[3.5] A bit of help please?

[Flickerdart]

I'm currently engaged in a debate with a few D&D newbies who seem to think that the following things are true:
~Wizards are not ludicrously overpoweredly broken
~Monks and archery are powerful
~Bards suck
Despite my limited knowledge of the topics (I read the Giamonk thread :smallwink: ) I'm unable to convince them, partly because they think DM fiat magically makes everything balanced.

Can a CharOp master give me quick, concise proof that the above statements are false? Pile on the cheese, Incantatrix, IotSV, Dragon Magazine, anything you got. I want to grind these guys into the dust.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Someone link Cindy. Beyond that, I'll make a Druid that can take anything out if you give me the rules.

[ocato]

I'm currently engaged in a debate with a few D&D newbies who seem to think that the following things are true:
~Wizards are not ludicrously overpoweredly broken
~Monks and archery are powerful
~Bards suck
Despite my limited knowledge of the topics (I read the Giamonk thread :smallwink: ) I'm unable to convince them, partly because they think DM fiat magically makes everything balanced.

Can a CharOp master give me quick, concise proof that the above statements are false? Pile on the cheese, Incantatrix, IotSV, Dragon Magazine, anything you got. I want to grind these guys into the dust.

In my opinion, this is the child-like naivety/delight under which D&D is the most fun. I submit that you don't destroy their illusions and let them enjoy themselves, even if it's 'wrong' according to the internets.

EDIT: Except about bards. Bards rock and you have my blessing to spank their asses with moon rocks until they believe it.

[Flickerdart]

In my opinion, this is the child-like naivety/delight under which D&D is the most fun. I submit that you don't destroy their illusions and let them enjoy themselves, even if it's 'wrong' according to the internets.
I've considered that, but these guys have taken it beyond mere naivete, considering they appear to be DMs of their respective groups somehow. One is even letting his Cleric/Warlock take Mystic Theurge levels, and still insisting the resulting aberration is good.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I've considered that, but these guys have taken it beyond mere naivete, considering they appear to be DMs of their respective groups somehow. One is even letting his Cleric/Warlock take Mystic Theurge levels, and still insisting the resulting aberration is good.Seriously, Get them to make a Monk using whatever they want, level 10 or so, and I'll make a Druid with the same rules, and see which is better at anything they want to check.

[ocato]

I've considered that, but these guys have taken it beyond mere naivete, considering they appear to be DMs of their respective groups somehow. One is even letting his Cleric/Warlock take Mystic Theurge levels, and still insisting the resulting aberration is good.

I bet it isn't super-dee-duper bad. I mean, it can fly and shoot stuff and heal and buff. It isn't optimized but I bet it's fitting with the level of power his campaign is in.

[Tempest Fennac]

In regards to Wizards, it would depend on the player (eg: I'd stick mainly to buffs and utility spells with some battlefield control spells while getting the DM to bar broken spells like Celerity and Polymorph, but another player may pick all of he most powerful spells so that they can do everything on their own). Achery could be useful for a high Dex, avarage Str character, but using a Composite bow would help if you have good Str.

Monks are apparently okay as skirmishers, but I don't have any experience with them (from what I can gather, giving them full BAB would help a lot). In regards to Bards, their "jack-of-all-trades" design means that they can be useful in large groups, assuming that the main roles are covered by other classes (having a Bard as the main healer with the other players using a Wizard, Duskblade, Beguiller and a fighter wouldn't work very well).

[snoopy13a]

EDIT: Except about bards. Bards rock

Only some Bards rock. Others play country or folk :smallbiggrin:

[CASTLEMIKE]

I've considered that, but these guys have taken it beyond mere naivete, considering they appear to be DMs of their respective groups somehow. One is even letting his Cleric/Warlock take Mystic Theurge levels, and still insisting the resulting aberration is good.

They are having fun the game doesn't need to be optimized to have fun. No need to rain on their parade even if using MT is a little weaker mechanically than the Eldritch Disciple PRC.

[Dode]

Dude I'd just swallow your need to prove yourself right on this issue and go back to enjoying what seems like a fun game, even if they're not sufficiently uber for your liking.

Sorry if I'm coming across as a bit harsh, but there's a guy in my group who got into the same argument with my DM as you are and his response was to prove himself right by bringing in some Incantrix Free Metamagic/Persistant Spell/multi-Leadership monstrosity. Controlling 3 minions and trying to usurp the rest of the party's roles slowed games to a crawl and irritated pretty much everyone at the table and he didn't even make his point anyway because he walked into a wall of dispelling in our dungeon crawl :smallbiggrin:

I don't want you to be that guy.

[Sinfire Titan]

I'm currently engaged in a debate with a few D&D newbies who seem to think that the following things are true:
~Wizards are not ludicrously overpoweredly broken
~Monks and archery are powerful
~Bards suck
Despite my limited knowledge of the topics (I read the Giamonk thread :smallwink: ) I'm unable to convince them, partly because they think DM fiat magically makes everything balanced.

Can a CharOp master give me quick, concise proof that the above statements are false? Pile on the cheese, Incantatrix, IotSV, Dragon Magazine, anything you got. I want to grind these guys into the dust.

They are committing Oberoni fallacy. If the DM has to step in to balance things out, then it is broken, no matter how you want it not to be.

And if they don't believe that, then show them Pun-Pun, Locate City Bombs, Echoing Shadow Miracle, and Chuck, the Ruby Knight Windicator. Those are all examples of spells being so powerful that the DM has no choice but to house rule them out, even though all of the above is perfectly rules-legal. That is an example of something that is inherently broken and overpowered, and thus needs direct DM Fiat to prevent.

Echoing Shadow Miracle is very obscure. If you know how to do the Shadowcraft Mage-Miracle trick, then you can just set up Echoing Shadow Miracle by adding in the Echoing spell feat from Secrets of Xen'Dirk. If you don't know how to pull off the Shadowcraft Mage trick, then look through the handbook on Gleemax or Brilliant Gameologists, as both of them have the trick in them.

The premises of Echoing Shadow Miracle is that you are able to turn all of your spells (0-9th) into Shadow Miracles that automatically renew themselves every hour. Unsanly broken, as every time they cast a spell they get it back in an hour's time rather than the normal 8 hour wait+1 hour preparation. And every single spell they cast is Miracle.

[JeminiZero]

~Wizards are not ludicrously overpoweredly broken


Search for the posts by Emperor Tippy. I believe there is one where he describes how to drop 20+ negative levels on several opponents in one round. And another on how to gain total invulnerability at epic.



~Monks and archery are powerful


Monks maybe not. Archery can be powerful if you include stuff like the Master Thrower who can discharge 20 shurikens per round as touch attacks. Add Flaming, Frost, Shocking and Returning, then use GMW to cover the enhancement bonus and go to town.



~Bards suck


Solo had an optimized Bard sitting around somewhere. If that doesn't do it, show them a amped up Dragonfire Inspirer. Works best if you pair the Inspirer with the above said Master Thrower.

[UglyPanda]

I'm assuming that from what the OP, this isn't naivete, this is flat-out ignorance. If they're subscribers to Oberoni's fallacy, showing the most powerful things isn't going to make them change their opinion, they'll just assume that those builds would be banned. If they just don't understand how optimization works and think that they're doing a good job at it, then you should just show them what a core-only Druid, Wizard, or Cleric can do. You could also run an arena game, and then beat them hard, very hard, until all of the characters they made are a bloody mess of MAD and bad feats.

[Shazzbaa]

I'm with Dode on this; but that's because being in a group of people who are absolutely convinced of the opposite of many of the opinions on this board has taught me that saying "But...but the people on the internet said...!" is pretty useless for convincing people.

Read up on these topics, search the boards, do the research; if you can make the case based on facts that you've learned from that, then make the case. If you can build and play a bard that's made of awesome, they're far more likely to reconsider than if you say "people on the internet made a bard that can take you out!"

[Siegel]

Only some Bards rock. Others play country or folk :smallbiggrin:

the folk playing ones rock the most :smallcool:


LEt them play NWN with a Druid / Monk / Bard and ask what feels the easysiest

[Stupendous_Man]

Solo had an optimized Bard sitting around somewhere.

http://www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=13474
^that's the bard

found it on a dnd story at ffnet, oddly enough.

[ocato]

I don't even know if I'd call that really super optimized. He uses Alter Self cheese, but otherwise it seems kind of tame.

[Stupendous_Man]

seems to cover skillmonkey, control (disarm +spells), buffing (it's a bard) and can fight/tank.