Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which PC?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 2:20:02 PM

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

Which of these PC builds do you think is the most effective or most
enjoyable to play? I'm still trying to decide which one to take:

1. Draconic Human Barb5/Sorc1/DragonDisciple10 sundermonkey

2. Changeling Monk6/WarShaper4/Rogue10

3. Swiftwing Shifter Rogue3/Ranger2/WereTouchedMaster5

4. Pelor-Worshipping Human Cleric5/RSoP2/Thaumaturge5

Any comments on any of the builds, suggestions about feat selection, etc.?

Thanks,

- Ron ^*^

More about : question

Anonymous
August 26, 2005 9:00:27 PM

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

Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>Which of these PC builds do you think is the most effective or most
>enjoyable to play? I'm still trying to decide which one to take:
>
>1. Draconic Human Barb5/Sorc1/DragonDisciple10 sundermonkey
>
>2. Changeling Monk6/WarShaper4/Rogue10
>
>3. Swiftwing Shifter Rogue3/Ranger2/WereTouchedMaster5
>
>4. Pelor-Worshipping Human Cleric5/RSoP2/Thaumaturge5


It seems like the twentieth-level character would be more fun to play. :) 

Questions:

(a) For (1), why not eat the LA for Half-Dragon and choose a *useful*
class to advance in? EKn might have too few hit points...

(b) For (2), why Rogue, exactly? Wouldn't Pyro (XPsiHB) be more fun?

(c) For (4), why only two levels of RSoP? Or did you plan to take the other
eight levels after finishing out Thaumaturge? Also, RSoP pretty much
requires "Pelor Worship"...

Donald
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 9:00:28 PM

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

Donald Tsang wrote:
> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Which of these PC builds do you think is the most effective or most
>>enjoyable to play? I'm still trying to decide which one to take:
>>
>>1. Draconic Human Barb5/Sorc1/DragonDisciple10 sundermonkey
>>
>>2. Changeling Monk6/WarShaper4/Rogue10
>>
>>3. Swiftwing Shifter Rogue3/Ranger2/WereTouchedMaster5
>>
>>4. Pelor-Worshipping Human Cleric5/RSoP2/Thaumaturge5
>
>
>
> It seems like the twentieth-level character would be more fun to play. :) 
>
> Questions:
>
> (a) For (1), why not eat the LA for Half-Dragon and choose a *useful*
> class to advance in? EKn might have too few hit points...

Draconic offers some very useful abilities, and can't stack with
half-dragon (which might make the 10th level of Dragon Disciple
interesting). It's also only LA+1, which can be bought off quickly.

Have you read the new 3.5 Dragon Disciple? It's more of a warrior
class, now. I wouldn't call it useless by any means -- compare to
barbarian.


> (b) For (2), why Rogue, exactly? Wouldn't Pyro (XPsiHB) be more fun?

Changelings have rogue as their preferred class, so it's really the only
option other than a PrC (and I have character reasons for wanting to go
rogue, as well as just liking the class).


> (c) For (4), why only two levels of RSoP? Or did you plan to take the other
> eight levels after finishing out Thaumaturge? Also, RSoP pretty much
> requires "Pelor Worship"...

Basically I wanted to play a priest of Pelor (this might be an Eberron
campaign, but Dol Arrah is almost the same dude), and realized that
you're an idiot if you DON'T take the RsoP PrC. Of course I'd plan to
take the remaining levels in RsoP after maxing out Thaumaturge.
Basically a summoner cleric who crafts magic arms and armor for the
party (Holy Flaming weapons are nice).

The Shifter is, of course, a werebat type. Not sure what I'd do with
him after 10th level -- maybe alternate between rogue and ranger?

- Ron ^*^
Related resources
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 10:41:41 PM

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

Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in
news:syFPe.3751$hp.3592@lakeread08:

>
> Which of these PC builds do you think is the most effective or
> most enjoyable to play? I'm still trying to decide which one to
> take:

Since the ECLs aren't balanced, it's impossible to say.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 10:41:42 PM

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

Quentin Stephens wrote:

> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in
> news:syFPe.3751$hp.3592@lakeread08:
>
>
>>Which of these PC builds do you think is the most effective or
>>most enjoyable to play? I'm still trying to decide which one to
>>take:
>
>
> Since the ECLs aren't balanced, it's impossible to say.

I'm experimenting with builds, still. The changeling is the only one I
have mapped out to 20th.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 11:31:25 PM

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

Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>Donald Tsang wrote:
>> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>1. Draconic Human Barb5/Sorc1/DragonDisciple10 sundermonkey
>>>2. Changeling Monk6/WarShaper4/Rogue10
>>>3. Swiftwing Shifter Rogue3/Ranger2/WereTouchedMaster5
>>>4. Pelor-Worshipping Human Cleric5/RSoP2/Thaumaturge5
>>
>> Questions:
>>
>> (a) For (1), why not eat the LA for Half-Dragon and choose a *useful*
>> class to advance in? EKn might have too few hit points...
>
>Draconic offers some very useful abilities, and can't stack with
>half-dragon (which might make the 10th level of Dragon Disciple
>interesting). It's also only LA+1, which can be bought off quickly.

I actually missed "Draconic".


>Have you read the new 3.5 Dragon Disciple? It's more of a warrior
>class, now. I wouldn't call it useless by any means -- compare to
>barbarian.

By "useful" I meant "something that actually enhances your spellcasting". :) 
Compared to Half-Dragon + more levels of Barbarian, DD seems a little lame.


>> (b) For (2), why Rogue, exactly? Wouldn't Pyro (XPsiHB) be more fun?
>
>Changelings have rogue as their preferred class, so it's really the only
>option other than a PrC (and I have character reasons for wanting to go
>rogue, as well as just liking the class).

Well, another option would be to get a Monk-compatible multiclass going...


>

>> (c) For (4), why only two levels of RSoP? Or did you plan to take the other
>> eight levels after finishing out Thaumaturge? Also, RSoP pretty much
>> requires "Pelor Worship"...
>
>Basically I wanted to play a priest of Pelor (this might be an Eberron
>campaign, but Dol Arrah is almost the same dude), and realized that
>you're an idiot if you DON'T take the RsoP PrC. Of course I'd plan to
>take the remaining levels in RsoP after maxing out Thaumaturge.
>Basically a summoner cleric who crafts magic arms and armor for the
>party (Holy Flaming weapons are nice).

Quite. The dwarven Battlesmith PrC is pretty nice, too...


>The Shifter is, of course, a werebat type. Not sure what I'd do with
>him after 10th level -- maybe alternate between rogue and ranger?

How about some levels in Warshaper? (I don't remember -- is lycanthropy
sufficient? I'm thinking it probably isn't...) :) 


Donald
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 1:21:05 AM

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

In article <m4KPe.7775$hp.1754@lakeread08>,
Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>Quentin Stephens wrote:
>> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in
>> news:syFPe.3751$hp.3592@lakeread08:
>>
>>>Which of these PC builds do you think is the most effective or
>>>most enjoyable to play? I'm still trying to decide which one to
>>>take:
>>
>> Since the ECLs aren't balanced, it's impossible to say.
>
>I'm experimenting with builds, still. The changeling is the only one I
>have mapped out to 20th.

Hmm. So it's kind of "think of a character I'm designing - which do you like
best?"
--
"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...)
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 1:21:06 AM

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

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> In article <m4KPe.7775$hp.1754@lakeread08>,
> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Quentin Stephens wrote:
>>
>>>Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in
>>>news:syFPe.3751$hp.3592@lakeread08:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Which of these PC builds do you think is the most effective or
>>>>most enjoyable to play? I'm still trying to decide which one to
>>>>take:
>>>
>>>Since the ECLs aren't balanced, it's impossible to say.
>>
>>I'm experimenting with builds, still. The changeling is the only one I
>>have mapped out to 20th.
>
>
> Hmm. So it's kind of "think of a character I'm designing - which do you like
> best?"

Sort of... More like, "Which of these skeletons can you come up with
cool flesh for?"

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 3:48:40 AM

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

Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
Ron wrote:
>> Hmm. So it's kind of "think of a character I'm designing - which do you like
>> best?"
>
>Sort of... More like, "Which of these skeletons can you come up with
>cool flesh for?"

But if they had cool flesh, they'd be zombies...

Donald
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 2:00:01 AM

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

Werebat wrote:
>
> Which of these PC builds do you think is the most effective or most
> enjoyable to play? I'm still trying to decide which one to take:
>
> 1. Draconic Human Barb5/Sorc1/DragonDisciple10 sundermonkey
>
> 2. Changeling Monk6/WarShaper4/Rogue10
>
> 3. Swiftwing Shifter Rogue3/Ranger2/WereTouchedMaster5
>
> 4. Pelor-Worshipping Human Cleric5/RSoP2/Thaumaturge5
>
> Any comments on any of the builds, suggestions about feat selection, etc.?
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Ron ^*^
>

Does "draconic human" mean "half-dragon"? I thought you couldn't take
Dragon Disciple if you're already a half-dragon.
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 6:02:36 AM

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

Some Guy wrote:

> Werebat wrote:
>
>>
>> Which of these PC builds do you think is the most effective or most
>> enjoyable to play? I'm still trying to decide which one to take:
>>
>> 1. Draconic Human Barb5/Sorc1/DragonDisciple10 sundermonkey
>>
>> 2. Changeling Monk6/WarShaper4/Rogue10
>>
>> 3. Swiftwing Shifter Rogue3/Ranger2/WereTouchedMaster5
>>
>> 4. Pelor-Worshipping Human Cleric5/RSoP2/Thaumaturge5
>>
>> Any comments on any of the builds, suggestions about feat selection,
>> etc.?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> - Ron ^*^
>>
>
> Does "draconic human" mean "half-dragon"? I thought you couldn't take
> Dragon Disciple if you're already a half-dragon.

"Draconic" is a template from Draconomicon that can be added to many
different corporeal creatures, like dinosaurs, humans, and dwarves. It
can't be applied to anything with the dragon type (so no draconic
wyverns or half-dragons), but it doesn't in and of itself grant the
dragon type.

Essentially, Draconic is to Half-Dragon as Tiefling is to Half-Fiend.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 8:20:56 AM

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

Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in
news:fZJPe.7677$hp.2464@lakeread08:

> Donald Tsang wrote:
>> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Which of these PC builds do you think is the most effective or most
>>>enjoyable to play? I'm still trying to decide which one to take:
>>>
>>>1. Draconic Human Barb5/Sorc1/DragonDisciple10 sundermonkey
>>>
>>>2. Changeling Monk6/WarShaper4/Rogue10
>>>
>>>3. Swiftwing Shifter Rogue3/Ranger2/WereTouchedMaster5
>>>
>>>4. Pelor-Worshipping Human Cleric5/RSoP2/Thaumaturge5

What level are you starting play at?

>> Questions:
>>
>> (a) For (1), why not eat the LA for Half-Dragon and choose a *useful*
>> class to advance in? EKn might have too few hit points...
>
> Draconic offers some very useful abilities, and can't stack with
> half-dragon (which might make the 10th level of Dragon Disciple
> interesting). It's also only LA+1, which can be bought off quickly.
>
> Have you read the new 3.5 Dragon Disciple? It's more of a warrior
> class, now. I wouldn't call it useless by any means -- compare to
> barbarian.

I've always been fond of Barbarian/Bard Dragon Disciple builds,
myself. That way, you can get your DD bonus spells added to 2nd level
bard spells without losing any more BAB.

> The Shifter is, of course, a werebat type. Not sure what I'd do with
> him after 10th level -- maybe alternate between rogue and ranger?

Give him four levels of Warshaper at some point. After that, go
into Nightsong Enforcer.

-Ben Adams
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 8:20:57 AM

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

Benjamin Adams wrote:
> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in
> news:fZJPe.7677$hp.2464@lakeread08:
>
>
>>Donald Tsang wrote:
>>
>>>Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Which of these PC builds do you think is the most effective or most
>>>>enjoyable to play? I'm still trying to decide which one to take:
>>>>
>>>>1. Draconic Human Barb5/Sorc1/DragonDisciple10 sundermonkey
>>>>
>>>>2. Changeling Monk6/WarShaper4/Rogue10
>>>>
>>>>3. Swiftwing Shifter Rogue3/Ranger2/WereTouchedMaster5
>>>>
>>>>4. Pelor-Worshipping Human Cleric5/RSoP2/Thaumaturge5
>
>
> What level are you starting play at?

1st.


>>>Questions:
>>>
>>>(a) For (1), why not eat the LA for Half-Dragon and choose a *useful*
>>> class to advance in? EKn might have too few hit points...
>>
>>Draconic offers some very useful abilities, and can't stack with
>>half-dragon (which might make the 10th level of Dragon Disciple
>>interesting). It's also only LA+1, which can be bought off quickly.
>>
>>Have you read the new 3.5 Dragon Disciple? It's more of a warrior
>>class, now. I wouldn't call it useless by any means -- compare to
>>barbarian.
>
>
> I've always been fond of Barbarian/Bard Dragon Disciple builds,
> myself. That way, you can get your DD bonus spells added to 2nd level
> bard spells without losing any more BAB.

I thought the new 3.5 Dragon Disciple HAD to have levels of Sorcerer.


>>The Shifter is, of course, a werebat type. Not sure what I'd do with
>>him after 10th level -- maybe alternate between rogue and ranger?
>
>
> Give him four levels of Warshaper at some point. After that, go
> into Nightsong Enforcer.

Warshaper... I'd thought of that, but really I think it falls more into
the purview of the changeling monk (and changelings can have the
warshaper abilities on at all times, unlike shifters). Nightsong
Enforcer I'll have to take a look at, as I don't know the PrC. Why'd
you recommend it?

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 7:42:12 PM

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

Werebat wrote:
>
>
> Some Guy wrote:
>
>> Werebat wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Which of these PC builds do you think is the most effective or most
>>> enjoyable to play? I'm still trying to decide which one to take:
>>>
>>> 1. Draconic Human Barb5/Sorc1/DragonDisciple10 sundermonkey
>>>
>>> 2. Changeling Monk6/WarShaper4/Rogue10
>>>
>>> 3. Swiftwing Shifter Rogue3/Ranger2/WereTouchedMaster5
>>>
>>> 4. Pelor-Worshipping Human Cleric5/RSoP2/Thaumaturge5
>>>
>>> Any comments on any of the builds, suggestions about feat selection,
>>> etc.?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> - Ron ^*^
>>>
>>
>> Does "draconic human" mean "half-dragon"? I thought you couldn't take
>> Dragon Disciple if you're already a half-dragon.
>
>
> "Draconic" is a template from Draconomicon that can be added to many
> different corporeal creatures, like dinosaurs, humans, and dwarves. It
> can't be applied to anything with the dragon type (so no draconic
> wyverns or half-dragons), but it doesn't in and of itself grant the
> dragon type.

Ah, I see.

> Essentially, Draconic is to Half-Dragon as Tiefling is to Half-Fiend.
>
> - Ron ^*^
>

I'll have to go buy that one, right after "Lords of Madness."
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 11:39:29 PM

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

Some Guy wrote:

> Werebat wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Some Guy wrote:
>>
>>> Werebat wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which of these PC builds do you think is the most effective or most
>>>> enjoyable to play? I'm still trying to decide which one to take:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Draconic Human Barb5/Sorc1/DragonDisciple10 sundermonkey
>>>>
>>>> 2. Changeling Monk6/WarShaper4/Rogue10
>>>>
>>>> 3. Swiftwing Shifter Rogue3/Ranger2/WereTouchedMaster5
>>>>
>>>> 4. Pelor-Worshipping Human Cleric5/RSoP2/Thaumaturge5
>>>>
>>>> Any comments on any of the builds, suggestions about feat selection,
>>>> etc.?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> - Ron ^*^
>>>>
>>>
>>> Does "draconic human" mean "half-dragon"? I thought you couldn't
>>> take Dragon Disciple if you're already a half-dragon.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Draconic" is a template from Draconomicon that can be added to many
>> different corporeal creatures, like dinosaurs, humans, and dwarves.
>> It can't be applied to anything with the dragon type (so no draconic
>> wyverns or half-dragons), but it doesn't in and of itself grant the
>> dragon type.
>
>
> Ah, I see.
>
>> Essentially, Draconic is to Half-Dragon as Tiefling is to Half-Fiend.
>>
>> - Ron ^*^
>>
>
> I'll have to go buy that one, right after "Lords of Madness."

Oh, it's a great book. I was a bit surprised at how much useful stuff
was in it, considering that I don't really use dragons all that much.

Lots of dragonlike monsters, sorcerer stuff, dragon-related spells and
feats... It's worth the money.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 5:15:26 PM

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

Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in news:cqcQe.21188$hp.14935
@lakeread08:

>> I've always been fond of Barbarian/Bard Dragon Disciple builds,
>> myself. That way, you can get your DD bonus spells added to 2nd level
>> bard spells without losing any more BAB.
>
> I thought the new 3.5 Dragon Disciple HAD to have levels of Sorcerer.

Nope. Works with any spontaneous arcane class. You could mix DD
with Warmage too, if you wanted. Or, for some extra giggles, you
could take the Magical Training feat from Player's Guide to Faerun
and mix DD with *cleric*.

>> Give him four levels of Warshaper at some point. After that, go
>> into Nightsong Enforcer.
>
> Warshaper... I'd thought of that, but really I think it falls more
> into the purview of the changeling monk (and changelings can have the
> warshaper abilities on at all times, unlike shifters).

With enough shifter feats, you'll probably be shifting every fight.
And with Reactive Shifting, you can shift as an immediate action.

> Nightsong
> Enforcer I'll have to take a look at, as I don't know the PrC. Why'd
> you recommend it?

Because it's got fighter BAB and sneak attack progression at 1st,
4th, 7th, and 10th.

-Ben Adams
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 5:15:27 PM

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

Benjamin Adams wrote:
> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in news:cqcQe.21188$hp.14935
> @lakeread08:
>
>
>>>I've always been fond of Barbarian/Bard Dragon Disciple builds,
>>>myself. That way, you can get your DD bonus spells added to 2nd level
>>>bard spells without losing any more BAB.
>>
>>I thought the new 3.5 Dragon Disciple HAD to have levels of Sorcerer.
>
>
> Nope. Works with any spontaneous arcane class. You could mix DD
> with Warmage too, if you wanted. Or, for some extra giggles, you
> could take the Magical Training feat from Player's Guide to Faerun
> and mix DD with *cleric*.

Bah. More FRCS goofiness.

DDs are supposed to be SORCERERS, and anything else is a loophole from
some splatbook.


>>>Give him four levels of Warshaper at some point. After that, go
>>>into Nightsong Enforcer.
>>
>>Warshaper... I'd thought of that, but really I think it falls more
>>into the purview of the changeling monk (and changelings can have the
>>warshaper abilities on at all times, unlike shifters).
>
>
> With enough shifter feats, you'll probably be shifting every fight.
> And with Reactive Shifting, you can shift as an immediate action.

What's the big advantage of this, really? Shifting is already a free
action.


>>Nightsong
>>Enforcer I'll have to take a look at, as I don't know the PrC. Why'd
>>you recommend it?
>
>
> Because it's got fighter BAB and sneak attack progression at 1st,
> 4th, 7th, and 10th.

Yeah, I read it... Definitely tasty. Basically assumes you're a
thieves' guild type, though.

Which isn't *necessarily* bad. Stricter training regimen than monks,
though, apparently.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 3:24:11 AM

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

Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in
news:SAEQe.21305$hp.5352@lakeread08:

>>>>I've always been fond of Barbarian/Bard Dragon Disciple builds,
>>>>myself. That way, you can get your DD bonus spells added to 2nd
>>>>level bard spells without losing any more BAB.
>>>
>>>I thought the new 3.5 Dragon Disciple HAD to have levels of Sorcerer.
>>
>> Nope. Works with any spontaneous arcane class. You could mix DD
>> with Warmage too, if you wanted. Or, for some extra giggles, you
>> could take the Magical Training feat from Player's Guide to Faerun
>> and mix DD with *cleric*.
>
> Bah. More FRCS goofiness.

Yeah, but I *like* coming up with goofy builds. One of my secondary
Living Greyhawk characters is a paladin who I'm planning to make into
a DD, after a two-level dip into sorcerer. When he gets into DD, my
plan is to add the bonus spells to his paladin spell slots.

> DDs are supposed to be SORCERERS, and anything else is a loophole from
> some splatbook.

Bard/DD is totally core.

>>>Warshaper... I'd thought of that, but really I think it falls more
>>>into the purview of the changeling monk (and changelings can have the
>>>warshaper abilities on at all times, unlike shifters).
>>
>> With enough shifter feats, you'll probably be shifting every fight.
>> And with Reactive Shifting, you can shift as an immediate action.
>
> What's the big advantage of this, really? Shifting is already a free
> action.

Immediate action means you can shift when it's not your turn. So
if you, as a Weretouched Master/Warshaper, were to get jumped by
a bunch of rogues, you could shift before they attacked you, making
yourself immune to their sneak attacks.

-Ben Adams
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 1:08:12 PM

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

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:03:17 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> > Nope. Works with any spontaneous arcane class. You could mix DD
> > with Warmage too, if you wanted. Or, for some extra giggles, you
> > could take the Magical Training feat from Player's Guide to Faerun
> > and mix DD with *cleric*.
>
> Bah. More FRCS goofiness.
>
> DDs are supposed to be SORCERERS, and anything else is a loophole from
> some splatbook.

Rot. Bards can qualify as readily as sorcerers.

--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 1:08:13 PM

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

Rupert Boleyn wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:03:17 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net>
> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>
>>>Nope. Works with any spontaneous arcane class. You could mix DD
>>>with Warmage too, if you wanted. Or, for some extra giggles, you
>>>could take the Magical Training feat from Player's Guide to Faerun
>>>and mix DD with *cleric*.
>>
>>Bah. More FRCS goofiness.
>>
>>DDs are supposed to be SORCERERS, and anything else is a loophole from
>>some splatbook.
>
>
> Rot. Bards can qualify as readily as sorcerers.

3.0 or 3.5?

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 1:22:36 PM

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

Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in news:soPQe.21357$hp.2874@lakeread08:

>>>DDs are supposed to be SORCERERS, and anything else is a loophole from
>>>some splatbook.
>>
>> Rot. Bards can qualify as readily as sorcerers.
>
> 3.0 or 3.5?

Both. The prereqs only specify spontaneous arcane spellcasting, not
what class that spellcasting has to come from. It's been that way
ever since Tome and Blood, and hasn't changed.

-Ben Adams
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 10:35:12 PM

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

Benjamin Adams wrote:

> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in news:soPQe.21357$hp.2874@lakeread08:
>
>
>>>>DDs are supposed to be SORCERERS, and anything else is a loophole from
>>>>some splatbook.
>>>
>>>Rot. Bards can qualify as readily as sorcerers.
>>
>>3.0 or 3.5?
>
>
> Both. The prereqs only specify spontaneous arcane spellcasting, not
> what class that spellcasting has to come from. It's been that way
> ever since Tome and Blood, and hasn't changed.

Well, I suppose that makes Deekin happy... Thought they'd (sensibly)
dropped the Bard thing from 3.5 though.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 1:45:06 AM

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

"Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
news:syFPe.3751$hp.3592@lakeread08...
>
> Which of these PC builds do you think is the most effective or most
> enjoyable to play? I'm still trying to decide which one to take:
>
> 1. Draconic Human Barb5/Sorc1/DragonDisciple10 sundermonkey
>
> 2. Changeling Monk6/WarShaper4/Rogue10
>
> 3. Swiftwing Shifter Rogue3/Ranger2/WereTouchedMaster5
>
> 4. Pelor-Worshipping Human Cleric5/RSoP2/Thaumaturge5
>
What level is your campaign?

Glenn D.
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 1:46:16 AM

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

"Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
news:syFPe.3751$hp.3592@lakeread08...
>
> Which of these PC builds do you think is the most effective or most
> enjoyable to play?

The one with the biggest tits.

Glenn D.
August 31, 2005 2:54:44 AM

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

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:35:12 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> dared
speak in front of ME:

>Benjamin Adams wrote:
>
>> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in news:soPQe.21357$hp.2874@lakeread08:
>>
>>
>>>>>DDs are supposed to be SORCERERS, and anything else is a loophole from
>>>>>some splatbook.
>>>>
>>>>Rot. Bards can qualify as readily as sorcerers.
>>>
>>>3.0 or 3.5?
>>
>>
>> Both. The prereqs only specify spontaneous arcane spellcasting, not
>> what class that spellcasting has to come from. It's been that way
>> ever since Tome and Blood, and hasn't changed.
>
>Well, I suppose that makes Deekin happy... Thought they'd (sensibly)
>dropped the Bard thing from 3.5 though.

It's not like the Sorceror is locked into the 'dragons blood'
paradigm, or the only class which might posess dragon's blood.

--
The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out
the conservative adopts them.
Samuel Clemens, "Notebook," 1935
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 6:12:23 AM

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

Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in
news:Qa5Re.21456$hp.9879@lakeread08:

>>>>Rot. Bards can qualify as readily as sorcerers.
>>>
>>>3.0 or 3.5?
>>
>> Both. The prereqs only specify spontaneous arcane spellcasting, not
>> what class that spellcasting has to come from. It's been that way
>> ever since Tome and Blood, and hasn't changed.
>
> Well, I suppose that makes Deekin happy... Thought they'd (sensibly)
> dropped the Bard thing from 3.5 though.

Having a specific class listed in the prereqs would conflict with
WOTC's PrC design principles. And besides, a draconic warrior
skald (Bbn/Bard/DD) is kinda cool.

-Ben Adams
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 6:12:24 AM

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

Benjamin Adams wrote:

> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in
> news:Qa5Re.21456$hp.9879@lakeread08:
>
>
>>>>>Rot. Bards can qualify as readily as sorcerers.
>>>>
>>>>3.0 or 3.5?
>>>
>>>Both. The prereqs only specify spontaneous arcane spellcasting, not
>>>what class that spellcasting has to come from. It's been that way
>>>ever since Tome and Blood, and hasn't changed.
>>
>>Well, I suppose that makes Deekin happy... Thought they'd (sensibly)
>>dropped the Bard thing from 3.5 though.
>
>
> Having a specific class listed in the prereqs would conflict with
> WOTC's PrC design principles. And besides, a draconic warrior
> skald (Bbn/Bard/DD) is kinda cool.

Eh. Even the clerical DD doesn't bother me as much, if'n it's taken
with the right species (IIRC gold, and maybe silver dragons can cast
clerical spells too).

Bardic? Which dragons cast bardic spells, again?

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 8:26:52 AM

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

Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in news:7D8Re.21504$hp.17143@lakeread08:

>> Having a specific class listed in the prereqs would conflict with
>> WOTC's PrC design principles. And besides, a draconic warrior
>> skald (Bbn/Bard/DD) is kinda cool.
>
> Eh. Even the clerical DD doesn't bother me as much, if'n it's taken
> with the right species (IIRC gold, and maybe silver dragons can cast
> clerical spells too).
>
> Bardic? Which dragons cast bardic spells, again?

I don't recall any dragons who have specifically bardic spellcasting,
but there is quite a bit of overlap between the sorcerer and bard
spell lists.

If you want to restrict DDs to those with sorcerer levels, you can
do that for your game, but that's not the way the rules were
written.

Personally, I think DDs should have gotten partial spellcasting
progression instead of bonus spell slots.

-Ben Adams
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 5:42:58 PM

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

Kaos wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:35:12 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> dared
> speak in front of ME:
>
>
>>Benjamin Adams wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in news:soPQe.21357$hp.2874@lakeread08:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>DDs are supposed to be SORCERERS, and anything else is a loophole from
>>>>>>some splatbook.
>>>>>
>>>>>Rot. Bards can qualify as readily as sorcerers.
>>>>
>>>>3.0 or 3.5?
>>>
>>>
>>>Both. The prereqs only specify spontaneous arcane spellcasting, not
>>>what class that spellcasting has to come from. It's been that way
>>>ever since Tome and Blood, and hasn't changed.
>>
>>Well, I suppose that makes Deekin happy... Thought they'd (sensibly)
>>dropped the Bard thing from 3.5 though.
>
>
> It's not like the Sorceror is locked into the 'dragons blood'
> paradigm, or the only class which might posess dragon's blood.

No, but if you're going to take that tack, then why stop at bards? Why
have non-prepared arcane spellcasting be a requirement for DD at all?

Seems to me the requirement was clearly there to make a distinction
between wizard and sorcerer, and there is a reason for that.

Finagling a way to get cleric spells as non-prepped arcane spells is one
thing (it's a trick some dragons can do themselves), but bard spells...
Again, which dragons use Bard spells?

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 5:45:04 PM

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

Benjamin Adams wrote:

> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in news:7D8Re.21504$hp.17143@lakeread08:
>
>
>>>Having a specific class listed in the prereqs would conflict with
>>>WOTC's PrC design principles. And besides, a draconic warrior
>>>skald (Bbn/Bard/DD) is kinda cool.
>>
>>Eh. Even the clerical DD doesn't bother me as much, if'n it's taken
>>with the right species (IIRC gold, and maybe silver dragons can cast
>>clerical spells too).
>>
>>Bardic? Which dragons cast bardic spells, again?
>
>
> I don't recall any dragons who have specifically bardic spellcasting,
> but there is quite a bit of overlap between the sorcerer and bard
> spell lists.

There's some overlap between sorcerer and assassin spells as well. See
where I'm going here?


> If you want to restrict DDs to those with sorcerer levels, you can
> do that for your game, but that's not the way the rules were
> written.

I most certainly will.


> Personally, I think DDs should have gotten partial spellcasting
> progression instead of bonus spell slots.

Well, they really bulked up their combat ability, compared to 3.0. I
think something had to give.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 5:45:44 PM

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

Glenn Dowdy wrote:

> "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:syFPe.3751$hp.3592@lakeread08...
>
>>Which of these PC builds do you think is the most effective or most
>>enjoyable to play?
>
>
> The one with the biggest tits.

That would obviously be the changeling...

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 5:46:28 PM

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

Glenn Dowdy wrote:

> "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:syFPe.3751$hp.3592@lakeread08...
>
>>Which of these PC builds do you think is the most effective or most
>>enjoyable to play? I'm still trying to decide which one to take:
>>
>>1. Draconic Human Barb5/Sorc1/DragonDisciple10 sundermonkey
>>
>>2. Changeling Monk6/WarShaper4/Rogue10
>>
>>3. Swiftwing Shifter Rogue3/Ranger2/WereTouchedMaster5
>>
>>4. Pelor-Worshipping Human Cleric5/RSoP2/Thaumaturge5
>>
>
> What level is your campaign?

Starting at 1st level, apparently in the frozen northland of Eberron.

- Ron ^*^
September 1, 2005 2:47:39 AM

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

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:42:58 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> dared
speak in front of ME:

>Kaos wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:35:12 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> dared
>> speak in front of ME:
>>
>>>Benjamin Adams wrote:
>>>
>>>>Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in news:soPQe.21357$hp.2874@lakeread08:
>>>>
>>>>>>>DDs are supposed to be SORCERERS, and anything else is a loophole from
>>>>>>>some splatbook.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Rot. Bards can qualify as readily as sorcerers.
>>>>>
>>>>>3.0 or 3.5?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Both. The prereqs only specify spontaneous arcane spellcasting, not
>>>>what class that spellcasting has to come from. It's been that way
>>>>ever since Tome and Blood, and hasn't changed.
>>>
>>>Well, I suppose that makes Deekin happy... Thought they'd (sensibly)
>>>dropped the Bard thing from 3.5 though.
>>
>>
>> It's not like the Sorceror is locked into the 'dragons blood'
>> paradigm, or the only class which might posess dragon's blood.
>
>No, but if you're going to take that tack, then why stop at bards? Why
>have non-prepared arcane spellcasting be a requirement for DD at all?

Presumption. The DD needs to have 'fired his blood' in some way, and
'spontaneous' arcane spellcasting is the specific indicator used for
that.

>Seems to me the requirement was clearly there to make a distinction
>between wizard and sorcerer, and there is a reason for that.
>
>Finagling a way to get cleric spells as non-prepped arcane spells is one
>thing (it's a trick some dragons can do themselves), but bard spells...
> Again, which dragons use Bard spells?

You're focusing on the wrong details.
--
The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out
the conservative adopts them.
Samuel Clemens, "Notebook," 1935
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 1:09:57 PM

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

Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in
news:C0mRe.21530$hp.11547@lakeread08:

>> I don't recall any dragons who have specifically bardic spellcasting,
>> but there is quite a bit of overlap between the sorcerer and bard
>> spell lists.
>
> There's some overlap between sorcerer and assassin spells as well.
> See where I'm going here?

Heh, I think a draconic assassin would be kinda nifty.

>> Personally, I think DDs should have gotten partial spellcasting
>> progression instead of bonus spell slots.
>
> Well, they really bulked up their combat ability, compared to 3.0. I
> think something had to give.

They gave them more hp, and added blindsense, but they dropped
the size boost. Not much of a combat ability bulk-up, all in all.
The class is still underpowered.

The big problem with the DD, though, is that the bonus spell slot
mechanic is clunky. Adding a few spellcaster levels (at class
levels 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9, so as to alternate with the stat
boosts) is cleaner and more elegant. I wouldn't even mind
knocking down the HD a step or two, or adding a lame feat
like Toughness as a prereq, if you're worried about balance.

-Ben Adams
!