Non-warrior paladins?
Karkadinn
Good cause, you have to be good at fighting as well. I know, based on
chivalric ideals, blahblahblah, but it's still a mildly irritating illogic.
Why can't there be, say, a sorcerer who is devoted to good as much as the
typical paladin? (I'm choosing sorcerer for my example for the obvious
Charisma focus, to highlight potential abuse and balancing factors). Yes, you
can multiclass, but then you end up splitting your advancement between two
concepts rather than merging them together. You'd end up with Good and Warrior
one level, then Sorcerer the next, as opposed to Good and Sorcerer every level
like the paladin currently does with Good and Warrior. And you can't even go
back to Good once you've gone to Sorcerer, by the rules (schtoopid rule, that
one).
So, I've been thinking that maybe the best way to represent this would be to
make being a paladin a sort of class template, something you add on top of an
existing class, similar to how you can add the Undead template to anything from
a human to a dragon to a camel.
So, now we have a Paladinic Sorcerer with all the special abilities and
behavior restrictions of a paladin, but the save chart, HD, and BAB of a
regular sorcerer. Make some of the special abilities usable less frequently
(once a week or month), and overall less powerful. And give 'im an xp penalty
of, say 20%, the same as a poor multiclassing choice (don't really like that
rule either, but 20% seems a nice figure despite). If you want to play a
"regular" paladin, you can just do a Paladinic Fighter.
Good concept, yes/no? Balanced, yes/no? Any ideas on how to improve it if the
answer is "No" to either of these questions?
Hong Ooi
>It's always bothered me a little that if you're extremely devoted to the Lawful
>Good cause, you have to be good at fighting as well. I know, based on
>chivalric ideals, blahblahblah, but it's still a mildly irritating illogic.
>Why can't there be, say, a sorcerer who is devoted to good as much as the
>typical paladin?
First, there's no reason why a sorcerer can't be lawful good.
Second, if you want exemplary virtue to be reflected in in-game benefits
(which is perfectly reasonable in a fantasy game), I've done up an Avatar
template-of-sorts, for my Britannia 3E setting. You don't get all the
benefits at once, but as the result of demonstrating adherence to the
various principles of goodliness.
You can find the details here:
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/britannia/virtue.htm#inplay
(The exact details on how one achieves avatarhood are a bit vague at the
moment; I really should get around to devising a more concrete setup.)
--
Hong Ooi | "I go either way."
ho...@zipworld.com.au | -- SW
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ |
Sydney, Australia |
Karkadinn
>First, there's no reason why a sorcerer can't be lawful good.
Yes, but by the rules, no matter how good and lawful a lawful good non-paladin
is, he still won't be as lawful or good as a paladin. Because if he WERE, he
would get the same kinds of abilities, regardless of profession.
>Second, if you want exemplary virtue to be reflected in in-game benefits
>(which is perfectly reasonable in a fantasy game), I've done up an Avatar
>template-of-sorts, for my Britannia 3E setting. You don't get all the
>benefits at once, but as the result of demonstrating adherence to the
>various principles of goodliness.
>
>You can find the details here:
>
>http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/britannia/virtue.htm#inplay
>
>(The exact details on how one achieves avatarhood are a bit vague at the
>moment; I really should get around to devising a more concrete setup.)
This looks... promising. I could see mapping a paladin ability onto each of
the various virtues quite neatly. OTOH, it stil doesn't allow you to start out
as a level 1 paladin/avatar/paladinic whatever. The principle does seem...
nice... however....
::ponder, ponder::
Mad Hamish
>It's always bothered me a little that if you're extremely devoted to the Lawful
>Good cause, you have to be good at fighting as well.
No you don't.
You can be extremely devoted to Lawful Good as any core class except
the Barbarian, Bard or Druid.
> I know, based on
>chivalric ideals, blahblahblah, but it's still a mildly irritating illogic.
>Why can't there be, say, a sorcerer who is devoted to good as much as the
>typical paladin?
You can.
That's called 'roleplaying'
> (I'm choosing sorcerer for my example for the obvious
>Charisma focus, to highlight potential abuse and balancing factors). Yes, you
>can multiclass, but then you end up splitting your advancement between two
>concepts rather than merging them together. You'd end up with Good and Warrior
>one level, then Sorcerer the next, as opposed to Good and Sorcerer every level
>like the paladin currently does with Good and Warrior. And you can't even go
>back to Good once you've gone to Sorcerer, by the rules (schtoopid rule, that
>one).
>So, I've been thinking that maybe the best way to represent this would be to
>make being a paladin a sort of class template, something you add on top of an
>existing class, similar to how you can add the Undead template to anything from
>a human to a dragon to a camel.
>So, now we have a Paladinic Sorcerer with all the special abilities and
>behavior restrictions of a paladin, but the save chart, HD, and BAB of a
>regular sorcerer. Make some of the special abilities usable less frequently
>(once a week or month), and overall less powerful. And give 'im an xp penalty
>of, say 20%, the same as a poor multiclassing choice (don't really like that
>rule either, but 20% seems a nice figure despite). If you want to play a
>"regular" paladin, you can just do a Paladinic Fighter.
>Good concept, yes/no? Balanced, yes/no? Any ideas on how to improve it if the
>answer is "No" to either of these questions?
Bad concept.
Exactly why does a character _need_ to get benefits for a roleplaying
choice?
unbalanced? Well consider a Monk with a Paladin template getting even
better saves...what do you do with the spells?
Dunno that I want a Sorcerer or Wizard to start getting divine spells
at very little cost...
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@aardvark.net.au
JB
> Hong Ooi said:
>
> >First, there's no reason why a sorcerer can't be lawful good.
>
> Yes, but by the rules, no matter how good and lawful a lawful good non-paladin
> is, he still won't be as lawful or good as a paladin. Because if he WERE, he
> would get the same kinds of abilities, regardless of profession.
>
It's not *just* about being the poster boy of lawfulness and goodness
it is about being a Paladin, i.e. a champion, a defender of a cause.
If the sorcerer spent the requisite time doing this then they would be
a paladin and not a sorcerer. Sorcerers spend their time learning how
to tap their arcane potential.
It seems a bit of a pointless complaint.
neoweasel
>
> >First, there's no reason why a sorcerer can't be lawful good.
>
> Yes, but by the rules, no matter how good and lawful a lawful good non-paladin
> is, he still won't be as lawful or good as a paladin. Because if he WERE, he
> would get the same kinds of abilities, regardless of profession.
What? The reason that a paladin has the abilities that (s)he has is
that the paladin's deity grants them to the paladin. A paladin is a
holy warrior of a particular deity and the deity in question grants
certain powers to the paladin. If the paladin strays from the
behavior that the deity considers acceptable (away from lawful good)
the deity removes the paladin's access to those powers on a temporary
or permanent basis. Your argument is like saying that no one can be
as evil as a blackguard because if they were they'd have the same
powers as a blackguard.
Peter Meilinger
>It's not *just* about being the poster boy of lawfulness and goodness
>it is about being a Paladin, i.e. a champion, a defender of a cause.
>If the sorcerer spent the requisite time doing this then they would be
>a paladin and not a sorcerer. Sorcerers spend their time learning how
>to tap their arcane potential.
>It seems a bit of a pointless complaint.
I think the main point is, why do ALL champions and defenders of
lawful good causes focus on pure combat ability? Couldn't a
lawful good champion who discovered he had sorcerous talent
focus on that while still gaining the special abilities of
being a champion of his god/church/whatever?
According to the rules, a Lawful Good god grants special
abilities like laying on of hands and enhanced saving
throws only to warrior types. Why is that? Can't someone
who's better at slinging spells than swords champion the
lawful good cause?
And yes, any player can portray his sorceror as extremely
lawful good. Any player can hold his character to a paladin's
code of conduct. But why is it that the only way to gain
the benefits of being a paladin is to focus on hand to hand
combat? Aren't gods sophisticated enough to expand their
possibilities?
Pete
Karkadinn
>It's not *just* about being the poster boy of lawfulness and goodness
>it is about being a Paladin, i.e. a champion, a defender of a cause.
>If the sorcerer spent the requisite time doing this then they would be
>a paladin and not a sorcerer. Sorcerers spend their time learning how
>to tap their arcane potential.
So you can't be a champion by using magic instead of a sword, as a sorcerer?
You can't defend a cause if you're using music, as a bard, to inspire the
hearts and minds of all those around you? They're just different kinds of
tools. And come to think of it, almost any non-warrior class more suited to
the purposes of Lawful Goodness than a warrior, since a sword can only kill
evil, while magic can let you kill it, put it to sleep, change it into
something else, or even make it repent. And even a rogue, without magic, still
has the skill points to, for instance, use Diplomacy effectively, something
you'd think would be important to an embodiment of Lawful Goodness.
I know that magic is traditionally presented as something you have to spend
huge amounts of time to, devoting your entire life to it to learn the secrets
of the Netherworld, in the process giving up any chance of a social life and
and so on and so forth, but that's not how D&D presents it. Arcane
spellslingers are just one more class category, and by the rules no more or
less difficult to start in or multiclass to than any of the others. They take
a few weeks off when they make magic items or make new spells, but that's it,
and it's not necessary to do those things if you don't want to, anyway.
Karkadinn
>>It's always bothered me a little that if you're extremely devoted to the
>Lawful
>>Good cause, you have to be good at fighting as well.
>
>No you don't.
>You can be extremely devoted to Lawful Good as any core class except
>the Barbarian, Bard or Druid.
>> I know, based on
>>chivalric ideals, blahblahblah, but it's still a mildly irritating illogic.
>>Why can't there be, say, a sorcerer who is devoted to good as much as the
>>typical paladin?
>
>You can.
>That's called 'roleplaying'
And here's what it comes down to:
Where do paladins get their powers from, and how do they get them?
The PHB is irritatingly vague on these points. The only guidelines we have are
what makes them LOSE their powers. Acting evilly, unchivalrously, unlawfully,
or otherwise betraying his code makes him lose his powers. So, it can be
assumed, reasonably, that it is his Lawful Goodness that gives him these
powers. Not a deity, because that's what priests are for. It is his extreme
closeness to being "true" lawful good that gives him these powers.
Thus, no one else can be as close as a paladin, no matter how they roleplay.
Even if they voluntarily take the same kinds of extreme behavior restrictions
as a paladin, they won't, by the book, get the abilities.
This breaks my suspension of disbelief, because it's fundamentally illogical.
Perhaps your sense of belief is more robust, but that doesn't make the logic
any less flawed.
>Bad concept.
>Exactly why does a character _need_ to get benefits for a roleplaying
>choice?
>
Why does a paladin get benefits for it? Why can't he just be a lawful good
fighter? The balancing factor with the paladin has ALWAYS been that his
restrictions are a "roleplaying choice".
>unbalanced? Well consider a Monk with a Paladin template getting even
>better saves...what do you do with the spells?
>Dunno that I want a Sorcerer or Wizard to start getting divine spells
>at very little cost...
::sigh::
That's why I asked for help balancing the actual mechanical details. I would
have valued your help, or anyone's, in that area. But if all you're interested
in doing is moaning about what a terrible idea it is, then at least give me
REASONS for why it's a terrible idea, beyond fixing. Logical, sound reasons
why it can't be made to work, even with proper downsizing on the bonuses and
frequency-of-usage for powers.
Hong Ooi
>JB <JbN...@talk21.com> wrote:
>
>>It's not *just* about being the poster boy of lawfulness and goodness
>>it is about being a Paladin, i.e. a champion, a defender of a cause.
>>If the sorcerer spent the requisite time doing this then they would be
>>a paladin and not a sorcerer. Sorcerers spend their time learning how
>>to tap their arcane potential.
>
>>It seems a bit of a pointless complaint.
>
>I think the main point is, why do ALL champions and defenders of
>lawful good causes focus on pure combat ability? Couldn't a
>lawful good champion who discovered he had sorcerous talent
>focus on that while still gaining the special abilities of
>being a champion of his god/church/whatever?
This is pretty much why I chose to represent avatarhood as a template
instead of a prestige class.
Karkadinn
>What? The reason that a paladin has the abilities that (s)he has is
>that the paladin's deity grants them to the paladin. A paladin is a
>holy warrior of a particular deity and the deity in question grants
>certain powers to the paladin. If the paladin strays from the
>behavior that the deity considers acceptable (away from lawful good)
>the deity removes the paladin's access to those powers on a temporary
>or permanent basis. Your argument is like saying that no one can be
>as evil as a blackguard because if they were they'd have the same
>powers as a blackguard.
Show me where it says in the PHB... or any D&D rulebook, for that matter, that
a paladin gets his powers from a deity.
Problems with this idea:
1. It's redundant. That's what priests are for.
2. It's uncharacteristic on the part of the deity, since any given paladin is
not necessarily religious. Gods in D&D are many thing, but they are not
subtle. They don't go around giving people powers because they approve of how
those people act, and then let the powers-gifted people refrain from being
properly grateful. They smite the ungrateful, or take away powers, or at don't
give any new powers. Would a D&D style deity continually gift an atheist with
miracles, simply because he likes how the guy is behaving? I'm sorry, but I
can't see it.
3. It's nowhere in the paladin class description in the PHB.
Peter Meilinger
>On 9 Oct 2002 15:02:28 GMT, Peter Meilinger <mell...@bu.edu> wrote:
>>I think the main point is, why do ALL champions and defenders of
>>lawful good causes focus on pure combat ability? Couldn't a
>>lawful good champion who discovered he had sorcerous talent
>>focus on that while still gaining the special abilities of
>>being a champion of his god/church/whatever?
>This is pretty much why I chose to represent avatarhood as a template
>instead of a prestige class.
Seems like the way to go, yeah. I was trying to think of how one
prestige class could let any core class become a paladin/???
without concentrating on one set of abilities to the exclusion
of another. Seemed way more trouble than it'd be worth.
Pete
R. Scott Rogers
> JB <JbN...@talk21.com> wrote:
>
>> It's not *just* about being the poster boy of lawfulness and goodness
>> it is about being a Paladin, i.e. a champion, a defender of a cause.
>> If the sorcerer spent the requisite time doing this then they would be
>> a paladin and not a sorcerer. Sorcerers spend their time learning how
>> to tap their arcane potential.
>
>> It seems a bit of a pointless complaint.
>
> I think the main point is, why do ALL champions and defenders of
> lawful good causes focus on pure combat ability? Couldn't a
> lawful good champion who discovered he had sorcerous talent
> focus on that while still gaining the special abilities of
> being a champion of his god/church/whatever?
Much as I think paladin is a bad core class, one that ought to be a PrC open
to more alignments, and much as that would answer your issues with the
class, I think it bears pointing out that an ordinary cleric has access
through spells and domain abilities to much of the paladin's special
abilities.
What is it that a paladin gets to do that an ordinary fighter does not?
1. Detect evil
2. Improved saving throws
3. Healing abilities
4. Protection against disease
5. Ability to inspire allies
6. Extra damage to one attack per day
7. Turning undead
8. Summoning a mount
9. Ability to cast some divine spells
Clerics have access to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 through their own class
abilities or spells. Druids have a similar ability to mimic what a paladin
does but can also use Animal Friendship to get their own loyal mount (albeit
one with somewhat fewer special abilities than the paladin's).
Since we're talking about a class that gets its powers from a divine source,
why would we think it desirable for arcane spellcasters or non-divine
classes to get these abilities? And, heck, any class other than Barbarian,
Bard, and Druid can take levels of paladin if you want a paladin's
abilities. Any class can multiclass with cleric and get access to the bulk
of a paladin's abilities.
All of this suggests to me that your complaint is a trivial one, in that it
is easily overcome without changing the rules at all.
Cheers,
Scott
--
R. Scott Rogers
srogers at mindspring.com
Visit the General Taylor Inn:
http://srogers.home.mindspring.com/dnd/main.html
Karkadinn
>Since we're talking about a class that gets its powers from a divine source,
>why would we think it desirable for arcane spellcasters or non-divine
>classes to get these abilities? And, heck, any class other than Barbarian,
>Bard, and Druid can take levels of paladin if you want a paladin's
>abilities. Any class can multiclass with cleric and get access to the bulk
>of a paladin's abilities.
>
>All of this suggests to me that your complaint is a trivial one, in that it
>is easily overcome without changing the rules at all.
(Replying to this post as if it were directed towards me rather than the
others, since that last post was essentially an agreement with my point.)
It's not the abilities, per se. It's not the specific powers... it's the
*concept* that breaks my suspension of disbelief. Really, I'm not doing this
just to powergame. Honestly I'm not. I don't care about being able to detect
evil as such, or cure disease as such, or whatever. And yes, I know most of
the abilities can be gotten from other classes. It's not the abilities, it's
the fact that a certain Level of Lawful Goodness *entitles* you to these
abilities, and that you can only reach that Level if you're also oriented
towards combat complete with the armor/weapon feats, HD, and BAB, that I object
to. Multiclassing is possible, but, as I mentioned before, clunky. You can't
be devoted to Lawful Goodness and Sorcery at the same time, you have to choose
between the two at each level. It's not the abilities I care about, it's the
roleplaying aspect. The part that makes a paladin special. I don't want to
have pcs multiclassing if they want to be a sorcerer as devoted to good as a
paladin... I want them to be able to have a sorcerer as devoted to good as a
paladin. All the time, 24/7, not just every other level (and even that would
require doing away with the "No levelling in paladin after taking other class
levels" rule). And it does no good to just say "Well, then, roleplay your
sorcerer as Lawful Good and abide by paladin-like restrictions, then," if that
sorcerer can be logically proven, in the game world, to not be as Lawful Good
as a paladin anyway simply because the damn paladin never gets a cold and he
does. The difference would be noticeable in a New York minute, when it
shouldn't be noticeable at all.
To sum up:
The concept is the problem, it's what I can't wrap my brain around. The
abilities themselves I could care less about.
Nathan Clifford
> But why is it that the only way to gain the benefits of being a
> paladin is to focus on hand to hand combat? Aren't gods sophisticated
> enough to expand their possibilities?
In my Universe no. Well, some of the gods are that wiley and cunning,
but they are the exception and are not lawful to begin with. Though
they do reward particularly successful minions, that tends to be through
more subtle means.
R. Scott Rogers
> R. Scott Rogers said:
>
>> Since we're talking about a class that gets its powers from a divine source,
>> why would we think it desirable for arcane spellcasters or non-divine
>> classes to get these abilities? And, heck, any class other than Barbarian,
>> Bard, and Druid can take levels of paladin if you want a paladin's
>> abilities. Any class can multiclass with cleric and get access to the bulk
>> of a paladin's abilities.
>>
>> All of this suggests to me that your complaint is a trivial one, in that it
>> is easily overcome without changing the rules at all.
>
> It's not the abilities, per se. It's not the specific powers... it's the
> *concept* that breaks my suspension of disbelief. Really, I'm not doing this
> just to powergame. Honestly I'm not. I don't care about being able to detect
> evil as such, or cure disease as such, or whatever. And yes, I know most of
> the abilities can be gotten from other classes. It's not the abilities, it's
> the fact that a certain Level of Lawful Goodness *entitles* you to these
> abilities, and that you can only reach that Level if you're also oriented
> towards combat complete with the armor/weapon feats, HD, and BAB, that I
> object
> to. Multiclassing is possible, but, as I mentioned before, clunky. You can't
> be devoted to Lawful Goodness and Sorcery at the same time, you have to choose
> between the two at each level. It's not the abilities I care about, it's the
> roleplaying aspect. The part that makes a paladin special.
Fine, then. Just roleplay your non-paladin as someone who believes that he
has been called to serve the forces of Lawful-Goodness. If you don't care
about the in-game effects, then what's the problem?
Also, multiclassing is only "clunky" if you take it literally instead of
emphasizing the roleplaying aspect of your PC. It confuses me that you claim
to value the roleplaying but focus so much on complaining about purely
mechanical abstractions with no necessary roleplaying effects. It's not that
you cease to be a sorcerer when you take a level of another class, and then
become a sorcerer again when you take new sorcerer levels. It's that you've
focused on developing other talents, and so you remain a sorcerer but you're
one who doesn't develop as a sorcerer as quickly as your peers. Instead you
develop other skills they don't have. You are, in fact, devoted to Lawful
Goodness and sorcery at the same time. At least you are if you're
roleplaying it and not just powergaming.
> I don't want to
> have pcs multiclassing if they want to be a sorcerer as devoted to good as a
> paladin... I want them to be able to have a sorcerer as devoted to good as a
> paladin. All the time, 24/7, not just every other level (and even that would
> require doing away with the "No levelling in paladin after taking other class
> levels" rule). And it does no good to just say "Well, then, roleplay your
> sorcerer as Lawful Good and abide by paladin-like restrictions, then," if that
> sorcerer can be logically proven, in the game world, to not be as Lawful Good
> as a paladin anyway simply because the damn paladin never gets a cold and he
> does. The difference would be noticeable in a New York minute, when it
> shouldn't be noticeable at all.
The never getting a cold thing, and other special features of paladins,
result not from the paladin's devotion to LG. It's not automatic that
everyone who is committed to LG gets to be a paladin. Paladins are committed
to LG AND they have earned the favor of their patron deity or whatever and
have been called into special service. Your argument is tantamount to saying
that just because members of the Marine Corps are highly devoted to
defending their nation, everyone who is committed to defending his nation
should be a Marine. That's silly on its face. Paul Revere was not a soldier;
he was a silversmith, and your line of thinking would require the creation
of a special Silversmith Brigade in the Marine Corps. In fact, the PHB makes
it clear that paladins can certainly have faults, and not necessarily live
up to the high standards of LG all the time. The difference in alignment
between paladins and other LG characters is not that paladins are more LG
than the others, it's that they take their commitment to LG most seriously.
It's the fine difference between having purer ideals and simply trying
harder to live up to the same ideals.
> To sum up:
> The concept is the problem, it's what I can't wrap my brain around. The
> abilities themselves I could care less about.
Except that the abilities are the only difference between a paladin and any
other PC who is committed to the values of LG. You misunderstand the
relationship between the LG alignment and the paladin. Not all patriots are
Marines, and some Marines are less patriotic than some civilians. The same
is true of paladins and LG alignment. If all you want is a LG patriot who's
not a Marine, then you can roleplay it. And if the abilities matter to you,
multiclassing is how the game's designers intend for you to deal with the
problem of combining abilities available to other classes. In addition, you
can always create PrCs or even a new core class. Heck, you can also create a
template something like the Aasimar to accomplish the notion of "chosen LG
hero who can be a member of any class" for a +1 or +2 ECL.
Which is just to say that your concerns still seem to me to be somewhat
misplaced and, in the end, trivial to solve without resorting to any radical
changes in the paladin class -- even though I would tend to make radical
changes in the paladin class myself. ;-)
Karkadinn
>The never getting a cold thing, and other special features of paladins,
>result not from the paladin's devotion to LG. It's not automatic that
>everyone who is committed to LG gets to be a paladin. Paladins are committed
>to LG AND they have earned the favor of their patron deity or whatever and
>have been called into special service.
Ding. This is, I think, the principle portion of disagreement and the crux of
the whole matter. You have to admit that the PHB is incredibly, irritatingly
vague on this matter. But even assuming that the powers are granted not by the
paladin unto himself (so to speak), but rather, by a deity or something, it
doesn't explain why that deity never gifts spellslingers similarly. Either way
it grates, doesn't it?
I am focused on the mechanics, yes, but only because I see the mechanics as
something that need to be rational IC, otherwise they're useless and should be
altered. When I think about the turning undead and all the rest, I'm thinking
primarily about how it effects how other people will react to that character in
a game.
Assuming the "higher power gives gifts", then, multiclassing results in your
god not favoring you as much if you decide to give up a sword for a spell...
logical for a priest, since priestliness is a full-time occupation, but I can't
see how a paladin can't choose to stop focusing on combat and still focus on
the moral aspects of his class just as much. Does the paladin actively have to
work at getting better at turning undead and so on, or does the Power or
whatever just give him greater powers as he proves himself? If the paladin has
to work at it, why does he need the higher Power at all, and if he doesn't, why
does the Power no longer grace him with increased power if he seeks to broaden
his abilities a little bit?
>Which is just to say that your concerns still seem to me to be somewhat
>misplaced and, in the end, trivial to solve without resorting to any radical
>changes in the paladin class -- even though I would tend to make radical
>changes in the paladin class myself. ;-)
Well, I agree with you that it's trivial. But I lay awake at night worrying
about trivial things like these, hashing and rehashing them out in my mind for
hours on end. I am the champion picker of nits and all lesser picker of nits
must bow before me.
(Also, I have no life, but you've probably figured that out for yourself by
now.)
Now that I think of it, maybe I'll toss away the template idea, keep the core
rules paladin, and just make a couple more paladin-like core classes to
represent arcane versions, skill-based versions, and so on. That would be a
more elegant way to deal with it. Balancing it all will still probably be a
task, but not as difficult as the whole class template idea, hopefully.
Warrior based, already done. Arcane-based, check. Skill-based, check. I
wonder if I should make a divine-based one or not, since the paladin already is
half a priest. If I did, it would most likely end up being some kind of
arch-priest. "Yeah, that guy's a priest, but THIS guy... he's an even
priestlier priest!" Ooohh. A saint! That'll do nicely for a title.
::wanders off, muttering to himself::
daci...@earthlink.net
> On 9 Oct 2002 15:02:28 GMT, Peter Meilinger <mell...@bu.edu> wrote:
> >JB <JbN...@talk21.com> wrote:
> >>It's not *just* about being the poster boy of lawfulness and goodness
> >>it is about being a Paladin, i.e. a champion, a defender of a cause.
> >>If the sorcerer spent the requisite time doing this then they would be
> >>a paladin and not a sorcerer. Sorcerers spend their time learning how
> >>to tap their arcane potential.
> >
> >>It seems a bit of a pointless complaint.
> >
> >I think the main point is, why do ALL champions and defenders of
> >lawful good causes focus on pure combat ability? Couldn't a
> >lawful good champion who discovered he had sorcerous talent
> >focus on that while still gaining the special abilities of
> >being a champion of his god/church/whatever?
>
> This is pretty much why I chose to represent avatarhood as a template
> instead of a prestige class.
And I like most of what you've done on your site, Hong. I've been
considering your avatar concept for my campaign, I just need to print
most of it out, heh.
As for an answer to the questions above and the original post:
All champions and defenders of lawful good are not focused on pure
combat ability. All paladins are. Paladins are not the same as
defenders of lawful good, paladins are "answering a call, accepting
one's destiny" (PH 41). In addition, that call is specifically for
paladins, those who combat and defeat evil.
Paladinhood is a calling, the -character- (not the player) can never
-choose- to be one. They can choose -not- to be, but they cannot choose
to be. One can be a defender of lawful good without all the trappings
and abilities of a paladin. It is a roleplaying choice to do so... It
is a metagame (DM/player) choice to become a paladin and gain the
abilities.
This leads me to believe that it is that calling and the related
training which grants the paladin his or her abilities, not just the
devotion to LG.
-No- alignment or devotion thereto grants -any- powers or abilities in
and of itself, anywhere in the book. Do not confuse the need for all
paladins to be LG with the need for all devoutly LG people to need to be
paladins.
To answer the original poster's desire for less war-like paladins,
you'll either need to create new classes which likewise have that
calling, or change the source of the paladin's abilities and go with
what you have. But at its root, the concept you dislike isn't the
concept that the paladin -is-.
Hope this helps somewhat.
-- Nik ( Dacileva )
"No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will
seriously cramp his style." - Traditional, House of the Jhereg
Jim Davies
and every level, while snipping the fighter bits, I suppose you need
to work out what's the base "non-Holy" ability that the Paladin starts
from. A paladin is a fighter, less feats and Weapon Specialisation,
plus Holy Stuff.
So we assign a number X to equal the relative power of a fighter's
feats.
So if you want a Paladic* Sorcerer, you need to strip X power from a
sorcerer. And if you want a Paladic Monk, strip X from the monk. And
so on.
Luckily, a fighter's feats are very evenly spaced: one at 1st and one
at every even level. Weapon Specialisation is a minor thing. And
they're all feats, which each give something like +10% to one fairly
regularly used ability.
So, to take a possibility, you might remove the sorcerer's familiar
(he could get it back at 5th instead of the mount), and reduce his
casting by 1 spell per level per day. For example, a 4th level
sorcerer with 15 Cha would cast 5 cantrips, 5 1st and 2 2nd.
Clerics and wizards would work similarly, though I don't see much
point in a Paladic Cleric, and I think a spontaneous, belief-inspired
sorcerer fits the flavour much better than a bookish wizard.
A rogue might get only 6+Int skills per level and have all his special
abilities (sneak attack, evasion, etc) delayed by 1 level. Or possibly
just no sneak attack at all, as better befits a paladin.
The monk is more difficult, as its abilities are nonlinear. You could
just delay all special abilities except unarmed attack by 1 level.
This may not be enough, though a monk won't have much in the way of
Cha so it could be OK.
For a ranger, drop 1 skill point per level, scrap free TWF/Ambi, delay
FE by 3 levels and have the same spell slots used for ranger and
paladin spells.
Bards and barbarians are non-lawful, so I'll ignore them (hooray! no
gospel music!). Of course you might want to have a CG Freedom Fighter
variant. Likewise for part-Neutral druids.
This lets you use the usual xp progression chart, multiclass and so
on. I can well believe that this might not be perfectly balanced, but
it's close enough for government work.
* I know this is not a word.
-
Jim Davies
----------
Mind your manners, son! I've got a tall pointy hat!
JB
"Karkadinn" <kark...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021009121225...@mb-fn.aol.com...
> R. Scott Rogers said:
>
> >Since we're talking about a class that gets its powers from a divine
source,
> >why would we think it desirable for arcane spellcasters or non-divine
> >classes to get these abilities? And, heck, any class other than
Barbarian,
> >Bard, and Druid can take levels of paladin if you want a paladin's
> >abilities. Any class can multiclass with cleric and get access to the
bulk
> >of a paladin's abilities.
> >
> >All of this suggests to me that your complaint is a trivial one, in that
it
> >is easily overcome without changing the rules at all.
>
> (Replying to this post as if it were directed towards me rather than the
> others, since that last post was essentially an agreement with my point.)
> It's not the abilities, per se. It's not the specific powers... it's the
> *concept* that breaks my suspension of disbelief.
> To sum up:
> The concept is the problem, it's what I can't wrap my brain around. The
> abilities themselves I could care less about.
I don't understand your difficulty with this. The paladin has speat time
answering his calling. Pursuing methods in doing so to gain the abilities he
does. The sorcerer has spent his time entirely differently, chiefly learning
how to harness his powers and not praticing his religion/faith whatever.
You start playing the character at first level but they aren't born that
way. Much is assumed to have happened before hand.
As for the concept it is a genuine historical and literary one. Add in the
magic and you have an D&D Paladin. Sure, all classes can *become* stout
defenders of (insert cause) when they have the time but it isn't part of
their originating class. That is served better by multiclassing or prestige
classes.
HADSIL
>Since we're talking about a class that gets its powers from a divine source,
>why would we think it desirable for arcane spellcasters or non-divine
>classes to get these abilities? And, heck, any class other than Barbarian,
>Bard, and Druid can take levels of paladin if you want a paladin's
>abilities. Any class can multiclass with cleric and get access to the bulk
>of a paladin's abilities.
>
>All of this suggests to me that your complaint is a trivial one, in that it
>is easily overcome without changing the rules at all.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Scott
>
Except, perhaps, change one rule: allow Paladins to freely multiclass.
:-)
Gerald Katz
I Love New York!
Mad Hamish
>Mad Hamish said:
>
>>>It's always bothered me a little that if you're extremely devoted to the
>>Lawful
>>>Good cause, you have to be good at fighting as well.
>>
>>No you don't.
>>You can be extremely devoted to Lawful Good as any core class except
>>the Barbarian, Bard or Druid.
>
>>> I know, based on
>>>chivalric ideals, blahblahblah, but it's still a mildly irritating illogic.
>>>Why can't there be, say, a sorcerer who is devoted to good as much as the
>>>typical paladin?
>>
>>You can.
>>That's called 'roleplaying'
>
>And here's what it comes down to:
>Where do paladins get their powers from, and how do they get them?
Well off hand I'd say that the names like Divine Grace etc are a
pretty good hint...
As are the divine spells...
>The PHB is irritatingly vague on these points. The only guidelines we have are
>what makes them LOSE their powers.
> Acting evilly, unchivalrously, unlawfully,
>or otherwise betraying his code makes him lose his powers. So, it can be
>assumed, reasonably, that it is his Lawful Goodness that gives him these
>powers. Not a deity, because that's what priests are for.
ah, and gods could only possibly grant one type of power..
> It is his extreme
>closeness to being "true" lawful good that gives him these powers.
>Thus, no one else can be as close as a paladin, no matter how they roleplay.
"Assume A. Given A then B follows. Hence B is proven."
find the flaw.
Ah, a Ranger, Cleric or Monk who is lawful good has different powers
than a Paladin so they must be worse at being lawful good...
>Even if they voluntarily take the same kinds of extreme behavior restrictions
>as a paladin, they won't, by the book, get the abilities.
They won't get those abilities. However they will get other bennies.
>This breaks my suspension of disbelief, because it's fundamentally illogical.
>Perhaps your sense of belief is more robust, but that doesn't make the logic
>any less flawed.
Only because of where you start from.
>
>>Bad concept.
>>Exactly why does a character _need_ to get benefits for a roleplaying
>>choice?
>
>Why does a paladin get benefits for it? Why can't he just be a lawful good
>fighter?
A Paladin vs a fighter trades weapon ability for other abilities.
Another class with Paladin benefits gives up sod all
(even if you include the 20% xp penalty it means that the Mage/Paladin
is less than a full level behind a straight mage until 10th level and
2 levels behind at 16th level.
Not much of a cost for the bennies (consider a fighter/paladin under
your proposed rules and compare it to a paladin or fighter under
current rules)
> The balancing factor with the paladin has ALWAYS been that his
>restrictions are a "roleplaying choice".
Not true in 3rd ed.
In 1st and 2nd ed the balancing factor for the Paladin versus a
fighter was more xp per level. (and various other things introduced,
e.g. weapon specialisation)
>
>>unbalanced? Well consider a Monk with a Paladin template getting even
>>better saves...what do you do with the spells?
>>Dunno that I want a Sorcerer or Wizard to start getting divine spells
>>at very little cost...
>
>::sigh::
>That's why I asked for help balancing the actual mechanical details. I would
>have valued your help, or anyone's, in that area. But if all you're interested
>in doing is moaning about what a terrible idea it is,
when you ask
"Good concept, yes/no?"
you are asking for comments on the concept. I gave you some.
You don't have to agree with me.
> then at least give me
>REASONS for why it's a terrible idea, beyond fixing. Logical, sound reasons
>why it can't be made to work, even with proper downsizing on the bonuses and
>frequency-of-usage for powers.
Nockermensch
I do that. Same with monks. And I ignore multiclass XP penalties too.
@ @ Nockermensch, because multiclassing is already pretty bad as is,
no need to further penalty the ones who try
Karkadinn
>I do that. Same with monks. And I ignore multiclass XP penalties too.
>
>@ @ Nockermensch, because multiclassing is already pretty bad as is,
>no need to further penalty the ones who try
Preach it, brotha. ;)
Mad Hamish
>neoweasel said:
>
>>What? The reason that a paladin has the abilities that (s)he has is
>>that the paladin's deity grants them to the paladin. A paladin is a
>>holy warrior of a particular deity and the deity in question grants
>>certain powers to the paladin. If the paladin strays from the
>>behavior that the deity considers acceptable (away from lawful good)
>>the deity removes the paladin's access to those powers on a temporary
>>or permanent basis. Your argument is like saying that no one can be
>>as evil as a blackguard because if they were they'd have the same
>>powers as a blackguard.
>
>Show me where it says in the PHB... or any D&D rulebook, for that matter, that
>a paladin gets his powers from a deity.
>Problems with this idea:
>1. It's redundant. That's what priests are for.
and it's just impossible that gods could have 2 types of servents?
Rangers and Druids both get their power from nature...
>2. It's uncharacteristic on the part of the deity, since any given paladin is
>not necessarily religious.
ah, and obviously the god of luck only gives good luck to those who
worship her, the god of healing only gives healing to those that
worship her, gods of nature don't care about plants and animals
because they don't worship them...
> Gods in D&D are many thing, but they are not subtle.
That's your take on things, it's not a given...
> They don't go around giving people powers because they approve of how
>those people act,
so exactly how do you justify characters surviving fireballs at ground
zero?
> and then let the powers-gifted people refrain from being
>properly grateful. They smite the ungrateful, or take away powers, or at don't
>give any new powers. Would a D&D style deity continually gift an atheist with
>miracles, simply because he likes how the guy is behaving? I'm sorry, but I
>can't see it.
Firstly you might want to read up on more pantheonic religions, The
fact that a paladin is not required to be committed to one god the
same way as a cleric does not equate to 'not religious'
Secondly the odds of atheism in worlds where Gods have walked the
world in living memory and their servents can return the living to
life are fairly low...
>3. It's nowhere in the paladin class description in the PHB.
"Divine power protects the paladin and gives her special powers"
page 41, the first line on Characteristics.
Geoff Watson
Yes, any class can be Lawful Good.
You don't have to be a Paladin to be Lawful Good.
If you want, make up a 'Paladin' template than can be applied to any class.
Remember that a Paladin is not just a Fighter with extra stuff, he misses
out on the bonus feats.
Geoff.
Geoff Watson
>
> And here's what it comes down to:
> Where do paladins get their powers from, and how do they get them?
> The PHB is irritatingly vague on these points.
>
It could even vary by Paladin (some are divinely granted, others get
them through their devotion, or through special training.)
Geoff.
Peter Knutsen
Karkadinn wrote:
> Good concept, yes/no? Balanced, yes/no? Any ideas on how to improve it if the
> answer is "No" to either of these questions?
Do a capabilitistic dissection of the Paladin class, then turn all
his abilities into Feats, which all have the requirement that
the character must not only be Lawful Good but even Lawfuller
and Gooder, or else he'll loose the abilities until he atones.
Then all the classes are free to choose to take one or more
paladinic abilities as Feats.
You'll have to do all the work, though.
--
Peter Knutsen
Robert Baldwin
<snip>
>Except, perhaps, change one rule: allow Paladins to freely multiclass.
>:-)
Well, I *would* still charge them the xp penalties, as appropriate.
<g>
But, yeah, a Paladin/Sorcerer makes sense.
So does a Paladin/Monk.
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"So here we are going into battle, butt freaking naked.
What's wrong with this picture?"
Nene Romanova
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
-
Remove the spam-block to reply
Karkadinn
>Do a capabilitistic dissection of the Paladin class, then turn all
>his abilities into Feats, which all have the requirement that
>the character must not only be Lawful Good but even Lawfuller
>and Gooder, or else he'll loose the abilities until he atones.
>Then all the classes are free to choose to take one or more
>paladinic abilities as Feats.
Duh. Now why didn't I think of that. Even easier than thinking up three more
core classes, that.
Thanks. :)
>You'll have to do all the work, though.
Oh, that's okay. Crunchy work is fun.
Karkadinn
>
>Well, I *would* still charge them the xp penalties, as appropriate.
><g>
Psh. Multiclass xp penalties only serve to limit people to stereotypes and
hence impede proper roleplaying. ;)
>But, yeah, a Paladin/Sorcerer makes sense.
And be scary as frell.
::chuckle::
Peter Knutsen
Karkadinn wrote:
>
> Peter Knutsen said:
>
> >Do a capabilitistic dissection of the Paladin class, then turn all
> >his abilities into Feats, which all have the requirement that
[...]
> >You'll have to do all the work, though.
>
> Oh, that's okay. Crunchy work is fun.
Make sure you post your work when it's done. Or just when you
reach a stage where you'd like a couple dozen second opinions.
--
Peter Knutsen
Karkadinn
>Make sure you post your work when it's done. Or just when you
>reach a stage where you'd like a couple dozen second opinions.
Well, since you asked so nicely. ;)
Robert Baldwin
Yup. And IMC a *lot* of elves pursue the paladin and arcane classes.
Pissing off an elf in shining armour is definitely not a safe move.
Karkadinn
>
>Yup. And IMC a *lot* of elves pursue the paladin and arcane classes.
>Pissing off an elf in shining armour is definitely not a safe move.
Definitely has the coolness factor of the Bladesinger, without the infamous
aura o' munchkin.
Robert Baldwin
Indeed. I've always thought the multi-class restrictions on 3e
paladins was one of the Big Mistakes WOTC made.
Karkadinn
>Indeed. I've always thought the multi-class restrictions on 3e
>paladins was one of the Big Mistakes WOTC made.
...and the others? Just wondering how much we'd agree on and how much we'd
disagree on.... ;)
Robert Baldwin
The other multi-classing rule I nixed is the race-preferences. All
they do is reinforce race stereotypes.
And maintaining 'fire and forget" spell casting is the biggest
screwup. (Yeah, "prepare" not "forget". AIIM.)
I've kept my modified 1e spell casting system, which means no
Sorcerers. They become redundant.
Random stat generation as the default. Fortunately, they added
point-buy as an option.
They blew psionics, by making it too similar to a spell casting
system. I'm not reall a fan of psionics in a game with magic, but
there we are.
I'm also not a fan of the feat system, *as*implemented*. It was OK at
first, but, as I knew they would, they've come out with splatbooks and
Dragon articles, all filled with new feats. The problem here is
twofold. First, the discrepencies in power and balance are way out of
line. Second, the game system is too damn spread out. Too many rules
in too many places. This also appllies to the PrC system. A few are
good, but they've proliferated like rats (or 2e kits, which were just
as bad).
Slight differences in character, which could & should have been
managed by *roleplaying* are being dealt with by creating (and
*selling*) a plethora of feats and PrC's.
This ties into...
Too much focus on "Official "Rules". I've commented on this before.
Just at the time that Hackmaster came out and parodied 1e, 3e has
become a parody of KODT, with entire game sessions being devoted to
"who has the latest revision of the errata for a supplement." <shrug>
As someone who started with three little books, I bloody well expect
the DM to *make decisions*.
I think those are the big ones. I've ignored little things, which any
game has. Dire flail?!? That sort of thing.
Karkadinn
>The other multi-classing rule I nixed is the race-preferences. All
>they do is reinforce race stereotypes.
>
>And maintaining 'fire and forget" spell casting is the biggest
>screwup. (Yeah, "prepare" not "forget". AIIM.)
Agreeagree....
>Random stat generation as the default. Fortunately, they added
>point-buy as an option.
Disagree. :) I like point buy and random generation both equally.
>They blew psionics, by making it too similar to a spell casting
>system. I'm not reall a fan of psionics in a game with magic, but
>there we are.
The part of 3rd edition psionics I hate the most is the manifestations. The
rest I can live with, but the manifestations are just idiotic.
>I'm also not a fan of the feat system, *as*implemented*. It was OK at
>first, but, as I knew they would, they've come out with splatbooks and
>Dragon articles, all filled with new feats. The problem here is
>twofold. First, the discrepencies in power and balance are way out of
>line. Second, the game system is too damn spread out.
Too many nifty feats, not enough spare feat slots, as it were. I still don't
see why all the item creation feats couldn't've been shoved into a single feat,
for one. :) And yeah, many of the feats are weaker or more powerful than
others. For one, any of the feats that give +2 to one or two skills seem
pretty worthless to me in comparison to the others. +4 I could see. But +2?
Psh.
>This also appllies to the PrC system. A few are
>good, but they've proliferated like rats (or 2e kits, which were just
>as bad).
Hell yes.
It was probably a mistake to have so many class splatbooks. They could have
safely bunched up everything they needed in two or three good ones, instead of
a dozen bad ones with lots of filler. But, of course, then they'd lose the
nifty, easily marketable warrior/religious/naturey/magicy themes. Bleh.
>Just at the time that Hackmaster came out and parodied 1e, 3e has
>become a parody of KODT, with entire game sessions being devoted to
>"who has the latest revision of the errata for a supplement."
I fart in the general direction of errata. If it ain't in the printed book, I
don't give a darn.
>I think those are the big ones. I've ignored little things, which any
>game has. Dire flail?!? That sort of thing.
::snicker::
One of my adventure ideas was directly inspired by 3rd's ridiculous double
weapons. The main plot is that for some reason people with racial-themed
double weapons keep on using them and keep dying in large numbers due to the
weapons. As it turns out, an evil mage is behind it, of course. Encounters
were planned to include things like the following:
"Trudging through the tunnels, you come upon an intersection. Dozens of gnome
corpses are scattered about the floor here, and each of them is armed with a
gnome hooked hammer. They appear to be impaled on their own weapons."
Overall, I pretty much find we're in more or less total agreement on 3rd. Half
the supplementary books could have themselves been cut in half and combined
with other books, and everyone would've been happier. The books would sell
better and they'd be BETTER, too. But of course the marketers have to go for
what they think will be easily sellable (even when it's not) by keeping a
strict theme to each book. This results in writers who lack the imagination to
fill up enough pages and go for even more feats and prestige classes instead.
On the bright side, I just browsed through the Forgotten Realms book yesterday,
and was surprised to find that it's actually GOOD. Good enough for me to
consider buying it, despite my hatred of the Elminster, Drizzt & co. Now that
was a truly worthy supplement, along with Nyambe and the Ravenloft campaign
book. But then, Ravenloft has so many custom rules by default it's pretty hard
to run out of things to put in pages for it, so the writers didn't face the
same challenges as with the other books.
Robert Baldwin
>Robert Baldwin said:
<snip>
>>Random stat generation as the default. Fortunately, they added
>>point-buy as an option.
>
>Disagree. :) I like point buy and random generation both equally.
OK. Why? What can you get by random generation that you can't get
by PB? And are you speaking as player, DM or both?
>>They blew psionics, by making it too similar to a spell casting
>>system. I'm not reall a fan of psionics in a game with magic, but
>>there we are.
>
>The part of 3rd edition psionics I hate the most is the manifestations. The
>rest I can live with, but the manifestations are just idiotic.
Agreed. If I were to do it, I'd use something vaguely like the old
Spell Law system (RoleMaster) as a basis. The character would have
some single, specific talent, and get better/stronger as they grew.
>>I'm also not a fan of the feat system, *as*implemented*.
<snip>
>Too many nifty feats, not enough spare feat slots, as it were. I still don't
>see why all the item creation feats couldn't've been shoved into a single feat,
>for one. :)
Using the feat system to control character development.
And yeah, many of the feats are weaker or more powerful than
>others. For one, any of the feats that give +2 to one or two skills seem
>pretty worthless to me in comparison to the others. +4 I could see. But +2?
>Psh.
>
>>This also appllies to the PrC system. A few are
>>good, but they've proliferated like rats (or 2e kits, which were just
>>as bad).
>
>Hell yes.
>It was probably a mistake to have so many class splatbooks. They could have
>safely bunched up everything they needed in two or three good ones, instead of
>a dozen bad ones with lots of filler. But, of course, then they'd lose the
>nifty, easily marketable warrior/religious/naturey/magicy themes. Bleh.
Yup. It was about marketting, not quality control.
Have you been around here long enogh to remember Stephen Jaros? He
had a rant about "proliferation". I diagreed in the 1e days, but I
think he was on to something.
>>Just at the time that Hackmaster came out and parodied 1e, 3e has
>>become a parody of KODT, with entire game sessions being devoted to
>>"who has the latest revision of the errata for a supplement."
>
>I fart in the general direction of errata. If it ain't in the printed book, I
>don't give a darn.
Well, I'd *like* to be able to get corrections to significant errors.
But now we have everything from corrections of trivial typos to
revised game design. And it's everywhere. Including by email
reposted to this group. <sigh>
<snip>
>Overall, I pretty much find we're in more or less total agreement on 3rd. Half
>the supplementary books could have themselves been cut in half and combined
>with other books, and everyone would've been happier. The books would sell
>better and they'd be BETTER, too. But of course the marketers have to go for
>what they think will be easily sellable (even when it's not) by keeping a
>strict theme to each book. This results in writers who lack the imagination to
>fill up enough pages and go for even more feats and prestige classes instead.
Yup. It's like network television: they need a certain amount of
product, by a certain time, and quality is the variable behind those
two absolutes.
>On the bright side, I just browsed through the Forgotten Realms book yesterday,
>and was surprised to find that it's actually GOOD. Good enough for me to
>consider buying it, despite my hatred of the Elminster, Drizzt & co. Now that
>was a truly worthy supplement, along with Nyambe and the Ravenloft campaign
>book. But then, Ravenloft has so many custom rules by default it's pretty hard
>to run out of things to put in pages for it, so the writers didn't face the
>same challenges as with the other books.
It would take a heck of a product to make me buy anything FR.
What I *really* want is a bloody-damned electronic version of the Core
Rules. <sigh>
Karkadinn
>OK. Why? What can you get by random generation that you can't get
>by PB?
The thrill of really good rolls, or the humor of really bad rolls that you just
have to make the best of anyway. They're both fun, in the right mind set.
Everyone having to be equal in stats goes a little overboard on balance, in my
opinion. Though to be fair, I prefer random generation when scores below 10
AREN'T rerolled, so there's a lot of inherent risk involved as well as
potential gain.
>And are you speaking as player, DM or both?
Both. I wouldn't give up point buy for random, nor random for point buy. Each
method is enjoyable for a particular mood.
>Agreed. If I were to do it, I'd use something vaguely like the old
>Spell Law system (RoleMaster) as a basis. The character would have
>some single, specific talent, and get better/stronger as they grew.
Hmm. Now I've got this urge to check out RoleMaster. Whee, one more game to
get addicted to....
>Have you been around here long enogh to remember Stephen Jaros? He
>had a rant about "proliferation". I diagreed in the 1e days, but I
>think he was on to something.
>
'Fraid not. But as they say, just because you're a paranoid, etc etc.
>Well, I'd *like* to be able to get corrections to significant errors.
>But now we have everything from corrections of trivial typos to
>revised game design. And it's everywhere. Including by email
>reposted to this group. <sigh>
Bwahaha. That's hilarious. There's no way I can take errata seriously when
it's being treated in such a haphazard fashion.
>Yup. It's like network television: they need a certain amount of
>product, by a certain time, and quality is the variable behind those
>two absolutes.
Oh, Simpsons, how thou hast fallen....
::plays a mournful Bach tune via kazoo::
>It would take a heck of a product to make me buy anything FR.
As I vaguely recall reading on another post... "It's what Tome and Blood
*should* have been." It's definitely something to get if you like arcane magic
users or have players who like them. The tweaking for 'regional' feats and so
on is pretty minimal and simple if you want to use the crunchy bits for a
non-FR campaign, as I intend to.
And, of course, it's incredibly amusing to note how many of the Mary Sue npcs
have multiclass advancement penalties. Elminster has 1 level of fighter and
rogue in addition to the class levels you'd expect of him, it's hilarious.
>What I *really* want is a bloody-damned electronic version of the Core
>Rules. <sigh>
The Open Gaming Whatchamacallit not enough for ya?
::pats sympathetically::
R. Scott Rogers
> The other multi-classing rule I nixed is the race-preferences. All
> they do is reinforce race stereotypes.
Good idea.
> And maintaining 'fire and forget" spell casting is the biggest
> screwup. (Yeah, "prepare" not "forget". AIIM.)
I agree.
> I've kept my modified 1e spell casting system, which means no
> Sorcerers. They become redundant.
I don't know from your modified 1E system, but I like the idea of having two
different arcane casters, with one being a more bookish spell preparation
class and the other being a more action-oriented spontaneous caster. On the
other hand, I could easily be sold on a single class that was more like
spontaneous casting.
> Random stat generation as the default. Fortunately, they added
> point-buy as an option.
I've come to see the value of point-buy, but I just find random generation
to be fun, as long as you're not too rigid about it (in other words, you
have to allow for PC "abortions" when you roll six stats that are just too
low). I suspect this was yet another of the legacy mechanics included just
because that's how it had been before (like the Paladin class).
> They blew psionics, by making it too similar to a spell casting
> system. I'm not reall a fan of psionics in a game with magic, but
> there we are.
I actually like the basic "casting" and "spell category" mechanics of
Psionics, and I think this might have been a better model for the sorcerer.
However, the overall implementation of psionics feels half-baked at best.
The two-class thing doesn't work, at least to the extent that pretty much
all of the things that it seems to me a psionic warrior would want to do are
off-limits to him. And the whole way psionic combat works seems poor to me.
> I'm also not a fan of the feat system, *as*implemented*. It was OK at
> first, but, as I knew they would, they've come out with splatbooks and
> Dragon articles, all filled with new feats. The problem here is
> twofold. First, the discrepencies in power and balance are way out of
> line. Second, the game system is too damn spread out. Too many rules
> in too many places. This also appllies to the PrC system. A few are
> good, but they've proliferated like rats (or 2e kits, which were just
> as bad).
A too-weak feat isn't really a problem, but feats more powerful than those
in the PHB are. And those have proliferated. Which is only a problem if your
DM is an incompetent. Some are, I know, but those I've played with have not
been. So the proliferation of feats, good or bad, hasn't been a problem for
me, since my main DM is willing to look at and rule on any feat, and he's
not afraid to say "no."
> Slight differences in character, which could & should have been
> managed by *roleplaying* are being dealt with by creating (and
> *selling*) a plethora of feats and PrC's.
Again, this is only a problem if you, your co-players, or your DM are
incompetents. Otherwise, you can simply reject feats that you don't think
belong. I know, you might say you're talking about the game as produced by
WOTC, but in that case you really shouldn't count anything other than the
three core books, which specify that everything else is purely optional.
Otherwise, I really like the feat mechanic. It allows a PC's character
choices and development to have real mechanical effects. Yes, PCs who are
not well roleplayed suck, but they suck with or without feats. But a
competent player's PC is better and a truer implementation of the player's
vision with feats than without.
> This ties into...
>
> Too much focus on "Official "Rules". I've commented on this before.
> Just at the time that Hackmaster came out and parodied 1e, 3e has
> become a parody of KODT, with entire game sessions being devoted to
> "who has the latest revision of the errata for a supplement." <shrug>
> As someone who started with three little books, I bloody well expect
> the DM to *make decisions*.
Of course. But I don't entirely understand what you mean by "entire game
sessions being devoted to [not playing]." Are your games like this? If so,
why do you continue to play with these mooks? ;-) Seriously, though, while I
could imagine some incompetents allowing this to happen, it has not happened
to me in any of my 3E games. I don't think it's a necessary result of
anything other than player and/or DM incompetence. And short of just not
having rules at all, I do not see how it is even conceivable for this
"problem" to be otherwise. Very few rules sets are complete and perfect such
that they do not require human interpretation to make them function. Even
the hundred-year-old rules of baseball seem great, but they still had to
resort to umpire discretion to decide what to do the first time somebody hit
a ball that stuck to the roof of a domed stadium. Anyway, with a set of
rules as large and as young as DND, there will necessarily be errors and
contradictions. It cannot be otherwise, and so the rules can only work if
you have a DM who exercises discretion. It's not a fault of the rules that
this is necessary; it's an unalterable characteristic of them that this is
so.
Other things: I think the DMG should have included firmer and more helpful
guidelines for creating feats and PrCs. This would have been difficult, I
know, since it seems apparent that WOTC didn't have a very good idea of how
to make PrCs until about a year after publishing the DMG. But PrCs are, I
think, a good mechanic that is usually poorly implemented in any published
material. Keeping with that thought, I think several core classes that were
included for obvious legacy reasons would have been better implemented as
PrCs, and would have provided better guidance on what PrCs should be.
Cheers,
Scott
--
R. Scott Rogers
srogers at mindspring.com
Visit the General Taylor Inn:
http://srogers.home.mindspring.com/dnd/main.html
Shadow Wolf
news:20021016044435...@mb-fv.aol.com:
>
> As I vaguely recall reading on another post... "It's what Tome and
> Blood *should* have been." It's definitely something to get if you
> like arcane magic users or have players who like them. The tweaking
> for 'regional' feats and so on is pretty minimal and simple if you
> want to use the crunchy bits for a non-FR campaign, as I intend to.
> And, of course, it's incredibly amusing to note how many of the Mary
> Sue npcs have multiclass advancement penalties. Elminster has 1 level
> of fighter and rogue in addition to the class levels you'd expect of
> him, it's hilarious.
Of course, he has those levels because of the novel _Elminster: Making of a
Mage_ in which he goes through fighter, thief, and cleric of Mystra phases
before becoming a wizard.
Basically, they had to hold true to the source material.
--
Shadow Wolf
shado...@softhome.net
Stories at http://www.asstr.org/~Shadow_Wolf
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Robert Baldwin
>Robert Baldwin said:
>
>>OK. Why? What can you get by random generation that you can't get
>>by PB?
>
>The thrill of really good rolls, or the humor of really bad rolls that you just
>have to make the best of anyway. They're both fun, in the right mind set.
<snip>
Depends. For a one-shot? Agreed. But I was thinking in terms of
long-term campaigns (years of real-time), where the "fun" of a 3 Int
gets old, quick.
>Everyone having to be equal in stats goes a little overboard on balance, in my
>opinion.
Not "equal in stats". "Equal in *choice* for stats". I may choose an
18 Str. I don't expect everyone else would, as well.
Though to be fair, I prefer random generation when scores below 10
>AREN'T rerolled, so there's a lot of inherent risk involved as well as
>potential gain.
No fun, IME, for long-term play.
<snip>
>>Agreed. If I were to do it, I'd use something vaguely like the old
>>Spell Law system (RoleMaster) as a basis. The character would have
>>some single, specific talent, and get better/stronger as they grew.
>
>Hmm. Now I've got this urge to check out RoleMaster. Whee, one more game to
>get addicted to....
Possibly. I used to call it Table Master before finding software by
that name.
>>Have you been around here long enogh to remember Stephen Jaros? He
>>had a rant about "proliferation". I diagreed in the 1e days, but I
>>think he was on to something.
>>
>
>'Fraid not. But as they say, just because you're a paranoid, etc etc.
Yup. He may have been a visionary.
>>Well, I'd *like* to be able to get corrections to significant errors.
>>But now we have everything from corrections of trivial typos to
>>revised game design. And it's everywhere. Including by email
>>reposted to this group. <sigh>
>
>Bwahaha. That's hilarious. There's no way I can take errata seriously when
>it's being treated in such a haphazard fashion.
I take it you won't be discussing rules with Seebach then...
>>Yup. It's like network television: they need a certain amount of
>>product, by a certain time, and quality is the variable behind those
>>two absolutes.
>
>Oh, Simpsons, how thou hast fallen....
>::plays a mournful Bach tune via kazoo::
Well, for a brief while there Family Guy seemed about to take it's
place.
>>It would take a heck of a product to make me buy anything FR.
>
>As I vaguely recall reading on another post... "It's what Tome and Blood
>*should* have been." It's definitely something to get if you like arcane magic
>users or have players who like them. The tweaking for 'regional' feats and so
>on is pretty minimal and simple if you want to use the crunchy bits for a
>non-FR campaign, as I intend to.
>And, of course, it's incredibly amusing to note how many of the Mary Sue npcs
>have multiclass advancement penalties. Elminster has 1 level of fighter and
>rogue in addition to the class levels you'd expect of him, it's hilarious.
Yeah. makes me laugh 'til I puke.
>>What I *really* want is a bloody-damned electronic version of the Core
>>Rules. <sigh>
>
>The Open Gaming Whatchamacallit not enough for ya?
No, for two reasons.
First, it doesn't have all the rules (xp's) and, second, it isn't an
*excact* redo of the rules, which is what most of the arguments here
are about. You didn't think I wanted it for *gaminig*, did you? <g>
>::pats sympathetically::
Careful, apparently MSB and I are engaged...
Karkadinn
>Depends. For a one-shot? Agreed. But I was thinking in terms of
>long-term campaigns (years of real-time), where the "fun" of a 3 Int
>gets old, quick.
>
From personal experience, danger tends to weed out the weak and the bored
first. ;)
If someone's getting tired of playing Bud the Chud, all they have to do is
refuse to get raised the next time they get killed.
> Though to be fair, I prefer random generation when scores below 10
>>AREN'T rerolled, so there's a lot of inherent risk involved as well as
>>potential gain.
>
>No fun, IME, for long-term play.
Aww, come on, haven't you ever wanted to play a mage who couldn't lift a
mediumish rock without help? Or a pyromaniac with no sense of
self-preservation? Having weaknesses are often what helps me figure out
whether a given person is a roll player or a role player... perfectly
well-rounded characters can be so dull at times.
>I take it you won't be discussing rules with Seebach then...
I find it more entertaining to watch from the sidelines, munching popcorn. I
just wish y'all would get on a collision course with The Humblest Man on the
Net someday. That would be a debate to see.
>Well, for a brief while there Family Guy seemed about to take it's
>place.
You mispelled Futurama, dahling.
>Careful, apparently MSB and I are engaged...
Now there's a mental image that's gonna keep me up at nights.
Talen
wrote:
>
>And, of course, it's incredibly amusing to note how many of the Mary Sue npcs
>have multiclass advancement penalties. Elminster has 1 level of fighter and
>rogue in addition to the class levels you'd expect of him, it's hilarious.
Eh, the Mary Sue NPCs are hilarious, period. What was funny was the
time I pit Arnemeas The Wild, my higheset-level NPC wizard, against
Elminster.
The entire fight lasted _one round_, and Elminster was a bloody mess
at the end of it, Elminster's Evasion included.
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
CatGonk: Hah
CatGonk: What do you draw with, anyway?
Aoryuu: a pencil.
Aoryuu: You walked into that one. ;p
The Gurus love you
Talen
(Robert Baldwin) wrote:
>
>It would take a heck of a product to make me buy anything FR.
Trust me - the Forgotten Realms Campaign sourcebook is a hell of a
product.
Admittedly, most of it's shit if you're not going to run in FR. The
races are nice enough, as is the clarification on things like ECL, but
not enough to buy the book. The feats, monsters, and prestige classes
aren't enough on their own to warrant it. The regional guff is a nice
idea, and so are background feats, but again, not enough to warrant
your cash.
Really, if they offered a (cheaper) version for sale as a .pdf, I'd
buy it.
Robert Baldwin
>Robert Baldwin said:
>
>>Depends. For a one-shot? Agreed. But I was thinking in terms of
>>long-term campaigns (years of real-time), where the "fun" of a 3 Int
>>gets old, quick.
>>
>
>From personal experience, danger tends to weed out the weak and the bored
>first. ;)
>If someone's getting tired of playing Bud the Chud, all they have to do is
>refuse to get raised the next time they get killed.
And I have no interest, as player or DM, in having a series of doomed
characters as a way of filtering out the characters which would never
have been created in the first place, using PB.
>> Though to be fair, I prefer random generation when scores below 10
>>>AREN'T rerolled, so there's a lot of inherent risk involved as well as
>>>potential gain.
>>
>>No fun, IME, for long-term play.
>
>Aww, come on, haven't you ever wanted to play a mage who couldn't lift a
>mediumish rock without help? Or a pyromaniac with no sense of
>self-preservation? Having weaknesses are often what helps me figure out
>whether a given person is a roll player or a role player... perfectly
>well-rounded characters can be so dull at times.
"Weakness" is a relative term. Crippled characters are not, IME, fun.
>>I take it you won't be discussing rules with Seebach then...
>
>I find it more entertaining to watch from the sidelines, munching popcorn. I
>just wish y'all would get on a collision course with The Humblest Man on the
>Net someday. That would be a debate to see.
A debate with myself?
>>Well, for a brief while there Family Guy seemed about to take it's
>>place.
>
>You mispelled Futurama, dahling.
No, that's a cute show, but it lacks the offensiveness of FG.
>>Careful, apparently MSB and I are engaged...
>
>Now there's a mental image that's gonna keep me up at nights.
Just as long as it doesn't have you typing one handed...
Robert Baldwin
<sro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>From the letters of Robert Baldwin (10/14/02 8:30 PM):
<snip>
>I don't know from your modified 1E system, but I like the idea of having two
>different arcane casters, with one being a more bookish spell preparation
>class and the other being a more action-oriented spontaneous caster. On the
>other hand, I could easily be sold on a single class that was more like
>spontaneous casting.
My mages are a blend of the two. A mage can cast a certain number of
spells per day, based on level and Int. But there is no
pre-selection, and a mage only needs to "study" in the field if he
wants to change the spells ghe has access to.
So, a mage might have 30 1st level spells in his book, have sufficient
level/int to learn ten of them, but only be able to actually cast 3
per day. He could cast any combination of 3 from the ten he has
learned. If he wants to "swap out" spells and have a different set of
ten, that requires rest and study.
No limit on the number of spells in books;
A high number of spells available on short notice; and
a normal numebr of "spell castings" per day.
Note: I forgot to metion that IMC Druids are a subset of mage, not
cleric.
>> Random stat generation as the default. Fortunately, they added
>> point-buy as an option.
>
>I've come to see the value of point-buy, but I just find random generation
>to be fun, as long as you're not too rigid about it (in other words, you
>have to allow for PC "abortions" when you roll six stats that are just too
>low).
I used to be there, but II realized that PB got me similar results
with more consistency of treatment WRT the players.
I suspect this was yet another of the legacy mechanics included just
>because that's how it had been before (like the Paladin class).
The paladin is fine just as it is, thankyouverymuch.
:-)
>> They blew psionics, by making it too similar to a spell casting
>> system. I'm not reall a fan of psionics in a game with magic, but
>> there we are.
>
>I actually like the basic "casting" and "spell category" mechanics of
>Psionics, and I think this might have been a better model for the sorcerer.
Agreed. I see the psionicist as a "super specialist", having a very
narrow set of abilities, but tremendous power within that scope. Put
them in a circumstance where that doesn't work, however...<eg>
>> I'm also not a fan of the feat system, *as*implemented*.
<snip>
>A too-weak feat isn't really a problem, but feats more powerful than those
>in the PHB are.
My objection to the too-weak feat is that it takes up valuable space
in a book I paid for.
And those have proliferated. Which is only a problem if your
>DM is an incompetent. Some are, I know, but those I've played with have not
>been.
So we have to "fix" products being pushed as "official" by the Powers
That Be. As I said: quantity over quality.
So the proliferation of feats, good or bad, hasn't been a problem for
>me, since my main DM is willing to look at and rule on any feat, and he's
>not afraid to say "no."
You seem to be mistaking my complaint about "The Game" as being a
comment about *my* game. Are you saying shoddy material from WOTC is
a fine thing, because competent DM's will ignore it?
It's still a Bad Thing if substantial amounts of WOTC material is so
sub-standard that I either have to fix or discard it.
My complaint was about QC, not that I have anyneed to *use* that
stuff.
>> Too much focus on "Official "Rules". I've commented on this before.
>> Just at the time that Hackmaster came out and parodied 1e, 3e has
>> become a parody of KODT, with entire game sessions being devoted to
>> "who has the latest revision of the errata for a supplement." <shrug>
>> As someone who started with three little books, I bloody well expect
>> the DM to *make decisions*.
>
>Of course. But I don't entirely understand what you mean by "entire game
>sessions being devoted to [not playing]."
<snip>
Knights of the Dinner Table. Read a few issues.
Then read some of the debates *here*.
<snip>
Anyway, with a set of
>rules as large and as young as DND, there will necessarily be errors and
>contradictions.
<snip>
Not my point. I contend that the erro rate is higher than it *should*
be, not that it should be perfect.
<snip>
>Other things: I think the DMG should have included firmer and more helpful
>guidelines for creating feats and PrCs. This would have been difficult, I
>know, since it seems apparent that WOTC didn't have a very good idea of how
>to make PrCs until about a year after publishing the DMG.
<snip>
As I was saying...
:-)
But PrCs are, I
>think, a good mechanic that is usually poorly implemented in any published
>material.
<snip>
Yup, that too...
<g>
Keeping with that thought, I think several core classes that were
>included for obvious legacy reasons would have been better implemented as
>PrCs, and would have provided better guidance on what PrCs should be.
No.
You are Wrong.
And Resistence Is Futile.
:-)
Karkadinn
>
>And I have no interest, as player or DM, in having a series of doomed
>characters as a way of filtering out the characters which would never
>have been created in the first place, using PB.
It's not a matter of dooming anyone. It's just a matter of not pulling any
punches combined with the fact that people who aren't having fun tend to exert
less effort.
>"Weakness" is a relative term. Crippled characters are not, IME, fun.
It may be, but I meant it as a specific. "You are weaker in this area than the
average person". IOW, below 10. You'd have a hard time persuading me that
having one or more stats < 10 = a crippled character unless we're talking about
characters with NO scores above 11, in which case I would certainly allow a
reroll. Heh.
Maybe I'm weird for liking characters who are good, but still have tragic flaws
and things they can't do without help or a lot of work at it. Like... Xena and
cooking. Although I always hated that bit of humor when it came up on the
show.
>>I find it more entertaining to watch from the sidelines, munching popcorn.
>I
>>just wish y'all would get on a collision course with The Humblest Man on the
>>Net someday. That would be a debate to see.
>
>A debate with myself?
I was referring to John Novak III, of rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan. The
man works with nukes for a living and is pretty famous for being a merciless
debater. "The Humblest Man on the Net" is his sig, for sake of irony.
>>>Well, for a brief while there Family Guy seemed about to take it's
>>>place.
>>
>>You mispelled Futurama, dahling.
>
>No, that's a cute show, but it lacks the offensiveness of FG.
It does?
::boggle::
>>>Careful, apparently MSB and I are engaged...
>>
>>Now there's a mental image that's gonna keep me up at nights.
>
>Just as long as it doesn't have you typing one handed...
Don't worry, you and MSB aren't my type. Although, I must confess, your close
link to the unholy IS rather tantalizing....
R. Scott Rogers
<snips follow>
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:15:05 -0400, "R. Scott Rogers"
> <sro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> From the letters of Robert Baldwin (10/14/02 8:30 PM):
> <snip>
>
>> I don't know from your modified 1E system, but I like the idea of having two
>> different arcane casters, with one being a more bookish spell preparation
>> class and the other being a more action-oriented spontaneous caster. On the
>> other hand, I could easily be sold on a single class that was more like
>> spontaneous casting.
>
> My mages are a blend of the two. A mage can cast a certain number of
> spells per day, based on level and Int. But there is no
> pre-selection, and a mage only needs to "study" in the field if he
> wants to change the spells ghe has access to.
>
> So, a mage might have 30 1st level spells in his book, have sufficient
> level/int to learn ten of them, but only be able to actually cast 3
> per day. He could cast any combination of 3 from the ten he has
> learned. If he wants to "swap out" spells and have a different set of
> ten, that requires rest and study.
> No limit on the number of spells in books;
> A high number of spells available on short notice; and
> a normal numebr of "spell castings" per day.
Interesting. This idea grows on me.
> Note: I forgot to metion that IMC Druids are a subset of mage, not
> cleric.
This I don't like, at least in principle. I'm sure you've implemented it
well, but I don't like the idea of the thing. I'm not sure that I'm entirely
satisfied with the 3E druid's place among other casters, but I think it
should remain a divine class. Note that it's pretty much my favorite 3E
class; I'm just not satisfied with its place in the system. I'd like to have
two models for casting with each kind of magic having one class that uses
each kind. Either clerics or druids, IMO, should be much more like the
sorcerer in terms of spontaneous casting.
>>> Random stat generation as the default. Fortunately, they added
>>> point-buy as an option.
>>
>> I've come to see the value of point-buy, but I just find random generation
>> to be fun, as long as you're not too rigid about it (in other words, you
>> have to allow for PC "abortions" when you roll six stats that are just too
>> low).
>
> I used to be there, but II realized that PB got me similar results
> with more consistency of treatment WRT the players.
I have come to this conclusion as well. But I still think rolling stats is
just plain fun. I mean, I know that the roller coaster isn't really gonna
kill me, but that doesn't stop the non-rational part of my brain from being
terrified by roller coasters and thus making roller coasters really fun.
>> I suspect this was yet another of the legacy mechanics included just
>> because that's how it had been before (like the Paladin class).
>
> The paladin is fine just as it is, thankyouverymuch.
> :-)
Fine for a Baldwinist campaign. For everyone else it's a silly legacy class
that should have been a PrC. ;-)
>> A too-weak feat isn't really a problem, but feats more powerful than those
>> in the PHB are.
>
> My objection to the too-weak feat is that it takes up valuable space
> in a book I paid for.
I tend to agree, but there are some weaker feats that, because they
implement mechanical effects to mirror how a PC is roleplayed, are worth
taking if they fit your PC. Too weak feats don't stress the game mechanics;
too strong ones do. A good roleplayer will prefer a fitting, weaker feat to
a less fitting, stronger one, and since I make a point to try to play with
good roleplayers, I don't worry about whether the rules break down for bad
roleplayers. ;-)
>> So the proliferation of feats, good or bad, hasn't been a problem for
>> me, since my main DM is willing to look at and rule on any feat, and he's
>> not afraid to say "no."
>
> You seem to be mistaking my complaint about "The Game" as being a
> comment about *my* game. Are you saying shoddy material from WOTC is
> a fine thing, because competent DM's will ignore it?
>
> It's still a Bad Thing if substantial amounts of WOTC material is so
> sub-standard that I either have to fix or discard it.
>
> My complaint was about QC, not that I have anyneed to *use* that
> stuff.
Ah. I don't actually regard the core rules as being shoddy. I think they're
quite solid, and the amount of errata for them is in line with or less than
I've seen for other, similar products. Check out Microsoft.com some time and
look at the 140 or more current patches for any product; since each solves
several problems, that's upwards of 450 errata for a product that people
rely on to do business. DND's rules system has fewer errata and, given that
it's used only for fun by a company with fewer resources to devote to QC,
one should expect it to have more. If you read any major daily metropolitan
newspaper closely you'd find errors in the proportion you find in the core
rulebooks. Same with any nonfiction book. There is a practical minimum of
error that cannot be avoided in any published work, and in my experience 3E
is pretty darn close to minimum. So when you say, "too many errors in the
PHB," in my experience to demand very much better is the equivalent of
demanding perfection.
The later WOTC books, which are all explicitly described as "optional," are
much less good, and in general hardly better than other publishers' work.
This results from necessarily inadequate playtesting (see below).
> <snip>
>> Other things: I think the DMG should have included firmer and more helpful
>> guidelines for creating feats and PrCs. This would have been difficult, I
>> know, since it seems apparent that WOTC didn't have a very good idea of how
>> to make PrCs until about a year after publishing the DMG.
> <snip>
>
> As I was saying...
> :-)
But even my judgment that so many first-year PrCs are lacking comes only
from later experience. So not only do you demand superhuman perfection from
WOTC writers, you demand omniscient foreknowledge. You ask too much. ;-)
>> But PrCs are, I
>> think, a good mechanic that is usually poorly implemented in any published
>> material.
> <snip>
>
> Yup, that too...
> <g>
Again, most products other than the core rules are necessarily inadequately
playtested. The hobby just isn't big enough, and it doesn't generate enough
money, for most publishers to do thorough playtesting on any given product.
If you want 100 percent workable rules with no danger of "breaking," then
just don't allow any extra stuff other than the core rules. But if you do
want extra stuff, you're gonna end up doing some playtesting and you run the
risk of finding the bugs in published stuff. And so it is necessary for the
DM and players to use their discretion and to think things through with all
rules. This seems to me an inherent characteristic of the exercise that can
be cured only by taking up another hobby, like scale-model trains or
something. Then again, my grandad ran model trains (his father was a
railroad exec at the turn of the 20th century) and once proudly brought me
down to the train room in his basement to show me his newest car. It was a
flatbed log-carrier that was supposed to dump its load of little wooden
dowels into a truck when it pulled up to a certain bit of track. We were
down there for an hour and the darned thing never worked. Grandpa worked on
it for hours over the next few weeks, and could never get it going. So even
that isn't an error-free hobby. ;-)
Nockermensch
> Robert Baldwin said:
>
> >
> >And I have no interest, as player or DM, in having a series of doomed
> >characters as a way of filtering out the characters which would never
> >have been created in the first place, using PB.
>
> It's not a matter of dooming anyone. It's just a matter of not pulling any
> punches combined with the fact that people who aren't having fun tend to exert
> less effort.
>
> >"Weakness" is a relative term. Crippled characters are not, IME, fun.
>
> It may be, but I meant it as a specific. "You are weaker in this area than the
> average person". IOW, below 10. You'd have a hard time persuading me that
> having one or more stats < 10 = a crippled character unless we're talking about
> characters with NO scores above 11, in which case I would certainly allow a
> reroll. Heh.
> Maybe I'm weird for liking characters who are good, but still have tragic flaws
> and things they can't do without help or a lot of work at it. Like... Xena and
> cooking. Although I always hated that bit of humor when it came up on the
> show.
Are you sure this is a good example of tragic flaw?
@ @ Nockermensch, make Shena clumsy, or sick or dumb, and you have a
D&D character with a stat below 10. You tell if this' fun to play over
a long time.
Karkadinn
>Are you sure this is a good example of tragic flaw?
Well, maybe an innate penalty to a skill.
::chuckle::
>@ @ Nockermensch, make Shena clumsy, or sick or dumb, and you have a
>D&D character with a stat below 10. You tell if this' fun to play over
>a long time.
Raistlin. Low Charisma, by 2nd edition definition of Charisma.
Robert Baldwin
>Robert Baldwin said:
>
>>
>>And I have no interest, as player or DM, in having a series of doomed
>>characters as a way of filtering out the characters which would never
>>have been created in the first place, using PB.
>
>It's not a matter of dooming anyone. It's just a matter of not pulling any
>punches combined with the fact that people who aren't having fun tend to exert
>less effort.
No character with a 3 in any stat would live long enough to do
anything but screw around with my plots. Then we're back to "inro new
character" time.
>>"Weakness" is a relative term. Crippled characters are not, IME, fun.
>
>It may be, but I meant it as a specific. "You are weaker in this area than the
>average person". IOW, below 10. You'd have a hard time persuading me that
>having one or more stats < 10 = a crippled character unless we're talking about
>characters with NO scores above 11, in which case I would certainly allow a
>reroll. Heh.
Campaign specific. IMC, a Character witth any stat below 10 would be
oin the "severely restricted" category. My campaigns are geared
towards a stat average of 12-15.
<snip>
>>>I find it more entertaining to watch from the sidelines, munching popcorn.
>>I
>>>just wish y'all would get on a collision course with The Humblest Man on the
>>>Net someday. That would be a debate to see.
>>
>>A debate with myself?
>
>I was referring to John Novak III, of rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan. The
>man works with nukes for a living and is pretty famous for being a merciless
>debater. "The Humblest Man on the Net" is his sig, for sake of irony.
Ah. Has he met Terry?
>>>>Well, for a brief while there Family Guy seemed about to take it's
>>>>place.
>>>
>>>You mispelled Futurama, dahling.
>>
>>No, that's a cute show, but it lacks the offensiveness of FG.
>
>It does?
>::boggle::
Definitely. FG had rairly direct scenes of Bondage/Discipline and
beastiality, but with humor. No comparison.
>>>>Careful, apparently MSB and I are engaged...
>>>
>>>Now there's a mental image that's gonna keep me up at nights.
>>
>>Just as long as it doesn't have you typing one handed...
>
>Don't worry, you and MSB aren't my type. Although, I must confess, your close
>link to the unholy IS rather tantalizing....
That's the nice thinbg about being Neutral: I can go both ways.
<g>
Karkadinn
>No character with a 3 in any stat would live long enough to do
>anything but screw around with my plots. Then we're back to "inro new
>character" time.
Hahah. If only I lived near you, I'd be severely tempted to take you up on
that challenge. I've already got a kobold bard with only 6 Str. You'd be
surprised how much weight you can save by using weapons and armor one size
smaller than the usual....
>
>Ah. Has he met Terry?
Terry?
::faintly suspicious stare::
>
>Definitely. FG had rairly direct scenes of Bondage/Discipline and
>beastiality, but with humor. No comparison.
And this is what makes FG more like the Simpsons? Boggle.
(And it's bestiality, lovie. ;))
>That's the nice thinbg about being Neutral: I can go both ways.
><g>
You kinky boy. Stealin' all mah womanfolk AND the menfolk! For shame. Just
stay away from Robert Carlyle, ya here?
::glare::
Robert Baldwin
>Robert Baldwin said:
>
>>No character with a 3 in any stat would live long enough to do
>>anything but screw around with my plots. Then we're back to "inro new
>>character" time.
>
>Hahah. If only I lived near you, I'd be severely tempted to take you up on
>that challenge. I've already got a kobold bard with only 6 Str. You'd be
>surprised how much weight you can save by using weapons and armor one size
>smaller than the usual....
Sorry, the knly way he could survive is if you somehow managed to get
the rest of the party to cover for you, n a constant basis. And that
would only get you to "unlikely" as a survivor candidate.
>>
>>Ah. Has he met Terry?
>
>Terry?
>::faintly suspicious stare::
Terry Austin.
>>
>>Definitely. FG had rairly direct scenes of Bondage/Discipline and
>>beastiality, but with humor. No comparison.
>
>And this is what makes FG more like the Simpsons? Boggle.
>(And it's bestiality, lovie. ;))
"More like", in so far as sociual outrage goes. The Simpsons actually
pushed an envelope when it began. Futurama, while funny, is
definitely not anything fundamentally new.
>>That's the nice thinbg about being Neutral: I can go both ways.
>><g>
>
>You kinky boy. Stealin' all mah womanfolk AND the menfolk! For shame. Just
>stay away from Robert Carlyle, ya here?
>::glare::
Well, if things don't work out with Michael, I may just go after that
Cotter kid. I'll teach him to hit those high notes.
Karkadinn
>>Hahah. If only I lived near you, I'd be severely tempted to take you up on
>>that challenge. I've already got a kobold bard with only 6 Str. You'd be
>>surprised how much weight you can save by using weapons and armor one size
>>smaller than the usual....
>
>Sorry, the knly way he could survive is if you somehow managed to get
>the rest of the party to cover for you, n a constant basis. And that
>would only get you to "unlikely" as a survivor candidate.
Why? Do you make your party get into situations where long range or spell
combat is not an option? Do you make them do many Climb checks per day, or
give them lots of heavy treasure? I mean, a pure bard ain't supposed to be on
the front lines anyway, and to anyone not on the front lines, Strength is not a
stat you need to be great at, or even mediocre at. There's spells, there's
missile weapons, there's scrolls, there's wands, there's alchemical weapons (my
personal favorite), all of which allow a physically weak character to still be
effective in combat. And outside of combat, Strength is almost irrelevant
unless your campaign deliberately goes out of its way to increase the
non-combat role of the stat.
>>>
>>>Ah. Has he met Terry?
>>
>>Terry?
>>::faintly suspicious stare::
>
>Terry Austin.
I haven't a clue, alas.
>>>Definitely. FG had rairly direct scenes of Bondage/Discipline and
>>>beastiality, but with humor. No comparison.
>>
>>And this is what makes FG more like the Simpsons? Boggle.
>>(And it's bestiality, lovie. ;))
>
>"More like", in so far as sociual outrage goes. The Simpsons actually
>pushed an envelope when it began. Futurama, while funny, is
>definitely not anything fundamentally new.
Eh, how many science fiction comedies do you see these days? The genre alone
was risk enough.
And if you have to push the envelope of outrage further for every comedic show
after the last one, you end up with crap. Take a look at the Friday the 13th
series. Jason in Space? Yeah, that's what happens when every sequel feels the
need to outdo its predecessor. Because no matter how much you push, you
eventually hit a point where it just gets stupid. Updating a show to reflect
current reality is good, but trying to shock is not the point. Shock value
certainly wasn't the point of the Simpsons in its early-to-middle years, though
I'll grant you its relied more on it in the latter seasons, which tells you
something about the creativity of the current writers.
Robert Baldwin
>Robert Baldwin said:
<snip>
>>Sorry, the knly way he could survive is if you somehow managed to get
>>the rest of the party to cover for you, n a constant basis. And that
>>would only get you to "unlikely" as a survivor candidate.
>
>Why? Do you make your party get into situations where long range or spell
>combat is not an option?
Rephrased: do I allow a party to always limit combat to (their
prefered stule of) long range or spell use?
I do not. A character might be able to avoid melee combat *most* of
the time, but not all of the time, particularly at low levels where
the magic options are fewer.
>Do you make them do many Climb checks per day,
No more than appropriate.
or
>give them lots of heavy treasure?
Someone has to carry all that loot and equipment. Go ahead, turn your
party's melee fighter into a beast of burden.
I mean, a pure bard ain't supposed to be on
>the front lines anyway, and to anyone not on the front lines, Strength is not a
>stat you need to be great at, or even mediocre at.
A party of adventurers is best compared to a Special Forces unit.
Being Schartzeneggar or Chuck Norris is not necessary, but being a
wimp puts you *and* your team at risk.
There's spells, there's
>missile weapons, there's scrolls, there's wands, there's alchemical weapons (my
>personal favorite), all of which allow a physically weak character to still be
>effective in combat.
Sure. And if you were *starting* a character at mid-high levels, with
all those resources available, you just might pull it off. But at 1st
level, you have "Liability" written all over you.
And outside of combat, Strength is almost irrelevant
>unless your campaign deliberately goes out of its way to increase the
>non-combat role of the stat.
No, I'm just focusing on the combat situations and reasonable
expectations for encumberance.
>>>>
>>>>Ah. Has he met Terry?
>>>
>>>Terry?
>>>::faintly suspicious stare::
>>
>>Terry Austin.
>
>I haven't a clue, alas.
Do a google serach. <g>
<snip>
>>"More like", in so far as sociual outrage goes. The Simpsons actually
>>pushed an envelope when it began. Futurama, while funny, is
>>definitely not anything fundamentally new.
>
>Eh, how many science fiction comedies do you see these days?
Andromeda? <g>
The genre alone
>was risk enough.
>And if you have to push the envelope of outrage further for every comedic show
>after the last one, you end up with crap. Take a look at the Friday the 13th
>series. Jason in Space? Yeah, that's what happens when every sequel feels the
>need to outdo its predecessor. Because no matter how much you push, you
>eventually hit a point where it just gets stupid.
Feh.
All commercial art is impacted by what went before. Sometimes for the
better, sometimes not. FG was funny *and* socially challenging.
Updating a show to reflect
>current reality is good, but trying to shock is not the point. Shock value
>certainly wasn't the point of the Simpsons in its early-to-middle years, though
>I'll grant you its relied more on it in the latter seasons, which tells you
>something about the creativity of the current writers.
Yeah, Conan O'Brien screwed us when he went for his own show. :-)
Karkadinn
>Rephrased: do I allow a party to always limit combat to (their
>prefered stule of) long range or spell use?
>
>I do not. A character might be able to avoid melee combat *most* of
>the time, but not all of the time, particularly at low levels where
>the magic options are fewer.
Okay, so those few times when he CAN'T avoid melee combat, he's certain to kick
the bucket? He may not be useful when such situations come up, but then, a
mage isn't useful in a dead magic zone, nor is a melee combatant useful in an
aerial battle (unless he has a means of flying). Everyone has situations where
they're not as useful as they normally are. Low stats just create a few more
of those situations. Unless you're going for maximum efficiency amongst the
group above all else I don't see how it's a killer problem.
>or
>>give them lots of heavy treasure?
>
>Someone has to carry all that loot and equipment. Go ahead, turn your
>party's melee fighter into a beast of burden.
Hey, that's what the barbarian is THERE for. The perfect mule. ;) Until
someone can afford a Haversack or bag of holding, anyway.
>A party of adventurers is best compared to a Special Forces unit.
>Being Schartzeneggar or Chuck Norris is not necessary, but being a
>wimp puts you *and* your team at risk.
>
Not a wimp. Just not competent at everything. With low stats, you have a few
more situations you're not good at, but ideally most of the situations you're
in will be ones you can apply your strengths to. How many times do you need
all your characters involved in diplomacy or bluffing? Not often. You just
send out the guy with the best Char to do the talkin'. Part of being a highly
trained team of adventurers is knowing when to delegate tasks. And adventurers
aren't quite like Special Forces... adventurers have a much broader scope,
which is why intelligent delegation is necessary. Because no one can be great
at everything.
>Sure. And if you were *starting* a character at mid-high levels, with
>all those resources available, you just might pull it off. But at 1st
>level, you have "Liability" written all over you.
>
Everyone is weak at first level, to various degrees. But you don't stay first
level forever, or even long. Did you have 1st level pc sorcerers and wizards
trotting into melee combat? All it takes is one lucky sword blow and they're
out.
>>Eh, how many science fiction comedies do you see these days?
>
>Andromeda? <g>
I miss Hercules. :(
>Feh.
Moo.
Robert Baldwin
>Robert Baldwin said:
>
>>Rephrased: do I allow a party to always limit combat to (their
>>prefered stule of) long range or spell use?
>>
>>I do not. A character might be able to avoid melee combat *most* of
>>the time, but not all of the time, particularly at low levels where
>>the magic options are fewer.
>
>Okay, so those few times when he CAN'T avoid melee combat, he's certain to kick
>the bucket?
First, "few" understates the frequency of occurence. "Many" might be
debatable, but "few" is out.
As for "certain", no, not in any single instance. But the odds of
surviving *all* of the enscounters is low ineed.
He may not be useful when such situations come up, but then, a
>mage isn't useful in a dead magic zone,
And IMC that mag should have some combat abilities. If he has an STR
of 6, he may well be toast.
nor is a melee combatant useful in an
>aerial battle (unless he has a means of flying). Everyone has situations where
>they're not as useful as they normally are.
That is not a substantiation of sub-standrad scores.
> Low stats just create a few more
>of those situations.
Low stats in a high-threat world create dead characters.
<snip>
>>Someone has to carry all that loot and equipment. Go ahead, turn your
>>party's melee fighter into a beast of burden.
>
>Hey, that's what the barbarian is THERE for. The perfect mule. ;) Until
>someone can afford a Haversack or bag of holding, anyway.
<shrug> Loot dropped is loot lost.
>>A party of adventurers is best compared to a Special Forces unit.
>>Being Schartzeneggar or Chuck Norris is not necessary, but being a
>>wimp puts you *and* your team at risk.
>>
>
>Not a wimp. Just not competent at everything.
No.
Competence is a metter of skills. A character who does *not* have the
Healing skill is not crippled. A character with a 6Wis *is* crippled.
With low stats, you have a few
>more situations you're not good at, but ideally most of the situations you're
>in will be ones you can apply your strengths to. How many times do you need
>all your characters involved in diplomacy or bluffing? Not often.
Combat. Survival thereof. This *does* require that everyone be able
to pull their own weight.
You just
>send out the guy with the best Char to do the talkin'. Part of being a highly
>trained team of adventurers is knowing when to delegate tasks. And adventurers
>aren't quite like Special Forces... adventurers have a much broader scope,
>which is why intelligent delegation is necessary. Because no one can be great
>at everything.
You *can*, however, put together a team of characters who are *each*
above average inalmost all respects. That enhances the odds of team
success, and individual survival.
>>Sure. And if you were *starting* a character at mid-high levels, with
>>all those resources available, you just might pull it off. But at 1st
>>level, you have "Liability" written all over you.
>>
>
>Everyone is weak at first level, to various degrees.
The goal being to keep that degree above "suicidal".
But you don't stay first
>level forever, or even long. Did you have 1st level pc sorcerers and wizards
>trotting into melee combat? All it takes is one lucky sword blow and they're
>out.
A good reason for them to have above average Dex, Con, Str, etc.
>>>Eh, how many science fiction comedies do you see these days?
>>
>>Andromeda? <g>
>
>I miss Hercules. :(
>
>>Feh.
>
>Moo.
Squeak.
Karkadinn
>First, "few" understates the frequency of occurence. "Many" might be
>debatable, but "few" is out.
>
>As for "certain", no, not in any single instance. But the odds of
>surviving *all* of the enscounters is low ineed.
>
I think it's a matter of GM style, then, rather than an intrinsic part of the
system. I don't generally force players into situations they're not designed
for... they can choose to do so on their own, either for extra rewards or
roleplaying reasons or just for the sheer suicidal fun of it, but I don't make
'em. You will never see me GMing a game where a singleclassed elvish sorcerer
has no choice but to melee a gnoll with his dagger. :) Perhaps I'm being too
easy on everyone, by your views, but we're having fun and people are dying
every once in a while, and those are the important things. ;)
That said, although I do (obviously) prefer my way, I don't think your way of
running things is all that bad, and I could adjust to it if it were necessary.
But until that day, I shall relish my fellow "crippled" comrades in arms.
::cuddles his kobold plushie::
Robert Baldwin
>Robert Baldwin said:
>
>>First, "few" understates the frequency of occurence. "Many" might be
>>debatable, but "few" is out.
>>
>>As for "certain", no, not in any single instance. But the odds of
>>surviving *all* of the enscounters is low ineed.
>>
>
>I think it's a matter of GM style, then, rather than an intrinsic part of the
>system.
Absolutely.
I don't generally force players into situations they're not designed
>for... they can choose to do so on their own, either for extra rewards or
>roleplaying reasons or just for the sheer suicidal fun of it, but I don't make
>'em.
I tell my players what my world is like, before they create a
character. That's why creating a character with a 6 Str would be
downright silly.
You will never see me GMing a game where a singleclassed elvish
sorcerer
>has no choice but to melee a gnoll with his dagger. :)
Then don't go gnoll hunting. <eg>
Perhaps I'm being too
>easy on everyone, by your views, but we're having fun and people are dying
>every once in a while, and those are the important things. ;)
Indeed. I never said everyone should play as I do (well, not in this
thread). In a game heavy on intigue and social interaction, with
little combat, a 6 Str character would not be such a problem.
But, now imagine Indiana Jones with a 6 Str. It isn't going to work.
>That said, although I do (obviously) prefer my way, I don't think your way of
>running things is all that bad, and I could adjust to it if it were necessary.
>But until that day, I shall relish my fellow "crippled" comrades in arms.
>::cuddles his kobold plushie::
<Thwack!>
(Sound of arrow, fired by Evil Elvish Archer w/20 Dex plugging that
kobold plushie from 200 yards.)
Robert Baldwin
<sro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>From the letters of Robert Baldwin (10/17/02 10:29 PM):
<snips follow>
>> My mages are a blend of the two. A mage can cast a certain number of
>> spells per day, based on level and Int. But there is no
>> pre-selection, and a mage only needs to "study" in the field if he
>> wants to change the spells ghe has access to.
<snip>
>Interesting. This idea grows on me.
If you want more details, let me know. I'll be off-line for a few
days, but I should be back sometime next week.
>> Note: I forgot to metion that IMC Druids are a subset of mage, not
>> cleric.
>
>This I don't like, at least in principle. I'm sure you've implemented it
>well, but I don't like the idea of the thing. I'm not sure that I'm entirely
>satisfied with the 3E druid's place among other casters, but I think it
>should remain a divine class. Note that it's pretty much my favorite 3E
>class; I'm just not satisfied with its place in the system. I'd like to have
>two models for casting with each kind of magic having one class that uses
>each kind. Either clerics or druids, IMO, should be much more like the
>sorcerer in terms of spontaneous casting.
Well, both for mechanics and social reasons, I wanted a "hedge
wizard", more in touch with the day-to-day lives of people in a small
community than the classic Fireball-slinging wizard.
And, in the mechanics behind magic (IMC), there is an absolute line:
clerical types (incl. paladins) channel power given by a God, and
wizards direct power by thestrength of their own abilities.
Point being: I have no "generic" clerics. No "Cleric of Good". And I
always say the "pray to nature" bit as being in the same vein. So,
rather than have clerics and druids both worship the same deities, I
split druids off.
Also, most of my Major Plot Conflicts revolve around religion and Good
vs Evil. A Neutral druid, however, with no alegience to any deity,
can be accepted by almost anyone, anywhere. So, by *not* having them
worship a deity, I make them somewhat more like "real" druids. They
are the village doctor; the local historuian; neutral (no cap) arbiter
of local disputes, etc.
>>>> Random stat generation as the default. Fortunately, they added
>>>> point-buy as an option.
>>>
>>> I've come to see the value of point-buy, but I just find random generation
>>> to be fun, as long as you're not too rigid about it (in other words, you
>>> have to allow for PC "abortions" when you roll six stats that are just too
>>> low).
>>
>> I used to be there, but II realized that PB got me similar results
>> with more consistency of treatment WRT the players.
>
>I have come to this conclusion as well. But I still think rolling stats is
>just plain fun. I mean, I know that the roller coaster isn't really gonna
>kill me, but that doesn't stop the non-rational part of my brain from being
>terrified by roller coasters and thus making roller coasters really fun.
Understood. We've spent to many years *playing* with dice; it's part
if the fun.
>>> I suspect this was yet another of the legacy mechanics included just
>>> because that's how it had been before (like the Paladin class).
>>
>> The paladin is fine just as it is, thankyouverymuch.
>> :-)
>
>Fine for a Baldwinist campaign. For everyone else it's a silly legacy class
>that should have been a PrC. ;-)
So, a few misguided souls still need to be shown The Way.
:-)
>>> A too-weak feat isn't really a problem, but feats more powerful than those
>>> in the PHB are.
>>
>> My objection to the too-weak feat is that it takes up valuable space
>> in a book I paid for.
>
>I tend to agree, but there are some weaker feats that, because they
>implement mechanical effects to mirror how a PC is roleplayed, are worth
>taking if they fit your PC. Too weak feats don't stress the game mechanics;
>too strong ones do. A good roleplayer will prefer a fitting, weaker feat to
>a less fitting, stronger one, and since I make a point to try to play with
>good roleplayers, I don't worry about whether the rules break down for bad
>roleplayers. ;-)
No real argument. Part of my position may be similar to the dice
deal: I've spent so much time making my characters fit my RP view of
them that I don't really like and almost endless list of Feats being
used to "flesh out" the character.
<snip>
>Ah. I don't actually regard the core rules as being shoddy.
For the Cr's, I agree. "Shoddy" is too strong, it only applies to
some of the splat books. But I still think to many things were left
undone when the CR's went to print.
I think they're
>quite solid, and the amount of errata for them is in line with or less than
>I've seen for other, similar products. Check out Microsoft.com some time and
>look at the 140 or more current patches for any product;
Not at all comparable. D&D is far less complex, and does not need to
be made adaptable to other manufacturer's stuff.
My real complaint WRT the CR's is not the "fixes", it's th e"errata"
which are really just *changes* in the rules. But I'd still rate that
as a peeve.
<snip>
>The later WOTC books, which are all explicitly described as "optional," are
>much less good, and in general hardly better than other publishers' work.
>This results from necessarily inadequate playtesting (see below).
"Necessarily"?
>> <snip>
>>> Other things: I think the DMG should have included firmer and more helpful
>>> guidelines for creating feats and PrCs. This would have been difficult, I
>>> know, since it seems apparent that WOTC didn't have a very good idea of how
>>> to make PrCs until about a year after publishing the DMG.
>> <snip>
>>
>> As I was saying...
>> :-)
>
>But even my judgment that so many first-year PrCs are lacking comes only
>from later experience. So not only do you demand superhuman perfection from
>WOTC writers, you demand omniscient foreknowledge. You ask too much. ;-)
I'm a Saint. What would you expect?
But no, I am only saying that all those problems were inherent in the
PrC system. I predicted it, and here it is. The kits of 3e.
>Again, most products other than the core rules are necessarily inadequately
>playtested. The hobby just isn't big enough, and it doesn't generate enough
>money, for most publishers to do thorough playtesting on any given product.
>If you want 100 percent workable rules with no danger of "breaking," then
>just don't allow any extra stuff other than the core rules.
<snip>
No, I want a return to 1e, which was perfect and *never* had
imbalanced material available from TSR. <g>
R. Scott Rogers
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:09:01 -0400, "R. Scott Rogers"
> <sro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> From the letters of Robert Baldwin (10/17/02 10:29 PM):
> <snips follow>
>>> My mages are a blend of the two. A mage can cast a certain number of
>>> spells per day, based on level and Int. But there is no
>>> pre-selection, and a mage only needs to "study" in the field if he
>>> wants to change the spells ghe has access to.
> <snip>
>> Interesting. This idea grows on me.
>
> If you want more details, let me know. I'll be off-line for a few
> days, but I should be back sometime next week.
You keep promising this, but yet you never seem to leave. Such a tease!
Seriously though, I would appreciate any more details you could offer on
your homebrew wizard class. It sounds very interesting. I'll even wait 20
years before I distribute it to anyone else without your permission. ;-)
Michael Schneider
> >Perhaps I'm being too
> >easy on everyone, by your views, but we're having fun and people are dying
> >every once in a while, and those are the important things. ;)
>
> Indeed. I never said everyone should play as I do (well, not in this
> thread). In a game heavy on intigue and social interaction, with
> little combat, a 6 Str character would not be such a problem.
>
> But, now imagine Indiana Jones with a 6 Str. It isn't going to work.
Stats are irrelevant; what matters is whether you can pull your weight.
A 6 STR 6, 16 DEX halfling bard at 8th level with Point-Blank, Precise,
and EWP firing repeating crossbows loaded with Keen & Greater Magic Weapon
dwoemered bolts dishes out (assume Haste or boots of speed for 3 attacks)
3d8+15 [17-20crit] within 30' per round (not counting enhancements on the
repeater), off an adjusted ranged attack bonus of +15. Heavy encumberance?
Not on a dog.
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/files/links.htm
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
"You know, one day honest citizens will stand up to you crooked cops."
"They are? Oh no! Have they set a date?" -- Cowboy Bebop
Robert Baldwin
(Michael Schneider) wrote:
>In article <3db6dff1...@news.rio.com>, rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com wrote:
>
>> >Perhaps I'm being too
>> >easy on everyone, by your views, but we're having fun and people are dying
>> >every once in a while, and those are the important things. ;)
>>
>> Indeed. I never said everyone should play as I do (well, not in this
>> thread). In a game heavy on intigue and social interaction, with
>> little combat, a 6 Str character would not be such a problem.
>>
>> But, now imagine Indiana Jones with a 6 Str. It isn't going to work.
>
>
> Stats are irrelevant; what matters is whether you can pull your weight.
Feh.
>A 6 STR 6, 16 DEX halfling bard at 8th level with
<snip>
Said bard would not have survived to *2nd* level IMC. Which is the
point you conveniently choose to ignore.
Robert Baldwin
<sro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>From the letters of Robert Baldwin (10/23/02 4:30 PM):
<snip>
>> If you want more details, let me know. I'll be off-line for a few
>> days, but I should be back sometime next week.
>
>You keep promising this, but yet you never seem to leave. Such a tease!
I'm baaacccck! Miss me? (Ssays a lot about your aim...).
<g>
>Seriously though, I would appreciate any more details you could offer on
>your homebrew wizard class. It sounds very interesting. I'll even wait 20
>years before I distribute it to anyone else without your permission. ;-)
OK, comming up.
Sadly, I've never put much of my game rules/stuff into electronic
format. Margin notes and post-its in my books is pretty much how I
DM.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> A 6 STR 6, 16 DEX halfling bard at 8th level ....
Robert Baldwin <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote:
> Said bard would not have survived to *2nd* level IMC. Which is the
> point you conveniently choose to ignore.
How does low Strength make survival more difficult, anyway? Last time I
checked, it doesn't affect your hit points, and it doesn't change the
amount of damage your spells do. Nor does it affect the amount of damage
a crossbow deals.
In particular, I'm having a hard time seeing how low Strength is such a
huge problem that it would kill off a character within the first 2 or 3
game sessions. Did you confuse Strength and Constitution, perhaps?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.concentric.net/~Bradds
ka...@ecn.ab.ca
: > mike1KI...@SPAMSusfamily.net (Michael Schneider) wrote:
: >> A 6 STR 6, 16 DEX halfling bard at 8th level ....
: Robert Baldwin <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote:
: > Said bard would not have survived to *2nd* level IMC. Which is the
: > point you conveniently choose to ignore.
: How does low Strength make survival more difficult, anyway? Last time I
: checked, it doesn't affect your hit points, and it doesn't change the
: amount of damage your spells do. Nor does it affect the amount of damage
: a crossbow deals.
It's got an indirect effect on your AC, in that it fully prohibits you
from wearing certain armours.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> How does low Strength make survival more difficult, anyway? Last time
>> I checked, it doesn't affect your hit points, and it doesn't change
>> the amount of damage your spells do. Nor does it affect the amount of
>> damage a crossbow deals.
ka...@ecn.ab.ca () <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> It's got an indirect effect on your AC, in that it fully prohibits you
> from wearing certain armours.
That doesn't sound too important for a 1st-level halfling bard. His
race, class, and lack of wealth are also going to keep him from wearing
the heavy armors.
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>> mike1KI...@SPAMSusfamily.net (Michael Schneider) wrote:
>>> A 6 STR 6, 16 DEX halfling bard at 8th level ....
>
>Robert Baldwin <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote:
>> Said bard would not have survived to *2nd* level IMC. Which is the
>> point you conveniently choose to ignore.
>
>How does low Strength make survival more difficult, anyway? Last time I
>checked, it doesn't affect your hit points, and it doesn't change the
>amount of damage your spells do. Nor does it affect the amount of damage
>a crossbow deals.
And IMC the odds of not being forced into melee combat at least a few
times, while at low level, are staggeringly low.
Do not, I rarely have parties of more than 6-8 characters, NPCs
included.
Note the prior discussion as to carrying capacities.
>In particular, I'm having a hard time seeing how low Strength is such a
>huge problem that it would kill off a character within the first 2 or 3
>game sessions. Did you confuse Strength and Constitution, perhaps?
No. Although to be precise, I should have said *past* 2nd level, not
*to* 2nd level. Two or three sessions? Maybe. Five or six? Not
likely.
And remember: My campaign is set in a post apocalyptic world, heavy
in magic and monsters, with reliable support deliberately made
uncommon.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> How does low Strength make survival more difficult, anyway? Last time I
>> checked, it doesn't affect your hit points, and it doesn't change the
>> amount of damage your spells do. Nor does it affect the amount of damage
>> a crossbow deals.
Robert Baldwin <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote:
> And IMC the odds of not being forced into melee combat at least a few
> times, while at low level, are staggeringly low.
OK. That implies that the character wouldn't be very useful sometimes.
Still, the low Strength doesn't make him more fragile. He still has the
same hit points. He may not be able to wear heavy armor, but (1)
low-level characters can't afford heavy armor, and (2) we were talking
about a bard, who wouldn't wear it anyway.
Seriously, if a Str 6 bard won't survive past 2nd level, how could a
wizard ever possibly survive? Methinks you overstated your case.
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
<snip>
>Robert Baldwin <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote:
>> And IMC the odds of not being forced into melee combat at least a few
>> times, while at low level, are staggeringly low.
>
>OK. That implies that the character wouldn't be very useful sometimes.
>Still, the low Strength doesn't make him more fragile.
But he can't deal out anything like the damage of a "normal" orc
(normal for my campaign).
He still has the
>same hit points. He may not be able to wear heavy armor, but (1)
>low-level characters can't afford heavy armor,
1st level characters typically have better than "book" resources IMC.
Not something I expect you to know, but that's part of the reasoning
here.
and (2) we were talking
>about a bard, who wouldn't wear it anyway.
Probably not. Which is another reason above average Str and Con would
help. 6 Str and avg Con (lets say 11) make him much less survivable
than if he had 15's in each, as is likely the case with that orc (or
pair of orcs) beating on his poor armor. Unless he can get
assistance, he simply can't deal out enough damage to make it a
lasting fight.
>Seriously, if a Str 6 bard won't survive past 2nd level, how could a
>wizard ever possibly survive? Methinks you overstated your case.
Go back and check my original post. I assume a stat average of 15.
Even a wizard can be effective in combat, with a staff and decent
stats. At a minimum, he can deal out enough damage to threaten an
opponent.