D&D 5E Wandering Monsters- playable monsters

[Dausuul]

TRYING to keep this short.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Yeah, I failed somewhat horribly.

 

[Starfox]

I might want to play a sentient planet Jupiter, but I suggest we don't believe D&D failed when it isn't designed to do so.

The sentient planet Saturn is an NPC in our Maid game. ^^

 

[Starfox]

So much is right about this post, I need to comment on it even if it is a bit old.

It's not a matter of "fantasy enough". It's that I've always considered the underlying "theme" of D&D to be that of "normal" people who are skilled bravely facing threats that seem extremely dangerous.

This is true, and well put. But flights of fantasy are also fun. To each their own. Just as long as everyone can agree what the game is about, either can work.

The game becomes ABOUT the fact that the PC is a monster rather than about whatever the DM wanted it to be about...

While the other 4 players in your group waves your hands in the air and try to get the attention of anyone or even get NPCs in the world to acknowledge their presence. And if they don't do all that stuff, you have the player of the dragon asking "Wait, no one is running away/towards me? No one is screaming? They're all perfectly ok with a dragon walking into their city? Doesn't that seem odd to everyone else?" The rest of the players agree and it seems out of place.

Are you saying monster PCs would be more ok in Narrative play (In the Forge GNS model)? In more player-centric games?

Never balance a combat advantage with a roleplaying disadvantage.

Amen to tthat. I would star it if I could.

"I'm a flightless, human sized dragon with no breath weapon or magical powers and my claws do 1d8+3 damage, just like your sword!"
"So, you're a human fighter then..."
"Yeah, basically...but I look like a dragon."

Makes me think of the reskinning post [MENTION=60045]Tuft[/MENTION] made, where a horse mount was reskinned as a very well-behaved dragon that would not fly or breathe fire because it was trained not to...

 

[Weather Report]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"...the Cliffs of Insanity!"

 

[howandwhy99]

The sentient planet Saturn is an NPC in our Maid game. ^^

That is awesome. Long ago I was in a game with a player whose patron deity was Jupiter. Not just the Roman god, but the planet too. The DM made him a bigger part of the setting because of it and the two ended up talking quite a bit via magic. Jupiter would threaten to thunderbolt the PC if he didn't shape up and send him more sacrifices, but he never did "come and visit" if you know what I mean.

 

[Tovec]

Alright, here goes nothing. TRYING to keep this short.

We've really REALLY got to stop doing this. But .. here we go again.

I'm just using the stats from the poll this thread started about. It says that over 80% of people either said "No, I don't want this" or "I don't want this, but I don't want to tell other people how to play their game" for "truly monstrous creatures". I consider anything that 80% of people agree on to be pretty much universal. Especially in the D&D community where to get 80% agreement on ANYTHING is impossible.

When I last checked (after reading your previous post and before doing my own) I couldn't find any stats on that poll anymore. It didn't work. We'll probably have to wait until sometime this week coming up to see the full results. Beyond that, however, I am positive that 80% of people didn't all agree on the same tagline in the poll. There were some saying that they didn't want and some saying they didn't care. Those are not the same.

I thought it was a discussion of D&D Next and monstrous creatures being allowed as an option. Given D&D Next has balance very similar to 4e, I didn't think my dislike of 3e/PF imbalance was important to the discussion.

Well, no, that's not why it was important to know. It just helps when I know what I'm fighting against earlier rather than later. Helps for a more cohesive whole. If 3e/PF can do no right then obviously I can't use them as examples when they do right. I mean, I still will but I don't expect the evidence to be useful as I would have otherwise. Basically if you hate chocolate then I'm not going to try and sell you on chocolate icecream, or if I do I don't honestly expect you to accept that chocolate icecream is better than vanilla (even though it is).

I'm ok with that. D&D has never really been a toolbox. Despite people wanting it to be. 1e and 2e(especially) had a very specific tone and world they were writing for. People USED those systems to create something that didn't fit with the tone of the game....but it was never intended for that purpose.

If it has tools that people can use to create whatever they want and need from the system, then I define it as a toolbox. In that case, yes it has been and is supposed to remain (modules and options) a toolbox.

You might define toolboxes as something different.

I don't think they can be balanced with the power level of D&D Next, which is much lower than 3.5e of PF. PCs never get to be as powerful as dragons in many areas.

Actually, the power level of 5e should make it easier. If everyone is closer to a common base then it should be harder to break it with unforeseen consequences and mixtures. It should be downright impossible with foreseen ones; ie. someone playing a dragon.

The problem is, the goals are incompatible. I've said since the beginning of this experiment with D&D Next that they are trying to make everyone happy and it's impossible. Compromise will have to be made somewhere.

Which goals are incompatible? The goal of making everybody happy? That is only one. What are the other goals then? For my money that isn't the goal by the way. One goal is pleasing as many people as possible, so that they buy the product. Another is to give people as many options as need to make the game they want, since 5e is supposed to be able to replicate the style of every edition.

Because the point of balance is to make sure everyone at the table feels worthwhile and is having fun. By having and allowing imbalanced options and allowing them in the game you are forcing me not to have any fun or to change my character to something equally imbalanced in order to continue enjoying the game.

Sigh, we went over this earlier and I thought we understood each other. Balance isn't to do that. Imbalance doesn't mean that either.

They should not allow fully broken/over powered/ FULLY IMBALANCED options. We both agree here.

We disagree in that I think they can allow some imbalanced options, so that certain characters can be far superior to others in specific situations. The fighter should be best at fighting, the wizard the best at spells. I would like a bard to be best at roleplaying but you find anything roleplaying related too vague so I digress.

I wouldn't want to play a superhero where I was Aqua Man in a group with Superman either. It would be no fun. If Superman was banned and the other players were Batman, Robin, and the Wonder Twins I might feel a bit better about playing Aqua Man, however.

First, just a minor thing, Aquaman is NOT the same power level as Batman and Robin. Neither are the Wonder Twins (they're somewhere in between). He is closer to most members of the justice league. He lacks the huge array over stunning over powered options of Superman, but he isn't a guy with no super powers in a spandex batsuit. No, on that team with the Wonder Twins (who don't have their powers on very often and actually kind of suck when using their powers) and with Batman and Robin; Aquaman is over powered. He is the Superman of that team. Again, really minor.

Second and here's the real thing.. I would want to play in that game. If everyone has superpowers then I don't see why being Aquaman would be so bad. Also, you really should have gone for a better example in this case. Maybe saying you wouldn't want to be.. Robin or Jimmy Olsen in the justice league. Aquaman has super powers, many of them. He is strong, REALLY strong, a good fighter and so on. So I'm not going to bother listing off his abilities. No, you're problem is is Superman exists at all. He is REALLY strong, has flight, X-ray vision and the rest.

But that isn't the problem either, so long as those abilities are in check. If he is only as REALLY strong as everyone else then we're fine. He has X-ray vision but Aquaman can control all sea creatures (permanent dominate monster[sea creatures], no save). Superman can fly, but everyone can fly. He has laser eyes, but that was actually given to him in order to give him a ranged attack that everyone else had already.

These things are possible when you introduce some kind of level adjustment (some form of it, no matter what you are calling it) or level requirement (so that you can't come in at first level with a fully fledged Superman.

But I'll ask again, what sparked this mini conversation: Why should I care if you think it is balanced or not? That doesn't alter my enjoyment or my likelihood of playing. Some may enjoy imbalanced games and your opinion of how balanced or imbalanced it is does not change that.

Dragons as monsters are pretty common. It would no more be wasting space as a monster to fight than if a monster to play as a PC. Like I said, the best rules I've seen so far require a single page to use.

I disagree immensely that those are the best rules. I've seen them and they are pretty horrible. This is the problem. I believe that in order to have "proper" rules, they need at least a page on each and every race they want to turn into a PC. Probably 2 or 3 pages.

(Bold is mine, now.) You disagree that those are the best rules that I have seen so far? How? What?

Are they the best possible rules? Oh, hell no. But are they best I have seen so far? Yes.

I disagree that you need "at least a page on each and every race they want to turn into a PC." How many did thy have in 3.5's PHB? That was really too much. They CAN make a book full of "races" and have entire chapters devoted to each race, if they want. I don't need anywhere near that much information in order to play a character, mostly I just need the stats and I can go from there. Some mindset stuff is helpful when I don't understand the mindset of that particular creature.

But even so, I don't need a full page for every monster-PC. Mostly because I don't consider every monster-PC to have a "race" as elves, dwarves or humans do.

Then I'm glad it came out then. A nice innovation that they should not simply ignore because it doesn't fit in your sensibility.

It's not a matter of sensibility. It's a matter of what D&D is. If D&D Next is supposed to be the quintessential D&D experience then something that has appeared in only 1 of 4 editions of the game(5 if we include OD&D) is less important to D&D than something that has appeared in all of them.

If it appears in the only edition of DnD I have ever played, then it probably ends up being pretty quintessential DnD to me. So, why does your sense come into play?

Like I said, if it only exists in 3e and I like it, then I'm glad it came ou then and I would like to see it in the future. 1/4 has nothing to do with it.

It doesn't have a lot going for it as a mechanic.

We don't know what it has going for it. It hasn't been worked on yet. If they were able to create a really robust system to create new spells, do you think it would get much use? I think if it worked well and had everything we needed to allow that then people would create new spells constantly. Just because the previous rules (of any edition) I have seen all are TERRIBLE does not mean that they could not be created in the future.

Wish has...almost no limits. The 1e/2e version had no limits at all. The 3e/3.5e has limits that still say "This is all you can do safely before the DM has to rule on whether or not to allow it, but it could do anything in theory."

Right, but again the PCs and the NPCs both have access to this spell. I agree that wish is over powered. But it is equally over powered on both sides of the screen.

It sounds like you haven't played much D&D except for 3e and therefore want D&D Next to basically contain everything that 3.5e/PF has.

I want it to have enough elements for me to buy it. You, I guess, want so few as to make me and people like me NOT want to play it. That is an opinion but not one that WotC shares (to my knowledge). As 3e/PF is my wheelhouse then YES I want there to be things I recognize. I would find it hard for you to say you don't want innovations from your favourite versions of DnD to exist in the future, but perhaps I'm wrong.

It is silly for the PC (playing the good wizard) to have that power just as it is for the DM playing the evil wizard. In that case the problem is with the power itself. Flying is a problem on both sides of the screen. Having sight in a world of blind people is the problem.

No it isn't. Villains are often, in fiction, much more powerful than the heroes. They often have to face 5 or 6 heroes by themselves without any help. This requires them to be 5 or 6 times more powerful than the average PC.

Sigh, not at equal level they don't HAVE TO be. In fact, when they're the same level I find it terribly stupid and disconcerting when they are 5-6 times stronger than the PCs.

Also, many, many plots are designed around the fact that Evil people have powers way beyond normal people because they are willing to make pacts with demons and use forbidden artifacts or simply because they were willing to cast spells that other people considered immoral. Sometimes it's simply because they are just better than everyone else.

No, its not simply because they are better. It is because they are willing to make deals that no one else will. And that is fine. THAT I can accept. Because it means if the PCs make those deals and become monsters or villains that I the power levels stack up and I can treat them as monsters and villains.

This makes for an interesting story because the PCs can't just attack the super powerful villain. They might have to break in and destroy the evil orb that is giving him powers or trick him. The DM can facilitate this by putting the Orb somewhere they can get to and giving hints from NPCs on how to trick him. The DM has incentive to do this because his goal is the make the game fun for the players.

Again, no different from what I'm saying though. Super powerful villains can be high level (and should be in my model). Just as DRAGONS can be and should be (in my model) high level. However, lower level dragons - which exist in at least 1/4 of the game to date - can also be used as PCs because the lower level power levels are about comparable.

Giving the NPCs vast powers far in advance of the players can make the game for fun and more interesting. The reverse almost never seems to work. If a PC had an orb that gave him godlike power, he'd logically hide it somewhere it would NEVER be found or accessible.

Why doesn't the villain do this? Also, if the PC has an orb of godlike power (which I would never give the evil villain either) then he is a god (NPC) and if he is using it for evil then he is a villain (NPC). Kind of evens itself out is what I'm saying. It would be dumb for the villain to have godlike powers too, is what I'm saying.

The PCs however never went to Greyhawk and never tried to be normal once they got divine rank. That is the step you are missing.

Why didn't they? I certainly would. I could raise a cult of people willing to follow me as a god. Insert myself as the ruler of Greyhawk and have people dance to my every whim.

A. They never went to Greyhawk because we weren't set in Greyhawk.
B. They were gods and did not need a cult to follow them.
C. They had better things to do, rather than go to Greyhawk.
D. (and the point I was originally trying to make, which I can only feel was cropped from your reply..) They didn't try to be "just folks" going into Greyhawk if they had returned. They were different and if they had gone to Greyhawk then the world would have been different for them going. So it would have been if a dragon was in the party. They never tried to be NORMAL (did make the quote) which you largely skipped over in your reply.
E. They could have gone to Greyhawk (or my equivalent of it) after they were done, but that is a post-campaign kind of thing and not a in-campaign kind of thing.

Which, even if it's the only thing they can do is more powerful than the ability to fireball or use a sword. You'll eventually run out of fireballs and they don't kill people in one hit.

You'll eventually run out of swords too I assume.

Do you know the Assassin prestige class from 3.5?
I ask because it had the ability called death attack. It required three rounds and after those 3 rounds the assassin could make a death attack. If the person failed their save then they died. Flat out died. Do you know why it wasn't over powered? Because the save was SO low that it basically wasn't worth them doing death attack over flat out sneak attack (as most assassins are rogues of a decent level). In fact, being an assassin denies you all the nice and fancy advanced abilities that the 11th level and up rogues got.

Now, compare that to the monster who can do a SOD.
He can do it all day, every day, infinite times a day. The solution seems to be to make the SOD to be low enough, or does not scale well enough, that it is not a vastly over powered option. It is still Save or Die and so it will always be a strong option, but with the right tweaks it doesn't have to be over powered. In fact, in having the ability to do SOD they will be several levels behind everyone else in the party. Maybe it takes 6 levels to be able to have the race that SODs but then they are 6 levels behind the wizard or fighter who has other options besides fireball and a sword to boot.

Even if the ONLY thing someone could do is be immune to all damage, that one thing is still too much. Certain abilities are just never appropriate for PCs.

Immune to all damage is inappropriate for NPCs. Immune to all damage is not a "single ability" and is not comparable to SODs, or being a dragon. Swing and a miss, like on an intentional and obvious attempt to throw balls and send you walking to first base. Wow.

Yes, but it would take armies to defeat them when they are fully grown.

Going to stop you right there. You are right. WHEN FULL GROWN. So, let the PC play the one that isn't. Also, when fully grown (read: HIGH level) it is going to take an army (of low level guys) to defeat ANY party member.

No one on the planet is as powerful as a dragon.

Except other PCs.

But there's aren't any Wizards with D&D level spellcasting in Game of Thrones. A single person with high level Wizard powers in Game of Thrones could take the throne and conquer the world single handedly.

So, dragons are no more powerful than wizards. Okay, I'm glad we agree. Where do I sign your petition that wizards be removed (or disallowed or not worked on) for 5e?

Except we are discussing possible rules for Monster PCs in D&D Next. Any rules that have come before are valid areas of discussion. Since they COULD use Savage Species as one framework for allowing this. It could also be similar to the PF rules or the 3.5e rules or they could make up entirely different rules.

I didn't say we couldn't talk of SS. I just said it sucked. It is broken. We can look to it as an example of its brokenness. It might have good ideas too but mostly it is broken.
What is less broken? PF. If we are looking for a better starting model we should probably start there instead of pointing out how the entire endeavor is doomed to fail, because SS is broken.

You just seem to keep assuming that the rules will be the same as PF. There are about 100 different ways it could be done. LAs are simply one, and may not even be the best.

I don't assume that. I use PF as an example as it is the best form I have seen to date.
Yes there could be 100 different ways to do it. There have been a few on this board already.
LAs are probably not the best. No. I don't think they are at all. Equivalent CRs might be the way to go. Though I really liked (I forget who and I'm sorry) the idea of monsters as buy-off of class level multiclassing idea.

People are no more likely, in my experience, to play a dragon or a minotaur or anything; including Tiefling, more now than they were before.

Then, they aren't powergamers. A key point to being a powergamer is choosing the best option available. You may not believe it, but your players aren't big power gamers. Mine are.

Now we've entered the area where you speculate about my group. Okay.

Yes, some of them are power gamers. I am, sometimes. My best friend is more often than I am. We had a guy in our group when I first started playing that OMG was a huuge one.

With that said, as I have said repeatedly, no one is MORE likely to play them now. AS likely is the term I'd use. So, power gamers are gunna power game. Non-power gamers are not. That is all I have said in the last three posts on that subject.

Wow. You guys sound like jerks. If players ever pulled this crap at my table, I'd simply not run a game. I respect the DM enough to play whatever he wants to play. Luckily, it seems that your DM is a pushover and will just accept anything.

First, yeah, if that is your definition then I guess we are jerks.
Second, if we pulled that crap and you didn't run a game then we'd survive. We had many to choose from and so we got to be a little greedy (you call it being a jerk) in our choices of who we played with.
Third, screw "respect the DM enough to play whatever he wants." It is a continent. Both sides should agree and if they don't it won't be very satisfying. Yeah, the DM wants to run a game with one of every role that is fine - they did that. The DM can set whatever rules he wants but that only works as long as he has players to play the game. We had options and so we flexed our "We won't be screwed/limited to only the PHB" and used it when we had to.
Fourth, it wasn't about being a pushover. It was about what the players wanted and what the DM allowed. I said (correctly) that if the DM tried to limit us that way that we would rebel. I never said that he would bend or break to our rebelling. More often than not if we had those kinds of disagreements then the game would come to an end. If it was about what kinds of characters people were allowed to play and it came to a head.. then the game was over before it began. If the DM still wanted to do it he could find other people willing to follow his rules or he could change them, but he wasn't being a pushover in that case as the change wouldn't often come.

Until the Wizard's fly spell runs out and the guards tackle him and kill him. The point is the wizard has limitations the Dragon doesn't. He can't fly for long enough to take out an entire city. The dragon can. The Wizard can't fireball enough to take out every guard and every building in the city. The dragon can.

At what level is the dragon going to take out the city?
As I said before (using PF as the only base where this calculation is possible):

CR 6 white young dragon. Do you know how fast a city (your locale not mine) can take out a CR 6 white dragon? Colour-coded for your convenience means that he is EXTRA susceptible to fireballs. Three rounds would be my guess.

A CR 14 dragon would be harder I'll admit. But by CR 14 (level 15 for wizards) how many spells can they stack together. Overland flight is calculated in hours. He has spells like meteor swarm and disintegrate, or cloudkill. Heck nearly all casters can summon things - have those creatures wreck the city. He can't be hit because he is either invisible or greater invisible. Not to mention his protection from arrows. Seems about comparable is all I'm saying. Also, CR 14 dragon BEFORE he gets class levels, before level 1.

I'm just giving details for your example, in order to show how off base I find it of course.

Depends what you mean. I mean, it's possible for me to acquire a tank. It's unlikely and takes a lot of work to get a working, modern tank with working armaments, but a person with the right connections and money can probably do it.

If I started driving a tank down the street, it might provoke a lot of interesting reactions. People would get scared likely. Some people would just be bewildered.

Tanks exist. But they are extremely rare. The average person might never have seen one in real life and likely not driving down a normal street.

I could come up with a reason why someone had a tank in a story if I wanted to. However, if someone said "you are all members of a soccer team, make up characters for playing soccer" and someone came to me and said "I'm playing a tank driver", I'd say that it was out of place and didn't fit the game we were playing.

Dragons exist in my world, they COULD join an adventuring group, but they won't because the chance if it happening is so remote as to be impossible. And it would cause as much difficulty in the game as a tank playing soccer.

I love this example. It is a bit off in places but it kind of exactly encapsulates what I'm saying, sort of.

The important part is the last bit. No one is saying you have to let the tank into your game. No one is saying you should in a game about soccer players.

On the other hand, if we were playing a game.. let's say Indiana Jones in modern day in style and I put NO restrictions on players. Then it could work perfectly fine that someone has a tank. It might be rare but someone could do it.

What I'm also adding, however, is that in such a world where someone is rich and powerful enough to have a tank and to drive it down the street has to have a change in assumptions. At that point it is no longer about soccer players. It is about a world in which you can be rich and powerful enough to drive down the street in a tank.

I'm going to have to disagree. It depends on the size of the PC, of course. But buildings, cities, caves, and virtually every indoor structure is build for human or human sized creatures.

Every indoor structure in a kobold cave is built for humans? I didn't know that. Interesting. Okay then, my argument is invalid ONLY because that is true. [/sarcasm] On the other hand, if every indoor structure is build with their own race in mind then that changes things. Perhaps PCs should be knocking their heads on the tops of every door frame when they go to a dwarven city. They might have to squeeze down hallways and passages built for kobolds.

If you have a Huge or larger creature, you start getting into problems every couple of minutes in a normal campaign:

Huge, if I recall correctly, is CR 14 (and by that point likely has a way to size change) and if not, then the wizard likely does.

And I don't see why he has any more trouble than the humans in the kobold cave. No, sorry, humans in a .. whats size tiny?

Also, by the time they are fighting CR 14 you really have to wonder how large the the thing they're fighting is. It seems like they get bigger the higher you go.

You CAN factor it in. But I don't want to. When I run Tomb of Horrors and there is a 10x10 room, I'm not going to make it bigger simply because some PC wants to play something bigger than this. 99% of adventures simply can't be played if you are that big.

I'm not saying you have to.

But, playing devils advocate, how much effort IS it to factor it in? You could say that the monster-PC never has troubles getting into a room, regardless of how large the door is. You don't have to but you could add that little bit more so that someone playing a monster-PC could feel welcome.

Or you could not do that and attempt to make your entire game say "don't be a monster PC." I don't really care. It is such a minor thing.

This I agree with. However, this is because adventures are designed around the normal races and classes in the book. A player will know going in that a race choice other than those will cause huge problems. Which is precisely why I don't allow them. I don't want to cause huge problems.

NO ONE IS SAYING YOU HAVE TO ALLOW IT. There, I'm done with that any anything where that has to apply going forward. I'll just cut and ignore it from now on. Seriously.

If you think it will cause a problem, any problem at all, and you want to disallow it then by all means.. disallow it. If you dislike magic, for any reason, you can disallow it. If you dislike rogues, think their sneak attack is too good, disallow it. You can pick the rogue, sneak attack, anything like that that you want. Just disallow it.

On the other hand, your thoughts or opinions on this subject has nothing to do with the quality or value in the game. None. You don't like it and you don't have to allow it. It isn't matter of "just because you can houserule doesn't make it not broken" it is a matter of your own personal playstyle.

My playstyle says that dragon PCs of varying levels and powers are fine. In fact most monster-PCs would be allowed. The disallowed ones are mostly due to flavour (as I am the DM most of the time and not player). If a player wants to come to me and play ANY monster as a race they can do so. I'll evaluate it and we can move on.

If it disturbed you and your sense of fair play, fun or literally any other reason then I would suggest that you do not allow it and that we move on from there. Just because you do not like it does not mean I should not be allowed to play it.

People overestimate versatility. Most combat ended in the first round in our games when the Wizard opened up with 2 of his most damaging spells in the same round.

Sleep spell or colour spray are probably the single most effective spells wizards get in 3e at low levels (like level 1 and similarly low levels). SINGLE MOST EFFECTIVE. They are most effective because they allow other party members do do more damage to the enemy without getting hit themselves. Even if you ignore coup de grace they are the most effective because the enemy can't swing their sword back at the caster.

The best combinations of spells and caster options I have seen, including in game but also read on the ChaOp boards, have many spells that stack to provide a great defense. The dragon has no such options. They might be an amazing damager but they won't have the versatility that becomes essential for higher level casters. They will always be (at minimum) 6 levels behind everyone else, usually more. Versatility here is key, not overestimated - KEY.

I would suggest that putting a poll up on the internet to determine what people want would be a good start. Go with the majority.

But never marginalize the minority. I am a long time possessor and supporter of minority positions and opinions. The minority gets stuff done. The majority likes to stay the majority and to never change anything, ever, so long as they can help it.

No they aren't. The Stormwind Fallacy was created explicitly because of this kind of situation. There were people out there who were saying "Don't worry, (insert name of feat) isn't overpowered because the DM can always disallow it in his game if he doesn't like it".

I don't care what the stormwind fallacy is. If it is exactly as you are saying it here (I don't know or care if that is true) then it is still inaccurate as a problem.

I'm not saying something isn't over powered because the DM can disallow/houserule it.

I AM saying that if YOU find something over powered you can disallow/houserule it.

Note the difference.

If it is truly over powered it should not be created in the first place. But you haven't shown that it is over powered. I have shown that it is lower powered than you are portraying it, but you haven't given me any example of where it is over powered - just that you dislike it.

Therefore, the fallacy as you describe it does not apply.

I'd rather not have to search through the books seeing if they accidentally printed a feat that allows +1000 points of damage. I'd just rather they keep broken feats(or broken monsters) out of the book entirely.

And here we agree. Yet disagree too.

I agree that if something is broken it should be kept out of the book entirely. You think that it should then still be an option for DMs.
I think that if it is NOT over powered that it should be usable by both DMs and players. Your problem is that anything that fits a certain criteria (fly all day) is broken and then can not be used by players ever.

Those are NOT the same.

I'm not special. I'm just like the rest of the 80% who don't want this in the game. I don't want to have to deal with it.

Pics or it didn't happen. I have absolutely not seen anything to support your "80% of people agree with you" argument that you used (I believe) three times in that single post.

It's not so much a "house rule" as it is an agreement not to anger the rest of the players.

Which is kind of a fairly decent definition of houserule to me.

I'd prefer not to spend another night where all my friends are screaming at each other over something done to them in character. It's happened too many times.

Right. Neither would I. But I think that if someone is bringing in a character that the character should interact with the other characters in the game world. That might bleed over into the the real world where it becomes player against player; but that is going to happen no matter what happens in the game world.

It may be a house rule, but it's an extremely common one. There was an entire thread here about PC vs PC conflict, so I don't want to go over it again. Let's just say that a large number of people hate PC vs PC combat and it's safer not to allow it.

Okay. It is a general assumption in 4e that harmful effects do not hit friendly PCs and that helpful ones do (and don't hit enemies). I don't have experience with 4e so I don't know how accurate this is. Regardless of its accuracy if it is true then it is something I don't agree with.

The game effect should not distinguish between PCs and NPCs. In my world ALL characters are just that, no matter who is controlling them. An effect that hits "characters in area" had better hit ALL characters in that area. If the effect is one that immediately ignites hatred of a character by merely being in his presence, then the PCs should not be immune to that just by being PCs.

The player should not try and defend his actions as being "only in character" either, which was your original point.

He does. He regularly threatens to kill me in my sleep. I posted an entire thread about this once. Let's just say that it's likely other people would(and do) find him especially annoying and offensive and don't like having him around. He's my good friend so I tolerate it.

Tolerate him. Got it. Okay, but if the cops came over to your place and told you that he actually did kill someone in their sleep. Would you lie to keep him safe? Would you hide him in your place? Or would you let the cops go about their duty, neither harming nor helping him.

If you actively helped him flee the police; escaping punishment of killing someone in their sleep, something he happens to threaten you with all the time, then I would think you are crazy. I'm not telling you how you should act, but I certainly find it surprising.

You can't counter with "Then use non-roleplaying disadvantages". That was my point in the first place.

Then we agree. Please stop saying anything about MY saying there should be roleplaying disadvantages in order to cancel out combat advantages.

I know I won't convince you because, as my conversation with my friend has proven to me, people who have groups of non-powergamers have NO idea what it's like to have powergamers at their table. Also, there are just those DMs who don't care about balance at all, in which case they don't notice any problems at all.

"Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit" makes perfect sense to them and they wouldn't have it any other way.

So, when it comes down to it. I'm not telling you what you have to play. But you won't allow me to play what I like to play even though it doesn't bother me? Especially when I wouldn't "have it any other way."

Either way, here's what I want: A system where everything SHOULD be allowed instead of not everything being allowed. Where each option IS balanced and everything in them is good.

I haven't seen the line of where 'SHOULD' should be. We clearly have different ideas. As you previously agreed, it is all a matter of degrees.

I would stipulate though that strong or even powerful options are fine. Over powered ones are not. Toolboxes of good options are fine.

Then, if you have an issue discard the things that offend you. Flight for any reason seems to offend you but it fits right into what I find acceptable. Discard flight then. I'll keep it and we can both be happy. That 'SHOULD' would then seem to apply to both of us.

If that means that I only get 10 options and each of them works perfectly well instead of 100 of them and only 15 of them works perfectly well, I'm willing to take the tradeoff.

I'm not.

This works the same for races. If there are only 10 races and all of them fit well into the world, don't have any extremely powerful abilities, I'd be happy. If there are 50 races and 35 of them are too powerful to allow in the game or don't fit well and I have to continually deal with requests from my players to be them, I'd be frustrated.

Again we disagree. We disagree because "too powerful" seems to be subjective. I'm fine with powerful options, I'm not okay with ones that invalidate all other choices. You seem to have a problem with powerful options to begin with. That is fine, but it doesn't mean that I should be denied options that I do not find powerful.

I dislike book of nine swords, I find it over powered and game breaking, others don't. For me it does not conform to my ideal of how the game should look, play or feel. Others can certainly still use in their games. I would not deny them the option or exclude the book. You would, thus we disagree. Worse yet, you try to say that I am part of your 80% that think the book should be banned.

Which is why I'm excited about D&D Next, this issue is a little bit lessened. However, I REALLY wish they'd remove Con bonus per level. Then the issue will be resolved.

I haven't seen them get anywhere near what I would like for HP at all. No where near. Worse yet, based on everything I've seen and discussed that seems to be the number 1 place to start.

That's the point. ALL options should be balanced with the world. He chose an option which made him out of balance with what the world had access to or expected. Such options shouldn't be printed.

Agreed to a point. If he was powerful, more powerful than he otherwise would have been, he could still have worked and I still would have allowed the option to be in the book.

If he was over powerful, too powerful to be countered, soo powerful that the option is a necessity and would never not be taken.. then it should be disallowed universally and not in the book.

Example 1 : If the game 100% assumes you cannot cast spells while wildshaped, then introduces the wild spell feat.. then it should be disallowed.
Example 2: If the game assumes that some people, probably most, will have the wild spell feat then there is no problem.

You reside in the first, I have no problem in the second.

That's what I've been trying to say. Don't allow a dragon. He is too much work.

No, what you've been saying is: You find them too much work. Don't allow dragons in the book.

It's not really the same. It is much more universal as it will apply to me when it really shouldn't.

What it should be: You find dragons too much work. You won't allow them in your game.
I don't find dragons too much work. Therefore I can allow them in my game.

Problem solved.

This reminds me when we had a centaur in our group and we reached a 5ft x 5ft shaft in the ground with a ladder and the group burst out in laughter. We were playing a Living Greyhawk adventure and there was basically no way of continuing with the plot unless we all went down there. We spend about 30 minutes trying to figure out a way to do it until the DM said "I don't know...let's just assume you do it somehow."

Which is ultimately valid. You may not like it, but it doesn't mean others should not be allowed to play a centaur. If you foresee this problem and don't want to make the change, then disallow the centaur. If you don't see this problem coming, and the centaur is already in game then it seems reasonable to come to that final conclusion. But, see next..

The character had no choice. Correct. I wouldn't penalize the character for being in my game. Then again I can't really penalize the character, but I wouldn't want to if I could. No I can penalize the PLAYER who makes an active choice to make and play that character.

However, anything you do to his character only punishes his character, not him. People attacking him doesn't punish him at all. That's what he wanted.

No, my point mostly relates to the part directly above. I wouldn't penalize the party or character if they came to a 5x5 shaft with a centaur and couldn't figure out a way down. I would personally let them get through and move on. But even if I penalized the character, saying he had to wait this one out (thereby penalizing the player) then that is what I would do. Penalizing the PLAYER would be if I purposefully make a world of nothing but 5x5 shafts and didn't let him get down.

I suspect you would mostly be in the area between not allowing him to go down the 5x5 shaft and a world filled with nothing but 5x5 shafts. And then using your experience where this is true to say I can't play a centaur/dragon and that they shouldn't bother working on centaurs because your world has nothing but 5x5 shafts and centaurs won't fit.

 

[Starfox]

Like the similar "should Next have a warlord" issue, this seems to boil down to something much like morality. "I dont like it so it should not be allowed". Why cant we let others' games (and bedroom habits) be theirs to decide?

 

[Hussar]

Like the similar "should Next have a warlord" issue, this seems to boil down to something much like morality. "I dont like it so it should not be allowed". Why cant we let others' games (and bedroom habits) be theirs to decide?

Well, honestly, it's all down to page count. Do you want to cut something you like out of the game in order to add in something you hate? When you know that only 20% of people out there actually want it? People don't want warlords in the game and that's fine. But, again, let's let the numbers decide. If 80% of people out there either don't want or wouldn't care if warlords were left on the floor, fair enough, cut warlords.

How much should we pander to the gnome effect?

 

[Kobold Stew]

This has been said before by others, but it bears repeating.

20% is not a small amount. It is one gamer in five, or roughly one person at each table. Most tables have someone who wants to play a monster. I am not sure the same can be said of several classes.

For all the talk about the desirability of modularity in Next, this seems a module that would be used at many tables. Twenty percent is a mainstream view, and it is not a view that deserves to be marginalized.