D&D 3E/3.5 What do you ban? (3.5)

[Celebrim]

Just because you can fix the system doesn't mean its broken.

I don't consider my opinion of whether or not it is broken all that relevant. But, also, I don't consider myself anywhere near alone in noticing that the 3rd edition was broken, breakable, and got more and more frustrating the more and more books that were added. I've seen many posts by people who said, "My game stopped being fun, and then I did away with so much of the drek I'd accumulated and when I did I remembered why I liked 3e", and I've seen many many posts where people complained of frustrations with 3e that I haven't and don't think I will have.

If you spend the time to rewrite dozens of feats and all of the core base classes so that only limited multiclassing is required to achieve whatever theme or archtype is desired by the player, couldn't you also spend the time simply working within the system?

Honestly, don't you think that if I thought I could achieve what I wanted by working within the system, that I would have done so?

Do you have any idea how nice it is when a player says, "Hey can I take this and this and this?", to be able to say, "It's in the rules, isn't it?" and "Then, yes, you can be a wolverine changling shaman with misanthrope (humanoids), and yes, crazy as that combination may seem, I think fey nursemaid to a fallen noble house is a cool character concept."

If I thought that the stock D20 and PrCs helped me achieve flexibility and balance and contributed to my Grimm's Fairy Tale/Lovecraftian/Tolkienesk world, then I'd have ate it up.

I mean, you could make a rogue/sorcerer class, the Gutter Mage, as you called it, and figure give it all of the abilities of a Rogue1/Sorcerer4/UnseenSeer10/ArcaneTrickster5. You end up with the same result, albeit maybe a little more streamlined. Have you REALLY gained anything though?

Well, you've gained a little streamlining and that's something. But you've also reduced the total size of the rules and you've on the net reduced the steep power curve D20 experiences especially optimizing like that, and you've on the net reduced the system mastery required to move from concept to implementation. You've also all but elimenated the imbalance issues, that come from loading up builds with more and more power and more and more goodies. I mean that sample build is almost in every fashion superior to a 20th level sorcerer save at the cost of 1 spellcaster level (and the fact that that might almost matter says alot about the problems with trying to balance everything up to the spellcaster). You've got more skill points, more class abilities, more of just about everything. And you haven't just helped the game out in terms of making it easier to make the PC you want, but you've streamlined the process of making competitive and interesting NPC's as well. And if it shaves 10 minutes or 30 minutes off the time that it takes to stat out a high level NPC, well I'm all for that too.

By late 3.5 it seemed everything was in a power race. Everything from straight spellcaster on down was just getting better and better, and monsters were getting powered up further and further in response so that early 3.0 CR weren't even remotely in line with late 3.5 CR's. Everything was getting more and more optimizable.

The longer I stayed at EnWorld the more moaning I heard by people about how 3e had lost its charm, and the more sure I was that I was going in the right direction.

If someone wants to play with the system, and use the system like that, then who are you to tell them that their style of play is WRONG...because thats what you are doing.

It's wrong in the sense that I think it is the system and approach that ended up killing 3e D&D and which, for all the good direction they took it, will probably end up killing Pathfinder eventually if they aren't careful. If someone enjoys it, fine, I understand a lot of people enjoy it. But I see it more as making a virtue out of a vice, than a thing necessarily good in itself. It's the system you have, so you might as well make the most if it. But if they hadn't taken the system that way, the radical overhaul of 4e probably wouldn't have been nearly as tempting or necessary.

 

[Celebrim]

For folks keeping score, it was the rudeness in this post that caused Celebrim to be removed from the thread. Be polite to one another, please. - Piratecat

3 PrCs and 400 PrCs are different numbers.

Just, you know.

Just pointing that out.

Thank you. We are so glad we have you here to snarkily tell us these things.

I mean they're just radically, radically different numbers, you know.

It's really bad hyperbole, I guess, is my point.

You know, trying to claim 3 as being 400.

Wow. You are a amazing. I would have never noticed that 3 isn't 400. I've only got 30 hours of college math. It just has never came up before. I don't know how I passed differential equations.

Here's the thing. If you want to claim there are only 3 PrC's in the published works of 3.5 edition; you go right ahead. I'm not going to correct your math for you. Now, I don't know whether there are 400 PrC's that have been published for the D20 system. Maybe that is hyperbole. Maybe the number is much smaller than that, especially if we elimenate third party splat books. The point is, the number of PrC's published for D20 is very very large, and the question becomes, "Why do we need so many?"

And really, most of them are just collections of feats arranged in a particular order. I think the reason most PrC's exist is simply to sell books.

And there's a huge number of characters you can't play from level 1.

Granted. When one of my players said he wanted to be Dinosaur Rider, I told him, "Yeah, you might not be able to find a dinosaur in the area of where I'm planning to start a game, but hold on to that thought." So, technically, he wasn't his concept from level 1, but equally technically, he has been able to do so since then. PrC's can't give you that. The whole concept can't get you there, but it sure can give you, "a huge number of characters you can't play from level 1"
Of course, he also wanted a laser cannon at 1st level. I had to tell him no to that. I'm such a bad DM.

UPDATE: If anything, it appears my 'hyperbole' was a gross understatement. A quick search for prestige classes just turned up about 700 of them just from WotC. And there is probably at least that many out there from major third party vendors as well. So, forget why do we need 400 PrC's, why do we need 600 or 1000 of them? Is having hundreds and hundreds of classes spread across scores of books really a strength to your RPG rules, or are you just making a bug into a feature?

 

[Wyvernhand]

I guess the other thing I was trying to get across, but failed to, is that if D&D doesn't fit the model of the game you are trying to play, DON'T USE IT. D&D, as it is, is a combat simulation with roleplaying tacked on. Look at the amount of rules in the PHB that deal with combat, and the rules which don't. Its like, 90/10.

If you don't want to play that kind of D&D, using the rules as presented, then don't play D&D. Play something else. Something with the Fate/Fudge system, DitV, a skill based system like what V:tM uses, or something that isn't D&D. I'm sorry that WotC killed your sacred cows. Complaining that other people on a message board are "Doing it wrong" or "Killing your hobby" isn't gonna resurect them.

Most of all, don't insult people for playing D&D, and playing it differently from how you play.

Last thing: To whoever stated that 3 classes max for caracter building...why? What possibly does it serve? Does it REALLY make that much more work for you? Take a look at many PrCs...lots of them require 2 different base classes to get in, generally some combination of them to equal 5-6 levels. Then you tack on a 10 level PrC which combines some of the abilities. Then what. All of a sudden, you've come as far as you can with that concept, and you have to go back to doing one or the other of your base components? Or, maybe you enter a 2nd PrC (GASP!!!!) which is similar in theme and favor to the one you just finished, and ride that all the rest of the way out to 20? It seems that going back to one of the base classes is a bigger break in willing suspension of disbelief than taking a 4th, similarly themed PrC would make. After all, a character doesn't know what class levels he has, but he would know that he's not advancing certain aspects of his potential in a way that he was. Maybe its hitting a brick wall, maybe its just a needless roadblock that does NOTHING to increase or the depth of the character or the enjoyment of the player.

 

[Corwin of Amber]

Huh? Ok, point out where people in this thread have been concerned with overpowered via multiclassing.

In response to the amount of multiclassing of Fistbeard Beardfist:

But I get the feeling that the creator of this character wants that to be the entire game. That to me suggests 'problem player' and 'munchkin' every bit as much as a powered up twink in the hands of someone who seems to have his ego invested in 'winning'.

One thing that has to be avoided at the table and which is absolutely wrecking to the game is a player trying to monopolize the game. That can happen in several ways. One way is a player builds a mechanically broken character and then proceeds to solve all the parties challenges single handedly.

I limit things to three classes because I already have enough to do without trying to check every little book and rule to see if there is going to be abuse possible in the future, or current abuse. Too many who do this try to abuse some feat, skill, or ability so that they get "super" Jonesy...instead of simply outlawing the munchkins, it's easier to state a flat rule that NO ONE get's over three classes. It's easier on ME (the DM), it's easier on other players, and avoids arguments like..."Jack got to have a dozen classes with his character...just because you think I'm being a munchkin gives you no reason to make it so I can't do the same" Type reasoning.

​

...thus causing people to have less fun that they are ignoring the already present problem of unbalanced classes.

Who, what? Show me the quote?

Referencing playing with someone using Fistbeard Beardfist:

I don't think it's the best build...but even more...a little aggravating.

If I were DM'ing I'd out law him, Too many classes and stuff for me as DM to think about, worry about, try to remember all the rules for and how they interact...at least more than I'm interested in doing.

As a player...bearable...at least currently...though the backstory is convoluted enough to seem a little contrived...perhaps for the reason below?

It' s too much work, and too much of a head ache. If you guys like to spend your days trying to solve arguments amongst players, or hunting down rules in books to make sure that the synergy won't cause angst amongst everyone else...especially once you start getting into classes that are not core and sometimes may be obscure...more power to you.

​

This is nonsense. The purpose of me readjusting the classes was to give the players more freedom to create what they wanted and giving them readier access to mechanics without jumping through PrC hoops, wierd prerequisites, fixed level progressions in order to get silo'd class ability X and Y, and so forth.

The "iron fist" comment was mostly directed at this method of thinking:

It' s too much work, and too much of a head ache. If you guys like to spend your days trying to solve arguments amongst players, or hunting down rules in books to make sure that the synergy won't cause angst amongst everyone else...especially once you start getting into classes that are not core and sometimes may be obscure...more power to you.

My take on why 3 classes are enough. If you have enough imagination and actually ROLEPLAY as opposed to ROLLPLAY in 3e, there are enough skills, feats, and ideas that you should actually be able to play almost ANY idea with A SINGLE class. Sure, it might not be the next superman...but the idea should work. I let 3 classes in so that if there is something very specific you want that is not available in any other way, or that you wish to utilize (perhaps as part of an organization...your character has always wanted to work towards being an Assassin, and this is representative of you going to being part of the Assassin's guild...hence the Assassin prestige class), it's there.

​

 

[Celebrim]

Most of all, don't insult people for playing D&D, and playing it differently from how you play.

Hmmm...

I guess the other thing I was trying to get across, but failed to, is that if D&D doesn't fit the model of the game you are trying to play, DON'T USE IT.

Irony.

D&D, as it is, is a combat simulation with roleplaying tacked on. Look at the amount of rules in the PHB that deal with combat, and the rules which don't. Its like, 90/10.

If you don't want to play that kind of D&D, using the rules as presented, then don't play D&D.

More irony.

Play something else.

Hmmm... so, about that telling people how they shouldn't say how there is only one right way to play D&D again. Would you care to reflect on that claim, and in particular find as much evidence that I've directly told you you should play your way as I've just presented on you?

Last thing: To whoever stated that 3 classes max for caracter building...why?

That may have been me, and I'm glad you asked. Honest questions get honest answers, even when they are probably intended to be rhetorical.

First of all, I don't hard cap the number of classes you take. I'm not sure what the practical cap actually is, and I've never worked out what the most classes you could reasonably expect to take actually is.

I do however have a soft cap which makes it increasingly hard to take more clases than about 3, especially while maximizing a single attribute. I have several reasons for this.

1) Front Loading: It's to the benefit of a class design that from first level, you can already be a full-fledged member of the class with enough abilities to feel like you are well-rounded, capable, heroic, and mechanically capable in some way of meeting your concept. This means that most classes are slightly front loaded with extra goodies in the first 1-3 levels. This is one of the reasons that so many optimized builds in 3.X involve dipping a couple of levels into many classes. So long as you dip into either a full BAB class or a full spellcaster progression PrC, it's usually pure win. Even things like saving throws involve a certain amount of front loading. I don't want to get rid of frontloading a class because its good for low level characters, but I also want to avoid it being abused. Now sure, there are other ways of addressing this problem - backloading classes to encourage going the full 20, using fractional accounting for saving throws, and so forth - but those have their problems too and they aren't necessarily more conducive to allowing for multiclassing.

2) Discouraging pure mechanical dips: Sometimes you see characters take a level in a class not because it really fits the character concept and experience, but purely for the mechanical advantage. One of the things I try to do is to always give tradeoffs, so that things aren't necessarily full win. Softcapping multiclassing helps with that, and particularly helps with limiting you from multiclassing with something wildly different than your concept for no other reason than to get some tiny mechanical advantage. With my particular softcap, its alot easier to multiclass into conceptually similar classes than conceptually different ones unless your character concept allowed for that logically from the start.

3) Ties class to attributes for purposes of some magical items, curses, special events, etc.: I've got deep 1e roots. One thing that I missed from 1e in 3e was a direct mechanical connection to what ability most obviously served the class. My prerequisite system is in no small part inspired by 1e's 'prime requisite'. It let's me write something simple that changes how a single magic item behaves depending on who wields it. I could just enumerate things I suppose, but this way I just have to do it once.

4) Multiclassing beyond the soft cap is probably inadvisable or undesireable anyway: Even in RAW, many of the classes are in fact back loaded as well as front loaded. Certainly base spellcasting classes are. To compensate, I've made alot of the martial classes go non-linear in power increase at higher levels as well. Most even optimized builds in 3.5 rarely go beyond 4 or 5 classes because of this backloading, and most builds involving 8 or 10 classes are probably so far from optimized as to be in the other direction. And conceptually, I find such a mixture to be unnecessary as well as undesirable. I mean sure, perhaps there is some character out there which fits a Fighter/Hunter/Explorer/Akashic/Fanatic/Rogue/Shaman/Wizard, but by the time you've done that the impact of each class is so dillute that its hard to see it as essential to the concept. It's rendered each class down to little more than small contribution in BAB and skill points in the greater whole. Like soup base stretched with too much water. Now of course, if we had six or eight slightly different variations on the very same class, that might not be true, but then we'd have six or eight slightly different variations on the same class.

What possibly does it serve?

I hope that answers your question.

 

[Celebrim]

Originally Posted by Celebrim: post 121
But I get the feeling that the creator of this character wants that to be the entire game. That to me suggests 'problem player' and 'munchkin' every bit as much as a powered up twink in the hands of someone who seems to have his ego invested in 'winning'.

Fail. In that quotation, I'm constrasting "Beardfist" with power gaming. The phrase "every bit as much as" makes it clear I'm speaking of two different things, which are dissimilar in some ways and similar in others. That's made even more clear by the context. If you'd link the "that" pronoun in the first sentence to what it is point at, you'll find it is "laughing and relaxing inhibitions" - not power-gaming. I'm saying that it doesn't matter that "Beardfist" isn't super-powered, there is still an element of the concept which I find just as problimatic. And I go onto explain what that element is, in the next quote you offer:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celebrim: post 122
One thing that has to be avoided at the table and which is absolutely wrecking to the game is a player trying to monopolize the game. That can happen in several ways. One way is a player builds a mechanically broken character and then proceeds to solve all the parties challenges single handedly.

Fail.

Sure, one of several ways to monopolize a game is to create a mechanically broken character. But, I'm very clearly stating that that isn't the problem here. Rather, in the part that you don't quote, I state that being 'gonzo' is another way to monopolize a game, and specifically this 'gonzo' aspect of "Beardfist Fistbeard" that I'm objecting to in the posts you quote. I'm not objecting to multiclassing in either of those quotes or in the surrounding posts, nor am I in either post equating multiclassing with power gaming.

 

[Wyvernhand]

Well, that was aimed mostly at your "D&D is dying, and its all multiclassing's fault" comment. Its a flaw inherant in any level based system, rather than a skill based system. If you don't like level based systems (which seems implied given your stance), perhaps you should try something that isn't level based so you don't have to do the work to redesign all of D&D 3.5. Regardless, touche!

You certainly have the right to continue to shove square pegs in round holes, but don't complain when you get wood shavings on your clothes, or when the kid next to you is pushing round pegs in round holes with much less effort.

 

[Corwin of Amber]

Celebrim, I do greatly enjoy the fact that you have reached the point of attacking the way Wyvernhand and I have been presenting our arguments, rather than creating an actual counterargument.

It is apparent that you are no longer open to rational discussion, so I will leave you to whatever emotional opinions you have.

Admin here. Guys, when you see this sort of problem, REPORT THE THREAD. You do this by clicking on the triangular "!" to the left of every post. This is far, far preferable to continuing an argument. - Piratecat

 

[Greg K]

I guess the other thing I was trying to get across, but failed to, is that if D&D doesn't fit the model of the game you are trying to play, DON'T USE IT. D&D, as it is, is a combat simulation with roleplaying tacked on. Look at the amount of rules in the PHB that deal with combat, and the rules which don't. Its like, 90/10.

I'd rather look at my DMG which discusses
a. the role of classes in the world and the training as part of what defines many of the classes
b. tailoring classes to fit their role in the world
c. adding training requirements (e.g., acess to teachers, access to facilities, and training time) for leveling or learning new spells, feats, skills or class abilities.
d. enforcing entry requirments for PrCs and using PrCs to reflect races, cultures, and organizations of the world.
e. building and maintaining a campaign including reoccuring characters, relationships beyond the adventure, fostering player growth (e.g., starting a business, building a fortress, joining a guild)

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Fun note: if you are judging them based on their character sheet and not their character, you are metagaming.

The first thing I do both as DM and player is to talk about the character. Not the mechanics, the character. If I have no problems with that - and I typically don't! - I glance over the sheet to make sure everything is ok.

Here's the important bit - I hear about the character first because that's what matters. If I have a problem with the character, it's something that should come out in their description, not how many PrCs or classes they have.

What I'm seeing is a lot of people who are very badly mixing up OoC and IC here. Fistbeard Beardfist ICly is a very dwarven monk who's stout and handles attacks not with pansy elven jumping around and dodging, but by blocking them properly with big fat meaty dwarf arms. Also he uses his beard to attack. If I have a problem with that, I say "Hey, the beard thing is too much," and at this point Dandu can change that part of his character immidiately and easily. At no point do I need to check his character sheet to make sure he's "roleplaying correctly."

In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb - if you need to check someone's character sheet to make sure they're roleplaying "properly," they're not the one with the problem.