PDA

View Full Version : Errors About RAW



Dausuul
2007-03-28, 07:35 AM
There are a lot of common mistakes about the Rules As Written that people make. Which one annoys you the most?

For me, at least at the moment, it would have to be when people present custom magic items (made using the guidelines in the DMG) as RAW. Those are guidelines, not rules, dangit! It specifically says you can't price everything exactly to those guidelines. Otherwise you could make the infamous use-activated-true-strike weapon and get +20 to all attack rolls for a couple of thousand gold.

What else have people got?

its_all_ogre
2007-03-28, 07:49 AM
people ignore that the RAW promotes changing whatever rules fit your group, then say that homebrew rules have no place in a RAW discussion.

Emperor Tippy
2007-03-28, 07:53 AM
they don't ogre. Housruels are great but do to how different they can be and that they amount to DM fiat and can't be relied upon in any way, they don't belong in a RAW debate.

Saph
2007-03-28, 08:19 AM
they don't ogre. Housruels are great but do to how different they can be and that they amount to DM fiat and can't be relied upon in any way, they don't belong in a RAW debate.

Actually, some houserules can be relied on - very much so.

As for RAW mistakes that people make:

1. The paladin's code. People have the most bizarre ideas about what it is, to the point of making paladins completely unplayable. A paladin's supposed to uphold good and law, but from the way some people describe it they seem to think that being a paladin requires you to act like some kind of insane suicidal robot.

2. Too-high stats. Everyone seems to forget that the D&D challenge rating system is balanced for Elite Array characters with 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. That's point buy 25. Point buy 32 is considered 'high-powered'. But on the Net I regularly see character builds with point buy totals in the 40s and 50s or even more, and an amazing amount of players think that anything without at least one 18 isn't worth playing. And then those same players are the ones most likely to complain about how unbalanced their games are. Funny, that.


- Saph

Rigeld2
2007-03-28, 08:29 AM
The fact that you cant augment a power if itll cost more than your ML. One of the most overlooked rules EVAR.

its_all_ogre
2007-03-28, 08:39 AM
yeah i tried to explain that high stats thing to a group of players once and they totally didn't get it.
so i added +2 to all AC damage hps per hd etc etc.
after playing this way for 3 weeks and everyone was enjoying it i said that the next game would be with lower stats, they all moaned how boring it would be, so i revealed my deception!

did not play with them again!!!!

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-03-28, 08:59 AM
Ethereal =/= Incorporeal.

The sad thing is that even the RAW makes that mistake. It's understandable if people get confused because they read the blink (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/spellsAtoB.html#blink) spell description. That description is wrong, wrong, wrong! That's why you always got to read the primary sources. The full descriptions of Ethereal (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/abilitiesAndConditions.html#etherealness) and Incorporeal (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/abilitiesAndConditions.html#incorporeality).

Stephen_E
2007-03-28, 09:04 AM
2. Too-high stats. Everyone seems to forget that the D&D challenge rating system is balanced for Elite Array characters with 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. That's point buy 25. Point buy 32 is considered 'high-powered'. But on the Net I regularly see character builds with point buy totals in the 40s and 50s or even more, and an amazing amount of players think that anything without at least one 18 isn't worth playing. And then those same players are the ones most likely to complain about how unbalanced their games are. Funny, that.


- Saph

OK. I've heard this one before. Can you point to where the RAW actually says that the CR rating is set for PCs using the Elite array.

I have no idea whether it exists or not, but given the default method of producing stats (roll 4d6 six times, taking the best 3 dice each time, and sort in preferred order. Do this 2 more times, and choose the set of 6 you prefer) on average produces better stats than the Elite Array, this would seem a strange rule.

Stephen

Jayabalard
2007-03-28, 09:15 AM
2. Too-high stats. Everyone seems to forget that the D&D challenge rating system is balanced for Elite Array characters with 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. That's point buy 25. Point buy 32 is considered 'high-powered'. But on the Net I regularly see character builds with point buy totals in the 40s and 50s or even more, and an amazing amount of players think that anything without at least one 18 isn't worth playing. And then those same players are the ones most likely to complain about how unbalanced their games are. Funny, that. I never have understood how that is entertaining; it does make me wonder how many of them would have been willing to play by the old RAW, roll 3d6, down the line, in order. Period.

as for house rules not belonging in a RAW debate; I disagree... it's the other way around: RAW arguments have no place in a roleplaying game discussion.

Saph
2007-03-28, 09:26 AM
OK. I've heard this one before. Can you point to where the RAW actually says that the CR rating is set for PCs using the Elite array.

I can't remember if it's actually stated anywhere in the core books (I think the DMG might have it) but you can figure it out from looking at the 'iconic' PCs - Tordek, Mialee, Jozan, Lidda, and the rest. They're all built on Elite Array, and so are the pre-made NPCs the DMG gives you.

It's true that 4d6 (with the reroll rules) gives you slightly higher results than point buy 25, but WotC settled on Elite Array at some point as an average to use for playtesting - there's a mention of it in either the PHB II or something similar, I forget which. So when they did the playtests that gave them the CR value of the monsters back in the creation period of 3.0, they worked it out by sending a party of Tordek, Mialee, Jozan, and Lidda (or the equivalent) at them in a dungeon environment and seeing what happened. So the CR system as it is now assumes a mixed 4-person party of point buy 25.

- Saph

Attilargh
2007-03-28, 09:30 AM
I have no idea whether it exists or not, but given the default method of producing stats (roll 4d6 six times, taking the best 3 dice each time, and sort in preferred order. Do this 2 more times, and choose the set of 6 you prefer) on average produces better stats than the Elite Array, this would seem a strange rule.
Er, actually, the by-the-Handbook method is to roll 4d6 six times, discarding the lowest and arranging as desired. Re-roll the set only if too low.

I too have often wondered why the default Point Buy value seems to be around 32.

Tormsskull
2007-03-28, 09:33 AM
I have no idea whether it exists or not, but given the default method of producing stats (roll 4d6 six times, taking the best 3 dice each time, and sort in preferred order. Do this 2 more times, and choose the set of 6 you prefer) on average produces better stats than the Elite Array, this would seem a strange rule.

Stephen

Could you point out where it says in RAW that you get to roll 3 sets of dice and then choose the set of 6 rolls that you prefer as the 'default' method? AFAIK the default method is simply 4d6 drop lowest six times and you're done. There's the qualifiers of "if your total modifiers are less than..." and "If you have no score over ..." but I don't recall seeing anywhere that it said you actually get to generate 3 sets of stats and pick the best.

Piccamo
2007-03-28, 09:36 AM
as for house rules not belonging in a RAW debate; I disagree... it's the other way around: RAW arguments have no place in a roleplaying game discussion.
Then why do you play with rules or dice? If you are discussing how to do something in DnD you need to make sure everyone is using the same guidelines or there can be no discussion. If someone asks "How do you make a good melee build, maximizing effect from Sudden Strike and power attack?" you cannot say "Oh, just add the ninja abilities to the fighter!" That doesn't work in DnD using the guidelines that everyone follows.

I'm a big fan of fitting a character to your concept. That is what multiclassing is for. You must merely make your concept work within the guidelines.

AKA_Bait
2007-03-28, 09:39 AM
My personally most annoying thing: all skills treated as class skills. Skills cap at level+3. Almost every group I have ever played with has had someone ignore this very important mechanic.

In game conversation I've actually had:

Me: Roll a spot check.
4th level Paladin: 28.
Me: Kindly explain how you got that number.
Pally: I rolled a 19 and added the +9 modifier.
Me: How on earth do you have a +9 Modifier.
Pally: I put that many ranks in.
Me: You know that's over the cap if it were class and it's cross class for you right?
Pally: Yeah but those rules are stupid so I thought we were ignoring them.
::facepalm::

Fax Celestis
2007-03-28, 09:42 AM
Could you point out where it says in RAW that you get to roll 3 sets of dice and then choose the set of 6 rolls that you prefer as the 'default' method? AFAIK the default method is simply 4d6 drop lowest six times and you're done. There's the qualifiers of "if your total modifiers are less than..." and "If you have no score over ..." but I don't recall seeing anywhere that it said you actually get to generate 3 sets of stats and pick the best.

It's in the DMG-I, in the section about different methods of rolling stats. It is one of the sections not in the SRD.

Tormsskull
2007-03-28, 09:51 AM
It's in the DMG-I, in the section about different methods of rolling stats. It is one of the sections not in the SRD.

emphasis mine.

Yeah, so its not the default method then.

Gorbash Kazdar
2007-03-28, 09:52 AM
OK. I've heard this one before. Can you point to where the RAW actually says that the CR rating is set for PCs using the Elite array.

I have no idea whether it exists or not, but given the default method of producing stats (roll 4d6 six times, taking the best 3 dice each time, and sort in preferred order. Do this 2 more times, and choose the set of 6 you prefer) on average produces better stats than the Elite Array, this would seem a strange rule.

Stephen

Could you point out where it says in RAW that you get to roll 3 sets of dice and then choose the set of 6 rolls that you prefer as the 'default' method? AFAIK the default method is simply 4d6 drop lowest six times and you're done. There's the qualifiers of "if your total modifiers are less than..." and "If you have no score over ..." but I don't recall seeing anywhere that it said you actually get to generate 3 sets of stats and pick the best.
It should be noted that the default method is, in fact, 4d6 drop lowest die six times and arrange as desired (PHB 7). And, in fact, I think Stephen is saying that - he states roll 4d6, take the best three of those dice, note result, do this five additional times, and arrange to preferences, as I read it. As Fax Celestis pointed out, though, the DMG (pg 169) lists a number of optional methods of creating stats, of which the most popular is point-buy.

Jayabalard
2007-03-28, 09:53 AM
Then why do you play with rules or dice? If you are discussing how to do something in DnD you need to make sure everyone is using the same guidelines or there can be no discussion. If someone asks "How do you make a good melee build, maximizing effect from Sudden Strike and power attack?" you cannot say "Oh, just add the ninja abilities to the fighter!" That doesn't work in DnD using the guidelines that everyone follows.

I'm a big fan of fitting a character to your concept. That is what multiclassing is for. You must merely make your concept work within the guidelines."RAW arguments have no place in a roleplaying game discussion." does not mean "rules discussion have no place in rpg discussion" or "rules have no place in RPGs". You play with rules to have some common ground, and dice to introduce some randomness.

It does mean that "the rules say I can do this, even though it doesn't make sense" is not a valid argument for any RPG discussion; story, game balance and realism trump that 100% of the time.

Tormsskull
2007-03-28, 10:02 AM
And, in fact, I think Stephen is saying that - he states roll 4d6, take the best three of those dice, note result, do this five additional times, and arrange to preferences, as I read it.

emphasis mine.

I understand what he means (as in, I realize he made an error but I still understand his point), but I am lost as to how you came to the conclusion that you did. Specifically the "Do this 2 more times, and choose the set of 6 you prefer".

My reading comprehension lead me to think he is saying:

-roll 4d6 six times
-take the best 3 dice each time
-sort in preferred order
-Do this 2 more times, and choose the set of 6 you prefer

Perhaps if you, Gorbash, explain how you came to your conclusion it will clear up my apparent confusion.

Ramza00
2007-03-28, 10:04 AM
When you have a significant point buy you modify the cr. Adding the elite array to a monster modifies its CR by 1.

So doing the opposite to the PCs will also modify the CR for an encounter.

Dausuul
2007-03-28, 10:17 AM
I can't remember if it's actually stated anywhere in the core books (I think the DMG might have it) but you can figure it out from looking at the 'iconic' PCs - Tordek, Mialee, Jozan, Lidda, and the rest. They're all built on Elite Array, and so are the pre-made NPCs the DMG gives you.

It's true that 4d6 (with the reroll rules) gives you slightly higher results than point buy 25, but WotC settled on Elite Array at some point as an average to use for playtesting - there's a mention of it in either the PHB II or something similar, I forget which. So when they did the playtests that gave them the CR value of the monsters back in the creation period of 3.0, they worked it out by sending a party of Tordek, Mialee, Jozan, and Lidda (or the equivalent) at them in a dungeon environment and seeing what happened. So the CR system as it is now assumes a mixed 4-person party of point buy 25.

- Saph

Actually a bit less than point buy 25, because in many cases the elite array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 is a sub-optimal way to spend your 25 points.

Fax Celestis
2007-03-28, 10:23 AM
When you have a significant point buy you modify the cr. Adding the elite array to a monster modifies its CR by 1.

So doing the opposite to the PCs will also modify the CR for an encounter.

And here comes Ramza with the MM-I quote that I always forget about.

Stephen_E
2007-03-28, 10:25 AM
Could you point out where it says in RAW that you get to roll 3 sets of dice and then choose the set of 6 rolls that you prefer as the 'default' method? AFAIK the default method is simply 4d6 drop lowest six times and you're done. There's the qualifiers of "if your total modifiers are less than..." and "If you have no score over ..." but I don't recall seeing anywhere that it said you actually get to generate 3 sets of stats and pick the best.

It doesn't. :smallredface:
The one set is RAW. I've been playing with a houserule so long, with so many different groups, that I's entirely forgotten it was a house rule.

That said, regarding the entire business of CRs been set for a party of 4 with Elite Arrays. Well that may or may not be the theoretical intent BUT having played against those CRs with Partys of more than 4, with better than Elite arrays, I can honestly say that the CRs are wildly varying, especially in the later MMs, and a monster of equal CR can be a probable TPKer or a barely noticable speed bump. It's pretty obvious that no one ran a part of 4, elite array, up against these monsters/encounters, because if they had they'd have noticed that, barring the most positive situation possible, they'd have gotten TPK every time!

Personally I'm not so interested in having PCs with incedible total bonuses, as much as having interesting stats. A PC with 14 in every stat, for a total of +12 bonuses is absolutely boring IMHO, while a PC with three 18's and three 3's, while challenging, would be interesting to play, despite having a total of mods = 0. A low stat is much more character defining than a high stat. That said I also like to have 1 good stat.

I'm currently happily playing in a 32 point buy game (although I know some players consider it stingy). IMHO the problem with 25pts of lower is that some classes and prestige class seem to be designed for considerably better stats. The MAD syndrome. Every class benefits from higher stats, but some classes REALLY suffer from meidocre stats. A Wizard need high INT and decent Con. Everything else is gravy. A Monk or Paladin for example, IMHO is designed to function with multiple (4+) 15+ stats.

Stephen

Fax Celestis
2007-03-28, 10:28 AM
I'm currently happily playing in a 32 point buy game (although I know some players consider it stingy). IMHO the problem with 25pts of lower is that some classes and prestige class seem to be designed for considerably better stats. The MAD syndrome. Every class benefits from higher stats, but some classes REALLY suffer from meidocre stats. A Wizard need high INT and decent Con. Everything else is gravy. A Monk or Paladin for example, IMHO is designed to function with multiple (4+) 15+ stats.

Barring feat expenditure, yes. There's always things like Carmendine Monk, Kung Fu Genius, Serenity...

Dr. Weasel
2007-03-28, 11:01 AM
Barring feat expenditure, yes. There's always things like Carmendine Monk, Kung Fu Genius, Serenity...

But these feats weren't available when paladins and monks were introduced. It's pretty obvious that without multiple high skills, many class abilities were going to waste so I'm pretty sure Wizards was counting on some people rolling higher than others and playing paladins instead of bards or buff-clerics

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-03-28, 11:06 AM
I don't mind high score builds myself. My group tend to play pretty high powered stuff. Its pretty balanced, because we all know what we are capable of, so whoever is Dm'ing can compensate.

Probably my pet peeve rules error is when new people play a spell caster, they want me to get rid of spell components, and each one I point out that a feat already exists for that..

MeklorIlavator
2007-03-28, 11:56 AM
Continuing the point buy discussion, there was a thread on wizards that found the average of both the 4d6 method and the 3d6 method, and it turned out that 4d6 gives around a 32 point buy and 3d6 gives the 25 point buy. I can't find the thread anymore, but it it was an interesting proof.

The biggest error I see is the people who say that one can prepare spells in less time by being an elf or having a ring of sustenance.

Rigeld2
2007-03-28, 11:57 AM
"RAW arguments have no place in a roleplaying game discussion." does not mean "rules discussion have no place in rpg discussion" or "rules have no place in RPGs". You play with rules to have some common ground, and dice to introduce some randomness.

It does mean that "the rules say I can do this, even though it doesn't make sense" is not a valid argument for any RPG discussion; story, game balance and realism trump that 100% of the time.
In an online debate, about the rules, why would you ever assume that house rules should be included?

Noone else on the forum plays at your table (not 100% true, but 99%). Therefore, there is no reason to assume that your houserules are anywhere near mine. So when debating the "common ground" you cannot assume that your house rule is in effect, because it may not be (and probably isnt) at my table.

And I think youre exaggerating when you say "the rules say I can do this, even though it doesn't make sense". You should add the words "to me" to the end of that. Or, "in my opinion."

marjan
2007-03-28, 12:02 PM
Continuing the point buy discussion, there was a thread on wizards that found the average of both the 4d6 method and the 3d6 method, and it turned out that 4d6 gives around a 32 point buy and 3d6 gives the 25 point buy. I can't find the thread anymore, but it it was an interesting proof.

The biggest error I see is the people who say that one can prepare spells in less time by being an elf or having a ring of sustenance.

Not sure if either of these is correct but here (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/dnd/abilities.html) you have a proof that average on 4d6 is elite array score (if you round down) and for 3d6 it is 13,12,11,10,9,8 array (however it is called).

Saph
2007-03-28, 12:03 PM
IMHO the problem with 25pts of lower is that some classes and prestige class seem to be designed for considerably better stats. The MAD syndrome. Every class benefits from higher stats, but some classes REALLY suffer from meidocre stats. A Wizard need high INT and decent Con. Everything else is gravy. A Monk or Paladin for example, IMHO is designed to function with multiple (4+) 15+ stats.

Well, if you look at Ember and Alhandra (the iconic monk and pally), that isn't what they have - and those stats were probably what the playtesters used.

The problem with saying 'some classes need higher stats' is that if you're giving some characters higher point buy totals, you have to give all characters higher point buy totals. And with the points that put the Monk and Paladin's 4 main scores up to 15-16, the wizard can put his Constitution and Intelligence up to 18 each.

From my own experience, I've found that the higher the point buy totals (or stat rolling method) for a campaign are, the more imbalanced the fights tend to be. Either the PCs cut quickly through the enemies due to their huge damage output, save DCs, and HP scores, or the DM overcompensates and hammers the party with huge-damage or killer ability monsters that the party don't get a chance to counter. Since everything's tweaked, the DM has to keep fiddling with the monsters all the time, and sometimes he makes a mistake.

It is possible to have a well-balanced game with over-statted PCs, but it's more difficult, and tends to lead to power creep. When most PCs have 18-20 in their main ability score, then for them to be challenged, they have to go up against enemies with stats in the same range or even higher. The DM ends up having to power up everything - monsters, NPCs, encounters, BBEGs, the lot. In the end you find all the power-ups mostly cancel each other out, which makes one wonder "what's the point?"

- Saph

Ramza00
2007-03-28, 12:11 PM
Probably my pet peeve rules error is when new people play a spell caster, they want me to get rid of spell components, and each one I point out that a feat already exists for that..

I am sorry but spell components are one of those silly rules that don't help the game at all and are just a frustration. You always have a spell component pouch, and the cost are so cheap you should never run out. Only time I can see spell components may be a problem is casting spells while in polymorph.

If that is the only time spell components provide a balancing factor and isn't just a hassle, then it wasn't really thought out well. If you want to balance polymorph more, then balance polymorph better, don't just create wasted paper work for your players.

Jayabalard
2007-03-28, 12:14 PM
In an online debate, about the rules, why would you ever assume that house rules should be included?

Noone else on the forum plays at your table (not 100% true, but 99%). Therefore, there is no reason to assume that your houserules are anywhere near mine. So when debating the "common ground" you cannot assume that your house rule is in effect, because it may not be (and probably isnt) at my table.Why would I assume that they shouldn't? Isn't the purpose of bringing a question to an online forum to get multiple sets of perspective and exposure to new ideas? If you just wanted to know the rules and nothing else, you could get that from reading the rules books instead.

Not that I made any claim that house rules should be involved in rule arguments; quite the contrary, I stated that rule based arguments have no place in RPG discussions. "The rules say" is always trumped by "this is a more fun way"


And I think youre exaggerating when you say "the rules say I can do this, even though it doesn't make sense". You should add the words "to me" to the end of that. Or, "in my opinion."I'll just disagree: the rules are not always consistent, nor do they always makes sense, nor are they always balance and fair, nor is that lack of sense/consistency/fairness necessarily a matter of opinion or perspective. You are free to disagree, but you're not going to convince me otherwise.

marjan
2007-03-28, 12:20 PM
Only time I can see spell components may be a problem is casting spells while in polymorph.

Or when being grappled.

Rigeld2
2007-03-28, 12:21 PM
Why would I assume that they shouldn't? Isn't the purpose of bringing a question to an online forum to get multiple sets of perspective and exposure to new ideas? If you just wanted to know the rules and nothing else, you could get that from reading the rules books instead.
See the RAW question thread at the top of the forum. Just because its already laid out doesnt mean that everyone understands how it works. Sure, bring your house rule ideas to an online forum, but present them that way. As long as you understand you arent playing by the RAW, and can understand the difference, I'm cool with that. Its the people who argue a point in an online debate, and then after a while say "Oh, well we houserule it this way, so I'm right." that I have major problems with.


Not that I made any claim that house rules should be involved in rule arguments; quite the contrary, I stated that rule based arguments have no place in RPG discussions. "The rules say" is always trumped by "this is a more fun way"
Right. RPG discussions != Rules arguements. But, what you originally said was:

as for house rules not belonging in a RAW debate; I disagree... it's the other way around: RAW arguments have no place in a roleplaying game discussion.
RAW debates are about the rules. Period. Bringing in houserules muddies things up because, as I said, no two tables have the same house rules.


I'll just disagree: the rules are not always consistent, nor do they always makes sense, nor are they always balance and fair, nor is that lack of sense/consistency/fairness necessarily a matter of opinion or perspective. You are free to disagree, but you're not going to convince me otherwise.
I dont disagree at all. Some things should be houseruled. But assuming that your houserules are the same as mine, or even anywhere near mine, and should be included in a RAW discussion is ludicrous. (Note: Mine shouldnt either.)

Gorbad the Limb Rippa
2007-03-28, 12:21 PM
The most odd rule,if i am correct,is that drowning brings your hp total to 0.
So if you are on negative hit points and stabilize,you drown your self and go up to 0.Though i stand to be corrected.

Rigeld2
2007-03-28, 12:23 PM
Sure, you go up to 0. But theres also no rules on how to stop drowning. So even if you remove yourself from the water and start breathing again, you die in 3? rounds.

MeklorIlavator
2007-03-28, 12:27 PM
Why would I assume that they shouldn't? Isn't the purpose of bringing a question to an online forum to get multiple sets of perspective and exposure to new ideas? If you just wanted to know the rules and nothing else, you could get that from reading the rules books instead.


It depends if your asking about a rules question or not. You yourself admit that the rules can be confusing, and people often come to this board or other ones to ask questions about the rules. If someone asks a question about what bonuses stack, then it would be rude to answer "I houserule that all bonuses(boni?) stack." in this case they wanted a clarification on a rule, not what house rules you use. Similarly, if someone asked what houserules you use concerning the stacking of bonuses, it would be rude to start a discussion(on that thread, atleast) about the rules as written.


I took way too long to type that. Comes from being called away from the computer, I guess.

daggaz
2007-03-28, 12:33 PM
The most odd rule,if i am correct,is that drowning brings your hp total to 0.
So if you are on negative hit points and stabilize,you drown your self and go up to 0.Though i stand to be corrected.


This is a simple oversight by wizards (there are so many). In this case, they just made the case for automatically hitting zero, regardless of your positive hitpoints. That you could fall into the water while in the negatives seems to have slipped their minds for the time being. The easy fix, of course, is that if you are negative, you start drowning at that negative hp level. Thats what my group does, at least. Anyhow, this is a great point for not following the rules when they are blatantly stupid, and using your brain/imagination instead.

My biggest beef with RAW mistakes: The Lawful Alignment. SO many people screw this up, it is unbelievable. Lawful doesnt necessarily mean you have to follow the laws. zomg.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-03-28, 12:59 PM
bonuses(boni?) stack
It's bonuses (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bonus).

Krellen
2007-03-28, 01:19 PM
The most odd rule,if i am correct,is that drowning brings your hp total to 0.
So if you are on negative hit points and stabilize,you drown your self and go up to 0.Though i stand to be corrected.
I think you are incorrect. The rules don't say your hit points become 0. They say you become unconscious. Hp 0 is simply an example/clarifier of the condition unconscious. Since the character at negative hp is already unconscious, the clarification is unneeded.

Zherog
2007-03-28, 01:42 PM
"The rules say" is always trumped by "this is a more fun way"

It's already been said, but I think it's worth reiterating. If I come to a forum and I ask about, for example, a paladin's lay on hands ability, I don't care what your houserules are. I'm asking about what the actual rules mean, and I'm expecting that the answers I receive will be based on the RAW.

There are indeed plenty of times when "the rules say" trumps "this is a more fun way" - especially because "this is a more fun way" absolutely requires "in my opinion" to be added onto the end of the statement.


I think you are incorrect. The rules don't say your hit points become 0. They say you become unconscious. Hp 0 is simply an example/clarifier of the condition unconscious. Since the character at negative hp is already unconscious, the clarification is unneeded.

I think that probably depends on how you opt to read the rule, because it sort of says both.


Any character can hold her breath for a number of rounds equal to twice her Constitution score. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check every round in order to continue holding her breath. Each round, the DC increases by 1.

When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to –1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns.

It is possible to drown in substances other than water, such as sand, quicksand, fine dust, and silos full of grain.

So the rule says you fall unconscious, but in the parenthetical statement continues to say you have 0 hit points. The "you reset to zero" argument is sort of enhanced by what happens the next round. You "drop to -1 hit points and [are] dying." In order to drop to -1, your hit points had to originally be higher than that number.

*shrug*

Starbuck_II
2007-03-28, 02:12 PM
I can't remember if it's actually stated anywhere in the core books (I think the DMG might have it) but you can figure it out from looking at the 'iconic' PCs - Tordek, Mialee, Jozan, Lidda, and the rest. They're all built on Elite Array, and so are the pre-made NPCs the DMG gives you.

Totally False. Jozan has much higher stats. Look at the PHB Cleric example in skill points. He has to be human with around 18 Int to afford them all. Count up his skill pints. You'll be amazed.

I have feeling if Jozan isn't 25 than the others aren't. 20 class skill points + 8 skill points used in cross skills (4 ranks total, 2 in 2 of them)=28 Skill points.
2+ Int +4 from human.
28-4=24/4=6 skill points.-2 from being a cleric leaves 4. So that means 18 Int.

Either he cheated in his point buy or he used higher pioint buy or they rolled.

NPCs are balanced based on 25 not Pcs. At least not Iconic.


It's true that 4d6 (with the reroll rules) gives you slightly higher results than point buy 25, but WotC settled on Elite Array at some point as an average to use for playtesting - there's a mention of it in either the PHB II or something similar, I forget which. So when they did the playtests that gave them the CR value of the monsters back in the creation period of 3.0, they worked it out by sending a party of Tordek, Mialee, Jozan, and Lidda (or the equivalent) at them in a dungeon environment and seeing what happened. So the CR system as it is now assumes a mixed 4-person party of point buy 25.

- Saph
Possible, but I don't believe that it exactly why.

marjan
2007-03-28, 02:20 PM
Totally False. Jozan has much higher stats. Look at the PHB Cleric example in skill points. He has to be human with around 18 Int to afford them all. Count up his skill pints. You'll be amazed.


Picking 3+INT modifier skills to max-out with human cleric is cheating?

Jayabalard
2007-03-28, 02:23 PM
There are indeed plenty of times when "the rules say" trumps "this is a more fun way" - especially because "this is a more fun way" absolutely requires "in my opinion" to be added onto the end of the statement.No, it never includes "in my opinion" ... it should always be "in our opinion"


RAW debates are about the rules. Period. Bringing in houserules muddies things up because, as I said, no two tables have the same house rules.I still think you are misunderstanding me; I not suggesting that people should be presenting housefuls as RAW; I'm simply saying that I don't see any reason to leave them out of a RAW debate, since imnsho RAW debates don't add anything to RPGs other than generating good GM rulings (ie houserules).

Krellen
2007-03-28, 02:35 PM
Totally False. Jozan has much higher stats. Look at the PHB Cleric example in skill points. He has to be human with around 18 Int to afford them all. Count up his skill pints. You'll be amazed.
You misunderstand how the sample NPCs work. The skill list isn't "these are your skills". The list is "pick X of these skills", where X is how many skill points you are allowed.

Kantolin
2007-03-28, 03:39 PM
From my own experience, I've found that the higher the point buy totals (or stat rolling method) for a campaign are, the more imbalanced the fights tend to be.

You know. I've played in some extremely high-stat games, and the only things that's caused any kind of an effect like that is when people consistantly roll/get maximum hit points per levelup.

And by extremely high stat, I mean I've (Primarily out of curiosity) tested out games in which while everyone had a 9-12, their other 5 stats were at least 15.

And well... I dunno. That was the most by-the-book I've gone in ages, not even customizing very many monsters. There was probably an effect, and I'm sure luck had to do with it, but they didn't result in being significantly more powerful than anyone else. Level 1, a lucky orcish barbarian nearly killed pretty much whomever with a good hit the way level 1 fights tend to go; level 3-5ish fighters were failing will saves, wizards were failing fort saves, good tactics for a monster set when the adventurers were in a bad situation went badly for them, etc.

I suppose I rolled up the two end 'bosses' they met in a similar fashion, so maybe those particular fights were skewed, but eh.

lin_fusan
2007-03-28, 04:21 PM
I get into this argument with players every time I start a D&D game:

Some players interpret the RAW for arcane casters that they can rest 8 hours, study for 1 to get their full allotment of spells, adventure for 10 minutes, rest ANOTHER 8 hours, study for 1 to get their full allotment of spells, and continue this cycle such that arcane casters can twice the number of spells per day, and sometimes, if the timing is right three times per day.

Wait a minute. Now that I've been looking through the SRD, I can't find anything that specifically disallows this, other than the "Spells Per DAY" column in the class description...

Selv
2007-03-28, 04:21 PM
I've never seen it happen in real life, but oh-so-easy to imagine... the Dodge fallacy (http://goblinscomic.com/d/20060204.html)

Zincorium
2007-03-28, 04:22 PM
No, it never includes "in my opinion" ... it should always be "in our opinion"


Technically, yes, as it is the opinion of your group, but on the forums you don't act as representative of your group, you act as an individual. And it makes you sound like you have multiple personality disorder.



I still think you are misunderstanding me; I not suggesting that people should be presenting housefuls as RAW; I'm simply saying that I don't see any reason to leave them out of a RAW debate, since imnsho RAW debates don't add anything to RPGs other than generating good GM rulings (ie houserules).

House rules of yours don't add anything to an online discussion except ideas for good house rules by other people. That should be obvious. You can suggest them, but other than as suggestions they have no meaning whatsoever. That's why we don't talk about them much. Unless you get your DM or as DM make a house rule like someone else did, the posted house rule was pointless to the discussion. Thus, we talk about RAW, which is the starting point for everything, and which we all can use in our games.

As crazy as it sounds, not everyone uses a lot of house rules, and a lot of the time that's actually a good thing. Most groups with a lot of new players would be shooting themselves in the foot by adding in rules that can't be looked up and verified. So they play as close to RAW as possible, and when there is a legitimate debate, they can get advice.


To put it simply: You should leave house rules out of a RAW debate for the same reason you leave Shadowrun rules out of a D&D rules debate. You CAN use them, but most people don't and won't use the same ones, and so your post just clutters up the page and misleads people into thinking thats the way it actually is.

Jayabalard
2007-03-28, 04:47 PM
To put it simply: You should leave house rules out of a RAW debate for the same reason you leave Shadowrun rules out of a D&D rules debate. You CAN use them, but most people don't and won't use the same ones, and so your post just clutters up the page and misleads people into thinking thats the way it actually is.actually, i don't agree that you should leave shadowrun rules totally out of D&D rules debates either. Or GURPS rules... or Paladium rules... or any other set of rules. There's nothing Holy about the D&D rules that puts them above comparison to other systems, be they competitor, or homegrown.

Fax Celestis
2007-03-28, 04:50 PM
actually, i don't agree that you should leave shadowrun rules totally out of D&D rules debates either. Or GURPS rules... or Paladium rules... or any other set of rules. There's nothing Holy about the D&D rules that puts them above comparison to other systems, be they competitor, or homegrown.

Yes, but when one is discussing D&D, D&D rules are usually at the core of the discussion, while other systems are tangental at best.

Zincorium
2007-03-28, 04:50 PM
actually, i don't agree that you should leave shadowrun rules totally out of D&D rules debates either. Or GURPS rules... or Paladium rules... or any other set of rules. There's nothing Holy about the D&D rules that puts them above comparison to other systems, be they competitor, or homegrown.

...

That's like having a full chess set and then insisting that you should play with monopoly and candy land pieces. Remind me never to attempt to play any non-freeform RPG with you in it.

The point was not that D&D is better, it's that D&D is a different game, and mixing them is strictly optional. Not everyone takes that option, and it's inaccurate to assume they do.

Zherog
2007-03-28, 04:51 PM
actually, i don't agree that you should leave shadowrun rules totally out of D&D rules debates either. Or GURPS rules... or Paladium rules... or any other set of rules. There's nothing Holy about the D&D rules that puts them above comparison to other systems, be they competitor, or homegrown.

http://boards1.wizards.com/images/smilies/dubious.gif

That makes no sense whatsoever... If I start a thread asking about a rule in D&D, I don't give a rat's hairy behind what Shadowrun or GURPS or Champions or whoever did. I care about an answer to the D&D rules question I asked.

Starbuck_II
2007-03-28, 04:59 PM
You misunderstand how the sample NPCs work. The skill list isn't "these are your skills". The list is "pick X of these skills", where X is how many skill points you are allowed.
But he is the only one who breaks the system. He has the most points shown. All the rest fit the believable example of a NPC with Decent (13-14) Int.

Zherog
2007-03-28, 05:04 PM
Totally False. Jozan has much higher stats. Look at the PHB Cleric example in skill points. He has to be human with around 18 Int to afford them all. Count up his skill pints. You'll be amazed.

I have feeling if Jozan isn't 25 than the others aren't. 20 class skill points + 8 skill points used in cross skills (4 ranks total, 2 in 2 of them)=28 Skill points.
2+ Int +4 from human.
28-4=24/4=6 skill points.-2 from being a cleric leaves 4. So that means 18 Int.

Either he cheated in his point buy or he used higher pioint buy or they rolled.

Could you provide a page number for me to look at later? I don't recall there being any "sample characters" in the PHB. As Krellen said, there's starting packages that include a list of skills you might be interested in - but that doesn't mean they expect a cleric to have all those.

I believe the iconics are statted out in the Hero Builder's Guidebook. I'll look tonight and see what each has for their stats at first level.

Ramza00
2007-03-28, 05:13 PM
I get into this argument with players every time I start a D&D game:

Some players interpret the RAW for arcane casters that they can rest 8 hours, study for 1 to get their full allotment of spells, adventure for 10 minutes, rest ANOTHER 8 hours, study for 1 to get their full allotment of spells, and continue this cycle such that arcane casters can twice the number of spells per day, and sometimes, if the timing is right three times per day.

Wait a minute. Now that I've been looking through the SRD, I can't find anything that specifically disallows this, other than the "Spells Per DAY" column in the class description...
It works, page 177-179 of the PHB. Your paragraph you want to read twice is Rest and Recent Casting Limitations. You just need 8 hours of rest and then your spells are back.

It works better with the bedroll in Complete Mage you can restore all your spells with 1 hour rest (but you don't regain spell slots you used within the last 8 hours). Additionally the 7 hours you save on resting allows you options to do other things such as having 3 wizards in your party that can do circle magic, and then doing circle leader on each of the 3 people (each circle leader preparation takes 1 hour each, thus all 3 of them+1 hour of rest takes a total of 4 hours).

UglyPanda
2007-03-28, 05:37 PM
This is the problem with not having rules on sleep, it gets confusing. According to the FAQ, rest and sleep are not the same things in D&D terms. Rest means doing nothing that takes up a lot of energy (i.e. crafting items, fighting, casting spells, etc.). Sleep is something that is usually done while resting, but it doesn't count as rest.



The description of the ring of sustenance says the user gets all the benefits of 8 hours of sleep in 2 hours. How does this affect a bard, sorcerer, or wizard who wants to regain spells? Specifically, how does this interact with the casting limit rule in the Player’s Handbook?
In the case of a ring of sustenance, “all the benefits of 8 hours of sleep” means the character sleeps for 2 hours and regains 1 hit point per level (see the rules for natural healing on Chapter 8 of the Player’s Handbook). If the ring wearer is fatigued, 2 hours of sleep removes the fatigue.
A wizard must have 8 hours of rest before regaining spells. If the wizard doesn’t have to sleep for some reason, she still requires 8 hours of rest to regain any spells (see Preparing Wizard Spells on page 177 of the Player’s Handbook). A ring of sustenance doesn’t change that.
A bard or sorcerer regains spells only once a day, and a ring of sustenance doesn’t increase that.
A ring of sustenance also doesn’t exempt the wearer from the casting limit rule. Whenever a spellcaster gets a new set of spells, any spell slot she used in the last 8 hours is not available. This rule has nothing to do with how much sleep the spellcaster gets; it reflects how long a spell slot must remain empty before the character can refill it. The ring doesn’t make 8 hours pass, so it doesn’t help the character refill the used spell slot.

Ramza00
2007-03-28, 05:52 PM
I am talking about this item from complete mage, it works with reducing the amount of rest you need from 8 hours to 1 hour.


Heward's Fortifying Bedroll
Less well known than Heward's other great creation but still a boon to adventurers everywhere, this bedroll grants the benefit a full night's sleep in a fraction of the time.
Description: This item appears to be a normal, if well made, bedroll. The cushioning is thick, the stitching skilled. It is made of dark green cloth with a dull yellow interior. It smells faintly comforting, a mix of burning firewood and goose down.
Activation: To activate the magic of the bedroll, you need merely climb into it (a move action) and spend 1 uninterrupted hour resting. Each bedroll functions once per day.
Effect: Heward's fortifying bedroll grants you the benefits of a full 8 hours of rest—including the elimination of fatigue or exhaustion, natural healing, and the ability to prepare or ready arcane spells— over the course of a single hour. Spells cast within the last 8 hours still count against your daily limit as normal. After using Reward's fortifying bedroll, you can't gain the same benefit again (either from the same or a different item) until 48 hours have passed.
Aura/Caster Level: Faint transmutation. CL 3rd.
Construction: Craft Wondrous Item, sleep, 1,500 gp, 120 XP, 3 days.
Weight: 2 lb.
Price: 3,000 gp.

TimeWizard
2007-03-28, 06:01 PM
... but are you still hungry?

TimeWizard
2007-03-28, 06:06 PM
One of my peet peeves about RAW is the misconception and contradictions of Unarmed Fighting. Specifically, you fight with your whole body, the phb is clear on this, a monk can flurry even if holding a torch. Yet the Kensai must seperately augment each of his fists as though he fought with two weapons. So which is it? Do I have to get my legs augmented too? or can I just meditate and augment my whole body?

lin_fusan
2007-03-28, 06:11 PM
So, Ramza00, you're telling me that wizards can get their spells 2 to 3 times per day? Perhaps more if they are using Heward's Fortifying Bedroll?

And divine casters only get their spells once per day?

AmoDman
2007-03-28, 06:12 PM
Jaybalard, I see no reason to bring anymore arguments against your increasingly insistent points, but I'd like to ask what in the hell are you trying to prove?

You come in, saying you don't like rules arguments (which, in this case, the word arguments often adheres to the classical definition, aka, series of reasons to prove certain facts, points, or definitons), and then you proceed to vehemently argue (exhibiting verbal opposition/strong contention) to each and every statement brought against you no matter how far afield it keeps taking you from your original [fallacious] position that arguments have no place in discussion.

As for the RAW, I have no idea why but the average joe always seems to have the annoying tendency to "forget" that meeting their AC is a hit, the enemy doesn't have to beat it, and often requires verification on this fact...and yet they always seem to remember that meeting a DC is a success. It's simplest rule, how do you "forget?!" I'm not talking from DM experience...I'm talking about player experience from almost every group I've ever played with this eventually comes up at least once.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-03-28, 06:13 PM
One of my peet peeves about RAW is the misconception and contradictions of Unarmed Fighting. Specifically, you fight with your whole body, the phb is clear on this, a monk can flurry even if holding a torch. Yet the Kensai must seperately augment each of his fists as though he fought with two weapons. So which is it? Do I have to get my legs augmented too? or can I just meditate and augment my whole body?
You can fight with all your appendages as a monk, but you do not have to.

If you are a Kensai and have augmented your fists chances are that you will probably use them instead of using your unaugmented knees, feet or head.

Vodun
2007-03-28, 06:13 PM
Something thats always bugged me is how spell areas and durations have been toned down a lot to make it so casters aren't completely unstoppable in combat, but when you look at it in a longer spectrum of time, the spells don't last nearly as long as one would think. for example, a delayed blast fireball cast by a 20th level wizard, a being who had been through countless journeys, decades of study, and a lifetime of hard work and dedication, would only be delayed for 30 seconds at the most.

UglyPanda
2007-03-28, 06:15 PM
Sorry about that. That item is really inexpensive. A ring of sustenance is far less useful, takes up a magic item slot and costs 2500 gp.

Ramza00
2007-03-28, 06:17 PM
So, Ramza00, you're telling me that wizards can get their spells 2 to 3 times per day? Perhaps more if they are using Heward's Fortifying Bedroll?

And divine casters only get their spells once per day?

Yes, if (and its a big if) the DM allows 8 hours of uninterrupted rest where the wizard does nothing but sleep. Its 1 hour with Heward's Fortifying Bedroll, but you can only use this 1 hour sleep one time in 48 hours.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-03-28, 06:21 PM
It is called "spells per day" for a reason.

Jayabalard
2007-03-28, 06:32 PM
Jaybalard, I see no reason to bring anymore arguments against your increasingly insistent points, but I'd like to ask what in the hell are you trying to prove?

You come in, saying you don't like rules arguments (which, in this case, the word arguments often adheres to the classical definition, aka, series of reasons to prove certain facts, points, or definitons), and then you proceed to vehemently argue (exhibiting verbal opposition/strong contention) to each and every statement brought against you no matter how far afield it keeps taking you from your original [fallacious] position that arguments have no place in discussion.

As for the RAW, I have no idea why but the average joe always seems to have the annoying tendency to "forget" that meeting their AC is a hit, the enemy doesn't have to beat it, and often requires verification on this fact...and yet they always seem to remember that meeting a DC is a success. It's simplest rule, how do you "forget?!" I'm not talking from DM experience...I'm talking about player experience from almost every group I've ever played with this eventually comes up at least once.Arguments and debate certainly have a place in RPG discussion; RPGs are something that people are often passionate about, and that means they'll often have their own opinions and not be afraid of letting other's know it.

But that is not what I said: "RAW arguments have no place in a roleplaying game discussion.", and I even clarified what I mean with the following example "the rules say I can do this, even though it doesn't make sense" is not a valid argument for any RPG discussion

As to "What I'm trying to prove": The OP's question was errors about RAW. I answered with what I feel is the biggest error in RAW, though it doesn't seem to be a very popular answer. I have disagreed with others as they disagree with me, including a couple that didn't seem to read all of what I wrote, though it's possible I hadn't been clear enough. I think it's understandable that I would try to clarify what I mean to those people.

lin_fusan
2007-03-28, 06:58 PM
It is called "spells per day" for a reason.

And it looks like the disagreement I have with my players has been repeated in this forum. :smalltongue:

:smallsigh:

Ramza00
2007-03-28, 07:03 PM
I believe the SRD also uses the 8 hours of work for a day also.

NullAshton
2007-03-28, 07:37 PM
... but are you still hungry?
Obscure reference from Chrono Trigger?

Starbuck_II
2007-03-28, 07:54 PM
Could you provide a page number for me to look at later? I don't recall there being any "sample characters" in the PHB. As Krellen said, there's starting packages that include a list of skills you might be interested in - but that doesn't mean they expect a cleric to have all those.

I believe the iconics are statted out in the Hero Builder's Guidebook. I'll look tonight and see what each has for their stats at first level.
page 33 in the PHB. Where does it state the sample characters don't mean the sample character has what is shown. They clearly do.

I'd love a page where they taslk about the sample characters as options and not examples of an actual cleric. Because it looks to me like this guy is an example and he has 28 skill points.

Though, I see that the example 1/2 Barbarian has 32 skill points./4=8. So he needs 18 Int or 16 +human to meet that.

There is a strong point that it seems they aren't examples but option choices. But nothing conclusive.

Talya
2007-03-28, 08:07 PM
The only way for a monk to really work is to have at least 16 dex, strength, and wisdom. And 14 con too. That way they have a chance toe-to-toe with a fighter with a greatsword in full plate on the elite array.

kamikasei
2007-03-28, 08:18 PM
page 33 in the PHB. Where does it state the sample characters don't mean the sample character has what is shown. They clearly do.

Note that the Paladin also has 28 total points listed in his table. The Fighter has 32. The Sorcerer, 32. The Wizard, 32. The Cleric and Paladin actually have the fewest skills listed of all the starting packages.

The Rogue, if you think he's actually bought all those skills, has 52 points total in his table, for which he'd have to have a racial Int bonus.

Note also that every single one of those tables is preceded by the line "pick a number of skills equal to <n> + Int modifier". Note that on page 24, it says "The skill table in each package presents the skills in order of probable importance to the character".

Clearly the skill tables are simply supposed to show what skills are important to the class and how important they are relative to one another.

Zherog
2007-03-28, 08:24 PM
page 33 in the PHB. Where does it state the sample characters don't mean the sample character has what is shown. They clearly do.

I'd love a page where they taslk about the sample characters as options and not examples of an actual cleric. Because it looks to me like this guy is an example and he has 28 skill points.

Though, I see that the example 1/2 Barbarian has 32 skill points./4=8. So he needs 18 Int or 16 +human to meet that.

There is a strong point that it seems they aren't examples but option choices. But nothing conclusive.

Enemies and Allies has the stats for the iconics (that was the book I was thinking of earlier, even though I said Hero Builder's Guidebook). Jozan is statted out on page 56. At fifth level, he has these ability scores:


Str 12 Dex 8 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 16 Cha 13

If we go ahead and assume Jozan placed his stat increase at 4th level into Wisdom, we get starting stats of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. ;)

As for your question about where it says those are suggestions - right before the list of the skills (very bottom of the fist column on page 33) it says the following:


Skill selection: Pick a number of skills equal to 3 + Int modifier.

Note that the package is for a human cleric, hence the 3+Int mod. You'll find similar text in front of the skill charts for each class.

Krellen
2007-03-28, 08:35 PM
And it looks like the disagreement I have with my players has been repeated in this forum. :smalltongue:

:smallsigh:
This is one of those "common sense" rules that the designers didn't feel a need to write down because no one would be stupid enough to assume otherwise. The authors have an inflated impression of humanity, methinks.

Fax Celestis
2007-03-28, 08:42 PM
Obscure reference from Chrono Trigger?

Who says that's obscure?

Stephen_E
2007-03-28, 09:32 PM
Looking at the stats for Jozan Hum Clr, Ember Hum Mnk, Lidda Hfl Rog, Ialdabode Hum Telepath, Devis 1/2Elf Brd, Regdar Hum Ftr, Amaril Elf Sor and Tordek Dwf Ftr, they all have Elite array stats.

Rask 1/2Orc Bbn/Ftr/Ewm, doesn't.

Aren't DnD Mini Stat cards wonderful. :-)

I stand by my comment that Monks and Paladins don't work under Elite Array. Ember sucks.

PS. I have played in one campaign where the GM had everyone play using the Elite Array. We didn't enjoy it much. The problem is that we didn't feel special. We didn't feel like "heroes". Elite arrays are quite common for NPCs, so if you're an Elite array you just one of the Joe Bloggs. We live been Joe Bloggs. In a fantasy game I want to be better than "Joe Bloggs". If you're happy playing "Joe Bloggs" Elite Array, good for you. The games about having fun. If others don't enjoy playing at that level then they shouldn't. It makes them no less a player. I don't care if the GM pumps the enemy to make up for me having a 32pt build, so long as he doesn't tell me. So long as I feel that my PC is heroic in some way I'm happy.

I'm glad no one else has pushed the silly "CR balanced for Elite" argument after that brief spurt at the start.

Stephen

Rigeld2
2007-03-28, 10:51 PM
As to "What I'm trying to prove": The OP's question was errors about RAW. I answered with what I feel is the biggest error in RAW, though it doesn't seem to be a very popular answer. I have disagreed with others as they disagree with me, including a couple that didn't seem to read all of what I wrote, though it's possible I hadn't been clear enough. I think it's understandable that I would try to clarify what I mean to those people.
So you feel the biggest error in RAW is that people debate the RAW, and refuse to allow houserules to influence them?

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-03-29, 02:29 AM
And it looks like the disagreement I have with my players has been repeated in this forum. :smalltongue:

:smallsigh:

Maybe your players are used to the preparation environment from NWN, but the RAW is clear; a day really means a day.


...a wizard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day.


Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions: If a wizard has cast spells recently, the drain on her resources reduces her capacity to prepare new spells. When she prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells she has cast within the last 8 hours count against her daily limit.

Saph
2007-03-29, 06:21 AM
I don't care if the GM pumps the enemy to make up for me having a 32pt build, so long as he doesn't tell me. So long as I feel that my PC is heroic in some way I'm happy.

This makes no sense. How does having an 18 make you more heroic than having a 16? How does having a 16 make you more heroic than having a 14? They're just numbers - abstract representations that only really have any meaning in relation to what you're trying to do in the first place. Heroic is what you do, not the numbers on your character sheet.


I'm glad no one else has pushed the silly "CR balanced for Elite" argument after that brief spurt at the start.

*rolls eyes* If not overpowering your characters is your definition of 'silly' . . .

But eh. If your GM's willing to do the extra work, it washes out anyway.

- Saph

Zincorium
2007-03-29, 06:32 AM
*rolls eyes* If not overpowering your characters is your definition of 'silly' . . .

But eh. If your GM's willing to do the extra work, it washes out anyway.

- Saph

Considering the default manner of character generation is 4d6 drop lowest, and everything else is a variant rule, including Elite and Normal Arrays, it seems silly to say that the method that was determined to be suitable for actual game use wasn't the one that they tested CRs against.

It's much like driving your car around the block and deciding that proves you can take it offroad without a problem. If you want to test a particular way of doing things, you should test it using that way of doing things, not some other way which is supposed as roughly equivalent and might be used by some groups. To be honest, I've seen stats done a lot of different ways, including 3d6 straight down the line in a 3.5 game, but I have never seen anyone use or even suggest using the two arrays for PC generation.

Saph
2007-03-29, 06:37 AM
Considering the default manner of character generation is 4d6 drop lowest, and everything else is a variant rule, including Elite and Normal Arrays, it seems silly to say that the method that was determined to be suitable for actual game use wasn't the one that they tested CRs against.

Not really, because with 4d6 they'd have 35 point buy characters competing against 22 point buy characters. It would add an extra level of complication, and you'd have to keep rerolling the characters or compensating for the fact that the ranger had twice the point buy total of the sorcerer. For balance testing, you want all characters to have the same point buy totals, and I think it's fairly clear that the one Wizards used was Elite Array.

- Saph

NullAshton
2007-03-29, 06:49 AM
Makes sense, as the elite array is pretty much the average of 4d6 drop lowest. Slightly lower, but not that much lower.

Zincorium
2007-03-29, 06:50 AM
Not really, because with 4d6 they'd have 35 point buy characters competing against 22 point buy characters. It would add an extra level of complication, and you'd have to keep rerolling the characters or compensating for the fact that the ranger had twice the point buy total of the sorcerer. For balance testing, you want all characters to have the same point buy totals, and I think it's fairly clear that the one Wizards used was Elite Array.

- Saph

Then it remains silly that they didn't suggest it as primary despite deciding that it was perfectly balanced for running a simulated session.

I'm not arguing that WotC didn't use that method for playtesting. But that doesn't mean their behavior isn't at least a bit humorous in an odd sort of way. The only thing you lose by suggesting the elite array for normal play is the accuracy of the phrase 'rolling up a character' and the associated tradition. At the very least, someone should have altered the elite array used for testing so that it was at least statistically equal to what occurs when rolling with the standard method, because otherwise it's going to create a skewed system, and starting a playtesting session knowing the results are going to be inaccurate had to have pinged on somebody's Sense Poor Judgement check. If you're going to spend that time, using company funds, shouldn't it at least be accurate in game terms?

Saph
2007-03-29, 07:02 AM
I'm not arguing that WotC didn't use that method for playtesting. But that doesn't mean their behavior isn't at least a bit humorous in an odd sort of way.

That and a lot of other things. :)

But yeah, it does seem weird that the standard array is, on average, less powerful than the standard roll method. For some odd reason, WotC are convinced that Elite Array is the 'average' that you get from 4d6 generation. They actually say it in one of the books (I've forgotten which one) - something along the lines of 'if you roll up loads and loads of 4d6 characters, you'll end up with something like Elite Array'.

Which is odd, because 4d6, drop the lowest, reroll if too low, gives you an average of point buy 28, give or take. I think maybe when Wizards ran the stats they forgot to account for the 'you can reroll if . . .' part, which pushes the average up.

- Saph

NullAshton
2007-03-29, 07:06 AM
By the way, about the fortifying bedroll... you can only use it once every two days, REGARDLESS of how many you bought. It simply won't let you use any bedroll more than every two days.

Jayabalard
2007-03-29, 07:39 AM
Then it remains silly that they didn't suggest it as primary despite deciding that it was perfectly balanced for running a simulated session.They understand that most D&D gamers were used to rolling dice and liked it, so it makes sense kept that as the primary way of generating scores.

Tormsskull
2007-03-29, 09:08 AM
This makes no sense. How does having an 18 make you more heroic than having a 16? How does having a 16 make you more heroic than having a 14? They're just numbers - abstract representations that only really have any meaning in relation to what you're trying to do in the first place. Heroic is what you do, not the numbers on your character sheet.


*Much hugs and kisses and love for you*

Your words express my thoughts very aptly. Often times players get so caught up on mechanics that it completely ruins a campaign. I've had players tell me that they refuse to play a character that doesn't have at least 1 score of 17 or better. Also payers that refuse to play a character with a below average score. Those type of players annoy me to no end.

Emperor Tippy
2007-03-29, 11:14 AM
Just give all the players straight 18's and let them generally do whatever they are inclined with spells and items. As a DM its relatively easy to compensate (straight 18's generally increases ECL by 2). Just throw higher CR monsters at them.

Or heres a thought. Do something besides dungeon crawls. Stats matter next to nill in RP. They only really matter in combat.

Saph
2007-03-29, 11:29 AM
Just give all the players straight 18's and let them generally do whatever they are inclined with spells and items.

Uh, why?


Or heres a thought. Do something besides dungeon crawls. Stats matter next to nill in RP. They only really matter in combat.

A character with straight 18s should be RPed differently from a character with straight 3s. Unless you play completely diceless, stats matter no matter what you're trying to do. And if you're playing diceless, what's the point of using the d20 system in the first place?

- Saph

Emperor Tippy
2007-03-29, 11:47 AM
Uh, why?
Your players want to be overpowered? Let them. After one or 2 campaigns where they can do pretty much whatever that is RAW legal they will realize that it gets boring and want to try something new. A low powered game for instance.




A character with straight 18s should be RPed differently from a character with straight 3s. Unless you play completely diceless, stats matter no matter what you're trying to do. And if you're playing diceless, what's the point of using the d20 system in the first place?

- Saph

A player can RP their character in any way they want. You can have 30 wisdom and still be absent minded. It is represented in your character by you usually making good decisions. You can have 36 Int and RP yourself as a savant (that is fun). The wizard has his Int and is an excellent caster but outside of magic related stuff he is normally intelligent.

So RP whatever you want. Your stats have no affect on it. The stats ONLY matter for combat. Why woudl you roll for social situations? Maybe a d20 to tell you generally how much the player gets out of the person but them not RPing it gets them nothing and them RPing well gets them a lot more.


D&D isn't meant to be comabt oriented after about level 12. You have the power that combat doesn't really matter. Maybe 1 or 2 real fights per large adventure. The rest is RP or non fight related adventures. Or against NPC's.

The random encounter should rarely happen after about level 15.

Saph
2007-03-29, 11:57 AM
Your players want to be overpowered? Let them. After one or 2 campaigns where they can do pretty much whatever that is RAW legal they will realize that it gets boring and want to try something new. A low powered game for instance.

Our campaigns generally last 2 months, minimum. Putting up with 2-4 months of boring gameplay just to drive home a minor point of game balance seems about the most inefficient way to have fun I can think of, especially since we often have new players joining and old ones leaving.


So RP whatever you want. Your stats have no affect on it. The stats ONLY matter for combat.

Re-read the PHB. Your mental stats are supposed to represent how perceptive, intelligent, and strong of personality your character is. You can choose to completely ignore this if you want to, but this is a house rule, and a pretty weird one.


Why woudl you roll for social situations?

Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Sense Motive, Intimidate, etc. There are also other skills such as Spot, Listen, Search, Disable Device, Forgery, Survival, and so on, which can be used outside of combat and outside of social interation too. All are based off an ability score.

I have no idea where you're getting this 'stats only matter for combat' idea. It's definitely not in the rules.

- Saph

Jayabalard
2007-03-29, 12:00 PM
Your players want to be overpowered? Let them. After one or 2 campaigns where they can do pretty much whatever that is RAW legal they will realize that it gets boring and want to try something new. A low powered game for instance.yes... but I know it's boring already, so I see no reason to waste time on 2 campaigns of boring gaming.


A player can RP their character in any way they want. No, really, if those mental stats are 3s, then they a player roleplaying them as something else isn't roleplaying well.

ChaosOfTheStick
2007-03-29, 12:28 PM
In my experience, gameplay with a 25 point build just isnt that different from a 32 point build. In general, the bonus you get from having a 16 instead of a 12 in a given stat isnt usually meaningful when there are +6 belts/pariapts and +5 tomes out there.

Dausuul
2007-03-29, 12:48 PM
In my experience, gameplay with a 25 point build just isnt that different from a 32 point build. In general, the bonus you get from having a 16 instead of a 12 in a given stat isnt usually meaningful when there are +6 belts/pariapts and +5 tomes out there.

Sure, if you can afford them. I very seldom play in any campaign that goes past level 8-10 or so. At that level, a +2 stat item is a noticeable outlay, a +4 is quite significant, a +6 is most or all of one's cash, and tomes are not even to be considered.

And I agree that stats make a difference in RPing as well, simply because you need them for all the RP-related skills. If I'm trying to trick an NPC into doing something, an improvement of 2 or 3 to my Bluff skill makes my life noticeably easier.

Curmudgeon
2007-03-29, 03:45 PM
At the risk of offending people by getting back on-topic, I offer this pet peeve:

People who think sneak attack damage is limited to once/round.

Emperor Tippy
2007-03-29, 03:49 PM
Our campaigns generally last 2 months, minimum. Putting up with 2-4 months of boring gameplay just to drive home a minor point of game balance seems about the most inefficient way to have fun I can think of, especially since we often have new players joining and old ones leaving.
Well that would be a problem. We run multiple campaigns at once (we have 8 going in the same world right now) and rarely get new players.


Re-read the PHB. Your mental stats are supposed to represent how perceptive, intelligent, and strong of personality your character is. You can choose to completely ignore this if you want to, but this is a house rule, and a pretty weird one.
Sure. And reread the PHB. Wizards are supposed to tell the multiverse to sit down and shut up. Per the PHB they are supposed to destroy anything and everything. You don't like that RAW (based on previous posts of yours). Why do you follow the fluff suggestions?


Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Sense Motive, Intimidate, etc. There are also other skills such as Spot, Listen, Search, Disable Device, Forgery, Survival, and so on, which can be used outside of combat and outside of social interation too. All are based off an ability score.
Yeah. And who decides social interaction based on the die roll? It has an effect, sure, but if you are having it decide everything then you aren't RPing. Go play an MMO, you would be better off.


I have no idea where you're getting this 'stats only matter for combat' idea. It's definitely not in the rules.

- Saph


How many people do social interaction as just a roll? If you do you are rollplaying NOT roleplaying.

Thats fine. But if you want to rollplay then you shouldn't complain when someone uses the RAW to be massively overpowered. And you should be playing an MMO anyway.

marjan
2007-03-29, 03:52 PM
At the risk of offending people by getting back on-topic, I offer this pet peeve:

People who think sneak attack damage is limited to once/round.

Or even worse. People who think that in order to sneak attack someone you must be standing behind him/her/it.

Jayabalard
2007-03-29, 04:12 PM
Sure. And reread the PHB. Wizards are supposed to tell the multiverse to sit down and shut up. Per the PHB they are supposed to destroy anything and everything. You don't like that RAW (based on previous posts of yours). Why do you follow the fluff suggestions?Because it's fluff that makes sense rather than RAW that doesn't...

I doubt that ever really use die rolls for such situations... but I do penalize exp for extremely poor roleplaying... and completely ignoring the limitations of your character would qualify.

I'm glad you can do 8 campaigns at a time, but some people sink some of their time into other things. I can spare about one free evening a week max.

And even then, you still doesn't offer any reason while we should waste our time trying drive a point home with the players that can be more easily solved by talking to them about it.

Saph
2007-03-29, 04:19 PM
Yeah. And who decides social interaction based on the die roll? It has an effect, sure

If it has an effect, then your stats have an effect. If your stats have an effect, then they don't only matter for combat. You're contradicting yourself.


but if you are having it decide everything then you aren't RPing. Go play an MMO, you would be better off.

How many people do social interaction as just a roll? If you do you are rollplaying NOT roleplaying.

Uh, when did I say I have it "decide everything"? I use both roleplay and skills in social interaction, like most D&D players.


Thats fine. But if you want to rollplay then you shouldn't complain when someone uses the RAW to be massively overpowered. And you should be playing an MMO anyway.

Speaking of skills in a social situation, you could do with putting a few more ranks in Spot and Diplomacy. :)

- Saph

Emperor Tippy
2007-03-29, 04:20 PM
Sure talk to them.

How often does it work? I agree you should try it first but it rarely works.

And I do lots of other things. We play 1 day per week for about 1-2 hours in 4 of the games each week. We also play over voice chat and webcam for like an hour each night. Its what we do while most people watch American Idle or the like.

Do the rules support the fluff or the fluff support the rules? For the wizards overpoweredness both support it.

Morty
2007-03-29, 04:26 PM
The thing about stats outside of combat is quite problematic, actually; it leads to the situcations when creative player can't do what he wants to because he's playing dumb character, or not-so-creative player can't think of anything when he's supposed to because he's playing bright, charismatic character. The outside combat use of stats is necessary though, since there has to be difference in social capabilities of bright, charming rogue, dumb barbarian and bookworm, stuck-up wizard.
In my games we roll bluff, dimplomacy, etc. but DM forces us to actually say what we're saying to NPCs, and sometimes gives circumstance bonuses or penalties depending on what we say.

Kantolin
2007-03-29, 04:48 PM
Heroic is what you do, not the numbers on your character sheet.
To a point, I do agree. Some of my favorite characters had very low stats, or a significantly low weak point.

I just honestly prefer to be able to select said weak point, and be able to go with whatever otherwise. One of my favorite characters is a wizard who is very physically strong.

This came up primarily since I rolled extremely well on the 4d6, reroll 1s. I don't like being near-useless unless I am specifically making a character for that purpose, but I don't mind being sub-par, so I sent his second highest stat into strength. I then had a blast roleplaying a wizard who could arm-wrestle with the best of them, but still could be useful in combat.

Had I gone with the elite array, and put the 14 into strength... that first of all wouldn't have quite the same effect, and secondly his resulting dexterity and constitution would've ended up being progressively lower, which results in him being not terribly combat-worthy. Which, if that's what I wanted to aim for would've been fine, but hey.

It's just fun to sometimes be overall better than the average joe. Doesn't mean you want to be invincible, and you can play the arrogant one regardless of your stats. *Shrug*

okpokalypse
2007-03-29, 04:59 PM
yeah i tried to explain that high stats thing to a group of players once and they totally didn't get it.
so i added +2 to all AC damage hps per hd etc etc.
after playing this way for 3 weeks and everyone was enjoying it i said that the next game would be with lower stats, they all moaned how boring it would be, so i revealed my deception!

did not play with them again!!!!

That's the thing for some people though, and I can't say I fault it.

If it makes your players happy to allow them a 32-point buy, and you up all the Monsters by +1 HP / HD, +1 AC & +1 Attack to maintain a fair game balance, what's the problem? The game's about everyone having fun. All this is, effectively, is a high-power, tough-challenge campaign. That's all.

The thing is that 25 point buy and elite array are as much a "house rule decision" as is rolling 4d6 (drop lowest) and getting lucky with stats of 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 12 (which I've done). All are viably legal character creation methods - which the individual DM chooses for his players.

okpokalypse
2007-03-29, 05:06 PM
Er, actually, the by-the-Handbook method is to roll 4d6 six times, discarding the lowest and arranging as desired. Re-roll the set only if too low.

I too have often wondered why the default Point Buy value seems to be around 32.

Correct.

Per the PHB, p6:


ROLL ABILITY SCORES
Roll your character’s six ability scores. Determine each one by rolling four six-sided dice, ignoring the lowest die roll, and totaling the other three. Record your six results on scrap paper.


Other metods are alternatives. That is the default

okpokalypse
2007-03-29, 05:19 PM
Well, if you look at Ember and Alhandra (the iconic monk and pally), that isn't what they have - and those stats were probably what the playtesters used.

The problem with saying 'some classes need higher stats' is that if you're giving some characters higher point buy totals, you have to give all characters higher point buy totals. And with the points that put the Monk and Paladin's 4 main scores up to 15-16, the wizard can put his Constitution and Intelligence up to 18 each.

From my own experience, I've found that the higher the point buy totals (or stat rolling method) for a campaign are, the more imbalanced the fights tend to be. Either the PCs cut quickly through the enemies due to their huge damage output, save DCs, and HP scores, or the DM overcompensates and hammers the party with huge-damage or killer ability monsters that the party don't get a chance to counter. Since everything's tweaked, the DM has to keep fiddling with the monsters all the time, and sometimes he makes a mistake.

It is possible to have a well-balanced game with over-statted PCs, but it's more difficult, and tends to lead to power creep. When most PCs have 18-20 in their main ability score, then for them to be challenged, they have to go up against enemies with stats in the same range or even higher. The DM ends up having to power up everything - monsters, NPCs, encounters, BBEGs, the lot. In the end you find all the power-ups mostly cancel each other out, which makes one wonder "what's the point?"

- Saph

I tend to disagree. I think it often comes down to a few factors, the primary being:

Can the DM have combats on his/her terms.

By saying that I mean, is the DM Experienced enough to be competitive in a combat without going for the quick PC kills. Does the DM have the ability to throw sufficiently defensive NPC / Monsters to have battles last? Does the DM have a grasp of good tactics and maneuvering to make the Melee'rs have to work at getting swings in, let alone them being able to flank or charge.

I've found that too many DMs lack a lot of this, and it makes an experienced player (especially one experienced in war-gaming) have too much power in combats, no matter them having elite array, 4d6 or 32+ point buy.

Saph
2007-03-29, 05:31 PM
It's just fun to sometimes be overall better than the average joe. Doesn't mean you want to be invincible, and you can play the arrogant one regardless of your stats. *Shrug*

Oh, I agree. High stats can be a lot of fun, especially if you change up between characters which are good/bad at something.

The trouble comes when the players always have way above-average stats. When every character you play has his 'good' stats in the 17-18 range, then you start taking it for granted - an 18 stops being amazing, it's just decent, and in extreme cases, it becomes more like 'minimum acceptable'. And from there you end up with the players who don't want to play any character whose highest ability score is 16 or lower, because they've gotten used to the idea that 'good stats' mean point buy totals in the 30-40 range.


By saying that I mean, is the DM Experienced enough to be competitive in a combat without going for the quick PC kills. Does the DM have the ability to throw sufficiently defensive NPC / Monsters to have battles last? Does the DM have a grasp of good tactics and maneuvering to make the Melee'rs have to work at getting swings in, let alone them being able to flank or charge.

Can't argue with that, that kind of thing does have a much bigger effect than overpowered stat totals.

- Saph

Jayabalard
2007-03-29, 05:34 PM
Sure talk to them.

How often does it work? I agree you should try it first but it rarely works.90%+ is not rarely. YMMV, depending on your friends and how reasonable you can be.


And I do lots of other things. We play 1 day per week for about 1-2 hours in 4 of the games each week. We also play over voice chat and webcam for like an hour each night. Its what we do while most people watch American Idle or the like.What's American idle?


Do the rules support the fluff or the fluff support the rules? For the wizards overpoweredness both support it.the fluff is the game, the rules are guidelines to be used for support.

Stephen_E
2007-03-29, 08:10 PM
This makes no sense. How does having an 18 make you more heroic than having a 16? How does having a 16 make you more heroic than having a 14? They're just numbers - abstract representations that only really have any meaning in relation to what you're trying to do in the first place. Heroic is what you do, not the numbers on your character sheet.

If I'm a Fighter with 17 or 18 Strength I feel like a standout in my class. If I have a Str of 14 I look at the mage with Str 10, or the Cleric with Str 13, and think "hmmmmm, I'm not much better than them".
To say that stats have nothing to do with roleplay is silly. DnD is a stat driven game. It's not freeform. If you have a Str stat of 6 you're weak, and all the rollplaying in the world doesn't change the fact that your PC is weak. In DnD roleplaying isn't some seperate entity from your stats. The Stats are the foundation you roleplay from. If you want to be a master tracker you have to take the Track Feat and have skill points in Survival and hopefully a good Wis stat. You can roleplay been a master tracker all you want, but with the feats, skills and stats you aren't going anywhere.

My point is simply that for many gamers, an exceptional stat or 2 helps make them feel their PC is exceptional/special. Now you may be a better roleplayer than that. You maybe able to convince yourself that your PCs are great even when they suck at doing stuff because of poor stats/skills, but to those lesser players like me, this can start to wear very quickly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_E http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2280600#post2280600)
I'm glad no one else has pushed the silly "CR balanced for Elite" argument after that brief spurt at the start.


*rolls eyes* If not overpowering your characters is your definition of 'silly' . . .

But eh. If your GM's willing to do the extra work, it washes out anyway.

- Saph
*rolls eyes* If not overpowering your characters is your definition of 'silly' . . .

But eh. If your GM's willing to do the extra work, it washes out anyway.

- Saph

My definition of "silly" includes beleiving that all the monsters have had their CR's carefully calculated by testing them against parties constructed of 4 characters built with an Elite Array. Rather than realising that the vast majority have been done by the designer looking at it and going "ummmm, that looks about CRx.", turns to friend "What do you think".

Stephen

Stephen_E
2007-03-29, 08:19 PM
Or even worse. People who think that in order to sneak attack someone you must be standing behind him/her/it.

and those who go "I'm standing behind it so I get Sneak attack. What do you mean I don't because no one else is theartening him and there's no such thing as facing."

Stephen

Tormsskull
2007-03-29, 08:25 PM
Now you may be a better roleplayer than that. You maybe able to convince yourself that your PCs are great even when they suck at doing stuff because of poor stats/skills, but to those lesser players like me, this can start to wear very quickly.


Its not about convincing yourself that your PC is great when he sucks, its about playing a role. Normal people can do heroic things. And standard D&D characters are already a step-up from normal.

In addition, if you refuse to play a character that isn't "exceptional", I would consider you shallow. When you get to its core, D&D is x amount of people sitting around a table playing make believe. Were you one of those kids that when they played cops and robbers every time they got shot they made the "tink" sound and said "Bullet proof armor!"? The kid who always had to win and/or be the best?

In a group game like D&D each character should have their chance to shine at different things. If you had all or near all horrible scores I would understand that you might not have very much fun roleplaying the guy that life took a crap on. Otherwise, you should be able to make a character following whatever generation method your group is using.

Stephen_E
2007-03-29, 09:42 PM
In addition, if you refuse to play a character that isn't "exceptional", I would consider you shallow. When you get to its core, D&D is x amount of people sitting around a table playing make believe. Were you one of those kids that when they played cops and robbers every time they got shot they made the "tink" sound and said "Bullet proof armor!"? The kid who always had to win and/or be the best?

In a group game like D&D each character should have their chance to shine at different things. If you had all or near all horrible scores I would understand that you might not have very much fun roleplaying the guy that life took a crap on. Otherwise, you should be able to make a character following whatever generation method your group is using.

Where does wanting one or two "16+"s translate to "always win".
The Elite array doesn't even give you any of those appalling stats that are fun to shape a character around. Elite is basically rather "Bleah" numbers IMO. Give me a couple of 16+s and a <7 any day over the "Bleah"ness of the Elite array.

You said it yourself. Everybody wants to have their ability to shine at something. An exceptional Stat or two goes along way towards this.

Stephen

Fax Celestis
2007-03-29, 09:55 PM
I have to say my favorite stat array is 17, 15, 14, 13, 10, 7, simply because you have a strong suit, a weak point, and some average numbers tossed in there, and it's about Point-Buy 32.

marjan
2007-03-30, 04:06 AM
and those who go "I'm standing behind it so I get Sneak attack. What do you mean I don't because no one else is theartening him and there's no such thing as facing."

Stephen

That one I tried since it was my DM who thought that you have to be behind it to get sneak attack.:smallsmile:

marjan
2007-03-30, 04:12 AM
On the stat thing. I must say that I don't like Elite Array. I've played fighter with 15 str and it realy sucks at low levels. Even blaster mages looked better. And as for CR being balanced to Elite Array party... Don't think so. They aren't even balanced compared one to other.

AmoDman
2007-03-30, 04:23 AM
I have to say my favorite stat array is 17, 15, 14, 13, 10, 7, simply because you have a strong suit, a weak point, and some average numbers tossed in there, and it's about Point-Buy 32.

So...many...odd...numbers, *hrn*. Though that's usually how my stats end up anyway...either fate or the points conspire against me (since 17 is technically a better deal than 18 in point, for instance, if you're at least starting at level 4 especially).

Saph
2007-03-30, 06:28 AM
My point is simply that for many gamers, an exceptional stat or 2 helps make them feel their PC is exceptional/special. Now you may be a better roleplayer than that. You maybe able to convince yourself that your PCs are great even when they suck at doing stuff because of poor stats/skills, but to those lesser players like me, this can start to wear very quickly.

It's not about convincing myself or anyone else that my character is 'great'. It's about recognising that game power is relative. If your characters all have point buy scores in the 30s, then the NPCs you run into will have to have point buy scores in the 30s too, otherwise the PCs will just walk over them. The monsters will have to have higher scores as well to give you a challenge. So will the agents of the BBEG and the BBEG.

If your characters have point buy scores in the 40s, then your opponents will have to have point buy scores in the 40s. If your characters have point buy scores in the 50s, then your opponents will have to have point buy scores in the 50s. It doesn't MATTER how powerful you make your character, the DM is going to have to compensate, either by increasing the numbers of your enemies, increasing the toughness of your enemies, or nerfing the party somehow. If he doesn't, the game will become a cakewalk and the players will quickly get bored.

And seriously, do you REALLY need stats in the 16+ region to feel superior to a 1st-level commoner? Do you really have that much trouble dealing with a character who's almost as strong as your fighter? This whole 'I have to feel superior' thing is coming off as really needy.


My definition of "silly" includes beleiving that all the monsters have had their CR's carefully calculated by testing them against parties constructed of 4 characters built with an Elite Array. Rather than realising that the vast majority have been done by the designer looking at it and going "ummmm, that looks about CRx.", turns to friend "What do you think".

Where do you think the word 'playtesting' comes from? Do you actually believe that they just make up the numbers, put whatever CR on it they feel like, and send it out without checking? It's easy to pick out mistakes but WotC do have a playtesting department, and yes, Elite Array was what they used. Check the iconic characters. That was what the playtesters were working with. The fact that you think the iconic characters are too weak just means that you think of high-powered stat totals as normal.

- Saph

Jayabalard
2007-03-30, 07:35 AM
Where does wanting one or two "16+"s translate to "always win". because they stem from the same mentality.


On the stat thing. I must say that I don't like Elite Array. I've played fighter with 15 str and it realy sucks at low levels. Even blaster mages looked better. And as for CR being balanced to Elite Array party... Don't think so. They aren't even balanced compared one to other.I would have to disagree, having played a fighter with no stats above a 14, and that was my Con.

then again, I don't understand the "character must be powerful to enjoy role playing games" thing.

Rigeld2
2007-03-30, 07:57 AM
because they stem from the same mentality.
I'd appreciate the insults, veiled as this one was, kept to a minimum. I dont need to win D&D. I just like playing with abilities that feel heroic. Ability scores that are far out of reach of the common man.

its_all_ogre
2007-03-30, 08:14 AM
erm well str 16 is not far out of reach.
many real life people who are not pro bodybuilders have that score.
agree with you on the insults thing

Jayabalard
2007-03-30, 08:14 AM
I'm sorry if you feel that I have insulted you; it was not meant as one. To try put it in better context, the post I was quoting was in response to:

In addition, if you refuse to play a character that isn't "exceptional", I would consider you shallow. When you get to its core, D&D is x amount of people sitting around a table playing make believe. Were you one of those kids that when they played cops and robbers every time they got shot they made the "tink" sound and said "Bullet proof armor!"? The kid who always had to win and/or be the best?And I agree

I also agree with Saph, the part that make a character heroic or not has nothing to do with their stats.

Rigeld2
2007-03-30, 08:27 AM
Shallow is something I would also consider an insult.

Roleplaying and mechanics are not totally seperate. Its hard to roleplay a hero who has all 13s.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-03-30, 08:30 AM
Shallow is something I would also consider an insult.

Roleplaying and mechanics are not totally seperate. Its hard to roleplay a hero who has all 13s.

......

...I don't see how.

Tormsskull
2007-03-30, 08:40 AM
Its hard to roleplay a hero who has all 13s.

Define hero. If you mean a standard D&D PC in a standard D&D campaign then I have to disagree. You've got someone here who is above average in EVERY stat. That's pretty remarkable right there. How hard is it to RP the guy that's above average in everything? I can think of lots of ways to RP that.

What I am guessing you are doing, though, is comparing your guy with all 13s to the other PCs and then saying "But there's someone who is stronger than me, there's someone who is smarter than me". Perfect, translate that sentiment into a character.

Tommy the Whiner

Attitude: All in all Tommy is a pretty decent fellow, until he notices someone doing something that he could not do himself. Perhaps it is a person lifting more weight than he could possibly lift, or someone dodging out of the path of an attack that would surely have hit him.

When Tommy witness' one of these occurences he starts to incessently whine as he stares up into the sky. He often mumbles incomprehensible words to this mysterious "DM" person.

There, that sounds like an interestingy character to RP.

AtomicKitKat
2007-03-30, 11:31 AM
Meh. All 13s. Sounds like Mr. "I want to qualify for the trunk of every Feat tree in existence!"

Don't get me wrong, he'll probably make a great second-stringer, but unless the rest of the party is pulling 12s on their primaries and average otherwise, he'll never be memorable(ie, Supporting Actor).

Fax Celestis
2007-03-30, 11:38 AM
Meh. All 13s. Sounds like Mr. "I want to qualify for the trunk of every Feat tree in existence!"

Don't get me wrong, he'll probably make a great second-stringer, but unless the rest of the party is pulling 12s on their primaries and average otherwise, he'll never be memorable(ie, Supporting Actor).

It's Moderately Well Known Jack, Bard of All Trades!

Jayabalard
2007-03-30, 11:59 AM
Roleplaying and mechanics are not totally seperate. Its hard to roleplay a hero who has all 13s.No, it's not.... not at all

it is hard to be a bad-ass who goes around destroying monsters with a thought, who can incinerate his enemies with fireballs from hims eyes, or bolts of lightning from his arse. You can't make an super optimized build with him, and you certainly can't "win D&D" with him.

but roleplay? It's not even hard to roleplay someone with straight 10s. This guy is above average across the board, and he's have his strengths and weakness as a character.

Rigeld2
2007-03-30, 01:06 PM
No, it's not.... not at all

it is hard to be a bad-ass who goes around destroying monsters with a thought, who can incinerate his enemies with fireballs from hims eyes, or bolts of lightning from his arse. You can't make an super optimized build with him, and you certainly can't "win D&D" with him.

but roleplay? It's not even hard to roleplay someone with straight 10s. This guy is above average across the board, and he's have his strengths and weakness as a character.
Roleplay as a hero. I like heroic stories. If I wanted to play Joe Average, why am I playing a RPG? To give a definition of what I'm trying to achieve, I googled "define: hero" and this is basically what I see as heroic:

In many myths and folk tales, a hero is a man or woman (the latter often called a heroine), traditionally the protagonist of a story, legend or saga, who commonly possesses abilities or character far greater than that of a typical person, which enable him or her to perform some truly extraordinary, beneficial deed (a "heroic deed") for which he or she is famous. These powers are sometimes not only of the body but also of the mind. Heroes are typically opposed by villains.

Zherog
2007-03-30, 01:16 PM
This discussion is really amusing. What it boils down to, really, is you're each arguing that "your way" is the best way to play the game. And, that's true - for your table. But you also have to remember: just because somebody's style is different from yours doesn't make it wrong; just different.

***


People who think sneak attack damage is limited to once/round.


Or even worse. People who think that in order to sneak attack someone you must be standing behind him/her/it.

Oh hell yes! Those both bug me, too! I don't even understand how it's not completely clear to begin with...

Fax Celestis
2007-03-30, 01:29 PM
What gets me are people who don't read the descriptions on how skills are used.

IE: *roll* "I Appraise the situation!"; or *roll* "I Craft a trap out of nowhere!" (because you're MacGuyver, really.)

clarkcd
2007-03-30, 01:45 PM
I'm still trying to figure out if I can cast greater planar ally and have it use it's spell like abilities that have material or experience point costs...

*dreams of having noble djinn as allies* :smallcool:

----------

I know there are people out there who play 3.5 but still think that improved critical and keen stack. Or that the magic bonuses from bows and arrows stack. They used to stack and quite frankly I'm glad they don't any more.

Zherog
2007-03-30, 01:52 PM
I don't see why not. Greater planar ally (and it's cousins) have the Calling subtype, not the Summoning subtype.


When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire. A summoned creature cannot use any innate summoning abilities it may have, and it refuses to cast any spells that would cost it XP, or to use any spell-like abilities that would cost XP if they were spells.

There is no such clause under the Calling subschool definition.

clarkcd
2007-03-30, 01:55 PM
That's the conclusion I came to as well. However if you allow it then you're giving out wishes at a fraction of the xp and at a much earlier level since you can use planar ally instead of greater planar ally to snag a noble djinn ally. The only saving grace I can see is that it is up to the deity (i.e. DM) to determine which ally is sent to you.

I hate it when WotC depends on individual DMs to save their behinds from the rules they make...

Fax Celestis
2007-03-30, 01:59 PM
That's the conclusion I came to as well. However if you allow it then you're giving out wishes at a fraction of the xp and at a much earlier level since you can use planar ally instead of greater planar ally to snag a noble djinn ally. The only saving grace I can see is that it is up to the deity (i.e. DM) to determine which ally is sent to you.

I hate it when WotC depends on individual DMs to save their behinds from the rules they make...

Those called by the planar ally chain don't have to serve your every whim. They are allowed to bargain with you for a price for--or even deny you--their services.

Player: "I summon a noble djinn!"
DM: "Okay."
Djinn: "Whazzzzzuuuuuuuuuuup?"
Player: "I wish for a million gold!"
Djinn: "Nope, sorry. Don't feel like it today." *poof*
Player: "WTF."

clarkcd
2007-03-30, 02:09 PM
Well since wish does not allow you to wish for something that powerful it would fail but not because the ally doesn't desire to do it. The way I read the spell is you:

A) Call the creature
B) Bargain with it for it's service
C) The ally serves you
D) Once the service is complete you pay

So let us assume that a cleric successfully calls a noble djinn. We are now on to step B, the bargaining phase. Let's say I want to bargain for the djinn to cast one wish upon me. Either the djinn agrees or does not. It costs the djinn nothing to cast it so it's no skin off his nose, he gets paid and he gets his wishes back tomorrow anyway. So we use the PHB to determine how much this service costs.

250xp + 50gp/hd (500gp for a noble djinn)

So at this point, and only at this point, the djinn allowed to refuse. Now why would the djinn refuse? As stated previously there is no real reason for him to other than the DM being a jerk. If the DM didn't want a wish to be granted he should have not allowed the djinn to be called in the first place.

As always the wish spell shows the limits to its abilities. It is not allowed to grant 1,000,000 gold. Technically the most gold he could wish for would be 25,000 gp. Anything beyond the power level shown in the PHB has a few things that could happen but, I think and hope, most DMs would probably just say the wish fails and the djinn expects its payment since it held up its end of the bargain.

Fax Celestis
2007-03-30, 02:14 PM
Maybe the djinn is a jerk. Maybe he's racist. Who knows? These things happen.

marjan
2007-03-30, 06:30 PM
then again, I don't understand the "character must be powerful to enjoy role playing games" thing.

Do a combat sometimes. Roleplaying isn't problem with that character, but combat is. And combats do happen in DnD. I don't find satisfaction in bitting the dust in the first combat or if DM does something just to prevent me from dieing.

Variable Arcana
2007-03-30, 09:00 PM
Meh. All 13s. Sounds like Mr. "I want to qualify for the trunk of every Feat tree in existence!"

Don't get me wrong, he'll probably make a great second-stringer, but unless the rest of the party is pulling 12s on their primaries and average otherwise, he'll never be memorable(ie, Supporting Actor).
I hope you've misstated your position.

Do you really mean to say that the only party in which a character with all 13s would be memorable would be one in which no other character has any attribute higher than 12?

You do realize that the other players at your table aren't just there to be your cheering section, right?

SpiderBrigade
2007-03-30, 09:34 PM
I hope you've misstated your position.

Do you really mean to say that the only party in which a character with all 13s would be memorable would be one in which no other character has any attribute higher than 12?

You do realize that the other players at your table aren't just there to be your cheering section, right? I don't think that's a huge mis-statement at all. In a party where the wizard has 18 int, the fighter has high strength and con, the cleric is very wise etc, the 13-across guy is going to be memorable as never being as good at anything as anyone else, even if he can be slightly above average at many things. Sort of like how a character with one level in every base class will suck horribly compared to a level 11 wizard, or bard, or fighter.

Now, I think it is a bit much to claim that the straight-13 character is somehow unplayable, or anything like that. He'll be weak, but that might be memorable in itself, especially if you do find creative ways to contribute as much as you can.

Variable Arcana
2007-03-30, 09:49 PM
SpiderBrigade-

Of course in a party where others have an 18 in their primary ability, Mr. 13 will be lame. But the statement I took issue with was that in order for Mr. 13 to be playable, he had to be smarter than the party wizard, wiser than the party cleric, more dextrous than the party thief, and stronger than the party fighter -- all in one.

That's a different thing entirely.

I think a character with all 13's ought to be playable even if the fighter has a 15 strength and the wizard has a 14 intelligence.

I'd even go further and state that with properly balanced encounters *ANY* point buy is playable, so long as everyone is using the same point buy.

AtomicKitKat
2007-03-30, 10:29 PM
My point is that Mr 13 will need to do twice as much work to get half the recognition of his partners. You don't even need all 18s. If someone has 15s or above, relative to Mr 13, he fades into the background.

Stephen_E
2007-03-30, 11:17 PM
It's not about convincing myself or anyone else that my character is 'great'. It's about recognising that game power is relative. If your characters all have point buy scores in the 30s, then the NPCs you run into will have to have point buy scores in the 30s too, otherwise the PCs will just walk over them. The monsters will have to have higher scores as well to give you a challenge. So will the agents of the BBEG and the BBEG.

As others have pointed out, combat results are based more on how you operate tactically and luck of the dice, rather than a couple of stat points. Indeed the higher level you go the less the base stats affect combat (which is probably part of why they came up with LA buy-off).


And seriously, do you REALLY need stats in the 16+ region to feel superior to a 1st-level commoner? Do you really have that much trouble dealing with a character who's almost as strong as your fighter? This whole 'I have to feel superior' thing is coming off as really needy.

I've played wimps. It can be fun on occasions, but in general I RPG to play a hero (as Rigeld 2 does). I want a PC who is exceptional at what he does. That means I want my Fighter to stand out amonst the other Fighters, to hell with the commoners. If wanting to have 2 stat points more in my prime stats, compared to run of the mill people of my class makes me needy, I guess I can live with it. I have no problems with you playing the game you like. It's a pity that you have problems with I, and the many needy people like me, playing the game that we like.


Where do you think the word 'playtesting' comes from? Do you actually believe that they just make up the numbers, put whatever CR on it they feel like, and send it out without checking? It's easy to pick out mistakes but WotC do have a playtesting department, and yes, Elite Array was what they used. Check the iconic characters. That was what the playtesters were working with. The fact that you think the iconic characters are too weak just means that you think of high-powered stat totals as normal.

- Saph

I'm sorry. Do we play the same game? DnD quite clearly has a number of things come through that weren't particully playtested. The complete Divine had rafts of stuff that was just cut/paste from 3.0 and slotted into 3.5 with NO playtesting or revision. I've run into many monsters, especially from the later monster books that would eat any 4 person Elite array party (Icon or other) sent against them. If you really think all the monsters in the monster manuals were carefully put up against "Icon parties" of various levels to calculate the appropriate CR then our levels of skeptisism are so different we're effectively living in different realities. Do they simply pull numbers out of a hat? No. Do they look at the monster and make estimates based on other stuff out there, and on how they think the monster will perform in action? Hell yes.

I remember a peice from one of the Designers of the Hexblade, and he talked about them having a idea regarding how powerful semispell users were, and game experiance showing that their idea was wrong. Thus you got the Duskblade as a responce. In short, based on their game knowledge and experiance they made a guess about how the power levels would work, and they got it wrong. As far as I can see they do the same with many of the monsters. They make a guess, based on general experiance, of what the CR should be. Sometimes they get it wrong.

Stephen

Talya
2007-03-31, 06:47 AM
The higher point buy you give your group, the less effective (relatively) the druid's animal companion, with its fixed ability scores, will be vs. your melee types. While that will never change the relative power curve completely, it helps offset it longer. Not only that, but with a high enough score, monks and paladins can be god like, if only for a while.

Leon
2007-03-31, 09:23 AM
Maybe the djinn is a jerk. Maybe he's racist. Who knows? These things happen.

Huzzar for the random NPC quirks table

Bringing NPCs like Cecil the Racist Half elf with strong views on Politics in to play, he was a hoot untill he was eaten by a Dire wolf while the party ran away

Zherog
2007-03-31, 09:31 AM
I'm sorry. Do we play the same game? DnD quite clearly has a number of things come through that weren't particully playtested.

It's my understanding that the only material that was extensively playtested was the original (3.0) core books.

Jayabalard
2007-04-02, 02:42 PM
Roleplay as a hero. I like heroic stories. If I wanted to play Joe Average, why am I playing a RPG? To give a definition of what I'm trying to achieve, I googled "define: hero" and this is basically what I see as heroic:Because when Joe average does something heroic it's even more of an achievement. Certainly, it's easier to be a hero if you're really powerful... but what sort of accomplishment is that?

A person with 13s across the board, with a heroic personality and no class levels, possesses abilities greater than that of a typical person (stats greater than average), and character far greater than that of a typical person.

If they also have class levels, for example 1 level in wizard, they certainly "possesses abilities or character far greater than that of a typical person". This is true for all classes, some to a greater extent than others (casters are by far the more obvious).


Do a combat sometimes. Roleplaying isn't problem with that character, but combat is. And combats do happen in DnD. I don't find satisfaction in bitting the dust in the first combat or if DM does something just to prevent me from dieing.If you'll look above, you might notice that the claim is that "Its hard to roleplay a hero who has all 13s." ... not that it's hard to fight through combat as a character with all 13s.

In any case, as long as the enemies are built using the same sort of system (same point build, or whatever), and the encounters are balanced with the power of the party in mind, then it's not really an issue even in combat.

Why would it be a bad thing to play a character that has to be at least a little cautious, at least from time to time? If you can just charge blindly into every scenario, then I don't see any difference between that and playing a FPS with god mode on... which I guess can be fun but I've always enjoyed playing it though without god mode on, since it means that succeeding is a bigger accomplishment in and of itself.