your hiking pack also prolly has an external aluminum frame, or an internal plastic/ carbon fiber one, which allows heavier weights to be carried. I tried humping a 50lb bag of sand in a frameless ruck for 10k, it was almost the most uncomfortable i've ever been carrying that kind of weight. In my ALICE pack, 50 lbs is a breeze.
|
your hiking pack also prolly has an external aluminum frame, or an internal plastic/ carbon fiber one, which allows heavier weights to be carried. I tried humping a 50lb bag of sand in a frameless ruck for 10k, it was almost the most uncomfortable i've ever been carrying that kind of weight.
My normal pack has an internal carbon fiber / graphite frame (think pack made of fishing poles). By the way, you have not known uncomfortable until you have toted 50 pounds of pointy, snarly camera equipment on an antique packboard for eight miles in the snow. It hurts just thinking about it. The things I do for stock footage...
|
Midrealm DM-
Out of interest, just where does it say how much a backpack can hold?
Good question, I can't seem to find that anywhere..
Dragon Magazine once published an article "How Many Coins in a Coffer" which discussed container capacities and I may have taken it from that.
What I use is:
Sack 2' x 4' = 150 lbs capacity
Backpack 1' x 2' = 40 lbs capacity
Bag 6" x 12" = 5 lb capacity
Pouch 3" x 6" = 0.5 lb capacityAt any rate, by weight a breastplate could be caried in a pack. But by volume I think not.
WotC did an article on converting english standard measurements in D&D to Metric a while back and had a list of containers and what they held, I will paste the relevant stuff here with a link to follow.
Containers and Carriers
Hauling Vehicles
Item Cost Empty Weight
(English Units) Holds or Carries
(English Units) Empty Weight
(Metric Units) Holds or Carries
(Metric Units)
Cart 15 gp 200 lb. 1/2 ton 100 kg 500 kg
Sled 20 gp 300 lb. 1 ton 150 kg 1,000 kg
Wagon 35 gp 400 lb. 2 tons 200 kg 2,000 kg
Dry Goods
Item Cost Empty Weight
(English Units) Holds or Carries
(English Units) Empty Weight
(Metric Units) Holds or Carries
(Metric Units)
Backpack 2 gp 2 lb.[1] 1 cubic ft./60 lb.[1] 1 kg[1] 0.03 cubic meters/30 kg
Barrel 2 gp 30 lb. 10 cubic ft./650 lb.[2] 15 kg 0.3 cubic meters/300 kg[2]
Basket 4 sp 1 lb. 2 cubic ft./20 lb. 0.5 kg 0.06 cubic meters/10 kg
Bucket 5 sp 2 lb. 1 cubic ft./65 lb.[3] 1 kg 0.03 cubic meters/30 kg[3]
Chest 2 gp 25 lb. 2 cubic ft./200 lb. 12.5 kg 0.06 cubic meters/100 kg
Pouch, belt 1 gp 1/2 lb.[1] 1/5 cubic ft./10 lb.[1] 0.25 kg[1] 6,000 cubic centimeters/5 kg
Sack 1 sp 1/2 lb.[1] 1 cubic ft./60 lb.[1] 0.25 kg[1] 0.03 cubic meters/30 kg
Saddlebags 4 gp 8 lb. 5 cubic ft./250 lb. 4 kg 0.15 cubic meters/125 kg
Spell component pouch 5 gp 1/4 lb.[1] 1/8 cubic ft./2 lb. 0.125 kg[1] 3,750 cubic centimeters/1 kg
Liquids
Item Cost Empty Weight
(English Units) Holds or Carries
(English Units) Empty Weight
(Metric Units) Holds or Carries
(Metric Units)
Bottle, wine, glass 2 gp -- 1 1/2 pints/1.5 lb. -- 0.33 liters/0.33 kg
Flask 3 cp -- 1 pint/1 lb. -- 0.25 liters/0.25 kg
Jug, clay 3 cp 1 lb. 1 gallon/8 lb. 0.5 kg 4 liters/4 kg
Mug/tankard, clay 2 cp -- 1 pint/1 lb. -- 0.25 liters/0.25 kg
Pitcher, clay 2 cp 1 lb. 1/2 gallon/4 lb. 0.5 kg 4 liters/4 kg
Pot, iron 5 sp 2 lb. 1 gallon/8 lb. 0.5 kg 4 liters/4 kg
Vial, ink or potion 1 gp -- 1 ounce/-- -- 30 ml/--
Waterskin 1 gp -- 1/2 gallon/4 lb. [1] -- 2 liters/2 kg
-- No weight worth mentioning
1. When made for Medium characters. Weighs one-quarter the normal amount when made for Small characters. Weighs twice the normal amount when made for Large characters. Containers carry one-quarter the normal amount when made for Small characters.
2. A barrel filled with liquid holds about 75 gallons or about 300 liters.
3. A bucket filled with liquid holds about 7 gallons or about 30 liters.
FH
|
|
At any rate, by weight a breastplate could be caried in a pack. But by volume I think not.
However, get a big enough pack, and anything's possible.
For example, my hiking pack is large enough, I would think, to carry a Medium breastplate (not much else, though). My point is that if the PC had a 2600 cubic cm pack, they would be able to carry it.
I carry my armor (including a steel breasplate and helm) in a duffel bag. It fits just fine. One thing to note is that when you're not wearing it, the interior of the breastplate (or whatever) is empty and can fit quite a bit of stuff. Many pieces of armor can nest inside of each other quite comfortably.
That armor bag is a pain to hump around, but then I don't exactly have an 18 STR.
Oh, and the armor is certainly much easier to wear than to carry in the bag.
A rule I'm not a huge fan of is grappling. It's too complicated; I'm thinking about simplifying it down to opposed unarmed attack rolls with size bonuses.
Fallen object damage is nasty; clever PCs can deal 20d6 on something quite straightforwardly.
I don't like polymorphing with templates. You were never able to do it before, and there's no good reason why you should be able to do it now.
A rule I'm not a huge fan of is grappling. It's too complicated; I'm thinking about simplifying it down to opposed unarmed attack rolls with size bonuses.
Fallen object damage is nasty; clever PCs can deal 20d6 on something quite straightforwardly.
I don't like polymorphing with templates. You were never able to do it before, and there's no good reason why you should be able to do it now.
So don't allow templates with polymorphing?
Re: falling damage- I'm thinking Ewoks v Stormtroopers here. If you can control the terrain you are fighting on, dropping lots of heavy stuff is not only easy, its a lot of fun too! :)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Which explains why the longsword was the dominant melee weapon for several centuries :) My biggest problem is with the druid and psionics. The druid just gets too many goodies. Either it is a warrior class, or a spell caster, why does it get both, and a meat shield beside? And psionics just don't mesh well with the rest of the system, and seem to be a "dip" favorite on character optimization threads everywhere. As far as which rules I break in game, I use the "once a class skill, always a class skill" rule, don't use XP, and only allow one PrC at a time. Nothing major, but it makes it easier for me as DM.
I would argue the dominant melee weapon was (and really is) the sharp implement on the end of a stick, i.e. spears and polearms.
And you'd probably be correct in terms of sheer numbers :) But the long sword, and its various cultural variants (Dao, Katana, Scimitar, sabre, etc) were "the" warrior weapon in most steel using cultures in a way the spear was not. But then again, reasonable people can disagree reasonably :)
Runner up is Spiked Chain. That it can be used against adjacent foes makes every other reach weapon obsolete. Make reach weapons threaten adjacent squares and this problem is fixed. And people will then stop swinging spiked chains all the time.
Winner: POWER ATTACK.
I like the 1 for 1 benefit using a one-handed weapon. The rule breaks down (in my opinion) when you weild it two handed: double the damage. The shield and nearly every one-handed weapon is obsolete in our game.
100% agreement with both points, Reach. And I've had to house rule that Power Attack does NOT work against incorporeal undead (with their incredibly lame ACs), and then explain repeatedly that it's perfectly fair, and to stop whining. "But I miss half the time!" Grrr.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I've had to house rule that Power Attack does NOT work against incorporeal undead (with their incredibly lame ACs), and then explain repeatedly that it's perfectly fair, and to stop whining. "But I miss half the time!" Grrr.
I'd have to disagree here. Since melee weapons (albeit only magical ones) are capable of harming an incorporeal foe AT ALL (50% miss chance or not), there must clearly be some 'essence' that the weapon is rending apart to reduce the spirit's hit points. Otherwise, for that matter, why would a greatsword do any more damage than a dagger to a ghost? When you manage to score on the 'hit' side of the 50% chance (or if you have a ghost touch weapon), your weapon is meeting some kind of resistance. When you put some "UMPH" in it with Power Attack, you're making that much more of an impact on the quasi-material form of the thing you're striking.
Having swung a longsword around with theatrical intent, I can say that stabbing with a tip heavy weapon is a challenge, but...
Having swung a longsword around in the manner of Talhoffer and Ringeck (following the Lichtenauer tradition) with martial intent, I can say that the guards Ox, Plow, and Fool both lend themselves very well to thrusting attacks, and that the so-called "Murder Strike", which involves gripping the blade in both hands and swinging the hilt like a hammer, would do bludgeoning damage.
p.s. A longsword in the real world is more like what D&D calls a bastard sword, and what D&D calls a longsword is more like an arming sword, as those are actually a one handed weapon. Longswords, or hand-and-a-half swords, are primarily meant to be used with both hands and become fairly difficult to wield with one hand. Sound familiar?
Whats funny about all of this (the thread topic and our observations) is that I think we're all talking about game balance, which really is (like beauty) in the eye of the beholder (no pun intended).
Going back to the Power Attack problem, I recommended pulling back the amount of damage Power Attack deals with two hands (from double to 1 1/2). A friend of mine recommeded increasing the utility of a shield from Light: +1 to +2, or Heavy +2 to +4. Both options work for me.
Just goes to show you how hard it is to design a game.
|
|
Having swung a longsword around with theatrical intent, I can say that stabbing with a tip heavy weapon is a challenge, but...
Having swung a longsword around in the manner of Talhoffer and Ringeck (following the Lichtenauer tradition) with martial intent, I can say that the guards Ox, Plow, and Fool both lend themselves very well to thrusting attacks, and that the so-called "Murder Strike", which involves gripping the blade in both hands and swinging the hilt like a hammer, would do bludgeoning damage.
Also, I have found that punching daggers make rather effective slashing weapons,as well as peircing weapons. The same goes for short swords and rapiers.
There is little about D&D armor, weapons, and how they relate to the combat system that has any relation at all to the real world, as anybody who's had any kind of real world experience can tell you.
A friend of mine recommeded increasing the utility of a shield from Light: +1 to +2, or Heavy +2 to +4.
I like this. It makes shields more desirable, which they are (or should be).
Personally I track encumberance only on characters that are monks, or have access to the fly spell (or flies, but I have fewer of those) because encumberace affects such things. But so much of the weight "rules" or descriptions are broken anyway. One scroll weighs a negligable amount, so they don't have a weight listing for scrolls. So theoretically my wizard can carry a million scrolls and still carry a Light load (I've done that, or similar).
Also, my group never pays attention to the experiance penalty for multiclassers. The rule is realistic, but there are times when you have to sacrifice realism for balance. I think it is unfair that a wizard4/rogue1 would get less experiance and level up slower than his fellows who took 5 levels in one class, especially since he's not getting 3rd level spells and sucks at rogue stuff, relative to the challenges he would be facing.
I'd have to disagree here. Since melee weapons (albeit only magical ones) are capable of harming an incorporeal foe AT ALL (50% miss chance or not), there must clearly be some 'essence' that the weapon is rending apart to reduce the spirit's hit points. When you put some "UMPH" in it with Power Attack, you're making that much more of an impact on the quasi-material form of the thing you're striking.
I'm talking strictly game balance though, not realism (as constantly pointed out, D&D is not "realistic," nor should it necessarily be--but that's a different conversation!). In my opinion, spectres just lose a lot of credibility when they're always wiped out in 1-2 blows ("I use maximum power attack! Full BAB! Max it out!"), barring exceptionally unlucky miss chance rolls--their ACs are so lame they're just begging for people to abuse a 2-handed Power Attack on them. Who needs a cleric then, when a +1 greatsword is better? Obviously, things might be different in your campiagns, but that's just my slant on it. (Dread wraiths, of course, get around this weakness by Spring Attacking back into solid objects...)
One scroll weighs a negligable amount, so they don't have a weight listing for scrolls.
Which is ridiculous, since the description of scrolls notes that they are typically on large wooden rollers or some such (not just a sheet of paper or whatever).
And yes, I'm bugged by encumberance rules that only take account of weight, but not bulkiness. Of course, a mechanic for that would just complicate things.
|
|
Having swung a longsword around with theatrical intent, I can say that stabbing with a tip heavy weapon is a challenge, but...
Having swung a longsword around in the manner of Talhoffer and Ringeck (following the Lichtenauer tradition) with martial intent, I can say that the guards Ox, Plow, and Fool both lend themselves very well to thrusting attacks, and that the so-called "Murder Strike", which involves gripping the blade in both hands and swinging the hilt like a hammer, would do bludgeoning damage.
p.s. A longsword in the real world is more like what D&D calls a bastard sword, and what D&D calls a longsword is more like an arming sword, as those are actually a one handed weapon. Longswords, or hand-and-a-half swords, are primarily meant to be used with both hands and become fairly difficult to wield with one hand. Sound familiar?
My training was far more theatrical, though I did buy myself a book on/by Ringeck, so I am working on martial intent. My point was that using any of the slashing swords, while certainly possible, and effective is less accurate and uses less of the beneficial design of the weapon.
Most overused is 'not in my world' closely followed by 'because I'm the DM, duh.'
Most in need of fixing is turning (why is the number of hit dice affected random?--and if the reasoning behind it is sound, why can I not roll a d20 and add it to my caster level for beating spell resistance or better yet a fireball?)
Most abused is listed gp value of an item. Many of my current group will take everything (enemies equip is a standard, but 'that bronze door handle is 30% copper' or 'I only used a mace on this dragon, let's drain its blood.) This quickly translates into a +Y sword of X. Don't shop owners ever say--nonono we have enough longswords and leather armor! Try next door thankyouverymuch. Instead they give you the gold (+/- 5%). Even if everyone in my city could afford a porsche doesn't mean the porsche dealer has one for every person who asks. Some of you will just have to settle for the ferrari or wait months for more porsches to exit the boat. GP based on level (like XP) might be going to far, but come on you can maximize a lightning bolt do you really need all six of those crossbow bolts?)
I will not even start on looting a dead PCs body, then bringing a new character at the dmg's expected equipment value (effectively doubling the equipment owned.)
Also, my group never pays attention to the experiance penalty for multiclassers. The rule is realistic, but there are times when you have to sacrifice realism for balance. I think it is unfair that a wizard4/rogue1 would get less experiance and level up slower than his fellows who took 5 levels in one class, especially since he's not getting 3rd level spells and sucks at rogue stuff, relative to the challenges he would be facing.
Agreed. Multiclass characters suffer enough reduced effectiveness as is, I hardly see it as balancing to further penalize them.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Also, my group never pays attention to the experiance penalty for multiclassers. The rule is realistic, but there are times when you have to sacrifice realism for balance. I think it is unfair that a wizard4/rogue1 would get less experiance and level up slower than his fellows who took 5 levels in one class, especially since he's not getting 3rd level spells and sucks at rogue stuff, relative to the challenges he would be facing.Agreed. Multiclass characters suffer enough reduced effectiveness as is, I hardly see it as balancing to further penalize them.
Our group has never really had an issue with the multiclassing penalty. Our typical stance on the matter is: "Multiclassing: Just (don't) do it."
You want to play a wizard to level 5 and then decide that rogue is your thing at level 6? Well, if you're an elf, human, or halfling, it's not that big of a deal. As an elf, you are secure enough in your command of arcane power that directing your studies to something new barely taxes you. As a human, your innate adaptability allows you to pick up new talents and skills with ease. As a halfling, your natural grace and nimbleness makes becoming a rogue virtually effortless. These are established racial identities. They exist to color the cultures that such characters come from. A halfling sorcerer is going to be something very unusual. A gnome barbarian is going to be just as odd (if not more so). These things exist as the exception rather than the norm for a reason. If you eliminate favored classes, you eliminate the reasons that the societies and racial identities have even been established.
Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. My group and I stick to the favored classes and we like it that way. Your mileage may vary.
I see some interesting answers so far, and I’ve actually got three that I think pretty much get busted pretty often, sometimes for fair reasons.
1) I’ll go with Sebastian on Encumbrance. It’s such a bookkeeping hassle that rigorous adherence can take up so much time it seems nothing else gets done. Every torch that gets bought or used, every potion that gets found or consumed, every gold piece that gets collected or spent should, by RAW, be accounted for at all times, immediately. Otherwise a character is not laboring under the proper movement strictures. Considering the number of activities (charging, fleeing, climbing, swimming, et al) that can and will be effected by the weight a character is carrying, this rule is very important, but almost always ends up relegated to third-class citizen status in the name of “having fun” or “it’s fantasy” or, blah, blah, blah. No realism allowed, mind; no physics or factual, real-world activity is acceptable. :)p (good natured jibe, Saern).
2) Then I’ll add the weapon length rules. Whether using “speed factors” or not, a weapon’s length can have a direct impact on melee, not only in the first round (longer weapons always goes first) but later on as well as relative lengths, when taken into account by strict RAW can vary melee initiative order drastically. If that’s not enough, long weapon combat in tight quarters (pole arm weapons of any sort in a narrow dungeon hallway, for example) can seriously restrict the user’s ability to wield the weapon effectively. Use of this rule is rare simply because of the slowdown of game play when employed, but even when it is used, it’s almost always broken six ways to Sunday. No surprise given it’s complexity, but it gets broken nevertheless.
3) The third is weapon class/type vs. armor type. Piercing, slashing, bashing, etc., type weapons each have a different level of effectiveness against certain types of armor. Some were even developed to be used specifically against a certain armor type. Using this rule is another one of those serious slowdown things, but it does add realism for those who are willing to tolerate the bookkeeping to get it.
In short, the more “realistic” and game slowing rules are the ones most often “broken”, at least in the games I’ve been involved in. People always turn a blind eye in the name of playability or fun and allow intensely researched and play-balance tested activities to go by the wayside.
There is always an inverse proportion to playability and realism. Most people will lean towards playability (less realistic) because they’re more in to the game for the fantasy and story telling, not the historical recreationism that can go along with it all because they’re not willing to pay the price.
|
|
I've been working on something extra for my personal campaign...
Basically there would be some prerequisites for each base class, and if you meet them, when you first multiclass into that class if you have all the prerequisites then you pay no penalty ever for that class, effctively being another favored class.
An example using a fighter. Looking at the first level benefits of a fighter, you see d10 hp, +1 BAB, good fortitudes, all armor proficiencies, all shiled proficiencies, all simple and martial weapons.
So, say, anyone entering the fighter class with +2 or better fortitude saves, all armor proficiencies, and at least 1 martial weapon proficiency doesn't pay the xp penalty, meanwhile the character hoping to sneak in and grab the hole pile does.
Fighter works well with paladin and cleric, and pretty well with barbarian and ranger, but works poorly with rogue or wizard.
Just my 2 cp.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
The thing that I think is the most broken about 3.5 is the whole 'favored classes' system. It just doesn't make sense that if you want to play a dwarven wizard / rogue, you get docked XP. Our group doesn't even use the rule.
I agree that there are some aspects of the 'favoured classes' system that are silly, specifically when looking at races from different regions.
Let's look at Eberron's Elves as an example:Aerenal Elves: These elves can use the standard Wizard 'FC' without any modification as they are a magical society with a focus towards Necromancy.
Valenar Elves: They should have either Fighter or Ranger (or even Barbarian) as their 'FC' as they come from a more martial society that has a large focus on Cavalry.
Khorvaire Elf: Being a generic elf I would say that the Wizard 'FC' should do them fine.
If however you were looking at Dragonmarked Elves (from Phiarlan or Thuranni), then I would consider that either Rogue or Bard would be a better choice for their 'FC'. In saying this though, Wizard would still be an acceptable choice for 'FC', just not the best.
Drow Elves: As a race I think that the Jungle living Drow would be more suited to having Ranger as their 'FC'. With no real female dominated society, there is no need for the split 'FC' of male/female; everyone is treated relatively equally in regards to 'FC'.
Now I know that most of you will simply say to change this to suit your game, but I still think that in terms of Regions or Civilizations that races should have differing 'Favoured Classes' written into their histories and rules. Why should someone playing an Elf from a martial culture where there are virtually no Wizards have Wizard as his 'FC'?
Just my 2c worth on something that has bugged me a bit lately when reading some of the Eberron sourcebooks.
Cheers
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I agree that there are some aspects of the 'favoured classes' system that are silly, specifically when looking at races from different regions.
Let's look at Eberron's Elves as an example:
Well, part of your wishes have already been granted. The favored class for Valenar elves is Ranger, not wizard.
Forgotten Realms does something similar with the different elven cultures. Wood Elves' FC is ranger. Drow males' FC is wizard, but the females' FC is cleric (one of the very few races that list cleric as an FC). Wild elves' FC is either ranger or barbarian, I can't remember which.
... but almost always ends up relegated to third-class citizen status in the name of “having fun” or “it’s fantasy” or, blah, blah, blah. No realism allowed, mind; no physics or factual, real-world activity is acceptable. :)p (good natured jibe, Saern).
Hey, encumberance is in the RAW, so I'm all for it (though I'm as guilty of simply forgetting it as the next guy). :)
Can someone create a link to the pertinant DM of the Rings (the one about the TARDIS)?
|
|
Egads, what game was it that had the Stones encumberance system...
Every item "weighed" a certain number of stones, most items were 1 or 2. It wasn't just weight, but size too.
So instead of 45 pounds and 18 pounds and 2 pounds and blah blah blah for 137.5 pounds total, you would be carrying maybe 15 Stones.
Small items were either * (10 = 1 stone) or ** (100 = 1 stone)
Since the numbers were smaller, and more standard it was more convenient to use.
Oh and back packs did clever things like reduce the "weight" of things in them by half, and they had a maximum capacity in total stones, or the maximum of any individual item
Dramatic Music
Too the library... was it soverign stone... maybe aria... something old...
Anyway, the point is nobody uses encumberance because it is a hastle. But if the bookkeeping was made simpler, it would be more friendly, and more widely used.
Something like a light load is 1/2 your strength, a medium load up to your strength and a heavy load more than your strength up to twice your strength.
A stone is roughly 10 pounds, or 1 cubic foot. So light weapons would mostly be *, one-handed be 1 stone, two handers be 2 stones, armor could be up to 5 or 6 for plate... which reminds me worn armor was easier on the body, so carrying a suit of full plate would be 6 stones, but wearing it only 4...
Wow, i ned to stop posting when sleepy... need a coffee tanker with an IV drip
Egads, what game was it that had the Stones encumberance system...
Too the library... was it soverign stone... maybe aria... something old...
I think it might have been Aria. I had those books for a while (though I never played it more than generating characters and making notes). Don't have the books anymore to check, as sad as that makes me.
Contributor
|
Regarding Stones as encumberance: One of the Ultima computer games used stones for carrying equipment. I liked that idea.
Other encumberance: In an old Dark Sun game, my party got stranded in the desert. We built a platform with a canvas shade, and four PCs and all our gear went on it. Then my Mul character picked it up and carried them out of the desert. We did this to conserve water, because they were all resting in the shade, they hardly needed any. I needed more for extended march while moderately encumbered!
I love reading threads like this...always good for a chuckle or two.
As ever,
ACE
A spiked chain is a piercing weapon and can therefore be used under water without penalty.
Egad. I'll take that a step further. *ALL* the "made-up" weapons are stupid, the spiked chain being first among them. No such weapon ever existed. Now, if one were to create campaign with "bizarre, fantasy weapons," etc., along with a whole bunch crazy weapons and NO normal weapons, like Broadswords, etc., then the spiked chain'd be ok.
The thing that I think is the most broken about 3.5 is the whole 'favored classes' system. It just doesn't make sense that if you want to play a dwarven wizard / rogue, you get docked XP. Our group doesn't even use the rule.
Yes! Testify, brotha! Hallelujah!
;^)
I like the Conan RPG concept of favored classes . . . if you take 1, 5 or 10 levels of a favored class you are rewarded with a bonus feat, but never penalized for doing something different. The point is, PC's should be *rewarded for playing the genre* (whatever it happens to be), and not *penalized* for trying to do something different.
|
|
I don't use favored class rules in my games. If this rule exists to explain a racial preference for one class or another, that has more to do with flavor than mechanics, imo. If it is to encourage playing single-class characters, I think that point is made with all the other drawbacks of multi-classing (usually lower overall effectiveness).
Stones were also used in the Everquest online RPG, to which I was addicted for a couple years. I'm glad that's over.
As for a "broken" rule, I think the rules are faily well-balanced for the pace of game-play, as a few others have said. The only thing that tends to make me groan is the spiked chain.
I don't actually think any of the rules of the game are truly broken. To say something is broken is saying that it doesn't work. All the rules in the game work, but some don't work as well as others.
An armor system based on DR sounds great, but all WotC's attempts at a compromise between giving armor just a DR rating and actually having it provide protection against being struck have sucked. In reality, armor would protect a person from glancing blows (and thus provide an AC bonus) and would also absorb some of the damage from an impact (and thus provide DR). Working all this out with the combat system as it stands just doesn't work that well since many of the other rules of the game are based around it.
Other things, like using a spiked chain underwater and longswords doing piercing damage are all about common sense and not making the game unnecessarily complicated. You could have a list of all the combat variations someone could use with a longsword, and say that it does 1d8 slashing, 1d6 bludgeoning, and 1d4 piercing, but then you would have to do that for all the weapons and the weapon tables would end up being phenomenally long. It's bad enough with weapons of different sizes as it is.
Grappling isn't complicated once you read it properly. The mechanics themselves aren't the problem, but rather the way that it has been worded.
The trouble with changing one rule means that you have to change all the rules that rule effects and then all the rules those rules effect. A well-designed (for the most part) game like D&D is heavily interconnected. You just can't look at the rules in isolation.
Now disagree with me! ;-)
I don't use the Favored Class rule or the Multiclass penalty rules at all in my game beacuase, while realistic, they don't add anything to the game other than another thing to keep track of. In addition it makes interesting character builds, which I find fun, less enjoyable due to greatly reduced effectiveness.
I don't even bother with encumbrance except whne it has a direct effect on the game (i.e. when flying, swimming or being carried) because its just another thing to keep track of that doesn't add mch to the game.
I don't like the languages system. Say you are a 1st level human Rogue with an intelligence of 16. You're not more than 25 years old but you can speak a three languages plus common? That doesn't make sense unless you're some kind of language genius. Add Speak Language to that and it becomes a nightmare. I recently had a Bard who could speak almost every language at the third level. I had to make her revise her character sheet.
The Diplomacy system is screwed up. You get a total of a 25 on your Diplomacy check while trying to convince a charging Vampire to stop attacking you. That isn't going to work. I generally let my players' Diplomacy checks work if they roll high enough and if they actually can think of what their character says. I don't allow them to just say "I succeeded by 15 so they become freindly. It doesn't matter that I'm not actually being that charismatic and I can't think of anything diplomatic to say."
This next one isn't really broken its just stupid: a Bard's song can give you a bonus on any check, even Move Silently or Hide.
Apologies if I rambled and didn't make much sense.
|
|
I don't like the languages system. Say you are a 1st level human Rogue with an intelligence of 16. You're not more than 25 years old but you can speak a three languages plus common? That doesn't make sense unless you're some kind of language genius.
I don't think that's broken, or particularly unrealistic, although it might seem so to someone (like me I admit) who only speaks one language. I have a friend, not much older than 25, who speaks fluent English, Mandarin, Min Nan, Cantonese, Japanese, and is currently learning French. She's smart sure, but I don't know about a genius.
This next one isn't really broken its just stupid: a Bard's song can give you a bonus on any check, even Move Silently or Hide.
Apologies if I rambled and didn't make much sense.
Order of the Stick comic has had so much fun about this one... Especially loved the "bluff, bluff, bluff the stupid ogre" song :)
I spoke at least to some extent three foreign languages when I was 25...some of the rather badly but anyway. And now I have fourth foreign language in my repertoire.
Actually it has been suggested that in past good amount of people spoke several languages, as they constantly rubbed shoulders with people who spoke different languages. When there were no large national languages you had to learn the language your neighbors talk. And this is still true in eg. Africa and India...homogenized cultures like US do give slanted view to one's ability to learn other languages.
Idea of "Common" language on the other hand is pure game mechanic but one I haven't unraveled yet with house rules...as I think that would be more trouble than fun.
Diplomacy is just immensely problematic, and one where I am most likely to go with the hunches instead of rolls when deciding what happens.
Craft skills have their problems, especially the notorious Craft(trapmaking).
About presence of magic making all kinds of demands for realism null, I utter magic words: Internal Consistency. Things have to make sense within certain established parameters like "magic works" "dragons and ghosts exist". Neither of these decisions make more sense to the fact that spiked chain can be used underwater without penalty (unless it is magical Spiked Chain of Underwater Movement).
|
|
[I spoke at least to some extent three foreign languages when I was 25...some of the rather badly but anyway. And now I have fourth foreign language in my repertoire.
Actually it has been suggested that in past good amount of people spoke several languages, as they constantly rubbed shoulders with people who spoke different languages. When there were no large national languages you had to learn the language your neighbors talk. And this is still true in eg. Africa and India...homogenized cultures like US do give slanted view to one's ability to learn other languages.
Idea of "Common" language on the other hand is pure game mechanic but one I haven't unraveled yet with house rules...as I think that would be more trouble than fun.
I think in some settings, like FR and Eberron, "Common" is sort of "Human". I agree that having a common language that everyone speaks by default stretches credulity somewhat (though Swahili is often given as an example of a trade language which no one actually speaks as a "native tongue, as such, though don't know if it is true or not). But them probably all orcs speaking the same version of Orcish, all the different types of giant speaking a common "Giant" tongue, and even all dwarves speaking the same Dwarvish is likewise a tad unlikely, especially in a medieval setting without easy transport. Hundreds of languages (maybe more?) have dwindled or gone extinct in the 20th century due to widespread mass media.
In the British Isles alone, at least six different languages were about until faily recently: Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, Manx, Welsh, Cornish and English (and I'm hardly an expert - there may have been more). And even some of the English dialect can be virtually foreign languages (though they are much rarer than they used to be, if a report I heard on the radio is to be believed).
So there are unlikely to be monolithic "racial" languages of any sort in a vaguely "realistic" setting. But then again, what DM wants to create thousands of different languages for that bunch of elves in that forest, different from the elves in this other forest, and so on?
uh tough one...
All in all the game works, bur to me the most broken rule is the Magical Levitating shield. It's fine on its own untill the fighter with a two hander and 581 feats that boost his damage, whos only weaknes is semi poor AC, suddenly has 30 something...
Whos to blaim ones players for having between one and four of these in a party.
|
|
My mother was about 8 when she came to this country after WWII. The american troops liberated the german camp where she was being held, so you could imagine that she didn't have the most intense educational experience.
She spoke fluently in polish and byelorussian, and she could get her point across in ukranian, russian, german, and even a little english. All when she arrived.
You'd be amazed what exposure can teach you.
|
|
A spiked chain is a piercing weapon and can therefore be used under water without penalty.Egad. I'll take that a step further. *ALL* the "made-up" weapons are stupid, the spiked chain being first among them. No such weapon ever existed. Now, if one were to create campaign with "bizarre, fantasy weapons," etc., along with a whole bunch crazy weapons and NO normal weapons, like Broadswords, etc., then the spiked chain'd be ok.
Hate to bring this up but don't the Klingons in Star Trek have a weapon that is "made-up"? Never seen one in real life, not very functional in practical application, bad-assed looking. Don't here a lot of complaining on that one! In a FANTASY game there should be FANTASY weapons. Weapons that capture the imagination and are more stylistic than substantial.
On the subject of the spiked chain, no, the one depicted in the PHB would never be usable, but there is a few other depictions that I could see as usable, and I say this with a modest background in the use of the Kusari-gama, and several other long, chained weapons. I am waiting to discuss with a local blacksmith how much it would cost to have a spiked chain made so as to try to put it through some paces to see how it would respond in combat, but until then....Now a ridiculous weapon is the 2- bladed sword, someone is gonna lose an arm with one of them!
FH
The Diplomacy system is screwed up. You get a total of a 25 on your Diplomacy check while trying to convince a charging Vampire to stop attacking you. That isn't going to work...
Agreed, but because the way you/ your players are using it is wrong, not because the mechanic is broken :) Takes a full MINUTE to diplomacize, unless you take a -10 on it. Even then, it is a full round action. If init has already been rolled, and the Vamp is indeed charging you, I'd rule you are SOL for trying to influence his attitude through logic and reasoning, or even honeyed words. Hell, I may even let you get away with it, but then the Vampire would ask for "compensation", ie i was gonna kill all of you, pick one. I'm hunfgry."
|
|
I always hate the "say something nice" version of diplomacy that some of my various DMs & GMs have enforced. Not that it isn't cool from a certain point of view, but come on, we are gamers, the average charisma score any of us ahs in real life is 8. Some of us just can't come up with something nice to say.
I guess it is the same thing with complex riddles or puzzles. The player may only be int 15, but his characte is int 21 and should have no problem figuring the answer out.
The reason characters have stats and scores is because they aren't the players... if they were it would be called real life...
ok, rant over
|
|
I am waiting to discuss with a local blacksmith how much it would cost to have a spiked chain made so as to try to put it through some paces to see how it would respond in combat, but until then....
Watch it, Fakey - I don't want to hear about you winding up in hospital.
Now a ridiculous weapon is the 2- bladed sword, someone is gonna lose an arm with one of them!
The two-bladed scimitar in Eberron (yes, I know you don't like it) I can sort of see, if it is very sharp like a katana and whirled about. The two-bladed sword - never really worked out how you would get enough ooomph behind a blow, as you can't really swing it, just sort of wiggle your wrists.
|
|
The two-bladed scimitar in Eberron (yes, I know you don't like it) I can sort of see, if it is very sharp like a katana and whirled about. The two-bladed sword - never really worked out how you would get enough ooomph behind a blow, as you can't really swing it, just sort of wiggle your wrists.
But Darth Maul had one, and he was cool
Umm, that was a light saber. No blades, whirling vortex o' dhoom, and didn't rely on force of impact to do damage. Just sayin... :)