New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 LastLast
Results 271 to 300 of 402

Thread: Why 3.5?

  1. - Top - End - #271
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    A Sorcerer that picks only spells off the Beguiler list is a low-op T2, and they are strictly worse than a Beguiler. The list expansion shows up at low levels of optimization, because some of it is very easy (though a lot of the easy stuff applies as much to a Sorcerer), but it's not necessary to hit the T2 power level. And while their list is not bad, it does have limits, and more than that, the core of their offensive spells is responsible for a lot of their power. For all that people will bring up protection from evil in any discussion about charm and dominate spells, those effects are overwhelmingly powerful in the vast majority of campaigns. That's why people go to such efforts to combat them..
    It depends on how your measuring T2. I am going to arbitrarilly put the break point at 5 "Nuke" abilities by level 6. These are spells or abilities that I put into 3 categories. Those that wreck a DMs plot, like speak with dead or raise dead in a murder investigation or teleport in an across country caper. Those that wreck an economy like Fabrication, wall of salt, animate dead or Mount. Then there is the last catagory which are ones that are just off the scale in power in what they do. Like Silent Image shutting down an Iron Golem, Grease stoping a frenzied berserker, or an Uber charger dealing 10x the creatures HP in damage.

    The mind affecting stuff is good, but my concern is magic circles shutting it down in the middle of combat. Not too mention creatures of 5hd+ can become immune by joining a new church

  2. - Top - End - #272
    Titan in the Playground
     
    danielxcutter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Seoul
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    I'm not sure why "HD 5+ creatures joining a new church" makes any sense. If you mean Magic Circle Against [Alignment] a) it's also on the Wizard/Sorcerer list, b) not every HD 5+ creature is going to be with a spellcaster capable of casting it 24/7, c) alignment and religion actually don't matter at all for the compulsion suppression effect, and d) ...seriously? Your argument against "mind-affecting abilities are strong" is "lol then every creature at CR 5 or higher joins a church and has a cleric glued to their stomach"? Please tell me it's not actually that.
    Last edited by danielxcutter; 2022-01-06 at 02:33 AM.
    Cool elan Illithid Slayer by linkele.

    Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Ao3 FanFiction.net DeviantArt
    We also have a TvTropes page!

    Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal) Campaign still going on, but journal discontinued until further notice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squire Doodad View Post
    I could write a lengthy explanation, but honestly just what danielxcutter said.
    Extended sig here.

  3. - Top - End - #273
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Scots Dragon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Trapped in England
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by Seward View Post
    Never played 5e, but if I had to justify 3 item limit I'd say "magic items interfere with each other. After 3 they just all stop working. Why? 6th law of Magic, everybody knows it who knows anything about magic."

    It's like gravity, it's baked into the worldlaws.
    The item slot limitation is arguably the same sort of thing.

    Too many constant magic items in close proximity or physical contact causes them to stop working, or possibly go awry. Especially when those items are similar in shape and the way their magic interacts with the body. You can probably justify it further using the chakras mentioned in the Incarnum system.
    Spoiler: In case this signature gets lengthy
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    A game setting does need to be designed to be fun and functional to game in.

    But there's more to good worldbuilding than piling the "parts to game in" on a big pile.

    Farmland isn't there to be adventured in, primarily, but one assumes it's still there and part of the landscape -- just because adventurers don't go there often doesn't mean it doesn't or shouldn't or needn't exist.

  4. - Top - End - #274
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2021

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by Elves View Post
    Both are abstracted, but one comes with an intuitive explanation and the other doesn't.

    "You can only wear one item on each body part."
    "Ok."

    "You can only benefit from three magic items at a time."
    "Why?"
    I don't understand how "this part of you can only use one magic item" is intuitive but "all of you can only use three magic items" is not. Especially because even in the body slot model, you have things like the two-ring limit. And because the body slot model breaks down once you start dealing with characters that have non-standard body plans. What happens when someone wants to play an insect person that has two sets of hands, or a snake person with no feet?

    But it's not like 5e removes the item slot system.
    Well, I would just say that makes 5e dumb. I certainly have never claimed any particular affection for the system as a whole. In my view, if you want to wear a big pile of magic hats that give you a bunch of hat-based magic, you should just be allowed to do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lans View Post
    It depends on how your measuring T2. I am going to arbitrarilly put the break point at 5 "Nuke" abilities by level 6.
    A 6th level Sorcerer gets 7 spells known (ignoring 0th level spells, because none of those are "Nukes" by any standard). That by this standard, any low-op and even many mid-op Sorcerers aren't T2. Since the tiers are nominally supposed to be optimization-independent, I don't think this is a good definition.

    The mind affecting stuff is good, but my concern is magic circles shutting it down in the middle of combat. Not too mention creatures of 5hd+ can become immune by joining a new church
    The Beguiler gets Diplomacy, which means they don't need to rely on explicit mind control in the long term. magic circle turning off a spell is a risk, but it's a risk that needs to be balanced against all the fights where that doesn't happen, which you crush easily. Even if you assume that every single battlefield is going to be littered with magic circles to the point that any number of mind-controlled minions are a liability, I would argue that such an allocation of resources from your enemies is still a win for a Beguiler, because they still have illusions and various more minor tricks.

  5. - Top - End - #275
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Devil

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    I don't understand how "this part of you can only use one magic item" is intuitive but "all of you can only use three magic items" is not. Especially because even in the body slot model, you have things like the two-ring limit. And because the body slot model breaks down once you start dealing with characters that have non-standard body plans. What happens when someone wants to play an insect person that has two sets of hands, or a snake person with no feet?
    Aren't there rules for that? Or at least, suggestions how one could deal with it? Savage Species had them, Magic of Incarnum had them and I'm pretty sure they were in the DMG too.

  6. - Top - End - #276
    Titan in the Playground
     
    danielxcutter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Seoul
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    The MIC has it, but the short version is that having extra limbs is fine but having fewer means you’re screwed.

    I do remember in Lords of Madness some of the central aberrations - aboleth, beholders, grell, and tsochar do have special rules for item slots. I don’t remember if neogi had them, and I’m pretty sure illithids didn’t because of their humanoid body shape. And the Tailband of Impact can get around the “no foot slot” limitation for snake-tailed creatures with tail slaps.
    Cool elan Illithid Slayer by linkele.

    Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Ao3 FanFiction.net DeviantArt
    We also have a TvTropes page!

    Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal) Campaign still going on, but journal discontinued until further notice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squire Doodad View Post
    I could write a lengthy explanation, but honestly just what danielxcutter said.
    Extended sig here.

  7. - Top - End - #277
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Devil

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    I interpreted those rules as "quick-and-dirty" improvisation, and the ones from Lord of Madness as how you could tailor body slots to the body shape if you want to put care into it.

  8. - Top - End - #278
    Titan in the Playground
     
    danielxcutter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Seoul
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    I honestly don’t feel a need to deny atypically shaped creatures item slots… well for some I guess it’d be awkward to even wear them but you could still at least give them custom-shaped ones.
    Cool elan Illithid Slayer by linkele.

    Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Ao3 FanFiction.net DeviantArt
    We also have a TvTropes page!

    Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal) Campaign still going on, but journal discontinued until further notice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squire Doodad View Post
    I could write a lengthy explanation, but honestly just what danielxcutter said.
    Extended sig here.

  9. - Top - End - #279
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2021

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tzardok View Post
    I interpreted those rules as "quick-and-dirty" improvisation, and the ones from Lord of Madness as how you could tailor body slots to the body shape if you want to put care into it.
    If you're going to do that, how is that meaningfully different from just having generic attunement slots? If a beholder (a creature that is famously all head) can get as many magic items as a humanoid in your "body slots" system, I would argue you don't have a body slots system, you have an item limit system that encourages bad behaviors and limits customization.

  10. - Top - End - #280
    Titan in the Playground
     
    danielxcutter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Seoul
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    If you're going to do that, how is that meaningfully different from just having generic attunement slots? If a beholder (a creature that is famously all head) can get as many magic items as a humanoid in your "body slots" system, I would argue you don't have a body slots system, you have an item limit system that encourages bad behaviors and limits customization.
    Specifically:

    Quote Originally Posted by Lords of Madness p45
    • One headband, hat, or phylactery on the body. A beholder can only wear a helmet specially designed to fit over the creature’s entire body.
    • Three pairs of eye lenses or goggles over the central eye and up to two eyestalks (one pair per eye or eyestalk).
    • Three amulets, brooches, medallions, necklaces, periapts, or scarabs on up to three eyestalks (one item per eyestalk).
    • One belt worn about an eyestalk.
    • One pair of bracers or bracelets on a pair of eyestalks.
    • Up to three rings on up to three eyestalks (one ring per eyestalk).
    Beholders cannot wear vests, vestments, shirts, robes, suits of armor, cloaks, capes, mantles, gloves, gauntlets, boots, or shoes.
    (I don't think this really challenges your opinion or anything, this is mostly just nitpicking.)
    Last edited by danielxcutter; 2022-01-06 at 11:45 AM.
    Cool elan Illithid Slayer by linkele.

    Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Ao3 FanFiction.net DeviantArt
    We also have a TvTropes page!

    Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal) Campaign still going on, but journal discontinued until further notice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squire Doodad View Post
    I could write a lengthy explanation, but honestly just what danielxcutter said.
    Extended sig here.

  11. - Top - End - #281
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    Oh, so the tactic is dependent on the terrain? So maybe the adjustment is because of the terrain and not the tactic. You know, exactly like I've been saying. And like the rules say.
    ...
    I'm glad you agree. It is the circumstances that modify the difficulty, not the tactics of the creatures. Fighting in a boat which can be sunk without you being able to take any action to prevent that is a uniquely challenging circumstance, and increases the EL of an encounter. But it does that because the circumstance is difficult, not because "sink a boat" is a bogus tactic that has to be nerfed by increasing EL.
    ...
    What? The rules aren't saying that "making climb checks" changes EL, they are saying that terrain (which is not provided for in the stat block) which changes the impact of climb changes changes EL. That is completely consistent with the model where using a creature's abilities does not change EL, because that is the model the rules follow.
    But it is the creatures' abilities that lead to that circumstance, is my point. The ability to summon something aquatic is what makes "sink the boat" a possibility in the first place. The ability to identify and exploit a height advantage is what makes "rocks from above" a possibility in the first place. And in the balor's case, its pre-knowledge of the PCs' surroundings so it can repeatedly teleport in and out to catch them off-guard is what makes "wear down the party's buffs before engaging" a possibility in the first place. All of those circumstances rely on more than the enemies' abilities, yes, but they are also not possible without those abilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    You're arguing in circles. An encounter where a Balor uses its abilities is not "vastly more difficult", it is "appropriately difficult". If characters struggle with that encounter, it is evidence that those characters are underpowered, not that it is cheating for a creature that is as much smarter than you or I as we are than a dog to use tactics that someone could come up with within 30 seconds of looking at its stat block.
    By judging that every single permutation of "uses its abilities" is perfectly equivalent to every other, you're applying too broad a brush to the EL system as a whole. That is what the DMG is trying to warn you about. By insisting that "EL always = CR if you're using what's presented in the statblock and ignoring all other circumstances" you're throwing out this warning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elves View Post
    A body slot system is used in any number of videogames that make more money than D&D. I don't think it's been shown to have any trouble reaching a mass audience.
    This is a false equivalency. Videogames don't have a christmas tree problem because they universally calculate the effects those slots have on the player's behalf. If you had to keep track of all your item bonuses in WoW or Diablo or Final Fantasy manually, as well as alterations to those bonuses that occur during combat - on top of tracking a host of other things like external buffs, conditions, initiative, positioning, summons etc - you can bet people would be calling to drastically simplify those games or abandon them in droves.

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleBison View Post
    Do you have any sort of evidence to back up this assertion, or is it just your opinion? Because if it's the latter, I have to say it doesn't seem particularly likely to me. There are only 5 monsters in the Monster Manual with specified tactics - the balor, pit fiend, mind flayer, nightwalker, and titan - but there are plenty of high-int monsters that don't have tactics entries. If the point of tactics entries was to prevent DMs from having high-Int monsters use hyper-optimized tactics I would expect all the high-Int monsters to have tactics entries.
    Even without detailed round-by-round tactics, the vast majority of monsters have some listed/expected behavior or even just attitude entries to guide the DM. For example, Otyughs leave adventurers alone entirely unless they feel threatened, Harpies start combat by singing before switching to fly-by melee attacks, Leonals open with their roar before swinging, Gorgons begin with a charge etc. If you think you need a "Tactics" entry to know how a monster will typically fight, you're not paying enough attention to the statblocks.
    Last edited by Psyren; 2022-01-06 at 12:09 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  12. - Top - End - #282
    Titan in the Playground
     
    danielxcutter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Seoul
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    I mean like hell, the Balor in THAT GAME didn't use the "ordinary" tactics, should it have like a -8 to EL because it wasted 3 rounds being stupid?
    Cool elan Illithid Slayer by linkele.

    Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Ao3 FanFiction.net DeviantArt
    We also have a TvTropes page!

    Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal) Campaign still going on, but journal discontinued until further notice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squire Doodad View Post
    I could write a lengthy explanation, but honestly just what danielxcutter said.
    Extended sig here.

  13. - Top - End - #283
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by danielxcutter View Post
    I mean like hell, the Balor in THAT GAME didn't use the "ordinary" tactics, should it have like a -8 to EL because it wasted 3 rounds being stupid?
    I don't know how much XP that group got for beating it, and I don't actually care. What I care about is the conclusion that "regardless of how I use a Balor's abilities, the encounter will always be EL 20, no exceptions."
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  14. - Top - End - #284
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2021

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    But it is the creatures' abilities that lead to that circumstance, is my point.
    Then where is the Orc's "glider" ability? Where is their "cliff" ability? In my copy of the Monster Manual, and as far as I can find in the SRD, they have no such ability. Since they have no such abilities, EL being adjusted by the usage of such things does not imply that using a creature's abilities can require an EL adjustment.

    And in the balor's case, its pre-knowledge of the PCs' surroundings so it can repeatedly teleport in and out to catch them off-guard is what makes "wear down the party's buffs before engaging" a possibility in the first place.
    But that's a much more restrained point than your nominal claim. I would agree that a Balor which arbitrarily knew the PC's locations, the best position to teleport to near them, and the best ability to use after arriving would be an unfair challenge. Because the Balor has no particular capacity to know any of those things. But if the PCs don't take any effort to counteract teleport (e.g. moving around, activating anti-teleport defenses, readying actions), the encounter doesn't become harder because the Balor is using an ability it has.

    By judging that every single permutation of "uses its abilities" is perfectly equivalent to every other, you're applying too broad a brush to the EL system as a whole.
    I agree. If a creature fails to use abilities it has, EL should be lowered.

    Quote Originally Posted by danielxcutter View Post
    I mean like hell, the Balor in THAT GAME didn't use the "ordinary" tactics, should it have like a -8 to EL because it wasted 3 rounds being stupid?
    The Balor's "tactics" section even has two separate entries. So Balors can change their behavior, but only to the degree designers said they could, anything else is cheating. Again, we find that taking this logic seriously leads to absurd conclusions. So let's just not do that.

  15. - Top - End - #285
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by danielxcutter View Post
    I mean like hell, the Balor in THAT GAME didn't use the "ordinary" tactics, should it have like a -8 to EL because it wasted 3 rounds being stupid?
    About the only ordinary thing it didn't try was quickned TK and we all agree that was weird.

    Unholy aura before fight? check

    R1 Implosion or Fire Storm or Blasphemy? Check (implosion on wizard, defeated by moment of prescience. Wasted round. Fire Storm? Party was ready for that too. Blasphemy? Spell immunity again, although somehow one guy got dazed. Maybe they couldn't cover everybody?

    R2 Insanity or Power Word Stun ? Check (PW Stun failed due to immunity. Might have failed on several party members just from hitpoints with L16-17 characters. Had he tried insanity it is very likely that quiet dude in the back who buffs/heals would have cast heal and undone it)

    R3 Full melee attack with weapons? Didn't get the chance. Closed and killed one dude, then died to a martial's full attack, because that's what happens if you get in range of a martial's full attack especially if you're down 25% of your hitpoints from minor but steady damage.

    Round 4 tactic requires you to succeed at that full melee attack including entangle, so that's out. The "drive away" tactics wouldn't have worked any better, Dominate has the same basic problem as Insanity. The Heal/Buff dude who didn't do much in the fight almost certainly could have undone it, if the victim wasn't already immune via prot evil or similar, even assuming the save was failed. The other spells were the same stuff he tried and failed.

    It isn't EL-8 to not use quickened TK. It's only a little odd. And given action economy of a large party vs one guy, it likely would have been annoying, not decisive.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post

    But that's a much more restrained point than your nominal claim. I would agree that a Balor which arbitrarily knew the PC's locations, the best position to teleport to near them, and the best ability to use after arriving would be an unfair challenge. Because the Balor has no particular capacity to know any of those things.
    There is also the fact that this tactic (or similar things involving popping in and out of walls with incorporeals or etherial with ghosts, night hags, phase spiders and similar) is pretty dangerous from an action economy standpoint.

    If the party detects you after you've teleported you've given them a free round to beat on you. Even if they don't, you get one shot (and many of those L9 SLAs it has are close range) and the survivors STILL get all of their actions against you. TK tossing a lightweight martial at you, an archer getting a volley, a dim-door putting you between the rogue and a martial and you're done. Or just a cleric sticking a banishment, Balors can roll natural 1s too.

    Barring a swift or move action teleport ability, you're asking to get clobbered unless you completely break off combat between each attack, wait a random amount of time, don't get detected when you teleport in, get a surprise round, win initiative and get out before the party can react. This might work. If it doesn't, it tends to go badly.

    And all of that leaves things like anticipate teleport out of the discussion. Neither side did any kind of dimensional travel in that fight so we don't know if that was on the table but in games that allow it, it's a pretty common buff to cast before engaging demons, who can all teleport.

    Also just a thank you for posting that beholder slot item list. It brightened my morning and made me laugh.
    Last edited by Seward; 2022-01-06 at 02:30 PM.

  16. - Top - End - #286
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Raven777's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Dominion of Canadia

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by danielxcutter View Post
    I honestly don’t feel a need to deny atypically shaped creatures item slots…
    True horror only dawns when the enlightened few realize that when great Cthulhu shall reign upon this earth... he'll be doing it in the nude.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zanos View Post
    The professionally offended will always find something to be angry about.

  17. - Top - End - #287
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    Then where is the Orc's "glider" ability? Where is their "cliff" ability? In my copy of the Monster Manual, and as far as I can find in the SRD, they have no such ability. Since they have no such abilities, EL being adjusted by the usage of such things does not imply that using a creature's abilities can require an EL adjustment.
    There is no EL in the Monster Manual. Calculating that is your job as the DM (using the monsters' CR as a starting point, not as the final result.)

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    But that's a much more restrained point than your nominal claim. I would agree that a Balor which arbitrarily knew the PC's locations, the best position to teleport to near them, and the best ability to use after arriving would be an unfair challenge. Because the Balor has no particular capacity to know any of those things. But if the PCs don't take any effort to counteract teleport (e.g. moving around, activating anti-teleport defenses, readying actions), the encounter doesn't become harder because the Balor is using an ability it has.
    I'm not even saying that's "unfair." Just more difficult, and therefore EL > CR. For an optimized party, that might even be appropriate or more fair. It's your insistence that those two measurements are always equal regardless of the monster's approach is the problem I have.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    I agree. If a creature fails to use abilities it has, EL should be lowered.
    I disagree with your two-dimensional binary of "use vs. fail to use." How they are used matters to difficulty too, and the DMG citations make that clear.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  18. - Top - End - #288
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Wildstag's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Alamogordo
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    Penalizing player coordination with decreased monster CR seems bizarre, since in theory it would discourage optimization and teamwork. A balor has a Vorpal longsword. Should we reduce CR if in its lifespan it doesn't get to showcase the nature of its weapon?

    Proper preparation should be rewarded mechanically. They shouldn't get less experience unless the opponent has been mechanically weakened by the GM intentionally.

  19. - Top - End - #289
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2021

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by Seward View Post
    There is also the fact that this tactic (or similar things involving popping in and out of walls with incorporeals or etherial with ghosts, night hags, phase spiders and similar) is pretty dangerous from an action economy standpoint.
    Yes, that is what I meant when I mentioned readying actions. If you ready for "Balor teleports in", you get two rounds of actions before it gets to go. That said, it's still a useful tactic, particularly if the Balor thinks the PCs have a bunch of short-duration buffs active. It also doesn't have to teleport directly into combat with them, though it doesn't have much way to know if that's what it's doing.

    I am certainly not claiming that Balors must always use optimal tactics. A Balor that faces some kind of personal or tactical constraint may behave differently than one without that constraint (in the example, it sort of sounds like the Balor is defending some sort of ship, so teleport-based skirmishing may not have been acceptable). A Balor won't know the party's buff routines, or spell loadout, or default tactics, though it may know some generalities about their behavior and resources. My objection is to the notion that simply using its abilities to achieve its goals is "non-standard", which is (quite predictably) being used to argue that things Psyren doesn't like are "too optimized" and require extra work to deal with. In reality, it's quite the opposite. A party that can't handle a level-appropriate opponent using its abilities in an effective manner is underpowered.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    There is no EL in the Monster Manual. Calculating that is your job as the DM (using the monsters' CR as a starting point, not as the final result.)
    You do understand that this is entirely unresponsive to the nominal point at hand? To prove your claim, you need to demonstrate that the things modifying EL in the examples are creature abilities. Which point EL is in has nothing to do with that.

    It's your insistence that those two measurements are always equal regardless of the monster's approach is the problem I have.
    It's not my insistence, it's the rules of the game. If you have a problem with that, you should find a citation that agrees with you.

    How they are used matters to difficulty too, and the DMG citations make that clear.
    Until you find me the "glider" ability in the Orc's Monster Manual entry, this is false.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wildstag View Post
    Penalizing player coordination with decreased monster CR seems bizarre, since in theory it would discourage optimization and teamwork. A balor has a Vorpal longsword. Should we reduce CR if in its lifespan it doesn't get to showcase the nature of its weapon?
    I'm not quite sure what you're saying, so I'm not sure if I agree or not. If the players use tactics to mitigate the effectiveness of a monster's abilities, that's absolutely fine and requires no adjustment (with, of course, the caveat that a monster using tactics to mitigate the effectiveness of PC's abilities is also fine and doesn't require adjustment). However, if a DM avoids using a creature's abilities for out-of-game reasons like "following the designer's sample tactics as if they were absolute dogma", that absolutely should reduce the EL of the encounter, because a Balor that intentionally does not use its Summon or dominate monster abilities effectively does not have those abilities and therefore cannot reasonably be considered as dangerous as one that does.
    Last edited by RandomPeasant; 2022-01-06 at 03:18 PM.

  20. - Top - End - #290
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    , because a Balor that intentionally does not use its Summon or dominate monster abilities effectively does not have those abilities and therefore cannot reasonably be considered as dangerous as one that does.
    I sort of agree...but only if the Balor didn't use other abilities it had that were roughly equivalent.

    If the fight only lasts 3 rounds, the Balor only gets 2-3 actions. No matter how tactically amazing said balor is, he can't use all of his possible abilities. Each must be chosen based on what is most likely to get the desired outcome.

    And if they fail, the Balor is likely in trouble. In the fight described the Balor tried about 2/3 of his SLAs, they did basically nothing and switched to melee (which is a tactic Balors both enjoy, and also favor by R4 or so based on tactics and fluff). The melee attack ironically both did the only significantly effective action the Balor accomplished but also got it killed.

    Stuff happens. Plans don't go well. The party was basically ready for SLAs of any type, and most of the stuff he didn't try were also single target spells that could always fail with a roll of "20" on any target, and the massive action economy advantage of the party makes any single target approach problematic if said actions don't permanently remove an enemy from the battle.

    Had I been that balor (not a GM running it, playing it as my character), I would have teleported away about round 4, and stayed away. The party was obviously too strong for me at that point. I was doing nothing and they were inflicting small but steady damage and risk goes up every round I stay, and my minions were pretty much swept from the board (certainly once the barbarian freed up from that troll he was fighting).

    It sounded like the balor had a compelling reason to fight to the death though, and couldn't just bail on the situation. Almost certainly, since a literal embodiment of Chaotic Evil isn't going to stick around out of loyalty, honor or anything stupid like that. He was probably compelled in some way to guard that spot.
    Last edited by Seward; 2022-01-06 at 03:32 PM.

  21. - Top - End - #291
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    You do understand that this is entirely unresponsive to the nominal point at hand? To prove your claim, you need to demonstrate that the things modifying EL in the examples are creature abilities. Which point EL is in has nothing to do with that.
    ...
    Until you find me the "glider" ability in the Orc's Monster Manual entry, this is false.
    Orcs have no "drop rocks" ability in the monster manual either, I guess they can't do that? The point of the DMG example is that those things are considered by the rules to be "circumstances" and therefore modify EL.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    It's not my insistence, it's the rules of the game. If you have a problem with that, you should find a citation that agrees with you.
    DMG 39 and DMG 50.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  22. - Top - End - #292
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2021

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by Seward View Post
    I sort of agree...but only if the Balor didn't use other abilities it had that were roughly equivalent.
    I think the distinction is something about "did not use" versus "would not have used". If the Balor decides, based on its goals and character, that it wants to use implosion and dispel magic rather than dominate monster and blasphemy, that's fine. But if you decide that, going into the fight, the Balor will never ever use dispel magic, you have effectively created a new monster, and as it is strictly worse than a Balor it is presumably of lesser CR and therefore EL.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    Orcs have no "drop rocks" ability in the monster manual either, I guess they can't do that?
    On the contrary, they do have such an ability, because that's covered by the general rules for improvised weapons. Do you have a general rule for "flying gliders" that Orcs could use? And a price for gliders that fits within the standard wealth a group of Orcs is expected to have. I mean, seriously, are you arguing that if something uses an improvised weapon, the DM has to overhaul the EL? Because that's also not remotely what the rules you're citing say.

    DMG 39 and DMG 50.
    I said "rules that agree with you". Those don't.

  23. - Top - End - #293
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ignimortis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    I'm a big fan of that as well. 3e has a very greater degree of legitimate variety in characters than any other edition of D&D, and I'm shocked that it was not embraced moving forward.
    This is one of my biggest gripes with 4e, PF1e, 5e and PF2. They all stopped doing mechanically different power sources. 4e had everyone on the AEDU standard with very little difference between actual power sources, and all the others embraced the (IMO, cancerous) concept of "you either get spells or other x/day resources, or at-wills" too hard. There are no cooldowns like with Binders, no spend-refresh systems like with martial adepts, not even "technically at-will but up to a point" like truenamers or "at-will, but you choose what you get every day" like Incarnum.

    I actually like managing short-term resources that only basically exist within the encounter. Ammo, VtM blood points, maneuvers... Sadly, post-3.5 D&D doesn't actually do anything like that.
    Elezen Dark Knight avatar by Linklele
    Favourite classes: Beguiler, Scout, Warblade, 3.5 Warlock, Harbinger (PF:PoW).

  24. - Top - End - #294
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    There are a couple misconceptions floating around here. Evil spells turn you evil. A neutral cleric will not make use of animate dead on any regular basis to keep undead minions as then they would be evil. At best they'll rebuke or command them if they have the ability. Not everyone plays evil and not everyone plays plays where neutral characters are immune to the corruption of evil just because they play with orphans in a church. Assumptions of class superiority based on optional character choices are not very convincing. At best one can argue that an evil cleric is more powerful than a good one, then again we also know that isn't necessarily the case.

    Another misconception is crafting your own items allowing you to double WBL. If you did that, by level 20 you cost yourself ~30,400 xp and 1-5 feats for just one person. Do that for 4 people and it's 121,600 xp. Now add in all the wishes, xp cost spells, time spent making items, etc. and it simply falls apart. Yes, crafting is a valuable tool, but it still has a large cost in resources and opportunity that seems to be ignored in these discussions out of convenience. While this over simplifies the negatives of crafting so does glossing over them.
    Last edited by Darg; 2022-01-07 at 11:37 AM.

  25. - Top - End - #295
    Titan in the Playground
     
    danielxcutter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Seoul
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darg View Post
    There are a couple misconceptions floating around here. Evil spells turn you evil. A neutral cleric will not make use of animate dead on any regular basis to keep undead minions as then they would be evil. At best they'll rebuke or command them if they have the ability. Not everyone plays evil and not everyone plays plays where neutral characters are immune to the corruption of evil just because they play with orphans in a church. Assumptions of class superiority based on optional character choices are not very convincing. At best one can argue that an evil cleric is more powerful than a good one, then again we also know that isn't necessarily the case.

    Another misconception is crafting your own items allowing you to double WBL. If you did that, by level 20 you cost yourself ~30,400 xp and 1-5 feats for just one person. Do that for 4 people and it's 121,600 xp. Now add in all the wishes, xp cost spells, time spent making items, etc. and it simply falls apart. Yes, crafting is a valuable tool, but it still has a large cost in resources and opportunity that seems to be ignored in these discussions out of convenience. While this over simplifies the negatives of crafting so does glossing over them.
    Wasn't there a specific line that casting Evil spells frequently could ding your alignment? Also, in FCII you're still liable to get your soul claimed by devils if you use enough Evil spells anyways.
    Cool elan Illithid Slayer by linkele.

    Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Ao3 FanFiction.net DeviantArt
    We also have a TvTropes page!

    Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal) Campaign still going on, but journal discontinued until further notice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squire Doodad View Post
    I could write a lengthy explanation, but honestly just what danielxcutter said.
    Extended sig here.

  26. - Top - End - #296
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by danielxcutter View Post
    Wasn't there a specific line that casting Evil spells frequently could ding your alignment? Also, in FCII you're still liable to get your soul claimed by devils if you use enough Evil spells anyways.
    There is. It was also expanded upon in BoED/VD. Evil is corrupting, doing good doesn't cancel out evil deeds.

  27. - Top - End - #297
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    On the contrary, they do have such an ability, because that's covered by the general rules for improvised weapons. Do you have a general rule for "flying gliders" that Orcs could use?
    ...
    And a price for gliders that fits within the standard wealth a group of Orcs is expected to have.
    Certainly, the general rules for Craft can cover primitive items just fine. As there is no listed price for a primitive glider, the DM would have to make that determination, but once that's established then crafting it is within their physical capabilities. Clearly the DMG designers are fine with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    I said "rules that agree with you". Those don't.
    See above, they do.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  28. - Top - End - #298
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darg View Post
    There are a couple misconceptions floating around here. Evil spells turn you evil. A neutral cleric will not make use of animate dead on any regular basis to keep undead minions as then they would be evil. At best they'll rebuke or command them if they have the ability. Not everyone plays evil and not everyone plays plays where neutral characters are immune to the corruption of evil just because they play with orphans in a church. Assumptions of class superiority based on optional character choices are not very convincing. At best one can argue that an evil cleric is more powerful than a good one, then again we also know that isn't necessarily the case.

    Another misconception is crafting your own items allowing you to double WBL. If you did that, by level 20 you cost yourself ~30,400 xp and 1-5 feats for just one person. Do that for 4 people and it's 121,600 xp. Now add in all the wishes, xp cost spells, time spent making items, etc. and it simply falls apart. Yes, crafting is a valuable tool, but it still has a large cost in resources and opportunity that seems to be ignored in these discussions out of convenience. While this over simplifies the negatives of crafting so does glossing over them.
    Casting evil spells is an evil act. Neutral clerics can perform evil acts. Whether walking around with some undead you created in the process of all the good deeds you perform in your quest chain will turn you evil is up to your DM. I am aware of very few DMs who would shift a cleric to evil solely on the basis of having some zombie minions. But alignment is awful and no one's opinion is wrong. Questions like "what is the rules definition of frequently" come up.

    Assumptions of class superiority based on optional character choices are required. We are generally assuming relatively (and equivalently) optimized characters. Everyone is picking a race reasonably conducive to their needs, arranging their stats in accordance with what helps them, the cleric will pick a deity in line with what he expects to do. The monk stays lawful, the paladin doesn't slip to neutrality and the cleric maintains an alignment that allows him to use his spells. Yeah, those are all choices, but when we compare a paladin it isn't a LN fallen paladin with no powers.

    Leaving aside all the many ways 3.5 can simply circumvent xp costs, and leaving aside the way in which you can spread xp costs among multiple casters, and leaving aside the fact that exp is a river and by raw if I manage to craft myself down a level I simply get more exp than you do in every encounter for the rest of my life or until I catch up, your last argument still overlooks the fact that WBL, especially freely chosen WBL, is typically the largest determining factor of character power. You take a 20th level character with 20 WBL and compare with a 19th level character 20WBL+ 250,000 gp and the 19 will be noticibly stronger. To say nothing of a 10th level character with 16,000 gp versus a 9th level with over 28,000. This advantage is even larger in a game where WBL isn't "here's 16,000 to spend at magic mart" but is instead "here's 16,000 in crummy gear from the DMG tables or the random trash included by the adventure path writers, enjoy your human bane heavy crossbow". And I would say that IME, which granted may vary, I see a lot more games with random/preset treasure than games where animate dead is a huge issue.

    And combining the 2, responding to upthread incredulity about the use of planar ally, if the fighter can spend 9000 gp to get a level 3 pearl of power, and that is reasonable, then a level 12-14 cleric spending 9000 gp to guarantee a minion every time he walks into a dungeon for his next 7-10 dungeons who is a better fighter than the fighter and likely an equivalent caster to the cleric and who comes with his own free buffs is a fantastic idea. It's certainly cheaper than if you used a single level 6 scroll in the dungeon, and quite certainly better. And when the text of the spell encourages mitigating the spell costs if your good cleric is asking good outsiders to help on good missions, so much the better. Making undead is a valid minionmancy path, which clearly sets its users far and away better than the equivalent muggle. But it's hardly THE minionmancy path. There are 2 reasons Planar Ally isn't discussed more.
    1. It IS strictly worse than RAW planar binding.
    2. Most games regard replacing your PC tank with a better NPC tank as bad form, because it's embarrassing and makes the player feel bad. But hey, if you are the PC tank and you aren't worried about showing yourself up with your own summoned minion, why not?
    Last edited by Gnaeus; 2022-01-07 at 04:40 PM.

  29. - Top - End - #299
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Wildstag's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Alamogordo
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darg View Post
    There is. It was also expanded upon in BoED/VD. Evil is corrupting, doing good doesn't cancel out evil deeds.
    But did BOED mention that casting Good spells counts as a good action? Because a neutral character could just be balanced in the number of each type of spell they cast.

  30. - Top - End - #300
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Raven777's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Dominion of Canadia

    Default Re: Why 3.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wildstag View Post
    But did BOED mention that casting Good spells counts as a good action? Because a neutral character could just be balanced in the number of each type of spell they cast.
    This even fits the old school "champion of balance" definition of True Neutral where one day they'd help the villagers and next day they'd help the Gnolls.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zanos View Post
    The professionally offended will always find something to be angry about.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •