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.
While there is a legitimate argument on whether multiple bonuses of the same type from the same stat would stack, unnamed bonuses do stack. Weapon Focus grants a +1 unnamed bonus to AB. Charge grants a +2 unnamed bonus to AB. To say that unnamed bonuses don't stack is to say that Weapon Focus does not stack with charging, which is just silly.
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.
While I understand where you are going with that, it doesn't really work out. Intelligence bonus is not a type of bonus but a noun describing something... it would have to be an intelligence bonus bonus to AC for it to work out that way.
Sean Mahoney
While I understand where you are going with that, it doesn't really work out. Intelligence bonus is not a type of bonus but a noun describing something... it would have to be an intelligence bonus bonus to AC for it to work out that way.
Sean Mahoney
Erm..but it is a type of bonus, an intellegence bonus is just that...an intellegence bonus. By RAW, it doesn't stack. Nothing in the entire game lets you stack Deflection bonuses, Natural Armour bonus, Sheild Bonuses, Armour bonuses, Dexterity bonuses etc from seperate sources, so why is intellegence and wisdom the exception?
You can stack natural armour and enhancement bonus to natural armour, obviously.
A load of stuff about power of no-splat versus splat that Matt Devney agrees with.
Sorry - didn't want to make a big fat quote and say I agree with it close enough as to not make a massive point about it! Well, I agree up until...
I call Oberoni. Just because the DM can fiat anything does not mean the rules are fair.
Woah there! :-) For starters, I had to google that. Next, I never said the rules are fair in the first place which is why we're having this conversation. So I wouldn't say "The rules are fair because you can change them" either. It's more "The rules aren't fair - here's how to change them."
And you suggested replacing core cleric, wizard and druid with Healer/Warmage or Favored Soul/Psion. If that's not Rule 0 I don't know what is. And it's giving these classes the 'ultimate finger' by not even including them.
As for the class abilities, most non-core classes are simpler or as simple as core.
I disagree that non-core is simpler. It is definitely less familiar, and that's half of the problem - especially if you talk about prestige classes. And when you start mixing up the various books (as they do on the CharOps boards) the result can be almost overwhelmingly complex as to invite fierce debate on the matter from even experienced gamers who know the rules inside and out. This thread has detailed at least one instance of non-core stuff interacting in stupid (IMO) ways. I honestly don't care if a particular non-phb class is simple, just keep piling on the splatbooks and soon it gets very messy.
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?
Well, you do it intelligently. Just prune the ones that the players are about to get, next level up or something. Like you were suggesting for the 50 spells in a new splatbook. Same thing.
And you've mentioned "take a class that is already known to be more balanced etc. etc. " Sez who? Your players? And what about their next choice of class, and the next prestige class, and those feats they like? You'll be reviewing everything in your game soon, including the monsters just in case there's an epic CR fail because the monster designers didn't take into account some mad splatbook released after the monster was designed.
Players won't stop at one splat - they'll go over the whole output and just look for cool stuff. And why not? That's why it's there.
Or you could tell them to not use extra splat... but I think some player who wants a particular class will see that as an unfair limitation...
Adding extra stuff is not KISS. It's fun, but never simpler. Even if you restrict it.
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.
The problem with pre-existing rules is, you don't know they are fair.
By the way - you've made some great points and given me lots of ideas here by the way. Thanks for your continued posts on this.
I still think it boils down to this though:
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.
I never felt humbled by any wizard I played with, even if I was a paladin! We enjoyed the game and no-one hogged the lime-light.
At the moment in our current game I'm actually needing to hold back, but it's not abilities that are spiralling out of control, but character development - I've had to take a huge chunk of it offline so the other players don't get bored. Otherwise I'd be eclipsing a pathfinder paladin - and I don't think I can do that in combat...
Oh yeah, having roles that other don't tread into helps too. But that's all handled outside the rules. Maybe it's better handled there..?
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).
Personally, I adjudicate Vow of Poverty even more strictly than presented: the clothes on your back, a sack to carry some food (until Sustenance is gained at 5th level) and any treasure earned (only until the earliest opportunity to donate it to any worthy charity/organization; keeping it longer violates the vow), and only those weapons with a 0 gp cost (club, quarterstaff, sling with stones instead of bullets, unarmed attacks). I also rule that using material components to cast spells violates the vow (making Eschew Materials a necessity for spellcasters); divine foci such as holly and mistletoe for druids (free, per PHB) or a simple wooden holy symbol (1 gp) are included in Eschew Materials.
Note that the Vow of Poverty does NOT prohibit the character from receiving spells or effects from spells or items used by other characters. The Vow of Poverty character can receive healing and buff spells from another character's wand, a stoneskin cast by someone else, etc. The Vow of Poverty character WILL violate their vow if they use a magic item or cast a spell using a material component, even if the item or component is "owned" by someone else.
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.
Vow of Peace allows lethal damage to be used against constructs and undead (only); technically, you can also damage or destroy objects, as long as it doesn't endanger any living creatures (breaking down a door or smashing open a chest is OK, cutting a rope that someone is climbing or shattering a barrier to flood an inhabited area is not). The extreme restrictions on behavior when dealing with living creatures (to include the actions of associates) make this an even more difficult vow to avoid violating than a Vow of Poverty, in my experience. It usually only works if the entire group "buys in" to running their characters in support of the Vow of Peace character's restrictions (i.e., taking prisoners, attempting to redeem enemies, etc.).
The Vow of Poverty requirement for the apostle of peace PrC never made sense to me (what does non-violence have to do with non-materialism?). I always substituted Subduing Strike as a prerequisite; it fits better, IMO.
Woah there! :-) For starters, I had to google that. Next, I never said the rules are fair in the first place which is why we're having this conversation. So I wouldn't say "The rules are fair because you can change them" either. It's more "The rules aren't fair - here's how to change them."
And you suggested replacing core cleric, wizard and druid with Healer/Warmage or Favored Soul/Psion. If that's not Rule 0 I don't know what is. And it's giving these classes the 'ultimate finger' by not even including them.
If, to balance the Cleric, Druid, and Wizard, when they say, "I prepare legal spell X," "I summon legal creature Y," or, "I spend my honestly earned wealth to research spell Z in legal location Q," and the DM replies, "No, you don't," that's rule zero. It's changing the rules mid-stream based on nothing but DM whim, and it's blatantly unfair.
If you go through the entire spell list before the game begins with a set of shears, trim them down, and hand them to the players, then that's a houserule rather than rule zero, sure, but if you're doing that and making sure the lists are fair and balanced? That's a ridiculous amount of work compared to just looking at a Psion.
And the classes don't matter one whit. It's the players and the characters that matter. I don't give the wizard or the wizard's player the finger by banning the Wizard class, as there are plenty of fair alternatives out there. And it's a lot easier to ensure the balance of than manually rebuilding spell lists.
I disagree that non-core is simpler. It is definitely less familiar, and that's half of the problem - especially if you talk about prestige classes. And when you start mixing up the various books (as they do on the CharOps boards) the result can be almost overwhelmingly complex as to invite fierce debate on the matter from even experienced gamers who know the rules inside and out. This thread has detailed at least one instance of non-core stuff interacting in stupid (IMO) ways. I honestly don't care if a particular non-phb class is simple, just keep piling on the splatbooks and soon it gets very messy.
Again, make K.I.S.S. a rule. Ask your players to keep things simple, and they can stay simple quite easily. A Warmage is inherently simpler than a Wizard. If you replace the Wizard with a Warmage, all else being equal, the game has become simpler by the addition of a splatbook.
You can make things more complicated, yes, and with enough material, it can be quite easy to make things more complicated if you try. However, CharOp is not normal use of splats. In fact, much of CharOp is theoretical work not intended for play at all. It is not a fair comparison to make.
And you've mentioned "take a class that is already known to be more balanced etc. etc. " Sez who? Your players? And what about their next choice of class, and the next prestige class, and those feats they like? You'll be reviewing everything in your game soon, including the monsters just in case there's an epic CR fail because the monster designers didn't take into account some mad splatbook released after the monster was designed.
Players won't stop at one splat - they'll go over the whole output and just look for cool stuff. And why not? That's why it's there.
Says who? Says those who spend their days trying to break the game. The game and the classes have already been crushed, squeezed, twisted, bent over backwards, analyzed, and dissected at great length by people trying to utterly abuse them. What's overpowered and easily abusable, or underpowered and utterly worthless, and what's fairly reasonable with some handy exploits has all been fairly well-established. After all, it's hard to understand operating parameters for a system until you shatter it. I would direct you to Brilliant Gameologists' tier list as a handy resource, but they're having some technical issues at the moment.
And it isn't normal to take multiple prestige classes, or feats from five different books. Heck, you can get every spell you need from two, and that's including core. The Spell Compendium condenses that down quite nicely. Players don't normally go for the crazy, or the complicated, and unless you really know what you're doing, the ridiculously complicated builds are rarely more complicated than simple stuff anyways. And if they start going crazy, you just have to remind your players, keep it simple, stupid.
Adding extra stuff is not KISS. It's fun, but never simpler. Even if you restrict it.
A Beguiler is simpler and more efficient than a Rogue/Wizard/Arcane Trickster. By allowing a player to play a Beguiler, adding a splat simplifies the game. Once the game begins, they still only have one character sheet all the same. The addition of another book adds nothing to the complexity as you go along, and in fact detracts from the complexity by providing a simpler character-representation tool than core had available. One class and one set of abilities instead of three. And a level 20 Beguiler does its job very well, far more effectively and elegantly than core alternatives. During play, even if a hundred books were available for character creation, only one matters; the four character sheets in front of you, with a finite number of classes, abilities, races, and spells.
If, to balance the Cleric, Druid, and Wizard, when they say, "I prepare legal spell X," "I summon legal creature Y," or, "I spend my honestly earned wealth to research spell Z in legal location Q," and the DM replies, "No, you don't," that's rule zero. It's changing the rules mid-stream based on nothing but DM whim, and it's blatantly unfair.
Well, you've suggested a pretty awkward way of doing it there, and used awkward wording. There's a better way of saying it though - DM: "I am final arbiter of what goes in my game - even from core. This is designed to encourage balance among characters. If you want to get something specific, or if you feel that some spells might be on my radar, please ask me first." I seriously doubt that 'legal creature Y' or 'legal spell X or Z' were chosen on a whim.
If you go through the entire spell list before the game begins with a set of shears, trim them down, and hand them to the players, then that's a houserule rather than rule zero
It's a house rule AND rule zero. They are not mutually exclusive. And I never said go through the entire spell list before the game starts. In fact I specifically said you didn't need to go through the entire list - same as your example.
And the classes don't matter one whit.
[joke]Umm... then that makes this conversation a bit pointless[/joke] :-)
It's the players and the characters that matter. I don't give the wizard or the wizard's player the finger by banning the Wizard class, as there are plenty of fair alternatives out there.
You say 'fair', he says 'underpowered'. And it comes back again to talking to your players...
Again, make K.I.S.S. a rule. Ask your players to keep things simple, and they can stay simple quite easily. A Warmage is inherently simpler than a Wizard. If you replace the Wizard with a Warmage, all else being equal, the game has become simpler by the addition of a splatbook.
All else is not equal though is it? And I still don't see how you can add extra books and rules and say you're following the KISS principle.
And it complicates the DM's world when he has to rebuild all his W/C/D NPCs or face a revolt of the players who, rightly, insist that is favouritism.
However, CharOp is not normal use of splats. In fact, much of CharOp is theoretical work not intended for play at all. It is not a fair comparison to make.
I agree about much of CharOp being theoretical. But I have to use CharOp in comparison, as that is what's required to make the fighters, converted to warblades, competent. And it's how the DM knows which books/rules are broken.
You suggest using CharOps (or some other source, like the tiers from BG - I have seen them) to work out ways to 'KISS' with the splatbooks. I'm suggesting the players (if they don't buy into KISS) will use CharOps to do what they want to do. I think that's a fair comparison.
And if they start going crazy, you just have to remind your players, keep it simple, stupid.
<snip>
A Beguiler is simpler and more efficient than a Rogue/Wizard/Arcane Trickster. By allowing a player to play a Beguiler, adding a splat simplifies the game.
Can't KISS be done with core? And isn't that even simpler? The beguiler example is a good one, but pretty specific. What if you wanted more choice about the spells you got? And there are 4 brand new abilities that it adds, including one that can bypass SR. And a new spell list. And altered spell progression. That's more complex than a wizard/rogue. And you still need to refer to core books for some abilities. So I don't see how that's is making it KISS. But it does make a tidier character sheet, so bonus points on that.
Well, you've suggested a pretty awkward way of doing it there, and used awkward wording. There's a better way of saying it though - DM: "I am final arbiter of what goes in my game - even from core. This is designed to encourage balance among characters. If you want to get something specific, or if you feel that some spells might be on my radar, please ask me first." I seriously doubt that 'legal creature Y' or 'legal spell X or Z' were chosen on a whim.
Considering the way summoning works, summoning Y on a whim is pretty much exactly how it works, as summoning spells amount to picking what you please from a laundry list. The fact that the Druid can say, "We need healing. I burn Dispel Magic to summon a unicorn," or, "We need flight. I burn Fog Cloud to Summon a hippogriff," is one of their most convenient advantages. If the DM's retort is, "No, you don't," that's going beyond denying spells to denying class abilities.
And if, between games, the player running the Wizard comes to her DM saying, "While we're in town, I want to spend some time researching Glitterdust," and the DM's reply is, "Too bod?" That's simply obstructive. The players are supposed to be able to act within the rules, but in this case, the players aren't even allowed to know the rules in the first place.
The DM is indeed the final arbiter of the rules. The ultimate judge. But a judge interprets the law. A judge does not create the law whole cloth, and a judge is most certainly not the law herself. Once the game begins, the rules are supposed to be set unless situations dictate that doing otherwise is an absolute necessity.
It's a house rule AND rule zero. They are not mutually exclusive. And I never said go through the entire spell list before the game starts. In fact I specifically said you didn't need to go through the entire list - same as your example.
They are not the same. A houserule is a change to the rules, but there are still rules. Rule zero is when DM fiat replaces the rules. "You can only have this discrete list of spells," then presenting a pre-pruned list, is a houserule, as there are still rules, presented to the players, that they can operate under. "You can only have what spells I say you can have," is DM fiat, as there are no rules, only the whim of the DM.
The players control one thing, and only one thing. Their characters, who operate within the boundaries of the rules. The DM should never infringe on the players' control over their own characters without very good reason; after all, the DM has an entire world, while the players have only one person. When you refuse to let the players know the boundaries of the rules, you're dramatically eroding the players' control over their characters by refusing to allow them to know what they can and cannot do.
[joke]Umm... then that makes this conversation a bit pointless[/joke] :-)
The point there is that the classes are a character creation tool. So long as all characters are well-represented, whether or not a certain class is included becomes irrelevant.
Though really, I don't understand why banning the Wizard and company is seen as such a big deal when folks rant and rave about regulating splat access. The PHB is just another splat, after all. What gives PHB classes such special protections?
All else is not equal though is it? And I still don't see how you can add extra books and rules and say you're following the KISS principle.
Character creation is a process, to the creation of a product. There is nothing that makes one book inherently simpler than another by right of it being in another book. Vow of Poverty is not complicated by right of being in Book of Exalted Deeds. It' complicated by right of being complicated. It's complicated by needing an entire section just to explain what it even does.
Monkey Grip is not inherently more complicated than Improved Shield Bash. A character that uses Monkey Grip is not automatically more complicated than a character that uses Improved Shield Bash. Monkey Grip just happens to come from a book other than the PHB.
No matter how many sources you use, there's one output. A character sheet, and a character. A single compilation of character-based rules and abilities gathered into a single location. The complexity of that character sheet is all that matters. If the character is simple, then it is simple. If the character is complex, then it is complex. If the character is a Beguiler 20, odds are the character is fairly simple, despite drawing on an additional book. If the character is a Rogue1/Wizard5/Assassin1/Arcane Trickster10/Archmage3, then the character is complex, despite being core.
And it complicates the DM's world when he has to rebuild all his W/C/D NPCs or face a revolt of the players who, rightly, insist that is favouritism.
It's perfectly fair to send a fire giant at a level 10 party despite the fact that no one in the party is allowed to be a fire giant. Likewise, W/C/D NPCs can be every bit as much an accepted fact of life, if only for the fact that such NPCs come premade and it is generally accepted as really tedious to rebuild them all.
A W/C/D NPC does not carry the same implications as a W/C/D PC, however. The DM can already send one Sorcerer with one set of spells at you one day, and another Sorcerer with another set the next. An NPC who can change her spell prep is little different.
I agree about much of CharOp being theoretical. But I have to use CharOp in comparison, as that is what's required to make the fighters, converted to warblades, competent. And it's how the DM knows which books/rules are broken.
A Fighter needs to dumpster dive and scrounge to be competent, true. And in core, they'll simply suck without recourse, which is even worse. However, one of the benefits of Tome of Battle is that if you're using a ToB class, you don't have to take three base classes and two PrCs to reach base competence anymore. A Warblade 20 is a legitimately formidable melee presence.
You suggest using CharOps (or some other source, like the tiers from BG - I have seen them) to work out ways to 'KISS' with the splatbooks. I'm suggesting the players (if they don't buy into KISS) will use CharOps to do what they want to do. I think that's a fair comparison.
No, I'm not suggesting them as a way to work out what's simple. Not at all. It's a way to determine what is and is not balanced, what is and is not overpowering. They're the authority on where the power's at. If you go to the tier list, Binders are tier 3, which is generally considered the balance tier. It's fair to let a Binder in the game. But that doesn't make them simple. Not by a long shot. The Binder is probably the single most complicated class in the game.
And players who don't keep it simple aren't keeping it simple.
Can't KISS be done with core? And isn't that even simpler? The beguiler example is a good one, but pretty specific. What if you wanted more choice about the spells you got? And there are 4 brand new abilities that it adds, including one that can bypass SR. And a new spell list. And altered spell progression. That's more complex than a wizard/rogue. And you still need to refer to core books for some abilities. So I don't see how that's is making it KISS. But it does make a tidier character sheet, so bonus points on that.
KISS can generally be done in core. It is not necessarily simpler.
If you want more freedom in spell choice, there are ways to expand a Beguiler's spell list (Arcane Disciple, Extra Spell, Runestaffs), or, if you ultimately find Beguiler too constraining for your character concept, you simply don't use it. You use the most efficient rules available to represent your character in the most appropriate manner. If it isn't Beguiler, it isn't Beguiler. What book they come from is irrelevant. The assumption that core is innately simpler, or that two books is twice the complexity is simply baseless.
The Beguiler has class abilities, yes. Those class abilities are not more complicated than a Ranger's. Or Monk's. Or a Druid's. The Beguiler's class abilities do not complicate the game. A Beguiler has it's own spell progression, yes. So does the Wizard. So does the Sorcerer. So does the Bard. They have to refer to a spell progression chart, too. Why don't their spell progression charts count against them just as much? The Beguiler has its own spell list, sure, pretty much all from the Sorcerer/Wizard list, but the Wizard and the Sorcerer are hacking together their own spell lists from the big list. A Wizard could get all the Beguiler spells and then a hundred more. How is that a strike for Beguiler being more complicated?
The simplicity of a class, or a feat, or a feature, or a build is based on the simplicity of that class, or that feat, or that feature, or that build. If it's complicated on its own merits, it's complicated. If it's not, it's not. No matter what book it comes from. No matter how many books are involved. It's all just one sheet with its own merits.
The DM is indeed the final arbiter of the rules. The ultimate judge. But a judge interprets the law. A judge does not create the law whole cloth, and a judge is most certainly not the law herself. Once the game begins, the rules are supposed to be set unless situations dictate that doing otherwise is an absolute necessity.
I have to disagree with this. The DM has to become the law when using Rule 0 precisely because they are making a fundamental alteration to the rules as currently understood AND enforcing said rule, as you mentioned below.
They are not the same. A houserule is a change to the rules, but there are still rules. Rule zero is when DM fiat replaces the rules. "You can only have this discrete list of spells," then presenting a pre-pruned list, is a houserule, as there are still rules, presented to the players, that they can operate under. "You can only have what spells I say you can have," is DM fiat, as there are no rules, only the whim of the DM.
I would argue that you are splitting hairs here. While there is a cruical distinction in that the DM has presented a spellbook in advance for the PC, the spells on that list are still ones placed there by the DM with the understanding that the PC would not have any other spells. This is still a fiat on the part of the DM, just printed up in advance.
Though really, I don't understand why banning the Wizard and company is seen as such a big deal when folks rant and rave about regulating splat access. The PHB is just another splat, after all. What gives PHB classes such special protections?
I would say it is because the PHB presents not just the classes, races and rules that are backed up by the DMG and Monster Manual which form the backbone of the products you need to purchase in order to partake in the hobby. In fact, the rules and information printed there form the basis for any other splatbooks produced in the future, and it can be easily argued that the classes there provide fertile soil for any other new classes or alternate class abilities that would be published in said splatbooks.
A Fighter needs to dumpster dive and scrounge to be competent, true. And in core, they'll simply suck without recourse, which is even worse. However, one of the benefits of Tome of Battle is that if you're using a ToB class, you don't have to take three base classes and two PrCs to reach base competence anymore. A Warblade 20 is a legitimately formidable melee presence.
Again, I disagree. Competence- especially something as subjective as "base" competence, implying that there is more growth to be experienced- is a concept that is defined by the person playing the character, and varies wildly from person to person. I would also argue that a level 20 ANYTHING is going to be a legitimate combat presence.
You can stack natural armour and enhancement bonus to natural armour, obviously.
Might have been poor wording on my part, but I meant that you cannot stack multiple sources I.E an amulet of natural armour wouldn't stack with Barkskin, since both provide natural armour bonuses. It's through this that I don't see why anyone should be allowed to add Wisdom or Intellegence twice; Other sources cannot be added more than once, so why should they be the exception?
I have to disagree with this. The DM has to become the law when using Rule 0 precisely because they are making a fundamental alteration to the rules as currently understood AND enforcing said rule, as you mentioned below.
Yes, the DM does have to become the law when using rule zero. That's why rule zero is bad. If at all possible, the DM should never usurp the rules midstream. Fiat usurping is a last resort and a failure, not sound a default.
I would argue that you are splitting hairs here. While there is a cruical distinction in that the DM has presented a spellbook in advance for the PC, the spells on that list are still ones placed there by the DM with the understanding that the PC would not have any other spells. This is still a fiat on the part of the DM, just printed up in advance.
Printing it up in advance means you're changing the system itself, and then abiding by the agreed upon rules of the newly altered system, and the players are free to act within and actually know the new set of rules. Doing it as you go means the DM's whim is the system, and the players are not allowed to know the rules. Huge, fundamental, colossal difference, not hair-splitting.
I would say it is because the PHB presents not just the classes, races and rules that are backed up by the DMG and Monster Manual which form the backbone of the products you need to purchase in order to partake in the hobby. In fact, the rules and information printed there form the basis for any other splatbooks produced in the future, and it can be easily argued that the classes there provide fertile soil for any other new classes or alternate class abilities that would be published in said splatbooks.
The Wizard is still just a class, just like any other. One among fifty now, rather than one among eleven. If the game only ever needed eleven classes, and there are fifty now, why is it so critical to keep the Wizard around? How is the Wizard class core to the rules for the magic system? Remove the Wizard and you still have the Sorcerer, the Warmage, the Psion, the Beguiler, the Dread Necromancer, all standing independently on their own merits, whether the Wizard is there or not.
Further, broken crap from core is just as broken as broken crap from splats. Why should core's imbalances be enshrined? Why work around the problems when you can remove the problems altogether?
Again, I disagree. Competence- especially something as subjective as "base" competence, implying that there is more growth to be experienced- is a concept that is defined by the person playing the character, and varies wildly from person to person. I would also argue that a level 20 ANYTHING is going to be a legitimate combat presence.
Competence is explicitly defined within the rules. A level 20 character is a CR 20 creature, expected to go against CR 20+ encounters, who ought to be able to perform in a manner relevant to CR 20 encounters appropriate to their talents. For a melee Fighter, that's a CR 20 melee encounter. Unless you're pulling out a very uber ubercharger or similar extreme and niche levels of optimization, a level 20 Fighter is not going to be relevant against the tarrasque (ignoring the fact that the tarrasque can't defend against flight). Thus, the melee Fighter is, by definitions provided within the system itself, objectively, provably incompetent.
Yes, the DM does have to become the law when using rule zero. That's why rule zero is bad.
Wow! Really? Can someone update me on Rule 0. I think I am misunderstanding it.
Yes, the DM does have to become the law when using rule zero. That's why rule zero is bad.Wow! Really? Can someone update me on Rule 0. I think I am misunderstanding it.
"Rule 0" (aka 'The Most Important Rule' from the PRPG Rulebook, page 9):
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when he rules are in doubt.
Hope that helps!
Yes, the DM does have to become the law when using rule zero. That's why rule zero is bad. If at all possible, the DM should never usurp the rules midstream. Fiat usurping is a last resort and a failure, not sound a default.
I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree here. The individual DMs will usurp certain rules because there is a certain feel they would like to have in their game simply because..well..they are individuals. Are YOU a bad DM and bad person because you wish to remove certain classes from your game?
Printing it up in advance means you're changing the system itself, and then abiding by the agreed upon rules of the newly altered system, and the players are free to act within and actually know the new set of rules. Doing it as you go means the DM's whim is the system, and the players are not allowed to know the rules. Huge, fundamental, colossal difference, not hair-splitting.
So the difference between a tyranny and benevolence is a functioning printer? I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense to me. These are starting spells in a spellbook that we are considering here, right? Why do I have to have them printed out from the start? Assuming I've DMed this before, I should be able to verbally inform my players from the start of the game what spells are available. Does this make me a bad DM? I don't get it.
The Wizard is still just a class, just like any other. One among fifty now, rather than one among eleven. If the game only ever needed eleven classes, and there are fifty now, why is it so critical to keep the Wizard around? How is the Wizard class core to the rules for the magic system? Remove the Wizard and you still have the Sorcerer, the Warmage, the Psion, the Beguiler, the Dread Necromancer, all standing independently on their own merits, whether the Wizard is there or not.
Further, broken crap from core is just as broken as broken crap from splats. Why should core's imbalances be enshrined? Why work around the problems when you can remove the problems altogether?
From my point of view, working around problems to create novel solutions is a part of the game. The Wizard isn't perfect in every way- neither are any of the classes you've described, or even any of the classes in any book. We have our favorites, sure, but even those have some glaring flaws that we blind ourselves to- or attempt to overcompensate for through the oft-mentioned "arms race". Still,if removing a problem altogether and replacing it with something else that is flawed on another facet works for you, then more power to you.
Competence is explicitly defined within the rules. A level 20 character is a CR 20 creature, expected to go against CR 20+ encounters, who ought to be able to perform in a manner relevant to CR 20 encounters appropriate to their talents. For a melee Fighter, that's a CR 20 melee encounter. Unless you're pulling out a very uber ubercharger or similar extreme and niche levels of optimization, a level 20 Fighter is not going to be relevant against the tarrasque (ignoring the fact that the tarrasque can't defend against flight). Thus, the melee Fighter is, by definitions provided within the system itself, objectively, provably incompetent.
Your argument is flawed here mainly because you are covering up the areas that a fighter- or indeed anyone- could take an advantage. You can't say that anyone who would disprove your argument is "niche" or "extreme" just because they can disprove your argument- well, you can, but that only proves that there is a hole somewhere. I could take a level 20 fighter(or anything else), take his equipment, break his arms and legs and then toss them to a hungry tarrasque and then shout that said character is incompetent, but then they would only be incompetent because I slanted the fight in the tarrasque's favor by hobbling the character that would prove me wrong. Isn't that like saying I'm the world's greatest(insert profession here) if placed up against another (insert profession here) that has been lobotimized before our (insert profession here) match?
"Rule 0" (aka 'The Most Important Rule' from the PRPG Rulebook, page 9):
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when he rules are in doubt.
Rule zero has been rehashed many times in many places. The rule zero at issue here is the notion that the DM is God and has the right to usurp the rules at any time for any reason. This version? Not so much at issue.
I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree here. The individual DMs will usurp certain rules because there is a certain feel they would like to have in their game simply because..well..they are individuals. Are YOU a bad DM and bad person because you wish to remove certain classes from your game?
Changing the rules is not usurping the rules, because there are still rules. If you lay out the changes, the rules change, but you're still abiding by the rules. They're just different rules. Usurping the rules means you're replacing the rules with DM fiat. The disliked rules are not replaced with new ones for all to know and hold to; they're removed entirely in favor of the whim of the God DM.
Altered rules but still holding to rules? Good.
God DM? Bad.
So the difference between a tyranny and benevolence is a functioning printer? I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense to me. These are starting spells in a spellbook that we are considering here, right? Why do I have to have them printed out from the start? Assuming I've DMed this before, I should be able to verbally inform my players from the start of the game what spells are available. Does this make me a bad DM? I don't get it.
The difference is in abiding by rules, or the God DM. If the DM lays out the rules changes beforehand and everyone agrees, and the DM holds to the agreed-upon (though altered rules), then the DM is abiding by the agreed-upon rules of the game and performing her job as arbiter. If the DM replaces rules with her own whim, she is utterly failing in her job as arbiter (as in judge or interpreter, not source) of the rules.
If you inform players of the available spells verbally, you're laying out the modifications to the rules in advance. If you hold to those verbal alterations, you are abiding by the agreed-upon rules of the game.
Your argument is flawed here mainly because you are covering up the areas that a fighter- or indeed anyone- could take an advantage. You can't say that anyone who would disprove your argument is "niche" or "extreme" just because they can disprove your argument- well, you can, but that only proves that there is a hole somewhere. I could take a level 20 fighter(or anything else), take his equipment, break his arms and legs and then toss them to a hungry tarrasque and then shout that said character is incompetent, but then they would only be incompetent because I slanted the fight in the tarrasque's favor by hobbling the character that would prove me wrong. Isn't that like saying I'm the world's greatest(insert profession here) if placed up against another (insert profession here) that has been lobotimized before our (insert profession here) match?
"Niche" and "extreme," in this case, are indeed very niche and very extreme (aside from flight, which is essential, but means I have to drag up an example other than the tarrasque, which wouldn't be hard, but I also don't want to bother with).
You can make an ubercharger who can probably take out the tarrasque using an NPC Warrior at level 20. An ubercharger Fighter who manages the same feat proves nothing, as it's the extreme power of charging that's doing the work, not the Fighter class.
However, a Fighter at level 20 who doesn't go down one of the three functional paths (ubercharger, spiked chain tripper, counter spammer) isn't going to be able to function in a level 20 manner. And the counter spammer and spiked chain tripper would probably get eaten by the tarrasque anyways.
The thing about expanded 3.5 is, you can optimize anything. I can make a level four Commoner who can probably beat a fire giant. Yes, if you push hard enough, there aren't many goals that can't be reached with enough optimization, but with the level of optimization it takes to get the Fighter to stand a chance against the tarrasque, I can get a fourth level spell that deals enough raw damage to kill most gods. And generally, at that point, the Fighter doesn't have more than four levels of Fighter anyways.
Ah. O.k. I think I see the problem now. We have some GMs who have had some uppity player tell them how to run their game and we have some players who got arbitrarily nerfed by a prick of a GM.
Due to personal experiences, I doubt these two will ever see the other person's perspective. I am going to just back away quietly.
|
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.
Firstly; mechanics:
Where does the 10x CR2 come in?
5 bugbears is 5xCR2, at most (and even then, I'd say they're overpriced).
Since 3 calmed down and walked away, they aren't defeated.
Or are you going to allow the PC to walk down a rough street, and hand out xp for every NPC who fails a save who might have been feeling an emotion?
2x CR2= 1200xp, reduced to zero, because the PC has more feats than are legal, having somehow conned the DM that super-powers are flaws.
If we're handing out free feats, then doubling them, I'll have the Exotic Weapon Spiked Chain Trip Build Tree as my first level flaws, please. With a side order of Improved Crit.
Second: roleplaying:
The two that were defeated, were KO'd by repeatedly punching them in the face.
Yay, for the Harbinger of Peace!
The purpose of these feats is to allow a player to create a serene pacifist character, who avoids combat, like Tripitaka from the Monkey King stories.
Not to create a bare-knuckle brawler, who stomps round the forest, calling everyone out with cries of "Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough! Go on! Take a free shot! I'm unarmoured! What are you frightened of? Chicken! <makes chicken noises> Take your best shot!' What are you? A man or a mouse? Hit me, damn you! Hah! You're weapon broke! Psyche! Take that! And that! And that! Not so cocky now, are ya? Huh? Who's the Daddy?".
Firstly; mechanics:
Where does the 10x CR2 come in?
5 bugbears is 5xCR2, at most (and even then, I'd say they're overpriced).
Since 3 calmed down and walked away, they aren't defeated.
Or are you going to allow the PC to walk down a rough street, and hand out xp for every NPC who fails a save who might have been feeling an emotion?
You get xp for overcoming challenges. Foes that flee a battle are still counted as overcomed. Maybe determined to be less of a challenge and thus less xp given for them, but they are still overcome and some xp is still earned. Otherwise everytime a DM has a foe flee, the PCs would be screwed out of that xp, which just leads to killing all foes no matter how unimportant, which is a poor roleplaying decision.
2x CR2= 1200xp, reduced to zero, because the PC has more feats than are legal, having somehow conned the DM that super-powers are flaws.
If we're handing out free feats, then doubling them, I'll have the Exotic Weapon Spiked Chain Trip Build Tree as my first level flaws, please. With a side order of Improved Crit.
Like others, you seem to be confused with what was stated. The feats weren't taken as flaws. Instead flaws were taken (which I don't think we were ever told what they were exactly) and feats were gained in return for taking the flaws. Here is a description of this variant rule if you are interested.
|
|
Yes, the DM does have to become the law when using rule zero. That's why rule zero is bad. If at all possible, the DM should never usurp the rules midstream. Fiat usurping is a last resort and a failure, not sound a default.
I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree here. The individual DMs will usurp certain rules because there is a certain feel they would like to have in their game simply because..well..they are individuals. Are YOU a bad DM and bad person because you wish to remove certain classes from your game?
I'm with Viletta here.
There's a world of difference between creating a personal campaign setting, where some classes, feats, spells, etc do not exist, or behave in a milder form;and simply flicking an off-switch on those elements while the PC is in the middle of a dangerous situation.
Eg; PC: I'll fly up to that ledge, I still have my spell running.
Fiat DM: You fall to your death.
PC: What?
Fiat DM: I just decided. Fly lasts rounds/level.
PC: You could have told me!
Fiat DM: Rule Zero. Suck it up.
Viletta is objecting to the second situation, not the first.
I also believe most of the posters in this thread are well aware of this, and simply arguing for the sake of arguing.
Fiat DM: Rule Zero. Suck it up.
Honestly, who would keep playing with someone like that?
|
Honestly, who would keep playing with someone like that?
Not I, said the mercenary.
I actually had to quit playing with someone because they changed the way a Light spell worked midgame without warning. All because he didn't want us to see into the next room. (That's a simplification of the situation, but I wouldn't want to derail.)
Although you're invited to my next game around New Year's CourtFool.</threadjack>
Yes, the DM does have to become the law when using rule zero. That's why rule zero is bad. If at all possible, the DM should never usurp the rules midstream. Fiat usurping is a last resort and a failure, not sound a default.I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree here. The individual DMs will usurp certain rules because there is a certain feel they would like to have in their game simply because..well..they are individuals. Are YOU a bad DM and bad person because you wish to remove certain classes from your game?I'm with Viletta here.
There's a world of difference between creating a personal campaign setting, where some classes, feats, spells, etc do not exist, or behave in a milder form;
and simply flicking an off-switch on those elements while the PC is in the middle of a dangerous situation.Eg; PC: I'll fly up to that ledge, I still have my spell running.
Fiat DM: You fall to your death.
PC: What?
Fiat DM: I just decided. Fly lasts rounds/level.
PC: You could have told me!
Fiat DM: Rule Zero. Suck it up.Viletta is objecting to the second situation, not the first.
I also believe most of the posters in this thread are well aware of this, and simply arguing for the sake of arguing.
Very well, but consider that this is an overly simplified situation that can be extrapolated to make any DM who overules any rule look bad. Rule zero CAN be used to create favorable situations as you described, it can also be used to be a jerk, as you described. It's up to the individual DM, which is all I was saying.
Although you're invited to my next game around New Year's CourtFool.</threadjack>
Thank you.
My interpretation of Rule 0 has always been, fun trumps the rules.
|
|
Thank you.
My interpretation of Rule 0 has always been, fun trumps the rules.
My friends call me TOZ. :) Also, forgot to link.
I'm learning to use the rules as handrails rather than traintracks. But I like to make sure people know why I'm altering the rules. And I try to make sure there is a reason when I do. I don't like working in a dictatorship, and I certainly don't want to make anyone play in one.
Since 3 calmed down and walked away, they aren't defeated.
Or are you going to allow the PC to walk down a rough street, and hand out xp for every NPC who fails a save who might have been feeling an emotion?
As a matter of policy, it's perfectly valid to declare the three calmed bugbears defeated. After all, they're part of the combat encounter. Kung Fu Jesus was attacked by five bugbears. Kung Fu Jesus thwarted five bugbears' attacks. Which is distinct from happening to calm folks down while walking down the street, as the folks walking down the street aren't trying to kill you.
If you're sent on a mission to stop the kobold bandits, and achieve it by hammering out legitimate trade relations and a means for the kobolds to support themselves without banditry, you've overcome the encounter with the kobolds and have earned full XP and loot.
Though in the specific case, the XP needs to be toned down a great deal. These reasons are just invalid.
2x CR2= 1200xp, reduced to zero, because the PC has more feats than are legal, having somehow conned the DM that super-powers are flaws.
If we're handing out free feats, then doubling them, I'll have the Exotic Weapon Spiked Chain Trip Build Tree as my first level flaws, please. With a side order of Improved Crit.
Where on Earth do people keep getting this idea? Vow of Poverty wasn't taken as a flaw. It was taken through a flaw. Which is perfectly legal and the DM approved, and required no deception.
What's also been established is that the build needs a serious review to make sure the rules are being applied correctly, as there are some wonky interactions at work that may not actually apply as used. This isn't cheating, mind, but an honest mistake that needs to be rectified.
The two that were defeated, were KO'd by repeatedly punching them in the face.
Yay, for the Harbinger of Peace!The purpose of these feats is to allow a player to create a serene pacifist character, who avoids combat, like Tripitaka from the Monkey King stories.
Not to create a bare-knuckle brawler, who stomps round the forest, calling everyone out with cries of "Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough! Go on! Take a free shot! I'm unarmoured! What are you frightened of? Chicken! <makes chicken noises> Take your best shot!' What are you? A man or a mouse? Hit me, damn you! Hah! You're You're weapon broke! Psyche! Take that! And that! And that! Not so cocky now, are ya? Huh? Who's the Daddy?".
Characters who take Vow of Peace are quite explicitly allowed to deal nonlethal damage. That includes punching people in the face. Just because Kung Fu Jesus wins a fight by punching people does not mean he's the boisterous bruiser/psychopath, or even that he likes fighting. Your portrayal of the character is completely baseless and there is no information presented to support it. Heck, the only information presented is consistent with the roleplay appropriate to Vow of Peace. Nor is there any evidence of gloating presented.
If characters with Vow of Peace weren't allowed to deal damage at all, they wouldn't be allowed to deal damage at all. The fact that they are allowed to deal nonlethal damage must mean that it is appropriate and acceptable for them to deal damage. A minimum force, gentle fist style monk who fights when forced to but takes pains to not cause permanent injury is in line with Vow of Peace.
Very well, but consider that this is an overly simplified situation that can be extrapolated to make any DM who overules any rule look bad. Rule zero CAN be used to create favorable situations as you described, it can also be used to be a jerk, as you described. It's up to the individual DM, which is all I was saying.
Yes, it is an oversimplification, and an exaggeration in the extreme. However, the entire point is that if you're playing under an agreed-upon set of rules, and the DM constantly changes the rules on the fly and won't let the players know what the rules are (oftentimes because the rules that have been removed don't have an existing replacement), that's a Bad Thing (tm).
If y'all agree to play D&D, but then the DM removes standard spells known rules without replacing them with anything but her own judgment, that means the players aren't allowed to know the rules, or even the base capabilities of her character. That's bad. If the DM's judgment on the matter is less than keen, that's worse.
Will it kill every game it happens in? No. It's still a Bad Thing (tm), which is fundamentally unfair and detracts from the game. Rule zero should be used as an extreme last resort when something utterly insane comes along. Like the guy who wants to buy five CR 7 elephants mid-session at level 4, since they're only 500g a pop and has the Handle Animal skill to control 'em, and then steamroll through every encounter for the next few levels. That's insane and is a fair target for rule zero. Either there are no elephants for sale, or they cost a lot more than 500g each. However, if you're yanking fundamental class features, you'd better have replacement rules ready to go.
|
So, what we're saying here is basically, if you take a "Vow of Peace", you can actively go out and find critters, engage them in combat, rob their stuff and basically act in a completely non-peaceful manner as long as you don't kill them. But, while doing so, you can adventure with a bunch of characters who have no such limitation, watching them slaughter indiscriminately. You know, as long as the "Vow of Peace" character doesn't kill anyone. And you get mechanical benefits for this.
Sounds like typical WotC logic to me...
Like the guy who wants to buy five CR 7 elephants mid-session at level 4, since they're only 500g a pop and has the Handle Animal skill to control 'em, and then steamroll through every encounter for the next few levels. That's insane and is a fair target for rule zero. Either there are no elephants for sale, or they cost a lot more than 500g each. However, if you're yanking fundamental class features, you'd better have replacement rules ready to go.
Or just use the rules, which means he will only be able to control 2 of them at most (assuming they are properly trained to begin with) per round (move action to handle a trained animal, full-round to push them). Having five of them such that on any round three might decide to do whatever (including trampling party members) they want sounds like a really bad idea to me personally.
|
|
So, what we're saying here is basically, if you take a "Vow of Peace", you can actively go out and find critters, engage them in combat, rob their stuff and basically act in a completely non-peaceful manner as long as you don't kill them. But, while doing so, you can adventure with a bunch of characters who have no such limitation, watching them slaughter indiscriminately. You know, as long as the "Vow of Peace" character doesn't kill anyone. And you get mechanical benefits for this.
Sounds like typical WotC logic to me...
Damn, someone beat me to it. I've been meaning to reply to that for awhile, and I think others have mentioned it, but if the guy has the Vow of Peace, how did he "beat up" the bugbears? Did he just use non-lethal the whole time and walk away?
So, what we're saying here is basically, if you take a "Vow of Peace", you can actively go out and find critters, engage them in combat, rob their stuff and basically act in a completely non-peaceful manner as long as you don't kill them. But, while doing so, you can adventure with a bunch of characters who have no such limitation, watching them slaughter indiscriminately. You know, as long as the "Vow of Peace" character doesn't kill anyone. And you get mechanical benefits for this.
Sounds like typical WotC logic to me...
Are you SURE we've never gamed together? Because you just described what happened one of my friends took vow of peace in a game not even two years ago.
Damn, but it was fun. And despite some of the nonsense, an interesting roleplaying exercise when the pacifist was shouting orders during a combat they refused to take part in.
|
|
Yeah, my whole point is, I see something like "Vow of Peace" and I think Caine. Dude doesn't go looking for trouble (i.e. he isn't "adventuring"), he's just going through life, doing his thing, and happens to run into a bunch of a#++%!~s who don't listen when he drops some non-violent wisdom on them. They continually antagonize him until he is forced to bring down the whoopass, in a non-lethal manner, they learn their lesson, he moves on to the next place, looking for peace, but never finding it.
The 3.5 Vow sounds like a bunch of crappy pappy to me.
|
|
So, what we're saying here is basically, if you take a "Vow of Peace", you can actively go out and find critters, engage them in combat, rob their stuff and basically act in a completely non-peaceful manner as long as you don't kill them. But, while doing so, you can adventure with a bunch of characters who have no such limitation, watching them slaughter indiscriminately. You know, as long as the "Vow of Peace" character doesn't kill anyone. And you get mechanical benefits for this.
Sounds like typical WotC logic to me...
Are you SURE we've never gamed together? Because you just described what happened one of my friends took vow of peace in a game not even two years ago.
Damn, but it was fun. And despite some of the nonsense, an interesting roleplaying exercise when the pacifist was shouting orders during a combat they refused to take part in.
Depends, you about 37-38 years old and did you grow up in Oneonta?
Nope. 30 and in Brooklyn. It was a rhetorical question, but it's good to know others had similar issues with the ability.
|
|
As a matter of policy, it's perfectly valid to declare the three calmed bugbears defeated. After all, they're part of the combat encounter. Kung Fu Jesus was attacked by five bugbears. Kung Fu Jesus thwarted five bugbears' attacks. Which is distinct from happening to calm folks down while walking down the street, as the folks walking down the street aren't trying to kill you.
If you're sent on a mission to stop the kobold bandits, and achieve it by hammering out legitimate trade relations and a means for the kobolds to support themselves without banditry, you've overcome the encounter with the kobolds and have earned full XP and loot.
Though in the specific case, the XP needs to be toned down a great deal. These reasons are just invalid.
I wasn't clear that my previous posts, as indeed, the majority of my posts on these boards, have been tongue-in-cheek, and for that I apologise.
I'm also European, specifically English, and I've found that my local tendency to surreal and sarcastic humour does sometimes get me in hot water when in conversation with other nationalities.And, you're new to these boards, so I should give you time to get used to me, before I give you both barrels, like I would with many of the regulars, who I know in real-life/Facebook/dA or other forums.
As to the xp issue, I'm a firm believer that any and all xp should be earned. You admit that the xp may need to be toned down, we just disagree on the amount.
When I say that xp should be earned, I mean it should be proportional to the effort expended. There are plenty of scenarios, where success depends on witholding one's base urges. U2-Danger at Dunwater being a classic early example, that scenario and the next, being essentially unwinnable, if PCs insist on fighting. The scenario suggested a story award, as compensation for the danger the PCs exposed themselves to, the manner in which they offer compensation to the wronged group (if any), the treaty they draw up, and their willingness to persuade their people back home of the new status quo.
This scenario is the epitome of the RP-heavy, thinking puzzle, yet the suggested story award is but a fraction of that needed to level up. At no point does it suggest that the PCs be given full xp for 50+ standard opponents, plus a dozen or so elite with class levels, as if every single member of the tribe, and all the children, had been butchered and had all their organs harvested for the last copper piece.
You get a nominal award.
You not happy with that? You want to get gobby with the chief?
You want to stamp your little foot, and scream that you came here to kill things, and it's not fair?
You saying that in-character?
Fine, the chief steps up and cuts your head off. Happy now, psycho?
And this is something that seems to have been forgotten in modern D&D, where players with an inflated sense of entitlement demand the DM give them full xp, 'or else we may as well butcher every living thing we see'.
The xp awards for Diplomacy/charm/sneaking past are nonsensical, being awarded on an opponent's combat ability (CR), rather than its ability to debate/make a Will save/make a Spot or Listen check.
What's the combat CR of a parrot? CR 0.1?
How about a parrot in a cage? CR 0.000000000000001?
Yet it's probably a far better watch-beast than a level 20 Fighter, who's dumped his Int and Wis, to min-max himself to the heavens. He may well be able to dice you into hamburger, but can't find his own arse in the dark.
Why does sneaking past Squawko give you 1xp btween the lot of you, but walking boldly past Sir Mongo Droolface give you a free level-up?
Ker-ching!
Hey, that was easy! Let's go past him again! Ker-ching!
There is zero effort expended by this PC, since having a Permanencied compulsion effect blasting out of his beautiful soul prevents most combats from ever starting.
It ends combat with opponents the PC may not even know are there.
It leads to bizarre situations, where he walks down Murderer's Alley, or past an ambush in the woods, his karmic radiowaves, pulsing "OOOHHHHHMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!", the rogues suddenly wondering 'Why am I here? Why is this knife in my hand? Why do I feel a sudden urge to tell Strangler Jack of my feminine side?'.
The xp-meter spinning like a gyroscope, BLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLING BLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLING BLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLINGBLING, like Sonic the Hedgehog, looping the loop through a sky-full of golden rings.
Background: I'm old-school, I freely admit it. I remember when a goblin gave you 10xp toward the 2000 you needed for level 2, and story awards were of an equally modest proportion. The 'treasure award' of 1gp=1xp was widely, if not universally derided by gamers in my country (see any copy of White Dwarf when it was an RPG mag - yes, I am that old).
You came to the table knowing that you were going to be a level 1 PC for some time, and you were encouraged to create a fully-fledged personality for them on day one. If a level 1 Elf wanted to announce himself as 'The Arcane Archer', no-one could argue.
The low levels were an enjoyable journey, rather than some repellant trial, that one suffered through, while holding one's nose, your PC being a formless blob of a 'l0ser n00b', until one could take a Prestige Class at which point you could finally inherit a personality and a back-dated backstory.
Roleplay and diplomacy were things one did because they were enjoyable in their own right, rather than being seen as a fast-track to free level-ups.
Avoiding a combat was often it's own reward. It stopped you getting your head caved in, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200, and having to start again with a level 1 PC.
Sure, it should be worth a few xp. But to throw hundreds of xps around for doing something that the players should be wanting to do for the very enjoyment of it, and the sole reason for some players coming back week after week?
If 'improving a person's attitude by one or more steps' is an xp-worthy action, then Fat Bessy the Barmaid, down at the Dog and Duck should be level thirty-five billion and eleventy-two.
Smile at a patron - Ker-ching! 300xp.
Show a bit of cleavage - Boom-Chaka-Wowow! 1500xp.
Offer to take them round the back of the bins and give them a threpenny special? - Jackpot! 57187167676xp for five minutes work.
Sorted! Sure beats adventuring!
So, what we're saying here is basically, if you take a "Vow of Peace", you can actively go out and find critters, engage them in combat, rob their stuff and basically act in a completely non-peaceful manner as long as you don't kill them. But, while doing so, you can adventure with a bunch of characters who have no such limitation, watching them slaughter indiscriminately. You know, as long as the "Vow of Peace" character doesn't kill anyone. And you get mechanical benefits for this.
No. I'm saying a Vow of Peace character is allowed to fight, and is allowed to deal damage so long as it's nonlethal damage, even if that Vow of Peace character inflicts that nonlethal damage via melee combat. The rest, you added. "You're allowed to fight," is distinct from, "You're allowed to beat people up and take their lunch money." The context is important.
The bugbears attacked Kung Fu Jesus, mind. That's very real justification for self-defense. And all Kung Fu Jesus did was a nonlethal take down of two out of five enemies who were actively trying to kill him.
Also, Vow of Peace has provisions about supporting others knowing your support is going towards the end of killing someone. Plus, Vow of Peace is an exalted feat, which has requirements all its own, mostly to the effect of, "You are good beyond good, and are held to higher moral standards." Going around beating people up nonlethally in order to knick their stuff is a violation of exalted status, meaning you lose it and all other exalted feats without even getting to the specific terms of the vow.
Yeah, my whole point is, I see something like "Vow of Peace" and I think Caine. Dude doesn't go looking for trouble (i.e. he isn't "adventuring"), he's just going through life, doing his thing, and happens to run into a bunch of a#!~*#&s who don't listen when he drops some non-violent wisdom on them. They continually antagonize him until he is forced to bring down the whoopass, in a non-lethal manner, they learn their lesson, he moves on to the next place, looking for peace, but never finding it.
The 3.5 Vow sounds like a bunch of crappy pappy to me.
Er... except you just described the 3.5 vow within the confines of the rule more accurately in this excerpt than you did in the lunch money stealing version.
|
|
Yeah, my whole point is, I see something like "Vow of Peace" and I think Caine. Dude doesn't go looking for trouble (i.e. he isn't "adventuring"), he's just going through life, doing his thing, and happens to run into a bunch of a*&@&@*s who don't listen when he drops some non-violent wisdom on them. They continually antagonize him until he is forced to bring down the whoopass, in a non-lethal manner, they learn their lesson, he moves on to the next place, looking for peace, but never finding it.
Bruce Banner/The Incredible Hulk?
"Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry"
In his TV series, he never even dealt non-lethal damage.
He just flexed at them, threw a few cars aside.
Picked them up and gave them a shake.
Considering the way summoning works, summoning Y on a whim is pretty much exactly how it works, as summoning spells amount to picking what you please from a laundry list.
Not a huge list though. And you can review each level of summons as and when. Or the players can just ask, like the DM requested them to. Not Hard. And not whimsical either.
And if, between games, the player running the Wizard comes to her DM saying, "While we're in town, I want to spend some time researching Glitterdust," and the DM's reply is, "Too bad?" That's simply obstructive. The players are supposed to be able to act within the rules, but in this case, the players aren't even allowed to know the rules in the first place.
The rule in the first place is "Ask the DM". It's a pretty easy rule to remember. So don't go betting your spellcasting butt on being able to research a particular spell, because the DM asked that you clear it with them first. That's the rule.
The DM is indeed the final arbiter of the rules. The ultimate judge. But a judge interprets the law. A judge does not create the law whole cloth, and a judge is most certainly not the law herself. Once the game begins, the rules are supposed to be set unless situations dictate that doing otherwise is an absolute necessity.
That's an awkward analogy. Mainly because D&D is not a courthouse, and rather more akin to a theatre company, with an OCD director. Rules are a constant mostly, but there are always exceptions, loop holes, arguments, snap decisions and general muddling. The pace is too quick to make sure everything is exact. The DM just tries their best. That's all anyone can do. If that not what a player wants, well, they can always play Warhammer instead...
It's a house rule AND rule zero. They are not mutually exclusive.They are not the same.
Never said they were. I said they weren't mutually exclusive.
Rule zero is when DM fiat replaces the rules.
Not necessarily. I'm not saying that it can't be DM fiat, but it doesn't have to be. I think you've got the wrong end of the stick when I said 'review the spell lists'. I urge you to re-read my earlier posts.
Character creation is a process, to the creation of a product. There is nothing that makes one book inherently simpler than another by right of it being in another book.
<snip>
No matter how many sources you use, there's one output. A character sheet, and a character. A single compilation of character-based rules and abilities gathered into a single location. The complexity of that character sheet is all that matters.
Okay, you've gone a bit Zen on me there, which is cool. The complexity of one character sheet is not all that matters. The number of sources plays an important part. The characters are not created in a vacuum. The interplay of rules can have far-reaching and unexpected effects in the greater world. Chaos theory abounds. And that's without introducing misinterpretation of the rules due to unfamiliarity. And you can't say that you just need to look at the character sheet, because by that point you're too late. All the headaches come in when the player asks to be X, Y or Z - not when they've settled on A, B + C (after a prolonged discussion about the merits and gotchas of each class).
It's perfectly fair to send a fire giant at a level 10 party despite the fact that no one in the party is allowed to be a fire giant. Likewise, W/C/D NPCs can be every bit as much an accepted fact of life, if only for the fact that such NPCs come premade and it is generally accepted as really tedious to rebuild them all.
Fire Giants don't start at level 1. Unless you're using Savage Species and put the effort in I suppose. Your excuse sounds like it'd drop the SoD like a brick on a egg.
No, I'm not suggesting them as a way to work out what's simple. Not at all. It's a way to determine what is and is not balanced, what is and is not overpowering. They're the authority on where the power's at. If you go to the tier list, Binders are tier 3, which is generally considered the balance tier. It's fair to let a Binder in the game. But that doesn't make them simple. Not by a long shot. The Binder is probably the single most complicated class in the game.
And players who don't keep it simple aren't keeping it simple.
So, can you go through what you do as DM when your group creates PCs? Coz it sounds very... complicated. Which is what I was trying to avoid. Just saying.
KISS can generally be done in core. It is not necessarily simpler.
That made me laugh. I think I know where you are coming from now.
Carry on, carry on. I'm done here.
As a matter of policy, it's perfectly valid to declare the three calmed bugbears defeated. After all, they're part of the combat encounter.
Have you read this article? Might help your understanding of experience awards.
EDIT: Snorter has put it rather more effectively.
And this is something that seems to have been forgotten in modern D&D, where players with an inflated sense of entitlement demand the DM give them full xp, 'or else we may as well butcher every living thing we see'.
I saw the 'butcher every living thing we see' mentality in the 2e days too. It is not a recent development.
And this is something that seems to have been forgotten in modern D&D, where players with an inflated sense of entitlement demand the DM give them full xp, 'or else we may as well butcher every living thing we see'.I saw the 'butcher every living thing we see' mentality in the 2e days too. It is not a recent development.
2e is a recent development. To some folks.
|
|
Just so you know, Viletta, I'm not having a go at you. I actually think you make very good points about replacing some of the core options with options from later books.
The ability of core full-casters to have access to the whole of their spell-list, and to demand automatic access to every new spell to be published in the future is a HUGE advantage.
To those who say 'Divine casters always had this advantage', I'd say 'Not to the current extent'. The 1st Edition list had about twelve spells on per level, so giving full access was no big deal. There was also no domain spells expanding the list, and no spontaneous curing, which meant they could end the day with corner-case spells left uncast.
To those who say 'Wizards only have access to those spells they know' I'd say 'There is no longer a limit to the spells they may know'. 1st Edition wizards had a cap on the maximum number of spells they could ever know, of any spell level, and it was harsh. Effectively, it forced them to make hard choices, and they made a limited list to draw from, just like the Beguiler, the Warmage, etc, though not confined to one school.
The only way to lift the cap was to have Int 19, which was much more difficult, in the days of rolling stats on 3d6, in order, and little to no access to Int-boosts.
The casters could also not make scrolls or items, until higher level (a level most campaigns retired at), there was less acceptance of the Magic-Mart on every street corner. There was no automatic learning of spells at each level-up. Every spell you knew you had to trade or kill for.
Casters today <tchoh!> Don't know they're born.
Sure, the DM can say no to a spell. But every time a DM is forced to say 'No, that obviously wasn't playtested', or 'No, that makes no sense to be better than similar spells of higher level', or (a favourite of ours in the old days) 'I bet that came from a Forgotten Realms book, didn't it? Yeah, thought so...', he uses up one of his 'nine lives', in the eyes of his players, who tar him with the reputation for being a killjoy, a harsh DM, a dictator, etc, when in most cases, he's actually trying to keep the PCs alive, by removing broken, campaign-ending abilities from the hands of NPC villains.
Am I the only one who loves the tome of combat and doesn't have a problem with it? As far as it gos its a good book and its like any other book if some one has a engulf time they can break it. With the person going up levels a head of the party that is your fault as a DM as for the PC being overpowered I would like to think that you can talk it out or worst comes to worst kill the pc and say no vows and and TOB maneuvers have to be used with a weapon like sword or axe ect. If that doesn't work change the date you meet to a day he cant make it.
|
|
If a monster beats a tactical retreat, its often silly to give full experience for them if for no other reason than they can come back, when you're not looking. They're not defeated they are just waiting for a better chance to strike. On the other hand, if you manage to outwit a monster in such a way as to avoid a violent encounter, its plausible to get experience for that, especially if they are going to leave you alone afterwards.
Bottom line is, the DM is the awarder of experience - not the book. Sometimes as a DM, I'll give a little more experience, just because I'm feeling generous and the PCs are 50 points short of leveling. Other times, I'll decide an encounter was too easy and give half. For dragons I very often give double experience as they can be a very challenging encounter.
Still and all, common sense should suggest the DM in this episode gave too much experience for the encounter.
|
|
And this is something that seems to have been forgotten in modern D&D, where players with an inflated sense of entitlement demand the DM give them full xp, 'or else we may as well butcher every living thing we see'.
I saw the 'butcher every living thing we see' mentality in the 2e days too. It is not a recent development.
True, the new development is the squawking that they get full xp for not butchering every living thing they see.
"How many villagers live here?"
"A hundred?"
"Right, I'll go meet each one, and refrain from killing them all in cold blood. That's 100 times 300xp. Gimme it now, screen-monkey."
Kind of a win-win scenario, really.
|
|
If a monster beats a tactical retreat, its often silly to give full experience for them if for no other reason than they can come back, when you're not looking. They're not defeated they are just waiting for a better chance to strike.
I've had a situation in my own game, a small black dragon that's taunted the PCs twice, each time escaping after losing @40+ hp.
Offensively, it's not much of a threat to them. Defensively, it can take a lot of what they dish out, without the PCs resorting to spells and consumables.I've given out a portion of the xp each time, partly since it's a story-related event, and partly because of the morale-boost of 'We just chased of a frikkin' DRAGON!' (Don't get too big-headed, it's the size of a small dog...)
But I can't keep giving out full xp each time it harasses them, or even part-xp. If I do, it'll add up to more than they would have got for doing the job right first time. It would be rewarding them for failure. And where's the logic in that?
With the VoP PC, I just forsee an infinity loop, where they lock the unconscious bugbear in a cage, and farm it for xp. Kung-fu Jesus runs back and forth, 'defeating' it by calming it down, while his friend 'defeats' it by poking it with a sharp stick (1hp damage) to get it angry. Cleric heals it up, wash, rinse, repeat.
Still and all, common sense should suggest the DM in this episode gave too much experience for the encounter.
Given that, even granting full xp for the whole group = 5 x 600 = 3000xp, and he gave 10,800xp, I'd say you're right.
|
|
If a monster beats a tactical retreat, its often silly to give full experience for them if for no other reason than they can come back, when you're not looking. They're not defeated they are just waiting for a better chance to strike.I've had a situation in my own game, a small black dragon that's taunted the PCs twice, each time escaping after losing @40+ hp.
Offensively, it's not much of a threat to them. Defensively, it can take a lot of what they dish out, without the PCs resorting to spells and consumables.
I've given out a portion of the xp each time, partly since it's a story-related event, and partly because of the morale-boost of 'We just chased of a frikkin' DRAGON!' (Don't get too big-headed, it's the size of a small dog...)
I think a lot of it depends on the story in the DM's head. If the dragon is gone for the rest of the current story arc, I'd give some experience for it. If I knew it was coming back, I'd hold off.
I ran one short adventure where there were two small black dragons living in a lake. The PCs are hired to kill a dragon killing sheep and track one of the dragons to the lake. The dragons tactics involved popping out of the water, spraying acid, and then diving back down for a while until they could spray acid again. Just because the dragons might have left off combat in no way implied they were defeated, even if they took damage.
And this is something that seems to have been forgotten in modern D&D, where players with an inflated sense of entitlement demand the DM give them full xp, 'or else we may as well butcher every living thing we see'.I saw the 'butcher every living thing we see' mentality in the 2e days too. It is not a recent development.True, the new development is the squawking that they get full xp for not butchering every living thing they see.
"How many villagers live here?"
"A hundred?"
"Right, I'll go meet each one, and refrain from killing them all in cold blood. That's 100 times 300xp. Gimme it now, screen-monkey."Kind of a win-win scenario, really.
Of course the other side of the coin is:
DM: And the guy activates his magic item and vanishes.PC1: Damn it! Not again, that is the 25th encounter where the foe got away.
PC2: *in weary voice* So do we get any xp THIS time.
DM: Of course not, you didn't defeat him, he escaped.
PC3: I've used up all my spells and all the scrolls and wands, does anyone have any money left?
PC4: Nope, besides not getting xp, we haven't gotten any loot.
DM: You haven't defeated anyone for 3 months, how do you expect to get anything.
PC1: But you keep making them escape. I mean what is the chance a pickpocket is going to have an item to teleport away? Now what is the chance EVERY pickpocket has it.
DM: It is a common item for the thieves guild, sorry.
PC2: Look, I'm done playing for now. When we start getting xp again, call me.
The details for XP distribution are pretty petty, but I just gotta say... XP is for encounters. If it's not an encounter, you're not getting XP. And this is the mechanical definition of encounter, not the every day use. If you calm an ambush without seeing it, it hasn't even become an encounter, just as if you teleport past the forest where the DM has half a dozen swanky obstacles set up, those weren't encounters yet, either. If you lock up the bugbear and calm it down regularly, that's not an encounter, either.
And most of this XP conundrum stems from the fact that the DM sent a level 7 or 9 encounter at a lone level 2 PC while the rest of the party was in a coma while the guy had the poor taste to not die a horrible, horrible death.
Now, then. Stuff!
The rule in the first place is "Ask the DM". It's a pretty easy rule to remember. So don't go betting your spellcasting butt on being able to research a particular spell, because the DM asked that you clear it with them first. That's the rule.
"Ask the DM" is always a rule. That's a given. But the default answer is "yes" until there's a compelling reason to say no. And if that "compelling reason" is that the player acting naturally, normally, and sensibly within the bounds of the rules will totally unbalance the game, then there are some issues that need to be addressed. "Ask the DM" is for weeding out things like the discount elephant herd or Pun Pun, or for making sure character types are appropriate to the game and setting. Not for standard balance or denying players rules access whole cloth.
The rule in the first place is "Ask the DM". It's a pretty easy rule to remember. So don't go betting your spellcasting butt on being able to research a particular spell, because the DM asked that you clear it with them first. That's the rule.
"Ask the DM" is a given by default in character creation. However, by the time character creation is over, the player should know exactly what the rules for their character are, and what their character can do. If you rip out rules and replace them with DM judgment calls, the player can't have that base knowledge that she's supposed to have.
That's an awkward analogy. Mainly because D&D is not a courthouse, and rather more akin to a theatre company, with an OCD director. Rules are a constant mostly, but there are always exceptions, loop holes, arguments, snap decisions and general muddling. The pace is too quick to make sure everything is exact. The DM just tries their best. That's all anyone can do. If that not what a player wants, well, they can always play Warhammer instead...
Saying a fall deals 4d6 damage because you don't remember falling damage rules is a case of a snap decision in the flow of the game, even if it defies the rules. It's a decision made for the sole purpose of keeping things moving, and it's acceptable if the alternative is to waste time digging through books.
Saying, "No, you cannot have Haste," is a denial of the rules themselves, considered outside of game time. Further, if the DM says no to the Wizard researching Haste, then yes to the Rogue buying a potion of invisibility and the Fighter buying a +1 shield (both services of equal or greater value), that's fundamentally unfair. You're setting up a system that revolves around singling out a single player for deliberately and markedly unfair treatment. That's a Bad Thing (tm).
You should be able to treat your players equally and fairly, giving them all equal access to the rules and their abilities. If you have to actively screw one of them just to make some semblance of balance, then the system needs some serious work.
Not necessarily. I'm not saying that it can't be DM fiat, but it doesn't have to be. I think you've got the wrong end of the stick when I said 'review the spell lists'. I urge you to re-read my earlier posts.
If the system is, "Every rule goes through the DM for approval," and there is an understanding that the default answer may not be, "yes," that it's an act of balance rather than base screening for the broken and completely inappropriate, then it is DM fiat. If it is a case where, "The DM checks every spell, and if the DM decides fair access to your class abilities is unbalanced, you don't get the spell," that's DM fiat. That's rule zero, and it's bad.
Okay, you've gone a bit Zen on me there, which is cool. The complexity of one character sheet is not all that matters. The number of sources plays an important part. The characters are not created in a vacuum. The interplay of rules can have far-reaching and unexpected effects in the greater world. Chaos theory abounds. And that's without introducing misinterpretation of the rules due to unfamiliarity. And you can't say that you just need to look at the character sheet, because by that point you're too late. All the headaches come in when the player asks to be X, Y or Z - not when they've settled on A, B + C (after a prolonged discussion about the merits and gotchas of each class).
There are lots of really wonky interplays in core, I assure you. Did you know that Stone to Flesh explicitly turns a statue into a corpse? And there are some lovely necromancy spells that turn corpses to undead minions. So, if you pick up Fabricate and some ranks in sculpting, you can create pretty much any minion you want. You could even make yourself some corpses of half-fiend half-celestial halflings with the half-dragon template applied ten times (once for every core dragon type) to get a mob of 1 HD dual-dart-throwing skeleton minions with strength scores closing on a hundred. Sure, they'll probably only hit on a twenty, but there're a lot of 'em and they do a lot of damage when they hit.
Did you know that acid and alchemist's fire can be thrown in a full attack? Dual-wielded, too. With Rapid Shot, to boot, and they're touch attacks that deal damage, so a Rogue can use them to dish out tons of Sneak Attacks as touch attacks, bypassing huge amounts of AC and oftentimes ramping their accuracy up to 95%.
Did you know that Stone to Flesh doesn't actually kill enemies? It just petrifies them, but if you use Transmute Rock to Mud, then Purify Food and Drink, the enemy still isn't dead, and they can't be revived, but they're completely irretrievable except by Miracle/Wish.
Then, there's the old classic. If the enemies don't have a lot of archers, rev up Natural Spell, Wild Shape into a bird, then Call Lightning on them until they be toast. Good way to dish out a lot of damage without being touched.
And let's not forget the Mario. A good, strong half-orc at maximum weight carrying the limits of a light load, then gets Enlarge Personed to jump on people and deal falling object damage.
And do you have any idea how deadly it is to use Major Creation to make a Bag of Holding full of black lotus extract?
This is all core. If your players want to find weird rules interactions, they can and they will, splats or no. A feat doesn't complicate the game just because it's from Complete Warrior. Power Attack would do the exact same thing if it were in any other book. A feat, or a class, or an ability, or an item complicates things when it complicates things. Complicated stuff is complicated. Simple stuff is simple. That's all there is to it. If there are simpler rules for getting the desired effects in Book B than in Book A, then adding Book B simplifies the game rather than complicating it.
Fire Giants don't start at level 1. Unless you're using Savage Species and put the effort in I suppose. Your excuse sounds like it'd drop the SoD like a brick on a egg.
No, fire giants don't start at level 1. But even if the game were starting at level 10, a fire giant is ECL 19 as a PC. Meaning you're allowed to send a fire giant at the level 10 party (or even lower), but the players aren't allowed to be fire giants, even if they're starting at level 10.
And save-or-"die" (or save-or-lose, or save-or-suck, or suck-no-save, or...) is standard issue for all casters, whether they be Big Five or no, from level 1. It's not just a Cleric/Druid/Wizard thing. Rocket tag is pretty fundamental to the system.
So, can you go through what you do as DM when your group creates PCs? Coz it sounds very... complicated. Which is what I was trying to avoid. Just saying.
The 3.5 system doesn't change. Binder was complicated when it came out. It's complicated today. It will be complicated years from now. Once you have a firm grasp of the system, it's not changing (at least, it's not changing anymore, now that 4e is out). And besides, a lot of work is supposed to go into the character creation process so that you can get all the rules out on the table in advance rather than spending time every single session adjudicat matters that should have been settled weeks ago.