PDA

View Full Version : Can Conjuration *really* replace Evocation's blasting? [3.5]



FMArthur
2011-01-16, 05:39 PM
I should just mention at the start that I know Conjuration's deadly, debilitating and versatile effects already make it strategically more powerful by leaps and bounds to not care about blasting. I don't think it's worth debating that Conjuration is better than Evocation.

But part of the claim is often that Conjuration straight-up outclasses Evocation in its own job. Whenever I am told specifically that Conjuration also does pure straight up *blasting* better than Evocation, all I've ever heard to back it up are the Orbs. Single target touch attack blasting, which are great for ignoring Spell Resistance. But where are Conjuration's Fireballs, Lightning Bolts, etc? Not clouds that hurt people over time, tentacles that grab people, or anything like that. I am talking about instantaneous bursts of wide AOE damage, or at least multi-target instant damage. What can a Conjurer who's banned Evocation do to replicate those moves?

Let's keep in mind we're a normal Wizard who hasn't cheesed out Shadow effects to the point where they become worthwhile alternatives, because without them, Shadow Evocation and its Greater counterpart suck.

Lateral
2011-01-16, 05:45 PM
Yeah, this is true. Conjuration's direct damage spells *do* outclass Evocation's, but Conjuration doesn't actually have enough DD spells to eliminate the occasional need for Evocation.

randomhero00
2011-01-16, 05:50 PM
Well at higher levels they can often summon things that do those wide AOEs.

Psyren
2011-01-16, 05:52 PM
But where are Conjuration's Fireballs, Lightning Bolts, etc? Not clouds that hurt people over time, tentacles that grab people, or anything like that. I am talking about instantaneous bursts of wide AOE damage, or at least multi-target instant damage. What can a Conjurer who's banned Evocation do to replicate those moves?

Blast of Flame
Blast of Sand
Acid Breath
Firestride Exhalation
Arc Lightning
Vitriolic Sphere
Acid Storm
Deadly Lahar
Snowball Swarm
Hail of Stone

...shall I continue?

EDIT 1: Note that many of the above are SR: No, and will work through AMF. No evocations can do both of these things.
EDIT 2: Conjurers can also summon creatures to use the blasty evocations for them.

Jack_Simth
2011-01-16, 05:56 PM
Spell Compendium:
Acid Breath (15 foot cone of acid, 1d6/level, 3rd level spell, caps at 10d6)
Acid Storm (20 foot cylinder of acid, 1d6/level, 6th level spell, caps at 15d6)
Arc of Lightning (Line between two targets, 1d6/level, 5th level spell, caps at 15d6)
Blast of Flame (60 foot cone of fire, 1d6/level, 4th level spell, caps at 10d6)

I stopped looking at that point. Sufficient?

Khatoblepas
2011-01-16, 05:59 PM
Melf's Unicorn Arrow for multi target blasting with a nice effect, Acid Breath is a 1d6/level acid blasting spell, and don't forget Summon Monster for other creatures casting spells on their actions, not yours!

Well, I've been ninjaed a bit, but I gotta ask. What do you need to be blasting for? If you can pin down the enemy in Solid Fog + Cloudkill, why do you need to then do 10d6 damage afterward? That's what the Big Stupid Fighter is for. Mopping up.

molten_dragon
2011-01-16, 06:03 PM
When it comes to AoE blasting, evocation beats conjuration, because it has access to wings of flurry.

Halae
2011-01-16, 06:03 PM
I've always been a fan of doing two things that essentially make evocation obsolete: Divination, and summoning up creatures. With divination you just set up the field in such a way that they can't escape or get away in the exact way that you saw the creatures would arrive. of course, notfoolproof as they can trick said divination, but still. Then, with summons, you sit back and watch as your beasty begins to tear things apart, or, better yet, create those evocation effects for you, as has been stated already


When it comes to AoE blasting, evocation beats conjuration, because it has access to wings of flurry.I'll give you that one

Jack_Simth
2011-01-16, 06:05 PM
When it comes to AoE blasting, evocation beats conjuration, because it has access to wings of flurry.
That is, however, Sorcerer-only, and Sorcerers don't really have the option of banning schools for more raw power.

Thrice Dead Cat
2011-01-16, 06:06 PM
When it comes to AoE blasting, evocation beats conjuration, because it has access to wings of flurry.

Only if you're a sorcerer. And generally, if you're specializing in conjuration you're also grabbing standard action summons or sweet, sweet "I'm 10 ft. that way!" for AC.

Zaydos
2011-01-16, 06:07 PM
Well, I've been ninjaed a bit, but I gotta ask. What do you need to be blasting for? If you can pin down the enemy in Solid Fog + Cloudkill, why do you need to then do 10d6 damage afterward? That's what the Big Stupid Fighter is for. Mopping up.

Because explosions are fun :smallsmile:
I like playing wizards but I hate just sitting there as other people "mop up". I've had characters that did, and by which I mean they let their pixie familiar fire a bow at things while they sipped tea (or at least they were supposed to; I played them twice, once as a test run for three characters when I was still working out kinks in spells known/prepared and once when the DM used my list of 'things that give him the most trouble' as the entire adventure)*, but it remains fun to blow things up.

*Out of three encounters he still managed to pull as much as or more weight than any other character on two (big ass dragon immune to the majority of his offensive spells, and area where magic didn't work normally and he couldn't use his offensive spells), and still quite up there in the third (incorporeal creatures which I had purposefully not given him anything more effective than 50% chance against) and that was because two of the party members were built to specialize in fighting that type of encounter.

FMArthur
2011-01-16, 06:15 PM
Interesting. I was looking at just Core because it isn't as daunting as searching through the Spell Compendium, Complete Mage and PHII for more spells (what else isn't in the Spell Compendium, by the way?) and had gotten the idea that it would provide a sample of what sort of things to expect from the school in general. This is obviously not the case. Well, the point has certainly been proven to my satisfaction and now I know where to look for spells doing that particular job. Thanks, guys.

ericgrau
2011-01-16, 06:39 PM
Ya you can't match the AoE with orb spells, which is the best way to use blasting. What orbs really bust open is high level blasting. No SR, works in an anti-magic field, and decent damage on the less often resisted energy types. At low level you'd be better off with poor single target scorching ray even. The main thing is that the orb spells provide a workable substitute for what's supposed to be an evocation effect. While it doesn't cover everything it still makes it one step easier to ditch evocation, giving you extra spells over a generalist wizard with a minor drawback. Though there are other awesome, unbeatable non-damaging evocations, the more books you have the more passable substitutes you can find for spells which makes it more worth it to ban a couple schools for the sake of extra spells. Rather than, y'know, an actual drawback. Welcome to min-maxing 101.

Btw, the original purpose for the orb spells according to a major WotC author speaking on a podcast is to provide damage with a little bit of a side effect, as kind of a test case before adding it to 4e. Having not yet checked spell compendium, I didn't even know the side effect existed until that podcast. No one ever mentions it. Instead they always say "conjuration, ranged touch, no save, no SR, works in an antimagic field <drool>..." Thanks for carelessly busting the game to get your test case Wizards :smallbiggrin:.

Pigkappa
2011-01-16, 06:44 PM
If we had infinite rulebooks, there would likely be even some necromancy spell to teleport or divination spell to resurrect. Conjuration was not intended to be as good as evocation at blasting, but they added to that school a few blasting spells each time and now we can blast with conjuration. If the DM accepts non-core spells, which is a bad idea.

ericgrau
2011-01-16, 06:46 PM
If the DM accepts non-core spells, which is a bad idea.
I can see this line quickly gaining heat so I'd like to say that the DM should accept non-core spells after looking at them first for bustedness as they do open up more creative options and interesting variations in the game. And even then only a handful of spells / spell types showing up daily on forums need banning; the rest might be adjusted. Carelessly accepting everything is what's a bad idea.

Thrice Dead Cat
2011-01-16, 06:53 PM
I can see this line quickly gaining heat so I'd like to say that the DM should accept non-core spells after looking at them first for bustedness as they do open up more creative options and interesting variations in the game. And even then only a handful of spells / spell types showing up daily on forums need banning; the rest might be adjusted. Carelessly accepting everything is what's a bad idea.

And on the opposite end of the spectrum, carelessly banning all non-core or even just entire books is generally a bad idea, too. Most of the crazy stuff is in core, anyhow.

Psyren
2011-01-16, 06:55 PM
Conjuration was not intended to be as good as evocation at blasting

If they really intended that, why did they create Spell Resistance?

Halae
2011-01-16, 06:59 PM
If they really intended that, why did they create Spell Resistance?

Because they were making a poor attempt to balance magic alongside fighting characters, but left a blatant hole because they didn't want to make SR creatures insanely powerful

FMArthur
2011-01-16, 07:00 PM
It wasn't made as a tripline for inexperienced players, if that's what you're implying. They just forgot that it was made as an arbitrary balancing effect and started trying to apply logic to it by thinking too hard about the magic-mundane status of firebolts at the point of impact. More simulation vs game developer confusion.

Pigkappa
2011-01-16, 07:00 PM
Yeah, ok, but the equilibrium point is near to banning everything. A lot of spells aren't apparently broken but they can make the game much easier for he wizard (orbs or earth reaver ---> losing evocation is easier, for example).
O course the DM should also ask the players to use core spells in a fair way (e.g. abusing polymorph any object is bad).

ericgrau
2011-01-16, 07:05 PM
Because they were making a poor attempt to balance magic alongside fighting characters, but left a blatant hole because they didn't want to make SR creatures insanely powerful
That's the gist of it. Remember SR was before the orb spells. Almost every core spell that directly affects a creature has SR, and often a save or attack roll too. The handful that don't either work indirectly by beefing allies or etc., or they do piddly damage. See ice storm (no save) and acid fog (no SR). If the orb spells did lousy damage but bypassed SR and stuck to non-magical energy types that actually make sense like acid, then they might be ok.

Then ya it seems they totally forgot why they did things earlier on. Maybe in part because everyone who worked on 3e either quit or was fired.

Psyren
2011-01-16, 07:07 PM
O course the DM should also ask the players to use core spells in a fair way (e.g. abusing polymorph any object is bad).

But if your players are the sort that will abuse spells, they'll do so even if you enforce core-only. Conversely, if your players are the sort who restrain themselves, they'll do so no matter which splats you allow. Either way, banning books does nothing but constrain the game.


Remember SR was before the orb spells.

Actually, the first orb spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/acidsplash.htm) is Core.

ericgrau
2011-01-16, 07:08 PM
Agreed there. I noticed the things that appear 95% of the time in forums are about 2% of what's in books, whether splat or core. People that don't browse forums often don't even notice these 98% of the time, let alone seek them out so that they may break the game.



Actually, the first orb spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/acidsplash.htm) is Core.
And it's a low damage acid spell which is totally fine.

Roland St. Jude
2011-01-16, 07:08 PM
Yeah, ok, but the equilibrium point is near to banning everything. A lot of spells aren't apparently broken but they can make the game much easier for he wizard (orbs or earth reaver ---> losing evocation is easier, for example).
O course the DM should also ask the players to use core spells in a fair way (e.g. abusing polymorph any object is bad).Of course, if asking players to do that works (as it would in pretty much any game I've been in in recent memory), then you can ask the same for non-core as well and have many more options to play (fairly) with.

Foryn Gilnith
2011-01-16, 07:11 PM
Yeah, ok, but the equilibrium point is near to banning everything.

Then why is Core the stuff that should stay unbanned? They were made at the beginning of the development cycle and often created just to maintain continuity with old editions, as opposed to splatbook spells which were created with more experience and with 3.5 in mind. Some fundamental spells are core-only, yeah, but there's not much reason to consider core more balanced except for cultural conditioning.

Pigkappa
2011-01-16, 07:26 PM
Of course, if asking players to do that works (as it would in pretty much any game I've been in in recent memory), then you can ask the same for non-core as well and have many more options to play (fairly) with.

Not really because there are many non-core spells which aren't clearly broken as polymorph any object (the orbs again are a good example) but make the wizard's life easier (because he can lose evocation without much trouble).

Reasons for banning non-core spells: it is much simpler to say "core only and please don't break the game" than "you can use these 122 spells from core and these 198 from other sources and please don't try to use them to break he game".

Of course if a player has good in-game reasons to research a single out-of-core spell the DM should be reasonable...

Thrice Dead Cat
2011-01-16, 07:35 PM
Yeah, ok, but the equilibrium point is near to banning everything. A lot of spells aren't apparently broken but they can make the game much easier for he wizard (orbs or earth reaver ---> losing evocation is easier, for example).
O course the DM should also ask the players to use core spells in a fair way (e.g. abusing polymorph any object is bad).

Yeah, no. I would rather play a game where core was banned save for its mundane and most of the magical items than play a game where I can't even use all of the complete books. Hell, looking through the complete books there is probably about one broken thing per book. Complete Arcane gave us the Though Bottle. Complete Warrior gave us Hulking Hurler. Complete Adventurer gave us... leap attack, I guess. Nothing really stands out from that book as ZOMGBANNZORED! Complete Divine gave us Ur-Cheese. The later series books, though are largely balanced except for maybe, maybe the pouncing barbarians and a cleric spell that can be popped as an immediate action for a natural 20 on a roll. And those two things are both from Complete Champion - and both are minor and/or easy to change. While homebrew, some people just switch the pounce from the Lion-Totem Barbarian for whatever it gains at 6 HD and that one spell is easy to ignore.

When you branch out into other, non-campaign setting stuffs, you get the wonders of Incarnum, Psionics, and the two Tome books.


EDIT:


Not really because there are many non-core spells which aren't clearly broken as polymorph any object (the orbs again are a good example) but make the wizard's life easier (because he can lose evocation without much trouble).

You do know there are pains like the calling spells, all of the summoning spells and more than just "RAWR I'm a monster-spells" from core, right?



Reasons for banning non-core spells: it is much simpler to say "core only and please don't break the game" than "you can use these 122 spells from core and these 198 from other sources and please don't try to use them to break he game".

Of course if a player has good in-game reasons to research a single out-of-core spell the DM should be reasonable...

Easier yes, but that doesn't mean that core isn't not the most broken thing about 3.5. Hell, it'd be easier to go to a message board like here ask what is so broken about X this or Y that and just patch something like Shivering Touch out of existence than simply say "no." I for one won't play in a core-only game. It's too hard to be melee and too limiting in what I can do.

JKTrickster
2011-01-16, 07:37 PM
I disagree that the equilibrium is established by banning nearly everything.

I mean if you really want to play balance and fun you could go straight for Tier 3, which is mostly Splats anyway but still balanced, varied, and fun!

So while keeping to core is simpler, I disagree that it solves the problem or retains "fun" because it...too limited.

ericgrau
2011-01-16, 07:39 PM
It is easier for inexperienced DMs to stick to core though, then branch out when they feel ready. And really most of the broken stuff in core is so obvious no one ever actually tries it, whereas some of the later books get hazy and may even have some forms of power creep which some DMs may allow and others not allow. While bad for reasons discussed including the thread title, the orbs are hardly the worst thing out there.

FMArthur
2011-01-16, 07:52 PM
Eh, Core spells in general actually seem to require DM adjudication in general a bit more and have more complex effects. Spells and class features where you have to read the Monster Manual to get any effect are the worst offenders IMO. So despite this never happening due to core containing most of the gameplay rules, I think a small selection of noncore books would offer the simplest, easiest and most balanced games. Like just ToB + Expanded Psionics Handbook.

Psyren
2011-01-16, 07:52 PM
And it's a low damage acid spell which is totally fine.

And they decided to make higher-damage versions, just like they did with other cantrips.

Honestly I would've been fine with orbs being less efficient (damage-wise) than evocations, just to give evocation that niche, but that's just not the way it worked out in this edition.


It is easier for inexperienced DMs to stick to core though, then branch out when they feel ready. And really most of the broken stuff in core is so obvious no one ever actually tries it, whereas some of the later books get hazy and may even have some forms of power creep which some DMs may allow and others not allow. While bad for reasons discussed including the thread title, the orbs are hardly the worst thing out there.

The advantages to a game for including more material outweigh the increased complexity it brings; this is particularly true for weaker classes. For instance, just including SpC in a game gives Paladins and Rangers all sorts of goodies to play with.

Pigkappa
2011-01-16, 08:06 PM
I would rather play a game where core was banned save for its mundane and most of the magical items than play a game where I can't even use all of the complete books.

That way we can likely make a nice game, interesting and more balanced than core. But:

- We need to save a few core spells. Actually, a lot of them. D&D without teleport, fireball, scrying, invisibility, a lot of core talents, and so on would definitely be another game.
- That requires a lot of work done by the DM; it is difficult to make that balanced; it is nearly impossible to find a group of RL players who will read your rules and accept them.



You do know there are pains like the calling spells, all of the summoning spells and more than just "RAWR I'm a monster-spells" from core, right?

I know, but if I ask the players to be fine guys, it means they shouldn't do that...


[QUOTE=JKTrickster;10175382]I mean if you really want to play balance and fun you could go straight for Tier 3, which is mostly Splats anyway but still balanced, varied, and fun!


A tier 3 core-only is likely too weak to face interesting encounters, unless all of the players are experienced. A tier 3 non-core-only requires an experienced group (to make good use of non-core books) and requires them learning what tier 3 means and accepting to be tier 3.



So while keeping to core is simpler, I disagree that it solves the problem or retains "fun" because it...too limited.

It is too limited for players who know most books very well and have already played a few core classes in most level ranges.
I have a player in the party who is new to D&D, another one who isn't new but still doesn't know the most basic rules, another one who has played for a lot of time but doesn't really spend his time studying crazy strategies, and another one who does spend his time studying crazy strategies on the internet. I think this is likely to be the situation most parties are in.
Allowing non-core means that the new player would understand very little because we'd be using material from 10 (or more) different sources; the guy who can't understand that same-type bonuses don't stack would never get one rule right; the guy who looks for crazy strategies on the internet would be much stronger than any other player even if he tries to not break the game.

This is surely influenced by my vision of the game - the players should have more fun creating their PCs' personality and seeing how they can influence the world than planning the most effective and invincible PCs while they are at home.
I've already played in a campaign where I used an Incantatrix who could give 4d4 negative levels in a single round (and we had a Cleric who could easily spam 2 SoD for round too) and that wasn't so funny after all...


I wonder how many grammatical mistakes I made in this post...

Lateral
2011-01-16, 08:29 PM
You do know there are pains like the calling spells, all of the summoning spells and more than just "RAWR I'm a monster-spells" from core, right?

I know, but if I ask the players to be fine guys, it means they shouldn't do that...
If you can ask them not to break core, you can ask them not to break non-core. Most of the brokenness is core anyway.


A tier 3 core-only is likely too weak to face interesting encounters, unless all of the players are experienced. A tier 3 non-core-only requires an experienced group (to make good use of non-core books) and requires them learning what tier 3 means and accepting to be tier 3.
THERE IS NOTHING TIER 3 IN CORE. The only tier 3 class in core is Bard, and that requires non-core sources to not suck. The only way to play tier 3 (the accepted balance point for most people) is to leave core.




It is too limited for players who know most books very well and have already played a few core classes in most level ranges.
I have a player in the party who is new to D&D, another one who isn't new but still doesn't know the most basic rules, another one who has played for a lot of time but doesn't really spend his time studying crazy strategies, and another one who does spend his time studying crazy strategies on the internet. I think this is likely to be the situation most parties are in.
No, most parties actually know how to play the game. It's kind of hard to play a game without knowing how to play it. :smallannoyed:
Besides, a lot of tier 3s are easier to understand and build decently than core classes. *cough* Warblade *cough*



Allowing non-core means that the new player would understand very little because we'd be using material from 10 (or more) different sources; the guy who can't understand that same-type bonuses don't stack would never get one rule right; the guy who looks for crazy strategies on the internet would be much stronger than any other player even if he tries to not break the game.
The first guy shouldn't be playing a full-scale game yet; he should be one-on-one with the DM, going through the basic game rules. It only takes a basic understanding of the game to play, but he doesn't really have that quite yet. The second guy is either a die-hard munchkin, in which case he's the DM's problem, or he's experienced enough to know how to play in a way that makes the team function smoothly and make it so everyone plays their role. Besides, out of core he'll probably be playing tier 3 classes if he's not actively trying to break the game, and those can get along just fine with pretty much any type of character.


This is surely influenced by my vision of the game - the players should have more fun creating their PCs' personality and seeing how they can influence the world than planning the most effective and invincible PCs while they are at home.
The most flavorful classes and prestiges are outside of core. Fighter? Generic warrior guy. Barbarian? Generic smashy angry guy. Archmage? Generic super wizard. Binder? Now that's got flavor; hated outcast with access to a powerful, exotic kind of magic. Jade Phoenix Mage? Again, great flavor involved there. That's the sort of stuff which lets personality and mechanics intermingle nicely.


I've already played in a campaign where I used an Incantatrix who could give 4d4 negative levels in a single round (and we had a Cleric who could easily spam 2 SoD for round too) and that wasn't so funny after all...
Well, duh, if you let people break the game like that it's no fun. But let me remind you that Core has more brokenness than any other five splatbooks combined. THREE OF THE FIVE MOST POWERFUL CLASSES ARE CORE. Almost everything in core is either terrible at virtually everything (Monk) or brokenness personified (Druid, Wizard). With core-only, a 10th level wizard can take the world and grind it into the dust. Easily.
___________
We're going off topic here.

Benly
2011-01-16, 08:31 PM
Regarding core vs. noncore: Core is broken. Noncore is also broken, but nobody cares because core is broken. The more material you include, the more broken material you include, because every book printed for 3.5 has something broken in it.

Regarding conjuration-blasting: Conjuration isn't as good at AoE blasting as evocation, but the thing is that it's good enough - evocation's advantages in that regard aren't enough to make a real difference. How many ways to deal AoE 1d6/lvl do you really need?

Pigkappa
2011-01-16, 09:13 PM
The first guy shouldn't be playing a full-scale game yet; he should be one-on-one with the DM, going through the basic game rules.

Uhm... This is a game, not his (and my) job. We also happen to be physics student who need to learn a lot of things.
I don't think DMs are intended to give private lessons about the rules to new players. They should just try to read the parts of the PHB about their class and then they'll learn the basic rules speaking with other players and playing with them. It's not so bad having to correct him when he doesn't know how Grapple works or what's his bonus for touch attacks. It would be more complicated if we had a Swashbuckler-Rogue instead of a Rogue, a Cleric using all of the spells instead of the core ones only, a psionic character instead of a Bard.



No, most parties actually know how to play the game.

The books who were printed after core aren't part of the basic rules. They are additional rules that can (but don't have to) be part of the game or not. I'm quite sure that very few parties have only members who know very well the rules from all of the Complete books + SPC + PHB2 + DMG2 + MIC + psionic + TOB and so on.



Binder? Now that's got flavor; hated outcast with access to a powerful, exotic kind of magic. That's the sort of stuff which lets personality and mechanics intermingle nicely.


Yeah, ok, but again, I think that some players don't want this to be too hard and time-consuming. Playing a sorcerer (or maybe a druid) with some background can be a decent way to be an "hated outcast with access to a powerful, exotic kind of magic". And it doesn't require the player to know where the Binder comes from (and learn its rules), the DM to start worrying about the ways it can break the game, the other players to know the additional books well enough to make some equivalently complicated and effective characters...

Psyren
2011-01-16, 09:45 PM
The books who were printed after core aren't part of the basic rules. They are additional rules that can (but don't have to) be part of the game or not. I'm quite sure that very few parties have only members who know very well the rules from all of the Complete books + SPC + PHB2 + DMG2 + MIC + psionic + TOB and so on.

There are no "additional rules" in SpC; it's just more spells. The basics that you need to use them (casting time, components, target/area, SR etc.) are all right there in the PHB.

You can lift spells, and even feats, from the other books without needing additional rules also.

Benly
2011-01-16, 09:47 PM
There are no "additional rules" in SpC; it's just more spells. The basics that you need to use them (casting time, components, target/area, SR etc.) are all right there in the PHB.

You can lift spells, and even feats, from the other books without needing additional rules also.

This is not quite true; the PHB does not have swift-action rules in it although the SRD does. Other than that, you're right.

Pigkappa
2011-01-16, 09:49 PM
I know; i meant that if you are, for example, the cleric of the party and the wizard is using a lot of SpC spells, you'll feel like you have to know what your additional spells can do.

Psyren
2011-01-16, 09:56 PM
I know; i meant that if you are, for example, the cleric of the party and the wizard is using a lot of SpC spells, you'll feel like you have to know what your additional spells can do.

You have a massive advantage over the wizard in that case; he has to hunt down scrolls, but you automatically know everything in SpC just by being a Cleric.

ericgrau
2011-01-17, 02:38 AM
The advantages to a game for including more material outweigh the increased complexity it brings; this is particularly true for weaker classes. For instance, just including SpC in a game gives Paladins and Rangers all sorts of goodies to play with.
Sure but the point was the new DM can't handle it all without being the same as a DM who lets everything through. So ideally he starts small and then allows more books later.

2xMachina
2011-01-17, 03:08 AM
I don't know....

I learn everything I know about the D&D system on my own. And I deal with Psionics, ToB, Incarnum, ToMagic, Gestalt. It's really not hard to learn (I'm also studying Engineering btw)

I believe my 1st game was a full Gestalt, all books (barring Magazine) open game.

cfalcon
2011-01-17, 11:17 AM
I like the balance established by Core and the previous editions. I dislike (and nerf) anything that is significantly above that, and I'm also sad when stuff is clearly below that and I have to buff it. Many things, such as Incarnum, are never in my games for flavor reasons- I'm good on magic sources, thank you much.

But to OPs question, if you allow all sources, you'll likely be able to stand in for very nearly everything. Evocation maintains a small lead at some levels, and for some purposes, but these are few and far between and mostly involve optimized fireball specialists.

Generally, if a conjuration effect deals instantaneous elemental damage similar to evocation (d6/level), I disallow it. I'll also up something else about evocation spells- for instance, in my games, if you succeed at a ranged touch attack with a fireball at someone (who also serves as the point of origin for said fireball, as it's detonating on them), then they (and they alone) receive a -2 to the Reflex save- other staples receive similar treatment. That doesn't make you want to use it versus an Orb spell on a single target, but it's something to keep the iconic in the game. I also don't overuse SR creatures- my goal isn't to make the Wizards groan and grumble that they can't blow stuff up. "The lighting uselessly flails around him, as he laughs at your mortal magic!" isn't the kind of line that should happen that often imo.

Greenish
2011-01-17, 11:40 AM
The only tier 3 class in core is Bard, and that requires non-core sources to not suck.Core-only bard is still better than core-only monk, fighter, paladin or ranger. :smallamused:

Lateral
2011-01-17, 11:53 AM
Core-only bard is still better than core-only monk, fighter, paladin or ranger. :smallamused:

Yeah, but almost everything is better than core-only monk, fighter, and paladin. It still casts 6th level spells, but its class features are expanded upon mostly out of core. In core, Inspire Courage is nothing special.

Greenish
2011-01-17, 11:56 AM
Yeah, but almost everything is better than core-only monk, fighter, and paladin. It still casts 6th level spells, but its class features are expanded upon mostly out of core. In core, Inspire Courage is nothing special.Granted, IP isn't so hot, but you've still got spells, great skill list with points to burn (highlights: UMD & diplomacy on cha-focused character) and a whole bunch of magical effects.

Yeah, you'll be worse than full casters, but that hardly means you suck.

dextercorvia
2011-01-17, 12:52 PM
RAW, Core Bard gets diplomancy harder than any other core class. Even fixing the broken mechanic, you can't argue with a +30 to Bluff. Really, you can't argue with it.

Jayabalard
2011-01-17, 01:23 PM
A tier 3 core-only is likely too weak to face interesting encounters, unless all of the players are experienced.That really depends on what you mean by "interesting encounters" ... I can't think of any definition where this would be true that isn't a circular one.


The only way to play tier 3 (the accepted balance point for most people) is to leave core.I would say that tier 3 being the accepted balance point is only true for some portions of certain online gaming forums. It is far from the accepted balance point for most people.


It's kind of hard to play a game without knowing how to play it. :smallannoyed:Not really; you can do fine with the DM telling you what dice to roll and then announcing the result. I know plenty of people who have played D&D that way. It's far from an uncommon situation. I would suggest the vast majority of games of D&D have a fairly wide variation in how well the players know the rules.

If you start looking at games that aren't D&D, you will find that some of them assume that the players do not know the rules, and even some that penalize the players for knowing the rules too well.


Besides, a lot of tier 3s are easier to understand and build decently than core classes. *cough* Warblade *cough*I'm not sure I follow; a warblade is far more complex than a fighter. He has maneuvers, and a fighter just needs to know "roll d20, add bonuses, receive bacon"


The first guy shouldn't be playing a full-scale game yet; he should be one-on-one with the DM, going through the basic game rules. this is one of the most absurd things I've seen a while.


The most flavorful classes and prestiges are outside of core. Fighter? Generic warrior guy. Barbarian? Generic smashy angry guy. Archmage? Generic super wizard. Binder? Now that's got flavor; hated outcast with access to a powerful, exotic kind of magic. Jade Phoenix Mage? Again, great flavor involved there. That's the sort of stuff which lets personality and mechanics intermingle nicely.I'm not sure I understand your point; he wants the players to create the flavor. You can add whatever flavor you want to a fighter, barbarian, archmage ... the inherant flavor of the binder and Jade Phoenix Mage doesn't help that... if anything, it is more limiting than those 3.

Keld Denar
2011-01-17, 01:39 PM
I'm not sure I follow; a warblade is far more complex than a fighter. He has maneuvers, and a fighter just needs to know "roll d20, add bonuses, receive bacon"

I think this was refering to building a warblade vs building a fighter. With a fighter, you have a TON of feats, but there are a lot of feats out there that are bad or just really circumstantial. If you take Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization for 4 different weapons, you've just spent 8 feats, but you are only using 2 at any given time. If you instead took Power Attack, for example, you can use the feat with ~1/2 of the weapons printed in the book.

On the other hand, building a warblade is pretty easy. Even if you take a feat like Weapon Focus, you have a class ability that is forgiving and allows you to reapply it to a different weapon each day. There is no such thing as a BAD maneuver. Some are better, but even Stone Dragon maneuvers (generally considered the weakest school) are useful. So, you reach into a bag full of awesome, and pull out a bit of awesome each round until its time to recover.

Its REALLY easy to build a bad fighter, especially if you don't know what you are doing. Its nearly impossible to build a bad warblade. Or a bad dragonfire adept. Or a bad factotum. Or a bad crusader.

Greenish
2011-01-17, 01:39 PM
I'm not sure I follow; a warblade is far more complex than a fighter. He has maneuvers, and a fighter just needs to know "roll d20, add bonuses, receive bacon"The key here was "build decently": a warblade can grab any fancy-schmancy maneuver that catches their eye and still be plenty decent. A fighter is much harder to build to the same level of mechanical competence.

Jayabalard
2011-01-17, 01:50 PM
The key here was "build decently": a warblade can grab any fancy-schmancy maneuver that catches their eye and still be plenty decent. A fighter is much harder to build to the same level of mechanical competence.Depends on your definition of "decently" ... which is highly subjective.

And really, Lateral is trying to offer a counter argument to a statement by Pigkappa about difficulty in play (at least, that's what it looks like to me)... so in that context, the build part is far less important than the "understand" part of "understand and build decently". I would say that a fighter is easier to understand (roll dice, receive bacon), especially for players like the ones that Pigkappa is talking about, even though a warblade is easier to optimize.

JKTrickster
2011-01-17, 02:24 PM
I have always believed that playing a game correctly meant understanding all of its rules, while having fun. I don't mean that one should devote a major amount of time to learning all of the splat books, but in reality they aren't that hard to understand. And sometimes, just maybe, you'll get something worth your while.

But maybe we should be all open minded. Obviously some people do enjoy Weapon Focus Fighters and Fireball Wizards. Kudos to them. It is just that others want to provide them with alternatives and the idea that the alternatives "take too long to learn"/"are too complex" doesn't make sense because those people have learned it already and vouch about how easy it is.

So maybe when your players are a tad bit more experience, you can bring out some of the more complex classes (whether you believe they are complex or not) simply because as other have said, they provide a wealth of options that are generally considered more complete and balanced for everyone.


Also: I like Tier 3 classes not because I enjoy the more power but because they are actually interesting from both a mechanical AND flavorful perspective. I believe that both are just as important as one another, and that it is having both that makes it DnD. But that's just my two cents.

Also I don't think that anyone is saying warblades are easier to optimize: just harder to screw up. Fighters can be optimized easily too.

EDIT:


I like the balance established by Core and the previous editions. I dislike (and nerf) anything that is significantly above that, and I'm also sad when stuff is clearly below that and I have to buff it.

What balance level is that? Sorry but I see Core as having the hugest disparities. As being interested in hosting my own game soon, I would just like to know your approach, that's all.