Brainstorming Thread for a Basic FAQ

[Kalaska'Agathas]

So, as discussed here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11127623#post11127623) this is the brainstorming thread for a basic FAQ, a place to have answers for some of the more common questions.

If possible, for ease of use, we might use a common formatting, something like this perhaps:

Question
Brief discussion of question and the issues it presents, links to threads discussing the issue, and general consensus answer

Now, one potential problem I see is coming up with a general consensus answer. Perhaps we'd like to put forth nominations for a group of posters to be the arbiters of such things?

Anyhow, here are some potential questions to get started:

Monks - why does everyone seem to think they're underpowered?

Wizards - why does everyone seem to think they're the ultimate answer to the ultimate question?

Wizards/Sorcerers - why is the Wizard considered more powerful than the Sorcerer?

Fighters - why aren't Bonus Feats valid class features?

What are these tiers people keep talking about?

Why do people seem to think the tiers are so important?

The Stormwind Fallacy - what is it and what does it mean?

"Oh no, there goes Tokyo..." - what is CoDzilla?

Why is Tome of Battle so broken/anime/bad/good/whatever?

What is wrong with the Truenamer?

Why are Psionics so broken/how are Psionics not broken/why are Psionics frequently banned?

How do I Incarnum?

Linear Fighter/Quadratic Caster

What?! Bards suck, what are you talking about?!?!

What should I gestalt my X with?

What is the Dweomercheater/Swift Hunter/Twice betrayer - a discussion of famous builds

How do I get help with my character build?
For best results on build help the following information is generally useful to those that would help you
0) what particular game are you playing (3.0, 3.5, pathfinder, sword and sorcery), this is 0 because it goes in the subject line in brackets like so [3.5]. If you are not playing in a d20 based fantasy system you want to post it in the appropriate forum.
1) describe your character concept, and percieved party role.
2) list materials allowed (core only, srd only, srd + completes, no dragon magazine content, ect.). If not listed any source is generally considered fair game.
3) applicable house rules.
4) if known the make up of the rest of the party.
5) any specific mechanical goals.
6) any specific mechanics to be avoided.
7) campaign type (combat focused, intrigue focuses, ect.)
8) lvl of optimization with which you are comfortable, and your group is okay with.
9) if the character is already established and you are looking only to build upon what is already there, please note that in your post.
10) level of the character you are building (you will likely get a lot of full 20lvl builds anyway)
11) any other restrictions, goals, or thoughts you may have about this character (especially alignment since many classes, feats, and other abilities depend on it, and you don't want to get a bunch of evil specific abilities on what is supposed to be a good character.

Additional notes:
Many users of this forum consider classes to be purely mechanical constructs. If you say you want to be an assassin, it is generally assumed you want to be a sneaky murderer, not neccessarily having any levels in the assassin prestige class. If you are looking to play a specific class, and are not willing to play a stonger class that fits the same fluff, please make note of that. Ditto that for feats, skills, spells, ect.

My game has a problem - how do I talk to my DM?

Can I use X with my Eldritch Glaive?

What is RAW/RAI/RAMS?

What do you mean, Core isn't balanced?

What are these Handbooks to which everyone is referring?

What do you mean, mêlée can't have nice things?

And with that, I bid you have at it.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Perhaps you, me, Swiftmongoose and the others from the previous thread should be the arbiters. It was our idea after all.

On the topic of something useful to say, let's start with monks:

The main problem with the basic, 3.5 monk, as I see it, and as seems to be the consensus is a lack of synergy. It has all this stuff... but that's all it is... stuff. It doesn't work together to make the whole more than the sum of its parts. The other problem is it looks bloody fantastic on paper to the untrained eye. "Three good saves!? Look at those extra attacks! I can RP as Bruce Lee!? Sign me up, I'll take 50!" It's an Admiral Ackbar moment if ever there was one. Then you start to play, Flurry of Misses kicks in, and you kill yourself and roll a rogue.

I'm sure someone else will have something to add, but I think that's a good start.

[Geigan]

Other questions:

What are these tiers people keep talking about?

Why do people seem to think the tiers are so important?

I see the tier system cause a lot of argument, and think it would probably be a good idea to cover the basics of it.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Perhaps you, me, Swiftmongoose and the others from the previous thread should be the arbiters. It was our idea after all.

I'm afraid I must abstain, too many things going on in real life, at the moment.

Edit:

Other questions:

What are these tiers people keep talking about?

Why do people seem to think the tiers are so important?

I see the tier system cause a lot of argument, and think it would probably be a good idea to cover the basics of it.

Added to the OP.

[Mr. Zolrane]

I'm afraid I must abstain, too many things going on in real life, at the moment.

I gotcha. I got nothin' but time these days. Thanks all the same for staring the thread.

A discussion of the Stormwind Fallacy is in order as well, I believe.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Why wizards are amazing.

1. A first level wizard can take out a first level fighter. At this level, improved initiative is almost vital for the wizard to survive, so he likely took that. How can a first level wizard take out a first level fighter? Sleep. A fighter has a bad will save, so he'll probably succumb to the spell. Granted, he could beat the wizard, but when it comes down to comparing how likely each is to win, the wizard has a higher chance of winning.

2. When they hit third level, they get access to invisibility, so they can use sleep without the fighter even knowing they're there. Scorching ray and the ability increasing spells also outclass the fighter, and then there's the summon spells, which can keep the fighter distracted while you pile on the spells.

3. Once they get to fifth level, they get access to fireball, which can wipe out a group of mooks in a single turn. It affects a bigger area, is more likely to hit, and is gotten sooner than a fighter's whirlwind attack.

4. The previous examples are all at the low levels. Now imagine when the wizard gets fly, now the fighter can't even reach him. At mid-levels, the wizard also gets dominate person, which can not only make the enemy lose an ally, but you gain some extra firepower on your side. Dominate person and charm person also have good out of combat uses.

5. At high levels, the wizard breaks the game. Powerful summon spells to get yourself a small army for a few rounds, mind blank, true seeing, greater invisibility, dominate monster, gate, etc. All of these are more powerful than the fighter.

[NineThePuma]

The stormwinder fallacy would be good to cover.

[Jjeinn-tae]

Perhaps you, me, Swiftmongoose and the others from the previous thread should be the arbiters. It was our idea after all.

On the topic of something useful to say, let's start with monks:

The main problem with the basic, 3.5 monk, as I see it, and as seems to be the consensus is a lack of synergy. It has all this stuff... but that's all it is... stuff. It doesn't work together to make the whole more than the sum of its parts. The other problem is it looks bloody fantastic on paper to the untrained eye. "Three good saves!? Look at those extra attacks! I can RP as Bruce Lee!? Sign me up, I'll take 50!" It's an Admiral Ackbar moment if ever there was one. Then you start to play, Flurry of Misses kicks in, and you kill yourself and roll a rogue.

I'm sure someone else will have something to add, but I think that's a good start.

Adding here would mainly be just going further in depth, but lets look at the first couple abilities they get specifically, and how they line up.

Improved Unarmed strike: essentially ported directly from the fighter, a bonus feat chosen for you.

Bonus Feat: hey, twice what the fighter gets, still, you have a small list, you can grapple people, or stun people.

Grappling has the trouble of: you can't wear armor, so you need dexterity, you need wisdom since other class abilities require it, con is needed, because apparently you are melee, but you don't have the health (nor again, do you have armor) a lot that you need to put into that isn't strength, what you need to grapple... and if its bigger than an ogre, you can't grapple assuming you're medium.

Stunning has the problems of: well the DC is keyed of wisdom, but that doesn't mean you can ignore strength, you kind of need that for damage... but at least it gives you less of a reason to boost strength... Then there's the problem of a low DC, because you're boosting other stats... And wasting a use if you miss with your attack due to your lower BAB...

Wis to Armor: This is legitimately nice, but as previously stated, you need dexterity, which gives you armor as well, you need strength and constitution... But hey, if you're a druid, you're not going to be wearing armor anyways, why not pick up some martial arts to get armor from your astronomic wisdom.

Slow Fall: Next to a wall, you may fall an extra ten feet... Y'know, tumble can do that too, when you're not against a wall. Sure, it can stack... but then two levels from now, your wizard can fall as far as he wants with his slow fall... and that doesn't need to be by a wall...

Flurry of Blows: Ok, with my reduced strength for needing to raise my dexterity and wisdom, I have about a +2 bonus to attack... with this I can attack twice at 0... About what the wizard can manage I guess in melee, except twice the attacks... Then there's the fighter with 16 strength hitting every time, not needing the second chance...

Run Speed: Hey, you can run fast... What for? What do you plan on doing with that speed? I guess you could move around, but you kind of can't do your main combat tactic of flurry while moving around.... At least when you hit higher levels, you'd be the best humanoid messenger on the planet if magic spontaneously disappeared... If only you could pounce and flurry with this, you might make decent use of this...




Going to cut short there.... I have to go curl up in a corner after brutalizing one of my favorite classes... :smalltongue: Even if it is going easy.

[Seerow]

Does anyone have the copypaste of the original CoDzilla post (I believe it was either by Tempest Stormwind or Radical Taoist, but I could be wrong on that). It was hilarious and deserves a place in a guide for instructing people about the basics of 3.5 (rule #1 don't piss off CoDzilla, or it will destroy japan)

[Greenish]

Why bonus feats don't hold up to class features:

Everyone gets feats. Fighters just get them faster, but the difference is quantitative, instead of qualitative as with many actual class features.

Feats have diminishing returns. You start by picking the great feats, then take the good feats, and as you level, you find yourself picking "okay" to "meh" feats, since there's nothing else.

Feat chains. Once you finish one, you have to start the other from the beginning, so you're getting something that was appropriate in lower levels (since they were designed to be balanced when you first could have picked them), while class features can become stronger and stronger since they don't have to be appropriate for lower levels.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I can throw my voice to some of this. I'll try to find relevant links later, though.

1. In general, 3.5 is about options: there are a lot of them out there, even in core. This will come up in a lot of these questions.

On Monks
As has already been mentioned, monks are something of a trap, even with patches out there in the way of feats. By default, they need strength to hit and deal damage, dexterity to avoid being smacked around while unarmored, constitution for more HP due to their d8 base HD, intelligence of at least 10 for skill points without penalty, a ton of wisdom for more AC, and maybe charisma if you dare go the route of UMD.

As for class features, the saves are certainly nice, but with stats spread thin, they are mostly there to cover a weakness. Flurry of Blows often misses at lower levels due to the penalties and the lower BAB and strength score. At later levels, enchanting fists is a pain in the arse to do.

Poison and disease immunity are nice, but ultimately less useful, as it means your good fort save does less for you. It certainly is nice to have, but it's not as big as a deal as one would imagine. Just check the percentages of monsters with those sort of things, after all. SR is much the same way, and people often forget it works against buffs, too, meaning it becomes increasingly hard to save the monk or buff him before the big fight, too.

The rest of the class feature are either minor, easily imitated with low level spells (feather fall, comprehend languages, et al.), or actively work against each other as written (Flurry of Blows, fast movement).


On Wizards and other fullcasters
Even for casters with limited spells known or lack of scrolls available to increase the spellbook's weight, they have options to spare. All characters have at least 7-8 feats to gain from 1 to 20 just by being alive. Those are some options, others include certain class features, weapon choices, prestige classes, and so on. Spellcasters gain spells. There are easily more spells than feats and a given spellcaster will very easily have more spells known than feats, meaning he'll have any number of options available.

This leads to a wizard having any given answer at any given time. iven specialization, even at first level, a human wizard will have 2 first level spells. If he knows one reflex save spell, one fort save spell, and one will save spell, he can easily take on a wide array of opponents. Enemy casters eat either the reflex save one or the fort save one, depending. Enemy rogues probably a fort or will, fighters a will or reflex save. As spellcasters level up, they gain more usages per day and more options. Suddenly, no save spell come online, as do multiple threat ones like the orb of X spells with their damage plus save vs debuff.

People often counter with either high save characters (which can still be hurt via no save stuff like solid fog or things with partial effects, so even a made save means taking penalties or con damage or something else) or with golems and their magic "immunity," which means the wizard simply eiher uses SR: No spells or instead changes the game plan to summon monsters or buff allies instead. With high ability scores and specialization, any given wizard can still contribute, even if it means he's stuck using lower level spells in one particular fight.

As for wizards versus sorcerers, it's largely an issues of expanded options. While both have roughly the same choice in the way of spells in a given day, over the span of a week, a wizard can easily change his routine around. One day he goes from using blasts like orb of fire to only reflex save debuffs to only will save debuffs to party buffs to battlefield control to... the list goes on. Meanwhile, a sorcerer can still fight plenty well, but his spells known are his spells known with little additions or other options aside from those.

On Fighters and feats
As was mentioned earlier, everyone gets feats. Sure, any one character may not be able to get every feat in existence, but most feats operate along the lines of Requires: BAB alpha, class feature X, [ability score] Y, [skill ranks] Z, and maybe other feats. While a fighter can stack on more and more feats his options become increasingly more limited as he grows in level. After all, he is gaining the same "class feature" each time he dings on an even level, but he has fewer "good" options or rather, options relevant to him being useful in his shtick as he progresses. If he instead tries to branch out into multiple combat styles, he'll either need more than one type of weapon or suffer in all of his styles as his feats become spread too thin. Meanwhile, other classes are either getting improvements to things like rage, which itself at level one acts like both weapon focus (all) and weapon specialization (all) twice over due to the strength bonus, as well as free improved toughness and great fortitude).

While most melee characters can benefit from 2-6 fighter levels to help them get their style of fighting online sooner, more than that leads to a lose of other, interesting class features that can be found elsewhere. In the case of a 6th level fighter, that's there for an actual class feature: dungeoncrashing fighter, but even then that still eats up two dead levels at 3 and 5.

General Tiers Information
Tiers are not directly of strength of power. Not all tier ones will beat all tier twos will beat all tier 3s. What they do, however, is show the general array of options out there. The lower the tier, generally means the more options a given class has. Having more options means being at least somewhat useful in any given situation, while shining or dominating in areas where resources like feats are dedicated to improving.

For example, a tier 1 wizard focusing all of his feats on improving his summons will, at 6th level, probably still have a few feats that he could use on non-summoning spells - say, extend spell and metamagic school focus (conjuration). His spells for a given day will probably be 2-3 summoning spels per spell level, plus a couple of general buff spells like haste or debuff spells like web or grease to help his summons better fight in the battle. Even on an off day where he can't summon for whatever reason, grease can still trip up foes for the rogue, and web can still split a large encounter into smaller bites for the frontline guys. If summoning is offline for several days, this particular wizard may grab a few new spells and instead work with some teleporation magic and help move around his allies and use more buff spells than usual. Sure, his summoning-only feats become less useful on these off days or weeks, but his broader feats like extend spell and improve initiative will still help him, and he still has all (or most of all) of his spells to use.


Sorcerers and most other tier 2s work similarly, except that if they don't know too many other types of spells, they may start losing entire levels of spells. In the same scenario, a summoning based 8th level sorcerer who only knows summon monster 4 will have a rough time using 4th level spell slots if he can't summon for some reason. If he has metamagic feats, then he can still use them at "full power," but it's still rough not actually having that 4t level spell online.

Most tier 3s function well in one or two areas and are at least adequate elsewhere. A factotum can do just about everything in a given day, but he'll suffer to try to do all of it all the time instead of focusing on one or two things and using the rest of his stuff as back-up for when the primary spellcaster or thief or what have you is out of commission for a bit. Bards and most other "fifth wheels" that fill this spot work similarly, in that they can focus on what have you that they do have, but can at least supply back up when something goes wrong for the primary guy.

Martial adepts are different in that they function largely in the combat role, but have enough skills to at least do something outside of it. They also have comparably damage to lower tiered barbarians and fighters, but benefit in the fact that if something grows wrong or things are non-ideal, they can at least try another way of saying "no" via the concentration in place of saves maneuvers, Iron Heart Surge (maybe :smalltongue:), or instead changing tactics and going back to standard action maneuvers.

Tier 4s like barbarians are generally solid in their "comfort zone," but suffer outside of it. Barbarians dealing with nobility instead of the wilderness likely won't have many skills of use outside of intimidate and their massive damage won't necessarily help against entire armies, but they will at least be able to take out many soldiers if it comes to that sort of thing. As such, these guys can work well in their prime, but may lag behind elsewhere. Certain feat choices can help with those, but that's an opportunity cost.

The lower you go from there, the rougher it gets to even shine in the best of situations.

Other options include: Why is Tome of Battle so broken/anime/bad/good/whatever?

What is wrong with the Truenamer?

Why are psionics so broken?

and the ever popular How do I Incarnum?

[Stompy]

Wizards/Sorcerers - why is the Wizard considered more powerful than the Sorcerer?
1. As Thrice has already mentioned, wizards win in the versatility department. Any attempts made by a sorcerer in the same regards limit his options (i.e. he picks teleport as 1 of 2 5th level spells). Whenever this topic is mentioned, people like to mention that the sorcerer shines when the wizard mis-prepares, or gets caught off-guard spellwise. My counter-argument to this is, in many cases, the wizard knows what he could deal with (in character with a good knowledge-base, mind you) ahead of time and prepares spells that deal with the situation, and targets weak saves (Rogue's den? Better not prepare many reflex spells today) Of course, he will also pack some emergency spells (dim. door, teleport) just in case.

There are other "subtle" (really they are ground-shattering) things that wizards get or can get that make them a league over sorcerers. These are the advantages I have seen:

Skill (stat) advantage:They use INT to cast spells, over CHA. Let me be perfectly honest, CHA is a horrible stat in 3.5, and from a crunch perspective, only goes to base skill values. However, wizards use INT instead, giving them a decent number of skills, over a broader range of skills. Also, most of the wizard's skills are INT-based, meaning that wizard could really excel in a couple or be decent at many.

They get higher level spells earlier:They get their next level of spells earlier then sorcerers do, which is extremely good. This is more true early, when sorcerer has to suffer through levels 2 and 3 without any big boost in spell power. Getting a new set of spells at a level means that you can throw your crowd control effects (glitterdust, web, stinking cloud), your divide and conquer spells (web, wall of force, solid fog), and your general utility spells (teleport) sooner.

Bonus Feats: This is good for grabbing those awesome metamagics (extend spell), or crafting feats. Also, in everything goes land, most twinked wizards will switch scribe scroll for a bonus fighter feat which is always Improved Initiative.

Better at crafting: Wizard gets bonus feats, and has a wide array of spells and knowledges and maybe even *gasp* the INT-based craft skill for this purpose. Hell, you could only take Craft Wonderous Item and still be an awesome crafter.

Long-time Buff Support: Ever want to use those 10 min/level or hour/level buffs (mage armor), but not spend an entire spell slot on it? Presto, you're a wizard, and you only prepare one. This leads to, in everything goes land, some wizards running around with a cocktail (the 4 heart of X series plus others) of buffs.

Splatbook Lovin':There are are lot of things in the splatbooks that further the rift between the power levels of wizard and sorcerer. While I am not familiar with all of the splatbook lovin' a wizard gets, I know of many powerful examples.

Greater School Specialization: You dump three schools you rarely would have used anyway (enchantment, necromancy, evocation) to be able to prepare a buttload of spells from one school. This school is usually conjuration or transmutation. By doing this, you have around the same number of spells per day as a sorcerer.

Faerie Mysteries Initiate: This feat, with a partner with the same feat, allows you both to perform a "sensual act" with each other, with the benefit being you can now use your INT in place of your CON for hit points (so long as you don't switch the bonus on this feat). Yikes.

Abrupt Jaunt: In exchange for a familiar (which you can get back with a feat), you can teleport 10' feet INT times per day as an immediate action. This means that INT times a day, you can get out of most perilous situations, either due to a spell (web, wall of fire, black tentacles) or a grappler. Hell, you can even use this to find cover before that enemy archer tries to kill you.

PrC versatility: Wizards have a great many PrCs available to them, which either heavily depend on them being a wizard, require skill points that would hurt a character, or would delay the entrance by one level. Most notable examples of powerful wizard PrCs are:

-Abjurant Champion (gish-type champ with full casting + other benefits)
-Unseen Seer (rogue-wizard hybrid with a great casting progression, sneak attack, good skills, and the downside to the class can be covered by Practiced Spellcaster)
-Loremaster (a core PrC that has full casting progression, better skills, and small benefits along the way)
-Focused Specialist (early full casting progression PrC with benefits towards the school you focused into)
-War Weaver (Prc that shares the "buff cocktail" with friends. Usually combines with Spellguard of Silverymoon so that personal range spells can be thrown into this cocktail.)

and honestly, the only powerful sorcerer-only benefit I know of is the 2nd level spell, wings of cover. It is very nice, but arguably has the same butt-saving power as Abrupt Jaunt.


I know this has been semi-covered by Thrice but I'd figured I'd expand it. Feel free to use this and edit it. I've probably made at least 5 mistakes in there :smalltongue:. Also, I do not possess link-fu for this.

Also, the whole Linear Fighter Quadratic Caster (or why most fighting classes fall off after around 6th level) is a good topic, as well as

[Bovine Colonel]

Here's a potential question:

What? Bards suck! What are you talking about?

[Psyren]

You guys realize that the people who habitually ask these questions don't read threads in this forum to begin with, right?

[Greenish]

You guys realize that the people who habitually ask these questions don't read threads in this forum to begin with, right?At least we can just drop the link if we're feeling lazy.

[Psyren]

At least we can just drop the link if we're feeling lazy.

And miss the chance for a rousing internet debate? I have a an awesome price on a nearby bridge, you should check this deal out :smalltongue:

[Kalaska'Agathas]

A discussion of the Stormwind Fallacy is in order as well, I believe.

Added to the OP.


Does anyone have the copypaste of the original CoDzilla post (I believe it was either by Tempest Stormwind or Radical Taoist, but I could be wrong on that). It was hilarious and deserves a place in a guide for instructing people about the basics of 3.5 (rule #1 don't piss off CoDzilla, or it will destroy japan)

Added to the OP.


Other options include: Why is Tome of Battle so broken/anime/bad/good/whatever?

What is wrong with the Truenamer?

Why are psionics so broken?

and the ever popular How do I Incarnum?

Similarly added.


Also, the whole Linear Fighter Quadratic Caster (or why most fighting classes fall off after around 6th level) is a good topic, as well as

Again, added.


Here's a potential question:

What? Bards suck! What are you talking about?

Added to the OP.




You guys realize that the people who habitually ask these questions don't read threads in this forum to begin with, right?

At least we can just drop the link if we're feeling lazy.

Basically this. I do hope it could answer some questions, and maybe prevent some of those rousing internet debates.

Edit: Oh, and when I'm not busy frantically translating a dead language, I'll make sure to start adding preliminary answers.

[dspeyer]

Q What should I gestalt my <x> with?
A Factotum

Mostly kidding. Actually, the general advice (something that doesn't require actions, something very different, something with ability synergy...) would be worth including.

Also, links to the famous builds.

[Greenish]

Also, links to the famous builds.On that vein:

What are all these weird names?

Swift Hunter: Complete Scoundrel feat combines Scout and Ranger, progresses Skirmish and Favoured Enemies, allows Skirmish on enemies normally immune if favoured. Basic build Scout3-4/Ranger17-16.

Daring Outlaw: Complete Scoundrel feat combines Rogue and Swashbuckler, progresses Grace and Sneak Attack. Basic build Rogue3/Swashbuckler17.

Tashatalora: Secrets of Sarlona feat allows chosen psionic class to progress many monk abilities. Basic build monk1-2/psychic warrior or ardent19-18.

[Glimbur]

The Stormwind FallacyIn brief, the Stormwind Fallacy states that one can have a powerful character or a character with an interesting personality but not both in one character. It often surfaces in threads asking for help making a character or help improving a character. It is a fallacy because it starts from the false assumption that mechanics mean exactly what they say for characters: if someone wants to play a savage outsider who is unaccustomed to civilization they must be a barbarian, and conversely a barbarian must be a savage outsider, for example. This is false, a barbarian could also be a noble who rages at injustices done to his people, a holy warrior imbued with extra strength by their god, or an angry fighter.

That definition might stir up some controversy... sorry.

How do I Incarnum?This question comes about in two basic ways. Sometimes someone has acquired a new book (Magic of Incarnum) and falls victim to its infamous organization. More often someone on the internet suggests using Incarnum for a character and problems ensue. Incarnum is made of three basic parts.

1) Essentia. This is essentially (hah) power for class features and feats. It's like a star ship with only so much power for lasers, mass drivers, shields, life support, scanners, etc. It can be moved around very quickly with the exception of essentia in feats, which is typically stuck for 24 hours.

2) Soulmelds. These are choose-your-own class features. One level in Incarnate or Totemist or a few levels in Soulborn (shudder) get you access to the entire class's soulmeld list. You know all of them on your class list. Each morning you can choose different ones to shape, and they give you different effects. I suggest finding or making a chart which shows the base, essentia, and bind effects of soulmelds as the table in MoI is insufficient. Soulmelds do not interfere with magic items in the same slot (but see binds). They do normally interfere with each other; you can't shape two soulmelds to your hand chakra (unless you have Double Chakra, a feat).
2a) One can also shape a soulmeld via the Shape Soulmeld feat. This requires you to pick exactly one soulmeld but allows you to shape it regardless of if you have an Incarnum class or not. It is a bonus soulmeld that doesn't count against your maximum from class features. However, the meldshaper level for it is half your character level. That's not a big deal unless you are getting dispelled or facing SR.

3) Chakra Binds. Given that soulmelds are all accessible from low levels, there needs to be some sort of level dependent effect to keep Incarnum relevant in mid to high levels. This is where chakra binds come in. Soulmelds can be bound to the chakras they are shaped to, gives thematic and stronger effects. Classes open different chakras at different rates, and give a different number of binds allowed. That's fine.
3a)There are also feats which open chakras. There is some disagreement on whether this also provides a chakra bind, or if the feats are only useful for multiclass Incarnum characters and Soulborns. My personal view on how it should work is that the feat is pretty terrible unless it provides another chakra bind which can only be used on the chakra you opened with this feat. This makes it useful for characters dabbling via feats and worth considering for Incarnum characters. Check with your DM.

4) Class features. Some PrC's in MoI have class features which can have essentia invested in them. They work like they say they do.

Is that good?

[Telonius]

I'd suggest an alignment question. Would a Paladin fall if...?

Or possibly: What are some of the gray areas of the alignment divide?
Labeling this action as Evil seems stupid, why is it Evil?

I will say that some of those questions are actually pretty debatable, though, so I'm not sure if there would actually be a consensus.

[Darth Stabber]

I think we might want to try to rope JaronK into providing a n00b friendly explaination of the tier system (it's effectively his baby, and he always seems to have an answer)

Other Questions
How do I Truenamer?
You don't
Why?
Because the class is not functional, WotC dropped the ball so hard on these guys it makes inanimate objects cry. It's broken in the literal sense, not the colloquial overpowered sense

[Mr. Zolrane]

The Stormwind FallacyIn brief, the Stormwind Fallacy states that one can have a powerful character or a character with an interesting personality but not both in one character. It often surfaces in threads asking for help making a character or help improving a character. It is a fallacy because it starts from the false assumption that mechanics mean exactly what they say for characters: if someone wants to play a savage outsider who is unaccustomed to civilization they must be a barbarian, and conversely a barbarian must be a savage outsider, for example. This is false, a barbarian could also be a noble who rages at injustices done to his people, a holy warrior imbued with extra strength by their god, or an angry fighter.

That definition might stir up some controversy... sorry.


Personally I think that's a lovely explanation, though adding something about optimizers always being poor roleplayers, and great roleplayers always played gimped, incompetent characters as a fundamental tenet of the fallacy. That said, your post may in fact be controversial, as I once started a thread about whether or not class has to be a lifestyle or just a fighting style and it was pretty hotly debated. Still, I'd recommend adding this.


I'd suggest an alignment question. Would a Paladin fall if...?

Or possibly: What are some of the gray areas of the alignment divide?
Labeling this action as Evil seems stupid, why is it Evil?

I will say that some of those questions are actually pretty debatable, though, so I'm not sure if there would actually be a consensus.

That... is a little too iffy for this thread I think. What we're striving for here are things that experienced players have near-universal consensus on, and I highly doubt that qualifies.

[Darth Stabber]

That said, your post may in fact be controversial, as I once started a thread about whether or not class has to be a lifestyle or just a fighting style and it was pretty hotly debated.

That is an area that is very open to interpretation, basically it comes down to whether or not a GM will let you refluff, so long as you maintain the same mechanics. Barbarian is the big culprit in these debates. If a Barbarian takes a level in fighter it is perfectly reasonable since he is focusing on the more "civilized" aspects of fighting. Where as some GMs will cry foul if a Fighter takes a level in barbarian since he didn't go out and live with a tribe of primitives to learn these techniques (though anyone with even a passing understanding of optimization will tend to take at least the first level in barbarian if fighter and barbarian are the only two classes they are using). With the exception of wizards, archivists, and wu jen, I tend to let players do what ever refluff they want. Is your Ranger2/Scout3 a "Barbarian", I'll even give you illiteracy if you want it. But to some GMs tend to have a tight fluff/crunch marriage. It is a valid style, just one I don't like.

[Hecuba]

Personally I think that's a lovely explanation, though adding something about optimizers always being poor roleplayers, and great roleplayers always played gimped, incompetent characters as a fundamental tenet of the fallacy. That said, your post may in fact be controversial, as I once started a thread about whether or not class has to be a lifestyle or just a fighting style and it was pretty hotly debated. Still, I'd recommend adding this.

It goes a little beyond what TS actually said (and demonstrated quite well). At it's simplest level, the Stormwind Fallacy is asserting that there is a negative coorelation between roleplaying and optimizing. TS made an informal, but very good, disproof of that idea.

There are some people that will take it to mean that there is no coorelation between the two (TS actually suggested that that was his personal opinion on the matter), but that's both more controversial and broad enough that you couldn't make a sound logical proof like TS choose to do for the specific fallacy in question.

[Hecuba]

Other Questions
How do I Truenamer?
You don't
Why?
Because the class is not functional, WotC dropped the ball so hard on these guys it makes inanimate objects cry. It's broken in the literal sense, not the colloquial overpowered sense

Certain mechanical features of the Truenaming system are unique and interesting, but also introduce mechanical disadvantage for which they are not otherwise compensated. The most central example is the failure rate of utterances.

It is possible to limit these disadvantages with (very) heavy optimization. But even when those elements are minimized, the rate at which the Truenamer's power advances over the life of a character runs significantly below every other class in 3.5. Moreover, it does so at an increasing rate relative to level.

[Geigan]

Here's one inspired by the recent "Why?" thread.

How do I get help on my character build?

Would be good to point out some common pitfalls in asking for build help that typically result in unwanted advice.

[Darth Stabber]

Here's one inspired by the recent "Why?" thread.

How do I get help on my character build?

Would be good to point out some common pitfalls in asking for build help that typically result in unwanted advice.

How do I get help on my character build?

For best results on build help the following information is generally useful to those that would help you
0) what particular game are you playing (3.0, 3.5, pathfinder, sword and sorcery), this is 0 because it goes in the subject line in brackets like so [3.5]. If you are not playing in a d20 based fantasy system you want to post it in the appropriate forum.
1) describe your character concept, and percieved party role.
2) list materials allowed (core only, srd only, srd + completes, no dragon magazine content, ect.). If not listed any source is generally considered fair game.
3) applicable house rules.
4) if known the make up of the rest of the party.
5) any specific mechanical goals.
6) any specific mechanics to be avoided.
7) campaign type (combat focused, intrigue focuses, ect.)
8) lvl of optimization with which you are comfortable, and your group is okay with.
9) if the character is already established and you are looking only to build upon what is already there, please note that in your post.
10) level of the character you are building (you will likely get a lot of full 20lvl builds anyway)
11) any other restrictions, goals, or thoughts you may have about this character (especially alignment since many classes, feats, and other abilities depend on it, and you don't want to get a bunch of evil specific abilities on what is supposed to be a good character.

Additional notes:
Many users of this forum consider classes to be purely mechanical constructs. If you say you want to be an assassin, it is generally assumed you want to be a sneaky murderer, not neccessarily having any levels in the assassin prestige class. If you are looking to play a specific class, and are not willing to play a stonger class that fits the same fluff, please make note of that. Ditto that for feats, skills, spells, ect.

[Geigan]

How do I get help on my character build?

For best results on build help the following information is generally useful to those that would help you

1) describe your character concept, and percieved party role.
2) list materials allowed (core only, srd only, srd + completes, no dragon magazine content, ect.). If not listed any source is generally considered fair game.
3) applicable house rules.
4) if known the make up of the rest of the party.
5) any specific mechanical goals.
6) any specific mechanics to be avoided.
7) campaign type (combat focused, intrigue focuses, ect.)
8) lvl of optimization with which you are comfortable, and your group is okay with.
9) if the character is already established and you are looking only to build upon what is already there, please note that in your post.
10) any other restrictions, goals, or thoughts you may have about this character (especially alignment since many classes, feats, and other abilities depend on it, and you don't want to get a bunch of evil specific abilities on what is supposed to be a good character.

Additional notes:
Many users of this forum consider classes to be purely mechanical constructs. If you say you want to be an assassin, it is generally assumed you want to be a sneaky murderer, not neccessarily having any levels in the assassin prestige class. If you are looking to play a specific class, and are not willing to play a stonger class that fits the same fluff, please make note of that. Ditto that for feats, skills, spells, ect.


Heh, it was actually your last post in that thread that made me bring the question up here. Good explanation.

[dspeyer]

How do I get help on my character build?
For best results on build help the following information is generally useful to those that would help you

0) System the game uses, including any variants. Put this at the top, maybe even the subject line
0.5) What level character

It's amazing how often people miss the basics.

[Techsmart]

On linear fighter/quadratic wizard... (hopefully this is kinda close)
The linear fighter is based on the premise that at level 1, the fighter gets the same thing he does at level 2 and every even level afterwards. Sure, the fighter may get access to better feats at higher levels, due to prerequisites, but they are only marginally better. In the end, you are about as much stronger at level 6 vs. level 4 as you were from level 4 vs. level 2. Another way to see it is that feats are static, they don't increase as you increase
The wizard, however, constantly gains access to more and more powerful spells. His 9th level spells are stronger than his 8th, and so on. The wizard gains each spell level as fast as a fighter does feats, but spells, especially at higher levels, are stronger than a single feat. Wizards also have the benefit of scaling with earlier level spells. Where the fighter's weapon focus gives a constant +1 reguardless of you being level 1 or level 20, many of the wizard's spells increase with you as you level, either increasing dice pool (see spells like burning hands), or increasing duration (such as some walls, hold person, etc).

as for another question: My DM is doing X, and I don't enjoy it, what should I do? (Might need to be rephrased)
My recommendation would be to talk with him or her first. If your DM understands that players aren't enjoying X, they are more likely to stop. Also, it might give you some insight as to why they are doing it. If this doesn't work, quit. Run your own session or find some other DM. DND is still just a game, and there's no sense in getting upset about something you had to write on a piece of paper that will probably see the trash as soon as the campaign is over.

[Darth Stabber]

0) System the game uses, including any variants. Put this at the top, maybe even the subject line
0.5) What level character

It's amazing how often people miss the basics.

Yeah, that is rather odd that I forgot that. I normally plan out to lvl20, so I guess that is why I forgot.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

On linear fighter/quadratic wizard... (hopefully this is kinda close)
The linear fighter is based on the premise that at level 1, the fighter gets the same thing he does at level 2 and every even level afterwards. Sure, the fighter may get access to better feats at higher levels, due to prerequisites, but they are only marginally better. In the end, you are about as much stronger at level 6 vs. level 4 as you were from level 4 vs. level 2. Another way to see it is that feats are static, they don't increase as you increase
The wizard, however, constantly gains access to more and more powerful spells. His 9th level spells are stronger than his 8th, and so on. The wizard gains each spell level as fast as a fighter does feats, but spells, especially at higher levels, are stronger than a single feat. Wizards also have the benefit of scaling with earlier level spells. Where the fighter's weapon focus gives a constant +1 reguardless of you being level 1 or level 20, many of the wizard's spells increase with you as you level, either increasing dice pool (see spells like burning hands), or increasing duration (such as some walls, hold person, etc).

Close, but not quite. My take follows:

Linear Fighter/Quadratic Caster

The gist of this is, fighter types (essentially any class with good BAB and a high base HD) are better at lower levels but scale linearly. Outside of wealth, they get as much from going 6 to 8 as they did going 4 to 6 as they did from 2 to 4 and so on. Spellcasters, by the nature and breath of spells jump quadratically: a 6th level spell is worth 2 5th level spells, a 5th level spell is worth 2 4th level spells and so on. Every spell level increase they get doubles up the strength of the former level. Thus, a 17th level wizard has 258 times as much power as he did at level 1 in just his highest level spell slots. A 17th level Fighter is, outside of WBL, only 17 times as strong as he was at level 1 and thus, with luck and the same equipment, a group of 17 first level fighters could probably beat him or, at the very least, have a ~30-50% chance of doing so.

For 3.5, this is a rough approximation, but the truth is that, with clever spell choices and good luck, even a 1st level wizard can stop entire encounters with things like sleep (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sleep.htm) and color spray (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/colorSpray.htm). Alternatively, go here. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards)

[Kalaska'Agathas]

The thread should be updated to this point.

Also, I think for the Stormwind Fallacy, a link to the original post (or the text thereof) would be appropriate. Let Tempest Stormwind speak for himself.

Re: CoDzilla -
CoDzilla refers to the concept of "Cleric- or Druid-zilla" - it is a common CharOp answer when asked "What build should I play?" Either Cleric (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm) 20 (or Cloistered Cleric (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#clericVariantCloistere dCleric) 20, or some combination of these two with appropriate PrCs) or Druid (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm) 20 (or Druid 10/Planar Shepherd 10, if Faiths of Eberron is available) is a particularly powerful build.

Cleric 20 gets access to several excellent mêlée buffs (including Divine Power (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divinePower.htm), Righteous Might (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/righteousMight.htm), either of which can be persisted (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#persistentSpell), preferably with Divine Metamagic) which let them be better fighters than the Fighter, but with actual class features, and the big one, ninth level spells.

Druid 20 gets access to Wildshape which lets you dump your physical stats and still be a mêlée powerhouse, an Animal Companion (which is basically a Fighter, though often superior in ability to a Fighter of comparable Hit Dice), ninth level spells, and decent skills.

Either of these classes is very powerful, simple, and requires virtually no splat-book support to be made to work. And yes, if you're not careful, they'll destroy Tokyo with nary a thought.

Any thoughts?

[Hecuba]

Also, I think for the Stormwind Fallacy, a link to the original post (or the text thereof) would be appropriate. Let Tempest Stormwind speak for himself.

A link might be better: the actual argument might be a bit long and technical for inclusion in a basic FAQ.

Edit: But it seems that's no longer there. A spoiler quote might be best then.

[Seerow]

So nobody actually has the original CoDzilla post? That's so disappointing. I swear I hate wizards for nuking their old forums. So much good stuff there was lost.

[true_shinken]

Please add 'can I use X with eldritch glaive?'
Repeat after me, here we go: eldritch glaive is not a weapon.

A link to the ten commandments of practical optimization would be good as well.

[Optimator]

A noble pursuit. I guess we'll see how well this works out.

[Zaq]

I genuinely can't tell what my emotional response is in this case (somewhere between "resignation," "duty," and "happy to be of service"), but I think I need to take this one.

What's wrong with the Truenamer?
The first (and ONLY the first, make no mistake) problem with the Truenamer is that the Truespeak DCs necessary to use your class features scale faster than your check scales simply by keeping the skill maxed. You HAVE to go looking for increasingly obscure bonuses if you want to actually reliably do what you set out to do, and since Truespeak didn't really get much attention outside of Tome of Magic, some of those bonuses require some heavy book-diving. (It didn't get much attention IN Tome of Magic, either.) The point is that a Truenamer cannot, out of the box and with minimal optimization, expect to reliably contribute or do much other than stand there gibbering like an idiot.

The second problem facing the Truenamer is that the Law of Sequence is extremely difficult to deal with. Since the Truenamer's ability to affect multiple creatures with an LEM (read: typical) utterance doesn't come online until level 17, you're pretty much never going to get the ability to give multiple allies the same buff simultaneously, nor affect multiple enemies in the same way simultaneously. Worse, this turns the reversible nature of utterances into a double-edged sword. You might have access to two effects from a single utterance, but you'd better hope that you don't need both of them at once. This is an enormous deal in actual play.

The third problem facing the Truenamer is that utterances aren't actually that good. Even when your Truespeak check is high enough to reliably quicken them (let alone cast them), they just don't measure up to what other classes can do. They have painfully short durations, their effects don't tend to be very impressive, and they utterly fail to scale with level (the new abilities a Truenamer gets at any given level beyond the 6-8 range simply do not compare favorably to the abilities nearly any other magical character gets at the same level). Even once you put the effort into getting your Truespeak check up high enough that the DCs are irrelevant, you can't do much with it, and there's very few promises of power around the corner to keep you in the class.

The fourth problem facing the Truenamer is that the Truenaming chapter of Tome of Magic is very poorly written, so there are a lot of weird contradictions, inconsistencies, and outright confusing parts. It is rather telling that they forgot the check DCs for the Lexicon of the Perfected Map utterances and had to include them in the errata. Many of a Truenamer's abilities don't make much sense, many of the rules are debatable at best and contradictory at worst, and overall, the entire chapter is a mess. Even if you can get past the other issues, there are still some things that simply don't work as written and need GM oversight in ways that they really should not.

There is more to the problem, but that's the core of it.

Probably too long, but I feel that it's accurate.

[Darth Stabber]

I genuinely can't tell what my emotional response is in this case (somewhere between "resignation," "duty," and "happy to be of service"), but I think I need to take this one.


I figured you might drop by this thread, so I tried to head this one off at the pass to keep you from having to relive the tragedy. Yours is better though. My truenamer only lived for two sessions, so your experience is more indepth.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

I genuinely can't tell what my emotional response is in this case (somewhere between "resignation," "duty," and "happy to be of service"), but I think I need to take this one.

What's wrong with the Truenamer?
The first (and ONLY the first, make no mistake) problem with the Truenamer is that the Truespeak DCs necessary to use your class features scale faster than your check scales simply by keeping the skill maxed. You HAVE to go looking for increasingly obscure bonuses if you want to actually reliably do what you set out to do, and since Truespeak didn't really get much attention outside of Tome of Magic, some of those bonuses require some heavy book-diving. (It didn't get much attention IN Tome of Magic, either.) The point is that a Truenamer cannot, out of the box and with minimal optimization, expect to reliably contribute or do much other than stand there gibbering like an idiot.

The second problem facing the Truenamer is that the Law of Sequence is extremely difficult to deal with. Since the Truenamer's ability to affect multiple creatures with an LEM (read: typical) utterance doesn't come online until level 17, you're pretty much never going to get the ability to give multiple allies the same buff simultaneously, nor affect multiple enemies in the same way simultaneously. Worse, this turns the reversible nature of utterances into a double-edged sword. You might have access to two effects from a single utterance, but you'd better hope that you don't need both of them at once. This is an enormous deal in actual play.

The third problem facing the Truenamer is that utterances aren't actually that good. Even when your Truespeak check is high enough to reliably quicken them (let alone cast them), they just don't measure up to what other classes can do. They have painfully short durations, their effects don't tend to be very impressive, and they utterly fail to scale with level (the new abilities a Truenamer gets at any given level beyond the 6-8 range simply do not compare favorably to the abilities nearly any other magical character gets at the same level). Even once you put the effort into getting your Truespeak check up high enough that the DCs are irrelevant, you can't do much with it, and there's very few promises of power around the corner to keep you in the class.

The fourth problem facing the Truenamer is that the Truenaming chapter of Tome of Magic is very poorly written, so there are a lot of weird contradictions, inconsistencies, and outright confusing parts. It is rather telling that they forgot the check DCs for the Lexicon of the Perfected Map utterances and had to include them in the errata. Many of a Truenamer's abilities don't make much sense, many of the rules are debatable at best and contradictory at worst, and overall, the entire chapter is a mess. Even if you can get past the other issues, there are still some things that simply don't work as written and need GM oversight in ways that they really should not.

There is more to the problem, but that's the core of it.

Probably too long, but I feel that it's accurate.

Thanks. I'm inclined to nominate this as our answer regarding the Truenamer - is there any further discussion to be had?

[Hecuba]

I'd say that it can probably be shortened down--the first sentence or so of each paragraph covers the bulk of the complaint, and this is a basic faq.

[Zaq]

I figured you might drop by this thread, so I tried to head this one off at the pass to keep you from having to relive the tragedy. Yours is better though. My truenamer only lived for two sessions, so your experience is more indepth.

Hey, I've fully accepted that I've become The Truenamer Guy. If I didn't want people to know the result of my grand experiment, I wouldn't have poured so much effort into the discussion here, right? Just remember, I did it so you didn't have to. :smallwink:


I'd say that it can probably be shortened down--the first sentence or so of each paragraph covers the bulk of the complaint, and this is a basic faq.

OK, condensed version:
The Truenamer's basic mechanic, the Truespeak check, becomes harder to succeed at as you gain levels, so you are required to seek out increasingly esoteric and expensive bonuses to stay relevant. The Law of Sequence prevents the Truenamer from spreading their effects around to their fullest potential. The Truenamer's utterances aren't very good even after you get the ability to use them reliably, and the entire Truenaming chapter of Tome of Magic is riddled with inconsistencies, absurdities, and contradictions that require GM oversight.

I'm better at editing the work of others than my own, but that should help. I like my first version better, of course, but that's because I tend to be a long-winded bastard.

[Veyr]

These are long, but I think they're important.

What is RAW?
RAW is "Rules As Written". The phrase refers to the rules found in rulebooks, strictly applied with no interpretation or houseruling. Commonly used as the foundation for discussion: these are the rules that everyone shares, by virtue of having the same books. Frequently also used by theoretical optimization (TO), which involves hypothetical builds designed to maximize some aspect or number; these builds are made for their own sake and amusement value, and are not intended to be played in a real game.

Almost no one plays by strict RAW. Discussions of RAW are intended to give everyone an understanding of what the rule is so that we can discuss cogently about whether or how it might be changed. Just because RAW are the rules as written does not mean they are necessarily good rules; quite frequently they really are not.

However, for the most part, debating what the RAW itself is tends to be a waste of time (though it is not always). If you question accepted RAW, be prepared for a lawyer-istic line-by-line analysis and counter-analysis of the rules text. Also note that theoretical optimizers tend to spend a lot of time reading and applying strict RAW, and are usually unlikely to have either made a mistake or missed something.

Importantly, things like "common sense" or "balance" have no place in discussions of RAW. Wizards of the Coast made mistakes. They made a lot of mistakes. Very often, the rules as written are poorly written, and don't make sense and aren't balanced.

As a side note, the official FAQ on Wizards' website is not RAW. While sometimes helpful, the FAQ has been wrong (strictly speaking) almost as often as it has been right. The FAQ is really best understood as the rules according to the Sage, that is, matching the personal preferences of the FAQ's author, not actually the rules as written in the books.

What is RAI?
RAI is "Rules As Intended". In theory, this refers to what the authors as Wizards were trying to write when they wrote the rules (which are, as previously mentioned, frequently poorly-written). RAI typically comes up when a rule, as written, does not make sense or is not balanced (or at least, is not in the opinion of the one bringing up RAI). The argument goes that the author made a mistake in the wording of the effect, and it should not be as powerful as it is if ruled strictly as written.

There are two problems with RAI. The first is simple: even RAI is not guaranteed to be a particularly good rule. As noted, Wizards frequently made mistakes: many of these were errors of judgment, not errors of wording. There is very little argument about what Glitterdust was intended to do — it is not an ambiguous spell. It is, however, overpowered; this was presumably not intentional but it was an honest error in judgment on the part of the author, not an error of wording.

In this sense, RAI is a type of Appeal to Authority: it is an attempt to show that the rule ought to be X, because that is what Wizards intended it to be. Unfortunately, even if it is what Wizards intended, it's not necessarily a good rule, which is exactly why an Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy to begin with.

However, the intent of the designers is very frequently unknown, since we have no direct evidence of the author stating that the rule was intended to be anything other than what he wrote (though in some cases, authors have clarified poorly-written rules as not intended to do what they strictly speaking do). It is possible, however, to attempt to argue that one can at the very least make educated guesses as to what the intent was.

The problem, then, is that most of the time, no attempt is made to defend claims of RAI. RAI is instead asserted, as a rhetorical device designed to prop up one's argument ("My opinion is better because it is clearly what the designers intended"). This is frequently done in lieu of an actual defense of one's argument, and further no defense is given for the claim that RAI matches the poster's opinion. Since this would, if successful, unfairly prevent disagreement with one's opinion, doing this can be considered quite rude.

Do note that often, when people say a given interpretation is "RAI", what they really mean is that it's "RAMS", at least to them — see below. However, since "RAI", if taken literally, has all of the above problems, it is recommended that posters avoid this mix-up.

What is RAMS?
RAMS stands for "Rules as Makes Sense". It is an attempt to avoid the problems with RAW and RAI by going directly to the root of the issue: what matters is not-so-much the rules that are written, or the rules that were intended, but the rules that are going to work the best and create the best game environment.

RAW can be useful for establishing a base-case, but as has been mentioned, RAW is frequently imbalanced and leaves room for game-breaking abuses. RAI, meanwhile, is almost impossible to verify in most cases, and is frequently abused to assert the superiority of one's beliefs rather than to add to a discussion. Neither is automatically a good rule, even when unambiguous and undebated.

Thus, we have RAMS: the rules that seem to limit abuses, function consistently, and allow for a fun game. The obvious problem with this, as opposed to RAW and RAI, is that RAMS is inherently subjective. The rules that best fit one person's game are not necessarily going to work well in another. Thus, there is not one single set of RAMS, the way there are (or are supposed to be) for RAW or RAI.

Calls for RAMS should not intend to find the "one, true rule" the way RAW or RAI do. They are instead used to encourage posters to ignore, for the moment, the strict interpretation of RAW or the authority of RAI, and try to consider various interpretations on their own merits: what is most likely to make for the best game? And in so doing, calls for RAMS are intended to encourage posters to recognize and respect the differences between everyones' games.

Note that simply asserting that your opinion is RAMS is quite rude, and entirely contrary to the concept. The entire point of RAMS is that we're supposed to be considering the rules in the light of everyone's own personal game, not declaring your own preferences "the one true way" that "makes sense." A more appropriate way to discuss your opinion in the context of RAMS is to discuss what, precisely, about your interpretation "makes sense" within your game. It is often good to note the particulars of your game that may change what makes sense within your game from what makes sense for others'.

[Lateral]

These are long, but I think they're important.

What is RAW?
RAW is "Rules As Written". The phrase refers to the rules found in rulebooks, strictly applied with no interpretation or houseruling. Commonly used as the foundation for discussion: these are the rules that everyone shares, by virtue of having the same books. Frequently also used by theoretical optimization (TO), which involves hypothetical builds designed to maximize some aspect or number; these builds are made for their own sake and amusement value, and are not intended to be played in a real game.

Almost no one plays by strict RAW. Discussions of RAW are intended to give everyone an understanding of what the rule is so that we can discuss cogently about whether or how it might be changed. Just because RAW are the rules as written does not mean they are necessarily good rules; quite frequently they really are not.

However, for the most part, debating what the RAW itself is tends to be a waste of time (though it is not always). If you question accepted RAW, be prepared for a lawyer-istic line-by-line analysis and counter-analysis of the rules text. Also note that theoretical optimizers tend to spend a lot of time reading and applying strict RAW, and are usually unlikely to have either made a mistake or missed something.

Importantly, things like "common sense" or "balance" have no place in discussions of RAW. Wizards of the Coast made mistakes. They made a lot of mistakes. Very often, the rules as written are poorly written, and don't make sense and aren't balanced.

As a side note, the official FAQ on Wizards' website is not RAW. While sometimes helpful, the FAQ has been wrong (strictly speaking) almost as often as it has been right. The FAQ is really best understood as the rules according to the Sage, that is, matching the personal preferences of the FAQ's author, not actually the rules as written in the books.

What is RAI?
RAI is "Rules As Intended". In theory, this refers to what the authors as Wizards were trying to write when they wrote the rules (which are, as previously mentioned, frequently poorly-written). RAI typically comes up when a rule, as written, does not make sense or is not balanced (or at least, is not in the opinion of the one bringing up RAI). The argument goes that the author made a mistake in the wording of the effect, and it should not be as powerful as it is if ruled strictly as written.

There are two problems with RAI. The first is simple: even RAI is not guaranteed to be a particularly good rule. As noted, Wizards frequently made mistakes: many of these were errors of judgment, not errors of wording. There is very little argument about what Glitterdust was intended to do — it is not an ambiguous spell. It is, however, overpowered; this was presumably not intentional but it was an honest error in judgment on the part of the author, not an error of wording.

In this sense, RAI is a type of Appeal to Authority: it is an attempt to show that the rule ought to be X, because that is what Wizards intended it to be. Unfortunately, even if it is what Wizards intended, it's not necessarily a good rule, which is exactly why an Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy to begin with.

However, the intent of the designers is very frequently unknown, since we have no direct evidence of the author stating that the rule was intended to be anything other than what he wrote (though in some cases, authors have clarified poorly-written rules as not intended to do what they strictly speaking do). It is possible, however, to attempt to argue that one can at the very least make educated guesses as to what the intent was.

The problem, then, is that most of the time, no attempt is made to defend claims of RAI. RAI is instead asserted, as a rhetorical device designed to prop up one's argument ("My opinion is better because it is clearly what the designers intended"). This is frequently done in lieu of an actual defense of one's argument, and further no defense is given for the claim that RAI matches the poster's opinion.

Thus, for the most part, RAI is used fallaciously, and even inaccurately within the fallacy (since the authority's position cannot be ascertained). It is simply an attempt to prop up one's opinion and stifle dissent, rather than actively debate the point. As such, RAI is looked down upon by some members as an artifice that not only does not further a discussion, but actively attempts to harm the discussion by preventing disagreement. As such, RAI is generally not something that should be used without direct evidence, because it does not add to any discussion when it is merely an assertion.

What is RAMS?
RAMS stands for "Rules as Makes Sense". It is an attempt to avoid the problems with RAW and RAI by going directly to the root of the issue: what matters is not-so-much the rules that are written, or the rules that were intended, but the rules that are going to work the best and create the best game environment.

RAW can be useful for establishing a base-case, but as has been mentioned, RAW is frequently imbalanced and leaves room for game-breaking abuses. RAI, meanwhile, is almost impossible to verify in most cases, and is frequently abused to assert the superiority of one's beliefs rather than to add to a discussion. Neither is automatically a good rule, even when unambiguous and undebated.

Thus, we have RAMS: the rules that seem to limit abuses, function consistently, and allow for a fun game. The obvious problem with this, as opposed to RAW and RAI, is that RAMS is inherently subjective. The rules that best fit one person's game are not necessarily going to work well in another. Thus, there is not one single set of RAMS, the way there are (or are supposed to be) for RAW or RAI.

Most calls for RAMS are not intended to find the "one, true rule" the way RAW or RAI are. They are instead used to encourage posters to ignore, for the moment, the strict interpretation of RAW or the authority of RAI, and try to consider various interpretations on their own merits: what is most likely to make for the best game? And in so doing, calls for RAMS are intended to encourage posters to recognize and respect the differences between everyones' games.

You may want to note, however, that a lot of people use RAI and RAMS interchangeably to both mean what you've described RAMS as.
-------
I'll see if I can do one for the Psionic fallacies in a little while.

[Veyr]

You may want to note, however, that a lot of people use RAI and RAMS interchangeably to both mean what you've described RAMS as.
They do, but that's incorrect and should, IMO, be discouraged, largely for the reasons I've described in the RAI section.

For an FAQ, though, it might be worth noting.

EDIT: I've updated the RAI and RAMS sections with this in mind.

[Zaq]

Would we be able to add a reasonable answer to a question like "What do people mean when they say that Core isn't balanced?" in any sort of satisfying way (and without immediately diving into tl;dr territory)? We've got a lot of the little pieces of it up there, but I don't think we've got anything up there directly addressing the whole "No, nothing outside Core; I'm keeping my game balanced" nonsense that pops up every now and again.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Why is Tome of Battle considered broken?

Two reasons. The first is a good reason, the second one is irrationality.

1. It's extremely hard to make ToB classes worse than tier 3. In low-op groups with blaster wizards and healbot clerics, this can be a problem. It's even more of a problem if you have both ToB melee classes and non-ToB melee classes, as the ToB ones are obviously much stronger.

2. A "melee can't have nice things" attitude. This is when you're getting a lot of flak for being able to do something in combat other than "I hit it again".

Why is Tome of Battle considered anime?

Because they give fancy names to the maneuvers. Like Steel Wind, Mountain Hammer, Time Stands Still, and the big one, Five-Shadow-Creeping-Ice-Enervation-Strike (I managed to spell that without looking in the book!).

Why is Tome of Battle considered good?

ToB brings melee up to par with casters. While a 20th level wizard can spend a single standard action and a Fireball to be able to hit everyone in a 40 ft. circle diameter for 10d6 fire damage, or 5d6 damage if the enemy succeeds on a saving throw, a 20th level fighter can spend a full-round action to hit everyone in a 10 ft. circle (20 ft. circle with a spiked chain) for whatever their weapon's damage is, and zero damage if they miss. A 20th level warblade, on the other hand, can get two attacks as a standard action against everyone adjacent to you at a +4 bonus by using Adamantine Hurricane, or you can get twelve attacks in a full-round action by using Time Stands Still and Raging Mongoose.

ToB characters can also do good things other than damage, like Leaping Dragon Stance allowing them to jump across things, and the diamond mind counters to boost their saving throws.

[Veyr]

Would we be able to add a reasonable answer to a question like "What do people mean when they say that Core isn't balanced?" in any sort of satisfying way (and without immediately diving into tl;dr territory)? We've got a lot of the little pieces of it up there, but I don't think we've got anything up there directly addressing the whole "No, nothing outside Core; I'm keeping my game balanced" nonsense that pops up every now and again.
Great call... I'll take a stab at it, but I tend to be verbose.

What do you mean, Core isn't balanced?
or
I keep my game balanced: I ban everything outside of Core!
By wide (but certainly not universal) consensus, the Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard are among the most powerful classes in 3.5, while the Fighter, Monk, Paladin, and Ranger are among the weakest, especially without support from outside of Core. Thus, many posters will cite the Player's Handbook as the least-balanced book in 3.5: it has the greatest disparity between the most powerful classes and the least powerful classes.

The reasons for this are many, and it is beyond the scope of this FAQ to go into details on the problems with each of these classes. What it largely comes down to is that early in 3.5's development, Wizards of the Coast greatly over-estimated the importance and power of BAB and HD size, and balanced these classes accordingly: they made sure that full-casters' spells were powerful because they believed the reduced BAB and HD were serious detriments (which they are not), and they avoided giving similarly powerful feats and spells to the non-casters or half-casters, because they believed that BAB and HD were significant benefits (which, again, they are not).

As 3.5 matured, Wizards learned two things: one, the spells they'd tried to make good, to make up for the weak BAB and HD of full-casters, were much too good — most spells printed after the PHB were significantly weaker as a result. They also recognized that BAB and HD weren't worth as much as they thought they were, and began to create classes with good BAB and HD, plus other additional features (and they added Fighter feats and Paladin and Ranger spells to help those classes — the Monk, sadly, had little room for outside improvement that way, however).

As a result, the classes, spells, and feats that were printed after the Player's Handbook, especially much later, tend to be better-balanced than those printed for Core, or very early in 3.5 (Complete Warrior, the first supplement printed, shares many of the PHB's problems, though its lack of full-casters means that it is internally better-balanced than the PHB).


Why is Tome of Battle considered broken?

Two reasons. The first is a good reason, the second one is irrationality.

1. It's extremely hard to make ToB classes worse than tier 3. In low-op groups with blaster wizards and healbot clerics, this can be a problem.

2. A "melee can't have nice things" attitude. This is when you're getting a lot of flak for being able to do something in combat other than "I hit it again".
I think both of these points could use elaboration. Then again, as noted, I am verbose.


Why is Tome of Battle considered anime?

Because they give fancy names to the maneuvers. Like Steel Wind, Mountain Hammer, Time Stands Still, and the big one, Five-Shadow-Creeping-Ice-Enervation-Strike (I managed to spell that without looking in the book!).
That's... not quite the only reason. I'd also bring up the fact that anime is one of the few mediums where you really see martial characters who can keep up with mid-to-high level 3.5; this seems like a good place to bring up the fact that 3.5 is much higher-power than people often assume it is. People think of Hercules, for example, as a Fighter 20 or something, plus Divine Rank 0 since he was a Demigod. As it turns out, Hercules was probably about 8th level, with some Str-boosting template, and he definitely never featured the abilities that come with Divine Rank 0.


Why is Tome of Battle considered good?

ToB brings melee up to par with casters.
It does not. It greatly reduces the gap, but the majority of spellcasters are still more powerful than initiators. Only Dragonfire Adept, Dread Necromancer, Healer, Warlock, and Warmage are likely weaker than any of the Initiators, and it's debatable about the Dread Necromancer. The Beguiler and Psychic Warrior might also be Tier 3, but I think a bit more powerful than any of the Initiators, too. Not sure about Binder, Incarnate, or Totemist. But I'm pretty sure just about every spellcaster I didn't just mention is Tier 1 or 2, and thus more powerful than the Tome of Battle classes.

[Divide by Zero]

ToB brings melee up to par with casters. While a 20th level wizard can spend a single standard action and a Fireball to be able to hit everyone in a 40 ft. circle diameter for 10d6 fire damage, or 5d6 damage if the enemy succeeds on a saving throw, a 20th level fighter can spend a full-round action to hit everyone in a 10 ft. circle (20 ft. circle with a spiked chain) for whatever their weapon's damage is, and zero damage if they miss. A 20th level warblade, on the other hand, can get two attacks as a standard action against everyone adjacent to you at a +4 bonus by using Adamantine Hurricane, or you can get twelve attacks in a full-round action by using Time Stands Still and Raging Mongoose.

I'm not sure this is the best example. Might be better to show how ToB makes melee good at things besides damage (since they're already good at that).

[Veyr]

Agreed. I'd bring up the versatility inherent in the maneuver system.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I'm not sure this is the best example. Might be better to show how ToB makes melee good at things besides damage (since they're already good at that).

Oh yeah. I'll put in stuff about the save-boosting maneuvers and the extra skills.

[Geigan]

1. It's extremely hard to make ToB classes worse than tier 3. In low-op groups with blaster wizards and healbot clerics, this can be a problem.

Also I think a better example would be when compared with core melee, as the power of initiators sticks out like a sore thumb when put up against classes like fighter, monk, and paladin. There's still a disparity in low-op groups but its much more obvious when you have it next to other melee classes.

[erikun]

Monks - why does everyone seem to think they're underpowered?
The monk's abilities tend to conflict with each other.

Monks have fast movement, which lets them move around quickly, and flurry of blows, which gives them several attacks. However, flurry of blows is a full-attack. This means that a monk who makes use of flurry doesn't get to move around any, and a monk moving around a lot can't make use of flurry of blows.

Getting multiple attacks is nice, but the best sources of damage in 3.5e are Power Attack or bonus damage (Sneak Attack). The monk doesn't have access to the latter, and unarmed strikes to not work with the former. Furthermore, unarmed strikes are generally not enchanted, losing out on a +5 to hit and damage alongside the monk's 3/4 BAB. A 20th level monk would have -10 to hit compared to a similar fighter! Using an enhanced weapon helps with this problem, but it renders the monk's unarmed strike damage, Ki strike, and Stunning Fist abilities useless.

The monk needs multiple ability scores to perform well. Because a monk loses most of their abilities in armor, a high Wisdom is desired to replace the lost AC, but Wisdom does not help the monk in any other way in combat. Similarly, Dexterity is desired for AC but has little other uses. Constitution is desired for HP, especially when compared to the HP of the fighter. Strength is also desired, both for damage and for catching up for lost BAB compared to the fighter.

Ultimately, the monk can work well when compared to a longsword-and-shield fighter, or a wizard with fireball. Once you start comparing it to a Greatsword/Power Attack fighter, or a Two-Weapon Fighting rogue, the monk has a very hard time comparing. They work well in a low/no equipment situation, or for 1-2 level dips, but very rarely by themselves.

I hope that is a good summary of the common Monk problems, without getting too long or in-depth for the situation.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Also I think a better example would be when compared with core melee, as the power of initiators sticks out like a sore thumb when put up against classes like fighter, monk, and paladin. There's still a disparity in low-op groups but its much more obvious when you have it next to other melee classes.

Added that in.

[Lateral]

Why are Psionics frequently banned?

Mostly, a combination of a bad reputation from older editions (which seems to have faded a bit, but is still present) and a few misconceptions about how it works. In 3.0 and older editions, psionics was pretty much always a badly designed 'magic-but-not-really' system. It wasn't as bad as 3.5 truenamer (*shudder*), but still pretty stupidly designed. Pretty much everything I could say about 3.0 psionics, though, is summed up here:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10635999&postcount=2


This is how 3.0 Psi worked:
[QUOTE=AntiDjinn on the WotC boards]I have used this model before, but to really appreciate how this "class feature" worked you should see how it would apply if ported to mainstream D&D where they haven't been conditioned to accept inferior mechanics without question. Lets take the big sacred moo, a Cleric's undead turning ability:

DM: "Before we get started, Cleric, I just want you to know that I am instituting some changes in your turn undead class feature that will make your class more different and give it a unique divine mechanic."

Player: "OK. How does it work now?"

DM: "Well, for starters, when you attempt to turn undead you will now have to burn a spell."

Player: "A spell???? What level?"

DM: "Different levels. It depends on what turning mode you want to use. Sanctified Gesture takes a level 1, Divine Dance of Power takes a level 2, High Holly Homina Homina takes a level 3, and...."

Player: "Wait, I assume I will get a bonus on the roll based on the level of spell slot I sacrifice?"

DM: "Sometimes you will. Other times you will get a penalty based on the turning defense mode the opponent selects. Turning and turning defense modes will interact on a table. The table determines the actual DC of the roll, not the level of the spell slot burned. Choosing a given defense mode may actually mean you pay a spell to get a penalty on the save, but it will still be better than being defenseless."

Player: "The undead will get defense modes?"

DM: "Sure, so will you. Each round you will select a turning attack mode and a defense mode. In fact, you will need to select a defense mode against each undead opponent each and every round and each will cost you spell slots."

Player: "Wwwwwwhat????!!!!!! What if I am facing undead who do not cast spells, I assume they won't get to mount a defense?"

DM: "It doesn't matter if you face undead without casting ability because their turning and turning defense modes are free."

Player: "Wait a minute! This is stupid! One of my 3rd level spell slots could be spent on Searing Light which fries undead; why would I ever spend it on an attack mode that might help me on a turning attempt? And why would I ever take a turning defense mode, much less a separate one vs. each undead opponent? I would simply choose to ignore undead or cast spells against them or go at them with weapons. I would have to have brain damage to choose to turn with these rules!"

DM: "If you fail to mount a defense then each unblocked undead gets a special +8 bonus to hit you for having this wonderful class feature and choosing not to use it. They also get to drain your stats if they hit. This will apply also to anyone who adds a level of Cleric; multiclassing will be very flavorful."

Player: "But I am a spellcaster, I need to be able to cast spells. How can I do my job if my spell slots get sucked away every time we run into undead?"

DM: "Well, how can you do your job if you are dead or reduced to a mindless state? You need to use your spells this way or you may not live long enough to cast them anyway."

Player: Head down, silently weeping into his hands.

DM: "I should mention too that you will be able to make turn undead attempts vs. nonundead; if you succeed they will be stunned for a few rounds. Of course, everyone who does not have this feature will get a huge bonus on the save DC. The best part: If you blow a 5th level spell to use High Holy Hokey Pokey then everyone in a large area could be stunned for a long while and they don't get a bonus vs. this one mode -- that makes the entire system usable and balanced."

Player: "They should all be stunned if they ever see me willingly use these rules. This is preposterous! I need my spells to heal and buff and perform all the functions of a Cleric. How am I going to be of any use to the party if I hemorrhage spell slots every time we run into undead?"

DM: "That is the beauty of it: You get to choose whether to use your spell slots as they were intended or save your own hide by using them to turn. Come on and at least give it a chance. It will be a mechanic unique to your class so it must be a benefit. You don't want to be just another spellcaster do you? This will add so much flavor and.... Hey! Get him off of me!"

Player: "How ya like that fist flavor?"
(I don't know much about pre-3.0 psionics, but they've gotten pretty much the same bad rap.)

As for the misconceptions, those can be dispelled fairly easily. The first is, "Psionics is broken because you can spend all your power points at once, you n00b!" Well, the solution to this is contained right in the SRD:

(you can’t spend more power points on a power than your manifester level).
This is probably the most important rule of 3.5 psionics, so let me just repeat that for you:
YOU CAN'T SPEND MORE POWER POINTS ON A POWER THAN YOUR MANIFESTER LEVEL! Got it? That rule prevents you from going completely 'nova,' although psionics is, by design, better at nova'ing than straight Vancian casting- it was designed for spontaneity, after all.

For the life of me, I can't remember the other common misconceptions about 3.5 psionics. I know there's a couple more, but I don't remember what they are.

[Divide by Zero]

Does "psionics is too sci-fi" still come up? I haven't seen that one in a while.

[Lateral]

I suppose, but that's more of a flavor issue and I don't think we should address those. Not really the problem of a basic FAQ.

[Darth Stabber]

Does anyone think that we should have a note about planning out all 20 lvls of a character (or alteast planning out a character to the point where he will be when the campaign is likely to end. Occasionally (on a different forum), I will get flak for fully fleshing out a character instead of "letting him develop organically". I have only ssen that once or twice on this board, but it makes me facepalm when talked about in D&D, probably also one about why everyone but druids should multiclass (and frequently druids do too). Something "multiclassing, just do it". And maybe a list of extremely common house rules and what they do for the game, like ignoring xp penalty for multiclassing, and other almost ubiquitous user instituted patches.

[Veyr]

Does anyone think that we should have a note about planning out all 20 lvls of a character (or alteast planning out a character to the point where he will be when the campaign is likely to end. Occasionally (on a different forum), I will get flak for fully fleshing out a character instead of "letting him develop organically". I have only ssen that once or twice on this board, but it makes me facepalm when talked about in D&D,
Agreed; that's a wonderful idea in concept, but with the way feat and prestige prerequisites work, it's just unrealistic and ultimately a terrible plan in all but the lowest of low-op games.


probably also one about why everyone but druids should multiclass (and frequently druids do too). Something "multiclassing, just do it".
Eh... I could see one like "Me? Take a prestige class? But I thought they were only for munchkins! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0390.html)" But "multiclassing, just do it" seems a bit... demanding?


And maybe a list of extremely common house rules and what they do for the game, like ignoring xp penalty for multiclassing, and other almost ubiquitous user instituted patches.
Eh, also seems like not really the place of an FAQ.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Something "multiclassing, just do it". And maybe a list of extremely common house rules and what they do for the game, like ignoring xp penalty for multiclassing, and other almost ubiquitous user instituted patches.

I'm hesitant to say it belongs on the FAQ, but that's something that ought to be talked about in some form or another, so I'm also hesitant to say it doesn't belong:smallsigh:

But yeah, XP penalty for multiclassing should always be ignored, IMO, because penalizing multiclass characters frankly undermines half the point of 3.5.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

The issue with the multiclassing/prestige class being covered is that it can easily end up in "classes are/n't metagame constructs" territory. An FAQ should avoid that, but we probably do want something on multiclassing and prestige classes. Depends on the question, though.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I think this is a good link to put on in the discussion of psionics

"Myth; The XPH is overpowered" (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/18833134/Myth:_The_XPH_is_overpowered) (I am glad this thread survived the 4e transition purge)

Also some sort of discussion about the Oberoni SP?) fallacy I.E. It is not broken since I can fix it,

[erikun]

Eh... I could see one like "Me? Take a prestige class? But I thought they were only for munchkins! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0390.html)" But "multiclassing, just do it" seems a bit... demanding?
Multiclassing - when to take and when to pass

Also, are we writing up the FAQs here? Do we want various FAQs on different topics, or should we avoid re-doing work?

[Hecuba]

These are long, but I think they're important.

What is RAW?
RAW is "Rules As Written". The phrase refers to the rules found in rulebooks, strictly applied with no interpretation or houseruling. Commonly used as the foundation for discussion: these are the rules that everyone shares, by virtue of having the same books. Frequently also used by theoretical optimization (TO), which involves hypothetical builds designed to maximize some aspect or number; these builds are made for their own sake and amusement value, and are not intended to be played in a real game.

Almost no one plays by strict RAW. Discussions of RAW are intended to give everyone an understanding of what the rule is so that we can discuss cogently about whether or how it might be changed. Just because RAW are the rules as written does not mean they are necessarily good rules; quite frequently they really are not.

However, for the most part, debating what the RAW itself is tends to be a waste of time (though it is not always). If you question accepted RAW, be prepared for a lawyer-istic line-by-line analysis and counter-analysis of the rules text. Also note that theoretical optimizers tend to spend a lot of time reading and applying strict RAW, and are usually unlikely to have either made a mistake or missed something.

Importantly, things like "common sense" or "balance" have no place in discussions of RAW. Wizards of the Coast made mistakes. They made a lot of mistakes. Very often, the rules as written are poorly written, and don't make sense and aren't balanced.

As a side note, the official FAQ on Wizards' website is not RAW. While sometimes helpful, the FAQ has been wrong (strictly speaking) almost as often as it has been right. The FAQ is really best understood as the rules according to the Sage, that is, matching the personal preferences of the FAQ's author, not actually the rules as written in the books.

What is RAI?
RAI is "Rules As Intended". In theory, this refers to what the authors as Wizards were trying to write when they wrote the rules (which are, as previously mentioned, frequently poorly-written). RAI typically comes up when a rule, as written, does not make sense or is not balanced (or at least, is not in the opinion of the one bringing up RAI). The argument goes that the author made a mistake in the wording of the effect, and it should not be as powerful as it is if ruled strictly as written.

There are two problems with RAI. The first is simple: even RAI is not guaranteed to be a particularly good rule. As noted, Wizards frequently made mistakes: many of these were errors of judgment, not errors of wording. There is very little argument about what Glitterdust was intended to do — it is not an ambiguous spell. It is, however, overpowered; this was presumably not intentional but it was an honest error in judgment on the part of the author, not an error of wording.

In this sense, RAI is a type of Appeal to Authority: it is an attempt to show that the rule ought to be X, because that is what Wizards intended it to be. Unfortunately, even if it is what Wizards intended, it's not necessarily a good rule, which is exactly why an Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy to begin with.

However, the intent of the designers is very frequently unknown, since we have no direct evidence of the author stating that the rule was intended to be anything other than what he wrote (though in some cases, authors have clarified poorly-written rules as not intended to do what they strictly speaking do). It is possible, however, to attempt to argue that one can at the very least make educated guesses as to what the intent was.

The problem, then, is that most of the time, no attempt is made to defend claims of RAI. RAI is instead asserted, as a rhetorical device designed to prop up one's argument ("My opinion is better because it is clearly what the designers intended"). This is frequently done in lieu of an actual defense of one's argument, and further no defense is given for the claim that RAI matches the poster's opinion. Since this would, if successful, unfairly prevent disagreement with one's opinion, doing this can be considered quite rude.

Do note that often, when people say a given interpretation is "RAI", what they really mean is that it's "RAMS", at least to them — see below. However, since "RAI", if taken literally, has all of the above problems, it is recommended that posters avoid this mix-up.

What is RAMS?
RAMS stands for "Rules as Makes Sense". It is an attempt to avoid the problems with RAW and RAI by going directly to the root of the issue: what matters is not-so-much the rules that are written, or the rules that were intended, but the rules that are going to work the best and create the best game environment.

RAW can be useful for establishing a base-case, but as has been mentioned, RAW is frequently imbalanced and leaves room for game-breaking abuses. RAI, meanwhile, is almost impossible to verify in most cases, and is frequently abused to assert the superiority of one's beliefs rather than to add to a discussion. Neither is automatically a good rule, even when unambiguous and undebated.

Thus, we have RAMS: the rules that seem to limit abuses, function consistently, and allow for a fun game. The obvious problem with this, as opposed to RAW and RAI, is that RAMS is inherently subjective. The rules that best fit one person's game are not necessarily going to work well in another. Thus, there is not one single set of RAMS, the way there are (or are supposed to be) for RAW or RAI.

Calls for RAMS should not intend to find the "one, true rule" the way RAW or RAI do. They are instead used to encourage posters to ignore, for the moment, the strict interpretation of RAW or the authority of RAI, and try to consider various interpretations on their own merits: what is most likely to make for the best game? And in so doing, calls for RAMS are intended to encourage posters to recognize and respect the differences between everyones' games.

Note that simply asserting that your opinion is RAMS is quite rude, and entirely contrary to the concept. The entire point of RAMS is that we're supposed to be considering the rules in the light of everyone's own personal game, not declaring your own preferences "the one true way" that "makes sense." A more appropriate way to discuss your opinion in the context of RAMS is to discuss what, precisely, about your interpretation "makes sense" within your game. It is often good to note the particulars of your game that may change what makes sense within your game from what makes sense for others'.

I'll take a crack at a shorter version here:

What is "RAW"?
"RAW" stands for "Rules As Written." This is the letter of the rules laid down in the rule books, complete with inconsistencies, absurdities, direct contradictions, and huge balance problems.

While no one (or almost no one) plays by strict RAW, it is usually the most reasonable common ground to start a rules discussion. However, if you direct a discussion towards RAW as a goal rather than a starting point, be prepared for a lot of rules lawyer cheese.

What is "RAI"?
"RAI" stands for "Rules as Intended." This is, on the face of things, the interpretation of the rule that the author intended to write. When the discussion is dealing primarily with analyzing the intent of the author, understanding/uncovering RAI serves as the goal of the discussion. In broader discussion, however, there several problems with the idea of "RAI":

The author's intent is frequently hard to demonstrate/prove.
The author's intended rule is not always a good one.
Your opinion of a bad rule might be very different from the author's.
Without an attempt to demonstrate your argument or proof of the author's intent, this devolves into trying to prop up your opinion with an "appeal to authority" (a kind of logical fallacy that detracts from the discussion at hand).
In order to avoid these issues, it is often best to present your opinions on the rules as "RAMS" (below). Many people will take that as you're meaning anyways, but there are a number of playgrounders who will find the conversation far more amicable if you present your opinion as your opinion.

What is "RAMS?"
"RAMS" means "Rules as Make Sense." This is a poster's response to some perceived (and also possibly real) problem with the Rules as Written.

It should be noted that, when you're presenting something as RAMS, you are presenting your opinion, and it will be treated as such. Proclaiming that what makes sense to you is inherently better than what makes sense to someone else will come off as rude, and is probably a bad idea.

It's also generally helpful to present your reasoning for why your suggestion makes sense to you. Other posters may perceive the problem differently (or not at all), and discussions flow smoother if everyone understands what exactly you're trying to fix and why. Moreover, little is accomplished by simply stating what "makes sense" to you without examining why or to what ends.



{Psionic's post}
You're getting long, and emotive. The legacy bias against 3.0 and prior psionics can probably be summed by with the fact that they were exceptionally poorly integrated with and balanced against the core game*.

The manifester level/ power point cap is probably a good point (though with less... emphasis).

We should probably also note at extremely low optimization, psionic characters can have better output and nova capacity than Vancian casters, which creates a perceived imbalance.



*In contrast, it seems fairly clear to me that a great deal more effort went into balancing the 3.0 discipline lists against each other than for any other spell list analog in 3E/3.5. There are a couple of other elements that strike me as inspired (if sometimes flawed), so in my opinion, simply blanketing it as poor design would be somewhat unfair.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I think this is a good link to put on in the discussion of psionics

"Myth; The XPH is overpowered" (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/18833134/Myth:_The_XPH_is_overpowered) (I am glad this thread survived the 4e transition purge)

Also some sort of discussion about the Oberoni SP?) fallacy I.E. It is not broken since I can fix it,

Hate to quote myself; but I think that link there addresses the issue on psionics rather nicely in my opinion.

[Talakeal]

But yeah, XP penalty for multiclassing should always be ignored, IMO, because penalizing multiclass characters frankly undermines half the point of 3.5.

I don't want to start an argument here, but I see it the other way around.

I always thought the developers didn't want everyone and their mother multi classing, and the XP penalties were their way of showing they only wanted you to play an actual hybrid, not just take dips into whatever class made you mechanically optimal.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I don't want to start an argument here, but I see it the other way around.

I always thought the developers didn't want everyone and their mother multi classing, and the XP penalties were their way of showing they only wanted you to play an actual hybrid, not just take dips into whatever class made you mechanically optimal.

I actually thought they just implemented as a legacy decision to keep with the multi classing restrictions from earlier editions.

[Hecuba]

Hate to quote myself; but I think that link there addresses the issue on psionics rather nicely in my opinion.

Yes, but tossing in long, detailed reading defeats part of the purpose of a FAQ: we want to (at least to my understanding) answer questions, not say RTFM.

We should probably link to good further reading (where available and uncontroversial), but we should also answer questions directly, and where possible briefly.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Yes, but tossing in long, detailed reading defeats part of the purpose of a FAQ: we want to (at least to my understanding) answer questions, not say RTFM.

We should probably link to good further reading (where available and uncontroversial), but we should also answer questions directly, and where possible briefly.

Well, this isn't the FAQ so much as the alpha test of it, so we could do a long and short split where we have multiple spoilers on a topic, the first one being the gist of it, the links and rest being expanded info for the curious.

[Hecuba]

Well, this isn't the FAQ so much as the alpha test of it, so we could do a long and short split where we have multiple spoilers on a topic, the first one being the gist of it, the links and rest being expanded info for the curious.

I agree: providing links or spoilers for additional reading for those interested is always a good idea.

But a lot of these topics could be (and regularly are) thread topics in their own right. If we don't actively try to at least have a short, basic answer to each of these questions, this will be an exponentially increasingly difficult project to edit, maintain, and contribute to.


I actually thought they just implemented as a legacy decision to keep with the multi classing restrictions from earlier editions.

This is a matter of differing opinions on design merits. The best option is probably to limit the FAQ's comment to noting that the disagreement exists, possibly with a brief summary of each position. If there's an exceptionally good post on the discussion, link to it.

[Darth Stabber]

Just a thought, based on the discussion of the stormwind fallacy, the Oberoni fallacy, and the appeal to authority fallacy inherent to RAI, that maybe there should be a seperate sticky thread covering the basics of formal logic as they apply to D&D and forums. Just a quick overview of common logical fallacies, and examples of good logical argument could help a lot. I've seen enough examples of bad arguments over the years*, and by seperating it, we don't need to devote as much space to then in the other FAQ thread.

*I say this as someone guilty on several different occasions.

[Hecuba]

Just a thought, based on the discussion of the stormwind fallacy, the Oberoni fallacy, and the appeal to authority fallacy inherent to RAI, that maybe there should be a seperate sticky thread covering the basics of formal logic as they apply to D&D and forums. Just a quick overview of common logical fallacies, and examples of good logical argument could help a lot. I've seen enough examples of bad arguments over the years*, and by seperating it, we don't need to devote as much space to then in the other FAQ thread.

*I say this as someone guilty on several different occasions.


A good idea. At very least, I think it merits a separate section of the FAQ. Also, it gives me a chance to explain why something's "not even wrong."

[Darth Stabber]

Obligatory suggestion to TLN's guide to being Batman, and Eladriel's guide to being Bane as things to appear in the further reading section. Given that they are heavily referenced throughout the 3.5 forums, and provide excellent examples well thought out handbooks that are also entertaining to read.

[Psyren]

Obligatory suggestion to TLN's guide to being Batman, and Eladriel's guide to being Bane as things to appear in the further reading section. Given that they are heavily referenced throughout the 3.5 forums, and provide excellent examples well thought out handbooks that are also entertaining to read.

Add Solo's Stupendous Sorcerer Stratagems to that. I really wish I could write a handbook as creative as those guys'.

The Bard Handbook should be jazzed up to match - how can Bards have a boring handbook??

[Veyr]

I'll take a crack at a shorter version here:
These are quite excellent, which is quietly ironic to me.

Anyway, I think the RAMS section could use a bit more emphasis on how we're not looking for the "one, true rule" that "makes sense", we're not even looking to declare that this "does make sense" or that "doesn't make sense" — the goal of RAMS is not to declare, but to explain — "This makes sense to me because...". Otherwise it's no better than RAI is, really. I know you've got some in there, but it struck me as something that could use a bit more emphasis.


The Bard Handbook should be jazzed up to match - how can Bards have a boring handbook??
Look up the Joker Bard guide by... Shneeky? It's pretty solid and quite amusing.

[Psyren]

Look up the Joker Bard guide by... Shneeky? It's pretty solid and quite amusing.

That's a very specific build though - a bard designed to put a paranoid "Batman" wizard on the defensive, force him to react rather than lay plans, and most importantly is designed to be played by the DM.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Yes, but tossing in long, detailed reading defeats part of the purpose of a FAQ: we want to (at least to my understanding) answer questions, not say RTFM.

We should probably link to good further reading (where available and uncontroversial), but we should also answer questions directly, and where possible briefly.

My intention, for what it's worth, was for each question to have a brief (one or two paragraph) answer and explanation, with links to further discussion at the end.

I'll try to add the additional questions later tonight.

[Lateral]

I think this is a good link to put on in the discussion of psionics

"Myth; The XPH is overpowered" (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/18833134/Myth:_The_XPH_is_overpowered) (I am glad this thread survived the 4e transition purge)

While that would be a great link, you should note that this was written before Complete Psionics came out.

[Hecuba]

These are quite excellent, which is quietly ironic to me.

Oh, those aren't my opinions, but I can recognize when I'm in the minority. I'm just editing.

If you want a discussion on the role of rules in game design, though, I'm always up: you always seem to be an engaging and interesting debater.

P.S. Expanded the RAMS section. Better?

My opinions, from the peanut gallery
My interest in rules discussions often runs in a markedly different direction from many people's. In general, I don't care whether it's legal-- I care what design purpose it serves. I would be foolish, however, to think that this doesn't color my opinions relative to topics like RAW and RAI.

Were they my opinions, I would have noted that RAW is no less of appeal to authority than unsupported "RAI," (them's the rules because them's the rules). Moreover, I would also note that (for example) if there exists a reading for an individual rule that causes the rule to contradict or invalidate part of itself, choosing that reading and defending it as "The Rules" over a less problematic reading is both disparaging of the author thereof and an indication of a sad day for reading comprehension.

[Veyr]

Oh, those aren't my opinions, but I can recognize when I'm in the minority. I'm just editing.
An impressive skill.


Were they my opinions, I would have noted that RAW is no less of appeal to authority than unsupported "RAI," (them's the rules because them's the rules).
That assumes that RAW is being used to justify it being the best way to run it. In fact, this is something that should go in the FAQ: most people who talk about RAW do not mean that, and lots of the people who get angry about it assume that they do.

It's not an appeal to authority because it's not an attempt to claim that "as-written" is how it should be played. It's an objective (in theory) statement of what's written down.


Moreover, I would also note that (for example) if there exists a reading for an individual rule causes the rule to contradict or invalidate part of itself, choosing that reading and defending it as "The Rules" over a less problematic reading is both disparaging of the author thereof and an indication of a sad day for reading comprehension.
I've noticed this in your signature as well: what on earth are you talking about? I can think of no examples of this sort of thing.

I mean, Monks being proficient with Unarmed Strikes, for example, is something I will stipulate as both RAI and RAMS. However, no where in the rules is there an internal conflict about this: Monks are not proficient with them. To make them proficient is a houserule; you cannot "read" the rules to mean anything other than this simple fact.

[Dusk Eclipse]

While that would be a great link, you should note that this was written before Complete Psionics came out.

And? really the only exploit I can think off-hand is sincrhonicity abuse; and even then the amount of rules exploits accessible to wizards out-weights the ones available to psionic characters so yeah.

[Hecuba]

That assumes that RAW is being used to justify it being the best way to run it. In fact, this is something that should go in the FAQ: most people who talk about RAW do not mean that, and lots of the people who get angry about it assume that they do.

It doesn't have to be presented as the best way to run something: RAW carries a very heavy connotation as "the Rules," a concept which itself has some significant emotive value.


I've noticed this in your signature as well: what on earth are you talking about? I can think of no examples of this sort of thing.
One of the more... interesting readings of Precocious Apprentice I've seen around here is based on a wording difference between the online presentation and the book presentation.

The idea is that the first element (roll to cast a 2nd once a day) counts as being able to cast a 2nd level spell for the second element (when you can cast 2nd level spells, you gain an extra normal 2nd level slot), and thus taking the feat just gives you a 2nd level slot early (with an unnecessary logic step added in).

There is no rule element I know of that invalidates that reading: there is no misuse of reserved terms, etc. The book presentation, which is what is needed to make it work, carries weight because the online version was a preview. But if that's the desired effect of the feat, the only reason to write it that way is intentional obfuscation.

[Veyr]

It doesn't have to be presented as the best way to run something: RAW carries a very heavy connotation as "the Rules," a concept which itself has some significant emotive value.
Well? Those are the rules. No one plays by them precisely, but it's good to know what they are. That doesn't make it an appeal to authority; you're the one making the appeal by giving it some unintended emotive value.


One of the more... interesting readings of Precocious Apprentice I've seen around here (based on a wording difference between the online presentation and the book presentation) is that the first element (roll to cast a 2nd once a day) counts as being able to cast a 2nd level spell for the second element (when you can cast 2nd level spells, you gain an extra normal 2nd level slot), and thus taking the feat just gives you a 2nd level slot early (with an unnecessary logic step added in).
I've never heard anyone suggest that this was RAW. They would be wrong.

But this is something I've literally never seen. Your signature is accurate, but I can't imagine why it needs to be stated in every post. It just doesn't come up all that often that I can see.

[Lateral]

And? really the only exploit I can think off-hand is sincrhonicity abuse; and even then the amount of rules exploits accessible to wizards out-weights the ones available to psionic characters so yeah.

It just means that some of the things addressed are slightly out of date and could be amended, and that it doesn't cover all the potential abuses. Not a big deal, just something worth noting.

[Hecuba]

Well? Those are the rules. No one plays by them precisely, but it's good to know what they are. That doesn't make it an appeal to authority; you're the one making the appeal by giving it some unintended emotive value.

Rules imply authority because their basic purpose (imposing a framework) acts as a source of authority relative to play. This is easily conflated with authority relative to design, which they don't have-- they are the product of design, not the source.

It is quite possible, though not necessarily easy, to keep these ideas well differentiated. But denotation and connotation are not so easily decoupled, even in formal discourse, for most readers. And moreover, I personally find that effort not particularly different in difficulty to logical examination of design intent.


I've never heard anyone suggest that this was RAW. They would be wrong.

Without inserting some judgement call into the reading, it's no less RAW than healing by drowning (for which you can read the parenthetical "0hp" as either explanatory detail or qualifying detail). Every reserved term is used in the proper manner, the primary source priority is followed, and the ultimate effect of the reading does not contradict any higher priority source.

P.S. You're right, the sig is a bit combative on a fairly extreme example. I'll make it go away.

[Dusk Eclipse]

It just means that some of the things addressed are slightly out of date and could be amended, and that it doesn't cover all the potential abuses. Not a big deal, just something worth noting.

Well there is always linking the Psionic abuse thread (which I believe Kalaska'Agathas started himself) to show the worst abuses, and I think there is a thread currently on BG which deals with similar stuff; but for arcane casters...

[Lateral]

Well there is always linking the Psionic abuse thread (which I believe Kalaska'Agathas started himself) to show the worst abuses, and I think there is a thread currently on BG which deals with similar stuff; but for arcane casters...

Yeah, that's sort of what I meant; it's a great source, but it's not the only source we should use.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Well there is always linking the Psionic abuse thread (which I believe Kalaska'Agathas started himself) to show the worst abuses, and I think there is a thread currently on BG which deals with similar stuff; but for arcane casters...

I figure those two can be linked under the heading of "What are these Handbooks to which everyone is referring?"

Also, the questions in the OP should be updated to this point - if I missed one let me know.

I'm still busy with summer classes, but I should be able to start going through and nominating answers. If anyone else thinks we've come to some sort of consensus on one or more of these, let me know.

[Darth Stabber]

All of the stuff everyone has said regarding RAW and the "appeal to authority" fallacy

To debate any point on this forum, by the strictures of formal and informal logic, we need a set of common presuppositions/frame of reference. If we each make appeals based on our own rules patches, we don't have that. RAW, while flawed, is the only reasonable selection for 2 reasons: first it is the basis from which each group houserules in their own patches, and secondly, because it requires no special input on the part of the thread participant to stand. There are likely a very small few points a variance from RAW that are truely universal enough to be part of the common presupposition. Indeed the only ones I can come up with off top of my head are No drown-healing, monk's fist proficiency, and the inability to perform actions while dead. However it is worth noting that rarely is multiclass penalty considered in a build thread, regardless of the merits of that particular rule.

It is also generally conceeded that unless otherwise noted all WotC official 3.5 material is allowed for a 3.5 debate, as is any official 3.0 book with an official 3.5 errata or rules update. I personally think that setting specific material should be considered off the table unless otherwise noted, but I have no authority on this matter, indeed no one person does as this change would require the realignment of thought process of a well established user base, and would put this forum at variance with most other forums still active in 3.5 discussion.

However we are only bound to that set of presuppositions if no additional context is given. If we, for example, are resolving a build help request and the user gives us houserules, we must then align our points based on the rules of the house, and all points are then considered on their merits within the new context. Ditto source availablity, ie if the OP states that they are using SRD+completes only, than we obviously cannot assume any book that does not have complete in it's title is fair.

[Hecuba]

There are likely a very small few points a variance from RAW that are truely universal enough to be part of the common presupposition.

That's the point: in practice, there are elements of judgement we insert into RAW discussions. I agree that, when discussing the rules legality of a certain element, it's the only reasonable place to start, but when you hit something that doesn't make sense, there's no reason to treat it with greater deference than, say, healing by drowning. Essentially, my complaint against the idea of RAW and RAMS is that we already make alterations in RAW, almost habitually, because of things that don't make sense. They operate on the same principles, we just haggle over the magnitude.

Moreover, there are times when what doesn't make sense is not an in-universe effect, but a design element. For the monk proficiency example, it wouldn't create any glaring incongruities for an in-universe observer, but it makes little sense to design a class for hitting things with bare fists and presume in its design a non-proficiency penalty without ever noting its effect or rolling it into existing penalties.

[Bovine Colonel]

TVTropes has a very good list of logical fallacies.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouFailLogicForever

[Mr. Zolrane]

TVTropes has a very good list of logical fallacies.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouFailLogicForever


WARNING:

WHILE HIGHLY INFORMATIVE, THE LINK IN QUESTION IS LACED WITH A DANGEROUSLY ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCE.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

This should probably be something added to whatever the FAQ says on Tome of Battle, but there definitely needs to be a mention that, while a Warblade is basically a fighter, that does not mean that it is intended to replace the Fighter class and even a Fighter X/Warblade Y is not only effective to play, but also meshes seamlessly.

[Darth Stabber]

That's the point: in practice, there are elements of judgement we insert into RAW discussions. I agree that, when discussing the rules legality of a certain element, it's the only reasonable place to start, but when you hit something that doesn't make sense, there's no reason to treat it with greater deference than, say, healing by drowning. Essentially, my complaint against the idea of RAW and RAMS is that we already make alterations in RAW, almost habitually, because of things that don't make sense. They operate on the same principles, we just haggle over the magnitude.

Moreover, there are times when what doesn't make sense is not an in-universe effect, but a design element. For the monk proficiency example, it wouldn't create any glaring incongruities for an in-universe observer, but it makes little sense to design a class for hitting things with bare fists and presume in its design a non-proficiency penalty without ever noting its effect or rolling it into existing penalties.

In the three specific examples I was referring to are all cases of bad templating (or lack of any), all obviously and agregiously erronious to any observer with the smallest modicum of rules knowledge when demonstrated, imperceptable without a high degree of system mastery or demonstration, and with a universal fix applied identically that requires no great faculty on the part of the player or gm who observes it. The standard for these corner cases is very high, and the number of them is quite small, and could be listed as a default presupposition in the formal logic FAQ or the preposed FAQ that is the topic of this thread.

[Darth Stabber]

This should probably be something added to whatever the FAQ says on Tome of Battle, but there definitely needs to be a mention that, while a Warblade is basically a fighter, that does not mean that it is intended to replace the Fighter class and even a Fighter X/Warblade Y is not only effective to play, but also meshes seamlessly.

Actually, would some post discussing the old "melee can't have nice things" debate/attitude be a reasonable inclusion? It is commonly invoked, and could be presented in a neutral but informative manner. I personally think it is bordering on a fallacy, since it removes elements that bring some balance to the game, but in very low op groups these "nice things" can be more effective than the massively powerful but frequently poorly utilized things non-melee gets.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Actually, would some post discussing the old "melee can't have nice things" debate/attitude be a reasonable inclusion? It is commonly invoked, and could be presented in a neutral but informative manner. I personally think it is bordering on a fallacy, since it removes elements that bring some balance to the game, but in very low op groups these "nice things" can be more effective than the massively powerful but frequently poorly utilized things non-melee gets.

I think What do you mean, mêlée can't have nice things? would be a fine question. It is one of the more frequently encountered assumptions, at least in my experience, and that's what this handbook is supposed to cover.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Actually, would some post discussing the old "melee can't have nice things" debate/attitude be a reasonable inclusion? It is commonly invoked, and could be presented in a neutral but informative manner. I personally think it is bordering on a fallacy, since it removes elements that bring some balance to the game, but in very low op groups these "nice things" can be more effective than the massively powerful but frequently poorly utilized things non-melee gets.

I am very much in favor of that, I just worry that it'll devolve into another ToB scrap for 30 bloody pages. If there's a way to safeguard against that, the idea has my support.

[Hecuba]

I think What do you mean, mêlée can't have nice things? would be a fine question. It is one of the more frequently encountered assumptions, at least in my experience, and that's what this handbook is supposed to cover.

We should also add "Why Mialee can't have nice things." And the answer is that she looks kinda creepy.

[Mr. Zolrane]

We should also add "Why Mialee can't have nice things." And the answer is that she looks kinda creepy.like she's half Klingon or something.

Fixed that for ya.:smalltongue:

[Darth Stabber]

I am very much in favor of that, I just worry that it'll devolve into another ToB scrap for 30 bloody pages. If there's a way to safeguard against that, the idea has my support.

I find it intensely amusing that the book that does the most to bring balance (between casters and non-casters) to the game is the one that catches the most flak.

[Mr. Zolrane]

I find it intensely amusing that the book that does the most to bring balance (between casters and non-casters) to the game is the one that catches the most flak.

Oh, don't get me wrong; I'm right there with ya. I just don't know if a certain segment of the forum population will be able to restrain itself.

[Veyr]

It's much too controversial, I think, for an FAQ, but along those lines, I would desperately like to see this post answered. It never was in that thread, despite five more pages of discussion on the topic after I made that post.

If someone with editing skills I lack wants to use that post (or others similar to it; I have a few more in that thread) as the basis for something, like "Why do people seem to assume I don't want mundanes to have nice things just because I ban Tome of Battle?", I'd be very happy to see that.

But again, as has been mentioned... probably not entirely appropriate for an FAQ which is supposed to represent the forum broadly.

[Mr. Zolrane]

It's much too controversial, I think, for an FAQ, but along those lines, I would desperately like to see this post answered. It never was in that thread, despite five more pages of discussion on the topic after I made that post.

Heh, I remember unleashing that thread upon the world.

Also: Dear sweet Pelor, it's happening already...

[Veyr]

Also: Dear sweet Pelor, it's happening already...
Point, but I don't think that we need to really discuss the merits or lack thereof of Tome of Battle here, so much as discuss the merits of discussing it in the FAQ. The obvious reasons to want to are the same reason to not want to: it's controversial, and it's likely that we won't find a nice neutral thing to include in the FAQ.

In fact, I'm a little worried that this thread seems to lack the anti-ToB crowd; our opinions are seeming a little one-sided as a result.

[Lateral]

After this long, I think the anti-ToB crowd has pretty much been ground down to a handful of people on this forum. It's like the freaking aftermath of baryogenesis.

[Darth Stabber]

I will concede that "melee nicethings", might be too controversial for an FAQ thread.

I can. How ever answer this following question:

Why do people seem to assume I don't want mundanes to have nice things just because I ban Tome of Battle?", I'd be very happy to see that.

Mundane melee outside of ToB is forced to make a very tough decision. When creating a character you can either be really good at one thing, or crappy at a number of things. A caster's hands are not so tightly bound. If a caster wants to deal a butt load of damage he might pick up a menagerie of metamagic reducers, and metamagic feats and prepare a bunch of empowered twinned repeating sonic orbs, whereas mr. Fighter/Barrbarian will grab power attack, shocktrooper, leap attack, and some levels in PRCs that specifically support that. Now if we put the characters in a situation that does not allow their primary tactic, the caster is still a caster, and if he has a brain in his head his spell selection will be diverse enough that he can contribute something. Whereas if the warrior can't charge he is effectively removed from the encounter. If the warrior decides he wants to be able to charge and trip so he can contribute in a wider variety of encounters, he will not be very good at either since those 2 specialities have entirely different feat trees and utilize a somewhat different set up of classes. Casters just use different spells. ToB allows you to be good at multiple things. Now, while you may not like the way ToB resolves mundane melee's crippling overspecialization problem, it is the ONLY official material that solves it. Banning it is like not going to the only hospital in town when your leg is broken because you don't like the wallpaper.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Now, while you may not like the way ToB resolves mundane melee's crippling overspecialization problem, it is the ONLY official material that solves it. Banning it is like not going to the only hospital in town when your leg is broken because you don't like the wallpaper.

May I sig this?

[NineThePuma]

May I sig this?

Me too. x3

[Hiro Protagonest]

I will concede that "melee nicethings", might be too controversial for an FAQ thread.

I can. How ever answer this following question:


Mundane melee outside of ToB is forced to make a very tough decision. When creating a character you can either be really good at one thing, or crappy at a number of things. A caster's hands are not so tightly bound. If a caster wants to deal a butt load of damage he might pick up a menagerie of metamagic reducers, and metamagic feats and prepare a bunch of empowered twinned repeating sonic orbs, whereas mr. Fighter/Barrbarian will grab power attack, shocktrooper, leap attack, and some levels in PRCs that specifically support that. Now if we put the characters in a situation that does not allow their primary tactic, the caster is still a caster, and if he has a brain in his head his spell selection will be diverse enough that he can contribute something. Whereas if the warrior can't charge he is effectively removed from the encounter. If the warrior decides he wants to be able to charge and trip so he can contribute in a wider variety of encounters, he will not be very good at either since those 2 specialities have entirely different feat trees and utilize a somewhat different set up of classes. Casters just use different spells. ToB allows you to be good at multiple things. Now, while you may not like the way ToB resolves mundane melee's crippling overspecialization problem, it is the ONLY official material that solves it. Banning it is like not going to the only hospital in town when your leg is broken because you don't like the wallpaper.

I have a counter argument. In my low-op group, I beat a third level druid with my third level fighter, and my fighter was using a bastard sword two-handed (originally with shield, but it became a pain to draw both of them, especially after I took quick draw), and he was a half-orc who took dodge and EWP for the bastard sword, as well as not having power attack (I used to think the damage bonus wasn't worth the attack penalty). This was my first campaign, which the DM just decided to stop after we got to fourth level, as it had been so long since our last session (we don't play at all during the school year).

By the time we got into the new campaign, I had been a member of the forums for a couple months, and had picked up ToB. My new character was a warblade, we had started at fifth level. He started to think it might be overpowered when it didn't say for leaping dragon stance whether or not the extra 10 ft. applied to high jumps (we just decided it didn't), and it got worse when I almost one-shotted a catapult with mountain hammer (gotta remember to never use that as a lockpick in this group). My character hasn't been scrapped ,but the DM's thinking about making me rewrite it as a fighter.

[Darth Stabber]

I have a counter argument. In my low-op group, I beat a third level druid with my third level fighter, and my fighter was using a bastard sword two-handed (originally with shield, but it became a pain to draw both of them, especially after I took quick draw), and he was a half-orc who took dodge and EWP for the bastard sword, as well as not having power attack (I used to think the damage bonus wasn't worth the attack penalty). This was my first campaign, which the DM just decided to stop after we got to fourth level, as it had been so long since our last session (we don't play at all during the school year).

By the time we got into the new campaign, I had been a member of the forums for a couple months, and had picked up ToB. My new character was a warblade, we had started at fifth level. He started to think it might be overpowered when it didn't say for leaping dragon stance whether or not the extra 10 ft. applied to high jumps (we just decided it didn't), and it got worse when I almost one-shotted a catapult with mountain hammer (gotta remember to never use that as a lockpick in this group). My character hasn't been scrapped ,but the DM's thinking about making me rewrite it as a fighter.

Low op D&D games are a mess, and playing in them requires either a lack of system mastery, or willful self sabatoge, and in the case of the former character parity gets thrown right out the window about three sessions after some newb decides to play a druid. Druids, Clerics, Dread Necro, Beguiler and ToB classes are remarkably newb friendly, and hard to build poorly. As such timmy "toughness is a great feat" dorkenstien can be a warblade, take toughness at every opportunity, and pick the worst manuevers at every level , and his character will be surprisingly not terrible, much like druid and cleric spell selections only matter that day, and tomorrow they could be amazing by only changing their spells prepped, even if they took nothing but toughness for feats and spent all their skill points on profession(dirt farmer), and Craft (lame excuse). Beguiler and dread necromancer only require you to stop being a dork to be good. So "they're broken in low op" is crap, your warblade isn't doing anything that druids and clerics can't already do better if they actually roleplayed their wisdom score.

[Darth Stabber]

May I sig this?


Me too. x3

Sig away.filler text

[Hiro Protagonest]

Low op D&D games are a mess, and playing in them requires either a lack of system mastery, or willful self sabatoge, and in the case of the former character parity gets thrown right out the window about three sessions after some newb decides to play a druid. Druids, Clerics, Dread Necro, Beguiler and ToB classes are remarkably newb friendly, and hard to build poorly. As such timmy "toughness is a great feat" dorkenstien can be a warblade, take toughness at every opportunity, and pick the worst manuevers at every level , and his character will be surprisingly not terrible, much like druid and cleric spell selections only matter that day, and tomorrow they could be amazing by only changing their spells prepped, even if they took nothing but toughness for feats and spent all their skill points on profession(dirt farmer), and Craft (lame excuse). Beguiler and dread necromancer only require you to stop being a dork to be good. So "they're broken in low op" is crap, your warblade isn't doing anything that druids and clerics can't already do better if they actually roleplayed their wisdom score.

I think I will just make a fighter, but I will go for a basic power attack/trip build with the spiked chain and the weapon focus line, it'll be decently optimized while still within the group's power level.

Also, it's not so much the druid and cleric who are the problem (they actually aren't in this new campaign, so I might play a cleric instead of a fighter), it's the guy who plays the sorcerer. He likes blasting spells, and really the only thing that isn't a blast spell on his spell list is invisibility (we actually planned for him to use it on the scout, so he could sneak up and put a blast disc on the catapult, but the guy playing a rogue or ranger decided to just charge the enemy without any spell buffs. Luckily, we used this plan to take out another catapult).

[Mr. Zolrane]

Low op D&D games are a mess, and playing in them requires either a lack of system mastery, or willful self sabatoge, and in the case of the former character parity gets thrown right out the window about three sessions after some newb decides to play a druid. Druids, Clerics, Dread Necro, Beguiler and ToB classes are remarkably newb friendly, and hard to build poorly. As such timmy "toughness is a great feat" dorkenstien can be a warblade, take toughness at every opportunity, and pick the worst manuevers at every level , and his character will be surprisingly not terrible, much like druid and cleric spell selections only matter that day, and tomorrow they could be amazing by only changing their spells prepped, even if they took nothing but toughness for feats and spent all their skill points on profession(dirt farmer), and Craft (lame excuse). Beguiler and dread necromancer only require you to stop being a dork to be good. So "they're broken in low op" is crap, your warblade isn't doing anything that druids and clerics can't already do better if they actually roleplayed their wisdom score.

Thank you. You said a lot of what I wanted to say, but lacked an intelligent way to put it.


Sig away.filler text

Thank you much.

[Darth Stabber]

Thank you. You said a lot of what I wanted to say, but lacked an intelligent way to put it.

Your quite welcome, I tend to find it refreshing when I can channel my often arrogant, frequently sarcastic, and occasionally condescending bile into something helpful. Most of the time it just torques people off.

[Veyr]

To be fair, that same post had already included a (much longer) answer to that question. I think there's some aspects to it that might warrant inclusion, perhaps. Though I'm also very tired and may not be thinking coherently.

[Saintheart]

Hi guys -- can I contribute a potential answer to a question?

What?! Bards suck, what are you talking about?!?!

What we're talking about is that bards are the Q-ships of D&D: their potential is well-disguised on an initial reading of their class description. They look like jack-of-all-trades in a game where specialisation rules. They're not the best caster, melee'r, or skillmonkey. Countersong is the single most useless class feature known to man. Fascinate is the second most useless.

It does take a few splatbooks to bring out their full potential ... but ... the rate at which a bard can be improved with the right feats is exponential in comparison to many other core classes, and greatly outweighs the suckitudes of their drawbacks.

The best thing about bards is probably Inspire Courage -- or, more particularly, how cheaply, how impressively, and how early this feature can be improved. Sure, +1 to a party’s attack and damage ain’t impressive on its own. But when you've got feats such as Song of the Heart, Words of Creation, and a couple of relatively cheap magic items which quite feasibly and easily raise this to +5 bonuses at levels as low as 7 or 8 – that's a different story.

And it can be done without any prestige classing shenanigans or reaching RAW interpretations. (If anything, Words of Creation conservatively provides a +5 bonus: depending on how you read the feat, it could actually be as high as +7 to +10.) And since the bard’s base Inspire Courage effect just gets better with levels, it only gets better from there.

If you look at BAB alone, this is basically boosting your melee fighters by anywhere up to five levels. Hell, just consider the (massive) book cost or (outright non)availability of a single +5 weapon to a level 7 or 8 party. And bear in mind a bard provides everyone with this bonus, doesn’t need to do much more than be able to talk to do it, can keep on doing it more or less indefinitely in a fight, and can do it more times per day than there are likely to be fights per day. It's so powerful as to render morale-boosting magic items obsolete.

Even better is that bards don’t pay for this tremendously useful ability with being paralytically MAD or glass-cannon specialised. Many of their class skills and abilities key off Charisma, making them terrifying Diplomancers if built right. They aren’t quite as customisable as, say, a cleric or mage, but they can also be built to become passable in combat (Snowflake Wardance + a Crystal Echoblade), fear builds (Inspire Dread), or buffing allies with many d6s of energy damage (Dragonfire Inspiration).

And if this all gets boring and you’d like to start being a proper arcane caster, you can get into some nice prestige classes (Sublime Chord, Virtuoso and Swiftblade being three of the more popular ones) which move towards full arcane versatility or add to the bard's bag of tricks whilst preserving all of these very lovely features from the bard base. They're spontaneous casters with access to some of the best arcane spells (Glitterdust et. al.) and have a close-to sorcerer progression.

All in all, it’s the bards, not the healbot, that are everybody’s friend. This is why bards do not suck, and you should never say so again. :smallwink:

[Darth Stabber]

Darth stabber's official guide to moderately optimized Druids. This guide will show you how to make a character that can contribute in all but the highest optimization levels. Read carefully as there is a lot of information here.

Step one: get wisdom as high as it will go without LA or racial hit dice.
Step two: don't take any ACFs
Step three:don't multiclass, and the only prc worth considering is planar shepard
Step four: take natural spell at level 6, and augment summoning ASAP.
Step five: If in doubt, BEAR is the proper answer (or fleshraker if your feeling cheesy)
Step six: profit, no question marks needed.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Darth stabber's official guide to moderately optimized Druids. This guide will show you how to make a character that can contribute in all but the highest optimization levels. Read carefully as there is a lot of information here.

Step one: get wisdom as high as it will go without LA or racial hit dice.
Step two: don't take any ACFs
Step three:don't multiclass, and the only prc worth considering is planar shepard
Step four: take natural spell at level 6, and augment summoning ASAP.
Step five: If in doubt, BEAR is the proper answer (or fleshraker if your feeling cheesy)
Step six: profit, no question marks needed.

Just wondering, do you think banning natural spell would be a good first step to bringing druids back down to earth a bit? You know, by requiring them to shoot any bears they plan on shooting before becoming a bear themself:smalltongue:. Before you answer, I'm aware that there's a certain level of cheese against which no defense exists, but in say, a moderate-op group, would this be a good "fix."

[Lateral]

Just wondering, do you think banning natural spell would be a good first step to bringing druids back down to earth a bit? You know, by requiring them to shoot any bears they plan on shooting before becoming a bear themself:smalltongue:. Before you answer, I'm aware that there's a certain level of cheese against which no defense exists, but in say, a moderate-op group, would this be a good "fix."

It could help; make them think a bit more before using Wild Shape. It's far less damage to them than the PF polymorphing nerfs, and even with that they're still easily tier one.

[Zaq]

I will add that the Druid spell list alone is quite enough to bend reality to your whims, and they still have a pet bear/fleshraker/whatever. Sure, Druids make fantastic face-eaters, but honestly, you really, really don't need it. The Spirit Shaman is a good class for a reason, after all, and the Druid gets a pet on top of that, along with what is arguably a better casting mechanic. Wild Shape's nice, but you can take it away from the Druid entirely without making them anywhere near useless.

[Mr. Zolrane]

It could help; make them think a bit more before using Wild Shape. It's far less damage to them than the PF polymorphing nerfs, and even with that they're still easily tier one.

Good to know. You mean that in PF you'd still say they're Tier 1? Any thoughts on how to bring them down to say, Tier 3. Assuming we're only using PF stuff if that helps at all?

[NineThePuma]

Make them spontaneous, like the Sorc. That makes them Tier 2. To make them tier 3 would require taking away casting.

[Talakeal]

Good to know. You mean that in PF you'd still say they're Tier 1? Any thoughts on how to bring them down to say, Tier 3. Assuming we're only using PF stuff if that helps at all?

I don't think any class with access to full casting and a broad spell list can be below tier two, although my op-fu is weak so I could be wrong.

[Veyr]

In theory you could probably manage a class with prepared Vancian casting with a fairly broad list that's still Tier 3, if none of the spells on that list were especially good. Consider Meldshapers or Pact-makers: they can change all of their class features every day, but their choices are balanced enough that they're Tier 3 and not Tier 1. (their lists aren't that broad but more options of the same power level are unlikely to elevate them to Tier 2 or 1).

In fact, I'd say it's more likely for that mechanic to be Tier 3 than Tier 2: to be Tier 2, you'd basically need to make it so there was only one set of spells from the list worth preparing anyway, to eliminate the advantage of being able to change every day, but make those particular spells be nearly-or-occasionally game-breaking.

[Seerow]

I don't think any class with access to full casting and a broad spell list can be below tier two, although my op-fu is weak so I could be wrong.

Nah you're pretty much right on the money. Those broad spell lists basically define the upper two tiers, anyone with them is in either 1 or 2, anyone without is 3 or below. You want a tier 3 druid, knock him down to bard level casting (ie max 6th level) or drastically limit his spell list a la Dread Necro/Beguiler.

[Hecuba]

I don't think any class with access to full casting and a broad spell list can be below tier two, although my op-fu is weak so I could be wrong.

You could potentially pull it off it they had no access to persist, quicken, or contingent effects and said broad spell list specifically lacked ways to mess with the action economy. Having a standard action you can do relevant to the problem at hand is something T3's usually have, whereas most T1-2 can almost always do more than that.

In practice however, most broad lists are broad enough that they can mess with action economy.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Hey guys, while I appreciate the Druidtalk, this isn't really the place for it.

Also, do you think something like Mêlée v. Mundane, what is the difference? would be of any value? Or am I the only one bothered by people using one when they mean the other?

[NineThePuma]

That might be a good idea.

However, lets focus on FAQ and have a glossary. Then we can define Mundane and define Melee, and make sure that we use those terms strictly throughout.

[Darth Stabber]

I don't think any class with access to full casting and a broad spell list can be below tier two, although my op-fu is weak so I could be wrong.

Before I can make claim on this, we need to pin down the definition of broad spell lit and of full caster

Full caster - are we talking access to 9s as the metric for this? I would call Bard a full caster, and he's tier 3.

Access to Broad List -Beguiler's spell list is fairly broad (after a fashion), and has something useful to contribute in nearly every situation. Still tier 3.

Also Wilder, what tier are they in? Psionics is the most comparable subsystem to magic, so it is not unreasonable to call them casters. Now I don't know what tier wilder is in, but I think they're 3.

Oh, and first key to fixing druids, any ACF that replaces Wildshape. That certainly hurts them (but they can easily take the hit). Wizards are supposedly balanced in that at lvl 1 they die if you look at them funny, where as Druids have a decent hit die, access to armor(and the limits don't matter at first level where no one can afford good armor), as much magic as any other caster, and a buddy that is actually better than a fighter. Honestly it is a testament to how amazing druids are that they require no PRC and have only 1-2 needed feats, and are one of the best classes to play at any level, and the only class in midoptimization games that can stay single classed.

[Talakeal]

Before I can make claim on this, we need to pin down the definition of broad spell lit and of full caster
.

I was using it to mean has a caster level equal to their character level (so ranger and paladin are out) and get's a new level of spells every other level or so and ultimately has access to spells level 0-9, so a bard without certain prestige classes is also out.

As far as I know all the tier 1 and 2 casters have signigicantly larger spell selections than the tier 3 and 4 casters, so I would say the cutoff for a broad list would be somewhere between the two. Beguiler's spell list may be pretty broad compared to a ranger's, but it is still nothing compared to a wizards.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Hey guys, while I appreciate the Druidtalk, this isn't really the place for it.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. This isn't the thread for discussions of theoretical tier positions of prepared casters with limited lists.


Hi guys -- can I contribute a potential answer to a question?

What?! Bards suck, what are you talking about?!?!

What we're talking about is that bards are the Q-ships of D&D: their potential is well-disguised on an initial reading of their class description. They look like jack-of-all-trades in a game where specialisation rules. They're not the best caster, melee'r, or skillmonkey. Countersong is the single most useless class feature known to man. Fascinate is the second most useless.

It does take a few splatbooks to bring out their full potential ... but ... the rate at which a bard can be improved with the right feats is exponential in comparison to many other core classes, and greatly outweighs the suckitudes of their drawbacks.

The best thing about bards is probably Inspire Courage -- or, more particularly, how cheaply, how impressively, and how early this feature can be improved. Sure, +1 to a party’s attack and damage ain’t impressive on its own. But when you've got feats such as Song of the Heart, Words of Creation, and a couple of relatively cheap magic items which quite feasibly and easily raise this to +5 bonuses at levels as low as 7 or 8 – that's a different story.

And it can be done without any prestige classing shenanigans or reaching RAW interpretations. (If anything, Words of Creation conservatively provides a +5 bonus: depending on how you read the feat, it could actually be as high as +7 to +10.) And since the bard’s base Inspire Courage effect just gets better with levels, it only gets better from there.

If you look at BAB alone, this is basically boosting your melee fighters by anywhere up to five levels. Hell, just consider the (massive) book cost or (outright non)availability of a single +5 weapon to a level 7 or 8 party. And bear in mind a bard provides everyone with this bonus, doesn’t need to do much more than be able to talk to do it, can keep on doing it more or less indefinitely in a fight, and can do it more times per day than there are likely to be fights per day. It's so powerful as to render morale-boosting magic items obsolete.

Even better is that bards don’t pay for this tremendously useful ability with being paralytically MAD or glass-cannon specialised. Many of their class skills and abilities key off Charisma, making them terrifying Diplomancers if built right. They aren’t quite as customisable as, say, a cleric or mage, but they can also be built to become passable in combat (Snowflake Wardance + a Crystal Echoblade), fear builds (Inspire Dread), or buffing allies with many d6s of energy damage (Dragonfire Inspiration).

And if this all gets boring and you’d like to start being a proper arcane caster, you can get into some nice prestige classes (Sublime Chord, Virtuoso and Swiftblade being three of the more popular ones) which move towards full arcane versatility or add to the bard's bag of tricks whilst preserving all of these very lovely features from the bard base. They're spontaneous casters with access to some of the best arcane spells (Glitterdust et. al.) and have a close-to sorcerer progression.

All in all, it’s the bards, not the healbot, that are everybody’s friend. This is why bards do not suck, and you should never say so again. :smallwink:

While I would disagree with your assessment of Fascinate (I've found that it works well in its Mass form, and as a (necessary) lead up to Suggestion) I think this is pretty solid argument. Has anyone else have any thoughts/should this be our preliminary answer to this question?

And also:


Hey guys, while I appreciate the Druidtalk, this isn't really the place for it.

Just sayin'.

[Hecuba]

While I would disagree with your assessment of Fascinate (I've found that it works well in its Mass form, and as a (necessary) lead up to Suggestion) I think this is pretty solid argument. Has anyone else have any thoughts/should this be our preliminary answer to this question?

Because they are typically flagged for a "5th man role" and have relatively minimal optimization potential in the core 3 books, many people do indeed get the initial impression that Bards are somewhat lackluster (or "spoony"). The non-core optimization options for Bards, however, arguably exceed that of any other class. That means that, while by default a bard can do relatively O.K. at many roles, it's quite possible to build a bard that does very well at any (or even many) of those roles.


Mêlée v. Mundane, what is the difference? or Why do they keep saying I don't want melee to have nice things?

When they encounter a martial warrior in a fantasy settings, many people impose their preconceptions of what human beings are capable of actually doing on what those warriors are capable of doing. Put another way, we often conflate the idea of "melee" with "mundane" (or non-magical).

In contrast, our preconceptions of what magic should be capable of is usually far less limited. As a result, we don't blink an eye when magical characters do something amazing.

As a result, giving melee characters the tools they need to compete directly with powerful casters almost definitionally moves them beyond a power level that many people can accept as non-magical. As a result, if someone does conflate the ideas of "melee" and "mundane", this may quickly break verisimilitude for them even though casters are already doing things that are much more outlandish and powerful.


Fixed that for ya.:smalltongue:

Belana Tores looks much less creepy than the elven/frog wizard we see in some books.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Because they are typically flagged for a "5th man role" and have relatively minimal optimization potential in the core 3 books, many people do indeed get the initial impression that Bards are somewhat lackluster (or "spoony").

Indeed, in Core there's not much going for the Bard.


The non-core optimization options for Bards, however, arguably exceed that of any other class.

With the exception of Wizards and the other Full Casters, I'd agree with this. There are so many stealth buffs Bards got with the growth of the system, between Inspire Courage boosts and means of getting their primary stat (Cha) to various statistics.


That means that, while by default a bard can do relatively O.K. at many roles, it's quite possible to build a bard that does very well at any (or even many) of those roles.

I'm not sure about this however - in Core the Bard lacks both focus and abilities that allow them to functionally cover multiple roles, it's only with stuff like Bardic Knack and Snowflake Wardance and Slippers of Battledancing and Song of the Heart (and the big one, Words of Creation) that Bards start being able to first cover a role effectively and then cover multiple roles effectively. However, the Bard as Jack of All Trades doesn't seem to me to work (beyond Bardic Knack of course) at least not in 3.5 (Pathfinder, with its Versatile Performance ability keying multiple skills off of the Bard's Perform skills gets closer) - however, Bards as buffers and distractions and backup skill monkeys works and works well.

[Hecuba]

I'm not sure about this however - in Core the Bard lacks both focus and abilities that allow them to functionally cover multiple roles, it's only with stuff like Bardic Knack and Snowflake Wardance and Slippers of Battledancing and Song of the Heart (and the big one, Words of Creation) that Bards start being able to first cover a role effectively and then cover multiple roles effectively. However, the Bard as Jack of All Trades doesn't seem to me to work (beyond Bardic Knack of course) at least not in 3.5 (Pathfinder, with its Versatile Performance ability keying multiple skills off of the Bard's Perform skills gets closer) - however, Bards as buffers and distractions and backup skill monkeys works and works well.

I said "any ( or even many" not "all." I don't think that they can do Jack of all Trades either, so "any (or even many, but probably not all)" might be better.


[Re: splatbook support compared to wizards]
While I do think that Wizards and company get lots of nice things in splat, I do think bard gets more: there are very few problems that a wizard can't solve in core-- splats just tend to give them better ways to solve them. Moreover, a great chunk of these also become available to to bards through Sublime Chord levels.

If you have another wording for that sentence, however, I'm open to it.

[re: bards being "ok" at many roles in core]
They're still a low 3 or at least a high 4. Ok seemed the most neutral way I could phrase it: not good, not bad. Working in the word "secondary" might help.

[Zaq]

Indeed, in Core there's not much going for the Bard.

They still have the three big G spells (Grease, Glitterdust, and Glibness), any of which can easily be enough to carry the day. They still have one of the best skillsets (list and points) in the game, including (but not limited to) UMD and the various social skills. Their spell list really isn't at all shabby. Just because you can't pump IC to absurd levels of awesome does not mean that a core-only Bard sucks, by any stretch.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

They still have the three big G spells (Grease, Glitterdust, and Glibness), any of which can easily be enough to carry the day. They still have one of the best skillsets (list and points) in the game, including (but not limited to) UMD and the various social skills. Their spell list really isn't at all shabby. Just because you can't pump IC to absurd levels of awesome does not mean that a core-only Bard sucks, by any stretch.

Yeah, you can still be the Fop, but the Bard shines all the brighter with heavy splatbook support (in my experience).

And I do agree that they're solid tier 3 even in core - they've got arcane spellcasting off a pretty decent list, buffs, and excellent skills.

[Coidzor]

In regards to the Tier system entry, I believe a mention should be made of how tiers are still relevant even without optimization.

Thing I keep running into, annoyingly enough mostly from people who like playing spellcasters and always having the right spell for the occasion, is people screaming "But we don't optimize!" and using this as justification for saying that the Tiers "don't apply," as a result.

[Zaq]

In regards to the Tier system entry, I believe a mention should be made of how tiers are still relevant even without optimization.

Thing I keep running into, annoyingly enough mostly from people who like playing spellcasters and always having the right spell for the occasion, is people screaming "But we don't optimize!" and using this as justification for saying that the Tiers "don't apply," as a result.

Seconded. If we can find a way to address the "Tiers are only for people who focus on munchkinning up the strongest character they can and interfere with "normal"/unoptimized/fun play!" nonsense with a neutral tone of voice (I certainly can't, as evidenced right here; I think it's cringe-inducing bunk, but at least I'm honest about it), I think we should. If we can't keep it neutral and even-handed, of course, better not to try, but "Tiers kill fun!" is one of the complaints I see that, frankly, bother me the most.

[Veyr]

Thirded; I'm right there with Zaq that it is an incredibly irritating fallacy.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Fourthed. The real trick, as Zaq said, is saying it in a neutral tone. My species (The Wooly North American Snarkmonster) is unskilled in such things.

[Lateral]

My species (The Wooly North American Snarkmonster) is unskilled in such things.

Okay, stop the presses. I want every reporter working on our new headline article.

"Zolrane wins Internet, millions in awe." :smalltongue:

[Darth Stabber]

My attempt at neutral phrasing of how tiers still apply to low op games.
So, you say to yourself: "stabber, noone in my group optimizes, therefore you're little tier theory doesn't apply to me."
Well you're wrong on three counts.
1) The tier system as posted is JaronK's, as much as I would love to take credit, I can't.
2) I am willing to bet your group optimizes to some extent, unless they pick their feats and spend their skill points at random.
3) Tier theory still applies to low op games, because like gravity, not understanding it doesn't mean it goes away. For a very simple example, let's compare a first level druid(tier 1) with a first level fighter(tier5 though at first level fighter's are aarguably stronger, so let's call them 3). A fighter can hit things with a sword, and jump. A druid can survive in the wild, concentrate, identify spell effects, train animals, know things about nature, hit things with a sword, heal, and order his companion to attack or jump. Not only this, the companion is likely more formidible than the fighter. That's right, the druids pet badger can rip a fighter in half, meaning he can do the fighter's job (via animal companion), and the druid can still focus her actions on casting awesome spells, or fighting alongside the companion. At higher levels this diparity grows as the druids animal companion grows stronge, the druids spells grow stronger and the druid leans to turn into animals (that are stronger than the fighter. Even if the druid prepares mostly healing spells (common in lowop groups) he is still packing a pet stronger than a fighter, the ability to turn into another monster stronger than the fighter, heal things, and convert unneeded heals into bears. Which sounds like the better deal to you?

[Saintheart]

I'm not sure if I'm addressing how you guys would like to deal with questions right, but just for the shiggles here's a slightly revised version of my "answer" on bards:

What?! Bards suck, what are you talking about?!?!

What we're talking about is that bards are the Q-ships of D&D. Their potential is well-disguised on an initial reading of their class description: they're intended as the fifth man in four man parties; they're written as jack-of-all-trades in a game where specialisation mathematically rules; and Countersong is the single most useless class feature known to man.

As said, first appearances are deceiving, particularly in the skill and spell categories. Bards still have three of the most powerful utility spells in the game (Grease, Glitterdust, and Glibness), any of which can easily be enough to carry the day. They still have one of the best skillsets (list and points) in the game, including (but not limited to) Use Magic Device and the various social skills. Their spell list really isn't at all shabby, and is cast spontaneously. Bards as diplomancers, skillmonkeys, or battlefield controllers perform reasonably in core.

It does take a few non-core splatbooks to bring out their full potential ... but ... the rate at which a bard can be improved with the right feats is exponential in comparison to many other core classes, and greatly outweighs the suckitudes of their (few) drawbacks.

The best thing about bards is probably Inspire Courage-- or, more particularly, how cheaply, how impressively, and how early this feature can be improved.

+1 to a party’s attack and damage probably ain’t impressive on its own. But when you've got Song of the Heart, Words of Creation, a couple of very cheap items, and one of the bard's own spells (Inspirational Boost) which quite simply raise this to +5 bonuses at levels as low as 7 or 8 – that's a different story.

Looking at BAB alone, this is boosting your melee fighters' effectiveness by anywhere up to five levels. It also seriously boosts casters' own effectiveness on spells, since they often use ranged touch attack rolls, which are also boosted.

Think about it in gold piece terms: a single +5 weapon will cost a level 7 party 50,000 gp, assuming you have a DM insane enough to give you one at such a low level. A halfway optimised bard at level 7 provides everyone with this +5 bonus, doesn’t need to do much more than be able to talk to do it, can keep on doing it more or less indefinitely in a fight, and can do it more times per day than there are likely to be fights per day. It's so powerful as to render morale-boosting magic items obsolete. On this measure, a bard is quite literally worth his weight in gold - and even then, you'd have to be paying 1,000 gold for every lb. of body weight. :smallwink:

And it can be done without any prestige classing shenanigans or reaching RAW interpretations. (About the only RAW debate one gets into is with Words of Creation, and it's entirely unnecessary to get you to +5. If you're at +5, the feat raises Inspire Courage to +7 on a conservative reading of the text ... or +10, if it's read liberally.) And since the bard’s base Inspire Courage effect just gets better with levels, it only gets better from there.

Even better is that bards don’t pay for this tremendously useful ability with being paralytically MAD or glass-cannon specialised. Many of their class skills and abilities key off Charisma and their later options focus more and more on it. They aren’t quite as customisable as, say, a cleric or mage, but they can also be built to become passable in combat (Snowflake Wardance + a Crystal Echoblade + Slippers of Battledancing), fear builds (Inspire Dread), or buffing allies with many d6s of energy damage (Dragonfire Inspiration). Diplomacy is already made to be broken in D&D 3.5, but many Diplomancer builds will have bard levels in there somewhere simply because the bard is a party face par excellence.

And if this all gets boring and you’d like to start being a proper arcane caster, you can get into some nice prestige classes (Sublime Chord, Virtuoso and Swiftblade being three of the more popular ones) which move towards full arcane versatility or add to the bard's bag of tricks whilst preserving all of these very lovely features from the bard base.

All in all, it’s the bards, not the healbots, that are everybody’s friend. This is why bards do not suck, and you should never say so again.

Basic changes were to edit out the hate for Fascinate (oo, I rhymed) and to add in Zaq's observations on core effectiveness of bards. I'm not terribly possessive of the wording, just interested in helping out. :smallwink:

EDIT: Also, if anyone's interested on the RAW debate re: Words of Creation, it comes down to whether WoC doubles the base Inspire Courage effect or the cumulative Inspire Courage effect. When you're at level 7 or so, IIRC it's a +2 base, so doubling it then raises it to +4, on top of which you then apply Song of the Heart, Inspirational Boost, Badge of Valor and whatnot. If, however, WoC doubles the cumulative IC effect, it'd be +5 x 2 = +10 :smallsmile:

[Darth Stabber]

What tier is wilder in? They are full manifesters with access to a diverse list, but their powers known is rediculously small.

[Zaq]

What tier is wilder in? They are full manifesters with access to a diverse list, but their powers known is rediculously small.

I personally put them at the bottom of T2. With a few exceptions, they can do anything a Psion (a solid T2) can do, and they can do it better (or at least with a higher ML). They're just extremely limited in what game-breaking abilities they choose. They can still choose game-breaking abilities, though, so I'd put them above T3. Thus, bottom T2.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

I'm not sure if I'm addressing how you guys would like to deal with questions right, but just for the shiggles here's a slightly revised version of my "answer" on bards:

What?! Bards suck, what are you talking about?!?!

What we're talking about is that bards are the Q-ships of D&D. Their potential is well-disguised on an initial reading of their class description: they're intended as the fifth man in four man parties; they're written as jack-of-all-trades in a game where specialisation mathematically rules; and Countersong is the single most useless class feature known to man.

As said, first appearances are deceiving, particularly in the skill and spell categories. Bards still have three of the most powerful utility spells in the game (Grease, Glitterdust, and Glibness), any of which can easily be enough to carry the day. They still have one of the best skillsets (list and points) in the game, including (but not limited to) Use Magic Device and the various social skills. Their spell list really isn't at all shabby, and is cast spontaneously. Bards as diplomancers, skillmonkeys, or battlefield controllers perform reasonably in core.

It does take a few non-core splatbooks to bring out their full potential ... but ... the rate at which a bard can be improved with the right feats is exponential in comparison to many other core classes, and greatly outweighs the suckitudes of their (few) drawbacks.

The best thing about bards is probably Inspire Courage-- or, more particularly, how cheaply, how impressively, and how early this feature can be improved.

+1 to a party’s attack and damage probably ain’t impressive on its own. But when you've got Song of the Heart, Words of Creation, a couple of very cheap items, and one of the bard's own spells (Inspirational Boost) which quite simply raise this to +5 bonuses at levels as low as 7 or 8 – that's a different story.

Looking at BAB alone, this is boosting your melee fighters' effectiveness by anywhere up to five levels. It also seriously boosts casters' own effectiveness on spells, since they often use ranged touch attack rolls, which are also boosted.

Think about it in gold piece terms: a single +5 weapon will cost a level 7 party 50,000 gp, assuming you have a DM insane enough to give you one at such a low level. A halfway optimised bard at level 7 provides everyone with this +5 bonus, doesn’t need to do much more than be able to talk to do it, can keep on doing it more or less indefinitely in a fight, and can do it more times per day than there are likely to be fights per day. It's so powerful as to render morale-boosting magic items obsolete. On this measure, a bard is quite literally worth his weight in gold - and even then, you'd have to be paying 1,000 gold for every lb. of body weight. :smallwink:

And it can be done without any prestige classing shenanigans or reaching RAW interpretations. (About the only RAW debate one gets into is with Words of Creation, and it's entirely unnecessary to get you to +5. If you're at +5, the feat raises Inspire Courage to +7 on a conservative reading of the text ... or +10, if it's read liberally.) And since the bard’s base Inspire Courage effect just gets better with levels, it only gets better from there.

Even better is that bards don’t pay for this tremendously useful ability with being paralytically MAD or glass-cannon specialised. Many of their class skills and abilities key off Charisma and their later options focus more and more on it. They aren’t quite as customisable as, say, a cleric or mage, but they can also be built to become passable in combat (Snowflake Wardance + a Crystal Echoblade + Slippers of Battledancing), fear builds (Inspire Dread), or buffing allies with many d6s of energy damage (Dragonfire Inspiration). Diplomacy is already made to be broken in D&D 3.5, but many Diplomancer builds will have bard levels in there somewhere simply because the bard is a party face par excellence.

And if this all gets boring and you’d like to start being a proper arcane caster, you can get into some nice prestige classes (Sublime Chord, Virtuoso and Swiftblade being three of the more popular ones) which move towards full arcane versatility or add to the bard's bag of tricks whilst preserving all of these very lovely features from the bard base.

All in all, it’s the bards, not the healbots, that are everybody’s friend. This is why bards do not suck, and you should never say so again.

Basic changes were to edit out the hate for Fascinate (oo, I rhymed) and to add in Zaq's observations on core effectiveness of bards. I'm not terribly possessive of the wording, just interested in helping out. :smallwink:

EDIT: Also, if anyone's interested on the RAW debate re: Words of Creation, it comes down to whether WoC doubles the base Inspire Courage effect or the cumulative Inspire Courage effect. When you're at level 7 or so, IIRC it's a +2 base, so doubling it then raises it to +4, on top of which you then apply Song of the Heart, Inspirational Boost, Badge of Valor and whatnot. If, however, WoC doubles the cumulative IC effect, it'd be +5 x 2 = +10 :smallsmile:

Excellent, unless anyone has any objections, I'm nominating this to be our answer. Though if you might include "/Sleepers" after "Q-Ships" it would be of benefit to non-Commonwealth Playgrounders.

[Coidzor]

Excellent, unless anyone has any objections, I'm nominating this to be our answer. Though if you might include "/Sleepers" after "Q-Ships" it would be of benefit to non-Commonwealth Playgrounders.

Or, really, anything that made sense as neither of those do.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Or, really, anything that made sense as neither of those do.

Ok, then what would you recommend? Sleepers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeper_(car))/Q-Ships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-Ship) mean "something which looks unimpressive, but is in fact quite capable."

[Coidzor]

Ok, then what would you recommend? Sleepers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeper_(car))/Q-Ships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-Ship) mean "something which looks unimpressive, but is in fact quite capable."

Both of those are pretty obscure jargon though. My first reading of "sleepers" was that something like "sleeper agent" was what was trying to be conveyed which didn't make sense given the context.

Wolf in sheep's clothing doesn't really seem particularly apt either, because they're not trying to appear harmless...

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Both of those are pretty obscure jargon though. My first reading of "sleepers" was that something like "sleeper agent" was what was trying to be conveyed which didn't make sense given the context.

Actually, as I understand it, the term "sleeper" is derived from "sleeper agent", that is, a spy trying to appear as a normal civilian.


Wolf in sheep's clothing doesn't really seem particularly apt either, because they're not trying to appear harmless...

True, however, they do appear to some as useless, which is a sort of harmlessness. And it is certainly a less obscure idiom.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Sleeper sounds good to me.

[Hecuba]

"Tiers are only for people who focus on munchkinning up the strongest character they can and interfere with "normal"/unoptimized/fun play!"

The tier system doesn't matter because we don't optimize!
While your group may not heavily push optimization (though they likely do some little bits of optimization without thinking about it), the basis of the tier system still functions: a wizard played without any optimization will almost certainly contribute more than an equally unoptimized fighter.

That imbalance will persist (and likely be noticeable) unless your group redresses it somehow. This is not to say that you cannot still have fun, but if you want two characters from vastly different tiers to both have roughly similar mechanical contributions, there will have to be some adjustment made by someone (be it the DM, one player, or both).

For some simple ideas on how to deal with such problems and links to more detailed house-rules designed with this problem in mind, click see the spoiler below.
<need spoiler here>


Actually, as I understand it, the term "sleeper" is derived from "sleeper agent", that is, a spy trying to appear as a normal civilian.

True, however, they do appear to some as useless, which is a sort of harmlessness. And it is certainly a less obscure idiom.

We could just skip the idiom and explain the idea. Heavy jargon use in a FAQ is probably not the best way to increase accessibility.

[Saintheart]

Sleeper sounds good to me.

Sounds good to me as well. Probably you can eliminate the jargon issue by hotlinking the offending word, as Kalaska did in his post. But as I say, I'm not fussed; feel free to cut it up and express it another way -- it's in your hands now, guys. :smallsmile:

EDIT: Although it does occur to me that bards, at their most fundamental, are essentially the Shoop Da Whoop of D&D. After all, that Awesome blast is coming from the dude's mouth. :smallbiggrin:

[Coidzor]

EDIT: Although it does occur to me that bards, at their most fundamental, are essentially the Shoop Da Whoop of D&D. After all, that Awesome blast is coming from the dude's mouth. :smallbiggrin:

Now that I have seen it, I cannot unsee it. :smalleek:

[Saintheart]

IMMA 'SPIRING MAH PARTAAHHH!

*Bwoom!*

[Mr. Zolrane]

IMMA 'SPIRING MAH PARTAAHHH!

*Bwoom!*

You may have just won the Internet, sir.

[Qwertystop]

...spent all their skill points on profession(dirt farmer), and Craft (lame excuse)...

Amazingly, you could still make money with those, by RAW.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

The tier system doesn't matter because we don't optimize!
While your group may not heavily push optimization (though they likely do some little bits of optimization without thinking about it), the basis of the tier system still functions: a wizard played without any optimization will almost certainly contribute more than an equally unoptimized fighter.

That imbalance will persist (and likely be noticeable) unless your group redresses it somehow. This is not to say that you cannot still have fun, but if you want two characters from vastly different tiers to both have roughly similar mechanical contributions, there will have to be some adjustment made by someone (be it the DM, one player, or both).

For some simple ideas on how to deal with such problems and links to more detailed house-rules designed with this problem in mind, click see the spoiler below.
<need spoiler here>

I think this ought to be included - does anyone disagree?

What?! Bards suck, what are you talking about?!?!

What we're talking about is that bards are the Q-ships/Sleepers of D&D. Their potential for excellence is well-disguised on an initial reading of their class description: they're intended as the fifth man in four man parties; they're written as jack-of-all-trades in a game where specialisation mathematically rules; and Countersong is the single most useless class feature known to man.

As said, first appearances are deceiving, particularly in the skill and spell categories. Bards still have three of the most powerful utility spells in the game (Grease, Glitterdust, and Glibness), any of which can easily be enough to carry the day. They still have one of the best skillsets (list and points) in the game, including (but not limited to) Use Magic Device and the various social skills. Their spell list really isn't at all shabby, and is cast spontaneously. Bards as diplomancers, skillmonkeys, or battlefield controllers perform reasonably in core.

It does take a few non-core splatbooks to bring out their full potential ... but ... the rate at which a bard can be improved with the right feats is exponential in comparison to many other core classes, and greatly outweighs the suckitudes of their (few) drawbacks.

The best thing about bards is probably Inspire Courage-- or, more particularly, how cheaply, how impressively, and how early this feature can be improved.

+1 to a party’s attack and damage probably ain’t impressive on its own. But when you've got Song of the Heart, Words of Creation, a couple of very cheap items, and one of the bard's own spells (Inspirational Boost) which quite simply raise this to +5 bonuses at levels as low as 7 or 8 – that's a different story.

Looking at BAB alone, this is boosting your melee fighters' effectiveness by anywhere up to five levels. It also seriously boosts casters' own effectiveness on spells, since they often use ranged touch attack rolls, which are also boosted.

Think about it in gold piece terms: a single +5 weapon will cost a level 7 party 50,000 gp, assuming you have a DM insane enough to give you one at such a low level. A halfway optimised bard at level 7 provides everyone with this +5 bonus, doesn’t need to do much more than be able to talk to do it, can keep on doing it more or less indefinitely in a fight, and can do it more times per day than there are likely to be fights per day. It's so powerful as to render morale-boosting magic items obsolete. On this measure, a bard is quite literally worth his weight in gold - and even then, you'd have to be paying 1,000 gold for every lb. of body weight. :smallwink:

And it can be done without any prestige classing shenanigans or reaching RAW interpretations. (About the only RAW debate one gets into is with Words of Creation, and it's entirely unnecessary to get you to +5. If you're at +5, the feat raises Inspire Courage to +7 on a conservative reading of the text ... or +10, if it's read liberally.) And since the bard’s base Inspire Courage effect just gets better with levels, it only gets better from there.

Even better is that bards don’t pay for this tremendously useful ability with being paralytically MAD or glass-cannon specialised. Many of their class skills and abilities key off Charisma and their later options focus more and more on it. They aren’t quite as customisable as, say, a cleric or mage, but they can also be built to become passable in combat (Snowflake Wardance + a Crystal Echoblade + Slippers of Battledancing), fear builds (Inspire Dread), or buffing allies with many d6s of energy damage (Dragonfire Inspiration). Diplomacy is already made to be broken in D&D 3.5, but many Diplomancer builds will have bard levels in there somewhere simply because the bard is a party face par excellence.

And if this all gets boring and you’d like to start being a proper arcane caster, you can get into some nice prestige classes (Sublime Chord, Virtuoso and Swiftblade being three of the more popular ones) which move towards full arcane versatility or add to the bard's bag of tricks whilst preserving all of these very lovely features from the bard base.

All in all, it’s the bards, not the healbots, that are everybody’s friend. This is why bards do not suck, and you should never say so again.

How does this read? Would we like it to be our answer?

[Mr. Zolrane]

I think this ought to be included - does anyone disagree?

What?! Bards suck, what are you talking about?!?!

What we're talking about is that bards are the Q-ships/Sleepers of D&D. Their potential for excellence is well-disguised on an initial reading of their class description: they're intended as the fifth man in four man parties; they're written as jack-of-all-trades in a game where specialisation mathematically rules; and Countersong is the single most useless class feature known to man.

As said, first appearances are deceiving, particularly in the skill and spell categories. Bards still have three of the most powerful utility spells in the game (Grease, Glitterdust, and Glibness), any of which can easily be enough to carry the day. They still have one of the best skillsets (list and points) in the game, including (but not limited to) Use Magic Device and the various social skills. Their spell list really isn't at all shabby, and is cast spontaneously. Bards as diplomancers, skillmonkeys, or battlefield controllers perform reasonably in core.

It does take a few non-core splatbooks to bring out their full potential ... but ... the rate at which a bard can be improved with the right feats is exponential in comparison to many other core classes, and greatly outweighs the suckitudes of their (few) drawbacks.

The best thing about bards is probably Inspire Courage-- or, more particularly, how cheaply, how impressively, and how early this feature can be improved.

+1 to a party’s attack and damage probably ain’t impressive on its own. But when you've got Song of the Heart, Words of Creation, a couple of very cheap items, and one of the bard's own spells (Inspirational Boost) which quite simply raise this to +5 bonuses at levels as low as 7 or 8 – that's a different story.

Looking at BAB alone, this is boosting your melee fighters' effectiveness by anywhere up to five levels. It also seriously boosts casters' own effectiveness on spells, since they often use ranged touch attack rolls, which are also boosted.

Think about it in gold piece terms: a single +5 weapon will cost a level 7 party 50,000 gp, assuming you have a DM insane enough to give you one at such a low level. A halfway optimised bard at level 7 provides everyone with this +5 bonus, doesn’t need to do much more than be able to talk to do it, can keep on doing it more or less indefinitely in a fight, and can do it more times per day than there are likely to be fights per day. It's so powerful as to render morale-boosting magic items obsolete. On this measure, a bard is quite literally worth his weight in gold - and even then, you'd have to be paying 1,000 gold for every lb. of body weight. :smallwink:

And it can be done without any prestige classing shenanigans or reaching RAW interpretations. (About the only RAW debate one gets into is with Words of Creation, and it's entirely unnecessary to get you to +5. If you're at +5, the feat raises Inspire Courage to +7 on a conservative reading of the text ... or +10, if it's read liberally.) And since the bard’s base Inspire Courage effect just gets better with levels, it only gets better from there.

Even better is that bards don’t pay for this tremendously useful ability with being paralytically MAD or glass-cannon specialised. Many of their class skills and abilities key off Charisma and their later options focus more and more on it. They aren’t quite as customisable as, say, a cleric or mage, but they can also be built to become passable in combat (Snowflake Wardance + a Crystal Echoblade + Slippers of Battledancing), fear builds (Inspire Dread), or buffing allies with many d6s of energy damage (Dragonfire Inspiration). Diplomacy is already made to be broken in D&D 3.5, but many Diplomancer builds will have bard levels in there somewhere simply because the bard is a party face par excellence.

And if this all gets boring and you’d like to start being a proper arcane caster, you can get into some nice prestige classes (Sublime Chord, Virtuoso and Swiftblade being three of the more popular ones) which move towards full arcane versatility or add to the bard's bag of tricks whilst preserving all of these very lovely features from the bard base.

All in all, it’s the bards, not the healbots, that are everybody’s friend. This is why bards do not suck, and you should never say so again.

How does this read? Would we like it to be our answer?

I don't object.

And the bard answer looks shiny.

[Hecuba]

What?! Bards suck, what are you talking about?!?!

How does this read? Would we like it to be our answer?

The basic content is good. A great deal of it, however, goes into proving your argument, which is (in my opinion) the kind of thing we should spoiler. We could probably pull out a sentence from each paragraph and have a strong short answer, with that explanation spoiler-ed as the in depth analysis.



RE: My tier system notes:

The last line should probably should probably be: "For further reading, including simple ideas on how to deal with such problems, see the links below."

Links: we should include--

The original Tier system post
The original Tier system post anchored to the simple house-rules section
<insert your suggestions here>

[Kalaska'Agathas]

The basic content is good. A great deal of it, however, goes into proving your argument, which is (in my opinion) the kind of thing we should spoiler. We could probably pull out a sentence from each paragraph and have a strong short answer, with that explanation spoiler-ed as the in depth analysis.

How would you render it then (and would Saintheart have any objections to doing so)?

[Hecuba]

Potential Short Form Draft of Saintheart's bard response

What everyone "is talking about" is that their potential for excellence is well-disguised on an initial reading of their class description: Bards are the <Q-ships/Sleepers><Links> of D&D.

Bard's spell selections include many of the most powerful utility spells available and their skill list is one of the broadest and best available as well. Even if limited to core, Bards can perform reasonably well as diplomancers, skill-monkeys, and battlefield controllers. Moreover, because their casting and much of their skill list draw on charisma, there is little opportunity cost in deciding which of these options to pursue.

With access to non-core splat-books, the rate at which a bard improve is exponential in comparison to many other classes. Inspire Courage alone can be scaled up to +5 easily before level 8 (conservatively), when the equivalent weapon enhancement (costing 50,000 gold) is safely outside the purchasing power of most parties. More detailed builds can double this and add interesting effects like elemental damage.

Meanwhile, there are many specific builds that can expand the bard into other interesting roles: Snowflake Wardance builds for competent melee, inspire dread for fear, etc. Once you introduce prestige classes, you also have the option of pursuing the role of a full arcane caster.

All in all, it’s the bards, not the healers, that are everybody’s friend.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Potential Short Form Draft of Saintheart's bard response

What everyone "is talking about" is that their potential for excellence is well-disguised on an initial reading of their class description: Bards are the <Q-ships/Sleepers><Links> of D&D.

Bard's spell selections include many of the most powerful utility spells available and their skill list is one of the broadest and best available as well. Even if limited to core, Bards can perform reasonably well as diplomancers, skill-monkeys, and battlefield controllers. Moreover, because their casting and much of their skill list draw on charisma, there is little opportunity cost in deciding which of these options to pursue.

With access to non-core splat-books, the rate at which a bard improve is exponential in comparison to many other classes. Inspire Courage alone can be scaled up to +5 easily before level 8 (conservatively), when the equivalent weapon enhancement (costing 50,000 gold) is safely outside the purchasing power of most parties. More detailed builds can double this and add interesting effects like elemental damage.

Meanwhile, there are many specific builds that can expand the bard into other interesting roles: Snowflake Wardance builds for competent melee, inspire dread for fear, etc. Once you introduce prestige classes, you also have the option of pursuing the role of a full arcane caster.

All in all, it’s the bards, not the healers, that are everybody’s friend.

I think we've found an answer - is there any further discussion?

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Why are Orbs Conjuration?

*Checks calendar - that time of week already? At least it's not Monkday!*

:smalltongue:

Should we add this one as well?

[Hecuba]

Should we add this one as well?

Getting into what spells are in what school why, especially for something that was re-categorized at the 3e>3.5 switchover, is probably too nebulous for a FAQ. There are thematic answers, there are answers about "(poorly executed) school rebalancing" ...

We might consider explaining why people generally hold Conjuration nuking to be a better option that evocation nuking.

[Veyr]

Or simply why Conjurer (banned Enchantment and Evocation) is so massively popular for Wizards. Of the 113 possible specialization/banning combinations, that particular one accounts for easily 25% of Wizards.

[Darth Stabber]

Or simply why Conjurer (banned Enchantment and Evocation) is so massively popular for Wizards. Of the 113 possible specialization/banning combinations, that particular one accounts for easily 25% of Wizards.

I don't know about that, maybe in more savvy circles, but given the general attitudes of non-opti players, evocation and illusion are popular choices, and in. higher-opti circles diviner ban evo, and diviner ban ench are also popular when given access to the spell compendiun, and other non-core sources. Personally I prefer generalist > transmuter > diviner > conjurer > abjurer > illusionist > necromancer > enchanter > evoker, but conjurer is, in all probability, the strongest choice objectively. More objective Conjurer > diviner > generalist > transmuter > abjurer > illusionist > necromancer > enchanter > evoker. This is in spite of the general assumption that illusion is more bannable than necromancy, because you have more to gain from focusing on it due to illusion's power being directly purportional to player imagination.

Elven generalist is a very strong choice if you are willing to be a panzy tree hugger.

[Saintheart]

How would you render it then (and would Saintheart have any objections to doing so)?

For completeness, no, I don't. :smallwink:

[Kurald Galain]

If you're going to list the Stormwind Fallacy, you should also list Oberoni.

Another question that may be useful is what the difference is between 3.0, 3.5, and 3.P. Maybe even what the difference is between 3.0 and 2.0.

[Hiro Protagonest]

What are the stormwind and oberoni fallacies? I know the stormwind one has to do with optimizing and good roleplaying, but that's it.

[Veyr]

Stormwind is a specific form of false dilemma fallacy, specifically that you must choose either optimization or roleplaying (this dilemma is false because you can, of course, have both).

Oberoni fallacy is... I forget what sort of logical fallacy it falls under, but it's the claim that the game is always balanced because Rule 0 means any problems can be fixed. I'm actually not sure it's a strict logical fallacy so much as a meaningless argument, since on some level it is true if you define balance that way, but is ultimately completely unhelpful in any debate of balance.

[Hecuba]

Stormwind is a specific form of false dilemma fallacy, specifically that you must choose either optimization or roleplaying (this dilemma is false because you can, of course, have both).

Oberoni fallacy is... I forget what sort of logical fallacy it falls under, but it's the claim that the game is always balanced because Rule 0 means any problems can be fixed. I'm actually not sure it's a strict logical fallacy so much as a meaningless argument, since on some level it is true if you define balance that way, but is ultimately completely unhelpful in any debate of balance.

Depending on how you structure the propositions, it's either a straw man fallacy or a wrong direction fallacy. Both are informal (non-structural fallacy).

[Saintheart]

Mind if I have another go at answering a question already in the list, this time focusing towards brevity and clarity?

Wizards/Sorcerers - why is the Wizard considered more powerful than the Sorcerer?
In short: perceived versatility.

Whilst the sorcerer has a finite number of spells he can know, there is no limit to the number of different spells a wizard can learn. Given the vast range and effects of the various arcane spells available in D&D, a character who potentially has access to all of them therefore becomes more adaptable as time goes on.

When a sorcerer gets up in the morning, he'll usually have the same spells available to him as he did yesterday. By contrast, when a wizard gets up in the morning, he can have an entirely different set of spells available to him. Thus the wizard is seen as being more adaptable to different circumstances that adventuring throws at him.

This is partially the reason for the meme 'Batman Wizard' -- the proposition being that nobody can defeat Batman so long as he's prepared, and the same can be said for the wizard given his versatility.

[Veyr]

I think it may be even shorter to say something like this:

Look at a Sorcerer's spells known. Now look at a Wizard's spells per day, and consider Specialization. At any given level, the numbers in each column look pretty similar.

What does this mean? That while a Wizard does have to wake up in the morning choosing which spells he'll need for the rest of the day, the Sorcerer has to make extremely similar decisions, but instead of preparing spells for the day, he has to prepare spells for the rest of his life. Any difficulty the Wizard has knowing what's to come for the rest of the day is magnified greatly for the Sorcerer, since he's talking about the rest of his career.