Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DorianAdricus 10-04-06, 07:46 PM	Evening all, Quick question for discussion. Has anyone out there attempted to incorporate the rules for affiliations presented in the PHB II with their Forgotten Realms campaign? Very soon, my DM is going to be starting up a new Evereska based campaign, and we have been looking at these rules and I think they might mesh really well in the Realms. What I was wondering is how they may have worked, or are working for others out there?
BrianCritchley 10-04-06, 08:10 PM	I've not but you can expect to see WOTC supply info on em in future books, they already have made large use of the favored in guild feat in past SBs
allenchan 10-05-06, 02:13 AM	I havent felt the need for any modifications, Ive jsut been moving them over as-is
creepy drifter 10-05-06, 04:08 PM	I havent felt the need for any modifications, Ive jsut been moving them over as-isAgreed. Our groups likes the Affiliations as written. They are pretty solid in game balance.
Dargoth 10-05-06, 07:42 PM	Evening all, Quick question for discussion. Has anyone out there attempted to incorporate the rules for affiliations presented in the PHB II with their Forgotten Realms campaign? Very soon, my DM is going to be starting up a new Evereska based campaign, and we have been looking at these rules and I think they might mesh really well in the Realms. What I was wondering is how they may have worked, or are working for others out there? Ive posted several FR organizations as affiliations they can be found here http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7783
MerrikCale 10-08-06, 12:11 PM	Ive posted several FR organizations as affiliations they can be found here http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7783 Nice. I like the Church of Selune write-up.
helicopter 10-08-06, 03:47 PM	Nice work, Dargoth. I'll be nabbing a few of those for my group's campaign. Thank you much! :)
Dargoth 10-09-06, 01:50 AM	Thanks There are more affiliations in various stages of completness that I havent got around to finishing. At the moment Im focusing on my 1372-1374 timeline http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7930
MerrikCale 10-10-06, 09:32 PM	Has anybody started using the new classes from PHBII?
Dargoth 10-11-06, 03:18 AM	Has anybody started using the new classes from PHBII? Ill be allowing the Knight class in the next campaign I run
MerrikCale 10-11-06, 01:04 PM	do you guys allow some but not others?
Dargoth 10-11-06, 09:09 PM	do you guys allow some but not others? As a DM I only allow those Expanded classes that fit the Realms, at present these include the Knight, Warmage and the Favoured Soul. If they ever create a 3.5 version of the Assasin class (I loath and detest the Spell cast Assasin PrC) Id probably allow that to
msatran 10-12-06, 12:49 AM	I disallowed Dragon Shaman. In general, I'll allow anything as long as it obeys the normal rules of casting spells. For this reason, I don't use psionics and I don't use things with Auras. I don't use Pact Magic, because everything in Pact Magic must be renamed. But to WHAT? I don't use Tome of 9 Swords. Integrating this book into the existing realms is a nightmare. Yes, I figured out a way to do it. (See my posts elsewhere.) But that doesn't mean I LIKE what I did. I have yet to see a duskblade in play. People assure me that it is incredibly broken, but I would rather have a wider spell selection and play a real fighter/mage.
allenchan 10-12-06, 12:55 AM	I've eagerly allowed any and all classes into my game (well, not all eagerly. Some classes are so bad I disuade my PC's from gimping themselves), but then again, I'm not a hard-line FR purist, either. If I think it'll be cool for some of the cult of the dragon people to be psions and attempting to turn gem dragons into spectral savants instead of liches, I'll do it.
MerrikCale 10-12-06, 10:36 AM	As a DM I only allow those Expanded classes that fit the Realms, at present these include the Knight, Warmage and the Favoured Soul. If they ever create a 3.5 version of the Assasin class (I loath and detest the Spell cast Assasin PrC) Id probably allow that to why not the Scout?
Dargoth 10-12-06, 11:34 AM	why not the Scout? Really didnt see a need for it the Ranger handles the Wilderness warrior job well enough
MerrikCale 10-12-06, 12:15 PM	Really didnt see a need for it the Ranger handles the Wilderness warrior job well enough But doesn't it add trap finding and skirmishing (forgive me I do not own the CA)? Which kind of makes it a ranger with some rogue-ish features.
Renvale999 10-12-06, 01:34 PM	I hate that book, I have a PC that all he wants to do is play stuff from that book, it's annoying and he's just trying to power-game....They should rename the book to "Powergamer's Are Us, your one stop shop to tick off your DM!". GRRRRRRRR
MerrikCale 10-12-06, 04:06 PM	They should rename the book to "Powergamer's Are Us, your one stop shop to tick off your DM!". I thought that was the subtitle?
BrianCritchley 10-12-06, 04:40 PM	honestly every optional class in the complete books are a waste of Ink, the original ones are useally quite sufficant. I've stopped allowing every core class outside the PHB.
DorianAdricus 10-12-06, 05:15 PM	Agreed with above. I've found that almost every instance of an alternate core class is either weak (read warlock) or way overpowered (read warmage). We've pretty much given up on them. Besides, I've found that the more 'optional' rules that you add to a good 3.5 campaign, the more work the DM has to do to keep the game balanced. It becomes an escalating arms race between the players and the DM until you have what happened a couple of sessions ago in our game. Our party of faced off against a boss, an elven fighter/dervish three levels higher than us. In round one, the Dervish killed the duskblade, the wizard, and the psion. In round two, the rogue/barbarian/warlock killed the dervish, and the cleric, the druid, and the favored soul "last breathed (Spell Compedium)" everyone who died. Fight over. Needless to say, we were disappointed with the last fight, the DM was disappointed, and we all resolved that we needed to get the expanded material under control.
Fabius Maximus 10-12-06, 05:20 PM	honestly every optional class in the complete books are a waste of Ink, the original ones are useally quite sufficant. I've stopped allowing every core class outside the PHB. Well, the original base classes are usually sufficient, but that doesn't mean the alternative ones are all unnecessary. Binders, Warlocks and Hexblades have nice, unique flavour. Scouts are the better Rangers (which should be a PrC, as the Paladin), and Dragon Shamans fit some campaign settings (not necessarily the Realms). The OA classes offer different mechanics and may exist in certain niches. The rest? Throw away stuff. Modify the spontaneous arcane casters and the Spellthief to PrCs and substitute the Favoured Soul with the Mystic from Dragonlance.
bitter thorn 10-13-06, 09:27 AM	We've made good use of the Marshal in our game, but we did houserule that they get 6 skill points per level as opposed to 4. We also use the Noble from Mongoose, but those are the only non core base classes allowed in our game. These serve our Cormyr game quite well. I dislike the Knight for flavor and mechanical reasons. I very much prefer fighter and marshal builds for knights in general.
GothicDan 10-13-06, 04:45 PM	I think that the vast majority of the newer classes are simply unnecessary, because, as stated, the core classes can do almost anything that the new 20-level ones can. In the beginning, WotC was going for a 'minimalist' design method, and somewhere along the way, they've deviated vastly from that. I believe either in a very loose rules system or a very tight one, with mechanics designed specifically to enforce the innateness of a given campaign setting, rather than providing power options that simply deviate from the norm. The new classes are pretty much all super-specialized variations on the new classes, which means that their sole purpose is to make you better at something (statistically) than you could be with all of the already-present core mechanics. And that, to me, is not condusive to roleplaying much. And in the past few weeks, as I've been fiddling with D20/3E mechanics in my own attempts at world creation, I've come to have a completely new appreciation for White Wolf's system, and vastly prefer it now to D20. (Though Mutants and Masterminds and A Game of Thrones are both D20 products that I value more than any D&D ones ever put out, in terms of mechanical appropriateness.)
Dargoth 10-13-06, 08:33 PM	I dislike the Knight for flavor and mechanical reasons. I very much prefer fighter and marshal builds for knights in general. I like the Knight its a 3ed version of the old Cavalier class in 1st edition Once we have the an Assassin class we'll have 3ed versions of all the classes in the 1ed Players handbook
creepy drifter 10-13-06, 09:15 PM	The Beguiler class is well-received - and extremely well structured. You can finally play a rock solid "arcane trickster" right from 1st level without all those really weak and uncomfortable early to middle levels.
MerrikCale 10-14-06, 09:09 AM	I like the Knight its a 3ed version of the old Cavalier class in 1st edition Once we have the an Assassin class we'll have 3ed versions of all the classes in the 1ed Players handbook I did like the old cavalier class. I still don't get assassin's having spells. Bring back the old thief subclass!
Fabius Maximus 10-15-06, 07:56 AM	The Beguiler class is well-received - and extremely well structured. You can finally play a rock solid "arcane trickster" right from 1st level without all those really weak and uncomfortable early to middle levels. See, that's the problem. Multiclass characters are supposed to have a lower power curve in comparison to singclass chars, because they essentially have two professions rather than one. In 2nd edition, multiclass characters gained experience slower than others for the same reason.
Dargoth 10-15-06, 09:37 AM	I did like the old cavalier class. I still don't get assassin's having spells. Bring back the old thief subclass! Im hoping they'll include one in Complete Scoundrel
Jiggawha 10-15-06, 10:02 AM	With every newly released book with classes and PrCs (and feats) in there the balance constantly shifts to more power
MerrikCale 10-15-06, 12:45 PM	Im hoping they'll include one in Complete Scoundrel That would be great
Wire 10-15-06, 02:18 PM	See, that's the problem. Multiclass characters are supposed to have a lower power curve in comparison to singclass chars, because they essentially have two professions rather than one. In 2nd edition, multiclass characters gained experience slower than others for the same reason.That's poor game design. Ideally, "power curve" should be consistent for all PC's, regardless of direction they go in. Now, we may completely have different perspectives on what constitutes "power level". Especially when we get into discussions regarding niche-oriented specialists compared to ombudsman-type utilitarian characters. WotC designers know this as well. They want to see Iconic-4 Adventure Groups that run the gamut of archetype structure. Whether that entails 4 straight-classed specialist characters or a melange of 4 multi-classed mutts. The new ToB book has a new game mechanic that has promise for the weak nature of certain multi-class archetypes (say, a horrible Bard 3 / Sorc 3 / Monk 5 character). That game mechanic is *Initiator Levels*. Meaning a given classes lower level attributes will not cap-out and stay stagnant even if the character moves to another class. If we can see more innovative stuff like IM's coming out of WotC R&D, we'll see a real 'sea change' in mechanical balance and flexibility for all character archetypes for the continuing life of 3.5.
allenchan 10-15-06, 02:37 PM	See, that's the problem. Multiclass characters are supposed to have a lower power curve in comparison to singclass chars, because they essentially have two professions rather than one. In 2nd edition, multiclass characters gained experience slower than others for the same reason. I find this statement incredibly ignorant. Just because a character concept doesn't fit within the boundaries of precreated "professions" that dont full encompass all possible concepts adequetately, they should instead suffer and be a flawed character that is a drain on a party's resources instead of being on par with everyone else?
Fabius Maximus 10-16-06, 05:49 AM	I find this statement incredibly ignorant. Just because a character concept doesn't fit within the boundaries of precreated "professions" that dont full encompass all possible concepts adequetately, they should instead suffer and be a flawed character that is a drain on a party's resources instead of being on par with everyone else? If you do two things at the same time, you will never get the same results if you concentrated on only one of them. That's logical. You got to pay a price for being able to multitask. You actually expand your party's resources when multiclassing. If you'd follow your opinion through, you'd have to design new classes that use combinations of arcane and divine magic as well as psionics and whatnot, because characters using the Mystic Theurge or similar PrCs fall behind in spellcasting. Do you want to open that can of worms? This obsession with so-called game balance gets on my nerves, really. I can see problems with imbalanced bas classes, yes. But complaining about imbalanced multiclassed characters is silly in my eyes. If you want to change that, invent or use a class-less system. I'd fully support you.
Wire 10-16-06, 12:41 PM	If you do two things at the same time, you will never get the same results if you concentrated on only one of them. That's logical.That's not logical. I challenge you to prove your point within the context of the intended structuring of the 3.5 WotC designed D&D. Especially since there are multiple circumstances (even core) of certain classes being expert multi-taskers and others who are not. This especially applies to spellcasters. You got to pay a price for being able to multitask. You actually expand your party's resources when multiclassing.No you don't. Not with primary spellcasters. Who have shown through WotC's expansion of 3.5 sourcebooks, that they can effectively perform the role of all the other iconic roles with minimal buildcrafting fuss. This is why it pays for primary spellcasters/manifesters to never multiclass because higher level spells (and the slots afforded them at higher levels) are more valuable to multi-tasking than side forays into alternate class dips. Besides, your notion of "paying a price" to multi-task is especially inchoate in concept. You'll need to define what that means exactly in context of both character builds and aggregate party dynamics. If you'd follow your opinion through, you'd have to design new classes that use combinations of arcane and divine magic as well as psionics and whatnot, because characters using the Mystic Theurge or similar PrCs fall behind in spellcasting. Do you want to open that can of worms?There's no new can of worms to open. Through effective multi-tasking, you can already create what is effectively known throughout the WotC Message Board Forums as Double Threat, Triple Threat, and even Quadruple Threat classes (as labled by the famed buildcrafter Snow Savant). We're not talking gestalt buildcrafting either. The new classes being presented today by the WotC designers are a result of 6 years of playtesting, consumer feedback, and comparative analytics. There's no question that the designers did not perfect class mechanics the first time around. Now they are providing improved products in addition to new game mechanics. This obsession with so-called game balance gets on my nerves, really. I can see problems with imbalanced bas classes, yes. But complaining about imbalanced multiclassed characters is silly in my eyes. If you want to change that, invent or use a class-less system. I'd fully support you.None of this commentary makes any sense. *EVERYBODY* wants some semblance of mechanical game balance regardless of individual or party decisions in their collaborative buildcrafting processes. Ideally, good game design doesn't penalize casual gamers who accidentally create weak characters ... and doesn't reward powergamers who purposefully create gamebreaking characters.
msatran 10-16-06, 01:28 PM	Well, the problem is that some of the new classes are simply disgusting. I was disturbed by Arcane Heirophant, and really irritated by Ultimate Magus. So far, though, the worst PRC in terms of power for payoff I've ever seen is this one from Complete Mage: Abjurant Champion. Really, this class should be called Abhorrent Champion. Here's why: Is this PRC so good that it makes every single Fighter/Mage Better? And the answer is yes. +1 BAB/Level, +1 Casting for level, Martial Weapon Proficency (All), BAB +5 requirement, and +1 casting every level. There is NO reason not to take this class. Paladin 2/Sorcerer 4/Abjurant Champion 4/Fatespinner 4/Spellsword 1/4 levels of anything else, but Mage Killer is the best choice here. Ranger 1/Fighter 1/Wizard 4/Spellsword 1/Abjurant Champion 5/Eldritch Knight 7 Ranger 2/Wizard 5/Master of the Yuirwood 9/Abjurant Champion 4 Note: This is the reason why I don't like Spellsword either, because nothing is more powerful than cherry picking one level of this class. My problem with the game right now is that the prestige classes do not actually have any PRESTIGE. That is, the classes don't have a roleplaying and training requirement that sets them apart from standard classes, and this material should be INCLUDED WITH THE PRC TEXT. Magelord is an awesome class not because of what it does but because it says "Spend 10,000 GP on this stuff, or find another (rare) magelord to teach you."
Dirty Dan the Laundry Man 10-16-06, 01:52 PM	Big props to allenchan on his wise words. Sorry Fabius, your sentiments are not very agreeable at all. My problem with the game right now is that the prestige classes do not actually have any PRESTIGE. That is, the classes don't have a roleplaying and training requirement that sets them apart from standard classes, and this material should be INCLUDED WITH THE PRC TEXT. Magelord is an awesome class not because of what it does but because it says "Spend 10,000 GP on this stuff, or find another (rare) magelord to teach you."According to Monte and SKR [via a speech made at a CON], RP & training requirements in prestige classes have not been very well received by the public. Making such nonmechanical requirements as neccessary seems to cause problems with a given groups campaign parameters. it's best to stick with mechanical critieria for prestige class entry requirements. i tend to agree with this - as my Faerun has very stringent financial and time requirements for its players which makes prestige class parameters as such hard to meet.
allenchan 10-16-06, 04:57 PM	My problem with the game right now is that the prestige classes do not actually have any PRESTIGE. That is, the classes don't have a roleplaying and training requirement that sets them apart from standard classes, and this material should be INCLUDED WITH THE PRC TEXT. Magelord is an awesome class not because of what it does but because it says "Spend 10,000 GP on this stuff, or find another (rare) magelord to teach you." Agreed. They should have never called them prestige classes in the first place and just called them advanced classes a la d20 modern, becuase that's all they are. A finely tuned set of skills that (normally) give up versatility in favor of specialization. Or, they serve as band-aids in an attempt to fix the awful multiclass system. (and my point earlier was not that a fighter/wizard should be as good a fighter as a pure warrior, and as good a caster as a pure wizard, but they should be competitative at the same CR in their own way, which they are not.)
Cincinnati 10-16-06, 07:39 PM	Has anybody started using the new classes from PHBII? I played a knight for a while before he died. I was not too thrilled at all with the class. The good: d12 hit dice, armor proficiency, the "bulwark of defense" special ability (no enemy 5 foot steps in your threatened area) The bad: lawful goodness only, the "knight's code" which disallowed all kinds of stuff (no flanking bonuses, no coup de graces, other lame rules) The class felt underpowered to me, unless for some reason you just love the idea of being limited to honor codes. I personally would have rather played a fighter (not as restrictive and lots more feats).
helicopter 10-16-06, 08:13 PM	The bad: lawful goodness only, the "knight's code" which disallowed all kinds of stuff (no flanking bonuses, no coup de graces, other lame rules)Incorrect. Lawful is mandatory. But you can be LG, LN, or LE. Also, you can violate your codes no problem. Your only penalty is losing one of your Knight's challenge abilities for the day. This is acceptable in cases where you need to save your life or commit to that one controversial action that will conquer a difficult encounter. The class felt underpowered to me, unless for some reason you just love the idea of being limited to honor codes. I personally would have rather played a fighter (not as restrictive and lots more feats).The class is meant to be more optimized when combo-oriented with weapon types (like Spike Chain) and class abilities from other classes (like fighter).
Cincinnati 10-16-06, 09:07 PM	Incorrect. Lawful is mandatory. But you can be LG, LN, or LE. Also, you can violate your codes no problem. Your only penalty is losing one of your Knight's challenge abilities for the day. This is acceptable in cases where you need to save your life or commit to that one controversial action that will conquer a difficult encounter. The class is meant to be more optimized when combo-oriented with weapon types (like Spike Chain) and class abilities from other classes (like fighter). Yeah, I knew I should have got off the couch and looked that one up :) And I know you can violate your Knight's code, but from an RP standpoint that is only really acceptable in extreme situations, and you're basically giving up the one key thing about the Knight by doing so (the Knight's challenge). Also, I found myself never, ever using that one challenge that forced an enemy of your choice to attack you and only you. Rushing to the forefront of every battle got me killed quickly enough :rolleyes:
GothicDan 10-16-06, 09:27 PM	Originally Posted by msatran My problem with the game right now is that the prestige classes do not actually have any PRESTIGE. That is, the classes don't have a roleplaying and training requirement that sets them apart from standard classes, and this material should be INCLUDED WITH THE PRC TEXT. Magelord is an awesome class not because of what it does but because it says "Spend 10,000 GP on this stuff, or find another (rare) magelord to teach you." Yes.
msatran 10-16-06, 11:40 PM	According to Monte and SKR [via a speech made at a CON], RP & training requirements in prestige classes have not been very well received by the public. Making such nonmechanical requirements as neccessary seems to cause problems with a given groups campaign parameters. it's best to stick with mechanical critieria for prestige class entry requirements. i tend to agree with this - as my Faerun has very stringent financial and time requirements for its players which makes prestige class parameters as such hard to meet. While I appreciate the desire to appeal to the masses, I am disgusted with the simple fact that I've used training rules SINCE FIRST EDITION. So PRCs in my game always made sense, they were just other skill sets that you could train for. But I always felt that getting a PRC without earning the RIGHT to take it really was cheesy and not fun. This comes to my point about a generation gap. The reason why this philosophy has become prevalent is the pushbutton culture of the internet generation. Levelling up isn't about working for your skills when you've reached a new plateau and can't learn anything new. Levelling up is about clicking on some icons and selecting your new course of might. I think it sucks. Nothing beats being trained for your level by someone important, and nothing beats being trained by someone else's old PC who is really badass. I cannot take the fact that simply roleplaying GETTING a teacher for special stuff used to be an adventure in and of itself, and now, with the new way challenge ratings work, something like that can derail a whole game unless everyone else's PRC is also worked in, and that's cheese too.
Dark Wizard 10-16-06, 11:56 PM	I felt they tried a half-hearted attempt with the expanded PrC entries that give details on the origins and organizations of the PrCs. Though they still fall short of encouraging training and paying for the knowledge gained by a PrC. The end result is a format that is liked by neither camp. Some people hate it for taking up space, which could be used for more PrCs. Others hate that it takes up space by being useless info that could have been good.
Wire 10-17-06, 12:20 AM	A good example of one of Dirty Dan's points is this 3.0 mega-campaign module: City of the Spider Queen It happens to be an ambitious far-reaching campaign from levels 10-18. Which is huge in scope. The problem is this. The characters are on a hardcore "clock" to accomplish the mission. And they have to level up about 7 or 8 times within the campaign. That puts a potentially huge crimp on PrC prerequisites that *are not* mechanical in nature (time-consuming training, side-missions as part of a training process, etc). Yes, you could argue that the PC's are then forced to keep to simple core classes and simple PrC's. But the current D&D player demographic wants more options and less railroading. So the designers worked towards PrC and core class buildcrafting that accomodates such streamlined playing. There's no problem with DM's adding more complexity or training criteria to the flavor text of classes. In fact, I recommend it. But for the masses, it seems the designers want to appeal to the least common denomitor demographic and as a result, the mechanics dominate and stay simple.
GothicDan 10-17-06, 02:14 PM	But for the masses, it seems the designers want to appeal to the least common denomitor demographic and as a result, the mechanics dominate and stay simple. I guess that's why I'm liking 3E D&D less and less as the years ago on. Just different gameplay styles. *Sad.*
msatran 10-17-06, 05:03 PM	There is a problem with going for the least common denominator. Eventually, you divide by zero.
msatran 10-17-06, 05:06 PM	A good example of one of Dirty Dan's points is this 3.0 mega-campaign module: City of the Spider Queen It happens to be an ambitious far-reaching campaign from levels 10-18. Which is huge in scope. The problem is this. The characters are on a hardcore "clock" to accomplish the mission. And they have to level up about 7 or 8 times within the campaign. That puts a potentially huge crimp on PrC prerequisites that *are not* mechanical in nature (time-consuming training, side-missions as part of a training process, etc). Yes, you could argue that the PC's are then forced to keep to simple core classes and simple PrC's. But the current D&D player demographic wants more options and less railroading. So the designers worked towards PrC and core class buildcrafting that accomodates such streamlined playing. I have but one thing to say to that. "If the PC's have to do it, the NPC's have to do it too." If the DM assumes that while the PC's are training and gaining levels, the NPCs are also training and gaining levels, since training for higher levels is slower thann training for lower ones, it explains quite well how the PC's are able to almost "Catch Up" to their adversaries in level and defeat them. Training Rules are only an artificial construct if only the PC's have to use them.
Wire 10-17-06, 05:19 PM	I have but one thing to say to that. "If the PC's have to do it, the NPC's have to do it too." If the DM assumes that while the PC's are training and gaining levels, the NPCs are also training and gaining levels, since training for higher levels is slower thann training for lower ones, it explains quite well how the PC's are able to almost "Catch Up" to their adversaries in level and defeat them. Training Rules are only an artificial construct if only the PC's have to use them.While that is applicable in some cases - in other cases it's not. Because training for any given individual (PC or NPC) is uniquely different based upon a whole slew of various factors. If the PCs are on a mission that is clock-intensive and travel-intensive (CotSQ for example), their options for training will be severely limited. The NPCs in their sphere of influence (whether friend or foe) will not neccessarily have those same time, geography, and circumstance limitations. Now, if those NPCs are *following* the party and are under the same restrictions, then you might have some parallel advancements dynamics.
Fabius Maximus 10-17-06, 06:49 PM	That's not logical. I challenge you to prove your point within the context of the intended structuring of the 3.5 WotC designed D&D. Especially since there are multiple circumstances (even core) of certain classes being expert multi-taskers and others who are not. This especially applies to spellcasters. Within the context of D&D? Why? Think outside that box. Doing to things at the same time is harder than concentrating on one only. That's life. Deal with it. Omitting realism in a game because it does not suit someones feelings for justice is not right in my eyes. No you don't. Not with primary spellcasters. Who have shown through WotC's expansion of 3.5 sourcebooks, that they can effectively perform the role of all the other iconic roles with minimal buildcrafting fuss. This is why it pays for primary spellcasters/manifesters to never multiclass because higher level spells (and the slots afforded them at higher levels) are more valuable to multi-tasking than side forays into alternate class dips. Besides, your notion of "paying a price" to multi-task is especially inchoate in concept. You'll need to define what that means exactly in context of both character builds and aggregate party dynamics. Er? Since when is the Duskblade supposed to be a primary spellcaster? If you want to talk overall class balance, look elsewhere. It is well known that the primary spellcasters are more powerful on high levels. Everyone who thinks a gish can take the role of the party's arcanist is either a bloody amateur or an idiot. You can build an efficient gish with a combination of fighter/wizard and a PrC. You don't need an additional base class. You can very well build a knightly character by using the Fighter. You don't need a Knight class. There's no new can of worms to open. Through effective multi-tasking, you can already create what is effectively known throughout the WotC Message Board Forums as Double Threat, Triple Threat, and even Quadruple Threat classes (as labled by the famed buildcrafter Snow Savant). We're not talking gestalt buildcrafting either. The new classes being presented today by the WotC designers are a result of 6 years of playtesting, consumer feedback, and comparative analytics. There's no question that the designers did not perfect class mechanics the first time around. Now they are providing improved products in addition to new game mechanics. No. Improving products would have been redesigning the existing classes. By implementing new base classes as substitutes, they are pushing old classes slowly out of the game and making it more complicated at the same time. None of this commentary makes any sense. *EVERYBODY* wants some semblance of mechanical game balance regardless of individual or party decisions in their collaborative buildcrafting processes. Ideally, good game design doesn't penalize casual gamers who accidentally create weak characters ... and doesn't reward powergamers who purposefully create gamebreaking characters. That's not what I meant. The obsession with class balance shifts the focus from roleplaying to rollplaying, because players just look jealously at the other's characters lest they start being better than their own. This has nothing to do with punishing or rewarding someone. It has something to do with priorities. Do I want to enjoy the game? Yes. Do I build my character as well as I'm able for this reason? Yes. If I'm unsure about it, do I seek advise from my fellow players or the DM? Yes. So far so good. Now for the most important question: Is the DM able to create an adventure so that every player can have fun with the characters the players build? Who is to blame if at high levels druids, wizards and clerics stomp every opponent into the ground and the fighter just gets the scraps? Bad class balance? Sure, it's an issue. But it cannot be helped. A game design as complicated and abstract as D&D is prone to have errors. If you want to get rid of this particular one, use a system without classes. As long as you have them, you will have discussions about class balance, because everyone has another opinion about it. But the responsibility to make a game ultimately enjoyable lies with the DM. Being able to do this takes time. If the system is easy to understand, good. If the system full of mistakes, not so great. But the DM has to learn to go around them, and the players have to learn to live with them. If the system expands on - let's say - base classes, it makes the DMs job actually harder, because the players want to try the new ones, and all have to learn anew to make the game enjoyable. Do you understand my point now?
Wire 10-17-06, 09:14 PM	Within the context of D&D? Why? Think outside that box. Doing to things at the same time is harder than concentrating on one only. That's life. Deal with it. Omitting realism in a game because it does not suit someones feelings for justice is not right in my eyes.Get back in the box, Fabius. This isn't postmodern social theory or horticulture, it's D&D we're talking about. Omitting or enhancing realism is an inchoate exercise in futility where the game can actually be profoundly broken in half at 1st level (now than Pun-Pun is RAW-viable at 1st level). Now ... this rebuttal of yours still doesn't explain why you said this, "If you do two things at the same time, you will never get the same results if you concentrated on only one of them.". And that's pretty key to the crux of our debate in how it applies to D&D mechanics. So if you got more on that, I'll be glad to provide a retort. Er? Since when is the Duskblade supposed to be a primary spellcaster? If you want to talk overall class balance, look elsewhere. It is well known that the primary spellcasters are more powerful on high levels. Everyone who thinks a gish can take the role of the party's arcanist is either a bloody amateur or an idiot.I never said it was. The Duskblade is technically a secondary spellcaster (more similar in structure/application to the Bard's SC mechanic. Nobody said anything either about trad Gish builds being effective primary arcanists either. To expand on my earlier thoughts, an Iconic Group actually gets more versatile, more multi-functional, more powerful, and more capable by avoiding multiclassing in primary spellcaster/manifester classes. By doing so, they are actually accumulating "professions" (as you call them) by getting access to higher level multi-functional spells - and more of them. For example, you can actually create a more optimized Mystic Theurge build by going straight Cleric with the Spell domain and the Domain Spontaneity feat (along with all the other top-tier buildcraftings for Cleric). You can very well build a knightly character by using the Fighter. You don't need a Knight class.You don't need Pally and Ranger either. There are 3 main character archetypes in D&D. Combatant Specialist, Caster, & Ombudsman. All 3 can have variable packages given to them to make them emulate whatever 3.X class or PrC currently exists today. But that's neither here nor there. The Knight's been published. And his proprietary class benefits are now not accessible to other classes via feat, variant option, gear, or what have you. If you want his class benefits, you have to take levels in Knight, or houserule his mechanics into feats or a homebrew PrC. Improving products would have been redesigning the existing classes. By implementing new base classes as substitutes, they are pushing old classes slowly out of the game and making it more complicated at the same time.Which is, from a business perspective and mechanical seamlessness perspective, impossible. And I completely disagree with you on the old classes being pushed out. Name one core class that is significantly dissapearing in use throughout D&D's overarching player demographic. Even the suckiness of the Fighter class still does not detract people from wanting to play it. And even for people who've embraced the ever-expanding palate of classes, Fighter-2 will always be a welcome dip even into advanced buildcrafting strategies. That's not what I meant. The obsession with class balance shifts the focus from roleplaying to rollplaying, because players just look jealously at the other's characters lest they start being better than their own. This has nothing to do with punishing or rewarding someone. Who's obsessed? I don't see any obsession over game balance. I see an ever-evolving concern to maintain it. But obsession indicates people are going nutso over it. It's not hard for a competent DM and a well-meaning group of players to maintain mechanical balance with minimal effort and guidance. That's going to be inherent in any game where there are 70+ core and source books (using my WotC 3.X collection as a guideline here) that all utilize numbers, math, buildcrafting combinations, and infinite permutations. Who is to blame if at high levels druids, wizards and clerics stomp every opponent into the ground and the fighter just gets the scraps? Bad class balance? Sure, it's an issue. But it cannot be helped. A game design as complicated and abstract as D&D is prone to have errors. If you want to get rid of this particular one, use a system without classes. As long as you have them, you will have discussions about class balance, because everyone has another opinion about it.It can be helped though. Because even weak game mechanics can be tweaked conceptually and tangibly using both the RAW and manipulation of some of the more esoteric rules of the game (power-bluffing, etc.). Plus, this is a collaborative story-telling game. With an emphasis on collaborative. A high percentage of players want to have characters that work within the team min/max concept. I'm seeing more character building in the greater NYC D&D community evolving into the sort where everybody helps everybody create characters that make the primary player happy, while still providing balanced group productivity. 'Skilled Buildcrafting' is a strong solution to the class imbalances inherent within the entire 3.X WotC D&D Enterprise. Because it allows one to use the full breadth of all-over-the-map published game mechanics to compensate for the weaker parts of the game. It also helps smooth-out power level imbalances and utility imbalances. ... Somehow, this debate kind of got off on some odd tangents. If you want to backtrack and focus in on anything specific, just holler. :)
msatran 10-18-06, 12:18 AM	While that is applicable in some cases - in other cases it's not. Because training for any given individual (PC or NPC) is uniquely different based upon a whole slew of various factors. If the PCs are on a mission that is clock-intensive and travel-intensive (CotSQ for example), their options for training will be severely limited. The NPCs in their sphere of influence (whether friend or foe) will not neccessarily have those same time, geography, and circumstance limitations. Now, if those NPCs are *following* the party and are under the same restrictions, then you might have some parallel advancements dynamics. Well, why don't we try this your way for just five seconds and assume you play in a game with six PCs and no training rules. Level 1 to Level 13 in 6 months of IC game time. AND the DM was stingy. This is ridiculous. I don't care how heroic the PC's are supposed to be. If that's all the advancement curve takes to get to 13th level, the world would be OVERRUN with 13th level adventurers. And 13th level adventurers are pretty tough. Heck, anyone who has Greater Weapon Specialization or can cast Finger of Death is pretty tough. Heck, in two years, the world would be overrun with 20th level adventurers. The Forgotten Realms has an entire economy based on the massive amounts of money that PC's dump into item creation, magic item purchasing, inns and taverns, and the like. And with all those wishes and other high level magics floating around, total chaos would be the rule rather than the exception. And believe it or not, it's supposed to be the exception. Most farmers and other commoners have never seen a wizard cast Fireball, much less Meteor Swarm. The entire idea behind the Forgotten Realms is that characters take a long time to get their skills. Elminster is only about a 27th level character plus the chosen of Mystra template. In general, the rule for training in my game works like this. Base time for core class=Character Level you are going to x3 Base time for PRC=Character Level you are going to x4 If you can't find a trainer, AND you're a character of level 11+, you can train yourself at double the time. That means that going to 20th level, if it's a PRC level, and you don't make any constitution checks AT ALL (They are allowed, at DC 10, plus the Endurance Feat if you have it) that's still 80 days base with the trainer, or half a year without one. And I don't have a problem with that. Not one. There are payment rules, too, but they're not really important for this.
Kadasbrass 10-18-06, 12:45 AM	Its eaiser to balance 11 or 16 classes with each other then it is to balance 50+ classes. I liked some of the stuff thats come out, and normally I had no problem allowing most of the classes in my games... But the field has become flooded too much now. And part of balancing the classes in the game requires experience on part of the DM. And no DM should have to be familar with how 50 different classes work, its just a waste of time that could be better spent. Some of the classes fit in nicely without any problems. The scout is a good example, its just a wilderness version of the rogue. Its damage output will come up a bit short compared to sneak attack, but its still a well balanced class with all things considered. There a few other classes that may need to be twinked one way or the other, and don't require alot of reading on the DM. Alot of the classes from the Complete Books fit here. And then there are classes that if you really want to understand as a DM your going to have to read a lot more, XPH, ToM, ToB, MoI covers most of those classes. More is not always better. The more books your group uses, the more time you and your players spend up looking up new material or rules in the middle of the game, the less efficient and smoothly your games will run.
allenchan 10-18-06, 12:56 AM	Well, why don't we try this your way for just five seconds and assume you play in a game with six PCs and no training rules. Level 1 to Level 13 in 6 months of IC game time. AND the DM was stingy. This is ridiculous. I don't care how heroic the PC's are supposed to be. If that's all the advancement curve takes to get to 13th level, the world would be OVERRUN with 13th level adventurers. Except they're the PCs. Everyone else is not. There's nothing saying how fast NPCs advance in level. Its something that's totally in the hands of the DM. Personally, I like having my PCs be heroic and out of the ordinary. I certainly dont want them to get overshadowed by NPCs; those aren't what the plot revolves around. Enforcing training times eliminates a lot of plots I like, because they become non-feasable. For example a massive-layered dungeon crawl that increases in power, expecting PCs to level up many times. Or a not-so-dramatic example is the Red Hand of Doom adventure. Prevent an invasion in 45 days, and go from level 6 to 12. Its fantastic. Then again, I find the actual training rules themselves to be bogus. Why is it equally difficult to be a barbarian and a wizard? Why does it take more training to frenzy then cast ninth level spells? I say, just go back to 2nd ed if you really enjoy punishing your pcs so much. ps: I dont know much about the FR books, but I read the rage of dragons series, and from what I remember of their stats from dragon magazine, they went from like 9th level to epic in 9 months or so.
Fabius Maximus 10-18-06, 08:23 AM	Get back in the box, Fabius. This isn't postmodern social theory or horticulture, it's D&D we're talking about. Omitting or enhancing realism is an inchoate exercise in futility where the game can actually be profoundly broken in half at 1st level (now than Pun-Pun is RAW-viable at 1st level). Now ... this rebuttal of yours still doesn't explain why you said this, "If you do two things at the same time, you will never get the same results if you concentrated on only one of them.". And that's pretty key to the crux of our debate in how it applies to D&D mechanics. So if you got more on that, I'll be glad to provide a retort. So, realism is not an issue because there are ways to bend the rules almost to a breaking point? Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. And what is so hard to understand about multitasking bing harder than singletasking? It's a quite fundamental principle which is reflected by the D&D rules about multiclassing. I never said it was. The Duskblade is technically a secondary spellcaster (more similar in structure/application to the Bard's SC mechanic. Nobody said anything either about trad Gish builds being effective primary arcanists either. To expand on my earlier thoughts, an Iconic Group actually gets more versatile, more multi-functional, more powerful, and more capable by avoiding multiclassing in primary spellcaster/manifester classes. By doing so, they are actually accumulating "professions" (as you call them) by getting access to higher level multi-functional spells - and more of them. For example, you can actually create a more optimized Mystic Theurge build by going straight Cleric with the Spell domain and the Domain Spontaneity feat (along with all the other top-tier buildcraftings for Cleric). Not quite. An iconic group may get more versatile with higher levels, if the players know how. But the group may function as well if it is not iconic. Different party combinations require different tactics and problem solving methods. Just because the game balance hangs onto the Iconic 4 character party with Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard, it does not mean that this group is the ideal. It's up to the DM to fit the circumstances to the party's combination of abilities. You don't need Pally and Ranger either. There are 3 main character archetypes in D&D. Combatant Specialist, Caster, & Ombudsman. All 3 can have variable packages given to them to make them emulate whatever 3.X class or PrC currently exists today. But that's neither here nor there. The Knight's been published. And his proprietary class benefits are now not accessible to other classes via feat, variant option, gear, or what have you. If you want his class benefits, you have to take levels in Knight, or houserule his mechanics into feats or a homebrew PrC. I still think the best class system would consist of three classes modeled after the archetypes you named. Which is, from a business perspective and mechanical seamlessness perspective, impossible. And I completely disagree with you on the old classes being pushed out. Name one core class that is significantly dissapearing in use throughout D&D's overarching player demographic. Even the suckiness of the Fighter class still does not detract people from wanting to play it. And even for people who've embraced the ever-expanding palate of classes, Fighter-2 will always be a welcome dip even into advanced buildcrafting strategies. When the Tome of Battle came out, the fighter was reduced to a two-level-dip class. Just because wizards doesn't felt it was possible to integrate the new mechanics into the existing warrior classes. Did they think the book would sell less if there were no new base classes in it? I don't think so. Other baseclasses substitute class combinations or builds. The Duskblade replaces the other gishs, despite having the Battle Sorcerer which would have worked quite well if someone would have bothered to redesign the variant and the original. The Knight makes a knightly fighter redundant. When the last specialised sorcerer class (i.e. Dread Necro, Warmage, Beguiler) comes out, there is no need to play a sorcerer anymore. It's the class kits all over again. Who's obsessed? I don't see any obsession over game balance. I see an ever-evolving concern to maintain it. But obsession indicates people are going nutso over it. It's not hard for a competent DM and a well-meaning group of players to maintain mechanical balance with minimal effort and guidance. That's going to be inherent in any game where there are 70+ core and source books (using my WotC 3.X collection as a guideline here) that all utilize numbers, math, buildcrafting combinations, and infinite permutations. Well, the myriad threads on this board dealing with "Sorcerer vs. Wizard", "The Fighter sucks" or "The Druid is overpowered" indicate that there are quite a lot people who just think about class balance. It starts when you use maths to balance out your game instead of making a character first and then look at what combination of classes could represent it. If I want to play an half-orc fighter who rather menaces his opponents than actually fight them, I choose the Menacing Brute PrC. I don't care if it's a weak build, it just fits the character. Somehow, this debate kind of got off on some odd tangents. If you want to backtrack and focus in on anything specific, just holler. :) Well, the issue was if the PHB II can be used with the realms. I think that three of the base classes in the book are redundant and one does not fit the Realm's flavor (the Dragon Shaman).
MerrikCale 10-18-06, 11:02 AM	I'm starting to get bleary eyed with this thread.
Renvale999 10-18-06, 02:26 PM	With every newly released book with classes and PrCs (and feats) in there the balance constantly shifts to more power Agreed, more power to the players and less to the DM. Makes Muchkinism much more prevalant...I'm running a game now and I'm trying to limit the muchkin stuff but than the players get ticked off. It's getting to the point where I'm just gonna quit and start playing video games. It's not about Role-playing anymore, it's about what feat/class/and race you are. I'm sick of hearing people call characters "builds". I find this idea distasteful at best. If you want a "build" go play WOW, there's not place for it in D&D.
allenchan 10-18-06, 04:58 PM	Agreed, more power to the players and less to the DM. Makes Muchkinism much more prevalant. Fisrt, your definition of "munchkin" is wrong. Refere to the terminology sticky on the main dnd board. And what the hell? Why wouldnt a DM use the new stuff? Why would it be for PCs only? Then of course they're going to be more powerful.I love the new stuff as a DM, because I love to throw new and unique stuff at the PCs. Every new book gives me more ideas. Its not a one-way street. And I've got news for you, its always been about race/class/equipment, even back in 2nd ed. More often then not, its just nostalgia speaking, back when we didnt know any better.
msatran 10-19-06, 01:45 PM	Except they're the PCs. Everyone else is not. There's nothing saying how fast NPCs advance in level. Its something that's totally in the hands of the DM. Personally, I like having my PCs be heroic and out of the ordinary. I certainly dont want them to get overshadowed by NPCs; those aren't what the plot revolves around. Enforcing training times eliminates a lot of plots I like, because they become non-feasable. For example a massive-layered dungeon crawl that increases in power, expecting PCs to level up many times. Or a not-so-dramatic example is the Red Hand of Doom adventure. Prevent an invasion in 45 days, and go from level 6 to 12. Its fantastic. Then again, I find the actual training rules themselves to be bogus. Why is it equally difficult to be a barbarian and a wizard? Why does it take more training to frenzy then cast ninth level spells? I say, just go back to 2nd ed if you really enjoy punishing your pcs so much. ps: I dont know much about the FR books, but I read the rage of dragons series, and from what I remember of their stats from dragon magazine, they went from like 9th level to epic in 9 months or so. This is precisely my problem. When I run there is no such thing as an NPC. If you have that PC tee shirt, it leads to too much metagaming. "Because I'm a Player Character" is NOT an excuse for bad roleplaying, and I'm pretty much determined to eliminate that whereever I find it. It's not punishment, it's sanity. It's living in a realistic world. Realistically, Allen, are you a PC or an NPC? While I'm pretty sure that you're an NPC, you probably think I'm an NPC, and you don't like my argument because it puts everyone on exactly the same level. Which is precisely the point. While the PC's in my game are the heroes, they're not any different from the other peoples that populate the world. The reason why the training rules are there is so that it takes WORK to get there. I despise the fact that people don't work for anything anymore and everyone wants a free ride. Now let's look at Red Hand of Doom. This adventure is ridiculous. Here's why this adventure is ridiculous. Let's look at medieval mobilization times for a minute. This is why Red Hand of Doom is totally nonfunctional. Getting the army to mobilize and cross this much terrain this quickly is impossible. You need to pack up camp each day, march, and then make camp again. And your troops are unusual, bizarre, and have difficult eating habits. If you think that Greenspawn Razorfiend is going to be content with the create food and water spell, you're out of your mind! Likely, he'll eat some of your own troops unless there's a powerful NPC there waiting to zap him. It took TWO YEARS to mobilize for the first crusade in RL. Along the way, they butchered thousands of people who had nothing to do with their goal. It took another two years to get there, and they spent almost six months in Constantinople with the Emperor Alexius, who desperately wanted to get rid of those crazy knights. You can't even MARCH this army across that terrain if you use the adventure in FR in 45 days. The substitution area makes that completely impossible. Training Rules are NOT a punishment. It's a point of roleplaying and creating the right flavor so that everyone can't challenge the gods overnight.
SgtAnjay 10-19-06, 11:27 PM	Some people want to worry about mobilization times and supply chains and average land speeds of various formations. It helps immerse them, which is fun. Some people just want a threat for their PC's to smash. It gives them a sense of escapist thrill, which is fun. There's nothing wrong with either of those things. This thread is quickly degenerating into: Poster1: This is how D&D should be. Poster2: No, this is how D&D should be. Lather, rinse, repeat....
GothicDan 10-20-06, 03:25 AM	Eh. I like Ed's comment on "what D&D is" in my sig. :) That's pretty much how I've played my games, and will continue to do so - with an emphasis on characters interacting in a world. Real people aren't robots, and neither should characters be - and like Msatran, I don't draw much of a line between NPC and PC.
Karsus the Mad 10-20-06, 04:25 AM	My problem with the game right now is that the prestige classes do not actually have any PRESTIGE. That is, the classes don't have a roleplaying and training requirement that sets them apart from standard classes, and this material should be INCLUDED WITH THE PRC TEXT. Magelord is an awesome class not because of what it does but because it says "Spend 10,000 GP on this stuff, or find another (rare) magelord to teach you. I agree, and also disagree. I don't think they should have roleplaying requirements put into it. For me, it depends soley on the PrC in question. As a DM I'm more than capable of creating the roleplaying aspect required without it needing to be put into print. But given a few recent threads I've been in lately, I sometimes wonder...
allenchan 10-20-06, 08:22 PM	This is precisely my problem. When I run there is no such thing as an NPC. If you have that PC tee shirt, it leads to too much metagaming. "Because I'm a Player Character" is NOT an excuse for bad roleplaying, and I'm pretty much determined to eliminate that whereever I find it. I would agree with you, except I hardly consider the lack of training rules to be bad roleplaying. It's not punishment, it's sanity. It's living in a realistic world. Realistically, Allen, are you a PC or an NPC? While I'm pretty sure that you're an NPC, you probably think I'm an NPC, and you don't like my argument because it puts everyone on exactly the same level. Which is precisely the point. While the PC's in my game are the heroes, they're not any different from the other peoples that populate the world. They're either heroes, or the average joe shmoe. I cant understand how they can be both. A farmer doesnt wake up one day and decide he's going to be a Chose of Mystra. Dnd is first and foremost a social event to have fun. If you want to take that away,and make them on exactly the same level, then have them all be NPC classes. (side note: I totally am an NPC. Probably an Expert 3) The reason why the training rules are there is so that it takes WORK to get there. I despise the fact that people don't work for anything anymore and everyone wants a free ride. Now let's look at Red Hand of Doom. This adventure is ridiculous. Here's why this adventure is ridiculous. Let's look at medieval mobilization times for a minute. This is why Red Hand of Doom is totally nonfunctional. Getting the army to mobilize and cross this much terrain this quickly is impossible. You need to pack up camp each day, march, and then make camp again. And your troops are unusual, bizarre, and have difficult eating habits. If you think that Greenspawn Razorfiend is going to be content with the create food and water spell, you're out of your mind! Likely, he'll eat some of your own troops unless there's a powerful NPC there waiting to zap him. First, the Red Hand was a sample adventure I pulled out of nowhere. However, that doesn't make it any less applicable. Every super adventure expects to take course over a few months (like all the adventure paths). It took TWO YEARS to mobilize for the first crusade in RL. Along the way, they butchered thousands of people who had nothing to do with their goal. It took another two years to get there, and they spent almost six months in Constantinople with the Emperor Alexius, who desperately wanted to get rid of those crazy knights. You can't even MARCH this army across that terrain if you use the adventure in FR in 45 days. The substitution area makes that completely impossible. Perhaps this is your biggest problem. This can happen in the Forgotten Realms. Faerun is not a ye olde medieval europe clone; thats what SCA thespians are for. Look at the recent history of Faerun. Most of the wars have been fairly large-scale and epic, but last only a matter of months, on average about nine. just take a look at the grand history pdf over at candlekeep.com The longest war is the Unther-Mulhorand war, and that has only gone on for two years because they insist on moving five miles and then resettling the area, installing new governors and the like, then going another five miles, etc. Training Rules are NOT a punishment. It's a point of roleplaying and creating the right flavor so that everyone can't challenge the gods overnight. Epic heroes born to do great things should be able to challenge the gods, should they live that long and their motivations desire it. Your assumption of the "right" flavor clearly doesn't mesh with what Forgotten Realms has happen every year, because none of it could happen in your POV. I like the way FR is now, and training rules would cripple FR.
Lokahn Mandrake 10-21-06, 03:51 AM	Training Rules are NOT a punishment. It's a point of roleplaying and creating the right flavor so that everyone can't challenge the gods overnight. Amen Brother, Of course you are preaching to the choir in this case as I too utilize training times AND costs. The least expensive route (time and gold) under my system is the single classed character. Multi-classing and prestige classing can get QUITE expensive at higher levels and take considerably longer to complete than if the character had chosen a simpler route. Why do I use these sorts of rules as a DM? Because, I want the players to appreciate those hard earned high levels. If they are truly ranked among the "elite" in the campaign world then they will have earned it...by surviving as long as they have, by utilizing their resources to advance their training in the path(s) they have chosen, and by persevering and putting in the time to see their characters grow into true 'Heroes' over time (in-game AND real). Call me old school, but I have yet to run a "fast" campaign in which it only takes a handful of sessions for the characters to attain mid or even high levels. I couldn't stomach that, it would just feel empty and pointless if there wasn't any work involved. But, if the players are willing to put in the time and are enjoying the game (always my ultimate goal as the DM) then their characters will likely distinguish themselves and have a meaningful impact upon the Realms. Lokahn Mandrake
GothicDan 10-21-06, 02:45 PM	They're either heroes, or the average joe shmoe. I cant understand how they can be both. A farmer doesnt wake up one day and decide he's going to be a Chose of Mystra. Dnd is first and foremost a social event to have fun. If you want to take that away,and make them on exactly the same level, then have them all be NPC classes. (side note: I totally am an NPC. Probably an Expert 3) Msatran was referring to lore and fluff, NOT mechanics, as far as I can tell. Perhaps this is your biggest problem. This can happen in the Forgotten Realms. Faerun is not a ye olde medieval europe clone; thats what SCA thespians are for. Look at the recent history of Faerun. Most of the wars have been fairly large-scale and epic, but last only a matter of months, on average about nine. just take a look at the grand history pdf over at candlekeep.com According to Ed, at least one of the recent battles/wars in Faerun has not "properly" taken into account the various characteristics inherent to the setting. The war of Myth Drannor apparently did not accordingly take into account Elven war strategies and magic. The attack on Evereska (NOT Evermeet) seemed to show a woeful lack of strategy, too. Sure, wars last a short time when everyone's just throwing fireballs and lightning bolts at each other all day. The Crown Wars lasted for centuries at a time. And, considering Msatran (and many others) have a problem with printed canon lore and mechanics as it stands (the lack of training rules), why do you think that providing examples from canon written by the same design staff will be in any way more valid to his (and others') point of views? That's like me saying, "I don't like this novelist's writing style," and then trying to counter it with subjective quotes from the novelist's own publisher. And on a side note, the highest level I've played to from the get-go (starting at 0) was 6th level. It took me a year of real-life gaming time, gaming pretty much every week. And it was the best campaign of my life.
msatran 10-22-06, 10:29 AM	Hey, Dan, forget about the elf strategies. What about the demon strategies. Massed Hezrou battle tactics look nothing like the melee combat nonsense that happened in those books. Here's what this looks like. Massed Unholy Blight. Oh, look. The 1 in 20 rule. Look. Helpless, soon to be dead elves. There is NOTHING in the game that can make you immune to the secondary effect of this spell, and if you do it enough times, people WILL die from the damage, even though it's only like 5 points per casting. Thank you, Dan, for pointing out that it is related to Lore and Fluff. In one of my games, the villain is Expert 8. He has no special abilities other than wealth and the ability to hire 20th level adventurers to save his behind. :) And thank you Lokahn. YES, people DO reach very high levels as PC's in my games. It just takes 5-6 years of play to do it. The highest level characters are level 25. It just takes forever and a day.
Ravenbow 10-25-06, 12:53 PM	After reading thru this entire thread (which I mistakenly thought was a discussion about PHB2 classes) I have to side with Msatran and GothicDan. To answer the original question. Just the Scout is used. I am lucky. Every player in my group of 8 is 28 or older, with the exception of one, whom is 22. Words banned at the door... Drizzt, Uber, Ninja, Build, and Gimp. We give new players a chance for three sessions, then we vote. Using said words is a sure fire way to be denied. Been together about 2 years now. We use training, and the highest level character is lv 11 and thinking of retiring in Eveningstar. Like someone above said. Generation Gaps account for a lot in the style preferrred of playing D&D. In fact the last two sessions (average 3-4 hours each) were entirely *gasp* roleplaying. The only dice rolled was for the bard, and the thief saw a dagger she wanted on a passing noble. That's how we ended so I am sure we will be rolling again really soon :D A final footnote. We made a house rule that saved our campaigns. 1 PrC per character.
msatran 10-26-06, 02:10 PM	Thank you, Ravenbow. Ironically, I don't have that rule, and the reason why I don't is this simple. It's because if you've run a game for 19+ years, you have to allow fairly consistent rebuilds to allow for more accurate character concepts. Mike, this is what my character ALWAYS should have been. May I? And the response to that is always yes. I don't like seeing players unhappy, and no matter how many PRCs you have, if worst comes to worst, and your PC's are really high level and twinked out, there's always the Sorrowsworn Demon in the Monster Manual III. This creature, for some reason, is the great equalizer. It equalizes everything to a flat paste in groups of less than 6. :) Oh, and build is not banned at my table. There are times when I wish it was, but unfortunately, I'd rather have the character's concept be true than worry THAT much about the numbers, despite how broken this can sometimes get.
GothicDan 10-28-06, 07:02 PM	Like someone above said. Generation Gaps account for a lot in the style preferrred of playing D&D. To a point, yes. Of course, I'm only 21. Meh. :)
miscellany 11-02-06, 02:55 AM	I don’t see a need to side with anyone. Training is boring (even stupid) in some instances. If players don’t like it and it takes too much away from playing the game than get rid of it. Apparently a lot of gamers thought training was bunk, so WotC did the smart thing and said goodbye to it. If DMs want to impose training rules and their players aren’t bored to tears by it than fine, but gods please don’t get down with the stupid and make it the default! Save training for games where DMs and players are in to it.......meaning it’s fun for all involved and maybe it keeps everyone’s minds focused on the game world which is good. We aren’t using affiliations in our game but a couple of friends and me think these are good rules to have. I like rules that translate in game actions into mechanics that serve a long term purpose. This gets players more involved in the game world and gives DMs plenty of adventure hooks to work from. The base classes from the PHBII have not found their way into any of our new campaigns (Realms and Eberron). I don’t think they will anytime soon and frankly I’m finding it hard to wrap my head around most of them conceptually. I’m liking that WotC is pushing for new base classes though since not all of them are bits and pieces of other core classes thrown together in new ways. Fitting them into the Realms is something I won’t worry about anytime soon. Not necessary, really. Prestige classes seem to have devolved out of the DMs hands, which is sad. Done right, PrCs should include information for DMs on how to incorporate a player’s wishes to obtain the PrC into his ongoing campaign without slowing it down. However PrCs don’t as a rule need roleplaying requirements. Bad idea. Let it be said I’m a grognard, yet I don’t ascribe to the offensive and stereotypical generation gap notion. I’ve played in more than one 1E game and 2E game where training was not required by the DM. I’ve also gamed with players from then to now who could be called twinks/powergamers/munchkins, etc.... The idea that players want as much power as they can get for the least amount of work is not a concept unique to the most current generation of gamers. Something for all you new gamers to throw out there the next time you see any other grognard collectively put you down. The truth is back then the grogs were just like a lot of you. This of course also means you’re all basically just as smart and creative as we were back then. Peace.
MerrikCale 11-03-06, 01:05 PM	The base classes from the PHBII have not found their way into any of our new campaigns (Realms and Eberron). I don’t think they will anytime soon and frankly I’m finding it hard to wrap my head around most of them conceptually. . I agree the base classes in this book are a waste excpet I think for the Knight. It reminds me of the old cavalier class which I loved.
GothicDan 11-03-06, 04:33 PM	Training is boring (even stupid) in some instances. If players don’t like it and it takes too much away from playing the game than get rid of it. Apparently a lot of gamers thought training was bunk, so WotC did the smart thing and said goodbye to it. Smart for selling books, yes. If DMs want to impose training rules and their players aren’t bored to tears by it than fine, but gods please don’t get down with the stupid and make it the default! Save training for games where DMs and players are in to it.......meaning it’s fun for all involved and maybe it keeps everyone’s minds focused on the game world which is good. It inherently distracts from the game world, actually, because it makes it seem like one's class powers/abilities appear out of a miraculous vacuum, rather than having them tied specifically to the cultures and individuals in a world which historically developed them. The idea that players want as much power as they can get for the least amount of work is not a concept unique to the most current generation of gamers. Something for all you new gamers to throw out there the next time you see any other grognard collectively put you down. The key difference, though, is whether or not the rules cater to those type of people or not. Rules which do not do so will obviously make the game less attractive to them. To me, removing restrictions leads ultimately to an eventual evolution of the system in question away from what it was originally meant to be. Whether that is good or bad is entirely dependent on who you're asking, but it would be a bit irrationalliy idealistic to say that rules do not affect game style or the evolution of the game in any way. (See my quote by Ed Greenwood in my sig.) The truth is back then the grogs were just like a lot of you. This of course also means you’re all basically just as smart and creative as we were back then. Too bad the current game mechanics don't steer people away from this direction. It makes me sad that the game is aimed, specifically, at a younger age range. When you custom-tailor things to make someone basically enjoy it, completely, they have no reason to try to understand beyond what's in front of your face. If you simply give a dog its treats rather than making it do tricks for them first, then the dog will never learn anything new. I would rather the game be full of 'unnecessary' rules that strictly enforce flavor, theme, and world idiosyncrasy. This would give people a really good idea of what the world or game is about. Then, after experiencing the game and actually learning its ins and outs, players can make INFORMED DECISIONS as to whether they want to ignore the restrictions or not. So, do people count as grognards if they've never played in 1E and very rarely played in 2E, and still ascribe to the majority of the game design methodologies espoused in those editions? ;)
msatran 11-04-06, 02:28 PM	The reason why I have these rules is the laws of logic. Logic clearly dictates that if Elminster is only 30th level or so after however many thousands of years, that above a certain point, level gain should be very slow. When you look at the Forgotten Realms, there's a high level adventurer under every rock. This means that you have to A) Assume there is a huge population of adventurers and that B) A large number of them wind up dead every year. The thing I really hate is 6 months to get to 13th level. That is THE most unrealistic thing in the entire world. While it IS a fantasy game, I don't buy that level of advancement. The OTHER thing that the training rules do is this: They produce GREAT downtime RP. While your character is training, they can do things in their offtime, unless they're trying to squeeze that level in with all their might. Sure, the characters don't get to use those new skills, powers, and abilities, but a lot of people seem to have forgotten that the game is not really ABOUT skills, powers, and abilities. The game is about CHARACTERS. And, as CHARACTERS, sometimes a good session of having a beer and chatting about the woman you loved, how you miss her and whyever did she turn to the worship of Bane, one day you'll see her again. THAT's the stuff that makes a ROLE PLAYING GAME. Also, if you know that your archenemy is Faeldrammerar of the Thunderstorm Blade, and you know he's BADASS, you SHOULD train to beat him, because you KNOW, if he's HALF as good as his rep, that you can't beat him now.
Faraer 11-04-06, 03:15 PM	When you look at the Forgotten Realms, there's a high level adventurer under every rock.No. Please don't put about canards like this. One every few thousand square miles, at most. There are a lot of adventurers in absolute terms, but they aren't unusually or densely prevalent.
MerrikCale 11-04-06, 03:47 PM	sometimes a good session of having a beer and chatting about the woman you loved, how you miss her and whyever did she turn to the worship of Bane, one day you'll see her again. THAT's the stuff that makes a ROLE PLAYING GAME. Thats rough dude. I'm really sorry.
miscellany 11-05-06, 02:20 AM	Smart for selling books, yes. ...and equally smart for the game itself. Sell more books, game does well, company does well, game lives on. Let’s not forget the decision to not include required training rules was based on feedback from Second Edition players. Knowing this tells us that put downs about WotC catering to the lowest common denominator are themselves colossally idiotic because they amount to gamers saying Hey WotC we’re a bunch of idiots so stop listening to what we want! The idea that a lack of training rules cause a suspension of disbelief problem in the game world is apparently not a universally held concept. If it was we’d see training rules in the core rulebooks (with footnotes that players should focus on cultural sources for what they’re about to train for, as well as an emphasis on putting ranks in Knowledge: History....) For me it comes down to learn or die. Epiphany in battle. That sort of thing. If I’m an adventurer <say, the party rogue> whose goal is to get rich or die trying <literally> than remembering the successful attack by the Mountain Orc that nearly lopped my head off and thinking about how to avoid it next time is of prime importance. Thus, as I advance in level I take ranks in Tumble and the Mobility feat. Likewise, if I’m the party mage and I have nightmares of rabid, onrushing Mountain Orc barbarians that I’ve no hope of slaying with a single magic missile volley ....well then I’m studying in between encounters and thiking about how to cast Fireball until that time when I finally get it down. If above average patent clerks can think up E=MC2 than highly intelligent PC mages can figure out Fireball. Before I forget, the current 3.5 DMG pages 197, 198 reminds DMs that they control the background of the game. DMs are well within their right to impose training requirements before characters can learn new skills and feats. It even goes on to say how this can encourage player interaction by characters teaching other characters what they know <...which puts a chink in Greenwood’s generalization, read on>. The key difference, though, is whether or not the rules cater to those type of people or not. .... (See my quote by Ed Greenwood in my sig.) There’s no key difference to be found. The only thing I see is assumptions with no proof backing them up. You should put the paragraph preceding “that attitude should be...” in your sig as well; it puts it in proper context that way. Ed’s remarks amount to somewhat inaccurate generalizations. See also that he’s including Second Edition in his comments. Something to keep in mind before you post your own generalizations about what 3E supposedly does to players. I would rather the game be full of 'unnecessary' rules that strictly enforce flavor, theme, and world idiosyncrasy. This would give people a really good idea of what the world or game is about. Then, after experiencing the game and actually learning its ins and outs, players can make INFORMED DECISIONS as to whether they want to ignore the restrictions or not. I can appreciate a desire to find a means for players to get more of the game world in their heads, but frankly such rules would slow play for most games and remain for the most part ignored. It’s up to DMs to include or exclude as much world/setting flavor as they want, beyond what play naturally calls for <which itself is more than you seem to give credit for; Realms books contain a huge number of character and NPC oriented rules that mate up setting flavor with game mechanics>. To impose even more rules requirements would be just a really bad idea. It’d be a waste of money for the publisher, wasted pages in books and wasted time for gamers (much like the cumbersome rules for level advancement were in the AD&D Dungeon Master’s Guide). So, do people count as grognards if they've never played in 1E and very rarely played in 2E, and still ascribe to the majority of the game design methodologies espoused in those editions? ;) I think you’re motives are good, but I get the impression you’re somewhat misinformed about those game design methodologies GothicDan. The assumptions you’re making about 1E and 2E in this thread alone just aren’t true so far as I recall. So way back at the beginning the OP was talking about affiliations from the PHB II. To wrap all this up I want to point out that PHB II devotes 16 pages to building party teamwork and backstory. It spends 17 pages to teach players how to build unique character backgrounds and personality traits. It gives 12 pages to character retraining <including optional costs to pay for this in game>. And it dedicates 26 pages to the concept of Affiliations. I just can’t square your assumptions about the supposed catering of the newest edition to certain kinds of gamers with what the PHB II does GothicDan. If all those assumptions are true, then the PHB II shouldn’t have in it what it does.
GothicDan 11-05-06, 03:33 AM	...and equally smart for the game itself. Sell more books, game does well, company does well, game lives on. Why is that better for the game? Compromising its integrity just to sell more money, to the end result that the new version of the game in no way represents what it was meant to be in the first place? That's not good for it - not to me. That's why I am not at all upset about WotC having discontinued Planescape. To have sold enough money to make it worthwhile, I feel they would have ended up changing it too much. Let’s not forget the decision to not include required training rules was based on feedback from Second Edition players. Knowing this tells us that put downs about WotC catering to the lowest common denominator are themselves colossally idiotic because they amount to gamers saying Hey WotC we’re a bunch of idiots so stop listening to what we want! Where exactly are the stats for this feedback you're referring to? The idea that a lack of training rules cause a suspension of disbelief problem in the game world is apparently not a universally held concept. If it was we’d see training rules in the core rulebooks (with footnotes that players should focus on cultural sources for what they’re about to train for, as well as an emphasis on putting ranks in Knowledge: History....) I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the majority rule is the one that should be accepted as the best by everyone. If such arguments actually were applicable to my viewpoints, why would I be having this discussion at all? I thought it was already pretty clear that I didn't agree with the majority, here... For me it comes down to learn or die. Epiphany in battle. That sort of thing. If I’m an adventurer <say, the party rogue> whose goal is to get rich or die trying <literally> than remembering the successful attack by the Mountain Orc that nearly lopped my head off and thinking about how to avoid it next time is of prime importance. That sounds incredibly shallow, from a world-perspective. No point in even having a detailed campaign world with a wealth of historical background, then. Likewise, if I’m the party mage and I have nightmares of rabid, onrushing Mountain Orc barbarians that I’ve no hope of slaying with a single magic missile volley ....well then I’m studying in between encounters and thiking about how to cast Fireball until that time when I finally get it down. "Thinking about how to cast it"? You do realize you're a Wizard and not a Sorcerer, right? You better well have some access to a library, and perhaps a laboratory, and some equipment, considering you're probably going to have to go through several drafts before you get the spell right, and a lot of components. (That is, if you researched it yourself.) If above average patent clerks can think up E=MC2 than highly intelligent PC mages can figure out Fireball. Um. You do realize Einstein had an extensive college education BEFORE he was a patent clerk, right? Before I forget, the current 3.5 DMG pages 197, 198 reminds DMs that they control the background of the game. DMs are well within their right to impose training requirements before characters can learn new skills and feats. It even goes on to say how this can encourage player interaction by characters teaching other characters what they know <...which puts a chink in Greenwood’s generalization, read on>. Yes, a bunch of vague rules really supports the ideas that those ambiguous rules are trying to put forth. Or.. Not. It seems like a lot of limp-wristed hand-waving to me. Ed’s remarks amount to somewhat inaccurate generalizations. I do believe it's impossible to remark on the accuracy of a subjective statement. See also that he’s including Second Edition in his comments. Something to keep in mind before you post your own generalizations about what 3E supposedly does to players. No, he is using the present-tense verb. 2E is past tense. I can appreciate a desire to find a means for players to get more of the game world in their heads, but frankly such rules would slow play for most games and remain for the most part ignored. It doesn't slow down play. It's a PART of play. And so what if it's ignored? That's like saying that it's best that no one get an education, since the majority of what they're going to do in life has nothing to do with algebra or history. It’s up to DMs to include or exclude as much world/setting flavor as they want, beyond what play naturally calls for <which itself is more than you seem to give credit for; Realms books contain a huge number of character and NPC oriented rules that mate up setting flavor with game mechanics>. Yes, but the published books are not made from the standpoints of DMs, but rather to specifically represent the status quo of a given world. The rules should be made to reflect that, and then, as you said, the DMs should be able to personally, on a case by case basis, make decisions. To impose even more rules requirements would be just a really bad idea. It’d be a waste of money for the publisher, wasted pages in books and wasted time for gamers (much like the cumbersome rules for level advancement were in the AD&D Dungeon Master’s Guide). The only thing that I could see it being a waste for, would be if, instead of the printing of mechanics, they would print lore instead. But they could easily make room for such mechanics by cutting out 90% of the utterly useless feats/PrCs/etc. that lend nothing to roleplay. I think you’re motives are good, but I get the impression you’re somewhat misinformed about those game design methodologies GothicDan. The assumptions you’re making about 1E and 2E in this thread alone just aren’t true so far as I recall. I'd like to see some specific examples. While I am young, I DO have extensive access to many older books, have been reading Ed's answers over at Candlekeep for years, have personally spoken with Gygax via email, and have done quite a bit of thinking about these sorts of things in my spare time. So way back at the beginning the OP was talking about affiliations from the PHB II. To wrap all this up I want to point out that PHB II devotes 16 pages to building party teamwork and backstory. It spends 17 pages to teach players how to build unique character backgrounds and personality traits. It gives 12 pages to character retraining <including optional costs to pay for this in game>. And it dedicates 26 pages to the concept of Affiliations. I just can’t square your assumptions about the supposed catering of the newest edition to certain kinds of gamers with what the PHB II does GothicDan. If all those assumptions are true, then the PHB II shouldn’t have in it what it does. No. It had no reason to be made at all. So, once more, it comes down to making money, by providing a bunch of new mechanics and then trying to make it seem like there's more to them than mechanics. If I like a system, or a game, I don't want any new mechanics unless they specifically ADD something to the game. Otherwise, all I'd want more of us lore, back story, history, etc.
miscellany 11-05-06, 03:54 AM	Yawn. It's late. Too late, in fact. Will give Dan a shot at sleeping on it, to see if he comes back with something more rational. Weak generalizations are a bore to respond to. Here's a hint: market research doesn't compromise the integrity of a product.
GothicDan 11-05-06, 03:59 AM	By that rather vacuous argument, I'll consider this discussion done. I should be getting some sleep, after all. Night. ;)
theartistformerlyknownas 11-05-06, 05:39 AM	Yawn. It's late. Too late, in fact. Will give Dan a shot at sleeping on it, to see if he comes back with something more rational. Weak generalizations are a bore to respond to. I think you just made a reflex save for half damage here. It's too easy to dodge an argument by saying that somebody else needs to come to their senses before you deign them worthy of continuing a conversation. Translation: Agree with me a lil more, and we'll talk. If you are as experienced of a gamer as you claim to be, bring another argument to the table to prove him wrong, don't just play the "I won't dignify that with a response" card. After all, you could have just waited until morning to post a real rebuttle, not some holier-than-thou tripe. Here's a hint: market research doesn't compromise the integrity of a product. I have to disagree with you. Market research is by its very definition, a profit-oriented tool of capitolism utilized soley for the preservation of the market. These people put out said product not with the hope of sharing ideas, but with selling them. Remember the Volo Guides? Those manuals are some of the most memorable and well loved relics of the Realms. But the fact is, they didn't sell too well. They just don't make em like they use to. Why? WotC has claimed that they will no longer be selling anything similar to the Volo Guides because they have nothing to with character statistics. Now this is purely subjective, but it sounds to me as if WotC is catering to a specific type of gamer. So way back at the beginning the OP was talking about affiliations from the PHB II. To wrap all this up I want to point out that PHB II devotes 16 pages to building party teamwork and backstory. It spends 17 pages to teach players how to build unique character backgrounds and personality traits. It gives 12 pages to character retraining <including optional costs to pay for this in game>. And it dedicates 26 pages to the concept of Affiliations. You're forgetting 25 pages dedicated to new classes (bell), 40 pages dedicated to alternative class features (whistle), and 23 pages dedicated to feats (accessory)... I could care less about prestige classes and feats. Anybody worth their weight in salt knows that in any campaign, with a little imagination, there is no limit to what your character can do. Taking a class and/or feat might make it easier, sure, but you can do it. That's why gamers like GothicDan and myself find the PHB II so frustrating. It encourages players and DMs to buy a product rather than to use a little imagination and develop these things yourelf. When I was wet behind the ears back in the tail end of 2nd edition, I wanted my ranger to do a backflip. And he did it. Right over a giant's head. I didn't need a jump DC or ranks in some lousy skill to do it, either. I did it because I got the idea in my head. The PHB II exists to sell the characters another bell and/or whistle. "I just bought the PHB II. Great, I found out that I can "retrain" my character by dropping some rogue levels for fighter"... I've been doing this for years. Why? Because as msatran so eloquently put it: It's because if you've run a game for 19+ years, you have to allow fairly consistent rebuilds to allow for more accurate character concepts. Mike, this is what my character ALWAYS should have been. May I? Too many kids out there these days are under the impression that they need Wizards of the Coast's permission to play a character concept. Releasing supplement after supplement filled with feats and PRCs with little to no new information about the world you are in only shoves that idea down the PC's throat. After taking a break from role-playing altogether for the past year after a decade of gaming, I am far more comfortable with house-rules and homebrew classes than I ever was before I quit. Why? Because my players know that they can do anything they want with nothing to build their characters butwhat the Core books provides them. Please, inform me if I am generalizing here...
miscellany 11-05-06, 01:35 PM	Generalizing and stereotyping. Not bad.
theartistformerlyknownas 11-05-06, 01:55 PM	Generalizing and stereotyping. Not bad. That's rather bold of you to not provide any examples.
Karsus the Mad 11-05-06, 02:43 PM	I think I'm confoozled here:confused: Maybe someone can enlighten me. At one moment I see people complaining about a lack of rules when it suits their ideal, then those same people turning around and complaining that there's too many rules, when it suits their ideal to do so? The reason why I have these rules is the laws of logic. Logic clearly dictates that if Elminster is only 30th level or so after however many thousands of years, that above a certain point, level gain should be very slow. Makes sense, except when you take into consideration people like the Simbul, Azoun, Karsus, and any other numerous npc that has gone beyond El in levels with only the fraction of the time. Then there's Arthindol and Ioulaum (being the exact opposite of my example) who despite their thousands upon thousands of years, have reach very little (when comparing age to level ratio).
Faraer 11-05-06, 03:23 PM	Remember the Volo Guides? Those manuals are some of the most memorable and well loved relics of the Realms. But the fact is, they didn't sell too well.I don't think we know that is a fact.WotC has claimed that they will no longer be selling anything similar to the Volo Guides because they have nothing to with character statistics.As far as I know, Wizards has never made explicit what their objection to them is.Generalizing and stereotyping. Not bad.This is a discussion of trends, not individual cases: of course it involves generalizing. Your remark is pointless unless you specify which generalizations you object to and what's wrong with them.
theartistformerlyknownas 11-05-06, 03:26 PM	WotC has claimed that they will no longer be selling anything similar to the Volo Guides because they have nothing to with character statistics. I'll admit that that was a poor argument on my part due to the fact that I couldn't cite the source...
GothicDan 11-05-06, 05:11 PM	Generalizing and stereotyping. Not bad. Congrats on the superb trolling.
miscellany 11-06-06, 01:53 AM	Let’s start with an apology to DorianAdricus for my part in all the stupid on display here. Not your fault. Not one bit. It’s the rest of us, really. And now on with the show! Congrats on the superb trolling. And to you for the personalized harassment. I'm lucky to have such attentive individuals at my beck and call. OK folks, so where are we at? OK, GothicDan wanted a source cited. Here you go. (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=178897) You’ll have to do some reading, but hey, you’ll learn something. What else have we got? Apparently kids these days can’t think for themselves. Not only that, WotC has put a spell on them that makes them buy books. How do I know this? Because Prince says so <I saw that Jheri Curl (http://www.geocities.com/adlea/jcurl.html). No use trying to hide it> Give us a source for what you’re basing your claims on while you’re at it. But not until after you do that cool hip move thingy. What else....We’ve got these same peeps telling us they’ve already figured out on their own how to do what the PHB II has in it. They don’t need no stinkin rules to tell them what to do in a game. Apparently they care so much about the rest of us they don’t want us to spend any money to learn these things they already know that we should know that they also know....that we know? Great, now I’m confused. So we’re supposed to figure it out on our own and realize the rules don’t matter at all and we can do whatever we want. < Better toss out the concept of DMs while were at it. Wouldn’t want a DM to do something reasonable like imposing a tumble check. That would be immoral.> Hey that like explains the disruption to the thread doesn’t it? New Rule: A potentially fun and creative discussion should always be interrupted for Emergency Alerts such as: Warning! Do not take a book like the PHB II and have fun with it, because these books are all part of a larger conspiracy to take your money <and that’s capitalistic flavored evil, which does not taste good in milk>. I think I’m tearing up at all the love we’re being shown by the enlightened few. I mean, we were about to be duped by Wizards of the Coast into having fun! Phew, that was close. Now we can get our hate on and demonize WotC some more. But before you sharpen your swords and get busy skewering faceless corporate devils, lets segue into a tidbit of DnD lore. Gary Gygax screwed up. Long ago, before many of us were drawing breath, he made a booboo. One he deeply regretted. But then he did a good thing. He fixed it. This may come as a surprise to those of us who assume anything written way back when was inviolable and sacrosanct. But it’s true. He saw an error by observing game play as his product <I know I know, work of loving art, not product. But hey I’m a realist> was being used, realized the ruining effect it had on some games and fixed the rules in the next DMG based on that customer feedback. This long held tradition of tweaking and revising the Dungeons and Dragons rules continues to this day. <Ooh, did you hear that? I think the compromising the integrity of the game just to make money balloon popped.> For the full story, bust out your 1979ish AD&D Dungeon Master’s Guide <ideal for intermediate through advanced players, ages 10 and up! ... wait, did another balloon just die? Balloon massacre!> and turn to page 92 under Placement of Magic Items. Love to you all! <And not the fake, plasticky kind either> C’mon, admit it. You giggled at least a little.
theartistformerlyknownas 11-07-06, 12:04 AM	Maybe a lil...
johnkretzer 11-07-06, 01:28 AM	Sorry this isn't about 3rd edition. They has been always new class additions. in any edition. Don't belive me? look in some of your old 2nd edition FR stuff I think Faiths and Avatars added 4 classes, eack of the Warriors and wizards and Rogues and priest( i think they were) added 4 new classes. Not to mention kits galore. Also forgetting the orginal Unearth Arcana? Thisn't about a generation gap. As to the new core classes I really think they all have a place. Most of them you would only take for RPs reason anyway. Also some are impossible to build using the 11 core classes. Now on to training rules. Well first thing is that aren't they called experience points? Is the best teacher experience. Also how does training make sense for sorcerers or favorite souls? Also why would cost two fighters sparring money to train? Wooden swords aren't that breakable or expensive. Also doesn't it say in the rules that PCs train all the time? Also I can't think of any skill that somebody has that once you get the basics down it will take you longer to the learn the next step. Do I think you should train for a PrC? Yes but isn't the requirements of a PrC your training. So how much longer can it take you have been training since 1st level for it. Should their be RP involved absolutly but you don't need training rules for that. In my game I use light training rules(want to multiclass, or PrC or a new feat unrelated to what you have requires training time). Also what is the PC vs NPC is very different then NPC farmer Bob. A person with a class is a exceptional person. Sorry I believe in a meritoacry( that is a problem with younger generation is they don't). You might all have equal opportunities but we are not all created equal. Also To PCs advancing too fast: 1) Well chalk it up to the PCs living in interesting times. 2) The CR system is broken use a story award system then you can have them advance at whatever rate you want. 3) If you use the CR system don't use random encounters. 4)As DM you control the pacing. You shouldn't have to tell your PCs to sit down and train. Also I agree with a previous poster training times can destroy certain plots. True it might take army 2 years to mobilize but PCs can mobilize a whole lot faster. Also depends on the war and the people. Did it take the Romans that long to mobilize? Or any of the barbarian hordes? Pointing to the crusades is a bad example as it's massive scale was truely amazing that it only took 2 years. Also in case people haven't noticed the FR is Not medieval Europe. One of the reasons it took so long to mobilize was because you had to rally your army. In the FR cities and counties have standing armies. Also I can't think of a single Fruedal Society in the FR.
miscellany 11-07-06, 02:07 AM	Maybe a lil... See! I knew it. :D It's all about fun, laughs and good times. We've got each other's backs. Maybe a little bit more than we should, but we do. Peace and happy gaming to you all. My work here is done.