile any wizard who gets remotely near the traps is dogpiled on by half the entire dungeon's worth of invisible spleen stabbing dickasses, then the trap goes off when it detects wizard particles in the air and explodes for a one mile wizard killing (but nothing else) radius.
Makes perfect sense.
Or maybe he was trully mentally handicapped, if that anecdote happened that's the only explanation. I mean, I can't really think of a normal person losing with a bear druid and its bear companion against a level appropiate encounter composed by npc warriors of lower level
In a magic heavy setting? I can see a gm putting traps aimed at mages into his setting.
If mages are the danger, we build traps to target mages.
If rogues are the danger, we build traps to target them.
How is that silly?
Putting a ladder for a druid with his bear is ok, putting a ladder for a druid with his deer or horse is being a dick, those animals are weak, it's ok to hinder broken options, it's not to hinder a dude who is choosing weak options to not make the martials cry. Dunno if you understand? probably not because you sound like an autist.
Really? I can name off tons.
Druid isn't nearly as indestructible as many anons think. You all have just had weak or stupid GMs.
I'd invite you to a game to prove it, but I don't care to game with someone I can already hear crying.
>some druid had a horse for his companion. He travels a lot. Makes sense.
>gm must then remove all ladders, narrow halls, ropes for climbing, and crawl spaces from his setting
By level appropiate encounter made of normal room and 3-4 low level npc warriors? fuck no, you fucking can't, specially not in one turn as that anon seemed to say.
You can beat druids, sure, but not in that kind of encounter unless you introduce more enemies, therefore more CR.
Not "because druid" but because he had the decency of picking a subpar companion. He could have chosen an ape and wreck shit while still climbing ladders like a mofo, he instead chose a shitty horse.
Woud you do the same if he were a ranger with a horse (pretty weak class with a now even weaker companion)? see that this is not now "because druids"
Dude, no, you're on 4chan, dms here get hard breaking players, and players get hard breaking games and dms, you can't convince these grognards with logic and kind words. Keep your nice and decent players happy and ignore these dudes.
>Not having a velocirraptor as animal companion
>Not also wildshaping into one
You can climb ladders, open doors, literally whatever while still pounce with 5 attacks.
My next druid is going to do this, gonna call him Alan.
As a gm, I'd balance it by saying "yes, many druids change into that. Thats not weird at all. In fact there is one now. Roll init."
Or have roaming band of druids be "clearing the weak from the circle of druids as nature intended", and thus stalking you.
Or, you could admit that its an abnormal critter for a druid to choose. If its not abnormal, then expect to face one, since its totally normal and stuff.
Some things I have learned about caster supremacy from this thread, in 3.5.
>toads have magical scent abilities, that makes wizards immune to surprise
>wizards have the same dex as a rogue
>wizards are all automatically high level
>druid animal companions grow larger as they gain levels, and a wolf is bigger than a horse
>I can summon water creatures on land
>any obstacles to a druid ( even a ladder) is considered the DM being a dick
>magic traps that can harm a wizard are WRONG, and must really be a nuke
>inquasator is a 3.5 class
>magic shops must exist, or game isn't raw.
>as a DM, it is impossible to hurt a druid, unless I use fiat or rocks fall
>a druid can replace every other party member at any time at any level
>druids can't die, even if they do, they come back and shape change again, at any level
>a druid know every animal that ever was or is ( automatically)
>wizards can not be sneak attacked ever, because they auto make all perception rolls
>wizards have as much health as needed
>wizards spells are never saved against (ever)
>groups of low level NPCs can't harm a PC, ever
>a PC can't be an adventurer, unless he minmaxes and carries unlimited magic items and gold
>wbl means that even if a PC spends their gold, it is magically replaced instantly
>if you enjoy 3.5, then you're doing it wrong unless you are a druid/mage, or retarded.
Anything else oh wise /tg/?
One thing I learned about 3.5 from this thread
>some people are so butthurt about different opinions that they can't bring themselves to treat anyone who contradicts them with respect
Actually, I knew that already, but it's kinda sad to see. There were some attempts to say, "OK, I understand what you're doing and this is why I think our experiences differ," but the majority of posts were in the range from uncomprehending to inflammatory.
There must not be any kind of middle ground here.
The anons examples are somewhat exaggerated. But he has a point. There is some weird feelings about 3.5. More than I see on other systems. I have no idea why that is.