Search results

  1. C

    Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

    I refer you to Races of the Dragon. And I'd call autodidacts learning through intelligence. I'd call the bajillion wasted pages in the various Dragon books more relevant than one word that means nothing. Which is easy for any self-respecting wizard. Not really. It's easy. You have a bunch of...
  2. C

    Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

    Is not potentially indefinite service equally reasonable, when the one serving is an immortal serving a mortal? Especially when one is in a highly hierarchical society, for lack of a better word, and there is massive gain that could be gotten if the devil tries to corrupt said highly powerful...
  3. C

    Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

    While I agree that they are necessary, a discussion about the mechanics of it are the only thing that we all have in common here. Also, I question the wisdom of attempting to push human ideas of reason onto intelligent immortal beings made out of the idea of Evil, especially one so hierarchical...
  4. C

    Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

    You're wasting that much WBL on AC and a shield? That's what I call "trying hard." It's too expensive when you could be buying immunity to things that actually kill you. One thing to note: All those monsters? They're weak for their CR. Hilariously so. And they're CR 14, which, as you should...
  5. C

    Why does everyone rag on Hawkeye?

    No, he really didn't. And what little he did could have been done by anyone else. He didn't kill a space-lizard. He only set a bomb on Loki, something meaningless in the long run, and killed a couple robo-fuglies. Something that was allowed only due to a hilariously massive lapse in security...
  6. C

    Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

    No it doesn't. No we don't. I just expect knowledge of what spells are good, something that would be painfully obvious were you capable of getting anything from my posts other than "lololololhezamunchkin!" Level 13 WBL is 110,000. In other words, at least make your blatantly false arguments...
  7. C

    Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

    Nope. Wizards are learned, Sorcerers are dragony. Check SBG Obviously they didn't, given how a basic arcane education teaches me all I need to know about magical creatures. ...Really? You're going down this road? Yep. Because I prepare good spells. Contact Other Plane. Use every single slot save...
  8. C

    Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

    Really? I'd think the wizard wouldn't go for anything less than prismatic. Yes, if that's what you want. So? Even if we accept that as true, then there's still the fact that there are rules for everything I've mentioned. Which cannot be done to a caster except by DEM or just a rocks fall...
  9. C

    Of the WotC Forums and the OTT

    You forgot about Captain_Obvious. But I'm more worried about Micha. I think he might have sold his computer and several organs to keep his car working.
  10. C

    Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

    So? "Unreasonable" is not defined. Plus, taking a few centuries out of a low-ranking immortal's life to try to net a super-powerful soul does seem good investment. Nope. Cute try, but no. So now you're assuming the caster is too stupid to hide its trail. Or to have the entire party fly...
  11. C

    Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

    So? They last as long as you need them. Nope. So? Wizard. Goes first. Given how I'm vastly more powerful than all of them, I'd say "never, on account of if they do I kill them." Not my problem. You don't like Beholder Mage-level casting? It's a good thing I'm not too worried about the breath...
  12. C

    Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

    No. But there is a problem with making up monsters and then using them in online discussions as if they were existing monsters. Or making monsters when one has a poor grasp of balance. But that's a fight for another day, I think. I know. I've helped write a couple monsters for the normal GM of...
  13. C

    Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

    No, it is perfectly sensible. No, they aren't. Especially not in online discussions they aren't. Nope. In fact, extending life or getting immortality is super easy in 3.5 >Talking about the rules >Hasn't read the rules lolwut. Oh, you are so right! The rules of the game are absolutely divorced...
  14. C

    Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

    What GM with a poor sense of balance would flat-out make up creatures? Why someone would use creatures not in any books as counterexample in an online discussion is beyond me. Also, why a GM that would let an ability do something it is completely and explicitly incapable of doing(Such as Scent...
  15. C

    Material allowed ingame by a DM

    Core-only baffles me. Core is, second only to Serpent Kingdoms, the worst-designed book in all of 3.5 in terms of being hideously broken. It's thanks to it we have Shapechange, Gate, Wish-loops, the Candle, Wildshape, and so on, and on the other hand, Monk and Fighter. If anything, I'd run a...
  16. C

    Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

    Says the rules. No dragon in any book I can think of has Scent. No, it really isn't. Dragons don't get scent, nor does any decent template give it to them. Wand of GotA+Wieldskill+Max ranks in Know(Arcana)+high intelligence=no, no it really isn't. Divination and Gather Information say it's not...
  17. C

    Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

    Planar Binding or Summon X say "No, not really." Only if the wizard is both too stupid to divine, to take Uncanny Forethough, and to be prepared in case of an attack. Nope. A well-made CoDZilla is never vulnerable is played well, much less a wizard. First off, "Blindsense" isn't "smell," but...
  18. C

    Optimized Build Request Thread - ENWorld Version

    To do so well? No, not really. But if you wanted to be, like, a halfling with a spell-storing boomerang or something, I guess it might be passably usable.
  19. C

    Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes and the profession of rogue.

    That's some assumption. And now we run into another baseless assumption. Why must all rogues be criminal in some fashion. It's a rather absurd premise. I'm going to say no. Very no. First off, "morally good" and "Sherlock Holmes" do not go together. Sherlock Holmes works out of self-interest...
  20. C

    The law is no laughing matter

    AWESOME! Thanks, man! I think we can live with that
Top