clockworkjoe: Thanks, that's a good idea. I'll play with it later this week and see if I can do an update-able map. If I can, woo hoo!
Jeremy: It matters.
cool hand luke: Yes. I just don't know what it is, yet, so I'm not holding anyone to it. I do know that I want ability scores broken out (how you spent the points, what the starting scores were, your race modifiers, level modifiers, magic items, all separate), and I want you to show what order you took your class levels in, and I want to know what order you took your feats in. Everything else... Agh. I wish I had a good standard, but there's just so much stuff on a character sheet
.
A slightly different topic
As characters flood in like a drippy faucet, I've noticed that I'm nerfing an awful lot of things. I don't want this to become "Thomas Weigel's Nerfbat Game", so I'm going to point out why I nerf what I nerf. And also some of my concerns about nerfing too much
.
Non-resistable events. Some things are meant to be non-resisted. Most things are not. In particular, a Game of Death is not much fun if it becomes a game of Initiative, so most non-resisted things will be given some form of resistance, whether that is a saving throw (Harm) or a bull rush mechanic (Brute, LAIC).
Not all will, of course - generally, with the exception of the few glaring examples of abuse-heavy ones in the core rules, I'll leave core rules alone.
Multiple stacking events. If you can stack a bunch of core rule modifiers to get an obscene bonus to hit, to damage, to spell DC, whatever... more power to you. If you're just plumbing every rule book out there for modifiers with different names so you can stack them, that's not a challenge at all - it's pathetically easy, and not worthy of a Game of Death. I want tactics, not supplement book bean counting. My usual fix is to rename the bonuses to something appropriate, or to simply ban the item in question.
The same, only better. A lot of supplements, in some sort of weird arms race mentality, recreate items in the core rulebooks, only with a slight edge (and no sacrifices in return). The flamberge, for example, is a greatsword with an improved critical threat. No reduced hardness for its weaker design, no exotic weapon required, nothing (well, okay, +1 lb on a 15 lb thing). It's just a better greatsword, for not a lot more money. That's not a "new" option, its an "obsolete the old" option. In some cases, I like the idea, and I'll nerf it a bit (or make it costly enough to stay in line with the core stuff); in other cases, I ban it.
Prestige Classes. PrCs are an upgrade to core classes. In return for accepting a more limited role and/or certain weaknesses that a generalist would not have, you are more powerful than the generalist in that role. The arcane archer, for example, should be weaker in a toe-to-toe fight, but dominates a fighter with a bow (or at least should). The brute, similarly, does poorly in ranged combat compared to a fighter, but dominates in a toe-to-toe fight.
At the same time, while being
better at the role, the PrC should not be completely untouchable in that role. A fighter should have a (slim) chance against a brute toe-to-toe, and a (slim) chance against an arcane archer in a fight across a chasm.
So when I look at a PrC, I usually find the closest core class to the PrC's role, make sure that the PrC is weaker in areas not associated with its role, and then make sure it is more powerful (but not overwhelmingly so) in the scope of its role.
Some PrCs, of course, go a completely different route. They create a wholly new role, such as the forsaker - there is no role for "going around and breaking magic items", although someone presumably could give it a shot. In this case, I attempt to make sure that the PrC is balanced in a manner similar to the cleric and the wizard - they do different things, but they are on roughly equal ground for how well they do them.
Nerfing too much. Some GMs will disagree with me on this, of course, but I feel that D&D characters SHOULD be powerful. They should be able to specialize and become monsters of destruction. They should be able to summon a hellish creature from beyond and bind it to their will. And while there are concerns for making an interesting Game of Death (non-resistable events, for example), I don't want to nerf a character past that.
(You may disagree with me on whether or not I DID nerf you past that, of course - I'm stating my goal, rather than my utter competence, here 
.)
My usual goal when nerfing is to take one of three munchkin characters I've built (one for range, one for melee, one for spell duelling), and compare the most appropriate one to the character I've just nerfed.
Code:
[color=skyblue]A is my character, B is yours.
Nerfed Pure Result
A destroys B Yes Yes Don't nerf.
A destroys B Yes Barely Don't nerf.
A destroys B Yes No Hazy; think harder.
A destroys B Barely No Consider nerf.
A destroys B No No Consider nerf.
B destroys A Yes Yes Consider nerf.
B destroys A Barely Yes Consider nerf.
B destroys A No Yes Hazy; think harder.
B destroys A No Barely Don't nerf.
B destroys A No No Don't nerf.[/color]
Obviously, my characters aren't the be-all, end-all of munchkins (although from what I've seen so far, they're pretty good). That's why I don't have an automatic nerf up there, just an automatic "too weak to nerf". If your pure character can't handle mine, there is no good reason to nerf the character.
Anyway, I hope all of this made sense, and helped y'all get a sense of my reasoning when I harsh on your character concept
. And during this discussion phase, please remember that if you see a nerf that seems inappropriate, I want to hear about it. Until I declare the issue closed, it's open for discussion (just remember that when I DO declare it closed, it's closed and I'll have no sass back
).
