Search results

Here's where I think we differ: You view building a "balanced" ToB character to be building one with similar capabilities to the core melee classes. I see building a "balanced" ToB character as building one that's closer to the core casters. Given that we're talking about how to bring magic...

If you're simply trying to build the best character you can within whatever bounds you've set, you're optimizing or min/maxing. If you're trying to build the best character you can in order to deliberately overshadow the other players (i.e. you want to "win" D&D), that's powergaming/munchkinry.

Generally, when the debate is about "fighter vs. wizard" it means "primary martial types vs. full casters," so "fighters can't have nice things," "fighters have issues without lots of magic items," etc. includes other full BAB classes. Not all that much. In 1e and 2e, you could make all your...

Not liking ToB doesn't imply that the highlighted problems (full-attack reliance, inability to protect himself against debuffs, etc.) aren't more problematic for the fighter than lack of straight numerical benefits.

Note I said those characters who have all their levels in a full BAB class; fighter/barbarian or hexblade/ranger yes, fighter/rogue or paladin/monk no. There are still ways for characters for less than full BAB to gain the ability (and relatively easily) it's just that they don't get it by...

Honestly, martial types being able to make all of their attacks after moving is something they should just be able to do; it worked in 1e and 2e, why was it removed? I usually rule that all characters who have full BAB for all of their classes can make all of their attacks on a standard action...

Maneuver drawbacks are important, but you shouldn't need to take drawbacks just to blind someone. At the very most, the majority of the effects should only start around -5 to -10; they've vastly overvalued the potency of these maneuvers. Yes, you can choose the fighting style to take...

Given that DR 4/-- is almost negligible at 20th level, when creatures are dealing around 3d6-4d6 (plus Str) damage per natural attack? No. It's the barbarian's DR that needs improvement; monsters can get DR 10/ or 15/, why can't he? I don't want to just "tack on more bonuses," as you'll...

Iron Heroes is a good source of scaling feats, and so is the Frank & K Tome series on the WotC boards. You can't really import Iron Heroes feats wholesale, because they assume a lack of the standard Vancian casters, but importing those and adding some more to cover the gaps should work well...

I don't think making it every 3rd level is necessarily the best approach, since before 7th level they're not too amazing and after that they really take off. In 2e, there was a 1-level gap between 5th and 6th level spells (so it went 1/3/5/7/9/12/14/16/18), but given the power boost the 3e...

Honestly, the highly-touted 4e monster creation system already exists in 3e...it just goes by monster type instead of monster role. In 4e, you say "I want a level X monster that makes really powerful attacks from a distance. Hmm...let's make it a dragon, so it has a breath weapon and can fly."...

This mentality, I think, is part of the imbalance between casters and martial types. For the fighter to add +1 to his attack rolls, you're suggesting he should have to be at least 4th level and pick up 2 feats that are mostly useless except for meeting prerequisites. For the fighter to add +1...

Balance-wise? They're fine. Weapon Focus is +1 to attack with one particular weapon and it's practically never taken except as a prerequisite, so the attack one's fine. Fighters and other martial types have a big weakness in their touch AC, so the AC one's fine. DR isn't anywhere near too...

Agreed. Vancian casting was designed for spell slots; psionics was designed for power points. Putting Vancian spells with the psionic resource-management system (which is all spell points does) is a recipe for disaster.

You can always keep casting the same spell over and over on the same target (the particulars of overlapping spells like that are even covered in the PHB), it just (A) won't provide any additional benefit until the first one is dispelled and (B) isn't worth it unless it's limited use, so primary...

I'm running 2 3e-ish games at the moment: One is all official books plus Dragon in a homebrew setting with my 12 players split into 2 parties going through the same plot in parallel on different nights; one is a playtest campaign for a 3e variant a friend and I are working on, so it started...

I don't know of any. SDAs (and D&DG in general) are 3.0 material that came out fairly close to the 3.5 transition, so them getting support in Dragon is unlikely at best.

Check Complete Divine for the rules on PrCs adding domains. Basically, clerics get it as a 3rd domain, which works like any other domain, and other classes have their own rules.

They are, and immediate actions as well, but the PHB section only uses PHB text, which doesn't have it there. The should probably have made the Rules Compendium part of the SRD...but that would be a bit too logical. ;)

It's a swift action. The "free action once per round" text comes from the fact that swift actions weren't introduced at 3.5's launch, and the SRD is only supposed to use official PHB text.