|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had an idea to add some sort of weapon attachment with charges that could hold abilities and bestow them on the weapon when it was swung, much like arrows are to bows. To be fair, this idea was for a futuristic game, and so the concept was "charge packs", but it could be easily used in a standard pathfinder setting as charms dangling from chains or strips of prayer paper. If a melee character could switch to using silver/cold iron/holy/flaming/bane X/etc. at will like an archer could, I don't think losing the "+X bonus = DR type" would be a problem.
Regardless, IME (not using the "+X = DR type" rule), most melees use 2-handed weapons and have the mentality of "I'm hitting hard enough anyway". Those that two-weapon fight usually wail away anyway, since they tend to be getting enough damage through per attack for full-attacking to still be their best strategy. I haven't seen a serious sword and shield melee character that wasn't basically a two-weapon melee with a sub-optimal weapon and higher AC.
It is less costly and more realistic to not have to carry so many weapons.
I'm gonna disagree on "realism" here. "Realism" would be not having creatures be resistant to silver in the first place, but this is a magical setting, and having magic substitute for silver is just as unrealistic as having only silver be able to wipe out lycanthropes.
Otherwise, I agree with you--it is indeed less costly, and many GMs prefer it. I myself use the rule, but I'm gonna speak in the defense of not using it here.
If a player packs a cold iron morningstar, a mithril longsword, and an adamantine whatever, he's fine--and any one of those can be his main weapon, too. The "golf bag" analogy is a bit hyperbolic. You just need three weapons to bypass most DR.
Also, the rule doesn't really affect the "golf bag" until it no longer matters, since enhancements that are good enough to count for metals are so expensive you'll still need to carry all three types for a lot of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that's not what you're arguing for. . . you aren't arguing for martials to have abilities or options to by pass DR, you are arguing for Wizards to be able to mass produce weapons that by-pass everything.With this rule implemented its no biggie though-- I just have to through DR 10/- and Fast Healing 10 on to every monster the players ever encounter to make sure they live long enough for players to have fun.
That or triple listed hit points. . .
Long ineffective fights are not fun for players, not even a little bit.
If I'm level 12 sitting there throwing out 6 attacks a round tally up the total after a sweet round where I land everything subtract DR and I'm like "Oh I did 25 damage ..." That isn't when I'm like "WOOOO! AWESOME FIGHT!" it's more like when I swap over to web surfing and wait for the Caster to trivialize the encounter.
Fights over in 2 rounds aren't any fun either. If there's no challenge to the game why bother?
Rocket tag is only fun for a certain segment of the population.
It sounds like the argument is being raised that DR itself is un-fun. In that case, why even include it?
EDIT: By this I mean, why include it in your games? If you want to make it as easy as possible to bypass, it's not performing its intended purpose of raising CRs, and it's making things less enjoyable.
EDIT x2: And by that I mean, those of you who think DR is inherently un-fun should do this. This suggestion applies less so to the people who are solely complaining about the golf bags.
Eh, I like DR. A lot of people do. But I suggest you make a new thread for that--or, better yet, dig up one of the many threads I'm sure have been made over the subject.
Why make a new thread when it's completely relevant to the conversation at hand?
No, the conversation at hand is whether a particular house rule is good or not. Not whether DR as a whole is good. I'd wager plenty of people who like the enhancement work-around are perfectly fine with DR as a system.
DR is an excellent way of challenging archers who normally make mincemeat of enemies (even if they come prepared, they'll quickly run out of their special ammo unless they seriously stocked up), and it can be crazy handy if the PC gets ahold of it. Like regeneration, it can be a pain to combat, but not all encounters should be simple and linear "keep stabbing". DR is one of many mechanics that forces some strategy--the dual-wielding fighter who must break out his greataxe to make a dent in the dretch hordes, for instance, or the entire party that must pull out so the alchemist can make short work of the grick that blocks their path.
You're welcome to house rule it out, but plenty of people appreciate it, for the same reason they appreciate monsters with high ACs/Mounted Combat/displacement/plenty of other abilities that let them avoid damage.
It sounds like the argument is being raised that DR itself is un-fun. In that case, why even include it?Frankly I do think DR itself is an unfun mechanic and that it does more harm than good to the game. I think for the most part it's still in the game as a story themed hold over from it's roots in mythology where lycanthropes have to be killed with silver and vampires fought with garlic and stakes.
But lets be honest as a game mechanic it's complete crap, it makes the weak fighting styles weaker and the strong ones stronger.
@Nathanael Love - I like how you pretend that DR makes Rocket Tag less important, when in fact DR is the main reason why Rocket Tag PCs like 2handed fighters and Archers are the primary fighting styles. (The other part is of course the shoddy movement rules in the system).
Anyone who isn't a Rocket Tag player has an even worse time when playing with DR. Throw in a two weapon dex specialist and realize that you legitimately can't do anything in a fight with even moderate amounts of DR and you wonder why people build their PCs to do tons of damage on a few hits.
So we should have there be no regulation for how much damage enemies can take and just let the fighter kill everything in one shot?
Sorry, I've played/ran too many games where one guy has that character and nobody else is capable of doing anything to ever shining to simply let that guy get his way and one shot everything.
Or anything that reduces damage from piercing.
But honestly, how common is DR/Bludgeoning or DR/-?
Skeletons and elementals?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So we should have there be no regulation for how much damage enemies can take and just let the fighter kill everything in one shot?Sorry, I've played/ran too many games where one guy has that character and nobody else is capable of doing anything to ever shining to simply let that guy get his way and one shot everything.
Me, too. "That guy" is about 99% a caster, past level 2.
Let me be preemptive here and request that we try very hard to not turn this into a "Archer Fighters are OP" discussion, and if we're going to do that, warn me so I can get out my build notes and start complaining about slings. :)
Me, too. "That guy" is about 99% a caster, past level 2.
So we should have there be no regulation for how much damage enemies can take and just let the fighter kill everything in one shot?Sorry, I've played/ran too many games where one guy has that character and nobody else is capable of doing anything to ever shining to simply let that guy get his way and one shot everything.
I've never seen him be. . . I've seen Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, but never had a single problem with a caster.
It's really easy for an archer to run around with 50 Cold Iron, Silver, Adamantine, Slashing/Bludgeoning(In the elves book iirc), arrows and then get to use their Bow's Magic enhancement bonuses to get all the benefits of both in a way that a melee fighter never could, and of course clustered shots lets him only suffer DR once on a full attack iirc.To be fair, while archers have a pretty easy time getting past DR/cold iron or DR/silver or DR/special substance, they do tend to be hurt the most by DR/- due to having a very large number of attacks per round.
I would agree that it's relatively easy to get arrows made of special materials but not that much more than it is to do the same for melee weapons. Sure it's cheaper in the short term but a melee fighter doesn't have to periodically restock his ammunition; that adds up in the long haul especially when your DM is very strict about tracking resources. I was unaware of slashing arrows or bludgeoning arrows that do lethal damage so thanks for that but really clustered shot is the answer I was looking for.
At first blush, that feat looks dangerously close to OP, mainly because there is no equivalent available to a TWF'er, unless there is that I also don't know of :D
I've never seen him be. . . I've seen Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, but never had a single problem with a caster.Me, too. "That guy" is about 99% a caster, past level 2.
So we should have there be no regulation for how much damage enemies can take and just let the fighter kill everything in one shot?Sorry, I've played/ran too many games where one guy has that character and nobody else is capable of doing anything to ever shining to simply let that guy get his way and one shot everything.
Probably because your caster players are either unskilled enough to not know how to make themselves broken, or skilled (and nice) enough not to do so.
Yeah, instead of nerfing DR or dissing a serviceable house rule, I'd suggest that this particular GM ban Clustered Shots. Thing looks pretty lame to me. But aside from an obscure Ultimate Combat Feat, DR hurts archers plenty. :P
Oh, but let's answer the OP's question: No. The GM is not being a jerk. He's playing the game as he thinks it should be played. You're free to give an alternate view, but he's not being a jerk, nor is he playing "wrong". It's the way he likes to play. If you can't stand it, you're free to leave.
|
|
Probably because your caster players are either unskilled enough to not know how to make themselves broken, or skilled (and nice) enough not to do so.I've never seen him be. . . I've seen Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, but never had a single problem with a caster.Me, too. "That guy" is about 99% a caster, past level 2.
So we should have there be no regulation for how much damage enemies can take and just let the fighter kill everything in one shot?Sorry, I've played/ran too many games where one guy has that character and nobody else is capable of doing anything to ever shining to simply let that guy get his way and one shot everything.
My experience is that the person who wants to optimize to the gills will play a martial character, simply because DPR is an easy metric to grade how well your character is "winning". Also, at least in the group I play in, the people who play casters seem to have a bit of laziness/arrogance of "I don't need to shine all the time, I can chose to turn on the 'sound the trumpets, I'm the hero' mode at anytime." That also gets mixed with a bit of "Why use one of my spells per day when I can just let the melees handle it?" The first part is the arrogance, the second is the laziness.
|
|
Yeah because we don't see nearly enough martials using 2 handed weapons in this game already! Oh wait.Yeah, instead of nerfing DR or dissing a serviceable house rule, I'd suggest that this particular GM ban Clustered Shots. Thing looks pretty lame to me. But aside from an obscure Ultimate Combat Feat, DR hurts archers plenty. :P
I think having an equivalent that only works with unarmed/weapons wielded in one hand is probably the better solution.
Yeah because we don't see nearly enough martials using 2 handed weapons in this game already! Oh wait.Yeah, instead of nerfing DR or dissing a serviceable house rule, I'd suggest that this particular GM ban Clustered Shots. Thing looks pretty lame to me. But aside from an obscure Ultimate Combat Feat, DR hurts archers plenty. :P
Somehow, I doubt that banning an obscure feat is going to make all the archers pack up and leave. Grumble grumble slings grumble grumble Halflings of Golarion grumble.
And if your players only play two-handers because they hate DR, either you're using too many creatures with DR, they're being too lazy when it comes to packing a spare weapon, or they're really being motivated by the wrong reasons. Or, y'know, a mix of all three.
I think having an equivalent that only works with unarmed/weapons wielded in one hand is probably the better solution.
So now the presence of an Ultimate Combat feat is needed to make the archer style valid? Is this why I never saw any archers before that book came out? "Oh wait." ;)
My experience is that the person who wants to optimize to the gills will play a martial character, simply because DPR is an easy metric to grade how well your character is "winning". Also, at least in the group I play in, the people who play casters seem to have a bit of laziness/arrogance of "I don't need to shine all the time, I can chose to turn on the 'sound the trumpets, I'm the hero' mode at anytime." That also gets mixed with a bit of "Why use one of my spells per day when I can just let the melees handle it?" The first part is the arrogance, the second is the laziness.Probably because your caster players are either unskilled enough to not know how to make themselves broken, or skilled (and nice) enough not to do so.I've never seen him be. . . I've seen Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, but never had a single problem with a caster.Me, too. "That guy" is about 99% a caster, past level 2.
So we should have there be no regulation for how much damage enemies can take and just let the fighter kill everything in one shot?Sorry, I've played/ran too many games where one guy has that character and nobody else is capable of doing anything to ever shining to simply let that guy get his way and one shot everything.
Its not about laziness or "just letting the melees handle it", its about conserving resources because as a caster you have a limited number. And not all DMs allows you to just retreat/rest for 8 hours whenever you feel like it, some of us like to conserve the big guns for the key fights and pace expenditures of resources (spell slots, metamagic uses per day, ect).
You're totally right though. The two guys sitting at my table who want to do the most damage play almost exclusively martials and they have been finding all the ways to do the most damage for years, so yes, they crush enemies faster than casters can.
It's a bit unfair for melee characters over archers...
As with so many things...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kobold Cleaver: Where did you get the idea that anyone involved in this discussion thinks Clustered Shot is required to make archery viable? My only question was specifically regarding why it was stated that they are unaffected by DR. I did not question the viability of archery nor did I see anyone else.
Take a deep breath and realize that someone was suggesting that, rather than ban a feat that gives archery an ability other combat styles lack, a feat be created to help make other combat styles, specifically TWF, on par with archery. Nothing more, nothing less. Archery is widely recognized as an effective combat style, even by me, before I knew of Clustered Shot.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think having an equivalent that only works with unarmed/weapons wielded in one hand is probably the better solution.So now the presence of an Ultimate Combat feat is needed to make the archer style valid? Is this why I never saw any archers before that book came out? "Oh wait." ;)
Key word "better", as in, better than removing clustered shots because you feel it's too good. You could probably just make the feat "clustered strikes", apply it to all attacks, and let DR be a feat tax. None of these options are likely "best", but they are definitely "better" than some other options, at least to certain groups.
Its not about laziness or "just letting the melees handle it", its about conserving resources because as a caster you have a limited number. And not all DMs allows you to just retreat/rest for 8 hours whenever you feel like it, some of us like to conserve the big guns for the key fights and pace expenditures of resources (spell slots, metamagic uses per day, ect).You're totally right though. The two guys sitting at my table who want to do the most damage play almost exclusively martials and they have been finding all the ways to do the most damage for years, so yes, they crush enemies faster than casters can.
Cool. Its still a shame an optimized Caster can obliterate encounters far faster and easier than any martial can from level 3 and beyond.
Dishing out 10d4+32 with a Burning Hands is hilarious. At level 6.
Kobold Cleaver: Where did you get the idea that anyone involved in this discussion thinks Clustered Shot is required to make archery viable?
From a guy saying that removing Clustered Shot would ruin archers. :)
Take a deep breath
Oh crap did I forget to breathe again
*Takes deep breath*Thanks, bro. Good thing I have people to remind me about that.
and realize that someone was suggesting that, rather than ban a feat that gives archery an ability other combat styles lack, a feat be created to help make other combat styles, specifically TWF, on par with archery.
That'd also be a valid approach. I'm no master of rules, so I personally err on the side of not trusting all the other rulebooks due to the trouble they tend to cause. Better to remove a potentially bad rule than to add several more to "fix" it, after all, and it's best for me to play it safe.
In other words, you guys are confident that "Clustered Strikes" would fix the issue, that's your guarantee. I'm not takin' the fall for it. ;D
Also,
I'd suggest that this particular GM ban Clustered Shots.
As y'all can see, my original post was recommending it only for the GM who wants to avoid reducing the effectiveness of DR.
|
|
Cool. Its still a shame an optimized Caster can obliterate encounters far faster and easier than any martial can from level 3 and beyond.
Its not about laziness or "just letting the melees handle it", its about conserving resources because as a caster you have a limited number. And not all DMs allows you to just retreat/rest for 8 hours whenever you feel like it, some of us like to conserve the big guns for the key fights and pace expenditures of resources (spell slots, metamagic uses per day, ect).You're totally right though. The two guys sitting at my table who want to do the most damage play almost exclusively martials and they have been finding all the ways to do the most damage for years, so yes, they crush enemies faster than casters can.
Right, they can. My experience, however, has been that the people who play casters don't want to, but most people who play martials do.
Right, they can. My experience, however, has been that the people who play casters don't want to, but most people who play martials do.Cool. Its still a shame an optimized Caster can obliterate encounters far faster and easier than any martial can from level 3 and beyond.
Its not about laziness or "just letting the melees handle it", its about conserving resources because as a caster you have a limited number. And not all DMs allows you to just retreat/rest for 8 hours whenever you feel like it, some of us like to conserve the big guns for the key fights and pace expenditures of resources (spell slots, metamagic uses per day, ect).You're totally right though. The two guys sitting at my table who want to do the most damage play almost exclusively martials and they have been finding all the ways to do the most damage for years, so yes, they crush enemies faster than casters can.
Great, but it remains a fact of the system unfortunately.
By playing a martial you make a conscious decision to be less effective basically. If the goal is to dish out the most damage possible. It is also unfortunate that Casters get many goodies to accomplishing other goals.
Hit dice for one is a very deceptive thing. A d10 surely is much greater than a d6 right? Well at level 20 the difference is 40 hp on characters with hit points in the hundreds.
AC is meaningless without hefty investment, while defensive spells are incredible all the time.
Right, they can. My experience, however, has been that the people who play casters don't want to, but most people who play martials do.Cool. Its still a shame an optimized Caster can obliterate encounters far faster and easier than any martial can from level 3 and beyond.
Its not about laziness or "just letting the melees handle it", its about conserving resources because as a caster you have a limited number. And not all DMs allows you to just retreat/rest for 8 hours whenever you feel like it, some of us like to conserve the big guns for the key fights and pace expenditures of resources (spell slots, metamagic uses per day, ect).You're totally right though. The two guys sitting at my table who want to do the most damage play almost exclusively martials and they have been finding all the ways to do the most damage for years, so yes, they crush enemies faster than casters can.
Great, but it remains a fact of the system unfortunately.
Do I like having the shadow of the power of casters hanging over constantly? Not really. I'm not a fan of their ability to trivialize everything.
And I am not a fan of having to expend my most powerful spell and use charges on my items to do similar damage to what a martial gets to do multiple times per round, effectively trivializing anything that can be dealt with by dealing damage. The shadow of the martial's damage is just too much for me to want to remove DR from the game entirely and let them roam free and unchecked.
And I am not a fan of having to expend my most powerful spell and use charges on my items to do similar damage to what a martial gets to do multiple times per round, effectively trivializing anything that can be dealt with by dealing damage. The shadow of the martial's damage is just too much for me to want to remove DR from the game entirely and let them roam free and unchecked.Right, they can. My experience, however, has been that the people who play casters don't want to, but most people who play martials do.Cool. Its still a shame an optimized Caster can obliterate encounters far faster and easier than any martial can from level 3 and beyond.
Its not about laziness or "just letting the melees handle it", its about conserving resources because as a caster you have a limited number. And not all DMs allows you to just retreat/rest for 8 hours whenever you feel like it, some of us like to conserve the big guns for the key fights and pace expenditures of resources (spell slots, metamagic uses per day, ect).You're totally right though. The two guys sitting at my table who want to do the most damage play almost exclusively martials and they have been finding all the ways to do the most damage for years, so yes, they crush enemies faster than casters can.
Great, but it remains a fact of the system unfortunately.
Do I like having the shadow of the power of casters hanging over constantly? Not really. I'm not a fan of their ability to trivialize everything.
O.o
2nd level spell slots are your most powerful spells? 1st level spell slots with slight investment. Your third level spell slots are far more powerful than what I mentioned.
The best part is that the caster doesn't worry about getting full attacks either.
Also I'd love to know what martial is putting out 50 damage a round over a cone. I consider myself a pretty good builder and my Barbarian has difficulty coming even close to this without a crit. And certainly not if multiple enemies are getting hit.
|
|
Right, they can. My experience, however, has been that the people who play casters don't want to, but most people who play martials do.Cool. Its still a shame an optimized Caster can obliterate encounters far faster and easier than any martial can from level 3 and beyond.
Its not about laziness or "just letting the melees handle it", its about conserving resources because as a caster you have a limited number. And not all DMs allows you to just retreat/rest for 8 hours whenever you feel like it, some of us like to conserve the big guns for the key fights and pace expenditures of resources (spell slots, metamagic uses per day, ect).You're totally right though. The two guys sitting at my table who want to do the most damage play almost exclusively martials and they have been finding all the ways to do the most damage for years, so yes, they crush enemies faster than casters can.
Great, but it remains a fact of the system unfortunately.
Do I like having the shadow of the power of casters hanging over constantly? Not really. I'm not a fan of their ability to trivialize everything.
Fair enough. I've given a player a very powerful artifact at level 5, but he avoids using it most of the time, chalking it up to "not using such a powerful gift from his god on a lesser trial". I'm very comfortable with the group I play with, and so alot of the issues with the system get eaten in unspoken agreements.
We've never played with the "+X = overcome DR" rule, even though it is a core rule, it has been mentioned frequently, and we've never made a formal call that it didn't apply. It just... got ignored.
Of course, all it takes is ONE player who wants to play against a certain group's default agreements to force the creation of clearly spoken (or written) houserules and agreements. In a situation like PFS, you're likely to see all of the problems posters on these boards mention at least once. The system could be fixed, but that's the mentality WoW has. Do you really want balance patches to your role-playing game every month? It's a bit ideallistic, and frequently unrealistic, but I believe pathfinder (and other games like it) works best when everyone involved tries to self-regulate. As stated though, not always an option.
Kobold Cleaver: Where did you get the idea that anyone involved in this discussion thinks Clustered Shot is required to make archery viable?From a guy saying that removing Clustered Shot would ruin archers. :)
Kindly point to where exactly I said anything even remotely like that please? I've only known of the feat's existence for a mere 112 minutes--hardly long enough to form any opinion on its necessity.
The single, solitary comment I made about Clustered Shot is that it strikes me as OP especially considering there is no equivalent for TWF'ers. This led to the discussion of either banning clustered shot or adding a feat like it for TWF. I have made NO comment whatsoever regarding the viability of archery as a combat style nor have I made any comment regarding Clustered Shot in relation to that viability.
argh, keep forgetting to switch from character to my main profile.
Let me be preemptive here and request that we try very hard to not turn this into a "Archer Fighters are OP" discussion, and if we're going to do that, warn me so I can get out my build notes and start complaining about slings. :)
Y'know, I think slings have been unfairly maligned by the rules. Just because they don't look as traditionally cool as bows doesn't mean they shouldn't have something to make them viable at higher levels, but nooooo, we just had to make them pathetic by making it a pain in the ass to full attack with them. It's hard enough for halflings--let's talk a human trying to use them! Pain in the absolute ass! It's outrageous, I say! I say we all have a huge argument and...
EDIT: Is it just me, or is "smaller" not working on this post?
Let me be preemptive here and request that we try very hard to not turn this into a "Archer Fighters are OP" discussion, and if we're going to do that, warn me so I can get out my build notes and start complaining about slings. :)Y'know, I think slings have been unfairly maligned by the rules. Just because they don't look as traditionally cool as bows doesn't mean they shouldn't have something to make them viable at higher levels, but nooooo, we just had to make them pathetic by making it a pain in the ass to full attack with them. It's hard enough for halflings--let's talk a human trying to use them! Pain in the absolute ass! It's outrageous, I say! I say we all have a huge argument and...
Think?
They got outright eviscerated. *shakes head*
I have a feeling if the ruling was made nowadays it would have been far more helpful. I think we did some good stuff during the ACG playtest that might have improved the game as a whole.
Kindly point to where exactly I said anything even remotely like that please?Kobold Cleaver: Where did you get the idea that anyone involved in this discussion thinks Clustered Shot is required to make archery viable?From a guy saying that removing Clustered Shot would ruin archers. :)
No. Because I never said you said it. It's the post I quoted when I initially made the statement you complained about.
Let's chillax for a moment. At least we can all agree that [extremely controversial statement]. :)
And I am not a fan of having to expend my most powerful spell and use charges on my items to do similar damage to what a martial gets to do multiple times per round, effectively trivializing anything that can be dealt with by dealing damage. The shadow of the martial's damage is just too much for me to want to remove DR from the game entirely and let them roam free and unchecked.Right, they can. My experience, however, has been that the people who play casters don't want to, but most people who play martials do.Cool. Its still a shame an optimized Caster can obliterate encounters far faster and easier than any martial can from level 3 and beyond.
Its not about laziness or "just letting the melees handle it", its about conserving resources because as a caster you have a limited number. And not all DMs allows you to just retreat/rest for 8 hours whenever you feel like it, some of us like to conserve the big guns for the key fights and pace expenditures of resources (spell slots, metamagic uses per day, ect).You're totally right though. The two guys sitting at my table who want to do the most damage play almost exclusively martials and they have been finding all the ways to do the most damage for years, so yes, they crush enemies faster than casters can.
Great, but it remains a fact of the system unfortunately.
Do I like having the shadow of the power of casters hanging over constantly? Not really. I'm not a fan of their ability to trivialize everything.
O.o
2nd level spell slots are your most powerful spells? 1st level spell slots with slight investment. Your third level spell slots are far more powerful than what I mentioned.
The best part is that the caster doesn't worry about getting full attacks either.
Also I'd love to know what martial is putting out 50 damage a round over a cone. I consider myself a pretty good builder...
I have played this game in one form or another for close to 20 years. Not a single time has a Burning Hands hit more than one character.
Do you really want to get into the math again? Haven't we proven that martials do more damage enough times so we can move onto the "narrative power" segment of the argument?
I'm really not sure offhand how you are doing 10d4+anything with Burning Hands, the spell does 5d4 + nothing max. I can't think of a +1 or +2 level metamagic feat to double dice. . .
You and I can't possibly be reading the same conversation. I do not see where anyone said anything of the sort. The discussion was about helping out TWF, not taking away archery's shiny, as a way to have more options to THF *shrug*
I have played this game in one form or another for close to 20 years. Not a single time has a Burning Hands hit more than one character.
Do you really want to get into the math again? Haven't we proven that martials do more damage enough times so we can move onto the "narrative power" segment of the argument?
I'm really not sure offhand how you are doing 10d4+anything with Burning Hands, the spell does 5d4 + nothing max. I can't think of a +1 or +2 level metamagic feat to double dice. . .
20 years and you haven't seen an effective blaster or an area spell hit more than one target?
Crossblooded Draconic/Orc Sorcerer 1/Admixture Wizard 5.
+1 damage per die of any damage spell and +1 damage per die of any fire spell
Spell Specialization, Intensify Spell, Mage's Tattoo(Evocation), Bloatmage Initiate(Evocation), Spell Focus Evocation, Trait: Magical Knack, Trait: Wayang Spell Hunter
Effective Caster Level 10. Spell Slot level 1(Wayang Spell Hunter).
Intensified Burning Hands amplified with Goblin Fire Drum(2,000 gp).
10d4+32 Reflex Save DC16
Optimized for Fireball
Trait: Wayang Spell Hunter, Trait: Magical Lineage, exchanged Intensify Spell with Empower Spell
Spell Slot level 3, ECL 9
Empowered Fireball amped with Goblin Fire Drum.
(9d6+29)x1.5 Avg Damage: 90 Reflex Save DC 18
The math shows that...casters do stupid amounts of damage. He gets 4 of these fireballs a day. 1 Base, 1 Int Bonus, 1 School, 1 Arcane Bond(A bad ass cape that flows in the wind)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kindly point to where exactly I said anything even remotely like that please?Kobold Cleaver: Where did you get the idea that anyone involved in this discussion thinks Clustered Shot is required to make archery viable?From a guy saying that removing Clustered Shot would ruin archers. :)No. Because I never said you said it. It's the post I quoted when I initially made the statement you complained about.
Let's chillax for a moment. At least we can all agree that wizards are OP, fighters don't get nice things, and rogues are useless. :)
Filled that in for you ;)
Yes, your DM is a huge tool.
Look, people here are right, he is within his rights to houserule things.
But if he does it on the fly, just because he doesn't like you being effective, he's a huge knob. If this wasn't told to you before rolling up your character or the first session, he's a huge knob.Thing is, we don't know if this is a new houserule or if this was made before the game started.
One house rule I've seen is that a Gm allows the +X to bypass DR, but it has to be purely +X, not an equivalent. So like, you need a +3 longsword to bypass whatever, instead of, say, a +1 flame burst weapon (which would be a +3 enhancement). The former would work, while the latter wouldn't. Unsure how I felt about it, but it certainly was interesting.
Huh..that is how I thought it worked.