Energy Bow [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Metahuman1

2013-11-20, 06:06 PM

Because it's on a VERY short list of nice things in this game for archery.

This isn't optional gear for archers past about level 5. This is Mandatory to keep 8/10 enemy's form rendering you next to unplayable in combat, and after about levels 7-9, that just flat becomes EVERY enemy. Every enemy will have Protection from arrows and shut you down out of hand or have a solid DR that you can't consistently work through and between that and your damage being cut down so drastically form the inability to safely and reliably keep your bow functional with out buffs and at the same time able to use buffs and to get other damage sources that actually work, you'll be doing squat damage that at best is so puny as to be inconsequential and more probably and often will literally result in 0 every round.

And that's before the game even get's into double digit levels.

Edit: Splitting is a +4. and that makes the total a +6. Look at the price of a +6 weapon, and then add 14,600 GP on top of that. It's NOT as bad as you just made it sound I promise considering how long you have to wait to be able to afford it and ANYTHING else AT ALL.

Vortenger

2013-11-20, 06:07 PM

Eh, if it cost 50,000g it'd still be amazing for its price.

I've had more DM's ban splitting than energy bow but ymmv.

derninus

2013-11-20, 06:22 PM

where did you find splitting for +4???

TuggyNE

2013-11-20, 06:29 PM

force
permanent light (when drawn)

Light is irrelevant, and some argue that the force effect on Hank's is not as powerful as the MIC property: namely, that it doesn't auto-bypass all DR. If that's the case it makes it rather less underpriced, though it's still a steal.

Really, though, it seems like it's an item that solves a lot of the problems that archers systemically have, so subsidizing it is not a bad idea in isolation.

Nearly always, people complaining about balance will talk about spellcasters and meleers, or sometimes spellcasters and mundanes (but usually meaning meleers primarily, as can be seen from context). Why don't archers get any love? :smallannoyed:

derninus

2013-11-20, 06:29 PM

Every enemy will have Protection from arrows and shut you down out of hand or have a solid DR that you can't consistently work through.

And that's before the game even get's into double digit levels.

i dont know why your party only attack other groups with spellcasters who prefight buff with protection from arrows.

and either protection from arrows or solid DR before level 10?

btw how much money does the people in your campagins normaly have since its normal to blow 22'600 on a weapon before level 10?

tell your gm to do better encounters

Edit:
character wealth at level 8 is set (in DMG) at 27k - which means you spend EVERYTHING you earned up till that point on that bow

one way to solve archers problems would be to chance the Force enchantment from a + enchantment to a flat value ie 10k or something

and protection from arrows is +10/magic damage reduction you gain, if that bow is standard in your campagin how the "#=!" can you come up with such a weak reply

Metahuman1

2013-11-20, 07:17 PM

Ya know, I love how you start by saying you think it's under priced, and now your saying no one can afford it by the level they need it at. Stop, think that over for a second, Need it by level 8 for sure, and can't even afford it yet, but it's UNDER PRICED?!!!!!

BTW, do you use any Core MM Constructs, Undead, Demons, Devils, Fey, Aberrations, Dragons, Lycanthrops and most Giants who are CR appropriate in your games? If so, congrats, nothing on that list is either gonna be missing that buff spell AND missing having solid DR unless the DM is incompetent, of the critter/critters puppet master is being played as incompetent deliberately. Miss one, maybe, miss two, no.

Oh, and pardon me, I confused on of the 300+ core only options for casters with another one. I said Protection form Arrows, and I meant Wind Wall. And yes, any magic user with an int or wis score is gonna have it up if the score is high enough to cast it in the first place.

Brookshw

2013-11-20, 07:22 PM

I'd ban it. Sorry, well outside of standard cost for those properties and force is just ridiculous to begin with.

Invader

2013-11-20, 07:28 PM

i dont know why your party only attack other groups with spellcasters who prefight buff with protection from arrows.

and either protection from arrows or solid DR before level 10?

btw how much money does the people in your campagins normaly have since its normal to blow 22'600 on a weapon before level 10?

tell your gm to do better encounters

Edit:
character wealth at level 8 is set (in DMG) at 27k - which means you spend EVERYTHING you earned up till that point on that bow

one way to solve archers problems would be to chance the Force enchantment from a + enchantment to a flat value ie 10k or something

and protection from arrows is +10/magic damage reduction you gain, if that bow is standard in your campagin how the "#=!" can you come up with such a weak reply

I'm not sure what you're asking, or stating, or trying to figure out here :smallconfused:

derninus

2013-11-20, 09:16 PM

BTW, do you use any Core MM Constructs, Undead, Demons, Devils, Fey, Aberrations, Dragons, Lycanthrops and most Giants who are CR appropriate in your games? If so, congrats, nothing on that list is either gonna be missing that buff spell AND missing having solid DR unless the DM is incompetent, of the critter/critters puppet master is being played as incompetent deliberately. Miss one, maybe, miss two, No

Construcs yes DR , undeads slashing arrows You're a moron if you Only carry normal ones, more than Half the aberrations at that level dont have DR. Demons with low cr doesnt have, Devils May have but not a Very common mob, low level dragons have - again rare mob, Giants with DR? I Can probably tell from your comments you havent played more than one not powerhouse/100% optimized char and therefor think a +5 weapon is suited for a level 8 char. if you didnt understand what i said about the prize lets try again. a char at level 8 should have about 27k loot in total, if you wanned to ger that bow at level 8 it means you would have to sell everything you had (assuming tou couæd get full prize for it) and buy that bow

AstralFire

2013-11-20, 09:28 PM

Basically: Hank's Energy Bow is broken. But that's considered to be 'ok' because it's about the only thing broken in the favor of ranged characters. Things broken against them include a focus on relatively small rooms, many sources of bonus damage for archers having a 30 to 60 foot limitation (enough to cross in a charge or less), Deflect Arrows, a dozen spells, the fact that Power Shot is ordinarily limited to an obscure class in a setting supplement, etc etc etc.

If Archers are doing fine in your games because you're not employing the many anti-archer tactics available by the rules and you've allowed them to take Power Shot without sacrificing newborn children, Hank's Energy Bow should be priced higher.

Nearly always, people complaining about balance will talk about spellcasters and meleers, or sometimes spellcasters and mundanes (but usually meaning meleers primarily, as can be seen from context). Why don't archers get any love? :smallannoyed:

I agree with you completely; ToB should have included an archery style at the least.

Metahuman1

2013-11-20, 09:30 PM

Ok, first of all, what, precisely are you talking about "Slashing arrows?" And this helps you with DR designed to be overcome with Bludgeoning anyway how, precisely?

Second, Some people like characters who are good at the things there suppose to be good at, and don't like DM Story/Coddling time just to survive or funtion.

Third, demons don't have it? Don't tell the CR 2 Dretch and Quasit, the 6 Babau, the CR 7 Succubus or the CR 9 Vrock that. They don't know that they arn't core monsters that have DR. Oh, wait, they are, and do, and know it.

Now look, you asked a question, and based on the way this exchange is going I'm starting to suspect you had an answer you wanted and since thus far most of the responses have been like mine, the opposite of what you wanted, your trying to dismiss them.

You asked the question. No, the item does not need it's price tag raised. I have explained why. You do not want to listen. I feel bad for your player since your minds already made up to nerf what needs boosting.

Deophaun

2013-11-20, 10:40 PM

Ok, first of all, what, precisely are you talking about "Slashing arrows?"
Serpentstounge arrows. Do slashing and piercing. Races of the Wild. Once you're out of the low levels, you take these arrows and never bother with regular ones ever again.

And this helps you with DR designed to be overcome with Bludgeoning anyway how, precisely?
Obviously that's why you have blunt arrows, from the same book.

But yes, mundane ranged characters are ridiculously easy to shut down, which is why the Force enchantment (or the Energy Bow) is pretty much required equipment as early as level 5 (yay wind wall!).

MirddinEmris

2013-11-21, 01:09 AM

Serpentstounge arrows. Do slashing and piercing. Races of the Wild. Once you're out of the low levels, you take these arrows and never bother with regular ones ever again.

Obviously that's why you have blunt arrows, from the same book.

But yes, mundane ranged characters are ridiculously easy to shut down, which is why the Force enchantment (or the Energy Bow) is pretty much required equipment as early as level 5 (yay wind wall!).

Only the blunt arrows deal subdual damage, which is useless against undeads and constructs.

Metahuman1

2013-11-21, 01:25 AM

There would also be the problem of the DM wanting to Ban the book, say, cause he doesn't like a Sub level in there or he didn't like confound the big folk.

Or wanting to restrict access, cause, you know, elves, not trusting and fluff should dictate crunch! Or if you are an elf, only different elves have it, or even if there the same, don't have it in stock right now! :smallannoyed:

And from the sound of it, energy bow saves you money and isn't similarly effortlessly shut down in the long run, unlike these other special more expensive arrows.

So, yes, again, on the grounds that it is functionally ESSENTIAL to ANY decent raged build that uses a bow, the bow is not under priced and should just be left alone and sold as is.

Particle_Man

2013-11-21, 09:00 PM

Have they done the other magic items from the D&D tv show? Because that wizard's hat was awesome!

Coidzor

2013-11-21, 09:25 PM

Have they done the other magic items from the D&D tv show? Because that wizard's hat was awesome!

They did them all and statted up the characters too as I recall. Also Venger and the version of Tiamat that appears in the show as well as making an adventure module out of one of the episodes or an unaired episode or something, IIRC.

Urpriest

2013-11-21, 10:01 PM

There would also be the problem of the DM wanting to Ban the book, say, cause he doesn't like a Sub level in there or he didn't like confound the big folk.

If he was doing that he'd ban those particular things, not the whole book. People aren't that irrational.

Darrin

2013-11-21, 10:22 PM

Have they done the other magic items from the D&D tv show? Because that wizard's hat was awesome!

Presto's "Hat of Many Spells" is in there. For 25K, it acts as a rod of wonder. It can also provide any material component for any spell Presto can cast, up to 1000 GP (lasts 1 round). He can also use the hat to Empower any spell, except you roll percentile dice: 1-35, spell is wasted but rod of wonder effect happens instead; 36-65, spell is cast but rod of wonder effect happens as well; 66-100, the spell is cast as desired.

All of the iconic characters have a magic item in the 20-30K range... but it's kind of obvious that they didn't follow the pricing guidelines from the DMG.

TuggyNE

2013-11-21, 10:33 PM

If he was doing that he'd ban those particular things, not the whole book. People aren't that irrational.

I wish I had your confidence.

Phelix-Mu

2013-11-21, 10:50 PM

I dunno. I feel the energy bow just highlights design incompetence. If you need to have 8th level wealth to buy something that lets your character achieve the thing that s/he should have been good at from level 1, then something weird is going on.

"Required equipment" is pretty much an offensive concept to me. It's like saying "you can only get into PrC X if you are a cleric" or "only elves can be bards" or other arbitrary restrictions on creativity that they claimed to want to avoid. You can only be a decent archer with the energy bow, or with splitting...that basically means there are no decent archers out there if we separate them from their bows. Bleh. That's terrible.

So, there is my two cents. /rant

Metahuman1

2013-11-21, 10:52 PM

If he was doing that he'd ban those particular things, not the whole book. People aren't that irrational.

I've had DM's tell me Spell Compendium Is banned over literally 1 spell, MiC is banned over literally 1 Item, and Races of Stone was Banned over 2 Races, and I've heard of DM's who use Just Iron Heart Surge or Just Idiot Crusader to Ban Tome of Battle.

Regrettably, sometimes they ARE that irrational.

On the subject of the show, what about the Acrobats staff and the Thief's Clock?

GreenETC

2013-11-22, 12:09 AM

Honestly, you can just get a Bow of the Wintermoon from MiC to get the Str, and then get Force (a +2 enchantment) for a grand total of 19400gp, which will do 1d8 instead of 2d6 (which isn't really that big a damage difference) and also bypass all DR and miss chances.

The Light of Hank's Bow is meaningless, and possibly detrimental if you're trying to hide, the extra +1 on the enchantment slows down being able to buy other special abilities, and the Power Shot, while nice and not able to be replicated elsewhere, isn't really that worth it if you want to go for arrow spam shenanigans.

OldTrees1

2013-11-22, 12:39 AM

I've had DM's tell me Spell Compendium Is banned over literally 1 spell, MiC is banned over literally 1 Item, and Races of Stone was Banned over 2 Races, and I've heard of DM's who use Just Iron Heart Surge or Just Idiot Crusader to Ban Tome of Battle.

Regrettably, sometimes they ARE that irrational.

Just to put some perspective:
Authors tend to be consistent if their ability/inability to balance at least within a single book. If a DM does not have time to read every page of every book, it makes sense to judge a book based off a sampling of the contents. A sample of literally 1-2 spells/items/races seems on the extreme low end. Perhaps the sample taken was 1-2 bad apples mixed in with 3-5 mediocre apples. If no diamonds were found in the rough to redeem the bad apples, I can see a reasonable DM(under a time crunch) banning the book. I would hope the sample was larger but I would understand if a DM didn't invest as much time as I would personally (every page guy here).

Samalpetey

2013-11-22, 04:32 AM

If he was doing that he'd ban those particular things, not the whole book. People aren't that irrational.

At the risk of sounding the same as everyone else, I'd have to disagree here. I have a DM who banned the whole of the BoED over the truename function of Words of Creation, and who banned all tactical feats because they're "too abusable"

Zanos

2013-11-22, 04:35 AM

Just to put some perspective:
Authors tend to be consistent if their ability/inability to balance at least within a single book. If a DM does not have time to read every page of every book, it makes sense to judge a book based off a sampling of the contents. A sample of literally 1-2 spells/items/races seems on the extreme low end. Perhaps the sample taken was 1-2 bad apples mixed in with 3-5 mediocre apples. If no diamonds were found in the rough to redeem the bad apples, I can see a reasonable DM(under a time crunch) banning the book. I would hope the sample was larger but I would understand if a DM didn't invest as much time as I would personally (every page guy here).
I dunno, that viewpoint doesn't really seem all that valid in D&D. Even Core isn't balanced, what with the wizard and the fighter being in the same book. Even if we're just talking spells, gate is Core and is absolutely ridiculous even with core monsters. Pay 1000xp, get a minion that has up to 2xCL in HD as a slave forever? Yeah, okay.

I'm pretty sure you could find a couple of broken feats/class features/spells/items/whatever in every printed D&D book. If a few broken things are enough to ban a book, every book would probably be banned.

Banning a book is generally a lazy solution to something that happened at their table once.

OldTrees1

2013-11-22, 05:13 AM

I dunno, that viewpoint doesn't really seem all that valid in D&D. Even Core isn't balanced, what with the wizard and the fighter being in the same book. Even if we're just talking spells, gate is Core and is absolutely ridiculous even with core monsters. Pay 1000xp, get a minion that has up to 2xCL in HD as a slave forever? Yeah, okay.

A comparision to core is not quite valid in this case. I was talking about how a DM (that was crunched for time) might judge whether or not to add new material to their game. Core generally is required (char gen rules from PHB, xp rules from DMG). However let us divorce the character options (Fighter, Wizard, Candle of Invocation, Bag of Holding) from the BASIC rules (char gen, xp).

Now if the PHB character options were not in Core but instead were printed in a splat book, I think was can all agree that the quality control (balance/imbalanced) on that splat book would be rather poor. I can see it as reasonable to abandon that splat book because it was poorly balanced. (Don't many people do this already with the promotion of Tier 3 over Core?)

I'm pretty sure you could find a couple of broken feats/class features/spells/items/whatever in every printed D&D book. If a few broken things are enough to ban a book, every book would probably be banned.

It wasn't about finding a few broken things in a book. It was about evaluating the book based on a random sampling and happening to have found too much imbalance in that random sampling. With a decent sized sample rather few books would be banned with this manner (excepting for extremely bad luck).

Now I agree that this method of examining new material is not time intensive and thus is less accurate then taking the time to read the entire proposed book. However some DMs would not have the vast amount of time to read each of the 50+ splat books someone would propose adding to their group. Based on your comments I assume you are like me in that you would be willing to evaluate that volume of material cover to cover if were you DMing. However I am not talking about you and me.

Greymane

2013-11-22, 07:06 AM

Power Shot, while nice and not able to be replicated elsewhere

Actually, Silver Marches has a Prestige Class called Peerless Archer that gets it.

Urpriest

2013-11-22, 10:52 AM

I wish I had your confidence.

It's not confidence, I just don't think of someone like that as a person. :smallwink:

Metahuman1

2013-11-22, 11:52 AM

As context for my examples:

Be Banned MiC after the party's Fighter and Ranger both bought a belt of battle, which they used to manage to close while flanking a dragon during a major encounter in the campaign after having been buffed heavily prior to the fighting, and manage to land full attacks while flanking.

Spell Compendium took him a bit longer to Ban, and admittedly he waited till next game. He banned if over Dolimars Lighting Lance, Which the Party Wizard was spamming and using Metamagic Rods on and it was driving him nuts cause he couldn't find a counter for the force damage it was doing. The only reason he didn't ban it sooner was this particular DM was crushing on That particular player so at his table she got away with a lot she should not have been permitted too.

Races of Stone, ok, so I'm on my 4th character this campaign, and the party is level 6. At the time I had players handbook 2, and noticed in one little section they suggested a Goliath for Barbarian. And I wanted to try a Barbarian. DM decided that because of Powerful build they were too strong for LA +1 and that wanting to be a barbarian that rages with a str and con boost and uses an oger sized great ax was power gaming. He looked at other racial variants and said "It's not even one thing! Look at all the crap the Whisper gnome get's!" And thus the book was banned.

Another DM simply told me Tome of Battle was broken cause the crusaders limit was easy to buy pass and Iron Heart Surge was more powerful then Wish for no cost. He was running an OA game were my samurai could not keep up and the party's swift hunter archer, Druid, Fire Shugenja and Water Shugenja/Sorcerer did all the heavy lifting. Part of this was I was required to answer challenges by higher CR enemy's when they offered them, and then I would loose cause there higher CR and I'm a fighter class character who doesn't have the feats for his trick yet. (I didn't know about flaws/traits at the time.)

When I figured out how Tome of Battle Works, I always wanted another crack at that setting with it enabled so that I could go in there with a high op Martial Adept and actually win those fights and play the character as he was meant to be played, which was not the comic relief he got designated too.

ddude987

2013-11-22, 12:03 PM

It's not confidence, I just don't think of someone like that as a person. :smallwink:

+1 this to infinity

Be Banned MiC after the party's Fighter and Ranger both bought a belt of battle

I'll admit, belt of battle can be a bit broken. One of my DMs in the past wanted to make that item go away.

He banned if over Dolimars Lighting Lance, Which the Party Wizard was spamming and using Metamagic Rods on and it was driving him nuts cause he couldn't find a counter for the force damage it was doing.
IIRC metamagic rods are 3/day so unless the DM let the wizard buy a bunch of them, casting this spell shouldn't have been that big of a deal.

DM decided that because of Powerful build they were too strong for LA +1 and that wanting to be a barbarian that rages with a str and con boost and uses an oger sized great ax was power gaming. He looked at other racial variants and said "It's not even one thing! Look at all the crap the Whisper gnome get's!" And thus the book was banned.

This one actually surprises me. Goliaths being powergaming? Sure they're probably the optimal choice for a barbarian but goliath in itself is far from broken. Unless the barbarian is taking leap attack shock trooper and whatnot the damage increase from wielding a weapon one size bigger isn't that big of a deal.

Killer Angel

2013-11-22, 12:38 PM

I'd ban it. Sorry, well outside of standard cost for those properties and force is just ridiculous to begin with.

Look at it this way: 3.5 contains lots of mistakes in regard to spells: casters are overpowered, and damage dealers / fighter types are their poor cousins.
For once, this could be an overpowered item for the most regrettable combat style. Sometime, it's easier to pump the weak ones, rather than the inverse.

Metahuman1

2013-11-22, 01:18 PM

IIRC metamagic rods are 3/day so unless the DM let the wizard buy a bunch of them, casting this spell shouldn't have been that big of a deal.

This one actually surprises me. Goliaths being powergaming? Sure they're probably the optimal choice for a barbarian but goliath in itself is far from broken. Unless the barbarian is taking leap attack shock trooper and whatnot the damage increase from wielding a weapon one size bigger isn't that big of a deal.

I wasn't doing Shock Trooper or Leap Attack, I had Power Attack and Endurance, and I was gonna do Die Hard, Steadfast Determination and I mentioned that at about level 12 i MIGHT be looking at Monkey Grip.

And I never said he was being reasonable.

The Wizard was crafting them herself, and I think she was crafting the more potent ones that had more daily uses. Like I said, DM wanted to date the player, so she got away with more then she should have.

OldTrees1

2013-11-22, 01:28 PM

@Metahuman1
I retract what I said then. Only the RoS and ToB examples were judged based off a random sample.

Belt of Battle was an example of a single problematic addition (so ban it instead of the book).

Dolimars Lighting Lance does not exist in the SpC so banning the SpC because of it is insane.

Urpriest

2013-11-22, 04:27 PM

and I mentioned that at about level 12 i MIGHT be looking at Monkey Grip.

To be fair, Monkey Grip only exists to seem overpowered to novice DMs and players. It has no optimization purpose and no flavor effect, so the only reason to take it is because someone in the equation wrongly believed it to be overpowered.

Metahuman1

2013-11-22, 07:13 PM

OldTrees1: I had though it was cause it was like the 5th or 6th enemy she spamed it on that he said he was banning it next game. I didn't care at the time since I was not running a caster, so it might have been a mistake.

And yes, banning an item instead of the book would have been more reasonable, but, well, see other statements.

Urpriest: At the time the Party Fighter was using it. The entire table were under the impression it worked differently form the way it actually worked. I know this cause I put it on a character some time later with a different group and game and learned how it REALLY worked and ended up changing it.

I just wanted it cause at the time I was going for "Really Big Strong Tough warrior with Stupidly Big Weapon." I was still learning the basics in those days.

The point stands though that banning Races of Stone was not a good way for the DM to react.

Knaight

2013-11-22, 07:20 PM

Just to put some perspective:
Authors tend to be consistent if their ability/inability to balance at least within a single book. If a DM does not have time to read every page of every book, it makes sense to judge a book based off a sampling of the contents. A sample of literally 1-2 spells/items/races seems on the extreme low end. Perhaps the sample taken was 1-2 bad apples mixed in with 3-5 mediocre apples. If no diamonds were found in the rough to redeem the bad apples, I can see a reasonable DM(under a time crunch) banning the book. I would hope the sample was larger but I would understand if a DM didn't invest as much time as I would personally (every page guy here).

However, if it's a notorious trick from the internet, it probably shouldn't be treated as a representative sample. There's nothing random about it, and it's a safe bet that the things that get noticed within a book are either exceptionally good or exceptionally bad.

OldTrees1

2013-11-22, 07:29 PM

However, if it's a notorious trick from the internet, it probably shouldn't be treated as a representative sample. There's nothing random about it, and it's a safe bet that the things that get noticed within a book are either exceptionally good or exceptionally bad.

Agreed. Valid shortcuts (reading a random sample) can be invalid if implemented incorrectly (skewed sample).

derninus

2013-11-23, 04:51 PM

I've had DM's tell me Spell Compendium Is banned over literally 1 spell, MiC is banned over literally 1 Item, and Races of Stone was Banned over 2 Races

Thats just imo bad gm'ing if you dont have 1 hour to set Yourself into the book In question - how would you have time to set up a campagin? If you play like that i feel for you and you must have bad dd sessions. I rarely Ban stuff and i dont make encounters to counter or take In mind the partys strengts and weaknesses but that just means some encounters are easy and some are hard. Imo if you make encounters and try to counter the groups strengts You're Making a bad encounter it seems too forced.

OldTrees1

2013-11-23, 05:13 PM

Thats just imo bad gm'ing if you dont have 1 hour to set Yourself into the book In question - how would you have time to set up a campagin?

I don't think that's fair.

Let's say that setting up a campaign takes X hours per week. Let's say the players are interested in Core (PHB, DMG, MM), Expanded Core (PHB II, DMG II, EXH), The Completes (CW, ToB, CAd, CSc, CD, CC, CA, CM), 2 of the 4 Racial books (RoD, RoDr, RoS, RotW). At 1 hour per book that increases the DM's load on the first week by Core(assumed) and 13hours (the other books).

If a DM normally spent 7 hours a week (I average 2 hours + the play session a week) then taking 1 hour per book would almost triple their first week load.
For that load it would be reasonable for a DM to do one of the following (or something else)
1) Limit the number of accepted new books at char gen (potentially with more allowed at later level ups)
2) Take less than 1 hour per book to get a summary rather than a detailed account.
3) Allow all the requested books until they become a problem/until the DM has time to review them.
4) something else (this was not meant to be a comprehensive list)

I don't make encounters to counter or take In mind the party strengths and weaknesses but that just means some encounters are easy and some are hard. Imo if you make encounters and try to counter the groups strengths You're Making a bad encounter it seems too forced.

I prefer designing encounters to _challenge_ the party's strengths and weaknesses. However, I agree that designing encounters to _counter_ the group's strengths is too forced.

Metahuman1

2013-11-23, 05:15 PM

Thats just imo bad gm'ing if you dont have 1 hour to set Yourself into the book In question - how would you have time to set up a campagin? If you play like that i feel for you and you must have bad dd sessions. I rarely Ban stuff and i dont make encounters to counter or take In mind the partys strengts and weaknesses but that just means some encounters are easy and some are hard. Imo if you make encounters and try to counter the groups strengts You're Making a bad encounter it seems too forced.

That was my first in person campaign, some years ago. I haven't played with that group in ages for, reasons. Yeah, that's a polite way to say it, reasons.

In his defense though, he was a New GM running out of mostly prewritten campaigns.

And in defense of the group as a whole, it was less the group as a whole, it was 1 Player trying to stretch himself running a lawful evil cleric, and role playing it but still stretching himself, 1 doing the same with a Neutral Evil Elf Ranger, and 1 severely inexperienced GM trying to get to date another player, and 1 player running a Neutral Evil Necromancer with a GM who was literally letting her get away with murder. (She out right killed my first character with a scythe while he was sleeping cause she did want him stealing her thunder by using turn undead when she wanted to summon undead. Instead of telling me this at character creation she opted to just kill me and get a nice XP dump and loot dump a couple of levels into game play. I however, when she picked up a cursed dagger that compelled her to try and kill me against her will a session previous, was guided toward not whacking her upside the head in character with my clerics war hammer and fixing the problem right then. So, yeah.) And 1 guy running a genuien CN done right Fighter.

I think I'd have had a lot more fun if the rest of the group hadn't been neutral or evil, cause I did get the impression that they would have more likely ganged up on the problem player to keep her in check in that instance. But oh well, ancient history.

Zombulian

2013-11-23, 06:45 PM

I'd ban it. Sorry, well outside of standard cost for those properties and force is just ridiculous to begin with.

...How about you don't do that and think about the game we're playing here for a second.

Brookshw

2013-11-23, 06:56 PM

...How about you don't do that and think about the game we're playing here for a second.

I'm sorry but no, that's a ridiculous item and property. Yes, I did think about it. Maybe think about whether everything in the game should be allowed just because it was written?

LordHenry

2013-11-23, 06:58 PM

I usually also ban Belt of Battle, or at least reprice it to reflect how freakin' good it actually is. It encourages the 5 minute day even more. And this at relative low levels.

Zombulian

2013-11-23, 07:06 PM

I'm sorry but no, that's a ridiculous item and property. Yes, I did think about it. Maybe think about whether everything in the game should be allowed just because it was written?

I do not personally believe your last sentence. But you have to think about which types of characters that this item is helping. They need the boost in this game. D&D 3.5 really hates archers.

Brookshw

2013-11-23, 07:16 PM

I do not personally believe your last sentence. But you have to think about which types of characters that this item is helping. They need the boost in this game. D&D 3.5 really hates archers.

Don't get me wrong, if a player wanted a splitting fiery burst ghost touch bane bow I'd say sure, go nuts, its the force bit I'm against.

Deophaun

2013-11-23, 07:18 PM

Don't get me wrong, if a player wanted a splitting fiery burst ghost touch bane bow I'd say sure, go nuts, its the force bit I'm against.
Sooo... 20th level archers in your games will forever be shut down by third level spells.

kalos72

2013-11-23, 07:21 PM

I love this idea myself...Id make it cost more...have a power shot if you hold the string back for 2 rounds or something and add a crystal slot.

Add the right incrediblly expensive and fragile crystal...get a orc bane force bolt or +2 vUndead. Force a replacement every 24 hrs or something an make it so once the crystal is "installed" its either used or dead after.

2 rounds to install or replace...

But I love to overpower stuffz...

Zombulian

2013-11-23, 07:22 PM

Don't get me wrong, if a player wanted a splitting fiery burst ghost touch bane bow I'd say sure, go nuts, its the force bit I'm against.

But... that's the part they need.

Sooo... 20th level archers in your games will forever be shut down by third level spells.

Apparently.

Brookshw

2013-11-23, 07:27 PM

Sooo... 20th level archers in your games will forever be shut down by third level spells.

I'll let you know if it ever happens. I seem to recall he did 200-300 against any non boss fight at 20.

AstralFire

2013-11-23, 07:40 PM

I'll let you know if it ever happens. I seem to recall he did 200-300 against any non boss fight at 20.

As mentioned upthread, the bow isn't necessary if you're not employing the many anti-archer tools littered about the game, which I think many people don't (either by choice or by sheer forgetfulness.) This is the same reason I think that "fire is automatically lame as a damage type" is overblown.

GreenETC

2013-11-23, 07:44 PM

Sooo... 20th level archers in your games will forever be shut down by third level spells.
To be completely honest, they're shut down by a single 4th level spell (Friendly Fire) even with the Force.

I'm more concerned about how DR means ranged damage is garbage without force.

TuggyNE

2013-11-23, 08:03 PM

To be completely honest, they're shut down by a single 4th level spell (Friendly Fire) even with the Force.

Friendly fire needs to be banned or rewritten no matter what, since it is way too stupidly effective against everything. Worse by far than wind wall. So even though wind wall should probably be rewritten too, I'm a lot more comfortable discussing the balance implications of its RAW state than those of friendly fire.

Zombulian

2013-11-23, 08:09 PM

Friendly fire needs to be banned or rewritten no matter what, since it is way too stupidly effective against everything. Worse by far than wind wall. So even though wind wall should probably be rewritten too, I'm a lot more comfortable discussing the balance implications of its RAW state than those of friendly fire.

Whoa what book is Friendly Fire in? I can't find it anywhere.

Brookshw

2013-11-23, 08:14 PM

Whoa what book is Friendly Fire in? I can't find it anywhere.

Exemplars of evil, and yeah, its ridiculous.

Metahuman1

2013-11-23, 08:55 PM

Don't get me wrong, if a player wanted a splitting fiery burst ghost touch bane bow I'd say sure, go nuts, its the force bit I'm against.

So, they can have an even more expensive bow just as long as it's exactly no more effective at overcoming the actual problem then the conventional none magic non compound bow they had at level 1?

I'm curious, do you Ban Artificer, Druid, Archivist, Erudite, Wizard, Cleric, Wu Gen, Sorcerer, Favored Soul, Psion, Binder, Spirit Shamen, OA Shamen, Shugenja, Factotum, Duskblade, Dragonfire adept, Warblade, Swordsage, Wilder, Ardent, Psi Warrior, Crusader, Bard, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer and Wildshape/Mystic Ranger?

Brookshw

2013-11-23, 09:06 PM

So, they can have an even more expensive bow just as long as it's exactly no more effective at overcoming the actual problem then the conventional none magic non compound bow they had at level 1?

I'm curious, do you Ban Artificer, Druid, Archivist, Erudite, Wizard, Cleric, Wu Gen, Sorcerer, Favored Soul, Psion, Binder, Spirit Shamen, OA Shamen, Shugenja, Factotum, Duskblade, Dragonfire adept, Warblade, Swordsage, Wilder, Ardent, Psi Warrior, Crusader, Bard, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer and Wildshape/Mystic Ranger?

Other than the psi-warrior, no, sorry, 2e psionics left a bad taste in my mouth.

Edit: and psion, missed it in earlier skimming of the list.

Elderand

2013-11-23, 10:18 PM

Other than the psi-warrior, no, sorry, 2e psionics left a bad taste in my mouth.

Edit: and psion, missed it in earlier skimming of the list.

So your excuse for banning something (psionics 3.5) is that something else (psionics 2nd) with very little in common with the first something in a completely different system (2nd adnd and dnd 3.5) didn't agree with you.

That's a perfectly sensible position

Zombulian

2013-11-23, 10:25 PM

So your excuse for banning something (psionics 3.5) is that something else (psionics 2nd) with very little in common with the first something in a completely different system (2nd adnd and dnd 3.5) didn't agree with you.

That's a perfectly sensible position

I think it's around now we should realize it's a stuck position with no actual sense behind it, and thus should be left alone. (http://i.imgur.com/eEYV3E8.gif)

Brookshw

2013-11-23, 10:46 PM

I think it's around now we should realize it's a stuck position with no actual sense behind it, and thus should be left alone. (http://i.imgur.com/eEYV3E8.gif)

Yeah, probably. Enjoy the view from the soap box, I'll be here at the gaming table. Oh no, a dm decided what they'll permit.

Zanos

2013-11-23, 11:37 PM

Yeah, probably. Enjoy the view from the soap box, I'll be here at the gaming table. Oh no, a dm decided what they'll permit.
While I have no problems with DM's banning things, you should not be surprised if a player asks for a reasonable justification for why something is banned. 3.5e psionics is, mechanically, very good. It's not unreasonable that a player would be miffed that their DM bans something they want to play because a version printed a decade ago left a bad taste in their mouth.

I frequently ban it because I don't like the flavor of psionics, but I'm not under any illusions that that isn't just my opinion, and if a player was dead-set on psion, I'd probably allow it with some fluff changes.

To be completely honest, they're shut down by a single 4th level spell (Friendly Fire) even with the Force.

I'm more concerned about how DR means ranged damage is garbage without force.

Ranged damage in general has very few ways to improve damage per attack. High level ranged builds rely on making many attacks, as opposed to making fewer attacks with larger damage amounts, as melee builds do. Ranged builds are also more limited in damage types that they can do. Damage reduction amounts scale significantly as you move up in CRs, but the amount of damage you're doing per shot with a ranged weapon likely isn't increasing very much.

The dependency on multiple attacks doing little damage with non-variable damage types makes DR extremely painful for archery.

Force damage gets around this since it's an uncommonly resisted energy type. The energy bow is hilariously strong for it's cost, but I generally find that archers need the help in my campaign, because I would prefer that DR 10 didn't cripple already sub-optimal character concepts.

OldTrees1

2013-11-23, 11:55 PM

Transmuting weapon enhancement [+2 from MIC] allows the weapon to bypass a DR for 10 rounds starting on the turn after it attacked that DR (one DR at a time).

Deophaun

2013-11-24, 12:03 AM

Transmuting weapon enhancement [+2 from MIC] allows the weapon to bypass a DR for 10 rounds starting on the turn after it attacked that DR (one DR at a time).
There are two big problems with the transmuting property for ranged attackers.

1) You have to wait a turn for it to take effect. That means your first turn is doing little to contribute. If your fights last an average of 4-5 rounds, that's a huge penalty that you have even after spending the cost of a +2 enhancement bonus.

2) It technically doesn't work with bows/crossbows because it doesn't apply the effect to its ammunition.

Coidzor

2013-11-24, 12:28 AM

While I have no problems with DM's banning things, you should not be surprised if a player asks for a reasonable justification for why something is banned. 3.5e psionics is, mechanically, very good. It's not unreasonable that a player would be miffed that their DM bans something they want to play because a version printed a decade ago left a bad taste in their mouth.

1991 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Complete_Psionics_Handbook)is when 2E's psionics were first printed as far as I can gather, so it's been over 2 decades now. There are people playing D&D who are younger than 2E psionics and yet can still legally buy alcohol in the U.S. Some of them even play 3.5 or 3.P.

OldTrees1

2013-11-24, 12:30 AM

There are two big problems with the transmuting property for ranged attackers.

1) You have to wait a turn for it to take effect. That means your first turn is doing little to contribute. If your fights last an average of 4-5 rounds, that's a huge penalty that you have even after spending the cost of a +2 enhancement bonus.

2) It technically doesn't work with bows/crossbows because it doesn't apply the effect to its ammunition.

1) True (although slightly exaggerated in severity). I prefer Archer PCs having access to Force damage instead.

2) Really? How do you know? (so that I can learn)

Deophaun

2013-11-24, 12:51 AM

2) Really? How do you know? (so that I can learn)
Because it talks a lot about the weapon transforming to overcome DR, but never mentions ammunition. At all. Compare it to the Force property, since that's at issue here: the Force property explicitly states that it affects ammunition, not the weapon.

A +1 Returning Transmuting Javelin, though, will work just fine.

Metahuman1

2013-11-24, 12:52 AM

Yeah, probably. Enjoy the view from the soap box, I'll be here at the gaming table. Oh no, a dm decided what they'll permit.

Enjoy telling Conan and Aragon and Legolas and Gimli That there horrible broken power gamers but that Gandalf and Beorn are just fine.

Zombulian

2013-11-24, 12:54 AM

Enjoy telling Conan and Aragon and Legolas and Gimli That there horrible broken power gamers but that Gandalf and Beorn are just fine.

Well now see I disagree with Brookshw on most of his points but your post doesn't even relate to what he's saying.

Brookshw

2013-11-24, 07:50 AM

Enjoy telling Conan and Aragon and Legolas and Gimli That there horrible broken power gamers but that Gandalf and Beorn are just fine.

Actually I asked the player who requested the psion to play Gandalf instead, not that there seems to be a point to your statement. I've disliked psionics for over two decades and don't build my world/campaigns under the assumption that it exists. Asking to bring something in that is anachronistic to the world is a pretty good reason to say no.

And force is a powerful ability that I find unbalanced and a bit of a flavor killer so I've decided to ban it from my campaign. That hasn't stopped the archer from being on the front end of the damage curve. It is possible to ban something without neutering your players.

As to the op, the price is off and I respect his dm's decision to restrict that item from the game, and would agree with him/her because of the force property. Your welcome to disagree with that but please stop this assumption that somehow through magical internet abilities you're better able to understand the dynamics and balance of player's abilities and means of contributing to the game at my table than I am.

you should not be surprised if a player asks for a reasonable justification for why something is banned

I'm not surprised at all and discuss it with them every time I have a concern over something they've requested. Frankly the last time a player left my table wasn't because I said "no", it was because they were sick of the rest of the parties min max and rules crunching. Had I told people "no" more often I'd still have that player.

Metahuman1

2013-11-24, 10:27 AM

Actually I asked the player who requested the psion to play Gandalf instead, not that there seems to be a point to your statement. I've disliked psionics for over two decades and don't build my world/campaigns under the assumption that it exists. Asking to bring something in that is anachronistic to the world is a pretty good reason to say no.

And force is a powerful ability that I find unbalanced and a bit of a flavor killer so I've decided to ban it from my campaign. That hasn't stopped the archer from being on the front end of the damage curve. It is possible to ban something without neutering your players.

As to the op, the price is off and I respect his dm's decision to restrict that item from the game, and would agree with him/her because of the force property. Your welcome to disagree with that but please stop this assumption that somehow through magical internet abilities you're better able to understand the dynamics and balance of player's abilities and means of contributing to the game at my table than I am.

You allow the five most broken classes in the game, and multiple runners up for the title, but when that poor Robin Hood/Legolas Knock off wants to actually be able to justify his share of the loot and experience points with out DM fiat, and making sure he never encounters casters who use Wind Wall or Monsters with enough DR to shut him down is just that, your answer is "No.".

That was my point.

Zombulian

2013-11-24, 12:11 PM

So wait. Friendly Fire has an instantaneous duration, and no point when it would specifically end. Do you just cast it on yourself and are suddenly immune to ranged attacks?

derninus

2013-11-24, 12:23 PM

I don't think that's fair.

Let's say that setting up a campaign takes X hours per week. Let's say the players are interested in Core (PHB, DMG, MM), Expanded Core (PHB II, DMG II, EXH), The Completes (CW, ToB, CAd, CSc, CD, CC, CA, CM), 2 of the 4 Racial books (RoD, RoDr, RoS, RotW). At 1 hour per book that increases the DM's load on the first week by Core(assumed) and 13hours (the other books).

If a DM normally spent 7 hours a week (I average 2 hours + the play session a week) then taking 1 hour per book would almost triple their first week load.
For that load it would be reasonable for a DM to do one of the following (or something else)
1) Limit the number of accepted new books at char gen (potentially with more allowed at later level ups)
2) Take less than 1 hour per book to get a summary rather than a detailed account.
3) Allow all the requested books until they become a problem/until the DM has time to review them.
4) something else (this was not meant to be a comprehensive list)

that would as a start premis mean the whole groups is new at the game - hence the solution would be using players/dmg/monster manual or something equivilent as a start

the way he talked about the bow as a must have for any ranged character gave me the idea he had some knowledge about the game and the same with the groups he played with

if you're all new to the game start with a few books and work your way through the books - experiment

i now have a group who have played together ~10 hours/week last 2 years
so we're quite into the books.

as a start i wouldnt recomment someone who's new to the game to gm at all.

books shouldnt be banned because of 1 overpowered thing - players isnt banned because of the polymorph series - as an example we have just agreed in our group
- polymorph any object is banned.

- that you can tumble into a crusader with thicket of blades with a -ba of the crusader to your tumble check.

- ironheart surge cannot remove antimagic field / remove a curse on the person

- if you roll a 1 on an attack you just get -10 on your attack and 20 you get +10 such as a ancient gold dragon cannot lose to a goblin since we use this fumble table (http://www.angelfire.com/dragon3/vinifera/critical_hit_table_2e.pdf) page 2
if you roll 1 on your first attack and miss

house rules makes this game better - just limit the huge chees and have fun playing - there is no 1 thing (maybe powerattack) some characters NEED in order to even function

derninus

2013-11-24, 12:26 PM

You allow the five most broken classes in the game, and multiple runners up for the title, but when that poor Robin Hood/Legolas Knock off wants to actually be able to justify his share of the loot and experience points with out DM fiat, and making sure he never encounters casters who use Wind Wall or Monsters with enough DR to shut him down is just that, your answer is "No.".

That was my point.

they have just worked their way through a big dungeon with alot of constructs and elementals - some adamantine arrows were spent.

but your justification for the bow is that something counters this class - he has to have something that can counter every possible monster else the class is ****.

what would a warblade do vs a flying monster - he then HAS to have flight himself else the class is bad?

SirDalyus

2013-11-24, 12:33 PM

AstralFire

2013-11-24, 12:34 PM

what would a warblade do vs a flying monster - he then HAS to have flight himself else the class is bad?

Actually, uh, yeah. There are sufficient flying monsters that for most campaigns, it is believed that martial types should get access to flight, or else they will severely underperform. In fact, it's one of the textbook examples.

Deophaun

2013-11-24, 01:01 PM

but your justification for the bow is that something counters this class - he has to have something that can counter every possible monster else the class is ****.
Pretty much. Any time you have an encounter where the DM basically says "Bob, you're going to sit this one out while you watch Steve, Lucy, and Chris have all the fun" is not good. It's tolerable if Bob is sitting out the encounter because he passed up opportunities to overcome his concept's weaknesses or min-maxed himself into a corner, but even then it's not something you want to do all that often.

Unfortunately, 3.5's emphasis on immunities and SoD effects encourages that kind of encounter design.

Augmental

2013-11-24, 01:14 PM

Brookshw

2013-11-24, 01:30 PM

So you disliked 2nd edition psionics, and you carried that dislike over to 3.5th edition psionics even though the latter is a much better designed system?

Frankly yes, I don't want to build it into the world. Period. Full stop. There's no rational or logic behind this other than I simply dislike it.

OldTrees1

2013-11-24, 01:32 PM

that would as a start premis mean the whole groups is new at the game - hence the solution would be using players/dmg/monster manual or something equivilent as a start

the way he talked about the bow as a must have for any ranged character gave me the idea he had some knowledge about the game and the same with the groups he played with

if you're all new to the game start with a few books and work your way through the books - experiment

i now have a group who have played together ~10 hours/week last 2 years
so we're quite into the books.

as a start i wouldnt recomment someone who's new to the game to gm at all.

books shouldnt be banned because of 1 overpowered thing - players isnt banned because of the polymorph series - as an example we have just agreed in our group
- polymorph any object is banned.

I see you personally favor option 1 (limit the amount of new material added to the group at a time) rather than reduce the review time per book requested. However options 2 and 3 are still valid options despite your personal preference. (If your comment was not meant to be a personal preference, I did not find the argument you were using)

Just to clarify: I wasn't talking about banning a book because of 1 overpowered thing. I was talking about banning a book because of an excess of imbalance in the amount of material reviewed during the review time granted to that book. Depending on the amount of review time that the DM can dedicate to the book, the sample size per book might be small enough for an excess of imbalance to be 1 OP option among 3 weak options.

Coidzor

2013-11-24, 01:32 PM

Frankly yes, I don't want to build it into the world. Period. Full stop. There's no rational or logic behind this other than I simply dislike it.

Yep, and that's why you're getting ****. That, and the fact that you actually dislike a completely different version as you apparently haven't even glanced at the 3.5 version.

Metahuman1

2013-11-24, 01:35 PM

they have just worked their way through a big dungeon with alot of constructs and elementals - some adamantine arrows were spent.

but your justification for the bow is that something counters this class - he has to have something that can counter every possible monster else the class is ****.

what would a warblade do vs a flying monster - he then HAS to have flight himself else the class is bad?

He doesn't counter every monster. He just has the ability to do his one trick that his entire character is built around consistently, and as a result, he does something and get's to feel useful!! As opposed to just feeling like a cheerleader, and not even a good one at that.

Cause I gotta tell ya, if I can't play the game and feel cool and competent, that my character can do awesome stuff more often then not, there's not a lot of point, and most players feel the same. The entire point of the game is wish fulfillment! If one wishes to feel inept and inadequate to the taste, they'd find something there actively bad at (In my case, anything to do with home renovation/repair or working on cars.) and do that!

He'd not gonna solo those encounters, he's not gonna kill every monster. He's gonna contribute damage that even with the bow is STILL probably gonna be less damage then a Barbarian or Dungeon Crash Fighter that's capably constructed is gonna dish out. Or a DuskBlade or Crusader or Factotum to use T-3 examples.

Then the Warblade does what every sensible melee does. He uses a race that gives flight, takes a dip to get flight (Incarnums sweet for this, so's Cleric, and even swordsage form the same book can get you there in the long run.), he buys an Item for flight, or he just pumps his Jump check into the stratosphere and uses Tiger Claw Maneuvers.

However, there aren't much in the way of player races or dips that will allow an archer to over come DR, and most Archers don't get to also be using maneuvers that would get them there to any real effect. That leaves them with "Buy gear to get around the problem." There still playable as long as DM's don't fight them doing that item and the item of getting decent damage per hit so those shots matter.

AstralFire

2013-11-24, 01:38 PM

Coidzor

2013-11-24, 01:52 PM

He's built his worlds to not fit the flavor of psionics, and IIRC he admitted pretty early on that 3.5 Psionics doesn't have the mechanical problems of prior editions. Isn't someone allowed to just dislike psionics without having to justify it? I love psionics, but no one's ever managed to sell me on the spell slot system and I do everything I can to minimize it.

If he indicated having even looked at 3.5 psionics, I missed it, since his opener was that he just hated psionics due to the mechanics of 2e, which had nothing to do with the flavor of mental power becoming a form of magic.

If he'd just said he didn't like the flavor this whole conversation likely would not have happened.

AstralFire

2013-11-24, 01:57 PM

If he indicated having even looked at 3.5 psionics, I missed it, since his opener was that he just hated psionics due to the mechanics of 2e, which had nothing to do with the flavor of mental power becoming a form of magic.

If he'd just said he didn't like the flavor this whole conversation likely would not have happened.

I misread the "psiwarrior" bit in his first post on the subject. Still, point stands, really.

I think it's obvious that he dislikes psionics for its associations and crafted his world with the intent of making the flavor mismatch. And I think (based on 2E or not) that's a perfectly valid thing to do, as long as you're open that you're banning it based on an irrational thing like bad history and not making a false claim like bad mechanics.

I mean, I wouldn't play at that table, but still.

derninus

2013-11-24, 02:05 PM

Pretty much. Any time you have an encounter where the DM basically says "Bob, you're going to sit this one out while you watch Steve, Lucy, and Chris have all the fun" is not good. It's tolerable if Bob is sitting out the encounter because he passed up opportunities to overcome his concept's weaknesses or min-maxed himself into a corner, but even then it's not something you want to do all that often.

Unfortunately, 3.5's emphasis on immunities and SoD effects encourages that kind of encounter design.

that means that a dm shouldnt use ie. tasha or any other cc spell
OR if a char is ONLY build around charging - small rooms/corridors etc shouldnt ever be used because that character wont be fully oporational in those kind of encounters.

AstralFire

2013-11-24, 02:10 PM

that means that a dm shouldnt use ie. tasha or any other cc spell
OR if a char is ONLY build around charging - small rooms/corridors etc shouldnt ever be used because that character wont be fully oporational in those kind of encounters.

Hideous Laughter is mind-affecting and Will Negates. There's a number of ways to deal with that with magic items and the Warblade class, so I don't see the problem there.

If someone was only building for charging, I'd warn them that it's a bad idea.

My job is to provide challenges, not rooster blocks, but someone is allowed to build themselves into a corner as long as I advise them that they're doing so.

Augmental

2013-11-24, 02:15 PM

that means that a dm shouldnt use ie. tasha or any other cc spell
OR if a char is ONLY build around charging - small rooms/corridors etc shouldnt ever be used because that character wont be fully oporational in those kind of encounters.

The DM is supposed to create challenging encounters - not impossible encounters that totally nullify the player's abilities, but not cakewalks that let the player use their abilities with full effectiveness every time.

HaikenEdge

2013-11-24, 02:19 PM

Hideous Laughter is mind-affecting and Will Negates. There's a number of ways to deal with that with magic items and the Warblade class, so I don't see the problem there.

If someone was only building for charging, I'd warn them that it's a bad idea.

My job is to provide challenges, not rooster blocks, but someone is allowed to build themselves into a corner as long as I advise them that they're doing so.

If somebody did that in my campaign, I'd advise them the DC to Balance on a cloud is 120, meaning the ability to balance on air would be higher (probably 150, maybe 200), but if they could make that, they could possibly charge attack flying creatures.

Brookshw

2013-11-24, 02:33 PM

If he indicated having even looked at 3.5 psionics, I missed it, since his opener was that he just hated psionics due to the mechanics of 2e, which had nothing to do with the flavor of mental power becoming a form of magic.

If he'd just said he didn't like the flavor this whole conversation likely would not have happened.

Actually what I said was it left a bad taste in my mouth but nothing further as to whether that was due to mechanics or flavor, people just made assumptions (though considering it was a conversation regarding mechanics I can see why). I probably should have just said psionics rather than 2e psionics. Let me clear that up, it's the flavor. I did point out earlier that it's anachronistic in my setting so there you go.

And yes I have read the 3.0 & 3.5 material and make no assertions relating to the mechanics being bad. There are simply some things that I don't want in a game. I also ban the cyst chain because it personally grosses me out. We all have our preferences.

OldTrees1

2013-11-24, 03:08 PM

If somebody did that in my campaign, I'd advise them the DC to Balance on a cloud is 120, meaning the ability to balance on air would be higher (probably 150, maybe 200), but if they could make that, they could possibly charge attack flying creatures.

Couldn't they just get wings and use a Dive Attack (Charge that requires 10ft of descent)

Do Airstep Sandals work for charges?

Deophaun

2013-11-24, 03:10 PM

that means that a dm shouldnt use ie. tasha or any other cc spell
As I said, it's unfortunate that 3.5 is reliant on SoD mechanics. It takes a good deal of effort to incorporate SoD effects without removing players due to bad die rolls, so it's not easily avoidable.

Late 4e was actually pretty good about incorporating Save-or-Save-Again-or-Die effects which, while capable of keeping a party off balance as they rushed to make Heal checks on their slowly-petrifying comrade, did the opposite of 3.5 and turned the victim into the center of the encounter for a few rounds, instead of telling the character's player it was his turn to pick up the pizza.

OR if a char is ONLY build around charging - small rooms/corridors etc shouldnt ever be used because that character wont be fully oporational in those kind of encounters.
First, there are ways to overcome these limitations (the Twisted Charge skill trick and the Sudden Leap maneuver spring to mind). Secondly, there are differences between being fully operational, being competent, and being window dressing.

HaikenEdge

2013-11-24, 03:53 PM

Couldn't they just get wings and use a Dive Attack (Charge that requires 10ft of descent)They could, but I assume that, if they're fighters who are focusing entirely on charging despite all other advice, they'll appreciate the visual of charging on thin air.

Do Airstep Sandals work for charges?
Doesn't say they can't, but Airstep Sandles only have Fly 10 ft. (Good) if no essentia is invested, essentially giving the player a 20 ft. charge range. Not to mention, falling damage if they don't end the turn on the ground/floor.

Oko and Qailee

2013-11-24, 04:02 PM

Construcs yes DR , undeads slashing arrows You're a moron if you Only carry normal ones

To be fair, you're saying that for an archer to be effective they must have an arrow for every situation, as there are different sources of DR, etc.

I want you to compare that to other classes/builds, for an archer to deal with all sorts of threats they have to go through a lot more trouble than most other builds.

Is this bow way better than basically every other bow? Yes.
Is it a problem? No, considering archery is one of the weaker combat types.
What would you suggest then that this bow is a no brainer? We'll I would suggest they make more bows as good as this bow (obv never going to happen bc it's too late), not remove it.

DEMON

2013-11-24, 05:56 PM

I feel the energy bow just highlights design incompetence. If you need to have 8th level wealth to buy something that lets your character achieve the thing that s/he should have been good at from level 1, then something weird is going on.

QFT!

While it can be argued that Hank's Bow is under-priced compared to other bows and ranged enhancements it's literally a must have for an archery-based character that wants to reliably contribute to every fight. It also overcomes three main issues of archery (limited arrows you can carry, DR, low damage per arrow).

People also argue it overcomes Wind Wall as well and while I don't understand the reasoning behind this if your DM agrees with this point of view, more power to you (I personally don't use this spell, nor Friendly Fire since it's just a big F.U. to any archer akin to dropping an AMF on a spell caster and only using Elementals against a sneak attacker.

I can understand disliking/banning Hank's Bow, since it is indeed a bow above all other bows. Maybe just introducing infinite arrow enhancement and Power Shot ability for everyone to buy would be the way to go. But banning the Force enhancement itself is a brutal overkill that I really can't see a reasoning behind.

Brookshw

2013-11-24, 06:02 PM

Augmental

2013-11-24, 06:19 PM

Though why people seem to think that minor nuisances such as wind wall which the archer is just going to fly over and rain death from above

Wind Wall has a height of up to 5 feet per caster level and a width of up to 50 feet per caster level, which is enough to reach across a moderately-sized room and reach from the floor to the ceiling at level 5, the earliest level most casters can learn it.

Oko and Qailee

2013-11-24, 06:20 PM

Fitz10019

2013-11-24, 06:58 PM

it's the flavor

I support your flavor-based ban. Immersion is important. That's no less true for the DM than it is for the players.

Re: Energy Bow; it's underpriced. I personally like the idea of an archer being 'prepared for anything' by having a stock of different arrow types, and a bag of hammers for those bludgeoning-necessary moments. For staying out of melee, an archer should have to manage his/her inventory of preparedness. An archer player should get a kick out of those moments when his/her preparations pay off. "I have the right arrows for this!"

Handing the archer an Energy Bow is boring to me.

Also, nothing in the description of Hank's Energy Bow says it defeats Wind Wall. It's making arrows, arrows made of force effect, but still arrows. Wind Wall deflects arrows. It doesn't say "mundane arrows" or "wooden arrows" or "corporeal arrows" -- it just says "arrows ... are deflected..." If your Wind Walls are defeated by the Energy Bow, that's the DM's generosity.

DEMON

2013-11-24, 07:21 PM

Coidzor

2013-11-24, 07:26 PM

While that is all true and it's actually expected from the archer to have a golf bag of arrows way earlier than the melees get the golf bag of swords, once the DR is prevalent on nigh any monster you fight, it's just a busy work that also overcomplicates immersion - where exactly are you storing all those arrows and how do you always have access to them?

It just changes the required item from Energy Bow to between 2 and 4 Quivers of Ehlonna (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#efficientQuiver), as I understand it.

AstralFire

2013-11-24, 07:33 PM

Handing the archer an Energy Bow is boring to me.

Deciding access to things for people based on whether or not *you* think the combat style is boring is not a very worthwhile position for the DM to take. Non-immersive, absolutely, 'boring' - no.

FWIW, I think "I fire magic bolts of force from my glowing bow" and "I have a ton of utility arrows" are both really cool playstyles, and I regularly indulge in both. But the DM should not be in a position where he or she is making calls on whether or not a particular fighting style is allowed simply because it lacks sufficient pizzazz.

DEMON

2013-11-24, 07:37 PM

It just changes the required item from Energy Bow to between 2 and 4 Quivers of Ehlonna[/URL], as I understand it.

Right, but running around with several quivers filled with different kinds of arrows hanging from you like decorations from a Christmas tree isn't what I'd really call immersive, compared to using a magical bow with one more special ability to avoid all the fuzz. If that's what Fitz was aiming for.

Zombulian

2013-11-24, 07:39 PM

Deciding access to things for people based on whether or not *you* think the combat style is boring is not a very worthwhile position for the DM to take. Non-immersive, absolutely, 'boring' - no.

FWIW, I think "I fire magic bolts of force from my glowing bow" and "I have a ton of utility arrows" are both really cool playstyles, and I regularly indulge in both. But the DM should not be in a position where he or she is making calls on whether or not a particular fighting style is allowed simply because it lacks sufficient pizzazz.

This is a good point.

Volthawk

2013-11-24, 07:56 PM

If somebody did that in my campaign, I'd advise them the DC to Balance on a cloud is 120, meaning the ability to balance on air would be higher (probably 150, maybe 200), but if they could make that, they could possibly charge attack flying creatures.

There are much easier ways of dealing with flying creatures, but damn if that's not a cool idea.

Deophaun

2013-11-24, 08:08 PM

Also, nothing in the description of Hank's Energy Bow says it defeats Wind Wall.
You're right. Hank's Energy Bow explicitly calls out what it's firing as being "force arrows." However, the Force property is a different kettle of fish, as it turns an arrow into a force projectile, so it does penetrate wind wall.

Tar Palantir

2013-11-24, 08:43 PM

I support your flavor-based ban. Immersion is important. That's no less true for the DM than it is for the players.

Re: Energy Bow; it's underpriced. I personally like the idea of an archer being 'prepared for anything' by having a stock of different arrow types, and a bag of hammers for those bludgeoning-necessary moments. For staying out of melee, an archer should have to manage his/her inventory of preparedness. An archer player should get a kick out of those moments when his/her preparations pay off. "I have the right arrows for this!"

Handing the archer an Energy Bow is boring to me.

Also, nothing in the description of Hank's Energy Bow says it defeats Wind Wall. It's making arrows, arrows made of force effect, but still arrows. Wind Wall deflects arrows. It doesn't say "mundane arrows" or "wooden arrows" or "corporeal arrows" -- it just says "arrows ... are deflected..." If your Wind Walls are defeated by the Energy Bow, that's the DM's generosity.

Even if you're willing to do the Hawkeye bajillion arrows thing, DR is still going to knock the pants off of your archer, just not as often. What happens if you face an outsider with an alignment DR you can't beat? It's not like the CG Robin Hood time can carry around axiomatic arrows to deal with slaadi or demons, and even good PCs can get in scuffles with celestials. And then you have DR with no bypass, with crushes archers horrifically. Elementals are the biggest offenders in core, with DR 10/- on the bigger versions, but they're more than a few mobs with DR X/- out there, and when your average damage per shot may never make it to double digits in your entire career, even five points is quite a bit. Melee types have no trouble swinging in for massive damage to punch through DR when they don't have the proper swag; it still affects them, but they can power through. I've been in fights where our party archer would run out of arrows before the enemy took enough damage to waste an attack on him, between DR and fast healing. His sole contribution to the fight was desperately trying to appear threatening so he could at least eat an attack or two for us. Hank's energy bow and the force property serve as answers for this (the energy bow on two levels, by adding the power shot ability), and they don't exactly come cheap, especially if you're angling for splitting someday down the line. It's probably telling that that was the last archer we've had in our party that didn't use precision damage (most commonly from scout), and he spent the latter half of the campaign as an archery-style ranger wading into melee with a greatsword our party melee ditched after upgrading his weapon.

Brookshw

2013-11-24, 10:56 PM

You say its hard to get to double digits but I see high level archers dealing 50-60 roughly a hit and landing 4-6 hits a round, Dr 10 is a speed bump, not a wall. Difference in campaigns and optimization I suppose. But the arguments about shutting it down strike me as very odd. First, why bother with windall or protection from arrows? Forcecage, repulsion, wings of cover, there ate plenty of ways to shut lots of things down. But these aren't tactics that should be routinely applied, a boss, sure, but not routinely. Also, how are people playing? My players treat it as a team game, that wind wall is only a problem until your buddy dispels it. Perhaps there's a difference in playstyles here.

But this automatic assumption that force is required I find absurd. A dm wanting some form of throttle control on a campaign is fine. People here damn well know there could be better editing on many things. Also dm's are people, the time they have to invest in preping a game is finite, restricting player options to what you can managably build challenges for is fine.

And I see this killing flavor, we're going to charge the 9 hells to save q soul and need good weapons to be effective. That's an adventure waiting to happen. Let's find the tomb of saints to borrow there weapons and go show some devils what's up. A lack of an advantage can be an adventure to overcome exactly that. The devils I feel start to lose that "primordial unholy" nature once all Dr's are one size fits all.

Augmental

2013-11-24, 11:13 PM

First, why bother with windall or protection from arrows? Forcecage, repulsion, wings of cover, there ate plenty of ways to shut lots of things down.

Forcecage and repulsion are higher-level spells and have expensive material components. Wings of Cover only provides cover against a single attack. Wind wall is a low level spell, doesn't have an expensive material component, and can block multiple ranged attacks for CL rounds over a wide area.

But these aren't tactics that should be routinely applied, a boss, sure, but not routinely.

Maybe in an E6 game, but you only need to be a 5th level cleric, druid, or wizard to cast wind wall.

Also, how are people playing? My players treat it as a team game, that wind wall is only a problem until your buddy dispels it. Perhaps there's a difference in playstyles here.

Other mundane archetypes don't need to rely on spellcasters to not be fully neutralized.

TuggyNE

2013-11-24, 11:38 PM

You say its hard to get to double digits but I see high level archers dealing 50-60 roughly a hit and landing 4-6 hits a round

Hmm, brief breakdown for this, please? Without e.g. Power Shot and without using distance-limited tricks like Crossbow Sniper or skirmish, I can imagine 2d6 (composite greatbow) + 5 (enhancement bonus) + 4 (Str bonus) + 5 (collision) +4d6 (flaming, frost, caustic, shocking) = ~35 per hit, with 4 (BAB) + 1 (Rapid Shot) + 1 (haste) * 2 (splitting) = 12 shots per round, using a +1 mighty +4 flaming caustic shocking frost composite greatbow of collision and greater magic weapon to make it +5. Maximum total average damage is just shy of 400/round if all shots only miss on a 2, which is of course highly unlikely, and DR applies 12 times per round to negate up to 2d6+9 of that damage, or 252 total. Since that cuts even maximum damage by more than half, I'd say that's potentially a pretty steep wall.

Of course, 35/shot's little more than half your ballpark, but it's very nearly the peak of what I can manage under those circumstances, and it costs a +10-equivalent weapon and/or a lot of expensive ammo. So I'm interested to know how you do this.

Deophaun

2013-11-24, 11:42 PM

And I see this killing flavor, we're going to charge the 9 hells to save q soul and need good weapons to be effective. That's an adventure waiting to happen.
It sound more like an over involved shopping trip that takes an inordinate amount of time and probably makes no difference anyway. Players know their characters better than the DM does, they have a better grasp on what they need. I've played in campaigns where we wasted three sessions getting a weapon/item that we "needed" to defeat some baddy, and we actually never touched the DM provided loot because we had better alternatives already baked into our classes.

So, in the end, it was three days of mindless dungeon crawling with no meaning. Meanwhile, we could have been busy uncovering the cultists' secrets, uniting the dragon clans, or any one of a hundred other things more interesting than pulling some piece of sharpened metal out of a glorified hole in the ground.

I have a very low opinion of quests where the goal is to get treasure, if you can't tell.

Brookshw

2013-11-24, 11:55 PM

Hmm, brief breakdown for this, please? Without e.g. Power Shot and without using distance-limited tricks like Crossbow Sniper or skirmish, I can imagine 2d6 (composite greatbow) + 5 (enhancement bonus) + 4 (Str bonus) + 5 (collision) +4d6 (flaming, frost, caustic, shocking) = ~35 per hit, with 4 (BAB) + 1 (Rapid Shot) + 1 (haste) * 2 (splitting) = 12 shots per round, using a +1 mighty +4 flaming caustic shocking frost composite greatbow of collision and greater magic weapon to make it +5. Maximum total average damage is just shy of 400/round if all shots only miss on a 2, which is of course highly unlikely, and DR applies 12 times per round to negate up to 2d6+9 of that damage, or 252 total. Since that cuts even maximum damage by more than half, I'd say that's potentially a pretty steep wall.

Of course, 35/shot's little more than half your ballpark, but it's very nearly the peak of what I can manage under those circumstances, and it costs a +10-equivalent weapon and/or a lot of expensive ammo. So I'm interested to know how you do this.

Add in tweaked scout swift hunter min max builds..

Edit 2: I'm assuming skirmish as an option.

Edit: will gladly respond to other posts when I'm at q computer as opposed to my phone.

TuggyNE

2013-11-25, 02:20 AM

Add in tweaked scout swift hunter min max builds..

Edit 2: I'm assuming skirmish as an option.

Skirmish is awesome, but it's precision damage and has a tight range. And even Swift Hunter won't get you past Heavy Fortification armor or crit immunity spells. That doesn't seem like enough to cover all the different archers, so Energy Bow's "subsidy" of the rest seems reasonable.

derninus

2013-11-25, 06:45 AM

Here's a question for you derninus, how does the archer in the campaign stand up compared against the party? Half the people on the thread are using an underlying premise that he/she is not able to hold their own. Please let us know if that is or is not the case for your group.

Though why people seem to think that minor nuisances such as wind wall which the archer is just going to fly over and rain death from above or protection from arrows that is negated in as soon as you get a +1 bow somehow cripple you.

The archer is using exitwound enchantment with a +1d6 crystal in his bow.
i cant remember if someone cast magic weapon or they have a wand to make it +3
they have haste from the wizard which at level 12 give him 5 attacks pr round with 12+dex(6)+haste(1)+3 to the hit
he then does 1d8+3+1d6+pbs if within 30+exitwound+2 from str (mighty compo)

thats a 2d6+1d8+5 or 6 on each arrow and he normaly hit 2 targets with the exitwound enchantment

with the 5 attacks he has 3 on max ba -2 from rapid and haste and has 20/15/10/20/20 to his attack.
this normaly result in about 8 attacks hit pr turn which is 16d6+8d8+40/48 on 2 targets
~130 damage.

I know its not as much as a charger BUT he has gone beastmaster which results in 1 huge direwolf (druid use animal growth) with about 2000 trip another direwolf and an eagle or something that isnt used for combat
the two wolves act as tank so i normaly cant get in his face unless i make monsters who can tumble/teleport/invis or something and the wolves do about 40-60 dmg pr turn each

this is 200 dmg plus 2-4 times trip from this poor poor archer.

i know its not as much as a charger but a charger is melee and a ranger makes better party composition so aoe doesnt screw them up as much.
i fail to see the underpowered archer.

and as a sitenote to my other post we also banned wings of cover

Ganorenas

2013-11-25, 07:40 AM

Tossing in my experience with Archer builds-

As a DM: A player of mine was playing a Fire Variant Grey Elf half-Nymph
Wanted a lot of Int and Cha for character/storyline and consequentially did very little damage (with a +2 Long bow and a -1 Str penalty) which was his own fault. He rarely set up for sneak attack, went into the assassin prestige class and spent the time observing his opponent in combats that took around 2 rounds to complete due to the rest of the group's abilities. He complained about being useless non-stop. Until level 13 when I handed the party a +3 Force Collision Long Bow (with a quiver of Ehlonna that had +1 Dragon bane Adamantine arrows) he was their lowest damage dealer (but enjoyed being party face). He never touched the bow. His choice. He did like the quiver though.
Had them pick out wands of invisibility and silence to help him set up for sneak attacks more often, so he passed them onto the party wizard.
Seemed like he wanted to be below the curve and whine.

Finally settled on him doing a dungeon for the purpose of finding an artifact long bow that added Int to attack and Damage to see if he would feel better.
He adored it, not because of the bonuses and abilities, but because it was made of Orc Bones. :smallannoyed:

He drove me insane until that point.

As a player:
I bought the right arrows, took the right feats, and paid through the nose to get a good bow with the right quiver. I was very satisfied when my efforts paid off and I was able to deal enough damage to fell a foe a round (sometimes finish those we knew were weaker so the charger could move forward, I like to think we all liked helping each other pick targets).

Each table is different, but I agree with those before my post that being good at what you want to do is very satisfying!

kalos72

2013-11-25, 08:29 AM

What about an Energy Ballista? :smallbiggrin:

Divayth Fyr

2013-11-25, 08:52 AM

What about an Energy Ballista? :smallbiggrin:
I'd prefer a ballista which would fire a fireball (and was carried around by a huge-size player who'd call it Piecemaker) ;)

Brookshw

2013-11-25, 08:58 AM

What about an Energy Ballista? :smallbiggrin:

Rofl, for that rate of fire, do it!

Other mundane archetypes don't need to rely on spellcasters to not be fully neutralized.

Not really, grease, web etc are low level spells that if applied tactically can go miles to shutting down mundanes. You'll never fully bridge the gap between mundanes and magic. Silly muggles thinking they're people :smalltongue:

Skirmish is awesome, but it's precision damage and has a tight range. And even Swift Hunter won't get you past Heavy Fortification armor or crit immunity spells. That doesn't seem like enough to cover all the different archers, so Energy Bow's "subsidy" of the rest seems reasonable.

Again though, they last up until the point they're dispelled/mdj'd. Maybe I'm assuming a level of team play that others don't experience at their tables, but these overwhelming challenges being proposed all can be shut down. If ways of shutting down these challenges are off the table I can see force being reasonable, but if you're introducing challenges that the party cant[I] overcome, that's kind of bad encounter design to begin with. Also the DM [I]always has the ability to shut anyone down, the mundane or the T1, but if you're doing it without the party being able to stop it then that's A) a **** move and B) makes me wonder why you run a game, and C) see A.

they have a better grasp on what they need
But a worst grasp of what the DM can build for. It's perfectly reasonable for the DM to have a throttle control over what they can manage/build for.

three days of mindless dungeon crawling with no meaning
I can feel for you on that if there wasn't any payout.

I agree with those before my post that being good at what you want to do is very satisfying!
As you should be! No one's saying that you shouldn't be able to contribute meaningfully and be able to accomplish things. That's half the fun for players and it shouldn't be taken away. Whether force is a requirement or not for an archer to do so is the point of contention. I don't see it as necessary for a well built party that plays together and don't permit it. Others may have different groups with varied optimization levels and their game benefits by having force. Well, that's their call, I don't presume to know your group or party better than you do or what will make the game more fun for all.

Back to derninus: it sounds like he's able to hold his own though you've only mentioned what he can do, not what the rest of the party is.

Deophaun

2013-11-25, 12:12 PM

But a worst grasp of what the DM can build for. It's perfectly reasonable for the DM to have a throttle control over what they can manage/build for.
The better solution, IMHO, is to have the goal of the quest give you useful information on what you're going to be facing. It's more interesting to find out that the black dragon terrorizing the area was raised by a mad alchemist that gave it a template with DR 15/silver, rather than tracking down a legendary weapon that happens to be a +3 dragonbane silver greatsword.

Brookshw

2013-11-25, 12:33 PM

The better solution, IMHO, is to have the goal of the quest give you useful information on what you're going to be facing. It's more interesting to find out that the black dragon terrorizing the area was raised by a mad alchemist that gave it a template with DR 15/silver, rather than tracking down a legendary weapon that happens to be a +3 dragonbane silver greatsword.

Sure, you could do all sorts of things but neither quest would have any meaning if you're already bypassing any and all dr. Absolutely story development and fluffing things out is great and adds to immersion. One size fits all solutions easy can (note can, not necessarily will) detract from that.

Deophaun

2013-11-25, 12:41 PM

Sure, you could do all sorts of things but neither quest would have any meaning if you're already bypassing any and all dr.
One tells you about the campaign world and offers far more opportunities for future villains ("what happened to that alchemist?"). The other just gives you half the gold.

One lets you take steps to adapt the character you have developed to compensate. The other forces you to switch out what is likely a key aspect of your build for something the DM wants.

One helps the entire party. The other helps one player.

Fax Celestis

2013-11-25, 12:49 PM

that basically means there are no decent archers out there if we separate them from their bows.

To be fair, how are you going to be an archer without a bow? Throw arrows at people?

Deophaun

2013-11-25, 01:45 PM

To be fair, how are you going to be an archer without a bow? Throw arrows at people?
Soulbow. (Soulbolt/Soul Archer if using the PF version)

Brookshw

2013-11-25, 01:49 PM

One tells you about the campaign world and offers far more opportunities for future villains ("what happened to that alchemist?"). The other just gives you half the gold.

/shrug, you could build either scenario to have plenty of little plot hooks.

One lets you take steps to adapt the character you have developed to compensate.

Except you don't have to adapt or develop your character if force was already on the table.

The other forces you to switch out what is likely a key aspect of your build for something the DM wants.

How is denying the force effect forcing someone to change their build? Or did you mean making it a sword?

One helps the entire party. The other helps one player.

If it's one item you center the quest around sure, doesn't have to be one though. Frankly I like your suggestion of this but it doesn't seem related to whether force is a must have property for an archer. A number of assumptions in this thread seem to be that your completely gimped without access to to the force property. This sings to me of either bad encounter design or bad dming in general. As was said on page one, the bow/property isn't necessary if the situation isn't removing someone's ability to contribute.

Actually you just gave me an idea for an adventure so thank you:smallbiggrin:

As the OP has said, his archer does ~200 damage and a few trip attacks a round. If that's ballpark for the party it sounds like the groups fairly balanced and the force property isn't necessary.

Fax Celestis

2013-11-25, 02:10 PM

Soulbow. (Soulbolt/Soul Archer if using the PF version)

...in which case you still have a magic item, albeit one you make with your mind.

Deophaun

2013-11-25, 02:16 PM

Except you don't have to adapt or develop your character if force was already on the table.
In the example given, you are correct. Force would bypass DR X/whatever. But the nice thing about learning about a creature is that you can have much more interesting elements you can introduce. For instance, you learn that the black dragon hated the smell of the tobacco the alchemist smoked. Or the party might know the dragon is a threat because it attacked the local temple of Hieronious and collapsed its tower. But, reading the alchemist's notes, you discover that the dragon really enjoyed the tolling of the temple's bell, which went missing after its attack. The bells now occupy a place of honor as part of its horde. In short, you give out elements that have little or nothing to do with equipment and that can be applied with some creativity to solving the problem (either through combat or other means).

How is denying the force effect forcing someone to change their build? Or did you mean making it a sword?
I meant the player has put effort into getting a weapon that he wants to use, and the DM comes along and tells him not to use that weapon in favor of a weapon the DM wants the player to use.

If it's one item you center the quest around sure, doesn't have to be one though.
But the more items you add, the less immersive it is. Sure, there's a sword for the fighter, and there also happens to be a kama for the monk? And wildshape armor for the druid? What are the odds?

Frankly I like your suggestion of this but it doesn't seem related to whether force is a must have property for an archer.
Right, this is about the issue of "Let's quest for a magic item to solve our problem," rather than the Force enhancement. Force is needed for other reasons (Most DR is, frankly, easier for an archer to overcome than a melee if they bother to prepare, although DR X/bludgeoning is a big problem)

Fax Celestis

2013-11-25, 02:20 PM

But the more items you add, the less immersive it is. Sure, there's a sword for the fighter, and there also happens to be a kama for the monk? And wildshape armor for the druid? What are the odds?

Who the hell cares about the odds? Let your players play the game. It is right there: play-er. A game that is an exercise in denial and frustration isn't fun.

Deophaun

2013-11-25, 02:22 PM

Who the hell cares about the odds? Let your players play the game. It is right there: play-er. A game that is an exercise in denial and frustration isn't fun.
And if you read my post, you will note how I'm talking about how to avoid exercises in denial and frustration.

Fax Celestis

2013-11-25, 02:23 PM

You certainly don't sound that way.

Deophaun

2013-11-25, 02:24 PM

You certainly don't sound that way.
Let's see, saying that the players should decide what they use, not the DM, is somehow advocating for the DM to deny the players... what, exactly?

Fax Celestis

2013-11-25, 02:27 PM

Feel free to be as confrontational about everything as you like, but I'm not having this argument.

Deophaun

2013-11-25, 02:34 PM

Feel free to be as confrontational about everything as you like, but I'm not having this argument.
You put words in my mouth that are 180 degrees from what I said, and you feign offense? I laugh.

OldTrees1

2013-11-25, 04:25 PM

@Fax Celestis
Despite how defensive Deophaun was to your comment, I think there might have been a misunderstanding between you two.

Deophaun was supporting the idea of players getting the items they want based on intel about the enemy.
Deophaun was against the DM handing out "use this weapon instead of your favorite weapon or lose" weapons to the players.

RedWarlock

2013-11-25, 04:52 PM

derninus

2013-11-26, 10:29 AM

Personally, in my game, I've ruled that both the Energy Bow and the Gloves of Endless Javelins (MIC p194) make projectiles of force, but not of the Force property. They bypass Incorporeal, but not DR. (it never says the Force property, just 'X made of pure force'.)

doesnt it say it does force damage - which bypass most normal dr due to the fact its force - just like magic missile

RedWarlock

2013-11-26, 11:39 AM

Actually magic missile bypasses DR because its a spell, not because of any properties of the Force descriptor. (Check it, no reference to DR whatsoever.)

jindra34

2013-11-26, 12:22 PM

Actually magic missile bypasses DR because its a spell, not because of any properties of the Force descriptor. (Check it, no reference to DR whatsoever.)

Actually all forms of energy damage (force, fire, cold, electric, acid, sonic etc.) bypass DR by default from its definition.

TuggyNE

2013-11-26, 05:02 PM

Actually all forms of energy damage (force, fire, cold, electric, acid, sonic etc.) bypass DR by default from its definition.

At this point someone will remind us that force is not technically energy damage, someone else will ask "well what is it then?", no answer will be available because it's not defined in RAW, comparisons to the various known ways of getting non-spell force damage will be made in an attempt to fall back on precedent, and someone will note that they're not very consistent and there's only one or two sources that actually say outright what they do.

Or, in short: this is a big messy ball of wax, and whether force effects do, or do not, bypass DR is not at all obvious.