Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kiirnodel 08-31-04, 12:33 AM	That's right! None! HA! Now...I see Sorcerer was made because thia and cleric is too overpowered that and soulknife and fighter suck! BAH! Can't you take levels in classes that fit your character without ruining the game? God, The Barbarian in my campaign has 7 ranks in spellcraft 6 in knowledge arcana and took Draconic! He used to be an apprentice wizard and still has his old spellbook, he takes time to identify oncomnig spells and such... Now..he havea 12th level fighter...no more feats to take...lets multiclass... Does anyone else feel the same way? Why must everything be min/maxed or powergamed? Everyone here is a Timmy! :D, before anyone shouts at me...I am saying everyone as in majority. I have seen several (can't list names now, but I do remember Biff the Beholder) who do not do this... Am I alone?
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-31-04, 12:35 AM	I don't think you've ever seen any of my posts if'n ya think that. ;)
Ramaloke 08-31-04, 12:37 AM	I see PRC's and Classes as helping to bridge the gap, a Barbarian Wizard is hard to pull off, shouldnt be, but it is, so PRC's and Classes can bridge that gap so you can RP better, without having to worry that your character sucks
Kiirnodel 08-31-04, 12:37 AM	I think I have, I am not talking about you :P notice the last part :D, I really wish people would stop complaining about "power" problems
Thorak 08-31-04, 12:37 AM	Well, most of the boards revolve around game mechanics, so it's hardly surprising to find that the threads within are about game mechanics. There are exceptions though, notably in the "Whats a XXXX to do?" boards.
Asmodeous 08-31-04, 12:49 AM	As thorak said. There is very little to discuss about actual role playing, how to, when, etc etc. Given the vast expanse that the rules try to cover an entire world, races, entire patheons, items, weapons and spells, thats kind of why everybody talks about these things on these boards. Even us role players have to discuss the rules from time to time.
Xeven the Mighty 08-31-04, 12:49 AM	I don't have problems with that at all. Your trouble might be putting too much of one thing in your campaign (Social situations, fights, dungeons, etc.). You see, every character... And I do mean EVERY character, has his time to shine. For the rouge, it's the dungeon. He could save the party from a really nasty trap or sneak attack some one who is hiding behind a corner. For the bard, it is social situations. Granted, the rogue can do almost as good as the Bard in social situatuions, he's at a disadvantage because he can't beat the bard's spells and suggestions. The fighter and Bard shine of the battlefield. The Wizard and other casters shine when a specific spell gets the party past an obstical. What I'm trying to say is this: If you let every one shine every one and a while, they'll start to think "Hey, maybe this class is good." I know it works for me and my players. I haven't had a single problem with powergaming or munchkinizing yet. And none of the classes seem under or overpowered in the right situations (except maybe the Fighter).
Xeven the Mighty 08-31-04, 12:50 AM	I'm hoping I didn't miss your point entirely... But I think I did...
Kiirnodel 08-31-04, 12:54 AM	Thats fine... I think its fine to discuss all of this I just get annoyed at people pointing out how "unbalanced" it all is. Or saying things are "sucky" classes. If the shoe fits...wear it!
Xeven the Mighty 08-31-04, 01:01 AM	Thats fine... I think its fine to discuss all of this I just get annoyed at people pointing out how "unbalanced" it all is. Or saying things are "sucky" classes. If the shoe fits...wear it! EXACTLY! That's why I was ****** on the changes in the spells in 3.5. They made hold person, flame arrow, and a few of the other spells that gave the Wizzy some really awsome flavor into 'more balanced' versions. Jesus, Hold Person was ment to be powerful. Wizards of legend could stop a person with a word, and that's what it represented. I hate extreme changes based on balance. Granted, one should strive for balance, but not if it seriously hurts flavor. Check out 3.5 Time Stop. God, that is the stupidest fix of them all...
CapnSwashbuckler 08-31-04, 01:02 AM	Min-maxing and roleplaying are not incompatible. I don't want to question the variety of your experiences, but you're almost forcing me to. ;) Just kidding. But seriously. There's a separate board for roleplaying - unless they switched that around too - and this is the wrong board to look for that on. The Classes board is much more geared towards discussion of...well, the classes. Additionally, there's nothing wrong with wanting in-game balance with your roleplaying. It's like asking for fresh cream with your strawberries as opposed to sour cream. I'm sure sour cream is great in some places. I love the stuff with burritos. But I prefer my cream fresh if I'm having it with strawberries.
Xeven the Mighty 08-31-04, 01:05 AM	I guess I'm just a 'flavor over balance' kind of guy. I'm all for balancing, though... Just as long as it doesn't have a huge impact on flavor. I also hate min/maxing. Ick. Unless you have reason to dip for a couple of levels in fighter/paladin/rogue/whatever don't ask. I don't allow it. I want solid, in character reasons for multiclassing.
Solymyr 08-31-04, 01:21 AM	My characters are heavily optimized because if I don't do something right I see little point in doing it. Anything with a set of rules...any system can and will have people who attempt to work the system. I'm one of those people. If I have a character who I know could have been better I start to get really annoyed that I made X choice over X choice. And it's not because I want to be POWERFUL. Give me a fully optimized *weak* character over a less than maxed out(yet more powerful) character any day of the weak. Again, it has nothing to do with power and more to do with having the best character given my idea. Give me a fully optimized spoon-fighter with levels in rogue, fighter, weapon master etc... VS a run of the mill Druid with medicore feat choices. The druid will be more powerful but I'll take the one with more thought/complexity put into it.
The Souljourner 08-31-04, 01:29 AM	In general, people multiclass because they have abilities they feel their character *should* have, which requires multiclassing. Sure, there are times when it's way out in left field, and the DM should put the kibosh on that short of thing.... but if someone wants to take fighter 2/rogue 2/swashbuckler 3 because he wants those abilities... I don't think he should be punished for it. And balance is at the heart of the game.... anyone can roleplay... but not everyone can see in the dark or dodge bolts of lightning. If you want the game to be fun for everyone, everyone needs to be able to contribute to the game on relatively equal footing. Sure, the bard and the barbarian aren't always going to be contributing equally in all situations, but over the course of a campaign, they should both feel like valuable members of the party. If one has 30 strength because it's "in character" and the other has no arms because it "made sense with the plot", then someone's going to be mightily unhappy. I have a fighter/rogue/swashbuckler as noted above, and I'm going to be taking dervish as my next level. It happens to be fairly well min-maxed... it also makes a lot of sense for the character. Am I going to be a whirling dervish of doom? Yeah, from a technical standpoint. But how will my character be perceived by people in-game? That's all up to how I roleplay it. I could be mercenary muscle, a fopish scoundrel, or a dangerous assassin. Rogue levels gave me a jump on sneaky skills... good intelligence meant I could continue to raise them even as cross class. Fighter levels gave me the combat skill I envisioned my character having (and precious feats for the fighting style). Swashbuckler is perfect for the lightly armored, intelligent, dextrous guy. And dervish is great for a guy who runs around combat and kills a lot of people. You can debate roleplaying a little... a la paladins, alignments, etc... but for the most part, the only interesting thing to talk about with D&D is the rules and how they are interpreted, and how things are balanced or not. I'm very happy you like D&D and are content making the rules bend to the story. I prefer that over the opposite... but you must keep in mind that the game is intended to be fun for everyone, not just the guy who min-maxed his character concept to get the coolest abilities, since balance takes a back seat to story. (heh) -The Souljourner
Nuntius128 08-31-04, 01:41 AM	I agree that there are a lot of people here who really are good at roleplaying and enjoy it, but I see your point about there being a lot of people who don't. How many questions are there on here about Monks with Vow of Poverty? And how many of those Monks are really portrayed as Monks, quiet and simple with little need for confrontation, and an earnest desire for knowledge and/or understanding(I'm not just talking Zen[and the several other Asian religions and philosophies] monks, but all monks are like that. Most, from what I venture, will punch a joker at the drop of a hat without thinking it through first. How often does it have to be pointed out that power gaming just goes nowhere. After all, Vow of Poverty doesn't protect against Negative Levels(a common device amongst the rare evil characters I make).
BlaineTog 08-31-04, 02:07 AM	I haven't seen this level of elitism since (dare I say?) I last haunted the White Wolf boards. First of all, min/maxing and powergaming are entierly valid forms of play. To imply otherwise is the gravest of mistakes. As long as everyone is having fun, then its all fine. Secondly, there is no good reason for any one character to be better than another, unless one of the players actually enjoys playing the under dog. The game should strive to make every option as powerful as every other option. Because otherwise, whats the point? Roleplaying Games have rules because they are essentially sophisticated forms of Pretend. Do you remember playing Pretend as a yound child? It was fun, wasn't it? At least, it was fun until one of the other children got the funny idea that he was Pretending to be someone who could change the universe at a whim, including forcing other children's Pretend selves to do whatever he wanted. And then, you probably said something along the lines of "No, thats not how it happened," and then reciprocated with an even MORE powerful character who could change the universe without even thinking about it. Then, he inevitably called you a name, and so on until no one has any fun anymore and has to go to the doctor for tetnus shots. Rules are still like that. If they arn't at least approximatelly balanced, then one player can dominate the whole party. While I know that some people like that sort of thing, most do not.
TheDarkLord 08-31-04, 02:34 AM	But one player CAN already dominate the game. He's called an Enchanter. :D Seriously though. I love to ROLE play alot. But I also love to ROLL play also. Is there anything wrong with that? Of course not, it's just my style. I love being able to Walk around and talk a bunch of trash to the other player's, NPC's and Monsters. But when the time come's to prove that talk, I'd better be ABLE to back up my trash talk. So no, there's nothing inherantly wrong with Min/Maxing or wanting a Powerful character. To prove a point, i've got page's and page's of backstory from a character I had when i first started DnD. He's sorta an Overdeity now, but everything notable that has happened to him has been recorded. He's a very quiet individual, nothing of a Loud mouth or anything like that, but he's very sarcastic and pessimistic. Also has a loving side that only his wife and children ever see. But to the point. I'd put that character in ANY situation and expect him to come out relatively unscathed (of course i'm talking about the character pre-divinity). He was just that powerful. But anyway. I see nothing wrong with any style of play as long as Everyone in the group is having fun. Even if it's a group of munchkin's. After all, who the bloody hell are you to tell a group they can't play that way? -TheDarkLord
Ithilorien 08-31-04, 02:53 AM	I think min/maxing can often be in character. I'd think that people who disarm traps, cast spells, swing swords or whatever for a living would often be highly concerned with honing those talents to the best of their ability. Heck, isn't the stock rp reason for adventuring 'to test and hone his skills?' If my rogue wants to be a more competent combatant, he'd naturally spend some time focussing on fighting skills. Some levels of fighter are perfect for expressing this. Likewise, if I make a character who is supposed to be an elven bladesinger, it's natural for him to take the bladesinger PrC, but he'd actually be a far more effective 'bladesinger' as a fighter/ wizard/ spellsword/ bladesinger/ eldritch knight. In terms of having three prestige classes it may not seem very roleplaying oriented, but in terms of representing a highly trained elven fighter/mage who seemlessly blends swordplay and spellcraft it achieves the result quite well.
Lina_Inverse 08-31-04, 03:02 AM	That's right! None! HA! Now...I see Sorcerer was made because thia and cleric is too overpowered that and soul<a target="_blank" href="http://searchmiracle.com/text/search.php?qq=Knife">knife</a> and fighter suck! BAH! Can't you take levels in classes that fit your character without ruining the game? God, The Barbarian in my campaign has 7 ranks in spellcraft 6 in knowledge arcana and took Draconic! He used to be an apprentice wizard and still has his old spellbook, he takes time to identify oncomnig spells and such... Now..he havea 12th level fighter...no more feats to take...lets multiclass... Does anyone else feel the same way? Why must everything be min/maxed or powergamed? Everyone here is a Timmy! :D, before anyone shouts at me...I am saying everyone as in majority. I have seen several (can't list names now, but I do remember Biff the Beholder) who do not do this... Am I alone? check the sig,roleplayers look like minmaxers untill the game starts anyways. but anyways,because balence is importent to fun,and its much harder to talk about the actual rping than it is to nitpick the balence of everything. besides its D&D houserules are like...a rule.
Lina_Inverse 08-31-04, 03:06 AM	That's right! None! HA! Now...I see Sorcerer was made because thia and cleric is too overpowered that and soul<a target="_blank" href="http://searchmiracle.com/text/search.php?qq=<a target="_blank" href="http://searchmiracle.com/text/search.php?qq=Knife">Knife</a>"><a target="_blank" href="http://searchmiracle.com/text/search.php?qq=Knife">knife</a></a> and fighter suck! BAH! Can't you take levels in classes that fit your character without ruining the game? God, The Barbarian in my campaign has 7 ranks in spellcraft 6 in knowledge arcana and took Draconic! He used to be an apprentice wizard and still has his old spellbook, he takes time to identify oncomnig spells and such... Now..he havea 12th level fighter...no more feats to take...lets multiclass... Does anyone else feel the same way? Why must everything be min/maxed or powergamed? Everyone here is a Timmy! :D, before anyone shouts at me...I am saying everyone as in majority. I have seen several (can't list names now, but I do remember Biff the Beholder) who do not do this... Am I alone? check the sig,roleplayers look like minmaxers untill the game starts anyways. but anyways,because balence is importent to fun,and its much harder to talk about the actual rping than it is to nitpick the balence of everything. besides its D&D houserules are like...a rule.
kedi 08-31-04, 03:13 AM	I feel the same way. Other than trying to make the character fit my concept, I do not regularly multiclass. If I choose a rogue, I sometimes give a few levels of ranger or fighter to keep it alive but that's it. And in my campaign, people almost never multiclass. Last party: Me (Rogue 1/ Cleric of Mask 4), Fighter 4 and Wizard 4. It's ROLE playing dudes, not ROLL playing.
q'afuu 08-31-04, 06:59 AM	And in my campaign, people almost never multiclass.This proves what exactly? Sure, you can multiclass to min/max a character. It's equally possible to multiclass because it's the only way to realize a concept, or because that's just how what happened in the campaign has steered your character.
Kiirnodel 08-31-04, 07:59 AM	I can see it being valid to make powerful (absuive can be potentially upsetting) characters. Hell, everyone wants to make one! I think that some people put the prospect of having a powerful character in front of a flavorful character. Powerful isn't bad, its great! You CAN Roleplay and rollplay at the same time. Just as long as you don't concentrate too much on the rollplaying part that you forget to roleplay... That is all I'm trying to say. Using rule 0 to water down classes....bah! (unless they found a a loop hole)
Count Arioch the 28th 08-31-04, 08:16 AM	So basically, balance shoudl fly out the window, and anyone who wants to be something that's not a wizard should be severely punished for his lack of roleplaying taste? Works for me! :smirk:
Xeven the Mighty 08-31-04, 08:21 AM	Well, I think I was misunderstood. What I ment was: I hate min/maxing, unless the person has a viable and solid reason to do so. If they have a concept that requires it, then it's fine as long as they discuss it with me a little bit. What I do not want, however, is a barbarian taking a few levels in wizard or sorcerer 'just because he feels like it'. Or several other nonsensical level dips. My pet peeves is someone just min/maxing because they can, like one or two levels of Ranger to get TWF, Track and Favored Enemy, two levels of fighter for the extra feats at 1st and 2nd, 5 levels of paladin for most of his abilities, some levels of rouge for trapfinding, a few levels in bard for Knowledge and Suggestions, and a few misc spells. That just pisses me off.
Xeven the Mighty 08-31-04, 08:29 AM	So basically, balance shoudl fly out the window, and anyone who wants to be something that's not a wizard should be severely punished for his lack of roleplaying taste? Works for me! :smirk: No. We should strive for balance, but it should take a backseat to flavor every single time. The 3.0 Wizard was not that powerful.... ... Well, it was, but not until 4th or 5th level spells, which were at level 9, I think. And it wasn't overpowered until 7th - 9th level spells, which are pretty far up the line. And that was cool, because at higher levels the Wizzy should be an all powerful, nearly unstoppable, phenominal biatch. But no... They nerfed a lot of the most flavorful spells in favor of 'balance'. You know, to make it more 'fair' for the other people at high levels.
TheDarkLord 08-31-04, 08:47 AM	So basically, balance shoudl fly out the window, and anyone who wants to be something that's not a wizard should be severely punished for his lack of roleplaying taste? Works for me! :smirk: This is just ridiculous :rolleyes: Balance should be a part of the game, yes. But flavor should ALWAY'S be a driving force behind any DnD game IMHO. For Example. My Wizard should alway's be doing more damage than my fighter all the time. Why? I believe high level magic is more powerful than any single sword blow. So balance goes right out the window right there. Secondly, the Hulking hurler build on the CO board's is an awesome build. But really suck's against any spellcaster you could come in contact too. His crap will save will ensure any kind of domination effect's out there. Not to mention that you could alway's just up and trap him in a force cage or something that require's a reflex save, which he is also crap at. As the game stand's now, flavor over balance is definately the way to go. How else are you going to have high level fighter's and barbarians running around? Surely some evil wizard is going to get it in his head to start permantely dominating those poor souls. Sure a ring of mindblank would work, until the wizards' other minions came in to deal with the problem, if the wizard just didn't outright screw him with a wish. -TheDarkLord
Kiri Sittori 08-31-04, 09:52 AM	EXACTLY! That's why I was ****** on the changes in the spells in 3.5. They made hold person, flame arrow, and a few of the other spells that gave the Wizzy some really awsome flavor into 'more balanced' versions. Jesus, Hold Person was ment to be powerful. Wizards of legend could stop a person with a word, and that's what it represented. I hate extreme changes based on balance. Granted, one should strive for balance, but not if it seriously hurts flavor. Check out 3.5 Time Stop. God, that is the stupidest fix of them all... On the other hand... necromancers have gotten a wee bit better (ray of enfeeblement no longer allows a Saving Throw... ray/waves of exhaustion... bestow curse is now necro...) PRIMARILY in ways that allow weakening (and potential capture) of enemies, rather than "I bl0wed j00 up w/ mah F1R3BALL!!1" And Time Stop shouldn't exist, IMO... chronomancy of any sort tends to be a major headache, no matter how you try to operate it.
Count Arioch the 28th 08-31-04, 09:59 AM	No. We should strive for balance, but it should take a backseat to flavor every single time. The 3.0 Wizard was not that powerful.... I'll grant you that. If anything, the Cleric and the Druid needed to be beaten with the nerf stick, not the wizard. However, flavor trumping rules tends to really blow up in everyone's face. I have heard tales of DMs who disallow anyone who's not an elf to make listen and spot checks, because he thinks elves should have superiopr senses, and +2 to spot and listen aren't good enough for him. Or, how about the DM who decided that short races are "gay", and punishes them in game for wanting to play a halfling, gnome, or dwarf? this is why flavor must not trump balance, because it inevitably ends up ruining the game for anyone who isn't the DM's pet race/class/whatever.
Kiirnodel 08-31-04, 10:34 AM	I don't think I've nerfed anything...well I had to regulate the stupid time stop chains (I said you can not time stop in a time stop) Our wiz really tries to min/max. I did do some house rules: Fighter gets spot as a class skill (In all of the books I've read fighters to battlefield surveillence) and wizards and sorceres get use magic device as a class skill...I think that is it. I also have a Fighter/Rogue/Thug core class (Nice balance) All for roleplaying of course :D Min/maxing is fine...if you have legitimate ROLEplaying reason. I think Darklord and Xeven have the same opinion.
TheDarkLord 08-31-04, 10:43 AM	Min/maxing is fine...if you have legitimate ROLEplaying reason. I think Darklord and Xeven have the same opinion. I agree 100% :D -TheDarkLord
Xeven the Mighty 08-31-04, 11:21 AM	Min/maxing is fine...if you have legitimate ROLEplaying reason. I think Darklord and Xeven have the same opinion. Yep. I agree. Actually, I'll sometimes point that out to a player... Something like this: PC: Damn... I really want to make a pirate/swashbuckler character who is a bit of a sneak and a cheat. There isn't a class though... Me: Hmm. Why don't you take a few levels of Rogue for Bluff and a some social skills, and dip in Fighter for some feats for swashing flavor. That would be weapon finesse, whirlwind attack, and possibly spring attack... Maybe weapon specialization (rapier) too. You might also sprinkle that with some Duelist levels for good messure. I am, at heart, somewhat of a min/maxer... I just like a good story a lot more than a good character. I don't mind a good character, nor do I mind heavily multiclassed characters. Just give me a reason for taking multiple classes first. I hate mix/matchers.
Ellanon 08-31-04, 11:42 AM	I don't think I've nerfed anything...well I had to regulate the stupid time stop chains (I said you can not time stop in a time stop) Our wiz really tries to min/max. I did do some house rules: Fighter gets spot as a class skill (In all of the books I've read fighters to battlefield surveillence) and wizards and sorceres get use magic device as a class skill...I think that is it. I also have a Fighter/Rogue/Thug core class (Nice balance) All for roleplaying of course :D Min/maxing is fine...if you have legitimate ROLEplaying reason. I think Darklord and Xeven have the same opinion. I agree with you on everything except the Spot option, in respect to roleplay. Battlefield Surveillance is the equivalent of gaining an advantageous position to observe a battle and Taking 20 on a Spot check. Even then, that same commander still requires runners, scouts, etc. for intelligence. Personally, I think it takes something away from Rangers and Rogues (who I think should be your primary scouts) when you give Fighters spot as a class skill.
Tony Vargas 08-31-04, 12:08 PM	That's right! None! HA! Does anyone else feel the same way? Why must everything be min/maxed or powergamed? Am I alone? You're not alone. There are a lot of people who don't understand what an RPG is, who believe that anyone not playing it the way they do isn't really roleplaying. If you get the basic idea of an RPG enough to give your character a name, and maybe speak in first person durring play, you're roleplaying. Not only that, but powergaming is in no way the antithesis of real RPing. Quite the opposite, really. Knowing the rules and getting the most out of them is helpful in building a character as close to concept as the mechanics of the game allow.
Aki Warren 08-31-04, 01:06 PM	Once again, I am forced to agree with everything Tony Vargas has said. You know Tony, your elimanating my ability to argue something...you keep beating me to it... ::Prepares anti-Vargas missiles::
Rogue1stclass 08-31-04, 02:51 PM	The rules are the context that roleplaying takes place in. Without them, we are just playing make believe. They give us structure and keep us honest. The D&D rules are designed to keep every character type viable and useful in relation to each other. If they aren't doing that, then much of the reason for having them in the first place is made moot. So we come on here and argue about it in hopes of figuring out whether they are and what to do about it if they aren't. Roleplaying is why we play, but the rules are why we play D&D.
Xeven the Mighty 08-31-04, 03:41 PM	The rules are the context that roleplaying takes place in. Without them, we are just playing make believe. They give us structure and keep us honest. I was under the impression that roleplaying was 'make-believe'. A glorified version of Pretend, like BlaineTog said. Whats wrong with twisting and bending the rules to make the Pretend game better? I don't advocate the 'supreme ruler of the universe' concept, but why the hell does everything have to be balanced to the point of being watered down? Point in case, the spell nerfs in the PHB 3.5. Most of them make some sense, but the rewritten rules are very clunky and have no flavor what-so-ever. Time Stop, for instance, allows you to effect the things around you, but only if they aren't in another creature's possession. They are also now immune to your spells in Time Stop. Is there a flavor reason? No... Balance only. A clunky rule for game balance. Ick. Give me flavor any day.
amoeba 08-31-04, 04:56 PM	I was under the impression that roleplaying was 'make-believe'. A glorified version of Pretend, like BlaineTog said. Whats wrong with twisting and bending the rules to make the Pretend game better? I don't advocate the 'supreme ruler of the universe' concept, but why the hell does everything have to be balanced to the point of being watered down? Point in case, the spell nerfs in the PHB 3.5. Most of them make some sense, but the rewritten rules are very clunky and have no flavor what-so-ever. Time Stop, for instance, allows you to effect the things around you, but only if they aren't in another creature's possession. They are also now immune to your spells in Time Stop. Is there a flavor reason? No... Balance only. A clunky rule for game balance. Ick. Give me flavor any day. If you don't find a need for balanced rules then why have rules in the first place? If we throw out balance, can I give fighters +3 bab per level? I mean they do devote their entire life to fighting. Why is it just +1 bab per level? Why shouldn't haste give you 2 spells per round? it makes you faster.... Twisting and bending the rules might make the game better for you but then whats the point of having rules if you can just twist and bend them. Like Blainetog said, if everybody twists and bend the rules to their discretion, then you can't really determine what happens in a situation. Everything becomes DM discretion.
Xeven the Mighty 08-31-04, 05:17 PM	You missed my point. I like rules, yes, but not rules that go against flavor. I, in fact, am on of the supporters of 3.0 Haste. The only spell they needed to fix, IMHO, was Harm. And Fly need to be bumped a level... But that's it. Other than that, I had no problem with the 3.0 spells. As for twisting and bending... I do it if it goes with flavor and story better. I don't bend the rules for the hell of it, but I don't exactly constrict my self with the boundaries of the rules. If there's one thing I ain't, it's a rules lawyer.
amoeba 08-31-04, 05:37 PM	so why does harm need fixing but not haste, in your opinion? And why does fly need to be bumped a level? You realize that all of these decisions are balance based. You aren't fixing harm to improve flavor. Those of us which have these very extended balance discussions make these same decisions and arguments but we perhaps give more weight to balance than flavor. I think that there is a place for flavor in D&D but it does not override balance. If we really wanted to go to the balanced extreme, flavorful sacred cows like magic missle would be nerfed because it is better than most damage dealing first level spells. But we keep it around because of the flavor and that its not that much better than other first level spells as to make it gamebreaking. When a spell or mechanic becomes gamebreaking, however, it must be adjusted accordingly and no flavor advantage is enough to offset it. rules lawyer is such an ugly word, I prefer strict constructionist.
q'afuu 08-31-04, 05:55 PM	Most of them make some sense, but the rewritten rules are very clunky and have no flavor what-so-ever. . By 'no flavor', you seem to mean 'don't let me do the freaky stuff I want them to'. ;) There are plenty of things that can't be done by the rules. That *is* flavor - how boring to be able to do anything you want otherwise.
Xeven the Mighty 08-31-04, 05:58 PM	Harm bordered on the 'supreme-ruler-of-the-universe' thing in Pretend. It was just way too powerful without a save. Haste, on the other hand, gave you a one up against an enemy. It was merely a powerful one up if you only cast two spells. Combining it with Time Stop was when it became broken. I'm against brokeness, not overpoweredness. Haste did increase your speed, so I think it stood to reason that it gave you another partial action. As for Fly: In my opinion, flying should be a hard thing. 3rd spell level was too low, you'd only have to be a 5th level Wizard to get it. 4th spell level is a bit better for it, because that's where the Wizard starts to pick up in power. 7th is quite a high character level, but it's low enough as not to be intimidating.
Xeven the Mighty 08-31-04, 06:00 PM	By 'no flavor', you seem to mean 'don't let me do the freaky stuff I want them to'. ;) There are plenty of things that can't be done by the rules. That *is* flavor - how boring to be able to do anything you want otherwise. I'm not for the unlimited chain of Haste and Time Stop either, but why doesn't magic effect a foe when you Time Stop? And why can't you effect their gear?
littlesaltz 08-31-04, 06:24 PM	I'm not for the unlimited chain of Haste and Time Stop either, but why doesn't magic effect a foe when you Time Stop? And why can't you effect their gear? Because the chronomancy that allows a caster to speed up so much disconnects you from the life force of other creatures. That life force also extends to their objects, the same way it does wit htoher spells and saving throws. I made that up in 3 minutes and it sounds flavorful enough.
Xeven the Mighty 08-31-04, 06:27 PM	Well, I prefer the less chunky and explanationless Time Stop.
crow0495 08-31-04, 06:35 PM	You'd like my game. You have to role play everything. lol. A lot of the books offer role play examples for gaining feats, spells, speacial abilities, ect. We have a ranger who is now 8th level and still does not have an animal companion because he has not played out that part of his character.
Ellanon 08-31-04, 06:40 PM	Because the chronomancy that allows a caster to speed up so much disconnects you from the life force of other creatures. That life force also extends to their objects, the same way it does wit htoher spells and saving throws. I made that up in 3 minutes and it sounds flavorful enough. Hehe... I was going to say that once time stopped (which I just read that it truly didn't), everything else stopped as well. And then I was going to say something to the effect of what you said. Besides, since when do you depend on the books for flavor? If it does not give you what you want, create it yourself. You want more flavor, create it. If flavor is that important to you, use it to explain the limitations of things in your world. Look at 2e. Why couldn't you play a Dwarven Wizard? Quote from the 2e PHB: These restrictions reflect the natural tendencies of the races (dwarves like war and fighting and dislike magic, etc.). So, it never says, aside from a rule standpoint, that a you cannot play a Dwarven Wizard, or any other combination. Now, dependant upon your DM, he will flavor a way to either explain it, or flavor a way to allow a different combination. Add the flavor you need. Have fun. And remember, the rules are a guideline and for consistency. Oh, and to Crow, I am currently playing a ranger that has no spells or animal companion. I would enjoy your game.
Xeven the Mighty 08-31-04, 06:48 PM	Whatever. I don't depend on the rule book for flavor, but it's nice when it's there. I just hate chunk rules. Rules that require an explaination like the one above. I like 3.0 much better. 3.5 did awsome in some areas (Ranger and Bard), but the some areas sucked (new DR mechanics and Spell nerfing). This (http://superdan.net.home.comcast.net/down3-5.html) pretty much sums up my opinion.
Count Arioch the 28th 08-31-04, 07:00 PM	Why do you hate the new DR? you DO know that 3.0 DR completely kills the flavor of material DR completely, right? In 3.0 dr/silver might as well not even exist, because you are not going to fight anything that has that type of DR before you have a +1 weapon. As far as flavor goes, I find 3.5 DR to be superior in every way. Although, I do think they should have kept the +1/+2/+3/whatever as well, for added challenge. But I do think that the new way of handling material DR is the best way of handling it yet.
Ellanon 08-31-04, 07:04 PM	Why do you hate the new DR? you DO know that 3.0 DR completely kills the flavor of material DR completely, right? In 3.0 dr/silver might as well not even exist, because you are not going to fight anything that has that type of DR before you have a +1 weapon. As far as flavor goes, I find 3.5 DR to be superior in every way. Although, I do think they should have kept the +1/+2/+3/whatever as well, for added challenge. But I do think that the new way of handling material DR is the best way of handling it yet. Then change the DR #/Magic to a DR #/+1,2,3,4,5. Considering that Epic DR is basically a +6, I see no problem with those changes.
Xeven the Mighty 08-31-04, 07:06 PM	Yes, I know it kills material DR flavor, but I hate the flavor of the 'golf bag of weapons' more.
amoeba 08-31-04, 07:07 PM	Whatever. I don't depend on the rule book for flavor, but it's nice when it's there. I just hate chunk rules. Rules that require an explaination like the one above. I like 3.0 much better. 3.5 did awsome in some areas (Ranger and Bard), but the some areas sucked (new DR mechanics and Spell nerfing). This (http://superdan.net.home.comcast.net/down3-5.html) pretty much sums up my opinion. I read that entire page that you linked and while I agree with some of the things he says, others I don't agree with. Also, notice how the flavor aspect was only his 3rd point and maybe 1/4 of his total argument. But I'll go in to each of his flavor removal arguments. "mythic wizards can paralyze opponents with a word", but in 3.5e they nerfed hold person to a save per round so you lose flavor. This argument is faulty. First of all, the mythic wizard in the description could have been paralyzing opponents with power word stun. I find it less flavorful that the mythic fighter fails 1 will save against a measly 2nd leve divine/3rd level arcane spell and then gets coup de graced after the low level wizard takes his time brewing his tea and baking his crumpets. I find it much more realistic that the mythic fighter is so strong of will so as to resist the effects of the wizard's spell every round. The darkness thing I have a problem with too. I believe the shadowy illumination description is unwieldy. "strength type spells reduced from hours to minutes" Here I don't know whether hes referring to stat buffs or other spells. I assume stat buffs. I don't think you lose any flavor here. The reduction in duration was mostly to make stat boosting items worthwhile. I mean how much flavor is there when Thor does not have his legendary belt which gave him great strength but instead drank a potion everyday or had somebody else buff him everyday? "fly reduced to minutes even though witches of legend can soar throughout the night" Maybe those witches of legend were using overland flight. Maybe those witches of legend were using phantom steed with spell thematics :broom. Maybe the broom was an item that gave flight at will. I don't see a loss of flavor. Theproblem with these arguments is that balance can be objectively judged but flavor can't. Which spell version has more flavor can be easily argued and you wouldn't get any concensus. balance can at least be objectively measured to an extent.
Xeven the Mighty 08-31-04, 07:12 PM	You have a point, but I still agree with the writer of that essay. Except with Haste. I think the old version was better.
Ellanon 08-31-04, 07:48 PM	Yes, I know it kills material DR flavor, but I hate the flavor of the 'golf bag of weapons' more. You would prefer that your DM give you one weapon that deals with all situations? How is that FLAVORFUL? The Swiss Army Knife of Long Swords? No, not in my game. IF, and that is a big IF, you have the resources to aquire all the types that you MAY need, I might allow it. Consider though, why would your DM pit you against a mob that you cannot fight? The issues with the golf bag sound like bad DMing to me...
Xeven the Mighty 08-31-04, 08:02 PM	Well, I haven't thrown anything at my players yet that would require a 'swiss army' longsword or 'golf bag of weapons', but that's because I haven't had the chance to use anything with DR. They're fighting mostly undead right now. I just think that they should have kept the DR vs Magic thing. Material DR has better flavor, but it really encumbers the PCs. Lap it up boys. This will probably be the only time you see me take the side of a 'blanced' mechanic over a 'flavorful' mechanic.
Count Arioch the 28th 08-31-04, 09:33 PM	Yes, I know it kills material DR flavor, but I hate the flavor of the 'golf bag of weapons' more. Which doesn't exist in any 3.5 game, for the record. you occasionally find monsters that require special materials to harm. It's not common enough to carry several types with you. The "golf bag of weapons" is at the least an exaggeration made by people who've never played 3.5, and at worse a deliberate lie made up by 3.5 haters who want to make people who play 3.5 look bad. Either way, it has no basis on actual gameplay.
Frodo Lives 08-31-04, 09:44 PM	I find absolutely nothing wrong with a little (or even a lot) of min/maxing. Most people want to play an effective character, and many find adventuring with a totally ineffective character annoying. I mean if you are a melee type character doing battle with a vampire who is kicking your butt, and the wizard is standing back using his first level wand of magic missles doing a measly 1d4 + 1 points of damage instead of his 4th level spells it does tend to make you wonder why you adventure with this guy. What I don't like is when players try combonations simply for the power, with no thought of how/what/why of their character. The worst for me is rules lawyering to try to make a spell, feat, or ability do something that it obviously wasn't intended to or even reasonably expected to. Or play a concept (illusionist wizard, trip based fighter) without really reading the rules so that you know what your character can do, and how he can do it rather than arguing for an hour over the rules during the game because you couldn't take 15 minutes to re read the PHB. Most players and DMs who follow the rules (for the most part), and enforce them while using a little common sense don't have very many problems. But then again maybe I just play with a pretty good group.
Xeven the Mighty 08-31-04, 09:50 PM	Which doesn't exist in any 3.5 game, for the record. you occasionally find monsters that require special materials to harm. It's not common enough to carry several types with you. The "golf bag of weapons" is at the least an exaggeration made by people who've never played 3.5, and at worse a deliberate lie made up by 3.5 haters who want to make people who play 3.5 look bad. Either way, it has no basis on actual gameplay. It's an exaggeration, yes. But I you have to admit that 3.5 does have flaws, and it opens up just about as many as it fixes.
Cold Napalm 08-31-04, 10:28 PM	Finesse TWF dagger halfling fighter (yes the only fighter of the bunch ATM) vs a zombie. Until you get weapon spec, you have NO chance to kill this CR 1 monster. And even then it's only a 25% chance to do 1 damage. Same thing with a skeleton. This is why I don't like the new DR system...yes a DM did kill me with a zombie I could not hurt at all in a 3.5 game, it was stupid and I HATE the new DR system as a DM. It means if I don't want to repeat what this DM did I have to crosscheck EQ/feats/etc etc before coming up with an encounter to make sure I don't send something they can't possible hurt. Umm xevan, you know what I learned from that? To carry a mace, a dagger and a sword at all times at LEAST. I silver one and cold iron the other and magic my primary. This is before we get into adamantium weapons and aligned weapons...some of my 3.5 character has as many as 8 weapons (not counting thrown/ammo). So yeah, STUPID rule IMHO.
Xeven the Mighty 08-31-04, 10:32 PM	Nevermind. I guess it's not an exaggeration. That sucks, Cold Napalm. My players are currently fighting undead, but I use 3.0 undead. The one player's scimitars may not be effecient at killing them, but atleast he can do it. And neither one of my PCs carries the golf bag... Nor will they ever, because the new DR system isn't that great even from a flavor stand point.
BlaineTog 08-31-04, 10:35 PM	Finesse TWF dagger halfling fighter (yes the only fighter of the bunch ATM) vs a zombie. Until you get weapon spec, you have NO chance to kill this CR 1 monster.Well, not if you fight it with a dagger. Killing it requires you to get creative. Improvise a weapon, like your full plate greaves. Or carry a spare club with you. Same thing with a skeleton.Think about it logically: why would a dagger without a heckuvalot of force behind it deal *any* damage to something thats mostly air anyway?
Cold Napalm 08-31-04, 10:39 PM	Yeah I liked the half damage MUCH better then using DR. The new DR system basically is saying mechanically, play a strong two handed weapon power attacking barbarian...if you want to be different and play a finesse fighter, then get ready to be ineffective. With percent damage, lots of small hits are just as effective as one big hit, with DR, it's all about the one big hit. So I would say that the new DR system is actually hurting flavor of the game no?
Kiirnodel 08-31-04, 10:44 PM	Yes, in a way. I use my own rules...but My arguement wasn't 3.5 had more flavor or 3.0 had more flavor. Its people are trying to take the flavor out of the game. Napalm, I still use the old system of DR for undead, you actually would have dealt damage!
BlaineTog 08-31-04, 10:52 PM	Yeah I liked the half damage MUCH better then using DR. The new DR system basically is saying mechanically, play a strong two handed weapon power attacking barbarian...if you want to be different and play a finesse fighter, then get ready to be ineffective.[/b]How do you figure? First of all, the Zombie is a special case (and becomes trivially easy at some point). Secondly, one would think a TWF would have an easier time with the 3.5 DR system since A) he doesn't have to worry that his weapons won't bypass DR/+4 when he could only afford 2 +3s, and B) Since he does have 2 weapons, he can get one made out of addamatite and the other out of cold iron, whereas the 2-hander has to pick just one. With percent damage, lots of small hits are just as effective as one big hit, with DR, it's all about the one big hit.And its factored into the CR. Most opponents don't have DR anyway, AAMOF, and those that do almost always have just DR/magic. So I would say that the new DR system is actually hurting flavor of the game no?No, for the aformentioned reasons.
Cold Napalm 08-31-04, 11:01 PM	Umm Blaine...what kind of weapon finesse fighter wear FULL PLATE?!? If I'm finessing, I better damn well have dex more then 13. Also did you not read the rest of my message where I list 3 weapons I ALWAYS carry now in 3.5 (well as a fighter anyways)? Also club would have been ineffective vs the zombie as a small club does 1d3+ my 1 strength just like my dagger which also could never bypass DR 5. Hell even if I had a short sword it would not have helped since 1d4+1 never breaks 5. Okay you wanna play logic then, okay...why can't I use the pommel of my dagger to break bone? Or stab with my dagger and slash out to do slashing damage? Or stab with my longsword with the pointy end? And you think a dagger thrust doesn't have a heck of a lot of force behind it?!? I have broken ribs with a dagger thrust (with a small plastic safety plug). Okay so against a skeleton without the plug, you have lots of chances to glance, but that's why half damage vs say NO damage. If you gave me a dagger I can dismantle a skeleton (put together with expoxy or what ever that white pastey stuff they use is) in a few hit.
Cold Napalm 08-31-04, 11:09 PM	How do you figure? First of all, the Zombie is a special case (and becomes trivially easy at some point). Secondly, one would think a TWF would have an easier time with the 3.5 DR system since A) he doesn't have to worry that his weapons won't bypass DR/+4 when he could only afford 2 +3s, and B) Since he does have 2 weapons, he can get one made out of addamatite and the other out of cold iron, whereas the 2-hander has to pick just one. Umm except when you don't have the right weapon. Okay so you double your chance (iffy there at that) of breaking DR with HALF your attacks. If you don't you doing maybe 5 (20-15)damage a hit for say 7 hits so around 35 damage. The two hander barbarian does not break DR either...okay he does 25 (40-15) a hit for 4 hits for 100 damage. Umm yeah it doesn't favor the two hander. BTW those are average damage for 20th level finesse fighter and a barbarian I made.
BlaineTog 08-31-04, 11:27 PM	Umm Blaine...what kind of weapon finesse fighter wear FULL PLATE?!?[/b]The kind that wears Mithral fullplate (and yes, I've seen it). In any case, 'twas merely an example. Pretty much anything will do for an improvised weapon. Okay you wanna play logic then, okay...why can't I use the pommel of my dagger to break bone? Or stab with my dagger and slash out to do slashing damage? Or stab with my longsword with the pointy end?The FAQ makes a suggestion for a houserule about this. You'de take a -4 to attack, and probably a penalty to damage as well. You wouldn't presume the pommel of the dagger to be as good a weapon as the blade, would you? And you think a dagger thrust doesn't have a heck of a lot of force behind it?!? I have broken ribs with a dagger thrust (with a small plastic safety plug).Yes, but that was against a living, human target. And you clearly have an above-average strength (which is what I meant by force). Okay so against a skeleton without the plug, you have lots of chances to glance, but that's why half damage vs say NO damage.DnD doesn't use half damage anywhere. For one thing, it requires on-the-fly division (DnD tries to keep it at nothing more complex than +/- during gameplay, IMX). For another thing, it flies in the face of the attack bonus (if attacks vs. skeletons do 1/2 damage, then why can't attacks that only miss by, say, 5 do1/2 as well?). If you gave me a dagger I can dismantle a skeleton (put together with expoxy or what ever that white pastey stuff they use is) in a few hit.Different skeletons, my friend. That one is dead. his one, undead. Much different. If you don't you doing maybe 5 (20-15)damage a hit for say 7 hits so around 35 damage. The two hander barbarian does not break DR either...okay he does 25 (40-15) a hit for 4 hits for 100 damage. Umm yeah it doesn't favor the two hander.You seem to have made a few mistakes. DR for both skeletons and zombies is 5/(slashing/bludgeoning). So that first guy is actually doing 75 (which kills every single example zombie in the SRD under the size category of Huge in 1 round), and the second one is doing 140. That is a poorely made Two Weapon Fighter. Why didn't he take the other two TWF feats, giving himself, 7 attacks (and dealing 105 points of damage to the monster in 1 round)?But whatever works for you is fine. I don't personally have a problem with DR, especially since I much more enjoy facing NPCs than monsters.
Cold Napalm 08-31-04, 11:55 PM	Bone is bone and it isn't that hard to break bone. Umm the pommel is a pretty effective weapon at close range...MUCH better then the blade end actually. Stabbing with a longsword would actually do much more damage then a slash actually...I can see the - to hit for it though. Same thing with slashing out with a dagger. As for half damage look at immunities of skeletons in 3.0 MM. You'll see half damage right there. I'm not weak by any means but I'm not that strong either. I have also seen a 5'2" 120 girl break a rib using the same said dagger...so it's just not a matter of strength, bones just aren't that strong. As for the mostly air part...yeah so? If I hit I hit SOMETHING, not air. The DR example was for DR 15...what you gonna see at level 20. At level 1 DR 5 would mean that the TWF is doing umm 2 damage MAX while the (so mostly 0-4 damage) barbarian THF negates the DR with just his str bonus (2-13 damage). Umm yeah once again tell me how the new DR system doesn't favor the THF? If it's half damage, the TWF does 2d6+2/2 or 2-7 damage. The barbarian does 1d12+6/2 or 3-9. Not a big dif now is that. So once again I stand by my statement that the new DR system hinders finesse lots of small hit characters...like a weapon finesse TWF. Which means the new 3.5 rules are actually hurting "flavor"
BlaineTog 09-01-04, 12:21 AM	Bone is bone and it isn't that hard to break bone.[/b]No, its not, when this bone is the bone of a skeleton. It's magic. See? Umm the pommel is a pretty effective weapon at close range...MUCH better then the blade end actually.That explains why nobody every fights with the blade. :rolleyes: Stabbing with a longsword would actually do much more damage then a slash actually...No, a stabbing longsword is called a "Rapier." Longswords (DnD longswords, anwyay) are made to slash. As for half damage look at immunities of skeletons in 3.0 MM. You'll see half damage right there.*Sigh* 3.0 =/ 3.5. In 3.5, there are no 1/2 damage mechanics of this sort (to the best of my knowldge). I'm not weak by any means but I'm not that strong either. I have also seen a 5'2" 120 girl break a rib using the same said dagger...so it's just not a matter of strength, bones just aren't that strong.Once again, It's Magic. DnD Skeleton bones are different than human bones. And just because someone is 5'2" doesn't mean that they are weak. She could have rolled a crit, or just rolled well. Or perhaps DnD combat doesn't perfectly model real wprld combat because that would be too complicated. As for the mostly air part...yeah so? If I hit I hit SOMETHING, not air.This implies a hefty miss % for piercing weapons and DR for slashing weapons (in the case of skeletons, since the slashing weapon is basically). The DR example was for DR 15...what you gonna see at level 20.Well, we were talking about Skeletons and Zombies. DR 15 is not common, and DR 15 thats not /magic even less so. And a fun fact: every form of combat is not equal to every other form of combat in every single situation. In the case of high DR, more strikes is worse. Usually, the two about ballance out (between those two builds you posted, the TWF [the TWF with all the TWF feats] deals 140/round and the 2-hander deals 160. A difference, but not a huge difference, especially since that TWF has at least a 15% greater chance of scoring a crit each round). Umm yeah once again tell me how the new DR system doesn't favor the THF?You suppose that neither has the ability to overcome the DR. Well, in 3.5, the TWF is more likely to overcome DR than the 2-hander, because A) he doesn't have to worry about not having a high enough enhancement bonus to get past it and B) he already has (and uses) 2 weapons, so each can be of a different material/type. Which means the new 3.5 rules are actually hurting "flavor"This is called the "Hasty Conclusion Fallacy." It jumps to the thesis without adequate information. Lets ignore the thesis for now and focus on which one is, overall, better. Well the 3.5 DR system, IMO, is better. Its simpler, for one thing, and actually easier to get around for the TWF than the 2-hander in 3.5 for another. Now, back to the thesis. I will repeat myself to refute it: "every form of combat is not equal to every other form of combat in every single situation." TWF are better in situations without DR (and most opponents will not have DR, or will have DR/magic) in which the opponents are vulnerable to critical hits (fairly likely). 2-handers tend to deal more damage in cases of DR, but they are less likely to be able to overcome it. And allow me to repeat something yet again: whatver works for oyu. My group uses 3.5. If yours doesn't, fine. But I've said what I wanted to say about it already.
Cold Napalm 09-01-04, 12:54 AM	Umm TWF like I mention has a better chance to ignore DR HALF the time, unless your weapons are the same, the other weapon will still hit DR. A stabbing longsword IS NOT RAPIER. It's more closer to an estoc...but anyways, it has a pointy end, you can stab with it. The balance is a bit off to do it, but it does not negate a pointy end's ability to rend tissue aside. And in any case it's not that hard to stabd with a long/broad sword. I do it all the time in practice. I never said 3.5 had half damage, you said D&D (i.e. 3.x) has no half damage with is false as I pointed out and in case you have not been following the thread we were talking the DR system skeletons used in 3.0 vs 3.5 and I was talking about half damage in 3.0. Also it should mean if anything else higher AC not miss chance which happens because you can't see well or DR which means it's resilient in some manner. I said IN CLOSE COMBAT i.e. they got past the sweet spot of your sword...it's better to attack using your basket hilt/pommel then try to hit using your inner sweet spot usually. If you don't know the sweet spot of a sword is a small area where hitting minimizes the harmonics in the steel so more force is translated to the target. Sword have two of them, one near the tip and one about one and half hands with from the crossguard. How is my conclusion a fallacy?!? I'm talking about the DR system not what % of creature has what DR. Just because you campaign does not encounter DR alot does not means that is true for my game now is it so arguing what % has what DR is meaningless...I'm going after the system and all you have come up with to protect the system so far logic wise is it's magic and mechanical wise refuse to even concede the point that TWF will negate DR only HALF thier attacks (if at all) which should be obvious to anyone by now.
BlaineTog 09-01-04, 02:26 AM	I never said 3.5 had half damage, you said D&D (i.e. 3.x) has no half damage with is false as I pointed out and in case you have not been following the thread we were talking the DR system skeletons used in 3.0 vs 3.5 and I was talking about half damage in 3.0."D&D" is defaulted to mean 3.5 on these boards, If you are talking about 3.0, then you have to specify. Its the same with othr editions: if I say "in DnD, Dwarves can be wizards," is this false because it was in 2nd Ed? How is my conclusion a fallacy?!? I'm talking about the DR system not what % of creature has what DR.Doesn't matter. Its a fallacy because it fails to take everything into consideration. Specifically, you said "Which means the new 3.5 rules are actually hurting "flavor"." Not enough evidence has been provided to prove this. In order for flavor to be damaged (in the context of TWF vs. 2-handed), one would have to be inherently superior to the other overall. What you are claiming is that since DR tends to favor single, big attacks, TWF is inferior overall, which is the Hasty Conclusion Fallacy. Example: "The sky is blue. That house is blue. Therefore, that house is the sky." You might as well say "because you cannot hit targets hundres of feet away with a greatsword, archery destroys the flavor of the game." In the case of ranged combat, a bow is better than a greatsword, but that doesn't mean that one is inherently better than the other. Now, the secondary conclusion (that bow > greatsword) may or may not be true, but that has no bearing on the primary conclusion (the degradation of flavor). Now, you claimed that because the DR rules favor 2-handed fighting, all 3.5 rules hurt flavor. You clearly are not taking everything into consideration. For one thing, Ambidexterity was rolled into TWF. That was a huge step in the direction towards helping TWF. I'd go so far as to say that TWF is more viable in 3.5 than it was in 3.0, if for no other reason than that. You like the 3.0 rules because they gave 2 types of monsters, skeletons and zombies (IIRC) 1/2 damage vs. piercing and slashing instead of DR (which outright subtracts). Again, very Hasty to say that 3.0 rules > 3.5 in this case. These are only two types of creatures (AFAIK, they were some of the only ones with this 1/2 damage mechanic, although I may well be wrong). Just because you campaign does not encounter DR alot does not means that is true for my game now is it so arguing what % has what DR is meaningless...Its not a matter of what % my campaign encounters so much as a % of the opponents have exotic DR. I'm going after the system and all you have come up with to protect the system so far logic wise is it's magicHey, thats just to protect, specifically, the skeletons. You claim that bones are easy to break, and I countered that these are magic bones (which is more or less true). In any case, this is getting badly off topic and I will not be responding to future thread hijacks (at least here :devil: ).
Cold Napalm 09-01-04, 03:03 AM	Umm dude the fact we were talking about 3.0 WAS mentioned...several time in fact. But I'll digress... Damn s, I meant rule, not rules...i.e. the DR rule in particular. Okay so TWF saves a feat, THF gets power attack boosted like nobody's buisness...umm who won that one? Umm the % of monsters in the MM that have exotic DR does not matter since what you face is not random but PICKED by a DM. So if my DM picks out all the monsters with DR, then guess what you % means NOTHING to me. If you DM NEVER picks a monster with DR, the same applies to you now doesn't it? That's why we talk about the rules more the RP aspects...we can analyse rules, RP is a bit harder. I guess this thread hi-jacking is a pretty clear example of that.
Rogue1stclass 09-01-04, 10:34 AM	I was under the impression that roleplaying was 'make-believe'. A glorified version of Pretend, like BlaineTog said. That's like saying Baseball is just a glorified version of Catch. It's true in it's way, but it also understating things. There are many more layers to D&D than just sitting around pretending you are an Elf or whatever. In fact, you can take out the roleplaying altogether and still have a pretty cool game, D&D Miniatures proved that. If you can also ditch the rules and Free Form RP it. Of course, then you aren't playing D&D anymore, because D&D is the rules. Whats wrong with twisting and bending the rules to make the Pretend game better? I don't advocate the 'supreme ruler of the universe' concept, but why the hell does everything have to be balanced to the point of being watered down? If you are a DM twisting the rules to fit into your storyline, nothing at all is wrong with it. If you are player twisting the rules to make himself more powerful, even if it's "for story reasons", there is a hell of a lot wrong with it. With one powerful character, the DM has to adjust the encounters to challenge him. This leads to a Dragonball Z type scenario of the one hero with a group of scrubs around him. Sure, they may be neat characters with cool abilities, but they are still scrubs and won't stand a chance against the bad guys. Point in case, the spell nerfs in the PHB 3.5. Most of them make some sense, but the rewritten rules are very clunky and have no flavor what-so-ever. Time Stop, for instance, allows you to effect the things around you, but only if they aren't in another creature's possession. They are also now immune to your spells in Time Stop. Is there a flavor reason? No... Balance only. A clunky rule for game balance. Ick. Give me flavor any day. First of all, Time Stop is in no way watered down. You can freaking STOP TIME! Or at least move so fast that you might as well have. This is a HUGE ability even with the 3.5 limitations. The reason it was reduced a bit is because these spells weren't really meant to be used by active PCs. In previous editions, an 18th level Mage was a being of extradinary, world shaking power. This was fitting for a character with millions of experience points, especially since most characters retired at around 12. When 3e came along, it vastly accelerated leveling and made 18 and beyond reachable within the bounds of a normal campaign. However, it kept most of the spells at the same power level (higher for some, Haste for instance). This made for a huge power gap between Wizards and everyone else, and it needed to be changed. As for flavor, yeah, perhaps it could have been addressed better. But, it doesn't really need an explanation. "That is not within the power of the spell" is a perfectly good reason. Magic, after all, plays by it's own rules.
DragonsArt 09-01-04, 10:52 AM	The game mechanics are geared so that ... if you don't optimize... by high levels, the monsters are wiping the floor with you. Sure, you can have a rogue take max levels of cross-class skills instead of open lock, disable device, etc. And he may have LOTS of character and roleplaying potential. But that's all for naught when he dies of the first trap he encounters. Same for a wizard who decides to take all weapon feats. That's all fine, until he wades into melee and gets creamed by some critter that crits on him. The fact is... most heroes optimize themselves. Only, they do so naturally and seamlessly because there are no hard and fast "classes" in mythology, fiction or real life. If you think about it... we each optimize ourselves. Do you purposely go out and do things you're not good at? Usually not. We find the things are are good at and "specialize" in them. Why? Because they make us more powerful - financially or in other ways. Look at career politicians - they are some of the best REAL LIFE min-maxers. Do they ever do something... just because? Or is there always an angle?
VolkorTheRed 09-01-04, 11:58 AM	There is one good method to lessen min/maxing powerbuilds, depending on PrC's combo's (like : Rogue5/GuildThief2/ShadowDancer1/Assassin5, etc.). That is: make it a house rule to take out a PrC before a player can take another. So, if its a 10-level PrC that player took first, he will first have to complete it before he can take another PrC. This is particulary effective pre-Epic ;) We do this in our group and it really helps (game)balance. On top of that, it is easier to roleplay ingame and to have a logical reason to want to take the PrC, or just that kind of character development. Just my thoughts :)
Slate King 09-01-04, 11:58 AM	Rping is an extensive part of the game as far as i have seen, but one thing that should be remembered is that at the beginning of the game you pick a class and make a character. No matter what your ability scores are, or how strict your dm is with character generation, you have a choice with the class. With every character i have ever made, i have had an idea of where that class is going to take me. You can call me a power gamer if you like, but no player likes having a lot of dead weight in the party. Every character in the group has a job to do. Doing your job well increases the enjoyment and decreases the frustration with being unable to achieve your party goals. This is only true to a point however. Being a powergamer in this respect is ok, but as far as i see it you are playing an actual person. You can spend some of those few fighter skills for knowledge arcana, but you should probably pick up ride as well just in case. Rping is not giving up your power gaming or min/maxing ways. Just something to bring more fun to the game. Let's not kid ourselves. D&D is a combat oriented game. That is partially why this board is up. If the biggest discussions were about the personality of the lords of waterdeep, then the posts would be a little different. *pant-pant* well enough rambling, to sum up you gotta powergame a little, but that doesn't mean you don't rp.
Tony Vargas 09-01-04, 01:38 PM	On the DR topic: 3.0 DR was in line with previous versions. In 1E, creatures didn't have DR, they were 'only hit by' certain types of weapons, usually magic of a certain minimum bonus, though some were also vulnerable to silver or cold iron - it was all-or-nothing. In 3.0, the high DR worked much the same way. In 3.5, DR was altered radically. It does, indeed, evoke the golf-bag of weapons image, as any character who can't power through DR will need to be prepared for several different types. It's not /that/, bad, though, as there are enough differences among weapons in 3E (not to mention mechanics like disarm & sunder) that you'd want to carry more than one or two, anyway. What is that bad is that DR was lowered, so powering through it is an effective strategy. That further favors the already-too-popular powergaming tactic of maximizing damage. Add the changes to Power Attack and out-there stuff like 'wrathful healing,' and the game is really starting to skew towards that one tactic.... That would be bad, the same way 2E TWF was bad: it eliminated variety and destroyed character concepts.
Ellanon 09-01-04, 02:57 PM	This 'golfbag' stuff is a riot! What DM is going to throw something at you he KNOWS you can't fight? And if the DM does throw it at you, WHY are you fighting it? I am running on the assumption that the DM has a passing idea of what the characters are using for weapons due to an earlier post relating the difficulty in planning adventures. My main problem here is with DM's that force their players into situations where they have no choice but to fight the unfightable monster. I am just very tired of the DM vs. The Party mentality. Many of the perceived issues with 3.5, and the other editions as well, are solved by a decent DM.
Xeven the Mighty 09-01-04, 04:25 PM	I agree with Tony and disagree with Rogue1stclass and Ellanon. Frist, Rogue, I believe D&D is much more than the rules. The rules are part of it of it, but that's not entirely what makes it D&D. D&D is basicallt set of optional rules to govern a story of Pretend. D&D is like Pretend with rules, not vice-versa (ie, rules with Pretend). But that is my opinion and the opinions of my players. I understand if your opinion is different. Also, I believe that the powergap should not have been adjusted by adjusting the spells as radically as they were. Most of those spells have been the same, with some small tweaks and additions, since 1st Edition. They should have done it in a way that left they spells pretty much alone, but made them, say, a bit harder to get/cast. Ellanon... I understand what you are saying. It is completely true. I can DM pure 3.5 just fine (although I use a mix of 3.0 and 3.5 for my own campaign). Sadly, this is not the case for all DMs. I know a lot of them that would punish characters for not having every sort of DR surpassing weapon there is. As for choosing not to fight it... Well, you can't very well run when the exit is blocked, can you?
Ellanon 09-01-04, 04:53 PM	Ellanon... I understand what you are saying. It is completely true. I can DM pure 3.5 just fine (although I use a mix of 3.0 and 3.5 for my own campaign). Sadly, this is not the case for all DMs. I know a lot of them that would punish characters for not having every sort of DR surpassing weapon there is. As for choosing not to fight it... Well, you can't very well run when the exit is blocked, can you? The fault is with bad DM's. I see far too many people that put the fault on the game system when in fact it is their fault. As quoted on these boards: "Your job as DM is to make the game of Dungeons and Dragons as fun as it can possibly be for the players. That is your job. That is your ONLY job. There is only one rule to this job. The golden rule as it were... **** the rules. Youre the DM. TSR does not tell your tales. You do. Acquit yourself well." How fun is it for a DM to put you into a lose/lose situation? You say you know alot of them that would punish the characters. I think that is just wrong. And that is the kind of DM that I would not play with. Now, I am not saying that you should not throw a variety of monsters at the characters. Throwing those same DR mobs against a PC would punish someone who chose to take Weapon Focus/Specialization. As for a being in a situation where the character cannot run away, AND cannot damage the monster... What's up with that? How is that fun? Why would someone play in a group like that? Maybe I am getting old. But, I would (and have) walked out on groups like that. Middle of the game, packed up my stuff, and walked out the door.
Xeven the Mighty 09-01-04, 07:41 PM	The fault is with bad DM's. I see far too many people that put the fault on the game system when in fact it is their fault. Well, yeah. There is no fualt in the 3.5 DR, I just don't like it because it can encourage the 'golf-bag' syndrom. Especially if a player has read the MM. I'm not saying it is the case in every single game, or that the rule is fualty... I'm just saying that it can lead to more issues than the other system of DR. My preferance is good ol' 3.0 DR, but that's not the case for everyone. I understand that. As quoted on these boards: "Your job as DM is to make the game of Dungeons and Dragons as fun as it can possibly be for the players. That is your job. That is your ONLY job. There is only one rule to this job. The golden rule as it were... **** the rules. Youre the DM. TSR does not tell your tales. You do. Acquit yourself well." I like that :D. Especially the part in bold. Sounds like my campaign right there. I always ditch the rules in favor of story. That's why I kind of think Wizards should have that 'power gap' when compared to other characters. As for a being in a situation where the character cannot run away, AND cannot damage the monster... What's up with that? How is that fun? Why would someone play in a group like that? Well, couldn't you see that happening occasionally? I've done something like that to teach people I know that there is more to a situation than combat. I give them another way to defeat the thing, like dropping tons of rock on its head, dropping it into a pit, or casting some sort of spell like Unseen Sevant or Reverse Gravity. It isn't the norm in my campaign, but I do tell people before they roll (and role) up their character that it could happen. Would you still walk out if I warned you before hand?
Tony Vargas 09-01-04, 08:15 PM	How fun is it for a DM to put you into a lose/lose situation? ... Now, I am not saying that you should not throw a variety of monsters at the characters. ... As for a being in a situation where the character cannot run away, AND cannot damage the monster... What's up with that? How is that fun? Why would someone play in a group like that? While it would be 'bad DMing' to just railroad the PCs into lose/lose situations that they have no way out of, it's equally bad to coddle players. Part of keeping the game fun is maintaining some degree of verisimilitude. That means the whole world can't be constantly adjusted to exactly the CR of the party - there need to be easy encounters out there and too-hard encoutners out there, and part of the satisfaction of playing your character well is figuring out which is which, and not wasting too much time on overly-easy challenges, while avoiding too-difficult ones. Running a good game does mean giving your players enough rope to hang themselves - just not in a vindictive way...
Xeven the Mighty 09-01-04, 08:20 PM	Very well said, Tony. That is exactly how every DM should strive to run their campaign. It adds lots more flavor and realism, and really helps aid the suspension of disbelief. Again: Well said, and :thumbsup:.
Count Arioch the 28th 09-01-04, 08:26 PM	On the lame weapon finesse analogy: What you have described is not a problem with 3.5 DR. It is a problem with finesse style fighters, which are inferior in every way to str based fighters. Weapon finesse is always inferior to using power attack, always has been, even in 3.0. What you need to do is fix finesse based fighting. (I prefer to allow weapon finesse to add dex to your damage as well as to hit. Note that str would not apply if you used dex to add to your damage, you use one or the other.) And for the record, back in 2E, all the fighters I made had a blunt weapon of some sort as a backup. Besides, isn't zombie DR 5/whatever, not 15? Because usually dr of 15 or higher IS level 20 monsters, it's extremely rare to even see DR 10/whatever before CR 10 or so . . .
Count Arioch the 28th 09-01-04, 08:36 PM	Oops, double post. My bad.
Cold Napalm 09-01-04, 09:09 PM	Count, read my post carefully...DR 15 was an example for level 20 builds. Finesse was actually THE way to go in 2.0 so i don' t know where this always weak came from...in 3.0 it was a bit weaker but not so much that all I see now are bloody THF and their monkey griped large greatswords. In 2.0 EVERYONE had a blunt weapon back up. You can always punch with really no penalty. The problem is that I as a DM will check what my party can and can't do...which is why they are usually almost dead at the end of one of my games, but they usually almost NEVER die. And in this case the DM would have had to crosscheck our character sheets along with general ideas to know that we could not kill that CR 1 zombie...I'm sorry but I usually don't have access to my players character sheets, dual sheets just cause more problems in my groups then it solves...so yeah I don't like it. I use the 3.0 DR and MM as well still. The only reason the bugger dies at all was because the DM broke the rules AFTER I died (quite annoying) to avoid a TPK. Also numerically TWF does not suck quite as much as THF...it's only a small %...it' just when you throw in stuff the DR does TWF really start to suck, so no TWF isn't the problem, it's all the other stuff that makes TWF ineffective that's the problem.
Asi the red 09-01-04, 09:13 PM	Hey ya'. I like the sig of one of the guys who's on the boards (or at least was). It said something like, If you're not min/maxing your character to some extent, you're handicapping the party. Let me explain what I think that means. You're in a party that's at least partially min/maxed. Not totally, but partially. If you're not at all min/maxed, then you're a drain on the party. You get into an encounter (combat or social, whatever) that's worth experience. You attempt to participate, but cannot keep up with the rest of the party. They have to cover for your lack of min/maxing, in effect forcing all the other players to pick up your slack. But, you still receive an equal share of XP since you contributed something to the encounter and giving XP based solely on damage done went out the door with 2nd ed. Now, let me give an example that happened to one of my party's. We had a wizard, a rogue/ranger, a paladin, a barbarian, and a cleric. All of us except the wiz were at least partially effective in combat. The wiz wasn't, he had taken no combat spells, no offense, no defense, no enchantments, nothing for combat. He explained that those weren't the kind of spells his character would have learned. His combat solution:Obscuring Mist, then run away. Leaving the group out-gunned. His reasoning was perfectly solid and flavorful, those kind of spells weren't the kind he used or learned. But it shafted the rest of us. Eventually, the DM had to force him to change his spell list so that he could contribute to the party. DR issue & golf bag of weapons Non-issue. You're the DM. Use what you want to. Just because you use everything else 3.5 doesn't mean that you can't revert DR to 3.0. But you can't just do it, you've got to give the players fair warning. Although personally I think the 3.5 system is more flavorful. Having the PC's fight were-creatures in 3.0 was pointless unless they lacked magic weapons, since no one in their right mind would get a silver weapon over a magic one in 3.0. In 3.5, silvered weapons actually DO something again. If the PC's start carrying around silvered, mithril, adamantine, and magic weapons, that's their choice. Maybe it's flavorless, maybe not. Remember though, they have no right to quick access to those things. Before the Alchemists Guild will make them Alchemical Silver Weapons, they want the party to perform a service for them. They want Mithril weapons, they've got to do the elves a favor. Adamantine? Sure; the Dwarves have some stuff in the far tunnels that's scare the pants off the party before they'll make them their Adamantine gear. It's up to you as the DM to decide how easily accessable this stuff is. If you don't want them to use the 'golf bag' approach, don't let them. Finesse Fighters I disagree completely. I play an exceedingly effective Rapier weilding Dex based Fighter. We even have access to weapons like the Spike Chain and the Elven Thinblade, both of which are in some ways superior to the Rapier. Why do I use the Rapier and not the Thinblade? RP reasons only. Does it make me less effective. Barely. In fact, I'll give my guy even odds against a similar level Barbarian or Ranger in a arena fight. Count Arioch the 28th: Have you seen the Swashbuckler's Precise Strike? Our group's Swsh. outguns both our Monks (my group has 2) and the Fighter in average damage output. Though I would like something that let them add Dex instead of Str. Oh and on a final note, I (as usual) agree with everything that Tony Vargas has posted on this page. Asi the Red.
Jell_Moo 09-01-04, 09:22 PM	A few points... 1) As the Count said, the problem ain't DR, it's comparing TWF to THF. Power Attack is such a crazy feat that it totally blows any other form of melee out of the water. TWF is a completely garbage mechanic unless you have some added means of upping the damage, the most popular being sneak attack. 2) I find it highly insulting when people say min/maxer or power gamer as though it were some horribly dirty word that it kills them to say. I min/max. I like it. That sure as heck does not make me an inferior role player. There is nothing wrong with making a solid, powerful character. Better that than a gimp that offers nothing to the party, but is ever so 'flavorful'. 3) Mechanics are at least as important as flavor. Without flavor you have a dull scene that just bores everybody. Without mechanics, you have no rules governing the possible and maintaining a fair and fun game. 4) I hate this thread because I find myself constantly in silent agreement with BlaineTog, and I was certain that this was a sign of the apocalypse.
Willie the Duck 09-01-04, 09:24 PM	Wow, we can't even have an asinine little "I'm better than you because you "ROLL"-play and I "ROLE"-play, nyah nyah." argument without it breaking down into an asinine 3.0 vs. 3.5 argument. Heh, irony. Seriously you :rant:'s really take the cake.
Xeven the Mighty 09-01-04, 10:07 PM	Asi, Jell_Moo: As I have stated, I am fine with min/maxing. It's not a horrible phrase. The horrible phrase is mix/matcher, some one who tries to improve the power of his character, usually by multiclassing, based solely on machanical reasons without any regard to flavor or character development. Mix/matchers suck. Mix/maxers are fine as long as they don't turn into mix/matchers. Same with powergamers. They're fine as long as they don't turn into cheaters. Munchkins, however, are a different story. I hate munchkins no matter what reason the person has for being one. (For those that don't know, a munchkin is someone who tries to delibrately bend or break the rules to do something they weren't designed to do. They don't cheat, they just come up with different, often overpowered, ways to bend the rules.) Jell_Moo: I disagree with your 'mechanics are atleast as important as flavor' statement. In my opinion, mechanics must all ways take a back seat to flavor. I prefer good flavor over good and balanced mechanics. It makes a story just that much more interesting. Wille: Well, you don't have to post in this thread, much less read it. As far as I am concern, arguing is fun. Why don't you join in? (PS: Jesus! Doesn't anyone have an original sig anymore?)
fractal 09-02-04, 01:17 AM	The rules are the skeleton of the roleplaying experience. They should be hidden within the flavor, but they provide the essential structure. A good balance to the rules is necessary to protect those who focus upon roleplaying from munchkins and min/maxers who focus on mechanical power.
Cold Napalm 09-02-04, 02:14 AM	Rules can be important or not. Most vampire games I play are VERY story and character heavy...but the rules are SOOOO broke it's not even funny. Oh the things you can min/max in white wolf system. Actually look at an abberrant/exalted game for why rules are important. The thing is the mind set of the people playing the said system. If they are more like vampire players who like atmosphere and story, the rule be damned it's really no use anyways. Now take your aberrant/exalted and yes D&D player and rules suddenly take a real importance since without balance you have everyone and I mean EVERYONE play the same thing. In 2ed it was the elf fighter mage (I had one that killed a demi-god one on one for christ sakes without taking ANY damage). Some of that has overflowed in the 3.x...but now all I see is cleric. Nevermind the TWF vs THF...fighter vs cleric...yesh. My current game has somebody who's a power gamer and he played a wizard and monk first...once he learned of the cleric, he has played nothing else. In fact some of my games are starting to suffer from cleric glut. I was in a party where in an open game where I was the only non-cleric. I'm sorry, but really I hate it when all I see in open games nowaday are the divine might/power clerics going whomp with whatever domain powers they can get their grubby little hands on. And the game loses a lot of flavor when all you need is a cleric...to fight, to heal, to cast damage spells, to even find traps. This is what we call balance issues and with the players we have, it's an issue.
BlaineTog 09-02-04, 02:47 AM	Most vampire games I play are VERY story and character heavy...but the rules are SOOOO broke it's not even funny.Storyteller system... *shudders* :twitch: Actually look at an abberrant/exalted game for why rules are important.Rules arn't important to Exalted, but Exalted isn't applicable. Its meant to be crazy-go-nuts overpowered. The thing is the mind set of the people playing the said system.Yes: Elitist (at least, their boards are much more elitist, and the people who play it that I know are elitist about it).
Ipsissimus 09-02-04, 04:20 AM	We all do what our style of playing reflects in our choice of feats, class, PrC's, spells, equipment, etc. But, everyone in our group role-plays well and backs up most of the choices they picked that on paper would look like a min/maxer. If we wanted to play weak characters we'd make the wrong choices and probably end up dead quick. The DM, although roleplays the most...doesn't show sympathy when creating encounters, but they do make sense and alot of the times they can be a CR that we can't handle. Why? Because we probably shouldn't have gone there. If my friends didn't roleplay as much as they have, and they are getting even better...I wouldn't have fun playing. I'd go back to NWN online and just recall the good times I did playing each campaign. We have at least 1 game breaking episode of uncontrollable laughter in our games because...of roleplaying. It certainly takes the edge off of a work week full of deadlines, phone calls, and commuting. Do we min/max? Sure, but it'll never look like some of the builds on the Character Opt. board. PrC's are treated like the title. "prestige" so dipping here and there is looked down upon and usually not allowed. Mixing core classes, sure...as long as your character history or events in game are reasonable, it's a go. Now, I have my work cut out for me...trying to write a story for being a monk then taking 1 shadowdancer lvl, then being able to break the rules and continue as a monk. Not likely, but I know I can always just take SD levels without much trouble. Escape.
RealMad 09-02-04, 06:10 AM	Unless you have an understanding DM, roleplaying is going to get you killed. I've met tons of the so-called roleplayers who choose themes and flavor over numerical effectivity and they are, rightfully, losers in your basic DnD campaign. What it boils down to is that the game is set. There are CR levels for monsters and if you want to be able to defeat these monsters, you're going to have to prepare for them. I personally have no problem with the basic idea that you have to get your abilities straight first, then you can roleplay. If you're going to show up as a roleplayer and use that as an excuse for not being able to do your share on an adventure, you may as well p*ss off. You'll be the equivalent of the pesky sidekick that gets into trouble forcing everyone else to rescue them. Amusing and great for flavor, but a damn headache for everyone else trying to get things done.
Rogue1stclass 09-02-04, 08:02 AM	I agree with Tony and disagree with Rogue1stclass and Ellanon. Frist, Rogue, I believe D&D is much more than the rules. The rules are part of it of it, but that's not entirely what makes it D&D. D&D is basicallt set of optional rules to govern a story of Pretend. D&D is like Pretend with rules, not vice-versa (ie, rules with Pretend). But that is my opinion and the opinions of my players. I understand if your opinion is different. It's not an opinion, it's just wrong. D&D is the set of rules. That's what makes it D&D. I can sit around and pretend I'm an Elf all day long, but I'm not playing D&D. How about this? If we took your campaign and converted it to GURPS, but left everything else the same, would you be playing D&D? Also, I believe that the powergap should not have been adjusted by adjusting the spells as radically as they were. Most of those spells have been the same, with some small tweaks and additions, since 1st Edition. They should have done it in a way that left they spells pretty much alone, but made them, say, a bit harder to get/cast. That's an opinion, and I do see where you are coming from. I've been playing D&D for an embarassingly long time, and I understand the weight of tradition. But, frankly, I just don't think it was possible to change it any other way other than going back to the old system of seperate XP charts for the classes. I prefer this way. Incidentally, my games are story based, heavy RP affairs and that's how I like it. However, they still fit in the rules. That is very important to me, because then I'm not making arbitrary decisions that my PCs might think are unfair.
Ellanon 09-02-04, 01:04 PM	Well, yeah. There is no fualt in the 3.5 DR, I just don't like it because it can encourage the 'golf-bag' syndrom. Especially if a player has read the MM. Ok, that can be cured by giving the group a more vague description of the mob they are fighting. Make sure they DON'T know what they are up against. I had a group thinking Shambling Mound when I was throwing a Stone Giant at them. I am not sure how they came to the conclusion of Shambling Mound, but once they had their mind set, there was nothing I could do to change it. =) I'm not saying it is the case in every single game, or that the rule is fualty... I'm just saying that it can lead to more issues than the other system of DR. My preferance is good ol' 3.0 DR, but that's not the case for everyone. I understand that. I understand as well. Personally, I prefer the 3.5. No sweat. Well, couldn't you see that happening occasionally? I've done something like that to teach people I know that there is more to a situation than combat. I give them another way to defeat the thing, like dropping tons of rock on its head, dropping it into a pit, or casting some sort of spell like Unseen Sevant or Reverse Gravity. It isn't the norm in my campaign, but I do tell people before they roll (and role) up their character that it could happen. Would you still walk out if I warned you before hand? Ok, that is where we have misunderstood each other. My reference to putting the characters in a corner and giving them a mob they cannot fight was with the assumption that they had no way out at all. If that is going on, it is silly and wrong. On the other hand, if you DO give them a way out, especially a way out that they can roleplay instead of rollplay, then you wouldn't NEED a golfbag of weapons would you. =) I think we may be on the same page here, but we are viewing it from different angles.
Xeven the Mighty 09-02-04, 04:30 PM	It's not an opinion, it's just wrong. D&D is the set of rules. That's what makes it D&D. I can sit around and pretend I'm an Elf all day long, but I'm not playing D&D. How about this? If we took your campaign and converted it to GURPS, but left everything else the same, would you be playing D&D? Well, I guess I don't play D&D then. I apply the rules to my roleplaying, not the other way around. I let my players do the samething, just as long as it is reasonable. We do this because we treat the game like a story, not a game. Story is what we are all about, and that, to us, means that the game is like a story with rules applied to it. In fact, we have gone several sessions in a row without even using dice. Some of those were even heavy combat sessions. Incidentally, my games are story based, heavy RP affairs and that's how I like it. However, they still fit in the rules. That is very important to me, because then I'm not making arbitrary decisions that my PCs might think are unfair. Well, good. But I'd like to say, in my defense, that my decisions are always calculated and though out. And even when they don't fit in the rules, they always have a purpose. Ellanon: Exactly. What our arguement boils down to is different preferances on the DR issue and different angles on the 'can't defeat this' issue. Nice work on the Shambling Mound bit... I laughed my ass off after I read that...
Sensei Gith 09-02-04, 05:04 PM	BTW, the "golf bag" thing is a myth. The numbers have been analyzed, and it is entirely to the player's advantage to pick a weapon and stick with it. By splitting up the gold that you spend on weapons to cover different DR, you diminish your power against all opponents while getting an extra few points on a bare handful. If I recall, the "best" weapon for a good party (not fighting celestials) was a +1 holy silver bludgeoning weapon, but the numbers were so close that the damage type makes almost no difference and the material is very flexible-- cold iron if you'll fight demons, pick cold iron, if you sunder, pick adamantine, et cetera. Holy is not required, but it is extremely valuable. It really gives you an edge over evil outsiders. The +1, of course, is a no-brainer. And in almost all cases, you'd be better off with your +5 Keen Lawful Holy silver longsword of extreme righteousness than a more mundane weapon specifically selected to pierce DR.
Cold Napalm 09-02-04, 07:53 PM	Umm how is the couple of hundred gold to buy a silvered and cold iron weapon gonna hamper you main weapons enchantment?!? I mean really, it does not even cover a +1 bonus. At higher levels, you can easily spend money to get some minor enchantments on them without drapping your main weapon's capabilities at all. And even get an adamantium weapon. The gold bag approach does not mean you enchant ALL the weapon equally, unless your a bloody idiot or you rich.
Frostbite_Ravenheart 09-02-04, 10:45 PM	Mabye I dont express this cleary enough but most of my characters are built around roleplaying. I'm one of the few people who'd play a 3.0 bard in a 3.5 game if thats what it took to play a bard. So I might be a little useless but heres the thing. As long as you establish your skills with a good character race/class min/max from the begining with any new players/group than everyone will still respect you when you character isn't as strong as it can be or you took a race, class, race and class combo, multiclass ect that doesn't work to well for RPing ideas. Rangers, Bards, Paladins - All these things are arguable not very strong and 3.0 and I've played as them all. I've played as a Paladin2/Cleric6 and that lowered my spell casting and didn't give me all my paladins ablitys. Yet I was a War-priest so it fit just fine as an RP element. I think later on I switched to a more equal 6/6 than went 6/10. This way I lost a lot of cleric spells that most people would have regretted! Just to let you know there are more people out there who not only act like you but might just have stolen an idea from you :D. -Frosty
Ellanon 09-03-04, 06:10 AM	While it would be 'bad DMing' to just railroad the PCs into lose/lose situations that they have no way out of, it's equally bad to coddle players. Part of keeping the game fun is maintaining some degree of verisimilitude. That means the whole world can't be constantly adjusted to exactly the CR of the party - there need to be easy encounters out there and too-hard encoutners out there, and part of the satisfaction of playing your character well is figuring out which is which, and not wasting too much time on overly-easy challenges, while avoiding too-difficult ones. Running a good game does mean giving your players enough rope to hang themselves - just not in a vindictive way... I agree 100%. It's the vindictive DM's I was referring to. The only issue I can see is one of in-character and out-of-character knowledge. It can be difficult to explain in roleplay terms that this dragon you heard a rumor of is out of your league. Unless the group takes it upon themselves to go investigate, how do you show them that they may be in over their head? I want to put a potential situation (among the many rumors of the locale) where there is a dragon that could, and most likely would, smoke them in one hit. Let's say they decide, of all the rumors, to investigate this particular rumor. How do I explain to their characters that things may get sticky? I am specifically talking about BEFORE they get to the dragon's lair, or encounter the dragon. I am talking about back in the city, or even the countryside, talking to the locals, gathering information. Because it is easy for the characters to use a little Knowledge (Arcana) and see that those claw marks are far bigger than anything they have ever encountered before, etc. What do I do before they get to that point?
der_gogo 09-03-04, 06:15 AM	Well, the townsfolk tells them that valiant Sir Dragonslayer, a great warrior got a shield of fire resistance and challenged the great red dragon. He still got destroyed by the dragon's breath in the first round. Only his servant survived to tell the tale... Or they get to know the estimated age of the dragon, thus deducting (Knowledge Arcana) how old the beast is. Maybe townsfolk can tell them how big it is. If it is a collosal wyrm, better stay away...
amethal 09-03-04, 10:28 AM	Some of the posters here seem to think that there is something wrong with multi-classing, and that you have to justify your decision otherwise you are a dreaded powergamer and should be barred from polite company. Character classes are an abstract concept. Ok, maybe wizards and clerics are an exception, in that charcters might recognise them when they see them, but even then in game terms characters probably consider a Fighter 6 / Cleric 1 to be a cleric rather than a fighter, if he is a member of an established church hierarchy, preaches a lot etc. As far as characters are concerned, the only character class is adventurer. Adventurers have a variety of skills, and over the course of their careers they tend to emphasis some areas and neglect others. If my rogue decides that adventuring is a dangerous occupation, and feels he really ought to brush up on his combat skills before he goes back into the dungeon, even if that means neglecting his disarm trap practice, that is fine. Alternatively, he may have been impressed with the way the party's wizard handled the problem with the troll, and invesigates methods of unlocking his own potential as a magic user. He is surprised to learn that his intelligence is such that he can quickly pick up basic spellcasting. Again, there is nothing wrong with this, and even if some consider this "unrealistic" then it is no more unrealistic than huge flying reptiles which can breathe acidic clouds of gas and gain spells as a side effect of aging. Players should be able to play the characters they want; the rules are there to stop abuse, and if its in the rules then the player is perfectly justified in asking for it, and the DM needs a good reason to disallow it. Who the heck wants to adventure with wimpy characters whose goals are personal development and freedom to be themselves? These are the guys you meet in the tavern afterwards, and invite to your parties - when your life is on the line you want next to you the half orc with no social skills, who has dedicated his life to perfecting his talent for cleaving, and you certainly don't want him to be secretly wishing he could swap you for one of the NPC rogues he is supposed to be fighting. However, I don't like the idea of dipping in and out of prestige classes (although I appreciate it is the logical extension to my arguments). Prestige classes have requirements, and which implies a certain commitment on the part of the character. There needs to be a roleplaying reason why the character has turned away from his goal of being a Dwarven Defender and now wants to be a duelist - but if a reason exists, then no problem.
Ellanon 09-03-04, 11:53 AM	I agree with most of what you have said, with a point I would like to look at. Players should be able to play the characters they want; the rules are there to stop abuse, and if its in the rules then the player is perfectly justified in asking for it, and the DM needs a good reason to disallow it. (Emphasis by Ellanon) I think it is assumed that when referring to multiclass problems, people are talking about the abusers. As a DM, if you come to me a say, "My character is going to take a level in this class because he gets more/better {insert ability}", that is different than if you come to me and say, "My character is going to take a level in {class} to represent the character's experience/interest in {subject}". Using the guidelines in the UA, my group will begin incorporating roleplay requirements for all classes and prestige classes beyond your first core class, which has already been explained in your character's background.
Xeven the Mighty 09-03-04, 04:05 PM	I think it is assumed that when referring to multiclass problems, people are talking about the abusers. As a DM, if you come to me a say, "My character is going to take a level in this class because he gets more/better {insert ability}", that is different than if you come to me and say, "My character is going to take a level in {class} to represent the character's experience/interest in {subject}". This is exactly what I feel. The player can not take another class unless he has a justified roolepalying reason too. The old 'I because interested in it becasue the party {instert class here} did it' is a good enough reason. The only thing I don't like is the people that dip for more power.
The Vorpal Tribble 09-03-04, 04:18 PM	The first thing I do is think of a really interesting character concept. Not neccessarily 'way out there' or whatnot, but one that is interesting. I then choose the class and possible prestige classes that would make the most sense from the story. This may allow my character to become powerful or not so powerful, depending on how his story evolves. I once developed a highly powered mage, however, he almost never used his powers. He was a very modest sort, and didn't like attention much. Most everyone merely thought he was a simple herbalist and healer, only to find out that once they pressed him and made it clear that his and his friend's lives were on the brink of dying, THEN he finally released his abilities. In fact, my favorite characters have been my thieves which are hardly an 'uber' class, and even then he hardly used his class abilities, but used his BRAIN (and an assortment of objects from glass dust he ground down to a blinding powder to lantern oils to make into smoke bombs) to get out of situations. To put it in a nutshell, I agree with those that have said if the player has reason to take a class, let them, even if it would otherwise be odd. If he gets it with absolutely no reason and doesn't make sense with his player concept, don't allow it.
Cold Napalm 09-03-04, 09:45 PM	Role playing classes you want to take is fine and dandy...right up until you want to take a new level of wizard. You have any idea ho much gold is in a 1st level wizard's spellbook?!? Over 1000 GP. And the study of magic ain't cheap...as in no 1-3rd level character is gonna do it. Which royally sucks because I like playing fighter mages...and before you say pick mage first and role play being a fighter...that d4 and no armor makes that a sure way to never reach level 2. So I think it's reaonable for those who want to play multi-classed archetypes to say they had so and so training in their past to mitigate this otherwise yes I'd say your a multi-class hater and you don't think that this silly multi-class system is punishing those of us who do like it enough (although some of the PrC are fixing that...yeah).
amethal 09-03-04, 10:38 PM	Using the guidelines in the UA, my group will begin incorporating roleplay requirements for all classes and prestige classes beyond your first core class, which has already been explained in your character's background. I'd be interested to know how that works out in practice. My character's background is that he comes from a long line of Dwarf heroes, many of whom have become a byword in the clan for their traits of determination and endurance. He wants nothing more than to follow in their footsteps, and by his deeds uphold the honour of his clan and the Dwarf race as a whole. I roleplay him as stoic, taciturn, loyal and generally tolerant, but unwilling to let pass any slur on the honour of the Dwarf race. Can I have my Fighter 4 / Dwarf Paragon 3 / Dwarven Defender 1? What happens if (due to the DMs campaign) I spend levels 5 to 7 dividing my time between chasing footpads across the rooftops of Greyhawk and exposing the evil devil worshipping cult which has infiltrated the highest echelons of society. Does that mean I can't justify becoming a Dwarven Defender, or perhaps that I have to go home to the mountains for a few months and brush up on my tunnel fighting first?
lanilifar 09-04-04, 12:24 AM	Story is what we are all about, and that, to us, means that the game is like a story with rules applied to it. In fact, we have gone several sessions in a row without even using dice. Some of those were even heavy combat sessions. This is the type of thing that terrifies me at the gaming table. It always ends up hurting me, because I play within the rules. I have played in games like this (the one DM always used to say, "Story, not details") and it always left me unsatisifed. Players who didn't know the rules very well would always try to do things that were beyond their character's ability (in many cases way beyond their ability) and many times the DM would let them. I would always limit myself according to the rules, and therefore often felt underpowered and left out. (I am not the only one who experienced this, as there were other players who also played by the rules). IME and IMO, playing by Story with only a modicum of interest in the Rules is basically cheating, and is a far worse situation than one where people min/max but play within the rules.
Cold Napalm 09-04-04, 01:23 AM	That would be what we call playing in white wolf system. Tell the DM if that's his belief, go pick up white wolf games and run those. My current DM is more about story and less about rules too and it does get me annoyed sometimes. I have resorted to shouting out rules to him in game which takes away from his story telling, but dang it, if he's not gonna have a unified system he should just be running mage and be done with it. It causes feeling of unfairness and resentment and in general is not good for the long run. How in the world are you still playing D&D and do diceless combat?!? Not even white wolf does that. You'd have to go into amber system for that...and that's umm complicated.
TheDarkLord 09-04-04, 01:42 AM	What is this "Amber System" i keep hearing about and where could i go about checking that out. I used to Free form RPG at one time online. I don't intend on switching from DnD again, I love the fantasy aspect much more than I ever loved the Whitewolf system, but I would be interested in checking it out.
Cold Napalm 09-04-04, 02:37 AM	Aberrant toned WAY down is actually a good system for a fantasy game. Amber is based on a book by zelany. Quite popular. You'd have to look at used book stores to find a copy of the game as it's no longer produced.
Xeven the Mighty 09-04-04, 03:33 AM	lanilifar: It is terrifying. That's the point. The players know that at any momment I could decide that they die. They like that. But the truth is that our diceless combat boils down to tactics a lot more than anything else. They are something of generals (well, not quite. They're a bit lower than that), so they get to give orders to whole units. If their tactics seem sound, I will let them escape relatively unscathed. However, we did roleplay an encounter with the BBEG once. Both of them loved it, but one of them looked a bit pale afterwards. His character was knocked unconcious, and he was a bit afraid of the whole 'blood loss' thing. All in all, though, it was a good experiance. I think it really burned the image of the BBEG into their skulls a lot more than simple combat would have. They really, really, really hate the dude now. I doubt regular combat would have inspired that level of hatred. It is actually quite beautiful, in a way. Cold Napalm: Yep. Diceless combat. Read the above. As I said before, I warned the players before hand that I would free-form a lot. They agreed to it and have loved the results so far, even when I made a few decisions that I, myself, thought were a bit unfair. Trust me, by what you are saying they should feel angery at me, be they're not. They bear absolutely no resentment towards me what-so-ever. As for 'still playing D&D with diceless combat'... Well, we're technically not playing D&D when we do diceless combat. We're telling a story, something along the lines of 'Pretend'. They have an intimate grasp of what their characters can and can't do, so I don't worry too much. Try it sometimes. It's a lot of fun, you just need some mature people to pull it off. Good storytellers don't hurt either, but that isn't required...
vassalich 09-04-04, 07:44 AM	I find that it's rather difficult to role-play when one can't make a useful contribution to the party.
Jell_Moo 09-04-04, 11:19 AM	What's the problem with picking through classes to make the character stronger? If I play a Fighter 2/ Barbarian 1/ Rogue 3 does that totally destroy the game for other people? Not at all. It's also a character that is a hell of a lot more effective than a Fighter or Barbarian 6. Other people should have absolutely NO say regarding my chracter. If I want to cherry pick classes for optimum abilities, that should be my perrogative. There is nothing wrong with it. It doesn't make me a worse roleplayer, it just makes me a different one. How I play the game, how I have fun is my business. Wanting a powerful character is what I like. By the same token, why is it that when a player plays a Wizard with an Int of 12 and a few random levels of Bard he is considered a a great roleplayer, while a player who optimizes his Wizard to the fullest, with a high Int, nice feat choices, and 2 or 3 PrCs he is considered a munchkin? I'd much rather play with the min.maxed charcter rather than the obe that will be a liability to the party. To me it usually boils down to how people view the game. Some see it as a Role Playing game. Others see it as a role playing Game. I personally go with the second. To me D&D is a game I play for fun. Not really any different than playing Diablo 2 or Neverwinter Nights. Nothing wrong with the first one though. It's all a matter of perspective, it doesn't matter how you have fun, just as long as you have it.
Ellanon 09-04-04, 12:17 PM	Role playing classes you want to take is fine and dandy...right up until you want to take a new level of wizard. You have any idea ho much gold is in a 1st level wizard's spellbook?!? Over 1000 GP. And the study of magic ain't cheap...as in no 1-3rd level character is gonna do it. Which royally sucks because I like playing fighter mages...and before you say pick mage first and role play being a fighter...that d4 and no armor makes that a sure way to never reach level 2. So I think it's reaonable for those who want to play multi-classed archetypes to say they had so and so training in their past to mitigate this otherwise yes I'd say your a multi-class hater and you don't think that this silly multi-class system is punishing those of us who do like it enough (although some of the PrC are fixing that...yeah). Anyone that whines about the low hit points of a certain class makes for good humor. Seriously, do you play solo? And even if you do, does your DM not give you a 'tank' of sorts as an NPC group member? You low hit points should not be an issue unless you are in a group of similar hit dice or your DM is doing something specific towards you. Also, you get your first spellbook for free. During your apprenticeship, your master teaches you to scribe your own spells. Yes, it is expensive. This is explained by all the meaningless tasks that he assigns you. Why else would be make you do things by hand instead of using a spell? Earn your keep. How am I a multiclass hater? I LOVE the multiclass system. I can do things I never imagined in 2e. I only require that you reasonably explain why you are going down the path. If all you can tell me is that you were interested in magic as a child, I would ask why you chose to be a fighter. Give your backstory depth, make it interesting. The more interesting the story, the more lenient I am. I will allow backstory, even appended during the game, to explain a multiclass change. This appendix MUST have a good story, or I will require it to be roleplayed in-game. If you would incur the multiclass XP penalty (5 levels in fighter and then 1 in Wizard), I REQUIRE an in-game story as opposed to an appended backstory. This may seem very tough, but it helps my players get involved in the story and builds character appreciation. I'd be interested to know how that works out in practice. My character's background is that he comes from a long line of Dwarf heroes, many of whom have become a byword in the clan for their traits of determination and endurance. He wants nothing more than to follow in their footsteps, and by his deeds uphold the honour of his clan and the Dwarf race as a whole. I roleplay him as stoic, taciturn, loyal and generally tolerant, but unwilling to let pass any slur on the honour of the Dwarf race. Can I have my Fighter 4 / Dwarf Paragon 3 / Dwarven Defender 1? What happens if (due to the DMs campaign) I spend levels 5 to 7 dividing my time between chasing footpads across the rooftops of Greyhawk and exposing the evil devil worshipping cult which has infiltrated the highest echelons of society. Does that mean I can't justify becoming a Dwarven Defender, or perhaps that I have to go home to the mountains for a few months and brush up on my tunnel fighting first? I would ask for an appended backstory to explain it at the least, since PrC's do not warrant multiclass penalty. If I do not feel that your story to be sufficient, I will require you to head back home and spend some time there. Either way, I am much more lenient with character progression when you stick to certain reasonable themes. For instance, I am more lenient with continued melee progression than I am with someone who wants to dip into all the classes. I will allow anything within the rules, I just require relatively more story per variation from your chosen path. I generally see the paths to be warrior, rogue, divine, arcane. In return for your great storytelling, I give my own brand of storytelling. I describe every scene in a fair amount of detail. This detail includes what you you see, hear, taste, touch, and smell. I give all your senses something to work with. Think about this, humans will remember smells longer than they will remember anything from the other senses. I make it a point to tell you what you smell. The sulfury smells after a fireball; the moldy smells of a dank, damp dungeon; the salty smells of the sea; the sweet smell of the maiden's perfume; I think you get the idea. I do the same with tastes, and touch. When was the last time your hand touched the cold, velvety moss of the dungeon wall?
Xeven the Mighty 09-04-04, 12:25 PM	As far as multiclassing goes, I pretty much agree with Ellanon. You have to have a backstory or in-game explanation.
Ellanon 09-04-04, 12:29 PM	What's the problem with picking through classes to make the character stronger? If I play a Fighter 2/ Barbarian 1/ Rogue 3 does that totally destroy the game for other people? Not at all. It's also a character that is a hell of a lot more effective than a Fighter or Barbarian 6.Depending on the order in which you took them, I may require an in-game explanation; Roleplay it out. Other people should have absolutely NO say regarding my chracter. Your DM does. By the same token, why is it that when a player plays a Wizard with an Int of 12 and a few random levels of Bard he is considered a a great roleplayer, while a player who optimizes his Wizard to the fullest, with a high Int, nice feat choices, and 2 or 3 PrCs he is considered a munchkin? That's a very silly misconception. Numbers on a character sheet do not make a roleplayer. I don't care what you do with that character sheet. What makes a roleplayer is what you do WITHOUT the character sheet. To me it usually boils down to how people view the game. Some see it as a Role Playing game. Others see it as a role playing Game. I personally go with the second. I am with the first bunch. Not really any different than playing Diablo 2 or Neverwinter Nights.I disagree. I see the comptuer games as an answer to those seeking the instant gratification that PnP games cannot offer. They are watered down and weak compared to pen and paper gaming. Don't get me wrong though, I love computer games. Been playing EverQuest for several years, for example. It's all a matter of perspective, it doesn't matter how you have fun, just as long as you have it.Hooah! As far as multiclassing goes, I pretty much agree with Ellanon. You have to have a backstory or in-game explanation.I am glad to see we agree. =)
Paladin2004 09-04-04, 12:57 PM	Role playing, what is role playing and this Dungeons and Dragons you speak of. Besilent fool before i use my magic to create a ball of fire to fly towards you. muahhahahaa i edited my post to make the next one out of context and the person sound evil, and no one will know I'm soo evil muhahahahaha
Ellanon 09-04-04, 01:06 PM	Roll playing, what is roll playing and this Dungeons and Dragons you speak of. Besilent fool before i use my magic to create a ball of fire to fly towards you. Roll playing is optimizing the die roll as your primary objective. Role playing is optimizing the story as your primary objective. Neither are bad. As for this Dungeons and Dragons thing, I have no idea. I call the game we play Battles with Biznitches. All the heroes are required to have at least one level in PIMP. "Biznitches better have my money" is a 0 level spell. Diseases have alot of emphasis in my game. :P
amethal 09-04-04, 05:52 PM	We all do what our style of playing reflects in our choice of feats, class, PrC's, spells, equipment, etc. But, everyone in our group role-plays well and backs up most of the choices they picked that on paper would look like a min/maxer. If we wanted to play weak characters we'd make the wrong choices and probably end up dead quick. The DM, although roleplays the most...doesn't show sympathy when creating encounters, but they do make sense and alot of the times they can be a CR that we can't handle. Why? Because we probably shouldn't have gone there. If my friends didn't roleplay as much as they have, and they are getting even better...I wouldn't have fun playing. I'd go back to NWN online and just recall the good times I did playing each campaign. We have at least 1 game breaking episode of uncontrollable laughter in our games because...of roleplaying. It certainly takes the edge off of a work week full of deadlines, phone calls, and commuting. Do we min/max? Sure, but it'll never look like some of the builds on the Character Opt. board. PrC's are treated like the title. "prestige" so dipping here and there is looked down upon and usually not allowed. Mixing core classes, sure...as long as your character history or events in game are reasonable, it's a go. Now, I have my work cut out for me...trying to write a story for being a monk then taking 1 shadowdancer lvl, then being able to break the rules and continue as a monk. Not likely, but I know I can always just take SD levels without much trouble. Escape. I love your posting. It says it all. I reckon that prestige classes should be just like jobs. Normally they are a serious commitment, but every once in a while your character should be able to realise that it was a mistake and move back to what he was doing before (whilst keeping whatever he learned from the induction program).
Ellanon 09-04-04, 06:09 PM	I reckon that prestige classes should be just like jobs. Normally they are a serious commitment, but every once in a while your character should be able to realise that it was a mistake and move back to what he was doing before (whilst keeping whatever he learned from the induction program).I agree. Let's say you wanted to become a Harper Agent. In my game you would be required to roleplay the first contact with a member of the Harpers. Another appendix to my note earlier, Dependant upon the class/PrC taken, I will allow until up to the end of the level, to roleplay whatever requirements for the class/PrC change. For instance, if you are joining the Harpers, you would be required to make contact before you could take the level in the PrC. If you were going to take a level in fighter, I may allow you to take the level and thenallow you to find a proper trainer by the time you would level again.
Cold Napalm 09-04-04, 08:20 PM	Okay ellanon am I not being clear or are you mis-intrepting my comments on purpose here?!? I was complaining about a d4 1st level wizard who wants to take 2nd level as fighter role playing the role of a fighter out...with the d4 hit dice and no armor, that means one dead wizard. Not a 1st level wizard doing what a 1st level wizard ios suppose to do and stay behind the fighter. 2nd yeah you get the spellbook for free when you get 1st level of wizard but with role playing req, you not getting that spell book ever...Unless the DM pulls string who's gonna drop a 1000+gp book into your hand so you can start to "study" magic?!? There is no role play method to go into wizard. Which is my main gripe with the role play requirement really. If you can start off as a fighter and a mage, I'd have no problem with it (level 0/0 character or say just start at beyond level 1...I usually start any role play required games at level 3 so you can pick what archetype you want from the start and don't have to fiddle around the first couple of levels to try and get what you want). Now back stories...yes that's a way out...if allowed. Most role play required for new classes don't so well, not an option here, but is for others.
Ellanon 09-05-04, 04:21 AM	I was complaining about a d4 1st level wizard who wants to take 2nd level as fighter role playing the role of a fighter out...with the d4 hit dice and no armor, that means one dead wizard.No, it does not. Quit whining and accept the results of your character choice. You want hit points? Then give up your spells. That is the exchange you make when you head down the path of the arcane caster. Besides all that, you shouldn't be that worried about dying unless you have a bad DM. Dying is a factor of the game, but should never prevent you from playing a certain class; you should never be in fear of your choice. Again, this is supposed to be a game and be fun. Worries like that do not lead to a fun environment. 2nd yeah you get the spellbook for free when you get 1st level of wizard but with role playing req, you not getting that spell book everWhy not? You have to get trained to cast spells and that trainer grants you your first spellbook. What difference does it make if your character level is 1 or 19? When you take your first level of Wizard, you are a newb to the trainer and are treated accordingly, which includes a book full of 0 and 1st level spells. Unless the DM pulls string who's gonna drop a 1000+gp book into your hand so you can start to "study" magic?!? Your trainer. There is no role play method to go into wizard.Yes there is. Actively look for a trainer during the game. How hard is that? I usually start any role play required games at level 3 so you can pick what archetype you want from the start and don't have to fiddle around the first couple of levels to try and get what you want.I think the best roleplay is at the lower levels. Fiddling around and getting there is where the fun is. =)
Failut 09-05-04, 04:34 AM	There is no role play method to go into wizard. I was once in a game where someone played a fat, lazy dwarf fighter (read High Con, average Str, and high Int) who was only a fighter because he was forced into joining the dwarf army. Once he got out into the world he found out about magic and then started to study to become a wizard so that he did not have to do as much physical work any more. That was one of the best Roleplayed out games I was ever in. And it started at first level.
Silver_Tiger 09-09-04, 12:23 AM	I love your posting. It says it all. I reckon that prestige classes should be just like jobs. Normally they are a serious commitment, but every once in a while your character should be able to realise that it was a mistake and move back to what he was doing before (whilst keeping whatever he learned from the induction program). I'm in agreement with you two lads. Role/Roll playing are inextricably linked: It's the nature of D&D! But that's just the way I like it. After a week of work and life and blah blah blah, isn't it great to kick some ass? And of course laugh it off, too? ST
BlaineTog 09-09-04, 12:48 AM	Your DM does.When making this statement, one must be careful to avoid dangerous ambiguity. With regard to the character, the DM has no say whatsover. If my DM ever told me how to RP my character, I'd walk out. Thats not to say the DM can't disallow certain characters from playing in the group (specifically, those that will make the game less fun for everyone involve, such as the CS drow-in-disguise rogue/assasin who kills people in their sleep for no reason), but that's different from saying the DM has a say. With regards to the build (the crunchy parts), the DM does have a say. If you've found a way to deal an automatic 1,000,000 points of damage at 1st level, for example, the DM can make you scratch it off. But these are just number changes made, again, for the greater good. It has nothing to do with the way the character is roleplayed (which is 100% the domain of the player). [/:rant:]
Ellanon 09-09-04, 01:10 AM	When making this statement, one must be careful to avoid dangerous ambiguity. With regard to the character, the DM has no say whatsover. If my DM ever told me how to RP my character, I'd walk out. Thats not to say the DM can't disallow certain characters from playing in the group (specifically, those that will make the game less fun for everyone involve, such as the CS drow-in-disguise rogue/assasin who kills people in their sleep for no reason), but that's different from saying the DM has a say. With regards to the build (the crunchy parts), the DM does have a say. If you've found a way to deal an automatic 1,000,000 points of damage at 1st level, for example, the DM can make you scratch it off. But these are just number changes made, again, for the greater good. It has nothing to do with the way the character is roleplayed (which is 100% the domain of the player). [/:rant:]Roleplay how you want, but do it with a DM approved character sheet. =)