| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Arivia |
Posted - 25 Apr 2004 : 05:25:32
What rules or areas of the D&D game are the most confusing to you, and why?
And if one area is really confusing, you might be able to get help from other scribes who have figured those areas out.
For me, I need to take another look at the HD vs. ECL issue with regards to table 3-2 in the PHB, especially in the wake of what 3.5 did to such. I also get a headache putting together prices for new magic items sometimes. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 28 Apr 2004 : 11:40:15
And they are interesting thoughts indeed  . Although, looking over some of them, I notice that I skipped a few of SKR opinions. I'll go back and check, and then throw my comments into the ring afterwards.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 28 Apr 2004 : 11:29:24
Unfortunately, an inattention to politics means that you get the leaders you deserve. 
As to the topic, or at least the topic at hand, I've some thoughts on Mr. Reynold's house rules.
Slings: He's quite right there. There's a little bonus, but the proportions are hardly one-to-one. Perhaps a maximum of +1. Or one-half the Str bonus. Or, as he did it, none at all. I think I prefer tha last one. That way a gnome is just as good at hurting that zombie with his sling as his half-orc compainion would be. 
Elven Weapon Familiarity: Excellent. And I don't think it's too far off of the definition of the racial feature. I've always thought of Weapon Familiarity as making a weapon proportionally simpler. If you can make an exotic weapon a martial, why not a martial into a simple?
Gnome favored class: I'll buy that.
Half-orcs: I'm hesitating on this one. Perhaps uping the penalty on Diplomacy to -2. And I'd take away the bonus to Intimidate, which it doesn't look like he's done.
Bard spells: Every level? Well, I suppose it's not unbalancing . . . .
Inspire confidence: I hadn't noticed that, and I agree with him.
Cleric proficiencies: I'm not sure about shields, but it would help with the balancing issue he's talking about. Right now, I'd just take away Heavy Armor, and leave Shield in for a while.
Druid proficiency: Druid weapons are a bit odd. I'll go with his for now, but I think sometime I ought to give that list a long, hard look.
Monster monks: Not sure. But it makes sense on the face of it.
Monk multiclassing: I'm against it, though more in the way of Faerun's monk orders. I don't like the restriction as it's laid out in the PHB.
Paladin multiclassing: Same as monk.
Sorcerer skills: I'll buy that.
Sorcerer swap: This might be more unbalancing than the bard. I'll have to think about it.
Sorcerer metamagic: He's got a good argument, but I'm not so sure this is more balancing.
Wizard metamagic: Same as sorcerer.
Well, those are my thoughts . . . . |
| The Sage |
Posted - 28 Apr 2004 : 07:27:42
Indeed, Mr. Reynolds review of the current incarnation of the D&D system should be brought to the attention of all gamers. He has some interesting opinions that unfortunately many do not take to heart.
It's nice to see though, that there are game designers who feel much the same way about the current system, that many players do.
I didn't pay too much attention to his politics. It's a subject that I'm finding rather prosaic of late, both nationally and internationally  .
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 27 Apr 2004 : 18:48:26
Yes, he certainly does say what he feels -- I took a look at his politics page. 
Well, he's entitled to his opinions. And at least I didn't see any pro-Kerry material there. |
| Sarta |
Posted - 27 Apr 2004 : 08:56:42
It's always hard to see someone else attempt to "improve" upon your work. I think SKR quite rightly feels that in some way 3.0 was his baby (one he shared with others, but still partly his).
The man's also a genius at gauging play-balance when it comes to looking at things like feats, prestige classes, and class abilities. I think he's concerned that this sort of quality control has slipped recently.
Finally, he's a very passionate person. Read some of the other stuff on his board -- especially his rules rants: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/index.html
Writing crunch in many ways is far more difficult than fluff. Fluff either exists somewhere already or it doesn't. Find the source and the problem is solved. If there is no source, make it up, or ask Ed or Steven to do so. Crunch on the other hand is far more subjective -- and causes tempers to flare far quicker as a result.
Overall, I really enjoy reading his take on things. His writing about these various topics that get him upset with the game remind me a lot of the conversations / arguments we used to have about the rules of the various games we played. We used to frequently stop playing at 2 AM, "discuss" rules in the parking lot until 7 am, then go get breakfast, and finally go our own ways.
I see it not as a dislike of WotC, but a love of the game and the courage to say what he feels.
Sarta |
| Lady Kazandra |
Posted - 27 Apr 2004 : 08:25:45
Yes, thank you for the link Sarta. I knew Mr. Reynolds had some poor feelings for WotC, that much can be gleaned from his website. But here, he's almost completely anti-WotC (like the Bookwyrm said), especially with some of his remarks in the opening portion.
Still, I find myself agreeing with his criticism of the 3.5e system as a whole.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 27 Apr 2004 : 02:50:50
Thank you for that. This ought to be interesting.
Hmm, it seems that Mr. Reynolds is also a bit anti-WotC. And he's fully justified, I think, considering what he opens up with.  |
| Sarta |
Posted - 27 Apr 2004 : 02:30:56
Yeah, the switch from 3.0 to 3.5 was actually pretty darn confusing. On the surface it seems like so little has been changed. As you begin digging in though you realize there were hundreds of changes, but none of them were huge, just minor tweaks. Unfortunately, these minor tweaks are very easy to overlook until later if you were fairly familiar with the 3.0 rules. The change to skills based on hd vs ECL is one of them.
For another example, we have a player that had an illusionist with conjuration and evocation as his restricted spell categories. Now at first we just noticed the way specialist wizards had their bonus to DC removed which wasn't that big a deal. It wasn't until much later that we noticed that every single translocation spell such as dimension door and teleport had been changed from the Transmutation school to the Conjuration school. Meaning that this illusionist could no longer cast these spells. He retired his character.
I've really been enjoying reading Sean K. Reynold's critique of the 3.5 players handbook. He has been going through the book chapter by chapter and commenting on nearly every change and provided house rules for stuff he still doesn't agree with. Some of them are quite good.
Here's the first three chapters:
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/opinions/opinions3p5chap123.html
Sarta |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 26 Apr 2004 : 20:05:49
Really? Hmm. I'll have to take a look at that. That messes me up a bit on another project. |
| Arivia |
Posted - 26 Apr 2004 : 12:55:24
quote:
I need to take another look at the HD vs. ECL issue with regards to table 3-2 in the PHB
Same issue, Bookwyrm. Anyway, that sidebar's been overriden; look at page 7 of Races of Faerun. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 26 Apr 2004 : 10:49:12
That's not what's in the Powerful Races sidebar in The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. It states that to determine max skill ranks and feat aquisition, you add the adjustment to the total class level. |
| Sarta |
Posted - 26 Apr 2004 : 10:39:54
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
I just noticed this, or I would have said something earlier. Feats and maximum skill ranks are dependant on overall character level. So if he's got 6 HD and an ECL of +3, then it would mean he would have at least four feats and a maximum of 12 ranks in any one skill.
Actually, no. Creatures do not gain skill points nor feats for their level adjustment -- just for their hit dice. In the case of a lycanthrope they would gain 2+int bonus skills per lycanthrope hit die (with class skills listed per lycanthrope) and a feat for every three hit dice.
Sarta |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 26 Apr 2004 : 09:54:04
quote:
Originally posted by Sarta
On the positive side, it will make character creation easy. He'll have the skills and feats of a 6hd creature.
I just noticed this, or I would have said something earlier. Feats and maximum skill ranks are dependant on overall character level. So if he's got 6 HD and an ECL of +3, then it would mean he would have at least four feats and a maximum of 12 ranks in any one skill. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 26 Apr 2004 : 09:51:02
Aha. That makes sense. Especially if it's a tabletop game; all of my rules-memorization is geared more towards where to look it up, since I have to stick to PbeMs. |
| Sarta |
Posted - 26 Apr 2004 : 09:46:38
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
Grapple I can understand, but what was it about AoOs that you couldn't figure out?
It wasn't so much that the rules are cloudy, as it is that one has to remember a whole ton of different things that set off attacks of opportunity. When you have a combatant that threatens everything 10 feet away from him and has 5 attacks of opportunity available per turn you have to remember all the minor stuff that sets off AoO's:
Casting a spell
Drinking a potion
Getting something from a pack
Firing a bow (technically throwing a rock)
Non-improved unarmed combat
Using a spell-like ability
I finally just copied down everything that does set off attacks of opportunity and kept it at hand until it was ingrained in me and my players.
Sarta |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 26 Apr 2004 : 08:47:35
Grapple I can understand, but what was it about AoOs that you couldn't figure out? |
| Sarta |
Posted - 26 Apr 2004 : 08:44:04
When it comes to 3.5 the two rulesy items we had the most trouble with at first were the grapple rules and the whole attack of opportunity thing. After a lot of reading, I've finally become comfortable with them. This is a good thing since the game I run has a grappler and a rogue who relies heavily on combat reflexes and a two-handed spear.
Sarta |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 26 Apr 2004 : 06:12:59
Not that that doesn't always happen.
But I second the motion. Move over, people.  |
| Lady Kazandra |
Posted - 26 Apr 2004 : 03:29:25
quote:
Originally posted by Wood Elf Ranger
My weretiger will be a natural Lycanthrope but wow ECL +9 without any class levels is pretty major! But still if thats about where Sage starts his campaign off around that level I'll go for it!
He doesn't, normally. Besides, if you look into the PbEM with Sage thread in the Adventuring section, you'll see some details about the ECL limitations in this campaign.
Also, in an effort to keep both Alaundo, and Arivia happy, could we please keep the Sage's campaign discussion inside the thread that I just mentioned. Arivia's nice new thread is being inundated with side-chatter that's not really that relevant with the thread topic.
|
| Sarta |
Posted - 26 Apr 2004 : 00:26:28
On the positive side, it will make character creation easy. He'll have the skills and feats of a 6hd creature.
Sarta |
| Wood Elf Ranger |
Posted - 25 Apr 2004 : 23:46:00
My weretiger will be a natural Lycanthrope but wow ECL +9 without any class levels is pretty major! But still if thats about where Sage starts his campaign off around that level I'll go for it! |
| Arivia |
Posted - 25 Apr 2004 : 20:57:58
ECL 4-1 HD+3 LA for the half-dragon template. |
| RogueAssassin |
Posted - 25 Apr 2004 : 20:54:41
Thats crap...seems a little much to me..
-The Rogue
What Would a 1 lvl human fighter with the Halfdragon template be then? http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20030912a Theres the Half Dragon template. |
| Sarta |
Posted - 25 Apr 2004 : 20:38:43
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
Check the LA under Lycanthropes as Characters on page 179. An afflicted lycanthrope has a different LA than a natural lycanthrope, you know.
Ahh, yup, you are quite right. Hadn't read all the fine print. An afflcted level 1 ranger were-tiger would have an ecl of 9.
Good eye!
Sarta |
| Lady Kazandra |
Posted - 25 Apr 2004 : 14:29:13
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
Not having that book, I'll take your word for it. Wood Elf, I guess you'll have to ask Sage's specific permission to play an ECL 10 character.
An ECL 10 PC . . . . I'm not sure what the Sage will say, but I'm going to have to do some work myself on this, it doesn't sound quite right.
|
| Arivia |
Posted - 25 Apr 2004 : 13:36:55
Check the LA under Lycanthropes as Characters on page 179. An afflicted lycanthrope has a different LA than a natural lycanthrope, you know. |
| Sarta |
Posted - 25 Apr 2004 : 13:26:39
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
[Natural-6 tiger HD+3 LA=9 ECL
Afflicted-6 tiger HD+1 class level(1 HD)+2 LA=9 ECL
How does the level adjustment drop from 3 to 2 by virtue of a class level? You are correct about the natural were-tiger, however since most individuals afflicted with lycanthropy have a level of something, if only peasant, this increases the hd of the lycanthrope and therefore the ECL.
EDIT: Referring to page 308 of the 3.5 Monster Manual under the definition of effective level it specifies that one adds the hit dice (including those from class levels) to the level adjustment to get the ECL of a creature.
Sarta |
| Arivia |
Posted - 25 Apr 2004 : 13:14:32
quote:
Originally posted by Sarta
In the case of the were-tiger, they have a +3 level adjustment and base hit dice of 7 (6 from were-tiger and 1 from their character class). This means they are ECL 10 creatures and a base were-tiger is comparable to a level 10 human fighter for example.
This is off. Either way a weretiger can have a 9 ECL; you don't need class hit dice for a character. However, an afflicted lycanthrope does need at least one class level-to represent the character pre-affliction.
As such, the ECLs go like this:
Natural-6 tiger HD+3 LA=9 ECL
Afflicted-6 tiger HD+1 class level(1 HD)+2 LA=9 ECL |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 25 Apr 2004 : 09:19:39
Not having that book, I'll take your word for it. Wood Elf, I guess you'll have to ask Sage's specific permission to play an ECL 10 character. |
| Sarta |
Posted - 25 Apr 2004 : 09:05:30
Ok, here's how it works:
Some creatures have level adjustments because they have some nifty powers that make them more powerful than plain ol' humans with the same number of hit dice. When one adds the level adjustment to the creature's base hit dice one comes up with the creature's effecitve character level. This figure is supposed to mean that the creature is as powerful as a human of this level.
In the case of the were-tiger, they have a +3 level adjustment and base hit dice of 7 (6 from were-tiger and 1 from their character class). This means they are ECL 10 creatures and a base were-tiger is comparable to a level 10 human fighter for example.
Note, I'm using the 3.5 Monster Manual for were-tiger stats.
Sarta |
