PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
> One thing I would do is strongly encourage the party, if it isn't
> already doing so, to slpit loot up by value, and not by "who can use
> it best". This ensures the barbarian won't end up with some uber-cool
> sword without having to pay for it.

What weapons does the fighter use? He's 4th or 5th level, he should
probably be specialized in *something*. Don't give weapons that cater
to the barbarian (a +2 greatsword at 5th level? That seems a bit much),
give a magic longsword. Or magic *heavy* armor. Or a magic ranged
weapon (though the ranger would probably get that... unless the fighter
is better with bows than him).


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:
> Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>One thing I would do is strongly encourage the party, if it isn't
>>already doing so, to slpit loot up by value, and not by "who can use
>>it best". This ensures the barbarian won't end up with some uber-cool
>>sword without having to pay for it.
>
>
> What weapons does the fighter use? He's 4th or 5th level, he should
> probably be specialized in *something*. Don't give weapons that cater
> to the barbarian (a +2 greatsword at 5th level? That seems a bit much),
> give a magic longsword. Or magic *heavy* armor. Or a magic ranged
> weapon (though the ranger would probably get that... unless the fighter
> is better with bows than him).

Yep, Weapon Focus and Specialization (longsword). I'm just reluctant to
bring them into alignment by handing out more magic... that's a part of
how I (and the other DM... it isn't ALL my fault) got us into this mess.

The idea of a Rust MOnster or two has occurred to me... the Barbarian
is played as fearless... won't wait for listening at doors, etc. Just
charges in. That big Greatsword would seem mighty tasty to a hungry
Rust Monster.

The SRD doesn't say, but do magic metallics get a save vs
RustMonsterization?

DWS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:22:32 +1200, tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> >> Do things ever
> >> play "I'm more than twice as fast as you are, so I'm going to use
> >> Spring Attack to ding you for a few points every raound, then get out
> >> of range"?
> >
> > Not so far. Why? I am obviously missing something?
>
> Wouldn't work anyway. A Brb will just ready attacks, and one for
> one attacks favours the Brb every time.

Best bet's probably to have some guys provoke his rage, then flee
until it wears off, and then come back. Assuming the rest of the party
have ranged attacks they'll have something to do during the combat
(shoot the enemy as they close, flee, and close again), and then
they'll get to do some real fighting as the barbarian will need help,
being fatigued and and all.

> Change it to perhaps 12 orcs, plus 2 War3s, plus 1 Brb5 (no more
> than 3:1 odds vs the party is a good rule of thumb) and everyone will be
> killing most of them with one hit, while the two Brbs can hammer away at
> each other. Use a couple of Adepts in place of War1's for fun.
> Even better, throw 18 Goblins plus a couple Bugbears at them. Fun
> for the whole family at about EL 6.

But watch those orcs - they do quite a bot of damage, so if they get
into the spellcasters you could have a bunch of dead 'uns on your
hands. Worse, IME, the most common cause of this sort of mess is the
players of the front-line types screwing up and letting enemies get
past them.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:57:48 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> REWARD the other way around. I award individual experience points almost
> EXCLUSIVELY for role playing efforts. Nobody gets extra for killing stuff,
> nobody gets extra for spell casting, nobody gets extra for doing much of
> anything EXCEPT role playing(and cracking jokes that make us laugh, oh, and
> good ideas too). Divide the experience for combat (and treasure, if you do
> that, we don't) equally among all characters, reward individual players for
> role playing their characters well. That will make it pretty damn clear
> when Thundar the Barbarian gets an individual reward of ZERO every game.
> He'll know how to get the rewards, it's just a question of whether he will
> do it or not.

If XP is being handed out by the book, it'll be even for everyone
anyway.

> > Great swords and Great Axes do assloads of damage, and aren't in any way
> > a special weapon, so I'd be surprised anyone wouldn't take one. In
>
> A *ROLE* *PLAYER* might select a non-optimal weapon for it's CHARACTER, not
> for it's combat effectiveness. Why would any cleric pick club over mace,
> for example? A power gamer wouldn't. A role player might say "his family
> were seal hunters, he was as well, and he knows how to use a club
> well..."(or some other reason).

And that's all very well, but for a professional basjer of heads like
a barbarian, taking a weapon that's not one of the better available is
stupid.

> Make him a REAL barbarian then, using rule zero. No armor, like Conan or
> something, you know loincloth and scabbard, nothing more. 😉

You're ignorant. Conan wore armour when he could get it, if he thought
it useful in the situation.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net wrote:

> > A paladin we had chose warhammer as his primary weapon, definitely NOT an
> > optimal choice from a mechanics perspective,
>
> Unless he is fighting skeletons.

Or playing 3E, where a warhammer is equal to a longsword.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9629A8943AAB7taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
> Indeed. It's not powergaming for a character to make a choice that's in
his
> own self-interest, and obviously so. It can be good roleplaying to not do
> so, depending on the character, but it's usually just bad GMing.

Which is to say, in a somewhat modified way, that USUALLY, power gaming is
the best way to play?

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
> Hell, just trolls. Getting close to them buggers is *bad*. Instead of
> a flaming sword, a flaming weapon with *reach* (trolls also get reach,
> so this doesn't keep you completely safe, but it does prevent the AoO as
> you close).

Speaking of trolls: Last session, some poor planning ended up putting my
wife's kineticist next to a troll. That's just ugly: troll versus
fragile super-fire-blaster. Luckily, she managed to survive the
encounter.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>
>>Hell, just trolls. Getting close to them buggers is *bad*. Instead of
>>a flaming sword, a flaming weapon with *reach* (trolls also get reach,
>>so this doesn't keep you completely safe, but it does prevent the AoO as
>>you close).
>
>
> Speaking of trolls: Last session, some poor planning ended up putting my
> wife's kineticist next to a troll. That's just ugly: troll versus
> fragile super-fire-blaster. Luckily, she managed to survive the
> encounter.

How?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> This flexibility is the fighter's strength - none else is as good at
> multiple roles.

Except for clerics!
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
> No, I'm just not interested in being a slave to the mechanics. If everyone
> in REALITY chose to wield the same weapon, we wouldn't need several options,
> now would we? People choose their weapons for a variety of reasons. Yes,
> they want something effective, but it doesn't have to be OPTIMALLY effective
> in every instance. Why would someone opt for a battle axe over a great
> sword? Maybe they were a lumberjack, who knows.

Brandon Cope does this better than you.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd4mjqm.nrj.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
> > No, I'm just not interested in being a slave to the mechanics. If
everyone
> > in REALITY chose to wield the same weapon, we wouldn't need several
options,
> > now would we? People choose their weapons for a variety of reasons.
Yes,
> > they want something effective, but it doesn't have to be OPTIMALLY
effective
> > in every instance. Why would someone opt for a battle axe over a great
> > sword? Maybe they were a lumberjack, who knows.
>
> Brandon Cope does this better than you.

Lots of people do "this" better than me. 😉

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:18:39 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

><laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
>news:1112213504.331695.177840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > > ...I suspect the Barbarian may fail his spot check... I'm not sure
>> why
>> > > I get that feeling.
>> >
>> > That's the kind of DMing I can get behind. 😉
>>
>> Dear god. I hope you guys' players are aware that you've Rule Zeroed
>> the Spot skill to only work when it's convenient for you.
>
>Not all the time, just when it's remarkably convenient, and will result in
>saving the campaign from imminent meta-game destruction as players leave
>because they are nowhere near useful enough to be taking part. What's wrong
>with fudging a few rolls from time to time, for the sake of the game?

One obvious reason is that it is unnecessary. These are berries.
Berries do not have an indefinite shelf life. Resorting to
unspottable pickpocketry should be a last resort.

>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Johnston wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:18:39 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
> <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>><laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
>>news:1112213504.331695.177840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>>...I suspect the Barbarian may fail his spot check... I'm not sure
>>>
>>>why
>>>
>>>>>I get that feeling.
>>>>
>>>>That's the kind of DMing I can get behind. 😉
>>>
>>>Dear god. I hope you guys' players are aware that you've Rule Zeroed
>>>the Spot skill to only work when it's convenient for you.
>>
>>Not all the time, just when it's remarkably convenient, and will result in
>>saving the campaign from imminent meta-game destruction as players leave
>>because they are nowhere near useful enough to be taking part. What's wrong
>>with fudging a few rolls from time to time, for the sake of the game?
>
>
> One obvious reason is that it is unnecessary. These are berries.
> Berries do not have an indefinite shelf life. Resorting to
> unspottable pickpocketry should be a last resort.

Specific point taken. General point disagreed with =)

DWS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:424af980.31032420@news.telusplanet.net...
> >because they are nowhere near useful enough to be taking part. What's
wrong
> >with fudging a few rolls from time to time, for the sake of the game?
>
> One obvious reason is that it is unnecessary. These are berries.
> Berries do not have an indefinite shelf life. Resorting to
> unspottable pickpocketry should be a last resort.

Eehh... there's an argument to be made that magical berries, due to their
magic, would not spoil. I have never heard of pretty much ANY magic item
simply spoiling on it's own. Sure, potions might have their bottles broken,
scrolls burned, wands broken, etc, but they don't just go bad like spoiled
milk, at least I don't know of a magic item that goes bad from non-use like
that.

Let's take a look at this from the other angle, then. Assuming that they
are "magically prevented from spoiling" for some magical arcane reason, and
you DIDN'T want them to be just stolen by rule zero, how would YOU
expeditiously handle the removal of these troublesome berries from the hands
of the characters? Yes, you could simply wait until they are used up, force
their use, etc, but then they get the benefit of them, something you're
trying to avoid.

From my perspective, a simple pick pocketing is a good way to go, even if
the PLAYER isn't aware that his character really didn't have a chance to
spot it.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" wrote

> "Kevin Lowe" wrote
>
> > > > What, you think a big strong barbarian should wield a dagger?
> > >
> > > At least he'd have character. 😉
> >
> > You are an adherent of the "creativity equals random design choices"
> > school of roleplaying, I see.
>
> No, I'm just not interested in being a slave to the mechanics. If
everyone
> in REALITY chose to wield the same weapon, we wouldn't need several
options,
> now would we? People choose their weapons for a variety of reasons. Yes,
> they want something effective, but it doesn't have to be OPTIMALLY
effective
> in every instance. Why would someone opt for a battle axe over a great
> sword? Maybe they were a lumberjack, who knows.

A battle axe is one handed, a great sword is two handed. It all depends on
if they want more offence or more defense.

> In the world you imply that you live in, nobody would select a weapon to
use
> that was generically good, but would opt for the specifically good.
> Everyone would choose the two handed sword over the eminently more
versatile
> long sword.

It comes down to that offence vs. defense thing again.

> > Do these characters have sound, in-character reasons to want to die
> > screaming in the mud with their entrails in a steaming pile beside them?
>
> The biggest gun is always the best gun, is that the ticket?

Quiet often yes.

> > If not, then playing a character who seeks out a combat career armed
> > with a suboptimal weapon is *rotten* roleplaying.
>
> Of course you'd have reasons for it! I'm not suggesting for example
> randomly assigning a TRIDENT to a nomadic tribesman of the northern desert
> or some such thing! Club for the seal hunting family, Spear for the
family
> of proud spear carriers(or something), Axe for the guy who was a
> disillusioned lumberjack, etc etc.

Actually, all those weapons are pretty similar in usefulness, and on par
with a longsword.

> > I say almost, because you'd have to find a way to filter out the choices
> > that actually work well together. Because people whose characters use
> > the best weapons and tactics available, because they prefer to live
> > rather than die, are just being boring munchkins.
>
> Well, if I'm wrong, so be it, but it sure sounds to me like the original
> poster's problem stemmed NOT from a character, but from the min/maxing of
> the mechanics. I'm not saying that EVERYONE who picks an optimal weapon
is
> a munchkin, what I am saying is that if the mechanics drive the majority
of
> character design decisions, then yes, such a player is a power gamer,
> without much doubt.

A barbarian with a Big Sword is not min/maxing. Its playing to the genera.


John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
>Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>There is a significant difference in Overruling the results of a Spot
>>>check to salvage an entire game and over-ruling the spot skill to work
>>>only when it is convenient for me.
>>
>> Grrr.

>You clearly disagree. Let it out, Bradd!

Well, I'll let out a bit myself - instead of deliberately
fudging/cheating to get rid of the berries, what about
saying to the player, "Hey, I think those berries turned
out to be way more powerful than I was expecting. I'm
going to say they've rotted, but I wanted you to know
why I made that decision?"

Pete

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Peter Meilinger wrote:
> David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
>
>>Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>>
>>>David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>There is a significant difference in Overruling the results of a Spot
>>>>check to salvage an entire game and over-ruling the spot skill to work
>>>>only when it is convenient for me.
>>>
>>>Grrr.
>
>
>>You clearly disagree. Let it out, Bradd!
>
>
> Well, I'll let out a bit myself - instead of deliberately
> fudging/cheating to get rid of the berries, what about
> saying to the player, "Hey, I think those berries turned
> out to be way more powerful than I was expecting. I'm
> going to say they've rotted, but I wanted you to know
> why I made that decision?"

Honesty? You are truly evil. That's just... so... wow.

Seriously, though... having them get stolen feels, to me, like less of
a handwave than having magically enchanted berries rot. They're both
Deus Ex Machina to dispose of an item I want gone. No idea why one
feels more right to me than the other.

Assuming I don't want to sully myself with actual ... *ick* ... honesty
and openness ... can you think of another way? Options cheerfully
considered.

DWS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"John Phillips" <jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7uI2e.25993$cg1.517@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> A battle axe is one handed, a great sword is two handed. It all depends on

??? That must be a change from 2E. There's a "great axe" now, isn't there?
That must be the two handed version. In 2E there's hand axe and battle axe,
1 and 2 handed respectively.

> > > Do these characters have sound, in-character reasons to want to die
> > > screaming in the mud with their entrails in a steaming pile beside
them?
> >
> > The biggest gun is always the best gun, is that the ticket?
>
> Quiet often yes.

Not always, though. 😉

> > Of course you'd have reasons for it! I'm not suggesting for example
> > randomly assigning a TRIDENT to a nomadic tribesman of the northern
desert
> > or some such thing! Club for the seal hunting family, Spear for the
> family
> > of proud spear carriers(or something), Axe for the guy who was a
> > disillusioned lumberjack, etc etc.
>
> Actually, all those weapons are pretty similar in usefulness, and on par
> with a longsword.

Club? d4 damage(vs medium creatures, 2E). Spear, d6, battle axe d8(if
memory serves, haven't had an axe wielding character for some time). I
guess weapons have changed since 2E.

> A barbarian with a Big Sword is not min/maxing. Its playing to the genera.

From a certain perspective, I'd be tempted to agree with you. It sounds to
me that the barbarian class in general is the wet dream fighter type for
power gaming players. It may simply be an unbalanced character from the get
go.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Peter Meilinger" <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote in message
news:d2fk9p$5oa$1@news3.bu.edu...
> David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
> >Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> >> David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>>There is a significant difference in Overruling the results of a Spot
> >>>check to salvage an entire game and over-ruling the spot skill to work
> >>>only when it is convenient for me.
> >>
> >> Grrr.
>
> >You clearly disagree. Let it out, Bradd!
>
> Well, I'll let out a bit myself - instead of deliberately
> fudging/cheating to get rid of the berries, what about
> saying to the player, "Hey, I think those berries turned
> out to be way more powerful than I was expecting. I'm
> going to say they've rotted, but I wanted you to know
> why I made that decision?"

While the implementation might be different(pick pocketing, rotting, there
are so many ways to get rid of them, given an implementation of rule zero),
I think the metagame explanation would almost be a requirement, at least
that's what I would do. The PC's would find them gone, and I would explain
why I did what I did, simply for the sake of SOME semblance of "overall
fairness". Even if it's not terribly fair to the characters, the players
should recognize and understand the reasons and at least begrudgingly accept
what has happened.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" wrote
> "Matt Frisch" wrote
>
> > Not knowing his feats, you can't begin to make that assumption. A high
>
> It's not an assumption. The problem, as described by the original poster,
> stems directly from an extremely powerful character in comparison to the
> others. The only way to accomplish this is either through munchkinism or
> min/maxing, and the original poster admitted to as much.

The Only way?


John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
>Lots of people wanted to know what Feats the Fighter, Ranger and
>Barbarian in this little sotry have taken.
>
>Ranger - Track, Point Blank Shot, Quick Draw, Rapid Shot, Weapon
>Focus (Composite Longbow), Endurance.
>
>Fighter- Combat Reflexes, Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Focus and
>Specialization (Longsword), Toughness.

Toughness? You shouldn't be compensating for the Fighter player's
incompetence... (though you could let him have Improved Toughness
instead).


Donald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
> news:me-571EBC.00260831032005@news01.comindico.com.au...
>
>>You are an adherent of the "creativity equals random design choices"
>>school of roleplaying, I see.
>
> No, I'm just not interested in being a slave to the mechanics. If everyone
> in REALITY chose to wield the same weapon, we wouldn't need several options,
> now would we? People choose their weapons for a variety of reasons. Yes,
> they want something effective, but it doesn't have to be OPTIMALLY effective
> in every instance. Why would someone opt for a battle axe over a great
> sword? Maybe they were a lumberjack, who knows.

Or they want to use a shield. You know, for the AC bonus. POWREGAMOR!!11!

> In the world you imply that you live in, nobody would select a weapon to use
> that was generically good, but would opt for the specifically good.
> Everyone would choose the two handed sword over the eminently more versatile
> long sword.

Bollocks.

> Of course you'd have reasons for it! I'm not suggesting for example
> randomly assigning a TRIDENT to a nomadic tribesman of the northern desert
> or some such thing! Club for the seal hunting family, Spear for the family
> of proud spear carriers(or something), Axe for the guy who was a
> disillusioned lumberjack, etc etc.

That's perfectly fine. So is "greatsword for the hulking brute of a
warrior."

> Well, if I'm wrong, so be it, but it sure sounds to me like the original
> poster's problem stemmed NOT from a character, but from the min/maxing of
> the mechanics. I'm not saying that EVERYONE who picks an optimal weapon is
> a munchkin, what I am saying is that if the mechanics drive the majority of
> character design decisions, then yes, such a player is a power gamer,
> without much doubt.

Weapon selection doesn't have to have *anything* to do with character
design. If I have a good reason to wield a sub-optimal weapon, fine.
If I don't, there's no reason not to just pick the most effective one I can.

-Will

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> <firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1112212183.832312.102090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Had some orcs that built crenelated defenses along a ledge
>>that was a little above the ledge on the other side of
>>a 10ft chasm. A higher ledge that kind of looked along
>>the length of the chasm was also crenelated. A narrow
>
>
> "Crenelated"? I looked it up, but don't know what exactly it looks like.
> Got a visual for me?

Unless I'm mistaken, the crinkly bits at the top of your typical castle.
Looks like a square wave.

-Will

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:

>Fighter- Combat Reflexes, Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Focus and
>Specialization (Longsword), Toughness.

>Some of those listed are Ranger abilities, rather than feat choices.

>I Know that the Barbarian has Cleave, which means he also has Power
>Attack, so that should be all of them.

The Barbarian's Cleave is annoying, because that lessens the
efficacy of the "many fragile enemies" tactic that's been
suggested already, since the barbarian can react just as well
as the fighter. When will the fighter be able to get Great
Cleave? I can't remember the prereqs.

Someone else suggested that the fighter should get a bastard
sword, and if you let him retroactively change his WF and
Specialization to that it'll make up for some of the lost
ground. Not all of it, but what the hell.

Pete

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Peter Meilinger wrote:
> David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Fighter- Combat Reflexes, Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Focus and
>>Specialization (Longsword), Toughness.
>
>
>>Some of those listed are Ranger abilities, rather than feat choices.
>
>
>>I Know that the Barbarian has Cleave, which means he also has Power
>>Attack, so that should be all of them.
>
>
> The Barbarian's Cleave is annoying, because that lessens the
> efficacy of the "many fragile enemies" tactic that's been
> suggested already, since the barbarian can react just as well
> as the fighter. When will the fighter be able to get Great
> Cleave? I can't remember the prereqs.

Str 13, Cleave, Power Attack, base attack bonus +4. They both qualify
right now. They will both gain a feat next level. Wanna bet they both
take it?

If only the Fighter takes it, though, the horde of fragile eney tactic
works out nicely, since it let's Fighter mow liek the Grim Reaper, while
the Barb gets his kill plus cleave, followed by Kill +Cleave.

> Someone else suggested that the fighter should get a bastard
> sword, and if you let him retroactively change his WF and
> Specialization to that it'll make up for some of the lost
> ground. Not all of it, but what the hell.

Hmm. Did you see my 'poor weaponmaster' idea in the other post? One of
a thousand I've written tonight?

heh.

DWS