PDA

View Full Version : Broken rules.



jono
2007-02-24, 01:39 PM
Post here the most unbalanced, ridiculous, or outlandishly broken published rules you've come across.

As a relative Newb, two or three come to mind.

Complete adventurer; Oversized two-weapon fighting: Allowing a level one fighter to dual-wield dwarven waraxes at a mere -2 penalty to hit with each. Brilliant.

Can't remember which book; Ghostefaced killer: Had a death attack. Even if you succeded your save you and I believe anyone in a 10ft radius were shaken. It was only a lvl 7 class ability as well.

Races of the Dragon: Dragonborn of Bahamut; Entangling breath weapon... Just no!

DaMullet
2007-02-24, 01:41 PM
I'm assuming that this "Ghostfaced Killer" came from a PrC? That means it was a 7th level + Prereq. level ability, probably 12th level at the earliest.

Honestly, I don't mind the rules as written. They're good.

Morty
2007-02-24, 01:45 PM
Complete adventurer; Oversized two-weapon fighting: Allowing a level one fighter to dual-wield dwarven waraxes at a mere -2 penalty to hit with each. Brilliant.
-2 isn't 'mere'. It's quite a penalty, especially since TWF isn't that great. OTWF is balanced feat, maybe even a bit subpar.

Matthew
2007-02-24, 01:54 PM
It's not broken, it's just stupid.

Collin152
2007-02-24, 01:57 PM
Post here the most unbalanced, ridiculous, or outlandishly broken published rules you've come across.

As a relative Newb, two or three come to mind.

Complete adventurer; Oversized two-weapon fighting: Allowing a level one fighter to dual-wield dwarven waraxes at a mere -2 penalty to hit with each. Brilliant.

Can't remember which book; Ghostefaced killer: Had a death attack. Even if you succeded your save you and I believe anyone in a 10ft radius were shaken. It was only a lvl 7 class ability as well.

Races of the Dragon: Dragonborn of Bahamut; Entangling breath weapon... Just no!

Trust me, the Ghost faced killer is FAR from broken. It's possibly the worst prestige class in that whole book!
Kensei Monks? NOW we are talking.

Attilargh
2007-02-24, 01:57 PM
Post here the most unbalanced, ridiculous, or outlandishly broken published rules you've come across.
Diplomacy checks from the PHB. The Giant really opened my eyes with his variant approach (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html) to the skill.

A properly built level 4 character can, by talking to a hostile villain for two minutes, turn him into a helpful ally. With no chance of failure.

A level 12 character can do this in twelve seconds.

Quietus
2007-02-24, 03:00 PM
A half-elf can do it even faster... particularly with the diplomacy skill focus feat. It's hilarious stuff.

The Giant's variant approach is far more detailed, and can be troublesome to learn; However, I do think it works much better than the regular Diplomacy skill.

Attilargh
2007-02-24, 03:11 PM
No, that is a half-elf. With Skill Focus on Diplomacy and Negotiator. As well as three Age Categories and a Cha boost on top of a Cha of 18. And the Synergy bonuses from Bluff, Sense Motive and Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty.

That should result in a character with a Diplomacy modifier of 25, which happens to be the DC of turning a Hostile NPC to Indifferent. No roll required.

I have yet to figure out how to get a surefire way to succeed in making the Diplomacy check as a standard action before level 12, without the use of magic items.

Nevermore
2007-02-24, 03:22 PM
I see anything out of the Book of Nine Swords to be broken

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-24, 03:25 PM
I see anything out of the Book of Nine Swords to be broken

Ummm... why?

Barring "two Ruby Knight Vindicators tossing White Raven Tactics at each other over and over", the book is very well-balanced. At low levels, the classes aren't more powerful than regular melee classes; at high levels, they can't keep up with wizards or druids, but they continue to contribute (which normal melee classes pretty much don't).


Also, don't we have like two other "lol, rules r borked" threads right now?

TSGames
2007-02-24, 03:39 PM
Diplomacy checks from the PHB. The Giant really opened my eyes with his variant approach (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html) to the skill.

A properly built level 4 character can, by talking to a hostile villain for two minutes, turn him into a helpful ally. With no chance of failure.

A level 12 character can do this in twelve seconds.
Not sure about the "no chance of failure thing," as I recall you are required to roll if there is a chance of negative consequences resulting from a skill check(such as falling while making a climb check) and(it may just be a houserule that I''ve always played with), but I seem to recall that a roll of 1 is an automatic failure(which would mean there isn't a 100% chance, but diplomacy is still quite broken).

Arbitrarity
2007-02-24, 03:52 PM
Nope. House rule.

"To make a skill check, roll 1d20 and add your character’s skill modifier for that skill. The skill modifier incorporates the character’s ranks in that skill and the ability modifier for that skill’s key ability, plus any other miscellaneous modifiers that may apply, including racial bonuses and armor check penalties. The higher the result, the better. Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure. "

From D20SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm)

Glibness. "I'm your long lost brother (73!)! Really?(15 on sense motive) Sweet!

JimmyDPawn
2007-02-24, 04:04 PM
Not sure about the "no chance of failure thing," as I recall you are required to roll if there is a chance of negative consequences resulting from a skill check(such as falling while making a climb check) and(it may just be a houserule that I''ve always played with), but I seem to recall that a roll of 1 is an automatic failure(which would mean there isn't a 100% chance, but diplomacy is still quite broken).


No, the only time that the 1/20 auto-fail/succeed is with attack rolls, and saving throws. NOT skill checks.

(Of course, the moment I say this, I know I'm forgetting something, i'm sure.)


Edit: Curses, ninja'd!

clericwithnogod
2007-02-24, 04:09 PM
Not sure about the "no chance of failure thing," as I recall you are required to roll if there is a chance of negative consequences resulting from a skill check(such as falling while making a climb check) and(it may just be a houserule that I''ve always played with), but I seem to recall that a roll of 1 is an automatic failure(which would mean there isn't a 100% chance, but diplomacy is still quite broken).

It's a house rule. While it seems OK for some things, a 5% chance to fail is pretty significant, making the everyday adventuring action riskier than is realistic.

As an example, there is an obstacle course in the military that has a trench (sometimes filled with barbed wire) that you have to jump over under pressure while being evaluated. 1 in 20 people going through the course don't fail to jump over the trench (particularly those judged athletic enough to be jumping over barbed wire).

EDIT: Damn. Bronze Medal...

The_Snark
2007-02-24, 04:39 PM
I second Diplomacy. Or third it, or whatever. It can get really bad. I'm tempted to post my Diplomancer build here.

Fortunately, most DMs require that you roleplay the conversation or make some sort of reasonable offer, rather than just rolling the dice.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-02-24, 04:40 PM
I see anything out of the Book of Nine Swords to be broken
They're overpowered compared to most other melee classes at higher levels, perhaps, if the melee classes aren't built all that well. Compared against casters at high levels, they're almost as good, if still less versatile.

I say from analysis of the book. Still haven't actually played a Martial Adept.

jono: your examples are fairly tame, really. Going from a 1d6 offhand weapon damage to 1d10 offhand weapon damage at the cost of a feat (or two feats for a non-Dwarf) isn't too bad.

The various infinite loop builds (Pun-Pun, that Cancer Mage strength build, the amusing-but-useless-Omniscificer) have pretty much been covered in other threads and forums.

Taking any of the Item Creation rules from the DMG/SRD at face value is just asking for trouble. Ring of use-activated Continuous True Strike you say? Sure, that'll be 2000 gp. Item Creation requires strict DM oversight.

Epic Magic. Particularly at level 29, combined with the Legendary Commander feat. It's a "Win D&D" button. One of the numerous reasons I'll never run an Epic game, and try to avoid playing in them except in special circumstances.

tarbrush
2007-02-24, 04:47 PM
You haven't begun to plunder infinite loops till you've seen The Trouserfang Dwarf! (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=727527)

It's not so much broken as funny.

But seriously, no-one's mentioned polymorph et al. Or Planar shepherd. (aka the moment when the designers just stopped caring)

Swordguy
2007-02-24, 04:48 PM
Broken rules? Okay, how about the Pseudonatural Template from Epic Handbook?

HDx5 in Spell resistance. Plus other stuff.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-24, 04:50 PM
Ah, yes. Planar Shepherd.

The class that happened when someone thought, "you know, clerics have prestige classes they can take that lose nothing and are strictly better than the base class progression. We should make one of those for druids, too. And let's give them three different completely game-breaking abilities, just, you know, for kicks."

Swordguy: how is that out of line/broken for an epic template?

Swordguy
2007-02-24, 04:59 PM
Swordguy: how is that out of line/broken for an epic template?

Give it to a tarresque. Can you get past 240 SR? Remember the "Can anything hurt this" thread?

Attilargh
2007-02-24, 05:00 PM
You haven't begun to plunder infinite loops till you've seen The Trouserfang Dwarf! (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=727527)
Talking about junk in the trunk... :biggrin:

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-24, 05:05 PM
Give it to a tarresque. Can you get past 240 SR? Remember the "Can anything hurt this" thread?

Yes, I can--with spells that don't allow SR. Golems have *immunity* to SR-allowing spells; how is this any worse?

The_Snark
2007-02-24, 05:07 PM
The Pseudonatural template is not anything that a PC should be using, though.

Ever.

So the players have to deal with it, and by the time they're epic-level, they have enough resources to buff the melee-types (cleric, druid, and any fightery sorts) into insanity, and use no-SR hindering spells. If the wizard finishes with that before it's dead, he can Shapechange. Then they finish slaughtering whatever poor beast from the Far Realms they're fighting.

Oh, yeah; Shapechange and Alter Self. Alter Self's not so bad unless you try to break it, and then it's pretty bad because it's available so early. Shapechange is powerful even when you don't go looking for things to abuse like the Chronotyrn. Polymorph never struck me as being quite so bad, but it's certainly abuseable too.

Quietus
2007-02-24, 05:10 PM
Yeah, so now the spellcasters have something they can't hurt. In the same way that everyone complains "Fighters can't hurt anything mobile!".

Oh noes!

NullAshton
2007-02-24, 05:15 PM
I believe one of the most broken spells I've ever seen is an Illusionary Pit spell, I think it was called. Even on a SUCCESSFUL save, you were stunned for one round.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-24, 05:19 PM
...unless you are not on the ground, in which case you're fine.

Jimp
2007-02-24, 05:40 PM
Epic Magic. . .It's a "Win D&D" button.
Quoted for truth. Mind if I siggie it?

Thomas
2007-02-24, 06:27 PM
Give it to a tarresque. Can you get past 240 SR? Remember the "Can anything hurt this" thread?

You're asking if epic characters can beat SR 240?

Yes.

With epic spells, or with circle magic - easy.

Arbitrarity
2007-02-24, 06:38 PM
Circle magic maxxes at CL 40.... Epic rituals, yeah. +480 to the DC on the spellcraft check :P.

Just nuke it with the sonic barrage of DOOOM!

Closet_Skeleton
2007-02-24, 06:58 PM
No, that is a half-elf. With Skill Focus on Diplomacy and Negotiator. As well as three Age Categories and a Cha boost on top of a Cha of 18. And the Synergy bonuses from Bluff, Sense Motive and Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty.

That should result in a character with a Diplomacy modifier of 25, which happens to be the DC of turning a Hostile NPC to Indifferent. No roll required.

I have yet to figure out how to get a surefire way to succeed in making the Diplomacy check as a standard action before level 12, without the use of magic items.

Don't forget Races of Destiney's Complementary Insight, half-elves only, turns synergy bonuses into +3s.

The_Snark
2007-02-24, 07:00 PM
Not to mention the one that allows half-elves to reroll every Diplomacy or Gather Info check once, without a per-day limit.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-02-24, 07:06 PM
Quoted for truth. Mind if I siggie it?
Sure, why not?

Thomas
2007-02-24, 07:33 PM
Circle magic maxxes at CL 40.... Epic rituals, yeah. +480 to the DC on the spellcraft check :P.

So, er, you consider +480 a lot?

InaVegt
2007-02-24, 07:36 PM
Complete adventurer; Oversized two-weapon fighting: Allowing a level one fighter to dual-wield dwarven waraxes at a mere -2 penalty to hit with each. Brilliant.While that dwarf might deal a lot of damage when he hits, -4 penalty to attack (-2 oversized, -2 dual wield) (with, let's say +4 base (+3 str and +1 BAB)) he doesn't hit all that often, you're probably better of using those dwarven waraxes as two handed weapons in conjunction with weapon focus (not that useful at high levels, a flat +1 is nice at first level though) for a +5 to hit, assuming 15 AC enemies (not all that unreasonable) that's a 55% chance of hitting with weapon focus (which also leaves a feat open) for 1d10+4 damage while dual wielding would give you a 30% chance of hitting with an individual attack, which deals 1d10+3 damage.

Average damage per turn for the twohander is 9.5*0.55=5.225 damage.
Average damage per turn for the two weaponer is 8.5*0.3*2=5.1 damage.

Of course this is excluding critical hits. If we factor those in.

the twohander has 50% chance of a nonthreat hit, and 55% of the 5% threats is a crit. 9.5*0.5+9.5*0.05*0.55*3+9.5*0.05*0.45=5.7475 damage per turn average.
the two weaponer has 25% chance of a nonthreat hit and 30% of the 5% threats is a crit. (8.5*0.25+8.5*0.05*0.3*3+8.5*0.05*0.7)*2=5.61 damage per turn average.

Now, not only does the twohander deal more damage per turn on average, he also has spend one feat less and only has to use standard actions to receive his full damage, not full round actions.


Can't remember which book; Ghostefaced killer: Had a death attack. Even if you succeded your save you and I believe anyone in a 10ft radius were shaken. It was only a lvl 7 class ability as well.As others have said, it's not that powerful. You need to be 8th (character) level to get your first use, 1/day. Now the save DC is a frightening 13+charisma mod, not to mention if your enemy has more HD than you have character levels he's automatically immune (and there are plenty of other types which are immune as well) This is the kind of ability you'd use for the BBEG, except he's immune unless your DM has the habit of giving his BBEGs very low HD. And let's say he isn't immune, that means he has 8 HD, now let's give him a bad will save to make it even more likely for him to fail his save. And his wisdom would be 12. that means he has a +3 bonus on his save, now the type of character which qualifies for this PrC usually hasn't that high a charisma, let's give him 12 as well. So that means the BBEG has 50% chance of making his save, while if the attack misses (and a penalty had to be taken) there is no effect on the BBEG at all. And I almost forgot to mention the BBEG has to be flat footed for this to happen.

All in all, a pretty weak ability, and not worth basing a class on.


Races of the Dragon: Dragonborn of Bahamut; Entangling breath weapon... Just no!
So, let's say you're a first level dragonborn using that ability, dealing (1d6)/2 damage +1d6 per round (1d4 rounds) in a 5 foot line, oh and it entangles as well. Doesn't seem that impressive to me, you're probably better of just using your weapons.

Let's look again at 20th level, you've got (7d6)/2 +1d6 per round (still 1d4 rounds) in a 100 feet line. Which entangles. The arcane spellcasters can deal more damage with their 2nd level spells, why should I bother with this little amount.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-24, 07:37 PM
The Entangle is the big thing on Entangling Exhalation. Entangle is a good debuff.

Jack_Simth
2007-02-24, 07:38 PM
Epic Magic. Particularly at level 29, combined with the Legendary Commander feat. It's a "Win D&D" button. One of the numerous reasons I'll never run an Epic game, and try to avoid playing in them except in special circumstances.
Why level 29? A standard Wizard-21 with Epic Spellcasting can do the job. Each day, load up on:
Moment of Prescience (8th)
Quickened Dispel Magic (7th)
Planar Binding (6th)
Dismissal (5th)
Dimensional Anchor (4th)
Magic Circle Against Chaos (3rd)

Four each of the above, making sure to have at Foresight (9th), Time Stop (9th) Celerity(4th), and Teleport (5th) either prepared in higher level slots or in bonus slots in case something goes seriously wrong.

Planar Bind Couatls. Lots of them. 95% fail their saves, 95% are convinced to do your work (by Moment of Prescience - the bargaining is an opposed Charisma check with a nat-1 clasue, which is an opposed ability check, which Moment of Prescience covers). 4/day, with basically a 90% success rate. Round down to 80% to cover for random variations, and you have them assigned to an indefinite task (support me as needed in all epic spells). At caster level 21st, you can keep them in line for 21 days on an open-ended task, after which they are perfectly welcome to go home (at CR 10, they probably won't oppose you... and if they do, that's what Dismissal is for). After day 20, you've made 80 attempts, and almost certainly have at least 64 Couatls in your service (80%).

You then craft a DC 0 Epic spell to Permanently Summon a Solar (Base DC 14, +42 for CR 23, *5 Permanent, DC 280 before Mitigation) using 4th level spell slots from the Couatls to mitigate down to 0 (40 of them nets the -280; we almost certainly have 64 of them). Each Solar you Permanently Summon can give you 9th level spell slots. As you've got two Epic spell slots per day (at least) at this level, you can Permanently Summon two Solars each day. After 9 days of that, you have enough Permanently Summoned Solars to donate 9th level spell slots that you no longer need the Couatls to donate 4th level spell slots (Wizard now stops spamming Planar Binding, giving the Couatls a rest). After another eight days (16 more Solars, 34 total; note that we're on day 37), we research a new Epic spell (again, DC 0) that Permanently Summons two Solars (DC 560, I think, but with 34 Solars, he has -578 from extra spell slots, so it's DC 0). Thereafter, he's getting 4 Solars a day (two castings, two Solars each time). After four days (day 41), he has 16 more solars, for a total of 50 (which provide a mitigation factor of -850). At this point, he researches another DC 0 Epic spell, which Permanently Summons three Solars (DC 840, I think, before mitigation - but we can mitigate up to DC 850 down to 0, just with spell slots, so....). Which he then switches over to. So he now gets 6 Solars a day. Three days later (day 44), he has 18 more Solars, for a total of 68 (which provide a mitigation factor of -1156, for Permanently Summoning 4 Solars per casting). You can see where I'm going with this. With a little spreadsheet work....

On day 366, you can have 6.47756*10^17 Solars Permanently Summoned by this exponential growth method, which can mitigate to 0 a spellcraft DC of 1.10118*10^19.

That's not a fully optimized path - you can start Permanently Summoning Solars on day 12 (only need 40 Couatls to do so) and there's no real reason to stop Calling Couatls. Mind you, that only takes a grand total of about two weeks off the time, but it can be done.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-24, 07:41 PM
That... that's a lot of Solars.

Jack_Simth
2007-02-24, 07:58 PM
That... that's a lot of Solars.Yep. At 21st, you're Permanently Summoning a CR 22 creature. Repeatedly. And using them to increase the number you can Permanently Summon. It's an exponential Growth issue. Can't beat a Kobold Egoist-12, mind.... and as, RAW, all those Solars come from somewhere, you're probably going to have a few angry dieties coming after you (stripping them of their generals), and you may be seriously weakening the Good side of the fight in the Angels/Demons/Devils conflict, and you need quite the staging ground for all this, and some way to keep air from becoming an issue (Solars do need air, after all) But that's just a delay of half a day every here and there to deal. The original setup was to reach the DC for animating an entire planet all at once (which is also where the final figures come from - I copied and pasted a little of my old post).

But the point of the thread is broken stuff, right?

jono
2007-02-24, 10:08 PM
Yes yes, I'm a noobie. My examples are lame. I didn't spend hundreds of dollars/pound sterling on 3rd party books. What a shame!


While that dwarf might deal a lot of damage when he hits, -4 penalty to attack (-2 oversized, -2 dual wield) (with, let's say +4 base (+3 str and +1 BAB)) he doesn't hit all that often, you're probably better of using those dwarven waraxes as two handed weapons in conjunction with weapon focus (not that useful at high levels, a flat +1 is nice at first level though) for a +5 to hit, assuming 15 AC enemies (not all that unreasonable) that's a 55% chance of hitting with weapon focus (which also leaves a feat open) for 1d10+4 damage while dual wielding would give you a 30% chance of hitting with an individual attack, which deals 1d10+3 damage.



I believe the feat allows you to regard a one-handed weapon as a light one (I'm afraid I don't have the book with me) for the purposes of dual-wielding. Which effectively means a -2 penalty to hit with a longsword, battleaxe, etc. Or if you've got exotic weapon proficiencies, bastard sword, waraxe, and such. The feat allows you to deal ridiculous ammounts of damage, with a minor penalty to hit with each attack.

As for level 20, lets's not look at it. After all, once you get past that completely different rules apply when making sense of things.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-24, 10:18 PM
The point is, Jono, Oversized TWF At First Level isn't broken or even overpowered. In fact, it's worse than High Strength Plus Greatsword.

cupkeyk
2007-02-24, 10:21 PM
What does third party mean? I always thought it meant splatbooks not published by WotC, but from the context of Jono's reply might be wrong. Am I? All of everyones comments eem t come from WOTC books... *scratch*

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-24, 10:26 PM
Third Party = non-WotC. Jono's just, I dunno--bitter at being wrong, or something.

The_Snark
2007-02-24, 10:29 PM
No, you're correct.

Oversized Two-weapon Fighting isn't bad at first level, but unless you get lucky and hit with both attacks in one round, you will be hitting less often than a fighter using a single two-handed weapon, and when you both hit once the two-handed weapon does more damage. And as you get higher level and Power Attack is factored in the two-handed weapon's damage, it gets less effective.

JaronK
2007-02-24, 10:34 PM
Yeah, OTWF is weak. It's just for people that think that wielding two bigger weapons somehow makes you uber... but it doesn't. Compare a Leap Attacking Shock Trooper Frenzied Berserker who gets +120 damage on all hits at the end of a charge while wielding a two handed weapon and suddenly having 1d8 damage instead of 1d6 as your offhand really doesn't seem decent at all.

And no, Frenzied Berserkers aren't broken either... they just roughly match Martial Adepts for power level, which still can't get close to a Druid or Cleric.

JaronK

jono
2007-02-24, 10:42 PM
Sorry. T'has been kind of a rough day.

Yeh, I'm a bit of a purist as far as books go. I don't really see the point in buying more than the core stuff, and making the other stuff up on the fly. I share the views of another guy I play with; a lot of the stuff published is done without foresight, and is easily abusable (Basically wizards creating apparantly cool stuff, and wanting all your money). vow of poverty for example; unless your DM is a complete role-play nazi allows a lot of stupid stuff to occur without any real penalties to your character.

Anyway, feel free to continue. I envisioned this thread as a cautionary thing against certain rules, feats, etc. I'm not saying it's a be-all end-all gospel against various books. In my opinion OTWF is abusable and a bit broken at low levels. At higher levels; well i'm not sure. anyhow. Please continue.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-24, 10:47 PM
Sorry. T'has been kind of a rough day.

Yeh, I'm a bit of a purist as far as books go. I don't really see the point in buying more than the core stuff, and making the other stuff up on the fly. I share the views of another guy I play with; a lot of the stuff published is done without foresight, and is easily abusable (Basically wizards creating apparantly cool stuff, and wanting all your money). vow of poverty for example; unless your DM is a complete role-play nazi allows a lot of stupid stuff to occur without any real penalties to your character.
A lot of the stuff in core is unnecessary, done without foresight, and easily abuseable. Core is ridiculously unbalanced, and has quite a number of ways to break the game. It has the Polymorph line of spells, for goodness' sake. And clerics. And druids.
Vow of Poverty is actually significantly underpowered compared to how much gp in items a character is assumed to have at each level--the Challenge Ratings and such are based on the Wealth-By-Level guidelines (DMG, p.135).


Anyway, feel free to continue. I envisioned this thread as a cautionary thing against certain rules, feats, etc. I'm not saying it's a be-all end-all gospel against various books. In my opinion OTWF is abusable and a bit broken at low levels. At higher levels; well i'm not sure. anyhow. Please continue.
...except that people just did the math and showed you that OTWF is *not* abuseable, and *not* broken. It is worse than just using a greatsword. How do you manage to continue to have your opinion when the math shows you, clearly, that you're wrong?

The_Snark
2007-02-24, 10:48 PM
Oversized Two-weapon Fighting does have its uses, though. It allows you to Power Attack with both hands, though that sinks your accuracy pretty low. Still, with Two-weapon Pounce, Leap Attack, and Shock Trooper, it's got potential. Especially for thri-keen and such.

jono
2007-02-24, 11:04 PM
...except that people just did the math and showed you that OTWF is *not* abuseable, and *not* broken. It is worse than just using a greatsword. How do you manage to continue to have your opinion when the math shows you, clearly, that you're wrong?

Well this is getting a bit harsh! How can I continue my opinion? Simply because I do not like that feat, and I refuse to allow my players to use it! I don't like the Idea that, at the cost of two feats (nothing; considering fighters get a feat at almost every single level!) someone can potentially deal 2d10 + Str/Str1/2. Adding magical properties of weapons, (Flaming, Electric, etc.) That's a fair bit of damage.

Thomas
2007-02-24, 11:07 PM
But if you can deal more damage with one feat (Power Attack)...

Is Power Attack broken, too? (It's the only way mid-level melee fighters can contribute to a fight, usually.)

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-24, 11:16 PM
Well this is getting a bit harsh! How can I continue my opinion? Simply because I do not like that feat, and I refuse to allow my players to use it! I don't like the Idea that, at the cost of two feats (nothing; considering fighters get a feat at almost every single level!) someone can potentially deal 2d10 + Str/Str1/2. Adding magical properties of weapons, (Flaming, Electric, etc.) That's a fair bit of damage.

Except that the average damage output of TWF + OTWF is less than the damage output of the same Fighter with a greatsword. Does that mean you refuse to allow greatswords and other two-handed weapons?
Or do you just not understand that "potential" damage doesn't matter, average damage matters? A first-level fighter with a greataxe can do 1d12+6 x3, rolling maximum, 54 damage! Clearly, greataxes are broken, right?

If your problem is "that's too much damage", and it's been proven that it's LESS damage than a normal fighter spending those two feats on, say, Power Attack and Weapon Focus, why do you still have a problem?

MeklorIlavator
2007-02-24, 11:19 PM
Well this is getting a bit harsh! How can I continue my opinion? Simply because I do not like that feat, and I refuse to allow my players to use it! I don't like the Idea that, at the cost of two feats (nothing; considering fighters get a feat at almost every single level!) someone can potentially deal 2d10 + Str/Str1/2. Adding magical properties of weapons, (Flaming, Electric, etc.) That's a fair bit of damage.

Also quite a bit of gp. Remember, two weapon fighting significantly increase weapon costs because you must enchant 2 weapons, instead of 1.

Do you no allow power attack/shock trooper? Because you end up with a lot more damage. What about spells? Fireball(hardly an ideal spell) Deals 1d6 damage+1d6 per caster level, to everyone within 30 feet. Its a thrid level spell, so one gets it plenty of times later on. Or even the orb spells, which deal 1d8+1d8 per 2 levels to a single target.

Finally, wielding a weapon 2 handed allows one to deal 1.5 w strength damage, so he used 2 feats to deal 2d10 damage, at a reduced rate because he misses more.

The_Snark
2007-02-24, 11:26 PM
He did say he's a purist as far as books go, meaning he might not allow Shock Trooper. And I will note, as far as Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting goes, that it can be better than wielding a two-handed weapon in the hands of a player who's not good at optimizing.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-24, 11:27 PM
Forget Shock Trooper. Power Attack's all you need.

The_Snark
2007-02-24, 11:41 PM
Power Attack doesn't jump out as being really good to a player who's new; after all, you do more damage, but you hit less. It takes a knowledge of how hard things are to hit, in general, before you realize that power attacking is worth it. I know for a while, I regarded it as Cleave's unfortunate prerequisite, sort of like Dodge for Spring Attack.

That was 3.0, which I think didn't have two-handed weapons deal double Power Attack damage, but nevertheless.

JaronK
2007-02-25, 02:13 AM
Ugh, what a perfect example of the sort of DM I hate to play with. One who doesn't actually know the rules, thinks core is more balanced, and just nerfs things randomly because he has a gut feeling that it might be too strong, despite having terrible intuition about such things.

I mean seriously, a Druid in core can Wild Shape into a Dire Bear. They can stay that way all day long at level, what, 12? And that's ignoring their spells entirely. Consider the damage a Dire Bear Druid can do (note: all core, no feats used), and compare that with an OTWF fighter of similar level. The druid will rock him all over the place without bringing spells into the mix. But I bet because it doesn't use any feats and is single class and core, you think the druid is fine, but man, how dare that fighter gain +1 damage with his offhand attack?

JaronK

Matthew
2007-02-25, 11:43 AM
Hmmn. The only way I can see a problem with Oversized Two Weapon Fighting in 3.5 is from the conceptual idea of having a Medium Character dual wield two Bastard Swords, two Dwarven War Axes or one of each. Those weapons are already odd anyway, though.

Yeah, 3.0 Power Attack didn't grant a 2:1 Ratio for Two Handed Weapons, but it did allow it to work with Light Weapons. I just don't see the problem.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-25, 11:52 AM
Hmmn. The only way I can see a problem with Oversized Two Weapon Fighting in 3.5 is from the conceptual idea of having a Medium Character dual wield two Bastard Swords, two Dwarven War Axes or one of each. Those weapons are already odd anyway, though.
For two Bastard Swords, I'd suggest watching fight scenes including Blade from the Masters of the Universe motion picture. That's what I always see when I think of the concept.

Matthew
2007-02-25, 12:07 PM
Masters of the Universe is a great film, but I don't recall the scenes or character you have in mind. I will keep an eye out for him next time I happen to be watching. A lot depends on defining a "Bastard Sword", of course.

[edit]
I think Conan the Destroyer does a "Bastard Sword / Dwarven War Axe" combination at the end when the Demon is unleashed; that's usually what I think of...

Oh my God, Dungeons & Dragons the Movie is on right now on Channel Five...

clarkvalentine
2007-02-25, 12:16 PM
Why is Power Attack itself not considered broken, given that it effectively renders any style of fighting other than THF seriously gimped?

Is it just that it's the only thing that keeps melee combatants to be not completely outclassed at higher levels?

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-02-25, 12:19 PM
Mostly just because magic will always beat THF power attacking. There's no point in depowering anything any melee class does. Rather, it makes more sense to do nothing but beef them all up at the same time.

Matthew
2007-02-25, 12:20 PM
Two Handed Power Attack is considered broken, but compared to magic it just doesn't matter. That's why there are so many threads discussing what to do about One Handed Weapon and Two Weapon Fighting.

Now back to my film... arghh my eyes

clarkvalentine
2007-02-25, 12:22 PM
Two Handed Power Attack is considered broken. That's why there are so many threads discussing what to do about One Handed Weapon and Two Weapon Fighting.


Oh, I've read those threads. :smallwink: What's surprising to me is that nobody ever talks about nerfing two-handed Power Attack.

I guess it's probably what I suggested and Viscount E. confirmed - it's because it's the only way melee guys can hope to stay in the same league as casters at high levels.

Matthew
2007-02-25, 12:23 PM
Heh, yes indeed. My edit agrees with you.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-25, 12:40 PM
Masters of the Universe is a great film, but I don't recall the scenes or character you have in mind. I will keep an eye out for him next time I happen to be watching. A lot depends on defining a "Bastard Sword", of course.
Indeed.

I'm not exactly one of the resident weapon experts, but I really have a hard time believing the swords that character uses could be wielded with one hand (at all) if they were any bigger. That suggests to me that they fit the D&D requirements of Bastard Sword.

CASTLEMIKE
2007-03-11, 04:20 PM
No, that is a half-elf. With Skill Focus on Diplomacy and Negotiator. As well as three Age Categories and a Cha boost on top of a Cha of 18. And the Synergy bonuses from Bluff, Sense Motive and Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty.

That should result in a character with a Diplomacy modifier of 25, which happens to be the DC of turning a Hostile NPC to Indifferent. No roll required.

I have yet to figure out how to get a surefire way to succeed in making the Diplomacy check as a standard action before level 12, without the use of magic items.


Don't forget the UA half elf paragon gets Persuasion at level 2 making Diplomacy go to +3 and a +2 to Charisma at level 3 which could give you another +1 to your check for an additional +2 total to Diplomacy checks.

bosssmiley
2007-03-11, 04:46 PM
Broken rules? Okay, how about the Pseudonatural Template from Epic Handbook?

HDx5 in Spell resistance. Plus other stuff.

The ELH is so broken (...poor edited, full of unbalanced systems, kludgy and inelegant mechanics, rush-job cr*p monsters and magic items, etc.) that it's not even funny. There *are* the rudiments of a fine 'high power' gaming engine under all that tosh...somewhere. :smallfrown:

Minis Handbook is supposed to be a bad offender for brokenness. :smallconfused:
Two-handed PA is fine. Dance of a Thousand Cuts (the Dervish capstone ability from CW) is broken filth (especially if you give it to a Marilith)!

JaronK
2007-03-11, 05:14 PM
Minis handbook is perfectly balanced... except the items. The items are a bit much. But seriously, the Marshal isn't exactly uber, nor is the Healer. Not by a long shot. The War Hulk makes for a pretty cool melee fighter, but he's still no caster (though he's one of the few pre-ToB melee classes that can really dish it out).

JaronK

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-11, 05:51 PM
Dance of a Thousand Cuts (the Dervish capstone ability from CW) is broken filth (especially if you give it to a Marilith)!

Oh no! Once/day, a melee guy can do double his usual damage (assuming he has the movement speed to take that many attacks)!

Wait, how is that broken?

crazedloon
2007-03-11, 06:21 PM
Oh no! Once/day, a melee guy can do double his usual damage (assuming he has the movement speed to take that many attacks)!

Wait, how is that broken?

well bear come on (its not awsome) however read the rule at least you can use it without using the dance :smallwink:

Flawless
2007-03-11, 07:23 PM
Why is OTWF inferior to two-handed weapons? PA works exactly the same for both and damage boni from weapon spec. and melee mastery are added twice at the cost of -2 on attack rolls. And that you can counter by using PA with 2 points less.
The problem with TWF is that you have to spent one million feats to use it effectively. With leap attack and shock trooper it's even more effective than using a two-handed weapon.

bosssmiley
2007-03-11, 07:53 PM
Oh no! Once/day, a melee guy can do double his usual damage (assuming he has the movement speed to take that many attacks)!

Wait, how is that broken?

"Hi, I'm a capstone ability that duplicates the entire two-weapon fighting feat tree (including the epic feat) in one."
All of a sudden the character goes from 8 to 12 attacks/rnd when using 2 weapons. 50% more attacks (and opportunities for crits) in a round. Just seems too much...to the point of risibility.

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-11, 08:09 PM
"Hi, I'm a capstone ability that duplicates the entire two-weapon fighting feat tree (including the epic feat) in one."
All of a sudden the character goes from 8 to 12 attacks/rnd when using 2 weapons. 50% more attacks (and opportunities for crits) in a round. Just seems too much...to the point of risibility.

From 8 to 15, actually... when using the Thousand Cuts ability. Which is one encounter per day. Um, oh noes?

It makes the Dervish a mobile, high-damage melee guy. That's the reason Dervish is one of the few good melee PrCs.
What, exactly, is wrong with that? How does it damage the game?

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-03-11, 08:25 PM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Divine Metamagic: Persist, yet...

Divine Metamagic... basically start blowing turn attempts to reduce the spell level of a metamagic'd spell down to pre-metamagic'd level, at a cost of one turn attempt per spell level. So you DMM Persistant Spell (which turns any self-only spell into a duration of 24 hours) Divine Power, which gives you the BAB (including iterative attacks) of a Fighter, two extra hit points per level (again, like a fighter), and retains all spellcasting ability. Who needs a fighter? I'm a Cleric, with all the advantages, plus all the healing and nuking and save-or-die, and save-or-suck, and everything else.

Druids. Yes, the base class. Why bother being a Fighter when I can Shapeshift into a Dire Bear for more reach, more strength, more damage, more AC, and in general... just better. Oh, and with a single feat (Natural Spell), I can do all this PLUS cast everything I normally can. Planar Shepherd is just... insanely broken. I choose Fire. Now I turn into an Effrit and give my party 3 wishes every day. That's, unfortunately, not even the most broken aspect of the class.

OTWF is *NOT* broken. It turns a -4 penalty into a -2 penalty. Whoop-te-doo. You're negating an effective -2 penalty. Considering any TWF build is going to have an insane Dex, with Finessable weapons, and likely other means of adding to your attack roll... two points one way or the other is only a drop in the bucket. Heck, your iterative attacks each get a -5 penalty, which continues to stack upon itself. That's a much nastier problem.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-03-11, 08:51 PM
OTWF is *NOT* broken. It turns a -4 penalty into a -2 penalty. Whoop-te-doo. You're negating an effective -2 penalty. Considering any TWF build is going to have an insane Dex, with Finessable weapons, and likely other means of adding to your attack roll...
Note that Weapon Finesse wouldn't help with Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting unless you're using two rapiers, two whips, a rapier and a whip, or some other combination utilizing some non-core finessable One-Handed weapon. Unfortunately, neither the rapier nor the whip are optimal for the whole Oversized Two Weapon Fighting thing. After all, the point of OTWF is to make it easier to wield high damage weapons.

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-03-11, 09:01 PM
Note that Weapon Finesse wouldn't help with Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting unless you're using two rapiers, two whips, a rapier and a whip, or some other combination utilizing some non-core finessable One-Handed weapon. Unfortunately, neither the rapier nor the whip are optimal for the whole Oversized Two Weapon Fighting thing. After all, the point of OTWF is to make it easier to wield high damage weapons.

Paired Rapiers is the general use for OTWF. TWF with Bastard Swords or Waraxes isn't as good as it may first seem. D10... wow. That's an average of a whole SINGLE point of damage more than paired Longswords, and a whole TWO points on average (le gasp!) more than a rapier. Consider that a Rapier crits on an 18-20, with Improved Critical that makes it on a 16+, which is a 20% chance of a threat. However, when you crank in AC vs attack, the actual percentage of critical hits vs regular hits goes up even further, as many of those rolls wouldn't generate a hit anyways. You get to double all modifiers to damage (including strength modifiers) as well as base damage, generating much more average damage than the extra two points average damage that duo-wielding Waraxes would generate.

ken-do-nim
2007-03-11, 09:02 PM
I recommend separating out this thread into:
- broken classes thread (but oh, please don't)
- broken feats (this would be interesting)
- broken spells (which we've had before)
- broken items (which would also be interesting)

The funny thing about all this broken talk is that in my actual gaming experience, I haven't witnessed too much of it. The only character I recall who really couldn't contribute was a pixie cleric/fighter/rogue, but that's what happen when you multiclass too much.

Now the big test is that the DM in our party has awarded the 14th (almost 15th) level paladin a gold dragon mount. I'm not saying a word, I'm just going to let the chips fall where they may, but I think our campaign will be broken in a big way.

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-11, 09:05 PM
Considering that an ECL 12 Paladin needs to spend a feat on Dragon Mount, and give it some gold and stuff, to get a gold wyrmling for a Special Mount? Yes. Yes, your campaign will be broken.

ken-do-nim
2007-03-11, 09:11 PM
Considering that an ECL 12 Paladin needs to spend a feat on Dragon Mount, and give it some gold and stuff, to get a gold wyrmling for a Special Mount? Yes. Yes, your campaign will be broken.

Yup. My reputation in the group is the rules lawyer though, and I'm making a concerted attempt to shake that. In between game sessions I've been writing a lot of prose about what's happening to my character (with the DM allowing me a little creativity in that regard) and I'm just trying to shore up my role-playing side. I want everyone else to figure out that this breaks the game, and me go "What? Oh it did? I was too busy enjoying the game to notice." I figure if I point out to the DM what you wrote above, he and the others will say I'm too much of a rules stickler. I get enough of that already.

Yahzi
2007-03-11, 09:57 PM
I figure if I point out to the DM what you wrote above, he and the others will say I'm too much of a rules stickler. I get enough of that already.
You get busted for pointing out that the deal you received was unfair to everyone else?

Wow. Just... wow.

:smallbiggrin:

For the record, I would think you were fantastic for pointing it out.

:smallsmile:

Morty
2007-03-12, 06:00 AM
It's one spell, not rule, but anyway: Wind Wall. 3rd level spell that grants me totall immunity against archers? Yeah. Sure, it's immobile, but still too powerful.

Greendevilman
2007-03-12, 06:10 AM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Divine Metamagic: Persist, yet...

Divine Metamagic... basically start blowing turn attempts to reduce the spell level of a metamagic'd spell down to pre-metamagic'd level, at a cost of one turn attempt per spell level. So you DMM Persistant Spell (which turns any self-only spell into a duration of 24 hours) Divine Power, which gives you the BAB (including iterative attacks) of a Fighter, two extra hit points per level (again, like a fighter), and retains all spellcasting ability. Who needs a fighter? I'm a Cleric, with all the advantages, plus all the healing and nuking and save-or-die, and save-or-suck, and everything else.


Because DMM: Persist isn't actually totally broken until you add nightsticks? Its amazingly *good* and sure trashes a lot of what melee classes do, but base Cleric does that anyway. It just sometimes takes him a round at the start of combat if he doesn't feel like doing something more effective. Its a pretty hefty feat and ability investment to get maybe 1-2 spells persisted all day long (since each spell costs 7 turn attempts), which saves the Cleric a bunch of potential time and some spell slots, but since it really takes a minimum of 4 feats to get up and running, deprives the Cleric of pretty much all turning capacity (which can be a big deal or totally insignificant) and is still vulnerable to dispells, it is not without its downsides and arguably doesn't provide the Cleric with benefits any better than Wildshape for a good chunk of his career. Not saying it still isn't a fantastic feat chain (one of the strongest in the game, especially since all the parts of it are useful in an of themselves), and well worth taking for any Cleric who can get away with it but until you start adding in the turning attempts/day for about 1750gp a pop it doesn't become totally gamebreaking. But when you do.... yeesh!

This doesn't change the fact that Clerics are still amazingly powerful and totally crush melee classes on their own merits.



Druids. Yes, the base class. Why bother being a Fighter when I can Shapeshift into a Dire Bear for more reach, more strength, more damage, more AC, and in general... just better. Oh, and with a single feat (Natural Spell), I can do all this PLUS cast everything I normally can. Planar Shepherd is just... insanely broken. I choose Fire. Now I turn into an Effrit and give my party 3 wishes every day. That's, unfortunately, not even the most broken aspect of the class.


Hey if we're bringing PrCs into this then every full caster is about equally broken. Wizards can do the infinite wish trick by level 12 or so using core only and PrCs like the Dweomerkeeper break the everliving hell out of both divine and arcane casters. I believe Clerics can use Planar Ally to achieve the same wish results. Not saying druid isn't rediculously powerful/broken, but pointing out wish cheese available with a PrC that almost every other core casting class can do with core only is a bit of a bum rap. Plus blaming a core class for one of its PrCs strikes me as unfair. Still doesn't change the fact that Druids are a good full caster who trounces the fighter at their own game. And especially in terms of class balance within core-only Druids are broken with a capital B.

I agree with your fundamental assesment that the OP is a fool for considering OTWF overpowered in any way. But its a fundamental D&D principle that melee classes don't get to have nice things. This is why so many people treat ToB like the heretical work that it is. :smallwink:

ken-do-nim
2007-03-12, 12:03 PM
You get busted for pointing out that the deal you received was unfair to everyone else?

Wow. Just... wow.

:smallbiggrin:


Well it's not quite a deal I received; it's a deal the paladin received. It theoretically has nothing to do with me. I think our DM has to learn the hard way.

And for the record, getting back to some of the other discussions on this thread, my opinion is:
Power attack is not broken; you trade accuracy for damage.
Shock trooper is not broken; you leave yourself vulnerable.
Leap attack is not broken; you do some extra damage on a charge.

One feat I think is broken is elusive target, the 2nd option. Imagine a 6th level character with elusive target flanked by 2 gods. If one of the gods is chosen as a dodge opponent, he will miss, and he will have to roll to hit against his fellow god. You see what I mean? It just says the dodge opponent automatically misses on their first attack, with no consideration for that opponent's skill level. Edit: there's also the reach factor. Say you are flanked by a rogue with a rapier and an enlarged fighter with a longspear. The fighter is 20 feet away. If you declare the rogue as your dodge opponent, he will miss you on his first attack and hit the fighter for a sneak attack. How exactly does he reach the fighter???

Another feat I have problems with is arcane mastery. Taking 10 on spell penetration and dispel magic is an awfully powerful ability. Most monsters you face that are appropriate for your CR have spell resistance equal to your current level + 12. So if you take spell penetration and arcane mastery, you are pretty much guaranteed to effect most foes every round. The dispel magic is especially scary. If you know (perhaps through arcane sight) that your opponent is a caster level or more lower than you, you just take 10 and wipe out every active spell they have.

Justin_Bacon
2007-03-12, 01:48 PM
Complete adventurer; Oversized two-weapon fighting: Allowing a level one fighter to dual-wield dwarven waraxes at a mere -2 penalty to hit with each. Brilliant.

I don't see the problem. The same character could spend a single feat and wield an orc double-axe (1d8/1d8, same crit, same price) in the same fashion. So for an extra feat he's basically getting a +2 bonus to his average damage.

That doesn't seem particularly out of whack to me.


Can't remember which book; Ghostefaced killer: Had a death attack. Even if you succeded your save you and I believe anyone in a 10ft radius were shaken. It was only a lvl 7 class ability as well.

This is also Complete Adventurer. And, again, I don't see the problem. You need to be at least 8th level to have the ability, you have to take a penalty to your attack of at least -1 in order to make the attack, and is limited to one use per day.

Compare and contrast to the assassin's death attack, available at 6th level, and usable more times per day.

Both abilities have a variety of other requirements and effects (death attack is more flexible; frightening attack can effect more than just the target) -- making a direct comparison open to debate -- but it doesn't seem that whacky to me.

Consider than an 8th level spellcaster can cast phantasmal killer and enervation.


No, that is a half-elf. With Skill Focus on Diplomacy and Negotiator. As well as three Age Categories and a Cha boost on top of a Cha of 18. And the Synergy bonuses from Bluff, Sense Motive and Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty. That should result in a character with a Diplomacy modifier of 25, which happens to be the DC of turning a Hostile NPC to Indifferent. No roll required.

In most cases, however, Diplomacy can be attempted with a take 10. But, yes, to get the full-fledged glory of automatically turning any opponent into a friend in less than six seconds flat even as they're swinging a sword at your head, you don't have to be any higher than 12th level.

Most busted rule in the core rulebooks. No question about it.


A half-elf can do it even faster... particularly with the diplomacy skill focus feat. It's hilarious stuff. The Giant's variant approach is far more detailed, and can be troublesome to learn; However, I do think it works much better than the regular Diplomacy skill.

The nice thing about this approach is that it doesn't require a chart look-up: All you've got to remember is that the die roll is modified by how much they trust you and how good a deal you're offering. Like any other skill, you can either look those modifiers up to get a relatively precise value or you can just make a call from the gut for what feels like the right ballpark figure.

The only problem with Rich's take on the rule is that, by adding the target's HD and Wisdom bonus to the equation, you end up with nonsensical results: You walk up to Zeus and offer him a goat as a sacrifice. Zeus turns you down because he's "too powerful" to accept a sacrifice from someone of such a low level. You offer the local noble a powerful artifact you found in the nearby dungeon with no strings attached, and he turns you down because he's "too wise" to accept gifts from someone of such a low level.

Goofy stuff.

Here's how I've reworked the rule to fix this problem:



Diplomacy
Persuasion: You can propose a trade or agreement to another creature with your words; a Diplomacy check can then persuade them that accepting it is a good idea. Either side of the deal may involve physical goods, money, services, promises, or abstract concepts like "satisfaction." The DC for the Diplomacy check is based on three factors: who the target is, the relationship between the target and the character making the check, and the risk vs. reward factor of the deal proposed.


Check: The base DC for a persuasion check is 15, modified by your relationship with the character you’re trying to convince and the risk vs. reward factor of the deal being proposed.


Target’s Check: The character you’re trying to convince makes a Sense Motive check (DC 20). If the check succeeds, double the bonus or penalty provided by the risk vs. reward factor. A failure on this check has no effect. You can choose to oppose the target’s Sense Motive check with a Bluff check, in which case the bonus or penalty is only doubled if their check result both succeeds (against DC 20) and exceeds your Bluff check. (Obviously, you would only want to make a Bluff check if you’re proposing a bad deal.)

Success or Failure: If the Diplomacy check beats the DC, the subject accepts the proposal, with no changes or with minor (mostly idiosyncratic) changes. If the check fails by 5 or less, the subject does not accept the deal but may, at the DM's option, present a counter-offer that would push the deal up one place on the risk-vs.-reward list. For example, a counter-offer might make an Even deal Favorable for the subject. The character who made the Diplomacy check can simply accept the counter-offer, if they choose; no further check will be required. If the check fails by 10 or more, the Diplomacy is over; the subject will entertain no further deals, and may become hostile or take other steps to end the conversation.


It should be noted that, just because a deal has been accepted, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the other character is happy about it. If you use your relationship to take advantage of someone, it may affect their future relationship with you (at the DM’s discretion).


Action: Making a request or proposing a deal generally requires at least 1 full minute. In many situations, this time requirement may greatly increase.



Try Again:If you alter the parameters of the deal you are proposing, you may try to convince the subject that this new deal is even better than the last one. This is essentially how people haggle. As long as you never roll 10 or less than the DC on your Diplomacy check, you can continue to offer deals.

DC Relationship (Example)
-15 Intimate (someone who with whom you have an implicit trust; a lover or spouse)
-10 Friend (someone with whom you have a regularly positive personal relationship; a long-time buddy or sibling)
-5 Ally (someone on the same team, but with whom you have no personal relationship; a cleric of the same religion or a knight serving the same king)
-2 Acquaintance – Positive (someone you’ve met several times with no particularly negative experiences; the blacksmith that buys your looted equipment regularly)
+0 Just met (no relationship whatsoever)
+2 Acquaintance – Negative (someone you’ve met several times with no particularly positive experiences; the town guard that has arrested you for drunkenness once or twice)
+5 Enemy (someone on an opposed team with whom you have no personal relationship; a cleric of an opposed religion or the orc bandit robbing you)
+10 Personal Foe (someone with whom you have a regularly antagonistic personal relationship; an evil overlord you’re trying to thwart or a bounty hunter sworn to track you down)
+15 Nemesis (someone who has sworn to do you, personally, harm; the brother of a man you murdered in cold blood)

DC Risk vs. Reward Judgment (Example)
-15 Fantastic (The reward for accepting the deal is very worthwhile; the risk is either acceptable or extremely unlikely. The best-case scenario is a virtual guarantee. Example: An offer to pay a lot of gold for information that isn’t important to the character.)
-10 Good (The reward is good and the risk is minimal. The subject is very likely to profit from the deal. Example: An offer to pay someone twice their normal daily wage to spend their evening in a seedy tavern with a reputation for vicious brawls and later report on everyone they saw there.)
-5 Favorable (The reward is appealing, but there’s risk involved. If all goes according to plan, though, the deal will end up benefiting the subject. Example: A request for a mercenary to aid the party in battle against a weak goblin tribe in return for a cut of the money and first pick of the magic items.)
+0 Even (The reward and risk more or less even out; or the deal involves neither reward nor risk. Example: A request for directions to someplace that isn’t a secret.)
+5 Unfavorable (The reward is not enough compared to the risk involved. Even if all goes according to plan, chances are it will end badly for the subject. Example: A request to free a prisoner the target is guarding in return for a small amount of money.)
+10 Bad (The reward is poor and the risk is high. The subject is very likely to get the raw end of the deal. Example: A request for a mercenary to aid the party in battle against an ancient red dragon for a small cut of any non-magical treasure.)
+15 Horrible (There is no conceivable way the proposed plan could end up with the subject ahead or the worst-case scenario is guaranteed to occur. Example: An offer to trade a rusty kitchen knife for a shiny new longsword.)

Convince: You make a Diplomacy check (DC 15) if you want to convince someone of something that you believe. (If you’re trying to convince them of a lie, it’s a Bluff check.) This DC is adjusted by the relationship between you and the person you’re trying to convince, just like a persuasion check.


Target’s Check: The character you’re trying to convince makes a Sense Motive check (DC 10). If the check succeeds, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus to your Diplomacy check (they sense your honesty). This works just like the Aid Another action, so you gain an additional +1 bonus for every 10 points that their check exceeds DC 10.


Success or Failure: If your check succeeds, the other character believes what you’re telling them. (Or at least believes that you believe it to be true.) Of course, what they choose to do with that information depends on the character.

Haggling: If you’re haggling, you can make an opposed Diplomacy check to get a better price.

Merchant’s Check: The character selling the item makes a Diplomacy check to set the DC of the buyer’s check.

Relationship: As with a persuasion check, the DC of the buyer’s check is adjusted by the relationship they have with the merchant.

Buyer’s Check: The buyer’s check is compared to the DC set by the merchant’s check, with the result determining whether the haggling was favorable or unfavorable to the buyer. (It should be noted that these results match the Risk vs. Reward scale used for persuasion checks.)

Check Result Price Adjustment (Risk vs. Reward for Merchant)
DC - 15 +30% (Fantastic)
DC - 12 +25%
DC - 10 +20% (Good)
DC - 7 +15%
DC - 5 +10% (Favorable)
DC - 2 +5%
+0% (Even)
DC + 2 -5%
DC + 5 -10% (Unfavorable)
DC + 7 -15%
DC + 10 -20% (Bad)
DC + 12 -25%
DC + 15 -30% (Horrible)

In general, merchants won’t haggle more than 30% above or 30% below the normal price of an item.


As with any Diplomacy check, the actions of a PC should not be dictated by the check result – if they’re unhappy with the result, they should be allowed to walk away from the sale. NPCs, on the other hand, should generally follow-through on a check result.

Retry: No, although the PCs could haggle over the price of a different item or haggle with a different character for a similar item. A haggling check represents the entire negotiating process between buyer and seller; the result is the best price the PCs are going to get from that buyer or seller.


Overcome Intransigence: Some characters simply won’t listen to any attempts at negotiation or deal-making. To overcome their intransigence, you can make a Diplomacy check with a DC of 15 + the subject’s HD + the subject’s Wisdom modifier + the subject’s relationship modifier. If the check succeeds, you can then make a Diplomacy check as normal.

Charm Spells: A charmed creature is treated as having a Friendly relationship to the caster (-10 to Diplomacy DC), which replaces any previous relationship modifier. Thus, by charming an enemy, the DC drops from +5 to -10, a decrease of 15. The caster can now talk the creature into anything this improved relationship allows.


Because the effect is based on the spell, the caster can make a Spellcraft check in place of a Diplomacy check when dealing with charmed creatures.

kamikasei
2007-03-12, 02:14 PM
The only problem with Rich's take on the rule is that, by adding the target's HD and Wisdom bonus to the equation, you end up with nonsensical results: You walk up to Zeus and offer him a goat as a sacrifice. Zeus turns you down because he's "too powerful" to accept a sacrifice from someone of such a low level. You offer the local noble a powerful artifact you found in the nearby dungeon with no strings attached, and he turns you down because he's "too wise" to accept gifts from someone of such a low level.

...Huh?

Rich's Diplomacy remix is explicitly about persuading people to accept deals: I give you this, and you give me that in exchange. It doesn't extend to simply giving without asking for anything in return. It shouldn't be made to. Why is there a roll involved at all in offering someone a gift?

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-03-12, 02:19 PM
Let alone it's intended to be convincing someone to take something. If it's something they already want at the price they want it for (free for gifts), then they're already convinced. No roll necessary.

Otherwise, it's like trying to roll a quick mount Ride check when you're already in the saddle.

Justin_Bacon
2007-03-12, 11:13 PM
Rich's Diplomacy remix is explicitly about persuading people to accept deals: I give you this, and you give me that in exchange. It doesn't extend to simply giving without asking for anything in return. It shouldn't be made to. Why is there a roll involved at all in offering someone a gift?

The point is that there is no deal, under any circumstances (no matter how beneficial), that the high-HD or high-Wisdom character will accept. That fails the "does it make sense?" test, and reveals that the rule is broken.

Imagine if the Climb skill was like that: "Well, you see, that wall is too easy, so don't bother rolling the dice... because if you rolled the dice, you'd automatically fail."

See? Doesn't make any sense.


Let alone it's intended to be convincing someone to take something. If it's something they already want at the price they want it for (free for gifts), then they're already convinced. No roll necessary.

Saying "the rule is busted, so don't bother making a roll" doesn't mean that the rule isn't busted: It just means you're ignoring a busted rule.

Of course, some people like playing with busted rules. So, more power to you if that's your preference.

Zincorium
2007-03-12, 11:48 PM
The point is that there is no deal, under any circumstances (no matter how beneficial), that the high-HD or high-Wisdom character will accept. That fails the "does it make sense?" test, and reveals that the rule is broken.


...Unless it's a really good deal, and Rich did put something in there to counter that sort of thing. And this isn't someone looking for a deal, this is just some person that you've decided to convince to do something. How often has someone on an infomercial or whatever offered you a really, really good sounding deal that you just didn't feel like taking them up on?

With the DC as 5 (15 -10 for it being a good deal)+ level + wisdom modifier, unless the person is really grounded in reality (high wisdom) or thinks you're not worth their time (high level), It's almost child's play to make that check, and most people who put ranks into diplomacy can take ten on it. It's only when it's a bad deal or the opposed person's level and wisdom modifier are much, much higher than yours that it even becomes an issue.



Imagine if the Climb skill was like that: "Well, you see, that wall is too easy, so don't bother rolling the dice... because if you rolled the dice, you'd automatically fail."

See? Doesn't make any sense.


Because you don't make any sense. If the DC of the wall is around 10, unless you have a negative modifier or are in a hurry you should just take 10 and get it over with. That's the DC of the check to convince a level 2 cleric with a 16 wisdom to accept a gift under Rich's rules.



Saying "the rule is busted, so don't bother making a roll" doesn't mean that the rule isn't busted: It just means you're ignoring a busted rule.

Of course, some people like playing with busted rules. So, more power to you if that's your preference.

Right.

Justin_Bacon
2007-03-13, 12:14 AM
Because you don't make any sense. If the DC of the wall is around 10, unless you have a negative modifier or are in a hurry you should just take 10 and get it over with. That's the DC of the check to convince a level 2 cleric with a 16 wisdom to accept a gift under Rich's rules.

:smallconfused:

Yeah, it's amazing how a problem that only becomes completely unworkable with high-HD characters doesn't have as big an effect when making the check with a 2 HD character.

Let's get back to the point: The more skilled and wise a character is, the less likely they are to accept a really good deal.

This only becomes ridiculous with high-HD characters, but you can see the same effect even with your 2 HD example:

Character #1 has a Wisdom of 5. This would seem to indicate that he's not a very wise person and often makes decisions which are probably not in his best interest. You walk up to him and make him a really good deal. The DC of the check is 15 - 10 (good deal) + 2 (HD) - 3 (Wisdom) = 4.

Even this moron can see what a great deal this is! It's a piece of cake to convince him!

Character #2 has a Wisdom of 20. This would seem to indicate that he's a very wise person and often makes very good decisions. You walk up to him and offer him the same very good deal. The DC of the check is 15 - 10 (good deal) + 2 (HD) + 5 (Wisdom) = 12.

So the guy who makes better decisions, is more insightful, and probably even has a higher Sense Motive check (and thus is more sure that I'm telling the truth) has a tougher time figuring out that this is a really great deal?

And he's even LESS likely to realize it's a really good deal if he slips on a periapt of wisdom before making his decision?

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. And you can argue that a DC 12 check is "still pretty easy", but at that point you're missing the forest for the trees:

The rule doesn't make sense.

And it's never going to make sense as long as you allow a character's power (HD) and insight (Wisdom) to make it more difficult for them to accept a good deal.

OTOH, Rich's insight of using HD to make sure that the DCs of Diplomacy checks didn't eventually allow for an auto-success situation was a good one. You've just got to move it to a different part of the action resolution, which is one of a couple small changes I made in order to fix the rule.

Zincorium
2007-03-13, 12:38 AM
:smallconfused:

Yeah, it's amazing how a problem that only becomes completely unworkable with high-HD characters doesn't have as big an effect when making the check with a 2 HD character.

Let's get back to the point: The more skilled and wise a character is, the less likely they are to accept a really good deal.

*sighs* I'll get into this later on. Simply put, you're not using diplomacy in the way it was intended.



This only becomes ridiculous with high-HD characters
Which, in the standard settings, are very rare to just have walking around. Of course, you may well play differently, but you playing differently is not a proof that Rich is wrong, only a proof that maybe you should alter those rules to reflect the difference from the standard concept of societal makeup.



, but you can see the same effect even with your 2 HD example:

Character #1 has a Wisdom of 5. This would seem to indicate that he's not a very wise person and often makes decisions which are probably not in his best interest. You walk up to him and make him a really good deal. The DC of the check is 15 - 10 (good deal) + 2 (HD) - 3 (Wisdom) = 4.

Even this moron can see what a great deal this is! It's a piece of cake to convince him!

Character #2 has a Wisdom of 20. This would seem to indicate that he's a very wise person and often makes very good decisions. You walk up to him and offer him the same very good deal. The DC of the check is 15 - 10 (good deal) + 2 (HD) + 5 (Wisdom) = 12.
He's superhumanly wise. And you can still convince him with a first level barbarian with a 10 charisma and 2 ranks in diplomacy, just by taking 10. Nevermind someone who actually works on doing this kind of thing.



So the guy who makes better decisions, is more insightful, and probably even has a higher Sense Motive check (and thus is more sure that I'm telling the truth) has a tougher time figuring out that this is a really great deal?
He KNOWS it's a good deal. That's why the modifier is there. The question is, can you get him to actually spend the time and take you up on it? The check is only if you are trying to get someone to do something they don't want to do. If he doesn't want to enter into the free drawing for a convertible, he's got the presence of mind to resist your sales pitch. If he does want to do it, no check needs to be made, they're simply making the decision without your use of diplomacy.



And he's even LESS likely to realize it's a really good deal if he slips on a periapt of wisdom before making his decision?
Again, no. If he didn't realize it was a good deal, you wouldn't be getting a -10 modifier to the DC. Remember, the -10 is for the perception that it's a good deal. If he thinks it's a bad deal, you're going to be taking a penalty on the check even if it's actually good. Risk vs. Reward Judgement.



I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. And you can argue that a DC 12 check is "still pretty easy", but at that point you're missing the forest for the trees:

The rule doesn't make sense.
Your interpretation of the rule doesn't make sense, because you're confusing the persuasion of someone that something is a good idea (which is BLUFF, not diplomacy) with convincing them to take you up on it even when they specifically do not feel like doing so.



And it's never going to make sense as long as you allow a character's power (HD) and insight (Wisdom) to make it more difficult for them to accept a good deal.
It's not difficult for them to accept a good deal. It's difficult to change their minds about taking you up on it despite not wanting to be bothered.



OTOH, Rich's insight of using HD to make sure that the DCs of Diplomacy checks didn't eventually allow for an auto-success situation was a good one. You've just got to move it to a different part of the action resolution, which is one of a couple small changes I made in order to fix the rule.If you don't understand the rule, then yes, you're going to want to fix it. If you do understand it, it's pretty good.

Justin_Bacon
2007-03-13, 01:53 PM
Which, in the standard settings, are very rare to just have walking around. Of course, you may well play differently, but you playing differently is not a proof that Rich is wrong, only a proof that maybe you should alter those rules to reflect the difference from the standard concept of societal makeup.

Since one of the explicit reasons Rich felt the standard Diplomacy rules needed to be revised was to handle the discrepancy between low-level and high-level targets, your claim here is prima facie absurd. Don't use the rules Rich wrote to handle the situation Rich specifically wrote them to handle? That dog doesn't hunt.

(See point #2 under "Surveying the Rule" in the original essay.)


He's superhumanly wise. And you can still convince him with a first level barbarian with a 10 charisma and 2 ranks in diplomacy, just by taking 10. Nevermind someone who actually works on doing this kind of thing.

It's less impressive when I tell you that you're going to make a logically fallacious argument, explain why it's logically fallacious, and then you go ahead and make it anyway.

The problem, as I've already pointed out, is that this superhumanly wise character is LESS CAPABLE of making a good decision than a complete dolt. It doesn't matter if you argue that, for such-and-such a character it can still be easy to convince the superhumanly wise character, the problem is that the superhumanly wise character is being modeled as LESS WISE.


Your interpretation of the rule doesn't make sense, because you're confusing the persuasion of someone that something is a good idea (which is BLUFF, not diplomacy) with convincing them to take you up on it even when they specifically do not feel like doing so.

If we were talking about Bluff, then we'd be talking about Bluff. Try to keep on topic.


It's not difficult for them to accept a good deal. It's difficult to change their minds about taking you up on it despite not wanting to be bothered.

But patching an illogical system by leaving it up to the DM to determine when a check was going to be allowed was yet another of the reasons that Rich cited for wanting to modify the rule. (See #3 under "Surveying the Rules".)

So, yet again, you're arguing that I shouldn't be using the rule for precisely the use that Rich designed the rule for. This doesn't make for a good argument.


If you don't understand the rule, then yes, you're going to want to fix it. If you do understand it, it's pretty good.

Is the ad hominem really necessary?

I'm sure you'll reply again and tell me that I shouldn't be using the Diplomacy skill to determine whether or not an NPC decides to accept a deal proposed to them by a PC.

And I'll just quote Rich: "In my new system, Diplomacy will be defined as, "Getting people to accept a deal you propose to them.""

Then I'll shake my head sadly at your baseless argument and pointless personal attacks.

Mike_G
2007-03-13, 02:20 PM
The problem, as I've already pointed out, is that this superhumanly wise character is LESS CAPABLE of making a good decision than a complete dolt. It doesn't matter if you argue that, for such-and-such a character it can still be easy to convince the superhumanly wise character, the problem is that the superhumanly wise character is being modeled as LESS WISE.



No.

The wise character is less prone to influence of a Diplomacy check. He can certainly recognise a good deal, and accept a good deal by DM fiat. Diplomacy is an attempt to change his attitude by the PC.

Low Wisdom targets are easier to convince, high Wisdom targets are more likely to be skeptical of your sales pitch, and look for hidden agendas from the diplomat.

Diplomacy is there to get people to be helpful to you who would not normally be. Not to get people to accepet a good deal with no risk. Surley the more the reward and less the risk, the easier convincing them will be, but Diplomacy assumes a person would not help you without such a check.

If you are just offering to sell a magic item at half price, you don't need a Diplomacy check.

ThunderEagle
2007-03-13, 02:56 PM
And by that rule, if the check fails the person you are offering the deal to changes it in their interest. They just ask you for a bigger gift, and you can reject that offer or go through with it. I don't think its broken at all.

Zincorium
2007-03-13, 04:30 PM
Since one of the explicit reasons Rich felt the standard Diplomacy rules needed to be revised was to handle the discrepancy between low-level and high-level targets, your claim here is prima facie absurd. Don't use the rules Rich wrote to handle the situation Rich specifically wrote them to handle? That dog doesn't hunt.

(See point #2 under "Surveying the Rule" in the original essay.)



It's less impressive when I tell you that you're going to make a logically fallacious argument, explain why it's logically fallacious, and then you go ahead and make it anyway.

The problem, as I've already pointed out, is that this superhumanly wise character is LESS CAPABLE of making a good decision than a complete dolt. It doesn't matter if you argue that, for such-and-such a character it can still be easy to convince the superhumanly wise character, the problem is that the superhumanly wise character is being modeled as LESS WISE.


No, and you're still ignoring the entire point of what I said. The -10 to the DC is them recognizing that it is a good deal. Right? That's how it's written. You're making the check at all because this very wise person has no interest in the deal you're making, despite it being good. They are less likely to be convinced to do something they don't want to do, because they are wise. How is that odd?



If we were talking about Bluff, then we'd be talking about Bluff. Try to keep on topic.
That was my point, but you missed it. Getting someone to think something is, in fact, a good deal, is NOT diplomacy. But you're using the diplomacy skill for it. STOP.



But patching an illogical system by leaving it up to the DM to determine when a check was going to be allowed was yet another of the reasons that Rich cited for wanting to modify the rule. (See #3 under "Surveying the Rules".)
Wha? 'Allowed' and 'needed' are not the same thing, nor ever have been. You don't make a check, because this is diplomacy we're talking about, and diplomacy only comes into play when you are trying to influence someone. If someone actually wants what you have, they're going to attempt to buy it, you don't need a sales pitch going. You shouldn't be making a diplomacy check. On the other hand, if they're plainly not interested, you would have to. If they're self-assured and confident, like a high level, high wisdom character would be, they may just ignore you if you're not lucky, and just continue about your business.



So, yet again, you're arguing that I shouldn't be using the rule for precisely the use that Rich designed the rule for. This doesn't make for a good argument.
Rich designed it so it would be much harder to convince higher level characters of things they don't believe. It still works that way, very well, the problem is you're so narrowly focused on what you believe to be a problem, which isn't one, that you are missing the forest for the trees. Merchants do not have to deal with a 99% high level customer base, so they don't need a high level of diplomacy to convince the average person that they really, really do need this vase or whatever. It works.



Is the ad hominem really necessary?
It was an observation. YOU, Justin Bacon specifically, in my view appear to misunderstand the rules presented and are arguing based on a misinterpretation. I'm trying to get you to realize that it doesn't have to be a problem if you use it correctly, and you're saying I'm attacking you. You have a bad position in my mind and you're being stubborn. Nothing ad hominem about it.



I'm sure you'll reply again and tell me that I shouldn't be using the Diplomacy skill to determine whether or not an NPC decides to accept a deal proposed to them by a PC.

And I'll just quote Rich: "In my new system, Diplomacy will be defined as, "Getting people to accept a deal you propose to them.""

Then I'll shake my head sadly at your baseless argument and pointless personal attacks.Shake your head all you will. 'Getting' is the key word here. The situation before the check has to be one where the person will not, and does not, accept your deal, and you attempt to change that. A wise character will already be accepting the good deal if they have any interest, and you do not have to 'get' them to do it, they just do.

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-03-13, 07:57 PM
Because DMM: Persist isn't actually totally broken until you add nightsticks? Its amazingly *good* and sure trashes a lot of what melee classes do, but base Cleric does that anyway. It just sometimes takes him a round at the start of combat if he doesn't feel like doing something more effective. Its a pretty hefty feat and ability investment to get maybe 1-2 spells persisted all day long (since each spell costs 7 turn attempts), which saves the Cleric a bunch of potential time and some spell slots, but since it really takes a minimum of 4 feats to get up and running, deprives the Cleric of pretty much all turning capacity (which can be a big deal or totally insignificant) and is still vulnerable to dispells, it is not without its downsides and arguably doesn't provide the Cleric with benefits any better than Wildshape for a good chunk of his career. Not saying it still isn't a fantastic feat chain (one of the strongest in the game, especially since all the parts of it are useful in an of themselves), and well worth taking for any Cleric who can get away with it but until you start adding in the turning attempts/day for about 1750gp a pop it doesn't become totally gamebreaking. But when you do.... yeesh!

This doesn't change the fact that Clerics are still amazingly powerful and totally crush melee classes on their own merits.

[/quote]A couple of Extra Turning feats does the same thing, with a decent Charisma. I could easily crank out 14+ turn attempts a day, I only need two spells DMM Persisted... Righteous Might (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/righteousMight.htm) and Divine Power (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divinePower.htm). Congratulations, I'm one size category larger, with DR 9/Evil (or Good), +10 to strength, effectively full BAB, with extra hit points to match the phantom hit die increase, and more hit points from the size mod to Con.


Hey if we're bringing PrCs into this then every full caster is about equally broken. Wizards can do the infinite wish trick by level 12 or so using core only and PrCs like the Dweomerkeeper break the everliving hell out of both divine and arcane casters. I believe Clerics can use Planar Ally to achieve the same wish results. Not saying druid isn't rediculously powerful/broken, but pointing out wish cheese available with a PrC that almost every other core casting class can do with core only is a bit of a bum rap. Plus blaming a core class for one of its PrCs strikes me as unfair. Still doesn't change the fact that Druids are a good full caster who trounces the fighter at their own game. And especially in terms of class balance within core-only Druids are broken with a capital B.

The base class Druid is broken. The Planar Shepherd, mentioned above, is very broken. Planar Ally has it's limitations. You have to bargain with the entity in question, who may not give you the wishes. Wizards summoning high end critters need to worry about it breaking free and wreaking havoc around everything, with the contested will saves and all. Planar Shepher just *bamf* chunk out three wishes per day with no cost whatsoever. Other brokenness about Planar Shepherd is abusing the Time trait of the plane they are aspected to. Getting 12 rounds per round? I'll take some of that!


I agree with your fundamental assesment that the OP is a fool for considering OTWF overpowered in any way. But its a fundamental D&D principle that melee classes don't get to have nice things. This is why so many people treat ToB like the heretical work that it is. :smallwink:

ToB is an interesting work. I happen to like it. However, I took a Core Sorcerer and beat a Warblade at level 20. Time Stop, rolled max rounds, encased him in four walls of force, then dropped a Telekenetic Sphere above him to keep him inside and PAO'd the ground UNDERNEATH him into Lava. Since I wasn't targeting HIM, he didn't get a save (which he can replace a Concentration check for, with one of the Diamond Mind abilities), and ended up taking 20d6/round by being immersed in Lava.

ToB is powerful, PAO cheeze is moreso. :smallbiggrin:

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-13, 08:17 PM
You could probably have used one Wall of Force. It has to be vertical, but it can have corners.

Jack_Simth
2007-03-13, 08:42 PM
You could probably have used one Wall of Force. It has to be vertical, but it can have corners.
It's verticle, but it's also a flat plane. Kinda need the four.

Of course, you can guarantee a five-round Time Stop by way of a Greater Rod of Maximize Spell ... which is a core item.

Now, if your poor victim had posessed, say, a simple Cape of the Mounteback, or a Helm of Teleporation, or Boots of Teleporation. Any 20th level character that doesn't have a way to go from A to C without the B is in trouble. As is any 10th level character who can't find a way to avoid a segment of ground. Boots of Flying would have saved him rather easily.

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-03-13, 09:57 PM
It's verticle, but it's also a flat plane. Kinda need the four.

Of course, you can guarantee a five-round Time Stop by way of a Greater Rod of Maximize Spell ... which is a core item.

Now, if your poor victim had posessed, say, a simple Cape of the Mounteback, or a Helm of Teleporation, or Boots of Teleporation. Any 20th level character that doesn't have a way to go from A to C without the B is in trouble. As is any 10th level character who can't find a way to avoid a segment of ground. Boots of Flying would have saved him rather easily.

While Teleportation effects might have saved him, Boots of Flying wouldn't have, with the Telekenetic Sphere above him, pressing him down into the lava.

Of course, if I had wanted to get really nasty, I could have opened up with a Mordicain's Disjunction, then Contingency (whatever the 2nd level spell that gives you a free action but stuns you for one round) Sudden Maximize Time Stop. But the Sudden Maximize and that other spell are not Core, so I couldn't do it.

That's not to say anything about Sorc5/MotAO5/Incantatrix10 combo... Or the Sorc6/Iot7V7/Incantatrix10/AM3. But I wanted to humiliate him, so I went straight Core.

TheThan
2007-03-13, 10:14 PM
Not so much a broken rule but someone trying to abuse the rules:
According to the drowning rules, if your in the negative hit points, you just have to jump in some water and begin drowning, and poof you’ve gained enough life to be back at 0 hp.

Drowning rules:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm#drowning



I know that’s not how it’s supposed to work, but believe it or not someone actually tried to convince me of it. Fortunately it wasn’t in a game, still I about bashed my head in the wall when I heard it.

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-13, 10:22 PM
That actually is a broken rule. As written, when you start drowning, you get set back to 0.

Deepblue706
2007-03-13, 10:26 PM
That actually is a broken rule. As written, when you start drowning, you get set back to 0.

Funny, 'cause you could do that in Mario 64 (submerge, come up to breathe = healed...except it actually refilled your thingy entirely).

Sorry, I had to.

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-13, 10:30 PM
I'm-a Mario! I'm-a gonna win!

TheThan
2007-03-13, 10:51 PM
That actually is a broken rule. As written, when you start drowning, you get set back to 0.

I figured you’d just keep taking damage, but I’ve been wrong before.

and yes mario pwns

Variable Arcana
2007-03-13, 11:42 PM
You could probably have used one Wall of Force. It has to be vertical, but it can have corners.
It's verticle, but it's also a flat plane. Kinda need the four.
Actually... for future reference when you roll less on the Time Stop (assuming you don't get a greater rod of maximizing...) you can surround area with just three walls, if you make them in the form of a triangle.

And you can do your polymorph-cheese without abusing (the completely broken chain of) polymorph spells: Transmute Rock to Lava is in (IIRC) Complete Arcane -- level 8.

Greendevilman
2007-03-14, 01:10 AM
A couple of Extra Turning feats does the same thing, with a decent Charisma. I could easily crank out 14+ turn attempts a day, I only need two spells DMM Persisted... Righteous Might (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/righteousMight.htm) and Divine Power (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divinePower.htm). Congratulations, I'm one size category larger, with DR 9/Evil (or Good), +10 to strength, effectively full BAB, with extra hit points to match the phantom hit die increase, and more hit points from the size mod to Con.

Yay! Only... any Cleric can cast those spells? And you just used up something like 5 feats or a high ability score you probably need to be putting into melee stats to get there, which leaves you with fewer feats to actually take advantage of your awesome scores than the base cleric. Like I said, it saves the Cleric a couple of spell slots a day and maybe a round at the start of combat (assuming he gets MM-Quicken Rods like a smart caster). So you've used a ton of your (quite limited) feats to save yourself some 4th and 5th level spell slots and possibly a round of combat (which can be a big or little thing depending on the encounter) on a daily basis that might not even come into play depending on how many fights you'll be getting into. Seriously look at the darned feat. You get 3 + Cha mod turn attempts. Assume you want reasonable stats in physical attributes to take advantage of your awesome buff spells. Probably have a +2 mod base at best unless you have extremely high attributes. Charisma pumping items arn't cheap and with a +6 cloack (which isn't exactly chump change) you'll have 8 turn attempts. Meaning you need to come up with 6 more turning attempts from somewhere. Extend Spell + Persist Spell + DMM: Persist + 2xExtra turning costs you 5 of your 8 feats (9 if human). You can possibly reduce that by two if you take certain domains which can arguably be a thing that breaks it, but that still means you're forgoing other good abilities and spells. Its well worth it, but its hardly costless. Don't tell me the awesome abilities your persisted spells give you, because you could do that stuff anyway by virtue of being a cleric. Once again, it mostly saves you spell slots and preparation time at a fairly hefty cost. That cost is worth it though because spell slots and saved time are usually very good, while feats vary wildly in quality.



The base class Druid is broken. The Planar Shepherd, mentioned above, is very broken. Planar Ally has it's limitations. You have to bargain with the entity in question, who may not give you the wishes. Wizards summoning high end critters need to worry about it breaking free and wreaking havoc around everything, with the contested will saves and all. Planar Shepher just *bamf* chunk out three wishes per day with no cost whatsoever. Other brokenness about Planar Shepherd is abusing the Time trait of the plane they are aspected to. Getting 12 rounds per round? I'll take some of that!


I know all of this (though personally I think in games with splatbook PrC access the Cleric can be stronger than the Druid and the Druid isn't as out and out overpowered because other people can PrC and the Druid gets less from splatbooks than most other classes). And you maybe don't know what you're talking about if you think its difficult to get creatures to agree to bargains. If they can't use the wish on themselves why wouldn't they take 25,000gp for providing a service that costs nothing to themselves? A Cleric has diplomacy as a class skill for heaven's sake, and for the service they're requesting the cost wealth guidelines mean they'll end up way ahead on money by starting the wish cascade. Wizards get to offer the same reasonable terms and use an opposed charisma check (which they can boost) meaning that he'll succeed eventually. The summoned guy will be anchored and only gets one will save, which leaves daily SR (something Efreeti don't have) and a charisma check (which Efreeti get +2 on) to beat out a save of DC 15 + half caster level + charisma mod. Doesn't seem real likely. Why wouldn't a Efreeti who failed the first time give up after a few days at most? The Wizard is offering to pay him after all, and there's a mechanical rule in place that means he's far more likely to succeed in his goals than the Efreeti is to break free. Obviously no sane DM lets you *start* the free infinite wish cascade but by RAW there is really no reason for you not to be able to do it. Same thing with Planar Shepard (which is, no dispute, broken as hell) which no sane DM will allow you to take. So while its among the most broken things in the game and deserves mention in this thread, it just strikes me as unfair that it be used to slag the Druid, which while broken in core-only and still incredably strong in splatbook access games, isn't capable of the same core-only spell hijinks as other classes and even with his most broken PrC doesn't do anything with wish cheese other casters havn't done. Planar bubble for time traits is its own ball of wax, but means you get worse outsider brokenness and once again is one PrC which shouldn't be used to indict an entire class.



ToB is an interesting work. I happen to like it. However, I took a Core Sorcerer and beat a Warblade at level 20. Time Stop, rolled max rounds, encased him in four walls of force, then dropped a Telekenetic Sphere above him to keep him inside and PAO'd the ground UNDERNEATH him into Lava. Since I wasn't targeting HIM, he didn't get a save (which he can replace a Concentration check for, with one of the Diamond Mind abilities), and ended up taking 20d6/round by being immersed in Lava.

ToB is powerful, PAO cheeze is moreso. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah spellcasters still win, no arguments there. I also love me some ToB, which in case my sarcasm didn't come through clearly about, I think did an excellent job in providing some melee classes that are largely up to spec. Core spellcasting itself is as a system broken at high (and actually medium) levels, and frankly I consider the fact that a ToB class who lost initiative to a core caster class at level 20 lost a great thing because it means that they're not broken beyond all belief.

Basically I don't think we really disagree on much here, I just don't want you using Planar Shepard to slag on the druid in a backhanded fashion (because the druid can probably be properly insulted on its own merits :smallsmile:) and think that the opportunity costs involved in getting regular DMM: Persist to work without cheap sources of extra turning takes it out of the range of "broken" and into the realm of the "incredibly strong." Though I'll admit that at the mid levels (i.e. around level 9-10 before most other people are likely to get access to normal metamagic rods of quicken and when having enough of the best Cleric buffs up on a daily basis would eat up most of their spell slots) it probably is broken as heck. To be honest I prefer (and would be far more likely to allow in my own game) DMM-Quicken which has the benefit of not being as strong, but giving you greater flexibility and actual access to your turning attempts on a daily basis. Still, I think most of the brokeness is more about the power of self-only divine buffs and the ability to hoard turn attempts via domain feats (either directly or by giving other prerequisites that free up feat slots) or items (nightsticks) than the feat itself. Or inherent to persistant spell itself since spells like Wraithstrike are broken as persisted spells even if they take up level 8 slots. But its not really worth arguing about further because I can easily see where people would disagree with me, and I personally don't mind much if its cited as an example of a broken rule so long as the objections to that are stated.

Bouldering Jove
2007-03-14, 01:38 AM
According to the drowning rules, if your in the negative hit points, you just have to jump in some water and begin drowning, and poof you’ve gained enough life to be back at 0 hp.

Drowning rules: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm#drowning

I know that’s not how it’s supposed to work, but believe it or not someone actually tried to convince me of it. Fortunately it wasn’t in a game, still I about bashed my head in the wall when I heard it.

That actually is a broken rule. As written, when you start drowning, you get set back to 0.
In practice, if anyone tries to use that technicality, they die.

Purely by RAW, in the first round of the drowning process after the Con check failure, the drowning character's hit points automatically go to 0. Second round, they're at -1 and dying. Third round, they die. Nothing in the RAW says that the drowning process can be stopped, including being removed from the substance the character is drowning in or being healed.

It makes just as much sense to die without any water in your lungs as it does to be healed by getting water in them.

Dark
2007-03-14, 07:12 AM
The drowning rule is still broken, though. This just means it's broken in two ways :)

Justin_Bacon
2007-03-14, 09:28 AM
The wise character is less prone to influence of a Diplomacy check. He can certainly recognise a good deal, and accept a good deal by DM fiat. Diplomacy is an attempt to change his attitude by the PC.

You're calling Rich a liar. That's not very nice. :smallfrown:


That was my point, but you missed it. Getting someone to think something is, in fact, a good deal, is NOT diplomacy. But you're using the diplomacy skill for it. STOP.

[scrubbed] Cue the sad head shake and the quote from Rich:

"In my new system, Diplomacy will be defined as, "Getting people to accept a deal you propose to them.""

You guys can keep arguing that Rich's rules aren't about getting people to accept a deal you've proposed to them all you'd like, but I'm just going to ignore you. [Scrubbed]

Variable Arcana
2007-03-14, 09:30 AM
How about swimming (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37449) rules in general...

Not broken in an abusable way... but by the raw, a toad can't swim well at all, but an iron golem is unsinkable.

It makes sense that a higher strength makes it easier to swim -- it doesn't make sense that size, weight and density aren't taken into account at all.

Justin_Bacon
2007-03-14, 09:38 AM
The drowning rule is still broken, though. This just means it's broken in two ways :)

The drowning rules bug me because there's really no good reason for them to use a special-case mechanic like this.

Drowning should knock you unconscious and cause 1 hp of Con damage per round.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-03-14, 10:34 AM
Not broken in an abusable way... but by the raw, a toad can't swim well at all, but an iron golem is unsinkable.
Toads are typically land creatures. They aren't meant to do a lot of swimming. (Sure, I suppose there are some aquatic toads, but the SRD toad is more lined up with the typical dry-environment species most people associate with toads.)

Now, if you're thinking of frogs, well there aren't any official SRD stats, but you can be sure they would have a swim speed and a special rule letting them use their Dexterity modifier in place of Strength on Swim checks.

Zincorium
2007-03-14, 04:48 PM
You're calling Rich a liar. That's not very nice. :smallfrown:



[scrubbed] Cue the sad head shake and the quote from Rich:

"In my new system, Diplomacy will be defined as, "Getting people to accept a deal you propose to them.""

You guys can keep arguing that Rich's rules aren't about getting people to accept a deal you've proposed to them all you'd like, but I'm just going to ignore you. [Scrubbed]

*twitch*

Knowledge of a good deal is one thing. Agreement to the same deal is a different matter entirely.

I'm arguing that knowledge of something being a good deal is factored in to the equation for diplomacy, and being a wise, high level character would help with the sense motive check, possibly opposed by a bluff check, to determine the perception of whether something is or is not a good deal that then results in a modifier to the deal. You do not, and should not houserule, that a diplomacy check is intended to inform people, correctly or incorrectly, about how good something is. You can say it, but diplomacy is not the only check for talking to people.

Agreement to the deal is something you make a check for only when the result is not certain. When someone intends to buy something, or accept a proffered gift, then that action is certain and a check is simply not called for. When the person who is being targeted does not want to accept the gift, or buy the item, then a diplomacy check is needed, not to inform them of something being beneficial for them, they already have a set opinion on that, but to actually take the action of accepting the deal.

In other words, you should never use diplomacy unless you are currently "Getting someone to accept a deal you propose to them". You have to have proposed the deal, and they have no intention of accepting, until you use diplomacy to ensure they do so.


Your original arguments, that a high wisdom makes a character unable to detect a good deal, that getting a high level character to do something they want to do is nearly impossible, that you have to ignore the rule for easy things (which then automatically fail?)... BS. None of those things are true, and you're not even budging an inch when I present you with evidence that you're mistaken.

Rich's rule is a more workable ruleset than the ones present in the PHB, because it removes nonsensical results, something you added back in by misunderstanding the application of the rules, which really, really is not that hard to understand. I'm not calling Rich a liar, which you accuse me of, and I'm not saying he fails miserably at making a new system, which you have most definitely done. Saying someone has made a 'broken rule' is insulting, and if I'm dogging you like I am, it's because I think that your claim is something you should have thought long and hard about before presenting, which as far as I can see you did not.

MeklorIlavator
2007-03-14, 05:01 PM
Wouldn't detceting a good deal be sense motive? That wold make a lot more sense, and having a high wisdom wouldallow you to see a good deal more easily(thogh if it was good enough, the person wouldn't need to check).

Zincorium
2007-03-14, 09:18 PM
Wouldn't detceting a good deal be sense motive? That wold make a lot more sense, and having a high wisdom wouldallow you to see a good deal more easily(thogh if it was good enough, the person wouldn't need to check).

Yes, that's my point, and I'm glad you see it the same way I do. Before you make the diplomacy check, the person has to already have determined whether they think it's a good idea or there's no modifier applied. The determination of their judgment would be a sense motive check, opposed by the offering character's bluff if they are trying to convince the person that the deal is better (or worse, I guess) than it actually is. Only once that is established do you need to worry about whether or not they want to take you up on it. If not, you then make a diplomacy check.

Justin_Bacon
2007-03-21, 02:08 AM
Your original arguments, that a high wisdom makes a character unable to detect a good deal, that getting a high level character to do something they want to do is nearly impossible, that you have to ignore the rule for easy things (which then automatically fail?)... BS.

Why do you insist on lying about what I said? Please stop. I've asked you to stop several times now.


None of those things are true, and you're not even budging an inch when I present you with evidence that you're mistaken.

I'm afraid the only person ignoring evidence here is you. For example, you seem to be in denial about what Rich actually wrote: "I don't decide whether I want someone to be persuadable, I want a rule system that lets me determine it randomly. It makes it very difficult to "wing" an adventure when there is no system for determining how to assess modifiers to this skill. Is that circumstance worth a -1? A -4? A -15? There's no guidelines given. In short, I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want."

Like I said: You can keep arguing that Rich's rules aren't about getting people to accept a deal you've proposed to them all you'd like, but you're only demonstrating that you're in deep, deep denial.

Cue the quote from Rich again: "In my new system, Diplomacy will be defined as, "Getting people to accept a deal you propose to them.""

Zincorium
2007-03-21, 02:46 AM
Why do you insist on lying about what I said? Please stop. I've asked you to stop several times now.


You mean these?


The point is that there is no deal, under any circumstances (no matter how beneficial), that the high-HD or high-Wisdom character will accept. That fails the "does it make sense?" test, and reveals that the rule is broken.

Imagine if the Climb skill was like that: "Well, you see, that wall is too easy, so don't bother rolling the dice... because if you rolled the dice, you'd automatically fail."


Or this?



Let's get back to the point: The more skilled and wise a character is, the less likely they are to accept a really good deal.

...

So the guy who makes better decisions, is more insightful, and probably even has a higher Sense Motive check (and thus is more sure that I'm telling the truth) has a tougher time figuring out that this is a really great deal?


THIS. This is what I've been arguing against. Got it? This is my problem with what you said. It's wrong, obviously so, and it's not my fault that you misunderstood the rules. Rich has rules for the person's perception of it being a good deal already factored in, so it makes no sense to say that it is determined by the result.



The rule doesn't make sense.

And it's never going to make sense as long as you allow a character's power (HD) and insight (Wisdom) to make it more difficult for them to accept a good deal.

I'm not lying about what you said. I'm trying to refute it, point by point, and you act like I'm kicking your puppy instead of applying logic.



I'm afraid the only person ignoring evidence here is you. For example, you seem to be in denial about what Rich actually wrote: "I don't decide whether I want someone to be persuadable, I want a rule system that lets me determine it randomly. It makes it very difficult to "wing" an adventure when there is no system for determining how to assess modifiers to this skill. Is that circumstance worth a -1? A -4? A -15? There's no guidelines given. In short, I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want."

Like I said: You can keep arguing that Rich's rules aren't about getting people to accept a deal you've proposed to them all you'd like, but you're only demonstrating that you're in deep, deep denial.

Cue the quote from Rich again: "In my new system, Diplomacy will be defined as, "Getting people to accept a deal you propose to them.""Right. I'm not arguing that Rich's rules aren't about getting people to accept the deal. I've said that time and time again, and I have yet to contradict myself. They are about persuading, in other words, getting, the person to follow through, i.e. accept, a deal that you have proposed to them and they understand, but don't wish to follow through with, thus meaning you need to use diplomacy to change the result.

You, according to the quotes above, ARE arguing that it is not about getting them to accept it, that instead it's about getting someone to understand that it's a good deal. Not according to something I thought you said, according to the words that you posted on the board.

If you want to take them back, go ahead, but until then I am going to continue arguing against your stated position, that the rules are broken because high wisdom or HD creatures are incapable of seeing a good deal, which you said, and which is patently false for reasons I've said over and over and over. YOU disagree with Rich, which is why I find it insulting that you think quoting him helps your position.

I'll say it once more. Rich's rules work well. They work the way he designed them to, and are not broken. You claim they are.

Prove me wrong.

Avicenex
2007-03-21, 05:13 AM
I'm not lying about what you said. I'm trying to refute it, point by point, and you act like I'm kicking your puppy instead of applying logic.


You should win this argument on the basis of this quote alone. I'm totally sig-ing that.

Also, I'm going to have to agree that Rich's rule is nicely done and fixes what WAS a broken rule. Seriously, even if high wisdom did make people less likely to accept good deals (it doesn't), all it takes is a bit of common sense to fix that in game. If you offer Zues 20,000 gp for a dirty piece of string, obviously he's going to accept--you shouldn't even need to roll diplomacy.

Pocket lint
2007-03-21, 09:34 AM
Well, let's take an example. You come to me and my bro and offer us 20,000 gp for an apple. Sounds like a good deal, except we happen to think that you're a puppy-eating SOB who deserves a good kicking more than these apples.

I'm a high-level cleric with umpteen points of Wis. My bro is a 1st level barbarian, since he stayed home to read 'illustrated novels' instead of adventuring.

The deal and relation is the same. We both think it's a fantastic deal - if you weren't such a tool we'd take it in a heartbeat. But if you want us to go through with it, you're going to have to offer me a whole lot more and do *way* more convincing than with my brother.

Makes sense to me.