Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rushlight" data-source="post: 987603" data-attributes="member: 3801">&quot;I don't see Sanguine Strength in the book, so I'm assuming its Strength of Kadum renamed to fit your campaign... I hope your party has access to blood from a creature with 38 strength...&quot;Actually, that's only the Arcane material component.&nbsp; The Divine version requires none.&nbsp; &quot;As for Assassin's senses, the spell has a personal range. &quot;Well, this is easily circumvented by making a potion.&quot;So, your complaint seems to be that a character with a non-core PrC, using two non-core spells, one of which in a way that breaks the rules (Assassin's Senses is a personal spell and can't be cast on others) is too powerful. So your answer is... that the core rules need to be nerfed?&quot;Well, first I suppose I assumed that the point of WOTC moving from 2e to 3e was to allow other companies to make things for D&amp;D so that the range of ideas and possibilities would be much greater.&nbsp; That's the whole d20 gig, man.&nbsp; To restrict yourself to only the 3 core books is a bit silly, and very ignorant of the large number of non-core excellent products out there.&nbsp; At the very least I imagine that 80% of the people use or have available the classbooks.&nbsp; If all you use are the 3 core books, you are missing out on alot.Second, there are many other things I like about 3.5 that I've already changed.&nbsp; There are other things I've changed that won't be in 3.5.&nbsp; IMC, poison, disease, and falling are all way more deadly than in the rules.&nbsp; Perhaps 3.5 will mention some of those.&nbsp; I am happy about the buff spells being shortened.&nbsp; People were using those in place of magic items, and that isn't what they are for (since a 2nd level spell shouldn't duplicate expensive items).&nbsp; I'm happy about the removal of stacking crit ranges, and if it doesn't go far enough, I'll help it along some more.Third, the core rules aren't being &quot;nerfed&quot; they are being &quot;fixed&quot;.&nbsp; Only whiny powergamers who got kicked off EQ for cheating should be getting &quot;nerfed&quot;.&quot;And one other thing - are all Great Wyrm red dragons in your world complete morons who fly around all day with no protective spells up?&quot;Again, you miss the point.&nbsp; Here is the point: A 18th level fighter should not be able to kill a base CR 25 monster in 2 or 3 rounds.&nbsp; Sure I could make it more difficult.&nbsp; I'm not talking about an actual encounter here, I'm talking raw numbers.&nbsp; The fighter's ability to do damage vs a base monster's ability to take it.&nbsp; This is an example based on predictable numbers.&nbsp; I could make it impossible if I liked.&nbsp; As the DM I can bend the rules however I want.&nbsp; But players notice that.&nbsp; And if you do it too often, they will resent it.&nbsp; I shouldn't have to make all monsters non-crit-able, or make them all immune to 18th level fighters named Nolan.&nbsp; While that does solve the problem, it's a very bad way to do so.&nbsp; Fix the guy who can deal out 5 times the damage of the Mage - that's the solution.&nbsp; That's what I've done (see below).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rushlight, post: 987603, member: 3801"] "I don't see Sanguine Strength in the book, so I'm assuming its Strength of Kadum renamed to fit your campaign... I hope your party has access to blood from a creature with 38 strength..." Actually, that's only the Arcane material component. The Divine version requires none. "As for Assassin's senses, the spell has a personal range. " Well, this is easily circumvented by making a potion. "So, your complaint seems to be that a character with a non-core PrC, using two non-core spells, one of which in a way that breaks the rules (Assassin's Senses is a personal spell and can't be cast on others) is too powerful. So your answer is... that the core rules need to be nerfed?" Well, first I suppose I assumed that the point of WOTC moving from 2e to 3e was to allow other companies to make things for D&D so that the range of ideas and possibilities would be much greater. That's the whole d20 gig, man. To restrict yourself to only the 3 core books is a bit silly, and very ignorant of the large number of non-core excellent products out there. At the very least I imagine that 80% of the people use or have available the classbooks. If all you use are the 3 core books, you are missing out on alot. Second, there are many other things I like about 3.5 that I've already changed. There are other things I've changed that won't be in 3.5. IMC, poison, disease, and falling are all way more deadly than in the rules. Perhaps 3.5 will mention some of those. I am happy about the buff spells being shortened. People were using those in place of magic items, and that isn't what they are for (since a 2nd level spell shouldn't duplicate expensive items). I'm happy about the removal of stacking crit ranges, and if it doesn't go far enough, I'll help it along some more. Third, the core rules aren't being "nerfed" they are being "fixed". Only whiny powergamers who got kicked off EQ for cheating should be getting "nerfed". "And one other thing - are all Great Wyrm red dragons in your world complete morons who fly around all day with no protective spells up?" Again, you miss the point. Here is the point: A 18th level fighter should not be able to kill a base CR 25 monster in 2 or 3 rounds. Sure I could make it more difficult. I'm not talking about an actual encounter here, I'm talking raw numbers. The fighter's ability to do damage vs a base monster's ability to take it. This is an example based on predictable numbers. I could make it impossible if I liked. As the DM I can bend the rules however I want. But players notice that. And if you do it too often, they will resent it. I shouldn't have to make all monsters non-crit-able, or make them all immune to 18th level fighters named Nolan. While that does solve the problem, it's a very bad way to do so. Fix the guy who can deal out 5 times the damage of the Mage - that's the solution. That's what I've done (see below). [/QUOTE]

Verification