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

[Primitive Screwhead]

Good god man, you can't be serious....This concept is viable...um... exactly how?

Yes, I am perfectly serious...

The concept is quite 'viable' if you mean its a character build that can be played in a role-playing game with the end result of having fun role-playing.

The concept is not 'viable' if your standard is that it must '...approach parity with ...' character class X.

This debate boils down to one thing, interpretation of 'character concept'.
To me and others, character concept means the flavour of a character.
To you and others, apparently character concept means more along the lines of 'character build whose combat optimization is not impaired by mechnanics.

For you, a master thrower is a character whose thowing weapon skills are as deadly as a character who chooses another weapon.
For me, a master thrower is a character who is better then anyone else at throwing.


Note: Custom items are 'core' in that the core rules include creating custom magic items and spells....
Does becoming a master thrower cost alot of feats? Sure.. otherwise everybody would be one. Is is less optimal than other choices? Sure...

However, the character I laid out above will, in its element out perform other combat characters.
Its element is not open ground with no cover against archers, not fighting undead and constructs.
Put such a character into a dungeon against humanoid opponents and you can see where the danger is.

Not using books, but going into HR territory, you could design a feat tree that allows full-attack with thrown weapons well moving.. making the character even nastier in its element

I think its interesting that no-one ever mentions all the things that could nerf an archer.. like your average dungeon setting... All you need is to send the party into a low ceilinged complex, say 5'2"... insta nerf of all long-bow and greatsword weilders.


Anyway.. concept <> build
viable <> parity of combat power

YM.. obviously, MV..

Powergaming keeps getting mentioned .. by Two.
The definition of 'decent build' meaning 'combat parity' = powergaming
When you make a character concept to fit a role-playing idea of what the character should be, you often end up with sub-optimal combat builds. This only makes the character not viable if you game in a powergaming environment that required combat parity and min/maxing.

Me, I just play the game for fun..and some of my most memorable characters were horribly not 'viable' by your defination.

 

[Stalker0]

We are forgetting the biggest part of the core rules...rule 0

The core rules can get you close, but with a little dm intervention you can make anything happen.

I want to play a trained fighter, but I want him to have a little more skill points to finish off the concepts.

DM: Alright, how about we drop your hd from a d10 to d8, and bump your skill points by 2.

Its things like this that allow dnd rules to accomplish anything you want, its why we play pen and paper instead of video games.

 

[Nail]

This debate boils down to one thing, interpretation of 'character concept'.
To me and others, character concept means the flavour of a character.
To you and others, apparently character concept means more along the lines of 'character build whose combat optimization is not impaired by mechnanics.

Nice summary.

....and it kinda points to the third option, right?

"Both"

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Nah, can't have both.. that would be too much like 'compromise'...

 

[Question]

In my experience when a DM says "core only", he really means core only.

Does that spell exist in the SRD? No? You cant have it.

Is there a fighter class with d8 hp and more than 2 skill points in the SRD? No? Then it doesnt exist.

Is there a ring that gives you a +1 luck bonus to AC for 2,500 gp in the SRD? Guess whats next.

 

[Nail]

True.

But every "core only" person I've met also considers requests from players.

 

[two]

Yes, I am perfectly serious...

The concept is quite 'viable' if you mean its a character build that can be played in a role-playing game with the end result of having fun role-playing.

The concept is not 'viable' if your standard is that it must '...approach parity with ...' character class X.

This debate boils down to one thing, interpretation of 'character concept'.
To me and others, character concept means the flavour of a character.
To you and others, apparently character concept means more along the lines of 'character build whose combat optimization is not impaired by mechnanics.

For you, a master thrower is a character whose thowing weapon skills are as deadly as a character who chooses another weapon.
For me, a master thrower is a character who is better then anyone else at throwing.


Note: Custom items are 'core' in that the core rules include creating custom magic items and spells....
Does becoming a master thrower cost alot of feats? Sure.. otherwise everybody would be one. Is is less optimal than other choices? Sure...

However, the character I laid out above will, in its element out perform other combat characters.
Its element is not open ground with no cover against archers, not fighting undead and constructs.
Put such a character into a dungeon against humanoid opponents and you can see where the danger is.

Not using books, but going into HR territory, you could design a feat tree that allows full-attack with thrown weapons well moving.. making the character even nastier in its element

I think its interesting that no-one ever mentions all the things that could nerf an archer.. like your average dungeon setting... All you need is to send the party into a low ceilinged complex, say 5'2"... insta nerf of all long-bow and greatsword weilders.


Anyway.. concept <> build
viable <> parity of combat power

YM.. obviously, MV..

Powergaming keeps getting mentioned .. by Two.
The definition of 'decent build' meaning 'combat parity' = powergaming
When you make a character concept to fit a role-playing idea of what the character should be, you often end up with sub-optimal combat builds. This only makes the character not viable if you game in a powergaming environment that required combat parity and min/maxing.

Me, I just play the game for fun..and some of my most memorable characters were horribly not 'viable' by your defination.

We pretty much agree on the basics, it's just terminology getting in the way.

I guess I don't see the arbitrary nerfing of throwing concepts in the core rules as anything other than a mechanical deficiency.

It would be very easy to fix, with no balance issues.

I think a cool character concept that gets screwed over by core mechanics is really, really, really lame. Exactly because it punishes the people you don't want punished -- the players that are not simply trying to maximize everything.

As I said before, I simply want parity for the thrower. I don't think, and still don't think, your unnamed thrower build fits the bill. You simply have too many core rules to fight against. Plus "in your element" seems to be a corridor less than 5' high...which, well, is a little specific. You need THAT to acheive parity? How often do you run across those <5' corridors that still allow you line of sight to use ranged weapons?

And the beginning, middle, and end of the day, D&D rewards combat prowess with XP. There are non-combat awards too... they are about 1/10 as common, if that.

No. In D&D a "viable" build is not a swimming specialist. In a game that is not so focussed on combat -- maybe. But if you PC spends all their $ and is totally focussed on...swimming... that's great. But it's not a viable build for D&D. The PC is in fact an anchor most of the time (and a boring one-trick pony at that).

Similarly a throwing master using core rules burns up millions of feats and $ in an attempt to simply do average archery damage, some of the time. He too, will be a bit of an anchor to the party (a one trick pony that's not even that effective).

It's a shame. I wish it were not so. But I think it is.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Actually there have been a couple very interesting threads, the most recent named 'weapons as effects' that head towards trying to fix mechanical imbalances like this..

Short version of the thread is that all weapons have the same stats and higher level characters can do more kewl things with them by trading values around.

Personally I like that there are sub-optimal choices available as having mechanics that balance everything neatly to gain parity over all else.

This is shown in the characters I play as well, things like the Shadow Mage mentioned above and Cutter, a character who started off to be the first illiterate Arcane Archer and ended up weilding a greatsword half the time...
Cutter was out of his element most of the time, but I think the DM got a bit stingy after the first encounter that had a couple range increments to work with... for some reason he thought that the bad guys should have been able to make it across the 400' clearing
He didn't count on me killing the horses when they only made it about half-way across.
After that we tended to have encounters at very close range

As a GM I try to keep the non-combat encounters important as well... this puts less of a pressure to have combat parity. Often times IMC a skill monkey can finagle a shortcut around combat encounters...and still gain the XP for defeating the encounter.
So much is perception and how the game is run at your table.

 

[Goolpsy]

And the beginning, middle, and end of the day, D&D rewards combat prowess with XP. There are non-combat awards too... they are about 1/10 as common, if that.

No. In D&D a "viable" build is not a swimming specialist. In a game that is not so focussed on combat -- maybe. But if you PC spends all their $ and is totally focussed on...swimming... that's great. But it's not a viable build for D&D. The PC is in fact an anchor most of the time (and a boring one-trick pony at that).

Similarly a throwing master using core rules burns up millions of feats and $ in an attempt to simply do average archery damage, some of the time. He too, will be a bit of an anchor to the party (a one trick pony that's not even that effective).

It's a shame. I wish it were not so. But I think it is.

The argument; "concept of throwing all your money away" doesn't really hold much ground... on the other hand, a swinning PC in a waterworld, wouldn't be bad.. not at all...

In a normal non-powergaming, non-hack and slash campaign you wouldn't really feel "left over" "a burden" "weak" or anything... in such a campaign.. an archer could take feats for a more glorious goal than maximizing his combat capabilities... he mgiht even be good at swimming

Your last real paragraph ruins everything you said prior... and really shows true intetions... :

"Similarly a throwing master using core rules burns up millions of feats and $ in an attempt to simply do average archery damage, some of the time"

A master thrower is not an Archer... nor does he do archery damage.... stop making him an archer.. and start thinking about him as a master thrower... btw! daggers, axes and such can be used for other purposes than flying through the air... a bow cannot!

 

[RigaMortus2]

Good god man, you can't be serious.

You enchant 50 shuriken and throw them... then they are destroyed... great solution to the "easy to enchant" issue. (ammo is always destroyed when they hit). There goes your +1 Holy Shurikens after 50 throws. This is an good idea?

Have you ever heard of a spell called Greater Magic Weapon? It "enchants" up to 50 pieces of ammo per casting, and the benefits from the spell go from +1 to +5 and has a duration that lasts hours . Toss this spell on the Shurikens and who cares if they get destroyed? Obviously you aren't going to buy +1 Holy Shurikens

You give him 2 feats (QD, Far Shot) and manage to get 1/5 the range of a vanilla bow with less damage... plus as a bonus no strength to damage! Sign me up?

The concept isn't "master thrower who can throw as far as an archer can fire a bow and deals at least as much damage, if not more"... The concept is simply "a master thrower", someone who is better at throwing weapons (usually accomplished by taking the appropriate feats) than someone who hasn't taken the appropriate feats.

A level 1 Fighter that takes Point Blank Shot and Far Shot is going to be better at throwing a weapon than a level 1 Fighter that takes Weapon Focus (longsword) and Power Attack. Just as the other fighter is going to be better in melee with a longsword.

You then pile some more feats up in an attempt to get the enemy more easily sneak-attackable... how many feats is this?

Of course we pile on more feats, that is their PURPOSE. To make the character better in a specific area than another character.

And what about the 50% (minimum) of the time the enemy is not sneak-attackable and/or immune to sneak attacks?

That is just one possible build, not the only build. And you can't say that sneak attacks only apply 50% of the time as every campaign is different. You are just making up numbers here...

You are quite happy doing 1d6 damage at level 10, for example, with NO strength bonus added?

Again, that is one possible build... My build would probably looking something like:
Human Monk1/Rogue1/Fighter 8 (sticking with the Shuriken theme, again, not the ONLY build)
Feats (10)
BAB +8/+3 (before adding other pluses, such as from Dex for throwing ranged weapons)
Improved Initiative
Two Weapon Fighting
Point Blank Shot
Rapid Shot
Precise Shot
Far Shot
Weapon Focus (Shuriken)
Weapon Spec (Shuriken)
Greater Weapon Focus (Shuriken)
Two Weapon Defense

When throwing shurikens: +5/+5/+5/+5/+0 (includes penalities from TWF, Rapid Shot, Flurry of Blows, and bonuses from PBS and Greater Weapon Focus - again, did not factor things like Dex, assume a Dex of what? 18? 20? by level 10... So add +4 or +5 more to those attacks)

Damage: 1d2 +2 +Str bonus +1d6 (situational) - Edit: Forgot that in 3.5 you DO add Str damage to Shuriken. So this can significantly bump up the damage. Even with a 14 Str (kinda low for a Fighter, but we'll go with it), the minimum damage per throw is 5 damage, times 5 throws would be a mimimum potential of 25 damage per round.

And lastly, this is by no means min/maxed (but we aren't going for min/max anyway, right? Just the concept). This is just off the top of my head. Didn't even think of adding any PrCs like Shadow Dancer...

Then some custom non-core researched items?

I beleive the custom items rules are in the DMG, and I am pretty sure the DMG is Core...

Edit: Had to re-edit my damage output above...