PDA

View Full Version : It's the Aesthetics of Optimization that I Don't Like



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Mike_G
2010-06-16, 07:18 PM
Ok, I'mma go on a bit of a rant here.

It's not the math, it's not the inequality, it's not that I can't do it, it's not the inanity of competing with my own party that makes me hate High Optimization.

It's simple aesthetics.

Let's look at the inspiration for Fantasy heroes. I grew up reading Conan, Elric, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser and Zelazny's Amber series and Lord of the Rings. Back when men were real men, women were real women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.

How many of those heroes ran around tripping people with spiked chains? Or using a combo like Guisarme and spiked armor? How totally lame would Excalibur be if it were a two bladed sword? Would it need to be stuck in two stones?

No, heroes use swords dammit. And one handed swords, so you can swing from a rope or carry off a damsel in distress with the other hand. Maybe, just maybe a henchman of the evil overlord would carry something silly like a chain or spiked armor, but that was just so the hero could have an interesting fight scene and deliver a good one liner about fancy oddball weapons after shanking the guy.

And magic items? Treasure? Ha! Sure there were a few magic swords and a handful of other powerful items, but they were rare and they inspired awe. The heroes survived by strength and skill and wits, or at least low animal cunning, not by having a magic weapon, magic armor, magic cloak, magic boots, magic belt, magic gloves, two magic rings, a magic headband, and a magic sack to carry the rest of their magic junk around in.

In fact, most of the really awesome heroes lost their stuff between adventures and had to start from scratch.

So when I play a Fantasy RPG, I want to play that kind of guy. A character so skilled or strong or devious or charming that he radiates cool. I want to play Conan or Ash or Indy or Corwin, not a Min-maxed elven subrace who starts out Ancient for a cheap bonus to his casting stats, who glows like a Christmas tree when caught in a Detect Magic.

There was an old humor file going around the gaming community in the 1e days, taking about Real Men, Real Roleplayers, and Munchkins. How Real Men used a Two Handed Sword, Real Roleplayers used Rapier and Main Gauche and Munchkins used whatever gave the most bonuses, that kind of thing.

Well, it seem the heavy optimizers take whatever Feats, Weapons, classes races, etc give the most bonuses.

That's why the Magic Mart and characters who can mathematically prove they are more optimal leave me cold.

Il_Vec
2010-06-16, 07:25 PM
Real men do use two-handed swords. It is a perfectly optimal choice... In a low-magic world.

Tavar
2010-06-16, 07:29 PM
Half that rant seems directed at the aesthetics of DnD, not optimization. One doesn't take 20 different magic items because it's optimal, it's because you need those bonuses, and there really isn't a good way to combine items, or go without them.

Vaynor
2010-06-16, 07:32 PM
Sounds like you're playing the wrong game.

arguskos
2010-06-16, 07:32 PM
Half that rant seems directed at the aesthetics of DnD, not optimization. One doesn't take 20 different magic items because it's optimal, it's because you need those bonuses, and there really isn't a good way to combine items, or go without them.
Tavar beat me to it. A lot of this is about the default structure of how D&D 3.5 is constructed. I personally agree with you, Mike, in many ways. I dislike the Christmas Tree effect, I don't like the "bonus culture" that 3.5 promotes. But without fundamentally changing how the game is structured (a worthwhile pursuit, IMO), I don't see a way to reconcile what you want to what the game promotes and still play at a higher level of power.

Milskidasith
2010-06-16, 07:34 PM
D&D is really not suited to the fantasy stories you like... they top off at about level 5 by D&D standards, and D&D also requires you to have magic items, even on a low-op character.

You're complaining about the system, not optimizers.

Mike_G
2010-06-16, 07:35 PM
Half that rant seems directed at the aesthetics of DnD, not optimization. One doesn't take 20 different magic items because it's optimal, it's because you need those bonuses, and there really isn't a good way to combine items, or go without them.

There's no reason you can't play low magic, low optimized D&D. In fact, looking at the CR of most of the MM, I think the creators half expected it.

3.5 did kinda cave in a cater to the optimization crown, and the idea of WBL created entitlement that would make Aragorn weep, but the negative tone of this forum when discussing a DM who eliminates the Magi Sears Catalogue of Wondrous Items, or a PC who "foolishly" wants to Sword and Board it, even though "I've shown him the math on the Spiked Chain Tripper/Ubercharger" grates on my Grognardy nerves.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-16, 07:35 PM
Yeah, d&d has the tendency to make characters into christmas trees.

If you want to play a really low-magic world, go for it...as long as the entire group agrees. I find low-magic worlds particularly interesting if you imbue some of that lost power into the base classes.(since they are designed considering you'll wear tons of magic items, the cr calculations go haywire by removing such items). "The Sword" is a +1 flaming, "The Armor" is a +2 half-plate. It works, but expect resistance, since most players are just too used to high magic for their own good.


Or you can try systems that don't really care much about items. Some of the most simplistic ones allow for power to be described in whatever way you like


3D&T for example, has STR,Hability,Resistance,Firepower,Armor as base stats. STR and Firepower deal damage based on the base stat. To hit is the str/fp + hability. defense is hability+armor. STR 1 is the highest a normal human goes into, and 4 is enough to bull rush a truck, and magic armor in the form d&d describes do not exist. They are fluff to justify that extra point of armor you took when your exp allowed it... and that little girl with a force field generator on her belt has armor 5 just like the hyper-trained kung fu monkey that blocks ballista shots.

Milskidasith
2010-06-16, 07:36 PM
There's no reason you can't play low magic, low optimized D&D. In fact, looking at the CR of most of the MM, I think the creators half expected it.

3.5 did kinda cave in a cater to the optimization crown, and the idea of WBL created entitlement that would make Aragorn weep, but the negative tone of this forum when discussing a DM who eliminates the Magi Sears Catalogue of Wondrous Items, or a PC who "foolishly" wants to Sword and Board it, even though "I've shown him the math on the Spiked Chain Tripper/Ubercharger" grates on my Grognardy nerves.

Everything in the monster manual is designed around appropriate wealth by level for the character. Take any incoporeal undead; without magic items, you can't hit them at all.

Plus, as I said, everything past CR 5 is beyond the scope of any fantasy hero, ever.

Prime32
2010-06-16, 07:36 PM
I could point to Link as an example of a hero with a ton of strange weapons and overpowered magic items.

If you don't like dependence on magic items, just refluff magic items as inherent powers.

Koury
2010-06-16, 07:36 PM
Isn't there a happy medium to be found via refluffing?

I want the mechanics of Race X, but want to be a Race Y.

OK, use Race Xs stats, and be a Race Y.

I want my sword to hit people 10 ft away!

OK, use Spiked Chain stats on your weapon, call it a BFS.

Amphetryon
2010-06-16, 07:37 PM
Iron. Heroes.

Chaelos
2010-06-16, 07:37 PM
Phase 1: Find yourself a DM who plays by Rule of Cool.
Phase 2: ...?
Phase 3: Profit!

I've always found many of the straight mechanical aspects of D&D to be rather boring, by themselves. It's the mental and social aspects of the game, rather than the d20s, that make the game fun for me.

But I think you're coming down too hard on "optimization" based on the (admittedly prevalent) forum tropes that get the spotlight around here (Pun-Pun, Tippyverse, Venerable Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer, Batman-On-Steroids Wizards, etc.) Most of said ideas seem, to me, to be strictly theoretical; I've never played with a DM that would allow half of it, or with a group that wouldn't tease you mercilessly for doing a lot of it.

When I (and, I think, most people) hear "optimization", I'm not thinking about ways to move 600 ft/round, or get +55 to AC at level 1, or get a 300d6 sneak attack; I'm usually just going along the lines of "Don't pick archery if you have an 8 in DEX". When I play a Wizard, I'm never trying to punch out Cthulhu in round 1 of combat, but I am trying to mechanically embody whatever the character concept I have in mind (meaning that Spell Focus for an Illusionist is a perfectly valid choice--as well as an optimal one).

In the words of the great Julio Scoundrél: "It doesn't matter if you win or lose, as long as you look really cool doing it!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0392.html)

Susano-wo
2010-06-16, 07:37 PM
I, too dislike the aesthetics of optimization. I dislike the idea that I should choose this or that weapon, or should load myself up with this armor or that, because that's the best, even if it seems silly or ridiculous to me.

Though what you are talking about seems to be more a matter of a certain adventure aesthetic. I like some of my heroes to swing from ropes and such, but I also have room for plate-armored knights, and dudes wielding zweihanders, spear combatants, etc...unless you just meant that you like style over optimization, and the one handed sword thing was just an example?

ALso, I much prefer rare magic items, and would rather receive innate abilities as rewards.(whether magical or extraordinary) And, for that matter, I like magic items that do interesting thing much more than ones that add X to killzone Y

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-16, 07:37 PM
You aren't alone though in disliking a lot of elements in optimizing.

Ultimately though if it doesn't bother the DM and its not your character I'll say its probably not your business. Also keep in mind that almost anything can be optimizing in the right circumstance. The other day on this board I believe I saw someone note they were called horrible cheese for using still spell and other non-somatic spells to cast in plate as a wizard, which I find reasonable and clever with any number of potential drawbacks. So be sure of your standards here.

Unless they are consistently optimizing above the well level of the group thus making them unnessecary appendixes in a one man show. Or otherwise disrupting everyone else chances to have fun. In which case bring it to the DM.

If you are running then just put out a "keep 'em simple" broad rule under Rule Zero and stomp on anything you don't like while its still being assembled.

LibraryOgre
2010-06-16, 07:39 PM
Half that rant seems directed at the aesthetics of DnD, not optimization.

Correction: The aesthetics of 3.x and 4e, not D&D. His POV is right in line with oD&D and AD&D, where loss of magic items was rough but moderately expected, items were only as plentiful as the DM wanted them to be, and a hero could be a guy with a sword and a will to use it.

Mike... we're waiting for you in Castles and Crusades. ;-)

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2010-06-16, 07:39 PM
Play a Warblade or Swordsage with the revised VoP (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140428). Mechanics won't get in the way of your RP-heavy high fantasy hero, and he'll be a useful addition to a party of optimized characters.

Zore
2010-06-16, 07:39 PM
There's no reason you can't play low magic, low optimized D&D. In fact, looking at the CR of most of the MM, I think the creators half expected it.

3.5 did kinda cave in a cater to the optimization crown, and the idea of WBL created entitlement that would make Aragorn weep, but the negative tone of this forum when discussing a DM who eliminates the Magi Sears Catalogue of Wondrous Items, or a PC who "foolishly" wants to Sword and Board it, even though "I've shown him the math on the Spiked Chain Tripper/Ubercharger" grates on my Grognardy nerves.

This is true if you stick to low levels only. Once you start getting into the stuff that can fly/turn ethereal or invisible/or cast higher level spells they have to be offered up on a platter to such a low powered group or the group is destroyed instantly. Wealth by Level is a huge portion of a character's power that only grows as they do, a twentieth level character is more screwed by losing their equipment than pretty much anything else.

But for low level games where you mostly fight humanoid or brute type monsters? Sure, that kind of play works.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-16, 07:40 PM
Play a Warblade or Swordsage with the revised VoP (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140428). Mechanics won't get in the way of your RP-heavy high fantasy hero, and he'll be a useful addition to a party of optimized characters.

On low-magic campaigns, stuff like the Vows might actually be good. There's one called "In the hands of Fate" for Tormenta, that is a beffed Vow of Poverty, as luck bonuses, it's quite fitting.

Fawsto
2010-06-16, 07:41 PM
I understand you, I liked Conan and everybody else you mentioned, but seriously the main thing is: Those concepts are not, let's say, overused? I mean, a Sword and Board Knight in shiny armor is an awesome image, but I've played my share of KiSAs. Now it is time to use another concept.

This is basicaly why the Anime/Manga movement is so popular. New character concepts pop everywhere following one simple rule: This One (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool).

DoodlesD
2010-06-16, 07:41 PM
If the complexities of 3.5 Aren't your style, something you might want to try is reverting to Advance Dungeons and Dragons. Sure its old and there aren't nearly as many options as in 3.5, but that's my point. A fighter is a fighter! He wears armor and kicks ass with his raw might. Feats and skills are gone, so that eliminates ALOT of the work of putting a character together. It also eliminates the usefulness of alot of 3.5 equipment. Bonuses are generally to either AC or To hit rolls and Damage. Give it a shot if you dare. It'll be considerably more restrictive than 3.5, but if it strikes your fancy and suits your style much better, you might want to switch over. I had alot of fun with it when i first started playing.

Matthew
2010-06-16, 07:51 PM
The optimisation or "good/bad" choices is probably one of the main things that both attracts and repels me from D20/3e. I think Mark is possibly right, you may find Castles & Crusades more to your taste, if they ever get round to releasing the Game Master's Guide anyway! :smallbiggrin:

Snake-Aes
2010-06-16, 07:53 PM
The optimisation or "good/bad" choices is probably one of the main things that both attracts and repels me from D20/3e. I think Mark is possibly right, you may find Castles & Crusades more to your taste, if they ever get round to releasing the Game Master's Guide anyway! :smallbiggrin:

Or (god forbid) Castle Falkenstein. Its combat system is incredibly faster and revolves around the more typical sparrings you'd see in stories: lots of attacks missing and hitting for little effect, until one or two decisive strikes take the enemy down!

Xallace
2010-06-16, 07:55 PM
I actually find d20 Modern alleviates a lot of these issues. It's appropriateness for a medieval fantasy game is questionable, but for the 1600s-1800s range it's pretty kickin' (especially with the d20 Past supplement).

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-06-16, 07:57 PM
You're perfectly capable of sticking with plain ol' swords, of ignoring items, of taking Weapon Focus, of doing all this stuff that you complain optimizing doesn't do. You can do that, and you'll do great...as long as you don't play above level 5. As has been pointed out by several in this thread, whether you like high-magic or low-magic, high-wealth or low-wealth, in 3e above that level you need the items to keep up, you need the good feats to keep your damage on par with HP, you need fancy weapons and fancy armor to remain competitive.

As someone on the BG forums said, and as I love to quote:


Many people are unable to grasp the fact that at level 7, you've surpassed every hero from almost every mythology written by man. Yes, this is including the challenges and foes that were faced in Greek (Herakles, Theseus, Perseus, Odysseus, Achillies, Bellerophon, Oedipus), Irish (Setanta/Cu Cullain), Danish (Beowulf), Persian (Rostram), Chinese (Guan Yu +others) mythologies and legends.

These people are actually small potatos compared to D&D. Beowulf died fighting a "large dragon" (aka, Below CR 10) if it was a red that's seriously a CR 5 dragon. Given that Beowulf only killed a Troll (cr 5, and one that couldn't regenerate it's limbs either, even if it was a fresh-water Scrag and immersion in water would have brought it back from dying) or Ogre (CR 2) at best, it shouldn't come as a shock that Beowulf dies facing a CR 5 foe.

Chimeras, Seven-headed Hydras, Pegasus, Medusas, Gorgons, Minotaurs, Fiendish (Nemean) Lions, Chimeric Hell Hounds (Cerberus), Lamias, Ogres, Trolls are all below CR 6.

A Beholder is CR 10, and can kill Herakles, and not skip a beat. It could probably face an all-star team of Odysseus, Herakles, Ezekiel and Merlin, and destroy them all in one or two rounds. It's a CR 10 monster; and they're only level 6 characters at the most.

The real problem is that people seriously don't get that D&D characters make every classical hero look small; but then, the world of D&D characters is massively more expansive than the real world, and Nerull can seriously go all "Populous" on the Material Plane and lower the ground until the oceans flood everything, or just summon volcanos everywhere. So everything about D&D makes classical myths look small.

Is it a good thing that 3e works that way? I don't think so. The 3e designers were completely blind to the effect on "classic play" that their changes would make when they changed the core mechanics, left everything else the same, and playtested terribly. The fact remains, however, that playing a mid- to high-level game either means you play something off-trope and sorta kinda keep up or you play penniless Conan or sword-and-board Arthur or the like and just can't keep up unless you specifically get around that (like using VoP for Conan), in which case you might as well do what Koury said and just call your spiked chain a sword or call your belt of strength amazing muscles. You can heavily houserule or make lots of gentlemens' agreements to make only certain kinds of encounters or mess with casters' spell selections or otherwise make "heroic" characters work longer, but then you're not playing generic 3e.

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-06-16, 07:57 PM
Correction: The aesthetics of 3.x and 4e, not D&D. His POV is right in line with oD&D and AD&D, where loss of magic items was rough but moderately expected, items were only as plentiful as the DM wanted them to be, and a hero could be a guy with a sword and a will to use it.
Thing is, as a new DM, I had no idea what was really appropriate for what the campaign was. And it’s kinda hard to figure out without a fair bit of experience. That’s where WBL makes for a good baseline. And I appreciate Pathfinder emphasizing its nature as a guideline rather than a rule by offering several different WBL rates.


I understand you, I liked Conan and everybody else you mentioned, but seriously the main thing is: Those concepts are not, let's say, overused? I mean, a Sword and Board Knight in shiny armor is an awesome image, but I've played my share of KiSAs. Now it is time to use another concept.
Definitely. There’s more than one kind of hero.

Galdor Miriel
2010-06-16, 08:09 PM
We had similar issues and have come up with a solution for 4E. The character builder has an option were all the bonuses are built in, not dependent on magic items. So you character is level appropriate without magic items. In my next campaign I will then be sing old style magic items. +1 swords will be a big deal at 10th level and so on. It also does away with the whole stupid D&D economy which is so dumb. You start off scraping for silver, then gold, then platinum, then astral diamonds, then the ....it boggles the mind.

I agree with the original poster, the story is the thing, but optimization is cool if the story you hang on it is one worth reading.

GM

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-06-16, 08:12 PM
You might like the game system I am creating. Magic items are exceedingly rare and expensive. Even if you have a party member capable of creating them, it invariably requires rare ingredients which have 'must go on a quest to obtain' listed in their 'price' category.

In other words, if you want even a moderately powerful enchanted item, you are going to have to bust arse to collect the ingredients needed to make it, then fork over a small mountain of money to hire the guy to do it.

Assuming you aren't in a part of the world where practicing magic can get you hung...

However, you don't *need* magic items to be perfectly functional. Sure, they're nice, but not like "you cannot affect him without x enchantment". Not unless you are trying to go after things which are at the 'ZOMG WTF are you THINKING about by trying to go after this' difficulty level. The only things that really require magic items to defeat are on the order of Bonus Boss (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BonusBoss) difficulty.

Then again, things are generally a challenge as well. Dragons are... well... they fit the Bonus Boss category pretty well. They're one of the few creatures who can break the 'hard cap' on stats.

Fawsto
2010-06-16, 08:15 PM
Real men do use two-handed swords. It is a perfectly optimal choice... In a low-magic world.

And real LIZARD-men use Vardashes? :smallbiggrin:

faceroll
2010-06-16, 08:15 PM
I understand you, I liked Conan and everybody else you mentioned, but seriously the main thing is: Those concepts are not, let's say, overused? I mean, a Sword and Board Knight in shiny armor is an awesome image, but I've played my share of KiSAs. Now it is time to use another concept.

This is basicaly why the Anime/Manga movement is so popular. New character concepts pop everywhere following one simple rule: This One (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool).

"IT'S OVER 9000!!!" doesn't seem that cool to me, though.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-16, 08:16 PM
Maybe that's why I like Rogues so much in D&D. They've got a reason to acquire stuff -- lots of it, and at least one useful gizmo at hand and ready for action wherever they can fit it (body slots). Thieves Rogues are tool users. They're smart enough to know that the right tool for any job just makes life that much better. And they're constantly looking to upgrade equipment -- stronger, lighter, and more capable. Good gear isn't cheap, though, so acquiring anything and everything not nailed down (plus some stuff that is, too: got my nail puller right here :smallwink:) is the best way to get what you need.

Optimizing a Rogue is one of the more interesting challenges in D&D. But my aesthetics are covered, thank you very much. :smallsmile:

Snake-Aes
2010-06-16, 08:18 PM
"IT'S OVER 9000!!!" doesn't seem that cool to me, though.

That's because you don't think "over 9000" is cool. The sparkliness of d&d characters is a very subjective deal. I don't like much the visuals of a fully equipped d&d character, but I am fine with just fluffing these magic items as things that look mundane...or incorporated into the main armor that has the style you want it to have.


This guy, for example:
http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/9223/arsenalmm4.jpg
He has so many magic items that the entire world, as a result, is low-magic because he's pretty much got them all to make a giant robot. His armor alone could buy a level 33 character. While the look is very unified, he has many, many, many magic items on himself.

Prime32
2010-06-16, 08:18 PM
Maybe that's why I like Rogues so much in D&D. They've got a reason to acquire stuff -- lots of it, and at least one useful gizmo at hand and ready for action wherever they can fit it (body slots). Thieves Rogues are tool users. They're smart enough to know that the right tool for any job just makes life that much better. And they're constantly looking to upgrade equipment -- stronger, lighter, and more capable. Good gear isn't cheap, though, so acquiring anything and everything not nailed down (plus some stuff that is, too: got my nail puller right here :smallwink:) is the best way to get what you need.

Optimizing a Rogue is one of the more interesting challenges in D&D. But my aesthetics are covered, thank you very much. :smallsmile:You're thinking of artificers.

LibraryOgre
2010-06-16, 08:19 PM
The optimisation or "good/bad" choices is probably one of the main things that both attracts and repels me from D20/3e. I think Mark is possibly right, you may find Castles & Crusades more to your taste, if they ever get round to releasing the Game Master's Guide anyway! :smallbiggrin:

Eh, I've run Castles and Crusades with nothing but the PH and A1; M&T is useful if you want to do anything creative (i.e. off the adventure). I'm not dying for the CKG... though I'll buy it when it comes, of course.

faceroll
2010-06-16, 08:23 PM
That's because you don't think "over 9000" is cool. The sparkliness of d&d characters is a very subjective deal. I don't like much the visuals of a fully equipped d&d character, but I am fine with just fluffing these magic items as things that look mundane...or incorporated into the main armor that has the style you want it to have.


This guy, for example:
http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/9223/arsenalmm4.jpg
He has so many magic items that the entire world, as a result, is low-magic because he's pretty much got them all to make a giant robot. His armor alone could buy a level 33 character. While the look is very unified, he has many, many, many magic items on himself.

That's exactly the sort of "over 9,000" play I'm not into.

Tome
2010-06-16, 08:29 PM
I actually prefer high magic, personally. Magitech settings in particular. It just seems that if magic isn't ridiculously hard to learn, then it's actually going to be pretty common. I'm also not a fan of Conan. I just can't take barbarian heroes and/or manly men types seriously.

That said, while I actually sort of like the christmas tree effect, I don't like that characters become essentially harmless without their gear. 3.5 characters have a lot of dependence on it, with virtually no official way to avoid it. This can kill some fun character concepts, which is a pity.


That's exactly the sort of "over 9,000" play I'm not into.

And exactly the sort that I am. That concept sounds like it'd be a fun BBEG or Epic levelled character.

Matthew
2010-06-16, 08:29 PM
Eh, I've run Castles and Crusades with nothing but the PH and A1; M&T is useful if you want to do anything creative (i.e. off the adventure). I'm not dying for the CKG... though I'll buy it when it comes, of course.

I was thinking mainly for the customisation elements they have been talking about (edges? adjuncts?). If I recall correctly, Mike quite likes the customisation elements that D20/3e provides, at least in theory.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-16, 08:30 PM
Then don't play it :p What I tried to convey with mister Mestre Arsenal was that even tho he had too many items, it was one consistent piece as far as Design goes.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-16, 08:41 PM
You're thinking of artificers.
No, I'm really not. It's a different mindset. Artificers like to make their own gear. Rogues can be patient, but they really like immediate gratification: see ... want ... have. :smallcool:

(Or to put it another way: Artificers exist mainly to make gear that Rogues acquire. :smallamused:)

Lord Vampyre
2010-06-16, 08:42 PM
Plus, as I said, everything past CR 5 is beyond the scope of any fantasy hero, ever.

This is simply just not true. I'm pretty sure that Smog from the hobbit was way over CR 5. True, he had a fatal flaw, but who except the greatest marksman could've ever have made that shot. Plus, it is hinted at that the arrow was magical in nature.

I have to agree with most of this rant. I personally believe that magic items should be rare and extremely powerful. Even Lord of the Rings had magic items and extraordinary equipment like Sting and Bilbo's mithral shirt that he gave to Frodo. But once again, the items are rare and don't show up all of the time.

My problem is that most optimizers choose optimization over character concept. Eventhough wizards can be turned into front line tanks, they shouldn't. The problem, in my humble opinion, lies in the source books. In 2E everything was pretty much done in the core books, making everything else fluff. There were a few gimmicks in the Handbooks, but they didn't change the game dynamics that drammatically. In 3.5, each handbook seems to create more powerful versions of the base classes, making it less optimal to play fighter.

I have to admit that I disliked 4E when it first came out. Once I played it though, I realized that WotC really did a good job it allowing each class have its moment in the sun. Unfortunately, as they continue to release source books they begin to flood the waters of what can be done, making certain choices less and less optimal. I can't fault them, they really are in it for the money. It just makes good business sense.

faceroll
2010-06-16, 08:43 PM
And exactly the sort that I am. That concept sounds like it'd be a fun BBEG or Epic levelled character.

I could see it as a BBEG, but a whole party of 'em? I'd rather switch systems than play the craptacular system that is epic 3.5. Anything past lvl 15 starts to get messy with full casters and full WBL (which is basically a way to emulate full casting).

Even high optimized play at mid levels is too much bookkeeping.


Then don't play it :p What I tried to convey with mister Mestre Arsenal was that even tho he had too many items, it was one consistent piece as far as Design goes.

Fair enough. Reworking mechanics is totally valid, imo, but is contrary to the nature of RAW optimization.

Maerok
2010-06-16, 08:44 PM
This is basicaly why the Anime/Manga movement is so popular. New character concepts pop everywhere following one simple rule: This One (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool).

There are some rather neat concepts there that blend the old with the new. But people have gone on to play them to death.

Caphi
2010-06-16, 08:52 PM
My problem is that most optimizers choose optimization over character concept. Eventhough wizards can be turned into front line tanks, they shouldn't..

What if the concept is a wizard who can be a front line tank? Warshaper, Master Transmogrifist, and Master of Many Forms are Wizards-supported options to flesh out the concept of a magical shapeshifting warrior.

Jarawara
2010-06-16, 08:55 PM
"In fact, most of the really awesome heroes lost their stuff between adventures and had to start from scratch."

+1 to that! Heck, make it +10, I'm feeling generous today!

I've always liked the feel of having everything ripped away from you, and having to man-up and find a way to defeat the enemy using only grit and guile.

I don't mind having some cool magical equipment - if it's considered expendable and not required for the performance of the character and completion of the story.

An perfect example of the type of hero I would like to play is the movie Predator. They start the gamesession equipped for a stealth mission but ready to rock and roll in combat. But they burn through resources, run low on ammo, lose personel, and finally it's Arnie with a bow and some crude explosive-tipped arrows and some hand-made traps vs the Predator (who's lost his invisibility shield, been injured, and gives up his power-ray, but that could be explained away as it being out of power). It's down to hand-to-hand combat, a test of skill and will.

All the best early D&D modules felt the same way. Yes, you had lots of nifty toys for your characters, but to complete a mission you often had to burn through those resources, and by the end of the adventure you're conserving the last few spells and/or trying to just muscle your way to the finish line.

And then the DM captures the party, strips them of their equipment, and we have a fun adventure where it's just the PC's in loincloths and finding whatever they can turn into a useful weapon or shield. Of course, don't be a jerk about it - they can find their stuff again when they complete the adventure, but for a session or two, it's the *character*, not the *christmas tree* that's put to the test.

Nowadays, I think the players would object to their carefully planned out set of equipment being messed with, they wouldn't let the DM run such a game. That's too bad.

Susano-wo
2010-06-16, 08:57 PM
I'll allow that a most ancient heroes are ECL6 at best.
But not all. Heracles? please, he's a demigod! Samson killed a thousand Philistines (probably ECL1-3warriors/fighters). A freakin thousand! with a donkey jawbone! Marduk slew Tiamat. and cut up her body to make the world. I'll refrain from using actual gods, since I think he was intentionally excluding them. And when you say "large dragon" is he indicating that's how it was described in the tale, or that the dimensions in the tale indicated large by Dnd standards?

But its kinda of irrelevant, since its apples to oranges. Just because DnD stats out X mythical creature as having Y stats doesn't mean that its an actual reflection of its power. Not to mention that its very difficult to run a lot of mythic/literary fights using the Dnd system. Often the foe is defeated though exploiting a weakness, or cleverly subverting a strength, not through "meat damage", as the kids say :D

Fax Celestis
2010-06-16, 09:04 PM
Give this a try. (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=Serpents_and_Sewers)

Fawsto
2010-06-16, 09:04 PM
Geez.. Tormenta. Even further: 3D&T... The birthplace of my RPGing... Good times. Master Arsenal: This one is a villain.

Now, for high magic scenarios, I've recently become fond of Eberron. Try it.

Talking about Aesthetics: My last "recurring concept" is the Mage Knight. A guy who is an able fighter, but also a spellcaster to boot. My favourite class to represent the concept? The Paladin; Later I evolved into the Duskblade and arrived shortly after at the Cleric. By "streching" a concept I've "evolved" from a weaker class into the top 5. My character contribute well to the party while I have fun roleplaying exactly what I want: A spellcasting swordsman.

Natael
2010-06-16, 09:08 PM
Half way through that rant I determined that you shouldent be playing Dungeons and Dragons. I completely understand your complaints, but for D&D, there is not a whole lot you can do about it. There are bounds of other systems out there. I've heard great things about Runequest, your description screams 7th Sea to me in many ways, hell, you could do all of that easy with GURPS (which is my favorite for just about everything, but definitely not for everyone).

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-06-16, 09:22 PM
My problem is that most optimizers choose optimization over character concept. Eventhough wizards can be turned into front line tanks, they shouldn't.

And why not? "Warrior-wizard" is a concept, not a build. And it even shows up in LotR--Gandalf is a frontline wizard (yes, yes, I know, actually an Outsider, but the concept remains).

I think most of the issues people have with aesthetics of optimization are actually issues with the aesthetics of party makeup. If the fighter isn't holding sword and shield in the front row, the rogue isn't stabbing people with a dagger from the shadows, the wizard isn't shooting fire and lightning, and the cleric isn't healing people, they see something wrong with that. It's not "Oh, no, those evil sourcebooks are introducing power creep!" it's "Those evil sourcebooks are letting my wizard fight, my fighter sneak, my rogue heal, and my cleric cast fireballs, and I can't allow that!"


I'll allow that a most ancient heroes are ECL6 at best.
But not all. Heracles? please, he's a demigod!

A demigod whose divine blood was diluted to the point that the only real power he had was ridiculous strength, and you can model that well enough at low levels with a "demigod" race or template. Nothing indicates that Herakles has superhuman fighting skills, just superhuman strength.


Samson killed a thousand Philistines (probably ECL1-3warriors/fighters). A freakin thousand! with a donkey jawbone!

That can easily be modeled by a high Str, high Con fighter 5 with Cleave and Combat Reflexes vs. lots of average Str, average Con warrior 1s. I mean, take a look at goblins or kobolds, the typical swarm monsters; if they have no magic support, no traps, no ranged weapons, no anything like that and just rush into melee, they die in droves.


Marduk slew Tiamat. and cut up her body to make the world. I'll refrain from using actual gods, since I think he was intentionally excluding them.

Marduk was a god. Obviously if you get into the actual gods, you have things like Marduk slaying Tiamat or the heroes of the Ramayan killing thousands of rakshasa in one round. It's the mortals that fit into the low level range.


And when you say "large dragon" is he indicating that's how it was described in the tale, or that the dimensions in the tale indicated large by Dnd standards?

The text doesn't give exact dimensions, but from all indications the dragon would be Large or Huge in D&D terms.

ZeroNumerous
2010-06-16, 09:24 PM
My problem is that most optimizers choose optimization over character concept. Eventhough wizards can be turned into front line tanks, they shouldn't.

So you're saying if I'm making a wizard who casts spells with his muscles, grit and warps reality via the essence of machismo (http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/) then he should have Strength 10? Because 'wizards aren't strong'? So I should throw out my hilarious character concept because of the mechanics, rather than use the mechanics to enable my hilarious character concept?

Susano-wo
2010-06-16, 09:45 PM
A demigod whose divine blood was diluted to the point that the only real power he had was ridiculous strength, and you can model that well enough at low levels with a "demigod" race or template. Nothing indicates that Herakles has superhuman fighting skills, just superhuman strength.

Um, he's half God, the direct son of Zeus. IN any case Hydra: CR6-7, and he defeats it essentially singlehandedly, only needing help to sear the heads. (he also holds his freakin breath while he grapples it!)

AS far as Cerberus goes, he is not a hellhound. He is The Hound of Hell. I don't think you can really use regular old hellhound stats for him >.>

Oh yeah, and he took over for Atlas for a bit>.> That's a pretty high Endurance check, I'd say :D




That can easily be modeled by a high Str, high Con fighter 5 with Cleave and Combat Reflexes vs. lots of average Str, average Con warrior 1s. I mean, take a look at goblins or kobolds, the typical swarm monsters; if they have no magic support, no traps, no ranged weapons, no anything like that and just rush into melee, they die in droves.

BUt 1000? really? the damage is going to add up!




Marduk was a god. Obviously if you get into the actual gods, you have things like Marduk slaying Tiamat or the heroes of the Ramayan killing thousands of rakshasa in one round. It's the mortals that fit into the low level range.

I was thinking that Marduk was a hero who ascended to godhood, so I'll give ya that one :P



The text doesn't give exact dimensions, but from all indications the dragon would be Large or Huge in D&D terms.

Again, I'll concede that one on the Dnd CR level


And I think my point remains that most ancient heroes are definitely in the category you described, but not all (and I might add that I like the idea of most people being low levels--it makes the dnd world make a lot more sense, and it avoids the trope of low level characters being scrubs ^ ^)

ZeroNumerous
2010-06-16, 09:50 PM
(and I might add that I like the idea of most people being low levels--it makes the dnd world make a lot more sense, and it avoids the trope of low level characters being scrubs ^ ^)

Oh no, they're still scrubs. They're just scrubs on an cosmic scale, rather than a human one. They're scrubs that deal with hydras, dragons and orcs as opposed to the elite who deal with demons, devils, Sigil and deities.

Remember: Just because you're awesome compared to Joe the Woodcutter, that doesn't make you awesome when you're standing beside Croanok the God-Slayer.

Mike_G
2010-06-16, 09:59 PM
I was thinking mainly for the customisation elements they have been talking about (edges? adjuncts?). If I recall correctly, Mike quite likes the customisation elements that D20/3e provides, at least in theory.

I prefer the mechanics of D20 to the mess that was AD&D 1e. I like the ability to multiclass after character creation, to make a Dwarf Ranger, to gain Longbow or Sword proficiency as a Wizard and other things that you couldn't do in AD&D.

I don't like the --I guess "legitimization" is the best word I can find-- of what we'd have called Munchkin level entitlement that 3e seems to have bought into. The biggest disagreement I have with many posters here is the idea that the full on Magic Item Compendium should be available at list price plus 5 gp shipping and handling, or the DM is being a "jerk" or "unfair." Magic items, in my opinion, and in all the good stories at least, are hard won. They should be spoils of conquest, and thy should be nifty. You shouldn;'t be expected to have bonuses to three stats from items, plus an AC bonus, and so on.

Fewer cases of "everybody has Gloves of Dex, and either a Headband of Int or a Belt of Strength" and more "legendary soul-sucking runeswords as your only wondrous item" characters would be a lot more interesting.

It's not even all that hard. You can easily build Defensive Bonuses into level advancement and eliminate the need for Rings of Protection for every PC. Build in more stat boosts and lose all the Plus X to Y items that are all but required. Then save the wondrous items for Rings of Invisibility or other stuff that's actually cool in play, not just something to make your numbers bigger because the constant Optimization Arms race requires bigger numbers. D20 modern, Iron Heroes and D20 Conan work just fine.

I grew up on D&D. I like the bones of D&D. I want Orcs and Dragons and Fireballs.

I just want all the Spiked Chain Tripper advocates to realize that I'd sooner have a Dread Pirate Roberts concept than envision a Full Plated, Animated Shielded, obscure splatbook raced Fighter 2/Warblade X swinging a length of chain from Home Depot. Even if I would get 37 AoO's per round.

I don't want to sacrifice concept for mechanical effectiveness. And one shouldn't have to.

LibraryOgre
2010-06-16, 10:00 PM
The text doesn't give exact dimensions, but from all indications the dragon would be Large or Huge in D&D terms.

For me, the definitive word on the the old nightflyer is always going to be out of the 1984 Childcraft annual, where I first encountered Beowulf. That one puts the age of Beowulf's Bane at more than 300 years old (he'd slept that long atop the treasure), meaning he is at least Mature Adult, possibly Old... Huge, maybe Gargantuan on a Red Dragon. Beowulf beat him up when he's in his 70s or 80s (after 50 years of reigning over the Geats).

While Grendel is frequently called a Troll, it's worth noting that he's not a D&D troll, which is based on Poul Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions" (also from that book: the vast majority of the paladin class, swanmay, much of the modern gnome, a holy avenger sword, and the spell Unseen Servant, at the very least). Grendel's mother is about half-way between a Sea Hag and a Night Hag... she's got DR enough to shrug off anything mortals can do, and most magic weapons, but can live far enough out that Beowulf had to swim or row for a day to reach her. Grendel himself either has phenomenal Dexterity, large DR, fantastic natural armor, or a combination thereof... given the description of his arm


Every nail, claw-scale and spur, every spike
and welt on the hand of that heathen brute
was like barbed steel. Everybody said
there was no honed iron hard enough
to pierce him through, no time proofed blade
that could cut his brutal blood caked claw

We're talking Natural AC and/or DR. He's larger than a man, and it takes four people to support his head. I'd tentatively put him forward as a Fiendish Hill Giant (remember his descent from Caine!), and his mother as an advanced fiendish hill giant.

Susano-wo
2010-06-16, 10:01 PM
well, yeah, that's what I'm saying. A 1st level fighter (even more so a 2nd or 3rd level character) is still head and shoulders above most people.

I hate the of course you suck, you're 1st level! mentality. It doesn't diminish the coolness of Croanak the Gos Slayer (like that name, by the way :P) if you don't assume that corporal Joe the fighter isn't a crappy fighter ^ ^

::Edit::

Also:
The biggest disagreement I have with many posters here is the idea that the full on Magic Item Compendium should be available at list price plus 5 gp shipping and handling, or the DM is being a "jerk" or "unfair."

Amen! even if you enforce WBL in the game, it doesn't mean everyone should expect full on magic mart!

And finally, thank you Marc, for your knowledge of the story. I am only vaguely familiar with it. That all sounds pretty impressive to me :P

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-06-16, 10:08 PM
Um, he's half God, the direct son of Zeus.

Yes he is. And all he has to show for it is godlike strength. No throwing lightning, no seeing the future, no invulnerability.


IN any case Hydra: CR6-7, and he defeats it essentially singlehandedly, only needing help to sear the heads. (he also holds his freakin breath while he grapples it!)

Which, again, isn't too unrealistic if you're a low-level fighter with high stats. A CR X monster vs. a level X PC is about a 50/50 fight. A CR X+1 or X+2 vs. a level X PC with much higher stats is also about a 50/50 fight. Herakles didn't utterly own the hydra, nor did he barely manage it by the skin of his teeth, so I'd call that about accurate.


AS far as Cerberus goes, he is not a hellhound. He is The Hound of Hell. I don't think you can really use regular old hellhound stats for him >.>

And this is why everyone says heroes have to be high level. You say, hey, Kerberos is the Hound of Hell, therefore he must be a high CR, therefore Herakles must have been high level to beat him. Or hey, Herakles is high level, therefore the Hound of Hell had to be high CR to challenge him.

If, on the other hand, you start with the assumption that heroes are around level 5 or perhaps a level or 2 higher and keep in mind that in Greek mythology there is exactly one hell hound that the D&D hell hound is vaguely based on, then you realize that a multi-headed hell hound vs. a level 5 barbarian or fighter or whatever models Kerberos vs. Herakles rather well.


Oh yeah, and he took over for Atlas for a bit>.> That's a pretty high Endurance check, I'd say :D

Once again, high Str and high Con. No high-level stuff necessary.


BUt 1000? really? the damage is going to add up!

Sure. Average NPC warriors have 1d10 HP (not even max at 1st level) or maybe 1d10+1, an AC of 10 or 11, and +1 to +3 attack bonus. As a level 5 barbarian, Samson would have 4d12+27 or more HP, an AC of 12 to 14, and a +9 or so attack bonus. Give him Power Attack and Cleave and he can one-shot two enemies per round. Depending on his tactics and other factors, he could easily kill lots of enemies before going down. In fact, if he picks up the Martial Spirit stance to represent divine favor, he can take on nigh-infinite numbers of said warriors, because they'll hit him infrequently enough to let him heal all the damage.


And I think my point remains that most ancient heroes are definitely in the category you described, but not all (and I might add that I like the idea of most people being low levels--it makes the dnd world make a lot more sense, and it avoids the trope of low level characters being scrubs ^ ^)

I don't know; with all the possible builds for low-level characters and things like special templates giving extra Str or similar that add power without adding skill, I can't really think of any mortal hero that can't be represented at a low level. Granted, the level 5 cutoff point was a single number--it'd be more like the level 4 to level 7 range--but it's still doable.


For me, the definitive word on the the old nightflyer is always going to be out of the 1984 Childcraft annual, where I first encountered Beowulf. That one puts the age of Beowulf's Bane at more than 300 years old (he'd slept that long atop the treasure), meaning he is at least Mature Adult, possibly Old... Huge, maybe Gargantuan on a Red Dragon. Beowulf beat him up when he's in his 70s or 80s (after 50 years of reigning over the Geats).

Keep in mind that age doesn't necessarily map between Beowulf and D&D; what matters isn't what D&D stats his Beowulf age would put him at, it's its observed capabilities.


While Grendel is frequently called a Troll, it's worth noting that he's not a D&D troll, which is based on Poul Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions" (also from that book: the vast majority of the paladin class, swanmay, much of the modern gnome, a holy avenger sword, and the spell Unseen Servant, at the very least).

Yes, I am familiar with the troll origins; I've read Gygax's list in the 1e DMG too. :smallwink:


Grendel's mother is about half-way between a Sea Hag and a Night Hag... she's got DR enough to shrug off anything mortals can do, and most magic weapons, but can live far enough out that Beowulf had to swim or row for a day to reach her. Grendel himself either has phenomenal Dexterity, large DR, fantastic natural armor, or a combination thereof... given the description of his arm
[...]
We're talking Natural AC and/or DR. He's larger than a man, and it takes four people to support his head. I'd tentatively put him forward as a Fiendish Hill Giant (remember his descent from Caine!), and his mother as an advanced fiendish hill giant.

Good analysis. I agree that fiendish hill giant makes sense for the most part. That still puts the baddies in the CR 7-10 range, a very challenging (but not impossible) challenge for the stereotypical party and a very challenging encounter for an optimized single hero like Beowulf.

Something like a level 6-ish warblade or crusader would work well for Beowulf--lots of mythological heroes tend to be of the "fight past a few bazillion wounds, run for weeks at a time, cut through any obstacle" sort, so Devoted Spirit and Stone Dragon are nice matches. To represent his endurance, Martial Spirit again makes a good choice; to represent cutting the uncuttable, the various Stone Dragon DR-penetrating maneuvers are good, as would Martial Study (Emerald Razor). He can handle the high natural armor (touch AC 8!) and DR, and at that point it's a slugging match to see who kills whom first.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-06-16, 10:13 PM
Correction: The aesthetics of 3.x and 4e, not D&D. His POV is right in line with oD&D and AD&D, where loss of magic items was rough but moderately expected, items were only as plentiful as the DM wanted them to be, and a hero could be a guy with a sword and a will to use it.

Mike... we're waiting for you in Castles and Crusades. ;-)

I'm not sure how much more I can agree with this.

I could rant about the aesthetics of the original post, but it would accomplish little and make everyone involved angrier.

Zore
2010-06-16, 10:14 PM
I don't want to sacrifice concept for mechanical effectiveness. And one shouldn't have to.

No, you shouldn't. And thats why D&D 3.5 is not a good system for you, because there are some concepts that are just better under the rules than others without a total system overhaul. Check out Serpents and Sewers or GURPs or even D20 Modern for more of what you are looking for with similar mechanics. But D&D 3.5 is entirely designed to run counter to your assumptions and tastes.

Irreverent Fool
2010-06-16, 10:16 PM
Iron. Heroes.

*chants* Iron. Heroes.


The biggest disagreement I have with many posters here is the idea that the full on Magic Item Compendium should be available at list price plus 5 gp shipping and handling, or the DM is being a "jerk" or "unfair."

The DM is being unfair. There's no S&H listed.

I don't much care for the Magic Item Emporium, myself, but D&D 3.5 is built on the idea that players can acquire items based on settlement wealth limits and the challenges presented by the official rules reflect this. A DM who says, "let's play D&D 3.5" is adopting all of the base rules, including this concept. It's perfectly fair to run a low-magic world or make items scarce, but that's going to be something other than the base rules.

Set
2010-06-16, 10:18 PM
Let's look at the inspiration for Fantasy heroes. I grew up reading Conan, Elric, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser and Zelazny's Amber series and Lord of the Rings.

Conan - Barbarian, stronger than anyone else, moves like a cat, tougher than everyone else, pretty darn cunning, has, in D&D terms, the class abilities of a Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue and Assassin. He was Mary Sue before Mary Sue.

Evil wizard who monologues that he's defeated death itself and is centuries old? Yeah 20 levels of evil wizard gets trumped by 1 level of 'I'm Conan' and a stick he picked up off of the ground.

Elric - ultimate min-maxed character design.

Player "Okay, I want to have a 6 in Strength and Con, so that I can pump up my Int and Cha scores for spellcasting, and then I've got this magic sword that buys my Str and Con back up to 15 or so, but it's *totally* a disadvantage because it's an unstoppable killing machine and it makes me sad when it kills my friends!"

GM "Get. Out. Of. My. House."

Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser - not bad, actually. Fafhrd had the Fighter / Ranger / Barbarian / Rogue thing going on and the Grey Mouser had the Fighter / Rogue / Swashbuckler / Sorcerer thing going on, but, by the standards of the genre, neither of them was Legolas vonMunchkintwinkery.

Amber series - yeah, your base character is immortal and has the power to plane shift at will and create or acquire pretty much any gear they want and learn magic and get free Wishes by walking a pattern that is *supposed* to be really hard and dangerous to those who fail, but nobody has actually ever failed in the novels, so, yeah, free Wishes...

Lord of the Rings - There is no game balance in this setting. Elves are default 8th level characters. The party Wizard is a demigod, one of only five on the planet. And the average Hobbit gives 1st level Commoners a warm feeling of superiority.

It's like Gilligan's Island, only the Professor is a sword-wielding warrior angel with magical powers who can whistle and summon up the King of Giant Intelligent Magical Eagles *or* the 'god of horses' to ferry his bony arse around, Mary-Ann can shoot seventy-four arrows a second and never misses, Ginger has a magic horn that summons help to arrive in time to hear your death-speech (thanks dad, great birthday present!) and there are three always-hungry bumbling midget Gilligans.

Optimization can suck when it drags the game down for other players, but most of the fantasy that inspired D&D involved unique and special people with abilities that allowed them to show up anyone around them, due to some magical bloodline or prophecy or special McGuffin or (gag) midichlorians or something.

Just about every 'hero' of fantasy was a big fat cheater.

After Luke / Elric / whomever chops down their hundreth faceless mook, it gets a little less heroically challenging, since their unique superpowers make them seem less like 'heroes' and more like violent incarnations of 'might makes right.'

And that's what we've grown up with. The farmboy doesn't get to become the hero, *unless* he happens to be the virgin birth force-messiah.

Even the much-quoted Princess Bride has Wesley, the ultimate Mary Sue. He beats someone generally considered the strongest guy ever in hand to hand, wrestling him into submission. He outwits the supposedly cleverest guy around. He beats the man introduced as having devoted his life to swordplay in a fencing match. Yeah, it's 'the power of love,' (cue Huey Lewis soundtrack), but it's still a pretty ridiculous portrayal of a 'hero,' when the 'hero' can't actually lose and is just incidentally better at everything than anyone he meets.

Maerok
2010-06-16, 10:29 PM
Even the much-quoted Princess Bride has Wesley, the ultimate Mary Sue. He beats someone generally considered the strongest guy ever in hand to hand, wrestling him into submission. He outwits the supposedly cleverest guy around. He beats the man introduced as having devoted his life to swordplay in a fencing match. Yeah, it's 'the power of love,' (cue Huey Lewis soundtrack), but it's still a pretty ridiculous portrayal of a 'hero,' when the 'hero' can't actually lose and is just incidentally better at everything than anyone he meets.

Has anyone seen the Ultraviolet movie? It's ridiculously one-sided.

TheThan
2010-06-16, 10:53 PM
I generally agree with what the OP says, but like others have pointed out, it’s the aesthetics of dnd in general that irritate me. I’ve found an answer but I’ve yet to get anyone to try to it out with me.

ZeroNumerous
2010-06-16, 10:57 PM
He beats someone generally considered the strongest guy ever in hand to hand, wrestling him into submission.

Strength and skill are independent of one another. Wesley choked Andre into submission, denying the big guy the air he desperately needed.


He outwits the supposedly cleverest guy around.

Who turned out to be a half-wit. His cleverness is very much an informed ability.


He beats the man introduced as having devoted his life to swordplay in a fencing match.

This, I feel, is your only legitimate grip. And legitimate it is.

Draz74
2010-06-16, 11:12 PM
This, I feel, is your only legitimate grip. And legitimate it is.

Eh, the book does provide some terrain-based justification for it.

LibraryOgre
2010-06-16, 11:13 PM
Keep in mind that age doesn't necessarily map between Beowulf and D&D; what matters isn't what D&D stats his Beowulf age would put him at, it's its observed capabilities.

True, but that gets a little more complicated. As I said, I use the 1984 Childcraft Annual for my instinctive reactions (apparently, reading an adaptation of the last part of Beowulf when I was 7 had a bit of an impact; I started collecting translations at 16 or so), the head of the dragon is about the size of Beowulf, and the neck is half as long; alternatively, another picture shows a round shield (about 1m in diameter) as being the size of it's foot to the talon.

Outside of that source, I found an unsourced reference to the dragon being about 50 yards long.


Yes, I am familiar with the troll origins; I've read Gygax's list in the 1e DMG too. :smallwink:

3H&3L, combined with Leiber's Lankhmar books show, to me, some of the strongest influences on D&D.

Arakune
2010-06-16, 11:19 PM
3D&T for example, has STR,Hability,Resistance,Firepower,Armor as base stats. STR and Firepower deal damage based on the base stat. To hit is the str/fp + hability. defense is hability+armor. STR 1 is the highest a normal human goes into, and 4 is enough to bull rush a truck, and magic armor in the form d&d describes do not exist. They are fluff to justify that extra point of armor you took when your exp allowed it... and that little girl with a force field generator on her belt has armor 5 just like the hyper-trained kung fu monkey that blocks ballista shots.

You mean, the system that completly breaks apart if you want to try a fantasy setting? Or it needs an impossible amount of points if you want to go Super Sayan even if you expect to do it?

Don't bring that back pal, it's good only for a few games for learning.

Flickerdart
2010-06-16, 11:37 PM
I'm running a 15th level Gestalt character who's pretty good for a classic charismatic hero - wielding a single Longsword (and a fairly cheap one at that), a magical vest, gloves and shoes (that are even cheaper). That's about it for major items - no armour, no stat boosters (except a +2 Wisdom item, but that can be done away with without too much trouble, docking DEX or something). The bulk of his wealth was spent on a +2 Tome. Without his magic items, he'll still eat you for breakfast and take yours.

Sliver
2010-06-17, 12:12 AM
but the negative tone of this forum when discussing a DM who eliminates the Magi Sears Catalogue of Wondrous Items, or a PC who "foolishly" wants to Sword and Board it, even though "I've shown him the math on the Spiked Chain Tripper/Ubercharger" grates on my Grognardy nerves.

I have never seen this around the forum, not like that.

Players were here upset about lack of WBL worth of items when the DM kept throwing at them stuff that they should have been able to handle if they had WBL, but they are at level 5+ without any magic items etc.

And the second point of S&B was a reaction of annoyance when the PC who wants S&B insists it's superior and mostly taunts the "optimizer" to react. I never seen anyone react negatively to the will of playing something not optimized, but to the notion that it was actually optimized.

People do get annoyed if you tell them that they don't understand the game and Leap Attack isn't worth it, you should take Weapon Specialization instead.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-06-17, 12:13 AM
True, but that gets a little more complicated. As I said, I use the 1984 Childcraft Annual for my instinctive reactions (apparently, reading an adaptation of the last part of Beowulf when I was 7 had a bit of an impact; I started collecting translations at 16 or so), the head of the dragon is about the size of Beowulf, and the neck is half as long; alternatively, another picture shows a round shield (about 1m in diameter) as being the size of it's foot to the talon.

Outside of that source, I found an unsourced reference to the dragon being about 50 yards long.

I can't say I'm an expert on Beowulf, so I'll defer to you on this one. A Gargantuan dragon would definitely be harder to take down. However, without spellcasting it's just a flying fire-breathing lizard, so the same anti-Grendel tactics would work against it. Would it be a very difficult? Heck yes, but Emerald Razor, Shards of Granite, and Devoted Spirit maneuvers would serve just as well (assuming plenty of lucky rolls or some heavy optimization).


I'm running a 15th level Gestalt character who's pretty good for a classic charismatic hero - wielding a single Longsword (and a fairly cheap one at that), a magical vest, gloves and shoes (that are even cheaper). That's about it for major items - no armour, no stat boosters (except a +2 Wisdom item, but that can be done away with without too much trouble, docking DEX or something). The bulk of his wealth was spent on a +2 Tome. Without his magic items, he'll still eat you for breakfast and take yours.

What else is in your party, and what kinds of challenges have you been facing? As mentioned before, you can handle lack of items if the challenges are scaled down and matched accordingly.

icefractal
2010-06-17, 12:17 AM
I think the aesthetic argument really only applies to certain characters though. A wizard throwing down a maze of illusions, poison fog, and shadow creatures is pretty classic (Killer Gnome). So is a mighty warrior who leaps into battle with a huge spear or greatsword to sunder foes in one strike (Ubercharger). Heck, even the single longsword style can be pulled off in an reasonably optimal way, through various methods. And I find that for all the talk about Spiked Chains, they're far from a necessity and not even always an optimal choice.

As for the christmas tree thing, that's more of a campaign/system issue than an optimization issue. One change I like, that has very little balance impact, is to allow combined items that take up multiple slots, at the same price as the separate components.

For instance, you could have magic armor that also gave you a bonus to strength and saves, at no price increase from separate items, but it would take up the armor, cloak, and waist slots. This way instead of a christmas tree of minor items, you can have a couple iconic ones.

PId6
2010-06-17, 12:22 AM
I'm running a 15th level Gestalt character who's pretty good for a classic charismatic hero - wielding a single Longsword (and a fairly cheap one at that), a magical vest, gloves and shoes (that are even cheaper). That's about it for major items - no armour, no stat boosters (except a +2 Wisdom item, but that can be done away with without too much trouble, docking DEX or something). The bulk of his wealth was spent on a +2 Tome. Without his magic items, he'll still eat you for breakfast and take yours.
So...

Clericzilla?

Gametime
2010-06-17, 01:08 AM
*chants* Iron. Heroes.



If you want low-magic 3.5, Iron Heroes is an excellent place to start.

Of course, if you want high magic but without all the magic item dependency, it's not much good. But it's a start.

At any rate, standard 3.5 starts to break down without magic items or, as a substitute, lots and lots o' spellcasting.

Hand_of_Vecna
2010-06-17, 01:23 AM
First, I think alot of the unclassic optimized things the OP dislikes aren't as omnipresent as he thinks they are. Yes spiked chains and glaive/spiked gauntlet will be suggested but usually only when somebody hasen't specified contrary flavor goals. Generally if somebody wants a sword weilding build they'll be given one.

Secondly, I don't feel any biblical heroes should enter this discussion simply because their accomplishments can be credited to the Will of God which would best repesented as DM fiat or an arbitrarily high number of lucky rolls rather than anything on a character sheet.

Lastly Princess Bride totally fits an E6 model.

Wesley-Fighter* 2/Rogue* 4 probably has a few extra feats. Excellent stats probably all 14-16. He few does need quite a few feats though; dodge, mobility and improved grapple to beat fezzik and a fair number of other feats to be a match for Inigo. Luckily E6 gives you extra feats for Xp earned beyond lvl 6.

Inigo-Fighter* 6 or perhaps fighter 5/some weapon master PrC 1 which probably makes him the only one in his generation.

Fezzik(movie version)-Ogre feats shifted to have improved unarmed and superior unarmed strike

Vizzinni Expert 1. His situaltional advantage makes him a reasonably challenge.

Flamespurts & lightning sand- CR 1-3 traps.

R.O.U.S - advanced dire rat with improved grab

*swap for swashbuckler or ToB classes to taste.

The Cat Goddess
2010-06-17, 03:57 AM
I'm running a 15th level Gestalt character who's pretty good for a classic charismatic hero - wielding a single Longsword (and a fairly cheap one at that), a magical vest, gloves and shoes (that are even cheaper). That's about it for major items - no armour, no stat boosters (except a +2 Wisdom item, but that can be done away with without too much trouble, docking DEX or something). The bulk of his wealth was spent on a +2 Tome. Without his magic items, he'll still eat you for breakfast and take yours.

Well, if part of your Gestalt is Cleric... or heck, Wizard, then you can use spells to improve your stats/AC/saves pretty easily.

Why bother with a +Cha item when you can cast Eagle's Splendor? Why bother with armour when you can cast Magic Vestment on your Vest or Mage Armor (Especially if you've got SwordSage for Wis-to-AC)?

Snake-Aes
2010-06-17, 06:02 AM
You mean, the system that completly breaks apart if you want to try a fantasy setting? Or it needs an impossible amount of points if you want to go Super Sayan even if you expect to do it?

Don't bring that back pal, it's good only for a few games for learning.

It doesn't break apart o.O I don't know where you got that from. The stats are there, you explain how they are what they are, happy times.

And if you're going to evolve into a supers scale, they suggest a different scale to buy points from anyway.
As far as systems designed around simplicity, it's better than most.

Mr.Moron
2010-06-17, 06:20 AM
I realize this is a bit late in a thread to be responding to the OP directly, but there was something that bothered me.



No, heroes use swords dammit. And one handed swords, so you can swing from a rope or carry off a damsel in distress with the other hand. Maybe, just maybe a henchman of the evil overlord would carry something silly like a chain or spiked armor, but that was just so the hero could have an interesting fight scene and deliver a good one liner about fancy oddball weapons after shanking the guy.


This is a very, very, very, very narrow definition of what constitutes a hero and the environment that hero operates in. Not that it's bad thing to have an idea of to know what you like it and isn't bad if it's specific either.

However the wording here is extremely strong and heavy-handed. What's described here is hardly the definitive description of a "Hero". For some people that just isn't what it is at all. I mean "carrying off a damsel"? That just make some wanna go ugh, personally.

Mike_G
2010-06-17, 06:27 AM
I have never seen this around the forum, not like that.

Then we aren't reading the same threads.

There are plenty of "Help me make my poor, benighted friends who take S&B see the light" threads here.



Players were here upset about lack of WBL worth of items when the DM kept throwing at them stuff that they should have been able to handle if they had WBL, but they are at level 5+ without any magic items etc.


Any time someone suggests a build with Tomes for every important stat as base, and someone else poinst out that maybe you can't just pikc up a Tome at the corner store, as they are supposed to be rare, powerful items, we hear how only a "jerk DM" would deny you WBL access to the Sears Catalogue




And the second point of S&B was a reaction of annoyance when the PC who wants S&B insists it's superior and mostly taunts the "optimizer" to react. I never seen anyone react negatively to the will of playing something not optimized, but to the notion that it was actually optimized.

People do get annoyed if you tell them that they don't understand the game and Leap Attack isn't worth it, you should take Weapon Specialization instead.

And I get annoyed when people say Fighter isn't worth it, or S&B isn't worth it.

I don't really care if you don't mind your heroes looking like a chainswinging Christmas tree. Have fun with that.

It's just not the only way to play, and the aesthetics of it, the feel of it, the whole point of immersing myself in an imagine world is ruined for me.

A DM can cater to any power level. If the party is low magic, low optimization, just throw stuff at them that they can handle. Or make them think to win, not just rely on gear to blast through. Yeah, you are a jerk DM if you throw an incorporeal, energy draining, immune to nonmagical weapons at a party with no access to those weapons, but there's a huge spectrum of appropriate challenges.

Older editions didn't have WBL or CR. The DM decided what was appropriate for loot and foes. It works fine, or it doesn't depending on how decent a DM you have.

Like everything else in the game.

Mongoose87
2010-06-17, 06:39 AM
You seem to have forgotten the part where Wesley dies and would have had his fairy tale end, if Inigo and Fezzik hadn't saved his scrawny butt.

Matthew
2010-06-17, 07:06 AM
I prefer the mechanics of D20 to the mess that was AD&D 1e. I like the ability to multiclass after character creation, to make a Dwarf Ranger, to gain Longbow or Sword proficiency as a Wizard and other things that you couldn't do in AD&D.

Yeah, C&C hits most of those, but unfortunately there are no multi classing rules in the sense of D20, as it uses differentiated experience progression.

Mike_G
2010-06-17, 07:08 AM
Yeah, C&C hits most of those, but unfortunately there are no multi classing rules in the sense of D20, as it uses differentiated experience progression.

That's probably not too tough to tweak.

I just think, since Conan started as a Barbarian, and picked up a few Thief and Fighter levels along the way, a PC should be able to do that.

Tengu_temp
2010-06-17, 07:36 AM
How many of those heroes ran around tripping people with spiked chains? Or using a combo like Guisarme and spiked armor? How totally lame would Excalibur be if it were a two bladed sword? Would it need to be stuck in two stones?


That's not how practical optimization works. A real powergamer will be able to take a concept, almost any concept, and then optimize it to make it powerful without changing the actual concept on its own. A lightly armored hero who doesn't cast spells and fights with a one-handed sword? You can easily have an optimized character who looks like that in the actual game.

Well, there's also the over-reliance on magic items, but that's a problem with DND, not optimization. You can optimize for any game, not just DND.

Amphetryon
2010-06-17, 07:44 AM
A point that's been made before, that I haven't spotted in this thread yet, is that optimization talk abounds on forums partially because it's the most objective aspect of D&D, so the easiest to discuss comparatively. Awesomeness of a DM or character concept is highly subjective, but everyone can see that 47.5 DPR is numerically superior to 28.333 DPR.

Gnaeus
2010-06-17, 08:36 AM
A demigod whose divine blood was diluted to the point that the only real power he had was ridiculous strength, and you can model that well enough at low levels with a "demigod" race or template. Nothing indicates that Herakles has superhuman fighting skills, just superhuman strength.


Nothing? How about the Illiad?


How great a man my father Heracles
Was counted-lion hearted warrior he!
Once stood he here, because Laomedon
Denied him horses: came with six small ships
And tiny crews; and sacked your Trojan town,
Leaving you empty streets, silent and dead.


Heracles (O.K. Heracles and Telamon, but we know who the cohort was) massively outperformed the entire list of Greek heroes in the Illiad (Achilles, Agamemnon, Menelaus, both Ajaxes, Odysseus, Teucer, etc) with less than 1/10th the troops under his command.

The Dark Fiddler
2010-06-17, 08:55 AM
Then we aren't reading the same threads.

There are plenty of "Help me make my poor, benighted friends who take S&B see the light" threads here.

Yes, and the majority of them are in the "he insists he knows the game better than me and that Weapon Specialization is the best feat in the game, even though I've shown him otherwise. I'd rather let it drop but he's being so annoying about it."

The few cases where it wasn't that, that I saw, the members of the forum pretty much unanimously said to let the person play his S&B character and offered ways to make it a bit better, to boot.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-06-17, 08:58 AM
Nothing? How about the Illiad?


How great a man my father Heracles
Was counted-lion hearted warrior he!
Once stood he here, because Laomedon
Denied him horses: came with six small ships
And tiny crews; and sacked your Trojan town,
Leaving you empty streets, silent and dead.


Heracles (O.K. Heracles and Telamon, but we know who the cohort was) massively outperformed the entire list of Greek heroes in the Illiad (Achilles, Agamemnon, Menelaus, both Ajaxes, Odysseus, Teucer, etc) with less than 1/10th the troops under his command.

Extraordinary skill, yes, but was it superhuman? I don't deny that most mythological heroes show exceptional skill, bravery, luck, and so forth, much beyond the skill of other people around them, but nothing they do exhibits skill above and beyond what it is possible for a low-level D&D mortal to accomplish except by outside aid in the form of special blood, divine backing, and other things that class levels don't represent.

What I'm trying to get at here is that while people might do amazing things in mythology, the expectation that amazing = high level in D&D is not necessarily true. Could you say that Herakles was some level 20 prodigy and the other heroes were around level 15 or so? Yes. Does it work just as well if Herakles is 8th-9th level, the others are around 5th-6th level, and they beat up a bunch of warrior 1s? Also yes. If you go into things expecting that Greek heroes and Arthurian legend and such are high-level archetypes in generic 3e, you're going to be disappointed, because they're not.

The world of mythology is much lower-level, lower-wealth, and otherwise lower-power than 3e expects. Even in AD&D the world wasn't like mythology--you could base fighters off of Hercules and Conan and such and expect them to do fine, even excel, but even with the slower advancement, rarer magic items, and other differences you still passed the heroes around name level and kept going from there, and of course throwing magic into the mix changes things completely.

Choco
2010-06-17, 09:10 AM
Stuff

All true right there. Though I guess the point is that most of us who grew up reading that type of fantasy had some different ideas of what it should be than D&D does. A lot of us started D&D imagining slaying dragons in the face with our swords. Then after we tried that we rolled up casters....


I generally agree with what the OP says, but like others have pointed out, it’s the aesthetics of dnd in general that irritate me. I’ve found an answer but I’ve yet to get anyone to try to it out with me.

What would that be? E6?

Fax Celestis
2010-06-17, 09:59 AM
Like everything else in the game.

I am amazed and appalled that the only post you have chosen to reply to thus far is one in a controversial and argumentative tone. You are better than that and have been offered a multitude of options, ranging from a differing playstyle on the same game, to a suite of houserules that essentially allow you to do exactly what you're asking for without much hassle, to a few alternative systems that better model what you seek.

If you are looking for a fight, come out and say it. If you are looking for a solution, it has been offered. I would think you would be better served pursuing the latter.

Hague
2010-06-17, 10:02 AM
In the campaign I'm designing there are magic dead areas where supernatural and psionic powers simply don't work. The reasoning is that magic users messed it up for everyone else. These areas are where players will have to fight with their wits and skill, without the aid of magic. Throw a few of these areas in your campaign and watch as the optimizers flail pathetically needing a ranks in a "sub-optimal" skill. Suddenly the weakest classes become the strongest, then ye olde climb check comes into play again.

Flickerdart
2010-06-17, 10:07 AM
So...

Clericzilla?
Bard, actually. Clerics are hardly "classic charismatic hero", now are they.

Gnaeus
2010-06-17, 10:20 AM
Throw a few of these areas in your campaign and watch as the optimizers flail pathetically needing a ranks in a "sub-optimal" skill. Suddenly the weakest classes become the strongest, then ye olde climb check comes into play again.

If you notify players of this beforehand, you can expect them to have solutions. Optimizer doesn't mean "Always play full casters!", it means "Play the concept that is most powerful or flexible or whatever you are optimizing for given the rules under which you are playing.".

If you don't notify players beforehand, you are engaging in Gotcha DMing, punishing people for behavior that isn't by itself bad. The best solution to caster abuse isn't to smack people with a rolled up newspaper and make them sit in a corner because you have made their entire class worthless for big chunks of the campaign. Thats the equivalent of making your rogue fight through dungeons full of sneak-attack-immunes (without letting them use the normal rogue workarounds), or watching your fighters flail ineffectively at monsters with DR20/Cold Iron and Evil and Fast healing 10.

Choco
2010-06-17, 10:32 AM
If you notify players of this beforehand, you can expect them to have solutions. Optimizer doesn't mean "Always play full casters!", it means "Play the concept that is most powerful or flexible or whatever you are optimizing for given the rules under which you are playing.".

If you don't notify players beforehand, you are engaging in Gotcha DMing, punishing people for behavior that isn't by itself bad. The best solution to caster abuse isn't to smack people with a rolled up newspaper and make them sit in a corner because you have made their entire class worthless for big chunks of the campaign. Thats the equivalent of making your rogue fight through dungeons full of sneak-attack-immunes (without letting them use the normal rogue workarounds), or watching your fighters flail ineffectively at monsters with DR20/Cold Iron and Evil and Fast healing 10.

Yeah, at that point just run a low/no magic campaign.

I personally use dead magic zones, but only very selectively. Cliche Barren Wasteland 3 may be inside a dead magic zone to make it different from Cliche Barren Wastelands 1 and 2, and the players may or may not need to go there, but either way they know in advance. Also there are occasionally some artifcially created dead magic zones to explain why a wizard hasn't destroyed the fortress yet. That or intelligent martial types build said fortresses on existing dead magic zones.

I also use them when the martial types are in desperate need of moments of awesome. If they are being overshadowed/made useless by the casters, I put them in a dead magic zone to reverse the roles about half the time :smalltongue:

The Cat Goddess
2010-06-17, 10:44 AM
Bard, actually. Clerics are hardly "classic charismatic hero", now are they.

Depends on the Cleric, really... In fact, there's an entire PrC dedicated to being a charismatic Cleric.

Of course, a Bard also has access to a number of stat/AC/Saves/combat bonus spells/abilities as well... especially in Gestalt.

LibraryOgre
2010-06-17, 10:53 AM
I can't say I'm an expert on Beowulf, so I'll defer to you on this one. A Gargantuan dragon would definitely be harder to take down. However, without spellcasting it's just a flying fire-breathing lizard, so the same anti-Grendel tactics would work against it. Would it be a very difficult? Heck yes, but Emerald Razor, Shards of Granite, and Devoted Spirit maneuvers would serve just as well (assuming plenty of lucky rolls or some heavy optimization).

I spent a good chunk of last night reading an on-line translation of Beowulf... I couldn't find specific references to the size.

And, to be fair, Beowulf didn't get a solo kill on it. He had an assist from Wiglaf.

LibraryOgre
2010-06-17, 10:54 AM
Yeah, C&C hits most of those, but unfortunately there are no multi classing rules in the sense of D20, as it uses differentiated experience progression.

Actually, I have some house rules to cover that. They don't currently allow dips, but mostly because there would be little reason for high XP classes not to dip. Though a variation on the multiclassing rules from 3e would actually help with that... hmmm...

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-17, 10:59 AM
And, to be fair, Beowulf didn't get a solo kill on it. He had an assist from Wiglaf.

Quite common. Even Heracles didn't soloed Hydra. Iolaus helped with aid another + actions prepared with a torch.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-17, 11:22 AM
someone else poinst out that maybe you can't just pikc up a Tome at the corner store, as they are supposed to be rare, powerful items, we hear how only a "jerk DM" would deny you WBL access to the Sears Catalogue
The DMG explicitly states that you are supposed to get the items you want. Not necessarily buying them at a store, but if you go looking for an item that is within your WBL and it's not in the store, the DM is supposed make it appear in a pile of loot in the near future, or offer a quest to get one, or whatever. The game is balanced around the idea of being able to use WBL to your advantage, and all the wealth in the world is useless if you cannot apply it effectively.

This is kind of like a DM, upon his players hitting level 12, saying "Uhm, nope, no feats for you. I dunno, I just don't think you did anything deserving of a feat in the last level" - despite the fact, that, ya know, they're adventurers and to level up they must have done some heroic stuff, and despite the fact that the rules are quite clearly balanced around them having a feat, and despite the fact that the DM never made any mention of a need to earn feats or the possibility of them not coming up when appropriate.

Can you houserule a situation where items are harder to come by? Yes, people do it all the time. D&D 3-4 is really, really bad at it, though, so people have suggested non-D&D solutions that might work better. But regardless, yes, you have to tell your players that you are changing the rules ahead of time, or you are a jerk DM. And the rules state that all items within your WBL should become available basically when you want them. Not immediately, perhaps, not just buying them in a store, maybe, but in the very near future.

And if you're creating a high-level character, assuming several Tomes (as fit within WBL for the level) is completely appropriate. They're a high-level adventurer, and they want these Tomes - they'll have managed to find, quest, or buy them at this point.

Arbane
2010-06-17, 11:23 AM
I don't want to sacrifice concept for mechanical effectiveness. And one shouldn't have to.

What he said. D&D has a LOT of round holes, and you can usually find one that a square peg can _almost_ fit in. Almost.

But it does annoy me that from a purely mechanical perspective, there _is_ a 'right' way to design, equip, and play some character types.

As long as we're suggesting alternatives to D&D, how about Mutants & Masterminds? Superhero games have to be able to handle fairly wacky character concepts as a matter of course, and there's an M&M sourcebook (whose name I forget) for specifically emulating fantasy genres.

Tytalus
2010-06-17, 11:29 AM
And I get annoyed when people say Fighter isn't worth it, or S&B isn't worth it.


Fighter the class generally isn't worth it (with the known exceptions), fighter the concept surely is (ToB). And that's all that should really matter.

Arbane
2010-06-17, 11:35 AM
The DMG explicitly states that you are supposed to get the items you want. Not necessarily buying them at a store, but if you go looking for an item that is within your WBL and it's not in the store, the DM is supposed make it appear in a pile of loot in the near future, or offer a quest to get one, or whatever. The game is balanced around the idea of being able to use WBL to your advantage, and all the wealth in the world is useless if you cannot apply it effectively.

This is probably the biggest difference between D&D3+ and Classic. back in the Old Days, magic items were valuable, sure, but they were more "weird stuff that happens to you" than "a vital and pre-planned part of my character design".

DragoonWraith
2010-06-17, 11:35 AM
The Crusader can do a decent job with S&B, though honestly that is one archetype with a ton of failure in D&D and none of it gets it quite right. The general failings of AC factor into this heavily. The existence of Animated Shields is also a pretty big issue.

The other major archetype that generally just fails is the archer. They don't work very well.

I'll absolutely agree that S&B fighters and Archers are bizarrely and basically wrongly unsupported by 3.5. But this isn't a problem with optimization, it's a problem with the system. Optimizers don't have any problem with either other than that they can't get them to work (barring the Archer-vist, which isn't really anyone's idea of an Archer). It's more the system's lack of solid rules for those archetypes that work. Both could work quite nicely if you homebrewed up, say, martial disciplines that really put them to use (several archer disciplines exist in the Homebrew section; not sure of one for S&B types).

Morty
2010-06-17, 11:54 AM
I think I agree with the OP, more or less. D&D is obviously supposed to represent heroic individuals such as Beowulf, Greek heroes and what have you, but it doesn't, because of Christmas Tree Effect, imbalance and the fact that the capabilities of chracters above, say 7th level fit an action movie or an anime better than a heroic tale. That's why I'm going to switch to another system if I ever start playing RPGs on a regular basis. Only more extreme, because I don't like games with any degree of heroism.

Flickerdart
2010-06-17, 12:03 PM
The Crusader can do a decent job with S&B, though honestly that is one archetype with a ton of failure in D&D and none of it gets it quite right. The general failings of AC factor into this heavily. The existence of Animated Shields is also a pretty big issue.

The other major archetype that generally just fails is the archer. They don't work very well.

I'll absolutely agree that S&B fighters and Archers are bizarrely and basically wrongly unsupported by 3.5. But this isn't a problem with optimization, it's a problem with the system. Optimizers don't have any problem with either other than that they can't get them to work (barring the Archer-vist, which isn't really anyone's idea of an Archer). It's more the system's lack of solid rules for those archetypes that work. Both could work quite nicely if you homebrewed up, say, martial disciplines that really put them to use (several archer disciplines exist in the Homebrew section; not sure of one for S&B types).
The Scout, and to a lesser extent the Rogue, makes a very capable archer, especially with the Ranger multiclass feat and Greater Manyshot. S&B does suck quite a lot, though.

Gametime
2010-06-17, 12:17 PM
The Scout, and to a lesser extent the Rogue, makes a very capable archer, especially with the Ranger multiclass feat and Greater Manyshot. S&B does suck quite a lot, though.

S&B can still be viable for taking on the basic threats presented in books. It's never going to be as good as the alternatives, but there are enough shield supporting feats that you can make a decent go at it.

You basically end up being a battlefield controller without a reach weapon and with a higher-than-usual touch AC.

Salbazier
2010-06-17, 12:23 PM
I think I agree with the OP, more or less. D&D is obviously supposed to represent heroic individuals such as Beowulf, Greek heroes and what have you, but it doesn't, because of Christmas Tree Effect, imbalance and the fact that the capabilities of chracters above, say 7th level fit an action movie or an anime better than a heroic tale. That's why I'm going to switch to another system if I ever start playing RPGs on a regular basis. Only more extreme, because I don't like games with any degree of heroism.

So, anime and action movies cannot be heroic? :smallconfused:

Morty
2010-06-17, 12:30 PM
So, anime and action movies cannot be heroic? :smallconfused:

:smallsigh: Of course they can. But they're heroic in a different way that heroic myths and heroic fantasy literature.

Zore
2010-06-17, 12:44 PM
:smallsigh: Of course they can. But they're heroic in a different way that heroic myths and heroic fantasy literature.

How are they heroic in a different way? With a different sense of aesthetics maybe but they have the same kind of heroics.

Eric Tolle
2010-06-17, 01:05 PM
This is probably the biggest difference between D&D3+ and Classic. back in the Old Days, magic items were valuable, sure, but they were more "weird stuff that happens to you" than "a vital and pre-planned part of my character design".

Magic items were pretty damn necessary once you were fighting greater undead and demons. More recently, I played in a game that the GM decided was "low magic"...and two sessions in our fourth-level party encountered a wraith. Damn that was annoying, as the stupid thing pursued us across the desert, and there was no way we could get rid of it.

Anyway, "King Arthur and his sword Excalibur" sounds a lot more interesting than "Sorry Arthur, I don't think you need a magic sword. *rollrollroll* how about an Eversmoking Bottle? That's cool, right?"

dextercorvia
2010-06-17, 01:05 PM
Bard, actually. Clerics are hardly "classic charismatic hero", now are they.

Jeanne D'Arc would like a word with you.

Flickerdart
2010-06-17, 01:14 PM
Jeanne D'Arc would like a word with you.
She was more of a Paladin, really. Maybe a Crusader. Definitely no Cleric.

Frosty
2010-06-17, 01:21 PM
She was more of a Paladin, really. Maybe a Crusader. Definitely no Cleric.

She's a Bard1/Marshal X who got full BAB.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-06-17, 01:25 PM
She's a Bard1/Marshal X who got full BAB.

More like a Bard 1/Crusader X with White Raven Song and mostly White Raven maneuvers and a few of Devoted Spirit.

Morty
2010-06-17, 01:29 PM
I find it curious you're applying D&D rules to a real-world person after estabilishing D&D doesn't work for people with realistic capabilities. :smalltongue:

Matthew
2010-06-17, 01:33 PM
That's probably not too tough to tweak.

I just think, since Conan started as a Barbarian, and picked up a few Thief and Fighter levels along the way, a PC should be able to do that.

I think that is one possible way to look at it, but I think it unnecessarily undermines the class system. I would just make Conan a fighter with a few extra skills picked up along the way as (I think this is what the C&C adjuncts are formalising, but not sure).



Actually, I have some house rules to cover that. They don't currently allow dips, but mostly because there would be little reason for high XP classes not to dip. Though a variation on the multiclassing rules from 3e would actually help with that... hmmm...

I think that I read them over when you posted them at Dragonsfoot or maybe in your Live Journal?

For Valor
2010-06-17, 01:44 PM
I'm posting this here, disregarding all the posts before me, because I don't want to read them all.

On the brilliantgameologists tier thread, JaronK talked about how he ran his no-magic campaign. Check out the spoiler.


In my game, I wanted a low magic game, with characters using skills and martial abilities to solve problems instead of spells. So, I did the following:

Psionics don't exist (not familiar enough with them)

When preparing a spell (or preparing a spell slot, which spontaneous casters must do), you must take 1 hour per level of the spell. At the end, the DM makes a hidden DC 10*spell level check, where any D20 roll equal to or less than the level of the spell is an automatic failure. The skill for the check is Knowledge Nature for nature casters (Druids, Rangers, etc), Knowledge Religeon for divine casters (Clerics, Paladins, etc), and Spellcraft for arcane casters (Wizards, Bards, etc). When you try to cast the spell, if you've succeeded on the check it goes off normally. If you fail, the spell fails and you take a backlash effect, randomly chosen depending on the school of the spell you tried to cast (so failed necromancy spells do things like cause permanent wisdom decreases and negative energy damage, failed conjurations summon powerful things that attack you or teleport you into physical objects, etc). The save DC against backlash effects, if there's a save at all, is 5*spell level. Every time you cast a spell there's a chance of dying. As such, spellcasters are HEAVILY nerfed, and not expected to be played. When creating magic items, the spells required must be cast every day... so bad idea!

No humanoids or monsterous humanoids (which includes all PCs) can use Spell Like abilities, except for those granted by the Binder and Warlock classes (since those classes draw their power from outside sources).

The game is Gestalt.

All players get the benefits of Vow of Poverty, plus the bonus feats from that are any bonus feat you want (not just exalted), without the drawbacks (you can still use gear). However, there are no useful magic items in the game, so it's all mundane gear. As such, gear is far less important in my game... any random sword works as well as any other, so you can lose all your stuff, punch out a guard, steal his sword, and rock out.

All players heal rapidly when out of sight and no one's after them (fast healing equal to your HD, only when I as the DM decide you're between encounters).

Classes that had casting can, with DM permission, swap out their casting for any one other class substitution ability... for example, the Bard can swap casting for an Animal Companion because of the UA Fey Varient Bard.

Basically, it's a low magic heroic fantasy game. And remember, I like Tier 3 as a balance point. So what do these house rules do to balance?

Well, Tier 1 and 2 are completely gone. All of them depend on spellcasting which is now nerfed, so most of those classes drop to Tier 5-6 (except the Druid, who's Tier 3... yeah, Wild Shape is that powerful). The top tier classes are now the normal Tier 3 guys plus the Druid, except that the Beguiler drops to around Tier 5/6 and the Dread Necromancer does too. Sadly, the Healer and Warmage are also nerfed, but they didn't fit in the campaign world anyway.

The gear changes mean certain specialized equipment dependent builds don't work (Warblade Crossbow archers, for example), and Wild Shape based classes get pumped up (Druids and Wild Shape Rangers) but otherwise changes are minimal as far as balance is concerned.

Healing classes are basically unnecessary, though still handy, so Crusaders are useful to have.

Warlock and Binder invisibility powers are awesome against other humanoids.

Overall, that's about the effect I wanted. The entire party can optimize like crazy and they're still maxing out at Tier 2 if they really work at it, and are usually Tier 3 otherwise.

The current party at this time (we just added two players) is I believe:

Warblade//Swordsage, Barbarian//Swordsage, Factotum//Bard (with a gecko familiar), Binder//Ninja/Rogue, Scout//Warlock.

Conveniently enough, all of them are basically Tier 2-3 (gestalt raises them up a bit).

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=bc18425e5fa73d30e4a9a54889edf4 4e&topic=1002.0

There's nothing to stop you from doing whatever you want with magic--you can straight-up ban it, if you want, since it doesn't change much. But just get rid of the ToB classes, and your characters can run around competing with most monstrs on a Tier 2-3 basis while still appealing to the "Classic Heroes" idea.

LibraryOgre
2010-06-17, 01:52 PM
I think that I read them over when you posted them at Dragonsfoot or maybe in your Live Journal?

I reposted them in Dragonsfoot, oh moderating one, with the unbalanced levels idea I just had.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-06-17, 01:57 PM
I find it curious you're applying D&D rules to a real-world person after estabilishing D&D doesn't work for people with realistic capabilities. :smalltongue:

It doesn't work past a certain level, but Bard 1/Crusader X is perfectly fine for Jean d'Arc for X ≤ 4 or so. :smallwink:

Gnaeus
2010-06-17, 02:00 PM
More like a Bard 1/Crusader X with White Raven Song and mostly White Raven maneuvers and a few of Devoted Spirit.

Hellfire warlock. Leading a french army against the english automatically disqualifies her from paladinhood, but actually winning means that she must have been colluding with infernal powers.

balistafreak
2010-06-17, 02:04 PM
Hellfire warlock. Leading a french army against the english automatically disqualifies her from paladinhood, but actually winning means that she must have been colluding with infernal powers.

... I see what you did there.

But does she weigh less than a duck?

dextercorvia
2010-06-17, 02:17 PM
She was more of a Paladin, really. Maybe a Crusader. Definitely no Cleric.

She had no problem with subterfuge, or outright lying to fight the war her diety told her to fight. I find that to be a little dicey for a Paladin. Maybe you are right about Crusader, I'm unversed in ToB. But, there is absolutely no reason we can't stat her up as a DMM Persist Cleric. She talks to God every morning, and then goes out and kicks some....

Bard/Swashbuckler types don't hold a monopoly on the classic charismatic hero role.

To the OP: I find the The Two Best Thieves are fairly optimized at what they do. It's been a while since I read that stuff, but they had definitely dumped wisdom to be able to steal the pants off of anybody. Min/Maxing doesn't have to be ugly, and it can play to the roleplay strengths of a class. In this case, it is unusual to find an exceptionally clumsy but wise rogue, and mechanically, it's usually a decent idea to dump Wis and pump Dex.

Gametime
2010-06-17, 02:24 PM
She had no problem with subterfuge, or outright lying to fight the war her diety told her to fight. I find that to be a little dicey for a Paladin. Maybe you are right about Crusader, I'm unversed in ToB. But, there is absolutely no reason we can't stat her up as a DMM Persist Cleric. She talks to God every morning, and then goes out and kicks some....



Or Paladin of Freedom, or some similar variant. I'm sure there's at least one that wouldn't mind a bit of lying.

Gnaeus
2010-06-17, 02:29 PM
Or Paladin of Freedom, or some similar variant. I'm sure there's at least one that wouldn't mind a bit of lying.

Paladin of Anarchy might be a possibility.

Flickerdart
2010-06-17, 02:30 PM
Paladin of Anarchy might be a possibility.

Yeah, Anarch or Greyguard works.

Murphy80
2010-06-17, 02:36 PM
...So when I play a Fantasy RPG, I want to play that kind of guy. A character so skilled or strong or devious or charming that he radiates cool. I want to play Conan or Ash or Indy or Corwin, not a Min-maxed elven subrace who starts out Ancient for a cheap bonus to his casting stats, who glows like a Christmas tree when caught in a Detect Magic.
....
You can, but it requires a group that is willing to play this style and a DM that is willing to run it. If even 1 player OPTIMIZES (or worse, optimizes a full caster), he/she will be THE STAR while the rest of the party are backup singers/comic relief/sidekicks (and maybe not even that). If the DM doesn't buy in to this, the 1st time he/she has an appropriate CR encounter with incorporeal undead (or anything which assumes WBL Christmas trees) it will be a TPK.

Darklord Xavez
2010-06-17, 02:43 PM
Sounds like you're playing the wrong game.

You're right. He should be playing RuneQuest! Skill-based systems For The Win! (so epic it needs to be spelled out) But D&D is still acceptable.
-Xavez
P.S. A note on the one-handed swords thingy: They would usually be using bastard swords (aka broadswords), because they have good damage (which every hero needs) and can be held in one or two hands.

Kobold-Bard
2010-06-17, 02:57 PM
I could point to Link as an example of a hero with a ton of strange weapons and overpowered magic items.

If you don't like dependence on magic items, just refluff magic items as inherent powers.

I actually like this idea. If I wasn't already running 3 games I'd use this.

Jayabalard
2010-06-17, 03:19 PM
D&D is really not suited to the fantasy stories you like...This isn't accurate without qualifing the edition, as 1e ad&d and od&d were just fine for that sort of game.

I'm not even really convinced that later editions are necessarily bad at that sort of game, they just require people to play in a much more restrained manner than the rules allow, which is hard for some people.


they top off at about level 5 by D&D standards, and D&D also requires you to have magic items, even on a low-op character.The official versions of the characters the he mentions were higher level than that.


You're complaining about the system, not optimizers.He's complaining about a system that allows, nay encourages, the kind of optimization that leads to an end result that he doesn't like. To me, that says that his problems seem pretty clearly rooted in the aesthetics of optimization itself, not in the specifics of the game; he'd dislike it even if you did the same thing in another game system.

Personally, I think that it's pretty clear that one of the driving goals of the system design in 3e was to accommodate the playstyle of the optimizers of 1e and 2e. That's why there are so many more elements that can be optimized in 3e compared to the earlier editions.

Fax Celestis
2010-06-17, 03:28 PM
He's complaining about a system that allows, nay encourages, the kind of optimization that leads to an end result that he doesn't like. To me, that says that his problems seem pretty clearly rooted in the aesthetics of optimization itself, not in the specifics of the game; he'd dislike it even if you did the same thing in another game system.

I would assume so. People's playstyles differ, and none are any more invalid than another: they just match up better with different systems. The mentality described here by Mike seems to be a poor match for any version of D&D (your assertion for older versions to the contrary); he would probably be better served with a system specifically intended to be what he seeks.

Gnaeus
2010-06-17, 03:29 PM
Personally, I think that it's pretty clear that one of the driving goals of the system design in 3e was to accommodate the playstyle of the optimizers of 1e and 2e. That's why there are so many more elements that can be optimized in 3e compared to the earlier editions.

There are more elements that can be optimized because there are more CHOICES. The more choices you have, the more power discrepancy will creep in between the choices. The more choices you have, the bigger the chance that choice 1 together with choice 2 (or 3, or 4832) will interact in some way to make the whole much stronger or weaker than it otherwise would be.

I cannot think of any exception to the rule that the more mechanical, rules based options that are given, the more the system will lend itself to optimization.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-06-17, 03:41 PM
You can, but it requires a group that is willing to play this style and a DM that is willing to run it. If even 1 player OPTIMIZES (or worse, optimizes a full caster), he/she will be THE STAR while the rest of the party are backup singers/comic relief/sidekicks (and maybe not even that).

I don't see why optimization is a four-letter word in this context. Why wouldn't it be the Conan or the Arthur doing the optimizing, as opposed to some dirty rotten powergamer out to ruin his fun? You're assuming optimization and mythical playstyle are mutually exclusive; they aren't. The group just has to agree to play and optimize within a mythological framework.

Amphetryon
2010-06-17, 03:48 PM
I've been the only optimizer at a table and had it not show at all, more than once.

First time, I was casting save-or-sucks vs the DM's bad guys, and watching him roll 18 or higher on every save, before bonuses. The other party members complained I was underpowered, because my actions weren't even making the bad guys squishier for the two-weapon wielding Ranger/Fighter.

Second time, I was the enabler Bard, and had that same DM give me a lesser share of the XPs because I was not directly engaging the enemies in combat or targeting them with spells. :smallannoyed: I might have mentioned it before. *mutter*

Jayabalard
2010-06-17, 03:49 PM
I don't see why optimization is a four-letter word in this context. Why wouldn't it be the Conan or the Arthur doing the optimizing, as opposed to some dirty rotten powergamer out to ruin his fun? You're assuming optimization and mythical playstyle are mutually exclusive; they aren't. The group just has to agree to play and optimize within a mythological framework.He's talking about a group carefully limiting the optimization in a game to achieve a particular game feel, even though the rules allow for Christmas tree magic items, and obscure elven subraces. It can work as long as all of the players buy in and limit themselves that way, and the DM bases the challenges he uses on what they players can actually do rather than just blindly following CR. He seem to pretty clearly indicate that by "optimize" he's not talking about keeping within the constraints that the group has set. I'm not sure why it would be confusing that (in that specific context) optimization is a 4 letter word; the single player who decides to optimize in that situation is violating the social contract he has with the rest of the players and DM.


There are more elements that can be optimized because there are more CHOICES. The more choices you have, the more power discrepancy will creep in between the choices. The more choices you have, the bigger the chance that choice 1 together with choice 2 (or 3, or 4832) will interact in some way to make the whole much stronger or weaker than it otherwise would be. Certainly. Second edition added a whole bunch more options, especially with the Complete's, and 3e took that ball and kept running with it.

I think there was a rather profound shift though... most of the options in 2e were quite clearly treated as "optional" so the DM was in a position to maintain a level of control to make sure that noone was going overboard. In 3e, the base assumption seems to be that all (or at least, a great many) of these choices are available by default.


I cannot think of any exception to the rule that the more mechanical, rules based options that are given, the more the system will lend itself to optimization.Options are a big part of it, but I think that there's more to it than that. Whether the system assumes that the players can choose any of the available options or the system assumes that the GM is a filter of what options are available plays a big part as well.

Zovc
2010-06-17, 04:02 PM
Mike, what level do you think a "real man" like Conan is? Before you complain about optimization, I'd almost like to see you stat out Conan.

On a similar subject, I'm curious as to how you feel about characters multiclassing (including 'dipping), because if I made Conan, I'd probably at least use two classes.

Another related note: It probably won't be optimal for the Conan I'm thinking to use a spiked chain, and he might not have the proficiencies to use spiked full plate.

ALSO, what's wrong with a gurisame? I happen to like polearms. (Generally, when people ask me what weapon I would use if I were a fantasy character, I answer something like this: "As I am, I'd use [a polearm] because I'm a total wimp; If I were just going for being awesome, I'd use two short swords."

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-06-17, 04:02 PM
He's talking about a group carefully limiting the optimization in a game to achieve a particular game feel, even though the rules allow for Christmas tree magic items, and obscure elven subraces. It can work as long as all of the players buy in and limit themselves that way, and the DM bases the challenges he uses on what they players can actually do rather than just blindly following CR. He seem to pretty clearly indicate that by "optimize" he's not talking about keeping within the constraints that the group has set. I'm not sure why it would be confusing that (in that specific context) optimization is a 4 letter word; the single player who decides to optimize in that situation is violating the social contract he has with the rest of the players and DM.

But that's the thing--you can optimize within whatever constraints a group decides on, and if someone ruins the fun it's not because "even 1 player OPTIMIZES" it's because one player agrees to play a Conan-esque game and then decides they don't want to after all. He's not being a jerk because he's an optimizer, he's being a jerk because he's decided to be a jerk.

That's what I don't like about these kinds of threads. Optimization is blamed for the Christmas Tree effect, when it's the math behind the game and the variety of enemies and challenges that require all the items. Optimization is blamed for spiked chains and wizards in armor and such when the system just doesn't give S&B or fighters enough good options relative to chain trippers and gishes. Optimization is blamed for group power level disparities despite the fact that that's the fault of one player deliberately deciding to go above the group's power level rather than optimizing buffing or other aspects to stay at the same level or boost his teammates. Optimization is just a means to an end. You can just as easily optimize a bard/sublime chord/war weaver to help the party and let everyone have fun as you can optimize an expert to outfight the fighter and outsneak the rogue.

Jayabalard
2010-06-17, 04:09 PM
On a similar subject, I'm curious as to how you feel about characters multiclassing (including 'dipping), because if I made Conan, I'd probably at least use two classes.Funny enough, when he was statted out in AD&D, humans used a different form of multiclassing than demi-humans, but Conan was statted out using the demi-human method.


But that's the thing--you can optimize within whatever constraints a group decides onThat's not how he's using the term. If you're going to say "I don't see why optimization is a four-letter word in this context" then you're have to use his definition, because it's part of the "this context"

Zovc
2010-06-17, 04:11 PM
...and for the record, I'd have to watch the Conan movies again if I actually wanted to stat him out--I've seen the movies, but not paid attention to them, I was quite young.

Gnaeus
2010-06-17, 04:17 PM
Options are a big part of it, but I think that there's more to it than that. Whether the system assumes that the players can choose any of the available options or the system assumes that the GM is a filter of what options are available plays a big part as well.

I think you are making a much bigger deal out of system assumptions than 3.5 warrants. Any DM who isn't willing to say no to options in 3.5 probably wouldn't be willing to say no to them in 2.0, or GURPS, or WoD, or whatever.


Personally, I think that it's pretty clear that one of the driving goals of the system design in 3e was to accommodate the playstyle of the optimizers of 1e and 2e. That's why there are so many more elements that can be optimized in 3e compared to the earlier editions.

Also, it is unnecessarily harsh to say that the system was designed to cater to the playstyle of optimizers. It is kindlier and probably more accurate to say that the designers saw the proliferation of point based games on the market and realized that many people weren't content to play "Fighter" anymore. They wanted choices in what kind of fighter to play. That design shift lends itself to optimization, yes. But do you think that they said "Hey, GURPS is doing well, lets make it so that you can play any crazy thing in D&D!" or "Hey, lets create the widest possible rules imbalances so that some jerk can hurt his DM's brain and wreck his game."? How well they succeeded in that goal is, of course, a different matter....

Susano-wo
2010-06-17, 05:24 PM
Conan - Barbarian, stronger than anyone else, moves like a cat, tougher than everyone else, pretty darn cunning, has, in D&D terms, the class abilities of a Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue and Assassin. He was Mary Sue before Mary Sue.

Evil wizard who monologues that he's defeated death itself and is centuries old? Yeah 20 levels of evil wizard gets trumped by 1 level of 'I'm Conan' and a stick he picked up off of the ground.


I'll skip the princess bride, since its been covered, but I have to quibble with the issues around a few of your points.
Conan. REally? 5 classes? Where does fighter necessarily come in? unless you are saying he has WS. Barbarian? nothing particularly that I can think of that specifically indicated Rage or anything else that would require him to be a Barb. Also, Ranger? how? Assassin?How?

He's essentially a Melee bruiser (Barb, or fighter, or whatever) with Rogue Abilities (a level of rogue and able learner works fine for Dnding him up) Sure you can Barb/Fighter him up if you want, and i might do that for the feats, since its still in his flavor, but you don't have to, you can just pick one. Probably Barb for skills, if I was doing him--you want at least his hide/move silently to be high, with his physical skills and other rogue skills to have some reasonable levels as well

And yeah, Conan defeats Wizards who are, in all fairness, vastly different than wizards in Dnd. They are powerful, but much of their power comes in ritual form, and they have a lot of fragility because Conan's world has no HP, only areas that you die if stabbed in :P


Lord of the Rings - There is no game balance in this setting. Elves are default 8th level characters. The party Wizard is a demigod, one of only five on the planet. And the average Hobbit gives 1st level Commoners a warm feeling of superiority.

It's like Gilligan's Island, only the Professor is a sword-wielding warrior angel with magical powers who can whistle and summon up the King of Giant Intelligent Magical Eagles *or* the 'god of horses' to ferry his bony arse around, Mary-Ann can shoot seventy-four arrows a second and never misses, Ginger has a magic horn that summons help to arrive in time to hear your death-speech (thanks dad, great birthday present!) and there are three always-hungry bumbling midget Gilligans.


Making Elves default as highr level characters would actually be a way of making a race as powerful as they are [Tolkien elves I mean]balanced with humans. >.>

And the hobbits, though not suited for war, are hardly more pathetic than a commoner, and by the end of the journey Merry and Pippen are valiant warriors in their own right.

Though I do enjoy your description of Gandalf :D



After Luke / Elric / whomever chops down their hundreth faceless mook, it gets a little less heroically challenging, since their unique superpowers make them seem less like 'heroes' and more like violent incarnations of 'might makes right.'

And that's what we've grown up with. The farmboy doesn't get to become the hero, *unless* he happens to be the virgin birth force-messiah.


Ok. Using violence does not = might makes right. Its all about how and why you use violence. If you use violence because the person was in the wrong enough or in such a way that it warranted it, then you are using violence as a tool of another ideal. [sorry, I love you Skywalker Paradigm guy, but Obi-Wan cutting off someones arm when the guy was trying to kill his companion is not sociopathic >.>]

And I didn't grow up with and damned midiclorian Y*&^#&@^&@, or vigin birth darth vaders! >:[ I grew up with a farmboy who despite his own faults and impatience, learned the ways of the force and defeated his own hate. [just to be clear, my anger is for humor purposes only :P]

Though yes, many heroes have some distinguishing gift or talent that no one else has.

And to actually say something about the topic, I think I should revise my assertion: when optimization bothers me, its generally because of the Aesthetic. Also, when the Dnd system bothers me, its either A: the same thing [eg X-mas tree], or that there are crappy choices, to the point that the concept I have, and that they even theoretically support with their abilities, is not really viable

Totally Guy
2010-06-17, 05:39 PM
The more complicated a build is the more I tend to imagine the dude looking like a Loony Tunes style cartoon character.

Sometimes I like it. Sometimes I don't.

It's been this way since I rewatched that Farscape episode that did it...

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-06-17, 05:44 PM
I think there was a rather profound shift though... most of the options in 2e were quite clearly treated as "optional" so the DM was in a position to maintain a level of control to make sure that noone was going overboard. In 3e, the base assumption seems to be that all (or at least, a great many) of these choices are available by default.
Yeah, it’s kinda funny how often one needs tp point out the “Variant: No Sidebars for Variant Rules” box that marks the entirety of Chapter 6 in the DMG as optional variants. This includes ability point-buy, subraces, monsters as races, prestige classes, creating PCs above 1st level, special cohorts, special familiars, and epic levels. As marked variants, choosing how you use any of the above shouldn’t even count as full-on Rule 0.

Reinboom
2010-06-17, 06:01 PM
There is a supplement which helps fix many of these issues in 3.x... it's called Weapons of Leg... oh wait. No it doesn't. :smallfrown:


How many of those heroes ran around tripping people with spiked chains? Or using a combo like Guisarme and spiked armor? How totally lame would Excalibur be if it were a two bladed sword? Would it need to be stuck in two stones?

Excalibur usually, in most of the classic writings, does not come from a stone. :smallconfused:

The sword in the stone was only proof of lineage and a separate sword (until recently...). In one older writing, it was even said to have broken during a campaign; this lead to the search for the lady of the lake with merlin.

So I doubt it would need to be stuck in two stones. :smalltongue:

Now imagine if the sword in the stone and Excalibur merged! And made this rad-awesome cool double bladed sword! :smalltongue:

Knaight
2010-06-17, 06:01 PM
Let's look at the inspiration for Fantasy heroes. I grew up reading Conan, Elric, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser and Zelazny's Amber series and Lord of the Rings.
Of course, there are multiple kinds of fantasy. Lets look at 3 varieties for categorization, High Fantasy, Low Fantasy, and Swords and Sorcery.

Conan and Fafhrd are certainly Swords and Sorcery characters, as are the characters in Lord of the Rings, though the setting is more low fantasy. Amber is the only high fantasy one there, and D&D is a high fantasy game.



No, heroes use swords dammit. And one handed swords, so you can swing from a rope or carry off a damsel in distress with the other hand. Maybe, just maybe a henchman of the evil overlord would carry something silly like a chain or spiked armor, but that was just so the hero could have an interesting fight scene and deliver a good one liner about fancy oddball weapons after shanking the guy.

Again, this is a sword and sorcery motif, the whole lot of it. Lets look at low fantasy here, A Song of Ice and Fire. We see a character use a poisoned spear in one hand and a shield in the other, so that he could both out reach someone and use the shield to get the sun in their eyes. Neither of which is likely to show up in a more sword and sorcery setting.


In fact, most of the really awesome heroes lost their stuff between adventures and had to start from scratch.
And this is hugely, hugely a sword and sorcery motif. Look at Lord of the Rings, which is low fantasy with mixed in elements of high fantasy and sword and sorcery. Aragorn keeps Narsil, Bilbo has the ring for his entire adventure once he gets it, Sting is not lost, etc.


So when I play a Fantasy RPG, I want to play that kind of guy. A character so skilled or strong or devious or charming that he radiates cool. I want to play Conan or Ash or Indy or Corwin, not a Min-maxed elven subrace who starts out Ancient for a cheap bonus to his casting stats, who glows like a Christmas tree when caught in a Detect Magic.
In short, you want to play a Sword and Sorcery RPG. Its not the aesthetics of optimization, it is the aesthetics of D&D. After all, its a high fantasy, high magic game where characters become super heroes. And look at how it plays. Narrowly specific skills, which is terribly inappropriate for Sword and Sorcery. Very important equipment, again terribly inappropriate. A Sword and Sorcery character uses a sword, or they grab a spear off a wall when they are unarmed, or they use a broken table leg, and it really doesn't matter. Equipment is decoration in that genre, all that really matters for weapons and armor is whether you have them. D&D has incredibly picky stats. Look at magic, incredibly safe, regimented, scientific. Sword and Sorcery had the mysterious mage with their month long rituals needing the proper time of the moon, who is slain instantly, but leaves a deadly demon behind.

For that matter, most Sword and Sorcery characters operate on their own with ever changing companions. The system is simply inappropriate, don't blame D&D for it. If you want a good Sword and Sorcery system, play Risus or something.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-06-17, 06:16 PM
That's not how he's using the term. If you're going to say "I don't see why optimization is a four-letter word in this context" then you're have to use his definition, because it's part of the "this context"

No, "this context" was "You can, but it requires a group that is willing to play this style and a DM that is willing to run it." Nothing there precludes optimization, and the sentiment that "willing to play in a swords and sorcery style" means that being a hero who's really good at his job (like, y'know, most every hero out there) is out of the question is exactly what I'm arguing against.



Of course, there are multiple kinds of fantasy. Lets look at 3 varieties for categorization, High Fantasy, Low Fantasy, and Swords and Sorcery.

Conan and Fafhrd are certainly Swords and Sorcery characters, as are the characters in Lord of the Rings, though the setting is more low fantasy. Amber is the only high fantasy one there, and D&D is a high fantasy game.

[...]

In short, you want to play a Sword and Sorcery RPG. Its not the aesthetics of optimization, it is the aesthetics of D&D. After all, its a high fantasy, high magic game where characters become super heroes. And look at how it plays. Narrowly specific skills, which is terribly inappropriate for Sword and Sorcery. Very important equipment, again terribly inappropriate. A Sword and Sorcery character uses a sword, or they grab a spear off a wall when they are unarmed, or they use a broken table leg, and it really doesn't matter. Equipment is decoration in that genre, all that really matters for weapons and armor is whether you have them. D&D has incredibly picky stats. Look at magic, incredibly safe, regimented, scientific. Sword and Sorcery had the mysterious mage with their month long rituals needing the proper time of the moon, who is slain instantly, but leaves a deadly demon behind.


That's actually a good way to summarize it, actually. D&D does swords & sorcery and low fantasy relatively well in the low levels, and high fantasy for mid to high levels. The exact dividing line is kind of fuzzy, but it's there. A lot of these kinds of problems with style could have been avoided if the 3e devs had realized what they were doing with the system, and if they had done what Gygax did and wrote out justifications and reasoning for why things are the way they are in the DMG. If the DMG flat-out said "Look, if you want Conan and Arthur and Greek heroes, stay below level 8-ish; if you want Elric and Amber and fantastic heroes, start around level 10."

Knaight
2010-06-17, 06:22 PM
Low fantasy yes, but I would say that D&D never really does Swords and Sorcery well. Too tactical, too specific, etc. My example of Risus was not a joke, but something like Barbarians of Lemuria or Over the Edge would probably work even better. But yeah, I would say that Low Fantasy works well up to level 3-6 or so, and it really kicks into high fantasy somewhere in the 8-12 range. It depends on how low and how high the fantasy is.

TheThan
2010-06-17, 06:22 PM
The more complicated a build is the more I tend to imagine the dude looking like a Loony Tunes style cartoon character.

Sometimes I like it. Sometimes I don't.

It's been this way since I rewatched that Farscape episode that did it...

buahah, I remember that episode. Was totally worth the mindscrew too.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-17, 06:23 PM
E6 stops at 6 for a reason: level 7 means 4th level spells, and that means... a lot of things. The differences between 3rd and 4th level spells is huge, and it's at that point that spellcasters become undeniably better than melee.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-06-17, 06:36 PM
Low fantasy yes, but I would say that D&D never really does Swords and Sorcery well. Too tactical, too specific, etc.

I don't know, I think it could work relatively well below 3rd or 4th level. You don't have anything magical yet, most likely, so using (and losing) mundane gear isn't really a problem. The difference between full-rank and untrained skills isn't unbearably huge yet, so you can feel like you have roughly even competence across the board, particularly if you diversify skills. You haven't gotten feats/PrCs that overspecialize your combat styles and most likely haven't hit lots of Large+ monsters yet, so flanking, bull rushes, disarms, and other more tactical options are still viable. It's not perfect, but I think it's at least passable.

Susano-wo
2010-06-17, 06:44 PM
That's actually a good way to summarize it, actually. D&D does swords & sorcery and low fantasy relatively well in the low levels, and high fantasy for mid to high levels. The exact dividing line is kind of fuzzy, but it's there. A lot of these kinds of problems with style could have been avoided if the 3e devs had realized what they were doing with the system, and if they had done what Gygax did and wrote out justifications and reasoning for why things are the way they are in the DMG. If the DMG flat-out said "Look, if you want Conan and Arthur and Greek heroes, stay below level 8-ish; if you want Elric and Amber and fantastic heroes, start around level 10."


INteresting. Yeah, I'd love it if the 3.5. DMG had a lot more complex Dming advice and guidelines, like those ones above. Stuff to help the DM and players get the kind of game they are wanting to play.

Fax Celestis
2010-06-17, 07:01 PM
INteresting. Yeah, I'd love it if the 3.5. DMG had a lot more complex Dming advice and guidelines, like those ones above. Stuff to help the DM and players get the kind of game they are wanting to play.

Try the DMG-II.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2010-06-17, 07:05 PM
It seems less the system the OP objects to than originality.

In example, Orc wizards or gnoll bards are far from optimized, but they're no more similar to the traditional fantasy hero than a spiked chain fighter, in fact, if anything, they're less similar.

Think about this, though, when Elric was written, taciturn albino sorcerers with cursed, eldritch blades were villains, not heroes. Why can't a half-blind, anti-social dude with a spiked chain get a chance? Or an average guy without many talents buy a lot of cool stuff? Sure, it may be cool to be a buff guy killin' stuff with a sword, but it's also cool to think of somebody not that different than you who's able to slay dragons with brains and planning.

Flickerdart
2010-06-17, 07:23 PM
You know who has a lot of junk that helps him save the day? Batman.

Gametime
2010-06-17, 08:21 PM
Excalibur usually, in most of the classic writings, does not come from a stone. :smallconfused:

The sword in the stone was only proof of lineage and a separate sword (until recently...). In one older writing, it was even said to have broken during a campaign; this lead to the search for the lady of the lake with merlin.

So I doubt it would need to be stuck in two stones. :smalltongue:

Now imagine if the sword in the stone and Excalibur merged! And made this rad-awesome cool double bladed sword! :smalltongue:

Excalibur isn't even a particularly magical sword, as swords go. From what I remember, it's a durn fine blade and all, but it doesn't have any explicitly magical properties. The scabbard is what magically protected Arthur.

Prime32
2010-06-17, 08:22 PM
Excalibur isn't even a particularly magical sword, as swords go. From what I remember, it's a durn fine blade and all, but it doesn't have any explicitly magical properties. The scabbard is what magically protected Arthur.By some accounts Excalibur may have been able to glow. ...but that's about it.

Flickerdart
2010-06-17, 08:25 PM
Heh, that reminds me of some people that figured that the legendary kladenets blades wielded by every Russian folk hero who bothered were "in reality" nothing more than ordinary steel weapons, seen as magically strong by those who used iron swords.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-17, 08:27 PM
Heh, that reminds me of some people that figured that the legendary kladenets blades wielded by every Russian folk hero who bothered were "in reality" nothing more than ordinary steel weapons, seen as magically strong by those who used iron swords.

Same go with greek weapons when persia first invaded.

Zovc
2010-06-17, 08:38 PM
Question: Why would a double-bladed Excalibur need two stones? I'm pretty sure one blade could be stuck in one stone and the weapon would still be stuck. How would you pull a two-bladed Excalibur out of two stones, anyways? Is Excalibur in a cave?

Flickerdart
2010-06-17, 08:45 PM
Question: Why would a double-bladed Excalibur need two stones? I'm pretty sure one blade could be stuck in one stone and the weapon would still be stuck. How would you pull a two-bladed Excalibur out of two stones, anyways? Is Excalibur in a cave?
You make an attack against the stone with the sword, of course. If you can penetrate its hardness, it'll eventually break.

Gametime
2010-06-17, 08:50 PM
Question: Why would a double-bladed Excalibur need two stones? I'm pretty sure one blade could be stuck in one stone and the weapon would still be stuck. How would you pull a two-bladed Excalibur out of two stones, anyways? Is Excalibur in a cave?

This is all reminding me of the weapon Excalibur from Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow.

It's actually the sword that was stuck in the stone, still stuck in the stone. You attack with it by swinging the stone at people's heads.

Fawsto
2010-06-17, 09:08 PM
This is all reminding me of the weapon Excalibur from Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow.

It's actually the sword that was stuck in the stone, still stuck in the stone. You attack with it by swinging the stone at people's heads.

And this, people, is what happens when optimization goes terribly too far... :smallbiggrin:

Reinboom
2010-06-17, 10:02 PM
By some accounts Excalibur may have been able to glow. ...but that's about it.

But it glowed REALLY bright. Blindingly (as was used in the stories) bright.
A useful ability, in my opinion. :smalltongue:

dextercorvia
2010-06-17, 10:15 PM
But it glowed REALLY bright. Blindingly (as was used in the stories) bright.
A useful ability, in my opinion. :smalltongue:

And thus, the first candle was placed upon the tree.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-17, 10:21 PM
On Excalibur and magical value, there's no reason why say +5 keen vorpal longsword (or numerous other properties) would appear as anything other then a really effective sword to those without the benefit of identify or other such magic.

Simply because something is not obviously fantastic does not equal it not being strongly magical. Or for that matter there not being a lot of magical equipment necessarily being a reason to downplay classical heroes level wise.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-17, 10:22 PM
A +5 Keen Vorpal Longsword is impossible... not to mention, not particularly good, as far as epicly magic weapons are concerned.

Icewraith
2010-06-17, 10:40 PM
If everyone else is still working on Masterwork, then yes, a +5 keen vorpal longsword is INCREDIBLE.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-17, 10:44 PM
I believe that Excalibur was also incapable of being destroyed as long as Arthur lived.

nightwyrm
2010-06-17, 10:50 PM
Excalibur isn't the sword in the stone. Of course, in terms of power and ability, I also prefer the Excalibur from Fate Stay Night.

Mike_G
2010-06-17, 11:24 PM
I think that is one possible way to look at it, but I think it unnecessarily undermines the class system. I would just make Conan a fighter with a few extra skills picked up along the way as (I think this is what the C&C adjuncts are formalising, but not sure).


In the books, Conan quite literally begins his adventures as a barbarian. He then really does earn his living as a thief, burgling the houses of the wealthy, and later works as a mercenary, learning more sophisticated weapons, tactics, mounted combat etc, which seems most easily expressed in D&D terms as taking a few levels in Rogue and then a few in Fighter on the path from Barbarian youth to King of Aquilonia.

I think straight Fighter with a few bonus skills would be a difficult shoehorning of a complex character into a rigid class system.

I like the concept of taking levels in other classes as you go. There's no reason that a fighter might not get sick of springing traps and decide to dip a level or two of Rogue or Ranger. Or a Rogue decide to study magic to get access to invisibility spells.

Gametime
2010-06-17, 11:24 PM
On Excalibur and magical value, there's no reason why say +5 keen vorpal longsword (or numerous other properties) would appear as anything other then a really effective sword to those without the benefit of identify or other such magic.

Simply because something is not obviously fantastic does not equal it not being strongly magical. Or for that matter there not being a lot of magical equipment necessarily being a reason to downplay classical heroes level wise.

True, but there's no reason to assume classical heroes had powerful magical equipment just because there's no reason they couldn't've had powerful magical equipment.

D&D isn't really set up to emulate classical myths, anyway. Judging how magical a sword is, or how strong a hero is, is more or less impossible without a level of detail that the myths aren't really interested in providing.


In the books, Conan quite literally begins his adventures as a barbarian. He then really does earn his living as a thief, burgling the houses of the wealthy, and later works as a mercenary, learning more sophisticated weapons, tactics, mounted combat etc, which seems most easily expressed in D&D terms as taking a few levels in Rogue and then a few in Fighter on the path from Barbarian youth to King of Aquilonia.

I think straight Fighter with a few bonus skills would be a difficult shoehorning of a complex character into a rigid class system.

I like the concept of taking levels in other classes as you go. There's no reason that a fighter might not get sick of springing traps and decide to dip a level or two of Rogue or Ranger. Or a Rogue decide to study magic to get access to invisibility spells.

Yeah, but he's always a barbarian in terms of background and upbringing. I don't recall any of his fights exhibiting abilities best expressed by the Barbarian class; he gets angry sometimes, sure, but I'm not sure if his anger ever seems to fuel him the way it does for Barbarians.

He's also a thief for a long time, but that doesn't necessarily mean Rogue; he needs access to Hide and Move Silently, but he doesn't really go around sneak attacking a lot of people.

The real problem with Conan is finding a class that emulates both his combat abilities and his non-combat skills. You're right that his progression through life (thief, reaver, general, king) lends itself well to class diversity, but his actual abilities just aren't reflected in what the classes that best fit those archetypes offer.

(Personally, I like to envision Conan as an Iron Heroes Man-at-Arms with access to the Athletics, Social, and Stealth skill groups, but to each his own.)

Frosty
2010-06-17, 11:29 PM
A Sword and Sorcery character uses a sword, or they grab a spear off a wall when they are unarmed, or they use a broken table leg, and it really doesn't matter.
For ToB characters, as long as you spend a feat on something like Improvised Weapons proficiency, then this holds true. Heck, you can use a toothpick and your Elder Mountain Hammer strike will still destroy the jail cell bars, allowing you to escape heroically (to be fair, assuming you have Improved Unarmed Strike, then your fists can do it too).

And with the Warblade's ability to retrain his weapon-related feats with just an hour's training, he can pick up any weapon and run with it.

Mike_G
2010-06-17, 11:31 PM
The DMG explicitly states that you are supposed to get the items you want.



And this is the mindset of 3e that really bugs me.

Bilbo didn't set out to find Sting. It happened.

I don't advocate rolling a random magic item and telling the player to suck it, but I see no obligation to hand out exactly what they want like Santa Claus.

Sure, Fighters should get weapons, Wizards should find staves, and so on. I don't even mind the idea of questing for an item, since that's a great adventure hook. I just don't like the assumption that "by x level I will have Y item."

As far as Fafhrd and the Mouser not being "D&D type fantasy," Leiber was one of the big influences of the original game.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-17, 11:32 PM
A +5 Keen Vorpal Longsword is impossible... not to mention, not particularly good, as far as epicly magic weapons are concerned.

True, didn't check the whole list. Not really the point though. A generic +5 if you will, or otherwise take off enchantments until legal? What about it has to be big and flashy and scream magic.

And optimization is besides the point. It has nothing to do with character level. Optimization is largely about batting above your mere ECL anyways, killing Pit Fiends at level 14 with ease and such like that. Or any number of example, I don't care on the particulars I'm not really any kind of optimizer personally.

You can have high level character builds that are totally unoptimized, they are still high level characters though. I'd say most "canonical builds" are going to be this way, looking at you Forgotten Realms NPCs, or are happy accidents. Even unoptimized parties can still perform for appropriate challenges, they may work harder but that doesn't mean it somehow can't be done.

It mostly how one wishes to interpret things. If Arthur was an epic D&D hero he'd be built for it. He'd have numerous items aside from Exacalibur and its scabbard as appropriate for the DM running him at whatever level they so wish. There's no need for him or Excalibur to be low level, its not necessarily inappropriate either but I'd personally rather see Arthur run at Saber levels with ample ROC, then as a lvl 5 Fighter with a +1 sword that glows brightly.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-17, 11:33 PM
And this is the mindset of 3e that really bugs me.

Bilbo didn't set out to find Sting. It happened.

I don't advocate rolling a random magic item and telling the player to suck it, but I see no obligation to hand out exactly what they want like Santa Claus.

Sure, Fighters should get weapons, Wizards should find staves, and so on. I don't even mind the idea of questing for an item, since that's a great adventure hook. I just don't like the assumption that "by x level I will have Y item."


Then you should play a system with different assumptions. It's as simple as that.

Again, D&D doesn't Emulate LOTR well or most of the other myths you've brought up.

Tavar
2010-06-17, 11:40 PM
Sure, Fighters should get weapons, Wizards should find staves, and so on. I don't even mind the idea of questing for an item, since that's a great adventure hook. I just don't like the assumption that "by x level I will have Y item."

Unfortunately, the game pretty much assumes that you're going to have certain items by a certain level. And since many melee feat are very weapon specific(ur-example, Weapon Focus), either you're giving the character a weapon that works, or you're making large parts of his character useless.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-06-17, 11:41 PM
And this is the mindset of 3e that really bugs me.

Bilbo didn't set out to find Sting. It happened.

Nothing in 3e says you have to be able to buy all of your stuff, just that you should have a certain gp equivalent at a given level. If you were playing a LotR campaign, Bilbo's character would have said "Hey DM, you said we're gonna be fighting orcs, right? Can I get an orc-bane sword?" and the DM could look at the treasure Bilbo's supposed to get and put a +3 orc-bane short sword or whatever in the next encounter to be conveniently found. Likewise, Aragorn has his +5 ghost touch longsword, Legolas gets his +2 longbow and +1 daggers, and so on. Magic items don't have to be all special and glowy for them to give the right bonuses, and you don't have to use a Mage Mart to stay on WBL.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-17, 11:45 PM
And this is the mindset of 3e that really bugs me.
But your complaint is not with optimizers, but with 3e. You are wrongly targeting an innocent party in this matter.


Bilbo didn't set out to find Sting. It happened.
Which does happen, in 3e. The DM is supposed to be aware of what things the party wants to find, and has them come up. Sometimes it can seem a bit contrived, but a good DM can make it look like very happy coincidence. After all, coming across the Orc-Slayer in a cave full of the very same? That's a bit contrived, too.


I don't advocate rolling a random magic item and telling the player to suck it, but I see no obligation to hand out exactly what they want like Santa Claus.

Sure, Fighters should get weapons, Wizards should find staves, and so on. I don't even mind the idea of questing for an item, since that's a great adventure hook. I just don't like the assumption that "by x level I will have Y item."
Again, this is a complaint with the system. The system works by being able to count on Y item (or a very near substitute) by X level.


As far as Fafhrd and the Mouser not being "D&D type fantasy," Leiber was one of the big influences of the original game.
Which is not 3e. Sorry, but it's just not.

Frosty
2010-06-17, 11:46 PM
Nothing in 3e says you have to be able to buy all of your stuff, just that you should have a certain gp equivalent at a given level. If you were playing a LotR campaign, Bilbo's character would have said "Hey DM, you said we're gonna be fighting orcs, right? Can I get an orc-bane sword?" and the DM could look at the treasure Bilbo's supposed to get and put a +3 orc-bane short sword or whatever in the next encounter to be conveniently found. Likewise, Aragorn has his +5 ghost touch longsword, Legolas gets his +2 longbow and +1 daggers, and so on. Magic items don't have to be all special and glowy for them to give the right bonuses, and you don't have to use a Mage Mart to stay on WBL.
You mean Bilbo's player right? I should go read DM of the rings...

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-06-17, 11:48 PM
You mean Bilbo's player right? I should go read DM of the rings...

Nah, the PCs can cast commune to talk to the DM. :smallwink:

(Actually, I was just reading DM of the Rings, hence the slip-up.)

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-17, 11:49 PM
Then you should play a system with different assumptions. It's as simple as that.

Again, D&D doesn't Emulate LOTR well or most of the other myths you've brought up.

Well when it gets into things like arguing a particular build's superiority because any weaknesses are covered by (relatively) cheap items... subverting the assumption of any item available up to WBL should probably be taken into consideration.

There's a fine difference between appropriate and guaranteed because you have X gold on you once you go to town.

Though I'd agree that by mid level parties should have a good deal of magic items. As this is more a game trope then a story one few character live up to that. In translating to D&D though I'd personally assume they would gain the appropriate items as part of loosing their invisible plot armor.

Mike_G
2010-06-17, 11:51 PM
I understand those who say I'm playing the wrong game. I do see their point.

My twofold response, is, first, that it used to be the right game, until a new mindset crept into the rulebooks and was fostered on the internet.

And second, I like the feel of D&D, or at least of classic D&D. I like fireball chucking wizards. I like Elves and Dwarves. I like the old Wizard/Fighter/Thief/Cleric team.

No other system I've tried, and I've tried many in my 30 or so years of gaming, has the right feel. Either magic is way too removed like Iron Heroes, or the wrold and races feel odd, like Glorantha in RuneQuest. Maybe it;s time to look up Castles and Crusades.

D&D was created by guys who drew inspiration from the pulps I've cited. They aren't incompatible.

I mostly just long for the days when a DM who says, "Yeah. Ya know what? Not. Gonna. Happen." wasn't considered to be breaking the rules, which is what I keep seeing on this forum.

Doc Roc
2010-06-17, 11:58 PM
I mostly just long for the days when a DM who says, "Yeah. Ya know what? Not. Gonna. Happen." wasn't considered to be breaking the rules, which is what I keep seeing on this forum.

So, I don't think people really say that. What we say is that sometimes one must exercise a judicious approach to the application of the zeroth kata.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-06-18, 12:04 AM
I understand those who say I'm playing the wrong game. I do see their point.

My twofold response, is, first, that it used to be the right game, until a new mindset crept into the rulebooks and was fostered on the internet.

Another tidbit that seems to keep cropping up in threads like these.

Repeat after me: "The internet did not create optimization. The 'internet generation' of gamers did not make 3e more optimization heavy."

When I was playing 1e and 2e, I was optimizing as much as I do now--not to the same extent, obviously, as there were fewer options, but on the low-op to high-op spectrum I was in basically the same place--and so did all the other players I knew, including the 1e grognard who taught my group to play. The real cause for the difference in feel of the editions is the 3e devs having no idea what they were doing when it came to keeping some 2e stuff and throwing out some 2e stuff. They didn't playtest a lot, and when they did playtest they played the way they thought the game should work rather than the way it did work. That's why sword-and-board sucks now, why the blaster wizard doesn't really work anymore, why clerics shot up to one of the best classes--it's not powergamers or the internet or anything like that, it's an accident on the part of WotC.

The internet did do something, though; it made sharing builds easier. It used to take days or weeks to come up with new uses for the latest splatbooks individually (and still can, if you look for new tricks yourself instead of relying on forums), but by mid-3.5 CharOp was finding every little hole in a new book within hours after its release. Not that everyone gets their optimization info from the internet, as some would claim--I was playing Batman wizards and uberchargers before I found any D&D forums--but it does have the downside of letting bad players just copy powerful builds to try to "win" D&D. Again, that's not the fault of optimization, that's the fault of jerk players.


I mostly just long for the days when a DM who says, "Yeah. Ya know what? Not. Gonna. Happen." wasn't considered to be breaking the rules, which is what I keep seeing on this forum.

That's not really what most people are saying. On the WBL issue, for instance, no one's saying "The DM must give everyone exact WBL because the players are entitled to it and the rules are holy writ." We are saying "Look, the rules assume that you will have X wealth, and it's hard to keep up and even survive without that. If you want to play swords & sorcery-style with very little wealth, you must make a conscious decision to do so and alter the rest of the game to suit, you can't just have the DM get rid of all wealth arbitrarily."

Now, oftentimes people will criticize DMs who are changing the rules for bad reasons, but that's not so much that they're changing the rules at all but that they're changing them in such a fashion as to make the game worse.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-18, 12:08 AM
I understand those who say I'm playing the wrong game. I do see their point.

My twofold response, is, first, that it used to be the right game, until a new mindset crept into the rulebooks and was fostered on the internet.

And second, I like the feel of D&D, or at least of classic D&D. I like fireball chucking wizards. I like Elves and Dwarves. I like the old Wizard/Fighter/Thief/Cleric team.

You can still have a team like that. You can still have a wizard that chucks fireballs. You can still have a healbot cleric and a Fighter that's the best in combat. You just need a group that feels the same way. Just know that a lot of people might not want to be constrained to those archetypes.




I mostly just long for the days when a DM who says, "Yeah. Ya know what? Not. Gonna. Happen." wasn't considered to be breaking the rules, which is what I keep seeing on this forum.

There are times when this is considered rule breaking because the DM is doing it for a stupid reason. Other times it is a valid response. In fact, there are suggestions for classes and items that the posters here encourage you to say "Yeah, not going to happen." to.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-18, 12:08 AM
So, I don't think people really say that. What we say is that sometimes one must exercise a judicious approach to the application of the zeroth kata.

Deliberately not so much, but the entire existence of optimization and board like this one have a way of giving off that vibe. I personally feel it off how RAW doesn't have to be explained.

Especially if you feel that RAMS should trump every time, and forbid "cheese" every time. (Noting how one gamer's cheese is another's playing efficiently)

Zovc
2010-06-18, 12:11 AM
I mostly just long for the days when a DM who says, "Yeah. Ya know what? Not. Gonna. Happen." wasn't considered to be breaking the rules, which is what I keep seeing on this forum.

This is silly. My DM said exactly that to the Factotum. I have mentioned this to many user's dismay, especially when they heard he also okayed the Druid.

If you're in a group where the players can trump a DM saying no just because they want to, you should find a better group. This isn't to say that a DM should be a monarch, players should be able to make a case, and DMs should consider it.

Totally Guy
2010-06-18, 12:18 AM
No other system I've tried, and I've tried many in my 30 or so years of gaming, has the right feel. Either magic is way too removed like Iron Heroes, or the wrold and races feel odd, like Glorantha in RuneQuest. Maybe it;s time to look up Castles and Crusades.

Have you tried Burning Wheel? It's tolkienesque and is all about challenging the character concepts of the players. It's very crunchy.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-18, 12:19 AM
I understand those who say I'm playing the wrong game. I do see their point.

My twofold response, is, first, that it used to be the right game, until a new mindset crept into the rulebooks and was fostered on the internet.
Can you not continue to play AD&D or 1e?

Arbane
2010-06-18, 12:33 AM
D&D isn't really set up to emulate classical myths, anyway. Judging how magical a sword is, or how strong a hero is, is more or less impossible without a level of detail that the myths aren't really interested in providing.

I'm of the opinion that without significant rules-patching, D&D isn't really very good at emulating _any_ sort of fantasy other then... D&D. It's very much its own thing.

Math_Mage
2010-06-18, 12:39 AM
Lord of the Rings - There is no game balance in this setting. Elves are default 8th level characters. The party Wizard is a demigod, one of only five on the planet. And the average Hobbit gives 1st level Commoners a warm feeling of superiority.

Eldar all got massive bonuses from the Light of the Trees. Debatable what adjustments apply to Umanyar. Maiar are not demigods, and are entirely beatable--it's just that all the high-level characters have gone west to Valinor already. Anyway, between Maia 'wizard' and Maia 'fighter', the match was pretty even, so clearly the problem's with the race, not the class. Besides, there's 7 on Middle-Earth even at the time of LotR--the Council of Five, the Balrog, and Sauron. And only in the movies are hobbits in any way portrayed as weaklings (Frodo taking the brunt of it)--consider the fight in Moria, the feats of Merry and Pippin and Sam in Return of the King, the scouring of the Shire, etc. Your LotR facts, they are wrong. [/Tolkien nerd]

EDIT: *cough* excuse me, did I say that?

What? On topic? 3.5's setup lends itself to optimization that goes against traditional fantasy settings. The spiked chain is a very obviously useful weapon because of what 3.5 says it is, not because optimizers will abuse the xyzzy out of it. The Christmas Tree effect is what it is because of 3.5, not because optimizers abuse the xyzzy out of it. They'd abuse the xyzzy out of a traditional fantasy setting, too--but likely in a way more amenable to the OP's tastes, because it's not 3.5. A high-tactics, low-magic setting is perfectly optimizable, but the aesthetics have changed with the system.

Kobold-Bard
2010-06-18, 02:00 AM
Can you not continue to play AD&D or 1e?

I'm wondering this as well. The reason to play 3.5 over 1st ed is options, but if you don't want the options then there's no point.

Guess it might be getting others to play the system.

Doc Roc
2010-06-18, 04:33 AM
Deliberately not so much, but the entire existence of optimization and board like this one have a way of giving off that vibe. I personally feel it off how RAW doesn't have to be explained.

Especially if you feel that RAMS should trump every time, and forbid "cheese" every time. (Noting how one gamer's cheese is another's playing efficiently)

Do you consider wizards more powerful than other classes? How about druids or clerics? Is it cheese to take natural spell? The thing is, a lot of the problems are way more fundamental, and can't be obviated with just a genteel approach to the glaring madness that seeps from some of the rules text. A lot of the problems are deep balance issues that are merely highlighted by optimization. And most optimization, good optimization, doesn't rely on remotely questionable rules. It leverages the uneven nature of the game. The foundation is broken. Much of the building is good, even beautiful. WBL is actually a superb concept, because it meant that at least in theory, wealth had a magical point where if you gave the players X much, it would prepare them for challenges of Y magnitude.

Do you remember in one of the later printings of the AD&D DMG, where it recommended not giving your players too many swords that did awesome things? And that sometimes wealth meant that you needed to put a player character out to pasture? Not level, but wealth achieved merely by killing things and taking their listed stuff. You were supposed to spend tons of cash on booze, and taverning, because otherwise? The game exploded.

Consider that, for a while, that before 3e, the concept of balance was "Guess. Guess well, and pray." Not just in regards to money, though particularly there.

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-06-18, 05:47 AM
The DMG explicitly states that you are supposed to get the items you want.
Uh, page number on that, please?

Now, I’m somewhat loathe to bring this one up, since it technically falls into one of those Chapter 6 variants I mentioned, but I’m currently looking at a line on page 199:

“You’re free to limit what magic items characters can choose when they create characters of higher levels, just as if you were assigning those items to treasure hoards in the game.”

Kinda goes against a “players get everything and exactly what they want” philosophy. Of course, the rulebookds would never contradict themselves. :smallwink:

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-18, 05:47 AM
:smallconfused: ....

Just a note about the Christmas Tree thing.. is somewhat linked to the assumtion that you have to fight 4 PCs vs 1 tough monster?

Because in a setting where you fight a lot of smaller enemies more often (better if mixed to avoid, say, that everybody is vlnerable to glitterdust) you don't need so much to boost your weapons or your casting stats to increase DCs.

I don't play this way, but my old DM did and it played fine.

Of course, I don't think that it can be done 'til level 20, but one should rememebr that 3.5 gamestyle changes dramatically every 5 levels. You can play a campaign 1-8 for a certain feel, or 5-16 for another.


***

As a side note, take a look on this feat (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/master-craftsman---final) in Pathfinder. It allows melee to craft their things. This could lead to awesome ideas for magic-less settings.

- Example 1: Classic "medieval" setting. Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues, Monks. fight PC vs NPC (insted of, say, Hydras). Ban special effects like holy or flying for items, allow crafters to do exceptionally sharp swords (keen) or suits good for camouflage (+5 hide) or to write treatises on swordplay or essays (+1 tomes).

- Example 2: Steampunk setting. Fighter//Rogues only. Similar as above, but in the ruins of ancient yadda yadda lies dreaming remains of ancient yadda yadda (translation: you fight NPC but constucts too). Fire Burst or similar enchants are allowed and refluffed as alchemical. Similar thing about rockets or similar stuff allowing you to jump high or even fly. Maybe you not only refluff them, but even make rule about their discovery.

Matthew
2010-06-18, 07:29 AM
In the books, Conan quite literally begins his adventures as a barbarian. He then really does earn his living as a thief, burgling the houses of the wealthy, and later works as a mercenary, learning more sophisticated weapons, tactics, mounted combat etc, which seems most easily expressed in D&D terms as taking a few levels in Rogue and then a few in Fighter on the path from Barbarian youth to King of Aquilonia.

I think straight Fighter with a few bonus skills would be a difficult shoehorning of a complex character into a rigid class system.

I like the concept of taking levels in other classes as you go. There's no reason that a fighter might not get sick of springing traps and decide to dip a level or two of Rogue or Ranger. Or a Rogue decide to study magic to get access to invisibility spells.

I disagree, and I do not think that moving into a new class is the best way to emulate this sort of play. Whether thief, barbarian, king, ranger, or mercenary, Conan was never less of a fighting-man. Picking up some extra abilities [e.g. invisibility spells, if you like] does not need to mean changing class, and breaking out of that mindset is well worth it in my estimation.



That's why sword-and-board sucks now, why the blaster wizard doesn't really work any more, why clerics shot up to one of the best classes--it's not power gamers or the internet or anything like that, it's an accident on the part of WotC.

Possibly; some of the optimisation aspects are definitely intentional, but it certainly spiralled out of their control. I do get the distinct impression that WotC staff do not play the game the way it is often represented on message boards, for good or ill. At any rate, what is good about D20/3e is that it can be played numerous ways. What is bad about it is that once certain tricks are revealed there is a sense that only one way of playing is "good" or "skilful" or conducive to party harmony and a pleasant play experience. There is some merit to both points of view in that regard.



Uh, page number on that, please?

I have a feeling that was a confusion between D20/3e and D20/4e, but I am not certain (it has been a while since I looked either over).

Gnaeus
2010-06-18, 07:48 AM
I disagree, and I do not think that moving into a new class is the best way to emulate this sort of play. Whether thief, barbarian, king, ranger, or mercenary, Conan was never less of a fighting-man. Picking up some extra abilities [e.g. invisibility spells, if you like] does not need to mean changing class, and breaking out of that mindset is well worth it in my estimation.

Picking up levels in rogue or ranger or Aquilonian King PRC does not make you less of a fighter. RETRAINING makes you less of a fighter. Picking up levels in a different class indicates branching away from the old skills you were using and adding a new skill set.

Breaking out of that mindset is a complete waste of time. The game was designed with that mindset. If you look at the old AD&D Deities and Demigods stats, you will find that the game developers always saw their iconic heroes as mixes of 2-8 different classes. They just hadn't figured out a good way to make that available in play yet.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-18, 07:50 AM
I have a feeling that was a confusion between D20/3e and D20/4e, but I am not certain (it has been a while since I looked either over).

Is 4e even labeled "d20"?

Matthew
2010-06-18, 08:03 AM
Picking up levels in rogue or ranger or Aquilonian King PRC does not make you less of a fighter. RETRAINING makes you less of a fighter. Picking up levels in a different class indicates branching away from the old skills you were using and adding a new skill set.

Of course it does, your BAB is less, so you are less of a fighter, but that was not what I was saying. The point is that you can belong to the fighter class and acquire non-fighter abilities without changing class. That is basically what subclasses are in AD&D.



Breaking out of that mindset is a complete waste of time. The game was designed with that mindset. If you look at the old AD&D Deities and Demigods statistics, you will find that the game developers always saw their iconic heroes as mixes of 2-8 different classes. They just hadn't figured out a good way to make that available in play yet.

Actually, what you will find is that they had a very variable take on how classes should be used to represent fictional characters. Gygax's take on Conan in Dragon #36 is a case in point (though it also turns up in an April issue, so it is also a suspicious case!). At any rate, it may well be your opinion that it is a waste of time, but you are wrong. :smallwink:



Is 4e even labeled "d20"?

Yes; they made a big deal about it at the time. It appears on the back cover, I believe. Should look like this:

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e30/highmoon/Geek/newd20logo.jpg

[edit] Hmmn, link is not working. Oh well, it is basically yellow.

Jayabalard
2010-06-18, 08:19 AM
I think you are making a much bigger deal out of system assumptions than 3.5 warrants. Any DM who isn't willing to say no to options in 3.5 probably wouldn't be willing to say no to them in 2.0, or GURPS, or WoD, or whatever.It's not a matter of whether the GM is willing to say no or not, it's whether GM filtering is assumed to be on by default or off by default by the system.

Take GURPS for example; noone that I've ever met has gotten the idea that all of the options are available in GURPS; it's always that the GM is going to pick some subset of allowed abilities. Some of these same people make the assumption in D&D 3e that all of the books are fair game. I'm of the opinion that there's something significantly different in the way the system is written that is leads people to generally think one way or the other.


Also, it is unnecessarily harsh to say that the system was designed to cater to the playstyle of optimizers.I'm not sure why that's harsh... there's nothing wrong with designing the system to cater to a specific playstyle, especially when that playstyle is as prominent as it was toward the end of the 2e era.

I mean, that's how I always read the "we designed 3e to encourage system mastery" bit that keeps getting thrown around when people talk about the design of 3e.


This isn't to say that a DM should be a monarch, players should be able to make a case, and DMs should consider it.There's nothing contradictory between these 2 statements ...

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-18, 08:21 AM
Of course it does, your BAB is less

No it isn't. You didn't lose any of your Fighter BAB. Your BAB is at least exactly the same.

Matthew
2010-06-18, 08:22 AM
No it isn't. You didn't lose any of your Fighter BAB. Your BAB is at least exactly the same.

With a level of Rogue? Don't those guys start out with BAB 0? [edit] Oh, I see what you are saying, yeah, but you are less of a fighter of the equivalent level is what I mean.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-18, 08:23 AM
...What, you think multiclassing somehow resets your BAB or something?

Gnaeus
2010-06-18, 08:24 AM
Of course it does, your BAB is less, so you are less of a fighter, but that was not what I was saying.

It is also incorrect. Your BAB does not go down if you level up in Rogue. You are still just as much of a fighter as you were before. If Conan is a 10th level fighter, then sits his butt on a throne and levels 3 times in Aristocrat or Expert, he is still a 10th level fighter. Maybe he isn't as good a fighter as someone who had never taken a desk job, but that just makes sense.

Jayabalard
2010-06-18, 08:25 AM
Actually, what you will find is that they had a very variable take on how classes should be used to represent fictional characters. Gygax's take on Conan in Dragon #36 is a case in point (though it also turns up in an April issue, so it is also a suspicious case!). At any rate, it may well be your opinion that it is a waste of time, but you are wrong. :smallwink:Hmmm. how does this one compare to the Conan in the 2 published Conan adventures? (CB1 and CB2)

Matthew
2010-06-18, 08:27 AM
It is also incorrect. Your BAB does not go down if you level up in Rogue. You are still just as much of a fighter as you were before. If Conan is a 10th level fighter, then sits his butt on a throne and levels 3 times in Aristocrat or Expert, he is still a 10th level fighter. Maybe he isn't as good a fighter as someone who had never taken a desk job, but that just makes sense.

Nobody is saying it does, what I am saying is that you are less of a fighter than a Fighter 13 than a Fighter 12/Rogue 1.



Hmmm. how does this one compare to the Conan in the 2 published Conan adventures? (CB1 and CB2)

Not sure. I do not have those to hand. Basically, he is presented in Dragon as a combination of fighter/thief with a slew of additional abilities, but at age 15 is a level 4 fighter with the ability of a level 10 thief to move silently and climb. He also has a bunch of other special abilties and even psychic powers.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-18, 08:27 AM
Sure, you are (although as a Rogue you deal more damage). But you're not any less of a Fighter than you were when you took the level in Rogue to begin with.

So basically, no, you're not less of a Fighter, it's just that you were never as much of a Fighter as the guy who took Fighter 13 for some bizarre reason.

Seriously, why would you do that.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-18, 08:30 AM
No it isn't. You didn't lose any of your Fighter BAB. Your BAB is at least exactly the same.

Retraining? If you retrain from a class level with a bab to a class level without a bab, that's a drop.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-18, 08:31 AM
Retraining? If you retrain from a class level with a bab to a class level without a bab, that's a drop.

Who mentioned anything about retraining?

Teron
2010-06-18, 08:33 AM
Nobody is saying it does, what I am saying is that you are less of a fighter than a Fighter 13 than a Fighter 12/Rogue 1.
Obviously. You've diversified your skills, so you're a bit less specialised than you could have been. Don't those subclasses you mentioned involve some kind of trade-off?

Matthew
2010-06-18, 08:37 AM
Sure, you are (although as a Rogue you deal more damage). But you're not any less of a Fighter than you were when you took the level in Rogue to begin with.

So basically, no, you're not less of a Fighter, it's just that you were never as much of a Fighter as the guy who took Fighter 13 for some bizarre reason.

Seriously, why would you do that.

Well, exactly. D20/3e is designed with a very different view of what classes mean than AD&D, which is why I am saying it is not a good way to go in AD&D.



Obviously. You've diversified your skills, so you're a bit less specialised than you could have been. Don't those subclasses you mentioned involve some kind of trade-off?

Sure, you trade off more experience points.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-18, 08:39 AM
Sure, you trade off more experience points.

So you mean you... advance your fighting skills slower?!

Gasp! So... just like a Fighter who takes a single level dip into Rogue?

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-18, 08:40 AM
A lot of the problems are deep balance issues that are merely highlighted by optimization. And most optimization, good optimization, doesn't rely on remotely questionable rules. It leverages the uneven nature of the game.

Here's the problem, right here. Its deliberately exacerbating the problems that are built in.

That's what people don't like.


Possibly; some of the optimisation aspects are definitely intentional, but it certainly spiralled out of their control. I do get the distinct impression that WotC staff do not play the game the way it is often represented on message boards, for good or ill.

There was a definitely an effort to make people want to play CoDzilla for more then just the resident band-aid. It succeeded.

And more then just WotC staff doesn't play like represent by some assumptions I've seen online. I've played games where fighting types don't have trouble getting full attacks which I've seen treated as laughably unlikely online. There are assumptions made in many builds that can be taken apart by a DM or even the party's play style. I've played games where XP for example was just an end of the night reward set by the DM, and there isn't any left for say crafting or casting XP component spells.

I think half the rules out there have a distinct "If you want to go it this way here's a mechanic" feel and many may well not use them. I'd almost be surprised if the WotC staff used them all.

Matthew
2010-06-18, 08:41 AM
So you mean you... advance your fighting skills slower?!

Gasp! So... just like a Fighter who takes a single level dip into Rogue?

No, you'll top out in D20 at level 20, that is why optimisers never take anything that inhibits caster level, if I recall. That is to say, once you have taken a level in Rogue you limit your maximum BAB.



There was a definitely an effort to make people want to play CoDzilla for more then just the resident band-aid. It succeeded.

And more then just WotC staff doesn't play like represent by some assumptions I've seen online. I've played games where fighting types don't have trouble getting full attacks which I've seen treated as laughably unlikely online. There are assumptions made in many builds that can be taken apart by a DM or even the party's play style. I've played games where XP for example was just an end of the night reward set by the DM, and there isn't any left for say crafting or casting XP component spells.

I think half the rules out there have a distinct "If you want to go it this way here's a mechanic" feel and many may well not use them. I'd almost be surprised if the WotC staff used them all.

Oh definitely. I have never played D20/3e the way it is represented in some locales online. I think what Mike finds objectionable is the sense that you ought to optimise or you are not doing it right. Sometimes this is presented as "letting the team down" or "not pulling your weight" or "forcing the game master to use lesser challenges" or whatever. The negative presentation is presumably what he finds objectionable.

Amphetryon
2010-06-18, 08:48 AM
Here's the problem, right here. Its deliberately exacerbating the problems that are built in.

That's what people don't like.

From here, that reads as a belief that optimizers attempt to unbalance D&D further as a goal. If that was not your intent, I apologize for misunderstanding, and would ask that you clarify for dunces like me. :smallsmile:

That has not been my experience with Practical Optimization with any player or build I've seen. With possible exceptions for builds and players I haven't seen, that's the exclusive province of Theoretical Optimization, which is about builds that are never meant to see actual play.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-18, 08:56 AM
No, you'll top out in D20 at level 20, that is why optimisers never take anything that inhibits caster level, if I recall. That is to say, once you have taken a level in Rogue you limit your maximum BAB.

To get your fourth attack you need a BAB of +16. You can do this as a Fighter 12/Rogue 8 easily (as your BAB would be +18).

You will not miss that extra +2. You will love all your Rogue 8 abilities.

In fact your Rogue 8 abilities will - dare I say it? - make you a better fighter than a straight Fighter 20.

(A Fighter 19/Rogue 1, meanwhile, has a BAB of... +19. Only a tiny, marginal bit better than a Fighter 12/Rogue 8. A Fighter 18/Rogue 2 has a BAB of... +19. Hm. 17/3? +19. 16/4 is also +19. 15/5 is +18, as is 14/6, 13/7 and our friend 12/8.)

Sliver
2010-06-18, 08:58 AM
Besides, it's not like the game ends as soon as you get to level 20. You still gain experience and you can still gain levels. Saying you lower your max BAB is pointless because most games don't reach level 20, and those that do, might as well go over that if the campaign isn't over yet.

Matthew
2010-06-18, 09:00 AM
To get your fourth attack you need a BAB of +16. You can do this as a Fighter 12/Rogue 8 easily (as your BAB would be +18).

You will not miss that extra +2. You will love all your Rogue 8 abilities.

In fact your Rogue 8 abilities will - dare I say it? - make you a better fighter than a straight Fighter 20.

So, we are agreed that you have less BAB as a result of taking levels in Rogue? Hell, take 10 levels in War Blade or (dare I say it) Cleric and you will be better at fighting than a fighter in D20, but you will be less of a fighter (the class) because you are only eleven twelfths fighter, or whatever. That is exactly why it undermines the class system.



Besides, it's not like the game ends as soon as you get to level 20. You still gain experience and you can still gain levels. Saying you lower your max BAB is pointless because most games don't reach level 20, and those that do, might as well go over that if the campaign isn't over yet.

Well, that depend son the campaign, which is to say it depends on all sorts of subjective criteria.

Sucrose
2010-06-18, 09:01 AM
No, you'll top out in D20 at level 20, that is why optimisers never take anything that inhibits caster level, if I recall. That is to say, once you have taken a level in Rogue you limit your maximum BAB.


Oh definitely. I have never played D20/3e the way it is represented in some locales online. I think what Mike finds objectionable is the sense that you ought to optimise or you are not doing it right. Sometimes this is presented as "letting the team down" or "not pulling your weight" or "forcing the game master to use lesser challenges" or whatever. The negative presentation is presumably what he finds objectionable.

You recall incorrectly. Optimizers can and do take things that lower their caster level. Heck, the much reviled half-ogre chain tripper has no caster levels whatsoever. Optimizers of caster archetypes tend not (not 'do never'- the specific goal that they have in mind might be best emulated with classes that cost them caster levels) to take things that lose caster levels simply because higher caster levels get you to the next level of spells more quickly, and the next level of spells is generally worth far more than just about any other possible benefit in terms of character power.

In any case, you may limit your maximum BAB, but you still get the all-important fourth attack after a brief Rogue dip, and, in any case, hardly anyone ever gets to level 20. That is a pinnacle of godlike power that even Conan never got remotely close to. Thus, it is irrelevant to the purposes of statting out Conan.

Could he have been a superior warrior if he had done nothing but gain experience in swordplay his entire life? Did he limit his total potential as a pure swordsman by not doing so? Quite possibly. However, his breadth of skills permitted him to accomplish much more than such a brute in his lifetime, because the things that he had to fight were still within the bounds of his abilities. He needed the variety of skills, rather than simply overpowering fighting ability, to make his way through, as he essentially was his own party.

Edit: And a Warblade is no less of a fighter than a Fighter. He's rather more focused on hand-to-hand, since he has few ranged proficiencies, but he is still a swordsman, or halberdier, or what have you. 'Fighter-ness' has seldom been a defining trait of any given character in media- what matters is how skilled they are at their profession, not what people call them.

Edit2: Essentially, my edit was trying, in a much less elegant way, to express Yuki_Akuma's statement.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-18, 09:01 AM
Who gives a damn if you're less of a Fighter? Classes are an abstraction. No one goes around saying "Yeah, I'm a Fighter. That guy's a Fighter/Rogue."

Matthew
2010-06-18, 09:06 AM
You recall incorrectly. Optimizers can and do take things that lower their caster level. Heck, the much reviled half-ogre chain tripper has no caster levels whatsoever. Optimizers of caster archetypes tend not (not 'do never'- the specific goal that they have in mind might be best emulated with classes that cost them caster levels) to take things that lose caster levels simply because higher caster levels get you to the next level of spells more quickly, and the next level of spells is generally worth far more than just about any other possible benefit in terms of character power.

Well, since that was an analogy, I think you are picking a rather small nit there.



In any case, you may limit your maximum BAB, but you still get the all-important fourth attack after a brief Rogue dip, and, in any case, hardly anyone ever gets to level 20. That is a pinnacle of godlike power that even Conan never got remotely close to. Thus, it is irrelevant to the purposes of statting out Conan.

Could he have been a superior warrior if he had done nothing but gain experience in swordplay his entire life? Did he limit his total potential as a pure swordsman by not doing so? Quite possibly. However, his breadth of skills permitted him to accomplish much more than such a brute in his lifetime, because the things that he had to fight were still within the bounds of his abilities. He needed the variety of skills, rather than simply overpowering fighting ability, to make his way through, as he essentially was his own party.

Not quite what I am driving at.



Who gives a damn if you're less of a Fighter? Classes are an abstraction. No one goes around saying "Yeah, I'm a Fighter. That guy's a Fighter/Rogue."

People who do not want to see the class system undermined, I would suppose. Classes as menus of abilities are not really classes any more, which is rather the point. I am not saying "you are doing it wrong", I am saying that it is not necessary (or in AD&D even best) to have Conan be a multi class fighter/thief.

Teron
2010-06-18, 09:16 AM
People who do not want to see the class system undermined, I would suppose. Classes as menus of abilities are not really classes any more, which is rather the point. I am not saying "you are doing it wrong", I am saying that it is not necessary (or in AD&D even best) to have Conan be a multi class fighter/thief.
It's my understanding that Conan is a guy who has mostly trained as a warrior, and a bit as a thief. Presumably, if he'd focused exclusively on the former, he'd be an even better warrior. How is a multiclass fighter/rogue, barbarian/rogue, or fighter/barbarian/rogue not an accurate representation, even if you refuse to treat classes as purely mechanical constructs?

Sucrose
2010-06-18, 09:18 AM
Well, since that was an analogy, I think you are picking a rather small nit there.


Not quite what I am driving at.


People who do not want to see the class system undermined, I would suppose. Classes as menus of abilities are not really classes any more, which is rather the point. I am not saying "you are doing it wrong", I am saying that it is not necessary to have Conan be a multi class fighter/thief.

I was 'picking at a rather small nit' because your statement encapsulates something that bothers me about several individuals on this thread- you are treating optimizers as a monolithic group, rather than people who happen to approach their characters with the mindset of a problem-solver: "I want this sort of character, so how do I best achieve that, while maintaining an appropriate power level?" Optimizers do not, as a whole, do any one thing with their character builds. We are individuals. In short, I took offense to a broad generalization.

Further, it demonstrated a fundamental problem with your argument: it is irrelevant that his abilities were now slightly bounded, yet you are arguing about what he would look like at level 20. That really doesn't matter.

I would agree that it isn't necessary to multiclass Conan as a Fighter and a Rogue. However, it may well be a better emulation of his eventual abilities than a straight fighter that picks up cross-class Rogue skills, and, indeed, a better emulation of the process of him picking up those skills. Would you say that he became a strictly better warrior in the process of acquiring those thieving skills? If not, then a one level rogue dip would better demonstrate his skill-acquisition process than a level that does increase his fighting proficiency.

Matthew
2010-06-18, 09:19 AM
It's my understanding that Conan is a guy who has mostly trained as a warrior, and a bit as a thief. Presumably, if he'd focused exclusively on the former, he'd be an even better warrior. How is a multiclass fighter/rogue, barbarian/rogue, or fighter/barbarian/rogue not an accurate representation, even if you refuse to treat classes as purely mechanical constructs?

I do not believe I said it was not an accurate representation. I said it is not a necessary one, and in AD&D not even the best way to go. What exactly is it that defines Conan as a thief? Is it his ability to "sneak attack?" or "evade"? His access to open locks as a class skill? No, its his ability to climb walls and move silently. If that is the case, just give him those as class skills and call it a day, or better yet create a "Zamorian Thief" prestige class that does that and is tailor made to represent the character.



I was 'picking at a rather small nit' because your statement encapsulates something that bothers me about several individuals on this thread- you are treating optimizers as a monolithic group, rather than people who happen to approach their characters with the mindset of a problem-solver: "I want this sort of character, so how do I best achieve that, while maintaining an appropriate power level?" Optimizers do not, as a whole, do any one thing with their character builds. We are individuals. In short, I took offense to a broad generalization.

Then you have misinterpreted me, because all I was implying is that when you make a class to be the "best at being that class" it makes sense to go from levels 1-20 in that class.



Further, it demonstrated a fundamental problem with your argument: it is irrelevant that his abilities were now slightly bounded, yet you are arguing about what he would look like at level 20. That really doesn't matter.

Actually, this is an argument being postulated for me, as all I am saying is that a Fighter 5/Rogue 1 is less of a Fighter (the class) than a Fighter 6. If that is disagreeable to you, then we must agree to disagree.



I would agree that it isn't necessary to multiclass Conan as a Fighter and a Rogue. However, it may well be a better emulation of his eventual abilities than a straight fighter that picks up cross-class Rogue skills, and, indeed, a better emulation of the process of him picking up those skills. Would you say that he became a strictly better warrior in the process of acquiring those thieving skills? If not, then a one level rogue dip would better demonstrate his skill-acquisition process than a level that does increase his fighting proficiency.

I would say the game is a poor way of emulating character advancement in that form at all. Personally, though, I would just allocate him some extra skill points and access to the relevant skills as class skills and call it a day (see customising your character in the PHB, p. 110).

Teron
2010-06-18, 09:25 AM
Very little is necessary. We could reduce the game to co-operative storytelling with coin flips to decide conflicts. But lots of people find multiclassing to be a functional way to make characters more interesting and competent, which makes the game more fun for them. What's your objection, exactly?

Snake-Aes
2010-06-18, 09:25 AM
That's a big thing on class design. No single defined class will fit everything a character that is thought before ruled out. This is why they go out of their wait to tell that the dm is more than free to tweak classes. Changing class skills and features is recommended if they don't fit what you want.
You know the entire books of alternative class features? It was one guy that thought "wait, they don't realize they are meant to mess around with the rules, right? Well, lets sell them a bit of common sense".

Matthew
2010-06-18, 09:27 AM
Very little is necessary. We could reduce the game to co-operative storytelling with coin flips to decide conflicts. But lots of people find multiclassing to be a functional way to make characters more interesting and competent, which makes the game more fun for them. What's your objection, exactly?

That it undermines the class system, and is not the best way to go in AD&D.



That's a big thing on class design. No single defined class will fit everything a character that is thought before ruled out. This is why they go out of their wait to tell that the dm is more than free to tweak classes. Changing class skills and features is recommended if they don't fit what you want.

You know the entire books of alternative class features? It was one guy that thought "wait, they don't realize they are meant to mess around with the rules, right? Well, lets sell them a bit of common sense".

Exactly so. Even in D20, it is likely that a better representation of Conan's time as a thief is to customise his base class (fighter or barbarian, I would imagine).

Sucrose
2010-06-18, 09:30 AM
I do not believe I said it was not an accurate representation. I said it is not a necessary one, and in AD&D not even the best way to go. What exactly is it that defines Conan as a thief? Is it his ability to "sneak attack?" or "evade"? His access to open locks as a class skill? No, its his ability to climb walls and move silently. If that is the case, just give him those as class skills and call it a day, or better yet create a "Zamorian Thief" prestige class that does that and is tailor made to represent the character.


Then you have misinterpreted me, because all I was implying is that when you make a class to be the "best at being that class" it makes sense to go from levels 1-20 in that class.


Actually, this is an argument being postulated for me, as all I am saying is that a Fighter 5/Rogue 1 is less of a Fighter (the class) than a Fighter 6. If that is disagreeable to you, then we must agree to disagree.


I would say the game is a poor way of emulating character advancement in that form at all. Personally, though, I would just allocate him some extra skill points and access to the relevant skills as class skills and call it a day.

It was a reference to your mindset, handily demonstrated by that post. Not your direct point.

As for this post, the thing is, he wasn't a Fighter 6 prior to taking levels in Rogue, he was a Fighter 5. And I would argue that a Fighter 5/Rogue 1 is precisely as much of a Fighter as a Fighter 5. That's what I'm saying. That your hypothetical Fighter 6 is precisely irrelevant, because while Conan may be less of a Fighter than that guy, he's still as much of a Fighter as he was at level 5, but now he has access to skills of a thief (with whatever class you choose to model it with. Expert could work, for the purposes that you are looking at).

And, while good homebrew works better than just about any class system-based fix, since it isn't bounded by the constraints of the class system, that doesn't change the fact that the class system can model it, through appropriate multiclassing.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-18, 09:30 AM
From here, that reads as a belief that optimizers attempt to unbalance D&D further as a goal. If that was not your intent, I apologize for misunderstanding, and would ask that you clarify for dunces like me. :smallsmile:

I don't and won't say they intend that, but it can come off that way very easily without that intention. This is a matter of perception here. Its quite a subjective too depending on where the viewer's definitions of acceptable and unacceptable are.


That has not been my experience with Practical Optimization with any player or build I've seen. With possible exceptions for builds and players I haven't seen, that's the exclusive province of Theoretical Optimization, which is about builds that are never meant to see actual play.

I know that many many builds aren't meant for actual game play but its not exactly pasted all over every bit of optimization advice out there.

Consider situations where someone asks for advice on a Fighter and is told "Don't play a Fighter play because [I]it doesn't suck" or something similar or is directed into something like a spiked chain build when all they really want is to do hit things with a sword the old fashioned way.

When someone is given what they may regard as a cheap trick for advice on how to build the character, does it support a notion that most optimization is just theoretical? I'd say it doesn't. Or worse the person seeking advice never asks and just searches and turns up say a perennial "why Monk's suck" thread or other less academic discussion.

What message do threads like this one send to someone that's only casually browsing? Academic discussion? Typical internets Serious Business near-flamewars? A dog-pile on the side the board is hostile. Actually this thread is fairly tame, but what I'm getting at is pointing out that reality has little to do with perception.

Matthew
2010-06-18, 09:31 AM
It was a reference to your mindset, handily demonstrated by that post. Not your direct point.

As for this post, the thing is, he wasn't a Fighter 6 prior to taking levels in Rogue, he was a Fighter 5. And I would argue that a Fighter 5/Rogue 1 is precisely as much of a Fighter as a Fighter 5. That's what I'm saying. That your hypothetical Fighter 6 is precisely irrelevant, because while Conan may be less of a Fighter than that guy, he's still as much of a Fighter as he was at level 5, but now he has access to skills of a thief (with whatever class you choose to model it with. Expert could work, for the purposes that you are looking at).

And, while good homebrew works better than just about any class system-based fix, since it isn't bounded by the constraints of the class system, that doesn't change the fact that the class system can model it, through appropriate multiclassing.

And this is a good indication of your own mind set, I suppose! The system allows for the customising of classes, it is no more outside the system than multi classing.

Teron
2010-06-18, 09:34 AM
That it undermines the class system, and is not the best way to go in AD&D.


Exactly so. Even in D20, it is likely that a better representation of Conan's time as a thief is to customise his base class (fighter or barbarian, I would imagine).
Mixing classes undermines the system, but altering them to achieve the same result (a unique set of abilities appropriate to the character) doesn't?

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-18, 09:35 AM
And this is a good indication of your own mind set, I suppose! The system allows for the customising of classes, it is no more outside the system than multi classing.

Yyyyes it is. Houserules are always more 'outside the system' than, uh, the actual rules presented in the books.

Matthew
2010-06-18, 09:36 AM
Mixing classes undermines the system, but altering them to achieve the same result (a unique set of abilities appropriate to the character) doesn't?

Altering a class in a small way to better reflect the character desired is less disruptive to the class system than having his levels spread amongst multiple classes.



Yyyyes it is. Houserules are always more 'outside the system' than, uh, the actual rules presented in the books.

See PHB, p. 110 for this rule.

Fax Celestis
2010-06-18, 09:38 AM
So, we are agreed that you have less BAB as a result of taking levels in Rogue? Hell, take 10 levels in War Blade or (dare I say it) Cleric and you will be better at fighting than a fighter in D20, but you will be less of a fighter (the class) because you are only eleven twelfths fighter, or whatever. That is exactly why it undermines the class system.

The class system models the world, not the world models the class system. Conan, for example, doesn't call himself a barbarian 6/fighter 4/psychic rogue 4, he calls himself a barbarian. Whether or not he actually even has barbarian levels (protip: probably not), he is still a "barbarian" because that's how he acts and that's how his "player" (author, really) portrays him.

You are getting hung up on the idea that fighters fight, wizards wizz, and rogues rogue. Wizards can fight (cf: Gandalf), rogues can fight (cf: Paul Atreides), and fighters can cast (cf: pretty much any bearer of the Sword of Shanarra or the Elfstones).

One's class does not determine one's profession: one's class only determines one's abilities. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)

Matthew
2010-06-18, 09:39 AM
One's class does not determine one's profession: one's class only determines one's abilities. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)

Quite so, in D20. I am not particularly hung up on it, however, I just think it is not suitable for AD&D.

Teron
2010-06-18, 09:40 AM
Altering a class in a small way to better reflect the character desired is less disruptive to the class system than having his levels spread amongst multiple classes.
How so? Either way, you get a character with the mix of martial and roguish abilities desired by the player. What is the difference?

Sucrose
2010-06-18, 09:42 AM
And this is a good indication of your own mind set, I suppose! The system allows for the customising of classes, it is no more outside the system than multi classing.

Courtesy of Rule Zero, I agree.:smallsmile:

However, homebrew is less codified, and not as universal, as the multiclassing rules. Thus, general advice with respect to optimizing a given idea generally assumes the most widely applicable rules, unless the advice seeker clarifies what is available under his/her DM.

Optimizers also typically assume the 'classes as sets of abilities' abstraction, rather than the 'classes as jobs' since the idea of someone knowing that he's of a given character class seems as absurd to many of us as him knowing his level. What we know our characters are aware of are their abilities, so we choose the combination of the ability packs we call classes that, in aggregate, best model the character that we wish to play.

Edit: You've been arguing about AD&D this whole time? Why? The optimization culture that the OP so hates is much more present in 3.5, and the trappings that he complains about make it clear that he was referring to that edition.

Matthew
2010-06-18, 09:42 AM
How so? Either way, you get a character with the mix of martial and roguish abilities desired by the player. What is the difference?

That the character no longer belongs to a discrete class.



Courtesy of Rule Zero, I agree.:smallsmile:

However, homebrew is less codified, and not as universal, as the multiclassing rules. Thus, general advice with respect to optimizing a given idea generally assumes the most widely applicable rules, unless the advice seeker clarifies what is available under his/her DM.

Optimizers also typically assume the 'classes as sets of abilities' abstraction, rather than the 'classes as jobs' since the idea of someone knowing that he's of a given character class seems as absurd to many of us as him knowing his level. What we know our characters are aware of are their abilities, so we choose the combination of the ability packs we call classes that, in aggregate, best model the character that we wish to play.

Certainly, and to the extent that you need permission from the game master to significantly customise a character, it is a less universal option that multiclassing (in the sense of what is offered in a vacuum). Being an option within the system, though, it is one I think works better than multi classing in this instance.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-18, 09:43 AM
Which is a metagame concept that has no bearing on the actual game. Why does that matter?

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-18, 09:44 AM
Which is a metagame concept that has no bearing on the actual game. Why does that matter?

Because that's not how it was done in 2e, apparently.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-18, 09:47 AM
On Conan as a thief

One can also represent time as a thief merely with some cross-class skills or not even. Does he pick locks or simply force open windows or search for unlocked ones.

Good stats mixed with a point in a skill if it can't be used untrained (or jack of all trades even) can make one an adequate thief for a low level sort of background detail. For that matter is anything from that time a current part of the character that needs to be represented. I'm remember being exasperated by how Elminster's official build felt the need to give him rogue and fighter levels just because a thousand years plus back he did that before becoming the a mage.

Matthew
2010-06-18, 09:48 AM
Which is a meta game concept that has no bearing on the actual game. Why does that matter?

Well, doesn't it? In fact it may well be true that being a Fighter 8/Rogue 1 in D20 does not affect the game. In AD&D it will affect the game because classes are more than meta game concepts that have no affect on the actual game.



Because that's not how it was done in 2e, apparently.

Yeah, yeah, get off my lawn. Try to be a bit less dismissive, if you please.



On Conan as a thief

One can also represent time as a thief merely with some cross-class skills or not even. Does he pick locks or simply force open windows or search for unlocked ones.

Good stats mixed with a point in a skill if it can't be used untrained (or jack of all trades even) can make one an adequate thief for a low level sort of background detail. For that matter is anything from that time a current part of the character that needs to be represented. I'm remember being exasperated by how Elminster's official build felt the need to give him rogue and fighter levels just because a thousand years plus back he did that before becoming the a mage.

Yes, indeed. If, on the other hand, Conan showed many specific Rogue abilities (such as sneak attack or evasion, and I can think of some instances where the latter might apply) then there is possibly a good reason to multiclass, rather than the less drastic approach of customisation within the class.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-18, 09:50 AM
Yeah, yeah, get off my lawn. Try to be a bit less dismissive, if you please.

Nah.

Oh hey, remember dual-classing? Remember how humans could decide to progress in an entirely differently class, starting over from scratch?

Matthew
2010-06-18, 09:51 AM
Nah.

Then do not be surprised if I cease discussing this with you.



Oh hey, remember dual-classing? Remember how humans could decide to progress in an entirely differently class, starting over from scratch?

Sure, I do. Terrible idea. What I think it is best for a particular game does not exclude the existence of bad ideas within the game system.

SuperPanda
2010-06-18, 09:51 AM
Possibly a slight derailing of the Conan part of the topic, but still in the spirit of the opening rant:

Personally, I have no problem and have enjoyed class based systems and systems without the conceit of classes. 3.X sits in a bizarre (by comparison) netherworld between the two systems. The sheer number of classes, feats, spells, items, and abilities available through all of the loosely coordinated splat books (there is order in chaos... sometimes) all are designed to create a wealth of iconic templates from which our unique Avatar's of Awesome will arise.

I like that, to a limited degree. The problem is that the classes virtually always fail to reflect the icon/image/concept we want to play. This is I think what the frustration in the "Conan" case is.

Sit and think of a single iconic hero who would be fun to play who actually fits a DnD class without variation. I am a literature major who enjoys fantasy stories/movies/games and I can't think of a single one. DnD Wizards (even specialists) are too spread out in their powers. DnD Clerics are built to all be war priests (even if their god wants peace and healing... I'm a doctor... that's why I painted a bright red cross on my full plate and tower shield).

The skills the fighter lacks don't make a lot of sense. In a Medieval setting "Fighter" encapsulates Knights, Mercenaries, Conscripts, and city watchmen. So why don't the knights (not the PHBII class) have Knowledge: Nobility (they're all born into one)? Why don't the Mercenaries have Bluff/Sense Motive (If you were a sword for hire you'd be no more trusting/trustworthy than a common theif)? why do the watchmen have ranks in Ride/Handle Animal but not Hide and Move silently?

Not to add to the Fighter's woes, but its presented in the PHB and core as the iconic "hero with a big sword" class but fails to deliver a clear progression of choices and options to becoming anything like the archetypes that we have.

Should Conan be a straight fighter? No, obviously he shouldn't just like Galahad isn't a straight Paladin, Galdalf isn't a straight Wizard (he's the DMPC), Casanova wouldn't be a straight Rogue, Beowulf wouldn't be a straight Barbarian... or any other example you can think of wouldn't fit the class exactly unless it came from the class (and even then Minsc does not fit Ranger very well).

DnD 3.X is designed with the apparent expectation that your class is going to be an Alpha3/Beta2/Charlie7/Delta3/Gamma/10 by the time you ever hit level 20. That can ruin the willing suspension of disbelief for people who treat the classes as presenting in the book as having any fluff value at all (which is how they are presented).

A Factotum/rogue/swashbuckler/duelist might make for a good class on paper... but how well does the fluff of all four of those classes mix together?

For me, I tend to ignore class fluff as well as I can when I DM, but my attempt at getting players to do so when I ran an Oriental Adventures game was much like Miko trying to explain her class versus her title.

DM: "Alright, what I'd like to do in a game is play an adventure, set in a land that values honor above good, where all the players are members of the noble class and therefore aware of and responsible for their actions and also seeking to carry themselves with dignity, you guys in?"

Players: "Yeah sure, sounds like a fun idea."

DM: So, you're all members of the Samurai caste then.

Players: "Hey, I'd like to play a mage this time."
"Hells no, I wants to be a ninja."
"I call the Drunken Master prestige class."
"Dude, Samurai sucks, can't I just be a fighter?"
"How are we going to heal? We gonna get a lot of potions or something?"

This is what makes me, personally, dislike the aesthetics of both Optimization and of Class loyalty. I think 3.X would be infinitely better if there was a hard and fast rule set for the DM/Players to use to design a class rather than mixing and matching. I got part way in, and figuring out a resource value for spell casting/spells and such is proving a massive headache.

Sucrose
2010-06-18, 09:53 AM
That the character no longer belongs to a discrete class.


Certainly, and to the extent that you need permission from the game master to significantly customise a character, it is a less universal option that multiclassing (in the sense of what is offered in a vacuum). Being an option within the system, though, it is one I think works better than multi classing in this instance.

If the DM is amenable to modeling it in the appropriate way, then certainly. However, while good homebrew trumps any other mechanics-based fix, bad homebrew, or a bad DM attitude toward homebrew, is worse than useless. Thus, homebrew is too wildly varying for me to see it as the appropriate solution to anything other than specific player requests to specific good DM's.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd address my edit. Why discuss a different edition than the discussion is about?

Also, if you don't want sneak attack (evasion is a level 2 ability, so a 1-level dip wouldn't grant it) or trapfinding, then you can either trade it away with a variant Rogue, or just take levels in Expert, which grant skills, and little else, to the character.

Matthew
2010-06-18, 09:57 AM
If the DM is amenable to modeling it in the appropriate way, then certainly. However, while good homebrew trumps any other mechanics-based fix, bad homebrew, or a bad DM attitude toward homebrew, is worse than useless. Thus, homebrew is too wildly varying for me to see it as the appropriate solution to anything other than specific player requests to specific good DM's.

Well, that is your perspective on the issue, I hope you appreciate mine, which is that the system is no replacement for being a good game master (or player for that matter).



Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd address my edit. Why discuss a different edition than the discussion is about?

I will have to go back and look at your edit, but the answer to this question is that I was talking about C&C/AD&D as an alternative with Mike before my comments were hijacked and pasted onto D20. I was saying there is no D20 multiclassing in C&C, and Mike said he thought it could be house ruled on, and I said I didn't think that was necessary or the best approach for C&C (C&C is a sort of "light" D20ish version of AD&D).



Also, if you don't want sneak attack (evasion is a level 2 ability, so a 1-level dip wouldn't grant it) or trapfinding, then you can either trade it away with a variant Rogue, or just take levels in Expert, which grant skills, and little else, to have the character.

Yes, indeed, you can do a lot of things using the explicit system.

Amphetryon
2010-06-18, 10:02 AM
Random aside: a dip to Scout 1 gets most of what Matthew appears to want for a Conan analog.

It seems that, for the most part, 3.X D&D can work just fine for the group that wants to see classes as discrete constructs, fluff intact and all. It is also perfectly viable to play 3.X with the understanding that classes are a loose abstraction, a collection of abilities to mix and match according to the picture in your head. Naturally, there will be specific examples where neither of the preceding sentiments is entirely true. However, most of the issues raised in this thread appear to arise when you're the player who sees classes as discrete constructs, and show up at a game where the general consensus is that classes are an abstraction... and vice versa.

Basically, the game works best when everyone agrees to play it within the same framework.

Gnaeus
2010-06-18, 10:03 AM
Yeah, yeah, get off my lawn. Try to be a bit less dismissive, if you please.


People would be less dismissive of your ideas if your ideas weren't so worthy of being summarily dismissed. When your rants sound like an old man saying "Back in my day, we had to fight dragons on our way to school! Uphill! Both ways! And we liked it!" then "Yeah, yeah get off my lawn" is an appropriate dismissal of your play philosophy.

Sucrose
2010-06-18, 10:03 AM
Well, that is your perspective on the issue, I hope you appreciate mine, which is that the system is no replacement for being a good game master (or player for that matter).


I will have to go back and look at your edit, but the answer to this question is that I was talking about C&C/AD&D with Mike before my comments were hijacked and pasted onto D20.


Yes, indeed, you can do a lot of things using the explicit system.

I believe that I can, and agree that a good DM and a good group are necessary for a good game, but I feel that one can have many excellent qualities without being good at mechanics fixes. Thus, having further rules available allows a DM who is outstanding at story to focus on that, and leave the mechanics fixes to the monkeys at WotC. Granted, this requires players that don't exploit their DM's lack of rules savvy, but a social contract is required anyway for the balance of 3.5 not to break into tiny little pieces, so I don't mind that so much.

I'd have to look back at the discussion as well, but I suppose I was wondering why you two wished to start such a discussion in a thread that started out as a complaint about 3.5.

Finally, yes, you can.:smallsmile: That's one of the reasons that I don't feel a good DM needs to be good at homebrew, so long as the players can figure out appropriate mechanical fixes on their own using the resources that he's okay with. At least, for 3.5.

Matthew
2010-06-18, 10:08 AM
People would be less dismissive of your ideas if your ideas weren't so worthy of being summarily dismissed. When your rants sound like an old man saying "Back in my day, we had to fight dragons on our way to school! Uphill! Both ways! And we liked it!" then "Yeah, yeah get off my lawn" is an appropriate dismissal of your play philosophy.

Gnaeus, I have spent a long time on this forum discussing various things, and to be honest I seriously doubt that this is a fair or even reasonable characterisation of my opinions or ideas. However, I have no interest in presenting them to you if you feel that way, so feel free to cease responding to anything I write here and I will likewise do the same.



I believe that I can, and agree that a good DM and a good group are necessary for a good game, but I feel that one can have many excellent qualities without being good at mechanics fixes. Thus, having further rules available allows a DM who is outstanding at story to focus on that, and leave the mechanics fixes to the monkeys at WotC. Granted, this requires players that don't exploit their DM's lack of rules savvy, but a social contract is required anyway for the balance of 3.5 not to break into tiny little pieces, so I don't mind that so much.

My experience is that lighter rule sets are generally preferable for my group (and my game mastering), but certainly everybody has different preferences (as this thread shows!) :smallbiggrin:



I'd have to look back at the discussion as well, but I suppose I was wondering why you two wished to start such a discussion in a thread that started out as a complaint about 3.5.

Well, people were saying Mike you are playing the wrong game, and the discussion at the time was turning towards alternatives (specifically we had exchanged two or three posts about C&C, which Mark had mentioned earlier).



Finally, yes, you can.:smallsmile: That's one of the reasons that I don't feel a good DM needs to be good at homebrew, so long as the players can figure out appropriate mechanical fixes on their own using the resources that he's okay with. At least, for 3.5.

Oh definitely, D20/3e is designed largely to reduce the need for game master intervention in the rules.

Teron
2010-06-18, 10:10 AM
You seem to be ignoring the fact that I'm taking for granted that classes are more than bundles of abilities, and do in fact have specific fluff implications. Even so, how is a fighter/rogue (or thief, in 2e parlance) not an appropriate representation of a character trained, able and willing to do fighter-y and rogue-y things? He is, from concept to character sheet to role-playing, a blending of two archetypes. As best as I can tell, your problem is that you'd require such a character to introduce himself as "Bob, fighter and thief"... and I actually don't see the problem, beyond the inherent absurdity of that expectation. For someone who prefers an ostensibly less restrictive ruleset, you do seem determined to impose restrictions on character concepts.

I'm trying very hard not to say something like "he's a fighter and a thief, so he's a fighter and a thief." But it seems simple and self-evidently logical to me.

Matthew
2010-06-18, 10:17 AM
You seem to be ignoring the fact that I'm taking for granted that classes are more than bundles of abilities, and do in fact have specific fluff implications. Even so, how is a fighter/rogue (or thief, in 2e parlance) not an appropriate representation of a character trained, able and willing to do fighter-y and rogue-y things? He is, from concept to character sheet to role-playing, a blending of two archetypes. As best as I can tell, your problem is that you'd require such a character to introduce himself as "Bob, fighter and thief"... and I actually don't see the problem, beyond the inherent absurdity of that expectation.

I'm trying very hard not to say something like "he's a fighter and a thief, so he's a fighter and a thief." But it seems simple and self-evidently logical to me.

Actually, what I am saying is that in AD&D a class (or sometimes a combination of classes) is a broad archetype, and you play the archetype. Messing on trying to fit bits of classes together over the course of X levels to achieve a certain result is a waste of time within that system.

If you want to play a fighter who is also a thief, then by all means play a fighter/thief. If you want to play Conan don't bother messing on with taking three levels in fighter, then two levels in rogue, or whatever if it can be done in a less intrusive way. On the other hand, if doing so does fit your perception of Conan, great! It does not fit my perception of that character.

jseah
2010-06-18, 10:37 AM
^Matthew:
What happens if one single archetype doesn't fit? Characters can change goals mid-career.

For example, a wizard gaining mastery over magic the classical way stumbles upon a way to "take away the human element" and automate much of the spellcasting processes. He changes his focus and begins to build magical machines, applying what he learnt as a wizard to make them harness more powerful energies than other golem makers.

It's not like my example wizard has thrown away his former journey as a mage. It's just that he now wants to level as artificer or something like that and still apply his magical knowledge. He doesn't study magic anymore and thus isn't getting better at it, but he is learning to make magic machines.