D&D 3E/3.5 Common misconceptions (3.5)

[Random Bystander]

Having seen these at least a few times (and done at least a few of them myself), I thought it would be helpful to have a unified place to post misconceptions you've seen, as well as the correction. By no means do I imply that these misconceptions happen often; but they do happen, and it would seem to be useful to note them.

I will start off, then, with the three that are uppermost in my mind at this time.

Misconception) Orcs are all or mostly Chaotic Evil barbarians (culture, not the class) thirsting for destruction.
Actual) Orcs are "Often Chaotic Evil". 50-60% of Orcs, then, are an alignment other than Chaotic Evil.

Misconception) Orcs thirst for battle, and love to throw themselves headlong into the fray.
Actual) "They enjoy attacking from concealment and setting ambushes". Orcs, in short, are sneaky-sneaks, and loving it. They're not necessarily skilled at it (in fact, they usually aren't; MM 203), but that doesn't mean they won't give it their best shot.

Misconception) Goblins are Chaotic Evil mischief makers.
Actual) Goblins are "Usually Neutral Evil". On average, 50% or more of the Goblins in a group are the alignment of schemers, plotters, and those who'll plan their way to whatever advantage they can get. They're not necessarily good at it (in fact, they usually aren't; MM 133 remarks that they have a poor grasp of strategy), but that doesn't mean they won't give it their best shot.

Misconception) Strength is of no use in Intimidation.
Actual) This definitely falls into the category of "it varies". As per Page 33 of the DMG, the DM could, at their sole discretion (among other things): Allow a complimentary Strength roll to add +2 to the Intimidation check. Allow Intimidation to be used with Strength. However, even if the DM does not allow this, remember that intimidation is a social attack; your character may have bulging muscles, but without the force of personality and appropriate acting skill to back them up, your attempt to intimidate may be wooden, lacking conviction, dull, or otherwise not inspire fear.

 

[GMMichael]

Good calls. Even in the Lord of the Rings movies, orcs aren't evil - they're just dumb, inbred, ugly, stinky, dirty, clumsy, and somewhat bestial. (Or does that mean evil?)

Can I use Dexterity for intimidation too? Picture it: the I-can-swing-my-weapon flourishes in martial arts movies that occur just before the big fight. Intimidation.

 

[captnq]

The noob handbook. Scroll down to 21 traps for noobs.

http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=9479.msg153181#msg153181

Cut/Paste

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not sure those are misconceptions.

Different conceptions aren't necessarily wrong. Almost all the above would be as preconceptions wrong for my game.

For example, "[Nuetral Evil is] the alignment of schemers, plotters, and those who'll plan their way to whatever advantage they can get.", would for my game show a serious misunderstanding of what alignment is, since it conflates a personality (schemer/mastermind) with an alignment.

Neutral Evil is the alignment of those who don't believe that good exists, that the world is fundamentally and inextricably evil, that under real conditions good isn't even possible but is just a sort of dishonest evil, that nothing has real value not even yourself, that there is no such thing as virtue, and that whether you like it or not the world is just going to get worse and worse. How you respond to these beliefs, how you intellectually rationalize these beliefs (if at all), how faithfully you follow the implications of these beliefs, and the distinctive quirks of your person aren't a part of alignment per se - though obviously holding those beliefs sincerely will tend to color your actions and behavior.

I tend to see Strength is of little use in intimidation but in my conceptions it is not necessarily for the reasons you suggest. When you say that, "your attempt to intimidate may be wooden, lacking conviction, dull, or otherwise not inspire fear.", you are ignoring the most important aspect of intimidation. An intimidate attack isn't merely meant to inspire fear - its meant to force compliance. A big bulging dangerous looking brute may well inspire fear, but be unable to force compliance. Scared people do strange things. The big hulking dangerous looking brute, in attempting to intimidate may well inspire so much fear that the person involved stops thinking and moves immediately into a fight or flight response - panicking, screaming for help, and so forth.

Think of Fezzik trying to "jog the memory" of the albino. Muscles were of little help. Compare with Fezzik's successful Intimidate check when he wants the Man in Black to drop his sword so that they can both "fight fair", where Fezzik is actually charming and the strength is only secondary. If Fezzik had emphasized his own strength to much, presumably his quarry might have decided that he had no hope of winning without a weapon and done something else instead (like trying to trick Fezzik, or trying to find cover, etc.) Intimidate is a subtle skill, and is much more than just the ability to inspire fear. Fear is the lever, but you have to apply it correctly if you want to achieve a particular result. Those that are good at it figure out what levers they can pull for a particular person and how much force to use to achieve a particular result.

 

[Random Bystander]

I'm not sure those are misconceptions.

Different conceptions aren't necessarily wrong. Almost all the above would be as preconceptions wrong for my game.

This thread is concerned solely with RAW and, if it must be addressed, RAI. Your own particular setting-specific Orcs and Goblins are outside the scope of this thread.

For example, "[Nuetral Evil is] the alignment of schemers, plotters, and those who'll plan their way to whatever advantage they can get.", would for my game show a serious misunderstanding of what alignment is, since it conflates a personality (schemer/mastermind) with an alignment.

Neutral Evil is the alignment of those who don't believe that good exists, that the world is fundamentally and inextricably evil, that under real conditions good isn't even possible but is just a sort of dishonest evil, that nothing has real value not even yourself, that there is no such thing as virtue, and that whether you like it or not the world is just going to get worse and worse. How you respond to these beliefs, how you intellectually rationalize these beliefs (if at all), how faithfully you follow the implications of these beliefs, and the distinctive quirks of your person aren't a part of alignment per se - though obviously holding those beliefs sincerely will tend to color your actions and behavior.

Neutral Evil, "Malefactor"

A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.

Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.

Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.

As per, your own setting-specific, and much more specific, demarcation of Neutral Evil is outside the scope of this thread. And to clarify my own comment, it was not intended as prescriptive (ie., "All Neutral Evil characters are...") but descriptive (ie., "A schemer who is out for themselves first, solely, and foremost, is most probably Neutral Evil.")

The noob handbook. Scroll down to 21 traps for noobs.

http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=9479.msg153181#msg153181

Cut/Paste

If you wish to do so yourself, you definitely can; this thread is open to anyone, provided you quote rules sources for your corrections. However, as I have not read the thread nor verified the things in it, you would probably be a much better proponent of those maxims than myself.

Good calls. Even in the Lord of the Rings movies, orcs aren't evil - they're just dumb, inbred, ugly, stinky, dirty, clumsy, and somewhat bestial. (Or does that mean evil?)

Can I use Dexterity for intimidation too? Picture it: the I-can-swing-my-weapon flourishes in martial arts movies that occur just before the big fight. Intimidation.

Misconception) You can only use the ability score specified for a skill with that skill.
Actual) Again, it very much varies by DM. As per Page 33 of the DMG, the DM is allowed to change which ability score is used with a skill, and change which ability score is used for a task. Generally speaking, these changes should be specific, and well-justified, and are solely by the judgement of the DM.

 

[Celebrim]

This thread is concerned solely with RAW and, if it must be addressed, RAI.

Wow. I never realized just how bad the RAW was on alignment.

I'll stick to the Gygax, or at least something close to it.

"The neutral evil creature views law and chaos as unnecessary considerations, for pure evil is all-in-all. Either might be used, but both are disdained as foolish clutter useless in eventually bringing maximum evilness to the world. Similar to the neutral good alignment, that of neutral evil holds that neither groups nor individuals have great meaning. This ethos holds that seeking to promote weal for all actually brings woe to the truly deserving. Natural forces which are meant to cull out the weak and stupid are artificially suppressed by so-called good, and the fittest are wrongfully held back, so whatever means are expedient can be used by the powerful to gain and maintain their dominance, without concern for anything. "

The RAW are themselves misconceptions. It's telling that they describe neutral as "malefactors" - a word which only means "commits an offense against the law". Chaotic evil by any other name is still chaotic evil.

For me your idea here raises two issues. First, "Is canon also rules?" And second, "Which canon?"

I'd argue that it's a misconception that Kobolds are cold-blooded creatures related to dragons, when in fact is was well established that they were dog-faced rat-tailed beings related to goblins. The fact that the misconception was held by an author at WotC doesn't make it less of a misconception. What exactly is the correction here? Which way is clearly wrong?

Or put it another way, if canon is actually rules, having which deity in your game would be clearly a misconception?

 

[Celebrim]

Misconception) You can only use the ability score specified for a skill with that skill.
Actual) Again, it very much varies by DM. As per Page 33 of the DMG, the DM is allowed to change which ability score is used with a skill, and change which ability score is used for a task. Generally speaking, these changes should be specific, and well-justified, and are solely by the judgement of the DM.

If this is a misconception, how much less is it the case that there is only one way to present a monster - especially when over the course of TSR/WotC there have often been very many often contradictory presentations? Surely it also very much varies by DM?

 

[Random Bystander]

This is not an edition comparison thread. There's no easy way to delineate off and on topic, so there it is. This thread is about D&D 3.5, and is clearly marked as such.

Although I must admit its title may sound like "Common misconceptions that the D&D 3.5 rulebooks have made", but what is meant is "Common misconceptions people have about what's in the D&D 3.5 rulebooks".

If this has caused anyone any confusion, I apologize.