What CAN'T D&D 3.5 do?

[Jeff the Green]

So the most recent Stormwind thread (and specifically this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17644097&postcount=309) by Forrestfire) got me thinking (a dangerous pastime, I know). Are there any tropes that 3.5e can't model without significant houserules?

[Anlashok]

The game struggles to emulate epic, nonmagical (or only incidentally magical) warriors and usually if you are trying to emulate them you're best off doing it with a wizard who simply pretends he isn't.

The "I punch the mountain/planet/reality/etc. in half" character.

[Coidzor]

So the most recent Stormwind thread (and specifically this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17644097&postcount=309) by Forrestfire) got me thinking (a dangerous pastime, I know). Are there any tropes that 3.5e can't model without significant houserules?

Great, now you've just got me trying to imagine how a D&D themed cinnamon toast crunch commercial would go. :smalleek:

"Mr. Beholder's eyes dispel all enchantments and illusions, but can he see why kids love cinnamon toast crunch...."


More seriously... Mecha and fighting Mecha and/or Kaiju while piloting Mecha would be the hardest without bringing in the actual supplements for giant robots or making one's own supplementary rules that I can think of offhand.

Kingdom building/running without pulling rules from Pathfinder or some other third party source, unless I greatly misremember what Power of Faerun has in it.

Depending upon how you feel about the way it was handled, Spelljammer in 3.X. Planejammer definitely counts as homebrew, since it's smooshing two things of dubious-ish 3.Xness, though I don't know that it'd truly qualify for "significant houserules."

Anything involving terraforming/astrogation/NASA-esque operations beyond the decanter of endless water rocket probably requires at least a fair bit of homebrew.

Edit: Maybe I should have doublechecked the link before posting... XD

Someone from Eberron in another setting other than Ravenloft/Demiplane of Dread/Dimension of Dread? Though I don't think that'd count for significant, either, and isn't really crunchy so much as fluffy when you get down to it.

Um... hm. Well, I suppose the mecha pilot is still fairly difficult to really do well even if we'd have smaller things like Astral Construct Power Armor and the Haunt Shift Trick and The Apparatus of The CRAAAAAAAAB BATTLE!

[torrasque666]

I got close with a gargantuan Warforged(Poly'd into a Charger for large, augmented expansion item for +2 sizes). His shtick was "I grab it and hold it still while the rest of the party(and I) beat it up." since due to a Clone Mask he didn't take the penalties for being grappled.

On topic: Not make it so that magic is the be-all-end-all answer to everything. Mundanes can't have nice things and all that...

[Emperor Tippy]

The game struggles to emulate epic, nonmagical (or only incidentally magical) warriors and usually if you are trying to emulate them you're best off doing it with a wizard who simply pretends he isn't.

The "I punch the mountain/planet/reality/etc. in half" character.

You can actually do that thanks to Festering Anger and a way to either negate the con damage or always make the save.

Although people seem to get pissy about it even when they are fine with reality shattering casters.


More seriously... Mecha and fighting Mecha and/or Kaiju while piloting Mecha would be the hardest without bringing in the actual supplements for giant robots or making one's own supplementary rules that I can think of offhand.

You can actually do that, how easily and how well depends on how much fidelity you want.

[No brains]

On planet-punching warriors, can a War-Hulking Hurler throw the planet at itself and do damage that needs to be measured in scientific notation?

On mech-piloting, there is a spell in Spell Compendium that turns the caster into a huge warforged type creature. There's also golem armor from the Epic Level Handbook and some hydraulic armor from a web article.

[Jeff the Green]

The "I punch the mountain/planet/reality/etc. in half" character.

That sounds like Mountain Hammer to me. Maybe that trick to use Perform: Weapon Drill instead of Concentration on Diamond Mind maneuvers: "I'm so talented with my sword I can block fireballs with a flick of my wrist!"

[jiriku]

Economics and politics are generally the hardest. The game is rules-light in these areas, and what rules there are usually are badly conceived and should be ignored.

[Andion Isurand]

More seriously... Mecha and fighting Mecha and/or Kaiju while piloting Mecha would be the hardest without bringing in the actual supplements for giant robots or making one's own supplementary rules that I can think of offhand.

For the whole mecha troupe using the constructs and golems of medieval fantasy, I present...

Mechamancer (http://magerune.blogspot.com/2013/10/mechamancer.html)

It's a bit cumbersome, and feels OP... but it was an interesting exercise.

Half the class abilities are expressed in the infusions you gain access to when entering the class, and their effects are determined by your level in the mechamancer class. It's also kind of hard to interact with equipment you are wearing on your person, while inside of a "mecha" and that is helped with the effects of the protomorphic jump suit infusion. The "mecha subtype" I created for constructs, solves the issues for entering, exiting and fitting within a construct, by allowing the construct itself to achieve a somewhat morphic and malleable state during the whole fitting process.

I could do more to summarize it all here, if so needed later on.

[HammeredWharf]

One of the most popular tropes on this board is the nonmagical mage slayer, hwo doesn't work in D&D because he fails miserably.

[Gwendol]

So the most recent Stormwind thread (and specifically this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17644097&postcount=309) by Forrestfire) got me thinking (a dangerous pastime, I know). Are there any tropes that 3.5e can't model without significant houserules?

The unbalanced magic system is to blame, of course, and the crappy (fighter) feats, but 3.5 models Middle Earth (Tolkien's) remarkably poorly. Also, fighters and monks. By that I mean that to make a capable fighter (or monk) you can't just pick up the class and level.

[MirddinEmris]

Any fantasy genre that isn't heroic and high-magic?

[Gwendol]

Any fantasy genre that isn't heroic and high-magic?

Isn't LoTR high magic?

[Juntao112]

With an incredibly stingy DM.

[georgie_leech]

Isn't LoTR high magic?

Middle Earth itself? At one point. When the LotR actually take place though, not really. High Magic implies a great deal of overt, often powerful, relatively common magic, as oppose to the more subtle and pervasive magic that LotR favours; actual spells or enchanted knick-knacks are considerably more rare than in most High Magic settings.

[Pan151]

Isn't LoTR high magic?

LotR is high fantasy, but it is most definitely not high magic. Not when the wizards cannot even manage a proper fireball, and when the most powerful artifact in the entire setting is essentially a ring of Etherealness...

PS. It probably was much better during the era of Morgoth. You know, when the generals of Mordor where Balrogs and not those puny Wraiths that can be taken down by a hobbit's dagger...


On topic: DnD is not at all good at handling battles between opponents of vastly different sizes. If you have a battle between a gnome fighter and a frost giant wizard, what ends up happening is a) the gnome somehow has more hp than the giant and b) the giant is somehow dead after the gnome stabs his toes a few times. Not exactly a good simulation of a David vs Goliath fight, if you ask me...

[Alefiend]

I don't think the game can handle magic as a spontaneous improvisational force. The idea that, "If I can imagine it, I can make it happen" is foreign to a game with predefined spells, explicit power levels, and number of spells per day. The D&D magic lineage calls for a list of known effects, while mythic and fantasy magic is often an expression of imagination and willpower—like a Green Lantern ring without the limitations. Ars Magica comes closer, but I don't know if there's a system that really does it, or if one is possible.

[AnonymousPepper]

You can actually do that thanks to Festering Anger and a way to either negate the con damage or always make the save.

As I recall, the three main ways to do this are either Cancer Mage, specific spells that prevent ability damage (Sheltered Vitality for example), or just getting rerolls upon rerolls (persisted Choose Destiny + Luck Domain granted power, for example).

You'll note that those all presuppose magic or just straight-up are casters.

[Rubik]

I'm still upset that I can't do actual magic, whether healing or weather control or whatever. D&D can't do that for me. :smallfrown:

[Eldariel]

LotR is high fantasy, but it is most definitely not high magic. Not when the wizards cannot even manage a proper fireball, and when the most powerful artifact in the entire setting is essentially a ring of Etherealness...

Well no, the One Ring isn't powerful 'cause it can send mundanes to the alternative plane. That's precisely why a hobbit was chosen to carry it; because the hobbit doesn't have the power for the ring to manifest through him. It seems to more or less amplify the wielder's power, if what we hear from Galadriel and Gandalf is true.

Fireball is also in no ways a requirement for high fantasy. Magic can take many forms and evoking energy is one but in no ways necessary for a world to be high magic. It's not like D&D Magic, that's for sure though; indeed, Tolkien's mythology is much closer to the classical mythology in the style of magic than what Tabletops have evolved into (ironically, tabletops of course started with LotR as more or less the starting point).

[Eldan]

In the entire LotR trilogy, the heroes have a total of two magic items between them, unless I am mistaken. three, if the mithril silver chain shirt is counted.

(Gandalf is a DMPC and doesn't count)

Which are you counting, other than the Phial of Galadriel and the Ring? Defining magic is difficult in LotR. The elves claim to not really understand the difference between magic and craftsmanship. But there's the cloaks that made the wearer all but invisible, the rope that unties itself when necessary and of course all the swords. Sting. And the sword specifically made to harm the Witch King of Angmar and did so. Sounds like a bane weapon to me.

[Tengu_temp]

I will turn this question around. What CAN DND 3.5 do? It's very bad at representing most fantasy settings - it's bad at gritty, realistic low fantasy, it's bad at epic high fantasy, it's bad at over the top heroism riding on Rule of Cool, it's bad at intrigue or anything else that doesn't resolve around combat for that matter. The only thing DND 3.5 models well is a dungeon crawling story about killing monsters and taking their stuff. And even here the lack of balance between casters and non-casters becomes an issue.

[Arbane]

I wouldn't want to try doing Nobilis-style characters in D&D: People (or close enough) who personify and control aspects of reality: Time, Mathematics, Love, Hunger, Cheese... Their powers are vast, thematic, and headache-inducing in a d20-style simulationist system.

There's a lot of things D&D doesn't do well, not without a LOT of rules-kludging.

[Khatoblepas]

I will turn this question around. What CAN DND 3.5 do? It's very bad at representing most fantasy settings - it's bad at gritty, realistic low fantasy, it's bad at epic high fantasy, it's bad at over the top heroism riding on Rule of Cool, it's bad at intrigue or anything else that doesn't resolve around combat for that matter. The only thing DND 3.5 models well is a dungeon crawling story about killing monsters and taking their stuff. And even here the lack of balance between casters and non-casters becomes an issue.

When you have Tashalatora Psions, it's pretty good at representing Dragonball Z's power gradient. From level 1 punch a dude fresh out of the monastery, to level 21 blow-up-reality-with-your-inner-strength. Heck, and being dead is just as permanent.

I'm not kidding, D&D is one of the only systems I've found that adequately takes someone from Peasant Boy to Super God Level Four.

[Gwendol]

In the entire LotR trilogy, the heroes have a total of two magic items between them, unless I am mistaken. three, if the mithril silver chain shirt is counted.

(Gandalf is a DMPC and doesn't count)

The ring, the palantir, most likely the mithril shirt, the cloaks, the rope, Galadriels vial, Lembas (?), Whatever the orcs are drinking (can also be argued to be an alchemical item), the weapons of the Barrow King, Narsil. Furthermore, both the elves and the dwarves weave magic into their craft, and thus we can expect whatever gear Gimli and Legolas weaves to be enchanted (according to D&D standards).

[Eldan]

More seriously... Mecha and fighting Mecha and/or Kaiju while piloting Mecha would be the hardest without bringing in the actual supplements for giant robots or making one's own supplementary rules that I can think of offhand.

I played a mecha pilot once in D&D. A gnome artificer with a suit of clockwork armour enchanted with Giant Size and a few other spells.

[Summerstorm]

I played a lot of games and i am a staunch support of "Campaign, system and narrative techniques need to be finely tuned to each other"... and D&D only works as "being D&D" and fails misarably at pretty much everything else.

You can't play the more metaphysical narratives because of so many "hard rules"; you can't play gritty- down to earth without rewriting everything, drama-intensive - fast one-shots... Really, i would pretty much say the 3.5 system ist the worst of all "great-name" systems.

I will give it this: If i want to build, and tinker and want to have HUGE amounts of crazy **** and monsters and classes and settings it is there for me. But overall it is trying everything and failing to do more than one thing right.

[Eldan]

So, an elven rope that unties itself is totally mundane to you? The hobbits even ask if the items are magical and the elves just sort of scratch their heads and go "what is this magic you speak of?"

[Tengu_temp]

When you have Tashalatora Psions, it's pretty good at representing Dragonball Z's power gradient. From level 1 punch a dude fresh out of the monastery, to level 21 blow-up-reality-with-your-inner-strength. Heck, and being dead is just as permanent.

I'm not kidding, D&D is one of the only systems I've found that adequately takes someone from Peasant Boy to Super God Level Four.

Dragonball is all about heroic willpower, finding new strength in the middle of a hopeless fight, and saving your most powerful attacks for the right moment.

DND has none of this and encourages going nova with your spells/powers. The power escalation might be similar, but it still represents the source material really badly.

[Andion Isurand]

I don't think D&D encourages going nova, since most of the time, powers and magic typically have supply limits, and often with conditions that have to be met for the supply to be recovered.

[Gwendol]

The game generously allows for the 15 minute adventuring day.

[Gwendol]

As I said, most of those were never either explicitly described as magic items or described as doing something that an undeniably mundane object could not do. In a world where magic undeniably exists and everyone knows that it exists, it would be remarkable for neither the characters nor the author to not note that something is actually magical.

The elves are imbued with magic, and are described as such. That the characters don't exclaim "Look! A +1 rope of climbing!" Or "I found a Ring-Wraith Bane weapon in this here barrow mound!" Doesn't mean they aren't magical.

I'd argue LoTR is high fantasy & high magic, but not in a way D&D can model.

[Broken Crown]

As I said, most of those were never either explicitly described as magic items or described as doing something that an undeniably mundane object could not do. In a world where magic undeniably exists and everyone knows that it exists, it would be remarkable for neither the characters nor the author to not note that something is actually magical.

This is another of the reasons D&D does a bad job of simulating Middle-Earth. In D&D, "magic" is a binary condition: An item or ability is either magical, or it's not. In D&D, a +1 chain shirt is a magic item, even though it can't do anything a non-magical chain shirt can do, other than register when someone casts Detect Magic.

In Middle-Earth, virtually everything is magical, more or less, from Rings of Power to poems to trees; it's a difference of degree, rather than kind. In a setting where magic is so pervasive, explicitly describing a thing as "magical" is somewhat pointless. It would be kind of like standing in a forest in the Spring and pointing out every single thing that was green.

A lot of Middle-Earth magic is not flashy: Like the +1 chain shirt above, it does what a "mundane" thing does, it just does it a little better. Unlike the D&D example, it doesn't have a handy [Su], [Sp], or [Ex] tag to tell you whether it's magic or not.

---

As others have stated, D&D 3.5 is very much its own thing, with its own set of assumptions. It's very versatile for creating things within those boundaries, but is generally poor at working outside them.

For example, D&D 3.5 does a fairly poor job of simulating AD&D, without a huge amount of house ruling.

[SowZ]

It's not a great system for highly narrative, combat-lite/no-combat games.

[Vaz]

On planet-punching warriors, can a War-Hulking Hurler throw the planet at itself and do damage that needs to be measured in scientific notation?
No. It does a handstand and launches itself backwards.

[Socratov]

It's not a great system for highly narrative, combat-lite/no-combat games.

isn't that what bards, rogues and factotums are for? Sure, the DC's get a little skewed so you might need to houserule some DC's, but still...

The thing is, out of the box 3.5 seems a bit crappy, not necessarily suited to any novelised universe, but novelised universes are rarely useful for roleplay. (because of snowflake syndrome/murderhobo's)

What 3.5 does very well is, sorry for using a food metaphor, a kitchen in Kitchen Stadium (where Iron Chef America is made): fully decked out pantry with every kitchen appliance you can dream of. If you look hard enough and fiddle and tweak a bit there is (almost) nothing you can't do (exceptions being non-magical mage slayer trope, for example). World building, however, is a bit harder because you are going to impose limits on what items from the pantry are available and you limit the use of appliances. Now, if you lose ingredients and appliances then your dish might not taste as well as you'd thought it would. for lots of people this might be disappointing, but again, with a couple of tweaks you can make a decent dish out of it. You do have to put in effort to make it work.

DnD 3.5 does nothing on it's own. With a little work, it can (bar a couple of exceptions) be just about anything you like.

[Segev]

d20 in general does fantasy and sci-fi-disguised-as-fantasy very well. It is still one of the most combat-focused systems out there, so works best when combat is usually a reasonable means of resolving conflict.

It does less well the less combat there is in a game.

It also does non-fantasy fairly poorly, in no small part due to the conceit that most things that are powerful must be magic. This conceit is endemic to the underlying assumption that non-magical resources are (nigh) unlimited. At worst, a ranged fighter has to worry about ammo.

Add in that "hit points" are, for whatever reason, often deemed a poor way to model, say, a modern game's wounds, and that any effort to make guns work in a d20 system seems to come off as clumsy and unbalanced, and one thing d20 does incredibly poorly is modern-day setting gaming. That is, I think, also somewhat related to the fact that breaking down a person in a modern setting to classes tends to feel even more artificial to us as players than it does in fantasy. Probably because people are typically far less defined by their jobs in real life, and our real life is in modern times, so we have expectations of things modeling that more closely.

[torrasque666]

Add in that "hit points" are, for whatever reason, often deemed a poor way to model, say, a modern game's wounds, and that any effort to make guns work in a d20 system seems to come off as clumsy and unbalanced, and one thing d20 does incredibly poorly is modern-day setting gaming.

Well to be fair, guns are unbalanced in the real world too.

[Tengu_temp]

isn't that what bards, rogues and factotums are for? Sure, the DC's get a little skewed so you might need to houserule some DC's, but still...

Not really. DND is a game with extreme focus on combat, very brief rules on non-combat stuff that usually boil down to a single roll, and no rules that encourage roleplaying. Its approach to non-combat stuff is "let's get this over with so we can go back to killing monsters".

The existence of skill-focused classes doesn't solve this problem, it deepens it. If you're not the dedicated skill monkey, you have no business trying anything out of combat, so you just don't do it. This makes the game even less fitting for a campaign that doesn't focus on killing monsters and taking their stuff.


What 3.5 does very well is, sorry for using a food metaphor, a kitchen in Kitchen Stadium (where Iron Chef America is made): fully decked out pantry with every kitchen appliance you can dream of.

You're describing GURPS, or Mutants and Masterminds, or other universal, open system. DND 3.5 is a burger stand with lots of sauces and condiments; with the right additions you can make the burger taste like pizza, but in the end it will still be a burger.

[VoxRationis]

Not really. DND is a game with extreme focus on combat, very brief rules on non-combat stuff that usually boil down to a single roll, and no rules that encourage roleplaying. Its approach to non-combat stuff is "let's get this over with so we can go back to killing monsters".

The existence of skill-focused classes doesn't solve this problem, it deepens it. If you're not the dedicated skill monkey, you have no business trying anything out of combat, so you just don't do it. This makes the game even less fitting for a campaign that doesn't focus on killing monsters and taking their stuff.


[Bolding by my hand] You know, I'm tired of the attitude that one needs lots of rules to support one's roleplaying. You don't need such things; the skill of the player is the primary determiner of the quality of roleplaying one sees at the table. Putting in detailed mechanics won't get people to roleplay well; it will just set up a checklist of things munchkins will make half-hearted attempts to cover in order to gain the mechanical advantages they want. "Oh, if I try to comfort the widow, I'll get Empathy points! [flatly] 'There, there.' Back to the dungeon!" Not to mention that setting up detailed rules for something so intrinsically open-ended as speech and social interaction can result in scenarios where a player is restricted in their dialogue options.

[Segev]

The (oft morose) comments that games don't have rules that support RP are less centered in a need to "power game" the RP and ignore the actual "acting" or whatnot that goes into it, and more a note that there are limited ways to resolve those parts of the game and thus the character.

Some RP doesn't require resolution; it's just talking and being "in character." But if that's all you care about in your RP, you don't need a system. You can just do some improv acting with your friends.

"RP mechanics" are often a catch-all shorthand for "non-combat mechanics." There are a lot of problems wherein success is not guaranteed, and the more in-depth the rules-based mechanics are to handle resolution of those problems, the more you feel your character is really accomplishing something (or being legitimately challenged). The shallower the rules, and the more it relies on whether the DM decides you succeed or fail, the less it feels like "role playing" and the more it feels like "talk the DM into doing it my way."

Mechanics done right do enhance role-play. That's why combat mechanics at the depth most modern games have them are so useful: they elevate it out of "cops and robbers" style "I hit you! Nuh uh!" resolution and into something that actually lets us design our characters' fighting styles and determine how successful they really are.

Mechanics done right for other aspects of role-play similarly enhance the characters played with them by encouraging competent tactics towards the problem-solving, but allowing the player to have a character that is competent in ways the player is not while still having the decisions the player makes as to what the character does (and how he does it) matter.

[Anlashok]

Not really. DND is a game with extreme focus on combat, very brief rules on non-combat stuff that usually boil down to a single roll, and no rules that encourage roleplaying. Its approach to non-combat stuff is "let's get this over with so we can go back to killing monsters".

You have that exactly backwards. The system theory is "We're going to get out of your way and let you roleplay". Indeed this whole "no rules so it sucks for roleplay" never made much sense to me given the nature of roleplaying. It also leaves me scratching my head because most of the systems that people do cite as "good for roleplaying and non-combat" aren't systems with complex, kludgy rules for social interaction but also systems that are relatively skeletal. Systems that have social interaction rules as wrought as D&D combat rules tend to be less appreciated, not more.

The biggest difference between, say, FATE and D&D... is that the former also lacks significant and complex rules for combat. As if somehow not having a structure for both combat and non-combat makes you better at the latter? Oh and FATE has this really game-y system where you try to bribe players into "roleplaying" the the player tries to game the system and push certain scenarios to get more points... but that seems like a point against the system rather than a point for it.

Rules-lite outside of combat is a feature, not a bug, because you shouldn't need to throw heavy handed adjudication on someone for roleplaying and the DM shouldn't feel the need to bribe players into playing their character.

[Bronk]

The ring, the palantir, most likely the mithril shirt, the cloaks, the rope, Galadriels vial, Lembas (?), Whatever the orcs are drinking (can also be argued to be an alchemical item), the weapons of the Barrow King, Narsil. Furthermore, both the elves and the dwarves weave magic into their craft, and thus we can expect whatever gear Gimli and Legolas weaves to be enchanted (according to D&D standards).

Don't forget the other rings (worn by Elrond, Galadriel and then Gandalf, and whoever had the third elven ring), Gandalf's sword Glamdring, Sting, and whatever that scrying bowling ball was. Oh, and quasi magical fireworks!

I think it was telling that noone made anything new though...

[TheIronGolem]

Add in that "hit points" are, for whatever reason, often deemed a poor way to model, say, a modern game's wounds, and that any effort to make guns work in a d20 system seems to come off as clumsy and unbalanced, and one thing d20 does incredibly poorly is modern-day setting gaming. That is, I think, also somewhat related to the fact that breaking down a person in a modern setting to classes tends to feel even more artificial to us as players than it does in fantasy. Probably because people are typically far less defined by their jobs in real life, and our real life is in modern times, so we have expectations of things modeling that more closely.

It's not the modern setting that D&D does poorly. It's gritty, realistic, anyone-can-die-at-any-moment combat of the sort found in systems like Cyberpunk. D&D can do just as well in a modern setting as a fantasy one, provided you're looking for Hollywood Combat. You can't do Saving Private Ryan or Full Metal Jacket, but you can do Die Hard or Jackie Chan just fine.

[Segev]

It really depends on what you're trying to do. Rules-lite is good for a light-hearted or fast-paced game with people who are more interested in narrative control and use the rules simply to provide a little bit of spice and to make decisions between outcomes they think would be equally interesting to pursue.

Rules-heavy games are meant for simulationists and gamists who want to play a character in a world with definite physics and where their choices mean more than narrative necessity. The more rules there are, the more "game" there is to the RPG. This may or may not make for a better game; lots of rules can make a game cumbersome, too. The fewer rules there are, the more it relies on narrative agreement between the players. This may or may not make for a better story; too few rules or holes therein can lead to plot holes and narrative inconsistencies.

It really depends on what your goal is. What are you looking to do with your play time?

[illyahr]

Don't forget the other rings (worn by Elrond, Galadriel and then Gandalf, and whoever had the third elven ring), Gandalf's sword Glamdring, Sting, and whatever that scrying bowling ball was. Oh, and quasi magical fireworks!

I think it was telling that noone made anything new though...

Galadriel had one, Gil-Galad had one and Elrond inherited it, Cyril the Shipwright had one at the Grey Havens and gave it to Gandalf when he came over.

Also, Thror had one of the dwarven rings before Smaug arrived. It went to Thrain and was taken by Sauron when he captured Thrain.

20 rings total.

[KillianHawkeye]

I think that D&D has the most trouble representing the "Overweight Nerdy Guy with an Attractive Girlfriend" style of character, but I'm pretty unconvinced that switching to another system would help with that....... :smallbiggrin::smallsigh:

[WarKitty]

[Bolding by my hand] You know, I'm tired of the attitude that one needs lots of rules to support one's roleplaying. You don't need such things; the skill of the player is the primary determiner of the quality of roleplaying one sees at the table. Putting in detailed mechanics won't get people to roleplay well; it will just set up a checklist of things munchkins will make half-hearted attempts to cover in order to gain the mechanical advantages they want. "Oh, if I try to comfort the widow, I'll get Empathy points! [flatly] 'There, there.' Back to the dungeon!" Not to mention that setting up detailed rules for something so intrinsically open-ended as speech and social interaction can result in scenarios where a player is restricted in their dialogue options.

I think it depends. I've found that rules can make it a lot easier to use skills in ways that have measurable effects on the world. So for example, with a high charisma character, I like having rules for diplomacy and bluff and other such things, because it means I'm not constantly limited and frustrated by what I can do and how quickly I can do it in rl. I have enough annoyances with my speaking ability in real life, and I don't want to find out that all my characters are limited that way as well.

[weckar]

Due to its OGL nature, 3.5 has become essentially modular. Looking at in that way, there is very little it cannot do. That is not to say that rules from one d20 game are immediately interchangeable with or even adaptable to another, but usually enough can be used from a themed d20 game that you can really run anything.

[Tengu_temp]

You know, I'm tired of the attitude that one needs lots of rules to support one's roleplaying. You don't need such things; the skill of the player is the primary determiner of the quality of roleplaying one sees at the table.

Good that nobody shows that attitude, then.

You don't need rules that encourage roleplaying, and some players will do lots of heavy roleplaying no matter what system you use, even something that actively discourages it like OD&D. But if do have such rules? They really do make people roleplay more. Newbies try to get more into the skin of their character, and veteran roleplayers feel good that the game actually cares about their efforts, and care more themselves in response.

Take a look at games such as Fate, Burning Wheel, Legends of the Wulin. It's no coincidence that people who play those games tend to be pretty heavy into roleplaying, and hack'n'slash kick-the-door groups are pretty much nonexistant.


You have that exactly backwards. The system theory is "We're going to get out of your way and let you roleplay". Indeed this whole "no rules so it sucks for roleplay" never made much sense to me given the nature of roleplaying. It also leaves me scratching my head because most of the systems that people [B]do cite as "good for roleplaying and non-combat" aren't systems with complex, kludgy rules for social interaction but also systems that are relatively skeletal. Systems that have social interaction rules as wrought as D&D combat rules tend to be less appreciated, not more.

Complex, kludgy rules are a bad idea in general. But systems that focus on non-combat interaction tend to have more in-depth and engaging rules for it than just "roll a die and see if you passed the check". Once again, look at Fate or Burning Wheel - all conflict, be it physical combat, social debate, or trying to race each other during a chase, is handled in very similar ways in those games.

[dascarletm]

Having rules for roleplaying would be nice. It would have helped me when my leadership oriented high cha character at level 20 tried to make an epic speech to the kingdom's counsel when the king and his heirs died, leaving a power vacuum, to appoint him as the acting ruler. Though the check something like 58, the DM said, "well I don't think they'd go for it. You can't just convince people on something this important."

I'd been totally fine with knowing what I'd need to get to sway them and then failing. Just having the DM say yes or no based off their whim, makes it all fairly pointless.

[toapat]

So the most recent Stormwind thread (and specifically this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17644097&postcount=309) by Forrestfire) got me thinking (a dangerous pastime, I know). Are there any tropes that 3.5e can't model without significant houserules?

Elsa from Frozen cant be replicated in 3.5 without houseruling the entire sandshaper class.

to a lesser extent, mundane mundanes cant really either, but to a significantly lower degree then Elsa. And Elsa doesnt have significantly rare powers when it comes to ice either, she just cant be duplicated without rewriting sandshaper

[weckar]

Elsa from Frozen cant be replicated in 3.5 without houseruling the entire sandshaper class.

to a lesser extent, mundane mundanes cant really either, but to a significantly lower degree then Elsa. And Elsa doesnt have significantly rare powers when it comes to ice either, she just cant be duplicated without rewriting sandshaper

Really? Nothing in Frostburn? That would be a much more obvious place to look than... sand shaper, of all things? Cryokineticist, Frost mage, Rimefire witch....

[Psyren]

The instant I opened this thread I did a ctrl+F for "cinammo-" and was not disappointed. :smalltongue:

On topic - I think a better question might be "what can't d20 do?" 3.5's greatest strength, to me, is the ability to get away from 3.5.


I'm still upset that I can't do actual magic, whether healing or weather control or whatever. D&D can't do that for me. :smallfrown:

Like, IRL? What do you mean by "actual magic?"

[deuterio12]

Complex, kludgy rules are a bad idea in general. But systems that focus on non-combat interaction tend to have more in-depth and engaging rules for it than just "roll a die and see if you passed the check". Once again, look at Fate or Burning Wheel - all conflict, be it physical combat, social debate, or trying to race each other during a chase, is handled in very similar ways in those games.

What if I want to play the role of "gasp" a fighter, or a wizard, or a cleric? D&D allows me to roleplay such concepts, and if I want my character to shout bravado or taunt opponents, I can do so without need of starting a whole second battle.

And D&D does have bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, sense motive, and whatnot. They may not be the best rules out there for social interaction, but it's still more than the "no rules" you claimed earlier.

Plenty of enchantment spells and some conjuration spells demand you to roleplay fancy stuff as well.

Plus, there's even rules in D&D for running until you start to run out of breath, movement speeds and whatnot, so races are perfectly possible as well.

That's not mentioning all the threads out there for crazy stuff you can pull outside of combat, between loops and long-duration rituals and crafting and whatnot.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

It can't model a social conflict with any more finesse beyond "I diplomance more than you diplomance". Not that it needs to, but that's definitely a style of play that the rules don't engage.

[VoxRationis]

Good that nobody shows that attitude, then.
Are you sure? It seems as though you do, because you just said D&D was poorly suited for anything other than killing monsters and looting their demesnes.



Complex, kludgy rules are a bad idea in general. But systems that focus on non-combat interaction tend to have more in-depth and engaging rules for it than just "roll a die and see if you passed the check". Once again, look at Fate or Burning Wheel - all conflict, be it physical combat, social debate, or trying to race each other during a chase, is handled in very similar ways in those games.

I would consider that a Bad Thing. Social debate is very different from combat, which is different from a race. To make them equivalent is to oversimplify them.

[toapat]

Really? Nothing in Frostburn? That would be a much more obvious place to look than... sand shaper, of all things? Cryokineticist, Frost mage, Rimefire witch....

Ya, a desert PrC is needed to model the frost princess. 3.5 can get really weird like that sometimes.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Are you sure? It seems as though you do, because you just said D&D was poorly suited for anything other than killing monsters and looting their demesnes.

That's just a statement that the rules system doesn't work well to handle certain things.

Which is the reason why you don't use the rules system to handle those things.

In D&D, the rules are great for high fantasy combat encounters, so that's where you focus the bulk of the system. In other areas, you don't use the system so much. This is what people mean by "the system gets out of the way": you can leave the system out of those areas, and it won't detrimentally impact the game.

[Tvtyrant]

Ya, a desert PrC is needed to model the frost princess. 3.5 can get really weird like that sometimes.

...Or just a Sorcerer who picks cold spells. I am not entirely sure why we need to play a Sandshaper when all of her powers are extremely easy to duplicate with spells (or worst case scenario Artificer wielding Marvelous Pigments!)

[toapat]

...Or just a Sorcerer who picks cold spells. I am not entirely sure why we need to play a Sandshaper when all of her powers are extremely easy to duplicate with spells (or worst case scenario Artificer wielding Marvelous Pigments!)

1: Ice castle
2: non-simulacrum/Ice assassin Snow Golems.

[weckar]

A Frost Mage with Craft Construct could do that.

[Rubik]

I think it was telling that noone made anything new though...Noone? I don't remember him (or her) in LotR.

[Segev]

A Frost Mage with Craft Construct could do that.

In 1-2 rounds?

[Emperor Tippy]

It's not the modern setting that D&D does poorly. It's gritty, realistic, anyone-can-die-at-any-moment combat of the sort found in systems like Cyberpunk. D&D can do just as well in a modern setting as a fantasy one, provided you're looking for Hollywood Combat. You can't do Saving Private Ryan or Full Metal Jacket, but you can do Die Hard or Jackie Chan just fine.

Um what game are you playing, because if your DM isn't being really nice then you can and will die at any moment in D&D. The thing is that the higher your level in D&D, the more effort and resources you invest into protecting yourself from all of the myriad ways that your enemies can kill you.

I mean a fireball from a level 5 Wizard can theoretically kill a level 20 Wizard in a single hit.

[weckar]

In 1-2 rounds?

If you were solely optimized for crafting speed.... well, I know it's possible to get crafting down to 1/32nd of the natural time....

[toapat]

If you were solely optimized for crafting speed.... well, I know it's possible to get crafting down to 1/32nd of the natural time....

Cant the Omnificer lower crafting time to a single round?

And no, the reason you need a refluffed sandshaper is because of Sand Shape being the only way to really emulate building the castle.

[Rubik]

Like, IRL? What do you mean by "actual magic?"Yes, IRL. Take the abilities off the character sheet and have them to use.

D&D can't do that, so it most definitely fits. :smalltongue:

[TheIronGolem]

Um what game are you playing, because if your DM isn't being really nice then you can and will die at any moment in D&D. The thing is that the higher your level in D&D, the more effort and resources you invest into protecting yourself from all of the myriad ways that your enemies can kill you.

I mean a fireball from a level 5 Wizard can theoretically kill a level 20 Wizard in a single hit.

Theoretically, yes, but in practice that sort of thing is pretty rare. Even "meat grinder" D&D games don't often get to be as lethal as the average game of, say, Cyberpunk 2020.

[weckar]

Cant the Omnificer lower crafting time to a single round?

And no, the reason you need a refluffed sandshaper is because of Sand Shape being the only way to really emulate building the castle.
Permanencied Wall of Force metamagicked to be ice?

[toapat]

Permanencied Wall of Force metamagicked to be ice?

its not invulnerable. its just supercold ice, which is perfectly handwaveable when you consider shes already hit the kingdom with a casting of Fimbulwinter.

[Rubik]

I hadn't watched Frozen, but I looked up that particular clip (OMG, amazing song), and a psion with Linked Power could do that via (Greater) Psionic Fabricate.

[nedz]

3.5 can't do lots of things: large battles, science, poetry, ...

[Coidzor]

Yes, IRL. Take the abilities off the character sheet and have them to use.

D&D can't do that, so it most definitely fits. :smalltongue:

Indeed, all that hearsay, parental paranoia, and those comics lied to me. I can't even conjure up spirits to do my bidding!

[Forrestfire]

Rapid Spell Ice Castle creates the ice castle in one minute. During Let it Go, the castle takes about forty seconds to grow, or a bit over a minute if we include the staircase. Seems close enough to me. Summon Monster spells let you call up Ice Paraelementals, which are pretty close to whatever Marshmallow is, but sadly those are short duration.

Any decent way of one-rounding a Planar Ally type of spell?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Boiling things down to one roll* is how a system says that it doesn't care about something. Fate has rules for social combat-- you can turn a negotiation into a prolonged "action" scene. Exalted has all sorts of social combat powers. D&D? You and the DM can talk all you want, but when it comes right down to it, it's still just a Diplomacy check. There's no way to model a back-and-forth dynamic.

*And I'm ignoring freeform roleplaying, because that's a system neutral thing.


In 1-2 rounds?
Conjure Ice Beast?


As I recall, the three main ways to do this are either Cancer Mage, specific spells that prevent ability damage (Sheltered Vitality for example), or just getting rerolls upon rerolls (persisted Choose Destiny + Luck Domain granted power, for example).

You'll note that those all presuppose magic or just straight-up are casters.
The Mind Over Body feat (XPH) and a Con of 17 or more will do you just fine.

[Coidzor]

Boiling things down to one roll* is how a system says that it doesn't care about something. Fate has rules for social combat-- you can turn a negotiation into a prolonged "action" scene. Exalted has all sorts of social combat powers. D&D? You and the DM can talk all you want, but when it comes right down to it, it's still just a Diplomacy check. There's no way to model a back-and-forth dynamic.

*And I'm ignoring freeform roleplaying, because that's a system neutral thing.

Conjure Ice Beast?

Indeed, you're either left making more individual winner-take-all diplo rolls per sub-point or making up rules yourself to cover complex situations.

Honestly, I think Olaf is more problematic than his creator.

[Forrestfire]

Refluffed homunculus, maybe? Tiny-sized elemental familiar?

[gooddragon1]

Be balanced on it's own. It's not something that you could put all the elements into a computer game exactly as they function in game and get a balanced game. Then again, in tes3: morrowind you could win with just alchemy (potions of fortify intelligence stacked) or make spells of restore health 1 on target:fortify attribute X on self for 1 second to permanently fortify attributes to any amount you felt like.

[ben-zayb]

Kill the Lady of Pain?

[gooddragon1]

I mean a fireball from a level 5 Wizard can theoretically kill a level 20 Wizard in a single hit.

So...

L20 has 10 con, rolled 1's for HD 2-20... 4+19=23, rolled a 1 on his reflex save, chose to prepare all evocations that day, didn't feel like putting on his magic jammies and wore plain clothes with no equipment, has 10 dex and rolled a 1 initiative, took skill focus (something) for every feat and item crafting for bonus feats.

L5 rolled all 6's on damage (30 damage) for the fireball and 20 on initiative. L5 somehow eeks out 3 more points of damage (probably L20 is of some race with the cold subtype so he takes 45 damage, alternatively L20 is a necropolitan and dies at 0).

[Amphetryon]

Which are you counting, other than the Phial of Galadriel and the Ring? Defining magic is difficult in LotR. The elves claim to not really understand the difference between magic and craftsmanship. But there's the cloaks that made the wearer all but invisible, the rope that unties itself when necessary and of course all the swords. Sting. And the sword specifically made to harm the Witch King of Angmar and did so. Sounds like a bane weapon to me.

Arguably, the Horn of Gondor is presented as a magic item, as well. Tolkien's writing style tended toward understating magic, so how pronounced those effects were within Middle Earth can be tricky to qualify, particularly in game terms.

[ArqArturo]

I know that, once you add magic, non-magical characters struggle to keep up (or not at all), but, it there a system that melee still as viable as an option as magic (not 4e, though)?.

[Amphetryon]

I know that, once you add magic, non-magical characters struggle to keep up (or not at all), but, it there a system that melee still as viable as an option as magic (not 4e, though)?.

Legend does a reasonable job at this, last I looked.

[dascarletm]

So...

L20 has 10 con, rolled 1's for HD 2-20... 4+19=23, rolled a 1 on his reflex save, chose to prepare all evocations that day, didn't feel like putting on his magic jammies and wore plain clothes with no equipment, has 10 dex and rolled a 1 initiative, took skill focus (something) for every feat and item crafting for bonus feats.

L5 rolled all 6's on damage (30 damage) for the fireball and 20 on initiative. L5 somehow eeks out 3 more points of damage (probably L20 is of some race with the cold subtype so he takes 45 damage, alternatively L20 is a necropolitan and dies at 0).

Seems reasonable.

[Forrestfire]

Legend does a reasonable job at this, last I looked.

My experience is similar. Legend's pretty great.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I know that, once you add magic, non-magical characters struggle to keep up (or not at all), but, it there a system that melee still as viable as an option as magic (not 4e, though)?.
I should think that most of them do. Fate, Mutants and Masterminds, Exalted, Savage Worlds... I've never heard it as a major issue outside of 3.5.

[Eldan]

Theoretically, yes, but in practice that sort of thing is pretty rare. Even "meat grinder" D&D games don't often get to be as lethal as the average game of, say, Cyberpunk 2020.

It's pretty easy. If you want gritty, stay at level 1. That's what level 1 is for.

I'd also like to add that I've never seen a system that handled "talky scenes", i.e. social encounters, better than D&D. I hate nothing more than having to stop talking every thirty seconds during a diplomatic encounter to roll more dice, activate your stunt, wager three social points, compel the opponent's weakness and then get aid from another player. I like just talking during social scenes, then deciding the case with a roll and a modifier. Everything else feels like we're just playing poker while occasionally throwing in a short argument that's part of the discussion. Nothing more boring than "Okay, I contradict his point with my +3 against ad hominem and +2 from elven diplomacy, then I use my advantage so he can't talk about his armies next!"

[BWR]

It's pretty easy. If you want gritty, stay at level 1. That's what level 1 is for.

I'd also like to add that I've never seen a system that handled "talky scenes", i.e. social encounters, better than D&D. I hate nothing more than having to stop talking every thirty seconds during a diplomatic encounter to roll more dice, activate your stunt, wager three social points, compel the opponent's weakness and then get aid from another player. I like just talking during social scenes, then deciding the case with a roll and a modifier. Everything else feels like we're just playing poker while occasionally throwing in a short argument that's part of the discussion. Nothing more boring than "Okay, I contradict his point with my +3 against ad hominem and +2 from elven diplomacy, then I use my advantage so he can't talk about his armies next!"

If only it handled combat as simply. Modifiers, one roll, winner wins. Finished.

[Eldan]

I try to run combat mostly like that. Or rather, there's a planning phase, some scouting, discussion of tactics, expenditure of resources and then a short, brutal attack. Ideally, combat is over in one or two rounds, anything longer than that gets boring fast and someone made a mistake.

[BWR]

I try to run combat mostly like that. Or rather, there's a planning phase, some scouting, discussion of tactics, expenditure of resources and then a short, brutal attack. Ideally, combat is over in one or two rounds, anything longer than that gets boring fast and someone made a mistake.

But you can do it simpler. Remove initiative, remove everything that doesn't grant numerical modifiers to a single d20 roll like movement, grapple, damage rolls, status effects, tactics, multiple attacks, AC, hp etc. etc.- a simple opposed win/lose roll. Now combat is just as exciting and quick as social skills.

[Amphetryon]

It's pretty easy. If you want gritty, stay at level 1. That's what level 1 is for.

I'd also like to add that I've never seen a system that handled "talky scenes", i.e. social encounters, better than D&D. I hate nothing more than having to stop talking every thirty seconds during a diplomatic encounter to roll more dice, activate your stunt, wager three social points, compel the opponent's weakness and then get aid from another player. I like just talking during social scenes, then deciding the case with a roll and a modifier. Everything else feels like we're just playing poker while occasionally throwing in a short argument that's part of the discussion. Nothing more boring than "Okay, I contradict his point with my +3 against ad hominem and +2 from elven diplomacy, then I use my advantage so he can't talk about his armies next!"

Experiences clearly differ here. I can think of little more boring than sitting for 20+ minutes whilst the guy with CHA as his real-life dump stat tries to schmooze with the the local ruler in order to advance the agreed-upon plot.

[Gemini476]

I know that, once you add magic, non-magical characters struggle to keep up (or not at all), but, it there a system that melee still as viable as an option as magic (not 4e, though)?.

Eclipse Phase is in that weird place where magic (or psionics, I guess, since that's the standard sci-fi alternative) often just isn't worth it when compared to being an octopus wielding eight swords. Or eight rifles, since guns>swords. Make them a robot so that they're buffed to the nines as well.

Most games try to make magic at least as viable as other play styles, though. some still fail, but most at least try.

There's also games like Dark Heresy where magic is extremely powerful but melee is still a viable option because magic has a cost - imagine if critfails had a possibility of killing yourself and everyone within a few feet, for instance.

Speaking of dangerous magic and Psychic Phenomena tables, Dungeons: The Dragoning: 40,000: 7.6th Edition has melee being just plain better than magic. And ranged, until the second book (For a Few Subtitles More) introduced some Gun Kata. Sublime Way 2 OP.

And then there are games where everyone is magic to some degree, like Earthsea or Exalted or Double Cross. Or all PCs, at least - mook NPCs might be nonmagic.

[9mm]

Lucha Libre

If there is a way to be a pro wrestler in 3.5 I haven't found it yet.

[Amphetryon]

Lucha Libre

If there is a way to be a pro wrestler in 3.5 I haven't found it yet.

Ultimo Tarrasco, Jr. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9465081&postcount=102)

[ben-zayb]

Other stuff that I can think off:
1. Sports-related Rules/Mechanics
2. Madden Kombat (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IKnowMaddenKombat), related to the above
2. "Blocking" or "Deflecting" attacks for yourself and for others, without shield or other weird ways to get deflection bonus
3. Wielding a 2H Weapon in one hand (RAW)
4. Improbable weapon user (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ImprobableWeaponUser): no, it's not just wielding stuff as improvised weapon, I'm also talking about utilizing them creatively, in some cases telekinetically, as a complete combat style. Oh, and a lot of them apparently have plenty out-of-combat utilities (Martial Arts and Crafts (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MartialArtsAndCrafts)) too. And these combat style don't require spellcasting abilities. Example "weapons" include:

Spinning tops, perfume, saxophone, balloons, paint, ramen, clouds, soap bubbles, exploding boogers, Cola farts, ropes tied into knots, tears turned into whale projectile, gymnastics ribbon, bandannas as projectile weapons, high speed cooking, batter as liquid cement, ink, paper, calligraphy brush, tops, hacky-sacks, thread, playing cards, marbles, chopsticks, rice, bank interest, cell phone, gum, a dart board, fleas shot from a sniper rifle, a book (its text, not as a blunt object), a notebook (written text, not as blunt object), one's own detached fingertips, a tiny floating birdcage, a surfboard, planet Jupiter, explosive mosquitoes, a slot machine staff, an entire savannah the user can transport to the immediate area, paper, paper fans, protractor, mirror fragments, thread, needles, diamond dust, cloth, dollhouse, bookmark, handheld console, muddy(required) boots, pocket watch, nose hair, armpit hair, rose as thrown weapons,

[Kaeso]

Other stuff that I can think off:
1. Sports-related Rules/Mechanics
2. Madden Kombat (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IKnowMaddenKombat), related to the above
2. "Blocking" or "Deflecting" attacks for yourself and for others, without shield or other weird ways to get deflection bonus
3. Wielding a 2H Weapon in one hand (RAW)
4. Improbable weapon user (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ImprobableWeaponUser): no, it's not just wielding stuff as improvised weapon, I'm also talking about utilizing them creatively, in some cases telekinetically, as a complete combat style. Oh, and a lot of them apparently have plenty out-of-combat utilities (Martial Arts and Crafts (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MartialArtsAndCrafts)) too. And these combat style don't require spellcasting abilities. Example "weapons" include:

1. They'd require some sort of houseruling. I think Complete Warrior has rules on such things as "conjurers chess" which can be seen as a game.
2. Cricket (which debatably has its origins in Medieval France, so I consider it time appropriate) uses a mallet, tennis uses a racket (confirmed for its origins in Medieval France, so time appropriate). Play with improvised weapon mechanics and go to town.
3. A medium sized greatsword is a large longsword. If you can wield a large longsword, you can dual wield greatswords
4. Improvised weapons are made for this. As is "throw anything" by the bloodstorm blade. Improvised weapon rules mean "throw anything" allows you to really throw anything. Swords, shields, chairs, small animals, women, children.

[9mm]

Ultimo Tarrasco, Jr. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9465081&postcount=102)
If he's a hero he's a Technico! Rudo is the bad guys!

Side note, submissions have always been easy, it's suplexing people that's the hard part.

[Coidzor]

If he's a hero he's a Technico! Rudo is the bad guys!

Side note, submissions have always been easy, it's suplexing people that's the hard part.

You can at least do the aerials to some extent with Leap Attack/Battle Jump, I suppose?