Community

Degausser wrote:

Okay, so, yes, I was wrong. I meant to say a party of level 10 people consider a Terasque a 'light workout.' And any DM worth his salt could get around the 'not flying' thing. What's the maximum range of most spells? X feet? Not a long ways, and a Terasque could easily pick up a tree trunk and chuck it at the party. MASSIVE str+ Tree = Dead lvl 10 mage (or at least grounded with a tree on him)

So your Tarrasque is houseruled to have the Throw Anything feat? While a fair work around, we can start getting into other house rules that are now fair game that will make further discussion along that thread moot.

Geeze, have you ever played a melee class? I know I have and I've outshined the mage in a base only game because of it. I suspect you think Mages are great and Melee classes are horrible because Mages are easier to Munchkin, and that's true, but it hardly means all Melee classes are useless. One party, at level 10, we had a Barbarian that could hit for over 100 damage on a crit. Show me a mage that can do that consistently. REMEMBER, level 10.

Many times. I play just about anything except bards (don't have the performer mindset, so can't roleplay them).

As for mages and damage dealing... Does it count if I do 100 damage or more on a non crit, several times a round every round? Because if so I've personally done it and know at least one other way to do it (not multiple times a round though) offhand. Not that it matters, because direct damage is the weakest and least efficient thing a caster can do.

Also...

Hyudra]Design a fighter, pit him against a varied set of threats of his CR.
Especially as he climbs higher in level, he's going to fall short. He simply gains abilities and capabilities at too slow a rate to deal with anything. By the time his level is in the teens, he's virtually incapable of contributing anything.

This isn't DM fiat. This is the game design, and if the DM scales the threat level of the campaign down to let the fighter keep doing something, it's going to mean the other classes get bored. This is the molly coddling you referred to.

So you're suggesting, "Provide a varied set of situations where characters playing different classes become useful." Here's the trouble: Fighters are worse at fighting than clerics, druids and even any wizards who get such an idea into their heads. The only serious role you can give him is chopping up low level mooks you throw onto the battlefield, and that's only if the wizard doesn't want to waste an action clearing the battlefield with a well aimed spell. Short of splitting up the group, a fighter isn't going to stand toe to toe with his friends in any situation.

One of the very few exceptions is the spiked chain tripper (which is a temporary band-aid, not a solution), and every D&D community has a bunch of people who are tired of this trope. This, to stay on topic, is remedied with splatbooks. Fighters use weapon choice and bonus feats to customize a fighting style. With splatbooks, it's far easier to bring them up to par and give them a role. A few maneuvers & stances from ToB and a fighter can actually do something about many threats of his level.[/quote wrote:

Design a fighter, pit him against a varied set of threats of his CR.
Especially as he climbs higher in level, he's going to fall short. He simply gains abilities and capabilities at too slow a rate to deal with anything. By the time his level is in the teens, he's virtually incapable of contributing anything.

This isn't DM fiat. This is the game design, and if the DM scales the threat level of the campaign down to let the fighter keep doing something, it's going to mean the other classes get bored. This is the molly coddling you referred to.

So you're suggesting, "Provide a varied set of situations where characters playing different classes become useful." Here's the trouble: Fighters are worse at fighting than clerics, druids and even any wizards who get such an idea into their heads. The only serious role you can give him is chopping up low level mooks you throw onto the battlefield, and that's only if the wizard doesn't want to waste an action clearing the battlefield with a well aimed spell. Short of splitting up the group, a fighter isn't going to stand toe to toe with his friends in any situation.

One of the very few exceptions is the spiked chain tripper (which is a temporary band-aid, not a solution), and every D&D community has a bunch of people who are tired of this trope. This, to stay on topic, is remedied with splatbooks. Fighters use weapon choice and bonus feats to customize a fighting style. With splatbooks, it's far easier to bring them up to par and give them a role. A few maneuvers & stances from ToB and a fighter can actually do something about many threats of his level.

Yes, PERFECT. No, I'm being serious, I completly, 100% agree. But you are saying that "In DnD fighters are compleatly useless and mages always win. And I don't buy that. Mages are subject to many restrictions, and there are times when a fighter is your better option. For example, creatures with a High Magic resist . . . what are you going to do? Sure, you could say "Drop boulder from dizzying height onto creature" but really, Is a Mage going to have the BAB to make THAT shot? Why not just let the Fighter hack it to bits?

See above. Also...

http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/ … p/t-725461

Really, DON'T play hack and slash, huh? Could have fooled me. Let's see what your saying.

1)Terasque=Cost to gain ratio.
2)Full casters are better at killing than full fighters.
3)How DMs should follow the WBL table to the letter to make sure you have enough loot

Seems pretty hack-and-slash-y to me. But, as I said in the previous post, if that's the DND that you play, that's cool. Just keep away from me and my actual role-playing (Y'know, the kind of role-playing where we can spend an entire session, NOT fight anything, and everyone still has fun.) As for Caster's being super overpowered compared to the fighting classes: I've never seen it, and I've played many different campaigns. As long as the fighter knows what he's doing and isn't an idiot, he can be just as useful as the mage.

So you mean to tell me characters, these allegedly well roleplayed characters aren't at least considering risk vs reward when they go tangle with that massive monstrosity stomping about? Unless you're playing a suicidal character, or maybe a Stupid Good one (think Lawful Stupid and Chaotic Stupid here) it is in no way hack and slash. Quite the opposite.

My case about full casters vs full fighters is the former are better at everything, not just fighting. And not just a bit better, but as in functioning far above par vs far below it.

The problem with having the level of gear you are supposed to have is...?

I'm loving the ignorance and arrogance there by the way. Assuming all I do in D&D is fight despite it being stated numerous times I play a mix of roleplay and combat? Yeah, that. Unless the caster is a complete idiot, as in uses enchantments on undead repeatedly and knowingly it is impossible for the fighter to be better. Period.

Oh, and no, it's not that you don't understand DnD because you have a favorite class (heck, I like monks, I'll admit that.) It's that you play that class to the exclusion of all else, because you blindly assume all other classes are 'useless' and suffer from 'sucktitude' and won't give them a chance.

Yay for more ignorant statements. This one I've answered earlier in this post.

This topic is now borderlining on epic fail material. Might wanna boost that constructiveness level a bit.

Sunic_Flames wrote:

So your Tarrasque is houseruled to have the Throw Anything feat? While a fair work around, we can start getting into other house rules that are now fair game that will make further discussion along that thread moot.

Wait a minute. You're not saying that you can't change the feats around from what is in the Monster Manuel are you? That's just crazy. I think all you need is a program to DM for you. Switching around feats isn't a house rule. Oh...never mind.

StSteven wrote:

Wait a minute. You're not saying that you can't change the feats around from what is in the Monster Manuel are you? That's just crazy. I think all you need is a program to DM for you. Switching around feats isn't a house rule. Oh...never mind.

Oh no, I think you should. But pulling a stunt like that mid argument is what is known as 'moving the goal posts' and is therefore invalid.

Not that it matters at all anyways. Acid arrow (the sample spell the level 10 sorcerers were using) has an 800 foot range at that level. He throws the tree what? 50 feet? Woo...

StSteven wrote:

Wait a minute. You're not saying that you can't change the feats around from what is in the Monster Manuel are you? That's just crazy. I think all you need is a program to DM for you. Switching around feats isn't a house rule. Oh...never mind.

Well, if your solution to a problem is to change an aspect of it so that the underlying assumption is no longer true, that sort of all but admits that there really is a problem with the original premise, does it not? Because of there wasn't any problem, you wouldn't need to revise anything.

You can play around with its feat selection anyway you want. I doubt that you can remedy its most glaring weakness - inability to attack flying foes. Your best bet is to put the PCs on some sort of timer where they are forced to engage it directly due to time constraints, though the wizard could just trap it in by casting 4 wall of forces around it (and using permanency to make them permanent). If after that, you still cannot devise a way to kill it, then well...

Plus, throw anything has such a crummy range increment. My wizard could just gate in a solar and wait for the tarrasque to roll that inevitable one against his slaying arrows (we are in no hurry, he can't touch us while we are flying anyways).

Alternatively, just dominate it (after using limited wish to lower its save or something). Why kill it when you can now have a pet tarrasque at your command?

This isn't powergaming. It is simply bad design, because the designers probably only thought that the PCs would engage it in one particular way, when spellcasters clearly have so many other alternatives at their disposal...

Etarnon wrote:

Degausser, loved your post # 199, 100% gold.

I'll suggest to both Degausser, and STSteven, give it up.

You guys seem to be (a la roughly Forge GNS Theory, plus eyeball) Narrativist Roleplayers, and Sunic_Flames seems to be a Gamist Analysis Optimizer.

"No wins here", For the Win.

You're not gonna convince him to change because he doesn't need to because 3.5 is the perfect game for him, builds and all.

He builds for effectiveness and character power to affect the world.

You guys build for backstory and flavor, and what your choices do within the story to affect the story of the world.

Unless I missed something.

you missed a lot, and what you missed was that those two styles aren't mutually exclusive, even though people on both sides (especially, it seems, the 'narrativists') seem to think so.

Etarnon wrote:

Draco Whitewind Wrote:



There were no Divine Casters, for story reason. The one temple of Nuns that was set up to slay undead (The Temple of the Dawn) was tricked and killed, a few at a time by the last player that I let play Evil. Of of his last acts was to corrupt another PC (a low level fighter) into murdering the last remaining nun of the Temple of the Dawn, in exchange for a magic sword.

The other Temple was a temple of War, but many had played Paladins in a huge fight against demonic forces, while allied with the temple of Good. People were sick of Clerics. So many were playing fighters and rangers.

After the Temple of the Dawn was slain to a woman, Undead attacked the main human city shortly thereafter. The fires started when a player with a flaming sword was beset by Undead at the Inn. Most of the city burned, as it hadn't rained in days. There were no Arcane casters, again for story reasons, as the world is low magic, with loose wild magic, and spell components, and such, so that playing a mage is pretty much too difficult, and players are advised of that well in advance, up front. If they choose to do so, up to them.

Plus the kingdom in question had banned Magic from the city, and had for some years. The nearest mages lived in the next barony over, 150 miles away.

So most people played fighters, rogues, or rangers with the occassional Paladin, and sometimes a Cleric.



I like the mundane things, like using rules for weather, and hunting, and tracking game. Water can be had, of course, unless you are in the desert, then you need to carry 10 pounds of water per day. Most parties don't want to carry that much. I like rules for cold and hot temperature and encumbrance, also.



To be honest, again it was a case of low magic, with potential wild magic...

The magic in the land was unstable and fading, since the Dragons had left en masse, for another plane. Party casters doing a simple magic missile at short range could accidentally fireball themselves, or one time, a guy Metamorphed into an Umber Hulk, permanently. So again, people didn't really use or trust magic as spell.

...okay plus limited casters, and it was yes, a case of "This poison doesn't work that way, requiring a special potion to be brewed up from exotic ingredients by the NPC alchemist." Magic was banned from the specific city, but not the surrounding countryside. But still rare.

I'm a little confused.

1st point - No divine casters. I'm really confused as to why people would have such problems with that. its not very difficult to just pick "Good" and be a Cleric without a temple or an order or laws of the order to obey. its one of the very things built in D&D, 3.0 and 3.5 to avoid the great strings of the DM and story plot. Honestly, Moral, social needs of the orders and such should never touch the PCs unless they tell the DM beforehand "yes, its fine to go there." (Doubly for paladins. no, Triply.)

2 - I see the problem with the arcane casters, but its not difficult for a Sorcerer or Wizard to stay low key and just not cast spells within city limits. I've played in a game like that, and it wasn't hard to hide, especially as a sorcerer. My wizard went around in armor along with the rest when within the city to never get more attention, and it seemed to work until he was high enough level that he was "Yeah, I'm a wizard. I'm not going to melt your faces because I've saved your butts with my arcane might twice. Drop it." And they did.

3 - I'm all for poison antidotes to be a special thing, but not if a level 7 cleric can be found. Its perfectly fine to do it if the party really cant choose the easy catch all remove poison option, but Honestly, if I really was in that game, with that spell, I'd be pretty mad. (I'm being completely serious in the idea that if a DM, regardless of the reason is going to whip out a plot device that circumvents my abilities specifically, I would be mad normally.)

you missed a lot, and what you missed was that those two styles aren't mutually exclusive, even though people on both sides (especially, it seems, the 'narrativists') seem to think so.

+1, and Point Made. And I obviously do / did.

I'm still reading the forge, started today with a few articles. I guess trying it on, there's some things still unbuckled.

Draco Whitewind Wrote:

1st point - No divine casters. I'm really confused as to why people would have such problems with that. its not very difficult to just pick "Good" and be a Cleric without a temple or an order or laws of the order to obey. its one of the very things built in D&D, 3.0 and 3.5 to avoid the great strings of the DM and story plot.

Every Cleric is part of a temple in my Campaign, I have 40 of them to accomodate most types of character personality. I'm not sure why people would want to avoid story plot. That's kind of what my DMing style is known for. Plot based on the story, based on the PCs.

No PC cleric ever made it past 5th. Mostly due to inter-temple rivalries, and to be blunt, greedy players, going to places that were unsuitable for their level, advised by NPCs not to go there, advised by other players not to go there. Went. Died.

2 - I see the problem with the arcane casters, but its not difficult for a Sorcerer or Wizard to stay low key and just not cast spells within city limits. I've played in a game like that, and it wasn't hard to hide, especially as a sorcerer. My wizard went around in armor along with the rest when within the city to never get more attention, and it seemed to work until he was high enough level that he was "Yeah, I'm a wizard. I'm not going to melt your faces because I've saved your butts with my arcane might twice. Drop it." And they did.

It isn't a problem of low key, it is a problem of people didn't want to play them, because of wild magic being present in a lot of places. Plus material components requirements. a lot of factors.

3 - I'm all for poison antidotes to be a special thing, but not if a level 7 cleric can be found. Its perfectly fine to do it if the party really cant choose the easy catch all remove poison option, but Honestly, if I really was in that game, with that spell, I'd be pretty mad. (I'm being completely serious in the idea that if a DM, regardless of the reason is going to whip out a plot device that circumvents my abilities specifically, I would be mad normally.)

No level 7 clerics of good around, (in that country) even as NPCs, since the forces of evil had pretty much killed most of them off. The land itself was often overrun by bandits and many regions were goblin and orc infested and lawless. If there had been a level 7 cleric around, sure no problem. But player actions using evil aligned characters against good temples made it a problem.

So it wasn't a case of:
"My cleric uses neutralize poison, etc."
"No that doesn't work."

It was a case of:
The King is sick. Are there any Clerics?
No.
What else can we do?

I wanted to have an adventure that was more than "Cast a spell to solve it" that needed a Ranger/Shadowdancer, and some other mostly martial characters going up against multiple bands of low CR enemies in a multiple scene scenario / Quest / Mystery deal. That's what I came up with.

Etarnon wrote:

Every Cleric is part of a temple in my Campaign, I have 40 of them to accomodate most types of character personality. I'm not sure why people would want to avoid story plot. That's kind of what my DMing style is known for. Plot based on the story, based on the PCs.

No PC cleric ever made it past 5th. Mostly due to inter-temple rivalries, and to be blunt, greedy players, going to places that were unsuitable for their level, advised by NPCs not to go there, advised by other players not to go there. Went. Died.
I
t isn't a problem of low key, it is a problem of people didn't want to play them, because of wild magic being present in a lot of places. Plus material components requirements. a lot of factors.

For #1, that's what bothers me a lot, but I think thats because of the sort of DMs Ive had, and just generally the playstyle I have. My Cleric would be of a temple far far away. No real ties or benefits other than spells, but safe from DM plot Fiat. Likewise, Most of the generic things like, Human, no parents or living relative, etc. In general I think its more of a - "if I'm in the mood for moral or class conflict/past driven conflict, I'll let the DM know its okay as I make my character. Otherwise, I'm going to literally run, and drag the party away from those Quest givers, or kindly ask my friends to pull a 4th wall break, Kill the NPC, and walk away like nothing happened. (usually the DM gets the point after that.)

2 - No eschew materials feat? That solves most all problems, especially for a sorcerer with the feat. No spellbook or cheap component problem. for those who really really wanted costly spell components, Maybe a blood Magus? (although I doubt in your world there would be any around nearby.)

In general I think its more of a - "if I'm in the mood for moral or class conflict/past driven conflict, I'll let the DM know its okay as I make my character.

That's a really strange statement to hear. We obviously come from different philosophies. If you're not in the mood for class / Temple, past conflict returning as long term story arc, you *definitely* wouldn't enjoy my game, or my style, in any game.

Otherwise, I'm going to literally run, and drag the party away from those Quest givers,

Potentially Every NPC you meet? It's a lonely world, that way.

or kindly ask my friends to pull a 4th wall break, Kill the NPC, and walk away like nothing happened.

For what in character reason? What's their justification?

(usually the DM gets the point after that.)

All the DMs I know would not ask you to return, if that's the best you can do, when confronted with a choice.

You come from some kind of experience / Background of .. what? to come to these conclusions?

StruckingFuggle wrote:

you missed a lot, and what you missed was that those two styles aren't mutually exclusive, even though people on both sides (especially, it seems, the 'narrativists') seem to think so.

+1.

While it may be easier for some here to paint me as a 'hack and slasher', or a less flattering term instead of actually dealing with the arguments presented (I believe this is known as a straw man argument) the simple fact of the matter is I am both. If it were just hack and slash, I'd lose interest because video games do it far better. If it were just roleplay (I don't mean one session of nothing but roleplay, but rather you never fight anything) I would likewise lose interest because either 'that's just freeform' (if it actually was just roleplaying) or 'corpses make terrible roleplayers' (if it means this is a roleplaying game in the sense of you must make a gimped character in order to be considered a roleplayer).

It requires a roughly even mix of both to interest me.

Most of the above is not directed at Etarnon as his stance is just stemming from a misunderstanding which is easily corrected by reason instead of actively seeking to go off in a side tangent strawman style to attack a weak point that isn't a weak point at all. The guilty parties know who they are. He isn't one of them.

Etarnon wrote:

Degausser, loved your post # 199, 100% gold.

I'll suggest to both Degausser, and STSteven, give it up.

You guys seem to be (a la roughly Forge GNS Theory, plus eyeball) Narrativist Roleplayers, and Sunic_Flames seems to be a Gamist Analysis Optimizer.

"No wins here", For the Win.

You're not gonna convince him to change because he doesn't need to because 3.5 is the perfect game for him, builds and all.

He builds for effectiveness and character power to affect the world.

You guys build for backstory and flavor, and what your choices do within the story to affect the story of the world.

Unless I missed something.

I don't think either side is wrong, it's a serious armed clash of playing styles.

And with the nerf-padded swords of internet forums, it will go till The Wizo's get called in.

Actually, I don't think that at all. I actually play many optimizer games (if that is what they are called). I just don't think there is anything wrong with tweaking the system to make the kind of game you want to play.

If you want to get into what style I actually play, most of the players I play with are pretty new. This leads to a minimum of roll play from them (they are young). I also, currently, don't have to worry about them breaking the system. They just aren't that good. I like a good mix of strong characters (but a lot of these builds get ridiculous) and good roll play.

I am not trying to change anybody's mind about what kind of game to play. Just what kinds of games you can play.

Degausser wrote:

Okay, so, yes, I was wrong. I meant to say a party of level 10 people consider a Terasque a 'light workout.' And any DM worth his salt could get around the 'not flying' thing. What's the maximum range of most spells? X feet? Not a long ways, and a Terasque could easily pick up a tree trunk and chuck it at the party. MASSIVE str+ Tree = Dead lvl 10 mage (or at least grounded with a tree on him)


Yes, PERFECT. No, I'm being serious, I completly, 100% agree. But you are saying that "In DnD fighters are compleatly useless and mages always win. And I don't buy that. Mages are subject to many restrictions, and there are times when a fighter is your better option. For example, creatures with a High Magic resist . . . what are you going to do? Sure, you could say "Drop boulder from dizzying height onto creature" but really, Is a Mage going to have the BAB to make THAT shot? Why not just let the Fighter hack it to bits?

The tarrasque has an int of 3. It has no opposable digits. It is throwing this tree HOW?(It should be noted that I think the tarrasque is not a CR20. It's not even a CR17 except for the Wish requirement.)


Melf's acid arrow with energy substitution for your acid immune needs. Cloudkill.

Etarnon wrote:

Draco_Whitewind Wrote:



That's a really strange statement to hear. We obviously come from different philosophies. If you're not in the mood for class / Temple, past conflict returning as long term story arc, you *definitely* wouldn't enjoy my game, or my style, in any game.




Potentially Every NPC you meet? It's a lonely world, that way.



For what in character reason? What's their justification?



All the DMs I know would not ask you to return, if that's the best you can do, when confronted with a choice.

You come from some kind of experience / Background of .. what? to come to these conclusions?

Sorry about that, too much work over the last few days.

1st - In general, The entire reason why I feel that way is because I feel race and character class should say nothing about a character's background and allegiance, necessarily. There are some really poor clerics out there. those that while are respectful, can certainly hate their job like everyone else, and still get spells like everyone else.

For a character, 'My church' can go on and on in such a dilemma like in your Game, but If I had to, I'd simply get as far away from the conflict as possible. (or try and choose one whose conflict doesn't find itself in this region. (And there are absolutely "freelance" Clerics, just like every other class in the D&D world. There are Clerics who don't see their temple for months. Paladins who while serve good, have probably never quested in direct intent of their Deity aside from the idea of staying out of trouble. Class, is really more like Work. except you can't be fired if you never go in* )

(*yes, that was a bad joke.)

2. I came across the 2nd point a little confusing, I'd admit. What I meant by avoid certain things, is that I'm very used to being in player driven games. Wherein we usually end up finding trouble ourselves at first, although there are hints and clues, nothing really glaring out as "King is X", "Princess is X", more like "ancient temple ripe for mystery and who knows what possible hidden activity, although there's nothing from it plaguing the region immediately." We do eventually end up in more traditional world-saving later on, but that's when its actually time to face foes worthy of their name that can make knights rust their girdles.

3 - the "Kill this NPC" is referring to the idea that sometimes a DM tries to push on a quest or hook too hard when we really have no interest in it for some reason or another. Its never been the literal case where we actually killed an NPC, But once with a cleric, I had a really sneaky suspicion I was going to be summoned by my church. I had a hidden agreement with another player, who took the letter, and tore it up without me 'seeing it'.

When I DM, its usually very much driven by what desires the characters have. I've DMed maybe one "good" party over the years, mostly neutral characters, sometimes an evil character or two. Once in a while I'd toss them out a really big campaign I had worked on, and one group actually did bite after it after failing with 2 previous games. However, the two other games wherein the players managed to go after a little adventure, and once they got the taste of it, I decided to flesh it out much more and keep them interested. Most dungeons were expanded suitably since we met once a week.

Sunic_Flames wrote:

I'm not a new player, and am not interested anyways

"New" is subjective. For me as a DM, a player with your amount of RPG experience would be considered "new". To someone who started a few months ago they might consider you a vet.

Sunic_Flames wrote:

So your Tarrasque is houseruled to have the Throw Anything feat? While a fair work around, we can start getting into other house rules that are now fair game that will make further discussion along that thread moot.

Yeah, like it's a house rule that a dwarf can chuck a stick. Feat: Chuck Stick!

Oh, oh ,oh! How about a house rule so that a character can do jumping jacks!?
You should go into stand up.

Kursk wrote:

"New" is subjective. For me as a DM, a player with your amount of RPG experience would be considered "new". To someone who started a few months ago they might consider you a vet.

Your condensing comment is irrelevant. The purpose of new player games is to teach the rules. As I am already quite familiar with said rules even if I did want to join the only purpose it would serve is taking a spot from someone who actually needs it.

As for feats, seeing as the system makes you need a feat to do just about anything I wouldn't be surprised if they actually did try to pull a stunt like that. After all, considering that combat is constant motion why is it you need to go up 3 rungs on a feat ladder just to get the ability to move, attack, and move the rest of the way?

"Sorry, I can't walk after stopping to swing for a few seconds?"



With that said ignoring that straw man again... throwing range <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< long range spell range. It's a moot point even if you can pull a Red Mage and change feats on the fly.

Sunic_Flames wrote:

Your condensing comment is irrelevant. The purpose of new player games is to teach the rules. As I am already quite familiar with said rules...

Knowing the rules and knowing how to play are two different items. The purpose of a new player game for me, is to teach them how to play the D&D RPG game. You would fit nicely in one of my new player games.

Edit to expand (still drinking my coffee): Okay, you know all the rules. However, not really knowing how to play, your wizard would have been nailed by the Tarrasque. You would have sat there with mouth open frantically digging through the MM looking for the rule that says a Tarrasque can throw, what is to him, a stick. If I didn't run beginning games for new players like you their Uber characters would never survive a "non-newbie" game of mine.

Just because you play high school football & know all the rules of the NFL, doesn't mean you're ready to hit the field and play in an NFL game.

Sunic_Flames wrote:

As for feats, seeing as the system makes you need a feat to do just about anything I wouldn't be surprised

YOU brought up that it would take house ruling a feat to throw something like a stick. If you can't address your mistake at least don't try to dodge it.

Sunic_Flames wrote:

No. I said it would take house ruling to give it that feat.

Throw Anything has a max range of 50'.

The tarrasque is 70 feet long and 50 feet tall, and it weighs about 130 tons.

Figure it out.

Kursk wrote:

The tarrasque is 70 feet long and 50 feet tall, and it weighs about 130 tons.

Figure it out.

Ah, so then you're in agreement that level 10 sorcerers raining death down on the Tarrasque wouldn't have any problem if it had that feat?

Kraz wrote:

Ah, so then you're in agreement that level 10 sorcerers raining death down on the Tarrasque wouldn't have any problem if it had that feat?

I'm in agreement with what I wrote. What part didn't you understand?

Sunic_Flames wrote:

No. I said it would take house ruling to give it that feat. And since it was originally stated to be a 'Tarrasque' it is assumed to be standard unless stated otherwise at the beginning. Since it wasn't, any change is moving the goal posts.

How about this. What would you set as the DC for a 30' long jump for a Tarrasque?

Kursk wrote:

How about this. What would you set as the DC for a 30' long jump for a Tarrasque?

30 with a running start, just like anything else. Unless this is meant to prove you'd make up some house rule to allow it to jump much further... Still not seeing the relevance between that and hitting something up to 800 feet up.

Sunic_Flames wrote:

30 with a running start, just like anything else. Unless this is meant to prove you'd make up some house rule to allow it to jump much further...

Since it's stride could be 30' long there is no DC to cover that much ground without touching the ground between. No house rule needed, unless you think it can't walk...

Sunic_Flames wrote:

Still not seeing the relevance between that and hitting something up to 800 feet up.

I never mentioned hitting s/g 800' away. I referred to being able to throw s/g at least as far as from its head to its butt w/o a special feat.

How much damage would a 50' tall monster take if it jumped out of it's bed? The bed if 20' feet off the ground. You don't need to answer. Just ponder.

Sunic_Flames wrote:

And I could have a stride 5 foot long, if I stretched a little. I'm an average height human. What do you know, long jumps of 5 feet still have a DC of 5 with a running start and 10 without it. That means with average strength and no special training you will fail 45% of the time when trying... or stretch a little and step over it, no failure. Bet if I tried this in a game to cheat my way past a pit trap the DM would smack me with the DMG.

As for your Tarrasque stepping across a gap... no house rule needed to say the ground next to the cliff isn't that stable and can't support that much weight... down goes the Tarrasque. :P

Very good & funny about the cliff crumbling. Now. Does your DM require that you roll a d20 to take a step the length of your stride? Yes, or no.

Kursk wrote:

Yeah, like it's a house rule that a dwarf can chuck a stick. Feat: Chuck Stick!

Well. There's a difference between throwing a stick, and making a significant ranged attack with the stick ...

Furthermore, iirc (AFB and it's not SRD), Throw Anything only allows you to make ranged attacks with things that are already weapons, not weaponize whatever you can get your hands on. However, I do think there's a rule that you can make improvised ranged attack rolls.

Using your dexterity. Following the 10' (5') ranged increment rules, for both attack roll penalties and maximum range. With the improvised weapon penalty.

This isn't exactly a winning proposition, especially when it comes to range, and especially how easy it should be to subvert ranged attacks with low-level magic (entropic shield? check. protection from arrows? should take the brunt of it off). Mirror Image? Blur? Displacement? Why the heck not, they're low-level spell slots, and if you're not prepared it's a stupid encounter (and I believe the default assumption is that you don't randomly blunder into the Tarrasque) so you've got time to dedicate some of 'em, and you're using 'em for what else, now?


Furthermore, is the Tarrasque really smart enough to go for such a tactic as picking up rocks (probably without opposable thumbs) or uprooting trees and chucking 'em?

Now, if it was a Dragon Hulking Hurler, sure, you'd have a point, and an awesome encounter, buuuut...

... but the point remains, there are rules. These rules so disfavor the Tarrasque throwing things that no, it really is not much of a threat to a prepared group engaging it.


There is also a difference between walking and jumping, both in game and out of the game, and no if I stood where I was and jumped to the max extent of my stride, no, I'm not sure I could make it, I would believe a check - low DC, X' standing long jump DC seems fine - would, indeed, be called for.


If you want to make house rules, fine, but at least acknowledge that you're not only making up new rules, you're using them to replace extant rules... which, really, are not really relevant to the discussion as a whole.



As a side note, this is a question, not a point in my reply: It seems you have such an antagonistic relationship with the whole concept of systematic rules. Why are you playing DnD, instead of "Paladins and Goblins" (DnD-Flavored-Cowboys-And-Indians)?

StruckingFuggle wrote:

Well. There's a difference between throwing a stick, and making a significant ranged attack with the stick ...

What is a significant distance to an ant is not for a human.

StruckingFuggle wrote:

Furthermore, is the Tarrasque really smart enough to go for such a tactic as picking up rocks (probably without opposable thumbs) or uprooting trees and chucking 'em?

Is a human PC with a 3 int able to throw s/g to attack? ... Looking at the picture I see no reason why it couldn't pick up s/g.

I like rules, BTW. But the "rules" don't cover everything. How about the giant getting out of bed thing? If you read the DMG, it doesn't say the DM removes his brain prior to starting the game session. In order to cover EVERYTHING the "rules" would take several thousand gigs in txt format.

If you want a game where EVERYTHING is spelled out and you never run into a situation that you have to figure out, play a video game. Seems that is what you are looking for. D&D ain't it.

StruckingFuggle wrote:

... but the point remains, there are rules. These rules so disfavor the Tarrasque throwing things that no,

Haven't seen rules that would preclude this action..

StruckingFuggle wrote:

There is also a difference between walking and jumping, both in game and out of the game, and no if I stood where I was and jumped to the max extent of my stride, no, I'm not sure I could make it, I would believe a check - low DC, X' standing long jump DC seems fine - would, indeed, be called for.

Your DM requires a roll for you to "hop" 3'? (your stride) I would never play in a game where the DM was well, won't state it here. CoC and all that.

Kursk wrote:

What is a significant distance to an ant is not for a human.

And what's significant for a human is not for a giant, and what's significant to a giant, not so much to a Titan or Ocean Strider. There's several intelligent, even bipedal, creatures who're BIG, closer to Tarrasque then Human on the Human vs. Ant scale. If it was

Really, it should come down to strength score, not size, because if you pick up a stick, how far you can throw it past your arms is a function of how much force you can impart into it (strength), not of your size.

The best way I can think of to handle it is to have their first range increment go from their physical space to their reach plus a range increment. Hm. That's a pretty reasonable-sounding houserule to address what is, yes, a bit ridiculous.

Is a human PC with a 3 int able to throw s/g to attack? ... Looking at the picture I see no reason why it couldn't pick up s/g.

I'm not sure. I'd say it's probably bad roleplaying if they did. I guess technically it's possible, but it doesn't make sense for someone that profoundly stupid to do something that clever.

Haven't seen rules that would preclude this action..

I didn't say preclude, I said disfavor. Even if it could, it wouldn't (or at least shouldn't, against a prepared party, versus a dm using something that resembles the rules) be a rather effective use of its actions - it'd be darn hard to hit, and then hard to do reasonable damage. 46 str? 18 damage + weapon size. Knock ten off from Protection From Arrows, and that's a good chunk of it off already, even against a wizard, if it hits - most of which won't - if the Tarrasque even has the range to hit.

Sure, it can make ranged attacks - ineffectively. Its abilities are not conducive to this being a good means of attack.

But maybe it'd be too dumb to tell otherwise. Smart enough to throw rocks, dumb enough not to know not to, it only becomes weaker because it starts frittering away actions picking up and chucking ineffective attacks.

Your DM requires a roll for you to "hop" 3'? (your stride) I would never play in a game where the DM was well, won't state it here. CoC and all that.

Ahem. I am the DM. And I didn't say I would require them to roll jump to walk. I said that if they wanted to jump, which is not walking, I would require the roll, if for some reason they had to jump the length of their stride instead of taking a step.

Say, for example, if they were in a sack up to their waist. You wouldn't require jump checks to move forward by more than just toeing forward step by step?

StruckingFuggle wrote:

The best way I can think of to handle it is to have their first range increment go from their physical space to their reach plus a range increment. Hm. That's a pretty reasonable-sounding houserule to address what is, yes, a bit ridiculous.

Sounds like a reasonable way to figure the range limits. Thanks.

StruckingFuggle wrote:

I'm not sure. I'd say it's probably bad roleplaying if they did. I guess technically it's possible, but it doesn't make sense for someone that profoundly stupid to do something that clever.

I just figured it using the stupidest PC. Remember we're not talking about an original idea. I figured the 3 int entity has been the victim of such an attack.

StruckingFuggle wrote:

shouldn't, against a prepared party, versus a dm using something that resembles the rules) be a rather effective use of its actions - it'd be darn hard to hit, and then hard to do reasonable damage. 46 str? 18 damage + weapon size. Knock ten off from Protection From Arrows, and that's a good chunk of it off already, even against a wizard, if it hits - most of which won't - if the Tarrasque even has the range to hit.

I think you missed my point. My point being that the player in question wouldn't have readied a defense as the "rules" in the MM don't say the tarrasque would throw s/g. "playing by the rules" rather than playing well.

StruckingFuggle wrote:

Say, for example, if they were in a sack up to their waist. You wouldn't require jump checks to move forward by more than just toeing forward step by step?

Not talking about being in a sack. Just hopping 3'. I can do that all day and never fail. Why? For the same reason I can walk all day without falling on my face.

Kursk wrote:

I just figured it using the stupidest PC. Remember we're not talking about an original idea. I figured the 3 int entity has been the victim of such an attack.

Been the victim, I'm not sure if they could figure it out. I mean, my understanding is 3 int is really stupid. If you go by 1 point of int is 10 points of IQ, 7 int is functionally retarded, 3 is barely functional as a human being. Even if that's a poor metric, 3 is still barely smarter than an animal.

Maybe if someone showed it to them and made them do it a few times, and I doubt anyone sat down to teach the Tarrasque.

I think you missed my point. My point being that the player in question wouldn't have readied a defense as the "rules" in the MM don't say the tarrasque would throw s/g. "playing by the rules" rather than playing well.

Hm. Well, if they went in without reaearching it, they fail.
If they researched it and didn't find out it'd be able to make ranged attacks, I'd say the DM fails.

Not talking about being in a sack. Just hopping 3'. I can do that all day and never fail. Why? For the same reason I can walk all day without falling on my face.

And why's that? Because you probably have the ability to pass the checks even on a roll of a 1, not because there's no checks involved.

Really, too, going by dnd, it should be 5', I was just using 3' 'cause it seemed closer to my strie.

StruckingFuggle wrote:

Been the victim, I'm not sure if they could figure it out. I mean, my understanding is 3 int is really stupid. If you go by 1 point of int is 10 points of IQ, 7 int is functionally retarded, 3 is barely functional as a human being. Even if that's a poor metric, 3 is still barely smarter than an animal.

Maybe if someone showed it to them and made them do it a few times, and I doubt anyone sat down to teach the Tarrasque.

Maybe. But, you'd have to retool the basic rules to basically disallow 3 int PCs.

StruckingFuggle wrote:

Hm. Well, if they went in without reaearching it, they fail.
If they researched it and didn't find out it'd be able to make ranged attacks, I'd say the DM fails.

Correct. The types of players who "know all the rules" rarely RP that way. PCs for the fail.

StruckingFuggle wrote:

Really, too, going by dnd, it should be 5', I was just using 3' 'cause it seemed closer to my strie.

My point is that it is a stride, not even 5'.

Kursk wrote:

Maybe. But, you'd have to retool the basic rules to basically disallow 3 int PCs.

I'm not so sure. You can have really, really dumb PCs, they'll just be really dumb. More animal than man, like a man raised by wolves or some such thing. It's just, properly RPed, they wouldn't be able to function in society and could barely function as a person without extensive teaching, and even then they'd always be a bit behind.

Correct. The types of players who "know all the rules" rarely RP that way. PCs for the fail.

Why is it that you seem to have all this experience that way, but my experience is that the best roleplayers I've had or met have also been some of the most mechanically sound and rules-grounded folk?

My point is that it is a stride, not even 5'.

... Wait. What was your original point on this topic, then?

I thought you were saying that jumping to another space within your stride shouldn't require a check.

StSteven wrote:

What in the infinite layers of the abyss does any of this have to do with MageMart?

I think the minimum intelligence required to work at MageMart is a 4 or higher and I think that they're discussing who could possibly be turned down based on that requirement. :D

Kraz wrote:

Ah, so then you're in agreement that level 10 sorcerers raining death down on the Tarrasque wouldn't have any problem if it had that feat?

Yes, because once again the Tarrasque DOES NOT HAVE OPPOSABLE DIGITS. It cannot THROW anything. Period, end of story. Now, if it had those arm things in Savage species, it would be different. Except that it really isn't smart enough to use them unless you gave it an intelligence enhancing item.

Kursk wrote:

How about this. What would you set as the DC for a 30' long jump for a Tarrasque?

For a jump? as in, all four appendages leaving the ground at once? DC 200 and if it fails it shatters it's legs. There's a reason elephants don't jump.

ravenshrike wrote:

Yes, because once again the Tarrasque DOES NOT HAVE OPPOSABLE DIGITS.

Really? Where does it state that?

ravenshrike wrote:

For a jump? as in, all four appendages leaving the ground at once? DC 200 and if it fails it shatters it's legs. There's a reason elephants don't jump.

Really?







Seems to be at least partially bipedal. In every version it's been pictured anyway... Even has the opposable "thumb" in there...

Do you play D&D?

ravenshrike wrote:

For a jump? as in, all four appendages leaving the ground at once? DC 200 and if it fails it shatters it's legs. There's a reason elephants don't jump.

Hmm, last time I checked elephants weren't magical in nature.

Mock26 wrote:

Hmm, last time I checked elephants weren't magical in nature.

Nor can they move 150'/round.

Don't be too hard on ravenshrike though. New players need to learn somewhere.

Kursk wrote:

Nor can they move 150'/round.

Don't be too hard on ravenshrike though. New players need to learn somewhere.

Have I told you you'd make a great Paladin?

Sunic_Flames wrote:

Have I told you you'd make a great Paladin?

Paladins stay crunchy in milk. :D

Kursk wrote:

Nor can they move 150'/round.

According to thispage, elephants can charge at 25 miles per hour, which is about 220 feet over six seconds.

White_Whale wrote:

According to thispage, elephants can charge at 25 miles per hour, which is about 220 feet over six seconds.

Cool. So if an elephant was 50' tall they could clear 30' easily.

White_Whale wrote:

According to thispage, elephants can charge at 25 miles per hour, which is about 220 feet over six seconds.

So they can't move at 150'/round, he's right. :P

But 110'/round is fairly close.

Kursk wrote:

Cool. So if an elephant was 50' tall they could clear 30' easily.

Yes, if ported into DnD, they could, especially if they got a running start, though elephants would probably have some sort of jump penalty, because ... yeah. Elephants don't really jump.

I think I've lost this sub-thread though. So what does it mean that they could?

StruckingFuggle wrote:

I think I've lost this sub-thread though. So what does it mean that they could?

Originally started when a new player thought that a new house ruled feat was required to throw a stick and hit someone. The jumping had to do with the ease and non-skill needed for s/g like jumping the length of ones stride. 3'-4' for a human, ~30' for s/g 50' tall. Used solely as a size comparison.

Kursk wrote:

Originally started when a new player thought that a new house ruled feat was required to throw a stick and hit someone. The jumping had to do with the ease and non-skill needed for s/g like jumping the length of ones stride. 3'-4' for a human, ~30' for s/g 50' tall. Used solely as a size comparison.

Yeah, you're a shoe in for a Paladin 'promotion'.

StSteven wrote:

What in the world is you problem with Paladins. Can you just not play one? Can no one you play with play one? You seriously need some fresh gamers to play with.

You completely missed the point of the joke. Though to answer your out of place question anyways, the code is a catch 22 trap, and the concept is representable via several other means that lack said trap. It's pointless to touch the Paladin class.

Sunic_Flames wrote:

Yeah, you're a shoe in for a Paladin 'promotion'.

Your inexperience with the game made it very easy.

Kursk wrote:

Your inexperience with the game made it very easy.

Next up comes the Fighter sans bonus feats. You're on a roll there.

Alternately, you could try removing the large blunt object from your posterior before you pull a Miko. :evillaugh

I am wondering how anyone can have an even slightly plausable world in the D&D setting without having "Magemarts". With all of these adventurers constantly finding magic items that they do not need, they are going to want to sell them to someone. And if there is any universal truth (other than death and taxes), it is that if there is money to be made someone will find a way to make it.

]

I want to examine the premise:

With all of these adventurers constantly finding magic items that they do not need...

Right there, assumes high magic, i.e. constantly finding magic items. I didn't see it before.

Additionally, "that they do not need, they are going to want to sell them to someone."

This presupposes that magic items are only to be used as a utility-like tool, the swiss army knife of plus-gaining, or feat access.

Any character could potentially collect such items to be passed on as heirlooms, or tithed to their temple if religions exist in game.

I think what really needs to be asked is:

If you have a high magic game, where the DM rolls randomly on a chart (and doesn't hand pick items) for gained treasure, and a string of magic items that the party cannot effectively employ for class or race or alignment based reasons, how then is the party to convert the magic items thus gained into liquid funds, i.e. coin, or barter for something that they want or critically need.. assuming that such things are also available, i.e. the potential magic items list is open, not closed (or low or no magic) for campaign reasons.

I avoid this whole thing by hand picking items, and having low magic, and low treasure, and specifically, "No magic stores", in line with DMG guidelines in both 1e, and 2e.

Etarnon wrote:

The 1st and 2nd edition guidelines are relevant because those recommend, and urge no "MageMarts".

The OP questions whether a world with no MageMarts can exist with (paraphrasing) "All those magic items floating around."

My Answer: Certainly. In older Editions.

In 3.5, High Magic, perhaps not, as you say, Sunic.

It's not one white crow. It's a flock of Anti-Monty Haul DMs out there. Call it One White Flock, if you want to use that analogy.

It's definitely not a "Special Case" where DMs are advised: In Case of Low Magic Campaign, Break Glass, and Call National Command Authority on the Hotline.

People Choose to run low magic games. I suspect because of the reasons I've seen on What's a DM to do: The Last Campaign they ran got out of control.

Four armed Druid wildshape apes w/ 500 Damage per round, anyone?

Just because it can be done doesn't mean it's viable to do, or recommended. For example, it is possible to blow dry your hair while showering. Suffice it to say if you actually try it it won't go well.

I like the case bit. Though I prefer the case simply contains an automatic hammer gun. Cut out the middle man. :evillaugh

Also, what exactly does low magic have to do with the uber druid? It's not magic items making him awesome, it's innate druidic goodness. I don't think he even can use magic items in wild shape. Not unless he's either abusing dropping his stuff first and picking it up, or lots of Wilding Clasps.

Low magic kicks everyone else in the crotch, meaning uber druid is even more uber. High magic = Fighter has useful gear and isn't almost automatically useless.

Sunic_Flames wrote:

Just because it can be done doesn't mean it's viable to do, or recommended.

It is viable. You just don't like it. Kind of like the paladin. Both paladins and low magic are perfectly viable. High magic is viable without Magemarts too. I have done all three.

StSteven wrote:

It is viable. You just don't like it. Kind of like the paladin. Both paladins and low magic are perfectly viable. High magic is viable without Magemarts too. I have done all three.

Negative. Because the system expects you to have these +x items, when you don't things that would normally be easy to moderate in difficulty are now kicking your asses back and forth across the dungeon. This assumes it is merely 'low magic' and not 'low magic for you, high magic for your opposition' or 'low magic as a smokescreen for power tripping'. In such cases, you obviously will have more and bigger problems than being around 3 CRs under par. But even the best case scenario kicks you in the crotch early and often.

Paladins are right around Fighter and Monk level, and for many of the same reasons. In other words, they suck miserably and are not viable. They aren't even worthwhile dips because you still get screwed by the Fighter sans bonus feats clause. Their only worthwhile ability is Cha to saves, which is quite good but does not a workable class make, especially when considering levels 3-20.

High magic without mage marts... that just doesn't make any sense.

Compare to simple good alignments which I don't like, and believe the entire concept of goodness is critically flawed but that does not extend to the entire thing being unworkable. It just means you'll be constantly exploited by anyone of a mind to do so, because that's the reaction such generosity and selflessness provokes. Kinda the same thing, but still a decent enough example of opinion to compare and contrast to facts so you can see the difference between 'I don't like it' and 'It sucks'. :P

StSteven wrote:

While disagreeing with almost all that is in that post, I will only say that low-magic (i.e. no mage marts and not a large amount of magical treasure) can still get the players all the + items that the system is looking for. Melee types need +1 by level 3, +2 by level 6, +3 by level 10 to 13. Rings of protection are needed in a similar manner. Cloaks of resistance, bracers of armor, and probably some stat boosts at higher levels are needed in the same way. There is no need to have a +3 flaming keen bastard sword by level 9. Just because the DM controls the flow of magic items doesn't mean that players can't handle appropriate EL's. They may need tactics, preparation, and the ability to know when to flee. How many freakin' magic item slots are there? You don't need to have them all filled in to keep up with the system.

A 50k item when you're only supposed to have... 36k, was it? Um, bad example?

They may need tactics, preparation, and the ability to know when to flee.

This statement does not make sense. Tactics is something every party will use, regardless of whether they are optimized or not.

How many freakin' magic item slots are there? You don't need to have them all filled in to keep up with the system.

You are expected to fill most, if not all of them. I believe that was one of the underlying game design assumptions behind monster crs - that PCs are adequately equipped for their wealth guidelines. For example, a balor would be deemed a fair fight against a party who has spent most of their money on magic items to equip themselves adequately, not a party who just carries all their money around in a bag of holding.

Sunic_Flames wrote:

A 50k item when you're only supposed to have... 36k, was it? Um, bad example?

Umm...a bit of sarcasm...maybe...you think...And it isn't far off...

runestar wrote:

This statement does not make sense. Tactics is something every party will use, regardless of whether they are optimized or not.

OK...insert the word good (man...I thought that was obvious...no wonder you guys don't think you can stray from the guidelines).

runestar wrote:

You are expected to fill most, if not all of them. I believe that was one of the underlying game design assumptions behind monster crs - that PCs are adequately equipped for their wealth guidelines. For example, a balor would be deemed a fair fight against a party who has spent most of their money on magic items to equip themselves adequately, not a party who just carries all their money around in a bag of holding.

12 slots...I looked. Most of those slots will not help you against a balor. You need a good weapon, some AC boosts, maybe two protective things, and a utility item that may come in handy. Balors are not supposed to be easy. I find that my players, who couldn't optimize themselves out of a paper bag and lack any sort of tactical knowhow, can beat off CR appropriate monsters easily because of their gear. It takes the smarts out of the game. It is a crutch. Take away most of their magic items and their CR appropriate encounters become challenging (as has been pointed out that C stands for challenge, not chump). You MUST have a magic weapon to hit a lot of things. +1 does that. You can't tell me that hitting an extra 5% of the time is going to sway a battle, most of which don't last long enough for the 5% to show up. Fancy wands and staffs mean that a caster has more stamina (so to speak), it won't make or break an encounter that he is ready for. Wands and such used to be treasured "break glass in case of emergency" items, now they are the first thing that some characters reach for. It is not needed. The system does not require that everyone have 12 wearable magic items on them. That is just silly. Players assume that they need 12 because there are 12 places to put things. Ridiculous.

For example, it is possible to blow dry your hair while showering. Suffice it to say if you actually try it it won't go well.

Results in: Death by Electrocution. Consistently.

Running a Low Magic, Low Treasure Game, for players that agree to abide by those setting restrictions.

Results in: People who have played with me for years, who also DM their own games. Looks like others play in these also. Here, let's check the forums. New topic coming up.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.ph … st15718086

Sunic, If any one DM other than I (or say STSteven) posts "Yes, I run a low magic campaign", will you drop this "one white crow" thesis? It's obvious that you aren't hearing people who are stating what is for them, a fact.

You can claim "low magic is broken" all you like. But don't try to suggest people don't play that way, or it isn't a viable way to play.

It's a viable solution to the OP poster's problem, by not allowing all this magic in the first place.

12 slots...I looked. Most of those slots will not help you against a balor. You need a good weapon, some AC boosts, maybe two protective things, and a utility item that may come in handy.

It is rare that every single item equipped will help them against a balor, but then again, a party won't consistently be fighting balors all day long.

Balors are not supposed to be easy. I find that my players, who couldn't optimize themselves out of a paper bag and lack any sort of tactical knowhow, can beat off CR appropriate monsters easily because of their gear.

Which is only right.

By definition, a cr20 foe is supposed to be a fair fight for an adequately equipped lv20 party. Meaning that they are expected to be able to steamroll right over the balor with only minimal losses (roughly 20%).

If you want a challenging fight, then throw something of a high cr. For example, if you want a climatic battle for your lv20 party, throw a cr23 or cr24 dragon at them, not a cr20 monster, and then complain that it is too weak, when it is supposed to be.

Take away most of their magic items and their CR appropriate encounters become challenging (as has been pointed out that C stands for challenge, not chump).

As stated above, the fight is not supposed to be anywhere as challenging as what you might have envisioned.

You MUST have a magic weapon to hit a lot of things. +1 does that. You can't tell me that hitting an extra 5% of the time is going to sway a battle, most of which don't last long enough for the 5% to show up. Fancy wands and staffs mean that a caster has more stamina (so to speak), it won't make or break an encounter that he is ready for. Wands and such used to be treasured "break glass in case of emergency" items, now they are the first thing that some characters reach for. It is not needed.

Every little bit adds up. A ring of prot+1 might seem insignificant, but what when you have a +5 armour, +5 ring, +5 amulet of NA and +5 shield? Does that +20AC seem more significant now? Likewise, the attack/damage bonus from a magical weapon is going to stack with other items for better effects.

The system does not require that everyone have 12 wearable magic items on them. That is just silly. Players assume that they need 12 because there are 12 places to put things. Ridiculous.

Well, a lv20 PC is expected to have 760,000gp worth of magic gear (as mentioned in the DMG). What else are you going to do with your money?

I now see what the difference of opinion is. You are saying that most encounters should be easy. This comes from the "everyone gets a trophy for participation" generation. I get it. Go on playing that game if you wish. I never liked it or the attitudes (and lack of preparation for life) it breeds. (Not that D&D is preparation for life or anything like that, it is just what is expected by some today.)

Don't go around putting words into people's mouth. I am simply reiterating the guidelines as delineated in the DMG, and my own personal experiences. And I certainly don't appreciate personal attacks and strawman arguments being thrown at me. Really. I thought we were all above that.

Nor did I say that fights had to be easy, just that it should be easy in my example because of the cr of the monster vs the EL of the party. In your case, you are needlessly making the balor a much tougher encounter than what the party ought to be facing.

The concept is similar to pitting say, a cr8 foe against a 10th lv party. Is your party powergaming just because they overcame it in 1 round without any injuries? Of course not. It is far too weak to pose a credible threat to them.

You say a balor should be a challenge. Yes, it can be. But at cr20, it is not expected to be a tough challenge to a lv20. But it can still be a difficult challenge to a lv19, 18 or even lv17 party. Is that concept so hard to grasp?

StSteven wrote:

I now see what the difference of opinion is. You are saying that most encounters should be easy. This comes from the "everyone gets a trophy for participation" generation. I get it. Go on playing that game if you wish. I never liked it or the attitudes (and lack of preparation for life) it breeds. (Not that D&D is preparation for life or anything like that, it is just what is expected by some today.)

He's not saying that at all. What he's saying is that if you send in four level 20 PCs against one CR20 enemy, they will take it apart in about half a round and then move on to the next challenge. A party is expected to take on challenges like that several times a day before needing rest. It doesn't matter if they suck at tactics and they can't optimize. As long as they have down fighter hits thing really hard, they can probably own the balor.

Now if you sent them in at a lower level, or send them against a higher powered enemy, then they would start having trouble, even if they did have better gear than what is expected of their level. Sending four level 15 PCs with level 20 gear against a Balor, and the Balor stands a little bit better of a chance, however sending in four level 20 PCs with only level 15 gear greatly lowers the chances for the Balor to come out on top.


Edit: Go go late posting!

StSteven wrote:

I now see what the difference of opinion is. You are saying that most encounters should be easy. This comes from the "everyone gets a trophy for participation" generation. I get it. Go on playing that game if you wish. I never liked it or the attitudes (and lack of preparation for life) it breeds. (Not that D&D is preparation for life or anything like that, it is just what is expected by some today.)

I would LOVE for you to quote where he says ANYTHING like "all encounters should be easy". Going on the balor example, if played right, the balor will be a hard fight for any group, even a group a 4 people with a combined wealth of nearly 3 million gold. Yes, that group will need every point of AC they can get. Every point of bonus save. Every point of bonus to their primary stat(s). Some ability to either fly, move ridiculously fast, or remove the balor's ability to do so; probably all of the above. The level 20 party will most likely win out in the end, because a 4 on 1 fight is hardly fair, but they will have expended roughly a fifth of their resources for the day. How is expending that much on a single fight "easy"?

Also, keep your whining about "these kids today don't know nothin' 'bout a hard day's work!" to the retirement home. It's not a sentiment that has any place here, nor will it garner any points with anyone here.

Etarnon wrote:

If PCs have extra money, I encourage them to expand their holdings, keep, or defenses.

Now that is an interesting line. in the current D&D game I'm in, we recently acquired a few different places we could stay by clearing them out. (low level forces in towers against a fully magic'd up level 10 party) An actual PLACE to stay is very very useful, given we can teleport, and I can Private Sanctum the area, (we have been scried before) but beyond that, the only augmentation worth our place to stay, would actually be magical things ultimately more land or influence is fairly worthless outside of a place where the average army or force that comes knocking for your acts, good or bad could be considered a threat.

My character is even soon going to have a DR 20/+1, (alienist transcendance feature) this means anyone not using magic couldn't realistically touch her. Forget all the powers. She is working to be able to make vestments of faith for the cleric or fighter for the same reason, permanent stoneskin is nearly DR 5/+5. At higher levels, in D&D, their powers, their abilities, their items were designed to set them apart from the rest of the world. if the king doesn't cast spells or employ powerful spellcasters and have dedicated forces to countering some techniques, and the strongest guards were 5th level fighters, they'd meet death at the hands of a flying, invisible, fireball and cloudkill spewing wizard.

What it is, is that many players have started in 3.X versions. Land being anything special just isn't true. Has anyone ever seen the stronghold builder's guidebook? they have a feat that grants you at 15th+ level nearly 200k "free" for a keep/castle, and match your gold for every gold you personally spend up to 400k more, for everything down to the castle, land people who work there, and magical fortifications (you can get wall of force or prismatic walls for a few nasty sections. its ridiculous)

What can be considered fair and power level wise acceptable really comes from the previous experiences of the players. However, any challenge can be fixed with a good DM ultimately with a little work. I have "forgotten" some very deadly tricks an unprepared party would have died to, once in a while.

green_yawgmoth wrote:

I would LOVE for you to quote where he says ANYTHING like "all encounters should be easy".

runestar wrote:

By definition, a cr20 foe is supposed to be a fair fight for an adequately equipped lv20 party. Meaning that they are expected to be able to steamroll right over the balor with only minimal losses (roughly 20%).

Steamrolling implies easy.

And (much like the game) I am not trying to make points with anyone. Just sharing my observations. I wasn't saying that all young people want everything easy. I was saying that they are coddled. If you are over 30, you know what I am talking about. It isn't the youths fault, but that is the way society has been geared. It's been a feel good, no one deserves to fail kind of child rearing age for the last 15 years or so. It makes expectations that life (or in this case the game) should be easy to "win." It is a disservice.

StSteven wrote:

Steamrolling implies easy.

Yes, but some fights being easy doesn't mean all fights are easy. The system isn't set up so that CR = Level is a bitter fight for survival. It's the sort of general baseline encounter for your level, the sort of thing that shouldn't be a serious threat to you.

The normal monsters you warm up on.

If doesn't mean that CR = Level+X isn't still a hard fight, is the point you seem to be missing.

I wasn't saying that all young people want everything easy. I was saying that they are coddled. If you are over 30, you know what I am talking about. It isn't the youths fault, but that is the way society has been geared. It's been a feel good, no one deserves to fail kind of child rearing age for the last 15 years or so. It makes expectations that life (or in this case the game) should be easy to "win." It is a disservice.

And this has what to do with the current discussion?

Steamrolling implies easy.

As easy as a cr20 foe can be expected to be vs a lv20 party? How hard do you think it ought to be?

StSteven wrote:

There is a large gap between "bitter fight for survival" and " steamroll."

Not at the level 20 there isn't. :P
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

.... I should probably add some content.


EWP: Seriously though, I agree with StSteven - I too like a challenge. Some of my players, however, love a good steamroll.
---------


So, new question: For those of you who run magemarts, how do you explain people willinging using up that much XP, etc. I sometimes use magemarts so this is not an attack, I'm just interested in how you explain it.

Magikeeper wrote:

So, new question: For those of you who run magemarts, how do you explain people willinging using up that much XP, etc. I sometimes use magemarts so this is not an attack, I'm just interested in how you explain it.

I tend to run somewhere between "item shops" (granted, there's more ambient power floating around in my games, where tavern bouncers are low-level fighters and monks and the only place you'll see a Warrior is in a horde of low-level cannon fodder mooks, and once I finish my Fighter and Monk 2.0s, Fighter and Monk will end up being NPC classes...) and "mage mart as an abstraction, that's how it happens at the table if not in the game world"... ahem, anyway: A couple ideas ...

First: They're more interested in the money they're making than in adventuring to push their limits, etc.

Another: A lot of the magic weapons / trinkets in my homebrew games ( a lot of which takes place in the same region of a single continent ) come from a single nation, who train from youth wizards, clerics, and artificers to make magic stuff for the State. They then turn around and sell a lot of it (except the best stuff) to other nations, sending a lot of magical gear out into the world, where it then ends up changing ownership over the course of violence.

And chances are, if you're willing to do business with the Church of Hextor, one of these Artificers will be happy to contract you, break down a magic item that's come into your possession, and for a commission (the price usually "coincidentally" being the difference between the buy price of the new item minus sale price of the old item) make a new item of whatever.

"Oh, that's a nice axe you have there. Doesn't serve your purposes? Alright, well, lets re-make it into something more useful".

They don't really need to be sought out. Most major churches have at least one on hand, and would be happy to set you up with another if the one they've got isn't to your liking.


What can I say? In my setting, Hextor has excellent PR and plays politics. :D ... 'course, it works just find without it being connected to an Evil Church.

EWP: Seriously though, I agree with StSteven - I too like a challenge. Some of my players, however, love a good steamroll.

I like challenging fights as well. My point is simply that there is an inherent limit to how much a cr20 foe can pose a challenge to a lv20 party, because that was exactly what the designers had in mind (as per their definition of cr).

It is not so much that I like easy fights, but that the fight simply will not be all that difficult, even if I wanted it to be.

If you want them to face a tougher foe, throw a cr21+ foe at them, not a cr20 foe.

So, new question: For those of you who run magemarts, how do you explain people willinging using up that much XP, etc. I sometimes use magemarts so this is not an attack, I'm just interested in how you explain it.

Easy - For the money. Unlike PCs who are unable to profit from item creation (because you spend 1/2 market price in gp, and can only sell them at 1/2 price), npcs will sell their stuff to you at 100% full price. Thus, a wizard who crafts, say, a +1 weapon for me spends 1000gp, and sells it to me for 2000gp, for a net profit of 1000gp. Not bad for 2 days of work.

Likewise, if you have access to FRCS, look up the explanation of thayan enclaves (basically low-lv magic k-marts). It is described as an extremely profitable venture. Money alone would be more than ample incentive to encourage someone to set up a magic mart.

runestar wrote:

I like challenging fights as well. My point is simply that there is an inherent limit to how much a cr20 foe can pose a challenge to a lv20 party, because that was exactly what the designers had in mind (as per their definition of cr).

It is not so much that I like easy fights, but that the fight simply will not be all that difficult, even if I wanted it to be.

Indeed! Let us not forget that there's no reason a 20th level party can't face CR 21+ enemies for a hard fight ...

I think the whole thing seems to stem from a mistaken assumption of what CR value is supposed to (if it worked) measure relative to a party level.

Also, that it's relative, maybe. Fights don't get harder as CR goes up ... Fights get harder as CR gets higher than party level.

If you want them to face a tougher foe, throw a cr21+ foe at them, not a cr20 foe.

Exactly!

Likewise, if you have access to FRCS, look up the explanation of thayan enclaves (basically low-lv magic k-marts). It is described as an extremely profitable venture. Money alone would be more than ample incentive to encourage someone to set up a magic mart.

... I'll have to do that. Is it under the Thay section, or...?

... I'll have to do that. Is it under the Thay section, or...?

FRCS pg 279.

Lords of darkness fleshes them out in more detail, but FRCS should be enough to give you a rather good idea of how they work, and why they are so profitable.

runestar wrote:

Easy - For the money. Unlike PCs who are unable to profit from item creation (because you spend 1/2 market price in gp, and can only sell them at 1/2 price), npcs will sell their stuff to you at 100% full price. Thus, a wizard who crafts, say, a +1 weapon for me spends 1000gp, and sells it to me for 2000gp, for a net profit of 1000gp. Not bad for 2 days of work.

Yes, that's why they exist in my world. It gets even better with the right item creation feats - 300% Profit ftw. But how are they getting all of that EXP? Artificers can only recycle exp, right? (Not that familiar with the class). Reserves only delay the problem. I guess planar ally deathtraps would do the trick. Kill off those mindless outsiders (killing vast quantities of sentient outsiders is asking for it).

Etarnon wrote:

*snip*

I'm not suggesting it isn't viable in 3.5. I am outright declaring it. Have people post they do it all you want. Doesn't mean it's working or viable. Just as I'm sure there are people who try to blow dry their hair in the shower. Seeing as you yourself have admitted multiple times in other threads you have a hard time even grasping the basics of 3.5, I don't see how you hope you argue inherent design decisions and the like.

Equal CR is the baseline. Know what else is the baseline? Characters who don't multiclass, use any non core books, have 25 PB even if massively MAD, picked at least half their feats by throwing darts, and somewhat frequently completely waste their actions doing stuff that anyone with a grain of tactical sense knows is a complete waste of time such as attempting an Overrun, without the feat for that and against something bigger and stronger than you, and as a result doing nothing on your turn except sitting on your ass (prone). Even if your players do all the other stuff, the fact they are not suffering from brain damage will ensure they are far above the baseline by default.

Even if they were exactly at the low standard set there, equal CR is designed to be a routine encounter. It's easy. Cast a few spells, take a few hits... the actual risk factor is negligible. The only thing that makes them dangerous is attrition, aka that fourth fight of the day. And in theory, a fifth will be a TPK.

If you want to throw a hard fight at the PCs, you must pick a higher CR. My standard encounter is +1 or +2, and that works quite well. +3 works for especially tough stuff, and maybe +4 for BBEGs. Keep in mind that in theory, +4 CR is 50/50 success rate.

And so noone trolls me over it, I'm not in the D&D should be easy crowd. I throw tough encounters when DMing, and I expect the DM to challenge me in a similar way when I'm playing. Tough, but winnable. Otherwise I get bored.

As for the land bit... that is a complete waste of money. Not only because of that whole inherent design decision - must devote entire WBL to becoming better at killing things and taking their stuff or suck horribly bit, but because it's so damn expensive to have a keep or whatever actually be secure against the real threats, it really just serves to make you a target. I'm talking seven digit figures here just to deal with basic scry and dies.

Now me, I realize this massive flaw, so stuff that doesn't impact killing things and taking their stuff like getting a keep I give as a story reward to those who are interested and earn it, independent of WBL. As a result, I am preventing the system from kicking multi dimensional characters in the crotch and thereby encouraging them.

Others that don't know better don't.

Sunic_Flames wrote:

I'm not suggesting it isn't viable in 3.5. I am outright declaring it. Have people post they do it all you want. Doesn't mean it's working or viable.

So, based on your doubly limited experience (not trying in insult you or be rude, but you have only been playing for a few years and have only played on-line, right?) your preception of how D&D can or should be played is the only one? That is what you're saying, isn't it? You are saying that if someone posts their testimonial about their campaign and it doesn't sync with your perceptions of the game that the other person is in fact wrong?

Mock26 wrote:

So, based on your doubly limited experience (not trying in insult you or be rude, but you have only been playing for a few years and have only played on-line, right?) your preception of how D&D can or should be played is the only one? That is what you're saying, isn't it? You are saying that if someone posts their testimonial about their campaign and it doesn't sync with your perceptions of the game that the other person is in fact wrong?

Not one extreme doesn't mean it's automatically the other extreme. And I'm saying if you don't know what to look for, what you see will be heavily skewed. Which is why there are so many misconceptions about such matters.

Sunic_Flames wrote:

Not one extreme doesn't mean it's automatically the other extreme. And I'm saying if you don't know what to look for, what you see will be heavily skewed. Which is why there are so many misconceptions about such matters.

What?

You are saying that if someone posts their testimonial about their campaign and it doesn't sync with your perceptions of the game that the other person is in fact wrong?

The subtext, certainly, if not the actual words.

Sunic_Flames wrote:

Just as I'm sure there are people who try to blow dry their hair in the shower. Seeing as you yourself have admitted multiple times in other threads you have a hard time even grasping the basics of 3.5, I don't see how you hope you argue inherent design decisions and the like.

I see another moderator intervention en route.

StruckingFuggle wrote:

You know, I think Sunic's missing pointing something out, and the people who oppose him in most of the recent threads miss the point, too.

I am a genius for seeing it, however, and I will enlighten you all. :D (That last bit said a bit tongue in cheek)

What Sunic is discussing is the system as written. The game we're given.

Now, DMs can underplay the danger, they can coddle their players, but when they start doing this, they're fighting the system and going easy on their players. Some people enjoy it, but you still have to change things, and fight the system.

If as a DM, you follow the guidelines for encounters in dnd, and try to actually challenge your players, then what Sunic says is true. Now, you can turn that around, throw a bunch out the window, and fight the system, buuuuut! You're playing either heavily-ish or easy mode DnD, fighting the system, and going against the system as built.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just not how / what dnd was built for, and it really is easy mode.

I mean, no one says you have to use the rules, and even the guidelines, the assumptions the system is balanced around - you can throw it out and piton in a new balance point and restructure the system around it ... but at least admit that that's what you're doing.

And if that's not what you're doing, well ... when it comes to "dungeons and dragons" as suggested by the DMG, then Sunic has a very good and solid point.

Are not all challenges relative?

If your PCs - for whatever reason - don't create optimized characters and so you scale your encounters accordingly, how is this different from scaling encounters up to challenge optimized ones?

Are you really coddling your players? Or are you designing appropriate encounters for them?

iserith wrote:

Are you really coddling your players? Or are you designing appropriate encounters for them?

I think that depends on how much you need to lowball things to challenge them without worrying about the challenging needing to be impossible. There's no solidly defined breakpoint, but if people, especially intelligent enemies, aren't using their resources intelligently and are supposedly level-fitting encounters, then yes, you're probably going easy on your players and probably not challenging them all that much, especially if they don't have much in the way of trouble ...

There's nothing wrong with it, it can just be frustrating when these people scream "overpowered" regarding the challenges that would crush them, and players who can do that and play to that level, because they don't fit in their easier games. I guess maybe other people have the same problem with someone like Sunic comes back with calling them underpowered, but...

...hm.


I guess the problem is when DMs and Players are just on different levels, and they keep ending up in games with each other instead of finding people more suited to their style.

But to say that dnd doesn't have a default level, and that it doesn't either take either work or the DM deliberately not trying / not realizing what things are fully capable of and thus downplaying its potential, or going easy on his PCs, so that players who're some to a lot below this level don't go splat, is just factually wrong.

Like how a DM needs to be able to play above it to properly run with players who know what they're doing and (indulging my own biases) want to feel like they're actually good at what they do and are relatively powerful, and this requires some extra work ... this works in the same way in reverse.

Why? Because you're moving away from the Default Assumption of Balance that the game does have.

StruckingFuggle wrote:

I think that depends on how much you need to lowball things to challenge them without worrying about the challenging needing to be impossible. There's no solidly defined breakpoint, but if people, especially intelligent enemies, aren't using their resources intelligently and are supposedly level-fitting encounters, then yes, you're probably going easy on your players and probably not challenging them all that much, especially if they don't have much in the way of trouble ...

There's nothing wrong with it, it can just be frustrating when these people scream "overpowered" regarding the challenges that would crush them, and players who can do that and play to that level, because they don't fit in their easier games. I guess maybe other people have the same problem with someone like Sunic comes back with calling them underpowered, but...

...hm.


I guess the problem is when DMs and Players are just on different levels, and they keep ending up in games with each other instead of finding people more suited to their style.

But to say that dnd doesn't have a default level, and that it doesn't either take either work or the DM deliberately not trying / not realizing what things are fully capable of and thus downplaying its potential, or going easy on his PCs, so that players who're some to a lot below this level don't go splat, is just factually wrong.

Like how a DM needs to be able to play above it to properly run with players who know what they're doing and (indulging my own biases) want to feel like they're actually good at what they do and are relatively powerful, and this requires some extra work ... this works in the same way in reverse.

Why? Because you're moving away from the Default Assumption of Balance that the game does have.

But do you see my point?

Where is this default level? What does that entail - how many points for stat buy, what classes, what class levels, what books are allowed, etc.? What is this "standard D&D game" that you guys or the PHB/DMG suggest? I'm not being a jerk, just asking if there was a "control group" we're talking about here.

Also, how do you define "default assumption of balance?" Are not the classes inherently imbalanced such as fighter versus wizard? If so, how does the encounter level system take this into account (if at all)?