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

[DreamChaser]

** Snip **

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 +1d6 (situational) - Not great damage out put, but man can he toss more shurikens in 6 seconds than anyone else, and hit with decent accuracy. Of course if you want a "damage dealing" character, the build would be a bit different.

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...



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

And add poison to this....

Or flame arrow...

A couple with silence, darkness, or light...

 

[boolean]

Shuriken = no str. to dam.

In 3.0.

In 3.5 Shuriken add Strength to damage.

 

[bodhi]

As I said before, I simply want parity for the thrower.

IMHO, the thrower shouldn't have parity. The archer should be more lethal on the open battlefield. After all, he has a bow, a tool purpose-built to increase lethality.

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.

That all depends on your game. I would agree that combat is pretty much the default D&D path to XP, and if your game is combat-heavy, some concepts will be clearly suboptimal. You wouldn't find many scythe specialists in such a game, either.

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

Ultimately, this is what it boils down to. Define your terms, and you answer your question.

For a given character idea, can you build a PC around that idea with just the core rules? Yes, you can.

Will any given character idea be competitive in combat? No, not necessarily.

 

[billd91]

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

Of course there is, it's called the ranger.

But a bit more seriously, a fighter class with d8 hit points and > 2 skill points per level isn't a "character concept". It's a game-rule realization of a concept. The concept you want to talk about is a warrior that is a bit more skill-focused than the feat-based fighter class. And there are plenty of ways to generally achieve that over the course of the character's lifetime, particularly by using multiclassing.

 

[green slime]

The point of roleplaying is not to achieve combat parity with every available choice. The idea is to choose cool concepts and characters and have fun at the table.

Does the 1st level wizard have fun with his three spells per day and 4 hit points? How does he compare with an archer with point blank shot and rapid shot? I guess the real reason there are so few high level wizards is all the low level ones committing suicide over their inability to achieve combat parity.

There are advantages in using thrown weapons, but they are perhaps not as obvious as using a bow at range. Thrown weapons are generally small and can be used in a grapple (a bow can't, nor can a Great Sword). Many of the feats spent on your weapon (two-weapon fighting, weapon Focus, weapon spec. if you have it) function whether you are engaging at range, melee, or grappled. You do not have to spend a move action to engage a new opponent, as the melee monkey has to. Your weapons are not so easily sundered, as a bow is.

Of course, if your game just involve flat fields of fire, bags of hit points exchanging blows without regard for tactics, and is uninterested in other aspects of the game, then the real question is, "How on earth can feats as Able Learner, Education, Open Minded and Skill Focus be equivalent to Weapon Focus?"

 

[Animal]

Question, do you think it's very creative to make traits and feats granted by PrC your PC's concept? does it take much imagination?
keep in mind that once there were twice less core classes and people played fine. PC's concept is NOT only his abilities and perks tied to his class and game mechanics.

 

[Someone]

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

Of course there is, it's called the ranger

Nah, it´s a fighter/rogue.

 

[Pickaxe]

This is quite beside the point.

It really is.

Let's say I have a cool PC idea... a character that throws handaxes is one part of the idea.

The core rules mechanically penalize you for this idea.

It's the exact opposite of power gaming.

You simply can't min/maxx a master thrower and even approach parity with a non-optimized, non-min/maxxed archer.

I simply want parity for the thrower.

You can't get it.

How about parity for the commoner? Should there be a "viable combat commoner" PrC? Why does every concept have to have parity? And why does "viable" have to equal min/maxed?

Really, is there some way that you think core handaxes should be changed to make your concept more viable, since that's really the heart of the discrepancy? Should handaxes be d10 with 60' range increment? The fact of the matter is that a fighter can do all the handaxe specialization he wants and probably still have enough feats to go Power Attacking with a greatsword. Of course, you'll probably spend more time doing the latter than the former. Should it really be the other way around?

--Axe

 

[irdeggman]

The "thrower's" parity with the "archer" is the fact that he "threatens" all squares he can reach even when he he can throw his weapon.

Archer's per the core don't really do that.

There is a significant difference between the two.

 

[Nifft]

When a player asks about a thrown weapon build, I always point him to daggers. Daggers are dandy.

Let's consider a Fighter/Rogue, because... I don't know why. It's cool enough.

Human, 25 pt. buy
Str: 14, Dex: 14, Con: 14, Int: 13, Wis: 10, Cha: 8
1/ Rogue 1: Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot (lots of skill points)
2/ Ftr 1: Quickdraw
3/ Ftr 2: Weapon Focus (Dagger), Far Shot
4/ Rogue 2: Evasion, Dex +1
5/ Ftr 3
6/ Ftr 4: Weapon Spec (Dagger), Two-Weapon Fighting
7/ Rog 3
8/ Rog 4: Dex +1
9/ Rog 5: Two-Weapon Defense
10/ Rog 6
11/ Rog 7
12/ Rog 8: Dex +1, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting
13/ Rog 9
14/ Rog 10: Crippling Strike
15/ Rog 11: Improved Crit (Dagger)
16/ Rog 12: Dex +1
17/ Rog 13: Improved Evasion
18/ Rog 14: Weapon Finesse
19/ Rog 15
20/ Rog 16: Dex +1, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (feat for Rogue Special Ability)

Now, the nice thing about this build is that it works well as a medium-range combatant (within Sneak Attack range), and it works well as a melee combatant. Your total number of attacks at level 20 will be: 4 (bab) + 3 (twf chain) +1 (rapid shot), each one delivering +8d6 Sneak Attack damage.

You can do everything yourself (max out UMD so your can cast greater invisibility or blink on yourself from a wand), but you will benefit greatly from a party, especially a party that casts buff spells on you.

Note how a lot of these Feats don't care if you are throwing a dagger or stabbing someone with a dagger. You're a flexible dude. Unlike the Elf who's crying over his sundered bow...

-- N