Mage slayer feats - what's their point?

[Sergio]

May I ask who is supposed to get these feats? Just a pure warrior?

These feats seems to be counter-intuitive and counter productive. For example, I would love to go runescarred berserker and take these feats - but by doing so I'm just hitting myself.

Can someone tell me how I'm supposed to use these feats, or for which class? Thanks a lot.

[Flickerdart]

Yes, the intent is that you should be a "pure warrior" - someone who fights in melee, and doesn't rely on spellcasting. Fighters, rogues, whatever.

Note that any character that doesn't rely on spells or spell-like abilities with caster levels effectively ignores this penalty. Psionics users don't care - they manifest powers and use manifester level. Anyone relying on supernatural abilities also doesn't suffer any drawbacks.

[Dagroth]

A VoP Forsaker (Masters of the Wild, 3.0 content) / Occult Slayer.

[Thurbane]

Anyone relying on supernatural abilities also doesn't suffer any drawbacks.

You could probably make a semi-decent anti-caster build using Binder/KoTSS as the base.

[Flickerdart]

You could probably make a semi-decent anti-caster build using Binder/KoTSS as the base.

Huh, for some reason I thought that while binding was SU, the fancy abilities they granted were SLAs. Maybe I was thinking of Incarnum.

[GilesTheCleric]

Casters can take them, too. There's a whole lot of spells that don't have DCs or otherwise for which the CL doesn't matter (aside from being able to cast in the first place). It's perfectly doable to make a caster anti-caster if you're picky with your spells. It's not the best method of doing so (that's what spells are for), but it's an option.

[lord_khaine]

Martrial adepts can also get a lot from them, but honestly, to answer the original question then everyone that are not a spellcaster and plan to melee can use them.

[Jack_McSnatch]

... No. The mage slayer feats are obviously meant for pure spellcasters. That's why you take a caster level penalty and get benefits to fighting casters in melee.

Sarcasm aside, this is kind of a silly question. What else did you think these feats were for?

[Zanos]

Casters can take them, too. There's a whole lot of spells that don't have DCs or otherwise for which the CL doesn't matter (aside from being able to cast in the first place). It's perfectly doable to make a caster anti-caster if you're picky with your spells. It's not the best method of doing so (that's what spells are for), but it's an option.
There's a strong argument that if the penalty takes you below the caster level at which you get a spell you can no longer cast it. There's a lot of ways to increase caster level, though.

[Sergio]

Yes, the intent is that you should be a "pure warrior" - someone who fights in melee, and doesn't rely on spellcasting. Fighters, rogues, whatever.

Note that any character that doesn't rely on spells or spell-like abilities with caster levels effectively ignores this penalty. Psionics users don't care - they manifest powers and use manifester level. Anyone relying on supernatural abilities also doesn't suffer any drawbacks.

Understood. So pure warrior, it is?


A VoP Forsaker (Masters of the Wild, 3.0 content) / Occult Slayer.
I saw these classes and I can't see the appeal. Thank you for telling, trhough


You could probably make a semi-decent anti-caster build using Binder/KoTSS as the base.
What are binder and Kotss?


Martrial adepts can also get a lot from them, but honestly, to answer the original question then everyone that are not a spellcaster and plan to melee can use them.

;)

... No. The mage slayer feats are obviously meant for pure spellcasters. That's why you take a caster level penalty and get benefits to fighting casters in melee.

Sarcasm aside, this is kind of a silly question. What else did you think these feats were for?

I understand your point, but according to me, these feats should bge available for those classes whose purpose is blatantly against magic Or at least, for martial classes (non psionic).
My query is that if I wanted to make a barbarian whose wish is to destroy the mages, I have to choose between runescarred berserker OR mage slayer feats, not these together, even if the concept they are going for seems to be pretty similar.

[lord_khaine]

I understand your point, but according to me, these feats should bge available for those classes whose purpose is blatantly against magic Or at least, for martial classes (non psionic).
My query is that if I wanted to make a barbarian whose wish is to destroy the mages, I have to choose between runescarred berserker OR mage slayer feats, not these together, even if the concept they are going for seems to be pretty similar.

Problem is when your using a runescared berserker your aiming for someone that tries to turn magic against itself, as the bersker already learns a bit of magic on his own. Meanwhile Mageslayer feats are for those who want to fight magic without using it themselves. Thats two different paths.

[Thurbane]

What are binder and Kotss?

Binder (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070718) is a base class introduced in the Tome of Magic (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060303a&page=1). They bind "vestiges" to themselves to gain an array of Supernatural abilities, which vary according to the vestige bound.

KotSS = Knight of the Sacred seal; a 5-level prestige class specifically for Binders. It makes binders more melee focused, and more devoted to a particular "vestige".

[Esprit15]

I'll add myself to the "Anyone who doesn't use magic" list.

Granted, the only time I took any of them was in an all dragons game. Sure, SR was kind of a pain, but if it doesn't actually make the spell weaker, it's not a big deal.

[Venger]

Huh, for some reason I thought that while binding was SU, the fancy abilities they granted were SLAs. Maybe I was thinking of Incarnum.

Soulmeld-granted abilities aren't slas either. You treat them like slas for the purpose of sr and dispel, but they don't provoke aoos. Maybe you were thinking of warlock invocations?

Specifically within the subset of noncasters, builds centered around reaping a lot of aoos through the use of combat reflexes and related effects get the most out of the mage slayer line.

[Uncle Pine]

You can also take them on a straight Wizard build if you're playing something along the lines of The Great and Powerful Korg (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?195049-Help-Me-Be-Annoying-with-a-Barbarian-Wizard).

[Dagroth]

With Flaws, you can get into Forsaker at level 2.

If you go VoP right off, you can do some tricky tricks...

Need at least 13 Int for this (14 at level 4) (15 Cha for Exalted SR, easy to get with Forsaker & VoP)

1) Monk 1 (Cross-class Survival 2)
Human Bonus Feat: Vow of Poverty
Monk Feat: Stunning Fist
Level 1 Feat: Kung Fu Genius (Int to AC)
Flaw Feat 1: Great Fortitude
Flaw Feat 2: Lightning Reflexes
2) Swordsage 1 (Discipline Focus: Shadow Hand)
3) Swordsage 2 (Wis to AC) (Cross-class Survival 3)
Level 3 Feat: Iron Will
4) Forsaker 1 (Get Handle Animal 4) (Note that Forsaker SR specifically stacks with other SR)
5) Fighter 1 (Cross-class Survival 4)
Fighter Bonus Feat: Power Attack
6) Monk 2
Monk Bonus Feat: Combat Expertise
Level 6 Feat: Improved Initiative
7) Fist of the Forest 1 (Con to AC)
8) Kensai 1 (Oath of service to an ideal: Destroy evil magic, Enhance Unarmed Strike)
9) Fighter 2
Fighter Bonus Feat: Mage Slayer
Level 9 Feat: Blind-Fighting
10) Occult Slayer.
11) Forsaker 2
12) Forsaker 3 (Con to Natural Armor)
Level 12 Feat: Pierce Magical Concealment
13+) Forsaker/Kensai/Occult Slayer as desired.

If you have LA buyoff, get Phrenic for a bunch more SR (with Psy/Magic transparency). The way it's written, when you get Forsaker at level 4, you'll already have PR 14 from Phrenic (or just PR 10 if you go by the rule that "HD" is only racial hit dice and not class hit dice) and Forsaker drops another 11 on top of that! SR 25 (or 21) at level 4 is sweet!

Note that Kensai isn't really important to this build because of Exalted Strike, but you can do pretty cool stuff like Impact (increased crit range), Ghost Touch & more... and Withstand (Kensai-5) is a pretty cool ability. If you drop Kensai, you can switch Blind-Fighting to your Monk Bonus Feat at level 6 and get Pierce Magical Concealment at 9.

If we start with all stats at 13...
4th level, +1 to Int
4th level (Forsaker) +1 to Wis
7th level (VoP) +2 to Con
8th level, +1 to Con
11th Level (Forsaker) +1 to Cha
11th Level (VoP) +2 to Con, +2 to Int
12th Level +1 to Str
12th level (Forsaker) +1 to Dex

This gives us: Str 14, Int 16, Wis 14, Dex 14, Con 18, Cha 14
Phrenic adds +2 Int, +2 Wis, +4 Cha... but I would still boost Int at 4th level.

You'd have an AC of (+8 Exalted, +2 Deflection, +3(4) Int, +2(3) Wis, +2 Dex, +4 Con, +4 Natural) 35 (37 w/Phrenic), with +4 Insight from Defensive Precognition 3/day, +6 Shield bonus from Force Screen 1/day

[Venger]

forsaker is noteworthy in that it's the only class in the game you can take without having any levels at all.

you could legally be a forsaker 1 as a 1st level character who has no la or rhd. either a human with one flaw or anything else with 2 gets in. if you're starting at a high enough level to have 3k as part of your starting wealth, you can actually enter as a human with no flaws or a nonhuman with one via otyugh hole. the only con is you default to your type for weapon and armor proficiency, which sucks for humans, so just enter as a neraph.

your build stub is very exciting. if I may make one suggestion, take carmendine monk instead of kung-fu genius. you get int to AC, but have some extra options as well instead of just that.

[Crake]

Yes, the intent is that you should be a "pure warrior" - someone who fights in melee, and doesn't rely on spellcasting. Fighters, rogues, whatever.

Note that any character that doesn't rely on spells or spell-like abilities with caster levels effectively ignores this penalty. Psionics users don't care - they manifest powers and use manifester level. Anyone relying on supernatural abilities also doesn't suffer any drawbacks.

I was under the impression that psionic powers were all technically "SLAs", and wouldn't the magic transparency rules mean any reduction to CL would also be a reduction to ML?

[Venger]

I was under the impression that psionic powers were all technically "SLAs", and wouldn't the magic transparency rules mean any reduction to CL would also be a reduction to ML?

since it calls out the "caster level" of slas, and not the manifester level, psionics are unaffected.

[stack]

Dagroth, how are you getting how of poverty without sacred vow?

[Dagroth]

Dagroth, how are you getting how of poverty without sacred vow?

Huh... Good question. :smallredface:

I guess you could push things down a bit...

1) Monk 1 (Cross-class Survival 2)
Human Bonus Feat: Sacred Vow
Monk Feat: Stunning Fist
Level 1 Feat: Carmendine Monk (Int to AC)
Flaw Feat 1: Great Fortitude
Flaw Feat 2: Vow of Poverty
2) Swordsage 1 (Discipline Focus: Shadow Hand)
3) Swordsage 2 (Wis to AC) (Cross-class Survival 3)
Level 3 Feat: Iron Will
4) Fighter 1 (Get Handle Animal 4)
Fighter Bonus Feat: Power Attack
5) Monk 2 (Cross-class Survival 4)
Monk Bonus Feat: Combat Expertise
6) Fighter 2
Fighter Bonus Feat: Improved Initiative
Level 6 Feat: Lightning Reflexes
7) Forsaker 1
8) Fist of the Forest 1
9) Kensai 1
Level 9 Feat: Blind-Fighting
10) Occult Slayer.
11) Forsaker 2
12) Forsaker 3 (Con to Natural Armor)
Level 12 Feat: Mage Slayer

So yeah, you probably don't want to get either Occult Slayer (drop Improved Initiative) or Kensai (drop Combat Expertise). That will let you push either Blind-Fighting or Mage Slayer back down to 5 or 6 and still get Pierce Magical Concealment at 12.

You have to get Carmandine Monk before you get Swordsage 2, or the AC bonuses don't stack. Though if you're willing to push Vow of Poverty down to 3rd level you can spend most of your wealth prior to taking it on a visit to the Otyugh Hole for your Iron Will.

[Firechanter]

The Mage Slayer line are actually some of my absolute favourite 3.5 feats altogether. Anything that gives those snobbish fingerwicklers a good dressing-down is great in my book.

Unfortunately, in my previous group they were put on the "Things I Am Not Allowed To Do" list by the DM.
Well, that's putting it a bit harshly. When we were in the planning stages for a new campaign, I said that I wanted to play a Warblade with Mage Slayer / PMC. The DM called that a "pretty Hard build" (hard like "hard radiation", not difficult), because that (in conjunction with Reach and Stand Still) would enable my character to completely shut down any enemy spellcaster, unless he'd pull out the Optimizing tools himself, and that would be an arms race we didn't want.
So long story short, I did not take the Mage Slayer line, but went for Knowledge Devotion and Martial Study instead. It was also the last 3.5 game I got to play. Very hard to find players for that nowadays, at least in these parts.

[Flickerdart]

I was under the impression that psionic powers were all technically "SLAs", and wouldn't the magic transparency rules mean any reduction to CL would also be a reduction to ML?

People always misunderstand psionic-magic transparency. It's not "psionics and magic are the same." It's actually a set of very specific rules interactions. ML=CL isn't one of them, and for a good reason - with all the ways in-game to boost CL, a multiclass psion would be obscenely powerful.

[Soranar]

Even then only taking 1 mage slayer feat is usually enough to get the job done and you can offset that with practiced spellcaster or something similar.

I did a warlock (using eldritch glaive) that had a severe hit to his caster level but it barely affected him (most invocations don't care about your caster level anyway)

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

You can give your animal companion cross-class ranks in Spellcraft and have it take these for some of the feats it gains from its extra HD.

[zergling.exe]

forsaker is noteworthy in that it's the only class in the game you can take without having any levels at all.

you could legally be a forsaker 1 as a 1st level character who has no la or rhd. either a human with one flaw or anything else with 2 gets in. if you're starting at a high enough level to have 3k as part of your starting wealth, you can actually enter as a human with no flaws or a nonhuman with one via otyugh hole. the only con is you default to your type for weapon and armor proficiency, which sucks for humans, so just enter as a neraph.

Actually, by RAW that doesn't work. You have to choose your class (step 3) before you get feats (step 8), PHB p6. When creating a higher level character, class (step 2) still comes before feats (step 3) and gp (step 5), DMG p199.

[Venger]

Actually, by RAW that doesn't work. You have to choose your class (step 3) before you get feats (step 8), PHB p6. When creating a higher level character, class (step 2) still comes before feats (step 3) and gp (step 5), DMG p199.

Right, but since humanoids' first level/rhd is replaced with the first class they take, wouldn't it be subsumed?

Hypothetically, an unclassed 1rhd human could take the 3 save feats, then upon entering forsaker, his 1hd of humanoid would be replaced with forsaker, wouldn't it?

[nyjastul69]

Right, but since humanoids' first level/rhd is replaced with the first class they take, wouldn't it be subsumed?

Hypothetically, an unclassed 1rhd human could take the 3 save feats, then upon entering forsaker, his 1hd of humanoid would be replaced with forsaker, wouldn't it?

Can you give me a RAW example of an unclassed 1RHD human?

[ryu]

Can you give me a RAW example of an unclassed 1RHD human?

Babies, children, and adults who haven't taken a profession yet. Tis brief, yes, but there is a time before every commoner starts commoning.

[nyjastul69]

Babies, children, and adults who haven't taken a profession yet. Tis brief, yes, but there is a time before every commoner starts commoning.

I'm fairly certain that those creatures are not defined within the RAW. If I'm incorrect please point me to your source.

[Dagroth]

Can you give me a RAW example of an unclassed 1RHD human?

Okay, how about an Elf with 2 flaws then?

[nyjastul69]

Okay, how about an Elf with 2 flaws then?

I don't understand how this applies to humans.

[Dagroth]

Okay, how about an Elf with 2 flaws then?


I don't understand how this applies to humans.

It doesn't, it applies to being a Forsaker at character level 1.

[ryu]

I'm fairly certain that those creatures are not defined within the RAW. If I'm incorrect please point me to your source.

Here's the 3.5 child template. (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Child_(3.5e_Template))

It literally can't have class levels and won't be able to take any until adulthood. Also note that literally any humanoid without NPC class levels to some degree in their build cannot have defaulted to a class of any sort prior to actually learning one as otherwise it would show up in their stats. Why is this important? Many classes, like wizards, have a lengthy learning process to even start built in the fluff that usually takes at least a good year or two even starting as an adult.

[zergling.exe]

Here's the 3.5 child template. (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Child_(3.5e_Template))

Referring to homebrew when asked for RAW?


It literally can't have class levels and won't be able to take any until adulthood. Also note that literally any humanoid without NPC class levels to some degree in their build cannot have defaulted to a class of any sort prior to actually learning one as otherwise it would show up in their stats. Why is this important? Many classes, like wizards, have a lengthy learning process to even start built in the fluff that usually takes at least a good year or two even starting as an adult.

RAW does not give them a RHD in this case. They simply have no HD until they finish their training and gain their first level. Where in RAW does it say they gain a RHD when they reach adulthood?

[nyjastul69]

It doesn't, it applies to being a Forsaker at character level 1.

That's not what I was addressing. I was simply pointing out that I've never seen a 1 RHD human. I don't think they exist per RAW.



Here's the 3.5 child template. (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Child_(3.5e_Template))

It literally can't have class levels and won't be able to take any until adulthood. Also note that literally any humanoid without NPC class levels to some degree in their build cannot have defaulted to a class of any sort prior to actually learning one as otherwise it would show up in their stats. Why is this important? Many classes, like wizards, have a lengthy learning process to even start built in the fluff that usually takes at least a good year or two even starting as an adult.

That's nice and all, but D&D wiki is a far cry from RAW. I reiterate; please give me a RAW example.

[ryu]

Referring to homebrew when asked for RAW?



RAW does not give them a RHD in this case. They simply have no HD until they finish their training and gain their first level. Where in RAW does it say they gain a RHD when they reach adulthood?

Because having no hitdie literally means you're born dead or unconscious at zero HP? EVERYTHING has hitdie and even the core books explain that racial hitdie exists for humans before they get classes. Even objects are destructible and have HP and hardness.

[nyjastul69]

Because having no hitdie literally means you're born dead or unconscious at zero HP? EVERYTHING has hitdie and even the core books explain that racial hitdie exists for humans before they get classes. Even objects are destructible and have HP and hardness.

Can you please source cite where the core books define this in the case of humans? Please note I'm not trying to break your balls here. I'm just looking for the source of your claim. I have yet to find it, and you have not yet provided it.

ETA: Objects have no levels. Objects have HP's. Objects can be destroyed. Maybe humans prior to having class levels have HP's and can be killed without having levels. I'm not sure what your point is here. As you are unable to cite your sources, I must assume that you are citing your own house rules.

[ryu]

Can you please source cite where the core books define this in the case of humans? Please note I'm not trying to break your balls here. I'm just looking for the source of your claim. I have yet to find it, and you have not yet provided it.

Fine. Humanoids with class levels from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monstersAsRaces.htm) Otherwise known as: Why it is physically possible to be wizard 1, and only wizard 1, when the wizard starting age recommendation is long after racial adulthood. Was the hitdie ever explicitly defined? Yes in earlier editions. They removed it from the monster manual for political reasons despite literally every other race having explicit unclassed stats. The rules they have in place still literally require such to exist though.

[nyjastul69]

Fine. Humanoids with class levels from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monstersAsRaces.htm) Otherwise known as: Why it is physically possible to be wizard 1, and only wizard 1, when the wizard starting age recommendation is long after racial adulthood. Was the hitdie ever explicitly defined? Yes in earlier editions. They removed it from the monster manual for political reasons despite literally every other race having explicit unclassed stats. The rules they have in place still literally require such to exist though.

The link provided does not give me an example of a 1 RHD human. It doesn't tell me how to build one either. I'm not sure why earlier editions are relevant. I seriously doubt humans not being given RHD was in any way politically motivated. Can you please cite a source, or barring that, give me reason why you think this was the designers motivation. I honestly think it was a design oversight.

ETA: We are way off track here. I apologise for my part. Further discussion on this matter should occur in a new thread or by PM.

[ryu]

The link provided does not give me an example of a 1 RHD human. It doesn't tell me how to build one either. I'm not sure why earlier editions are relevant. I seriously doubt humans not being given RHD was in any way politically motivated. Can you please cite a source, or barring that, give me reason why you think this was the designers motivation. I honestly think it was a design oversight.

Because in previous editions, which were made precisely the same company, humans did have racial hitdie just like everyone else, used similar rules for first level character generation, and generally didn't treat humans as inherently different to other races. Now that entry doesn't officially exist despite the rule which applies the capability for humanoids to lack racial hitdie upon obtaining character level is explicitly for humanoids in general, and doesn't work on even NPC class levels. This, combined with humans having starting ages in many classes much higher than adulthood, means that every human without some form of assumed NPC level in their build is literally dead before play begins. Why assign a motivation? Every active change from previous editions is done for some reason even if said reasons are sometimes poor. Why actively throw something into your rules that creates contradiction and impossibility? Because the designers were incapable of sensible editing work back then.

[Sergio]

Sorry if I chime in, but in the whole Italian D&D community there is a handbook called 'manuale dei livelli infimi' that talks about the things you are talking about, and that from what I know is very much a work of art

https://www.dragonslair.it/files/file/39-manuale-dei-livelli-infimi-%E2%80%93-la-forgia-degli-eroi/

[ryu]

Sorry if I chime in, but in the whole Italian D&D community there is a handbook called 'manuale dei livelli infimi' that talks about the things you are talking about, and that from what I know is very much a work of art

https://www.dragonslair.it/files/file/39-manuale-dei-livelli-infimi-%E2%80%93-la-forgia-degli-eroi/

Is there a translation for people who only speak English and if so is it explicitly related to 3.5 or a different edition? Also if the OP joins the conversation topic it's officially no longer off-topic.

[nyjastul69]

Because in previous editions, which were made precisely the same company, humans did have racial hitdie just like everyone else, used similar rules for first level character generation, and generally didn't treat humans as inherently different to other races. Now that entry doesn't officially exist despite the rule which applies the capability for humanoids to lack racial hitdie upon obtaining character level is explicitly for humanoids in general, and doesn't work on even NPC class levels. This, combined with humans having starting ages in many classes much higher than adulthood, means that every human without some form of assumed NPC level in their build is literally dead before play begins. Why assign a motivation? Every active change from previous editions is done for some reason even if said reasons are sometimes poor. Why actively throw something into your rules that creates contradiction and impossibility? Because the designers were incapable of sensible editing work back then.

Fair enough on the OP joining bit. 3e was designed by a different company than any previous edition was. WotC is not TSR. I understand that all changes are motivated. You claimed the lack of inclusion of humans having RHD was politically motivated. You have yet to cite your source. FWIW, you have given exactly 0 citations for your claims. I posit that you are simply citing your own house rules. Please correct me if I'm incorrect.

[ryu]

Fair enough on the OP joining bit. 3e was designed by a different company than any previous edition was. TSR is not WotC. I understand that all changes are motivated. You claimed the lack of inclusion of humans having RHD was politically motivated. You have yet to cite your source. FWIW, you have given exactly 0 citations for your claims. I posit that you are simply citing your own house rules. Please correct me if I'm incorrect.

Tell me do humans exist in 3.5? Humans with PC class levels? Specifically humans with ONLY PC class levels? Yes or no?

[nyjastul69]

Tell me do humans exist in 3.5? Humans with PC class levels? Specifically humans with ONLY PC class levels? Yes or no?

Humans exist in 3.5.
Humans with PC levels exist in 3.5.
Humans can exist without PC levels. NPC levels exist. You are seriously failing to make your point here. Yet again, I ask, no, I nigh on beg of you to give me a RAW citation to support your claims.

Do note that I agree that humans should have RHD. Also note that they do not by RAW. It's a pet peeve of mine about the rules. But there it is, staring one directly in the face: humans have no RHD.

[ryu]

Humans exist in 3.5.
Humans with PC levels exist in 3.5.
Humans can exist without PC levels. NPC levels exist. You are seriously failing to make your point here. Yet again, I ask, no, I nigh on beg of you to give me a RAW citation to support your claims.

Do note that I agree that humans should have RHD. Also note that they do not by RAW. It's a pet peeve of mine about the rules. But there it is, staring one directly in the face: humans have no RHD.

Ah but that's just it. Humanoids have one racial hitdie prior to taking their first level. There is no rule that exempts humans from this. You will never, ever, find an exception to this general rule. Not even one. That is the default. Now I repeat myself. Do there exist canonical human characters that have no NPC levels? Verifiable ones statted out as example character or named NPCs for example? Do you know of any? Do keep in mind the status of NPC classes and levels existing has no bearing whatsoever on the simple question of whether or not canonically existent characters lack them entirely.

[nyjastul69]

Ah but that's just it. Humanoids have one racial hitdie prior to taking their first level. There is no rule that exempts humans from this. You will never, ever, find an exception to this general rule. Not even one. That is the default. Now I repeat myself. Do there exist canonical human characters that have no NPC levels? Verifiable ones statted out as example character or named NPCs for example? Do you know of any? Do keep in mind the status of NPC classes and levels existing has no bearing whatsoever on the simple question of whether or not canonically existent characters lack them entirely.

That second sentence is a no go. You are going to have to source that for your argument to have any credibility. You have, several times now, failed to support your claim.

[ryu]

Fine. Humanoids with class levels from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monstersAsRaces.htm) Otherwise known as: Why it is physically possible to be wizard 1, and only wizard 1, when the wizard starting age recommendation is long after racial adulthood. Was the hitdie ever explicitly defined? Yes in earlier editions. They removed it from the monster manual for political reasons despite literally every other race having explicit unclassed stats. The rules they have in place still literally require such to exist though.

Ah but I already did source that. Humanoids with class levels SRD. Humanoid monster hitdie of one or less are automatically replaced with your first class level. Humans with no NPC classing exist, and I can show you rules for what happens when you have no hit-die due to effects like temporary level loss and peramanent level loss. Tell me do you know what that means?

[Dagroth]

Sorry ryu, going to have to go against you on this.

From the Monster Manual:
"Humanoids with 1 Hit Die exchange the features of their humanoid Hit Die for the class features of a PC or NPC class."
"Humanoids with more than 1 Hit Die (for example, gnolls and bugbears) are the only humanoids who make use of the features of the humanoid type."

So, according to 3.5 rules, there is no such thing as a class-less Human, Elf, Dwarf, Drow, Halfling, Orc, Goblin. Changeling, etc. If you're alive, you have a class.

Which means that heroes are born, not made. :smallbiggrin:

[nyjastul69]

Please show me a RAW stat block for a 1 RHD human. I understand the rules for humanoids with class levels. This citation does nothing to support your position that there is RAW example of a 1 RHD human creature.

ETA:
Sorry ryu, going to have to go against you on this.

From the Monster Manual:
"Humanoids with 1 Hit Die exchange the features of their humanoid Hit Die for the class features of a PC or NPC class."
"Humanoids with more than 1 Hit Die (for example, gnolls and bugbears) are the only humanoids who make use of the features of the humanoid type."

So, according to 3.5 rules, there is no such thing as a class-less Human, Elf, Dwarf, Drow, Halfling, Orc, Goblin. Changeling, etc. If you're alive, you have a class.

Which means that heroes are born, not made. :smallbiggrin:

Yup. The unnamed class of which you speak is usually the warrior NPC class IIRC.

[ryu]

Entry is extremely simple. There is one kind of hitdie in this game that can be naturally removed by advancement. That rule is the only one. You'll find no others. Now then why, oh why, do all named characters shown as examples lack this monster hitdie? Because it was replaced. Only monster hitdie of one or less on a humanoid are replaced. As no published name character in the common books has listed even single NPC class level, they're either dead or had racial hitdie at some point. period.

[nyjastul69]

Entry is extremely simple. There is one kind of hitdie in this game that can be naturally removed by advancement. That rule is the only one. You'll find no others. Now then why, oh why, do all named characters shown as examples lack this monster hitdie? Because it was replaced. Only monster hitdie of one or less on a humanoid are replaced. As no published name character in the common books has listed even single NPC class level, they're either dead or had racial hitdie at some point. period.

You are simply making unsupported claims at this point. You claim the books support your position, yet you fail to post an example.

[ryu]

You are simply making unsupported claims at this point. You claim the books support your position, yet you fail to post an example.

Key word in the exchange language used is exchange. Either this happens the creature first gains a class level which fits with the established starting ages of various classes, or it happens at birth with the listed example of warrior being the default. Now then, why do none of the listed example humanoid characters retain no warrior hitdie despite the fact that that is not removed by advancement? Either the point of exchange is attaining your first level, or all humanoids have an automatic level in warrior. Pick one.

[nyjastul69]

Key word in the exchange language used is exchange. Either this happens the creature first gains a class level which fits with the established starting ages of various classes, or it happens at birth with the listed example of warrior being the default. Now then, why do none of the listed example humanoid characters retain no warrior hitdie despite the fact that that is not removed by advancement? Either the point of exchange is attaining your first level, or all humanoids have an automatic level in warrior. Pick one.

We seem to have crossed lines of communication somehow. I'm not discussing humanoids, I'm only referring to humans. I am specifically looking for an example human character, not an example humanoid character that supports your position.

[WhamBamSam]

We seem to have crossed lines of communication somehow. I'm not discussing humanoids, I'm only referring to humans. I am specifically looking for an example human character, not an example humanoid character that supports your position.His assertion is that every Human with only PC class levels supports his position. The argument is thus...

1. Because the starting ages of PC classes are all at some point after birth, the character must have had HD of some sort prior to getting their first class level, as having no HD at any point would have resulted in acquiring the dead condition.
2. Because they were too young to have had their first PC class HD, their former HD must have been either a RHD or an NPC class HD.
3. NPC class HD, unlike RHD, are not subsumed by one's first class level, so if they'd had one, they would still have it.
4. Therefore, their prior HD must have been a RHD.

[Flickerdart]

Intelligent items are creatures without HD, yet they are not dead. Ergo, human children can have no HD and not die.

[nyjastul69]

His assertion is that every Human with only PC class levels supports his position. The argument is thus...

1. Because the starting ages of PC classes are all at some point after birth, the character must have had HD of some sort prior to getting their first class level, as having no HD at any point would have resulted in acquiring the dead condition.
2. Because they were too young to have had their first PC class HD, their former HD must have been either a RHD or an NPC class HD.
3. NPC class HD, unlike RHD, are not subsumed by one's first class level, so if they'd had one, they would still have it.
4. Therefore, their prior HD must have been a RHD.

I can't find rule support for your third point. Character class is not limited to PC classes only.


character class
One of the eleven player character types -- barbarian, bard, cleric, druid, fighter, monk, paladin, ranger, rogue, sorcerer, or wizard. Class defines a character's predominant talents and general function within an adventuring party. Character class may also refer to a nonplayer character class or a prestige class.

Source: PHB


Monsters And Class Levels
If a creature acquires a character class, it follows the rules for multiclass characters.

The creature’s Hit Dice equal the number of class levels it has plus its racial Hit Dice. A creature’s "monster class" is always a favored class, and the creature never takes XP penalties for having it. Additional Hit Dice gained from taking levels in a character class never affect a creature’s size.

Humanoids and Class Levels
Creatures with 1 or less HD replace their monster levels with their character levels. The monster loses the attack bonus, saving throw bonuses, skills, and feats granted by its 1 monster HD and gains the attack bonus, save bonuses, skills, feats, and other class abilities of a 1st-level character of the appropriate class.

[Dagroth]

I still believe my quote from the Monster Manual is the definitive one. A humanoid race (of which Human is one) with only one hit die (of which Human is one) does not use the Humanoid racial features. They use a class level instead.

Thus, all humanoids are born with their class. The starting ages listed in the PHB only show what age the character begins adventuring... not what age the character is when he takes the 1st level of the class. Read the fluff for WarMage for an example of what a character does before they become an adventurer.

[Firechanter]

now you've been arguing for about one page about humans' hit dice -- may I ask how this is relevant to the topic of the thread, i.e. Mage Slayer feats?

[ryu]

now you've been arguing for about one page about humans' hit dice -- may I ask how this is relevant to the topic of the thread, i.e. Mage Slayer feats?

Simple. The OP joined in. That makes it automatically on topic.

[Melcar]

May I ask who is supposed to get these feats? Just a pure warrior?

These feats seems to be counter-intuitive and counter productive. For example, I would love to go runescarred berserker and take these feats - but by doing so I'm just hitting myself.

Can someone tell me how I'm supposed to use these feats, or for which class? Thanks a lot.

Why would you be hitting yourself?

[Thurbane]

Why would you be hitting yourself?

I believe he means taking a hit to his own CL.