Wait Wait Wait

[Dalboz of Gurth]

No problem but it still doesn't deal damage based on weight, but on strength and size. To maintain the crush, they must continue the grapple, which negates their dex bonus to outside attacks, as normal for grappling.

that one doesn't, but I'm confident I also read some rules which discussed crushing damage based on weight. Maybe it was an unofficial 3.0 supplement.

In either case, those rules for crushing damage from Dragons is sufficient enough. thank you ^_^


My point isn't that dragons are impossible to kill. They are possible to kill, but they are a far cry from helpless babies that many people seem to portray.

My point isn't that the rules are imbalanced. 3e rules are the worst and most imbalanced rules I've seen.

My point IS that a good DM can create situations that make the balance seem more palpatable, and I tried to give some good suggestions.

DMs need to start reading and memorizing the rules to create situations that specifically give the players equal challenge based on each class. If a DM at any point sees a Wizard 1 shotting a Dragon, then that DM needs to go back to school, re-read their books, re think how they plan adventures before allowing it to happen ever again.

[tyckspoon]

Thought eaters are specifically attracted to psionic presences. A psionicist who is the only one in an entire world will be the only food for said beasts.

It's a valid use.

I would have thought this was an obvious result of this statement, but: If there is only one psionicist in the entire world, there is not enough of a food supply for thought eaters to survive. Therefore, there are no thought eaters to attack the world's only psionicist.

[Kyace]

True Dragons don't have the Swallow Whole special attack so by RAW they can't swallow creatures alive/whole. You are free to say fluffwise that bite damage over what is needed to take a player to -10 is the dragon eating it but you'd have to homerule giving dragons the ability to swallow living creatures.

[Fax Celestis]

that one doesn't, but I'm confident I also read some rules which discussed crushing damage based on weight. Maybe it was an unofficial 3.0 supplement.

In either case, those rules for crushing damage from Dragons is sufficient enough. thank you ^_^


My point isn't that dragons are impossible to kill. They are possible to kill, but they are a far cry from helpless babies that many people seem to portray.

My point isn't that the rules are imbalanced. 3e rules are the worst and most imbalanced rules I've seen.

My point IS that a good DM can create situations that make the balance seem more palpatable, and I tried to give some good suggestions.

DMs need to start reading and memorizing the rules to create situations that specifically give the players equal challenge based on each class. If a DM at any point sees a Wizard 1 shotting a Dragon, then that DM needs to go back to school, re-read their books, re think how they plan adventures before allowing it to happen ever again.

I think the misconception you're under is that there is hope for the wizard class ever being balanced.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

I would have thought this was an obvious result of this statement, but: If there is only one psionicist in the entire world, there is not enough of a food supply for thought eaters to survive. Therefore, there are no thought eaters to attack the world's only psionicist.

Last I checked thought eaters were cross dimensional beings, they exist on the ethereal plane and only "travel" to beacon areas. They are basically wanderers with 0 restrictions.

[Kyace]

My point isn't that the rules are imbalanced. 3e rules are the worst and most imbalanced rules I've seen.

Indeed, Wushu is much more balanced, however, I wouldn't say that 3.5e rules are the worst rules among any of the several systems I've read: they all have flaws, but 3.5 is quite good if you take a few steps to houserule or change the major offenders.

DMs need to start reading and memorizing the rules to create situations that specifically give the players equal challenge based on each class. If a DM at any point sees a Wizard 1 shotting a Dragon, then that DM needs to go back to school, re-read their books, re think how they plan adventures before allowing it to happen ever again.

It is not the adventures' or encounters' fault that a wizard can 1 shot the beast, wizards can usually 1 shot most encounters. This is a known flaw of higher level wizards.

[Goumindong]

DMs need to start reading and memorizing the rules to create situations that specifically give the players equal challenge based on each class. If a DM at any point sees a Wizard 1 shotting a Dragon, then that DM needs to go back to school, re-read their books, re think how they plan adventures before allowing it to happen ever again.

[Scrubbed]

My point isn't that the rules are imbalanced. 3e rules are the worst and most imbalanced rules I've seen.

This is false, you have not seen 3e rules. And you have seen 2e rules.

To get away from the Pithy comments, all monsters, even dragons which are positioned to best deal with wizards, are positioned in such a way that wizards are better at dealing with them than any other player class.

[SeeKay]

Wow. So much discussion and everyone is dancing around the point. 3.x ed Wizards are broken at high levels.

Without bringing up specific encounters, high level (15+) wizards turn the rest of the party into porters because:

1) The spells they should be casting are over-powered for the time it takes to cast

2) The feats they should have make those already quick spells even quicker and deadlier

3) The counters to those spells are rare

4) Only a small amount of encounters can really make wizards not shine, and most of them will outright destroy non-wizards.

These are the main problems with 3.x wizards. Sure, I can make an encounter where the wizard won't have any ability to effect the outcome, but where is the fun for the players playing the wizards. And, even if I do this, the rest of the party will still have a tough time dealing with the encounter.

This is an OLD fight. It's been pointed out before that there is no balance between the classes and their abilities (in both head-to-head and use-in-party) at the extreme low and high levels. This is why there are so many home-rule fixes.

Give this topic a rest. Either home-brew a fix or start characters at level 4-6 and stop at level 10-12. The quickest fix is to add time to the cast time of high level spells (and spell like abilities. Be fair to the players at least). Is this the "best" fix? No. The "best" fix would be if WoTC would actually playtest thier own rules and fix the balance issues that make warrior classes rule at low levels and casters rule at high ones. Yep, I'm not holding my breath for that to happen either....

[Dalboz of Gurth]

{Scrubbed}

{Scrubbed}

This is false, you have not seen 3e rules. And you have seen 2e rules.

To get away from the Pithy comments, all monsters, even dragons which are positioned to best deal with wizards, are positioned in such a way that wizards are better at dealing with them than any other player class.

I did see the 3e rules, although it's been a few years. I did read through them. And regardless of your helpless attitude towards Wizards, I know that any skilled DM can handle the problem.

If it's such a big problem you find the game unplayable, I suggest you quit playing 3e and 3.5.

[Reinboom]

Ok, so I understand this completely... the dragons rounds... assuming perfect mary sue dragon.
Dragon wins initiative. Sees adventurers. There's an obvious flying one (the wizard + overland flight) and the other 3. These 3 are unimportant (but they are...), just petty base peasants with swords, divine magic, and sneak attack.

The dragon takes a standard action and dispels the overland flight.
The dragon can now take a move action. During a move action it cannot: Crush (as by the rules so given in the SRD).
It can take flight, I believe, however.

Everyone else's round. The warrior moves and during so, draws a bow. Fires. Blah - doesn't matter, these 3 don't count anyways, so ignore that. It's not like a cleric or rogue can do much here. *cough*

Wizards turn. Do I shivering touch it? Do I move away? I have another spell
-what do I win with-.
Oh, and I could have something quickened too.
What can the dragon do? During my round?

[Neon Knight]

The "best" fix would be if WoTC would actually playtest thier own rules and fix the balance issues that make warrior classes rule at low levels and casters rule at high ones. Yep, I'm not holding my breath for that to happen either....

They did.

For Blaster casters, and healbot Druids and Clerics.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

Give this topic a rest. Either home-brew a fix or start characters at level 4-6 and stop at level 10-12. The quickest fix is to add time to the cast time of high level spells (and spell like abilities. Be fair to the players at least). Is this the "best" fix? No. The "best" fix would be if WoTC would actually playtest thier own rules and fix the balance issues that make warrior classes rule at low levels and casters rule at high ones. Yep, I'm not holding my breath for that to happen either....

ok I agree to this.

^_^

[tyckspoon]

What the heck would a thought eater be doing lurking around a world that has one and only one food source? They'd be using their ethereal travel abilities to lurk near Gith or Illithid enclaves or something else that was richer in mental activity.

They *can* eat spells and Intelligence score points, but they can't actively detect those. They can only detect psionic activity within 200 yards. And they're ridiculously slow. A thought eater that hunts on a world that has exactly 1 psionic creature is going to have to be lottery-winning lucky to encounter that other creature. If that psionic creature ever encounters more than one thought eater in his life, well.. chances are some outside force is deliberately attacking him. A generall non-psionic world simply wouldn't have thought eaters as random encounters.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

Ok, so I understand this completely... the dragons rounds... assuming perfect mary sue dragon.
Dragon wins initiative.

I'm giving this topic a rest, but before I do-- any time a dragon does not win initiative in his own lair, is when he or she is being run by a DM that doesn't do his or her research into designing proper dragon encounters.

[Reinboom]

I'm giving this topic a rest, but before I do-- any time a dragon does not win initiative in his own lair, is when he or she is being run by a DM that doesn't do his or her research into designing proper dragon encounters.

That has nothing to do with my post. Bring it back to context.
I said "dragon wins initiative". We are talking about your mary sue dragons aren't we? Of course it wins initiative in the dungeon. Of course.

May I get my questioned answered please?

[Kellus]

I'm giving this topic a rest, but before I do-- any time a dragon does not win initiative in his own lair, is when he or she is being run by a DM that doesn't do his or her research into designing proper dragon encounters.

Wait, what? How is the DM supposed to make sure that the dragon wins initiative? With all the myriad ways to avoid detection available to high-level adventurers, the party is sure to at least avoid being caught be surprise if not get a surprise round themselves. How does the DM make sure (besides fudging the roll, obviously) that the dragon goes first?

[Kyace]

I'm giving this topic a rest, but before I do-- any time a dragon does not win initiative in his own lair, is when he or she is being run by a DM that doesn't do his or her research into designing proper dragon encounters.

*sighs*

You mean gets a surprise round, as winning initiative is not something a DM has control over other than by faking rolls. Didn't you just say that DMs need to read the rules or turn in their DM badges?

They have blindsense 60'. This is not far for a creature that can itself take up 30' square. Even close range spells can get farther than 60' after level 12.

[Temp]

Dalboz, you need to actually use the rules to form a convincing argument about the rules. And, in turn, you need to know the rules to correctly use them.

Here's a link. First, figure out what you're talking about. Then post.

[Eldritch_Ent]

Man, I'm not going to get embroiled in this thread's politics, aside from me stating I can't agree with Dalboz on... Basically anything he's said here. From what he's said it seems he has an extremely antagonistic style of both DM'ing and Posting/debating. Neither of which is fun for anyone except the person being antagonistic. I mean, "Stop Posting"? Come on. That was just weak.


That said, in regards to the Original poster that's a simple question to answer. The reason the same spells and build for a Wizard is used over and over is simply from the fact that most wizard arguments involving other base classes use "Raw Only", and these spells are often the most used in such discussions because there is a rather limited selection, and these are the best of the lot. This is because most people don't own any supplements, "Core RAW" is somehow seen as "more valid" than anything else, and it's a bit pointless anyway The more books involved, the more powerful spellcasters become, because book authors always seem to include at least one Divine and Arcane spell of each level with a supplement.

[Goumindong]

I did see the 3e rules, although it's been a few years. I did read through them. And regardless of your helpless attitude towards Wizards, I know that any skilled DM can handle the problem.

If it's such a big problem you find the game unplayable, I suggest you quit playing 3e and 3.5.

No, they really cant, because save or lose wizards are so powerful. Always by the rules the wizards, clerics, druids and sorcerers in that order will vastly outshine the rest of the party. You can challenge the wizards just fine. But without altering the rules[which I do often] you cannot make encounters that are hard for balanced between wizards and fighters.

Fighters deal direct damage and require full round actions to get the most out of them. Wizards deal direct damage or save or suck or save or lose spells and only need standard actions to get the most out of them.

Even by giving monsters spell resistance, high saves, and removing any damage reduction the wizards will do a better job of killing the monsters than the fighter. This is because they only need one spell to land and the fighters need time to beat the monsters down.

Which the fighters only overcome by loading up on non-weapon/armor equipment. Non-armor/weapon equipment that they need to keep up and stay alive against monsters.

Its just the way the game works. When a fighter is attacking at +20 for 1d8+10 3 times per round the Wizard is casting Phantasmal Killer, Bestow Curse, Stoneskin, Black Tentacles, rainbow pattern, Greater Invisibility, Ray of Exhaustion, Vampiric Touch, Deep Slumber, suggestion, explosive Runes, spectral hand, Cloudkill, dominate person, feeblemind, hold monster, wall of force, nightmare, magic jar, baleful polymorph, transmute rock to mud and mud to rock, telekinesis

Even ignoring a lot of the overpowered ones and only choosing half you utterly obliterate anything a fighter can do at that level. It was so bad WotC created an entire splat book making fighters more like casters in order to fix them!

[Goumindong]

I'm giving this topic a rest, but before I do-- any time a dragon does not win initiative in his own lair, is when he or she is being run by a DM that doesn't do his or her research into designing proper dragon encounters.

Any time the dragon does win initiative you are running with a bunch of players who quite frankly have either terrible luck, or not one of them is playing a rogue or wizard, or fighter or cleric for that matter.

Dragons have abysmal initiative modifiers, almost rivaling their touch ACs.

A standard rogue with 16 dex, and a +4 dex item still has a 60% chance of winning initiative against the standard improved initiative dragon. Lets not even get into the initiative improving things that players can do.

[Tren]

Even ignoring a lot of the overpowered ones and only choosing half you utterly obliterate anything a fighter can do at that level. It was so bad WotC created an entire splat book making fighters more like casters in order to fix them!

Which just means we need to play 2E, haven't you picked up on that by now?

[Temp]

And to the OP:

It's easiest to illustrate the disparity between caster and non-casters when the most powerful options are used.

After all, those are the spells and tactics that are going to see the most actual gameplay.

[Dervag]

I would like to sig this if I may. It gave me much joy.

By all means.

Thought eaters are specifically attracted to psionic presences. A psionicist who is the only one in an entire world will be the only food for said beasts.

It's a valid use.

And yet it's still an arbitrary kludge of a solution; better to give the classes intrinsic balance than to have to invent specific categories of monsters designed to prey on the overpowered classes while ignoring the underpowered classes.

Some novels were more like the card game than others. In either case, the wizards in those novels I did read acted like they were all Bad A. versions of Elminster.

Try reading the Legends cycle.

It's a trend I see happening to the class as we speak.

And I handled them without breaking a sweat.

Right. Sure. So how come all those other people who played 2nd edition ran into problems of balance? Is it that you're the only competent person in the world, or that there's a serious underlying issue with the game design?

When you make the players "cry and beg for mercy," you've gone beyond the level of "danger and setbacks" that are compatible with fun unless you're involved in some sort of bizarre, perverse S&M variant on the tabletop RPG.

It's called Ravenloft.

It's what you are expected to do in Ravenloft.

Actually, same thing for Planescape I discovered.

My comments stand.

I do, in fact. It was yummy

If this is true, how can you say in good conscience that Candy Land is a game without setbacks?

Munchkins that playtested the 3e and 3.5 rules are a cause of the problem for the wizard class. Munchkins at WoTC who keep refusing to fix the problems they generated are the problem for the wizard class.

Just due to how Wizards are handled in 3e makes almost any 3e wizard a MUNCHKIN!!!!

You are applying a profound misdefinition of the word 'munchkin', using it as a synonym for 'anything that is powerful enough to disrupt the balance of the game.' This bears little or no resemblance to the definition used by all the other people.

The entire gaming industry, board games, role playing games, video games, is based on the premise I described.

You are correct.

Considering how I handle the rules, I take that as a complement

OK, Betty.

Anything more than the applicable weight sustainable by the character that falls ON TOP OF THE CHARACTER causes CRUSHING DAMAGE. PERIOD end of story.

I know the Crushing Damage rules haven't changed (much) since 2nd edition because those are one of the few rules I actually read up on to see if they changed.

That strongly suggests that either you are unfamiliar with the 2nd edition rules (which contradicts your claims to have handled 2nd edition balance issues without a sweat), or with 3rd edition rules. In which you are hardly likely to be an authority on what is and is not legal in 3rd edition, in which case your claims about the 'rules' regarding dragons must be taken with a grain of salt.

A single leg of a dragon stepping on a character qualifies as CRUSHING DAMAGE.

Not without an attack roll it doesn't, Betty. Stepping on someone is just as much an attack as hitting them with a club; or do you let ogres and giants automatically hit smaller creatures with their clubs, too?

I did not say trample damage, and your refusal to acknowledge this shows your own unwillingness to understand the difference between the terms.

Trample Damage is 1 monster or object running over another object.

Crushing Damage is one really heavy object SQUISHING the life out of an infinitely smaller and weaker object.

When a monster steps on an object, trample is a reasonable characterization, unless all damage inflicted from above by blunt force is 'crushing' damage. In which case the club of a giant is crushing damage and is just as unavoidable as a dragon's foot, because there's no significant difference between the two.

When the 'infinitely' smaller and weaker object is animate, it can, y'know, dodge. Your basis for allowing creatures to deal automatic crushing damage, to anything in range of them is not very solid.

If it were, you would just killed the entire category of melee warriors in the same stroke you would have used to counter the effectiveness of Shivering Touch from a wizard who, for his own inexplicable reasons, sees fit to approach dragons on foot rather than by air and to close to melee range rather than using any of a number of methods for delivering touch attacks from a distance.

This strikes me as being a dangerous solution. Melee warriors already have enough problems without being certain of instant death or massive damage every time they get close to a larger creature thanks to this hypothetical auto-crush of yours.

{scrubbed}

I should so hang this up on some sort of trophy wall.

You are trying to discuss my unfamiliarity with reasons why dragons are vulnerable to shivering touch, and yet you are the one who fails to read and understand the difference between trample and crushing damage.

You keep talking about dragons as if they're cows for you to slaughter, and quite frankly, I find it offensive you have ever played in a group that treats dragons as powerless whimpering fools.

That is an odd thing to take offense at, and it is even more odd in light of the fact that I have not done it in the first place.

Now we get into the insults. You fail miserably to understand the difference between forms of damage, and use that as a means to insult me in an attempt to distract from the real issue:

I do not use our disagreement about the classification of a large monster 'stepping on' a foe as a means to insult you, nor am I attempting to distract you from the issue you have apparently seized on as being "real" for reasons of your own.

You've never played a real Dragon encounter in your life.

Wow. So which of the people who were there for every D&D game I've ever played are you again? I can only think of one such person, and I really doubt that he would be here arguing in this way.

lol find it yourself.

Crushing damage is usually detailed in the environmental rules (i.e. a ceiling falling down on a character).

The fact that a collapsing ceiling can do it does not prove that a dragon can do it, and asserting that the dragon can do it without proof is a null argument.

look harder, I know it's there.

How are we to know that you have not simply decided that it must be in the books when it is not, if you do not cite references for making such an unusual claim?

It is poor practice to refuse to cite a claim that is not common knowledge, in any field of human endeavour. This serves only to undermine one's own intellectual authority.

Hey, if they can deal with the stomach acid, then that's perfectly dandy.

As a Dungeon Master, I would whole heartedly allow and encourage one of my players to use a touch spell from inside the corrosive acid filled belly of a dragon.

Esophagus much?

Quiz question: how hard is it for a wizard with a reasonable Concentration score to cast the spell given the normal range of damage given for the digestive tract of creatures capable of swallowing their enemies whole?

My point isn't that dragons are impossible to kill. They are possible to kill, but they are a far cry from helpless babies that many people seem to portray.

The problem was never this; the problem is that wizards are so overpowered compared to their nominal level that they can often neutralize even exceptionally fierce and powerful monsters, such as a dragon, using a single spell. And to make this impossible, one must resort to giving the dragon abilities that the publishers didn't. Which suggests a problem with the game system, either in that most monsters are far, far too weak with respect to arcane magic, or that wizards possess far, far too much power for their level at mid-to-high levels.

DMs need to start reading and memorizing the rules to create situations that specifically give the players equal challenge based on each class. If a DM at any point sees a Wizard 1 shotting a Dragon, then that DM needs to go back to school, re-read their books, re think how they plan adventures before allowing it to happen ever again.

I don't think that's actually doable, and no one said it was here. Shivering Touch isn't even a first level spell.

They did.

For Blaster casters, and healbot Druids and Clerics.

Hence the problem.

Let "playtest the system" be A. Let "fix the balance issues" be B.

SeeKay correctly points out that Wizards didn't do "A and B." You correctly point out that they did A in such a way as to preclude their doing B. The community of competent D&D players sighs with dismay, possibly offering a prayer to their respective deities that Wizards of the Coast will not be so foolish with the design of 4th edition.

[SeeKay]

Threads like this are the main reason I'm waiting for version 4 to see what is fixed. Since AD&D (1st ed) came out, there has been many problems with balance. The problems in 1, 2, 3, and 3.5 are all different, but they all have problems.

In 3.x, wizards rule at high levels and the rest of the "pure" (Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer) caster classes aren't far behind. Because of this, many wizards will have similar builds because their are specific feats that should be taken because the other feats are useless to caster classes. This means that, as the number of feat picks increase, most wizards will be selecting the same feats. This isn't a "build" issue, it's a balance issue with the game. There isn't enough "useful" feats to create one type of wizard vs another. By level 20, most wizards have the same feat selections. This is why most high level wizards look the same. It's a fault of the game.


<--- Hate when someone posts a good cap when I'm writing. Thanks Dervag.

[OneWinged4ngel]

Is it just me or does every thread about overpowered wizards show the exact same wizard with the exact same spell list using the exact same tactics. I don't know but Its seems to me that this is an overpowered build not class, but thats just me.

It's either just you, or you're primarily reading the arguments of the people who are reading straight off of Logic Ninja's guide (which is overtly popular on this forum for some reason) who crawl all over this forum pretending to be knowledgeable in their own right. It's an issue of them coming from the same source, rather than the wizard actually being limited in his number of overpowered tactics (trust me, he's got a LOT of 'em to choose from. Try searching through the WotC CharOp boards a bit. They tend to have a lot more actually skilled optimizers than the glut of Logic Ninja fanboys you get here).

You can often spot the clones by a common identifying mark: They tend to go on and on about Forcecage / Cloudkill, regardless of how useful it may actually be in a given situation.

Of course, no disrespect to Logic Ninja. He's cool.

They did.

For Blaster casters, and healbot Druids and Clerics.

Yeah, see, I once took a job as a game tester, and here's the thing. You're SUPPOSED to try to exploit the game as hard as possible and report flaws. That's the essence of a game tester's job. You get like only a couple guys on "intended path" testing.

If they're not doing that, I daresay they suck horribly at their jobs and are missing the basic point of testing.

Threads like this are the main reason I'm waiting for version 4 to see what is fixed. Since AD&D (1st ed) came out, there has been many problems with balance. The problems in 1, 2, 3, and 3.5 are all different, but they all have problems.

In 3.x, wizards rule at high levels and the rest of the "pure" (Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer) caster classes aren't far behind. Because of this, many wizards will have similar builds because their are specific feats that should be taken because the other feats are useless to caster classes. This means that, as the number of feat picks increase, most wizards will be selecting the same feats. This isn't a "build" issue, it's a balance issue with the game. There isn't enough "useful" feats to create one type of wizard vs another. By level 20, most wizards have the same feat selections. This is why most high level wizards look the same. It's a fault of the game.


<--- Hate when someone posts a good cap when I'm writing. Thanks Dervag.

This isn't true. There are more than enough very good wizard feats to really see some diversification in builds, and there are a LOT of very different yet highly effective builds. Moreover, full casters are optimized by their spell choices at least as much as anything else.

I have not seen the tendency of high level wizard builds looking the same, though I have seen a lot of people repeating the same tired options in the same petty arguments on this forum. Usually, I can think of better options than what they picked

[horseboy]

It's either just you, or you're primarily reading the arguments of the people who are reading straight off of Logic Ninja's guide (which is overtly popular on this forum for some reason)
Of course, no disrespect to Logic Ninja. He's cool.

Indigenous bonus. That and it was written not as a cheese fest, but a practical guide. Yes, you can make something bigger, badder and meaner.

Yeah, see, I once took a job as a game tester, and here's the thing. You're SUPPOSED to try to exploit the game as hard as possible and report flaws. That's the essence of a game tester's job. You get like only a couple guys on "intended path" testing.

If they're not doing that, I daresay they suck horribly at their jobs and are missing the basic point of testing.

Yeah, and given that report on playtesting they released right after 4th, I'm not holding my breath.

[Temp]

That and it was written not as a cheese fest, but a practical guide.

I don't think you could accurately group the gleemax handbooks as "cheese fest[s]" any more than TLN's guide, but yeah, it's the only handbook that's been on these boards that's practical for regular use.

Yeah, and given that report on playtesting they released right after 4th, I'm not holding my breath.

...Hopefully those aren't actually the playtest reports, just sneaky prerelease hype-builders.

...Maybe?

[horseboy]

...Hopefully those aren't actually the playtest reports, just sneaky prerelease hype-builders.

...Maybe?

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. "And maybe I'm a Chinese jet pilot."

[OneWinged4ngel]

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. "And maybe I'm a Chinese jet pilot."

I thought you were an equestrian jet pilot.

Indigenous bonus. That and it was written not as a cheese fest, but a practical guide. Yes, you can make something bigger, badder and meaner.

You make it sound like a practical guide is a rare thing, while cheese-fests are common. In reality, the CharOp boards on Wizards are divided in two along those exact lines! Practical optimization and cheesefest theoretical nonsense. That's right, there's a whole forum for practical guides.