(Trying to) fix 3.5 - how to.

[cedad]

As for the Cleave effect on mirror images :

Are the multiple figments from a mirror image spell legal targets for cleaving? That is, if you have the Cleave feat and you hit an image and destroy it, can you then attack another target within reach (such as another figment
from the spell or perhaps the spell user)? What about Whirlwind Attack? Can you use this feat to attack all the images around the spell user? What about spells that allow multiple targets, such as magic missile? Can you aim magic missiles at different images?
For all intents and purposes, the figments from a foe’s mirror image spell are your foes. You aim your spells and your attacks at the figments just as though they were real creatures. Any spell you can aim at a creature you can aim at an image. When you use a spell that allows you to select multiple creatures as targets, such as magic missile, you can choose multiple images as targets.
If you have the Cleave or Great Cleave feat, destroying an image with a melee attack triggers the feat (and your cleaving attack might well strike the spell user instead of another image). Likewise, you can use Whirlwind Attack to strike at any image you can reach. A Whirlwind Attack almost certainly will allow you to strike once at the spell user.

From DD 3.5 main FAQ from Wizard.
But I totally understand that you do know the rules far better than the guys who wrote them...

And for the position of the images :

Is there a way to decide which squares the figments
from a mirror image spell occupy? Or do the images
distribute themselves randomly? If it’s the latter, how does
the DM decide where they go?
Although the spell description says the images from a
mirror image spell always stay within 5 feet of either the user
or another image, it’s easiest to assume that all the images
occupy the same space the spell user occupies. Any attack that
can reach the user’s space can affect an image.

From of course the same source....
But they are surely wrong since you are right... or don't believe it othewise...

As for the bonus to diplomacy it falls under the circumstancial bonuses part that a DM can allow as he wants to adjust to the particuliar conditions of the roll. Therefore, if a player advances good arguments (I don't ask for big speeches, but I ask for ideas) he'll have a positive modifier and if he is clumsy and put his foot in his mouth a negative one (As the player who told the guard : "Oh, no, we didn't see anything when this guys was jumped upon by SIX attackers in that dark alley other there" or "How could we be the ones to rob him, we don't even know that he inhabits the left tower"... and yes, I 've seen such example of fumbles).

But, who cares, I've read enough from you to understand something, I wouldn't play on your table for anything. The picture you are giving of yourself is by amongst the worst DM I've seen (and I've seen some who started to count vertical reach from the floor and not from the head).
Anyway, have your fun with whatever you wanna call your game but be respectfull and Blame DnD for your mistakes.

Oh, and BTW charm person a) need to be cast... and I wouldn't tolerate anyone casting in the throne room, guards are here to see to that. and b) have a finite duration and after that, the recipient WILL be resentfull.... I wouldn't even comment on the PC superioty over NPC...

[Aspenor]

From DD 3.5 main FAQ from Wizard.

I stated strictly by RAW (which is what the vast majority of DMs use, many don't even know the FAQ exists), I made no mention of the DnD FAQ. If you don't understand what the difference is, I'm sorry I can't help you.

I can feel your rage emanating across the internet. Did you really take this long to look up something in the FAQ just to come back and rant? Do you realize the FAQ is barely even considered to be an official document? The FAQ is RAI by some random person at Wizards, and does not necessarily correlate to the intentions of the authors.

[Taluron]

Archers:
[SNIP]
First, you are required by law to get the Force enchantment on your bow. Otherwise you will be completely and utterly negated by a 2nd level spell, without fail.
[SNIP]

I've been trying but I just can't figure it out...
what 2nd level spell are you refering to?

[Cratecrusher]

Mirror Image
(...)

I'll check it, it seems quite different from what I remember...

Did you really take this long to look up something in the FAQ just to come back and rant?

Don't you think he may have a life and better things to do than to look up game informations ?

Do you realize the FAQ is barely even considered to be an official document?

Why should we realize that ? Why wouldn't it be official, as it is from WoTC ?

It was good enough for Living Greyhawk, which was as official as you could get rules-wise...

The FAQ is RAI by some random person at Wizards, and does not necessarily correlate to the intentions of the authors.

I have to 1) ask for your source and 2) say that it's then a dirty job that somebody has to do Too bad if it's not certified by the authors, but people (including rules authors) sometimes fail therefore creating a need for FAQs and persons to answer them as officially as possible...

[Aspenor]

It was good enough for Living Greyhawk, which was as official as you could get rules-wise...

As I previously stated, Living Greyhawk is an RPGA sponsored setting/campaign/whatever you want to call it. The RPGA is a competitive gaming association, and thus they incorporate many rules that a normal game does not. They have to equalize across many, many players and keep classes "more balanced" than your typical gaming group since many RPGA events have "winners." This is why many of the "Living" settings do things like ban Polymorph.

In this context, it would make sense to follow the FAQ for this situation. A simple level 2 wand in the hands of the caster makes a fighter's defenses look like toys.

The point is really irrelevant anyway, as the Mirror Image discussion was within the context of a situation that would never happen (a PvP battle between a L3 fighter and a L3 wizard that was restricted to not using offensive spells). Even if Cleave and Great Cleave are allowed on images, the wizard still has a myriad of options that make up for it. Let him cast offensively, and you might as well not even bother starting.

[Aspenor]

I have to 1) ask for your source and 2) say that it's then a dirty job that somebody has to do Too bad if it's not certified by the authors, but people (including rules authors) sometimes fail therefore creating a need for FAQs and persons to answer them as officially as possible...

Sure, somebody has to do it. Unfortunately WotC has a history of different employees contradicting each other on the same issues.

Personally, I never use the FAQ. All of the information within can easily be adjudicated by a competent DM. I will use errata, as they are the "rules corrections," not RAI (which a large portion of the FAQ is). I have run many successful campaigns, albeit with the same group, and have never needed to look at the FAQ for anything. I stick to the RAW in most situations, with certain limitations on what I know is truly broken.

In the particular case of this rules interpretation, I'd let a fighter with Whirlwind attack strike all the images and the caster by using the feat. Cleave and great cleave, on the other hand, specifically state that you must reduce a creature to 0 or less hit points. An image of a creature is not a creature, thus the feats do not "activate."

The FAQ is nothing more than RAI by Wizards employees for use by people that cannot do interpretation themselves.

[Arkat]

Hmmm...

From what I've read in the thread the OP has a problem with casters being too powerful at higher levels.

So the OP's suggested solution was to increase the power of the melee classes like Fighter and Paladin.

Well, let me provide an alternative solution. Run an Epic game without Epic Spells.

Currently I'm DMing an Epic game with 30th level characters. At those levels, the Epic Mobs have so many hitpoints that spells like Maximized & Empower Orbs of Acid do about the same damage as a Melee character. The mobs' SR and Saves are also so high the spells (instant kill spells for one) that can be resisted usually are quite easily. Melee characters really get a chance to shine in my game.

Another thing about Epic games that I and my players seem to like is that since Epic game combats can take so long, there is usually motivation on my part to mix it up and have the occasional sessions where nothing but role-playing and problem/puzzle-solving takes place.

I've been running this game over the past several months and we all seem to enjoy it.

Give it a try!

[Aspenor]

Currently I'm DMing an Epic game with 30th level characters. At those levels, the Epic Mobs have so many hitpoints that spells like Maximized & Empower Orbs of Acid do about the same damage as a Melee character. The mobs' SR and Saves are also so high the spells (instant kill spells for one) that can be resisted usually are quite easily. Melee characters really get a chance to shine in my game.

It does sound like fun, but I will mention that it sounds to me like your PC casters are doing it all wrong. I do like a good epic game, though. I'm glad you're having fun!!! That's what it's about.

PS: are you playing 3.5/3.0, or 4.0?

[Arkat]

it Does Sound Like Fun, But I Will Mention That It Sounds To Me Like Your Pc Casters Are Doing It All Wrong. I Do Like A Good Epic Game, Though. I'm Glad You're Having Fun!!! That's What It's About.

Ps: Are You Playing 3.5/3.0, Or 4.0?

3.5

[SquelchHU]

As for the bonus to diplomacy it falls under the circumstancial bonuses part that a DM can allow as he wants to adjust to the particuliar conditions of the roll. Therefore, if a player advances good arguments (I don't ask for big speeches, but I ask for ideas) he'll have a positive modifier and if he is clumsy and put his foot in his mouth a negative one (As the player who told the guard : "Oh, no, we didn't see anything when this guys was jumped upon by SIX attackers in that dark alley other there" or "How could we be the ones to rob him, we don't even know that he inhabits the left tower"... and yes, I 've seen such example of fumbles).

Diplomacy -1. How much do you need to do anything useful at all? 20-30. And you need 50 for the example case. That's a lot of circumstance bonuses. How big is the usual circumstance bonus? Why, only +2! Have fun with that.

Oh, and BTW charm person a) need to be cast... and I wouldn't tolerate anyone casting in the throne room, guards are here to see to that. and b) have a finite duration and after that, the recipient WILL be resentfull.... I wouldn't even comment on the PC superioty over NPC...

Silent, Still. Hi Welcome. You cast Charm Person. The King is now 'friendly'. You make a DC 20 Diplomacy check (the Wizard, being an Int based class has plenty of skill points) to make the King 'helpful'. This state is permanent. Further, he doesn't know he was Charmed. If you try to Charm him, and the spell is saved against he will feel a vague, hostile tingle and know SOMETHING happened, but not what. Even if he knows it is a spell, he doesn't know it's from you.

And this is without getting into the 'cha check to make a charmed creature do something it would not do'. Obviously you'll need some buffing first, but it's a good shot of just winning on the spot. So why does a 1st level spell just flat out win against kingdoms? They didn't think things through. They just copy pasted a generic medieval fantasy world, and ignored how the differences in the world would make that world different. 'A castle' was devised because it was a worthwhile defense against armies of low level humans. And while it is likely the same logic would apply against armies of low level orcs and hobgoblins and the like, it would certainly not apply against the real threats in that world. So people would devise other defenses instead of making castles anyways... and the fact the world assumes they do not, pre Eberron is a massive flaw.

As for the Mirror Image thing, it states it is easiest to assume they are all in the same square. And indeed it is. But that does not counter that it specifically states they do not have to be, so if you specifically declare they are not, as long as no image is no more than 5 feet away from at least one other image or you it is still completely valid.

I've been trying but I just can't figure it out...
what 2nd level spell are you refering to?

My mistake. It's actually level 3. Not that it makes too big a difference.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/windWall.htm

Force bows shoot arrows that are Force effects, so those are fine. Otherwise, every arrow you fire automatically fails to hit a target. Even if you are a level 50 archer vs a level 5 mage (though hopefully you could afford the Force enchantment long before then!)

Hmmm...

From what I've read in the thread the OP has a problem with casters being too powerful at higher levels.

So the OP's suggested solution was to increase the power of the melee classes like Fighter and Paladin.

Well, let me provide an alternative solution. Run an Epic game without Epic Spells.

Are you serious? That is not a valid solution at all, on any level. Elaboration will follow.

Currently I'm DMing an Epic game with 30th level characters. At those levels, the Epic Mobs have so many hitpoints that spells like Maximized & Empower Orbs of Acid do about the same damage as a Melee character. The mobs' SR and Saves are also so high the spells (instant kill spells for one) that can be resisted usually are quite easily. Melee characters really get a chance to shine in my game.

Maximized, Empowered Orb of Acid = 105-135 damage? Maybe it's 135-165, I don't have my books in front of me so I can't recall if it caps at 15d6 or 20d6. Regardless, that is low damage. Very, very low. And I'm not sure how you went from 'epic mobs have a lot of HP' to 'using a low damage attack is a good idea'. I'm even less sure how it follows that 'epic mobs have a lot of HP' means 'melee do low damage as well'.

Suffice it to say if a level 30 melee is only doing an average of 150 a round, at most they are hopelessly gimp, and should have died horribly about 25 levels ago because there is no way they would ever reach level 30.

So what actually happens is the super gimpy melee characters barely scratch the mob, then they die about 10 times over on the mob's turn. Know why? Well, remember how AC actually kind of worked at level 5, but by level 20 the AC builds were being PAed for 10 and still hit with maximum accuracy? Well that continues on into Epic. A lot more so, as there is no longer any rhyme or reason to enemy numbers whatsoever, and the times 10 multiplier means you can barely actually afford any epic equipment, even the most basic of things. SR is a joke, and that does not change. Saves... they are high yes, usually. But that's why you debuff them.

Another thing about Epic games that I and my players seem to like is that since Epic game combats can take so long, there is usually motivation on my part to mix it up and have the occasional sessions where nothing but role-playing and problem/puzzle-solving takes place.

If they're lasting a long time, you're doing it wrong. Remember that bit about strict time limits? Yup, still there. And perhaps the players cannot take down the enemy in 2 rounds, but that simply means that the enemy takes down the player in 2 rounds. Game over.

[Schmoe]

Substitute it for any 2nd level Will based mind affecting effect then. It was the first I could find, I didn't look that closely at it, and I've never actually used it (Glitterdust and Web are too good to care). As it was simply meant to illustrate that even the almighty Wizard with his encounter enders needs some versatility to compliment his power and wasn't meant to make a point about Hypnotic Pattern, itself though I think we can fairly call that a minor correction.

Even so, as the first actual correction to be made thus far I will find something to change it to now.

Edit: Done. Hideous Laughter works just fine for illustration purposes.

I think you are over-estimating the effectiveness of casters and under-estimating that of non-casters. Sorry, but Hideous Laughter is very rarely an encounter-ender. It's about as effective as a sneaking rogue, except that the wizard needs companions to follow through on the Hideous Laughter.

In my experience, there are some things that casters can do that non-casters cannot. These are primarily things like battle-field control, divinations, and quick travel. However, in other arenas non-casters can accomplish much of the same types of things as casters, and do it repeatedly, at will. Stunning Blow, Trip, Improved Grappling, Sneak Attack, it's not nearly as binary as you would lead us to believe. Heck, even something as simple as Gather Information has uses where a caster's divinations won't work. Add in the fact that a caster often needs the fighters around to "finish the job", and a caster only has limited resources, and I've found that the game lends itself strongly to group play, as opposed to solo caster play.

I don't think the game needs anything quite as drastic as you would propose, but I agree that there are some fundamental imbalances in the game. As casters gain levels, they gain access to new spell levels which represent an entirely new tier of power. The non-casters suffer in that their gains are generally small incremental bonuses to what they can already do. Black Tentacles (available to 7th level casters)? Yes please! +2 to-hit (available to 8th level fighters)? Yawn.

Most non-core supplements exacerbated the issue, as they typically introduce new, powerful options for primary casters while only introducing more small, incremental benefits to the fighters.

What I think the game needs is more feats and abilities that expand non-caster capabilities with strong effects, rather than improve on existing capabilities. The 3.5 PHBII was actually a really promising start on this path, although it's unfortunate that some of the best feats were tied to fighter levels, rather than based on BAB and other pre-requisited. In addition, there are a few spells that need some sane limitations (such as charm person). Other than that, I think the game works pretty well.

I'll conclude by saying that in the campaigns I've run and played in, the casters felt like they were sitting on the sidelines just as often as the non-casters did.


PS - Your argument against archers is flawed. You only need a few arrows to counterbalance circumstantial effects like windwall. You can take a feat to ignore concealment and cover. Your primary bow should be prepped with stuff that is always or nearly always useful, like +enhancement bonuses and holy damage. I've seen some frighteningly effective archers.

PPS - I actually do agree with your point about AC. There's enough collateral damage, AC-ignoring stuff, and non-damage stuff to worry about that someone who has chosen to focus on AC should always be able to have a relevant defense. I started by making shields give double the AC bonus (+1 buckler, +2 light, +4 heavy, +8 tower), but your idea to halve the price of AC-improving items is a good one. I think you could possibly go one further and halve the price of weapons, as well. Since much of a non-caster's effectiveness is tied to his weapons, he or she should always be able to afford the best. Since casters don't really care about weapons, they typically have more cash to spend on other goodies. This just helps free up some coin for the non-casters to spend on the other goodies, too.

[Schmoe]

only play non casters when I know the DM understands what is required to make them relevant

When you say this, do you mean a DM who has a good command of encounter composition and game pacing, or are you specifically referring to certain types of house-rules?

[SquelchHU]

LOL!

I think you are over-estimating the effectiveness of casters and under-estimating that of non-casters. Sorry, but Hideous Laughter is very rarely an encounter-ender. It's about as effective as a sneaking rogue, except that the wizard needs companions to follow through on the Hideous Laughter.

Most fights are against a single opponent at level. So yes, a single target effect does end the encounter. Multi target effects are still better of course, but that is not the point. The point is, AGAIN to illustrate that even the almighty Wizard needs different options to win and it is the fact he has those options that makes them win. They can't all be Will based mind affecting.

In my experience, there are some things that casters can do that non-casters cannot. These are primarily things like battle-field control, divinations, and quick travel. However, in other arenas non-casters can accomplish much of the same types of things as casters, and do it repeatedly, at will. Stunning Blow, Trip, Improved Grappling, Sneak Attack, it's not nearly as binary as you would lead us to believe. Heck, even something as simple as Gather Information has uses where a caster's divinations won't work. Add in the fact that a caster often needs the fighters around to "finish the job", and a caster only has limited resources, and I've found that the game lends itself strongly to group play, as opposed to solo caster play.

LOL!

Stunning Blow (actually, fist) = trivial DC. Enemy rolls a 2 or better, and you've wasted your turn. Why? Because it is tied to something other than your primary stat. Yes, even the Wizard. Assuming he isn't flat out immune to stun, which a common buff gives as a flavor bonus.

Dex 13, Wis 13, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +8.

So you're level 8+, you've set 2 feats on fire, and you've made yourself even more MAD (that's multiple attribute dependent, but I bet you'd be pretty mad you wasted your time as well) for no gain.

Trip = assuming it actually works, it is weak control. Even a build who centers around spamming it as if it were the Fight command in a video game is still only managing weak control. And of course, becoming immune to it is trivially easy, as most enemies do so naturally simply by getting bigger and stronger at higher levels or flying. But without the bit about having a recourse to dealing with the immunity.

Grappling? Sorry, you lose. You can't do it. Maybe if you were a Druid, or a Wizard you could. But without that? Nope, too low. You fail.

Sneak attack is simply HP damage, and we've already been over that.

Gather Information requires someone in that area to know that knowledge. If divinations are not working, it's because a freakin' GOD doesn't know what's going on. If a god doesn't have the information, remind me again why Joe Dirt would? And remind me again why, if nothing else the god you're asking wouldn't know it because Joe Dirt knows?

Finishing off crippled, dying enemies is not a valid or equal role. It is the reason why soldiers would enter the battlefield, fight each other, and then leave. And then some non combatants would enter and go around slitting the throats of the defeated soldiers they'd never have a chance against in actual combat, looting bodies, and generally doing things they don't deserve to be doing. The difference however is that these people were not regarded as equal to the soldiers doing the real fighting. They were vultures, and treated as such. The camps only really kept them around for their errr... services...

So unless you are saying that it's ok for the Fighter to be there as long as he is a second class citizen, and the party hooker your argument is invalid. Except that you aren't saying that, and neither is the game. The game is saying he's an equal party member. Ok, let's make him actually do that. That's what this thread is for.

I don't think the game needs anything quite as drastic as you would propose, but I agree that there are some fundamental imbalances in the game. As casters gain levels, they gain access to new spell levels which represent an entirely new tier of power. The non-casters suffer in that their gains are generally small incremental bonuses to what they can already do. Black Tentacles (available to 7th level casters)? Yes please! +2 to-hit (available to 8th level fighters)? Yawn.

How can you realize and understand that only some character types are actually getting new options, yet not understand drastic fixes are required?

PS - Your argument against archers is flawed. You only need a few arrows to counterbalance circumstantial effects like windwall. You can take a feat to ignore concealment and cover. Your primary bow should be prepped with stuff that is always or nearly always useful, like +enhancement bonuses and holy damage. I've seen some frighteningly effective archers.

That would be 'Force' arrows, yes? Same thing, except 50 shots in you've paid as much as you would for a bow. And since it is a 'screw you, you lose' to all archers of all levels without fail (unless, of course they have a Force bow), and it is available to all 3 of the main core casters you can expect it to come up any, and every time they care about you at all. Which means... you can either hope they don't care about you, which means you are piking or piling on, or you can pack a Force bow. Because it will come up early and often, and you can't afford a second bow (and if you did, it would be so vastly inferior to the primary, and detract from the primary you still would not do it)...

Also, if you ever raise any weapon or any armor past +1, you are doing it wrong. If you think it is a good idea...

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/h..._Epic_Fail.jpg

I will leave it as an exercise to you to determine why this is so. But if you cannot find out why on your own, let me know and I will tell you.

Edit:

When you say this, do you mean a DM who has a good command of encounter composition and game pacing, or are you specifically referring to certain types of house-rules?

If the DM is doing anything other than throwing weak, humanoid melee NPCs on a flat, featureless plain at the party the non casters lose. All this stuff about different encounter composition and pacing you are hinting at? Yeah, that favors those who can actually adapt to changing circumstances, namely the casters. The moment 'I charge' or 'I trip' ceases to be a valid solution to the problem, the non caster's contribution goes straight to zero and stays there until it does. And this happens all the time in any encounter with any form of depth to it at all. And even when you really do auto attack and sammich your way through the fight, you still lose often because the enemy is better at meleeing than you and will therefore win the auto attack contest. In short, he is stuck in 'Are my numbers better than his numbers? Y/N' And if they aren't he loses. If they are he still often loses because he cannot actually apply his numbers (charging or tripping not a valid option).

And of course charging and tripping people is not a way of solving non combat problems. So he might as well go get a snack.

So yes, I do mean certain extensive house rules. And the assumptions mentioned in the first post. And some other stuff. Because if the DM tells you 'Ok, we're using 25 or 28 PB' it means you might as well roll a caster now, as you will never have the option to play anything else in that game. If he tells you that getting magic items both in general, and the exact ones you want is in any way difficult or not possible, roll that caster now! If he's the type to get upset when a non caster does anything meaningful, roll that caster now! So you need to make absolutely sure you are exactly on the same page, and you need to be absolutely sure that those stars stay aligned because the moment they cease to do so, your non caster will fail at life forever. Often quite literally.

PPS - I actually do agree with your point about AC. There's enough collateral damage, AC-ignoring stuff, and non-damage stuff to worry about that someone who has chosen to focus on AC should always be able to have a relevant defense. I started by making shields give double the AC bonus (+1 buckler, +2 light, +4 heavy, +8 tower), but your idea to halve the price of AC-improving items is a good one. I think you could possibly go one further and halve the price of weapons, as well. Since much of a non-caster's effectiveness is tied to his weapons, he or she should always be able to afford the best. Since casters don't really care about weapons, they typically have more cash to spend on other goodies. This just helps free up some coin for the non-casters to spend on the other goodies, too.

I'm not sure how that is 'double'.

As for weapons, you could do that if you wanted to encourage multiple weapons. Which is a good idea because some people might want a sword to go with their bow. It's also a bad idea because of two weapon fighting. Now if two weapon fighting were viable it would be good, but without fixing it it just encourages players to take a trap option. However, most people would freak out if they saw the kind of fixes required to make this style worthwhile. It's pretty simple, but it seems a lot more drastic than it actually is because all it really does is remove the many, many drawbacks so that the few benefits actually mean something.

Compare to a two handed weapon. You are:

Setting 1-3 feats on fire just to do this at all.
Taking a much higher Dexterity than would otherwise be worth taking, which means unless you allow items to count for this (hint: they don't) this means heavily gimping Str and/or Con. Both of which you kinda need to do your job.
Spending twice as much money on weapons, or alternatively having inferior weapons. This either means less damage, or less everything else.
Taking a -2 to hit, which translates into a loss of 4 damage per attack action. More with damage multipliers.
Dividing your damage between two hits. This means DR, while not really a problem to the THF character severely gimps you because it is twice as effective against you. There are enchantments that help, but then you lose damage anyways... which rather defeats the point.
Cannot effectively Power Attack. Why? Light weapon in offhand. If you use a one handed weapon there you're down another +4 damage per attack cycle, or down another feat.

So you are burning 1-4 feats, and twice as much cash to still be worse than the two hand user is for free. Complete and utter garbage. The only character that actually benefits is the Rogue, because SA only cares about quantity of attacks. And even then you're best off taking advantage of the PTWF at level 10 trick than actually burning a bunch of resources on it.

But really, look at PTWF.

Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting [Epic]
Prerequisites

Dex 25, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting.
Benefit

You can make as many attacks with your off-hand weapon as with your primary weapon, using the same base attack bonus. You still take the normal penalties for fighting with two weapons.
Normal

Without this feat, you can only get a single attack with an off-hand weapon (or two attacks with an off-hand weapon if you have Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, or three attacks with an off-hand weapon if you have Greater Two-Weapon Fighting).

It's really nothing special. Certainly not worthy of being at the end of a four feat chain, and requiring a base + tomes dex of 25.

You could make this a level ONE feat, with no prerequisites and it would STILL be UNDERpowered because you STILL pay twice as much for weapons, you STILL lose +4 damage per attack cycle, and you STILL get double screwed by DR/Anything you do not have.

So, here is how you make TWF not suck:

Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting

Benefit

You can make as many attacks with your off-hand weapon as with your primary weapon, using the same base attack bonus. You take no penalty to your attacks when using two one handed weapons or light weapons.

You are able to ignore an amount of damage reduction equal to your character level with your two weapon fighting attacks.

And then you make Power Attack work 1:1 with two weapon fighting, and the result is TWF is actually a bit stronger than THF but costs 1 feat instead of 0, and costs twice as much cash. Perhaps, still not good enough. But it's a start.

[ddaedelus]

Stop. Right there. You just found the problem.

See, playing a game of this sort is about character abilities. Not yours. Your characters.

Do you only allow your players with characters with a high INT make tactical or strategic decisions, and tell your 8 INT fighters that they must refrain from doing anything overly clever?

Perhaps you do. That's called roleplaying, though. Too bad it's not part of the game.

Or the reverse (which is far more of problem), if you have a player who isn't very clever himself, but plays a wizard, do you just tell him what his character should do since his ideas aren't nearly as good as his character's should be? He's just there to roll dice and keep quiet while you puppet him around?

I really hope not, and really doubt it.

The line that you're trying to represent as so concrete shifts depending on what allows the players to have fun. I prefer to err on the side of the player's abilities when it comes to social interactions and decision making. That's what makes the game fun for us, but I can see where not everyone would find that type of play interesting. Feel free to draw that line where you feel it's best drawn.

And really, 'get a kingdom' is not too big a deal. It's level appropriate around level 7ish, give or take 1 or 2. Remember, most of these guys are low level Aristocrats. Basically useless. Having real, not NPC characters looking out for them is a really big deal, and one of the best things that can happen to them is getting such a character in the family. So when he gives his daughter to a PC to marry, it's an investment. And if that means he steps down, well his family is still doing the ruling part.

But the main reason why it's a level 7ish thing is because past that you've gone international, and later extraplanar. One country just isn't that big of a deal anymore.

As I'd mentioned previously, my experience comes from 2E. In 2E, 11th level was considered "Lord" and qualified you for a keep/tower/den/whatever, not even a kingdom then. I suppose they changed that sense of scale in 3E when they capped the levels at 20 (barring epic).

But this all ranges off topic, so I'll leave you to your rewrite.

[Schmoe]

Most fights are against a single opponent at level.

False. Depends on the campaign.

Stunning Blow (actually, fist) = trivial DC. Enemy rolls a 2 or better, and you've wasted your turn.

Hyperbole

Trip = assuming it actually works, it is weak control. Even a build who centers around spamming it as if it were the Fight command in a video game is still only managing weak control.

Yes, it's weak control. It doesn't require a build to be centered around it.

Grappling? Sorry, you lose. You can't do it.

False. Don't grapple a cave bear. Grapple a wizard.

Sneak attack is simply HP damage, and we've already been over that.

A sneak attack often has the same effects as a Phantasmal Killer.

Gather Information requires someone in that area to know that knowledge. If divinations are not working, it's because a freakin' GOD doesn't know what's going on. If a god doesn't have the information, remind me again why Joe Dirt would? And remind me again why, if nothing else the god you're asking wouldn't know it because Joe Dirt knows?

I've seen and can imagine a number of scenarios in which a divination would be blocked - deity agreements or oaths, stepping on another deity's province, etc.

Finishing off crippled, dying enemies is not a valid or equal role.

Again, hyperbole. The fighters could do the job just fine without a Hideous Laughter, the spell just makes it easier. The casters could do the job just fine without the fighters, the big swords just make it easier.

How can you realize and understand that only some character types are actually getting new options, yet not understand drastic fixes are required?

Because it all it requires to fix it is to give some new options to the other class of characters. That's not drastic in my view.

That would be 'Force' arrows, yes? Same thing, except 50 shots in you've paid as much as you would for a bow.

Except that windwall is not a factor in every combat, or even every combat with a caster. Archers also have other options besides a bow. They don't have to be dumb. Plus, it's far cheaper to add force to some +1 arrows than it is to a +5 holy bow.

Also, if you ever raise any weapon or any armor past +1, you are doing it wrong. If you think it is a good idea...

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/h..._Epic_Fail.jpg

I will leave it as an exercise to you to determine why this is so. But if you cannot find out why on your own, let me know and I will tell you.

I'd appreciate it if you cut out the dismissive condescension.

At this point I'm going to say that we can agree to disagree. You obviously have played a far different game than I have. Your experiences and opinions are just that, your experiences and opinions. Every group I have DM'ed over the last 25+ years has been extremely happy with our games, as have I, so I'm not likely to suddenly go off and radically change the games because some wild-haired D&D prophet has seen the light and knows the "one true secret" of how to fix the game.

Edit: double-negative

[Magusrex777]

I'd appreciate it if you cut out the dismissive condescension.

At this point I'm going to say that we can agree to disagree. You obviously have played a far different game than I have. Your experiences and opinions are just that, your experiences and opinions. Every group I have DM'ed over the last 25+ years has been extremely happy with our games, as have I, so I'm not likely to suddenly go off and radically change the games because some wild-haired D&D prophet has seen the light and knows the "one true secret" of how to fix the game.

Edit: double-negative

Yeah these people are amazing. Some of these folks should be playing strategy board games instead of D&D. Casters can be absolutely OP if you let them be in any system. There is no reason to let them and if you allow I would again suggest you are the very worst kind of DM. A level 20 mage in old school D&D is godlike and should be treated as such.

Are there powerful beings or entities in your world? As a mage grows in power these forces become more aware of you, you will have extremely dangerous enemies. You are not allowed to just walk into that fraternity. Even in a powerful guild you have powerful forces trying to keep you down. Mages would not just give power away. That is why you do not hand them access to every spell.

You encourage group play from the beginning making everyone's talents useful. You make the mage work for it. You do not let them charm the king, are you really that weak of a DM? The king the doesn't have one of the more powerful mages in the realm at his side? My players were never so stupid to try such a thing...that is a dead mage. I always had groups that wanted to play together. It was very hard to survive as a mage in my campaigns, you would have to able to roleplay that extremely well. We played a RPG role -playing not roll playing. Your choices, actions and words are far more important than your spells, abilities and dice rolls.

If you make the focus of your campaign the "rules" your games and sessions can never be more than a detailed wargame. I would suggest playing something else. Your mind, your world and how you run it is how you balance magic and melee. You can control it or let it control you. The system and rules do not matter. A well run game needs to flow, you cannot let stupid cumbersome rules or players get in the way. Rope trick or anything like it did not exist in my games. Scrying and teleporting into an unfamiliar location was possible but was very dangerous, it was something players would only try if the were certain to die otherwise. Good grief, there are plenty of spells removing or altering a few to keep the game balanced is a no brainer, mandatory IMHO. The other things you manage by running an intelligent campaign IE do not allow your PC arcane casters to become gods...the gods will not easily allow that.

[Arkat]

Are you serious? That is not a valid solution at all, on any level. Elaboration will follow.



Maximized, Empowered Orb of Acid = 105-135 damage? Maybe it's 135-165, I don't have my books in front of me so I can't recall if it caps at 15d6 or 20d6. Regardless, that is low damage. Very, very low. And I'm not sure how you went from 'epic mobs have a lot of HP' to 'using a low damage attack is a good idea'. I'm even less sure how it follows that 'epic mobs have a lot of HP' means 'melee do low damage as well'.

Suffice it to say if a level 30 melee is only doing an average of 150 a round, at most they are hopelessly gimp, and should have died horribly about 25 levels ago because there is no way they would ever reach level 30.

So what actually happens is the super gimpy melee characters barely scratch the mob, then they die about 10 times over on the mob's turn. Know why? Well, remember how AC actually kind of worked at level 5, but by level 20 the AC builds were being PAed for 10 and still hit with maximum accuracy? Well that continues on into Epic. A lot more so, as there is no longer any rhyme or reason to enemy numbers whatsoever, and the times 10 multiplier means you can barely actually afford any epic equipment, even the most basic of things. SR is a joke, and that does not change. Saves... they are high yes, usually. But that's why you debuff them.



If they're lasting a long time, you're doing it wrong. Remember that bit about strict time limits? Yup, still there. And perhaps the players cannot take down the enemy in 2 rounds, but that simply means that the enemy takes down the player in 2 rounds. Game over.

Ah, I see the problem now.

You are a pure, unadulterated powergamer!

Now I understand why de-powering the casters instead of bumping the power curve up even more for Fighters, Paladins, etc. is so foreign to you.

I'm sorry you feel a party of four or five 30th level characters that can take down an advanced three-headed Sirrush with 1824 hitpoints in two rounds is the right way to do things.

We (my group) respectfully disagree. I put limits on how they could build their characters, what they can use as far as items and magic is concerned and guess what? The casters don't overpower the mobs immediately which lets the melees have some fun too.

We're having fun so I doubt we're "doing it wrong."

[Gercho]

Its just simple, a king of a powerfull kingdom, cant be weak, otherwise and adventurer lvl 5 would have replaced him before you thought of it, and then someone lvl 10 would have replaced the lvl 5 and so on, till someone that is hard to control/replace is in power, just simple logic. Why would some poewrfull adventurer go to kill a dragon if he can get more riches by just simply overtaking (or controlling) the lvl 1 king?

[Aspenor]

Yeah these people are amazing. Some of these folks should be playing strategy board games instead of D&D. *snip*
Your choices, actions and words are far more important than your spells, abilities and dice rolls.

If you make the focus of your campaign the "rules" your games and sessions can never be more than a detailed wargame.

Whether you want to admit it or not, D&D has a strategic wargame element to it.

Making choices, actions, and words important is fine. Not all groups want to play that way. In fact, playing that way is a detriment to players that don't have a real-life charisma score of 16 or higher. Some people just want to play and don't want to have to be an actor.

Some people like using D&D as a detailed wargame. That's basically what D&D Miniatures is. There's nothing wrong with that, and I don't think you should look down your nose at people that want to play that way.

I encourage a mix of RP and strategy, but there are a lot of different types of groups out there.

[Magusrex777]

Whether you want to admit it or not, D&D has a strategic wargame element to it.

Making choices, actions, and words important is fine. Not all groups want to play that way. In fact, playing that way is a detriment to players that don't have a real-life charisma score of 16 or higher. Some people just want to play and don't want to have to be an actor.

Some people like using D&D as a detailed wargame. That's basically what D&D Miniatures is. There's nothing wrong with that, and I don't think you should look down your nose at people that want to play that way.

I encourage a mix of RP and strategy, but there are a lot of different types of groups out there.

You do not need a RL charisma score of 16 or higher just a willingness to to ask questions and understand your actions can affect the "world".....OK if you want to use D&D as detailed wargame the rules are incredibly flawed. I do not feel it supports it. No, there is nothing wrong with that, I agree. i do not see it being any fun..but whatever. I see you running into a lot of problems.

Someone posted a link to a mage teleporting in 2 gold dragons to a fight with a melee guy?...I not going into the details but it was the silliest thing I ever read. Any DM worth even half an old piece of **** would burst into flames on the spot just hearing a player say he was going to try to pull off something like that. I do not even run diety's like that. I mean he even put stuff on their heads like a toy, it sounded like my group when I was 10 years old, a kid would try to do something like that.