Things That Really Annoy You (Me, Anyone)

[TRM]

Post things in D&D 3.5 that annoy you.

Like for me:
What annoys me is when people take setting specific races and put them in other worlds/settings without bothering to have a reason for them to be there. Taking Warforged and putting them in the middle of Waterdeep 'cause you feel like it. :smallfurious:
There are other things too. Lots of them....

*heads off to find stuff in D+D books*

[Piedmon_Sama]

I guess you'd hate my campaign setting of Warforgopolis, then.....


Nah, what annoys me are....

-Druids being rediculously overpowered but for some reason they don't run the world. Also with Wild Shape and Animal Companion being pwnage, last night my friend remarked to me, "D&D seems like a furry's dream" and it pretty much killed the game for me. Maybe forever.

-Only casters can put ranks into Craft [Alchemy]. Bwuh? This rule is beyond stupid, and I cheerfully ignore it in every game.

-People who think that nothing that isn't Straight Outa Middle-Earth can be "fantasy." Seriously, let it go.

-People who can't enjoy the game unless they're playing a Psionic Half-Dragon Minotaur Totemist or something equally absurd and anemic to the DM's setting. This is the opposite end of the coin from the Tolkienist. Mind you it's the Coin of Suck.

-The Intimidate and Diplomacy skills. Too many people try to use their +35 mod in Diplomacy or whatever as a "win button," and this is clearly a case of design not matching intent. The Intimidate skill is also ****ed, as a charming halfling rogue is somehow better at demoralizing you in battle than a 6'6" howling orc Barbarian who happens to have Charisma 4.

-The dependancy on gear. What really annoys me is how characters never get better at protecting themselves. A Dex 10 PC has a base AC of 10 at 1st level, and a base AC of 10 at 20th level. Eventually PCs have to turn themselves into walking reliquaries to be even competitive. Come on, even a character with subpar Dex, after 20 levels, should know how to evade attacks.

-High Magic. I've never seen it done well anywhere, though Eberron comes close. It's just too hard to think about how it affects society, in how many ways, to have a bunch of Clerics and Wizards in every city. I'll continue to model my worlds more after the one we already know, thank you.

[Morty]

I'm going to second gear dependency. Every character on levels higher tham 1-5 is knee-deep in magical stuff. And on high levels, non-casters are completely dependent on their magic items.

[Ishkahl]

-People who can't enjoy the game unless they're playing a Psionic Half-Dragon Minotaur Totemist or something equally absurd and anemic to the DM's setting. This is the opposite end of the coin from the Tolkienist. Mind you it's the Coin of Suck.

-The Intimidate and Diplomacy skills. Too many people try to use their +35 mod in Diplomacy or whatever as a "win button," and this is clearly a case of design not matching intent. The Intimidate skill is also ****ed, as a charming halfling rogue is somehow better at demoralizing you in battle than a 6'6" howling orc Barbarian who happens to have Charisma 4.


I can definatly agree with these two. What honestly bothers me is people who have no background or reason what-so-ever for their characters, they just think it would be cool. Honestly, this isn't Diablo 2, its a role playing game. I guess I just expect people to add alittle bit of "realism" into their characters. Some people see no problem with making these obsurd combinations, then expecting them to fit in everywhere and be able to do everything.

Thats my main annoyance. The bad use of certain skills is also a little annoying, but it doesn't come anywhere close to the insanely-stupid character combinations with equipment and skills that would never make sense. I had a player one time (love him to death and all though, good friend) say his character lived alone in the mountains for his entire life (I guess just hunting and foraging). That part didn't irk me, but when I looked at his character sheet, I was alittle peeved to see languages such as Draconic. Maybe its me, but I don't see how someone living alone their entire life, shunned from existance with no resources, could teach themselves Draconic, or have crystal weapons and psionic skins for their 2 levels in psychic warrior...

[cupkeyk]

That halflings don't have low-light vision or darkvision. Its absurd. They are the best rogues but dungeon crawl with a torch or a lamp. Its self defeating.

[onasuma]

The "Pole/ladder" thing

[Nerd-o-rama]

Any phrase involving the words "roleplay" and "rollplay." It's not big, and it's not clever.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Any phrase involving the words "roleplay" and "rollplay." It's not big, and it's not clever.

On the subject of phrases. People who think they can end a conversation just by repeating an over used phrase like "killing catgirls".

[ssjKammak]

Gday

One thign that really annoyed me with 3.5 was the change on the buff spells duration from 1 hour per catsre level to 1 minute. Honestly the whole flexibility and appeal of the buff spells was there long duration, it meant you could use all power to increase your or other powers not just on the off occasion it pops up you can make a difference in a fight over having a wide range of better spells memorised. I loved playing scorcerers or pallys who had no healing or damage ability but could assist greatly in battle and situations by increasing other PC's abilities to minimise weanesses afetr 3.5 it became so infeasible to have my repertoire of powers focused on 1 fight/obstacle increases.

I agree so much with the players who only play this game to do gross ammounts of damage and play overpowered character with no roleplaying in mind. Honestly DND was aorund long before Blizzard, if your playing this game to compete with your party to do the most damage i personaly feel your not playign the gae for the right reasons.

Cheers
A friendly aussie (a little grumpy in this post:P)

[TheOtherMC]

On the subject of phrases. People who think they can end a conversation just by repeating an over used phrase like "killing catgirls".

You'd be suprised how well that works in real life.... :smallbiggrin:

[Solaris]

Any phrase involving the words "roleplay" and "rollplay." It's not big, and it's not clever.

Knew a guy who completely killed our friendship with that. I kid you not. He was that bad. He simply could not wrap his head around concepts like "Heroes, by their very nature, are extraordinary and thus should have stats above mathematical average" and "Having good stats does not automatically prevent good roleplaying."
Needless to say, that drives me up the wall.


On the subject of phrases. People who think they can end a conversation just by repeating an over used phrase like "killing catgirls".

Amen. I saw a post somewhere where every sentence involved *Catgirl dies*. The points were valid (as I recall) but that simply got obnoxious.

Unfortunately, I can think of nothing about D&D that annoys me that hasn't already been said. I can second (or third, or fourth) pretty much everything. Gear defining the character is a huge burr under my saddle. I don't mind halflings being lousy little dungeon-crawlers - makes them all the more readily extinctified.
But I didn't like the magic trains of Eberron.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Bucklers. In DnD a buckler is a small shield that lets you wield a weapon in the same hand but can't be used for bashing.

In real life a buckler is a small shield held in your hand with a name derived from a term meaning "metal fist" specifically used for bashing as well as concealing the weapon your holding in your other hand.

You'd think they'd have fixed this in 3.5 but still most DnD players live with this monstrocity unknowing.

[cupkeyk]

I have never asked because I have always overlooked it because I don't care but I guess I might as well do so now... what are catgirls?

[Scalenex]

I was going to write something negative, but I restrained myself. This is a negative thread and brought out mean dispiriting thoughts in my mind.

[Jade_Tarem]

Amen. I saw a post somewhere where every sentence involved *Catgirl dies*. The points were valid (as I recall) but that simply got obnoxious.

Sorry about that. I'm almost certain you're referring to one of my posts in the "PC Stupidity Stories" threads. I thought it was kinda funny, and I didn't realize that it was that obnoxious. I wish you had spoken up then...

It's been edited.

[kamikasei]

I have never asked because I have always overlooked it because I don't care but I guess I might as well do so now... what are catgirls?

Catgirls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catgirl). They look like this (http://bluebberie.blogdrive.com/images/catgirl.gif) (and you know, it's hard to find good examples that aren't also vaguely pornographic...) Catgirls die when you start talking about "realism" and "physics", because they're so thoroughly unrealistic.

edit: Gah! Half-fiend catgirl (http://userimages.imvu.com/productdata/stickers_95222862773bbffcbc93ad0c9bf62257.gif)?

[Mewtarthio]

I have never asked because I have always overlooked it because I don't care but I guess I might as well do so now... what are catgirls?

Anthropomorphic female cats. Either they look like women wearing cat ears and a tail, or they look like six-foot-tall bipedal cats with clothes, breasts, and opposable thumbs.

[cupkeyk]

an d why do they die? what does that expression mean?

[Piedmon_Sama]

Some freakos actually get their rocks off on these catgirl things, it's an ugly side of Nerd Culture we try not to let the relatives in on. But basically it's a play off the old net-gag, "everytime you masturbate, God kills a kitten."

[TheOtherMC]

an d why do they die? what does that expression mean?

Its a running joke around here that "when you try to bring physics into a fantasy discussion, God kills a catgirl." They even have a handy warning sign floating around somewhere......If I can find the link.....

[Thomas]

Some freakos actually get their rocks off on these catgirl things

Judgemental and prejudiced any?

[cupkeyk]

Aaaaah, it's a het male thing...

[Piedmon_Sama]

-High Magic. I've never seen it done well anywhere, though Eberron comes close. It's just too hard to think about how it affects society, in how many ways, to have a bunch of Clerics and Wizards in every city. I'll continue to model my worlds more after the one we already know, thank you.

In retrospect, I was too hasty with this statement. I think I come off a bit more close-minded towards magic than I really am. Eberron is a fine and dandy setting for what it is; "magic as technology" just doesn't jive with me because the terms are wholly separate in definition. Technology is understood, logical; magic is internal and has no explanation. As soon as you explain the process of magic, it stops being magic. In that regard I'd call Eberron a high-tech setting rather than a high-magic setting. (And I actually LIKE the everburning torch lamps, electric railcars and floating airships.)

I don't think I'll ever play a game in Eberron, though.... I'm too fixed on coming up with my own settings, it's just too enjoyable for me. In the end I'll just take its best ideas and move on.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

On the subject of phrases. People who think they can end a conversation just by repeating an over used phrase like "killing catgirls".
It especially bothers me when they don't even use it properly.

Catgirls are only killed when the discussion involves real-life physics. Yet, somehow people think it applies to any discussion that only tangentially involves reality vs. fantasy, whether it involves physics or not. You know, they'll say something like, "Well, I had him run away from home because with the type of environment he was raised in, that seemed more realistic (Oops, there goes a catgirl)."

Drives me up the wall.

(Not that it hasn't also outlived its humor in actual physics discussions.)


In retrospect, I was too hasty with this statement. I think I come off a bit more close-minded towards magic than I really am. Eberron is a fine and dandy setting for what it is; "magic as technology" just doesn't jive with me because the terms are wholly separate in definition. Technology is understood, logical; magic is internal and has no explanation. As soon as you explain the process of magic, it stops being magic.
Some choice words for ya:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

– Arthur C. Clarke

[Solaris]

Sorry about that. I'm almost certain you're referring to one of my posts in the "PC Stupidity Stories" threads. I thought it was kinda funny, and I didn't realize that it was that obnoxious. I wish you had spoken up then...

It's been edited.

You, my good sir, are a rare breed. My hat to you.

[LotharBot]

Things that annoy me:

1) people who play D&D "to win", as if that's the point. They might not necessarily twink out their characters, but their goal is to win rather than to have an interesting journey. Ick.
2) "win buttons" -- good ol' +40 to diplomacy, epic magic, wildshape/polycheese, etc. When I DM, I disable anything that gets to be abusive. I'll let people use wildshape, diplomacy, etc. but if it starts to get ridiculous I'll be like "oops, you used the win button too many times, now it's stuck."
3) people who post on the forums "to win". Much like in D&D, the point is not to beat everyone else, but to have an interesting journey (and preferably learn some things along the way.)
4) People who just can't play within the game world. Playing standard greyhawk? They want to play a psionic warforged vampire computer programmer. Playing a modern werewolf game? They want to play a knight on horseback. ARGH!

[Piedmon_Sama]

2) "win buttons" -- good ol' +40 to diplomacy, epic magic, wildshape/polycheese, etc. When I DM, I disable anything that gets to be abusive. I'll let people use wildshape, diplomacy, etc. but if it starts to get ridiculous I'll be like "oops, you used the win button too many times, now it's stuck."

You know, that really IS what DMs should do. And it gets my goat so bad when they complain it's "not fair." Fair? No, exploiting flaws in the rules, THAT'S what's not fair.


The game world. Playing standard greyhawk? They want to play a psionic warforged vampire computer programmer. Playing a modern werewolf game? They want to play a knight on horseback. ARGH!

I sorry. I just wan be speshul. :(

[Matthew]

Plenty of things annoy me about D&D 3.x, but just in the spirit of adding to the list:

That characters with a Strength Attribute of less than 12 derive no benefit from using a One Handed Weapon Two Handed.

[Bryn]

Plenty of things annoy me about D&D 3.x, but just in the spirit of adding to the list:

That characters with a Strength Attribute of less than 12 derive no benefit from using a One Handed Weapon Two Handed.

Or even less than 14, because IIRC the 1.5x Str rounds down.

[Nahal]

Judgemental and prejudiced any?

Meh, I'd have to go with Piedmon here. Some fetishes go beyond the line of quirky into messed up. Granted the issue here isn't so bad as, say, furries (who are sick sick people in need of help), but if your ideal is something that doesn't (and likely never will) exist you are also in need of (less) help.

Which brings me to my next point, and my main contribution here. I find it really annoying that admitting you game is risky because of the stereotypes attached to it. There ARE sane gamers out there, people who enjoy a round of DnD as much as a Halo match or a few rounds at the bar or any other more mainstream sort of social interaction. The problem is that the stereotypes are in my experience accurate far too often. Whether it's the guy who doesn't bathe, or has the social maturity of a 12-year-old when in his twenties, or who acts out his frustrations at literally being a 40-year-old virgin by only playing female prostitutes, or the guy who lives with his mom at 42 because he's too much of an ass to hold down a job (literally, I played with this guy), most of us have probably dealt with somebody who is mildly to possibly even seriously mentally ill.

Since this is more than most non-gamers can say, "normal" gamers are sort of guilty by association. I don't like it, but I understand the logic. In reality most of the very weird people I've gamed with have at least some redeeming qualities, but a significant minority don't, and since these are the people that give gamers a bad name they are the ones that really annoy me.

[Solaris]

Or even less than 14, because IIRC the 1.5x Str rounds down.

It does. Generally speaking, all fractions in this game round down.

[Chunklets]

Druids being rediculously overpowered but for some reason they don't run the world. Also with Wild Shape and Animal Companion being pwnage, last night my friend remarked to me, "D&D seems like a furry's dream" and it pretty much killed the game for me. Maybe forever.

I'm very much with you on that one, and I'd add clerics to the list of the grimly overpowered. I pine for the days when clerics were support casters, and wizards/sorcerers did the offensive spellcasting. I'm trying to work up to running another campaign, and dealing with overpoweredness of clerics and druids is proving a problem, since I don't want to simply ban the splatbooks.

[Solaris]

I'm very much with you on that one, and I'd add clerics to the list of the grimly overpowered. I pine for the days when clerics were support casters, and wizards/sorcerers did the offensive spellcasting. I'm trying to work up to running another campaign, and dealing with overpoweredness of clerics and druids is proving a problem, since I don't want to simply ban the splatbooks.

God of Cleric: "Don't do offensive spellcasting."
Cleric: "Zah?"
God of Cleric: "I gotta put up with the God of Wizards whining about how y'all're stepping on his minions' toes. So knock it off."

[Athelis]

I agree whole-heartidly(sp?) on the item-dependancy that charaters develop. It's not cool having a "Great Hero" who is only great because of his pimped out gear.
I also dislike those players who play to win and only use what is "good".

[Chunklets]

God of Cleric: "Don't do offensive spellcasting."
Cleric: "Zah?"
God of Cleric: "I gotta put up with the God of Wizards whining about how y'all're stepping on his minions' toes. So knock it off."

I like it! I could also get off my lazy backside and actually put together an edited-down list of spells available to clerics and druids... :smallbiggrin: But yes, a simple blanket "no damaging spells" houserule might also work.

[Matthew]

Or even less than 14, because IIRC the 1.5x Str rounds down.

Heh, yes indeed.

[Dark]

Meh, I'd have to go with Piedmon here. Some fetishes go beyond the line of quirky into messed up. Granted the issue here isn't so bad as, say, furries (who are sick sick people in need of help), but if your ideal is something that doesn't (and likely never will) exist you are also in need of (less) help.
Finding someone who likes to dress up as a cat girl is not actually difficult, you know. I don't see why they'd need help. They have their quirks, I have mine.


Since this is more than most non-gamers can say,
I'm not so sure. Watch the fans at a football match some time :) It sure doesn't look sane to me. They have their own stereotypes to deal with. The fat smelly guy who's guzzling beer while watching sports on TV is almost an icon of western culture.

[Tobrian]

I like it! I could also get off my lazy backside and actually put together an edited-down list of spells available to clerics and druids... :smallbiggrin: But yes, a simple blanket "no damaging spells" houserule might also work.

But then what about clerics of gods of war or gods of pestilence and death? Clerics shouldn't be forced to be pacifists. Otherwise we're back to "Ben Cleric the Bandaid". I don't mind clerics having offensive spells.

What I do mind is the holdover from AD&D (where clerics only had 7 spelll levels instead of 9 like the wizard) which let to clerics having the same spell as the wizard but often 2 whole levels earlier!... The 3.5 edition at least corrected this so that if a spell exists as divine and arcane version and there's a difference in level, the difference can't be more than 1 spell level. But still. Some spells come at the same level, of course, but rarely is there a spell that has a higher level for the cleric than the wizard. Why for example are clerics more suited to casting Animate Dead than wizards? :smallconfused:

[Tobrian]

Only casters can put ranks into Craft [Alchemy]. Bwuh? This rule is beyond stupid, and I cheerfully ignore it in every game.

Exactly. It's a knowledge skill that needs no spellcasting to use practically. Experts should be able to become master alchemists.

Of course, one book (was it Unearthed Arcana? not sure) introduced (optional) Craft feats for alchemical items. Meaning now you'd need a feat, and the knowledge (alchemy) skill would become superfluous.

The same supplement introduced Craft feats for practically everything, including Masterwork items. :smallconfused: So masterwork items are now suddenly as important as magical items and warrant a special feat? Meaning any NPC or PC who wants to become a magical armor smith now needs to take TWO feats just to make a masterwork plate and then enchant it? The up side would be that you'd no longer be required to roll on any Craft skill, I mean, fair is fair. Wizards creating magic items don't need to roll on anything either.

There go the profession and craft skill... what's next, Masterperformer feats for bards? For any performance with DC higher than 20 you need a special feat?

Sometimes I wonder who comes up with stuff like that, and if they playtest it.

[RandomNPC]

what bugs me.... i think iall of mine have been said before.

the catgirl thing, and the actions that kill them. i had someone argue that a snowball storm would put out a torch thrown at a pool of oil. then they argued that the oil would be a slow burning oil if it was lamp oil. then they argued the snowball storm would put out the oil if the torch did get to it.....

a character looses one thing and wants to die. fighter looses key weapon tied to 1/3 of all feats? doesnt want to play. finds a new sword three sessions later? doesnt care, he was doing "ok" enough before. Mystic Thurge looses arcane spell pouch? wants to walk into enemy teritory and sit there waiting to be killed. still has divine magic, and actually decent enough stats to use ranged weapons... but no more blasty magic, i don't want to go on with life, wah wah wah, emo rant wah wah wah. two games latter gets a spell pouch off a wizard and shrugs it off like he found a nickel on the side of the road.
i guess i would like a few more happy emotions from people when they get something good right before they go against the dragon. after all it is going to eat them alive.

[Tobrian]

The Intimidate skill is also ****ed, as a charming halfling rogue is somehow better at demoralizing you in battle than a 6'6" howling orc Barbarian who happens to have Charisma 4.

I must disagree. Barbarians and other warrior types can substitute STR for intimidation checks instead of CHA. It's even in the core rules somewhere. You just intimidate differently ("Hulk angry, Hulk smash!!") than the halfling ("I know where your children play after school...").

Ok, demoralizing you during battle... he might not demoralize you, but he could use Diplomacy to drive you so mad with stinging remarks that you drop your guard and make a fatal mistake.

On the other hand, we regularly fear small creatures like snakes, if they appear to be poisonous. If the halfling can get you to believe that he's crazy, armed and dangerous...

[cupkeyk]

And to add, that Barb will get +4 over the halfling for being a size category larger. Id the halfling tries to intimidate the half orc he gets a -4. o_0

That was an old issue in 3.0 that was fixed in 3.5

[Solaris]

But then what about clerics of gods of war or gods of pestilence and death? Clerics shouldn't be forced to be pacifists. Otherwise we're back to "Ben Cleric the Bandaid". I don't mind clerics having offensive spells.

What I do mind is the holdover from AD&D (where clerics only had 7 spelll levels instead of 9 like the wizard) which let to clerics having the same spell as the wizard but often 2 whole levels earlier!... The 3.5 edition at least corrected this so that if a spell exists as divine and arcane version and there's a difference in level, the difference can't be more than 1 spell level. But still. Some spells come at the same level, of course, but rarely is there a spell that has a higher level for the cleric than the wizard. Why for example are clerics more suited to casting Animate Dead than wizards? :smallconfused:

They still have the great buffing spells and spells that don't deal direct hit point damage. I've played a wizard who never casted anything other than magic missile (not a single metamagic feat, either!) and a host of buffs. He worked out better than the sorcerer who used entirely direct-offense spells.

Animate Dead: Clerics are much better at wielding negative energy than arcane spellslingers, I would assume.

[Tobrian]

That halflings don't have low-light vision or darkvision. Its absurd. They are the best rogues but dungeon crawl with a torch or a lamp. Its self defeating.

Yeah. On the other hand, halfling and gnomes are already the most high-powered core races from the PHB. If it wasn't for the low STR, they'd rule the world.

Same prob with a human rogue... get a Darkvision spell.

At low levels, lack of Darkvision really sucks. At high levels, once you get access to Goggles of Darkvision or your wiz can permanently put darkvision on himself, the racial advantage of dwarves, half-orcs, drow, tieflings etc vanishes.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I must disagree. Barbarians and other warrior types can substitute STR for intimidation checks instead of CHA. It's even in the core rules somewhere.
SRD it for me, will ya?

Yes, it is a suggested variant in the DMG. But it's a variant, not a core rule.

[Matthew]

It's a Core Variant Rule, as opposed to a Core Default Rule I would say...[/pedantic silliness]

[Jothki]

Plenty of things annoy me about D&D 3.x, but just in the spirit of adding to the list:

That characters with a Strength Attribute of less than 12 derive no benefit from using a One Handed Weapon Two Handed.

If your strength is really low, do you actually get a penalty from wielding a one-handed weapon with two hands?

[Matthew]

Yes, you do, same as using a melee weapon with one hand. No change, basically. Stupid. Should be a minimum +1 adjustment.

[Rabiesbunny]

The way they nerfed Hierophant. Smite Infidel is TOTALLY USELESS now! You can only smite the alignment farthest from your own; so a LE can only smite CG, which honestly, is not their worst enemy when you're talking about Banites.

[Tobrian]

They still have the great buffing spells and spells that don't deal direct hit point damage. I've played a wizard who never casted anything other than magic missile (not a single metamagic feat, either!) and a host of buffs. He worked out better than the sorcerer who used entirely direct-offense spells.

I know. I used to play a Rogue/Wiz(transmuter)/Arcane Trickster with no Evocation spells whatsoever (as per 3.0, if we'd switched to 3.5 before the campaign ended, I'd lost my Improved Unarmed Attack + Weaponlike Touch spells combo, and my Teleport spell, too. MEH!).
As we rose in level I started to feel inadequate because my buddy the Wiz/Spellsword could hurl fireballs and Magic Missile. After he died, I had to hand over all looted wands of fireball and stuff to the party rogue, because he could use them via Use Magic Device. He bagged more scrolls than my wizard! But when we descended deeper into the Underdark, more and more monsters had spell resistance and high saves or elemental resistances anyway, so it became more profitable to buff the group and use divination magic to scout ahead.


Animate Dead: Clerics are much better at wielding negative energy than arcane spellslingers, I would assume.

Hrm. Circular logic.

Why would a cleric of Pelor get Animate Dead at level 3, and an arcane necro Wiz/Pale Master worshipping WeeJas gets the spell at level 4? *helpless shrug*

[Shhalahr Windrider]

If your strength is really low, do you actually get a penalty from wielding a one-handed weapon with two hands?
No.

"When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/combat.html)"
(emphasis mine)

[Woot Spitum]

They still have the great buffing spells and spells that don't deal direct hit point damage. I've played a wizard who never casted anything other than magic missile (not a single metamagic feat, either!) and a host of buffs. He worked out better than the sorcerer who used entirely direct-offense spells.

Animate Dead: Clerics are much better at wielding negative energy than arcane spellslingers, I would assume.

Wait, clerics should lose their few direct damage spells because it takes away from what makes wizards good, but then its not a big deal because direct damage spells aren't very good? I always thought what made clerics unbalanced were three specific, core, self-buff spells that made clerics better at melee than classes that focus on melee. A wizard could completely do without direct damage spells and still be gamebreakingly (if gamebreakingly is the word I'm looking for) powerful.

[Jack_Simth]

Catch with Clerics being overpowered:
For most people, playing a heal-bot / buff bot isn't particularly fun. When combat crops up, most people want to be able to get in on the slaying. The Fighter Power Attacks, the Rogue Sneak Attacks, the Wizard casts Save or X. In many groups, in order to get someone to play a Cleric, the Cleric has to be able to get in on that action effectively as well.
At the same time, the party does, indeed, need healing and buffing ... usually mostly on the front lines. So the Cleric, in order to fill the healing role, needs to be mechanically able to survive on the front lines ... which kinda implies armor proficency and decent HP while casting spells.
So just to get someone to play a cleric, you pretty much have to make it a combat-capable class. And it has to be able to survive the front lines. So you end up with tanking healers that can either zap or run meelee.
Take away the combat capableness and they cease to be overpowered.... but they also become unplayable for a lot of people... while still being a required part of the party. Which leads to a lot more TPK's, which are a headache for DMs.
It's a rock and a hard place situation, I think.

Druid is in a similar spot.

Equipment dependancy is double-edged.
On the one hand, Conan doesn't go around with a Cape of the Mounteback, a +5 Vest of Resistance, +8 Bracers of Armor, a Stone of Good Luck, a +5 Ring of Protection, a +5 Amulet of Natural Armor, a +5 Animated Heavy Shield, a +6 Belt of Giant Strength, +6 Gauntlets of Dexterity, and a +5 Keen Flaming Burst sword in the movies... he runs around with a sword. You can build a game system balanced around no equipment.
Yet magic swords, armor, and other items are part of the genre; they are most assuredly something you go for and find on adventures or make. If the system is balanced for no items, as soon as you find one, you've changed the game balance. The CR for the various critters no longer describes the situation properly. If you pick up several of these over the course of several adventures, the CR entry for monsters soon ceases to be useful.
3.5 D&D integrates equipment into the expected power of characters, and thus into the CR for critters. Characters gain both XP and wealth while adventuring, usually in such a way that the characters will match Wealth By Level guidelines presented in the DMG (and the DM is mostly supposed to lean/enrich treasure drops to put the party close to those every now and again). When you get the Sword of Might from the defeated Blackguard, it's part of your expected power curve, and the CR remains a reasonably useful measure of monster vs. PC power.
But doing that turns high-level PC's into walking magic item shops. Which gets away from the "Conan has a Sword" genre, and makes characters appear to be more about their equipment than about their inherent hero-ness. Mind you, the Fighter-1 in Fighter-20 equipment is dead meat when a wyrmling dragon decides he's hungry....

[Tobrian]

You know what really gets me: That d20 doesn't have body to-hit zones, and that there's no uncomplicated way to actually target or damage a part of an opponent... aiming for the eyes, hacking off a wing or hand or protruding tentacle. It's easier to punch someone in a brawl than grab his arm (unless you shell out feats for Improved Grab and stuff), or easier to just stab him dead and loot him than to sneak up to him and grab an amulet hanging around his neck!

I recently got into an argument with a GM because my halfling rogue wanted to climb up onto the back of a wyvern (at least 2 size categories larger than the halfling) that had landed practically on top of him, or rather on top of the boat and the rowing bench he had crawled under, while other characters where fighting the wyvern from the air. The GM wasn't happy with a touch attack, he wanted a grapple check. I told him a grapple check would be suicide for my halfling. And besides, I didn't want to start a grapple! Grappling with someone means, in my book, that you restrict their movement, try to pin them down, hit them in the kidneys, that sort of thing. I didnt want to restrict the wyvern's movement... i merely wanted to use climb, jump and balance to get on its back where it couldnt claw at me. I didn't need to approach the bloody beast, it was already in my square! It was nearly sitting on me! In the end I just killed it with sneak attacks from below its belly. I can understand that it might bite or claw at me when I tried to scale it, but if there's a rule how to get onto the back of an unwilling creature that's so much larger than yourself, please tell me.

Similarly annoying, unless you have a special PrC like Bloodhound with special feats, beating someone unconscious in a fist fight or by smashing a club over the head is harder than simply killing him in melee. Which means D&D is geared towards killing the opponent, not taking him alive, because there's no way short of house rules of knocking someone out in one go. And the game designers actually write that they did this on purpose! :smallannoyed:

[Matthew]

No.

"When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/combat.html)"
(emphasis mine)

Oh, that's what he was asking. No, as Shhalahr says, there's no additional penalty.

[Stevenson]

Clerics need offensive spells, because playing as a walking box o' heals isn't really entertaining.

I dislike arcane spellcasters who blatantly ignore the fact that their class has quite a large host of defensive spells. They cease to be wizards or sorcerers, and become a new class: nukers. Which bugs me.

Likewise, I dislike people who assume that clerics and other divine spellcasters can't do anything but heal, and thus assume that if you are a cleric, your sole purpose in life is to heal. It's not. Clerics can do plenty else. I'm always tempted to play a cleric with no heals, just to see how much hate I recieve.


My main dislike: ANYONE who twink out their characters. Okay, great, there are loopholes that let you do X, Y, and Z. I played with a character who could turn in to a fire hydra at will unlimited times a day. Gragh. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I think that all DnD players should take that saying to heart.

[PaladinBoy]

You know what really gets me: That d20 doesn't have body to-hit zones, and that there's no uncomplicated way to actually target or damage a part of an opponent... aiming for the eyes, hacking off a wing or hand or protruding tentacle.

I hate that too, but I can't think of a good way to change the rules to deal with it. Because if you allow the characters to aim for a specific area, then what's to stop them from saying "I'll cut off his head."? Then, with one d20 roll, they could accomplish something which normally would require three d20 rolls, two of which had natural 20s. Even that assumes you use the instant kill variant; without it, it is impossible to instantly kill someone regardless of hit points. And that's only one example. Not to say that it isn't annoying, but I can't think of a way to change it without making it even more annoying for me, as a DM.


Similarly annoying, unless you have a special PrC like Bloodhound with special feats, beating someone unconscious in a fist fight or by smashing a club over the head is harder than simply killing him in melee. Which means D&D is geared towards killing the opponent, not taking him alive, because there's no way short of house rules of knocking someone out in one go. And the game designers actually write that they did this on purpose! :smallannoyed:

I actually understand that, as in order to do nonlethal damage, you have to take more care not to hit them in a critical area, take care to hit with the flat of the blade, etc. That would make it harder to hit them, unless you had special training. (translated: feat) Though I, personally, say that if you would miss solely due the nonlethal penalty (by 4 or less, in other words) that you do hit, but for lethal damage instead of non.

I agree that making character development in some areas dependent entirely on items is annoying, but I personally like finding lots of interesting magical items that my character can use fun, so I probably wouldn't do anything about it unless I found a fix that I was very certain maintained game balance.

I second other posters on the arcane casters without defensive spells. In the game my group is playing now, my wizard focuses more on such spells, and the other wizardlike caster is a warmage. Nothing BUT offensive magic. Of course, my invisibility really helped that one time, where we needed to sneak out without the enemies seeing us.......:smallamused:

[Tobrian]

I dislike arcane spellcasters who blatantly ignore the fact that their class has quite a large host of defensive spells. They cease to be wizards or sorcerers, and become a new class: nukers.

And WotC feeds into this with classes like the warmage and the warlock.

[Solaris]

Wait, clerics should lose their few direct damage spells because it takes away from what makes wizards good, but then its not a big deal because direct damage spells aren't very good? I always thought what made clerics unbalanced were three specific, core, self-buff spells that made clerics better at melee than classes that focus on melee. A wizard could completely do without direct damage spells and still be gamebreakingly (if gamebreakingly is the word I'm looking for) powerful.

Overpowered? Nothing of the sort. Merely stepping on the wizard's toes for flavor. I don't give the south end of a north-bound ogre about a class's power until it hits 'broken', and it has to be really bad for me to declare it broken. Simply flavor, my friend, simply flavor.
I happen to like a cleric whose magic is less flashy and more subtle. The truly powerful need not concern themselves with displays of power, merely getting the job done and leaving others to wonder what happened.


Catch with Clerics being overpowered:
For most people, playing a heal-bot / buff bot isn't particularly fun. When combat crops up, most people want to be able to get in on the slaying. The Fighter Power Attacks, the Rogue Sneak Attacks, the Wizard casts Save or X. In many groups, in order to get someone to play a Cleric, the Cleric has to be able to get in on that action effectively as well.
At the same time, the party does, indeed, need healing and buffing ... usually mostly on the front lines. So the Cleric, in order to fill the healing role, needs to be mechanically able to survive on the front lines ... which kinda implies armor proficency and decent HP while casting spells.
So just to get someone to play a cleric, you pretty much have to make it a combat-capable class. And it has to be able to survive the front lines. So you end up with tanking healers that can either zap or run meelee.
Take away the combat capableness and they cease to be overpowered.... but they also become unplayable for a lot of people... while still being a required part of the party. Which leads to a lot more TPK's, which are a headache for DMs.
It's a rock and a hard place situation, I think.

Druid is in a similar spot.

I have, to this date, run exactly one campaign with a true dedicated healer in it. The others? Not a one. Had a druid that my brother ran, but she* was more of a fighter-type than anything. I couldn't get a TPK, but not for lack of trying. Most of the time, I ran things to be balanced with the party and let them get downtime when they needed it. Between the paladin and a wand every now and again, we had all the hit points we needed.
*Cross-gender role-playing is a lot less creepy if you're also playing another one or two characters.

[Rabiesbunny]

I have, to this date, run exactly one campaign with a true dedicated healer in it. The others? Not a one.

Wow, this sounds familiar. XD

[Annarrkkii]

Whatever jerk invented Epic levels. Seriously. I have yet to see an epic game that WASN'T geared toward being awesome and "winning." The idea of epic has potential, but I just can't see it being worked out in anything near as-is.

I was ecstatic at the release of Tome of Battle, as the unbalance between meleeist and casters, as well as the suspicious uniformity among the combat classes. No matter how unique your style or weapon, you usually end up with a suspiciously similar feat chain.

[Tobrian]

I hate that too, but I can't think of a good way to change the rules to deal with it. Because if you allow the characters to aim for a specific area, then what's to stop them from saying "I'll cut off his head."? Then, with one d20 roll, they could accomplish something which normally would require three d20 rolls, two of which had natural 20s. Even that assumes you use the instant kill variant; without it, it is impossible to instantly kill someone regardless of hit points. And that's only one example. Not to say that it isn't annoying, but I can't think of a way to change it without making it even more annoying for me, as a DM.

It works in GURPS. the GURPS advanced combat system let you target areas without going to such length as the Rolemaster system.
Basically, aiming for certain body zones (head, eyes, hands, neck etc) raises the difficulty of hitting the target. Depending on where you hit a person and what with, a successful hit may deal a lot more damage than the weapon would do if you merely rolled to hit randomly and did basic damage. Modifiers depend on body zone and what sort of weapon was used, because different weapons deal different kinds of damage (blunt, cutting, penetrating/ slashing, beating, stabbing or swung in an arc); ice picks (swung and penetrating) are extremely lethal.

The various body zones can be unprotected or protected by armor. The skull actually provides a bit of damage resistance to the brain. A person has a hitpoint total (say 10 hp), but every limb has its own virtual hitpoints which are a fraction of the total: sp if you hit an arm for 8 damage, and the arm only has, say, 2, you only subtract 2 damage from the total, but the arm has gone into overflow and is crippled, broken or cut off, and you might bleed to death in following rounds. (It's actually less complicated than it sounds.) So its impossible to kill a person by repeatedly dealing 1 point of dmg to his hand by jumping up and down on it , but you can pulp the hand beyond repair. Hits to the torso and head count full, after armor has been subtracted.

Usually you dont have to kill someone though, because it's easier to beat them unconscious. In GURPS, unless someone has bought "High Pain Threshold" (advantages, they're like feats), everytime someone is hit and wounded or stunned, they get a penalty to all their rolls during the next turn, for the same number as they damage they received, unless they roll against willpower. Pain, shock, the character cringes. Same with fatigue /subdual damage)... oh and physical fighting and running itself will cause fatigue after some time, too. So during a fight, unless you play a superhero, or use GURPS Four-Colour rules (action movie rules, less realism, more heroism), characters can't keep on swinging blissfully while they're being hit from all sides.

Yes, it's a more realistic, but a very lethal system, especially because hit points don't rise when the characters gets experience. But if you're facing a superior foes and manage to hit the enemy first, you have a chance to run away during the round he's staggered from the hit. You can also overpower someone more easily.

I dont want D&D to be quite that lethal. Just... sometimes it's annoying not to be able to simply hack off a flying monster's wing. How often have I asked or been asked by players, "If the monster has such a long reach because of having a very long neck and tail, why can't I attack the head when it stretches out of its cave to bite me? Why do I have to run all the way through its attack range, drawing AoOs, to reach the torso?"

[Stevenson]

Hey, if we're taking away the cleric's offensive spells, should we also take away the wizard's defensive spells? Sorry Nebin, gnome illusionist, there isn't quite enough blind destruction in your chosen school. Just phantasmal killer? Bah, we'll need more than that. We're going to have to let you go.

Oh, and I don't think this has been mentioned yet: Raptorians. A 0 LA race that can fly? I don't think so.

[Zincorium]

Oh, and I don't think this has been mentioned yet: Raptorians. A 0 LA race that can fly? I don't think so.

Yep, neither do I. You know why? Because they can't. Fly that is. Until they level up a bit to the point where flying isn't quite as unique. Also, that's the only real ability they have, besides qualifying for a few feats and prestige classes that are specific to them.

[Yahzi]

Yes, it's a more realistic, but a very lethal system, especially because hit points don't rise when the characters gets experience.
In GURPS, a beginning character has 10-12 hps. An olympic stud badass high level character has 18-20 hps.

A M-16 does 7D6 damage. Doubled if it's to the torso.

Man... I love that game.

:smallbiggrin:

[JaronK]

I have the opposite problem from a lot of people in this thread. I like diplomacy... it's a skill that lets skill monkeys get close to the power of spellcasters. Remember, a spellcaster could just cast Dominate Monster or something.

I hate it when skills are totally overridden by spells. Open Lock is worthless, because a wand of knock completely overrides it. Arcane Lock makes the skill obsolete too.

It's one of the reasons I stopped playing skill monkeys and switched to casters... they can do all of what a skill monkey can do, and they can do it better.

JaronK

[Fhaolan]

Meh, I'd have to go with Piedmon here. Some fetishes go beyond the line of quirky into messed up. Granted the issue here isn't so bad as, say, furries (who are sick sick people in need of help), but if your ideal is something that doesn't (and likely never will) exist you are also in need of (less) help.

Normally, I'm all for bashing furries, having known quite a few and even gone to furry conventions out of curiosity [Quickly cured. I have very carefully limited curiousity now.] But I feel the need to be generous for some reason, and have decided to point out there are a large number of people who call themselves 'furries' who are complely unaware of, or are in understandable disgust of. the insane and seriously sick types of furries you are refering to. According to these kinds of furries, the technical term is 'furvert' for the ones you are talking about. Not that any sane person really cares, given the overwhelming numbers of furverts relative to the supposed 'innocent' furries.

Hmmm... full circle. Nevermind, ignore me. :smallbiggrin:

[Solaris]

Hey, if we're taking away the cleric's offensive spells, should we also take away the wizard's defensive spells? Sorry Nebin, gnome illusionist, there isn't quite enough blind destruction in your chosen school. Just phantasmal killer? Bah, we'll need more than that. We're going to have to let you go.

I see no reason to do so. I don't quite see the logic in that argument, actually - and please, please come up with something better than 'you're nerfing one class to make the other better' because that is not the motivation. The guy was looking for a simple solution to the problem, so I gave a simple solution. Remove the direct damage-dealing spells from the cleric's list. Not the de-buff type spells, not the buff spells, just the direct damage-dealing spells. In my experience, no cleric in his right mind uses those anyways (well, except for this one I was making, but that brings up the argument of 'right mind' . . . ). A more complex solution requires going over the spell-lists and more extensively reworking them. The more complex solution begins to beg questions of where the payoff becomes worth the work. If you dislike the idea, then don't use it in your game. If you like the idea, then use it.
The cleric has some capability in a hand-to-hand (or ranged) fight. The wizard does not. From what I see, the cleric is more of a knight and less of a spellslinger than the wizard. It really doesn't hurt anybody to leave the nuking to the generalist wizards who prefer it and evokers and let the other guys use other spells.

EDIT: I didn't EXplicitly state it, but I do think it a good idea to leave the non-damage-dealing spells in the wizard's list. Both defensive and 'other' spells alike should remain. There's simply no reason, flavor- or mechanical-wise, to pull them.

[Rarkasha]

Normally, I'm all for bashing furries, having known quite a few and even gone to furry conventions out of curiosity [Quickly cured. I have very carefully limited curiousity now.] But I feel the need to be generous for some reason, and have decided to point out there are a large number of people who call themselves 'furries' who are complely unaware of, or are in understandable disgust of. the insane and seriously sick types of furries you are refering to. According to these kinds of furries, the technical term is 'furvert' for the ones you are talking about. Not that any sane person really cares, given the overwhelming numbers of furverts relative to the supposed 'innocent' furries.

Hmmm... full circle. Nevermind, ignore me. :smallbiggrin:

I realize this is enormously off topic by now, but I can't go without saying it.

The way I see it, there are two main groups. Those that make or look at the art, and those that actually believe they are incarnations of an animal spirit, dress up in suits, etc. Most people associate the word "furry" with the latter, and assume the former to be the latter, whether they are or not. A fetish is a fetish, as long as you're comfortably seated in reality and not waving your hobby around in my face, look at what you want in the privacy of your own home.

On topic, I think that a specific body area attack is not in the style of D&D, which looks more geared to a less lethal, more heroic style of combat. But, it is rather frustrating not to be able to hit a monster's wings off or something similar. Maybe there should be a feat.

[fireinthedust]

I want to defend the half-dragon minotaur palyers WHO ARE ROLE-PLAYERS and can make the game fun. anything, any idea, takes time to work into the game world and develop. If it's an interesting plotline, and the DM can work it in, that character can be fun.

My issue is when I'm DMing and I don't know how to react tot he players fast enough. Meh.

Also: when people join a PBP game and they disappear, or take forever to post back. Games end, sure, but be a grownup about it and don't disappear.

Also: serial disappear people. there's this guy on the boards who's joined games I've been in, and every time he drops out halfway into the start of the game. no names. but yeah, that bugs me.

[Gorbash]

I hate rollplayers so much... The worst thing is that we have two of them in my gaming group, and both of them are good friends of mine, but they literally don't care about anything but their damage in combat. The Paladin is mounted combat oriented and if he charges witih smite evil spirited charge and casts rhino rush (oh and btw. he can do all that in a single round), he does about like Xd8 + something like 84. He becomes grumpy and leaves earlier if for some reason he's unable to fight horseback... The other player, dwarf cleric/fighter, while we were trying to sell some items we got a while back, actually said that I'm supposed to get less gold than him since his character does more damage... Well SOR-RY for trying to make a more intresting character (putting skill points in perform (fiddle), learning new languages, spending two feats to get wings just because they look cool (and they're not that useful with average manouverability and speed of 30 ft))

[Zincorium]

I hate rollplayers so much... The worst thing is that we have two of them in my gaming group, and both of them are good friends of mine, but they literally don't care about anything but their damage in combat. The Paladin is mounted combat oriented and if he charges witih smite evil spirited charge and casts rhino rush (oh and btw. he can do all that in a single round), he does about like Xd8 + something like 84. He becomes grumpy and leaves earlier if for some reason he's unable to fight horseback... The other player, dwarf cleric/fighter, while we were trying to sell some items we got a while back, actually said that I'm supposed to get less gold than him since his character does more damage... Well SOR-RY for trying to make a more intresting character (putting skill points in perform (fiddle), learning new languages, spending two feats to get wings just because they look cool (and they're not that useful with average manouverability and speed of 30 ft))

Ah, so your group is still stuck at that stage where no one has heard of or dealt with the Stormwind fallacy. That does suck.

[Gorbash]

Hah, you're right, since my inital reaction was: errr Stormwind fallacy?

Seriously, what's that?

[Dausuul]

Hah, you're right, since my inital reaction was: errr Stormwind fallacy?

Seriously, what's that?

In short, the Stormwind Fallacy is the widely-held belief that making effective/optimized characters and being a good roleplayer are mutually exclusive.

It's called a fallacy because, well, it is.

[Matthew]

Indeed, but in this case it does not apply, as the players he is describing 'literally don't care about anything but their damage in combat'.


I dont want D&D to be quite that lethal. Just... sometimes it's annoying not to be able to simply hack off a flying monster's wing. How often have I asked or been asked by players, "If the monster has such a long reach because of having a very long neck and tail, why can't I attack the head when it stretches out of its cave to bite me? Why do I have to run all the way through its attack range, drawing AoOs, to reach the torso?"

It's not too difficult to introduce Hit Locations to D&D. You just have to come up with a reasonable frequency and consequence. The 'easiest' way to do it, as far as I am aware, is to use a flat -4 Modifier for Called Shots, but also give them a 'success range' (just like a Critical Range), followed by a confirmation of some sort and a balanced result (i.e. NOT instant kill, limb loss, permanent sense loss, etc...).

[Altair_the_Vexed]

I sneer contemptuously at class / feat / special ability / race proliferation in splatbooks.

Yes, I know that's what splatbooks are for, but I don't like it. I'd rather see some well thought out spells, monsters, magic items and adventure hooks.

Most of all, I'd like to see some fecking QUALITY CONTROL in official suplemental material, thanks. Play testing is the simplest, most robust control that can be applied to new material.

[Rabiesbunny]

It would be nice i WotC would run spell checks through their books; all my newer FR sourcebooks have almost a typo a PAGE!!!!

[Solaris]

I sneer contemptuously at class / feat / special ability / race proliferation in splatbooks.

Yes, I know that's what splatbooks are for, but I don't like it. I'd rather see some well thought out spells, monsters, magic items and adventure hooks.

Most of all, I'd like to see some fecking QUALITY CONTROL in official suplemental material, thanks. Play testing is the simplest, most robust control that can be applied to new material.

Quality control is a must, to be sure, but I realized something as I was looking at the Monster Manual IV: Something the PCs can use is far, far better a buy than something the PCs can only whack on. After all, if a PC can use it, so can an NPC (it's how the PCs get most of their gear, actually . . . ) but a PC can't use a monster.
I'unno, I rather like there being a buttload of feats out there. New base classes are a bad idea, as they really just killed the class identities in an apparent effort to hand things out to people who couldn't - or wouldn't - make flavor text and/or multiclassing fit their idea.
And, naturally, make more money.
Races also brings up a problem I like to call the Underdark Problem: What kind of an ecosystem can support a dozen distinct sentient species? There's only so far you can take "Magic did it", but apparently some games haven't caught on that either a race is going to have a tiny population, all races are going to be small populations and thus be endangered species, or there simply aren't going to be a dozen intelligent humanoids out there.

[Mewtarthio]

Races also brings up a problem I like to call the Underdark Problem: What kind of an ecosystem can support a dozen distinct sentient species? There's only so far you can take "Magic did it", but apparently some games haven't caught on that either a race is going to have a tiny population, all races are going to be small populations and thus be endangered species, or there simply aren't going to be a dozen intelligent humanoids out there.

Well, up to a point, you can just use the traditional race answer: We humans can have dozens of distinct ethnicities, so why not dozens of distinct sapient species? It's a bit of a stretch to imagine it evolved like that, but in a world with a thousand bickering gods who all want their own mark on the Prime Material, why not?

Of course, that only works up to a point. After a while you have to wonder what sort of niche certain creatures fill. Like humans. Why are humans everywhere? Shouldn't the world be covered by creatures with ridiculous LA? How is it that 75% of the world's Humanoid population hasn't been transformed into vampires or lycanthropes?

[Neek]

About called shots. D&D 3.0 has called shots, it's in the DMG. It's an variant core rule, but the called shots provide a -2 to attack, and provide penalties to speed (if you hamstring someone) &c. I'm still sort of of a 2nd edition DM about damage and effects. If you do enough damage to kill a creature, I'll describe the attack like it were a Homeric poem.

People were commenting about equipment dependency. Here's some fixes:
Defense Bonus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/defenseBonus.htm)
Armor As Damage Reduction (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm)

I run with this in my campaign. It seems to work.

As to demographics; it's all how you make it (I'm not going to run into one of those in my campaign world..., if I wanted to talk about that, I'd make another post about it). A lot of creatures are niche creatures that occupy only one type of terrain. Minotaurs live in mazes and labyrinths, why'd they be around adventuring? (Unless it was to get maze ideas... which I had a player try before.) Other times, you could call that the forces of good overpower such things as lycanthropy and vampirism.

Oh! As a final note. I'd rule for intimidate checks, negative charisma score should be applied positively. Let's face it, the less social skills you have, the easier you can offput someone.

[Quietus]

Humans are everywhere because we can adapt to anywhere. Dwarves love their mountains, elves love their forests. Humans, frankly, don't give a damn.

As for vampires and lycanthropes... the way vampires are created, it's doubtful we'd end up with them ruling everything. Not every vampire is going to drain to death everyone they come across. Lycanthropes, as well, are limited; A lycanthrope who's got it as an affliction will typically be killed, eventually, by the people they threaten during the full moon. And since lycanthropy can't be passed on unless you're a natural lycanthrope, and natural ones can control themselves, there's no problem there.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Races also brings up a problem I like to call the Underdark Problem: What kind of an ecosystem can support a dozen distinct sentient species? There's only so far you can take "Magic did it", but apparently some games haven't caught on that either a race is going to have a tiny population, all races are going to be small populations and thus be endangered species, or there simply aren't going to be a dozen intelligent humanoids out there.
I honestly don't believe anyone's really meant to include every race and every monster in a given campaign.

[Matthew]

True, but what about a Campaign World? Greyhawk presumably houses just about every possible creature, not to mention Planescape...

[Icewalker]

What I really hate is people who try to find the loopholes. They know every little bonus in every book, find some combonation of feats or classes that gives them a massive amount of power duc to something overlooked by the many writers of these books.

People who complain when it isn't their turn to act, or who try to act during someone elses turn, or get annoyed when something reasonable happens to them
(ex: bandits ambush the party, first one jumps out of woods and stabs the caster first. unarmored, easy to kill. the guy playing him was at like -5 or something, constantly complaining and telling the other people to heal him. Eventually I just had several of the bandits stab him while he was down, and had him not come back with the group.)

[Ivius]

I honestly don't believe evolution to be relevant to most campaign settings. Real world evolution assumes no divine intervention. In a world with active deities, different rules apply.

[Stevenson]

Loophole people. Aggrivating. Ask everyone in my group but the loop-hole finder.

Diviners. I hate diviners. Because 99% of them have really no intention of doing any serious divining. They just get to do nearly everything else, with a free divination spell prepared every spell level just in case.

[marjan]

Treasure system. Only way to get enough money to be able to present threat to high CR villans is to rob everything you kill. This especially annoys me if we play good characters fighting the forces of evil (and robing them when we kill them). And I am not considered evil for doing that. The only other way you can get money is to be paid for your services and at higher levels nobody has enough money to do that. So you can take Vow of Poverty, kill and rob or be worse than you should be (unless you are caster, but even then you need money just maybe less).

[Ashes]

Oh! As a final note. I'd rule for intimidate checks, negative charisma score should be applied positively. Let's face it, the less social skills you have, the easier you can offput someone.



Intimidation is not the art of offputting people. It is the art of making them tick, making them fear you.

A high-charisma Intimidate would be like: Now do as I tell you, or otherwise that beautiful little daughter of yours might be in an accident. You don't want that to happen, now do you?

A low-charisma Intimidate would be more along the lines of: Gimme all your money, or I'll hit you on your head.

Now while the latter may be scary if you are in a dark alley at night and your opponent is holding a big-ass club, (which would most certainly give a substantial circumstance bonus) it won't get under your skin as the other would. It would just be like the big guy in high school threatening to beat you up. You aren't afraid of him, you are afraid of being beaten up, which isn't nearly as unsettling as the other option.

[Neek]

Unless your DM actually gives you decent rewards for accomplishing tasks, marjan...

Ashes: On second thought, you're right. Having low charisma would be a hamper on being intimidating. Bug boy might not have the strength. But you know, with his bug collection... that's a little creepy anyway.

[Solaris]

I honestly don't believe anyone's really meant to include every race and every monster in a given campaign.

You know that. I know that. My players, bless their hearts, do not. I've played with . . . oh, somewhere between a dozen and twenty players in the past year (nothing attracts players like being the only decent GM in a twenty-mile radius), and I think only about four of them understood that the game is not meant to incorporate everything ever written in a D&D book.


True, but what about a Campaign World? Greyhawk presumably houses just about every possible creature, not to mention Planescape...

To be fair, it is a prepackaged campaign setting designed to be trimmed down a wee bit to provide a group with a setting without forcing the DM to write it out. It's supposed to have everything, and the DM's supposed to take out the things he doesn't want (generally, with keeping the flavor of the setting intact).


I honestly don't believe evolution to be relevant to most campaign settings. Real world evolution assumes no divine intervention. In a world with active deities, different rules apply.

Very, very active deities. Deities who completely, utterly, and totally trump natural selection. I'm not talking about making their initial doodles for adventurers to beat into paste, I'm talking about keeping them alive over the millennia with a sufficient gene pool to prevent one disease from wiping them all out.
Not to mention "Gods did it" stinks of "Magic did it," and that answer has been known to drive me into a screaming blood frenzy*.
And no power in the 'Verse can make me accept an answer other than "Magic did it" for the Underdark. There's just too many things living in those underground caverns. I was happier when it was just the drow down there, with some illithid and beholders thrown in for flavor.
*Not anymore, though. They took away my frenzywater. Something about using class abilities for classes I don't have. The pansies.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

True, but what about a Campaign World? Greyhawk presumably houses just about every possible creature...
Uh, I haven't seen anything that says that. Perhaps you're confusing it with Eberron. Which actually doesn't say it has everything, but that there's a way to make anything fit if you feel you need it to do so. Important difference that.


not to mention Planescape...
Hey, when you've got infinite planes...

But then it's not everything on the same world now. It's a bunch of different worlds.

[Matthew]

Greyhawk is the Default Core Setting, so I assume that anything not specifically related to another Campaign World (such as Warforged or what have you) will have a place in Greyhawk [i.e. Default D&D = Greyhawk]. Maybe not, though, the 3.0 mandate might have long since passed...

[Tobrian]

True, but what about a Campaign World? Greyhawk presumably houses just about every possible creature, not to mention Planescape...
Uh, I haven't seen anything that says that. Perhaps you're confusing it with Eberron.(snip)

I thought that was Faerun (aka. The Realms of Forgotten Items) that had everything you can imagine? Greyhawk is just your standard D&D world, with basic core monsters and core races and core spells. The Faerun supplements on the other hand have extra special Faerun spells, extra special Faerun feats and PrCs, all sorts of extra special races like gold elves, shield dwarves, tieflings and genasi and whatnot. Not to mention monsters that used to be core in 2nd Ed and now are only in the Monsters of Faerun book, like quaggoth and grell.

[Green Bean]

What drives me crazy is the way that dragons can breed with anything. I mean, I think of myself as pretty good at suspension of disbelief, but when you can have a half-dragon gelantinous cube...

[Matthew]

I thought that was Faerun (aka. The Realms of Forgotten Items) that had everything you can imagine? Greyhawk is just your standard D&D world, with basic core monsters and core races and core spells. The Faerun supplements on the other hand have extra special Faerun spells, extra special Faerun feats and PrCs, all sorts of extra special races like gold elves, shield dwarves, tieflings and genasi and whatnot. Not to mention monsters that used to be core in 2nd Ed and now are only in the Monsters of Faerun book, like quaggoth and grell.

Nah, that's a common perception, but Greyhawk is the default campaign setting and because huge areas of the world are completely undeveloped pretty much anything is possible. The 3.0 idea seems to have been to leave those areas blank in order to accomodate any and all default material. So, any 'core' adventure Wizards put out or that appears in [I]Dungeon is presumed to have Greyhawk as its default setting. At least, that's my understanding of the situation, but Living Greyhawk may have changed all that.

[idioscosmos]

The Savage Species book, and all the chaos that spilled from it. I quit my last group on account of everyone wanting to run "Monster X". And by run, I mean "do lots 'o killin'". They didn't really think of background story or anything. I actually had a player throw a fit because I wouldn't let him run a Feral Troll - he went and rolled up a Feral Minotaur.

Given the history of humanity (ie we generally don't get along with people of another color or religion, much less a different species), saying a (medieval) society would function with what - seven races in it - is a bit of a stretch, and that's without trying to have Succubi and oh-what are those bug men from Dark Sun-walking down main street.

The other thing I just L O A T H is players that try to put everything in terms of D&D game mechanics/D&D mythology. Heaven forbid I make a new culture for Dwarves in my world - I've had people actually get mad when I tryed to explain that Dwarves didn't have "clans"* in my world. I've also had people try to tell me that Chainmail would protect you from a modern firearm and base their argument on D&D....

*Anthropologically/historically speaking you'd think the Chaotic races (elves, etc) would be more inclined toward a family based clan (being unable to organized themselves better than that), and the Lawful races going for a Feudal or Imperial or Republican system of some kind. Instead, in D&D you get Lawful dwarves stuck in clans, and Chaotic Elves in organized kingdoms.

[Tobrian]

What drives me crazy is the way that dragons can breed with anything. I mean, I think of myself as pretty good at suspension of disbelief, but when you can have a half-dragon gelantinous cube...

Buh? *head explodes*

I'm currently trying very hard not to make any comment involving dragons and lubricants...

[Maxymiuk]

Buh? *head explodes*

I'm currently trying very hard not to make any comment involving dragons and lubricants...

Too late. Rule 34 has been invoked.

[NullAshton]

What drives me crazy is the way that dragons can breed with anything. I mean, I think of myself as pretty good at suspension of disbelief, but when you can have a half-dragon gelantinous cube...

I think in certain situations, half-dragons like that arise by means not of physical means, but of more magical means. Dragons are powerful magical creatures, correct? Perhaps if a dragon has gelatinous cubes hanging around their lair long enough, their magical nature somehow imprints itself on the gelatinous cubes over several generations, and a half-dragon gelatinous cube is created.

[Dark]

Or, more directly, if a gelatinous cube eats a dragon's corpse, perhaps it absorbs some mystic energies and becomes a half-dragon.

I once had a plan for a tree that happened to grow through a dead dragon's skull, was then attacked by an oddly-inclined vampire, and later became an Awakened half-dragon vampire spruce.

It would all have been worth it just to have a fire-breathing tree.

[Mewtarthio]

Oh! As a final note. I'd rule for intimidate checks, negative charisma score should be applied positively. Let's face it, the less social skills you have, the easier you can offput someone.

The problem is that Charisma isn't how well-liked you are. It's how good you are at getting people to do what you want. A 6 Cha barbarian should not be taken seriously by anyone. On the whole, most people should consider him to be a brute that can break things really well. They might be scared to run into him in a combat situation, and peopel who know him well might know enough to take him seriously, but on the whole he's not any good at convincing. The best he can do is present a credible threat of bodily harm, and it'd be even more effective if the 18 Cha bard weilded him like a weapon (compare "Lemme in or I smash the door with your skull" to "Oh, are we not allowed in? What a pity. Krangar here is very upset. I suppose I'll just leave right now and hope Krangar follows suit...").

[DaMullet]

My big problem with the Cleric spell list is Animate Object. Honestly, why do clerics have it and Wizards not? Who do you stereotypically see with a bunch of talking furniture? The high priest, or the mad mage?

[TheOtherMC]

My big problem with the Cleric spell list is Animate Object. Honestly, why do clerics have it and Wizards not? Who do you stereotypically see with a bunch of talking furniture? The high priest, or the mad mage?

Is it holy furniture?

[Stevenson]

The mage, of course. But they are, as V so well puts it, too busy telling the laws of physics to shut up and sit down to bother messing with life force. Which is precisely what clerics do. Mess with life, that is. If anybody's breathing life in to anything, they're a divine caster. Trust me.

Speaking of cleric spells: create food and water. As a third level cleric spell. Plain create water, which creates much more water by the way, is a 0 level spell. Explain that one to me.

[TheOtherMC]

The mage, of course. But they are, as V so well puts it, too busy telling the laws of physics to shut up and sit down to bother messing with life force. Which is precisely what clerics do. Mess with life, that is. If anybody's breathing life in to anything, they're a divine caster. Trust me.

Speaking of cleric spells: create food and water. As a third level cleric spell. Plain create water, which creates much more water by the way, is a 0 level spell. Explain that one to me.

Well which would you rather have? Just plain old water? Or food AND water!?

[Stevenson]

Oh, I understand. But I don't see how decreasing the water and adding food for three equals three spells level. I'd take it in a heartbeat as a first level spell.

[Jack_Simth]

The mage, of course. But they are, as V so well puts it, too busy telling the laws of physics to shut up and sit down to bother messing with life force. Which is precisely what clerics do. Mess with life, that is. If anybody's breathing life in to anything, they're a divine caster. Trust me.
So what's the Bard-2 with Cure Light Wounds?

[DaMullet]

An anomaly, obviously.

Honestly, the entire spell-list system needs a twice-over and minor overhaul.

[Golthur]

So what's the Bard-2 with Cure Light Wounds?

And there's one of my personal pet peeves. A Bard takes Scribe Scroll. Uses Scribe Scroll to write down an arcane version of Cure Light Wounds. The mightiest wizard in the land can never learn the secrets of this arcane healing spell. Nor can they ever "switch planes" on any of the arcane spells that use negative energy to make them use positive energy.

Bah! :yuk:

[rob]

Pet peeve - silly archer combinations, absurdly specific caster prestige classes (entropomancers! master of the unseen hand!), and prestige classes that are JUST PLAIN SUPERIOR to the base class (radiant servant of pelor)...

Dislike how NPC racies, despite human-level sentience, population, and organization, always get dropped off the map. There are huge variations in the levels of humans, why not in the levels of kobolds? (one of my favorite villains was a 16th level kobold...)

I've never had repeat problems with rules quibblers, or unfair combination monkeys, or that sort. I have a couple ways of getting rid of it -

1. Rules that don't make no sense whatsoever - endless attack combinations, using monkey-grip and and oversized weapon fighting to wield two greatclubs, etc. Just don't let them happen.
2. Combinations that feel abusive - let them happen during the game session, but afterwards with the players come up with a less cheesy alternative or set of rules.
3. Combinations that are quite legal, but grossly overpowered (like the mounted pally trick) - two things will usually persuade the player to branch their character out more - 1, a plausible situation where they can't use their trick (mines usually have ceilings less than 6' high...). 2, an enemy prepared to neutralize their trick (against cavalry - horse pits, a mare in heat, poison in the feed, etc.)... Hit a player with both, and they'll usually get quite frustrated.

Aside from that, I usually am quite suspicious of things from the splatbooks, and even more suspcious of associated things like unearthed arcana. I generally won't allow characters that seem implausible; and I won't allow players who gripe about me forcing them to play plausible characters.

Rob

[ElHugo]

What somehow irritates me are the knowledge skills... Assuming a standard 4+1 group, there are a lot more skills out there then even collectively you can cover, and even so, it doesn't feel right to have to even distribute skills amongst the players so you don't double up or leave too much uncovered.

Can't we just have a Knowledge (Everything that ever was or will be) skill? Of course, that's also stupid, but what are we going to do? There aren't that many skill points to go around to spend on 'luxuries' like knowledges. Not even for the rogue with the +3 int modifier, because even he needs to have loads of other skills, because he's the rogue. He does the 'practical' skills first. And so on.

[Caelestion]

16th-level commoners. There is nothing common about 16th-level.

Bards with healing spells stink of gaagh. Healing magic is divine and all the singing in the world should not change that. Similarly, the Fochlucan Lyrist - suddenly mastery of bardic powers allows you to thumb your nose at the druidic armour oaths?

[The_Blue_Sorceress]

Similarly annoying, unless you have a special PrC like Bloodhound with special feats, beating someone unconscious in a fist fight or by smashing a club over the head is harder than simply killing him in melee. Which means D&D is geared towards killing the opponent, not taking him alive, because there's no way short of house rules of knocking someone out in one go. And the game designers actually write that they did this on purpose!

It's ridiculously easy to kill someone, even when you don't mean to. The force required to knock someone out cold can very easily be more than enough force to shatter a rib and pierce some vital organ or blood vessel, or send the heart into fibrilation or stop it cold, and that doesn't even get into all the ugly things that blows to the head can do, and mind, the head is generally where one aims if intending to knock someone out. Take boxing for example, boxers don't die all the time precisely, but they're using their fists, more often padded with boxing gloves than not, and are watched over by referees who put a stop to things if they think it's getting to dangerous, but people still get killed. Now just think how things would go if they were using the flat side of a sword instead of gloved fists. It's far, far easier to kill than to subdue.

-Blue

[NemoUtopia]

I honestly don't believe evolution to be relevant to most campaign settings. Real world evolution assumes no divine intervention. In a world with active deities, different rules apply.

Out of game things that annoy me: people who assume science and religion are mutually exclusive (see: Stormwind Fallacy)

On another side-note: do differentiate from "furries" and "furverts", the same way you would differentiate between those who are "religious" and those who are "fundamentalists/zealots." The distinction is often lost (and believe me, I understand precisely why), but I have many friends in "the furry community", and I can tell you from personal experience that my comparison is extremely apt. It's the stereotypical and extremely disturbing/vocal minority that gives the whole a bad name.

Anyway, most of the other things that annoy me have already been said (aforementioned Stormwind Fallacy, template ridiculousness, players who "just don't get it", general stereotypes, things that are legal but aren't physically possible even IN a magical setting without active magic, more base classes than you can shake your pile of splat-books at, equipment dependency, etc.)

One thing that really gets my goat, however, is when people REALLY don't get it. I'm talking about the people who just don't bother, who don't even try. Not the "beer-and-pretzel" gamer stereotype, per se, since this applies to people who only do the exact same thing over and over, but you know the type. The person-you-may-as-well-have-a-DMPC-replace person. If your group only has this person because they're PC/DM X's friend, then the group needs to balls-up and have two separate get together times: D&D time, and boardgame/movie/videogame time so everyone can still hang out and have fun without things getting wonky. Anybody else have this pet peeve?

[Orzel]

Pally and rangers being half casters. Their spells are low level and their DC stink, why nerf my Owl's Wisdom duration?

[Krimm_Blackleaf]

What I don't like is that level adjustment of +3 or more is a real killer. Even with other factors like damage reduction it's always cancelled out by the crippling level adjustment.

[Vodun]

Something thats always annoyed me is the fact that clerics of Grummsh get spears as their favored weapon. what the hell? I house rule in Falchions, but its still just a case of them putting in well-known facts about the flavor and not corraborating it with the system. Another thing thats annoyed me doesnt have much to do with the actual mechanics, but with DMs that Ive seen. You know who Im talking about. the guys who use random selection charts when picking out item loot, and getting the most useless stuff possible, for example a bane VERMIN CLUB for a 12th level party. Or maybe 2 wands of light and a potion of resistance.

[Edo]

My biggest pet peeve is that nobody's ever amended DMG Table 4-43.

There's something like 40 new core classes that I know of, between all the sourcebooks. All of them have a "[Class] in the World" section. Some of them have an "Adaptation" section. The newer ones have a "Lore" section.

NONE of the sourcebooks have a two-column table called "Highest-Level Characters (New Classes)," to add on to the current list.

That's not cool.

It's easy to fix, but that ease of fixing IS what makes it a pet peeve for me. How hard would it have been to do it in the first place?