DM : "Your fighter does too much damage. Drop the belt of strength."

[Felon]

Pretty much everyone is getting off track....Can we please re-focus here?

Oracle thank you for not reading the first post. Which part of it is difficult to understand? Or do you just want to accuse me of cheating a sheet for the hell of it?

Sigh everyone is fixating on the AC, the skills, or whatever, instead of the strength score and damage, which is the issue here.

GG for not reading first post.

Mm-kay, in the interests of giving benefit of the doubt, I'll go back and read this original post that I must have missed the first time. Question insists it'll clear everything right up, help us refocus, and put us all on the right track...

As above. The DM says my fighter does too much damage and wants me to drop the belt of strength to lower my damage.

Discuss?

Hmm. To me this looks like a sentence fragment, one complete statement, and an interrogative to "discuss".

What am I missing? Because discussing it we are. I see no other explicit parameters.

True, many of us have decided to talk about what the character build as a whole might indicate to a DM, and not this one little issue about the character having to leave his belt with the guards at the character-inspection desk, but examining the forest instead of one little tree is not getting "off-track".

The character's a monstrous combination of insane ability scores, a powerhouse template, and an over-the-top prestige class. Something's gotta give. I agree it shouldn't be the belt. The template has a steep LA cost, so I could live with that. The Rev Blade sounds whacked-out--even KB sorta admits that while he's acting all indifferent about it. That looks like a winner. Even without it there's still a nasty-arse double-weapon-wielding elf-dragon monstrosity.

 

[Felon]

You know, I used to get ticked off at game designers not admitting their mistakes, but I never get angry at you. Must be your high Charisma score That and your willingness to admit mistakes (although perhaps not in this specific instance).

We know you're a flavor guru more than a rules guru, so it's all forgiven.

Well, he does seem to be saying that the final version of the Rev Blade differs from his initial draft with regards to the uber-power in question.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Well, he does seem to be saying that the final version of the Rev Blade differs from his initial draft with regards to the uber-power in question.

But he said he was okay with the PrC the way it came out. Not that it's really on-topic ^^

 

[hong]

Sigh everyone is fixating on the AC, the skills, or whatever, instead of the strength score and damage, which is the issue here.

GG for not reading first post.

Your Str and damage is too high.

Ditch the template.

 

[blargney the second]

I was going to say that dragons are not elves, but Hellcow beat me to it in spades.

I've read the entire thread (including the mandatory first post) and I've come to the conclusion that the PC is great material for a solo campaign. He would be totally out of line for use with other players, but it'd be easy enough to just throw monsters at him.

I have two questions for you, Question:
1) Is this thread a troll? (idle thought I had on page 3)
2) If not, why do you want to play this character within a party?

-blarg

 

[Land Outcast]

The first question I can myself answer (or at least I think I can):
Question has this kind of attitude in some posts

So no, it is not a troll...

IMHO. You may view as you see fit.

 

[Hellcow]

But he said he was okay with the PrC the way it came out....

Actually, PSH, I said "the final ability of the PrC". Personally, I'm more concerned with the Ancestral Guidance ability. I feel that Legendary Force can be overpowered if you build a whole character around it. AG, on the other hand, is essentially a bonus feat that you don't have to meet prereqs for and that you can change each day, and that is a powerful ability in the hands of any player, even if you don't do much min-maxing. It is more powerful that what I originally created, and if you think it's unbalanced, I have no problem with a DM not wanting it in their game. But with that said, as a DM, I'd balance it out in other ways: requiring adherence to a code to maintain those abilities, playing up the distrust of soldiers of the Five Nations, etc.

Personally, I would advise treating Ancestral Guidance much like Pact Magic, requiring the revenant blade to meet the expectations and requirements of the spirit to gain access to his feats. So yes, Ancestral Guidance is superior to the single bonus feat of the fighter - but it can be lost if the character fails to live up to his side of the bargain.

But, this is off-topic, so I'll shut up now.

 

[delericho]

Sigh everyone is fixating on the AC, the skills, or whatever, instead of the strength score and damage, which is the issue here.

Alternately, you're fixating on the strength score and damage, when the real issue is that monster character you've presented your DM with.

He has:

1) Allowed a set of huge stats (as pointed out, it's something like a 50-point build equivalent)
2) Allowed a Dragonlance-only template in a Greyhawk game
3) Allowed an Eberron-only Prestige Class in a Greyhawk game
4) Allowed the combination of these in a manner that the designer of the PrC has said he would not allow

You have put these things together and created a character that your DM feels is over the top. Rather than ban it outright, he has said to lose one magical item. Personally, I think that's a poor solution to the problem at hand, but it's his game.

If you want me to support your position, rebuild your character using 28-point buy and a strict adherence to the RAW. Otherwise, I'll continue to maintain that your DM is being extremely generous, and that you should drop the belt (at least) for the good of the game. (What's more, you should drop the belt and take the conscious decision that your character will not look for such an item in-game either, since that would appear to be the spirit of the DM's ruling.)

 

[irdeggman]

Hellcow (i.e., Keith):

Way to go.

I personnally find your insights, comments and wilingness to talk to the masses on the setting you put so much effort into a real boon (and gift) to us all.

I may not agree with everything you post nor with the way the setting handles certin things - but that does not affect the respect you have earned.

I have just started running Age of Worms in Eberron and have found you notes and writings on the "conversion" very insightful and helpful.

Thanks for all of the effort.

Insert thread hi jack:

I do have a complaint that specifically applies to Eberron but also works for other "settings". Designers/writers/editors seem to be missing some rules requirements when it comes to prestige classes.


DMG pg 197

“When you design a prestige class, make sure that characters must be at least 5th level before they can meet entry requirements.”


DMG II pg 205

“No prestige class should be obtainable by a character lower than 5th level.”


Dragonmark Heir and Master Inquisitive both violate these requirements.

In fact the Master Inquisitive can be taken easily at 4th level by a rogue (requirements met at 3rd due to the 6 ranks in skills).

In 3.0 these were "suggestions" in 3.5 they became rules in the DMg and later reinforced in the DMG II. The underling reasoning behind this requirement is so that prestige clases are actully prestige and not merely another class because the entry requirements are so low.

I have already told my players that the skill rank prerequisites are raised to meet the requirements of the DMG/DMG II on prestige classes.

Exit thread hi jack.

 

[shilsen]

So does anyone else think that Question (a) wasn't expecting the discussion to go the direction it did, and (b) isn't likely to post much more in this thread? Or am I just being a cynic?