Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6153080" data-attributes="member: 95493">Using the term "normal enough" vs  "fantasy enough" are almost the same in this context. Plus you didn't  answer my question. Humans are good, elves are good, dwarves are good.  What about halflings, gnomes, orcs, kobolds, gnolls, goblins,  hobgoblins, bugbears, ogres, giants, pixies, dragons. I'm assuming some  of these lie on the other side of "normal enough" or "normal people"  whereas the others don't. I certainly have a line but rules-wise I don't  see it. I personally wouldn't allow a bugbear in my game, but that  reason is ONLY a roleplay restriction, NOT a rules one.Who says it is a hero's journey, and only such? I mean who says beyond you, of course.-  I assumed the game was more about dungeon delving and slaying monsters.  Something that wasn't really done all that often in LotR. Gandalf,  probably the strongest caster in the LotR universe displayed power  comparable to a 3.5 cleric of 5th level (IIRC). Are we all limited to  this vision of yours?- I like games that are decidedly not hero's  journey. Some barely have a beginning and most have no end. I do  sandboxes, I do cityscapes, I dungeon delve. I don't have a master who  teaches me things, then who dies, I don't save a princess, ascend, then  return home, etc. of the hero's journey. - Who (except you) is saying a dragon should be in a party with a first level fighter? WHO? Not who wants, but who says it SHOULD.Okay, so human vs dragon = epic. Dragon vs dragon = epic.Beyond  that, the only difference I see is playstyle preference. I like a  different one from you. So, they should only make your style and ignore  mine? I assumed the answer for that is No. Instead, as they have stated,  it should resemble something like; make two options and let people  decide what they want to use.There is no "focus of DnD" style.  It is not about heroism anymore than it is about .. dungeon delving (and  that alone). The type of disney-esque heroism you describe (of prince  charming fighting the evil dragon, winning and story over) is ONE focus among many.I'm sorry for you.  This is different from my experience. Either experience seems valid to  me. Both should be allowed for in rules. I feel actually a little  jealous that someone got to play a dragon - of any type.Doesn't have to. There are so far, I think, six  solutions (in this thread) to have monster PCs not be more powerful than everyone else  in the group.As far as the second sentence here, let me explain my position of "play a monster to feel more powerful."At  game start, session 1, two OGRES (brothers) and one wizard (might have  been a sorcerer, it was a while ago). Ogres killed some farmers, stole  some cattle (cooked? and ate it), fled the authorities (because the  wizard suggested they should or else they'd get in trouble). They also  bashed around and generally intimidated the wizard enough that he was  terrified (RP ftw, he could have taken them down with his spells) into  helping them. They ended up escaping on a boat to flee.Session 2,  rest of the party shows up (finally) and I gain a centaur and a number  of core raced PCs. The two parts of the party adventure around the boat,  meeting some monsters, nearly killing some PCs in friendly fights. No  one was killed (PCs or NPCs/enemies) and the party even recruited two NPCs (a half-dragon and an eryines[sp?]) for a while.Session 3, the wizard flees (quit the game for RL reasons) in terror and  runs from the boat as soon as it is docked. The new party is about half  monsters at this point. They go adventuring in the new town, with the  humanoid PCs shepherding the ogres with the half-dragon helping out and  the eryines hiding, because she is a devil.That was literally the  first three sessions of my most successful and by ALL accounts most fun  game I have run. Probably top 5 (maybe top 3) best games I have ever been  in (or run). Over the course of that game I had (PCs or adventuring  with them NPCs) two half-dragons, two ogres, two giants, an eryines, a  centaur (two if you count his non-adventuring NPC wife), a tiny sentient  magical ball, and about two times as many humanoids (compared to all the  previous "monsters" combined).No one had and trouble keeping up  with the monsters. Keeping them in check? Absolutely, but that was the  fun. In fact, due to LAs and HP inflation the number of the monsters  were NOT a factor at higher levels. There were less at higher levels  than at lower. In fact the two most alien party members were a little  girl (who had a god-spark within her) and an ancient grey elf wizard.I  am well aware of balance problems. The issue, as I correctly state, is  not balance. It is imbalance. No one wants to play in a game where one  PC can wreck an entire encounter solo. That is an issue that is very  real (as I said) and that they are aware of and working on.Balance,  as you more accurately say, rears its head when talking of "medium  humanoid and power of your sword" vs. the human fighter with a sword.Agreed. So, no dragons in first level parties. Check.So, no mind flayers at first level, check. Who (outside you) is suggesting this?Do  you know how often I've ever seen a party of 4 standard races? Never.  Especially at higher levels, where a dragon would be present under  virtually EVERY model. By that level every party member can have ungodly  power or gear, heck, they can even kill powerful dragons by that point  in a matter of SECONDS. Hardly heroic <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" /> Um.. why? Why not the bard with insane CHA? The wizard who can charm people? The fighter who might actually be a noble knight?People might initially notice a dragon. But that doesn't mean anything as far as "acknowledge the other PCs presence" goes.People might fear a dragon and flee him. Making him a random variable that way. Maybe the dragon should hang back.If they know chromatic dragons, they might flee or try and kill the dragon PC on sight.If they know metallic dragons they might question him incessantly or ask him to solve their problems endlessly.Friends  of the dragon might be treated similarly. If this is a real concern  (either way) for the party then maybe they should leave him outside of  town and go in first to make sure he is okay. This sounds like great RP  to me.This also sounds exactly like the same things that might  happen if the party entered town with an angel or a friend, or even an  orc or half-orc party member. Roleplaying, just too bad you can't get  that out of your heroic RPG.In general, the villagers  should probably be running away. People who kill dragons should probably  be running to do that. So, that should happen. No one has to say this  seems out of place, because it isn't. Problem solved.Right,  which is not itself a problem. There have been a lot of good stories  about monsters as a member of the team. There have been entire series  about it. It is a game style. It is not what you want, and so when you  are running a game you should exclude monster-PCs. That has no bearing  on the rest of us.Okay, and? They aren't trying  to balance them. They are trying to stop imbalance. Balance is everyone  has the same options at the same time at the same level, no one wants  this. Imbalance is character A can shoot fireballs, fly, scare people;  character B can only run around and hope they fall onto his sword  (because let's say he can't hit them on his own). Spot the difference?  Both are bad. They are at opposite ends of the spectrum. WotC is moving  along from imbalance to balance, but they don't want balance by itself.  If they did it wouldn't matter what race/class you choose.So, don't make the disadvantage nebulous.That they are unwilling  or unable to play with that disadvantage does not invalidate the trade  off. What if we were playing chess and instead of allowing the knight to  jump over other pieces you said they had to have a clear path. That  would change the power of the knight. It would change it in a way that  should not be allowed. If you don't want to play with the knight as  created (only having half the ability and ignoring the other half) then  you are using it wrong.How this translates back to your example  is easy. If the DM doesn't want to actually use the roleplay  disadvantage, then they shouldn't allow the combat advantage. If they  don't care about the people having that advantage then I don't see the  problem either way. But DM laziness doesn't really come into my concern  when talking of power levels and compatibility.I'm assuming he got more because the DM  wasn't willing to force the PC to fight a group alone. I would. That is  the specific disadvantage he selected. He wandered off in a dangerous  area.. I have no idea what the actual nebulous mechanic actually does so  I'm making something up which I hope is similar. Anyway, he wanders off  and gets into a fight. If he had a group with him the fight would be  appropriate and so, because he is alone, he ends up getting killed or at  least beat up badly. That is a nebulous disadvantage that can  definitely impact play. All it requires is taking off the kiddy gloves  when someone purposely takes a disadvantage.If I were playing  pathfinder and had an oracle PC who had taken the curse that made them  blind.. don't expect all fights to suddenly start happening within his  vision of 30 (or is it 60) feet. They would be exactly the same as they  were before, no extra adjustment needed on the DM's part. That is the  value of a pre-written adventure and a properly made disadvantage.First, you were the DM?Second, friend of yours took everything he could to be insanely OVER POWERED and dumb, ugly and stupid as he could?Third,  you (as the DM) let him play this OVER POWERED character? Rookie  mistake, but alright. When that happens, which I again say you shouldn't  let him do (power gamer meets inexperienced DM who lets him do whatever  he wants), this is going to be a recipe for disaster. There are two  solutions, neither of which have to do with the direct power level  (advantages in combat vs disadvantages out of combat).1. Everyone else gets the similar adjustments. So, he gets ugly and  strong then why not all the guards? This is the nuclear deterent method.  My least favourite (after experience) but an acceptable one at times.2. JUST SAY NO. Basically, skip right down to "he proved his point that he can make an insane character" and then move on.This is decidedly a problem of a power gamer and NOT a problem with the game he is abusing.Okay, so, you let one person  have the powers of a god but then NO ONE else did? Yeah, seems like a  break down in the entire system, never play 2e again.[/sarcasm] Or put another  way, if there is reason enough for such a powerful PC to be in the town  (which I argue there wasn't) then there is such a reason for similarly  powerful NPCs to be in town. You say it didn't make sense, I say it is the only way it makes sense.Having never met the guy, I can't say this for  certain, but I'm guessing his point was to make a powerful PC that could  do amazing things in combat. It probably wasn't to point out that  roleplaying disadvantages were a BAD idea.Also, at the point you  described above, they aren't a PC anymore; they are a villain. They  willingly kill dozens of people for no good reason because they could =  villain. Evil groups can exist but I'm guessing that wasn't the point.  If they were trying to NOT do these things then they failed at RP. Yes,  he could have wiped out every guard in town but that isn't a failure in  itself with the roleplaying disadvantage. The disadvantage (if I'm  reading correctly) worked fine. The problem was the player, or the  outcome of that disadvantage.Ex2. Party enters throne room to meet the King.Character 1: You suck King, kiss my butt.King: Kill that man!OP character proceeds to kill EVERYONE because he can.OP character: Problem solved.Horrified other PC members: Um.. NO! You just murdered everyone, you are the bad guy now.Ex2. Party enters throne room to meet the King.Character 1: You suck King, kiss my butt.King: Kill that man!Character 1 proceeds to kill EVERYONE because he is a barbarian and rages.Character 1: Problem solved.Horrified other PC members: Um.. NO! You just murdered everyone, you are the bad guy now.So, are you saying that barbarians and rage are now no longer allowed, because they can allow this?That is part of  my problem with weak forms actually. I agree that weak forms are a poor  option for other reasons too, but you have definitely nailed part of my  objectionNo it isn't. As they  tried in previous editions, you can balance that against someone who can  fly as a spell. They just get At will instead of X times per day. They  also don't get the OTHER things that caster can do at that level. They  also have then START leveling at that point and are forever behind, set back from all the other spellcasting the person who gets X per day will get. There are a lot of ways to  try and balance those things.Oh, and you might as well have the same objection  to the wizard vs. fighter at pretty much any level. Which I'll grant is  a valid argument to have, but not one we should have here, as far as I see things.That touches on another issue I have with  weak forms. If a real angel has wings and can fly all day every day,  then an angel PC should be able to too. Using another example, if  regular angels don't need to eat, breathe or sleep, then I expect an  angel PC to not be forced to either.Now, if you are going to  create a weaker form; that has to do any of those things, then I can  understand that but in that case I NEED the weaker form to not just a weaker form but to have a roleplay reason why he is different. Why does a weaker one exist, why aren't all angels that weak and level up from there? If they are just weaker (younger, baby, will grow into it)  then why isnt the weaker (younger, baby, will grow into it) a NORMAL  form of the monster in the first place.Solid  and conclusive.[/sarcasm] Being a dragon, giant, ogre or anything like  that is too strong for level 1. Sorry, but it is true. Play something  with a lower adjustment that fits in the range or not. I don't really  care. It doesn't mean you can't be one later. Not really an argument  either way for monsters as PCs. Just an argument that a player has come  to you wanting to play it.My post, and I assume the part this  was mostly directed to, said that no one is suggesting that playing at  level 1 as a dragon, etc. should be allowed. It is too powerful at that  level. WANTING TO is a completely different thing. I definitely have  wanted to do all kinds of crazy things but that doesn't mean I should be  allowed to do that at level 1.It is as silly as (3.5'd only for this example)..."I want to be able to cast Wish!  That would be awesome!""Sorry, Wish is too powerful, they are 9th level spells and cast only by a 17th level wizard. We are starting at level  1.""Well then, I'll take disintegrate!""Sorry, 6th level spell.  You have to be level 11th level.""Fireball?""Nope, level 5 wizard.""But, I want to play a character with leet magical powers at level 1.""Sorry, you start with  the some spells and work your way up slowly.""What's the point of playing an wizard if I'm not smarter and stronger than everyone else?  I'll just be a fighter."Just  because a player, or anyone, wants to play it doesn't mean it should be  available at first level. Available eventually? YES, please. But at first level is a silly place to start and expect it. Or at least to expect to be any more powerful than anyone else.I did mention (before)  that it applied much less in 5e. HP do still scale at an astounding  rate and so it would work for those at least.You  don't like it therefore we should all abandon it. Good to know. Or,  maybe we can make LA work. I have proposed two ideas so far, more than I  have seen from WotC on the same subject. Maybe they should hire me.  They can't hire you because you don't want to make anything, just criticize why something hasn't ever worked and never will.Agreed.  Doesn't mean LAs can't work. I think the Jester is onto something here.  What if all monsters didn't just have monster levels but NPC versions  of class levels; so those that become PCs can use their current level as  an equivalent level of PC class and advance from there. It might even  make monster building easier, more balanced and make the abilities they  get make more sense.Sigh, you didn't even read the thing you quoted there did you? I'll clarify here then.If  a let's say 8 HD monster was being used as a PC then maybe 8 is the  effective character level. Meaning they have a total adjustment of 8,  before they can start taking class levels (or different/more levels if  we use the Jester's idea). Then, with my idea in the last post, if they  are a 8 HD creature with a 2 LA they are an effective character 6. In  this model the LA should never INCREASE the effective level.Meaning  an 9th character with an effective level 8 has 1 class level and 8  monster levels, whereas a 9th character with effective level 6 monster  has 3 class levels.That bypasses the problem of effectiveness  and relative power, as well as HP, and the things that HP and levels  could be traded off as. Seems like a win-win as far as your specific  concerns go.This is a 5e discussion thread, I figured it might  be a good idea not only to talk about the issue but perhaps to try and  come up with a solution. WotC almost certainly isn't going to take it  but they might see it or be spurred into working on it.</blockquote>

Verification