Carnivorous_Bean's page

Moro wrote:

And apparently only munchkins play at levels 12 and above, right? Try out your 6/6 Fighter/Wizard in a few CR 12 appropriate encounters, and let me know when you're fed up with feeling like a bump on a log.

Just because some people would like a valid* way to play a classic character archetype that has permeated this game from the beginning doesn't make them a munchkin.

*valid in this sentence means "mechanically able to effectively contribute to the party in a combat situation"

I've never noted a major problem with a multiclassed fighter/wizard at level 12, or level 18 for that matter.

Sure, my munchkin comment was off the cuff, and possibly inappropriate, but the sudden bumrush of "gish" threads on the boards seems peculiar to me.

If your need is so great, why not create your own? Seems to be the easiest way to go about it.

Well, the Ewoks have magic swinging logs on ropes that are able to destroy a high-tech walker like it's made out of wet cardboard. That's pretty tough to beat, ya know .... ;)

Orthos wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

The vaccine for stupid isn't measured in c.c.s or doses. It's measured in caliber.

Sadly that vaccine is outlawed for that use in 49 states. Nobody ever keeps track of what goes on in Arkansas anyhow.

That's because Arkansas isn't a state, it's a lack of options.

My RL name is slightly odd -- and I've never seen another guy with it, honestly.

It's nice to be the only one with the name (especially since my last name is pretty bland, if I had been named John, I might as well be named John Doe, my name would be anonymous).

On the other hand, it has occasionally annoying spelling it out for everyone. Heck, when I met Natasha, it took her about a week to remember how to spell it, and she was interested in me already at that point. When dealing with strangers -- especially when traveling -- it's sometimes been more of a burden than a name.

So, my own suggestion is, try to avoid names with M and N in it. I have an N in my name, and there have been some people who simply CANNOT grasp that it is an N and not an M. Those letters are apparently indistinguishable to both the ear and the human mind.

So, my vote would be for Ophelia.

Loopy wrote:

An Arcane Warrior ought not be as good at traditional martial combat as the Fighter.

An Arcane Warrior ought not be as good at traditional spellcasting as a Wizard or Sorcerer.

What an Arcane Warrior ought to be better at than both of those classes is combining the two.

This is what I would do:

1) d10 hit die
2) medium armor and shield proficiency
3) armored casting up to medium and shields - like the bard so the character wouldn't benefit from the feat, thus all but destroying chances of an easy heavy armor casting
4) full base attack bonus
5) Paladin-like progression in arcane spells
7) Choose a school of magic to be able to access at 1st lvl and every 3 levels
6) NO bonus combat feats
7) Special abilities entirely focused on combining combat with magic, each school grants specific abilities. For example, energy damage with your weapon for evocation or beguiling strike for enchantment. These abilities need to be the meat and potatoes of the class and should be as good as Smite and a fighter's bonus feats.
8) Access to a few higher arcana spells over time - not a lot but I think it's important that the class have SOME access to higher-level spells.

I like calling it an Arcane Warrior, certainly beats the silly name being used by others to discribe a fighter/magic-user.

But I wouldn't build it quiet like that.

1) d8 hit die
2) Heavy armor is fine, with some feats built for the class, one for light is free, one for medium they need to buy if they want it and one more for heavy. So if you want to cast in heavy pay a two feat tax.
3) 3/4 Base Attack Bonus, same as rogue or cleric your not a full fledged all you do is melee guy
4) More spell access, closer to bard level but much more limited spell selection and I wouldn't use spontanious casting, take 3 schools from the wizard list and that is about it.
5) Some few bonus combat feats
6) I'm game for some special abilities at combining casting and fighting, casting touch spells through your...

1) Yes, d8 hit die sounds reasonable to me. I see the arcane warrior as more of a killer than a tank, personally -- someone who can fight, but isn't necessarily going to be the one to block the doorway unless the heavier fighters are already taken out. Tough enough to handle combat, but not a front-line smash-in-the-enemy-line type of guy.

2) As long as the appropriate shields go along with the armor, then this seems good to me, to. In other words, I don't want to see the light armor wearer using a tower shield ;) -- that should be for the heavy armor wearer.

3) 3/4 BAB sounds fine also. Clerics and rogues are plenty dangerous with that

4) Again, solid stuff. No healing for the arcane warrior -- healing is divine, not arcane. I wouldn't mind a few weird arcane-warrior spells thrown in (see also #6).

5) Yes, a few might prompt some more diversity in the class (rather than, say, all of them defaulting to sword and board for more AC, even though I'd probably play a sword and board myself ;).)

6) A few special abilities would really help to make the class stand out as distinct from the others. As a random idea off the top of my head -- how about if you confirm a critical with a weapon attack, you can choose to cast a spell in the same round as your attack, rather than getting the extra damage?

And a point of my own --

Since some people want the class to be more "arcane with a few combat tricks" and some want it to be more "fighter with a spell or two," couldn't there be two or three variants, like the ranger's twf/archery stuff, the cavalier's different orders, etc.? Might make the class a little more appealing if people could slant the abilities more heavily one way or another depending on their concept.

**Bounces into the thread, seeking what he may bite, and then bounces out again**

Okay, for one thing, can the people who are attacking the name "gish" and also putting in asides that make it sound like everyone who tries to play one is a powergaming munchkin please cut it out? This is supposed to be a civilized discussion, not a place for you to troll and try to start flame wars over small issues of semantics or the fact that you don't like the class and feel the need to personally attack people who want one.

Yes, "gish" as a name is kind of meh. However, it is the only recognizable name that applies to the class concept at the moment, so we're stuck with it. It's not the end of the world. It's a minor detail, and the class will NOT be named "gish" any more than duskblade was named gish. We are using "gish" as a shorthand for a concept because we have nothing better to use and it's not worth the debate to make up another equally arbitrary shorthand name which will not be the actual name used either.

So if you have nothing constructive to contribute, please leave. We understand you like neither the name nor the concept. That is fine, but you don't need to keep clogging up a valid discussion thread with sneering or ranting about it. Thank you.
__________________________________________________________________
Secondly: to those who say you can make a gish with some combination of classes and prestige classes, I say -- yes, thank you, we know that. Believe it or not, we've actually read the rules also, and have heard the term "multiclassing" before. However, all of these are fairly low on distinctive flavor, and you need to be high level before they really start to feel like what they're supposed to be.

Perhaps someone wants to play a gish type from the low levels? And also knows that a LOT of campaigns give out at levels 10-12, or at least before 20, and therefore will probably never really be able to play these multiclassed thingamabobs at anything like their character concept?
_______________________________________________________________
Thirdly, can the class be summed up as a distinctive concept in one sentence? Yes.

"A warrior who can cast arcane spells."
____________________________________________________________________
Fourthly, what are the possible variants? My answer to this seems to be pretty much the following:

1. A warrior who casts arcane battle spells pretty much exclusively, and gives up a measure of combat effectiveness in return. See also: duskblade.

2. A warrior who casts arcane battle and utility spells, and should give up some measure of combat effectiveness also.

3. A warrior who fights almost totally non-magically, but can also cast arcane utility spells.

That's my analysis at this point. Hope it helps clarify things a bit.

So one the players in my biweekly game had told us that his mother was very ill, but this morning when I was at the church where I sing, they were talking about a parishioner who was extremely ill, and I eventually realized that they were the same person (small world). It turns out that she has pneumonia as a complication of swine flu, and right now the prognosis is very bleak.

Please keep Phil's mom in your thoughts and prayers.

Okay, to get this a bit back on track, how does the Duskblade shape up, in your opinion? I've always been rather fond of the gish concept myself, and the duskblade looks fairly sound on paper, but unfortunately, I've never had the chance to actually play one.

Sorry to hear about the brake trouble there -- it reminds me a bit of the time when the manual transmission dropped through the floor of my old Hyundai and was skittering along the road -- I had to hold it up by the gearshift the entire way home, and it was about a 50 mile drive to get ANYWHERE. Hope that you can get it fixed up soon, and that it doesn't wring your wallet too badly!

Sorry to hear about the intestinal bug, taig -- sounds like no fun at all -- be sure to keep hydrated!

Hope you and Solnes are having a good, lustful, relaxing weekend, Moorluck! Mairkurion, my fellow vegetable, I hope that today's as good for you as yesterday was. And may the rest of you also have a good Sunday!

I'm off for the nonce -- again, you might not see me until tomorrow =) .... don't let Spanky camp ya too badly! ;)

By the way, if a Leprechaun camps in a thread, and nobody else is online, does it make it sound?

Yeah, I know, that was bad .... I'm going, I'm going .... ;)

On that note (see Heathansson above), I'm going to put in my one appearance for the day -- got some fun stuff planned offline :) -- to say good morning to everyone, and hope that you all have a pleasant weekend! See ya tomorrow or Monday, guys! :)

**Pronounces a beanish benediction over the thread**

Worked like a charm -- many thanks, Ambrosia Slaad! :)

They could be met via feat chains, but 3.5 has never actually done that. Sure there are alternate class features, but not everything should be achieved that way.

I personally dont like the idea of feat chains that can be character classes, you end up with a giant mess of options and no clear direction with a character. The obvious example is Wizards' Star Wars Saga editions. The didnt add base classes, they kept the ones they had originally, and added new "Talent Trees". And 20 books later you have a whole giant mess of character options but no direction on what to do with your character.

So, is it is easier prepare this group as --

Level 11 Cavalier
Level 10 Cavalier
Level 7 Cavalier/Level 3 Rogue
Level 10 Druid
Level 9 Druid
Level 6 Ranger/Level 4 Rogue

-- or try to build those six characters from scratch using nothing but a huge list of feats and abilities?

The first way, you could probably do it. The second way, I wouldn't even try.

I, personally, would also prefer a number of skillfully-written base classes to be added than prestige classes.

As a DM, I absolutely loathe the fact that prestige classes are only used at the level when play starts to get a little iffy anyway.

And my common sense revolts, for example, at every single knight in a kingdom needing to be level 10-12+ in order to actually function mechanically anything like a knight -- because there's no way you can make a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or probably even 4th level fighter look much like a knight, mechanically.

I would love to have 1st level cavaliers in my game who are readily identifiable as being cavaliers, rather than being "generic fighters who will eventually become cavaliers if they get into the top 0.00003% of warriors on the planet."

Also, I prefer it as an occasional player because I may be able to get my concept from the get-go, rather than waiting until the campaign is almost over before my character even begins to vaguely resemble what I had in mind at the start.

So I say, bring on the base classes -- hold the prestige classes, please.

Celestial Healer wrote:

Good morning, all. What did I miss?

Joanna and Dean decided to give in to their feelings for each other, but were stopped when Joanna was mauled by a pack of rabid chihuahuas. Robert was struggling with his failing health, not realizing that his condition was actually caused by a virus created by the evil Dr. Dolots, Dolittles evil twin. Meanwhile, Sam and Ellen realized that penguins....No, wait! That's my soap opera.

Good morning, folks! How are things looking for ya today? :)

Personally, I prefer to have a few more classes than "feat chains" around. There's a specific reason for this -- that a feat chain generally only starts to come into its own at higher levels. Same thing with prestige classes.

So, a class like the cavalier allows me, as a frequent DM, to have low-level knights in my game. A 2nd-level fighter just doesn't have enough feats to 'build' them into a convincing knight. But a 2nd-level cavalier is going to be fairly identifiable as a knight already.

Assuming that a typical feudal host has probably 400 or 500 knights in it, as opposed to several thousand foot soldiers, I'd rather assume, for the sake of argument, that most of them are under 4th or 5th level, rather than all of them being level 10+ just so they get enough feats to function as what they're supposed to be.

This, in turn, means that I have a way to have the PCs in an adventure run into a group of three 3rd-level evil cavaliers, say, who will have mounts, "cavalier's charge," and so forth, making them low-level knights, rather than regular mooks who have a knightly paint job on them but have nothing mechanically to suggest that they're anything special.

Same thing with barbarians. Sure, you can turn the barbarian into a chain of rage feats -- but then you can't have any gnashing, screaming berserkers who are less than 8th or 10th level, or whatever. Maybe I'd like to have some level 1 and 2 orc barbarians around -- that's pretty dang hard to do with feat chains, considering that they don't have enough feats yet to even come close to approximating a 'dedicated' barbarian class.

And from the perspective of PCs -- if you rip out all the special class abilities and turn them into feat chains, the PCs are going to look pretty similar to each other in the same way, until they reach a high enough level to get into their feat chains enough to differentiate them from each other.

I say, bring on a few more classes, and keep some lower-level diversity in the game.

If you open IrfanView's Properties/Settings (under Options on the menu bar), look under the Extensions tab. Click the [Images only] button and then the OK button to apply the changes.

Not sure this will fix it though.

And sorry for putting it in the wrong section of the boards ... =(

Positive thoughts for the outcome of both your interviews, guys! Good luck!!!!

Well, I've got another oddity to deal with -- this one on someone else's computer, so I can't give you the full details, much as I'd like to.

The problem is that when they view their folders, the computer won't show them thumbnails of their files even when the folder is in "Thumbnail View." It's making it almost impossible for them to find the photographs they need out of the hundreds they have stored -- there is just a generic icon appearing for every file, showing a palm tree, of all things.

They can only tell what a file is by opening it -- since a file name like "Photo 567" doesn't tell them what the picture is of. And with a lot of files, that's a LOT of opening to find one specific file.

The other odd thing is that they have IrfanView on their computer, and have had it with no problems for over a year. Now, every file is being listed as "Irfanview JPG file" or "Irfanview GIF file" or whatever, when they mouse over it, even when they're not using IrfanView in any way, shape or form.

They've posted it on some tech sites, but they also asked me for help, and since, as I pointed out, I'm pretty ignorant of how computers actually work, here's another Bean cry for help! =) Thanks in advance for anyone who has any hint of what to do!

Mmmmm .... cheddar cheese sandwich with onions, olives, and lettuce ....

Carnivorous_Bean wrote:

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:

What are we going to not talk about next, CB, sex? ;)

Seriously, I understand your reticence, but I think this thread is safe. And it warmed my little anglophilic heart to see you quote from the King James.

Heh .... good luck NOT talking about sex with Moorluck around! ;) Or Solnes, for that matter .... We need a thread mascot, Lusty the Leprechaun, methinks ....

Ahem. I do double duty.

It's a good thing I'm fairly bad at innuendo and double entendre, other then accidentally =) ....

What are we going to not talk about next, CB, sex? ;)

Seriously, I understand your reticence, but I think this thread is safe. And it warmed my little anglophilic heart to see you quote from the King James.

Yeah, the idea that we would start a flame war over this is just plain ridiculous.

Carnivorous_Bean wrote:

Here's the thing to do now: Grab the book nearest you. Right now.
• Turn to page 56.
• Find the fifth sentence.
• Post that sentence as a message here.
• Don't dig for your favorite book, the coolest, the most intellectual. Use the CLOSEST book.......

I thought about it, but the closest book to hand is something that carries at least a slight risk of a debate I don't want to bring into this thread. Can I use the second closest book instead? =)

C'mon! Do it! What's the worst that could happen?

dons asbestos underoos

And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD, which he will show to you today: for the Egyptians whom ye have seen today, ye shall see them again no more for ever.

I don't have a donor, I have two- my mother and my father. So I'm not a clone and don't need to be worried.

Here's the thing to do now: Grab the book nearest you. Right now.
• Turn to page 56.
• Find the fifth sentence.
• Post that sentence as a message here.
• Don't dig for your favorite book, the coolest, the most intellectual. Use the CLOSEST book.......

I thought about it, but the closest book to hand is something that carries at least a slight risk of a debate I don't want to bring into this thread. Can I use the second closest book instead? =)

Carnivorous_Bean wrote:

Drachesturm wrote:

Okay Mairkurian, David, Solnes ** spoiler omitted **

It's not going to be much of a secret soon. =)

Well, you still don't know. :) Of course I don't think we are FB friends either.

Okay Mairkurian, David, Solnes ** spoiler omitted **

Sharoth or Moorluck, I'd guess ....

Morning, all!

From the smell of this thread, I just missed a zombie by about 15 minutes .... ;)

Carnivorous_Bean wrote:

Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitey niiiiiiiiiiiite.....
heheheheheheheeeeheeeeeeeeheeeeee!!!

I've heard it said that the giggle of certain leprechauns can make even an otyugh throw up .... ;)

fine otyugh milf in a bikini

Well, who besides some of Moorluck's alter egos, anyway .... ;)

Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitey niiiiiiiiiiiite.....
heheheheheheheeeeheeeeeeeeheeeeee!!!

Patrick Curtin wrote:

And he could have a shark in his moat he occasionally jumps with his horse named Harley ..

Ok, why not? And then he can go to a Wizard School, named Pigblister, with his friends Don and Herhiney. Maybe then he will meet a guy loving vamp covered in glitter who goes by Fredward, then he'll fall thru a dinner glass to Wonderful Land, where he meets the Amazing SpiderHam, AKA Peter Porker! :D

Herhiney? o.O

God .... work has given me a pounding headache today .... I feel like Spanky the Leprechaun is up there on top of my head, driving in wedges .... =P Little blue knave ....

I originally agreed with this argument. However, at this point, I don't think they're going to change it, and everyone will still think of it as the Oracle even if they did. So I'm afraid that this is probably destined to be one of those circular arguments, guys -- my oracular powers are telling me that it's the oracle, and it's going to stay the oracle ;).

Interesting fact:

If you polymorph an electric eel into an electric eel, it gains the ability to breathe water.

Although I can see some merit in both points of view, the arguments are starting to remind me alarmingly of the circular discussions in my university economics courses. *Shudder*

At this point, if it came up in one of my games, I'd put it to a vote among the players, with 3 options -- everybody gets the same starting wealth, the crafter gets a couple of good items, or everyone gets a small item and the crafter gets a slightly better one. In the latter case, though, I'd also warn them that I'd ramp up the challenges a bit if they seemed powerful for their level -- although I'd play that by ear, pretty much, and wouldn't do it automatically just because they got a couple of extra items.

In short, my solution would be -- when in doubt, let the people decide.

(All I can think about this thread is, though, "round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows.")

Good morning, folks! :)

I back to work, so you'll probably see me posting several times on the boards here today. ;) I had a good weekend .... hope everyone else found at least some time for enjoyment, too!

Morning all. :)
Thank you CB!

Good morning, everybody! :)

Congratulations, Solnes! :)

I love the way the boards get so quiet once it's the weekend and everyone's off work .... ;)

Well I've got a chest cold so I had to cancel Pathfinder today. And my three year old came to the bed AGAIN and I didn't get much sleep. But I have the Bestiary!

Ok well I'm logging off fo rthe night. You folks try not to miss me.
** spoiler omitted **

Isn't it almost time for our "Day of the Triffids" reenactment?

**Cracks his leafy knuckles in anticipation**

Discounts don't change value.

In short, the gold piece limit doesn't represent "money spent" -- it represents "this is the maximum amount of equipment you're supposed to have."

A 1,000 GP ensorcelled shield (completely hypothetical, for the sake of a round number) is worth 1,000 GP to you regardless of whether you bought it, made it for 500 GP, or picked up for free off the corpse of a slain tyrant. Heck, your character may have paid 3,000 GP for it pre-game. It's the fact that it represents a SPECIFIC FRACTION of your total gear.

In other words, if you're supposed to have 5,000 GP worth of gear at that level, a 1,000 GP shield is 20% of what you're supposed to have. It doesn't matter what you actually paid for it in terms of coinage -- it is still 20% of your total gear for that level.

In short, "GP" is the same as "points" in this case -- it's like buying a 3,000 point army in a wargame, or whatever. It's NOT a real gold value. It's an abstract, shorthand way of making roughly balanced characters at a certain level.

Thank you for clarifying that. I have to agree that RAW and RAI support this view, now that I understand it.

Dominate Person? As far as i remember that spell cant command anyone to do anything obviously self destructive.

Now, here's the argument. One of the main reasons labor has value is opportunity cost. While you're making a suit of armor, you aren't doing anything else. Skilled labor has additional value because the time spent learning the skill also has opportunity cost. What else could you have been doing at the time? Oh, let's say: storming dungeons and stealing treasure, which is a safe assumption for what the non-crafters were doing during that same time period.

So a perfectly realistic situation would be for the crafter to start with the same gold, but less experience than the rest of the party. You OK with that?

Does the exchange of combat feats for crafting feats represent opportunity cost? In short, is the lack of other feats a representation of having less experience?

If that isn't the case, the second question is -- is there any point in the crafting feats at all? Are they either going to give an unfair advantage if they're used, or else just end up being a punishment if you can only use them at the cost of falling behind the rest of the group and dying to challenges they can handle?

What are your thoughts on this angle?

GRRRR!

It would have probably been a magical beast or an aberration. But only for a few moments before it ended up on the cutting room floor, along with the duckbear, the quackapus, the dire mallard, and the duck of ill omen.

Viletta Vadim wrote:

smurfyness

If you don't get it after I explained it this much, you are never going to. It's like tutoring logic functions all over again. I quite clearly stated my reasons for opposing pre-game crafting. I even checked to make sure someone with no knowledhe of the context could understand.

You do not agree that wealth = assets. That's fine, but you are simply wrong.

I'm not sure where I stand on this, partly because I haven't thought it through completely, but the valuation of assets would appear to be a mix of labor and capital costs in D&D, which would strongly imply that spending a feat for the ability to craft would be an expenditure of one asset (feat) to change the labor input value of another asset (gear).

In short, by cost/benefit analysis, is a character with less combat feats but better gear significantly superior to one with more combat feats and lesser gear? Does the BENEFIT of better gear EXCEED the COST of lost feats? If so, then I would say that you have an excellent point -- and you may. However, just to add another thought to the mix --

Gear increases effectiveness, and feats also increase effectiveness, so it seems to be exchanging one source of value for another,with the difference being the timescale in which the effectiveness occurs. The gear will enhance your effectiveness initially by quite a bit, but will only be of value in the short term. The feat provides less initial benefit but continues to benefit you over the longer term.

With that said, I'd probably disallow it, not because I necessarily think it's some hideous cheat, but because I wouldn't want to develop a headache over having a conversation like this at the game table. =)

The roller coaster continues for Tracy and her family -

Update from Mom "Tracy had a rough day today. Steroids saved her life, but they come with a cost. We are very tired. She is weak and discouraged. Thankfully, there is an end in sight. Her #'s keep improving. She has to push herself so hard, though, to do such basic things. We really need to focus on the physical therapy and get her up and moving a bit. If you could keep those prayers coming a bit longer! God bless!"

Thank you all for keeping her in your thoughts and prayers.