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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 6156248" data-attributes="member: 5143">Alright, here goes nothing.  TRYING to keep this short.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.As I keep saying, I'm not saying how worthwhile something is.  Just how worthwhile it is to me.  I've only been stating my opinion.  I'm certainly perfectly ok with them including these rules.  I just won't use them the vast majority of the time and I expect a large number of other people won't either.  If they can do it easily without taking time away from making the rest of the game, go for it.  But time is limited.Then  don't allow that particular monster-PC in your game. I'm not going to  try and fight the "5 times a session" bit, except that I think it is a  crock.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.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.When 3E came out it didn't have that capability either.  However, it was designed modular enough to allow it to be done.  As time went on and they published more and more feat, races, PrCs, spells, and so on...people realized that they could mix and match in a way similar to GURPS or Champions in order to have a toolbox.I like toolboxes.  I play Champions when I want one, however.  I don't think D&D needs to be one.  In fact, I believe turning 3e into one is what caused the hot mess that it turned into by the end where I spent nearly an hour every session arguing rules interactions.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.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.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.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.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.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.And it never worked properly in the only edition it was ever in.  Plus the poll says the vast majority of people don't even want it.It doesn't have a lot going for it as a mechanic.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."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.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.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.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.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.  It certainly wouldn't be sitting on a pedestal right beside him when they fought the BBEG.  Though, it's like the BBEG would leave it right beside himself.  That's what they do.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.It reminds me of the Rifts game I ran where the players realized their powers made them into gods.  They took over the city and fortified the position and never wanted to leave.  The game got really dumb as all enemies had to come to them or there wouldn't be adventure anymore.  They had infinite money due to their powers and therefore infinite power.  I told them I wouldn't run the game anymore because it was no fun for me.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.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.Yes, but it would take armies to defeat them when they are fully grown.  No one on the planet is as powerful as a dragon.  That's why it's such a big deal.  You aren't going to see Ned Stark, Jon Snow and a Dragon adventuring together because it's just not fair.  No matter how good a swordsman Jon Snow might be.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.Thus, my point about the expectations of power levels.  When Jon Snow is the average PC and adventures revolve around making battle plans to try to take a castle a single dragon throws the entire campaign in the air and changes it into something completely different.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.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.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.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.The closest we've  ever had are usually something along the lines of "Core only" games; of  which I've been in two. In the first I played a Catfolk (because it was  PHB only with some extra races) monk in a party with a wizard (I forget  race) and a rogue.. or was he a fighter. That game didn't last very  long, but it certainly wasn't stock 4 classes nor stock PHB only races.The  second time, more recently, I played a grey elf wizard. We were limited  to core 3 books (MM ftw), but it eventually opened up to more as the  game progressed. In that game, for a time, we lacked a rogue and for  another bit we lacked a pure arcane caster.In a third game, the  DM tried to pen them in and specified that the party MUST have the "core  four" role filled. He even went as far as specifying what each of the  four (starting) players must play. He allowed all books, but you had to  fulfill your role. The "rogue" was a spellthief. The healer (who  absolutely hated being stuck in his role) was an amazing healing-bard  (who maxed out his healing abilities and was better than your standard  cleric at healing).I'm just saying that I have NEVER seen a  standard party actually ever play, even by DM mandate. If a DM had given  us the example characters we would have simply not played, no question.  So to answer your question.. never broke the rules, never had to. Just  bended it.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.He just has to stay out of range of their weapons and swoop down, killing people and swoop back up.  It's likely a Wizard of the same level has less hitpoints, a lower AC, and probably lower stats."Without worry" is a stretch.  However, with a lot less worry than the Wizard would be appropriate.I have to stop using specific monster names because you like you nitpick on details, which I notice is an issue amongst people who are really into the 3.5e/PF mindset of "everything is balanced as long as you let the enemies have it too".See above about how any creature with infinite uses of an ability is more useful than someone who is limited.  Let's just assume it's something large enough to step on buildings.That's my point.  D&D simulates worlds that are very close to Greyhawk/Forgotten Realms using the rules.  You need to toss out the rules in order to run other campaign worlds.  I understand that this has become common place, but I still think the rules should assume the same thing they always have.  That D&D worlds are all very similar to Forgotten Realms in terms of races and acceptance.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'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.If you have a Huge or larger creature, you start getting into problems every couple of minutes in a normal campaign:"You get to the gates of the city.  They are 10 feet wide and 10 feet high.""Umm, I'm 20 feet tall, I can't enter the city.  Wait...I jump over the wall.""Ok, you get to the castle.  It has a 10 foot tall entrance to get through the gate.  It has a roof, so you can't jump over.""I...umm...wait....if I crawl on my stomach I can maybe get inside""Sure you can...until you get to the 5ft door that is the entrance to the king's room"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.No it isn't.  It's "find a system that won't screw over two of my players simply because of the class they chose."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.It's my job to make sure everyone is having fun.  If that means telling one PC that he can't do something in order to make sure everyone else has fun, I'll do it.  Wandering off on your own is a good way to make sure no one else has any fun.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.He could have been more versatile and planned for all sorts of contingencies, but 95% of the time the most damage wins.It also depends on editions.  In D&D Next/1e/2e "many" other options amounts to maybe 10-15 at a that level.  That same number is of course likely closer to 30 in 3.5e.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.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".The Stormwind Fallacy says "Simply because I can disallow something doesn't mean it isn't broken".They could print a feat that says "All your attacks do +1000 points of damage" and we could have a debate about how that isn't broken because the DM could always put up a shield that blocks the next 10 attacks or if a DM didn't like it they could simply not allow it in their game.  However, neither of those things makes the feat a well made feat.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.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.It's not so much a "house rule" as it is an agreement not to anger the rest of the players.  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.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.Also, I allow PCs to decide their OWN reactions to things.  I hate telling people "He's annoying you.  Just so you know, he's really annoying."  Players are allowed to decide for themselves what their characters think.  Maybe they AREN'T annoyed by the Ogre.  If they want to get along with each other despite a disadvantage that says otherwise...feel free.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.Nope, no one attacked him lethally until he killed someone.  Just a bar fight broke out for non-lethal damage.The game doesn't have any rules at all about killing people who are annoying.  That's actually kind of the point.  A disadvantage that says "This character is annoying" might cause one DM to kill you outright just for talking to an NPC and another one to simply have people dislike talking to you.  Each DM and even each NPC is free to choose what that means to them.Which started because I said that it was a bad idea to balance combat advantages with roleplaying disadvantages.  You said that it was perfectly fine.  I pointed out that roleplaying disadvantages were nebulous.You can't counter with "Then use non-roleplaying disadvantages".  That was my point in the first place.Well, then every player I've ever played with is a jerk.  They've all spent their time purposefully looking for game breaking options on every character they build.  Imagine 5 of them showing up at the table with equally broken options that I have to say no to.  Then delay the game for a week(because as one of my players would say, it's impossible to make a character in less than a week, after all there's so many options to read through to find the best ones).  Only to have them all come back with equally broken characters the next week.That was my life when I ran 3.5e D&D.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.That's not true at all.  An option can be broken individually or when combined with others.  Most individual options are more closely balanced because the game designers can see them easier.  That doesn't mean there aren't individual options that are broken.Combinations are often MORE broken.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.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.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.Which is an option we both agreed we don't want to have to do.True.  That's why I said the system was broken.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.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.I don't want to have to make any adjustments for a character.I was running a D&D game with default D&D assumptions(an adventure published by TSR).  The game should only allow you to build characters that fit and work within the game.Besides, one wizard who is capable of casting level 1 spells doesn't change the world much.  A couple of wizards who can cast fireball doesn't even change the world much.  Wizards and characters over about 7th level start changing the world dramatically.  This was always a problem with the system.I do have to, because I want to run a FUN game.  It isn't fun with all of those problems in my game.  So I'm left with only 2 choices: Have no fun or spend the effort to change my game accordingly.  Basically, the system is forcing me to put a lot of effort into the game in order to allow someone to take options.  Wouldn't it be better to just publish options that didn't make me do that work?That's what I've been trying to say.  Don't allow a dragon.  He is too much work.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."I believe he would ask why you were penalizing him for playing the game the way it was written in the book.  Did you not want to play D&D?  Why would you be angry for him just playing a character.  Especially considering I had just said the rules were perfectly fine. 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.I was being completely consistent.  The town was a border town with only a couple of Wizards.  They did attack him.  They lost.  I'd say it's actually inconsistent to suddenly make up new guards in the town simply because a PC was annoying.  The town has only what it has.  The PC doesn't suddenly change the universe by coming into the game.</blockquote>

Verification