Dragonchess Player's page

I don't mean this to pick on anyone, but it always gets me when I read something along the lines of:

"The rules are really broken because you can get 12 attacks per round at +350, and all you have to do is take substitution levels in halfling, elf, and dwarven racial class books, which you can do if you play a Mongrelman and take the (You count as any race) feat from Complete Everything, and take Ftr3/Mnk2/Rng2/Rog2/Hexblade1/Samurai3/Knight2/Duskblade2. I can't beleive WOTC didn't catch that you can make a character like this in playtesting, but in the meantime, I won't point out to my DM that I'm going to make this completely outlandish character, and there is no way in hell I could come up with a good reason IN A ROLEPLAYING GAME that this character should exist."

I didn't say the Elf Scout/Dervish/Tempest was broken, just scary and sick. 30th level characters *should* be scary and sick.

I think it all boils down to preferences, rather than game mechanics. It is perfectly vialble to have a PC fighter decked in full plate who can mow down the opposition and have a decent AC. And I don't think someone in light armour would be especially better off. I have tried it and it comes out in the wash.

The game is all about preferences, anyway. That said, it's more likely that a character using a more powerful generation method is more likely to use light/medium armor instead of heavy. However, that's because the more powerful generation method is more likely to allow the character to have three good scores, instead of one or two.

Of course, I do have to say that the scariest combat character I've created (a 30th level character for The Quicksilver Hourglass) was lightly armored: an Elf Scout 15/Dervish* 10/Tempest 5 (*-I made one change, Slashing Blades worked with longswords instead of scimitars, turning the class into an "Elf Bladedancer"). With the Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting epic feat and two +6 Defending Speed Longswords, he was just sick (Skirmish bonuses when Dervish Dancing, plus Amibidexterity with Slashing Blades: FIVE attacks with EACH hand at no penalty, doing 1d8+4d6+5 damage before Str and magic; EIGHTEEN attacks for one round per day with A Thousand Cuts).

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

Vendle wrote:

The defending enhancement on armor spikes is the quintessential "cheese". It is a loophole that looks quite attractive for players who want maximum plusses to their AC. I myself would never allow it.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Costs the same as any defending weapon, so why is it unbalanced?

Quick question... are the Armor spikes treated as a separate entity than the armor itself for purposes of enhancing?

Yes. The armor and armor spikes are treated as separate items for enhancing.

A CR 2 Animal Companion at 1st level is a bit too much.

Even the druid (who should be the baseline), can only have a CR 1 companion at 1st level (that's heavy horse, NOT heavy warhorse). By the time the character reaches 2nd level, they'll be able to afford a standard CR 2 mount, so that should be the absolute earliest the ability should appear (which is still better than the druid, who gets improved HD, etc. for a companion at 3rd and can trade up at 4th). An early appearance in exchange for slower improvements (2nd-5th, 6th-9th, 10th-13th, 14th-17th, 18th-20th) could work. Give up Fast Movement for Animal Affinity at 1st and Uncanny Dodge/Improved Uncanny Dodge for Clawfoot Companion at 2nd (with slowed progression).

That should be roughly balanced.

My three big rules for character creation are:

1) No evil
2) No chaotic neutral
3) all characters must be group-oriented, no lone wolves

Many groups would find this restrictive, boring, heavy-handed, and unneccisary. But I stick with it and over the years, I think I've had some good results.

I'm willing to let 1) and 2) slide a bit if the group/players are up to it. There's evil and EVIL, just like there's chaotic and CHAOTIC. Sometimes it's fun to play in an Elric-style campaign (or Shadowrun-style) and snake-pit intrigue scenarios. 3) is the big one though.

I've got a halfling barbarian/fighter in my Eberron game who rides a clawfoot dinosaur.

I'm thinking of tinkering around a bit with the barbarian class, retroactively tweaking it to let his mount be his animal companion. Later, he would likely take levels in the Wild Plans Outrider PrC, from Complete Adventurer.

What would be a good thing to remove from the barbarian's ability list to allow an animal companion, (specifically a CR2 animal companion?)

The simplest thing I can think of is removing the barbarian's Fast Movement ability from level 1, and scaling back the Clawfoot to CR 1, Savage Species-style, then letting the clawfoot advance as a normal animal companion.

A couple of class-altering guides I have read have equated a One Time Ability like Fast Movement with having an animal companion...It seems a little unbalanced to me.

I'd prefer to leave the clawfoot with its base CR2 stats, though.

Remove Fast Movement, Uncanny Dodge, and Improved Uncanny Dodge; replace with Animal Affinity, Mounted Combat, and Special Mount (as a Paladin, substituting the clawfoot for a warhorse). This would probably suit the flavor of the concept better than using Animal Companion rules. Enter the Halfling Clawfoot Totem Barbarians (ref. Unearthed Arcana), terror of the Talenta Plains...

Does anyone play core classes anymore? Are the expanded classes balanced? Are Elven wizards so hum-drum that we need half giant psionic ninjas? Does the AoW AP favor some expanded races/classes?

Short answers: Yes. Mostly. Maybe. Not really.

Long answers: Core classes are just that, while the expanded classes are variations that quantify alternate concepts and hybrids (much like the bard, ranger, and paladin classes are hybrids). The expanded classes are about as balanced as the PHB classes; some are more specialized versions of core classes, others mix the abilities of core classes, some are variations that use a different starting point for a class concept (for example, sorcerers and warlocks); the power creep from the expansion books is more from the feats, prestige classes, and spells than the alternate starting classes. Many people enjoy variety and the expanded classes give players and DMs quite a lot of it; pick and choose which class(es) suit the character(s) or setting (for instance, removing the sorcerer and replacing it with the warlock in a campaign can add a theme of purity and corruption to arcane magic and a ready-made a wizards vs. warlocks plot hook). Certain expanded races/classes may find particular encounters in the AoW easier, but that's true of the core races/classes as well (i.e., clerics of Pelor with high Cha vs. undead); different classes shine in different situations; the APs are designed around a "typical" party of core classes, but the biggest factor is the players; even that half-giant psionic ninja can be killed by bad luck or poor decisions...

It goes to show that many of the core classes, if played properly, can be better than weird stuff.

The expansion books should be considered spice to be added to the campaign in measured doses to add flavor, but the core books remain the base of the meal.

Dragonchess Player wrote:

That's a good point; what books/house rules are being used?

Amusingly, a friend of mine challenged me to come up with the most powerful 20th level characters I could design using just the PHB, using 32-point Point Buy for the ability scores and limiting inherent bonuses to no more than +4 on a single score and +6 total. One of them was a Human Ranger 12/Fighter 8.

My concern with mixing the ranger in there would be that the rangers Animal Companion and Spells are woefully outclassed if the ranger does not keep pumping levels into them. Rangers is one of the classes I tend to think one has to mostly stick with all the way through. Maybe a couple of levels of fighter for those two quick bonus feats but otherwise I'd tend to head straight up the ranger level progression to keep the spells coming and keep the animal companion strong. Or I would simply skip ranger altogether and stick with fighter for the endless feats.

The reason I used ranger was for the favored enemy bonuses and skills; rangers can be more more versatile than fighters. The reason I used fighter was for the bonus feats to round out the fighting ability; the ranger's animal companion and spellcasting are minor benefits once you start getting above level 8 (effective Druid 4), compared to the toughness of your opponents. He's outclassed on those at high levels anyway (a polar bear isn't that much better than a black bear when facing a CR 21 monster and the ranger's spells are just as useful coming from a wand).

If I wanted to create a "pure" ranged specialist, then I would have gone Ranger 20 (or Ranger 16/Rogue 4) and chosen archery as the combat style instead of two-weapon fighting. The problem with that approach is that he's over-specialized; outside of ranged attacks, he's a mediocre combatant at best. One-trick characters don't work very well in most campaigns. Even if the DM doesn't deliberately set up the situation, there will be times when the character can't use their trick or it's ineffective. If the character doesn't have other options, they're screwed. That raging half-orc barbarian may be able to do massive damage with a greataxe, but if he can't get within melee range (Grease, illusions, minions/summoned monsters, terrain), he can be dealt with.

That's a good point; what books/house rules are being used?

Amusingly, a friend of mine challenged me to come up with the most powerful 20th level characters I could design using just the PHB, using 32-point Point Buy for the ability scores and limiting inherent bonuses to no more than +4 on a single score and +6 total. One of them was a Human Ranger 12/Fighter 8.

16 Str, 24 Dex, 14 Con, 12 Int, 14 Wis, 10 Cha (+2 Str, +4 Dex)

Feats (*-bonus feats): Dodge*, Endurance*, Far Shot, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting*, Greater Weapon Focus (Composite Longbow)*, Improved Initiative, Improved Precise Shot, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting*, Manyshot, Mobility, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Shot on the Run*, Track*, Two-Weapon Fighting*, Weapon Focus (Composite Longbow)*, Weapon Specialization (Composite Longbow)*

Given some magic items (especially Belt of Giant Strength +6, Boots of Expeditious Retreat (by the rules a 4,000gp worth item), Bracers of Greater Archery, Gloves of Dexterity +6, and a +5 Mighty (+6 Str bonus) Distance Speed Composite Longbow), he/she is a very good ranged attack specialist, with some ability in melee (using two-weapon fighting). Alternately, a Ranger 8/Fighter 8/Rogue 4 picks up some extra damage ability with Sneak Attack, while losing +1 from the BAB, two effective Druid levels for the Animal Companion, a third Favored Enemy, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, and some spell ability.

As with any published adventure (or even any encounter in a published adventure), "your mileage may vary."

Depending on the characters, players, or even pure luck, any adventure/encounter designed to be challenging for a "typical" party can be either be a TPK or a walkover for a particular group. Even groups that breeze through most encounters in an adventure may have problems with an encounter that a different group, who struggles with the rest of the adventure, defeats in one round without taking a scratch.

The Adventure Paths, as stated, are designed to be high risk/high reward, which places an emphasis on combat ability and "efficient" character design (tending to reward min/maxers). It also places a premium on intelligent play; parties who don't have a plan beyond "I run in and shoot/hit/blast something," who fail to manage their spell/item resources, who don't work as a team, or who make other errors will pay for it. Poor teamwork, in particular, has killed more characters than any other reason I can think of in the games I've played in or run.

or run sesion

"run the session"

Damn typos. ;-P

I've been playing RPGs off and on for 25 years using several different systems (started with the red box Basic D&D) and at different power levels. Any level of play has its difficulties and rewards; high level play is no different.

High level play can be a challenge, but the key is for EVERYONE to prepare for a session ahead of time, not just the DM. The players need to know, before they sit down at the gaming table, what their characters can and can't do with all of their abilities and magic items. This can be in the form of player notes, 3x5 cards, pure memory, or whatever works for them. Players need to plan their general battle tactics, both as individuals and as a group. Yes, the characters are powerful, but seat-of-the-pants adventuring tends to get characters killed against intelligent, well run foes that are the norm for high level play (how many monsters with a CR above 14-15 have a low Int?).

For the DM, as the level of the party increases, the amount of prep-work also increases. High CR foes usually have a large number of special abilities that need to be statted out in an easy-to-use format before play. Make sure you have you have copies of complete character sheets/stats for every party member, to include animal companions, cohorts, familiars, NPCs, and frequently summoned creatures; this prevents you from constantly asking the players for details and lets you be able to run someone if they get mind-controlled or adjust their stats if they suffer from a curse/spell/poison/etc. that is not immediately apparent. "Winging it" at high levels is nearly impossible unless you have a near encyclopedic knowledge of every class feature, feat, magic item, rule, special ability, and spell in use during the session, have a large pool of already prepared material that you can slot into the session with minimal notice, or run sesion in a story based or cinematographic way (remember the Amber diceless roleplaying game, anyone?).

High level play demands a correspondingly high level of commitment from the entire group, but the satisfaction can be just as high. Actually acting out the exploits of legendary heroes like those in movies and literature, occasionally having the fate of a kingdom or world dependent on your characters, is a real kick.

I'll also start off with three players soon and you made me wonder. I wasn't intending to use gestalt. Do you think it is really necessary if there are three characters in the group? The adventures are intended for 4 players, aren't they? I was just planning to give them a capable henchman (probably warrior). Is this adventure path too hard with only 3???

Without knowing the party composition, that's a tough question.

Basically, the adventures assume that you have characters filling the four main roles (arcane spellcaster, combat specialist, divine spellcaster, and stealth/trapfinding). This can be tough to do without gestalting, although it's possible (even with just PHB classes) with good planning and a little multiclassing. A conjurer and druid make the best arcane and divine caster team using the PHB, IMO, for a party of three because the druid's animal companion and both casters' summoning spells can fill in for the combat specialist. Depending on what extra rules are in use, some of the non-PHB classes can fill multiple roles reasonably well without multiclassing.

Also, a party of three will have to pay more attention to tactics and managing resources. The group tends to have less "depth" to handle attacks and will probably need to be more cautious in combat.

I've discovered this thread a little late. I'm DMing AOW online. Although we just started, I think the party could possibly have the worst mix:

Halfling Druid (riding dog companion)
Half Orc Monk (emphasis on grapple)
Gnome Bard
Elf Ranger
Dwarf Divinist

So no tank (the druid with 18 Dex is actually the closest thing), no cleric, and the arcane caster is specialized in divination magic. Even worse, the divinist's player had to drop out, so I'm currently running the dwarf is an NPC.

I'd say this party can be effective if they capitalize on their strengths and use skirmish tactics. If the druid concentrates on summoning and "trades up" his animal companion regularly, that can fill in for the party's "tank." The grappling monk should be ready to fall back on using a quarterstaff or ranged attacks when needed (Kyuss undead are nasty to go against unarmed), but can cause some serious problems to enemy spellcasters without Still Spell. The bard looks like the main party-support character and negotiator (and trapfinder, if multiclassing as a rogue). The ranger can act as both a melee and ranged combatant. The divinist (diviner?) can provide pre-battle reconnaisance and prevent a lot of sneaky tricks from working against the party.

I'm (finally) about to start an AoW campaign. Actually, I'm helping someone try out DMing for the first time, but he's said he'll probably turn it over after a few sessions. Since the DM is a novice, we decided on limiting the party to PHB races only and mostly PHB classes (Favored Soul, Scout, Swashbuckler, and Warmage also).

As part of my prep-work, I built four pre-gen PC's (in case of inspiration failure or a last minute player addition) based on my reading of the entire path to fill both combat and story roles. My pre-gen crew:

Half-Elf Ranger (goal: Tempest)
Halfling Rogue (goal: Thief-Acrobat and Dungeon Delver)
Human Cleric of Pelor (goal: Radiant Servant and Exorcist)
Human Wizard (Evocation Domain and Fighter Feat variants from Unearthed Arcana; goal: Fighter 1, Spellsword 1, Eldritch Knight, and Archmage)

The ranger is from the Bronzewood Lodge and struck up a friendship with the cleric while the latter was traveling to Diamond Lake. The rogue is an acrobat/clown for the Emporium who shares an occasional round of drinks with the ranger at the Spinning Giant. The cleric is a new arrival who has visited Allustan several times regarding the area's history (and is thus acquainted with the apprentice). The wizard is Allustan's apprentice ("You remind me of a colleague of mine...") and is envisioned as the main instigator and party leader.

Reasoning behind the character choices:
Ranger for tracking and combat (longsword/short sword melee, longbow ranged)
Rogue for maneuverability, sneak attacks, and trapfinding
Cleric for anti-undead goodness and divine spells
Wizard for arcane combat, summoning, and utility spells (plus, using a Wiz6/Ftr1/Sps1/EK8/Arm4 progression, a little better armor class and a BAB of +15 for the cost of two spellcasting levels)