MTG Salvation

Quote from Alacar Leoricar

My answer? E. Cleric.
1) Warriors are either tanks and melee, or ranged, which makes little sense for a tank. A simple Hold Monster or some sort of disabling spell will handle him.
2) Rangers aren't as nasty as you might think Blane: Protection from Arrows blows any normal arrows he may have, and if he's a melee fighter, treat him like the Warrior.
3) Rogues are only nasty if they can manage a Sneak Attack. A simple Alarm spell and some keen-eyed guardians can keep him from getting in for it. Otherwise, he's not as tough as the Warrior or Ranger physically.
4) Wizards are very nasty, and are the second greatest threat. Upping your spell resistance and using Spell Turning and other disruption (such as memorizing a lot of Dispel Magics to counter everything he throws at you) will nerf him. Not to mention keeping him busy by using a fast melee guard.
5) Clerics are NEARLY as magically potent as the Wizard, but you can't counterspell them, they wear heavier armor, and they're decent warriors. On top of that, they keep the other four people alive longer. Take out the priest, and they will have to rely on wands and potions. Not good.

I agree except for the part about not being able to counter the cleric and the fact that they are actually equally magically potent to the wizard. The real problem with the cleric is the definite threat that the cleric uses something like Righteous Might and Divine Power and comes wizard-bashing. Repulsion is also a good tool against everyone in the group, as well as Magic Circle against Good.

Quote from Alacar Leoricar

The cleric isn't exactly EQUAL to the wizard in magic power, but the fact that they can also leap into melee doesn't help; the buff/debuff situation is never a good thing. You have to use a lot of buff/debuff yourself, and you're gonna have your hands full countering the arcane caster.

Yes, cleric is generally better, particularly since a smart cleric has his buffs cast BEFORE he begins an assault.

Of course, leave it to Alacar to rely on counterspells to solve everything. Your suggested solution is a very poor one to this particular scenario. If you really are that afraid of the arcane caster, you don't need to fill your spell list with something as useless as Dispel Magic. All it takes is antimagic field or mage's disjunction to ruin an arcane caster- and these spells are effective against most other characters, too, due to the reliance on magic items.

You would kill the cleric, naturally, because it is the lifeline of a party in the long term, and the safety net in the short term.

5) Clerics are NEARLY as magically potent as the Wizard, but you can't counterspell them, they wear heavier armor, and they're decent warriors. On top of that, they keep the other four people alive longer. Take out the priest, and they will have to rely on wands and potions. Not good.

Also, to clarify, you can totally counterspell a cleric. You can counterspell ANYTHING that casts spells, but it is not a solid strategy in most situations. I'm not saying it's not useful, but I'm saying it isn't a solid build most of the time- particularly not for a wizard. A sorcerer can do it pretty well since they have flexible casting and more SPD, and an abjurer can pull it off, but we'll assume our "evil wizard" in question ISN'T an abjurer.

Secondly, clerics are MORE magically potent, hands down. They know ALL spells automatically, whereas wizards have limits on knowledge. This is a HUGE power for a prepared class. Wizards do have really potent spells, many of them unique, but many of them have faced nerfs in recent years (i.e. polymorph subschool), and clerics can be customized to a much greater degree than a wizard due to domains.

Gank the cleric, natch. Because clerics have Smite Evil. Yech.

As to the current poll question:

Your kingdom is about to be invaded by a neighboring country. You have no standing army, but your high sorceress has a plan: She can clone an army for you from one of the seven dwarves. Which one do you want?

My answer: Grumpy. Because ****ing angry dwarves are one of the better choices for a clone army. The best, obviously, being a Mandalorian bounty hunter.

um... clerics don't have smite evil. Paladins do. Now if Paladin was in the list, it'd be a tough choice between him and the Cleric. I'd still say cleric first, then the pally.

As for which of the seven dwarves I'd clone, I'd say dopey. That much stupid on one collective area is like dividing by zero. You'll open a planar vortex and everything within 30 miles will have their molecules forcefully separated, not to mention the temporal distortion that such a thing would cause would unmake them throughout time.

I was just thinking of an interesting list: overused nouns in character names- for example-hunter, shadow, fire, phantom, blood, etc.

Oh man, you should see WoW. Even on RP servers there's no RP, but the names some people choose are pretty cliched. About every fifth hunter has 'hunter' in their name.

I did read all the back posts, so there. Joyd rolls like that.

Quote from Phantom_Ronan

um... clerics don't have smite evil. Paladins do. Now if Paladin was in the list, it'd be a tough choice between him and the Cleric. I'd still say cleric first, then the pally.

Der. I was thinking of Protection from Evil. If Paladin was on the list, I would definitely have to gank him.

Quote from void_nothing

Der. I was thinking of Protection from Evil. If Paladin was on the list, I would definitely have to gank him.

ah, yes. The real problem with that spell is as an evil spellcaster, any mind-influencing affects that would target those under protection from evil or magic circle against evil automatically fail, which gets rid of the 'dominate the low will save fighter and let him beat down the party' approach.

kill the cleric
kill the wizard
kill the rogue

the cleric has really annoying buff and healing spells, the wizard is all about the tricks, and the ranger and rogue are all about simple beat the face damage. Rogues wil beat that damage with a sneak attack - simple enough with two combatants to flank.

It's really interesting how each rpg system has adopted an invisible layer of HP that reflects the real limit of damage - which is always exponentially more than the listed limit of damage and completely dependant on a healing class. I'd really like to see a system without healers - one that is more straightforward.

"Kill the cleric" is an absolute first tactic - but you may have to kill a beatstick second simply to survive. Also, if this is lower than level 10, the order changes to

kill the ranger \ kill the cleric,
kill the fighter or rogue \ kill the wizard

@@kevin: yeah, dw3 is longish. I've just gotten to alefgard and am kind of bored with the game, which is otherwise very interesyting besides the fact that I have bunch of rehashing of dw1 to do. Maybe dw3 could have used a bit more characterization to kep me interested.

Quote from wamyc

kill the cleric
kill the wizard
kill the rogue

the cleric has really annoying buff and healing spells, the wizard is all about the tricks, and the ranger and rogue are all about simple beat the face damage. Rogues wil beat that damage with a sneak attack - simple enough with two combatants to flank.

It's really interesting how each rpg system has adopted an invisible layer of HP that reflects the real limit of damage - which is always exponentially more than the listed limit of damage and completely dependant on a healing class. I'd really like to see a system without healers - one that is more straightforward.

"Kill the cleric" is an absolute first tactic - but you may have to kill a beatstick second simply to survive. Also, if this is lower than level 10, the order changes to

kill the ranger \ kill the cleric,
kill the fighter or rogue \ kill the wizard

@@kevin: yeah, dw3 is longish. I've just gotten to alefgard and am kind of bored with the game, which is otherwise very interesyting besides the fact that I have bunch of rehashing of dw1 to do. Maybe dw3 could have used a bit more characterization to kep me interested.

d20 Modern doesn't having any canon healing classes. The Shaman and Acolyte are both supplemental and only there for supernatural campaigns. Otherwise, when you get shot with a gun, you get shot with a freaking gun, and probably die (especially since the massive damage thresholds are smaller and more strictly enforced in d20 Modern).

Since you have no great love for d20 system, there are probably dozens of other systems without any element of the supernatural (and thus, supernatural healing) available. I can't think of any offhand, but I know they are out there.

littledragon,

@photon: I actually do have much love for d20: I love how it's designed, balanced, and the thoroughness. It's just that when it comes down to it, I'd rather play another system like d6 star wars or 7th sea.

And although I like the concept of an open system like d20, the spinoffs don't interewst me as much as DND itself. I should take a look at 220 modern, I suppose, but I don't really liek the idea of dropping 30$+ for a rules tweak, and I've been really turned off by the adoptions of star wars and 7thSea to d20. (for playing a modern environment, I think that World of darkness is realy the absolute best system.)

When It comes down to it, I don't really think the level-based advancement mechanic is a very compelling way to play. I don't *love* it that much as an advancement system.

@little dragon: Happy early birthday! May your years bring you wisdom as deep as the universe and longevity to infinity!

@waymc: I don't remember the name of the system(and I wish I did), but I remember hearing about a system in high school in which the premise was that all humans over the age of 13 turned into monsters and demons, and that the PC's were all children between 5 and 12. In that system, a gunshot was almost always lethal, and a shotgun shot WAS lethal. The monsters were tremendously difficult and took a great deal of strategy to kill. Again, I wish I remembered the name of it.

Quote from wamyc

littledragon,

@photon: I actually do have much love for d20: I love how it's designed, balanced, and the thoroughness. It's just that when it comes down to it, I'd rather play another system like d6 star wars or 7th sea.

And although I like the concept of an open system like d20, the spinoffs don't interewst me as much as DND itself. I should take a look at 220 modern, I suppose, but I don't really liek the idea of dropping 30$+ for a rules tweak, and I've been really turned off by the adoptions of star wars and 7thSea to d20. (for playing a modern environment, I think that World of darkness is realy the absolute best system.)

When It comes down to it, I don't really think the level-based advancement mechanic is a very compelling way to play. I don't *love* it that much as an advancement system.

Yeah, I've picked that up in our exchanges. I like d20 because, let's face it, it's got more testing behind it and more material than you are ever going to get for a published system.

I would say that D20 Modern is not a mere "rules tweak", it's basically an entirely different game with a different set of rules using the base d20 mechanics. It isn't just "D&D, but you can drive a car!", it is basically just a generic d20 toolkit to allow for basically ANY modern era RP, which is why I appreciate it.

Meanwhile, I HIGHLY dislike non-level based advancement because it is incredibly difficult to mitigate balance, which may or may not be relevant depending on your playgroup- although, ironically, my own system for Rise is a point-based advancement.

As much as I love the grit and the workings of a system, though, ultimately it comes down to how streamlined it plays for me, and how well I can make it work for me. The system is never more than just a platform for my own fantasies to be played out, which is why I don't buy into system fanboyism and campaign settings most of the time. To me, playing a game for the sake of the system is like watching a movie for the special effects- I don't care how they do it, personally, as long as it gets the point across and can convey the story and gameplay.

Combo time!
Vow of Peace + Standing 20 feet to the left of someone + hopping side to side.

Also: One time I broke my Vow of Purity and my Vow of Chastity simultaneously.

(I've been reading Book of Exalted Deeds.)

@phantomronan: i haven't heard of that game, but it sounds a little like a one-shot pickup rpg calked 'pixie,' where you played as a tiny fae whose goal was to drive the people from their homes without getting killed. i wish i could remember the [really simple] d6-based rules.

@phantom: i agree that the testing is a real plus, but i'm actually put-off by the volume of d20 extras. it's too much to keep track of.

and don't you agree that a large part of the problems of minmaxing in character growth comes from the massive scaling of power in DND? you go from an ant to a virtual god.

Quote from wizmac

@phantomronan: i haven't heard of that game, but it sounds a little like a one-shot pickup rpg calked 'pixie,' where you played as a tiny fae whose goal was to drive the people from their homes without getting killed. i wish i could remember the [really simple] d6-based rules.

@phantom: i agree that the testing is a real plus, but i'm actually put-off by the volume of d20 extras. it's too much to keep track of.

and don't you agree that a large part of the problems of minmaxing in character growth comes from the massive scaling of power in DND? you go from an ant to a virtual god.

I agree that every supplement is just a new weapon in the hands of min-maxers, but a DM can always disallow. Another reason I like the d20 Modern system is it is fairly supplement lite, and yet it can function very well without needing a book for everything.

I agree that the sheer volume of supplements is annoying, but consider that all the books that seem superfluous to us could be a godsend for some other DM who has been wracking his brain on how to handle a certain situation/playstyle/character concept/etc.

well, d20mod sounds pretty good. i like a sparse but sturdy frame in an rpg. i generally like to make up mechanics as opposed to remember them or look them up.


how many sourcebooks do you need? 2, 3? [for the core books]

Quote from wamyc

well, d20mod sounds pretty good. i like a sparse but sturdy frame in an rpg. i generally like to make up mechanics as opposed to remember them or look them up.


how many sourcebooks do you need? 2, 3? [for the core books]

Here's the sexy part- you can play the game in it's entirety using just ONE book. It takes a little legwork in terms of creating NPCs, though. It does, however, include a good deal of optional material, including optional psionic and magical classes for supernatural/sci-fi campaigns, but that stuff is all optional.

Notable supplements include:

d20 Future (Note: This book is up there with the XPH in terms of books I hold dear in my collection)
d20 Past (A bit weak, honestly, but has some neat feats. Also, the existence of the d20 Past sorcerer just makes the 3.5 Sorcerer all the more unforgivable.)
d20 Future Tech
d20 Urban Arcana (for those interesting in running a more supernatural campaign a la Buffy or Angel)
d20 Weapons Locker
d20 Cyberscape
d20 Apocalypse (for post apocalyptic gameplay, has a really neat barter system for economy)
d20 Dark Matter Campaign Setting

And that's about it. All of those are completely optional, though. Also, it is worth noting that while all d20 system games are compatible, d20 Modern plays nicer with d20 Call of Cthulu than either game does with D&D.

Ideally, you can put together a complete d20 Modern library for a fraction of the cost of D&D, and you can really get a lot out of just the one book. It is level based, but the class structure is looser and less rigid than D&D, and classes are really just building blocks, as the system is designed specifically around multiclassing.

I really like it as a system, but a lot of people don't give it a chance. Also, a lot of people will tell you they prefer White Wolf over it, but personally I would rather use d20 Modern since I'm not a huge fan of specific game flavor- I would rather just make my own world and use generic rules, which is where d20 Modern shines.

white wolf's world of darkness handbook is a bit noir-biased in the flavor writeup, but is truly mechanically neutral [and the most elegant system i've ever seen.] d20 modern sounds compelling b/c of the ability to borrow from other d20 sources. ideally i'd pick up both books, but i'd get WOD first.

what does XPH stand for?

and what's the d20 past sorcerer like?

i actually really liked the little i had seen of d20 cthulu on the scalpelguy's dnd character page. is that a three corebook system or what?

Quote from wamyc

white wolf's world of darkness handbook is a bit noir-biased in the flavor writeup, but is truly mechanically neutral [and the most elegant system i've ever seen.] d20 modern sounds compelling b/c of the ability to borrow from other d20 sources. ideally i'd pick up both books, but i'd get WOD first.

what does XPH stand for?

and what's the d20 past sorcerer like?

i actually really liked the little i had seen of d20 cthulu on the scalpelguy's dnd character page. is that a three corebook system or what?

1. Expanded Psionics Handbook
2. Like the 3.5 sorcerer but with a variety of useful class features, including a breath weapon and the ability to jazz up their CHA scores at will.
3. Both d20 Modern and CoC are a single book system.

And yes, one of the things that really makes d20 Modern shine is that you can take resources from D&D if need be- it is like mixing Pirate legos with Space legos. However, if you are not careful there can be some balance concerns, because while they use the same system they have a different set of balance. d20 Modern is inherently lower on power, but the firearms are considerably more dangerous than even the most bulkier D&D weapon.

how exactly do they make bullet weapons so deadly - clearly not by simply using the 3.5 standards for bullet weapons. (those measurements are strong, but by no means deadly.)