Results 271 to 300 of 402
Thread: Why 3.5?
-
2022-01-06, 02:04 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Location
- Michigan
- Gender
Re: Why 3.5?
It depends on how your measuring T2. I am going to arbitrarilly put the break point at 5 "Nuke" abilities by level 6. These are spells or abilities that I put into 3 categories. Those that wreck a DMs plot, like speak with dead or raise dead in a murder investigation or teleport in an across country caper. Those that wreck an economy like Fabrication, wall of salt, animate dead or Mount. Then there is the last catagory which are ones that are just off the scale in power in what they do. Like Silent Image shutting down an Iron Golem, Grease stoping a frenzied berserker, or an Uber charger dealing 10x the creatures HP in damage.
The mind affecting stuff is good, but my concern is magic circles shutting it down in the middle of combat. Not too mention creatures of 5hd+ can become immune by joining a new church
-
2022-01-06, 02:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2016
- Location
- Seoul
- Gender
Re: Why 3.5?
I'm not sure why "HD 5+ creatures joining a new church" makes any sense. If you mean Magic Circle Against [Alignment] a) it's also on the Wizard/Sorcerer list, b) not every HD 5+ creature is going to be with a spellcaster capable of casting it 24/7, c) alignment and religion actually don't matter at all for the compulsion suppression effect, and d) ...seriously? Your argument against "mind-affecting abilities are strong" is "lol then every creature at CR 5 or higher joins a church and has a cleric glued to their stomach"? Please tell me it's not actually that.
Last edited by danielxcutter; 2022-01-06 at 02:33 AM.
Cool elan Illithid Slayer by linkele.
Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Ao3 FanFiction.net DeviantArt
We also have a TvTropes page!
Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal)Campaign still going on, but journal discontinued until further notice.
Extended sig here.
-
2022-01-06, 07:23 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Trapped in England
- Gender
Re: Why 3.5?
The item slot limitation is arguably the same sort of thing.
Too many constant magic items in close proximity or physical contact causes them to stop working, or possibly go awry. Especially when those items are similar in shape and the way their magic interacts with the body. You can probably justify it further using the chakras mentioned in the Incarnum system.
-
2022-01-06, 07:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2021
Re: Why 3.5?
I don't understand how "this part of you can only use one magic item" is intuitive but "all of you can only use three magic items" is not. Especially because even in the body slot model, you have things like the two-ring limit. And because the body slot model breaks down once you start dealing with characters that have non-standard body plans. What happens when someone wants to play an insect person that has two sets of hands, or a snake person with no feet?
But it's not like 5e removes the item slot system.
A 6th level Sorcerer gets 7 spells known (ignoring 0th level spells, because none of those are "Nukes" by any standard). That by this standard, any low-op and even many mid-op Sorcerers aren't T2. Since the tiers are nominally supposed to be optimization-independent, I don't think this is a good definition.
The mind affecting stuff is good, but my concern is magic circles shutting it down in the middle of combat. Not too mention creatures of 5hd+ can become immune by joining a new church
-
2022-01-06, 07:49 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
- Location
- Germany
- Gender
Re: Why 3.5?
Last edited by Tzardok; 2022-01-06 at 07:50 AM.
-
2022-01-06, 08:00 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2016
- Location
- Seoul
- Gender
Re: Why 3.5?
The MIC has it, but the short version is that having extra limbs is fine but having fewer means you’re screwed.
I do remember in Lords of Madness some of the central aberrations - aboleth, beholders, grell, and tsochar do have special rules for item slots. I don’t remember if neogi had them, and I’m pretty sure illithids didn’t because of their humanoid body shape. And the Tailband of Impact can get around the “no foot slot” limitation for snake-tailed creatures with tail slaps.Cool elan Illithid Slayer by linkele.
Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Ao3 FanFiction.net DeviantArt
We also have a TvTropes page!
Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal)Campaign still going on, but journal discontinued until further notice.
Extended sig here.
-
2022-01-06, 08:27 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
- Location
- Germany
- Gender
Re: Why 3.5?
I interpreted those rules as "quick-and-dirty" improvisation, and the ones from Lord of Madness as how you could tailor body slots to the body shape if you want to put care into it.
-
2022-01-06, 08:30 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2016
- Location
- Seoul
- Gender
Re: Why 3.5?
I honestly don’t feel a need to deny atypically shaped creatures item slots… well for some I guess it’d be awkward to even wear them but you could still at least give them custom-shaped ones.
Cool elan Illithid Slayer by linkele.
Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Ao3 FanFiction.net DeviantArt
We also have a TvTropes page!
Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal)Campaign still going on, but journal discontinued until further notice.
Extended sig here.
-
2022-01-06, 11:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2021
Re: Why 3.5?
If you're going to do that, how is that meaningfully different from just having generic attunement slots? If a beholder (a creature that is famously all head) can get as many magic items as a humanoid in your "body slots" system, I would argue you don't have a body slots system, you have an item limit system that encourages bad behaviors and limits customization.
-
2022-01-06, 11:45 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2016
- Location
- Seoul
- Gender
Re: Why 3.5?
Last edited by danielxcutter; 2022-01-06 at 11:45 AM.
Cool elan Illithid Slayer by linkele.
Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Ao3 FanFiction.net DeviantArt
We also have a TvTropes page!
Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal)Campaign still going on, but journal discontinued until further notice.
Extended sig here.
-
2022-01-06, 11:58 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Why 3.5?
But it is the creatures' abilities that lead to that circumstance, is my point. The ability to summon something aquatic is what makes "sink the boat" a possibility in the first place. The ability to identify and exploit a height advantage is what makes "rocks from above" a possibility in the first place. And in the balor's case, its pre-knowledge of the PCs' surroundings so it can repeatedly teleport in and out to catch them off-guard is what makes "wear down the party's buffs before engaging" a possibility in the first place. All of those circumstances rely on more than the enemies' abilities, yes, but they are also not possible without those abilities.
By judging that every single permutation of "uses its abilities" is perfectly equivalent to every other, you're applying too broad a brush to the EL system as a whole. That is what the DMG is trying to warn you about. By insisting that "EL always = CR if you're using what's presented in the statblock and ignoring all other circumstances" you're throwing out this warning.
This is a false equivalency. Videogames don't have a christmas tree problem because they universally calculate the effects those slots have on the player's behalf. If you had to keep track of all your item bonuses in WoW or Diablo or Final Fantasy manually, as well as alterations to those bonuses that occur during combat - on top of tracking a host of other things like external buffs, conditions, initiative, positioning, summons etc - you can bet people would be calling to drastically simplify those games or abandon them in droves.
Even without detailed round-by-round tactics, the vast majority of monsters have some listed/expected behavior or even just attitude entries to guide the DM. For example, Otyughs leave adventurers alone entirely unless they feel threatened, Harpies start combat by singing before switching to fly-by melee attacks, Leonals open with their roar before swinging, Gorgons begin with a charge etc. If you think you need a "Tactics" entry to know how a monster will typically fight, you're not paying enough attention to the statblocks.Last edited by Psyren; 2022-01-06 at 12:09 PM.
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2022-01-06, 12:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2016
- Location
- Seoul
- Gender
Re: Why 3.5?
I mean like hell, the Balor in THAT GAME didn't use the "ordinary" tactics, should it have like a -8 to EL because it wasted 3 rounds being stupid?
Cool elan Illithid Slayer by linkele.
Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Ao3 FanFiction.net DeviantArt
We also have a TvTropes page!
Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal)Campaign still going on, but journal discontinued until further notice.
Extended sig here.
-
2022-01-06, 12:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Why 3.5?
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2022-01-06, 12:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2021
Re: Why 3.5?
Then where is the Orc's "glider" ability? Where is their "cliff" ability? In my copy of the Monster Manual, and as far as I can find in the SRD, they have no such ability. Since they have no such abilities, EL being adjusted by the usage of such things does not imply that using a creature's abilities can require an EL adjustment.
And in the balor's case, its pre-knowledge of the PCs' surroundings so it can repeatedly teleport in and out to catch them off-guard is what makes "wear down the party's buffs before engaging" a possibility in the first place.
By judging that every single permutation of "uses its abilities" is perfectly equivalent to every other, you're applying too broad a brush to the EL system as a whole.
The Balor's "tactics" section even has two separate entries. So Balors can change their behavior, but only to the degree designers said they could, anything else is cheating. Again, we find that taking this logic seriously leads to absurd conclusions. So let's just not do that.
-
2022-01-06, 01:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
Re: Why 3.5?
About the only ordinary thing it didn't try was quickned TK and we all agree that was weird.
Unholy aura before fight? check
R1 Implosion or Fire Storm or Blasphemy? Check (implosion on wizard, defeated by moment of prescience. Wasted round. Fire Storm? Party was ready for that too. Blasphemy? Spell immunity again, although somehow one guy got dazed. Maybe they couldn't cover everybody?
R2 Insanity or Power Word Stun ? Check (PW Stun failed due to immunity. Might have failed on several party members just from hitpoints with L16-17 characters. Had he tried insanity it is very likely that quiet dude in the back who buffs/heals would have cast heal and undone it)
R3 Full melee attack with weapons? Didn't get the chance. Closed and killed one dude, then died to a martial's full attack, because that's what happens if you get in range of a martial's full attack especially if you're down 25% of your hitpoints from minor but steady damage.
Round 4 tactic requires you to succeed at that full melee attack including entangle, so that's out. The "drive away" tactics wouldn't have worked any better, Dominate has the same basic problem as Insanity. The Heal/Buff dude who didn't do much in the fight almost certainly could have undone it, if the victim wasn't already immune via prot evil or similar, even assuming the save was failed. The other spells were the same stuff he tried and failed.
It isn't EL-8 to not use quickened TK. It's only a little odd. And given action economy of a large party vs one guy, it likely would have been annoying, not decisive.
There is also the fact that this tactic (or similar things involving popping in and out of walls with incorporeals or etherial with ghosts, night hags, phase spiders and similar) is pretty dangerous from an action economy standpoint.
If the party detects you after you've teleported you've given them a free round to beat on you. Even if they don't, you get one shot (and many of those L9 SLAs it has are close range) and the survivors STILL get all of their actions against you. TK tossing a lightweight martial at you, an archer getting a volley, a dim-door putting you between the rogue and a martial and you're done. Or just a cleric sticking a banishment, Balors can roll natural 1s too.
Barring a swift or move action teleport ability, you're asking to get clobbered unless you completely break off combat between each attack, wait a random amount of time, don't get detected when you teleport in, get a surprise round, win initiative and get out before the party can react. This might work. If it doesn't, it tends to go badly.
And all of that leaves things like anticipate teleport out of the discussion. Neither side did any kind of dimensional travel in that fight so we don't know if that was on the table but in games that allow it, it's a pretty common buff to cast before engaging demons, who can all teleport.
Also just a thank you for posting that beholder slot item list. It brightened my morning and made me laugh.Last edited by Seward; 2022-01-06 at 02:30 PM.
-
2022-01-06, 02:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- Dominion of Canadia
-
2022-01-06, 03:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Why 3.5?
There is no EL in the Monster Manual. Calculating that is your job as the DM (using the monsters' CR as a starting point, not as the final result.)
I'm not even saying that's "unfair." Just more difficult, and therefore EL > CR. For an optimized party, that might even be appropriate or more fair. It's your insistence that those two measurements are always equal regardless of the monster's approach is the problem I have.
I disagree with your two-dimensional binary of "use vs. fail to use." How they are used matters to difficulty too, and the DMG citations make that clear.Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2022-01-06, 03:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2015
- Location
- Alamogordo
- Gender
Re: Why 3.5?
Penalizing player coordination with decreased monster CR seems bizarre, since in theory it would discourage optimization and teamwork. A balor has a Vorpal longsword. Should we reduce CR if in its lifespan it doesn't get to showcase the nature of its weapon?
Proper preparation should be rewarded mechanically. They shouldn't get less experience unless the opponent has been mechanically weakened by the GM intentionally.Characters I've enjoyed playing for more than four sessions:
Falgar the Swiftblade
Revain Sumeth, Whip Fighter Extraordinaire
Malvin Firel, Cleric of Corellon, Destroyer of Undeath
Vongur Dorent, Primeval Champion of Poverty
In defense of the Vow of Poverty
-
2022-01-06, 03:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2021
Re: Why 3.5?
Yes, that is what I meant when I mentioned readying actions. If you ready for "Balor teleports in", you get two rounds of actions before it gets to go. That said, it's still a useful tactic, particularly if the Balor thinks the PCs have a bunch of short-duration buffs active. It also doesn't have to teleport directly into combat with them, though it doesn't have much way to know if that's what it's doing.
I am certainly not claiming that Balors must always use optimal tactics. A Balor that faces some kind of personal or tactical constraint may behave differently than one without that constraint (in the example, it sort of sounds like the Balor is defending some sort of ship, so teleport-based skirmishing may not have been acceptable). A Balor won't know the party's buff routines, or spell loadout, or default tactics, though it may know some generalities about their behavior and resources. My objection is to the notion that simply using its abilities to achieve its goals is "non-standard", which is (quite predictably) being used to argue that things Psyren doesn't like are "too optimized" and require extra work to deal with. In reality, it's quite the opposite. A party that can't handle a level-appropriate opponent using its abilities in an effective manner is underpowered.
You do understand that this is entirely unresponsive to the nominal point at hand? To prove your claim, you need to demonstrate that the things modifying EL in the examples are creature abilities. Which point EL is in has nothing to do with that.
It's your insistence that those two measurements are always equal regardless of the monster's approach is the problem I have.
How they are used matters to difficulty too, and the DMG citations make that clear.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying, so I'm not sure if I agree or not. If the players use tactics to mitigate the effectiveness of a monster's abilities, that's absolutely fine and requires no adjustment (with, of course, the caveat that a monster using tactics to mitigate the effectiveness of PC's abilities is also fine and doesn't require adjustment). However, if a DM avoids using a creature's abilities for out-of-game reasons like "following the designer's sample tactics as if they were absolute dogma", that absolutely should reduce the EL of the encounter, because a Balor that intentionally does not use its Summon or dominate monster abilities effectively does not have those abilities and therefore cannot reasonably be considered as dangerous as one that does.Last edited by RandomPeasant; 2022-01-06 at 03:18 PM.
-
2022-01-06, 03:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
Re: Why 3.5?
I sort of agree...but only if the Balor didn't use other abilities it had that were roughly equivalent.
If the fight only lasts 3 rounds, the Balor only gets 2-3 actions. No matter how tactically amazing said balor is, he can't use all of his possible abilities. Each must be chosen based on what is most likely to get the desired outcome.
And if they fail, the Balor is likely in trouble. In the fight described the Balor tried about 2/3 of his SLAs, they did basically nothing and switched to melee (which is a tactic Balors both enjoy, and also favor by R4 or so based on tactics and fluff). The melee attack ironically both did the only significantly effective action the Balor accomplished but also got it killed.
Stuff happens. Plans don't go well. The party was basically ready for SLAs of any type, and most of the stuff he didn't try were also single target spells that could always fail with a roll of "20" on any target, and the massive action economy advantage of the party makes any single target approach problematic if said actions don't permanently remove an enemy from the battle.
Had I been that balor (not a GM running it, playing it as my character), I would have teleported away about round 4, and stayed away. The party was obviously too strong for me at that point. I was doing nothing and they were inflicting small but steady damage and risk goes up every round I stay, and my minions were pretty much swept from the board (certainly once the barbarian freed up from that troll he was fighting).
It sounded like the balor had a compelling reason to fight to the death though, and couldn't just bail on the situation. Almost certainly, since a literal embodiment of Chaotic Evil isn't going to stick around out of loyalty, honor or anything stupid like that. He was probably compelled in some way to guard that spot.Last edited by Seward; 2022-01-06 at 03:32 PM.
-
2022-01-06, 04:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Why 3.5?
Orcs have no "drop rocks" ability in the monster manual either, I guess they can't do that? The point of the DMG example is that those things are considered by the rules to be "circumstances" and therefore modify EL.
DMG 39 and DMG 50.Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2022-01-06, 05:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2021
Re: Why 3.5?
I think the distinction is something about "did not use" versus "would not have used". If the Balor decides, based on its goals and character, that it wants to use implosion and dispel magic rather than dominate monster and blasphemy, that's fine. But if you decide that, going into the fight, the Balor will never ever use dispel magic, you have effectively created a new monster, and as it is strictly worse than a Balor it is presumably of lesser CR and therefore EL.
On the contrary, they do have such an ability, because that's covered by the general rules for improvised weapons. Do you have a general rule for "flying gliders" that Orcs could use? And a price for gliders that fits within the standard wealth a group of Orcs is expected to have. I mean, seriously, are you arguing that if something uses an improvised weapon, the DM has to overhaul the EL? Because that's also not remotely what the rules you're citing say.
DMG 39 and DMG 50.
-
2022-01-07, 02:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2015
- Gender
Re: Why 3.5?
This is one of my biggest gripes with 4e, PF1e, 5e and PF2. They all stopped doing mechanically different power sources. 4e had everyone on the AEDU standard with very little difference between actual power sources, and all the others embraced the (IMO, cancerous) concept of "you either get spells or other x/day resources, or at-wills" too hard. There are no cooldowns like with Binders, no spend-refresh systems like with martial adepts, not even "technically at-will but up to a point" like truenamers or "at-will, but you choose what you get every day" like Incarnum.
I actually like managing short-term resources that only basically exist within the encounter. Ammo, VtM blood points, maneuvers... Sadly, post-3.5 D&D doesn't actually do anything like that.Elezen Dark Knight avatar by Linklele
Favourite classes: Beguiler, Scout, Warblade, 3.5 Warlock, Harbinger (PF:PoW).
-
2022-01-07, 11:36 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2019
Re: Why 3.5?
There are a couple misconceptions floating around here. Evil spells turn you evil. A neutral cleric will not make use of animate dead on any regular basis to keep undead minions as then they would be evil. At best they'll rebuke or command them if they have the ability. Not everyone plays evil and not everyone plays plays where neutral characters are immune to the corruption of evil just because they play with orphans in a church. Assumptions of class superiority based on optional character choices are not very convincing. At best one can argue that an evil cleric is more powerful than a good one, then again we also know that isn't necessarily the case.
Another misconception is crafting your own items allowing you to double WBL. If you did that, by level 20 you cost yourself ~30,400 xp and 1-5 feats for just one person. Do that for 4 people and it's 121,600 xp. Now add in all the wishes, xp cost spells, time spent making items, etc. and it simply falls apart. Yes, crafting is a valuable tool, but it still has a large cost in resources and opportunity that seems to be ignored in these discussions out of convenience. While this over simplifies the negatives of crafting so does glossing over them.Last edited by Darg; 2022-01-07 at 11:37 AM.
-
2022-01-07, 11:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2016
- Location
- Seoul
- Gender
Re: Why 3.5?
Cool elan Illithid Slayer by linkele.
Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Ao3 FanFiction.net DeviantArt
We also have a TvTropes page!
Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal)Campaign still going on, but journal discontinued until further notice.
Extended sig here.
-
2022-01-07, 11:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2019
-
2022-01-07, 12:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Why 3.5?
Certainly, the general rules for Craft can cover primitive items just fine. As there is no listed price for a primitive glider, the DM would have to make that determination, but once that's established then crafting it is within their physical capabilities. Clearly the DMG designers are fine with that.
See above, they do.Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2022-01-07, 02:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Location
- Atlanta, Georgia
- Gender
Re: Why 3.5?
Casting evil spells is an evil act. Neutral clerics can perform evil acts. Whether walking around with some undead you created in the process of all the good deeds you perform in your quest chain will turn you evil is up to your DM. I am aware of very few DMs who would shift a cleric to evil solely on the basis of having some zombie minions. But alignment is awful and no one's opinion is wrong. Questions like "what is the rules definition of frequently" come up.
Assumptions of class superiority based on optional character choices are required. We are generally assuming relatively (and equivalently) optimized characters. Everyone is picking a race reasonably conducive to their needs, arranging their stats in accordance with what helps them, the cleric will pick a deity in line with what he expects to do. The monk stays lawful, the paladin doesn't slip to neutrality and the cleric maintains an alignment that allows him to use his spells. Yeah, those are all choices, but when we compare a paladin it isn't a LN fallen paladin with no powers.
Leaving aside all the many ways 3.5 can simply circumvent xp costs, and leaving aside the way in which you can spread xp costs among multiple casters, and leaving aside the fact that exp is a river and by raw if I manage to craft myself down a level I simply get more exp than you do in every encounter for the rest of my life or until I catch up, your last argument still overlooks the fact that WBL, especially freely chosen WBL, is typically the largest determining factor of character power. You take a 20th level character with 20 WBL and compare with a 19th level character 20WBL+ 250,000 gp and the 19 will be noticibly stronger. To say nothing of a 10th level character with 16,000 gp versus a 9th level with over 28,000. This advantage is even larger in a game where WBL isn't "here's 16,000 to spend at magic mart" but is instead "here's 16,000 in crummy gear from the DMG tables or the random trash included by the adventure path writers, enjoy your human bane heavy crossbow". And I would say that IME, which granted may vary, I see a lot more games with random/preset treasure than games where animate dead is a huge issue.
And combining the 2, responding to upthread incredulity about the use of planar ally, if the fighter can spend 9000 gp to get a level 3 pearl of power, and that is reasonable, then a level 12-14 cleric spending 9000 gp to guarantee a minion every time he walks into a dungeon for his next 7-10 dungeons who is a better fighter than the fighter and likely an equivalent caster to the cleric and who comes with his own free buffs is a fantastic idea. It's certainly cheaper than if you used a single level 6 scroll in the dungeon, and quite certainly better. And when the text of the spell encourages mitigating the spell costs if your good cleric is asking good outsiders to help on good missions, so much the better. Making undead is a valid minionmancy path, which clearly sets its users far and away better than the equivalent muggle. But it's hardly THE minionmancy path. There are 2 reasons Planar Ally isn't discussed more.
1. It IS strictly worse than RAW planar binding.
2. Most games regard replacing your PC tank with a better NPC tank as bad form, because it's embarrassing and makes the player feel bad. But hey, if you are the PC tank and you aren't worried about showing yourself up with your own summoned minion, why not?Last edited by Gnaeus; 2022-01-07 at 04:40 PM.
-
2022-01-07, 02:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2015
- Location
- Alamogordo
- Gender
Re: Why 3.5?
Characters I've enjoyed playing for more than four sessions:
Falgar the Swiftblade
Revain Sumeth, Whip Fighter Extraordinaire
Malvin Firel, Cleric of Corellon, Destroyer of Undeath
Vongur Dorent, Primeval Champion of Poverty
In defense of the Vow of Poverty
-
2022-01-07, 02:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- Dominion of Canadia