Silliest Material in 3.5e?

[Batcathat]

Let's take two experts:
one have toolbox with ten (Fighter) to fifty (Monk) tools;
other one have toolbox with literal thousands of tools (and keeps getting more at every level up).
In what bizarro world they have a ghost of a chance to "contribute to a roughly equal degree"?
I mean - come on, it's not a rocket science...

Considering it's pretty clear that even the creators didn't realize how massively imbalanced they had made the game, it's hardly surprising if people picking up the game would not immediately realize that it's as balanced as a seesaw with a person on one end and a planetoid on the other.

Not to mention that my comment was in reply to you saying that people complaining about their characters being comparatively worthless shouldn't blame it on the system. Which seems odd, considering it's the system that's giving a massive toolbox to some classes and a broken screwdriver to others.

[danielxcutter]

Considering it's pretty clear that even the creators didn't realize how massively imbalanced they had made the game, it's hardly surprising if people picking up the game would not immediately realize that it's as balanced as a seesaw with a person on one end and a planetoid on the other.

Not to mention that my comment was in reply to you saying that people complaining about their characters being comparatively worthless shouldn't blame it on the system. Which seems odd, considering it's the system that's giving a massive toolbox to some classes and a broken screwdriver to others.

As I have mentioned before, I sometimes doubt that was entirely unintentional, though at the same time I doubt that was entirely intentional either.

[Nifft]

Let's take two experts:
one have toolbox with ten (Fighter) to fifty (Monk) tools;
other one have toolbox with literal thousands of tools (and keeps getting more at every level up).
In what bizarro world they have a ghost of a chance to "contribute to a roughly equal degree"?
I mean - come on, it's not a rocket science...

But the Fighter is proficient with almost every type of weapon and armor.

The Wizard is barely proficient with a handful of weapons and no armor.

(Lots of spells / no armor) vs. (Lots of armor / no spells).

They're equal but different, right?

[Khedrac]

But the Fighter is proficient with almost every type of weapon and armor.

The Wizard is barely proficient with a handful of weapons and no armor.

(Lots of spells / no armor) vs. (Lots of armor / no spells).

They're equal but different, right?

Oddly enough there's something in what you say. Back in the days of 1st Ed AD&D (and early 2nd Ed) the chances of getting the magical properties you needed on a specific type of weapon (other than a longsword) were pretty close to nil - you had to use whatever dropped, so the ability to pick up a random weapon and wield it effectively was very useful.
(Magic marts were a lot less common when there was no pricing structure for magic weapons and the rules for creating them were whatever a DM could dream up.)

Further, back in the AD&D days TSR hasn't noticed that products for DMs could only sell of a sub-set of their player base, while products for players could sell to all of them, so nearly all the products they produced were adventures with just a handful of rule expansion books. This meant that the list of spells for the Wizard to choose from did not dramatically expand every time a new book was published. What's more, when you did come across a new spell there was a chance you couldn't learn it, and there was a maximum number of spells that you could learn and put into your spellbook for each level (learn the wrong spell early and it might stop you learning the one you really wanted later on).
Result: the wizard's toolbox was a lot more limited than in 3rd Ed - it was still a far better toolbox, but the disparity was a lot smaller and didn't keep growing.

[GeoffWatson]

(Magic marts were a lot less common when there was no pricing structure for magic weapons and the rules for creating them were whatever a DM could dream up.)

Really? The DMG had prices for most magic items, and some players and DMs took that to mean you could buy whatever you want.

[Khedrac]

Really? The DMG had prices for most magic items, and some players and DMs took that to mean you could buy whatever you want.

Yes - and again no. There were prices for items but no pricing structure, so you couldn't simply come up with new versions of items or combine them according to formulae.
Knowing the price of a flametongue longsword did not mean you knew the price of a flametongue mace, so if you cannot wield the longsword without a -3 penalty for non-proficiency (don't recall the cleric value, wizards were -6) then your choices are take the penalty or hope the DM drops a custom item at some point.

[Gruftzwerg]

Then why you would even need a drowning-to-heal?
Just IHS the dying away!..

Because you need a standard action to use IHS.. One of the design problems of IHS. It was intended as combat condition breaker, but those where you really need it: "loss of all actions" it doesn't work. Thus you can't IHS the "dying" status. But you may disable the sun if you should ever get sunburn or even suntan.

DM: "You have birthday, you have become old enough for aging eff..."
PC: "IRON HEART SURGEEEEEEE!!"

[MaxiDuRaritry]

SURGEEEEEEE!!

Pronounced "sir-gi."

[noob]

Pronounced "sir-gi."

This pronunciation is effecting me.
I will IHS it away.
After I IHS laziness away.
I will do that someday.

[RedMage125]

Alignments. Alignments are just dumb. It's all legacy stuff from when the game didn't need to make sense, because you were just kicking in doors and stabbing goblinorckobolds. But by the time of 3e, games regularly had narratives that spanned literal years, and there are hundreds of fully fledged novels going on.

And that shines a big old spotlight on just how little sense alignments make.

Alignments as written, if read literally, are definitely dumb.

I never got how this "doesn't make sense" to some people, unless you just didn't read the Core books.

3.5e PHB explicitly states that "Good and Evil are not different points of viw, they are the forces which shape the cosmos".

There are planes suffused with Good/Evil/Law/Chaos.
There are beings literally made of those energies.
These exact same energies can be present in mortal beings. PROOF: The Detect Evil spell detects a specific type of energy. It is the same energy (in different concentration/strength) in a Balor, a +2 Unholy Longsword, and a miserly, bitter old man (Neutral Evil level 1 Commoner).

So...if read literally, alignment is simply which of these energies/forces one is "aligned with". And one's actions (shaped by intent and context) are what determines the amount/concentration of these energies within oneself. That's literally in the PHB/DMG and BoVD/BoED.

Now, if you're going to make a house rule that objective energies of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos do not exist, then sure, alignment isn't going to be a valuable tool, or even make a lot of sense. But that's a deviation from the "default" assumptions of the RAW.

That's not to say deviating from default is bad. Far from it. D&D thrives on customization, and the only "wrong way to play" is when people are not having fun. BUt, just logically, if you deviate from that default assumptions, then mechanics built on those assumptions are not "faulty" or "nonsensical" on their own merits. It is your change which has made them less valuable.

The Monk's capstone ability seems to be written with the assumption that at level 20 you're only ever going to be fighting ordinary low-level monsters and people with non-magical weaponry.

Also, the alignment and multiclass restrictions on Monk are all kind of stupid.

Those restrictions are because of CLASS DESIGN being restrictive.

Spoiler: blocked for space

Show

3.5e was very restrictive in terms of class design. They used very narrow definitions that adhered to very specific archetypes. People would often complain about "why can't I be a non-lawful monk". But they never once complained about features like Still Mind which stemmed from "the hours spent in meditation". The Monk class was only ever meant to be representative of the classic fantasy archetype of a wuxia monk who always meditated and sought "inner peace" and strove for a sort of "inner perfection".
Barbarians are another example. People who complained "why can't I be Lawful?" never seem to ask "why can't I be literate?". Barbarians were meant to ONLY represent savage, tribal people who shun "civilized" trappings, and their Rage was only viewed through the narrow lens of being a sort of "surrender" to savage impulses. I mean, I can come up with a Lawful, literate character concept best served by the Barbarian in terms of class features. Taking a note from L5R, a Hida Clan Dead Eyes Berserker. His "rage" is actually a completely calm state of heightened "battle awareness" that he achieves through hours of meditative focus and exercise. During this time he hits harder and can withstand more physical abuse (STR and CON increases), but at the expense of his ability to defend himself (AC penalty). This state is very taxing, and cannot be sustained long (limited duration and times per day). Such a character still abides by Bushido, and is a samurai of his clan. He would absolutely be Lawful, and absolutely be Literate.

Narrow Class Design is at fault for these restrictions. Yes, alignment was one of the sticks they used to enforce those narrow class designs. You want a Chaotic Monk or Lawful Barbarian (or Bard, I have a concept for a Lawful Bard, too)? Talk with your DM about exceptions. Monk might be better served with some alternate class features (I remember there was a Chaos Monk option in Dragon Magazine, but I do not remember if it was any good or not).

Funny that all the alignment detractors I’ve seen never complained about how restrictive the Cleric class is. That’s the most restrictive class in the PHB. A Cleric MUST be within “one step” alignment from his deity (if he has one). A Cleric may ONLY be True Neutral if his deity is. A Cleric of a deity with a race in their portfolio MUST be of that race (no human clerics of Moradin, for example). In order to take the Good/Evil/Law/Chaos domain, the cleric MUST have that alignment component themself. A Cleric has a powerful alignment aura of their deity’s alignment, not of their own (so a Lawful Neutral Cleric of Hextor radiates a powerful Evil aura, but a LE cleric of Wee Jas only has an Evil aura similar to a regular humanoid of his HD). A cleric may not cast spells with an alignment subtype that opposes their own or their deity’s alignment (LG cleric of Wee Jas cannot cast [Evil] spells, LE cleric of Wee Jas may not cast [Good] spells, but a LN cleric of the same deity can cast both).

[Ottriman]

One of the silliest things of 3e, 3,5 and PF is the monsters basic chassis (BAB, HD, saves, skills, proficiency) being determined by monster type.

Pacifist angel? Good BAB and proficient in a bunch of weapons just because you're an outsider!
War fey? Sorry, your BAB is only half and your HD is just bad in general because Fey.

Should have been based on monster role, not type.

[PraxisVetli]

One of the silliest things of 3e, 3,5 and PF is the monsters basic chassis (BAB, HD, saves, skills, proficiency) being determined by monster type.

Pacifist angel? Good BAB and proficient in a bunch of weapons just because you're an outsider!
War fey? Sorry, your BAB is only half and your HD is just bad in general because Fey.

Should have been based on monster role, not type.

Honestly, Fey should've been an Outsider subtype.
I also think Vermin should've been a subtype too, but eh. That's up there with Giants and Monstrous Humanoids being different things entirely.
WHY?

Edit: wrong 'there' because I never sleep

[hamishspence]

Giant being a subtype of Monstrous Humanoid, works better than Monstrous Humanoid being a subtype of Giant, because many Monstrous Humanoids are not big.

[noob]

I never got how this "doesn't make sense" to some people, unless you just didn't read the Core books.

3.5e PHB explicitly states that "Good and Evil are not different points of viw, they are the forces which shape the cosmos".

There are planes suffused with Good/Evil/Law/Chaos.
There are beings literally made of those energies.
These exact same energies can be present in mortal beings. PROOF: The Detect Evil spell detects a specific type of energy. It is the same energy (in different concentration/strength) in a Balor, a +2 Unholy Longsword, and a miserly, bitter old man (Neutral Evil level 1 Commoner).

So...if read literally, alignment is simply which of these energies/forces one is "aligned with". And one's actions (shaped by intent and context) are what determines the amount/concentration of these energies within oneself. That's literally in the PHB/DMG and BoVD/BoED.

Now, if you're going to make a house rule that objective energies of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos do not exist, then sure, alignment isn't going to be a valuable tool, or even make a lot of sense. But that's a deviation from the "default" assumptions of the RAW.

That's not to say deviating from default is bad. Far from it. D&D thrives on customization, and the only "wrong way to play" is when people are not having fun. BUt, just logically, if you deviate from that default assumptions, then mechanics built on those assumptions are not "faulty" or "nonsensical" on their own merits. It is your change which has made them less valuable.


Those restrictions are because of CLASS DESIGN being restrictive.

Spoiler: blocked for space

Show

3.5e was very restrictive in terms of class design. They used very narrow definitions that adhered to very specific archetypes. People would often complain about "why can't I be a non-lawful monk". But they never once complained about features like Still Mind which stemmed from "the hours spent in meditation". The Monk class was only ever meant to be representative of the classic fantasy archetype of a wuxia monk who always meditated and sought "inner peace" and strove for a sort of "inner perfection".
Barbarians are another example. People who complained "why can't I be Lawful?" never seem to ask "why can't I be literate?". Barbarians were meant to ONLY represent savage, tribal people who shun "civilized" trappings, and their Rage was only viewed through the narrow lens of being a sort of "surrender" to savage impulses. I mean, I can come up with a Lawful, literate character concept best served by the Barbarian in terms of class features. Taking a note from L5R, a Hida Clan Dead Eyes Berserker. His "rage" is actually a completely calm state of heightened "battle awareness" that he achieves through hours of meditative focus and exercise. During this time he hits harder and can withstand more physical abuse (STR and CON increases), but at the expense of his ability to defend himself (AC penalty). This state is very taxing, and cannot be sustained long (limited duration and times per day). Such a character still abides by Bushido, and is a samurai of his clan. He would absolutely be Lawful, and absolutely be Literate.

Narrow Class Design is at fault for these restrictions. Yes, alignment was one of the sticks they used to enforce those narrow class designs. You want a Chaotic Monk or Lawful Barbarian (or Bard, I have a concept for a Lawful Bard, too)? Talk with your DM about exceptions. Monk might be better served with some alternate class features (I remember there was a Chaos Monk option in Dragon Magazine, but I do not remember if it was any good or not).

Funny that all the alignment detractors I’ve seen never complained about how restrictive the Cleric class is. That’s the most restrictive class in the PHB. A Cleric MUST be within “one step” alignment from his deity (if he has one). A Cleric may ONLY be True Neutral if his deity is. A Cleric of a deity with a race in their portfolio MUST be of that race (no human clerics of Moradin, for example). In order to take the Good/Evil/Law/Chaos domain, the cleric MUST have that alignment component themself. A Cleric has a powerful alignment aura of their deity’s alignment, not of their own (so a Lawful Neutral Cleric of Hextor radiates a powerful Evil aura, but a LE cleric of Wee Jas only has an Evil aura similar to a regular humanoid of his HD). A cleric may not cast spells with an alignment subtype that opposes their own or their deity’s alignment (LG cleric of Wee Jas cannot cast [Evil] spells, LE cleric of Wee Jas may not cast [Good] spells, but a LN cleric of the same deity can cast both).

You can be a literate barbarian just spend 2 skill points for that.
You can also be a lawful barbarian: just take the ordered chaos feat.

[Ottriman]

Honestly, Fey should've been an Outsider subtype.
I also think Vermin should've been a subtype too, but eh. That's up their with Giants and Monstrous Humanoids being different things entirely.
WHY?

Giant being a subtype of Monstrous Humanoid, works better than Monstrous Humanoid being a subtype of Giant, because many Monstrous Humanoids are not big.

In general at this point I think 4e did it best. Monsters statted based on role and with special tags to note their origin or type, without huge and silly type variance like Giant, Humanoid and Monstrous humanoid all being separate types.

[Wildstag]

That's up their with Giants and Monstrous Humanoids being different things entirely. WHY?

Well included in Monstrous Humanoids is Tibbits, Centaurs, Goliaths (which are most assuredly NOT giants or giant-kin), and a lot of other weird ones. It's basically just the "they're not explicitly humanoid but don't fit other creature types" option. They're way to diverse to lump them in with Giants.

Really, Giants should just be humanoids, which PF ended up doing.

[hamishspence]

Really, Giants should just be humanoids, which PF ended up doing.

4E too - in 4e all Giants are Humanoids with the Giant subtype.

[Rater202]

Giant should be a subtype that's applied to humanoids or monstrous humanoids, with a note that there are "True" giants like Hill, Frost, Fire, and Storm and "Giantkin" who are hybrids, mutations, an evolutionary cousin, or cases of convergent evolution making an unrelated species "close enough" to count as giant for the sake of things that target the unique traits of giants--these would be your trolls, your ogres, your ogre-mage/oni and so on as well as half-giants. Any class or template that applies the giant subtype that isn't "you're now an X giant."

[PraxisVetli]

Giant should be a subtype that's applied to humanoids or monstrous humanoids, with a note that there are "True" giants like Hill, Frost, Fire, and Storm and "Giantkin" who are hybrids, mutations, an evolutionary cousin, or cases of convergent evolution making an unrelated species "close enough" to count as giant for the sake of things that target the unique traits of giants--these would be your trolls, your ogres, your ogre-mage/oni and so on as well as half-giants. Any class or template that applies the giant subtype that isn't "you're now an X giant."

I could see Dragon getting the same treatment with wyverns and drakes. Yes, True Dragons are different, but the lessers still benefit from most of the benefits. Not sure what changes should be made since I'm AFB, but it'd make a good rainy day project.
I also disagree with non-magical magical beasts not being Animals, like the Owlbear. Nothing about the owlbear is magical. Or Giant Owls. They aren't real creatures, but they aren't magical either.
I see the argument for Giant Eagles, they have the Int score to be separate, but if Dire Bears are Animals, Giant Owls should be too.

[Metastachydium]

I could see Dragon getting the same treatment with wyverns and drakes. Yes, True Dragons are different, but the lessers still benefit from most of the benefits. Not sure what changes should be made since I'm AFB, but it'd make a good rainy day project.
I also disagree with non-magical magical beasts not being Animals, like the Owlbear. Nothing about the owlbear is magical. Or Giant Owls. They aren't real creatures, but they aren't magical either.
I see the argument for Giant Eagles, they have the Int score to be separate, but if Dire Bears are Animals, Giant Owls should be too.

Giant owls have an INT score of 10, same as giant eagles, though.

[PraxisVetli]

Giant owls have an INT score of 10, same as giant eagles, though.

You are correct, dunno what I was thinking.
Counter point, Sea Cat is Int 2 and no magical traits.

[Metastachydium]

You are correct, dunno what I was thinking.
Counter point, Sea Cat is Int 2 and no magical traits.

I suppose magical beast is supposed to cover creatures that don't make much sense unless a wizard did it (through magic!). That being said, „non-magical magical beast” is a weird concept indeed.

[Malphegor]

1 pound of wheat (worth 1 cp) can be crafted into 1.5 ponds of flour (worth 3 cp).

I can’t find that, where’s that madness from?

To contribute to the thread I will posit that by all the rules of logic and sense, a phaerimm half-dragon is not a true dragon in any way. The Phaerimm Half Dragon however doesn’t care for logic and sense and points vaguely at the Draconomicon and then proceeds to take a sovereign archetype (loredrake) anyway.

[danielxcutter]

I could see Dragon getting the same treatment with wyverns and drakes. Yes, True Dragons are different, but the lessers still benefit from most of the benefits. Not sure what changes should be made since I'm AFB, but it'd make a good rainy day project.
I also disagree with non-magical magical beasts not being Animals, like the Owlbear. Nothing about the owlbear is magical. Or Giant Owls. They aren't real creatures, but they aren't magical either.
I see the argument for Giant Eagles, they have the Int score to be separate, but if Dire Bears are Animals, Giant Owls should be too.

True dragons really are a bit different from just having the dragon type though.

I can’t find that, where’s that madness from?

To contribute to the thread I will posit that by all the rules of logic and sense, a phaerimm half-dragon is not a true dragon in any way. The Phaerimm Half Dragon however doesn’t care for logic and sense and points vaguely at the Draconomicon and then proceeds to take a sovereign archetype (loredrake) anyway.

Uh... what? Where's that from?

[InvisibleBison]

I can’t find that, where’s that madness from?

The crafting rules say that making something requires raw materials worth 1/3 the price of the finished product. The raw material for crafting wheat is wheat, and the commodity price rules say that 1 pound of wheat is worth 1 cp, so it can be crafted into 3 cp of flour, which since flour costs 2 cp per pound would weigh 1.5 cp.

[Rater202]

I could see Dragon getting the same treatment with wyverns and drakes. Yes, True Dragons are different, but the lessers still benefit from most of the benefits. Not sure what changes should be made since I'm AFB, but it'd make a good rainy day project.
I also disagree with non-magical magical beasts not being Animals, like the Owlbear. Nothing about the owlbear is magical. Or Giant Owls. They aren't real creatures, but they aren't magical either.
I see the argument for Giant Eagles, they have the Int score to be separate, but if Dire Bears are Animals, Giant Owls should be too.

Yeah, honestly the difference between True Dragons and other creatures with the Dragon-Type(and the Dragon-Blooded Subtype) inspired how I build it.

[hamishspence]

Uh... what? Where's that from?

The Phaerimm as a creature with age categories, that grows more powerful as it grows older, is in Lost Empires of Faerun. The Half dragon template gives it the dragon type. And the definition of "True Dragon" as "creature with the dragon type and age categories, growing more powerful as it grows older" is extrapolated from Draconomicon, page 4:


"True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older"

"Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons (which should not be taken to mean that they are necessarily less powerful than true dragons.)"



There's no way to convincingly argue that a phaerimm does not "advance through age categories" - nor to argue that a half-dragon phaerimm does not have the dragon type.

[Ravens_cry]

Depending on how you rule what losing the prerequisites for a prestige class does, Dragon Disciple's capstone is a case of Schrodinger's Half-Dragon.

[Feldar]

Maybe elves sleep for the last ~80 years of adolescence.

Teens need more sleep, you know.

Half-elves have to come from somewhere.

[Telonius]

Material components were mentioned a little bit earlier. I'd say they're up there for "silliest material." Material components are a joke - literally. They're all puns and awful "dad jokes." Fireball: bat guano and sulfur (-> gunpowder). Message: a short piece of copper wire (->telegraph line). Hideous Laughter: throw tarts at the target and wave a feather (->pie to the face and tickle them).