PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Tell me more about how 3.x was balance tested.



Endarire
2011-01-22, 02:57 AM
I know the old saying, "Skillsman & minesweeper Rogue. Healer Cleric. Tanky Fighter. Blasty Wizard. All use a 25 point buy or thereabouts."

Still, what did these characters do to test the system? Did they go on adventures? Did they duel each other in arenas?

How did WotC test the other 7 PHB base classes? What about all the PrCs?

At what levels did WotC test the game? Generally, level 7+ spells were unchanged in the update to 3.5, implying that WotC generally ignored these levels.

How much multiclassing did these guys do? It doesn't take much effort nowadays to realize multiclassing non-casters is expected.

Did characters take feats and skills simply for flavor?

What else should I know?

ffone
2011-01-22, 03:05 AM
Very well, I'll say it: You are smarter than the designers.

Xiander
2011-01-22, 03:49 AM
Very well, I'll say it: You are smarter than the designers.

or at the least better at game testing...

Rixx
2011-01-22, 05:46 AM
Very well, I'll say it: You are smarter than the designers.

Noticing a system has problems when the internet has over ten years to pick it apart < Coming up with said system

Runestar
2011-01-22, 05:59 AM
My guess is that they tested them as solo fights against standard parties.

Here is an excerpt from rules compendium.


Enter Rob Heinsoo and his 7th-level cleric, possessed of both hit points and moxie in abundance. Seeing wounded comrades locked in melee with the frost giant jarl, he moved forward, eager to drop a big cure spell on the fighter.

Because the giant had reach and some advantageous terrain, Rob’s cleric provoked an attack of opportunity just for moving nearby. It’s just an attack of opportunity, right? What’s the worst that could happen?

One critical hit from a massive greataxe later, Rob’s cleric was dead on the icy floor. But the disaster didn’t end there. When Rob’s cleric fell, that triggered the jarl’s Cleave feat and killed the fighter, too.

Apparently, they think it is good sense to move about healing in combat and opening yourself to all sorts of retaliatory attacks. And they gave giants great cleave because they were convinced that it would trigger at least once in combat. To me, it is more of a statistical anomaly. :smalltongue:

ffone
2011-01-22, 06:02 AM
Noticing a system has problems when the internet has over ten years to pick it apart < Coming up with said system

Exactly.

(You know I was being sarcastic before, right? I wouldn't have included this parenthetical, but the line above was under GitP's min message length.)

FMArthur
2011-01-22, 12:00 PM
My guess is that they tested them as solo fights against standard parties.

Here is an excerpt from rules compendium.



Apparently, they think it is good sense to move about healing in combat and opening yourself to all sorts of retaliatory attacks. And they gave giants great cleave because they were convinced that it would trigger at least once in combat. To me, it is more of a statistical anomaly. :smalltongue:

I don't see the generalization you're trying to make here... Just that one cleric messed up. The whole example was about a playtester making a mistake at playing the game. The giant with Cleave is a bit silly, but they were testing core (or just don't use much outside of core) from the sounds of it so it didn't have a lot of options and the 'generic brute' feats in core are pretty clear cut. However, I'm pretty sure that the way that particular entry starts is relevant to the thread. Lemme dig that up...


In a playtest a few years ago, we were fighting a frost giant jarl (not the CR 17 one in the Monster Manual), and we were hard pressed. One of us slipped out of the meeting room and grabbed a phone. Word soon went out over the building’s intercom: “Could a 7th-level cleric please report to Focus Group Room 2 immediately?”

Enter Rob Heinsoo and his 7th-level cleric, possessed of both...

That actually sounds like a pretty cool place to work, if you ask me. :smallbiggrin:

And then the sidebars start trying to give advice and it all gets ridiculous from there... A lot of the side-bits in Rules Compendium are kind of endearing IMO, but damn they really don't know anything about balance or optimization!

true_shinken
2011-01-22, 12:10 PM
A lot of the side-bits in Rules Compendium are kind of endearing IMO, but damn they really don't know anything about balance or optimization!
Balance is not the goal of 3.5, so it hardly surprises me. 3x was designed to please the simulationist players. Some changes were due to player feedback (extra hit points, easier to cast spells, easier to multiclass, etc) but the designers didn't use concepts that are now ingrained to many 3.5 players - such as 'classes are metagame concepts', 'refluffing is the right way to go' (PHB tends to get quoted saying the opposite, it does nothing of the sort i - it says renaming is totally cool) and 'all characters want to be the best at everything ever'.
Characters were meant to be just that - characters. Defenders of the Faith even says something along the lines of 'don't buy wands, potions and scrolls for your paladin, it looks silly'. 3.5 designers didn't care about optimization so that's no what they tested. They didn't care about balance (only at 4e did such thinking really snuck up into D&D design, even though TSR woul tell you otherwise). They cared about 'Can I make this character? Will the fights be consistent? Are the monsters doing stuff I'd expect them to do?' and so on so forth.

FMArthur
2011-01-22, 12:18 PM
Balance is not the goal of 3.5, so it hardly surprises me. 3x was designed to please the simulationist players. Some changes were due to player feedback (extra hit points, easier to cast spells, easier to multiclass, etc) but the designers didn't use concepts that are now ingrained to many 3.5 players - such as 'classes are metagame concepts', 'refluffing is the right way to go' (PHB tends to get quoted saying the opposite, it does nothing of the sort i - it says renaming is totally cool) and 'all characters want to be the best at everything ever'.
Characters were meant to be just that - characters. Defenders of the Faith even says something along the lines of 'don't buy wands, potions and scrolls for your paladin, it looks silly'. 3.5 designers didn't care about optimization so that's no what they tested. They didn't care about balance (only at 4e did such thinking really snuck up into D&D design, even though TSR woul tell you otherwise). They cared about 'Can I make this character? Will the fights be consistent? Are the monsters doing stuff I'd expect them to do?' and so on so forth.

The entries I was talking about are made by someone specifically trying to "min-max" (in their own words), providing tips like Weapon Focus and Specialization for TWFers and just pouring on feats like Improved and Greater TWF and Improved Critical to make their rogue/fighter very overpowered.

Or a 10th level Paladin dealing a mighty 63 damage with a critical hit on a Spirited Charge!


All I have learned so far is that no one at WotC has ever taken Power Attack.

true_shinken
2011-01-22, 12:21 PM
The entries I was talking about are made by someone specifically trying to "min-max" (in their own words), providing tips like Weapon Focus and Specialization for TWFers and just pouring on feats like Improved and Greater TWF and Improved Critical to make their rogue/fighter very overpowered.
Would you mind telling me which other core-only feats you'd take for someone dual-wielding light weapons?

Starbuck_II
2011-01-22, 01:10 PM
The entries I was talking about are made by someone specifically trying to "min-max" (in their own words), providing tips like Weapon Focus and Specialization for TWFers and just pouring on feats like Improved and Greater TWF and Improved Critical to make their rogue/fighter very overpowered.

Or a 10th level Paladin dealing a mighty 63 damage with a critical hit on a Spirited Charge!


All I have learned so far is that no one at WotC has ever taken Power Attack.

No, they did, but only a Prereq for Cleave.

sonofzeal
2011-01-22, 01:16 PM
I'd say 3.5 wasn't "balance-tested". Not that the job was done poorly, more that it wasn't forefront in the developer's minds. Modern game design is all about balance, but if you look at classic RPGs - D&D for pnp, Talisman for board games, Final Fantasy I for console, and Wizardry for PC - there wasn't the same expectation that all options should be roughly equal. That's been a fairly major shift in game design in the past 10-20 years.

From modern sensibilities, those design decisions are hard to understand. We assume that they were trying to make everything balanced and failed. But I don't even think that's the case. I think other design elements, like "variety" and "matching archetypes" and "general awesomeness", had higher priority instead. It was acceptable in that era for some classes to lag pretty thoroughly behind others in general usefulness. You aren't expected to compare Fighters to Wizards. You're expected to compare Fighters to Barbarians, Clerics to Druids, Wizards to Sorcerers, Rogues to Bards. The notion that Fighters and Clerics and Wizards and Rogues should all be on par in some strange way is alien. Of course Fighters and Wizards aren't on par! To that perspective, there isn't even a point of comparison, it's like apples and oranges.

Of course we know better now. Cooperative games legitimately are more fun when people don't feel overshadowed or frustrated all the time. If the majority of challenges are too easy for one person and simultaneously too hard for someone else, that can cause resentment and difficulty. When everyone can work together as equals, the game is more enjoyable. But I think that's a relatively recent concept. And I think it's wrong to assume that games from that era were trying for it and failed. They just had other priorities.

Thespianus
2011-01-22, 01:24 PM
I think other design elements, like "variety" and "matching archetypes" and "general awesomeness", had higher priority instead.
Yes, a thousand times, yes.

And this is why I *cringe* today (even after having spent hundreds of hours reading these boards) when I see things like "Dip a level of Wizard with your Barbarian", or "Cloistered Cleric is the best Melee character", or "I play a dragonwrought venerable kobold because it makes me *invincible*".

It makes me sad.

I agree that it's within the rules and all that, it's just that something inside me dies a little when I read comments or builds that not just break archetypes, but that violates the archetypes while painting themselves purple and sing "halelujah", cackling with glee.

I guess I'm just old. :smallannoyed:

When I started playing fantasy RPGs, I wanted to role play characters in a fun fantasy setting, even if a character kinda sucked, he was part of a team, the Party, and The Party did awesome stuff. MERP was a ton of fun, I always loved the Tolkien settings. AD&D was always the iconic staple game, but it took me a lot of time ti warm to the Forgotten Realms setting (and the rules).

Now, when character generation has turned into engineering, I feel very old.

sonofzeal
2011-01-22, 01:35 PM
Yes, a thousand times, yes.

And this is why I *cringe* today (even after having spent hundreds of hours reading these boards) when I see things like "Dip a level of Wizard with your Barbarian", or "Cloistered Cleric is the best Melee character", or "I play a dragonwrought venerable kobold because it makes me *invincible*".

It makes me sad.

I agree that it's within the rules and all that, it's just that something inside me dies a little when I read comments or builds that not just break archetypes, but that violates the archetypes while painting themselves purple and sing "halelujah", cackling with glee.

I guess I'm just old. :smallannoyed:

When I started playing fantasy RPGs, I wanted to role play characters in a fun fantasy setting, even if a character kinda sucked, he was part of a team, the Party, and The Party did awesome stuff. MERP was a ton of fun, I always loved the Tolkien settings. AD&D was always the iconic staple game, but it took me a lot of time ti warm to the Forgotten Realms setting (and the rules).

Now, when character generation has turned into engineering, I feel very old.
Oh don't get me wrong, I love screwing around with the archetypes. One of my favorite characters is a an orc who can find traps, cast both arcane and divine spells, Detect and Smite Evil, Rage, sneak, hit things really hard until they fall over, rock the social skills, and turn into a half-bird-hybrid-thing. ECL 11, totally rules-legal.

I think the game is more fun when you take away the arbitrary adherence to artificial archetypes. But I don't deny that they're what the developers had in mind.

Thespianus
2011-01-22, 01:41 PM
Oh don't get me wrong, I love screwing around with the archetypes. One of my favorite characters is a an orc who can find traps, cast both arcane and divine spells, Detect and Smite Evil, Rage, sneak, hit things really hard until they fall over, rock the social skills, and turn into a half-bird-hybrid-thing. ECL 11, totally rules-legal.

*dies inside even more*

I blame post-modernism. Nothing is sacred anymore, not even role playing character generation.... :smallwink:

FMArthur
2011-01-22, 01:41 PM
Would you mind telling me which other core-only feats you'd take for someone dual-wielding light weapons?

Improved Initiative. Weapon Finesse. Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Kusari-Gama. Combat Reflexes. That's really all you get outside TWF, ITWF and GTWF on a Rogue, because you shouldn't really be taking those Fighter levels at all to maximize your damage. The guy is sacrificing tons of Rogue levels, which grant Sneak Attack dice, to take feats that don't make up for the loss.

It wouldn't really be a silly thing if it wasn't being referred to as heavy min-maxing and carefully advising the player about its power level in ordinary games. All of it put together barely amounts to a straight Barbarian who took Power Attack and seven Metamagic feats.

true_shinken
2011-01-22, 01:45 PM
Oh don't get me wrong, I love screwing around with the archetypes. One of my favorite characters is a an orc who can find traps, cast both arcane and divine spells, Detect and Smite Evil, Rage, sneak, hit things really hard until they fall over, rock the social skills, and turn into a half-bird-hybrid-thing. ECL 11, totally rules-legal.

I think the game is more fun when you take away the arbitrary adherence to artificial archetypes. But I don't deny that they're what the developers had in mind.

Actually, I think your concept works better when you stick to archetypes. Everyone else is a full-classed Fighter, a blaster Wizard, stuff like that.
You? You're special. You're the orc smart enough to master arcane magic, devout enough to cast divine magic, with the smooth talk, the bird form and crazy enough to do it all at once. If the world sticks to archetypes, your character is special. If it doesn't, you're just another guy; comb your hair and clock in.

Private-Prinny
2011-01-22, 01:47 PM
Yes, a thousand times, yes.

And this is why I *cringe* today (even after having spent hundreds of hours reading these boards) when I see things like "Dip a level of Wizard with your Barbarian", or "Cloistered Cleric is the best Melee character", or "I play a dragonwrought venerable kobold because it makes me *invincible*".

It makes me sad.

I agree that it's within the rules and all that, it's just that something inside me dies a little when I read comments or builds that not just break archetypes, but that violates the archetypes while painting themselves purple and sing "halelujah", cackling with glee.

That is a perfectly valid way to go about things, but one that I disagree with. I'm one for warping or subverting archetypes. That barbarian with a level of wizard? He's just a typical barbarian, except he can become so angry that it causes minor tears in the fabric of reality. Nothing major, but enough to showcase just how dangerous this guy is. That cloistered cleric being a frontlining melee? Hmm, this could be tough. A powerful entity giving a normally unimposing person amazing physical abilities? Where have I seen that before? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Rangers) That venerable dragonwrought kobold? I can't really disagree there, that's just blatant abuse unless they write me a novella of a backstory. Archetypes are nice, but sometimes people feel like ditching the archetype altogether, and 3.5 should give them the freedom to do that.


Now, when character generation has turned into engineering, I feel very old.

To be fair, I tend to do both.

"Hmm, I want a character that carries around a tool for every situation. That means a skillmonkey class or Artificer. All of those tend to be smart, so that doesn't narrow it down. My goal is to see the world. How would I get interested in that? Probably a lot of reading. Knowledge skills would be nice. I should probably take the Knowledge Devotion feat later. I don't want to get bogged down putting points in all of those skills, though... Factotum! All skills as class skills, Cunning Knowledge for offhand checks, masterwork tools galore, and high Int. Perfect!"

Toss in my personal taste in polearms, and my current RL campaign factotum is born.

Thespianus
2011-01-22, 01:50 PM
Actually, I think your concept works better when you stick to archetypes. Everyone else is a full-classed Fighter, a blaster Wizard, stuff like that.
You? You're special. You're the orc smart enough to master arcane magic, devout enough to cast divine magic, with the smooth talk, the bird form and crazy enough to do it all at once. If the world sticks to archetypes, your character is special. If it doesn't, you're just another guy; comb your hair and clock in.

Yeah, it's fun being a unique snowflake. ;)

Problem is once you get into parties with 4-5 characters where everyone has arcane and/or divine casting with ToB-manouvers and sneak attacks, cloistered geeks bashing heads with DMM:Persist Divine Might and/or Batman types, and all of a sudden the precious snowflakes all become a garbled mess of ... sad.

A big pile of well-engineered sad.

Part of me is still a fantasy-RPG romantic, I guess. :)

grimbold
2011-01-22, 01:54 PM
or at the least better at game testing...
the issue is is that it would take them years if not decades to finish a system that way
that is why we house rule

Crow
2011-01-22, 01:54 PM
I don't think the system was designed to be balanced. Some groups want or need balance, while others don't. I think 3.5 is for those others (which our group falls into).

Greenish
2011-01-22, 01:54 PM
Problem is once you get into parties with 4-5 characters where everyone has arcane and/or divine casting with ToB-manouvers and sneak attacks, cloistered geeks bashing heads with DMM:Persist Divine Might and/or Batman types, and all of a sudden the precious snowflakes all become a garbled mess of ... awesome.

A big pile of well-engineered brilliance.Fixed that for you. :smallwink:

Callista
2011-01-22, 01:55 PM
Lots of playtesting. Some of it done in person, other parts in the wizards.com chatrooms over the Internet. (I know this second one because I was one of many drafted into service. Fun.)

Some of the more powerful combinations and spells weren't obviously powerful upon first glance, so they passed muster. These can be houseruled back into balance, though.

I think that 3.5's lack of balance is really not a big problem--in a real-life game, you don't really get balance problems that can't be solved by a quick rebuild. If you're all optimizers, then you can use the tier system to adjust things; but in a casual game, things tend to stay pretty balanced, especially if the optimizers help the newbies.

And in exchange for that lack of balance, you get a huge, wide array of options and a lot of potential for creative character building that you just can't get without also creating the potential for abuse--Given that most gamers are mature enough not to try to create Pun-Pun and most DMs are in control enough not to allow him, I'd much rather have a system that can be broken, but allows for lots of options, than a system that's perfectly balanced but boring as a result!

What I think with how they tested 3.5, with playtesting, is that they simulated a lot of "average" games, with players who picked options that made sense, without extensive optimization research--the kind of game you usually get if you and a bunch of friends pick up the books and decide to play. And in that setting, 3.5 works just fine. What they didn't test were more extreme situations in which, say, you have a newbie player combined with an optimizer who likes wizards and doesn't care about outshining everybody else. Most of the time, the playtesters were about equally skilled.

So I guess the issue was mostly that they didn't test with extreme combinations of player skill levels and optimization levels; that's the general setting in which the balance issues come out. Like I said, though, I think they can be solved, and I think they're not a bad trade for the high level of flexibility.

Thespianus
2011-01-22, 01:57 PM
That is a perfectly valid way to go about things, but one that I disagree with. I'm one for warping or subverting archetypes. That barbarian with a level of wizard? He's just a typical barbarian, except he can become so angry that it causes minor tears in the fabric of reality.
I know. But the Wizard class is supposed to "study hard in ancient tomes" to gain knowledge of spells. It's a lot easier to justify (IMHO) a Barbarian/Sorcerer, than a Barbarian Wizard, but since Wizards gets all the love (Apart from Wings of Flurry), if you want a spell casting dip for a melee character, you go Focused Conjurer with Abrupt Jaunt and the Fighter-FEAT variant from UA, because it's just that crazy good.

That the fluff is ridiculous, a level 5 Barbarian who suddenly decides to study hard to become a wizard, hey..it's just fluff, right? :smallwink:

But, hey, I'm not saying that multiclassing or anything is wrong. Breaking the archetypes a little is fine by me. A Legolas type that plays the Lute to Inspire Courage? Awesome.

I guess I just have a limit where things just seem too sad for me. :smallwink:

Thespianus
2011-01-22, 01:59 PM
Fixed that for you. :smallwink:

Ah, thanks. I'm always happy when one of my self-destructive rants can be turned into awesomesauce by just squishing it real hard. :smallwink:

Greenish
2011-01-22, 02:00 PM
That the fluff is ridiculous, a level 5 Barbarian who suddenly decides to study hard to become a wizard, hey..it's just fluff, right? :smallwink:If the fluff is ridiculous, replace it with something that isn't. Voilà!

But, hey, I'm not saying that multiclassing or anything is wrong. Breaking the archetypes a little is fine by me. A Legolas type that plays the Lute to Inspire Courage? Awesome.

I guess I just have a limit where things just seem too sad for me. :smallwink:Playing "a legolas type" as your "character" seems sad to me.

tyckspoon
2011-01-22, 02:01 PM
That the fluff is ridiculous, a level 5 Barbarian who suddenly decides to study hard to become a wizard, hey..it's just fluff, right? :smallwink:


Not much more or less ridiculous than how much easier it is to multiclass into Wizard as your 2nd level than to take your starting level as Wizard; D&D's levelling system is pretty bizarre no matter how you look at it if you're searching for sense.

true_shinken
2011-01-22, 02:01 PM
I guess I just have a limit where things just seem too sad for me. :smallwink:
I'm with you on this one.

Callista
2011-01-22, 02:05 PM
Not much more or less ridiculous than how much easier it is to multiclass into Wizard as your 2nd level than to take your starting level as Wizard; D&D's levelling system is pretty bizarre no matter how you look at it if you're searching for sense.It's odd in terms of mechanics, but if you've been role-playing that barbarian, maybe he's fascinated with learning and has never had the chance to do it while living with his own hunter-gatherer style people. Maybe he's been cribbing off the party wizard for a while, asking questions, thinking about things. So when he starts to be able to manage a few spells himself, it shouldn't be that surprising.

Thespianus
2011-01-22, 02:07 PM
If the fluff is ridiculous, replace it with something that isn't. Voilà!
If by that you mean "Play a Barbarian dipping into Sorcerer", then I'm with you.

If you by that mean "Play a Barbarian who just happened to stumble onto a tome that he couldn't read that he still managed to read and it gave him deep insights into how to study deep magic", I'm afraid I get even sadder. :smallwink:


Playing "a legolas type" as your "character" seems sad to me.
Yeah, playing an elf the way most iconic fantasy literature describe the elves is indeed sad.

Slap a half-fiend, necropolis template on him, and dip Focused Conjurer, just to gain extra abilities, and "sad" becomes "awesome" in a swift action. :smallwink:

true_shinken
2011-01-22, 02:08 PM
It's odd in terms of mechanics, but if you've been role-playing that barbarian, maybe he's fascinated with learning and has never had the chance to do it while living with his own hunter-gatherer style people. Maybe he's been cribbing off the party wizard for a while, asking questions, thinking about things. So when he starts to be able to manage a few spells himself, it shouldn't be that surprising.

This is expected and mentioned in the PHB, even. It's not that you 'suddenly became a wizard', it's that you've always been trying and now you just got the hang of it.

Thespianus
2011-01-22, 02:11 PM
Not much more or less ridiculous than how much easier it is to multiclass into Wizard as your 2nd level than to take your starting level as Wizard; D&D's levelling system is pretty bizarre no matter how you look at it if you're searching for sense.

Yeah, I know. Then again, I know how hopelessly depressed I got from attempting to play AD&D, so the multiclassing of 3.X actually pleases me mechanically, even if it might not seem like it in my tedious rants in this thread.

However, there's a point somewhere in the multiclassing chain where "flexible and fun" becomes "sad and depressing", and I realize that this is a completely subjective distinction on my behalf.

I wouldn't dream of telling anyone to act differently in any way on this forum or in the games you all play out there. I'm just stating my opinion here. I picked this thread for this rant, and I'm sure I'll be done ranting and raving tomorrow. ;)

Greenish
2011-01-22, 02:13 PM
If by that you mean "Play a Barbarian dipping into Sorcerer", then I'm with you.

If you by that mean "Play a Barbarian who just happened to stumble onto a tome that he couldn't read that he still managed to read and it gave him deep insights into how to study deep magic", I'm afraid I get even sadder. :smallwink:Hey, Tarzan did the latter, and it worked okay for him! (Okay, he didn't get magic.)


Yeah, playing an elf the way most iconic fantasy literature describe the elves is indeed sad.Amen. Who would want to play a stereotype, a caricature like that?


Slap a half-fiend, necropolis template on him, and dip Focused Conjurer, just to gain extra abilities, and "sad" becomes "awesome" in a swift action. :smallwink:Hell yeah! Aerani are almost as cool as Valenari! Might go with a necromancer to keep the theme though.

tyckspoon
2011-01-22, 02:14 PM
This is expected and mentioned in the PHB, even. It's not that you 'suddenly became a wizard', it's that you've always been trying and now you just got the hang of it.

It's still quite strange when the span between you meeting a Wizard for the first time and taking your level in Wizard is maybe a week (ie, your party forms and levels on their first major adventure, which I'm pretty sure is not uncommon. Because being 1st level for a long time sucks hard.) If you'd been studying with another Wizard prior to that, well, one starts to wonder why you were a Barbarian to start with.

Thespianus
2011-01-22, 02:15 PM
This is expected and mentioned in the PHB, even. It's not that you 'suddenly became a wizard', it's that you've always been trying and now you just got the hang of it.

If you play that way through the campaign and have a Barbarian that searches out knowledge, it can be done, doused in awesomesauce and apples, absolutely.

However, if a player just leapfrogs in between class dips, "I start with Barbarian to get Pounce, then go into Wizard, and then cloistered cleric to get free Knowledge Devotion, and then...", well, you need a fantastic story to make that seem reasonable.

If I was the DM, and you could make *that* seem plausible to me, I'd be impressed.

Callista
2011-01-22, 02:17 PM
I like 3.x mostly because of how many of those options will spark some interesting idea for a character. Like, recently I was looking at the Favored Soul and realized he doesn't have Knowledge(Religion) as a class skill. Maybe an oversight (the DM errata'd it pretty quickly when I mentioned it), but the idea was pretty cool: Someone who's favored by the gods, but knows little about them. Maybe his life, his personality, are just so much in line with a deity that he doesn't really need to have faith--because his actions exemplify the ideals of that god. So that gave me an idea of a family-oriented character who cares deeply about the welfare of his people--a halfling favored soul of Yondalla. He doesn't even know Yondalla has given him power; he figures he's simply got a knack for minor magic. But his personality is exactly in line with the deity... Seeing as he's only 2nd level right now, he'll find out eventually, of course; but for the moment, he's not got a clue he's anything special, and probably wouldn't care if he knew, just so long as his family stayed safe.

This kind of thing happens to me all the time with 3rd edition D&D. Some mechanical quirk will spark an idea, and I'll go on with that and get an interesting character out of it. I've never gotten that with 4th edition--with 4th, I just have to create the character in isolation and then try to tack on mechanics that will stop them from getting killed. The mechanics of 4th just don't really give me any good ideas at all... they're so combat-focused, and combat is really not what defines a character's personality. Thankfully I have had lots of practice over the years, so it doesn't cripple me or anything; but I kind of wonder what the next generation is going to think role-playing involves... Wargames are lots of fun, but what about the story?

Thespianus
2011-01-22, 02:22 PM
This kind of thing happens to me all the time with 3rd edition D&D. Some mechanical quirk will spark an idea, and I'll go on with that and get an interesting character out of it.

This part I agree with. I wouldn't be on this forum if 3.5 wasn't the most fun and varied system I've ever run into (And yes I've played GURPS too).

You can find some class, or combination of classes that just work so well within that scope you envisioned for a character, OR you go the other way around as you so aptly described: You find something in the mechanics that sparks an idea for a backstory.

I would like to apologize to all, I guess I'm just venting some pent up steam. :smallsmile:

Starbuck_II
2011-01-22, 02:25 PM
If by that you mean "Play a Barbarian dipping into Sorcerer", then I'm with you.

If you by that mean "Play a Barbarian who just happened to stumble onto a tome that he couldn't read that he still managed to read and it gave him deep insights into how to study deep magic", I'm afraid I get even sadder. :smallwink:


Depends. Did the Barb use 2 points for literacy with all languages you will ever speak? Because being illiterate is a choice as you get more skill points than a Fighter.

The standard way is: he always could cast spells but never decided to show it till that last level.
No, need to pretend you are anything but a Wizard when you took that Barbarian level.
Rage is a spell. :smallbiggrin:

Callista
2011-01-22, 02:27 PM
Well, since we assume that the changes that happen over levels are gradual rather than sudden, the barbarian getting literacy along with his wizard level isn't as jarring as it seems--he's been studying reading all along, presumably, in order to understand the symbols that can help define and shape magic.

Akal Saris
2011-01-22, 02:34 PM
I'm not even sure what "a Legolas type" is anymore.

Are we talking about the Legolas in the books, who has maybe 10 lines total (none of them particularly inspiring), can run on snow, and can shoot a bow but isn't a particularly good tracker or healer compared with Aragorn?

Or are we thinking of 1E's 'Elf' character, a kind of ftr/wiz type character, sort of a light skirmisher?

Or are we talking about the Orlando Bloom 'Legolas', who snowboards with shields, runs up onto giant war elephants to shoot them in the head, and stabs orcs in the eyes with his arrows?

Callista
2011-01-22, 02:35 PM
I think the stereotype is "highly mobile, lightly armored archer"... it says little about personality, but it does give you an idea of the combat style.

Thespianus
2011-01-22, 02:37 PM
Well, since we assume that the changes that happen over levels are gradual rather than sudden, the barbarian getting literacy along with his wizard level isn't as jarring as it seems--he's been studying reading all along, presumably, in order to understand the symbols that can help define and shape magic.

Sure, and if the Barbarian has been spending half an hour every morning stydying the tomes before going into Wizard, I find it's cool. If the Barbarian suddenly starts casting Grease after a new level, it just seems silly.

I did a similar thing in my current campaign, after I realized that my Rogue would be a lot better at being a Rogue if he went Wizard and Unseen Seer. It did make me cringe though, and all the high horses I've been sitting on in this thread were all targets of a Dismissal spell. :)

Thespianus
2011-01-22, 02:40 PM
I think the stereotype is "highly mobile, lightly armored archer"... it says little about personality, but it does give you an idea of the combat style.

Well, I meant "highly mobile, lightly armored archer" with knives as backup, but "the Legolas-type" also includes the "Elf longing for peace and quiet for his race, grudgingly accepting that dwarves are decent people too"-type.

Anyway, I realize that I haven't even begun to rant about Eberron yet, so I should probably stop posting in this thread. ;)

Greenish
2011-01-22, 02:50 PM
Well, I meant "highly mobile, lightly armored archer" with knives as backup, but "the Legolas-type" also includes the "Elf longing for peace and quiet for his race, grudgingly accepting that dwarves are decent people too"-type.It's sad when someone wants to play a stereotype instead of a character, ain't it? :smallamused:

[Edit]: Obviously, using "X is sad" as a way of saying "I don't like X", which seems to be the vogue of this thread.

WarKitty
2011-01-22, 02:53 PM
It's sad when someone wants to play a stereotype instead of a character, ain't it? :smallamused:

Every character is a stereotype, some are just more well-known than others. :smallwink:

Ozreth
2011-01-22, 02:56 PM
Now, when character generation has turned into engineering, I feel very old.

I agree with most of what you said. Question though, why don't you still play AD&D? Sounds more your coup of tea.

Thespianus
2011-01-22, 03:00 PM
It's sad when someone wants to play a stereotype instead of a character, ain't it? :smallamused:
No, but it depends on the setting. In Tolkien's world, elves all seemed to have some kind of Weltschmerz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltschmerz) and it wouldn't be stereotypical to include that in an elf, IMHO. But in a different setting, things are different. So that part of the "Legolas-type" could probably be excluded in Eberron, for example.

Stereotypes aren't bad, they're very convenient. However, if someone wants to break the stereotype, I'm more than happy.

But when the stereotype is broken in such a way that it's obvious that the character build is only done to gain power, it makes me.. yes... sad. :smallwink:


[Edit]: Obviously, using "X is sad" as a way of saying "I don't like X", which seems to be the vogue of this thread.
Naturally I have a subjective opinion. You'll find that most people do. :smallwink:

Thespianus
2011-01-22, 03:02 PM
I agree with most of what you said. Question though, why don't you still play AD&D? Sounds more your coup of tea.

Because AD&D makes me furious with its rigidity and it's crazy class based rule limitations. And THAC0. *argh*

I really like the 3.5 system, I do. I swear that I do. :smallwink:

true_shinken
2011-01-22, 03:05 PM
Every character is a stereotype, some are just more well-known than others. :smallwink:

Exactly. This is why I don't buy the 'don't feed me canned fluff' argument. Every fluff is canned in some way.

Greenish
2011-01-22, 03:10 PM
Stereotypes aren't bad, they're very convenient. However, if someone wants to break the stereotype, I'm more than happy.A stereotype is definitely something you can use when making your character, but it shouldn't be the totality of that character.

But when the stereotype is broken in such a way that it's obvious that the character build is only done to gain power, it makes me.. yes... sad. :smallwink:Stereotypes are made to be broken! You shouldn't need an excuse to break one!

And for power, well, one should aim to be on about same level as the other characters.

My goals when making a character are to have the crunch that matches the party's power level, the fluff that fits into the world (and can work with other characters) and the crunch that fits the fluff (so if you're master swordsman, you should be pretty good with a sword, and so forth). I don't give a damn about the fluff WotC slapped on crunch that can easily represent many things.

Starbuck_II
2011-01-22, 03:16 PM
Because AD&D makes me furious with its rigidity and it's crazy class based rule limitations. And THAC0. *argh*

I really like the 3.5 system, I do. I swear that I do. :smallwink:

It wouldn't be hard to adapt AD&D with BAB, AC rules, and remove class rule limitations (like you must be this race to be a Pally).

You could also remove Con bonus limit of 10th level (I never understood why Con stopped working at 11th).

It might take a few hours to cover all limitations/rules in a document though. But it wouldn't be hard.

true_shinken
2011-01-22, 03:18 PM
It wouldn't be hard to adapt AD&D with BAB, AC rules, and remove class rule limitations (like you must be this race to be a Pally).

It's basically Dragonfist.
But the guy likes 3.5 and plays it like the designers intended. Why are you telling him to switch games? :smallconfused:

Thespianus
2011-01-22, 03:19 PM
I agree with everything up to here:

I don't give a damn about the fluff WotC slapped on crunch that can easily represent many things.
I don't mind removing some fluff from Classes and PrCs, but there are some things that, IMHO, shouldn't be violated too hard:

A Druid should have at least some connection to nature, a Wizard should have some connection to the scholarly world, and a Cleric should be reasonably bound to his deity (this is the reason I'm not loving the "Worship an ideal instead of a God"-type of Cleric).

Basically, most of the classes I think should keep somewhat to their "stereotype", as outlined above, are the classes that wield the most power from a Tier-perspective. If you play a Fighter, you can do pretty much whatever you want. :smallwink:

true_shinken
2011-01-22, 03:21 PM
I agree with everything up to here:

I don't mind removing some fluff from Classes and PrCs, but there are some things that, IMHO, shouldn't be violated too hard:

A Druid should have at least some connection to nature, a Wizard should have some connection to the scholarly world, and a Cleric should be reasonably bound to his deity (this is the reason I'm not loving the "Worship an ideal instead of a God"-type of Cleric).
Completely agree. You are awesome.

Thespianus
2011-01-22, 03:22 PM
Completely agree. You are awesome.

"being awesome". What a stereotype. ;)

Ok, I think I'm done now, anyway. But thanks.

Greenish
2011-01-22, 03:25 PM
I don't mind removing some fluff from Classes and PrCs, but there are some things that, IMHO, shouldn't be violated too hard:Note how I specified "fluff on crunch that can easily represent other things", say, for example, the "warblades are vain gloryhounds".

true_shinken
2011-01-22, 03:45 PM
Improved Initiative. Weapon Finesse. Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Kusari-Gama. Combat Reflexes. That's really all you get outside TWF, ITWF and GTWF on a Rogue, because you shouldn't really be taking those Fighter levels at all to maximize your damage. The guy is sacrificing tons of Rogue levels, which grant Sneak Attack dice, to take feats that don't make up for the loss.
Yeah, if you look at classes that way, which they clearly didn't.
Say, the guy started as a soldier or guard, wielding two weapons to cleave through mobs. Then he left the army and become a vagabond, learning how to fight dirty and picking up wordly knowledge in the way. That is a Fighter/Rogue. He gets those feats and he doesn't wield a kusari-game because no one in his country ever heard of them.
What you should to applies to players optimizing (and not all do), not to characters progressing. At least, that's what the designers thought and I subscribe to it.
Optimization is fun. I really like it. But ignoring all fluff just to optimize (like your kusari-gama)... that I dislike.

Greenish
2011-01-22, 03:49 PM
Say, the guy started as a soldier or guard, wielding two weapons to cleave through mobs.TWF seems like a really weird choice for a guard or a soldier.

true_shinken
2011-01-22, 03:50 PM
TWF seems like a really weird choice for a guard or a soldier.
Of course it is. He's a player character. He's special.

Greenish
2011-01-22, 03:54 PM
Of course it is. He's a player character. He's special.But not special enough for Kusari-Gama? :smallconfused:

[Edit]: It should also be noted (again) that the character in question was their example of "min-maxing" and was supposed to have been built for power.

true_shinken
2011-01-22, 04:00 PM
But not special enough for Kusari-Gama? :smallconfused:
"Hm, I think I will try using a weapon on each hand" - that's fine
"Hm, I never saw a kusari-gama. Maybe I'll craft one anyway (?!?!) so I'll use it." - that's really weird.


[Edit]: It should also be noted (again) that the character in question was their example of "min-maxing" and was supposed to have been built for power.

Just further illustrates the point. They didn't care about balance or optimization and as such didn't know much about it.

Greenish
2011-01-22, 04:07 PM
"Hm, I think I will try using a weapon on each hand" - that's fine
"Hm, I never saw a kusari-gama. Maybe I'll craft one anyway (?!?!) so I'll use it." - that's really weird.Oh, an exotic and not very effective fighting style? Go right ahead, pikeman!

An exotic weapon (basically a blade at the end of a chain)? No way, Jose!

…Seems a bit arbitrary to me.


Just further illustrates the point. They didn't care about balance or optimization and as such didn't know much about it.Wasn't that what you were trying to refute with your original comment?

When someone pointed at the feats they used to give min-maxing tips, you asked what feats would he rather have taken, then when he named them you went all "fluff doesn't work like that". What was the point again?

true_shinken
2011-01-22, 04:12 PM
Oh, an exotic and not very effective fighting style? Go right ahead, pikeman!

An exotic weapon (basically a blade at the end of a chain)? No way, Jose!

…Seems a bit arbitrary to me.

Now you're just ignoring that kusari-gama is on the oriental campaigns part of the DMG. It's not meant to be a mainstream weapon. But you could work it into your backstory, dunno. Maybe you were trained by a guy from the 'generic oriental land'. He taught you that, so you took the feat. Now, since it's core only and you have feats to spare, you also take Focus/Specialization. What's the problem with that?



When someone pointed at the feats they used to give min-maxing tips, you asked what feats would he rather have taken, then when he named them you went all "fluff doesn't work like that". What was the point again?
Problem in communication. I was just trying to say I don't think it's wrong to take Weapon Focus/Specialization or anything, specially when the alternative 'good' feats don't fit the concept at all (like kusari-gama).
And I never said "fluff doesn't work like that", please don't put words in my mouth. I just said that was not the way the designers saw the game.

Thespianus
2011-01-22, 04:13 PM
Just further illustrates the point. They didn't care about balance or optimization and as such didn't know much about it.
It's quite possible that their view of "min-maxing" was to maximize the amount of damage you can deal per full attack. With a Core TWF Fighter, that means grabbing WF/WS with a few of the Fighter bonus feats.

Starbuck_II
2011-01-22, 04:16 PM
It's quite possible that their view of "min-maxing" was to maximize the amount of damage you can deal per full attack. With a Core TWF Fighter, that means grabbing WF/WS with a few of the Fighter bonus feats.

But each +1d6 sneak attack adds more than one feat of Weapon Specialization. Yes, you needs flanking buddy, deny dex, or etc but it is better for maxing damage/full attack.

So they kinda failed if he was going for MinMax. Maybe Maxmin.

true_shinken
2011-01-22, 04:20 PM
But each +1d6 sneak attack adds more than one feat of Weapon Specialization. Yes, you needs flanking buddy, deny dex, or etc but it is better for maxing damage/full attack.
Why can't you have both? :smallconfused:
You need higher base attack to hit more often anyway. Most Rogue guides are all about getting the 'magic 16' to be epic ready. 4 levels of Fighter do just that and also give you a slight damage boost.
Or maybe his favored class was not Rogue or Fighter, so he had to keep the classes at around the same levels.

Greenish
2011-01-22, 04:22 PM
Problem in communication. I was just trying to say I don't think it's wrong to take Weapon Focus/Specialization or anything, specially when the alternative 'good' feats don't fit the concept at all (like kusari-gama).Concept of a minmaxed TWFer?

And I never said "fluff doesn't work like that", please don't put words in my mouth.I should think it a fair summary of quite a few of your comments in this thread. :smallamused:

true_shinken
2011-01-22, 04:24 PM
Concept of a minmaxed TWFer?
I should think it a fair summary of quite a few of your comments in this thread. :smallamused:

And I think you'd be mistaken (http://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDoQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nizkor.org%2Ffeatures%2Ffalla cies%2Fstraw-man.html&ei=6Uo7TdrbGIet8Aap6cm1Cg&usg=AFQjCNFRdyz5E4U0hgJwDJC199MNDsHWJg).

Thespianus
2011-01-22, 04:28 PM
But each +1d6 sneak attack adds more than one feat of Weapon Specialization. Yes, you needs flanking buddy, deny dex, or etc but it is better for maxing damage/full attack.

So they kinda failed if he was going for MinMax. Maybe Maxmin.

The Core Fighter is a front liner. It's hard to envision someone else in a Core party (Figher, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric) to act as the Fighter's flanking buddy on the front line, especially when you consider that the Cleric is seen as a healbot.

With a Rogue heavy Fighter/Rogue, you're not using heavy armor, you're using light armor. You have a D6 hit die. You are squishy, and unless you have another Fighter along on the front line, you're not going to be sneak attacking much. And, in this party, you don't have another front liner along.

For the iconic role in the "default" party, WF/WS makes sense for a TWF Fighter. It sucks in a more well-thought out group, but in the traditional party, it is up to the Fighter to hold the front line, inorder to allow the Rogue to get his sneak attacks from flanking.

Zaydos
2011-01-22, 05:09 PM
Also note that Sneak Attack is, in Core, notoriously bad for leaving you powerless against foes at precisely the wrong moment. Constructs, undead, plants, elementals, and oozes laugh it off. The +6 to hit, +1 attack, +4 damage, and a boatload of other feats can be better than +9d6 (~+31.5) damage that doesn't work against all enemies.

Which is the same thing about Core Power Attack without some serious help from other characters buffing you/debuffing your enemy you won't hit if you power attack more than 5-10 even at 20 and you'll likely to miss with an attack you would have hit with if you do so. For example a Lv 20 Barbarian ~36 Str when raging, +1 Weapon Focus, +5 weapon, +39 to hit; still needs a 2 to hit a CR 20 white dragon (my monster manual was open to that page), average damage without power attack (assuming Holy, Flaming, Frost, and Shocking greatsword): 54 x .95 + 54 x .7 + 54 x .45 + 54 x .2 or 124.2 damage. With Power Attack (+5 Power Attack): 64 x .7 + 64 x .45 + 64 x .2 + 64 x .05 or 89.6 damage. This doesn't calculate in critical hits (which increase each side by x1.1) but it does have the same ratio of damage. Now that barbarian wouldn't do well with 2 weapon fighting because they're a barbarian and high Str equals 2 handed weapon, but just for arguments sake it would be (assuming +5 and holy only, shortsword): 33.5 x .85 + 24.5 x .85 + 33.5 x .6 + 24.5 x .6 + 33.5 x .35 + 24.5 x .35 + 33.5 x .1 = 107.75. Still beats Power Attack while losing out to a single two handed weapon (and that's without spending more money on weaponry than the two-hander, if you really wanted damage you could get +8.75 damage per hit or +32.375 damage).

Note that no matter which choice you make the most damage you'll deal with a full attack is ~25% of the dragon's health.

sonofzeal
2011-01-22, 06:24 PM
Actually, I think your concept works better when you stick to archetypes. Everyone else is a full-classed Fighter, a blaster Wizard, stuff like that.
You? You're special. You're the orc smart enough to master arcane magic, devout enough to cast divine magic, with the smooth talk, the bird form and crazy enough to do it all at once. If the world sticks to archetypes, your character is special. If it doesn't, you're just another guy; comb your hair and clock in.
Or, I could just be my own archetype. I ended up going for something like "Warpriest of Odin". Odin is a god of wisdom, knowledge, fury, and is served by two ravens (Hugin and Munin). My warpriest then gains his various abilities (including Barbarian Rage) from his connection to Odin.

Nobody said I had to adhere to the vague archetypes presented to me by WotC.





With a Rogue heavy Fighter/Rogue, you're not using heavy armor, you're using light armor.
All the Rogue loses in fullplate is Evasion. That's worth it, often, since stealth rarely matters too much if you're staying with the group. And a Rogue/Fighter doesn't really need high Dex for anythin except qualifying for TWF if they're going that route. Personally, I like Sneak Attacking things with a Greatsword.

ericgrau
2011-01-22, 07:49 PM
I know the old saying, "Skillsman & minesweeper Rogue. Healer Cleric. Tanky Fighter. Blasty Wizard. All use a 25 point buy or thereabouts."

Still, what did these characters do to test the system? Did they go on adventures? Did they duel each other in arenas?
This is an old myth. Many of the now-popular styles appeared in the WotC tips and tricks immediately after the release of 3.5, if not pre-3.5. They knew exactly what spells were good before they became popular in forums. Specifically at least 2 years before LogicNinja tried to get credit. He even stole and misused at least one of WotC's examples. It's not like WotC copy pasted all the spells from 2e without even looking at them. Likewise tripping fighters and so on are in those guides. If anything early players are to blame for trying to play stereotypes.

FWIW they probably used elite array rather than point-buy. I think point buy came later, whereas elite array was in the MM and designed to be similar to average rolled stats whenever you don't want it to be random or don't want to take the time to roll. So their wizards had 15 int + bonuses, or maybe 16.

I can only guess playtesting involved dungeon crawls. A lot of 4e playtesting involved fights so maybe they did that for 3e too.

Analytica
2011-01-22, 07:55 PM
One way around some in-game weirdness of multiclassing is planning the build in advance, then playing accordingly. That way, you really can foreshadow things, and you can have shining moments as your hitherto latent powers manifest.

I am thinking of something like a rogue/wizard/unseen seer. Of course, you take a rogue level first for the skills. You might also take metamagic feats at first level, which you clearly cannot use then. They then represent your potential for learning those abilities. Could be foreshadowed as the rogue having strange dreams, staring at spellcasters preparing spells because she somehow can see the weaves forming, and so on. Then when you take that first wizard level, it turns out you are a true prodigy, able to grasp almost instantly what most wizards require years to learn, and so forth.

Starbuck_II
2011-01-22, 09:54 PM
All the Rogue loses in fullplate is Evasion. That's worth it, often, since stealth rarely matters too much if you're staying with the group. And a Rogue/Fighter doesn't really need high Dex for anythin except qualifying for TWF if they're going that route. Personally, I like Sneak Attacking things with a Greatsword.

The Rogue can eventually buy Celestial Plate: Counts as light armor (even though it is full plate). They must have made the armor for this time of character I'm thinking.

DeltaEmil
2011-01-22, 10:37 PM
What? Where is celestial plate mentioned? That's a thousand times more better than your typical mithral fullplate armor.

Popertop
2011-01-23, 12:52 AM
It's listed in the SRD under Magic Armor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm#tableSpecificArmors)

sonofzeal
2011-01-23, 12:59 AM
It's listed in the SRD under Magic Armor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm#tableSpecificArmors)
Except it's... uh, not full plate. At all. It's just Mithral Chainmail with a higher max dex.

lightningcat
2011-01-23, 01:26 AM
Except it's... uh, not full plate. At all. It's just Mithral Chainmail with a higher max dex.

And except for the fly ability is described exactly like elven chainmail from AD&D. Or the Lord of the Rings or Hobbit for that matter.

Elfin
2011-01-23, 01:30 AM
...For some reason, I just imagined Frodo flying towards Mount Doom in Superman pose.

sonofzeal
2011-01-23, 01:32 AM
...For some reason, I just imagined Frodo flying towards Mount Doom in Superman pose.
ONE DOES NOT SIMPLY.......



...oh nevermind. :smalltongue:

Popertop
2011-01-23, 01:33 AM
Doesn't it break the magic armor creation rules though?

I would sure love stacking a bunch of stuff on top of it.

sonofzeal
2011-01-23, 01:35 AM
Doesn't it break the magic armor creation rules though?

I would sure love stacking a bunch of stuff on top of it.
All the "unique" ones have oddities that can be treated as special properties if you reverse-engineer the price. That's not RAW though.

Elfin
2011-01-23, 01:45 AM
You can, however, further enchant a unique item.

DeltaEmil
2011-01-23, 06:10 AM
However, light full plate still isn't possible, and that makes me only sad... :smallfrown:

Ravens_cry
2011-01-23, 06:25 AM
...For some reason, I just imagined Frodo flying towards Mount Doom in Superman pose.
Oh gods, you got me doing it to. I even got the music.

Faster than a speeding arrow . . .
More powerful then an angry dragon . . .
Able to leap tall borrows in a single bound . . .
It's . . .
SUPERHOBBIT!

Runestar
2011-01-23, 07:13 AM
However, light full plate still isn't possible, and that makes me only sad... :smallfrown:

Halfweight armour property, Underdark.:smallbiggrin:

DeltaEmil
2011-01-23, 07:34 AM
You, Runestar, are a hero to all melee combatants who always wanted to wear cool-looking full plate while still running like as one was naked... somehow... :smallcool:

Elfin
2011-01-23, 11:32 AM
Halfweight armour property, Underdark.:smallbiggrin:

...I love you.
Man, I even have access to that book...how did I miss that?

Starbuck_II
2011-01-23, 11:55 AM
Halfweight armour property, Underdark.:smallbiggrin:

Semi-Expensive at +2/+3 (it is +2 bonus if already Illithid Wrought, another +2).

But yes, it works.

Prime32
2011-01-23, 01:07 PM
Better yet... (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cw/20070212a)