Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lord Stigius 10-08-04, 08:27 PM	My favourite (or rather least favourite) is: 1. Paladin of Erythnul Me: You mean blackguard? Player: No, a paladin. Me: Well, if you want to start it at first level, we could work a kind of anti-paladin class. Bring me a draft version, and I'll supervise it. Player: No, I want to play a paladin. Me: [explanations to long to quote] Player: But he adheres to his faith, so he is lawful, and does what he thinks is good, so he's OK for a paladin. Me: :bigeyes: :looloo: :nonono:
MinusInnocence 10-08-04, 09:20 PM	2. Sorcerers. I can't abide the WotC Sorcerer. I'm adapting it as a Core Class that uses spell points like Psionics and spheres, such as those conceptualized in Mage: The Ascension. It should be interesting, and closer to the original theme.
Thomar_of_Uointer 10-08-04, 10:17 PM	3. Ninja. A player I had walked away from the table because he couldn't take Improved Two-Weapon Fighting as a level 1 Rogue.
Sasha Windsor 10-08-04, 10:24 PM	Stiquis, I just had an debate in my group about alignment, where one of my players argued exactly what that player in your group said. If a person were to adhere to their culture's laws (even if those laws are considered chaotic in a global sense), then he is lawful. If his culture deems certain acts as good (such as murder or slaughter), then he is good. By that logic, he could be a LG paladin (even if he is CE by normal definitions). That was a long, LONG debate that saw no real resolution. Minus, You don't like sorcerers? I haven't played one yet, but they don't seem too bad. To get back on-topic: 4. I would like to see the Chronomancer from 2e never get a 3.5 incarnation. I liked a lot of the concepts in that supplement, but not the class itself. A close second is the Mystic Thuerge... I've seen too many of them in groups, and I feel that its drawbacks are not great enough to warrant so much power in one character.
Lord Stigius 10-08-04, 10:41 PM	Sasha Windsor If his culture deems certain acts as good (such as murder or slaughter), then he is good. By that logic, he could be a LG paladin (even if he is CE by normal definitions). Good remark. I'm going to restart this problem on another thread, to keep this one on-topic. Won't you mind if I try and answer there?
Sasha Windsor 10-08-04, 10:44 PM	Sure thing. (I should note that I don't agree with his viewpoint entirely, but we'll take that to the new thread).
Lord Stigius 10-08-04, 11:29 PM	5. Three prestige classes, each on the top of another. With no level in core class. The player 'unintentionally confused' Samurai core class from OE and Master Samurai PrC from S&F. Im my current campaign monks haven't become hated yet, but are getting dangerously close. The campaign if spellcasters-heavy, and I'm working hard towards fighter types not feelling hopelessly useless when the monk enters the stage. But there is another side of the coin: how not to screw the party monk. Ughhh....
sparkster4242 10-08-04, 11:41 PM	fortunately, alignment in D&D is objective, not subjective - the natures of good/evil/law/chaos are the same in every land and every culture. it makes questions of alignment much easier to adjudicate. that being said, there is no real mechanical reason a paladin cant worship an evil deity. only clerics' alignments are actually restricted relative to their deities' (at least in 3.0). of course, a paladin probably wouldnt last very long worshipping an evil deity. Deity: Go out and slaughter innocents! paladin: ummm, no. Deity: are you disobeying me?! thats a chaotic act - lose your powers. ... Deity: Go out and slaughter innocents! paladin: ummm, ok. Deity: hey, thats an evil act - lose your powers _forever_ oh yeah, on-topic: i hate classes that grant enormous power, and punish the other party members to 'balance' that power. survey says?
The Shaman 10-09-04, 12:18 AM	6. Ur-priest: I can't believe it was reprinted in Complete Divine. "Yes, I'd like access to miracle at 14th level, please." :nonono:
Master Agnald 10-09-04, 12:21 AM	2. Sorcerers. Ditto, I have this player who always plays sorcerers, nuke sorcerers... repeated castings of fireball get boring really quickly (we need more d6s). And monks (so overpowered). And fallen paladin blackguards (so cliched... apparently for my group the only reason you decide to be a paladin is so that you can become a blackguard later... what is it so bad about fighting evil with holy power anyways? oh, well, I guess it's because my players are too badass [ :rolleyes: ] to play good characters). And... uh... I guess that's it for now... I will list more next week after our next sessions...
Lord Stigius 10-09-04, 12:22 AM	6. Ur-priest: I can't believe it was reprinted in Complete Divine. I concur!!!
Bowlich 10-09-04, 01:25 AM	Monks Why are they here? They seem like an excuse for someone to bring an asian styled character into what would otherwise be a western feeling fantasy atmosphere. I typically don't allow them (they've been replaced by a "brawler" core class) since they fit absolutely nowhere in my campaign. I mean, monks are guys who sit in stone cells copying boring scrolls over and over again and mixing pea plants for genetic experimentation, not studying martial arts moves. I've put them back where they belong--any player can go find a monk, sitting in a room copying crap.
Shaftiel 10-09-04, 01:38 AM	Almost everything from MotW... Bloodhound. "I have a bunch of poorly-edited, non-playtested, easily-abusable abilities!" Foe Hunter. "I can kill PCs!" Forsaker. "I'm an awesome concept, but I happily work with a party of my magic-using sworn enemies!" Frenzied Berzerker. "I can kill PCs! Even though I AM a PC!" Geomancer. "I'm two seperate PrCs smushed into one!" Hexer. "Look into my EVIL EYE! No, really, it's evil." The eye of gruumsh, shifter, and tempest all have a lot of potential but unless they get substantial changes I don't want to see them anymore either. The eye is boring, the tempest is poorly thought-out (Spring Attack and TWF work SO well together), and the shifter (in practice) is perhaps the class that most rewards book memorization and munchkining. -Shaftiel
monkeywrench 10-09-04, 04:56 PM	The Psionics. So very glad my DM banned them from her acquatic campaign. Nothing but tools for powergamers.
Deekin 10-09-04, 05:43 PM	3.0 or 3.5 Psionics? 3.0 were horibly broken 3.5 I just fine, from my experance. I hate the Samurai from CW.
Shard of Suzail 10-09-04, 05:55 PM	I`ll second or third the motion that sorcerers are often boring. A fireball each battle would be interesting, but our sorcerer had some sort of high powered sleep spell from the magic of Faerun (It had the word slumber in it). So every battle we had started and usually ended with this sleep spell. The rest of us, of course, were not to affect the sleeper so as not to wake him or it up. The first enemy who was immune to sleep mashed him.
darczero 10-09-04, 11:04 PM	The Samurai, and a host of the PrC, from Complete Warrior. While they do potentially fill some campaign/game world role, they're basically just a collection of stereotypes and bad jokes (the drooling orc/Eye of Gruumsh, the high-level slayer of what's a common CR 1 monster/Darkwood Stalker, etc.). There are a few (actually, quite a few) that I like, and not just because of their power levels or optimal combat performance. No one in my group has ever played one of them, so we're unsure as to the actual "game balance" issues as of yet, but they look cool in theory. And, no offense to all the DM's and Players on these boards who have taken time and effort to write them up, but a few of the homebrewed classes/PrC on these boards are quite pathetic. Either they're too powerful, or they're semantic variants of already-published material. I also have quite a few homebrewed classes/PrC, and I know that many people on these boards would have the same opinion of mine, and probably for what they'd consider good reasons. That's the way it goes.
Mister Mayhem 10-10-04, 07:44 AM	Monks Why are they here? They seem like an excuse for someone to bring an asian styled character into what would otherwise be a western feeling fantasy atmosphere. I typically don't allow them (they've been replaced by a "brawler" core class) since they fit absolutely nowhere in my campaign. In my campaign, I renamed them as "pilgrims", decided that their powers came from the god that they serve, and re-wrote them as being a kind of "holy bodyguard" able to follow and protect the clerics with whom they travel, without being as conspicuous as a man in lots of armour waving a big sword.
Otto the Bugbear 10-10-04, 10:09 AM	Psionics - of any variety or edition. Psionics are, to me, a SciFi thing. They just don't have the feel of a magically infused dark ages/mideival ages setting. Hulking Hurler - Granted, it's the game mechanics for the improvised thrown weapons that breaks it, but c'mon. It's just insane. Actually, just lump the Hulking Hurler into a group with all the other NPC PrCs. Granted, there are times when a player can take these, but it's usually an exception. Instead of a bunch of PrCs that are NPC only, the books should have given better guidelines to DMs that want a anti-PC baddie. Something that describes special powers and their effect on encounters and how to adjust the power level of these NPCs that are given these powers. Sorcerers don't bother me in the least bit. I understand the arguements everyone is making against it. But consider a player that just wants to cast fireball, fireball, fireball, fireball, magic missile, magic missle, etc.. If sorcerers were gone, he would just play a wizard that memorized nothing but fireball, fireball, fireball, fireball, maggic missile, magic missile before casting them. Granted, sorcerers do end up with more spells to cast, but that's to make up for their limited spell selection. Maybe more late, but I lost my train of thought. Cheers Otto :)
Lord Stigius 10-10-04, 10:51 AM	And I thought I was a weird creature with my own dislike of monks and psionics. Good to see I'm not alone... I dislike them both too, maybe not to the point of outright hate, but psionics are simply nonexistent in my current game, and monks exist only for the sole purpose of not screwing the player who started one before I had the opporuity to realize how much I dislike this class. I'm toying with the idea of making a Friar Tuck - like 'monk' class, though...
Antigone 10-10-04, 11:04 AM	Some of these classes are classes I wouldn't let a player near with a 10' pole (remember those?), but make wonderful villains. The Ur-Priest, for example -- I've got this great idea for a campaign in which the ultimate villain is an ur-priest lich who used to be a priest of Myrkul. And the Frenzied Beserker? It's the best! PC: "Ok, I crit him for 147 points of damage!" DM: "That's nice. He takes another four swings at you." *wince* "This is gonna leave a mark..." And I love the sorcerer -- no spellbooks for players to pick up! But since this is a thread about classes DMs hate, I'm going to pick the ranger. It went from the only class worth playing in 2d Ed, to the worst of the lot in 3.0 (at least after first level), to the choice of munchkins everywhere in 3.5. I hate it. I hate two-weapon fighting, I hate two-weapon defense, I hate improved two-weapon fighting, I hate improved two-weapon defense, and I hate greater two-weapon defense. And there's probably an uber-two-weapon defense out there somewhere that my ranger's player's going to want to take. Seven bloody attacks a round. Makes me want to stomp him. :nonono:
Gilgiga of the Hunt 10-10-04, 02:24 PM	Psionics - of any variety or edition. Psionics are, to me, a SciFi thing. They just don't have the feel of a magically infused dark ages/mideival ages setting. That argument has always bugged me. I don't really see psionics as a SciFi thing. Mostly becuase I usualy like a little science in my SciFi. It does rub me as SciFantisy however. Just the way things are named is just to cheezy for my taste. I guess all the good names were taken by magic. As for wether or not I like 'em, I do. In fact I prefere psions. Just not mixed in with magic. It strikes me more as the low magic worlds magic seeing as so manny of the powers are far more subtle then the wizard of the cleric. Few really overt powers.
Nidair 10-10-04, 05:58 PM	What I dislike? That's going to be quite some things, hehe: -Monk (Core). "I flush every caster down the toilet. Look im good" -Occult Slayer (Complete Warrior?). "My party consists of 1 person. The others are on a crusade against me." -Frenzied Berserker (Masters of the Wild). Count the corpses, and not only those of the villains. -Forsaker (Masters of the Wild). Not really a distaster on itself (though the +1 to a stat every level is a big oomph), but with high Sleight of Hand, things get worse every cumulative day. -Everything from the Unearthed Arcana book except the Paladin variants. For powergamers, by powergamers, I think. -Ur-Priest, and the other guy that gets a likewise spell progression, both from Complete Divine. "You encounter a bearded devil" and the UP summons a thing that whoops the devil's arse. -Everything from Vile Darkness and Exalted Deeds. Hell, the classes in books are designed for NPCs, as worded in it. An' still players want to take those classes. I also don't understand why Wizards took the Ur-Priest from it and reprinted it as a PC class. As ye see, most of the things I dislike are classes that hurt/kill/mutilate or do far worse things to other players' characters. An' things that are not made for roleplaying purposes are equally hated by me. But that's just a strange DM who played too much 2nd ed for his players' likings...
WCH 10-10-04, 06:27 PM	Druids. I don't know, for some reason they just bug me. They never really seem to have any personality to speak of, they're totally out of place in urban adventures, and they just seem totally pointless... whatever.
Lordofthebean 10-10-04, 08:13 PM	The OA specific core classes. All of them (Samurai, Shugenja, Sohei, Shaman, and Wu-Jen). They are all just so crappy when compared with PH core classes. Sorcerers. Always. They are just so much worse than a wizard, and they had so much potential. Psionics. Any kind. Forever and ever. Most PrCs. A lot are to stupid (Evereskan Tomb Guardian, what the hell was WotC thinking?) or way to good (Forsaker, Mystic Theurge). The others are just pointless.
WCH 10-10-04, 08:52 PM	I don't see what's so bad about sorcs, at least at low level. Not having to prepare your spells absolutely kicks ass, not having to pay for your spells is nice (although, certainly, the limited list sucks), and they get more casts per level than a wizard. Notice how spells cap at 4 for Wiz and 6 for Sorc, for instance. Just compare them at first level: a lvl 1 Wiz is almost completely useless, with his 3 lvl 0 and 1 lvl 1 spells, generally +1 lvl 1 for his Int modifier, so 3/2. Sorcs, on the other hand, get 5 lvl 0 and 3 lvl 1, so effectively 5/4 -- 2 more of each, and you don't need to choose what they are in advance! Now, admittedly, at higher levels sorcs aren't as good, thanks to their taking longer to get the higher level spells, but in the end I'd say they're balanced admirably.
Bartleby_GoC 10-11-04, 03:44 PM	Anything Psionic - There's already three kinds of magic in D&D. I might consider psionics instead of magic, but not likely to happen any time soon. Most PrCs, especially custom ones - Some are ok. Most are munchkin magnets. While I have included a few in my homebrew, you HAVE to find the right organization to take it. If you're in the wrong place when you hit the level, tough. Don't level or take something else. (that said, I have moved the Paladin to a PrC based strongly on the structure of the Blackguard) Anything with an oriental flavor - Far too many people look at the samurai/ninja/whatever and think they are uber because of what they saw on TV or in a movie. Yes, Jackie Chan is cool, but he gets the crap beat out of him in every movie. No, your sword is not perfect. No, bamboo is not better than steel. No, you can't dodge a magic missile. :rant: :headexplo :D Ok, feeling much better now... Bartleby
The Shaman 10-11-04, 04:11 PM	Anything with an oriental flavor - Far too many people look at the samurai/ninja/whatever and think they are uber because of what they saw on TV or in a movie. Yes, Jackie Chan is cool, but he gets the crap beat out of him in every movie. No, your sword is not perfect. No, bamboo is not better than steel. No, you can't dodge a magic missile. :) My take on it: PC: "I wanna play a samurai!" GM: "Okay, well, that's basically a lawful-aligned fighter." PC: "No, no! Samurai were the greatest warriors ever! Better than the standard fighter! I made up this new core class..." GM: "He's a fighter. Use the bonus feats to create your idea of the ideal samurai." PC: "But he should have more skill points! He's courtly!" GM: "So was a European knight. Go to the library and check out a book about John of Gaunt. Now roll up your fighter." PC: "But a samurai has a code!" GM: "So does a paladin. Just write it down for me and roleplay it as your fighter." PC: (fumes for a moment) "I think I'll be a ninja instead." GM: "Okay, well, that's a rogue." PC: "No, no! Ninja were the greatest assassins ever!..." ;) My last game had a number of PrCs, but all required some sort of affiliation with an organization or a specific master. For my new setting, well, right now my list of PrCs available stands at three - and I'm not sure about one of those. I'm going to encourage my players to use class combos (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=320609) instead.
Al-Ashrad 10-11-04, 04:13 PM	Windrider (MotW) What a great way for a player to alienate the rest of the party. I know the class allows for any type of steed despite it's name (gonna ride the gelatinous cube?.. hehe), but Windriders always want to have a flying steed. You, as DM, are then forced to either alienate the rest of the party while the Windrider flies around, or annoy the Windrider if your campaign was already planning on going into long dungeon crawls before they chose the class. Of course, if it's the latter, the Windrider player accuses you of being unfair. ugh -Al-Ashrad
CuCulain42 10-11-04, 05:42 PM	I put in another vote for psionics...just not the right feel for my games they are permanently barred from all game I run.
evilgenius 10-28-04, 04:28 PM	Monks. Overpowered, and they ruin my "dark ages Europe" flavour of the game. Besides, they're all essentially the same, they all get the same abilities at the same level. BOOOOOORRRRRRIIIIIIIINNNNGGGGG! Sorcerers. They allow players who are too lazy to think and understand their spells to play mystical characters. If you want a "no brainer" character, play a barbarian - Magic is a thinking person's pursuit, sorry. Psionics. All types - they're just too powerful. Why in the world does a Psychic Warrior get free feats at nearly the same rate as a plain old fighter? If I allowed psionics, there would never be another PC fighter in my campaign... Rangers (PHB rangers, the UA variant-no-magic rangers are fine). You don't get spell casting ability from sleeping in tents and flopping around the wilderness. You DO get better at flopping around the wilderness without getting yourself killed however. Thank goodness for the 3.5 combat style archery thingy, that saved 'em. 95% of prestige classes written by players. Don't get me started on this one, they're generally pointless and overpowered. 99% of core class "re-writes" done by players. See above, but doubly so. Any PC's second prestige class. Sorry, you only get one in my campaign. When I see a character sheet with "fighter 4 / sorcerer 2 / Assassin 2 / blackguard 3 / mystical-robotron-killbot-thing-I-found-in-a-dragon-magazine 1 / another-thing-just-as-bad-from-this-supplement 8" written on it, I get suspicious. I could go on and on... L8er evilgenius
Aricandor 10-28-04, 04:39 PM	Another vote for oriental stuff. So incredibly dull I can't find the words for it.. And the monk is bad enough dammit!
m15a 10-28-04, 05:07 PM	Rangers (PHB rangers, the UA variant-no-magic rangers are fine). You don't get spell casting ability from sleeping in tents and flopping around the wilderness. You DO get better at flopping around the wilderness without getting yourself killed however. Thank goodness for the 3.5 combat style archery thingy, that saved 'em. okay. rangers don't get spells from spending time in the wilderness. paladins don't get spells from fighting evil monsters. druids don't learn spells by chatting with animals. clerics don't learn spells by running around turning undead and buffing their friends. and wizards don't learn spells by staying in the back of battles being scared. that was fun. please. just because you can't get your mind around an idea, doesn't mean it's stupid. i'd hate to be in your group if you disallow players from choosing a class because their more creative than you.
Babs 10-28-04, 06:33 PM	Psionics: 1. No need for another system. 2. I don't like it when my player''s use rules i don't know (And i tried twice to read the XPH, but I just couldn't because my mouth fell open every time 'cause it's quite overpowered) 3. It is underpowered 4. Ever tried to succesfully held a psionic character without some anti-psionics bracelet costing 28,000 gp? From the CW: The frienzied berseker. "I'm not overpowered. I'm balance since my superabilities come at the expense of my party members"
Al-Ashrad 10-28-04, 06:47 PM	The Battle Sorceror (Unearthed Arcana) Yeah, I'll sacrifice a few spells, still have more spells available than a Wizard, and in return I can use some martial weapons and armour. Right. Shifter (MotW) Boy is this name appropriate, especially since the player will bog the game down by shifting through the Monster Manual, Monster Manual II, Fiend Folio, and Monsters of Faerun, among other books, to determine what to change into. hehe. Actually, the Shifter isn't that bad with a few tweaks, such as a time limit for the player on shifting (or they lose their action that round for they are deciding what to change into). Hexblade (Complete Warrior) This class seems OK at first. Slightly underpowered Fighter with a few Wizard spells. It looks like the classic Elf from the old Basic and Expert Rules (Red and Blue) books. Then you look at the "Mettle" ability, and realize the player also has two levels of Rogue. ugh. Kensai (CW) Why can the "Sword Saint" be able to use a shield? Did Miyamoto Musashi ever use a shield? WTF? Granted, this class shouldn't be around in a typical D&D setting, like a few of the other "Asian" classes, but this one should have been written better. Oh well, me two coppas. -Al-Ashrad
Jaziks 10-28-04, 07:11 PM	Bards I'm sorry but bards as a concept bug me. I've never played as one but then again who wants a backstreet boy singing while they are taking on a horde of who-knows-what. I'd just assumed take out the bard with cleave after I slaughtered an orc. Now maybe if someone were to do a twisted spin off of a bard like a banjo-playing, inbred-redneck from the south, shining as it maybe, and go around and canabalize any NPC's it wants, well that would just be fun. Or maybe cross a blackguard with a bard and dress him up in black and white face paint with a huge battle axe, that would be cool too, but no justin timberlakes prancing around trying to inspire people to fight....better.
Lasrifriir 10-28-04, 08:02 PM	Monks. Overpowered, and they ruin my "dark ages Europe" flavour of the game. Besides, they're all essentially the same, they all get the same abilities at the same level. BOOOOOORRRRRRIIIIIIIINNNNGGGGG! Psionics. All types - they're just too powerful. Why in the world does a Psychic Warrior get free feats at nearly the same rate as a plain old fighter? If I allowed psionics, there would never be another PC fighter in my campaign... Those two have never bothered me at all. At least in my experience, the 3.5E Monk is far from overpowered. At first glance, all those special abilities seem pretty cool but in actual play they get crushed by the typical Fighter. They work best as the support-mage-killer; you'll get killed fairly easily unless you have a muchkin build if you try to be the main fighter. I don't mind Psionics in my games either. They have a place in my setting and they are staying there. If you think that the Psionic classes are overpowered. try going with numerous lower level encounters rather then fewer high level encounters. The Psionic classes tend to run out of Power Points quickly. My one big beef with Classes: People playing Monks/Samurai/Ninja just because they saw some "cool" martial arts flick over the weekend, and then complaining when they aren't as 1337 as the characters from the movie. I don't mind any of those classes as long as they are played properly and seriously. In my campaigns, if you play a samurai then you had sure as the 9 Hells follow the code of Bushido, if you're playing a ninja then you need to get your historical facts and background straight, and if you are a monk then you will need to come up with a better background then "I was, um, an orphan that was raised in a monastery by the monks and I set out into the wide world after it was destroyed. Yeah."
DrWorm 10-28-04, 08:07 PM	Boy there sure is a lot of hate flying here, with Monk, Sorcerer, and Ranger being the most hated core class. Personally I think that all three are among my favorite becuase of the flavor inherent in the class. I think they make it much easier to DM a group becuase they are sure to have hooks you can use. On to the hate though. I personally hate nearly all of the non-core base classes. I think UA had some interesting options, but all have to be taken on a case by case bassis. Other than that I have a ready "No" when ever I start to hear a player ask for a non-core class. Psionics. I don't really hate them, per' se', but I just don't know them well, and am terrible at DMing them fairly. A fault on my part. Though, if I had to pick a core class that I hate the most it would be the front -line tanks. Barbarian: They are treamendously powerful, but have good limitations. The problem is that players, in my experience, spend most of their time trying to get around them rather than use them to add flavor. The end result being that they are just brutally powerful. I think the class has some nice flavor built in to it, but it has never been played well in my games. Paladin: I have nothing against the class as it is written. It is powerful, and has great limitations. What ends up happening in my games is the opposite of the Barbarian. Players tend to play the Paladin's limitations to the hilt and force all the other party members fight the same way or else leave the Pally to fight alone. The lawful stupid problem just ends up killing the class for me. I hate DMing them. Figher: Ugh...talk about boring. Chalk it up to the fact that I have been playing for almost 22 years, but I feel like I have seen all the decent permutations of the Fighter, and am tired of them all. If the player does not really work at it the fighter is just a boring grunt with no personality. That being said, I would never limit a player from playing these. I personally am a big advocate of muticalssing to make a interesting archetype, and no core class is bad in that sense, IMO.
milow 10-28-04, 08:26 PM	I don't allow psionics in my campaign. The 3.5 rules seem to take all the things that were done to improve the balance of the game, DC's reduced, no extra spells per round except quickened that require higher levels, and throws them out the windows. The whole system is a power gamers paradise. You can bump effective spell level up by as much as 4 levels above your caster level by taking the right feats, and then cast 3 spells a round or more. Add to that the overpowered possibilities with Astral Constructs and it gets insane. Sure they blow there power points in no time, but just doesn't make for fun for the remaining players. With the earlier comment about fallen paladin blackguards, I agree it seemed a broken mechanic to have a blackguard be more powerfull if a player created a level 10 paladin first. To his credit, one of my players and I looked at this class and he was the one who said it would just be wrong for him to create a blackguard by being a paladin first.
blooddemon 10-28-04, 08:57 PM	I don't really have much hate for anything really, adding Psionics kinda complicates things somewhat but that is okay in the long run (btw Great Campaign ideas). I jusst hate munchkins/power gamers when I DM; But I'll admit, I am a Powergamer myself. I dont really like the Frenzied Berserker munchkined out, because if they get the initiative, they frenzy and rage, use two hands on a diesel axe and pwnzor (but I have my own solution, throw another FB at em and teach them a lesson) I actually learn more on how to DM by powergaming. I had a 15th level Xeph Fighter 5 / Dervish 10. Can you say broken stuff right there. I actually wrote a short essay (I was completely psyched when I broke it down) on how completely broken the dervish is with the right selection of feats and so on. If anyone wants me to post it I can when I get time, and I find it again.
Deekin 10-28-04, 09:05 PM	The 3.5 rules seem to take all the things that were done to improve the balance of the game, DC's reduced, no extra spells per round except quickened that require higher levels, and throws them out the windows. No, they are actully weaker than magic in my experiance. Overchannal mean you take damage, and DC's go uup becouse you are using a higer level "slot". And yo are still limited to two power's a round without quicker. Why all the hate for psionic :confused:
Antigone 10-29-04, 01:45 AM	The Battle Sorceror (Unearthed Arcana) Yeah, I'll sacrifice a few spells, still have more spells available than a Wizard, and in return I can use some martial weapons and armour. Right. Kensai (CW) Why can the "Sword Saint" be able to use a shield? Did Miyamoto Musashi ever use a shield? WTF? Granted, this class shouldn't be around in a typical D&D setting, like a few of the other "Asian" classes, but this one should have been written better. -Al-Ashrad Well, I agree with you completely on the battle mage and disagree completely on the kensai. I love the kensai. And it doesn't have to be Asian -- I think you can cut all the Asian overtones from the class (first off by getting rid of that whole "Ki Warlord" title -- how about just "Warlord"?) Nor does he have to use a sword. He could use pistols. I really think he's much more like a Jedi than any kind of Asian thing.
Snommelp 10-29-04, 02:18 AM	Bards I'm sorry but bards as a concept bug me. I've never played as one but then again who wants a backstreet boy singing while they are taking on a horde of who-knows-what. I'd just assumed take out the bard with cleave after I slaughtered an orc. Now maybe if someone were to do a twisted spin off of a bard like a banjo-playing, inbred-redneck from the south, shining as it maybe, and go around and canabalize any NPC's it wants, well that would just be fun. Or maybe cross a blackguard with a bard and dress him up in black and white face paint with a huge battle axe, that would be cool too, but no justin timberlakes prancing around trying to inspire people to fight....better. Most bards are less Justin Timberlake and more "President's Own" marine band. You know, military trainging and whatnot. Some bards don't even sing; Vaalingrade Ashland made one whos "music" was Oratory. In other words, he pumped his allies up with vigorous speeches while his sharp wit scared the enemy. And yes, words can be quite frightening. Imagine a man who, while fighting, speaks about how his allies will rip the hearts out of their enemies. That's a good bard. Or, imagine a barbaric orc who chants during battle. That's a good (and original) bard, too.
danielinthewolvesden 10-29-04, 02:29 AM	Psionics. Despise Psionics. :mad: Then there is any Ninja- these come in two varieties- those which are super-uber made up by those who play too many video games, and the "my version is realistic and the others are crud because *I* am the holder of the secret Ninja lore". :rolleyes: Next is the "my " version of the swashbuckler. Look guys- WotC has done one- it's over, drop it. No more. If you have to- call it something else. :rant: Finally- there is always some Gameboy addict that wants a "dragoon". OK, folks- a "dragoon" is a mounted infantryman, and has been so for hundreds & hundreds of years. One set of stupid video game writers have used some bad English, yes, I know. OK, they did- but you don't have to. Doesn't mean you can't come up with some cool jumping lancer type based upon the game- FINE. But don't call it a "dragoon". :thumbsdow :banghead:
White rabbit 10-29-04, 02:59 AM	I've noticed here that it's not so much a hate of the classes, but a hate of how unimaginative players portray them. Honestly, I see nothing wrong with including the monk, unless it's in an entirely european setting. And Psionics is just another form of magic to me. Ah well. Having said that, I have to say that the ronin prestige class from the CW is probably the most poorly thought out concept I've ever seen for this game. Why in the world would a fallen samurai (I tend to treat Samurai as sort of lawful whatever Paladins in most respects), need a prestige class. I realize that it's not prestige in the literal sense, but come on. I like your conception of the kensai, Antigone. Really puts a new twist on it.
Enialis Galadonels 10-29-04, 08:28 AM	My take: Psionics. Just my vote. For me it is sci-fi based not appropriate for fantasy medievals and too broken. Classes: Monk - not appropriate Wizard... no idea why in actual game one would choose wizard over sorceror. I have seen just twice them played... to prove one thing - no player or gamemaster would really want to wizard in party if they can get sorceror... Hey but that's just me :)
trexmaster 10-29-04, 09:35 AM	I had to register just to say how much I hate the Monk. Or at least the way my player plays it. It's just "Go straight into the fight and kick, kick, kick and kick some more". I find it so boring that I'm specifically designing my next adventure boss (and boss room) in order to teach him a lesson or two (or more if need be). And if he still doesn't learn I'm gonna disintegrate him (the PC, not the player).
m15a 10-29-04, 04:48 PM	don't plenty of melee combatants just charge in and attack? i would figure that someone choosing the monk class would use a good deal of tactics, though. actually, almost every melee fighter should use *some* tactics sometimes. but in the monk's case in particular, it seems like the player is probably not playing as well as they should. you should definitely "teach your player a lesson" if that means having his opponents be more clever than he is.
White rabbit 10-29-04, 05:27 PM	Wizard... no idea why in actual game one would choose wizard over sorceror. I have seen just twice them played... to prove one thing - no player or gamemaster would really want to wizard in party if they can get sorceror... Hey but that's just me :) Are you serious? :confused: Wizards are waaaay more versatile than any ten sorcerers of the same level. Sure, being able to throw out 6 fireballs a day is nice, but what about something useful out of combat? How many sorcerers are going to take dig? Or bull's strength? Or antipathy? Most are going to have their slots filled with something that will help them to survive in combat. Come on, there's more to magic than damage. And then there's specialization to consider. An extra spell per level per day? Yes, please! :D
darczero 10-29-04, 06:29 PM	I'm back again... I agree, the CW Kensai should be banned from play, and all books containing it recalled and burned publicly. It's an insult to the name, and not the least bit "Sword Master" in flavor, let alone "Sword Saint" (two relatively close translations for Kensai), or even Oriental! It's just a cheesy way for a Fighter to enchant his own weapon. Big :censored: deal. The OA classes aren't that bad, or at least not in style. They don't belong in Western settings, that's for sure. The mechanics presented in OA are badly written, most of the time (Iaijutsu Focus is just another Sneak Attack that is openly available and works against all targets). And most of the PrC in the OA book require people to be using what is (in my opinion) an extremely stupid roleplay device (the Clans for Humans). Great Clans composed of Honorable Samurai! Why does one include Barbarians (almost Mongol in nature) and another liars, thieves, and assassns (badly done Ninja-esque)? And why is it that Honorable suddenly became yet another word for Lawful Good?
Cathon 10-29-04, 08:45 PM	Barbarians - They are all the same. Great, a strong fighter type who runs around with oversized weapons and goes all hulk smash. Couldn't we just call you berserker and keep it as a prestige class? How about something with enough flexibility that you could make a horse barbarian? Or could actually portray a realistic tribal warrior? And why does running around in the woods give you more skill points than a civilized fighter anyways? Frenzied Berserker, stupidly balanced as noted. CW Samurai, since when do Samurai specialize in two weapon fighting? What about the bow? Wizard/Sorceror - Hey, two classes with the same spell list, familiars, and hit dice, but get this, one of them is intelligent and learns spells, and the other is charismatic and gains them naturally. No really, they are totally different from each other, I don't see why you think this is just a response to all the spell point systems people used in 2nd Edition. Sorceror is really this amazingly original new class! :rolleyes:
Lordofthebean 10-29-04, 08:54 PM	Anything from UA. It's just broken. The Frenzied Bezerker. If a DM doesn't hate the frenzied bezerker he must be a masochist...or a very good DM. The samurai (both OA and CW incarnations). You want an honorable fighter who is fanatically devoted to his liege lord? He probably won't leave him to tramp around the country side with a spellcaster and a thief. The fighter. Okay, I don't really hate the fighter. I just hate how people RP him out of combat. I don't think monks are broken at all, and rangers are just stylish. I agree that wizards are far better than sorcerer (sorcs suck at item creation, metamagic, and spell selection. They get fewer skillpoints b/c their casting isn't tied to INT, and they don't get bonus feats).
Snommelp 10-29-04, 09:40 PM	Anything from the "Quintessential" series. I read the Quntessential Bard, and found myself thinking about brokenness for the first time in my life. That, and I was not impressed with how they always used masculine pronouns, even when the pictures were definitely women...
Dragonspirit 10-29-04, 10:48 PM	The Whirling Dervish is the only class I have a problem with. It's just dumb that you get to double attacks AND can do a full attack from a distance. Other than that, my beef is more with certain feats and spells than classes.
Al-Ashrad 10-30-04, 01:18 AM	I love the kensai. And it doesn't have to be Asian -- I think you can cut all the Asian overtones from the class (first off by getting rid of that whole "Ki Warlord" title -- how about just "Warlord"?) Nor does he have to use a sword. He could use pistols. I really think he's much more like a Jedi than any kind of Asian thing. Yes, but where do you think Lucas got the idea of the Jedi from? It's not as if Lucas didn't rip off Akira Kurosawa blind and then act like he was being original. ugh... well, enough of my Lucas rant. The point is the Kensai is truly Japanese, and no amount of fiddling with the name, or the names of the abilities, will change it. Miyamoto Musashi was the quintessential Kensai; check out "The Book of Five Rings" if you haven't already done so. With what was presented of the Kensai in CW, it is better to just remain a Fighter (or a Paladin), and take the Ancestral Relic feat from the Book of Exalted Deeds. At least that way the weapon would also come with a story... and maybe a Roy Greenhilt moment ("You broke my sword!").. hehe My other point was that they wrote it a bit wrong. A Kensai would not use a shield. A Kensai relied on speed to get the first attack, knowing full well that the first attack is the only one that will matter. A shield slows you down, and assumes you will not get the first strike. Here, in CW, a Kensai can now use a shield. While this little change may not seem like much, it actually blows away the entire flavor, and to some extent the premise, of the Sword Saint. Also, a Kensai does not necessarily have to owe fealty to a Lord or Daimyo. Kensai were also teachers or philosophers/mystics (Musashi settled down into a life of contemplation), and would sometimes be itinerant. Why this was put into the class, I don't know. -Al-Ashrad
Khelvaster 10-30-04, 01:38 AM	Wizard5/Ur-Priest2/Mystic Theurge x You need 8 ranks in skills to qualify for ur-priest. Ur-Priest is a BoVD PRC that lets you advance one spell level each level. For exapmple, a level 9 Ur-Priest casts level 9 cleric spells, such as miracle. Ur-Priest does not get good caster level however. This is where MT comes in. It raises caster level for every level in MT. What you have is a level 14 Character casting 9th level cleric spells at -2 CL AND 6th level arcane spells at -0 CL. By level 19 the build will be having 9th level arcane spells and 14th level divine spell slots. It is a game breaking build.
TheDoomBringer 10-30-04, 02:26 AM	I hate the following classes: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorceror, and Wizard. In fact, the only class I allow players to take in my campaign is either Expert or Commoner. And I changed the name of the game from "Dungeons and Dragons" to "Farmers and Smiths." Really.
Antigone 10-30-04, 02:40 AM	Yes, but where do you think Lucas got the idea of the Jedi from? It's not as if Lucas didn't rip off Akira Kurosawa blind and then act like he was being original. ugh... well, enough of my Lucas rant. The point is the Kensai is truly Japanese, and no amount of fiddling with the name, or the names of the abilities, will change it. Miyamoto Musashi was the quintessential Kensai; check out "The Book of Five Rings" if you haven't already done so. With what was presented of the Kensai in CW, it is better to just remain a Fighter (or a Paladin), and take the Ancestral Relic feat from the Book of Exalted Deeds. At least that way the weapon would also come with a story... and maybe a Roy Greenhilt moment ("You broke my sword!").. hehe My other point was that they wrote it a bit wrong. A Kensai would not use a shield. A Kensai relied on speed to get the first attack, knowing full well that the first attack is the only one that will matter. A shield slows you down, and assumes you will not get the first strike. Here, in CW, a Kensai can now use a shield. While this little change may not seem like much, it actually blows away the entire flavor, and to some extent the premise, of the Sword Saint. Also, a Kensai does not necessarily have to owe fealty to a Lord or Daimyo. Kensai were also teachers or philosophers/mystics (Musashi settled down into a life of contemplation), and would sometimes be itinerant. Why this was put into the class, I don't know. -Al-Ashrad Don't care. Still like it. ;) But I think you're getting hung up on what a kensai is in real life and missing what it's been turned into in the game. Of course, you are by all means free to do so. :)
Kiri Sittori 10-30-04, 04:55 AM	But since this is a thread about classes DMs hate, I'm going to pick the ranger. It went from the only class worth playing in 2d Ed, to the worst of the lot in 3.0 (at least after first level), to the choice of munchkins everywhere in 3.5. I hate it. I hate two-weapon fighting, I hate two-weapon defense, I hate improved two-weapon fighting, I hate improved two-weapon defense, and I hate greater two-weapon defense. And there's probably an uber-two-weapon defense out there somewhere that my ranger's player's going to want to take. Seven bloody attacks a round. Makes me want to stomp him. :nonono: And just what is wrong with TWD, considering that it's the more "proper" form of TWF? (Note that the off-hand weapon grants a *shield* bonus. This, of course, is negated by the use of off-hand attacks.) :) Now, for my own peeves. 1. Player-created prestige classes. Self-explanatory. 2. Samurai (CW.) The *major* problem, besides the granting of TWF (and pretty much CALLING it niten!!) is that the class captures NONE of the samurai's horse-archery tradition. Yeah, samurai were horse archers, not iaido duellists. FAIL. 3. Hexblade. My main problem here is the flavour of the class --- the *base* mechanic of a warrior-type with limited arcane casting is just fine. One would think that WotC would rename themselves "Priests of the Coast" since they can't seem to make *inherently good* mage-classes...\ 4. Exotic Weapons Master. This is only because my favourite weapons happen to be the kukri, quarterstaff, and certain pole arms. :) 5. FB --- a Cursed Sword of Berserking with benefits. x.x 6. Kensai, as written in CW. Even with the Whirlwind requisite, the 3.0 weapon master and EVEN the 1e kensai are better. 7. Occult slayer / 1e barbarian --- anti-caster is generally equal to anti-party. 8. Rage mage --- seems that WotC's been playing too much Final Fantasy X. :P 9. Any and all Necromancer prestige classes, until and unless they STOP MAKING INHERENTLY EVIL ONES. 10. Black Flame Zealot --- for the same reason as necromancers: the entirely unnecessary association of unaligned _____ (kukri in this case) with NOT-GOODNESS. 11. Entropomancer --- though entropy's wicked-cool, they didn't have to mention that "high-level entropomancers are often obsessed with finding a Sphere of Annihilation." 12. Bladesinger, seeker of the misty isle, arcane archer, and every other elf Prestige Class --- and the whole bloody race, for good measure. 13. Urgh-priest. Typo is, of course, intentional...
Antigone 10-30-04, 11:11 AM	And just what is wrong with TWD, considering that it's the more "proper" form of TWF? (Note that the off-hand weapon grants a *shield* bonus. This, of course, is negated by the use of off-hand attacks.) :) Well, there's nothing wrong with TWD ... until you realize your ranger and rogue both have ACs of 41 while the priest and wizard have ACs of 24 -- where's the monster that's going to challenge the first two while not turning the others into a fine red mist? :nonono: Encounter 1: "The monster tries to hit the ranger, but realizes very quickly that the priest and wizard are much easier targets, so he beats them up." Encounter 2: "The monster tries to hit the ranger, but realizes very quickly that the priest and wizard are much easier targets, so he beats them up." Encounter 3: "The monster tries to hit the ranger, but realizes very quickly that the priest and wizard are much easier targets, so he beats them up." Etc. ... Anyway, I think you're wrong about losing your off-hand attack when using TWD. There's nothing in the feat that says you do, and if you did it would make the feat entirely useless -- just use a shield, you get a better bonus. Also, I emailed customer service once about the feat. I thought you should only get the shield bonus when you were using an attack action, like fighting defensively, my player disagreed. They said, no, you get the shield bonus as long as you've got your two weapons out. The relevant point for this discussion being that they did not contradict my assumption that you can get the shield bonus while making off-hand attacks. Actually, I prefer your interpretation, 'cause it would solve what I hate about the whole TWF/TWD routine, that being the "I have a 41 AC while getting 7 attacks a round!" But my players would undoubtedly mutiny.
masterofmayhem 10-30-04, 01:58 PM	But since this is a thread about classes DMs hate, I'm going to pick the ranger. It went from the only class worth playing in 2d Ed, to the worst of the lot in 3.0 (at least after first level), to the choice of munchkins everywhere in 3.5. I hate it. I hate two-weapon fighting, I hate two-weapon defense, I hate improved two-weapon fighting, I hate improved two-weapon defense, and I hate greater two-weapon defense. And there's probably an uber-two-weapon defense out there somewhere that my ranger's player's going to want to take. Seven bloody attacks a round. Makes me want to stomp him. Ha! That's nothing! Dragonspirit's character get's 8 attacks a round, each one doing 6d6+2 damage. Portable fireballs, anyone? :mage: And, yes, Greater Two Weapon Defense is out there, I think. But they really are useless feats when you could just get a magical buckler and take Improved Buckler Defense
Iyestorm 10-30-04, 05:58 PM	isn't it refreshing to know that as a DM you can do anything that your players can do times infinity? ...plus one.
Ichor Spellka 10-30-04, 10:06 PM	Wow, lots more votes for psionics than I thought there would be. Shame... They're actually well-balanced now. I fell in love with psionics as soon as I read the book, the idea of mystifying clerics and mages everywhere is oh so much fun. On the flip side, I play them such that they aren't able to know what spell is coming at them, which can lead to some pretty stupid decisions... oh well. To each their own. So far, I've only seen one PRC banned, and it was the Dragon-Rider PRC from the Draconomicon... The DM looked at it, said: "5 level prc, and you get a dragon... stupidest thing I've ever...." The only other class that I can think of off the top of my head would be the hulking hurler, as any PC who could play it would be a fully optimized hurler from step one. One of the reasons I prefer rolling stats as opposed to point buy - leads to a lot less intentional min/maxing.
green_yawgmoth 10-30-04, 10:50 PM	I mean, monks are guys who sit in stone cells copying boring scrolls over and over again and mixing pea plants for genetic experimentation, not studying martial arts moves. I've put them back where they belong--any player can go find a monk, sitting in a room copying crap.I'd like to introduce you to a group known as the Shaolin monks; they might want to have a word with you. ;) I don't have any particular classes that I despise, other than to say that the sorcerer was extremely poorly designed. No Skip, spontaneous casting DOES NOT warrant sucking in every other facet of an arcane casting class. I want any two of the following: d6 HD 4+int skill points cha based skills!!! I want at least three, maybe four Bonus metamagic feats like a wizard http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Sir Elton 10-30-04, 11:07 PM	3. Ninja. A player I had walked away from the table because he couldn't take Improved Two-Weapon Fighting as a level 1 Rogue. I don't see why you couldn't allow it. :confused:
Alana Bloodwright 10-30-04, 11:13 PM	Because Imp Two Weapon Fighting has a BAB requirement of +6 mayhaps? Myself particularly, I don't care for Psionics. Why? Because reading the book made my head hurt. Every Psionic character I've seen seems amazingly overpowered. Mayhaps it could stem from the fact that I play an arena game, and anything psionic manages to kill my character in two rounds. Hell, one managed to do it twice over.
Sir Elton 10-30-04, 11:21 PM	Because Imp Two Weapon Fighting has a BAB requirement of +6 mayhaps? That was not what I was getting at. The people who wrote GM Law (ICE), say that a GM/DM can and should make his game work for everyone who plays. The rules are just guidelines to facilitate play. The above is a good reason, but last I heard, there is no D&D rule police out and about. If a player wants to play a certain character concept, then it should be allowed. As for psi, I really like the new rules. However, as the BESM d20 book says, Munchkinism is a problem with the player, and not the rules system. To prevent Munchkinism, one can go buy Munchkin d20 from Steve Jackson Games and have the players burn it out of their system. Conversely, the game Munchkin from Steve Jackson Games is also hillarious and a lot of fun and can contribute to burning out said Munchkinism. :D
Alana Bloodwright 10-30-04, 11:42 PM	Yes, but the DM also has a responsiblity to adhear to a sense of fair play, a character getting four atacks at level 1 isn't particularly fair to the other players.
masterofmayhem 10-30-04, 11:56 PM	Yes, but the DM also has a responsiblity to adhear to a sense of fair play, a character getting four atacks at level 1 isn't particularly fair to the other players. What if you make all the other characters level one fighters?:angel: . . . . Fiendish, dire, halfcelestial half dragon werebear half golem fighters?:schemes:
White rabbit 10-31-04, 12:56 AM	However, as the BESM d20 book says, Munchkinism is a problem with the player, and not the rules system. I have the BESM game, and it is soooo easy to munchkinize. I agree that it is a problem of self-control of the player that causes munchkinism, but is the responsability of the DM to prevent it. The player's job is to try to sneak broken builds past the DM. :D
Dragonspirit 10-31-04, 12:59 AM	Ha! That's nothing! Dragonspirit's character get's 8 attacks a round, each one doing 6d6+2 damage. Portable fireballs, anyone? Actually, it's only 7 attacks (No RS). :D And it's (1d4 + 5d6 + 2d6 + 5) x 4 and (1d4 + 5d6 + 2d6 + 4) x3 per round. But I have to hit and successfully SA them, and they must be evil, to get all that damage. And hey, I just played a mighty bard for a whole campaign that at 12th level did (1d8 + 5) x2 damage per round (if he hit both attacks) prior. And yes, attacking was his primary source of offense. So I've been on both sides of the ball. :)
Droog 10-31-04, 01:38 AM	If I had to pick one class it would be the DM controlled PC. It is my experience that there are few people who can pull this 'class' off effectively.
R-man 10-31-04, 02:45 AM	I don't really have any classes that I hate. I do have classes that I dislike; Bard, because while I run a mixed combat/Roleplaying campaign, for a player to get the most out of their Bard PC they have to really understand the game system and the class properly to get the most out of this class. The Bard is easily the most difficult class to play and be effective with in a standard D&D campaign (one that is not written exclusively to allow the Bard to shine). I also dislike any class taken by a player without a decent backstory. This isn't a major problem in my campaign, since if the backstory isn't sufficient then you don't play it. But it grates when a clearly European based campaign has Asian or Middle-Eastern Classes/Prestige classes in it with NO backstory. Or such a pathetic one that the player should be ashamed to call the three lines that they wrote a backstory. I don't have a problem with massive multiclassing in classes/prestige classes if it is for the purpose of matching a concept. I.e. a Character raised in the temple of Wee-Jas when he wasn't on the street (Rogue with ranks in Knowledge Religion) tried to get accepted as a priest but failed due to not having the talent (low wisdom) but is trained extensively as a temple guard with the Dieties chosen weapon, the dagger. Muliclassing with Swashbuckler, followed by invisible blade, the throwing dagger prestige class finally ending up in the Pious Templar prestige class. The build is following a clear concept from start to finish and achieves it by completing each of the first two prestige classes before finally ending up in Pious Templar. Is it optimized... No but it sure is fun to play. And the enjoyment of everyone at the table is the whole point of the exercise! So if in your group you all think that class XXX is wrong for your group, no matter what the reason, if it makes you happy ban it for your group.
Otto the Bugbear 10-31-04, 08:23 AM	Well, there's nothing wrong with TWD ... until you realize your ranger and rogue both have ACs of 41 while the priest and wizard have ACs of 24 -- where's the monster that's going to challenge the first two while not turning the others into a fine red mist? :nonono: Not to derail this fine thread completely, but ... Mwhuh? So if you banned TWD/ITWD/GTWD he'd end up with an AC of 38. And that would be much better than the 41? Greater Two-Weapon Defense gives only a +3 shield bonus to AC. It doesn't stack with ITWD or TWD (same bonus type.) Reading this immediatly makes me think the player may be pulling a fast one in some way. While it is quite easy to get an AC of 41, there are some pretty significant penalties to getting it that high. Usually it's at the expense of the to hit bonus. Perhaps you could break it down for us a little better how this character achieves this, why it's a ranger problem (after all, this is available to any other character with the feats to do it), and what penalties he's accepting to do it. I've a hunch about this one. I happen to really like the 3.5 rangers, so maybe I'm biased against your bias. ;) Cheers Otto :)
Enialis Galadonels 10-31-04, 09:11 AM	Qouting White Rabbit: Are you serious? Wizards are waaaay more versatile than any ten sorcerers of the same level. Sure, being able to throw out 6 fireballs a day is nice, but what about something useful out of combat? How many sorcerers are going to take dig? Or bull's strength? Or antipathy? Most are going to have their slots filled with something that will help them to survive in combat. Come on, there's more to magic than damage. And then there's specialization to consider. An extra spell per level per day? Yes, please! You want my view from InGame or OutOfGame perspective? :) I will make it short - any way your comments are welcomed: - InGame: General feeling - is it really often seen in movies/read in books that mage has is spellbook. Most of the classical/stereotype mages from fantasy genre do not possess spellbook, but rather has some "trademark" spells. This reflects in roleplaying -> well it is not comfortable to explain to party members that 'yes i kind of "know" 50 spells but i did not prepare these which are neccessary'... in opposite to the guy with innate magic, who party members know what he can and what he cannot do. These situations when party suddenly comes to huge wall that must be overcomed. If there is Wizard, who told that yes he knows magic with which ha can walk on walls. And party did not buy bunch of potions of spiderclimbing, but Wizard (of course) did not prepare 5 spiderclimbs 'just in case'. Stuck in the moment. If party has the sorceror, he either has spiderclimb (5 spiderclimbs?! - here you go!), or does not. In case of 'not', Sorceror is not guilty and he together with party tries (or already did) what they can to deal with such potential obstacles. What I try to say with this example, is that this 'versality' is perfect for theoretical situations, when party knows what they will encounter. In reality wizard is quite often forced to open general utility force - just like the Sorceror. It makes them quite theoretical class to play (for me, equivalent for these builds from CO boards that consists of three core classes and four prestige classes) - powerful concept in theory, but in roleplay - quite hard and not useful. OutOfGame - pain. Player that spends regularly half an hour time by time to prepare these spells for each next day. To look through and through and all time think - what will be useful next day... Even when I as a GM know that next day they will just travel (no random encounters or smth), but well he just wanders through all spells. consuming time. rrrrr... Why do such problems does not appears for clerics?!... maybe these wizrads are so versatile that (while they can be effective) it take soooo much game time. Almost every player hates that. Me too. It so much easier with Sorceror, which seems reliable. GM and PCs and player of Sorceror, perfectly know on what he is capable. And countering - boring old fireball again and again... It is just as Fighter/Barbarian - boring old sword/axe swinging again and again. But well, it is not. There is many options and swinging the sword/casting fireball is not the main fun of sessions. It is the way how do you use your powers to overcome obstacles. And by the way - it is always more fun with high Charisma characters (not high - Int). With high personality power - they are leaders and obvious heroes. High Charisma - it just seems heroic. Think about it...
Sir Elton 10-31-04, 09:30 AM	Yes, but the DM also has a responsiblity to adhear to a sense of fair play, a character getting four atacks at level 1 isn't particularly fair to the other players. Or one could ask the players if they want to Roleplay or if they want to Power Game.
Sir Elton 10-31-04, 09:31 AM	I have the BESM game, and it is soooo easy to munchkinize. I agree that it is a problem of self-control of the player that causes munchkinism, but is the responsability of the DM to prevent it. The player's job is to try to sneak broken builds past the DM. :D In Anime, anything goes. :D :cool: A good example is Those Who Hunt Elves. You got a former actress, a student, and a bruiser running around in an Abrams tank stripping elves of their garments to find a spell to go home. Another, whose title I forgot at the moment, is a story set in a world of chaos. So, in Anime, anything goes. Now, if you want to replicate just one series, then you have to make limits. Although The Record of the Lodoss War was totally inspired by Dungeons and Dragons and one can use D&D with it without fault. :cool: Although you might have to make a shaman based class and a new weapon around Deedlit's cool sword (basically, it's a long needle, smaller than an epee).
Antigone 10-31-04, 10:33 AM	Not to derail this fine thread completely, but ... Mwhuh? So if you banned TWD/ITWD/GTWD he'd end up with an AC of 38. And that would be much better than the 41? Greater Two-Weapon Defense gives only a +3 shield bonus to AC. It doesn't stack with ITWD or TWD (same bonus type.) Reading this immediatly makes me think the player may be pulling a fast one in some way. While it is quite easy to get an AC of 41, there are some pretty significant penalties to getting it that high. Usually it's at the expense of the to hit bonus. Perhaps you could break it down for us a little better how this character achieves this, why it's a ranger problem (after all, this is available to any other character with the feats to do it), and what penalties he's accepting to do it. I've a hunch about this one. I happen to really like the 3.5 rangers, so maybe I'm biased against your bias. ;) Cheers Otto :) No, you're right, he was fighting defensively and using combat expertise, but the shield bonus for ITWD doubles to +4 when fighting defensively, and to +6 for GTWD. But somehow -9 to hit never seemed to make a difference. Anyway, it just annoys me. And it's always the ranger doing it. Well, the rogue, too, but then he couldn't hit anything, so I didn't care. Don't you have that one feat/class combo that just annoys you?
masterofmayhem 10-31-04, 10:43 AM	but Wizard (of course) did not prepare 5 spiderclimbs 'just in case'. Stuck in the moment. If party has the sorceror, he either has spiderclimb (5 spiderclimbs?! - here you go!), or does not. In case of 'not', Sorceror is not guilty and he together with party tries (or already did) what they can to deal with such potential obstacles. Thats what pearls of power are for. My wizard has access to pretty much every 1st and 2nd level spell, and he can cast each at least 5 times. What I try to say with this example, is that this 'versality' is perfect for theoretical situations, when party knows what they will encounter. In reality wizard is quite often forced to open general utility force - just like the Sorceror. Theoretical situations . . . Like the theoretical situations when the party knows there is a red dragon in the next room. powerful concept in theory, but in roleplay - quite hard and not useful. Powerful concept in practice, as well. If you have not been able to properly play a wizard, that is your fault, not the classes. No offense. And roleplaying?? How is that hard? There are a plethora of different wizard personalities you could use!! Anything from sage to madman to pyromaniac to grim necromancer to hardened fighter/wizard to . . . . . . . . OutOfGame - pain. Player that spends regularly half an hour time by time to prepare these spells for each next day. To look through and through and all time think - what will be useful next day... No offense, but, once again, you're doing something wrong. It takes me all of 2, maybe 3 minutes to pick my spells, and I usually do that while other people are doing other things, so my group does not have to wait. Why do such problems does not appears for clerics?!... maybe these wizrads are so versatile that (while they can be effective) it take soooo much game time. I have no idea why you do not have that problem for clerics. That makes absolutely no sense, as clerics have even more spells at their beck and call. And by the way - it is always more fun with high Charisma characters (not high - Int). With high personality power - they are leaders and obvious heroes. High Charisma - it just seems heroic. Think about it... You realize you can play a wizard with high charisma, right? And to counter your point--which seems more powerful, the dashing sorcerer who charms all he meets with his beauty and social grace, or the benevolent and venerable wizard, whose great age and great intellect mean a great and hidden power? So which seems more like the hero?
Doug McCrae 10-31-04, 11:05 AM	Sorcerers. They allow players who are too lazy to think and understand their spells to play mystical characters. If you want a "no brainer" character, play a barbarian - Magic is a thinking person's pursuit, sorry.I don't understand this attitude. There's nothing inherent in the concept of magic that makes it a thinking person's pursuit only. I rather like the idea that there are multiple paths to magic ability - academia and natural talent. In some ways players of sorcerer have to be a lot smarter than wizards. They have to choose their spells known very carefully indeed, whereas the wizard just mindlessly copies everything into his books.
malaegoth 10-31-04, 11:25 AM	im shocked at all the people who don't like Mystic Theurges. Because I'm sorry, try playing one. they freaking SUCK.
Escef 10-31-04, 11:40 AM	2. I don't like it when my player''s use rules i don't know (And i tried twice to read the XPH, but I just couldn't because my mouth fell open every time 'cause it's quite overpowered) 3. It is underpowered Huh? First you say it's overpowered, then underpowered? Consistency please?
Crossover-Chronicler 10-31-04, 11:42 AM	I just want to step in and say that I have no problem with Psionics, Monks, Bards, or Sorcerers. In fact, I'm rather fond of them, along with Barbarians, CW Samurai, and most 3.5 Prestige Classses. As for classes I'm tired of hearing about and never want to see again: Fatespinner. I just don't know where to start. The Fatespinner was the beginning of my reecent unilateral ban on 3.0 material after we switched to 3.5. Wizards. Mostly because the players are so stupid with them. They take forever to build. My players never calculate the spells in their spellbooks properly. They take forever to prepare spells. They're puny. They're supposed to be learned, but only get 2 skill ranks in base skills/level - it seems to me that a class based around study would have more ranks to sink into Knowledges and the like before Int modifier was figured. And they almost never have appropriate spells suited to the situation. Also, they blow feats on Metamagic feats they never use, then complain when they can't make items. Druids. It's a wonderful class and I love it. But it always seems to be played (regardless of alignment) as utterly callous to human suffering, and completely opposed to the argument that civilization or technology of any form should exist: "I wield a scimitar, but I still oppose metalworking." Campaign-specific Prestige Classes. I really wouldn't mind them, if the players would ever play them in the world for which they were intended.
Otto the Bugbear 10-31-04, 01:41 PM	No, you're right, he was fighting defensively and using combat expertise, but the shield bonus for ITWD doubles to +4 when fighting defensively, and to +6 for GTWD. But somehow -9 to hit never seemed to make a difference. Anyway, it just annoys me. And it's always the ranger doing it. Well, the rogue, too, but then he couldn't hit anything, so I didn't care. Don't you have that one feat/class combo that just annoys you? That's what I figured. Sounds to me like you have more problem with how well that player does at playing his ranger, rather than the ranger class in general. After all, the ranger is restricted to light armor for his combat style. A fighter could be in any armor he wanted and still end up using the feats in question Thanks for the quick reply Cheers Otto :)
VirgilCaine 10-31-04, 01:51 PM	Druids. It's a wonderful class and I love it. But it always seems to be played (regardless of alignment) as utterly callous to human suffering, and completely opposed to the argument that civilization or technology of any form should exist: "I wield a scimitar, but I still oppose metalworking." Campaign-specific Prestige Classes. I really wouldn't mind them, if the players would ever play them in the world for which they were intended. Hey, not my druids. I don't like the way druids are portrayed either. "I don't care if it's from WotC, I don't care that it's balanced. This is Greyhawk. There are no Red Wizards. Stop it!" -Not me, but funny.
Vatras 10-31-04, 03:48 PM	- Any class which allows to break PHB rules, like those who allow you to switch a Fortitude for a Will save for example, or which grant a total immunity to some broad spectrum of things (like death magic or illusions). - Frenzied Berserker - All classes which allow anyone to be a paladin, even if they are called something else (its a cheap way to get at some powers craved by munchkins, avoiding all problems like alignment), especially those who grant the saving throw bonus. - Of course, all classes from BoVD and BoED are off limits for PCs :) Vatras
White rabbit 10-31-04, 04:03 PM	Enialis Galadonels- Most of what I was going to say was covered by masterofmayhem. I don't hate sorcs, but they always seemed like a poor red-headed stepchild to wizards. :D As for "trademark spells", the spell mastery feat (avialable to wizards only) nicely covers that aspect. Sir Elton- Not really sure what you meant by "world of chaos". That could be any number of anime. But Record of Lodoss War was a great anime. BTW, I heard that it was originally a game based on the GURPS system that was later made into an anime. And just so I won't be accused of hijacking this thread, I swear that if I hear one more thing about the Hulking Hurler, I'M gonna hurl. ;)
masterofmayhem 10-31-04, 04:14 PM	As for "trademark spells", the spell mastery feat (avialable to wizards only) nicely covers that aspect. I totally forgot about that. There is a feat in the FR handbook that allows you to spontaneously cast any one spell you have Spell Mastery with. That way you never have to worry about running out of your "trademark spell."
Mousse 10-31-04, 05:29 PM	Reading this... I've come to the conclusion that none of you have problems with actual classes. You just have suck-tastic players. I mean, honestly, so few of the complaints are actually related to the class itself its not even funny. Case in point, the Sorcerer in my group is an illusionist. He can't even cast fireball. And... from what I heard, Record of the Lodoss War was actually based off a DnD campaign, not GURPs.
Escef 10-31-04, 06:12 PM	And... from what I heard, Record of the Lodoss War was actually based off a DnD campaign, not GURPs. Actually, Lodoss is its own RPG in Japan. Completely different ruleset from D&D, though it was inspired by D&D. The anime was based off of books and manga. However, the anime is very well done, at least the OAV. The Chronicles of the Heroic Knight series was kinda ho-hum, I get the impression it probably followed the original books' story more closely, but it didn't have much grit in it.
Sir Elton 10-31-04, 08:39 PM	Actually, Lodoss is its own RPG in Japan. Completely different ruleset from D&D, though it was inspired by D&D. The anime was based off of books and manga. However, the anime is very well done, at least the OAV. The Chronicles of the Heroic Knight series was kinda ho-hum, I get the impression it probably followed the original books' story more closely, but it didn't have much grit in it. Sword World, I do believe. :) Yes, it is inspired by D&D, so it's not much of a stretch to use D&D as your base system. In fact, you can practically use any system with a fantasy bent; just that D&D fits that much more.
danielinthewolvesden 10-31-04, 09:44 PM	Reading this... I've come to the conclusion that none of you have problems with actual classes. You just have suck-tastic players. I mean, honestly, so few of the complaints are actually related to the class itself its not even funny. . I have great players!
Snommelp 10-31-04, 09:51 PM	Reading this... I've come to the conclusion that none of you have problems with actual classes. You just have suck-tastic players. You're partially right. My problem isn't with any actual class, it's with Mongoose Publishing's whole Quintessential line of books, which you would know if you had read my second post.
malaegoth 11-01-04, 01:17 AM	The problem here seems to be that most of the people who are posting are rabid haters of high-powered play. Honestly, if you have a problem with a player who is over-optimizing his character, that is something you should have discussed with him during character generation.
Al-Ashrad 11-01-04, 12:06 PM	The problem here seems to be that most of the people who are posting are rabid haters of high-powered play. Actually, no. If you looked at the ones I listed, they are up because of different reasons. The Windrider either alienates the player or the rest of the party, because the player will insist on a flying steed. The player will then pout every time the group goes into a tomb, dungeon, cave or the Underdark (this happened in my game, even though I warned the player twice that a Windrider may not be a good choice). The Shifter will bog the game down because the player will "shift" through various tomes deciding upon what to change into. The Kensai is written wrong and has next to none of the flavor it's supposed to have. And, it should be in Asian settings. The Battle-Sorceror is cheesy. The players don't sacrifice anything (one spell slot per level.. weeeee), and gets a lot in return. The Hexblade is fine, except for the Mettle ability (nothing like having Evasion for Fort and Will save spells). I have noticed the Frenzied Berserker in here a lot though. To me, the Frenzied Berserker is just funny. Nothing like watching player giving his own party a TPK... hehe. -Al-Ashrad
danielinthewolvesden 11-01-04, 03:18 PM	The Kensai is written wrong and has next to none of the flavor it's supposed to have. And, it should be in Asian settings. The Hexblade is fine, except for the Mettle ability (nothing like having Evasion for Fort and Will save spells). I have noticed the Frenzied Berserker in here a lot though. To me, the Frenzied Berserker is just funny. Nothing like watching player giving his own party a TPK... hehe. -Al-Ashrad I like the way Kensai is written up, but anythime anything with even a vaguely oriental flavour is included it will come under attack. Mettle is not very powerful at all- how many spells is it good against? Count 'em sometimes. Evasion is 10 times better. FB is a class that cheats. Almost everyone who plays one is cheating. Why? Because it violates the "unwritten rule" (It's a game, we're here to have fun, so we'll let you play"). No real party would let a FB in, since they are too dangerous.
Riznar 11-01-04, 03:28 PM	... The Battle-Sorceror is cheesy. The players don't sacrifice anything (one spell slot per level.. weeeee), and gets a lot in return..... -Al-Ashrad The Battle Sorcerer also loses a spell known per level, that hurts a lot.
Krelios 11-01-04, 03:30 PM	Aside from the Monk and Sorcerer all these PrCs that people are complaining about are optional anyway. If you don't like them, don't buy the friggin books. The Monk and the Sorcerer are new to 3.x, and they might not fit everyone's idea for every world--that's perfectly reasonable, but just because a few people don't like them doesn't mean they should be a part of the game.
Al-Ashrad 11-01-04, 03:37 PM	The Monk and the Sorcerer are new to 3.x.... Umm... I hate to point this out, but the Monk has been around since the First Edition PHB, in the early 1980's. I remember when I first read the PHB in 1982, and wondering "Wow, if Monks are like this, Friar Tuck should have been a major bad-ass... " hehe. -Al-Ashrad
Al-Ashrad 11-01-04, 03:48 PM	I like the way Kensai is written up, but anythime anything with even a vaguely oriental flavour is included it will come under attack. The Kensai as written needs work. A fighter with the Ancestral Relic feat is about the same. Hell, at least the Fighter increases his BAB with every level. Kensai should also not be able to use shields (for reasons stated earlier), and should also not have to swear fealty to a Lord; Kensai were not necessarily under the overlordship of anyone in particular. Mettle is not very powerful at all- how many spells is it good against? Count 'em sometimes. Evasion is 10 times better. I don't have the books in front of me, but I do know that Mettle (a 3rd level ability) can stop Phantasmal Killer and Cloudkill. Nothing like seeing a 3rd level character being able to thwart off the spell of a 9th level character. What also bugs me about this ability is when the Hexbalde also picks up two levels of Rogue, which should happen just about every time. FB is a class that cheats. Almost everyone who plays one is cheating. Why? Because it violates the "unwritten rule" (It's a game, we're here to have fun, so we'll let you play"). No real party would let a FB in, since they are too dangerous. I concur. But it is humourous to watch. hehe -Al-Ashrad
hiryuu 11-01-04, 04:05 PM	The Battle Sorcerer also loses a spell known per level, that hurts a lot. A lot? A heckuva lot! I've tried making some characters based around it, that one less spell known really affects you. If I ever see another wannabe necromancer with a horde of zombies and skeletons under his control (when you're running small scale, gritty games, 2HD per level is a horde), it'll be too soon.
danielinthewolvesden 11-01-04, 05:26 PM	The Battle Sorcerer also loses a spell known per level, that hurts a lot. Yes, it hurts WAY too much for what you get back- which for an arcanist isn't much at all. Al-Ashrad: You're reading the ability wrong. It only helps if there is a lessened amount of damage if you make a Fort or Will save. Thus on Cloudkill: "Cloudkill Conjuration (Creation) Level: Sor/Wiz 5 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) Effect: Cloud spreads in 20-ft. radius, 20 ft. high Duration: 1 min./level Saving Throw: Fortitude partial; see text Spell Resistance: No This spell generates a bank of fog, similar to a fog cloud, except that its vapors are yellowish green and poisonous. These vapors automatically kill any living creature with 3 or fewer HD (no save). A living creature with 4 to 6 HD is slain unless it succeeds on a Fortitude save (in which case it takes 1d4 points of Constitution damage on your turn each round while in the cloud). A living creature with 6 or more HD takes 1d4 points of Constitution damage on your turn each round while in the cloud (a successful Fortitude save halves this damage). Holding one’s breath doesn’t help, but creatures immune to poison are unaffected by the spell." ... if you had 3 HD or fewer, you'd be dead, dead, dead. No save. If you have more than that, you just take no "partial" damage- IF you make your save. In the case of "Phantasmal Killer Illusion (Phantasm) [Fear, Mind-Affecting] Level: Sor/Wiz 4 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) Target: One living creature Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Will disbelief (if interacted with), then Fortitude partial; see text Spell Resistance: Yes You create a phantasmal image of the most fearsome creature imaginable to the subject simply by forming the fears of the subject’s subconscious mind into something that its conscious mind can visualize: this most horrible beast. Only the spell’s subject can see the phantasmal killer. You see only a vague shape. The target first gets a Will save to recognize the image as unreal. If that save fails, the phantasm touches the subject, and the subject must succeed on a Fortitude save or die from fear. Even if the Fortitude save is successful, the subject takes 3d6 points of damage." The Hexblade would only be protected from the 3d6 points of incidental damage, he is still dead as a rock if he fails both. But rogues & monks can "thwart off" many many more & more dangerous spells with evasion. Mettle isn't half as good as Evasion. Mixing Rogue & Hexblade makes for an interesting idea, but the two classes don't mix all that well.
eudas 11-01-04, 06:57 PM	That argument has always bugged me. I don't really see psionics as a SciFi thing. Mostly becuase I usualy like a little science in my SciFi. It does rub me as SciFantisy however. Just the way things are named is just to cheezy for my taste. I guess all the good names were taken by magic. As for wether or not I like 'em, I do. In fact I prefere psions. Just not mixed in with magic. It strikes me more as the low magic worlds magic seeing as so manny of the powers are far more subtle then the wizard of the cleric. Few really overt powers. psionics are an excuse to use quasi-magical powers in a sci-fi setting. taking the justification of quasi-magical powers back into a fully magical setting is ridiculously circular. why use quasi-magical powers? it's a magical setting. just use magic! heh. eudas
hiryuu 11-01-04, 07:03 PM	psionics are an excuse to use quasi-magical powers in a sci-fi setting. taking the justification of quasi-magical powers back into a fully magical setting is ridiculously circular. why use quasi-magical powers? it's a magical setting. just use magic! heh. eudas But psionics aren't quasi magical. They are magic, pure and simple. They beat the crap out of physics and take its lunch money, and for an encore take its pants, too. They have no place in any hard science fiction that tries to pass itself off as even remotely accurate. On the other hand, using strange and esoteric powers that stem from your very will to affect changes in the world without wiggling your fingers or performing some sort of ritual (or....dare I say.... experiment, complete with reagents and equipment?) is very, very fantastic.
Rhapsody In Pink 11-01-04, 08:15 PM	EDIT: Too rant-like, too useless. Consider this deleted.
Sir Elton 11-01-04, 08:24 PM	The one class that Power Gamers love has got to be the monk as it is written (GAH! Every european setting I've done has a bunch of Shaolin Monks making their way from the Far East to European-like country so that the Class can be available! PLEASE, DEAR GOD, LET ME HAVE THE STRENGTH NOT TO BE THIS CHEESY!). Ahem, one thing I like to see done is a better take on martial arts than what is presented in Oriental Adventures, Third Edition. First of all, I think ICE's MAC (Martial Arts Companion) had the best take since Ninjas and Superspies. Second of all, if Martial Arts in D&D went the way of Ninjas and Superspies, then there would be more flavah. Did I mention that I'm a Martial Artist?
FriendoftheDork 11-01-04, 09:12 PM	i ban all classes that are not core, except those from the xph, that I love :) Psionics are to me what sorcerers should be. Mystical, magical is what we see. There's something about a man making all sorts of magical things to happen without saying a word or any flashy effects.... Why I ban the rest? Mainly because I think they are reduntant and can be played by multiclassing existing classes or with the help of PrCs- the other reason is that I know my core and won't have to read up on the rest.
ramdeath 11-01-04, 09:28 PM	Cheater's of Mystra Monks = don't fit in Ninja builds = don't ask Hulking Hurler's = with their d1millon damage I'm fine with psionics but it just feels like a lot of extra work.
eudas 11-02-04, 09:39 AM	Bards I'm sorry but bards as a concept bug me. I've never played as one but then again who wants a backstreet boy singing while they are taking on a horde of who-knows-what. I'd just assumed take out the bard with cleave after I slaughtered an orc. Now maybe if someone were to do a twisted spin off of a bard like a banjo-playing, inbred-redneck from the south, shining as it maybe, and go around and canabalize any NPC's it wants, well that would just be fun. Or maybe cross a blackguard with a bard and dress him up in black and white face paint with a huge battle axe, that would be cool too, but no justin timberlakes prancing around trying to inspire people to fight....better. I think the more appropriate concept is that of the Welsh/Irish/Norse Warrior/Skald, chanting and singing battle-hymns as he marches into battle, slaughtering his enemies with great gusto. eudas
Timespike 11-02-04, 09:53 AM	Everything. I force my players to play 1st-level commoners and don't give out XP. ;)
Enialis Galadonels 11-02-04, 12:55 PM	about this wizardish thing... Well, yeah each has his own dislikes... But i will just explain my view: Thats what pearls of power are for. My wizard has access to pretty much every 1st and 2nd level spell, and he can cast each at least 5 times. Items needed for class to emulate another class feature. Bad. And you do not get what you want from DMG (as a player, I mean) Theoretical situations . . . Like the theoretical situations when the party knows there is a red dragon in the next room. Yap. Happens once in a while. And in these rare situations, Wizard is definitely better than Sorceror (in terms of power). As far as i have experienced in these D&D games, PCs usually do not know what creatures or obstacles they will encounter. Powerful concept in practice, as well. If you have not been able to properly play a wizard, that is your fault, not the classes. No offense. No offence taken. Maybe you are right. But I said this in relation to previous statement. It is powerful concept only in cases when you know what happens next. When you can prepare adequately. Then it is definitely powerful concept. But maybe I have not been able to properly play wizard, since in these game we do not know the future :) No offense, but, once again, you're doing something wrong. It takes me all of 2, maybe 3 minutes to pick my spells, and I usually do that while other people are doing other things, so my group does not have to wait. You are cool :). I have seen worse. You realize you can play a wizard with high charisma, right? Yeah, I did realize that. And this is not from theoretical point of view. I haven't seen it. When I do compare these two arcane casters - always charismatic, and leading heroic Sorceror, and IME always - not so heroic like Wizard, I DO prefer, as a player my, or another player's PC, or as a GM, PC or NPC... it always is in favor of Sorceror (well my friends also tends to this direction). I add other mentioned factors, and I should say I begin to hate Wizards... But hey it is just humble me :):)
alecthemad 11-02-04, 02:01 PM	Re: the topic of this thread I still have a hard time with seeing how a bard could not be very effectively replaced with a caster/rogue multiclass. I keep trying to find how they would be a good class but I just cannot see it. Regarding wizards, scribe scroll is your friend. When I play wizards my character sacrifices a lot of experience to make utility scrolls. Need a spider climb--gimme a round and I will dig out my scrolls. Scrolls are cheap in terms of gold and experience. The wizard gets the feat for free and should use the heck out of it. You will never lack for the utility spell you require if you do so. Now it might take a round or two to find the right one (if you don't make yourself a heward's handy haversack) but in the case of utility spells you are usually not in too much of a rush. Scrolls are also nice for that time when one extra fireball would save the day.
EatFlan 11-02-04, 02:21 PM	There was this craptastic class once it was called the 101 or the 1001 or the 101010101 list maker master. It was mad annoying. B/c this dude kept making these useless lists. it was amazing. more amazing was that other people would emulate this behavior. It eventually destroyed my campaign (forum world) and so i've banned it forever.
danielinthewolvesden 11-02-04, 02:22 PM	Re: the topic of this thread I still have a hard time with seeing how a bard could not be very effectively replaced with a caster/rogue multiclass. I keep trying to find how they would be a good class but I just cannot see it. . In a large party, the bardic music is a powerful boost. Then again, the bardic knowledge is also good if you don't have folks with every KS covered. Finally- they make the best "face" for roleplaying & NPC interaction. But as for just power? They suck. :D
alecthemad 11-02-04, 02:41 PM	I keep thinking that one little tweak would improve them, maybe d8 hit points, more weapons. But I still end up with preferring to play a cleric/rogue or wizard/rogue. In a large party, the bardic music is a powerful boost. Then again, the bardic knowledge is also good if you don't have folks with every KS covered. Finally- they make the best "face" for roleplaying & NPC interaction. But as for just power? They suck. :D
White rabbit 11-02-04, 03:16 PM	Re: the topic of this thread I still have a hard time with seeing how a bard could not be very effectively replaced with a caster/rogue multiclass. I keep trying to find how they would be a good class but I just cannot see it. Because any multiclass will not be near as effective as a single class specialist. Think of it this way, when choosing skills, you can spread yourself thin and try to cover all the bases, or you can max out a few, and let the rest of the party specialize in the rest.
Landor 11-02-04, 03:32 PM	You should alway let a player play a samuri. "Bring up" (i.e. misouri them) that samuri often died and liked it. "He decides to spare your life" "Awsome!" "Not so fast, Mr. Samuri. You either ask him to kill your or comit septeku; being spared is a dishonnor." Oh, the fun.
Landor 11-02-04, 03:35 PM	But psionics aren't quasi magical. They are magic, pure and simple. They beat the crap out of physics and take its lunch money, and for an encore take its pants, too. They have no place in any hard science fiction that tries to pass itself off as even remotely accurate. On the other hand, using strange and esoteric powers that stem from your very will to affect changes in the world without wiggling your fingers or performing some sort of ritual (or....dare I say.... experiment, complete with reagents and equipment?) is very, very fantastic. I belive people who exibit psycic powers would debat you on that.
White rabbit 11-02-04, 03:39 PM	You should alway let a player play a samuri. "Bring up" (i.e. misouri them) that samuri often died and liked it. "He decides to spare your life" "Awsome!" "Not so fast, Mr. Samuri. You either ask him to kill your or comit septeku; being spared is a dishonnor." Oh, the fun. Whoah. :uh-huh: Where did you come by your view of samurai? They don't "like" dying any more than anyone else. True, they consider it an honor to die for many reasons (i.e. in the service of their lord, an ideal they believe in, etc.), but that doesn't make them masochists. Being defeated in battle isn't nescecarily a dishonorable situation, though it can lead to one.
Landor 11-02-04, 03:43 PM	Whoah. :uh-huh: Where did you come by your view of samurai? They don't "like" dying any more than anyone else. True, they consider it an honor to die for many reasons (i.e. in the service of their lord, an ideal they believe in, etc.), but that doesn't make them masochists. Being defeated in battle isn't nescecarily a dishonorable situation, though it can lead to one. Yo knew what I ment. Watch the History Channel.
GodlyPlateoftheWhale 11-02-04, 03:54 PM	Sorcerer What a tragedy. To echo what others have stated, this class had so much potential, and just flopped. I still have yet to see a redone version of the sorcerer that I am pleased with, and perhaps I never will.
hiryuu 11-02-04, 05:14 PM	I belive people who exibit psycic powers would debat you on that. Well, it's a good thing no one does, then, isn't it?
Krelios 11-02-04, 05:33 PM	Umm... I hate to point this out, but the Monk has been around since the First Edition PHB, in the early 1980's. I remember when I first read the PHB in 1982, and wondering "Wow, if Monks are like this, Friar Tuck should have been a major bad-ass... " hehe. -Al-AshradYes, you're right of course. I was referring to the much more popular 2nd edition (which included neither in the core rules). The die-hard fans from 1st edition have a few years advantage on me since I didn't get into playing until AD&D.
Landor 11-02-04, 06:02 PM	Well, it's a good thing no one does, then, isn't it? I know for a fact that's a lie.
GodlyPlateoftheWhale 11-02-04, 06:12 PM	I know for a fact that's a lie. Please support your claim. And don't cite Silvia Brown or that con from "Crossing Over"... :devil:
danielinthewolvesden 11-02-04, 06:15 PM	Please support your claim. And don't cite Silvia Brown or that con from "Crossing Over"... :devil: No-please don't. If you must argue this, try the "off topic" forum, thankyouverymuch.
hiryuu 11-02-04, 06:21 PM	No-please don't. If you must argue this, try the "off topic" forum, thankyouverymuch. Yeah, I sent a PM asking for proof. Anyway, I think next time I hear someone asking at character generation sessions asking to play some class he found on the internet without me having a week to go over it and edit the heck out of it, I'm going to slap an amnesia character on that player. This goes for any class based on a movie/comic book/anime whatever. If you want to do that, I prefer to know about it for a month (or at least a week)ahead of time so I can work on getting the custom class out the door before we start rolling up numbers. Other than that, no real problems....though I loathe the current slot-based magic system.
Snommelp 11-02-04, 06:33 PM	You know, apart from the people who said they ban everything but commoners, I think all of the core classes have been named except three: the fighter, the rogue, and the cleric. Anybody not like these?
masterofmayhem 11-02-04, 07:25 PM	Items needed for class to emulate another class feature. Bad. And you do not get what you want from DMG (as a player, I mean) The pearls are not to emulate the sorcerer; they are to increase your versatility as a wizard. And, besides, there aren't taht many items a wizard needs, anyway. My wizard has 8 1st level pearls and 4 2nd level pearls (at 12th level), so he has all the first and second level spells he needs. Yap. Happens once in a while. And in these rare situations, Wizard is definitely better than Sorceror (in terms of power). As far as i have experienced in these D&D games, PCs usually do not know what creatures or obstacles they will encounter. Well, with the proper divination spells it is much more likely to happen. I recently found out that scrying is a simply awesome spell. As for not happening often, what about if you found out you had to go to the elemental plane of fire? A single trip could take several weeks, with tons of chances for a wizard to shine with his oft-overlooked spells. Wizard: "Oh, no problem. I'll just go buy a scroll of fire resistance and copy it into my spellbook." Sorcerer " . . . Well, shoot. Let's go level, guys." ;) Yeah, I did realize that. And this is not from theoretical point of view. I haven't seen it. When I do compare these two arcane casters - always charismatic, and leading heroic Sorceror, and IME always - not so heroic like Wizard, I DO prefer, as a player my, or another player's PC, or as a GM, PC or NPC... it always is in favor of Sorceror (well my friends also tends to this direction). I add other mentioned factors, and I should say I begin to hate Wizards... I admit charisma is rather a dump stat for wizards. Charisma is more of a roleplaying tool for someone creating a wizard. :)
Sir Elton 11-02-04, 08:25 PM	Well, it's a good thing no one does, then, isn't it? phenonmenon with John Travolta. :D
Kiri Sittori 11-02-04, 10:11 PM	You should alway let a player play a samuri. "Bring up" (i.e. misouri them) that samuri often died and liked it. "He decides to spare your life" "Awsome!" "Not so fast, Mr. Samuri. You either ask him to kill your or comit septeku; being spared is a dishonnor." Oh, the fun. Samurai... and seppuku. I do have another category of "classes" that I truly NEVER wanna see: "Core Classes" that are NOT IN THE PHB, DMG, OR XPH*. The proper term for classes that have the 20-level progression is "base classes." *XPH is part of the SRD, and can be considered core.
danielinthewolvesden 11-03-04, 04:43 AM	Samurai... and seppuku. *XPH is part of the SRD, and can be considered core. It is not, and the folks at WotC have made that clear. Psionics are entirely & completely optional.
Kiri Sittori 11-03-04, 09:39 AM	It is not, and the folks at WotC have made that clear. Psionics are entirely & completely optional. Well, then, I stand corrected. Edit to "Core classes" that are not in the PHB or DMG. :)
Sir Elton 11-03-04, 11:09 AM	It is not, and the folks at WotC have made that clear. Psionics are entirely & completely optional. Every rule in D&D is "entirely and completely optional." :teach:
DrWorm 11-03-04, 03:48 PM	You know, apart from the people who said they ban everything but commoners, I think all of the core classes have been named except three: the fighter, the rogue, and the cleric. Anybody not like these? I named Fighter on page 2 or so. I find them extreemly dull.
danielinthewolvesden 11-03-04, 03:52 PM	Every rule in D&D is "entirely and completely optional." :teach: Well, that's kinda silly- since some are labeled "optional". Sure a DM can do a lot of houseruling, but after a while, you're not playing D&D anymore.
Sir Elton 11-03-04, 04:47 PM	Well, that's kinda silly- since some are labeled "optional". Sure a DM can do a lot of houseruling, but after a while, you're not playing D&D anymore. It's true, actually. The gaming philosophy behind roleplaying games is that Fun is the best factor. The rules are just secondary. So, whether it is silly or not, its unimportant since it is the truth.
Snommelp 11-03-04, 06:08 PM	I named Fighter on page 2 or so. I find them extreemly dull. Alright, so that leaves the rogue and the cleric. That's some great versatility, there.
VirgilCaine 11-03-04, 06:49 PM	Other than that, no real problems....though I loathe the current slot-based magic system. I like it much better than spell points. Everyone else has spell points. You can play any other game and have spell points, but only D&D has the Vancian magic system. It's special.
ZACKOLicious 11-03-04, 07:06 PM	I am surprised no one has said cavalier. i mean talk about overpower, granted go dungeon crawling and it nerfs the hell out of them, but then the player whines.
hiryuu 11-04-04, 01:03 AM	I like it much better than spell points. Everyone else has spell points. You can play any other game and have spell points, but only D&D has the Vancian magic system. It's special. No, very few others have spell points.... Deadlands has a backlash system for some caster, for others, it has a variety of things, such as injuring yourself, making offerings, or taking damage unto thineself to heal (hello, Deadlands cleric). Mage has a "whenever you like, but be careful." Ars Magica has a pretty neat system. Werewolf lets you learn "gifts" that you can use a variety of skills and abilities to activate, whenever you like. The Vancian system may be unique, but it doesn't work for any of the worlds I create (since I don't have the time to create a magic system from scratch, usually it's just, "tell me what you want to do, roll a d20, and we'll see what happens" and let the system build itself organically during play). It makes very little sense at all, and that's a lot, coming from a primarily fantasy author. Ah, and special task: name one other system whose magic system mirrors the way psionics work in D&D.
Sir Elton 11-04-04, 09:29 AM	Dynamic Sorcery Dynamic Sorcery Cost: 8 Points/Rank Relevant Ability: Variable Progression: Descriptive; see below This is the ability to use the mystical forces of Nature to alter reality. In anime, this can represent either the ability to improvise magical spells at a moment’s notice or the reality-bending capabilities of powerful entities like gods, goddesses, or angels. Dynamic Sorcery is a very powerful Attribute and should be discussed with the GM at length to determine the effects and limitations in his or her game. Proper use of Dynamic Sorcery will not unbalance the game but can provide many opportunities for character innovation. A character with this Attribute has the potential to cast spells from a vast variety of magical disciplines. Limiting the character’s knowledge to just one discipline, however, reduces the Attribute cost to only 4 Points/Rank. Such specialisations can include protection spells, elemental spells, weather spells, charm spells, necromantic spells, spells involving animal spirits, etc., or spells restricted to one of the magical schools (abjuration, conjuration, divination, enchantment, evocation, illusion, necromancy, or transmutation). A common variation on Dynamic Sorcery is magic whose effects are restricted to a particular reality different from the main reality of the campaign, such as the world of dreams, a cyberspace, or another pocket dimension. Such a heavy restriction may only cost 2 Points/Rank; the effects normally disappear when their subject leaves that reality (jacks out, wakes up, etc.). Casting a spell requires the character to draw upon the power of his or her soul to reach a new Balance with Nature. This link with the mystical world allows reality to be altered to accommodate the existence of the spell. Such spell creation is quite exhausting, however, drawing on the character’s Energy Points at a rate determined by the minimum Rank of the Attribute needed to produce a desired effect (whether the casting was a success or a failure). Should the spell effects target more than one person or object, the GM may choose to increase the effective Rank required by one if affecting two people, by two if affecting 3-6 people, by three if affecting 7-20 people, and by four if affecting 21-50 people. The GM will decide the Attribute Rank needed to cast a particular spell. In addition, any spell that is an attack on another entity also requires an Attack dice roll to hit. If the spell inflicts direct damage, the target will normally be allowed a Defence roll to avoid its effects. If the spell is something that has a more indirect effect, an appropriate saving throw (usually Will or Fortitude) should be allowed to resist or see through the effects. The Level of a spell is determined by its application, power, usefulness, and duration. The spell Levels 0 through 9 are equivalent to those given in the PHB and other d20 System products. A character can cast a spell from one of these other d20 System books, or can create their own spell effect with power approximating other spells at a similar Level. Thus, a character with Rank 3 Dynamic Sorcery could use Energy Points to cast any number of 0th, 1st, or 2nd Level spells in the PHB (or other d20 System book), or spells of similar power, provided the character has sufficient Energy Points remaining. All characters gain 1d2 Energy Point each Level, but characters with the Dynamic Sorcery Attribute gain additional Energy Points as they increase their Attribute Rank as well. The die type that these characters use to determine their Energy Point gain each Level increases from 1d2 at Rank 1 to 3d10 at Rank 10. Rank 1 The character can cast spells of no real power (0th Level d20 System spells or the equivalent). Spells cost 1 Energy Point to cast. The character rolls 1d2 to determine Energy Points gained each Level. Examples of 0th Level spells are Detect Magic, Know Direction, Light, Mending, and Open/Close. Rank 2 The character can cast weak spells of little power (1st Level d20 System spells or the equivalent). Spells cost 4 Energy Points to cast. The character rolls 1d4 to determine Energy Points gained each Level. Examples of 1st Level spells are Change Self, Comprehend Languages, Endure Elements, Erase, and Sleep. Rank 3 The character can cast spells of minor power (2nd Level d20 System spells or the equivalent). Spells cost 9 Energy Points to cast. The character rolls 1d6 to determine Energy Points gained each Level. Examples of 2nd Level spells are Darkness, Hold Person, Levitate, Speak with Animals, and Summon Swarm. Rank 4 The character can cast spells of moderate power (3rd Level d20 System spells or the equivalent). Spells cost 16 Energy Points to cast. The character rolls 1d8 to determine Energy Points gained each Level. Examples of 3rd Level spells are Bestow Curse, Blink, Remove Disease, Speak with Plants, and Summon Nature’s Ally III (summons one black bear or wolverine or 2 - 5 badgers). Rank 5 The character can cast spells of major power (4th Level d20 System spells or the equivalent). Spells cost 25 Energy Points to cast. The character rolls 1d10 to determine Energy Points gained each Level. Examples of 4th Level spells are Cure Critical Wounds, Improved Invisibility, Sleet Storm, and Stoneskin. Rank 6 The character can cast spells of great power (5th Level d20 System spells or the equivalent). Spells cost 36 Energy Points to cast. The character rolls 1d12 to determine Energy Points gained each Level. Examples of 5th Level spells are Raise Dead, Summon Nature’s Ally V (summons one rhinoceros or tiger or 2 — 5 black bears), Teleport, and Wall of Stone. Rank 7 The character can cast spells that are exceptionally powerful (6th Level d20 System spells or the equivalent). Spells cost 49 Energy Points to cast. The character rolls 2d8 to determine Energy Points gained each Level. Examples of 6th Level spells are Antilife Shell, Control Weather, Geas/Quest, and Heal. Rank 8 The character can cast spells that are extraordinarily powerful (7th Level d20 System spells or the equivalent). Spells cost 64 Energy Points to cast. The character rolls 1d20 to determine Energy Points gained each Level. Examples of 7th Level spells are Greater Scrying, Resurrection, Reverse Gravity, and Summon Nature’s Ally VII (summons one elephant or 2 — 5 tigers). Rank 9 The character can cast spells that are of primal power (8th Level d20 System spells or the equivalent). Spells cost 81 Energy Points to cast. The character rolls 2d12 to determine Energy Points gained each Level. Examples of 8th Level spells are Discern Location, Earthquake, Finger of Death, and Sunburst. Rank 10 The character can cast spells that are of godlike power (9th Level spells or the equivalent). Spells cost 100 Energy Points to cast. The character rolls 3d10 to determine Energy Points gained each Level. Examples of 9th Level spells are Soul Bind, Summon Nature’s Ally IX (summons one elder elemental or 2 — 5 elephants), Time Stop, and True Resurrection. Dynamic Sorcery Without Energy Points The Game Master may allow players to assign an even more powerful version of the Dynamic Sorcery Attribute as well, at the cost of 20 Points/Rank. This variation is similar to the original one, except the character does not burn Energy Points when casting spells. Consequently, the character can cast any number of spells (as appropriate for his or her Rank) without growing tired or running out of Energy. GMs and players should understand that this alternative is very powerful, and should only use it if they believe it will not unbalance their game.
eudas 11-04-04, 10:08 AM	No, very few others have spell points.... (snip) Ars Magica has a pretty neat system. (snip) Yeah, Ars Magica has an excellent Magic system. Unfortunately, the rest of it is mostly sloppily-put-together rubbish. I was thinking maybe you could convert Ars Magica's magic system to d20 if you made each of the Major/Minor magic scores into wizard Knowledges (Knowledge(rego), knowledge(muto), knowledge(terram), etc). The problem, IIRC, that I came up against was "how do we handle spontaneous magic"... or maybe it was "what about studying"... i can't remember anymore, since it's been a while since i thought of it. If those issues could be worked out, though, the ArM magic system (copyright problems aside) would be perfect to ditch the Vancian magic system. 'Cause let's face it, Vancian magic is *so* 70's style. :) It would also fix the Wizards vs Sorcerers issue -- they'd become the same class. the virtues/flaws that modified spontaneous casting could be converted to feats. eudas
Mahni LeGuin 03-14-05, 04:31 PM	2nd edition clerics. "Yes, I follow Tyr, who uses a longsword, but I can't use an edged weapon because I'm a cleric." Dritz knock offs. I hate Elven Rangers who dual wield scimitars. I had a player who set up a Elven Ranger who dual weilded scimitars and actually named him Dritz Do'Urden... then claimed that he had never heard of the character before, and that he had made up the name himself. Psionics. Psi belongs in SciFi knock offs, not fantasy. Oriental classes. They are either too powerful or too weak, never balanced. Fighter needs a better skill list. Since I can approve/disapprove prestige classes, I never have a problem with them. But any player who sets up a Paladin who declares to me that he's going to become a Blackguard loses his Paladinhood. Planning to become evil later is a evil act. "I'm going to act goody two shoes and follow all the rules so later on I can double cross my Gawd and become more powerfully evil." Yeah, let your Gawd find out about that, he'll pull your abilities so fast your holy symbol will spin.
Reinforcements 03-14-05, 06:17 PM	Consider this more of a reply to the thread itself than a reply to the topic of the thread. On Sorcerers: Two words: booo-ring (a cookie to the person who knows the reference there). So much potential made so uninteresting. As for battle sorcerers, I made one once. It never got played, because I took one look and said, "Wow, this sucks." The benefits are not nearly worth the huge spellcasting penalties. On Unearthed Arcana: Blasphemers! UA is wonderful. Almost everything in it falls into one of three categories: 1. Interesting, but weak (racial paragons, bloodlines). 2. Super-cool (most class variants, spelltouched feats, flaws and traits, scions, incantations) 3. No duh it's overpowered (gestalt, defense bonus) On Psionics: Objections based on flavor and lack of willingness to fit a new system into your campaign setting are reasonable. But to you people who think it is overpowered, if I may be mean for a second: you are stupid. It is not overpowered. On Oriental Classes: I agree they generally have no place in most campaign settings, and the ninja and samurai suck anyway. As for the monk, I think they're boring and generic too, but they are certainly not overpowered. I'd put them on the weak side of balanced. On Rangers and Two-Weapon Fighting: Whoshotwhointhewhatnow? These are overpowered how, exactly?