Search results

You'll probably see less of a reliance on spells that require a saving throw (fireball, lightning bolt, hold person), and probably more on touch or ranged touch attacks, since wizard/sorcs/clerics/druids are going to have higher BAB than a plain class normally would. Self-buffs would probably...

Smart NPC groups that are expecting adventurers or meddlers are going to target wizards first, followed by possibly clerics, and may have their own wizards or sorcerers of their own. So, ranged attack folk on the other group should be targeting the wizard if they can, especially if first...

Now, one different option would be to not have the restriction on the half-casting classes. Palladins, Rangers, Bards, for instance, and continuing with some of the semi-casters in the expansion books.

Well, for one, physical fighting actions would have an advantage over magic-weilding. Someone who is Ftr 4 / Rog 4 is going to have a BAB of 7 - almost as good as a full on fighter, and can work in full armor. Someone who's Ftr 4 / Clr 4 is going to have the same BAB and armor abilities, but...

I allowed them in one game, and most of the players took them - but generally they tended to pop up and restrict play in one way or another. It seems like a fairly safe option, as long as you restrict it to one flaw.

Huh. Well, so it has.

a) Gauntlets are a weapon - a simple one, according to the PHB - and one that does 1d3 damage and with which a Monk is not proficient. Ergo, you're doing less damage, and hitting with a -4 non-proficiency penalty. Plus, you can't flurry. b) Improved Natural Attack improves a Natural Attack...

Maybe? Can't answer the question, too vague. In Feng Shui, you're one of the baddest people in the world - your kung fu is strong, or your guns seldom miss, or you know the magic of the world. In such a world, you're going to be better than most people on the street in fighting or somewhat...

Unfortunately, the Wisdom is like 11. So that's not really an option. So, it looks like what I might go with is other classes that enhance being a wizard in general - right now I'm looking at possibly both Loremaster and Archmage, and also I'm considering dabbling in the Human Paragon class -...

I'd forgotten that - thanks. Looking at it, though, I think it's both 3.0 (R&R was one of the really early d20 books), and horribly broken. I mean, Metamagic feats, which can be applied to your summoning spells, but which don't increase the spell level, and you get five of them? But yeah...

I mistyped, then. If I had some way of casting 'Lesser Planar Ally' as a wizard, I'd take Thaumaturgist.

Oh, I quite agree - I took that, and I'm very happy with the results. The character also already has Augmented Summoning, so I'm quite happy with that as well. So far, Alienist looks good, if disturbing. Thaumaturgist could be nice, except it requires a Clr 4 spell to cast which I can't use...

I had it come up in a 3.0 campaign based around prewritten modules, and got of fairly lightly. One person who drew was having ooc issues with other players, and (for those reasons, and not the deck), ended up leaving the game after that session, even though he'd drawn the best of any of them...

So, I'm playing a character who specializes in Conjuration and Summon Monster spells - are there any official D&D 3.5 good Prestige classes that enhance/support that sort of wizard? Are there any d20 3.5 PCs I could look for?

Well, this argument is that it's broken, if we're fixing the monk in general. So, if it's with a monk with full BAB, then it's a pathetic 1d6, but with a +1 BAB and a -1/-1 Flurry. Then at 5th it would be maybe a 1d6 still, but with a +5 BAB, and a better flurry... The idea is to rebalance...

No, I don't think so. Personally, I love all the new options. When 3.0 came out, everyone complained that there was only one system of magic, or that there were two, but they were too similar. Well, now we've got about five or six systems of magic, and that's even more cool. I agree that...

I think I misspoke there. I didn't mean 'makes sense' as in 'this is how I'd build a monk' - because it isn't. I meant 'meakes sense' as in, 'doesn't strike me as any more unrealistic than anything else in the game'. But at this point I suspect I'm quibbling. In My Next Campaign (we should...

We're arguing two different things again. I'm talking about how things are not overpowered and seem to make sense if you look at the rules as they are written, and you're talking about how you'ld like the monk to be - which is, in fact, something we agree on. I want the Monk to have a full...

Oh, alright. If we're rewriting the rules so that a monk can gain reasonably priced enhancements to their unarmed attacks, including many of the same extra-damage enhancements that other attackers can get, then I agree that a monk's damage should be drasticly reduced. I'm just saying that...

What does it matter if the Monk's strike is a one-handed weapon? It's not like he's holding onto a shield with the free hand. Part of the balance in doing more damage with a two-handed weapon is that you don't get to use your shield. Part of the balance in Monks doing so much damage is that...