I dont get the argument that you can do any concept with just core rules.

[Question]

See title. Ive seen this thrown around more than once, and i dont understand the logic behind it.

Lets say my concept is that of a fighter/mage hybrid who can channel touch spells through his melee weapons(cough duskblade cough). How do you build this with core rules?

What if my concept is that of a wizard who focuses on one particular elemental type(cough elemental savant cough) and thus, is stronger with that element? How do you do this with core rules?(Note : choosing spells that fit the theme do not count).

It seems to me, if anything, core rules limit creativity rather than allow unlimited variants as some claim?

 

[Goolpsy]

To ther first: Spell storing weapons.... that one was easy...

2nd one: some allow energi specialization instead of school specialization...(argueable)

BUT! these are not concepts... these are "powergaming/offgaming/non-roleplay" features...

concept for the 2nd could be: A sorceror specialised in the noble art of fire and flame (pyromaniac)... = choose fire spell...

 

[Jack Simth]

Well, you can approximate a lot of them....

Spell-storing weapon and the Eldritch Knight prestige class (you're limited to 3rd level spells, but still...).

Why doesn't spell selection count?
Also, spell research is in the core rulebooks; new [Fire] spells that have better effects for someone who hasn't cast any [Cold] spells in the last X amount of time aren't unreasonable.

 

[Vegepygmy]

BUT! these are not concepts... these are "powergaming/offgaming/non-roleplay" features...

Exactly. "1st-level fighter with 20 hit points" isn't a concept as we mean it when we say the core rules can reflect any character concept. "Super tough warrior-type" (which can be reflected by 1st-level human with 18 Con, d10 hit dice and maximum hit points at 1st level, plus Toughness feat taken twice) is.

 

[Someone]

It´s easy to pick a concept narrow and specific enough so that no set of rules will cover it. Normally "concepts" refer to things like "warrior mage", "agile fighter" or "Legolas". I admit that many of these can´t be built using the SRD only.

But there´s a page or two in the PHB (I think at the end of the Alignment chapter) discussing how to make small changes to your PCs to closely fit your concept. So yes, you can make those concepts with the core rules.

In a sense.

 

[FrostedMini1337]

Well, you can approximate a lot of them....

Spell-storing weapon and the Eldritch Knight prestige class (you're limited to 3rd level spells, but still...)

Research better spell storing.

I'd say this is doable if they gave better rules for magical research, or just research in general.

 

[two]

This is easy!

Create a heavily tweaked min/maxxed fighter-type that uses thrown weapons for ranged combat in a way that is even 50% as effective as a vanilla archer.

Thrown weapons require more feats:

1) quickdraw
2) farshot

(for starters)

They do worse damage than a longbow, and there is no core way to allow easy magical enhancement of multiple thrown weapons (the returning property is useless for full round attacks).

Yup.

With thrown weapons you get the following disadvantages:

1) worse range
2) worse base damage and worse total damage
3) no core prestige classes or support (arcane archer, etc.)
4) no core magic items that can complete with a +1 holy bow, for example (a +1 holy handaxe, when thrown... is gone, obviously... while the archer can shoot and shoot)
5) requires more feats!

The advantages are:

1) Ummmm.... if the enemy gets up in your face, you can use your thrown weapon in melee.

That's it.

That's why you NEVER see any core "thrown weapon" master.

There is no way to use the core rules to make a thrown weapon master.

At best, you go through a lot of trouble/money/feats and end up with a build that is still substantially weaker than an archer created without much effort.

It's incredibly lame, really.

 

[RigaMortus2]

<Snip>

That's why you NEVER see any core "thrown weapon" master.

There is no way to use the core rules to make a thrown weapon master.

Sure there is. You just described him. Obviously he isn't going to be better than something built using non-core rules/feats/prcs/spells, but that isn't the point, is it? Compare him to any other Core-only built character that doesn't specialize in throwing weapons, and your "thrown weapon master" will be a lot better at it.

 

[two]

Sure there is. You just described him. Obviously he isn't going to be better than something built using non-core rules/feats/prcs/spells, but that isn't the point, is it? Compare him to any other Core-only built character that doesn't specialize in throwing weapons, and your "thrown weapon master" will be a lot better at it.

C'mon.

Of course you CAN make a thrown weapon PC using core rules.

Point is, it's hardly a viable build.

When was the last time you EVER saw this build in action?

It's hardly a major claim regarding the core rules if you include builds that are are woefully underpowered.

Isn't the claim, rather, that any concept can be made with the core rules that is reasonably powerful?

If you don't see the arbitrary thrown weapon/archery power differential in the core rules, I can't make you...

Yes, you can make a sneaky Wiz with Rogue10/Wiz10, but as a 20th level PC...yuck.

But hey, it's core, so I guess that "counts?"

 

[Question]

I thought concepts were never designed to suck?