[NABAIS] Commonly shared gripes about D&D

[Humanophile]

It sounds like you are contradicting yourself here. The cool, composed, psychotic assassin? That sounds rather more Charismatic than does the big, dumb nebbish, yet you say he would have less of a chance to Intimidate?

The big, dumb nebbish with a machine gun is probably scarier than the high-charisma assasin who's unarmed. I agree that if you leave out circumstance bonuses, intimidate is a very silly skill, but I think the problem there comes with not having a good idea what to apply given the right circumstances, and people who act like that's a reason not to apply any. It's the same kind of thinking that says if you make a straight up bluff check and beat their straight up sense motive, you can convince the captain of the guard that it was your evil twin who committed the crime, not you. Same silliness, same idea.

I thought the Intimidation skill didn't involve just scaring, as an earlier poster claimed. No one said anything about paring anything down, just having the option to use a separate ability for a skill like Intimidation. So a Paladin has a statistically better chance to Intimidate than does the Half-orc Assassin? I'm thinking I can trust the Paladin's moral code here and not the Assassin's.

Let me ask you this; if you knew that the paladin had you on his legal-to-kill list, wouldn't you be at least as afraid of him as you would be of the half-orc? And that's speaking to you as a gamer who can at least somewhat distance himself from the charisma of both parties.

Now, if you knew that the paladin couldn't use deadly force against you, you'd probably be a little braver if he decided to intimidate you, but you might still wilt if he had a good enough charisma bonus and he decided to focus his displeasure on you. (We'll call that maybe a -5 circumstance penalty to his check.) And if you knew that he had to be pacifistic, any real adventurer would scoff at him, but he could probably still scare some sense into small children up to no good. (-10 to his check?) If the half orc was under either of these constraints, or even a combat professional who didn't telegraph that fact (read: anyone who gives the impression "I'm as combat-ready as a commoner"), you'd probably be much more likely to laugh them off unless they had a charisma bonus or something else to hold over your head, and if they did have something to hold over your head (which may be something like the immediate threat of death), that's probably time for a circumstance bonus.

 

[EarthsShadow]

wow

Wow, this post turned into a Charisma - Intimidation fight instead of its intended goal. Oh, I like 3E d&d and its a great game.

My gripe, this fight. Its rediculous, read the skill and interpret it your own way and use it that way.

Other gripe. Said already, AC should be more like DR than blocking to hit, but I use it because it works.

 

[FireLance]

Obligatory disclaimer:
I love the D&D-game and acknowledge the playfulness of this thread.

My gripes:
1. Too many cool feats and not enough feat slots.
2. Ability increases for levelling are very slow.

However, I recognise that:
1. Access to many feats is what makes fighters, wizards and psychic warriors attractive.
2. You can also use magic items and wishes to increase ability scores.
3. The ELH is coming out soon!

 

[jeffh]

jeffh, this is what in the world I was talking about. I wasn't the one who stated this in the first place, so please, unless you know what you are quoting, don't.

I think you either misunderstood my post, or only paid attention to the first few words of what you quoted and ignored the point of it - that the character you described was neither charismatic nor intimidating, and would do better if he had the force of personality to back up what he was doing. You gave a very, very poor counterexample and got called on it. (I notice your subsequent arguments have been much better.)

As for your original point being that Intimidate should be more flexible in its key attribute, I can agree, but at the time I wrote that it was far from clear that this was what you were getting at.

 

[S'mon]

Munchkins.

Skip Williams.

Munchkins quoting Skip Williams

Sword & Fist

Munchkins quoting Sword & Fist

 

[JeffB]

My gripes...

1) A "modular" rules system that's not very modular. Everything has been neatly categorized and whatnot, so as to allow for consistency. Unfortunately this only applies when adding to the system. Any streamlining of one part of the system will likely screw-up several of other parts.

2) tying in with #1 above: A combat system that plays like a wargame, and in anything but the simplest encounters requires miniatures and/or counters & battle boards.

3) Tying in with both of the above: lack of a simple base rules (not the mechanics, the rules) system with the option for added complexity.

4) The amount of people on the internet and elsewhere who consistently gripe if somethig isn't "balanced", or claim foul if a non-WOTC d20 product doesn't follow the rules to the letter. So WHAT? it's a game, get over it.

5) The Art , writing, and layout of the corebooks is abysmal (IMO of course). Those lines give me a serious headache after reading for more than 2 pages, and they are about as fun to read as a stock report. Newer products like FRCS, SWRCRB, WoT, and others are better to look at, but still bland. To sum it up, 3E doesn't get me excited to play the game, or provoke my imagination to work.

6) Errata...nuff said...

7) Despite those who feel anything "core" equates to "greyhawk". There has been very little Greyhawk material other than lip service to names and places (other than LGG/Jand RttToEE). If anything got the shaft in 3E, it is Greyhawk, not the Ranger

8) PrClasses are a fantastic idea, but most have been lame, unless you need some kind of off-the-wall wack-job NPC. PrClasses instead have been geared to "getting more cool feats and special abilities" instead of use as a tool to get involved in the DM's campaign milleau (i.e. Organizations/memberships of various sorts..) FRCS actually does the best job of this..the classbooks are horrid.

9) Errata...nuff said....oooppss looks like I pulled a WOTC.

10) The new Rastafarian Halflings & bunny-hugger Gnomes...

That said...here are the things I really like...

1) Consistent rules and cleaner mechanics.

2) Better spell descriptions (when there is no errata.that is) for use in the game. They are boring though.

3) The D20 movement. Lots great stuff coming out.. (and crap too, but there are some companies out there who really are top-notch). Now I have companies that prefer to play D&D the same way I do, and make products geared to that end. If WOTC was the only company putting out products, I doubt I'd buy much or even play 3E.

4) The rebirth it's given to ALL the editions (now those of us who prefer the older systems tend to find each other, and promote thier fave version more..I prefer the original game..the brown books..and I've found a few players since 3E came out)

5) Places like ENWORLD where I can find out about all the happenings in the d20 community. I think we very much take D&D for granted in this respect. For some of my other fave games there is little or no web support: Earthdawn, LA, Runequest 2, D6 Star Wars, Mythus, and a few others..

6) While the CR/EL system is far from perfect, it is a good baseline to work from.

7) The new initiative and "action" system. Though it's confusing in some of the wordings, it's makes spell casting times, and actions easier to ajudicate.

8) Dungeon Magazine has improved greatly since 3E surfaced (though Dragon has become just about useless for me)

9) The new skill system works much better than the old NWP despite some rough edges (As others have commented on above...JUMP for example should not be a "skill" period if you ask me...It should be a figured value...Sure Carl Lewis trained to get better..but he trained for years and years for several hours a day...Your average Fighter is probably not going to spend that much time at a sand pit practicing his jumps...)

10) Since it is so modular. It's very easy to add things from several different sources....

Did I mention I absolutely abhor the new Halflings and Gnomes?

 

[magnuskn]

Sorcerers skill selection.

Sorcerers have CHA as their main attribute and get, what, *0* class skills requiring CHA ? Wow, what a good design decision !

Personally, I´d give them Bluff , Gather Information and/or Intimidate ( hey, imagine getting intimidated by a Sorcerer <shudder> ).

Magnus

 

[JESawyer]

Sorcerers skill selection.

Sorcerers have CHA as their main attribute and get, what, *0* class skills requiring CHA ? Wow, what a good design decision !

Personally, I´d give them Bluff , Gather Information and/or Intimidate ( hey, imagine getting intimidated by a Sorcerer <shudder> ).

Magnus

I'd go with skill points and skill selection. 4 pts/level, and give them Bluff and Diplomacy as class skills.

 

[Weeble]

I think you either misunderstood my post, or only paid attention to the first few words of what you quoted and ignored the point of it - that the character you described was neither charismatic nor intimidating, and would do better if he had the force of personality to back up what he was doing. You gave a very, very poor counterexample and got called on it. (I notice your subsequent arguments have been much better.)

As for your original point being that Intimidate should be more flexible in its key attribute, I can agree, but at the time I wrote that it was far from clear that this was what you were getting at.

None of this would be reason enough to further any argument against my initial post. However you take my example, and no, it wasn't thought out, there are many others that could take its place in showing how another ability could be used instead if charisma. That was my initial thought.

 

[Weeble]

The big, dumb nebbish with a machine gun is probably scarier than the high-charisma assasin who's unarmed. I agree that if you leave out circumstance bonuses, intimidate is a very silly skill, but I think the problem there comes with not having a good idea what to apply given the right circumstances, and people who act like that's a reason not to apply any. It's the same kind of thinking that says if you make a straight up bluff check and beat their straight up sense motive, you can convince the captain of the guard that it was your evil twin who committed the crime, not you. Same silliness, same idea.



Let me ask you this; if you knew that the paladin had you on his legal-to-kill list, wouldn't you be at least as afraid of him as you would be of the half-orc? And that's speaking to you as a gamer who can at least somewhat distance himself from the charisma of both parties.

Now, if you knew that the paladin couldn't use deadly force against you, you'd probably be a little braver if he decided to intimidate you, but you might still wilt if he had a good enough charisma bonus and he decided to focus his displeasure on you. (We'll call that maybe a -5 circumstance penalty to his check.) And if you knew that he had to be pacifistic, any real adventurer would scoff at him, but he could probably still scare some sense into small children up to no good. (-10 to his check?) If the half orc was under either of these constraints, or even a combat professional who didn't telegraph that fact (read: anyone who gives the impression "I'm as combat-ready as a commoner"), you'd probably be much more likely to laugh them off unless they had a charisma bonus or something else to hold over your head, and if they did have something to hold over your head (which may be something like the immediate threat of death), that's probably time for a circumstance bonus.

So much for paladins and morals