Search results

That is fine. But it just seems disingenuous to have front-line characters with low stats in Con. That said, I fully empathize with the monk who wants more skill-points, as monks are very difficult characters to play, especially in low-point buy campaigns. If you want a tough character that can...

No offense, but especially at the lower point-buys you won't see points that would have been in Constitution placed in Int, Wis, or Cha (particularly for Fighters). You'll just see higher strength and dexterity, which will make them do slightly more damage, slightly more accurate in ranged...

But if Con becomes more dumpable, stat-wise, what is that really going to 'enable' in terms of stat distribution? I've seen many people try low-Con builds with some success, though personally I treat it very highly in RAW D&D (even when some leniency is involved). The points people save on Con...

I disagree. Under a maximum hit point rule, Con loses a lot of punch, especially for classes with higher HDs. A 4th level fighter with a Con of 14 and random HP rolls will have approximately 35 hit points (10 + (3x5.5) + 8). A fighter with a Con of 10 would have approximately 27 hit points. A...

I think 3rd edition has caused a huge element of over-balancing and stressing balance between characters that was not present in previous editions. If the party is 8th level, there is no reason to introduce a new PC at 8th level (or even 6th, or 7th). First, that belittles your long-time players...

Is that a problem? Characters with d4 or d6 HD should definitely consider Constitution an important stat....right? In my experience the leniency is almost always decided at the first level-up and is consistent afterwards for all players. For instance, a decision to allow a re-roll and you must...

No. You are trading features you don't plan on using for a significant boost in power. I would let you change skills and get Tumble on your class list, but Barbarians get fast movement, not dual-wielding fighters.

I think that while most things should not be random (BAB for instance), having HP be random is one of the few 'real' references left in d&d. It does suck to get low hp for a level, especially if you are a front-line character. However, most games I've played have had some leniency with this. It...

The main drawback to the duskblade is the insanely small spell lists. Giving access to the cleric's spell list is ludicrous (have you seen some of their spells?). You are basically taking the cleric, one of the two most powerful classes in the game and: -Raising the BAB to fighters -Removing...

I remember when 3e came out they touted the difference between the bard and sorcerer as the bard knowing many spells, but only casting a few each day, while the sorcerer would know few spells but be able to cast them many times. Sadly, this is not actually the case. And I don't think giving them...

Bad Idea. If you want to remove fighters, do so. Then just make Weapon Spec a generic feat with req BAB +4 and Weapon Focus. It worked just fine in Arcana Evolved. A feat that gets you 2 feats? Errr. Bad design.

Personally I'd suggest sticking with rogue. Your 3rd fighter level grants you nothing, and your 4th is weapon spec (a great feat, to be sure) but youre basically taking 2 levels for a slight BAB increase and weapon spec. Taking rogue gets you access to the high-level rogue abilities, and with...

I think bards should out-strip sorcerers in spells known. They do, for a few levels (basically before sorcerers get 6th level). I would increase 0-level spells known to be faster than sorcerers. I would increase all other spell levels to be equal or on par with spells known. The caveat is that...

Infinitely more? I think your own min/max tendencies are at work here, not your hypothetical players. Do you call 2 skill points, the ability to rage once per day, and the dubious benefit of fast movement (given that your previous 4 levels have been Fighter) "infinitely better" than setting...

How does Rage help an archer? ...

I don't like: Dwarves (mechanically). Flavor-wise, they're awesome, but their stat-block is a bitch. Too many bonuses to too many things. A lot of it could be ammended with racial feats and bigger bonuses (ie - the stonecunning stuff, the spell-resistance + poison stuff, etc etc). Gnomes...

Nothing is wrong with Fighters as archers. The capacity to wear heavy armor does not dictate its use. Fighters get plenty of feats early which can establish an archer archtype very easily. Specialization certainly helps the damage output, as well as the standard magical arrows and magical bows.

The whole point of the class is to abuse close-range, damage-dealing spells with high-BAB, high HD, and good saves (compared to a sorceror/wizard). Allowing them more spells is silly...its a niche class and arguably fights better than the fighter already, dont give them the utility to outperform...

But you seem to think that multiclassing IS power-gaming, even if it is roleplayed. And that multiclassing spellcasters somehow creates more powerful characters, which it doesn't.

Eh, I don't mind the pre-req. As people have pointed out, it keeps rogues a little behind the curve early on which isn't a bad thing as they have a lot going for them early on. It also encourages str-builds, and plays nice with multiclassing. I do like the idea that its automatic though - after...