PDA

View Full Version : To read the supplement or throw it away: a personal matter.



Hiest, monkey
2009-11-27, 01:38 PM
While I am in no position to judge the balance and quality of a thrid party sourcebook, I find that they take the place of a role that would already be filled by a balanced character. On the opposite end of the spectrum I fully respect the skill, and intelligence, of those who use classes form these books.

But, a lot of third party supplements add new classes and prestige classes that simply aren't nessecary to a player who role-plays well (I do not imply here that people who use sumplementary classes cannot role-play). Sure, these books add new and interesting mechanics to a game that begins to seem trite after countless campaigns, but I feel that, to some extent, these mechanics are already represented in the PHB and DMG.

The beauty of 3.5 edition, hence the detriment of the earlier and later editions, is its flexibility, but balance. A rogue, is not just a city dwelling theif, they could be an army sniper, a practiced politician, a pirate, or a mercenary. A bard could be anything from a wandering healer, to a performing sing-and-dance routine, and so forth. The flexibility in skill, feat, ability, race, racial template, and multiclassing potential provide enough permutations to represent a vast majority of characters.

My nit-pick, therefore, is that many of these non-core classes represent characters that can be played without the non-core classes. Why play a ninja of some form or other? Hiding is always hiding, no matter the person. A rogue takes ranks in hide and move silently the same way a ninja would. Should you want to play a ninja who channels mystical powers to their aid, make it a sorceror/rogue and choose spells that are applicable to this class. One might argue that such a compromise forfeights the power of one class for the the power of another. I would agree entirely. A ninja spends much more time in formal training than a streetrat.

But, I believe that this represents more experience and levels. A ninja that can use magic, or mystical powers, to hide has more levels than a rogue. Why should there be a class that allows them to level equally with an analougous class, yet still have what translates to extra training in-game? In mind, there can be no such thing as a "weak first level ninja". A ninja represents skill far beyond the grasp of a begining adventurer. A highly trained an specialized rogue is no different from this ninja. Ninja, pirate, mage, warlock, these are all titles, different names for a character who has a certain level of skill in a certain class.

Then there is the arguement that a core-class doesn't have the flexibility or a third-party class because they can't perform certain specific actions.

I would argue to the contrary. I return to my vague "ninja" concept. Let's say our hypothetical player wants to give his ninja a death attack. Let's say a death attack represents an attack strong enough to kill the strongest humans because of its accuracy. Guess what? You already have that! It's called sneak attack! It gets better as you improve your abilty to take advantage of distraction, and simply aim better. It kills most untrained humans: even at first level! As for no killing a highly trained soldier, or a monster: they're not as fragile as a human, are they? It takes significantly better aim, ditraction, whatever to kill them. Maybe even a follow-up shot.

I could go on arguing a specific example, but my point is: many "new" mechanics released beyond the core-classes are already represented in the base classes. Much like two fighters fighting is not: two guys hitting eachother with swords, taking turns, before one falls down, most core classes represent a much wider spectrum. Just like the rolls and numbers of the fighters represents them wearing each other down, dodging weaving, turning to make a fatal strike into a mere glancing bow, the versatility and role-playing opens opertunities for a wider spectrum of characters.

An important caveat: my wall of text is neither universal, nor is it impervious to counter-arguement. I have had loads of fun playing a luck-based class from Complete Scoundrel. My friend once played a dragon-oriented melee character from PHB II. Both times these characters represented concepts simply foreign to the standard rules.

I'm not condemning the use of non-core classes and rules, but from a DM's perspective, I think the aparent gaps in core classes are replaced easily with logic and imagination. The reason for their popularity, I think, is confusion. Most protagonists in books and movies are far above 10th level, in game terms, while most of their opponents are 1st or second at best. Players try to find ways to balance that level of skill so it applies at all levels of experience, but it simply doesn't scale.

I'm just wondering whether there are those who share my opinion, and if I am missing some crucial point.

Matthew
2009-11-27, 01:50 PM
I think you may be confusing "third party" supplements with supplements actually released by Wizards of the Coast, which are just supplements. That aside, yes role-playing can substitute for mechanical differentiation (in any edition), but there is a market for supplements that provide mechanical differentiation because there is an audience that enjoys them. I have little interest in a thousand different variations on a fighter (or whatever), but probably the majority of D20/3e players (at least those evident on-line) very much enjoy these aspects for their own sake. Not everybody has the same preferences, and a wide array are catered for in an (apparently) ever shrinking community.

Duke of URL
2009-11-27, 01:51 PM
To a large part, I agree. The 3.5 "rewrite" I'm working on helps address this by making the basic classes more flexible, making multiclassing actually work well, and restoring prestige classes to a good balance of trade-offs. Between those three, most iconic "ideas" can be represented in the revised core classes and PrCs.

There will always be exceptions, though. Sometimes, an iconic idea simply just doesn't match anything in existence closely enough. Invokers and binders, for example, could arguably just be reflavorings of sorcerers, but they wind up "missing" something that matches their idiom. A ninja, knight, scout, or swashbuckler, on the other hand, should be a concept easily made by improved multiclassing in the core classes.

Melamoto
2009-11-27, 01:51 PM
I agree with you about this, but I feel that new material always helps different angles be made a lot easier to take, rather than having to rely on twisting around old material. And feats cannot be made to be like different feats; they are what they are.

vanyell
2009-11-27, 01:57 PM
I see what you mean with this post, and I respectfully disagree.

sometimes the crunch of the base classes just don't get to the flufff you want. If you want a Melee genius, the fighter can do, but he is shown up by everything. a cleric can fight better. some of the non core stuff is there to fix some mistakes in core, and to give different things for people to springboard ideas off of.

and as a second point, looking at your ninja example, why not try a ranger?

well, if he wants to be sneaky, and be able to fight, he should be a rogue/fighter.

or a druid

cleric with plant themed spells

it goes on and on like that. I feel you need different things to run off of.

just my opinion. I may be wrong

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-27, 01:58 PM
All your responses are fair. I just wanted to know if there were any people who are old-school like me and liked the idea of using the provided toolset to build their own world.

As for the invoker/binder thing, that falls under my list of exceptions: It's one of the classes that isn't mechanically lacking in core, but rather texturally lacking. I accept classes like that.

And with that I sign off, I'm late for my own DnD session!

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-27, 01:59 PM
and as a second point, looking at your ninja example, why not try a ranger?

well, if he wants to be sneaky, and be able to fight, he should be a rogue/fighter.

or a druid

cleric with plant themed spells

it goes on and on like that. I feel you need different things to run off of.

just my opinion. I may be wrong

My ninja example was entirely arbitrary. I just wanted to show the versatility of the existing system, not build a class. Your way works perfectly well too.

shadow_archmagi
2009-11-27, 02:27 PM
First off, when you actually want to play a ninja, you run into a few issues. So there's no such thing as a "Weak first level ninja." That means now I have to figure out how exactly my first level character is going to BECOME a ninja, since "and then he trained in a monastary for two years" is a lot easier to put into the backstory than into the game.

I can't think of a really clear dividing line between "Oh look I'm the kind of charismatic street guy Harrison Ford usually plays look at me being oppurtunistic" and "Oh now I'm an elite assassin" and I find it hard to think of ways to gradually transition from one to the other.

A lot of things just arn't really doable in core.

Take the sniper. As far as I can recall, in Core, you can take, um, Precise Shot and Far Shot for improving your ranged capabilities. I think that's about it. Also, of course, there's the fact that Sneak Attack can't be used to replicate a sniper because Sneak Attack has a maximum range of 30 feet and can't be used if the target can see you.

A lot of things are streamlined by noncore. Take the magic ninja concept. Monk-rogue-sorcerer crossbreeds require a lot of levels and a lot more planning. Swordsage, on the other hand, requires no trips to the CharOp boards just to be workable.

Also, dipping sorcerer will yield quite different abilities from the swordsage. Swordsage, for example, has a nifty power where you conjure an illusion to attack with you and distract the opponent.

Oslecamo
2009-11-27, 03:25 PM
Also, dipping sorcerer will yield quite different abilities from the swordsage. Swordsage, for example, has a nifty power where you conjure an illusion to attack with you and distract the opponent.

And he has proefeciency with orange training suits, and summons giant frogs, and must wear a metal band showing his clan...Oh, wait, swordsages don't get that!

The ninja example is quite discussable because there's plenty of ninja stereotypes. Rogue 20 would fit much better the more usual ninja who just sneacks around, stabs people in the back and uses trinkets, but there's also then the ninjas who paralyze people with a look and then the ninjas who can be spoted several kilometers away because their effects outshine the sun itself.

So first you need to decide what do you understand by ninja, or whatever concept you picked.

If you're gonna go magic ninja, sorceror 20 picking the right spells might work just as wel. Heck a cloistered cleric with the trickery domain! A psion? A fighter who specializes in sneaking inside houses of people who don't have 9000 ranks of spot and listen?

Gnaeus
2009-11-27, 03:27 PM
Thematic issues aside, balance should be examined also. If I am making Li Mu Bai or Achilles, and I make them as a monk or fighter, my suspension of disbelief has to contend with the fact that that no matter how well I RP them, they get stomped a lot. By rebuilding them as Swordsage and Warblade, I have mechanics that will actually meet my expectations.

Oslecamo
2009-11-27, 03:28 PM
Thematic issues aside, balance should be examined also. If I am making Li Mu Bai or Achilles, and I make them as a monk or fighter, my suspension of disbelief has to contend with the fact that that no matter how well I RP them, they get stomped a lot. By rebuilding them as Swordsage and Warblade, I have mechanics that will actually meet my expectations.

No you don't. You still get stomped by Mr.Wizard and friends. You just get to shout exotic names before dying. Wich is what hapened to Achilles BTW. He was all fine and dandy killing low level warriors, but throw a decent rogue with poison and arrows and he dies. A rogue specialized in socialization! Plus he ran away from a lousy water elemental.

Optimystik
2009-11-27, 04:00 PM
I think you may be confusing "third party" supplements with supplements actually released by Wizards of the Coast, which are just supplements.

This really bears repeating. I'm going to proceed as though you mean anything non-core when you say "third-party," but that's definitely a misnomer on your part.

On the subject of supplements: OP, the attraction of these books is not the content they provide. With the core mechanic supplied by the SRD, you're right - any of us could, with sufficient time and inclination to sit down and bang out the numbers, homebrew ourselves anything that can be found in a splat book.

The attraction of splat books is their ubiquity. If I a ask about a "Swordsage" on any D&D forum, or if I announce to my playgroup that I want to be an "Ur-Priest," anyone who plays 3.5 will know what I'm talking about. I won't have to take the time explaining level-by-level what the class will be able to do, and research is easy for my peers (and DM) even if they don't possess the source supplement.. Or I can ask in the other direction and say "I want to be a Bard that delves deeper into his magical talent than most bards ever do." One of the first responses I get will be Sublime Chord.

Supplements don't hamper creativity - they enable it. By preconstructing mechanics around a number of key concepts, they give homebrewers everywhere a starting point to fit their needs, eliminating most of the grudgework and leaving them free to focus on their goal.

They are also written by some of gaming's most brilliant minds. Consider the Factotum, a class partly designed by our very own Rich Burlew. No average gamer could have come up with and executed a class concept that elegant. And even if they could, without corporate backing they wouldn't be paid to playtest it and work out the kinks.

As an analogy - you can quite easily dive into the stock market and make lucrative trades without employing a broker, just as you can quite easily start homebrewing in 3.5 without acquiring any supplements. But supplements do so much of the work that they are considered to be the best possible starting point.

Just as with a stockbroker, a designer is not infallible, and (many) mistakes make it through the cracks. We live and play in an inherently chaotic system. But without their work to build on, I firmly believe that leaving each individual DM up to only his own logic and imagination would result in a much less unified product.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-27, 04:07 PM
I guess I could homebrew equivalents for every single thing not found in core...but hell, why would I want to?

I mean, if I wanted to do that much homebrewing of options, I might as well homebrew core as well, and make/sell my own RPG.

The splatbooks wouldn't sell if people didn't want others to do that work for them.

ex cathedra
2009-11-27, 04:09 PM
Excellent stuff.

I'm inclined to agree, however, I have one nitpick; I was under the impression the Factotum was written by one of Mr. Burlew's cowriters, rather than a collaboration. I could, of course, be wrong, but clarification would be appreciated.

On topic, I'm of the opinion that the core set actually just isn't very well written. I believe, that, in a group familiar with the material, replacing core (for players) with the ToB and XPH is a much more enjoyable exercise. A Warblade can emulate just as many (and more) archetypes than a fighter (and to a lesser extent ranger), while being a much more enjoyable class; Crusaders do the same for paladins, while some rangers, rogues, and monks are very easily converted into Swordsages of various sorts. Psions, Psychic Warriors, and Wilders are all much more balanced (and in my opinion, fun) than their core arcane/divine counterparts, while being able to fulfill nearly the same roles. With one additional supplement (dungeonscape), you have a terrifically fun bard/rogue substitute in the aforementioned Factotum. Thematically, all of these can emulate similar core themes, all while being much more balanced when used correctly and much more enjoyable overall.

Harperfan7
2009-11-27, 04:15 PM
The way I see it, supplements are there for people who have more money than time/creativity. They have definetly come up with more and better stuff than I have come up with, but I still feel obligated to add my creativity to core to come up with my own stuff.

GolemsVoice
2009-11-27, 04:41 PM
The way I see it, supplements are there for people who have more money than time/creativity. They have definetly come up with more and better stuff than I have come up with, but I still feel obligated to add my creativity to core to come up with my own stuff

I would take offense at such a statement. Of course, creativity is what Role-Playing is all about, creativity in every form, from coming up with a story to creating your own base classes.
BUT: I have a friend who will often ahve a very specific idea of what he wants to play. Imagine the splatbooks don't exist. I now have to go through every level with him, listen to his ideas, approve of twisting some rules and class abilites, or even make up new one. Or I could open a splatbook that is centered around what he wants to do, and say, well, you could combine levels of X with levels of Y, and take feat A, B, and C. Sure, perfect recreation of his ide can only be guaranteed by a homebrew, and there are still things that can't be emulated by sticking together classes and pretige classes, but having many splatbooks around means that you can look at other people's ideas (people who are paid to do this stuff) and use a wide array of ready-made classes, and that you can find ideas you would never ahve come up with. There are some things one will never imagine, not even think of. This has nothing do do with lacking creativity, even a crafty GM can't possioble cover every archetype, every culture, and so one.

awa
2009-11-27, 05:26 PM
im a little bit of column a and a little bit of column b.
I think some classes are more or less covered by other classes particularly some of the prestige classes seem redundant. But on the other times their are some charecter concepts that just don't translate well to the core classes, lots of supplements and alternate class features make it much easier to find what your looking for as a player (as a dm you can just home brew the problem away)

As its been mentioned you could make many types of charecter concept sorta work through massive multi classing but if your concept was a bad ass magic, using, ninja, martial artist your sorcerer/ rouge/ monk might be able to be a sneaky/ magic using/ martial artist but he wont be bad ass he will be lousy at being sneaky have ineffective magic and will get the snot punched out of him in a fight with someone half his level in his own so called specialty. It will be hard to role play this charecter as bad ass if he is vastly weaker then the other characters cohorts.

The Glyphstone
2009-11-27, 05:31 PM
No you don't. You still get stomped by Mr.Wizard and friends. You just get to shout exotic names before dying. Wich is what hapened to Achilles BTW. He was all fine and dandy killing low level warriors, but throw a decent rogue with poison and arrows and he dies. A rogue specialized in socialization! Plus he ran away from a lousy water elemental.

wait, I'm not allowed to yell "POWER ATTACK" and "SNEAK ATTACK" whenever I hit someone as a fighter or rogue? That's not fair.:smallfrown:

ericgrau
2009-11-27, 05:39 PM
^ Absolutely not. :smallbiggrin: Actually I wouldn't really care unless I were DMing a deep involved story.

Online I frequently see supplements abused. In person I see them used more judiciously, though still with some minor power creep. I likewise agree that most builds should be the basic PH classes with RP flavor tacked on. I'm not a big fan of PrC's either, except for gestalt builds. Even then it's often an underpowered trap unless you really know what you're doing.

However, I have seen concepts which for various mechanical reasons benefit from 3rd party material. For people who want to play a certain way and need the 3rd party material for their style, but not powergaming, I can see a use. Like I said fortunately this is more common offline.

Incidentally I recently bought some RPG material written by Gary Gygax. I'm not sure if there's any rules at all in the books I selected, and even if there is it's probably for the wrong edition. Now that kind of stuff is solid gold.

Devils_Advocate
2009-11-27, 06:31 PM
Hiest, when you talk about "mechanics already being represented in core", what you seem to mean is that core mechanics already represent the same things -- specifically, the same basic character archetypes -- that are represented by non-core mechanics, instead of that core mechanics actually function in basically the same way as non-core mechanics.

A Warlock actually uses significantly different game mechanics from a Sorcerer, and a Warblade uses significantly different game mechanics from a Fighter. At least, the differences would seem to be greater than those between a Wizard and a Sorcerer and between a Fighter and a Barbarian. It would seem that if a DM wanted to allow for flexibility, she'd do better to place Sorcerer, Warlock, Barbarian, and Warblade on her list of allowed classes than Sorcerer, Wizard, Barbarian, and Fighter. Of course, if allowing maximum flexibility were her only concern, she'd just allow all of the classes...

Death Attack and Sneak Attack are like each other in that they only work under certain conditions and increase the likelihood of one-shotting a level-appropriate target. They're also unlike each other in that one targets hit points and the other targets Fort saves, Death Attack only works in melee, and so on and so forth.

In theory, you could represent loads of character concepts using one class with no options at all. Everyone of the same level has the same stats, but one character's Ranged Attack is thrown daggers, another's is arrows, another's is blasts of magical energy, and so on. Passing over a wall could be done by successfully climbing it or by successfully completing a spell that lets you float over it. And so on for other things.

There are several potential problems with that. (1) Players may want their characters to have different capabilities, instead of the ability to do the same thing as the next guy, just in a different way. (2) Players may find it interesting to play around with a wide variety of different game mechanics, notwithstanding that this greatly increases the bookkeeping required and almost unavoidably imbalances the game. (3) Players may dislike such a high level of abstraction, preferring a more specific correspondence between which game mechanic is employed and which in-game events occur.

I've seen all of these come up to a certain extent in discussions of 4th Edition. Problem 3 seems to come up in the "What the hell are hit points supposed to represent in D&D?" discussion regardless of the edition under consideration.


The beauty of 3.5 edition, hence the detriment of the earlier and later editions, is its flexibility, but balance.
But... 3.5 isn't balanced. Not even the core rules are balanced. Compare Druids to Fighters, and save-or-die to direct damage. Consider the usefulness candles of invocation and the Diplomacy skill next to their alternatives. I could go on.


As for no killing a highly trained soldier, or a monster: they're not as fragile as a human, are they?
It certainly seems like a highly trained human soldier ought to be as fragile as a human, since he frickin' is one. But that's a problem with the defender's stats, not the attackers, and only if you want realism.


Most protagonists in books and movies are far above 10th level, in game terms
My, but that's a bit of a dubious assertion. (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html)

Hiest, what you seem to be driving at is the notion that non-core material should be used only when necessary to represent something. Is that correct? And is that the point you're trying to make? (If not, what is your point?)

If so, why?

It doesn't seem like it could simply be "You should represent things using core because you don't need to use non-core material." The argument that "You should consider non-core options because you don't need to restrict yourself to core" would seem to make far more sense. Because there are other considerations at work than whether a given bit of material is part of the core books. When considering two options for implementing a concept, one can ask

- Which option is more balanced?
- Which one is more powerful?
- Which one is more consistent with the rules I'm already using?
- Which one seems like it would be more fun?
- Which one makes it harder to suspend my disbelief?
- Which one most directly corresponds to what I'm trying to represent?

It's not so much that these other considerations seem more important than whether something is core. It's more that I don't see why "Which option is in the core rulebooks?" has any place on that list at all. "Which one is in a book I have access to?", sure. "Which one is in a book I've already read and evaluated?" definitely has a place. And if core material is all that you have convenient access to and all that you're already thoroughly familiar with, then "Which one is core?" has a place because it corresponds to the other questions in that context.

In short, what's the motivation for the distinction you're drawing?

shadow_archmagi
2009-11-27, 07:18 PM
Devils Advocate has said many good things here and I am glad there are more competent people than me to make this argument.

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-27, 08:28 PM
The example Optimystik brought up is that it makes it easier to communicate online without explaining every detail. As far as I'm concerned I'd rather have core rules with minimal modifications and almost no conditional rules. Sure it makes it harder to explain, but I prefer to spend more time playing than conversing about my newest build on a forum. But that's personal preference.

Another fault Optimystik found with my logic, I admit it can be viewed as a fault, is that the player following my strict methodology would have to do a lot of homebrewing to fulfil every idea. The only response I found is straight out of the 19th century: "Simplify, Simplify".

I do very little homebrewing (beyond the occasional flavor spell) because I love to find creative ways to use existing rules. I take the lego blocks given to me and construct what I want. I might connect them in unconventional ways and I might have to puzzle over how to match up all my green blocks, but I won't bust out the paint, and I won't melt them down to sculpt something new. It wouldn't be legos.

To clarify: I do mean any books that aren't core, but I'm not limiting myself with a blanket ban. Should I want to build a class I feel isn't represented in the core, I will peruse the alternitives written by proffessionals first. I will usually accept their word as law and use the templates given by them to choose the appropriate skills and feats to perfect my build.

I didn't say that books hamper creativity. To cite a overwrought cliché: "guns don't kill people, people kill people." I'm upset more with those people who don't choose to understand that the class they are using is already represented by a core class. If there is literally no way to adapt an idea to core: fine. I would be glad to run numbers to see if it scales comparitevely with other classes. I encourage using non-core books to base it off of.

And once more, yes, proffessionals design game systems. This is why I like to stick to the basics. When "the best minds in gaming" design a nearly airtight system without supplements, that is based entirely on the flexibility of a few core classes, I try not to violate their system, unless a design choice was clearly made only to block power-gamers from abusing an otherwise interesting mechanic. There are systems, specifically "Rifts" (which is briliant, incidentally), which allow you to create characters that are so rigidly specialized that the designers are forced to created hundreds of character classes. DnD is all about using the 11 (and 20 or so "good", which is relative, supplements) to their fullest potential.

The real issue I have is that mechanics are redundant in many of these non-core builds. I also abhor design choices that fundamentally alter the accepted reality of a game. In DnD certain design choices are made, and what irritates me more than anything are builds that use "power points" whatever you call them, and the like. There is a set system of the way things work, and violating this system causes disorganized chaos, which I believe is why so many homebrews devolve into mindless messes.

Inside the spoiler are semantics and technicalities. Warning: this section is the biggest wall of text you have every seen. The goal of putting so much minutia into my commentary is to represent the complex design and research proccess that goes into a single mechanic, a mechanic that many players are happy to discard in an instant in exchange for a, in all probability balanced, result. This is in no way a criticism of either the people whose statements I have chosen to use as examples, nor is it a commentary on any supplemental mechanics I may be arguing against. My goal is to represent the reasoning behind the core rules, and why I regard them as airtight.

The ninja I used as an example is a random, single stereotype for a ninja. I was simply using it as an example. Furthermore, a point I neglected, seeing it as uneccessary to my arguement, is that ninja's and other super-characters are not meant to be balanced with a party. The lone warrior in a movie is often a specialist in several disciplines, and any master who specialized in one would decimate him. We don't see this because, typically, the ninja, or other powerhoue character, is obviously leveled far above the other characters.

The reason ninjas are able to take on so many other people and win in movies comics etc. and are not as powerful in DnD as their party members, is because to be the mythical class that the player envisions the character MUST be a higher level that his opponents and companions. A fighter of the smae training and experience as a ninja in a ninja movie would disarm, pin, and strangle the ninja in a straight fight. This is why player tend towards alternate rules. To attain the mythof the baddass, useful character.

As for the sniper that shadow_archmagi talked about: I understand that sneak attack doesn't apply over 30 feet. Without magic, no extra damage dice should apply over sniper range. Extra damage dice represent 1)and exceptionally powerful attack 2)magic or 3) exceptional accuracy. If we accept the "accepted reality" of DnD, we further accept that without altering the laws of physics with magic, a person cannot exceed the inherent limitations provided in the core rules.

With a normal bow and arrow, or crossbow of the time period the deceleration caused by air, and the air currents that divert the arrow would be sufficient to eliminate percison over long distance. So why are snipers so deadly now and what place did they have then?

First, a sharpshooter need not be good enough to deal extra damage dice to make a good shot. Assuming an average human target, a composite longbow can deal, without extra damage dice, an average of 5.5 damage when wielded by a fairly strong character (strength 12). 5.5 damage is enough to cause a almost certain death sentence to a commoner, and to take of half the life of a typical warrior or inhibit him to the point of falling in pain, and possibly dying later of his wounds.

(keep in mind that most of these figures are about first level characters because like I've said before, Robin Hood will be owned by an equally leveled character, say Aragorn, who specializes in a more upfront combat style, even while either would kill equal amounts of orcs.)

Therefore, I come, once again, to the conclusion that what differentiates a character from a commoner is not their skill set, or some secret table that they use for damage, but the simple use of levels to represent superior skill and experience.

Specifically in the case of a sniper, one has to comprehend that a sniper is inherently much more skilled than a typical soldier. He is not differently skilled, like a fighter is different from a rogue, he is more skilled, like a 10th level ranger in contrast with a 3rd level ranger. The reason snipers are so effective now is 1) the massive damage their weapons deal. 2)the inherent range of their weapons, and 3) their skill with aiming weapons to their full potential without violating the inherent limits of physics (represented by a character's base attack bonus).

A sniper build that opperates beyond the accepted range of sneak attack, while dealing extra dmage dice is laughable in DnD's accepted reality unless you use magic to bend the laws of physics. Simple skill doesn't accelerate an arrow, or direct it throw the strongest wind. It may give you the ability to counter these conditions in the short range, but skill does not allow you to perform that which cannot be done within the limits of reality.

That the core build doesn't let you fire beyond 1.5 range (with feats) accurately, is because you cannot. An amazing character can deal the bow's full damage over a ludicrous distance because their skill (BAB) counters the range. Their killzone is larger than a first level character's because a bow dealing normal damage causes serious wounds or kills without exceptional aim, and, ergo, extra damage dice.

The farthest distance ever shot with a recurve bow, a modern one at that was ~800 meters. There is almost certainly no chance this shot could have hit any target. Tournaments held today are at stationary targets ~240ft away. These shots are made by proffessionals who dedicate their lives to training with this weapon. They use sights. They use modern bows, and these targets are neighther running for their lives, dodging arrows, or in melée.

So the limit for a consitently accurate shot (taking 10) under ideal conditions, without sacrificing accuracy, of a trained proffessional, against a stationary target is 2.5 range increments. Now imagine that that target is actively avoiding you. Or that it's armored. Long distance shots are hard, and a low-level character should not get some arbitrary bonus to them because they chose a certain specialization.

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-27, 09:05 PM
@ Devil's advocate: yes, I believe core is airtight when not abused, and when characters are played as characters and not as numbers designed to all equal each other in the end.

As for the same task differently: in a recent game we confronted an extradimensional turtle-thing. Rather than getting into a turn-based wacking contest we augmented the barbarian to be able to lift it as a light load (thanks to enlarge person) cast fly on him, and had him pin it (we rule pins as a representation of incapacitating a creature so it's under your power, i.e. darth vader must succeed on a pin to hold a person off the ground while choking them, rather than a literal "pin") then he flew up to a jolly 240 feet, while maintaining the pin and grapple (took him a while, barely had time before the spells ran out) and droppped it (it didn't manage to re-enter a grapple in the one action we gave it in midair).

Sure, we could have straight up fought it, but we'd rather be creative. It wasn't fazed by our magical attacks, and barely affected even by our min-maxxed barabarian's strongest attack (the DM basically described the creature such that it reacted much in the way a tank would to a single marine: annoyed, slightly endangered, but ultimately unaffected) so we assumed that it was very tough, and had DR. In reallity it was just ill-tempered. It had something like 25 HP left when we decided to play games with it.

The point is: there are ludicrous permutations within the system. A fifth level party can cause that sort of damage, with a little ingenuety. Or we could've lured the thing after us, outrun it long enough to fashion a little road block, and covered it in oil and torched it, taking potshots while it ran for water. It would've taken longer and probably injured whoever was applying the oil severly, but it was an entirely different solution.

I don't think you could represent widely different characters with a single class, and I don't believe that 3.5 is so perfect that it has nothing to be fixed. But I do think that the system functions very well within the core mechanics alone. Multiclassing, skill specialization, feat choice, and more allow such a wide variety of options that with a little role-playing (the way we rule that flying up with the turtle-thing was the same as moving a grapple, following the logic that flight was as hard as walking (RAW) and taking up as much time as the former would have taken) a player can use the wide variety of classes to do what they want.

Ultimately, Gestalt is the ideal way to represent a multiclass character. With a little DM discretion a gestalt can fit into a party, so long as the gestalt has some form of limitation, or simply does more work in a fight for less XP. Gestalt is clearly non-core, yet I fully endorse sucha character.

On the whole, I endorse core only because, as a general rule, non-core takes liberties with the the setting that need not be taken. There is plenty of non-core that I love with all my heart, and core that I find silly and replacable. But I think that it is much better to adapt to core when it's possible, because it is possible. Why fix what isn't broken?

I am not saying that we should all worship core and ignore all else, because that is the close-mindedness I'm trying to avoid. I'm suggesting one uses logic in both interpreting core mechanics, as well as discretion in altering them. What I'm have been holding a tirade against all night is the close minded idea that: "if it doesn't conform to my exact standards it should be changed" idea. Usually following such an ideal leads you to miss the oppertunity to see that it does work to your exact standards, or that your standards are asking to be over-powered, or to be inexpendable at all times.

Mostly I've learned this by experience: early on in my DnD experience I homebrewed everything, and it was an ever wearying hodge-podge of poor design that balanced itself through sheer dumb luck. Later I tried to look at the playstyles you can attain without convoluting the game setting. Lately I've taken to mathematically justifying playstyles before trying them, and what I've come to conclude is that the trick is to balance what is there with what you add, because often enough, there is already something of the sort in the core.

Edit: I am currently reading the article you linked me to. Another of my central tenets, any new addition to core must satisfy all the math that went into creating core, otherwise it will clash.

EDIT 2: I didn't actually think it all the way through the way that author did. the article is one of the most sound arguements I have ever read on the topic. I need to stop using the Perform: Essay skill untrained.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-27, 09:15 PM
I'm upset more with those people who don't choose to understand that the class they are using is already represented by a core class.
Of course the concepts are represented by core classes. The "issue" is that they're not represented as elegantly as they could be. I could use lego blocks to make a beautiful little sculpture, certainly; but it will be fragile and stuff. Alternatively, I could buy a sculpture, save time, and have a more durable piece of art, at the cost of intellectual fulfillment.
I could use the monk to play a martial artist, but it will be fragile and incompetent and stuff. Alternatively, I could play an unarmed swordsage, save time, be more competent (as a martial artist ought to be); at the cost of not having the satisfaction of making Monk work. And that's a cost I'm willing to pay (the cost of buying all these sourcebooks, on the other hand... >_<)


The real issue I have is that mechanics are redundant in many of these non-core builds. I also abhor design choices that fundamentally alter the accepted reality of a game. In DnD certain design choices are made, and what irritates me more than anything are builds that use "power points" whatever you call them, and the like.
That's the real issue? It doesn't seem particularly related to the rambling text you have elsewhere. The "real issue" is fundamentally a matter of taste, then. You abhor these choices, I don't. Simple as that; not much room for argument.


There is a set system of the way things work, and violating this system causes disorganized chaos, which I believe is why so many homebrews devolve into mindless messes. What's so great about the system? The masses of people that work well with maneuvers and power points would be inclined to disagree with your allegations of disorganized chaos.

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-27, 09:19 PM
It is a matter of preference. I just wanted to see if I was alone in my preference, and while you make a good point, I simply see DnD as a different game.

but whatever, who cares. This a forum in which people discuss what they are doing, not arguing about what is right to do, and I've clogged enough space with my walls of text. Agree to disagree.

awa
2009-11-27, 09:23 PM
so you feel a player who wants to be a good sniper is basically agreeing to be incompetent compared to a face to face fighter and should only try and pick fights with things vastly below his cr? That a charecter who wants to do something not represented well in the rules should be punished for it by only being able to fight things far below his own power level?

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-27, 09:25 PM
This a forum in which people discuss what they are doing, not arguing about what is right to do, and I've clogged enough space with my walls of text. Agree to disagree.

1) Nonsense; plenty of people discuss what one ought to do.
2) Ya, srsly, too much text. Makes it hard to see what the core argument is, since you're talking about a wide variety of topics.
3) Agreeing to disagree is a fine thing, given the amount of politeness you possess.

Gpope
2009-11-27, 09:33 PM
You raise a lot of good points. Taking all of 3.5e's splatbook classes and comparing them with each other, they're a big damn mess. However, I have to disagree with the crux of your argument. I contend first that individual classes are extremely arbitrary and thus limiting, and second that multiclassing alone is inadequate to address the need for characters that fall outside of the narrow archetypes represented in core.

Individual classes tend to consist of a lot of abilities that all fall within the same thematic category, but are inextricably linked for no adequate reason. Why do you have to be Lawful to be any good at beating people up with your fists? Why does training to be really good at beating people up with your fists let you teleport? The monk represents an important fantasy archetype, but it is hardly the only archetype that involves punching things to death.

Moreover, the multiclassing system is extremely unwieldy. For one thing, trying to mix abilities from different classes tends to impose arbitrarily high level requirements since you may have to grab a couple levels from different classes. When playing in low-level games it's annoying to be missing out on key abilities. Then once you do get to be high enough level, you're stuck with a bunch of low-level abilities that do not really add up to the equivalent of what single-classed characters are getting at your level, so you can't really compete in challenges at your level range. An alternate/homebrew class might let you get the combination of abilities you want sooner, possibly with a weaker version to begin with or at the cost of other class features that don't fit your archetype, and keeps your abilities progressing at a level-appropriate pace.

Restricting yourself to core makes for an interesting challenge in creativity, both in trying to shoehorn your character concept into the arbitrary limits of core classes and in trying to solve challenges after you've shot yourself in the foot trying to get your character concept up and running in core. But there's nothing stopping you from putting together unusual character builds with splatbook classes, and a good DM can generally provide suitable challenges whether your character is competent or not.

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-27, 09:39 PM
so you feel a player who wants to be a good sniper is basically agreeing to be incompetent compared to a face to face fighter and should only try and pick fights with things vastly below his cr? That a charecter who wants to do something not represented well in the rules should be punished for it by only being able to fight things far below his own power level?
I understand why you misunderstood me. I didn't clarify.

Nope. I'm say that a character cannot be a sniper without being much higher level than 1st or even third level. Sniping is hard, and requires significant training. There cannot be a sniper class that starts at 1st level, because to be a sniper one must accumulate more levels than to be an everyday archer, or a melée fighter.

Think about it: starting 10 ft away a sniper and a spec ops close combat soldier (high level close range soldier), who wins?
what about 100ft with good cover? What about 100ft where the spec ops creates his own good cover?
What about 1000ft away when the sniper has spent his considerable skills preparing?

They are equally matched, but fight differently.
What I am saying: any old marine cannot, be even proficient with a sniper rifle at level one. Neither can any old marine be a navy seal at level one.

Part of the strength of the sniper is his skill above his enemies, and his ability to use better equipment. If you take away the equipment from both classes, and replace it with bows and swords it's eaasy to forget eh limitations of such a loadout, and the reason they were so powerful initially.


Agreeing to disagree is a fine thing, given the amount of politeness you possess
Thanks! I try.

Myrmex
2009-11-27, 09:44 PM
Here's the tl;dr version for those who couldn't wade through the text walls:

Hiest, monkey doesn't like splat books because they make characters who don't use magic too powerful too early in the game, in relation to his experience in real life.

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-27, 09:55 PM
Here's the tl;dr version for those who couldn't wade through the text walls:

Hiest, monkey doesn't like splat books because they make characters who don't use magic too powerful too early in the game, in relation to his experience in real life.

Cold. Really cold.

I don't like splat books because they neither follow the laws of physics accepted in DnD (ignoring magic, because magic has nothing to do physics) nor do they follow the same train of logic used in core, making them more spin-offs than supplements.

Irrelevant details:
But thanks for the cursory reading and judgemental comment. I'd make a comment about respect, but this is tilting dangerously towards internet drama.

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-27, 09:58 PM
Restricting yourself to core makes for an interesting challenge in creativity, both in trying to shoehorn your character concept into the arbitrary limits of core classes and in trying to solve challenges after you've shot yourself in the foot trying to get your character concept up and running in core. But there's nothing stopping you from putting together unusual character builds with splatbook classes, and a good DM can generally provide suitable challenges whether your character is competent or not.

It is an interesting challenge. Plus, I like archetypes. I've homebrewed probably a dozen classes which my friends thouroughly enjoy, and I don't use because I don't feel restricted by core. I have never encountered a build that I wanted to play that I couldn't make with core. But I'm not everyone, and that's why the market doesn't emulate my personal opinions.

awa
2009-11-27, 09:59 PM
yes see a specialized sniper should be able to win when combat starts at long range in fact under those special circumstance he should dominate but he wont mechanically becuase using just core he cant do enough damage. It might take the close combat specialist a few rounds but once hes there its game over for the ranged fighter. using things out of core can help alleviate this. at 100 feet a fighter in light armor can use the run action an be in melee reach in one round at 1000 feet the sniper cant hit the fighter do to range penalties.

Gpope
2009-11-27, 10:03 PM
I've homebrewed probably a dozen classes which my friends thouroughly enjoy, and I don't use because I don't feel restricted by core. I have never encountered a build that I wanted to play that I couldn't make with core. But I'm not everyone, and that's why the market doesn't emulate my personal opinions.

The issue isn't "I want a character who can do such-and-such, can I make it in core?", it's "I want a character who can do such-and-such, performing at a level-appropriate extent. Can I make it in core, at level X?"

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-27, 10:04 PM
yes see a specialized sniper should be able to win when combat starts at long range in fact under those special circumstance he should dominate but he wont mechanically becuase using just core he cant do enough damage. It might take the close combat specialist a few rounds but once hes there its game over for the ranged fighter. using things out of core can help alleviate this. at 100 feet a fighter in light armor can use the run action an be in melee reach in one round at 1000 feet the sniper cant hit the fighter do to range penalties.

And that's why people invented guns, and just approximately a few centuries later not only is melée mostly obsolete, but new roles, such as snipers, have apeared. The main problem with building a DnD sniper is that a sniper requires a certain equipment set which does not exist. A sniper devastates at a distance where he cannot be harmed. In DnD this distance cannot be pure linear distance, so it must be created artificially: climb a tree, hide behind the barbarian.

The solution is: sure, a fighter can make it 100ft in a single round, but can he make it 100ft and climb a building while being shot at by an equal level ranged fighter, or ranger? Can he throw his metal stick at a flying mage? The trick is to use your environment, adapt your strengths to counter their weaknesses, and vice versa.

EDIT: Personally, right now Barbarian is my favorite class. I'm not siding against the melée fighter any more than I was siding against a ranged fighter.


The issue isn't "I want a character who can do such-and-such, can I make it in core?", it's "I want a character who can do such-and-such, performing at a level-appropriate extent. Can I make it in core, at level X?"
I'm not a fan of games where the characters get above level 10. There's always a feeling of artificial restriction after that, and today Devil's Advocate showed me why (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html)

Myrmex
2009-11-27, 10:13 PM
I don't like splat books because they neither follow the laws of physics accepted in DnD (ignoring magic, because magic has nothing to do physics) nor do they follow the same train of logic used in core, making them more spin-offs than supplements.

You mean the jumble of rules the designers put in there that arbitrarily limit half the classes in a) the hopes of balance and b) their assumptions of what should and shouldn't be possible, based on things in real life?


Cold. Really cold.

conflicts with:


But thanks for the cursory reading and judgemental comment. I'd make a comment about respect, but this is tilting dangerously towards internet drama.

I apologize if my summary upset you. That was not my intent. Your vigorous defense of core lead me to conclude that you share the same design philosophy as the Core designers.

awa
2009-11-27, 10:24 PM
So your argument is because it didn't work in real life a long range charecter shouldn't work? long bows worked pretty well from what i reccal from history class.

But all that's completely irreverent its just a straw man argument the problem isn't that guns are better then bows it's that inside core only you cant make a credible sniper or even a remotely competent sniper. You wont answer the core complaint that some things cant be done in core with out making nerfing your self so badly that the charecter is unplayable against level appropriate threats.

And this is just one relatively simple example of something core does poorly.

Myrmex
2009-11-27, 10:27 PM
You wont answer the core complaint that some things cant be done in core with out making nerfing your self so badly that the charecter is unplayable against level appropriate threats.

You can't do X in the real world, D&D uses real world assumptions (except where there is an exception), therefore you can't do X in D&D. Any exceptions are "D&D rules" that must be followed, because not following them wouldn't be consistent with the ruleset.

awa
2009-11-27, 10:31 PM
You can't do X in the real world, D&D uses real world assumptions (except where there is an exception), therefore you can't do X in D&D. Any exceptions are "D&D rules" that must be followed, because not following them wouldn't be consistent with the ruleset.

i'm not sure how this is relevant to what i wrote.

Myrmex
2009-11-27, 10:34 PM
i'm not sure how this is relevant to what i wrote.

Your problem doesn't need addressing, because some ideas are a bad idea, given what we know about Real Life and the Core ruleset. If anything makes it a good idea by moving out of Core, then you shouldn't do it, because moving out of Core doesn't make sense as it contradicts Core rules.

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-27, 10:38 PM
I appologize to Myrmex for being rude.

Moreover, Awa: I understand that you want to play a certain type of character and nothing is stopping you from augmenting a normal ranged fighter with magic, and calling it a sniper, but what I am saying, is that DnD is, much like Myrmax wrote, grounded in reality.

As for longbows: when the effectiveness of a weapon is addressed from a historical standpoint it is typically addressed from the point of view of the type of warfare typical of the time. Longbows were used from fortifications, against hordes of enemies who had often inadequate defense against the rain of arrows poured from the tens and even hundreds of longbowmen.

A longbow is designed to accelerate a heavier arrow to a greater speed, thereby allowing you to fire it at a greater angle from the earth and increase range, and only range, by lobbing the arrow. A longbow does not, contray to a crossbow, allow a single soldier to fire a level shot at short range more effectively. DnD simplifies this, because, frankly, changing bows every three rounds because the enemy got closer is annoying.

The legendary range of the longbow is tobe taken in the context that they were fired by the tens into groups numbering in the hundreds. In this scenario, someone's gonna get hurt even at a distance like 400 meters.

Gpope
2009-11-27, 10:38 PM
I'm not a fan of games where the characters get above level 10. There's always a feeling of artificial restriction after that, and today Devil's Advocate showed me why (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html)

Uh, my entire point is that sticking to core builds artificially inflates the minimum level to fully express a mixed set of abilities. Multiclassing between core classes to fit an archetype that isn't represented straight in core is easier at higher levels because you have more levels to work with; the lower you go, the more restrictive your options get. Rolling up level 1 characters leaves you with the greatest limits; by way of example, if you want to mix rogue skills and magic skills you can be a multiclass Rogue/Sorcerer--but at level 1 you can only do one or the other, exclusively. Taking a little bit of each is not an option, even though it is both logical (there's no reason that these abilities would be mutually exclusive) and balanced (since presumably you'd be worse at doing either one than someone who focused on one area or the other--which is also logical.) But of course there are splatbook classes that do exactly that, in several different flavors, and you can always homebrew your own class.

awa
2009-11-27, 10:43 PM
The problems is 3 primary things one my point has less to do with the snipers specific ability and more that their are some things core does very poorly.

Second dungeons and dragons in no way use real life assumptions like has been pointed out after 5th level pcs are literally super human hell great cleave all by itself would make most infantry formations completely obsolete so why not allow for similarly competent archers.

okay ninja posts have changed some stuff
I recognize that long bows were fired in mass at an arch not a straight shot that's not the point my point is maybe level 1 Joe bob conscripted peasant shouldn't be a competent sniper but when the other classes get to be super human shredding a dozen warriors with ease why cant the archer be similarly useful.

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-27, 10:50 PM
Uh, my entire point is that sticking to core builds artificially inflates the minimum level to fully express a mixed set of abilities. Multiclassing between core classes to fit an archetype that isn't represented straight in core is easier at higher levels because you have more levels to work with; the lower you go, the more restrictive your options get. Rolling up level 1 characters leaves you with the greatest limits; by way of example, if you want to mix rogue skills and magic skills you can be a multiclass Rogue/Sorcerer--but at level 1 you can only do one or the other, exclusively. Taking a little bit of each is not an option, even though it is both logical (there's no reason that these abilities would be mutually exclusive) and balanced (since presumably you'd be worse at doing either one than someone who focused on one area or the other--which is also logical.) But of course there are splatbook classes that do exactly that, in several different flavors, and you can always homebrew your own class.

Or just make a gestalt, slow leveling through encounters which challenge players more than characters, and choose spells that are appropriate to you. Either way works. It's entirely a matter of preference. I prefer simplicity, because I role-play far more than I roll-play when it comes to the table. I don't need a character to play perfectly like my idea, because I tweak the mechanics with cosmetics.
Example:
If I play a monk and say: "I bat the sword away with a swift gesture of my palm, and follow up with a spinkick to the forehead that sends him reeling" does it matter that the fighter missed my monk because of the wis bonus to AC rather than an arbitrary blow deflection power? Or that the monk made a flurry of blows attack that I described, because of its heavy damage, as a kick? Not to me. I'm not breaking balance, but I am making an ordinary class seem extrodinary without having to learn a whole new ruleset.

What I discourage is, for example, wanting to play a pirate, and tacking on silly bonuses to a broken class you modeled after three others, rather than specializing a rogue or a fighter. Based on your post you are not the sort of person to make that mistake, so I'm not criticizing your choices.

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-27, 10:55 PM
The problems is 3 primary things one my point has less to do with the snipers specific ability and more that their are some things core does very poorly.

Second dungeons and dragons in no way use real life assumptions like has been pointed out after 5th level pcs are literally super human hell great cleave all by itself would make most infantry formations completely obsolete so why not allow for similarly competent archers.

okay ninja posts have changed some stuff
I recognize that long bows were fired in mass at an arch not a straight shot that's not the point my point is maybe level 1 Joe bob conscripted peasant shouldn't be a competent sniper but when the other classes get to be super human shredding a dozen warriors with ease why cant the archer be similarly useful.

I'm going to be honest: I do not understand what you are saying. Please copy this post into microsoft word, run a grammar and spell check, and rephrase your argument in paragraph form.

Run-on sentences and flawed punctuation are repaired by automated programs now. Eloquence is not a luxury, but a resource.

Vauron
2009-11-27, 11:06 PM
At the core, awa's points seem to be:

A. At the higher levels (7ish+), 'realistic' is completely irrelevant. By that point, you are not infantrymen 312, you are beyond the peak possible for humans, and the likes of Aragorn are beneath you. By level twenty you should be tag-teaming with Zeus to deal with Typhoon.

B. While it may be possible to do something in core(not always true, but you have already conceded that), it may take a significantly greater amount of levels to work the concept. By the time you manage that, its a very real possibility that you are not able to meaningfully contribute to CR appropriate encounters.

C. Why should one get to be superhuman when wielding a melee weapon, and not with a bow?

Tequila Sunrise
2009-11-27, 11:08 PM
Moreover, Awa: I understand that you want to play a certain type of character and nothing is stopping you from augmenting a normal ranged fighter with magic, and calling it a sniper, but what I am saying, is that DnD is, much like Myrmax wrote, grounded in reality.
I respectfully disagree. I could give dozens of examples of how D&D, even barring magic, is floating absurdly far above the stratosphere of reality. So I'll only point out the one that, in the entire history of gaming, has never been satisfactorily explained as a 'realistic' mechanism: inflating hit points. If this seems an unreasonable assertion to you, I'm sure any number of gamers can answer any questions you might have. But for now, I'll assume that inflating hit points are self-evidently unrealistic to you so that I can talk about other things:

I do sympathize with your 'just use core' attitude, to a certain degree. In certain cases, non-core options make me roll my eyes. For example, why do we need three Unearthed Arcana paladins plus the Holy Liberator plus the Grayguard, not to mention the core Blackguard? They all fill essentially the same role: the non-LG paladin, so why can't we make those character concepts possible with a simple conversation:

Player: Can I play a non-LG paladin?
DM: Sure, alignment restrictions are silly anyway!

But I guess some DMs think that it's alright to start the game as a LG paladin, but that we should have to jump through hoops to play any other kind of paladin. God forbid that paladins should have as much inherent variety as clerics.

Anyway, I find PrCs in general to be unnecessary. Not because I don't like the options that PrCs provide, because I often do, but simply because I don't see the point of jumping through hoops to get something that could just as easily be a feat or base class ability.

Boci
2009-11-27, 11:20 PM
What I discourage is, for example, wanting to play a pirate, and tacking on silly bonuses to a broken class you modeled after three others, rather than specializing a rogue or a fighter. Based on your post you are not the sort of person to make that mistake, so I'm not criticizing your choices.

But if you wanted to be a pirate, why would you play a core rogue? You'll only decent combat ability is SA, which is useless against a frightening amount of monsters. You have the second worse hitdie in the game, and will frequently need to be adjacent to an enemy to gain SA. A fighter is also unable to face a viriety of chalanges. "I'm invisible, guess which square I'm in". Factotum or ToB are much better options for a pirate/

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-27, 11:40 PM
If we assume that realism stops at level three, which is about where it ends, we can further regard the rest as mechanics used to balance character advancement.

As for Hit Points one example: in Assassin's Creed, Altair (the main character) can wack a guard with his sword half-a dozen times before the guard dies (assuming that we ignore Altair's his improved disarm, improved critical, and improved feint feats).
This number is fairly static, it takes about six hits to kill a guard. But, importantly, he doesn't actually touch the gaurd each time he hits him. Sometimes, the guard manages to block the slice last second, sometimes he counter-attacks. What Altair does do every time he swings is wear the guard out until he can finish him off.

We all understand that a single shot, or a single sword blow can kill any man or woman, but the single sword strike wouldn't kill a trained warrior in one blow:

Firstly, because he would fight the pain;
Secondly, because to get the opertunity for that finishing blow you need to tire them out, trick them, move just that much faster than them.

In the end, the reason they die is because they get hit two or three times in vital areas.

PCs, on the other hand, have a lot of HP which represents their ability to tackle fights. Rather than putting an artificial "you can have 10 fights before your fighter is too tired to parry an attack and dies" the designers put a flexible system that represents stamina.

One can assume that unless a character is at 0 or fewer Hit Points, or suffers a critical hit they have taken no actual severe tissue trauma. They have, however grown more and more tired avoiding this type of physical harm. One could argue that this system of using HP as a stamina meter is innacurate because it doesn't represent ever increasing penalties.
But it does: a character with low HP is more likely to mess up a parry and let an attack slide through and damage them. These inherent penalties even stack with other penalties for being tired: such as being "fatigued" further inhibits your stamina.

Ever notice how not everyone in the army has a purple heart? Not every confirmed hit nessesarily causes serious damage to the adventurer. Cure Spells don't actually knit together muscle or repair bone: Regeneration does that. Cure just chanels positive energy, allowing you to fight longer by restoring you to your default strength, and stamina.

Expanding: a High level character can fight more fights against weak foes because they expend little of his energy to fight off. They also provide little experience. It's not like he had to try something new, or re-evaluate his combat strategy. A high level character can fight the same amount of challeng rating appropriate encounters as a lower level character because they represent a parallel expenditure of effort.

This is an unorthodox interpretation. It is by no means the official definition of HP.

Optimystik
2009-11-27, 11:42 PM
The example Optimystik brought up is that it makes it easier to communicate online without explaining every detail. As far as I'm concerned I'd rather have core rules with minimal modifications and almost no conditional rules. Sure it makes it harder to explain, but I prefer to spend more time playing than conversing about my newest build on a forum. But that's personal preference.

What's wrong with doing both? Actually playing, and discussing your ideas with people that share your interests before playing, are not mutually exclusive activities. An hour or two on a forum like this can enhance my entire play experience for the coming session by fine-tuning my concepts.

But if you want to "spend more time playing" as you put it... your dislike of the supplements makes even less sense. Why sit down and waste time mixing, matching, vetting, testing, homebrewing... when you can grab a splat book that has your class and go?


Another fault Optimystik found with my logic, I admit it can be viewed as a fault, is that the player following my strict methodology would have to do a lot of homebrewing to fulfil every idea. The only response I found is straight out of the 19th century: "Simplify, Simplify".

"Simplify" is exactly what the splat books are doing. They say "you want to be a Ninja, here are some rules that define what a Ninja should be able to do." The player's dilemma goes from the broad "what can a ninja do, and how do I make it fit within the rules?" and gets narrowed down to "Does their ninja fit my concept, and what tweaks do I have to make in case it doesn't?"

That's a key word - tweak. A minor adjustment is all that is needed. Why waste time hunting down all the ill-fits in core, or whipping something up out of whole cloth?


I do very little homebrewing (beyond the occasional flavor spell) because I love to find creative ways to use existing rules. I take the lego blocks given to me and construct what I want. I might connect them in unconventional ways and I might have to puzzle over how to match up all my green blocks, but I won't bust out the paint, and I won't melt them down to sculpt something new. It wouldn't be legos.

Again, that is what the splat books are doing. Core provides the lego blocks, the supplements use them in interesting ways.

Some supplements do provide blocks of their own - The two Tomes are the most salient examples - but even those build on the established mechanics present in the SRD.


And once more, yes, proffessionals design game systems. This is why I like to stick to the basics. When "the best minds in gaming" design a nearly airtight system without supplements, that is based entirely on the flexibility of a few core classes, I try not to violate their system, unless a design choice was clearly made only to block power-gamers from abusing an otherwise interesting mechanic.

Building upon a solid base is not a "violation." It's expansion.

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-27, 11:57 PM
But if you wanted to be a pirate, why would you play a core rogue? You'll only decent combat ability is SA, which is useless against a frightening amount of monsters. You have the second worse hitdie in the game, and will frequently need to be adjacent to an enemy to gain SA. A fighter is also unable to face a viriety of chalanges. "I'm invisible, guess which square I'm in". Factotum or ToB are much better options for a pirate/

Monsters that avoid sneak attack should be abnormal encounters in a campaign that isn't undead or plant themed. These monsters ruin a good tenth of all builds, and are best if kept an occasional challenge (have the rogue sneak around and set the vampires all on fire from the chandelier, rather than using his straight up damage power). A pirate's key ability is using distraction (the little used feint rules) to gain cheap shots.

Encounter tables should be used for reference, but not as a deciding factor:
DM (thinking): I want these adventurers to encounter a bunch of orcs, but bugbears are more common in mountains. I'll use those.

not

DM: Three hours pass as you traverse the caverns. Suddenly you see (*rolls percentile dice, consults book, pauses, rolls more dice*) 4 zombies and a cleric who seems to be commanding them.

In reality, the most entertaing encounters use multiple enemies of varied types, preferably enough enemies to outnumber the PCs, but not enough to exceed appropriate challenge rating by more than two or so. These encounters also would allow NPCs to use tactics requiring party synergy, and quick thinking. A carefully planned encounter where each PC has something they can't do, but a lot of things they can makes for a more dynamic and memorable fight.

Boss fights, as I like to call them, break all these rules: they challenge all the players, force them to use every bit of the environment to their advantage, and try their best to negate all the parties abilities equally.

A memorable boss will be quick enough that the fighter needs to either corner them, or stop power attacking, that the rogue has a hard time getting a shot or a flank, that underlings, or spell resistance force the magic users to demolish their surroundings, use unusual one-trick-pony tactics, and overall challenge the party.

If every encounter is like this, or like this to only one player, it quickly turns to drudgery and frustration, which lead to claims that SA is obsolete compared to other powers, or that ranged characters should have seperate classes because the existing ones are too weak.

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-28, 12:10 AM
@ Optimystik: your arguements are fair, but opinionated. So are mine. I don't like the complexity of classes from most splat books. OThers might see the diamond in the rough, I'd rather pay less and wear a cubit zirconium. To me they look the same, and I'm not cheaping out on anyone else.

The reason I personally see little reason to use them is because I usually play relatively standard builds, and see what I can do with the world. Myself, I stick to core, becasue then I worry less about what my character can do at any given second, because of the myriad additional rules, and more about the bigger scope.

ex. I don't think: I'll use x power, but wait it uses x points, and it doesn't stack with y.

I think: I could attack, or I could slink around and flip the table. The mechanics (power attacking, grapple, feint, etc.) are already ingrained in my brain because they are universal, so I am left using my character to their full dramatic potential. Others aren't limited by conditional rules the way I am.

Doesn't make them wrong. I'm just trying to convey my outlook.
Like I said here:

If I play a monk and say: "I bat the sword away with a swift gesture of my palm, and follow up with a spinkick to the forehead that sends him reeling" does it matter that the fighter missed my monk because of the wis bonus to AC rather than an arbitrary blow deflection power? Or that the monk made a flurry of blows attack that I described, because of its heavy damage, as a kick? Not to me. I'm not breaking balance, I'm not giving myself an advantage over my party, and I'm not changing anything beyond the cosmetics of my character, but I am making an ordinary class seem extraodinary without having to learn a whole new ruleset.

Devils_Advocate
2009-11-28, 01:45 AM
awa, suppose that a player wanted to play a character who attacks enemies by sneezing on them. What would it mean for a system to "handle this character concept well"? There are two possible answers.

1. The sneezefighter's attacks should be far less powerful than everyone else's. That's only realistic. Players should be punished for coming up with stupid crap like this, not rewarded. Random wacky junk like this makes a game impossible to take seriously, dammit!
2. The sneezefighter's attacks should be just as effective as everyone else's. That's only fair. Players should be rewarded for coming up with original ideas like this, not punished! Random wacky junk like this is exactly what keeps gaming from getting boring, dammit!

See, the thing is, those are both totally legitimate answers. It's just that each is made within the context of a totally different playstyle for a totally different sort of game. On the one hand, you can have a semi-gritty fantasy world in which people can achieve demigodlike capability at mundane tasks or specific forms of magic through extraordinary perseverance, natural talent, and more than a bit of luck. On the other hand, you can have a superhero game where ordinary people develop random powers out of the blue and then use them to fight and/or commit crime. Each of those is a fine idea for a game, but I wouldn't recommend haphazardly mixing and matching the two.

In short, it's "The only limit is your imagination! :smallsmile:" as seen in, say, GURPS IOU, or... hmm, Mutants & Masterminds? Maybe? I don't really know the details of the system... versus "The limit is the narrow set of hero archetypes that the setting represents. :smallannoyed:" as seen in... well, the vast majority of RPGs, I'm guessing. Of course, it's more of a sliding scale than a stark dichotomy, and the biggest factor is what the GM is willing to allow.

So, that said, in which sense are you saying that sniping is poorly implemented in D&D? Are you saying that it's realistically underpowered, or that it's unrealistically underpowered?

Magic is deliberately unrealistically overpowered, as one of the basic "what-if"s of all D&D settings. Strange gestures and incantations can be far more useful in D&D than in real life, if you do them just right. (Of course, these days, arcane series of symbols do have their place in making human will manifest. Thank you, information technology.)


@ Devil's advocate: yes, I believe core is airtight when not abused, and when characters are played as characters and not as numbers designed to all equal each other in the end.
What question is that "yes" in response to? I can't quite figger it out.

What do you mean by "airtight"? What do you mean by "abuse" in this context?

And, quite frankly, how careful and how obviously post-hoc do your definitions of those terms need to be for that assessment to be especially true of the core rulebooks in particular?

That's not a rhetorical question so much as an invitation to surprise me. Feel free to take it or leave it!


I don't think you could represent widely different characters with a single class
Um, sure you could. Heck, a game system can be as simple as "Players and the GM describe what their characters attempt to do, the GM is allowed to declare any attempt a failure or a success, and opposed actions may be resolved through rock-paper-scissors." That wouldn't in any way prevent the participants from describing characters who are wildly different from each other and behave in utterly different fashions.


On the whole, I endorse core only because, as a general rule, non-core takes liberties with the the setting that need not be taken.
That's... an odd sentiment. Material generally seems to be produced to work with the settings. Heck, you don't change Greyhawk by saying that it has psionics, you change it by saying that it doesn't! There's even a god of mental powers, as I recall. Psionics is a good example of something that's non-core yet part of the established settings, going back quite a ways, I think.

Newer inventions like Binders, Beguilers, and Warblades, on the other hand, aren't a traditional part of Greyhawk, since the classes weren't around when the setting was being developed. They weren't even there when the setting was being developed for the edition in which those classes appear. And yet, I'm not aware of any way in which they conflict with the setting...


But I think that it is much better to adapt to core when it's possible, because it is possible. Why fix what isn't broken?
But non-core options as a rule add to core, rather than removing from it. Throw in a supplement and the original rules are all still there, there are just now also a bunch more rules.


Another of my central tenets, any new addition to core must satisfy all the math that went into creating core, otherwise it will clash.
Can you give an example of supplemental material that you feel clashes with core math?


I don't like splat books because they neither follow the laws of physics accepted in DnD (ignoring magic, because magic has nothing to do physics) nor do they follow the same train of logic used in core, making them more spin-offs than supplements.
That's awfully vague. What particular core conventions are you referring to, and how do splatbooks depart from them?

If exceptional non-magical abilities bother you, why not simply decree all exceptional abilities to be magical? For example, by core RAW, "Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics." Replacing that with "Extraordinary abilities are magical, though they are unaffected by dispel magic and antimagic fields" doesn't really alter any functionality and might bolster verisimilitude.

I really don't get saying "Magic isn't bound by conventional limitations" and then using that as some sort of justification for the whole "Silly warriors, cool stuff is for casters!" cliche, yet I seem to see this basic argument all too frequently. What the heck, people? Don't ban a balanced ability because of problematic fluff when there's an obvious way to change the fluff so that it's non-problematic! If the rules let warriors shoot laser beams out of their eyes, then don't take that away, just call it a type of magic. That's basically what "magic" means anyway: Some sort of fundamental departure from the ordinary.


I don't like the complexity of classes from most splat books.
Splatbook classes don't seem to be more complex than core classes as a rule. And anyway, a single-classed Beguiler would certainly seem to have a more straightford build than a Rogue/Sorcerer/Arcane Trickster. (Or do I want Wizard? Let me think here. Dum de dum...)


The reason I personally see little reason to use them is because I usually play relatively standard builds, and see what I can do with the world. Myself, I stick to core, becasue then I worry less about what my character can do at any given second, because of the myriad additional rules, and more about the bigger scope.

ex. I don't think: I'll use x power, but wait it uses x points, and it doesn't stack with y.

I think: I could attack, or I could slink around and flip the table. The mechanics (power attacking, grapple, feint, etc.) are already ingrained in my brain because they are universal, so I am left using my character to their full dramatic potential. Others aren't limited by conditional rules the way I am.
So, wait, do you prefer core stuff just because that's what you're familiar with, and so you readily know how to make use of a core build?

'Cuz, man, if that's all, you could have just said that! :smallbiggrin:

What do you mean by "conditional rules" here? :smallconfused:

Yahzi
2009-11-28, 02:06 AM
My problem with splat-books is that I can't fit them all into my world.

It's tough enough deciding what the power factions are when the kingdom has fighters, wizards, priests of different alignments, druids, and rogues.

It's freaking impossible when you toss in splat classes that have abilities I can't even spell.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-28, 10:19 AM
Warning: Many questions. Hiest, monkey is not obligated to respond, since we've already "agreed" to disagree. :smallwink:


I don't like splat books because they neither follow the laws of physics accepted in DnD
Wait, WTF? When did physics get into this ****?


do they follow the same train of logic used in core, making them more spin-offs than supplements.
What, precisely, is the train of logic used in core? I can't really see one.


Or just make a gestalt, slow leveling through encounters which challenge players more than characters, and choose spells that are appropriate to you.
So you're advocating gestalt over non-core? Gestalt is more poorly thought-out than the average supplement, as far as balance goes. They didn't really test it much, and don't have many guidelines for game balance.
If you're challenging players more than characters, does it even matter what system you use?


What I discourage is, for example, wanting to play a pirate, and tacking on silly bonuses to a broken class you modeled after three others, rather than specializing a rogue or a fighter. .

What sorts of bonuses are "silly"? What sort of class is "broken"? Why does it matter what the class was modeled after? What does homebrew have to do with supplements? I look at this sentence and see lots of useless adjectives and vague words.


Eloquence is not a luxury, but a resource.

One could say the same about your original rambling posts. :P


I think: I could attack, or I could slink around and flip the table.
The thing is that flipping the table won't always work, making it a potentially poor option, in-character. If you have a good, narratively-based DM, this sort of play is good; but many DMs won't encompass that. They'll look at the core rules, see that your actions have lots of penalties, and make you roll (and fail).


It's tough enough deciding what the power factions are when the kingdom has fighters, wizards, priests of different alignments, druids, and rogues.

It's freaking impossible when you toss in splat classes that have abilities I can't even spell.
Don't discriminate based on class. Discriminate based on power structure. The "fighter" faction is fighters, warblades, swashbucklers, et cetera. The "wizard" faction is wizards, beguilers, warmages, archivists, etc. The priest factions are crusaders, paladins, clerics, archivists, etc. The "druid" faction is druids, spirit shamans, rangers, etc. The "rogue" faction is rogues, spellthieves, beguilers, etc.
A point Hiest, monkey has been making all along is that the splatbooks don't add any concepts that core couldn't do. Therefore, they shouldn't complicate power factions, because any splatbook class will fit into an existing power faction, because its concept will resemble a core class. There is a definite problem with each splatbook author trying to make their class a beautiful and unique snowflake that tries to steal the entire campaign focus (binder is an example offener); but it can be safely fixed.

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-28, 10:42 AM
Um, sure you could. Heck, a game system can be as simple as "Players and the GM describe what their characters attempt to do, the GM is allowed to declare any attempt a failure or a success, and opposed actions may be resolved through rock-paper-scissors." That wouldn't in any way prevent the participants from describing characters who are wildly different from each other and behave in utterly different fashions.

Yes, this is the ideal system. Except, then you have the players who say: "boo hoo my super martial artist lost a fight witha guard! I quit because there should be rules against that!" Defining the limits of a system is key, and while most non-core mateial, as I have noted, follows these limits there is always the player who will abuse seperate splatbooks that are not nessecarily tested with eachother.

In short: it's fine to redefine the limits of your game, but not to abuse the limits that don't need to be changed: like the effective range of a bow, for example. You wouldn't claim that someone can take out a helicopter with a shotgun (you can in "Rifts"!) so why claim other equally ridiculous things in a realistic game. If you want to bend the rules, call it magic, and be done.


That's... an odd sentiment. Material generally seems to be produced to work with the settings. Heck, you don't change Greyhawk by saying that it has psionics, you change it by saying that it doesn't! There's even a god of mental powers, as I recall. Psionics is a good example of something that's non-core yet part of the established settings, going back quite a ways, I think.

When I say "setting" or "accepted reality" I'm not talking about the continent your are setting your game on. I'm talking about the overall "feel" of DnD. This feel is of a very realistic world (on any continent, or planet) with the notable exceptions of magic, and planar travel.


Newer inventions like Binders, Beguilers, and Warblades, on the other hand, aren't a traditional part of Greyhawk, since the classes weren't around when the setting was being developed. They weren't even there when the setting was being developed for the edition in which those classes appear. And yet, I'm not aware of any way in which they conflict with the setting...

These classes don't conflict. They don't change the accepted reality of the game. A class that allows someone to, I don't know, wield two greatswords with few penalties by level 6 or so, or to use a bow beyond its effective range without magic, or, to create a monstrosity that uses druid powers in conjunction with, say necromancy and golem crafting, do break the accepted reality. I distinctly remember hating the "Complete Arcane". It had one or two classes and feats that weren't abusable, ridiculous, or simply looking to do something, anything to be different than core, without gaining any feel that was missed by core. Note: I didn't say that they were all dispensable trash, just many.

These hypothetical classes are what are created by players, and sometimes book designers, to avoid the inherent limitations provided by core, limitations that create a world with certain boundaries.


But non-core options as a rule add to core, rather than removing from it. Throw in a supplement and the original rules are all still there, there are just now also a bunch more rules.

Often, homebrews or supplements, will design a feat for characters to be able to sidestep attacks without harm, or make an attack on a successful tumble check. This is already factored in. A character with a high dex score is sidestepping attacks. A character that uses a tumble check to slide past an enemy can attack next turn: you don't get more time in a round because of a feat, and an enemy can just as easily try to swing at you as you cartwheel around it. Most of the time the monster will miss a character dextrous enough to try this, and the tumbler's player can then say: "I slide around him stabbing him in the back while I go."
Even better: just make a feint, tumble, make a full sneak attack next turn. Much better representation, in my opinion. In my games I beleive that a character would not have time in a round for this comple maneuver, but he/she might have enough in two.

This is a single example. there are, of course many feats and mechanics that do work. I am nodding at the ones I think are already there in core.


Can you give an example of supplemental material that you feel clashes with core math?
I was more addressing careless homebrewers here. Splatbooks are typically balanced when not combined.



That's awfully vague. What particular core conventions are you referring to, and how do splatbooks depart from them?

If exceptional non-magical abilities bother you, why not simply decree all exceptional abilities to be magical? For example, by core RAW, "Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics." Replacing that with "Extraordinary abilities are magical, though they are unaffected by dispel magic and antimagic fields" doesn't really alter any functionality and might bolster verisimilitude.
Sure, that works. But There are some extraordinary abilities I wouldn't give a player. I might give them something like uncanny dodge, which represents a sixth sense, but I wouldn't give them an ex. ability to fire an arrow over 300 meters accurately enough to deal extra damage dice. If they're okay with is being an su. ability, then fine. Then they carry the risk of losing the power (albeit a risk a good DM will invoke only in rare cases) against certain enemies.


I really don't get saying "Magic isn't bound by conventional limitations" and then using that as some sort of justification for the whole "Silly warriors, cool stuff is for casters!" cliche, yet I seem to see this basic argument all too frequently. What the heck, people? Don't ban a balanced ability because of problematic fluff when there's an obvious way to change the fluff so that it's non-problematic! If the rules let warriors shoot laser beams out of their eyes, then don't take that away, just call it a type of magic. That's basically what "magic" means anyway: Some sort of fundamental departure from the ordinary.

But the rules don't let warriors use magic because warriors are already AWESOME. The parry, dodge, dive. They can take an arrow and keep on running, they lift up the BBEG right as he's about to cast his final spell and throw him off a cliff. They grapple, intimidate, and take on hordes of enemies toe to toe. They cleave through shield and bow, they wear armor, they lead armies.... The list goes on. I think the only reason people don't appreciate the humble warrior as having cool stuff is becasue people don't role-play combat.
Warriors are cool because they don't need to use magic, they don't need a flashy entrance, because they can, with brute strength, practice, and intuition accomplish amazing feats. The main problem is that people don't understand that when they take "great cleave" their warrior is making complex spin attacks, snapping through sheilds, and multiple enemies witha single hit. They don't understand that when their warrior uses "combat expertise" he times his strikes, even dances on the battlefield.

This isn't enough for some people. My point is that they simply aren't getting enough out of core to be bored or frustrated into branching out. Fine, play a splatbook class, but keep in mind that a warrior that sacrifices his time to gain supernatural powers is going to lose out elsewhere, and there's nothing you can do about. There isn't an ideal class that does everything it tries to do better than the classes that specialize. I have no problem with players who accept that. It's the players who try to create that ideal class with bizzarre combinations. Sort of like thiscomic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0216.html). That half-ogre cannot go into cities, cannot fight indoors, probably has terrible saving throws, and is in no way protected from ranged attacks.



Splatbook classes don't seem to be more complex than core classes as a rule. And anyway, a single-classed Beguiler would certainly seem to have a more straightford build than a Rogue/Sorcerer/Arcane Trickster. (Or do I want Wizard? Let me think here. Dum de dum...)
To often these simplifications also add powers which don't fit the feel, but are nessecary to maintain balance. When they don't convolute the feel as much as multiclassing might then it's better to take the less elaborate choice.[/quote]



So, wait, do you prefer core stuff just because that's what you're familiar with, and so you readily know how to make use of a core build?

'Cuz, man, if that's all, you could have just said that! :smallbiggrin:

What do you mean by "conditional rules" here? :smallconfused:
That's really it in most cases. I can readily whip up any charcter I want in half an hour, adapt it to the party in another half-hour, and be playing by tea time:smallwink:. I don't have to learn a whole new subset of rules.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-11-28, 10:58 AM
This is an unorthodox interpretation. It is by no means the official definition of HP.
Actually, it pretty much is. HP are supposed to represent stamina, luck, willpower and whatever other abstractions we can invent to make our heroic antics seem plausible. Which is fine, but it's far from plausible and realistic.

A high level fighter wading through an army without dying is absurd; nobody has that much stamina. After fighting for a few minutes, even an olympic-quality athlete becomes exhausted. You can excuse the situation by saying that 'high level characters are beyond the ability of real athletes,' but then your excuse is no longer grounded in reality.

One character can stab a sleeping/helpless defender, and yet the defender has an absurdly high chance of survival.* You can excuse the situation by saying that the attacker had a sudden muscle spasm, which caused his arm to seize up and miraculously miss the defender's entire body, but luck isn't realistic to begin with. Let alone that amount of luck, so your excuse is no longer grounded in reality.

Those are just a couple examples, off the top of my head. There are many others, but I suspect if you can rationalize the absurdity of those situations you'll go on rationalizing until the cows come home.

*As a tangent, it could be argued that a coup de grace wouldn't necessarily awaken a sleeping character. If hp can be described as luck, who says a loss of luck would wake anyone up? It's a silly argument to be sure, but it's a silly situation too.

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-28, 11:03 AM
Blegh, I type so slowly that by the time I finish a post there's already a new one to respond to and I'm forced to double-post. FAIL


Warning: Many questions. Hiest, monkey is not obligated to respond, since we've already "agreed" to disagree. :smallwink:
I don't mind explaining myself. Would I have stolen so many precious moments of others time and sanity with rambling internet argument if I didn't?



Wait, WTF? When did physics get into this ****?
Most of the rules relatively closely follow the laws of physics. Specifically I'm addressing the "range increment" system. Sure ex. powers can violat ehte laws of physics within reason, my new favorite example being uncanny dodge, but they don't blatantly disregard them the way a magical su. ability would.




So you're advocating gestalt over non-core? Gestalt is more poorly thought-out than the average supplement, as far as balance goes. They didn't really test it much, and don't have many guidelines for game balance.
If you're challenging players more than characters, does it even matter what system you use?
No, it doesn't matter what system I use. But I happen to like the core ruleset of two or three systems and I stick to those.

I don't gestalt is unbalanced: some builds are undeniably better than others, but the "worse" builds can still find some niche that gains them acceptance in the game.




What sorts of bonuses are "silly"? What sort of class is "broken"? Why does it matter what the class was modeled after? What does homebrew have to do with supplements? I look at this sentence and see lots of useless adjectives and vague words.
A silly bonus is one that is one that is tacked on for balance and balance only. There are plenty of ways to balance a character without requiring an arbitrary number boost every few levels. Rogue, for example, has none of that "+1 increases to +5 at level X" stuff. Sure, they have improving sneak attack, but that's it. The rogue is balanced by trapfinding, evasion, and the three (four? I don't play high level...) special abilities that they get.




One could say the same about your original rambling posts. :P
Yeah, I saw that coming. You see: it takes from 1 to 1.5 hours to make a Perform: Essay check, and as a first level aristocrat I dont have enough skill points to rush the check without penalties. Thank god for the circumstance bonus that the "preview post" button gives...:smallbiggrin:


The thing is that flipping the table won't always work, making it a potentially poor option, in-character. If you have a good, narratively-based DM, this sort of play is good; but many DMs won't encompass that. They'll look at the core rules, see that your actions have lots of penalties, and make you roll (and fail).
In this specific example: flipping the table (that is knocking it on its side to be used as cover) is a strength check DC ~ 5-10. Succeed by 5 or more and it's even facing the way you want. No penalties, no BS. The penalties stack up when you're trying to flip a table, while being shot at, and in someone's threatened area. In this case, why are you trying to flip the table when you should be running like hell to hide behind the meatshield? It all depends on the situation




A point Hiest, monkey has been making all along is that the splatbooks don't add any concepts that core couldn't do. Therefore, they shouldn't complicate power factions, because any splatbook class will fit into an existing power faction, because its concept will resemble a core class. There is a definite problem with each splatbook author trying to make their class a beautiful and unique snowflake that tries to steal the entire campaign focus (binder is an example offener); but it can be safely fixed.
Optimystik said earlier, the key is to tweak the classes so they fit. Sometimes a splatbook class is just too "thunder stealing", so it works better to adapt it to look like a core class.

sonofzeal
2009-11-28, 11:07 AM
I would say that the flaw in your original argument lies with specialization.

Let's take the Ninja thing for example. Could a high level Rogue be a Ninja? Sure! A high level Fighter could also be a Barbarian, and a high level Ranger could be a Druid (and a high level Druid could be a Ranger). Heck, a high enough level Wizard could have similar HP/BAB/feats to a Fighter, though perhaps not all at the same time.

Therein lies the difficulty. A high level Ranger could be a Druid and vice versa, but let's take two at the same level. A lvl 10 Ranger and a lvl 10 Druid are going to be rather different things, agreed? One is strong in weapons skill, and one is strong in magic. You could have both in the same party together, and they would certainly feel like different characters. If you were to tell someone "oh, Rangers are banned in my game, just play a Druid and wait until you get higher level and take the right feats", well, they might get frustrated. It removes that avenue of expression from the game. Perhaps they're really attached to the Aragorn ideal, and really don't care about the magical aspect. By removing the Ranger class, you're shoehorning them into a different path that doesn't suit them as much. It works, eventually, but is hardly ideal.

Removing classes homogenizes play. It eliminates the ability to specialize on a particular note. Swashbucklers aren't Fighters or Rogues but something of a hybrid. Duskblades aren't Fighter/Wizards. Ninjas aren't Rogue/Monks. You could remove all those non-Core classes from play, but at the cost of character uniqueness.

If you ban the Swashbuckler class, there's no way to adequately balance acrobatic skill with weapon skill. You can still have both, but you'll have to trade off one or the other, delay your mastery of either skill by dipping back and forth. In core, there's no way to get Tumble as a class skill and have full BAB. In core, any given character is going to be lagging slightly behind in weapons skill, or lagging slightly behind in acrobatics skill, or both. He's not really going to be able to claim the title of "master" of either, because there could well be peers he's traveling with that beat him solidly in one of the two categories. Outside of Core though, there is a way to capture that, and now that avenue of expression has opened up.

You could homebrew, but then each new player has to learn each new homebrew class, and it requires a significant effort to make a balanced homebrew anyway. Supplements give a whole massive tower of options that don't require all that effort, and that many players will already know and be comfortable with. I can't see a single reason to homebrew up an acrobatics-fighter, rather than just allow people to play the Swashbuckler class they know and love.

And that's why I won't support banning supplements.

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-28, 11:14 AM
A high level fighter wading through an army without dying is absurd; nobody has that much stamina. After fighting for a few minutes, even an olympic-quality athlete becomes exhausted. You can excuse the situation by saying that 'high level characters are beyond the ability of real athletes,' but then your excuse is no longer grounded in reality.
Read this (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html). When you get the time, of course. It basically explains, with examples, that in real life human history there have probably not been any people over 5th level, ever. A high level fighter is a demi-god, so he should be able to wade through an army of enemies without getting tired. Especially if another demi-god cleric is bolstering his strength.


One character can stab a sleeping/helpless defender, and yet the defender has an absurdly high chance of survival.* You can excuse the situation by saying that the attacker had a sudden muscle spasm, which caused his arm to seize up and miraculously miss the defender's entire body, but luck isn't realistic to begin with. Let alone that amount of luck, so your excuse is no longer grounded in reality. this only applies, again, if the defender has more than ~30 HP. More than 30 HP in real life represents a superhuman strength and endurance. Rule it like this, if you must make it sound realistic: "the knife bounced off of a rib, and slides down his side." otherwise, DMs should rule that any human that is knocked helpless can be decapitated.


*As a tangent, it could be argued that a coup de grace wouldn't necessarily awaken a sleeping character. If hp can be described as luck, who says a loss of luck would wake anyone up? It's a silly argument to be sure, but it's a silly situation too.
Again, there are only two groups who could survive a coup-de-grace. Monsters, are one, and have such thick bodies and wierd shapes that you can rule that it's just hard to get an effective strike in regardless of whther they're sleeping or not. Humans are the other, and unless they are lower than 4th level they're not really human. They're something much more powerful.

Coup-de-grace is a wierd situation, so I vote we just ignore it. I also vote for pudding.

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-28, 11:34 AM
I would say that the flaw in your original argument lies with specialization.

Let's take the Ninja thing for example. Could a high level Rogue be a Ninja? Sure! A high level Fighter could also be a Barbarian, and a high level Ranger could be a Druid (and a high level Druid could be a Ranger). Heck, a high enough level Wizard could have similar HP/BAB/feats to a Fighter, though perhaps not all at the same time.
No. A fighter is someone with any level of skill, even that equivalent to first level experience, that can be effective in melée or ranged combat.

Ranger is someone who specializes in tracking, while a druid is a zealot. These classes all represent a different background and story. Fighter and Barbarian do, on some level toe a line, but what differentiates them is the discipline of the fighter is what eliminates the need for him to throw caution to the wind and risk his life with every attack. These classes all play differently.


Therein lies the difficulty. A high level Ranger could be a Druid and vice versa, but let's take two at the same level. A lvl 10 Ranger and a lvl 10 Druid are going to be rather different things, agreed? One is strong in weapons skill, and one is strong in magic. You could have both in the same party together, and they would certainly feel like different characters. If you were to tell someone "oh, Rangers are banned in my game, just play a Druid and wait until you get higher level and take the right feats", well, they might get frustrated. It removes that avenue of expression from the game. Perhaps they're really attached to the Aragorn ideal, and really don't care about the magical aspect. By removing the Ranger class, you're shoehorning them into a different path that doesn't suit them as much. It works, eventually, but is hardly ideal.
I allow any class that I don't see as emulatable with core. Even then, I don't shoehorn: I give the player the option of choosing either. After crunching the numbers (and looking at the rest of the party) more often then not, but not always, the player chooses the core option.


Removing classes homogenizes play. It eliminates the ability to specialize on a particular note. Swashbucklers aren't Fighters or Rogues but something of a hybrid. Duskblades aren't Fighter/Wizards. Ninjas aren't Rogue/Monks. You could remove all those non-Core classes from play, but at the cost of character uniqueness.



If you ban the Swashbuckler class, there's no way to adequately balance acrobatic skill with weapon skill. You can still have both, but you'll have to trade off one or the other, delay your mastery of either skill by dipping back and forth. In core, there's no way to get Tumble as a class skill and have full BAB. In core, any given character is going to be lagging slightly behind in weapons skill, or lagging slightly behind in acrobatics skill, or both. He's not really going to be able to claim the title of "master" of either, because there could well be peers he's traveling with that beat him solidly in one of the two categories. Outside of Core though, there is a way to capture that, and now that avenue of expression has opened up.
You're absolutely right, there is no way, accepting that your character adheres to the same rules as everyone else could have such diverse training in disciplines that are so unrelated, and still have the full power of each. If a character wanted to play a swashbuckler-type character, and it was clearly obvious that they would be weaker than the party, I would level them a little faster (I have an understanding group of gamers that allow this sort of thing). If they would be as strong as any given party member,
but maybe not as strong as you'd like to be, well then, that's the tradeoff.

You want to play something that requires you to be stronger than the average party member just to attain some ideal character that you have in your head? You're going to be disapointed.

But what if your DM doesn't level you faster than the rest of the party because your build is cool, but unfrtunately underpowered, then I fully condone the use of splatbooks if your DM accepts them.[/quote]



And that's why I won't support banning supplements.

And that's the first sentence they tell you not to ue to conclude an essay with in college. :smallbiggrin:

Boci
2009-11-28, 11:40 AM
Ranger is someone who specializes in tracking,

They gain two class features that help them tracking. Thats hardly specialization. If I wanted a character who could track, I'd choose a race or PrC that grants me scent. Full caster could do it even better but I try to avoid them. A gish could be interesting however.


while a druid is a zealot.

Can be a zealot, just like countless other classes.


These classes all represent a different background and story. Fighter and Barbarian do, on some level toe a line, but what differentiates them is the discipline of the fighter is what eliminates the need for him to throw caution to the wind and risk his life with every attack.

Reckless fighters exist. And why do fighters have to have their abilities from vigerious training? Whats to stop you fighter from being good at weapons because he listens to the voices inside his head which tell him exactly how to swing his blade?

Yahzi
2009-11-28, 11:47 AM
Don't discriminate based on class.
Well, it's mostly spells.

The world changes when you have Zone of Truth, Cure Minor Wounds, Remove Disease, Raise Dead, and Divinations.

Then there's Wall of Stone, Wall of Iron, and Continual Flame.

It changes again when you add Plant Growth, Reincarnation, and Animal Friendship.

And that's just low-level core. I can't possibly create a realistic semi-medieval world when there's a prestige class that has "summon robot" as one of its spells*. Or when there are crystalline half-troll half-celestial half-undead dragon turtle avatars running around.

I mean, it gets to the point where you think some of these crazy monsters exist for no other reason than to challenge the PCs to a fight.

* I don't know that there actually is such a prestige class. But I assume there's something equally silly and difficult to fit into a world.


There is a definite problem with each splatbook author trying to make their class a beautiful and unique snowflake that tries to steal the entire campaign focus
A good campaign would have one or two special classes, to give the world a distinctive flavor. But this endless smorgasbord of super-powers just makes a huge, stewy mess.

sonofzeal
2009-11-28, 12:21 PM
No. A fighter is someone with any level of skill, even that equivalent to first level experience, that can be effective in melée or ranged combat.
I'm not sure I understand this. By your definition then, every character ever is a Fighter, unless they're completely and utterly gimped in melee?


Ranger is someone who specializes in tracking, while a druid is a zealot. These classes all represent a different background and story. Fighter and Barbarian do, on some level toe a line, but what differentiates them is the discipline of the fighter is what eliminates the need for him to throw caution to the wind and risk his life with every attack. These classes all play differently.
And so do Ninja, Swashbuckler, Duskblade, Factotum, Swordsage, and pretty much every other non-core class. They play differently, whether through fluff or crunch. A Monk doesn't play like a Ninja and a Rogue doesn't play like a Swashbuckler, even though there's a lot of overlap.

Besides, background and story are entirely mutable. There's no reason a Fighter couldn't be chaotic and animalistic, and there's no reason a Barbarian couldn't be more rational (if not entirely lawful). That's an entirely different debate though.

Point is, if you can replace a lot of non-core classes, you can also equally well replace a lot of core classes. You get the same problem either way - lower expressive power. Potentially worse balance issues too, depending on your implementation.


I allow any class that I don't see as emulatable with core. Even then, I don't shoehorn: I give the player the option of choosing either. After crunching the numbers (and looking at the rest of the party) more often then not, but not always, the player chooses the core option.

I'd suspect that your players go with the core because you as the DM have pretty much explicitly made your preference known, and players in my experience mostly try to make their DMs happy. But that's conjecture.

Still, it's better to look at groups where the DM doesn't limit or bias his sample, and see what players choose. Why would a player ask for something in the first place, if he didn't think it fit him better than the core alternatives? Do you really think the player asking for Swashbuckler doesn't know about Fighters or Rogues?

And if this is your approach, then you've answered your own original question - KEEP, because occasionally some people might still want to use it. Throwing it away is akin to banning, but you sound like you merely discourage. That's you're prerogative, but that means it's allowed and that means you should keep the books.


You're absolutely right, there is no way, accepting that your character adheres to the same rules as everyone else could have such diverse training in disciplines that are so unrelated, and still have the full power of each. If a character wanted to play a swashbuckler-type character, and it was clearly obvious that they would be weaker than the party, I would level them a little faster (I have an understanding group of gamers that allow this sort of thing). If they would be as strong as any given party member,
but maybe not as strong as you'd like to be, well then, that's the tradeoff.

You want to play something that requires you to be stronger than the average party member just to attain some ideal character that you have in your head? You're going to be disapointed.

But what if your DM doesn't level you faster than the rest of the party because your build is cool, but unfrtunately underpowered, then I fully condone the use of splatbooks if your DM accepts them.
Well, I suppose that's one approach. Variable leveling rates are certainly a solution to the problem you present. That does neatly solve the dilemma I was expressing, but creates two more...

1) The character will likely end up exceptionally stronger in certain areas that may not be expected or preferred by the player. A Fighter/Rogue with an xp boost might well have a whole lot more HP than a Swashbuckler, and that could create an odd and disjointed feeling at the table when he ends up tougher than the single classed Barbarian who didn't get an xp boost. A Monk/Rogue (emulating Ninja) is going to need bonus levels to get his attack bonus competitive, but that'll pull him way ahead in other areas.

2) Difficulty in gauging. It's not always obvious how strong or weak a character is. How much help does a Monk/Rogue need to stay pace with a Druid? How many levels ahead should he be? Two? Three? Does it change over time, something like (level * 1.25)? I wouldn't trust my estimation on this, and I wouldn't expect any gaming group to be able to do it reliably. If you can, great, but I would never recommend it to another group. Better to work with the options printed, where the disparate power levels are known and understood. There's been plenty of work done on balancing based on Tiers already, and Tiers neatly accommodate non-Core classes. Almost nothing is weaker than the weakest core, and almost nothing is stronger than the strongest core. Tossing away non-Core and then counter-optimizing Core is just going to make it harder to gauge balance and compensate



And that's the first sentence they tell you not to ue to conclude an essay with in college. :smallbiggrin:
Point. But you're still reducing the expressive power of the system, without making it any more balanced or any simpler. And as such I'm still against it.

horseboy
2009-11-28, 12:25 PM
But the rules don't let warriors use magic because warriors are already AWESOME. The parry, dodge, dive. They can take an arrow and keep on running, they lift up the BBEG right as he's about to cast his final spell and throw him off a cliff. They grapple, intimidate, and take on hordes of enemies toe to toe. They cleave through shield and bow, they wear armor, they lead armies.... The list goes on. I think the only reason people don't appreciate the humble warrior as having cool stuff is becasue people don't role-play combat.
Warriors are cool because they don't need to use magic, they don't need a flashy entrance, because they can, with brute strength, practice, and intuition accomplish amazing feats. The main problem is that people don't understand that when they take "great cleave" their warrior is making complex spin attacks, snapping through sheilds, and multiple enemies witha single hit. They don't understand that when their warrior uses "combat expertise" he times his strikes, even dances on the battlefield.

No, warriors aren't cool because by 5th level weapons are about as dangerous as a whiffle ball bat. Warriors aren't cool because they can't even be as good at Profession (Soldier) as a thief, or indeed even have the skills you'd expect from a grizzled veteran man-of-arms and by 6th or 8th level completely out of worth wild feats so are getting nothing more from their class.

On the whole I do agree with you that have a few highly malleable classes rather than a class for every single concept is better, but that is most definitely not core 3.5, the "Leggos" can be used to create a crude, 8 bit looking parody but personally I'd rather sculpt it form green stuff and have a smooth, slick appearance to my character, not where I've had to make a lot of "Best fits".

Tequila Sunrise
2009-11-28, 12:31 PM
Read this (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html). When you get the time, of course. It basically explains, with examples, that in real life human history there have probably not been any people over 5th level, ever. A high level fighter is a demi-god, so he should be able to wade through an army of enemies without getting tired. Especially if another demi-god cleric is bolstering his strength.

this only applies, again, if the defender has more than ~30 HP. More than 30 HP in real life represents a superhuman strength and endurance. Rule it like this, if you must make it sound realistic: "the knife bounced off of a rib, and slides down his side." otherwise, DMs should rule that any human that is knocked helpless can be decapitated.


Again, there are only two groups who could survive a coup-de-grace. Monsters, are one, and have such thick bodies and wierd shapes that you can rule that it's just hard to get an effective strike in regardless of whther they're sleeping or not. Humans are the other, and unless they are lower than 4th level they're not really human. They're something much more powerful.

Coup-de-grace is a wierd situation, so I vote we just ignore it. I also vote for pudding.
So we're agreed: D&D is not realistic because there are too many situations where we have to either house rule it, ignore it or say "Well, D&D goes beyond the boundaries of real life" in order to deal with it.

pasko77
2009-11-28, 12:43 PM
Hi, I read only the first part of the thread, so I apologize if my concept has already been expressed.

To the OP: I understand the principle of simplicity that you search. In maths this is called "orthogonality". To describe the whole space, you only need 3 vectors, called x, y, and z. Therefore you can combine these to describe any and every point.

This same principle should apply to D&D core classes. This, briefly summarized, is your theory.

While logical, there is a main fault: core classes are not balanced. Please don't disagree on this :)
Then, a more logical choice would be to select better "ortogonal" classes. So why don't add Tome of Battle, so you can have a mechanically better fighter and monk? Or add psionics (i don't remeber which book you should buy).

With these books, decide what 10/20 "core" classes you will be using and ban the others.

Opinions?

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-28, 12:48 PM
They gain two class features that help them tracking. Thats hardly specialization. If I wanted a character who could track, I'd choose a race or PrC that grants me scent. Full caster could do it even better but I try to avoid them. A gish could be interesting however.
But a ranger's entire repertoire centers around hunting down and killing his enemies. He gains favored enemies, and hide in plain sight: typical abilities of a hunter. Sure, and player can take track, and beef up their survival, but they don't focus on following their enemies (the hide and hide in plain sight abilities) without being seen.
Should you play a ranger just for the combat styles and spells, you are shoehorning yourself: Ranger is a very specific class that does what it does well. If you just want combat styles use a variant or homerew a different class. This is the same idea that I opppose in a different context. I oppose the close minded-ness that either "core doesn't have my idea because it's not specific enough", or "I'll use core because I don't want to try to emulate proffessionals." A healthy balance is: if you like very few features from a class, or don't like the background that comes with it, customize, make an urban ranger, or make a class that keeps the "Combat Styles" feature, but replaces spells and favored enemies with something else.





Can be a zealot, just like countless other classes.
A druid is a zealot: the draw all their power from a code of conduct as strict as the paladin's, even more so. Not only are they forbidden from revealing the secrets of their order, they cannot harm nature for any reason, they cannot act in any manner that does not support ultimate balance, and they can't even wear too many man-made items (although the specific limit is up to the DM).

As for the alignment restriction: a TN druid is not average. They are not the everyday people that have values and beleifs, but would rather not express them or rock the boat. The Druid must be neutral the way a paladin must be lawful good. They are not bystanders, but active champions of balance, the way Paladins are active champions of order. So yes, if you want to be a druid, you have to accept that unless you are some subtype of druid, or you have class levels in other things, you will have to play a zealot.

Unless you stole your druidic powers... but then that's not exactly core, even if you use their rules...



Reckless fighters exist. And why do fighters have to have their abilities from vigerious training? What's to stop your fighter from being good at weapons because he listens to the voices inside his head which tell him exactly how to swing his blade?

A barbarian doesn't use armor because it inhibits his running wild and his insane strength, his training regimen is all physical training. The fighter, on the other hand, practices techniques, and watches his enemies reactions. Feats represent the massive amount of training and practice that characters accumulate through levels. If a fighter gets bonus feats, it's because he trains in a way that he practices and specializes his tehnique.

If you want to play a fighter who gains his technique from being possessed by a god of war, or whatever, fine. But it takes effort to translate mental comprehension to physical ability. You can read about basketball technique all day, but unless you pick up a ball and beat that technique into your "muscle memory" you won't be able to outplay even the most crude opponent.


@Pasko77

While logical, there is a main fault: core classes are not balanced. Please don't disagree on this :)
Then, a more logical choice would be to select better "ortogonal" classes. So why don't add Tome of Battle, so you can have a mechanically better fighter and monk? Or add psionics (i don't remeber which book you should buy).

With these books, decide what 10/20 "core" classes you will be using and ban the others

Exactly! Just because it's in the original books doesn't make it automatically superior, and just because it's not doesn't automatically make it bad. It's all on a individual, logical level.

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-28, 12:59 PM
No, warriors aren't cool because by 5th level weapons are about as dangerous as a whiffle ball bat. Warriors aren't cool because they can't even be as good at Profession (Soldier) as a thief, or indeed even have the skills you'd expect from a grizzled veteran man-of-arms and by 6th or 8th level completely out of worthwhile feats so are getting nothing more from their class.

I think we can collectively agree that after level 5 DnD is nowhere near realistic. This is why I play low-level campaigns. If you want to level a warrior beyond a certain point you have to begin implementing techniques that do nothing but balance, that don't match fluff. And I refuse to do that, so I play low level. If you want to go beyond that arbitrary boundary, sometimes you need to use alternetive means. (or you could just class into sorceror).

I have a fighter 4/barbarian 1 that, without power attacking deals 17.5 damage on a successful hit, all without cheating (he uses a large sized weapon, and accepts the minor penalty). I built him with 25 (technically 26, but don't tell the DM that:smalltongue:) point buy. He gets +14 to grapple (+16 while raging), and he's not going to stop being useful any time soon. Especially when he gets an extra attack per round next level. I don't play as often as my friends do so he's the lowest level character in the party, and he still demolishes enemies, and deals the most damage. I don't see how this is weak.

sonofzeal
2009-11-28, 01:17 PM
Exactly! Just because it's in the original books doesn't make it automatically superior, and just because it's not doesn't automatically make it bad. It's all on a individual, logical level.
This helps a lot. I would have serious issues with a game that banned all splatbooks and stuck with Core, but I would be willing to try one that limits base classes to an appropriate orthogonal set. It'd still limit the expressiveness of the system somewhat, but if well-chosen it might help balance and simplicity, and be worth trying at least.


Out of curiosity - what would you propose for your preferred orthogonal set?

Asbestos
2009-11-28, 01:43 PM
This helps a lot. I would have serious issues with a game that banned all splatbooks and stuck with Core, but I would be willing to try one that limits base classes to an appropriate orthogonal set. It'd still limit the expressiveness of the system somewhat, but if well-chosen it might help balance and simplicity, and be worth trying at least.


Out of curiosity - what would you propose for your preferred orthogonal set?

Probably the classes that make up Tier 3.

sonofzeal
2009-11-28, 05:23 PM
Probably the classes that make up Tier 3.

Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psionic Warrior?

Hmmm..... if you're going for Orthogonality, I'd have to reject Dread Necro, Beguiler, and Duskblade. I'd also have to add Sorcerer, Scout, and Cloistered Cleric. I'd fight for Psion as the full-int caster, because it covers a more unique phase space given that we already have Sorcerer on this list.

Incarnate, Shadowcaster, Warlock, DFA, Truenamer, Spellthief, and Artificer all fill unique spaces and would deserve inclusion. I'm not entirely convinced on Shadowcaster/Truenamer, but they're mechanically different enough to deserve special mention for diversity's sake, even if they're too weak. Artificer could also potentially be replaced if level 12 Warlocks are around, and that would narrow the power gap even more.




Full list for me then would be: Artificer, Bard, Binder, Cloistered Cleric, Crusader, Dragonfire Adept, Factotum, Incarnate, Psion, Psychic Warrior, Scout, Shadowcaster, Sorcerer, Spellthief, Swordsage, Truenamer, Warblade, Warlock, Wildshape Ranger.

Boci
2009-11-28, 06:22 PM
But a ranger's entire repertoire centers around hunting down and killing his enemies. He gains favored enemies, and hide in plain sight: typical abilities of a hunter. Sure, and player can take track, and beef up their survival, but they don't focus on following their enemies (the hide and hide in plain sight abilities) without being seen.
Should you play a ranger just for the combat styles and spells, you are shoehorning yourself: Ranger is a very specific class that does what it does well. If you just want combat styles use a variant or homerew a different class. This is the same idea that I opppose in a different context. I oppose the close minded-ness that either "core doesn't have my idea because it's not specific enough", or "I'll use core because I don't want to try to emulate proffessionals." A healthy balance is: if you like very few features from a class, or don't like the background that comes with it, customize, make an urban ranger, or make a class that keeps the "Combat Styles" feature, but replaces spells and favored enemies with something else.

If I want a hunter in core, I'll play a rogue, with a possible dip into barbarian for fast movement.


A druid is a zealot: the draw all their power from a code of conduct as strict as the paladin's, even more so. Not only are they forbidden from revealing the secrets of their order, they cannot harm nature for any reason, they cannot act in any manner that does not support ultimate balance, and they can't even wear too many man-made items (although the specific limit is up to the DM).

And how does that force them to be a zealot?


As for the alignment restriction: a TN druid is not average. They are not the everyday people that have values and beleifs, but would rather not express them or rock the boat. The Druid must be neutral the way a paladin must be lawful good. They are not bystanders, but active champions of balance, the way Paladins are active champions of order. So yes, if you want to be a druid, you have to accept that unless you are some subtype of druid, or you have class levels in other things, you will have to play a zealot.

Unless you stole your druidic powers... but then that's not exactly core, even if you use their rules...

Balance can be interpreted in many ways. Is natural selection part of balance? Depending on what you're druids response is those are two very different characters.



A barbarian doesn't use armor because it inhibits his running wild and his insane strength, his training regimen is all physical training. The fighter, on the other hand, practices techniques, and watches his enemies reactions. Feats represent the massive amount of training and practice that characters accumulate through levels. If a fighter gets bonus feats, it's because he trains in a way that he practices and specializes his tehnique.

Following that logic a fighter who doesn't have downtime doesn't get his bonus feats.


If you want to play a fighter who gains his technique from being possessed by a god of war, or whatever, fine. But it takes effort to translate mental comprehension to physical ability. You can read about basketball technique all day, but unless you pick up a ball and beat that technique into your "muscle memory" you won't be able to outplay even the most crude opponent.

In the real world no, but this is fantasy. Its possible.

shadow_archmagi
2009-11-28, 06:55 PM
So, a few things. I hope you don't mind if I paraphrase a bit.



Just because it's in core doesn't automatically make it superior, or noncore make it inferior!


So why did you feel the need to ban noncore?



Once you start getting into the higher levels, things become very silly and unworkable. I like to stay below something like 5 or so.




See, Ninjas are just higher level rogues. Low level rogues are street rats, high level ones are elite assassins. If you're having trouble emulating a concept, just use more levels


Don't you feel there's an inherent conflict between these two?

horseboy
2009-11-28, 07:39 PM
I think we can collectively agree that after level 5 DnD is nowhere near realistic. This is why I play low-level campaigns. If you want to level a warrior beyond a certain point you have to begin implementing techniques that do nothing but balance, that don't match fluff. And I refuse to do that, so I play low level. If you want to go beyond that arbitrary boundary, sometimes you need to use alternetive means. (or you could just class into sorceror).So close, yet so far. Level 5 D&D is no where near realistic not because your character is super special awesome, but because the mechanics fundamentally break down. They use crap like that Alexandrian blog to try and tell you it's because you're super special awesome. For this thing to hold true two things must be true:
1) The natural state of all NPC's is that of munchkin level optimization.
2) That four years of college, 4 years of medical school and 2 years of medical residency only makes someone one 20% (if you reject 1, like I) to 40% (if you don't) more likely to be able to preform open heart triple by-pass surgery than someone with an MBA.


I have a fighter 4/barbarian 1 that, without power attacking deals 17.5 damage on a successful hit, all without cheating (he uses a large sized weapon, and accepts the minor penalty). I built him with 25 (technically 26, but don't tell the DM that:smalltongue:) point buy. He gets +14 to grapple (+16 while raging), and he's not going to stop being useful any time soon. Especially when he gets an extra attack per round next level. I don't play as often as my friends do so he's the lowest level character in the party, and he still demolishes enemies, and deals the most damage. I don't see how this is weak.
So, when you were first level, you were doing what? 12 points of damage on a successful hit. Most enemies had around 8-12 hit points. You hit something, it died. Now at 5th you're doing 17.5 to you're peers who have, 40ish hit points. You can no longer kill your equal. That's something you used to be able to do, but can't anymore. Call me kooky, but I have this crazy idea that as a character grows in levels it should be more competent in his abilities, not less. And this is just comparing the fighter in his "hay day" compared to fighter at 5th. It doesn't get any better the higher up they go.

Salanmander
2009-11-28, 08:56 PM
Full list for me then would be: Artificer, Bard, Binder, Cloistered Cleric, Crusader, Dragonfire Adept, Factotum, Incarnate, Psion, Psychic Warrior, Scout, Shadowcaster, Sorcerer, Spellthief, Swordsage, Truenamer, Warblade, Warlock, Wildshape Ranger.

Would you be averse to adding Spirit Shaman? I find the spell retrieval system pretty interesting, and you seem to lack the Druid spell list currently (unless I'm missing something).

arguskos
2009-11-28, 09:01 PM
Full list for me then would be: Artificer, Bard, Binder, Cloistered Cleric, Crusader, Dragonfire Adept, Factotum, Incarnate, Psion, Psychic Warrior, Scout, Shadowcaster, Sorcerer, Spellthief, Swordsage, Truenamer, Warblade, Warlock, Wildshape Ranger.
This is a pretty good list, but I do mourn the death of my favorite character archetype, which isn't possible with this list of classes: the traveling sage who casts from his book of spells (Wizard- or Archivist-style character). Course, I LIKE Vancian book casting, but I'm weird. Otherwise, this looks good.

Question: why did you exclude the other Incarnate classes, but kept in Psychic Warrior? Do you just hate Totemists? :smalltongue:

EDIT: Oh, what he said. ^^^ Spirit Shamans need to exist, cause they're cool.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-28, 09:12 PM
My nit-pick, therefore, is that many of these non-core classes represent characters that can be played without the non-core classes. Why play a ninja of some form or other? Hiding is always hiding, no matter the person. A rogue takes ranks in hide and move silently the same way a ninja would. Should you want to play a ninja who channels mystical powers to their aid, make it a sorceror/rogue and choose spells that are applicable to this class. One might argue that such a compromise forfeights the power of one class for the the power of another. I would agree entirely. A ninja spends much more time in formal training than a streetrat.

A: by 2nd level you have Improved Invisibility for 1 rd (swift action). Meaning TWFing is possible.
A Wizard or Sorceror cannot cast that spell (because it doesn't exist). There is Swift Invisibility, but that ends when attack once.

Next, Ninjas can poison weapon without chance of poisoning self. (everyone else have a chance to fail and poison self)



warlock, these are all titles, different names for a character who has a certain level of skill in a certain class.

A Warlock is not a Mage: they have infinite spell-likes, but overall they are weaker than a Mage.


If the class is basically the same: then it is wierd to use the new class (same reason I never play a Fighter: everyone can use feats).

A Warmage is basically just a sorceror who wears armor. Baaically the same.
However, Dread Necro and Beguiler are not. They have unique class features.




First off, when you actually want to play a ninja, you run into a few issues. So there's no such thing as a "Weak first level ninja." That means now I have to figure out how exactly my first level character is going to BECOME a ninja, since "and then he trained in a monastary for two years" is a lot easier to put into the backstory than into the game.

Um, yeah, never played Inindo: Way of the Ninja on SNES?
In it you start out as a weak ninja because your training was interrupted be Oda Nobunja's goons.
You start out needing to go to this cave fighting giant centipedes, giant rats, etc to get this scroll so you can enter the mountain top (scroll gives you permission) to start training.
You learn first ninja magic there after retreiving an Orb in the cave.

It was an awesome game. You can later once higher trained enough to join wars, and maybe even kill Oda if good enough.
Hanzo Hattari is an awesome character to let join party.

sonofzeal
2009-11-28, 10:48 PM
This is a pretty good list, but I do mourn the death of my favorite character archetype, which isn't possible with this list of classes: the traveling sage who casts from his book of spells (Wizard- or Archivist-style character). Course, I LIKE Vancian book casting, but I'm weird. Otherwise, this looks good.

Question: why did you exclude the other Incarnate classes, but kept in Psychic Warrior? Do you just hate Totemists? :smalltongue:

EDIT: Oh, what he said. ^^^ Spirit Shamans need to exist, cause they're cool.
For wandering sage, refluff Sorc or Psion. It's not a big step with the Psion, flavour-wise, for them to study books on psionics and psychology and meditation. They're Int based and get all Knowledge as class skills, so I figure they're doing some major studying at some point. It'd make sense for a committed Psion to carry around a tome or two.

As for Vancian, play a Sorcerer and choose in advance. No reason you have to use the flexibility allowed. Heck, you could do the same for the Psion if you wanted to.

I excluded the other Incarnum classes because, remember, we're shooting for Orthogonality. Soulborn gets wrapped into Crusader (+incarnate?), Totemist gets wrapped into Wildshape Ranger (+incarnate?). You loose expressive power, but that's assumed from the get go. Personally I'd rather play with everything, but as far as the exercise goes I think Soulborn and Totemist are expendable. You could argue for keeping Totemist over Incarnate, but I think Incarnate covers the most phase space of the two.

Spirit Shamans I'll grant.

Roderick_BR
2009-11-29, 01:56 AM
I kinda agree with it. Too many new classes, when you could just add things to the existing classes (a common complaint about the new classes from Tome of Battle).
I remember back in AD&D, where you just had a set of classes, and could get new books with the kits, that pretty much worked as today's feats.
Something I was working a while ago (and stoped several times due to work and study), was a mini system that used only 4 main classes (and 6 "gish" classes), and several feats/skills/spells/maneuvers to customize characters, and PrCs for the more specific paths.
I'm still working the basic details, so I'm far from getting classes that add whole new rules, like psyonics, binding, or incantations.

Devils_Advocate
2009-11-29, 04:52 AM
Most of the rules relatively closely follow the laws of physics. Specifically I'm addressing the "range increment" system.
Interestingly, bow ranges were specifically identified as a proud nail (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060120a) by Dave Noonan. Part of the issue is that the rules don't address shooting into a crowd well at all. Not that I can find the rules for firing into melee at the moment.


Sure ex. powers can violat ehte laws of physics within reason, my new favorite example being uncanny dodge, but they don't blatantly disregard them the way a magical su. ability would.
Note that the RAW don't quite divide Ex and Su abilities up on this basis. Darkvision, for example, is Extraordinary.


A silly bonus is one that is one that is tacked on for balance and balance only. There are plenty of ways to balance a character without requiring an arbitrary number boost every few levels. Rogue, for example, has none of that "+1 increases to +5 at level X" stuff. Sure, they have improving sneak attack, but that's it. The rogue is balanced by trapfinding, evasion, and the three (four? I don't play high level...) special abilities that they get.
Generally speaking, the bonuses that classes get seem to make them better at the things they're supposed to be good at doing. I'd be interested in seeing an example of what you consider a silly bonus.

Are the continually increasing hit points, skill points, base saves, and BAB that all classes get "arbitrary number boosts", at least in some cases?

There are ways to balance a game other than continually bumping up stats, but that's nevertheless the way that d20 is balanced (to the extent that it's balanced).


These classes all play differently.
And non-core classes play differently from each other and differently from the core classes. And they have different fluff from each other and different fluff from the core classes.

A Rogue/Sorcerer makes a Ninja in just the same sort of way as a Rogue/Fighter/Druid makes a Ranger. A Rogue/Sorcerer fails to make a Ninja in just the same sort of way as a Rogue/Fighter/Druid fails to make a Ranger. Roughly approximating a specific set of abilities is obviously not the same thing as actually having them, but it may be close enough if what you wanted wasn't terribly specific to start with. And none of that changes depending on whether the class under consideration is non-core.

A Swashbuckler, for example, is conceptually an agile, durable, frontline melee combatant (I think). Attempting to approximate this using Fighter and Rogue levels costs you BAB and hit points in exchange for Sneak Attack dice and bonus feats that you don't want. Now, you can take the Rogue/Fighter build and run with it, attempting to incorporate feats and sneak attacking in a way that fits with, and maybe even supports, what you already had in mind. Depending on how wedded you are to a very specific concept, maybe you'll be comfortable with that sort of departure from your particular original idea, and maybe you won't be.


A druid is a zealot: the draw all their power from a code of conduct as strict as the paladin's, even more so. Not only are they forbidden from revealing the secrets of their order, they cannot harm nature for any reason, they cannot act in any manner that does not support ultimate balance, and they can't even wear too many man-made items (although the specific limit is up to the DM).

As for the alignment restriction: a TN druid is not average. They are not the everyday people that have values and beleifs, but would rather not express them or rock the boat. The Druid must be neutral the way a paladin must be lawful good. They are not bystanders, but active champions of balance, the way Paladins are active champions of order. So yes, if you want to be a druid, you have to accept that unless you are some subtype of druid, or you have class levels in other things, you will have to play a zealot.
You seem to have some misconceptions about the Druid class in 3.5. You might want to go back and reread the class description in the PHB. Notably, it doesn't mandate any sort of actual agenda for druids at all, unless I'm missing something. And druids explicitly do not all need to be True Neutral.

The druidic code of conduct is so vague that how restrictive it is is almost entirely DM dependent. With a strict DM, a Druid's player might need to walk on eggshells, and a permissive DM could allow for almost total freedom of action. "Revering nature" could mean severely restricting your interaction with living things in in any number of ways, or it could be purely a matter of attitude, restricting outward behavior not at all. In any case, they're not explicitly forbidden from harming nature, and indeed it's unclear what it would mean to harm nature itself.

If you're basing what you wrote on something other than the 3.5 Druid class description, please specify the basis you're using.

(Why do you bother to use indentation that doesn't show up due to board formatting? Force of habit?)


I play low-level campaigns.
Well, then, you're operating under very different considerations than a group that prefers never to play below level 10. For example, core seems to become much more unbalanced at high levels, so at high levels there's all that much more reason to replace the broken bits.

On the other hand, the game is less flexible at low levels. It becomes harder to get a specific mix of abilities that you want by combining stuff the fewer class levels, feats, magic items, races, etc. you have to work with. Of course, that's an issue whenever you want to play a specific character concept from level 1.


If you want to level a warrior beyond a certain point you have to begin implementing techniques that do nothing but balance, that don't match fluff.
It's a matter of which fluff they match. It's not all that difficult to come up with an ad-hoc explanation of how any given rule functions in the game world.


So why did you feel the need to ban noncore?
HM has made it pretty clear that he doesn't ban non-core material. He just prefers to implement concepts using core material when possible. This seems to be mostly because he's generally familiar enough with core material to grok it, and it's easier to work with material that you grok.

sonofzeal
2009-11-29, 09:15 AM
I kinda agree with it. Too many new classes, when you could just add things to the existing classes (a common complaint about the new classes from Tome of Battle).
I remember back in AD&D, where you just had a set of classes, and could get new books with the kits, that pretty much worked as today's feats.
Something I was working a while ago (and stoped several times due to work and study), was a mini system that used only 4 main classes (and 6 "gish" classes), and several feats/skills/spells/maneuvers to customize characters, and PrCs for the more specific paths.
I'm still working the basic details, so I'm far from getting classes that add whole new rules, like psyonics, binding, or incantations.
I think the problem with this is that the base game was not really designed that way. Tome of Battle, surprisingly, is.

Think about it - take a Swordsage as your generic 3/4 BAB martial class, and a Warblade as your generic 1/1 BAB martial class. Instead of offering kits, offer different schools of maneuvers. Maybe toss a couple alternate class features in with it, or stances that grant them.

Fighter becomes "Iron Heart kit Warblade"
Barbarian becomes "Tiger Claw kit Warblade"
Paladin becomes "Devoted Spirit kit Warblade"
Rogue becomes "Shadow Hand kit Swordsage"
Monk becomes "Setting Sun kit Unarmed Swordsage"
Bard becomes "White Raven kit Swordsage"

Ranger would require a new school.

Outside of Core, Swashbuckler becomes "Diamond Mind kit Warblade", Ninja becomes "Shadow Hand kit Unarmed Swordsage", Samurai would be a new school, Scout would be a new school (or the Ranger kit, on a Swordsage base), Warlock would be a new school, Soulknife would be a "Diamond Mind kit Swordsage" with a mindblade added class feature, etc.

You'd have to mix up class features a bit to really cover it, maybe mix and match from other disciplines, but you get the idea I think.

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-29, 10:38 PM
So, when you were first level, you were doing what? 12 points of damage on a successful hit. Most enemies had around 8-12 hit points. You hit something, it died. Now at 5th you're doing 17.5 to you're peers who have, 40ish hit points. You can no longer kill your equal. That's something you used to be able to do, but can't anymore. Call me kooky, but I have this crazy idea that as a character grows in levels it should be more competent in his abilities, not less. And this is just comparing the fighter in his "hay day" compared to fighter at 5th. It doesn't get any better the higher up they go.


Nope: I was doing the same (average) 17.5 damage at level 1. I have not changed my strength score, nor have I changed my weapon (because it has its own fluff, so it would be hard to find an enchanted weapon of greater power, and Reforging weapons violates my charcter's arbitrary values. LG with 6 int, 6 wis, and the background of being a cheif of a tribal society is a b****).
He simply hits more often. Factoring in miss chance of an enemy of level appropriate AC at level 1 he dealt something like ~8-11 damage per swing (not per hit), now he deals ~14-17 per swing. He has enough AC and hitpoints to make more attacks than the casters can cast spells (before they run out) and the casters deal approximately (assuming they prepare only combat spells, and prepare the best ones) ~15-25 damage per spell cast (factoring in challenge rating appropriate enemy touch AC and save chance).

This is ignoring the Barbarian's rage and his "Great Cleave" feat. After combining all these facts the conclusion is: the barbarian may take longer to kill a challeng rating appropriate enemy than he did before: but it takes the rest of the party even longer, and they can do it less often times. Because of this buld the rest of the party is on support duty (which, importantly, the barbarian is crap at): they make sure that no one casts an effective dominate person on Borgack, enhance his stats, and keep those pesky level-draining-undead off of him. The occasional "fly" spell causes hilarity to ensue.

I Haven't been reading this thread for a day or so now, so the replies really piled up. More or less I'm hearing the same things with a few exceptions.

First, I'd like to retract my statement about "silly bonuses". While I have seen many classes that did add bonuses I saw as replacable with more fitting abilities, I forgot that my opinion as to the accurate feel of a class is opinion. Hence I redefine a silly bonus as any bonus which deliberately breaks a rule that serves a very specific purpose. For example, any rule that allows a character to ignore the penalties imposed by fighting with two weapons, without increasing he ability to fight with one entirely I deam as erroneous: two weapon fighting is always harder that one weapon fighting. Sure you can do some really hard things with one weapon, but fighting with two will always be harder, because you are doing the same cool technique twice. A remedy to this situation is to create a bonus to fighting regardless of the number of weapons, this way you are decreasing the penalty on fighting with two weapons, but you also retain the same intended balance.


A: by 2nd level you have Improved Invisibility for 1 rd (swift action). Meaning TWFing is possible.
A Wizard or Sorceror cannot cast that spell (because it doesn't exist). There is Swift Invisibility, but that ends when attack once.

Next, Ninjas can poison weapon without chance of poisoning self. (everyone else have a chance to fail and poison self)

Sure ninjas, as the class, get abilities that other classes don't. But I'm not sure they should. If you want to be able to use poison without harming yourself, I think the best solution is to make it a skill like "speak language". Expend two points, and you can use it. If you want to have a class that is very good at hiding give them hide as a class skill, and skill focus as a bonus feat. You could give them a magic ability, but that ruins the fluff, doesn't it? Ninjas are good at sneaking, not at using magic to sneak, right? I am arguing semantics about a general example. Either way is a good solution, but I feel, in this specific case both that a ninja is too general to have its own class (so it's better to cobble together whatever you think fits best) and that different people see different things in their character archetypes.


Don't you feel there's an inherent conflict between these two?
Nope. I don't think that a ninja (as seen in folklore) is a viable concept for me to play, because they are so overpowered (folklore tends to do that). Others might really want to play a ninja as seen in folklore. More power to them.




Originally Posted by Hiest, monkey
If you want to play a fighter who gains his technique from being possessed by a god of war, or whatever, fine. But it takes effort to translate mental comprehension to physical ability. You can read about basketball technique all day, but unless you pick up a ball and beat that technique into your "muscle memory" you won't be able to outplay even the most crude opponent.

In the real world no, but this is fantasy. Its possible.
Um no, it's not. This fantasy world represents learning, practice, and experience through mechanics. This practice is included into the system, i.e. a fighter who fights many battles practices with his sword in battle, and hence, levels up, representing learning. Unless you are playing a "crazy" from the "Rifts" System your character is not translating an idea into instant expertise. A possessed fighter doesn't gain bonus feats if a ghost with different feats possess him, and neither does he lose ones that the ghost lacks (although a good DM will use these feats sparingly, as the ghost will not have a solid grasp of them either).


Following that logic a fighter who doesn't have downtime doesn't get his bonus feats.

A fighter that levels with no downtime has no downtime because he has been busy doing other things to level, like fighting, for example. A fighter who fights practices his technique, and refines it in battle. For him, training and battle are the same thing. Such a fighter will level faster than one who trains witha master, because his knowlege is more immediatly practical, but he will also get hurt more by monsters, and run a higher risk of dying. Most PC's gain almost all their "training" practically, that is, in battle, or in "the field". Learning this way isn't nessicarily better (though it is faster, provided you survive), as error is punished very severely.

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-29, 10:43 PM
This helps a lot. I would have serious issues with a game that banned all splatbooks and stuck with Core, but I would be willing to try one that limits base classes to an appropriate orthogonal set. It'd still limit the expressiveness of the system somewhat, but if well-chosen it might help balance and simplicity, and be worth trying at least.


Out of curiosity - what would you propose for your preferred orthogonal set?

All the core classes, except sorcerors, because they're all pretentious jerks that like to wait until my wizard runs out of spells to pound him to death with magic missile. :smalltongue: (Joking)

All the DMG prestige classes. Also select classes from the comlete scoundrel, one or two from the complete arcane, and most of the variants presented in the online srd.

I don't really like psionics, but some people do, so them too.

Asbestos
2009-11-29, 11:03 PM
Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psionic Warrior? Yes. You have a dude that turns into animals, skill monkeys, pretty much every martial type imaginable, gishes, and even a full caster. What more do you want? Though, the tiers as generally written don't include Incarnum, so throw in Incarnate and Totemist (I think they're both tier 2, maybe 3 right?)


Incarnate, Shadowcaster, Warlock, DFA, Truenamer, Spellthief, and Artificer all fill unique spaces and would deserve inclusion.
I agree about Warlock (spontaneous caster type), Spellthief (always awesome) Shadowcaster (kinda neat, adds more full magic) but the rest... eh. DFA is really just a reflavored Warlock, which I guess is fine if you're including the Warlock. But... Truenamer and Artificer? These two should never be included in the same game, ever. Hell, they shouldn't even be included in the same game WORLDS in my opinion. Truenamer is so broken (as in unworkable) as to be pointless and conversely Artificer is so powerful as to be godlike (reason they are Tier 1).

When I was DMing 3.x I basically only allowed Tiers 2-4. All else was pointless





Full list for me then would be: Artificer, Bard, Binder, Cloistered Cleric, Crusader, Dragonfire Adept, Factotum, Incarnate, Psion, Psychic Warrior, Scout, Shadowcaster, Sorcerer, Spellthief, Swordsage, Truenamer, Warblade, Warlock, Wildshape Ranger.
I think any form of cleric is too much... but what to do for a healer... maybe the Healer class? (Though... ugh)

horseboy
2009-11-30, 12:13 AM
Nope: I was doing the same (average) 17.5 damage at level 1. I have not changed my strength score, nor have I changed my weapon (because it has its own fluff, so it would be hard to find an enchanted weapon of greater power, and Reforging weapons violates my charcter's arbitrary values. LG with 6 int, 6 wis, and the background of being a cheif of a tribal society is a b****).
He simply hits more often. Factoring in miss chance of an enemy of level appropriate AC at level 1 he dealt something like ~8-11 damage per swing (not per hit), now he deals ~14-17 per swing. He has enough AC and hitpoints to make more attacks than the casters can cast spells (before they run out) and the casters deal approximately (assuming they prepare only combat spells, and prepare the best ones) ~15-25 damage per spell cast (factoring in challenge rating appropriate enemy touch AC and save chance).

This is ignoring the Barbarian's rage and his "Great Cleave" feat. After combining all these facts the conclusion is: the barbarian may take longer to kill a challenge rating appropriate enemy than he did before: but it takes the rest of the party even longer, and they can do it less often times. Because of this buld the rest of the party is on support duty (which, importantly, the barbarian is crap at): they make sure that no one casts an effective dominate person on Borgack, enhance his stats, and keep those pesky level-draining-undead off of him. The occasional "fly" spell causes hilarity to ensue.
Ah, they're playing blaster wizards instead of dropping two a round with deep slumber or making combat a forgone conclusion with glitterdust, no wonder you think you're doing good. Well, that and apparently your weapon breaks WBL guidelines, a very common solution to trying to keep martial characters relevant a little longer. Let's set that aside for a minute.
1) What's the point of "Great Cleave" if you're not going to actually be able to kill something?
2) Does it really make sense to you that your character becomes worse and worse at what he does as he becomes more powerful rather than better and better?

sonofzeal
2009-11-30, 04:53 AM
Yes. You have a dude that turns into animals, skill monkeys, pretty much every martial type imaginable, gishes, and even a full caster. What more do you want? Though, the tiers as generally written don't include Incarnum, so throw in Incarnate and Totemist (I think they're both tier 2, maybe 3 right?)
Incarnate yes; I'm not sure Totemist is different enough from Wildshape Ranger, though.


I agree about Warlock (spontaneous caster type), Spellthief (always awesome) Shadowcaster (kinda neat, adds more full magic) but the rest... eh. DFA is really just a reflavored Warlock, which I guess is fine if you're including the Warlock. But... Truenamer and Artificer? These two should never be included in the same game, ever. Hell, they shouldn't even be included in the same game WORLDS in my opinion. Truenamer is so broken (as in unworkable) as to be pointless and conversely Artificer is so powerful as to be godlike (reason they are Tier 1).

When I was DMing 3.x I basically only allowed Tiers 2-4. All else was pointless
I disagree that DFA is a reflavoured Warlock, having played both. IMO, they're about as similar as Clerics and Druids. Same basic mechanic, but they end up working very different. Warlock has a much more reliable attack and hence better damage output, but the DFA is huge on battlefield control.

As to Truenamer/Artificer, well, yeah, of course. Both have a unique mechanic though, and you lose orthogonality by removing them. Still, Warlocks have the "craft anything" and Psions have the "bookworm caster", so we could possibly afford to lose both.


I think any form of cleric is too much... but what to do for a healer... maybe the Healer class? (Though... ugh)
Favoured Soul or Cloistered Cleric, I was thinking.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-30, 05:09 AM
My opinion?

A claw hammer is a useful tool.
A ball-peen hammer is a different, yet similar tool.
A sledgehammer is a different tool, with similar general applications.

Each are used for different, but similar tasks. All may be serviceable for most tasks. But invariably, one can do the job at hand easier. Which one? Depends on the job.

That's how I view supplements.

They provide me on variations that allow me to add new nuances to a character, more easily.

I like that.

mikeejimbo
2009-11-30, 11:33 AM
So what do people think of the Generic Classes? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm)

sonofzeal
2009-11-30, 12:37 PM
So what do people think of the Generic Classes? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm)
They're fun, and I think the OP might get a kick out of them. The Warrior is superior to the Fighter, and the Spellcaster is downright overpowered since it casts off the Cleric, Druid, and Sor/Wiz lists simultaneously, like an Archivist who doesn't rely on DM Fiat. The Expert has difficulty though compared to the Rogue, depending on feat choices.

mikeejimbo
2009-11-30, 01:41 PM
They're fun, and I think the OP might get a kick out of them. The Warrior is superior to the Fighter, and the Spellcaster is downright overpowered since it casts off the Cleric, Druid, and Sor/Wiz lists simultaneously, like an Archivist who doesn't rely on DM Fiat. The Expert has difficulty though compared to the Rogue, depending on feat choices.

Right. I don't think I'd use them as-is, without a little (or a lot) of change. Well, not changes per se so much as additions. Except, I don't know how I'd rein in the Spellcaster, unless it's by house-ruling that they only cast off one list unless they take levels in a different kind of Spellcaster.

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-30, 05:55 PM
Ah, they're playing blaster wizards instead of dropping two a round with deep slumber or making combat a forgone conclusion with glitterdust, no wonder you think you're doing good. Well, that and apparently your weapon breaks WBL guidelines, a very common solution to trying to keep martial characters relevant a little longer. Let's set that aside for a minute.
1) What's the point of "Great Cleave" if you're not going to actually be able to kill something?
2) Does it really make sense to you that your character becomes worse and worse at what he does as he becomes more powerful rather than better and better?

great cleave is for when the Dm gives us a "good" encounter, instead of the endless stream of boss-fight drivel we have to slush through.

My character does not become worse and worse, he gets better: he deals more damage more often. This is not worse in any way. As for my weapon: it is a large sized greataxe: it gives a -2 penalty on attack rolls in exchange for a 3.5 increase in damage.

As a level 5 party we are not privvy to those spells. The campaign is low-magic (in some arbitrary-poor-design-choice ways) so while the caster is effective on his own, he has found one spellbook, ever. So he gets two new spells per level, and one per school from the book. He choose fly and hold person.

ex cathedra
2009-11-30, 06:04 PM
great cleave is for when the Dm gives us a "good" encounter, instead of the endless stream of boss-fight drivel we have to slush through.

My character does not become worse and worse, he gets better: he deals more damage more often. This is not worse in any way. As for my weapon: it is a large sized greataxe: it gives a -2 penalty on attack rolls in exchange for a 3.5 increase in damage.

As a level 5 party we are not privvy to those spells. The campaign is low-magic (in some arbitrary-poor-design-choice ways) so while the caster is effective on his own, he has found one spellbook, ever. So he gets two new spells per level, and one per school from the book. He choose fly and hold person.

Glitterdust is a second level spell. Also, why would you ever take a -2 to attacks for +3.5 damage? You could be power attacking for -2 and getting +4 in return. You get worse in that as you level and become stronger, you begin to kill things more slowly and less efficiently; in that manner, you have become less effective.

You shouldn't one-hit CR appropriate enemies, and so great cleave rarely should be useful. Even when you do get lucky, you'll rarely get more than one, and rarely perhaps two, extra attacks from great cleave. It's so situational that it isn't that useful at all.

Also, is there sarcasm here? I don't care to search earlier posts for it, but the way such obviously wrong material is written leads me to believe that you're less than sincere.

shadow_archmagi
2009-11-30, 06:13 PM
A fighter that levels with no downtime has no downtime because he has been busy doing other things to level, like fighting, for example. A fighter who fights practices his technique, and refines it in battle. For him, training and battle are the same thing.

Well, except that as the system is currently, I can take Improved Trip despite having never tripped anyone in the last two ingame years and suddenly be a master of it.

Or, of course, the fact that not all XP is derived from stabbing things. Traps, for example, are technically encounters and have CR's and give XP as such. Your barbarian can walk through a long hall of spear traps, level up, walk out of the tunnel, and announce that he's learned a lot about mounted archery.

Or, of course, my wizard can do the same thing (how precisely he survives is another question) and announce that watching all those spears whizzing by inspired him to conjure sleet storms and paralyze people.



No, I don't think there's a conflict because I don't like ninjas in my games, since ninjas are overpowered


But the ninja class *isn't* overpowered. It encompasses a variety of traditional ninja-y traits without being CLEAR OBVIOUS SUPERIOR.



As a level 5 party we are not privvy to those spells. The campaign is low-magic (in some arbitrary-poor-design-choice ways) so while the caster is effective on his own, he has found one spellbook, ever. So he gets two new spells per level, and one per school from the book. He choose fly and hold person.


Actually, Glitterdust is second level! Blind the entire enemy team with a single standard action is available starting at 3rd level.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-30, 06:16 PM
Glitterdust is a second level spell. Also, why would you ever take a -2 to attacks for +3.5 damage? You could be power attacking for -2 and getting +4 in return. You get worse in that as you level and become stronger, you begin to kill things more slowly and less efficiently; in that manner, you have become less effective.

You shouldn't one-hit CR appropriate enemies, and so great cleave rarely should be useful. Even when you do get lucky, you'll rarely get more than one, and rarely perhaps two, extra attacks from great cleave. It's so situational that it isn't that useful at all.


He is saying he doesn't fight CR appropriate enemies: he fights Battles that are in total EL appropriate.

2 4 CRs are an CR 6.
4 CR 4's is an CR 8.
8 CR 3's is an CR 9.
He likely fight 8 CR 3's in many fights when he is level 9. It is possible to build foes to still hit level 9 people, but I'm unsure how they are a threat individually. But that would let them be cleaved.

Jerthanis
2009-11-30, 06:45 PM
Here's why I like mechanically different variations of classic roles, with different abilities tied up in their standard progression: I like playing X Class to 20 as my build.

If I want to play a fighty guy with cool magic powers, I'll do Swordsage 20. If I want to do a Thief I'll do Rogue 20. If I want to play a woodsman who communes with nature and fights with a bow, I'll do Ranger 20. If I want to play a woodsman who doesn't commune with nature and fights with a spear and charges a lot, I'll play a Scout 20. If I want to play a character who interacts with nature in ritual and is involved in a community of nature lovers, I'll play a Druid 20, but if I want to play a character who interacts with the spirits of the land directly, and who follows his totem spirit, I'll play a Spirit Shaman 20.

For me it's easier to pick the class that most closely embodies the archetypes I want to play than it is to figure out that what I want to play is a Ranger/Fighter/Rogue, and how to allocate skillpoints at every level and what order to take feats in. Also, while you could represent a Scout concept as a Ranger, or a Spellthief concept as a Rogue, you could arguably say the same about almost every class. Heck, Why don't we just have two classes: Fighting Man and Magic User, and if you want to be a thief, steal something?

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-30, 08:03 PM
So what do people think of the Generic Classes? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm)

Hey, cool. I'll try this sometime.


Glitterdust is a second level spell. Also, why would you ever take a -2 to attacks for +3.5 damage? You could be power attacking for -2 and getting +4 in return. You get worse in that as you level and become stronger, you begin to kill things more slowly and less efficiently; in that manner, you have become less effective.
Sorry, I miscalculated. I get the same exact +4 (a greataxe is 1d12, not 2d6, while a large greataxe is 3d6). But, unlike using a power attack (which I can do in addition, although mathematically inneficient against any enemy with an AC greater than 14) this weapon gains exponentially more damage dice if my chracter has "enlarge person" cast on him. Plus, I liked the idea of a charcacter with an axe he won from an ogre in a fight.



You shouldn't one-hit CR appropriate enemies, and so great cleave rarely should be useful. Even when you do get lucky, you'll rarely get more than one, and rarely perhaps two, extra attacks from great cleave. It's so situational that it isn't that useful at all.
I reviewed my character sheet and apparently I took improved initiative instead (a nessecary feat for a combat character with more or less average Dex), so I only have Cleave. And it is useful: it gives me about 2 extra attacks, at full damage (bonus damage if raging) per fight, assuming we fight multiple creatures whose collective EL is appropriate.


Or, of course, the fact that not all XP is derived from stabbing things. Traps, for example, are technically encounters and have CR's and give XP as such. Your barbarian can walk through a long hall of spear traps, level up, walk out of the tunnel, and announce that he's learned a lot about mounted archery.

Triggering a trap should not award XP, unless you then disable it intelligently afterwards. If it does, then I feel ashamed of the game designers...:smallfrown: Otherwise, I usually disregard the XP rules where they collide with logic.

Typically, I rule that unless PC's actively used a particular skill set, or had time to practice it (a loooong carraige ride) they can't upgrade it. Rogues, having so many skills, are exceptions. This way: not only do players role-play more, the wizard buys books to expand his knowledge skill, the fighter role-plays his actions in combat (i.e. if he has cleave he says that he tries to cleave open three enemies at once, even if it takes him two rounds to finish them all off.), and the rogue, well, the rogue doesn't sleep much at night...

Of course, most feats that aren't "just picked up" in combat, like power attack, or combat expertise, have prerequisites, so it is assumed that the character is just trying something new with his existing techniques.


But the ninja class *isn't* overpowered. It encompasses a variety of traditional ninja-y traits without being CLEAR OBVIOUS SUPERIOR.

My bad, didn't specify:, ninjas as the folklore that I accept are overpowered, not as the class. I just don't like the class on a personaly level.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-30, 08:57 PM
Traps shouldn't give XP for setting them off? That's actually often more efficient than using a Rogue to disable them.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-30, 09:27 PM
Traps shouldn't give XP for setting them off? That's actually often more efficient than using a Rogue to disable them.

I grant XP bonuses for bypassing without taking damage.

However, whether it's by superior disarming, superior dodging, or superior HP, getting past a trap is getting past a trap.

You can learn something about taking a hit from taking a hit. One of the benefits of gaining levels is increased HP. Increased HP helps you take hits better.

Also, taking trap hits can teach other things. Prioritization (wait for the rogue to disarm, or barrel after the escaping foe?)... Teamwork.

Don't blame the abstract learning system, Hiest. After all, a rogue can do nothing but disarm traps, gain a level, and announce that he's learned how to cast spells. Does that mean that disarmed traps shouldn't grant XP?

KellKheraptis
2009-11-30, 09:42 PM
Not to play devil's advocate from the first post, but using Ninja as an example is a patently bad idea, from the standpoint of a student of Ninpo of over a decade. The historical ninja were meant to be superior warriors with every weapon and no weapon at all against any opponent or series of opponents they could ever hope to encounter. It was all about preparation and muscle memory. This would lead one to think they were full BAB in DnD terms, and their striking techniques broke objects just as easily as bone, implying lack of anatomy being a nonissue (though roughly 70% of the physical aspect is the study of the human body, and how to disable it). So while sneak attack is close, it doesn't quite measure up to that standard. Rogues aren't proficient with the same range of weapons a ninja were, either. Now from a purely archtypical standpoint, they're about the next best thing to a swordsage.

All rambling about historicity aside, there are some abilities the base classes just don't offer, that I may want in a character. Find me telepathy in core. Hard to do, no? All of one spell if memory serves, and hardly the basis for a character. But if I want to play a medieval Xavier, I'm SoL unless it's the full SRD. How about a Spell Eater? Kinda hard to leech spells with core, too. And we won't even talk about specialized notions of esoteric magicks...Spell Focus (Evocation) does not a blaster make.

Just my 2 cp, and for the record, so long as the DM is explicitly clear as to why they are going Core only, especially if they weren't to begin with, I usually don't raise utter Baator. However, if it's just "Because I said so, nya!" they just signed their campaign's death warrant, and that'll most likely be my last session with that DM, as that's the hallmark of a little kid on a power trip. And also my own ego refusing to let a little brat DM make a mockery of me for any reason, but that's beside the point...:D

PS : I make no claims whatsoever of having anything resembling ethics or morals when dealing with propagation of mind crimes, and flagrant abuse of power in any setting is a mind crime, by any other name regardless. Remember, no prisoners, no mercy! -runs up the sweeps!-