Post/Author/DateTime	Post
John_of_Ark 05-26-07, 06:32 PM	I see a lot of misconceptions on these boards. Most of them have to do with spells or magic item creation, but there's others. Examples would be, "Animate Rope? Cool, I'll make a rope golem" or "K, I polymorph the rogue into a hydra so now he's got uber stats and gets 8 sneak attacks" My goal here is to use this thread to clear up these kinds of things. Also, feel free to post any kind of munchkinry that is technically allowed by the rules but obviously goes against the writer's intent, like casting create water in someone's lungs to kill them instantly. I'm a big fan of screwing with the rules in favor of fun, and feel free to allow these things if you have more fun that way, but just remember that these are against the rules and if you want to allow any of it run it by your DM first. One more thing. I don't mind if you use this thread to vent, but try not to attack other players. Happy posting. -John
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-26-07, 06:44 PM	The biggest, most prevalent ones I see here have to do with undead. Here's the worst ones: - the Undead creature type is inherently Evil - Negative energy is Evil - The process of creating undead somehow trps or damages the soul - mindless undead go on killing sprees if left uncontrolled. - Vampires need blood to survive in DnD.
Inigo Carmine 05-26-07, 09:32 PM	Common Misconceptions: - You can only sneak attack once per round - You can only perform 1 free action per round - Moving into a threatened square provokes an AoO - An "Attack Action" can be substituted with any standard action. This leads to confusion on Manyshot, Spring attack and casting multiple spells in a round due to high BAB. - The first and best way to price an item is based off of a spell. The only reason not to do this is if you can BS your way into making it cheaper via some other method. - 5-ft stepping out of a threatened area and then performing an action that would provoke an AoO if you were threatened (but you no longer are) still provokes an AoO. - Touch attacks are performed using your dex mod whether you have weapon finesse or not. - Animal Companions grow in size as their HD increases - Fighting Defensively and Combat Expertise cannot be used together. - You can critically hit or sneak attack heal someone for extra healing. - Spells cannot crit or sneak attack under any circumstances. - Armor restricts dexterity to everything, not just AC - Being denied your dex bonus to AC denies your dex bonus to everything, not just your AC - You lose a dex penalty to AC when flat footed - If you are flat footed you don't get a reflex save - If you can't move out of the area of an AoE you are denied a reflex save - Flat footed and being denied dex bonus to AC are exactly the same thing Those are just off the top of my head.
Devil Gnasher 05-26-07, 10:00 PM	Here are a few related to alignment. -Lawful Evil means Nice Evil and Honorable Evil. -Chaos means the ends justifies the means and ADD. -Lawfuls can't be artists and minstrels or go into a berserk rage. -Chaotic Goods are darker in personality than Neutral or Lawful Goods. -Demons and other extraplanar being of Chaos are bad long term thinkers by nature.
the_Luggage 05-26-07, 10:06 PM	-Eberron is all about robots and steampunk!11oneone
queenfange 05-26-07, 10:59 PM	That chaotic neutral means "stupid, irrational, and generally insane."
Zonhin 05-26-07, 11:03 PM	Never mind.
AffableDoomwalker 05-26-07, 11:27 PM	Misconceptions I've noticed: -Using social skills is for wimps -When it comes down to alignment, intent doesn't matter -You can't maintain an evil alignment if you're stuck on a desert island or in a prison for any long period of time -You can maintain a good alignment if you're stuck in the above-mentioned situations, but nobody knows how exactly -Good Kills Evil, Evil Kills Everything, Neutral cries a lot and hides in corners -Evil is not a valid alignment -Good doesn't need to be good if it does evil in the name of the greater good -Evil means you automatically go to D&D hell when you die -Rogues = thieves -Rogues are supposed to steal from the party -Regardless of whether or not it fits the game, PvP is awesome!
the_Luggage 05-26-07, 11:33 PM	-Rouge is a character class, not a type of make up.
fun2223 05-26-07, 11:33 PM	The party paladin MUST kill anything with an evil alignment. The party wizard MUST Always use magic. No PC can take over the world...
navar100 05-27-07, 12:05 AM	I see a lot of misconceptions on these boards. Most of them have to do with spells or magic item creation, but there's others. Examples would be, "Animate Rope? Cool, I'll make a rope golem" Oh boy, our psion tried that trick several sessions ago. I knew it was stupid, but it wasn't my place to say anything. Naturally it did diddly squat and got shredded. I guess preventing the ghoul from attacking a party member for one round while it took care of this nuisance is some help.
navar100 05-27-07, 12:15 AM	Other misconceptions: 1) Fighters suck. :P 2) If a paladin is not tempted to fall it means the player is just playing the paladin for the benefits and will not play the class "properly". 3) The Duskblade spell list doesn't exist. 4) Starting a 1st level character with high average ability scores means the player will play recklessly and/or won't roleplay. 5) Lawful Good means your character can't do anything "fun" like drinking, having relations, obtain wealth, etc. 6) How you play the game or character class means another player playing it differently is wrong. 7) Psionics is overpowered. 8) Warlock is overpowered. 9) Tome of Battle is only anime. 10) Color Spray affects 1d6 opponents. (guilty :P ) 11) Clerics are only good for healing.
criticalstriker 05-27-07, 12:37 AM	-Psionics are broken -Fighters suck -Players can't take over the world -Wizards are overpowered -Two-weapon fighting sucks
Mister_Sinister 05-27-07, 12:56 AM	Misconceptions I have seen and wish to go away: - Psionics is broken - ToB is broken - Fighter 20 is competitive with wizard 20 - Samurai 20 is competitive with fighter 20 - Any build involving true necromancer or mystic theurge is playable - Druids are not broken - Clerics are not broken - Wizards are not broken - Spells and feats scale at the same pace - Giving up caster levels is an acceptable trade-off for a primarily spell-based build - Self-gimping is an example of good roleplay - Making an effective character is an example of bad roleplay - DMs have some sort of god-given right to be *******s to their players - Players have some sort of god-given right to be *******s to their DMs - RP elitists have some sort of god-given right to be *******s to those that don't agree with them - Level-dipping is munchkin - Making a character which can compete with challenges of his CR is munchkin - Rule 0 = nothing is ever broken - Rule 0 = everything is effectively broken - DMs thinking they have some sort of god-given right to abuse the nerf-bat - Players thinking they have some sort of god-given right to make their DM abuse the nerf-bat - Non-mechanically-driven use of the nerf-bat (when reflavouring will do) I think I better stop, otherwise this'll go on forever!
NobodyRemembersThis 05-27-07, 12:57 AM	One, CORE fighters do suck elephant genitals. (not a misconception) Misconceptions: -Spell Immunity defends against Mind Blast (it does not) - Wizards aren't overpowered. - fighters can contribute as fairly and evenly as other classes (No it can not) - Shapechange is not broken as long as the players willingly don't use it to the best of their abilities. :bored:
Mister_Sinister 05-27-07, 01:03 AM	Shapechange is not broken as long as the players willingly don't use it to the best of their abilities. I believe it should be extended to 'Nothing is broken, as players can be trusted to not use anything to the best of their abilities.'
Particle_Man 05-27-07, 01:13 AM	-There is no save for half vs. cure/inflict spells (guilty, but in my defence it wasn't a misconception in 1st ed.). -What everyone above me said.:P [Goes to look up Color Spray] :P
Ongorth 05-27-07, 01:19 AM	I believe it should be extended to 'Nothing is broken, as players can be trusted to not use anything to the best of their abilities.' Well, that's not a misconception at all. If player's intentionally play things in a way that isn't broken, it won't be broken. That's pretty much fact. If I bring a gun to a knife fight and only pistol whip with it, its not really broken. Just dumb. Social solutions to bad game design are valid. Possibly they are undesirable, but they, in fact, work.
Seeker95 05-27-07, 09:13 AM	- Shapechange is not broken as long as ...Related misconceptions: If I think X is broken, it must be broken. If *I* have a problem with it, it must be broken. If I can break it with a combination of different rules, it must be broken. If I can break it in a specific set of circumstances, it must be broken. If I can interpret a rule one way that breaks it, it must be broken.
Metafictional 05-27-07, 11:58 AM	Carefully thought-out theorycraft optimized character builds will survive contact with the game. ^-^ (almost every game will send some curve ball you didn't anticipate your way, that may make you want to re-evaluate your build.) Carefully thought-out theorycraft optimized character builds will survive contact with new rulebooks (what the?! They made a Race/Feat/core class/class option/PrC/spell/weapon/magic item that's PERFECT for my concept!). WotC playtests every new core Class all the way to level 20. The core rules are balanced within themselves, it's all the optional books that wreck your game. Optional books are perfectly balanced with the core rules, and will not wreck your game. Monkey Grip definitely works with Powerful Build. Katanas are always +5 Vorpal Bastard Swords. Anything with the word "Elf" or "Elven" attached to it is broken (err...wait). The offspring of a Red Dragon and a Blue Dragon would be a Purple Dragon. Barbarians are bullies that beat your Wizard up and takes his lunch money. Barbarians hate magic. Barbarians hate armor. Barbarians hate clothing. Barbarians hate you. Everyone who posts on this forum is a PvP-addicted 12-year old boy who wants to be Pun-Pun when he grows up. Everyone who posts on this forum is a rational, intelligent adult, capable of mature insights, who always play Fighters, because everything else is broken. I'm sorry, I meant Warriors. The Assassin is better at killing people than a Wizard. I mean duh, he's sneaky and like a ninja. The Wizard just reads books. If you let Psionics into your game, all starting characters have a chance to know Disintegrate, Psionic, at first-level. (I could keep this up all day!)
Lord T Hawkeye 05-27-07, 12:14 PM	"Because I don't like it" is a legit reason to ban something No it isn't. If a player plays something crazy or "anime like", it may not be the kind of character I'd play but that's not my call. Let's not forget, the purpose here is to have fun and if a player finds his character fun, he has won at DnD. Simple as that. Alignment is stupid and black/white Then you're not doing it right. Alignment is NOT intended to be hard and fast, the player's handbook says this VERY clearly (note the example where Tordek is lawful good but is known to succumb to greed). A creature's alignment is just what view is the CLOSEST fitting to his. It's only overly black and white if you make it such. BoED/BoVD woes Disturbing traits, maybe they're not all inherrantly evil but that's not the point of them, the point is to add more flavour to the really twisted villains out there. Let's face it, a bad guy with ritual scars is just that much creepier no? Vow of chastity is not saying sex is evil. It's more about putting your own desires aside to better devote yourself to the cause of good is all. Why are poisons evil and ravages aren't? For the same reason unholy blight is evil and fireball isn't even though both do damage. Savy? Have a problem with the argument that the ends don't justify the means? Well they don't. Seriously, everyone who tries to argue otherwise is well on his way down the path of corruption. It happens every time. Core is god and all else sucks You sound like a beholder. I have splat books to thank for a lot of things I wanted but weren't in the core books like stats on death knights, elder brains and various other things I could use to add more to my campaigns. Yes I could design them myself just fine but that's a very iffy business. Balacing things is NOT easy. (anyone who claims they use only core and make up new stuff to fit on the fly with no difficulty either has selective memory or is a bold faced liar) If it's unbalanced, by all means disallow it but don't disallow something JUST because it's not core. The mind works far better when it's open dontcha know? - the Undead creature type is inherently Evil Then...why are the overwhelming majority of undead in all books evil? Just because you say so doesn't make it true. Creating undead is a frowned upon act because it's an act of disrespect for the dead, no different than vandalizing someone's grave stone and making oneself undead is frowned upon because it goes against the proper cycle of life. You're born, you live, you die. You're not special enough to merit weaseling out of that.
Seeker95 05-27-07, 12:34 PM	Just because you say so doesn't make it true.Equally applicable to your own post as well as all the others, including mine. :tiphat:
Deacon Liadon 05-27-07, 12:38 PM	The most common misconception I've seen on these boards: -Paladins cannot travel with evil party members. Just because they don't want to, doesn't mean they can't.
Lord T Hawkeye 05-27-07, 12:39 PM	Not so much if you can back your words up. He just said they aren't evil and left it at that.
Particle_Man 05-27-07, 01:13 PM	The most common misconception I've seen on these boards: -Paladins cannot travel with evil party members. Just because they don't want to, doesn't mean they can't. "A paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters" seems pretty clear here. It's the word "never" that seals the deal for me.
Deacon Liadon 05-27-07, 01:19 PM	"A paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters" seems pretty clear here. It's the word "never" that seals the deal for me. But "will" is the important one. As I say, just because you will not do something. It doesn't mean you cannot do something.
BlaineTog 05-27-07, 01:32 PM	But "will" is the important one. As I say, just because you will not do something. It doesn't mean you cannot do something.The syntax monkey seems to have latched onto my face. IOW: huh? I don't see how that "will" changes anything at all. EDIT: Oh, I see what you mean. It's specious. "will never knowingly" is the whole phrase, and cutting out the second two parts is deadly. If a situation arises such that a paladin doesn't know that one of his companions is evil, then yes, they can travel together just fine, but if he knows, he will not travel with them if he isn't being literally forced to (such as if he is chained to a cart or something). And technically, in the strictest sense of the word, the paladin CAN travel with an evil person (the universe doesn't make it literally impossible), but the strictest sense is never the one used here, so it's pointless to take it like that.
queenfange 05-27-07, 02:07 PM	The point of the game is to see how broken you can get. If it ain't broken, it's no fun. Bards are either obnoxious or pansies or both.
SephDragoon 05-27-07, 02:47 PM	You can't make an effective bard character for combat. The most powerful things in the game are high level spells. (the best use of spells are the low level ones. Just because an 18th level sorcerer doesn't have 9th level spells doesn't mean he can't still kill you easily) To go with the one above, you can't make an effective spellcaster if he multiclasses. Doing a good deed makes you good, and doing an evil deed makes you evil. (best when said together to realize how ludicrous it is) Psionics are completely fair. (adding psionics to a normal campaign is not fair... having psionic resistance not be the same as spell resistance makes too many encounters a breeze for psionic characters) THe fighter is weak compared to other classes. (we had a twf crit fiend fighter in our party... owned everything he came across)
KillerGM 05-27-07, 03:46 PM	-Rogues = thieves -Rogues are supposed to steal from the party QFT. Some of mine: Fighters suck. Clerics and Druids rule the game. That anyone who goes on and on and on about how "broken" or "powerful" something is has either played it or had one played in his/her game... and used the correct RAW. Paladins must extend adherence to his code to those with whom he travels via a "my way or the highway" approach. If there isn't inter-party conflict inherent to a group from the outset, then there isn't any roleplaying going on. "Lone wolf" concepts are always a good choice. D&D can't be played without changing the rules. Homebrew is the best possible setting for any campaign, every time. Worlds in which magic doesn't exist are FUN! Video games have ruined roleplaying. Lots of background = good character and/or roleplayer. Magic items should be rare and difficult to come by, and no character should ever expect to be able to purchase one. Repeating something over and over again makes it true. There is only one right answer to any problem or one correct interpretation to something. If someone differs from you, one of you is wrong (probably the other guy, cause why would you be wrong? ;)).
NobodyRemembersThis 05-27-07, 04:50 PM	- That passing off houserules as a "valid interpretation" of the SRD and RAW is perfectly acceptable and not intellectually dishonest. This correlates wonderfully with the Oberoni Fallacy.
ArcTan 05-27-07, 05:02 PM	The biggest, most prevalent ones I see here have to do with undead. Here's the worst ones: - the Undead creature type is inherently Evil - Negative energy is Evil - The process of creating undead somehow trps or damages the soul - mindless undead go on killing sprees if left uncontrolled. - Vampires need blood to survive in DnD. These aren't "misconceptions" so much as "campaign decisions", since they have very little to do with mechanically balancing the game and mostly have to do with how you want your campaign world to work. Similarly, "Paladins are horrible judgmental zealots who are evil under another name" isn't actually a *misconception*. It's a *decision*, whether or not it's the same one you would make or run your campaign by. Heroes of Horror specifically gives rules for using Evil as a force ("Taint") and potentially associating it with Evil magic, demons, the undead, magic in general, violence in general, etc. Wanting to use these rules is not a "misconception". BoVD stated that casting [Evil] spells was an Evil act, and the Eberron Campaign Setting repeats this. People who use either of these books and make casting [Evil] spells an Evil act are, in fact, going by RAW (and RAW that doesn't *contradict* anything in the PHB even if the PHB doesn't contain a clause that literally says "Evil spells are Evil acts".) Undeath is not inherently Evil in that Undead creatures lack the Evil subtype and that there are a small minority of Undead monster entries that don't have the Always Evil alignment line, but it is true that animate dead, create undead and so forth are all [Evil] spells (which means Good Clerics may not request them as spells, if you're playing in core, or Good Clerics may request them as spells but casting them is an Evil act, if you're playing in Eberron). The whole question of what the *flavor* for Undeath and the soul is is an *open* question, which Libris Mortis leaves unanswered, providing several possibilities for you to use. However, it is a fact that Undeath universally prevents resurrection. (Even true resurrection is completely incapable of resurrecting someone who currently actively exists as an Undead being, even if that being is a Skeleton or Zombie.) How one *interprets* this is up to you. The fact is that D&DG's rules about Petitioners don't mention the possibility of being raised as Undead at all, neither in the case of Skeletons nor in the case of Vampires and Vampire Spawn (and most people do agree that Vampires are the same person as who they were in life in some essential sense, even if their alignment or behavior changes). Finally, Libris Mortis includes rules that are not core but are RAW, stating that while Vampires do not require blood to continue to survive and will continue to survive indefinitely if denied blood, they have an inescapable longing to drink blood that can't be denied -- this longing manifests as Wisdom damage, and if your Wis hits 0 you lose control of your character and he becomes a raging beast who is incapable of taking any actions other than trying to drink blood. Can we please use this thread as actual, clearly provable rules-based misinterpretations of things that have to do with game balance and rules, *not* "Ways other people play D&D that I don't like"?
ArcTan 05-27-07, 05:03 PM	- That passing off houserules as a "valid interpretation" of the SRD and RAW is perfectly acceptable and not intellectually dishonest. This correlates wonderfully with the Oberoni Fallacy. I'm guessing you're a member of the John Birch society in real life, huh? This is only even relevant if you treat arguing like the forums as some kind of game with rules that you can try to win at, which some people sadly seem to do (I plead guilty on multiple occasions). It's not relevant to *games* of D&D at all. In a game of D&D, the DM's interpretation of the rules *is* a valid interpretation -- in fact, it's the *only* valid interpretation for that game, and if he chooses to use the word "interpretation" for it rather than "houserule", that's really his business.
ArcTan 05-27-07, 05:06 PM	Here are a few related to alignment. -Lawful Evil means Nice Evil and Honorable Evil. -Chaos means the ends justifies the means and ADD. -Lawfuls can't be artists and minstrels or go into a berserk rage. -Chaotic Goods are darker in personality than Neutral or Lawful Goods. -Demons and other extraplanar being of Chaos are bad long term thinkers by nature. Alignment is not clearly defined in the rules. The fact that there is a place in the rules that tries to define alignment does not change this fact. Anyone who chooses to use alignment, therefore, is free to define it any way they want as long as everyone else is cool with it. That's up to them. Again, this is undermining the point of the thread by replacing "misconceptions" with "disagreements".
Escef 05-27-07, 05:12 PM	I'm guessing you're a member of the John Birch society in real life, huh? This is only even relevant if you treat arguing like the forums as some kind of game with rules that you can try to win at, which some people sadly seem to do (I plead guilty on multiple occasions). It's not relevant to *games* of D&D at all. In a game of D&D, the DM's interpretation of the rules *is* a valid interpretation -- in fact, it's the *only* valid interpretation for that game, and if he chooses to use the word "interpretation" for it rather than "houserule", that's really his business. I know Jack Diddly about Mr. Birch. However, I do largely agree with NRT that putting forth a house-rule as RAW is bad form. There have been a handful of times I have houseruled certain things (mostly that flanked effectively becomes a status rather than a bonus only 2 people can get), but I make sure to note that I am differing from RAW. Every now and again I make an outright mistake, and I acknowledge it when I do.
ArcTan 05-27-07, 05:13 PM	I'm guessing that staying on this thread for any length of time will just tick me off, so I have only one actual thing to add to the list (which repeats what the OP said): The idea that the clause in alter self that says you can't use it to get more attacks is meaningless, and that you can, in fact, use it to get more attacks. The reason it really bugs me is that Skip Williams basically decided this in his Rules of the Game column, and he decided it by writing an entirely incoherent paragraph that basically boils down to "If the monster couldn't actually use that limb to make a natural attack anyway, he can't, and if that monster couldn't actually use that limb to wield a manufacterd weapon anyway, he can't, but everything else is fair game", which is idiotic. And so a lot of people have basically decided that that clause doesn't exist and defend that decision by mumbling the same gibberish Skip Williams did ("It, er, means I can't use the Hydra heads to fire longbows, 'cause otherwise I'd totally be able to do that"). It's offensive to me because polymorph is already a broken spell that causes no end of headaches already, but this is *offensively* broken -- i.e. being able to turn into a Hydra and get *as many attacks as a Hydra can get* in conjunction with class abilities is *too obviously broken for the designers not to have seen it*, which is why it's one of the few exploits they *did* patch in the alter self desc, and Skip Williams saw fit to undo it.
ArcTan 05-27-07, 05:19 PM	I know Jack Diddly about Mr. Birch. It's the name of a group that basically says we have to read the Constitution as though we were rules lawyers, and therefore the civil rights movement, income tax, and the Army are all illegal. However, I do largely agree with NRT that putting forth a house-rule as RAW is bad form. There have been a handful of times I have houseruled certain things (mostly that flanked effectively becomes a status rather than a bonus only 2 people can get), but I make sure to note that I am differing from RAW. Every now and again I make an outright mistake, and I acknowledge it when I do. Openly saying "RAW says that Sorcerers have the same spell progression as Wizards" is one thing. It's not what Nobody was talking about, since he's made it pretty clear he's passive-aggressively continuing the same little tiff about Mind Blast over in this forum. He's arguing, in effect, that interpreting a spell that says it works on spell-like abilities as not working on spell-like abilities because it doesn't say you can *designate* a spell-like ability is a "houserule". By this standard, any level of actual intelligence and reading comprehension is a "houserule". My pet peeve is people who do this, and who will therefore *create* problems where none exist by deciding that enervation doesn't stack even though it says it stacks, by deciding they're going to read the rules as though they were computers and not humans. That thing where you decide one bit of text makes a whole paragraph irrelevant and therefore that paragraph doesn't exist? That's something *computers* do. That's something computers do because they are *stupid*, and generally is the source of a great many bugs and crashes in computer programs when a block of code the programmer wrote unintentionally gets skipped -- a function never gets called, a counter never gets incremented -- because he left out one crucial function call somewhere in the code. Humans, who are smarter than computers, are supposed to be capable of reading a whole lot of text and realizing that, y'know, if it's written there it means something and trying to figure out what it means. This is why computer programs are debugged by *humans* who understand the intentions of the original programmer and can therefore detect things a program can't. (Although even computer programs can be programmed to have this kind of understanding. You know there's a reason your C compiler raises a flag when there's a function that's never called, right?)
Escef 05-27-07, 05:29 PM	It's the name of a group that basically says we have to read the Constitution as though we were rules lawyers, and therefore the civil rights movement, income tax, and the Army are all illegal. Yeah, I did a little bit of reading on them just now, not much, just enough to tell me that they aren't for me. It's not what Nobody was talking about, since he's made it pretty clear he's passive-aggressively continuing the same little tiff about Mind Blast over in this forum. Be that as it may, I agree with the idea, if not the sentiment that spawned it. If he's trying to drag another arguement here, don't help him do so.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-27-07, 07:20 PM	These aren't "misconceptions" so much as "campaign decisions", since they have very little to do with mechanically balancing the game and mostly have to do with how you want your campaign world to work. This is not a campaign decision when people state them as actual rules in discussions. Many people know full well that they're lying, but just as many actually think they've read it. So it's a misconception.
Ongorth 05-27-07, 08:04 PM	- That passing off houserules as a "valid interpretation" of the SRD and RAW is perfectly acceptable and not intellectually dishonest. This correlates wonderfully with the Oberoni Fallacy. This isn't a misconception about playing D&D. In D&D, you use RIP not RAW. The only "vaild interpretation" of RAW that matters is the one that works best for you. Whether or not you call it RAW, the SRD or a houserule is irrelevant. Again, you're citing what is possibly bad game design (the need to interpret RAW rather then RAW working cleanly out of the box), not misconceptions.
navar100 05-27-07, 08:11 PM	[QUOTE=NobodyRemembersThis;12513804]One, CORE fighters do suck elephant genitals. (not a misconception) QUOTE] Case in point of the misconception.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-27-07, 09:53 PM	Case in point of the misconception. Not really. They have no class features, they aren't the best choice in thier niche and the only reason to pikc them over a barbarian is if you want a feat tree or want to be Lawful but have a bad DM.
Alpha_Moose 05-27-07, 10:49 PM	Creating undead is a frowned upon act because it's an act of disrespect for the dead, no different than vandalizing someone's grave stone and making oneself undead is frowned upon because it goes against the proper cycle of life. You're born, you live, you die. You're not special enough to merit weaseling out of that. I always thought that this was funny. If you can weasel out of death, shouldn't you be special enough to deserve it? The most powerful things in the game are high level spells. (the best use of spells are the low level ones. Just because an 18th level sorcerer doesn't have 9th level spells doesn't mean he can't still kill you easily) Ohhhhhhhhhh, no. While creative uses of low level spells can work very well, high level spells can completely disrupt the game. Shapechange can make anyone a tank or caster, and Gate can give anyone a tank or caster... with unlimited wishes. There is something I'd like to mention though: D&D is a roleplaying game. So while there are completely broken things built into the game system, a competent DM with knowledge of these things will make them never actually disrupt a game. Of course that doesn't make talking about what is or isn't broken, overpowered, or sucks at all useless.
NobodyRemembersThis 05-27-07, 11:07 PM	It's not what Nobody was talking about, since he's made it pretty clear he's passive-aggressively continuing the same little tiff about Mind Blast over in this forum. He's arguing, in effect, that interpreting a spell that says it works on spell-like abilities as not working on spell-like abilities because it doesn't say you can *designate* a spell-like ability is a "houserule". By this standard, any level of actual intelligence and reading comprehension is a "houserule". Wasn't referring to that ArcTan - but since you bring it up the spell does explicitly state you can only select spells - not effects, but spells - to become immune to. The spell itself is illogical and that line needs to be stricken from it. I think we both agree that that particular line needs to go. But trying to say you should ignore that it is there - which has been your arguement - is a houserule. While it might be a common sense house rule, it is still a houserule.
NobodyRemembersThis 05-27-07, 11:11 PM	This isn't a misconception about playing D&D. In D&D, you use RIP not RAW. The only "vaild interpretation" of RAW that matters is the one that works best for you. Whether or not you call it RAW, the SRD or a houserule is irrelevant. Again, you're citing what is possibly bad game design (the need to interpret RAW rather then RAW working cleanly out of the box), not misconceptions.When you are on these forums discussing the rules, attempting to pass a houserule off as RAW is a deliberate attempt to mislead fellow gamers. And yet, it still happens. That's why the Oberoni Fallacy will never go away.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-27-07, 11:14 PM	Then...why are the overwhelming majority of undead in all books evil? Just because you say so doesn't make it true. What does that have to do with what I said? I said the type isn't inherently evil. The overwhelming majority of aberrations is evil too, but that doesn't make the type evil. Just because you buy into a misconception doesn't stop it from being one.
NobodyRemembersThis 05-27-07, 11:21 PM	What Vaal is getting at is that only creatures with the [Evil] descriptor tag are inherently evil, regardless of alignment - which does some fun things if you helm of opposite alignment a fiend. Got to Love a LG creature that always detects as evil (Evil descriptor). I have seen more than a few stroeis/adbventures featureing "Fallen Angels". Said Celestials still have to have the [Good] tag even while being evil. Makes it interesting because you won't detect them as vil - queue all sorts of Paladin problems.
Praesul 05-27-07, 11:42 PM	- The Core Rules are 100% unambiguous. - The Core Rules are written in precise contract language, and thus are not left open to interpretation. - We can all read the minds of the developers and thus know exactly what they had in mind when they drafted some particular rule. - My opinion is actually a fact for the sole reason that it's my opinion.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-28-07, 12:05 AM	Subtype, not tag, NRT. Tags are a whole other pile of BS that I purposefully didn't mention in this thread.
Bob Loblaw 05-28-07, 12:05 AM	One of the biggest misconceptions that I have seen on these boards (and from people in general) is that they assume that all campaigns, DMs, and players will play exactly the same way. Many times people forget that the personalities, likes, and dislikes of the group will have a huge impact on what parts of the game are used or not used. Not everyone uses only Large through Gargantuan creatures for the EL 15+ encounters. Not everyone wants to or understands how to play casters. Not everyone wants to learn a new set of rules so won't use Tome of Battle or Psionics. Too often we forget that we are all individuals with different tastes and yet we can all play the same game with the same rules and have the same level of fun.
Ongorth 05-28-07, 12:51 AM	When you are on these forums discussing the rules, attempting to pass a houserule off as RAW is a deliberate attempt to mislead fellow gamers. And yet, it still happens. That's why the Oberoni Fallacy will never go away. That's a cynical interpretation of what people are doing. I don't think deception is at play, but instead apathy. People simply find the concept of RAW irrelevant so don't even consider it worth bearing weight on the discussion. Again, the fact that people don't think RAW has intrinsic value is likely indictitive of poor game design, but does not neccessarily mean there is a misconception as to what it is.
SephDragoon 05-28-07, 01:27 AM	Ohhhhhhhhhh, no. While creative uses of low level spells can work very well, high level spells can completely disrupt the game. Shapechange can make anyone a tank or caster, and Gate can give anyone a tank or caster... with unlimited wishes. Telekinesis - Grapple with an AOE Duration spell. Hold em... that's all you have to do. I will take a well placed low level spell over a gate any day of the week. Hence my level 17 character only has access to 6th level spells, but I wouldn't ever go playing a full caster instead, and my DM is constant hating me for beating full casters with full spell progression. Could I play a full caster better? Maybe... but I think the multiclassing works out better for me than if I had gone full caster. Besides, sure you could Gate in a creature with unlimited wishes. Heck, in a real D&D world, without DM intereferance, the world would have been destroyed long ago for this very reason. But DM's are there for a reason.
Devil Gnasher 05-28-07, 01:40 AM	What does that have to do with what I said? I said the type isn't inherently evil. The overwhelming majority of aberrations is evil too, but that doesn't make the type evil. Just because you buy into a misconception doesn't stop it from being one. Exactly. Besides, we have the flumph. It's the most Lawful Good aberration in all of D&D and it looks like a furry, levitating white jellyfish with two eyestalks and a mouth. If we can have the flumph why can't we have Good aligned undead as well? Yes, I'm serious about this.
ArcTan 05-28-07, 01:48 AM	This is not a campaign decision when people state them as actual rules in discussions. Many people know full well that they're lying, but just as many actually think they've read it. So it's a misconception. *shrug* "Is inherently Evil" isn't a term that has a definition in D&D. Demons are supposed to be "inherently Evil", but look at WotC's website -- hey, there's a Succubus Paladin. Only one of her kind, tragic epic story, bla bla bla. *shrug* As *flavor text*, "Undead are inherently Evil" or a variant has been repeated multiple places, including the Book of Vile Darkness, Libris Mortis, and so on. It's up to you how to interpret flavor text -- and one possible interpretation is rejecting it entirely -- but it is there. When I've had this argument before with people, I have pointed out that detect evil does detect all Undead whether or not the Undead is actually Evil, that animate dead and create undead are [Evil] spells (whatever that may or may not mean to you), that the vast majority of Undead monster entries say Always Evil, including all but two of the core ones (the Mummy, who's Usually Evil, and the Ghost, who's Any). Whether that means Undead are "inherently Evil" is up to you. "Inherently Evil" is a tricky term. If "inherently Evil" means "having the Evil subtype", then no, Undead are not inherently Evil. But that's not what everyone uses the word to mean. (After all, I use the word "inherently Evil" to describe [Evil] spells, but not everyone agrees with that, do they?) Coming right out and saying "Undead are inherently Evil" is a misconception is wrong. It's like saying that "Paladins aren't really good people, they're just jerks, and Lawful Good in D&D actually represents the concept of being an intolerant bad person with good intentions". I don't agree with that statement, but I don't see it as a "misconception". It's a very broad statement about the way someone sees the game. It's not a rules misconception because it's not an issue about the rules. Here's my real problem with this: These discussions turn into flamewars because they involve people wanting to say that they're objectively right about something whose interpretation is malleable. The statement "Undeath has no link to moral alignment whatsoever. That's just prejudice" is fine, in your campaign. You may choose to make that the truth of your campaign (this is not "houseruling", no rules are being changed). However, it *is* houseruling to claim that: - Skeletons and Zombies are not be considered Always Neutral Evil but rather Always True Neutral, and therefore do not react in the alignment-appropriate way to spells like holy word or to a holy weapon. - Corollary to the above: Mindless creatures are always True Neutral. (Exists nowhere in the 3.5 rules.) - Animate dead and create undead do not have the [Evil] spell descriptor. Good Clerics can acquire and use these spells just as easily as Evil Clerics. - Also, if you're playing in the Eberron setting, then it is indeed *not* houseruling to let Good Clerics prepare animate dead, but it *is* houseruling to say that casting animate dead is not an Evil act. - Alignment descriptors only apply to spells that specifically mention alignment, i.e. protection from chaos. Various spells that don't specifically interact with alignment itself that use negative energy, such as deathwatch, are not [Evil]. - Detect undead only detects Undead if they are Evil, and has no special power to detect Undead -- it treats them like all other creatures. All of these are blatantly houserules, and I, too, have encountered these arguments over and over again in debates on this matter. And it was actually a lot more ingrained -- I don't remember ever saying "No, Undead *do* have the Evil subtype" or "No, the Negative Energy Plane *is* evil-aligned". I do remember saying that it was an absolute *fact* that detect evil had no special power to detect Undead or saying as a absolute *fact* that deathwatch wasn't an [Evil] spell, and then seamlessly shifting from "is" to "should be" when confronted on these issues. So yeah, take this as my list of preconceptions I don't like when approaching the Is Undeath Evil? issue. (Also, by the way, "Vampires need to drink blood or they die" is obviously not RAW. "Vampires need to drink blood or they keep taking Wisdom damage until they become insane slavering beasts who will do anything to drink blood" just as obviously *is* RAW, if not core. "Vampires have the Always Evil alignment" is both.)
ArcTan 05-28-07, 02:06 AM	What does that have to do with what I said? I said the type isn't inherently evil. The overwhelming majority of aberrations is evil too, but that doesn't make the type evil. Who says they aren't? (In Eberron they basically are, in terms of flavor, anyway. Same with a game of d20 Call of Cthulhu.) The RAW says they don't have the Evil subtype. "Inherently Evil" is a completely subjective term that can mean any number of different things. It's a flavor text term. It has no rules-based meaning or rules-based implication. We all agree that a Succubus Paladin takes extra damage from a holy weapon even after her miraculous conversion to the side of Good. We all agree that a tragic Forever Knight-type hero Vampire Paladin who swears off feeding from humans and struggles constantly with his curse and tries to fight Evil in all its forms will no longer take extra damage from holy weapons. We disagree on what that *implies*, flavorwise, and whether the latter fact still lets you say "Vampires are 'inherently Evil'". I think you can. I don't think the Evil subtype and what I mean by "inherently Evil" are the same thing, exactly, just as you don't think the [Evil] spell descriptor makes a spell "inherently Evil". I agree that the system could be more consistent, sure. I think we disagree in which direction we want it to be more consistent. Which is fine. But there are inconsistencies with the statement "Undeath has no link to moral Evil", just as there are with "Undeath is intrinsically or inherently Evil". The rules say things that implicitly contradict *both* points of view. Just because you buy into a misconception doesn't stop it from being one. Just because you see it as a misconception -- and set up a straw man that's obviously a misconception -- doesn't make you right. Am I claiming that you're saying "Detect evil doesn't have a special separate line for Undead, who don't have to be Evil-aligned themselves to be detected by it"? No. Because you would be wrong about that. Instead, you are obviously familiar with that rule, and you obviously chose to interpret it in a different manner than I did, or houserule it out of your game. Which is *fine*. Just don't call me interpreting it my way a "misconception".
Drascin 05-28-07, 02:12 AM	You can't make an effective bard character for combat. The most powerful things in the game are high level spells. (the best use of spells are the low level ones. Just because an 18th level sorcerer doesn't have 9th level spells doesn't mean he can't still kill you easily) To go with the one above, you can't make an effective spellcaster if he multiclasses. Doing a good deed makes you good, and doing an evil deed makes you evil. (best when said together to realize how ludicrous it is) Psionics are completely fair. (adding psionics to a normal campaign is not fair... having psionic resistance not be the same as spell resistance makes too many encounters a breeze for psionic characters) THe fighter is weak compared to other classes. (we had a twf crit fiend fighter in our party... owned everything he came across) Ahem. Case in point of misconception. Power Resistance and Spell resistance are but different names, given by psions and wizards respectively, for the same thing, damnit! It aplies equally to both things unless you use a variant, and a heavily disrecommended variant at that!
ArcTan 05-28-07, 02:13 AM	When you are on these forums discussing the rules, attempting to pass a houserule off as RAW is a deliberate attempt to mislead fellow gamers. And yet, it still happens. That's why the Oberoni Fallacy will never go away. "Mislead" them about what? You're acting like the RAW even exist as an objective thing, which they don't. There is an objective set of words that are the RAW, sure. There is no objective, single correct interpretation of them. That's the thing about natural language, as opposed to writing programs for computers (and even then we know that compilers, which are written by humans, don't always perform to the language's precise specs). I don't think it's "misleading" to say "spells" means "spells and all other things defined as equivalent to spells elsewhere". You *have* to do that kind of thing in order to read English at all. The reason I brought up the John Birch Society is that it is extremely possible to read the Constitution in such a way that proves no one inn the United States has to pay any taxes to anybody. The argument that from a "RAW" standpoint this is the "literal" meaning of the law is fairly compelling. It doesn't make any difference, because there's a certain way of reading the Constitution that's the way it's been read for most of our country's history, that's the way everyone of actual importance in the government reads it, and that's the only way that makes any sense if you're going to keep this country running as a going concern. It's the same way with D&D. The idea that there's an objective literal true way to interpret *anything* is a fiction. Two people acting in good faith can have completely opposite understandings of what a text means, and neither of them can be proven objectively right. If they could, lawyers and judges wouldn't have much work to do.
ArcTan 05-28-07, 02:27 AM	Exactly. Besides, we have the flumph. It's the most Lawful Good aberration in all of D&D and it looks like a furry, levitating white jellyfish with two eyestalks and a mouth. If we can have the flumph why can't we have Good aligned undead as well? Yes, I'm serious about this. Because the Flumph doesn't exist in any 3.5 sourcebook. Anyway, we *do* have Good-aligned Undead. Saying that Undeath is inherently Evil doesn't mean "No Undead can ever personally hold a Good alignment, which is clearly untrue. Nor does it mean "Undead have the Evil subtype", which is also clearly untrue. "Undeath is inherently Evil" is a *flavor* description of the fact that nearly all Undead are Always Evil, with a scattering of Usually Evil, no examples of Always/Usually Good/Neutral, and two examples I can think of of Any (Ghosts and Necropolitans). It's also a flavor description that describes the fact that Undead register with much stronger auras on detect evil than ordinary Evil-aligned creatures, whether or not the Undead themselves are Evil. It's also a flavor description for the fact that the [Evil] descriptor applies to the animate dead and create undead spells, and the fact that almost all gods who have Undeath in their portfolios and the Death domain are Evil, and none of them are Good. And leaving aside things that mention alignment mechanics at all, "Undeath is inherently evil", small e, might refer to the idea that, according to Libris Mortis, almost all forms of Undeath require you to feed from or harm living things in some way to survive (not survive as in not die, but survive as in not go completely insae and then do it anyway), and therefore almost always drives you to do bad things. I don't know. Any one of these things is a way to justify using the term "inherently Evil", which, as I said, is a vague and subjective term without a clear meaning in D&D. It's the same kind of reasoning I'd use to say "Chromatic Dragons are inherently evil", even though I'm full aware Chromatic Dragons don't get the Evil subtype. Or say that "Aberrations are inherently evil", even though they don't get the Evil subtype. (Sometimes it's the easiest thing to say, as in "The only real difference between an Aberration and a Magical Beast or Vermin that just happens to look really strange is that Aberrations' unique physical features are intrinsically wrong and Evil in some way".)
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-28-07, 02:27 AM	Who says they aren't? The existence of non-evil specimens? The Alignment: Any Ghost and the the Alignment: Good Flumph for Undead and Abberations respectively. The RAW says they don't have the Evil subtype. "Inherently Evil" is a completely subjective term that can mean any number of different things. It's a flavor text term. It has no rules-based meaning or rules-based implication. Now you're just arguing to be arguing. Am I claiming that you're saying "Detect evil doesn't have a special separate line for Undead, who don't have to be Evil-aligned themselves to be detected by it"? No. Because you would be wrong about that. New editions actually have the line changed to 'Evil Undead', actually. Just don't call me interpreting it my way a "misconception". I'm calling the people they think they read it 'misconceiving'. I'm calling the people that know full well it's not true 'lying'. And I'm calling the people that are deploying the weasel words to start an argument because of some apperently unfinished buisness with NRT 'annoying'.
SephDragoon 05-28-07, 02:34 AM	Ahem. Case in point of misconception. Power Resistance and Spell resistance are but different names, given by psions and wizards respectively, for the same thing, damnit! It aplies equally to both things unless you use a variant, and a heavily disrecommended variant at that! Actually, you may play it the opposite way around, but as was shown to me, the Psionics as Magic variant is just that, a variant. You play under the variant, somehting I would recommend everyone do. We didn't use the variant when psionics first got introduced. We started using it about 3 sessions in, when we realized the mistake of that. So I may very well be wrong, but under the default rules, psionics was broken as hell.
ArcTan 05-28-07, 02:34 AM	Wasn't referring to that ArcTan - but since you bring it up the spell does explicitly state you can only select spells - not effects, but spells - to become immune to. The spell itself is illogical and that line needs to be stricken from it. I think we both agree that that particular line needs to go. It's bigger than that. It's self-contradictory. RAW says that spell immunity only ever works on spells, if we take your point of view. RAW *also* says that spell immunity works on spell-like effects and abilities. Both of these statements are equally clear. These statements clearly contradict each other. RAW itself gives us no way to reconcile this discrepancy by saying one sentence "supersedes" the other one. By RAW the spell does work on spell-likes. By RAW the spell doesn't work on spell-likes. If someone uses an SLA on spell immunity, the RAW say I should both allow the spell to work and that I should not allow the spell to work. I am now stuck, faced with something I both must and not must do. I go into an infinite loop, experience a fatal error and crash. *Or* I recognize the contradiction and try to read the rule the way a human would and not a computer. To call this "houseruling" is to stretch the definition of houseruling so that it is meaningless. In any case, your statement is incorrect. It is not in any way obvious that the "correct" reading of this spell is that it only works on spells and not SLAs. In fact, it is obvious that that is an *incorrect* reading. By your logic, *both* readings of the spell are equally incorrect, and the spell has no correct application. But trying to say you should ignore that it is there - which has been your arguement - is a houserule. While it might be a common sense house rule, it is still a houserule. I'm not ignoring that it's there. I'm looking at it and reading it as though I have a brain instead of reading it as though I am a computer. It's like saying if I tell you to "Give me a sec" and you wait for five minutes instead of precisely one second that you're "houseruling" me. Or that I'm "houseruling" when someone tells me to "Break a leg" and I go out to perform on stage rather than immediately finding a sledgehammer and fracturing my femur.
ArcTan 05-28-07, 02:35 AM	What Vaal is getting at is that only creatures with the [Evil] descriptor tag are inherently evil, regardless of alignment - which does some fun things if you helm of opposite alignment a fiend. Got to Love a LG creature that always detects as evil (Evil descriptor). I have seen more than a few stroeis/adbventures featureing "Fallen Angels". Said Celestials still have to have the [Good] tag even while being evil. Makes it interesting because you won't detect them as vil - queue all sorts of Paladin problems. You do detect them as Evil. They count as both Good *and* Evil. Otherwise the Succubus Paladin couldn't be a Paladin and none of her class abilities would even function.
ArcTan 05-28-07, 02:44 AM	The existence of non-evil specimens? The Alignment: Any Ghost and the the Alignment: Good Flumph for Undead and Abberations respectively. There are non-Evil Chromatic Dragons. There's a non-Evil Succubus. Now you're just arguing to be arguing. No, I'm not. Because, in fact, you're saying that people -- *including* me -- who've said certain things were saying things we (or, at least, I) know full well we didn't say. I know full well that there are Alignment (Any) Undead and that there are specific non-Evil Undead characters and that Undead don't have the Evil subtype. Implying that I didn't know these things or that I purposely lied about any of these things or that I can't honestly hold the opinion that all of these things can be true and Undead can still be "inherently Evil" is what bothers me. New editions actually have the line changed to 'Evil Undead', actually. *shrug* I don't have a new PHB, but there's never been an errata out that says so. (It hasn't been updated to say this on d20SRD.org or the Official SRD either.) Unless they made a similar change and added Good Undead to detect good (and Lawful Undead and Chaotic Undead to detect law and detect chaos), I think I still have a point, even if it's been weakened. (Weakened, I will note, by a *change* in RAW, not by my having had a "misconception" about previous RAW.) I'm calling the people they think they read it 'misconceiving'. I'm calling the people that know full well it's not true 'lying'. And I'm calling the people that are deploying the weasel words to start an argument because of some apperently unfinished buisness with NRT 'annoying'. "Weasel words"? C'mon. And, honestly, is it a NRT if you start saying something someone thinks is a misconception, and they turn up and say that it isn't? (This thread was going to cause an argument no matter what, because, presumably, if something's a "common misconception" there are people out there who don't think it's a misconception and are willing to argue about it.)
ArcTan 05-28-07, 02:44 AM	Also, Flumphs don't exist in 3.5, unless you count the one-off adventure "A Box of Flumph" as RAW.
Deep Blue 9000 05-28-07, 02:55 AM	"Vampires need to drink blood or they keep taking Wisdom damage until they become insane slavering beasts who will do anything to drink blood" just as obviously *is* RAW, if not core. What book is this from?
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-28-07, 02:56 AM	(This thread was going to cause an argument no matter what, because, presumably, if something's a "common misconception" there are people out there who don't think it's a misconception and are willing to argue about it.) So you figured you're start one preemptively? Well I'm not going to be a patsy for such behavior. It's 3am and I should update Descendants and get to sleep. I'm sure someone else can be just as easily baited into helping with the little derail plot going on here. Best of luck, hugs and kisses and all that.
ArcTan 05-28-07, 03:02 AM	Actually, you may play it the opposite way around, but as was shown to me, the Psionics as Magic variant is just that, a variant. You play under the variant, somehting I would recommend everyone do. We didn't use the variant when psionics first got introduced. We started using it about 3 sessions in, when we realized the mistake of that. So I may very well be wrong, but under the default rules, psionics was broken as hell. You are wrong. Take your XPH (You do have access to one, right? Since you were using it in your game?) and open it to pg. 65. The standard psionics system treats psionic energy and magic as mutually and equally vulnerable to a dispel magic spell and a dispel psionics power. Spell resistance protects against powers just as it protects against spells, while power resistance protects against spells just as it protects against powers. There are many good reasons to treat psionics this way, but the primary one concerns game balance. The core D&D game is already designed to handle magic in all its intricacies. Any system that strays too far from this balanced rules foundation runs the risk of becoming a 'tacked on' system that strays from the rules of the game. This kind of situation can add complexity to a campaign, however. Say you are playing a character using a new psionics system that is not integrated with magic, in a campaign designed exclusively for magic and spellcasters. When you appear on the scene, you are the lone psionic being in the region, even the world. Nothing can innately resist the alien energies of your mind (although saving throws still work normally). Of course, what's good for the goose is good for the gander -- to you, magic is the unstoppable alien force that you cannot dispel with your powers or resist successfully. Your only viable options are to befriend a spellcaster or two or acquire magic items that offer some measure of protection against magic. This section provides guidelines for differetiating between magic and psionics. Remember that this is an optional method of dealing with psionics, one that should only be embraced by a DM who is willing to do additional work to ensure game balance." If the fact that the title said that "Psionics Is Different" is the "Variant" didn't tip you off, actually reading the text should. The *standard system* is so-called "transparency", where psionic things work fine against magic and vice versa. The *variant system*, which the book tells you should only be used by a DM willing to do a lot of extra work to balance things, is for them to not work on each other.
ArcTan 05-28-07, 03:03 AM	What book is this from? Libris Mortis.
ArcTan 05-28-07, 03:04 AM	So you figured you're start one preemptively? Well I'm not going to be a patsy for such behavior. It's 3am and I should update Descendants and get to sleep. I'm sure someone else can be just as easily baited into helping with the little derail plot going on here. Best of luck, hugs and kisses and all that. *shrug* I don't actually think it's a "derailment" for someone to say "Hey, these things this one guy said in a thread where I disagreed with him are all common misconceptions" for him to show up and say "No they aren't." In any case, feel free to treat those things I said in my reply to you as my contribution to the thread. They are, in fact, all common misconceptions people have that annoy me.
navar100 05-28-07, 04:13 AM	One of the biggest misconceptions that I have seen on these boards (and from people in general) is that they assume that all campaigns, DMs, and players will play exactly the same way. Many times people forget that the personalities, likes, and dislikes of the group will have a huge impact on what parts of the game are used or not used. Not everyone uses only Large through Gargantuan creatures for the EL 15+ encounters. Not everyone wants to or understands how to play casters. Not everyone wants to learn a new set of rules so won't use Tome of Battle or Psionics. Too often we forget that we are all individuals with different tastes and yet we can all play the same game with the same rules and have the same level of fun. QFT I finally get to use the acronym. :dancin: I hope it's the right one.
Leo 05-28-07, 09:12 AM	Well this thread is screaming for arguing. The misconceptions that most annoy me: Paladins must follow a god. Nobody will ever have fun playing a fighter. Anybody playing a fullcaster will completely dominate the campaign Dm's have no right to use their Dm powers, despite, youknow, being called dungeon MASTERS, and the DMG itself insisting it's the DM who should control the game and not the players. A good player must own and know all books, rules, extras, erratas, fallaccies, 3rd party material real world logic and philosophy, real world physiscs and science, religion, history, art, sociology . If you don't, it's impossible for you to have fun at D&D. D&D's main puprose is to copy your vavrite fantasy character. My definition of an unclear word that can be interpreted in several ways is always the right one. I will assume you always take my definiton when using unclear words. Better even, I'll use a definition in the fly that makes your post look like idiocy and mine like a rule of the universe. Everybody likes what I like and dislikes what I dislike. Anyone who claims otheriwse it's a fool. Huff, had to take that off my chest.
Metafictional 05-28-07, 09:34 AM	I will, however, point out that Paladins don't need a deity, but they need a holy symbol!
_Jayne_Cobb_ 05-28-07, 09:58 AM	• Good = nice • Evil = **** over your firends and act like psychos • Paladin = cop, social worker, or smite-on-sight terminator • Fantasy = anything goes • Anything in the RAW that is not explicitly disallowed is implicitly allowed "A paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters" seems pretty clear here. It's the word "never" that seals the deal for me. It's the word "knowingly" that seals the deal for me. I will, however, point out that Paladins don't need a deity, but they need a holy symbol! It's not that they don't need a deity - the holy symobl proves that - rather that they do not need to belong to or serve any church. Also, the rules don't always make 100% sense. In previous editions you needed Holy Water to cast Bless and you needed to cast Bless to make Holy Water. :uh-huh:
Toran_A_Sunder 05-28-07, 10:28 AM	Some of mine. Don't care if they've been posted already :D ~ Fighters Can't compete with wizards, clerics, druids, etc. At 4 or 5 attacks per ROUND, with a +5 holy flaming burst acidic greatsword (which, btw, doesnt run out like a spellcaster's spells per day), bull**** a fighter can't deal out the damage a spellcaster can ~ Clerics and Druids are overpowered. Also bull****. If given enough time to buff up with spells or whatever, sure they can be effective. But how many rounds are you really getting to cast those spells on yourself? Not many. PLus, at least in the case of most clerics, you're using the ajority of your spell slots to heal, which leads me to my next one. ~ Fluff/flavor text can't aid in balancing mechanics. Simply not true. Take the aforementioned cleric. Sure they get nifty divine spells. But honestly, except in certain unusual circumstances, the cleric is using his spell slots to heal. Not rain divine death down on the enemies. Sometimes he'll get too. But not as often as a wiz. ~ BoVD and BoED are broken/over powered/poorly written. This is my biggest gripe. Everyone seems to feel that these are the definitive tomes on what it means to be good/evil. Wake up people. Start reading a book the whole way through. The books state that a Vile or Exalted is an extreme example of the alignment. Not the status quo. ~ Lawful Good = Lawful stupid. Well, any alignment can be disruptive if played incorrectly. For instances, take a moron who plays chaos=evil and makes a chaotic good character who steals and murders and tortures people and then when called out about it says "He's chaotic!" Go play in traffic.
Zyrusticae 05-28-07, 11:06 AM	~ Fighters Can't compete with wizards, clerics, druids, etc. At 4 or 5 attacks per ROUND, with a +5 holy flaming burst acidic greatsword (which, btw, doesnt run out like a spellcaster's spells per day) What the deuce? ...If your fighter is somehow filling out all his slots with 200k+ GP items, I think there is definitely something going wrong in your games. Now, of course, this is just silly. What else can a fighter do besides deal damage? Trip? Grapple? Bull rush? A caster gets to, let's see, paralyze, level drain, entangle, drain ability scores, turn flesh to stone, cast save-or-dies, summon demons from the depths of the nine hells... I could go on, y'know. If your casters are doing nothing but trying to deal damage, they're obviously doing something wrong. Sure, a fighter might be able to out-damage a caster on a day-to-day basis, but they can't do much of anything else besides. Which is what people have been trying to say ever since ToB came out and gave melee fighters a chance to do something other than stand around and swing all day. PLus, at least in the case of most clerics, you're using the ajority of your spell slots to heal, which leads me to my next one. Why in the nine hells would you want to do this, when you can just spontaneously convert any of your given spells into a 'cure x wounds' spell at any given time? ~ Fluff/flavor text can't aid in balancing mechanics. Simply not true. Take the aforementioned cleric. Sure they get nifty divine spells. But honestly, except in certain unusual circumstances, the cleric is using his spell slots to heal. Not rain divine death down on the enemies. Sometimes he'll get too. But not as often as a wiz. See, now this is just silly. Of course if someone's going to play a class to the weakest of its ability, it's going to 'balance' itself out. This, naturally, does not change the nature of the mechanics - it only means the player, itself, is not using it to its greatest ability. This is going to vary from game to game, but if someone has to make up for poor mechanics with equally poor table rules, something is definitely up.
Toran_A_Sunder 05-28-07, 11:17 AM	What the deuce? ...If your fighter is somehow filling out all his slots with 200k+ GP items, I think there is definitely something going wrong in your games. Now, of course, this is just silly. What else can a fighter do besides deal damage? Trip? Grapple? Bull rush? A caster gets to, let's see, paralyze, level drain, entangle, drain ability scores, turn flesh to stone, cast save-or-dies, summon demons from the depths of the nine hells... I could go on, y'know. If your casters are doing nothing but trying to deal damage, they're obviously doing something wrong. Sure, a fighter might be able to out-damage a caster on a day-to-day basis, but they can't do much of anything else besides. Which is what people have been trying to say ever since ToB came out and gave melee fighters a chance to do something other than stand around and swing all day. Why in the nine hells would you want to do this, when you can just spontaneously convert any of your given spells into a 'cure x wounds' spell at any given time? See, now this is just silly. Of course if someone's going to play a class to the weakest of its ability, it's going to 'balance' itself out. This, naturally, does not change the nature of the mechanics - it only means the player, itself, is not using it to its greatest ability. This is going to vary from game to game, but if someone has to make up for poor mechanics with equally poor table rules, something is definitely up. Not much else a fighter is going to spend his loot on other than powerful weapons and armor. And I never said a fighter could do the other things a wiz can. Doesn't make him any less effective. He just fills a different niche. Either using spell slots to spontaneously cast cure spells, or preparing them, the cleric is still healing more often than he is casting other spells. At least in the games I've seen. And I've been gaming a long time. And the fluff/flavor doesnt mean using his weakest abilities. It means he can only use his abilities (powerful, weak, or otherwise) under certain prescribed circumstances because of the allowances his class does or does not make.
Zyrusticae 05-28-07, 11:32 AM	Well, naturally. If it's ingrained into some people's minds that a class will play a certain way, they're going to play that class that way. *Scratches head* ...I don't see how this has anything at all to do with class balance, however. And to be honest, melee damage is a pretty boring niche to fill. "I swing!" "I swing again!" ..Yes, I know one doesn't have to be so sparse in one's description, but that's essentially what the core fighter boils down to. And, let's face it... the Barbarian can use the exact same items and still be more useful than any fighter. Not to mention, of course, that without their items they're little more than overgrown potato sacks... In fact, I'm going to throw that into my little list of misconceptions. -- Just because a class can be potentially powerful with magic items, doesn't imply that that class is balanced. Especially when another class can use those same magic items better than said class.
SephDragoon 05-28-07, 12:04 PM	You are wrong. Take your XPH (You do have access to one, right? Since you were using it in your game?) and open it to pg. 65. If the fact that the title said that "Psionics Is Different" is the "Variant" didn't tip you off, actually reading the text should. The *standard system* is so-called "transparency", where psionic things work fine against magic and vice versa. The *variant system*, which the book tells you should only be used by a DM willing to do a lot of extra work to balance things, is for them to not work on each other. Then I guess this thread is a good idea. It was provided to me as the standard. Good to know that the XPH isn't that bad.
Alpha_Moose 05-28-07, 01:46 PM	Telekinesis - Grapple with an AOE Duration spell. Hold em... that's all you have to do. I will take a well placed low level spell over a gate any day of the week. Hence my level 17 character only has access to 6th level spells, but I wouldn't ever go playing a full caster instead, and my DM is constant hating me for beating full casters with full spell progression. Could I play a full caster better? Maybe... but I think the multiclassing works out better for me than if I had gone full caster. Besides, sure you could Gate in a creature with unlimited wishes. Heck, in a real D&D world, without DM intereferance, the world would have been destroyed long ago for this very reason. But DM's are there for a reason. Oh, well yeah Telekinesis is a good spell. However using Mass Hold Monster does the same thing with a higher save (being a higher spell). And yes, the Gate broken thing. Without DMs it shouldn't brake the game, because players shouldn't be trying to ruin the game using things that way. Still doesn't mean it couldn't brake the game.
Leo 05-28-07, 01:54 PM	I will, however, point out that Paladins don't need a deity, but they need a holy symbol! Not untill lv4:P
ArcTan 05-28-07, 06:55 PM	It's not that they don't need a deity - the holy symobl proves that - rather that they do not need to belong to or serve any church. Clerics also need a holy symbol, but it explicitly says that Clerics can be Clerics of a "philosophy or cause". You can be a Cleric or Paladin of Righteousness, of Blood, of My Ancestors, of the Screams of the Innocent, of the History of the Elven Race, of My Left Shoe, of Free-Market Socialism, of Elminster, or of The DM. You just need to have a "holy" symbol that represents whatever you believe in to act as a divine focus. (I.e. a little ankh that represents the universal principle of Life, or a little round colorful singing man from the Wizard of Oz, that represents the universal principle that the Shadow and Spell domains let you cast nearly spell in the game once you reach level 17.)
ArcTan 05-28-07, 07:14 PM	Not much else a fighter is going to spend his loot on other than powerful weapons and armor. And I never said a fighter could do the other things a wiz can. Doesn't make him any less effective. He just fills a different niche. He's still not going to be able to buy a +5 holy flaming burst acidic greatsword. That's a total +10 enhancement bonus, and an Epic-level item. It costs 2,000,000 gp (not 200,000). A 20th-level character is supposed to have 176,000 gp worth of magic items, less than *one-tenth* of the cost of a single +10 item. A Fighter can only afford this and other Epic-level items if you're well into Epic levels already. At which point, if you're using Epic rules, spellcasters already have Epic Spellcasting, which is way, way, way more impressive than a +10 weapon of any kind. One of my favorite misconceptions is that Fighters somehow spend less money than spellcasters, when the whole point of being a spellcaster is that most things a magic item can do you can replicate with spells for a lower cost. A Fighter can't afford winged boots until well after a Wizard can cast fly. A Fighter can't afford a helm of teleport until well after a Wizard can cast teleport. Etc. Please don't start deflecting "Wizards can do this" with "A Fighter can buy an item to do that" without sitting down and at least guesstimating at least how high-level a Fighter would have to be to buy such a thing. Of course, this may not apply to your campaign. Your DM may, for instance, give the Fighter ten times his recommended wealth by level in treasure for every encounter while only allowing the Wizard to spend a tenth of that. Then, indeed, the Fighter would be more powerful than the Wizard. This proves nothing, though, because with enough money anything is powerful. A 1st-level Commoner with 100,000,000 GP in equipment is more powerful than *any* level 20 character with level-appropriate wealth. Either using spell slots to spontaneously cast cure spells, or preparing them, the cleric is still healing more often than he is casting other spells. At least in the games I've seen. And I've been gaming a long time. ...You do know that the healer Cleric may be the most boring way to play the Cleric, but that in parties with a healer Cleric, the healer Cleric is probably the most important member of the team, right? The whole point of how spontaneously converting to cure works is that you can be two roles at once. You don't *need* to prepare any curing spells, so you can be the healer *and* the buffer, or the healer *and* the tank. Or you can heal the tank until the tank goes down and be the tank yourself. Etc. Of course, it's far from obvious just because you've only seen the healer Cleric that the healer Cleric is the only kind of Cleric. For instance, there are Clerics for whom the healer role doesn't make any flavor sense, like the Cleric of Helm whose domains are War and Strength (you're telling me this guy isn't *supposed* to be out there hitting things?), or any Cleric of any Evil deity, who *can't* do the spont cure thing anyway. And the fluff/flavor doesnt mean using his weakest abilities. It means he can only use his abilities (powerful, weak, or otherwise) under certain prescribed circumstances because of the allowances his class does or does not make. Er, if you mean *mechanical* allowances, then the point still holds. Fighters are much more mechanically constrained than Wizards simply by what they can and can't do. Neither Fighters or Wizards have any RAW code of conduct. And in order to make a Cleric weaker than a Fighter you need to have a pretty ridiculously restrictive code of conduct. ("My god says I'm not allowed to hit things.")
ItaraKoturo 05-28-07, 07:24 PM	He's still not going to be able to buy a +5 holy flaming burst acidic greatsword. That's a total +10 enhancement bonus, and an Epic-level item. It costs 2,000,000 gp (not 200,000). A 20th-level character is supposed to have 176,000 gp worth of magic items, less than *one-tenth* of the cost of a single +10 item. Uh...no. First, a +10 weapon is not epic. Its price, as outlined in the DMG under the magic items rules, is 200,000 gp. Which a 20th level character should easily be able to afford, since his wealth at that level (according to the DMG's character wealth by level chart) is 760,000 gp. Where have you been getting these crazy rules? A Fighter can only afford this and other Epic-level items if you're well into Epic levels already. At which point, if you're using Epic rules, spellcasters already have Epic Spellcasting, which is way, way, way more impressive than a +10 weapon of any kind. Except +10 weapons aren't epic. Not that I'm trying to say that level 20 fighters can compete with level 20 wizards. They can't.
navar100 05-28-07, 07:38 PM	Going out of your way to prove something realistically proves something. For example, using Ur-Priest a Mystic Theurge can cast 9th level arcane and 9th level divine spells before epic. However, it is not so simple to be an Ur-Priest. You have to be Evil, for one thing. Plus it required DM approval. Realistically speaking, when someones says Mystic Theurge's don't cast 9th level arcane and divine spells before epic, in the general case that is true even though there's an obscure way to do it that requires a very specific build. Similarly, you have Divine Metamagic Persistent clerics with lots of nightsticks. While technically possible such a build exists, the misconception assumption is that this is common enough to warrant serious consideration when using said cleric to compare with something. Related misconception is spellcasters always have the proper spell prepared. It's not the same misconception because this is applicable using the Player's Handbook alone such that generically speaking every spellcaster has equal possiblity to spell access, barring DM adjucation. It's not going out of the way to prove anything. Anyway, the misconception is that when comparing something with spellcasters, the spellcaster will always not only know the perfect spell needed but have the spell prepared as well. He'll also have the exact perfect feats needed.
Xaean 05-28-07, 07:58 PM	Most common misconceptions: - D&D is a hack&slay system. Only if the DM makes it one. -Aligments limit freedom of roleplaying. That's one of the most annoying errros, but has often been discussed in other threads, so I wont further comment on it. -LG is naive. When I think of naive characters I rarely think of gold dragons. -LG is intolerant and against anything that's fun. No, that would be LE! -LG is "more good" than CG. No, I don't think the average dwarf is more of a holy creature than a unicorn.. -LE is "less evil" than CE. -BoVD and BoED are of little use. I really think those who complain the most haven't read them or at least haven't read them carefully. -The wealth tables in the DMG are of any use. Don't even give them a look. -Elves are weak and softhearted and would hardly ever harm somebody. While I have to admit they are slender and beardless, they are still very good at killing orcs - and they don't really care if there are a view non-evil members within a horde...
Contrast 05-28-07, 08:26 PM	-Illumians can take Able Learner -Able Learner makes every skill a class skill. -That I have the desire and/or time to argue with you about the above for hours on end instead of actually playing tonight. -Warforged don’t get the ability score increases for leveling up as other characters do. -You can play a drow at full power (not as a racial class) in a level one campaign. -You can’t use existing mechanics to represent your concept. IE: Creating special new rules for an executioner’s blade, rather than just saying your bastard sword is an executioner’s blade and getting it over with. -D&D was meant solely to allow you to play as your favorite anime character and anybody who is playing a character not inspired by anime is uncreative and stupid. -You don’t need to know how to create a character because the other players will do it for you.
SephDragoon 05-28-07, 09:43 PM	-Aligments limit freedom of roleplaying. That's one of the most annoying errros, but has often been discussed in other threads, so I wont further comment on it. While I think that this statement is mostly true (that it is a misconception) alignment restrictions on classes can be a pain in the ass, and yes, limit roleplay. Some I would keep. I would keep the Paladin's, because it is part of who he is, and there are variants for other alignments. Bard and Barbarian... wtf? Especially the bard. How does SINGING restrict you from lawful more than a rogue's sneaking and stealing (on average, not all the time)?
Alpha_Moose 05-28-07, 10:01 PM	- D&D is a hack&slay system. Only if the DM makes it one. Well, the system is pretty hack & slash, but that's because D&D was based off of a wargame. Also combat is the most important part to have rules for, otherwise it dissolves into "I hit you!" "No you didn't!". Most of the misconceptions I see end up going under what I previously said. D&D is a roleplaying game. So while there are completely broken things built into the game system, a competent DM with knowledge of these things will make them never actually disrupt a game. Of course that doesn't make talking about what is or isn't broken, overpowered, or sucks at all useless.
ArcTan 05-28-07, 10:22 PM	Sorry, you're right. I was looking at the wrong rules -- it's only Epic if any single enhancement is +6 or greater. However, 200,000 gp is still more than a 20th-level Fighter can have. Even an unusually rich 20th-level Fighter can't buy a +10 weapon and still have any money left over on armor or wondrous items.
Lokiyn 05-28-07, 10:59 PM	Actually i'm looking at page 135, you get 760,000gp at level 20. unless of course you are talking about a 20th level NPC fighter, which has 220,000gp, still enough left over for some extra.
Yadot 05-28-07, 11:30 PM	Actually, you may play it the opposite way around, but as was shown to me, the Psionics as Magic variant is just that, a variant. You play under the variant, somehting I would recommend everyone do. We didn't use the variant when psionics first got introduced. We started using it about 3 sessions in, when we realized the mistake of that. So I may very well be wrong, but under the default rules, psionics was broken as hell. You're not wrong about the way you played it, but Power Resistance and Spell Resistance are the same thing in the normal rules. Your DM was using the broken (SR and PR are different) variant and passing it off as standard.
ArcTan 05-29-07, 01:22 AM	Again, sorry. I posted twice without thinking and reading the wrong chart. My bad.
Sunic_Flames 05-29-07, 03:10 PM	Again, sorry. I posted twice without thinking and reading the wrong chart. My bad. I prefer to believe you were making a tounge in cheek joke about fighter 20s being an NPC class. :rofl:
maskimus 05-29-07, 04:45 PM	If I were a commoner with 100,000,000 gp(that so sounds like a contradiction), I would spend it all on ladders, and make twice that selling 10' poles!:D
Devil Gnasher 05-29-07, 05:58 PM	-Half-orcs are always born due to rape or threats of violence. Have you ever heard of a political marriage or "marriage of convenience"? It could have even been love at first sight. Now hold that thought for a moment please.
Xaean 05-29-07, 07:35 PM	While I think that this statement is mostly true (that it is a misconception) alignment restrictions on classes can be a pain in the ass, and yes, limit roleplay. Some I would keep. I would keep the Paladin's, because it is part of who he is, and there are variants for other alignments. Bard and Barbarian... wtf? Especially the bard. How does SINGING restrict you from lawful more than a rogue's sneaking and stealing (on average, not all the time)? For the barbarian rage is the most common argument for the alignment restriction. Giving in to rage is a rather chaotic trait. But of course a barbarian can have strict code of honor that would make him rather lawful. As far as the bard goes, while I think most bards prefer a rather chaotic way of life, I agree that a restriction is not necessary. A royal court musician could be lawful bard, e.g. Alignment restrictions are best for classes that get there power from gods - in this case the characters must work in accordance with their gods. Otherwise classes might favor an alignment but need not be restricted to it. Well, the system is pretty hack & slash, but that's because D&D was based off of a wargame. Also combat is the most important part to have rules for, otherwise it dissolves into "I hit you!" "No you didn't!". Yes, the rules are mostly about combat, but the game should about different things, e.g. social interaction, too. Maybe the word "system" was some kind out of place here and I should have written "game". I hope that makes clear what I meant. Hmm, English isn't my native language after all.