a better E6... mebbe check it out.

[Kenneth]

L1


its D&D and everybody is only ever level 1. same premise as E6, its just now everybody is level 1 and fights approtpiate monsters. this is basically what Middle Earth was.


case in point Boromir was a human fighter lvl 1 wiht a con of 14.
12 HP took 3 arrows to kill him at an average of 4 dmg per arrow!

so.. what do you think of this.. yeah D&D gets a bit more gritty. but now toughness is actually looking pretty sweet.

[Little Brother]

Illumian Cloistered Cleric 1
Feats: Heighten, Extra Turning, Extra Slot

Okay, I've got 8th level slots at level one. That was fun, everything has less of a chance than it would have in E6. Also, nobody likes Orcs one-shotting their characters. They will.

By the way, your math is off. These are Uruk-hai. So let's call them Water Orcs. They will have 2 STR composite longbows(Or at least the mooks with 14 str, not the Elite Array ones with 19 Str). Average, on an average Uruk-hai, will be 4.5+2. Now, if it took 3 arrows to kill him, he had closer to 20 than 12. If we're going by the book, he took "many," which is closer to 5+, which would make him closer to a level 4 or 5 Crusader with 14 con, which makes him closer to 35-40odd, if you figure in the delayed damage pool, which is closer to how he acted.

[Wyntonian]

I'd say that Middle Earth was more like E6 than just "Errybody's level 1". Talking about how "Aragorn slew many (orcs)", well, even if it's just your bog-standard CR 1/2 orc, that's incredibly impressive, even impossible (depending on your interpretation of "many", I assume it's about five or six, but whatever) for a level one character. Yes, the majority of the non-named characters would be around level 1, but for the PC's or equivalent protagonists, I'd still prefer E6, as it gives them the potential to grow a little bit more.

Look at the "Analyzing Aragorn" portion of this article (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html), it explains this exact topic a little more than I can.

Last note, it's better to not label things that are simply the fruit of your own half-baked imagination as "better" until you at least think it through pretty thoroughly. You might consider it better, but that's so subjective it's not even funny, and has led to more flame wars that I can to count. Plus, it's a little disrespectful to the concept of a leveled system and the other 19 levels of classes people have made for 3.5, both homebrew and canonical, to say that eliminating all but 5% of them would make it "better".

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

I see what you mean, but I'd at least up it to level 3 or something.

Also, it was only the movie in which Boromir was killed by three arrows. In the book, it was unspecified, but seemed to imply more than that.

If we are going by the movie though... Lurtz (Uruk-Hai guy) was wielding a composite shortbow, with a decent strength bonus... Probably +2 or +3 modifier. the average damage, not including any feats or special arrows would be 5.5 to 6.5 damage per arrow, average. thus... Boromir would have 16 to 19 HP, with .5 damage rounding up to 1 damage to cause Boromir to be at -1 HP, and thus dying.

Therefore, you would need more than just level 1, just looking at the math with the same parameters you used.

[Tvtyrant]

The old-timey characters from the Silmarillion do things like kill 70 Trolls in a battle (Hurin), kill a dragon in one hit (Turin), and fight Balrogs (Feanor, the entire population of Gondolin). The newer ones don't have quite that track record, but Gimli kills 42 orcs in a battle and Legolas kills 41.

The real problem with statting out characters from other media in D&D is that they do not progress the same way.

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

The old-timey characters from the Silmarillion do things like kill 70 Trolls in a battle (Hurin), kill a dragon in one hit (Turin), and fight Balrogs (Feanor, the entire population of Gondolin). The newer ones don't have quite that track record, but Gimli kills 42 orcs in a battle and Legolas kills 41.

The real problem with statting out characters from other media in D&D is that they do not progress the same way.

Very true, true again, and valid.

and yet, no one will ever stop trying to stat out Legolas, or Fingolfin, or Elrond. its the way of the RPG world. :smallamused:

[Kenneth]

{Scrubbed}

in 1st and 2nd ed you really did kill 70 orcs before you lvel to 2.. so.. yeah maybe i am just too focused on that 3rd ed exp is a much faster progression 4 fighs and POW you level or some such...

[lord pringle]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

in 1st and 2nd ed you really did kill 70 orcs before you lvel to 2.. so.. yeah maybe i am just too focused on that 3rd ed exp is a much faster progression 4 fighs and POW you level or some such...

I'm preeeety sure that quote was snark/sarcasm.

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

maybe its just my longing for the old days whne D&D felt like a grand epic tale and really

in 1st and 2nd ed you really did kill 70 orcs before you lvel to 2.. so.. yeah maybe i am just too focused on that 3rd ed exp is a much faster progression 4 fighs and POW you level or some such...

13.3 encounters/level, in theory in 3.5. I prefer a slower leveling as well, though.

a grand epic tale is how you tell the tale... however ,I too prefer a grittier setting, lower level, where a single arrow can ruin your day. That being said...
the people I play with like high level play. so, we try and compromise, try to make it epic via storytelling. Still wish they would play a damn E6 game with me though! XD

I would enjoy a classic, Tolkien-esque game of Pathfinder about now...

[Wyntonian]

Ok... I'll try to parse this out...

I believe that you're massively and deliberately misinterpreting things that people are saying to help forward the discussion.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I am under the impression that this was an attempt to falsely attribute a quote to someone who said nothing of the sort. Little Brother simply pointed out (correctly, by the way), that the power differentials still exist at 1st level.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Spurious capitalization, misspellings and other flaws aside, there's a flaw in your logic. LB CAN make a broken character. Not "will", CAN. There's a difference. I could fubar most all campaigns with a 1st level character, but because I value a "grand epic tale" as much as everyone else, including you, I won't. If you understood how to make a truly kickass character, but also how to dial it back to maintain the fun of the game, would you deliberately screw it up for everyone else? If you answer no, it's somewhat ridiculous to assume that everyone else will, simply by virtue of having those skills.


BUt idk.. maybe its just my longing for the old days whne D&D felt like a grand epic tale and really

Ok... I know that this violates every rule of collaborative gaming, but in my opinion, if you allow your level to keep you and your group from having an "grand epic tale" take place at your table, something's gone wrong. And it's not the game. There's nothing in the rules that says only powerful (by the standards of a board full of theoretical optimizers) or high-level characters get to have fun.

Lastly, I've yet to use the XP charts provided. My players level up when I feel it's appropriate.

[Kenneth]

{Scrubbed}

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

Ok... I know that this violates every rule of collaborative gaming, but in my opinion, if you allow your level to keep you and your group from having an "grand epic tale" take place at your table, something's gone wrong. And it's not the game. There's nothing in the rules that says only powerful (by the standards of a board full of theoretical optimizers) or high-level characters get to have fun.

Lastly, I've yet to use the XP charts provided. My players level up when I feel it's appropriate.

I think his point was that high level games DON'T feel epic... since you can literally take as much punishment as a real life tank before eating it... I think the OP wants to have that gritty, "we are small men against an insurmountable foe" feeling, that is easier by far to achieve at low levels... where if you do kill a dozen ordinary Orcs single-handedly, you are doing VERY well.

I agree about the XP charts.stopped using back in 3.0, haven't touched 'em since. feels a bit more... organic.

[Kenneth]

{Scrubbed}

[Kenneth]

I think his point was that high level games DON'T feel epic... since you can literally take as much punishment as a real life tank before eating it... I think the OP wants to have that gritty, "we are small men against an insurmountable foe" feeling, that is easier by far to achieve at low levels... where if you do kill a dozen ordinary Orcs single-handedly, you are doing VERY well.

I agree about the XP charts.stopped using back in 3.0, haven't touched 'em since. feels a bit more... organic.

Yes you are right about it not feeling epic... in relaity for me 3rd ed and other games based of its ruleset ( pahtfinder, concan d20 etc etc0 around id say 9th level it really don' tmatter what you do you are basically an unstoppabel juggernaut group of heroes.. unless you really screw teh pooch Or the DM is making it his goal to kill you in creative ways. and even then at 15th level death is a non issue.

with what characters have access to at that level and beyond is crazy.

[Menteith]

LB certainly doesn't need me to defend them, and this is going to take us offtopic really fast, but if you think that giving out good build advice is too much optimization on a forum that's primarily about build optimization, then you confuse me. Also, how is giving good advice a bad thing, again?

[NeoSeraphi]

LB certainly doesn't need me to defend them, and this is going to take us offtopic really fast, but if you think that giving out good build advice is too much optimization on a forum that's primarily about build optimization, then you confuse me. Also, how is giving good advice a bad thing, again?

To be fair, early entry tricks (especially ones involving the Illumian race) are often regarded as major cheese by players, even optimizers.

Good advice is solid and needed, especially on this board, but I usually don't post cheese unless the OP is asking for it by name.

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

Yes you are right about it not feeling epic... in relaity for me 3rd ed and other games based of its ruleset ( pahtfinder, concan d20 etc etc0 around id say 9th level it really don' tmatter what you do you are basically an unstoppabel juggernaut group of heroes.. unless you really screw teh pooch Or the DM is making it his goal to kill you in creative ways. and even then at 15th level death is a non issue.

with what characters have access to at that level and beyond is crazy.

agreed. I don't like to play beyond 12th level... I will, but with great power comes great responsibility. :)

still trying to figure out how to make an effective book Legolas-style switch hitter: a bow and a single knife, killing 41 orcs at level 6 or below though. :smallwink:

[Menteith]

To be fair, early entry tricks (especially ones involving the Illumian race) are often regarded as major cheese by players, even optimizers.

Good advice is solid and needed, especially on this board, but I usually don't post cheese unless the OP is asking for it by name.

"But if you're building a caster, you had damn well optimize it. And a gnome fighter is so far beyond terribad. It has no place on an optimization forum."

That is not an example of overoptimization. That is common sense. I read "But, basically, only chumps take three levels of classes to qualify. Far too inefficient." as humorous, and not that serious advice (if it's the thread I remember it being posted in).

[JadePhoenix]

To be fair, early entry tricks (especially ones involving the Illumian race) are often regarded as major cheese by players, even optimizers.

Good advice is solid and needed, especially on this board, but I usually don't post cheese unless the OP is asking for it by name.

Yeah, that's the reason I gave up on Little Brother's handbook.


agreed. I don't like to play beyond 12th level... I will, but with great power comes great responsibility. :)

still trying to figure out how to make an effective book Legolas-style switch hitter: a bow and a single knife, killing 41 orcs at level 6 or below though. :smallwink:

That's easy. Just be a Ranger with Favored Enemy (orc) and that feat that gets +3 damage against a specific favored enemy (Improved Favored Enemy?).
At level 5, you're dealing an extra +7 damage against orcs. Max Dex so you can hit - we're looking at Dex 21 for an elf. Point Blank Shot, Weapon Focus (longbow). Let's consider a +1 longbow. At level 6, you hit at +13 (+14 in PBS range), dealing 1d8+8 damage (discounting Strenght). With Rapid Shot from Ranger, you're attacking at +12/+12/+10. Your worst attack hits an average orc with a roll of 3.
Your AC, considering a +1 studded leather armor and a ring of deflection, is standing at 20. The average orc needs a 16 to hit you.
I'm not going to crunch probabilities, but I'd say killing 42 orcs is pretty easy.
According to my half-assed calculations, your odds of killing 3 orcs a turn with said setup is of 6137 in 8000.
You need 14 turns to do this - let's say 18 considering your odds of hitting.
Considering Con 12, you get an average of 33 hp. You need to take less than 2 damage a round, so this might indeed be a bit difficult if you're doing it by yoourself.
If you have Gimli protecting you, though, it gets a lot easier. And considering Cleave, you both should be at an almost equal number of orcs killed per round. Attacks of opportunity turn the tide in Gimli's favor, though.
Specially once you run out of arrows.

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

That's easy. Just be a Ranger with Favored Enemy (orc) and that feat that gets +3 damage against a specific favored enemy (Improved Favored Enemy?).
At level 5, you're dealing an extra +7 damage against orcs. Max Dex so you can hit - we're looking at Dex 21 for an elf. Point Blank Shot, Weapon Focus (longbow). Let's consider a +1 longbow. At level 6, you hit at +13 (+14 in PBS range), dealing 1d8+8 damage (discounting Strenght). With Rapid Shot from Ranger, you're attacking at +12/+12/+10. Your worst attack hits an average orc with a roll of 3.
Your AC, considering a +1 studded leather armor and a ring of deflection, is standing at 20. The average orc needs a 16 to hit you.
I'm not going to crunch probabilities, but I'd say killing 42 orcs is pretty easy.
According to my half-assed calculations, your odds of killing 3 orcs a turn with said setup is of 6137 in 8000.
You need 14 turns to do this - let's say 18 considering your odds of hitting.
Considering Con 12, you get an average of 33 hp. You need to take less than 2 damage a round, so this might indeed be a bit difficult if you're doing it by yoourself.
If you have Gimli protecting you, though, it gets a lot easier. And considering Cleave, you both should be at an almost equal number of orcs killed per round. Attacks of opportunity turn the tide in Gimli's favor, though.
Specially once you run out of arrows.

touche. its just having room for a knife feat... like finesse. you know, killing Orcs in style. Also, I'd take Precise shot over Focus: Longbow any day.

since I play PF pure now, no Improved Favored Enemy, but could probably make it up with Deadly Aim... again a bow only feat, but it'll do the trick.

[JadePhoenix]

touche. its just having room for a knife feat... like finesse. you know, killing Orcs in style.

since I play PF pure now, no Improved Favored Enemy, but could probably make it up with Deadly Aim... again a bow only feat, but it'll do the trick.

Well, +4 damage from favored enemy is still enough to down an average orc in one shot, if you have a +1 weapon.

[elpollo]

According to my half-assed calculations, your odds of killing 3 orcs a turn with said setup is of 6137 in 8000.
You need 14 turns to do this - let's say 18 considering your odds of hitting.
Considering Con 12, you get an average of 33 hp. You need to take less than 2 damage a round, so this might indeed be a bit difficult if you're doing it by yoourself.
If you have Gimli protecting you, though, it gets a lot easier. And considering Cleave, you both should be at an almost equal number of orcs killed per round. Attacks of opportunity turn the tide in Gimli's favor, though.
Specially once you run out of arrows.


Remember that with Gimli that goes up to 83 orcs. I make it that you kill 2.8 orcs per round if you're full attacking, and falchion wielding orcs deal an average of 2.59 damage per attack (more on the charge). That only requires 13 attacks to kill you, which is more than 40 orcs are going to get in 15 rounds.

[Gwendol]

If/when they get in range.

And Tolkien orcs typically don't wield falchions.

[JadePhoenix]

If/when they get in range.

And Tolkien orcs typically don't wield falchions.

And even if they get in range (tough with Gimly taking them out with AoO), they only hit you on a 16 (14 if they're charging, but then it's even more likely Gimli has already killed them).

Gimli's build - let's say Str 18, Dex 14, Con 14, sword and board. AC 23 (full-plate +1, shield +1, Dex +1). Dwarven waraxe +1 with Str 18 is an average of 10.5 damage, more than enough to down an orc. Add Combat Reflexes and Cleave. Gimli hits at +11 with his dwarven waraxe, hitting on a roll of 2. Let's add Weapon Focus, then. Now he hits at +12, only missing on a 1. He gets two attacks a round, two attacks of opportunity when orcs go chasing after Legolas. So he kills 4 orcs a round, 5 with Cleave. This is a situation where Great Cleave would actually be good, even.

[Darrin]

its D&D and everybody is only ever level 1. same premise as E6, its just now everybody is level 1 and fights approtpiate monsters. this is basically what Middle Earth was.


Sounds like F.A.T.A.L. but without all the misogyny and fratboy gangrape mentality.


Seriously, if you want a game where the PCs are so fragile that they're terrified of combat and have to rely almost entirely on their diplomacy, wits, and role-playing skills rather than "kewl powerz", then D&D is really the wrong system to use. Your players will be so frustrated by the 99.9% of the rules that they can't use that they won't have any hope of enjoying the rest of the 0.01%.

You're better off finding an RPG system that better fits whatever style/genre you're trying to evoke (although by the sound if it, your idea of "epic fantasy" and mine are vastly, vastly different).

[Gwendol]

While "gritty" the idea of not levelling defies part of the purpose with playing the game (what on earth will you use the XP for?).

Limiting advancement (like E6) is fine, banning it makes for very short campaigns.

[elpollo]

On topic, if you are set on using a d20 in a system and want limited character power advancement, why not use Mutants and Masterminds 3E (now with handy SRD) (http://www.d20herosrd.com/)? It's something I'm currently looking at. Limit the PL to 4 or 5 and you're away. You can still have character progression, but 30 orcs is still going to be a threat 20 games in. Here's an example of someone else statting up basic fantasy archetypes in M&M3E (http://greywulf.net/2011/06/mutants-and-dragons-third-edition/).

Alternatively, if you're unhappy with 3.X why not just return to 2nd edition D&D?


Off topic:


If/when they get in range.

And Tolkien orcs typically don't wield falchions.

Why would they not get in range? Legolas is full attacking - he's not going anywhere. Even if he were shooting on the move, the orcs would close the distance whilst he single moves and they run (and if we're having 40 orcs against an elf on an infinite plane, why not just go Scout 5 with Improved Skirmish?), and his killing power drops.

There aren't direct parallels to Uruk-Hai in D&D, so I was using generic D&D orcs, but fine. Even if we ignore Uruk-Hai being stronger and faster than regular orcs, they are still going to be better equipped than studded leather - we'll say a chain shirt and a large shield, so that's an extra round or two of combat. With a short sword the orcs are dealing about 1.79 damage per hit, which is about 19 attacks to take you out. I'm still siding with the orcs.



And even if they get in range (tough with Gimly taking them out with AoO), they only hit you on a 16 (14 if they're charging, but then it's even more likely Gimli has already killed them).

Gimli's build - let's say Str 18, Dex 14, Con 14, sword and board. AC 23 (full-plate +1, shield +1, Dex +1). Dwarven waraxe +1 with Str 18 is an average of 10.5 damage, more than enough to down an orc. Add Combat Reflexes and Cleave. Gimli hits at +11 with his dwarven waraxe, hitting on a roll of 2. Let's add Weapon Focus, then. Now he hits at +12, only missing on a 1. He gets two attacks a round, two attacks of opportunity when orcs go chasing after Legolas. So he kills 4 orcs a round, 5 with Cleave. This is a situation where Great Cleave would actually be good, even.

Did Gimli use a shield? I don't recall mention of it (nor of full plate - I accept that Tolkien's characters didn't tend to use the most efficient D&D 3.5 equipment, but I find it a little unfair that the orcs have to abide by Tolkien's description and the heroes are fine).

Why would the orcs need to provoke attacks of opportunity? They have 80 of them. Just send forty at each character and be done with it. Now you're limited to the same number of attacks per round as Legolas, only you've no desire to go anywhere. When the orcs flank they start hitting more often, too. Great Cleave would certainly be a game changer, though with the foresight to know exactly what you're up against it's not surprising. What if the orcs bring crossbows and pikes, locking Gimli down and filling him with bolts (or even just pikes, limiting the number of enemies he can cleave in a round)?

[JadePhoenix]

Why would the orcs need to provoke attacks of opportunity? They have 80 of them. Just send forty at each character and be done with it. Now you're limited to the same number of attacks per round as Legolas, only you've no desire to go anywhere. When the orcs flank they start hitting more often, too.
I ignored your other points because this one mostly explains everything else.
If you're going against 80 opponents, charging them is simply stupid. As soon as Gimli and Legolas see the orcs (and it's easier to see 80 people together than two) they stand their ground and Legolas starts shooting. The orcs have to get through Gimli to get to Legolas. That's basic strategy.
If they are ambushed or something, well, of course they can't do it. That's not the situation in the books, though.
EDIT: Also, 20 orcs can't attack a single person in a round.

[Little Brother]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}Maybe if your DM plays that way. Progression is really up to them.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}Beyond the near-indecipherable spelling


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}[/SPOILER]Context is cool? It's called a handbook, I tell people how to make good builds. In no way is losing three caster levels by level seven for no real gain "good."

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}[/SPOILER]Yeah, and someone was putting forward the idea of a gnome fighter in a thread asking for character optimization. I shouldn't need to explain any further.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}Actually, before he died, my last character was a Knight. A Knight who died to 5 scouts with bows. If I had been playing hard, ya think that'd have happened?

If you're gonna attack a gal for posts on another thread, do it well. Or at least better.

"But if you're building a caster, you had damn well optimize it. And a gnome fighter is so far beyond terribad. It has no place on an optimization forum."

That is not an example of overoptimization. That is common sense. I read "But, basically, only chumps take three levels of classes to qualify. Far too inefficient." as humorous, and not that serious advice (if it's the thread I remember it being posted in).Thank you.

Yeah, that's the reason I gave up on Little Brother's handbook.And I love you, too.

Moving on:

That's easy. Just be a Ranger with Favored Enemy (orc) and that feat that gets +3 damage against a specific favored enemy (Improved Favored Enemy?).Except, at least in the beginning, Legolas has no fluff reason that I can think of(Admittedly with my not-so-good memory in the morning) for him to have it, and I can't think of his performance increasing by the end, or at least not significantly. Tolkien was a sucker for fluff. I'd give him something more like Deadeye, or just decent strength. I vote for strength, as it would help with him stabbing orcs.

At level 5, you're dealing an extra +7 damage against orcs. Max Dex so you can hit - we're looking at Dex 21 for an elf. Point Blank Shot, Weapon Focus (longbow). Let's consider a +1 longbow. At level 6, you hit at +13 (+14 in PBS range), dealing 1d8+8 damage (discounting Strenght). With Rapid Shot from Ranger, you're attacking at +12/+12/+10. Your worst attack hits an average orc with a roll of 3.Seems okay, though I'm really not seeing FE:Orcs.
[quote]Your AC, considering a +1 studded leather armor and a ring of deflection, is standing at 20. The average orc needs a 16 to hit you.
I'm not going to crunch probabilities, but I'd say killing 42 orcs is pretty easy.Depends on terrain. Also, if you use average array, the orc warrior, level 1, that's accurate, but, say, an Orc Barbarian or a level 2 or 3 orc will need a lot less. Even one with Elite Array has it better. It'll hit him fairly easily.

[Tyndmyr]

L1


its D&D and everybody is only ever level 1. same premise as E6, its just now everybody is level 1 and fights approtpiate monsters. this is basically what Middle Earth was.


case in point Boromir was a human fighter lvl 1 wiht a con of 14.
12 HP took 3 arrows to kill him at an average of 4 dmg per arrow!

so.. what do you think of this.. yeah D&D gets a bit more gritty. but now toughness is actually looking pretty sweet.

Without any cheese at all, Crusader rocks the world.

Artificer is fairly close behind. Everyone else is left in the dust.

At increasing levels of cheddar, the spellcasters get their old shenanigans back. Hell, pun-pun is level one.


Remember that with Gimli that goes up to 83 orcs. I make it that you kill 2.8 orcs per round if you're full attacking, and falchion wielding orcs deal an average of 2.59 damage per attack (more on the charge). That only requires 13 attacks to kill you, which is more than 40 orcs are going to get in 15 rounds.

It was not portrayed as the kind of fight in which they were "well, statistically, we'll probably make it through this fight". Nope, the orcs were fodder. Not a real threat. They weren't taking a bunch of hits, and it had the feel of higher level chars shredding through lower level opponents.

If you really must stat up LOTR chars by their opponents, I would not use the EASIEST of opponents as the metric to judge them...but the harder ones. Gandalf stood against the Balrog, and it was evidently a close match, for instance. So, he lines up nicely against a Balor, which puts him in the level 20+ neighborhood, and he's a gish. Probably also the most powerful of the group.

Look at Aragorn taking on ringwraiths, Legolas killing the elephant(at least in the movie), the troll + goblin encounter, etc. They are very clearly not represented well at level 1 at all, and even six levels is likely insufficient to represent all of them adequately.

[Wyntonian]

Can we move the (awesome) LotR discussion to another thread? Also, my 2 cp, but I'd say about level 6 is about right for the main characters (the badass ones, not the brave little midgets) is about right.

[Novawurmson]

And a gnome fighter is so far beyond terribad. It has no place on an optimization forum.

Anthropomorphic Dog Cavalier on a Riding Dog (http://jibunit.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/didymus.jpg), on the other hand...

[Tyndmyr]

Can we move the (awesome) LotR discussion to another thread? Also, my 2 cp, but I'd say about level 6 is about right for the main characters (the badass ones, not the brave little midgets) is about right.

Honestly, I'm pretty bored of disproving it. I've done so in a great, great many threads to date.

Really, I just sort of wish that oft-linked article would go away. Level 20 is not automatically the best way to stat a given char, true. Neither is level 6. Some things don't translate well to some systems at all.

But, back on the original topic...the level 1 only idea does sound sort of interesting in a weird way...I mean, its not going to fix any balance ideas at all, but no leveling(except for presumably getting feats) ever is...interesting to contemplate.

[Kenneth]

{Scrubbed}

[Kenneth]

anyways.. the odd thing is.. I am thinking of maybe making a L1 game here on the coolness that is the GiTP Roleplaying Thread. if for nothng else. I can wholeheartedly accept that the vast majority of the players won't like it. but I am sure that soem, such as trydmyr has said. would be very intrigued.. of course it'll be a couple of days before I get it started as I need to work out rules that prevent peopel from doing crazy things and what cost how much etc etc.

[Tyndmyr]

Oh, for me it's mostly a thought exercise. I'm not terribly interested in playing, but it gives me a TO situation I hadn't contemplated before.

Note, however, that the number of ways in which I can break it are...immense. It would take me a very, very long time to list all the ways I've found to break E6, but most of those translate very well to E1. In addition, you've got the issue that everyone around you tops out at level 1 too. So, there's a LOT less things to pose a threat to you.

Fell drained anything basically = win, for instance, and fell drain is normally a quite reasonable metamagic.

[Little Brother]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}No, people intentionally crippling their builds are chumps, and it has nothing to do on whether they should be playing a game. Nice try though. And it wasn;t on my handbook, so what? It was on a thread where a guy was asking for OPTIMIZATION help. Not "Can I make my character suck?"


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}Yeah, someone was asking for help on the build. On a build that didn't work, I might add, and this guy was saying "Oh, hey, this build is cool, you should try it, a gnome fighter."

And, by the way, I said no such thing as "Unless you're playing X, you should reroll." Try again.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}Nope. Skewed "Roleplay v. Rollplay" point of view. Try again.

Perfect case: My suggestion for Paladin 2/Stalwart Battle Sorcerer 3/Spellsword 1/Abjurant Champion 5/Sorcerer +9. Is that optimal? No. Is that what I'd play if I built a gish? Probably not, but I'd sure as hell consider it. Are you making crap up and talking out of your ass? Absolutely.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}Again, you're proving my point. You were saying it is all "Nitty-gritty," while I pointed out that not only would Boromir have been taken out by two mooks, it doesn't work. If all you'd wanted was sycophants with ranks in Decipher Script, you should have put that in the OP, and I'd have obliged.

Also, I really didn't think even the most anti-optimization people like having their characters one-shot or two-shot by most mooks.

[Wyntonian]

Little Brother, while I agree with the majority of what you're saying, I'd recommend that you reduce or better yet eliminate the insults. I'd like this conversation to be intelligent and direct, and that won't happen if the thread gets locked.

[Zejety]

Little Brother, while I agree with the majority of what you're saying, I'd recommend that you reduce or better yet eliminate the insults. I'd like this conversation to be intelligent and direct, and that won't happen if the thread gets locked.

I can understand his anger, though.
He gave a perfectly reasonably response and now the OP seems to be more focused on proving what an evil optimizer he is than to actually discuss his own topic.

[Wyntonian]

I can understand his anger, though.
He gave a perfectly reasonably response and now the OP seems to be more focused on proofing what an evil optimizer he is than to actually discuss his own topic.

I agree completely. I, for one, would like to return to the topic at hand. If the OP is not in agreement, we can move this over to another thread.

[Kenneth]

{Scrubbed]

[averagejoe]

The Mod They Call Me: So far as I can tell no one is discussing or taking seriously the actual thread topic, and is instead embroiling themselves in heated arguments. Thread locked.