PDA

View Full Version : [3.5]Hyper-Lethal Campaigns?



arguskos
2008-10-18, 09:05 PM
This is a question to one and all: would you play in a level 7 campaign that was pretty much a dungeoncrawl, every level and area of which is defended by Tucker's Kobolds (obligatory link (http://www.tuckerskobolds.com/))?

You would be warned ahead of time of the dangers (read: before the campaign even began). The DM can probably optimize better than you can, and discourages severe cheese. Tome of Battle is banned, as is anything with LA/HD. Raise Dead magic does not exist. You would have a total of three characters. Your goal: finish the dungeon, slay the dragon at the end. That's it.

So, would you play in this game? Or not?

-argus

streakster
2008-10-18, 09:20 PM
This is a question to one and all: would you play in a level 7 campaign that was pretty much a dungeoncrawl, every level and area of which is defended by Tucker's Kobolds (obligatory link (http://www.tuckerskobolds.com/))?

You would be warned ahead of time of the dangers (read: before the campaign even began). The DM can probably optimize better than you can, and discourages severe cheese. Tome of Battle is banned, as is anything with LA/HD. Raise Dead magic does not exist. You would have a total of three characters. Your goal: finish the dungeon, slay the dragon at the end. That's it.

So, would you play in this game? Or not?

-argus

Sure, I suppose. DFA in the house! Of course, the "Oddly enough, you have a dozen brothers, all of whom arrive to take your place and avenge you once you die" rule would help, but whatever.

BTW, why is ToB banned?

EvilElitest
2008-10-18, 09:20 PM
i would but i've done it before. Tough but satisfying
from
EE

Irreverent Fool
2008-10-18, 09:22 PM
BTW, why is ToB banned?

Because nobody wants a martial character to even remotely compare to a full spellcaster.

No, I wouldn't play. The game sounds great, but arbitrary banning of a book is irritating.

arguskos
2008-10-18, 09:24 PM
BTW, why is ToB banned?
I personally dislike Tome of Battle, and I've had several bad experiences with players outclassing the rest of the party, both on purpose and on accident, using it. I can and will make individual exceptions, but I need a good reason (a character reason, not a "it'll make my build better" one).


Because nobody wants a martial character to even remotely compare to a full spellcaster.

No, I wouldn't play. The game sounds great, but arbitrary banning of a book is irritating.
Before you fly of the handle against someone's decision, perhaps you should hear all the facts. I for one don't allow casters to dominate either, for any reason. If a wizard is dominating every encounter, I ask him or her to please tone it down somewhat, so the other players can have their time in the lime-light. In my personal experience, Tome of Battle has overshadowed a vast number of my games, both on purpose and not. For that reason, I tend to restrict access to it.

-argus

EvilElitest
2008-10-18, 09:24 PM
Because nobody wants a martial character to even remotely compare to a full spellcaster.

No, I wouldn't play. The game sounds great, but arbitrary banning of a book is irritating.

good point actually
from
EE

FMArthur
2008-10-18, 09:27 PM
Sure, I suppose. DFA in the house! Of course, the "Oddly enough, you have a dozen brothers, all of whom arrive to take your place and avenge you once you die" rule would help, but whatever.

BTW, why is ToB banned?

Because the fighter needs to have little enough to do that he's willing to order and pay for the pizza.

Tengu_temp
2008-10-18, 09:31 PM
(a character reason, not a "it'll make my build better" one)


And yet, if warned beforehand that a campaign is going to be ultra-tough, most people would try to make my build as strong as possible - just to be able to survive. Don't you see a discrapancy here? Not to mention that level 7 is roughly the border where casters start to make everyone else feel completely useless.

I wouldn't play in such a campaign, because if the DM bans ToB and LA races, but not wizards and clerics, he probably has no idea what is balanced and what isn't and therefore I'd question his ability to provide the proper (which, in this case, means "extreme") challenge.

streakster
2008-10-18, 09:31 PM
If a wizard is dominating every encounter, I ask him or her to please tone it down somewhat, so the other players can have their time in the lime-light. In my personal experience, Tome of Battle has overshadowed a vast number of my games, both on purpose and not. For that reason, I tend to restrict access to it.

-argus

Not to cause trouble, but would not the logical response then be to apply the same response to the ToB classes? Asking them to turn it down a notch if they're causing trouble?



I wouldn't play in such a campaign, because if the DM bans ToB and LA races, but not wizards and clerics,

And Druids.

arguskos
2008-10-18, 09:34 PM
I got what I needed. Thanks to those that gave an answer.

-argus

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2008-10-18, 09:41 PM
I'd probably give it a shot. I would make a Dread Necromancer with the feats Tomb-Tainted Soul, Versatile Spellcaster, and Frightful Presence, and a Ghostly Visage familiar. The familiar would always be over my character's face so that any opponents who looked at him would become paralyzed, taking a -2 for being Shaken if they're within my Frightful Presence. I'd be able to use Animate Dead on their corpses and have those minions deliver CDGs on any of them who are paralyzed. I'd have a few skeletons or zombies carrying tower shields and using them as total cover to block opponents from attacking my character. I'd be able to heal myself and my minions to full HP between fights with my at-will negative energy touch. As for the dragon at the end, my undead minions could keep it occupied while I debuff it and then spam Enervation every round until it dies, and then animate its corpse too.

SoD
2008-10-19, 02:24 AM
I'd probably give it a shot. I would make a Dread Necromancer with the feats Tomb-Tainted Soul, Versatile Spellcaster, and Frightful Presence, and a Ghostly Visage familiar. The familiar would always be over my character's face so that any opponents who looked at him would become paralyzed, taking a -2 for being Shaken if they're within my Frightful Presence. I'd be able to use Animate Dead on their corpses and have those minions deliver CDGs on any of them who are paralyzed. I'd have a few skeletons or zombies carrying tower shields and using them as total cover to block opponents from attacking my character. I'd be able to heal myself and my minions to full HP between fights with my at-will negative energy touch. As for the dragon at the end, my undead minions could keep it occupied while I debuff it and then spam Enervation every round until it dies, and then animate its corpse too.

Dragon: oh dear, I'm being hassled by a bunch of dead things. Oh, hang on...that guy is casting spells at me. Hey! Enervation! That's not fair! I think I'll just let him keep on casting spells at me, while I try and kill these things he's controlling.

Tempest Fennac
2008-10-19, 02:47 AM
What sort of bad experiences have you had with ToB, arguskos? Apart from Undead characters spamming a Setting Sun Ninja ability and the "Infinite Damage Crusader" trick, I've heard that the classes are fine and that they often aren;t on the same level as full casters. I know you have enough information, but I probably wouldn't like this sort of game due to prefering RP to combat scenarios (and I prefer starting at level 1 due to getting confused during character creation :smalltongue:).

WitchSlayer
2008-10-19, 02:54 AM
Tuckers Kobolds eh? I'd probably go warlock, entropic shield, summon swarm, maybe a few other various things.

Icewalker
2008-10-19, 03:27 AM
Yeah, I'd definitely play it. Sounds awesome. Tactical combat is always much more interesting.

Although, if it was run as a play by post I probably wouldn't, because combat is REALLY hard to run when the details like exact location are necessary, and with all kinds of tactical tricks and long continuous battles it'd probably get too hard to keep track of pretty quickly. At least in my experience.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-19, 03:44 AM
You would be warned ahead of time of the dangers (read: before the campaign even began). The DM can probably optimize better than you can, and discourages severe cheese. Tome of Battle is banned, as is anything with LA/HD. Raise Dead magic does not exist.

Actually, this sounds like a DM who's being a jerk. Aside from the arbitrary ban here, he's essentially saying that he will optimize more heavily than he'll allow you to, and that he will get the party killed and they can't complain because he warned them.

So no, I would not play this, and such statements would also discourage me from playing anything else with that DM. Anyone who tries to turn D&D into a contest between DM and players is completely missing a number of points.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2008-10-19, 03:50 AM
Dragon: oh dear, I'm being hassled by a bunch of dead things. Oh, hang on...that guy is casting spells at me. Hey! Enervation! That's not fair! I think I'll just let him keep on casting spells at me, while I try and kill these things he's controlling.
I said they'd keep it occupied while I debuff it, then spam Enervation. Plus DN gets Disguise as a class skill, so he could easily make himself appear to be just another one of the many undead, considering the dragon would take a distance penalty to spot through it. Or disguise several undead as adventurers who could be a viable threat. Spells like (Split) Ray of Exhaustion and Ray of Enfeeblement will make its melee attacks nearly useless, and with Fire in the Blood and False Life active it's sure to abandon any melee efforts on this character. The dragon is then left with its own spells and a breath attack, against a Split Ray Enervation every round, possibly skipping a round every breath to use an Inflict spell to heal up or to recast False Life.

Comet
2008-10-19, 04:01 AM
anyone who tries to turn D&D into a contest between DM and players is completely missing a number of points.

I dont think that's what this is about. As long as he's being completely honest about it to the players (as he seems to be) and gives them a fair warning beforehand, it's completely OK to make an adventure that borders on the impossible. Make note, however, that it should still be doable and not an auto TPK. Or if it is a TPK scenario, the players should be able to make their characters pass onto greener pastures with as much style as they want. Failing can be fun too if handled correctly.

I would play. Impossible scenarios are exciting, even moreso if I actually manage to survive. Never tried ToB, so the lack thereof wouldn't bother me either.

Behold_the_Void
2008-10-19, 04:31 AM
Not on your life. It sounds anathema to just about everything I feel constitutes a good game.

Eldariel
2008-10-19, 04:40 AM
I'd play in a hyper-lethal campaign. However, it assumes an excellent DM to know how to create the game at just the right difficulty. Also, it, more than any other, takes a balanced party. Wizard + Cleric + Druid with Cleric picking Kobold-domain for Trapfinding seems quite solid (Cleric needs to be a DMM-build persisting Party Buffs, of course).

Alternatively, Wizard could be replaced by an Archivist, Artificer or a sufficiently twinked out second Cleric. I'd probably prefer a Wizard for the familiar though - then just twink out the Familiar and the AC and go to town. However, that party could make things less lethal. Really, the most lethal you could get is playing a low stat low magic Warrior-campaign. They'd truly go through hell if Kobolds were harassing them.

Grey Paladin
2008-10-19, 06:09 AM
And yet, if warned beforehand that a campaign is going to be ultra-tough, most people would try to make my build as strong as possible - just to be able to survive. Don't you see a discrapancy here? Not to mention that level 7 is roughly the border where casters start to make everyone else feel completely useless.

I wouldn't play in such a campaign, because if the DM bans ToB and LA races, but not wizards and clerics, he probably has no idea what is balanced and what isn't and therefore I'd question his ability to provide the proper (which, in this case, means "extreme") challenge.

^++;
The only semi-logical explanation for your banning of ToB in a H&S campaign is severe resting restrictions . . which cause Wizards and Clerics to do everything for a few encounters while everyone else sit and look pretty, until they run out of spells and the roles are switched. This seems like horrible design for a Table-top game, leading to half of your players doing nothing half of the time.

jcsw
2008-10-19, 08:05 AM
I'd play a Kobold who is good at disguises!

Satyr
2008-10-19, 08:19 AM
If you want a campaign without the tome of battle classes (which I can understand, they are too flashy for some gaming styles), and still want that non-spellcasters can contribute, allow them to be created as gestalt characters so that you can either play a spellcaster or a gestalt character. That is not completely balanced (the spellcasters are probably still more powerful) but the difference is not as harsh.

Epinephrine
2008-10-19, 10:31 AM
Sounds fun.

I don't mind banning ToB, especially at low levels. The ToB is front loaded, and casting classes typically backloaded, so at level 7ish the ToB characters will be much stronger than typical melee, which is already pretty close to caster power levels - especially in an environment in which you can't rest easily, since the kobolds can harrass you in shifts.

That said, for mid-levels and not being able to rest easily, classes like the ToB melee, the binder, warlock, and other classes that don't run out of steam are probably good for survival.

J-H
2008-10-19, 11:43 AM
I would play.
Not being familiar with all of the magic stuff in detail, I'd go with a Rogue (1 or 2 levels) + Monk + Weightless Foot. The high speed, good saves, and ability to run on walls and across water/etc. should be helpful for getting over barricades and catching enemies before they can run.

I'd say you'd want to give the party a bit more money than WBL for a dungeon like that.

Saph
2008-10-19, 12:05 PM
I'd play. I like a challenge.

I really don't mind if the DM bans ToB, or anything else for that matter. If you're good at building characters, you should be able to adapt to any set of allowed books.

- Saph

Proven_Paradox
2008-10-19, 03:25 PM
What exactly do you do to keep casters in line? Your answer to this would determine whether or not I would be willing to play. Also, I would -not- be willing to play anything but a full caster--I've played with the Tome of Battle and loved every aspect of it; melee outside of the Tome of Battle is simply boring to me afterwards.

The book's not for everyone or every game, but I don't want to be limited to "I try to hit it" every round ever again.

Irreverent Fool
2008-10-19, 03:38 PM
I'd play. I like a challenge.

I really don't mind if the DM bans ToB, or anything else for that matter. If you're good at building characters, you should be able to adapt to any set of allowed books.

- Saph

I agree. It's entirely reasonable to disallow any books, but one generally appreciates a reason.

arguskos:
I didn't fly off the handle. I was tempted to, but simply stated my case about arbitrarily banning books. If you'd even said you didn't like the flavor that would have been reason enough. (I like the mechanics quite a bit but not the flavor.)

You may want to ban Duskblades as well, if you're worried about a martial character overshadowing the party.

I've played a warblade up to about 16th level and have played in parties as other characters alongside martial adepts. I've also played in regular parties and been overshadowed at times by other classes. I understand why someone wouldn't want to allow the book, but I also understand that there is no reason to play a traditional martial class from the available classes outside of ToB outside of perhaps a frenzied berserker or an ubercharger (what Paradox said). As this is off-topic, I won't continue.

Don't go flaming like that, please. Maybe I could have been a bit more diplomatic, but you asked if we'd play in such a game and I gave you my answer, which isn't dissimilar from a possible answer one might expect from any prospective group of players.

If you ask me if that dress makes you look fat, I'm going to tell you. Don't ask if you don't want an answer.

Innis Cabal
2008-10-19, 03:57 PM
I personally dislike Tome of Battle, and I've had several bad experiences with players outclassing the rest of the party, both on purpose and on accident, using it. I can and will make individual exceptions, but I need a good reason (a character reason, not a "it'll make my build better" one).


Before you fly of the handle against someone's decision, perhaps you should hear all the facts. I for one don't allow casters to dominate either, for any reason. If a wizard is dominating every encounter, I ask him or her to please tone it down somewhat, so the other players can have their time in the lime-light. In my personal experience, Tome of Battle has overshadowed a vast number of my games, both on purpose and not. For that reason, I tend to restrict access to it.

-argus

Then i'd simply not play with you as a DM. No offense, but I dislike a DM jumping in and telling me to stop playing my character the way I want simply because the other people are not getting their share of the lime light, a better option would be to sit down with the other players and find a way to fix that problem, or even better yet, have all the players sit down and talk out team work

On topic, no, becuase I hate a game you arn't intended to win, I like enjoying my game time.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-19, 04:30 PM
This is a question to one and all: would you play in a level 7 campaign that was pretty much a dungeoncrawl, every level and area of which is defended by Tucker's Kobolds (obligatory link (http://www.tuckerskobolds.com/))?

You would be warned ahead of time of the dangers (read: before the campaign even began). The DM can probably optimize better than you can, and discourages severe cheese. Tome of Battle is banned, as is anything with LA/HD. Raise Dead magic does not exist. You would have a total of three characters. Your goal: finish the dungeon, slay the dragon at the end. That's it.

So, would you play in this game? Or not?

-argus

Define Cheese. Because if he bans ToB than he might not have same definition as most of population of this and WotC board.

I'd play as long as he didn't ban cheese arbitarily.

only1doug
2008-10-20, 08:06 AM
Wizard7,
energy resistance (fire) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resistEnergy.htm)
protection from arrows. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromArrows.htm)

crossbow + lots of bolts

what kobolds?

Epinephrine
2008-10-20, 08:13 AM
Wizard7,
energy resistance (fire) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resistEnergy.htm)
protection from arrows. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromArrows.htm)

crossbow + lots of bolts

what kobolds?

Cute, but I'm sure that they also have spikes, acid, falling blocks, pits that can fill with water, rooms they can seal off and light fires in (sure, no damage to the wizard from the flames, but you run out of oxygen pretty fast), ways to isolate players with sliding walls, followed by a wave of swarm-fighting kobold grapplers against the weak targets...

It's not hard to be creative enough to make it a nightmare.

only1doug
2008-10-20, 08:39 AM
Cute, but I'm sure that they also have spikes, acid, falling blocks, pits that can fill with water, rooms they can seal off and light fires in (sure, no damage to the wizard from the flames, but you run out of oxygen pretty fast), ways to isolate players with sliding walls, followed by a wave of swarm-fighting kobold grapplers against the weak targets...

It's not hard to be creative enough to make it a nightmare.

but the reason Tuckers was a problem is because the players rushed from area to area under the threat of the kobolds.
if the kobolds can't hurt the players then they don't rush and the rogue can remove all the traps, disable the doors that seal the rooms/isolate players.

Tuckers was a nightmare because the players refused to prepare and then ran into traps.

a standard party (rogue, fighter, healer, wizard) could easily deal with tuckers kobolds as long as the caster buffs them.

make the party small sized (gnomes or halflings) and we don't even have a problem with narrow corridors.

Its not that hard to be prepared enough to overcome the dangers (if you know to expect them).

Edit: the rogue in my group was relieved when he got enough ranks in spot to be able to take a 10 on spot trap and still hit 25, now when we travel in dungeons he is assumed to always be spotting (taking 10) this slows our travel speed but avoids most traps. (and yes he does still get caught in some)
My group always has at least one caster with resist energy or resist energy mass prepared.

Eldritch_Ent
2008-10-20, 08:54 AM
No, I would not play in this game. First, you banned ToB, which is a fine book and you should be ashamed. Second, it smacks of a "GM VS PC" game, and more an excuse to do TPK's to parties that are less than full powered... And they will be, because you apparently don't allow optimization up to the point you can. So, no.

Person_Man
2008-10-20, 08:58 AM
I have played in such a game. I was a Bard in a moderately optimized party. At the first opportunity (after about half a dozen traps) we captured a Kobold, and I convinced him (Diplomacy, bribes, promises of more bribes after we had beaten the dungeon) to join our party and help us, under the condition that we wouldn't kill any of his former dungeon mates. From then on we knew where and what most of the traps were, but still had to defeat them (not as easy as you'd think it would be), and managed to survive with only one casualty.

And it was very fun.

The key to such games is that you have to think outside the box. Use Skills a lot. Be prepared with lots of utility spells (especially Divination) and use them. Be diplomatic with your enemies. Have an easy way to knock down or Earth Glide through walls, bypassing main corridors. Summon a lot, (or just buy a lot of trained dogs) and let your critters set off traps for you. The difference between D&D and a video game is that you can make stuff up as you go in D&D. That is the only way to get through a Tucker campaign.

Of course, if the DM just openly announces "I've created something so horrible you can't possibly kill it," then he's probably just trying to kill you. If that's the case, just announce that your party has decided not to confront such an obviously dangerous dungeon, and will go somewhere else to adventure. No one can beat the damn crab (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57301).

Andras
2008-10-20, 09:02 AM
...so how is this different from a normal campaign? :smalltongue:

It sounds like a lot of you just have a different playstyle. Both myself and the other DM I play with run highly lethal campaigns, TOB banned, mostly core. It stays balanced because both of us know core enough to nip potential problems in the bud and because the other players either don't know enough to break anything or don't want to screw up the game to make themselves better.

only1doug
2008-10-20, 09:30 AM
one long term GM i Had delighted in killing off PC's, it made his evening. as a result we all made characters that could survive solo for long enough for assistance to reach them and we were paranoid when moving through dungeons.

It was an entertaining playstyle once you got used to it.
Tuckers players would have been TPK'd a lot.

Oslecamo
2008-10-20, 10:29 AM
No, I would not play in this game. First, you banned ToB, which is a fine book and you should be ashamed. Second, it smacks of a "GM VS PC" game, and more an excuse to do TPK's to parties that are less than full powered... And they will be, because you apparently don't allow optimization up to the point you can. So, no.

Wow, it makes one wonder how anyone could play D&D before ToB came out.

Seriously, splatbooks are nice, but core has everything you need to make effecient characters. No, you cannot kill the kobolds by throwing your weapon like a boomerang with just core. That doesn't mean that you cannot draw your bow and rain death over them.

Epinephrine
2008-10-20, 10:37 AM
Wow, it makes one wonder how anyone could play D&D before ToB came out.

Seriously, splatbooks are nice, but core has everything you need to make effecient characters. No, you cannot kill the kobolds by throwing your weapon like a boomerang with just core. That doesn't mean that you cannot draw your bow and rain death over them.

I somewhat agree - I like ToB, and it's fun, but you don't need it to have a good game. For one thing, if ToB is in use, you can pretty much expect that foes will be using it too. If they don't, you're getting off way too easy. It's up to the DM to keep things under control, to keep players somewhat balanced with one another, and it can be done without the ToB.

Eldariel
2008-10-20, 10:52 AM
I guess his point is that ToB should have been Core. Like half of the PHB is the spells. They forgot to include Warriors' part.

Saph
2008-10-20, 11:20 AM
Well, yeah, but you can manage without it. I mean, ToB has 3 base classes. The other splatbooks between them have how many, 100? You can work around it.

- Saph

RukiTanuki
2008-10-20, 12:59 PM
If I understand correctly, the reasoning being put forth is this:

Out of several commonly held viewpoints regarding class balance in D&D, the explanations given to defend the statement "ToB is overpowered" reflect a take on D&D balance that may clash with alternate viewpoints. Some players may prefer a DM whose view of class balance more closely aligns with their own. This does not inherently imply that alternative views are somehow less valid.

Personally, my preferred power level of D&D would be somewhere near what you'd get if you dropped Core and ran ToB + XPH. (I didn't run 3.5 that way because I liked to give my players options, my casters didn't overrun the party through inexperience or choice, and I would have had to reflavor the aforementioned two books to have more in common.) Given a choice, I'd probably avoid playing with someone who thought those two books were overpowered, since it's likely we wouldn't see eye-to-eye on a lot more than that.

How's that? :)

Oslecamo
2008-10-20, 01:01 PM
I guess his point is that ToB should have been Core. Like half of the PHB is the spells. They forgot to include Warriors' part.

Yeah! And psionics! And Tome of Magic! And Savage species! Don't book of Exalted deeds+Book of Vile darnkess! Wait, I think the core books just crushed the D&D development team to dead.

And anyway, if half the PHB is spells, the other half is melee combat rules, melee feats and weapons+armor.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-20, 01:09 PM
I've played a Barbarian. I've played a Warblade. The Warblade was a lot more fun, while the Barbarian was a lot more boring by later sessions. The difference was so great that I'll never run a Barbarian again. That's why people hate not having ToB. It makes melee much more interesting.

Oslecamo
2008-10-20, 01:12 PM
I've played a Barbarian. I've played a Warblade. The Warblade was a lot more fun, while the Barbarian was a lot more boring by later sessions. The difference was so great that I'll never run a Barbarian again. That's why people hate not having ToB. It makes melee much more interesting.

For you maybe. Not for everyone.

Proven_Paradox
2008-10-20, 04:34 PM
I'd still like to know what exactly the original poster would to do reign in casters. That would do a lot to clarify whether or not I would want to play with them.

Cuddly
2008-10-20, 04:53 PM
Actually, this sounds like a DM who's being a jerk. Aside from the arbitrary ban here, he's essentially saying that he will optimize more heavily than he'll allow you to, and that he will get the party killed and they can't complain because he warned them.

So no, I would not play this, and such statements would also discourage me from playing anything else with that DM. Anyone who tries to turn D&D into a contest between DM and players is completely missing a number of points.

This is the same feeling I got, whether or not argusoks realized what he was saying.

Cuddly
2008-10-20, 05:03 PM
...so how is this different from a normal campaign? :smalltongue:

It sounds like a lot of you just have a different playstyle. Both myself and the other DM I play with run highly lethal campaigns, TOB banned, mostly core. It stays balanced because both of us know core enough to nip potential problems in the bud and because the other players either don't know enough to break anything or don't want to screw up the game to make themselves better.

I think that's such crap. If my warrior is in a dark and desolate world where everything is trying to kill him, you better bet the warrior will want to get better at not dying.

Those sort of lethal games tend to be run by DMs that don't tell you stuff your character would know, or they just make stuff up in case you figured a way around something that would really make the encounter easier.

Eldariel
2008-10-20, 05:06 PM
Yeah! And psionics! And Tome of Magic! And Savage species! Don't book of Exalted deeds+Book of Vile darnkess! Wait, I think the core books just crushed the D&D development team to dead.

You're missing the point. ToB fixes something. The others add something. Big difference.


And anyway, if half the PHB is spells, the other half is melee combat rules, melee feats and weapons+armor.

Those rules have just as much to do with spellcasting as with melee. And equipment too. And feats. Also, I think I'm missing your point here. This doesn't seem to have any relevance whatsoever to anything.

Epinephrine
2008-10-20, 05:08 PM
You're missing the point. ToB fixes something. The others add something.

Umm, so the ToB doesn't add anything? All the ToB does is add things. It doesn't change the way being a fighter works, it just adds new mechanics for new classes.

Saying the ToB fixes something is subjective. It's exactly like the other books.

Cainen
2008-10-20, 05:24 PM
Then i'd simply not play with you as a DM. No offense, but I dislike a DM jumping in and telling me to stop playing my character the way I want simply because the other people are not getting their share of the lime light

But you're the one who's causing the problem by playing something overpowered and refusing to share. You're forcing the others to play a certain type of character or be entirely useless.

You don't see how that could be a problem?

Neon Knight
2008-10-20, 05:30 PM
But you're the one who's causing the problem by playing something overpowered and refusing to share. You're forcing the others to play a certain type of character or be entirely useless.

You don't see how that could be a problem?

Now, hold on there a moment. There's a difference between somebody playing something overpowered and somebody playing a competent individual who doesn't overpower CRs of his level, but happens to adventure with a pixie monk and thus outperforms him. We don't have any more information about the situation, so placing blame on one party is foolish at best.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-20, 05:32 PM
I somewhat agree - I like ToB, and it's fun, but you don't need it to have a good game. For one thing, if ToB is in use, you can pretty much expect that foes will be using it too. If they don't, you're getting off way too easy. It's up to the DM to keep things under control, to keep players somewhat balanced with one another, and it can be done without the ToB.

I don't think it was balance-based, since ToB is still worse then casters. I think it's just interest-based. Since, well, melee pretty much is "Take a trick and use it over and over and over again" and since that trick is feat or class feature based, you /can't/ switch it.


Now, hold on there a moment. There's a difference between somebody playing something overpowered and somebody playing a competent individual who doesn't overpower CRs of his level, but happens to adventure with a pixie monk and thus outperforms him. We don't have any more information about the situation, so placing blame on one party is foolish at best.

To be fair, he didn't display any particular caring for /why/ he was doing better then they were.

Eldariel
2008-10-20, 05:34 PM
Umm, so the ToB doesn't add anything? All the ToB does is add things. It doesn't change the way being a fighter works, it just adds new mechanics for new classes.

Yes, that pretty much can be used over the old classes to better effect. How is that not fixing something? They can't exactly go and rewrite the Core (since the magnitude of errata it would require simply would require new books - that's what was expected out of 4E, but they made a new game instead), but they can release alternatives for people to use.


Saying the ToB fixes something is subjective. It's exactly like the other books.

ToB gives you a bunch of new frontliners that are very close to the PHB classes in their mechanical aspects, except with a system of abilities. Coincidentially, they happen to be very close to the PHB classes without any system behind them. And the other PHB classes happen to have a system behind them. Seems like a logical change to be honest.

What other book just took a subsection of PHB (in this case, non-spellcasting classes), gave it a revamp and shipped it back? Not Tome of Magic, Expanded Psionics Handbook or Magic of Incarnum for sure. They all either add roles that don't really exist in PHB (Binder, Shadowcaster, any meldshapers) or write a system and toss one class using that system into each role (Expanded Psionics Handbook).


I don't really get what's so subjective about that - do some people consider Fighter a spellcasting class? Or Fighter, Monk, Wizard & Sorcerer a natural subsection of PHB classes?

Oslecamo
2008-10-20, 05:40 PM
What other book just took a subsection of PHB (in this case, non-spellcasting classes), gave it a revamp and shipped it back? Not Tome of Magic, Expanded Psionics Handbook or Magic of Incarnum for sure. They all either add roles that don't really exist in PHB (Binder, Shadowcaster, any meldshapers) or write a system and toss one class using that system into each role (Expanded Psionics Handbook).


There's plenty of people who think that psionics is the way that magic should have been done in the first place. I'm not one of them, however Magic of Incarnum and Tome of Magic both add new mechanics, just as ToB. You may not like them, but it doesn't change the fact that they're completely diferent from the core magic.

ToB doesn't fix anything. It adds new options. Including two completely broken ones(1d2 crusader and arcane swordsage).

Neon Knight
2008-10-20, 05:43 PM
There's plenty of people who think that psionics is the way that magic should have been done in the first place. I'm not one of them, however Magic of Incarnum and Tome of Magic both add new mechanics, just as ToB. You may not like them, but it doesn't change the fact that they're completely diferent from the core magic.

ToB doesn't fix anything. It adds new options. Including two completely broken ones(1d2 crusader and arcane swordsage).

To be fair, arcane swordsage is a suggestion in an adaption paragraph, hardly a statted out alternative class feature like you might find in PHB II.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-20, 05:44 PM
There's plenty of people who think that psionics is the way that magic should have been done in the first place. I'm not one of them, however Magic of Incarnum and Tome of Magic both add new mechanics, just as ToB. You may not like them, but it doesn't change the fact that they're completely diferent from the core magic.

ToB doesn't fix anything. It adds new options. Including two completely broken ones(1d2 crusader and arcane swordsage).

The 1d2 crusader and Arcane Swordsage are still weaker then Wiz20 core, so not that broken. And stopping, particularly, the former, is significantly easier then making Wizards roughly balanced since *The entire spell selection* past 7th level is just hella nasty.

Eldariel
2008-10-20, 05:50 PM
There's plenty of people who think that psionics is the way that magic should have been done in the first place. I'm not one of them, however Magic of Incarnum and Tome of Magic both add new mechanics, just as ToB. You may not like them, but it doesn't change the fact that they're completely diferent from the core magic.

I like them. It's not about that. This has nothing to do with likes or dislikes, but the role of the books. And yes, while Psionics could have replaced Magic, they didn't build XPH in a way that would enable it (since there're no "divine psionicists" nor "nature psionicists" - half the core casters lack psionic counterparts). Of course they're new systems. They just don't fall into the PHB-pack like ToB does. Sans Psionics, which would have been written differently had replacing Magic been the goal.


ToB doesn't fix anything. It adds new options. Including two completely broken ones(1d2 crusader and arcane swordsage).

Whoopedoo, one broken adaptation with no real mechanics to support it, and one fringe combo with Complete Champion that doesn't even work by strict reading. What does this have to do with anything? Sure, it adds new options, but those options just conveniently happen to fall into the spot of Core that lacks such mechanics.

Oslecamo
2008-10-20, 05:58 PM
The 1d2 crusader and Arcane Swordsage are still weaker then Wiz20 core, so not that broken. And stopping, particularly, the former, is significantly easier then making Wizards roughly balanced since *The entire spell selection* past 7th level is just hella nasty.

Arcane swordsage:time stop at will. Win.

Wizard: death ward, freedom of movement, summon minions, gate minions, charm minions, 3 weeks of crafting, wands of knock, shapechange, mormekdain's mansion, divination, astral projection. Just to get out of your secret hideout. Now actually wining with 100% sucess rate will take 120 more pages of strategy.

And then the fighter takes out his candle of invocation and the rogue makes a Knowledge chek of DC 30 on the right subject and they also get infinite power.

Wanna play cheesy? Everybody can do it. Just optimize enough and even the comoner can enter godlike mode.

So claiming it's weaker than a super optimized Wizard20 it's a blatant lie, because EVERYTHING will be super powerfull if you optimize it enough.

Eldariel:Sooo, you're willing to reflavor ToB classes, but you're not willing to reflavor psionics. Lovely. What can I say? You're willing rule zero ToB, and not anything else, how can I win this discussion?

DM Raven
2008-10-20, 05:58 PM
I would play, sounds like fun.

I don't dislike the Tome of Battle because it makes melee classes overpowered (casters are still better overall in 3.x), I dislike it because it forces me to outfit all my NPC with abilities from the Tome of Battle else they become super-nerfed when compared to the PCs. The issue is less of balance and more of me being lazy.

I also dislike it because it makes any melee character that doesn't take abilities from the TOB extremely nerfed when compared to those that do...and I'm talking about PC wise...

Starbuck_II
2008-10-20, 06:02 PM
Arcane swordsage:time stop at will. Win.

I doth declare you are reading that wrong.
Time Stop becomes a manuever so you could only use after regaining.
And you can't do anything in time stop since you have few buffs if you read the Adaptation literally.
You get Touch attacks/buffs (and only those 3 schools listed)

RPGuru1331
2008-10-20, 06:13 PM
Oh, right. OP. No, sorry. Thats pretty much just a game of optimizing and such. Video games do video game tasks better, as far as I'm concerned, so I would stick to one of htem.

Eldariel
2008-10-20, 06:40 PM
Eldariel:Sooo, you're willing to reflavor ToB classes, but you're not willing to reflavor psionics. Lovely. What can I say? You're willing rule zero ToB, and not anything else, how can I win this discussion?

Reflavour? No, that's not the problem. Just the fact that Psionics lacks the whole divine side of Magic. That is, no powers exist for same magnitude of healing, restoration, mass buffing, etc. And no class exists to use those powers. Basically, the arcane side meshes up pretty well (although then there's Psychic Warrior and Soulknife which don't fall into the arcanist slots), but that doesn't allow replacing the whole magic, while ToB pretty much takes the whole non-spellcasting half of the PHB and fits in seamlessly.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-20, 07:44 PM
Reflavour? No, that's not the problem. Just the fact that Psionics lacks the whole divine side of Magic. That is, no powers exist for same magnitude of healing, restoration, mass buffing, etc. And no class exists to use those powers. Basically, the arcane side meshes up pretty well (although then there's Psychic Warrior and Soulknife which don't fall into the arcanist slots), but that doesn't allow replacing the whole magic, while ToB pretty much takes the whole non-spellcasting half of the PHB and fits in seamlessly.

First, Healing, restoration and some buffs are Psionic powers. XPH and Complete Psi have it all.

Expand your knowledge please.
Healing:
Empathic Transfer
Body Adjustment
From the Brink (dying only) Immediate action
Mend Wounds
Touch of Healing

Restoration:
Body Purification
Empathic Transfer (can do disease or poisons or ability damage)
Psychic Chirugery (negative levels, etc)
Psionic Revivify: revives targets, no con/level loss.
Reality Revision

And many buffs like PR area powers, etc.

Oslecamo
2008-10-21, 03:46 AM
I doth declare you are reading that wrong.
Time Stop becomes a manuever so you could only use after regaining.
And you can't do anything in time stop since you have few buffs if you read the Adaptation literally.
You get Touch attacks/buffs (and only those 3 schools listed)

How it works:
1-Use time stop.
2-Use first turn of time stop to recover time stop.
3-If it's the last round of time stop, then use again time stop.
4-Now that you have infinite rounds, go pick some rocks around.
5-Put some thousands rocks above your opoent's head. They don't fall because time is super slowed.
6-Stop recycling time stop.
7-Rocks fall, everybody but you dies.

This is the more simple utilization, but basically, your imagination is the limit when you've got infinite time.


Eldariel:Like Starbuck II said, psionic has plenty of healing, restoration.

No wonder you like ToB so much. It has everything perfectly laid and chewed up for you with nice pictures and cool sounding names to acompany it

Psionics has obscure names and ilustrations, so of course you missed all of the "divine" ones that allow you to easily make a psionic cleric or druid.

Eldariel
2008-10-21, 03:58 AM
First, Healing, restoration and some buffs are Psionic powers. XPH and Complete Psi have it all.

Expand your knowledge please.
Healing:
Empathic Transfer
Body Adjustment
From the Brink (dying only) Immediate action
Mend Wounds
Touch of Healing

Restoration:
Body Purification
Empathic Transfer (can do disease or poisons or ability damage)
Psychic Chirugery (negative levels, etc)
Psionic Revivify: revives targets, no con/level loss.
Reality Revision

And many buffs like PR area powers, etc.

I know. None of those are Restoration or Cure though - most only cure yourself and move damage to you - that's not how a divinist operates. Also, none have catch-all cures for status conditions (like Restoration) or heal (like Heal). Touch of Health is the closest - coincidentially, none of the Psionics classes in XPH have access to it. Heck, the power itself doesn't exist in XPH!

I have nothing against using Psionics as Magic. I do it myself! And I like Psionics for their balance and versatility over Magic. However, if the argument is that XPH was made to fix Magic (like ToB was made to fix Melee), I find that hard to believe without any real cure-powers or their users in XPH (and Psychic Chirugery happens to be a level 9 Telepath-only power - if one uses it as an argument that XPH was indeed made to replace Magic, you'd have to assume that they meant for Telepaths to be the Clerics, which seems highly unfounded, especially since they can't perform many of Cleric's functions before level 17). Heck, they didn't add a divine/nature psionicist even in CPsi (Divine Mind is pretty much a Paladin).

Oslecamo
2008-10-21, 04:14 AM
So if ToB was made to fix noncasters, why does the swordsage can shoot fireballs and play nuker and why can the crusader play healer for the party and specially, why there isn't a single ranged combat school out of nine?

Eldariel
2008-10-21, 04:24 AM
So if ToB was made to fix noncasters, why does the swordsage can shoot fireballs and play nuker and why can the crusader play healer for the party and specially, why there isn't a single ranged combat school out of nine?

The latter? A fine question. That said, a Crusader is perfectly proficient with a bow. I suppose they felt melee needed fixing while Archery was fine - also, there's no solely Archery-focused class in the PHB (no, not even Ranger). There is simply no class to replace there.

As for Swordsage? It's the Monk remade. The Monk is just as supernatural (check its abilities - they're all Su), and while Monk needs a feat to blast fireballs (Ki blast in case you're wondering), it's not much of a stretch to give them the ability without a feat, especially since they can already go invisible, ethereal and so on.

BobVosh
2008-10-21, 04:24 AM
So if ToB was made to fix noncasters, why does the swordsage can shoot fireballs and play nuker and why can the crusader play healer for the party and specially, why there isn't a single ranged combat school out of nine?

Because D&D hates range. With a passion.

elliott20
2008-10-21, 04:30 AM
hmm... I wouldn't bother joining myself. The GM's attitude bothers me a little. For one, I'm already not a big fan of the whole tactical combat thing, for another, a GM whose only talent is killing my character seems like a pretty boring guy to play with.

Sure, I can probably hang with the crowd and survive at some level, but quite frankly, it'll get old fast.

on ToB: it's there, it's an option, and if combat is all we're doing, ToB classes have more variety and options and are just more fun. Don't like it? fine, don't use it. I'll figure something else out to play. I mean, it's level 7, we're not at critical mass yet.

BobVosh
2008-10-21, 04:34 AM
Oh forgot to mention my stance on it.

I would play, but only if the DM understands I will treat it as a dungeon crawl. Which is apparently isn't going to happen, with ToB being banned but allowable "if you find a character reason."

Note: I really don't like ToB. I regularly play games with random books banned because the DM doesn't like it for x, or y. I'm just objecting to trying to RP in a semiserious way about a dungeon crawl that is basically character hell. Sounds like a bunch of in char whining fest.

Andras
2008-10-22, 08:38 AM
I think that's such crap. If my warrior is in a dark and desolate world where everything is trying to kill him, you better bet the warrior will want to get better at not dying.

Shockingly enough, sometime between the slaughtering of dozens of mooks, it becomes less and less sensical that nothing would have killed said warrior yet. Following this line of thought tends to lead to high lethality.

It's mostly a matter of leveling the playing field between PCs and things you fight. We don't throw Tarrasques at level 1 or whatever, but we tend to throw encounters that make sense -- e.g., if you rush an enemy stronghold with 4 people and expect to win, you're probably delusional. If a group is terrorizing a region, there's probably a darn good reason why nobody's killed them off yet -- they're hard to kill off. And so on, and so forth.


Those sort of lethal games tend to be run by DMs that don't tell you stuff your character would know, or they just make stuff up in case you figured a way around something that would really make the encounter easier.

You shouldn't make generalizations like that. Neither of those hold true in this case, and most likely don't hold true in a lot of cases. Maybe you should try a game like this with a competent group a few times, so you can have a more objective opinion.