PDA

View Full Version : Fluff that doesn't make sense



Rama_Lei
2007-02-08, 08:44 PM
Do you know of any fluff features that make absolutely no sense? Or are much more suited to another class? For me, the druid's "Thousand Faces Ability" and the monk's "Tongue of the Sun and the Moon" are much more suited as bard abilities!

Talyn
2007-02-08, 09:03 PM
I agree with "tongue of the Sun and the Moon." That's just weird.

Also, the Duskblade is an INT-caster, not a CHA-caster... that just doesn't make sense to me at ALL.

How about Gruumsh, the orc god of war, having his favored weapon be a spear. A SPEAR. Not a greataxe? I mean, seriously, at least a morningstar. While we are at it, Erythnul's favored weapon of a "blunt stone-headed morning star" - that mean's it's a freaking HEAVY MACE. NOT a morningstar. Geez.

SpiderBrigade
2007-02-08, 09:27 PM
There's that dwarf god somebody mentioned in another thread, something or other Brightaxe, I think? And their favored weapon is...a sword....?

Dhavaer
2007-02-08, 09:27 PM
Also, the Duskblade is an INT-caster, not a CHA-caster... that just doesn't make sense to me at ALL.

I makes perfect sense to me. The Duskblade is a trained arcane caster, like the Wizard or Assassin, instead of a natural caster like the Sorcerer or Hexblade.

Folie
2007-02-08, 09:29 PM
Assassins MUST be evil, because killing people for money is perfectly okay as long as you don't poison them.

Dhavaer
2007-02-08, 09:36 PM
There's that dwarf god somebody mentioned in another thread, something or other Brightaxe, I think? And their favored weapon is...a sword....?

Haela Brightaxe, from FR Faiths and Pantheons, has the greatsword as both her favoured weapon and symbol. In the same vein, Sehanine Moonbow has the quarterstaff as her favoured weapon.

clericwithnogod
2007-02-08, 09:49 PM
Warmage edge being INT based while warmages are CHA based casters.

The Favored Soul getting spells based on CHA and having saves determined by WIS.

The Favored Soul getting both Diplomacy and Sense Motive, but having 2+ INT skill points and an ability description that states, "In addition to using Charisma and Wisdom for spellcasting, a favored soul also benefits from high Dexterity, Strength, and Constitution scores." making it unlikely the character will be able to max both and Concentration. Bonus points here for Knowledge:Arcana rather than Knowledge:Religion as a class skill.

Samurai getting Greater 2-Weapon Fighting and Improved 2-Weapon Fighting 5 levels after Rangers (or a character with the same BAB and necessary DEX).

The Dark Hunter getting Improved Stonecunning as an ability and Disable Device as a class skill, but not getting Search as a class skill. It also has 5 levels of Craft (Trapmaking) as a prerequisite, and has nothing relating to Trapmaking in it's abilities.

The Dark Hunter getting an Assassin death attack at DC15+INT at 5th level as a capstone ability as a 10th level as a character...and it never improving, so a Darkwood Stalker suddenly does it better at DC20+INT at 10th level as a 15th level character.

The Swashbucker getting Grace rather than just having a good REF save.

Mettle for the Hexblade, who has a poor FORT save (or the evasion-like ability of the Divine Oracle, who has a poor REF save and is entered from classes with a poor REF save).

The Hexblade getting a familiar that is three levels weaker than the familiar of a sorceror or wizard. To complete the kick in the nuts, a feat (Obtain Familiar) lets a caster that doesn't have a familiar as a class ability get one at full strength.

Knowledge:Dungeoneering being a class skill only for Wizards, Bards and Rangers.

The well-publicized prerequisites for Invisible Blade that have nothing to do with any of the classes abilities.

The requirement for entry into Fiend-Blooded being 8 ranks of Knowledge: The Planes despite the description stating that the prestige class is most easily entered into as a sorceror.

Prerequisites probably don't count as fluff features, but those two annoy the crap out of me.

Talkkno
2007-02-08, 10:09 PM
Illthid heritdge feats in complete psionics..*
*See Lords of Maddness, Illthids dont reproduce sexually.

Galathir
2007-02-08, 10:42 PM
Beguilers basing their casting off intelligence. After all, they cast without preparing in advance, just like a sorcerer and most of their key skills and other abilities are based on charisma. Of course, this is probably to balance them out, so they need more than one high score to function well, but it doesn't make much sense outside of mechanics.

clericwithnogod
2007-02-08, 10:43 PM
How about Gruumsh, the orc god of war, having his favored weapon be a spear. A SPEAR. Not a greataxe? I mean, seriously, at least a morningstar.

Actually, there is a reason for this... Gruumsh has had a spear as his favored weapon dating back to AD&D.

Thomas
2007-02-08, 10:45 PM
Illthid heritdge feats in complete psionics..*
*See Lords of Maddness, Illthids dont reproduce sexually.

How about half-illithids, though?

(Edit: Half-illithids are the unlikely result of an implantation in a non-human host.)

NEO|Phyte
2007-02-08, 10:49 PM
Illthid heritdge feats in complete psionics..*
*See Lords of Maddness, Illthids dont reproduce sexually.

Unless I'm mistaken, doesn't LoM also state that Illithids are from the future, thus making those with Illithid Heritage feats the ancestors of Illithids? Or is the future thing from a different book...

Thomas
2007-02-08, 10:51 PM
Unless I'm mistaken, doesn't LoM also state that Illithids are from the future, thus making those with Illithid Heritage feats the ancestors of Illithids? Or is the future thing from a different book...

LoM does state that.

Time travel always hurts my head.

heretic
2007-02-08, 10:55 PM
I thought illithids inplanted seed/tadpole things in people and they turned into half-illithids. Maybe they do it to fresh corpses. I forget.

Dhavaer
2007-02-08, 10:57 PM
I thought illithids inplanted seed/tadpole things in people and they turned into half-illithids. Maybe they do it to fresh corpses. I forget.

When they do it to humans, they turn into illithids. When they do it to anything else, it turns into a half-illithid. They can't do it to corpses.

Arceliar
2007-02-08, 11:03 PM
The Horizon Walker PrC. Everything about it. The first five levels make sense for ranger, but then the last 5 you get planar terrain master...wtf? It requires Knowledge (Geography) to get in, and then starts giving you a bunch of planar stuff half way through. Since when does knowing about geography warrant fire resistance?!?!

Quietus
2007-02-08, 11:10 PM
Tongue of the Sun and Moon, for a Monk, makes sense; They're essentially gaining the Tongues ability, which is fairly common among Outsiders, which is what Monks are working toward being.

clericwithnogod
2007-02-08, 11:29 PM
The Horizon Walker PrC. Everything about it. The first five levels make sense for ranger, but then the last 5 you get planar terrain master...wtf? It requires Knowledge (Geography) to get in, and then starts giving you a bunch of planar stuff half way through. Since when does knowing about geography warrant fire resistance?!?!

Hey, but you get access to this gem....

"Weightless (Planar)
You gain a +30-foot bonus to your fly speed on planes with no gravity or subjective gravity."

Now that's something you'll get a lot of use from.

Though, it's arguably as useful as any of the other non-skill-bonus abilities...which arguably as written in the SRD don't apply outside of a specified terrain.

"Terrain mastery gives a horizon walker a bonus on checks involving a skill useful in that terrain, or some other appropriate benefit."

"Horizon walkers take their terrain mastery with them wherever they go. They retain their terrain mastery bonuses on skill checks, attack rolls, and damage rolls whether they’re actually in the relevant terrain or not."

CockroachTeaParty
2007-02-08, 11:37 PM
Illthid heritdge feats in complete psionics..*
*See Lords of Maddness, Illthids dont reproduce sexually.

However, Illithids are from the future. People with Illithid heritage feats are their ancestors. *brain explodes*

edit: Wow... I was simu'd like half an hour ago... *cough*

...and there I was feeling clever.

krossbow
2007-02-08, 11:39 PM
Illithids so need robot death machines...
________
FORD PROVING GROUNDS PICTURE (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_Proving_Grounds)

That Lanky Bugger
2007-02-08, 11:43 PM
The Wizard/Sorcerer's Transformation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/transformation.htm) spell being similar to Divine Power (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divinePower.htm) while being two levels higher and applied to a class which DOESN'T have d8 HD and Heavy Armor proficiency.

In fact, Divine Power loses a Dex, Con, AC Bonus, and Fortitude Bonus compared to a mage's Transformation. However, a Cleric generally has armor which makes up for the AC Bonus, a Fortitude Save which matches (or beats) the Fortitude Bonus, and gains +1 HP/level. While being 2 Spell Levels lower. Plus, they can still cast their Clerical spells while the Wizard or Sorcerer is essentially a melee-type with a d4 HD and CANNOT cast their spells until the spell is over.

So a Wizard can't even match a Cleric's spellcasting when they've got a spell which is 4 character levels away from the time a Cleric can cast a similar spell.

Sorry, it's a pet peeve.

Dhavaer
2007-02-08, 11:47 PM
Though, it's arguably as useful as any of the other non-skill-bonus abilities...which arguably as written in the SRD don't apply outside of a specified terrain.

"Terrain mastery gives a horizon walker a bonus on checks involving a skill useful in that terrain, or some other appropriate benefit."

"Horizon walkers take their terrain mastery with them wherever they go. They retain their terrain mastery bonuses on skill checks, attack rolls, and damage rolls whether they’re actually in the relevant terrain or not."

I don't see how there's much of an arguement there, it seems pretty clear that they keep them.

Hallavast
2007-02-09, 01:07 AM
How about Gruumsh, the orc god of war, having his favored weapon be a spear. A SPEAR. Not a greataxe? I mean, seriously, at least a morningstar. While we are at it, Erythnul's favored weapon of a "blunt stone-headed morning star" - that mean's it's a freaking HEAVY MACE. NOT a morningstar. Geez.
Where do you get the idea that orcs wield greataxes?:smallconfused:

Jack Mann
2007-02-09, 01:31 AM
When they do it to humans, they turn into illithids. When they do it to anything else, it turns into a half-illithid. They can't do it to corpses.

Not just humans. Any mammalian humanoid in a certain height/weight range.

Dhavaer
2007-02-09, 01:32 AM
Where do you get the idea that orcs wield greataxes?:smallconfused:

The 3.0 Monster Manual had greataxes as the default weapon for orcs.

Hallavast
2007-02-09, 01:42 AM
The 3.0 Monster Manual had greataxes as the default weapon for orcs.
I thought we were referencing 3.5 fluff, though?

Dhavaer
2007-02-09, 01:48 AM
I thought we were referencing 3.5 fluff, though?

No, no-one's said that. In any case, the purpose of the thread doesn't change the fact that the 3.0 Monster Manual is a likely candidate for the thought that D&D orcs wield greataxes.

Hallavast
2007-02-09, 01:54 AM
No, no-one's said that. In any case, the purpose of the thread doesn't change the fact that the 3.0 Monster Manual is a likely candidate for the thought that D&D orcs wield greataxes.
So if I see one picture of one orc wielding one greataxe, then naturally the entire race must hold the weapon as iconic.:smallcool: Gotcha.

Edit: Furthermore, what purpose would it serve if one started to complain about fluff that's already been updated in later editions?

Dhavaer
2007-02-09, 02:01 AM
So if I see one picture of one orc wielding one greataxe, then naturally the entire race must hold the weapon as iconic.:smallcool: Gotcha.

Well, RAW, they did. Orcs attacked with either greataxes or javelins. Sure you could modify them, but they came standard. Now, of course, they use falchions, which are still definately not spears.

Beleriphon
2007-02-09, 02:03 AM
Well, RAW, they did. Orcs attacked with either greataxes or javelins. Sure you could modify them, but they came standard. Now, of course, they use falchions, which are still definately not spears.

Yeah, but Gruummsh always struck me as the primitive among primitives. Spears certainly qualify for that.

Hallavast
2007-02-09, 02:04 AM
Well, RAW, they did. Orcs attacked with either greataxes or javelins. Sure you could modify them, but they came standard. Now, of course, they use falchions, which are still definately not spears.
Then why not complain of the lack of Gruumsh's falchions? Since that's obviously what all orcs now wield according to the holy stat block.

Dhavaer
2007-02-09, 02:10 AM
Yeah, but Gruummsh always struck me as the primitive among primitives. Spears certainly qualify for that.

He does wear full plate, though.


Then why not complain of the lack of Gruumsh's falchions? Since that's obviously what all orcs now wield according to the holy stat block.

Allow we to answer that question with a question. Why complain of the lack of Gruumsh's falchions?

JaronK
2007-02-09, 02:11 AM
The well-publicized prerequisites for Invisible Blade that have nothing to do with any of the classes abilities.

The reason for that one is pretty straight forward. Originally, the Master Thrower and Invisible Blade were a single 10 level Knife Fighter class. The prerequisits for that class were Point Blank Shot, Far Shot, Precise Shot, and Weapon Focus: Dagger. This of course made perfect sense. Shortly before printing they decided to split the class in two, with one side being the melee abilities and the other being the throwing abilities. They also just split up the prerequisits.

Not saying it was a good idea, but that's why it happened.

My favorite fluff problem: Knowledge checks to identify a creature are based soley on HD. Thus, with a single rank you can identify every bug known to man... but should one of those ants have the titanic template, and now be enourmous, you'll have absolutely no idea what the heck it is.

Likewise, identifying baby dragons is easy, but when they get bigger, suddenly that giant black dragon isn't identifiable as a, well, Black Dragon.

JaronK

BCOVertigo
2007-02-09, 02:12 AM
I reserve the right to make fun of whatever edition's fluff I feel like. You guys aren't the boss of me.

And as for the whole "Greataxes vs. Spears" issue, let me clarify for you.

Orcs did wield spears at one point, but then they figured out that some of the warriors had been cheating to qualify for the Eye of Gruumsh PrC by portraying their poorly thought out combination of their god's favored weapon with the Run feat as fanatical devotion.

Also Greataxes are better for couping de graces as well as making sandwiches.

Hallavast
2007-02-09, 02:15 AM
Allow we to answer that question with a question. Why complain of the lack of Gruumsh's falchions?
well, the criteria for complaining of his lack of greataxes was that the stat block for orcs said "great axe". Now it says "falchion". thus, there should be some serious questioning of this oversight.

Dhavaer
2007-02-09, 02:16 AM
well, the criteria for complaining of his lack of greataxes was that the stat block for orcs said "great axe". Now it says "falchion". thus, there should be some serious questioning of this oversight.

It has not been confirmed that the stat block was in fact the reason for the complaint, merely suggested.

Hallavast
2007-02-09, 02:20 AM
It has not been confirmed that the stat block was in fact the reason for the complaint, merely suggested.
So is that all the defense you'll give for your suggestion?

Callos_DeTerran
2007-02-09, 02:21 AM
Not just humans. Any mammalian humanoid in a certain height/weight range.

No...I think that was changed too. I believe only humans can become mind flayers in the current rules incarnation with everything else becoming a half-illithid.

Dhavaer
2007-02-09, 02:21 AM
So is that all the defense you'll give for your suggestion?

I don't perceive it needs to be defended.

Hallavast
2007-02-09, 02:28 AM
I don't perceive it needs to be defended.

Pssh!

The Devil would have a poor choice of advocates if he were to rely on your counsel. :smalltongue:

Jack Mann
2007-02-09, 02:29 AM
Most recent rules on that is from Lords of Madness, Callos, which is where I'm drawing from (don't have it on me, or I could even give you the range of height and weight). Ceremorphosis: Not just for humans anymore!

As for Gruumsh, I just figure he's hoping to return the favor to Corellon.

Dhavaer
2007-02-09, 02:29 AM
Pssh!

The Devil would have a poor choice of advocates if he were to rely on your counsel. :smalltongue:

Eh? Char limit

Jack Mann
2007-02-09, 02:32 AM
Halla, let's make this simple.

The person who complained? Likely unaware of the change from greataxes to falchions. Alternately, he's perfectly aware, and just feels Gruumsh would feel more at home with a weapon that relied more on brute strength. Everyone else? Doesn't care all that much. I hope that answers your questions adequately. If you need any other mysteries cleared up, do ask.

Hallavast
2007-02-09, 02:33 AM
Eh? Char limit
I don't percieve my reference needs to be explained.

Khantalas
2007-02-09, 04:59 AM
However, Illithids are from the future. People with Illithid heritage feats are their ancestors. *brain explodes*

Yeah, you and all other people out there, fact is, the book says you have an illithid ancestor. Not an illithid descendant. An illitihi-friggin'-cestor.

And if that was so easy, explain illithid heritage feats... in Eberron.

Yeah, go ahead and do it.

Oh, wait, don't, I did it already. *mumble* ...stupid daelkyr, ruining my plans... *mumble*

Thomas
2007-02-09, 05:28 AM
The person who complained? Likely unaware of the change from greataxes to falchions. Alternately, he's perfectly aware, and just feels Gruumsh would feel more at home with a weapon that relied more on brute strength.

But greataxes and falchions both rely equally on brute strength, being two-handed weapons...

Khantalas
2007-02-09, 05:50 AM
Not really fluff, but fluff & crunch combined.

Xenophobic race X has a penalty to Charisma. However, now this xenophobic race is bad at influencing members of... itself.

Plus, for some unexplained reason, they are bad at being bards.

Of course, everyone's bad at being a bard. You can't be good and a bard at the same time. The bard sucks.

Yes, I play bards often.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-02-09, 07:41 AM
Wizards are supposed to be the 'normal' for arcane spellcasting classes yet they are actually on the fringe as one of the few intelligence based spell casters.

Bards need lots of skills and have large ammounts of knowledge but have charisma based spellcasting.

Ninja Chocobo
2007-02-09, 08:40 AM
Most recent rules on that is from Lords of Madness, Callos, which is where I'm drawing from (don't have it on me, or I could even give you the range of height and weight). Ceremorphosis: Not just for humans anymore!

As for Gruumsh, I just figure he's hoping to return the favor to Corellon.
Fiend Folio says Human only.

Rigeld2
2007-02-09, 08:43 AM
Lords of Madness is more recent than Fiend Folio. Lords of Madness overrules. Humanoid.

Yuki Akuma
2007-02-09, 08:49 AM
Fiend Folio says Human only.

Lords of Madness, the more recent and thus more relevent book, says otherwise.

I know which I'm going to listen to.

Edit: Damn you Rigeld2-Ninja!

Ninja Chocobo
2007-02-09, 08:55 AM
*tear*
It's not my fault the gaming/bookshops near me hardly ever get cool books...

PnP Fan
2007-02-09, 09:31 AM
How about this, all of the "well schooled" classes (clerics, wizards in particular) get the same number of skill points as the (relatively) less bookish fighter? Sure, wizards have INT bonus, but clerics probably won't be much better. At best if any of these classes maxed out INT, they'd get the same skill pts as a ranger.

Swordguy
2007-02-09, 09:36 AM
I can't believe nobody's pointed this out:

The fluff says the Fighter is the master of melee combat...

Khantalas
2007-02-09, 09:38 AM
I can't believe nobody's pointed this out:

The fluff says the Fighter is the master of melee combat...

On a training / style kind of stuff, he is. On an effectiveness / "me bash good" kinda stuff, it sucks.

Swordguy
2007-02-09, 09:44 AM
Hence the fluff not making sense when compared to game mechanics.

Telonius
2007-02-09, 09:44 AM
Elves get free martial weapon proficiency in the rapier, a stat increase to Dex, Low-light vision (perfect for seeing in shady dungeons), bonuses to search, free checks on secret doors, and are described as being great ... wizards?!

Journey
2007-02-09, 09:55 AM
I have always thought the fluff behind allowing players to take any race but human, elf, dwarf, halfling or gnome to be somewhat, well, cheesy. The "basic" non-humans in and of themselves are alien from humans enough that actually role-playing one in a way that isn't "human with a stat bonus" seems enough of a challenge. But half-orcs? Come on--that'd be like playing a chimpanzee or something (or else we get the Drizzt Effect again--the smart but misunderstood tribal half-orc who has been outcast from his tribe but is noble and smart). They're barely sentient. Planar races or dragon/plane/monster-touched? All of this has always seemed to me to basically be an after-the-fact, poorly constructed excuse to give more pluses and bonuses to a player's character.

kamikasei
2007-02-09, 10:10 AM
But half-orcs? Come on--that'd be like playing a chimpanzee or something (or else we get the Drizzt Effect again--the smart but misunderstood tribal half-orc who has been outcast from his tribe but is noble and smart). They're barely sentient.

...Er, based on what? They have an int penalty. They're no more 'barely sentient' than is someone with an IQ below 100. (And of course, that int penalty just shifts the average down; you can still have half-orcs smarter than 90% of regular humans.)

Consults d20srd

And indeed, orcs are listed as int: 8, which means they're quite as intelligent as many PC fighters.

Arguably playing an orc would be like playing a Neanderthal or Homo floresiensis, a different branch of humanity with roughly comparable intelligence but some tweaks in basic psychology and the like. (This is just supposed to be illustrative - I don't know how close to modern humans' intelligence either of those species are thought to have been.)

Woot Spitum
2007-02-09, 10:45 AM
Half-orcs are both easy and fun to roleplay. Really, about the only serious problem I've had while trying to roleplay a half-orc is that I keep accidentally calling him Thog (ah well, I suppose after reading the OOTS, it's hard to think of half-orcs without thinking of Thog). Let's not forget that half-orcs (and many other variant races) are also half-human. This makes them less alien than elves or dwarves, because they have a partially human mentality.

silvermesh
2007-02-09, 10:49 AM
The dwarven waraxe: a weapon designed by dwarves for dwarves. They use it so extensively that they can treat it as a martial weapon rather than exotic. yet every axe-weilding dwarf deity uses what? a battleaxe. the most subpar axe weapon in the game. is it just that these deities ascended to godhood before the waraxe got invented, and never got with the times? the world may never know.

If every katana is a masterwork bastard sword... when Muramasa forges a katana it's the same quality as when Bob the apprentice forges a katana? If you fail your masterwork check when crafting a katana, are you required to call it a bastard sword or can you just call it a crappy katana?

Why does a net cost more than a longsword?

Closet_Skeleton
2007-02-09, 10:51 AM
Half orcs are a player race because full orcs would be too inhuman.

Yuki Akuma
2007-02-09, 10:58 AM
Why does a net cost more than a longsword?

Labour. Do you have any idea how long it takes to make a net (a good, strong net suitable for capturing something as strong as a human, even!) in a pre-industrialised society compared to how long it takes to make a sword?

Callos_DeTerran
2007-02-09, 11:39 AM
Most recent rules on that is from Lords of Madness, Callos, which is where I'm drawing from (don't have it on me, or I could even give you the range of height and weight). Ceremorphosis: Not just for humans anymore!

Really? I thought it had stayed the same....*Goes to dig up copy of Lords of Madness to re-read the illithid chapter.*

AtomicKitKat
2007-02-09, 11:39 AM
Gruumsh has 1 eye. Ergo, it's easier to use a piercing weapon(spear) than a slashing one(anything with a blade).

Behold_the_Void
2007-02-09, 11:39 AM
According to D20 Future, Nuclear Missiles do 16d8 damage (average 72). Bwuh?

AtomicKitKat
2007-02-09, 11:45 AM
5'4-6'2
130-270lbs

Has to be Mammalian and Humanoid though. That rules out pretty much anything with Reptilian subtypes. Ropers are the only non-humanoid exception in LoM. Still, FF is the source for Half-Illithidae. On the one hand, LoM states that Illithids never insert into non-Mammal Humanoids. On the other hand, FF's Half-Illithids are basically representative of "experiments" and "pushing the boundaries of the envelope".

headwarpage
2007-02-09, 11:59 AM
5'4-6'2
130-270lbs

Wait... really short, tall, fat, or thin people are exempt? That explains the half-illithid right there - mindflayers lack scales and tape measures.

Actually, those requirements are almost as bad as having a half-illithid in the first place.

Jack Mann
2007-02-09, 12:26 PM
But greataxes and falchions both rely equally on brute strength, being two-handed weapons...

I was talking about Gruumsh's use of the spear, not the half-orc use of falchions. A spear isn't used with the same amount of brute force as a falchion (or at least not applied with the sort of wild swings you might associate with an unstoppable horde of fantasy barbarians). Atomic addressed this pretty well, mind.

Headwar, keep in mind that Illithids are pretty tall and thin. Fluffwise, the body has to be reasonably close in gross shape for ceremorphosis to take effect.

silvermesh
2007-02-09, 12:42 PM
Labour. Do you have any idea how long it takes to make a net (a good, strong net suitable for capturing something as strong as a human, even!) in a pre-industrialised society compared to how long it takes to make a sword?

labor? hehehe. thats the silliest thing i've ever heard.
a net isn't used to capture, it's used to entangle... and hamper in combat. this isn't some giant super-strong net. with a good roll, a character with 6 strength can break it with a strength check(that is destroy it out of sheer brute force rather than through damage).

even if this is the most masterfully created piece of rope in the entire universe, a trained hireling costs 3 sp per day. it would have to take him at least two months to finish in order for it to cost that much due to "labor". If nets were that difficult to construct, fish would be a rare delicassy, rather than the standard fare of the common folk.

Rigeld2
2007-02-09, 12:50 PM
labor? hehehe. thats the silliest thing i've ever heard.
Ever wonder why over half the repair costs on a car is Labor?

a net isn't used to capture, it's used to entangle... and hamper in combat. this isn't some giant super-strong net. with a good roll, a character with 6 strength can break it with a strength check(that is destroy it out of sheer brute force rather than through damage).
No, a character with a 6 strength cannot break it, even on a 20. DC 25 STR check, which means you need a 20 or higher strength to even attempt it.


even if this is the most masterfully created piece of rope in the entire universe, a trained hireling costs 3 sp per day. it would have to take him at least two months to finish in order for it to cost that much due to "labor". If nets were that difficult to construct, fish would be a rare delicassy, rather than the standard fare of the common folk.
Labor + materials + profit. And remember, a net doesnt get used and thrown away - unless theyre broken they typically last a very long time.

Tola
2007-02-09, 12:51 PM
Except, as I recall, they really ARE that difficult to make, at least with any degree of strength to hold anything in without breaking apart. Net weaving was a fairly major job in those times. And that's FISH nets. Man-holding nets are something else again.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-09, 01:24 PM
Silliest thing I've ever seen in any edition - clerics with no deity and no religion. You can be a cleric just by waking up one morning and liking the idea of being a divine spellcaster, and suddenly, somehow, the universe itself grants you clerical spells...

How on Oerth - or Toril or Athas for that matter - does that work?

Does make me laugh, though :D

clericwithnogod
2007-02-09, 01:31 PM
The reason for that one is pretty straight forward. Originally, the Master Thrower and Invisible Blade were a single 10 level Knife Fighter class. The prerequisits for that class were Point Blank Shot, Far Shot, Precise Shot, and Weapon Focus: Dagger. This of course made perfect sense. Shortly before printing they decided to split the class in two, with one side being the melee abilities and the other being the throwing abilities. They also just split up the prerequisits.

Not saying it was a good idea, but that's why it happened.

JaronK
Not precisely... Invisible Blade appeared first in Dragon Magazine and was cut down for that. Master Thrower debuted in Complete Warrior.

The "well publicized" part...which seems to be quoted or archived on almost every DND board on the net (and will be here now as well:smallsmile: ).

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=1397858&postcount=8

"Originally Posted by sonofapreacherman
I just posted this explanation in another thread, but I thought it might be better served here, as per the title of this thread.

The 5-level invisible blade that first appeared in Dragon (and then recently in The Complete Warrior) was edited down from my original 10-level progression. The abilities and text are the same, but there were some additional dagger throwing abilities built into the prestige class (to round it out).

The editors at Dragon had asked me to change the invisible blade prerequisites to reflect their ranged-based abilities, but when they later changed the invisible blade into a 5-level prestige class (and removed the dagger throwing abilities), they likely forgot to change the prerequisites as well.

To use the printed version of the invisible blade as is, simply change the prerequisites feats to:

Weapon Focus (dagger, kukri, or punching dagger) and Weapon Finesse.

I hope that helps."

Tola
2007-02-09, 01:33 PM
Simply because you don't serve a SPECIFIC deity or religion doesn't mean you're not devout.

Faith in the gods, or the powers of the world:it's this sort of...nondescript belief...that makes a Cleric wihout a specific faith. Or it could be that they've been touched by the Divine, but they don't know WHO specifically.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-09, 01:45 PM
Simply because you don't serve a SPECIFIC deity or religion doesn't mean you're not devout.

Faith in the gods, or the powers of the world:it's this sort of...nondescript belief...that makes a Cleric wihout a specific faith.

How can 'nondescript belief' be devout, though? And where do the spells come from?

The whole point of clerics in D&D is that they are granted their spells by the deity they worship (Or a co-operative group thereof).

Under the 'cleric of nothing' system you could declare devout belief in your shoelaces and you'd somehow get clerical powers :D


Or it could be that they've been touched by the Divine, but they don't know WHO specifically.

Which would make for a fun campaign if all the characters were touched by the hand of the divine without knowing who or why. It could also make a great background for any character.

But not knowing who your deity is is completely different from not having one.

Soepvork
2007-02-09, 01:54 PM
It always struck me as odd that a paladin (by RAW, not including variants) are required to be lawful good, but can worship whatever (evil? chaotic?) deity they want.

Yuki Akuma
2007-02-09, 02:05 PM
I've always thought the Athas pilosophy explains the patronless clerics pretty well. The Athas believe that the Powers are not deities; they're incredibly powerful, sure, but they're not truly omnipotent beings. They believe in a source of deific power called the "Great Unknown", which grants deities, and godless divine spellcasters, their power.

I always incorporate this into settings, even if the players will never reach a level where they're likely to find this out.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-09, 02:19 PM
I've always thought the Athas pilosophy explains the patronless clerics pretty well. The Athas believe that the Powers are not deities; they're incredibly powerful, sure, but they're not truly omnipotent beings. They believe in a source of deific power called the "Great Unknown", which grants deities, and godless divine spellcasters, their power.

I always incorporate this into settings, even if the players will never reach a level where they're likely to find this out.

A kind of 'overgod' granting the powers does make sense. The clerics aren't patronless, though, they just don't know much about their patron beyond 's/he exists'.

Anything like that makes sense, to me, because the power comes from SOME place.

kamikasei
2007-02-09, 02:28 PM
A kind of 'overgod' granting the powers does make sense. The clerics aren't patronless, though, they just don't know much about their patron beyond 's/he exists'.

Anything like that makes sense, to me, because the power comes from SOME place.

Deities aren't sources of power but mediators of it, correct? The actual power comes from the belief of their followers, which the deities are basically made out of; they act as controls in feeding that power back to their clerics? Seems to make perfect sense to me that a cleric could tap in to that belief and channel it into spells without necessarily needing a deity as an intermediary... especially if you can be a patronless paladin just by tapping into the force of pure lawful goodness.

silvermesh
2007-02-09, 03:07 PM
Ever wonder why over half the repair costs on a car is Labor? because mechanics cost more than 10 cents a day, where a laborer in the feudal D&D setting is probably a slave to begin with.

ever made a sword? how about a net?
if the answer to both questions is no, then My response is this: you can make a net, but not a sword. nets are easy to make, especially a net designed to get a single man-sized creature, rather than hundreds of tiny fish. you use thicker rope, and you have more space between knots.takes less time.
as far as "nets last a long time", thats not true either, especially not of fishing nets of this era. it wasn't even a little uncommon for a net to tear, luckily they're so easy to make and repair that it didn't matter. If it takes you longer than a day to make a net, don't quit your day job. if it takes my worker slave who makes nets for a living longer than a day I'll lop his head off. seriously, two months? you really think thats realistic?

lets break this down in D&D terms.

net: 200sp
longsword: 150sp

1/3 is raw materials
net: 66sp in raw materials(rope and stone or *maybe* lead for the weights)
longsword: 50sp in raw materials(steel)

steel is cheaper than rope, right?

assume for simplicity that we roll so that we *barely* make our craft skill check. (15 for the sword, 18 for the net)
net: 18*18=324 -easily made in under a week.
longsword: 15*15=225 -again easily crafted in under a week.

what this means is that they both have NEGLIGABLE labor cost, as it only costs us 21sp to employ that trained laborer for a week.

a low level commoner could never afford a longsword, it's cost prohibitive. the net shouldn't be. a 25 square foot fishing net only costs 4 gp. why is the smaller version with less knots costing literally five times as much?

the bigger your target the easier it is to build the net. labor is not a logical explanation. especially not in the D&D mechanics setting where if something is hard to craft, it means the materials have to be more expensive as well.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-09, 03:09 PM
Deities aren't sources of power but mediators of it, correct? The actual power comes from the belief of their followers, which the deities are basically made out of; they act as controls in feeding that power back to their clerics? Seems to make perfect sense to me that a cleric could tap in to that belief and channel it into spells without necessarily needing a deity as an intermediary...

Deities seem to have a symbiotic relationship with their followers in many campaigns, in that they gain power from being worshipped and can bestow power onto their followers. Well, technically, they teach their followers how to pray to them to get certain effects, which makes the deity kind of like a power converter.

Without the power converter, all you have is prayer/worship - it doesn't automatically become power on its own.

So a deity-less cleric really makes no sense at all, I'm afraid :)


especially if you can be a patronless paladin just by tapping into the force of pure lawful goodness.

Another absolute absurdity that makes no sense, in fact :)

(Love your avatar, BTW. Lucifer, right?)

Yuki Akuma
2007-02-09, 03:17 PM
Deities seem to have a symbiotic relationship with their followers in many campaigns, in that they gain power from being worshipped and can bestow power onto their followers. Well, technically, they teach their followers how to pray to them to get certain effects, which makes the deity kind of like a power converter.

Without the power converter, all you have is prayer/worship - it doesn't automatically become power on its own.

So a deity-less cleric really makes no sense at all, I'm afraid :)



Another absolute absurdity that makes no sense, in fact :)

(Love your avatar, BTW. Lucifer, right?)

It may seem absurd in your view of the world of D&D, but it makes perfect sense to me.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-09, 03:20 PM
It may seem absurd in your view of the world of D&D, but it makes perfect sense to me.

Fair enough, then. To each their own :)

Telonius
2007-02-09, 03:21 PM
Well, there is a varying cost for hemp versus silk rope - it seems to me that the fishing net would be out of hemp. The net (edit: the weapon, Net) actually has slightly better stats than silk rope for burst DC and HP. It's 10gp for 5lbs of silk rope, 1gp for 10 lbs of hemp rope, but 1 sp for a pound of iron. A Net weighs 6lbs, so it sounds reasonable that it would be silk. So, if the net costs 10gp for the parts, the other 10gp would be for the labor.

A longsword on the other hand, weighs 4lb. I don't know how much iron it takes to make a longsword; but let's say twice as much as the final weight. That's 8sp in parts, and 14gp 2sp for labor, for the final cost of the longsword. The swordmaker gets 4.2gp (42%) more than the netmaker; which is reasonable, since swordmaking would be a much more specialized field.

Further Edit: This doesn't account for why the base price of the parts varies so widely. I would suspect that it could be explained by a scarcity of silkworms. The price of silk at 10gp per square yard - one of the most expensive trade goods, except for saffron, cloves, and oxen - suggests that might be the case.

Diggorian
2007-02-09, 04:31 PM
To each their own; my own includes paladins, clerics, rangers and druids with required patron deities. Further, in the next D&D camp I run I'm bringing back Priests in the form of the Cloistered Cleric varient (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#clericVariantCloistere dCleric). Inline with history, PHB clerics should be the odd balls IMHO.

Outside that well discussed topic, I've got monk problems.

Monks are clearly based off Shaolin monks. How a butt-kicking tradition springs from Buddhism is enough of a historical mystery, but it just springs up out of no where in most D&D settings I've played in.

Where does the search for enlightenment within turn into what D&D monks do? The devoted study to a philosophy (religious or secular) in seclusion is what monks do, where does fighting effectively when next to naked fit? Sure the D&D world has lots of roving threats, but the common solutions of training NPC warrior militias, adventurers, and the army of the local lord should be good enough to defend your monastery.

Kantolin
2007-02-09, 04:40 PM
It took me a surprising amount of time to fathom what class to make European-style monks.

I finally settled on expert. ^_^ The general theme, I suppose, is that western monks are lame. Fear my Skill Focus(Copying the Bible).

Everyone wants monks that flip around and run like ninjas and deliver massive flurries of blows... um... for enlightenment. Yeah that's it, enlightenment. Certainly not for the purpose of smashing.

Yuki Akuma
2007-02-09, 04:41 PM
It took me a surprising amount of time to fathom what class to make European-style monks.

I finally settled on expert. ^_^ The general theme, I suppose, is that western monks are lame. Fear my Skill Focus(Copying the Bible).

Everyone wants monks that flip around and run like ninjas and deliver massive flurries of blows... um... for enlightenment. Yeah that's it, enlightenment. Certainly not for the purpose of smashing.

Monks and smashing do not go together well in a sentence, unless the two words "suck at" appears somewhere in there. :smallwink:

Diggorian
2007-02-09, 04:43 PM
Everyone wants monks that flip around and run like ninjas and deliver massive flurries of blows... um... for enlightenment. Yeah that's it, enlightenment. Certainly not for the purpose of smashing.

Exactly! :smallamused:

Arceliar
2007-02-09, 04:58 PM
About the deity-free cleric thing...

Game mechanic wise, I have no problem with a cleric with a cause but no deity. That much makes perfect sense to me. Vocabulary wise... isn't "Cleric" sort of-- BY DEFINITION --a member of the clergy, hence a church. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't most religions sort of...........have a religion?

Woot Spitum
2007-02-09, 05:01 PM
How often do you see drow taking advantage of weapon familiarity:rapier? Supposedly they like stealth and attacking with magic, but they always seem to duel-wield in combat. I don't really understand the concept of drow fighters. They are great magic users and have tons of slave troops to fight their melee battles for them. Why do they have so many fighters?

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-02-09, 05:07 PM
5'4-6'2
130-270lbs

Has to be Mammalian and Humanoid though. That rules out pretty much anything with Reptilian subtypes. Ropers are the only non-humanoid exception in LoM. Still, FF is the source for Half-Illithidae. On the one hand, LoM states that Illithids never insert into non-Mammal Humanoids. On the other hand, FF's Half-Illithids are basically representative of "experiments" and "pushing the boundaries of the envelope".

Illithids love those experiments. In fact, I can imagine a conversation ...

Jim the Illithid: Hey, Bob.
Bob the Illithid: Yeah?
Jim: Bob, I just did some research, and that prisoner I just got. Get this, he's my direct ancestor.
Bob: Seriously? What are the odds of that?
Jim: Pretty good. I mean, this is happening in Illithid past, so when our ancestors from the future came to the past, my capturing of this ancestor had already happened.
Bob: Jim --
Jim: What?
Bob: You just gave me a headache.
Jim: I know. We're telepaths, remember.
Bob: Gee, how could I forget that? Here, read my thoughts. I'm giving you the bird, mentally.
Jim: No need for that.
Bob: So what are you going to do with this prisoner?
Jim: Kill him, probably. I mean, it could mean I cease to exist, or since I'm here, maybe something else wacky happens!
Bob: Can I help? After all, I wouldn't mind seeing you cease to exist.
Jim: You're all heart, Bob.

Those wacky illithids!

Me, my beef in 3.5 is half-elves. Once a cool race, now they are like the "race that just can't quite be as cool as a full human or elf." They've split the middle too much with the racial benefits, and left half-elves somewhat lacking that anyone that I know personally who considers playing one ends up just playing an elf.

Kantolin
2007-02-09, 05:10 PM
Monks and smashing do not go together well in a sentence, unless the two words "suck at" appears somewhere in there. :smallwink:
Hey, I sayd 'everyone wants'. ^_^ That makes it acceptable. Observe:

Everyone wants fighters to be better at their job than clerics!
Everyone wants drow to be chaotic good!
Everyone wants magic missile and fireball!

The list goes on

Elliot Kane
2007-02-09, 05:12 PM
Monks are clearly based off Shaolin monks. How a butt-kicking tradition springs from Buddhism is enough of a historical mystery, but it just springs up out of no where in most D&D settings I've played in.


I can actually answer the historical part of this one, I think. Shaolin monks in search of enlightenment thought (And may still think - I do not know) that one path to enlightenment could be found in the perfection of control over both mind and body.

They thus embraced martial arts because of the meditation/mental discipline side as much as for the physical control/discipline side, and the ultimate aim was to use the discipline of martial arts to reach a state of perfect control of oneself.

Historically, the incredibly potent fighting forces this theory created were often used in Japanese warfare, not least the Ikko-Ikki rebellion, IIRC, which saw a lot of monks take to the field.

***

In terms of the game, it's never made any sense to me either :D

D&D is almost totally Western-based, and as has already been mentioned Western monks were not exactly reknowned for their awesome fighting skills :D

***


Vocabulary wise... isn't "Cleric" sort of-- BY DEFINITION --a member of the clergy, hence a church. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't most religions sort of...........have a religion?

That would tend to be the case :D

Arceliar
2007-02-09, 05:17 PM
Illithids love those experiments.

Me, my beef in 3.5 is half-elves. Once a cool race, now they are like the "race that just can't quite be as cool as a full human or elf." They've split the middle too much with the racial benefits, and left half-elves somewhat lacking that anyone that I know personally who considers playing one ends up just playing an elf.

I play half elves when I roll above-average scores. Everybody's got to have a handycap, right?

Kantolin
2007-02-09, 05:17 PM
Western monks were not exactly reknowned for their awesome fighting skills :D
That... that is the best idea ever. Well, even moreso than legendary bakers.

I shall now make a D&D prestige class for units who use the legendary copying the bible style of martial arts.

Since Western monks deserve some ki-based butt-kicking power too!

Roderick_BR
2007-02-09, 05:18 PM
The dwarven waraxe: a weapon designed by dwarves for dwarves. They use it so extensively that they can treat it as a martial weapon rather than exotic. yet every axe-weilding dwarf deity uses what? a battleaxe. the most subpar axe weapon in the game. is it just that these deities ascended to godhood before the waraxe got invented, and never got with the times? the world may never know.

If every katana is a masterwork bastard sword... when Muramasa forges a katana it's the same quality as when Bob the apprentice forges a katana? If you fail your masterwork check when crafting a katana, are you required to call it a bastard sword or can you just call it a crappy katana?

Why does a net cost more than a longsword?

Maybe it's the same reason Heroneous uses a battle axe while his paladins uses longswords. A matter of tradition. And most dwarven gods, like Moradin, prefer a warhammer.

What beefs me is why Moradin doesn't give the War domain. I mean, dwarves are fighters, warriors and combatants. Why don't give them warhammers for free insted of forcing them to go with maces or waste a feat on warhammer?

About katanas: I thought the same. I mostly house rule that "masterwork katanas" costs twice the cost (600 gp) and adds +1 non-magical bonus to damage, alongside the +1 non-magical bonus to attack.

Yes, a smith that fails his check gets a crappy katana, the same quality of a common bastard sword. It is said that most katanas were too hard to make properly, and only master smiths could work on them.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-02-09, 05:23 PM
I play half elves when I roll above-average scores. Everybody's got to have a handycap, right?

Hah! I've played them, too, despite getting odd looks from my peers. "Why not just play an elf?" they ask me. Mostly because they are thinking in terms of game mechanics. They even asked me why an NPC antagonist I ran was half-elf and not elf.

But that's the thing. We play various races because of their benefits, not because we expect a handicap.

Diggorian
2007-02-09, 05:32 PM
*bows deeply to Kane*


I can actually answer the historical part of this one, I think. Shaolin monks in search of enlightenment thought (And may still think - I do not know) that one path to enlightenment could be found in the perfection of control over both mind and body.

They thus embraced martial arts because of the meditation/mental discipline side as much as for the physical control/discipline side, and the ultimate aim was to use the discipline of martial arts to reach a state of perfect control of oneself.

Oh yeah. Other ascetic traditions, especially in India, practice body control techniques. But for Buddhists whom hold that all life is precious ... why the hurting? :smallfrown:

I appreciate the insight though. :smallamused:

Elliot Kane
2007-02-09, 05:54 PM
Oh yeah. Other ascetic traditions, especially in India, practice body control techniques. But for Buddhists whom hold that all life is precious ... why the hurting? :smallfrown:

I appreciate the insight though. :smallamused:

Anyone suddenly realising they are sitting on a pretty tough power base tends to start getting tempted, and I suspect that was the case with the abbots of the monasteries. The monks were incredibly loyal to their order, and would not have questioned the word of the abbot.

Originally they took up arms to guard themselves in what was a very turbulent period of history where a lot of bandits and warlords who were little better than bandits would loot anything that moved. Moving from defence to attack is not so very far, especially if your abbot tells you (And may believe) that you are helping to bring peace and an end to the Sengoku Jidai (Literally: 'the age of the country at war' IIRC. It lasted a long time).

I haven't studied Japanese history in great depth, so please don't ask me for huge details. I know a few rough outlines, and that's about all :)

kamikasei
2007-02-09, 05:55 PM
Deities seem to have a symbiotic relationship with their followers in many campaigns, in that they gain power from being worshipped and can bestow power onto their followers. Well, technically, they teach their followers how to pray to them to get certain effects, which makes the deity kind of like a power converter.

Without the power converter, all you have is prayer/worship - it doesn't automatically become power on its own.

So a deity-less cleric really makes no sense at all, I'm afraid :)

Like Yuki Akuma, I see it as perfectly sensible. Dial down the perceived importance of deities in granting the spells, and say that a cleric just channels divine energy, which comes from the relevant planes. Then say that the cleric simply needs to be sufficiently "in tune" with the relevant divinity to do this, which is easily accomplished by using devotion to a particular deity as a sort of focus; but if you exemplify some of the essence of a plane, as a deity does, you can draw off some of that energy of belief and channel it into spells directly.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

(Although if your beef is with players who take patronless clerics to avoid being saddled with a code of conduct, this could be used against them, by requiring independent clerics to be more zealous/devout/whatever.)


(Love your avatar, BTW. Lucifer, right?)

Yup. Thanks!

Woot Spitum
2007-02-09, 06:08 PM
I think what bothers me the most about clerics of a philosophy or concept is the fact that they can basically pick any domains they want. Or the fact that any philosophy is enough to grant divine powers (I worship the idea of my enemies getting beaten up with sticks. My domains are Strength, Whacking Sticks, Force, and More Whacking Sticks. Also Luck because it has a good ability).

clericwithnogod
2007-02-09, 06:17 PM
Maybe it's the same reason Heroneous uses a battle axe while his paladins uses longswords. A matter of tradition. And most dwarven gods, like Moradin, prefer a warhammer.


Some things I would like to think of as tradition. I like to think that they kept spear as Gruumsh's weapon based on myth (Ares, Greek god of war, traditionally used a spear) or DND history (such as the Roger Moore article in which Gruumsh's spear figures so prominently).

But, unfortunately, much as I like the thought of that, I fear the reality is that they just slapped some stuff in from earlier editions without bothering to consider how it fit the changes they had made.

Kind of a variant of Palladium Cut-and-Paste Syndrome, where whole chunks of books were dropped unedited and unupdated into other titles.

Hopefully they don't succumb to Palladium Clip-Art Madness, which starts with minor irrelevant images being used as filler and progresses to sharing major images across genres.

Matthew
2007-02-09, 06:18 PM
Anyone suddenly realising they are sitting on a pretty tough power base tends to start getting tempted, and I suspect that was the case with the abbots of the monasteries. The monks were incredibly loyal to their order, and would not have questioned the word of the abbot.

Originally they took up arms to guard themselves in what was a very turbulent period of history where a lot of bandits and warlords who were little better than bandits would loot anything that moved. Moving from defence to attack is not so very far, especially if your abbot tells you (And may believe) that you are helping to bring peace and an end to the Sengoku Jidai (Literally: 'the age of the country at war' IIRC. It lasted a long time).

I haven't studied Japanese history in great depth, so please don't ask me for huge details. I know a few rough outlines, and that's about all :)

Apparently the history is *very* sketchy. It's pretty much the same story as with Western Military Orders, though. Necessity is the mother of invention and opportunity the father. Basically (according to Wikipedia), Shaolin Kung Fu is only attested from the 16th Century onwards:

Shaolin Kung Fu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaolin_Kung_Fu)
Sohei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior_monk)

Elliot Kane
2007-02-09, 06:19 PM
Like Yuki Akuma, I see it as perfectly sensible. Dial down the perceived importance of deities in granting the spells, and say that a cleric just channels divine energy, which comes from the relevant planes. Then say that the cleric simply needs to be sufficiently "in tune" with the relevant divinity to do this, which is easily accomplished by using devotion to a particular deity as a sort of focus; but if you exemplify some of the essence of a plane, as a deity does, you can draw off some of that energy of belief and channel it into spells directly.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

(Although if your beef is with players who take patronless clerics to avoid being saddled with a code of conduct, this could be used against them, by requiring independent clerics to be more zealous/devout/whatever.)


A part of it is the 'power without responsibility' thing, I have to admit, but by far the largest part is that it makes no sense to me from a logical perspective.

AFAIK there's no 'rule of ascension' wherein a mortal with enough worshippers will become a deity, so clearly whatever power is given to a deity by worship is not a power that humans can directly use. If there was such a rule, deity-less clerics would make sense, though they should be less powerful as they are using ambient energy rather than direct channelling.

If divine magic were at all related to anything mages use, they would have copies of every clerical spell, especially the healing stuff. They don't. As a matter of game balance, the two forms of power have different strengths and weaknesses that the other can copy only imperfectly and at reduced effect. That makes sense.

Divine magic is by definition a gift of the deities, which is why wizards can't copy it.

Given that 'worship power' gives nothing to mortals and that all divine magic is a gift of the divinities, I can't see any way that a person can learn how to cast divine magic - a form of prayer - without a deity.

It's like getting your car to run smoothly under its own power without an engine, at least IMO.

***


Apparently the history is *very* sketchy. It's pretty much the same story as with Western Military Orders, though. Necessity is the mother of invention and opportunity the father.

A very good description!


Basically (according to Wikipedia), Shaolin Kung Fu is only attested from the 16th Century onwards:

Shaolin Kung Fu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaolin_Kung_Fu)
Sohei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior_monk)

16th-18th centuries is the Senguku Jidai, IIRC. I reserve the right to be very wrong on that one, though.

Lord Tokogawa eventually beat all the other main houses, uniting Japan under the Shogunate.

***


I think what bothers me the most about clerics of a philosophy or concept is the fact that they can basically pick any domains they want. Or the fact that any philosophy is enough to grant divine powers (I worship the idea of my enemies getting beaten up with sticks. My domains are Strength, Whacking Sticks, Force, and More Whacking Sticks. Also Luck because it has a good ability).

That's my other big problem. Belief alone is key. If someone trips over his shoelaces and falls over just at the right point to miss getting hit by something big and nasty, he could 'believe' he was saved by the divine will of his shoelaces, decide to worship the idea of being saved by shoelaces - and he'd get clerical powers out of it at least as good as any servant of a deity!

It makes a mockery of the whole idea of clerics, IMO.

brian c
2007-02-09, 07:27 PM
*bows deeply to Kane*



Oh yeah. Other ascetic traditions, especially in India, practice body control techniques. But for Buddhists whom hold that all life is precious ... why the hurting? :smallfrown:

I appreciate the insight though. :smallamused:


They didn't train in order to hurt people, martial arts were and still are primarily intended to be used in self-defense. Of course, there always were (and are) people who are corrupted by power, even if that power is jsut the power to beat up someone else and take their stuff.

brian c
2007-02-09, 07:31 PM
16th-18th centuries is the Senguku Jidai, IIRC. I reserve the right to be very wrong on that one, though.

Lord Tokogawa eventually beat all the other main houses, uniting Japan under the Shogunate.

Don't get your asian countries confused. Shaolin temple was in China, Tokugawa was in Japan. There are definitely martial arts traditions in Japan too, but fighting monks were more of a Chinese thing. Many Japanese samurai though would retire to become monks, so they still had fighting skills even if they didn't use them often.

Matthew
2007-02-09, 07:39 PM
Check out that Sohei Article for Japanese Warrior Monks. I couldn't find much on Medieval Chinese Warrior Monks.

RS14
2007-02-09, 08:31 PM
"Terrain mastery gives a horizon walker a bonus on checks involving a skill useful in that terrain, or some other appropriate benefit."

"Horizon walkers take their terrain mastery with them wherever they go. They retain their terrain mastery bonuses on skill checks, attack rolls, and damage rolls whether they’re actually in the relevant terrain or not."


Makes perfect sense. Read it as: Terrain mastery gives bonuses on checks involving [a skill that is useful in that terrain.] Whether or not you are actually in that terrain makes no differences.

It does seem to say that only skill checks, attack rolls, and damage roll bonuses are taken with them everywhere, which would seem to imply that special bonuses (Dimensional door, for example) cannot be used in other terrain.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-10, 03:26 AM
Don't get your asian countries confused. Shaolin temple was in China, Tokugawa was in Japan. There are definitely martial arts traditions in Japan too, but fighting monks were more of a Chinese thing. Many Japanese samurai though would retire to become monks, so they still had fighting skills even if they didn't use them often.

I admit to getting the names confused with Shaolin/Sohei, but it is definitely not true that fighting monks are MORE Chinese than Japanese. Japanese monks played a huge part in much of the Senguku Jidai.

And yes, I also spelled 'Tokugawa' wrong originally. This is what I get for dredging up names from memory :)

AtomicKitKat
2007-02-10, 06:07 AM
Hopefully they don't succumb to Palladium Clip-Art Madness, which starts with minor irrelevant images being used as filler and progresses to sharing major images across genres.

Too late. They already used the Battlesmith from Races of Stone for the Ollam in Complete Adventurer.

Red Sky Knight
2007-02-10, 06:48 AM
Shoe laces carry no divinity, but concepts such as good and evil are so fundamental in the universe that they are divine in nature and and therefore can be a source of divine magic, which is, after all, simply an expression of the concept/philosophy/archetype itself.

DND deities differ very little from their portfolios. they must act in accordance with them at all times, and can be seen as simply a primal expression of the philosophy/concept.

Diggorian
2007-02-10, 01:44 PM
They didn't train in order to hurt people, martial arts were and still are primarily intended to be used in self-defense. Of course, there always were (and are) people who are corrupted by power, even if that power is jsut the power to beat up someone else and take their stuff.

Although it seems more along the Noble Path of the Buddha to detach oneself from conflict rather than particpate in it, I can buy the defense of others that arent ready from the ultimate detachment of death. The why dont monks use armor and all martial weapons?

Those Japanese Buddhists that were involved in the Ikko-ikki used all the weapons and armor of their day by many sources. It was a religious based class warfare similar to Europes Reformation rather than a martial tradition by accounts.

I've heard Kung Fu practicioners explain Buddhist mortal combat as being a vehicle of locking oneself in the ultimate present, cause the possiblilty of death makes the immediate future less certain. Wasnt satisfying to me.

I've altered monk fluff to make them more about the purity of martial combat and philosophically ANTI-religion the way Druids are anti-artificiality. Crunch-wise took away their weapon proficiences but gave them the ability to imbue their own body with properties magic items would grant, with XP expenditures in place of gold.

Matthew
2007-02-10, 01:51 PM
Sohei weren't part of a reformation. They were Warrior Monks in the very literal sense from what appears to be the 10th Century onwards. The Ikko Ikki movement involved Monks, Commoners, Samurai and Nobles, at least according to Wikipedia.

The reason Kung Fu type Monks don't wear armour or use martial type weapons is because they were forbidden to practice martial habits at some point post 1500, or so I am given to understand.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-10, 03:00 PM
Sohei weren't part of a reformation. They were Warrior Monks in the very literal sense from what appears to be the 10th Century onwards. The Ikko Ikki movement involved Monks, Commoners, Samurai and Nobles, at least according to Wikipedia.

The reason Kung Fu type Monks don't wear armour or use martial type weapons is because they were forbidden to practice martial habits at some point post 1500, or so I am given to understand.

IIRC, Matthew is right.

In Japan (And I think in China too) it was illegal during those periods for normal people to carry weapons, yet it was also very dangerous not to - which led to the creation of all those wonderfully inventive martial arts weapons, which are designed to look like something else and have other functions that could explain why someone was carrying them. And also, IIRC, to a lot of martial arts fighting styles.

Woot Spitum
2007-02-10, 03:11 PM
I don't get wisdom being related to senses. Aren't senses physical rather than mental? Isn't recognizing what you see and hear a measure of knowledge (int) rather than wisdom? The only thing wisdom would help with is applying that knowledge, but isn't that a function of the player, not the character? Making a player roll a wisdom check or a wisdom-based skill check to see if their character would recognize what to do with the information he has is just plain dumb.

Dhavaer
2007-02-10, 05:26 PM
I don't get wisdom being related to senses. Aren't senses physical rather than mental? Isn't recognizing what you see and hear a measure of knowledge (int) rather than wisdom? The only thing wisdom would help with is applying that knowledge, but isn't that a function of the player, not the character? Making a player roll a wisdom check or a wisdom-based skill check to see if their character would recognize what to do with the information he has is just plain dumb.

A high wisdom doesn't actually improve your senses, but your ability to process the information from them. It's the ability to notice, rather than to see.

Diggorian
2007-02-10, 05:38 PM
Sohei weren't part of a reformation.

Read the article too, said the Ikko-ikki was "similar" to the European Reformation. :smallsigh:

"They followed the beliefs of the Jōdo Shinshu (True Pure Land) sect of Buddhism which taught that all believers are equally saved by Amida Buddha's grace."

Sounds like how Luther saw the Lay worshipers as worthy of interpreting the Word to me.


The reason Kung Fu type Monks don't wear armour or use martial type weapons is because they were forbidden to practice martial habits at some point post 1500, or so I am given to understand.


Yeah, I've heard this too. But is this case in every nation-state in D&D settings with monks (besides OA)?

Mechanically monks do look like representations of Shao lin, but their fluff doesnt elaborate on the creation of these types of orders. This is my problem.

BTW, what does IIRC translate to in English?

Woot Spitum
2007-02-10, 05:38 PM
But if you fail a spot check, the DM tells you that you don't see anything. He doesn't tell you that "You see a something moving in the corner, but lack the requisite wisdom to understand the significance of this."

Matthew
2007-02-10, 06:00 PM
Read the article too, said the Ikko-ikki was "similar" to the European Reformation. :smallsigh:

"They followed the beliefs of the Jōdo Shinshu (True Pure Land) sect of Buddhism which taught that all believers are equally saved by Amida Buddha's grace."

Sounds like how Luther saw the Lay worshipers as worthy of interpreting the Word to me.

Yeah, but the Sohei predate Ikko Ikki by five centuries. They were involved, but it wasn't the reason for their existence, which is what I was meaning.

Dhavaer
2007-02-10, 06:07 PM
But if you fail a spot check, the DM tells you that you don't see anything. He doesn't tell you that "You see a something moving in the corner, but lack the requisite wisdom to understand the significance of this."

You didn't notice it. Understanding the significance of something is probably not going to be a Spot check.

Diggorian
2007-02-10, 06:46 PM
Yeah, but the Sohei predate Ikko Ikki by five centuries. They were involved, but it wasn't the reason for their existence, which is what I was meaning.

Cool. I'm not the talking about the Sohei, just differentiating one bunch of fighting buddhists from another. I've been talking Chinese Shao lin as the basis of monks, Elliot brought up Japan.

Matthew
2007-02-10, 07:04 PM
Okay, I see.

Actually, I always thought Sohei were best counterparted with Clerics in D&D.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-10, 07:07 PM
Cool. I'm not the talking about the Sohei, just differentiating one bunch of fighting buddhists from another. I've been talking Chinese Shao lin as the basis of monks, Elliot brought up Japan.

I did :)

I think D&D monks are based on several Far Eastern cultures, rather than one specific. The original Oriental Adventures certainly drew a lot upon Japanese traditions, and possibly more so than any other culture (Though I am unsure, as my own knowledge of Oriental history is mainly Japanese, and honestly not that great, as I have admitted).

After all, Eastern martial art styles have originated in almost every nation out there, including China, Korea, Japan and (I believe) Malaysia. Anywhere Buddhism has spread throughout the Orient, I believe.

Whether all of these cultures have also given rise to fighting monks, I do not know. It wouldn't surprise me, though.

Scorpina
2007-02-10, 07:11 PM
...I really don't see why it's so hard to believe that the ideas the arose in the East of our world and led to the deveolpment of Shaolin Monks and those like them could have arisen in the same part of a fantasy world as the traditions of necromancy and druidism...

Matthew
2007-02-10, 07:18 PM
It's the whole Monks don't wear Armour or use Martial weapons thing, I think, that causes most of the problems. It's an early modern development in response to the suppression of martial habits in monasteries and not really representative of (pseudo) medieval attitudes.
It's certainly not impossible, but it does cause some strain on suspension of disbelief, mainly because it is relatively unfamiliar in an occidentally orientated fantasy setting. The first time the class appeared it was with the caveat that they knew it was 'out of place'.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-10, 07:39 PM
Matthew's right.

It's the same reason Orcs & Goblins are always 'evil races' in fantasy games. They are taken from Tolkien, where there was a justification for them being that way (Corrupted & warped by Sauron & Morgoth) and left evil with the actual justification removed.

It may make no real sense, but it's what people are used to and what they expect. Most fantasy worlds at their heart are highly familiar to us because they are based on cultures or ideas with which we are already familiar.

In a sense, anything we feel is out of place seems 'odd' because it's not what we would expect.

clericwithnogod
2007-02-10, 07:48 PM
I kind of like the DND version of orc history, which seems to imply that:
a) The other races' gods are jerks.
and
b) Orcs have a right to dislike everyone else.

(cribbed from Wikipedia, via Unearthed Arcana and before that Dragon magazine and by Roger E. Moore)...

In the beginning all the gods met and drew lots for the parts of the world in which their representative races would dwell. The human gods drew the lot that allowed humans to dwell where they pleased, in any environment. The elven gods drew the green forests, the dwarven deities drew the high mountains, the gnomish gods the rocky, sunlit hills, and the halfling gods picked the lot that gave them the fields and meadows. Then the assembled gods turned to the orcish gods and laughed loud and long. "All the lots are taken!" they said tauntingly. "Where will your people dwell, One-Eye? There is no place left!"

There was silence upon the world then, as Gruumsh One-Eye lifted his great iron spear and stretched it over the world. The shaft blotted the sun over a great part of the lands as he spoke: "No! You Lie! You have rigged the drawing of the lots, hoping to cheat me and my followers. But One-Eye never sleeps. One-Eye sees all. There is a place for orcs to dwell…here!," he bellowed, and his spear pierced the mountains, opening a mighty rift and chasms. "And here!," and the spearhead split the hills and made them shake and covered them in dust. "And here!," and the black spear gouged the meadows and made them bare.

"There!" roared He-Who-Watches triumphantly, and his voice carried to the ends of the world. "There is where the orcs shall dwell! There they will survive, and multiply, and grow stronger, and a day will come when they cover the world, and they will slay all of your collective peoples! Orcs shall inherit the world you sought to cheat me of!"

JellyPooga
2007-02-10, 08:06 PM
Not quite what the OP was asking but anyways...

A mechanic that doesn't fit the fluff - Elves Favoured Class being Wizard. Why isn't it Bard? I'll explain.

1) They like to do a little bit of everything over their long lives, dabbling in magic, swordplay and all sorts of interesting crafts, professions and miscellania
1a) Wizard - 2 Skill ranks per level and fairly limited selection + Arcane casting (NB - Poor BAB prog.)
1b) Bard - 6 Skill ranks per level and wide selection + Arcane casting + Bardic Knowledge + Bardic Music (read - How to play an instrument so well that it produces an almost magical effect - if anyone's gonna learn that it's going to be someone who's been around for a long time) + finesse weapon proficiencies (NB - Average BAB prog.)

2) They enjoy the finer things in life, drinking, dancing, singing, telling stories and generally having a good time.
2a) Wizard - Lifelong study of a single area of expertise, often involving closeting yourself away for months on end while you study a single tome.
2b) Bard - Traveling (possibly) around meeting new people, singing songs, playing music and generally having a good time + Bardic Knowledge (myths, legends, hear-say and rumour)

Now tell me why it is, exactly, that they have Wizard as favoured class rather than Bard.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but a races Favoured Class is the class that best fits said races fluff (and by extrapolation, their abilities) - Halflings make good Rogues because of their high dex and small stature, along with their happy-go-lucky attitude and mild racial kleptomania, Dwarves make good Fighters because of their sturdy frames, high constitution, a society that encourages discipline and a certain stuborn-headedness that ensures that when they swing an axe they know for sure that their doing it properly, and so forth.

To me, it just doesn't make a lot of sense

Stephen_E
2007-02-10, 08:08 PM
In Ebberon one of the two gods that monks (that must be Lawful) follow is NE and the other CG. What the F.....!

Stephen

DaMullet
2007-02-10, 08:44 PM
Not quite what the OP was asking but anyways...

A mechanic that doesn't fit the fluff - Elves Favoured Class being Wizard. Why isn't it Bard? I'll explain.

blah blah, fishcakes
Essentially, what you're forgetting is that Gnomes are already favored class: Bard, and you can't have two races equally suited to the same thing, except Humans and Half-elves, the latter I don't consider a race at all. They're banned from my games, but that's a different matter.

The point is, elves are too haughty to be Bards. They turn their noses up at other races, and thus are too proud to learn the folklore and legends of humans, dwarves, and halflings.

Zincorium
2007-02-10, 08:47 PM
Not quite what the OP was asking but anyways...

A mechanic that doesn't fit the fluff - Elves Favoured Class being Wizard. Why isn't it Bard? I'll explain.

1) They like to do a little bit of everything over their long lives, dabbling in magic, swordplay and all sorts of interesting crafts, professions and miscellania
1a) Wizard - 2 Skill ranks per level and fairly limited selection + Arcane casting (NB - Poor BAB prog.)
1b) Bard - 6 Skill ranks per level and wide selection + Arcane casting + Bardic Knowledge + Bardic Music (read - How to play an instrument so well that it produces an almost magical effect - if anyone's gonna learn that it's going to be someone who's been around for a long time) + finesse weapon proficiencies (NB - Average BAB prog.)

2) They enjoy the finer things in life, drinking, dancing, singing, telling stories and generally having a good time.
2a) Wizard - Lifelong study of a single area of expertise, often involving closeting yourself away for months on end while you study a single tome.
2b) Bard - Traveling (possibly) around meeting new people, singing songs, playing music and generally having a good time + Bardic Knowledge (myths, legends, hear-say and rumour)

Now tell me why it is, exactly, that they have Wizard as favoured class rather than Bard.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but a races Favoured Class is the class that best fits said races fluff (and by extrapolation, their abilities) - Halflings make good Rogues because of their high dex and small stature, along with their happy-go-lucky attitude and mild racial kleptomania, Dwarves make good Fighters because of their sturdy frames, high constitution, a society that encourages discipline and a certain stuborn-headedness that ensures that when they swing an axe they know for sure that their doing it properly, and so forth.

To me, it just doesn't make a lot of sense

I tend when DMing to switch the favored classes of gnomes and elves. Why? Gnomes are the archetypal bearded, glasses wearing, physically unimposing race. They're perfect, thematically, for the admittedly stereotypical vision of wizards. They're well known as inventors (intelligence), alchemists (again, intelligence), and for being socially awkward (low charisma). Not that they should have bonuses or penalties to those abilities, but it makes more sense for their favored, and thus presumably most common PC class, to be one which takes advantage of their cultural tendencies rather than goes in the face of it. In addition, they previously to 3.5 were well known for being illusionists, which is simply a specialized wizard. Call me a traditionalist.

Elves have all the things you mentioned as reasons for Bard to be their favored class. Switching one for the other improves the sensibility of the game without really causing issues.

NecroPaladin
2007-02-10, 08:57 PM
The fact that since they never specify the size limit of the instrument, a bard who uses, say, "Perform: Percussion Instruments" could either tap together two lil' cymbals or jump on a gargantuan-size drum like a trampoline and achieve the exact same performance/effect. Also, exact same performance/effect for a normal, standard bard drum. Basically, onlookers (listeners), for lack of other options don't notice the difference between any of these instruments, sound-wise.

...WTF?

JellyPooga
2007-02-10, 09:00 PM
Essentially, what you're forgetting is that Gnomes are already favored class: Bard, and you can't have two races equally suited to the same thing, except Humans and Half-elves, the latter I don't consider a race at all. They're banned from my games, but that's a different matter.

The point is, elves are too haughty to be Bards. They turn their noses up at other races, and thus are too proud to learn the folklore and legends of humans, dwarves, and halflings.

I never really understood why Gnomes had Favoured Class: Bard either. Like Zincorium I see them better as Wizards (what whith their affinity for illusions and racial ability to cast spells for starters)

I don't know if you've read RotW (which is where I'm taking my elves from), but they are far from haughty. D&D Elves are not LotR/Warhammer High Elves. They are happy-go-lucky, find out about everything, nice to everyone, tree-hugging hippies (to put it in a single sentance). Not crotchety old gits who hole up in their towers reading musty old tomes.

Jack Mann
2007-02-10, 10:37 PM
Except for Sun/Gray elves, of course.

Roderick_BR
2007-02-10, 10:59 PM
Hmm... Elves and Gnomes. In 3.5, people at WotC decided that gnomes are very lively, good spirited folks, so they changed him to a more "social" class, that still dables into ilusion spells, so they won't be a "second hand wizard" compared to elves.
As for the elves, since 2nd edition, they were wizards because they are "magical by their own nature", and elves couldn't be bards. I'd change it to Sorcerer in 3.5, personally.

DaMullet
2007-02-11, 12:17 AM
I don't know if you've read RotW (which is where I'm taking my elves from), but they are far from haughty. D&D Elves are not LotR/Warhammer High Elves. They are happy-go-lucky, find out about everything, nice to everyone, tree-hugging hippies (to put it in a single sentance). Not crotchety old gits who hole up in their towers reading musty old tomes.
Not to seem rude (for that is not my intent) but did you read any of the flavor text regarding elves in the PHB?


Relations:
Elves consider humans rather unrefined, halflings a bit staid, gnomes somewhat trivial, and dwarves not at all fun. They look on half-elves with some degree of pity, and half-orcs with unrelenting suspicion. While haughty, Elves are not particular the way halflings and dwarves can be, and they are generally pleasant and gracious even to those who fall short of elven standards (a category encompassing nearly everyone who is not an elf).

Underlined emphasis mine.

HealthKit
2007-02-11, 02:07 PM
Well elves do tend to be rather reclusive, as are wizards… but as a favored class? Wizards just don’t seem to fit the bill given their Racial Traits. I think it was just given to them as sort of a preconceived archetype. “Elves are often wizards because they’ve taken the time of their long lives to study magic” type of deal. Kind of a stereotype if you will.
But as bards? Maybe, if it weren’t for their reclusive nature and smug superiority complex they give off. Haughty is the word. Bards travel around a lot and come off as friendly story tellers, right? Elves don’t quite fit the bill here either. Don’t get me wrong, I like elves much as the next guy, but how often do you need a bard? To be honest I’ve yet to play one. You ask me they’re only needed to complement an already well rounded party. But I digress.

Given their nature, characteristics (fluff, that is) and Racial Traits I peg elves as Rangers- reclusive, but willing to travel and able to come off as smug and haughty without coming into conflict with what it means to be a Ranger. Just look at their Racial Traits; +2 Dex, -2 Con, Lowlight Vision, bonus weapon proficiencies and +2 to Listen, Spot and Search. To me, elves just scream “archers”. I know it might be a tad cliché and as stereotypical as wizards are, but it fit’s the bill- they’ve already got a Dex bonus, the weapon proficiency and it goes along with their long life spans. I always think of elves as cautious- they have a long lifetime and expect to live them out as long as possible. That’s where ranged combat comes in. They can attack from a distance without risking injury- for a couple rounds at least. Before an enemy can get close enough for melee combat they’ve (hopefully) already plugged a few arrows into them. They can even get the jump on an enemy, attacking first without warning and possibly without being spotted at first. Move Silently to sneak up on them and Hide to avoid detection. That where the Dex bonus comes in handy again. And again, by the time they’re spotted their enemies have already taken a bit of damage.
Plus you can’t tell me that Lowlight Vision, Listen, Search and Spot racial bonuses don’t come in real handy for a Ranger.

That’s just my 2cp anyways.

JaronK
2007-02-11, 02:17 PM
The fact that since they never specify the size limit of the instrument, a bard who uses, say, "Perform: Percussion Instruments" could either tap together two lil' cymbals or jump on a gargantuan-size drum like a trampoline and achieve the exact same performance/effect. Also, exact same performance/effect for a normal, standard bard drum. Basically, onlookers (listeners), for lack of other options don't notice the difference between any of these instruments, sound-wise.

...WTF?

Not true. Bardic music effects work only if you can hear them. A gnome of symbols will only be able to use his bardic music on people who are pretty close, but a goliath bard with war drums can boost a whole army.

JaronK

Diggorian
2007-02-11, 05:00 PM
I see Elves as being Wizard favored mainly from traditional exemplars.

Elrond was a wizard in Tolkein. I think in the first D&D games elf wizard was one of your few character choices. In Gygax's Greyhawk setting Gray elves (with the Str-2 & Int+2) are considered the elfiest of elves -- viewing PHB High elves the way humans look at half orcs cause they live among non-elves, and the other races as only slightly better than orcs. The most ancient race that they are, they'll have an edge on fantasy technology (magic). But true, High elf crunch doesnt quite sync with this magical heritage.

Gnomes I dislike as a purist. Not in Tolkein, they should go in the MM with other non-evil but non-standard races IMHO. Their racial abilities feel like a bribe to me, cool and balanced but ... meh. I allow them as PCs just as I'd allow Kobolds, Lizardfolk, or Hobgoblins; it's just a quirk of mine.

kamikasei
2007-02-11, 05:47 PM
Elrond was a wizard in Tolkein.

Not really. I mean, the people actually called "wizards" in Tolkien were a very specific group with not much of a mapping onto "magic-user" (they were more like outsiders or possibly clerics); but even given that, I don't remember Elrond using any magic at any point. He was a loremaster, but not, I think, any more of a mage than most Elves.

Quietus
2007-02-11, 05:55 PM
I've never really felt that Gnomes "fit" anywhere. There's the whole mad scientist angle, which would fit, if it weren't for them feeling chaotic, while mad scientistry requires a certain lawfulness, studying to become good enough at it to be worthwhile.

They've got nifty abilities, true, but they just... I've never really considered playing one. It's never really worth it so far as abilities go, and they never fit any character concept I come up with.

Khantalas
2007-02-11, 06:00 PM
Heresy! All my characters are gnomes. I even replace halflings with whisper gnomes.

Woot Spitum
2007-02-11, 06:52 PM
Not really. I mean, the people actually called "wizards" in Tolkien were a very specific group with not much of a mapping onto "magic-user" (they were more like outsiders or possibly clerics); but even given that, I don't remember Elrond using any magic at any point. He was a loremaster, but not, I think, any more of a mage than most Elves.

Elrond used magic on one occasion in the Lord of the Rings. When the ringwraiths were chasing Frodo into the river on the border of Rivendell, Elrond used his magic to cause it to temporarily flood, washing the ringwraiths downriver. He was able to do this because he had a ring of power. However, while he was the ruler of the elves at Rivendell, Elrond was only half-elven (read the Silmarillian, it mentions this). In Tolkien's world, half-elves (who were incredibly rare) could choose whether to favor their human or elven side.

Quietus
2007-02-11, 07:13 PM
Khantalas - maybe I'm missing something, and I mean this in complete seriousness, not intending any insult whatsoever.

... Why?

Khantalas
2007-02-11, 07:15 PM
Because I love gnomes! They're the coolest thing since baatezu!

Seriously, have you been me?

Quietus
2007-02-11, 07:18 PM
Not sure what you mean with that second sentence, but ... I just don't see what's so cool about them. They can chatter with burrowing animals, sure, and that alchemy bonus might come in handy from time to time, but... what else?

Khantalas
2007-02-11, 07:21 PM
Dude, they are a race of semi-crazed inquisitive inventors and artists. And they are overall cool, being able to talk to badgers and all.

It's fluff, not crunch. Expand your horizons.

Quietus
2007-02-11, 07:28 PM
That's just it, I rarely worry about crunch; I'm the idiot playing a stupidly crippled blind monk from that other thread. :smallbiggrin:

I'm all about the fluff, and gnomes have just never done anything for me.

Khantalas
2007-02-11, 07:30 PM
Well, to each his own.

Quietus
2007-02-11, 07:35 PM
Perhaps. I'm just curious as to what kinds of roles you normally use for your gnomes.

I guess a lot of my thing is that I'm a feat/skillmonkey, I love me my humans.

HealthKit
2007-02-11, 07:57 PM
Friends don't let friends play gnomes.

Diggorian
2007-02-11, 08:21 PM
Friends don't let friends play gnomes.

HA! :smallsmile: I respect the rights of gnomophiles, play what you like.

To me, if halflings are personifications of elves saying, "We're so cool we have little cousins that use our Dex bonus to be the rogues so we dont have to."

Gnomes are dwarves saying, "Us too!!! And ours are jewelers ... with illusion powers! ... and comically big noses ... that can talk to badgers!!!" :smallamused:

Roderick_BR
2007-02-11, 08:21 PM
Gnomes had a social stigma among my old gaming group because of a particular player we had years ago. Only recently we start using them again.

Roderick_BR
2007-02-11, 08:23 PM
HA! :smallsmile: I respect the rights of gnomophiles, play what you like.

To me, if halflings are personifications of elves saying, "We're so cool we have little cousins that use our Dex bonus to be the rogues so we dont have to."

Gnomes are dwarves saying, "Us too!!! And ours are jewelers ... with illusion powers! ... and comically big noses ... that can talk to badgers!!!" :smallamused:
Lol!
You could also say that they are the dwarve's cousins that can use arcane magic, so dwarves don't have to =P

Kantolin
2007-02-11, 08:36 PM
Gnomes make extremely capable spellcasters of any sort. Moreso than any other core race, if you ask me.

+2 Con is nice for a caster, -2 strength you utterly don't care about. +1 on any illusions you happen to cast. +1 AC for being small. Lower movement, who cares? No penalty to a mental stat. +con is nice for a druid, and no penalties to mental stats.

So.. so hey. Gnomes are awesome.

Plus you can freely stir your coffee. ^_^

Edit: And they've got the size +1 to hit for your rays, and are themselves coincidentally resistant to some illusions.

MrNexx
2007-02-11, 09:05 PM
I think the gnomish fluff utterly and completely contradicts the crunch their given.

Woot Spitum
2007-02-11, 09:17 PM
You would think with their extreme passion for science and invention, gnomes would get a bonus to intelligence. Instead, they get a bonus to constitution. The logic behind this is pretty weird.

MrNexx
2007-02-11, 10:31 PM
Point by Point on gnomes:
http://rpg-crank.livejournal.com/534.html

Rationale for changes:
http://rpg-crank.livejournal.com/868.html

Gnomes, Full Revision
http://rpg-crank.livejournal.com/2816.html

Telonius
2007-02-12, 09:37 AM
That... that is the best idea ever. Well, even moreso than legendary bakers.

I shall now make a D&D prestige class for units who use the legendary copying the bible style of martial arts.

Since Western monks deserve some ki-based butt-kicking power too!

There's an Irish priest in my hometown who would kick your butt for that. :smallbiggrin:

Tola
2007-02-12, 10:42 AM
Since Western monks deserve some ki-based butt-kicking power too!

You're after Cleric, if you play it with lighter armours only. Unless there's a less martial version...

Western Monk is almost the archtypical 'Holy Man/Priest': deeply devout, and rewarded for it with powers to heal and protect.

SpiderBrigade
2007-02-12, 11:34 AM
...I really don't see why it's so hard to believe that the ideas the arose in the East of our world and led to the deveolpment of Shaolin Monks and those like them could have arisen in the same part of a fantasy world as the traditions of necromancy and druidism...I think for most people it's the fact that the D&D world (or at least, most of the default settings) are mostly presented as Tolkien-like, "europe and it's environs" settings. And then suddenly there's these monks who are (some may argue, but I stand firm on this) embedded with kung-fu asian flavor - and they don't do a good job at all of explaining where they come from.

Compare that to, say, the martial adepts from Tome of Battle, a book which many feel has a strong wuxia-type flavor: there's a serious effort to spell out who developed these techniques, and why.

Scorpina
2007-02-12, 11:36 AM
Well, I haven't read Tome of Battle, but from my understanding of it it's a much more specific book than the PHB is. If they go into too much detail about the Monks background it would go against the whole genericness that they're going for.

SpiderBrigade
2007-02-12, 11:49 AM
yeah, that's a fair point. Actually the more I think about it, a lot of the "WTF, where are these monks coming from" reaction is due to the 2e -> 3e change.

Scorpina
2007-02-12, 11:49 AM
...and yet doesn't seem to affect the Barbarian or the Sorcerer...

SpiderBrigade
2007-02-12, 12:09 PM
Right, because they fit in a lot more with the "default" setting. The monk is a little different, as noted.

Look, I'm not saying momks don't make sense. I'm just saying, I can see where people might think it doesn't quite fit.

Edit: Yes, what Matthew says.

Matthew
2007-02-12, 01:17 PM
They are a relatively unfamiliar concept for an Occidental Pseudo Medieval setting.

Ninja Chocobo
2007-02-13, 12:12 AM
You're after Cleric, if you play it with lighter armours only. Unless there's a less martial version...
Cloistered Cleric, yo! (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#clericVariantCloistere dCleric)

Kantolin
2007-02-13, 01:53 AM
You're after Cleric, if you play it with lighter armours only. Unless there's a less martial version...

Western Monk is almost the archtypical 'Holy Man/Priest': deeply devout, and rewarded for it with powers to heal and protect.

I'm aiming more for the I-sit-in-a-monastary-and-transcribe-the-bible monk, not a priest. Priests aren't what most people mean when they say 'monk' in a western context.

Hallavast
2007-02-13, 02:00 AM
So you guys think western monks weren't bad ass melee monsters? I dunno... I've seen Friar Tuck do some crazy stuff with that holy whupass stick of his...

Cybren
2007-02-13, 03:57 AM
monks and friars were lay people with no church affiliation.

Hallavast
2007-02-13, 03:58 AM
monks and friars were lay people with no church affiliation.
care to back that one up with some sort of reference?

JaronK
2007-02-13, 07:41 AM
I'm aiming more for the I-sit-in-a-monastary-and-transcribe-the-bible monk, not a priest. Priests aren't what most people mean when they say 'monk' in a western context.

Archivist and Cloistered Cleric both fit that description rather well. Archivist especially hits the transcribing part...

JaronK

Attilargh
2007-02-13, 09:12 AM
Halflings make good Rogues because of their high dex and small stature, along with their happy-go-lucky attitude and mild racial kleptomania,
By the quick look I took at Races of the Wild, halflings are not kleptomanic. Instead, their whole culture appears to be based on thieving. Unlike Kenders who just don't understand the concept, halflings understand and deliberately do not pay any heed to it.

And yet the race still exists. Mind-boggling.

JellyPooga
2007-02-13, 09:28 AM
By the quick look I took at Races of the Wild, halflings are not kleptomanic. Instead, their whole culture appears to be based on thieving. Unlike Kenders who just don't understand the concept, halflings understand and deliberately do not pay any heed to it.

And yet the race still exists. Mind-boggling.

Whilst true that they have a culture based on petty thievery, they are nevertheless, essentially a 'Good' race (much as Goblins are an 'Evil' race). This means that they only steal what they need and/or what won't be particularly missed.

If people start getting angry about it, they simply return the stolen goods with an apology.

If people are still angry after that, they leave.

If people get angry enough to attack them, other halflings get angry too and before long the people that attacked the original halflings have no possessions to speak of (because they've all been stolen by angry halflings) and are possibly dead (it's hard to fight back against someone killing you in your sleep...they are only essentially good after all).

Basically, Halfings only go where they know they're welcome and bring good trading opportunities with them. Those places that they go expect a few things to go missing when Halflings are in town, but don't hold it against them because what would be the point? It's only a few small things. Halflings just don't go to places where their petty thievery causes offence.

That's how (along with not having many permanent settlements) Halflings, as a race, survive (according to RotW).

Attilargh
2007-02-13, 09:43 AM
And it still doesn't make any sense to me. :frown:

Telonius
2007-02-13, 10:03 AM
monks and friars were lay people with no church affiliation.
Not true. Dominicans, Franciscans, and all the rest were members of religious communities that were sponsored and approved by the Roman Catholic Church. (Link to the Catholic Encyclopedia article here (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06280b.htm).) The difference between friars and monks was that monks were supposed to live in seclusion and contemplation, but friars were part of the "mendicant orders" - that is, they were supposed to go out and actually work within the lay community. Both monks and friars did (and do) take holy vows, in much the same manner as priests and deacons. At least some friars become full priests, and can say all of the sacraments that priests normally can. (I'm not certain whether or not this is true of all friars, but there was a Franciscan at my Catholic high school who said Mass).

JadedDM
2007-02-13, 01:30 PM
I've always kind of wondered why elves have infravision. With the exception of Drow, they are not a subterranean race.

MrNexx
2007-02-13, 01:35 PM
Well, in 2nd edition, infravision was the form of seeing in the dark that was around. In 3rd edition, they gave them low-light vision, which is just seeing in less light.

JadedDM
2007-02-13, 01:59 PM
Yeah, I know. But why could elves see in the dark? Goblins and dwarves make sense, because they live underground and thus do not get much sun. Elves (except Drow) live out on the surface, dancing in the sunlight and playing in the glens.

Jack Mann
2007-02-13, 02:13 PM
Because they're partially nocturnal, and need to be able to see at night.

In 3rd, of course, this is best represented with low-light vision.

JadedDM
2007-02-13, 02:18 PM
Because they're partially nocturnal, and need to be able to see at night.

Since when?

Diggorian
2007-02-13, 03:07 PM
I think partially nocturnal is a fair assumption given they only need to trance for four hours, alot of their effective day is night. Really though, I thought the low-light vision came from them living in the perpetual shade of trees in deep forests. Further, Fey races have low-light so you could say it's trait of their sylvan heritage.

I, personally, prefer the cloistered cleric for the priest role moreso than PHB clerics. Unless a setting has regular holy wars, it's never made sense to me that clergy receive such martial training (all armors, medium BAB) at the apparent expense of devotional study (only 2 skill pts./level). Standard clerics look like they were made for the Crusades.

Sorcerors fluff has bother me too. Even if you house they get Eschew Materials for free, this kid is accidentally belching spells it takes a Wizard years to learn?

Yuki Akuma
2007-02-13, 03:10 PM
Yeah, I know. But why could elves see in the dark? Goblins and dwarves make sense, because they live underground and thus do not get much sun. Elves (except Drow) live out on the surface, dancing in the sunlight and playing in the glens.

I think it's because they're generally assumed to have adapted as woodland creatures. Proper forests don't get much light under the canopy; woodland creatures generally have better eyesight than humans!

Edit: Damn you, Diggorian-ninja.

Jothki
2007-02-13, 03:13 PM
Sorcerors fluff has bother me too. Even if you house they get Eschew Materials for free, this kid is accidentally belching spells it takes a Wizard years to learn?

I'd say it's the other way around. Almost everything that uses magic can simply belch it out. How does it make sense that someone who would normally have no magical powers whatsoever can somehow aquire them through study?

I'm sure that to a lot of sorcerers, wizard spellcasting looks like a slightly more complex version of UMD.

Matthew
2007-02-13, 06:33 PM
The removal of Infra Vision or Dark Vision for most of the basic races is something I have long advocated... there's no real fluff reasons at all. It's just one of those things. (An, yeah, medieval Monks and Friars were affiliated with the church, as well as being ordained and not 'lay' at all. You may be thinking of Lay Brothers, Cybren).

Yuki Akuma
2007-02-13, 08:39 PM
The removal of Infra Vision or Dark Vision for most of the basic races is something I have long advocated... there's no real fluff reasons at all. It's just one of those things. (An, yeah, medieval Monks and Friars were affiliated with the church, as well as being ordained and not 'lay' at all. You may be thinking of Lay Brothers, Cybren).

Infra Vision? Yep, that's been taken out for every single creature in existance. Creatures with Darkvision are generally subterranian or nocturnal, like dwarves, drow, orcs, goblins...

All other creatures with good eyesight have Low-Light Vision, which isn't the same at all. That's just... very good night vision, not the ability to somehow see with no light at all.

Matthew
2007-02-13, 08:46 PM
I know, but I would dump it for Dwarves, Drow, Orcs and Goblins as well...

Yuki Akuma
2007-02-13, 08:49 PM
I know, but I would dump it for Dwarves, Drow, Orcs and Goblins as well...

...But, why?

Matthew
2007-02-13, 08:50 PM
Just irritates me that they can see perfectly fine for 60' and then nothing, especially as they all use light sources in their homes anyway.

The_Snark
2007-02-13, 08:57 PM
The 60' thing bugs me too, but it makes sense for most of them. Orcs are nocturnal, or used to be; it may be that that holdover from Tolkien has been eroded over the editions. Ditto for goblins. Dwarves traditionally live underground, and while they do use lights... so that they can see color and read... they can make do without.

While we're on fluff that annoys: Why is it that healers can't use shields? A shield being a protective device? If it were a vow against preparing for combat, I might get it, but they can wear armor just fine. Why are healers encouraged to use larger, two-handed weaponry rather than defend themselves?

Matthew
2007-02-13, 09:01 PM
Yeah, but Orcs and Goblins even in Tolkien don't actually see in the dark; though, they make extensive use of fire...

DaMullet
2007-02-13, 09:49 PM
The 60' thing bugs me too, but it makes sense for most of them. Orcs are nocturnal, or used to be; it may be that that holdover from Tolkien has been eroded over the editions. Ditto for goblins. Dwarves traditionally live underground, and while they do use lights... so that they can see color and read... they can make do without.

While we're on fluff that annoys: Why is it that healers can't use shields? A shield being a protective device? If it were a vow against preparing for combat, I might get it, but they can wear armor just fine. Why are healers encouraged to use larger, two-handed weaponry rather than defend themselves?
Orcs stopped being Nocturnal in version 3 when they removed the "Sleep Cycle" from the Monster Manual. Also, you can read just fine with Darkvision, it says it is "Just like normal vision, except in black and white." And finally, they don't use shields because using a shield interferes with somatic casting.

Diggorian
2007-02-13, 10:04 PM
I'd say it's the other way around. Almost everything that uses magic can simply belch it out. How does it make sense that someone who would normally have no magical powers whatsoever can somehow aquire them through study?

Arcane magic to me is an analog for science, materials plus method plus time yields effect. That's the Vancian model for this kind of magic that's been established for a while in D&D. Many monsters with spell like abilities are explained as the creations of ancient wizards.

If sorcerors are innate casters I'd expect them to manifest spell-like or supernatural abilities.

For darkvision, I'd give the races with it a 'shadowy' area the way humans seen in torch light rather than dumping it. 60 or whatever feet clear darkvision then twice that murky. So many real life species have better night vision that humans I never considered it odd.

I ... dont think you can read with darkvison, because that reading requires color differentiation: see? <-- (highlight here)

Lord Iames Osari
2007-02-13, 10:26 PM
Creatures retain the ability to distinguish black and white while using darkvision.

DaMullet
2007-02-13, 11:04 PM
Not only that, but by bringing in that sort of real-world concept, you're coming dangerously close to catgirl-murder.

From the SRD:

Darkvision (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#darkvision): Dwarves can see in the dark up to 60 feet. Darkvision is black and white only, but it is otherwise like normal sight, and dwarves can function just fine with no light at all.

Darkvision is in black and white, but otherwise identical to normal sight. Do you agree that you can read black text on a white background? How about on a grey background? Or White on black? Dwarves can see just fine, except that it's like a movie from the 1930s.

Diggorian
2007-02-14, 12:41 AM
OK ... Dwarf libraries make more sense now. I'd always thought they made etchings to detect the texture to read. Ah well.

How am I harming catgirls, now?

TheThan
2007-02-14, 01:58 AM
While we're on fluff that annoys: Why is it that healers can't use shields? A shield being a protective device? If it were a vow against preparing for combat, I might get it, but they can wear armor just fine. Why are healers encouraged to use larger, two-handed weaponry rather than defend themselves?

Because the best defense is a good offense!

Yuki Akuma
2007-02-14, 03:06 AM
And finally, they don't use shields because using a shield interferes with somatic casting.

You mean the somatic components healers don't have any arcane spell failure chance for by virtue of being divine spellcasters?

Dhavaer
2007-02-14, 03:19 AM
You mean the somatic components healers don't have any arcane spell failure chance for by virtue of being divine spellcasters?

They still need a free hand, though.

kamikasei
2007-02-14, 03:19 AM
You mean the somatic components healers don't have any arcane spell failure chance for by virtue of being divine spellcasters?

They don't suffer arcane spell failure, but they do have to be capable of making the movements for spells with somatic components. Armour doesn't make this harder if you're a divine caster, but having your hand tied up holding a shield does.

Of course, fluff-wise, there's no obvious reason why you couldn't wield a shield but not a weapon, in order to have the requisite hand free.

DaMullet
2007-02-14, 10:04 AM
because then you couldn't defend yourself if, god forbid, someone attacked you in the middle of combat.

Diggorian
2007-02-14, 10:47 AM
Is there some new healer base class, cause if y'all mean clerics: they are shield proficient.

Rigeld2
2007-02-14, 10:50 AM
Healers are in the Miniatures Handbook

Yuki Akuma
2007-02-14, 11:06 AM
Is there some new healer base class, cause he y'all mean clerics: they are shield proficient.

Is this English? :smallconfused:

Diggorian
2007-02-14, 11:21 AM
When the mistakenly typed 'he' is replaced with the intended 'if', it qualifies as a colloquial form of English :smallamused:

Woot Spitum
2007-02-14, 11:22 AM
Speaking of divine spellcasting, isn't the whole somatic components/no spell failure chance somewhat confusing and ambiguous? I always thought arcane spell failure chance was due to the somatic components (wearing armor interferes with the complex arcane gestures required to cast the spell). However, it doesn't interfere with the somatic components of divine spellcasting because those components are limited to very simple motions such as holding up one's holy symbol (which you could easily do with a shield strapped to your arm). But then arcane casters using the still spell feat still suffer spell failure chance...is it just me, or does this whole somatic components thing seem to constantly contradict itself?

Yuki Akuma
2007-02-14, 11:24 AM
Divine somatic components are simpler, I guess. This is why warlocks, warmages and bards don't get arcane spell failure in light armour, either; their gestures are simpler.

And arcane spellcasters using Stilled spells don't suffer arcane spell failure.

Woot Spitum
2007-02-14, 03:23 PM
Divine somatic components are simpler, I guess. This is why warlocks, warmages and bards don't get arcane spell failure in light armour, either; their gestures are simpler.

And arcane spellcasters using Stilled spells don't suffer arcane spell failure.

I looked up the Still Spell feat in the PHB and it made no mention of preventing arcane spell failure. Of course, that could just be WotC being lazy (like on the whole monk/unarmed strike proficiency thing).

Quietus
2007-02-14, 03:31 PM
Arcane spell failure is because the armor gets in the way of somatic components. Still spell makes you not have somatic components. I think it's just laziness.

JellyPooga
2007-02-14, 03:31 PM
^^ Spells with no somatic components don't incur Arcane Spell Failure from armour. A Still Spell has no somatic components and therefore no chance of failure.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-02-14, 04:44 PM
Just as a source for the last couple posts:


Casting an Arcane Spell in Armor

A character who casts an arcane spell while wearing armor must usually make an arcane spell failure roll. The number in the Arcane Spell Failure Chance column on Table: Armor and Shields (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm#tableArmorandShields) is the chance that the spell fails and is ruined. If the spell lacks a somatic component, however, it can be cast with no chance of arcane spell failure.
Emphasis mine.

Source: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm#arcaneSpellFailure


Still Spell
Benefit

A stilled spell can be cast with no somatic components.
Source: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#stillSpell

Jarl
2007-02-15, 03:38 AM
I'm sure that to a lot of sorcerers, wizard spellcasting looks like a slightly more complex version of UMD.
I should re-make my sig to quote that because it makes me lol and fits my idea of how magic works/should work.

Also, Fluff/Crunch Disconnect: A Warlock's blast and invocation features are constantly described as being performed "through sheer force of will", which sounds like a mental stat (Wis or Int) not the catch-all interpersonal stat (Cha). After all, if you're making a will save, there's a fairly good chance you're using your Wisdom Score. Force of Personality nonwithstanding.

-On a related note, are there any books that have more invocations than Complete Arcane? I wanna be a warlock but they only get one book. :(

Jack Mann
2007-02-15, 03:42 AM
To be an effective warlock, you really need Complete Mage. They're still not great, but with the invocations from that book, they're better.

Yuki Akuma
2007-02-15, 03:45 AM
There are a few invocations in Magic of Incarnum, too. They really wanted to make that blue stuff open to everyone.

AngelSword
2007-02-15, 06:39 AM
I know half-elves were already mentioned, but this part still bothers me.

In the PHB (not the SRD), half elves are described as outsiders, not fitting in with either elves or humans. However, they get a +2 to Diplomacy and Gather Information because, "Half elves get along naturally with all people." If they're outcasts, how can they be so friendly? And if they're so friendly, why are they outcasts?

Neo
2007-02-15, 06:49 AM
Just cos they don't have a place in the society doesn't mean they can't get along with people.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-02-15, 06:50 AM
I know half-elves were already mentioned, but this part still bothers me.

In the PHB (not the SRD), half elves are described as outsiders, not fitting in with either elves or humans. However, they get a +2 to Diplomacy and Gather Information because, "Half elves get along naturally with all people." If they're outcasts, how can they be so friendly? And if they're so friendly, why are they outcasts?

You can lump in pretty much any racial bonus or penalty to Charisma or a Charisma-based skill there.

You can just see all these Dwarves sitting around in their great underground cities going "damn I hate our species, I mean we're all gruff and plain spoken and I *hate* that".

hewhosaysfish
2007-02-15, 08:39 AM
I think the idea with the half-elves is that they get marginalised by everyone because of their mixed blood so they have to adapt and be smooth to fit in, turning their weakness into strength by becoming go-between for human and elven cultures.


On the subject of Charisma penalties, I agree that it highlights the identity crisis that Charisma suffers. Either it's about being an outgoing, likeable people-person and sorcerors somehow cast spells through the power of I-make-friends-easily or it's about force of personality and willpower and obviously dwarves and orcs are a bunch of shrinking violets who can't Intimidate people as well as gnomes (for example) can.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-02-15, 10:10 AM
On the subject of Charisma penalties, I agree that it highlights the identity crisis that Charisma suffers. Either it's about being an outgoing, likeable people-person and sorcerors somehow cast spells through the power of I-make-friends-easily or it's about force of personality and willpower and obviously dwarves and orcs are a bunch of shrinking violets who can't Intimidate people as well as gnomes (for example) can.


I've actually had people claiming that before now, up to the point of agreeing that yes, Dwarves and Ogres are naturally self-effacing.

kamikasei
2007-02-15, 10:20 AM
I've actually had people claiming that before now, up to the point of agreeing that yes, Dwarves and Ogres are naturally self-effacing.

I don't know about the monstrous races, but isn't it possible that dwarves, if portrayed as the sort of highly regimented society we see in OotS (for example), really don't have that much force of personality on average (since whether other dwarves listen to you is based on your position, not your persuasiveness)?

Woot Spitum
2007-02-15, 10:51 AM
I have an issue with intimidate being entirely charisma-based. Going by the RAW a nymph is naturally more intimidating than a raging minotaur barbarian simply by virtue of the fact that her charisma is 10 points higher than the average minotaur's. Would't it make sense for intimidate to have more than one associated score?

Josh Inno
2007-02-15, 11:05 AM
Assassins MUST be evil, because killing people for money is perfectly okay as long as you don't poison them.

Bards MUST Be non-lawful. Never mind that in 2nd edition they pimped the LN heraldric bard.

Josh Inno
2007-02-15, 11:07 AM
I have an issue with intimidate being entirely charisma-based. Going by the RAW a nymph is naturally more intimidating than a raging minotaur barbarian simply by virtue of the fact that her charisma is 10 points higher than the average minotaur's. Would't it make sense for intimidate to have more than one associated score?

The Cha use is more for subtle speaking intimidation.

The Nymph has so many different ways to subtly turn a person into a paranoid nut, where as the minotaur would basically devolve to "Me kill you."

Now the "ME SMASH THING, MAKE YOU SCARED ME" use of intimidate was actually, in a few sourcebooks, given as an example of when you're supposed to swap ability scores but still use the same ranks.

Woot Spitum
2007-02-15, 11:18 AM
The Cha use is more for subtle speaking intimidation.

The Nymph has so many different ways to subtly turn a person into a paranoid nut, where as the minotaur would basically devolve to "Me kill you."

Now the "ME SMASH THING, MAKE YOU SCARED ME" use of intimidate was actually, in a few sourcebooks, given as an example of when you're supposed to swap ability scores but still use the same ranks.

Yeah, that's basically the way I think things should be. Unless you know exactly what she is and the full extent of her powers, the nymph will have to make some sort of demonstration of her power before she can effectively intimidate you. A minotaur with a greataxe is, well, a minotaur with a greataxe. He doesn't have to do anything to be scary. He already is. Some sort of codified system for circumstance bonuses and penalties to intimidate checks based on the appearance of the person making the check could have made things clearer.

The Prince of Cats
2007-02-15, 11:31 AM
So you guys think western monks weren't bad ass melee monsters? I dunno... I've seen Friar Tuck do some crazy stuff with that holy whupass stick of his...
If you read the old versions, Robin is actually scared of Friar Tuck's right-hook. He actually recognises King Richard because he is the only person with a harder punch than Tuck.


Standard clerics look like they were made for the Crusades.
Yeah, that is stated in second edition. They outright state that the cleric class is based on certain orders of knights from the crusades.


Now the "ME SMASH THING, MAKE YOU SCARED ME" use of intimidate was actually, in a few sourcebooks, given as an example of when you're supposed to swap ability scores but still use the same ranks.
The sidebar for the DMG p. 33 states that certain circumstances (always chosen by the DM, not the player) call for using another ability for a skill check. I mean, if the barbarian just dropped a guard with one punch, there is a strong case for using STR (or just plain fudge) for the intimidate check.

Diggorian
2007-02-15, 01:28 PM
Warlocks being Cha based I kind of see as fitting since Demon's spell-like abilities are Cha based too, and are the source of their power. Charisma as a magic source ability fits to me; force of personality, memorization of technique (Int), or power of Faith (Wis) -- all have a place.

I mentioned in another thread that the class should be immune to arcane spell failure as spell-like mojo has that immunity, couldnt hurt and not game breaking. Complete Mage left me cold for new invocations, many were just corny and the reserve feats make other casters include warlock traits on top of their superior castership. :smallconfused: Hence I started a thread for new invocations (see my sig).

Outside of half elf crunch weakness, I further dont feel any specialness from their characterization. Half one standard/good race and half another standard/good race. Aside from a few snide comments from men and elves what's the painful stigma? Half orcs are half the most common race and half the most frequently evilly savage race in the world. Orcs arent the most evil in D&D but likely the most infamous in game. These crossbreeds feel like true outsiders (not the subtype :smallwink: ).

I've houseruled that STR can substitute for Cha in the demoralize use of Intimidate, cause it's the aspect of the skill mostly closely tied to immediate brutal death (only works when threatened in combat). I dont think the other aspect of the skill even works on PCs (follows alot of the Diplomacy guidelines). Circumstance bonuses for appearance seem to subjective to me; which looks scarier, a Grey Render or an Ogre Mage -- especially if no PC makes the Knowledge check to recognize'em? A minotaur is big and feral but a nymph can drop her dress and kill ya.

(EDIT: OK, no more killer nakedness in this edition :smallbiggrin:)

Matthew
2007-02-15, 01:33 PM
If you read the old versions, Robin is actually scared of Friar Tuck's right-hook. He actually recognises King Richard because he is the only person with a harder punch than Tuck.


Yeah, that is stated in second edition. They outright state that the cleric class is based on certain orders of knights from the crusades.


What old version are you talking about specifically? Friar Tuck is quite a late addition to Robin's merry band. Friar Tuck's name may translate as Brother Blow, according to some readings of the etymology.

Yeah, that was also stated in the 1.x PHB.

Kantolin
2007-02-15, 02:20 PM
Personally, I'd leave 'big and scary' to circumstance modifiers and leave intimidate as charisma.

I mean... some people are just scary. Like, when they're trying to scare you, they are scary. It could be something as irrational as the way their eyes glint or something, but they're just terrifying.

Whereas people who are simply big and muscular, especially for a trained fighter-type of equal 'level/cr', probably aren't scary. The wizard who memorized shatter this morning is almost certainly not automatically afraid of the big minotaur's nonmagical greatclub he's holding. The fighter who's been fighting off Balors and somehow winning also certainly doesn't care that the minotaur turned and smashed things, even if the minotaur is much physically stronger than he is.

And you also get sequences like the 'Ha, I'm stronger than you by a little. I'm scarier than you are!' Which doesn't make sense as a function of strength: similarities in strength shouldn't make much difference, as bending an iron bar when the person you're staring at can either do that too, or do it with a touch of effort, doesn't mean much.

Also, the generally stupid (say) orc is likely walking up to you, drooling a little bit, maybe picking his nose. Sure, he's turning and rushing me with a greataxe and this would cause a reaction; a child rushing me with a greataxe would cause a reaction.

The best example I've heard awhile ago was bank robbers. Any bank robber with a gun can get you to lie down, take your wallet, yell at you to count to 100, and back off.

For one of the bank robbers, as soon as you figure he's out of sight range you'll hop up, yank out your cell phone, and call the police.

The other has the police arrive to find you on the ground, kind of shivering, still going 'E-eighty mi-mississippi... eighty one m-mississippi...'

So eh. They do have the +/- 4 due to size built in there to cover 'Generally larger is scarier', and I say leave it at that and leave it charisma based due to logic.

Now, if your argument is that it mechanically should be strength so Fighters can be good at it... then yeah, I agree, as it should be something a Fighter or Barbarian is easily good at. :P But eh.

AtomicKitKat
2007-02-15, 09:19 PM
If the Sorceror or Wizard(less likely. He is a genius after all) is stupid enough to try Shattering the greatclub in his 10 foot reach, the Minotaur is entirely within his rights to use said greatclub to pound the living snot out of him and interrupt the Shatter. AoOs happening before the event that triggered them and all.

If you're crazy enough to think "out of earshot=out of gunshot", go ahead. Bank Robbers are by nature a jumpy lot. Some of them would fire at you just for twitching. :)

Kantolin
2007-02-15, 09:39 PM
Casting defensively, probably with a quickened spell in place, and I did say 'out of sight range' - but missing the point. ^_^ You know what I mean.