Post/Author/DateTime	Post
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 07:37 AM	I would like to propose that the current incarnation of D&D spoils gamers and offers too many options. Why do players need so many prestige classes and feats? I don't get it. Why can't they do they need extra abilities to back up their character concept? Just because someone wants to be a 'witch hunter' that doesn't mean they need new class abilities to develop a witch hunter character (they could create such a character using most of the core classes). There are plenty of skills available to accommodate this. I say bring back limitations and restore sanity to the game. Why does everyone seem to think that you need special abilities to back up an interesting character idea? Can't someone be a normal fighter who happens to hunt witches? Or make and use your massive skill options to make a character who is specialized in witch hunting? Does an interesting character require funky abilities that are unique to him? I say no.
Kainsin 09-01-06, 07:43 AM	That's why there are only three books labeled as core. Even if people want to create a character with a special purpose (like your example witch hunter), they don't always have the skill/time/creativity to get everything that their character does/want on paper. Seeing PrCs gives players more ideas to work with and is (hopefully) already balanced.
Cifer 09-01-06, 07:50 AM	The game can be played by using the four classes fighter, cleric, wizard and rogue. In the same way, a meal can consist of bread and water and we could resolve battles by playing "rock,paper,scissors" instead of using the simulation D&D provides. No, a character doesn't need those new options to be interesting. However, what is the problem about them? Does anyone require you to pick up every book there is? I don't think so. Extra classes are exactly that: Extra - if you want them, get them, otherwise don't bother. To me, your essay read "Players can build interesting characters without extra classes, so they shouldn't exist" - to which I answer: Why? Of course you can build a fighter/rogue/wizard specialized in enchantment spells, but the bard gets your point across easier.
jaspercrey 09-01-06, 07:58 AM	Options can be a good thing . . . especially "flavour" options that make a character new and unique. The problem I have found is that the options in the D&D game are numerically/mechanically based. So in the end, it's not really the option itself players are choosing but the benefits it bestows. So if you have 75 options available to your character, of which only one bestows a +5 bonus (which happens to be the best) --- there really is no 'option' at all . . . you are going to take the best number available to your character. So while there are hundreds of options available for most characters to take -- there are really only a handful of good ones. An example. Whats the best core non-magical weapon for a rogue to use? I think most rogues will take the rapier every time. Why not use a shortsword? The rapier has a better crit range.
Shaggy_Shaggs 09-01-06, 08:13 AM	An example. Whats the best core non-magical weapon for a rogue to use? I think most rogues will take the rapier every time. Why not use a shortsword? The rapier has a better crit range. Except rogues don't really do their damage with base damage that crit applies to, they do it with sneak attacks. Daggers are preferable for the lighter weight, lower price, bonus on sleight of hand checks to conceal them, and ability to throw them proficiently (great for surprise rounds). As for the OP... I think you're mixed up. Of course having all of the provided extras isn't needed, if it was, only the very wealthy (or those willing to pirate documents) would play D&D. However, something not being needed doesn't make it bad or insane. I'd like to say for the record, though, that if by "witch hunter" you mean "defeater of characters that primarily take full spellcasting classes", a primarily fighting class (whether it's barbarian, fighter, paladin or ranger) won't get it done long-term, in a core-only game. Also, "your massive skill options" don't exist for "a normal fighter". Sure, you don't need the extra classes presented in noncore sources, but there's a hell of a lot you can't effectively emulate without them. Some witch hunters actually like to hunt witches, rather than just saying they do, and while they don't need to be able to do it, it's nice to give them the option. ;)
Richmud 09-01-06, 08:19 AM	Well I think a lot of it has to do with actually having the abilities to back up your claims. If I create a charecter with just core who hunts arcane spellcasters he will often be easily defeated by the spellcasters he hunts. On the other hand if I create one using the occult slayer prestige class and the mage slayer (might not be the right name) feats my charecter would actually be capable of doing what he claims to be capable of. Basically it comes down to the fact that its silly to roleplay being able to do something the charecter actually can't do.
Cifer 09-01-06, 08:20 AM	Except rogues don't really do their damage with base damage that crit applies to, they do it with sneak attacks. Not since PHB II and its wonderful Telling Blow... sneak on every crit.
Shaggy_Shaggs 09-01-06, 08:23 AM	Not since PHB II and its wonderful Telling Blow... sneak on every crit. True, though I saw little point in restricting the weapon to core but not the feats, thus I (perhaps incorrectly) assumed that TB was not an option. Given TB, sign me up for a pair of kukris (and a bandolier of about 10 daggers), thank you very much. :devil:
Ilthorin 09-01-06, 08:38 AM	Why do players need so many prestige classes and feats? I don't get it. Why can't they do they need extra abilities to back up their character concept? Just because someone wants to be a 'witch hunter' that doesn't mean they need new class abilities to develop a witch hunter character (they could create such a character using most of the core classes). There are plenty of skills available to accommodate this. I say bring back limitations and restore sanity to the game. Irrigardless of wether or not people agree with you there is one very simple answer to your question. Because the game is a business..and businesses exist to make money. And you make money by publishing suppliments that we all buy. All Hail the Almighty :cheer:$:cheer:
scott644 09-01-06, 08:56 AM	I response to the thread topic... By definition, "too many" is a bad thing. If it's too many, then you should reduce the quantity, plain and simple. Plus, bear in mind, per the core rules as written, prestige classes are purely DM option. The DM is encouraged to go through whatever prestige classes are in books they choose to allow, and to select which are and which are not viable in the campaign they're running - and to set any extra restrictions they feel appropriate. Same pretty much applies to anything that's not core.
Gyrofthewastes 09-01-06, 08:59 AM	Many people also play D&D to actually roleplay. Having more, balanced options is in all ways better for roleplaying since it allows for increased customization, variation, and differentiation between characters.
Ongorth 09-01-06, 10:04 AM	I like options, but strangely, I don't feel spoiled by them. Indeed, I spend money on buying these books. I am paying for the convenience of not having to make these things up myself. While I enjoy on occassion designing new stuff, I don't have time to, say, ground up design a completely new system of powers for melee combat (Tome of Battle). Like Scott said, there is never too much. You use what you want and don't use what you don't want. If your game has "too much" in it, you probably should use less.
Brotha_T 09-01-06, 10:09 AM	Irrigardless of wether or not people agree with you there is one very simple answer to your question. Because the game is a business..and businesses exist to make money. And you make money by publishing suppliments that we all buy. Exactly, and since people are always saying, "Wouldn't it be cool if..., " there is a constant demand for something new. With almost all core material available for free through the SRD, supplimental books keep the revenue flowing. It actually probably works out better this way because if Wizards covers all the conceivable prestige classes, feats, spells, etc. then they are more likely to be balanced in your game.
Zinegata 09-01-06, 10:21 AM	I would like to propose that the current incarnation of D&D spoils gamers and offers too many options. Why do players need so many prestige classes and feats? I don't get it. Why can't they do they need extra abilities to back up their character concept? Well, freedom of choice was one of the design objectives of D&D 3.0 and 3.5, hence the enormous number of options. It was designed that way, so there's no need to debate whether or not there are many options - it is there. However... Just because someone wants to be a 'witch hunter' that doesn't mean they need new class abilities to develop a witch hunter character (they could create such a character using most of the core classes). There are plenty of skills available to accommodate this. This, on a personal level, I agree with completely. I think that some (perhaps many) players tend to look for new options to use with their character or character concept by leafing through new books, rather than attempting to simply utilize existing options in more creative ways. I've created quite a few interesting characters who used none of the material outside of the Core 3. I can't really judge these players though - sometimes they just don't have the time (or creative energy) to make a character out of existing options, so they instead rely on pre-packaged ones. I say bring back limitations and restore sanity to the game. Uh, this part I vehemently disagree with. Unless you're saying this is only for your own group. WoTC, I believe, rightly made the choice to "Give the gaming groups ALL the options they could ever want", and then get the hell out of the way. It's then up to the gaming groups to decide what's best for them. So if the options bewilder you and your group, limit the options. You're free to do so. If your group prefers tons of options, then that's great too. Just do what you think is fun.
olshanski_home 09-01-06, 10:25 AM	Many people also play D&D to actually roleplay. Having more, balanced options is in all ways better for roleplaying since it allows for increased customization, variation, and differentiation between characters. Bullcrap. If you want to "roleplay" you can do it with a single class and no feats. Adding extra mechanics brings you closer to "roll-playing"... You are defining your character by a set of game mechanics, feats, class abilities, and other mechanical aspects rather than defining your character by "roleplaying" (motivation, desires, fears, attitude, etcetera). I think it is entertaining to read many of the different "takes" on character races and classes provided in the splatbooks, and I've borrowed a number of books from friends for that purpose. I do not own splatbooks, will not buy them, and do not allow them in the games I run.
Gyrofthewastes 09-01-06, 10:44 AM	If you want to "roleplay" you can do it with a single class and no feats. Adding extra mechanics brings you closer to "roll-playing"... Of course you can. Most certainly people did so before such mechanics were ever around. You can also make pottery without a potter's wheel. Bring down trees without a cutting implement. Or make complex high-integer calculations without a calculating device. I challenge you to show how doing so is advantageous, however. You are defining your character by a set of game mechanics, feats, class abilities, and other mechanical aspects rather than defining your character by "roleplaying" (motivation, desires, fears, attitude, etcetera). Got news for you, kid. Here in the real world skills and capabilities have a huge impact on personality. A person who grows up without the ability to see in a world of those who can experiences things very differently from the norm. A person without legs rarely develops a taste for dancing. Let alone that skills are actually PART of role.
Zinegata 09-01-06, 10:46 AM	Bullcrap. If you want to "roleplay" you can do it with a single class and no feats. Adding extra mechanics brings you closer to "roll-playing"... You are defining your character by a set of game mechanics, feats, class abilities, and other mechanical aspects rather than defining your character by "roleplaying" (motivation, desires, fears, attitude, etcetera). So we should abolish all classes except fighters? Get rid of the feat and skill system as well? Of course, my example is extreme, but I think that it is safe to say that one cannot prove that there is always an inverse relation between the amount of mechanics in the game and the amount of roleplaying in the game. Ultimately, it is up to the players to judge how options they can take without suffering from information overload and making the rollplaying aspect more of a chore than a fun experience. It's great if you can make interesitng PCs with only limited options, but limiting options in itself is not always the best solution depending on the group.
Atirakis 09-01-06, 10:50 AM	More options is a good thing. It gets more variaty in a game where some of us can start to feel a little jaded. Been there done that? Well youve never played as a "insert new class/Prc here"
Ongorth 09-01-06, 10:52 AM	If you want to "roleplay" you can do it with a single class and no feats. Adding extra mechanics brings you closer to "roll-playing"... You are defining your character by a set of game mechanics, feats, class abilities, and other mechanical aspects rather than defining your character by "roleplaying" (motivation, desires, fears, attitude, etcetera). I hope this turns into a roleplayer versus optimizers thread. Only have one of the front page would be a shame. Your character's mechanical ability is defined by their mechanics. Roleplaying brave doesn't raise your will save, roleplaying tough doesn't give you more HP. I love freeform roleplaying where actions are left entirely to the collective imagination of the group, but D&D characters are bound to their mechanics. To claim that adding mechanics means your character is defined by them is a stretch. They can have the exact same motivations, desires, fears, attitudes, etc., but now, when they do their "Roman Left-handed Pyroskewer" (Death Mark) it actually does a blast of fire damage instead of just being a creatively named and described melee attack.
Elrabin 09-01-06, 11:33 AM	Too many options are a bad thing when you are teaching the game to people. Me and one of my several players actually care enough to spend hours poring over the books and making characters. Everyone else just wants to play. So I tend to give them a ridiculous quantity of options, cause that's what I would want if I was the player. But people who don't want to spend hours building their dude don't want/need hundreds of options.
Hunter Rose 09-01-06, 11:34 AM	I tend to pick up new settings which I am interested in runnig rather than non-core splats. I'm not against new material, but I think people look outside of the core books too quickly when they want to do something specific. All non-PHB material has to be approved by our DM (which is sometimes me) before it hits the table in our game. I had no problem with a player choosing a Kobold Sorcerer once we discussed his character concept and it's potential difficulties with in the party and setting. I tell you where too many options is a bad thing.. when it means you have stacks of books at the table to suck up game time when somoen whats to refrence some arcane rule or option.
Atirakis 09-01-06, 11:36 AM	Too many options are a bad thing when you are teaching the game to people. Me and one of my several players actually care enough to spend hours poring over the books and making characters. Everyone else just wants to play. So I tend to give them a ridiculous quantity of options, cause that's what I would want if I was the player. But people who don't want to spend hours building their dude don't want/need hundreds of options. And nobody is forcing them to allow all of the extra material into their games, its just there for the people that do want/need it.
Tisner44 09-01-06, 11:40 AM	If you are really worried that the Mechanics are going to take over then you can limit the books you use as previously stated, or You can advise your players they need to create a general idea of what they want their character to do before letting flip through the books. "I want a character who can fight while balancing on things and uses a fencing sword." Then look throug the books and find the class and skills that would help the player create this character. This would help avoid a player creating a character just to take advantage of a feat tree or special ability. But do keep in mind that any character will strive to do better at what they do by learning more abilities. So a fighter who wants to take kill spellcasters is fine, but that fighter will never be able to do as well as a character in the Witch Hunter PrC. But the fighter will still be able to fight other creatures better than the Witch Hunter. A PrC is a specialization of a class, it is give and take. It allows characters to not only Roleplay a character who hunts spellcasters, but also have the abilities to improve on that ability. That being said, the only problem I have with the options is that I believe that some of the new feats are a little stronger than the older ones. Not sure if they were playtested as long or not, but with all the new options it is getting harder for Wizards to balance them out with the older options.
BW0222 09-01-06, 11:52 AM	UncleAthanas, The existance of these books (as others have pointed out) is a business decision. Modules aren't big in 3.x, so companies make their money publishing books. In 3.x, it is easier to make a good module because the combat system greatly limits the amount of writing necessary. Five to ten encounters gets you through a four hour session easy. However, as a DM, there is nothing wrong (or unusual) about selecting which books are allowed in your setting. Typically, these are the three core books and maybe a setting specific book. Just don't allow it. As to why many players see p-classes and supplimental stuff as necessary... I think this is more a reflections of the times. I think that the "MTV generation" are more used to instant gratification, instant choices, and getting exactly what they want. Video games made folks a lot more used to seeing the purpose of gaming as getting more and more powerful -- rather than a social game without winners or losers. Of course, more mature players realize that making more and more powerful characters just means fighting more powerful opponents, so you are never any further ahead.
starfire311 09-01-06, 11:53 AM	Bullcrap. If you want to "roleplay" you can do it with a single class and no feats. Adding extra mechanics brings you closer to "roll-playing"... You are defining your character by a set of game mechanics, feats, class abilities, and other mechanical aspects rather than defining your character by "roleplaying" (motivation, desires, fears, attitude, etcetera). I think it is entertaining to read many of the different "takes" on character races and classes provided in the splatbooks, and I've borrowed a number of books from friends for that purpose. I do not own splatbooks, will not buy them, and do not allow them in the games I run. this is actually completly incorrect, adding more options makes more concepts viable as character choices... for example if I wanted to play the single onehanded weapon swordmaster Gish... going core only my best bet would be a Wizard/Fighter/Rogue/EK/duelist... this leads to a mechanically inferior character... by adding more options you are allowed to get a swashbuckler/wizard/bladesinger, that better supports my character concept with the mechanics and is, mostlikly, a stronger build so I am not penalizing the group so that I can play the character I want to play. More options allows you to RP more concepts and still be an effective cahracter. IMO, more options lends itself to better RPing... in an ideal RP environment you would have no restrictions or limitiations, the closer you are to that the better RPing you have. The more limits and restrictions you place on the character the more difficult it is to RP the exact concept you have.
wrecan 09-01-06, 11:58 AM	How many of these stupid threads do you plan on starting? I count three, so far, including the Stormwind Fallacy thread, the Oldtimers thread (which was a barely concealed and largely failed attempt to gather other "oldtimers" together to rail against the prestige class system) and now this one. If you don't like options, ignore them. Start a core-book only game. That's what I did. If you like some of the options, allow only some. Talk to your group about the "problem" and come up with a solution... usually by delineating which supplements will be allowed in the campaign. I find it hard to believe that someone who managed to convince his entire gaming group to take competency exams as a prelude to determining mental abilities is unable to convince them to do without Races of the Dragon or whatever supplement(s) have gotten your goat.
OravennasBrother 09-01-06, 12:30 PM	Well I think a lot of it has to do with actually having the abilities to back up your claims. If I create a charecter with just core who hunts arcane spellcasters he will often be easily defeated by the spellcasters he hunts. Basically it comes down to the fact that its silly to roleplay being able to do something the charecter actually can't do. That does not hold true through 14th level. A core Ranger with favored Enemy - Humanoid Arcane Casters proved quite adept at killing evil wizards. It just took some effort IN PLAY. I could not waltz up to the wizards lair and call him out but had to "stake out" his place and catch him unaware (preferably sleeping) Except for psionics, which might be treated as SORCERY, I have yet to see a "concept" which cannot be handled with core, and even psionics might be workable as some sort of Bard or Sorcerer variant. But hey players and DM's using their own creativity would not make mountains of money for WotC right?
olshanski_home 09-01-06, 12:31 PM	this is actually completly incorrect, adding more options makes more concepts viable as character choices... for example if I wanted to play the single onehanded weapon swordmaster Gish... going core only my best bet would be a Wizard/Fighter/Rogue/EK/duelist... this leads to a mechanically inferior character... by adding more options you are allowed to get a swashbuckler/wizard/bladesinger, that better supports my character concept with the mechanics and is, mostlikly, a stronger build so I am not penalizing the group so that I can play the character I want to play. More options allows you to RP more concepts and still be an effective cahracter. IMO, more options lends itself to better RPing... in an ideal RP environment you would have no restrictions or limitiations, the closer you are to that the better RPing you have. The more limits and restrictions you place on the character the more difficult it is to RP the exact concept you have. I said nothing about "more options", "stronger build", "penalizing the group" etcetera. What you are talking about are mechanical aspects of character creation, not roleplaying. You are highlighting the exact error that I am trying to point out... people think of the mechanics of the character as actually "roleplaying" the character. People think that an "aura of courage" = "roleplaying brave", and that an alignment of Lawful Neutral = "roleplaying disciplined", and that a feat "decietful" = "roleplaying deceitful". You can say all of the things you want about extra books providing more mechanical options, but if you believe that extra rules improves your ability to roleplay, then you are using rules as a roleplaying crutch... allowing the mechanics to take the place of roleplaying. I have also seen people that think that having a mechanically flawless realization of a specific concept = "good roleplaying". If you want to roleplay, you can do it with no rules or with any rules. Roleplaying is absolutely NOT related to rules. More rules might allow you to create mechanics for a character that closely matches your persional visualization of what the characters abilities and limitations are. More rules does not change a players ability to roleplay "cowardly", "Brave", "Greedy", "Honest", or anything else. Roleplaying and Mechanics(rules) are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT aspects of the realization of a character as brought to life by a player. If you want to argue that more books allows you to create a character that has just the right mechanics for what you envision, I cannot argue with that. If you want to argue that extra rulebooks sparks your imagination and inspires you to roleplay different types of characters than you would have imagined on your own, I cannot argue with that. You can argue that extra rulebooks are entertaining to read and add more dimensions to your roleplaying games. I will not argue with that. If you think that extra rules makes you a better roleplayer, then I think you are wrong, and I'd like to see someone prove that extra rules improves roleplaying. So far, all I've seen is people saying that extra rules = more specific mechanics, with the implication that you cannot roleplay something unless the mechanics support it. I have yet to see anyone say that a +5 will save should be roleplayed as "braver" than a +7 will save (or the converse), or that anyone who does either is somehow not roleplaying correctly.
olshanski_home 09-01-06, 12:37 PM	Well I think a lot of it has to do with actually having the abilities to back up your claims. If I create a charecter with just core who hunts arcane spellcasters he will often be easily defeated by the spellcasters he hunts. On the other hand if I create one using the occult slayer prestige class and the mage slayer (might not be the right name) feats my charecter would actually be capable of doing what he claims to be capable of. Basically it comes down to the fact that its silly to roleplay being able to do something the charecter actually can't do. What are you talking about here? Roleplaying= "my character has a hatred for arcane spellcasters, I do not trust them, I will attack them whenever I have a chance. Although my character is honest and loyal, I will lie if it means that I can thwart an arcane spellcaster. I would sacrifice my mother before I'd willingly help an arcane spellcaster". Rollplaying=having weapon and armor proficiency to attack arcane casters, defeating arcane casters in combat, having specific feats that give you SR, having feats that deny an arcane caster the ability to cast defensively. If I claim "My character brutus can kick the ass of any arcane caster". I am making a claim to the mechanics of the character. I am not "roleplaying" the character.
Solik 09-01-06, 12:42 PM	I would like to propose that the current incarnation of D&D spoils gamers and offers too many options. Why do players need so many different ways to realize what they've imagined? I don't get it. Why do they need to have their character concept actually reflected in the game mechanics? Just because someone wants to be a 'witch hunter' that doesn't mean they actually need to have abilities appropriate for such a concept (they could play Commoners and roleplay as witch-hunters just fine). There are plenty of skills available to accommodate this, and I will add more if need be, thus giving players more options, even though I said that I don't like options. I say bring back the days of all characters being the same and restore DM dominance to the game. Why does everyone seem to think that they should be able to create their own characters? Don't they realize that the DM's story is much more important than flexibility and options? Does an interesting character require that the abilities he possesses match his history and the training he's been through? I say no. Translated.
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 01:50 PM	Translated. Actually I prefer players to drive the story.
Richmud 09-01-06, 01:50 PM	What are you talking about here? Roleplaying= "my character has a hatred for arcane spellcasters, I do not trust them, I will attack them whenever I have a chance. Although my character is honest and loyal, I will lie if it means that I can thwart an arcane spellcaster. I would sacrifice my mother before I'd willingly help an arcane spellcaster". Rollplaying=having weapon and armor proficiency to attack arcane casters, defeating arcane casters in combat, having specific feats that give you SR, having feats that deny an arcane caster the ability to cast defensively. If I claim "My character brutus can kick the ass of any arcane caster". I am making a claim to the mechanics of the character. I am not "roleplaying" the character. Okay lets tell the life story of Brutus the arcane slayer(please note I'm not a very good writer and am trying to not be longwinded): Brutus was a the son of a simple farmer named Fred. He spent his youth on the family farm located a few miles outside of the City-State of Clape. When he was 14 a group of wizards known as the Servents of Vecna attacked Clape. When the wizards reached Fred's farm Fred hid his son in a closet where Brutus watched as the wizards used their deadly magic to brutally slay both his parents, luckily they did not search the house. Brutus was found a few hours latter by a group of soldiers that were helping to evacuate the city. From that day foward Brutus devoted his life to perfecting his techniques in fighting wizards and knew that he could not rest as long as a single member of the Servents of Vecna lived. Years latter Brutus has trained to his fullest he joined a group of adventurers with similar feelings towards the Servants of Vecna. After much difficulty and many trials the time of final battle nears, Brutus charges the leader of the Servents knowing that its finally time for him take his vengence. Now at this point our story branches, if Brutus is a core fighter its very unlikely he will win this fight. On the other hand if Brutus has been optimized to actually represent the training he has his chance of winning is much greater.
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 01:53 PM	UncleAthanas, The existance of these books (as others have pointed out) is a business decision. Modules aren't big in 3.x, so companies make their money publishing books. In 3.x, it is easier to make a good module because the combat system greatly limits the amount of writing necessary. Five to ten encounters gets you through a four hour session easy. However, as a DM, there is nothing wrong (or unusual) about selecting which books are allowed in your setting. Typically, these are the three core books and maybe a setting specific book. Just don't allow it. As to why many players see p-classes and supplimental stuff as necessary... I think this is more a reflections of the times. I think that the "MTV generation" are more used to instant gratification, instant choices, and getting exactly what they want. Video games made folks a lot more used to seeing the purpose of gaming as getting more and more powerful -- rather than a social game without winners or losers. Of course, more mature players realize that making more and more powerful characters just means fighting more powerful opponents, so you are never any further ahead. I think there is still a market for modules (which is probably why Wizards has moved into that area more). If they want to make lots of money, frankly they are in the wrong market. RPGs have never been a big money maker. I understand they want to stay afloat, but constant expansion of the game is only going to make the game less attractive to people who cannot afford to buy all the splat books.
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 01:54 PM	Well I think a lot of it has to do with actually having the abilities to back up your claims. If I create a charecter with just core who hunts arcane spellcasters he will often be easily defeated by the spellcasters he hunts. On the other hand if I create one using the occult slayer prestige class and the mage slayer (might not be the right name) feats my charecter would actually be capable of doing what he claims to be capable of. Basically it comes down to the fact that its silly to roleplay being able to do something the charecter actually can't do. Not if you are hunting mages you should be able to handle at your current level.
Solik 09-01-06, 01:55 PM	Focusing on modules buried TSR. Focusing on option expansion is making WotC a lot of money. When a company makes a lot of money, they are producing items that sufficient numbers of people want to buy. Not if you are hunting mages you should be able to handle at your current level. No straight Fighter can defeat any intelligent wizard of equal CR past level 6. Past level 14, fighters can't handle intelligent wizards several CRs below them.
olshanski_home 09-01-06, 02:34 PM	Okay lets tell the life story of Brutus the arcane slayer(please note I'm not a very good writer and am trying to not be longwinded): .... Now at this point our story branches, if Brutus is a core fighter its very unlikely he will win this fight. On the other hand if Brutus has been optimized to actually represent the training he has his chance of winning is much greater.Everything you have described is character background. Again, this is NOT roleplaying. Whether or not Brutus wins the fight is dependant on Roll-playing, not role-playing.. Roleplaying is your ability to sit at the table, and make decisions on how Brutus would interact with other people. How his attitude is changed by things he observes, what actions he chooses to take. With a background of mage-hating that you described above, you could just as easily roleplay "I choose to attack" whether you have a core fighter or a prestige mageslayer with feats XYZ from various supplements. The decision to attack is roleplaying. The results of attacking are purely mechanical roll-playing. This is dependant on feats, mechanics, luck, and various other elements within the DMs control. Winning the fight is not dependant on roleplaying.
Richmud 09-01-06, 02:40 PM	That does not hold true through 14th level. A core Ranger with favored Enemy - Humanoid Arcane Casters proved quite adept at killing evil wizards. It just took some effort IN PLAY. I could not waltz up to the wizards lair and call him out but had to "stake out" his place I'm confused here, I don't see how a ranger can have arcane casters as a favored enemy. If all the wizards in your campaign happen to be the same race it could work
Solik 09-01-06, 02:40 PM	That's a remarkably narrow view. Mechanics should complement the roleplay. I mean, you are your personality, but you are also what you can do. At the very base level, this is reflected in your statistics. The core books even offer suggestions on roleplaying inflections based on your stats. But your stats are for rollplay! They modify dice rolls! Likewise, character abilities should reflect character backstory. If there is no marriage between your roleplay and your mechanics, then you aren't roleplaying the character described on your character sheet. You've got two characters -- the free-form character you're roleplaying, and then the video game character you're using when you make dice rolls. Personally, I'd rather they match up as much as is possible.
Atirakis 09-01-06, 02:40 PM	Here I come to save the day! You need no mechanics whatsoever to be able to role play. You dont even need a game. You can just sit around and role play. More mechanics can however help some people role play more by giving their minds more things to imagine and role play out. More mechanics arent needed or for that matter even wanted by some groups. Thats ok for them. They are not required to buy them nor allow them in their games. More mechanics are what some groups live for. It actually encourages them to role play more things because they have more new things to try. Thats ok for them. They have plenty available and next month they will have even more. Getting defensive about either style indicates a lack of confidence that your style really is better. The truth is neither style is better and you need to accept that. Some people have fun playing just basic arch types. Some people have fun playing every new monster, class and prestige class that comes out. Both are fine as long as you dont try to be a DM and a PC at the same time. ;)
Solik 09-01-06, 02:41 PM	Here I come to save the day! Pfft. We give you one little victory in one thread and now you're all Superman ego. ;)
Atirakis 09-01-06, 02:44 PM	Pfft. We give you one little victory in one thread and now you're all Superman ego. ;) Ummm, Mighty Mouse! know your catch phrases :P :D
Richmud 09-01-06, 02:47 PM	Everything you have described is character background. Again, this is NOT roleplaying. Whether or not Brutus wins the fight is dependant on Roll-playing, not role-playing.. Roleplaying is your ability to sit at the table, and make decisions on how Brutus would interact with other people. How his attitude is changed by things he observes, what actions he chooses to take. With a background of mage-hating that you described above, you could just as easily roleplay "I choose to attack" whether you have a core fighter or a prestige mageslayer with feats XYZ from various supplements. The decision to attack is roleplaying. The results of attacking are purely mechanical roll-playing. This is dependant on feats, mechanics, luck, and various other elements within the DMs control. Winning the fight is not dependant on roleplaying. I have trouble understanding how one can roleplay a charecter who hates wizards so much that he trains specifically to kill them without reflecting it mechanically. Maybe its just me but I really don't want to use a charecter who can't do what I roleplay him being capable of. Furthering the example with Brutus, unless I am roleplaying his hatred as completely overriding any and all common sence he would never fight a high level wizard as a 20th level fighter probably can't be a 15th level wizard
Gyrofthewastes 09-01-06, 02:57 PM	Mechanics and role-playing are inextricably intertwined. I do believe some of you people need language lessons: From http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary Main Entry: role-play Pronunciation: 'rOl-"plA, -'plA Function: verb transitive verb 1 : to act out the role of <role-play a shy person> 2 : to represent in action <students were asked to role-play the thoughts and feelings of each character -- R. G. Lambert> intransitive verb : to play a role Note the specific phrases "act out", and "represent". Role-playing is NOT simply to conceive of a personality, psyche, motivations, etc. It is to SHOW said things to others. To act the interactions between roles. You can spew out any quantity of dialogue you imagine to be related or based on a character concept, but it is necessarily two-dimensional. Meaningless without some way to model other aspects of reality. Some traits are simple to display. Others not so simple. Let us take the case of a person who claims to be a great swordsman and challenges the entirety of some venue to single combat. What do we know of his character from his words? Nothing. Yet if his challenge is repeatedly accepted and he is easily overcome then we learn he is either delusional or naive and cocky. Or perhaps he defeats everyone handily, in which case he may be a person who states the direct, unvarnished truth. Character traits in the real world are not portrayed through claims but through actions and reactions. And these cannot be described without mechanics. I doubt many of you who praise free-form roleplay so much have any real experience with it. I do. It's terrible for roles because it quickly breaks down in the face of conflicting characters and character aims. Even in cases where characters DO NOT conflict, they are frequently shallower for the fact that RARELY do people willingly choose to make their alter egos venal, overblown, arrogant, cowardly, or otherwise generally flawed. Even in cases where mature and experienced RPers are acting out said roles.
Ongorth 09-01-06, 03:01 PM	Man, you play with a sad sample of free-formers. You weren't playing in a Pokeman freeform game where everyone was yelling, "Well, MY Mewtwo is level 100 too!" Even preschool kids can manage to do a decent roleplay of Star Wars (Cops and Robbers is dead) without an arguement.
Richmud 09-01-06, 03:06 PM	This brings up a question. If you want to do freeform roleplay why are you playing D&D?
OravennasBrother 09-01-06, 03:15 PM	I'm confused here, I don't see how a ranger can have arcane casters as a favored enemy. Easy; the DM approves Humanoid Arcane Casters as a Favored enemy - then you get your FE bonus against ANY humanoid who uses arcanse Spells. For the Example of "And here the story Diverges..." Well MY telling diverges a little earlier - instead of CHARGING the wizard and GIVING him a huge advantage, MY mageslayer sneaks up on the Wizard and kills him before he is aware. It works even better if the Wizard is ASLEEP and you can CDG with both 2 handed Power Attack and a big critical multiplier. There exist a wealth of tactics for making a Ranger a BANE of wizards, but anyone with the CRUTCH of a "SUPER DUPER MAGE KILLING CLASS" won't bother to deelope them.
lears_fool 09-01-06, 03:17 PM	Wow, kind of a feisty thread considering what the reality is. First of all, it is reasonable to state that, by definition, more options makes it easire for the players to create a character that most closely resembles their concept. There are some classes and prestige classes that do indeed have a distinct flair. And, having a more ideal 'mechanical' fit does indeed make it a little easier for the role-playing to flow. However, it's true that it's not NECESSARY. But that depends on the DM and players. A DM can tweak a class or prestige class to match a concept better if he so chooses, or can have the player build their character's persona around pre-existing ones. . with infinite variety. And, from a pure role-playing standpoint, the more role playing there is, the less necessary the details become (from a mechanic standpoint it could almost play like the Amber Diceless RPG, but of course we love our dice and never would go that far) ;) Personally, I have only two real concerns about all the new material, and both are easily addressed. 1 - with some of the new books (tome of magic, tome of battle, Incarnum, etc.) new mechanics are added and the complexity can potentially make it tougher for a GM to process. .leading to more risk of mistakes or less comfortable flow in combat. The solution there is to control what comes in, and make sure you're comfortable enough with the added rulesets that combat can flow nicely 2 - some feats/classes are more likely to invite min-maxing or even be perceieved as 'must have' feats or PRCs to the players, enough that it detracts from the development of the character or pushes players away from flavor and towards power Again, it's controllable by the GM, it's just a little more challenging, much in the same way that saying 'no, you can't have a jotenbrund half-ogre spiked chain weilding tripmonkey' even when it may be within the rules you're allowing And really aren't those the only really big issues? As GMs we're in charge, and just because a new book comes out doesn't mean it can be used by a player. . and as a player I'd never think that.
Solik 09-01-06, 03:20 PM	Well MY telling diverges a little earlier - instead of CHARGING the wizard and GIVING him a huge advantage, MY mageslayer sneaks up on the Wizard and kills him before he is aware. It works even better if the Wizard is ASLEEP and you can CDG with both 2 handed Power Attack and a big critical multiplier. It takes an incredibly stupid wizard (or a low-level one) to get caught in either of these situations by a fighter.
Richmud 09-01-06, 03:37 PM	Easy; the DM approves Humanoid Arcane Casters as a Favored enemy - then you get your FE bonus against ANY humanoid who uses arcanse Spells. In other words, you needed to optimize the charecter beyond core mechanics For the Example of "And here the story Diverges..." Well MY telling diverges a little earlier - instead of CHARGING the wizard and GIVING him a huge advantage, MY mageslayer sneaks up on the Wizard and kills him before he is aware. It works even better if the Wizard is ASLEEP and you can CDG with both 2 handed Power Attack and a big critical multiplier. There exist a wealth of tactics for making a Ranger a BANE of wizards, but anyone with the CRUTCH of a "SUPER DUPER MAGE KILLING CLASS" won't bother to deelope them. I usually figure a high level wizard who leads an orginization devoted to the god of secrets is often guarded against things like this. This would also be a case of having my concept conform to the mechanics rather then finding the mechanics that conform to my concept. If his time on the farm taught Brutus to use his strength and hard work to complete tasks rather then stealth and guile I would have to change my roleplay to use the mechanics you suggest
FellBlade 09-01-06, 03:45 PM	I would like to propose that the current incarnation of D&D spoils gamers and offers too many options. Why do players need so many prestige classes and feats? I don't get it. Why can't they do they need extra abilities to back up their character concept? Just because someone wants to be a 'witch hunter' that doesn't mean they need new class abilities to develop a witch hunter character (they could create such a character using most of the core classes). There are plenty of skills available to accommodate this. I say bring back limitations and restore sanity to the game. Why does everyone seem to think that you need special abilities to back up an interesting character idea? Can't someone be a normal fighter who happens to hunt witches? Or make and use your massive skill options to make a character who is specialized in witch hunting? Does an interesting character require funky abilities that are unique to him? I say no. AGREED its to bad people need rediculus builds to feel "special"
olshanski_home 09-01-06, 03:52 PM	Mechanics and role-playing are inextricably intertwined. I do believe some of you people need language lessons: From http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary Who do you think needs a language lesson? I mean, according to your source, there is no such thing as "rollplay", thus the term cannot possibly mean anything, nor is there any point to distinguishing between roleplaying and rollplaying. roleplay CAN mean a whole bunch of different things, many of them specific to bedrooms, diagnostics, and education, none of which matter for this discussion. When people who play DND distinguish between roleplay and rollplay, the two have very distinct meanings... neither of which are addressed in your reference to websters.
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 04:12 PM	Focusing on modules buried TSR. Focusing on option expansion is making WotC a lot of money. When a company makes a lot of money, they are producing items that sufficient numbers of people want to buy. No straight Fighter can defeat any intelligent wizard of equal CR past level 6. Past level 14, fighters can't handle intelligent wizards several CRs below them. I am not sure what buried TSR but I had always heard it was not the modules, but the dozens of rules expansions they released in the mid 90s coupled with the growth of Magic and White Wolf. Not sure you can simplify it as much as you did. I have heard that WoC is not making lots of money at the present time (why do you think 3.5 was released?) I would put that at about level nine. Most fighters can take the fireball and then destroy the wizards up close at that level. Wizards should be powerful like that. After that your correct. But powerful magic should beat the sword. Probably why there are not a lot of combat foused wizard hunters.
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 04:20 PM	Still say there are way too many options and not enough exploration of the basic classes. Most gamers I know spend several hundred dollars on these books (myself included) but only because they feel compelled to. I say: Simplify, simplify.
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 04:22 PM	. No straight Fighter can defeat any intelligent wizard of equal CR past level 6. Past level 14, fighters can't handle intelligent wizards several CRs below them. Thats why a smart mage huner will go after mages that are clearly weaker than him. I say, nothing wrong with wizards being hard to kill.
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 04:28 PM	How many of these stupid threads do you plan on starting? I count three, so far, including the Stormwind Fallacy thread, the Oldtimers thread (which was a barely concealed and largely failed attempt to gather other "oldtimers" together to rail against the prestige class system) and now this one. If you don't like options, ignore them. Start a core-book only game. That's what I did. If you like some of the options, allow only some. Talk to your group about the "problem" and come up with a solution... usually by delineating which supplements will be allowed in the campaign. I find it hard to believe that someone who managed to convince his entire gaming group to take competency exams as a prelude to determining mental abilities is unable to convince them to do without Races of the Dragon or whatever supplement(s) have gotten your goat. I am free to post threads that match what interests me. Where I am from, people talk about these issue. I see nothing wrong with raising them on a D&D message board. You do not have to like my views (or those of other oldtimers) just do not read our posts if you don't like them. Don't troll posts that you dislike.
wrecan 09-01-06, 04:29 PM	Most gamers I know spend several hundred dollars on these books (myself included) but only because they feel compelled to. I say: Simplify, simplify. That's got to be one of the silliest things I've ever seen on this board, and I judge the Drunk DM Competition! Nobody is twisting your arm to buy supplements. If you don't want to use supplements, don't use them. If "most gamers" you know are buying books you have no intention of using, why are you using them? Why are you buying them? Are you hynotized? Is there nicotine embedded in the pages? This argument is nonsense. You're a grown man. Don't blame WotC because you lack the self-control to avoid buying a supplement you don't want.
FellBlade 09-01-06, 04:29 PM	thats the trade off you face when choosing class (some of us still find it fun to not be good at everything!) 1st lv fighter will decimate a 1st lv wiz but in higher levels they are a force to be reckoned with of course you could just take the wizard cleric and fighter and take the best of everything and of course add all stats to all attack and damage rolls oh and of course have level + 10 in every skill.....:rant: (sorry i got carried away)
Richmud 09-01-06, 04:29 PM	Still say there are way too many options and not enough exploration of the basic classes. Most gamers I know spend several hundred dollars on these books (myself included) but only because they feel compelled to. I say: Simplify, simplify. Well I prefer options, I like knowing that I'll probably be able to find the mechanics to mesh with my next charecter's concept, or that I'll find some inspiration for a new charecter in the next book.
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 04:33 PM	That's got to be one of the silliest things I've ever seen on this board, and I judge the Drunk DM Competition! Nobody is twisting your arm to buy supplements. If you don't want to use supplements, don't use them. If "most gamers" you know are buying books you have no intention of using, why are you using them? Why are you buying them? Are you hynotized? Is there nicotine embedded in the pages? This argument is nonsense. You're a grown man. Don't blame WotC because you lack the self-control to avoid buying a supplement you don't want. I do not think it is nonsense. WIzards has used many dirty business tactics (like planning 3.5 from day one as mere revision and then making it incompatible with 3.0 because of slow sales). Everyone I see buys these books because you must to keep ahead (just like magic cards). They are overpriced, fill pages with super large print, and poorly edited. They are in a word, garbage. Your argument would make sense if people did not play in groups. But one person in the group eventually picks up a new supplement and then everyone else feels they must too.
lears_fool 09-01-06, 04:34 PM	Still say there are way too many options and not enough exploration of the basic classes. Most gamers I know spend several hundred dollars on these books (myself included) but only because they feel compelled to. I say: Simplify, simplify. I'm of two minds on this. On one hand, some prestige classes do indeed add quite a bit of flavor to base classes and allow players to combine concept and mechanic in ways that would require a lot more work to modify a regular class ad hoc. Plus they're generally fairly well tested for balance. Just looking at Races of Stone for example, the Blade Bravo, Divine Prankster, Iron Mind, Runesmith, and Shadowcraft Mage all jump out as clases that I've seen players use well and enhance the flavor quite well over what a typical base class would offer. . and the mechanics suited the flavor quite well. On the other hand, as a GM I'd generally allow only one 'new mechanic' . .and generally only one that fits the campaign (i.e. from Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, Magic of Incarnum). While certainly the Incarnum clases and mechanics are great fun. . and the Tome of Battle does indeed add some fun flair to the fighter side of things . . it honestly can be a bit much. But again, the solution's the GMs. You allow what you want. Nobody's telling you what to allow and what not to allow in your game. You can allow everything or nothing, or pick and choose to your heart's content. So the additional books are never a limitation or a hinderance.
Vestigial_Thumb 09-01-06, 04:38 PM	AGREED its to bad people need rediculus builds to feel "special" Ridiculous? How so? I once wanted to build a Hexblade under some DM. The rat told me to play a Fighter/Sorcerer multiclass focusing on Necromancy. I kicked him in the shin. That rat. Why? Because I was going to seriously suck. The concept would be way off, I would have sucked even more at melee than an actual Hexlade (which doesn't suck that much, but it's not that good either), I would have cast Arcane spells which were not drawn from the Hexblade spell list, but not in armor. In other words, I was going to die. Besides, I was only trying this group out (my regular group were on a break and I wanted to keep playing). Banning a Splatbook user from using nonCore material is like trying to force an addict to stay off drugs. But I digress... Please elaborate on how the builds have to be ridiculous.
starfire311 09-01-06, 04:42 PM	Roleplaying is your ability to sit at the table, and make decisions on how Brutus would interact with other people. How his attitude is changed by things he observes, what actions he chooses to take. . this is very true, but you want the actual mechanics to support your roleplaying as much as possible. for example say I want to roleplay an elderly human wizard that dispenses sage advice and is very kind and is always willing to give of himself to help others in need... and this is exactly how I will RP my character... now let's look at my character sheet it says Strength 20, dex 14, con 16, Int 8, Wis 8, cha 8 16 YO, Chaotic Evil Half-orc Barbarian you say that this is perfectly acceptable because the roleplaying is seperate from the mechanics...and subscribing to that philosophy I can RP my half-orc barbarian as a human wizard... and I can RP I can do a great job RPing the human sage... problem is that is not my character... it would be much better for roleplaying if the mechanics actually supported what I am trying to RP.
FellBlade 09-01-06, 04:43 PM	well i am sorry you akin youself to a violent drug adicted munckin i had one player tell me he needed 3 variants to play a "greyhawk palidin" i remember playing greyhawk when my class was dwarf in short all i am saying is that I personaly find the game more fufilling without all the options (some are nice, but in moderation)
Vestigial_Thumb 09-01-06, 04:44 PM	Everyone I see buys these books because you must to keep ahead (just like magic cards). How dare you compare D&D to Magic? It's a lot more balanced and straight forward. They are overpriced, fill pages with super large print, and poorly edited. No, no and no. The price you pay is something like, what, a quarter a page. The print is also very normally sized. And they are excellently edited, balanced and very much worth their money. They are in a word, garbage. Yo' grandma's garbage. /Icelandic trash-talk But one person in the group eventually picks up a new supplement and then everyone else feels they must too. Or, you know, they lend them to each other. Or even break copyrights and send material over the msn. Face reality, sharing material is easy.
Vestigial_Thumb 09-01-06, 04:45 PM	well i am sorry you akin youself to a violent drug adicted munckin Just address the point, please. :shifty: EDIT: Whoa! Whoa! Munchkin? Do you have any idea of how insulting that is? Being a Powergamer does not mean you're a Munchkin. I'll have you know that I'm also a kickass roleplayer. I put a lot of work into my characters and try not to make them clichés (which is more than I have seen from any of the hardcore roleplayers I know (I know a lot of them. There seems to be a stigma in Iceland about being a powergamer)). I also take pride in my self-control when it comes to characterbuilding. Any DM can trust me not to ruin his game.
Eled_the_Worm_Tamer 09-01-06, 04:46 PM	Are the extra options needed? that depaends. I've ran campeghns quite adaquately with nothing but the 3 core. But Ive been Dming and playing for close to 16 years now, and I crave variety. Yes I could crank out another Wizard 20, but it gets incresingly hard to make taht Wizard 20 feel diferent to that Wizard 20, or the wizard 20 in a nearby kingdom. As a GM players get to anticipate tactics more redaly too. Hitting them with a Frensyed bererker rather than a straight Barabarian, or playing an argent savant / Archmage gives variety. For experenced players and Dms the new rules feats and Prcs open up new options, new apraches to play and fresh chalenges A totemist will have a very diffent past and expereance of the setting than a ranger or Druid leading to a very different rollplaying expereance. A pale master is a very different foe than a dread necromancer, needing new tactics to defaet and having there own very different paths to those dark powers. Frankly theres only so often I can build a pure core charicter iether as a player or Dm, before they all start to run together. For the long term players, the ones who buy the books and suport WotC moast agresavely new content, new rules rather than modules are a better option. An adventure how ever well written can only be played the first time once, how ever loved. A new Prc or feat can be used over and over if properly handled becase it it one of an ever increasing number of tools for making our own storys.
Richmud 09-01-06, 04:48 PM	Thats why a smart mage huner will go after mages that are clearly weaker than him. I say, nothing wrong with wizards being hard to kill. Your right there is nothing wrong with wizards being hard to kill. However its awfully silly that if you devote your charecter to training in ways to defeat wizards and he still finds it nearly impossible for him to do so against a level approriate enemy
starfire311 09-01-06, 04:51 PM	I do not think it is nonsense. WIzards has used many dirty business tactics (like planning 3.5 from day one as mere revision and then making it incompatible with 3.0 because of slow sales). Everyone I see buys these books because you must to keep ahead (just like magic cards). They are overpriced, fill pages with super large print, and poorly edited. They are in a word, garbage. Your argument would make sense if people did not play in groups. But one person in the group eventually picks up a new supplement and then everyone else feels they must too. huh, I play in a group with 6 other players... 4 of those players only have 3.5 PHB 1 of the guys has 3.5 PHB, DMG, MM and 2 or 3 splatbooks, another guy and me have every 3.5 splatbook printed... the 5 people that don't have those books have never shown any interest in buying them... they ask me what is in them when I get them Ilet them know and they are free to flip through them or borrow them anytime they want, and I will always offer suggestions from them that may help with their character concept.
lears_fool 09-01-06, 04:53 PM	Your right there is nothing wrong with wizards being hard to kill. However its awfully silly that if you devote your charecter to training in ways to defeat wizards and he still finds it nearly impossible for him to do so against a level approriate enemy :) and THAT'S where the GM comes in. If the concept is a fit for the campaign, then we need rules that actually make sense. Whether it's an ad-hoc thing put together by the DM, or a prestige class from an expansion book. And given that concept then it's beyond logical to have that player have a specific advantage against wizardy types. That's the good thing about good expansions and good GMs. You can either take something pre-built, tweak it a bit, or start from scratch. Make the rules fit the concept and the game flows beautifullly. And if they don't. .you're absolutely right. . it's somewhat jarring when your character that's role played (and agreed upon by the DM) as a character competent and skilled at mage-slaying actually ISN'T due to rule limitations.
Richmud 09-01-06, 04:53 PM	. Your argument would make sense if people did not play in groups. But one person in the group eventually picks up a new supplement and then everyone else feels they must too. Actually the groups I've played in work the opposite of that, if one of us buys a book the rest of us know not to buy it as we simply share the books. So that certainly isn't true for all groups
wrecan 09-01-06, 04:59 PM	I do not think it is nonsense. WIzards has used many dirty business tactics (like planning 3.5 from day one as mere revision and then making it incompatible with 3.0 because of slow sales). Everyone I see buys these books because you must to keep ahead (just like magic cards). They are overpriced, fill pages with super large print, and poorly edited. They are in a word, garbage. Your argument would make sense if people did not play in groups. But one person in the group eventually picks up a new supplement and then everyone else feels they must too. Yes, what you just wrote is nonsense. It presumes that you and your friends are utterly incapable of saying no. Unlike Magic, D&D is a game played by a handful of friends. There is nothing WotC can do to stop you from telling "one person in the group" that he can't bring the new supplement he picked up. The only thing that makes you a slave to WotC is your own apparent inability to tell your friends that you don't feel like wasting your money on yet another supplement.
FellBlade 09-01-06, 05:00 PM	Whoa! Whoa! Munchkin? Do you have any idea of how insulting that is? Being a Powergamer does not mean you're a Munchkin. I'll have you know that I'm also a kickass roleplayer. I put a lot of work into my characters and try not to make them clichés (which is more than I have seen from any of the hardcore roleplayers I know (I know a lot of them. There seems to be a stigma in Iceland about being a powergamer)). I also take pride in my self-control when it comes to characterbuilding. Any DM can trust me not to ruin his game. wow i didnt know that it was imposible to insult someone over the internet if it makes you feel better you can kick me in the shin or how about you just call me a rat (i dont think it will help though *cough*avitar*cough*) anyways now that i got my smartA** streak over with i appologise, i have never played with you before and therefore have no right to call you a "munchkin"
Reinforcements 09-01-06, 05:04 PM	I do not think it is nonsense. WIzards has used many dirty business tactics (like planning 3.5 from day one as mere revision and then making it incompatible with 3.0 because of slow sales). Everyone I see buys these books because you must to keep ahead (just like magic cards). They are overpriced, fill pages with super large print, and poorly edited. They are in a word, garbage. Your argument would make sense if people did not play in groups. But one person in the group eventually picks up a new supplement and then everyone else feels they must too. Bull. The reason people must keep buying Magic: The Gathering cards is because it's a competitive game, and because many tournaments only use more recent cards (that is "Type 2", which means nothing if you don't play Magic). This is why I got out of it, actually - too expensive. The same principle does not apply to Dungeons and Dragons, which is NOT competitive and there's no reason to buy a book just because a buddy did. There isn't anything to "keep ahead" of. As for the books being "overpriced garbage," that's your opinion, but if you're out there buying books you don't want to buy, it's also your problem. Yo' grandma's garbage. /Icelandic trash-talk Snap!
Vestigial_Thumb 09-01-06, 05:06 PM	wow i didnt know that it was imposible to insult someone over the internet if it makes you feel better you can kick me in the shin or how about you just call me a rat (i dont think it will help though *cough*avitar*cough*) anyways now that i got my smartA** streak over with i appologise, i have never played with you before and therefore have no right to call you a "munchkin" Woohoo! I like you again!:cheer: Since I can't kick you in the shin (not that I want to. It's just that you offered...), I'll kick the only one that's with me in the house... My mother!
Atirakis 09-01-06, 05:14 PM	I do not think it is nonsense. WIzards has used many dirty business tactics (like planning 3.5 from day one as mere revision and then making it incompatible with 3.0 because of slow sales). Dirty business? Incompatible? First you know nothing of business ethics if you think that was dirty. Secondly it is hardly "incompatible" I use many things from 3.0 still in 3.5 You could do the same in reverse. That wouldnt be possible if they were "incompatible" :rolleyes: Everyone I see buys these books because you must to keep ahead (just like magic cards). Unlike magic cards you need only buy the three core books in order to play. After that its up to you how much you allow into your game. Now the minis on the other hand are just like magic cards. Randomly packaged, overpriced and I for one wont buy them untill singles are made available like they should have been from day one! They are overpriced, fill pages with super large print, and poorly edited. They are in a word, garbage. Now that I agree with you on, for the most part they are hurrying these products out the door and it leads to some shoddy books. Some gems still get through though. The PHB 2 being a superb example. Your argument would make sense if people did not play in groups. But one person in the group eventually picks up a new supplement and then everyone else feels they must too. :uh-huh: First in my group if one person picks something up it goes in the groups library where everyone has access. Secondly what are you a mindless sheep? You have to get Races of the Dragon because one of your players did? Just tell him its not allowed and thats the end of it.
shadowfox628 09-01-06, 05:19 PM	Of course you can build a fighter/rogue/wizard specialized in enchantment spells, but the bard gets your point across easier. "Isn't that needlessly complicated?" Now, to be serious, I look through the source books quite often. I really haven't used any of their classes, though I've always wanted to try out Swashbuckler, possibly multiclassed in with Rogue, because it compliments my style of play. Finesse melee weapons with some flare added in (yay Acrobatic Charge!). Sure, I could make a Rogue and do the same, add in Weapon Finesse, specialize in Tumbling, possibly Jump and Climb, etc., but the Swashbuckler, as a class, provides non-core things, and also add a bit more flare.
revnk 09-01-06, 05:35 PM	I am not sure what buried TSR but I had always heard it was not the modules, but the dozens of rules expansions they released in the mid 90s coupled with the growth of Magic and White Wolf. Not sure you can simplify it as much as you did. What killed TSR is well-documented here (http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/539/539197p4.html) through most of this section (http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/539/539628p1.html) (unfortunately, the article is divided into several chunks, and TSR's problems start halfway through Part II and continue into the Williams era in Part III). It wasn't precisely the number of rules expansions (although that hurt) or the competition from Wizards and White Wolf (although that didn't help, either): it was a combination of factors that included those factors along with a great deal of mismanagement (financial and personnel-wise). I do not think it is nonsense. WIzards has used many dirty business tactics (like planning 3.5 from day one as mere revision and then making it incompatible with 3.0 because of slow sales). Everyone I see buys these books because you must to keep ahead (just like magic cards). They are overpriced, fill pages with super large print, and poorly edited. They are in a word, garbage. Your argument would make sense if people did not play in groups. But one person in the group eventually picks up a new supplement and then everyone else feels they must too. :thinks: What? :thinks: I'm not aware of any evidence that 3.5 was planned from Day One, although I'm not privvy to Wizards' business plan. I am aware that Wizards has posted PDF files on this website for every single supplement using the 3.0 system to port it over to the changes made for 3.5 (although I started 3.x with 3.5, I've found the supplements quite useful for the Monster Manual II and Fiend Folio). Those PDFs are free, by the way, and an example of how the internet has improved our hobby (when I was a kid, you would have been forced to buy a new book to keep up). In fact, Wizards' habit of posting regular free PDF conversion/errata/FAQ files on their website is exactly the opposite approach of the dirty trick that TSR pulled when it published Second Edition in '89. Gygax had been booted from the company, sales were down--in an attempt to boost sales and eliminate Gygax's name from the game's credits (and perhaps cut down on any royalties he might have been due), Second Edition was published as an unnecessary set of rules changes that required players to either purchase entirely new sets of books or to stick with an obsolete system (unfortunately for TSR's bottom line, many "1E" players declined to take the bait--I personally don't know anybody who converted to Second Edition although I'm sure a few such people are out there). As to your argument of "escalation," sorry you have a dysfunctional group. In any group of any game I've ever played with or refereed for, from 1E AD&D at the beginning of the '80s to the present, I have never seen a group where anyone followed a "he bought it, thus I must" approach. Hey, I'm sure it happens. Personally, I think it's unhealthy and I'm glad it's not my group, you know? In any event, it's certainly the prerogative of the DM to decide whether a supplement is allowed or not. For that matter, it's the prerogative of an individual to decide whether he's going to slavishly imitate his peers and spend $35 on a book he doesn't want. My current gaming group includes one "collector" who buys everything that comes out, one "I'll buy what I like and ____ the rest" (myself), one fellow 1E veteran who finally bought the PHB so he'd have one, another 1E or 2E vet who hasn't bought any books and a new roleplayer who also doesn't have any books. (The collector was that way before the group formed. As for myself, coming from the old school where maybe one guy bought the game and is probably the DM, I really don't care if anyone owns books or not. It's convenient if they do, but unnecessary.) As the DM, I buy the books I think I need and decide if or how they'll be incorporated. (I also decide whether I'm buying new or aftermarket--the internet not only brings us downloadable FAQs, but a website called "eBay" where people who don't want their books sometimes decide to sell them; with disciplined bidding, you can usually save 50%-75% on a preowned book in decent condition. Thanks, internet!) If a player owns a book I don't, it's not coming in. Sorry. (I know some people on these boards would have a problem with that. Well, good news! We're not gaming together! Yay, us!) Look, there are problems with some things Wizards does. I wish they'd pimp the minis less, especially where the all-but-defunct-no-it's-really-not-dead-it's-just-gone-to-live-on-a-farm-where-there-are-bunnies d20 Star Wars line. But your critique is ill-informed and/or simply incorrect. If you're going to hack on Wizards, at least pick a legitimate beef. EDIT: Look: it's a webpage with the downloadable 3.5 conversion files (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20030718a)! Uncle revnk looks out for ya', kids! OH, AND SOMETHING ELSE: I meant to say this above but got carried away. If you open up the 3.x PHB and DMG (and possibly other volumes), and look on the "credits" page, you'll notice that eeeevil Wizards has done something awful: the creation of D&D is credited to Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson! No, wait. That's not evil at all. That's quite nice of the company and probably not legally necessary at all at this point. (I'm quite sure it's unnecessary to credit Arneson, whose exit-agreement with TSR--or so it's been said--thoroughly bought him out. As for Gygax, I'm not sure how thoroughly he was bought out, but I'm under the impression that TSR owed him squat.)
The Soul Collector 09-01-06, 05:36 PM	I believe having so many options helps to set D&D apart from video games. I love it since its complaments my imagination, helping it to go along so many tangents. The greatest part is if you want to limit your options to keep things simple, you're free to do so.
Comus 09-01-06, 05:44 PM	BrotherMarcus... I mean UncleAthanas (sorry, similar names, same avatar - gets me so confused at times) does have one point I agree with. There are a lot of things in the splat books that aren't needed. However, there are also some things that simply aren't viable character builds in pure core. I agree with what people have said - there's a lot you can do with just the core classes by changing the flavor around. A monk could be a boxer, or the traditonal martial artist, or some kind of bizarre shapechanger (read on these boards somewhere that a DM ran an NPC monk and explained all his abilities as body-morphing oddities - great idea!) A fighter could be an army private, or a gladiator, or a professional wrestler. But what about the Swashbuckler or the Duskblade? There are two concepts right there that didn't have support until splatbooks gave them it. The other core classes I could mostly do without (especially the oriental flavored ones - OA does it better), but they're still options. I know I'm restating things that people have said before, but here's my question to people who think that you should be able to roleplay any concept with the core rules: Would you ever choose to roleplay a concept that you knew was mechanically inferior to the baseline? A swashbuckler can be made with a fighter using correct feat choices, but it's going to be weaker than just stapping on fullplate and swinging a greatsword with power attack. A multiclass Fighter/Wizard isn't going to be as good with spells or fighting as a Hexblade or Duskblade. I know you're instantly tempted to just say yes, but have you ever done so in a real game? If so, please tell me about it.
Solik 09-01-06, 05:53 PM	Still say there are way too many options and not enough exploration of the basic classes. Exploration on the part of WotC or on the part of players? WotC constantly explores the base classes with new ideas, variants, and other such things. PHB II has a ton of this, as does Unearthed Arcana. The Races series also had racial substitution levels for the base classes. If it's on the part of the players? I'll play D&D my way, thanks.
Atirakis 09-01-06, 05:54 PM	I'll play D&D my way, thanks. Me too!
revnk 09-01-06, 06:09 PM	I'll play D&D my way, thanks. No, no, no! There's only one way to play D&D. Anything else leads unspeakable horrors from beyond the grave that no man was meant to suffer. Oh wait, you said "play D&D." I thought you said "desecrate the resting place of one of my ancestors so that I could raise him from the dead and use his evil sorcerous knowledge to obtain power beyond the wildest dreams of you puny, unimaginative fools." Well. That's different, then. Carry on.
Atirakis 09-01-06, 06:14 PM	No, no, no! There's only one way to play D&D. Anything else leads unspeakable horrors from beyond the grave that no man was meant to suffer. And as we are all aware that one right way is of course Atirakis' way :D
The Soul Collector 09-01-06, 06:34 PM	Ahhh, that's the great thing about D&D that escapes so many. It's anything you want it to be.
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 06:39 PM	Or, you know, they lend them to each other. Or even break copyrights and send material over the msn. Face reality, sharing material is easy. I will not commit a crime to gain access to reading material. Lending does not work that well. You really need the book on hand for it to be useful.
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 06:41 PM	Bull. The reason people must keep buying Magic: The Gathering cards is because it's a competitive game, and because many tournaments only use more recent cards (that is "Type 2", which means nothing if you don't play Magic). This is why I got out of it, actually - too expensive. The same principle does not apply to Dungeons and Dragons, which is NOT competitive and there's no reason to buy a book just because a buddy did. There isn't anything to "keep ahead" of. As for the books being "overpriced garbage," that's your opinion, but if you're out there buying books you don't want to buy, it's also your problem. Snap! You don't feel that D&D has become more competitive since Wizards came along? In my view it has.
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 06:45 PM	:thinks: What? :thinks: I'm not aware of any evidence that 3.5 was planned from Day One, although I'm not privvy to Wizards' business plan. I am aware that Wizards has posted PDF files on this website for every single supplement using the 3.0 system to port it over to the changes made for 3.5 (although I started 3.x with 3.5, I've found the supplements quite useful for the Monster Manual II and Fiend Folio). Those PDFs are free, by the way, and an example of how the internet has improved our hobby (when I was a kid, you would have been forced to buy a new book to keep up). .) Read Monte Cook's review of 3.5 Anyone who think 3.0 and 3.5 are compatible is just wrong.
Richmud 09-01-06, 06:45 PM	Lending does not work that well. You really need the book on hand for it to be useful. My group has never had any trouble with lending and sharing, though we generally make our charecters together during a presession when we start a new campaign so we just pass the books around the table as needed
Richmud 09-01-06, 06:45 PM	Read Monte Cook's review of 3.5 Anyone who think 3.0 and 3.5 are compatible is just wrong. Can you please link to this, thank you in advance
Atirakis 09-01-06, 06:47 PM	Anyone who think 3.0 and 3.5 are compatible is just wrong. No you are. I use 3.0 material that hasnt been updated (Deepwood Sniper) in my 3.5 campaign. You speak of what you do not know and it is making you appear ignorant.
Cifer 09-01-06, 06:51 PM	I will not commit a crime to gain access to reading material. I'm not quite sure about copyright laws in other countries, but I believe it to be legal to copy small portions for private purposes. You think Wizards will sue you because you photocopied a single page of their works or wrote down the specifics of a feat? There is such thing as bagatelle... Lending does not work that well. You really need the book on hand for it to be useful. Why is it? If I have a book like Complete Warrior, I can get maybe five feats (that are easily written down) and a class (whose specifics I can request from the owner of the book when I level up) out of it. It's not like you have to have it every second for your feats to be useable...
revnk 09-01-06, 06:59 PM	Read Monte Cook's review of 3.5 Anyone who think 3.0 and 3.5 are compatible is just wrong. I included a link to a webpage that includes downloadable PDFs from the game's publisher that tell you what needs to be changed to make 3.0 compatible with 3.5. You tell me the publisher is wrong and cite an unlinked, untitled, unspecified review--granted it's a review by an author involved in 3.0, still. And while I am insufficiently interested to go hunting for that review, I would have to assume that either Mr. Cook doesn't say 3.0 and 3.5 are incompatible or that he is simply wrong: I have used material from Mr. Cook's 3.0 Book Of Vile Darkness in a 3.5 campaign with no discernable problems. (Selectively used, yes: BoVD isn't a particularly good tome, but it has its uses. Oh, and it's one I bought used on eBay.) As Evil Willow liked to say on Buffy, "Bored now." I wonder if you'd be "Dave Grohl" if Cockney rhyming slang covered a certain internet beastie. Speaking of rhyming slang: this thread has always been a pirate ship, hasn't it? Bored now....
Vestigial_Thumb 09-01-06, 06:59 PM	I'm not quite sure about copyright laws in other countries, but I believe it to be legal to copy small portions for private purposes. You think Wizards will sue you because you photocopied a single page of their works or wrote down the specifics of a feat? There is such thing as bagatelle... Exactly. While I don't write up whole sections of a book, I am willing to send information on feats to friends via MSN so they can also use it. It helps keep things running smooth when everyone isn't badgering everyone else about what some feat does, or where the PrC comes from.
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 07:05 PM	Can you please link to this, thank you in advance Why do I need to link this? Read the books and you will see that I am write. Or look up Monte Cooks review yourself. Not hard to do.
revnk 09-01-06, 07:13 PM	Why do I need to link this? Read the books and you will see that I am write. Or look up Monte Cooks review yourself. Not hard to do. Because I don't believe you. Because I'm just that lazy. Because I was taught in college and law school to cite my claims. Because I had the courtesy to link you to support for the things I wrote, including offsite articles. Because I think you're just spewing off now. Because I'm calling shenanigans. Because I don't necessarily care what a jaded game designer has to say about his former co-workers--at least I don't care enough to spend 5 minutes googling something that is either in error (3.0 is compatible with 3.5) or doesn't say what you say it does. No, you don't need to provide a link. And I don't need to take you seriously until you do. Okay, still bored. I'm off to have a nice dinner somewhere. Goodnight, Dave.
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 07:14 PM	Because I don't believe you. Because I'm just that lazy. Because I was taught in college and law school to cite my claims. Because I had the courtesy to link you to support for the things I wrote, including offsite articles. Because I think you're just spewing off now. Because I'm calling shenanigans. Because I don't necessarily care what a jaded game designer has to say about his former co-workers--at least I don't care enough to spend 5 minutes googling something that is either in error (3.0 is compatible with 3.5) or doesn't say what you say it does. No, you don't need to provide a link. And I don't need to take you seriously until you do. Okay, still bored. I'm off to have a nice dinner somewhere. Goodnight, Dave. Sounds like you don't want to listen.
revnk 09-01-06, 07:17 PM	Sounds like you don't want to listen. Still don't see a link.... Now I'm off to my supper.
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 07:18 PM	Still don't see a link.... Now I'm off to my supper. Sent you the link by private. Don't like putting links on my messages. Not a student writing a paper.
Archangel62 09-01-06, 07:24 PM	I would like to propose that the current incarnation of D&D spoils gamers and offers too many options. Why do players need so many prestige classes and feats? I don't get it. Why can't they do they need extra abilities to back up their character concept? Just because someone wants to be a 'witch hunter' that doesn't mean they need new class abilities to develop a witch hunter character (they could create such a character using most of the core classes). There are plenty of skills available to accommodate this. I say bring back limitations and restore sanity to the game. Why does everyone seem to think that you need special abilities to back up an interesting character idea? Can't someone be a normal fighter who happens to hunt witches? Or make and use your massive skill options to make a character who is specialized in witch hunting? Does an interesting character require funky abilities that are unique to him? I say no. Wow, I feel amused, you couldn't respond to me in a thread with context so you used the mage slayer example that I created as a catalyst here and it makes you look even more ignorant. Still though, I do believe that I started you on this particular thread so I can laugh about it. Anyway, things like a mage slayer are impossible if you aren't going to be some form of caster yourself. You could theoretically use a monk but that only works if the wizard isn't being played tactically or if you manage to somehow ambush them...which is highly improbable. The mage slayer is a concept that exists in fantasy, and to be honest a lot of the stuff out there is quite interesting to me. I use psionics, Incarnum, Tome of Magic, and once I get it I plan to also include the tome of battle in my campaigns. Besides, I suppose that you would also support that DMs should be simply content with the monster manual, that they shouldn't need or want these other supplemental books that provide new monsters and NPCs correct?
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 07:27 PM	Wow, I feel amused, you couldn't respond to me in a thread with context so you used the mage slayer example that I created as a catalyst here and it makes you look even more ignorant. Still though, I do believe that I started you on this particular thread so I can laugh about it. Anyway, things like a mage slayer are impossible if you aren't going to be some form of caster yourself. You could theoretically use a monk but that only works if the wizard isn't being played tactically or if you manage to somehow ambush them...which is highly improbable. The mage slayer is a concept that exists in fantasy, and to be honest a lot of the stuff out there is quite interesting to me. I use psionics, Incarnum, Tome of Magic, and once I get it I plan to also include the tome of battle in my campaigns. Besides, I suppose that you would also support that DMs should be simply content with the monster manual, that they shouldn't need or want these other supplemental books that provide new monsters and NPCs correct? How did I fail to respond? Which post are you talking about? Just trying to inflate your own ego?
OravennasBrother 09-01-06, 07:29 PM	In other words, you needed to optimize the charecter beyond core mechanics NO I just needed a DM to use Rule 0 - I asked him to have FE Arcane Caster Humanoid and teh DM used Rule 0 to say SUre. Now given that the campaign was HEAVILLY human-centric, I could have taken FE - Humans and had 99%+ of the benefit against Casters (less than 1% were not human and most of those were undead) and for a FREE Added bonus had the benfit against EVERY OTHER HUMAN. Sure if one uses RULE 0 to state "Wizards can NEVER be taken unawares" then you get the problem that Fighters are at a severe disadvantage against casters, but in play, using all my tricks, wizards are NOT the uber l33t dominance engines so many posters imply.
Archangel62 09-01-06, 07:34 PM	How did I fail to respond? Which post are you talking about? Just trying to inflate your own ego? Well, you specifically mentioned a witch slayer. In my post on the old timer thread. I mentioned that a player of mine used 4 classes to create an effective mage slayer that he RPd well and gave a backstory for it. You never responded to it, my earlier assumption was that you hadn't read it but I also noticed the witch slayer mentioned here, so I wonder. It's certainly possible that I'm wrong, but given your track record so far it seems more likely that I am correct. And no, it's not a matter of ego, just that I've noticed you rarely respond to me, come to think of it BrotherMarcus stopped doing it too because I could usually beat him in debate and when he (or you) saw that they were outmanuevered they resorted to name calling, taking things out of context, or just ignoring the arguments. Honestly I have fun with this because I'm half convinced you're really someone that's pro-powergamer that's trying to get people angry at DMs who limit. The post itself is here http://community.wizards.com./showpost.php?p=9960135&postcount=151
Archangel62 09-01-06, 07:36 PM	NO I just needed a DM to use Rule 0 - I asked him to have FE Arcane Caster Humanoid and teh DM used Rule 0 to say SUre. Now given that the campaign was HEAVILLY human-centric, I could have taken FE - Humans and had 99%+ of the benefit against Casters (less than 1% were not human and most of those were undead) and for a FREE Added bonus had the benfit against EVERY OTHER HUMAN. Sure if one uses RULE 0 to state "Wizards can NEVER be taken unawares" then you get the problem that Fighters are at a severe disadvantage against casters, but in play, using all my tricks, wizards are NOT the uber l33t dominance engines so many posters imply. Actually if they play their intelligence they should be. Assuming a world where people can train to become mage killers and the fact that some casters would be willing to kill one another to get to see a spellbook. And the sorts of enemies a caster can create over a lifetime scrying protections, wards, things like that. Generally speaking wizards are almost completely impossible to catch unawares if played correctly.
lears_fool 09-01-06, 07:38 PM	Sent you the link by private. Don't like putting links on my messages. Not a student writing a paper. Oh no! How awful it would be to include a link to a public site I already described in public in case others are curious That may be the strangest and most irrational post I've yet to read. As for the 'incompatibility'. Yes, there very much are differences. Psionics were changed tremendously (and for the better) and other aspects were changed as well (no taking one level of ranger to get all the benefits. .same with bard, etc.) And all the compatability issues are documented in easy-to-print PDFs that are free to download, and the PHB, DMG, MM, and PsiHB are all freely available online as part of the SRD. You can intelligently convert 3.0 PrCs yourself (barely any changes needed generally) from extraneous materal. Nuff said
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 07:38 PM	Well, you specifically mentioned a witch slayer. In my post on the old timer thread. I mentioned that a player of mine used 4 classes to create an effective mage slayer that he RPd well and gave a backstory for it. You never responded to it, my earlier assumption was that you hadn't read it but I also noticed the witch slayer mentioned here, so I wonder. It's certainly possible that I'm wrong, but given your track record so far it seems more likely that I am correct. And no, it's not a matter of ego, just that I've noticed you rarely respond to me, come to think of it BrotherMarcus stopped doing it too because I could usually beat him in debate and when he (or you) saw that they were outmanuevered they resorted to name calling, taking things out of context, or just ignoring the arguments. Honestly I have fun with this because I'm half convinced you're really someone that's pro-powergamer that's trying to get people angry at DMs who limit. The post itself is here First off, I have tried to respond to every post possible on my thread. I have seen many who show more promise as a future debate team captain than you. If I missed you i am sorry. The Witch Hunter could have lodged in my min after reading your post. If I failed to respond it was only because I was distracted by a more interesting post.
lears_fool 09-01-06, 07:41 PM	Actually if they play their intelligence they should be. Assuming a world where people can train to become mage killers and the fact that some casters would be willing to kill one another to get to see a spellbook. And the sorts of enemies a caster can create over a lifetime scrying protections, wards, things like that. Generally speaking wizards are almost completely impossible to catch unawares if played correctly. I honestly wouldn't go that far. If a wizard is obsessive and paranoid then for a time he indeed would be difficult to catch unawares, however human nature and reality prove that very few individuals are able to maintain such things for extended durations. People slip, decide things are unimportant or unlikely. .people find ways around things. .the list goes on and on. If you play all the characters in a world realistically, then all will have plenty of strengths and plenty of weaknesses
Archangel62 09-01-06, 07:43 PM	First off, I have tried to respond to every post possible on my thread. I have seen many who show more promise as a future debate team captain than you. If I missed you i am sorry. The Witch Hunter could have lodged in my min after reading your post. If I failed to respond it was only because I was distracted by a more interesting post. Meh, fine. I never said that I was a debate captain, just that it seemed that I had lead you to this thread. So I'll try a different tack, you've told us what you don't want in D&D for the future and for now. What do you want to see in the game, not from the players but from the designers. What do you want them to produce more of, less of, how do you feel that you could improve the quality of the game if you were put at the reigns.
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 07:48 PM	Meh, fine. I never said that I was a debate captain, just that it seemed that I had lead you to this thread. So I'll try a different tack, you've told us what you don't want in D&D for the future and for now. What do you want to see in the game, not from the players but from the designers. What do you want them to produce more of, less of, how do you feel that you could improve the quality of the game if you were put at the reigns. -More Modules -More DM material (Not Splat books disguised as DM material -Quality software to aid game design(Floor plans, campaign management, world map, house rules etc) and character creation (produced by wizards) -Worksheets to aid in adventure design, tracking NPCs, etc. -More campaign settings
Cifer 09-01-06, 07:51 PM	What do you consider "DM material"?
Richmud 09-01-06, 07:52 PM	NO I just needed a DM to use Rule 0 - I asked him to have FE Arcane Caster Humanoid and teh DM used Rule 0 to say SUre. Now given that the campaign was HEAVILLY human-centric, I could have taken FE - Humans and had 99%+ of the benefit against Casters (less than 1% were not human and most of those were undead) and for a FREE Added bonus had the benfit against EVERY OTHER HUMAN. Fine the DM provided you with an additional option to better fit the charecter, which appears to show that additional options are a good thing. I honestly wouldn't go that far. If a wizard is obsessive and paranoid then for a time he indeed would be difficult to catch unawares, however human nature and reality prove that very few individuals are able to maintain such things for extended durations. People slip, decide things are unimportant or unlikely. .people find ways around things. .the list goes on and on. If you play all the characters in a world realistically, then all will have plenty of strengths and plenty of weaknesses It is worth noting that in this particular example the wizard in question is both the leader of an evil organization, meaning other people will worry about some of his defences for him, and devoted to a Deity whose sphere of influenc includes secrets, meaning he is highly likely to be more paranoid and remain so longer. There is also the point that depending on the race of the wizard in question the period of parinioa could last longer then a humans life span
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 07:53 PM	What do you consider "DM material"? Books on villain design, campaign design and adventure design. Also, books on managing material and running a smooth game.
Archangel62 09-01-06, 07:53 PM	-More Modules -More DM material (Not Splat books disguised as DM material -Quality software to aid game design(Floor plans, campaign management, world map, house rules etc) and character creation (produced by wizards) -Worksheets to aid in adventure design, tracking NPCs, etc. -More campaign settings Actually we agree on a few things, Software to do NPC/PC tracking and floor design things like that could actually be useful. There are probably mapmaker programs available that do what I want I just don't know of them. Modules are iffy, I sorta like em if I'm not sure what I want to run or if I'm breaking in new players, but modules can have some problematic internal balance rules. More settings would be a bad idea, at least if they aren't careful. Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance were TSR breadwinners, Eberron is something new and fun for 3.5. But remember that all those settings are part of what caused TSR to start falling apart. The gaming market was getting divided into smaller and smaller chunks, the many buckets problem. That's why Wizards is being careful to make it so that most things can be moved setting to setting without a lot of hiccups. (Mind, a lot of the FR stuff can crack other settings because the power level of the setting is different but the principles remain the same) The problem though is that DM only material will hurt the company more than help it. There are more players than DMs and while a DM can use player material a player cannot use DM material. I will agree that the latest DM supplement MM4, was pretty bad. But I run more than play and I love all the new systems and options, it gives me a better way to compare how things balance and it also helped me understand the key. Balance is nothing more or less than everyone getting a chance to shine and be effective. Balance is not everything being equal or the same.
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 07:57 PM	Actually we agree on a few things, Software to do NPC/PC tracking and floor design things like that could actually be useful. There are probably mapmaker programs available that do what I want I just don't know of them. Modules are iffy, I sorta like em if I'm not sure what I want to run or if I'm breaking in new players, but modules can have some problematic internal balance rules. More settings would be a bad idea, at least if they aren't careful. Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance were TSR breadwinners, Eberron is something new and fun for 3.5. But remember that all those settings are part of what caused TSR to start falling apart. The gaming market was getting divided into smaller and smaller chunks, the many buckets problem. That's why Wizards is being careful to make it so that most things can be moved setting to setting without a lot of hiccups. (Mind, a lot of the FR stuff can crack other settings because the power level of the setting is different but the principles remain the same) I hear you on the game worlds, but modules are winners. Even if you don't run them (which I dont) they give you some great ideas for encounters, plot devices, NPCs and adventures. If you need a floor plan, they are great for that (the ones on line are no where near the quality of published maps that are fully detailed). People can always use ideas and many DMs can use a break. Plus modules give gamers a common experience to work with.
Archangel62 09-01-06, 08:01 PM	Ok, now different question, what is it that you consider 'broken' about the supplement books. Please give some examples.
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 08:15 PM	Ok, now different question, what is it that you consider 'broken' about the supplement books. Please give some examples. You want to see why it is broken, just fip through the character optimization board.
Archangel62 09-01-06, 08:22 PM	You want to see why it is broken, just fip through the character optimization board. I can use the same argument to state that core is broken. They can break stuff in or out of core. Please give me an example, what created problems in your games from the supplement books? Was there a class, prestige class, feat, etc. that caused the game to collapse? The CO boards also assume that all books are being used and some of the really scary ones are rather iffy. Pun-pun and ones similar are closer to thought experiments, as mentioned before.
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 08:25 PM	I can use the same argument to state that core is broken. They can break stuff in or out of core. Please give me an example, what created problems in your games from the supplement books? Was there a class, prestige class, feat, etc. that caused the game to collapse? The CO boards also assume that all books are being used and some of the really scary ones are rather iffy. Pun-pun and ones similar are closer to thought experiments, as mentioned before. It is much more difficult to break a core class without the aid of a splat. Not giving you the arm bar. You know and I know there are broken splats all over the Character Optimization board. Why don't you give it a look. If you want we can comb through examples there privately. In threory, if Wizards is doing its job, you should be able to use all of the books without any problem. If there is aproblem, even using all the books, then the rules are broken.
Archangel62 09-01-06, 08:28 PM	It is much more difficult to break a core class without the aid of a splat. Not giving you the arm bar. You know and I know there are broken splats all over the Character Optimization board. Why don't you give it a look. If you want we can comb through examples there privately. In threory, if Wizards is doing its job, you should be able to use all of the books without any problem. If there is aproblem, even using all the books, then the rules are broken. Actually that doesn't work as well as you think. Playtesting doesn't use every book and there are instances where a combination of a a feat, a spell, and a monster can make a very effective combo. But most of the designs on Char-Op are requests to make a more effective character at something. Please, give me an example from your games that this caused a problem in as that is what I am asking for. I have not had any issues with players overpowering everything even with every single book and option available. If a player seeks to break the game they will, remember that in 3.0 there was the bag of snails and the dragon trick.
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 08:32 PM	Actually that doesn't work as well as you think. Playtesting doesn't use every book and there are instances where a combination of a a feat, a spell, and a monster can make a very effective combo. But most of the designs on Char-Op are requests to make a more effective character at something. Please, give me an example from your games that this caused a problem in as that is what I am asking for. I have not had any issues with players overpowering everything even with every single book and option available. If a player seeks to break the game they will, remember that in 3.0 there was the bag of snails and the dragon trick. 3.0 had more problems. Again, not going to give you the arm bar. I understand that they rae requests on that board but people also post builds.
lears_fool 09-01-06, 08:39 PM	3.0 had more problems. Again, not going to give you the arm bar. I understand that they rae requests on that board but people also post builds. I see this going back and forth potentially neverendingly. .so perhaps as someone who happily visits the CO boards I can make some obeservations. There are, indeed, things that are exposed as 'broken' in the CO, there are also things that are abusable by rather selective readings of the rules. However, there's nothing there that a DM can't say 'doesn't fit', 'can't allow that', or 'let's be fair to the other players' or whatever else. Yes, mathematically the more that is added, the more likely it is someone can find some obscure combo. However . . unless you allow EVERYTHING and never reign things in adding things doesn't by definition hurt the player or the DM, it only gives us more options that we can choose or choose NOT to allow
Archangel62 09-01-06, 08:43 PM	3.0 had more problems. Again, not going to give you the arm bar. I understand that they rae requests on that board but people also post builds. Sure, how to make a good tripper, grappler, summoner, heck I've used some of those to make villains. If your players have respect for you and the game they won't do things like pun-pun or the cheater of Mystara. You keep decrying the stuff as broken but refuse to show any examples that happened from experience. It gets hard to take your arguments seriously when you won't give any examples as to what is broken or why. If you're working all this stuff off of theoretical then those of us who argue experience have a stronger case as we use the material and find it balanced and workable. I've asked you several times what happened in your games or examples that you've seen that are problematic, but in each case you refuse. So either you're against the suppliments in general, you can't find a conclusive example that the problem came from the supplement, or you don't want to debate, just to provoke.
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 08:45 PM	Sure, how to make a good tripper, grappler, summoner, heck I've used some of those to make villains. If your players have respect for you and the game they won't do things like pun-pun or the cheater of Mystara. You keep decrying the stuff as broken but refuse to show any examples that happened from experience. It gets hard to take your arguments seriously when you won't give any examples as to what is broken or why. If you're working all this stuff off of theoretical then those of us who argue experience have a stronger case as we use the material and find it balanced and workable. I've asked you several times what happened in your games or examples that you've seen that are problematic, but in each case you refuse. So either you're against the suppliments in general, you can't find a conclusive example that the problem came from the supplement, or you don't want to debate, just to provoke. Again. Will not give you the arm bar. Regardless of my own campaigns, a look at the possibilities on the CO will show that it is broken.
lears_fool 09-01-06, 08:47 PM	Again. Will not give you the arm bar. Regardless of my own campaigns, a look at the possibilities on the CO will show that it is broken. *sigh* NOTHING is broken. . . unless you're a very, very bad DM. When your players are making their characters, you ask them what they want to do, where they're going, and why. That way you can stave off things like that AND identify things that either are in expansion material, that you've gotten somewhere else, or that you can put together yourself. You don't allow infinite loops and the like. You reward characters for role playing, not just for being 'uber', the list just goes on and on. More material hurts nothing, because we're not required to use it. We're not even required to use every spell, power, and feat from core!
Archangel62 09-01-06, 08:53 PM	Again. Will not give you the arm bar. Regardless of my own campaigns, a look at the possibilities on the CO will show that it is broken. Look, I'm trying to meet you halfway here. I'm willing to believe that your arguments have some merit and are rooted in experience but if you won't give anything then it looks more like you're complaining for the sake of complaining which does very little for your position. The possibilities on the CO board also assume that ALL books are available. If I do Eberron I dissallow everything from FR excepting one or two feats that I like. Also, most of the stuff on the CO boards are one trick ponies or just really really good at what they do. I can still challenge a party of them. And plenty of the tricks too involve 3.0 books. If we had this sorta stuff back in second edition there would likely be a repeat of an old planescape incident I heard about.
Richmud 09-01-06, 08:55 PM	Will not give you the arm bar. I'm unfamiliar with that phrase, what do you mean?
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 08:56 PM	Look, I'm trying to meet you halfway here. I'm willing to believe that your arguments have some merit and are rooted in experience but if you won't give anything then it looks more like you're complaining for the sake of complaining which does very little for your position. The possibilities on the CO board also assume that ALL books are available. If I do Eberron I dissallow everything from FR excepting one or two feats that I like. Also, most of the stuff on the CO boards are one trick ponies or just really really good at what they do. I can still challenge a party of them. And plenty of the tricks too involve 3.0 books. If we had this sorta stuff back in second edition there would likely be a repeat of an old planescape incident I heard about. Check Mate. you force me to admit that I have no personal history with overpowered or broken builds. As soon as I detect a problem in my game I crush it. So have never had any problems. I am just an old gamer who dislikes the new system, and still hate wizards for the Magic craze.
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 08:57 PM	I'm unfamiliar with that phrase, what do you mean? Its from Ju Juitsu. If you extend your arm, someone can take it and force you to tap out. Like offering an example, so my argument can be ruined.
lears_fool 09-01-06, 08:59 PM	Check Mate. you force me to admit that I have no personal history with overpowered or broken builds. As soon as I detect a problem in my game I crush it. So have never had any problems. I am just an old gamer who dislikes the new system, and still hate wizards for the Magic craze. So YOU don't have a problem. I certainly don't have a problem. And apparently nobody else really has a problem You're talking about something you don't LIKE, and while there are a couple legitimate complaints in there nothing has been said that makes the expansion books something other than something good, or neutral (because they can always be ignored) Tell me where I'm wrong
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 09:00 PM	So YOU don't have a problem. I certainly don't have a problem. And apparently nobody else really has a problem You're talking about something you don't LIKE, and while there are a couple legitimate complaints in there nothing has been said that makes the expansion books something other than something good, or neutral (because they can always be ignored) Tell me where I'm wrong Your not. I just admitted my argument was based on my dislike of the new game and not on the splats.
Archangel62 09-01-06, 09:00 PM	Check Mate. you force me to admit that I have no personal history with overpowered or broken builds. As soon as I detect a problem in my game I crush it. So have never had any problems. I am just an old gamer who dislikes the new system, and still hate wizards for the Magic craze. Like it or not WotC also saved D&D from dying out entirely. I might not like all the stuff they produce but I also like the system overall. As I mentioned before, you might want to check the Kenzer Subsidiary as they have a game called Hackmaster which is heavily based on 2nd edition D&D and I feel you would likely find it more rewarding.
Sergikins 09-01-06, 09:03 PM	http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y288/tipomastr/decisions.jpg
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 09:03 PM	Like it or not WotC also saved D&D from dying out entirely. I might not like all the stuff they produce but I also like the system overall. As I mentioned before, you might want to check the Kenzer Subsidiary as they have a game called Hackmaster which is heavily based on 2nd edition D&D and I feel you would likely find it more rewarding. Would have been better to let it die and allow a better system to take its place (please do not respond to this statement in the obvious and unfunny way). I know Kenzer and Co. I think their system is pretty good. I was actually thinking of going back to role master or searching for a better system.
lears_fool 09-01-06, 09:04 PM	Your not. I just admitted my argument was based on my dislike of the new game and not on the splats. So then. umm. . why are you here and starting these threads?
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 09:05 PM	{WizO_Cat: Ok, let's keep the posts on topic. Trolling is against the Code of Conduct. Thank you.}
lears_fool 09-01-06, 09:09 PM	Hate. That is one of the more legitimate responses I've seen. Honestly though, why hate? 3.5's flawed. .sure. But what ISN'T? I'm happy not to have to worry about THAC0 tables and those horribly unbalancing save charts and the days of 18.xx strength. There's GURPS out there (the new one's pretty good actually), Amber Diceless if you want a system you can modify that's good for pbem/storytelling, other D20 systems. .the list goes on and on. If you don't like 3.5's core mechanic, then find one that fits you. If you LIKE it, then we've established that nothing about the new books actually takes away from a good DM
Archangel62 09-01-06, 09:10 PM	Look, not everyone liked 2nd edition, not everyone likes d20, I'm a big palladium fan myself but I can't teach full groups how to play the game if no one but me knows the rules. On a side note, I'm not surprised one way or another that I caused a checkmate, what I'm surprised is that it took me this many threads and pages to think to ask what caused it.
Moon-Lancer 09-01-06, 09:11 PM	What are you talking about here? Roleplaying= "my character has a hatred for arcane spellcasters, I do not trust them, I will attack them whenever I have a chance. Although my character is honest and loyal, I will lie if it means that I can thwart an arcane spellcaster. I would sacrifice my mother before I'd willingly help an arcane spellcaster". Rollplaying=having weapon and armor proficiency to attack arcane casters, defeating arcane casters in combat, having specific feats that give you SR, having feats that deny an arcane caster the ability to cast defensively. If I claim "My character brutus can kick the ass of any arcane caster". I am making a claim to the mechanics of the character. I am not "roleplaying" the character. Now lets rewrite this. “I have a hatred for arcane spellcasters, This hated is so strong and has made me ever vigilant. Because of my hate, spells spill over my body, my rage protects me, My eyes see through their tricks and my weapon is used to end their lives. I do not trust them. I would sacrifice my mother before I'd willingly help an arcane spell caster. I do not fear them; it should be them who should is afraid.” That’s how you play d&d…. Your example might have been good for a npc and player who cares not for role-playing, but in this world there are no such absolutes. I think the sentence i have constructed from the two you have provided is actually a more effective character in terms of roleplaying, becuse he as uneq actions that can be roleplayed, that actualy effect the outcome of the game. He talks the talk, but can he walk the walk. many dms call out the talk, so be prepared to walk and stand tall. If he really hated them, he would act on it. These actions would lead him to understand casters and thus find better ways to kill them. Role-playing and power-gaming are not mutually exclusive. They are folded together in harmony. You can say you hate arcane casters, but at some point dont you think you should also be effective at it? Sure I will play a commoner and kick that wizards butt... yeah nice try... that was a short character now wasn’t it?
Pulpatoon 09-01-06, 09:13 PM	That is one of the more legitimate responses I've seen. Honestly though, why hate? 3.5's flawed. .sure. But what ISN'T? I'm happy not to have to worry about THAC0 tables and those horribly unbalancing save charts and the days of 18.xx strength. There's GURPS out there (the new one's pretty good actually), Amber Diceless if you want a system you can modify that's good for pbem/storytelling, other D20 systems. .the list goes on and on. If you don't like 3.5's core mechanic, then find one that fits you. If you LIKE it, then we've established that nothing about the new books actually takes away from a good DM I loved Thac0 tables and STR 18/00. Those were the days.
Archangel62 09-01-06, 09:16 PM	I loved Thac0 tables and STR 18/00. Those were the days. Meh, it was fun but it was generally more bookkeeping than it was worth. That and it made dealing with creatures that got strength bonuses needlessly annoying.
lears_fool 09-01-06, 09:17 PM	I loved Thac0 tables and STR 18/00. Those were the days. Oh god no. Where a player's percentage die roll could totally change his ability in relation to the others? What was 18/00. . +3 to hit and +6 damage? Where 17 was +1/+1 or something? And if you could figure out a way to get a 19..then you were a GOD! And we won't even get into 2nd edition psionics, strength being overwhelmingly the most important combat stat (no finesse there. .oh no!) . . the list goes on endlessly No, as much as people can complain about 3.5, it's FAR harder to abuse than the old 2nd edition stuff. Wizards made mistakes, but it definitely improved on the original material when it comes to balance (not that 2nd was unmanageable. . you can turn any rule system into a good experience, it's just that the munchkin complaints applied more there than to 3.5)
wrecan 09-01-06, 09:17 PM	So you used hyperbole in the Stormwind thread to gain attention. You started three threads to complain about the proliferation of spatbooks and prestige classes You admit that you don't actually have any problem with splatbooks and prestige classes, but are instead starting sh** to vent your "hate" for 3.x Is there any reason anybody should ever treat you as a credible poster?
Moon-Lancer 09-01-06, 11:10 PM	OMG i dident realize this was a UncleAthanas... dude, give it a rest eh? lol. Optons is good, BAD PLAYERS is bad. bad players exploit good options, and make bad numbers charicter with cooler numbers then dm. dm makes munchkin number charicter to beat bad numbers charicter. and thus its proven that nukular war is still yet to come. ahahhhh *goes to find stylish lead*
Atirakis 09-01-06, 11:20 PM	Check Mate. you force me to admit that I have no personal history with overpowered or broken builds. As soon as I detect a problem in my game I crush it. So have never had any problems. I am just an old gamer who dislikes the new system, and still hate wizards for the Magic craze. And there we have it. He is upset that the old and familiar yet badly flawed system went away and the big bad mega corporation WoTC came in and changed his beloved game. :weep: Grow up. WoTC has done some amazing things with d&d since aquiring the rights and will continue to do so in the future. They put out alot of books and not all of them are great but there is nobody forcing you to use those books either. Most of the worst of it is 3.0 anyways which goes against your whole argument of hating 3.5 If you like outdated craptacular d&d then bust out your 2nd Edition and be blissfull in your ignorance. Otherwise grow up, act like a man and prchase the material you want ban the stuff you dont want or dont like and kindly shut your mouth.
Wuggadad 09-02-06, 02:57 AM	Take a classic example of a character who has based his entire build on a quest for vengeance. Inigo Montaya. This guy devoted his entire life to mastering the sword, solely to confront the six-fingered man, (Count Tyrone Rugen), in order to get vengeance. He confronts him, and what happens? The six-fingered man runs away, then throws a dagger that catches Inigo in the gut. And then gloats, "You have been pursuing me all this time, only to fail now? That is pathetic, truly pathetic." That is the story you have if Inigo has picked up no special skills in his quest that match his determination not to fail. But, as fans of the movie The Princess Bribe know, Inigo manages to fight with a gut wound and win in dramatic fashion anyway. Now it is possible that our hypothetical Mage Slayer could come across these Servants of Vecna, and as he swings the wizard casts Dominate Person. Then he gloats a bit over the Mage Slayer. Now in a world where the player could choose feats that reflect his character's purpose, the story might not end there. You could have a line where the wizard says, "You resist? But how... (bloody splat noise)"
Wuggadad 09-02-06, 02:58 AM	double post editted. Having said that, I have shuddered at the abominations of backstories used to justify particularly strange and effective character class, feat and prestige class combos.
Tisner44 09-02-06, 10:55 AM	What are you talking about here? Roleplaying= "my character has a hatred for arcane spellcasters, I do not trust them, I will attack them whenever I have a chance. Although my character is honest and loyal, I will lie if it means that I can thwart an arcane spellcaster. I would sacrifice my mother before I'd willingly help an arcane spellcaster". Rollplaying=having weapon and armor proficiency to attack arcane casters, defeating arcane casters in combat, having specific feats that give you SR, having feats that deny an arcane caster the ability to cast defensively. If I claim "My character brutus can kick the ass of any arcane caster". I am making a claim to the mechanics of the character. I am not "roleplaying" the character. Okay, I agree that you can roleplay any type of character you want without all the extra stuff. What the extra does allow is for your "Characters" to be better at whatever they wish to "do." But they won't actually make you a better roleplayer...I apologize if you got that idea. The options books do allow for characters to be more successful at what they do, but how you play it is up to you.
revnk 09-02-06, 03:13 PM	Sent you the link by private. Don't like putting links on my messages. Not a student writing a paper. Well, since you're wanting to be all coy with your secret knowledge, I'll post the link you sent me so that other people can judge for themselves whether Mr. Cook's opinions have any merit: http://www.montecook.com/arch_review26.html According to Mr. Cook, the publication of a revision towards the end of D&D 3.0's predicted sales cycle was pre-planned. I stand corrected. I will note, however, that they were hardly the first to publish a revision to boost flagging sales. Considering the precedent set by TSR (1E and 2E D&D), Chaosium (Call Of Cthulhu versions 1 through 6), Games Designer Workshop (Classic Traveller in the softcover pamphlets, revised "Classic" Traveller in the single volume, MegaTraveller etc.) and FASA et al. (Shadowrun first throught fourth editions)--and others, it seems like an obvious business strategy. Clumsily handled, perhaps. Without subtlety, okay. But scarcely an original plan, and arguably smarter and more ethical than continuing to take preorders on products while not paying your freelancers, firing your staff, quietly turning off the lights, refusing to return phone calls from your licensors and sneaking off to sell real estate while your confused customers continue to hope in vain that a promised release will eventually end up in their hands. In other words, I may not always like the way Wizards makes money, but as long as they do make money, I can depend on having a supported product. As for Cook's other claims: I will admit that I am not in the best position to judge them. I did not switch from 3.0 to 3.5. Rather, I returned to D&D from 1E AD&D after a hiatus by picking up the 3.5 rules, skipping two "complete" editions of the game. Since beginning a 3.5 campaign, I have had no problem adapting 3.0 books (including Cook's Book Of Vile Darkness) to 3.5 using materials Wizards has made freely available. Perhaps it is difficult to convert a 3.0 campaign-in-progress to 3.5. That doesn't mean they're not compatible, and that's not quite what Cook says. Some of Cook's criticisms strike me as nitpicky from a gamer (versus a designer) perspective. Organizing weapons by handedness rather than size seems like an easy thing to adjust to--DMs who are rolling random treasures are liable to generate items their players can't use anyway (hence many experienced DMs handcraft their hoards), the scheme is no more arbitrary than a size-based scheme, and there's a certain logic for new players purchasing weapons. Whether the NPC tables in the DMG were more useful in 3.0 or 3.5 strikes me as moot--I have rarely used NPC tables since my Basic/Expert days, so I would assume that the "best" type of NPC table is a matter of subjective taste and not an objective fact that can be determined (i.e. I would find either table "useless" and wouldn't presume to tell another DM which kind, if any, he "ought" to be using). I agree that some of the PrCs are uninteresting: so are some of the core races, classes, classic monsters, weapons, skills, spells, alignments--presumably DMs and players can make rational choices about what aspects of the game interest them and choose not to use or to gloss over the things that bore them. We also are treated to Cook's criticism of the lack of new art and some very specific issues regarding particular monsters or items. Despite all this, Cook concludes: Should you buy 3.5? Frankly, of course you should. The books are out, and if keeping up with future D&D and d20 products is important to you, you'll want to know what's up. And, once you finally get up to speed on the changes and toss out the bad ones, your game will be fine. In some ways, it will be better than it was. I predict that the majority of existing players out there will buy 3.5, and then house rule some of it back to 3.0. House rules, in fact, will become much more varied and prevalent from this point on -- but that's a whole 'nother article. ...hardly a condemnation of Athanasian proportions. Cook's review also lists about a dozen things he likes about 3.5. Again, some of them seem to reflect idiosyncratic preferences more than anything else. (Example: "Githyanki and githzerai are in the Monster Manual. I'd wanted them in there in the first place, but they were saved for the Psionics Handbook. They're very interesting monsters and deserve to be right there in the D&D spotlight." Alright, the Gith races have looked cool since they debuted in the Fiend Folio back in the day, and their history is slightly interesting... and yet I've personally never had any reason to ever put one into a game in any edition I've ever DMed. I couldn't use them in 1E. I can't think of a way to use them in 3.5. I won't say, "never," but their utility is obviously a matter of personal taste....) In summary: I stand corrected. Mr. Cook has claimed that 3.5 was planned from the inception and that 3.5 and 3.0 are incompatible. I have no reason to disbelieve him as to the former; as to the latter, I've read his opinion and I understand why I don't especially agree with him. And this is why it's always polite, when claiming something, to back your claim up with some kind of citation where applicable. I can sit here and claim someone wrote something, but until you read it for yourself you have no reason to believe me and no way to evaluate its merits for yourself. Thanks to a PMed link, I am now slightly smarter and better-educated. My opinion hasn't actually changed, but I've now had a chance to consider additional information that at least was enlightening and might even have turned out to be persuasive. Unfortunately, since I was last here, it would appear that the real motivations behind this thread have come to light. ("[My] argument was based on my dislike of the new game and not on the splats.") If anything comes up that makes my further participation worthwhile, I shall certainly return, but I'm not interested in beating my head against a wall trying to persuade someone that sushi is tasty and fun when he insists it's just so much raw fish and bland rice. I do regret the time I've already wasted here, but then it was my choice to do so. Good gaming, regardless of what game you choose to play. (Unless it's F.A.T.A.L., :yuck: )