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: 6156804" data-attributes="member: 95493">We've really REALLY got to stop doing this. But .. here we go again.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.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).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.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.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.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.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.(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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.Except other PCs.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?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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.Which is kind of a fairly decent definition of houserule to me.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.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.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.Then we agree. Please stop saying anything about MY saying there should be roleplaying disadvantages in order to cancel out combat advantages.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."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.I'm not.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.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.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.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.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..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.</blockquote>

Verification