Post/Author/DateTime	Post
dndfr3k 01-07-08, 07:22 PM	can I ad oriental adventures to a certain section of my world or will those rules conflect with the standard 1's:confused:
Silvercrys 01-07-08, 08:29 PM	Oriental Adventures is a 3.0 book - that said, most of the conversion is pretty painless. You can add, say, the monsters and classes and clans and such to a certain area - maybe even add the Shadowlands. But anything about the cosmology would have to be consistent throughout the world. On rules specifically, there are no conflicts. It is fully compatible with DnD core 3.0. The new skill (Iaijutsu Focus) you should restrict to that region, also.
narukagami 01-07-08, 09:39 PM	Dragon Magazine issue #318 provides a guide for updating OA to 3.5. But otherwise, there is little to nothing that conflicts except for a skill or feat that would work differently here or there.
RavenGraygem 01-09-08, 11:41 PM	I've added Rokugan in its entirety to my campaign world, and the only problem so far is the cosmology.
Count Arioch the 28th 01-13-08, 05:14 PM	On rules specifically, there are no conflicts. It is fully compatible with DnD core 3.0. The new skill (Iaijutsu Focus) you should restrict to that region, also. Personbally, I'm in favor of just removing the skill entirely, because skills can be boosted far too easily for it to be balanced. If someone wants to be an iaijutsu duelist, tell them to take Improved Initiative and Quickdraw.
Lord Karsus 01-19-08, 08:37 AM	-I've integrated most of Oriental Adventures (minus the specific Rokugan history) into my campaign setting with very few problems.
Silvercrys 01-19-08, 07:01 PM	Personbally, I'm in favor of just removing the skill entirely, because skills can be boosted far too easily for it to be balanced. If someone wants to be an iaijutsu duelist, tell them to take Improved Initiative and Quickdraw. Well, I kind of like the skill (Of course, I'm a big Rurouni Kenshin fan). Besides, it caps at 9d6, which is hard to manage even at level 20 (assuming no twinkery) and it's applicable even less than Sneak Attack (have to draw in the same round, and opponent has to be flat-footed). Plus, Rogues don't have it as a class skill, which reduces stacking IF and SA cheese. Of course, restricting it to people from Rokugan (can only be trained in it there) cuts down on the PCs using it.
KLGChaos 01-20-08, 09:01 AM	I'm keeping the skill in my game, considering one of my player's wants to be an Iaijutsu Master and I don't want to hinder the class because I decided to change it at the last second. I'm personally ok with it, as the skill really has it's limitations in practical combat outside of duels.
Count Arioch the 28th 01-20-08, 09:14 AM	Well, I kind of like the skill (Of course, I'm a big Rurouni Kenshin fan). Besides, it caps at 9d6, which is hard to manage even at level 20 (assuming no twinkery) It's not actually hard to manage at level 20. It's not too hard to manage at much lower levels. Skills are essentially broken in D&D, that's why it's very bad for skills to have a large effect on combat.
Angus Cotton 01-20-08, 05:53 PM	can I ad oriental adventures to a certain section of my world or will those rules conflect with the standard 1's:confused: Not getting into the Iaijutsu thing, but I would like to add that there are a few classes in 3.5 that are banned in OA for stylistic reasons. Paladins, clerics, and druids, I think are three of them, but this is off the top of my head and I don't have my books right now. Anyway, the book [OA] was writen with the idea that these classes would not be present. So, if you do allow OA in a section of your normal DnD world, I would put a ban on multiclass combinations that would tie the banned classes listed in OA with classes, especially prestige classes, from the OA book. To not do so would invite all sorts of crazy broken combinations (19 Cleric/1 Shiba Protector comes to mind).
KLGChaos 01-20-08, 11:23 PM	Not getting into the Iaijutsu thing, but I would like to add that there are a few classes in 3.5 that are banned in OA for stylistic reasons. Paladins, clerics, and druids, I think are three of them, but this is off the top of my head and I don't have my books right now. Anyway, the book [OA] was writen with the idea that these classes would not be present. So, if you do allow OA in a section of your normal DnD world, I would put a ban on multiclass combinations that would tie the banned classes listed in OA with classes, especially prestige classes, from the OA book. To not do so would invite all sorts of crazy broken combinations (19 Cleric/1 Shiba Protector comes to mind). Bards are added into that class list as well, because OA Bards just tend to be Rogues with skill points in Perform instead of the typical D&D version with spells and all that. If you want to use them, then they'd be considered gaijin (outsiders) and wouldn't be able to take most of the Prestige classes, feats and other abilities native to OA characters.
Count Arioch the 28th 01-20-08, 11:24 PM	To not do so would invite all sorts of crazy broken combinations (19 Cleric/1 Shiba Protector comes to mind). Not significantly more powerful than a cleric 20. You get a neat trick, but you delay all the good stuff by 1 level.
Angus Cotton 01-21-08, 05:10 PM	Not significantly more powerful than a cleric 20. You get a neat trick, but you delay all the good stuff by 1 level. Well, that was just an example off the top of my head. I think you get my point though.
Silvercrys 01-22-08, 11:43 AM	It's not actually hard to manage at level 20. It's not too hard to manage at much lower levels. Skills are essentially broken in D&D, that's why it's very bad for skills to have a large effect on combat. As I said, assuming no twinkery. Like +30 custom rings to skills and such, which in my opinion are just broken. My players generally don't try use most of the breaking skills stuff, and generally have ranks + ability + 10. Maybe. But this is me and my players personally. Your mileage may vary.
Count Arioch the 28th 01-23-08, 11:46 AM	As I said, assuming no twinkery. There is no such thing as "twinkery" in D&D. "Twink" means to take gear from a high level character in a MMORPG, and give it to a lower level character. It doesn't happen in D&D. Now, if you are instead trying to say "assuming no optimizing" instead, then I'm going to laugh in your face. Optimizing is done only when you don't want your character to be a worthless failure and die an ignoble death.
KLGChaos 01-24-08, 09:36 AM	There is no such thing as "twinkery" in D&D. "Twink" means to take gear from a high level character in a MMORPG, and give it to a lower level character. It doesn't happen in D&D. Now, if you are instead trying to say "assuming no optimizing" instead, then I'm going to laugh in your face. Optimizing is done only when you don't want your character to be a worthless failure and die an ignoble death. That's only if you have a DM who enjoys throwing opponent's at the PC that are so challenging you NEED to be optimized to have a chance. There are those who actually like the ROLE-PLAY aspect of RPGs, as well, and sometimes, a character who's weaker can make for some great role-playing.
Count Arioch the 28th 01-24-08, 07:24 PM	A strong character is just as good for roleplaying as a weak character. Being Yoshi the rice farmer doesn't make you a more interesting character than Hironobu, the slayer of legions. It just makes you a burden to the rest of the party when a fight does break out. People who play weak characters for "roleplaying" reasons are inherently selfish people that demand more spotlight, more resources, and more attention than everyone else in the group, who have to be doubly optimised to overcome challenges that the straggler makes harder for them.
RoyalBlueEyes 01-24-08, 07:48 PM	Well, if you're playing in Rokugan, the Courtier is incredibly weak in combat, but makes up for it in roleplaying and skills. Besides you cater your games (as a gm) to everyone, not just one or even the majority.
narukagami 01-24-08, 07:52 PM	the Courtier is incredibly weak in combat, but makes up for it in roleplaying and skills. Besides you cater your games (as a gm) to everyone, not just one or even the majority. Weak in combat? Straight killing, yes, but they can perform Diplomacy cheese better than a Bard. Who needs to kill foes when a single skill check can make them allies, or even fanatical followers?
Count Arioch the 28th 01-25-08, 12:23 AM	A courtier is no stronger in roleplaying than anyone else. I repeat this again: Every character is equally good for roleplaying. If a Courtier has skills enough to mean a difference, then it's okay if he slacks a little in combat (I don't know enough about the courteir class to be able to tell you my opinion of them.). Combat is not the only component to D&D. As a very wise man once said: "Sometimes it's more important to have a reasonably high will save then to be able to do hundreds of damage in combat."
KLGChaos 01-25-08, 01:04 AM	A courtier is no stronger in roleplaying than anyone else. I repeat this again: Every character is equally good for roleplaying. If a Courtier has skills enough to mean a difference, then it's okay if he slacks a little in combat (I don't know enough about the courteir class to be able to tell you my opinion of them.). Combat is not the only component to D&D. As a very wise man once said: "Sometimes it's more important to have a reasonably high will save then to be able to do hundreds of damage in combat." The thing is, not every character is going to be optimized. Yeah, you could go for that character that has the best BAB, saves, AC, specials, etc, but what if it's the type of character you really don't want to play? In my games, combat isn't the end-all be-all. Fights don't break out every ten steps with such a high challenge rating that you need optimization to win. A character can be "decent" without being min-maxed, unless, as I said, you have a DM who's a "party-killer" who emphasizes combat above all things. I know I don't. I give exp for good role-playing and avoiding fights as much as I do for winning them and I balance fights around the entire party, so that someone who wants to play that weird combination of classes can do so without feeling penalized for it. And sometimes, when creating a character, the dice just don't go your way. In many groups you end up with one guy who has high stats and someone who's just average. It happens.
Count Arioch the 28th 01-25-08, 01:12 AM	The thing is, not every character is going to be optimized. Yeah, you could go for that character that has the best BAB, saves, AC, specials, etc, but what if it's the type of character you really don't want to play? Explain to me why you'd want to play a character that's not good at anything. Then we can debate the merits of our respective positions. Seriously, if your character concentrates in avoiding fights, then he's OPTIMIZED to avoid fights (stealth, social skills, whatever.) If a character is good at something, he is OPTIMIZED to do that task. Unless you specifically build a character that isn't good at anything, then you are in fact optimizing. So, explain to me why you make characters that don't do anything, that are just there chewing up0 party supplies, never accomplishing anything, and why I should go out of my way to give your character an easy ride? There are tonds of people in real life that don't do anything well. They're called losers. And it sucks to be them.
KLGChaos 01-25-08, 09:04 AM	Explain to me why you'd want to play a character that's not good at anything. Then we can debate the merits of our respective positions. Seriously, if your character concentrates in avoiding fights, then he's OPTIMIZED to avoid fights (stealth, social skills, whatever.) If a character is good at something, he is OPTIMIZED to do that task. Unless you specifically build a character that isn't good at anything, then you are in fact optimizing. So, explain to me why you make characters that don't do anything, that are just there chewing up0 party supplies, never accomplishing anything, and why I should go out of my way to give your character an easy ride? There are tons of people in real life that don't do anything well. They're called losers. And it sucks to be them. And that's probably why I would never play one of your games. People have different types of personalities, likes and dislikes. What if you're playing a character that starts out as one thing, but somewhere along the line, for a role-playing reason, they start up something new because they were inspired. Heck, most NPCs in D&D aren't optimized in any way. Sure, they have several abilities that are made to work with each other, but many times, some things are just gained from life experience. It's realistic. As for calling people who don't do anything well losers... well, that's just plain arrogance. Sometimes people are just average. That's nature and calling them losers for it just makes you look bad. That being said, I'm done with this thread because I'm not going to get into a flame war.
Count Arioch the 28th 01-25-08, 10:13 AM	Ah, instead of addressing my points, you decided to say you're too good to debate me and walk off. I win be default. For the record, not all NPCs are optimized. That's why they're unimportant. The most important people in the D&D world will be the most powerful, because if they aren't, some high level character is going to waltz in and take over, and no one can do anything about it.
Ranger REG 01-25-08, 04:13 PM	can I ad oriental adventures to a certain section of my world or will those rules conflect with the standard 1's:confused: You can add, though you should be lenient with classes that are restricted in the core rules, like the monk class for instance. But if you want to stick with the core rules monk's restriction, then use multiclass feats for starter.