Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dungeons & Donuts 10-12-05, 10:08 PM	1. NEVER give the lvl 1 fighter the +30 fire greatsword of doom, under ANY conditions. Even if it's the player's birthday, he'll ruin the campaign... by killing the BBEG in one round. :nonono: 2. DO NOT enable the barbarian to go around and destroy property, unless it is an evil campaign. NEVER!!! 3. Don't give any scrolls of wishing to the party if they're evil, especially chaotic evil. Side-effects will include sneezing, itching, banging head against wall, hitting self, and grabbing the "book of vile darkness" from the shelf.
Shaken, not Stunned 10-12-05, 10:21 PM	4. Do not run a "DMNPC" in a game in which you DM. No referee-players allowed. 5. Do not allow paladins and evil characters in the same game for "the role playing benefit." 6. Do not make up rules, and do not alter rules on the spot.
Thomar_of_Uointer 10-12-05, 10:21 PM	7) "Can I be a psionics weapons master at level 1?" "Sure, why not?" -DM I played with last Saturday.
Phist 10-13-05, 01:57 AM	8) Never give them a rod of wonder 9) Never give them a deck of many things 10) Do your best to avoid wish in general. 11) Use DLed or bought adventures. Seriously, get some creativity. 12) Rule 0 is a campaign saver, not a campaign maker. Avoid changing the general rules unless you truly feel that something is unplayably wrong with them. 13) Don't let PC's push you around. If you didn't plan for something that a rules lawyer has brought up, feel free to Rule 0 it. That's what rule 0 is for. 14) Never punish or reward characters in game for out of game stuff. 15) Don't ever kill characters just because you can. 16) If something extremely lucky/unlucky happens, let it. If you're not going to take the rolls then it becomes pointless. (Some rogue 2 levels lower than the PCs got three natural 20s in a row, killing the PC instantly. Later in the SAME SESSION a PC got three natural 20s against a miniboss. It balances out)
Gingerbread Guy 10-13-05, 02:12 AM	17) Never allow yourself to play favourites - unless she's cute.
TheChilliGod 10-13-05, 03:07 AM	Ahem. I notice this thread is titled "1001 things DM's should never let the players do." Why is it then that some of the entries look like "1001 things DM's should never do"? Just a thought. 18) Never allow the player to make a 'good' character with "Has a bad temper" in the description. 19) Never let the character talk nasty to the king without being silenced, taken away and/or executed on the spot. It leads to bad habits. 20) Never allow a VoP monk. I'm sorry, but I am extremely prejudiced against this combination.
JamesDruidDM 10-13-05, 09:37 AM	21) never, ever , give the players control of an orb of storms...god that was a bad week 22) If yer player askes you for some starting magic items, an aperatis of kwalish is not what to give them 23) dont let yer players bribe you (to much) 24) players should never be allowed to use the +10 Keened sword of vorpal burning acid death if they arent at least 20th level 25) Dont let any PC that DMs take over your game and if he tries SMITE HIM
UndeadMouse 10-13-05, 09:51 AM	26: never let a greedy player make an adventure for you. expect each PC to be billionaires by level 5. 27: never let someone who doesn't know how to play do #26. result: 3 seconds of combat, 2hrs, 59mins, 57secs of treasure gathering. and a whole :censored: lot of XP. 28: never let a dragon lover who is also a #27 do #26. expect #27 with lots of great wyrm dragons giving out a :bigeyes: lot of gold.
DarthMarasmus 10-13-05, 10:34 AM	29) Never let PC mages pick their own spells past 3rd level (this may set off red flags for quite a few people). It saves you from a lot of headache in the long run. That way, if you don't want them to cast Wish, don't let them find a scroll of it or find it in another mage's grimoire. It also gives you a way to keep the game going if it gets to a slow spot (the party has leveled up, but the mage doesn't have any new spells he can learn, so you go crawl a dungeon to find an ancient spellbook that has great and wonderful things in it). Albeit, I wouldn't do that sort of thing terribly often, that could very easily get stale quick. On the other hand, maybe you intend for the mage to research his higher level spells. Presto! Quest to find the components for the spells. Admittedly, it is sort of cheap, possibly even a stupid idea, but if it's a stupid idea that works, then it's not a stupid idea.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 10-13-05, 11:35 AM	29) Never let PC mages pick their own spells past 3rd level (this may set off red flags for quite a few people). It saves you from a lot of headache in the long run. That way, if you don't want them to cast Wish, don't let them find a scroll of it or find it in another mage's grimoire. It also gives you a way to keep the game going if it gets to a slow spot (the party has leveled up, but the mage doesn't have any new spells he can learn, so you go crawl a dungeon to find an ancient spellbook that has great and wonderful things in it). Albeit, I wouldn't do that sort of thing terribly often, that could very easily get stale quick. On the other hand, maybe you intend for the mage to research his higher level spells. Presto! Quest to find the components for the spells. Admittedly, it is sort of cheap, possibly even a stupid idea, but if it's a stupid idea that works, then it's not a stupid idea.This is not only a stupid idea, but it is just plain wrong. Granted you do controll what spells the mage finds along the adventure, and even what NPC mages have to trade, however every level the wizard learns two (2) spells for free as part of leveling. Don't take that away from them. It is not only unfair to the player, but seriousely gimps the wizard class. I'm assuming by mage you mean wizard. Or does "don't allow any spell of 2nd level or higher to be the players chioce" extend to sorcorors as well? What do you do with them, choose their known spells for them? Yaa know improved presise shot and many shot are powerful feats...Maybe while we are on this line of thought you should also add, "you should not allow your fighter choose his/her own feats...clerics get some powerful spells, and they automatically know all the spells on their list, should we as DMs now choose what they prepare as well? Just let your players play the game, and if one of them finds a powerful combo in source you allowed, then SUCK IT UP BUTTER CUP!! Learn how to deal with it, and adapt. You don't have to ban everything above 3rd level, just make your NPCs with a little creaivity. As for things the DM should never give a player. Most have already been covered so i will sum it up: 1) An over powered home brew item that completely unbalances the game. Such as a +30 flaming great sword, or a head band of int +45. 2) Never allow an epic rule such as a feat, or spell, or item before the party has reached epic levels. 3) Never allow a player to take anything from a book that you either do not have, or are not comfortable using. Number isn't so much as a never do this, as it is a aviod this as much as possible. 4) Give players more, or less gold then recomended in the DMG. However if you do, very carefully scale the EL of encounters either up or down as nessesary.
solbergb 10-13-05, 12:19 PM	30. Don't let a player bring a character into the campaign who has a personality description of "I am a total jerk", regardless of alignment.
Zetakya 10-13-05, 12:34 PM	This is not only a stupid idea, but it is just plain wrong. Granted you do controll what spells the mage finds along the adventure, and even what NPC mages have to trade, however every level the wizard learns two (2) spells for free as part of leveling. Don't take that away from them. It is not only unfair to the player, but seriousely gimps the wizard class. I'm assuming by mage you mean wizard. Actually, I tend to agree with DarthMarasmus. While I realise that the RAW says that the Wizard learns 2 spells of any level he can cast when he levels, I tend to regard this as a guideline for what spells normal adventuring should give him as a result of loot and suchlike, with extra bonuses for clever play, hard bargaining or sheer luck. Wizards having spells magically appear in their spellbook out of thin air is somewhat continuity breaking. Or does "don't allow any spell of 2nd level or higher to be the players chioce" extend to sorcorors as well? What do you do with them, choose their known spells for them? Sorcerers are different... I just insist that know spells fit the "theme" of the Sorcerers powers. clerics get some powerful spells, and they automatically know all the spells on their list, should we as DMs now choose what they prepare as well? I do this, sometimes. It tends to set your players on edge the first few times, but all you have to do is remind them that their deity undoubtedly knows best. That usually starts them asking why their Deity has chosen today, of all days, to hand them 3 castings of Remove Curse and 2 of Restoration. :D Deific Omniscience is a handy and in character method of both foreshadowing the plot and softening the blow enough to possibly avert a game-breaking TPK. If your DMing style is anything like mine as well, you'll find it heightens the paranoia factor greatly.
Moon-Lancer 10-13-05, 12:42 PM	31. dont let your players think that their charicters are immortal. Fear makes the game challengeing and fun. Survivle is also fun. It also helps the players apreciate their charicters more.
SureFoot 10-13-05, 02:28 PM	Actually, I tend to agree with DarthMarasmus. While I realise that the RAW says that the Wizard learns 2 spells of any level he can cast when he levels, I tend to regard this as a guideline for what spells normal adventuring should give him as a result of loot and suchlike, with extra bonuses for clever play, hard bargaining or sheer luck. Recognize that regarding this as a guideline is a house rule. What you are doing is removing one of the Wizard class features. What spells a wizard gains through normal adventuring is over and above the 2 per wizard level class feature. In addition, there's nothing saying a wizard can't trade spells, or buy spells ("rent" access to another wizard's spellbook, purchase scrolls to copy into spellbook) to increase their repetoir (sp??) over and above the 2-per-level class feature. The RAW has rules to cover both of these. Wizards having spells magically appear in their spellbook out of thin air is somewhat continuity breaking. That's *not* how it happens. I humbly suggest you read the description of this class feature. It clearly states that the new spells are a product of the wizard's research they are assumed to be doing during their downtime between adventures. Sorcerers are different... I just insist that know spells fit the "theme" of the Sorcerers powers. will you let players argue a theme if you don't see it? Or do you dismiss it out of hand, possibly suggesting some alternatives (or a single alternative)? Just curious. I do this, sometimes. It tends to set your players on edge the first few times, but all you have to do is remind them that their deity undoubtedly knows best. That usually starts them asking why their Deity has chosen today, of all days, to hand them 3 castings of Remove Curse and 2 of Restoration. :D If my DM did this to me, I would be severely miffed, and would resist strenuously. Having the gods tell the character what to do is very emasculating--and I believe that this is a fine example of First Class Railroading (not knowing anything else about your campaign aside from what's in this post). Not to mention utterly unrealistic and even more continuity breaking than having a wizard's spells magically appear in their books. Deific Omniscience is a handy and in character method of both foreshadowing the plot and softening the blow enough to possibly avert a game-breaking TPK. If your DMing style is anything like mine as well, you'll find it heightens the paranoia factor greatly. I could choose to be insulting here, but I shall refrain; even though I strongly disagree with pretty much everything you've said, you could very well be the world's best DM for all I know. I humbly suggest that you use this "handy" tool with EXTREME care. You are (not possibly, but ARE) spoon-feeding the players with solutions. Spoon-fed people tend not to learn very much (from my personal experience as a karate instructor, father, and high school teacher). In my experience, if you need Deific Omnicience to soften the blow, frankly you're either not judging your encounters correctly, or you're metagaming when you run your encounters; in both cases, it sounds like they're too tough. If anything I posted here was insulting, that was not my intent. It's just that *everything* you posted goes *absolutely against* one of my core beliefs as a DM and as a player: the players make the decisions for the PCs, and that it's a possible sign of a bad DM when they take those decisions away.
Zetakya 10-13-05, 03:12 PM	Recognize that regarding this as a guideline is a house rule. What you are doing is removing one of the Wizard class features. What spells a wizard gains through normal adventuring is over and above the 2 per wizard level class feature. Actually, the SRD just says they gain 2 new spells. Anything beyond that is setting specific. In addition, there's nothing saying a wizard can't trade spells, or buy spells ("rent" access to another wizard's spellbook, purchase scrolls to copy into spellbook) to increase their repetoir (sp??) over and above the 2-per-level class feature. The RAW has rules to cover both of these. And such things have been the basis of many and various quests. That's *not* how it happens. I humbly suggest you read the description of this class feature. It clearly states that the new spells are a product of the wizard's research they are assumed to be doing during their downtime between adventures. A: I never accept "well obviously I was doing this" B: Researching spells is something characters have done, from time to time, on top of any and all other methods of gaining spells C: The SRD makes absolutely no mention of where they come from (I should probably note that I stopped using the PHB due to the excess fluff-text that tends to apply to other world-settings) will you let players argue a theme if you don't see it? Or do you dismiss it out of hand, possibly suggesting some alternatives (or a single alternative)? Just curious. It's honestly never come up, partly because Sorcs are a rarity, compared to Wizards, but mostly because I have a mature group of players who are more interested in playing their character (and therefore, with Sorcs, in keeping to the theme of their magic) If my DM did this to me, I would be severely miffed, and would resist strenuously. Having the gods tell the character what to do is very emasculating--and I believe that this is a fine example of First Class Railroading (not knowing anything else about your campaign aside from what's in this post). Not to mention utterly unrealistic and even more continuity breaking than having a wizard's spells magically appear in their books. How is it continuity breaking? A Cleric is the representitive and beloved of a God. Gods are meant to provide their worshippers with aid, advice and guidance. Wouldn't you pay attention if your God decided to send you a very clear message of "here, you're going to need these". Remember, Gods in themselves are characters, with their own agenda, motives and desires. A Cleric prays to the God to request the spells, and the God grants a part of its Divine Essence to the Cleric to acomplish those spells. It's perfectly in keeping for a Deity to grant whatever it chooses, especially in situations that affect the Deity (or the Cleric) significantly. I could choose to be insulting here, but I shall refrain; even though I strongly disagree with pretty much everything you've said, you could very well be the world's best DM for all I know. I humbly suggest that you use this "handy" tool with EXTREME care. You are (not possibly, but ARE) spoon-feeding the players with solutions. Spoon-fed people tend not to learn very much (from my personal experience as a karate instructor, father, and high school teacher). Note that I said "handy and in character". The youngest of my Players is 26, the oldest nearly 40, their learning curve is really not an issue. I surmise from your "instructor, father, teacher" comment that you are DMing for a much younger age group. My campaigns tend to run more on interpersonal reactions, and the God/Cleric relationship is very important (or should be) to the Clerics place in the world. In my opinion, if you allow Clerics to treat their Deity as nothing more than a pipeline of Divine spells, you reduce the significance of the role of the Cleric in the world - as a mediator between Man and God. In my experience, if you need Deific Omnicience to soften the blow, frankly you're either not judging your encounters correctly, or you're metagaming when you run your encounters; in both cases, it sounds like they're too tough. If anything I posted here was insulting, that was not my intent. It's just that *everything* you posted goes *absolutely against* one of my core beliefs as a DM and as a player: the players make the decisions for the PCs, and that it's a possible sign of a bad DM when they take those decisions away. Generally speaking I use the Deific intervention in spell selection only if the God itself would do so - by whatever reason. I also disagree with your contention that it's bad DMing to remove options from the PCs. It's bad DMing to remove options from the PCs when there is no setting-specific reason to do so. BBEGs, Deities and even Neutral and Disinterested characters do so all the time, for their own good and in-character reasons. To do anything else is to reduce the impact of anything other than the PCs, and turn the setting into a PC-oriented playground, not a Role-playing game.
Dungeons & Donuts 10-15-05, 12:48 AM	32. Never let your players make an RP curve, and either... a. Kill all the characters and people there. or... b. Forget the quest and go hunting vorpal bunnies (:uh-huh: ) in the forest.
Darrett 10-15-05, 01:00 AM	Recognize that regarding this as a guideline is a house rule. What you are doing is removing one of the Wizard class features. What spells a wizard gains through normal adventuring is over and above the 2 per wizard level class feature. In addition, there's nothing saying a wizard can't trade spells, or buy spells ("rent" access to another wizard's spellbook, purchase scrolls to copy into spellbook) to increase their repetoir (sp??) over and above the 2-per-level class feature. The RAW has rules to cover both of these. That's *not* how it happens. I humbly suggest you read the description of this class feature. It clearly states that the new spells are a product of the wizard's research they are assumed to be doing during their downtime between adventures. I agree. It is a house rule, and spells do not magically appear. However, it is a highly advisable house rule. Instead of choosing spells for them, simpy limit the spells they can take. Wish, for example, would only be available if the Wizard had a starting point (Such as writings about the spell, other mentions of it and the spellwork involved, or prior knowledge about the basics of the spell). If Wish is something that is extremely rare in your game world (And I hope it is), then it is likely that Wizards will not be able to recreate it without learning the spell from a spellbook, or putting an insane amount of time into learning it. Allow your players to choose spells. However, go over the spells they want to take, and limit them from any that you believe should take more time to obtain, or that do not exist in your world.
Darrett 10-15-05, 01:02 AM	Ugh, I was just reminded of an arguement I had about a year ago on these boards about if Spellbooks constituted "Research Materials" while in a dungeon. The rulebook says through study and research, and we argued semantics for about 3 pages on if Wizards could gain spells while in a dungeon, or if they needed to return to a library or the like to do so. What were we thinking.
Shaken, not Stunned 10-15-05, 01:22 AM	Probably something along the lines of "The rules in D&D replicate reality perfectly, with no holes or gaps." Just a guess....
Jancarius 10-15-05, 01:43 AM	Actually, the SRD just says they gain 2 new spells. Anything beyond that is setting specific.I hate it when people quote the SRD. The SRD gives the raw mechanic, the PHB tends to not only give the mechanic, but explain it too (especially the Behind the curtain segments). A: I never accept "well obviously I was doing this" B: Researching spells is something characters have done, from time to time, on top of any and all other methods of gaining spells C: The SRD makes absolutely no mention of where they come from (I should probably note that I stopped using the PHB due to the excess fluff-text that tends to apply to other world-settings)It makes perfect sense that the two spells are the results of the Wizard's downtime research, and it does state in the PhB. That's like saying you should control your players skill points and feats in a similar manner. "You can't take Spell Penetration!" "Why not?" "You haven't fought a monster with SR! You couldn't have learned how to break through it!" "...You have to be kidding?" It's honestly never come up, partly because Sorcs are a rarity, compared to Wizards, but mostly because I have a mature group of players who are more interested in playing their character (and therefore, with Sorcs, in keeping to the theme of their magic)That reminds me of the Worst Feat Ever, Thematic Magic from Magic of Faerun. Not relevant to the arguement, but it's a feat with LITERALLY and repeatedly stated no mechanical benefit at all. It's sole purpose is to OFFICIALLY change the flavor text of a caster's spells to whatever theme he so chooses... like the DM wouldn't let him do that without the feat or something. How is it continuity breaking? A Cleric is the representitive and beloved of a God. Gods are meant to provide their worshippers with aid, advice and guidance. Wouldn't you pay attention if your God decided to send you a very clear message of "here, you're going to need these". Remember, Gods in themselves are characters, with their own agenda, motives and desires. A Cleric prays to the God to request the spells, and the God grants a part of its Divine Essence to the Cleric to acomplish those spells. It's perfectly in keeping for a Deity to grant whatever it chooses, especially in situations that affect the Deity (or the Cleric) significantly.One, this applies only if the Cleric worships a Greater Deity. Otherwise, the deity is not aware of the future. Two, I would quit IMMEDIATLY any campaign where the DM assigned my spells per day or designated my spells known as a Wizard. If I wanted a limited spell choice, I would have been a Sorcerer. Note that I said "handy and in character". The youngest of my Players is 26, the oldest nearly 40, their learning curve is really not an issue. I surmise from your "instructor, father, teacher" comment that you are DMing for a much younger age group. My campaigns tend to run more on interpersonal reactions, and the God/Cleric relationship is very important (or should be) to the Clerics place in the world In my opinion, if you allow Clerics to treat their Deity as nothing more than a pipeline of Divine spells, you reduce the significance of the role of the Cleric in the world - as a mediator between Man and God.Oh sweet Eberron, where the gods keep their annoying noses out of my business, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways. Sharn. Airships. Artificers. Magewrights. Dragonmarks. Mournland. Warforged. Changelings. Drow-Not-Being-FR-Drow-Clones. No-Elminster. No-Epic-Level-Busybodies-Of-Any-Kind-Interfering-With-My-Plots. You get the idea. I hate having high level NPCs or deities always meddling in this or that like in FR. Can't walk through a bloody thorpe without seeing at least 4 people over L5. Anyway, point is, this is why I like to do Godless clerics. None of that pesky god business to annoy me. Generally speaking I use the Deific intervention in spell selection only if the God itself would do so - by whatever reason. I also disagree with your contention that it's bad DMing to remove options from the PCs. It's bad DMing to remove options from the PCs when there is no setting-specific reason to do so. BBEGs, Deities and even Neutral and Disinterested characters do so all the time, for their own good and in-character reasons. To do anything else is to reduce the impact of anything other than the PCs, and turn the setting into a PC-oriented playground, not a Role-playing game. If the deity is going to intervene to the extent of essentially telling the PC the future (again, meaning this is a greater deity, and he not only views the PCs/event important enough to intervene, but no other opposing deity has blocked his sight or prepared their followers similarly). I don't believe the PCs are special in any way in the world other than that they are PCs and not NPCs. If they are the favored elite of a particular force, there are most likely favored elites of an opposing force, who are probably built to effeciently operate in whatever scenario I want them for.
tharivol266 10-15-05, 03:03 AM	"i cast magic missle at the darkness"
lohki.the.lich 10-15-05, 03:10 AM	2. it's called expeirence for a reason . You learn new things as you experience things . also you sound just a my first Dm he would change the rules so he could make it more fun for himself. 2. Wouldn't a deity have more important thing to do besides picking spells for one pc you know like holding the balance and all just a thought.
Varia 10-15-05, 06:56 AM	This is not only a stupid idea, but it is just plain wrong. Granted you do controll what spells the mage finds along the adventure, and even what NPC mages have to trade, however every level the wizard learns two (2) spells for free as part of leveling. Don't take that away from them. It is not only unfair to the player, but seriousely gimps the wizard class. Not getting freebie spells, let alone freebies of their choice, never gimped them in 1.0, why would it in 3.5? Spell research between adventures? I dunno what 3.5 spell research rules are like, but back in 1.0 spell research was expensive and required a library and a chunk of uninterrupted time. These things are not generally available casually between adventures- they must be specifically arranged, and at significant cost. So I'm not a fan of that explaination. *Hugs* Varia
mythSSK 10-15-05, 07:23 AM	Not getting freebie spells, let alone freebies of their choice, never gimped them in 1.0, why would it in 3.5? Spell research between adventures? I dunno what 3.5 spell research rules are like, but back in 1.0 spell research was expensive and required a library and a chunk of uninterrupted time. These things are not generally available casually between adventures- they must be specifically arranged, and at significant cost. So I'm not a fan of that explaination. *Hugs* Varia 1. The fact that it never gimped them in 1.0 is completely and utterly irrelevant to what is being discussed. 1.0 is so far removed from 3.5 as to be a completely different game; the mechanical balance of classes between the two systems is NOT comparable in any way, shape, or form. 2. That's dedicated spell research. I respect that you might have a different view of the way wizards work, but I can't really see a wizard just not doing any research and development in his spare time in addition to any dedicated spell research he may do. How many computer programmers do you know who don't spend any of their free time tinkering with little programs and honing their skills for fun in between any big projects they may have? The spells gained at level up are not the result of dedicated spell research. They're the result of the wizard flipping through his spellbook late one night while the party's resting and reflecting on his spell selection for the next day, then suddenly realizing something new about the way they can manipulate magic "Hey, this spell component should work equally well here as here, and if I copy (with some slight alterations, of course) this part of this incantation, and use some bat guano as a catalyst (sulfur would probably be better, but I'm stuck in the middle of a dungeon and this is all that's really on hand, close enough, I guess)... hey! I just figured out how my master was casting fireball all that time back in wizard school! W00t!" **Copies formula to spellbook** One thing I'll say from personal experience, is that sometimes the best ideas come to you when you're not looking for them. That is how I see this class ability.
Varia 10-15-05, 08:10 AM	1- I think it IS relevant. All the 1.0 mage has are spells. The 3.5 mage has spells and several assorted extras in addition. The extras available in 3.5 (familiars, feats etc) in absolutely every case make the 3.5 mage stronger. In other words, the 3.5 mage is stronger than the 1.0 mage. If lack of freebie spells didnt gimp a 1.0 mage, who had no other source of strength, then I have extreme difficulty understanding any claim that a 3.5 mage, with his other boosts to capability, is somehow affected worse, and thus gimped when his precursor wasnt. 2- Dedicated or casual research, it still requires the same facilities- libraries, labs etc. The money to buy 'em and a place to put 'em. Things which, until higher levels, the average adventuring mage does not possess. Coders do tinker. But they general tinker with stuff they already know. They dont just putter on their laptops and accidentally discover half of next semesters course work. The spellbook flipping view is interesting, just not my idea of how it should be done is all. Its just part of feeling 3.5 gives me of being dumbed down, making everything easier, and thus sorta samey. Loses some of the magic for me. Which is wierd since the samey aspect then gives rise to 3 billion and 5 different PrC's and race combos in an apparent effort to restore some differentiation again. Or maybe I'm just old and grumpy, in which case I'll favor you with my "kids today/uphill both ways!" speach later on! :P *Hugs* Varia
mythSSK 10-15-05, 08:59 AM	1- I think it IS relevant. All the 1.0 mage has are spells. The 3.5 mage has spells and several assorted extras in addition. The extras available in 3.5 (familiars, feats etc) in absolutely every case make the 3.5 mage stronger. In other words, the 3.5 mage is stronger than the 1.0 mage. If lack of freebie spells didnt gimp a 1.0 mage, who had no other source of strength, then I have extreme difficulty understanding any claim that a 3.5 mage, with his other boosts to capability, is somehow affected worse, and thus gimped when his precursor wasnt. It's not relevant because things are different in 3.5 then they were in 1.0. In case you hadn't noticed, it's not the same system. The 1.0 mage was balanced against the other 1.0 classes. The 3.5 wizard has been balanced against the other 3.5 classes. You're speaking as though the 3.5 wizard is an additional class to a system where the 1.0 mage already exists, rather than a class that is from a very different game system. Why do you assume that magic in both systems can be interpreted as being exactly the same thing? I never had the chance to play 1.0, but I'm pretty sure magic was balanced just a teensy little bit differently back then. Is the 1.0 fighter stronger or weaker in comparison to the 3.5 fighter? What about the clerics? Rogue/thief? You can't logically compare any of them (except possibly the fighter), because the system works completely differently in 3.5 than it did in 1.0. --- I concede that you view the wizard differently than I do and without the sort of debate that can't really take place on a messageboard we're not likely to change each others minds, but I still can't imagine how you can rationalize your 3.5 vs 1.0 argument to yourself, as you're obviously very intelligent and not some backwards grandparent going "Back in my day, mage's had to tramp through 5 miles of frozen fields in their underwear to get new spells..." I will argue against this though: Coders do tinker. But they general tinker with stuff they already know. They dont just putter on their laptops and accidentally discover half of next semesters course work. I partially agree. I may have oversimplifed in my example. But then again, maybe not. I've messed around plenty of times before and, quite by accident, discovered things I didn't know I could do. It's rather easy to make some rather impressive leaps in your own self-taught knowledge just by messing around with things and experimenting. And remember, it takes them an entire level to get these new two spells up to a point where they're confident enough to use them every day. In my experience, a character can take between one and five weeks in game to level up, depending on the level of action in your games. They spend an hour each night doing their spell memorisation, which can add up to an impressive number hours spent contemplating their inner workings of arcane magic. They don't just sit there and drool at their spellbooks for an hour. I am tired, so I apologise for any parts of my post that may cause any offense or appear to be incoherent babbling. It's late down here...
celtredleg 10-15-05, 10:52 AM	1.o vs 3.5 doesnt much matter. If you want to play1.0, then do so. If you want to play 3.5, then do that. The 2 games are very different. Why not compare 3.5 to say runequest??? There are many times more players now. A big part of that, it seems to me is that some of the early stuff that people didnt like has been streemlined or gotten rid of. I always thought training was dumb. Or if the fighter doesnt have to research his new attack, why does the MU???? I have played since the 1970's and the current set is the best yet. You spend more time adventureing and less doing chores to get the benifit of the XP they have already gotten. Do we make the fighter explain how he mends his chainmail every night??? Or make the bard PLAYER stand up and sing to show what he is doing around the campfire???? So why pick on the MU?(wizard for you younens) But, back the ther regularly schedualed post....... #?? Dont let your players bring in something out of context from an eariler addition because it sounds cool. Most of the time that stuff was dropped for a reason.
Feriin 10-15-05, 11:17 AM	"i cast magic missle at the darkness" I had a player try to do this when I DMed in a 3.0 adventure. After I said, " No, you need to see your target." he said," Fine I close my eyes and cast Magic Missle in this general direction." Just for the sheer comedy of how he said and acted it out I let it go with that , gave a 20% miss chance to the spell though.
Devil Gnasher 10-15-05, 11:22 AM	1. Priestly Prositute: He was a Lawful or Chaotic Good Crusader of Tymora who's most famous quote was, "If you give me some money for my temple, I'll give you some love." He would never attack any one who was unarmed, and considered all women to be automatically unarmed. Absolute idiot. 2. 4 Star General Stupid Druid: She had an assortment of animal compainions. They included a pig-sized goldfish who's sheer destructive power rivaled the gods, a 30 foot mobile statue of the Egyptian cat goddess Bast, a floating flaming skull named Skeleton (named by the druid, of course), a retarded Nightmare, and a ranger cat-girl. All at fouteenth level. Absolutely unbalanced idiot. 3. Oriental Druid: See 4 Star General Stupid Druid. 4. Guy Who Sold His Soul Both to An Eryines and to a Succubus: See Priestly Prositute. This was in second Edition. This was in Faerūn. Fighting the Red Wizards of Thay.
Kukamunga 10-16-05, 02:57 AM	Actually this is funny. I actually do restrict what my charecters choose for feats and skills. I state that whenever a skill is used in a capacicy then they mark off a tick beside that skill When they level up they are allowed to add another tick to a non ticked skill, to represent down time training. Then they are only alowed to use their skill points to level up those skills that are ticked off, and then they erase all the ticks and start again for the next level. I also do this for feats, when they use a feat, they make a tick mark beside it, and they cannot take the advanced form of it, unless they used it once durring their level. Hope that made sence, my charecters enjoy it, it makes them actually use those skills that they wish to level up, and makes things more beleiveable
Jancarius 10-16-05, 03:21 AM	I really was referring more to the beginning of a tree of feats, like the first Spell Penetration/Focus.
Gilean 10-16-05, 03:52 AM	The spellbook flipping view is interesting, just not my idea of how it should be done is all. Its just part of feeling 3.5 gives me of being dumbed down, making everything easier, and thus sorta samey. Loses some of the magic for me. Which is wierd since the samey aspect then gives rise to 3 billion and 5 different PrC's and race combos in an apparent effort to restore some differentiation again. Or maybe I'm just old and grumpy, in which case I'll favor you with my "kids today/uphill both ways!" speach later on!I agree. And I am 18 years old. 3,5 is all too player-friendly and forgiving, with very little concern for anything outside their paradigm of balance. Sad, really.Oh sweet Eberron, where the gods keep their annoying noses out of my business, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways. Sharn. Airships. Artificers. Magewrights. Dragonmarks. Mournland. Warforged. Changelings. Drow-Not-Being-FR-Drow-Clones. No-Elminster. No-Epic-Level-Busybodies-Of-Any-Kind-Interfering-With-My-Plots. You get the idea. I hate having high level NPCs or deities always meddling in this or that like in FR. Can't walk through a bloody thorpe without seeing at least 4 people over L5. Anyway, point is, this is why I like to do Godless clerics. None of that pesky god business to annoy me.Agree with the all-too-high-level characters, disagree with deities. A cleric channels deific power and the power is entirely at the deity's discretion. Entirely. Read more here (http://s14.invisionfree.com/Tablets_of_Dleinr/index.php?showtopic=18).
aazan 10-16-05, 04:34 AM	20) Never allow a VoP monk. I'm sorry, but I am extremely prejudiced against this combination. Amen brother... Amen...