The Gaming Den

They did fix it. In the veterinary sense of the word.

An excellent read, Lago.

My introduction to "Why Warriors Suck", not just Monks, goes all the way back to AD&D in the mid nineties.

I was playing a Dark Paladin, a LE adaptation outside of normal rules but full within the game mechanics; practically the only ability changed was Lay On Hands, a reversed polarity version that did damage rather than heal.. but I digress.

At one point, after level 10 or so for the party, one of the 8-member group decided to put my warrior "back in his place" due to some alignment struggle. SImply, he (OOC) didn't like how I was playing an interpretation of Lawful Evil (IC) and chose to cross that player/PC boundary of spiteful action.

He cast Finger of Death. He and the DM argued a bit, I sat and fumed, but smugly rolled my save and left it to luck.
Remind, Paladins have decent saves in AD&D.
I failed the save. My character died. Instantly.

"Really??" I shouted.
The DM shook his head.
The mage player said "Next time make a spellcaster."

However, and this is where mechanics and plot blur, the DM said "The powers of darkness reward your evil ways with a resurrection. Arise, and repay this debt."
The mage ragequit. I breathed a sigh of relief, and proceed to slaughter the next village we came across as a sacrifice.

I never forget that moment of death by the hands of a spellcaster, though. A single spell. One spell.
All it took to almost ruin an entire character.

I have a few questions. Finger of Death is a 7th level spell. So, this was character level 13? Had you actually played the campaign from first level? If so the mage player had spent a long time as weak as a kitten.

Did you roll for initiative, or did the player just say "I cast the spell" and you rolled a save? Did the DM allow you to auto-win initiative against monsters, too, if you said you attacked them before he said they attacked you?

Given this was an 8-person party that had presumably been travelling together for a while, did none of the other characters blink when the mage offed one of you? Did nobody mention the fact he could have done that to any of them? Did your character not have any friends within the group?

If the DM blatantly changed the rules to my detriment I would probably have ragequit too. Finger of Death is pretty clear on its "no resurrections" clause. But there's a lot of other things that should have been a factor before it got to that. For one thing, a level 13 Paladin passed saves against Death Magic on a 5+, before bonuses for rings of protection/ cloaks / magic armour etc. Realistically you were probably looking at a 2+ or 3+ roll. If you had passed this he would have been in melee range of an angry warrior, which is something even 3.5 wizards dont laugh about. It seems less like "The God-Mage showed the warrior what's what" and more like "The incredibly risky manouevre that was almost certain death paid off".

I had played the campaign for months since level 1.
The Mage player jumped in at the level he gained death magic.

I lost intiative, but didn't plan on starting combat in the first place. Not many options there.

The rest of the party was mainly passive and watched for the outcome. Half laughed when my character died while the others laughed when the mage player ragequit.

IMO, such things as instant death simply shouldn't be possible.

Yeah, but he can only try and kill you in a round once per day, you can try and kill him in five rounds all day long. That's balanced.

sigma999 wrote:I had played the campaign for months since level 1.
The Mage player jumped in at the level he gained death magic.

I lost intiative, but didn't plan on starting combat in the first place. Not many options there.

The rest of the party was mainly passive and watched for the outcome. Half laughed when my character died while the others laughed when the mage player ragequit.

IMO, such things as instant death simply shouldn't be possible.

I don't know if I agree with that. Instant death is such a ...staple thing, its like you know, "sneaking up on people", falling of cliffs in video games. We dont' like it but its just one of the things that port over from real life. Thing that bugs me is that ...
Instant death via "Sniping" doesn't exist... I mean you can't take a bow and etc etc. . . and Its the instant death "No RESURECTIONS!" thats kinda bad. There more to that situation but if you think about it the way they WANT you to think about its tied into the "Warrior/Mage" dynamic apparently.

Oh and Mages do still laugh at angry warriors standing next to them in 3.5 Its not nearly as bad as people make it sound, so often.

Midnight_v wrote:Oh and Mages do still laugh at angry warriors standing next to them in 3.5 Its not nearly as bad as people make it sound, so often.

This. They don't laugh at angry gishes, but humanoid beatsticks? 1:500 chance to hit me, bitch. If you can find me. Take your best shot.

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards ... opic=331.0

I think my 3.5 career is nearing its end, I'm just getting fed up with how broken it can be. But of all the shit I've seen, I've never seen a Wizard played right and I'm starting to feel a bit deprived.

Anyways in 3.5 in a real game a 13th level Wizard does need to be a bit concerned with a 13th level Paladin, if they are on the same team. If they are just traveling around then the Wizard isn't going to have his short duration buffs up. The Wizard will win initiative, but tagging the Pally with a SoD just isn't a good strategy, the Wizard should have dropped a Solid Fog then toyed with the Pally to make his point. So this Wiz isn't the most optimized, and probably started shit without his best buffs up, so yeah, the Pally probably needs to hit an AC in the 30s, maybe gets a smite in, if the Pally is built as a charger there is a very real chance that he can take out the Wiz. The important thing to note is that the Wiz isn't being played smart.

Roy wrote:1:500

I'd like to see how you're pulling that off. 1/360 (AC they need a 20 to hit, greater mirror image, greater blink) vs someone without true seeing, without see invisibility, any cleave type effect, and without a magic/force weapon. Against most dedicated beatsticks you're unlikely to have the AC high enough to put you into nat 20 territory anyways.

ubernoob wrote:

Roy wrote:1:500

I'd like to see how you're pulling that off. 1/360 (AC they need a 20 to hit, greater mirror image, greater blink) vs someone without true seeing, without see invisibility, any cleave type effect, and without a magic/force weapon. Against most dedicated beatsticks you're unlikely to have the AC high enough to put you into nat 20 territory anyways.

We're talking about a Paladin, not an effective character. And Greater Blink isn't concealment, so it stacks with it. 20% comes in an always on cloak after all. So it's actually 1:450. Whatever. That's still if they can find you in the first place, which means beatsticks don't get to hit you unless you allow them to.

It's ghost touch that works against blinking by the way. But how many characters have that? Cleave doesn't work that way, See Invis isn't likely on a non caster at that level and True Seeing isn't happening.

Now a real melee will have a better to hit and damage, and a True Seeing effect or equivalent at the least. But again, we're talking about Paladins, not real characters.

Roy wrote:

ubernoob wrote:

Roy wrote:1:500

I'd like to see how you're pulling that off. 1/360 (AC they need a 20 to hit, greater mirror image, greater blink) vs someone without true seeing, without see invisibility, any cleave type effect, and without a magic/force weapon. Against most dedicated beatsticks you're unlikely to have the AC high enough to put you into nat 20 territory anyways.

We're talking about a Paladin, not an effective character. And Greater Blink isn't concealment, so it stacks with it. 20% comes in an always on cloak after all. So it's actually 1:450. Whatever. That's still if they can find you in the first place, which means beatsticks don't get to hit you unless you allow them to.

Yeah, I always forget that blink isn't actually concealment, so you can stack it. Makes sense.

It's ghost touch that works against blinking by the way. But how many characters have that? Cleave doesn't work that way, See Invis isn't likely on a non caster at that level and True Seeing isn't happening.

Now a real melee will have a better to hit and damage, and a True Seeing effect or equivalent at the least. But again, we're talking about Paladins, not real characters.

See invisibility can actually be permanancied, so higher level characters should have it even if they can't cast it.

But yeah, thanks for reminding me about concealment. Against a gish or similar, your defense is for naught (hey bro, nice try, but I've got spontaneous divination for true seeing and a magick'd up weapon as well as RNG breaking buffs to counter your RNG breaking buffs) but that's pretty much how it works when we're talking about fifth level spells.

ubernoob wrote:

Roy wrote:

ubernoob wrote: I'd like to see how you're pulling that off. 1/360 (AC they need a 20 to hit, greater mirror image, greater blink) vs someone without true seeing, without see invisibility, any cleave type effect, and without a magic/force weapon. Against most dedicated beatsticks you're unlikely to have the AC high enough to put you into nat 20 territory anyways.

We're talking about a Paladin, not an effective character. And Greater Blink isn't concealment, so it stacks with it. 20% comes in an always on cloak after all. So it's actually 1:450. Whatever. That's still if they can find you in the first place, which means beatsticks don't get to hit you unless you allow them to.

Yeah, I always forget that blink isn't actually concealment, so you can stack it. Makes sense.

It's ghost touch that works against blinking by the way. But how many characters have that? Cleave doesn't work that way, See Invis isn't likely on a non caster at that level and True Seeing isn't happening.

Now a real melee will have a better to hit and damage, and a True Seeing effect or equivalent at the least. But again, we're talking about Paladins, not real characters.

See invisibility can actually be permanancied, so higher level characters should have it even if they can't cast it.

But yeah, thanks for reminding me about concealment. Against a gish or similar, your defense is for naught (hey bro, nice try, but I've got spontaneous divination for true seeing and a magick'd up weapon as well as RNG breaking buffs to counter your RNG breaking buffs) but that's pretty much how it works when we're talking about fifth level spells.

Unless the Mister Cavern is house ruling Permanency affected spells to work like magic items (as opposed to you get hit by a random dispel and lose 500-5,000 XP forever) don't expect to see Permanencied anything on anyone. Now if he is, then of course that's reasonable.

Gishes are the only characters in the game that can be fairly described as caster killers. This is a fact.

As good a reason to min max as any I have ever seen.