Educating a DM

[Kalaska'Agathas]

So I've been asked by a DM to join his game, but with a specific purpose in mind: he wants me to prove, to him, the Stormwind Fallacy. He has previously acknowledged me for my roleplaying ability, so I do think I'll be able to convince him that a well optimized character and a well played character are not mutually exclusive. We'll be using the SRD (d20srd.org) and no other sources, but no Gestalt, no generic classes, and no Psionics. Other than that, everything is available.

I asked him if playing a Druid 20 would be acceptable. The party as it stands are a Human Monk, a Dwarf Barbarian, and an Elf Ranger, and he said that a Druid would be a fine fit.

I figure that I'll either be a Human, an Elf (possibly a Grey Elf, or a Wild Elf), or ideally an Aasimar for race (we'll be using LA buy off). Which do you think is optimal?

We're using a 32 point buy - what should my allocations be? I figure Wis>Con>Int>Cha>Dex>Str - would you agree?

I need recommendations for Animal Companions throughout the levels (remember, I'm limited to the SRD only) - have you got any?

What feats ought I take beyond Natural Spell and Power Attack (if my Str is above 13)?

I'd like to focus more on BFC and ripping it up in mêlée with Wildshape than conjuring, if that's possible.

Finally, yes, I have read the Druid's Handbook (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1354.0), and do remember that I'm limited to the SRD only.

Thanks!

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Bears are pretty solid for their levels, as far as SRD stuffs go. With 32 point buy, because of wildshape, you can legitimately go 18 WIS 18 CON 8s in the rest, using wildshape as the need arises. Use a necklace of communication to talk while a bear or something else.

Spells should be things that control the battlefield or buff you and your animal pal.

[Falin]

Well this is just my oppinion, but unless you want to do allot of animal taming CHA should always be last, and I'm not too familiar with a druids ability needs. But if you want to be op, dex should probably be higher than that. Probably before int. Just my two cents.

[Tvtyrant]

Pick an animal and be obsessed with it :P If you go with cats get a cat animal companion and take the Dire Tiger form for shifting into. This gets you Pounce and a legitimate character reason for it.

Or birds/Eagle/Dire Eagle with Call Lightning stuff.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

I figure I can have a higher Int and Cha than Dex and Str since I'm not going to be making lots of AoOs and I'd like to have skill points and Cha for social skills, so I'm more useful out of combat. Wildshape will cover my mediocre physical scores, but not my mental scores, so why not make them high? That's partly why I want to go Aasimar, since it shores up my Cha and Wis so I don't have to spend so many points on those. It also means I can use martial weapons, but that's less important once I can Wildshape.

Also, we'll be starting at level three. If I go Aasimar I'll have bought off the LA. I've got standard wealth by level - what should I buy?

Edit: As far as focusing on one animal goes, what benefit does that give me?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Pick an animal and be obsessed with it :P If you go with cats get a cat animal companion and take the Dire Tiger form for shifting into. This gets you Pounce and a legitimate character reason for it.

Or birds/Eagle/Dire Eagle with Call Lightning stuff.

Kitty! Get the kitty!

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Kitty! Get the kitty!

While that may be an attractive choice from the "OMGSOOOCUTE" perspective, I'm looking for what is mechanically optimal. I can come up with an RP justification on my own.

[Hiro Protagonest]

While that may be an attractive choice from the "OMGSOOOCUTE" perspective, I'm looking for what is mechanically optimal. I can come up with an RP justification on my own.

A tiger or a leopard.

Edit: of course, if you want something really cool, get a lion, tiger, or rhino companion and focus on mounted combat.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

A tiger or a leopard.

That may be a good choice, they get pounce and rake right? What level are they available from (this is actually my first proper druid, just so you know, so I may have a lot of simple questions like this one)?

Edit:

Edit: of course, if you want something really cool, get a lion, tiger, or rhino companion and focus on mounted combat.

I could go Mounted Combat, but that would mean I couldn't use Wildshape, wouldn't it? And I'd like to make use of Wildshape.

[Falin]

I figure I can have a higher Int and Cha than Dex and Str since I'm not going to be making lots of AoOs and I'd like to have skill points and Cha for social skills, so I'm more useful out of combat. Wildshape will cover my mediocre physical scores, but not my mental scores, so why not make them high? That's partly why I want to go Aasimar, since it shores up my Cha and Wis so I don't have to spend so many points on those. It also means I can use martial weapons, but that's less important once I can Wildshape.

Dex also brings up your AC, now I don't think druids can use heavy armor, I don't have my books on me, but if not you'll need high dex to fill the gap.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Dex also brings up your AC, now I don't think druids can use heavy armor, I don't have my books on me, but if not you'll need high dex to fill the gap.

When I'm Wildshaped I'll have the creature I'm Wildshaped into's dex and natural armor, so I'm not so concerned about AC. Though I suppose I should be, I don't get Wildshape for another two levels.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Leopards are available at level 4, tigers and lions at 7.

[Tvtyrant]

Dire Lions at 8, Dire Tigers at 16. That is as big as the cats get (Large). The Dire Tiger has a strength score of 27, and is a pretty good form.

Other forms that work with the cat motiff are:
1.Cheetah at level 5, which doesn't do as much damage as the Leopard but it can make a 500 ft. charge once a day and can trip on any hit. Basically turns you into a ranged weapon.
2. Cat gets you stealth (no one suspects a cat) higher AC and some skill bonuses. Good for spying.
3. If you get access to MMII (I know you said core) you can get the Legendary Animals, which are better then Dire ones.

[AslanCross]

I can't give much input on the optimization, but honestly, the Stormwind Fallacy is simply an RPG-specific version of a False Dichotomy. It's not as much a problem with the game design as it is a problem with logic. Why does this even need to be proven with a real character in a real game?

[ericgrau]

Given the limitations posed by the DM it does seem like a fairly trivial issue to prove. Though I'll note that they can be mutually exclusive once optimization approaches silliness levels or it is possible for some players to spend so much thought on one that they exclude the other. Again not likely for the OP.

[KillianHawkeye]

I can't give much input on the optimization, but honestly, the Stormwind Fallacy is simply an RPG-specific version of a False Dichotomy. It's not as much a problem with the game design as it is a problem with logic. Why does this even need to be proven with a real character in a real game?

That's what I was wondering. :smallconfused:

[Godskook]

I figure that I'll either be a Human, an Elf (possibly a Grey Elf, or a Wild Elf), or ideally an Aasimar for race (we'll be using LA buy off). Which do you think is optimal?

In a game with buy-off, Aasimar is pretty much superior to anything +0 LA unless you're starting below level 3, and then there's a mild payoff period.


We're using a 32 point buy - what should my allocations be? I figure Wis>Con>Int>Cha>Dex>Str - would you agree?

Assuming:
1.Your DM is running 'by the book'
2.You're starting high enough to handle the dump

Wis - 18
Con - 14+
Str/Dex - 8

That gives you 10 points to distribute between Cha, Int, and bumping your Con to 16. Your choice entirely on how you play that, but for strict optimization, a high level druid just doesn't even bother coming out of his wildshape form.


I need recommendations for Animal Companions throughout the levels (remember, I'm limited to the SRD only) - have you got any?

Wolf is a great low-level companion


What feats ought I take beyond Natural Spell and Power Attack (if my Str is above 13)?

You can take power attack by buying your belt of giants strength. You don't actually need to have a base score that high.

Other than that, multiattack is pretty much a must. The improved version is more lackluster, but is still valid and viable. Heighten and Quicken are both great metamagics for you, especially since Entangle is a pidly 1st level spell.


I'd like to focus more on BFC and ripping it up in mêlée with Wildshape than conjuring, if that's possible.

Then Heighten spell + Entangle is your first go-to, giving you a great feat choice to boot.

[Gurgeh]

You can take power attack by buying your belt of giants strength. You don't actually need to have a base score that high.
No, you cannot. Boosts from equipment or temporary buff spells never entitle you to any feats or class features that would otherwise be inaccessible to you.

[Divide by Zero]

No, you cannot. Boosts from equipment or temporary buff spells never entitle you to any feats or class features that would otherwise be inaccessible to you.

[citation needed]

[Godskook]

No, you cannot. Boosts from equipment or temporary buff spells never entitle you to any feats or class features that would otherwise be inaccessible to you.

Prove it, cause I *KNOW* I can show non-core examples of where you're explicitly wrong.

[Gurgeh]

Well, I guess you've got me there. I suppose I just assumed that something so overtly cheesy would have been accounted for in the rules. I wouldn't allow it as a DM, but RAW has nothing to say on the subject - so go nuts, I suppose.

[Divide by Zero]

Well, I guess you've got me there. I suppose I just assumed that something so overtly cheesy would have been accounted for in the rules. I wouldn't allow it as a DM, but RAW has nothing to say on the subject - so go nuts, I suppose.

Quite the opposite - the rules explicitly say it works. The trade-off is that if you lose access to whatever increased your score, you lose the benefit of the feat until you can bring it back up.

[Gurgeh]

When do the rules say it works? The SRD mentions that A character can’t use a feat if he or she has lost a prerequisite, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#prerequisites) but that doesn't necessarily imply that temporary boosts would have entitled them in the first place; it's just as likely to be addressing temporary or permanent ability score loss/drain/damage/penalties or changes of alignment.

I don't mean to say that you're wrong here: I'm genuinely curious. I wouldn't interpret that phrase to endorse temporary-boosts-as-qualification; is there another section that outright says you're entitled to do that?

If so, where are the limits? Would you say that Tenser's Transformation entitles a single-classed wizard to multiclass to Eldritch Knight because the spell makes them (temporarily) proficient with all simple and martial weapons?

[Rhaegar14]

I think it's more based off of semi-permanent increases; for instance, a Belt of Giant Strength.

[Godskook]

For non-core, Complete Warrior, page 16.

As for core, I can't find an example, but I can quote our resident RAW expert, Curmudgeon:


You're looking for a special rule that doesn't (need to) exist. If you qualify for a feat, you qualify for a feat. There's no special rule that says you need to qualify without inherent ability boosts, say, to make the 13 STR requirement for Power Attack. The same goes for bonuses from race, from class abilities, from spells, and from magic items. You just need to meet the requirements. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9130907&postcount=43)

The issue with temporary buffs that doesn't come up with magic items is that of "when, exactly, do I level up". With a magic item of +str, it doesn't matter, since the effect is persistent. With buffs, especially rounds/level spells, you're unlikely to be under their effect at the time of leveling, but that depends on how your DM rules.

[Boci]

If so, where are the limits? Would you say that Tenser's Transformation entitles a single-classed wizard to multiclass to Eldritch Knight because the spell makes them (temporarily) proficient with all simple and martial weapons?

Yes it does, but as soon as the spell ware off they no longer qualify and thus gain no benefit for any EK levels.

[Godskook]

Yes it does, but as soon as the spell ware off they no longer qualify and thus gain no benefit for any EK levels.

Um, no, don't violate primary source rules. Prestige classes in the DMG are not subject to rules printed in the complete series.

[Boci]

Um, no, don't violate primary source rules. Prestige classes in the DMG are not subject to rules printed in the complete series.

Same principle no, you need to meet the requirements, it doesn't say how? I can't see any text that says otherwise.

[Godskook]

Same principle no, you need to meet the requirements, it doesn't say how? I can't see any text that says otherwise.

Nope. Feats 'stop' working cause the game explicitly says they do in core. Nothing in core says anything about prestige classes 'stopping', so they don't.

[Boci]

Nope. Feats 'stop' working cause the game explicitly says they do in core. Nothing in core says anything about prestige classes 'stopping', so they don't.

It was later clarified they do in. Core rules can be changed, and Complete Warrior does.

[Godskook]

It was later clarified they do in. Core rules can be changed, and Complete Warrior does.

See previous post about primary source rules. Only errata can 'clarify' core rules. WotC explicitly made 'stealth' nerfs against the rules of 3.5.

[Boci]

See previous post about primary source rules. Only errata can 'clarify' core rules. WotC explicitly made 'stealth' nerfs against the rules of 3.5.

Nothing in core says they continue to work either. Where does it say splat cannot clarify core?

[Gurgeh]

For non-core, Complete Warrior, page 16.
I'm away from my sourcebooks at the moment, but I'll check it out when I get home - thanks!

I didn't mean my EK example to be taken entirely seriously; the question of "when does the level-up happen", and the related issues it raises, seems to hit it on the head.

But a thought experiment: if you did somehow get into Eldritch Knight and then lost the "proficiency with all martial weapons" that you used to qualify, I don't think it would make you lose the benefits of the class. Consider the (alignment) restricted base classes and the penalties they suffer when you no longer qualify for them:

Barbarian [become lawful]: lose rage, cannot advance without becoming nonlawful again.
Bard [become lawful]: retain all abilities, cannot advance without becoming nonlawful again.
Cleric ["grossly violate code of conduct"]: lose all spellcasting and class features save proficiencies, cannot advance without either finding a new deity or by use of atonement.
Druid [prohibited alignment, cease revering nature, teach druidic to an outsider]: as Cleric.
Monk [become nonlawful]: retain all abilities, cannot advance without becoming lawful again (and only if the monk doesn't multiclass in the process)
Paladin [grossly violate code of conduct, wilfully commit an evil act, cease to be lawful good]: Lose all spellcasting and class features save proficiencies, cannot advance without atonement. Same multiclass restrictions as the Monk.

All of those classes have explicit guidelines for no longer qualifying to continue as a member of the class. Most prestige classes don't have any of those restrictions; like the fighter, wizard, rogue, etc, there's no way to become an "ex-eldritch knight" like there is for paladins or the like. Prestige classes that do have disqualification conditions (for instance, the Knight Protector or the Eye of Gruumsh) explicitly list them in the same fashion as the Paladin.

So while I can't envision the circumstances under which someone might cheese their way into EK without taking a level in fighter/paladin/swashbuckler/warblade/whatever for the proficiencies, I also wouldn't say that any EK who loses their proficiencies would lose their class abilities. They wouldn't be able to progress any further without regaining them, but they'd be able to keep what they'd gotten to that point.

[Godskook]

Nothing in core says they continue to work either. Where does it say splat cannot clarify core?

1.The errata to all 3 of the core books state this.

2.Nothing in the rules state that "players can breath after play begins", but gosh darnit, I just don't have the heart to stop them from doing just that. You're going to have to do better than insisting that the absence of a clarification* implies the opposite rule.

*The rules *DO* explicitly say that you gain the benefits of the prestige class, and outline more precisely than given here what that means. The rules also explicitly do the same for feats, but provide an additional rule for losing access to a feat. Since there is no corresponding rule for prestige classes, prestige classes don't lose there features. Wording indicating such would only exist as clarification, since as printed, the rules don't need that clarification to arrive at the conclusion.

[Boci]

1.The errata to all 3 of the core books state this.

Just checked, the exact wording is "When you find a disagreement", not that splat cannot clarify RAW.


2.Nothing in the rules state that "players can breath after play begins", but gosh darnit, I just don't have the heart to stop them from doing just that. You're going to have to do better than insisting that the absence of a clarification* implies the opposite rule.

I was just pointing out the lack of rules in core on the subject.


*The rules *DO* explicitly say that you gain the benefits of the prestige class, and outline more precisely than given here what that means.

And then don't mention the issue of what happens when you lose requirements, ergo its not contradicted by the splat book and thus there is nothing for the primary source to overrule.

[Godskook]

Just checked, the exact wording is "When you find a disagreement", not that splat cannot clarify RAW.

And then don't mention the issue of what happens when you lose requirements, ergo its not contradicted by the splat book and thus there is nothing for the primary source to overrule.

1.Core: "This is how prestige classes work"

2.Splat: "Prestige classes work differently"

3.Numbers 1 and 2 disagree, ergo, 1 takes precedent.

'Course, there's also the famous example of Dragon Disciple, and how the Complete's rule on prestige classes would just utterly break the class in half.


I was just pointing out the lack of rules in core on the subject.

Except the burden of proof is on you. You've demonstrated nothing that indicates that prestige classes lose their abilities in core.

Me? I've already established that there's a blatant difference in language between prestige classes and feats in core. For feats, it explicitly says that the benefits of feats are lost when you don't meet their requirements.

I can also establish that core prestige classes don't even *WORK* with this splat-rule, in that if we applied that rule to Dragon Disciple, the capstone would function only to remove all class features of the prestige class.

[Boci]

1.Core: "This is how prestige classes work"

2.Splat: "Prestige classes work differently"

3.Numbers 1 and 2 disagree, ergo, 1 takes precedent.

Quote me the exact text in core that complete warrior disagrees with, because from where I'm standing, core doesn't have any text on the issue, therefor there cannot be a disagreement.


'Course, there's also the famous example of Dragon Disciple, and how the Complete's rule on prestige classes would just utterly break the class in half.

Yes, but its funny to talk about and one would hope the DM can handle an exception.

[KillianHawkeye]

Yes, but its funny to talk about and one would hope the DM can handle an exception.

There is no exception necessary because there is no rule that is being violated.

The simple fact is that no transformational prestige classes would function if the text about losing access to prestige class features from C.Arcane/C.Warrior were applied to all prestige classes across the board. Therefore, at best that text is only valid within the scope of the books where it is present.

[Boci]

Therefore, at best that text is only valid within the scope of the books where it is present.

No it isn't. It refers to PrCs in general.

[Godskook]

Well here's Curmudgeon's take on it, Boci:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2255178&postcount=12
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10254709&postcount=11

And finally, this is all offtopic, since CW and CA are not valid rulebooks in regards to this thread, and their rules don't exist anywhere in core.

[SPoilaaja]

You can also make an older character for bonus in mentals and minus in physicals

[Boci]

Well here's Curmudgeon's take on it, Boci:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2255178&postcount=12
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10254709&postcount=11

And finally, this is all offtopic, since CW and CA are not valid rulebooks in regards to this thread, and their rules don't exist anywhere in core.

In both the quotes you linked to, Curmudgeon says RAW doesn't make sense, but that doesn't change the fact that the rules are that if you lose the requirements for a PrC, you lose the abilities.
As for RAI, I think losing requirements to a PrC is a rare enough event that a DM should consider the circumstances.
And I think that closes the issue.

[NecroRick]

Much as I love a good flamewar involving the whole core books cannot be updated, changed, renewed, revised, folded, spindled or mutilated†... is it even relevant? The list of prestige classes in SRD is... short.

(Though the funniest one IMHO would be a character side-slipping into Arcane Trickster via the dead elf hand that lets you cast Mage Hand, and he loses a bunch of levels if he loses that crappy low level magic item...)

Going back to the original post - I think in order to remain true to the challenge, you have to look at the Stormwind Fallacy

Now, the Stormwind Fallacy (my summary) is this: that a player can have a fully optimised character, that is also fun to play.

And the natural inclination of everyone reading that is going to be "of course that is true, because I optimise my character, and I also have fun".

However, in order to disprove this, I think you need to take a scientific approach. Go balls to the wall (as it were) on your optimisation, and then see if _everyone_ at the table is still having fun.

Because the scientific approach os to propose a hypothesis, and then do everything you can to disprove that hypothesis.

So here's what I think you need to do:
Optimise your character to the degree that there isn't any point in any other member of the party talking to NPCs because your bonuses are much higher than theirs.
Optimise your character to the degree that there isn't any point in the fighter or monk doing any fighting in combat.
etc.

Essentially, you need to take a Tier 1 character, turn all the dials to maximum, and... if the Tier system isn't a mass delusion, then you will make the other members of the party obsolete.

Now, having done that... measure the net amount of fun of _everyone_ at the table.

When it is restated that way... the obviousness of the answer seems (to me) to shift. All of a sudden if you restate it in terms of optimising to the point of making other characters obsolete (which conventional wisdom regarding the Tier system suggests is trivial for a Tier 1 character) then it is pretty easy to imagine that all the fifth wheels at the table will stop 'having fun'.

If every answer to every problem is simply "the mage casts a spell"... then surely boredom will set in? (That is, boredom for the other players, _you_ might be having a whale of a time)

So you might say, okay, we'll just optimise it to a certain point, and then no more. But then isn't that a tacit admission that the Stormwind Fallacy is itself wrong?

By not pushing the optimisation to the limit, you're implying the DM is correct.

†Actually, I see a heck of a lot of spindling and mutilation round here :D

[Heliomance]

That's not the Stormwind Fallacy. The Stormwind Fallacy, which, being a fallacy, is false by definition, is that optimisation and roleplay are mutually exclusive.

[huttj509]

Going back to the original post - I think in order to remain true to the challenge, you have to look at the Stormwind Fallacy

Now, the Stormwind Fallacy (my summary) is this: that a player can have a fully optimised character, that is also fun to play.





Originally Posted by Tempest Stormwind
Tempest Stormwind
05-15-06, 03:58 PM
I still stand by the argument that this is a fundamental difference between old school (basic D&D: 1 race/class, AD&D: very limted multi-classing) vrs new school (I buy a book and there is a class in their and I want it gimmie gimmie). The trend I see is old school = roleplayers, new school = optomizers.

Note to New school people: Don't listen to what you hear, you aren't a dork if you roleplay. It is ok to indulge in what D&D is all about, roleplay. If you try it and have a good DM, I guarantee you'll have a blast and won't care so much about optomizing.
Okay, that's it.

I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')

Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

How does this impact "builds"? Simple.

In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.

In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.

By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.

And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).

Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.

Quote obtained from someone else quoting it, couldn't find original.

The Stormwind fallacy is not about having fun, per se, or overshadowing other characters. It is about roleplaying the character, and the pervasive idea that if you have a strong, well built character, you're not (or cannot) roleplaying, and that better roleplayed characters are necessarily mechanically weaker.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

I can't give much input on the optimization, but honestly, the Stormwind Fallacy is simply an RPG-specific version of a False Dichotomy. It's not as much a problem with the game design as it is a problem with logic. Why does this even need to be proven with a real character in a real game?

Because if I frame it in terms of "RPG issue" rather than "Issue with your (i.e. the DM's) Logic" I am more likely to convince him of my position. I'm just trying to be diplomatic.

As far as stats go - the DM has changed it to rolling for stats. I busted out my trusty Shadowrun dice and rolled away. I ended up with: 18, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14. I figure that leaves me with:
Str: 14
Dex: 15
Con: 18
Int: 17
Wis: 18 (+2 Aasimar)
Cha: 16 (+2 Aasimar)

The DM also decided we'd start at level four rather than three, and he's house ruled stat increases to be a plus one to two stats, so I'm putting mine in Dex and Int (I know, I should focus on Wis and Con, but having the full 18 and 16 gives me more benefit now - there'll be other stat increases for Wis/Con).

For my feat distribution, I figure the following:
1st level: ??? (Extend Spell perhaps?)
Flaw 1 (Murky Eyed): ???
Flaw 2 (Any Suggestions?): ???
3rd level: Power Attack
6th level: Natural Spell
9th level: Heighten Spell
12th level: ??? (Multiattack perhaps?)
15th level: ???
18th level: ???

So that's six feats I need to figure out what to do with.

As we're starting at level four, I have 5,400 GP to spend - what ought I spend it on?

As to the issue of PrCs and prerequisites and language in the Completes - I fail to see how that is relevant here, as we are limited to the rules presented in the SRD. If you wish to continue that discussion, please take it elsewhere.

[Divide by Zero]

Hard to go wrong with Spell Focus (Conjuration) and Augment Summoning.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Ok, I'll consider those, though I'd rather not go the full on summoner route. It tends to bog down combat. Any other suggestions?

[ShriekingDrake]

Hard to go wrong with Spell Focus (Conjuration) and Augment Summoning.

Since you only get feats from the SRD, I would definitely take these two. If you'd rather not bog down melee, then don't fight yourself and cast spells that will aid your companions.

Other feats to consider...
Multiattack
Improved Multiattack
Improved Natural Attack
Extend Spell
Quicken Spell
Improved Initiative
Leadership (but don't)
Blindfight

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Since you only get feats from the SRD, I would definitely take these two. If you'd rather not bog down melee, then don't fight yourself and cast spells that will aid your companions.

Other feats to consider...
Multiattack
Improved Multiattack
Improved Natural Attack
Extend Spell
Quicken Spell
Improved Initiative
Leadership (but don't)
Blindfight

Conjuration would bog down melee much more than myself and my AC going in, wouldn't it? And I get all of those feats, and will probably select most of them when I play this guy, but why Blindfight?

[Geigan]

If you're proving the Stormwind Fallacy I'm curious as to the theme of your character. Backstory, personality, etc? Proving that you can RP is just as important as your optimization skill in this demonstration.

[Tvtyrant]

Have you considered going Shillelagh quarterstaff? You would do a lot of damage in melee without any costs, and then just dump it when you get wildshape.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Have you considered going Shillelagh quarterstaff? You would do a lot of damage in melee without any costs, and then just dump it when you get wildshape.

Or Wildshape into a Dire Ape (accessible at the level Wildshape comes online) and smash heads with you staff and your whooping 22 str.:smallcool:

[Tvtyrant]

Or Wildshape into a Dire Ape (accessible at the level Wildshape comes online) and smash heads with you staff and your whooping 22 str.:smallcool:

DO THIS. I support this with every fiber of my soul. My soul has more fiber then broccoli and spinach combined!

[Kalaska'Agathas]

If you're proving the Stormwind Fallacy I'm curious as to the theme of your character. Backstory, personality, etc? Proving that you can RP is just as important as your optimization skill in this demonstration.

I'll build the character mechanically first, then from a thematic perspective. That's backwards to how I usually do it, but a valid way to play, I think.



Have you considered going Shillelagh quarterstaff? You would do a lot of damage in melee without any costs, and then just dump it when you get wildshape.

Or Wildshape into a Dire Ape (accessible at the level Wildshape comes online) and smash heads with you staff and your whooping 22 str.:smallcool:

I hadn't considered it. That seems a good way to go, perhaps.

[Warlawk]

As far as stats go - the DM has changed it to rolling for stats. I busted out my trusty Shadowrun dice and rolled away. I ended up with: 18, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14. I figure that leaves me with:
Str: 14
Dex: 15
Con: 18
Int: 17
Wis: 18 (+2 Aasimar)
Cha: 16 (+2 Aasimar)

The DM also decided we'd start at level four rather than three, and he's house ruled stat increases to be a plus one to two stats, so I'm putting mine in Dex and Int (I know, I should focus on Wis and Con, but having the full 18 and 16 gives me more benefit now - there'll be other stat increases for Wis/Con).


If you're looking at this strictly for optimization

Str: 14
Dex: 15 [+1 at 4]
Con: 18
Int: 18
Wis: 17 (+2 Aasimar) [+1 at 4]
Cha: 16 (+2 Aasimar)

Will give you the exact same effective stats at the start of play, but you will have more skill points due to having 18 int for levels 1 to 3.

I'm not real up on my druid optimization though, so I don't have a lot to add other than that little point.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

If you're looking at this strictly for optimization

Str: 14
Dex: 15 [+1 at 4]
Con: 18
Int: 18
Wis: 17 (+2 Aasimar) [+1 at 4]
Cha: 16 (+2 Aasimar)

Will give you the exact same effective stats at the start of play, but you will have more skill points due to having 18 int for levels 1 to 3.

I'm not real up on my druid optimization though, so I don't have a lot to add other than that little point.

Good call there. Consider it changed.

[Godskook]

I'll build the character mechanically first, then from a thematic perspective. That's backwards to how I usually do it, but a valid way to play, I think.

I build all my characters that way.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

I build all my characters that way.

Like I said, valid way to play. I tend to come up with a character and then try and puzzle out how they'll do what I want them to do, but in this case what I want them to do is "Druid 20, as hard as possible, SRD only" so that means approaching it from a different direction.

[Geigan]

Like I said, valid way to play. I tend to come up with a character and then try and puzzle out how they'll do what I want them to do, but in this case what I want them to do is "Druid 20, as hard as possible, SRD only" so that means approaching it from a different direction.
Definitely valid.

+1 for the Ape with a stick route. Be the Monkey King from Journey to the West.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Definitely valid.

+1 for the Ape with a stick route. Be the Monkey King from Journey to the West.

Hmm, a trickster Druid - that's not something I'd considered. But that could be a lot of fun to play...I'll think about it.

[Knaight]

Am I the only one who is reminded of the picture below by "Ape Druid with a stick?"
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-R9qf7W4-TpA/TXVMa4d2e4I/AAAAAAAAAmY/5k7gvB9fuq8/s1600/RafikisWords.jpg

[Dusk Eclipse]

Am I the only one who is reminded of the picture below by "Ape Druid with a stick?"
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-R9qf7W4-TpA/TXVMa4d2e4I/AAAAAAAAAmY/5k7gvB9fuq8/s1600/RafikisWords.jpg

Aren't Baboons monkeys? They have tails... and AFAIK Tail=monkey No-tail= Ape

[KillianHawkeye]

Aren't Baboons monkeys? They have tails... and AFAIK Tail=monkey No-tail= Ape

Whatever science may say on the subject, there are actually seperate stat blocks for baboons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/baboon.htm) and monkeys (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/monkey.htm).

[Gurgeh]

Baboons are monkeys - old world monkeys, to be precise. The "monkey" entry in the Monster Manual is for a particularly small variety of monkey; having "monkey" and "baboon" entries falls into line with having separate entries for housecats and each of the big cats.

EDIT: Of course, that's not even relevant to the image, because Rafiki is a mandrill. (Mandrills are also monkeys, for what it's worth)

[Kalaska'Agathas]

EDIT: Of course, that's not even relevant to the image, because Rafiki is a mandrill. (Mandrills are also monkeys, for what it's worth)

But would the Mandrill be a Monkey, or a Baboon, in D&D terms?

[Gurgeh]

Definitely the baboon statblock - perhaps altered with +2 strength or something like that. The mandrill is the biggest and strongest non-ape primate in the world, after all.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Wait, are you rolling a level 20 character, or is Druid 20 your build? If the former, all you need to know is Shapechange (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shapechange.htm) I don't care about your stats, or your feats. If the latter, the above advice (minus the rules arguments) generally works.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Wait, are you rolling a level 20 character, or is Druid 20 your build? If the former, all you need to know is Shapechange (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shapechange.htm) I don't care about your stats, or your feats. If the latter, the above advice (minus the rules arguments) generally works.


Starting at level four, rolling through to twenty (eventually).

[Hiro Protagonest]

Starting at level four, rolling through to twenty (eventually).

If you're starting at level 4, you can get a leopard (or panther, or any other medium sized cat that uses the leopard statblock) right from the start.