Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Damaramu 06-12-04, 09:58 PM	Ok I've noticed something. Amongst me and other DM's that I know we love sourcebooks and the information they provide. We're all in the same boat of loving every extra morsel of info we can get. However we also agree that the classes and spells presented in some of them are WAY to munchkin. They are unbalancing and for some reason every player we have gets there hands on them and begs and tries to make us see the lighter side of things. So I was wondering.....does everyone think Wizards prints to much munchkin stuff? If so what books do you think contain the most and the worst?
Seeker95 06-12-04, 10:22 PM	WotC 3.0 non-core sourcebooks? Yes* WotC 3.5 non-core sourcebooks? 50-50* Non WotC sourcebooks? 75-25 munchkin* *My opinion. You mileage may vary.
Ogre4Hire 06-12-04, 11:36 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 WotC 3.0 non-core sourcebooks? Yes* WotC 3.5 non-core sourcebooks? 50-50* Non WotC sourcebooks? 75-25 munchkin* *My opinion. You mileage may vary. A lot of the early stuff (IE Sword and Fist) tended to have stuff that was either way too good or way to weak. It's better now, even if it's still a long way from perfect.
was_fired 06-12-04, 11:59 PM	A long drawn out read followed by banning feats, spells, and PrCs can solve most of the overpowered issues (along with flavor you don't like). Tonight I finally get to go through BOED and I have a feeling it will take a while even though I am simplifying the spell issue by flat out banning all [alignment] spells in my game.
Seeker95 06-13-04, 08:31 AM	was_fired touched on the key to using supplements. It is up to the DM to determine what is allowed in his or her game. I allow core rules, as written, with barely even a hint of house ruling. The house rules are provided to players in advance. Anything else requires my approval ahead of time. I have not and will not allow an entire supplement into my campaign. Instead, if I am inclined to allow any of it, I go over it, in detail, and determine what gets in. From any given supplement, I will probably allow less than 25% into my game, either because of balance or fit.
Xixt412 06-13-04, 09:22 AM	Originally posted by Ogre4Hire It's better now *cough* bookofexalteddeeds *cough*
Seeker95 06-13-04, 09:24 AM	Originally posted by Xixt412 *cough* bookofexalteddeeds *cough* Citing a single example does not counter the claim that things are better now. "Better" doesn't mean perfect.
Grayson 06-13-04, 12:28 PM	"Too", not "To" What you think is over the top, other groups might be fine with. Some of the more famous munchkin stuff is from WoTC - monkeygrip anyone? :D Take what you like, and leave the rest.
Count Arioch the 28th 06-13-04, 12:39 PM	Originally posted by Xixt412 *cough* bookofexalteddeeds *cough* dang, you lie when you cough. Exalted deeds is far from munchkin. VoP sucks when you need a rope, trust me on that. It's not munchkin now. Now, most of what wizards puts out is usually so underpowered that you could have just takne a base class and do the concept Exalted deeds is a bit better, but usually the best stuff is so restricitive that you won't find any but the most hardcore power gamers trying to exploit it. But now, the PrCs are kinda blah, and I end up having to revise a lot of them. (Any caster class with 1/2 progression got the boot in my world, I think you should pay X levels and be done with it, not half your levels forever.) SO, to answer your question, no, WotC does not put out munchkin things at all, with the possible exception of a few isolated instances. (Radaint Servant of Pelor, Frenzied berserker, and Dweomerkeepr come to mind, most of the PrCs people gripe about being overpowered are simply balanced with the last 10 levels of any class except Fighter and paladin, which grant almost nothing at the end, so in comparison, they look too good. Th truth is, Paladin and Fighter need to be improved, but I digress.)
Damaramu 06-13-04, 02:19 PM	Originally posted by Grayson "Too", not "To" What you think is over the top, other groups might be fine with. Some of the more famous munchkin stuff is from WoTC - monkeygrip anyone? :D Take what you like, and leave the rest. Thank you grammar police. Anyways yeah I usually do take what I like. Problem is that I have this one player that always buys the sourcebooks and then will come to me with them and he has usually picked out the most munchkin PrC possible and he's like "Please! I spent 30 bucks on this book!" So I go through and change some things to the PrC to make it not so unbalancing and he usually goes along with it thank god. I'm just getting tired of having the books brought to me. He brought me a non-WOTC Necromancer book one time. I was like "No. Hell no." And stuck to it. That ****'s crazy. Fight until you're at negative whatever you HP is......yeah right. He's currently being a Disciple of Asmodeus from BoVD. I believe this was the one with the power of "You can control anything around you with less than 20 HD. ALL creatures with less than 20 HD. And the Will save is ungodly." I was like "Umm....no. Then any horde of monsters is immediately turned away. Hell no. How about a number of HD equal to your own?" He actually agreed with that one. Thank god.
J. Grenemyer 06-13-04, 02:38 PM	Hello, I don’t think WotC prints “too much munchkin” stuff. I do think they sometimes do a poor job of considering just how unbalancing new rules can be when they’re presented with poor wording or just plain bad mechanics. Part of the beauty of Third Edition is that it was designed specifically to be tweaked, added to, modified and updated. WotC sourcebooks (and third party D20 publishers) fill that niche perfectly. As for my game, I allow anything from any book, so long as the player alerts me before game if he wants to use it. I then generally OK at as is, even if I’m suspicious. If the new rule unbalances play, I’ll nerf it after game (and after talking with the player) so we’re good to go once the next session starts. That policy seems to work for our group just fine. :D
DungeonMaster 06-13-04, 03:32 PM	WotC 3.0 non-core sourcebooks? 50-50 WotC 3.5 non-core sourcebooks? YES. The hulking hurler from the complete warrior is the single most broken PrC in existence, ever - even with minimal min/max. There are posts in the character optimisation board that reach 1 billion damage per hit. The miniature's handbook has some pretty nifty items like the um, belt of magnificence +6 to all attributes... 100k only... and broken PrC like the warhulk. The complete disaster... er... divine has some fun things like divine metamagic... The book of munchy deeds has the vow of poverty feat... Non WotC sourcebooks? 75-25 Basically anywhere you go there will be ill-thought out, poorly playtested and poorly balanced mechanics. I use core 3rd edition, straight out and it works perfectly for me. Other books are great for ideas but their implementation is almost never correct. I take many things from 2nd edition books because in all honesty many (not all...) of the ideas are much better than the idea-poor mechanics of 3rd edition and the idea-devoid 3.5.
DungeonMaster 06-13-04, 03:37 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 Citing a single example does not counter the claim that things are better now. "Better" doesn't mean perfect. :rofl: You should asterix that with the mileage will vary comment. I've never heard of a billion damage per hit before the hulking hurler. That's a purely 3.5 creation. I wonder if someone tabulated all the non-core abuses possible in either edition which would win out. It would probably take far too long, and 3.5 still has yet more complete re-warmed to appear. I have personally never seen a supplement that did not require DM heavy handiness in any edition of D&D. My suggestion to DMs is to "take what you want, change what you think needs changing and leave the rest" to quote the 3rd edition splat books. It's a simple addage, true to any edition and if not applied your game can fly out the window. That's not "will fly" but "can fly".
Willie the Duck 06-13-04, 04:10 PM	It's kind of a hard question to answer, given how hard it is to define concepts such as "munchkin". Certainly playing just core is easier on the DM. No matter how well balanced the suppliments are, just having more options means there are more things that the DM has to look out for and more things that can be combined in unusual ways. Given some of the excesses of 3.0 core D&D (haste, timestop, hold person with cdg rules, etc.), it's hard to call anything in the non core rulebooks as being worse. Now that 3.5 has reduced some of the excesses of the core game, the non-core is standing out more, and wizards is scrambling to catch up. Some things, like the hulking hurler or warhulk, are decidedly better than most any other warrior build (although a will save will still take down either), but still don't beat a well built wizard or cleric. Certain spellcaster PrCs give awesome class abilities, and only give up either turning ability or wizard feats (and maybe have a feat or skill prereq you wouldn't otherwise take). The incedence of these things is going down, however. What wizards hasn't well adressed, however, is strange interactions between rules in different books or situations. The classic example is a Vow of Poverty Monk. Vow of poverty gives you a armor bonus (actually an "unnamed bonus that does not stack with armor bonuses" if you can believe the lunacy) to replace the fact that you can't wear armor. Of course, monks get a dodge bonus, to replace the fact that they don't wear armor either. Since these bonuses aren't of the same type, a monk with vow of poverty gets two bonuses in exchange for the same penalty. Now a few simple changes to the VoP rules (giving different bonuses to different classes maybe) could have fixed this, but page space or playtesting limitations meant that they didn't. Another example is in the Psionic's handbook. A certain power called "Claws of the beast" (and different builds based on it) allow you to play perhaps the only successful unarmed character. At higher levels (and with powers like enlarge, etc.) you can deal 4, 5 or 6d6 + str with each of two claws. This is balanced because you don't get iterative attacks with natural weapons. The total build is neither over or underpowered. Now in the Draconomicon, there is a feat that allows you to gain iterative attacks for your natural weapopns. because players playing dragons is actually fairly underpowered (because of the high LA costs), this isn't a big deal. Now if you combine the two, however, you have a psionic clawed character making 4, 6 or 8 attacks per round, each dealing 6d6 + str bonus damage. I'm not sure what I expect wizards to do about such things. I guess it highlights the fact that the more you (the DM) allow in your game, the more you have to be willing to veto players trying to take unbalanced builds.
Damaramu 06-13-04, 04:25 PM	One thing I noticed in the Magic of Faerun book that I immediately vetoed was Spellfire......jesus.
Geethree 06-13-04, 04:59 PM	Originally posted by Damaramu One thing I noticed in the Magic of Faerun book that I immediately vetoed was Spellfire......jesus. Spellfire is something that would reshape an entire campaign. It's special and unique and powerful, but that's the entire point. I don't think that a lot of the books are designed with the intent of helping munchkins. Powerful classes and feats aren't necessarily bad, and weak ones aren't necessarily bad either (like Spell Thematics). I hope that WotC doesn't go out of their way to make sure that nothing is ever powerful or weak ever again.
J. Grenemyer 06-13-04, 05:04 PM	Hello, I'd point out that citing a single example from a given book does not counter the claim that things are better now, but Seeker already said that. Originally posted by DungeonMaster ...many (not all...) of the ideas are much better than the idea-poor mechanics of 3rd edition and the idea-devoid 3.5. "IMO" and all that, but I have to say those of us that have played since before the release of 2nd Edition, who don't completely disregard a sourcebook based off of who authored it, and otherwise actually own and play with third party D20 material.... know better. The Book of Eldritch Might (by the author of the DMG, Monte Cook) is a perfect example of Rules Expansion and the kind of balanced rules execution lacking in the Core Rules... and it's compatible with 3.0 and 3.5 to boot. You can't get much better than that. :P
Capn Charlie 06-13-04, 05:17 PM	Yes, spellfire was one of those things that while designed for the handsof DMs, some players assume they get. For one, the hefty prerequisite of being touched by a goddess puts that out of most player's hands alone, much less being soundly beaten with a tube sock full of dice(or pillowcase of lead minis, if you have them). Most of the stuff that crosses my table I allow. Some stuff I have issues with(most notably 3e haste and the 3.5 eldritch knight). SOme stuff I bump u;p a little, some stuff I nerf. the tastes of individual players and DMs vary, so defining what is balanced for what is possibly the most fractios "group" this side the Tanar'Ri is doomed to failure in the first place. I sometimes waive requirements for PrCs, add requirements to others, and generally tweak the game so that it becomes a unique creation. However, that is what your game is supposed to be, so alls well that ends well.
DungeonMaster 06-13-04, 05:41 PM	Originally posted by Willie the Duck Given some of the excesses of 3.0 core D&D (haste, timestop, hold person with cdg rules, etc.), it's hard to call anything in the non core rulebooks as being worse. :uh-huh: Like the excesses of the 3.5 core books? Holy word, shapechange, improved trip, metamagic rods, etc... I think the 3.5 hulking hurler is um... a tad bit worse than hold person. Just my opinion of course. Now that 3.5 has reduced some of the excesses of the core game, the non-core is standing out more, and wizards is scrambling to catch up. The first statement is again laughable but I must say they have been producing errata very very fast recently for the non-core books like complete disaster. Commendable effort of course and I greatly support it.
DungeonMaster 06-13-04, 05:56 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer "IMO" and all that, but I have to say those of us that have played since before the release of 2nd Edition, who don't completely disregard a sourcebook based off of who authored it, and otherwise actually own and play with third party D20 material.... know better. I will give every new book a shot, but some people are certainly not competent when it comes to game design IMHO. It's a sad and rather harsh statement of fact. I actually own all the 3rd edition splat books my friend, I use little from them. I reference my 1st and 2nd edition books much more often, and J, I've played as long as you have so don't give me that. I do tend to read things thouroughly before I buy so I must admit I don't have a lot of gunk hanging around. d20 material tends to follow this pattern: *there's a mechanic for tripping *let's make a feat that makes tripping better *let's try and name it something cool *let's forget to type the bonus *oops I'm sorry I don't need that. Some people may, but it's really irrelevant to me. There's only so much "crunch" you can take. Without flavor and actual new ideas then it becomes nothing more than a stagnant mass of mechanics with everyone ignoring how the other guy's mechanics affect his. The unsavory munchy whole results naturally. I havn't checked out the book of Eldricht Might yet, they don't have it at my local gamestore. I will though upon your recomendation. Monte is actually quite competent in terms of game design. I don't always like his flavor (the half-this half-that monster) but regardless, he's quite competent no doubt about it.
J. Grenemyer 06-13-04, 06:30 PM	Hello, Originally posted by DungeonMaster I will give every new book a shot, but some people are certainly not competent when it comes to game design IMHO. It's a sad and rather harsh statement of fact. Based off of past experience, I just find the “give every new book a shot” statement hard to believe. (Consider your, “Don’t buy it if Andy Collins’ name is on it 'cause it's sure to be unbalanced!” post on the Draconomicon board.) Further, given that you’re not qualified to judge, I’d say it’s a deliberately hurtful statement of opinion. Originally posted by DungeonMaster I actually own all the 3rd edition splat books my friend, I use little from them. I reference my 1st and 2nd edition books much more often, and J, I've played as long as you have so don't give me that. I do tend to read things thoroughly before I buy so I must admit I don't have a lot of gunk hanging around. You aren’t being “given” anything. Further, you apparently don’t own any of the FR sourcebooks (3.0 or 3.5), nor –based off of your description– do you own a single D20 Third Party sourcebook, nor do you own a single 3.5 “splatbook.” Given these facts, it’s really hard for me to believe any claims of yours beyond the, “I’ve breezed through it and didn’t like it,” variety. Yet this lack of ownership hasn’t kept you from slamming just about anything not 3.0. An interesting incongruity, no? Originally posted by DungeonMaster d20 material tends to follow this pattern: *there's a mechanic for tripping *let's make a feat that makes tripping better *let's try and name it something cool *let's forget to type the bonus *oops Really? All D20 material huh? [Looks at Book of Eldritch Might… finds nothing like this. Looks at Tomb of Abysthor…nope. Looks at Cry Havoc….still nothing] Gosh, Dungeonmaster, are you sure you aren’t just stereotyping an error you heard about in Complete Divine (by assuming that error is found in all D20 books)? Look, no book is perfect. But neither are the vast array of Third Party/WotC books as error filled as you claim. Originally posted by DungeonMaster I'm sorry I don't need that. Some people may, but it's really irrelevant to me. There's only so much "crunch" you can take. Without flavor and actual new ideas then it becomes nothing more than a stagnant mass of mechanics with everyone ignoring how the other guy's mechanics affect his. The unsavory munchy whole results naturally. Wow, I wonder why you failed to mention all the fluff found in the Book of Eldritch Might? Or the mountains of it to be had in just about any Scarred Lands campaign book or Kalamar book or Forgotten Realms book? Could it be because you don’t own them or never bothered to give more than a 10 second look at them or stereotyped them so harshly you wound up with a self-made excuse to ignore them? Originally posted by DungeonMaster I havn't checked out the book of Eldricht Might yet, they don't have it at my local gamestore. I will though upon your recomendation. Monte is actually quite competent in terms of game design. I don't always like his flavor (the half-this half-that monster) but regardless, he's quite competent no doubt about it. I couldn’t agree with you more. He knows what he’s doing, to be sure. :D
Willie the Duck 06-13-04, 06:59 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster :uh-huh: Like the excesses of the 3.5 core books? Holy word, shapechange, improved trip, metamagic rods, etc... I think the 3.5 hulking hurler is um... a tad bit worse than hold person. Just my opinion of course. How does anything you mention contradict anything I mentioned? Oh, wait, I mention munchy things in the 3.0 core books and you mention munchy things in teh 3.5 core books. I get it, you're trying to drag me into a sad little 3.0 vs. 3.5 peeing contest! Sorry, I've got too much self respect for that. My point is still true: there are things in the core rulebook that are just as abusive as the stuff in the expansions. Hold person isn't exceptionally overpowered, it just needed a re-tooling now that you can kill a paralyzed fighter in one round. 3.0 Timestop and haste, however, are really, really powerful. Alot more game-changing than the etra damage a hulking hurler can do compared to other fighter builds (and as I mentioned, a HH can still be taken out with a single will save). Are shapechange and metamagic rods overpowered? probably. Improved trip certainly can make an abusive build, although it was that way in 3.0 as well (except for the +4 bonus). In my campaign we rule that you cannot trip on an AoO. None of these things, however, contradict my primary points, and your combative attitude detracts from this conversation, not adds to it.
Count Arioch the 28th 06-14-04, 08:32 AM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster :rofl: You should asterix that with the mileage will vary comment. I've never heard of a billion damage per hit before the hulking hurler. That's a purely 3.5 creation. [/B] Hello? Polymorphing any object on yourself to change into a 200 ton block of adamantine after flying 200 feet above your target? Not sure what the damge was, but it's rediculously high. And I have yet to hear any hulking hurler builds that could do billions od damage, I think that's an exxaggeration. Unless you can submit a link to where someone actually did it, then I'd be more inclined to beleive it.
MrkGrismer 06-14-04, 09:51 AM	I thought the Hulkin Hurler (and War Hulk) were Mini-handbook things. Isn't Mini-hanbook purley 3.0? Personally, IMC, I tell my players that they cannot expect to take any of the PrCs, because each and everyone (IMC) requires the character seek out the appropriate situation to become the PrC. I also use a point-based system for alignments, and characters cannot have an Exaulted feat unless they raise the 'good' portion of their alignment to 100 or above ('good' characters start at 50, and can expect +25 at most from exceptionally good deeds, like saving a village from evil or somesuch, most deads stay +/-5 or less).
DungeonMaster 06-14-04, 12:29 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer Consider your, “Don’t buy it if Andy Collins’ name is on it 'cause it's sure to be unbalanced!” post on the Draconomicon board. As I said, some people are competent, others are not. I havn't named any names and I don't intend to. As soon as you start to empower/maximize/clinging dragon breath weapons I start to lose respect real fast. Spells that reduce SR are just as bad. Further, given that you’re not qualified to judge, *snip*. Of course not, only the almighty is qualified to judge things right? :rolleyes: While I appreciate the slander I'm curious as to what sort of degree I would need to be qualified to judge? Further, you apparently don’t own any of the FR sourcebooks (3.0 or 3.5), nor –based off of your description– do you own a single D20 Third Party sourcebook, nor do you own a single 3.5 “splatbook.” I have a fair deal of respect for Greenwood, mostly for his writting and not his games but the FR campaign setting is a very decent peice of work. Most of it makes no real sense but it still manages to capture the imagination enough that you can ignore the illogical aspects of the world. I don't like the flavor of the realms though, too much multiclassing and diluted archetypes. Mechanically it's chock full of overpowered crap - I've even seen your own complaints about ghostform among other spells so please don't tell me you're immune to this realisation. Yet this lack of ownership hasn’t kept you from slamming just about anything not 3.0. I am curious as well as to how "owning" a book suddenly makes me able to judge it's content while reading it doesn't? Do I have to own a ferrari to talk to you about it? I am also highly critical of the 3rd edition splat books, 3rd edition campaign settings and in fact just about everything non-core. Heck I'm even against errata and the FAQ! There is no incongruity. Few things non-core in 3rd edition are well balanced, even less so in 3.5 in my opinion, and as I've repeatedly said above - DM vigilance is advised. Looks at Tomb of Abysthor…nope. Looks at Cry Havoc….still nothing Never heard of them so I can't comment. I'll try and find them though. I've seen and read a whole pile of Mongoose add-ons and sword and sorcery stuff though. Some of it is very good - some. As I said above 75-25. Look, no book is perfect. But neither are the vast array of Third Party/WotC books as error filled as you claim. They are in the vast majority munchkin heaven. More options, poorly planned out = more game breaking. Perhaps, as you seem to imply, I'm looking at the wrong books. Perhaps someone is not looking hard enough or ignoring the potential for abuse like has been done in the past with holy word and shapechange.
DungeonMaster 06-14-04, 12:40 PM	Originally posted by Willie the Duck How does anything you mention contradict anything I mentioned? Oh, wait, I mention munchy things in the 3.0 core books and you mention munchy things in the 3.5 core books. Merely refuting your claim that "things are better in 3.5 land". My point is still true: there are things in the core rulebook that are just as abusive as the stuff in the expansions. Nope. Even with ludicrously broken things in 3.5 like holy word - the core books are in general better balanced than core books + expansion books. The simple fact is more variables + poor planning = munch. Without strict DM control, things get out of hand. I'm not advocating anything "new" or "groundbreaking" here. Just plain spelling it out. Hold person isn't exceptionally overpowered, it just needed a re-tooling now that you can kill a paralyzed fighter in one round. 3.0 Timestop and haste, however, are really, really powerful. While this debate is better suited to the spells and magic board I can tell you that hold person 3rd edition compared to multi-target hold person 2nd edition was a massive drop in power for the spell. Likewise hold person 3.5 is complete garbage and not worth it's level. Hold person in 3rd edition unless heightened has pathetic DC and when heightened is likely not worth similar spell effects of that spell slot. Timestop is often ridiculously misinterpreted as a result of the video-game culture. Only effect spells can be cast during a timestop in 3rd edition, not just any spell. It's well balanced. Haste is well balanced as well for a 3rd level spell. It's very good and comparable to blink and other 3rd level buff spells. If you disagree with what I've said I'll be more than glad to follow a link to a thread to discuss in the spells and magic board but this isn't the proper place. None of these things, however, contradict my primary points, and your combative attitude detracts from this conversation, not adds to it. [ I'm sorry if I jump and come on harshly when I see people bashing the core 3rd edition books.
DungeonMaster 06-14-04, 12:52 PM	Originally posted by Count Arioch the 28th Hello? Polymorphing any object on yourself to change into a 200 ton block of adamantine after flying 200 feet above your target? Er... sure if your DM is a drooling moron. Of course your intelligence would change to 0, your HP remain unchanged, your AC is 0, you can't cast spells... Admantine is also of great intrinsic value so that's out as well, and you take 20d6 damage. And there's going to be an attack roll involved... Sure... why not... Exactly how did this um, change in 3.5? The cubic feet limitation? You do know that no spell's effect can extend beyond it's range? So you can't say polymorph a mountain into a volcano? The "vanilla" build does a "mere" 4000 or so damage per hit. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142565 The thread is interesting though as they get progressively sillier, with people determining that he can throw the planet, or destroy the planet in a month and so forth. However even the vanilla build is enough to claim broken with a capital B.
J. Grenemyer 06-14-04, 04:11 PM	Howdy D., Originally posted by DungeonMaster As soon as you start to empower/maximize/clinging dragon breath weapons I start to lose respect real fast. Spells that reduce SR are just as bad. So? I mean, I can respect an individual DM choosing not to use the game concepts you mentioned, but I can’t comprehend how those concepts break the game as a whole. They’re great additions to any “Dragons as characters” campaign, don’t unbalance play when used by DMs to spice up Dragon encounters, and serve to make play more fun and surprising for Players (who we all know read the MM in secret ;) ) when they face Dragons with the assumption they’ve got their bases covered. On top of that, the Draconomicon goes into extreme detail about dragon lore, dragon abodes, gives multiple stated out examples or each dragon (by varying age categories), etc… it’s the perfect example of a multi-author sourcebook done right. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Of course not, only the almighty is qualified to judge things right? :rolleyes: While I appreciate the slander I'm curious as to what sort of degree I would need to be qualified to judge? Slander? Please. :rolleyes: Further, you don’t need a degree. You’d need years of game design and publishing experience, for starters. Intimate (and unbiased) knowledge of the underlying theory and concepts that went into the creation and implementation of 3E would be necessary. Add on years of sourcebook and adventure editing experience…. You’re a damn smart guy, no doubt. If I needed advice on smashing atoms or a quick answer on what formula to use to compute my yearly lone interest with a variable rate over time… you’re the go to guy. But in terms of being fit to judge competency in game design? Nope. None of us are. Originally posted by DungeonMaster I have a fair deal of respect for Greenwood, mostly for his writing and not his games but the FR campaign setting is a very decent piece of work. Most of it makes no real sense but it still manages to capture the imagination enough that you can ignore the illogical aspects of the world. I don't like the flavor of the realms though, too much multiclassing and diluted archetypes. Mechanically it's chock full of overpowered crap - I've even seen your own complaints about ghost form among other spells so please don't tell me you're immune to this realization. I agree that the Realms were mechanically overpowered in 2nd Edition. That’s not to say the 2E spells in Secrets of the Magister didn’t fit the flavor of the Realms, they fit it exactly. From a game balance perspective, it was too much. In terms of 3E, it’s got one or two PrCs tied to it that were overpowered (original Incantatrix), but that’s it. The spells from Magic of Faerûn are perfectly balanced with the core rules, some of which were diluted and made weaker with the release of the Player’s Guide to Faerûn. Note that Ghostform is from Tome and Blood, not FR. ;) Originally posted by DungeonMaster I am curious as well as to how "owning" a book suddenly makes me able to judge it's content while reading it doesn't? All you can lay claim to is a first impression. That’s the difference between perusing a friend’s copy/taking a glance at your local hobby shop and owning the book (where you can sit down and read it cover to cover, think about what rules are worth using, and then read it again.) Originally posted by DungeonMaster Do I have to own a ferrari to talk to you about it? I am also highly critical of the 3rd edition splat books, 3rd edition campaign settings and in fact just about everything non-core. Heck I'm even against errata and the FAQ! There is no incongruity. Few things non-core in 3rd edition are well balanced, even less so in 3.5 in my opinion, and as I've repeatedly said above - DM vigilance is advised. Of course you don’t have to own one. But if you join a conversation with a bunch of Ferrari car nuts and make claims like, “All Ferraris built after such and such a year shift slower and handle poorly,” you better damn well be able to back that up with something more than, “Oh I just read that in a magazine, I’ve never actually driven one.” I agree about DM vigilance and (believe it or not) respect your opinion. However, from a factual standpoint, the claims regarding non-core material are just oft repeated stereotypes/empty generalizations. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Never heard of them so I can't comment. I'll try and find them though. I've seen and read a whole pile of Mongoose add-ons and sword and sorcery stuff though. Some of it is very good - some. As I said above 75-25. Good. Very good! There’s loads of gaming ideas and world flavor to be found in those (and other) books. Originally posted by DungeonMaster They are in the vast majority munchkin heaven. More options, poorly planned out = more game breaking. Perhaps, as you seem to imply, I'm looking at the wrong books. Perhaps someone is not looking hard enough or ignoring the potential for abuse like has been done in the past with Holy Wand Shapechange. I hate to admit it but you’ve got me thinking more about Shapechange. I’m also wondering if the Cleric Cohort will go all out on the Bead of Karma/Ioun stone combo once the players complete the last two legs of the adventure and partake of some long overdue downtime. We’ll see how it goes! :D
Seeker95 06-14-04, 05:21 PM	DungeonMaster: Why do you spend so much time and energy slamming 3.5? I stopped mentioning the inconsistencies, inadequacies and incongruities of 3.0 long ago (even before 3.5 came out) because I love the game of D&D. So why do you, who claim to love the gme, use so much of your energy slamming the edition of the game that many of us love? If you don't like it, don't play it. We would all very much appreciate your silent protest.
Geethree 06-14-04, 05:56 PM	The "vanilla" build does a "mere" 4000 or so damage per hit. That uses a half-ogre warhulk in addition to the hulking hurler, so you can't pin the blame on simply the hurler when two other non-core rules are used.
J. Grenemyer 06-14-04, 06:19 PM	Hello, I'm looking forward to using both the Hulking Hurler and Warhulk to spice up Epic Play. I'll be using these PrCs to augment the Giants featured in the Epic Adventure "Into the Stormlord's Keep" found in Dungeon Magazine. It's worth noting that several of the Min/Max builds require full level advancement in these PrCs. When you add all those PrC levels onto a creature, you're going to end up with an Epic creature; thus an epic challenge. Thus, insane howling about brokenness is very much a waste of time, as such claims have no bearing on those campaigns that won't reach Epic Levels, or will use/encounter these PrCs during non-Epic play. This is why keeping a sense of perspective is far more useful than reflexively crying wolf every time a new rule is encountered. :D
Count Arioch the 28th 06-14-04, 07:32 PM	Yeah, you take 20d6 damage. You ignore 15 of that due to hardness though. And yur victim takes a lot more damage, falling damage is capped, damage from objects falling ON you is not. (Which is how the hulking hurler cheese actually works, otherwise, it'd do 20d6 damage at the most.) Alrigh, forogt about the intrinsic value thing. Alright, turn into a huge block of stone, reduce hardness to 10 from 15. There you go. And it's in core 3E. CORE 3E. Means a bit more than your silly using 3 seperate splat books.
Willie the Duck 06-14-04, 09:34 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster Merely refuting your claim that "things are better in 3.5 land". A claim I never made. Nope. Even with ludicrously broken things in 3.5 like holy word - the core books are in general better balanced than core books + expansion books. The simple fact is more variables + poor planning = munch. Without strict DM control, things get out of hand. I'm not advocating anything "new" or "groundbreaking" here. Just plain spelling it out. very much not new or groundbreaking, given the fact that I made virtually the same points in my original post. Of course core + expansion has more munch than core alone. That's not my point. My point was that individual expansion materials are no worse than the abusive material in the core books. Hulking hurler is not more abusive than haste. Of course a hulking hurler with haste is worse yet. While this debate is better suited to the spells and magic board I can tell you that hold person 3rd edition compared to multi-target hold person 2nd edition was a massive drop in power for the spell. Likewise hold person 3.5 is complete garbage and not worth it's level. Hold person in 3rd edition unless heightened has pathetic DC and when heightened is likely not worth similar spell effects of that spell slot. The spell by itself may be weaker, but the effect is stronger. Why? because in 2.0 the only thing the spell did was keep you from acting for several rounds. 3rd edition introduced a new feature called the coup-de-grace that means if you fail your will save on the hold person spell while you are up against the other sides warrior types, the rest of the party has until its next turn to kill it or it will auto-kill you. Timestop is often ridiculously misinterpreted as a result of the video-game culture. Only effect spells can be cast during a timestop in 3rd edition, not just any spell. It's well balanced. I've yet to hear of anyone making that mistake, yet all the practical, anicdotal and logical reasoning arguments still point towards it being highly abusive. it doesn't matter how selective the spell list usable is, it is 1d4+1 rounds of spellcasting one side gets that the other doesn't (or if both sides do, then it makes all non-mages exceptionally outclassed). Haste is well balanced as well for a 3rd level spell. It's very good and comparable to blink and other 3rd level buff spells. you are aware that 3.0 haste allows a wizard to cast 2 spells per round (or 3 if one is quickened), right? That seems a bit better than blink. If you disagree with what I've said I'll be more than glad to follow a link to a thread to discuss in the spells and magic board but this isn't the proper place. This is completely the proper place, since we are discussive the relative strengths of core vs. expansion material. IF you don't want to have these con-fabs, I'd suggest not randomly attacking every person that ever might, in your fevered paranoia, say something that might favor 3.5 over 3.0. I'm sorry if I jump and come on harshly when I see people bashing the core 3rd edition books. no you're not.
DungeonMaster 06-16-04, 12:38 PM	Seeker: I've been so busy with non-bash 3.5 threads like the various challenge threads I've spawned that I don't think it's a fair assesment that I spend a whole lot of time bashing 3.5. A similar question can be asked of the continous 3rd edition bashers. "Silent protest" indeed. :rolleyes: Willie: I can't beleive you said the hulking hurler is no more abusable than haste. I'm sorry, that's patently ridiculous. Show me 1 billion damage per hit with haste. I'll even settle for 4900 like the vanilla build. I'm almost positive that the 2E PHB/DMG has in it provision for auto-killing helpless characters, without even a saving throw. I'm going to check it latter tonight, I'm currently at work. Timestop in 3.5 is just as psycho, especially since with cheap rods you can maximize it. People don't apply the rules correctly even in that respect. The player is not supposed to know the duration of the time-stop because it's variable duration. PHB p.151. You cannot enter an area protected by a circle of protection versus evil - it fails utterly on hallowed/unhallowed groud. The spell is probably the single worst applied spell in the entire game. So you cast 2 spells a round? Big deal? It also allows the warrior to move and still full attack? You are aware that a rogue with blink can make sneak attacks every round because you strike as an invisible creature denying your target his Dex bonus but you're not invisible and so blindfighting/blindsense doesn't work? That blink protects you from targeted spells and attacks at the 50% miss chance level, half damage from area effects and falling, and allows you to walk through walls and target ethereal creatures? Please. Carefull with the personal attacks - I won't reply to any argument laced with them, you're going to have to reword that last bit into something cogent. Arioch: You do realise that there is no rule for you to target the creature with a falling object right? That it's completely up to the DM? Your DM could assign an attack roll, hit you with non-proficient penalties and circumstance penalties and/or even apply the weight portion of the damage to the object falling? Or rule it like a falling block trap, a plain attack roll +15? Maybe add in a reflex save? Use dragon crush attacks as a precedent? The simple fact of the matter is that this is not an actual case of abuse of the rules. You're extrapolating saying "I can do 9 million damage" but there's no established mechanic saying HOW you actually go about doing 9 million damage. The hulking hurler is of course completely different. He makes attack rolls or worse makes creatures perform a reflex save opposed by his attack roll. The damage comes from an attack, not falling, and is in no way capped. The table provided with the PrC even gives you the progression. J: I have no problem killing my PCs. I play by the dice, they live or die by the dice. I have severe problems when I think something is unbalanced. Dragon breath weapons are a serious threat, by and large because dragons posses the means to remove the protections of even a well prepared party. Maximized quickened clinging breath weapons in a hit-and-run game are not funny. They're not fair. No SR, huge save DC and too much damage. We can disagree on this, but my experience is the plain breath weapon is already teetering on the edge of balance given the CR of dragons. I don't think the draconomicon is well written, balanced or playtested. Chemical reactions in the wings... sigh... Everyone can formulate an opinion, an informed opinion does not necessarily need years of research and work in the field. Many government agencies operate this way, and function quite well in fact. I've been playing D&D for long enough that my opinion, however contrary to yours which is also an informed opinion, does not need to be validated any other way. I think source books are a good resource for a DM, they are also a great resource for a munchkin. DM controls are advised. The game I run is by and large without extra material because I do not want to be bothered correcting the myriad mistakes in the source books, or to have one slip by and then have to take the player aside and explain "this is broken, it's got to go". I much prefer handing my players the PHB and saying anything in it I work with. If there's room for interpretation, I will take that room, like any good DM, in favor of game balance. It's a simple, clean cut game. The FR setting has it's problems, from regional feats like spell prodigy, to PrC that allow you to make a spell a Sp ability to monsters that are totally out of whack like the steel (mercury? I don't remember and don't have the book here, has equal casting level as PCs) dragon. I'm not going to criticise it any more than that, it's not the place and I'm sure it will enrage you from what I've seen in the past. ;) An interesting setting, no doubt and imaginative in many areas, but not balanced. I respect the fact that you and many others enjoy it, and a good DM can run a very decent Realms game (I've seen it even in 2E with psycho red-wizards). I've actually though about 3.5 shapechange quite a bit since Hyp pointed out the racial HD thing (of which I'm still iffy on). It helps quite a bit to reduce those save DCs which is a big problem with certain forms. My latest 3.5 shapechange discovery is shambler + blue-dragon form. :P
Seeker95 06-16-04, 01:27 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster I've been so busy with non-bash 3.5 threads like the various challenge threads I've spawned that I don't think it's a fair assesment that I spend a whole lot of time bashing 3.5. A similar question can be asked of the continous 3rd edition bashers. "Silent protest" indeed.If I saw a great deal of 3.0 bashing on these boards, I would acknowledge your comment as "fair". And if I saw continuous 3rd edition bashers, I would tell them to stop. The only 3.0 bashing I notice tends to be in the two or three posts immediately following your derailment of a thread into anti-3.5 spewing, carefully couched in "on topic" language. Since 3.5 came out, the number of folks bashing 3.0 are few and far between. Or at least as far between as your baiting of folks into a 3.0 vs. 3.5 tirade. If you make a 3.5 comment, it is negative. And since you don't play 3.5 (and won't play 3.5), it makes no sense that you offer forth your negative opinin so frequently. It is baiting, no matter how supposedly "on topic" you manage to hide it.
q'afuu 06-16-04, 02:44 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster I can't beleive you said the hulking hurler is no more abusable than haste. I'm sorry, that's patently ridiculous. Show me 1 billion damage per hit with haste. I'll even settle for 4900 like the vanilla build. The vanilla build consists of an 18th level char using two non-core concepts (half-ogre and War Hulk). IOW, comparing this to Haste is not quite the same as comparing the hulking hurler PrC to Haste. Also, Haste allows a caster to cast two save-or-dies in immediate succession. With a decent build (considering your point of comparison is an 18th level build as well, I assume that's a given for this comparison), that's near-guaranteed death as opposed to probable death. How does 4900 HP damage *if* a hit is scored measure up to near-guaranteed death?
DungeonMaster 06-16-04, 02:50 PM	If I saw a great deal of 3.0 bashing on these boards, I would acknowledge your comment as "fair". And if I saw continuous 3rd edition bashers, I would tell them to stop. The only 3.0 bashing I notice tends to be in the two or three posts immediately following your derailment of a thread into anti-3.5 spewing, carefully couched in "on topic" language. Of course coming from someone who says in the self same thread: WotC 3.0 non-core sourcebooks? Yes* WotC 3.5 non-core sourcebooks? 50-50* Non WotC sourcebooks? 75-25 munchkin* With carefully couched size=1 lends immense credence to your position of "my" baiting. How exactly do you propose I or someone who doesn't think "complete divine" or "complete warrior" are any better balanced than the splat books react to this statement and the pathetic little size=1 disclaimer? Particularly when we know of balance attrocities like the hulking hurler? If you consider my posts baiting I certainly consider yours on par. I am more verbose in my statements because I enjoy supporting my opinion with actual arguments in the place of snide one liners. At the very least I don't run around telling you, or J, or anyone else for that matter to hold your tongue. And I've made a concerted effort to mitigate my languange and my position because I'm tired of repeating the same old arguments endlessly. I'm not arguing in a vacuum here, there are real concerns tabled and if you're not interested in arguing about them telling me in so many words to "shut-up" is just not going to convince me to actually "shut-up". And I CAN be shut up by good arguments. I've lost debates before, the most recent was a complete analysis of 3.5 DR. I clearly didn't know the system as well and Gith and company proved to me that one weapon can still beat 95% of the DR in the game, much like a +3 weapon in 3rd edition.
DungeonMaster 06-16-04, 03:13 PM	This is a discussion of non-core material. The half ogre was chosen for a low level adjustment. Stick it on a plain giant, or a sun giant, or whatever and you're going to get the same nuclear bomb level of damage. A stone giant, which is not a PC race but something the DM can use relatively early on the PCs can readily hit all requirements. I'm curious why some people said it's only Epic. Should be only CR 10. Technically. At 18th level choker form is available from shapechange and metamagic rods of quicken are easily available as well. Nothing associated with haste is "near guaranteed death". Saves and SR come into play at these levels invariably. You're merely multiplying your chances of success while expending many resources for it. 4000 damage IS guaranteed death (unless you're a frenzied berzerker...). You don't have to target the AC - merely the reflex save using the PrC ability, which has a DC modified by your attack roll for crying out loud. If you have problems with spell DCs as "near guaranteed death" then you're looking at 95% guaranteed death with hulky here. No SR. Improved evasion might net you 2000 damage. The fact that nearly all the gods in deity and demigods DIE from an 18th level build in one hit is, um, telling.
q'afuu 06-16-04, 04:05 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster 1) This is a discussion of non-core material. The half ogre was chosen for a low level adjustment. Stick it on a plain giant, or a sun giant, or whatever and you're going to get the same nuclear bomb level of damage. 2) At 18th level choker form is available from shapechange and metamagic rods of quicken are easily available as well. 3)Nothing associated with haste is "near guaranteed death". Saves and SR come into play at these levels invariably. You're merely multiplying your chances of success while expending many resources for it. 4000 damage IS guaranteed death (unless you're a frenzied berzerker...). You don't have to target the AC - merely the reflex save using the PrC ability, which has a DC modified by your attack roll for crying out loud. If you have problems with spell DCs as "near guaranteed death" then you're looking at 95% guaranteed death with hulky here. No SR. Improved evasion might net you 2000 damage. The fact that nearly all the gods in deity and demigods DIE from an 18th level build in one hit is, um, telling. 1) Yet Haste *is* core. And if you stick that build on a plain giant, you have an Epic character. I'm not getting into a balance discussion for epic levels. 2) A choker gets an extra action, but can still only cast one non-quickened spell per round (read the 3.5 PHB p. 174, Casting Time, for that limitation). After your fulminating against metamagic rods as broken, I don't really see how they're furthering your argument here. 3) Expending many resources? Like what? And what do you mean by "Saves and SR come into play at these levels invariably"? Which levels are those? A wizard can prep Haste as early as level 5, and cast it from an item as soon as he gets his grubby hands on an appropriate item. Just because your vanilla build doesn't become available until level 18 doesn't mean I should only consider Haste at that level as well. This Hurler build can't hit anything further than 50 ft. away. Simply flying out of range undoes this tactic. At 18th level, flight is common as muck. Its damage is calculated for the max weight of ammo he can throw - IOW, I have to wonder at the number of times he can do this before running out of ammo (and the reduced movement rate doesn't help to alleviate the incredibly short throwing range either). And then there are things like Displacement, Invisibility, various illusions, stunning, the fact that the HH needs two hands for this (and consequently is as good as unarmed) which all serve to make life harder on our hapless Hurler. Sorry, but I really don't see what's so wonderful about this build at 18th level. Haste, which is available at *all* levels, is something else entirely.
Seeker95 06-16-04, 07:27 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster With carefully couched size=1 lends immense credence to your position of "my" baiting. How does my explicitly stating that the statements were my opinion constitute baiting? If anything, it notes that I do not hold my opinions to be anywhere near Gospel, and that others are likely to hold varying views on the same topic.At the very least I don't run around telling you, or J, or anyone else for that matter to hold your tongue.That might be because when we are speaking on 3.5, we can actually say that we actually play 3.5, and aren't just pulling crap out of the air in an effort to slam something we don't like. If we made such statements regarding 3.0, we would be out of line, and telling us to hold our toungue would be in order.I'm not arguing in a vacuum here, there are real concerns tabled Yes, you are arguing in a vaccum. An argument is generally made with the effort of convincing the other person that you are right. I have no interst in convincing you that 3.5 is worthy of playing. You have made it abundantly clear that you have no interest in playing 3.5. Your signature attests to the fact that anyone trying to convince you to play 3.5 is wasting their time. So if you won't play 3.5, then hold your tongue about 3.5. We would not tolerate anti-3rd edition crap being spewed by older edition holders (they even have their own boards to avoid such inflammatory edition-wars). Yet we are forced to endure your tirade on every single 3.5 post that coes up. You step in, stir the pot by slamming 3.5, its mechanics, its differences from 3.0, and even its creators. I would not be permitted to go to the White Wolf message boards and continually slam their products. Yet for some reason you are endured and tolerated as you continually slam 3.5 at every opportunity. So, rather than couching it any fiurther, I am asking you to shut your mouth when it comes to 3.5. You don't play it. You won't play it. So shut up about it.
jasper 06-17-04, 10:44 AM	Originally posted by Damaramu .. Problem is that I have this one player that always buys the sourcebooks and then will come to me with them and he has usually picked out the most munchkin PrC possible and he's like "Please! I spent 30 bucks on this book!".... What I did on players like this is tell to spend another $30 and buy me a copy of the book. Most of my players would drop the matter then.
DungeonMaster 06-17-04, 11:00 AM	Originally posted by Seeker95 How does my explicitly stating that the statements were my opinion constitute baiting? If anything, it notes that I do not hold my opinions to be anywhere near Gospel, and that others are likely to hold varying views on the same topic. So I should prefix things with size=1 "in my opinion"? I'm sorry, I don't need to do that, if it makes it better for you consider everything I write as "my opinion" because that's what it is. I think it's much more relevant to say when it's NOT your opinion you're professing. Gospel indeed... That might be because when we are speaking on 3.5, we can actually say that we actually play 3.5, and aren't just pulling crap out of the air in an effort to slam something we don't like. So saying the 3rd edition splat books are "yes munchy" but the 3.5 are 50-50 without any argumentative backing is not an "out of thin air" slam against 3rd edition? You need to reanalyse what you've written because that is exactly what you just did my friend. I would not be permitted to go to the White Wolf message boards and continually slam their products. Yet for some reason you are endured and tolerated as you continually slam 3.5 at every opportunity. Unless someone from WotC says directly to me: "don't advocate 3rd edition, advocate only 3.5" then I feel perfectly within my rights and boundaries to come on these boards and compare 3rd edition to 3.5 while remaining on-topic. There are both 3rd edition and 3.5 WotC products, they exist largely in tandem and have and will continue to generate revenue and customers and perhaps more importantly, fan base. If it were TSR 2nd edition versus a WotC product I would be respectful and NOT compare the editions - and I have. I am a big fan of 2nd edition and the worst you will hear come out of me is a minor lament to the loss of flavor. I don't diatribe into why warriors should have all best saves and so forth - but I could, and I don't. I clearly don't think 3.5 is as good a product as 3rd edition, I'm willing to overlay the differences and contrast and compare - you're clearly NOT. You merely don't want to see any of my critisicm and in that fair case I suggest you simply don't read it or put me on your ignore list. While you don't think I provide any help or support for the community I get a fair bit of thanks from a variety of people, even people who play 3.5, for advice and suggestions. I have no interst in convincing you that 3.5 is worthy of playing. You have made it abundantly clear that you have no interest in playing 3.5. Neither do I have interest in convincing you that 3rd edition is better. I come to the boards primarily to debate rules, mechanics and rulings as well as listen to other people's opinions on rules mechanics and rulings. If the differences in edition spotlight a change then very often you can gain greater insight into both systems with comparison. We would not tolerate anti-3rd edition crap being spewed by older edition holders (they even have their own boards to avoid such inflammatory edition-wars). Yet we are forced to endure your tirade on every single 3.5 post that coes up. You step in, stir the pot by slamming 3.5, its mechanics, its differences from 3.0, and even its creators. What a massive exageration. I specifically avoid 3.5 threads - specifically. There are at least 15 different 3.5 related threads currently in action where I could "jump in" and as you say "rant". But I don't out of respect. On the other hand when I see something I think is truly of importance - like a first level ranger lamenting he can't two-weapon in 3.5 - I'll offer my opinon, quickly concisely, not a second question about it. And even then only after I've seen a number of replies and no one has said what I would say - in that case, give the poor bugger his virtual feats. Don't make him run around with a single short sword for a level, he's a ranger. Write whatever you want to next, I'm not going to bother with a reply in this thread but I will reply by PM, as this has strayed to far afeild.
DungeonMaster 06-17-04, 11:26 AM	Originally posted by q'afuu [1) Yet Haste *is* core. And if you stick that build on a plain giant, you have an Epic character. I'm not getting into a balance discussion for epic levels. You don't need an epic character, you don't even need an epic anything, it's a CR 10 monster with just 3 levels of HH. You can easily hit huge damage with just that. 2) A choker gets an extra action, but can still only cast one non-quickened spell per round (read the 3.5 PHB p. 174, Casting Time, for that limitation). After your fulminating against metamagic rods as broken, I don't really see how they're furthering your argument here. Using the SRD I can only find veiled reference of a limit of 1 spell a round. That makes summoning particularly weak I presume because you can't do any spellcasting immediately after summoning then. Use your standard action to ready a spell on your opponent's action, problem solved. The metarod of maximize is actually the broken one. It's too cheap and too effective. 3) Expending many resources? Like what? And what do you mean by "Saves and SR come into play at these levels invariably"? Which levels are those? A wizard can prep Haste as early as level 5, and cast it from an item as soon as he gets his grubby hands on an appropriate item. Just because your vanilla build doesn't become available until level 18 doesn't mean I should only consider Haste at that level as well. Weren't we talking about level 18? Have you ever played a 5th level wizard? Do you know how important 3rd level slots are? For 5 round of haste you can, you know, fireball?! I've never seen haste used en mass until much later in the game, 12+. Those slots are relevant expenditure. Anyways... let's drop that and agree to dissagree. Let's talk about the munchy non-core: This Hurler build can't hit anything further than 50 ft. away. Simply flying out of range undoes this tactic. I'm pretty sure the minis-handbook allows you to throw much farther. ;) Read the thread. And then there are things like Displacement, Invisibility, various illusions, stunning, the fact that the HH needs two hands for this (and consequently is as good as unarmed) which all serve to make life harder on our hapless Hurler. Gem of seeing, portable hole, quickdraw. Check, check, check. Exactly how many 4000 damage boulders do I need? Am I fighting Zeus or just a plain old 300 hp balor? Next? Haste does not in any way at all compare to HH. The non-core sourcebooks trump here, for sure, in all ways. Nothing compares to HH. He is the ultimate damage machine.
q'afuu 06-17-04, 12:50 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster 1) You don't need an epic character, you don't even need an epic anything, it's a CR 10 monster with just 3 levels of HH. You can easily hit huge damage with just that. 2) Using the SRD I can only find veiled reference of a limit of 1 spell a round. That makes summoning particularly weak I presume because you can't do any spellcasting immediately after summoning then. Use your standard action to ready a spell on your opponent's action, problem solved. 3) Weren't we talking about level 18? Have you ever played a 5th level wizard? Do you know how important 3rd level slots are? For 5 round of haste you can, you know, fireball?! I've never seen haste used en mass until much later in the game, 12+. Those slots are relevant expenditure. Anyways... let's drop that and agree to dissagree. Let's talk about the munchy non-core: 4) I'm pretty sure the minis-handbook allows you to throw much farther. ;) Read the thread. 5) Gem of seeing, portable hole, quickdraw. Check, check, check. Exactly how many 4000 damage boulders do I need? Am I fighting Zeus or just a plain old 300 hp balor? Next? Haste does not in any way at all compare to HH. The non-core sourcebooks trump here, for sure, in all ways. Nothing compares to HH. He is the ultimate damage machine. 1) I'm just using the example you give. The 'vanilla build' is ECL 18. The same build with a giant is epic. 2) The limit is there, no other interpretation possible. Readying only works if the trigger goes off on the next round. That's by the book. 3) That's why you scribe scrolls or craft/buy wands. 4) Does it allow further reach for D&D, or for Chainmail? ;) The Hulking Hurler is D&D, and nothing in the CW suggests a longer reach for it. I'll check around, but I'd suggest you do the same, instead of relying on assumptions. 5) HH alone is quite weak, even. It's a one-trick pony. Anything that dissallows him to throw a big rock at you makes him near-useless. Your portable hole isn't even big enough for one of the boulders your vanilla build example uses. The Gem of Seeing doesn't help with fog, and those two items alone are worth 25% of the build's suggested wealth. Your Hurler will need a lot of other stuff if he's going to survive to get into a position where he can actually hit someone and have a full-round action to try. If you think that's the ultimate damage machine, I urge you to check out the Expanded Psionics Handbook. Trust me, there's worse.
J. Grenemyer 06-17-04, 01:17 PM	<OT> Hello, Haste has been perhaps analyzed more than any other spell. In my experience on these and other boards, the consensus opinion has been (approximately) 70% unbalanced, 30% balanced. The arguments for balance usually focus on the concept of “Equal Share” –where it is argued that if the PCs get extra actions, so do the bad guys, so everything balances out in the end, right? Wrong. The problem with Haste is simple: It lets players do more on their turn. This is compounded by the fact that the vast majority of (3.0) creatures and classes don’t have access to Haste (which Equal Share forgets in its assumption of equality). So you have a disparity in cumulative actions per round, which allows PCs to win fights much, much faster (even if they don’t win initiative). This is why Haste is broken. Lastly, I'd like to point out that Haste is always used as soon as it's available. Always. Did I mention always? ;) :D </OT>
DungeonMaster 06-17-04, 03:44 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer The arguments for balance usually focus on the concept of “Equal Share” –where it is argued that if the PCs get extra actions, so do the bad guys, so everything balances out in the end, right? Nope. Monsters typically don't fight fair. They can use limitless spell-like abilities the PCs can only dream of like the balor's symbol and summon (which essentially gives it two actions...), they can surprise the PCs and easily get a round of actions off before them, they can use supernatural abilities that PCs don't get, death gazes, etc... Balance is easiest discussed when benchmarks are at play. 4000 damage a hit is a wee-bit off of the scale there, even at 20th level. The HH is not balanced. Nothing core even comes close to the HH. It's broken defined. So at the very least we can describe the extremes of brokeness as residing primarily non-core. That statement we should all be able to agree upon after cursory analysis of the HH. It lets players do more on their turn. This is compounded by the fact that the vast majority of (3.0) creatures and classes don’t have access to Haste (which Equal Share forgets in its assumption of equality). The vast majority of PCs get surprised by monsters and dealt horrible damage and even death before they even have a chance to react. It takes foresight to negate surprise - literally and figuratively. The standard party will find itself fighting against singular creatures about as often as it will find itself out-numbered. The ability to act can be negated by constraints above and beyond the simple presentation given: you may not want to fireball your warriors when engaged, even with fireball prepared. I would peg the distribution at 60-40. Some games are different then other games. Many do not see a disparity in actions. Lastly, I'd like to point out that Fireball is always used as soon as it's available. Always. Lastly, I'd like to point out that Shapechange is always used as soon as it's available. Always. Lastly, I'd like to point out that Holy word is always used as soon as it's available. Always. Did I mention always? ;) See a pattern? :P There's no disparity in actions when you have the hulking hurler. There's a disparity in damage. A really really really big one. Very very few things stand one round against him. "Splat - splat - splat".
DungeonMaster 06-17-04, 04:05 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu 1) I'm just using the example you give. The 'vanilla build' is ECL 18. The same build with a giant is epic. Even if you didn't bring it all the way to 4000 damage, let's just say 1000 damage so you can kill any great-wyrm in a hit. How long does it take you to reach that number? 2) The limit is there, no other interpretation possible. Readying only works if the trigger goes off on the next round. That's by the book. Nope. Otherwise you could not ready to receive a charge. You need to re-read readying an action. 3) That's why you scribe scrolls or craft/buy wands. Sure you can. You can have tons and tons of haste if you go out of your way to get it. Is it necessarily better than tons and tons of blink? Nope. How about tons and tons of lighting bolt (the non 3.5 nerfed version)? Or fly spell? Would you chose a wand of haste over a wand of enervation? 4) Does it allow further reach for D&D, or for Chainmail? ;) The Hulking Hurler is D&D, and nothing in the CW suggests a longer reach for it. I'll check around, but I'd suggest you do the same, instead of relying on assumptions. Hey far shot does pretty good as it is but I'm sure you can find more in that thread. I remember them talking about it but I'm not going to run through the whole thread again. 5) HH alone is quite weak, even. It's a one-trick pony. Anything that dissallows him to throw a big rock at you makes him near-useless. Your portable hole isn't even big enough for one of the boulders your vanilla build example uses. The Gem of Seeing doesn't help with fog, and those two items alone are worth 25% of the build's suggested wealth. Your Hurler will need a lot of other stuff if he's going to survive to get into a position where he can actually hit someone and have a full-round action to try Please. If you can hit something at all the hurler's going to win. In fact he doesn't need to hit, just the general area with a reflex save is good enough. Sure you can throw walls of force in the way and other things but in the end if he can hit it it's dead. I entreat you to join the thread and argue for the balance of the HH. I really do. Because I'm sure people will get a very good laugh out of anyone trying to defend the HH build. . If you think that's the ultimate damage machine, I urge you to check out the Expanded Psionics Handbook. Trust me, there's worse. The charopt boards think hurler wins. EXPH can be pretty munchy no doubt, the swiss cheese claw powers are pretty nasty.
q'afuu 06-17-04, 04:49 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster 1) Even if you didn't bring it all the way to 4000 damage, let's just say 1000 damage so you can kill any great-wyrm in a hit. How long does it take you to reach that number? 2) Nope. Otherwise you could not ready to receive a charge. You need to re-read readying an action. 3) Sure you can. You can have tons and tons of haste if you go out of your way to get it. Is it necessarily better than tons and tons of blink? Nope. How about tons and tons of lighting bolt (the non 3.5 nerfed version)? Or fly spell? Would you chose a wand of haste over a wand of enervation? 4) Hey far shot does pretty good as it is but I'm sure you can find more in that thread. I remember them talking about it but I'm not going to run through the whole thread again. 5) Please. If you can hit something at all the hurler's going to win. In fact he doesn't need to hit, just the general area with a reflex save is good enough. Sure you can throw walls of force in the way and other things but in the end if he can hit it it's dead. I entreat you to join the thread and argue for the balance of the HH. I really do. Because I'm sure people will get a very good laugh out of anyone trying to defend the HH build. 6) The charopt boards think hurler wins. EXPH can be pretty munchy no doubt, the swiss cheese claw powers are pretty nasty. 1) What number? Dead is dead. That's why 3.0 Miasma from MotW is so overpowered. 2) Nope, the limitation is pretty clear: 1 non-quickened spell per round. Readying doesn't allow you to get around that. 3) That's irrelevant (and tons and tons of Haste is definitely better than equal amounts of Blink, btw). Which is best depends on the circumstances (Fly can be pretty useful against the HH, for instance - then again, so can anything that reduces the HH's Str so he can't throw his überrock anymore). 4) 100 ft. instead of 50. Yay! 5) Pretty big if. Casting Grease on the rock, merely staying out of range, using a spell to reduce the HHs Str and/or size, stunning, ... 6) Wins what? What's the exact contest? Max damage? If pure damage is all you have (and it's that easy to counter), you're not the most useful character in my campaigns, not by a long shot.
J. Grenemyer 06-17-04, 04:54 PM	Hello, Originally posted by DungeonMaster Nope. Monsters typically don't fight fair. They can use limitless spell-like abilities the PCs can only dream of like the balor's symbol and summon (which essentially gives it two actions...), they can surprise the PCs and easily get a round of actions off before them, they can use supernatural abilities that PCs don't get, death gazes, etc... So? (And I don’t mean that sarcastically, honest!) It’s just that limitless SLAs and Su abilities don’t counter the action surplus PCs will enjoy if they survive past the surprise round. Heck, at the level where Balors are in play, PCs can also summon creatures and Haste them, as well as make use of Cohorts (and Haste them too.) My point was that 3.0 Haste is an order of magnitude worse than any other broken spell, feat, class feature or miscellaneous game mechanic, because it allows for such to be used twice as often per turn (in addition to all the non-broken things a character could do on his or her turn). As to the examples you mentioned: Your 3.0 Balor –if hasted– could use Symbol and make a full attack. On a surprise round he could take his standard action and use an SLA. A Dragon could make a full attack and use its breath weapon. Couple Haste with Flyby Attack and you’ve got a Dragon that can make a full attack, then take off and fly past another character, using its Feat to make another attack at that character while moving (and maybe even catch that character in its mouth or claw if the Dragon also has the Snatch Feat.) Etc… And this doesn’t begin to address low and mid level play, where there are no Symbol wielding Balors, but plenty of characters taking two actions per turn. And let’s not forget practical issues like time spent running combats (where Haste turns a 1 hour battle into a 3 hour affair) and DM prep time (which in 3.0 means deciding how to beef up every encounter so Haste doesn’t ruin it, as well as figuring out an in-game reason why every non-spellcasting creature and class always has access to Haste). Originally posted by DungeonMaster So at the very least we can describe the extremes of brokenness as residing primarily non-core. That statement we should all be able to agree upon after cursory analysis of the HH. I’m afraid I disagree. I do agree one is more likely to find abusable/broken material in non-Core books, but I don’t agree that extremes of brokenness (as you put it) are limited to non-Core material. As to 4000 damage: Do you have a link? (I’d like to read up on it first.) Originally posted by DungeonMaster The vast majority of PCs get surprised by monsters and dealt horrible damage and even death before they even have a chance to react. I couldn’t disagree with this more if I tried; this just isn’t true for all games, much less a majority. PCs just don’t suffer TPKs on surprise rounds. Note that in the instances where PCs are surprised, 3.0 Haste makes things worse. Originally posted by DungeonMaster It takes foresight to negate surprise - literally and figuratively. Or a good spot check. Listen is good to. ;) Further, the games is set up so that DMs pick single creatures whose CR is equal to the average level of a party for encounters. If a DM picks four creatures to face a party, each of those creatures will be very weak because their CR will have to be low to begin with in order for the encounter to be balanced. PCs enjoying a numerical (and therefor, action) advantage is a concept built in to the game. Haste just excacerbates this to the point where things become unbalanced. This is true regardless of the level of play. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Lastly, I'd like to point out that Fireball is always used as soon as it's available. Always. Etc…. I pointed out that Haste is always used because earlier in the thread you claimed it isnt. Further, unlike Fireball, Haste unbalances play. Unlike Shapechange, you don’t have to wait to cast 9th level spells before you gain access to it. Unlike Holy Word, you don’t need an arsenal of magic items to make it work. Originally posted by DungeonMaster There's no disparity in actions when you have the hulking hurler. There's a disparity in damage. A really really really big one. Very very few things stand one round against him. "Splat - splat - splat". But this disparity (from what I see in q'afuu’s earlier post) is counterbalanced by several mitigating factors. What are Haste’s mitigating factors? :D
DungeonMaster 06-18-04, 04:14 PM	I have no time today, and tommorow is game day. Sunday should be good.
DungeonMaster 06-20-04, 09:07 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer [QUOTE] So? (And I don’t mean that sarcastically, honest!) It’s just that limitless SLAs and Su abilities don’t counter the action surplus PCs will enjoy if they survive past the surprise round. Heck, at the level where Balors are in play, PCs can also summon creatures and Haste them, as well as make use of Cohorts (and Haste them too.) You don't have that many actions as it is, if you play by the rules and enforce them, people often pull out scrolls, weapons, potions, all move equivalent actions. When it comes right down to haste is very good but by no means a huge deficit towards the monsters. Hey I don't even need to comment I have online proof, just check out the various challenge threads and you'll get the drift. My point was that 3.0 Haste is an order of magnitude worse than any other broken spell, feat, class feature or miscellaneous game mechanic, because it allows for such to be used twice as often per turn (in addition to all the non-broken things a character could do on his or her turn). Then you must have severe problems with non-core 3.5 material like schism, fission, lion's pounce and core material like metamagic rods? So tell me J, how do you feel about these non-core supplements that seem to contradict your golden rule? Getting more than one action a round is a real part of the game, and it's not like you're getting 10 more actions, you're just getting a single partial action. As to the examples you mentioned: Your 3.0 Balor –if hasted– could use Symbol and make a full attack. But summoning another balor is way better?! You've doubled your hp, doubled your number of attacks, and can do all of the above only better? A Dragon could make a full attack and use its breath weapon. Like the non-core draconomicon's quickened breath weapon? So I must admit I'm a bit lost now. How is non-core not munchy if you think haste is munchy? Clearly non-core material allows you to do exactly what you consider broken, so..? And let’s not forget practical issues like time spent running combats (where Haste turns a 1 hour battle into a 3 hour affair) and DM prep time (which in 3.0 means deciding how to beef up every encounter so Haste doesn’t ruin it, as well as figuring out an in-game reason why every non-spellcasting creature and class always has access to Haste). :rofl: Hogwash, one extra partial action does not equal to tripling of the time. Complete nonsense. Now in 3.5 you must worry that the cleric doesn't auto-kill everything in one round with no-save and no SR with 3.5 holy word... that's a real DM headache. I provided the link above to the hulking hurler. I couldn’t disagree with this more if I tried; this just isn’t true for all games, much less a majority. PCs just don’t suffer TPKs on surprise rounds. I have seen and done it. Plain old cyrohydra. 12 heads, 3d6 damage a head means 36d6 damage. 126 average damage on failed reflex saves. Many saves will reduce even the best to dust. I rolled well. It happens. The rogue lasted 1 extra round as a result of some evasion then got chomped. Note that in the instances where PCs are surprised, 3.0 Haste makes things worse. Note that monsters often have abilities like the hydra's charge+full attack that are essentially identical. I'm going to compile a list for you I think just to prove my point. Not tonight but sometime this week. Further, the games is set up so that DMs pick single creatures whose CR is equal to the average level of a party for encounters. If a DM picks four creatures to face a party, each of those creatures will be very weak because their CR will have to be low to begin with in order for the encounter to be balanced. Complete and utter nonsense. The CR system has a huge table detailing CR up to 12 monsters - the PHB has feats specifically geared towards multiple monsters like cleave, whirlwind attack, great cleave - there are spells that have area effects and multi-target effects as well. Everything in the game points towards the possibility of multiple creatures being encountered. That sir is your own skewed perception and has absolutely no basis in reality. Unlike Holy Word, you don’t need an arsenal of magic items to make it work. Arsenal? You mean 2? Please J. But this disparity (from what I see in q'afuu’s earlier post) is counterbalanced by several mitigating factors. It is NOT mitigated. Unless you're insane and think that 4000 damage within 100 feet is "weak". What are Haste’s mitigating factors? Oh just slow, nausea, stunning, positioning, surprise, dispel magic and company... :rolleyes:
DungeonMaster 06-20-04, 09:22 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu 1) What number? Dead is dead. That's why 3.0 Miasma from MotW is so overpowered. Yeah and they really changed that one ;). I asked rather than 4000 damage, how soon can you hit 1000 damage. I'm going to ask the char opt people again. 2) Nope, the limitation is pretty clear: 1 non-quickened spell per round. Readying doesn't allow you to get around that. I will actually buy that veiled reference without an actual reference. Does this mean summoning takes 2 rounds in 3.5? 3) That's irrelevant (and tons and tons of Haste is definitely better than equal amounts of Blink, btw). Which is best depends on the circumstances (Fly can be pretty useful against the HH, for instance - then again, so can anything that reduces the HH's Str so he can't throw his überrock anymore). No it's actually highly relevant. If given the choice you're probably going to take the spell that is better for the given situation. Haste is not a be-all-and-end-all. I'll take it that means you're conceading the point. 4) 100 ft. instead of 50. Yay! So let me get this straight, you're not impressed by 4000 damage within 100 feet? Are you sure? Did it need long spell range to impress you? 5) Pretty big if. Casting Grease on the rock, merely staying out of range, using a spell to reduce the HHs Str and/or size, stunning, ... :rofl: Ok sure, if none of your warriors ever get to attack, then HH is balanced... agreed..! :rofl: That's not really a proof of concept there my friend. 6) Wins what? What's the exact contest? Max damage? If pure damage is all you have (and it's that easy to counter), you're not the most useful character in my campaigns, not by a long shot. We're not talking about your campaign. In fact we're talking about the balance of non-core material and so far you're managed to waive off 4000 damage a hit but are very perturbed by 2 spells a round and so really I'm not sure what more I can say. So hulking hurler is balanced but fission isn't?
Shadow Blade 06-21-04, 08:42 AM	Does this mean summoning takes 2 rounds in 3.5? One quick question. Where do you get this from? From the SRD: A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed. Or am I missing something :confused:
J. Grenemyer 06-21-04, 02:21 PM	Hey D., Hope your campaign went well this weekend. Now, on to the thread (or what’s left of it ;) ) Note that where possible I’ll be lumping some of your comments together/thinning quoted text in order to avoid point-by-point quote congestion and make things easier to read. Originally posted by DungeonMaster You don't have that many actions as it is, if you play by the rules and enforce them, people often pull out scrolls, weapons, potions, all move equivalent actions. When it comes right down to haste is very good but by no means a huge deficit towards the monsters. I do play by the rules and enforce them. And your point about Haste is just wrong. Haste and Mass Haste create a real, undeniable actions per turn disparity that favor PCs when the rules for actions are enforced as written. I’ve DMed more than three hundred campaign hours with these spells in play; believe me when I say they create a disparity that level advancement (and therefore increase in challenge lethality) does not serve to alleviate. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Then you must have severe problems with non-core 3.5 material like schism, fission, lion's pounce and core material like metamagic rods? <SNIP> Getting more than one action a round is a real part of the game, and it's not like you're getting 10 more actions, you're just getting a single partial action. You seem to think I’m against extra actions all together. This is wrong. Nor is it a positions I’ve openly staked in this debate. Further, your implying a level of equality exists between constant extra action effects and one use effects that doesn’t actually exist. Yes, there are means of gaining extra standard (or partial, depending on which rules edition nomenclature you prefer) actions within both Core and non-Core rules. However, none of them approaches the available-at-low-level, party wide always-on benefit conferred by Haste. (FYI I’m not entirely familiar with Schism and Fission –those are in the revised Psi book, yes?) You’ve as much made my point for me by stating these “extra action” abilities are one shot effects, not constant. Originally posted by DungeonMaster But summoning another balor is way better?! You've doubled your hp, doubled your number of attacks, and can do all of the above only better? … Like the non-core draconomicon's quickened breath weapon? None of these statements manage to refute my main point. Originally posted by DungeonMaster :rofl: Hogwash, one extra partial action does not equal to tripling of the time. Complete nonsense. Use all the synonymous-with-disbelief words you want, such won’t change the fact that I’m right. Haste makes combats take significantly longer as soon as the spell becomes available. Originally posted by DungeonMaster I have seen and done it. Plain old cyrohydra. 12 heads, 3d6 damage a head means 36d6 damage. 126 average damage on failed reflex saves. Many saves will reduce even the best to dust. I rolled well. It happens. The rogue lasted 1 extra round as a result of some evasion then got chomped. So your claim is you can (as a DM) always effectively ambush a party and kill them outright. How is this a counter to haste? Sounds more like a, “Let’s not play DnD anymore,” strategy to me. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Note that monsters often have abilities like the hydra's charge+full attack that are essentially identical. I'm going to compile a list for you I think just to prove my point. Not tonight but sometime this week. Which, as we’ve shown above, would effectively mean nothing. Creatures with such abilities as a Hydra’s or a Beholder’s are the exception, not the rule. All players have access to Haste. Not all creatures have access to Haste or abilities that mimic it in some limited form. Advantage: PCs. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Complete and utter nonsense. <SNIP> That sir is your own skewed perception and has absolutely no basis in reality. [/B] Mind your language, please. And yes, the DMG lists multiple creatures by CR and gives Encounter Levels for them. However, this does not change the fact that adding more creatures to an encounter effectively lessens the average lethality (Bab, AC, HP, etc..) of each individual creature. I’ve tried adding more creatures to encounters while following the rules for encounter levels. Doesn’t work vs. Haste and Mass Haste. A DM must deliberately skew the power curve for creatures higher against haste in order to keep game play challenging. Regardless, a Hasted party vs. multiple creatures (that lumped together equal an average challenge) can do more per turn than an unhasted party of equal level against those same creatures. Advantage: Hasted PCs. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Arsenal? You mean 2? Please J. This is OT, but its worth pointing out the facts: (3.5) Holy Word by itself is not broken. Holy Word with a single Ioun Stone is not broken. Holy Word with a Bead of Karma is not broken. Holy Word with both a Karma Bead and an Ioun stone doesn’t confer a statistically unbalancing advantage at the minimum level where both could be acquired as equipment vs. all creatures of an average challenge at that level for the whopping 10 minutes of the Karma Bead’s duration. You need PrC levels, plus the orange ioun stone plus the Karma bead to be a constant threat (for all of 10 minutes) to all creatures of an average challenge to you at the level where you could attain PrC levels plus the needed equipment. Originally posted by DungeonMaster It is NOT mitigated. Unless you're insane and think that 4000 damage within 100 feet is “weak". Really? Q’uaffu’s list seemed pretty detailed to me. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Oh just slow, nausea, stunning, positioning, surprise, dispel magic and company... Those aren’t mitigating factors, those are potential counters for which at least three are of little use against Haste. 3.0 Haste is broken. :D
q'afuu 06-21-04, 05:13 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster So hulking hurler is balanced but fission isn't? When did I claim either of these?
DungeonMaster 06-24-04, 01:23 AM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer Hope your campaign went well this weekend. Now, on to the thread (or what’s left of it ;) Campaign is paused for the summer. It's a dungeon crawl and has been one of my most deadly yet. Just brutal what can happen to 9th level PCs without preperation in a dungeon... I'm of the opinion the core game is too hard in many respects to be played as a dungeon crawl. That or I just control the monsters too viciously. Haste and Mass Haste create a real, undeniable actions per turn disparity that favor PCs when the rules for actions are enforced as written. Ok rather than just saying the opposite of what you just said I'm going to compile that list. Not tonight, but soon. At 6 hours a week, for 2.5 years of near-continous play I think I have you beat in terms of hours which I peg at conservatively 600 hours. I've played hundreds of hours with these spells in play and I don't see a disparity. If anything between haste and blink I'de say blink is too powerful from my experience. If I compare the number of monsters that are ill-effected by a wizard with a haste spell (0) to the number ill-effected by a rogue with a blink spell (anything that can be criticalled that can lose dex and not see ethereal) I'm going to have to say blink is the winner. However, none of them approaches the available-at-low-level, party wide always-on benefit conferred by Haste. (FYI I’m not entirely familiar with Schism and Fission –those are in the revised Psi book, yes?) Ok... tell me how you're affording available-at-low-level party wide always-on haste?! No, I'm serious, how? You don't have many slots as a wizard and items like boots of speed are damn expensive. I suggest you look it up in the SRD, which is freely available and realise that not everyone, including game designers, think that extra actions are crazy-go-nuts problems. I ask you again, since non-core, even 3.5, seems to step into the realm of what you consider broken, fairly often and obviously so, do you revise your opinion? As for "constant" versus "one-shot" effects I don't think you've got the gist of things. Casting that spell takes up a slot, in many ways a precious slot, there are a lot of very nice 3rd level spells, and combat doesn't often run for 10+ rounds, at least not in my games that's for sure. You get full benefit from it only very rarely. A meta-rod of quicken is "pick and choose appropriate", no in-game cost beyond cash. It is in many ways better too because spells like summonings are made instantaneous. None of these statements manage to refute my main point. Quite the contrary, that's exactly what they do. The balor is better off with his summoning ability than trying to tack on haste in some arbitrary fashion. So you're ok with the monsters having more than one action a round but not the PCs? Is that what I'm to interpret? I'm quite sure if you allow your players to sit around and ponder every move in depth and detail haste will slow your game down a bit. I have a large group, your turn comes up you have 6 seconds to decide what to do, an actual round. Haste or no haste. Works perfectly well. The DM controls the flow of the game, that spell isn't any worse than quickening or all the other miscellaneous things that creep up during game. And as for the "ambush death don't play D&D anymore" all I did was clearly refute with an example how deadly surprise can be, that's it that's all. Not all creatures have access to Haste or abilities that mimic it in some limited form. Advantage: PCs. In 3.5, there are creatures with abilities that mimic haste. Advantage monsters? And yes, the DMG lists multiple creatures by CR and gives Encounter Levels for them. However, this does not change the fact that adding more creatures to an encounter effectively lessens the average lethality (Bab, AC, HP, etc..) of each individual creature. Er.... no not always? The lethality is typically the same and if the DM is a wombat it can go out of the roof?! Combining monsters with varying abilities can make for a much more difficult encounter than a single big creature! Two water nagas that lightning bolt simultaneously can be better than a single spirit naga? Isn't that your whole "haste" argument right there? That's a big generalisation, and if you're only playing with 1 or 2 monster encounters you're missing a big aspect of D&D in my opinion. A DM must deliberately skew the power curve for creatures higher against haste in order to keep game play challenging. I can assure you that's not a reality. 12 orcs + 1 leader are much more threatened by a fireball than by haste. Have you ever had your 12 orcs use aid-another to give their leader ~+18 to hit? So I give the leader haste and he's better off than with his spear weilding brethren? This is OT, but its worth pointing out the facts: (3.5) Holy Word by itself is not broken. Please. The items are fine, it's the spell. Don't throw out the baby with the bath-water. This is ridiculous that you don't consider it broken. In the mock challenges running in the classes boards both 3.5 challenges would have been wiped out in one spell, with just the bead and a single orange ioun stone. It's the most broken spell D&D has ever, ever seen. Even chromatic orb and 1st edition fireballs were better balanced than 3.5 holy word. Those aren’t mitigating factors, those are potential counters for which at least three are of little use against Haste. 3.0 Haste is broken. :rolleyes: So about these um 3.5 non-core powers and spells that mimic purportedly broken mechanics? So non-core is broken too? Tools of the munchkin or not? Can't have it both ways.
MrkGrismer 06-24-04, 10:33 AM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster A meta-rod of quicken is "pick and choose appropriate", no in-game cost beyond cash. It is in many ways better too because spells like summonings are made instantaneous. Quite a lot of cash. Even the least of the metamagic quicken rods are not available to characters until well beyond 8th level (wealth table not in SRD, so going by memory here). It does not make the spell instantaneous, it makes it a quickened spell (a single, non-stackable free action). It is limited to 3 times a day. Summonings are practically instaneous anyways, since you effectively trade your action for the summoned creatures action on the round you summon it anyway.
J. Grenemyer 06-24-04, 04:02 PM	Hello D., My players are about to embark on the last leg of their quest to recover a Holy Sword. If all goes according to plan they’ll reach 20th during or just after this last part. Epic Play ought to be interesting after that! ;) FYI, I just blew up a cohort with positive energy for the first time. That didn’t go over to well. Anyway, give your players hell! Now where were we? Ah, yes... Originally posted by DungeonMaster ….I'm going to compile that list. Not tonight, but soon. <SNIP> I think I have you beat in terms of hours which I peg at conservatively 600 hours. <SNIP> If I compare the number of monsters that are ill-effected by a wizard with a haste spell (0) to the number ill-effected by a rogue with a blink spell … That list would be a waste of time, because it won’t serve to disprove that Haste gives parties an action advantage against all those monsters that parties without Haste won’t enjoy. FYI my estimate was conservative as well. Regardless, this doesn’t serve to change the fact that my experience DMing Haste is the consistent experience of most DMs and players. Lastly, you forgot to mention that Blink inhibits the effectiveness of the creature it’s cast on by limiting movement and providing for a miss chance per attack. Can’t go forgetting that, now can we? Blink is crap compared to Haste. Originally posted by DungeonMaster You don't have many slots as a wizard and items like boots of speed are damn expensive. I suggest you look it up in the SRD, which is freely available and realise that not everyone, including game designers, think that extra actions are crazy-go-nuts problems. A 6th level Sorcerer can afford to buff himself with it once for all 4 of the (average) encounters between rests listed in the DMG, or he can provide the whole party with it during a major encounter. Likewise Wizards will choose Haste as early as 5th level and burn off their remaining spells in only one or two encounters. As characters advance, spell slots increase, so the availability to the party of Haste increases. As soon as 11th/12th level Mass Haste becomes available at which point a party of 4 PCs, plus cohorts, plus animal companions, plus Paladin’s Mount (if a Paladin in the group), plus summoned creatures plus familiars can all benefit from an extra partial action via this single spell. Further, I strongly suggest you define which SRD you are talking about and which designers. I would challenge you to find even one 3.0 Core Rules designer that thinks 3.0 Haste is balanced or that it was a bad idea to nerf it in 3.5, but you won’t find one. What you will find are public comments from the likes of Monte Cook and James Wyatt indicating the 3.5 nerf was the right thing to do. Originally posted by DungeonMaster I ask you again, since non-core, even 3.5, seems to step into the realm of what you consider broken, fairly often and obviously so, do you revise your opinion? I’m still not following why you think it’s necessary to put words in my mouth, much less falsely indicate I’ve taken a position that in reality I haven’t. Also, where and what are the supposedly numerous 3.5 Haste equivalents you keep talking about? Originally posted by DungeonMaster Casting that spell takes up a slot, in many ways a precious slot… <SNIP> A meta-rod of quicken is "pick and choose appropriate", no in-game cost beyond cash. You’re right, spells cost slots. The fact that Haste is always chosen by the majority of gamers says something, doesn’t it? As for full benefit, you mustn’t forget that the benefit of Haste is extra partial actions. You don’t need Haste to last the maximum number of rounds to get full benefit from the spell. As for your example: You’d be hard pressed to convince anyone playing a caster that they’re better off spending 35K/75.5k/170k instead of using one or two 3rd level spell slots for the same effect. Originally posted by DungeonMaster Quite the contrary, that's exactly what they do. Where and how? My original claim was that Haste gives PCs an action surplus that limitless SLAs and Su. abilities can’t overcome. You responded by pointing out one of a very, very few 3.0 creatures (a Balor) that could at best only reduce that advantage by automatically summoning another of its kind (if the Balor itself was not already summoned). We both know a Balor and similar (such as the auto-summoning 3.0 Pit Fiend) are the exception, not the rule. Thus my claim stands. What’s more, a party with Haste vs. a Balor or Pit Fiend is in much better shape than a party without Haste. Haste alone is enough to turn the tide in battles such as this by countering the auto-summoning ability of these creatures. Originally posted by DungeonMaster The balor is better off with his summoning ability than trying to tack on haste in some arbitrary fashion. So you're ok with the monsters having more than one action a round but not the PCs? Is that what I'm to interpret? I never said Haste was a better tactic than summoning. I did say that Haste would enhance a Balor’s already formidable combat prowess. As to your question: In general, monsters can benefit from more than one action per turn without unbalancing play. I’d also like to respond to your earlier comparison between a Dragon’s Quickened Breath feat and a dragon benefiting from Haste: Unlike Haste, all metabreath feats enhance only breath weapons and do not also grant benefits in the form of an extra action. Further, using a Quickened Beath forces a dragon to wait an additional 4 rounds beyond the standard d4 rounds it must wait before it can use its breath weapon again. The Quickened Breath feat is simply not sufficiently similar to Haste in terms of benefits. Originally posted by DungeonMaster I'm quite sure if you allow your players to sit around and ponder every move in depth and detail...<SNIP>...have 6 seconds to decide what to do, an actual round. The DM controls the flow of the game.. Since when did controlling the flow of the game involve not allotting enough time to players so they can’t complete their turn? The problems here are threefold: One, you can’t just assume your (somewhat harsh) style of play is one shared by all other gamers, nor are players making decisions the only point where time is taken up by them. Second, an extra action is an extra action. If a player can do more on his or her turn, he or she will take more time in the doing of it. Finally, that extra action opens up a wide menu of per-turn tactics that significantly change the flow of combat (and thus play). Besides, what player would want to cast Haste if his DM didn’t allow him the extra time to use it? You’re handicapping your players by locking them in to using Haste only before their regular turn, since they can’t complete their turn and then decide how best to use their extra partial action (this last a common tactic). No wonder you can’t see why it’s such a problem! Originally posted by DungeonMaster And as for the "ambush death don't play D&D anymore" all I did was clearly refute with an example how deadly surprise can be, that's it that's all. Except that you didn’t refute any of my points. You made a claim that surprise can be deadly without ever showing how this relates to balancing Haste. Originally posted by DungeonMaster In 3.5, there are creatures with abilities that mimic haste. Advantage monsters? Not all creatures in 3.5 have abilities that mimic Haste; not even a noticeable minority. Those that do will still be outnumbered by PCs who by default enjoy a numbers and action advantage to begin with. Originally posted by DungeonMaster The lethality is typically the same and if the DM is a wombat it can go out of the roof?! <SNIP> Isn't that your whole "haste" argument right there? <SNIP> That's a big generalization... Let’s clarify something here and now: I use multiple creatures in my encounters, deliberately pair certain types to compliment each other and have done so since I first started running my Third Edition Realms Campaign. I also understand quite well how the Encounter Numbers Chart works. My initial point about the Encounter Chart pointing to single creatures was to show that, when Haste is involved, DMs can’t rely at all on solo creatures for encounters. Further, mixing and matching creatures does not always result in a surprise combo, just as mixing and matching creatures means a DM must use two or more creatures that are weaker than a single creature of the same EL, which only serves to net PCs more of an advantage when Haste is used. Finally your, “..whole Haste argument right there?” comment is out in left field. What is it that you’re trying to say? Originally posted by DungeonMaster I can assure you that's not a reality. 12 orcs + 1 leader are much more threatened by a fireball than by haste. Have you ever had your 12 orcs use aid-another to give their leader ~+18 to hit? So I give the leader haste and he's better off than with his spear wielding brethren? You’ve presented an easy-to-overcome scenario that doesn’t need Haste to make it any easier. This doesn’t serve to counter my claim that DMs must make encounters harder in order to account for Haste. FYI in order to aid another (in 3.0) you have to be in a position to attack whatever the guy you’re aiding is attacking. Since a medium character’s square is surrounded by (at most) 8 other squares, one of which is taken up by the leader… how do you get +18? Do you count being in a position to make ranged attacks for aid another purposes? Originally posted by DungeonMaster Please. The items are fine, it's the spell. I haven’t followed your 3.5 challenges, so I can’t comment. I can point to the 3.5 MM though, which fully supports my Holy Word claims. Originally posted by DungeonMaster So about these um 3.5 non-core powers and spells that mimic purportedly broken mechanics? So non-core is broken too? Tools of the munchkin or not? Can't have it both ways. I really have no idea what you’re getting at here. :D
Willie the Duck 06-24-04, 08:25 PM	OMG!!! let the thread die already! I realize that my own statements that happened to mention things I didn't like in core 3.0 caused this nightmare (or, when I'm in a less accomidating mood, it was the nut that leapt all over them), but at least I recognize when people have stop conversing with each other and started conversing against each other. It's clear that no one is going to change their minds. Let it go.