Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Storm Raven" data-source="post: 1997620" data-attributes="member: 307">If you think that a Mystic Theurge is &quot;overpowered&quot;, then you haven't bothered to try them in actual play. Actual working experience with the class destroys your entire argument on that score. And gestalt characters are (1) an entirely optional variant rule found in an entirely optional supplement, and (2) specified as being more powerful, and cautioned for use for that reason. Finally, since PrCs are all optional (and not core), whether a particular one gets into a campaign or not is entirely up to the DM.There were no free actions in 1e, or 2e. So your &quot;challenge&quot; is ridiculous on its face.But killing titans? Just hand the guy a hammer of thunderbolts, belt of storm giant strength, and gauntlets of ogre power, and watch them fall. And that's just a single classed fighter. A high level wizard in 1e could accomplish the same thing without much trouble, since there was no damage cap on destructive spells, and monsters had far fewer hit points, making a 19th level MU with a fireball (19d6 damage, average of 66.5, more than most titans) just about as damaging as your tricked out 3.5 cleric.Except that the heirophant is not core rules. It, like all PrCs is optional. Making your point irrelevant.As long as they are all within a 40 foot radius spread of the caster. Since titans take up a 15 foot by 15 foot area each, and have 15 feet of reach, you're not gonna be likely to get more than one or two with your spell.And of course, none of this is relevant. The original claim was the the most basic 3e character was much more powerful than the most tricked out 1e/2e character. A claim that is patently false in the face of actual expeirence and a brief examination of the rule sets.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Storm Raven, post: 1997620, member: 307"] If you think that a Mystic Theurge is "overpowered", then you haven't bothered to try them in actual play. Actual working experience with the class destroys your entire argument on that score. And gestalt characters are (1) an entirely optional variant rule found in an entirely optional supplement, and (2) specified as being more powerful, and cautioned for use for that reason. Finally, since PrCs are [i]all[/i] optional (and not core), whether a particular one gets into a campaign or not is entirely up to the DM. There were no free actions in 1e, or 2e. So your "challenge" is ridiculous on its face. But killing titans? Just hand the guy a [i]hammer of thunderbolts[/i], [i]belt of storm giant strength[/i], and [i]gauntlets of ogre power[/i], and watch them fall. And that's just a single classed fighter. A high level wizard in 1e could accomplish the same thing without much trouble, since there was no damage cap on destructive spells, and monsters had far fewer hit points, making a 19th level MU with a [i]fireball[/i] (19d6 damage, average of 66.5, more than most titans) just about as damaging as your tricked out 3.5 cleric. Except that the heirophant is not core rules. It, like all PrCs is optional. Making your point irrelevant. As long as they are all within a 40 foot radius spread of the caster. Since titans take up a 15 foot by 15 foot area each, and have 15 feet of reach, you're not gonna be likely to get more than one or two with your spell. And of course, none of this is relevant. The original claim was the the most basic 3e character was much more powerful than the most tricked out 1e/2e character. A claim that is patently false in the face of actual expeirence and a brief examination of the rule sets. [/QUOTE]

Verification