Options, not Restrictions? Is that supposed to be a good thing?

[hong]

Having played Hero, GURPS, and Rolemaster a great deal

Savage Species was the next step in the creeping HEROification of D&D, and 3.5E will no doubt take it further. I think it's a Good Thing, personally.

Players should not be saying 'This PrC is in Supplement XXVI, thus I want it,', they should be saying 'let me see your handouts for what you allow in this campaign'.

What DM worth his/her salt doesn't do that already?

 

[Olive]

Hate to sound pedantic, but it really depends on what you mean by options and restrictions. To me, restrictions mean you just, simply, outright cannot do something. Options means that you can try - you just might be better off doing something else.

<snip examples>

I'm all in favour of options. PCs should be able to try to do whatever they want. And the DM should be able to tell them what they need to do to suceed, and what happens if they fail.

this sums up my feelings on the matter perfectly. Hardhead, I think you're seeing problems that aren't there.

 

[Hardhead]

Hm, I think some of you are misunderstanding me.

I didn't say Restrictions, not options. I said I wanted both. In fact, I agree with most of you on what you said.

Personally, I think you're out to lunch. Sure, there are some overpowered feats/Prestige Classes/what have you out there, but for the most part, balance has been the overwhelming mantra at WotC, and that has for the most part carried through, even at third party publishers. You make very little specific accusations against anything other than to say the grammar and other non-mechanical editing of Stronghold Builder's Guide is bad (which it may be, I had no interest in the book from the start) and the Savage Species is bad (with which I strongly disagree, and from your post history on that book, I find it highly unlikely that I'll get a fair judgement on it from you, you clearly didn't like the concept from the beginning.) Neither of those seem to even support, much less prove, your point.

?

Are we talking about the same Savage Species?

I love Savage Species, in concept. I'm on record in the Savage Species thread as "giving it two big ol' tumbs up." I said I don't like Outsider advancement, as it was handled, and I agree with what I think is the majority in saying the Half-Ogre should be ECL 2. But overall, those are minor quibbles in the grand scheme of the book. Hell, I want to play a Minotaur as my next PC. The options in Savage Species are great.

However, I think there should also be more restrictions, for example the Half-Ogre should be ECL 2. I think the H/Ogre is the result of that "power creep" that's been mentioned. Invariably, I see people saying how the H/Ogre isn't "that bad" compared to the Orc, an ECL 0 race. But then, I think back about how people used to say the Orc wasn't "that bad," compared to the H/Orc. The Orc was already on the raggad edge of ECL 0, so if you make another race a bit more powerful by comparison, you get one that's much more powerful than a basic race.

Oh, and as far as the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook, I give it four stars. It's really nice, and I think the writer deserves a raise. The editor, assuming their was one, needs to be either fired, or given less work (I think the problem is the editing department was slashed during the layoffs).

Anyway.

But the options you're decrying aren't bad options to have, and I at least am glad they're in print. You can't just say something's munchkin just because you say so and automatically it becomes bad.

I never said it did, of course.

SS is not a munchkin book in the least,

I never said it was!

IMO, in fact the only reason I'd play one of the monsters therein is for flavor and RPing, as I find it to be the opposite of munchkin -- what you sacrifice in terms of "power" to be a monster is significant relative to what you get.

I think that's not the case in some cases. I've seen a hojillion mathmatical analysis and build comparisons both here and on the WotC boards showing that H/Ogres have a higher damage output than a human (or half-orc) of one level higher. I've seen none that show the opposite. I'm not saying the whole book is unbalanced, just that parts of it are: something not uncommon in many books today.

As several others noted, there's been a "d20 power creep." SS isn't any worse or better than others, IMO. It was just a book I pulled off the top of my head.

Hate to sound pedantic, but it really depends on what you mean by options and restrictions. To me, restrictions mean you just, simply, outright cannot do something.

I think several others thought that was what I was talking about too. I'm not in favor of those restricitons. I'm in favor of restrictions to balance the options, like stricter entry requirements for really powerful PrCs, or higher ECLs for really powerful races. I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to do something, I'm saying you should have to pay a price to do it, though.

Having played Hero, GURPS, and Rolemaster a great deal I'm all for the 'toss everything in and let the GM sort it out' approach. It means you cannot automatically 'trust' that a book will be 'balanced'; it requires more work on your part. Players should not be saying 'This PrC is in Supplement XXVI, thus I want it,', they should be saying 'let me see your handouts for what you allow in this campaign'.

I think, as D&D has become more CRPG-ish (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), people do this much less. I've found a lot of groups just allow whatever. Instead of asking the DM if they can do X, they assume they can do X unless the DM says otherwise. If everything was balances, this'd be OK. But as it is, a lot of DMs don't like to turn down stuff players ask for, especially turning them down repeatedly (which they'll have to do if they player keeps wanting to take something on the high end of the power scale/published more recenlty). And a lot of DMs assume that if WotC published it, it must be balanced...


- Z a c h

 

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by hong:

So 1) options are bad because they make characters too powerful; and 2) options are bad because they make characters too weak. Let's not get totally stupid, shall we?

Its not stupid, I am simply stating the two things I see players do most often when too many options are presented that are not restricted by the DM. Players tend to be either complete munchkins with absolute freedom to classes, spells, and feats, or they want a little of everything which can end up making the character less viable due to overgeneralization.

 

[hong]

Its not stupid, I am simply stating the two things I see players do most often when too many options are presented that are not restricted by the DM. Players tend to be either complete munchkins with absolute freedom to classes, spells, and feats,

How hard is it, exactly, to say "these things, and these alone, exist in my game"?

or they want a little of everything which can end up making the character less viable due to overgeneralization.

So their character dies, and the next one is smarter. It's Darwinism in action.

 

[hong]

I think, as D&D has become more CRPG-ish (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), people do this much less.

This is sooo y2k.

 

[Piratecat]

Let's not get totally stupid, shall we?

*Tap tap* Tone, Mr. Ooi. Tone. In this particular case, that would be the "not being offensive by calling someone stupid tone," eh? Ratchet that down a few notches, please.

Thanks!

 

[Breakdaddy]

Thats OK! *hands Hung some ritalin*

All better!

 

[hong]

Rachet that down a few notches, please.

I keep reading that as "Rachel that down a few notches, please".

Rachel

 

[Piratecat]

Well, that's your real name, isn't it, Mr. Rachel "Hong" Ooi? The truth is now known! And note that Rachel spelled backwards is Lehcer, as compared to Gnoh Ioo. If you squint, it all makes perfect sense.

Err - stupid typo.