Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kerrick" data-source="post: 4209289" data-attributes="member: 4722">I think at this point I must admit that I have never really played with a min-maxer group. I have played with a couple individual players (we had a guy who, during the days of 2E, had a half-orc barbarian with 250 hp), but never a group. The group I've played with for the last 6-7 years is heavy on thinking and tactics and funky combat maneuvers, both from the DM and the players - not just "I full attack" - so my perceptions are most likely skewed. Emphasizing the tactical aspects (saying, "Hey, you can do this - it's really easy") isn't such a bad thing, all things being equal. I think the problem with 3.5's combat maneuvers is, mostly, that they're too complicated. I borrowed Paizo's stuff, because it's very elegant and (for me, at least) makes me want to more combat maneuvers.You mean 3E. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> If you mean the fact that BAB must change to half-level after a certain point, then yeah, I suppose it is a problem. I solved the fault stemming from this, though, so it's not that big a problem. I'm still working on saves, though.Well yeah. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> But that's what I'm saying - in order to fix the flaws at high-level play, you have to start at the bottom. Umm... that's what I said.It solves the problem by increasing power in very small increments, along an unchanging power curve, and keeping it fairly low for almost the entire way. I'm not too partial to the "everyone has the same BAB/save progression" thing - it enhances the cookie-cutter character vibe I've been getting from 4E.Some of the problems 3E has can be alleviated by reducing starting wealth to a standard linear progression instead of what it is now (linear until about 10th level, then it goes almost straight up) - by using the 1/4 wealth rule, you can make basic assumptions about what the PCs will have (using yours and Ltheb's formulae) and design accordingly (and you could probably even factor in min-maxed or low-magic PCs, too). Reducing the number of bonuses would also help (obviously), as would fewer slots - I think 4E just dropped/combined a few, like wrist/arm and neck/throat.If you think about it, the torso would have to be larger than normal to accommodate all those arms. A normal-sized torso could fit 4 arms, but you'd have to go up a size to find space for 2 more, along with the musculature to support them. I agree, though, that 2d6 is too much - if it's size Large, it should be 1d8. It would be stronger than normal (19 base sounds about right) owing to its larger size, but manipulating all those arms would require a fair bit of Dexterity, and it would be relying on that far more than its Strength to hit opponents (and let's face it, snakes are more noted for their speed than their strength).I like the poison idea, too. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification