Something we did for a game where death was to be expected:
Give the players limited "lives." For us, we had each player create backstories for 3 PCs. They would choose one of these to play as (and had to stick with that one 'til it died) and in the event of death, they'd bring in one of their reserves. Everybody liked their characters, so nobody was throwing lives away for anything insignificant, but death could still happen.
Once their last guy died, they were out of the game, unless someone "lent" one of their reserves out, but this *was* something everyone knew from the start. After all the PCs died, (or once enough died that the remaining players did not wish to continue) the campaign was over, either b/c the PCs were all dead or retired.
That's not a terrible idea. I am a little surprised it works though.
I've always found that players either lose interest in the character they have almost as soon as they write up a new one, or they don't want the spare by the time they get to use it.
The people I'm running for now, in the cases of at least 3 of them, tend to see nothing wrong with just changing their characters names and keeping everything else the same, "I heard you needed another monk so the mayor sent me."
For the most part, the players only care about what they are doing, not who their characters are.
*shrug*
We've got people who look at all the different options present in PF and want to try as many as they can. We've also got people with a specific shtick who tend to stick with that. But almost everyone invests in their character(s) pretty heavily. I think part of the reason it works for us is the way our character interactions go: All the characters are synergistic, both in fluff and mechanics.
Something we did for a game where death was to be expected:
Give the players limited "lives." For us, we had each player create backstories for 3 PCs. They would choose one of these to play as (and had to stick with that one 'til it died) and in the event of death, they'd bring in one of their reserves. Everybody liked their characters, so nobody was throwing lives away for anything insignificant, but death could still happen.
Once their last guy died, they were out of the game, unless someone "lent" one of their reserves out, but this *was* something everyone knew from the start. After all the PCs died, (or once enough died that the remaining players did not wish to continue) the campaign was over, either b/c the PCs were all dead or retired.
For what it's worth, Fury's Fall+Agile Maneuvers (unfortunately) definitely allows you to add your Dex twice. I forget where this was addressed, but Agile Maneuvers has you replace Str with Dex, whereas Fury's Fall lets you just add it.
So, assuming fury's fall...
CMB(trip) = BAB+ STR + DEX +etc
and then with agile maneuvers, STR = DEX, therefore
CMB (trip) = BAB + DEX + DEX +etc
Which allows you to apply your massive DEX twice, for a stoooopid CMB
The feat Shield Master makes it so you can apply a shield's defensive enhancement bonus to its attack rolls/damage. Defensive enhancements are cheaper;
(bonus^2)*1000, rather than (bonus^2)*2000.
Shield Master also removes TWF penalties when using a weapon and shield (weapon here being other shield)
One of Shield Master's prereqs is Shield Slam, which allows a free bullrush attempt whenever you hit with a shield bash.
This bullrush attempt is modified by any effects that modify a bullrush, such as Improved and Greater Bullrush. Greater Bullrush allows you and your allies to take AoOs against the enemy when you successfully bullrush him. Add this to the high Dex needed for a TWF build, and the additional AoOs from Combat Reflexes, and suddenly, the build gets mad battlefield control combined with some of the more powerful TWF offense attainable, and well above-average defense to boot.
All classes can handle challenges solo. The variety of challenges they can handle depends somewhat on whether they bring their own buffs, and the variety is necessarily and obviously enhanced by having magic items.
All classes can handle challenges better with a party. At no point does the theoretical, always-prepared-the-right-spells, Overcomes-enemy-saves and-resistances-unfailingly God-Wizard cease to benefit from the additional skill-base, action economy, tactical grid-control, base of specialization, and die rolls that come from other party members, and, indeed, other classes. Nor does the took-the-right-feats, has-lots-of-skills, Uses-magical-items-to-enhance-versatility Super-Fighter rise above and beyond the point where he could benefit from other classes.
Theoretically, any character can rise beyond needing others, but the other classes will always have something to contribute. I say this not in theory, but in practice for higher-level games I've run that sometimes split parties in weird combinations.
Cool, cool. I'm fine with playing the Oracle; wouldn't have submitted him if I wasn't.
At any rate, that Fighter represents (on multiple levels) something I've been wanting to play for a looong time, but Sammael is one of my own now. I take pride in my work, and won't disown him ;)
1-Channel (Su): You can channel positive energy like a cleric,
using your oracle level as your effective cleric level when
determining the amount of damage healed (or caused to
undead) and the DC. You can use this ability a number of
times per day equal to 1 + your Charisma modifier.
3-Safe Curing (Su): Whenever you cast a spell that cures the
target of hit point damage, you do not provoke attacks of
opportunity for spellcasting.
Spells Known:
0-
1-Detect Undead*, Summon Monster I, Cure Light Wounds, Bless, Protection from Evil
2-Lesser Restoration*, Summon Monster II, Cure Moderate Wounds
*-Mystery bonus spell
skills:
Diplomacy:+13
Kn(Religion):+7
Spellcraft:+7
Sense Motive:+8
gear:
+1 Tetsubo (2,320gp)
+1 Full Plate (2,500gp)
Cloak of Resistance +1 (1,000gp)
Belt of Giant Strength +2 (4,000gp)
Alright, this is what I came up with. I got no name or background written here, and I may have messed up on deriving vital stats or missed something b/c I really have to jet. Submitting Oracle for approval.
Alright. So I've been digging for the better part of four hours, having never looked at S.H.I.T. before. I've come to the conclusion that Kirthfinder is positively beautiful, and that anyone who's fluent Rule-ese should at least take a cursory glance at the Introduction, Feats, Equipment, and their favorite and least favorite class.
I'm still wading through this thing, but it's so...clever and elegant. Class balance exists, but it's not because everything has the same abilities, but because virtually every option is a good one. Nothing like the "Endurance" feat or "Monk Vow" class feature...or... Holy Guns. Everything is viable and amazing, without copping out by making all options homogenous.
Felt the need to glow about it where the people behind it could see.
I am, however, curious how challenge is created, given the massive power boost most PCs get; That is to say, formerly "level-appropriate" encounters as assumed by the bestiary sort of start to get thrown out the window at around the time I can full-attack someone with an attack of opportunity, adding both my Strength and Dex to damage+attack rolls. How do you guys (or any regular Kirthfinder players) adjust encounters to cope with an increasingly wide gap between Pathfinder's assumption of PCs and Kirthfinder's more powerful ones?
Also, you should probably put the Sorcerer stuff in the Table of Contents. Might get more exposure that way.
Small knee-jerk feedback:
I do like how they're extra fighty sorcerer bloodlines, but I don't see anything to offset how hard it is for them to hit things in melee.
If you feel fighters are 'useless' or 'unplayable', you might want to try playing one for a few months before your opinion coagulates into outright prejudice[...]
Yep. The only reason anyone could have distaste for the fighter is cuz we've never played one.
Oh the arrogance.
On the contrary; there are dozens of reasons that a person might dislike the fighter class. I would never dream of suggesting that fighters are for everybody (there's a reason there are so many other classes, after all.) That does not invalidate my basic suggestion: that those who are dismissing the class based on its perceived, theoretical power level or balance should probably watch (or, better still, play) the class in actual play in order to re-assess their judgement.
Such is my arrogance!
Erm, I think you're missing the point. It sounds to me as if he's suggesting has has played a fighter, and the results were underwhelming, rather than he doesn't need to play a fighter to know it's subpar. Thinking they're bad after playing one is a very strong possibility, because all roleplaying groups are different.
There is no right way to play Pathfinder, and based on the playstyle, tactics, optimization levels, types of DM, and multiple other factors, fighters may be an amazingly fun to class, or a complete bore that doesn't contribute much to the group even if they're built the exact same way.
So if you play a fighter, and have an amazing session, and contribute positively to the group and feel important, does that mean the fighter is objectively a useful class? No, it means that's the case for your gaming group. The same can be said about the inverse, and I think it's these differences that cause so many of these strong debates in the first place.
Personally, fighters work great in my group, but I realize that isn't the case for everyone.
you're just adding fuel to the fire. Saying "Man fighters are AWESOME cuz they can do these things that don't matter" isn't helping your case. In a 2d game, when the enemy lines up and lets you swing at them like a pinata, the Fighter will always kick but. Against intelligent enemies who know how to a)lay traps b)use magic c)fly d)attack from range e)use the environment to their advantage f)be invisible, the fighter is woefully unequal to the task.
And that's just combat ITSELF. Where the fighter is expected to be the BEST not just adequate. Let's say you don't know where the enemy is. You can't scry him, you can't find the path to him, you can't track him, you can't gather information to find out more about him. What if you have to talk your way out of a situation? What about ANY situation that doesn't call for combat?
I know the response to these, so I'll lay them out.
1)A fighter can have a ranged weapon.
Absolutely, and an archer fighter has a lot more longevity than a melee fighter, I'll give you that. But then, any martial class can be nearly as good as an archer and will bring other skills as well.
2)A fighter can take ranks in [Skill X] especially now that things are easy for cross-class skills.
Absolutely. However if he has a decent int, assuming point buy, he's lacking somewhere else he direly needs. Low point buys are brutal on MAD characters, which a smart fighter becomes.
This is Shroedinger's Fighter. He can do anything if he spends his feats/skills right. But let's face it, he's going to be really good in combat and useless everywhere else.
Excuse me. I am not looking to get involved in a fight with you. I don't feel as though I was particularly confrontational. Rather, I was correcting factual inaccuracies in Zark's post (No extraordinary abilities, get nothing but feats, have nothing to set them on par with other martial types).
That said, if you haven't played a fighter, please do play a fighter before raging about it. And if you have played a fighter, I'm sorry you haven't become used to finding creative solutions to out-of-combat problems. I certainly never run into any issues of efficacy inside or outside combat.
Incidentally, from a min-maxy, point-buy standpoint, ever since Ultimate Magic, a medium to high charisma score aids with negotiation, and actually ends you with a higher strength score, if you get up to Improved Eldritch Heritage (Orc) or (Abyssal), and the Skill Focus (survival) (KN: Planes) does plenty to increase out of combat effectiveness. And I never said "Man fighters are AWESOME cuz they can do these things that don't matter," or even anything to that effect. If, in your games, the ability to attach maneuvers to attacks, the ability to almost unerringly succeed at hitting with attacks or maneuvers, and the ability to move and full attack at normal speed in full plate are "things that don't matter," we play very different games. Just, you know, as an aside.
Well duh. The fighter we have isn't very good at anything but murder, and even then his skillset is pretty limited.
This is especially true when it comes to melee fighters and unlike the other full BAB core classes he has no out-of-combat problem-solving utility.
When it comes to damage the Barbarian can out damage the fighter and has more skills, better skills and a lot of cool powers.
Rangers and Paladins has a load full of out-of-combat problem-solving utility stuff going on and when they got their thing going they are even more deadly than a fighter. Heck a high level guide and Barbarian can move and full attack.
Fighter. Just say it out loud. Fighter! Shouldn't a class called "Fighter" be vastly better at fighting than any other class? If not, where are the fighter's of out-of-combat problem-solving utility stuff?
Edit:
He is boring. Got no cool abilities, no Extraordinary Abilities, no Supernatural Abilities, no Spell-Like Abilities, 2 skills per level, boring class skills, no spells, crappy (will) saves, and isn't even the best class there is when it comes to murder.
I'm surprised most of this thread is focused on damage and fighter vs. wizard.
I'm not talking melee vs. wizard or sorcerer (although I could) , I'm talking fighter vs. other melee dudes.
The only thing the fighter has are feats. They need it just to keep up with the other full BAB classes, because unlike the barbarians über rage powers (And Paladin and rangers get cools spells or other cool stuff ) the only thing fighter gets are feat chains that let them do things they all ready can do a bit better.
As for: some think they are great, therefore they are great? Some think the earth is flat. That doesn't make the earth flat.
Lolwut? Fighters have Extroadinary abilities. Also, they don't just have feats; they have weapon training, Armor Training and some other cool things that other classes can't have, like Specialization and Penetrating strike.
Paladins have superb defense built into their class features, and I like that, but their offense is pretty "meh," and the only builds you can really make work for them (in a setting that doesn't accommodate mounted combat very well) are 2H melee or Archery (obviously, switch hitting, too).
Barbarians are more customizable, faster, and very cool in a number of ways, but have to worry about consumable resources and fatigue, and fatigue Suuuuuucckks. (unless your GM doesn't pay attention to that stuff, in which case, no wonder the fighter gets shafted). I know you can dip Oracle to deal with that, but we're talking Barbarians, not Barbarian/Oracles.
Rangers get a lot. They get full B.A.B., a full animal companion, limited spellcasting, lots of skills/level, good class skills, bonus feats (and at earlier levels than they can normally be gotten) and two good saves in addition to some other conditional stuff (trackless step, favored enemy). I never see them come up in discussions about this sort of thing, though, and to be honest, I'm not sure why not.
Also, nobody thinks the earth is flat; In fact, practically nobody EVER thought that. And fighters are great. I can't think of anyone else who can trip a 10 foot circle of enemies and then take AoOs against them every round, whilst bullrushing foes who get too close.
Edit: And you mention that high level guides and Barbarians can move and full attack. Well a mobile fighter can do that starting at like, 11th, and, more importantly, an infinite number of times per day. He can also whirlwind attack as a standard action, and I don't know of any other way to do that. Research moar.
Monk: The monk rules for flurry state, "For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus is equal to his monk level." How does this interact with BAB from class levels and racial Hit Dice? Does a multiclassed fighter 19/monk 1 flurry as if his BAB were only +1?
A monk using flurry treats his BAB from monk levels as equal to his monk level. He still adds BAB from other sources (such as other classes or racial Hit Dice) normally to this total.
So a fighter 19/monk 1 has a normal BAB of +19. When he flurries, he treats his monk BAB as +1 (for his 1 level of monk) and still gets BAB +19 from his fighter levels, for a total flurry BAB of +20.
—Sean K Reynolds, 09/10/10
Emphasis/formatting mine.
So there it is; Dipping monk: Better than you thought, since 2000.
Horse tougher than the cavalier? Very debatable. As many attacks as a TWF? Only if he stays straight monk. Better than a dedicated archer? Only if he takes all the archery feats and waits until 12th level (since he's using a scimitar and all). But yes, he has nice saves.
Nah. Fighter 19/Monk 1 gets to flurry with 7 attacks. Use Monk levels + other class B.A.B. to determine a monk's effective B.A.B. while flurrying.
if i understand correctly, that fighter isn't designed to take on dragons. Bob_Lobaw did say that a fighter going up against a dragon is going to want magical equipment, but i believe the point of the excersize is to prove that a fighter with no magical gear is not just theoretically possible but is in fact formidable, at least if he can choose his fights.
If that's the case then he fails, because he's squashed in like 2 rounds. If the dragon is feeling playful.
Pfff. If the GM is playing the dragons right, they're probably gonna straight end virtually any PC in a straight up 1-on-1 fight.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my friends and I tend to play this as a cooperative game. And if I have been playing it wrong all this time, I don't think I'll stop.
Nah, see. It gets worse. Sohei can flurry with Nodachi, because Nodachi is a polearm. Also, 2-handing a weapon doesn't increase strength mod to damage, but it DOES increase power attack damage. Which multiplies on crit. And nodachi crits really often. And you can take Qinggong to get Life Leech, and then you go infinite with Ki points, using them to get extra attacks with a flurry.
This has been known about for a while.
The DPR for this build is incredible, considering that it doesn't require conditional things (like a charge or sneak attack) or expendable resources.
That it can be done while in superb armor, and with a full animal companion is...kind of insane.
I'll add an NPC with plenty of healing magic if we end up lacking a healing character.
Hmm. If there's 6 people interested and with characters posted up etc... and the recruitment is for 5 plus a healer if one doesn't show up...Then I could make a Cleric, Oracle, or Paladin instead and everyone in the thread could play.
Totally love these. They seem pretty balanced, and there's options some of the people in my gaming group have been vying for, like the Gun-fu monk (all the gun-related archetypes, really), the Rockstar bard, and basically all the things you added for fighters (that the latter archetypes stack with all other existing archetypes is gravy)
However, I do have some questions about the Fighter archetypes: The Gloriosus, as it is written, seems to have an insanely easy time with regaining grit, as it has no stipulations about how it can regain it (like the Braggart, who only regains grit on killing blows), meaning that if it expands its crit-threat range to 15-20, it can practically go infinite. This, in addition to abilities like Head First being pretty dang powerful, retention of proficiencies etc. and Gloriosus sort of just seems...better than the others.
Also, the Braggart's Luck class feature, unless I'm mistaken, is slightly, but strictly, worse than the counterpart ability of either the Bravo or the Gloriosus.
Am I missing anything, and/or is this intentional?
CLW is something alchemists get, but alchemists don't have a "spell list" per se. Extracts function differently in a number of ways. I don't remember if they can cast wands. Hold on...
"An alchemist can utilize
spell-trigger items if the spell appears on his formuale
list, but not spell-completion items (unless he uses Use
Magic Device to do so)." There's your answer, page 27 of the APG. Cool. So wands are a go.
But do you really need snap shot if you can just make your AoOs with your sword? Is it worth the feats? I mean, you could use it to extend your AoO range, but considering how many other cool things you could get, it seems unnecessary.
Only the one of us can use a wand of CLW effectively, but I got a fair amount of spare cash to pitch in. And the 'zerker's got over a thousand left, but should probably spend most of that on herself so she's not deprived (I recommend a Cloak of Resistance +1)
Actually, looking further, DragonBelow seems to have already picked up a wand of CLW. Cool.
But...upon examination. How do you have a +3 weapon?
*shrug* Cool. You know what you want, and it's a good enough build to do what you want it to do. I'd still drop at least one of the Extra Arcane pools to improve your ability to attack with the shield, (picking up shield slam if possible, because it's SO fun), but that's all I got.
I've only done Magus in theory, not practice. But I have done Monks, Alchemists, Inquisitors, and Gunslingers before, so I know resource management. I truly doubt you'll need THAT MUCH extra Arcane Pool. I'd grab Toughness or TWF somewhere in there, and maybe start working towards Missile Shield
Other than that, it looks good to me. The AC is around where it should be, the spell selection is mostly good (I agree with Shocking Grasp), but if you aren't dead-set on the axe, maybe go for something with a higher crit-threat-range, so you can get crits with spells more often. And make the weapon a +1 Keen regardless of whether you stick with the axe.
Thinking of making one of those charisma-based, grit-using fighter types. Would RP as very much...pro-wrestler. Or a Magus, since I've been meaning to play one of those and never got the chance.
Out of curiosity: The rule for heavy armors all being full-plate and medium armors being breastplate; Is it still true? I understand the thought behind it, and I like it, but since Ultimate combat came out, the Tatami-do and O-Yoroi armors have the same max AC bonus (Armor bonus + MaxDex = 10) as Full Plate, meaning there is a reason for heavy armors other than fullplate, especially for, say, gun-tanks.
Slow fighters are doing it wrong in the first place. Denying yourself the full benefits of armor training 1 and 2 makes me sad.
At any rate, I'm gonna go with the opposite of Kolokotroni. Inquisitors, in my opinion, have no supporting abilities worth mentioning, aside from super-minor healing and "ok" buffs, whereas Magi gain access to Haste, and all the martial classes will love having a Magus around just because his first action every combat should be to spell combat->haste
Inquisitor is, essentially, a selfish bard; this can certainly come in handy, especially since your party seems to be hurting for people with any skill ranks/level to speak of.
Try looking for a blackjack table. They've got room for plenty of players, and a super-convenient spot for the GM. Not EXACTLY what you described looking for, but it should fulfill your specifications.
A little weird, maybe, but functional, and the price is right.
Dodge is, in a number of ways, a better replacement than Ironhide. It is a prereq for some useful feats, whereas armor proficiency and Ironhide offer nothing beyond their own benefit. Not to mention that Dodge bonuses are better than Nat. Armor bonuses.
I think that trading a feat for a feat is fair in theory. In practice, be careful. It's easier to give your players nice things than it is to take them away after it breaks the game.
It's too weak if it only applies to specific regions. Compared to say, knowledge(nature) which applies just as broadly and makes just as little sense.
With my gaming group, it doesn't represent how much you KNOW about a given area, but how easily you are able to access the local lore, and how inclined your character is to do so, such that when we find ourselves in a brand new location, we assume that a character who made a good KN: Local check spent the travel time and downtime learning X information.
Yep. You should not hold classes to a realistic mindset, but a mythic one.
I'd maybe be okay with mythic depending on the myth. I'm just not comfortable with Paul Bunyan sized myths. Beowulf ripping the arms off giant troll monsters and fighting for several days underwater with a bog hag is a little more than I would prefer.
A base pathfinder fighter can do just that. around 10th level you could strangle an ogre naked. The game past 6th level is no longer anywhere near "realistic" you have went into the realms of Myths by level 7. Boewulf is the default assumption of the rule set man.
And you don't want super sayan-ness you best band all full caster..every one. They are want is over the top and vastly cosmic, not a fighter who can pull down even 30 shots a round. When you have classes that can make demi-plans, fly and kill with a single word, the stuff a fighter can do is never gonna be as un realistic.
Most people complaining that the fighter shoots too many arrows aren't complaining because they hate magic. They are complaining because there isn't a reason for it. The wizard has magic, so he can fly and kill with words. The fighter doesn't have magic, so it's aggravating that he does impossible things.
This is the writers fault. They could easily have made 17 arrows a round 2 good arrows a round, or they could write that all fighter learn magic and post x level are hasted. They didn't do either. They just said: fighters practice a lot so they shoot a lot of arrows. It is shoddy writing a bad game design. If they tried harder there wouldn't be threads like this.
Dude. Do you even know what game design IS? Because you sure don't sound like it. Game design has way more to do with fun and way less to do with "verisimilitude." The fact that fighters can do crazy awesome stuff is great. And if they wrote that all fighters learn magic beyond X level, then they're not even the same class flavor-wise.
It's not shoddy writing either. Because...what?! In what world does any of your complaint make sense?
Further, the number of people who are ok with 3 arrows in around a second? That's because that's a real world thing. Like, one that people can do. There are videos in this very thread illustrating that fact.
I guess you're not okay with Batman or Captain America either. Or Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Or Beowulf. I'm sure EACH one of those suffers from "shoddy writing," in your opinion.
Young Dragons are about as heavily armored and difficult to kill as Sherman Tanks, if those could fly and cast spells, but my tenth level fighter can win a stand-up fight with one. Does THAT bother you, too?
And if they "tried harder" to satisfy YOU, there absolutely would still be threads like this. You can't please everyone, and you shouldn't try.
The biggest issue is truly that it is 3 feats. If it were one scaling feat, it'd be worth it.
Greater Weapon Specialization is four feats that don't scale. And they only apply to one weapon.
But that's different. Weapon Focus and Specialization always apply to attacks with said weapon. Every attack with said weapon, regardless of whether it's on a charge, a standard action, a whirlwind strike, or a full-attack action. And the bonus to hit applies to combat maneuvers made with said weapon, if any are applicable. Y'know, as opposed to a measly 1d8 or whatever.
Obviously, vital strike is a good option if you're using stupidly high damage dice (say, if you're a titan mauler or something)
"Yes. (See also this FAQ item for a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)
For example, a bard's inspire courage says it affects "weapon damage rolls," which is worded that way so don't try to add the bonus to a spell like fireball. However, rays are treated as weapons, whether they're from spells, a monster ability, a class ability, or some other source, so the inspire courage bonus applies to ray attack rolls and ray damage rolls.
The same rule applies to weapon-like spells such as flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon--effects that affect weapons work on these spells.
—Sean K Reynolds, 07/29/11"
Arcane Strike applies to rays and weapon-like spells.
Whoa. Forgetting to add bardic music bonuses to things runs further than I thought.
Haha. No, the special abilities, spells, etc. are definitely more important. I imagine I can make the other things (stat array, wealth) conform to my standards pretty easily :p
But yeah, thanks for those.
I do find that it's usually feat/power (like rogue talents, rage powers, etc) selection that takes the longest for me, making these. Well, that's after I have the character concept narrowed down. And wealth can take some time, too. I've gotten it down to about an hour-and-a-half for each 10th level PC, but the motivation to make these remaining ones has been kind of hard to muster for whatever reason.
I've got a fairly extensive stable of 10th level characters I keep on hand to run one-shots with. I am looking to expand this stable, and I figure the first, easiest direction to go with this is to make ones of the classes that do not yet have representation in my characters.
I would appreciate help with making builds for these, either in terms of advice, or in posting of complete builds. The characters should be relatively quirky, and not necessarily optimized for power, as powergaming would be in sharp contrast to the majority of other characters.
Parameters used for these characters (standardized)
Core races only
-Base Stat array (no deviation, assign stats as you please): 18, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10
-Wealth of 80k gp
-Use of archetypes and prestige classes is allowed, but try to keep multiclassing to a minimum
Those who create and share full builds (via email or messageboards) are entitled to access to the characters I have already created for this purpose (to be sent in PDF format via email), should they so desire.
I think it's a cool thing, and it seems appropriate to high level play. He had to deal with teleportation and summons and stuff. It's the Cellphone problem. As a writer, you have to explain how the whole plot isn't solved by cellphones, either by taking cellphones away, or by making a plot which cannot be solved by cellphones.
ON THE OTHER HAND
I think y'all might have benefited from multiple sessions with these characters. One where you get to run amok, taking on powerful, unprepared creatures, using the full extent of your power, one where the world starts to go wonky, and your abilities got screwed with a bit, but fighting and approaching things was generally standard, and THEN the raid on the BBEG, where the things you usually rely on don't work, and your raw power alone isn't enough to overcome the obstacles. This would be good because it would allow the players to have fun with full power, better establish the feeling that something was wrong with the world, and then the Lich would throw previous encounters into HUGE, BEAUTIFUL contrast. The party would immediately realize "this guy doesn't mess around," and they wouldn't feel as though the GM was naysaying their powers for no reason.
He isn't naysaying the powers for no reason, he's doing so because he is well-prepared, and he's playing the BBEG how he should be played, but I do get how the restrictions could feel pretty arbitrary.
I see where you're coming from, but I can't help with the metaphor. Once it became canon that part of "controlling all creatures of the deep" included Cthulhu, Aquaman stopped being a poster-boy for "underpowered" or "overly situational."
