Painful, horrible designer advice.

[TroubleBrewing]

Just ran across this little gem (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/dnd_bgh_002.asp).

Wow. That's about all I can say. I assume he was kidding?

[Piggy Knowles]

Just demonstrates the degree to which the designers overvalued minor boosts to AC.

EDIT: Actually, just noticed the last line on the wizard section:

"Multiclassing? In general, don’t. But you might consider taking a level of monk for the AC and evasion."

OK, yeah, he might actually be joking.

[ragingrage]

I love how

Multiclassing? Don’t. It’s probably not worth losing a level of cleric spells.

is under Druid.

[TroubleBrewing]

The first line was what caught my eye: "Choose half-orc (+2 Strength is +1 attack and damage on all melee attacks -- that’s better than any bonus feat you could choose as a human and easily outweighs –2 Intelligence and Charisma, which you won’t care about)."

[Urpriest]

Given the amount of copy-pasting involved, I've got a new theory about why the designers were so bad at understanding their own game: it isn't that they were stupid, they just thought of gamers as mostly idiotic rubes and didn't care about making their play experience better.

[PersonMan]

Yeah, a chunk of it is obviously copy-pasted(Half-Orc and multiclassing bits, mainly).

I really find the whole "str/dex first, casting stat second" thing ridiculous. If he isn't kidding, I think he might have negative system mastery-I mean, even someone playing their first game of DnD will probably put their highest score in a casting stat.

[dextercorvia]

I love how


is under Druid.

The whole Druid section is full of fail. Every spellcaster (except cleric) is told to have a higher Dex than casting stat. While I never tire of hearing Dex first, what?!

[Piggy Knowles]

I really find the whole "str/dex first, casting stat second" thing ridiculous. If he isn't kidding, I think he might have negative system mastery-I mean, even someone playing their first game of DnD will probably put their highest score in a casting stat.

Eh, you never know. One of the PCs in a game I played in several years ago was a cleric who multiclassed out to fighter after a few levels, because he just felt that he wasn't strong enough to support the party otherwise. I don't recall what his character sheet looked like, but I wouldn't be surprised if he took advice like this pretty seriously.

[Moose Man]

I stopped reading as soon as I saw the stereotypical half-orc barb.
I'm pretty sure he was stoned beyond compare when he wrote that.

[tyckspoon]

I stopped reading as soon as I saw the stereotypical half-orc barb.
I'm pretty sure he was stoned beyond compare when he wrote that.

If you're talking about a Core Barbarian? It's not terrible advice. Higher Strength *is* more important to your probable party role (eg, Hit Stuff Harder) than an Int/Cha penalty is detrimental, although you could have made good use of the couple of skill points you're giving up by going Half-Orc. The worst part of the Barbarian section is just pretending the Monster Manual is not a potential resource- if Big Stupid Bruiser who will probably be rejected by 'civilization' is what you want to do with a Barbarian, there's no reason not to just use the full-blooded Orc instead.

Edit: Ok, 'prioritize Dex, try not to have a Con penalty' is pretty bloody stupid.

[Psyren]

Hey, at least he got "thou shalt not lose caster levels" right :smalltongue:

[PersonMan]

Hey, at least he got "thou shalt not lose caster levels" right :smalltongue:

For the cleric.

Wizards, on the other hand, should totally shell out 2nd level spells for some AC and evasion. Totally worth it.

EDIT: Same for sorcerer.

[Big Fau]

That advice isn't even remotely useful in Core, considering full Orc is better than half. And what Ranger prioritizes Int over Wis?

[Psyren]

For the cleric.

Wizards, on the other hand, should totally shell out 2nd level spells for some AC and evasion. Totally worth it.

From their dump stat no less! :smallbiggrin:

[Larpus]

Good lord...I sure hope they are kidding and have a twisted and sadistic sense of humor...

Then again, they did design a bunch of useless stuff, I still can't swallow the -2 Int and Cha of the Half-Orc, I could see that as shenanigans as soon as I looked to the side and noticed how all the other races with adjustment added their numbers to 0, not -2.

[DeltaEmil]

That stuff seems to be written in 2003. I think it's genuine and that back then, they really believed this.

[Zherog]

That stuff seems to be written in 2003. I think it's genuine and that back then, they really believed this.

Actually, given the "GenCon 2000" logo at the top, I'd say it was from 2000. That would also explain why it says one level of monk grants evasion -- in 3.0, evasion was a first level ability for the class.

That also explains this:


If you're talking about a Core Barbarian? It's not terrible advice. Higher Strength *is* more important to your probable party role (eg, Hit Stuff Harder) than an Int/Cha penalty is detrimental, although you could have made good use of the couple of skill points you're giving up by going Half-Orc. The worst part of the Barbarian section is just pretending the Monster Manual is not a potential resource- if Big Stupid Bruiser who will probably be rejected by 'civilization' is what you want to do with a Barbarian, there's no reason not to just use the full-blooded Orc instead.

Back when 3.0 first came out, the Monster Manual wasn't a "search through and find useful races" book. It was, well, a monster book. The concept of playing monsters as races didn't really hit (from a game design perspective) until Savage Species came out in 2003.

As best as I can tell, this looks like it came out right about the time 3.0 released. And if that's true, it's likely just meant as a quick primer to help get people up and running, and get over the main differences (such as multiclassing) when compared to 2E.

[sonofzeal]

The only really horrible advice is recommending Dex over Int for Wizards, and over Cha for Sorcerers, and over Wis for Druids. Dex is really nice, it adds to a lot of things (like Initiative!), but isn't more important than your casting for most people. Everything else, for 2000 advice that can be summarized in three bullet points per class, I'll buy it.

[mootoall]

Wait ... prioritizing Str for the Cleric ... They supported the CoDzilla from the beginning!

[Flickerdart]

To be fair, Clericzilla doesn't really need a Wisdom higher than 19, so emphasizing STR wouldn't be all that detrimental.

But wow, if this is how they playtested the game, no wonder 3.5 came out the way it did.

[MeeposFire]

Remember this is right after 2e came out. In 2e having a minor bonus to aC was very nice. In 3e not so much but this is so early that they are still thinking 2e tactics (consider what their play style was, blaster wizards and healer clerics).

[Hazzardevil]

Heres my main problem with it.

I';; blod the mistakes in this advice.


Want to be a druid?

Choose halfling (+1 AC and +1 attack for size and +2 Dexterity easily makes up for the –2 Strength penalty) [I disagree with the dex makes up for strength, but on a druid strength doesn't matter]
Put your best ability score in Dexterity, your second best in Wisdom. Avoid having a penalty in Charisma. Since you can’t wear good armor, you are going to want to have a good Dexterity.
Multiclassing? Don’t. It’s probably not worth losing a level of cleric spells.

Is this the same Monte Cook who wrote the book of eldritch might and wrrote that article on how the players handbook deliberatly gave bad advice? I'm really not surprised at this advice, although I don't understand how he wrote the gem Book of Eldritch Might. (well by Gem I mean some of the feats and the spellsong bard, the rest of it was made up of half casting prestige classes.

Between the complete book of eldritch might and the first book of eldritch might 8 of the casting prestige classes where half casters.
One was 6/10 and one was full.
The fullcasting one wasn't even designed for proper spellcasters but for a weird bard variant that used a mesh of truenaming and tome of battle mechanics.

[SuperFerret]

I wouldn't say that this is "horrible" or "painful" advice at all. Granted, some of the stat priorities are wonky, but this is obviously written with the new player in mind.

[Optimator]

Remember this is right after 2e came out. In 2e having a minor bonus to aC was very nice. In 3e not so much but this is so early that they are still thinking 2e tactics (consider what their play style was, blaster wizards and healer clerics).

That makes sense.

[Hazzardevil]

I wouldn't say that this is "horrible" or "painful" advice at all. Granted, some of the stat priorities are wonky, but this is obviously written with the new player in mind.

Yes, but did you read the article about how they deliberatly gave bad advice, give me a minute I'll find it.

[SuperFerret]

Yeah, I've read that. It reeked of "Okay, we're trying to save face from the vocal optimization crowd". Sure, there are better strategies and feats, but unless everyone's going for full on optimization, there's nothing that's "horrible".

[Rixx]

I think the problem with this is that it was written before the system was picked apart by thousands of nerds for ten years.

[Hazzardevil]

Found it. (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142)

I don't belive he thought that, i think he really didn't udnerstand the rules.
Because really, are there any 1/2 casting prestige classes taht are worth takign 10 levels of over 9th level spells.

[Drelua]

Good lord...I sure hope they are kidding and have a twisted and sadistic sense of humor...

Then again, they did design a bunch of useless stuff, I still can't swallow the -2 Int and Cha of the Half-Orc, I could see that as shenanigans as soon as I looked to the side and noticed how all the other races with adjustment added their numbers to 0, not -2.

Actually, that part about half-orcs ability scores makes sense. The DMG says on page 173 that, when making a race with no LA, physical scores should be valued twice as highly as mental scores. Dwarves are the only core race that doesn't follow this, and they have to be about the most powerful core race.

That whole article is, of course, ridiculous. I know nothing about optimizing, cut they make me look like a master of it.

[Urpriest]

I think the problem with this is that it was written before the system was picked apart by thousands of nerds for ten years.

That doesn't explain the sheer amount of copy-paste fail in there. If you're writing an advice column (as opposed to mechanics, etc.), it's because you feel like you have advice to give, which means you have some passion about the subject. The whole idea of giving advice to new players without actually caring enough to do more than copy-paste means you think new players aren't deserving of your attention. Which for a game designer is a horrible attitude.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Actually, that part about half-orcs ability scores makes sense. The DMG says on page 173 that, when making a race with no LA, physical scores should be valued twice as much as mental scores. Dwarves are the only core race that doesn't follow this, and they have to be about the most powerful core race.

Dwarves are the most powerful core race? Physical ability scores are worth twice as much as mental? Darkvision is better than skill points and a bonus feat? How long have you been playing D&D and have been on these forums?

[Hazzardevil]

Actually, that part about half-orcs ability scores makes sense. The DMG says on page 173 that, when making a race with no LA, physical scores should be valued twice as much as mental scores. Dwarves are the only core race that doesn't follow this, and they have to be about the most powerful core race.


Now the Half-Orc, it's power is stuck in a really awkward spot. It is hard to find penalty equal to a strength bonus, so thy just erred on the side of caution. very, very far.

[Drelua]

Dwarves are the most powerful core race? Physical ability scores are worth twice as much as mental? Darkvision is better than skill points and a bonus feat? How long have you been playing D&D and have been on these forums?

Dwarves get a lot of bonuses for very few penalties, primarily one to the largest dump stat. If you play to their strengths (aka don't be a spellcaster) they can be pretty powerful in a low optimization group. Other races may be more versatile, but dwarves are great fighters. And, in general, physical stats are more valuable, according to the DMG, not according to me, as I said. Besides, CON is one of the most useful stats. And I didn't say Dwarves are the most powerful core race, I said they are "about the most powerful core race." That is not at all superlative. Oh, and when did I say Darkvision beats a skill and a feat? Your argument against dwarves seems to be that just about everything humans get is better than one of the many things dwarves get.
{{scrubbed}}

[Hiro Protagonest]

Dwarves get a lot of bonuses for very few penalties, primarily one to the largest dump stat. If you play to their strengths (aka don't be a spellcaster) they can be pretty powerful in a low optimization group. Other races may be more versatile, but dwarves are great fighters. And, in general, physical stats are more valuable, according to the DMG, not according to me, as I said. Besides, CON is one of the most useful stats. And I didn't say Dwarves are the most powerful core race, I said they are "about the most powerful core race." That is not at all superlative. Oh, and when did I say Darkvision beats a skill and a feat? Your argument against dwarves seems to be that just about everything humans get is better than one of the many things dwarves get.{{scrubbed}}

I was talking about half-orcs getting darkvision, and nothing else. And dwarves only get bonuses in certain circumstances, so they're way worse if you're not fighting goblinoids, orcs, or giants, or crafting your own equipment. Plus, darkvision isn't that good because light sources are common as dirt, and it can't pierce magical darkness.

[ericgrau]

It's 3.0 so no natural spell and the druid advice makes sense. That or gnome for a druid. I found it odd that they only mentioned the dex focused monk and not the str focused one as well. The rest more or less makes sense though there are other good options. And wow if I could get evasion, +2 to all saves and 3 other things from a 1 level dip, I'd at least think about it. Might not do it, but if I got blasted enough times in a campaign by dragon breath or whatever I'd say "ok, time to eat that monk dip, rezzes are expensive."


The first line was what caught my eye: "Choose half-orc (+2 Strength is +1 attack and damage on all melee attacks -- that’s better than any bonus feat you could choose as a human and easily outweighs –2 Intelligence and Charisma, which you won’t care about)."

In the PH ya the orc's +2 strength is better than any feat option available, or at the very least better than your 2nd or 3rd feat option. Dwarf is probably slightly better than half-orc for both fighter and barbarian but by itself str is more important than con. With no other str races in the PH and use of MM questionable, it's still decent on those two particular classes.

The divine casters don't have very many save negates spells so putting wisdom 2nd or maybe even 3rd makes sense for your standard melee guy, again at least until natural spell in 3.5.

The thing is that even from forum to forum people will disagree adamantly on what's optimal; it's easy to dis someone else's advice as wrong but much harder to provide your own that won't receive the same treatment anywhere except your local circle.

[Drelua]

dwarves only get bonuses in certain circumstances, so they're way worse if you're not fighting goblinoids, orcs, or giants, or crafting your own equipment. Plus, darkvision isn't that good because light sources are common as dirt, and it can't pierce magical darkness.

Dwarves only get bonuses in certain circumstances? You mean like when they take damage, are poisoned, or someone casts a spell on them? Those seem like things that come up a lot. Sure, they have some really specific bonuses, but they also have some that come up a hell of a lot, plus their imbalanced ability modifiers. Oh, and just to clarify, I never said half-orcs were good, I said their ability modifiers alone were reasonable. They do suck, but that's only because they get absolutely nothing else.

[Taelas]

Humans and dwarves are definitely the most powerful races in the PHB.

After them comes the halfling, then perhaps the gnome. Elves and half-orcs are terrible, and half-elves are middle of the pack.

[crowe]

Humans and dwarves are definitely the most powerful races in the PHB.

After them comes the halfling, then perhaps the gnome. Elves and half-orcs are terrible, and half-elves are middle of the pack.

I would say that it all depends on what you are looking for. Halflings, Dwarves, and Elves all have powerful abilities if you build according to the races strengths. Humans are of course supremely versatile. Gnomes and Half-Orcs- Always a bit lacking in my book, but the +2 Str for Half-Orcs is good if you are focusing on Melee Offense.

[Rogue Shadows]

I would say that it all depends on what you are looking for. Halflings, Dwarves, and Elves all have powerful abilities if you build according to the races strengths. Humans are of course supremely versatile. Gnomes and Half-Orcs- Always a bit lacking in my book, but the +2 Str for Half-Orcs is good if you are focusing on Melee Offense.

I note with varying degrees of interest you have nothing to say about half-elves.

I always thought of them as being the weakest race...they lack the vesatility of humans and the specialization of elves both. Even a half-orc is still fairly well designed for his intended focus (Barbarian or Fighter). Half-elves get nothing but low-light vision and some minor skills and resistances.

Not that half-orcs are good either.

I normally houserule in giving half-orcs a feat, and half-elves bonus skill points, each like a human. I also change that "mixed blood" thing to mean that they count as both parent races, rather than just one.

[Flickerdart]

I note with varying degrees of interest you have nothing to say about half-elves.
That's because they're utterly forgettable, aside from the +2 to Diplomacy for diplomancing, or paragon chaining for a bit of a Dex bonus.

[subject42]

Gnomes and Half-Orcs- Always a bit lacking in my book

Are you implying that the power to hurl insults at a groundhog, for a solid minute, every day, isn't worth loss of a bonus feat?

[Taelas]

I am speaking in general. Humans can excel in any class, as their abilities benefit everything. Dwarves have good overall abilities as well, and a bonus to the perhaps most important single stat, Con. They suffer as Bards or Sorcerers, and a little as Paladins, but that's it. Any other class is happy to be a dwarf. Halflings excel as rogues, druids, wizards, sorcerers, and bards. The +2 Dex is extremely helpful, and their small size is nothing but a benefit for all of those classes, and they have an excellent save bonus. They are poor barbarians, fighters, clerics, monks, paladins and rangers. Gnomes fit the same mold, with Con replacing Dex, though they lack the save bonus and only get a few cantrips instead. Half-elves do not have any penalties for any class, but they also do not truly have anything that helps any class (except maybe bards).

Half-orcs excel as barbarians, and can work as fighters, clerics, monks and rangers. They are poor paladins, and are terrible as any other class -- they get no benefits to druids, and they directly hurt bards, wizards, sorcerers.

Elves are decent wizards, sorcerers and rangers, but not stellar (their Con penalty hurts a lot)--they do not excel in any class. They are half-decent rogues and bards. They do not get anything that benefits fighters, monks, paladins, clerics or druids.

So, quick summation:
--------Brd Brb Clr Drd Ftr Mnk Pal Rgr Rog Sor Wiz
Dwarf....0....+...+...+....+...+....0....+....+... 0....+
Elf.........0....-...-...-....-....-....-.....+....0...+....+
Gnome...+....-...-...+....-....-....-....-....+....+....+
Halfling...+...-....-...+....-....-....-....-.....+...+....+
Half-elf...0...0...0...0.....0....0....0....0....0....0 ....0
Half-orc..-...+...0...+....+....+....-.....-....-....-....-
Human...+...+...+...+....+....+....+.....+....+... .+....+


So, I'll reassess a little. Half-elves are better than halflings and gnomes, if only because they aren't poor at the classes they are poor at due to small size.

[ericgrau]

I'd put half-elves at the bottom. As someone said at least half-orcs can work well with the right classes. Gnomes, however, I'd put near the top, perhaps 3rd. Both a con bonus and size bonuses to AC and range attacks. Plus the misc. minor stuff. My casters tend to be gnomes. With the size bonus to hit to cancel out the strength penalty, plus con and AC they even make passable melee. B/c who cares if you're rolling 2d4+542.

[Starbuck_II]

Humans and dwarves are definitely the most powerful races in the PHB.

After them comes the halfling, then perhaps the gnome. Elves and half-orcs are terrible, and half-elves are middle of the pack.

Both 1/2 elf and elf races get immunity to ghouls and many other creatures (Carrison Crawler) just for being part elf.

That comes up a lot actually in my experiences. So don't rate them below halfing.

[Taelas]

Their Con penalty hurts them too much. The ordinary elf is just terrible, period.

[noparlpf]

Let's just assume it was April Fool's Day when he published this. I like to assume the best case. It's less depressing.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Both 1/2 elf and elf races get immunity to ghouls and many other creatures (Carrison Crawler) just for being part elf.

That comes up a lot actually in my experiences. So don't rate them below halfing.

I don't get where it says elves have immunity to paralysis. It's not in their stats. :smallconfused:

[Starbuck_II]

I don't get where it says elves have immunity to paralysis. It's not in their stats. :smallconfused:

It listed in numerous monsters stats, not in the PHB. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, read the D20 SRD: Ghoul, Carrison Crawler (wait can't that one is IP protected), etc.

Here is example:
ghoul.

Paralysis (Ex)
Those hit by a ghoul’s bite or claw attack must succeed on a DC 12 Fortitude save or be paralyzed for 1d4+1 rounds. Elves have immunity to this paralysis. The save DC is Charisma-based.

[Big Fau]

Both 1/2 elf and elf races get immunity to ghouls and many other creatures (Carrison Crawler) just for being part elf.

That comes up a lot actually in my experiences. So don't rate them below halfing.

Halflings have a +3 bonus on ranged attacks with thrown weapons to the Elf's +1. The lower damage doesn't matter once you start applying feats and magic items.

[Gametime]

Their Con penalty hurts them too much. The ordinary elf is just terrible, period.

They're better than half-elves if you take one of the int variants, for certain varieties of wizard. If you're starting above a certain level, magical defenses can render hit point damage a pretty toothless threat. I remember someone - Tippy, maybe? - offering to duel someone on these forums using a Gray Elf Wizard with 20 hit points at level 20.

Anyway, the point is that focused strengths with disproportionate drawbacks are still better than no strengths at all. Even the standard elf gets a bonus to initiative. No build except diplomancer gets anything from being a half-elf.

[Larpus]

Actually, that part about half-orcs ability scores makes sense. The DMG says on page 173 that, when making a race with no LA, physical scores should be valued twice as highly as mental scores. Dwarves are the only core race that doesn't follow this, and they have to be about the most powerful core race.

That whole article is, of course, ridiculous. I know nothing about optimizing, cut they make me look like a master of it.
Ah yes, forgot about that part of the DMG, still, since the Dwarf is there, the Half-Orc ends up wonky in design, as others mentioned, Darkvision isn't much and unless it's a Orc heavy campaign, the blood thing is unlikely to ever come up.

[WinWin]

Monte Cook is a talented writer. Take a look at the Birthright setting.

As for his game design abilities...No comment

[The_Jackal]

Well, if I wanted a writer, I'd buy a novel. What you're paying for when you buy a Roleplaying Game is a GAME.

I think it's pretty fair to say that 3.0 (all Monte Cook was responsible for) was head-and-shoulders above older D&D editions when it was released, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a playground for minimaxers, which is most definitely NOT what the designers had in mind when they built the system.

Sure, his build advice isn't the most efficient, but it won't give you a hopeless character, either.

[WinWin]

Designing games requires a certain mindset. If 3rd edition was a computer game, they would have had playtesters attempting to break the game from every angle prior to release.

This did not happen. Playtesting was conducted using certain assumptions about gameplay that simply do not gel with play experiences outside of the WoTC office game.

Thus Clerics get major power ups because 'playing the heal-bot' is a chore. It simply did not occur to designers that a player would build a cleric around any other option than pumping hit points into the party, so they gave them some powerful options so that players would have the occasional power up and moment to shine. Players building characters based solely around utilising these power ups in addition to other strong options provided by the class was not anticipated.

High level play falls apart because designers did not think to playtest it from every angle. Instead, their playtest groups started at first level and then played through modules. These playtest groups rarely made it above level 10. The majority of these groups did not attempt to break the system as that would have been seen as disruptive to the playtest game. Thus mid to high level options that seem self evident to a D&D optimizer were simply not anticipated.

Hell...look at the design of the monk class. Based totally on assumptions. Like proficiency with unarmed attacks was a given. That a number of class abilities would allow contribution to high level play. It most certainly was not tested or the shortfalls of the class would have become apparent.

The designer article is an artifact of a simpler time. It should be preserved for posterity. I don't have a problem with Monte Cook at all. I think he is a talented writer.

[Timeless Error]

I facepalmed myself every time I read one of the following bullets:

The half-orc's +1 to melee attack and damage is worth more than any bonus feat?
Dexterity is more important for a barbarian than Constitution?
CLERICS SHOULD PRIORITIZE STRENGTH OVER WISDOM?????
DRUIDS SHOULD VALUE DEXTERITY MORE THAN WISDOM?????
Druids should not lose levels of cleric spells?
Monks should multiclass into sorcerer???
Human paladins should spend their valuable bonus feat on Weapon Focus?
SORCERERS NEED A HIGHER DEXTERITY SCORE THAN THEIR CHARISMA SCORE??????
Sorcerers should multiclass into monk???
WIZARDS should multiclass into MONK???
WIZARDS REQUIRE MORE DEXTERITY THAN INTELLIGENCE??????

Did I miss anything?

In all honesty, as sad as that article is, it doesn't surprise me much. If you can design a game as broken (albeit fun) as D&D 3.x, this kind of thing is small potatoes.

[subject42]

Monks should multiclass into sorcerer???

Sorcerers should multiclass into monk???

To be fair, Monk 2/Sorcerer 18 is a fair step up from Monk 20.

[Rogue Shadows]

Ah yes, forgot about that part of the DMG, still, since the Dwarf is there, the Half-Orc ends up wonky in design, as others mentioned, Darkvision isn't much and unless it's a Orc heavy campaign, the blood thing is unlikely to ever come up.

Wizards of the Coast undervalues Constitution, considering it the worst of the three physical stats.

Frankly - and I know that no one believes me on this - I can't exactly call them wrong

The difference between a dwarf [class] and a human [class] at 20th level is 20 hit points. Given that at high-level play you're likely to take hundreds of points of damage in any given full attack, I can see why 20 hit points wouldn't make much of a difference.

Constitution is also tied into only one skill that's of dubious use at best outside of casters; and the remaining uses for it (Fortitude saves and...uh...?) are comparitively small as well.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Wizards of the Coast undervalues Constitution, considering it the worst of the three physical stats.

Frankly - and I know that no one believes me on this - I can't exactly call them wrong

The difference between a dwarf [class] and a human [class] at 20th level is 20 hit points. Given that at high-level play you're likely to take hundreds of points of damage in any given full attack, I can see why 20 hit points wouldn't make much of a difference.

Constitution is also tied into only one skill that's of dubious use at best outside of casters; and the remaining uses for it (Fortitude saves and...uh...?) are comparitively small as well.

But remember, they can take the Quick trait, and have a 30 ft speed in full plate.

[Rogue Shadows]

But remember, they can take the Quick trait, and have a 30 ft speed in full plate.

But that has nothing to do with their Constitution bonus.

[Hiro Protagonest]

But that has nothing to do with their Constitution bonus.

The Con bonus offsets the HP loss.

[deuxhero]

Sure it's 20 hp and +1 fort, but it's the only physical score that benefits anyone not bashing things.

[Rogue Shadows]

Sure it's 20 hp and +1 fort, but it's the only physical score that benefits anyone not bashing things.

But...it doesn't really benefit them. If even a Barbarian drops with two hits by level 20, the squishy cleric, rogue, or wizard simply is going to die in one, regardless of the 20 extra hitpoints.

Same deal with Fort. Woo...you're 5% more likely to make the save.

Granted - +2 Dexterity means you're only 5% harder to hit and 5% more likely to get a Reflex save. But it also adds to a lot more skills than Constitution, and is much more helpful in achieving feats.

Same deal with Strength: sure, it's only 1 more point of damage and 5% more likely to hit something, but it ties into way more skills and feat prerequisites.

[Taelas]

Wizards of the Coast undervalues Constitution, considering it the worst of the three physical stats.

Frankly - and I know that no one believes me on this - I can't exactly call them wrong

The difference between a dwarf [class] and a human [class] at 20th level is 20 hit points. Given that at high-level play you're likely to take hundreds of points of damage in any given full attack, I can see why 20 hit points wouldn't make much of a difference.

Constitution is also tied into only one skill that's of dubious use at best outside of casters; and the remaining uses for it (Fortitude saves and...uh...?) are comparitively small as well.

Let's say the dwarf has 120 hit points and the human has 100.

If both takes 110 damage, the dwarf's fine and the human's dead.

Don't dismiss 20 hit points.

[Amphetryon]

It's interesting to me that under no circumstances are Gnome or Dwarf recommended.

[Killer Angel]

I've just noticed the thread and the link... very funny, any chance it was an april's fool? :smalltongue:
I was wondering if all the advices are terrible, or if something could be salvageable.
mmm... multiclassing as a fighter: pick a level of cleric.
Well, obviously not for the healing part, but maybe there's room for something? it depends on the domains.
Destruction... it wouldn't be my choice, but that +4 to hit/day can be good for a single powerful PA.
Luck: reroll 1/day? could be useful
Magic: Use scrolls, wands, and other devices as a 1 lev. wiz. At mid-low levels, your fighter got something similar to a very efficient UMD for arcane and divine spells.
Travel: 1 round of free FoM. Again, at mid-low levels is great to avoid, 1/day, nasty situations.

OK, not huge benefits, but definitely better than "wizard: maximize your dex".

[Zherog]

I facepalmed myself every time I read one of the following bullets:

The half-orc's +1 to melee attack and damage is worth more than any bonus feat?

OK, so what core 3.0 feat is better than +1 to melee attack and damage? Find one. When this advice came out, there weren't any splat books yet.


Dexterity is more important for a barbarian than Constitution?

Con grants +1 hp and +1 Fort save. One thing a Barbarian has plenty of is Hit Points, and Fort is his only good save. The advice basically is to trade those two things for +1 Init, +1 Reflex, +1 AC, +1 Hide, +1 Move Silently, etc. It's not a bad tradeoff, especially when you view it through the prism of being a brand new game.


CLERICS SHOULD PRIORITIZE STRENGTH OVER WISDOM?????
DRUIDS SHOULD VALUE DEXTERITY MORE THAN WISDOM?????

Natural Spell didn't exist at the time. So your druid wasn't walking around all day in bear form, with his bear animal companions (you got multiple companions in 3.0), and using summon nature's ally X to summon in more bears.

Clerics were viewed, coming out of 2e, as walking band-aid boxes. 3.0 took steps right from the start to make them more viable in combat. This advice plays to that - Wisdom doesn't matter because you're casting cure spells, but Strength does matter because you're now wading into melee more than you used to.


Druids should not lose levels of cleric spells?

ZOMG! There's a typo! Let's pick on it endlessly!


Monks should multiclass into sorcerer???

The 3.x style of multiclassing was new back then. Previously, you picked your classes and leveled them simultaneously, and there were some combinations that weren't allowed. Showing people the value of taking a one or two level dip isn't that bizarre. In 2e, your multiclass would be (close to) the same level. You'd be, for example, a monk 10/sorcerer 10. 3.0 allowed a monk 19/sorcerer 1 to be valid.


Human paladins should spend their valuable bonus feat on Weapon Focus?

Show me a better option in the core 3.0 rules.


SORCERERS NEED A HIGHER DEXTERITY SCORE THAN THEIR CHARISMA SCORE??????

See previous.


Sorcerers should multiclass into monk???
WIZARDS should multiclass into MONK???

Yes, this was actually a great dip late. Instead of taking level 20 in sorcerer or wizard, you took it in monk. You got +2 to all your saves, evasion, more skill points, some useful skills that have been cross class until that point, the ability to add Wisdom to AC, and a few other goodies. If you took level 20 of wizard you got... a few more spells per day. Back when 3.0 first came out, it was a good dip.


WIZARDS REQUIRE MORE DEXTERITY THAN INTELLIGENCE??????

See previous.

[Amphetryon]

I tend to find both Improved Initiative and Combat Reflexes more valuable than +1 to-hit/damage or Weapon Focus. YMMV.

[Zherog]

I'll grant you Improved Init is pretty damn nice, and probably would fit the bill (although the design thinking back then was that II was for rogues and wizards - nobody else really cared about it).

Combat Reflexes, though, requires you pump Dex to at least 12 in order to get any benefit at all. And beyond that, I'm not really sure how valuable attacks of opportunity really are. To apply anecdotal evidence (Weee!) to it, I very very rarely see them come up in any of my games, from either side of the table.

Basically, my point is that while the list looks ridiculous today back in the summer of 2000 when it was posted it wasn't all that ridiculous. It was advice designed to help get people to think in terms of 3.0 rather than 2e. It was designed to make people re-think the value of abilities, to understand feats, to grasp some of the things you could do with multiclassing that just weren't possible before.

[Larpus]

Wizards of the Coast undervalues Constitution, considering it the worst of the three physical stats.

Frankly - and I know that no one believes me on this - I can't exactly call them wrong

The difference between a dwarf [class] and a human [class] at 20th level is 20 hit points. Given that at high-level play you're likely to take hundreds of points of damage in any given full attack, I can see why 20 hit points wouldn't make much of a difference.

Constitution is also tied into only one skill that's of dubious use at best outside of casters; and the remaining uses for it (Fortitude saves and...uh...?) are comparitively small as well.
I can see that, when I was a newbie I used to think just like that, however, I came to realize that Con extra HP is quite nice to have whenever you actually roll the dice for your HP upon leveling, so it gives you some security, besides 1 extra HP doesn't sound much, but starts to look more tasty when you look at it as extra 1/4 to 1/12 of your total HP, or 25% to 8% extra HP, so it now seems comparable to +1 Initiative, which is 1/20 or 5% extra Initiative.

Not saying that Con is always better than Dex, since the latter does give you more stuff, mainly extra AC (nice at lower levels) and the skills; Fort vs. Reflex is somewhat tied, with Fort having the upper hand since failing one of these is usually nastier (and in the case of casters most people try to lock them down with Fort saves, not Reflex ones), all I'm saying is that Con is more valuable than it may look like.

However, Str is quite a stinker, it's only truly good for melee damage and even that is only if you have a decent score to pile it up (since there are other ways to do extra damage that doesn't depend on your Str), but the +1 to-hit is unlikely to make that big of a difference past level 5 or so, few times I've missed due to a single number, it's usually by 3 or more, so the extra +1 from Str is moot. Also, it offers you no save and its skills are usually highly situational and limited in effect, so in the end of the day, Str is only for hitting stuff and, unless you can get a decent to high score, is the weakest of the physical scores.

[Amphetryon]

I'll grant you Improved Init is pretty damn nice, and probably would fit the bill (although the design thinking back then was that II was for rogues and wizards - nobody else really cared about it).

Combat Reflexes, though, requires you pump Dex to at least 12 in order to get any benefit at all. And beyond that, I'm not really sure how valuable attacks of opportunity really are. To apply anecdotal evidence (Weee!) to it, I very very rarely see them come up in any of my games, from either side of the table.

<snip>Don't recall if this was true in 3.0 or not (too lazy to check), but Combat Reflexes allows you to react in the Surprise Round, as well. In my anecdotal experience, that's proven more valuable than +1 to hit, +1 to damage, or both several times. I've seen Combat Reflexes taken with a 10 DEX and no regrets.

Also, I find AoO to be as valuable as the player/DM wants to make them, by playing tactically or not. Some DMs don't like the wargame aspect of D&D and dispense with the map, in which case it's a pretty lousy choice; others have big dumb ogres that apparently took post-doctorate studies in Advanced Combat Theory, in which case it's invaluable.

[Half-Orc Rage]

I like how people who have played this system for eleven years and have debated the merits and flaws of the system for most of that time can go back to 2000 and bash what someone wrote then. That's a ton of hindsight you have over someone who started with second edition and tried to streamline it.

[Rogue Shadows]

I like how people who have played this system for eleven years and have debated the merits and flaws of the system for most of that time can go back to 2000 and bash what someone wrote then. That's a ton of hindsight you have over someone who started with second edition and tried to streamline it.

The problem isn't just that he was coming off of 2nd Edition; the problem is that proper playtesting never ocurred. Most of the bad advice he's given should have come up in a proper playtest environment.

[Rogue Shadows]

However, Str is quite a stinker, it's only truly good for melee damage and even that is only if you have a decent score to pile it up (since there are other ways to do extra damage that doesn't depend on your Str), but the +1 to-hit is unlikely to make that big of a difference past level 5 or so, few times I've missed due to a single number, it's usually by 3 or more, so the extra +1 from Str is moot. Also, it offers you no save and its skills are usually highly situational and limited in effect, so in the end of the day, Str is only for hitting stuff and, unless you can get a decent to high score, is the weakest of the physical scores.

Ah, but you're forgetting the other uses for both Strength and Dex - feat prerequisites. No feat in the PHB has a requirement of "Con X," whereas the Power Attack line all requires a minimal strength score. Strength also affects how much gear you can carry.

I'd personally say that Dexterity is King of the physical stats due to how widely useful it is (saves, skills, feats, AC), with Constitution and Strength duking it out for second. I'd personally rank Constitution lower, but I can see the argument for vice-versa.


Let's say the dwarf has 120 hit points and the human has 100.

If both takes 110 damage, the dwarf's fine and the human's dead.

Don't dismiss 20 hit points.

These are...what? Fighters? Call them Fighters. d10 HD. So the human dies and the dwarf lives.

Drop us back to a d8 HD. So the dwarf has 100 HP and the human has 80. Now both die. Same with d6 and d4 HD.

Bump them up to a d12 HD. So the dwarf has 140 HP and the fighter has 120. Now both will live.

Survivability is considerably more based on HD than Constitution score, at least in terms of Hit Points.

[Zherog]

The problem isn't just that he was coming off of 2nd Edition; the problem is that proper playtesting never ocurred.

I don't do this often, but...

[citation needed]

I'm not at my books at the moment, but I recall a huge-ass list of playtester credits in the 3.0 PHB. Unless WotC gave them specific instructions such as, "Remember, always play blaster wizards, always play walking band-aid boxes, etc" then I find your claim a bit hard to swallow without some sort of evidence.

[Saph]

I think this is a case of hindsight being 20/20.

Sure, a lot of this advice looks bad now. But I remember hanging around on D&D boards back in 2001 or so, and listening to endless arguments over whether Fighter or Barbarian was the best class. One guy started up a thread on Barbarian vs Bard. Everyone took for granted that the Barbarian would win. I chipped in saying that I thought I could take on a Barbarian with a Bard, and got laughed at. :smalltongue:

I also started up a thread wondering what the point of Monks was, since their abilities seemed kind of disconnected, and I got laughed at again and told that monks were awesome. Opinions change . . .

[subject42]

Survivability is considerably more based on HD than Constitution score, at least in terms of Hit Points.

That's not entirely correct. The better way to describe it is that survivability is more dependent on your constitution score as your hit die size goes down.

Assume a Constitution of 18. A d4 die gives an average of 2.5 HP/Level. With 18 CON, that means that 61% of your HP comes from Constitution. With a d12, it's only 38%.

[Friv]

Halflings excel as rogues, druids, wizards, sorcerers, and bards. The +2 Dex is extremely helpful, and their small size is nothing but a benefit for all of those classes, and they have an excellent save bonus. They are poor barbarians, fighters, clerics, monks, paladins and rangers.

I will argue with you. Halflings make GREAT barbarians. This may seem counter-intuitive, so let me explain.

Halfling barbarians have -2 Strength and smaller weapons than medium-sized barbarians. They also have +1 Dexterity, +1 to hit, and +1 AC. That +1 to hit can either counteract the Strength penalty to attack rolls, or counteract the Strength and weapon penalties to damage rolls (through Power Attacking). So you're basically trading a point of attack bonus for +2 AC and +1 Initiative, plus additional ranged power in emergencies. And since they're barbarians, their Uncanny Dodge means that they get to keep that bonus AC all the time.

Halfling barbarians still have 30 movement, which means they have as much tactical mobility as anyone else on the field. They can only wear light or medium armor, which is fine because of their incredibly high Dexterity.

They also get +1 to all of their saves, and an additional +1 Reflex and +2 vs. Fear (through Dex and racial powers). They are crazy-good ambush tacticians, thanks to their massive benefits to Hide and Move Silently (+5 and +3), and they have bonuses to Climb and Listen as well.

Halflings - surprisingly good murder-monkeys.

[Big Fau]

That's not entirely correct. The better way to describe it is that survivability is more dependent on your constitution score as your hit die size goes down.

Assume a Constitution of 18. A d4 die gives an average of 2.5 HP/Level. With 18 CON, that means that 61% of your HP comes from Constitution. With a d12, it's only 38%.

Never mind that Con is usually the first score to get a stat booster for noncasters (it's second for casters), so you actually end up with about 24 Con at 20th level if you started with an 18.

That means you get ~50% of your HP from your Con score if you are a noncaster with appropriate WBL allotment. Classes with a d4 HD usually go whole-hog and pump it up to about 28 (higher if they can afford it), meaning they get nearly 400% of their HP from Con alone.

A Dragonborn Mongrelfolk Druid can easily obtain a Con score of 40 (18 base+6 Race+5 for being 20th level+6 from Amulet with Wilding Clasp+5 from a Tome), which makes the d8 HD nearly irrelevant.

[Regularguy]

It's interesting to me that under no circumstances are Gnome or Dwarf recommended.

No, "gnome" is his answer for Want to be a wizard?