I think... there may be something wrong with me [Archive]

Zombulian

2012-07-25, 02:23 AM

Tvtyrant

2012-07-25, 02:39 AM

Well, take the Lurk. It gets a number of decent augments for its sneak attack, and a list of abilities that wouldn't be so bad. Except that you do not get access to SA Undead until level 8, construct until 14, and plants until 17. By that time its SA is so far behind as to be worthless, and its powers are flat awful. As a springboard into Psychic Rogue or Psychic Assassin it wouldn't be terrible, except again you don't get the augments until way later than you can multiclass out of it.

ThiagoMartell

2012-07-25, 02:40 AM

Zombulian

2012-07-25, 03:48 AM

Psionics is nowhere near as hipster as you make it out to be.

Complete Psionic is riddled by editing mistakes, bad Soulknife feats, badly designed classes and... well, basically, it has a few good ideas, plenty of bad ideas and horrible execution of both types.

I'm not saying it's hipster, it's part of the SRD for dog's sake. But I always found it interesting when there were games where psionics were banned, it's such and easy and fun system.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-07-25, 03:51 AM

Probably one of the biggest points of hatred that CPsi has is that it put a limit of 1 instance of astral construct at a time.

I'm actually fond of all of the alternate magic systems. Incarnum, Binding, Psionics, even the reviled truenaming. If I had to pick one as a favorite, I'd probably go with Incarnum. It's interesting, 2/3 effective, and dramaticly different from the standard vancian system. Not that I have a problem with vancian casting, mind.

ThiagoMartell

2012-07-25, 03:56 AM

Probably one of the biggest points of hatred that CPsi has is that it put a limit of 1 instance of astral construct at a time.

I'm actually fond of all of the alternate magic systems. Incarnum, Binding, Psionics, even the reviled truenaming. If I had to pick one as a favorite, I'd probably go with Incarnum. It's interesting 2/3 effective and dramaticly different from the standard vanacian system. Not that I have a problem with vanacian casting, mind.
It's vancian (it comes from Jack Vance), not vanacian.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-07-25, 04:03 AM

It's vancian (it comes from Jack Vance), not vanacian.

Fixed. Got some punctuation errors too. Stupid neuroses.

Craft (Cheese)

2012-07-25, 04:09 AM

But I always found it interesting when there were games where psionics were banned, it's such and easy and fun system.

It's never banned for balance purposes, it's banned for fluff reasons. Much for the same reasons most DMs won't let you have a gun, even though there are firearm rules in the core books (tho not in the SRD). It clashes with the rest of the setting unless you specifically build a world where it works.

ThiagoMartell

2012-07-25, 04:20 AM

It's never banned for balance purposes, it's banned for fluff reasons. Much for the same reasons most DMs won't let you have a gun, even though there are firearm rules in the core books (tho not in the SRD). It clashes with the rest of the setting unless you specifically build a world where it works.

Back in the day, some people thought psionics were overpowered due to ignorance of how the rules worked (the most common mistake was overaugmentation). That horse has been beaten way beyond death, though.
But yeah, you're right. Most alternate magic systems (includind psionics) should be either ridiculously rare or integrated into a system, otherwise it doesn't make much sense.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-07-25, 04:28 AM

It's never banned for balance purposes, it's banned for fluff reasons. Much for the same reasons most DMs won't let you have a gun, even though there are firearm rules in the core books (tho not in the SRD). It clashes with the rest of the setting unless you specifically build a world where it works.

I thought the renaissance era fire-arms were generally disregarded because they suck out loud. (?) I can see the modern and futuristic fire-arms being tossed on pure fluff reasons.

Craft (Cheese)

2012-07-25, 04:42 AM

I thought the renaissance era fire-arms were generally disregarded because they suck out loud. (?) I can see the modern and futuristic fire-arms being tossed on pure fluff reasons.

Actually the early firearms are a perfect example of this: Crunch-wise, they're not imbalanced at all.

Fluff-wise, they wreak havoc on your standard fantasy tropes (that D&D assumes by default and most DMs use for their homebrew setting). Even in their primitive state, renaissance era firearms were good enough to completely change the landscape of war (and leave many of its older elements, like plate armor and castles, completely worthless and obsolete, though plate armor started to lose its usefulness around the time of the longbow; guns were just the final nail in the coffin). You can't have knights and castles AND rows of musketmen.

(inb4 comment about how the existence of magic kills these tropes even deader than the gun, but nobody seems to care about that)

ThiagoMartell

2012-07-25, 04:55 AM

inb4 comment about how the existence of magic kills these tropes even deader than the gun, but nobody seems to care about that
Well, this only happens if you disconsider how rare spellcasters are supposed to be in the standard D&D world. It's impossible to get random NPCs able to cast 9th level spells out of the DMG demographics, for starters.
A scorching ray kills any soldier dead, yes. It's also worth a lot more money than killing that soldier is going to provide.
Saying magic makes plate armor obsolete is like saying nuclear bombs makes kevlar vests obselete.

EDIT: Btw, portuguese explorers used plate + musket. But that was because the people they were fighting did not have muskets. Still, plate + muskets.

Knaight

2012-07-25, 04:59 AM

Well, I don't think something specifically wrong with me, but I think I may be a little set off from the rest of the crowd in my D&D preferences. My favorite splatbook is MoI, and I love all the Psionics rules and prefer psionics to any other type of casting magic. Also, I got Comp Psi in the mail today, (I had already looked at it a bit on my computer) and after leafing through it a bit... I realized that I really liked it. But most of the word I get on this book tends to be hate, and I was never sure why. If someone could explain the hate for Comp Psi that would be awesome.
But that's what leads me to the point of this post, what about you guys? What are your favorite systems? Do you have preferences, favorite races, classes, etc. that set you apart from the general crowd?
Magic of Incarnum is a beloved splatbook here, as is the Expanded Psionics Handbook. CPsi isn't, but that's largely due to failing to do what it was supposed to, as the concept is beautiful.

Eldan

2012-07-25, 05:39 AM

Actually the early firearms are a perfect example of this: Crunch-wise, they're not imbalanced at all.

Fluff-wise, they wreak havoc on your standard fantasy tropes (that D&D assumes by default and most DMs use for their homebrew setting). Even in their primitive state, renaissance era firearms were good enough to completely change the landscape of war (and leave many of its older elements, like plate armor and castles, completely worthless and obsolete, though plate armor started to lose its usefulness around the time of the longbow; guns were just the final nail in the coffin). You can't have knights and castles AND rows of musketmen.

(inb4 comment about how the existence of magic kills these tropes even deader than the gun, but nobody seems to care about that)

Yes, actually, you can. The earliest firearms were around long before plate armour was invented. It's even been argued that plate was invented partially to defend against firearms in the first place.

Downysole

2012-07-25, 07:38 AM

Also, the term bullet-proof came from shooting a piece of plate armor with a gun at a specified range and showing to the owner that the bullet did not penetrate.

I always liked psionics, but again, do you want Jedi messing around with your Magi?

The problem we always had at our table is how the two systems are supposed to interact. A good example is the time of troubles and Menzoberranzan where the Oblodra (sp?) family nearly took over control of the city while Lloth was on vacation. All on their generally neglected psionic powers.

Just something to think about.

Prime32

2012-07-25, 09:51 AM

Probably one of the biggest points of hatred that CPsi has is that it put a limit of 1 instance of astral construct at a time.Don't forget "Damage Reduction applies to powers that deal physical damage, but not spells that deal physical damage". Or how there are dozens of feats that do the same thing. Or how some of the fluff is based on mind flayers breeding with humans, when they don't even have reproductive organs. Or the incredibly weak and confusingly-fluffed Divine Mind (how can your power "come from within" and be granted by worship?).

I always liked psionics, but again, do you want Jedi messing around with your Magi?If by "Jedi" you mean "people who shoot fireballs through force of will, until they run out of energy", and by "Magi" you mean "people who shoot fireballs by hypnotising themselves into learning the recipe for gunpowder, then forgetting it", then you have a point. Psionic classes fit into a fantasy setting much better than Vancian ones.

Urpriest

2012-07-25, 11:06 AM

Well, this only happens if you disconsider how rare spellcasters are supposed to be in the standard D&D world. It's impossible to get random NPCs able to cast 9th level spells out of the DMG demographics, for starters.

It's perfectly possible to get divine 9ths, just not arcane.

Anyway, most of the dislike for CPsi has been stated. People also dislike Anarchic Initiate for being powerful and essentially making Wilders obsolete by giving their best stuff to Psions and Synchronicity for opening up vast quantities of abuse. But mostly people resent the Divine Mind fluff, and the stealth nerfs that the authors were too cowardly to actually put into real errata.

eggs

2012-07-25, 11:52 AM

But most of the word I get on this book tends to be hate, and I was never sure why.
Count the pages of filler ("X, Psionic" powers/feats, "+2 Uses of PLA!" feats, "pre-statted astral constructs, from a template that already existed!" monsters, "X Soulknife" feats, errata, reprints) and you should have a pretty good idea. Then look at how much thought went into those contents (Synchronicity, Anticipatory Strike, Linked Power and the Erudite's Insane UPPD were supposed to be good ideas? The Stygian powers and Divine Mind were supposed to make sense?) and the supreme lack of inspiration that went into the book's new materials (Storm Disciple: it's like an Ardent, but with Electric Resistance!, Psionic Monk: again! but worse this time!, Enhanced Elan X: The numbers are a bit higher!)

It's a pretty clear case of rushing an incomplete product off to the printers.

But that's what leads me to the point of this post, what about you guys? What are your favorite systems? Do you have preferences, favorite races, classes, etc. that set you apart from the general crowd?
I really like playing bad classes like Hexblade, Soulborn, Paladin, Divine Mind, etc. They give some room to flex the old optimizing muscles without ruining campaigns, they're really rewarding if done well, and almost all of them have some interesting combos hidden in their spell lists/weird splatbook expansions.

As far as mechanical systems I use almost to a fault, I think I've been behind 9/10 Item Creation and Calling Conjurations that have happened in my games. When I play a character who can use either of those, they become my goto problem-solvers pretty quickly.

Boci

2012-07-25, 12:11 PM

Saying magic makes plate armor obsolete is like saying nuclear bombs makes kevlar vests obselete.

Plate armour coasts 1,500gp. A scroll of fireball costs 375gp. The former pays for the latter when I remove the expensive armour from the nicely cooked corpse.

Azernak0

2012-07-25, 12:11 PM

The reason why Psionics are often banned is for a few reasons.

Some of the older guard are still under the impression that it is brokenly overpowered or difficult to integrate. When I mentioned Psionics to my dad, he shuddered about the "10 rounds of Psionic Rounds to 1 Combat Round." It is misunderstanding.

Others read the rules without fully understanding the biggest rule for Psionics: "Can't spend more Power Points on a single Power than your Manifester Level." If you don't know this rule, you have Psions doing 16d6 at level 1. It is misunderstanding.

Some people just don't want to have new systems in their games. I bet people who would flat out ban Psionics probably would also be hesitant to have Binders or Incarnum. With 3.5 being so damn massive and each system needing a fair amount of reading to know how the hell it works, a lot of DM's just don't want to bother adding even more stuff.

And some people just don't like the fluff, which is the stupidest reason (in my opinion) to ban anything. You can rework it into anything. I remember reworking it to having a pool of raw, unstable power that people could tap into. People who were less experienced (IE, lower level) couldn't hope to utilize the pool without asploding all over the place. 99% of fluff can be reworked easily.

As everyone has already said, people don't like Complete Psionics because it is wonky as hell.

Plate armour coasts 1,500gp. A scroll of fireball costs 375gp. The former pays for the latter when I remove the expensive armour from the nicely cooked corpse.

And your average soldier is not going to be wearing plate. Average soldier, IE Warrior 1, probably has a longsword, chain shirt, and a shield. Most of the expense comes from having someone that could utilize the scroll effectively though.

Madara

2012-07-25, 12:22 PM

The reason why Psionics are often banned is for a few reasons.

Some of the older guard are still under the impression that it is brokenly overpowered or difficult to integrate. When I mentioned Psionics to my dad, he shuddered about the "10 rounds of Psionic Rounds to 1 Combat Round." It is misunderstanding.

Others read the rules without fully understanding the biggest rule for Psionics: "Can't spend more Power Points on a single Power than your Manifester Level." If you don't know this rule, you have Psions doing 16d6 at level 1. It is misunderstanding.

Some people just don't want to have new systems in their games. I bet people who would flat out ban Psionics probably would also be hesitant to have Binders or Incarnum. With 3.5 being so damn massive and each system needing a fair amount of reading to know how the hell it works, a lot of DM's just don't want to bother adding even more stuff.

And some people just don't like the fluff, which is the stupidest reason (in my opinion) to ban anything. You can rework it into anything. I remember reworking it to having a pool of raw, unstable power that people could tap into. People who were less experienced (IE, lower level) couldn't hope to utilize the pool without asploding all over the place. 99% of fluff can be reworked easily.

1. Nope, I don't flat out ban the others. Although I don't have the books for Incarnium. I prefer to do as Eberron did. Psionics exist in a seperate country. It is a large enough sub-system that it would logically replace magic in a land. "This town ain't big enough for the two of us."
Whereas Binding is a single class, so it can easily fit into a world's fluff.

2. Its not that we don't like the fluff, its that we don't find it fits with our world/game. There's a difference between not liking fluff, and finding it innapropriate for a game. For example, in a world with no gods, I might ban Clerics, not because I don't like the fluff, but because the fluff doesn't fit.

Boci

2012-07-25, 12:37 PM

And your average soldier is not going to be wearing plate. Average soldier, IE Warrior 1, probably has a longsword, chain shirt, and a shield.

And that has no relevance here since I was responding to a claim about platemail, not armour in general.

Most of the expense comes from having someone that could utilize the scroll effectively though.

Not really. 1st level wizard has a 85% chance of making the caster level check. 100% with arcane mastery.

Philistine

2012-07-25, 03:10 PM

It's expressed the wrong way around, but it's not really irrelevant: the problem with using FIreball scrolls to farm full plate is that nobody who can afford a 1500gp suit of armor is likely to be killed by a piddly 5d6 damage (average of only 17, even on a failed save). And since the sell value of the armor is only 750gp, one scroll is all you can spend here if you hope to turn a profit.

Zombulian

2012-07-25, 03:34 PM

Magic of Incarnum is a beloved splatbook here, as is the Expanded Psionics Handbook. CPsi isn't, but that's largely due to failing to do what it was supposed to, as the concept is beautiful.

I'll be honest, Divine Mind makes me so sad. But I love Ardent, Lurk is meh, but one of my favorite parts of the book that I stumbled upon, were the racial classes. I've always wanted to play a Gith! Makes me so happy.

ThiagoMartell

2012-07-25, 10:27 PM

Plate armour coasts 1,500gp. A scroll of fireball costs 375gp. The former pays for the latter when I remove the expensive armour from the nicely cooked corpse.

And the award for "Completely Missing the Point" goes to...

Boci

2012-07-25, 10:33 PM

And the award for "Completely Missing the Point" goes to...

You might want to consider that being because you failed to put it across. You mentioned scorching ray being too expensive for the result of 1 dead soldiers. You then go on to say that plate armour has its place in a world of magic, citing a modern example where magic, in the form of nuclear bomb, is more expensive than armour. I pointed out that in certain situations platemail can be more expensive than magic. So if I missed the points, its only because you failed to communicate it well in the first place.

The-Mage-King

2012-07-25, 10:45 PM

For example, in a world with no gods, I might ban Clerics, not because I don't like the fluff, but because the fluff doesn't fit.

...People who draw their power from concepts don't fit in a world without deities? Because Clerics don't have to worship a god, you know.

Madara

2012-07-25, 10:50 PM

...People who draw their power from concepts don't fit in a world without deities? Because Clerics don't have to worship a god, you know.

I am aware of that. But you should also be aware of that not being the Core standard, but rather a reasonable rule that most people take on.

Boci

2012-07-25, 10:53 PM

I am aware of that. But you should also be aware of that not being the Core standard, but rather a reasonable rule that most people take on.

"If your cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, you still select two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities." That's from Core.

ThiagoMartell

2012-07-25, 11:01 PM

"If your cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, you still select two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities." That's from Core.

It's also not the standard.

Boci

2012-07-25, 11:05 PM

It's also not the standard.

I dunno: "Choose a deity for your cleric. Sample deities are listed on Table 3–7: Deities and described on page 106–108. The cleric’s deity influences his alignment, what magic he can perform, his values, and how others see him. You may also choose for your cleric to have no deity."

They are both mentioned within the same paragraph. I guess you could argue that because deity is mentioned first, or because it get more words, but that just strikes me as hair splitting. They both mentioned in core, and neither seems to be presented as an "optional" or "variant" rule.

The-Mage-King

2012-07-25, 11:06 PM

I am aware of that. But you should also be aware of that not being the Core standard, but rather a reasonable rule that most people take on.

...Yes it is. Right in PHB, page 30, in the religion section prefacing Cleric. Calls out Clerics not of religions, specifically. Then the Domains part refers back to it.

ThiagoMartell

2012-07-25, 11:16 PM

I dunno: "Choose a deity for your cleric. Sample deities are listed on Table 3–7: Deities and described on page 106–108. The cleric’s deity influences his alignment, what magic he can perform, his values, and how others see him. You may also choose for your cleric to have no deity."

They are both mentioned within the same paragraph. I guess you could argue that because deity is mentioned first, or because it get more words, but that just strikes me as hair splitting. They both mentioned in core, and neither seems to be presented as an "optional" or "variant" rule.

I'm not saying anything is optional, I'm saying the standard is that a cleric serves a deity. Same as a druid getting Natural Spell at level 6 is the standard. You're the one splitting hairs.

Boci

2012-07-25, 11:18 PM

I'm not saying anything is optional, I'm saying the standard is that a cleric serves a deity. Same as a druid getting Natural Spell at level 6 is the standard. You're the one splitting hairs.

How I am splitting hairs? I'm just saying both a deity worshiper and a godless priest are presented as options in the PHB, and to claim that one of them is more standard than the other is meaningless.

ThiagoMartell

2012-07-25, 11:22 PM

How I am splitting hairs? I'm just saying both a deity worshiper and a godless priest are presented as options in the PHB, and to claim that one of them is more standard than the other is meaningless.
Please, tell me how many official D&D settings are based on clerics with no deities.
Please, point me to how many official D&D NPCs are clerics with no deities.
Please, show me how many times in previous editions of D&D clerics with no deities were a thing.

The standard for cleric is for them to serve a deity. That much is crystal clear.

crazyhedgewizrd

2012-07-25, 11:25 PM

I like it how people are argueing over the fact, that a cleric can worship a god or a concept. When the example gave no more information than there are no gods, so no clerics.

Boci

2012-07-25, 11:28 PM

Please, tell me how many official D&D settings are based on clerics with no deities.

Dark Sun and post apocalypse Dragonlance. Eberron subverted the troupe.

navar100

2012-07-25, 11:47 PM

It's you. Please return all your D&D books and report to your nearest Monopoly Club recruiting center.

ThiagoMartell

2012-07-25, 11:51 PM

Dark Sun and post apocalypse Dragonlance. Eberron subverted the troupe.

Dragonlance has no clerics after the apocalypse, they have mystics. Also, atfer the apocalypse, Dragonlance wasn't even D&D. Eberron has clerics devoted to gods, you're grasping at straws. Subverting the trope has no bearing on my point. Dark Sun has no clerics - in 4e, it lacks even the divine power source. There is no official Dark Sun setting for 3.5, even.
In fact, Dark Sun is a perfect example of why you should ban clerics if you have no gods. Which is, ya know, exactly what Dark Sun did.

killianh

2012-07-25, 11:53 PM

huttj509

2012-07-26, 12:36 AM

Dragonlance has no clerics after the apocalypse, they have mystics. Also, atfer the apocalypse, Dragonlance wasn't even D&D. Eberron has clerics devoted to gods, you're grasping at straws. Subverting the trope has no bearing on my point. Dark Sun has no clerics - in 4e, it lacks even the divine power source. There is no official Dark Sun setting for 3.5, even.
In fact, Dark Sun is a perfect example of why you should ban clerics if you have no gods. Which is, ya know, exactly what Dark Sun did.

2E dark sun had:

Elemental Clerics draw their power from elemental sources and frequently come into conflict with one another.

Paraelemental Clerics draw their power from the paraelements (Sun, Silt, Rain, and Magma). These priests are fewer in number than elemental Clerics and often have similar abilities as the two closest elements. (Imagine a spectrum, similar to colors, that goes: Fire-Sun-Air-Rain-Water-Silt-Earth-Magma-Fire-Sun-...).

I also think it might be useful to distinguish between "standard for NPCs in published settings," "standard assumption for PCs in published settings," and "standard for (N)PCs in home settings."

Augmental

2012-07-26, 12:46 AM

2. Its not that we don't like the fluff, its that we don't find it fits with our world/game. There's a difference between not liking fluff, and finding it innapropriate for a game.

Then why don't you change the fluff so it fits with your world?

ThiagoMartell

2012-07-26, 12:56 AM

2E dark sun had:

Elemental Clerics draw their power from elemental sources and frequently come into conflict with one another.

Paraelemental Clerics draw their power from the paraelements (Sun, Silt, Rain, and Magma). These priests are fewer in number than elemental Clerics and often have similar abilities as the two closest elements. (Imagine a spectrum, similar to colors, that goes: Fire-Sun-Air-Rain-Water-Silt-Earth-Magma-Fire-Sun-...).

Yes, and they have almost nothing in common with clerics whatsoever. They are primal classes in 4e.

Zombulian

2012-07-26, 12:58 AM

Please, tell me how many official D&D settings are based on clerics with no deities.
Please, point me to how many official D&D NPCs are clerics with no deities.
Please, show me how many times in previous editions of D&D clerics with no deities were a thing.

The standard for cleric is for them to serve a deity. That much is crystal clear.

How I am splitting hairs? I'm just saying both a deity worshiper and a godless priest are presented as options in the PHB, and to claim that one of them is more standard than the other is meaningless.

How about we agree that you both are making something out of nothing and are arguing about something that has nothing to do with the original post, and barely has connection to the response that started the argument.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-07-26, 12:59 AM

My personal favourites have always been some of the alt rules for running the game, like Insanity rules, Taint, points for battles in wars, and the like. I find it takes elements like that to really change the feeling of D&D from the DM perspective.

Agreed. I'm a total nut when it comes to wanting rules for everything you can think of and those systems can make for some very interesting game variants.

Gavinfoxx

2012-07-26, 01:15 AM

Please, tell me how many official D&D settings are based on clerics with no deities.

Don't Eberron and Athas explicitly talk about this? And doesn't Greyhawk allow it? And wasn't there a really long time in Dragonlance when deity-sponsored divine magic didn't work, and only mystical-type divine magic worked?

Kelb_Panthera

2012-07-26, 01:19 AM

Hey guys, maybe if you wanna hash out this cleric thing, you could take it to another thread? It's getting a little de-raily in here.

ThiagoMartell

2012-07-26, 01:36 AM

Don't Eberron and Athas explicitly talk about this? And doesn't Greyhawk allow it? And wasn't there a really long time in Dragonlance when deity-sponsored divine magic didn't work, and only mystical-type divine magic worked?
You probably missed the post where I adressed all of this. Scroll up.
Just to expand: there is no published Dark Sun for 3.5, and the official versions in other editions don't have divine magic, the elemental clerics have different powers. When Dragonlance didn't have gods, it was under the SAGA system, it was not D&D. In 3.5 Dragonlance, they even created a class (the Mystic) to adress this. Clerics in Eberron do follow gods, the gods in Eberron are just a bit different.
I never said Greyhawk did not allow it, it's just that the standard is that clerics serve gods. There is a reason for calling it divine magic, after all.
You're all free to disagree, though. I won't discuss this any longer.

Zombulian

2012-07-26, 01:38 AM

You probably missed the post where I adressed all of this. Scroll up.
Just to expand: there is no published Dark Sun for 3.5, and the official versions in other editions don't have divine magic, the elemental clerics have different powers. When Dragonlance didn't have gods, it was under the SAGA system, it was not D&D. In 3.5 Dragonlance, they even created a class (the Mystic) to adress this. Clerics in Eberron do follow gods, the gods in Eberron are just a bit different.
I never said Greyhawk did not allow it, it's just that the standard is that clerics serve gods. There is a reason for calling it divine magic, after all.
You're all free to disagree, though. I won't discuss this any longer.

Well damn, I was looking forward to using this (http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Internet_44c98f_352549.jpg).

Gnomish Wanderer

2012-07-26, 01:57 AM

I agree, anything CAN be refluffed, but some DM's just don't want to. I like refluffng things. :3 As for me, I fit into the group of people who were too lazy to learn the rules for psionics, but I've also not had a player want to play psionics so it ends up with the point being moot. Ive heard rumors than psionics was badly balanced, but I've not really paid any attention to how since it wasn't relevant.

Teron

2012-07-26, 02:50 AM

There are several major religions in Eberron that don't involve gods, like the Blood of Vol and the Path of Light.

Psyren

2012-07-26, 08:48 AM

My favorite splat is Tome of Magic. I don't care how badly they bungled it, the concepts/fluff are freaking awesome.

I also love Incarnum, not least because it plays so well with psionics from both a fluff and crunch perspective.

If you want to be a Psion in a campaign that doesn't allow Psionics, a good facsimile is a Shadowcaster (using Ari's fix of course) with Still Mystery. Bam, magic powered by thought.

Batou1976

2012-07-27, 12:52 AM

There's definitely something wrong with me.
- I once played a female half elf gestalt abjurer 8/ Io7V 10/ Truenamer 18... And I liked it. :smalleek:
-I hate even the idea of psionics in D&D
-I also hate the idea of Kung fu monks in D&D
-and Druids
-EDIT: and Factotums
-I think the 3.5 paladin is underpowered but I play them anyway
-I don't play them as self righteous air-headed cheerleaders
-I think LG is fun, not stupid :smallamused:
-I don't play tier 1 classes, because they're tier 1
Aaaaaaaaaaand....
-I think the idea of clerics following an ideal instead of a deity is laaaaaaame :smalltongue:

They're coming to take me away, haha.... They're coming to take me away, haha, heehee, hoho....

killianh

2012-07-27, 01:28 AM

They're coming to take me away, haha.... They're coming to take me away, haha, heehee, hoho....

to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time

Midnight_v

2012-07-27, 06:08 AM

Well, I don't think something specifically wrong with me, but I think I may be a little set off from the rest of the crowd in my D&D preferences. My favorite splatbook is MoI, and I love all the Psionics rules and prefer psionics to any other type of casting magic. Also, I got Comp Psi in the mail today, (I had already looked at it a bit on my computer) and after leafing through it a bit... I realized that I really liked it. But most of the word I get on this book tends to be hate, and I was never sure why. If someone could explain the hate for Comp Psi that would be awesome.
But that's what leads me to the point of this post, what about you guys? What are your favorite systems? Do you have preferences, favorite races, classes, etc. that set you apart from the general crowd?

I wanna say I love psionics also! Psywarr is my favorite class. It needs more powerpoints and it isn't the most powerful, but I like it so very much.
I love to see it like how the Dreamscarred guys did it for pazil edition. Though really even there it could use more pp to keep up with all the Tob Guys. Non-the-less I like it the most.

Boci

2012-07-27, 06:38 AM

Psyren

2012-07-27, 09:36 AM

- I once played a female half elf gestalt abjurer 8/ Io7V 10/ Truenamer 18... And I liked it. :smalleek:
...
-I don't play tier 1 classes, because they're tier 1

Does not compute

Batou1976

2012-07-27, 11:02 AM

Apart from the first one, you just sound like an old school gamer. Of course the big question for the first one is how much where you an abjurer and how much a truenamer.
I guess I am. :smallcool: I pretty much started with 2E AD&D back in 1990. It's been all downhill from there. :smallbiggrin:
I've played just fine without psionics the whole time; I can't see any reason to add them now. The "flavor" leaves a bad taste in my gamer-mouth, besides. Same with druids and monks. Maybe I'm just hidebound and crotchety. :smallsigh:
Regarding the half elf- since with gestalt you take two classes at once, for the first 8 levels it was abjurer/ truenamer, then levels 9-18 were Io7V/truenamer. Full disclosure- I got far more mileage out of the abjurer/Io7V side than the truenamer side.

Does not compute
How about- "I don't play tier 1 classes because they're stupid-easy to abuse"? :smallwink:

Are you familiar with how gestalting from UA works?

EDIT: Oh, wait. Did you mean how I played an abjurer/ Io7V, yet I also said I don't play tier 1 classes? In that case- don't interpret "I don't play Tier 1" to mean "I never play tier one". :smallbiggrin:

Boci

2012-07-27, 11:20 AM

Regarding the half elf- since with gestalt you take two classes at once, for the first 8 levels it was abjurer/ truenamer, then levels 9-18 were Io7V/truenamer. Full disclosure- I got far more mileage out of the abjurer/Io7V side than the truenamer side.

That goes without saying. The question is how often did you use the truenamer abilities despite in favour of wizard casting. Because if the answer is "rarely" or lower, this isn't that strange, just someone good at optimizing deliberately handicapping themselves for laughs.

The Random NPC

2012-07-27, 11:59 AM

EDIT: Oh, wait. Did you mean how I played an abjurer/ Io7V, yet I also said I don't play tier 1 classes? In that case- don't interpret "I don't play Tier 1" to mean "I never play tier one". :smallbiggrin:

Or better yet, interpret it to mean you never play tier one, the same way as Always X alignment creatures are "always" X.

Batou1976

2012-07-27, 11:59 AM

That goes without saying. The question is how often did you use the truenamer abilities despite in favour of wizard casting. Because if the answer is "rarely" or lower, this isn't that strange, just someone good at optimizing deliberately handicapping themselves for laughs.

I used the Truenamer side a bit more often than "rarely"- not in every encounter, but I used an utterance at least once in a good 2/3 of them... But usually only one, and other rounds used spells.