Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

3.5E Ridiculous Feats?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
May 21, 2005 9:44:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

All,

In 3.5 Edition D&D including the Complete * books, what feats do you
personally feel are ridiculous, if any?

>From Complete Arcane, I consider the Mage Slayer, Pierce Magical
Concealment, and Pierce Magical Protection.

Since all too often my mage ends up within the threatened square of a
warrior, I feel it a little unfair that Mage slayer just negates all
cast on the defensive attempts. I could see giving me a -4 to
counteract combat casting but it causes automatic failire AND gives the
warrior +1 to Will saves. Insane. It would be like a Wizard being able
to take a feat "Rogue Slayer" that gave the ability "characters with
evasion or improved evasion are denied its use on spells that target
them" or something. Or imagine a feat that made anyone tumbling through
your threat range to fail automatically.

The concealment just negates any of the spells that allow Wizards to
survive in a fight. It even reveals which Image in the Mirror Image is
the Wizard. No spell or caster checks, no rolls, just automatic "no
dice."

The worst offender is Pierce Magical Protection. No spell checks, no
nothing. You ignore all AC from magic spells or effects and when you do
damage you automatically dispel all such spells and effects on the
caster. That's like having a feat that is better than Dispel Magic
Greater useable at will. No checks, just gone. Magic AC *IS* the
Wizard's defense. That is all we have. Imagine a feat that said "Target
Will Saves cannot be improved by items, feats or effects vs your spells
that allow Will Saves, and if you affect the target, his items that
grant such effects are dispelled automatically."

Its just crazy I say. CRAZY! :) 

I'm sure others will try to refute this, but that's just my opinion.
What I'm more curious about is what 3.5 Feats do YOU consider to be
just too much?

Lewis

More about : ridiculous feats

Anonymous
May 21, 2005 11:04:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

lewis@lwb.org wrote:
> All,
>
> In 3.5 Edition D&D including the Complete * books, what feats do you
> personally feel are ridiculous, if any?
>
> >From Complete Arcane, I consider the Mage Slayer, Pierce Magical
> Concealment, and Pierce Magical Protection.
>
> Since all too often my mage ends up within the threatened square of a
> warrior,

Wizzies don't belong on the front lines!

Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque; they belong in a tower somewhere,
summoning demons . . .
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 2:27:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

lewis@lwb.org wrote:
>
> Since all too often my mage ends up within the threatened square of a
> warrior, I feel it a little unfair that Mage slayer just negates all
> cast on the defensive attempts. I could see giving me a -4 to
> counteract combat casting but it causes automatic failire AND gives the
> warrior +1 to Will saves. Insane. It would be like a Wizard being able
> to take a feat "Rogue Slayer" that gave the ability "characters with
> evasion or improved evasion are denied its use on spells that target
> them" or something. Or imagine a feat that made anyone tumbling through
> your threat range to fail automatically.

Or a class ability that allows your barbarian to avoid
*all* sneak attack damage from invisible rogues. Or
that lets you Take 10 on Tumble checks in combat, so
you can automatically *succeed* in avoiding AoOs when
tumbling through an opponent's threatened spaces.
Or...

Oh, wait. Never mind.

-Bluto
Related resources
May 22, 2005 7:15:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I still think that is totally different from your examples.

Still, you'd think a feat that affected concentration in combat wouldnt
be any better than its counterpart (Combat Casting). I think a -4 would
be appropriate, total denial isnt. Also, the other feats are definitely
way over the top. An effect greater than a Greater Dispel (albeit vs
only certain spells) is way too much.

But again, I'm throwing out the feats I think are ridiculous. Which
feats do YOU think are ridiculous?

Lewis
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 3:35:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

lewis@lwb.org wrote:
> I still think that is totally different from your examples.
>
> Still, you'd think a feat that affected concentration in combat
wouldnt
> be any better than its counterpart (Combat Casting). I think a -4
would
> be appropriate, total denial isnt.

IMHO, a counter-ability should be more powerful than an equivilent
bonus ability. A fighter/mage or other spellcaster who for some reason
ends up using Combat Casting will probably do so on many more occaisons
than a fighter with the counter, simply because the fighter cannot
gurantte what proportion of his opponents his ability will be useful
against, but the caster knows that he is _always_ a caster.

I do dislike Mage Slayer though - if a player wants to build a
charecter to kill mages, that's fine, but I'd prefer that kind of
charecter customisation be approached more subtly than simply taking a
feat named after the intended effect. Use spiked chains, companions,
SR items, make sure you get in the first hit, things like that.



>Also, the other feats are definitely
> way over the top. An effect greater than a Greater Dispel (albeit vs
> only certain spells) is way too much.
>
> But again, I'm throwing out the feats I think are ridiculous. Which
> feats do YOU think are ridiculous?
>
> Lewis
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 9:24:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

lewis@lwb.org wrote:
> All,
>
> In 3.5 Edition D&D including the Complete * books, what feats do you
> personally feel are ridiculous, if any?
>
> >From Complete Arcane, I consider the Mage Slayer, Pierce Magical
> Concealment, and Pierce Magical Protection.

All three are powerful feats, but none of them are ridiculous.

> Since all too often my mage ends up within the threatened square of a
> warrior, I feel it a little unfair that Mage slayer just negates all
> cast on the defensive attempts. I could see giving me a -4 to
> counteract combat casting but it causes automatic failire AND gives
the
> warrior +1 to Will saves. Insane.

Not really. I think that in melee range, a fighter _should_ be able to
slice up a wizard. If the fighter isn't so great against a wizard in
melee range, what exactly _is_ his forte?

> It would be like a Wizard being able to take a feat "Rogue
> Slayer" that gave the ability "characters with evasion or
> improved evasion are denied its use on spells that target
> them" or something.

I'd probably allow this feat. It doesn't seem all that unreasonable.
Naturally, it'd have prerequisites, like the three feats you mentioned.

> Or imagine a feat that made anyone tumbling through
> your threat range to fail automatically.

That would probably be slightly too powerful, but it's also not as
ridiculous as you imagine it to be.

> The concealment just negates any of the spells that allow Wizards to
> survive in a fight. It even reveals which Image in the Mirror Image
is
> the Wizard. No spell or caster checks, no rolls, just automatic "no
> dice."

Bullshit. Mages have _many_ ways to survive battles. How about Fly? How
about being behind friends? How about Invisibility? (Pierce Mag Con
doesn't help with _finding_ the wizard, just hitting him.) How about
Stoneskin, or Polymorph?

If you can't figure out a way to keep your mage alive, even against a
dedicated mage-hunter, then you're too dumb to be playing mages.

> The worst offender is Pierce Magical Protection. No spell checks, no
> nothing. You ignore all AC from magic spells or effects and when you
do
> damage you automatically dispel all such spells and effects on the
> caster. That's like having a feat that is better than Dispel Magic
> Greater useable at will. No checks, just gone. Magic AC *IS* the
> Wizard's defense. That is all we have.

No it's not. See above.

> Imagine a feat that said "Target
> Will Saves cannot be improved by items, feats or effects vs your
spells
> that allow Will Saves, and if you affect the target, his items that
> grant such effects are dispelled automatically."

Bad analogy. The protection-piercing melee attack has to be a standard
action, meaning you can't full-attack with it. This is a major
restriction for the fighter.

A similar restriction would be something like having to cast your
theoretical "Will-piercing" spell as a 1-round action (not full-round,
1-round). And that, I think, might actually be fair.

> Its just crazy I say. CRAZY! :) 
>
> I'm sure others will try to refute this, but that's just my opinion.
> What I'm more curious about is what 3.5 Feats do YOU consider to be
> just too much?

Persistent Spell, especially when comboed with Divine Metamagic.

Also, Natural Spell. I feel it makes Druids completely over the top.

> Lewis

Laszlo
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 4:56:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

lewis@lwb.org wrote:

> The worst offender is Pierce Magical Protection. No spell checks, no
> nothing. You ignore all AC from magic spells or effects and when you do
> damage you automatically dispel all such spells and effects on the
> caster. That's like having a feat that is better than Dispel Magic
> Greater useable at will. No checks, just gone. Magic AC *IS* the
> Wizard's defense. That is all we have. Imagine a feat that said "Target
> Will Saves cannot be improved by items, feats or effects vs your spells
> that allow Will Saves, and if you affect the target, his items that
> grant such effects are dispelled automatically."

Also, note that not only wizard's will have magic AC. The casters will
buff the warriors, so a mage slayer with Pierce Magical Protection also
makes quite a warrior slayer.

> Its just crazy I say. CRAZY! :) 

I agree.

> What I'm more curious about is what 3.5 Feats do YOU consider to be
> just too much?

Improved Rapid Shot from Complete Warrior, which negates the -2 penalty.

Again, it's perhaps a conceptual problem more than a balance problem: I
don't think it should be possible to take more and more feats to
completely remove the penalty for using a "you get a bonus, but must
take a penalty" combat style.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 4:56:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

monarchy@comcast.net wrote:

> > Since all too often my mage ends up within the threatened square of a
> > warrior, I feel it a little unfair that Mage slayer just negates all
> > cast on the defensive attempts. I could see giving me a -4 to
> > counteract combat casting but it causes automatic failire AND gives the
> > warrior +1 to Will saves. Insane. It would be like a Wizard being able
> > to take a feat "Rogue Slayer" that gave the ability "characters with
> > evasion or improved evasion are denied its use on spells that target
> > them" or something. Or imagine a feat that made anyone tumbling through
> > your threat range to fail automatically.
>
> Or a class ability that allows your barbarian to avoid
> *all* sneak attack damage from invisible rogues.

Right. Class ability, not a feat. Which can be negated by a rogue of a
high enough level. Which only nerfs the rogue's secondary source of
sneak attacks, the primary being flanking, IME at least.

> Or
> that lets you Take 10 on Tumble checks in combat, so
> you can automatically *succeed* in avoiding AoOs when
> tumbling through an opponent's threatened spaces.

It's not that difficult to auto-succeed on tumble even without take 10,
BTW.

But automatically suceeding isn't quite the same as automatically making
your opponent fail. D&D is a game, and in a game, it's much more
frustrating to be unable to do your schtick, than simply see someone be
good at theirs.

IMO, Mage Slayer &c. aren't even that hideously overpowered. But...

They invite a feat race, with Slayer of Mage Slayers for wizards,
allowing them to cast defensively even when threatened by someone with
Mage Slayer, and then Slayer of Slayers of Mage Slayers for fighters
again...

They use wonky automatic mechanics, which seems out of place in 3E. As
Lewis noted, it's weird that Pierce Magical Protection dispels
automatically when even greater dispel doesn't.

They're just badly designed.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 12:10:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Piggybacking; lost the original and don't want to use Google.

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> monarchy@comcast.net wrote:
<snip complaint about Mage Slayer>
> >
> > Or a class ability that allows your barbarian to
> > avoid *all* sneak attack damage from invisible
> > rogues.
>
> Which only nerfs the rogue's secondary source of
> sneak attacks, the primary being flanking, IME at
> least.

Completely agreed. I consider the SA usage rankings to be, at least
IME: flanking, invisible, Feint/Imp.Feint, surprise.

> > Or that lets you Take 10 on Tumble checks in
> > combat, so you can automatically *succeed* in
> > avoiding AoOs when tumbling through an
> > opponent's threatened spaces.
>
> It's not that difficult to auto-succeed on tumble
> even without take 10, BTW.

And that's a good example of why Tumble should be an opposed check,
not an example of Skill Mastery being as bad an ability (note, also
not a feat) as Mage Slayer is a (mostly unrestricted) feat.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 12:13:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
>
> Bullshit. Mages have _many_ ways to survive battles.

And Fighters and other non-mages have the same options; but a mage
doesn't have the option granted by Mage Slayer without a severe
sacrifice.

> Persistent Spell,

Already acknowledged to be pretty much broken...

> Also, Natural Spell. I feel it makes Druids completely over
> the top.

Or, rather, it makes druids actually able to fulfill their role,
instead of having almost half of their abilities completely cancel out
the use of the other half.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 3:02:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> >
> > Bullshit. Mages have _many_ ways to survive battles.
>
> And Fighters and other non-mages have the same options; but a mage
> doesn't have the option granted by Mage Slayer without a severe
> sacrifice.

Come on. Fighters and other non-mages do NOT have the same options, and
can't get them without spending significant amounts of cash (and item
slots).

> > Persistent Spell,
>
> Already acknowledged to be pretty much broken...

Sure. I didn't claim to have said anything new.

> > Also, Natural Spell. I feel it makes Druids completely over
> > the top.
>
> Or, rather, it makes druids actually able to fulfill their role,

Yeah, if their role is "horribly powerful caster AND melee fighter who
is ALSO highly versatile".

Anyone who has seen a competent mid-to-high level druid in action knows
that they are a munchkin's dream. Not only are they the only class to
be both a primary caster and primary tank... AT THE SAME TIME (except
possibly for clerics, see below), but they (normally) have the most
powerful companion in the game, for FREE, with no real penalty for it
dying... AND they have mobility unmatched by anyone except wizards, AND
they have a significant role to play outside of combat. I don't even
wanna get into the pure cheese that is spontaneous Summon Nature's
Ally.

Clerics come close to simultaneously being a primary caster and primary
tank (if they want to), but they lack the companion, the mobility, the
versatility, and the pure spontaneous summoning cheese.

Also, Clerics need, at the very minimum, Str and Wis to be effective,
while also needing to keep Con and Dex from falling too low. And they
miss out on a significant part of their class abilities with a low Cha.
That's called Multiple Attribute Dependency, and it helps keep clerics
in check somewhat.

Druids? Druids need Wis. And that's it. They can have a natural Str,
Dex, AND Con of 6 and still be just as effective in melee.

> instead of having almost half of their abilities completely cancel
out
> the use of the other half.

Yeah, god forbid that a character should have to make interesting
tactical choices.

Laszlo
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 4:30:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Nikolas Landauer hastily scrawled:
>And that's a good example of why Tumble should be an opposed check,

BAH!



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 5:19:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 12:56:40 +0200, Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> > Or a class ability that allows your barbarian to avoid
> > *all* sneak attack damage from invisible rogues.
>
> Right. Class ability, not a feat. Which can be negated by a rogue of a
> high enough level. Which only nerfs the rogue's secondary source of
> sneak attacks, the primary being flanking, IME at least.

Immunity to surprise and invisible sneak-attacks cannot be trumped by
level. Only the anti-flanking ability can.

> > Or
> > that lets you Take 10 on Tumble checks in combat, so
> > you can automatically *succeed* in avoiding AoOs when
> > tumbling through an opponent's threatened spaces.
>
> It's not that difficult to auto-succeed on tumble even without take 10,
> BTW.

IME by the time you could get the 'take 10 anytime' ability, even a
'take 1' will do, and shortly thereafter it will even do for the DC25
check to tumble through someone's space.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 5:19:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

rboleyn@paradise.net.nz wrote:

> > > Or a class ability that allows your barbarian to avoid
> > > *all* sneak attack damage from invisible rogues.
> >
> > Right. Class ability, not a feat. Which can be negated by a rogue of a
> > high enough level. Which only nerfs the rogue's secondary source of
> > sneak attacks, the primary being flanking, IME at least.
>
> Immunity to surprise and invisible sneak-attacks cannot be trumped by
> level. Only the anti-flanking ability can.

You're right, of course. I misspoke.

> > > Or
> > > that lets you Take 10 on Tumble checks in combat, so
> > > you can automatically *succeed* in avoiding AoOs when
> > > tumbling through an opponent's threatened spaces.
> >
> > It's not that difficult to auto-succeed on tumble even without take 10,
> > BTW.
>
> IME by the time you could get the 'take 10 anytime' ability, even a
> 'take 1' will do, and shortly thereafter it will even do for the DC25
> check to tumble through someone's space.

Exactly. In my group, the halfling Rog13 has exaclty +24 tumble.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 12:34:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Clawhound wrote:

> Second, in the 11+ level game, mobile types can die real quick
> fulfilling their function. This is why rogues can tumble. This is why

> monks tumble. This keeps combat dynamic, rather than stiff and barely

> moving.
>
> That much said, I see how it can be munkined into a perpetual sneak
> attack with no risk. In our game, we've been doing opposed tumble
> checks. This seems to work.

How no risk? Unless you also have spring attack you are stopping
in range of the enemy with barely more HP than a wizard.

IME, Rogue tumbles past enemy and takes his one sneak attack (or
not if he needed to double move). Enemy turns and splaters Rogue
over half the dungeon....

IME, at that level the most effective single spell the Wiz has
is Improved Invisibility on the Rogue. Even if the Rogue HAS a
flank the ability to 5' step after the attack to hide, and the
50% miss chance are needed to make it work.

DougL
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 12:48:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Nikolas Landauer wrote:

> Piggybacking; lost the original and don't want to use Google.
>
> Jasin Zujovic wrote:
>
>>monarchy@comcast.net wrote:
>
> <snip complaint about Mage Slayer>
>
>>>Or a class ability that allows your barbarian to
>>>avoid *all* sneak attack damage from invisible
>>>rogues.
>>
>>Which only nerfs the rogue's secondary source of
>>sneak attacks, the primary being flanking, IME at
>>least.
>
>
> Completely agreed. I consider the SA usage rankings to be, at least
> IME: flanking, invisible, Feint/Imp.Feint, surprise.
>
>
>>>Or that lets you Take 10 on Tumble checks in
>>>combat, so you can automatically *succeed* in
>>>avoiding AoOs when tumbling through an
>>>opponent's threatened spaces.
>>
>>It's not that difficult to auto-succeed on tumble
>>even without take 10, BTW.
>
>
> And that's a good example of why Tumble should be an opposed check,
> not an example of Skill Mastery being as bad an ability (note, also
> not a feat) as Mage Slayer is a (mostly unrestricted) feat.
>

First, that's a whole lot of levels to make that work. In the 11+ tier
of the game, you expect this kind of mastery. Wizards and teleporting,
clerics are raising dead, and the rogue are always making tumble rolls.
That's all appropriate.

Second, in the 11+ level game, mobile types can die real quick
fulfilling their function. This is why rogues can tumble. This is why
monks tumble. This keeps combat dynamic, rather than stiff and barely
moving.

That much said, I see how it can be munkined into a perpetual sneak
attack with no risk. In our game, we've been doing opposed tumble
checks. This seems to work.

CH
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 3:22:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Clawhound wrote:
> DougL wrote:
>
> > Clawhound wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Second, in the 11+ level game, mobile types can die real quick
> >>fulfilling their function. This is why rogues can tumble. This is
why
> >
> >
> >>monks tumble. This keeps combat dynamic, rather than stiff and
barely
> >
> >
> >>moving.
> >>
> >>That much said, I see how it can be munkined into a perpetual sneak
> >>attack with no risk. In our game, we've been doing opposed tumble
> >>checks. This seems to work.
> >
> >
> > How no risk? Unless you also have spring attack you are stopping
> > in range of the enemy with barely more HP than a wizard.
> >
> > IME, Rogue tumbles past enemy and takes his one sneak attack (or
> > not if he needed to double move). Enemy turns and splaters Rogue
> > over half the dungeon....
> >
> > IME, at that level the most effective single spell the Wiz has
> > is Improved Invisibility on the Rogue. Even if the Rogue HAS a
> > flank the ability to 5' step after the attack to hide, and the
> > 50% miss chance are needed to make it work.
> >
> > DougL
>
> I assumed that mobility would be in any uber-tumble character design.
I
> didn't see a need to spell it out.

Um... I don't see why you would assume that. Why would an uber-tumble
character want Mobility? Tumble and Mobility work at cross purposes.
The higher your Tumble skill is, the more useless Mobility is for you.

Mobility is for characters who don't have Tumble as a class skill,
and/or those who want Spring/Whirlwind attack. For a rogue, it's
basically a waste of a feat.

> CH

Laszlo
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 4:27:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 17:37:35 +0200, Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Exactly. In my group, the halfling Rog13 has exaclty +24 tumble.

Our tumblers prefer a bit more - it gives an insurance against bad
surfaces and multiple bad guys.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 4:39:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> Clawhound wrote:
> > DougL wrote:
> >
> > > Clawhound wrote:

> > >>That much said, I see how it can be munkined into a perpetual sneak
> > >>attack with no risk. In our game, we've been doing opposed tumble
> > >>checks. This seems to work.
> > >
> > >
> > > How no risk? Unless you also have spring attack you are stopping
> > > in range of the enemy with barely more HP than a wizard.
> > >
> > > IME, Rogue tumbles past enemy and takes his one sneak attack (or
> > > not if he needed to double move). Enemy turns and splaters Rogue
> > > over half the dungeon....
> > >
> > > IME, at that level the most effective single spell the Wiz has
> > > is Improved Invisibility on the Rogue. Even if the Rogue HAS a
> > > flank the ability to 5' step after the attack to hide, and the
> > > 50% miss chance are needed to make it work.

> > I assumed that mobility would be in any uber-tumble character design.
> I
> > didn't see a need to spell it out.

Why is tumble 24+ an uber-tumble character design?

IME typical rogue makes it at level 13 or 14 with no real effort.
+7/8 for dex and +16/17 for ranks, done.

Uber-tumble characters get tumble from a +2/+2 feat acrobatic,
takes skill focus for +3, and has at least a +1 from items/spells
and make 24+ at about level 8. And still don't have spring attack
because even a human at that level doesn't have enough FEATS to
get spring attack with the rest. So he probably took Improved
Initiative and Alertness rather than wasting two feats on low
value prereq feats for something that becomes obsolete two
levels before he can do it (hint: at level 7 the Wiz can cast
greater invis, spring attack is then unnessesary).

There are LOTS of Rogue builds with 24+ tumble and no spring
attack.

> Um... I don't see why you would assume that. Why would an uber-tumble
> character want Mobility? Tumble and Mobility work at cross purposes.
> The higher your Tumble skill is, the more useless Mobility is for you.
>
> Mobility is for characters who don't have Tumble as a class skill,
> and/or those who want Spring/Whirlwind attack. For a rogue, it's
> basically a waste of a feat.

I assume he was using mobility as a shorthand for spring attack.

But use of spring attack reduces the Rogue to one attack per turn,
and against large/reach monsters isn't all that useful (you just
don't have the movement range to move all that far at x2 movement
cost), and you have spent 3 of the Rogue's VERY limited supply of
feats.

Greater Invis is just much better. One level four slot spent,
and the Rogue likely does more damage than the rest of the party
combined. Especially since NOT wasting feats on the Spring
attack chain you have plenty for the TWF chain.

DougL
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 6:10:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

DougL wrote:

> Clawhound wrote:
>
>
>>Second, in the 11+ level game, mobile types can die real quick
>>fulfilling their function. This is why rogues can tumble. This is why
>
>
>>monks tumble. This keeps combat dynamic, rather than stiff and barely
>
>
>>moving.
>>
>>That much said, I see how it can be munkined into a perpetual sneak
>>attack with no risk. In our game, we've been doing opposed tumble
>>checks. This seems to work.
>
>
> How no risk? Unless you also have spring attack you are stopping
> in range of the enemy with barely more HP than a wizard.
>
> IME, Rogue tumbles past enemy and takes his one sneak attack (or
> not if he needed to double move). Enemy turns and splaters Rogue
> over half the dungeon....
>
> IME, at that level the most effective single spell the Wiz has
> is Improved Invisibility on the Rogue. Even if the Rogue HAS a
> flank the ability to 5' step after the attack to hide, and the
> 50% miss chance are needed to make it work.
>
> DougL
>

I assumed that mobility would be in any uber-tumble character design. I
didn't see a need to spell it out.

CH
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 6:12:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

rboleyn@paradise.net.nz wrote:

> > Exactly. In my group, the halfling Rog13 has exaclty +24 tumble.
>
> Our tumblers prefer a bit more - it gives an insurance against bad
> surfaces and multiple bad guys.

Oh, she's not stopping at +24 (at least I wouldn't); it just so happens
that +24 is her current total.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 9:09:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

DougL wrote:

> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
>
>>Clawhound wrote:
>>
>>>DougL wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clawhound wrote:
>
>
>>>>>That much said, I see how it can be munkined into a perpetual sneak
>>>>>attack with no risk. In our game, we've been doing opposed tumble
>>>>>checks. This seems to work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How no risk? Unless you also have spring attack you are stopping
>>>>in range of the enemy with barely more HP than a wizard.
>>>>
>>>>IME, Rogue tumbles past enemy and takes his one sneak attack (or
>>>>not if he needed to double move). Enemy turns and splaters Rogue
>>>>over half the dungeon....
>>>>
>>>>IME, at that level the most effective single spell the Wiz has
>>>>is Improved Invisibility on the Rogue. Even if the Rogue HAS a
>>>>flank the ability to 5' step after the attack to hide, and the
>>>>50% miss chance are needed to make it work.
>
>
>>>I assumed that mobility would be in any uber-tumble character design.
>>
>>I
>>
>>>didn't see a need to spell it out.
>
>
> Why is tumble 24+ an uber-tumble character design?
>
> IME typical rogue makes it at level 13 or 14 with no real effort.
> +7/8 for dex and +16/17 for ranks, done.
>
> Uber-tumble characters get tumble from a +2/+2 feat acrobatic,
> takes skill focus for +3, and has at least a +1 from items/spells
> and make 24+ at about level 8. And still don't have spring attack
> because even a human at that level doesn't have enough FEATS to
> get spring attack with the rest. So he probably took Improved
> Initiative and Alertness rather than wasting two feats on low
> value prereq feats for something that becomes obsolete two
> levels before he can do it (hint: at level 7 the Wiz can cast
> greater invis, spring attack is then unnessesary).
>
> There are LOTS of Rogue builds with 24+ tumble and no spring
> attack.
>
>
>>Um... I don't see why you would assume that. Why would an uber-tumble
>>character want Mobility? Tumble and Mobility work at cross purposes.
>>The higher your Tumble skill is, the more useless Mobility is for you.
>>
>>Mobility is for characters who don't have Tumble as a class skill,
>>and/or those who want Spring/Whirlwind attack. For a rogue, it's
>>basically a waste of a feat.
>
>
> I assume he was using mobility as a shorthand for spring attack.
>
> But use of spring attack reduces the Rogue to one attack per turn,
> and against large/reach monsters isn't all that useful (you just
> don't have the movement range to move all that far at x2 movement
> cost), and you have spent 3 of the Rogue's VERY limited supply of
> feats.
>
> Greater Invis is just much better. One level four slot spent,
> and the Rogue likely does more damage than the rest of the party
> combined. Especially since NOT wasting feats on the Spring
> attack chain you have plenty for the TWF chain.
>
> DougL
>

Yes, it was shorthand. I meant the English word via common usage, and
not the feat. A "mobility" character is one that is centered around
movement on the battlefield, and using that movement to his advantage.
An example is a rogue springing into dangerous territory, tumbling,
striking, then retreating. Another example is a rogue that uses Improved
Invisibility. "Mobility" referred to the character concept, rather than
the implementation of that concept.

As for my implementation opinion, redundancy is good. It's a poor
mobility person who doesn't have every movement enhancer that her can
get. Tumble might be good. Improved invisibility might be better. But
tumble, improved invisibility, mobility, spring attack, and expedition
retreat are all your friends because, as is true in any D&D game, the
unexpected happens. It's always good to have a fallback plan.

CH
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 12:23:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> Clawhound wrote:
>
>>DougL wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Clawhound wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Second, in the 11+ level game, mobile types can die real quick
>>>>fulfilling their function. This is why rogues can tumble. This is
>
> why
>
>>>
>>>>monks tumble. This keeps combat dynamic, rather than stiff and
>
> barely
>
>>>
>>>>moving.
>>>>
>>>>That much said, I see how it can be munkined into a perpetual sneak
>>>>attack with no risk. In our game, we've been doing opposed tumble
>>>>checks. This seems to work.
>>>
>>>
>>>How no risk? Unless you also have spring attack you are stopping
>>>in range of the enemy with barely more HP than a wizard.
>>>
>>>IME, Rogue tumbles past enemy and takes his one sneak attack (or
>>>not if he needed to double move). Enemy turns and splaters Rogue
>>>over half the dungeon....
>>>
>>>IME, at that level the most effective single spell the Wiz has
>>>is Improved Invisibility on the Rogue. Even if the Rogue HAS a
>>>flank the ability to 5' step after the attack to hide, and the
>>>50% miss chance are needed to make it work.
>>>
>>>DougL
>>
>>I assumed that mobility would be in any uber-tumble character design.
>
> I
>
>>didn't see a need to spell it out.
>
>
> Um... I don't see why you would assume that. Why would an uber-tumble
> character want Mobility?

So they can get spring attack & avoid the full attack riposte?
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 4:49:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:10:51 -0400, Clawhound <none@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>I assumed that mobility would be in any uber-tumble character design. I
>didn't see a need to spell it out.

Mobility won't save the Rogue from the counter-attack. Even if the +4
AC was enough to guarantee him safety it is only applied as a defense
against Attacks of Opportunity from movement. With tumble, the rogue
gets into place with no AoO fine. It's the attacks from his opponent's
next turn that are the dangerous part and mobility does nothing for
him.

Spring attack is a different matter, but that limits the rogue to one
attack a round, and he won't have enough movement to get to safety if
the opponent decides to follow.
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 7:28:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:12:27 +0200, Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> rboleyn@paradise.net.nz wrote:
>
> > > Exactly. In my group, the halfling Rog13 has exaclty +24 tumble.
> >
> > Our tumblers prefer a bit more - it gives an insurance against bad
> > surfaces and multiple bad guys.
>
> Oh, she's not stopping at +24 (at least I wouldn't); it just so happens
> that +24 is her current total.

Ah.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 7:42:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Benjamin Adams wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> >
> > Anyone who has seen a competent mid-to-high level druid in
> > action knows that they are a munchkin's dream. Not only are
> > they the only class to be both a primary caster and primary
> > tank... AT THE SAME TIME
>
> Not quite at the same time. Even with Natural Spell, a
> druid still has to choose, on a round-to-round basis,
> whether he's going to spend his action meleeing or
> spellcasting.

Yeah. Just like any character who uses melee and spellcasting. Their
BAB and feats will always lag behind any dedicated melee'er's

> > (except possibly for clerics, see below), but they (normally)
> > have the most powerful companion in the game, for FREE, with
> > no real penalty for it dying...
>
> Animal companions are less powerful than they look.

And much less so than a cohort.

> In high-level encounters, they get splattered real quick,

Lack of AC and save boosts is a big culprit here, yep.

> Unless, of course, the druid spends a significant portion of
> his spell slots and/or equipment budget buffing it up, and
> that too has a cost.

IIRC, most of Laszlo's experience with balance between classes is his
silly, skewed "arena" battles, not actual play experience.

> > AND they have mobility unmatched by anyone except wizards,

(piggybacked) Oh, come on. Monks have massive mobility. Anyone with
UMD can use arcane scrolls, and thus match the wizard. Beyond that,
mobility-bsed magic items are highly coveted, not uncommon, and almost
always (IME) go to the fighters and rogues.

> > I don't even wanna get into the pure cheese that is
> > spontaneous Summon Nature's Ally.
>
> Summon Nature's Ally is balanced by the 1-round casting time.

Anyone who claims any Summon $foo spell is "pure cheese" is playing a
significantly different game than the rest of us.

> > Clerics come close to simultaneously being a primary caster
> > and primary tank (if they want to), but they lack the
> > companion, the mobility, the versatility, and the pure
> > spontaneous summoning cheese.
>
> Clerics still have one action per round, just like anyone else.

And have better spells, a slightly better weapon selection, a
massively better armor selection, channeling and the coolness that is
divine feats, and domain spells and abilities. Spont-cure is *far*
better for a "primary tank" than spont-summon is, which belies
Laszlo's claim.

(next two responses are piggybacked)

> > Also, Clerics need, at the very minimum, Str and Wis to be
> > effective, while also needing to keep Con and Dex from
> > falling too low. And they miss out on a significant part
> > of their class abilities with a low Cha. That's called
> > Multiple Attribute Dependency, and it helps keep clerics
> > in check somewhat. Druids? Druids need Wis. And that's it.

So they don't have any particular need to be good at handling animals?
That negates the companion "advantage" you claimed above.

> > They can have a natural Str, Dex, AND Con of 6 and still
> > be just as effective in melee.

Until they need to go out of wild shape for whatever reason (such as
to use most magic items)... Or if they encounter antimagic (which
will often result in a drastic and possibly unexpected hp reduction,
possibly killing them).

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 10:38:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Tristan wrote:
> >> Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
>
> >> channeling and the coolness that is divine feats, and domain spells
> >> and abilities. Spont-cure is *far* better for a "primary tank" than
> >> spont-summon is, which belies Laszlo's claim.
> >
> > No, it's not. As opposed to 2nd ed and earlier, in 3.5, curing spells
> > can only rarely be used in combat. With the massive damage that can be
> > done to a character in a single round, it just usually isn't worth it
> > to use anything short of Heal in battle. This is _especially_ true for
> > a melee build who's on the front lines. You just don't see clerics
> > curing themselves in combat, except in fairly special and rare
> > circumstances.
>
> IME the opposite is true. With the massive damage that can be done to a
> character in a single round, it is *essential* to use the strongest healing
> spell available in battle. There are 8 players at my gaming table every
> week. It is damn close to impossible to kill any of them with two clerics
> running around all the time dropping cure spells. They just reached a point
> where heal was an option but if they had held off in-combat healing for that
> spell they would never have reached that point.

This I can believe... with 8 characters, it's a lot less likely that
their opponents will be able to focus their attacks on a single
character. Futher, it's much more possible for one or two characters to
focus on healing, instead of doing something to help kill the
opponents.

Almost every group I DM'ed for or played in had 3-5 members, so that's
what I have experience with. With 3-5 members, you just can't afford to
have the divine caster (there's generally only one) heal: he's too
critical in the buffing or melee roles (depending on build).

> - Tristan

Laszlo
May 25, 2005 1:23:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

>> Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:

>> channeling and the coolness that is divine feats, and domain spells
>> and abilities. Spont-cure is *far* better for a "primary tank" than
>> spont-summon is, which belies Laszlo's claim.
>
> No, it's not. As opposed to 2nd ed and earlier, in 3.5, curing spells
> can only rarely be used in combat. With the massive damage that can be
> done to a character in a single round, it just usually isn't worth it
> to use anything short of Heal in battle. This is _especially_ true for
> a melee build who's on the front lines. You just don't see clerics
> curing themselves in combat, except in fairly special and rare
> circumstances.

IME the opposite is true. With the massive damage that can be done to a
character in a single round, it is *essential* to use the strongest healing
spell available in battle. There are 8 players at my gaming table every
week. It is damn close to impossible to kill any of them with two clerics
running around all the time dropping cure spells. They just reached a point
where heal was an option but if they had held off in-combat healing for that
spell they would never have reached that point.

- Tristan
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 1:25:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Rupert Boleyn hastily scrawled:
>
>> Dire Apes can use most magic items fine.
>
>Really? They're large, so most of the druid's gear won't fit.

From the RotG article on Polymorphing:

"In general, a change from one form that has a humanoid shape to
another form that has a humanoid shape leaves all equipment in place
and functioning. The subject's equipment changes to match the assumed
form. It becomes the appropriate size for the assumed form and it fits
the assumed form."

>They don't have good hands, so you can say goodbye to any spells requiring
>somatic components. As for amulets, etc. - I can't find anything in
>this edition, but in 3.x it was mentioned that turning into dragon
>form with a polymorph meant your rings, etc., melded and turned off.
>If this is no longer the case, we have an 'interesting' preceedent.

Maybe in 3.0, but in the current version a Dire Ape form would retain
virtually all equipment. We just had a flamefest on this subject a
few months ago.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 3:59:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote in
news:1117130995.947526.60730@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> All that aside, the druid is still a great class (well above average,
> power-wise) for levels 5-7 and 16-20. Levels 1-4 is the only time when
> they're below average.

I wouldn't call them below average from 1-4. Those levels are when
the animal companion seriously rocks the house.

-Ben Adams
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 3:40:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Benjamin Adams wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote in
> news:1117130995.947526.60730@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > All that aside, the druid is still a great class (well above average,
> > power-wise) for levels 5-7 and 16-20. Levels 1-4 is the only time when
> > they're below average.
>
> I wouldn't call them below average from 1-4. Those levels are when
> the animal companion seriously rocks the house.
>
> -Ben Adams

True, but at low levels, the Druid's low Handle Animal skill really
cramps their animal companion's style.

Laszlo
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 10:21:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
>
> Benjamin Adams wrote:
> > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote in
> > news:1117130995.947526.60730@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > All that aside, the druid is still a great class (well above average,
> > > power-wise) for levels 5-7 and 16-20. Levels 1-4 is the only time when
> > > they're below average.
> >
> > I wouldn't call them below average from 1-4. Those levels are when
> > the animal companion seriously rocks the house.
> >
> > -Ben Adams
>
> True, but at low levels, the Druid's low Handle Animal skill really
> cramps their animal companion's style.

What are you talking about? The DC to handle an animal
is 10. A 1st-level druid with 4 ranks in Handle Animal
and a +0 Cha modifier fails his check only on a natural
1! (Give him a Cha above 11 and he can't fail.) As
long as he selects his companion's tricks wisely, he's
golden.

-Bluto
May 27, 2005 11:04:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 25 May 2005 03:42:34 -0400, Nikolas Landauer
<dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> dared speak in front of ME:

>> > AND they have mobility unmatched by anyone except wizards,
>
>(piggybacked) Oh, come on. Monks have massive mobility. Anyone with
>UMD can use arcane scrolls, and thus match the wizard. Beyond that,
>mobility-bsed magic items are highly coveted, not uncommon, and almost
>always (IME) go to the fighters and rogues.

Seems to me that this just proves the non-spellcasters require more
crutches than spellcasters.

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 5:04:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <5q8a91hpo3nq9fg8u4v20bd2251uuk4ed8@4ax.com>,
Kaos <kaos@xplornet.com> wrote:
>On 25 May 2005 05:02:17 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu dared speak
>in front of ME:
>>I'm going to assume
>
>Don't, unless you want to reveal yourself as clingling blindly to your
>preconceptions.
>
>--
>Address no longer works.
>try removing all numbers from
>gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

Welcome back. We were just talking in another thread about how you and a few
others seemed to have vanished.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
May 28, 2005 5:04:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 28 May 2005 01:04:29 GMT, dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb)
dared speak in front of ME:

>In article <5q8a91hpo3nq9fg8u4v20bd2251uuk4ed8@4ax.com>,
>Kaos <kaos@xplornet.com> wrote:
>>On 25 May 2005 05:02:17 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu dared speak
>>in front of ME:
>>>I'm going to assume
>>
>>Don't, unless you want to reveal yourself as clingling blindly to your
>>preconceptions.
>>
>>--
>>Address no longer works.
>>try removing all numbers from
>>gafgirl1@2allstream3.net
>
>Welcome back. We were just talking in another thread about how you and a few
>others seemed to have vanished.

Aww.... I was missed :) 
Had to take time off to focus on finding work. Once that was found, I
signed up for a wireless broadband provider (the very one I'm
installing for) and discovered that individual.net went to a pay
method and my new ISP didn't provide usenet access. So I had to fight
to find a new NNTP provider.

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 5:04:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Kaos" <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in message
news:q7uf911hfjv1g8762blpqd57vvp1m3glta@4ax.com...

> Aww.... I was missed :) 
> Had to take time off to focus on finding work. Once that was found, I
> signed up for a wireless broadband provider (the very one I'm
> installing for) and discovered that individual.net went to a pay
> method and my new ISP didn't provide usenet access. So I had to fight
> to find a new NNTP provider.

What a pain. Welcome back.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 5:55:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Kaos wrote:
> >> Mileage varies. I've maganged the same with a wizard 2-3 levels higher
> >> than a PC party. Actually, the survivors surrendured after half the
> >> party was killed.
> >
> >I'm going to assume
>
> Don't, unless you want to reveal yourself as clingling blindly to your
> preconceptions.

Making assumptions is a normal and necessary part of human thinking.
"Clinging blindly" occurs when one persists in their assumptions in the
face of compelling contrary evidence.

If you can show me just one occurence of the latter in my case, you
have a point. Otherwise, you don't.

Also, welcome back. May the rest of your contributions be more
carefully considered than this one. ;) 

Laszlo
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 8:37:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Senator Blutarsky wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> >
> > Benjamin Adams wrote:
> > > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote in
> > > news:1117130995.947526.60730@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> > >
> > > > All that aside, the druid is still a great class (well above average,
> > > > power-wise) for levels 5-7 and 16-20. Levels 1-4 is the only time when
> > > > they're below average.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't call them below average from 1-4. Those levels are when
> > > the animal companion seriously rocks the house.
> > >
> > > -Ben Adams
> >
> > True, but at low levels, the Druid's low Handle Animal skill really
> > cramps their animal companion's style.
>
> What are you talking about? The DC to handle an animal
> is 10. A 1st-level druid with 4 ranks in Handle Animal
> and a +0 Cha modifier fails his check only on a natural
> 1! (Give him a Cha above 11 and he can't fail.) As
> long as he selects his companion's tricks wisely, he's
> golden.

The existing tricks are rather limited. Pushing an animal companion is
key to using it effectively.

Laszlo
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 12:07:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Senator Blutarsky wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> >
> > Benjamin Adams wrote:
> > > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote in
> > > news:1117130995.947526.60730@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> > >
> > > > All that aside, the druid is still a great class (well above average,
> > > > power-wise) for levels 5-7 and 16-20. Levels 1-4 is the only time when
> > > > they're below average.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't call them below average from 1-4. Those levels are when
> > > the animal companion seriously rocks the house.
> > >
> > > -Ben Adams
> >
> > True, but at low levels, the Druid's low Handle Animal skill really
> > cramps their animal companion's style.
>
> What are you talking about? The DC to handle an animal
> is 10. A 1st-level druid with 4 ranks in Handle Animal
> and a +0 Cha modifier fails his check only on a natural
> 1! (Give him a Cha above 11 and he can't fail.) As
> long as he selects his companion's tricks wisely, he's
> golden.

What are *you* talking about? If he rolls a 1-5, he fails. That's a 25%
chance of failure.

Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque; sure, in some situations he can take
10, but . . . your math is wrong.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 5:29:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
>
> Senator Blutarsky wrote:
> > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> > >
> > > True, but at low levels, the Druid's low Handle Animal skill really
> > > cramps their animal companion's style.
> >
> > What are you talking about? The DC to handle an animal
> > is 10. A 1st-level druid with 4 ranks in Handle Animal
> > and a +0 Cha modifier fails his check only on a natural
> > 1! (Give him a Cha above 11 and he can't fail.) As
> > long as he selects his companion's tricks wisely, he's
> > golden.
>
> The existing tricks are rather limited. Pushing an animal companion is
> key to using it effectively.

If you can't use your animal companion effectively at
least 90% of the time without pushing it, you're
choosing the wrong tricks.

-Bluto
May 28, 2005 7:11:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 28 May 2005 01:55:48 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu dared speak
in front of ME:

>Kaos wrote:
>> >> Mileage varies. I've maganged the same with a wizard 2-3 levels higher
>> >> than a PC party. Actually, the survivors surrendured after half the
>> >> party was killed.
>> >
>> >I'm going to assume
>>
>> Don't, unless you want to reveal yourself as clingling blindly to your
>> preconceptions.
>
>Making assumptions is a normal and necessary part of human thinking.

On occasion, but in this case it was unnecessary. You could have
asked just as easily, rather than choosing and expounding apon the
assumption that fit your preconceptions.

>"Clinging blindly" occurs when one persists in their assumptions in the
>face of compelling contrary evidence.
>
>If you can show me just one occurence of the latter in my case, you
>have a point. Otherwise, you don't.

You made the assumption that would (if it bore out) dismiss the
contrary evidence. That indicates an unwillingness to accept that the
evidence may have been compelling.

>Also, welcome back. May the rest of your contributions be more
>carefully considered than this one. ;) 

Pfft. Where's the fun in that?
--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 7:33:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Aaron F. Bourque wrote:
>
> What are *you* talking about? If he rolls a 1-5, he fails. That's a 25%
> chance of failure.
>
> Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque; sure, in some situations he can take
> 10, but . . . your math is wrong.

No, it isn't. +4 circumstance bonus.

-Will
May 29, 2005 8:10:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 27 May 2005 22:22:47 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
<capt_malachias@hotmail.com> dared speak in front of ME:

>
>"Kaos" <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in message
>news:q7uf911hfjv1g8762blpqd57vvp1m3glta@4ax.com...
>
>> Aww.... I was missed :) 
>> Had to take time off to focus on finding work. Once that was found, I
>> signed up for a wireless broadband provider (the very one I'm
>> installing for) and discovered that individual.net went to a pay
>> method and my new ISP didn't provide usenet access. So I had to fight
>> to find a new NNTP provider.
>
>What a pain. Welcome back.

TYVM.
--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 4:57:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Kaos wrote:
> On 28 May 2005 01:55:48 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu dared speak
> in front of ME:
>
> >"Clinging blindly" occurs when one persists in their assumptions in the
> >face of compelling contrary evidence.
> >
> >If you can show me just one occurence of the latter in my case, you
> >have a point. Otherwise, you don't.
>
> You made the assumption that would (if it bore out) dismiss the
> contrary evidence. That indicates an unwillingness to accept that the
> evidence may have been compelling.

*coughbullshitcough*

Rupert's response showed that my assumption was incorrect... and my
very next response to _that_ showed that I accepted his example, and I
asked further questions to try and figure out why our experiences were
dissimilar.

> >Also, welcome back. May the rest of your contributions be more
> >carefully considered than this one. ;) 
>
> Pfft. Where's the fun in that?

Heh, fair enough.

Laszlo
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 8:57:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Symbol wrote:
> <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
> news:1117024815.620906.178700@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>
> > > If the character has Natural Spell shape is irrelevant, so why'd you
> > > bring it up?
> >
> > Because the Dire Ape shape might be relevant for wearing stuff like
> > cloaks and vests, depending on how your DM interprets the rules. (I
> > don't know whether a Dire Lion should be allowed to wear a cloak, for
> > instance; I could see a DM going either way on that. But any reasonable
> > DM would have to allow a Dire Ape to wear one.)
>
> If you allow Dire Lions to wear cloaks you aren't fit to be discussing
> what reasonable DMs should allow.

My head hurts when you talk.

Laszlo
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 4:44:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
news:1117024815.620906.178700@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Rupert Boleyn wrote:

> > If the character has Natural Spell shape is irrelevant, so why'd you
> > bring it up?
>
> Because the Dire Ape shape might be relevant for wearing stuff like
> cloaks and vests, depending on how your DM interprets the rules. (I
> don't know whether a Dire Lion should be allowed to wear a cloak, for
> instance; I could see a DM going either way on that. But any reasonable
> DM would have to allow a Dire Ape to wear one.)

If you allow Dire Lions to wear cloaks you aren't fit to be discussing
what reasonable DMs should allow.
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 5:46:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
news:1117540676.872783.8600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Symbol wrote:
> > <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
> > news:1117024815.620906.178700@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> >
> > > > If the character has Natural Spell shape is irrelevant, so why'd
you
> > > > bring it up?
> > >
> > > Because the Dire Ape shape might be relevant for wearing stuff like
> > > cloaks and vests, depending on how your DM interprets the rules. (I
> > > don't know whether a Dire Lion should be allowed to wear a cloak,
for
> > > instance; I could see a DM going either way on that. But any
reasonable
> > > DM would have to allow a Dire Ape to wear one.)
> >
> > If you allow Dire Lions to wear cloaks you aren't fit to be discussing
> > what reasonable DMs should allow.
>
> My head hurts when you talk.

Good.
!