What do you expect from D&D?

[jedipotter]

So you get invited to a D&D 3.5 (or Pathfinder) game. And your not best friends with the DM. What do you expect from the game? A lot of people have a lot of expectations about the game, and it make me wonder what they all are?

[Zanos]

That the rules written in the books will be used except in cases where they conflict with the DMs specifically described houserules.
That the DM and the players will strive for a roughly equal level of power in their monsters and characters respectively.
That PvP will be heavily frowned up unless the campaign is designed with it in mind.
That people will be cool.

Of course, that's an ideal scenario.

[bjoern]

So you get invited to a D&D 3.5 (or Pathfinder) game. And your not best friends with the DM. What do you expect from the game? A lot of people have a lot of expectations about the game, and it make me wonder what they all are?

Well, if the DM invited me I'd imagine he wanted me there. So I would be optimistic that id have fun.

I wouldn't assume right off the bat that the DM was a bully and so were the other players and they just invited me to be the punching bag for the session.

I find that it's better to be optimistic and naive rather then pessimistic and paranoid.

[Vhaidara]

That the rules written in the books will be used except in cases where they conflict with the DMs specifically described houserules.
That the DM and the players will strive for a roughly equal level of power in their monsters and characters respectively.
That PvP will be heavily frowned up unless the campaign is designed with it in mind.
That people will be cool.

Of course, that's an ideal scenario.

These.
The first two 100%.
The third one has a caveat allowing for nonlethal (my Warforged characters frequently enjoy slapping an irrational party members)
The fourth one is actually kind of a requirement with me. If the other players are a bunch of *****, I'm leaving.

[bjoern]

Yeah, D&D 3.5 is established enough by now that I would just assume that every DMwould think that every experienced player knew the rules. And that anything different from the rules would be brought up during character creation.

Nothing like finding out after 10 sessions that any religion bases class (paladin, cleric, etc) must give all their possessions to the church whenever in town lest fall out of favor with their god. Pretty much VoP with no benefit.

This happened to me years ago. It was lame.

[Oneris]

To take away from it amusing and/or epic anecdotes that will stay with me forever, whether it be heartrendingly-dramatic roleplaying or crazy-awesome rollplaying.
Even games that degenerate into rocket tag or battleship won't be a total loss if there's at least one good memory associated with it.

[Necroticplague]

Depends heavily on what other information I was given. MY most basic ones are pretty much agreeing with Kaledrath. Everything else is based upon what kinda genre I'm told we'd be running in. I'm fine with a game of subtle intrigue or hack-and-slash dungeon crawling, but less fine with bait-and-switching from one to another. Similarly, what I expect would also be based on the absolute and relative power levels I'm told to do so (whether we're powerful overall, and whether we're powerful compared to most things).

[Spore]

What do I expect? To partake in and to CHANGE the story the DM is giving us. To be able to personify a character which I cannot be in a world where I cannot live in (yes, D&D is escapism for me). And lastly to get some leeway and help from the DM e.g. an abused animal who was tended by a PC and then it's master sics it at the party wouldn't attack his savior. I don't care if opposing charisma checks are RAW.

[Brookshw]

Hmmm, cohesion and unity of world and story. Amicable play with comical intreludes. Cohesive concepts among party. Reasonable versimultude. Equal opportunity for character interaction. Kinda standard for any rpg really. The rest depends on the campaign.

[Piggy Knowles]

What do I expect? To partake in and to CHANGE the story the DM is giving us.

This. D&D to me is not about the DM's story unfolding; it's about the DM and the players creating the story together. An inflexible plot where the characters have no influence is boring to me.

I also want everyone to be honest with each other out of character. If you're the DM, it means working with your players, finding out what they like, and being honest with them when you're not behind the screen. If you're a player, it means telling the DM what your goals are, what you want your character to be able to do, etc. It also means communicating openly OOC with the other players - don't try to hijack the campaign. If you want to take a more active role IC, talk to the table. Presumably you're all friends, or you at least tolerate each other enough to sit down together every week or two.

[Sith_Happens]

I expect to be told by the DM what to expect before I make my character.

[Vhaidara]

This. D&D to me is not about the DM's story unfolding; it's about the DM and the players creating the story together. An inflexible plot where the characters have no influence is boring to me.

I can speak for all 10-15 of the players in my area that I play with (I go to a gamer college, there are at least 3 other people on these forums that go to college with me): This is true. It's also part of why I have resigned from GMing. I am really bad about this.


I also want everyone to be honest with each other out of character. If you're the DM, it means working with your players, finding out what they like, and being honest with them when you're not behind the screen.

Again, this is incredibly important. My GMs are really good at this, working in little fun things. One guy, who is playing a factotum cartographer who worships Fharlaghan, recently received the Boots of the Unending Journey from the Traveler himself. When it came up that those are, while extremely flavorful but kind of crappy, we tacked on the effects of the Boots of Striding and Springing to make them useful.


If you're a player, it means telling the DM what your goals are, what you want your character to be able to do, etc. It also means communicating openly OOC with the other players - don't try to hijack the campaign. If you want to take a more active role IC, talk to the table. Presumably you're all friends, or you at least tolerate each other enough to sit down together every week or two.

And again, this is just as important. We had someone who wanted to experiment with a Rune-based character, using Explosive Runes as a primary spell. So we instituted the no-stacking houserule, but he still got pretty out of control because of a few elements
1. Sudden Maximize = 1/day stockpiling of maximized ER
2. Writing the runes on arrows that break when they hit, detonating the rune
3. Sculpt Spell allowing for a lot of AoEs.
Combined with our archer and the fact that we were in a war, our archer single handedly, at level 7 (we had him Hasted + Surprise Round + he won initiative), killed 100 infantrymen in a single round.

He's not doing this anymore, because he's such a raw force multiplier, making even my Gnome Bard was a devastating threat to the battlefield (Beyond a +8 Inspire Courage applied to 1d10 miles of level 1 soldiers).

Same campaign, my bard. I've been doing Inspire Courage optimization. I currently have a horn, Song of the Heart, and Inspirational Boost. I got GM approval to take a variant of Words of Creation called Against All Odds, which I can only use when we are fighting impossible odds (Me and our ninja solo vs a Stone Giant is the only time I'm gotten to use it). I knew that it was going to be game-breakingly powerful in terms of numbers, so I worked with the GM to make it a flavorful ability that let's us do the Badass things.

[atemu1234]

I expect players and DMs to be civil to one another.

[bjoern]

I can speak for all 10-15 of the players in my area that I play with (I go to a gamer college, there are at least 3 other people on these forums that go to college with me): This is true. It's also part of why I have resigned from GMing. I am really bad about this.



Again, this is incredibly important. My GMs are really good at this, working in little fun things. One guy, who is playing a factotum cartographer who worships Fharlaghan, recently received the Boots of the Unending Journey from the Traveler himself. When it came up that those are, while extremely flavorful but kind of crappy, we tacked on the effects of the Boots of Striding and Springing to make them useful.



And again, this is just as important. We had someone who wanted to experiment with a Rune-based character, using Explosive Runes as a primary spell. So we instituted the no-stacking houserule, but he still got pretty out of control because of a few elements
1. Sudden Maximize = 1/day stockpiling of maximized ER
2. Writing the runes on arrows that break when they hit, detonating the rune
3. Sculpt Spell allowing for a lot of AoEs.
Combined with our archer and the fact that we were in a war, our archer single handedly, at level 7 (we had him Hasted + Surprise Round + he won initiative), killed 100 infantrymen in a single round.

He's not doing this anymore, because he's such a raw force multiplier, making even my Gnome Bard was a devastating threat to the battlefield (Beyond a +8 Inspire Courage applied to 1d10 miles of level 1 soldiers).

Same campaign, my bard. I've been doing Inspire Courage optimization. I currently have a horn, Song of the Heart, and Inspirational Boost. I got GM approval to take a variant of Words of Creation called Against All Odds, which I can only use when we are fighting impossible odds (Me and our ninja solo vs a Stone Giant is the only time I'm gotten to use it). I knew that it was going to be game-breakingly powerful in terms of numbers, so I worked with the GM to make it a flavorful ability that let's us do the Badass things.

The idea of explosive runes on arrows is great. I could use that to help out a fellow PC that is weak in combat . That would do the trick.

Is there anything written that says the something breaking triggers the runes?

[1pwny]

So you get invited to a D&D 3.5 (or Pathfinder) game. And your not best friends with the DM. What do you expect from the game? A lot of people have a lot of expectations about the game, and it make me wonder what they all are?

Orcus! :smallwink:

[Brookshw]

Orcus! :smallwink:

An opportunity for honest discussion and you jump to an ad hominem

/slow clap

[Vhaidara]

The idea of explosive runes on arrows is great. I could use that to help out a fellow PC that is weak in combat . That would do the trick.

Is there anything written that says the something breaking triggers the runes?

It's a bit of a liberal reading, but...


You and any characters you specifically instruct can read the protected writing without triggering the runes. Likewise, you can remove the runes whenever desired. Another creature can remove them with a successful dispel magic or erase spell, but attempting to dispel or erase the runes and failing to do so triggers the explosion.

We went with that including destroying the object.

Also, we had a really funny moment where the Rune-Sorcerer was going to trial (he always has like 50 letter with Explosive Runes on them), and there was a Wall of Dispel Magic on the way into the courthouse. He nearly blew up himself, my bard, and left the Ilumian Hexblade standing in a crater.

[Lanson]

I expect the basic functions if the game to work the way the should and rules are consistent. I want to have fun with olds friends and have the chance to make some new ones while enjoying whatever genre game I was told to expect when i created my character.

[WhamBamSam]

The game will be run mostly in accordance with the rules as written.

Any houserules or bans will be explained before character generation and will be sensible. In particular, if your stated reason for banning ToB is balance or realism, that's two strikes against you as a DM in my book.

The game will be challenging and potentially lethal even for relatively optimized characters. At the very least, the expected optimization level should be clear from the get-go.

The party will work together on relatively amicable terms.

[atemu1234]

The game will be run mostly in accordance with the rules as written.

Any houserules or bans will be explained before character generation and will be sensible. In particular, if your stated reason for banning ToB is balance or realism, that's two strikes against you as a DM in my book.

The game will be challenging and potentially lethal even for relatively optimized characters. At the very least, the expected optimization level should be clear from the get-go.

The party will work together on relatively amicable terms.

Is that an actual issue with ToB? I've only ever seen it banned because a lot of people are unfamiliar with the system.

I allow it passively, I'd probably have to read it again if anyone wanted it.

[WhamBamSam]

Is that an actual issue with ToB? I've only ever seen it banned because a lot of people are unfamiliar with the system.

I allow it passively, I'd probably have to read it again if anyone wanted it.No. ToB is perfectly well balanced apart from one or two things like the d2 Crusader (which are no more prevalent than in most other books and certainly less so than in Core) and is a better representation of real world martial arts than standard D&D combat. Banning it because you aren't familiar with the system is acceptable, but I'd hope that in the long term you'd be willing to learn it in case I want to play a Swordsage or something in the next campaign. Banning it because you think it's unbalanced or unrealistic makes you wrong, but a common enough sort of wrong that it bears mentioning.

[Psyren]

That the rules written in the books will be used except in cases where they conflict with the DMs specifically described houserules.
That the DM and the players will strive for a roughly equal level of power in their monsters and characters respectively.
That PvP will be heavily frowned up unless the campaign is designed with it in mind.
That people will be cool.

Of course, that's an ideal scenario.

#2 is not something I'd expect at all. If one guy is playing wizard and the other is playing gunslinger I know who'll be more powerful.

I agree with the rest though.


An opportunity for honest discussion and you jump to an ad hominem

/slow clap

+1

[jedipotter]

Any houserules or bans will be explained before character generation and will be sensible. In particular, if your stated reason for banning ToB is balance or realism, that's two strikes against you as a DM in my book.


Oh, if I had a gold coin for every time.....

I ban the ToB (and all the other 3.75E almost 4E books), as I don't like them. I feel the ruin the game. I don't like giving fighter types spells the way ToB does, and worse they are vague, unsupported spells just tacked on to the rules. And the ToB brings nothing positive to the game.

[Zanos]

#2 is not something I'd expect at all. If one guy is playing wizard and the other is playing gunslinger I know who'll be more powerful.
"Rough level of power" means that all characters should be able to contribute meaningfully to the party without overshadowing each other.

[AuraTwilight]

Oh, if I had a gold coin for every time.....

I ban the ToB (and all the other 3.75E almost 4E books), as I don't like them. I feel the ruin the game. I don't like giving fighter types spells the way ToB does, and worse they are vague, unsupported spells just tacked on to the rules. And the ToB brings nothing positive to the game.

You are objectively wrong.

[atemu1234]

Oh, if I had a gold coin for every time.....

I ban the ToB (and all the other 3.75E almost 4E books), as I don't like them. I feel the ruin the game. I don't like giving fighter types spells the way ToB does, and worse they are vague, unsupported spells just tacked on to the rules. And the ToB brings nothing positive to the game.

How is pathfinder at all like 4e?

[eggynack]

You are objectively wrong.
Quite. I mean, some of those things are just subjectively wrong, like the idea that ToB brings nothing to the game, but the thing about the system being vague or unsupported is definitely incorrectness of the objective variety.

[The Insanity]

I'd expect to know the rules we'll be playing with.

[Psyren]

How is pathfinder at all like 4e?

I think by "3.75" he meant "subsystems WotC was testing late in 3.5's life as ideas for 4e" - thinks like ToB, and the Binder's vestige abilities being the precursor to encounter powers.


Quite. I mean, some of those things are just subjectively wrong, like the idea that ToB brings nothing to the game, but the thing about the system being vague or unsupported is definitely incorrectness of the objective variety.

To be fair, several maneuvers are quite vague (like IHS.) But I think the vast majority are pretty clear.

[WhamBamSam]

Oh, if I had a gold coin for every time.....

I ban the ToB (and all the other 3.75E almost 4E books), as I don't like them. I feel the ruin the game. I don't like giving fighter types spells the way ToB does, and worse they are vague, unsupported spells just tacked on to the rules. And the ToB brings nothing positive to the game.As I said above, ToB is a much better representation of real world martial arts than standard D&D combat. It is not spellcasting or 4E-esque. Hitting someone with a pointy stick in a special way is clearly different from shooting fire with your brain. It just is. The Warblade is exactly what should have been printed as the Fighter in the PHB, and you will not convince me otherwise. There are a few maneuvers that could have been better written, but just compare that to the spells in Core alone?

As for what it brings to the game.

It allows melee to do something other than full attack or walk up and swing at someone.

It gives mundane characters mobility and defenses more suited to epic heroes.

It gives some style and pizzazz to melee types from a mechanical perspective instead of just a fluff perspective, which, given the huge imbalance between mundanes and casters, is one of the major reasons one might want to play a non-caster in the first place.

As with any increase in the options available to players, it opens up more character concepts that would not otherwise be mechanically possible.

[jedipotter]

How is pathfinder at all like 4e?

It's not. Never said it was.... Oh wait, you have the wrong 3.75E. See all the horrable sub system books are the 3.75E ones:Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnium, Tome of Magic and such. They were clearly written with the 4E mindset already in place....


Quite. I mean, some of those things are just subjectively wrong, like the idea that ToB brings nothing to the game, but the thing about the system being vague or unsupported is definitely incorrectness of the objective variety.

Well, it brings tons of trouble and problems: DM:''The hobgoblins fire 15 arrows at your group and they all miss'' Problem ToB Payer "Yes! my AC is now +30!'' DM-"What?" Player-''Every time they miss me I get a +2 to AC'' DM-"that is the dumbest rule every.'' Player-''here look'' DM looks and see the stupid rule says ''+2 ac when attacked and is very vague and stupid. DM-"Sigh''

But whatever some people like the ToB, the same way some people watch reality shows or Soap Operas. I don't like any of them.

[WhamBamSam]

Well, it brings tons of trouble and problems: DM:''The hobgoblins fire 15 arrows at your group and they all miss'' Problem ToB Payer "Yes! my AC is now +30!'' DM-"What?" Player-''Every time they miss me I get a +2 to AC'' DM-"that is the dumbest rule every.'' Player-''here look'' DM looks and see the stupid rule says ''+2 ac when attacked and is very vague and stupid. DM-"Sigh''1) The stance in question is actually generally regarded as not being very good.

2) It's actually pretty explicit in how it works. First of all it says "with a melee attack" so the example of arrows missing doesn't actually work. Second, Dodge bonuses are clearly stated to stack elsewhere. Third it ends after the end of the turn, so it would only be +30 against a hypothetical 16th hobgoblin anyway. Next turn, their chance to hit would be back to normal until they started missing again.

3) I don't see why it's so stupid to temporarily become more "in the zone" with each successive miss. Maybe you could argue that it should be a [Mind-Affecting] morale penalty to enemies or something, but either way it makes sense to me. Also, just fyi, I'm a 4th degree black belt (so a Master) in Taekwondo and was a quarter-finalist in the American collegiate nationals last year. I almost certainly know more about what constitutes realism when it comes to martial arts than you do.

[eggynack]

Well, it brings tons of trouble and problems: DM:''The hobgoblins fire 15 arrows at your group and they all miss'' Problem ToB Payer "Yes! my AC is now +30!'' DM-"What?" Player-''Every time they miss me I get a +2 to AC'' DM-"that is the dumbest rule every.'' Player-''here look'' DM looks and see the stupid rule says ''+2 ac when attacked and is very vague and stupid. DM-"Sigh''
Do you mean pearl of black doubt? The one that has its effects last only for one round, such that you only get benefits if you have opponents miss you in that round, which means that you need high AC to get higher AC? The one that's completely unambiguous about how it works, and which doesn't really seem all that great outside of really specific situations? That stance? I'm not really seeing the issue here. I mean, really, you wouldn't need to be surprised by this stuff if you'd just read the character sheet. Warblades only get 4 stances known at 20th level, and swordsages only get 6. It's pretty trivial to figure out what those stances are before a game.


But whatever some people like the ToB, the same way some people watch reality shows or Soap Operas. I don't like any of them.

It really seems more like you just don't like this thing because you don't understand it or know anything about it.

[Kazyan]

Woo, another burn-the-ToB-heretic thread. These are always fun. [/monotone]

[atemu1234]

Woo, another burn-the-ToB-heretic thread. These are always fun. [/monotone]

More like another burn jedipotter thread. Even less fun.

[Merellis]

Isn't that the one that only works if the enemy is missing you anyway with melee attacks, with the bonus ending the second your turn starts?

In your example the player shows the DM the book, and both happen to miss the part where it says Melee attacks only, and that it only lasts until the player starts his turn? So not only did the DM miss the fact it ends on the start of the characters turn, but the DM also missed the fact that it was melee attacks only.. with the book showing exactly what the stance does.

Wow.

[afroakuma]

It's not. Never said it was.... Oh wait, you have the wrong 3.75E. See all the horrable sub system books are the 3.75E ones

I'm unfamiliar with them, then. Don't know of any "horrable" subsystem books. A few questionable subsystems, certainly (truenaming, why soulborn is a thing) but trying to offer something new, different and reasonably balanced to players and DMs is not in and of itself a bad thing.


Well, it brings tons of trouble and problems

...to you. And your specific example is predicated on not having read the relevant ability, which is not only quite specific but does not do that in the situation you describe. Just because the numbers get larger than you wanted them to doesn't make it bad; what bearing they have on the game and your capacity to approach that is what matters.

Now did you really start this thread so you could find something to go off on a tangential rant about, or can we perhaps return to the main topic instead of insulting the play preferences of others?

[geekintheground]

some of these have been stated, but i'll say them again for emphasis:
1) the game works as written unless houserules are mentioned before character creation
2) the type of game is told before character creation
3) all material is allowed unless mentioned before character creation (wow, a lot of this happens before character creation)
4) the DM has a "yes and" or "yes but" style
5) the DM and at least a couple players know enough about optimization to not think everything i do is power gaming munchkinry...


as for the ToB issue, i dont really see an issue. jedipotter bans the book, and no matter what anyone thinks of the reason thats his choice. you dont have to play with him. (personally i dont agree, and think he took a look specifically at the vague and/or broken abilities and decided the whole book was borked, but thats on him)

[The Insanity]

More like another burn jedipotter thread. Even less fun.
Well, he invites it. What are people supposed to do, decline their entertainment?

[atemu1234]

Well, he invites it. What are people supposed to do, decline their entertainment?

Fair enough.

[eggynack]

(personally i dont agree, and think he took a look specifically at the vague and/or broken abilities and decided the whole book was borked, but thats on him)
Actually, it doesn't look like that's what happened at all, which is why the topic is so interesting to me. If she had learned of the oddity of IHS, or WRT, or even the 1d2 crusader, and decided that wasn't for her, that would have been at least somewhat understandable to me. Instead, it looks like she read a couple of perfectly balanced and reasonable abilities, misread them entirely, and apparently literally set the book aflame on the basis of those misreadings. It's just a weird thing all around.

[Merellis]

I'm not exactly trying to burn Jedipotter here, just pointing out that the example that was setup to show ToB as a horrible book was wrong from the start. The player didn't know how it worked, the DM didn't know how it worked despite having the player open the book to the page it was on, and Jedi's use of that as an example shows a complete lack of understanding how that ability works.

Point out the Idiot Crusader build, Iron Heart Surge, D2 Crusader, or the issue of people using White Raven Tactics on themselves. Those are actual issues with the book, along with it's rather annoying layout. But these issues have been addressed again and again as being up to the DM to handle.

As for what I expect from D&D, I expect the DM to handle things fairly, not hold a grudge, and be willing to listen to arguments for adding or removing things before deciding.

If there are house rules, I'd like to know about them ahead of time. If there are hidden rules that won't come up till it's time, I'd like to know such things exist ahead of time. Don't need to know what those hidden rules are, but I would like to know if they exist or not.

With players, I expect them to handle themselves accordingly and be willing to listen if another player has a problem. Whether things change or not isn't the issue, it's more the being willing to listen and think about another point of view.

Gamewise, don't really care if it's a desperate dive into a dungeon, a strike team trying to destabilize an army from within, or a team of people forced with each other, despite hating their guts, to survive. If it's fun and both the DM and other players are good I'll be fine.

Unless the game is boring. :smalltongue:

[jedipotter]

It really seems more like you just don't like this thing because you don't understand it or know anything about it.

Don't have the book and have not read it. Had one for just a couple seconds...long enough to toss in a fire.



I

Now did you really start this thread so you could find something to go off on a tangential rant about, or can we perhaps return to the main topic instead of insulting the play preferences of others?

By all means lets...

[atemu1234]

Don't have the book and have not read it. Had one for just a couple seconds...long enough to toss in a fire.

I just don't think that's right. You should read it at least instead of just ignoring it because it's too complex.

[AuraTwilight]

Don't have the book and have not read it. Had one for just a couple seconds...long enough to toss in a fire.


So you literally burned a book you never read, and you expect anyone to ever care about your opinions on anything?

[eggynack]

Don't have the book and have not read it. Had one for just a couple seconds...long enough to toss in a fire.
You probably shouldn't attempt to claim any issues with the book then, given that you know just about nothing about it.

[Svata]

Don't have the book and have not read it. Had one for just a couple seconds...long enough to toss in a fire.

Gee, I wonder why you don't understand how it is well-balanced, and only very superficially like spellcasting (9 levels of things, gained over your entire adventuring career), then. Maybe look at something, all of it, before you judge it. Also, don't burn books. Its a horrible thing to do.

[Arbane]

Point out the Idiot Crusader build, Iron Heart Surge, D2 Crusader, or the issue of people using White Raven Tactics on themselves. Those are actual issues with the book, along with it's rather annoying layout. But these issues have been addressed again and again as being up to the DM to handle.

What's so bad about the Idiot Crusader? (The others I can agree with.)


Don't have the book and have not read it. Had one for just a couple seconds...long enough to toss in a fire.

I know this is a radical, unprecendented idea on the Internet, but maybe you could try not talking about things you're deliberately ignorant of as if you know what you're talking about?

[Phelix-Mu]

#notanotherToBdebacle: These rules are optional. Plenty of good games ran before it came out, and have run since without it. We should accept, as a community, that matters of opinion may or may not be backed up with good reason, but that little is resolved by repeatedly mounting the same attacks and defenses. Anyone still finding themselves in the middle ground of the ToB debate would do well to do two things:

1.) Actually read ToB.

2.) Look at JaronK's Tiers.

And then feel free to think whatever you like and ignore all such debates forevermore (please).

@OP: I expect a chance to create, in concert with others. The rules themselves are purely secondary, and the DM and/or players can tear them down or add onto them, hopefully by mutual agreement, however they see fit. Of course, any good DM and/or realistic players would acknowledge that changes can seriously imperil the mechanics if done willy nilly, and would do so in good measure and with due caution.

In particular, I favor games with lots of role play, lots of atmospherics, and with a more-than-linear plot (but something short of total sandbox). I don't expect my character to be a snowflake, but I want a chance to rise above the challenges and seize that something (whatever it may be) that has driven my character to take part in the plot. Making friends and enemies, changing the world, or just saving my hometown; it all can have appeal if cast in the right light.

As DM, I want for players that are open-minded, creative, and willing to participate as part of a broad cast on a big stage; the world is big and dangerous, and the characters will have to strive to be relevant and effective without dying. I don't like handing out stuff needlessly, or babying the party; I have been known to kill characters (or at least inflict in-character suffering) with some impunity, but I try to be reasonable (most are eligible for one free death before I start docking character levels or asking for new characters). I love the characters, and don't want to make things too easy; they shine best when forged in fire, to use a particularly mixed metaphor. On the other hand, death is a thing, and change is okay; if the cast is due a change, I am open to new characters or retraining.

In general, I try to be open-minded and interested in the enjoyment of the game. It can be hard, because my personal joy in playing is huge, and it can sometimes blind me to the boredom or frustration of others (in addition to my being very detail-oriented, and often playing with those that are decidedly less so).

[Aliek]

I'd expect, for lack of a better word, fairness. PCs and NPCs being applied the same rulings, and not banning an option to see an opponent using it later on, save for a few very specific cases.
Say the PrC Mage of the Arcane Order is banned, while you discover later on that the Spellpool was a construct made by, I don't know, the illithids of old, who are using it to slowly charm and later on dominate the whole Order, the more they use it, the faster they're corrupted. But if a player wants to play one, it should be explained "It's supposed to play a part in the world later on, which I think isn't suitable for PCs" or something.

But then I'm usually the DM so no expectations :smallbiggrin:

[Merellis]

What's so bad about the Idiot Crusader? (The others I can agree with.)

Oh, that one's more of a weird one for me that involves some shaky rule interpretations to work. It's not overpowered, it's not really insane, but it's a shaky ruling that makes it a bit of an issue as the designers didn't really think about this sort of multi-classing.

Other than that it's a hilarious build that makes me laugh a good bit. :smalltongue:

[jedipotter]

So you literally burned a book you never read, and you expect anyone to ever care about your opinions on anything?

Once upon a time there was a Player: Keith. He was one of the ''wow the Tob is so Awesome! I can never ever play a martial character again with out all the awesome awesome stuff in this book!'' I'm sure you know the type. So Keith stuck with clerics.

Until the day I made the bet: Make a fighter and play in my game. If you have fun, we will get rid of the ToB and never speak of it again. He made a fighter, and he had tons of fun.

After the game we made clamper pies (yum) out back over a fire. Keith brought out his ToB and handed it to me. I said ''I don't want this crap''......and dropped it in the fire.




2.) Look at JaronK's Tiers.

The tiers are a joke, kinda like saying you can optimize and role play automatically.

[Phelix-Mu]

The tiers are a joke, kinda like saying you can optimize and role play automatically.

I don't pretend that tiers are the be-all-and-end-all of the game or of design. They certainly aren't. What they do do, however, is give a good context for what many gamers came to understand more intuitively over long experience (or from single experiences that deviated heavily from expectation).

The realization of which I speak is that not all classes are equal, and that this is not even vaguely an aim of the system. Whether a bug or a feature, the difference in op floor/ceilings is material fact. If a game wants to avoid this, mitigate by houserule or homebrew. If a game wants to work within the system, then maybe aim for a tier range among the characters, or otherwise don't be surprised when there may be a performance gap at 17th level (or well before).

It's just advice. It doesn't cover everything, nor is it foolproof. But it does a disservice to all to suggest that a codification of common wisdom is a joke.

[eggynack]

Once upon a time there was a Player: Keith. He was one of the ''wow the Tob is so Awesome! I can never ever play a martial character again with out all the awesome awesome stuff in this book!'' I'm sure you know the type. So Keith stuck with clerics.

Until the day I made the bet: Make a fighter and play in my game. If you have fun, we will get rid of the ToB and never speak of it again. He made a fighter, and he had tons of fun.

After the game we made clamper pies (yum) out back over a fire. Keith brought out his ToB and handed it to me. I said ''I don't want this crap''......and dropped it in the fire.
You haven't really yet listed any particular reason why you dislike ToB. Seems completely arbitrary to me.


The tiers are a joke, kinda like saying you can optimize and role play automatically.
Pretty sure the tier list doesn't say anything like that. I suspect that you understand the tier system about as well as you understand ToB, which means not much.

[Merellis]

Once upon a time there was a Player: Keith. He was one of the ''wow the Tob is so Awesome! I can never ever play a martial character again with out all the awesome awesome stuff in this book!'' I'm sure you know the type. So Keith stuck with clerics.

Until the day I made the bet: Make a fighter and play in my game. If you have fun, we will get rid of the ToB and never speak of it again. He made a fighter, and he had tons of fun.

After the game we made clamper pies (yum) out back over a fire. Keith brought out his ToB and handed it to me. I said ''I don't want this crap''......and dropped it in the fire.
That doesn't really answer the question of why we should refer to your opinion of ToB when it's obvious you have not actually read it and therefore can't really give an informed opinion of the book itself. In fact, that does nothing to really answer about why your opinion of ToB matters.

People have fun with the book, people have fun without it, both of these are facts. Core has issues, every book has issues in 3.5 and relies on the players and DM to handle, whether through houserules, banning, or just going with it anyway.

@Aliek: Agreed, if the DM bans a certain option then uses it against you then it's kind of a kick to the teeth. Well, within reason. :smallbiggrin:

reason being that you want to be a dragon, dm says no, and dm brings in a dragon to fight

[Zanos]

Once upon a time there was a Player: Keith. He was one of the ''wow the Tob is so Awesome! I can never ever play a martial character again with out all the awesome awesome stuff in this book!'' I'm sure you know the type. So Keith stuck with clerics.

Until the day I made the bet: Make a fighter and play in my game. If you have fun, we will get rid of the ToB and never speak of it again. He made a fighter, and he had tons of fun.

After the game we made clamper pies (yum) out back over a fire. Keith brought out his ToB and handed it to me. I said ''I don't want this crap''......and dropped it in the fire.
I don't believe that this actually happened. Even if ToB was a poorly designed book, who burns a 30-50$ book?

I also don't believe that you start these threads with any intention other than to bait people into criticizing you and telling them they're wrong.

[kellbyb]

I think we should just say that Jedipotter's opinion on ToB is null and void until she actually reads it and move on to discussing other things.

Now, what I expect from a game of D&D:
That the rules as written be followed unless stated otherwise before the game.
That the DM agrees not to screw over or toy with the players and the players agree not to intentionally break the game.
That the DM does not railroad the players to an unreasonable level and the players, in turn, stay on the rails to at least some degree.

[Phelix-Mu]

I think we should just say that Jedipotter's opinion on ToB is null and void until she actually reads it and move on to discussing other things.

Wise sentiment, except for the implied dig at the OP, who has more than proven a willingness to go tit-for-tat. If you want to move it on, we should probably just not talk about it or the OP anymore.

#failmenotfollowingmyownadvice

[Jeff the Green]

I'd expect, for lack of a better word, fairness. PCs and NPCs being applied the same rulings, and not banning an option to see an opponent using it later on, save for a few very specific cases.
Say the PrC Mage of the Arcane Order is banned, while you discover later on that the Spellpool was a construct made by, I don't know, the illithids of old, who are using it to slowly charm and later on dominate the whole Order, the more they use it, the faster they're corrupted. But if a player wants to play one, it should be explained "It's supposed to play a part in the world later on, which I think isn't suitable for PCs" or something.

But then I'm usually the DM so no expectations :smallbiggrin:

I'm actually okay with this, for the most part. In fact, to some degree I expect it. If the DM says no to an illithid savant, I do not assume illithid savants do not exist. And if I sign on to a tier-3 and below game, I expect to encounter a couple wizards unless the DM has implied that they don't exist.

The only cases I can think of where I'd have a problem with asymmetrical bans is whe either it's nonsensical (e.g. Ban ToB in a tier-3 game and then have Warblades wandering around with no plot significance) or used to make NPCs/DMPCs cooler or more protagonistic than the PCs (though in this case the problem is trying to upstage the players rather than the means why which is accomplished).

[afroakuma]

I also don't believe that you start these threads with any intention other than to bait people into criticizing you and telling them they're wrong.

I'd like to have a position that isn't this one, but there's not a lot of arguing in good faith showing up. I don't think jedipotter will or should (or even should want to) read the ToB, let alone do so objectively, but conversely he's basically being deliberately inflammatory about it, which is not at all conducive to healthy discussion or to keeping the topic on the rails.

And no, I don't believe the book burning story either.

[eggynack]

And no, I don't believe the book burning story either.
I can half buy it, though I tend to be a pretty gullible person. Incidentally, this is one of the things I expect from D&D, that the DM won't set books aflame. I'd probably leave after that one, cause it's a thing that freaks me the hell out.

Edit: Incidentally, watched The Last Crusade for the first time in years lately, and if there's one thing I learned from that movie, it's that if you want to get people pissed off at a villain, you're way better off having them burn books than having them burn people. Costs way less narrative juice than person murder (What, am I not going to get invested in the existence of future books because books get burned so often in the story?), and might actually make the villain seem more despicable.

[Phelix-Mu]

I am learning to expect ToB controversy.:smalltongue:

[Seppo87]

Of course, that's an ideal scenario.
That's the bare minimum. An ideal scenario involves a good story and players with at least some degree of imagination

[cobaltstarfire]

1. I expect to know what kind of game I'm playing (I don't much enjoy GM VS PC, PVP, and Combat heavy games)
2. I expect to know any houserules that would have a direct impact on my characters ability to use their class abilities
3. I expect some background on the world I'm playing in, that way I can fluff and RP my character in a way that fits properly (my character should know what they can and can't do, how the world works, ect)
4. I expect to know what kind of optimization is expected. A high op game probably wouldn't be a very good fit for a player like me. I like to make effective characters but if the table was high OP the likelyhood of that happening without outside help is next to nill
5. And of course, I expect the players and gm to be reasonable people who are friendly and fun to be around.


Bonus: I hope for tolerance of the fact that I have a math disability, and a lot of difficulty with remembering rules, particularly for combat (especially since until recently it'd been well over 10 years since I'd really played)

(I actually expect that I'll be run off by a bunch of very rude males, I've never had a favorable encounter in real life with strangers when it comes to P&P games, fingers crossed that trying to join the adventure league next week will break that history and be fun)

[Svata]

I hope it isn't true. IMHO, the destuction of information, in this case burning books is the most despicable thing one can do outside of causing severe harm to an animal (including humans in the definition, excluding members of the arthopod phylum, especially the insect class).

[Zanos]

That's the bare minimum. An ideal scenario involves a good story and players with at least some degree of imagination
I've played in campaigns with less than that. One bad player or a DM with an eccentric style isn't enough to get me to leave the table unless they're egregious offenders. Some of these things are linked though. Unwanted PvP is almost always caused by bad players.

[atemu1234]

I hope it isn't true. IMHO, the destuction of information, in this case burning books is the most despicable thing one can do outside of causing severe harm to an animal (including humans in the definition, excluding members of the arthopod phylum, especially the insect class).

Agreed.

Warning: Godwin's Law Incoming=What do Hitler and Stalin have in common? They both burned books and suppressed information that didn't fit into their narrow and profoundly stupid world view.

Edit: I'm not comparing Jedipotter to hitler or stalin. Just explaining why I hate burning books.

[Brookshw]

and is a better representation of real world martial arts than standard D&D combat. . okay, yeah, gonna have to stop you there. A) no, b) still no. Both suck horribly at modeling real world martial arts.

[geekintheground]

okay, yeah, gonna have to stop you there. A) no, b) still no. Both suck horribly at modeling real world martial arts.

notice the wording, its "BETTER". even "bad" can be better than something...

[bjoern]

Agreed.

Warning: Godwin's Law Incoming=What do Hitler and Stalin have in common? They both burned books and suppressed information that didn't fit into their narrow and profoundly stupid world view.

Edit: I'm not comparing Jedipotter to hitler or stalin. Just explaining why I hate burning books.

Yikes this thread has taken a turn since I was here last. I'll have to read page 2 and see how we got here.

[atemu1234]

Yikes this thread has taken a turn since I was here last. I'll have to read page 2 and see how we got here.

One word: Jedipotter.

One acronym: ToB

[Brookshw]

notice the wording, "its BETTER at modeling real world martial arts". even "bad" can be better than something...

Why, yes in fact, I did somehow manage to struggle through those words. BOTH. FAIL. HARD. The only potential value for "better" here is you have a variety of schools that can suck at it instead of no schools. That's not "better" modeling for real world martial arts. The real world doesn't mesh well with d&d.

[Zanos]

Combat in D&D shouldn't simulate real combat other than giving it a passing nod anyway.

[eggynack]

okay, yeah, gonna have to stop you there. A) no, b) still no. Both suck horribly at modeling real world martial arts.
Why is that the case?

[Jeff the Green]

Why, yes in fact, I did somehow manage to struggle through those words. BOTH. FAIL. HARD. The only potential value for "better" here is you have a variety of schools that can suck at it instead of no schools. That's not "better" modeling for real world martial arts. The real world doesn't mesh well with d&d.

It models it better in three important respects:

Getting hit often reduces your ability to fight back even if it doesn't knock you unconscious.
You can actively choose to do something to mitigate particular attacks.
It's more likely to kill you with a sword than with boredom.

[Phelix-Mu]

Yikes this thread has taken a turn since I was here last. I'll have to read page 2 and see how we got here.

I was trying, perhaps poorly, to set the ship aright, but it seems to have foundered good and proper this time.

For the record, while burning books may or may not be in good taste, I think that this information/digital age makes many of the most heinous issues with book burning much less reprehensible. Total loss of knowledge is very hard in this internet age, and the actual value or significance inherent in any random book is much less (such that some books literally aren't worth the paper they are printed on...a far cry from ages past).

That said, it's still a bad echo from bad times, and sends messages of badness to that bad place in everyone where the darkness lies.

But...as a copy editor, I have burnt ToB as well, if only within the confines of mine own mind (and under the conflagration of mine enraged gaze). Its organization is almost as heinous as book burning. (/hyperbole)

[WhamBamSam]

okay, yeah, gonna have to stop you there. A) no, b) still no. Both suck horribly at modeling real world martial arts.It's not perfect by any stretch, but at least the basics of "maybe I should try this technique against this type of enemy/strategy" and yes, the general structure of "do the thing then have to 'reset' in some way before you can do the thing again" feel right to me. Also, the things Jeff the Green said. And not to be that guy, but as I said earlier in this thread, I can speak with some authority about that sort of thing. I've been training in Taekwondo for more than 3/4 of my life (17 years this month), earned the rank of Master, and been a pretty successful competitor up to high level collegiate tournaments. I'm not the greatest natural athlete, but I could probably pull off reasonable approximations of (Ex) maneuvers up to 2nd or 3rd level, and I know people or know of people who can, (and do, in competition), analogues of 3rd level and higher maneuvers, which seems about right for the E6 world in which we live.

[Phelix-Mu]

It's not perfect by any stretch, but at least the basics of "maybe I should try this technique against this type of enemy/strategy" and yes, the general structure of "do the thing then have to 'reset' in some way before you can do the thing again" feel right to me. Also, the things Jeff the Green said. And not to be that guy, but as I said earlier in this thread, I can speak with some authority about that sort of thing. I've been training in Taekwondo for more than 3/4 of my life (17 years this month), earned the rank of Master, and been a pretty successful competitor up to high level collegiate tournaments.

Since we are really doing this, I find that, in a sense, this is what is wrong with ToB. Too many choices. I have some friends that are good players and all, but they aren't that big into complex mechanics. ToB, while it isn't spellcasting-grade complexity (looking at you, prepared casters), is still a good mark above "I swing my sword" or "I charge" or "I run away." Simplicity as a thing is highly undervalued in D&D, and unfortunately goes side-by-side with inefficacy at higher op-levels. But it isn't evil; some people like mechanics-lite, role play-heavy, and that is fine.

After all, it takes all kinds.

Personally, ToB has it's place, but some people don't want it, and that is fine, too. I used to be allergic to it as well, but my op-addiction got the better of me, and now I list it among the many tools at my disposal.

[eggynack]

The way I figure it, there are a lot of potentially valid reasons for the things Jedipotter likes to do. There are reasons to change the material components system, and there are reasons to impose secret house rules, and there are reasons to not allow ToB. The issue is, those reasons are just ridiculously divorced from Jedipotter's stated reasons for doing these things. Makes these discussions weird.

[Jeff the Green]

Since we are really doing this, I find that, in a sense, this is what is wrong with ToB. Too many choices. I have some friends that are good players and all, but they aren't that big into complex mechanics. ToB, while it isn't spellcasting-grade complexity (looking at you, prepared casters), is still a good mark above "I swing my sword" or "I charge" or "I run away." Simplicity as a thing is highly undervalued in D&D, and unfortunately goes side-by-side with inefficacy at higher op-levels. But it isn't evil; some people like mechanics-lite, role play-heavy, and that is fine.

After all, it takes all kinds.

Personally, ToB has it's place, but some people don't want it, and that is fine, too. I used to be allergic to it as well, but my op-addiction got the better of me, and now I list it among the many tools at my disposal.

Simplicity isn't just undervalued in D&D; it is virtually nonexistent. Just building a core-only character requires, at a minimum, choosing race, class, ability scores, class abilities, feats, skills, and equipment. It gets even more complicated if you want to build something that can contribute against CR-appropriate enemies.

More than that, ToB is not particularly more complicated to play than regular melee characters. Particularly Warblade: you will have three additional actions available to you at 1st level and one passive boost. Choosing them at character creation and level up isn't difficult either. You can literally choose them at random and be assured that they're usable. The rules for using them aren't any more complicated than for using sneak attack, and are less complicated than for most of the basic combat maneuvers and way less complicated than for spells.

Now, if you really want to play a character that really just smashes things in the head without any particular skill, or you don't feel like learning the small number of additional rules (or, more likely, enduring the headache of trying to find them), or you get your combat jollies from creative description of attacks rather than having those attacks be mechanically different, ToB probably isn't for you. And I don't know that there are many, if any, posters who have said otherwise in this or any other thread on GitP. But if you value simplicity, it's D&D that isn't for you.

(Incidentally, this is why I decided to stop DMing D&D when I play with family; we manage to play once every couple of months and I'm the only one with any significant system mastery. Going forward we're switching to Fate, maybe CoC for a single one-shot I have an idea for. I'm emphatically not saying simplicity is bad; just that asking for it from ToB is a bit like complaining that the rampaging dragons stomped on your flowers.)

[WhamBamSam]

Since we are really doing this, I find that, in a sense, this is what is wrong with ToB. Too many choices. I have some friends that are good players and all, but they aren't that big into complex mechanics. ToB, while it isn't spellcasting-grade complexity (looking at you, prepared casters), is still a good mark above "I swing my sword" or "I charge" or "I run away." Simplicity as a thing is highly undervalued in D&D, and unfortunately goes side-by-side with inefficacy at higher op-levels. But it isn't evil; some people like mechanics-lite, role play-heavy, and that is fine.

After all, it takes all kinds.

Personally, ToB has it's place, but some people don't want it, and that is fine, too. I used to be allergic to it as well, but my op-addiction got the better of me, and now I list it among the many tools at my disposal.I dunno. I'd say Crusaders are about as close as you can get to an idiot-proof* melee class (or indeed 3.5 class). Just put the maneuvers on 3x5 cards to handle the whole "randomly granted" thing and you're golden, as you won't be stuck with too many options at a time, what with how their recovery mechanic works. While they're simple in practice, Fighters have a lot of trap options and Barbarians require more book diving, so they're a lot harder for people who like things simple to put together in the first place. I recently started DMing for a group of new players, and Spirit Lion Wolf Totem Barbarian 2/Crusader X seemed the natural way to direct the guy who likes things simple and said he wanted to be a berserker or a tank when I asked what sort of concept he'd like to play. Granted, the other players were gravitating towards higher tier things, and having him at least outshine the Druid's animal companion was also a concern.

*Not meant to imply that people who like things simple are idiots. Maybe newbie-proof or low-complexity would be better, but they just don't have that buzzword feel to them.

[Phelix-Mu]

@Jeff the Green, WhamBamSam:

What you say is correct, and I do generally agree, but I think you are still comparing ToB to the difficulty of playing a moderately optimized mundane from core, as opposed to just comparing them to the bare bones of the class (as playtesters envisioned). Core melees have much lower floors than ToB, with a commensurate level of complexity (I think playtesting is proof enough of this).

I'm not suggesting that people should play dumb fighters or barbarians for whom the major op decision is "do I Power Attack on this enemy or not?" But I like a game that has a place for people that do play like that. And too many ToB fans basically say "chuck the core martial classes and use this stuff instead." Apples aren't oranges. I like them both, and both have their place. At least in my game.

[Jeff the Green]

@Jeff the Green, WhamBamSam:

What you say is correct, and I do generally agree, but I think you are still comparing ToB to the difficulty of playing a moderately optimized mundane from core, as opposed to just comparing them to the bare bones of the class (as playtesters envisioned). Core melees have much lower floors than ToB, with a commensurate level of complexity (I think playtesting is proof enough of this).

Not exactly. I'm saying that playing them isn't much more complex (rather than "how much do I power attack for" you ask "which of these three available attacks do I use"), and that the increase in complexity while building them is small compared to what you need to learn to build characters and play the game at all without constant direction from the DM.

[TheIronGolem]

Once upon a time there was a Player: Keith. He was one of the ''wow the Tob is so Awesome! I can never ever play a martial character again with out all the awesome awesome stuff in this book!'' I'm sure you know the type. So Keith stuck with clerics.

Until the day I made the bet: Make a fighter and play in my game. If you have fun, we will get rid of the ToB and never speak of it again. He made a fighter, and he had tons of fun.

After the game we made clamper pies (yum) out back over a fire. Keith brought out his ToB and handed it to me. I said ''I don't want this crap''......and dropped it in the fire.


STDH.txt: D&D Edition

[Phelix-Mu]

Not exactly. I'm saying that playing them isn't much more complex (rather than "how much do I power attack for" you ask "which of these three available attacks do I use"), and that the increase in complexity while building them is small compared to what you need to learn to build characters and play the game at all without constant direction from the DM.

Fair enough. As I said, I rather like ToB. But I am wise enough to know that no amount of logic at my behest will convince everyone of its suitability. So, when I DM, I let players decide what they want to play; if they want simplicity of core, fine. If they want ToB, fine. I have much bigger fish to fry as DM; from high-tiers, to broken RAW spells in core, to monk dysfunction, the people that want to toe the line and swing sword and fist are usually the least of my worries.

And when I play, I pretty much like to give whatever DM it is a break. I can challenge anyone's mastery level with core and a ten foot-pole (/braggadocio), so access to ToB or realistic combat choices are among the least of my weapons.

[Brookshw]

Why is that the case?

The long and short of it is ToB goes too far down the anime rabbit hole to achieve much of an effective parallel.

[paperarmor]

the major ones have been covered already but a pet peeve of mine is always the "that's not realistic" argument against mundanes. I mean a world where a god walking down the street or a wizard breaking every law of physics before brunch is routine but TOB gets crap for not being realistic enough. Its just odd to me that some people seem to refuse to suspend disbelief just because people can swing swords in real life.

[bjoern]

the major ones have been covered already but a pet peeve of mine is always the "that's not realistic" argument against mundanes. I mean a world where a god walking down the street or a wizard breaking every law of physics before brunch is routine but TOB gets crap for not being realistic enough. Its just odd to me that some people seem to refuse to suspend disbelief just because people can swing swords in real life.

My counter to that is
"Its magic"

I mean, it works for George Lucas
"Its The Force"

[Amphetryon]

The long and short of it is ToB goes too far down the anime rabbit hole to achieve much of an effective parallel.

Out of (morbid) curiosity, given that European martial arts also give names to their specific maneuvers, what specifically makes ToB 'anime' rather than 'European Renaissance'? Specific page numbers or quotes would be helpful.

[atemu1234]

The long and short of it is ToB goes too far down the anime rabbit hole to achieve much of an effective parallel.

I (politely, I hope) disagree. It's no more anime style than when a deadlock says kamehameha whenever he uses Eldritch Blast. Also, I probably wouldn't mind if it did go "down the anime rabbit hole". I like anime.

[Threadnaught]

Casters can flash-step, fly, multiply themselves, grow multiple arms, increase in size, beam spam and transform. Like a combination of every anime hero/villain ever, how is Core 3.5 not Anime?

But no, Tome of Battle giving melee combatants the ability to block an attack or throw an enemy is too anime.


I suppose the only fighting that ever happened outside of Japan before they created their cartoons, was boxing.

[eggynack]

The long and short of it is ToB goes too far down the anime rabbit hole to achieve much of an effective parallel.
I don't particularly see how pulling from anime removes how accurate or inaccurate ToB is as a depiction of real world martial arts.

[Psyren]

My solution to this is simple - give mundanes Ex and Su abilities in-class at high levels. That should remove the stigma that superhuman abilities are not "for" them.

I think every rogue in the game should at high levels automatically get their choice of Shadowdancer or Chameleon abilities, if not both.

[Arkhaic]

Meh, he's probably one of the people who looks at Desert Wind and Shadow Hand but completely forgets that those are intended for the monk archetype which can *already* set things on fire and teleport, and then assumed that because Swordsages get it, everyone does.

[Psyren]

Meh, he's probably one of the people who looks at Desert Wind and Shadow Hand but completely forgets that those are intended for the monk archetype which can *already* set things on fire and teleport, and then assumed that because Swordsages get it, everyone does.

There's some Devoted Spirit abilities that also seem a bit too "magical" to be Ex imo.

[eggynack]

There's some Devoted Spirit abilities that also seem a bit too "magical" to be Ex imo.
Perhaps a little, but that's the paladin copy anyway. Only the warblade is expected to be a particularly realistic depiction of martial arts.

[AMFV]

To answer the original question... I try to remove all of my expectations in most games. A lot of times I can find something I wasn't expecting in a new game, something that I enjoy, even if it wasn't something I expect.

[RenaldoS]

Do people really expect DMs to play RAW? That seems needlessly constrictive. I just expect that whatever the DM does will be in good faith.

[Vhaidara]

The long and short of it is ToB goes too far down the anime rabbit hole to achieve much of an effective parallel.

Try reading ToB and ignoring the names of the maneuvers.

Desert Wind: most of these are marked as Su anyways
Devoted Spirit: This is about inspiring people to fight on past injuries, not actually healing them (HP is weird) and using your faith as a weapon (see: Smite Evil)
Diamond Mind: Classic Mind Over Matter abilities, these are hardly anime specific
Iron Heart: I see no anime here. This is a combination of fencing and fighting multiple enemies at once.
Setting Sun: This is real martial arts. Grapples, throws, reading your opponent
Shadow Hand: This is mythical ninja stuff. Again, a fair chunk is marked as Su. Though I do feel the one Ex teleport is mismarked.
Stone Dragon: This is the hit hard school. My main complaint is that it doesn't have the Maul as a discipline weapon.
Tiger Claw: This is the barbarian emulator. You fight like a savage animal, full aggro, no defense.
White Raven: The leadership discipline. This is the field commander, ordering his troops. Buffs and actions, little direct damage.

[Arkhaic]

RenaldoS: We don't necessarily expect the monsters to come from already existing sources, and in-game rulings are another matter entirely. But any change to the rules that players interact with should either be noted before the game actually starts, or discussed with the group. (This is straying into Secret House Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?367268-Secret-House-Rules) territory, so further discussion should go there.)

[Psyren]

Devoted Spirit: This is about inspiring people to fight on past injuries, not actually healing them (HP is weird) and using your faith as a weapon (see: Smite Evil)

(1) Smite Evil is Su, and (2) Strike of Righteous Vitality actually heals afflictions, like poison, disease, blindness, confusion, and nausea. It will also roast an undead ally if you're careless with your targeting. It's magic and should be tagged as such.

I have no problem with the ToB classes getting powers like these, but they should be Su where appropriate. And as you pointed out, there are other mis-tagged abilities among the maneuvers as well, like the Shadow Hand teleports (which even have the teleportation subschool of magic.)

[Arkhaic]

Psyren: all of that is true. But we've had this argument before. Many, many times. Someone should just write a cohesive default post to paste in that remembers to include those things, along with appropriate qualifiers so that we don't have to go through this again.

[atemu1234]

Psyren: all of that is true. But we've had this argument before. Many, many times. Someone should just write a cohesive default post to paste in that remembers to include those things, along with appropriate qualifiers so that we don't have to go through this again.

Ok, I guess I'll be the one to do that.

Expect edits as new material is to be included.

Against:

Too "Anime-like". Needs to consist of more classical, mundane fighting.
Gives abilities normally considered supernatural or magic as mundane abilities.
Overshadows material from the Player's Handbook.
Too complicated to spend time to understand.


For:

Better balances the system, bringing us closer to leveling the playing field between mundanes and non-mundanes.
Provides new material for use (this piece is more or less my favorite bit)
Provides an interesting new system for regular combat.
Overshadows material from the Player's handbook.


Seem good?

[Arkhaic]

Not...not really. I was more talking about debunking the myths that people tend to have, whereas that just repeats them verbatim.

[Psyren]

Gives abilities normally considered supernatural or magic as mundane abilities.

This point, and the very poor editing/lack of errata on some of the book's content, are literally the only problems I personally have with ToB. (And I don't consider the quoted issue to be a "myth" - it is a legitimate grievance.) Everything else - overshadowing the PHB, the fighting techniques having elaborate/wuxia terminology, and even the learning curve - I have no issues with at all.

I can't and won't speak for jedipotter, but if they fixed just those two things I would be completely on the ToB train.

[WhamBamSam]

Do people really expect DMs to play RAW? That seems needlessly constrictive. I just expect that whatever the DM does will be in good faith.Yes I do. Or at least I expect them to tell me in advance when they're going to deviate from it. I don't really expect drown healing, Pun-Pun, for Monks to be non-proficient with unarmed strikes, but there's a lower level of silliness beneath those things that I expect to be played pretty straight. House ruling willy-nilly can lead to unforseen consequences. RAW is the devil that you know, or at least that the internet knows.

Regarding the ToB thing: I'd suggest people look into some of the flashier MMA knockouts or watch this guy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsN2td4WYg4). Note that this is actual world class competition, not just show-off demo stuff. Looks pretty Tiger Claw/Diamond Mind/Iron Heart to me. Side note, TKD highlight videos always have crappy Nu Metal playing in the background for whatever reason, so you may want to press mute.

Also, while the abilities themselves may get a little fantastical, that's mostly only at the levels where breaking real world athletic records is business as usual even for regular mundanes. I'm more concerned with the general structure of maneuver recovery, which just feels more right than the options (or lack thereof) that you get as a standard Fighter.

[Arkhaic]

This point, and the very poor editing/lack of errata on some of the book's content, are literally the only problems I personally have with ToB. (And I don't consider the quoted issue to be a "myth" - it is a legitimate grievance.) Everything else - overshadowing the PHB, the fighting techniques having elaborate/wuxia terminology, and even the learning curve - I have no issues with at all.

I can't and won't speak for jedipotter, but if they fixed just those two things I would be completely on the ToB train.

Yeah, see I was talking about something that also would have a list of houserules/pseudo-errata for those specific issues, in a form where the DM can print it out and hand it to the players. (Maybe something that would rename maneuver cards for those who care about that.)

[eggynack]

Yeah, see I was talking about something that also would have a list of houserules/pseudo-errata for those specific issues, in a form where the DM can print it out and hand it to the players. (Maybe something that would rename maneuver cards for those who care about that.)
I think you just want the unofficial ToB errata (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=13292.0) then.

[Arkhaic]

eggynack: That doesn't address the fluff issues people have, confusions about the balance of at-will abilities, etc.—it mainly addresses the editing issues. Doesn't talk about optimization floors or ceilings either, since it's only an errata. I was talking about addressing problems with the feel of Tome of Battle (for example, none of Psyren's problems are actual balance issues (save for some poor editing)—rather, it's subjective stuff like whether maneuvers should be classified as Extraordinary or Supernatural. At the very least it should get some people to stop using those issues as an excuse for why they don't like the book, so discussion can move on to what their actual problems are.

[Anlashok]

Some maneuver are a tiny bit sketchy but quibbling over whether or not one should be Ex or Su seems like a bit of a silly reason to throw out the entire book.

Especially when there's so few of them. I can't even think of any off the top of my head

[eggynack]

eggynack: That doesn't address the fluff issues people have, confusions about the balance of at-will abilities, etc. Doesn't talk about optimization floors or ceilings either, since it's only an errata. I was talking about addressing problems with the feel of Tome of Battle (for example, none of Psyren's problems are actual balance issues (save for some poor editing)—rather, it's subjective stuff like whether maneuvers should be classified as Extraordinary or Supernatural. At the very least it should get some people to stop using those issues as an excuse for why they don't like the book, so discussion can move on to what their actual problems are.
Well, it fixes the big problem maneuvers, like WRT and IHS, which was definitely one of the big problems cited, and it also makes some of the maneuvers into Su abilities, which was another problem cited. It doesn't seem to make shadow jaunt Su, which is odd, but it's a resource that covers a lot of the ground necessary for something like this. Not all of the ground, certainly, but probably most of it.

[Psyren]

Well, it fixes the big problem maneuvers, like WRT and IHS, which was definitely one of the big problems cited, and it also makes some of the maneuvers into Su abilities, which was another problem cited. It doesn't seem to make shadow jaunt Su, which is odd, but it's a resource that covers a lot of the ground necessary for something like this. Not all of the ground, certainly, but probably most of it.

I agree, the unofficial ToB errata is the best starting point for something like this, with only minor changes needed after that.


Some maneuver are a tiny bit sketchy but quibbling over whether or not one should be Ex or Su seems like a bit of a silly reason to throw out the entire book.

If you're referring to me, I never said anything about throwing out the entire book if these changes weren't made - just that I can understand the misgivings of those who do.

[Arkhaic]

It's a completely different style of document. I'm talking about something closer to the compilations of psionics myths, along with houserules to address major problem maneuvers and specific fluff concerns, a discussion of the optimization floor and ceiling that always gets brought up in ToB balance threads...I'm talking about condensing the points brought up in every single ToB argument ever into one reusable source that recognizes and fixes the major problems where they exist and addresses the other common concerns. Editing would be addressed by a link to that errata, but that's only a small part of the issue.

[Terazul]

Ok, I guess I'll be the one to do that.

Expect edits as new material is to be included.

Against:

Too "Anime-like". Needs to consist of more classical, mundane fighting.
Gives abilities normally considered supernatural or magic as mundane abilities.
Overshadows material from the Player's Handbook.
Too complicated to spend time to understand.


For:

Better balances the system, bringing us closer to leveling the playing field between mundanes and non-mundanes.
Provides new material for use (this piece is more or less my favorite bit)
Provides an interesting new system for regular combat.
Overshadows material from the Player's handbook.


Seem good?

The problem with that first list, in order is that
1. It really isn't "too animation", whatever that could possibly mean, and it does adhere to classical fighting; assuming you actually read maneuvers outside of Desert Wind and Shadow Hand. And of course are actually familiar with the many, many, many styles of fighting all over the world. Seriously, some maneuvers are literally "attack twice" (and is in Desert Wind). Come on. The only ones that step outside this bound are things you'd be doing at 12+ anyway (Throw a weapon, have it boomerang back to you), at which points you are basically Hercules.
2. Every time this comes up my question is: Just how often do anti-magic fields actually come up in your games? Like, that is literally the only reason it would matter, because it would stop them from working. Along with all their gear. And any caster's spells (except instaneous conjurations, gyu-huh). Basically anything meaningful at all. Everyone's just going to walk out of it and go about business like normal. It's purely a game crunch tag. Why does it matter? I guess if they were you could apply things like Empower/Enlarge/Widen Supernatural Ability to some of them. Clearly that's what you want, right?
3. Well the Player's Handbook is commonly touted as a piece of garbage, so I don't see why it's supposed to be held up like some holy grail just because it was the first thing to come out. Clerics, Wizards, and Druids are obscene. The Monk is terrible. A Barbarian or properly built Fighter STILL outdamages anything out of this entire book barring a 1d2 Crusader. Just because it's the thing everyone gets access to, doesn't mean it should be the standard everything should be held to in terms of quality. The book adds options, and fun ones at that, so heaven forbid people want that.
4. Only if you'd be incapable of playing the game to begin with. Pick some maneuvers. Pick a few out of that pile to have "ready". When you use a maneuver, do what it says (like you would in a feat, class ability, magical item, or any of the many other things in the game that has instructions), then it's not ready to use any more. Use your class-specific action to get it back. Get more or trade some out when you level up. Congratulations, I just explained this entirely "too complicated" and time-consuming system in less than a paragraph. It's not that hard.

It's fine to not like it for the sake of not liking it. I disagree with you, but you're fine to do that. But don't put forth things like this as "problems" with it when they are just outright false.

In terms off the OP:
1. For the people I'm playing with not to be jerks. Ain't got time for that.
2. For the DM I'm playing under to have at the very least a firm grasp of the basic mechanics and balance of the system. If you're banning Monks for being "too powerful", but giving Wizards more spells per day because they "suck", I'm going to question whether I want to play with you, because this bodes for what we'll have to deal with.
3. For the DM to enumerate and expound upon any changes to the rules that may be in effect, and to be consistent. Like, nobody plays perfectly by RAW. But if you're changing the skill system so that having points in Knowledge (Religion) means rolling it has a chance for a deity to take over your body or something because the gods are supposed to be secret, tell me. I won't put points in Knowledge (Religion). The game has rules, that by default, should be assumed to be in effect, and I should not have to play the guessing game about what rules you are and aren't telling me about. We're adults. We both have other things we should be doing anyway, let's not waste time.
4. For the DM to communicate. If you've got a problem with my crazy super-charmer bard, tell me! Don't just flood the world with sentient zombie dukes. If you've got something planned for my character that you want to be super important to him, ask me about it! I personally might not give a crap and just assume it's nothing.

Probably some more stuff. But really just for the people I'm playing with to be reasonable adults who actually know the rules and are willing to compromise.

[Arkhaic]

See, that sort of back-and-forth is exactly what I'm talking about. New points and suggestions haven't been brought up for years, it would be simple enough to paste a collection of each side's points and rebuttals, along with a set of human-readable (read:not the ToB errata unless the person's problem is with editing across the book) suggestions on how to resolve issues like the Su vs Ex debate.

[Nightcanon]

I can't claim to be an expert on ToB, but isn't the Wuxia/ Kung Fu stuff basically fluff? Rename, refluff and if you like allow 'traditional' mundanes access as expanded feats or whatever. You don't get Iron Heart Surge because you mastered the ancient way in some secret monastery in a hidden valley, you just grit your teeth and go 'NNNnnrrgg!' and get back in the game because you're a barbarian king, and that's what heroic barbarian kings do when the chips are down. And so on.
It's not like core 3rd edition D&D didn't, in addition to making arcane magic available due to raw arcane talent and the magic of music as well as the traditional Vancian route, also lever in a class with non-mundane powers driven by the decidedly non European-Medieval life-force of Ki/Chi. Is it really harder to fluff ToB classes to you preferred setting than it is for monks?

[Arkhaic]

Nightcanon: Yes, most of it is.

Well, I've successfully derailed the thread in an attempt to keep it and future threads from being disabled, go me. :smallsigh:

[Anlashok]

Are there any specific examples of these maneuvers we hate?

I can't claim to be an expert on ToB, but isn't the Wuxia/ Kung Fu stuff basically fluff?

Yeah. Wizards even goes over that in the entry on adapting Shadow Sun Ninjas. Something about how if someone thinks "ninjas" are too oriental for their game to just change the goddamn name.

[SiuiS]

I expect to play a post-apocalyptic midieval fantasy RPG with certain baggage for fluff, and to use the rules as presented in the book, except where specifically agreed upon by the group otherwise, or where an exception is plot-relevant as opposed to a pandemic ally applied thing.

[jedipotter]

Yikes this thread has taken a turn since I was here last. I'll have to read page 2 and see how we got here.

A Jedipotter thread with a twist? Inconceivable!

[Arkhaic]

A Jedipotter thread with a twist? Inconceivable!

I'm starting to think that the statement about never making mistakes was tongue in cheek :smalltongue:

[Arbane]

The long and short of it is ToB goes too far down the anime rabbit hole to achieve much of an effective parallel.

Yeah, anime like the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Táin Bó Cúailnge. Drat those weaboo ancient Celts.


I don't particularly see how pulling from anime removes how accurate or inaccurate ToB is as a depiction of real world martial arts.

It's as accurate as anything else in D&D combat.

Which is to say NOT EVEN SLIGHTLY. As far as I can tell, 'Real' combat generally involves lying face-down in the mud with a sucking chest wound because of bad luck at the start of the fight. The problem with D&D combat is not its lack of 'realism'.

[jedipotter]

The way I figure it, there are a lot of potentially valid reasons for the things Jedipotter likes to do. There are reasons to change the material components system, and there are reasons to impose secret house rules, and there are reasons to not allow ToB. The issue is, those reasons are just ridiculously divorced from Jedipotter's stated reasons for doing these things. Makes these discussions weird.

You mean my reasons like having everyone have fun, making the game more mysterious, making the game more random, making the game more dangerous and balancing out the game? Those reasons are not in line with secret house rules?


Do people really expect DMs to play RAW? That seems needlessly constrictive. I just expect that whatever the DM does will be in good faith.

It would seem so. I think this is why people get burned out playing D&D. They play by RAW hundreds of times. It gets very dull and boring.


. House ruling willy-nilly can lead to unforseen consequences.

Such unforeseen consequences like fun


I expect to play a post-apocalyptic midieval fantasy RPG with certain baggage for fluff, and to use the rules as presented in the book, except where specifically agreed upon by the group otherwise, or where an exception is plot-relevant as opposed to a pandemic ally applied thing.

This sounds like a great example of a burn out game.

[geekintheground]

i think people expect to play by RAW because its RAW. we dont MIND playing by not-RAW as long as we're told before hand for the most part. playing by the same rules isnt boring. that doesnt make any sense... otherwise LIFE would be boring. we all play by the same rules and do so for 50+ years, but it isnt boring. consistency is different from redundancy...

[eggynack]

It's as accurate as anything else in D&D combat.

Which is to say NOT EVEN SLIGHTLY. As far as I can tell, 'Real' combat generally involves lying face-down in the mud with a sucking chest wound because of bad luck at the start of the fight. The problem with D&D combat is not its lack of 'realism'.
That's really an issue with the underlying increase in resiliency inherent inherent in high level characters, and that resiliency is an intended chunk of non-realism. The idea is that, assuming folks in reality were more able to take a hit, then ToB would more closely model how people deliver those hits. While I'm not all that experienced in the ways of martial arts, plenty of folks with that sort of experience have said that ToB is a lot closer to how combat works, and I can't recall anyone with that experience saying that ToB is nothing like what they do.

You mean my reasons like having everyone have fun, making the game more mysterious, making the game more random, making the game more dangerous and balancing out the game? Those reasons are not in line with secret house rules?

My issue there is mainly with the houserules themselves. In particular, the idea is that there could be reasons to have secret house rules in the general sense, but that these particular cases are silly. If you wanna argue about that stuff though, there's still plenty of stuff in that thread that you've yet to respond to. In the meantime, however, I'll note that there are better ways to accomplish just about all of your goals. You don't need to change the rules to make the game more mysterious, more random, more dangerous, or more balanced, and those other methods tend to bring less problems with them than secret house rules.

[Arbane]

It would seem so. I think this is why people get burned out playing D&D. They play by RAW hundreds of times. It gets very dull and boring.


And that's why nobody ever bothers playing chess more than once. Once you know how all the pieces move, every game is exactly the same as the others.

[eggynack]

And that's why nobody ever bothers playing chess more than once. Once you know how all the pieces move, every game is exactly the same as the others.
I can't tell if you've read the place where she's said pretty much that exact thing yet. Cause she has.

[atemu1234]

I can't tell if you've read the place where she's said pretty much that exact thing yet. Cause she has.

I don't know about the poster, but I personally skipped about fifty pages of that thread.

[Psyren]

2. Every time this comes up my question is: Just how often do anti-magic fields actually come up in your games? Like, that is literally the only reason it would matter, because it would stop them from working. Along with all their gear. And any caster's spells (except instaneous conjurations, gyu-huh). Basically anything meaningful at all. Everyone's just going to walk out of it and go about business like normal. It's purely a game crunch tag. Why does it matter? I guess if they were you could apply things like Empower/Enlarge/Widen Supernatural Ability to some of them. Clearly that's what you want, right?

If you mean "AMF," i.e. the 10-foot radius emanation spell - then no, it doesn't come up very often at all and it would be ridiculous to expect it to.

But if you mean antimagic, i.e. the plot (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html) device (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0419.html) that makes incarcerating magic-using characters and monsters possible, and is a lynchpin of every published setting - then hopefully you can see that yes, it does matter, unless your "good" protagonists have a habit of slitting throats.

[eggynack]

I don't know about the poster, but I personally skipped about fifty pages of that thread.
Different thread, actually. The relevant quote is in this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18004116&postcount=667). I actually liked this thread more than the cheating one.

[Arbane]

I can't tell if you've read the place where she's said pretty much that exact thing yet. Cause she has.

*facepalm*

No, I hadn't, or I would've tried to come up with something even MORE sarcastic. Somehow.

Jedipotter: There's NO 'randomness' in chess, at least not on the board. What there is, is your limited capability to predict the actions of the other player. Yet somehow, people have been playing it their entire lives for hundreds of years and finding it engrossing. I predict JP's action will be more trolling.

[atemu1234]

Different thread, actually. The relevant quote is in this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18004116&postcount=667). I actually liked this thread more than the cheating one.

Ah, thanks.

BTW, everyone should know by now there's another Jedipotter thread where his arguments are being annihilated right now. It's on the 3e/3.5e/PF page right now. Feel free to weigh in (you'll get the joke when you get there).

[The Insanity]

The long and short of it is ToB goes too far down the anime rabbit hole to achieve much of an effective parallel.
http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=6574.msg99343#msg99343

[Flickerdart]

What there is, is your limited capability to predict the actions of the other player.
You could fill an entire other thread with jedipotter's limited capabilities.

[eggynack]

You could fill an entire other thread with jedipotter's limited capabilities.
I found this far more amusing than I probably should have.

[atemu1234]

I found this far more amusing than I probably should have.

Especially considering there are at least two if not three of four or five.

[jedipotter]

otherwise LIFE would be boring. we all play by the same rules and do so for 50+ years, but it isnt boring. consistency is different from redundancy...

Um....you don't really think everyone in life plays by the same rules do you?


And that's why nobody ever bothers playing chess more than once. Once you know how all the pieces move, every game is exactly the same as the others.

Well, yes. There are only so many moves in chess. It is a very boring game. You have a set number of pieces, squares and moves. There is nothing new or original about chess. The moves used today, are the same ones used forever...again and again and again. Chess is nothing like a RPG where anything can happen. After all, what do you get together and play with a group D&D or chess?




My issue there is mainly with the houserules themselves. In particular, the idea is that there could be reasons to have secret house rules in the general sense, but that these particular cases are silly. If you wanna argue about that stuff though, there's still plenty of stuff in that thread that you've yet to respond to. In the meantime, however, I'll note that there are better ways to accomplish just about all of your goals. You don't need to change the rules to make the game more mysterious, more random, more dangerous, or more balanced, and those other methods tend to bring less problems with them than secret house rules.

What did I miss?

So how do you make the game more mysterious when rule X says y happens every time? There can be no mystery with such a rule. How do you make a game more random without changing the rules? The rules say this happens, is not random.

And you can't balance the game without changing rules, unless you just go ''Ban Happy' and say ''nothing from Core''.

[Flickerdart]

I found this far more amusing than I probably should have.
I aim to please.


Um....you don't really think everyone in life plays by the same rules do you?

I would ask if you've ever heard of physics, but I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was "no."

[atemu1234]

Um....you don't really think everyone in life plays by the same rules do you?

Well, we all breath, eat, sleep, etc.

So yeah, we do. We aren't here for an in-depth discussion on human philosophy, we're here to discuss what to expect from a new D&D group, which got into why ToB is/isn't good, and your little sideshow with no reasons for your behavior kind of sidetracked that.

[geekintheground]

Um....you don't really think everyone in life plays by the same rules do you?


actually yes i do. i dont mean LAWS, i mean physics. everyone exists in the same universe therefore we are all subject to the same rules. are YOU bored with life? i certainly am not, though i've only been here a very limited amount of time (going on 20 years in 2 weeks :smallsmile:). but you knew that. or tried very hard to read my post in a way that discredited it... and sure, there ARE a finite number of moves in chess, the point is that we ARENT BORED WITH IT. and i DO get together with friends to play chess, sometimes i even put off D&D to do so (usually when im playing chess with an old friend i dont see very often), and sometimes i play chess IN D&D.

[eggynack]

Well, yes. There are only so many moves in chess. It is a very boring game. You have a set number of pieces, squares and moves. There is nothing new or original about chess. The moves used today, are the same ones used forever...again and again and again. Chess is nothing like a RPG where anything can happen. After all, what do you get together and play with a group D&D or chess?
It's pretty obvious that you don't know crap about chess, and by extension, it's likely that you also don't know crap about this game.




What did I miss?
Just a whole lot of stuff. Like, most of the things I've posted. I think this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18012760&postcount=726) is one of the bigger ones that you've ignored.

So how do you make the game more mysterious when rule X says y happens every time? There can be no mystery with such a rule. How do you make a game more random without changing the rules? The rules say this happens, is not random.
Pretty trivially. Just make the mystery intrinsic to the setting instead of intrinsic to the rules. I would post examples for you, but I recall a thread from awhile ago where you were questioning the ability to create mysteries in a world with knowledge rules, and people posted a veritable pile of ideas for you that didn't involve house rules, secret or otherwise. Really, there are mysteries in our world all the time, and we mostly know the rules of our world. Not like every single aspect of physics or anything, but it's not like one out of every 20 gunshots spontaneously produces Orcus.


And you can't balance the game without changing rules, unless you just go ''Ban Happy' and say ''nothing from Core''.
I would be more likely to ban on a tier basis, because it makes more sense, but the idea is that you change the rules in a completely not-secret manner.

[Amphetryon]

Well, yes. There are only so many moves in chess. It is a very boring game. You have a set number of pieces, squares and moves. There is nothing new or original about chess. The moves used today, are the same ones used forever...again and again and again. Chess is nothing like a RPG where anything can happen. After all, what do you get together and play with a group D&D or chess?


Chess is infinite: there are 400 different positions after each player makes one move apiece. 72,084 positions after each player makes two moves apiece. More than 9 million unique positions from the third move. After the 4th move, more than 288+ billion different positions are possible. More 40-move games can be achieved than the number of electrons in our universe. There are more game-trees of Chess than the number of galaxies (100+ billion), and more openings, defences, gambits, etc. than the number of quarks in our universe! --Chesmayne


So, apparently 'only so many moves in chess' references a pretty big number.

[eggynack]

So, apparently 'only so many moves in chess' references a pretty big number.
But those cheating chess powergamers keep favoring the Sicilian. It's so unfair.

[Threadnaught]

Thousands or even millions of ways to play Chess and, every match is exactly the same just because the rules aren't constantly changed according to one player's whims?

jedipotter, do you just find gamers so you can insult them and whatever they play if it has a different set of rules to what you'd have?
That's what's been going on so far.


That said.

1: I expect to play D&D 3.5e.
2: Any changes to the rules to be brought up beforehand, if at all possible.
3: To know what sources are allowed for character building.
4: To know what power level the DM is confidant they can handle.
5: To know the power level the group wants to play.
6: To know the tone of the game.
7: To be able to control my character without being punished for using basic abilities.

It's really not all that much. It just sums up to being able to trust the other people at the table.

[Arkhaic]

If you mean "AMF," i.e. the 10-foot radius emanation spell - then no, it doesn't come up very often at all and it would be ridiculous to expect it to.

But if you mean antimagic, i.e. the plot (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html) device (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0419.html) that makes incarcerating magic-using characters and monsters possible, and is a lynchpin of every published setting - then hopefully you can see that yes, it does matter, unless your "good" protagonists have a habit of slitting throats.

Seriously?
...
Let's take this from the top.


the plot (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html) device (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0419.html) that makes incarcerating magic-using characters and monsters possible, and is a lynchpin of every published setting

—If you need something that's higher than 6th level to imprison casters then you're doing it wrong and your setting is either terrible or has bizarre scaling.

Seriously, just waterboard them once a day to keep them unconscious, maybe use some effect so they don't need to eat. Or use magic to keep them asleep. And don't keep them alone.

Honestly, if you've got a guy who can punch through a wall given a few hours, you don't leave him alone. Ever. If you can capture a mage, you can keep the mage captured.

For some reason people seem to think "imprisoned" means "stuck in a cell," rather than meaning "constantly watched, kept from doing anything, and possibly interrogated and/or tortured," which is what would happen to PCs and similar creatures.


then hopefully you can see that yes, it does matter, unless your "good" protagonists have a habit of slitting throats
Killing someone who would go on to kill others is at worst a neutral act if you aren't torturing them or the like.

Try again.

[atemu1234]

Seriously?
...
Let's take this from the top.



—If you need something that's higher than 6th level to imprison casters then you're doing it wrong and your setting is either terrible or has bizarre scaling.

Seriously, just waterboard them once a day to keep them unconscious, maybe use some effect so they don't need to eat. Or use magic to keep them asleep. And don't keep them alone.

Honestly, if you've got a guy who can punch through a wall given a few hours, you don't leave him alone. Ever. If you can capture a mage, you can keep the mage captured.

For some reason people seem to think "imprisoned" means "stuck in a cell," rather than meaning "constantly watched, kept from doing anything, and possibly interrogated and/or tortured," which is what would happen to PCs and similar creatures.


Killing someone who would go on to kill others is at worst a neutral act if you aren't torturing them or the like.

Try again.

I think they're trying to keep them from casting spells, and Antimagic is the best, RAW way to do it.

[Necroticplague]

I think they're trying to keep them from casting spells, and Antimagic is the best, RAW way to do it.

Invoke Magic and Initiate of Mystra would like a couple of words. The best way is to kill them, and you can use Speak with Dead on their corpse as need be.

[atemu1234]

Invoke Magic and Initiate of Mystra would like a couple of words. The best way is to kill them, and you can use Speak with Dead on their corpse as need be.

Guilty until proven innocent, are we?

[eggynack]

Guilty until proven innocent, are we?
That's what inquisition is for. Sweet spell, that.

[jedipotter]

Pretty trivially. Just make the mystery intrinsic to the setting instead of intrinsic to the rules. I would post examples for you, but I recall a thread from awhile ago where you were questioning the ability to create mysteries in a world with knowledge rules, and people posted a veritable pile of ideas for you that didn't involve house rules, secret or otherwise. Really, there are mysteries in our world all the time, and we mostly know the rules of our world. Not like every single aspect of physics or anything, but it's not like one out of every 20 gunshots spontaneously produces Orcus.


Your going back to the spiting hairs.....you you say ''secret setting rules'' everyone says ''ok, cool'', but when you say ''secret house rules'' everyone freaks out.


I think a big part of my problem with this line of thinking is that it's way too intent driven where it should be more results driven. I mean, what if our noble player, taking a complete shot in the dark, puts together a character based entirely around killing undead for the undead focused game? You still have all of the cited problems with that situation, like relatively underpowered cakewalk enemies, except it's apparently fine, because the player didn't mean to break the game over his knee.

If it happens by chance...it's by chance and fine. And a ''by chance'' anti-undead character player won't go all out like the cheating optimizer will to get that one more plus or whatever.



As was the case with stat allocation in a past thread, the solution here isn't to just leave things up to chance, but rather it is to just say what it is you want. If you want an undead focused campaign, but don't want undead focused characters, just say, "We're playing an undead focused campaign. Don't build a character focused particularly on killing undead, because the challenges are not calibrated for characters like that."

Well, I would never say ''i'm doing an Undead Game. I hate that. So your saying I should ask the players to be more random, mysterious and have more fun?




If you do want undead focused characters, or characters that can keep up with them, just say that instead. If a player builds a character not suited to the campaign, tell them that it acts against the explicit thing you said, and ask them to rebuild. As is usually true, simple transparency and honesty work far better than obfuscation and hope.

And not doing the lame ''Undead Game'' works best of all.


Guess I will never agree with the boring gamers, but then that is why my game is different. It is not fun, for me and some other people, to do the same thing all the time. And playing D&D by the RAW rules is boring after a while. And that is just one problem. So I add more.

[Threadnaught]

Invoke Magic and Initiate of Mystra would like a couple of words. The best way is to kill them, and you can use Speak with Dead on their corpse as need be.

Isn't killing them, y'know. A bit much for crimes like trespassing, theft and being disliked by someone who has enough money to convince the guards to keep them out of the way?


I wouldn't expect any DM to wantonly kill characters for extremely petty crimes, just because they're magic users. I would expect them to treat magic users a little differently to others, but the only time I'd expect a magic user to be put to the sword for something petty, is if the justice system in question was either corrupt, Evil or Lawful Stupid.

[Anlashok]

Isn't killing them, y'know. A bit much for crimes like trespassing, theft and being disliked by someone who has enough money to convince the guards to keep them out of the way?


I wouldn't expect any DM to wantonly kill characters for extremely petty crimes, just because they're magic users. I would expect them to treat magic users a little differently to others, but the only time I'd expect a magic user to be put to the sword for something petty, is if the justice system in question was either corrupt, Evil or Lawful Stupid.

That's what resurrection is for.

[jedipotter]

1: I expect to play D&D 3.5e.
2: Any changes to the rules to be brought up beforehand, if at all possible.

But just rule changes right? The DM can have secret custom stuff, as that is allowed by the rules. And the DM is free to use anything in the rules, without telling you ahead of time.

So how do you stand on setting and/or plot stuff. If the DM wants to make a ''broken gate to the plane of fire'' and wants it to have an effect like ''all fire spells within 50 feet are maximized'' do they have to ask the players if they can have this in the bad guys castle? Or does the DM have to only ask if it is a negative effect?



3: To know what sources are allowed for character building.
4: To know what power level the DM is confidant they can handle.
5: To know the power level the group wants to play.
6: To know the tone of the game.



7: To be able to control my character without being punished for using basic abilities.


Sounds, ok...but could be a problem. After all if spellcasting is a ''basic ability'' then that would mean the DM can't use counterspells, dispels, or anti-magic right? You would feel ''punished'' like a melting special snowflake would feel punished if they took a trip to Florida and it was hot that day , if the archwizard had something like an anti-magic field and you had a spellcaster.

[Flickerdart]

Sounds, ok...but could be a problem. After all if spellcasting is a ''basic ability'' then that would mean the DM can't use counterspells, dispels, or anti-magic right? You would feel ''punished'' like a melting special snowflake would feel punished if they took a trip to Florida and it was hot that day , if the archwizard had something like an anti-magic field and you had a spellcaster.
This is the single most toxic reply I've ever seen. In a thread ostensibly made for people to share their opinions, you're now attacking people that dare put forward one that you don't like, with a holier-than-thou, insulting attitude.

Did you make this thread for a discussion, or so you could have a podium to stand on and complain?

[Anlashok]

So how do you stand on setting and/or plot stuff. If the DM wants to make a ''broken gate to the plane of fire'' and wants it to have an effect like ''all fire spells within 50 feet are maximized'' do they have to ask the players if they can have this in the bad guys castle? Or does the DM have to only ask if it is a negative effect?

Naw. Stuff like that is workable. The big trouble comes when a DM changes the way a character's stuff works without the character knowing. Say you have a DM who thinks fireball is too good and nerfs it, but never tells his player who builds a fire sorcerer, only to find out at level 6 that his signature spell is suddenly really terrible.

[Svata]

Jedipotter, if you're trying to make things mysterious, the mystery shouldn't be what is happening, but rather why is this thing happening. And the players should be able to figure it out, eventually.

[eggynack]

Your going back to the spiting hairs.....you you say ''secret setting rules'' everyone says ''ok, cool'', but when you say ''secret house rules'' everyone freaks out.
I didn't say secret setting rules at all. I said secrets not attached to the rules at all. Secrets like, "Who killed this guy?" or, "What's up with this set of mysterious tablets?"


If it happens by chance...it's by chance and fine. And a ''by chance'' anti-undead character player won't go all out like the cheating optimizer will to get that one more plus or whatever.
Leaving aside the ridiculous loaded language, he could easily be going all out. He's an anti-undead character, built from the ground up to be awesome at that stuff.


Well, I would never say ''i'm doing an Undead Game. I hate that. So your saying I should ask the players to be more random, mysterious and have more fun?
I'm saying that, if you would never do that now, maybe you should start. I'm saying that hiding the goal of your game from your players is a bad idea. If you want a game built on hiding from undead as a bunch of weak commoners, then you should tell players that, and if you want to build a game angled towards randomness, mystery, and fun, then you should tell your players that also. Just, whatever thing needs to be transparent, make that thing transparent, because transparency is a really useful thing.


And not doing the lame ''Undead Game'' works best of all.
That's not really a solution to any kind of general problem.


Guess I will never agree with the boring gamers, but then that is why my game is different. It is not fun, for me and some other people, to do the same thing all the time. And playing D&D by the RAW rules is boring after a while. And that is just one problem. So I add more.
I don't see how it's possible that there aren't enough rules in the game already. Seriously, there's a ridiculous number of the things spread across innumerable source books. If you can't find something interesting there, then you're not even trying. I could probably put together a vast quantity of stuff, perfectly rules legal, that would leave your players with little understanding of the base mechanics of the characters in question, particularly because there are so many ways to get from point A to point B.

Also, incidentally, you should probably be having this discussion over in the place where this discussion is, instead of in this thread over here.

Edit:

Sounds, ok...but could be a problem. After all if spellcasting is a ''basic ability'' then that would mean the DM can't use counterspells, dispels, or anti-magic right? You would feel ''punished'' like a melting special snowflake would feel punished if they took a trip to Florida and it was hot that day , if the archwizard had something like an anti-magic field and you had a spellcaster.
D&D is a game of offense and defense, play and counterplay. Spellcasting is the player's basic ability, and counterspelling is the opponent's basic ability. Just like it's not screwing with the melee character's beatstickery to have a monster with DR or high AC, it's not screwing with the caster's castery to use the various rules legal methods of shutting those things down. However, while you get to pick the counterplay, it's critical that the player picks the play. If you control both sides of the engagement, then why even have players there at all?

[Flickerdart]

I don't see how it's possible that there aren't enough rules in the game already. Seriously, there's a ridiculous number of the things spread across innumerable source books. If you can't find something interesting there, then you're not even trying. I could probably put together a vast quantity of stuff, perfectly rules legal, that would leave your players with little understanding of the base mechanics of the characters in question, particularly because there are so many ways to get from point A to point B.

The thing is that jedipotter is actually not even remotely familiar with the game, and because he can't stand the players having a better understanding of it, he has to Calvinball it up just to stay "competitive." Because it takes effort to play fair, and maturity to talk things out, but it's really easy to say "no, your spell fails, because Orcus."

[Necroticplague]

Guilty until proven innocent, are we?

A; for the longest time in history, thats how it was, actually.

B; Resurrection exists. So do divinations. Its entirely possible to ascertain guilt long before you go for an arrest.

[atemu1234]

The thing is that jedipotter is actually not even remotely familiar with the game, and because he can't stand the players having a better understanding of it, he has to Calvinball it up just to stay "competitive." Because it takes effort to play fair, and maturity to talk things out, but it's really easy to say "no, your spell fails, because Orcus."

Bravo!

Jedipotter is trying to make a false equivalence between hiding story bits from them for drama's sake and hiding rules from them because if they knew how deep that rabbit hole goes, they'd never let him DM.

[Jeff the Green]

A; for the longest time in history, thats how it was, actually.

Still is, de facto or de iure, in many parts of the world.

[Namfuak]

I think I mainly want a DM who isn't going to go out of his way to make my character weaker mid-game, and would just tell me OOC if he wants me to change or reroll. I can deal with most houserules (except fumbles :smallfurious:), so long as anything that directly affects my character is stated, and anything that comes up in game is reasonably explained. If a DM homebrewed a monster, for example, I wouldn't expect him to tell us the statblock as soon as we see it, but I would expect that we can make knowledge/spot/spellcraft checks to try to figure out what the monster is doing. I would also hope that the DM is willing to listen to us about what we think about the rules.

Probably the most important thing to me, and giving the benefit of the doubt it seems to also be the most important to jedipotter, is that the DM should want the whole group to have fun. I would sort of hope that the whole group wants the whole group to have fun, now that I'm thinking about it.

[atemu1234]

A; for the longest time in history, thats how it was, actually.

B; Resurrection exists. So do divinations. Its entirely possible to ascertain guilt long before you go for an arrest.

Resurrection costs 5,000 gp minimum. If you were going to do that every time you imprison a mid-level caster, something which must be at least fairly common, you'd wind up with way too many costs to be economically viable.

Divinations, maybe. But not all crimes are equal, especially not in a LG society. Maybe in a LE society you'd see this kind of murder.

You'd never see every warlock who picks a guy's pocket being put down every time. Even if he is guilty, he doesn't automatically get a death sentence. What are you going to do if you can't imprison him in an AM cell? Keeping someone unconscious isn't rehabilitation (which is kind of the point, really) and it's not like AMF is impossible to be used in a city. It takes, what, an 11th level caster? I can see at least one of those existing in a town, and even higher level casters can cast it more times per day. Better yet, tenured wizards probably don't get paid by the spell.

Granted, I recognize the issues with this. But AMF cells are kind of common in D&D, enough so for them to exist in OoTS. I homebrewed a material that dampens magical power for cells to be made out of, and allowed for better locks.

[gartius]

If it happens by chance...it's by chance and fine. And a ''by chance'' anti-undead character player won't go all out like the cheating optimizer will to get that one more plus or whatever.

and you nerf classes like the rogue or the ranger who rely on the dm letting them know of these sort of issues in order to make informed decisions as they level up.

example: a combat focused rogue comes in not being warned that its an undead campaign, you see that the player is struggling to be able to contribute meaningfully as a result of this-you've basically made a character useless. Congrats...

example 2: a ranger has made choices for favoured enemy its a an undead campaign where the choices for favoured enemy havent appeared at all. Congrats you've not done your job as a dm in informing them of this or giving them situations where their abilities would actually be useful.


Well, I would never say ''i'm doing an Undead Game. I hate that. So your saying I should ask the players to be more random, mysterious and have more fun?


Please read any of paizo adventure path character guides - they provide you with all information going into a campaign i expect, this includes any specific setting information, any relevant feats/character choices that are relevant, as well as roleplaying hints to allow the players to create a character that fits the setting well.

other than that
I expect that RAW for the most part is in effect, however RAI is expected if there are any exploits etc that breaks the game.
Are we using any of the errata?
Any changes to the rules to be brought up beforehand, if at all possible. If any changes occur during game then it needs to have a valid reason to back it up which makes sense
What are the sources allowed for character building?
What's the power level of the group
That the DM not hijack my character based on any action that they disagree with.

[Flickerdart]

and you nerf classes like the rogue or the ranger who rely on the dm letting them know of these sort of issues in order to make informed decisions as they level up.

example: a combat focused rogue comes in not being warned that its an undead campaign, you see that the player is struggling to be able to contribute meaningfully as a result of this-you've basically made a character useless. Congrats...

example 2: a ranger has made choices for favoured enemy its a an undead campaign where the choices for favoured enemy havent appeared at all. Congrats you've not done your job as a dm in informing them of this or giving them situations where their abilities would actually be useful.
Don't you understand? Not being able to contribute is fun! Only cheating optimizers expect to be able to defeat their enemies or succeed in anything.

Sorry, did you think I meant fun for players? No, it's fun for tyrant GMs.

[Threadnaught]

That's what resurrection is for.

Seems expensive, why not cuff, gag, blindfold and throw into an anti magic area?


But just rule changes right? The DM can have secret custom stuff, as that is allowed by the rules. And the DM is free to use anything in the rules, without telling you ahead of time.

For building characters, it would feel awkward the DM denying the use of certain subsystems then going ahead and using them as NPCs, but yeah. I did this exact same thing, players are Homebrew Classes only, while NPCs are allowed official WotC Classes if I want to use them.
They knew about it ahead of time.

I regularly take stuff from both the approved Homebrew list and the stuff I'd never approve of for player use for encounters. Because I like it and am constantly finding places in the game world where stuff just, belongs.


So how do you stand on setting and/or plot stuff. If the DM wants to make a ''broken gate to the plane of fire'' and wants it to have an effect like ''all fire spells within 50 feet are maximized'' do they have to ask the players if they can have this in the bad guys castle? Or does the DM have to only ask if it is a negative effect?

The DM controls everything in the world except the PC's actions when they're not being Dominated. The DM most certainly doesn't require the players' permission when building a world, however, if there's something (well known by NPCs) about the world that would change how the players play the game, then they really should be informed as early as possible.


Sounds, ok...but could be a problem. After all if spellcasting is a ''basic ability'' then that would mean the DM can't use counterspells, dispels, or anti-magic right? You would feel ''punished'' like a melting special snowflake would feel punished if they took a trip to Florida and it was hot that day , if the archwizard had something like an anti-magic field and you had a spellcaster.

I fail to see the problem here.
With Counterspells, Dispels and Antimagic being used against PC Casters I mean.

See, what we have here, are potential Challenges, and as a DM you're supposed to Challenge your players. Making things hard because the obstacle is well constructed is offering up a difficult, but fair challenge.

It ceases to be a Challenge and becomes a Problem, if when a Caster uses a Spell on the enemy Caster, instead the DM states "No, your god doesn't let you attack someone of the same alignment, you attack other PC of different alignment instead." because this is taking away player agency and punishing them for using their abilities.

[jedipotter]

Naw. Stuff like that is workable. The big trouble comes when a DM changes the way a character's stuff works without the character knowing. Say you have a DM who thinks fireball is too good and nerfs it, but never tells his player who builds a fire sorcerer, only to find out at level 6 that his signature spell is suddenly really terrible.

So your talking about Jerk DM's. The ones that in the middle of the game make fireballs damage 1d2, just to personalty attack the player of a fire sorcerer character.


Jedipotter, if you're trying to make things mysterious, the mystery shouldn't be what is happening, but rather why is this thing happening. And the players should be able to figure it out, eventually.

How is what and why so different? And players try to discover the secret rules all the time, it's part of the fun.



I didn't say secret setting rules at all. I said secrets not attached to the rules at all. Secrets like, "Who killed this guy?" or, "What's up with this set of mysterious tablets?"

[QUOTE=eggynack;18030495]
Leaving aside the ridiculous loaded language, he could easily be going all out. He's an anti-undead character, built from the ground up to be awesome at that stuff.

Most players won't go all out unless they have the safe go ahead from the DM. And even if this happened in my game...I could just switch from undead to anything else with no problem. Mine would never be an ''offical told the players it would be all undead'' type game.



and if you want to build a game angled towards randomness, mystery, and fun, then you should tell your players that also. Just, whatever thing needs to be transparent, make that thing transparent, because transparency is a really useful thing.

Ok, it's not like I don't say that. So....



I don't see how it's possible that there aren't enough rules in the game already. Seriously, there's a ridiculous number of the things spread across innumerable source books.

Sure, there are just not many with enough flavor.


If you control both sides of the engagement, then why even have players there at all?

Only the hyper controlling player with lots of deep personal problems would say my house rules ''control a character''. It's not like ''sometimes your summoning spells will miss summon'' equals ''your character is now under my control and you will do this''.

[Threadnaught]

Only the hyper controlling player with lots of deep personal problems would say my house rules ''control a character''. It's not like ''sometimes your summoning spells will miss summon'' equals ''your character is now under my control and you will do this''.

"Your god decides to change your Spell into something else because I don't like how you're playing." - jedipotter

I'm paraphrasing you because I can't be bothered to read through your older posts.

[gartius]

So your talking about Jerk DM's. The ones that in the middle of the game make fireballs damage 1d2, just to personalty attack the player of a fire sorcerer character.

How is what and why so different? And players try to discover the secret rules all the time, it's part of the fun.

You've heard it here first! Changing a spell from its actual description is being a Jerk DM.

Now where have i heard a story of a dm who changed a healing spell to its inflict equivalent? or has made summoning create orcus?

[The Insanity]

Did you make this thread for a discussion, or so you could have a podium to stand on and complain?
Is this a retorical question?

[eggynack]

Most players won't go all out unless they have the safe go ahead from the DM. And even if this happened in my game...I could just switch from undead to anything else with no problem. Mine would never be an ''offical told the players it would be all undead'' type game.
If your players would never go all out without your explicit go ahead, what's the risk in telling your players that there's an undead game afoot? Also, seriously, the stated premise was secretly Ravenloft game with a rogue. I don't really see the issue with having that be the premise.


Ok, it's not like I don't say that. So....
So, as long as that's all you need to tell folks, you're fine. However, I suspect that there's lots of hidden stuff that goes unsaid, as you've said as much.

Sure, there are just not many with enough flavor.
Flavor and mechanics are really separate things. If you don't like the flavor of stuff, then you can trivially adjust that without ever touching the base rules of the game.


Only the hyper controlling player with lots of deep personal problems would say my house rules ''control a character''. It's not like ''sometimes your summoning spells will miss summon'' equals ''your character is now under my control and you will do this''.
Given that one of your past examples was a cleric casting silence, and then his god making it shout instead to wake folks up (or the opposite. I don't recall which, exactly.), I think you're wrong on this one. Also, it's not, "Sometimes summoning spells will summon the wrong thing," but rather, "Sometimes summoning spells will summon something that's entirely based on my whim."

[geekintheground]

Only the hyper controlling player with lots of deep personal problems would say my house rules ''control a character''. It's not like ''sometimes your summoning spells will miss summon'' equals ''your character is now under my control and you will do this''.

limiting options IS controlling a player. nerfing options is limiting them. its like throwing up walls around a character, you ARE controlling them and telling them where theyll go.

as for the original question, even though i've answered: i also expect semi-regular gaming unless something comes up... actually thats less of an expectation more of a wish. i enjoy structure.

[Elderand]

Also, it's not, "Sometimes summoning spells will summon the wrong thing," but rather, "Sometimes summoning spells will summon something that's entirely based on my whim."

Actually I believe it was "on my whim summoning spells will summon something based on my whim (which will often prove deadly to the summoner because summoning is cheating)"

[Svata]

Here's an example I remember. Corellon changing a clerc's Cure spell to an Inflict spell because ot was used on a drow. That seems pretty controlling to me.

[geekintheground]

Here's an example I remember. Corellon changing a clerc's Cure spell to an Inflict spell because ot was used on a drow. That seems pretty controlling to me.


Given that one of your past examples was a cleric casting silence, and then his god making it shout instead to wake folks up (or the opposite. I don't recall which, exactly.), I think you're wrong on this one. Also, it's not, "Sometimes summoning spells will summon the wrong thing," but rather, "Sometimes summoning spells will summon something that's entirely based on my whim."

di-did these ACTUALLY happen?!

[jedipotter]

Naw. Stuff like that is workable. The big trouble comes when a DM changes the way a character's stuff works without the character knowing. Say you have a DM who thinks fireball is too good and nerfs it, but never tells his player who builds a fire sorcerer, only to find out at level 6 that his signature spell is suddenly really terrible.

So your talking about Jerk DM's. The ones that in the middle of the game make fireballs damage 1d2, just to personalty attack the player of a fire sorcerer character.


Jedipotter, if you're trying to make things mysterious, the mystery shouldn't be what is happening, but rather why is this thing happening. And the players should be able to figure it out, eventually.

How is what and why so different? And players try to discover the secret rules all the time, it's part of the fun.



I didn't say secret setting rules at all. I said secrets not attached to the rules at all. Secrets like, "Who killed this guy?" or, "What's up with this set of mysterious tablets?"

[QUOTE=eggynack;18030495]
Leaving aside the ridiculous loaded language, he could easily be going all out. He's an anti-undead character, built from the ground up to be awesome at that stuff.

Most players won't go all out unless they have the safe go ahead from the DM. And even if this happened in my game...I could just switch from undead to anything else with no problem. Mine would never be an ''offical told the players it would be all undead'' type game.



and if you want to build a game angled towards randomness, mystery, and fun, then you should tell your players that also. Just, whatever thing needs to be transparent, make that thing transparent, because transparency is a really useful thing.

Ok, it's not like I don't say that. So....



I don't see how it's possible that there aren't enough rules in the game already. Seriously, there's a ridiculous number of the things spread across innumerable source books.

Sure, there are just not many with enough flavor.


If you control both sides of the engagement, then why even have players there at all?

Only the hyper controlling player with lots of deep personal problems would say my house rules ''control a character''. It's not like ''sometimes your summoning spells will miss summon'' equals ''your character is now under my control and you will do this''.

[eggynack]

Actually I believe it was "on my whim summoning spells will summon something based on my whim (which will often prove deadly to the summoner because summoning is cheating)"
I believe I recall something about a percentile roll for failure of some variety.

di-did these ACTUALLY happen?!
I think they did, though I honestly don't have a citation in front of me.

[Elderand]

I believe I recall something about a percentile roll for failure of some variety.

I seem to remember that the percentage roll was other people saying that if there was one then at least the caster would be able to make a meaningful decision about the risk, instead of being completely at the mercy of jedipotter.

[Necroticplague]

Actually I believe it was "on my whim summoning spells will summon something based on my whim (which will often prove deadly to the summoner because summoning is cheating)"

Actually, the chance of summoning based on his whim is a fixed chance, of 1% per spell level. Much as I don't like the rule, I like misrepresenting something less.

[Elderand]

Actually, the chance of summoning based on his whim is a fixed chance, of 1% per spell level. Much as I don't like the rule, I like misrepresenting something less.

Was it ? I misrembered then. A mistake but not misrepresentation since that has a malicious intent behind it.

[gartius]

if i remember it was on his whim based on how he felt like at the time as well as if JP liked the player and if he perceived you as a problem player. 'good player' random! 'problem player' bad stuff!

[eggynack]

Was it ? I misrembered then. A mistake but not misrepresentation since that has a malicious intent behind it.
It's an easy mistake to make, as the summoning rules have been explained in a manner similar to the way you remember them in the past. It was just later made apparent that the rule is somewhat more reasonable. As for the cleric mis-casting thing, I've yet to find the actual place where the rule is stated, but I've found Jedipotter talking about the rule as a thing that exists, which I think is about enough to confirm my memory of events.

Edit: Just found a citation for the cure/inflict thing in the spoiler hereabouts (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17685190&postcount=127). I haven't found the silence/shout thing yet, but my suspicion is that it would be nearby, if it exists. The cure/inflict thing pretty much covers the same ground, though.

[Arkhaic]

Someone needs to make a JP Statements compendium to keep track of her current stances on things. There's no way I can avoid making mistakes without that.

[Phelix-Mu]

As much as it may or may not be fun/easy to point out what I see as another person's flawed reasoning/policies/houserules, it really does me little good to harp on it along with the rest of the bandwagon. Nor does anyone else benefit from such harping. The general consensus is well-established. Nothing left to see here.

[Flickerdart]

Someone needs to make a JP Statements compendium to keep track of her current stances on things. There's no way I can avoid making mistakes without that.
That's because jedipotter is capable of having two completely different stances on something across two different threads...or posts.

[jedipotter]

"Your god decides to change your Spell into something else because I don't like how you're playing." - jedipotter

I'm paraphrasing you because I can't be bothered to read through your older posts.


Here's an example I remember. Corellon changing a clerc's Cure spell to an Inflict spell because ot was used on a drow. That seems pretty controlling to me.

This is one of best house rules, and not a secret one.

Ok the story:

Group fights drow in the dark woods. A goblin slave mentions ''the drow have a secret vault full of treasure''. So the next fight they capture a drow. The drow won't talk, and they have no persuasive magic really available. This is where Keith the player of the cleric of Corellon gets his idea: He will torture the drow for the information, healing and bringing the drow back to life as needed, until the drow tells in information. The drow is already wounded, so the cleric goes to cast a cure on him, so he can start the torture and not kill the drow too quickly. He goes to cast the spell, and Corellon twists the cure into an inflict and kills the drow.

Now this was a great event. Keith was shocked. He sure got the message that ''using torture to get information is not approved of'' and that he ''might have gone too far''. And it started him on a little quest to ''make sure he knew the true path of Corellon'' by visiting other clerics and temples. Keith even accepted that he killed the drow, not Corellon. At no time did this single act make Edgar's character a NPC or have the DM have ''control over the character''....

[eggynack]

As much as it may or may not be fun/easy to point out what I see as another person's flawed reasoning/policies/houserules, it really does me little good to harp on it along with the rest of the bandwagon. Nor does anyone else benefit from such harping. The general consensus is well-established. Nothing left to see here.
That would be more true, except the problems keep changing and growing and shrinking and turning every which way. Like, I spent roughly 100-150 thread-pages participating in this stuff, without knowing anything of Jedipotter's weird chess thing. It's just one of the strangest positions I've seen. There's tons left to see here, because even with all I know, I still don't feel like I have anything like a grasp on the situation, and the longer things go, the less of a grasp I have.

Also, ya gotta flex your arguing muscles somehow, and these are the best arguments that I'm aware of hereabouts at the moment. I suppose it can look a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, but they're at least pretty unique fish, and breaking apart easy but different arguments can be interesting in its own way. Also, with the ever-changing landscape of the situation, it's not always all that easy. You have to keep track of this dynamic tapestry of conflicting viewpoints, and that's tricky as hell, especially when one of the viewpoints treads into reasonable territory without any warning.

Edit:
At no time did this single act make Edgar's character a NPC or have the DM have ''control over the character''....
I'm not really sure how you can think the latter thing. That's pretty much exactly what you're doing. Your player says, "I want to do this," and you say, "Nah, you do this instead."

[geekintheground]

This is one of best house rules, and not a secret one.

Ok the story:

Group fights drow in the dark woods. A goblin slave mentions ''the drow have a secret vault full of treasure''. So the next fight they capture a drow. The drow won't talk, and they have no persuasive magic really available. This is where Edgar the player of the cleric of Corellon gets his idea: He will torture the drow for the information, healing and bringing the drow back to life as needed, until the drow tells in information. The drow is already wounded, so the cleric goes to cast a cure on him, so he can start the torture and not kill the drow too quickly. He goes to cast the spell, and Corellon twists the cure into an inflict and kills the drow.

Now this was a great event. Edgar was shocked. He sure got the message that ''using torture to get information is not approved of'' and that he ''might have gone too far''. And it started him on a little quest to ''make sure he knew the true path of Corellon'' by visiting other clerics and temples. Edgar even accepted that he killed the drow, not Corellon. At no time did this single act make Edgar's character a NPC or have the DM have ''control over the character''....

of course not, the deity did all the controlling. its not like a DM has any control over those rascals. and sure it was flavorful, but its still lording your DM power over the players. there were other ways to do that than to mess with someones SPELLS. you dont mess with a paladins attacks do you?.. do you?

[jedipotter]

I'm not really sure how you can think the latter thing. That's pretty much exactly what you're doing. Your player says, "I want to do this," and you say, "Nah, you do this instead."

Corellen is a good god. He does not approve of torture(for the most part). He sure does not approve of it out of pure greed. So he sends a message to the cleric ''I do not approve''.

So, sure, if the player was to say do nothing else but (try) to torture helpless prisoners, then you could say ''the DM''(playing the role of the god) says you can't do that''. But it does not stop the player from taking other actions.

And Corellon only cares if his power is used in a way he does not like. The cleric could have used countless mundane ways to torture and heal with potions or such.

[eggynack]

Corellen is a good god. He does not approve of torture(for the most part). He sure does not approve of it out of pure greed. So he sends a message to the cleric ''I do not approve''.

So, sure, if the player was to say do nothing else but (try) to torture helpless prisoners, then you could say ''the DM''(playing the role of the god) says you can't do that''. But it does not stop the player from taking other actions.

And Corellon only cares if his power is used in a way he does not like. The cleric could have used countless mundane ways to torture and heal with potions or such.
You actively altered a spell into another one. That's practically the definition of controlling the player's actions. It doesn't really matter if you have reasons, or if you don't do it all the time. It's just what you did.

[bjoern]

You actively altered a spell into another one. That's practically the definition of controlling the player's actions. It doesn't really matter if you have reasons, or if you don't do it all the time. It's just what you did.

Honestly, I'd say in this situation something should be done to the cleric. He's either playing out of alignment or at least way out of character. A good cleric abusing his good spells to torture someone cause he wants their money.......you can't just ignore that.

If you want to be "good" and do evil stuff......don't be a cleric or paladin. Your god has veto power over you if he disapproves.

Now that being said , if the cleric was going to heal him so he could take him prisoner and interrogate him then I'd say that's OK. But not torture, heal, torture, heal. I would expect a "good" god to keep his clerics in line.

[WhamBamSam]

Corellen is a good god. He does not approve of torture(for the most part). He sure does not approve of it out of pure greed. So he sends a message to the cleric ''I do not approve''.

So, sure, if the player was to say do nothing else but (try) to torture helpless prisoners, then you could say ''the DM''(playing the role of the god) says you can't do that''. But it does not stop the player from taking other actions.

And Corellon only cares if his power is used in a way he does not like. The cleric could have used countless mundane ways to torture and heal with potions or such.You do realize that clerics fall if they grossly violate their deity's code of conduct, right? That the cleric in question would not have been able to torture the drow without consequences with or without magic just going by the standard rules?

Do you have an example of the "gods work in mysterious ways" mechanic that doesn't already fall under the "gross violation of deity's code of conduct" rule?

[eggynack]

Honestly, I'd say in this situation something should be done to the cleric. He's either playing out of alignment or at least way out of character. A good cleric abusing his good spells to torture someone cause he wants their money.......you can't just ignore that.

If you want to be "good" and do evil stuff......don't be a cleric or paladin. Your god has veto power over you if he disapproves.

There are, as WhamBamSam noted, perfectly RAW consequences for this sort of action. The point is that you shouldn't control the action itself. The action is the player's to take, and the consequence is the DM's to roll out. Play and counterplay, as I mentioned before in a separate context.

[bjoern]

There are, as WhamBamSam noted, perfectly RAW consequences for this sort of action. The point is that you shouldn't control the action itself. The action is the player's to take, and the consequence is the DM's to roll out. Play and counterplay, as I mentioned before in a separate context.

True.

I'd say the difference in this situation is trivial though. It only matters since it created something to disagree about.

For myself , if I was the cleric, I would expect the DM to turn to me OOC and say
"If you want to be evil, why didn't you make an evil guy?" "If you want to play a character that's a greedy murderhobo just roll one up."

Honestly, what if the DM doesn't want to deal with having a fallen cleric in the party? Who is now a liability to the party (he's been neutered). And is now disrupting the game for the rest of the group by putting the other players (presumably good) in a situation that conflicts with their alignment.

Now, I'm.not taking sides in this pointless thread, but it takes 2 to tango. If a player wants to do something that is out of character and alignment because the player is greedy then he is causing a problem.
This is no different then the player who steals from the party, every thread about that issue is almost 100% against the greedy player.

On the flip side, the DM shouldn't play the mean kid frying ants with a magnifying glass either.

Again, in this case the PLAYER broke the rules of the game by shattering the illusion of role play. So he got burned (somewhat cleverly)
Had I done something dumb like that with an old DM of mine a bus would have fallen on my guy. And when I say "there's no busses in d&d" the DM would say " dumb people die in dumb ways"


If the players and the DM can't agree on the terms of the game and what kind of game they want to play, it'll never work out. If I was a good cleric that was doing evil crap I'd just expect to be stricken dead where I stood. Regardless of what the rules might say.

[jedipotter]

You do realize that clerics fall if they grossly violate their deity's code of conduct, right? That the cleric in question would not have been able to torture the drow without consequences with or without magic just going by the standard rules?

Do you have an example of the "gods work in mysterious ways" mechanic that doesn't already fall under the "gross violation of deity's code of conduct" rule?

Sure, by the default rules I could have made Elmond an ex-cleric on the spot. I like my way better.


Example: Corellon likes elves. Any beneficial spell cast on an elf will have slightly greater effect, such as cure wounds healing one more point of damage. And races he does not like at all, like orcs and drow, get the slightly greater effect for harmful spells, like a point more of damage.

Corellon does not like elves fighting, so any harmful spell cast on an elf has minimum effect. Clerics of Corellon often just kill other elves with their swords (and buffs on themselves) or use arcane magic.

Corellon likes magic, so he gives the slight effect if the cleric also supports magic or magic users....as long as it is good magic. Elven magic gets much bigger support with a bigger effect.

It's also case by case. Not all elves get the protection, for example. Say the cleric is bored and wants to go kill a couple elf farmers to get some experience. Then the elf farmers get the protection. But if the cleric gets attacked by some evil elven bandits....they will find the evil bandits have lost their protection.

[kellbyb]

You do realize that clerics fall if they grossly violate their deity's code of conduct, right? That the cleric in question would not have been able to torture the drow without consequences with or without magic just going by the standard rules?

Do you have an example of the "gods work in mysterious ways" mechanic that doesn't already fall under the "gross violation of deity's code of conduct" rule?

That's a paladin you're thinking of, bro. Clerics do not RaW lose their powers for breaking any codes or deific edicts.

[jedipotter]

For myself , if I was the cleric, I would expect the DM to turn to me OOC and say
"If you want to be evil, why didn't you make an evil guy?" "If you want to play a character that's a greedy murderhobo just roll one up."

Like most of my house rlues, this one keeps the game going. I really hate bringing the game to a halt and talking OCC. The evil, greedy murderhobo OOC could easily waste a half hour of game time. My way keeps it all in-game.




Honestly, what if the DM doesn't want to deal with having a fallen cleric in the party? Who is now a liability to the party (he's been neutered). And is now disrupting the game for the rest of the group by putting the other players (presumably good) in a situation that conflicts with their alignment.

I'm fine with a fallen cleric, mine just take longer to fall with more role play.






Now, I'm.not taking sides in this pointless thread, but it takes 2 to tango. If a player wants to do something that is out of character and alignment because the player is greedy then he is causing a problem.
This is no different then the player who steals from the party, every thread about that issue is almost 100% against the greedy player.

Yes, I'd say he was a ......problem player.



If the players and the DM can't agree on the terms of the game and what kind of game they want to play, it'll never work out. If I was a good cleric that was doing evil crap I'd just expect to be stricken dead where I stood. Regardless of what the rules might say.

Guess I just have thicker skin. I'll give the player a chance to be good and change their ways.

[Coidzor]

Initially? For the DM to be able to look me in the eye without flinching and demonstrate some basic social nicety when it comes to meeting someone new from the periphery of their social circle.

Definitely gonna get a bad vibe if I don't even get so much as a hello or acknowledged as a humanoid carbon unit before anything involving the game actually begins.

After that, if it hasn't been stated already, I expect some synopsis of the kind of game we're going to be playing and then tone we're aiming for, though generally I'd try to get that info before I showed up to play a game run by someone I don't know from Adam.

This would be where particular game version/edition would need to be mentioned if it had somehow been kept from me, otherwise if they still don't say what it is, I'm going to assume this is actually some kind of sick sex cult or they want to play FATAL. So same thing, I suppose.

Following that probably notable changes to the base rules and assumptions of the game followed by less notable changes that are still necessary for me to create and run a character in the game. In the case of premades or whatever, then it's just whatever's necessary for me to run one.

I guess somewhere around here, either now or as part of the previous step would be things like ability score generation method and other nitty-gritty that's multiple-choice, but one of the choices has to be taken, even if it's a fill in the blank that needed to be filled.

[Jeff the Green]

it takes 2 to tango.

I hate, hate, hate this phrase. Yes, it takes two to tango, but that doesn't necessarily mean that when one dancer trips over the other's feet that they're equally responsible for the resulting bruises.

[WhamBamSam]

That's a paladin you're thinking of, bro. Clerics do not RaW lose their powers for breaking any codes or deific edicts.Straight from the SRD.
Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description).

[bjoern]

I hate, hate, hate this phrase. Yes, it takes two to tango, but that doesn't necessarily mean that when one dancer trips over the other's feet that they're equally responsible for the resulting bruises.

But of he hangs around then that's his problem.

If one person is the victim and one the villain, the victim should just leave. Otherwise they've got nothing to complain about.

If the player and the DM just keep it up for the sake of being asshats to each other, then who really cares who's right or wrong? They're both morons who are ruining the game for whoever is taking a seat to their power struggle.

[eggynack]

True.
I'd say the difference in this situation is trivial though. It only matters since it created something to disagree about.
I think the difference between changing the action and creating a consequence is a pretty big one, in that one impacts agency, while the other does not.


For myself , if I was the cleric, I would expect the DM to turn to me OOC and say
"If you want to be evil, why didn't you make an evil guy?" "If you want to play a character that's a greedy murderhobo just roll one up."
Well, what you do is you adjust alignment, cause that's the in-game mechanism for when someone's doings don't match their alignment.


Honestly, what if the DM doesn't want to deal with having a fallen cleric in the party? Who is now a liability to the party (he's been neutered). And is now disrupting the game for the rest of the group by putting the other players (presumably good) in a situation that conflicts with their alignment.
The former thing is why atonement exists. The latter is why kicking a character out of a group exists.


Now, I'm.not taking sides in this pointless thread, but it takes 2 to tango. If a player wants to do something that is out of character and alignment because the player is greedy then he is causing a problem.
This is no different then the player who steals from the party, every thread about that issue is almost 100% against the greedy player.

On the flip side, the DM shouldn't play the mean kid frying ants with a magnifying glass either.

Again, in this case the PLAYER broke the rules of the game by shattering the illusion of role play. So he got burned (somewhat cleverly)
Had I done something dumb like that with an old DM of mine a bus would have fallen on my guy. And when I say "there's no busses in d&d" the DM would say " dumb people die in dumb ways"
The issue with that is that I feel like we just end up conflating a bunch of issues this way. Like, sure, this guy is a butt face. That doesn't seem like a reason to have a rule that removes agency. That seems like a reason to talk to the fellow. This sort of thing happens a lot, too, where a player is being a butt in a way entirely separate from the rule being discussed. In the meantime, if this player posts about their dickery hereabouts, then I'll tell them that they're wrong, but since we're dealing with the DM, the thing of discussion is that she is wrong.

[Coidzor]

If one person is the victim and one the villain, the victim should just leave. Otherwise they've got nothing to complain about.

Thinking like that, however, is gonna be an unfortunate predictor of victim-blaming tendencies in other spheres of one's life.

[Arkhaic]

But of he hangs around then that's his problem.

If one person is the victim and one the villain, the victim should just leave. Otherwise they've got nothing to complain about.

If the player and the DM just keep it up for the sake of being asshats to each other, then who really cares who's right or wrong? They're both morons who are ruining the game for whoever is taking a seat to their power struggle.

Clearly you have never heard of abusive relationships. Or, for that matter, Stockholm syndrome.

[bjoern]

I think the difference between changing the action and creating a consequence is a pretty big one, in that one impacts agency, while the other does not.


Well, what you do is you adjust alignment, cause that's the in-game mechanism for when someone's doings don't match their alignment.


The former thing is why atonement exists. The latter is why kicking a character out of a group exists.


The issue with that is that I feel like we just end up conflating a bunch of issues this way. Like, sure, this guy is a butt face. That doesn't seem like a reason to have a rule that removes agency. That seems like a reason to talk to the fellow. This sort of thing happens a lot, too, where a player is being a butt in a way entirely separate from the rule being discussed. In the meantime, if this player posts about their dickery hereabouts, then I'll tell them that they're wrong, but since we're dealing with the DM, the thing of discussion is that she is wrong.

I feel that the player forfeits his rights to having his character affected by stuff RAW when that player chooses to have his guy do something that is completely 180° against his characters alignment, god, whole concept without any in game explanation.
Other than "oooo I want his money"
If the character had some greed disorder or something sure that's fine. Or if he's under some kind of enchantment.

Now, I'm looking at this as if it were to happen in my group. My group me members are busy, and we only have 2 short sessions per month. No one in my group would pull this crap because they wouldn't want to be the prick that derailed the DMs story. Kinda like the brat that starts talking in the middle of a movie about how the book was better and the most is is all wrong. Just shut up, watch the movie , or GTFO.

We game to have fun and hear and participate in a story. Not to argue about how someone wasn't treated fairly when they tried to sideswipe the story.

[bjoern]

Clearly you have never heard of abusive relationships. Or, for that matter, Stockholm syndrome.

D&d is not a marriage or any kind of relationship.

Its a game.


Y'all want to lynch someone go ahead. I'm just saying that maybe its not always 100% the DMs fault. Sometimes it is, but not always

[kellbyb]

Straight from the SRD.

Yeah, the problem with that is the code is never defined.

[eggynack]

I feel that the player forfeits his rights to having his character affected by stuff RAW when that player chooses to have his guy do something that is completely 180° against his characters alignment, god, whole concept without any in game explanation.
Other than "oooo I want his money"
If the character had some greed disorder or something sure that's fine. Or if he's under some kind of enchantment.
I don't think that you forfeit any claim to the rules, or to tend more towards this conversation, agency, at all when you act out of character. The two things are completely separate. He can forfeit a claim to playing in the game, or to not receiving a talking to, but your character is your character. Also, greed seems like a pretty solid in-game explanation to me, gotta say. It's a thing that strikes the best of us on occasion. In any case, I've gotta find that silence/shout example now. That one was crazy.

[Sith_Happens]

This is one of best house rules, and not a secret one.

Ok the story:

Group fights drow in the dark woods. A goblin slave mentions ''the drow have a secret vault full of treasure''. So the next fight they capture a drow. The drow won't talk, and they have no persuasive magic really available. This is where Keith the player of the cleric of Corellon gets his idea: He will torture the drow for the information, healing and bringing the drow back to life as needed, until the drow tells in information. The drow is already wounded, so the cleric goes to cast a cure on him, so he can start the torture and not kill the drow too quickly. He goes to cast the spell, and Corellon twists the cure into an inflict and kills the drow.

Now this was a great event. Keith was shocked. He sure got the message that ''using torture to get information is not approved of'' and that he ''might have gone too far''. And it started him on a little quest to ''make sure he knew the true path of Corellon'' by visiting other clerics and temples. Keith even accepted that he killed the drow, not Corellon. At no time did this single act make Edgar's character a NPC or have the DM have ''control over the character''....

Putting aside whether I'd like the idea of this happening in a game I'm playing in (as an isolated event I'd actually have mixed feelings at worst), I really don't see Corellon Larethian disapproving of one of his clerics torturing a Drow for the location of a stash of Drow treasure that the cleric then intends to steal, at least not strongly enough to act on it. Sure his alignment line says "Good," but when push comes to shove he's a racist and an asshat more than anything else.

[jedipotter]

We game to have fun and hear and participate in a story. Not to argue about how someone wasn't treated fairly when they tried to sideswipe the story.

I agree! A lot of my house rules are made around this idea: we only have a little time to game, so lets game!

I can't stand people who try and disrupt or stop the game: The Problem Players.

''Just play the game''

[Flickerdart]

I agree! A lot of my house rules are made around this idea: we only have a little time to game, so lets game!

I can't stand people who try and disrupt or stop the game: The Problem Players.

''Just play the game''
Surely you're joking. Everything you do in your game adds extra pointless time to everything, from rolling extra dice (d% every time you cast a summon spell, for instance) to straight up telling people that no, they do a different thing from the thing they said they wanted to do.

[bjoern]

I agree! A lot of my house rules are made around this idea: we only have a little time to game, so lets game!

I can't stand people who try and disrupt or stop the game: The Problem Players.

''Just play the game''

The only thing here would be that everyone at the table has to aggree on what it means to disrupt the game. That's different from person to person. Myself , I've never played an alignment change. I don't have time for it. And neither does my table.If I want to be a good guy that turns evil.....then he used to be good and is evil now.

If we get hung up on how a certain rule or mechanic works, we just all come to a compromise (even the DM) and that's how it works and move on. Between sessions well try to figure out the rule so we can do it right next time.

[eggynack]

Surely you're joking. Everything you do in your game adds extra pointless time to everything, from rolling extra dice (d% every time you cast a summon spell, for instance) to straight up telling people that no, they do a different thing from the thing they said they wanted to do.
Indeed. It would be pretty trivial to just let the cleric do their silly interrogation thing without any deity-based consequences. If you just want a fun and random time, that seems like a perfectly viable path.

[jedipotter]

Putting aside whether I'd like the idea of this happening in a game I'm playing in (as an isolated event I'd actually have mixed feelings at worst), I really don't see Corellon Larethian disapproving of one of his clerics torturing a Drow for the location of a stash of Drow treasure that the cleric then intends to steal, at least not strongly enough to act on it. Sure his alignment line says "Good," but when push comes to shove he's a racist and an asshat more than anything else.

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks Corellon Larethian is a racist and an asshat.

[Flickerdart]

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks Corellon Larethian is a racist and an asshat.
How do you read a post that disagrees with you completely and then misinterpret it like that?

[Arkhaic]

How do you read a post that disagrees with you completely and then misinterpret it like that?

Linguistics, Flickerdart, linguistics. Breathe and think of the false friends.

[jedipotter]

How do you read a post that disagrees with you completely and then misinterpret it like that?

I've got mad skills and talent...........

[Jeff the Green]

How do you read a post that disagrees with you completely and then misinterpret it like that?

I'm more concerned with the fact that jedipotter's version of Corellon is a genocidal ****head but wouldn't cotton to torturing a drow.

[Sith_Happens]

How do you read a post that disagrees with you completely and then misinterpret it like that?

It's only a partial disagreement. We agree that Corellon Larethian is a racist asshat, but disagree as to where being a racist asshat ranks on his list of priorities relative to being Good.

[Flickerdart]

It's only a partial disagreement. We agree that Corellon Larethian is a racist asshat, but disagree as to where being a racist asshat ranks on his list of priorities relative to being Good.
Neither of the acts (torture or murder) is Good.

[jedipotter]

I'm more concerned with the fact that jedipotter's version of Corellon is a genocidal ****head but wouldn't cotton to torturing a drow.

Corellon Larethian has no problem with genocide of the whole drow race (and orc race, for that matter). But he draws the line a torture (most of the time, he is fine with ticking clock torture, for example). So, yes kill all the drow (and orcs), but find another way to get treasure other then torture.

Even good gods have standards.....

[Sith_Happens]

Neither of the acts (torture or murder) is Good.

Right, and the disagreement is whether Corellon would rank that as more or less important than Drow-hate.

[Jeff the Green]

Corellon Larethian has no problem with genocide of the whole drow race (and orc race, for that matter). But he draws the line a torture (most of the time, he is fine with ticking clock torture, for example). So, yes kill all the drow (and orcs), but find another way to get treasure other then torture.

Even good gods have standards.....

That doesn't exactly help. Aside from the fact that a genocidal ****head can be a Good god in your world, torturing one drow is worse than annihilating their entire race.

[jedipotter]

That doesn't exactly help. Aside from the fact that a genocidal ****head can be a Good god in your world, torturing one drow is worse than annihilating their entire race.


Corellon Larethian is a complex god.

He hates the drow most of all and really, really just wants them gone. They are living examples of his worst mistake/failure as the god of elves of all time. And he sees it as cleaning up the mess/mistake he made. And the drow are not exactly a natural race, as they were created from Corellon Larethian's blood, so him killing all the drow is no different then a mortal getting a haircut...

So kill the drow, but don't torture them....unless you have to for a good reason, like a ticking clock.

[Jeff the Green]

Corellon Larethian is a complex god.

He hates the drow most of all and really, really just wants them gone. They are living examples of his worst mistake/failure as the god of elves of all time. And he sees it as cleaning up the mess/mistake he made. And the drow are not exactly a natural race, as they were created from Corellon Larethian's blood, so him killing all the drow is no different then a mortal getting a haircut...

So kill the drow, but don't torture them....unless you have to for a good reason, like a ticking clock.

Uh huh. So your hair is sentient, then. Good to know.

[jedipotter]

Uh huh. So your hair is sentient, then. Good to know.

This is complex god stuff....

[Sith_Happens]

Uh huh. So your hair is sentient, then. Good to know.

ATTENTION DUELISTS, my hair did not realize that its sapience was somehow unique.

[torrasque666]

Rather than harp on about JP and how his houserules are awful, I'll actually answer the original question.

What do I expect? I expect the following.

The DM to be straightforward with his rules.
I expect consistency with his rules.
I expect that if he's going to use my character to advance a plot point he at least gives me forewarning about it, and at most that he asks if its ok to use my character for plot development.
I expect that the DM will allow my character to act in the way I deem he acts. If that means an alignment shift, or falling, or some other less than favorable status, so be it. I wouldn't have played a class with an Ex-[Class] section without being aware of it.
I expect that any class or book bans be reasonable. For example

No faerun books in an eberron campaign.
Not banning something because "I don't like X about it." without further explanation AND an actual knowledge of how the book works.
Banning something because you don't have a book. (Granted, since I practically only play online, if they don't have a book I'll gladly share my library with them.)
Banning T1 because they break the game.
Banning T6 because they can't handle their own.


I expect that the DM will actually talk to the players when there is a problem.


Trying to remember if I have missed anything.

[Elderand]

Yeah, the problem with that is the code is never defined.

Deities and demigods and faith and pantheons (amongst other) do define such code of conduct. Care to shift the goalpost some more ?

[Brookshw]

Out of (morbid) curiosity, given that European martial arts also give names to their specific maneuvers, what specifically makes ToB 'anime' rather than 'European Renaissance'? Specific page numbers or quotes would be helpful.

Sure but remember the context here is that ToB isn't reflective of real word martial arts, at least compared to other D&D content. The usage of the word "anime" is a useful catch-all for over the top martial superpowers that are oft exemplified in the genre. Content such as "Perfect Clarify of Mind and Body", "Scorching Sirocco" from the tactical feat section alone (page 35), I'd question "lasting weak spot" under "Distant Horizon" as well (page 34). Avenging strike, vital recovery from the general feat section also come into play. Even devoted bulwark is a bit questionable in terms of it's correlation to realism, I'm pretty sure that someone's already expected to be actively defending themselves and stepping it up is called "fighting defensively" or "full defense". I won't touch on the divine or psionic elements.

How deep do you want to evaluate? The difference in Northern vs. Southern styles from Asian traditions and how to most accurately replicate them? Armed combat from European traditions? Heck, take one of the basics you'll learn in just about any martial art, 90% of fights end on the ground and you better learn to fall. The monk's laughable slow fall ability does a better job of representing this than any of the classes in that book but that, getting used to falling, is actually closer to realism than most of the content I'm seeing in ToB (albeit probably not from such heights). Same thing as having easier access to grapple via a feat. Given your name let's talk Pankration, the pinnacle competition of ancient greek martial arts. Almost nothing in ToB is stylistically comparable. Heck, a rogue might be more realistic if they had crippling strike.

Where would you like to go next? Why turning incorporal isn't realistic of martial arts? Here, I just flipped open to page 60 randomly, let me start. "Martial Spirit" (if that was realistic we'd have doctors punching nurses instead of surgery to heal the patient), "Radiant charge" (pretty sure most real swords don't care if you're evil), Rallying Strike (again with the healing), "Revitalizing Strike" (again, alignment isn't important in the real world as far as a sword's concerned). Shield block and shield counter I'll grant have some basis (kinda skeptical about shield counter but sure, let's go with it). Strike of the righteous is another.

So, still honestly want to tell me ToB is a more realistic reflection of real world martial arts? Honestly a vanilla fighter is more realistic than some of this :smalltongue:

Edit: Sorry, this was a bit of a catch all gear in part towards some other comments. European Reconnaissance doesn't share quite the same incorporation of super powered extra worldy fighting, closest analogy I can think of is Anime.

[kellbyb]

Deities and demigods and faith and pantheons (amongst other) do define such code of conduct. Care to shift the goalpost some more ?

I just ctrl-F'd "Code of conduct" in both of those books and found nothing. That said, I wouldn't have been surprised if I had found something since I've barely read Deities and Demigods and didn't even know Faiths and Pantheons existed. If you can give me specific examples with page numbers, I'll be more than happy to believe you.

[Elderand]

I just ctrl-F'd "Code of conduct" in both of those books and found nothing. That said, I wouldn't have been surprised if I had found something since I've barely read Deities and Demigods and didn't even know Faiths and Pantheons existed. If you can give me specific examples with page numbers, I'll be more than happy to believe you.

Under every god in those books are two entry, "dogma" and "clergy and temples"

[TandemChelipeds]

Right, and the disagreement is whether Corellon would rank that as more or less important than Drow-hate.

Honestly, I don't see any contradiction here. I mean, the Drow torture all the time, right? So wouldn't torturing them make someone more similar to the Drow? I can see him abhorring torture on the sole basis of it being a Drow-like thing to do.

[Psyren]

Seriously?
...
Let's take this from the top.



—If you need something that's higher than 6th level to imprison casters then you're doing it wrong and your setting is either terrible or has bizarre scaling.

Seriously, just waterboard them once a day to keep them unconscious, maybe use some effect so they don't need to eat. Or use magic to keep them asleep. And don't keep them alone.

Oh yes, let's rely on neverending torture or will saves - clearly the bane of any spellcaster, before we even get to the natural 20s they'll inevitably roll - to solve the problem forever. And you have the gall to ask if I'm being serious?

Also, OotS is a terrible setting - yes, I'm sure you're basing this on *snerk* your considerable experience building worlds of... actually, I can't even finish this sentence.



Honestly, if you've got a guy who can punch through a wall given a few hours, you don't leave him alone. Ever. If you can capture a mage, you can keep the mage captured.

But can you do it and maintain your alignment? Good (and hell, even neutral) societies imprison (without torture, whatever you weirdly seem to think) because the alternative is disproportionate punishment by executing everyone regardless of crime.

Or perhaps you advocate maiming them instead? Rip their tongues out or cut off their hands to stop them from using verbal and somatic components? To your warped viewpoint, that would be acceptable, right?



For some reason people seem to think "imprisoned" means "stuck in a cell," rather than meaning "constantly watched, kept from doing anything, and possibly interrogated and/or tortured," which is what would happen to PCs and similar creatures.

Constant torture I've addressed above. "Kept from doing anything" you've yet to demonstrate a tenable way of doing that. "Interrogated" - for what? "Watched" by who?

AMF is a key component of any D&D setting worth the paper it's printed on. It also keeps their friends from teleporting in, knocking our your jail staff easily and busting them out. Or, simply pulling them out of there or sending a disposable summon to pick them up.



Killing someone who would go on to kill others is at worst a neutral act if you aren't torturing them or the like.

You do know that there are crimes besides murder, right? What about a mad mage who uses his powers to commit arson, but only uninhabited buildings? No loss of life, just lots and lots of property damage. Do you string him up, or let him roam free? Obviously neither is acceptable. How about a Beguiler con or second-story man who uses their powers to steal from the city's powerful? A crime certainly, but is execution a worthy punishment? What about a sorcerer or wilder who can't control her powers and is a danger to all around her? Say she hasn't killed anyone yet and needs to be taught control, but you need to keep her in one place long enough to get her the help she needs. Would you torture all of these individuals or render them comatose indefinitely? Would you station NPC guards with all of them, people who are likely quite ill-equipped to do anything should your drugs wear off or they pass their saves? Or would you stick adventurers with all of them, people who are the smallest minority of the population even if you did find folks willing to stick around in prison with each of your captives?


Try again.

Right back at you, person-with-oddly-fitting-name.

[kellbyb]

Under every god in those books are two entry, "dogma" and "clergy and temples"

Since it's not explicitly called out as a code of conduct, it has no effect as per RAW. That said, I would have no trouble with the DM issuing a cleric PC warnings via divine proxy if they cross a line or two or even stripping them of their powers if they don't learn after the first few chastising angels.

[Jeff the Green]

Since it's not explicitly called out as a code of conduct, it has no effect as per RAW. That said, I would have no trouble with the DM issuing a cleric PC warnings via divine proxy if they cross a line or two or even stripping them of their powers if they don't learn after the first few chastising angels.

That has to be the flimsiest RAW argument I've seen in this forum in a while.

Yes, I'm aware of the context of this remark

[kellbyb]

That has to be the flimsiest RAW argument I've seen in this forum in a while.

Yes, I'm aware of the context of this remark

Yeah, I was pretty much being facetious.

[Terazul]

Where would you like to go next? Why turning incorporal isn't realistic of martial arts? Here, I just flipped open to page 60 randomly, let me start. "Martial Spirit" (if that was realistic we'd have doctors punching nurses instead of surgery to heal the patient), "Radiant charge" (pretty sure most real swords don't care if you're evil), Rallying Strike (again with the healing), "Revitalizing Strike" (again, alignment isn't important in the real world as far as a sword's concerned). Shield block and shield counter I'll grant have some basis (kinda skeptical about shield counter but sure, let's go with it). Strike of the righteous is another.


Oh for the love of...



So, still honestly want to tell me ToB is a more realistic reflection of real world martial arts? .

I will. Try looking at one of the other 8 Disciplines that isn't Devoted Spirit, the one explicitly only available to the Paladin-alike. :smallannoyed: You know, like Iron Heart. or Diamond Mind. Setting Sun or Tiger Claw, even. Pretty much any of the maneuvers from Desert Wind that are about mobility or multiple attacks.

Meanwhile in DnD literally anyone can focus on combat a bit/ (http://dndtools.eu/feats/players-handbook-ii--80/combat-vigor--408/) and suddenly start healing rapidly. Such realism.

[torrasque666]

I will. Try looking at one of the other 8 Disciplines that isn't Devoted Spirit, the one explicitly only available to the Paladin-alike. :smallannoyed:

Wait, you mean I can't just focus on the stuff that proves my argument? I have to look at all the information?

[Threadnaught]

Corellon Larethian has no problem with genocide of the whole drow race (and orc race, for that matter). But he draws the line a torture (most of the time, he is fine with ticking clock torture, for example). So, yes kill all the drow (and orcs), but find another way to get treasure other then torture.

Even good gods have standards.....

The phrase is, "Even Evil Has Standards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasStandards)".


Not that it matters because this thread is on it's way to being locked with the genocidal racist ***** of a "Good" guy being brought up again.

Rather than discussing the benefits of pre-emptively wiping out all life in Europe and then killing all Caucasian people in the world to prevent the return of the Nazis. Let me rectify the mistake I made the last time genocide was brought up in one of your threads jedi.

Let's ask The Giant what he thinks about genocide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?321374-Is-V-really-repentant/page3&p=16673090#post16673090).

[Brookshw]

Oh for the love of...



I will. Try looking at one of the other 8 Disciplines that isn't Devoted Spirit, the one explicitly only available to the Paladin-alike. :smallannoyed: You know, like Iron Heart. or Diamond Mind. Setting Sun or Tiger Claw, even. Pretty much any of the maneuvers from Desert Wind that are about mobility or multiple attacks.

Meanwhile in DnD literally anyone can focus on combat a bit/ (http://dndtools.eu/feats/players-handbook-ii--80/combat-vigor--408/) and suddenly start healing rapidly. Such realism.

Mate that's just a random page and a quick flip through some feats. I'm not even at the book atm but, one with shadows? Yeah, very realistic :smalltongue: Iron heart? Of course stubborness let's me ignore optical nerve damage. Oh, I got it, eternal blade! Because most martial traditions are impacted by the spirits of their ancestors (though yes, some cultures have had such beliefs). The book may borrow some concepts which have real world grounding but its cranking them beyond the max. And why shouldn't it, its a fantasy game, its not expected to be realistic.

[Terazul]

Mate that's just a random page and a quick flip through some feats. I'm not even at the book atm but, one with shadows? Yeah, very realistic :smalltongue: Iron heart? Of course stubborness let's me ignore optical nerve damage. Oh, I got it, eternal blade! Because most martial traditions are impacted by the spirits of their ancestors (though yes, some cultures have had such beliefs). The book may borrow some concepts which have real world grounding but its cranking them beyond the max. And why shouldn't it, its a fantasy game, its not expected to be realistic.

The first one isn't even the one I told you to look at because it's explicitly supernatural. The second you are taking the single most debated maneuver out of the entire book and using it to color the entire discipline. The third is a friggin elven prestige class. The book is not doing much cranking, but if you're going to simply ignore the parts relevant to discussion, then there's no point in having a discussion to begin with.

Done here.

[Anlashok]

Why try to reason with someone being so spiteful?

[Terazul]

Why try to reason with someone being so spiteful?
Probably because I care too much about new people getting misinformation because the person they're getting their information from can't be assed to actually read through the book.

[Jeff the Green]

Probably because I care too much about new people getting misinformation because the person they're getting their information from can't be assed to actually read through the book.

Agreed. I stayed away from Incarnum and maneuvers for a while because I heard that they're incomprehensible, unbalanced, and the maneuvers are silly. Now I really like them, and I'm playing a Beguiler/Incarnate/Homebrewed Theurge (see my sig; the Nightwearer) with Martial Study to help him get off his Cloaked Casting.

Granted, the first objection is partially true, but Sinfire Titan's handbook and the ToB handbooks helped a lot.

[Threadnaught]

I stayed away from Incarnum and maneuvers for a while because I heard that they're incomprehensible, unbalanced, and the maneuvers are silly.

I have a personal rule not to spend more than a specific amount of cash on each book. I went over this limit by £5 on ToB and it's worth every penny. Even if it hasn't seen much actual use, my previous bans on all ToB content and annoyance at constant discussions involving the book have subsided since reading the book.

[atemu1234]

Agreed. I stayed away from Incarnum and maneuvers for a while because I heard that they're incomprehensible, unbalanced, and the maneuvers are silly. Now I really like them, and I'm playing a Beguiler/Incarnate/Homebrewed Theurge (see my sig; the Nightwearer) with Martial Study to help him get off his Cloaked Casting.

Granted, the first objection is partially true, but Sinfire Titan's handbook and the ToB handbooks helped a lot.

Me, I just am not familiar with them. I'd let my players use them, but I'd tell them to give me a week or two to familiarize myself with the content.

[jedipotter]

Not that it matters because this thread is on it's way to being locked with the genocidal racist ***** of a "Good" guy being brought up again.


It is perfectly fine to talk about a fictional god wanting to kill fictional races. It's all fiction.

I like the idea that Corellon Larethian is not perfect. He made some huge mistakes and has to live with them. Because of his actions/inactions one fourth of the race, made from his blood turned to evil. It's a big burden to bear.

Now a lot of people like Corellon Larethian, and all the good gods for that matter, to be super pure good. But that is boring. Why even have more then one good god if they are all just copies of each other?

And genocide is not evil, not to goods and powers. Most of the good gods would love to kill every last demon and devil, they just don't have the power to do it. Would killing all the demons be genocide? I doubt many good folks would think so.

[eggynack]

It is perfectly fine to talk about a fictional god wanting to kill fictional races. It's all fiction.
Then why is it not perfectly fine to talk about a fictional god wanting to torture fictional races? Just seems like an arbitrary line.

[atemu1234]

It is perfectly fine to talk about a fictional god wanting to kill fictional races. It's all fiction.

I like the idea that Corellon Larethian is not perfect. He made some huge mistakes and has to live with them. Because of his actions/inactions one fourth of the race, made from his blood turned to evil. It's a big burden to bear.

Now a lot of people like Corellon Larethian, and all the good gods for that matter, to be super pure good. But that is boring. Why even have more then one good god if they are all just copies of each other?

And genocide is not evil, not to goods and powers. Most of the good gods would love to kill every last demon and devil, they just don't have the power to do it. Would killing all the demons be genocide? I doubt many good folks would think so.

Did you even read the direct quote from the Giant himself linked on the previous page? Seriously.

Genocide is not good, and it sure as the nine isn't neutral either. Corellon Larethian doesn't actively tell his followers, "Kill every Drow you see." And if he did, he would be CE, not CG. And at that point, torture would be well-within his favorite pass-times related to drow.