PDA

View Full Version : Wait Wait Wait



Kultrum
2007-11-07, 10:48 AM
Is it just me or does every thread about overpowered wizards show the exact same wizard with the exact same spell list using the exact same tactics. I don't know but Its seems to me that this is an overpowered build not class, but thats just me.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-11-07, 10:55 AM
Yes, you can make a wizard build that isn't overpowered, but it would be as much of an artificial excercise as Pun-Pun.

The wizard build isn't powergaming, it's a really easy thing to do which relies mostly on core PhB spells. There's no difficulty in making a wizard that powerful, you just need intelligent spell selection.

Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil is a real overpowered wizard build, the Wizard everyone talks about is just a normal wizard who plays to his strengths and doesn't waste resources.

It's actually roleplaying, since the whole point of wizards is that they're intelligent characters who have to plan ahead. The idea of a smart person who just blows everything up doesn't really sound very realistic. Unless the character in question was actually insane that is.

VerdugoExplode
2007-11-07, 10:56 AM
It's just you.

Most of the arguments end up with someone showing how a core only, straight wizard can ruin existence in his vicinity. The ones using every supplement are just there to prove it can be done with more flair.

Thinker
2007-11-07, 10:58 AM
The overpowered build is take x number of levels of wizard, where x is the maximum number of levels for a campaign. :smalltongue:

Many of the similarities in builds are mostly common sense things...its like Natural Spell for Druid.

Person_Man
2007-11-07, 11:09 AM
I've been gaming since 1st ed. The vast majority of the players I've gamed with have been pretty reasonable, non-power gamers. And all of us were new at some point, groping around the rules, looking for something interesting and fun to do. And its been my experience that arcane Magic Users/Wizards have the highest potential to "break" any game, sometimes accidentally. Charm Person, Shatter, Fly, Polymorph, Greater Invisibility, etc. In many encounters, arcane magic is an instant win button. And that's fine, for the arcane caster. But it sometimes leaves the other players feeling bored, underpowered, or frustrated.

The fix is simple. Talk to your players about it, and be mature. But on a purely mechanical level, it needs to be fixed.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-07, 11:43 AM
And its been my experience that arcane Magic Users/Wizards have the highest potential to "break" any game, sometimes accidentally. Charm Person, Shatter, Fly, Polymorph, Greater Invisibility, etc. In many encounters, arcane magic is an instant win button. And that's fine, for the arcane caster. But it sometimes leaves the other players feeling bored, underpowered, or frustrated.


I've found this mostly true, but the power of any full caster (arcane or divine) to accidentally break a game is so close in terms of the few times I've seen it happen that really the mechanical soloution needs to be either toning down magic as a whole or powering up everything else. Personally, I'm torn on it. I like that my players can do cool stuff when they want to but I'd also the feel of the game not become too overthetop.

Riffington
2007-11-07, 01:36 PM
The idea of a smart person who just blows everything up doesn't really sound very realistic. Unless the character in question was actually insane that is.

http://www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=051023

mostlyharmful
2007-11-07, 01:43 PM
The answer isn't even to tone down magic per say, so long as you have siginficant amounts of reality warping in the hands of the PCs they will find new and unbalencing things to do with it. Magic would have to be downgraded a looong way to even out overall, and that would exaserbate the long level drag most arcane casters (and some divine) feel. The answer is unfortunately to only let reasonable players access to the full spectrum of magic and then in consultation with you.

plus there's a whole heap of alternate class feature varients that tone down the problem, and then persuading multiclassing options. etc..

none of this is going to stop a power mad little munchkin but then nothing really will short of DM fiat and constant vigilance:smallmad:

Dhavaer
2007-11-07, 05:48 PM
none of this is going to stop a power mad little munchkin but then nothing really will short of DM fiat and constant vigilance:smallmad:

Mad Eye would approve.

Dairun Cates
2007-11-07, 05:58 PM
Magic would have to be downgraded a looong way to even out overall, and that would exaserbate the long level drag most arcane casters (and some divine) feel.

Or... You know. They could make casters not suck at low levels and fighters not so freaking powerful at low levels because this is a social game and not a damned console RPG. Seriously, the very concept of some classes being inherently better at certain levels, while smart in single-player experiences, is a completely inane concept in a social group. The design theory SAYS that Wizard's should be more powerful at higher levels and that's the base of the problem.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 06:10 PM
Anyone who thinks Wizards are overpowered, has obviously never had a DM such as I who uses Wild Magic Zones sprinkled liberally across the landscape.


:biggrin:

kamikasei
2007-11-07, 06:17 PM
Anyone who thinks Wizards are overpowered, has obviously never had a DM such as I who uses Wild Magic Zones sprinkled liberally across the landscape.


:biggrin:

Seriously? That's your argument - "anyone who thinks class X is overpowered has obviously never seen class X denied its features by arbitrary DM fiat!"?

No one who thinks fighters are overpowered (bear with me) has ever seen them afflicted by deadly no-save-allowed arms-fall-off-disease either, I'll warrant.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 06:20 PM
Seriously? That's your argument - "anyone who thinks class X is overpowered has obviously never seen class X denied its features by arbitrary DM fiat!"?

No one who thinks fighters are overpowered (bear with me) has ever seen them afflicted by deadly no-save-allowed arms-fall-off-disease either, I'll warrant.

My point is this:

Wizards build these DPS OMFG IMGONNABEAT YOU DOWN characters because they've neven been shown the frailty of their class.

It's the exact same problem people were whining and moaning about when Psionics were introduced.

Then 1 simple thing happened with psionics: they were introduced to thought eaters. A random monster encounter that exploited the weaknesses of the class.

For a wizard munchkin to be taught a lesson, all he or she needs to experience, is one bloody, embarrassing, and frightening moment of mortal weakness.

From then on, you'll find your munchkin problem has been solved. Or he/she has learned how to play their class without OMFGIMGONNAKILLYOU attitude.

Green Bean
2007-11-07, 06:22 PM
My point is this:

Wizards build these DPS OMFG IMGONNABEAT YOU DOWN characters because they've neven been shown the frailty of their class.

It's the exact same problem people were whining and moaning about when Psionics were introduced.

Then 1 simple thing happened with psionics: they were introduced to thought eaters. A random monster encounter that exploited the weaknesses of the class.

For a wizard munchkin to be taught a lesson, all he or she needs to experience, is one bloody, embarrassing, and frightening moment of mortal weakness.

From then on, you'll find your munchkin problem has been solved. Or he/she has learned how to play their class without OMFGIMGONNAKILLYOU attitude.

Or, you know, the player accepts the fact that he'll be useless for one encounter out of every hundred, and has fun atomizing the other ninety nine.

kamikasei
2007-11-07, 06:30 PM
My point is this:

Wizards build these DPS OMFG IMGONNABEAT YOU DOWN characters because they've neven been shown the frailty of their class.

I disagree. I would say wizard characters are built to be very powerful because it's easy to do so, and obviously beneficial. If your player is a jerk or an arrogant ass, that is independent of whether the class he's playing is overpowered. The most well-mannered and reasonable player with a wizard character still has an overpowered class and is still likely to overshadow other characters in combat if they're playing weaker classes such as fighter or, say, monk or samurai.


It's the exact same problem people were whining and moaning about when Psionics were introduced.

Then 1 simple thing happened with psionics: they were introduced to thought eaters. A random monster encounter that exploited the weaknesses of the class.

Now, are you talking about 2nd edition psionics, or 3rd or 3.5? As I understand it, each of them had different problems to the others.


For a wizard munchkin to be taught a lesson, all he or she needs to experience, is one bloody, embarrassing, and frightening moment of mortal weakness.

From then on, you'll find your munchkin problem has been solved. Or he/she has learned how to play their class without OMFGIMGONNAKILLYOU attitude.

Well, there are two basic confusions here. The first is that we're not talking about OMFGIMGONNAKILLYOU munchins, we're talking about wizards, which are quite simply extremely powerful. It's an entirely separate issue from obnoxious players. The second confusion is that a character class which is significantly more powerful than another, but which the DM can target with measures like thought eaters or wild magic zones to remove or mess up its power, does not become less powerful thereby. You seem to be arguing that it's OK for a class to be designed with too much power because the DM can punish the player for exercising it. That doesn't change the fact that the class has too much power; the DM can punish a player for doing anything disruptive. Punitive DMing is bad form anyway.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 07:35 PM
Or, you know, the player accepts the fact that he'll be useless for one encounter out of every hundred, and has fun atomizing the other ninety nine.

The presence of Great Power attracts the presence of other Great Powers.

Seriously. If you have a DM with even the mildest experience as a munchkin, there are more than enough rules out there to screw any munchkinning player to the wall. Talking Titanium extra thick threaded screws here.

And seriously, you're playing Russian Rulette with wild magic zones. No player worth their salt is stupid enough to tempt a skilled DM into using them.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 07:40 PM
The presence of Great Power attracts the presence of other Great Powers.

Seriously. If you have a DM with even the mildest experience as a munchkin, there are more than enough rules out there to screw any munchkinning player to the wall. Talking Titanium extra thick threaded screws here.

And seriously, you're playing Russian Rulette with wild magic zones. No player worth their salt is stupid enough to tempt a skilled DM into using them.

Wild Magic is not always the answer. There are spells that negate its effects, both temporary and permanent (see the "Mending the Weave" chapter in the Faerun Corebook), and there are also classes (Wild Mage) that make it so that Wild Magic zones are actually beneficial to you.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 07:42 PM
Doesn't really matter what edition of Psionics. ;D



Well, there are two basic confusions here. The first is that we're not talking about OMFGIMGONNAKILLYOU munchins, we're talking about wizards, which are quite simply extremely powerful. It's an entirely separate issue from obnoxious players. The second confusion is that a character class which is significantly more powerful than another, but which the DM can target with measures like thought eaters or wild magic zones to remove or mess up its power, does not become less powerful thereby. You seem to be arguing that it's OK for a class to be designed with too much power because the DM can punish the player for exercising it. That doesn't change the fact that the class has too much power; the DM can punish a player for doing anything disruptive. Punitive DMing is bad form anyway.

Ok I won't argue against the fact that 3rd Edition was a horrible botching of the rules. I won't argue that Wizards were made all powerful and in many cases, more resemble Magic: The (Money) Gathering than AD&D.

I am going to argue, however, that as long as people insist on playing 3rd edition, their DMs need to buck up and figure out how to handle the situation. There are ways to handle an over powered/imbalanced class other than whining.

The truth of the matter is, Wizards will only ever be made more and more powerful as long as WoTC controls AD&D franchise. You're never going to avoid that fact. The fact the RPGA supports WoTC decisions, really puts the monkey wrench into any hopeful flights of fantasy that WoTC will limit the monster they have created.

Over Powered Wizards are good for business.



So DMs need to now start concentrating on how to beat down the super powerful wizards.

Wild and Dead Magic Zone random encounter effects are a suggestion.

In spell jammer there was something called the Philostigon (sp?). Use those rules to create some sort of Fog or Weather pattern that has similar properties. Man, were those Spell Jamming encounters instant death for Wizards or what.

Finally, create anti magic NPCs, send your characters to meet people like Lord Soth, who can reflect magic spells upon the caster.

I see no problem using these simple tricks to lay the beat down on Over Powered Wizards.



Some people used to think Assassins and Ninjas were Over Powered, until one simple introduction:

Assassin Guilds/Ninja Guilds

The simple addition of such guilds allowed DMs to severely limit players by creating organized crime boundaries.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 07:48 PM
Wild Magic is not always the answer. There are spells that negate its effects, both temporary and permanent (see the "Mending the Weave" chapter in the Faerun Corebook), and there are also classes (Wild Mage) that make it so that Wild Magic zones are actually beneficial to you.

-_- grrr. Faeron sucks. WoTC sucks. RPGA sucks.

Ok forget that. start making higher level mages who want to steal the Party Member's power.

Use things such as Spell Shields which turn normal spell damage into healing damage for wizards, thus forcing the player's hand.

Temp
2007-11-07, 07:49 PM
in many cases, more resemble Magic: The (Money) Gathering than AD&D.What in Hell are you talking about?

The truth of the matter is, Wizards will only ever be made more and more powerful as long as WoTC controls AD&D franchise.The more you post on this, the more I wonder if you've actually played AD&D.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 07:52 PM
-_- grrr. Faeron sucks. WoTC sucks. RPGA sucks.

Tell me, what do you like? You seem like a very spiteful young man, full of hate and ire about this entire hobby.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 07:54 PM
What in Hell are you talking about?
The more you post on this, the more I wonder if you've actually played AD&D.

Maybe if you actually read some of the M$TG Novels you'd understand what I mean. There's a lot that was added to AD&D wizards in 3e that makes them look more like those god awful WoTC creations.

I guarantee you, so many of these problems I keep reading about didn't exist in 2nd edition.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 07:55 PM
Tell me, what do you like? You seem like a very spiteful young man, full of hate and ire about this entire hobby.

Excuse me, but aren't you the one who said no RPG should use tables. :biggrin:


I've explained what I like more than enough times, it's not my problem you don't know what I like or dislike.

tainsouvra
2007-11-07, 07:55 PM
Wizards build these DPS OMFG IMGONNABEAT YOU DOWN characters because they've neven been shown the frailty of their class. If you think damage is what makes a Wizard strong, then frankly you don't know the kind of Wizard that is causing problems in the first place. You might want to back up a bit here.

Thinker
2007-11-07, 07:56 PM
I have a similar method of dealing with overpowered classes. I let my players play anything they choose, but if someone plays someone who could be overpowered I simply have someone kill him with no save or attack roll. We're roleplayers, not rollplayers! I hate Faerun and Greyhawk and Dragonlance and really everything that got converted to 3.5, except Ravenloft. Really the answer to overpoweredness is to be even more overpowered. You're the DM and that means you can instakill anyone who disagrees with you!

tainsouvra
2007-11-07, 07:58 PM
Excuse me, but aren't you the one who said no RPG should use tables. :biggrin:

I've explained what I like more than enough times, it's not my problem you don't know white I like or dislike. Each thread needs to be taken on its own merits, without baggage from other threads.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 08:01 PM
I have a similar method of dealing with overpowered classes. I let my players play anything they choose, but if someone plays someone who could be overpowered I simply have someone kill him with no save or attack roll. We're roleplayers, not rollplayers! I hate Faerun and Greyhawk and Dragonlance and really everything that got converted to 3.5, except Ravenloft. Really the answer to overpoweredness is to be even more overpowered. You're the DM and that means you can instakill anyone who disagrees with you!

And how are you supposed to roleplay if your character is deceased?

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 08:01 PM
I have a similar method of dealing with overpowered classes. I let my players play anything they choose, but if someone plays someone who could be overpowered I simply have someone kill him with no save or attack roll. We're roleplayers, not rollplayers! I hate Faerun and Greyhawk and Dragonlance and really everything that got converted to 3.5, except Ravenloft. Really the answer to overpoweredness is to be even more overpowered. You're the DM and that means you can instakill anyone who disagrees with you!

Well, a DM doesn't always need to think of something more powerful than the player. What you or anyone else really needs to do as a DM is to think of a way to depower their players, emasculate them, make them cry and beg for mercy.

Like Superman and Kryptonite :D

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 08:03 PM
Well, a DM doesn't always need to think of something more powerful than the player. What you or anyone else really needs to do as a DM is to think of a way to depower their players, emasculate them, make them cry and beg for mercy.

Like Superman and Kryptonite :D

And this quickly makes the game not fun for the players. And it's a game, right? So the purpose is to have fun?

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 08:05 PM
And this quickly makes the game not fun for the players. And it's a game, right? So the purpose is to have fun?

A player who has already abused the rules has attempted to destroy the fun.

In each game there is a certain amount of danger. Players who experience absolutely no danger or set backs to over come, are players who need to experience them.

If your idea of fun is to give the players whatever they want, then I suggest you take out a board game called: CANDY LAND and use that for your gaming sessions.

Even games such as the game of LIFE told you to go back 3 spaces or games like Monopoly which takes money from you.

This is a game with obstacles and the possibility of Bankruptsy or even Death. That's what's fun about it.

Thinker
2007-11-07, 08:07 PM
And how are you supposed to roleplay if your character is deceased?

They roleplay being dead, duh! :smalltongue:

Kryptonite is a great idea. I think all of my campaigns will have a different one for each class and race. One gets rid of abilities, the other gets rid of hit points.

I think fax missed my sarcasm :smallfrown:

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 08:08 PM
They roleplay being dead, duh! :smalltongue:

Kryptonite is a great idea. I think all of my campaigns will have a different one for each class and race. One gets rid of abilities, the other gets rid of hit points.

I think fax missed my sarcasm :smallfrown:

There are a plethora of monsters than have various draining abilities :biggrin:

Drain Skill
Drain Life
Drain Spell

etc....

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 08:09 PM
I'm not saying the game should be safe. Far from it: a safe game is dull. But what I am saying is that having a DM shut down your character time after time by denying you your only class feature and essentially make you a fighter with a crappy HD and an insignificant attack bonus is...well, it makes the player feel like crap, and it makes the rest of the players feel like they're either insignificant weaklings (after all, the DM doesn't need to take such drastic measures with them), or that they're somehow blessed by the DM and can get away with anything.

Neither is conducive to a good gaming environment.

tainsouvra
2007-11-07, 08:09 PM
A player who has already abused the rules has attempted to destroy the fun. However, a Wizard can be more powerful than the rest of the party without any abuse of the rules at all. In that situation, what you are proposing is simply punishing the player based on what character class he chose to play in a game. Seriously, ponder how inappropriate that is if your goal is to have fun.

Reinboom
2007-11-07, 08:12 PM
Doesn't really matter what edition of Psionics. ;D

Have you read the psionic rules for 3.5? No really? Be honest? Please?
A full psion is about the same power as say... a sorcerer.
There are ways to abuse psionics (of Smack), but... there are ways to abuse nearly everything.

2.0/2.5 Psionics? Ugh, no thanks. There's your overpowered psionics.


Back on track to wizards:
Constant anti magic field? BAD IDEA.
As stated - every player should do something. Instead of thinking about the classes - think about the players.
You start the session. You all gather around wherever.
The DM points at player B.
"Sorry, you can't do anything for a large portion of the game."
<insert reaction here... come on... you can think of one... there's a million bad ways for this to turn out.>

Compare this to the rogue, with constructs or undead. At least the rogue can do -something-. Not incredible sneak attack damage, no. But they can at least hit the thing at all. What does a wizard do with nothing? Sits in the corner.

=edit=
How I handle the issue of wizards in comparison to the rest of the party in overshadowment:
I don't allow them. Voila. No risk taken.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 08:14 PM
I'm not saying the game should be safe. Far from it: a safe game is dull. But what I am saying is that having a DM shut down your character time after time by denying you your only class feature and essentially make you a fighter with a crappy HD and an insignificant attack bonus is...well, it makes the player feel like crap, and it makes the rest of the players feel like they're either insignificant weaklings (after all, the DM doesn't need to take such drastic measures with them), or that they're somehow blessed by the DM and can get away with anything.

Neither is conducive to a good gaming environment.

Dude, go back and read my posts. I didn't say shut down someone's character every time they game. I said instill the fear that they can be shut down if they keep abusing their character and their power.

You only ever need to shut down a munchkin player once or twice at a critical moment for them to rethink how they play the game.

I'll let players play anything they want in my games, if they are willing to deal with the consequences, and quite frankly, I've only rarely ever had problems with a player who couldn't deal with consequences of his character or his actions.

And I did use the pronoun HIS specifically - never has a gal ever attempt to abuse her character in one of my games. It's only the adolescent juvenile or adolescent minded players who've ever tried to snowball me.

EndgamerAzari
2007-11-07, 08:14 PM
And this quickly makes the game not fun for the players. And it's a game, right? So the purpose is to have fun?

Alas, my dear Fax, what is described above (the post you quoted) is what a lot of people consider fun.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 08:16 PM
Have you read the psionic rules for 3.5? No really? Be honest? Please?
.

Ok not 3.5 But I did read the ones for 3.0 and I did notice some of the same issues that croped up with 3.0 as in 2nd ed. In either case, it only takes a slight nudge to make psionicists feel fear.

Reinboom
2007-11-07, 08:16 PM
Dude, go back and read my posts. I didn't say shut down someone's character every time they game. I said instill the fear that they can be shut down if they keep abusing their character and their power.

You only ever need to shut down a munchkin player once or twice at a critical moment for them to rethink how they play the game.

The issues with this are:
Wizards don't have to be abused or munchkinned in order to overshadow nearly everyone.

tainsouvra
2007-11-07, 08:17 PM
And I did use the pronoun HIS specifically - never has a gal ever attempt to abuse her character in one of my games. It's only the adolescent juvenile or adolescent minded players who've ever tried to snowball me. Being juvenile is not in any way a male trait. Women do it too.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 08:18 PM
Dude, go back and read my posts. I didn't say shut down someone's character every time they game. I said instill the fear that they can be shut down if they keep abusing their character and their power.
Right, because fear is a great tool to use to display your dominance as DM. A DM shouldn't be a tyrant. They should, rather, be a guide. Also, stop calling me "dude" and "bro": I am neither.


You only ever need to shut down a munchkin player once or twice at a critical moment for them to rethink how they play the game.I think that prevention is a better method than denial, really. I make my players approve every step their character build takes, from feat selection to spell selection, from base class choice to prestige class choice. If I see the cheese warning (and I most often do because I know the game that well), then I tell them to try something else. If I somehow miss the cheese factor, then I make it clear at the beginning of the game that I reserve the right to ask them to change their character at any time.


Alas, my dear Fax, what is described above (the post you quoted) is what a lot of people consider fun.
What a sad state of affairs we are in then.

tainsouvra
2007-11-07, 08:18 PM
Ok not 3.5 But I did read the ones for 3.0 and I did notice some of the same issues that croped up with 3.0 as in 2nd ed. In either case, it only takes a slight nudge to make psionicists feel fear. 3.5 Psionics is dramatically different from 3.0.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 08:19 PM
Ok not 3.5 But I did read the ones for 3.0 and I did notice some of the same issues that croped up with 3.0 as in 2nd ed. In either case, it only takes a slight nudge to make psionicists feel fear.

3.5 psionics is absoballylutely nothing like 3.0 psionics. Nothing like.

Overlard
2007-11-07, 08:24 PM
Ok not 3.5 But I did read the ones for 3.0 and I did notice some of the same issues that croped up with 3.0 as in 2nd ed. In either case, it only takes a slight nudge to make psionicists feel fear.
3.0 and 3.5 psionics are a world apart.

The wizard problem is this: in order for a wizard not to be game-bendingly powerful, and leave most players and monsters in the dust, the player has to make a lot of bad decisions. They have to try not to be amazingly powerful. If you screw over a player for not purposefully screwing up their character, then that's poor gaming. Someone isn't a munchkin for choosing to play a wizard competently.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 08:26 PM
The issues with this are:
Wizards don't have to be abused or munchkinned in order to overshadow nearly everyone.

If the player is not a munchkin and is NOT abusing his power, then it's 100% DM fault for not making balanced encounters for all the classes.


Right, because fear is a great tool to use to display your dominance as DM. A DM shouldn't be a tyrant. They should, rather, be a guide. Also, stop calling me "dude" and "bro": I am neither.

Fear is what keeps you from cossing the middle of an intersection without looking both ways.

Fear is what keeps you from sticking your hand into the fire.

Fear is what keeps you alive.

Players forget to properly play fear. They think because it's just a piece of paper, there is no fear. They need to be reminded that they fear for the wellbeing of their character. By utilizing fear correctly, you can give your players a rush of enjoyment and satisfaction. It's clear however, you've never experienced this.

With the attitude you've given me, Fax, I'll send your comments to my committee for review to determine how I should address you, dude.



I think that prevention is a better method than denial, really. I make my players approve every step their character build takes, from feat selection to spell selection, from base class choice to prestige class choice. If I see the cheese warning (and I most often do because I know the game that well), then I tell them to try something else. If I somehow miss the cheese factor, then I make it clear at the beginning of the game that I reserve the right to ask them to change their character at any time.

You just called me a tyrant for using fear in my campaigns, and then brag about "cherry picking" feats and forcing your players to follow a communistic chain of approvals to make their characters.



What a sad state of affairs we are in then.


It isn't a sad state of affairs. That's how this game was handled from its very inception. If you want to be coddled and want to treat your players the same way, then that's your choice. But it's a choice that does break from even the very origin of Dungeons and Dragons, and in fact, all board games ever produced from ages 8 and up.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 08:28 PM
3.0 and 3.5 psionics are a world apart.
ok I did not know this.

srry ^_^



The wizard problem is this: in order for a wizard not to be game-bendingly powerful, and leave most players and monsters in the dust, the player has to make a lot of bad decisions. They have to try not to be amazingly powerful. If you screw over a player for not purposefully screwing up their character, then that's poor gaming. Someone isn't a munchkin for choosing to play a wizard competently.



I am not arguing against playing a wizard competently, but I am saying there are ways to handle over powered wizards, and there are ways to handle munchkinning wizards. Adjust the severity as necessarry.

Reinboom
2007-11-07, 08:29 PM
And I did use the pronoun HIS specifically - never has a gal ever attempt to abuse her character in one of my games. It's only the adolescent juvenile or adolescent minded players who've ever tried to snowball me.

That... that's kind of insulting.

I've personally optimized - and even played a planar shepherd, a fiend of possession, and other generally over powered classes (including strict sorcerer, intended on power abuse - I refuse to play 3.5 wizards before you ask) - just to teach my GM a lesson.
I know my 6th eldest sister has also optimized -atleast- her rogue for her and her husband games (and probably many more, they living 2000 miles away means I don't see their games much).

Optimization: It's not sexist.

Aside... lets take some examples of 'abuse'.
A cold oriented wizard. Completely for RP reasons. Loves the snow, lives the snow. Took a LA +6 race that was even arctic. Completely unoptimized.
Takes shivering touch. It's cold, completely in character.

ECL 17 (level 6 wizard, level 5 frost mage, 6 levels into LA)
Maximize shivering touches the dragon.
Dragon dies.

That's 3 things used. Shivering touch. Maximize. Spellcasting progression.

Overlard
2007-11-07, 08:33 PM
With the attitude you've given me, Fax, I'll send your comments to my committee for review to determine how I should address you, dude.
Look babe, maybe you should ask for a review on gender too.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 08:34 PM
That... that's kind of insulting.

I've personally optimized - and even played a planar shepherd, a fiend of possession, and other generally over powered classes (including strict sorcerer, intended on power abuse - I refuse to play 3.5 wizards before you ask) - just to teach my GM a lesson.
I know my 6th eldest sister has also optimized -atleast- her rogue for her and her husband games (and probably many more, they living 2000 miles away means I don't see their games much).

Optimization: It's not sexist.


I'm a guy. I was not being sexist against my own gender. I'm just stating a fact. No woman, or girl, has ever tried to snowball me in an AD&D game. The only people who have tried to snowball me are very juvenile. Almost all the males in my games have acted mature enough they don't snowball me. I hope this cleared up the misconception of my statement.



Aside... lets take some examples of 'abuse'.
A cold oriented wizard. Completely for RP reasons. Loves the snow, lives the snow. Took a LA +6 race that was even arctic. Completely unoptimized.
Takes shivering touch. It's cold, completely in character.

ECL 17 (level 6 wizard, level 5 frost mage, 6 levels into LA)
Maximize shivering touches the dragon.
Dragon dies.

That's 3 things used. Shivering touch. Maximize. Spellcasting progression.

A DM should know this.

Here are ways to prevent:

Prevent touch damage. Have the dragon recognize that the character is an Ice Wizard/Mage. Have the dragon cast a spell: protection from cold or some other like spell, or shield of spell protection, whatever is within the dragon's spell casting ability.

Send off several warnings, by having the dragon use ranged attacks.

Then, if the caracter ignores your wanring and decides to walk up to the dragon, have the Dragon step on him and squish him like a bug: crushing damage against mages is usually if not always fatal. Feel free to kill the dragon, but make it a very costly victory for the mage.

Make it clear to the player that stupid strategies like that need to be avoided for fear of their life.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 08:34 PM
If the player is not a munchkin and is NOT abusing his power, then it's 100% DM fault for not making balanced encounters for all the classes.False. The wizard class is built in such a way that it is significantly more powerful when poorly built than nearly any other class when they are well-built.


Fear is what keeps you from cossing the middle of an intersection without looking both ways.

Fear is what keeps you from sticking your hand into the fire.

Fear is what keeps you alive.

Players forget to properly play fear. They think because it's just a piece of paper, there is no fear. They need to be reminded that they fear for the wellbeing of their character. By utilizing fear correctly, you can give your players a rush of enjoyment and satisfaction. It's clear however, you've never experienced this.There's a difference between creating fear within the bounds of the game and creating fear outside of those bounds.


You just called me a tyrant for using fear in my campaigns, and then brag about "cherry picking" feats and forcing your players to follow a communistic chain of approvals to make their characters.I didn't brag about anything: I demonstrated what I have done to prevent munchkinry. And frankly, I don't ban much of anything except the obvious Roads To Brokenness. My players understand this, are mature about it, and make decisions that won't cause me to have to ask them to change their character.


It isn't a sad state of affairs. That's how this game was handled from its very inception. If you want to be coddled and want to treat your players the same way, then that's your choice. But it's a choice that does break from even the very origin of Dungeons and Dragons, and in fact, all board games ever produced from ages 8 and up.There is absolutely no reason that the game should exclude a player at any given time, and what you're saying is just that: exclusion.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 08:36 PM
Here are ways to prevent:

Prevent touch damage. Have the dragon recognize that the character is an Ice Wizard/Mage. Have the dragon cast a spell: protection from cold or some other like spell, or shield of spell protection, whatever is within the dragon's spell casting ability.

Send off several warnings, by having the dragon use ranged attacks.

Then, if the caracter ignores your wanring and decides to walk up to the dragon, have the Dragon step on him and squish him like a bug: crushing damage against mages is usually if not always fatal. Feel free to kill the dragon, but make it a very costly victory for the mage.

Make it clear to the player that stupid strategies like that need to be avoided for fear of their life.So you are advocating breaking the rules in favor of the monsters merely because you don't like what a player is doing?

Alex12
2007-11-07, 08:37 PM
In our next campaign, my group has already decided: no arcane magic. There will be divine magic and psionics.
But on-topic, if you want to lessen the effect of spellcasters, well, Beholders and other creatures that generate AMF effects are always useful for that.

Goumindong
2007-11-07, 08:38 PM
If the player is not a munchkin and is NOT abusing his power, then it's 100% DM fault for not making balanced encounters for all the classes.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 08:44 PM
This is what I said:


If the player is not a munchkin and is NOT abusing his power, then it's 100% DM fault for not making balanced encounters for all the classes.
This is what you said:

False. The wizard class is built in such a way that it is significantly more powerful when poorly built than nearly any other class when they are well-built.

If you want to keep arguing that wizards are so over powered that there's nothing a DM can do to learn how to adjust the encounters, then maybe you and everyone else who agrees with that sentiment needs to stop allowing wizards or needs to stop playing 3rd edition :biggrin:


There's a difference between creating fear within the bounds of the game and creating fear outside of those bounds.

I always create my fear within the bounds of the game. Are you suggesting I pick up a chainsaw and pretend to be Jason? :biggrin: If not then accept the fact I am talking about the bounds of the game.


I didn't brag about anything: I demonstrated what I have done to prevent munchkinry. And frankly, I don't ban much of anything except the obvious Roads To Brokenness. My players understand this, are mature about it, and make decisions that won't cause me to have to ask them to change their character.

See that's the main key difference in my eyes between being a veteran DM and being a micro-manager: A veteran DM knows how to handle any character any time anywhere. It is against my person ethics to ever consider a DM who forces his players into a cookie cutter of what he or she deems an appropriate group choice.

But, if you have fun playing that way, all the more power to you. Just take now that I will NEVER advise ANYONE to play in such a manner.


There is absolutely no reason that the game should exclude a player at any given time, and what you're saying is just that: exclusion.

No, actually I'm not talking about exclusion. And I'd kindly like you to stop such poorly researched accusations, especially after you brag about micromanaging your characters. It's more than irritating. Start reading my posts before you respond with those accusations.

The only exclusion I see here is you talking about how you force your players to play a certain way through a micro managed approval system.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 08:45 PM
So you are advocating breaking the rules in favor of the monsters merely because you don't like what a player is doing?
I didn't suggest breaking any rules. If you knew how to play your monsters, you'd know that.

Temp
2007-11-07, 08:48 PM
I guarantee you, so many of these problems I keep reading about didn't exist in 2nd edition.
I think this may be a large part of your problem with 3rd edition. If your opinions are based upon messageboard discussions on the system, you're bound to come away with a skewed viewpooint. Posters here aren't interested in what works. Everything should work; it's just not that interesting. So we discuss and bicker over the flaws--the Save-or-Die spellcasters, the Nova-ing Wizards and the powers of CoDzilla.

...And 2nd edition had just as many problems, many the same (Example? Wizards squishing everyhing else at high levels--the primary fault of D&D v3.5). It's a different game though, with different mechanics, so the specifics are bound to change.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 08:49 PM
I didn't suggest breaking any rules. If you knew how to play your monsters, you'd know that.

Shivering touch deals Dexterity damage, enough to take a dragon down to 0 Dexterity and thereby paralyze them. You recommend making the dragon capable of taking one of these, crushing the wizard, and then continuing on. It is physically impossible short of failing to pass spell resistance for a dragon to survive a maximized shivering touch spell.

So, in essence, what you are advocating is in fact breaking the rules.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 08:50 PM
I think this may be a large part of your problem. People aren't interested in what works. Everything should work. It's just not that interesting. The flaws are discussed often--save-or-die wizards and CoDzilla's powers for instance.

And 2nd edition had just as many flaws, many the same (Example? Wizards squishing everyhing else at high levels--the main problem discussed here about 3.5)

Yeah that high level wizard squishing everything at high levels, just doesn't happen in 2nd edition unless you're given the keys to the city by a lax DM.

However I am beginning to see some of the major issues with 3e wizards. But nothing that can't be overcome by a DM who has read his rulebooks from cover to cover.

Goumindong
2007-11-07, 08:51 PM
I didn't suggest breaking any rules. If you knew how to play your monsters, you'd know that.

If you had ever DM'd or played 3.5 or 2e you would know this is false.

cupkeyk
2007-11-07, 08:54 PM
In our next campaign, my group has already decided: no arcane magic. There will be divine magic and psionics.
But on-topic, if you want to lessen the effect of spellcasters, well, Beholders and other creatures that generate AMF effects are always useful for that.

Uhhh, Ego Whip is ten times more broken than Shivering Touch, though.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 08:55 PM
Shivering touch deals Dexterity damage, enough to take a dragon down to 0 Dexterity and thereby paralyze them. You recommend making the dragon capable of taking one of these, crushing the wizard, and then continuing on. It is physically impossible short of failing to pass spell resistance for a dragon to survive a maximized shivering touch spell.

So, in essence, what you are advocating is in fact breaking the rules.


Fax, I'm going to say this once and once only:

1. Dragons can sense anyone who enters their lair, unless they're little ones. I doubt we're talking about a little one.

2. Dragons have a stride measured by the size of their BIG FREAKING LEGS.

3. Crushing Damage is not an attack roll. You seem to think it is.

4. Any DM who doesn't have the capacity of thought to portray Dragons in a manner that allows them to WALK or STAND or RUN or STEP ASIDE while some worthless magically imbued peon of a hors’dourves walk up to them without taking any actions needs to be immediately stripped of their DMG and thrown out onto the street by the local Dungeon Masters guild. :smallbiggrin:


I did not once ever suggest to break the rules.

Overlard
2007-11-07, 08:56 PM
I didn't suggest breaking any rules. If you knew how to play your monsters, you'd know that.
Do you know what I find amazing, sweetie?

That people on this board, and around the world managed to enjoy D&D before you came along and told us we were all doing it wrong. Somehow we deluded ourselves into believing that we were partaking in a group activity that we all enjoy without your decrees on how to roleplay, DM and live our lives.

Before you came along honey, my life... well... I don't think I could call it living. It was a mere shadow of an existence. I knew something was missing, that there was a gaping maw in my soul. I tried filling it with religion, women, drugs and partying, but none of them fit right. And now, with your hard & fast rules on what the right D&D experience is, your directions on how to play monsters right, your instructions on how to punish players, and what to punish them for, I finally feel that that void has been filled.

If only you had come along earlier with your condescending attitude, repetitive exclamations and tiresome attitude, then my life could have been complete years ago.

Thank you darling, thank you.

horseboy
2007-11-07, 08:58 PM
Have you read the psionic rules for 3.5? No really? Be honest? Please?
A full psion is about the same power as say... a sorcerer.
There are ways to abuse psionics (of Smack), but... there are ways to abuse nearly everything.

2.0/2.5 Psionics? Ugh, no thanks. There's your overpowered psionics. Or the appendix that was 1st edition psionics. "My attack type A can only be stopped by defense types E, C and on Tuesdays, Q! Oh my brain. I think that's why my group never encountered mind flayers, even in Spelljammer.



=edit=
How I handle the issue of wizards in comparison to the rest of the party in overshadowment:
I don't allow them. Voila. No risk taken.
I play game systems that have a better balanced magic system.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 09:00 PM
Do you know what I find amazing, sweetie?

That people on this board, and around the world managed to enjoy D&D before you came along and told us we were all doing it wrong. Somehow we deluded ourselves into believing that we were partaking in a group activity that we all enjoy without your decrees on how to roleplay, DM and live our lives.

Before you came along honey, my life... well... I don't think I could call it living. It was a mere shadow of an existence. I knew something was missing, that there was a gaping maw in my soul. I tried filling it with religion, women, drugs and partying, but none of them fit right. And now, with your hard & fast rules on what the right D&D experience is, your directions on how to play monsters right, your instructions on how to punish players, and what to punish them for, I finally feel that that void has been filled.

If only you had come along earlier with your condescending attitude, repetitive exclamations and tiresome attitude, then my life could have been complete years ago.

Thank you darling, thank you.



I sincerely hope you're a woman :O if not then, I think I just failed my Horror Check.


But if you are, then I just have one thing to say:

I wuv you too sweetie :biggrin:

lol

Reinboom
2007-11-07, 09:01 PM
Do you know what I find amazing, sweetie?


Yes?
..
uh..
oh.. oh other sweetie.

=edit=
Overlard. You're awesome.
That is all.


Fax, I'm going to say this once and once only:

1. Dragons can sense anyone who enters their lair, unless they're little ones. I doubt we're talking about a little one.

2. Dragons have a stride measured by the size of their BIG FREAKING LEGS.

3. Crushing Damage is not an attack roll. You seem to think it is.

4. Any DM who doesn't have the capacity of thought to portray Dragons in a manner that allows them to WALK or STAND or RUN or STEP ASIDE while some worthless magically imbued peon of a hors’dourves walk up to them without taking any actions needs to be immediately stripped of their DMG and thrown out onto the street by the local Dungeon Masters guild. :smallbiggrin:


I did not once ever suggest to break the rules.

Where does it say that a dragon can sense everything in their lairs?
Most dragons of this ECL are... huge?
And there isn't just one 'puny' thing running up to them.

Overlard
2007-11-07, 09:03 PM
I sincerely hope you're a woman :O if not then, I think I just failed my Horror Check.


But if you are, then I just have one thing to say:

I wuv you too sweetie :biggrin:

lol
Sorry sweetcheeks, you failed your horror check. :smallwink:

Kyace
2007-11-07, 09:05 PM
If the player is not a munchkin and is NOT abusing his power, then it's 100% DM fault for not making balanced encounters for all the classes.
This assumes all classes start off balanced, that is a false statement and ergo, any dependent statements are not necessarily true.

Fear is what keeps you from cossing the middle of an intersection without looking both ways.

Fear is what keeps you from sticking your hand into the fire.

Fear is what keeps you alive.

Players forget to properly play fear. They think because it's just a piece of paper, there is no fear. They need to be reminded that they fear for the wellbeing of their character. By utilizing fear correctly, you can give your players a rush of enjoyment and satisfaction. It's clear however, you've never experienced this.You imply that by not making the players fear, the DM is failing to provide an enjoyable and satifying game, this again is a false statement. DMing a frightening game is a valid style but not necessarily the only valid style.


You just called me a tyrant for using fear in my campaigns, and then brag about "cherry picking" feats and forcing your players to follow a communistic chain of approvals to make their characters."Cherry picking" comes from the practice of picking ripe cherries off of a tree and leaving the unripe ones to ripen and throwing the rotten ones away. I fail to see how limiting players to a list of balanced/flavor fitting feats is tyranny. "Communistic" means relating to communism, there are no proven political connection between communism and tyranny that doesn't exist for other types of government. Politically linked styles of control that are linked to tyranny include ruling by fear, cruelty and oppression.


It isn't a sad state of affairs. That's how this game was handled from its very inception. If you want to be coddled and want to treat your players the same way, then that's your choice. But it's a choice that does break from even the very origin of Dungeons and Dragons, and in fact, all board games ever produced from ages 8 and up.You have your own style of DMing that relies on fear to keep your players in line. Some DMs instead keep their power by consent due to their players honestly enjoying the game. I await the day when your downtrodden players figure out that they don't have to tow your line of fear and "What I say goes" and find a DM where they can play other styles.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 09:05 PM
Where does it say that a dragon can sense everything in their lairs?
Most dragons of this ECL are... huge?
And there isn't just one 'puny' thing running up to them.

Any DM who doesn't design a Dragon who has protective wards or watchdog spells on his/her lair needs to have their badge taken from them and tossed to the side.

Wasn't council of wyrms translated into 3e? I seem to remember reading the 3e version at the game store.

They go into the rules of dragons and their lairs. I suggest people read it for more understanding.

When I read dragon descriptions in the 3e books they were not weak, and they seemed to be straight ports over to 3e from 2nd edition. They do have equiv spell abilities and do use magical items in their freakin hoard for the same reasons.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 09:08 PM
Sorry sweetcheeks, you failed your horror check. :smallwink:

ARRGGG MY EYES MY EYES!

lol


You have your own style of DMing that relies on fear to keep your players in line. Some DMs instead keep their power by consent due to their players honestly enjoying the game. I await the day when your downtrodden players figure out that they don't have to tow your line of fear and "What I say goes" and find a DM where they can play other styles.

You do not grasp what I said about fear, because I do not play by the "What I say goes" method.

Edit: well, let me put it this way.. What a DM does say goes. But, I allow my players to protest, and talk and discuss and they even get backsies if they realize that a rule is going to cause a "problem" with their character.

Goumindong
2007-11-07, 09:09 PM
Fax, I'm going to say this once and once only:

1. Dragons can sense anyone who enters their lair, unless they're little ones. I doubt we're talking about a little one.

2. Dragons have a stride measured by the size of their BIG FREAKING LEGS.

3. Crushing Damage is not an attack roll. You seem to think it is.

4. Any DM who doesn't have the capacity of thought to portray Dragons in a manner that allows them to WALK or STAND or RUN or STEP ASIDE while some worthless magically imbued peon of a hors’dourves walk up to them without taking any actions needs to be immediately stripped of their DMG and thrown out onto the street by the local Dungeon Masters guild. :smallbiggrin:


I did not once ever suggest to break the rules.

Have you ever played this game ever?

Wizards can fly just as fast as dragons.

Dragons have abysmally low touch ACs.

Dragons can pretty much only ever have one AoO which means a simple bit of teamwork means that any dragon with roughly 60-120 feet[fly speed]. That means that a wizard able to cast a maxmized shivering touch and overcome a dragons touch AC can kill any dragon that gets within 60-120 feet.

That isnt even dealing with things like quickened dimension door, or readied actions, or the various other things that a wizard can do to get a touch attack off.

UserClone
2007-11-07, 09:12 PM
Fax, I'm going to say this once and once only:

1. Dragons can sense anyone who enters their lair, unless they're little ones. I doubt we're talking about a little one. This seems to be a houserule, because I found no mention of it in my 3.5 MM. Could you point me to this entry?


2. Dragons have a stride measured by the size of their BIG FREAKING LEGS. No, dragons have a movement speed, measured in feet, based on their size category.


3. Crushing Damage is not an attack roll. You seem to think it is. There is almost NO physical damage in D&D which doesn't require an attack roll, and most of that is environmental damage. Again, if you could point this out in a 3.5 rulebook, please. It would help your argument.


4. Any DM who doesn't have the capacity of thought to portray Dragons in a manner that allows them to WALK or STAND or RUN or STEP ASIDE while some worthless magically imbued peon of a hors’dourves walk up to them without taking any actions needs to be immediately stripped of their DMG and thrown out onto the street by the local Dungeon Masters guild. :smallbiggrin: Adding a grin does not make this acceptable decorum, at least in my opinion. Let's try to keep it civil.:smallwink:

I did not once ever suggest to break the rules.Um...I'll assume you forgot the smallwink at the end of that. Note numbered quotes 1, 2, and 3.:smallbiggrin: Sweetheart.

Ozymandias
2007-11-07, 09:12 PM
ARRGGG MY EYES MY EYES!

lol

Yeah, affection between men is really disgusting. Hilarious.


You do not grasp what I said about fear, because I do not play by the "What I say goes" method.



I think the whole "fear" thing is based on the fact that your approach to balancing overpowered classes is by punishing player's from using too powerful abilities, thus causing them to avoid using said abilities. It works, I guess, but I'd much prefer Fax's method.

Kyace
2007-11-07, 09:12 PM
Fax, I'm going to say this once and once only:

1. Dragons can sense anyone who enters their lair, unless they're little ones. I doubt we're talking about a little one.

2. Dragons have a stride measured by the size of their BIG FREAKING LEGS.

3. Crushing Damage is not an attack roll. You seem to think it is.

4. Any DM who doesn't have the capacity of thought to portray Dragons in a manner that allows them to WALK or STAND or RUN or STEP ASIDE while some worthless magically imbued peon of a hors’dourves walk up to them without taking any actions needs to be immediately stripped of their DMG and thrown out onto the street by the local Dungeon Masters guild. :smallbiggrin:


I did not once ever suggest to break the rules.
Dragons have a move speed of 60'. The fly spell, a 3rd level spell, gives nearly anyone a fly speed of 60' with man of good. Unless the dragon can kill the party in one round, it is likely that they will be hit by a spell from someone. If the spell basically defeats the dragon then I fail to see how the DM has failed.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 09:12 PM
The wizard doesn't even need to be near the dragon with things like spectral hand or Reach Spell.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 09:13 PM
Have you ever played this game ever?

I have and I've met players who thought they could outwit me and ate for breakfast using standard rules.


Wizards can fly just as fast as dragons.

Dispell magic -- OOPS SORRY SQUISH



Dragons have abysmally low touch ACs.

IF YOU CAN GET WITHIN RANGE TO USE TOUCH.

Touch is at most 3 feet. A dragon can just walk faster than a wizard on foot. And a wizard using a fly or haste spell is asking for a magically empowered dragon to rip them into small chewey bits and pieces..


Dragons can pretty much only ever have one AoO which means a simple bit of teamwork means that any dragon with roughly 60-120 feet[fly speed]. That means that a wizard able to cast a maxmized shivering touch and overcome a dragons touch AC can kill any dragon that gets within 60-120 feet.

That isnt even dealing with things like quickened dimension door, or readied actions, or the various other things that a wizard can do to get a touch attack off.

Oh, please.

LOL

Dragon's don't collect treasure and magic items just to give them to players. They collect items they want and items THEY WILL USE. Only an idiot of a DM would create an encounter where a dragon can knowingly die in one hit, and then give that dragon masses of treasure. Dragons fight off entire kingdoms to keep their hoards.

Kyace
2007-11-07, 09:16 PM
This seems to be a houserule, because I found no mention of it in my 3.5 MM. Could you point me to this entry?

No, dragons have a movement speed, measured in feet, based on their size category.

There is almost NO physical damage in D&D which doesn't require an attack roll, and most of that is environmental damage. Again, if you could point this out in a 3.5 rulebook, please. It would help your argument.

Adding a grin does not make this acceptable decorum, at least in my opinion. Let's try to keep it civil.:smallwink:
Um...I'll assume you forgot the smallwink at the end of that. Note numbered quotes 1, 2, and 3.:smallbiggrin: Sweetheart.
Dragons have blindsense 60'. Decent but not "Lair radar" it was implied to be. Heck, it isn't even blindsight.

They also have a crush attack that is reflex or be pinned, basically. A pinning dragon, FYI, loses its Dex bonus to attacks from outside the grapple. Smart dragon...

UserClone
2007-11-07, 09:17 PM
Any DM who doesn't design a Dragon who has protective wards or watchdog spells on his/her lair needs to have their badge taken from them and tossed to the side. Again, this is one of those all-or-nothing statements that, while it makes your posts amusing to read, it is probably laughter you don't want, as the amusement stems from pity.

I suggest people read it for more understandingI'm going to put this as nicely as I am able. That is the single most ignorant thing I have ever seen anyone post on GiTP forums.:smallbiggrin:

Thinker
2007-11-07, 09:19 PM
Oh, please.

LOL

Dragon's don't collect treasure and magic items just to give them to players. They collect items they want and items THEY WILL USE. Only an idiot of a DM would create an encounter where a dragon can knowingly die in one hit, and then give that dragon masses of treasure. Dragons fight off entire kingdoms to keep their hoards.

LOL

People who play with the rules, what are they thinking? I mean if you just arbitrarily change the rules midgame everyone has fun by failing to beat the DM and his competitive playing style! I can see what I've done wrong!

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 09:19 PM
Oh, please.

LOL

Dragon's don't collect treasure and magic items just to give them to players. They collect items they want and items THEY WILL USE. Only an idiot of a DM would create an encounter where a dragon can knowingly die in one hit, and then give that dragon masses of treasure. Dragons fight off entire kingdoms to keep their hoards.

Not really. Maximized reaching shivering touch: 18 Dexterity damage to one target within 30'. Invisibility, teleport or dimension door to get within range (or, if you feel like horseback, try phantom steed. 100'+ fly speed? Yes please). Dragon is now paralyzed. Kill immobile dragon.

Reinboom
2007-11-07, 09:20 PM
Dispell magic -- OOPS SORRY SQUISH
Ring of Counterspells - Dispel Magic. Common, core, item that many wizards have for a reason.
Then there's also the issue of --- who goes first? Overland flight is nearly always on. You dispel it - you've wasted your round. The wizard is still doing an awesome job in this situation. You can't dispel and then squish. Sorry. Reread the rules.





IF YOU CAN GET WITHIN RANGE TO USE TOUCH.

Touch is at most 3 feet. A dragon can just walk faster than a wizard on foot. And a wizard using a fly or haste spell is asking for a magically empowered dragon to rip them into small chewey bits and pieces..
5 Feet*
Read the rules, for your own sake. Please.
And the dragon has more than just the wizard to worry about. The dimension door, teleporting, shivering touching, etc. etc. blah blah blah wizard. The wizard is just the primary power house.
Dragon approaches in order to 'chew'. Dragon is dead.




Dragon's don't collect treasure and magic items just to give them to players. They collect items they want and items THEY WILL USE. Only an idiot of a DM would create an encounter where a dragon can knowingly die in one hit, and then give that dragon masses of treasure.

Not in everyone's campaign. Your way of playing isn't the end all be all.
Sure, they have access to their hoard. Fine. Even a good selection won't surpass a wizard's set up - unless you're exceeding the WBL recommendations. Mind: You better be fair with this.


Dragons fight off entire kingdoms to keep their hoards.
Those kingdoms clearly didn't have wizards.

cupkeyk
2007-11-07, 09:20 PM
Dragons have horible caster level check modifiers and is unlikely to dispel the fly.

i see no reason why the dragon wouldn't cast Alarm on his lair though. Or Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound. That magic mouth spell. But well, its just another dungeon crawl then.

Kyace
2007-11-07, 09:21 PM
I have and I've met players who thought they could outwit me and ate for breakfast using standard rules.



Dispell magic -- OOPS SORRY SQUISH
If the best thing a dragon has to do is a targeted dispel on basically the safest spell in the SRD to have dispelled on you, then they arn't very smart.
IF YOU CAN GET WITHIN RANGE TO USE TOUCH.

Touch is at most 3 feet. A dragon can just walk faster than a wizard on foot. And a wizard using a fly or haste spell is asking for a magically empowered dragon to rip them into small chewey bits and pieces..*cough*Touch for a small creature is 5' by RAW. You can get higher with larger creatures, spells, having your familiar deliver the spell, reach metamagic, or countless other ways.
Oh, please.

LOL

Dragon's don't collect treasure and magic items just to give them to players. They collect items they want and items THEY WILL USE. Only an idiot of a DM would create an encounter where a dragon can knowingly die in one hit, and then give that dragon masses of treasure. Dragons fight off entire kingdoms to keep their hoards.You seem to be confusing fluff with crunch. Very few dragons can actually defeat a kingdom's army of warriors due the simple fact that enough will roll 20 on the attack rolls. An adult black dragon has roughly 200 HP. Thus, it only requires 4,000 ranged attack rolls for 200 ensured hits of 1 damage.

Thinker
2007-11-07, 09:21 PM
Not really. Maximized reaching shivering touch: 18 Dexterity damage to one target within 30'. Invisibility, teleport or dimension door to get within range (or, if you feel like horseback, try phantom steed. 100'+ fly speed? Yes please). Dragon is now paralyzed. Kill immobile dragon.

You obviously don't understand. The dragon has an anti-phantom steed, anti-invisibility, dimensional locked lair. That's just good DMing. He also is immune to Dex damage. Really when making encounters you should not only try to make them as fear-inspiring as possible, but also make it so the party can't win. I bet you give your players treasure, too...noob! [/sarcasm]

Overlard
2007-11-07, 09:22 PM
I have and I've met players who thought they could outwit me and ate for breakfast using standard rules.
Jeez, a battle of wits. Thank god you're proficient at fighting unarmed, hun.


Dispell magic -- OOPS SORRY SQUISH
If the dispel works, then the wizard will start to fall. And cast feather fall.


IF YOU CAN GET WITHIN RANGE TO USE TOUCH.

Touch is at most 3 feet. A dragon can just walk faster than a wizard on foot. And a wizard using a fly or haste spell is asking for a magically empowered dragon to rip them into small chewey bits and pieces..
Well a quickened dimension door would get them within touch range with enough time for a maximised shivering touch before the dragon can react. Hell, the wizard still has time for a move action to scratch his arse if needed, baby.


Dragon's don't collect treasure and magic items just to give them to players. They collect items they want and items THEY WILL USE. Only an idiot of a DM would create an encounter where a dragon can knowingly die in one hit, and then give that dragon masses of treasure. Dragons fight off entire kingdoms to keep their hoards.
And they lose to wizards with shivering touch. It's the ciiiiiiiiiiiircle of life...

UserClone
2007-11-07, 09:29 PM
Jeez, a battle of wits. Thank god you're proficient at fighting unarmed, hun.

Nah. He just takes the -4.:smallcool:

Goumindong
2007-11-07, 09:34 PM
I have and I've met players who thought they could outwit me and ate for breakfast using standard rules.


You do realize you then preceeded to list a whole bunch of non-standard rules right?





Dispell magic -- OOPS SORRY SQUISH


Not one single dragon has dispell magic as a SLA. Would you mind telling me how in the world this dragon is getting dispell magic? Does he keep scrolls on him? Scrolls he likley cant hold due to the fact that he has claws and not hands?




IF YOU CAN GET WITHIN RANGE TO USE TOUCH.

Touch is at most 3 feet. A dragon can just walk faster than a wizard on foot. And a wizard using a fly or haste spell is asking for a magically empowered dragon to rip them into small chewey bits and pieces..

Touch is one square. 5 feet. Or ranged with things like ranged touch.




Dragon's don't collect treasure and magic items just to give them to players. They collect items they want and items THEY WILL USE. Only an idiot of a DM would create an encounter where a dragon can knowingly die in one hit, and then give that dragon masses of treasure. Dragons fight off entire kingdoms to keep their hoards

Really, because by default most dragons cant use ANY treasure. In fact, core dragons have a horde because they are greedy and not because they are defending themselves. The horde also acts as a lure for food.

Lets quote from the SRD
" Although goals and ideals vary among varieties, all dragons are covetous. They like to hoard wealth, collecting mounds of coins and gathering as many gems, jewels, and magic items as possible. Those with large hoards are loath to leave them for long, venturing out of their lairs only to patrol the immediate area or to get food. For dragons, there is no such thing as enough treasure. It’s pleasing to look at, and they bask in its radiance. Dragons like to make beds of their hoards, shaping nooks and mounds to fit their bodies. By the time a dragon matures to the age of great wyrm, hundreds of gems and coins may be imbedded in its hide. "

Here is a tip, stop digging, you wont make it to China.

UserClone
2007-11-07, 09:41 PM
Dragon's don't collect treasure and magic items just to give them to players. They collect items they want and items THEY WILL USE. Only an idiot of a DM would create an encounter where a dragon can knowingly die in one hit, and then give that dragon masses of treasure. Dragons fight off entire kingdoms to keep their hoards


Really, because by default most dragons cant use ANY treasure. In fact, core dragons have a horde because they are greedy and not because they are defending themselves. The horde also acts as a lure for food.

Lets quote from the SRD
" Although goals and ideals vary among varieties, all dragons are covetous. They like to hoard wealth, collecting mounds of coins and gathering as many gems, jewels, and magic items as possible. Those with large hoards are loath to leave them for long, venturing out of their lairs only to patrol the immediate area or to get food. For dragons, there is no such thing as enough treasure. It’s pleasing to look at, and they bask in its radiance. Dragons like to make beds of their hoards, shaping nooks and mounds to fit their bodies. By the time a dragon matures to the age of great wyrm, hundreds of gems and coins may be imbedded in its hide. "
Interestingly enough, I have an OGL book called Spells & Magic in which dragons collect treasure in order to creat a "trovebond" with it, and power their magic through this supernatural bond with their treasure trove, especially the magic items. The Dragon Mage class from that book was AWESOME fluff-wise, but required too much money to be dumped into the hoard to be worth it mechanically - a pity.

Goumindong
2007-11-07, 09:41 PM
In our next campaign, my group has already decided: no arcane magic. There will be divine magic and psionics.
But on-topic, if you want to lessen the effect of spellcasters, well, Beholders and other creatures that generate AMF effects are always useful for that.

hah, i did one better.

No prepared full casters and i still get to veto your spell choices.

We have a monk, swashbuckler, duskblade[the spellcaster], and Fighter. They are going to stay in a city most of the time, so its easy to buy resources, but still, its going to be awesome.

tyckspoon
2007-11-07, 09:41 PM
If the best thing a dragon has to do is a targeted dispel on basically the safest spell in the SRD to have dispelled on you, then they arn't very smart.*cough*Touch for a small creature is 5' by RAW. You can get higher with larger creatures, spells, having your familiar deliver the spell, reach metamagic, or countless other ways.You seem to be confusing fluff with crunch. Very few dragons can actually defeat a kingdom's army of warriors due the simple fact that enough will roll 20 on the attack rolls. An adult black dragon has roughly 200 HP. Thus, it only requires 4,000 ranged attack rolls for 200 ensured hits of 1 damage.

Assuming you've managed to gather an army composed primarily of people with 5+ HD. And they've all got magic weapons. A dragon of Young Adult or older has Frightful Presence and DR 5/magic. It can easily scatter an entire army just by flying over it. If you want to try magic, well, congratulations- that's also the age category where they get spell resistance. They're a lot easier to fight if they're any younger than that, but you probably don't need to try and depend on natural 20s to take down a younger one.

Reinboom
2007-11-07, 09:44 PM
hah, i did one better.

No prepared full casters and i still get to veto your spell choices.

We have a monk, swashbuckler, duskblade[the spellcaster], and Fighter. They are going to stay in a city most of the time, so its easy to buy resources, but still, its going to be awesome.

I have done exactly the same...
I have a psion, sorcerer, favored soul, ranger, knight, and dragon shaman in my primary group.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 09:45 PM
Jeez, a battle of wits. Thank god you're proficient at fighting unarmed, hun.


If the dispel works, then the wizard will start to fall. And cast feather fall.

While you're casting feather fall - wing buffet. Because you have 0 control over where you are falling, the 75mph gale force gusts of wind caused by the wings will slam your character against a wall.

Feather Fall only reduces falling incurred by gravity, it does not reduce movement
Feather fall works only upon free-falling objects. It does not affect a sword blow or a charging or flying creature.

Therefore this mage will incur full falling damage or even crushing damage when it hits the wall: SPLAT!


Well a quickened dimension door would get them within touch range with enough time for a maximised shivering touch before the dragon can react. Hell, the wizard still has time for a move action to scratch his arse if needed, baby.

Anti magic shell or any 1 of the 100-1,000 magical gems encrusted on the dragon's scales will take care of this strategy without breaking a sweat.

And I haven't even begun to discuss the lesser and greater artifacts dragons like to collect.


And they lose to wizards with shivering touch. It's the ciiiiiiiiiiiircle of life...

only if the dragon encounter was written by a DM with 0 knowledge of how dragon encounters should work, or the objects they carry, such as those described in CoW or the Dragonomicon.

Lord Iames Osari
2007-11-07, 09:46 PM
Well a quickened dimension door would get them within touch range with enough time for a maximised shivering touch before the dragon can react. Hell, the wizard still has time for a move action to scratch his arse if needed, baby.

Actually, dimension door states that you cannot take any more actions afterward. So that actually doesn't work. But it would work with teleport.

UserClone
2007-11-07, 09:47 PM
hah, i did one better.More balanced. Maybe. Better? Open to subjective interpretation.:smallwink:


No prepared full casters and i still get to veto your spell choices.

We have a monk, swashbuckler, duskblade[the spellcaster], and Fighter. They are going to stay in a city most of the time, so its easy to buy resources, but still, its going to be awesome.
Um, a duskblade is NOT a spellcaster. They are a great gish, but I wouldn't call them a spellcaster anymore than I would call a Paladin a divine spellcaster. But that's just me.

UserClone
2007-11-07, 09:51 PM
only if the dragon encounter was written by a DM with 0 knowledge of how dragon encounters should work, or the objects they carry, such as those described in CoW or the Dragonomicon.CoW? I'm not familiar with that abbreviation. And it's the DraConomicon, another book which I'm sure you skimmed very thouroughly before making yet another statement which is abusive to the other people trying to have polite discussion.:smallsigh:

Dervag
2007-11-07, 09:51 PM
It's the exact same problem people were whining and moaning about when Psionics were introduced.

Then 1 simple thing happened with psionics: they were introduced to thought eaters. A random monster encounter that exploited the weaknesses of the class.Unless those random monsters make up a large fraction of all enemies, so that you fight more thought eaters than anything else, it won't affect the class balance. Even then, it's an arbitrary kludge of a solution, as is scattering antimagic fields all over the world to weaken arcane casters. It's much better to design the classes so that they have power and effectiveness comparable to that of other classes than to create specialized, tailored menaces whose sole justification for existence is to keep the wizards in line.


Maybe if you actually read some of the M$TG Novels you'd understand what I mean. There's a lot that was added to AD&D wizards in 3e that makes them look more like those god awful WoTC creations.I've read a number of those novels, though by no means a majority. I always thought that the wizard characters in those novels bore strikingly little resemblance to the 'wizards' found in the card game; they usually focus on characters with real limits and the dynamics of the novels' plots don't resemble the dynamics of game play.


I guarantee you, so many of these problems I keep reading about didn't exist in 2nd edition.No, but a bunch of other problems did.


A player who has already abused the rules has attempted to destroy the fun.

In each game there is a certain amount of danger. Players who experience absolutely no danger or set backs to over come, are players who need to experience them.When you make the players "cry and beg for mercy," you've gone beyond the level of "danger and setbacks" that are compatible with fun unless you're involved in some sort of bizarre, perverse S&M variant on the tabletop RPG.


If your idea of fun is to give the players whatever they want, then I suggest you take out a board game called: CANDY LAND and use that for your gaming sessions.Obviously, you have never known the frustration of being stranded in the Molasses Swamp.


Dude, go back and read my posts. I didn't say shut down someone's character every time they game. I said instill the fear that they can be shut down if they keep abusing their character and their power.

You only ever need to shut down a munchkin player once or twice at a critical moment for them to rethink how they play the game.What is with this munchkin fixation? Munchkins aren't the problem here; wizards being intrinsically more powerful than, say, fighters or rogues in combat encounters is the problem.


Alas, my dear Fax, what is described above (the post you quoted) is what a lot of people consider fun.Only because they do it to other people and do not have it done to themselves.


With the attitude you've given me, Fax, I'll send your comments to my committee for review to determine how I should address you, dude.I now dub you "slick," slick.


If you want to keep arguing that wizards are so over powered that there's nothing a DM can do to learn how to adjust the encounters, then maybe you and everyone else who agrees with that sentiment needs to stop allowing wizards or needs to stop playing 3rd edition :biggrin:If the only way to adjust encounters to make wizards balanced is to impose arbitrary conditions that either completely remove their sole effective ability (spellcasting) or to break the rules in favor of their enemies so that those enemies are better at killing wizards than any combination of published statistics and published methods of strengthening them would indicate, the problem is with the quality of the system, not the quality of the DM.


Fax, I'm going to say this once and once only:

1. Dragons can sense anyone who enters their lair, unless they're little ones. I doubt we're talking about a little one.

2. Dragons have a stride measured by the size of their BIG FREAKING LEGS.

3. Crushing Damage is not an attack roll. You seem to think it is.

4. Any DM who doesn't have the capacity of thought to portray Dragons in a manner that allows them to WALK or STAND or RUN or STEP ASIDE while some worthless magically imbued peon of a hors’dourves walk up to them without taking any actions needs to be immediately stripped of their DMG and thrown out onto the street by the local Dungeon Masters guild. :smallbiggrin:

I did not once ever suggest to break the rules.Yes, you did. Dragons don't deal trample damage moving around. In fact, the rules of Third edition specifically, explicitly state that creatures the size of big dragons and creatures the size of humans can move around in the same space simultaneously without either stepping on the other, the premise being that the human is running around between the dragon's legs, just as a mouse might move between the legs of a human.

Therefore, your suggestion that characters entering melee combat with a dragon automatically take trampling damage breaks both the specific rules implied by the D&D definition of "dragon," and the general rules related to how large and small creature move around each other. So yes, Slick, you are breaking rules.


Any DM who doesn't design a Dragon who has protective wards or watchdog spells on his/her lair needs to have their badge taken from them and tossed to the side.Wards and watchdog spells will hurt the other characters just as much as they hurt the wizard, if not more so.


I have and I've met players who thought they could outwit me and ate for breakfast using standard rules.However, your unfamiliarity with the reasons why dragons are vulnerable to the effects of Shivering Touch suggests that the people playing with you haven't really tried very hard to be dangerous and effective. Note that this is not a question of munchkinnery- any intelligent character (such as a typical wizard) would seek to employ the most effective tactics available against a given foe. Against a dragon, touch attack spells are very effective, and since dragons are not famous for their agility, a spell that robs them of what agility they possess would also be very effective. Veteran players will tend to do things like that simply because it strains the suspension of disbelief for characters to employ deliberately bad tactics.

Nonveteran players will not know to do these things, which suggests that your experiences have been against nonveteran players. Therefore, your ability to suppress their sallies at being more effective than level would indicate doesn't prove much, just as the fact that you have a superb batting average against a Little League team would not be remarkable. Nor would it prove that it is automatically easy for any batter to have, say, a .500 batting average in all games and that all the Major League batters with their .300 averages must be incompetent.


IF YOU CAN GET WITHIN RANGE TO USE TOUCH.Which you can.


Very few dragons can actually defeat a kingdom's army of warriors due the simple fact that enough will roll 20 on the attack rolls. An adult black dragon has roughly 200 HP. Thus, it only requires 4,000 ranged attack rolls for 200 ensured hits of 1 damage.It's not quite that easy; we've had this argument before on this board. I was there.

horseboy
2007-11-07, 09:53 PM
Jeez, a battle of wits. Thank god you're proficient at fighting unarmed, hun.


If the dispel works, then the wizard will start to fall. And cast feather fall.I thought that if flight spells are canceled then they act like they expired and float down.

UserClone
2007-11-07, 09:58 PM
If your idea of fun is to give the players whatever they want, then I suggest you take out a board game called: CANDY LAND and use that for your gaming sessions.


Obviously, you have never known the frustration of being stranded in the Molasses Swamp.
I would like to sig this if I may. It gave me much joy.:smallsmile:

Ozymandias
2007-11-07, 09:58 PM
While you're casting feather fall - wing buffet. Because you have 0 control over where you are falling, the 75mph gale force gusts of wind caused by the wings will slam your character against a wall.

Feather Fall is an immediate action casting time - the Dragon used his/her turn casting Dispel Magic from an artifact or whatever, the wizard cast feather fall - now it's the wizard's turn - he/she has no swift action but retains his/her move and standard actions, so he/she can still do stuff before the Dragon gets a chance to buffet. I'm fairly sure.



Anti magic shell or any 1 of the 100-1,000 magical gems encrusted on the dragon's scales will take care of this strategy without breaking a sweat.

And I haven't even begun to discuss the lesser and greater artifacts dragons like to collect.

From where is Anti Magic Shell? I can't comment on the validity of that.


only if the dragon encounter was written by a DM with 0 knowledge of how dragon encounters should work, or the objects they carry, such as those described in CoW or the Dragonomicon.

Oh, of course. A DM who doesn't own those books clearly is just terrible.

UserClone
2007-11-07, 09:59 PM
I thought that if flight spells are canceled then they act like they expired and float down.

I was actually going to post that; IIRC, doesn't fly give you a feather-fall-esque effect if it's dispelled?

tyckspoon
2007-11-07, 10:03 PM
I thought that if flight spells are canceled then they act like they expired and float down.


Should the spell duration expire while the subject is still aloft, the magic fails slowly. The subject floats downward 60 feet per round for 1d6 rounds. If it reaches the ground in that amount of time, it lands safely. If not, it falls the rest of the distance, taking 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet of fall. Since dispelling a spell effectively ends it, the subject also descends in this way if the fly spell is dispelled, but not if it is negated by an antimagic field.

Yup. No need to cast Feather Fall. Which is an Immediate action spell, so it can be cast as soon as the Wizard starts falling and does nothing to prevent him from casting another spell on his own turn anyway, if he had in fact needed to cast it. Which assumes that he isn't willing to go ahead and absorb the falling damage; maybe he wants to save his immediate/swift action for a quickened spell instead. Falling damage isn't especially lethal.

Edit: Ninjas lul.

Goumindong
2007-11-07, 10:07 PM
While you're casting feather fall - wing buffet. Because you have 0 control over where you are falling, the 75mph gale force gusts of wind caused by the wings will slam your character against a wall.Your dragon gets an aweful lot of actions per round. I mean, he dispells magic, and then he wing buffets. And he does this all while flying.



Anti magic shell or any 1 of the 100-1,000 magical gems encrusted on the dragon's scales will take care of this strategy without breaking a sweat. and he does all of these in a round with his magical >1 standard action?



And I haven't even begun to discuss the lesser and greater artifacts dragons like to collect.

Artifacts are plot devices, they are not ever to be used as treasure for random reasons If your dragons have artifacts, i cannot imagine all the lesser and greater artifacts your Players have. Holy lord they must be swamped in them!




only if the dragon encounter was written by a DM with 0 knowledge of how dragon encounters should work, or the objects they carry, such as those described in CoW or the Dragonomicon.

We have established that you have 0 applicable knowledge about how dragon encounters work, should work or any encounter works or should work.

Please describe what CoW and Dragonomicon say about dragons that the core does not that makes them able to avoid a wizard.

Kyace
2007-11-07, 10:09 PM
Assuming you've managed to gather an army composed primarily of people with 5+ HD. And they've all got magic weapons. A dragon of Young Adult or older has Frightful Presence and DR 5/magic. It can easily scatter an entire army just by flying over it. If you want to try magic, well, congratulations- that's also the age category where they get spell resistance. They're a lot easier to fight if they're any younger than that, but you probably don't need to try and depend on natural 20s to take down a younger one.

Re Frightful Presence: Nonmagical ranged weapons appropriate to lvl 1 warriors, like longbows.
Re DR X/Magic: All successful attacks deal 1 HP of damage. My mistake, DR is the exception to this rule. Since this an army, we can scale up to fix this. The army needs to deal 199 HPs of damage to the adult black dragon to defeat it. Assume an army of at least 5400 lvl 1 warriors with longbows. Assuming they can all attack in a round, 270 of them will roll Nat 20's. 33.75 of them will roll each result of a 1d8 for damage (IE, 33.75 roll 8, 33.75 roll 7...) so the average damage for all 270, after the DR /5 is 202.5 HP of damage in one round. Now, the dragon can scare some of them away sure, scale the army up until you can ensure that 5400 won't be scared away and you've won in one round.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 10:11 PM
{Scrubbed}

Reinboom
2007-11-07, 10:18 PM
Back up to the first page:

My point is this:

Wizards build these DPS OMFG IMGONNABEAT YOU DOWN characters because they've neven been shown the frailty of their class.

For a wizard munchkin to be taught a lesson, all he or she needs to experience, is one bloody, embarrassing, and frightening moment of mortal weakness.

From then on, you'll find your munchkin problem has been solved. Or he/she has learned how to play their class without OMFGIMGONNAKILLYOU attitude.

vs...

Munchkins that playtested the 3e and 3.5 rules are a cause of the problem for the wizard class. Munchkins at WoTC who keep refusing to fix the problems they generated are the problem for the wizard class.

Just due to how Wizards are handled in 3e makes almost any 3e wizard a MUNCHKIN!!!!

So... almost any wizard needs to have antimagic fields sprinkled around the game automatically, and thus you are now arguing against what your big statements on the first post was?


- Edit -
And for declaring you understand the rules.
You confused 3 ft for a touch with 5 ft.
That's clear in the rules.
Not to mention the other sprinkled examples through this entire debacle of a topic.

Goumindong
2007-11-07, 10:19 PM
Crushing Damage is one really heavy object SQUISHING the life out of an infinitely smaller and weaker object.

Please show me the page dealing with this.

As far as i can see there are only 2 references to crushing damage in the SRD.

1. Constrict attacks: Successfull Grapple attack required

2. Swallow Whole: Successfull Attack on a bite attack to swallow whole will produce crushing damage each round the smaller creature is in the other gullet/stomach.

Should i show you how easy it is to cast a touch spell while in a creatures stomach?

Artemician
2007-11-07, 10:22 PM
Back up to the first page:
vs...
So... almost any wizard needs to have antimagic fields sprinkled around the game automatically, and thus you are now arguing against what your big statements on the first post was?


There is no contradiction. In his first post, he said that there were ways to stop people from munchkinning. In his second, he was lamentating the blatant lack of imbalance in RAW D&D, which causes him to have to use munchkin-stopping methods more often, as, in his opinion, a large fraction of wizards are munchkins.

I may not agree with him personally, but I can certainly see where he is coming from.

Also, @Dalboz of Gurth:

A dragon's CR rating reflects the dumb, lumbering stupid thing that you hate so much. And they're considered way overpowered for their CR. If you put in lairs, intelligent tactics, artifacts etc etc then you will have to increase their CR rating, as the dragon will now be more powerful than its dumb counterpart.

Also, I've checked the SRD, and I don't really think that a Dragon can really cause Crushing Damage short of Contrict/Swallow Whole. I believe you may be mistaken on that front.

Lord Iames Osari
2007-11-07, 10:23 PM
{Scrubbed}

Translation: I don't know how to argue against this, so I'm just going to tell you to shut up in attempt to make it look like the counterargument is so blatantly obvious that I don't even need to explain it in a suitably condescending tone.

NEO|Phyte
2007-11-07, 10:23 PM
You need to re-read the rules on crushing damage. Crushing damage is 100% WEIGHT oriented.

NOT COMBAT

NO TRAMPLE is involved.

NO HIT ROLLS are involved.

It's WEIGHT.

Anything more than the applicable weight sustainable by the character that falls ON TOP OF THE CHARACTER causes CRUSHING DAMAGE. PERIOD end of story.

I know the Crushing Damage rules haven't changed (much) since 2nd edition because those are one of the few rules I actually read up on to see if they changed.

A single leg of a dragon stepping on a character qualifies as CRUSHING DAMAGE.

Interestingly, I just searched the SRD for these magical crushing rules, and the closest thing the search came up with on a search for the word "crush" was the following:

Constrict

A creature with this special attack can crush an opponent, dealing bludgeoning damage, after making a successful grapple check. The amount of damage is given in the creature’s entry. If the creature also has the improved grab ability it deals constriction damage in addition to damage dealt by the weapon used to grab.
Funnily enough, its used in combat, and a roll is required.

Still, maybe the search fails at finding it, can you reference a book and page number for your crushing rules?

EndgamerAzari
2007-11-07, 10:24 PM
Translation: I don't know how to argue against this, so I'm just going to tell you to shut up in attempt to make it look like the counterargument is so blatantly obvious that I don't even need to explain it in a suitably condescending tone.

Oh my God... brilliant summation, m'lord. May I sig that?

Lord Iames Osari
2007-11-07, 10:24 PM
Go ahead. :smallbiggrin:

Ozymandias
2007-11-07, 10:26 PM
See, guys, you only need 200 people to kill a dragon - they all jump on him and he dies from crushing damage.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 10:31 PM
Please show me the page dealing with this.

lol find it yourself.

Crushing damage is usually detailed in the environmental rules (i.e. a ceiling falling down on a character).


As far as i can see there are only 2 references to crushing damage in the SRD.

look harder, I know it's there.


1. Constrict attacks: Successfull Grapple attack required

2. Swallow Whole: Successfull Attack on a bite attack to swallow whole will produce crushing damage each round the smaller creature is in the other gullet/stomach.

Should i show you how easy it is to cast a touch spell while in a creatures stomach?

Hey, if they can deal with the stomach acid, then that's perfectly dandy.

As a Dungeon Master, I would whole heartedly allow and encourage one of my players to use a touch spell from inside the corrosive acid filled belly of a dragon.

by the way, that's another way to handle a player who likes to disembowl dragons.

Stomach Acid.

Kyace
2007-11-07, 10:32 PM
Please show me the page dealing with this.

As far as i can see there are only 2 references to crushing damage in the SRD.

1. Constrict attacks: Successfull Grapple attack required

2. Swallow Whole: Successfull Attack on a bite attack to swallow whole will produce crushing damage each round the smaller creature is in the other gullet/stomach.

Should i show you how easy it is to cast a touch spell while in a creatures stomach?
Its in the dragon's entry.

Crush (Ex)

This special attack allows a flying or jumping dragon of at least Huge size to land on opponents as a standard action, using its whole body to crush them. Crush attacks are effective only against opponents three or more size categories smaller than the dragon (though it can attempt normal overrun or grapple attacks against larger opponents).

A crush attack affects as many creatures as can fit under the dragon’s body. Creatures in the affected area must succeed on a Reflex save (DC equal to that of the dragon’s breath weapon) or be pinned, automatically taking bludgeoning damage during the next round unless the dragon moves off them. If the dragon chooses to maintain the pin, treat it as a normal grapple attack. Pinned opponents take damage from the crush each round if they don’t escape.

A crush attack deals the indicated damage plus 1½ times the dragon’s Strength bonus (round down).

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 10:33 PM
See, guys, you only need 200 people to kill a dragon - they all jump on him and he dies from crushing damage.

Actually that is true. And I would allow this.

wuahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahah

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 10:34 PM
Its in the dragon's entry.

THAT'S one place where I saw it! Thanks Kyace!

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 10:35 PM
Its in the dragon's entry.

That may well be the case, but it is also an attack action and not automatic.

Kyace
2007-11-07, 10:37 PM
No problem but it still doesn't deal damage based on weight, but on strength and size. To maintain the crush, they must continue the grapple, which negates their dex bonus to outside attacks, as normal for grappling.

Helios Sunshard
2007-11-07, 10:37 PM
Is the acid into a dragon stomach avoidable by this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resistEnergy.htm)?

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 10:38 PM
Is the acid into a dragon stomach avoidable by this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resistEnergy.htm)?

As it is damage specifically given an energy type, yes.

Goumindong
2007-11-07, 10:40 PM
Is the acid into a dragon stomach avoidable by this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resistEnergy.htm)?

Yes, i have to write more because of a filter.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 10:46 PM
No problem but it still doesn't deal damage based on weight, but on strength and size. To maintain the crush, they must continue the grapple, which negates their dex bonus to outside attacks, as normal for grappling.

that one doesn't, but I'm confident I also read some rules which discussed crushing damage based on weight. Maybe it was an unofficial 3.0 supplement.

In either case, those rules for crushing damage from Dragons is sufficient enough. thank you ^_^


My point isn't that dragons are impossible to kill. They are possible to kill, but they are a far cry from helpless babies that many people seem to portray.

My point isn't that the rules are imbalanced. 3e rules are the worst and most imbalanced rules I've seen.

My point IS that a good DM can create situations that make the balance seem more palpatable, and I tried to give some good suggestions.

DMs need to start reading and memorizing the rules to create situations that specifically give the players equal challenge based on each class. If a DM at any point sees a Wizard 1 shotting a Dragon, then that DM needs to go back to school, re-read their books, re think how they plan adventures before allowing it to happen ever again.

tyckspoon
2007-11-07, 10:48 PM
Thought eaters are specifically attracted to psionic presences. A psionicist who is the only one in an entire world will be the only food for said beasts.

It's a valid use.


I would have thought this was an obvious result of this statement, but: If there is only one psionicist in the entire world, there is not enough of a food supply for thought eaters to survive. Therefore, there are no thought eaters to attack the world's only psionicist.

Kyace
2007-11-07, 10:49 PM
True Dragons don't have the Swallow Whole special attack so by RAW they can't swallow creatures alive/whole. You are free to say fluffwise that bite damage over what is needed to take a player to -10 is the dragon eating it but you'd have to homerule giving dragons the ability to swallow living creatures.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 10:49 PM
that one doesn't, but I'm confident I also read some rules which discussed crushing damage based on weight. Maybe it was an unofficial 3.0 supplement.

In either case, those rules for crushing damage from Dragons is sufficient enough. thank you ^_^


My point isn't that dragons are impossible to kill. They are possible to kill, but they are a far cry from helpless babies that many people seem to portray.

My point isn't that the rules are imbalanced. 3e rules are the worst and most imbalanced rules I've seen.

My point IS that a good DM can create situations that make the balance seem more palpatable, and I tried to give some good suggestions.

DMs need to start reading and memorizing the rules to create situations that specifically give the players equal challenge based on each class. If a DM at any point sees a Wizard 1 shotting a Dragon, then that DM needs to go back to school, re-read their books, re think how they plan adventures before allowing it to happen ever again.

I think the misconception you're under is that there is hope for the wizard class ever being balanced.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 10:51 PM
I would have thought this was an obvious result of this statement, but: If there is only one psionicist in the entire world, there is not enough of a food supply for thought eaters to survive. Therefore, there are no thought eaters to attack the world's only psionicist.

Last I checked thought eaters were cross dimensional beings, they exist on the ethereal plane and only "travel" to beacon areas. They are basically wanderers with 0 restrictions.

Kyace
2007-11-07, 10:55 PM
My point isn't that the rules are imbalanced. 3e rules are the worst and most imbalanced rules I've seen.Indeed, Wushu is much more balanced, however, I wouldn't say that 3.5e rules are the worst rules among any of the several systems I've read: they all have flaws, but 3.5 is quite good if you take a few steps to houserule or change the major offenders.


DMs need to start reading and memorizing the rules to create situations that specifically give the players equal challenge based on each class. If a DM at any point sees a Wizard 1 shotting a Dragon, then that DM needs to go back to school, re-read their books, re think how they plan adventures before allowing it to happen ever again.
It is not the adventures' or encounters' fault that a wizard can 1 shot the beast, wizards can usually 1 shot most encounters. This is a known flaw of higher level wizards.

Goumindong
2007-11-07, 10:55 PM
DMs need to start reading and memorizing the rules to create situations that specifically give the players equal challenge based on each class. If a DM at any point sees a Wizard 1 shotting a Dragon, then that DM needs to go back to school, re-read their books, re think how they plan adventures before allowing it to happen ever again.

[Scrubbed]



My point isn't that the rules are imbalanced. 3e rules are the worst and most imbalanced rules I've seen.


This is false, you have not seen 3e rules. And you have seen 2e rules.

To get away from the Pithy comments, all monsters, even dragons which are positioned to best deal with wizards, are positioned in such a way that wizards are better at dealing with them than any other player class.

SeeKay
2007-11-07, 10:57 PM
Wow. So much discussion and everyone is dancing around the point. 3.x ed Wizards are broken at high levels.

Without bringing up specific encounters, high level (15+) wizards turn the rest of the party into porters because:

1) The spells they should be casting are over-powered for the time it takes to cast

2) The feats they should have make those already quick spells even quicker and deadlier

3) The counters to those spells are rare

4) Only a small amount of encounters can really make wizards not shine, and most of them will outright destroy non-wizards.

These are the main problems with 3.x wizards. Sure, I can make an encounter where the wizard won't have any ability to effect the outcome, but where is the fun for the players playing the wizards. And, even if I do this, the rest of the party will still have a tough time dealing with the encounter.

This is an OLD fight. It's been pointed out before that there is no balance between the classes and their abilities (in both head-to-head and use-in-party) at the extreme low and high levels. This is why there are so many home-rule fixes.

Give this topic a rest. Either home-brew a fix or start characters at level 4-6 and stop at level 10-12. The quickest fix is to add time to the cast time of high level spells (and spell like abilities. Be fair to the players at least). Is this the "best" fix? No. The "best" fix would be if WoTC would actually playtest thier own rules and fix the balance issues that make warrior classes rule at low levels and casters rule at high ones. Yep, I'm not holding my breath for that to happen either....

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 10:59 PM
{Scrubbed}

{Scrubbed}



This is false, you have not seen 3e rules. And you have seen 2e rules.

To get away from the Pithy comments, all monsters, even dragons which are positioned to best deal with wizards, are positioned in such a way that wizards are better at dealing with them than any other player class.

I did see the 3e rules, although it's been a few years. I did read through them. And regardless of your helpless attitude towards Wizards, I know that any skilled DM can handle the problem.

If it's such a big problem you find the game unplayable, I suggest you quit playing 3e and 3.5.

Reinboom
2007-11-07, 11:00 PM
Ok, so I understand this completely... the dragons rounds... assuming perfect mary sue dragon.
Dragon wins initiative. Sees adventurers. There's an obvious flying one (the wizard + overland flight) and the other 3. These 3 are unimportant (but they are...), just petty base peasants with swords, divine magic, and sneak attack.

The dragon takes a standard action and dispels the overland flight.
The dragon can now take a move action. During a move action it cannot: Crush (as by the rules so given in the SRD).
It can take flight, I believe, however.

Everyone else's round. The warrior moves and during so, draws a bow. Fires. Blah - doesn't matter, these 3 don't count anyways, so ignore that. It's not like a cleric or rogue can do much here. *cough*

Wizards turn. Do I shivering touch it? Do I move away? I have another spell
-what do I win with-.
Oh, and I could have something quickened too.
What can the dragon do? During my round?

Neon Knight
2007-11-07, 11:00 PM
The "best" fix would be if WoTC would actually playtest thier own rules and fix the balance issues that make warrior classes rule at low levels and casters rule at high ones. Yep, I'm not holding my breath for that to happen either....

They did.

For Blaster casters, and healbot Druids and Clerics.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 11:00 PM
Give this topic a rest. Either home-brew a fix or start characters at level 4-6 and stop at level 10-12. The quickest fix is to add time to the cast time of high level spells (and spell like abilities. Be fair to the players at least). Is this the "best" fix? No. The "best" fix would be if WoTC would actually playtest thier own rules and fix the balance issues that make warrior classes rule at low levels and casters rule at high ones. Yep, I'm not holding my breath for that to happen either....

ok I agree to this.

^_^

tyckspoon
2007-11-07, 11:01 PM
What the heck would a thought eater be doing lurking around a world that has one and only one food source? They'd be using their ethereal travel abilities to lurk near Gith or Illithid enclaves or something else that was richer in mental activity.

They *can* eat spells and Intelligence score points, but they can't actively detect those. They can only detect psionic activity within 200 yards. And they're ridiculously slow. A thought eater that hunts on a world that has exactly 1 psionic creature is going to have to be lottery-winning lucky to encounter that other creature. If that psionic creature ever encounters more than one thought eater in his life, well.. chances are some outside force is deliberately attacking him. A generall non-psionic world simply wouldn't have thought eaters as random encounters.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 11:02 PM
Ok, so I understand this completely... the dragons rounds... assuming perfect mary sue dragon.
Dragon wins initiative.

I'm giving this topic a rest, but before I do-- any time a dragon does not win initiative in his own lair, is when he or she is being run by a DM that doesn't do his or her research into designing proper dragon encounters.

Reinboom
2007-11-07, 11:05 PM
I'm giving this topic a rest, but before I do-- any time a dragon does not win initiative in his own lair, is when he or she is being run by a DM that doesn't do his or her research into designing proper dragon encounters.

That has nothing to do with my post. Bring it back to context.
I said "dragon wins initiative". We are talking about your mary sue dragons aren't we? Of course it wins initiative in the dungeon. Of course.

May I get my questioned answered please? :smallsmile:

Kellus
2007-11-07, 11:07 PM
I'm giving this topic a rest, but before I do-- any time a dragon does not win initiative in his own lair, is when he or she is being run by a DM that doesn't do his or her research into designing proper dragon encounters.

Wait, what? How is the DM supposed to make sure that the dragon wins initiative? With all the myriad ways to avoid detection available to high-level adventurers, the party is sure to at least avoid being caught be surprise if not get a surprise round themselves. How does the DM make sure (besides fudging the roll, obviously) that the dragon goes first? :smallconfused:

Kyace
2007-11-07, 11:07 PM
I'm giving this topic a rest, but before I do-- any time a dragon does not win initiative in his own lair, is when he or she is being run by a DM that doesn't do his or her research into designing proper dragon encounters.

*sighs*

You mean gets a surprise round, as winning initiative is not something a DM has control over other than by faking rolls. Didn't you just say that DMs need to read the rules or turn in their DM badges?

They have blindsense 60'. This is not far for a creature that can itself take up 30' square. Even close range spells can get farther than 60' after level 12.

Temp
2007-11-07, 11:17 PM
Dalboz, you need to actually use the rules to form a convincing argument about the rules. And, in turn, you need to know the rules to correctly use them.

Here's (http://www.d20srd.org/) a link. First, figure out what you're talking about. Then post.

Eldritch_Ent
2007-11-07, 11:20 PM
Man, I'm not going to get embroiled in this thread's politics, aside from me stating I can't agree with Dalboz on... Basically anything he's said here. From what he's said it seems he has an extremely antagonistic style of both DM'ing and Posting/debating. Neither of which is fun for anyone except the person being antagonistic. :smallfrown: I mean, "Stop Posting"? Come on. That was just weak.


That said, in regards to the Original poster that's a simple question to answer. The reason the same spells and build for a Wizard is used over and over is simply from the fact that most wizard arguments involving other base classes use "Raw Only", and these spells are often the most used in such discussions because there is a rather limited selection, and these are the best of the lot. This is because most people don't own any supplements, "Core RAW" is somehow seen as "more valid" than anything else, and it's a bit pointless anyway The more books involved, the more powerful spellcasters become, because book authors always seem to include at least one Divine and Arcane spell of each level with a supplement.

Goumindong
2007-11-07, 11:22 PM
I did see the 3e rules, although it's been a few years. I did read through them. And regardless of your helpless attitude towards Wizards, I know that any skilled DM can handle the problem.

If it's such a big problem you find the game unplayable, I suggest you quit playing 3e and 3.5.

No, they really cant, because save or lose wizards are so powerful. Always by the rules the wizards, clerics, druids and sorcerers in that order will vastly outshine the rest of the party. You can challenge the wizards just fine. But without altering the rules[which I do often] you cannot make encounters that are hard for balanced between wizards and fighters.

Fighters deal direct damage and require full round actions to get the most out of them. Wizards deal direct damage or save or suck or save or lose spells and only need standard actions to get the most out of them.

Even by giving monsters spell resistance, high saves, and removing any damage reduction the wizards will do a better job of killing the monsters than the fighter. This is because they only need one spell to land and the fighters need time to beat the monsters down.

Which the fighters only overcome by loading up on non-weapon/armor equipment. Non-armor/weapon equipment that they need to keep up and stay alive against monsters.

Its just the way the game works. When a fighter is attacking at +20 for 1d8+10 3 times per round the Wizard is casting Phantasmal Killer, Bestow Curse, Stoneskin, Black Tentacles, rainbow pattern, Greater Invisibility, Ray of Exhaustion, Vampiric Touch, Deep Slumber, suggestion, explosive Runes, spectral hand, Cloudkill, dominate person, feeblemind, hold monster, wall of force, nightmare, magic jar, baleful polymorph, transmute rock to mud and mud to rock, telekinesis

Even ignoring a lot of the overpowered ones and only choosing half you utterly obliterate anything a fighter can do at that level. It was so bad WotC created an entire splat book making fighters more like casters in order to fix them!

Goumindong
2007-11-07, 11:25 PM
I'm giving this topic a rest, but before I do-- any time a dragon does not win initiative in his own lair, is when he or she is being run by a DM that doesn't do his or her research into designing proper dragon encounters.

Any time the dragon does win initiative you are running with a bunch of players who quite frankly have either terrible luck, or not one of them is playing a rogue or wizard, or fighter or cleric for that matter.

Dragons have abysmal initiative modifiers, almost rivaling their touch ACs.

A standard rogue with 16 dex, and a +4 dex item still has a 60% chance of winning initiative against the standard improved initiative dragon. Lets not even get into the initiative improving things that players can do.

Tren
2007-11-07, 11:26 PM
Even ignoring a lot of the overpowered ones and only choosing half you utterly obliterate anything a fighter can do at that level. It was so bad WotC created an entire splat book making fighters more like casters in order to fix them!

Which just means we need to play 2E, haven't you picked up on that by now? :smallwink:

Temp
2007-11-07, 11:44 PM
And to the OP:

It's easiest to illustrate the disparity between caster and non-casters when the most powerful options are used.

After all, those are the spells and tactics that are going to see the most actual gameplay.

Dervag
2007-11-07, 11:59 PM
I would like to sig this if I may. It gave me much joy.:smallsmile:By all means.


Thought eaters are specifically attracted to psionic presences. A psionicist who is the only one in an entire world will be the only food for said beasts.

It's a valid use.And yet it's still an arbitrary kludge of a solution; better to give the classes intrinsic balance than to have to invent specific categories of monsters designed to prey on the overpowered classes while ignoring the underpowered classes.


Some novels were more like the card game than others. In either case, the wizards in those novels I did read acted like they were all Bad A. versions of Elminster.Try reading the Legends cycle.

It's a trend I see happening to the class as we speak.


And I handled them without breaking a sweat.Right. Sure. So how come all those other people who played 2nd edition ran into problems of balance? Is it that you're the only competent person in the world, or that there's a serious underlying issue with the game design?


When you make the players "cry and beg for mercy," you've gone beyond the level of "danger and setbacks" that are compatible with fun unless you're involved in some sort of bizarre, perverse S&M variant on the tabletop RPG.

It's called Ravenloft. :biggrin:

It's what you are expected to do in Ravenloft.

Actually, same thing for Planescape I discovered.My comments stand.


I do, in fact. It was yummy :biggrin:If this is true, how can you say in good conscience that Candy Land is a game without setbacks?


Munchkins that playtested the 3e and 3.5 rules are a cause of the problem for the wizard class. Munchkins at WoTC who keep refusing to fix the problems they generated are the problem for the wizard class.

Just due to how Wizards are handled in 3e makes almost any 3e wizard a MUNCHKIN!!!!You are applying a profound misdefinition of the word 'munchkin', using it as a synonym for 'anything that is powerful enough to disrupt the balance of the game.' This bears little or no resemblance to the definition used by all the other people.


The entire gaming industry, board games, role playing games, video games, is based on the premise I described.You are correct.


Considering how I handle the rules, I take that as a complement :biggrin:OK, Betty.


Anything more than the applicable weight sustainable by the character that falls ON TOP OF THE CHARACTER causes CRUSHING DAMAGE. PERIOD end of story.

I know the Crushing Damage rules haven't changed (much) since 2nd edition because those are one of the few rules I actually read up on to see if they changed.That strongly suggests that either you are unfamiliar with the 2nd edition rules (which contradicts your claims to have handled 2nd edition balance issues without a sweat), or with 3rd edition rules. In which you are hardly likely to be an authority on what is and is not legal in 3rd edition, in which case your claims about the 'rules' regarding dragons must be taken with a grain of salt.


A single leg of a dragon stepping on a character qualifies as CRUSHING DAMAGE.Not without an attack roll it doesn't, Betty. Stepping on someone is just as much an attack as hitting them with a club; or do you let ogres and giants automatically hit smaller creatures with their clubs, too?


I did not say trample damage, and your refusal to acknowledge this shows your own unwillingness to understand the difference between the terms.

Trample Damage is 1 monster or object running over another object.

Crushing Damage is one really heavy object SQUISHING the life out of an infinitely smaller and weaker object.When a monster steps on an object, trample is a reasonable characterization, unless all damage inflicted from above by blunt force is 'crushing' damage. In which case the club of a giant is crushing damage and is just as unavoidable as a dragon's foot, because there's no significant difference between the two.

When the 'infinitely' smaller and weaker object is animate, it can, y'know, dodge. Your basis for allowing creatures to deal automatic crushing damage, to anything in range of them is not very solid.

If it were, you would just killed the entire category of melee warriors in the same stroke you would have used to counter the effectiveness of Shivering Touch from a wizard who, for his own inexplicable reasons, sees fit to approach dragons on foot rather than by air and to close to melee range rather than using any of a number of methods for delivering touch attacks from a distance.

This strikes me as being a dangerous solution. Melee warriors already have enough problems without being certain of instant death or massive damage every time they get close to a larger creature thanks to this hypothetical auto-crush of yours.


{scrubbed}I should so hang this up on some sort of trophy wall.


You are trying to discuss my unfamiliarity with reasons why dragons are vulnerable to shivering touch, and yet you are the one who fails to read and understand the difference between trample and crushing damage.

You keep talking about dragons as if they're cows for you to slaughter, and quite frankly, I find it offensive you have ever played in a group that treats dragons as powerless whimpering fools.That is an odd thing to take offense at, and it is even more odd in light of the fact that I have not done it in the first place.


Now we get into the insults. You fail miserably to understand the difference between forms of damage, and use that as a means to insult me in an attempt to distract from the real issue:I do not use our disagreement about the classification of a large monster 'stepping on' a foe as a means to insult you, nor am I attempting to distract you from the issue you have apparently seized on as being "real" for reasons of your own.


You've never played a real Dragon encounter in your life.Wow. So which of the people who were there for every D&D game I've ever played are you again? I can only think of one such person, and I really doubt that he would be here arguing in this way.


lol find it yourself.

Crushing damage is usually detailed in the environmental rules (i.e. a ceiling falling down on a character).The fact that a collapsing ceiling can do it does not prove that a dragon can do it, and asserting that the dragon can do it without proof is a null argument.


look harder, I know it's there.How are we to know that you have not simply decided that it must be in the books when it is not, if you do not cite references for making such an unusual claim?

It is poor practice to refuse to cite a claim that is not common knowledge, in any field of human endeavour. This serves only to undermine one's own intellectual authority.


Hey, if they can deal with the stomach acid, then that's perfectly dandy.

As a Dungeon Master, I would whole heartedly allow and encourage one of my players to use a touch spell from inside the corrosive acid filled belly of a dragon.Esophagus much?

Quiz question: how hard is it for a wizard with a reasonable Concentration score to cast the spell given the normal range of damage given for the digestive tract of creatures capable of swallowing their enemies whole?


My point isn't that dragons are impossible to kill. They are possible to kill, but they are a far cry from helpless babies that many people seem to portray.The problem was never this; the problem is that wizards are so overpowered compared to their nominal level that they can often neutralize even exceptionally fierce and powerful monsters, such as a dragon, using a single spell. And to make this impossible, one must resort to giving the dragon abilities that the publishers didn't. Which suggests a problem with the game system, either in that most monsters are far, far too weak with respect to arcane magic, or that wizards possess far, far too much power for their level at mid-to-high levels.


DMs need to start reading and memorizing the rules to create situations that specifically give the players equal challenge based on each class. If a DM at any point sees a Wizard 1 shotting a Dragon, then that DM needs to go back to school, re-read their books, re think how they plan adventures before allowing it to happen ever again.I don't think that's actually doable, and no one said it was here. Shivering Touch isn't even a first level spell.


They did.

For Blaster casters, and healbot Druids and Clerics.Hence the problem.

Let "playtest the system" be A. Let "fix the balance issues" be B.

SeeKay correctly points out that Wizards didn't do "A and B." You correctly point out that they did A in such a way as to preclude their doing B. The community of competent D&D players sighs with dismay, possibly offering a prayer to their respective deities that Wizards of the Coast will not be so foolish with the design of 4th edition.

SeeKay
2007-11-08, 12:00 AM
Threads like this are the main reason I'm waiting for version 4 to see what is fixed. Since AD&D (1st ed) came out, there has been many problems with balance. The problems in 1, 2, 3, and 3.5 are all different, but they all have problems.

In 3.x, wizards rule at high levels and the rest of the "pure" (Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer) caster classes aren't far behind. Because of this, many wizards will have similar builds because their are specific feats that should be taken because the other feats are useless to caster classes. This means that, as the number of feat picks increase, most wizards will be selecting the same feats. This isn't a "build" issue, it's a balance issue with the game. There isn't enough "useful" feats to create one type of wizard vs another. By level 20, most wizards have the same feat selections. This is why most high level wizards look the same. It's a fault of the game.


<--- Hate when someone posts a good cap when I'm writing. Thanks Dervag.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 12:04 AM
Is it just me or does every thread about overpowered wizards show the exact same wizard with the exact same spell list using the exact same tactics. I don't know but Its seems to me that this is an overpowered build not class, but thats just me.

It's either just you, or you're primarily reading the arguments of the people who are reading straight off of Logic Ninja's guide (which is overtly popular on this forum for some reason) who crawl all over this forum pretending to be knowledgeable in their own right. It's an issue of them coming from the same source, rather than the wizard actually being limited in his number of overpowered tactics (trust me, he's got a LOT of 'em to choose from. Try searching through the WotC CharOp boards a bit. They tend to have a lot more actually skilled optimizers than the glut of Logic Ninja fanboys you get here).

You can often spot the clones by a common identifying mark: They tend to go on and on about Forcecage / Cloudkill, regardless of how useful it may actually be in a given situation.

Of course, no disrespect to Logic Ninja. He's cool. :smallcool:


They did.

For Blaster casters, and healbot Druids and Clerics.

Yeah, see, I once took a job as a game tester, and here's the thing. You're SUPPOSED to try to exploit the game as hard as possible and report flaws. That's the essence of a game tester's job. You get like only a couple guys on "intended path" testing.

If they're not doing that, I daresay they suck horribly at their jobs and are missing the basic point of testing.


Threads like this are the main reason I'm waiting for version 4 to see what is fixed. Since AD&D (1st ed) came out, there has been many problems with balance. The problems in 1, 2, 3, and 3.5 are all different, but they all have problems.

In 3.x, wizards rule at high levels and the rest of the "pure" (Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer) caster classes aren't far behind. Because of this, many wizards will have similar builds because their are specific feats that should be taken because the other feats are useless to caster classes. This means that, as the number of feat picks increase, most wizards will be selecting the same feats. This isn't a "build" issue, it's a balance issue with the game. There isn't enough "useful" feats to create one type of wizard vs another. By level 20, most wizards have the same feat selections. This is why most high level wizards look the same. It's a fault of the game.


<--- Hate when someone posts a good cap when I'm writing. Thanks Dervag.

This isn't true. There are more than enough very good wizard feats to really see some diversification in builds, and there are a LOT of very different yet highly effective builds. Moreover, full casters are optimized by their spell choices at least as much as anything else.

I have not seen the tendency of high level wizard builds looking the same, though I have seen a lot of people repeating the same tired options in the same petty arguments on this forum. Usually, I can think of better options than what they picked :smallwink:

horseboy
2007-11-08, 12:47 AM
It's either just you, or you're primarily reading the arguments of the people who are reading straight off of Logic Ninja's guide (which is overtly popular on this forum for some reason)
Of course, no disrespect to Logic Ninja. He's cool. :smallcool: Indigenous bonus. That and it was written not as a cheese fest, but a practical guide. Yes, you can make something bigger, badder and meaner.




Yeah, see, I once took a job as a game tester, and here's the thing. You're SUPPOSED to try to exploit the game as hard as possible and report flaws. That's the essence of a game tester's job. You get like only a couple guys on "intended path" testing.

If they're not doing that, I daresay they suck horribly at their jobs and are missing the basic point of testing.Yeah, and given that report on playtesting they released right after 4th, I'm not holding my breath.

Temp
2007-11-08, 12:56 AM
That and it was written not as a cheese fest, but a practical guide.I don't think you could accurately group the gleemax handbooks as "cheese fest[s]" any more than TLN's guide, but yeah, it's the only handbook that's been on these boards that's practical for regular use.

Yeah, and given that report on playtesting they released right after 4th, I'm not holding my breath....Hopefully those aren't actually the playtest reports, just sneaky prerelease hype-builders.

...Maybe?

horseboy
2007-11-08, 01:02 AM
...Hopefully those aren't actually the playtest reports, just sneaky prerelease hype-builders.

...Maybe?Yeah, keep telling yourself that. "And maybe I'm a Chinese jet pilot."

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 01:59 AM
Yeah, keep telling yourself that. "And maybe I'm a Chinese jet pilot."

I thought you were an equestrian jet pilot.


Indigenous bonus. That and it was written not as a cheese fest, but a practical guide. Yes, you can make something bigger, badder and meaner.

You make it sound like a practical guide is a rare thing, while cheese-fests are common. In reality, the CharOp boards on Wizards are divided in two along those exact lines! Practical optimization and cheesefest theoretical nonsense. That's right, there's a whole forum for practical guides.

tainsouvra
2007-11-08, 03:27 AM
Munchkins that playtested the 3e and 3.5 rules are a cause of the problem for the wizard class. Munchkins at WoTC who keep refusing to fix the problems they generated are the problem for the wizard class. Quit throwing around made-up facts and actually check your sources, ok? 3E D&D was not playtested by munchkins. That, in fact, was part of the problem, it was only tested by people who had no interest in finding the limits of the system, nor in breaking it--only in seeing if it worked when used as intended.

If you're wondering how I know this, please use the forum's search function. Information on the playtesting group has actually been posted here before, and is still available to read. That thread actually has a ton of information on how 3E was designed that would be remarkably valuable to you.

tainsouvra
2007-11-08, 03:37 AM
I did see the 3e rules, although it's been a few years. I did read through them. And regardless of your helpless attitude towards Wizards, I know that any skilled DM can handle the problem. You did notice that most of the solutions you've proposed haven't been legal by 3/3.5E rules, right? Don't act as though it's a trivial problem to solve when, thus far, most of your solutions are actually illegal. You're shooting yourself in the foot by saying that it's easy to do, then publicly failing to do it yourself.

any time a dragon does not win initiative in his own lair, is when he or she is being run by a DM that doesn't do his or her research into designing proper dragon encounters. The DM does not control initiative except by rule-ignoring fiat. Surprise and initiative aren't the same thing. Please review the 3.5E rules, it'll help you avoid making patently absurd statements like this in the future.

Aquillion
2007-11-08, 03:45 AM
Quit throwing around made-up facts and actually check your sources, ok? 3E D&D was not playtested by munchkins. That, in fact, was part of the problem, it was only tested by people who had no interest in finding the limits of the system, nor in breaking it--only in seeing if it worked when used as intended.

If you're wondering how I know this, please use the forum's search function. Information on the playtesting group has actually been posted here before, and is still available to read. That thread actually has a ton of information on how 3E was designed that would be remarkably valuable to you.For the record (for those who don't want to search), my understanding is that the only 3rd/3.5 wizards used in playtesting were heavily blasters. The other spells were never heavily playtested or examined.

Remember. 3.0 haste. Really, no matter what they say, I'm not convinced they actually playtested at all.

tainsouvra
2007-11-08, 03:49 AM
For the record (for those who don't want to search), my understanding is that the only 3rd/3.5 wizards used in playtesting were heavily blasters. The other spells were never heavily playtested or examined. Indeed, and thanks for the recap of the portion of that thread immediately relevant to this one :smallsmile:

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 04:26 AM
With relation to all these talks about "WotC only played blaster casters one way" and so forth...

If that's true...

Man, being a playtester for WotC must be the easiest bloody job ever. They don't have to actually do the job a real game tester has to do... they just play through the game as intended and have a good time (that was so far from what I got to do as a game tester it's not even funny. The game tester's job description is *to break the game as hard as s/he possibly can* and report back to the designers on the issue. Where I worked, actually, you were generally expected to break it at least 5 new ways per day when it was pretty far into development, and a lot more when it was early), then go in and get a paycheck written out and get their name connected with the world's most successful roleplaying game. No effort required.

Seriously, if these people can't even bother to read and consider the effects of Haste, let alone actually sit down and play with it, what the HECK are they getting paid for? I can't imagine what purpose they're supposed to be serving, beyond being like... I don't know, a focus group to come back and say "hey, we had fun playing."

horseboy
2007-11-08, 10:38 AM
If you're wondering how I know this, please use the forum's search function. Information on the playtesting group has actually been posted here before, and is still available to read. That thread actually has a ton of information on how 3E was designed that would be remarkably valuable to you.

Because Swordguy PM'ed me the link once, and I never clean out my PM Box:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49378

Aquillion
2007-11-08, 03:38 PM
With relation to all these talks about "WotC only played blaster casters one way" and so forth...

If that's true...

Man, being a playtester for WotC must be the easiest bloody job ever. They don't have to actually do the job a real game tester has to do... they just play through the game as intended and have a good time (that was so far from what I got to do as a game tester it's not even funny. The game tester's job description is *to break the game as hard as s/he possibly can* and report back to the designers on the issue. Where I worked, actually, you were generally expected to break it at least 5 new ways per day when it was pretty far into development, and a lot more when it was early), then go in and get a paycheck written out and get their name connected with the world's most successful roleplaying game. No effort required.

Seriously, if these people can't even bother to read and consider the effects of Haste, let alone actually sit down and play with it, what the HECK are they getting paid for? I can't imagine what purpose they're supposed to be serving, beyond being like... I don't know, a focus group to come back and say "hey, we had fun playing."Well, it's also important to remember: Before 3.0, things like multiclassing were much more restricted, there were no feats, wizards levelled more slowly, the equivalent to skills was limited, rudimentary, and optional, saves were generally better against less nasty and poorly-scaling spell save DCs, HPs were lower so blasting was better...

Basically, there was a lot less to playtest. There were still broken things, but there just weren't as many possible combinations to investigate, so playtesting was a lot more limited in scope. I think they playtested 3.0 as if it was AD&D, under the assumption that people would still play it like AD&D.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 03:44 PM
Well, it's also important to remember: Before 3.0, things like multiclassing were much more restricted, there were no feats, wizards levelled more slowly, the equivalent to skills was limited, rudimentary, and optional, saves were generally better against less nasty and poorly-scaling spell save DCs, HPs were lower so blasting was better...

Basically, there was a lot less to playtest. There were still broken things, but there just weren't as many possible combinations to investigate, so playtesting was a lot more limited in scope. I think they playtested 3.0 as if it was AD&D, under the assumption that people would still play it like AD&D.

Wow, that excuse sounds completely unprofessional. "It wasn't like the last game." That sounds to me like it only helps my argument that WotC's testers were horribly inept and amateurish. Of COURSE games are going to get more and more complex. It happens all the bloody time.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 03:46 PM
Wow, that excuse sounds completely unprofessional. "It wasn't like the last game." That sounds to me like it only helps my argument that WotC's testers were horribly inept and amateurish.

I award you with the dancing GIR medal of honor:


http://members.aol.com/dalbozofgurth/dancinggir.gif

I agree 100%

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 03:51 PM
I award you with the dancing GIR medal of honor:


http://members.aol.com/dalbozofgurth/dancinggir.gif

I agree 100%

Wow, that's way better than the cookies I usually get. AWESOME! :smallbiggrin:

Kultrum
2007-11-08, 10:20 PM
Wait Wait Wait... When I started this thread I was just pointing out that in most threads about overpowered wizards batman is used as the class' base line. and like 3 people said something about that then it became more like WIZ4RdZ PWN n00bz LOLz, n0 WIZ4RdZ Iz SUX0R...

NEO|Phyte
2007-11-08, 10:21 PM
Welcome to the internet.

MCerberus
2007-11-08, 10:23 PM
Welcome to the internet.

Where the men are men, the women are men, 13 year olds are FBI agents, and C'thulu is the debate moderator.

Kultrum
2007-11-08, 10:24 PM
Welcome to the internet.

I know but I think that there should be some way to punish people for hijacking threads, perhaps though some sort of forced feedback D&D:smallbiggrin:

Temp
2007-11-08, 11:45 PM
I think you've gotten responses, they're just mixed in with the debate.

OW4's point that most of this board seems to use TLN's guide as a sole [un-updated] resource is probably the most accurate.

Kultrum
2007-11-09, 12:05 AM
I think you've gotten responses, they're just mixed in with the debate.

OW4's point that most of this board seems to use TLN's guide as a sole [un-updated] resource is probably the most accurate.

Must have missed that one when I made the thread I went to work right after and it took me this long to be bothered to comment.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-09, 12:22 AM
Wow, that's way better than the cookies I usually get. AWESOME! :smallbiggrin:

glad you liked ^_^

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-09, 12:28 AM
I think you've gotten responses, they're just mixed in with the debate.

OW4's point that most of this board seems to use TLN's guide as a sole [un-updated] resource is probably the most accurate.

Yes. I agree that my point is the most accurate. :smallwink:

UserClone
2007-11-09, 08:40 PM
I think my statement to Dalboz of Gurth could be best summed up as follows:

I recognize and respect your right to form your own opinions about dragons, wizards, D&D, flying castles filled with fairy ponies, et al.
I recognize and resent your feeble attempts to present and have them accepted as facts. Sugart*ts.