Is this too petty?

[Ascension]

I'm about to start a new campaign, and I wanted to make a whisper gnome Shadow Hand swordsage. The DM basically told me in response that he thinks that ToB is so overpowered and unbalanced that the only way for anyone to have fun in a game using it is to use other ToB classes, and that if they did that "it's like watching those anime cartoons when they fight each other and you always say your move/attack before you do it."

I still think that half the stuff in ToB doesn't sound nearly as silly as "Evard's Black Tentacles," but whatever.

My second try was a goliath barbarian, to which he responded that he doesn't allow "monster classes." I think that's rather insulting to the goliath, given that it's fully intended to be a player race and indeed has never (to my knowledge) appeared in a monster manual... but again, I hesitantly yielded to his judgment.

I'm currently in the process of obtaining his complete and total approval for what is about to turn into the cheesiest clericzilla I can figure out how to put together. Maybe he'll be singing a different tune after he gets a taste of something truly overpowered and he'll let me kill off this cleric and go back to one of my preferred builds.

Am I being too petty? Should I just resign myself to a nice humble rogue or something and give in?

[Ralfarius]

I think it's fair to at least once show another player/DM how core contains some of the most broken classes and abilities.

I mean, I understand that not everyone has the same tastes, but I get irked if someone's opinion is uninformed or heavily biased. It's fair to say "I don't care for the mechanics of the ToB," but if you say "Everything in that book is obviously anime etc etc" then you're not really giving it a fair chance. The goliath issue sort of boggles me, unless the person happens to mean races with level adjustments. It's not like you're asking to play a hill giant that magically has an ECL of 0 without any adjustments beyond hit-die removal (or something equally nonsensical).

I say roll up a druid or cleric that is quite unassuming at first glance, then make with the hulking out and smash an encounter or three, then offer to play a character that you can assure the DM won't make the other characters look sub par all the time.

Then again, I can be a somewhat petty and vindictive person...

[Kyeudo]

"Never give up! Never surrender!"

I say go for it. Show him that ToB has nothing on a properly run Cleric or Druid. Then show him what a Swordsage could have done instead. Ask him which one is easier to deal with.

People who can't adapt to new material or to broken builds need some practice with their DMing skills.

[Iku Rex]

What character level are you starting on?

[Tokiko Mima]

Am I being too petty? Should I just resign myself to a nice humble rogue or something and give in?

I'd play whatever makes you happy and that he'll allow. No one wins if you spend game after game punishing the DM at your own expense. It's true the DM didn't give a good reason for disallowing your previous characters, one of which is a stereotype and the other was completely untrue. Maybe you can show him how D&D should be played?

[Lord Tataraus]

Normally, I'd say yes, except this guy seems kind of like a jerk. The ToB thing is a big pet peeve of mine, I'd make a nice druidzilla. Go for it!

[SilverClawShift]

I actually just finished talking with my DM about what my next character was going to be like.
He's going to let me play a Healer, but is going to let me craft masks that bind vestiges to me when I wear them, so I'll have binder class abilities too. It's part of my "derranged faceless good-witch" character concept.

I just realized how spoiled we really are.

Anyway, I'm on your side here. D&D is a group activity, which means both sides need to be willing to play as a team.
He's the DM, which means his word is law. You do need to accept that much when playing with him.
On the other hand, it sounds like he's being really blank-faced on this, killing your ideas without much opportunity for exploration. A DM needs to be open to what their players are interested in playing just as much as a player needs to be accepting of their DMs final decision.

I guess you could try talking it over with him, tell him you're bored of the same combinations and would like to try some new flavor.

Or find a new group :smallyuk:

[NEO|Phyte]

Also, whenever your CoDzilla casts a spell, make sure he says the name of the spell first.

[Ascension]

We're starting at level four, and from the looks of it we'll be operating primarily in urban areas. That's why I didn't go with a druid. Granted, that also gives him a bit more of an excuse for turning down the goliath barbarian, but I didn't find out about the setting until after that ruling was handed down to me.

I might just try to find a new group, but the only other group I know of in the area that's actively recruiting is doing an Eberron campaign, and I really don't like Eberron (sorry folks, just not my cup of tea).

On the other hand, it'll be kinda fun giving cleric a go. I've never run one before. I'm just now looking through the spell list, and I can already see how effective self-buffing can be. It's really no wonder that they usually get mentioned alongside druids.

EDIT:

Also, whenever your CoDzilla casts a spell, make sure he says the name of the spell first.

:smallbiggrin: LOL

I can just see it now. "With a mighty shout of 'Bull's Strength!' the cleric's muscle mass easily doubles. His hair stands up on end and glows golden. He narrows his eyes at the oncoming evil hordes and growls 'Now I pwn you n00bs!'"

No, no, don't worry, I'm not that bad.

[Jayabalard]

Am I being too petty? Yes.

Anytime your goal is to "teach someone a lesson" by being disruptive in a game... yup, that's too petty.

[kamikasei]

Well, it is petty, and really any pettiness is too petty. On the other hand, the guy does sound like a jerk.

But Tokiko is right; it's not a win for anyone if you get a broken build in under his radar. The real problem sounds like he's just not terribly interested in helping you realize the character you want to play. I would suggest first asking for general parameters, things like the urban setting that would make certain types of classes and races unsuitable regardless of power. Then pitch a character concept to him, no mechanics, just the character idea. Then tell him what you'd need to make that character. Emphasize how you envisage using everything, both mechanically ("so he'd strike from hiding and debilitate enemies to soften them up for the heavy hitters") and in character ("he's a child of shadow, doesn't talk much, a bit creepy, sinister, always half in darkness") to head off the prejudices he might have against the mechanics' power or flavour.

Of course, this is me being optimistic. Chances sound high he'd just dismiss any idea as soon as a book or element he has decided sight unseen he doesn't like is brought up.


Also, whenever your CoDzilla casts a spell, make sure he says the name of the spell first.

Seconded on the LOLz.

@SilverClawShift: that sounds awesome. Is your DM still available for kidnapping?

[Ascension]

Yes.

Anytime your goal is to "teach someone a lesson" by being disruptive in a game... yup, that's too petty.

You're probably right. I guess my last DM spoiled me. When I e-mailed him in a similar manner about class choices, he tried to talk me into playing a swordsage so the casters wouldn't walk all over me.

The basic problem is this: I don't want to play a rogue again since I just did it last time. I don't want to play a fighter. The game already has a paladin and a ranger. The urban setting might clash with a barbarian or druid. Just speaking core, that's got me down to cleric, bard, wizard, and sorcerer. I don't like wizards and the boards have me afraid that a bard would be too weak. That leaves it a toss up between cleric and sorcerer.

This is why I want to play something non-core. I'm still looking for something that might pass his radar. He has already approved a favored soul if I'd rather do that than cleric, and I'm considering it. I would have already gone for it except I'd like to go with St. Cuthbert for the flavor and I'd rather not wield a mace.

Are there any good non-ToB melee classes I might be able to talk him into? I'm tentatively considering asking permission to be a swashbuckler. Might even bring back the whisper gnome if I do that. I like the little guys.

[melchizedek]

I would imagine he would agree to most of the classes in the complete series (probably except Warlocks: anyone who thinks ToB is overpowered is sure to freak out when they see Warlock's unlimited abilities/day.) If you're going for flavor rather than power, Hexblades and Spellthieves are both fun.

[Solo]

Are there any good non-ToB melee classes I might be able to talk him into? I'm tentatively considering asking permission to be a swashbuckler. Might even bring back the whisper gnome if I do that. I like the little guys.

Barbarian, with ranks in Craft: Poetry.

[AslanCross]

I really think it is petty, although your DM is of course quite wrong. I still like the Super Saiyan Cleric, though.
"SEAR! ING! LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!"

[Ascension]

I've asked for his blessing for a rogue/swashbuckler. Insightful strike plus sneak attack sounds fun, as does a dex-based class with full BAB. I'm planning to take one level of rogue for the crazy skill points, then three levels in swashbuckler, two more levels of rogue, I'll pick up Daring Outlaw at 6th (he's already okayed non-core feats) and then I'll probably take swashbuckler levels (with full sneak attack progression) for the rest of the character's life. We'll see how it goes. This is his last chance. If he doesn't accept this, I'm going with the cleric o' doom.

[Artanis]

I really think it is petty, although your DM is of course quite wrong. I still like the Super Saiyan Cleric, though.
"SEAR! ING! LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!"
But only after you spend twenty minutes grunting while surrounded by golden fire :smallwink:

[Chronos]

...and the boards have me afraid that a bard would be too weak.Wherever did you get that impression? There are feats and PrCs that turn the bard into a powerhouse on the same tier as the other full-casting classes, and even without those, their versatility and social skills can be extremely useful, especially in an urban setting.


Also, whenever your CoDzilla casts a spell, make sure he says the name of the spell first.Or, if you really want to be over-the-top about it, every time you cast, say the name of a different spell.

[Hal]

Are there any good non-ToB melee classes I might be able to talk him into? I'm tentatively considering asking permission to be a swashbuckler. Might even bring back the whisper gnome if I do that. I like the little guys.

What level are you starting on? I'm a fan of Duskblades and their spell-channeling ability. Add to that their ability to cast spells as a swift action starting at level 5 and you have a character who can run in and pound the opposition . . . once a day.

[Person_Man]

What's the rest of the party? ToB can't be overpowered if everyone else is using a ToB or caster class.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Go with a Druid, not a cleric. It kicks in earlier and powers up earlier, too.

[Kyeudo]

Bard is a powerhouse class if you know what you are doing. You just need to add non core material. Just visit the CO boards to find out how.

[Nohwl]

i think using a character that isnt completely overpowered would be a bad idea. find the strongest theoretical build you can and use that as your character. whenever he starts to have problems suggest that you could play your original character from tome of battle. if he kills you, pick another theoretical build.

[Curmudgeon]

Am I being too petty? No, I don't think so. You've tried a couple of times to exercise some of the options that all the dozens of D&D supplements allow, with the intent of adding new flavor to a game that's beginning to remind you of yet another boring McDonald's hamburger. Your DM does seem to be having problems with pettiness, though: petty tyranny. Your response seems like a reasoned exercise in pointing out the DM's shortsightedness.
Should I just resign myself to a nice humble rogue or something and give in? Perhaps you could try a non-humble Rogue instead: all sneak attack, all the time. You'll want to use the Penetrating Strike alternate class feature (Dungeonscape, page 13) to do 1/2 sneak attack damage to those normally immune (when you flank them only, so make arrangements with your Paladin/Ranger to be flanking partners). Add Craven (Champions of Ruin) to boost your sneak damage. Walk around with a loaded crossbow in hand so you'll get to make sneak attacks during surprise rounds rather than squander opportunities to take advantage of flat-footed opponents by closing for melee. When you do go for melee you'll want a keen rapier and the Telling Blow feat (PH2) to add sneak attack damage on critical hits. Make STR your dump stat, boost DEX as much as possible, and take Weapon Finesse so you'll hit a lot -- because the First Rule of Sneak Attack is: If you don't hit, your sneak attack damage is zero. If you're up against undead or constructs on a regular basis, get the weapon augment crystals (Magic Item Compendium) that will let you apply full sneak attack damage to those creature types. Boost your Use Magic Device skill and get a wand of Greater Invisibility so you can make full round sneak attacks while invisible. Even better, go for one level of Shadowdancer so you can Hide in Plain Sight on each and every swing of a full attack, because mundane Hide is harder to counter than invisibility, and doesn't waste a standard action to put into effect. Improve your weapons to +5 as fast as possible, and (except for keen) ignore other weapon enhancements, because your goal here is to hit more often, and let the damage come from sneak attack.

Basically pull out all the stops to deal huge amounts of damage on every hit. This seems like the most effective way of pointing out to your DM that even classes as well-balanced as the Rogue have the option of becoming powerhouses. If you want to show him that restricting you to core classes isn't the right approach, this ought to do it.

The risk here is that your DM will continue to get bogged down in minutiae, and decide that Craven and Penetrating Strike are the problems now. If so, I guess your original plan of choosing Cleric is pretty reasonable. You'll want the usual Divine Power cheese, of course, and as many other powerful spells as you can get away with before the DM decides to micromanage those options, too. The domains are what will provide the biggest boosts to your Cleric's power. The standard War option is good if you pick a War deity with a strong weapon, like Haela Brightaxe or Surtr to get Martial Weapon Proficiency with the greatsword. And Magic is good because it lets you use wands of spells like Heroics -- any one fighter feat, on demand. I also like Pride (reroll 1s on any saving throw, once per save), and Celerity (+10' to your base speed). Or you can go Favored Soul and pick Kossuth as your deity to get free Exotic Weapon Proficiency with the spiked chain. If you want cheese, this is limburger.

Good luck with opening your DM's eyes to the many reasonable possibilities that D&D offers in character creation.

[MammonAzrael]

And if you went that Rogue route, you could also try for the ToB feats Martial Stance and Shadow Blade (Oh the irony of using just ToB's feats!)

And I second the enjoyment of the Duskblade as a good meleer. Fantastic going nova, but with some good management you'll last a good long while. And probably fire off more Color Sprays than any of your other casters! :smalltongue:

[Nohwl]

i might have to use that sneak attack idea in my current game. i wanted a rouge, but couldnt come up with any feats.

and as for cleric domains, i like planning(extend spell) and undeath(extra turning).

[Curmudgeon]

i might have to use that sneak attack idea in my current game. i wanted a rouge, but couldnt come up with any feats. The problem isn't coming up with suitable feats for the Rogue; the problem is when you can take them.

Many players start out with a human Rogue and have trouble picking two good feats to start. Weapon Finesse is the obvious choice, but it's unavailable until you get +1 BAB. Too many people end up with weak core feats, such as Dodge and Mobility, thinking that they'll go for Spring Attack; or Two-Weapon Fighting and Improved Initiative. Of these Improved Initiative is the only OK choice, and it's often a waste simply because a high DEX means you'll win initiative even without II. You really need to look outside the core books to find good feats if you want to play a Rogue with offensive capability. Two-Weapon Fighting is a particularly bad choice because:
The Rogue's BAB isn't high enough to hit reliably in a full attack with a -2 penalty to all attacks.
They're not proficient with any good off-hand weapon (high threat range, like a kukri, to benefit from Telling Blow).
The whole Two-Weapon Fighting feat chain is much too expensive for feat-poor rogues, especially considering the diminishing returns with each subsequent feat.
Full melee attacks require going toe-to-toe against opponents with superior HP, and this is only practical when they can't see you. I recommend starting with Craven and Telling Blow if you're going for offensive capability. Craven will only improve as you gain levels, and Telling Blow will become more useful when you can afford to make your rapier keen and with a higher enhancement bonus to help confirm critical threats.

[ZeroNumerous]

Bullet Point List Has Bullet Points!

That advice, while normally solid, isn't particularly sound all the time. For example: The 3 level dip of Swashbuckler for INT to damage and +3 BAB. Roll in Daring Outlaw and you don't even lose Sneak Attack progression.

Then you have two options: If you're interesting in only the Sneak Attack, then you can keep wasting time with Swashbuckler levels. End result carries the same amount of Sneak Attack as a Rogue 20 but with the BAB of a Fighter 18. Two-Weapon Fighting suddenly becomes alot more viable, since you've got the attack bonuses of a normal Rogue.

Alternatively, you could go for some of the more useful abilities like Crippling Strike. It's particularly nasty when you throw in Savvy Rogue to deal Strength damage to anything.

[Xuincherguixe]

If you still want to play the game, don't play a broken build out of pettiness.

But do make a few builds showing how broken they are.


I don't know enough about ToB to comment on it's level of brokeness, but most of what I've heard is that they're at just about the right level of good.

And the anime hate is frankly annoying.

[Chronicled]

The problem isn't coming up with suitable feats for the Rogue; the problem is when you can take them.

Many players start out with a human Rogue and have trouble picking two good feats to start. Weapon Finesse is the obvious choice, but it's unavailable until you get +1 BAB. Too many people end up with weak core feats, such as Dodge and Mobility, thinking that they'll go for Spring Attack; or Two-Weapon Fighting and Improved Initiative. Of these Improved Initiative is the only OK choice, and it's often a waste simply because a high DEX means you'll win initiative even without II. You really need to look outside the core books to find good feats if you want to play a Rogue with offensive capability. Two-Weapon Fighting is a particularly bad choice because:
The Rogue's BAB isn't high enough to hit reliably in a full attack with a -2 penalty to all attacks.
They're not proficient with any good off-hand weapon (high threat range, like a kukri, to benefit from Telling Blow).
The whole Two-Weapon Fighting feat chain is much too expensive for feat-poor rogues, especially considering the diminishing returns with each subsequent feat.
Full melee attacks require going toe-to-toe against opponents with superior HP, and this is only practical when they can't see you. I recommend starting with Craven and Telling Blow if you're going for offensive capability. Craven will only improve as you gain levels, and Telling Blow will become more useful when you can afford to make your rapier keen and with a higher enhancement bonus to help confirm critical threats.

I want to first mention that it's obvious you've put a good amount of thought into this. However, I think you're dismissing TWF too quickly.

TWF becomes viable when there's a significant amount of bonus damage on each swing. This is the rogue's domain. Whereas a Power Attacking fighter benefits less from each successive swing, a rogue's SA damage is the same for each successful attack. When you double the number of attacks, the potential damage nearly doubles--however, as you mentioned, the TWF penalties come into play. However... while the rogue has a medium BAB and will be taking a penalty to hit, if the rogue plans to get SA, the enemy needs to be denied their Dex, which helps level the odds. The opponent will often be flanked, for another bonus to hit. Finally, the rogue will not be Power Attacking. The large amount of extra damage from successful hits helps balance out the slightly increased miss change.

I agree that TWF is horribly feat intensive, and should be approached with care. I don't think that it's nearly as bad as you make it sound.

[Premier]

Sorry to say, but yes, this is too petty.

It's also all too common on these boards. DM excercises his God-given right to not allow anything and everything into his game that's ever been published. Players whines about it, citing some sort of implicit entitlement to do the above. DM says no. Players comes here and asks for help on building a "totally broken CoDzilla, "just to show him", never mind that this will probably end up wrecking everybody's fun. Forum members help him. Happened a thousand and one times already.

Look, couple of points:

- He's the DM, he allows or disallows races, classes, feats, splatbooks as he wishes. He probably has good reasons to do so, but even if he doesn't, he's the DM. You don't like, vote with your feet and play with some other guys.

- The whole "play a broken CoDzilla to teach him that ToB/whatever is not all that broken, relatively speaking" thing is fallacious. CoD might be broken, but this fact doesn't unbreak ToB/whatever. It's like, let's say your girlfriend is in a shock because she's been raped by a stranger last night, and then you stab her in the face with a kitchen knife to show her that she shouldn't be complaining about the rape as there are much worse things out there. It follows the same logic.

- Trying to "beat", "defeat", "teach a lesson to" or "show him" anyone anyone in an RPG means that nobody will be having fun. Not you, not the DM, and not the other players - everyone's fun will be spoiled because of your petty and ridiculous "vendetta". Seriously, dude, don't be a jerk.

[Zincorium]

Sorry to say, but yes, this is too petty.

It's also all too common on these boards. DM excercises his God-given right to not allow anything and everything into his game that's ever been published.

'God-given right' isn't accurate. 'Position as designated rules arbiter' is, but that would cast your post in a somewhat different light, and we can't have that.


Players whines about it, citing some sort of implicit entitlement to do the above. DM says no. Players comes here and asks for help on building a "totally broken CoDzilla, "just to show him", never mind that this will probably end up wrecking everybody's fun. Forum members help him. Happened a thousand and one times already.

Look, couple of points:

- He's the DM, he allows or disallows races, classes, feats, splatbooks as he wishes. He probably has good reasons to do so, but even if he doesn't, he's the DM. You don't like, vote with your feet and play with some other guys.

Am I the only person to think that forcing someone to leave the game is probably not a good thing? Because that's often cited as the only option players have if they don't like a call.


- The whole "play a broken CoDzilla to teach him that ToB/whatever is not all that broken, relatively speaking" thing is fallacious. CoD might be broken, but this fact doesn't unbreak ToB/whatever. It's like, let's say your girlfriend is in a shock because she's been raped by a stranger last night, and then you stab her in the face with a kitchen knife to show her that she shouldn't be complaining about the rape as there are much worse things out there. It follows the same logic.

Er, no, no it does not follow the same logic (Worst case scenario followed by bad scenario, where in the OP's case there is no scenario prior to the character he's thinking about now, and there won't be afterwards). Putting that aside, the OP did not suggest anything that is 'broken' by any comparison to classes other than samurai and truenamers. ToB characters are fun. They don't require twinking to be useful at higher levels. That's it.


- Trying to "beat", "defeat", "teach a lesson to" or "show him" anyone anyone in an RPG means that nobody will be having fun. Not you, not the DM, and not the other players - everyone's fun will be spoiled because of your petty and ridiculous "vendetta". Seriously, dude, don't be a jerk.

This is the only portion I agree with. And I think you're being overly self righteous in your indignation.

[Rad]

When you disagree with a DM call you talk to him about it. If this does not change anything you have two options:

Put up with it
Not put up with it.
It depends on the situation, but usually the first option is best. The exception is when the call makes it impossible for you to have fun playing that way. If this is the case you are out of luck: you cannot force another person to play the game the way you want. Now you have two options:

Disrupt the campaign him and the other players are enjoying.
Not do it.
This time the second option is almost always the best one. The first one may be attempted in the form of proposing the group to play something else (as in: a different campaign, maybe with a different DM) and abandoning the old one.
Then, in a very democratic way, you'll find out if that DM made enough people unhappy enough to want a change. If so you're golden and had it your way; if the other players are happy as things are they have the right to play their game their way whatever you might think about it.

In any case, pretending to be ok with how the game is played just to be let in so you can ruin it is not something that anybody should encourage or do.

Hope this helps.

[nagora]

Am I being too petty?

Yes. The guy's obviously planning to run a low-powered game. If that's not your style then bow out instead of spoiling it.

[lord_khaine]

i say go for it, and roll a druid, if he wants a lowpowered campaign he should be banning the full casters instead of tob.

[kamikasei]

Yes. The guy's obviously planning to run a low-powered game. If that's not your style then bow out instead of spoiling it.

That's not obvious at all. If you want to run a low-powered game you say so, you don't just ban books proposed to you on the grounds that they're inherently overpowered. Nor do you let core full casters go unrestricted.

[wizknight]

I believe the OP's situation depends on the context of the game. As someone mentioned a low power game is different

Speaking as a fledgling GM for a group of casual gamers, we added a self professed 3.5 expert to our group. I asked him to stick with the core rulebooks, make it 5th level and try to keep in mind the party makeup. He seemed rather miffed that I wouldn't let him use several of his collection of books that I didn't own.

We wound up with a half dragon monk/cleric with a focus on the diplomacy skill that completely skewed all encounters. Most of the players chose there characters based on what would be fun to play with little focus on min/max or epic progression.

I readily admit a better DM than I might have been able to salvage the situation. I also admit to needing more practice. I do feel that our game sessions endly shortly thereafter due to the rest of the group feeling like they were supporting actors.

Perhaps the OP's DM has experienced something similar or has had bad experiences with ToB. Can't really say for sure but I tend to see both sides of the fence when it comes to this.

[Keld Denar]

Man, I could roll you a badass bard (single classed even) that would make your DM wet himself.

something like:
Silverbrow Human (RotD) all the goodness of a human, and you are dragon subtype which leads to:
Dragonfire Inspiration - converts your +x bonus from bardsong to +xd6 energy
combine with the spell Inspirational Boost (SC) and the feat Words of Creation, and a couple magic items (Vest of Legends (DMGII) and Badge of Valor(MIC) and you can get like, 10d6 bonus dice on all attacks by level 6-7.

Another important feat is Snowflake Wardance from Frostburn (add +cha to attack rolls while performing.

2nd level spells - Whirling Blade (SC) allows you to make melee attacks on all creatures in a line. This counts as a melee attack (pretty important)

For stats, max str and cha and take Power Attack. Get a nice slashing 2hander like a greatsword or a glaive. With Dragonfire Inspiration up, Snowflake Wardance and cast Whirling Blade. Power Attack for all you are worth. You get weapon damage, 2:1 power attack damage, dragonfire damage, and you don't take a huge penalty to hit because you have a great cha (which gets added in to AB twice, once for WB and once for SFWD) and hopefully a decent magic weapon (cast or get cast Greater Magic Weapon).

For added fun, get your weapon enchanted with Sudden Stunning from MIC. It forces 1 target you hit with WB to make a reflex save (DC 1/2 level +cha) or be stunned for 1d4+1 rounds. This is useable +cha times per day. Tasty.

For even MORE fun, take Empower Spell, and for a 4th level slot, you can multiply all of your WB damage by 1.5, and that includes PA and dragonfire. Ouch.

Also, grab the feat Subsonics or Harmonic Casting and keep your bardsong up ALL DAY at no penalty to spell casting or other activities.

At higher levels, grab levels in Sublime Chord and pick up a couple of nice high level wiz/sorc buffs and no-save crowd control spells (like fogs) and you'll win at that too.

What'da think? Killer Bard?

[Tobrian]

People who can't adapt to new material or to broken builds need some practice with their DMing skills.

Funny, and I thought a DM had the right to disallow any material he didn't want in his/her campaign. I must've been wrong. Surely players are the ones who dictate what books to use. </sarcasm>

See, if I was a DM and a player came up to me with ideas not for character concepts(*) but for min-maxed optimized bizarre race/class combos out of half a dozen different non-core books, I'd get increasingly wary and disinclined to listen, too. *shrug*

(* there was a time when "character concept" did not refer to character builds)

[Curmudgeon]

I think you're dismissing TWF too quickly.

TWF becomes viable when there's a significant amount of bonus damage on each swing. This is partly true. First, damage applies only when you hit, and TWF makes that less likely. Second, the cost of TWF is in three parts:
the -2 penalty to all attacks
the loss of advantage from taking some other feat compared to Two-Weapon Fighting
a reduction in weapon effectiveness
Feats like Craven will add to your sneak attack damage without increasing your chances of missing and doing no damage (though it might cause you to run away and skip the combat entirely :smallwink:), so taking TWF instead of other feats has a real cost; doing this comparison is a step that's often overlooked. But the reduction in weapon effectiveness is nearly always overlooked. There's one optimal solution for a Rogue fighting with a single melee weapon: a rapier. This is on the Rogue's proficiency list, has the wide threat range that makes Telling Blow an effective feat, and works with Weapon Finesse. And with one weapon you can boost it up to +5 as fast as your budget will allow. But if you fight with two weapons you've suddenly got new problems. Feats like Improved Critical and Weapon Focus are demoted from OK to poor for you because you're either only going to get the benefit for one weapon, or you'll be using underperforming weapons just to have a matched set. Ideally you'd want a kukri in the off hand to maintain the effectiveness of your Telling Blow investment, but Rogues have no proficiency with kukris. And you'll get poorer enhancement bonuses if you split your money across two weapons.

When you double the number of attacks, the potential damage nearly doubles--however, as you mentioned, the TWF penalties come into play. A Rogue will only double their number of attacks with TWF at BAB of +5 or less. After that the feat provides either a 50% or 33% increase in the number of swings you can take, so this feat's worth decreases as you advance. And whatever value you place on Two-Weapon Fighting, the worth of Improved Two-Weapon Fighting is less than that because it gives at best only 33% more swings, and those swings are 5 less likely to hit than those from TWF. With the Rogue's middling BAB, ITWF isn't ever an effective option compared to all the other feats that are available.

[Telonius]

Instead of a game-breaking character insertion, I'd suggest a little demonstration of relative power. Tell your DM to use ToB to come up with the most ridiculously broken party he can come up with. Then, you build a party with Batman, Clericzilla, Druidzilla, and Meatshield, all using core only. (Give Meatshield a spiffy hat, just so he doesn't feel worthless). Have both parties run against something that's +5 ECL. Compare the results.

[Tobrian]

Look, what was the character idea you had and why can it only be expressed through a Whisper Gnome Shadowsomething Swordsage? Why?

I know I've been in a position where a gamemaster flatout disallowed a spell that was in the CORE rulebook (in Shadowrun) with no explanation, and I was pissed off. In another instance, a GM talked me out of a character idea for a Babylon 5 campaign because it simply wouldn't have fit the group, and in hindsight he was probably right. Sometimes we get too wedded to an idea and start to behave like stubborn kids. Don't make that mistake.



- Trying to "beat", "defeat", "teach a lesson to" or "show him" anyone anyone in an RPG means that nobody will be having fun. Not you, not the DM, and not the other players - everyone's fun will be spoiled because of your petty and ridiculous "vendetta". Seriously, dude, don't be a jerk.

WORD. Can't really add anything to this.


EDITED TO ADD:
But you know, reading some of the posting upstream, i give up. I realize now that these days a lot of people playing D&D play D&D not for roleplaying but because they love designing uber-characters by combining the most broken races, classes, PrCs, obscure spells, feats from a dozen sourcebooks, like a barbie doll. As if the challenge is finding the "best" possible most "effective" combination and then letting it arena-fight against monsters. Like a pokemon game.

[kamikasei]

See, if I was a DM and a player came up to me with ideas not for character concepts(*) but for min-maxed optimized bizarre race/class combos out of half a dozen different non-core books, I'd get increasingly wary and disinclined to listen, too. *shrug*

Whisper Gnome is a race. Goliath is a race. Swordsage is a class (of which Shadow Hand is a focus). I think Whisper Gnome and Goliath both come from Races of Stone, so that's just two books. No indication of "min-maxed optimized bizarre race/class combos" - there's "a small sneaky dude who fights with the power of shadows", and "a big dude who is a barbarian".

And it is in fact pretty hard to build a concept of "warrior who uses shadow magic and stealth" without a Swordsage focusing on Shadow Hand. Maybe a Duskblade, if the spell selection supports it...

Anyway, my point is that the DM's rejection, as reported here, gives no sign that he was concerned about min-maxing or bizarre combos, but rather that he simply regarded any character using ToB to be irredeemably broken, and that he thought so for pretty bad reasons.


But you know, reading some of the posting upstream, i give up. I realize now that these days a lot of people playing D&D play D&D not for roleplaying but because they love designing uber-characters by combining the most broken races, classes, PrCs, obscure spells, feats from a dozen sourcebooks, like a barbie doll. As if the challenge is finding the "best" possible most "effective" combination and then letting it arena-fight against monsters. Like a pokemon game.

Uhuh. What posting prompts this epiphany? The OP has said nothing about wanting an uber-optimized build for serious play. Some have described game-breaking characters to demonstrate game-breaking to the DM - an action that the OP has reconsidered - and not to actually play for any length of time. Others have described to the OP how he can make a character along the basic lines he wants to play with a new and different mechanical feel (he's said, IIRC, that he wants something roguelike, but is sick of rogues).

So, who here has proposed broken races, broken classes, obscure spells, etc. and touted them as the way to win the game?

[Solo]

We wound up with a half dragon monk/cleric with a focus on the diplomacy skill that completely skewed all encounters.

You should have killed him with a deaf and mute assassin.

And by him, I mean his character, not the player.

Of course.

[PnP Fan]

Probably. I'll agree with Jayala here. Any time you are trying to punish one of your peers in a game over a disagreement about said game, yeah, you're probably being petty.

I'm assuming this person is your friend? Is this how you would want your friend to treat you over some similar dispute?

Having said that, I think your DM is probably being a bit restrictive.

What you need to do is open up some dialogue with him, face to face, NOT via email. Find out why he's saying "no". He may have "in game" reasons for his rulings. He may have issues with you using material he doesn't have access to. He may just be inexperienced (it's hard to tell from what I've read). You may also find that if you discuss this stuff with him, you might find out what the real concerns are, and come up with some kind of compromise (For example you are allowed to use ToB, as long as you don't use the more "magic-y" fluffed paths like Desert Wind.). Most importantly, don't argue. Try and show him stuff to support your points, but don't argue. Discuss, sympathize, have a beer/soda/whatever, but don't get beligerent or angry, it's not worth the stress. (Not sure if you're like that, I have been in the past, and have played with folks who were worse, it's not fun.)

As several people have already pointed out, it's a group effort, which means it's not always about you (or me, or him).

[Ascension]

Like I said, I gave it some more thought and I'm now planning a relatively simple swashbuckler/rogue (with emphasis on the swashbuckler and a decidedly un-optimally high charisma for party face-ful goodness). If he turns down swashbuckler (especially if he uses some lame excuse about how the only thing that balances sneak attack is slow BAB progression), then, and only then, am I pouring on the cheese. And even then I'll keep my eyes open for another group to join.

Oddly, when I counterpointed his arguments that ToB is overpowered with an in-depth explanation of just what makes full casters even more powerful, I got back "My My. You have a great deal of knowledged locked up in that head of yours."

I haven't met this guy face-to-face yet (all our correspondence has been via e-mail) but I'm beginning to get the impression he's not got much in the way of experience. It seems the swordsage player in his last game abused that (for example, he though that swordsages could recover ALL their maneuvers with a full-round action), and that's part of why he's so wary of ToB.

:smallsigh: I'd just try my hand at DMing a game myself, but I'm new to the area, so I don't really know many players, and I look even younger than I am, so I'm afraid I wouldn't be taken seriously.

[kamikasei]

One approach that might be useful in the general case of a DM fearing that something is overpowered or (especially!) that its flavour is unsuitable is finding an example of it in play on the boards here. Plenty of people are using ToB, for example, in PbP games and it needs only the must cursory reading to see that there's no "calling your attacks" required (or encouraged (Eberron with Giant Robots notwithstanding)).

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

It seems the swordsage player in his last game abused that (for example, he though that swordsages could recover ALL their maneuvers with a full-round action), and that's part of why he's so wary of ToB.

Maybe he just took the Adaptive Style feat, which allows Swordsages to do exactly that. And not just recover, but change to fit the situation at hand.

[Xuincherguixe]

Oddly, when I counterpointed his arguments that ToB is overpowered with an in-depth explanation of just what makes full casters even more powerful, I got back "My My. You have a great deal of knowledged locked up in that head of yours."

He may have been being patronizing there. It's a bit hard to tell with email. Probably not the best idea to call him out on it. But if it turns out he was, I wouldn't play the game with him. I do not put up with jerks.

Since it looks like he was under a false impression though, he may have meant that as a compliment.

Your call though. But if the guy has a bad attitude it's almost certainly not going to be a good experience.



:smallsigh: I'd just try my hand at DMing a game myself, but I'm new to the area, so I don't really know many players, and I look even younger than I am, so I'm afraid I wouldn't be taken seriously.

Personally, I'm a firm believer in not taking things terribly seriously. (By which I mean everything) D&D seems like it's something that can only be a bad experience if taken too seriously. The key isn't so much people taking you seriously, but accepting your calls on things. And if they don't, no point in playing with them.

[Kioran]

Like I said, I gave it some more thought and I'm now planning a relatively simple swashbuckler/rogue (with emphasis on the swashbuckler and a decidedly un-optimally high charisma for party face-ful goodness). If he turns down swashbuckler (especially if he uses some lame excuse about how the only thing that balances sneak attack is slow BAB progression), then, and only then, am I pouring on the cheese. And even then I'll keep my eyes open for another group to join.

Well, use that charisma to get improved feint - it´s not only flavorful, but also remotely useful under some circumstances, for example duels. And it qualifies you, partially, for Streetfighter, a particularly nice CAdv PrC (nice, not powerful).

[Keld Denar]

Like I said, I gave it some more thought and I'm now planning a relatively simple swashbuckler/rogue (with emphasis on the swashbuckler and a decidedly un-optimally high charisma for party face-ful goodness). If he turns down swashbuckler (especially if he uses some lame excuse about how the only thing that balances sneak attack is slow BAB progression), then, and only then, am I pouring on the cheese. And even then I'll keep my eyes open for another group to join.


What, you don't like my baddass bard idea? That'll teach him that bards aren't under powered....

[Ascension]

Oh, it's fine, it's just I'm still not sure what book Sublime Chord is in, and I've already bought too many recently anyway. Also, while I can do it, my heart's not really in optimization. I'd much rather play a fun character than an optimal one, and this swashbuckler is shaping up to be a fun character.

[Irreverent Fool]

I'm about to start a new campaign, and I wanted to make a whisper gnome Shadow Hand swordsage.

You want to play a whisper gnome and he's complaining about the CLASS you chose being broken?

If you want to be petty, I suggest building a halfling paladin ubercharger. I played one for one session and (at ECL 10) did roughly 300 damage on a single charge attack.

Clericzilla works too. So would any full caster. If he doesn't like the names of the maneuvers, point out the fact that most fighters' players shout out 'cleave!' every time they get one.

I understand where your DM is coming from, but the bad flavor (I don't like it either) shouldn't make him disregard the whole book. The classes in it are in no way overpowered compared what a core spellcaster can do.

[Artanis]

Oh, it's fine, it's just I'm still not sure what book Sublime Chord is in
I think it's in Complete Arcane

[Roderick_BR]

Don't forget to yell out every spells and even every normal attack you do. Someone once started a thread about silly names for spells.

"Great Heroneous, grant me the power to relieve my allies from their battle wounds, and grant them strenght to fight out enemeis. HEAVENLY HEALING TOUCH OF JUSTICE!" - casts Cure Light Wounds.

"I beg tee, bastion of Justice, to bless this servant with but a infinitesimal part of your infinite power. RIGHTEOUS STANCE OF THE SACRED FLAME!" - Casts Divine Power.

"I summon the power of the almighty star to remove the unliving abomination from this plane. MIGHTY SUN EXPLOSION!" - Uses Turn undead.

"CRUSHING BLOW FROM HEAVENS!" - Shock Trooper/Leap Attack charge.
"GROUND SLIP FROM BELLOW!" - Trip attack

Or do like that guy from Jack Chan adventures, that always says some silly name every single time he attacks, as if it were names of kung-fu based moves. "Mantis leaps from the shadows" (when making any charge), "Monkey style waddle" (when using Mobility or tumble).

[Ralfarius]

Having done my fair share of DMing, I must say that I've grown quite tired of the DM = god mindset. Dungeon Master, quite literally the master of the dungeon, not the characters.

It has always been, in my mind, the job of the DM to keep the world interesting, to provide the backdrop for the characters to play in and grow. DM Fiat is meant to keep things moving for the sake of the story and enjoyment of the group, not because they're afraid of or biased against something.

I'm not saying that a DM should just be an experience vendor for the players, flopping about and allowing them to do anything they please. However, any RPG is a collaborative exercise, and because of that a DM should be working with his players, rather than handing judgment from on high. I don't think that a player's only option is to 'find another group' any time the DM is doing something with which they do not agree. After all, it's the group who is playing in the DM's world, if the DM has no group, there is no game.

Teaching someone a lesson isn't necessarily the most mature way of going about things, but I have found that it is often more effective than people give it credit.

[PnP Fan]

Okay, so, you've never met this guy, and all of your correspondence has been through email? And you're new to the area?

That's a whole different ballgame, socially speaking. Look at it from his point of view. He's taking a risk by bringing you into an established game group (probably). The first thing you bring to him are (I think) some fairly effective/powerful characters (less than full caster, but still, tough characters). Using splatbooks, and all kinds of non-standard stuff (non-core races esp.). If I saw a "new guy" show up with this sort of thing, I'd be a little wary too. My first thoughts are 1. Powergamer? 2. Guy who wants special attention so he picks weird things to get attention. I'm not saying that's the case, I'm guessing it's not, but it would set some alarms off in my head. And let's face it, if your style clashes with theirs, it's usually easier to just not invite someone than to ask them to leave. So he might just be a little wary of having a new guy come into the group.

When you meet him, smile, shake his hand, and try to be non-threatening without looking like a complete pushover. Face to face communications can clear up a lot of misunderstanding that tends to get propagated via email.

Of course, once you actually meet him, if he's actually being condescending to you in person, well you don't need that, and I'd ditch them after the first session.

Honestly, I'd just save up your ideas, maybe cook them up on paper, don't get attached to any of them. Then present them one at a time, in order of your preference. I might even put together numbers for their max damage, or average damage, or some other metric that seems relevant.

In short, I'd make some extra effort to up front, friendly, and positive. And if it still doesn't work out, there are more fish in the sea.

No need to bother with striking back, or making their game not fun. All that does is give you a bad rep. Remember, the next group you play with might have some of the same people from this group. Wouldn't that suck, if you ticked off a bunch of folks, and they were involved in a bunch of different groups. Now you've got a reputation to overcome.

[Ascension]

You're mostly right, but it's not an established group, and he's desperate for players, so if I'm ever supposed to be at an advantage, it's now.

The whole point is moot anyway, since I decided that it'd be too immature and I'm probably not going to do it. Still haven't heard back about the swashbuckler, but I'm hopeful. And I promise not to yell "Insightful strike!" when I attack. And I'm not even going with the spiked chain, no matter how tempting it is.

That being said, anybody got any good ideas for feat selection for a swashbuckler/rogue? Since I plan to take the majority of my levels in swashbuckler, but I want sneak attack, Daring Outlaw is a given, but I can't take it till sixth at the earliest, so for the moment I've got two or three feats to play around with (1st and 3rd level, possibly human). I've been looking at some of the luck feats from Complete Scoundrel for flavor purposes, but I'm afraid that in practical terms they'd be a bit a weak.

[Keld Denar]

Craven is nice for bonus damage.

TWF takes advantage of both your high BAB, and your great bonus damage source (sneak attack).

Alternately, the finessable Elven Courtblade(RotW) + 2hand Power Attack and maybe Shocktrooper/Leap Attack provides good combat opening damage as well as cool visuals Diagonal Cut (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/MAin/DiagonalCut).

Telling Blow can also be pretty good, especially if you DW kukiris or something like that with great crit ranges.

[SilverClawShift]

@SilverClawShift: that sounds awesome. Is your DM still available for kidnapping?

Heck no! The last time he left, I got put in charge. it went okay, but nothing like when he's up to bat.

He stays :smallamused:


Funny, and I thought a DM had the right to disallow any material he didn't want in his/her campaign. I must've been wrong. Surely players are the ones who dictate what books to use. </sarcasm>

I'm just gonna throw this out there.

In my group, we regard the DM as a player. He's a player with a bigger job than the rest of us... he has to be EVERYONE else in the game, and the terrain, and the weather, and the animals, and the force of rot and entropy, and....
It's a big job, and the perk that comes with it is godlike power over everything (including the gods). And yes, that means being able to say "no, sorry, that doesn't exist". Especially if you feel like it might cause your world to veer away from you, keeping up with something that big can take a lot of effort. No one's belittling the task of the DM.

But he's still one of the players. We're all there to play a game, and we all have a responsibility to make sure that fun is being had. That means that a DM needs to be considerate of what the other players are interested in, and at the very least to examine carefully the material he's banning. Throwing out a "no" off the cuff isn't very courteous to the game at large (Goliaths are a monster race now? They were designed as a player race...)

None of us are there at this table when these discussions are being had, we're getting all of the information second hand... but if I had to throw out a guess, it sounds like the DM is more worried about the status quo of his world than with the entertainment factor of the game.
Exploring new possibilities is something to be celebrated, not banned. Think outside the box, ect, ect.

*********************************

On the complete OPPOSITE hand though, I'm beginning to form the opinion that all D&D players should sit through at least ONE npc-class-only game with no fancy feats or races.
My group did a 1 Adept, 1 Aristocrat, 2 Experts, 1 Warrior game early on in our gaming history. I think it really helped to flesh out our playstyle, which is "What you're busy doing is more important than what your character can do".
It helps you think about the entire world around you as you're deciding what you're going to do next. There's a Dire Lion in front of you, and you have no class abilities that will give you an edge over it. What are your escape routes? What's around you, and how can you use it to your advantage? And remember that you're flesh and blood, and there's a huge angry LION in the room with you, sword in hand or not. Be afraid players, your life is in peril.

So when I hear people say that no player should ever be a Monk, or a Healer, or even a Paladin, I can't help but scoff. I've been an unarmored Expert with a cheap dagger before. We went up against vampires. It was a BLAST.

I don't know where I'm going with this.

People should be more open to different playstyles, and that goes to both sides of the table. We're all trying to have a good time here.

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

I've been an unarmored Expert with a cheap dagger before. We went up against vampires. It was a BLAST.

I'd be an unarmed Expert before I was a monk. I like skills more then suck.

[Draz74]

Swashbuckler + Rogue + Daring Outlaw = good idea. You should be fine with that. As long as you're not up against Sneak Attack-immune foes much (good thing it's an urban campaign). Your party will be a little heavy on the melee though, unless maybe if the Ranger is an archer type.

Swashbuckler 4 / Rogue 16 vs. Swashbuckler 17 / Rogue 3 = tough call. BAB is nice, but so is Crippling Strike and tons of skills.

Telling Blow = awful, unless you have party members who for some reason are stupid about flanking in combat. As long as your flanking, this feat is completely useless. And you should be flanking a lot, especially with a melee-heavy party.

Improved Feint = still pretty weak, but personally I'd take it rather than taking Telling Blow. It's more fun and flavorful, and not completely useless while flanking (at least not if your opponent is a high-DEX character).

Improved Disarm = something to definitely consider, if "urban campaign" means "mostly fighting NPC humanoid melee types."

Thief Acrobat = a fun PrC for this character, if he can stand giving up 2 or 3 Sneak Attack dice.

If the Swashbuckler thing doesn't work out, then just play a Sorcerer or Cleric. And don't optimize them ... just play them naturally and casually. And teach your DM that they're still more powerful than a Swordsage. It sounds like your party could really use either of these in its composition.

A Sorcerer using Glitterdust, Stinking Cloud, Haste, Enervation, Grease, and Ray of Enfeeblement instead of blasting will teach a new DM a lesson in a hurry, even without any real "twinking." Same with a Cleric that avoids Divine Metacheese, but uses solid buffs, save-or-suck spells, and eventually the Quickened Divine Favor/Divine Power/Righteous Might trio. Pick good (but Core) domains like Luck, Travel, Magic, War, Strength, or Protection.

Sorcerers are some of the easiest and most fun characters to play. I like my current Fighter/Rogue character, but I kind of wish I hadn't shied away from Sorcerer (or Wizard with some house rules to make them more flexible) just because there's already a Sorc in the party. He's a blaster, so I could be the save-or-suck type instead. :smallamused:

[Ascension]

On the complete OPPOSITE hand though, I'm beginning to form the opinion that all D&D players should sit through at least ONE npc-class-only game with no fancy feats or races.
My group did a 1 Adept, 1 Aristocrat, 2 Experts, 1 Warrior game early on in our gaming history. I think it really helped to flesh out our playstyle, which is "What you're busy doing is more important than what your character can do".

May I be the first to say that's totally awesome? I've got to try this at some point.

Look everybody, I wrote the initial post, and a few of the followups, in the heat of the moment, so to speak. Granted, it shouldn't have been all that hot a moment to begin with, but hey... I'm human. We overreact sometimes. I certainly did. In a way I kinda regret starting this thread... but then on the other hand, I think it helped me get over my initial reaction.

I'm definitely going Swash/Rogue, and I'll even try to be kind if he turns that down. The only thing I'm still wondering about is whether I should go for the dual-wield or not.

[Draz74]

The only thing I'm still wondering about is whether I should go for the dual-wield or not.

I knew there was something I forgot to put in my suggestions. :smallredface:

I'm going to vote no, just because you're already trying to fit in and not be overpowered in the slightest, and seeing a full TWF blast of Sneak Attacks can scare some DMs.

Instead, I have a strange suggestion. If you can pull off having 13 Strength. It's a little-known fact that you can Power Attack and use Weapon Finesse at the same time, as long as you are using Unarmed Strike/Natural Weapon/Spiked Chain/Rapier. So pick up Power Attack and Cleave instead of TWF feats.

19 BAB + Sneak Attack + Insightful Strike + Power Attack + Keen Rapier for lots of crits + Cleave ...

Also, if you don't go TWF, look up Einhander (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Einhander,PH2). It's not the most amazing feat, but still.

[Chronicled]

I knew there was something I forgot to put in my suggestions. :smallredface:

I'm going to vote no, just because you're already trying to fit in and not be overpowered in the slightest, and seeing a full TWF blast of Sneak Attacks can scare some DMs.

Instead, I have a strange suggestion. If you can pull off having 13 Strength. It's a little-known fact that you can Power Attack and use Weapon Finesse at the same time, as long as you are using Unarmed Strike/Natural Weapon/Spiked Chain/Rapier. So pick up Power Attack and Cleave instead of TWF feats.

19 BAB + Sneak Attack + Insightful Strike + Power Attack + Keen Rapier for lots of crits + Cleave ...

Also, if you don't go TWF, look up Einhander (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Einhander,PH2). It's not the most amazing feat, but still.

Yes, TWF here. You're going to have have a TON of bonus damage with each hit, and the BAB to make it work.

Also, the Elven Courtblade (already mentioned) can be finessed and power attacked.

[Ascension]

While either power attacking (something that seems contrary to the intent of the rapier, but is indeed possible going by RAW) or an off-hand kukri would be more effective, I've been thinking about using an ordinary dagger in the off-hand for RP purposes. I might instead do what I did with my last rogue and pick up a darkwood buckler (the lack of an armor check penalty means nonproficiency is more or less moot... and it makes no sense for a swashbuckler to be nonproficient with bucklers anyway...).

EDIT: Basically what I'm trying to do here is to build Basil Rathbone... err... well, a nonevil Basil Rathbone... so I guess that would make him Tyrone Power. Don't mention Errol Flynn. We don't talk about Flynn.

[SilverClawShift]

May I be the first to say that's totally awesome? I've got to try this at some point.

Highly recomended. You start looking for alternatives and backup plans to just about everything, you wind up memorizing the rules for fire and environmental hazards (the emergency six-step plan to killing just about anything categorized Large or smaller: pit, rope, bait, oil, torch, grate), and you learn to roleplay on your toes.

Approach it like a game of shadowrun. The planning can be half the game. The other half is adapting when the plan fails.

A good DM really helps matters.

[Kyeudo]

Funny, and I thought a DM had the right to disallow any material he didn't want in his/her campaign. I must've been wrong. Surely players are the ones who dictate what books to use. </sarcasm>

See, if I was a DM and a player came up to me with ideas not for character concepts(*) but for min-maxed optimized bizarre race/class combos out of half a dozen different non-core books, I'd get increasingly wary and disinclined to listen, too. *shrug*

(* there was a time when "character concept" did not refer to character builds)

There are reasons why a DM can and should restrict sources and material, but there are only a few legitimate reasons, and the list of banned stuff needs to be clear up front.

"It doesn't fit the flavor of the game."
"I'm not familiar with that book and I don't trust you."
"I've examined that thoroughly and it's simply too broken to use."

Banning something after a player asks to play it is asinine. You may be the arbiter of the game world, but that means you should have decided what fits in your world before your players start fleshing it out.

I'm a DM constantly (wish I wasn't, I prefer to play), and if a player came to me with an obviously min/maxed optimized character with a bizarre race/class combo from a dozen splatbooks, I'd congradulate him on his creativity and ask to see the backstory on how such a character came to be.

Now, if a player brought me a character with little or no backstory, then I can see banning the character, as a backstory is what you use to mesh a character into the game world.

[Curmudgeon]

Telling Blow = awful, unless you have party members who for some reason are stupid about flanking in combat. As long as your flanking, this feat is completely useless. And you should be flanking a lot, especially with a melee-heavy party. Ever heard of Improved Uncanny Dodge? Flanking is also impossible some of the time, such as when you're fighting enemies in a box formation. Plus it's tactically stupid to assume you're always going to be in melee. You never want to squander an opportunity for a missile attack against flat-footed foes by closing. And what about flying enemies? It's pretty hard to flank those even if you can fly, given minimum forward speed requirements. But a great crossbow with keen arrows will threaten on 15-20, so you can still often get sneak attack damage. And note:
Benefit: When you score a critical hit against a target, you deal your skirmish or sneak attack damage in addition to the damage from your critical hit. Your critical multiplier applies only to your normal damage, not your skirmish or sneak attack damage. This benefit affects both melee and ranged attacks. There's no requirement that you be within 30' for sneak attack damage, or that you move 10' for skirmish damage; your only requirement is that you score a critical hit.

Telling Blow is not awful. In fact, the more clever your enemies (read: DMs) are, the more use you'll get out of this feat.

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

Telling Blow is a terrible feat. It adds so little extra damage per attack that Weapon Specialization is better.

Add to that, flanking is not the best way to get SA after about level 7. From that point on, it's pretty much all about getting them flat-footed, since every battle becomes one of battlefield control, unless it's against something that can kill you in one full attack, in which case you don't want to flank anyway.

Flat footed is easier to get after level 7 then flanking anyway, compare that to a 10-20% of getting to roll a confim to get SA if you weren't already getting it anyway.

[Ascension]

Flat footed is easier to get after level 7 then flanking anyway,

How so? I've done a lot of reading about D&D, but my playing experience is still fairly limited, and so that leaves me rather weak on assessing the practicality of various strategies. The only ways I can think of off the top of my head to easily get flat-footedness are the acrobatic backstab skill trick (which requires you to move-and-attack, thus sacrificing the full attack) and greater invisibility.

I'm sure there are more, but I just can't think of them. I remember my previous DM (who told me that rogue is his favorite class to play when he plays) laughed when I suggested that sneak attack was an overly situational ability.

That being said, with a melee-heavy party (The DM's still looking for one or two more players... I do hope SOMEONE steps forward to play a full caster) I shouldn't have much trouble finding someone to flank with.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Sad thing your DM disallowed ToB, 'cause Distracting Ember and Penetrating strike work like a charm, and is something I almost always allow and encourage in my games to make rogues useful even in unfavorable circumstances.

And actually, Telling Blow is excellent. It's just a late game feat.

[Solo]

How so?

Grease.:smallamused:

[Indon]

Yes, it's petty. Divine Metamagiced Persistent Petty.

Point out the part in the PHB where characters are encouraged to rename things like their skills (Think it's in Chapter 6 - I believe Lidda's Move Silently is called "Footpaddin'"), then say that of course you'd be renaming the default abilities to be in keeping with your character.

I mean, how much can he complain when you rename Mountain Hammer or whatever into "Defensive Strike", after pointing out the PHB encourages you to do it?

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

How so?

Grease, Invisibility, Any method of Concealment (so many) and Hide check, Greater Blink, Ring of Blinking and Pierce Magical Concealment, Forcing balance checks other then Grease, Forcing Climb Checks, Greater Invisibility, Going First, Arcane Trickster thing, Feint (mostly only worth it with Invisible Blade), Any of a hundred ways to bind or disable someone.

Technically, those don't all create flat-footed, they do all however allow SA from 30ft away.

[Yahzi]

On the complete OPPOSITE hand though, I'm beginning to form the opinion that all D&D players should sit through at least ONE npc-class-only game with no fancy feats or races.
My group did a 1 Adept, 1 Aristocrat, 2 Experts, 1 Warrior game early on in our gaming history. I think it really helped to flesh out our playstyle, which is "What you're busy doing is more important than what your character can do".
It helps you think about the entire world around you as you're deciding what you're going to do next. There's a Dire Lion in front of you, and you have no class abilities that will give you an edge over it. What are your escape routes? What's around you, and how can you use it to your advantage? And remember that you're flesh and blood, and there's a huge angry LION in the room with you, sword in hand or not. Be afraid players, your life is in peril.
Where were you when we were having those arguments about NPC and PC classes being different? This is brilliant! :smallcool:

It also explains why I'm going to start my next game with the characters not having a class at all... :smallbiggrin: