Rules that never made sense to you?

[Nail]

Is there some sort of requirement the student must meet to get into the advanced path?

Nope....other than having the pre-reqs for the first class.

The point here is simple: if you can take 2 feats at the same level (like Ftr 1 or a human at 1st level or a Wiz 15 or...) there's no reason why you can't take 2 in a feat chain, regardless of the label "improved" or not. Explain it however you'd like; no need the change the rules to accomodate a lack of "reasonableness" here.

 

[pemerton]

Do you have a college education? I know that IME you cannot take a course without having had it's prereque unless you get special dispensation from the department chair. Then you'll usually be told you can take them as coreques.

As far as I know - no one is ever allowed to take Calc I and Calc II at the same time (BTW: I'm the head of I.T. at a college so I do have an idea what I'm talking about here).

I do have a university education, to the level of PhD. I am an academic lawyer and philosopher in Melbourne, Australia.

So it is from experience that I say that students are, from time to time, waived from prereqs (and, as you say, typically take them as co-reqs). Much like taking Cleave (the prereq turned co-req) at the same time as Great Cleave.

The comparison to tertiary education is, of course, imperfect, because there is a difference between mastering a technical body of knowledge, and mastering a physical skill. But just as some people can learn a body of knowledge more quickly (by analogy: with less training time, eg one level rather than two) I'm sure the same is true of physical prowess (eg I have a very fit and sporty friend who, the first time he ever ran a marathon, came third - by analogy, the sixth level fighter tries mastering cleaving techniques, discovers she is a natural, and goes straight from nothing to Great Cleave).

 

[Nail]

Any chance of moving off of the "Intimidate Debate"? <hopeful>

I'm interested in other rules that:

#1) People still use, but

#2) Don't really make sense.

For example, I still use the tripping rules, even though they don't account for combat skill.

 

[KarinsDad]

Are you really arguing that Mean Joe Greene was not a memorable and charismatic personality?

No. I am arguing that Montana is more charismatic and Greene is more intimidating.

Greene is definitely memorable. But even there, Montana is more memorable.


I could have picked Bronko Nagurski as non-memorable (outside most circles), but still way less charismatic and vastly more intimidating than Montana.

 

[Storm Raven]

No. I am arguing that Montana is more charismatic and Greene is more intimidating.

Greene is definitely memorable. But even there, Montana is more memorable.

I could have picked Bronko Nagurski as non-memorable (outside most circles), but still way less charismatic and vastly more intimidating than Montana.

Scarier, probably. But which one is more likely to get you to do what they want? I'm not putting my money on Greene or Nagurski.

Your problem is that you continue to confuse to colloquial small "i" intimidate with the 3e Intimidate skill. They are not the same. Conflating them leads you to the false conclusion that "strong, scary guys" should automatically be better at the Intimidate skill. Big and scary is not what it is about. Getting what you want out of someone is. That is why it is a Charisma based skill.

 

[Infiniti2000]

For example, I still use the tripping rules, even though they don't account for combat skill.

I don't like that if you try to trip, you provoke an AoO, but you can continue your trip attempt. But, try to grapple or disarm and your attempt fails. I do not see the balance reason for this, nor the logic.

 

[pemerton]

Any chance of moving off of the "Intimidate Debate"? <hopeful>

I'm interested in other rules that:

#1) People still use, but

#2) Don't really make sense.

For example, I still use the tripping rules, even though they don't account for combat skill.

I hope I don't get flamed for this: I find the rules for damage, and the rules for avoiding damage, have too many different components that can be hard to reconcile.

Thus, we have:

*DEX helps you avoid damage (through AC bonus), presumably by dodging;

*Tumbling helps you avoid damage (through avoiding AoOs), presumably by dodging;

*Reflex saves help you reduce some damage, presumably by dodging;

*Getting levels helps you reduce some damage, by increasing hit points (which don't correspond to getting tougher, but rather to better avoiding deadly blows) - presumably, this is a type of dodging (or perhaps parrying);

*Being a high-level Rogue, Monk, Ranger etc helps you avoid some damage (Evasion), presumably by dodging, and reduce some other damage (through Improved Evasion), again presumably through dodging.

So many dodging mechanics! How, in-game, are we to understand the relationship between all of them? For example, it is possible to have a character with a high Reflex save (from level and magic) but no Evasion, Dex bonus or Tumbling - perhaps a certain type of Bard; it is also possible to have a character with a moderate Reflex save but Evasion, Dex bonus and Tumbling - perhaps a low-level Rogue. If I actually have to think of these two characters as real people, how do I do it? The Bard is excellent at partially dodging and rolling out of fireballs, but is no good at all when it comes to dodging swords or rolling past foes. The rogue is a good all-round dodger, but when dodging fireballs takes either all-or-nothing, but never partial.

I would find it easier to make sense of it if Tumbling-type abilities were linked to Reflex saves. Evasion is harder to know what to do with. In 1st ed one could treat it as a mystical monk technique, but in 3rd ed it is an exceptional ability, meaning that it is presumably meant to reflect skill and training rather than wacky mind powers. What exactly is this skill?

 

[Infiniti2000]

So many dodging mechanics! How, in-game, are we to understand the relationship between all of them?

Why do you need to?

What exactly is this skill?

Why is this information important? Since you've gone through the trouble of attempting to find a relationship amongst various game mechanics, perhaps you can tell us why it's important to find a common element (dodging) and then attempt to explain all those mechanics as a single element.

I think your whole point in this exercise is that parts of the system are too complicated. But, I'm not sure.

 

[lukelightning]

The balance skill. The only time I've ever seen "balancing" has been in the form of reflex saves vs. grease and other effects.

 

[TYPO5478]

And Charisma is all about how well you communicate your power. You could be really powerful, but speak like Michael Jackson, and suddenly you are not going to convince people to do what you want. And begin to look silly every time you talk.

Mike Tyson?