D&D 3E/3.5 5E solve me this: 3Es and 4Es biggest problem

[Windjammer]

And the the second example: Bad DM, disallowing a power possibly perfect for the characters background and style solely on the article it appeared in.

To quote the greatest Warhammer Fantasy rules hack alive, this thread went 'Nought to Feanor in 4.02 seconds'.
Cheers!

To paraphrase,

"But according to my background story, having the Sword of Kas suits my paladin perfectly! You are a Bad DM (tm) for ruining my character!"

2) Pathfinder fixed Polymorph. So if you like 3e and Polymorph really bugged you, then check out Pathfinder. I have other issues with Pathfinder and 3e in general, but polymorph isn't one of them. A tip of the hat from me to the gang at Paizo for fixing Polymorph.

Weeeeell - they introduced gunslingers in Ultimate Combat, so I think 3.x and Pathfinder are karmatically even.

 

[pemerton]

"But according to my background story, having the Sword of Kas suits my paladin perfectly! You are a Bad DM (tm) for ruining my character!"

At first the paladin in my game - who is a tiefling khopesh wielder - was trying to persuade the Sword of Kas to undergo a bit of surgery. But then he decided to give it back to Kas instead.

But anyway, in 4e the Sword of Kas is (i) classified as a paragon tier item, and (ii) classified as an artefact, and hence an item under GM rather than player authority, so the issue shouldn't really come up if everyone is playing by the rules.

 

[mlund]

Narrative is wonderful and has its place. The narrative of a good D&D game is cooperative. The DM doesn't know much in the way of details of how a campaign plays out for certain because the PC's are independent actors. Instead of bickering and banning things it's best to focus on what everyone can enjoy playing together on a day-to-day basis.

Remove options from the table when they create too much work for the DM (complex sub-systems, unbalanced mechanics) or pit players against one another, not just because they are initially written in a way that rubs you (one member at the table about of a group of 5 or more) the wrong way. Player's should be reasonable too. The DM's got to prep encounters and NPCs and so many other moving parts of the game - don't make him read 8 issues of Dragon Magazine just to learn your 1 character. Again, you're 1 out of 5+ and the game is for everyone.

It's a game. It's supposed to be fun and fair. It's not supposed to be anybody's next fantasy novel.

- Marty Lund

 

[Walking Dad]

...

2) Pathfinder fixed Polymorph. So if you like 3e and Polymorph really bugged you, then check out Pathfinder. I have other issues with Pathfinder and 3e in general, but polymorph isn't one of them. A tip of the hat from me to the gang at Paizo for fixing Polymorph.

I actually liked the old 3.5 fix more. Specific spells for creatures to change into (Spellcompendium) and the Shapeshift variant of Wild Shape (PH2).

Oh, sure if you are running a Dark Sun game, then clearly Warforged aren't appropriate, so yes if your players argue with you about wanting to play a warforged cleric in Dark Sun, then I'm with you. But I wouldn't bother banning X power from this source and so on. Frankly, I found with 4e thats just a waste of time I could better spend on my adventure.

Oh, I was in a Dark Sun game in which one PC was an ancient dwarf guardian statue made from wood and stone. Fitted the campaign well and we reflavored just the warforged and used it's rules.
So the DM did something wrong by looking at the rules and allowed them instead of banning the warforged rules just because the fluff didn't fit?

 

[mkill]

There is a whole layer of issues here.

Awareness - Most DMs just assume that there is one way to play - their way. Which is, in a way, understandable. Some DMs have never played under another DM. They are self-taught, and they were always the DM. Others have had a mentor, and they keep playing the style they learned. Which can really be anything. If a group has been playing together for a long time, this is no problem because everyone knows what the style of their DM is. Now, when a new player comes in, there is a clash of cultures. The newbie is probably used to a different style. Which brings me to...

Communication - As a DM, you don't just need to know what your style is, you need to be able to explain to people. However, most DMs just know what they don't want (I don't like Eberron, I don't like elves etc. etc.) It's more important to give positive guidance (we're playing hardcore dungeoneering; we have a high-level intrigue-heavy campaign across the plains etc.) This will make it much more likely that the player will show up with something the DM can integrate. But finally, there is ...

Trust - Players and DM need to trust each other to create a campaign that is fun for everyone. Sure, the DM has the right to ban stuff, but it's not a tool to keep the players in check. It's not even effective - As any charopper will tell you, the 3E core rulebook is more than enough to create a character that will break any campaign twice over.
However, if the players trust the DM that he won't screw them over, and the DM trusts the players that they will keep their PCs within sane limits, there won't be an arms race. If it turns out that one PC doesn't fit the campaign, because he is too powerful or just too weird, player and DM can solve this amicably if they trust each other.

This is completely edition, and even system-independent.

In fact, can somebody copy and paste this into the next DMG please?

 

[avin]

Errata and update free? So, you'd prefer a set of rules in which design errors are never corrected, and you never get new rules content beyond the original books?

I would rather this time Wotc betatest the game more than ever so I don't need a 3.5 or a feat fixing +hit issues so soon. Designer errors should be minimized before game launchs.

You might want to consider playing with reasonable adults, if you can. That certainly helps.

Not always an option...

 

[Hassassin]

I agree with the sentiment of the OP, but I don't agree that the problem is the players wanting to use supplements. I think the problem is that they try to combine rules from a lot of them.

Maybe there should be a "rule" saying you can only use the core rules and one supplement at a time? The designers would also have an easier time balancing things if they didn't have to take an exponential number of interactions into account.

Note that I totally agree that it is ridiculous for a player to expect to be able to use an Eberron supplement if the campaign is in the Realms, or vice versa. That doesn't mean he can't ask nicely, if the class/whatever makes sense, but he shouldn't be surprised if he's told no.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Errata and update free? So, you'd prefer a set of rules in which design errors are never corrected, and you never get new rules content beyond the original books?

I don't mind some errata when really needed. What I don't want is a published beta test that is endlessly tweaked in pursuit of some unattainable razor edge balance demanded by whiny children because some other class does an average of 2 more points of damage per round than thier class of choice.

If the designers haven't learned by now that real game balance has to be provided by the human beings at the table then there is absolutely no hope whatsoever for this upcoming edition.

 

[Aeolius]

For a combat-light game, I honestly wouldn't use 4e, or indeed any edition of D&D, or indeed any mainstream fantasy RPG

As a DM of over 30 years, I am quite comfortable with the D&D mindset.

Since I run my game in a chat room, I find that the proliferation of die rolls on the screen ruins any sense of willing suspension of disbelief, so I try to keep it to a minimum. We'll have a combat every 2-3 sessions and a major battle every 5-6 sessions, but my players are quite happy to spend three hours chatting with NPCs, so I consider myself lucky.

I'm sure if I ran a face-to-face game, things might be different, but it's been online-only for me since 1994.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's probably never going to change... Anyway WotC runs a business based on selling books, there are definitely more players than DMs around, so player's stuff will always sell more, even if many times it's just the same trites ideas rehashed given a shiny make-up. "New feats, magic items and prestige classes!"... how many times I've read this tagline about a 3ed book?

I don't like banning stuff unless it's really quite out-of-place in terms of flavor or clearly overpowered. You have to know what type of player you're dealing with, to understand their motivations for picking material from obscure supplements.

I have to say however, that problems happened to me mostly in online games, because IRL I've mostly played with people who were either casual gamers or long-time gamers but with few books.