[3.5] Help, I'm smushed and can't get up (Need new char advice)

[Cartigan]

Our group is half-way through the Hook Mountain Massacre book in Rise of the Runelords and my Ranger was turned to paste by the Giant Chieftain in a single round. Obviously I need a new character. We are limited to 3.5 core only (though the DM has allowed some specific exceptions when I have asked - for the purposes going forward here, the only exceptions that matter are I can use the Pathfinder Fighter class abilities and the Ranger animal companion replacement from PHB II). Abilities are generated with a 28pt buy and we are restricted to Humans.

My new character will be started at level 9 and I am trying to figure out what to do with it. I am thinking one of 3 things right now:

A tweaked version of my smashed Ranger - TWF Ranger focused on using Kukris with increased threat range.
A ranged Ranger with a composite longbow and building up for sniping in plain sight.
A disarming/tripping focused Fighter pouring all his feats into a Heavy Flail (to do more damage and not have a feat burned on a Spiked Chain)


I am trying to 1-1 my current items relatively: +1 Shocking Longbow, 2x +1 Kukris, +3 Chain Shirt, +1 Ring of Protection, +1 Amulet of Natural Armor, +4 Belt of Giant's Strength, +2 Gloves of Dexterity, and Wand of Cure Light Wounds (because no one else is going to heal me, jerks).

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

What is everyone else playing? Are you stuck with your old character's items or do you get to enter play with appropriate gear for your new character?

Since it's core only, I'll be the first of many to suggest a Druid. Get Spell Focus: Conjuration, Augment Summoning, Combat Reflexes, Natural Spell, and Quicken Spell. Get a Tiger as your animal companion, and spend most of your time Wild Shaped into a Dire Lion. Get maybe +2 Wild Dragonhide Breastplate, since it melds into your new form you won't even get the reduced movement speed. Get two Lesser Rods of Extend and every day cast Greater Magic Fang (+1 all) on both yourself and your animal companion, along with Longstrider. The rod with two charges remaining should be on a leather loop that you can hang around your neck after you've wild shaped so you can use it on buffs like Bull's Strength and Barkskin. Put any wands or other items on that same leather loop so you don't have to leave animal form to use them.

Use Entangle to keep opponents from going anywhere, Heat Metal (or Chill Metal if more appropriate) on a big enemy's sword to make him drop it, Sleet Storm to completely disrupt multiple opponents, Summon Nature's Ally III or higher for one or more Lions, and Animal Growth on your summoned lions, animal companion, and yourself if not using the wild shape errata. You can spontaneously cast Summon Nature's Ally IV for a Unicorn and have it provide more healing than just casting a 4th level Cure spell along with Neutralize Poison, and its magic circle keeps away any nongood extraplanar creatures and blocks dominate effects.

[Doc Roc]

Biff has my vote. All solid suggestions. Is it core or Srd?

[Cartigan]

What is everyone else playing?
Ineffectual Bard/Rogue
Pathfinder Sorcerer who likes evocation
3.5 Druid
Munchkin Cleric


Are you stuck with your old character's items or do you get to enter play with appropriate gear for your new character?
I am going to roll them into gold and redistribute it as per what works for new character - though I imagine many pieces will be same.

*Cut Druid stuff*
Yes, Druids are buff. Some one is already playing one. And being coached - sort of - by the Munchkin Cleric. If I get smashed again, I will roll up either a Conjurer or an Enchanter.


Biff has my vote. All solid suggestions. Is it core or Srd?
Core. Assume everything outside core is explicit and specific permission.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Well, if you want to play the trip/disarm Fighter, the biggest reason to use a spiked chain is for the reach it provides. A flail can be used to disarm and trip, but you won't be making AoOs like you would with a spiked chain. In core only, limited to humans only, the best thing you can do with a build like that is use a spiked chain and get a Permanency + Enlarge Person. NPC spellcasting services are in the PHB on page 132, spells with an XP cost get +5 gp per 1 xp but I forget where that is stated. You'll want both spells at caster level 20 so a random Dispel doesn't ruin your day. That would make you large size for a 10 ft. natural reach, and with a spiked chain you would threaten out to 20 ft.

A CL 20 Enlarge Person is a mere 200 gp, Permanency however would cost 3500 gp, which falls within range of the 'DM's permission' availability. You could get around that by buying a Scroll of Permanency at caster level 20 (2500 gp) with a 500 xp cost built in (+2500 gp), and just get the 20th level Wizard you hire for Enlarge Person to use the scroll on you as well at no risk or additional cost. You would be paying an extra 1500 gp using a scroll, but it wouldn't be entirely dependent on what the DM wants to allow.

See if you can use the Dungeoncrasher ACF from Dungeonscape, and/or the Zhentarim Soldier substitution levels (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060327a) but renaming it something like big-bad-bully and stripping it of any membership requirements. Ideally you would want the feat Knock-Back in Races of Stone with Dungeoncrasher, but you could just get a Ring of the Ram and save some feats. You would also want the feat Imperious Command from Drow of the Underdark with Zhentarim Soldier/Bully, but don't get your hopes up.

[Cartigan]

Well, if you want to play the trip/disarm Fighter, the biggest reason to use a spiked chain is for the reach it provides. A flail can be used to disarm and trip, but you won't be making AoOs like you would with a spiked chain.
The ability spread I am looking at doesn't leave me with enough Dex to waste 2 feats on EWP and Combat Reflexes. Plus, focusing on Dex leaves it harder to trip people. And in need of weapon finesse.


In core only, limited to humans only, the best thing you can do with a build like that is use a spiked chain and get a Permanency + Enlarge Person. NPC spellcasting services are in the PHB on page 132, spells with an XP cost get +5 gp per 1 xp but I forget where that is stated. You'll want both spells at caster level 20 so a random Dispel doesn't ruin your day. That would make you large size for a 10 ft. natural reach, and with a spiked chain you would threaten out to 20 ft.
The use and chance I can do this is between slim and none. And also none. However, our Sorcerer has Enlarge Person from whatever his bloodline choice was so I can get it from him in any particular serious fight.


See if you can use the Dungeoncrasher ACF from Dungeonscape,
As stated, let's presume for the purposes of this thread the ONLY things allowed are the Pathfinder Fighter class abilities and the Ranger animal companion replacement for PHB II. Saying "The game is core only, but the DM will allow specific exceptions" is not a blank cheque to make random suggestions from every book in existence. If I wanted to make an awesome non-core character and foist every single exception on my DM one at a time, I would have done that myself.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I was just suggesting the best things from outside of core, since a core-only Fighter is about as bad as a Monk. If you want a core-only tripper build, go with the Horizon Tripper (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80415). If you can use alternate Ranger combat styles, Strong-Arm gives Power Attack at 2, Improved Sunder at 6, and Great Cleave at 11, otherwise I'd get archery just for versatility.

[Cartigan]

He would be disarming and tripping - hence the no feats to waste on EWP or the not useful Combat Reflexes. Everyone keeps missing the disarming part.

And I will be using the Pathfinder Fighter. The primary benefit is the armor and weapon training.

[gbprime]

Okay, your DM is considering SOME variants to core. How does (s)he feel about the Unearthed Arcana book?

[Cartigan]

Okay, your DM is considering SOME variants to core. How does (s)he feel about the Unearthed Arcana book?
It's possible and perhaps probable I could get stuff from it allowed but I'm not entirely liking where this line of questioning is going..

[gbprime]

It's possible and perhaps probable I could get stuff from it allowed but I'm not entirely liking where this line of questioning is going..

Oh nothing too bad. :smallwink:

Your group could benefit from a melee type as a replacement, and a flanker would be good as well. You could fill both roles with the fighter variants in the book (sneak attack in place of bonus feats) or even play a Generic Warrior, who gets 5 bonus feats, two of which could be used for 5d6 sneak attack, leaving you 3 bonus feats, full BAB, and full rogue sneak attack.

[Cartigan]

Oh nothing too bad. :smallwink:

Your group could benefit from a melee type as a replacement, and a flanker would be good as well. You could fill both roles with the fighter variants in the book (sneak attack in place of bonus feats) or even play a Generic Warrior, who gets 5 bonus feats, two of which could be used for 5d6 sneak attack, leaving you 3 bonus feats, full BAB, and full rogue sneak attack.
God, that's a horrible alternate class. All the Fighter gets in 3.5, class-wise, is bonus feats. And that replacements tosses it out entirely simply for sneak attack. I'd be as well off running a Monk.

No more suggestions about what I should ask my DM to allow. For all points and purposes from this point forward, the DM hates me and will allow nothing other than the Ranger alternate class ability and Pathfinder Fighter class abilities. All suggestions are therefore limited to 3.5 Core and comments on my suggested replacements.

[Doc Roc]

God, that's a horrible alternate class. All the Fighter gets in 3.5, class-wise, is bonus feats. And that replacements tosses it out entirely simply for sneak attack. I'd be as well off running a Monk.

No more suggestions about what I should ask my DM to allow. For all points and purposes from this point forward, the DM hates me and will allow nothing other than the Ranger alternate class ability and Pathfinder Fighter class abilities. All suggestions are therefore limited to 3.5 Core and comments on my suggested replacements.

How about a mounted Lancer with Power Attack? Possibly on a giant eagle?

[Cartigan]

How about a mounted Lancer with Power Attack? Possibly on a giant eagle?

Great idea, let's do that.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

The obvious choice would be to take Leadership and get a giant eagle as his cohort, which could be accomplished with little effort at 9th level. You could go Human Fighter 9 with Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, and Power Attack with a lot of feats to spare. Maybe see if you can get Brutal Throw in Complete Adventurer, which switches thrown weapon attacks to Strength, and get Quick-Draw and Mounted Archery and maybe include Point-Blank Shot and Rapid Shot if you don't completely dump Dex. That would let you soften up enemies from a distance and then charge in to finish them off, or chase down fleeing opponents with javelins.

[Doc Roc]

The eagle can even afford a couple levels of cleric, I think, since they can advance by class if they're cohorts.

[The Glyphstone]

The eagle can even afford a couple levels of cleric, I think, since they can advance by class if they're cohorts.

Birdseed for the Bird God?

[Cartigan]

I was being sarcastic, I suspect my DM would kill me if I showed up with a Fighter and a Giant Eagle cohort with levels in Cleric. Hell, let's give him levels in Druid and just max out the absurdity.

The DM has been kind of sketchy about the Druid getting a giant croc.

[The Glyphstone]

I was being sarcastic, I suspect my DM would kill me if I showed up with a Fighter and a Giant Eagle cohort with levels in Cleric. Hell, let's give him levels in Druid and just max out the absurdity.

The DM has been kind of sketchy about the Druid getting a giant croc.

Then be a Druid with a 1-level dip in Barbarian. Exclusively take Brown/Black/Dire bear forms, have a Bear animal companion, and summon nature's ally in combat for bears. You will bearly approach the awesome that is Bearington Bearman the Barbearian, but it's the best you'll get.

[randomhero00]

Don't play a tripper/disarmer at 9th. They're rarely worth it unless the DM is running a humonoid heavy campaign.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

It looks to me like your DM thinks variety/choices/books = imbalance. If that's the case, make a Wizard with tricks like Explosive Runes + Dispel Magic, Shrink Item + Metal Dome + Pools of Lava, Improved Familiar (DMG) for an Imp or Quasit and give it Tanglefoot Bags, open fights with Grease, Web, Gitterdust, Stinking Cloud, and Black Tentacles, etc. Play the character smart and focus on disrupting opponents, or using overpowered tricks to kill them outright. Then point out that spellcasters are overpowered even in core-only, and that the game would be better balanced if he allowed nonspellcasters to use additional books.

[gbprime]

Seriously.

It sounds like we need to better understand what your DM expects. Using the example above... Leadership = Core, Cohorts with class levels = Core, Charger/Lancer = Core, Giant Eagle = Core... but using all four at once is unreasonable?

Help us understand. Where's the line you don't want to cross?

[Cartigan]

{Scrubbed}

[gbprime]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

"Munchkin" is in the eye of the beholder. Most people you'd be asking for advice would not consider a charger build mounted on a giant eagle cohort to be munchkin-ish. Now add cleric levels to the giant eagle, and you're getting there. Make the eagle a Divine Metamagic build... THEN you're a munchkin. :smallbiggrin:

But focussing on mounted combat and giving your giant eagle cohort levels in ranger or scout is more "optimized" around here than "munchkin".

[Cartigan]

A charger build mounted on a giant eagle/pegasus cohort with class levels is pretty munchkin for core, short of being a Druid.

[The Glyphstone]

Thing is, if you don't make them a cohort of some sort, they're wasted. Mounts or companions that don't scale with you are hideously vulnerable, rapidly becoming nonentities in combat - it doesn't matter if your AC is over nine thousand and you deal five million damage on a charging hit, the enemy can just blast your AC15 40-HP horse out from under you and render you utterly ineffective. Cohorts (and Paladin mounts, and druid AC's) at least get tougher to keep pace with you.

If you want to be a charger - there's always the option of Centaur for a race. The LA hurts, but you're not a full caster anyways, and it means you count as your own mount for mounted combat charging feats.

[Cartigan]

Thing is, if you don't make them a cohort of some sort, they're wasted. Mounts or companions that don't scale with you are hideously vulnerable, rapidly becoming nonentities in combat - it doesn't matter if your AC is over nine thousand and you deal five million damage on a charging hit, the enemy can just blast your AC15 40-HP horse out from under you and render you utterly ineffective. Cohorts (and Paladin mounts, and druid AC's) at least get tougher to keep pace with you.
Yes, that's true. But wholly irrelevant to the discussion.


If you want to be a charger - there's always the option of Centaur for a race. The LA hurts, but you're not a full caster anyways, and it means you count as your own mount for mounted combat charging feats.

I don't think you people are trying here. Or you are trying and just generally disregarding all information...

[The Glyphstone]

Yes, that's true. But wholly irrelevant to the discussion.



I don't think you people are trying here. Or you are trying and just generally disregarding all information...

So tell us what you want. There's been plenty of good suggestions, which you have unilaterally thrown out as being 'munchkinny' or 'absurd', without being willing to define to us what you consider too cheesy. Otherwise, asking for help and then insulting the people who give it could be....unwise.

[Cartigan]

So tell us what you want. There's been plenty of good suggestions, which you have unilaterally thrown out as being 'munchkinny' or 'absurd', without being willing to define to us what you consider too cheesy. Otherwise, asking for help and then insulting the people who give it could be....unwise.
The vast majority of suggestions involved ignoring the "the DM said 3.5 Core only" and after I managed to ram that idea down people's throats I got "dude, make a charger and ride a Giant Eagle Cleric cohort."

I mean really.

I'll just roll a d6 and pick from one of my 3 ideas.

[nedz]

A tweaked version of my smashed Ranger - TWF Ranger focused on using Kukris with increased threat range.

Its hard to know what OP level you want ?

How about Ranger 6/Druid 3 ?
Using a Quarter Staff [mundane] aiming to improve this with Shillaleagh 3/day and Bulls Strength 2/day for improved TWF. (How many big fights do you get into each day?)
You would lose 1 BAB, but gain improved saves.
The Druid levels would also give you Nature Sense, Woodland Stride and Trackless Step.
Both classes give Animal Companion and Wild Empathy, your DM ought to let thse stack at Druid Level+half Ranger Level.

This probably works better with Spirit Shamen or Spontaneous Druid, and there are better spells in the SpC for this style.

You would probably want to top out at Ranger15/Druid 5.

Is this the right OP level for you ?

If not is it too high, or too low ?:smallsmile:

[Draz74]

What was wrong with the Centaur suggestion? (By a forum mod no less; I don't think he would just be messing with you.) I mean, if your DM just won't like monster races ... well, that's entirely new information that you hadn't told us before. We don't know your DM, we can't guess what he will and won't like (other than "he probably won't like anything," because being upset at the Druid wanting to take a crocodile is pretty ridiculous). Centaur is, after all, Core.

But anyway. Did you have an objection to the Horizon Tripper build suggestion? If you go with a tripper at all, you can get 90% of the Spiked Chain's advantages without spending a feat by using, not a Flail, but a Guisarme. Hooray for reach. You don't really need the Spiked Chain; in fact, the original Horizon Tripper thread specifically counsels you against it.

(For the record, I don't think a charger on a giant eagle is "munchkin" at all. Leadership gets iffy, and giving the eagle class levels is certainly something that could bother many DMs. Perhaps the DM would allow the Wild Cohort feat (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031118a) instead of Leadership? Then you could get a tough mount that still just progresses like a weaker version of the Druid's companion.)

[Cartigan]

Its hard to know what OP level you want ?

How about Ranger 6/Druid 3 ?
Using a Quarter Staff [mundane] aiming to improve this with Shillaleagh 3/day and Bulls Strength 2/day for improved TWF. (How many big fights do you get into each day?)
You would lose 1 BAB, but gain improved saves.
The Druid levels would also give you Nature Sense, Woodland Stride and Trackless Step.
Both classes give Animal Companion and Wild Empathy, your DM ought to let thse stack at Druid Level+half Ranger Level.
Interesting point, but I'm only worrying with TWF and spending the feats in Kurksi for the 15-20 crit range - getting 4 attacks, each with a 25% chance of doing 2d4+20 something damage is next best thing if not a Rogue. And by 9th level I already have Woodland Stride as a pure Ranger (which is really the only important one, especially in a pre-written campaign). I don't think our DM would care for another Animal Companion and I don't want a gimped one - our Druid's 9th level animal companion is taking a beating and I would be walking around with a 6th level.


This probably works better with Spirit Shamen or Spontaneous Druid, and there are better spells in the SpC for this style.
NONE of which I can take.

[gbprime]

Well look... you're using core and you want a ranger or fighter or something similar. You've already covered the "pick some feats and go" idea. There's not a lot of options there, so you come to this board. You're get advice from "outside the box", so to speak, but you don't want that.

If you just want feedback on your listed 3 choices, here it is.

1 - decent idea
2 - bad idea. Core only archery sucks.
3 - not a good idea if you're running into a lot of giants. With core only, size large things are harder to trip or disarm, and size huge often just laugh at you then disarm YOU instead.

[Cartigan]

What was wrong with the Centaur suggestion?
Core only. Restricted to Humans. In Rise of the Runelords (ie, Golarion)


I mean, if your DM just won't like monster races ... well, that's entirely new information that you hadn't told us before.
We are restricted from other PC races - which I stated in the OP

[Cartigan]

Well look... you're using core and you want a ranger or fighter or something similar. You've already covered the "pick some feats and go" idea. There's not a lot of options there, so you come to this board. You're get advice from "outside the box", so to speak, but you don't want that.

If you just want feedback on your listed 3 choices, here it is.

1 - decent idea
2 - bad idea. Core only archery sucks.
3 - not a good idea if you're running into a lot of giants. With core only, size large things are harder to trip or disarm, and size huge often just laugh at you then disarm YOU instead.
That's at least somewhat applicable.
The problem with redoing number one is how to avoid getting taken out in a single round again.

How does core only archery suck? I've rolled non-Core archery before and I don't recall a significant difference.


Maybe I should just try a Paladin and screw with people.

[Hawk7915]

That's at least somewhat applicable.
The problem with redoing number one is how to avoid getting taken out in a single round again.

How does core only archery suck? I've rolled non-Core archery before and I don't recall a significant difference.


Maybe I should just try a Paladin and screw with people.

The fact of the matter is, a Ranger in a 28 point buy is just gonna be a bit squishy. The best you could do is to really pump Con, start with an item of Con, and dip levels in Barbarian for the larger Hit Die + Bonus Con on demand. Actually, yeah, how about...

Ranger 7/Barbarian1/Horizon Walker 1
STR 16
DEX 14
CON 14+2 from level-up
WIS 12
INT 10
CHA 8

If you don't care about woodland stride, only take Ranger 6 or even as few as Ranger 3 and take even MOAR barbarian or Horizon Walker.

As for weapons/feats the best option is actually going to be to take the Archer style, spend 2/5 feats on Point-blank Shot and Precise Shot, and then get Power Attack. Go for a "switch hitter" build: you can use your bow on flying enemies, or to set ambushes, or against enemies that are just way too deadly for you to go toe-to-toe with like a Giant. But against smaller foes that rush you, you can drop the bow, draw your Greatsword, and start murdering everything. Basically, Aragorn but with anger management issues :smallamused:.

For your last two feats, I'd beg and plead for Extra Rage (Complete Warrior, 2 more rages/day). Taken alongside Desert Terrain mastery, your character can rage for most every encounter at no drawback. Failing that and stuck with only core and no leadership, I'd probably just take Improved Initiative and some pointless feat (Cleave, Weapon Focus, Diehard, Improved Bull Rush) and call it a day.

[gbprime]

That's at least somewhat applicable.
The problem with redoing number one is how to avoid getting taken out in a single round again.

Give your opponents a miss chance. You can get a 20% from a Minor Cloak of Displacement or a Blur spell, but for real oomph, you want50% off of improved invisibility or Displacement. So figuring out how to GET that is part of your build. Potions work, but a Wand of Displacement (or Improved Invisibility or even Mirror Image) is better. But to get that, you need to find a way to reliably score a 20 on Use Magic Device... and that means multiclassing as Rogue or Bard and possibly a Circlet of Persuasion.



How does core only archery suck? I've rolled non-Core archery before and I don't recall a significant difference.

Core archery gets you as many as three attacks at d8+d6+5 or so, given a strengthbow and magic arrows with energy damage on them. That's NOT going to drop a giant nearly as fast as those kukris, meaning it's pretty much an inferior option to melee, especially when you consider that the monsters aren't chewing on the warrior type, they're chewing on the bard or the wizard instead...

NON-core archery adds things like DEX as a damage bonus, power attack usable with a bow, and even the ability to Daze every target with each strike. The extreme end of this is a Mystic Ranger using arcane spells and converting them into extra hit/damage and doing 25 points a hit plus forcing a Daze on a DC35 save each shot.

But you might call that munchkinry. :smallwink:

To make core archery work, you need to do more damage or make sure that none of the enemies can close to melee with you or your squishier friends.

[nedz]

Go with the TWF ranger, but have the feats Combat Reflexes and Quick Draw.
Use a Reach/Trip weapon (Guisarme) which is what you normally carry.
When you get charged: you trip them as they come in.
Then you drop the Guisarme, quick draw your Kukris, and full attack.

I've done this - it worked for me.

Doesn't cover every eventuality - but what does ?
Having Imp Trip would be nice, but you can live without it.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

That's at least somewhat applicable.
The problem with redoing number one is how to avoid getting taken out in a single round again.

How does core only archery suck? I've rolled non-Core archery before and I don't recall a significant difference.

Relative to what an archer can do with the proper feats and magic items from outside of core, a core only archer sucks.

As for not getting killed in a single round, it looks to me like your DM is going to call you a munchkin for just making a character who stands a chance. You call the party Cleric a munchkin why, because he plays smart? Getting a giant eagle cohort is a perfectly legitimate character choice and could be a great role playing opportunity, and besides giving it additional magical beast HD would be the most optimal choice since it gets full BAB and eventual size increases. The druid's giant crocodile animal companion is a fairly poor choice, since it lacks a decent full attack. A brown bear or tiger would be far more dangerous and just as likely to survive opponents' attacks. When he uses Summon Nature's Ally for lions and Animal Growths them, he's not even being a munchkin. If he gets Greenbound Summoning and uses a 1st level spell slot to summon a rat who then uses a Wall of Thorns spell-like ability, that too is not being a munchkin, it's just taking advantage of what options are available to Tier 1 classes (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0). Giving his animal companion Vow of Poverty could be considered munchkinism, but not necessarily if his character too has taken it and he has Exalted Companion and role plays the exalted status properly.

Capable players will play capable characters, bad players who don't want to get any better at the game or learn to recognize the difference between what's overpowered in play and what just looks overpowered at first glance will call them munchkins just for being good at the game. My guess is your DM doesn't even know all the core rules, presumes a Wizard 3/ Cleric 3/ Mystic Theurge is overpowered, makes his story take precedence over PCs' capabilities, and thinks anyone who's as good at the game portion as he thinks he is at the role-play portion is a munchkin. In that case, you should play a capable character and play him well without sacrificing any role-play elements, which is easy to accomplish, and not care whether your DM calls you a munchkin for being better at a game than he is.

[The Glyphstone]

Relative to what an archer can do with the proper feats and magic items from outside of core, a core only archer sucks.

As for not getting killed in a single round, it looks to me like your DM is going to call you a munchkin for just making a character who stands a chance. You call the party Cleric a munchkin why, because he plays smart? Getting a giant eagle cohort is a perfectly legitimate character choice and could be a great role playing opportunity, and besides giving it additional magical beast HD would be the most optimal choice since it gets full BAB and eventual size increases. The druid's giant crocodile animal companion is a fairly poor choice, since it lacks a decent full attack. A brown bear or tiger would be far more dangerous and just as likely to survive opponents' attacks. When he uses Summon Nature's Ally for lions and Animal Growths them, he's not even being a munchkin. If he gets Greenbound Summoning and uses a 1st level spell slot to summon a rat who then uses a Wall of Thorns spell-like ability, that too is not being a munchkin, it's just taking advantage of what options are available to Tier 1 classes (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0). Giving his animal companion Vow of Poverty could be considered munchkinism, but not necessarily if his character too has taken it and he has Exalted Companion and role plays the exalted status properly.

Capable players will play capable characters, bad players who don't want to get any better at the game or learn to recognize the difference between what's overpowered in play and what just looks overpowered at first glance will call them munchkins just for being good at the game. My guess is your DM doesn't even know all the core rules, presumes a Wizard 3/ Cleric 3/ Mystic Theurge is overpowered, makes his story take precedence over PCs' capabilities, and thinks anyone who's as good at the game portion as he thinks he is at the role-play portion is a munchkin. In that case, you should play a capable character and play him well without sacrificing any role-play elements, which is easy to accomplish, and not care whether your DM calls you a munchkin for being better at a game than he is.

...Attacking his GM's assumed incompetence isn't very constructive to the topic, though. The last sentence of your post is 100% true and accurate, and very good advice. The rest of it, though - was that necessary?

(Also, I had missed the humans-only qualifier in the OP, so I apologize for that.)

[Doc Roc]

Dude, I feel a deep disinterest in helping you.

[Draculmaulkee]

If you're looking for damage and don't like chargers, a flask rogue is pretty effective in core. Just max dexterity and the TWF chain, then buy as many alchemist's fire and acid flasks as possible.

[The Rabbler]

Op, after reading through this thread, I have to ask: what do you want your character to be able to do? Do you want him to be okay (at best) at tripping/control? Do you want him to be okay (also at best) at dealing ranged damage? Do you want him to be okay (again, at best) at dealing melee damage?

Or do you want him to be proficient at any of the above jobs? Good? Great? Awesome? Give us a power level and stop shooting down legitimately good character ideas. Every idea posted so far has been strong from both a mechanical and roleplaying standpoint and you've shut them down because they don't fit your desired power level.


As an aside, I never thought I'd see the day when Biff, Glyphstone, and Doc Roc get called munchkins.

[Cartigan]

You call the party Cleric a munchkin why, because he plays smart?

Because he's a munchkin player. He's basically single-handedly the reason we are playing core only.


Op, after reading through this thread, I have to ask: what do you want your character to be able to do? Do you want him to be okay (at best) at tripping/control? Do you want him to be okay (also at best) at dealing ranged damage? Do you want him to be okay (again, at best) at dealing melee damage?


I'm mostly looking at non-magic survivability.


If he gets Greenbound Summoning and uses a 1st level spell slot to summon a rat who then uses a Wall of Thorns spell-like ability, that too is not being a munchkin, it's just taking advantage of what options are available to Tier 1 classes (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0).

I wonder how many times I have to say "Core only."

[The Rabbler]

Because he's a munchkin player. He's basically single-handedly the reason we are playing core only.

This doesn't tell us anything about what he's done. Also, ask your DM to limit the problem character to melee instead to just core. It makes a large difference.



I'm mostly looking at non-magic survivability.

That says nothing about a power level. A batman wizard could easily obviate any encounter you face with little to no danger to him/herself or the rest of the party. A blaster wizard will have a much harder time with this. We need to know how much you want to be able to do. And to clarify, "ranger" is not the kind of answer I'm looking for.

EDIT: and that also says nothing about how you want it to be done, now that I look at it again. Charger on a giant eagle would be pretty hard to take down and it's completely non-magical.



I wonder how many times I have to say "Core only."

You also said that you could ask your DM to allow specific non-core stuff.

[Draz74]

Core only. Restricted to Humans. In Rise of the Runelords (ie, Golarion)

We are restricted from other PC races - which I stated in the OP

I know nothing about Rise of the Runelords or Golarion. My bad on the Human-only thing, though; it was apparently easy to miss in the middle of all the other info in the OP. :smallredface:

I still recommend a Horizon Tripper.

If you're looking for survivability ... well, frankly, the only really good Core way to increase nonmagical survivability is just to have as good a Constitution as possible.

[Cartigan]

This doesn't tell us anything about what he's done. Also, ask your DM to limit the problem character to melee instead to just core. It makes a large difference.
Our last campaign was Age of Worms, by the end of the campaign, he was the only effective character. He basically solo'd every encounter. It was some combination of classes that became successively more ridiculous as he leveled and had Druid as a linchpin. I think there was Sorcerer or Wizard in there and definitely Abjurant Champion. I think he got Arcane Heirophant and some other things in there too.



That says nothing about a power level. A batman wizard could easily obviate any encounter you face with little to no danger to him/herself or the rest of the party. A blaster wizard will have a much harder time with this. We need to know how much you want to be able to do. And to clarify, "ranger" is not the kind of answer I'm looking for.
Perhaps I should clarify "non-magic" as "non-caster," but I was hoping I non-magic would've implied "Not be a Wizard."



You also said that you could ask your DM to allow specific non-core stuff.
Obviously being a mistake to mention because that somehow greenlighted "completely ignore the reiteration that the game is Core only."

[nedz]

I was going to suggest Dwarf (+2 Con,+4 dodge AC against giants) but apparently only munchkins play Dwarfs.:smallbiggrin:

The problem is that you are playing inside a very small box. e.g. Human only is a lot smaller than core, and other core ideas get shot down because they lie outside your sub-core box.:smallannoyed::

It sounds like your group has a problem player and the DM has attempted to use IC methods to try and fix an OOC problem, and now you are all unhappy.

[Cartigan]

I was going to suggest Dwarf (+2 Con,+4 dodge AC against giants) but apparently only munchkins play Dwarfs.:smallbiggrin:

The problem is that you are playing inside a very small box. e.g. Human only is a lot smaller than core, and other core ideas get shot down because they lie outside your sub-core box.:smallannoyed::

It sounds like your group has a problem player and the DM has attempted to use IC methods to try and fix an OOC problem, and now you are all unhappy.
I'm the only other person besides the Cleric player who really cares about doing anything, though there are signs the Druid player wants to be effectual but she is playing a DRUID - she was complaining about having a +16 to hit* because a creature that had 32 AC. I had little more than that while not TWF to hit my favored enemies (I'm kinding of fudging the Ranger FE to-hit bonus from Pathfinder and not telling me DM because without it I would be even more useless).

*The player has no idea what she is doing, the Cleric player is doing all her math for her and basically running her character in the mechanical end while she just rolls dice and plays the character he made. She probably had a higher to hit than +16 even.

[Arutema]

It's a pity you're limited to 3.5 core and not Pathfinder core. Pathfinder core has much better options for melee and archery.

Have you considered playing a high-Dex PF Fighter with primary weapon training in bows and secondary weapon training in light blades? Weapon training will help you get the damage that is typically lacking in archery.

Armor training means you get to apply your full Dex bonus in progressively heavier armor, and get no speed reduction from it.

Finally, the hardest part, see if your DM will approve Deadly Aim from Pathfinder core. It's Power Attack, but with a bow.

[Cartigan]

It's a pity you're limited to 3.5 core and not Pathfinder core. Pathfinder core has much better options for melee and archery.

Have you considered playing a high-Dex PF Fighter with primary weapon training in bows and secondary weapon training in light blades? Weapon training will help you get the damage that is typically lacking in archery.
I have actually tried that before in a non-core game. It's a bit hit or miss (so to say). The problem is weapon training doesn't really advance that fast and is surpassed for a Ranger against favored enemies (which I can practically guarantee with this being an adventure path)

[nedz]

I'm the only other person besides the Cleric player who really cares about doing anything, though there are signs the Druid player wants to be effectual but she is playing a DRUID - she was complaining about having a +16 to hit* because a creature that had 32 AC. I had little more than that while not TWF to hit my favored enemies (I'm kinding of fudging the Ranger FE to-hit bonus from Pathfinder and not telling me DM because without it I would be even more useless).

*The player has no idea what she is doing, the Cleric player is doing all her math for her and basically running her character in the mechanical end while she just rolls dice and plays the character he made. She probably had a higher to hit than +16 even.
OK - so your group has a playstyle mis-match. I understand why you are frustrated, and why your DM is being restictive. Not much we can do about that I'm afraid.

[true_shinken]

{Scrubbed}

[The Glyphstone]

I had little more than that while not TWF to hit my favored enemies (I'm kinding of fudging the Ranger FE to-hit bonus from Pathfinder and not telling me DM because without it I would be even more useless).


deliberately misinterpreting/lying about a rule for personal benefit/increased power?

Good sir, that is the very definition of a.......munchkin.

[Cartigan]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
No, no, that's good natured cheating. Perhaps that explains why "no one" here is a mucnhkin? Not knowing the difference between cheating and manipulating the legal rules beyond all good sense.

[The Glyphstone]

No, no, that's good natured cheating. Perhaps that explains why "no one" here is a mucnhkin? Not knowing the difference between cheating and manipulating the legal rules beyond all good sense.

That's the problem, that we do understand the distinction. Powergaming is optimization taking to unreasonable levels (what you keep calling munchkining) - it's nasty, but tolerable. Cheating is unforgivable.

[Cartigan]

That's the problem, that we do understand the distinction. Powergaming is optimization taking to unreasonable levels (what you keep calling munchkining) - it's nasty, but tolerable. Cheating is unforgivable.
If you want to have a higher-horse contest of an extra +2-10 to hit against A-E Monster vs a Giant Eagle Cleric riding Fighter, we can do that.

[The Glyphstone]

If you want to have a higher-horse contest of an extra +2-10 to hit against A-E Monster vs a Giant Eagle Cleric riding Fighter, we can do that.

there's no contest necessary, but as long as you're openly admitting to cheating and lying to your DM, you're not going to find either sympathy or willing build advice from most people on these forums. We take our rules seriously.

[Cartigan]

there's no contest necessary, but as long as you're openly admitting to cheating and lying to your DM, you're not going to find either sympathy or willing build advice from most people on these forums. We take our rules seriously.
Your very elastic rules that bend in pretzels but don't break? Asking to play a character that is entirely non-core in a statedly core-only game just because you can ask that doesn't make you better than me who is taking the logical modification of the Ranger FE ability from Pathfinder that is not overpowered in any way but not bothering to bring it up because I know my DM.

[true_shinken]

{Scrubbed}

[Draz74]

If you want to have a higher-horse contest of an extra +2-10 to hit against A-E Monster vs a Giant Eagle Cleric riding Fighter, we can do that.

I see what you did there.

[Cartigan]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
In this game, I am better off violating the rules than their spirit. That's how we got into the "Human core-only" scenario.

Obviously I should just email my DM and get him to say "OK, you can use the Pathfinder Ranger Favored Enemy rules" then you can go back to making wildly non-sensical builds instead of looking down your nose at me.

[Tvtyrant]

In this game, I am better off violating the rules than their spirit. That's how we got into the "Human core-only" scenario.

Obviously I should just email my DM and get him to say "OK, you can use the Pathfinder Ranger Favored Enemy rules" then you can go back to making wildly non-sensical builds instead of looking down your nose at me.

You came onto an optimization board for advice... And are insulting people for optimizing? Strange.

[Cartigan]

You came onto an optimization board for advice... And are insulting people for optimizing? Strange.

This is a catchall "Role-playing games" board, unless I missed a notice somewhere.

I was at the very least hoping for (1) people to stay within the core-only rules and then (2) be familiar with the setting. The only limiter we have "role-playing" wise, since we don't do any, is what we are doing has to make sense within the setting. Which is really why we are limited to Humans because there sure as hell isn't really any benefits to rolling most of the other races in core only.

[Doc Roc]

There is nothing elastic or even faintly questionable about buying a griffin statue and riding it. Did you think they were there to play my little griffin with?

How is this ridiculous?

[nedz]

This is a catchall "Role-playing games" board, unless I missed a notice somewhere.

I was at the very least hoping for (1) people to stay within the core-only rules and then (2) be familiar with the setting. The only limiter we have "role-playing" wise, since we don't do any, is what we are doing has to make sense within the setting. Which is really why we are limited to Humans because there sure as hell isn't really any benefits to rolling most of the other races in core only.

I re-tract my previous comment, obviously Dwarves are for only non-munchkins.:smallmad:

[Tvtyrant]

This is a catchall "Role-playing games" board, unless I missed a notice somewhere.

I was at the very least hoping for (1) people to stay within the core-only rules and then (2) be familiar with the setting. The only limiter we have "role-playing" wise, since we don't do any, is what we are doing has to make sense within the setting. Which is really why we are limited to Humans because there sure as hell isn't really any benefits to rolling most of the other races in core only.

Addressing your 3 points:

1. You asked for build advice on a forum that is famous at the least for the guides its members make. Yes the forum is labeled RPG, but this particular one has a reputation. I don't go on 4Chan and start complaining about rude people on the internet.

2. A lot of the suggestions are core-rules only. The Druid/Ranger with Shillelagh TWF was a good suggestion, as were the suggestions about the Horizon Tripper which is an SRD build. Most of the variants suggested were SRD, which is free and usually taken as Core around here. If you mean just the Players Handbook, DMG and MM you should state that to clarify.

3. Can't say anything about the setting, but such is life.

[TroubleBrewing]

As an aside, I never thought I'd see the day when Biff, Glyphstone, and Doc Roc get called munchkins.

Seconded. Bold choice, sir. :smallconfused: But, on to business.

You want advice on a character build that won't get skooshed, has to be core-only (with admitted, then retracted, exceptions based upon DM fiat), and has to be human. You want something similar to the last guy you played, a rangery-fightery thing. You've recieved several very valid suggestions, all of which have been shot down for various reasons, ranging from "seems munchkin-ish" to "seems munchkin-ish". If you didn't want suggestions on effective, powerful, and proven builds... why come here? If you wanted us to tell you "Maybe some Barbarian, a little Fighter, some Ranger, and just grab three or four feats, they're pretty much all the same" then don't ask accomplished optimizers and people with a passion for min/maxing and just generally like to have fun building things. But I digress. Thusfar, the top two recommendations (as I see it) are as follows:

Horizon Tripper. Solid, interesting melee-oriented ranger/fighter hybrid. basically exactly what you asked for.

Mounted Fighter with Leadership. Again, a solid, interesting melee-oriented fighter build with a Giant Eagle slapped on for good measure. Again, pretty much what you asked for.

Outside of these two, in core-only, non-magic survivability gets... iffy. Sure, you can play the guy wearing more armor than a Panzer Tank, but what's his will save? You can play the Rogue who can sneak past Fort Knox, but without a little magical assistance, Alarm will cause her problems. Magic becomes almost a necessity at higher levels, and level nine is about the jumping-off point for non-magical play. Druid 20 is survivable, it can be melee if you want, and it's about as powerful as you get while still remaining basically non-munchkin. But it's magical. I understand the desire to stay away from magic, I do. I tend to play chargers and mounted characters, because to me, swinging a sword is more inherently awesome than blowing people up with fire conjured from my brain. But I've also found that casters (like druids) are only as magic-oriented as you want/need them to be. Need healing? Druid's got your back. Need to turn into a massive, raged-out bear? There's a Druid for that. Need something sneaky? Druid ftw. That's my perspective, anyway. Take it or leave it.

You've heard suggestions from other people and basically written them off as unhelpful, but they're doing the opposite: they are helping you. Either wait for more suggestions or don't, but don't insult the people who are trying to assist you. It isn't necessary. :smallannoyed:

[Cartigan]

Horizon Tripper. Solid, interesting melee-oriented ranger/fighter hybrid. basically exactly what you asked for.
I've said that's interesting. But what would the ability spread be?


Mounted Fighter with Leadership. Again, a solid, interesting melee-oriented fighter build with a Giant Eagle slapped on for good measure. Again, pretty much what you asked for.
Will not work. For multiple reasons. The chance the DM allows this is between slim and none.



2. A lot of the suggestions are core-rules only. The Druid/Ranger with Shillelagh TWF was a good suggestion,
I disagree on the grounds that a TWF is a terrible way to fight unless you can deal out real damage per hit - like a TWF Rogue. Or significantly increase the chance of getting a critical - like my Kukri Ranger.
What's the comparative average damage output for the Shillelagh focused build vs the Improved Critical Kukri Ranger?

[Draz74]

I've said that's interesting. But what would the ability spread be?

I suppose something like

STR 16
DEX 13
CON 14
INT 13
WIS 10
CHA 8

[nedz]

Assuming Str 16(20 with Bull's Str or +4 Belt)
Shillelagh Quarterstaff
Two handed 2d6+8 Average Damage 15 Crit 29
TWF 2d6+6 Average Damage 13 Crit 25
Kukri
TWF 1d4+3 Average Damage 5.5 Crit 10
And you release lots of WBL, and a feat, and you have the flexibility of choosing different spells

Ed: slight error - fixed

[Tvtyrant]

I disagree on the grounds that a TWF is a terrible way to fight unless you can deal out real damage per hit - like a TWF Rogue. Or significantly increase the chance of getting a critical - like my Kukri Ranger.
What's the comparative average damage output for the Shillelagh focused build vs the Improved Critical Kukri Ranger?

2d6 per hit plus whatever your strength is. It also means you only have to pay for one weapon rather then two.

[Cartigan]

2d6 per hit plus whatever your strength is. It also means you only have to pay for one weapon rather then two.

Double weapons require you to enchant both ends separately.

[nedz]

We are not using an enchanted weapon. We are casting Shillelagh (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shillelagh.htm)on any old Quarterstaff, which costs 0gp

Ed: Link

[gbprime]

Honestly... if you're bending rules already, why come here and ask for advice? Just bend them more without our input.

[nedz]

... - getting 4 attacks, each with a 25% chance of doing 2d4+20 something damage ...

How do you get 2d4+20 damage ?
Kukri is a light weapon, so you add half your strength damage, and then the +1 enchantment bonus.

[Cartigan]

Honestly... if you're bending rules already, why come here and ask for advice? Just bend them more without our input.
Would you like a soapbox?


We are not using an enchanted weapon. We are casting Shillelagh (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shillelagh.htm)on any old Quarterstaff, which costs 0gp

Ed: Link
Sure, if you never want to get more than the +1 from Shillelagh.

[Cartigan]

How do you get 2d4+20 damage ?
Kukri is a light weapon, so you add half your strength damage, and then the +1 enchantment bonus.
It's 1x Str primary hand; 0.5x Str off-hand; 1.5x Str two-hand (for most things).

Primary hand: +1 [enhancement] + 5 [Str] + 4 [FE:Giant], that's 2d4+20 on a crit.
Off-hand: +1 [enhancement] + 2 [Str] + 4 [FE:Giant], 2d4+14

[gbprime]

Would you like a soapbox?

Nah. I'm good.



Sure, if you never want to get more than the +1 from Shillelagh.

+1... and the bonus 1d6 you get from the weapon being considered 2 categories larger.

Throw an enlarge person spell on top of that (potions of that are CHEAP) and you're doing 3d6 base damage (plus 1, plus 1.5 times str). That doesn't cross the overpowered line, does it?

[Cartigan]

How do you get 2d4+20 damage ?
Kukri is a light weapon, so you add half your strength damage, and then the +1 enchantment bonus.
It's 1x Str primary hand; 0.5x Str off-hand; 1.5x Str two-hand (for most things).

Primary hand: +1 [enhancement] + 5 [Str] + 4 [FE:Giant], that's 2d4+20 on a crit.
Off-hand: +1 [enhancement] + 2 [Str] + 4 [FE:Giant], 2d4+14

[Cartigan]

+1... and the bonus 1d6 you get from the weapon being considered 2 categories larger.
I guess that means it counts as a +2 weapon 3/day. Then what happens when you want to actually improve it? It costs money. Twice as much money.

[gbprime]

It's 1x Str primary hand; 0.5x Str off-hand; 1.5x Str two-hand (for most things).

Primary hand: +1 [enhancement] + 5 [Str] + 4 [FE:Giant], that's 2d4+20 on a crit.
Off-hand: +1 [enhancement] + 2 [Str] + 4 [FE:Giant], 2d4+14

Sure, but the aforementioned quarterstaff plus Enlarge Person is doing...

3d6 + 7 (str) + 1 (enchantment) + 4 (FE) = 3d6+12 on a normal hit.

Thats average of 23 on a normal hit. The kukris are doing 25 on a CRIT... 13 normally.

Quarterstaff + spells wins.

[nedz]

And then you spend the free feat on Power Attack

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Ineffectual Bard/Rogue
Pathfinder Sorcerer who likes evocation
3.5 Druid
Munchkin Cleric

- by the Munchkin Cleric.


I was looking for something a bit less obviously "munchkin."


A charger build mounted on a giant eagle/pegasus cohort with class levels is pretty munchkin for core, short of being a Druid.


Because he's a munchkin player. He's basically single-handedly the reason we are playing core only.

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/2/6/129099886145036139.jpg
I've tried to illustrate for you that powerful =/= munchkin. I've pointed out that our good but not necessarily powerful suggestions give a lot of role playing opportunities, and you called those suggestions munchkin. If one character was carrying the rest of the party then I'd say that's the rest of the party's fault for being dead weight, but you seem to think capable = munchkin. A role playing game has two elements, the role playing element is probably what you and your DM are mostly focused on regardless of whether or not anyone in the group is even good at it, and the game element which involves the rules and characters' capabilities. These two elements are not exclusive of each other, you can know the rules and know how to build and play a capable and even powerful character, and still be the best role player at the table. A person who focuses on the game element and being powerful to the exclusion of the role playing elements can be called a munchkin.
{Scrubbed}

[nedz]

Actually Enlarge Person gives you a +2 size modifier to Strength, as well as Reach.

[gbprime]

Actually Enlarge Person gives you a +2 size modifier to Strength, as well as Reach.

Ah, so it does. Okay, that's another +2 damage for the quarterstaff on a normal hit. And reach, which I forgot to advertise.

[Cartigan]

I've tried to illustrate for you that powerful =/= munchkin.
You've failed because you are obviously defining it differently here.


I've pointed out that our good but not necessarily powerful suggestions give a lot of role playing opportunities,
I care jack all about role-playing opportunities. But that won't stop the GM not allowing me to take stuff because it doesn't fit in the setting.


and you called those suggestions munchkin.
Giant Eagle Cleric riding Fighter.


If one character was carrying the rest of the party then I'd say that's the rest of the party's fault for being dead weight, but you seem to think capable = munchkin.
No, I think Crusader/Sorcerer/Druid/Abjurant Champion/Arcane Heirophant/a-few-other-things-I-forgot is Munchkin.


A role playing game has two elements, the role playing element is probably what you and your DM are mostly focused on
No, it's not. We are being limited simply so the DM doesn't have to perform any work on the adventure to keep it challenging.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
'Cheating' along a single avenue that both logically should exist and is in line with what has been allowed.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
Yes, I will keep "cheating" instead of asking if the DM will allow X, Y, Z feat, alternate class trait, and prestige class from another book. Or otherwise building something that the DM won't allow that is "core."

[Cartigan]

Ah, so it does. Okay, that's another +2 damage for the quarterstaff on a normal hit. And reach, which I forgot to advertise.

No, that's a +1 instead of the +2. Plus, the entire point is the crit versus the normal damage. The point is to define the damage output potential of the 3d6+11 20/x2 Quarterstaff vs the 1d6+11 15-20/x2 Kukri.

[gbprime]

Yes, I will keep "cheating" instead of asking if the DM will allow X, Y, Z feat, alternate class trait, and prestige class from another book. Or otherwise building something that the DM won't allow that is "core."

You... uh... just implied that the DM will allow you to cheat, but won't allow you to open another official WotC book, and that somehow cheating is the lesser of two evils here. :smalleek:

[gbprime]

No, that's a +1 instead of the +2.

No, not with a 2-handed weapon it isn't. Do the math.

20 strength is +5. times 1.5 is +7.

22 strength is +6. times 1.5 is +9.

[Cartigan]

You... uh... just implied that the DM will allow you to cheat, but won't allow you to open another official WotC book, and that somehow cheating is the lesser of two evils here. :smalleek:
The DM has allowed me to make replacements that are on the same power level as what I already have. Like replacing the entire 3.5 Fighter class with the Pathfinder Fighter class. Or replacing the terrible Ranger animal companion with the ability from PHB II. I am just taking the Pathfinder FE bonus to hit which is the way it logically should work and adds no significant boost in power other than to make me 10-50% better at what the Ranger is actually supposed to do based on level.

Yes, the lesser of two evils here is breaking the rules instead of breaking the spirit of the rules.


No, not with a 2-handed weapon it isn't. Do the math.
Which you aren't wielding. You are wielding a dual-weapon: 1x Str main hand, 0.5x Str off-hand. You CAN wield it 2-handed, but then you are in a different debate entirely since we are talking about two-weapon fighting.

[gbprime]

The DM has allowed me to make replacements that are on the same power level as what I already have. Like replacing the entire 3.5 Fighter class with the Pathfinder Fighter class. Or replacing the terrible Ranger animal companion with the ability from PHB II. I am just taking the Pathfinder FE bonus to hit which is the way it logically should work and adds no significant boost in power other than to make me 10-50% better at what the Ranger is actually supposed to do based on level.

No significant boost in power other than boosting your power. :smallsigh:

I'm done here.

[Cartigan]

No significant boost in power other than boosting your power. :smallsigh:

I'm done here.

Boosting my to-hit against favored enemies. Outside favored enemies, it provides exactly zero benefit. Even against favored enemies, the power level doesn't increase notably.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Cheating is cheating. If you were to make a Conjurer and take Augment Summoning in place of Scribe Scroll because that's the logical choice that a specialist conjurer would make, without asking your DM to take an alternate class feature from outside of core, you would still be cheating. If you were lying about your dice rolls because it makes logical sense for your character to be hitting more often, you would still be cheating. If you 'forgot' to deduct the cost of a magic item from your character's gold so that you could get another good item later on, you would still be cheating. It doesn't make any difference how you try to justify it or if you even try to justify it at all. Cheating. Is. Cheating.

[Cartigan]

Cheating is cheating. If you were to make a Conjurer and take Augment Summoning in place of Scribe Scroll because that's the logical choice that a specialist conjurer would make, without asking your DM to take an alternate class feature from outside of core, you would still be cheating. If you were lying about your dice rolls because it makes logical sense for your character to be hitting more often, you would still be cheating. If you 'forgot' to deduct the cost of a magic item from your character's gold so that you could get another good item later on, you would still be cheating. It doesn't make any difference how you try to justify it or if you even try to justify it at all. Cheating. Is. Cheating.
Congratulations, you are a superior person. And have still been completely useless in this thread. You win and lose, good job.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

If you want a core-only tripper build, go with the Horizon Tripper (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80415).
That was the first mention of it in this thread.

I've said that's interesting. But what would the ability spread be?
This is actually your first response to that suggestion, you hadn't expressed any interest until several other people referred to it.

Congratulations, you are a superior person. And have still been completely useless in this thread. You win and lose, good job.
My other advice still stands, if you want to play a capable character then do so legitimately. {Scrubbed}

[Cartigan]

This is actually your first response to that suggestion, you hadn't expressed any interest until several other people referred to it.
I've seen it elsewhere. My problem is still the ability spread. Unlike disarming where I can get a 50-50 chance, tripping falls to a strength and size contest, which is a much harder win against giants. And I don't see the point of Combat Reflexes other than to waste a slot.


My other advice still stands, if you want to play a capable character then do so legitimately. {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
My 'cheating' still isn't even netting me a capable character. Obviously I am doing it wrong.

[Volthawk]

Not touching the cheating thing with a collapsible pole...


I've seen it elsewhere. My problem is still the ability spread. Unlike disarming where I can get a 50-50 chance, tripping falls to a strength and size contest, which is a much harder win against giants. And I don't see the point of Combat Reflexes other than to waste a slot.


Well, disarming doesn't work against all the enemies out there that use natural weapons or use spells (or SLAs and similar).

As for Combat Reflexes, it gives you more attacks of opportunity, which you can use to trip your opponents. And then you get another attack of opportunity when they're getting up again. See how the extra AoOs are handy?

[nedz]

My 'cheating' still isn't even netting me a capable character. Obviously I am doing it wrong.

Incidently the Shillaleagh Druid/Ranger build is somewhat mediocre, and yet it still outperforms your "uber kukri munchkin". You have a lot to learn, in so many ways.

I think I'm done here.

[Cartigan]

Well, disarming doesn't work against all the enemies out there that use natural weapons or use spells (or SLAs and similar).
Indeed it doesn't, which is why I was also sticking in tripping.


As for Combat Reflexes, it gives you more attacks of opportunity, which you can use to trip your opponents.
I know what it's for but is 1 extra AoO worth a feat slot you could use for something else?


Incidently the Shillaleagh Druid/Ranger build is somewhat mediocre, and yet it still outperforms your "uber kukri munchkin". You have a lot to learn, in so many ways.

I think I'm done here.
You haven't shown any sort of mathematical progression to prove the Shillelagh is better than the dual Kukris. Yes, the straight math nets you an extra 7 damage average around. If critical hits are never factored in.

[Draz74]

Incidentally ... Giants are infamous for having pitiful Armor Class for their CR. If most of the characters in this campaign are Giants (hence your hesitation about Horizon Tripper), why do you need an illegally-imported attack bonus from Pathfinder in order to hit them reliably? Shouldn't any full-BAB character be hitting with an extremely large percentage of his attacks anyway, against such low ACs?

Put this together with your DM's closed-mindedness and your odd opinion that cheating is OK, and I'm starting to suspect that your DM, too, is probably cheating (with the Giants' ACs, if not more). Odd how the game falls apart when both sides of the screen artificially inflate their characters' numbers as much as they want ...

</epiplectic tree>

[Cartigan]

Because the game progressed beyond giants. This is just this book.

The giants are easy to hit relatively (except the mage had decent AC). The person the Druid was complaining about was a lamia.

Are you sure you all don't want soapboxes or anything so you can stand around and preach how much better you are and can make baseless assertions about the game that you basically make up on the spot?

[Doc Roc]

Whoop boy....

Let's try another build, shall we?
How about UMD rogue?

Or maybe dragon disciple barbarian beats?

I _can_ make a competent core archer for you.

Idea! Why don't you tell us what you want, in fuller terms, and we can just start over from there.

[Cartigan]

Since we already have proposed builds for a TWF Ranger and mounted character then, why not see what can be done with a ranged Ranger or Dragon Disciple. I've been thinking about running a Dragon Disciple [let's say Silver] for a while (though the 3.5 one makes my head hurt). I might as well have a new character for every time I get smashed when we meet a boss.

[The Glyphstone]

The mistake people make with a Dragon Disciple is thinking it's a caster class. It isn't...notably, because it gets no casting progression (as you've assuredly noticed). You're supposed to take a few levels of Sorcerer (4 is typical), then something fighty like Barbarian until you qualify for DD. That gets you a huge pile of low-level slots you spend on buffing yourself while still laying down the hurt with DD's physical stat boosts.

Sorcerer 4/Barbarian 4/Silver Dragon Disciple 10/Barbarian 2, in that order, gives an extremely resilient and fairly beefy character - you only get one 2nd level spell though, so pick it wisely.

[Doc Roc]

I never mentioned ranger for the archer build.

[The Rabbler]

Idea! Why don't you tell us what you want, in fuller terms, and we can just start over from there.

Your patience is amazing. I salute you.

[Doc Roc]

Your patience is amazing. I salute you.

There is no one who is undeserving of patience.

[averagejoe]

The Mod They Call Me: This thread seems to have largely devolved into insults and off topic conversations. I appreciate the efforts of those who have tried to keep things on-topic and civil, but even so, thread locked.