PDA

View Full Version : So... Complete Champion...



Maerok
2009-06-21, 04:39 PM
PHB: You can take Weapon Focus. It grants you a +1 to attack bonus with one weapon of your choice. Nifty. I believe the prereq is BAB +1?

Complete Champion: You can take the Trickery Devotion. Essentially, it lets you create a duplicate of yourself that can interact with the world and even attack for you at a higher level. And you can use it once per day, plus another time per 3 turn attempts you trade in. There is no prereq.

Or, you can take Law Devotion: Once per day as a swift action, you can add +7 between your AC or attack bonus for one minute at level 15 (+3 at first levels). There is no prereq.

What exactly happened here? Who thought that this would be acceptable in any way? In retrospect, I wish these were the folks who were working on ToM...

TengYt
2009-06-21, 04:40 PM
It's likely to assume, that like many things in Core, Weapon Focus is just bad compared to the stuff in the splat books.

Doc Roc
2009-06-21, 04:40 PM
Someone who understood that weapon focus is worthless except as a pre-requisite. The simple fact of the matter is that Complete Champion is very powerful, overall, but adds a lot of fun and piz-zazz to characters. It depends on what you want, and how much you trust your players.


Also, devotions are intended to be restricted to one a character barring extremely exotic circumstances.

It's not precisely that they are bad. It's that Complete Champion is a book about providing you with interesting options for how you play and who you play. I don't think it's a bad thing if these options happen to be better than some others. If you don't like it, ban it on a case-by-case basis.

Thrawn183
2009-06-21, 04:43 PM
You mean like a paladin going for law, good and then whatever he's decided to roleplay his character as?

Maerok
2009-06-21, 04:56 PM
I think that between choices A, B, and C, it shouldn't really matter what you take and you'll still be able to get adequate results. If you want some crazy effect, that is the purpose of prereqs. It just never seems like they tried to address many issues and just let them stay the course.

Starbuck_II
2009-06-21, 04:59 PM
Someone who understood that weapon focus is worthless except as a pre-requisite. The simple fact of the matter is that Complete Champion is very powerful, overall, but adds a lot of fun and piz-zazz to characters. It depends on what you want, and how much you trust your players.


Also, devotions are intended to be restricted to one a character barring extremely exotic circumstances.

It's not precisely that they are bad. It's that Complete Champion is a book about providing you with interesting options for how you play and who you play. I don't think it's a bad thing if these options happen to be better than some others. If you don't like it, ban it on a case-by-case basis.

Clerics have it best (can use turning attempts for extra uses instead of spending more feats).

shadow_archmagi
2009-06-21, 05:00 PM
Power creep is a dreadful thing, isn't it? Except that, well, to be honest, the second two are by far more interesting choices.

A permanent, static +1
A cool new toy that has multiple uses
A +7 that can be placed or divided between two different slots.

Which is going to spice up your game more?

Mr.Moron
2009-06-21, 05:02 PM
Weapon Focus is a pile. Law Devotion is a solid feat, but far from being a world-shaker.

I'm not seeing the problem.

Zaq
2009-06-21, 05:06 PM
You're comparing two solid but by no means game-breaking feats from Complete Champion to one of the most lackluster feats in Core. It's not that Law Devotion is really good... it's that Weapon Focus is really bad.

It really is true when they say that Core is the worst-balanced set of books in the 3.5 canon. Just in terms of feats, don't forget that the PHB also provided us with, oh, I don't know, Quicken Spell. Or Natural Spell. I won't even get into the crazy broken spells in Core...

Maerok
2009-06-21, 05:08 PM
I guess it's that I'm not very happy with the returns you get from feats, especially when they matter so much and you usually get so few. But this appears to be the nature of the beast. It's just that when all was said and done, there wasn't an official attempt to go back and scale up the rest of the material to the level it had reached by the Completes.

Edit: I just wish that every feat was good in its own way, without the lackluster ones and the overtly powerful ones. I've never really enjoyed building a character around the feats in order to keep up.

Sinfire Titan
2009-06-21, 05:11 PM
Many feats prior to Tome of Magic are complete utter garbage. Hell, there's some in the ToM itself that are worthless too.


Let's take Champions of Ruin for example. There's 3 feats in there for boosting weapon damage. They each have similar requirements, and all require a different type of weapon damage (Slashing, Bludgeoning, or Piercing).

To be honest, all three of those feats are worthless, but it gets ridiculous. The Piercing and Bludgeoning feats both add 1d6 to the damage dealt with the weapon you wield, but the Slashing one only adds +1. Not 1d6, a flat 1 point of damage. For the same requirements as the other two feats, you get an extra point of damage instead of 1d6.

And in that same book is Craven, a feat that adds your character level to any sneak attack you make, with only Sneak Attack as its prereq. Can you say inconsistency?


There's horrid power inconsistency throughout 3.5. Some abilities and feats just are not worth the investment needed. This becomes less frequent the further you get from Core, but it's still there (War Devotion, Magic Devotion, and the post-errata Trickery Devotion are all very weak).

Maerok
2009-06-21, 05:17 PM
And it's that sort of inconsistency that has always irked me. It would be nice to consider feats relevant or irrelevant to a character, rather than good or bad.

Sinfire Titan
2009-06-21, 05:24 PM
And it's that sort of inconsistency that has always irked me. It would be nice to consider feats relevant or irrelevant to a character, rather than good or bad.

They got it mostly right around the MoI and Bo9S, but then went and said "Screw it" when 4E was printed. There's only a handful of good feats in 4E, and most feats are just +1/Tier bonuses that are largely redundant.

Eldariel
2009-06-21, 05:28 PM
To be honest, all three of those feats are worthless, but it gets ridiculous. The Piercing and Bludgeoning feats both add 1d6 to the damage dealt with the weapon you wield, but the Slashing one only adds +1. Not 1d6, a flat 1 point of damage. For the same requirements as the other two feats, you get an extra point of damage instead of 1d6.

The table lists it as a +1d6 like the other feats; it's just an error in the text. I know, I know, text is the primary source...but if we get our heads out of our asses and look at it ourselves, it's pretty obvious that it's an editing error (either because the feats were improved or because they were going to be nerfed or something before the change).

Also, Flay Foe is a decent feat for some TWFer builds, as it adds an average of 3.5 damage to every subsequent hit; when you can expect 6-7 hits per turn, that starts to add up.

RTGoodman
2009-06-21, 05:30 PM
There's only a handful of good feats in 4E, and most feats are just +1/Tier bonuses that are largely redundant.

Which, incidentally, is kinda the point, from what I gather. Feats are there to give you little bonuses, not to give you new options - that's why you have powers. And you get so many feats over the length of your career (18-20, I think, depending on race and class and so on) that making them all have a big effect would be ridiculous.

Sinfire Titan
2009-06-21, 06:09 PM
Which, incidentally, is kinda the point, from what I gather. Feats are there to give you little bonuses, not to give you new options - that's why you have powers. And you get so many feats over the length of your career (18-20, I think, depending on race and class and so on) that making them all have a big effect would be ridiculous.

I prefer it when feats open up new combat options, like Spring Attack and Snap Kick. I hate feats that only give a bonus and negate a rule that screws you if you don't have them (like Improved Trip and Improved Disarm). I prefer feats that give you things (Shape Soulmeld, Martial Study, and Martial Stance are good examples).

Feats should not bypass the rules, they should augment them. Skills and Skill Tricks should bypass some rules, but not all of them.

T.G. Oskar
2009-06-21, 06:21 PM
Consider the facts of the restrictions:

Weapon Focus: limited to one weapon only (BAAAD!!). Only a +1 to attack rolls (BAAAAAAAAD!!!!). Opens up the Weapon Focus feat (OH GOSH IT'S HORRIBLE!!!!)

Law Devotion: +3 to +7 sacred bonus (WOOO!) to either attack or AC (YAHOO!!) for one minute (MEH!) once per day (WAIT, WHAT!?) as a swift action (OH...) Except it's once per day. Notice the once per day thing. Also, notice the prerequisite of DM can just say no be faithful to the Domain's intent. That is a tad harder to accomplish than BAB +1.

Trickery Devotion: image that behaves at first as silent image + unseen servant (HMMM...), then upgrades to major image (OH...), then you can use it to spy (OHHHHHH...), then finally to a bastardized version of the Shadowcraft Mage's persistent image (WOOOOOW!!!). Again, once per day (AWWWWW!) Again, notice the once per day thing. And the unseen prerequisite, again mentioned above.

Considering that only clerics or paladins (or anyone that somehow gets abilities to turn or rebuke undead) gain the most benefit, that the Law Devotion Domain feat benefits mostly a dedicated warrior, that the Trickery Devotion Domain feat is mostly beneficial to sneaky clerics who probably have less need for AC and not enough spells to outmake the rogue every day, that the Trickery Devotion Domain feat mostly requires you to be level 15th (and that's a modicum of a year's worth of sessions if you start at level 1, give or take one month depending on the DM) to actually make it worthwhile or else you need to be smart while using it (and you'd do better actually being a Beguiler)...well, those are reasonable restrictions.

What really happens is that Weapon Focus was meant to draw the Weapon Specialization feature from 2nd Edition into a branch of feats, and then power creep ensued when Batman Wizard and DMM Persist Cleric and Druidzilla appeared. In PHB II, you notice just how ridiculous is the amount of feats you need to earn what the Fighter had as a class ability, depending on the DM. Had they retained the class ability of Weapon Specialization, passing from the lowly Weapon Focus as a free feat, then passing through Weapon Specialization, GWF and GWS, and adding the feats in PHB II (Melee/Ranged Weapon Mastery, slashing/bludgeoning/piercing unique feat, perhaps the slashing/bludgeoning/piercing damage-enhancing feat in CoR, AND Weapon Supremacy), then the Fighter could be considered an interesting class. Or perhaps not.

Thing is, Weapon Focus was designed for Fighters to have a branch of feats with which to cover what they thought was an insane amount of bonus feats, until they decided "screw it, spellcasters are better" and completely ignored the point.

However, it's odd that you haven't spoken of Knowledge Devotion. That is the only Domain feat that requires no expenditure of daily uses (or Turn/Rebuke Undead uses), that actually scales with the spending of skill points (and most of the classes who really need it tend to have at least one Knowledge skill) and most other enhancements to skill rolls, that grants an insight bonus (which is not as common as morale, circumstance, competence or enhancement), and which requires you to have merely 5 ranks in Knowledge (any Knowledge, actually); roughly the same amount of time it requires a Wizard or Cleric or Rogue to have BAB +1.

I'll comply with the other posters in here that it's not that those feats are broken or overpowered, but that Weapon Focus is weak. However, it's not like you can have easy access to it. If you have, then your DM may allow Leadership cheese and other things, or is rather gullible (or worse, it can be devious!) The Domain feats are feats that usually require DM approval, since they have more of a roleplay restriction than a mechanical restriction. Any savvy DM that knows how those can be exploited can actually question you if you're being devoted to the meaning of the Domain, or else it can let you have a feat you can't use. I'd say that's a great restriction, much like the Paladin's Code of Conduct, or the Druid's restriction of metal armor, or heck, even the invention of Weapon Focus!

Eldariel
2009-06-21, 06:29 PM
Taking the look at particularly bad offenders in PHB, there's this feat called "Toughness". Sure, it's fine for the first 3-5 levels, but when you start to accumulate HD, you'll suddenly notice that the likelihood of an attack taking you to 3 instead of just knocking you to negatives grows lower and lower as the power of individual attacks keeps increasing.

hen we come to a 45HD monster in the Tarrasque that has taken this feat 6 (yes, count 'em!) times and it doesn't contribute even 3% towards the thing's HP! The chances of a potentially dangerous attack knocking it down to those last 18 points are just...miniscule. Basically any feat would be better; hell, if it spent 'em all buffing its Spot and Listen-checks, they may actually be of some good to it...


This just goes to show that PHB feats weren't really thought out and the idea "what a feat should do" just wasn't there. Taking the best PHB feats, we have Leadership (an extra character, yay!), Natural Spell (now I'm a caster AND a tank! Yay!), Quicken Spell (I can cast twice the spells per turn! Yay!), Craft Wondrous Items (I get all the items for half the price and I can get anything I want! Yay!), Extend Spell (level 5 Rope Tricks for everyone. Yay! Oh, and a billion other uses on buffs), other Crafts and so on.

Then we have Toughness (3 HP! Yay! Too bad HP grows in sync with the amount of punishment you're expected to take and thus the relevance of individual points fades very rapidly), Mobility (+4 AC against your own idiocy! Yay!), Spring Attack (I can dump my damage output to make the others take the hits thus making myself completely useless! Yay!), Whirlwind Attack (I can get myself surrounded and not move to deal a lot of damage! Yay!), etc. Later on, they decided feats are gained rarely and thus they should give you something tangible to give your character identity and direction, with abilities to match. That's why latter feats simply kick PHB feats' keister.


And I realize I'm preaching to the crowd, but nobody had brought up Toughness yet so not like I had a choice.

Curmudgeon
2009-06-21, 06:39 PM
Also, devotions are intended to be restricted to one a character barring extremely exotic circumstances. Not what the rules say.
you can never have more than two domain feats (except as specified in Clerics and Domain Feats, below). An ordinary Cleric can have 4 domain feats. One with extra domains could have more.

Maerok
2009-06-21, 08:14 PM
Well back to 3.5, it seems silly for a lot of techniques to only be available for those who have feats. "Why can't I ____ without that feat." It does inherently carry some kind of master of that ability but I don't see why no one can't do such things out of the box with just a little less power to it.

Eldariel
2009-06-21, 08:24 PM
Well back to 3.5, it seems silly for a lot of techniques to only be available for those who have feats. "Why can't I ____ without that feat." It does inherently carry some kind of master of that ability but I don't see why no one can't do such things out of the box with just a little less power to it.

The thing is, mostly you can. You just suck horribly at it. You can fight defensively without Combat Expertise, you just get -4 to attacks for +2 to AC for your troubles. You can do a jump to attack from above, but that means you can only do a standard action attack, and the only bonus is the +1 from higher ground.

You can trip/grapple/sunder/disarm/whatever, you'll just provoke AoO that makes your attempt fail, then need to roll a touch, then an even check and then something more for minor benefits so you just pretty much fail at all of it. 3.5 in general has the paradigm that sure, you can do anything without a feat, but you'll just suck horribly at it.

Quietus
2009-06-21, 08:45 PM
Even within CC, you have some pretty wacky crap with feats. Look at Law devotion; Bonus to AC or Attack, you can change it round to round, 1/day for one minute.

Protection devotion : Smaller bonus, AC only, same limitations.

::Edit:: Oh, nevermind. Protection domain is all allies within 30 feet. Well, the fact still remains that the bonus is smaller, and more limited in its application. Plus it's generally accepted that AC is the worst way to mitigate damage.. whereas +7 attack from Law Devotion becomes +14 damage, or more, depending on circumstances.

Maerok
2009-06-21, 09:18 PM
You can do a jump to attack from above, but that means you can only do a standard action attack, and the only bonus is the +1 from higher ground.

The higher ground bonus hasn't been all it's cracked up to be... Especially with lava battles.

http://img158.exs.cx/img158/9862/023za.jpg

Sinfire Titan
2009-06-21, 09:22 PM
Even within CC, you have some pretty wacky crap with feats. Look at Law devotion; Bonus to AC or Attack, you can change it round to round, 1/day for one minute.

Protection devotion : Smaller bonus, AC only, same limitations.

::Edit:: Oh, nevermind. Protection domain is all allies within 30 feet. Well, the fact still remains that the bonus is smaller, and more limited in its application. Plus it's generally accepted that AC is the worst way to mitigate damage.. whereas +7 attack from Law Devotion becomes +14 damage, or more, depending on circumstances.

Protection Devotion is more for Incarnates/Clerics who ran out of options. Its still considered a good feat because of how it scales and because it applies to your allies, despite being an AC boost. Plus its type applies to Touch and FFed AC, not just normal (good luck having it active when FFed though).

Law Devotion is considered superior, but only because it's a massive boost from a single source that stacks with Knowledge Devotion. RKVs would love to take both feats, but IIRC Wee-Jas doesn't offer Knowledge as a domain.

Tukka
2009-06-21, 09:33 PM
Law Devotion is considered superior, but only because it's a massive boost from a single source that stacks with Knowledge Devotion. RKVs would love to take both feats, but IIRC Wee-Jas doesn't offer Knowledge as a domain.
I'm not really familiar with the feats and such in question, but there's always the cloistered cleric variant if you need access to the Knowledge domain.

Sinfire Titan
2009-06-21, 09:35 PM
I'm not really familiar with the feats and such in question, but there's always the cloistered cleric variant if you need access to the Knowledge domain.


True. I remembered that after I had hit submit.

OverdrivePrime
2009-06-21, 09:47 PM
I always thought that Weapon Focus and Dodge would be a lot more useful if they gave you a +2 bonus instead of a static +1. Even at first level a +1 to hit or to AC is barely noticed. A +2 actually makes a bit of a difference, and shows devotion to that particular action.

It still doesn't match up to any of the good feats from the splatbooks, but it'd at least be taken besides just as an opening to other feats once in a while.

Demons_eye
2009-06-21, 10:10 PM
Some people let feats like Weapon Focus and Dodge stack with BaB (like +1 bonus for every 4 BaB) I find this makes them more useful.

T.G. Oskar
2009-06-21, 10:19 PM
Some people let feats like Weapon Focus and Dodge stack with BaB (like +1 bonus for every 4 BaB) I find this makes them more useful.

That's basically what they should have done (and what they're doing on 4th Edition, actually). Tiered bonuses. The paradigm of 3rd Edition was that Fighters had their combat technique shaped by their path upon established feat branches, rogues had their progressions shaped through their skills, and spellcasters had their progression shaped through their spells. However, after revising, they still couldn't realize that the feat branches couldn't scale as quickly as spells do, or as swift as skills can. In 4th Edition, they decided to grant tier-based bonuses to level the playing field, although Fighters and melee classes already had powers scaled against the spellcasters.

So, as most people probably suggest, let the bases of the branch be based on a specific tier, such as BAB or Fighter level, or even character level. Then, the rest of the branch is simplified. This may aid on the most feat-intensive of the branches (Weapon Focus, Two-Weapon Fighting), and scale it against the most balanced feat branches (Power Attack...um...actually, only Power Attack, and that's saying a lot) However, for that to be true, it has to be promoted as an errata, something to which we already lost the chance (and it doesn't seem that Pathfinder helps on that, right? Need confirmation on that)

Maerok
2009-06-21, 11:44 PM
I do think that Devotion feats could be applied as a defining feature of Paladins, if they were given as bonus feats at certain levels.

But besides feats, a lot of the alternate class features (Pounce for Barbarians) and classes themselves are pretty over the top.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-06-22, 12:02 AM
Sadly, those aren't the most broken feats in Complete Champion. Travel Devotion can be much, much more game breaking, particularly when combined with a Scout/Ranger/Swift Hunter build. Lion Totem Barbarian with free Pounce at 1st level is far more broken than any of the Devotion feats.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-22, 12:06 AM
Sadly, those aren't the most broken feats in Complete Champion. Travel Devotion can be much, much more game breaking, particularly when combined with a Scout/Ranger/Swift Hunter build. Lion Totem Barbarian with free Pounce at 1st level is far more broken than any of the Devotion feats.Travel Devotion is not broken. Heck, POUNCE is not broken. Move+full attack breaks nothing. A well-built Swift Hunter deals nearly as much damage as a bored Rogue. There's a 2nd level Psionic power and multiple 1st level maneuvers that do the same thing. Movement while remaining effective is a major boost to melee, but it's one the desprately need to remain on the level of casters(who get it for free), not one that should have any DMs worried.

Sinfire Titan
2009-06-22, 12:37 AM
Travel Devotion is not broken. Heck, POUNCE is not broken. Move+full attack breaks nothing. A well-built Swift Hunter deals nearly as much damage as a bored Rogue. There's a 2nd level Psionic power and multiple 1st level maneuvers that do the same thing. Movement while remaining effective is a major boost to melee, but it's one the desprately need to remain on the level of casters(who get it for free), not one that should have any DMs worried.

Agreed. The only thing that gets broken with Travel Devotion is Chuck, the Ruby Knight Vindicator, but he was broken to begin with. Travel Devotion just makes it easier to pull off.

Curmudgeon
2009-06-22, 01:27 AM
Travel Devotion is no more broken than Knight's Move (swift action short distance teleport). Spellcasters get all the nice toys. It's only fair they share just a few of them.

Sinfire Titan
2009-06-22, 01:31 AM
Travel Devotion is no more broken than Knight's Move (swift action short distance teleport). Spellcasters get all the nice toys. It's only fair they share just a few of them.

If that's aimed at me, I was refering to a specific build that abuses the Divine Impetus class feature to move massive distances in one round, then initiates a strike to fling someone into the sun.


If that's not aimed at me, I agree.

T.G. Oskar
2009-06-22, 05:22 AM
Not what the rules say. An ordinary Cleric can have 4 domain feats. One with extra domains could have more.

Odd that I didn't noticed this. The rules are limited on this one:



In addition, you can choose to give up access to a domain in exchange for the corresponding domain feat. Doing so allows you to select up to three domain feats, but you cannot prepare domain spells or use the granted power of the sacrificed domain.

Placing emphasis, you can only get a few set of domain feats (one per each domain you sacrifice, up to a limit of three), plus those from your deity that you choose with a regular feat slot. While the rules aren't as clear, the intention seems to be that clerics can only get up to three feats (not two + three).

Also, for even greater offenders, how about:


Acrobatic
Agile
Alertness
Animal Affinity
Athletic
Combat Casting
Deceitful
Deft Hands
Diligent
Investigator
Magical Aptitude
Negotiator
Nimble Fingers
Persuasive
Self-Sufficient
Stealthy
and Toughness


You could argue that Run (except on a land mount), Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, and perhaps Skill Focus are rather worthless as well. They have their utility, and a bit more of utility at that, but they aren't as bad as the above-mentioned offenders. No one has a feat to spend for any of those above.

Gorbash
2009-06-22, 08:18 AM
Now, hold on. Spell Penetration not worth it? :smallconfused: +4 isn't a small bonus and I wish I had the feats to take both with my current wizard (but archmage's prerequsites are a killer). You just can't have Assay Spell Resistance for every foe you meet.

Cyclocone
2009-06-22, 08:37 AM
Now, hold on. Spell Penetration not worth it? :smallconfused: +4 isn't a small bonus and I wish I had the feats to take both with my current wizard (but archmage's prerequsites are a killer). You just can't have Assay Spell Resistance for every foe you meet.

QFT. That +4 can easily be the difference between winning and losing, and in a core game with no access to orbs or assay you flat out need spell pen. to be reliable at doing stuff that isn't Haste or Solid Fog.

Person_Man
2009-06-22, 09:31 AM
There's a great article about this (www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142) by Monte Cook (one of three primary authors for 3.0/3.5 D&D) that you may wish to read, about how some of D&D was written based on their experiences with Magic: The Gathering. Basically, it's designed to reward "rules mastery." There are a ton of different rules on purpose, so that you can pick and choose what you find most interesting/fun/powerful/etc. A certain subset of the geek crowd enjoys going online and endlessly debating/discussing/learning about the game, and 3.X is designed to cater to that crowd. Then in an attempt to expand beyond their base and into the video game playing population, they made 4E, which is far more balanced and easy to learn (and boring, if you enjoyed 3.5 for the rules mastery aspect of the game).

Also keep in mind that WotC started writing 4E around 2005, and Complete Champion was published in 2007. And Complete Champion was written by committee FIVE different people (Ed Stark, Chris Thomasson, Rhiannon Louve, Ari Marmell, Gary Astleford). So I'm guessing that they just threw together everything interesting/cool that they wanted published but couldn't get into 4E (which takes balance very seriously).

Curmudgeon
2009-06-22, 09:50 AM
Placing emphasis, you can only get a few set of domain feats (one per each domain you sacrifice, up to a limit of three), plus those from your deity that you choose with a regular feat slot. While the rules aren't as clear, the intention seems to be that clerics can only get up to three feats (not two + three). I read it the other way. You can get three domains through sacrifice (which neatly takes care of Cloistered Clerics with their 3rd domain, Knowledge, for which they designed a domain feat), plus the regular two that all characters are allowed.

Project_Mayhem
2009-06-22, 11:43 AM
A certain subset of the geek crowd enjoys going online and endlessly debating/discussing/learning about the game, and 3.X is designed to cater to that crowd.

That would be us, wouldn't it.

Person_Man
2009-06-22, 12:15 PM
That would be us, wouldn't it.

Pretty much, yeah. Which, when combined with WotC horrible rollout of 4E, pretty much split the community in half.

Gorbash
2009-06-22, 12:24 PM
Meh, the way I see it, if they prefer 4e to 3.5e, we're better off without them.

The Glyphstone
2009-06-22, 12:32 PM
In before strawberry?

Zeful
2009-06-22, 12:40 PM
Meh, the way I see it, if they prefer 4e to 3.5e, we're better off without them.

Yes, why would anyone support a balanced game that almost anyone interested in the fantasy genre could pick up and have fun with over a poorly balanced game which isn't played the way it was intended by a small but very vocal minority of the players, leaving nearly half of all options almost perfectly worthless if even one player goes full-bore optimization?

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-06-22, 12:48 PM
Heck, POUNCE is not broken. Move+full attack breaks nothing. A well-built Swift Hunter deals nearly as much damage as a bored Rogue. There's a 2nd level Psionic power and multiple 1st level maneuvers that do the same thing. Movement while remaining effective is a major boost to melee, but it's one the desprately need to remain on the level of casters(who get it for free), not one that should have any DMs worried.

The ability to, at will, make a full attack after a full move is not broken? Pounce is significantly more powerful than either Psionic Lion's Pounce OR anything a Swift Hunter can do. It is the final key in the Ubercharger build which literally increases its damage output fivefold. It doesn't require a Wisdom of 12+, nor does it require the expenditure of any PP, nor does it only happen once an encounter.

Pounce is to melee what incantatrix is to arcane casting.

Eldariel
2009-06-22, 12:48 PM
Yes, why would anyone support a balanced game that almost anyone interested in the fantasy genre could pick up and have fun with over a poorly balanced game which isn't played the way it was intended by a small but very vocal minority of the players, leaving nearly half of all options almost perfectly worthless if even one player goes full-bore optimization?

You do realize how confrontational that statement is? There are lots of threads on the topic; why ask the question here instead of reading one of those threads?

Gorbash
2009-06-22, 12:50 PM
Yes, why would anyone support a balanced game

Because balance isn't everything?


that almost anyone interested in the fantasy genre could pick up and have fun

3.5 requires a PhD in math to be able to play? :smallconfused:


eaving nearly half of all options almost perfectly worthless

Ahh, but there's the beauty of 3.5. Even though half is worthless, there are so many options that are worth using that one can play indefinitely and never become bored.

Zeful
2009-06-22, 12:53 PM
You do realize how confrontational that statement is? There are lots of threads on the topic; why ask the question here instead of reading one of those threads?

Because I was responding to a confrontational and elitist statement. It was my intention to point out exactly what that statement meant as undiplomatically as he did.


Because balance isn't everything?It is in a game where most villains will have levels in PC classes. In 4e you can get away with imbalance between classes because NPCs use a radically different system for construction. It's a flaw of the system where a villain of 5-10 levels higher isn't a challenge for the PCs.


3.5 requires a PhD in math to be able to play? :smallconfused:No it requires a BS in The Rules or your likely to pick one of the classes designed to alienate new players. It also requires everyone to play to your level or invalidate your contributions to the party.



Ahh, but there's the beauty of 3.5. Even though half is worthless, there are so many options that are worth using that one can play indefinitely and never become bored.And all of those options require a certain level of knowledge of the Ruleset, which is generally impossible to know by simply reading the rulebook.

Eldariel
2009-06-22, 12:57 PM
Because I was responding to a confrontational and elitist statement. It was my intention to point out exactly what that statement meant as undiplomatically as he did.

Isn't the preferred method generally taking the higher ground and actually pointing out what was wrong in the post you're responding to instead of the whole "He's an ass so I'll be an ass too!"-plan? :smallconfused:

Sinfire Titan
2009-06-22, 12:57 PM
Pounce is to melee what incantatrix is to arcane casting.

BS. Pounce is to Melee what Fly speeds are to Dragons (useful). Incanatrix is to arcane casters what 9th level spells are to melee (broken).

Saying Pounce is as broken as Persisting 9th levels spells without expending more resources than it takes to make a DC 60 Spellcraft check is asinine. Pounce makes melee playable if they have to move more than 10ft. Incanatrix just breaks reality on accident. The two abilities are not even on the same level. Pounce may have made Barbarian into a 2 level base class, but Incanatrix is broken throughout all 10 levels because spells are just so damn powerful.

Tempest Fennac
2009-06-22, 01:00 PM
How is Chuck the Ruby Knight Vindicator broken? I've never heard of him before.

Eldariel
2009-06-22, 01:04 PM
How is Chuck the Ruby Knight Vindicator broken? I've never heard of him before.

He's been errata'd. Basically, the build is based around Footsteps of the Divine [Complete Champion] Persisted. Then you discharge the whole duration for an insane speed. Then you initiate Tornado Throw to deal infi damage. The more you can move, the better.

Zeful
2009-06-22, 01:12 PM
Isn't the preferred method generally taking the higher ground and actually pointing out what was wrong in the post you're responding to instead of the whole "He's an ass so I'll be an ass too!"-plan? :smallconfused:

Yes, when dealing with actual arguments. With "Were better off with 'em" sentiments, and lacking any arguments on the why this is, it is better to use an undiplomatic statement to provoke a dialogue, then respond with rational statements to prevent your target from going on the defensive and ignoring you. Though if you feel I've derailed the topic, I have no problem dropping the subject now.

Douglas
2009-06-22, 01:14 PM
How is Chuck the Ruby Knight Vindicator broken? I've never heard of him before.
The version of the build I remember combines the following things:
1) Persistent Footsteps of the Divine (possibly plus a few other duration increasers).
2) Using the early end option of Footsteps of the Divine to get a ridiculous move speed for one round.
3) Immunity to Daze (somehow)
4) A Staff of Greater Celerity at will
5) A ridiculously large number of turn attempts to fuel Divine Impetus to use the staff many times in one round.
6) Using all the full round actions granted by the above to run, using your absurdly boosted move speed.
7) Use Tornado Throw, which gives you a whole bunch of trip attempts with special damage based on how much you win the trip check by - and a bonus on trip checks based on how far you've moved this round.

As I recall, someone calculated that Chuck actually exceeded the speed of light.

The combination of Persistent Spell and Footsteps of the Divine was somewhat questionable in the beginning and, thanks to errata, is now definitely not valid.

Eldariel
2009-06-22, 01:17 PM
The version of the build I remember combines the following things:
1) Persistent Footsteps of the Divine (possibly plus a few other duration increasers).
2) Using the early end option of Footsteps of the Divine to get a ridiculous move speed for one round.
3) Immunity to Daze (somehow)

Favor of the Martyr, a level 4 Paladin-spell; among other things, Miracle and Limited Wish can mimic this (or just making your divine casting Archivist-base)


4) A Staff of Greater Celerity at will
5) A ridiculously large number of turn attempts to fuel Divine Impetus to use the staff many times in one round.

I recall it came down to getting stacking Turns from multiple sources and pimping out stats for it.


6) Using all the full round actions granted by the above to run, using your absurdly boosted move speed.
7) Use Tornado Throw, which gives you a whole bunch of trip attempts with special damage based on how much you win the trip check by - and a bonus on trip checks based on how far you've moved this round.

As I recall, someone calculated that Chuck actually exceeded the speed of light.

The combination of Persistent Spell and Footsteps of the Divine was somewhat questionable in the beginning and, thanks to errata, is now definitely not valid.

Tempest Fennac
2009-06-22, 01:20 PM
Thanks for the explanations. Just thinking about the article about how the 3.5 designers wanted to reward rules mastery; why would someone need telling that Toughness isn't that good? (I just thought the comment in the article about that was slightly odd due to how I'd expect most players to see that 3 HPs won't mean much after 3 or 4 levels for most classes, and it seems patronizing to point that out.)

Person_Man
2009-06-22, 01:27 PM
There are 73 ways to get Pounce, Pounce-like abilities, or Free Movement that I know of (www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5884385), including several low investment methods - one level of Lion Totem Barbarian, a Wand of Knight's Move or Lion's Charge put into a Wand Chamber stored in your weapon (Dungeonscape pg 34), a Psicrown of the Evader, the Polymorph spell, etc.

Core contain plenty of crazy rules, as do most supplements. Balance was never a design goal.


Thanks for the explanations. Just thinking about the article about how the 3.5 designers wanted to reward rules mastery; why would someone need telling that Toughness isn't that good? (I just thought the comment in the article about that was slightly odd due to how I'd expect most players to see that 3 HPs won't mean much after 3 or 4 levels for most classes, and it seems patronizing to point that out.)

If you've never played a game of 3.X, there's very little way for you to judge what's good or bad. Even if you have played a couple of games, then it's easy to think that the idiosyncrasies of your gaming group can be generalized to the game as a while.

For example, lets say you play in a party with a a Wizard, a Fighter, and a Monk. The Wizard uses Magic Missile and deals low damage with one attack against Enemy A. The Fighter takes Weapon Focus and Specialization, and deals moderate damage with one attack against Enemy B. The Monk takes Two Weapon Fighting and uses Stunning Fist, and hits with three attacks against Enemy C, killing it. You might think that the Monk is the strongest option, because it has the most attacks and a powerful special attack.

But you'd be wrong. The Wizard just needs to choose more powerful spells. The Fighter needs to use a reach weapon and learn how to use Power Attack and a decent battlefield control option. The Monk just sucks. But you don't really know that he sucks until you've played a lot of games with him, or if you discuss it with other people who have.

Similarly, more hit points = good. But you don't realize that more hit points is not as good as other feats unless you've played with other feats.

So the positive thing about 3.X is that you can create almost any fantasy themed character that you can think of, and they can do whatever you want. The more you read, the more options you have, and the more you want to keep reading (in theory). The down side is that it takes a huge time investment, and if you don't have a group of people willing to make a similar investment, there are tons of balance issues.

Oslecamo
2009-06-22, 01:35 PM
Balance was never a design goal.

Irrelevant. You cannot make a design goal out of something that people can't agree on. There will always be people screaming that X or Y is "unbalanced".

For more information, consult the locate city bombo. There wasn't any combo possible, so people just rewrote the laws of mathematics for there to be a combo they could complain about, that only worcks if you consider that a circle(a two dimensional figure) has a volume.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-22, 01:39 PM
The ability to, at will, make a full attack after a full move is not broken? Pounce is significantly more powerful than either Psionic Lion's Pounce OR anything a Swift Hunter can do. It is the final key in the Ubercharger build which literally increases its damage output fivefold. It doesn't require a Wisdom of 12+, nor does it require the expenditure of any PP, nor does it only happen once an encounter.

Pounce is to melee what incantatrix is to arcane casting.Uberchargers in no way are made viable by Pounce. It is entirely possible to make an Ubercharger without Pounce, since Uberchargers rely on multiple poorly-worded charge-boosting abilities. Full attack is what melee is expected to be able to do. Mounted Archers and Casters can move before or after doing what they're expected to do, so why shouldn't melee be able to?

Justin B.
2009-06-22, 01:45 PM
To re-rail the thread, as of sort:

The biggest issue I see with the long list of weak feats that give you minor combat options is that it sets a precedent for needing a feat to do absolutely anything.

This is very close to my heart because of a conversation I had not long ago where someone actually told me that there should be a feat that makes arrows stick into their targets. This is obviously non-sensical. But I can see how the system would give off the impression that this is needed.

Anyone even remotely trained with weapons can properly execute a lunge, but in 3.5 there is a feat that allows you to do it. There is no way to execute a lunge, as per the rules, without this feat.

Now the silly rules supercede the thing they are trying to simulate. And this has absolutely nothing to do with balance. There is no overpowered factor in letting an archers arrows behave like they do in reality, nor is there any reason a fighter should have to spend a feat to be able to lunge. Lunging comes with proficiency, dammit.

Tempest Fennac
2009-06-22, 01:49 PM
I tend to base what I consider to be good on my personal perspective and what other people have said about them (sadly, I don't have much practical experience with D&D at higher levels, and I made sure I read a lot about optimization online before I learnt how to play so I was probably different to most people regarding how they learnt what is optimized).

EDIT: I know letting arrows stick in people makes sense, but did that have any negative effects on whoever they hit?

Justin B.
2009-06-22, 01:54 PM
The idea was that an arrowhead has silence cast on it, as a tactic to help negate a spellcaster. I see no reason why this couldn't be a legitimate tactic, but I was told that a feat should be taken to allow said arrows to stick.

Tempest Fennac
2009-06-22, 02:01 PM
That tactic is interresting. I'm not sure whether it's powerful enough to justify a feat being used on it, though.

quick_comment
2009-06-22, 02:10 PM
I just do that with a harpoon (from frostburn). It explictly lodges in the target.

Gorbash
2009-06-22, 02:17 PM
Just thinking about the article about how the 3.5 designers wanted to reward rules mastery; why would someone need telling that Toughness isn't that good?

Toughness is just a basic example of a feat that sucks. Although A LOT people I know don't know that Weapon Focus sucks. The way they (a few melee people in my party) think is that +1 will help out their 3/4 BAB and that's why it's worth it.

But it does takes a bit of rules mastery to recognize (or find, for that matter) hidden potential / specific uses for some feats, I think that's what Monte was trying to say.

Keld Denar
2009-06-22, 02:21 PM
It could be ruled, however, since Silence is an Emanation, that being inside of the persons body blocks Line of Effect...

That would kinda screw that tactic.

Talic
2009-06-22, 02:26 PM
I read it the other way. You can get three domains through sacrifice (which neatly takes care of Cloistered Clerics with their 3rd domain, Knowledge, for which they designed a domain feat), plus the regular two that all characters are allowed.


Clerics and Domain Feats: If you are a cleric (or any
other character class who gains access to a domain), you
can choose any domain feat corresponding to the list of
domains offered by your deity, even if you do not have
access to those particular domains. A cleric of Pelor, for
example, can choose to cast spells from the Good and
Healing domains but select the Strength Devotion and
Sun Devotion feats.
In addition, you can choose to give up access to a domain
in exchange for the corresponding domain feat. Doing so
allows you to select up to three domain feats, but you cannot
prepare domain spells or use the granted power of the sacrificed
domain. In essence, you trade in a domain for an extra
feat slot that you can spend only on a specific domain feat.
For example, the above cleric of Pelor could choose to give
up the granted power and spells of the Good domain for the
Good Devotion feat.

Note. It is singular. You can use feats to choose two domains, per the standard rule. Then, if you give up a domain, you gain a bonus feat that can only be used on this. Doing so allows you to select three domain feats.

Not three additional domain feats. Three total.

If you have two, and you use this option once (which is all it tells you you can), you have selected three devotion feats. Bam. You've done exactly what the feat says.

As the standard cleric doesn't even receive three domains, it's not likely that they are referring to give up three for extra feats.

Sinfire Titan
2009-06-22, 02:28 PM
How is Chuck the Ruby Knight Vindicator broken? I've never heard of him before.


The version of the build I remember combines the following things:
1) Persistent Footsteps of the Divine (possibly plus a few other duration increasers).
2) Using the early end option of Footsteps of the Divine to get a ridiculous move speed for one round.
3) Immunity to Daze (somehow)
4) A Staff of Greater Celerity at will
5) A ridiculously large number of turn attempts to fuel Divine Impetus to use the staff many times in one round.
6) Using all the full round actions granted by the above to run, using your absurdly boosted move speed.
7) Use Tornado Throw, which gives you a whole bunch of trip attempts with special damage based on how much you win the trip check by - and a bonus on trip checks based on how far you've moved this round.

As I recall, someone calculated that Chuck actually exceeded the speed of light.

The combination of Persistent Spell and Footsteps of the Divine was somewhat questionable in the beginning and, thanks to errata, is now definitely not valid.


This method is close, but wrong. Chuck uses the Boost Quicksilver Motion to move, not Celerity. Celerity requires an immediate action, which Divine Impetus doesn't give you.

You go:

1: Swift action: Expend Footsteps of the Divine to get a base land speed of 144,000*10ft.
2: Free Action: Divine Impetus to get another Swift action.
3: Swift action: Quicksilver Motion to move your base speed.
4: Free action: Use RKV class feature to recover Quicksilver Motion at the cost of turn attempts.
5: Free action: Get another Swift action.
6: Repeats steps 3-5 until you run out of Turn attempts (you should have somewhere around 50 of them if you optimized it).
7: Upon expending the Quicksilver Motion boost for the last time, initiate Tornado Throw.
8: Throw them into the sun.

The minimum damage is too high for actual numbers. We couldn't even use scientific notation to express it. The trick was somewhat nerfed, as you can no longer Persist the Footsteps spell. It still works, but now only deals a few million damage, instead of the record-breaking damage the original idea used. Travel Devotion cuts out the need for Quicksilver Motion, which gives a nice boost.

Person_Man
2009-06-22, 02:28 PM
I just do that with a harpoon (from frostburn). It explictly lodges in the target.

Which requires Exotic Weapon Proficiency to wield without a -4 penalty.

Justin B.
2009-06-22, 02:32 PM
Which requires Exotic Weapon Proficiency to wield without a -4 penalty.

Not to mention it's completely inane because arrows stick into things. Period. That's what they do.

Also, I don't believe emanations need line fo effect, otherwise you can be completely immune from anti-magic field by hiding behind a rock or a tower shield... This seems silly to me.

quick_comment
2009-06-22, 02:33 PM
Which requires Exotic Weapon Proficiency to wield without a -4 penalty.

Yeah, but -4 is rather small. Also, there is a spell in complete adventurer that gives you proficiency with any particular weapon

Person_Man
2009-06-22, 02:50 PM
Yeah, but -4 is rather small. Also, there is a spell in complete adventurer that gives you proficiency with any particular weapon

Master's Touch. Lasts for 1 minute per level. Reprinted in Spell Comp as well.

Or you can enchant it with the Skillful enhancement (+2 bonus, Comp Arcane, also gives you minimum of 3/4 BAB).

Doc Roc
2009-06-22, 02:56 PM
You might also interpret aptitude weapon to make it usable. ToB.

Adumbration
2009-06-22, 02:57 PM
Master's Touch. Lasts for 1 minute per level. Reprinted in Spell Comp as well.

Or you can enchant it with the Skillful enhancement (+2 bonus, Comp Arcane, also gives you minimum of 3/4 BAB).

You can also use the spell Heroics to give EWP as the feat.

Keld Denar
2009-06-22, 03:19 PM
This method is close, but wrong. Chuck uses the Boost Quicksilver Motion to move, not Celerity. Celerity requires an immediate action, which Divine Impetus doesn't give you.

You sure? That's not the version of Chuck E Cheeze I last saw. And an Immediate action taken on your OWN turn is the same as a Swift action.



Immediate Actions
Much like a swift action, an immediate action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time — even if it's not your turn. Casting feather fall is an immediate action, since the spell can be cast at any time.

Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed.

Emphasis mine.

The advantage of Greater Celerity over Quicksilver Motion or Travel Devotion is that you get to use a Run action to cover 5 times as much ground per Turn Undead attempt for Travel Devotion, and 15 times as much ground per Turn Undead attempt for Quicksilver Motion (since you need 1 to gain a Swift action, 1 to recover QSM (which uses that Swift action) with Divine Recovery, and 1 to gain another Swift action to use QSM).



The minimum damage is too high for actual numbers. We couldn't even use scientific notation to express it. The trick was somewhat nerfed, as you can no longer Persist the Footsteps spell. It still works, but now only deals a few million damage, instead of the record-breaking damage the original idea used. Travel Devotion cuts out the need for Quicksilver Motion, which gives a nice boost.

Actually, thats not the part of Chuck that broke. You CAN still Persist Footsteps of the Divine. It was NOT errated to be Dismissable, noted with a (D) next to the duration, which would invalidate it as a target for Persist Spell. The part of Chuck that broke was an FAQ ruling on Divine Impetus that dictated it can only be used once per round.

Doc Roc
2009-06-22, 03:26 PM
Chuck can speak for himself ;) (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=993832)

Douglas
2009-06-22, 03:27 PM
Actually, thats not the part of Chuck that broke. You CAN still Persist Footsteps of the Divine. It was NOT errated to be Dismissable, noted with a (D) next to the duration, which would invalidate it as a target for Persist Spell. The part of Chuck that broke was an FAQ ruling on Divine Impetus that dictated it can only be used once per round.
Whether a spell is dismissable or not has nothing to do with Persistent Spell. The problem is that Persistent Spell cannot be used with a dischargable spell, and the errata says (emphasis added):

Page 121 – Footsteps of the Divine [Substitution]
Under Duration, the entry should say “See text.”
[Revision]
The two final sentences should read, “You can discharge the spell to add +10 feet to your speed per remaining round of the spell’s duration. This effect lasts until the end of your turn.”

Divine Impetus has not received any errata, and a search of the FAQ document turned up nothing.

Doc Roc
2009-06-22, 03:32 PM
It was my understanding that Footsteps had gotten an errata of some flavor.

Divine impetus was basically obviously never intended to offer multiple swift actions per round, and that's coming from the consensus of the CO forums as I know them. It's good enough without that.

Sinfire Titan
2009-06-22, 03:44 PM
Divine impetus was basically obviously never intended to offer multiple swift actions per round, and that's coming from the consensus of the CO forums as I know them. It's good enough without that.

What? There's no limit on the number of times you can use it each round. It just says you can turn one turn attempt into one Swift action. If you are referring to the FAQ ruling, then I got news for you: The FAQs have been wrong before. The FAQ is a blind idiot interpretation that WotC pays for. Its been proven that the FAQ, Cust Serv, and the Sage are unreliable when it comes to rules.


You sure? That's not the version of Chuck E Cheeze I last saw.

The original requires less setup. The original version needed only 2 rounds to go off, one to cast a Persisted Footsteps, the next to expend it and begin initiating the hell out of Quicksilver Motion. It could also be done completely naked; no magic items whatsoever. The Celerity version is vastly more difficult to set up (requires both Footsteps and Favor of the Martyr, and multiple staves of Greater Celerity, as you can't make a staff into an at-will item).

The Travel Devotion version is a bit more economic. You cast Extended Footsteps one round (and activate Travel Devotion in the same round), then next round you go off and kill everything you can reach.

Doc Roc
2009-06-22, 04:06 PM
That's not how it's worded, actually.... It says:
"At 7th level you [..]. You can expend a turn or rebuke attempt to gain one additional swift action this round. For example you could use this ability to both change your stance and initiate a boost maneuver in the same turn, or if you initiated a counter before your turn, you can activate this ability and then initiate a boost on your turn."

I think, and I am a RAW\Gamist, that it's pretty clear it wasn't really intended to be used multiple times per turn, particularly since it says one additional swift action this round, not per turn, or simply one additional swift action.

Again, the consensus is that it could have been better written, but mostly, even literalists like me tend.... Why am I explain this to you, Sin, you know your kung-fu as well or better than I do. But there's the text, and you may all draw your respective conclusions.

I will be in my dojo, practicing the new DotA heroes. Again, in this case, complete champion is not the problem, nor is ToB. The problem is that writers and designers are not the same as other kinds of Builders, and leave imprecisions for the sake of elegance, something that a man like me is often confused by.

:: shrugs ::

Gorbash
2009-06-22, 05:19 PM
Not to mention it's completely inane because arrows stick into things. Period. That's what they do.

Well, not necessarily. An arrow can just graze the flesh, pierce right throught it, etc. It's not really defined by the rules, so if you play by RAW, you use a method defined by it.

Easier method is just throwing a rock with Silence on it in the square where the wizard is (if not airborne).

Talic
2009-06-22, 05:39 PM
Not to mention it's completely inane because arrows stick into things. Period. That's what they do.

Also, I don't believe emanations need line fo effect, otherwise you can be completely immune from anti-magic field by hiding behind a rock or a tower shield... This seems silly to me.

Only IRL.

Ammunition

Projectile weapons use ammunition: arrows (for bows), bolts (for crossbows), or sling bullets (for slings). When using a bow, a character can draw ammunition as a free action; crossbows and slings require an action for reloading. Generally speaking, ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless, while normal ammunition that misses has a 50% chance of being destroyed or lost.

In D&D Arrows hit their target, and are destroyed. Which ends the effect. Javelins, on the other hand...

As for Emanations, you can. Yup.


Burst, Emanation, or Spread

Most spells that affect an area function as a burst, an emanation, or a spread. In each case, you select the spell’s point of origin and measure its effect from that point.

A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, even including creatures that you can’t see. It can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst’s area defines how far from the point of origin the spell’s effect extends.

An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. Most emanations are cones or spheres.

A spread spell spreads out like a burst but can turn corners. You select the point of origin, and the spell spreads out a given distance in all directions. Figure the area the spell effect fills by taking into account any turns the spell effect takes.
Emphasis Mine.

Justin B.
2009-06-22, 06:18 PM
Only IRL.


In D&D Arrows hit their target, and are destroyed. Which ends the effect. Javelins, on the other hand...

As for Emanations, you can. Yup.


Emphasis Mine.

Both of those rules are inane on an extreme level. As I've said, I see D&D from more of a simulationist standpoint, others see it from a more rules-oriented standpoint.

I see what the rules say, but that doesn't make them any less mind-numbingly stupid.

/sigh.

Talic
2009-06-22, 06:21 PM
Both of those rules are inane on an extreme level. As I've said, I see D&D from more of a simulationist standpoint, others see it from a more rules-oriented standpoint.

I see what the rules say, but that doesn't make them any less mind-numbingly stupid.

/sigh.

Walls block spells. Makes sense to me.

Doc Roc
2009-06-22, 06:27 PM
I too was shocked when I discerned that I could not see through walls.

Funny thing, mask of visual insight, MiC, 10k.
Negates all concealment effects.....

All.
A less scrupulous man might suggest that walls, as they block LoS, provide concealment..... ;)

Justin B.
2009-06-22, 06:48 PM
Walls block spells. Makes sense to me.

As do Tower Shields, as per that rule.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-22, 06:55 PM
As do Tower Shields, as per that rule.Makes sense. And actually, makes for an awesome visual.

A BBEG, surrounded by violent heroes, begins emitting rays that render their magical gear useless. The casters find their spells fail, and now the Fighters can't get through his armor. The dark rays have left them exposed. Suddenly, the Wizard has an idea. He ducks behind the Fighter's shield, using it as cover from the BBEG's assault of dark energy, as he brings a horde of angels into being. As he watches them swarm, he collapses from the strain of holding the shield.

Yeah, I can get behind that.

Talic
2009-06-22, 06:57 PM
As do Tower Shields, as per that rule.

Only when you take total cover behind them, in which case, you can't affect the source of the emanation anyway. Nor can you attack. And you're limited to 1 arm only.

And only you can use it as total cover, by RAW. Your buddy can't use it with you.

Keld Denar
2009-06-22, 06:57 PM
He ducks behind the Fighter's shield

<snip>

Yeah, I can get behind that.

Bad pun's invoke the name of he who is twice punned.