Races of the Wild - First Impressions

[Sammael]

Sure. I take all choice away from characters. For example, I took away a lot of choice when I merged Hide and Move Silently, and folded Use Rope into Sleight of Hand, effectively giving rogues +2 skill points per level (and making those skills more useful). I also must have taken a lot of choice away when I streamlined the turn undead mechanics, allowing high-level clerics to be able to actually turn high-HD, low-CR zombies and skeletons. Oh, and I integrated Great Cleave into Cleave. And I give out Fate Points. Yup. Hampering characters, that's me. For sure.

BTW, the primary reason why I took away heavy armor from clerics was to make fighters more unique. Paladins aren't available in my game, so fighters are the only class that has access to heavy armor and tower shields right from the start.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Sounds like Sammael has some differences in his game that make almost any new material have to go through a new 'playtest' factor to fit into his own campaign.

That's cool for him and his group.

For me, I get very leery when the GM goes, "Yeah, it's D&D, but I've changed X, Y, and Z and it's better!" YMMY

 

[Sammael]

Joe, I would not allow the listed options from RotW even in a straight 3.5 campaign (and I am running one alongside my heavily house-ruled long-term FR campaign). I can understand your leeriness, but consider the following:

-D&D has always been a game that allowed and even encouraged house-ruling, from the very beginning. Heck, in order to integrate materials published in supplements, you have to house rule the core game. There may be people who find the PHB, DMG, and MM sufficient, but I am not one of them. And every time I allow or disallow a feat, PrC, spell, or magic item from a non-core book, I am making a house-rule. I've seen games that allowed all published options indiscriminately, and they've almost always been out of control.

-I do not allow new players into the group. Since all the players have been "in" on the house rules, and even suggested a number of them themselves (subject to my evaluation, playtesting, and balancing), they don't have a problem with them. On the contrary, they think many of the house rules make the game work a lot better. E.g. you can stand up from prone as a full-round action without provoking an AoO...

-It does not matter to me whether the game I am playing is called "D&D," "d20 fantasy" or "Escape from Munchkinland." What matters to me is that both me and my players are having fun. Without house rules, my players would probably still have fun, but I would be extremely unhappy with a number of rulings I'd have to make.

</thread hijack>

 

[JoeGKushner]

That's not a problem. It's just many people do not realize that so much 'kit bashing' if you will, is part of the rules in and of themselves and worry about the 'balance' factor.

I been in too many games though, where the GM thought he was doing something like capturing a certain flavor and heavily house ruling how magic works. Spell point systems tended to be the worst as the GMs usually went under the power level with massive restrictions.

 

[Sammael]

My experiment with spell points in D&D (many years ago) went quite in the opposite direction, but I soon realized how much it screwed the game up, so I abandoned them and returned to the Vancian system.

But I really like how the CA warlock works (excluding some easily abused invocation combos), and I'll be glad if the 4E sorcerer goes in the same direction.

 

[Navar]

The only thing that got me was how negative your comments sounded. Prebanning stuff to me seems il conceived. I don't think that game balance suffers if you make each "Race" better at 1 class than every other race. Dwarfs already make good fighters, but Humans also make good fighters. So they have sub levels that make them a little better. The Elf wizard levels (if I understand them correctly) give an elf wizard 2 bonus feats that are preselected, but you can't specialize. BUT a human can get ANY 1 feat. That seems VERY balanced to me. If the edge goes to the Elf then that is a good thing because humans should be good at everything and not the best at anything, but with the bonus feat, and skill points they seem to be better at a LOT of classes.

On a related note, the jack of all trades ability is not a boon. Esp at level 7+. At level 7 you can have 10 ranks in a class skill and should have an ability mod of +3 (At least) for important skills. With an average roll of 11 on a d20 (actually 10.5, but lets call it 11 for this case) an average DC for any skill check is 24 round this up to 25 for ease of working with numbers. 10 ranks + 3 mod + 11 average roll = 24. So if you have the jack of all trades (or the elf one) you get +1 to all skills you don’t have ranks in, and you can make checks untrained. But still if a skill is unimportant to you, you likely don’t have more than a +3 to the roll (from ability checks) and even then you can only get a DC 24 with a roll of a natural 20, and DC 25 checks are impossible for you. A good DM will allow you the chance to make obscure skill checks with low DCs just so the ability isn’t wasted, but in the long term game you will never actually be able to do anything worthwhile, and certainly won’t have the ability to change game balance. I honestly think that Jack of all Trades is a wasted feat, and the elf ability is good flavor, but doesn’t effect game balance in the least.

I for one don't like negativity (I know oxymoronic as that may sound) so when people complain about stuff so early it rubs me the wrong way.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Elf Wizards

I've felt for some time that the core elf made a poor wizard. +2Dex/-2Con is a terrible tradeoff for a wizard.

But WoTC has muddied the waters by putting the grey elf in the MM and the Sun Elf in the FRCS. These races make _great_ wizards.

I like what I'm hearing about the racial subsitution levels , but I wouldn't let a Sun Elf or Grey Elf take them. I'd limit them to the PHB elf.

Two more comments:

1) Yes, Merric should get a paycheck from WoTC marketing (if he doesn't already).

2) WoTC has been releasing questionably playtested sourcebooks for some time now. I think the bashing they get here is by and large well-deserved. It's so bad that I can skim any new book they publish, and predict which feat/prestige class will be getting the bashing on EnWorld.

That said, this particular bashing doesn't seem on-target. The elf wizard changes seem balanced and useful, if Sun Elves/Grey Elves aren't allowed to get them.

Ken

 

[Psion]

Really? Sun Elf anyone?

That's nice for those who play FR.

 

[Psion]

I think the bashing they get here is by and large well-deserved. It's so bad that I can skim any new book they publish, and predict which feat/prestige class will be getting the bashing on EnWorld.

I find that there is at best a weak correlation between what gets complained about on the boards and what proves to actually be a problem in play.

 

[MerricB]

I've found a feat that I'm very unhappy about:

Magic of the Land (General)
Prereqs: Concentration 5 ranks, Knowledge (nature) 5 ranks, Spellcraft 5 ranks, caster level 1.
Benefit: When in a natural setting, you can make a Knowledge (nature) check of DC 15 when casting a spell (this is a free action). If you make the check, each target of the spell is healed 2 points of damage per spell level, in addition to the spell's normal effect. If you fail the check, the spell/slot is lost. You can't use this with any spell with an alignment descriptor, nor with any necromancy spell.

I've paraphrased the feat quite a bit.

What is my problem with this feat? Well, many, many things - but primarily because it gives healing spells to Wizards. No, no, no!

I don't really have a problem with the Arcane Disciple feat + Healing Domain, but this one is just too broad in application.

I might have problems with it from a divine point of view - but for a Sorcerer or Wizard? Urk.

Cheers!