|
Yawgmoth posted:Tell him you're making the cleric anyways because core rangers are loving garbage. clearly, your only choice is to be a nature cleric and voluntarily take TWF as a feat-tax for your first feat.
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 23:25 |
|
|
Okay, screw it. I'm gonna do the cleric up and show it to him. Least he can say is no. So assuming point buy or standard array, what's the best way to do up my aggravated gardener?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 05:11
|
|
|
Core only two-weapon ranger sucks hard. If he insists on it, leave. The cleric will be fine as long as you pump wisdom and con.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 06:41
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck posted:2) A plague doctor religious historian cleric who drat well hates the undead, and would rather be gardening than adventuring, but the party would be dead twelve times over without him. I was almost done with a more verbose post and then lost it to browser/personal dumbness, so here's the cliff's notes. 1. Try to get Cloistered Cleric approved. It's such a good fit it's worth a shot. 2. Domains: Knowledge > Plant > Sun/War/Earth (depending on focus) > Healing 3. Melee focus: Wis 14+, Int 14+, Str>Con>Dex>>Cha. Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, wield a sickle. Contemplate War domain and a deity with favored weapon scythe if you want to double down on this path. 4. Ranged focus: Wis 14+, Dex>Int>Con>Str>>Cha. Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, wield a sling. Contemplate Earth domain so you can have Magic Stone as a domain spell and fling undead killing pebbles. 5. Casting focus: Wis>Int>Con>Dex>Str>Cha. 6. Turning focus: Wis>Cha>Int>Con>Dex>Str. Contemplate Sun domain. 7. Healing focus: Don't Unless your wife is definitely planning on melee or the druid is focused on shapeshifted melee, I guess I'd probably chose the melee option. For a third feat, see if you can take Leadership. If DM wants core only, they can at least do all core, right?!? Other feats to consider: Extend Spell, Spell Focus (Conjuration)+Augment Summoning, Improved Initiative. If you get cloistered cleric, I'd do the casting focus version. edit: If you end up stuck with ranger, the best core only ranger is a level 6 Druid. Elf or human archer on a horse can kill a variety of high CR monsters in open terrain with no danger. If outdoors is a rarity, gnome with dire badger is always a fun time. (Dire badger can make a tunnel big enough for everyone in the party to crawl through as long as it's not solid rock. Excellent way to skip straight to the big treasure chest at the end of the level without having to fight the whole level and similar danger-bypassing shenigans.) Bouquet fucked around with this message at 11:14 on Jan 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 10:45
|
|
|
Bouquet posted:For a third feat, see if you can take Leadership. If DM wants core only, they can at least do all core, right?!? Leadership is so loving busted. 3.5 was broken in half from the get go....and Leadership is probably the most egregious. For the cost of 1 feat you get an army. Heck, you can use all your level 1 followers as garden tenders. They can be gardeners that help you run your massive farm or field or what have you. You even get a guy like 2 levels below you who can also be a full caster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 10:54
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck posted:
So I've got to ask based on this thumbnail description, is it possible the plague doctor in question is a swarm of beetles in a suit and does he have a gardening radio show?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
unseenlibrarian posted:So I've got to ask based on this thumbnail description, is it possible the plague doctor in question is a swarm of beetles in a suit and does he have a gardening radio show? He is NOT a swarm of beetles in a suit. He would prefer that you stop asking embarassing personal questions, though. Now be safe, and stay out of trouble.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
And welp. It was like you guys feared.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 12:22
|
|
|
A Ranger in a group with a Druid and Sorcerer in a Core-only game? That's ... playable, maybe, I guess? I mean, it's not the end of the world, but I personally feel like I'd be mentally checking-out a lot during that game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 12:27
|
|
|
Homebrew critical fumble charts are a menace.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 12:38
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck posted:And welp. It was like you guys feared.
I wouldn't even bother playing. This game is going to be a travesty of terrible decisions we all made 15-odd years ago and learned from and never did again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 14:59
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck posted:And welp. It was like you guys feared. Yawgmoth posted:My responses, in order: 1) Nope, I'll play what I want 2) eh, not bad, not good but not bad 3) gently caress no 4) gently caress NO Seriously, homebrew critical success and failure charts are absolutely loving ridiculous. Missing is more than sufficient penalty for rolling a 1, this poo poo leads to death spirals like no other and even if it doesn't, which would shock me, "interesting" crits just bog down combat. I would just not play.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
if I had any idea what the critical tables looked like I'd double-down and crit-fish like a motherfucker because unless I miss my guess, that poo poo is going to cause a lot more damage than straight attacking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 15:11
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:if I had any idea what the critical tables looked like I'd double-down and crit-fish like a motherfucker because unless I miss my guess, that poo poo is going to cause a lot more damage than straight attacking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:if I had any idea what the critical tables looked like I'd double-down and crit-fish like a motherfucker because unless I miss my guess, that poo poo is going to cause a lot more damage than straight attacking. Or what Madmarker said, with the probable addition of "no you can't look at the table it'll ruin the surprise
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
lol of loving course this DM wants him to play a character that makes lots of iterative attacks in a game where every attack invokes a 5% chance of idiot slapstick autofellatio. I look forward to reading your DM's heavily embellished chronicle of the time you accidentally shoved twelve apples up your own urethra the next time somebody reposts a 100-screenshot-long compilation of unfunny nerd garbage to Imgur.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
Just a quick question: every time I've played 3.5 we've always done full hp for level 1 and roll after, though our stat blocks are more generous so anyone that cares will usually have a +3 con mod. How do most people do it? Average every level? Max every level?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2018 05:39
|
|
|
Chakan posted:Just a quick question: every time I've played 3.5 we've always done full hp for level 1 and roll after, though our stat blocks are more generous so anyone that cares will usually have a +3 con mod. How do most people do it? Average every level? Max every level? I offer my players a choice of rolling or taking average every level at character creation, with max die at 1st level for both. Tardcore fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Jan 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2018 09:02
|
|
|
Chakan posted:Just a quick question: every time I've played 3.5 we've always done full hp for level 1 and roll after, though our stat blocks are more generous so anyone that cares will usually have a +3 con mod. How do most people do it? Average every level? Max every level? I've always done max HP every level in the games I've run. Other reasonable approaches include [max HP at level 1, average after that], and [average at every level]. I wouldn't ever really consider rolling for HP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2018 09:10
|
|
|
Chakan posted:Just a quick question: every time I've played 3.5 we've always done full hp for level 1 and roll after, though our stat blocks are more generous so anyone that cares will usually have a +3 con mod. How do most people do it? Average every level? Max every level? I usually do max at 1st, and every lvl after that you roll but if you roll under half then you just take half instead (so if your hit die is a d8 and you roll a 2 you can just take 4 instead). I also houseruled toughness to be better and a lot of my players actually usually take it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2018 13:01
|
|
|
Chakan posted:Just a quick question: every time I've played 3.5 we've always done full hp for level 1 and roll after, though our stat blocks are more generous so anyone that cares will usually have a +3 con mod. How do most people do it? Average every level? Max every level?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
Thanks, I was just surprised by how strongly people were reacting to rolling for hp past level 1, so it made me curious. I guess the strongest argument against rolling is that d10 and d12 hit die PCs are the ones without spells so they shouldn't be screwed by rolling a 1 on their hp when wizards get their full spell advancement without rolling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 05:02
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:I usually do max at 1st, and every lvl after that you roll but if you roll under half then you just take half instead (so if your hit die is a d8 and you roll a 2 you can just take 4 instead). I also houseruled toughness to be better and a lot of my players actually usually take it. This is what I've seen, except we just tell people not to take toughness. Avoid crit fumbles like the plague though, as people have pointed out this makes more skilled warriors more likely to accidentally impale themselves or something stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 08:52
|
|
|
Chakan posted:Thanks, I was just surprised by how strongly people were reacting to rolling for hp past level 1, so it made me curious. I guess the strongest argument against rolling is that d10 and d12 hit die PCs are the ones without spells so they shouldn't be screwed by rolling a 1 on their hp when wizards get their full spell advancement without rolling. So that is part of it, the other part is that you can just as easily end up with large clusters of bad rolls as a equally spaced good and bad rolls. it is very easy to roll low for 3-4 levels in a row and have a barb with 26 health at level 4. At level 4...assuming 14 con and maxing first level hp you "should" have an average of 39.5 health. You should never roll hp if you can avoid it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck posted:And welp. It was like you guys feared. seriously, seriously, seriously there is no good reason he shouldn't let you be a cleric. take shadow & plant domains and everyone can agree to call you "a ranger". loving take TWF as your first level feat as a compromise. there's already a tier 1 and tier 2 class in the group; either the DM doesn't think that the people playing those classes fully understand how game-breaking they are, or he doesn't care and just wants to gently caress with you personally, but like I said there's no good reason you can't be a cleric. if the dude is so hung up on the word "ranger" that he doesn't understand anything can be a ranger if you call it that, and he's more concerned about dictating the specific party composition instead of letting people play what is fun or interesting for them, you should get out now. those types of DMs are basically looking for hapless bystanders that they can hold as a captive audience while they narrate their totally awesome RPG story that only minimally involves the PCs. a lot of those folks are failed/wanna-be authors, and your enjoyment is going to be a distant second to them getting to play out whatever hackneyed fantasy story they've got kicking around in their head.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
I have my players roll hp past level 1 but I also have them take the average on bad rolls, so it's always for a bonus rather than a risk of your character being hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
Take your max HD per level, plus your con score. Not con mod, con score.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
Chakan posted:Just a quick question: every time I've played 3.5 we've always done full hp for level 1 and roll after, though our stat blocks are more generous so anyone that cares will usually have a +3 con mod. How do most people do it? Average every level? Max every level? Taking max HP every time is another way to give players who didn't go full caster a little something back. While you're at it, don't roll to confirm crits (you rolled a crit; the end, god drat it), make tower shields add a bunch of AC without all the bullshit they tack on, let Fighters take any feat with bonus feats, and generally in any character-building situation, side with the character rolling the tank if there is a choice to be made.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2018 00:03
|
|
|
Out of curiosity: has anyone ever experimented with allowing the ranger to take both fighting styles? Also, giving fighters way more martial feats? Like all the martial feats?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
Rangers dont really have the bonus damage to be steller archers and twfers. You're probably still better off going two handed even with that. Giving fighters All The Feats doesn't really fix their problems
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
I homebrewed all the PHB warrior classes to have access to martial maneuvers from the tome of battle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
if one were to say at "at character level x, you can take a prestige class regardless of any other prerequisites", what would x be? is there an implied or explicit time where characters are expected to do this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
I think the majority of prestige classes come online about level 6 (as in, when you have 5 levels in base classes). Honestly I don't think it would imbalance anything to just unlock all prcs at that point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:if one were to say at "at character level x, you can take a prestige class regardless of any other prerequisites", what would x be? is there an implied or explicit time where characters are expected to do this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
What's the rule for a generic ability DC that isn't a spell?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
I think but could be wrong it's this: 10 + 1/2 HD + ability score. Should be in the monster manual somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
It's generally 10+1/2HD+ability modifier. Then there's the Ability Focus feat that can add +2 and the nebulous "racial bonus" that crops up from time to time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:It's generally 10+1/2HD+ability modifier. Then there's the Ability Focus feat that can add +2 and the nebulous "racial bonus" that crops up from time to time. Also, the ability modifier is almost always Con or Cha.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 21:28
|
|
|
Hey so I have a campaign that is restarting. I am a level 14 Egoist/Thrallherd and at level 15 I will be getting my second Thrall. Now as of right now my first Thrall is a good old utility cleric. For my second Thrall, well, I want a decent character that has minimal complexity but will still be a strong contributor. However, here is the problem, though the Dm is fine with me making the Thrall here are the rules I must follow for creation: 1) Must be single classed upon my recruiting of them. 2)I must follow the guide at the back of the DMG 2 to determine what gear the thrall starts with, and if the Thrall dies the gear dissapears to never be seen again. The thrall's gear is permanently bound to the Thrall and cannot be sold, though the Thrall can use gear out of your wealth allotment which you can do with as you please. 3)Must use the standard array (15,14,13,12,10,8) for stats. 4)No Flaws/traits, and must be a race easily found on the plane. 5)This is a Greyhawk campaign, and as such, no resources specific to Forgotten Realms/Eberron/Dark Sun/etc. may be used. At first I was thinking Druid, but then I realized that I would essentially be playing 4 characters (Thrallherd, Cleric, Druid, Animal Companion) and at least one of those characters would be summoning other characters that I would have to control, and I don't want literally every turn on the table to be my turn. I am unsure what we will have at the table, but my most likely guess is 1) Conjurer Wizard 2) Ranger 3) Binder 4) Thrallherd (with Cleric as my current thrall) (thats me) 5) Barbarian 6) No idea at all So, give this assortment and ruleset, what do you think a powerful, albeit simple second Thrall would be?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 23:25 |
|
|
Go for a bard. Have him be a total support character and get dragonfire inspiration and/or words of creation. The ranger (and their animal companion), barbarian, and likely the binder, along with whatever the conjurer summons up, will get a huge boost to everything they do. A well created bard can be a giant force multiplier for just about any group and there's plenty of guides out there on how to do it, but pretty much all of them start with DfI and WoC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2018 21:07
|
|