He did not take the vows as flaws...
I just chose not to post what flaws he took.
Unarmed Swordesage-Tome of Battle
Fist of the Forest-Complete Champion
Monk-Core
Deepwarden-Races of stone
There is no house rules here.
To those saying the bug bares that ran give no exp
If i was a rogue and there was a 24hd Dragon guarding a vault and I sneak by it do I not get Exp for beating it?
Exp is awarded by "overcoming" an encounter not beating it.
Also, In one more note, Why is there a problem with this. I could Craft a Single Class Build at level 2 that could Destroy 5 bug bears. All that happened is the Healer wanted to have lots of AC.
So for all you non Belivers out there I will wright up a level 2 Build that will crush 5 bug bears only useing 1 class
Human
Warblade 2
Total ECL: 2
(28 pts buy) if needed
Suggested stats:
STR: 18
DEX: 14
CON: 14
INT: 8
WIS: 8
CHA: 8
free points left: 0
Feats:
H. Powerful Charge (+1d8 on charge (EbCS p.57)0
1. Rapid Assault (First Round Melee attacks +1d6 (ToB p.32))
Suggested Equipment: Greatsword (50g), Studded leather (25g)
Total cost: 75 gp
Left money: 50 gp
HP: 20
AC: 13 (10 base + 3 Chain Shirt + 2 Dex - 2 Stance)
Fort: +4
Ref: +2
Will: -1
Skills: Tumble - +6 (5 ranks + 2 Dex - 1 Armor), Jump - +8 (5 ranks + 4 Str - 1 Armor), Concentration - +6 (5 ranks + 2 Con)
Manuevers: Moment of Perfect Mind (Concentration as will save), Sapphire Nightmare Blade(concentration vr AC for +1d6), Sudden Leap (jump check as a swift action), Charging Minotaur (Doesn't use)
Stance: Punishing Stance (-2 AC, + 1d6)
Melee:+10 to hit Greatsword (2d6+6, 19-20/x2)
The Strategy:
Moment of Perfect Mind will make up for at least one of the crappy saves.
And here's the sort of "ideal" order of actions:
Round 1: Activate your stance as a swift action, then charge the main threat to the group, you have a +12 to hit on the charge, and you do 4d6+1d8+6 dmg on a hit. If this doesn't kill the opponent go to round two.
Round 2: Use Saphire Nightmare Blade, hopefully do 4d6+6 dmg this round, move away from the enemy.
Round 3: Charge the enemy again, hopefully for another 3d6+1d8+6, Use Sudden Leap to jump out again.
Round 4: Charge AGAIN hoping for the same dmg as last round
Round 5: Recharge your manuevers with another normal hit for 3d6+6 dmg
Then you start repeating from round 2... but I doubt there's much that would have lived through all of this
|
Flaws function as this guys, you take the flaw which should be slightly worse than a feat. (for example since iron will gives + 2 to will saves weak will gives a -3 to will saves.)
Because you took that flaw, you are given a bonus feat at 1st level, to represent a balance in the character, in a different way.
So, if I took Shaky SHot (-2 to ranged attacks) then took Sacred Vow, I'd be perfect.
Then, I take say...Inattentive (-4 to SPot and Listen) since I'm not the party scout...and I get vow of Non-violence.
Then for first level I get vow of Poverty.
TA DA! Instant cheese.
I made the mistake of allowing people to take flaws, the flawed (badum bum PSHHH) idea is that even though players take a flaw that is meaningless to them, it should balance out in some way. If you're a vow of Poverty monk, you can't honestly be expected to wield a bow, so taking shaky is perfect, and if you aren't the party scout, then you don't need spot and listen, especially if you get uncanny dodge.
It just goes down hill from there....
For everyone who thinks this is broken in 2 mins i came up with a charge build that easily takes Ni bug Bears
The splats allow melee classes to actually contribute. It's easier to include all the splats and ask your players to keep things simple than it is to overhaul core to gain any semblance of balance in a group that knows how to utilize their classes abilities.
But the splats also boost the casters too - even if they keep it simple. So the same situation carries on as in core. At least in core you can control more easily what spells the casters get - class abilities in the splats are not nearly as easy...
But I see your point. It just takes players who recognize that all of them need to have fun and be more or less equal. Then it works. Splat or no splat.
He did not take the vows as flaws...
I just chose not to post what flaws he took.
Totally out of curiosity - what were the flaws?
And about the exp gained for overcoming encounters - the DM is encouraged to modify that based on the ease of the encounter for the players taking part.
Read this.
Just saying.
Although it's not OGL, I don't think WOTC would mind me quoting this one little sentence from the PHB.
"A character can only advance one level at a time. If, for some extraorindary reason, a character's XP award from a single adventure would be enough to advance two or more levels at once, he or she instead advances one level and gains just enough XP to be 1 XP short of the next level."
It's done this way so that a lucky strike against an overpowering foe doesn't send a low level character spontainiously up 3-4 levels. Gaining experience and leveling up is supposed to represent just that, learning from your experiences and becomming more powerful. How does a lucky strike agaisnt somthing infinately more powerful than you make you stronger? It shouldn't, so I can understand the logic behind the above paragraph well.
I'd remind the monk player that D'n'D is a team game first and foremost - the rules aren't build under the assumption that 1 person is playing nor are the classes build to cover multiple roles on the off-chance one player wants to be better than everyone else.
Even if, by RAW, the monk player isn't breaking any rules, it sounds like at the bare minimum, hes breaking the spirit of them. A vow of peace PC shouldn't want to work with a group of killers, regardless of their cause. The restrictions don't say "You can't fight, unless you feel you really should", it's quite simply "Cannot cause harm to living creatures". Hell, they can't even accidently step on a small insect! Why on earth would they activly aid a group dedicated to battle. In fact, the group can't even fight with the monk, since finishing off their foes (regardless of how dangerous or powerful they are) will bestow penalties.
Truthfully, while alot of the Vows look good, they always struck me as "Useful for NPC's" rather than "Useful for PC's". Being around a Vow of Peace character get's old very fast. Even if the monk player is happy not fighting, that doesn't mean the other PC's and other players at the table will be.
Forgot the "Splatbook Wars" which seem to be plaguing this thread, whether or not splatbooks are balanced don't seem to be the problem. This is definately, first and foremost, a "Speak to your group" problem.
And just a side note, could we please stop all the splatbook wars? If a PC want's to take overpowering options, they'll get them, core or not, so could people please stop acting like splatbooks are the problem.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
To those saying the bugbears that ran provide no experience points:
If I were playing a rogue, and there was a 24HD Dragon guarding a vault, and I sneak by it do I not get Experience for beating it?
Experience is awarded for "overcoming" an encounter not beating it.
That's an excellent point, Jabsco. If we received experience only for killing things, (a) sneaking would be counter-productive, (b) diplomacy would be counter-productive, (c) it would start to feel like a videogame.
But I don't think anybody's recommending that the bugbears who left ought to provide no experience, only a reduced amount.
If there were two parties, one who, say, teleported past an entire castle of deadly traps and CR 24 monsters in order to appear in the central treasure room and steal the Staff of MacGuffin, and the other of which fought its way through the castle, I'd award a great deal more XP to the second party, even though both parties "overcame" the same guards.
So, lets say a low-level party is walking through the woods, and is seen by a pair of bugbear scouts. The scouts slip away and report back to their boss. The party may, or may not, have even been aware of the scouts. Should the PCs get experience for that? Not yet, because the scouts are still out there, and still a threat. They haven't yet been overcome, even though they left their patrol positions.
In the case of the monk, two bugbears bugged out. They haven't been overcome yet.
Also, In one more note, Why is there a problem with this? I could craft a Single Class Build at level 2 that could destroy 5 bugbears. All that happened is the Healer wanted to have lots of AC.
So for all you non Belivers out there I will write up a level 2 build that will crush 5 bug bears using only 1 class.
Well, sure. A 2nd-level sorcerer with sleep should be able to defeat 5 bugbears if she gets lucky with saving throws.
What people are objecting to, I believe, is the attitude that you then go on to display, implying that D&D is about "builds" rather than characters. Magic: the Gathering is about building a deck and seeing what other decks it can defeat. D&D is about telling stories.
I pause for a moment while someone attempts to invoke the "Stormwind Fallacy".
Of course you can plaster a personality on a highly effective build. You can also play Magic "in character" (I'm not playing a Red/Green deck; I'm playing Lyra Aelf-friend, Druid Priestess. And Lyra taps into the power of the Richland Forests and Mount Dread to stun your wretched beast.") You can probably play chess in character, too. (My knight would indeed assault your strange moving castle, but he is sick, sick of war, I tell you, and stays in camp, heart-sick at how his life has led him to this point. But! This young soldier over here has come up with a crafty plan, and attempts to sneak his way past the army encamped over the hills.)
Character Optimization --which is one of our topics in this thread, along with one PC somehow jumping three levels with a single CR6 encounter, unbalanced parties, and whether the"build" is legal-- doesn't prevent you from role-playing. But it does distort the character into being highly specialized.
And it's not wrong. People like playing Magic, and some people bring deck-design philosophy to D&D. But --and this has become my mantra-- players around a table should decide just how much Character Optimization they want in their game. To paraphrase Gearge Carlin, have you ever noticed how everybody who optimizes more than you is a maniac? And everybody who optimizes less than you is a moron? It's a wonder we get anywhere at all, with all the morons and maniacs around the table.
And the problem is that in your campaign, there's a disparity among the expectations at the table.
--+--+--
Oh, by the way, Candle of Invocation{/i]?
First, check with the DM to see if making [i]candles and gating in immensely powerful Outsiders is standard operating procedure for all the party's opponents. "You find the 5th Level warlock, and, like all other 5th Level opponents, she has her Pit Fiend companion."
If they don't, then either (a) your PC is a genius for having thought of the idea, or (b) there's likely an in-game reason why that's a bad strategy.
And, seriously, wishing for more candles? Does that ever end well?
Some of you are confused how a lv2 can jump to lv5. Here's the very simple breakdown of it all:
5 Bugbears
1 Monk
Lots of flaws (Unearthed Arcana)
Calm Aura (or whatever) -Creatures who fail a Will Save of 10 can only defend themselves. They are considered under the spell 'Calm Emotions'.
All but two of the Bugbears fail.
Those two attack and finally crit against the Monk's 28 AC.
Their weapons shatter against the Monk's skin.
Three of the Bugbears run for reinforcements (to come at a later date) and leave the encounter.
Two are punched-out.End Encounter
The three bugbears withdrew from the encounter, the monk does get the xp for them, as they were driven off.
xp Awarded for 10x CR2 Bugbears=10,800xp
My mistake to pit a Monk of such caliber to his element.
My last mistake.
Probably won't be the last mistake, unfortunately. We all make them, but this might be the last time that particular mistake gets made.
As for the xp, I'm not getting why it is 10xCR2? Why isn't it 5xCR2 (5 CR 2 bugbears)?
For a 2nd level character over coming 5 CR 2 foes, they should get:
2nd level PC + CR 2 = 600 xp
5*600 xp = 3000 xp
So he should have gotten 3000 xp, which shouldn't be enough for him to go up more than one level.
They are unnamed so they do stack
It's a little tougher to adjudicate than that.
The sword sage ability reads that the Wis to AC is only applicable while wearing light armor, while the monk can only use it while unarmored.
However, the unarmed sword sage variant isn't actually a real thing but is instead lightly suggested in the "adaptation" section of the class. The adaptation specifically only says to give the ss the unarmed progression of the monk and remove the light armor proficiency, it doesn't say that the ability changes from while wearing light armor to not wearing armor (though such a call would make sense since the ss no longer has proficiency with light armor... it just isn't what it says).
Finally the way stacking works also would argue a bit against these stacking. In the Rules Compendium under stacking it indicates that unnamed bonuses stack unless they come from the same source. It could certainly be argued that these are indeed the same source (a class ability that gives Wis to AC when unarmored) and so overlap instead of stack.
It really comes down to a DM call because of all that... there isn't a crystal clear RAW ruling on this one. Well, I guess by RAW the ability doesn't change over and so you either have Wis to AC in light armor or unarmored but not both.
Sean Mahoney
|
They are unnamed so they do stackIt's a little tougher to adjudicate than that.
The sword sage ability reads that the Wis to AC is only applicable while wearing light armor, while the monk can only use it while unarmored.
However, the unarmed sword sage variant isn't actually a real thing but is instead lightly suggested in the "adaptation" section of the class. The adaptation specifically only says to give the ss the unarmed progression of the monk and remove the light armor proficiency, it doesn't say that the ability changes from while wearing light armor to not wearing armor (though such a call would make sense since the ss no longer has proficiency with light armor... it just isn't what it says).
Finally the way stacking works also would argue a bit against these stacking. In the Rules Compendium under stacking it indicates that unnamed bonuses stack unless they come from the same source. It could certainly be argued that these are indeed the same source (a class ability that gives Wis to AC when unarmored) and so overlap instead of stack.
It really comes down to a DM call because of all that... there isn't a crystal clear RAW ruling on this one. Well, I guess by RAW the ability doesn't change over and so you either have Wis to AC in light armor or unarmored but not both.
Sean Mahoney
At work so don't have books with me...I remember that a similar question came up with Duelist and Bladesingers Int Bonus to AC. I'm thinking that it was in Sage Advice, but the answer was since they're both based on the same stat they dont stack.
|
Also, In one more note, Why is there a problem with this. I could Craft a Single Class Build at level 2 that could Destroy 5 bug bears. All that happened is the Healer wanted to have lots of AC.
What Chris wrote is far better than anything I would come up with. A few more minor thoughts, then I'm done.
It's not about what can be done but what should be done.
You are looking at going into both "Fist of the Forest" and "Deepwarden". Regardless of whether you can by the RAW, does this really make sense to anyone? So you are going to be the supreme defender of the forest AND the supreme defender underground. How does this fit into your backstory?
The truth is that I can create a bugbear within the RAW that would totally wipe the floor with your monk creation. That doesn't necessarily mean that I should or that it makes sense to do so.
The entire gaming group that you are part of should be having fun. I don't care what the build is or even if it is RAW -- if one character is greatly outperforming all the other characters, it will quickly cease to be "fun" and should be carefully looked at.
|
They are unnamed so they do stackIt's a little tougher to adjudicate than that.
The sword sage ability reads that the Wis to AC is only applicable while wearing light armor, while the monk can only use it while unarmored.
However, the unarmed sword sage variant isn't actually a real thing but is instead lightly suggested in the "adaptation" section of the class. The adaptation specifically only says to give the ss the unarmed progression of the monk and remove the light armor proficiency, it doesn't say that the ability changes from while wearing light armor to not wearing armor (though such a call would make sense since the ss no longer has proficiency with light armor... it just isn't what it says).
Finally the way stacking works also would argue a bit against these stacking. In the Rules Compendium under stacking it indicates that unnamed bonuses stack unless they come from the same source. It could certainly be argued that these are indeed the same source (a class ability that gives Wis to AC when unarmored) and so overlap instead of stack.
It really comes down to a DM call because of all that... there isn't a crystal clear RAW ruling on this one. Well, I guess by RAW the ability doesn't change over and so you either have Wis to AC in light armor or unarmored but not both.
Sean Mahoney
I was thinking about that last night. It always comes down to GM call, but usually different class abilities that allow you to gain your Con Modifer as AC or any other ability modifier would be double-dipping. It's like wearing two chain shirts. By the book, you would get a chain shirt AC bonus from two sources, but the game isn't really designed to allow such a benefit. RAW, the second chain shirt becomes redundant because the rules treat it like it's coming from the same place--your armor bonus to AC. You can have two different sources for a Wisdom modifer to AC benefit, but it's still coming from the same wisdom.
If there was a class ability that gave someone a third foot and benefits to go with that, it wouldn't matter if each class gave different third foot benefits. You'd still have three feet, not four. What you get from the two class abilities should be, by my reading, different.
The main argument against double-dipping from Wisdom modifiers/Con Modifiers to AC is that it's not really an unnamed bonus if it comes from a specific source(bonus equal to BLANK). I can see both sides of the argument, though.
I housreuled that all Int- and Wis-based bonuses are insight bonuses. That way it's clear what they do or do not stack with.
|
|
I housreuled that all Int- and Wis-based bonuses are insight bonuses. That way it's clear what they do or do not stack with.
That's logical, but it does keep monks from getting the benefit of other insight bonuses from magic items and group buffs. Optimized monks aside, the wisdom bonus to AC is less a perk than a necessity, since they can't use their abilities with armor.
That's logical, but it does keep monks from getting the benefit of other insight bonuses from magic items and group buffs. Optimized monks aside, the wisdom bonus to AC is less a perk than a necessity, since they can't use their abilities with armor.
Other insight bonuses to AC are few and far between; in my experience, monks get natural armor (amulet), armor (bracers), and deflection (rings) from items, but no insight. Likewise for spells, which often have enhancement (magic vestment), deflection (shield of faith), or morale, but very rarely insight to AC except for maybe foresight -- a 9th level spell that few people will ever waste on a monk at that point in the game.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
psychic warrior with mind blank (personal) and graft weapon, done ;-)
Ok, rocks fall everyone dies aside, question to the DM. Is he spoiling the other players' fun? Is he spoiling your fun? If he is then the issue needs to be addressed, either by speaking to the player, "You're the star all the time, it's hashing everyone else's mellow" or to the character.
It's not really easy to advise how to change/challenge the player, but the character is easier.
Monsterwise, we have off the top of my head Manticores (tail barbs are natural weapons, so they won't break) and vermin (immune to mind affecting spells, but still alive for the vows to count).
Let me reply to explaining the weakness of the vows themselves when I get home and can thumb through my book of exalted cheese.
That's logical, but it does keep monks from getting the benefit of other insight bonuses from magic items and group buffs. Optimized monks aside, the wisdom bonus to AC is less a perk than a necessity, since they can't use their abilities with armor.
My suggestion would be to house rule a "class bonus" type similar to the racial bonus. That way it would stack with most everything else, but be less abusable.
Not RAW though, just a thought on a house rule.
Sean Mahoney
|
|
Okay, so my main goal is to try and show that with some proper adjudication of the rules, there is nothing "broken" about this build. I think some of the main problems were misunderstandings about the rules. I don't know what the stats of the character are, so I'll be making some very generous assumptions.
As of now, the character seems to be 5th level. Since Deepwarden is planned for the future, I'm guessing they're a dwarf, though I don't remember if that's an actual requirement.
Str 13(for Power Attack)
Dex 10 or 12
Con 16 or 18
Int 8 or 10
Wis 18 or 20
Cha 8 or 10
Okay, even if the point buy was crazy and the dex is higher, it won't matter once Deepwarden is gained, since they substitute Con modifer for Dex.
Monk1/Swordsage2/Fighter1/Warblade1
- No armor bonuses from any equipment
- 1st level monk gains Wis modifer to AC, no bonus AC yet
- AC bonus from Unarmed Swordsage 2 is meant to emulate the Monk ability(it even says "to create a monklike character"), so it should overlap rather than stack with monk's ability(but all three levels should stack for the purposes of increasing monk unarmed damage and monk AC bonus, though that's not RAW)
- Warblade gets no direct AC bonuses
- Several maneuvers and stances might affect AC, but leaving those aside...
- Vow of Poverty gives AC bonus +5, Vow of Peace gives +2 to that and +4 in other bonuses(that do not apply to touch attacks or incorporeal attacks)
Likely AC is 26(Exalted Armor +5, Vow of Peace +6, Wisdom modifier +5), but if Wisdom is lower, the AC is lower
Not much can be done about high AC characters. It's not so much broken as a side effect of putting so much into a single attribute of the character. With Combat Expertise, Dodge, and a host of other feats, anyone can achieve this and the rest of the group just has to build their tactics around it(let the high-AC character soak up attacks where possible, flank and attack while the enemy is preoccupied).
Ah, but there's the Calming Aura problem. It says "creatures," not enemies. Everyone, including the rest of the party, is vulnerable if they're within 20 feet of the monk. The Will save is merely DC 10, according to the DM who originally posted, and that's not hard to beat at all, even without Protection potions and spells that grant Immunity to compulsion effects. Not broken. Occasionally inconvenient and powerful against large numbers of low-level creatures, but the save will cease to be a factor at higher levels, where creatures will have much better than a 50% chance to make the save.
Shattering weapons? That could be a problem, but if the save is equally low, it's not in the ballpark of being broken and won't affect ranged weapons or natural weapons.
I can't say how future prestige classes and feats will change the character, but I don't think it's broken at the moment. Optimized, yes. As long as the rest of the party builds their strategies around the monk, they remain a team and should have fun. If they flounder around and each fight as individuals instead of a team, then they will be consistently overshadowed and frustrated as they fail their saves and become calm, walking targets to the enemies that didn't fail.
|
|
That's logical, but it does keep monks from getting the benefit of other insight bonuses from magic items and group buffs. Optimized monks aside, the wisdom bonus to AC is less a perk than a necessity, since they can't use their abilities with armor.Other insight bonuses to AC are few and far between; in my experience, monks get natural armor (amulet), armor (bracers), and deflection (rings) from items, but no insight. Likewise for spells, which often have enhancement (magic vestment), deflection (shield of faith), or morale, but very rarely insight to AC except for maybe foresight -- a 9th level spell that few people will ever waste on a monk at that point in the game.
I think you're right. And I have noticed that Ring of Protection is a poor investment when the spells that give Deflection bonuses are so plentiful.
I know more about these rules then any of you
I was going to comment on the debate goin on on this thread, but I'm still reeling from this comment. Really? Seriously?
|
|
Ah, but there's the Calming Aura problem. It says "creatures," not enemies. Everyone, including the rest of the party, is vulnerable if they're within 20 feet of the monk. The Will save is merely DC 10, according to the DM who originally posted, and that's not hard to beat at all, even without Protection potions and spells that grant Immunity to compulsion effects. Not broken. Occasionally inconvenient and powerful against large numbers of low-level creatures, but the save will cease to be a factor at higher levels, where creatures will have much better than a 50% chance to make the save.
Shattering weapons? That could be a problem, but if the save is equally low, it's not in the ballpark of being broken and won't affect ranged weapons or natural weapons.
It's not "merely" 10. The calming effect is 10 + 1/2 character level + Cha. The breaking weapons ability has a save of 10 + 1/2 character level + Con. The calming effect should fairly quickly become a non-issue because the DC shouldn't increase as fast as their opponents. However, item Saves don't increase anywhere near as dramatically. Also, it says -- "If a creature strikes you with a manufactured weapon, the weapon must immediately make a Fort save or shatter against your skin, leaving you unharmed." Based on that, it sounds like while arrows aren't nearly as difficult to replace (and it's expected that the character will do so anyway), it still has the potential of not doing any damage to the character even though it hits.
I guess, if you really want to be silly -- what's a "manufactured" weapon? If a character uses manticore spikes as arrowheads, would that be considered a "manufactured" weapon?
|
|
Based on grammar, I'm guessing he's ESL, and doesn't realize how condencending he sounds.I know more about these rules then any of youI was going to comment on the debate goin on on this thread, but I'm still reeling from this comment. Really? Seriously?
edit:Earlier, he said "I'm Willing to bet the lot of you are new to this game"...Matt, by ESL I think you mean English as Second Language? I dont recognize the abbreviation but from the context that's what I guess.--corrected the quote.
If there were two parties, one who, say, teleported past an entire castle of deadly traps and CR 24 monsters in order to appear in the central treasure room and steal the Staff of MacGuffin, and the other of which fought its way through the castle, I'd award a great deal more XP to the second party, even though both parties "overcame" the same guards.
So, lets say a low-level party is walking through the woods, and is seen by a pair of bugbear scouts. The scouts slip away and report back to their boss. The party may, or may not, have even been aware of the scouts. Should the PCs get experience for that? Not yet, because the scouts are still out there, and still a threat. They haven't yet been overcome, even though they left their patrol positions.
Chris, thank you for providing a solid and well-described example. The experience characters receive should reflect the challenge faced by the characters, while the challenge ratings of the various monsters reflect the threat they pose to a typical party. If your party isn’t typical (such as the monk in question), the DM should adjust the experience they receive. Suppose the solitary monk had encountered a ravening pack of rust monsters? How much experience would you give him for ridding the realm of their menace?
Of course you can plaster a personality on a highly effective build. You can also play Magic "in character" (I'm not playing a Red/Green deck; I'm playing Lyra Aelf-friend, Druid Priestess. And Lyra taps into the power of the Richland Forests and Mount Dread to stun your wretched beast.") You can probably play chess in character, too. (My knight would indeed assault your strange moving castle, but he is sick, sick of war, I tell you, and stays in camp, heart-sick at how his life has led him to this point. But! This young soldier over here has come up with a crafty plan, and attempts to sneak his way past the army encamped over the hills.)
This bit was the high point of the thread for me.
About candles of invocation: If you think that’s a good idea, Jabsco, you need to read more. I recommend Black Easter by James Blish, in which an arrogant demon summoner sets Armaggeddon into motion with his magic. It has some interesting descriptions of the hazards encountered when one traffics with beings of supernatural power: Such a caster must tread very carefully indeed.
|
|
It's not "merely" 10. The calming effect is 10 + 1/2 character level + Cha. The breaking weapons ability has a save of 10 + 1/2 character level + Con. The calming effect should fairly quickly become a non-issue because the DC shouldn't increase as fast as their opponents. However, item Saves don't increase anywhere near as dramatically. Also, it says -- "If a creature strikes you with a manufactured weapon, the weapon must immediately make a Fort save or shatter against your skin, leaving you unharmed." Based on that, it sounds like while arrows aren't nearly as difficult to replace (and it's expected that the character will do so anyway), it still has the potential of not doing any damage to the character even though it hits.I guess, if you really want to be silly -- what's a "manufactured" weapon? If a character uses manticore spikes as arrowheads, would that be considered a "manufactured" weapon?
I was going by the first post in the thread where the DM said the save was DC 10(which I assumed was because of a Charisma penalty).
What Chris said! But it's nice to read such an articulate post from someone who actually undertands how the game works. I look forward to seeing a lot more of your posts on the boards, Viletta, unless you get bored and wander off.
Thanks for the welcome, folks. I actually just came for this thread, on a flare Jabsco sent up on the Brilliant Gameologist boards. Though I may stick around. This place has, shall we say, a reputation. I may stick around to see how much of that is truth.
Clearly, you must be new to these "internet forum" things. Welcome, o visitor from some strange planet.
Heh. Oh, I've been around the web long enough to know how these online debates go. It's still not gonna keep me from trying to fight the good fight in the name of logical discourse. Though I do tend to get caught up in the mudslinging and flaming rather more often than I'd prefer to admit.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Thanks for the welcome, folks. I actually just came for this thread, on a flare Jabsco sent up on the Brilliant Gameologist boards. Though I may stick around. This place has, shall we say, a reputation. I may stick around to see how much of that is truth.
I have no intention of derailing the thread, but the Paizo boards are really the only gaming messageboards I frequent. If you would be kind enough to drop me a line at either
c (dot) mortika (at) gmail (dot) com or to akitrom over at LiveJournal, I'd appreciate knowing what kind of a reputation we have here.
My wisdom is too low to not take the bait.
I pop over to the Gamer's Den occasionally just to lurk, not post. Most of them assume that people here -- posters and game designers alike -- are so blinded by [insert fallacy here] that they are completely unable to separate mechanical issues from random emotionally-based opinions, and don't understand basic 3rd grade math. Unfortunately, these complaints sometimes gave a grain of truth to them beneath the hyperbole. Still, these are still the only boards I post on, because you get banter here with some of the regulars (Chris, Heathansson, Sebastian, Jal Dorak, et al.) that beats anything you see on a Saturday morning cartoon.
Viletta--
Such a good post ... and then you had to call the guy a few names. Whatever reputation you feel our boards have, calling someone names has no place here. I've removed your post and removed a few references to it that quoted the parts I removed the post for.
In the future, please feel free to discuss the merits of someone's argument, but calling the individual names helps no one. If someone is attacking you, feel free to flag it and move on. We see the flags and we deal with them (as I'm doing right now) when we need to.
Viletta--
Such a good post ... and then you had to call the guy a few names. Whatever reputation you feel our boards have, calling someone names has no place here. I've removed your post and removed a few references to it that quoted the parts I removed the post for.
How fortunate that I happen to have the original post preserved in another window, that I may rebuild it stronger, faster, and better in a timely manner, or it would be a rather disappointing loss.
I do not have that book... Someone wanna type off the Flaws and Feats he has please?
Some general rules I have... which might help in the future.
1. I do not allow anything from books I do not have.
2. I do not allow anything from any non-core books without reading through it first.
Reproducing the feats verbatim would be illegal, and more importantly, ridiculously cumbersome. Vow of Peace is half a page long, and Vow of Poverty has an entire section explaining exactly what it does.
In short? Vow of Poverty means you can never own anything more than the most basic of basics; one set of clothes, a day's food, and one simple, nonmagic weapon. In return, you get a laundry list of bonuses that advance as you level, and they are supposed to be enough to replace magic items (though generally speaking, they fall short after the lowest levels), as well as a number of bonus exalted feats (of which the vows qualify).
Meanwhile, Vow of Peace means you can never inflict lethal damage, knowingly kill anything (not even a bug), or use any pain/death effects. You may still inflict nonlethal damage/effects. In return, you get an aura that generates a Calm Emotions effect, a large boost to AC, and any weapons that strike you must make a save or shatter.
Now, on your two general rules, #1 does not address the fundamental problems in this situation, and #2 ought to be a given, and should be in everyone's game by default; the DM has to understand what to expect from his players, and have a good idea of what the characters can do.
Some of you are confused how a lv2 can jump to lv5. Here's the very simple breakdown of it all:
5 Bugbears
1 Monk
Lots of flaws (Unearthed Arcana)
Calm Aura (or whatever) -Creatures who fail a Will Save of 10 can only defend themselves. They are considered under the spell 'Calm Emotions'.
All but two of the Bugbears fail.
Those two attack and finally crit against the Monk's 28 AC.
Their weapons shatter against the Monk's skin.
Three of the Bugbears run for reinforcements (to come at a later date) and leave the encounter.
Two are punched-out.End Encounter
xp Awarded for 10x CR2 Bugbears=10,800xp
My mistake to pit a Monk of such caliber to his element.
My last mistake.
Dude, that "my last mistake" thing is a red flag. A major red flag. A neon red flag. So, let's start with the obvious. Unless you're relinquishing the DM's chair, you are going to make more mistakes. Lots of them. Every time you sit down. Big mistakes, small mistakes, huge mistakes, mistakes that matter, mistakes that don't, mistakes that make people laugh, mistakes that tick people off, mistakes that give rise to your greatest NPCs. Don't be so arrogant as to think you can stop making mistakes, or you will make even more, even bigger mistakes. You're human. Remember that.
Now, then. Yes, sending the bugbears against the Monk and expecting the bugbears to come out ahead was a mistake. However, sending the bugbears against the Monk itself was not a mistake at all. The Monk being able to make a spectacular display of his abilities is not a bad thing. In fact, it's a very good thing. Characters should be allowed to be cool, and in the narrative sense, the Monk overcoming those bugbears is spectacular and utterly badass. However, the fact that the Monk with an area will-based negation effect, high AC, and strong protection against mundane weapons prevailed against a band of low-will low-AB mooks who rely on mundane weapons does not make him overpowered. It's like saying that the Cleric with high charisma and strong emphasis on turning is overpowered when I send forty 1HD skeletons at her and they all get decimated by her turning.
Then, there are the other mistakes you need to man up and own up to, because this was not a mistake. This was a series of mistakes, that will continue to happen time and time again not because you're a bad DM, but because you are a human being.
First off, I plugged the encounter into the encounter calculator. One ECL2 character taking out ten CR2 creatures yields 6000 XP. Not 10,800 XP. Minor point. Hardly relevant, actually, though in the future, the encounter calculator can be your bestest best friend. Really great tool, that, and I don't know how I ever DMed without it.
Second, as has been stated, the rules state that if a character gains enough XP from a single encounter to gain multiple levels, the XP gain is truncated and she only gets enough to bring her one point shy of the second level. So, the Monk should not be level 5; he should be level 3, and one experience point away from level 4.
Third, you're allowing a level 5 character to travel with a level 2 party and then griping when the level five character is overpowered. Allow me to repeat. You're allowing a level 5 character to travel with a level 2 party and then griping when the level five character is overpowered. Allowing such a big, huge level gap is (almost) always a bad idea. And you did send an encounter big enough to give one player three levels while the rest of the party had absolutely no chance to even participate, which isn't exactly fair to the other party members. Once the character was one point shy of level 4, you should have pulled him aside and said, "Dude, I'm sorry, but your character is really pulling ahead of the pack. I can't let you level up again until the others have a chance to catch up." Then, give him some bonus skill points or a pool of crafting XP to help the other party members make stuff as consolation until the rest of the party can level, but don't mix level 5's and level 2's.
Fourth, it looks like there are some rules and stacking misinterpretations going on here that are slipping through the cracks. As the DM, you are supposed to understand the abilities your characters are taking. No big deal on things like Power Attack or Monkey Grip, as they're really quite simple, but a huge deal on Vow of Peace and Vow of Poverty. Those two have half a page and an entire section devoted to them respectively. You needed to sit down with your player and go over those abilities, make sure you both understand them in their entirety, and make sure you get them right. The problem is with communication, not splats. Those two vows are two of the most complicated feats in the game, and fundamentally alter the fabric of the game. The fact that you let them pass without taking the proper steps to understand them or their implications is a Big Deal.
There are mistakes on all sides. Multiple mistakes, with more to come, that y'all're going to have to own up to. And more importantly, don't take things so seriously. After all, you're ultimately a bunch of folks sitting around a table playing make believe. Remember that.
<Mechanical Chatter>
Actually, with all those exalted feats, Intuitive Attack is probably in there, providing Wis to AB, and most of the classes being taken are full BAB, making BAB loss less of a problem. Vow of Poverty can provide a substantial wisdom boost, as well as an enhancement bonus to fists, and I believe level 2 of Swordsage provides wisdom to damage with one school of maneuvers (though that may be level 4), making both hitting and hurting less of a problem.
However, one thing I notice is the Wisx2 to AC, when the character's taking Monk and Swordsage. They both get wisdom to AC, yes, but I know for a fact they don't stack. Cleared up in either the FAQ or errata, I believe. Though the Con to AC would. However, Fist of the Forest membership seems like it would be quite in violation of the Vow of Peace, as they are a rather kill-centric organization, and to support them and their killing would violate the vow.
Really, this character needs the build reviewed in detail to make sure the rules actually pan out. If you're gonna use rules, ya gotta make sure you understand 'em and all.
Also, In one more note, Why is there a problem with this. I could Craft a Single Class Build at level 2 that could Destroy 5 bug bears. All that happened is the Healer wanted to have lots of AC.
So for all you non Belivers out there I will wright up a level 2 Build that will crush 5 bug bears only useing 1 class
Chief, that ain't gonna help here. Particularly since you're using Tome of Battle to do it and your big stated concern is that splats're gonna get banned.
But the splats also boost the casters too - even if they keep it simple. So the same situation carries on as in core. At least in core you can control more easily what spells the casters get - class abilities in the splats are not nearly as easy...
But I see your point. It just takes players who recognize that all of them need to have fun and be more or less equal. Then it works. Splat or no splat.
The difference between vast cosmic power and vaster cosmic power is not so great as the difference between, "You are not allowed to be competent," and being legitimately powerful. Further, when you say it also boosts "casters," odds are you're really saying it boosts "Cleric, Druid, and Wizard," who all get their spells almost automatically and thus, if you add a book with fifty spells, results in those classes have fifty more spells as abilities and not simply fifty more options for building. That has nothing to do with a problem with splats, and everything to do with a problem in core, in that the spell mechanic for Clerics, Druids of knowing all their spells either automatically or with marginal effort is highly problematic.
In fact, the splats are an excellent tool for making casters less powerful by introducing less powerful classes that can represent characters who would otherwise take Cleric, Druid, or Wizard. If you use the Psion or Wu Jen classes to represent characters who would otherwise take Wizard, then use Favored Soul to represent characters who would otherwise take Cleric, you don't need the Cleric and Wizard classes anymore, as you have more appropriately-powered alternatives.
As for the players seeking to be more or less equal, in core, that means all full casters, no full casters (both of which can be fun, but shouldn't be necessary to ensure balance), or glaring RP faults. The last one is the big issue; if you have a core Cleric, Druid, or Wizard next to the Fighter, and play both sensibly, even if the C/D/W is kinda crappy, and the Fighter is fairly optimal, it won't be long before the C/D/W utterly eclipses the Fighter just by playing sensibly. To put them on the same level of power, you have to have the C/D/W ignore most of their abilities, and use their powers in a manner inconsistent with an intelligent/wise individual for the most intelligent/wise party member, and generally refuse to play or think about the actual game. Having a Wizard next to a Fighter in a core game will always be unfair at higher levels, even if the players are there to have fun and work together, unless the Wizard is constantly holding back and ignoring most of her abilities, as core Wizards are tremendously powerful by default, and core Fighters can't even do their job in a level-appropriate manner past the lower levels.
The splats actually alleviate the problem by making it an actual option to stay in the same ballpark. Fighter/Cleric/Wizard will always be unfair past early levels, but Fighter/Healer/Warmage or Warblade/Favored Soul/Psion are quite well balanced, and can represent the exact same characters. In either case, every member of the party is legitimately powerful (or comparably weak) and useful within the context of the rules and the party, and everyone can play their abilities to the fullest without having to say, "Will I make Tex feel useless if I cast this spell?" because everyone is either equally powerful or equally crummy out of the box.
Meanwhile, having to actually have to say, "Will I make Tex feel useless if I cast this spell?" every round basically means you're not allowed to play the game, and really undercuts the fun of... well... playing the game.
I guess, if you really want to be silly -- what's a "manufactured" weapon? If a character uses manticore spikes as arrowheads, would that be considered a "manufactured" weapon?
If you want some real fun, Monks' unarmed strikes, as a part of their Unarmed Strike ability, are explicitly stated as being treated as both manufactured and natural weapons, so if a Monk punches Super Buddha and fails the save, her unarmed strike shatters. And since the unarmed strike is the Monk's entire body, it's save-or-go-boom, and the Vow of Peace Monk loses her vow abilities. :P
Of course, I'm not advising ruling it that way. It's just a silly quirk of RAW.
------------------------------
Now, then. I should think these revisions shall prove acceptable.
How fortunate that I happen to have the original post preserved in another window, that I may rebuild it stronger, faster, and better in a timely manner, or it would be a rather disappointing loss.
Firefox 3.5.3 plus the Lazarus Add-on. It's really very good.
The difference between vast cosmic power and vaster cosmic power is not so great as the difference between, "You are not allowed to be competent," and being legitimately powerful.
Are you saying that the difference between 'splatbooked' melee classes and 'splatbooked' non-melee classes is not so much as the difference between a core melee class and a core non-melee class?
If so, then are you talking about the power difference, the Role Playing difference or both, or something else 'different'? Because, while I would agree on the power difference, I'm not sure it makes much of a difference to RP (except player resentment in some cases).
And I don't think that 'you are not allowed to be competent' describes a core melee class, unless you you add extra definition of what 'competent' means. Same goes for 'legitimately powerful'. I'm not nit-picking, I would just like to better understand the statement before putting my foot in it!
Further, when you say it also boosts "casters," odds are you're really saying it boosts "Cleric, Druid, and Wizard,"
Yeah, that's an assumptive thing on my part - I should've really said non-melee classes to be specific (and yet slightly more general?!).
who all get their spells almost automatically
No they don't, not necessarily. clerics and druids have it somewhat easier but all have to choose new spells from whatever source the DM approves. The DM can be even more strict than that, and disallow certain spells from core if he or she wishes. That's what I meant when I said it was easier to control what spells the casters get in core. And the corollary that the class abilities in splats are harder to keep in check.
and thus, if you add a book with fifty spells, results in those classes have fifty more spells as abilities and not simply fifty more options for building.
Yeah, so 50 more spells for the DM to sift through to approve or otherwise. In core its easier. But on top of that you have class abilities to look at too, and these are not so easy to look through - they are frequently unique in almost every way.
That has nothing to do with a problem with splats, and everything to do with a problem in core, in that the spell mechanic for Clerics, Druids of knowing all their spells either automatically or with marginal effort is highly problematic.
So, using a splat makes a problem in core even worse, with my solution above being easier to implement if you use just core. I'm not trying to put words into your mouth here, but it doesn't look like splats make a positive difference to the melee vs non-melee balance until you put in extra controls on those splatbooks. You've put that below:
In fact, the splats are an excellent tool for making casters less powerful by introducing less powerful classes that can represent characters who would otherwise take Cleric, Druid, or Wizard. If you use the Psion or Wu Jen classes to represent characters who would otherwise take Wizard, then use Favored Soul to represent characters who would otherwise take Cleric, you don't need the Cleric and Wizard classes anymore, as you have more appropriately-powered alternatives.
I agree 100%, but you're having to do more work. Removing spells from core is easier. All my posts have been about making things easier for a DM. I can't fix D&D - it is what it is, but there are overly complex ways to make the balance work, and there are simple ways. I'm extolling simplicity over complexity for this problem only.
Off-topic: I like a imaginative build as much as the next gamer ;-)
As for the players seeking to be more or less equal, in core, that means all full casters, no full casters (both of which can be fun, but shouldn't be necessary to ensure balance), or glaring RP faults. The last one is the big issue; if you have a core Cleric, Druid, or Wizard next to the Fighter, and play both sensibly, even if the C/D/W is kinda crappy, and the Fighter is fairly optimal, it won't be long before the C/D/W utterly eclipses the Fighter just by playing sensibly. To put them on the same level of power, you have to have the C/D/W ignore most of their abilities, and use their powers in a manner inconsistent with an intelligent/wise individual for the most intelligent/wise party member, and generally refuse to play or think about the actual game. Having a Wizard next to a Fighter in a core game will always be unfair at higher levels, even if the players are there to have fun and work together, unless the Wizard is constantly holding back and ignoring most of her abilities, as core Wizards are tremendously powerful by default, and core Fighters can't even do their job in a level-appropriate manner past the lower levels.
I understand. I agree, mainly. not so sure about 'utterly eclipse' but that's a matter of perception isn't it? But what I'm hoping (rather naively in all likelihood) is that you use core only, pull some of the sharpest teeth from the spell lists, and the non-melee types have less 'blow the fighter out of the water' moments. you have to look at the CR of monsters though - to make sure TPKs don't happen...
The splats actually alleviate the problem by making it an actual option to stay in the same ballpark. Fighter/Cleric/Wizard will always be unfair past early levels, but Fighter/Healer/Warmage or Warblade/Favored Soul/Psion are quite well balanced, and can represent the exact same characters. In either case, every member of the party is legitimately powerful (or comparably weak) and useful within the context of the rules and the party, and everyone can play their abilities to the fullest without having to say, "Will I make Tex feel useless if I cast this spell?" because everyone is either equally powerful or equally crummy out of the box.
Meanwhile, having to actually have to say, "Will I make Tex feel useless if I cast this spell?" every round basically means you're not allowed to play the game, and really undercuts the fun of... well... playing the game.
That's a neat idea! I think it would work too. I think this is conceptually similar to my solution, but more complex (arguably - I believe so just because you're including more material, and that never makes things more simple). And I'm not sure you can build a fighter as a warblade and have the exact same character without the 'ex-fighter' ignoring some of his cool new stuff to stay within concept. Which is what the issue you were talking about for non-melee types in core - holding back the 'big guns'.
Finally, the point about fun is well-made, but do you think the players of these healers/warmages/psions/favoured souls are going to be thinking "Man, I wish I was a cleric/wizard/druid! I'd be so cool then!"
And the issue carries on.
Thanks for reading!
Over years of GMing I have come to lean towards the older style GMing rules more and more. It is perfectly acceptable for a GM to ban books, races, classes and characters.
The touchy feely stuff saves peoples feelings but not the game. My advice to the GM would be to explain to the character what they are doing that is making the game 'unfun' for the GM and the other players. If they don't change (their character, how the play or whatever) then arbitrarily ban/kill their character.
A simple truth, if a Gm isn't having fun then the game will die.
It's not the way I normally play, but all this talk of banning everything but core makes me want to bust out the brokenness that is the alter self through polymorph chain.
Sean Mahoney
It's not the way I normally play, but all this talk of banning everything but core makes me want to bust out the brokenness that is the alter self through polymorph chain.
Sean Mahoney
Eh thats easy to fix by saying"No you can't do that" I am a tyrant on what I allow in my game. The words "Sure use any book, any rule" is madness to me. I tend to allow core + setting books and other stuff is on a case by case Base
To me this is a simple case of the GM not having enough control on his game and not fully understanding the rules he allowed in. If he had there would be no issue but he did not understand how far reaching it would be. Splat books are made to work in a vacuum and they do not work well with each other at times. Heck some don't work well with stuff in the same book. I am not saying ban em (although I have a list) but know what you allow in
We all make mistakes ya just need to learn from em
Are you saying that the difference between 'splatbooked' melee classes and 'splatbooked' non-melee classes is not so much as the difference between a core melee class and a core non-melee class?
The wording of this question is a bit odd, but... WotC realized the melee/caster divide early on and went through a great many gyrations to bridge it. They threw in a lot of feats for melee, but never really advanced melee classes themselves until Tome of Battle. However, every single casting class after the Player's Handbook (with the exception of Archivist) is markedly and deliberately weaker than Cleric, Druid, and Wizard as a matter of balance. So, if you put a splat melee class next to a splat casting class, the gulf between them won't be so vast as a core Wizard next to a core Fighter.
If so, then are you talking about the power difference, the Role Playing difference or both, or something else 'different'? Because, while I would agree on the power difference, I'm not sure it makes much of a difference to RP (except player resentment in some cases).
Except it is an important roleplaying distinction, as the rules affect what can happen in-game. If my character is supposed to make her living as a scout, yet has no mechanical abilities that allow her to scout competently, that becomes a roleplaying fault as she cannot do what she is defined as being able to do. Likewise, if a character is defined as being a mighty warrior, yet mechanically isn't a mighty warrior, that, too, becomes a roleplaying fault.
The inability of melee to be powerful past the early levels in core becomes a roleplaying fault because they can't do what they're defined as being able to do.
And I don't think that 'you are not allowed to be competent' describes a core melee class, unless you you add extra definition of what 'competent' means. Same goes for 'legitimately powerful'. I'm not nit-picking, I would just like to better understand the statement before putting my foot in it!
A level 7 melee Fighter of a normal, no HD, no LA race is a CR 7 melee creature. This is as spelled out by the system itself, not an additional definition. It is presented by the game. As a CR 7 melee creature, a Fighter built sensibly ought to stand a legitimate chance against another CR 7 melee creature. Considering Fighter is a pure combat class, with absolutely no noncombat abilities, they ought to be able to attain at least a 50% success rate in combat against a CR 7 melee creature, since combat is the only ability they have and it's the ability being tested. A melee character who can't approach that 50% is below the competence line under standard CR assumptions.
The standard is quite fair; a level 7 Druid can stand next to a Nymph just fine. A normal Wizard, Sorcerer, Rogue, or even archery Ranger can stand next to a Drider. However, a normal level 7 Fighter cannot stand up against an elephant or a hill giant with even close to a 50% success rate. The Fighter is not allowed to be competent at her job. And the gulf between the Fighter and the melee monsters that are supposedly her equals widens as melee monster stats explode in comparison to the PCs.
What Tome of Battle does is it allows for melee builds that can actually perform melee in a level-appropriate manner (other than uberchargers, spiked chain trippers, and counter spammers), meaning you're actually allowed to have characters who are defined as mighty warriors, and actually have the mechanics to back up the claims, which ends the RP fault of claiming your character's a mighty warrior despite the mechanics saying she's incompetent.
And also of note, core melee hardly even gets anything. Go through the PHB and try to find nineteen feats that contribute to a coherent level 20 human Fighter. The options aren't there, and those that are don't contribute.
Yeah, that's an assumptive thing on my part - I should've really said non-melee classes to be specific (and yet slightly more general?!).
Well, non-melee goes outside the issues, in many respects. Rogue and archery Ranger are generally fine, whether with or without splats. They're fine before, they're fine after. Sure, they have more options with splats, oftentimes very good options, but it's not really that major. The real divide is generally caster versus non-caster. And Sorcerers, as they stand, are already pretty much fine.
No they don't, not necessarily. clerics and druids have it somewhat easier but all have to choose new spells from whatever source the DM approves. The DM can be even more strict than that, and disallow certain spells from core if he or she wishes. That's what I meant when I said it was easier to control what spells the casters get in core. And the corollary that the class abilities in splats are harder to keep in check.
I call Oberoni. Just because the DM can fiat anything does not mean the rules are fair.
Within the confines of the rules, Clerics and Druids gain full access to all of their spells from all allowed sources automatically (though they can't cast spells of an opposed alignment), and Wizards can purchase or research pretty much any spell at any city for which the costs are within its wealth capacity. Those are the rules.
Yes, the DM can go through and harshly restrict the Cleric's spell selection, but that's DM fiat and a house rule, not a part of the system itself. Further, if the DM lets the high-level Fighter get her hands on a fancy sword that costs fifty grand, plus another fifty grand in armor and shield, then begrudges the Wizard researching an array of 1530 gold spells (the cost of researching a ninth-level spell), that is definitively unfair, and essentially amounts to giving the Wizard the finger.
These cases of deliberately screwing the Cleric, Druid, and Wizard, and denying them fair and equal access to their class abilities is not a part of the rules. It's a social construct that has arisen precisely because they are so overpowered, but that social construct, that DM fiat, is in no way a part of the rules, and is the very definition of unfair. Further, it amounts to the system failing to provide balance and forcing the DM to override the system and try to hammer out balance with her own two hands, which makes balance directly the purview of DM whim and mistakes, rather than a case of attempting to create a more-or-less balanced game out of the box.
or otherwise. In core its easier. But on top of that you have class abilities to look at too, and these are not so easy to look through - they are frequently unique in almost every way.
Having to approve fifty spells is only a problem with the unreasonable core mechanic of Cleric, Druid, and Wizard getting nigh infinite spells almost automatically, not a problem with the splats itself. If the caster were a Favored Soul or a Sorcerer, and you introduced a book with fifty new spells, they might take three. Which means three spells to sift through and approve.
As for the class abilities, most non-core classes are simpler or as simple as core. The exceptions being some of the alternate system books (Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum, Expanded Psionics Handbook, though ToB and XPH are simple as pie). However, if you look at a Warlock, or a Warmage, or a Ninja, or a Favored Soul, they're all very simple to understand. Nothing about any of those classes is more complicated than Wild Shape. Or Turn/Rebuke Undead. Or Polymorph. It's no extra burden on the DM when compared to the Druid having an entire gauntlet of animal forms on hand to completely upturn her sheet X times a day.
So, using a splat makes a problem in core even worse, with my solution above being easier to implement if you use just core. I'm not trying to put words into your mouth here, but it doesn't look like splats make a positive difference to the melee vs non-melee balance until you put in extra controls on those splatbooks. You've put that below:
<snip>
I agree 100%, but you're having to do more work. Removing spells from core is easier. All my posts have been about making things easier for a DM. I can't fix D&D - it is what it is, but there are overly complex ways to make the balance work, and there are simple ways. I'm extolling simplicity over complexity for this problem only.
The splats exacerbate the problem in core? Then cut the problem. Not the splats. You'd actually get a more balanced game if you banned the PHB and kept the splats than vice versa. The Cleric, Druid, and Wizard were a mistake. Get rid of them, or address the infinite spell mechanic, and that problem is gone.
And splats do make a significant difference in the caster/melee divide for the simple reason that they make it a legitimate option to have casters and melee who are in the same galaxy with regards to power. The core case of Sorcerer and Barbarian is still a huge gap, but if you bring in the splats, Warblade and Dread Necromancer becomes an option. Or Barbarian and Warmage. Or any number of combinations that put the PCs in the same ballpark.
As for adding splats versus pruning core spells? How is it simpler to wade through hundreds of spells, pruning them and then putting the entire remaining mass on the scale of game balance, make sure you got it right, then repeat the process for two more classes than it is to go to another book, take a class or three that is already known to be more balanced with abilities that are already known to be more well-defined, and be done with it?
Splats generally don't complicate things. They certainly don't have to. After all, if you have a party with a human Fighter, a dwarf Cleric, an elf Wizard, and a halfling Rogue at level 1, you have four races, six feats, four classes, and maybe fifty spells involved. If the party is, instead, dragonborn human Warblade, lesser aasimar Favored Soul, sun elf Wu Jen, and changeling Ninja, it's a matter of four races, four (I think) feats, four classes, and a considerably smaller selection of spells/maneuvers. Even if you allow fifty splats, that doesn't mean you're going to have fifty times the features in the party. It's still only going to be four character sheets, whether there's one book or a hundred.
If the individual abilities get complicated, then things get complicated, but there's complicated stuff in core as well, anyways. (*Glares at Wild Shape.*) The stuff you're not using contributes nothing to overall complexity.
If you want to keep things simple, just make K.I.S.S. (that's Keep It Simple, Stupid) a rule, and bringing in all the splats'll be just fine.
I understand. I agree, mainly. not so sure about 'utterly eclipse' but that's a matter of perception isn't it? But what I'm hoping (rather naively in all likelihood) is that you use core only, pull some of the sharpest teeth from the spell lists, and the non-melee types have less 'blow the fighter out of the water' moments. you have to look at the CR of monsters though - to make sure TPKs don't happen...
"Utterly eclipse" may be a perception, but it, like everything else, is subject to objectivity and reason. If there's evidence to support the perception, analysis and reason identify a source of the perception, and the logic stands up to extensive scrutiny, then odds are you can conclude that there's a legitimate problem giving rise to the perception, that can be diagnosed and treated.
That's a neat idea! I think it would work too. I think this is conceptually similar to my solution, but more complex (arguably - I believe so just because you're including more material, and that never makes things more simple). And I'm not sure you can build a fighter as a warblade and have the exact same character without the 'ex-fighter' ignoring some of his cool new stuff to stay within concept. Which is what the issue you were talking about for non-melee types in core - holding back the 'big guns'.
My theory is simple. Use the rules that are fair. Ditch the ones that aren't. Between the option of making new rules and trying to make them fair, or grabbing some preexisting rules that are already fair, I'll grab the preexisting rules every time. The problem with culling lists is, you have to make it fair.
And if the Fighter's concept involves "fight good," then you can build any melee Fighter as a Warblade seamlessly. There's just a fluff barrier in most peoples' minds to the contrary, that just doesn't have any real basis. The players bring the fluff, after all. If Farmboy was going to be a level 1 Fighter, and now he's a level 1 Warblade, he doesn't have to ignore any of his abilities; he just has to choose the ones that are appropriate in the first place. Farmboy is reckless and undisciplined, with little regard for his own safety. That's Punishing Stance. Farmboy is really, really strong, and can bring that to bear. That's some first-level Stone Dragon strike or another. There are plenty of maneuvers that stay well within the domain of the non-flashy, that stay in the "I hit things hard" category, or the "I sword good" category that they don't have to conflict with an otherwise mortal and conventional character.
Over years of GMing I have come to lean towards the older style GMing rules more and more. It is perfectly acceptable for a GM to ban books, races, classes and characters.
Acceptable, yes, but it should be a well-considered and rational decision that also takes the players' desires and the game as a whole into consideration. If the DM decrees, "Splats are banned because they break the game," and you have one player who wanted to play a well-balanced Psion while another is a Wizard who used Planar Binding to farm efreeti for wishes, well, then you're just being silly.
The touchy feely stuff saves peoples feelings but not the game. My advice to the GM would be to explain to the character what they are doing that is making the game 'unfun' for the GM and the other players. If they don't change (their character, how the play or whatever) then arbitrarily ban/kill their character.
At the same time, Drake really has to consider how much of the situation is his fault, and what mistakes he's really made. The player's build may be rather good, but Drake did approve it. The player just picked abilities appropriate for Kung Fu Jesus within the defined parameters of the game, got them approved, and used them as intended (though there are some rules interpretations that need to be reviewed).
On the flip side, Drake sent a CR 7 encounter (that happened to play to every one of Kung Fu Jesus' strengths) against a lone level 2 character while the rest of the party was in a coma and then got angry when the Monk won, and is now angry that the Monk is three levels ahead of the party. It sounds to me like Drake was expecting the encounter to be unwinnable, and possibly that it would kill the Monk, which is just plain combative DMing. Further, the player winning and the player advancing three levels aren't the fault of the player. He played his approved character in an appropriate manner against the challenges the DM sent before him and came out on top.
A number of comments Jabsco has made, to the effect that the party usually dies swiftly and brutally at low levels, and that's why the players feel they have to make such powerful builds, seems to frame Drake as a highly combative DM, who's out to kill the players, who gets angry when the players don't die. This may not be the whole of the truth, but I believe it stems from a kernel of truth that needs to be looked into and assessed seriously.
Everyone in the group needs to sit down and talk. At length. If the players feel the DM is trying to kill them and that they have to latch onto every ability they can get their hands on just to survive, that needs to come out. If the DM feels the players are being abusive and utterly twinking out, that needs to come out as well. Get everything out in the open. And everyone needs to admit that they are a part of the problem, and honestly assess how and why.
Viletta, just wanted to thank you for taking the time and effort to explain so clearly, and in one post, everything I've been trying to articulate here since the Alpha test.
There is vast anger and resentment here, when the full casters' high-level superiority in core 3.X is pointed out. Some adamantly claim that the game is SUPPOSED to be that way, and "isn't D&D" if that's not the case. Others look at wizards and clerics who play, or are forced to play, haphazardly and pull their punches, and state that everything is fine. Both of these "solutions" drive me to distraction.
Just letting you know that at least one person who hasn't been banned also understands exactly what you're saying.
|
|
Viletta, just wanted to thank you for taking the time and effort to explain so clearly, and in one post, everything I've been trying to articulate here since the Alpha test.
There is vast anger and resentment here, when the full casters' high-level superiority in core 3.X is pointed out. Some adamantly claim that the game is SUPPOSED to be that way, and "isn't D&D" if that's not the case. Others look at wizards and clerics who play, or are forced to play, haphazardly and pull their punches, and state that everything is fine. Both of these "solutions" drive me to distraction.
Just letting you know that at least one person who hasn't been banned also understands exactly what you're saying.
Me too. Sort of.
The "sort of" stems from my belief that 1e did some underlying mechanics much better than 3x ever will, and allowed magic to be amazing and powerful, IF the caster could get the spell off...
...and that fighters having the equivalent of all "good" saves and the ability to charge twice in a combat round, and being the only class to get multiple attacks and the only class to get the good con bonus and...
Ok, that was a little off topic...
Well. Damn, I'm old...
I may be wrong but if I recall you could not gain enough xp to skip levels. Maybe that was from 3.0 or maybe 2e I just misremember but it's a good rule anyhow
Pretty sure the DMG for 3.0/3.5 limit total xp to one point less than what a character needs to raise 2 levels. i.e. you can never 'double ding'.
This is balance is important not just so one character doesn't get too far ahead, but to keep a ceiling on the amount of xp crafters and casters can have banked.A second level character could only ever have a maximum of 5999 total xp, 4999 unspent and 1000 used to become level two.
|
|
Character build aside, the DM has first, last, and only say about how many experience points get handed out. Defeating 2 bugbears and having some others run away is not enough to go up three levels (which is against the rules anyways.) After three pages of back and forth about splats and builds, this to me is the main problem - the DM has handed out too much experience for a single encounter. The rest of the arguments really have no bearing on this one thing.
I find myself wondering why, if there are players perfectly capable of building such uberPCs in this group, nobody thought the polite thing to do would be to point out to the DM that he was giving out way too much experience.
Though quick question. He went from 2nd level to 5th? He had Vow of Peace at 2nd level? That's physically impossible since it requires two other feats to take, and even humans only have 2 feats by 2nd level.
Open splatbook means Unearthed Arcana, and thus Flaws. Maybe he took one or two.....
I housreuled that all Int- and Wis-based bonuses are insight bonuses. That way it's clear what they do or do not stack with.
That's logical, but it does keep monks from getting the benefit of other insight bonuses from magic items and group buffs. Optimized monks aside, the wisdom bonus to AC is less a perk than a necessity, since they can't use their abilities with armor.
Actually, I know it's a little off-topic, but I don't think the surgestion is even needed. Nammed bonuses do not stack, so if you get one ability saying "You add your Intellegence bonus to AC" and another ability saying the same, the intellgence bonus does not stack with itself.
Think of it this way, it would be like a class feature saying "You add your armour and sheild bonus to touch AC" (Granted there would be no point in such an ability, but lets say there was). If you got another ability the same, would you add it twice to touch AC? Making your touch AC higher than normal?
I can't recall where, but there was definately a debate a while back about this very thing and several people used RAW to show that multiple Int or Wis bonuses to AC do not stack with each other. It would be either here, on the Giant in the Playground forums or or Gleemax, but there was definately RAW evidence shown in the debate.