|
Yawgmoth posted:Being a spellcaster is more complicated, but gives you a lot more options and you grow exponentially in power as you level. You can be a good melee/physical only character, but it's tough. While choosing to be a cleric, druid, or wizard will allow you to absolutely steamroll everything ever except for GM fiat (and sometimes even that), it is worth it to get a feel for the other people who are going to be in your group and play your character accordingly. If no one in the group is really familiar with 3.X and none of them are really the power gamer type, you might come off as "that min-maxing rear end in a top hat" just by picking one of the three above classes. It might be worth it to come up with a group plan for what kind of adventurers you want to be so that everyone can know upfront that casters are going to run the show at the higher levels unless their players make a gentleman's agreement to basically handcuff themselves.
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2011 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
Evil Vin posted:. . . or will somebody have to play a lame fighter to be able to defend against some silly weakness they all have? The only weakness a caster has is the person playing them. If you're willing to commit to learning all of the nuances that your spells will give you access to, you can pretty much make yourself a better fighter than a fighter, a better rogue than a rogue, and all around unstoppable. The best bet would be to get your friends together and hash out who is going to GM and what kind of story you all want to tell. If no one wants to be a caster, that's fine because you GM can tailor a story around that. If everyone wants to be full on let's run this poo poo into the ground with wizards and clerics, that's good for the GM to know too. The only way you're going to fail to have fun is if the GM just designs everything with no regard to what kind of experience everyone wants and basically tells you to suck it. As long as everyone is willing to communicate, you should wind up having fun whether you are the combat MVP of the party or just want to play a really cool concept you have for a wizened, blind rogue.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2011 06:55
|
|
|
Crazytroll posted:What are my chances of finding a set of 3.5e core books for a reasonable price? Especially Player's Handbooks. Playing D&D with some people and having fun (as a DM, WHAT) but money commitment is an issue so we've been struggling through with my remembrance of 3.5e rules and d20srd.org. If you've got a local used book store you might be able to find them pretty cheap (for example, in the Phoenix and Tuscon metro areas there's a place called Bookmans which I absolutely love). Most RPG stuff at second hand stores is still fairly expensive because they know nerds will gobble that poo poo up, but it's a pretty decent place to pick up holes in your collection. If that's not an option, I have also had great success with Amazon.com. It's usually a few dollars more than my local Bookman's but the flip side is they generally have whatever you're actually looking for and you don't have to make a weekly trip just to see if anything new has dropped in.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2011 17:19
|
|
|
Karandras posted:d20 update. This game is reminding me how great rolling for stats is. One persons cleric is going to now carry the whole party on their shoulders. Did you hate your friends enough to make them select their class, roll down the line, and possibly have to play a fighter with 4 STR, or did you at least allow them to assign their rolls however they wanted? I think I would have a hard time enjoying a legit "roll your stats down the line" game if it was any longer than a one shot.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2011 03:20
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Been a while since this thread's seen some love, so here's my question; I'm playing an abjuror in a pathfinder campaign and really finding it a little difficult to be "useful" despite picking spells that seem best overall. I'm not sure why you aren't using Sleep (unless you took Enchantment as a barred school) as your spontaneous cast first level spell, because at levels 3-4 (what I am assuming you're at due to having access to second level spells) you're going to end non-boss encounters almost instantly (provided your DM is squaring you against equivalently leveled threats), and if a boss comes with other minions, you're at least going to shut them down. If you're planning long term, Necromancy is an amazing school to get bonus spells and increased DCs. The low level debuffs aren't super exciting because IIRC you have to make a successful melee touch attack, but summoning greater undead or wailing like a banshee are going to be tremendously useful later on.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2013 04:18
|
|
|
Heatwizard posted:I imagine it's because Sleep doesn't scale well, so you can just prep it multiple times at first/second level, and for a spontaneous spell take something that'll stay useful at higher levels. I would've gone for Color Spray or Grease, though. Yeah, Sleep got a sort of nerf from 2E -> 3.X because it suddenly gave the target a save to resist where before it just checked hit dice. Really any first level spell is going to scale poorly as long as it operates off a save, but I'd also hope that his DM isn't going to make a character stick with a first level spell as their spontaneous casting choice through an entire campaign, or else regardless of what spell you initially chose, it's going to reach a point of obsolescence. EDIT: It just occurred to me that it'd be a pretty cool variant of being a specialist wizard if instead of memorizing one more spell per day or getting a bonus to DCs or whatever, instead specialist wizards can always spontaneously cast any given spell for their specialty school that they know in exchange for an equal level spell.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
Kingtheninja posted:Thanks for the advice, going into this I was mostly worried about group makeup and didn't know how important having a healer was. We have a wizard, and a druid so far. I'm not sure what our third member is doing, but depending on his choice I might have to change from sorcerer to a tankier class. Depending on how much experience the rest of your group has with 3.X, going with a "tankier" class will end up leaving you largely useless if the campaign progresses into even the high single digit levels and the other players have a passing familiarity with how 3.X works. If you have to absolutely imagine that you are a "tank" who wears plate armor and swings a giant weapon then roll a cleric and marvel as you can tank and heal and do loving near anything you want to because you chose a valid class. Do not choose any of non-casting classes because they are exceedingly poor choices (they can generally excel at one extremely specific role if you have all of the splat books ever published to draw from, but are complete garbage if you're limited to just the core PHB).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
Kruller posted:It's too late in the game to reroll without getting killed, plus my DM won't let me unless I die, and my group keeps managing to keep me alive. The kind of groggy DM who has such weird control issues that he won't just let you remake your character is not the kind of person you want to play imagination games with. Like, it'd be one thing if you were some kind of 3.5 veteran and this was some kind of non-optimised challenge run, but to punish a new player for mistakes that another person made because you thought he was helping you in good faith - your DM is either getting off on the power imbalance or he/she is so out of touch with the intent of the law that I can't imagine the adventure is very much fun.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:What's the deal with prestige classes? Every time I'm talking with anyone about joining or starting a campaign, it's one of the first things I get asked about. It's like anything else in 3.X edition - many of the choices are non-obvious traps that sound cool but are poorly executed, but for those people who are willing to read the char-op boards until their eyes bleed, the PrCs can also be gateways to game ruining power. My guess is most people ask about them up front either because they don't want some munchkin rear end in a top hat to ruin their story game, or because they are a munchkin rear end in a top hat who wants to ruin story games. Generally, they tend to exacerbate the existent problems baked into 3.X - martial PrCs tend to further pigeonhole martial characters into doing one trick pretty well (to the exclusion of being useless outside of their one trick) while caster PrCs continue to enhance the inherent benefits of being a caster while also giving them more free spiffs (caster progression between character levels stack, plus they get other powers for little investment).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Random houserules I'd like to get opinions on. Would you or have you played with these? I could maybe see this being not awful if armor was damage reduction in addition to being the hit / miss modifier and it only applied to PCs (maybe boss-level NPCs) and it also somehow contributed to decreasing hostile spell DCs as well. the main issue is that if armor is only damage reduction and it applies to monsters too, then it makes classes that rely on dealing HP damage as their main method of conflict resolution even more obsolete even more quickly, because something like sleep is way more effective against a goblin that now has damage resistance. you could flavor it something like shadowrun where spells still require that you can target a creature's soul essence, and the more armor they're wearing, the harder it is to target their essence, even if they're standing right in front of you. in that case, leather armor give you 3 points of damage resistance and also lowers spell DCs by 3, or whatever random values you want to use.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:Well armor as it stands doesn't affect spell DCs or spells that need an attack roll (since all but like two aim at touch AC) so suddenly making armor help resist spells would be weird, or at least a very different house rule than the one suggested. Also, the small amount of DR gained isn't really enough to stymie a mid-to-high level character; knocking 4 off an attack that is doing ~10 is substantial, knocking 4 off 50+ isn't so great. DR is however one of the reasons why attacking a bunch of times in a round (looking at you, flurry of blows) is so much weaker than hitting one time as hard as you can. yeah, i was trying to think of how to make the armor as DR more feasible, but i agree it's really not an ideal rule change under 3.X because there's too many other things that get affected down the line. my focus was more that the entire armor reduction vs HP damage comparison is meaningless even at level 1 because of spells like sleep and grease, which is why i tried to puzzle out something that would address those issues. to my mind, all of the other problems about flurry attacks and scaling fist-fulls of damage dice are still secondary problems to the fact that armor as DR doesn't do anything to improve the spells > martial situation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Captain Hair posted:At this point if I can't come up with anything it'll just have to be a fairly typical "go to this guy his farm makes the best milk" but when every other ingredient in this godly tea is fancy and/or magical it feels kinda out of place. Anyone got any thoughts? or you can go the other direction with it. maybe at this point in the campaign there's plenty of other groups that have taken notice of the player's actions / quest and for whatever reason they're now trying to influence their choice of milk, so they want to trick them into using milk that's actually tainted by the 1001 souls of the damned legion, or they want the players to use milk that will enthrall the drinker under an irrevocable mind control enchantment, or whatever. now the players are tasked with just finding regular milk from an honest farmer who has no ulterior motives, and they have to avoid all of the plots and schemes of these other groups trying to trick them into using milk that will curdle the soul of the drinker or whatever. edit: like an Indiana jones and the last crusade "cup of a carpenter" scenario
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:The dm is pretty hardline on the stat roll thing. He has a very permissive roll but once you roll it is set in stone. His roll rule is 4d6, drop the lowest and do this 6 times to create a set. Make 3 sets of stats. Choose the set you want. And sadly for my friend, this was the best set he could get. what level are you playing at? caster is always the right choice, but especially with mediocre base stats, a caster can circumvent a lot of the problems that another character type would have to deal with. things like poor HP or saves or attack bonuses don't matter so much when you basically never spend time adventuring in your natural form. have him play a druid or transmutation wizard and unless you're playing level 1 dirt farmers, after even a few levels he should be able to pretty much forget the fact that his base stats are crummy. a headband of INT or equivalent will basically take all of the sting away. just don't take feats that are meant to buffer his crap stats. it might seem like the obvious thing to do, but it'll gimp your long-term usefulness. taking a feat to base your HP bonus off your INT mod sounds nice at level 1, but by even the mid-single digit levels, a caster would probably wish they'd have taken something else that actually helps them cast better.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:In a game where I'm expecting to teach newcomers/beginners, I was thinking of the Favored Soul instead of a full-on Cleric since it doesn't have to deal with Domain spells or Turn Undead or all that other stuff, and spontaneous spellcasting is easier to track. The power of the 3.5 Cleric spell list should still make this a powerful class even if I'm losing things like converting spell slots to healing spells on-the-fly and being limited by Spells Known. are you teaching people who are literal children (like younger than 10 years old) or people who have no familiarity with the concept of games as a form of entertainment? even if they've never played d&d specifically, if they've played video games or other table top games or other board games, the idea of having to manage different stats and abilities isn't going to be as hard to grasp as I think you imagine it will be. I mean, you know the general competence level of your audience, but I'd be hesitant to have to teach 3.X to people who are so raw to games, or so averse to managing multiple pieces of a character, that you feel like you need to strip out large portions of the game. are you just worried they won't make the most optimal caster if they play a full cleric? I think people new to the game will likely ignore the parts that they aren't interested in on their own, which means there's no reason to artificially limit their options. if they pick bad domains or whatever that's not the end of the world, and clerics still spontaneously cast healing spells if you look at it that way.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I'm willing to grant that maybe I'm direly underestimating the mental capacities of the people I may end up playing with, but I tried to make a Cleric myself and was put-off at how much excessive back-and-forth referencing I needed to do to get domain spells ready. it sounds like your concerns are more organizational than anything else, which is definitely a sore point for 3.X, but not something exclusive to clerics as a class, and probably not a reason that I would consider just removing clerics from the game on behalf of new(er) players. assuming you don't feel like reformatting / retyping a ton of stuff to put all of the relevant information for one class into one single section with a better flow, there's still things you can do as a DM to help a new character get familiar with a class that has a lot of options without completely removing the class, or deciding for them what they should be doing (trap option classes). 1. you can find free examples of Power Cards online (or make your own) which are basically just short-hand reminders for new players about what their class can do and how the given ability works. they don't have to be a verbatim reprint of the entire rule set and all errata for a specific thing, but just having a physical card with a few words on it can help people to remember "oh yeah i can do this thing if i want" 2. you could also try to help guide the character creation process, really be hands on, and see if some of those sections are even going to matter. does your friend who wants to be a cleric seem especially interested in picking domain spells and pouring over domain powers and finding the right theme to match his deity? let that guy go hog wild sperging out on which powers to choose, because he's going to do the leg work himself. does you friend instead seem reluctant to read through 300 pages of options and compare each of them objectively to try and figure out which fiddly bits combine in marginally more beneficial ways? maybe ask that guy for a general idea about what he wants his cleric to do, and then made educated picks for him, and then you will always just know what his domain powers are and what they apply to. this guy probably barely cares anyway, and if you pick them then you should be able to keep track of what spells need to be buffed or whatever. Eikre posted:It is possible, with expertise, to develop a functional Favored Soul. But I dunno why people think handing a character class with a bunch of permanent choices, and a huge pile of trap options to make those choices from, is good for new players. this is another really big thing to keep in mind. one of the best things about clerics (and druids too) is that outside of stuff like feat choices, their spell casting flexibility is nearly unlimited, because they automagically know all of their spells at every given spellcasting level. did you pick some dumb spells to memorize for tonight's session? no big deal, pick better spells next time! removing that, and putting your friends into a class where they have to make permanent spell choices that (at least rules as written) they can't just switch out if they hate, is actually more work for you, and less fun for them, and way more book work for them too. you think they'd hate having to bounce through a couple different pages in one book to learn how to turn undead? how much fun would they have reading, i don't know, 600 pages of total divine spell options across 6 different splat books every time they gain a new spellcasting level, just to pick the 5 or 6 spells that they can only cast for the rest of that character's life, and holy poo poo they better hope they don't pick something that sounds cool but is of limited usefulness, because that's more frustrating that just picking nothing at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
The Mandingo posted:Cool. I've never played a cleric, ever. Thanks for the help! you do realize the above statement means something entirely different than The Mandingo posted:I like the flavor of the Divine Oracle PrC (Complete Divine) but there's not a lot of good information on the internet about it. Anyone have experience with it? which was then followed by several people telling you that the class is more or less nothing to write home about because it's hard to improve on something that (mostly) requires you to be a full caster in the first place. being a full caster is already the "I win" button, so yeah this PrC might have more or fewer bells and whistles than another, but it's not one of the more popular PrCs that people love to use in their charop stuff. if you've never played a cleric ever, there's likely gigabytes of information you can read, all about being a 3.X cleric, if you just do some google keystrokes. edit: and if there's not a lot of good information about a 3.X PrC on the internet, that's pretty much your answer right there. people have typed documents longer than War & Peace dissecting every minute aspect of 3.X, so if something didn't get much attention, it's likely not very useful / impactful. keep in mind, this is only significant if you're a super-duper charop whore. if you just want to make a priest who can tell the future, go hog wild! Freaking Crumbum fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Sep 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Eikre posted:way too much sir, this is just a burger king drive-thru Yawgmoth posted:I'm looking to add an extra shelf to the Arcana (and Nature, and Planes, etc) bookcases. it's a fine line to walk. if you pack too much utility into any one skill, it kind of becomes a skill tax to have the skill or else play at a disadvantage. at the same time, if you fragment every academic kind of knowledge into an individual skill, it makes picking any specific one kind of risky because there's a good chance you might not ever have an opportunity to apply it. why not just house-rule up some education feats that players can take (or you can give out as GM fiat if you don't want to tax them) that represent their scholastic knowledge? something like: Basic Education - Treat this like a bard's random bardic knowledge but regarding academic principles (the pythagorus theorem, basic elements & their uses, common linguistic structures in their native tongue, etc.) and the player rolls d20+character level+2. Crib the knowledge skill DCs to determine how hard it is to remember & apply something. Advanced Education (pre req: Basic Education OR Int 13+) - Same as above, but the player rolls d20+character level+4 and they treat any roll less than 8 as an 8 on the check. Master Education (pre req: Advaced Education OR Int 15+) - Same as above, but the player rolls d20+character level+6 and they treat any roll less than 10 as a 10 on the check. I know feat bloat is bleh, but I feel like it's preferable to adding even more granularity to the skill list. you could even add these to the bonus feats that wizards get or allow rogues to take them as their rogue level bonuses or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:Okay so assuming I parsed your blather appropriately, you have a very specific idea of what everything should be and are really mad that I won't like and/or subscribe. Gotcha. i guess you could still house-rule something about knowledge skills, like every hero gets a number of free knowledge skills equal to 1 + Int modifier, and those free knowledge skills are always considered to be at the skill cap. that keeps the pain of skill bloat minimal because they're not having to pick between something else they'd rather use and a knowledge skill.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:If my wizard picks his spells via dart board, is he still tier 1? yes. it's incredibly unlikely that you could make a non-functioning caster in 3.X; I would say it's more of a challenge to make one that doesn't work than to make one that's even slightly optimized. I guess you could say "oh well my wizard has 8 INT  " but if you made an otherwise normal wizard using a normal stat distribution, and only picked the spells by way of an RNG, you'd still have a tier 1 character.I think 3.X really solidified the min/max thing (although certainly years of video games will push you in the same direction). in earlier additions the expectation was that you rolled all 6 attributes as 3d6 in sequential order and boom that was your hero like it or not. it was an "alternate method" to even allow players to roll 6x 3d6 and let them choose which attributes get which roll. racial abilities also counted for less in terms of overall character optimization, where stuff like a dwarf being able to tell the originator of any stonework or elves finding magic doors was considered to be pro-tier stuff. 3.X really codified that every aspect of your character can be assigned some arbitrary numerical value (abilities, level adjustments, racial levels, etc.) and also allowed stat buy to become a more commonly accepted method of character generation. once you can turn your hero into a pile of numbers, it becomes trivially easy to find things that make those numbers bigger and then exclusively pursue those things.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:No, you wouldn't. "tier 1" is roughly defined as "breaks every encounter with the barest of thought/effort." The reason wizards/druids/clerics are tier 1 is because if you pick the right spells to prepare (or the right domains/shift into the right forms in the divine caster cases) you can destroy an encounter before your enemy even knows that initiative has been rolled. If you pick your spells randomly, or pick them to a certain theme (and said theme isn't "break everyone's desire to play") you won't be tier 1; this is pretty plainly obvious given that the warmage is typically middle of the pack at best. i was going to say "well are we talking about just the PHB spell list or inclusive of all splats, and is it possible that the RNG can still choose useful spells or are we presuming that the RNG will only pick the worst possible choice in any situation" but then i realized you probably aren't going to agree with me no matter what, so  Yawgmoth posted:This is some really 17-years-ago vintage grog, complete with rose-tinted glasses. probably 20+ years for me but you were pretty close to the mark. i'll admit it's likely a factor of age; when i was a kid playing older versions of D&D nobody in our group had the system familiarity to really min/max anything other than the most obvious stuff, and the internet didn't yet exist. by the time 3.X had come around everybody was late teens / early adult years and the internet was definitely a thing, so it was a hell of a lot easier to min/max stuff with comparatively less effort, and likewise we had years of familiarity with D&D by that point, so it was easier for someone to notice how combining two or three or ten things could make the system fall apart. edit: i remember being a kid and someone in our group determining his AD&D wizard could make a lightsaber just by casting light on an ordinary staff. that's all, it didn't do any more damage or have any special features, it was just a regular staff that had a color light enchantment  . i always have remembered that as an example of "system hacks" that kids with no internet and only a vague understanding of the rules came up with.
Freaking Crumbum fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Jan 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
Rorac posted:Kind of a rules question here, but it came up in a game as a hypothetical. yes or no, depending on which answer is more fun/interesting for the encounter in which it occurs. if a player came up with the idea to use fog to slow or contain cloudkill, that's a pretty cool solution to the problem, so hopefully your DM plays by the rule of cool. anything more involved than that and you're getting into D&D-as-physics-simulator and that way lies madness.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:How the gently caress are plants, as a type, immune to poison. Someone explain to me how that makes sense. something something "but some plants are poisonous!" it's bideo gabe logic don't think about it too hard
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Piell posted:Alright, I'm finally about to run an IRL game with my new and 3.5 modified classes, and I'd appreciate any feedback I can get before I send it out to the players. I'd especially appreciate looks at the Gunslinger PrC and the Wrestler class, but feedback on the other classes is good as well. a lot (most?) of the wrestler's Special Moves say something like "As a standard action, make an unarmed attack. If this attack succeeds, the target must make a Fort/Ref/Will Save or X Y Z Effect happens". three issues i would have, as a player: 1. the wrestler uses 3/4 BAB progression. whaaaaaaaaat? why would you need to handicap a melee class in this way? they already need all the help they can get to still be 10 steps behind a spell caster. 2. the "standard action" language is kind of limiting as you level up (depending on how far you level) because, as what is ostensibly a melee combat class, any time you're using a "standard action" you're losing your iterative attacks, once your BAB gets high enough for you to do so. IIRC this is because making multiple melee attacks in a single round (with a BAB of +6 or higher) is a "full round" action and you can't use both "full round" and "standard" actions in the same round, so you'd end up having to choose between attacking several times, or doing one trick. 3. having to roll twice to produce an effect is extremely lovely. as an example, if i want to use Disarming Strike, I have to attempt an unarmed attack, and then if that hits, my opponent also has to fail a reflex save. if either of those conditions don't happen (my attack misses or my opponent passes their saving throw) then i didn't actually get to use Disarming Strike. compare this to most spells that you would cast at a target - the only barrier to the spell succeeding is the target's saving throw, and most spells even have some kind of Miss Effect if the target does get a successful save, like dealing half damage, or still inflicting the effect but with reduced duration or etc. i didn't see any of the Special Moves list a Miss Effect, which makes them categorically worse than anything you could try to do with a spell. a related issue is that certain powers (like Disarming Strike) are only going to only be situationaly useful anyway, because you don't get any benefit out of attempting to disarm a wolf, or a beholder or etc. so stacking a double-failure mechanic on top of that really kills their functionality. if i were to try and offer a solution without rewriting a bunch of the class features, i'd probably do something like: Stamina (Su): A wrestler gains 5 points of Stamina for every Wrestler class level they attain. Stamina is used to fuel Special Moves. In combat, a Wrestler can only spend Stamina on their turn. If the Wrestler has access to a Special Move that activates as a reaction effect, a 1st level Wrestler may only activate a Special Move as a reaction effect once per combat round. As Stamina is spent, it refills at a rate of 1 point for each minute spent out of combat, as long as the Wrestler only engages in light or non-stressful activity. and then you can change all of the special moves to say something like: Disarming Strike (1 Stamina): As part of any attack action you take, your target must also make a Reflex Save with a DC = 10+Wrestler Class Level+Str Mod. If the target fails, they suffer a penalty to their next attack action equal to Wrestler Class Level+Str Mod; if the target is holding a weapon, the weapon is also knocked to the ground. If the target passes the Reflex Save, they suffer a -2 penalty to their next attack action. so now, Disarming Strike is potentially useful against any kind of opponent, and it even gives you a pity effect if your opponent passes their save (so you don't feel like you wasted your cool class power to accomplish nothing).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
Lamebot posted:DM gave us a side story to create 11th level air or smoke nymphs, this is a custom race with its own rules for this sidequest. The smoke nymphs can freely see through smoke/mist/fog and dimension door through smoke. They also heal from fire and electricity. I'm giddily trying to convince the party into committing strategic mass arson in order to save a city from an occupying force. that sounds like a workable premise for an entire board game, but not very much fun to execute in PF/3.X because they systems don't seem to handle arbitrarily specific puzzle encounters well.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2018 22:28
|
|