|
I am playing a cleric in a newbie GM's game.
I came up with a great combo using the divine meta-magic feat and the sudden maximize feat. Mind you there is no lvl adjustment for SUDDEN anything because it's once per day; well divine metamagic says you can use your turns to get your feats lvl adjustment +1.
According to my math my cleric can now maximize his spells 8 times a day(3+1 for cha+4 extra turning)
The question is Would you let a player get away with something like this in YOUR game. The 3.5 rules state it's perfectly legal but it does break the spirit of +3 lvl adjustment for maximised spells.
I as a player think anything that lets me max my lower lvl cures is something to be used but I can see how it can be abused as well.No I did not allow divine metamagic when I DMed 3e; the undead turning ability is for turning undead. If you want better spells, take the real metamagic feats. If you would rather have the metamagic than the turning, I'd let you permanently trade turning for a few bonus feats.
You can take this with a grain of salt, because stuff like this is part of the reason I DM 4e now.
Stuff like what? So what do you say when a player wants to use Yogi Ranger Hat trick? Do you then switch to DMing just Exalted or other systems? Tell your players to use common sense.
Stuff like what? So what do you say when a player wants to use Yogi Ranger Hat trick? Do you then switch to DMing just Exalted or other systems? Tell your players to use common sense.
Clearly, judging by threads such as this one, sense is not common to everyone. Or, if you'd prefer more political correctness, everybody has different standards for self-limitation and moderation.
It hasn't become that way, it always was. That's why we have DMs.
It hasn't become that way, it always was. That's why we have DMs.
DM's are just as subject to those lacks of common sense. If not more so for delusions of being the boss.
True, though DMs with poor sense tend to either gain common sense or get weeded out. In theory, at least. ;)
Looking at it from a politically correct PoV, DMs exist just so that when disagreements occur, the group has a designated decision-maker. Even if s/he doesn't have the best sense in the world, the DM prevents every minor difference of opinion from bogging the game down in prolonged disputes.
Because, of course, no one has ever become DM because he/he/it lost an over-glorified game of "Not It!"
the undead turning ability is for turning undead.
I assume you didn't allow Divine Might/Divine Shield/Divine Resistance/etc. then either.
Me? I've lost count of the times my DM has told me "Not going to be a lot of undead in this campaign, so if you're a Paladin/Cleric you might wanna look at feats that actually let you do something with Turn Undead".
Because, of course, no one has ever become DM because he/he/it lost an over-glorified game of "Not It!"
Gotta agree with Mykull here, Tequila. I've known too many DMs who got the job because they were the unlucky one at the first session, then got stuck with it later on because they were the only one with experience. Half of my current player group started out like that. Might be why I'm usually the only one DMing as of late.... Your argument of "The DM is the smart one" falls pretty flat on its face first step out the door.
the undead turning ability is for turning undead.I assume you didn't allow Divine Might/Divine Shield/Divine Resistance/etc. then either.
Me? I've lost count of the times my DM has told me "Not going to be a lot of undead in this campaign, so if you're a Paladin/Cleric you might wanna look at feats that actually let you do something with Turn Undead".
Don't recall DM/DS/DR, but when I DMed 3e I was constantly irritated by the inconsistency of new options. (Heck, core options too.) In the case of divine metamagic, I'd rather tweak the cleric class for a player who's not interested in undead turning rather than allow potentially cheesy feats that get around the spell level limitation that other casters have to obey. Spells are already all over the place, without having to worry about easy metamagic effects.
Because, of course, no one has ever become DM because he/he/it lost an over-glorified game of "Not It!"Gotta agree with Mykull here, Tequila. I've known too many DMs who got the job because they were the unlucky one at the first session, then got stuck with it later on because they were the only one with experience. Half of my current player group started out like that. Might be why I'm usually the only one DMing as of late.... Your argument of "The DM is the smart one" falls pretty flat on its face first step out the door.
My tongue-in-cheek comments seem to be taken a bit too seriously. When I end a comment with a winky-smile, it means it's not quite serious.
I myself'd rather be a player, but I DM because nobody else wants to for one reason or another. (And because the other willing DM will only run rp-free combat-only games.) I don't even claim to have the best sense out of everyone in my group, but that's not a fundamental requirement of the DM -- my job is to simply make a call when a discrepancy comes up so we can get on with the game.
And just to remind everyone, Suzaku was the one who brought common sense into the discussion with his assertion that players should be expected to have it and use it to self-moderate.
There are players without DM experience? Is that legal?
Getting new players DM experience was always my first priority with new players. Once they're comfortable playing, I have 'em DM a little 1-3 session game so that they know what it's like to DM. If I were to start DMing for four players who'd never DMed before, it wouldn't be long before I have a pass-the-stick month for them all to DM for at least one session.
Every player needs DM experience. Every DM needs play time.
Don't recall DM/DS/DR, but when I DMed 3e I was constantly irritated by the inconsistency of new options. (Heck, core options too.) In the case of divine metamagic, I'd rather tweak the cleric class for a player who's not interested in undead turning rather than allow potentially cheesy feats that get around the spell level limitation that other casters have to obey. Spells are already all over the place, without having to worry about easy metamagic effects.
*Points at the core metamagic rods.*
Don't recall DM/DS/DR, but when I DMed 3e I was constantly irritated by the inconsistency of new options. (Heck, core options too.) In the case of divine metamagic, I'd rather tweak the cleric class for a player who's not interested in undead turning rather than allow potentially cheesy feats that get around the spell level limitation that other casters have to obey. Spells are already all over the place, without having to worry about easy metamagic effects.*Points at the core metamagic rods.*
...the inconsistency of new options. (Heck, core options too.)
The metamagic rods are pretty consistent.
There are players without DM experience? Is that legal?
Getting new players DM experience was always my first priority with new players. Once they're comfortable playing, I have 'em DM a little 1-3 session game so that they know what it's like to DM. If I were to start DMing for four players who'd never DMed before, it wouldn't be long before I have a pass-the-stick month for them all to DM for at least one session.
Every player needs DM experience. Every DM needs play time.
Three members of my group - four, including me - have DMed regularly at one point or another. Two others are too new to the game, and one of those still has trouble with "okay which dice do I roll now?"
The final one... uh... he's DMed before, but the campaign was... errr... "out there". He ended up getting frustrated with it and quitting for one reason or another. The guy in question has been playing D&D for 4+ years that I've known him and possibly a little longer before. He simply has very little imaginative skill and even less patience. It's taken us this long to get him to try something "not Sorcerer, Monk, Soulknife, or Psion" and nearly every character ends up becoming a ripoff of some anime character unless we regularly steer him away and get him back on the course of his original concept.
I see your point, but some players are just not qualified.
Don't recall DM/DS/DR, but when I DMed 3e I was constantly irritated by the inconsistency of new options. (Heck, core options too.) In the case of divine metamagic, I'd rather tweak the cleric class for a player who's not interested in undead turning rather than allow potentially cheesy feats that get around the spell level limitation that other casters have to obey. Spells are already all over the place, without having to worry about easy metamagic effects.the undead turning ability is for turning undead.I assume you didn't allow Divine Might/Divine Shield/Divine Resistance/etc. then either.
Me? I've lost count of the times my DM has told me "Not going to be a lot of undead in this campaign, so if you're a Paladin/Cleric you might wanna look at feats that actually let you do something with Turn Undead".
The short versions:
Divine Might: Sacrifice a Turn attempt to add CHA bonus to damage for a while.
Divine Shield: Sacrifice a Turn attempt to add CHA bonus to Shield AC for a while.
Divine Resistance: Sacrifice a Turn attempt to gain Elemental Resist equal to your CHA bonus for a while (don't remember if you have to pick a specific element or if you get them all).
Prereqs: Ability to Turn/Rebuke, Power Attack, possibly one other thing I'm forgetting.
These and the rest of the feats like them are pretty much standard for any paladin I play, along with Extra Turning whenever I have a feat I don't know what to do with.
I'll admit though, those are nothing compared to Divine Metamagic.
And there are numerous other divine feats. Like a personal favorite, Domain Spontaneity. Burn a Turn Undead attempt to spontaneously cast a spell from one domain, as with spontaneous heal/harm. Ya gotta take it multiple times for multiple domains, but every prepared caster wants more ways to cast spells spontaneously.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
How can you Max 8 spells? I only count 3. One from sudden meta-magic and two from divine meta-magic, because maximized cost you four turn/rebuke attempt each time you use it. I think that you missed this partYou must spend one turn or rebuke attempt, plus an additional attempt for each level increase in the metamagic feat you’re usingSudden Maximize doesn't cost any levels for the spell. It is just limited as once per day, which is why requiring someone to have the feat (and observing the limit on the number of times you can use SM) fixes the problem.
Divine Might: Sacrifice a Turn attempt to add CHA bonus to damage for a while.Divine Shield: Sacrifice a Turn attempt to add CHA bonus to Shield AC for a while.
Divine Resistance: Sacrifice a Turn attempt to gain Elemental Resist equal to your CHA bonus for a while (don't remember if you have to pick a specific element or if you get them all).
Prereqs: Ability to Turn/Rebuke, Power Attack, possibly one other thing I'm forgetting.
These and the rest of the feats like them are pretty much standard for any paladin I play, along with Extra Turning whenever I have a feat I don't know what to do with.
I'll admit though, those are nothing compared to Divine Metamagic.
Never had a player want those feats. Probably because paladins were never popular with any of my players -- even though I dropped the CoC, alignment and multiclassing restrictions, nobody was much interested. So I can't say for sure what I would have done had a player wanted to use these feats, though I can say they rub me the wrong way.
To my way of thinking, they're a clear commentary on 3e's evolution: after a few years of playing, the designers realized that the paladin really wasn't that cool. He suffers MAD, he's stuck with this wacky turning mechanic that doesn't even have the upside of being occasionally awesome like a cleric's, because he turns three level behind par. So the designers decide to write up a few feats that give the paladin something useful to do with his turnings. Except, I don't want a feat-tax fix -- I want a class that works as advertised right from the get-go. And if WotC wouldn't publish it, I'd rather have tweaked the class myself than resort to questionably balanced feat fixes.
The metamagic rods are pretty consistent.
Sure, they're pretty consistent -- with each other. Look, I'm getting the vibe that some of you want to compare editions as a result of my initial 'grain of salt' comment. If so, I'd be happy to politely discuss what I do and don't like about both editions in a different thread. I think this conversation has gone beyond the scope of the OP's request for opinions, so I'd rather not derail it any further.
Probably because paladins were never popular with any of my players -- even though I dropped the CoC, alignment and multiclassing restrictions, nobody was much interested.
Maybe it's just me, but without them I wouldn't want to play a paladin...
after a few years of playing, the designers realized that the paladin really wasn't that cool.
To each their own then I suppose.
To my way of thinking, they're a clear commentary on 3e's evolution: after a few years of playing, the designers realized that the paladin really wasn't that cool. He suffers MAD, he's stuck with this wacky turning mechanic that doesn't even have the upside of being occasionally awesome like a cleric's, because he turns three level behind par. So the designers decide to write up a few feats that give the paladin something useful to do with his turnings. Except, I don't want a feat-tax fix -- I want a class that works as advertised right from the get-go. And if WotC wouldn't publish it, I'd rather have tweaked the class myself than resort to questionably balanced feat fixes.
So... a feat is bad because it adds to a class that sorely needs it and might actually help them stay competitive and grant them meaningful options? Odd.
Though seriously, tons of material essentially amounted to balance patches. WotC was dealing with the problem of melee classes being underpowered up through Tome of Battle. Every class in Complete Arcane and Complete Divine was markedly and deliberately weaker than Cleric, Druid, and Wizard. The PHB is firmly established as being very nearly the most unbalanced book in the entire 3.5 library. WotC couldn't exactly re-re-release it, so they did the only thing they could do; try to balance it out in supplemental material. Some of which worked.
And they did release a working Paladin that functions as advertised right out of the box. It's called the Crusader.
THREAD JACK ..KINDDA..
would you have any problems with THIS in your game.
The feat I am taking is from Libris Mortis called "profane Life Leech" basically two turns attempts give me a D6 healing from EVERY living creature within 30 feet, no save,no spell resistance just HP drainage and a happy cleric.
I will have this at first level and be able to spend my spells to heal others but my turns to heal myself.
Has anyone else used this feat before with any of there charecters?
Basically I rolled crappy states for my new charecter so I am playing a cleric. The stats are 7/9/11/16/17/17. naturally the two 17 are going in wis and cha while the 16 goes to INT. that leaves a 7 for dex and a 9 for str and a 11 for con. I am not used to having a charecter with such low pysical stats so I am playing him as a lame twisted cripple. I will improve the str score through undead grafts and the con score through books but the dex I'm not too worried about.
He is a NE cleric of vecna with the undeath(house rule) and magic domain. I have a negative to my con so I am like way uber concerned with my HP.
The feat I am taking is from Libris Mortis called "profane Life Leech" basically two turns attempts give me a D6 healing from EVERY living creature within 30 feet, no save,no spell resistance just HP drainage and a happy cleric.
I will have this at first level and be able to spend my spells to heal others but my turns to heal myself.Has anyone else used this feat before with any of there charecters?
As a DM I would have no issue with this feat, but I would make it very clear how it works. You aren't just healing damage for every living creature around... you are draining them for d6 hp and then you gain the total that you drained in healing up to your max hp.
As another player in the group I would not like this at all. You are going to sucking HP from your own group to heal, and I can see them not being overly appreciative of that act. Don't kid yourself, you aren't getting away from your friends and just popping this off when there is only bad guys around. You will be wearing the heaviest armor you can to make sure things aren't chipping into that no Con bonus health pool, and that will give you a base 20 move. Unless you take two turns (double move the first, then pop this off the second), you aren't even able to get far enough away from them to keep from damaging them as well.
That said... I can see this being a great feat for an NPC who is fighting off a numerically superior foe. It will be interesting to see how long until your own party sees you are that NPC who needs smacking down because you keep damaging them more than some of the opponents.
As another player in the group I would not like this at all. You are going to sucking HP from your own group to heal, and I can see them not being overly appreciative of that act. Don't kid yourself, you aren't getting away from your friends and just popping this off when there is only bad guys around. You will be wearing the heaviest armor you can to make sure things aren't chipping into that no Con bonus health pool, and that will give you a base 20 move. Unless you take two turns (double move the first, then pop this off the second), you aren't even able to get far enough away from them to keep from damaging them as well
Ahhh normally you would be correct however there are things such as mithral armor,boots of springing and striding, and a whole buncha stuff to make sure that silly 20ft rule is negated. At 1st level the best I'm getting is a chain shirt,30ft move.
I have been playing with these guys before and they no better than to be around me. I sacraficed one of their charecters for some really cool boots and some gold. Then another time I barganed for a succubus to eliminate a NPC that was giving me trouble and then before she came to collect I had the LG church surround her and attack her. I know how to play evil to the max. If worst comes to worse I'll get sopme boots of big stepping and D-door 3 times a day away from the party. I dont plan on killing my party members because I may need them later. Whoes going to make a better person to watch your back the fighter or some stupid bar maid or gimmpy stable boy. LE means always seeing the best in other people(the best way they can be usefull to you)
Basically I rolled crappy states for my new charecter so I am playing a cleric. The stats are 7/9/11/16/17/17.
If those are crappy rolled stats, what does it take to have good stats? Sheesh!
If those are crappy rolled stats, what does it take to have good stats? Sheesh!
Basically I rolled crappy states for my new charecter so I am playing a cleric. The stats are 7/9/11/16/17/17.
I presume "Good Stats" would mean "nothing below 10". That's what I call them anyway. "Awesome Stats" is "nothing below 14". And yes, I've had players roll that on "4d6, re-roll 1s, drop the lowest" right in front of me.
I presume "Good Stats" would mean "nothing below 10". That's what I call them anyway. "Awesome Stats" is "nothing below 14". And yes, I've had players roll that on "4d6, re-roll 1s, drop the lowest" right in front of me.If those are crappy rolled stats, what does it take to have good stats? Sheesh!
Basically I rolled crappy states for my new charecter so I am playing a cleric. The stats are 7/9/11/16/17/17.
exactly orthos. My dm does the 4d6 no rerolls but I got something for him this time.
If I have to play with such low crap I am going to bump them up using undead and demonic grafts. I replace both my arms and both legs for demonic grafts and get a +8 to con and str. Then I grab psionic sinew for a d12 claw attack and the maybe if I can find it a feindish familiar. I will have spent about 80Kgold but it's cheaper than books and I can still use my charecter points for my wisdom.The chjarecter is a NE cleric of Vecna in the Age of Worms campagin setting,we start next week,so between the grafts,my own aura and my feats (profane lifeleech) I give paladins nose bleeds by walking within 10 feet. I am very careful not to break ANY laws so they cant touch me.
|
As another player in the group I would not like this at all. You are going to sucking HP from your own group to heal, and I can see them not being overly appreciative of that act. Don't kid yourself, you aren't getting away from your friends and just popping this off when there is only bad guys around. You will be wearing the heaviest armor you can to make sure things aren't chipping into that no Con bonus health pool, and that will give you a base 20 move. Unless you take two turns (double move the first, then pop this off the second), you aren't even able to get far enough away from them to keep from damaging them as well.
With a 17 Cha, Selective Channeling will be Profan Life Leech's best friend.
With a 17 Cha, Selective Channeling will be Profan Life Leech's best friend.
Not a bad idea, though that would reduce your healing as well, as you only get the amount of damage you do.
And, there is the fact that the OP does not seem to care if he is hitting his friends, so why bother?
Sean Mahoney
I think it was just worry that after a while of that his friends would start hitting him back.
My worry about Profane Lifeleech is that it's so vague. A tree is a living creature (and has hundreds of hit points). An ant is a living creature. A blade of grass is a living creature. In a thirty foot sphere of forest, you could have literally thousands of creatures, so that would require some clarification.
VV... I had not thought of that....
I'm so very finding a way to get a Blighter to get ahold of that ability and go tromping through the woods with it. Mwahahahah.
Allow it. Allow it all if *all* can be justified through a rulebook.
As ever,
ACE
Allow it. Allow it all if *all* can be justified through a rulebook.
As ever,
ACE
The blatant snark ain't contributing, chief.
The blatant snark ain't contributing, chief.Allow it. Allow it all if *all* can be justified through a rulebook.
As ever,
ACE
My bad...it's easy to run the one line snark out there and i haven't frequented these boards in a quite a while. Just a sign of the times - i'm too old to back up my snark with perspective. I was zealous about the core of said snarky comment a few years ago but have been reduced to typing this response instead of really getting involved.
As ever,
ACE
Turns out I am not playing the cleric because my DM and I could NOT see eye to eye on domains. Because NO greyhawk deity has undeath AND magic listed he is not going to allow me to say vecna has the undeath domain.
By my DM's resoning yes he is a lich god but he dosen't strive to create more undead he's like orcus and considers them tools only.
So now I'm taking one lvl of aristocrate and them pure wizard.
The aristocrate gives me the skill points and skills a wizard should have at first lvl. The weapons and armor are irrelevant but being able to RP a true noble(however minor) will be fun.
Turns out I am not playing the cleric because my DM and I could NOT see eye to eye on domains. Because NO greyhawk deity has undeath AND magic listed he is not going to allow me to say vecna has the undeath domain.
Maybe this article by the author of the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer will help?
So now I'm taking one lvl of aristocrate and them pure wizard.
The aristocrate gives me the skill points and skills a wizard should have at first lvl. The weapons and armor are irrelevant but being able to RP a true noble(however minor) will be fun.
Hmm... the DM wouldn't allow you to be a noble without the class? That's... restrictive. I doubt it's the extra 8 skill points that's grabbing you?
Turns out I am not playing the cleric because my DM and I could NOT see eye to eye on domains. Because NO greyhawk deity has undeath AND magic listed he is not going to allow me to say vecna has the undeath domain.
Could always go godless cleric, with your domains representing your personal philosophy. One of the reasons I prefer Greyhawk over Faerun. Or is your DM not allowing that?
Turns out I am not playing the cleric because my DM and I could NOT see eye to eye on domains. Because NO greyhawk deity has undeath AND magic listed he is not going to allow me to say vecna has the undeath domain.Maybe this article by the author of the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer will help?
Hmm... the DM wouldn't allow you to be a noble without the class? That's... restrictive. I doubt it's the extra 8 skill points that's grabbing you?So now I'm taking one lvl of aristocrate and them pure wizard.
The aristocrate gives me the skill points and skills a wizard should have at first lvl. The weapons and armor are irrelevant but being able to RP a true noble(however minor) will be fun.
Matt you have just become my new hero. I cant thank you enough for that article link.
your right it's not just the extra points it's the skills themselves taht are needed. I'm the party face so I need diplomacy,sense motive,bluff,as well as proffesion gambler. Wizards dont get that. plus having speak language as a class skill will be nice too. in a nut shell noble fills in the skills a wizard is lacking in but needs. The other players always do the gruby nature anti-social types so the wiz has to be everything civilised. BTW this applies equally for cleric as well. Thanks again for the link.
Turns out I am not playing the cleric because my DM and I could NOT see eye to eye on domains. Because NO greyhawk deity has undeath AND magic listed he is not going to allow me to say vecna has the undeath domain.Could always go godless cleric, with your domains representing your personal philosophy. One of the reasons I prefer Greyhawk over Faerun. Or is your DM not allowing that?
Yea he would allow that but I know taht in the coming adventure a priest of Vecna would be so cool because we are fighting a splinter group of them. I can use the sacrafice rules and really clean up on exp for item creation so vecna has a soft spot in my heart.
Matt you have just become my new hero. I cant thank you enough for that article link.
your right it's not just the extra points it's the skills themselves taht are needed. I'm the party face so I need diplomacy,sense motive,bluff,as well as proffesion gambler. Wizards dont get that. plus having speak language as a class skill will be nice too. in a nut shell noble fills in the skills a wizard is lacking in but needs. The other players always do the gruby nature anti-social types so the wiz has to be everything civilised. BTW this applies equally for cleric as well. Thanks again for the link.
No probs.
OK guys heres another "would you allow it question"
Basiclly I want my wizard to take the sudden maximize feat which is once a day BUT then I was going to create a "wondrous" item that would allow the storeing of spell enegry to power that feat more times a day.
My formula was going to be something like 1+int bonus times per day you can use your sudden feats that many times per day.
I realise that I could take the regular feats for max/empower/etc etc but they dont do me any good at low level and thats when you need them the most before you get all the cool magic items.
Thanks to everyone thats been my sound boards so far, it has really helped me make my ideas more presentable to the dm and more balanced over all.
Basiclly I want my wizard to take the sudden maximize feat which is once a day BUT then I was going to create a "wondrous" item that would allow the storeing of spell enegry to power that feat more times a day.
My formula was going to be something like 1+int bonus times per day you can use your sudden feats that many times per day.
Probably not, because there is already a magic item that does something very similar. I would instead point you to a Rod of Metamagic, Maximize, Lesser (14,000 g) which allows the spontaneous addition of the Maximize metamagic feat 3x / day for any spell of levels 1-3.
If you were still insistent of crafting something, I would use that rod as a template for whatever you wanted to do. In no case would you get something cheaper than around 4667g / daily use and affecting only low level spells.
Edit: All that said, if you are wanting to get more uses out of maximize and feel that metamagic just isn't that useful the way it is (some groups feel this way, though I feel the math clearly shows this to be wrong), then I would suggest looking at the alternate metamagic system found in Unearthed Arcana (also found HERE). If you find this to your tastes you may be able to convince your DM to go this route (though I personally would not allow it and would instead help you make a build that can make really good use of metamagic or at least show you how good it can be under the current rules... just not at low levels).