Zalen Trafalgar's page

I love playing fighters, there is nothing like smashing the hilt of your greatsword into the face of the smug wizard and wrestle him to the ground making him scream like a girl.

a well played fighter is invalueable to a party and is downright scary with a few simple buffs, the upgrades to the fighter in pathfinder make him even more awesome and enough feats to actually complete a feat chain with some juicy extras.

The PF Fighter is weaker than the original. His main schtick, feats, have been gimped to nigh-uselessness (Dodge takes an action? WTF?) The bonuses you love so much are just a way to hide the fact Fighters are even less masters of battle than they were before.

ofcourse there are plenty of people that look down on any class that can't shoot lightningbolts out off their arse,

We look down on people who have no real class features, actually.

but I like the fighter because he can do what he does without magic and he does it well.

Travel domain's dimensional hop is...

...broken!

No its not. Unlike what you might believe, walls and doors aren't actually challenges to the players. They're an inconvenience. A PC that wants to get through a door will do it no matter what, in any way possible. This is just another tool to use.

I won't expect you to to change your opinion, but face it: Its an extremely basic power.

Skylancer:

Your arguments are so full of holes and demonstrate such a misunderstanding of the core rules that I don't even need to point them out for them to be obvious to anyone who actually plays.

Psychic_Robot:

You are a Troll. Lucky for me, I am a cleric with Fire domain.

That's no argument. Come back when you actually have a point to make in your own thread.

The druid is not a dedicated healer. He has the spells, but making him focus on them is like putting a paralysed midget on a NBA team; That's just retarted.

Please do not encourage boosting the druid even further, thank you.

It does not sadden me. This is a character build that I personally like to play - fighter/mage (I don't like the githyanki term gish). You may think it is a waste of spell slots, whatever, I like it. Ever since first edition I have played fighter/magic-users, so, I am always looking for new ways to make them effective. So if I wanted to make a wizard who just casts spells at opponents and hopes for a bad save roll (or random effect off of prismatic spray), I would have designed the character that way. This character is about "DD" and does a very effective job at doing it. BTW, I did play a variation of this character from 1st to 7th level - 1/2 orc Warblade 2/Wizard 4/Jade Phoenix 1 through the ebberon modules. It was more potent than the others at the table, save possibly the Psion :p.

Please understand I am not belittling your play style. What "saddened me" was that you attributed the "brokenness" of your character to the ToB, while the damage you shown was obviously caused by material outside the book.

Falchion deals 2d4 damage. He has a +4 Keen Falchion (crits on a 15+)

Ah, thanks! Somehow, I was convinced he had a scimitar, not a falchion.

Emerald Immolation has a save for getting banished.

Which only affect creatures with the extraplanar subtype. Come again?

EDIT: Perhaps you meant the save was only for the banishment effect.

Read the book again: It has a reflex save for half damage.

I don't want to trample on your fun with the Bo9S. If, you have not devised in overpowered or broken builds from it - more power to you. You must be playing within the scope of where they intended power level was aimed.

Broken material exist everywhere. You must understand its your choice to use it or not. Do I say kobolds are broken because of Pun Pun? That would be foolish, right?

If you play to break the game, be assured you will, no matter what books you use.

That's a nice gish you have here. Good job.

Now, it saddens me. The "broken" part of your gish stems from a waste of spells through Arcane Strike (Which would be better served as actual casting), not ToB. The material is good, yet you have to blame it for everything.

To everyone who never read the Book of Nine Swords: Before listening to any random internet guy's rant, read the book. You'll see he got a knee-jerk reaction.

BTW: 1) Why 36d4? Shouldn't it be 28d4, or did I miss something?

2) Emerald Immolation has a save, deals about 70 pts of damage
and can only be used once a week.

Nigh-perfect? I don't know if you intentionally blind yourself to the broken stuff in these books or if you like the basic system and have never actually played, built or played with characters from them. There are absolutely broken things you can do with the books. The crazy thing is you don't even really have to break a sweat to find them too. ;p

Example: I played a Jade Phoenix guy at a con
I was doing like 3 attacks with his falchion that were doing like:
27d4 + 21d10 + 60 per round.
I felt like I was cheating in comparison to the other characters. The only other guy that was dropping dragons in one round was a warblade. Absolutely broken.

Funny how personnal experience isn't worth crap, huh, because mine says otherwise. I am the happy player of a Warblade and a Psion, and I have yet to make the game explode.

Show me the numbers and equations. Then we'll how "broken" the system is.

I have no idea why are blasting mages considered bad. Most other effects are easily stopped with Death Ward/Mind Blank/Freedom of Movement. Then all you got left is blasting spells.

Except for Destruction and Implosion but they are not arcane spells.

I will expand upon what CoL said. In D&D, hit point reduction has no negative effects whatsoever. (Beyond death when it falls at 0, that is) Casters have very finite resources, and blast spells have little efficiency. (See Col's post above) To spend those resources when a melee character (Who is actually trained to do that sort of thing) could do it all day, only better is foolish.

I agree buffs protect from many Save-or-Dies, but an even greater way to use spells is in battlefield control. If a caster can influence combat while helping his allies, he'll be even more appreciated and useful.

Outside of Bo9S, XPH is uber broken. I hope PF re-does the Psionics handbook and bring their power level down about 10 steps.

Wait. You judge psionics on behalf of broken combinations (Which exist in all system, a lot less in psionics) and direct damage? Is that supposed to be an argument?

And then, the Tome of battle. Where the hell did you get the idea its broken? I thought we were past that crap.

You're having a knee jerk reaction on two nigh-perfect systems. I just wanna ask; Do you think Warlocks are teh borken too?

Guyr Adamantine wrote:

I don't see what it has to do with "multiclassing issues". Multiclassing XP penalties are an old sacred cow that bugs the game. Classes are tools to a character concept, not character concepts themselves. To gimp multiclassing only shoehorn PCs into extremely narrow sets of abilities.

Because effective and fair limits on multi-classing would prevent that kind of crap.

No. Multiclassing isn't unbalancing. Classes are. Most of the time, multiclassed characters suck, yet nobody whine.

Fix the classes, then get rid of multiclassing penalties.

Guyr Adamantine wrote:

Beside, it isn't realist to pretend all adventurers follow the same templates. People do not designate themselves as "accountant" or "secretary", nor do adventurers write "Fighter" or "Rogue" on their business cards. (That is, it has some humourous potential) Classes are only power progressions, not identities.

What does that have to do with anything? People label themselves like that all the time, and effective controls on that sort of multi-classing do not cram every character down the same path. They just stop people from doing crap like that.

I was only putting emphasis on my first paragraph. Now, do you seriously believe people define themselves as "a secretary"? It might be your job, but it isn't your identity.

Guyr Adamantine wrote:

To everyone: To complain about the validity of a broken build in an actual game is stupid. Those builds aren't meant to be used, but are intellectual exercices. Its a fact that if someone try to include one in his game, he'll get shot. No need to bring it one more time, and you aren't a better person for it.

The build neceros posted is an actual broken build. Using it in a game force the DM to completely review chalenges and make all other players extremely vulnerable. Always remember 'broken" means unplayable in a normal game.

If they're just "mental exercises" that no one would play or allow to be played, why should the developers waste time dealing with them? No one stumbles into these "optimized" builds. People set out to break the game, and when someone wants to break a game they will no matter how much effort the designers make to stop it. So they should focus on weird and likely to occur accidents like two decent feats being overwhelming or a spell being to strong or weak for it's...

The OP asked for broken builds, then people come and yell proudly that "no sane DM would accept this". I say d'uh! Sure, no sane DM will, but those aren't going in an actual game. I'm just tired of the smart-asses.

neceros wrote:

Build no sane DM would allow in the same room as his game...

The only thing this build proves is that the game needs enforcement of the multi-classing rules and a XP penalty may not be enough. Well, that and that the people who do this have very... different perspectives. 12th level is low? Epic power weapons? Ridiculous amounts of multi-classing? The character is broken solely because the person who wrote it set out to break the game. If this was something a player could stumble into and that the DM wouldn't call shenanigans on, I might be concerned.

I don't see what it has to do with "multiclassing issues". Multiclassing XP penalties are an old sacred cow that bugs the game. Classes are tools to a character concept, not character concepts themselves. To gimp multiclassing only shoehorn PCs into extremely narrow sets of abilities.

Beside, it isn't realist to pretend all adventurers follow the same templates. People do not designate themselves as "accountant" or "secretary", nor do adventurers write "Fighter" or "Rogue" on their business cards. (That is, it has some humourous potential) Classes are only power progressions, not identities.

To everyone: To complain about the validity of a broken build in an actual game is stupid. Those builds aren't meant to be used, but are intellectual exercices. Its a fact that if someone try to include one in his game, he'll get shot. No need to bring it one more time, and you aren't a better person for it.

The build neceros posted is an actual broken build. Using it in a game force the DM to completely review chalenges and make all other players extremely vulnerable. Always remember 'broken" means unplayable in a normal game.