D&D 3E/3.5 What do you ban? (3.5)

[Dandu]

If changing the price of the healing belt turns my game from "correct level of healing" to "broken level of healing" then I'd say two things. First, then D&D is very fragile if one such change ruins it. Second, I'm OK to play the game broken, then.

I am not saying that. I am saying that there is no need to nerf the healing belt out of concern for it obsoleting potions.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

On the other hand, requiring that a healing belt be worn for 24 hours before it can be activated, thus eliminating the ability to "cheese" and buy a bunch of them to switch out as needed, seems reasonable to me. I don't really have a problem with the healing belt, though. Wands of CLW and lesser vigor are the bigger problem if near-unlimited healing bugs you.

 

[Dandu]

Eh, if your character's swapping between 10 sets of belts he risks getting caught by the enemy with his pants down.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Eh, if your character's swapping between 10 sets of belts he risks getting caught by the enemy with his pants down.

Eh, that doesn't really affect combat effectiveness. Since there are no magic pants, and all.

 

[Dandu]

Maybe that's why protagonists always seem to have a weapon handy.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Incidentally, one game a while back myself and another player, nicknamed Lance by the DM (why I don't know, it wasn't even close to his actual name), both had sorcerers and we wanted to differentiate ourselves. Which turned out to be easy, since I wanted to try a pure battlefield control type build, while he just wanted to nuke things with fire. Anyway...one point in the campaign we meet some crazy NPC king that allies with us and offers to let us each take one item from his treasury, full of oddball magical items. One of them being a pair of continual flame pants, or as the DM described them, "flaming pants." My character immediately replied with who should get said pants with a line that turned into a sort of catch phrase for the group:

"When I think of flaming, I think of Lance."

 

[Celebrim]

If the concern is killing PCs too quickly with Power Attacking monsters as a DM... why not just have the monsters PA for less?

Because that would be cheating.

As DM I have an obligation not to play with the PC's with kid gloves. If they earn a victory, it ought to be fair and square and not because I was deliberately playing an NPC poorly so as to keep a player alive. Any NPC in my game, locked in mortal combat, will do everything in its power and understanding to win. The fact that many times that means that the players are locked in contest with me is part of the savor and enjoyment of the game. If they found out that I was running a NPC poorly to help them win, then it would be like finding out your opponnent through the game.

Sure, I stack the odds in their favor, but once setting the stage - it's a fair fight.

We both acknowledge that melee characters need Power Attack to remain relevant.

I didn't acknowledge that at all. When did I acknowledge that?

In my game they might go with a Superior Cleave + Secret Technique (Cleave) + Improved Precision build. That's a good deal potentially more powerful than Power Attack. That's potentially room clearing. That's like hitting a corridor with a 20HD lightning bolt and not losing a spell slot. Or you might see an Improved Powerful Charge + Dual Strike + Lunge build. Or you might see a Improved Flail + Beatdown build. Or you might see Combat Reflexes + Distance Keeping + Skirmisher + Hold the Line on a pole arm wielder. Or heck, a fighter can have 23 feats by 20th level, so if I ever take a game to 20th level maybe I'll see one character that can do the whole gambit.

And heck, said character probably has the power to turn every weapon he holds into a magic weapon, or bash down walls of force, or leap 30' straight in the air and outrun a horse and all without recourse to 'magic'.

And he can give an ally +4 bonus on an attack roll up to 30' away as a free action, or use the commanding power of his voice to cause everyone in hearing to reroll a save vs. fear or to shorten the duration of some spells.

No, I don't need 'Power Attack' to keep my melee builds relevant.

It seems odd, then, to nerf their ability to do the only thing they are good at.

You know what seems odd to me?? That 'Power Attack' would be 'the only thing that they are good at'. And geez, exactly how bad have a I nerfed the feat anyway. Let's say I take a -10 penalty, then we are talking about what, doing +15 damage instead of +20? I'm not nerfing power attack. I'm trying to make sure that the two-hander isn't the only viable melee build.

Don't start asking why I do things as if I don't know why I do things until you've set at my table and played my game.

Admin here. So, this is where Celebrim starts getting snippy...

 

[Dandu]

And this is where Dandu eggs him on. I can always tell a problematic post; it's the one where someone starts quoting and dissecting every single line. Look, folks. Be polite to one another, even when you don't agree, and don't look for offense where none is intended. ~ Piratecat

Because that would be cheating.

... no. No it would not be.

cheat (ch

t)v. cheat·ed, cheat·ing, cheats
v.tr.1. To deceive by trickery; swindle: cheated customers by overcharging them for purchases.
2. To deprive by trickery; defraud: cheated them of their land.
3. To mislead; fool: illusions that cheat the eye.
4. To elude; escape: cheat death.

v.intr.1. To act dishonestly; practice fraud.
2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards.
3. Informal To be sexually unfaithful: cheat on a spouse.
4. Baseball To position oneself closer to a certain area than is normal or expected: The shortstop cheated toward second base.

n.1. An act of cheating; a fraud or swindle.
2. One who cheats; a swindler.
3. A computer application, password, or disallowed technique used to advance to a higher skill level in a computer video game.
4. Law Fraudulent acquisition of another's property.
5. Botany An annual European species of brome grass (Bromus secalinus) widely naturalized in temperate regions.

You are not doing any of that, so I doubt the term "cheating" is appropriate.

As DM I have an obligation not to play with the PC's with kid gloves.

How is PAing for slightly less suddenly "playing with kid gloves"? You're not in the Cobra Kai. You don't have some sensei with anger management issues drilling "No mercy!" into your head ever time he comes on screen. You're introducing a false dichotomy; there is room between "RAWR POWER ATTACK FOR FULL" and "I poke it with my stick". Just because your monster isn't trying to murder PCs in the most brutal and effective manner possible does not mean you're babying your players.

I didn't acknowledge that at all. When did I acknowledge that?

I must have misread the statement where you said PA was important if melee characters wanted to deal more than 50 damage?

In my game they might go with a Superior Cleave + Secret Technique (Cleave) + Improved Precision build. That's a good deal potentially more powerful than Power Attack. That's potentially room clearing. That's like hitting a corridor with a 20HD lightning bolt and not losing a spell slot.

Except that you don't have that much reach as a melee character (Lightening Bolt goes on for 120 ft; Superior Cleave only allows one 5ft step; a melee character's reach is going to be about 20 ft excluding cheese), and the odds of dropping a room full of mooks with cleaving attacks is low unless they are really weak, in which case you've invested several feats in efficiently dispatching insignificant threats. It's really hard to kill off a room of higher HP enemies because have to basically one shot everyone in your reach in order to make use of your great cleavage.

You know what seems odd to me?? That 'Power Attack' would be 'the only thing that they are good at'.

Dealing damage is one of the few things that melee are good at when it comes to combat (the only thing they can do). The other thing is battlefield control within their personal space, ie lockdown. That's it, two things. Restricting an already narrow set of options seems like a really bad decision.

And geez, exactly how bad have a I nerfed the feat anyway.

Your nerfing something that didn't need to be nerfed in the first place!

That makes me a sad panda. It's like Pathfinder all over again.

tl;dr The reason why I feel like Monica Lewinsky after reading your posts (in that I have a bad taste in my mouth) is because it seems like you're fixing things by taking away options instead of adding them, and players hate having things taken away especially when the thing being taken away was perfectly balanced.

 

[Runestar]

If the concern is killing PCs too quickly with Power Attacking monsters as a DM... why not just have the monsters PA for less?

We both acknowledge that melee characters need Power Attack to remain relevant. It seems odd, then, to nerf their ability to do the only thing they are good at.

Ironically, I feel the solution to this is to actually have the monster power attack for even more (until you have ~50% chance of hitting/missing). While they do more damage, they miss more often, which would actually decrease their expected damage output.

This way, the players feel like their AC is still worth something, and they still retain a healthy respect for the monster because when it hits, it really hurts, but hopefully not often enough to 1-shot them on a full attack.

 

[nonsi256]

Did I miss something, or is it that everybody's cool with Divine Power, Forcecage, Gate and Creation spells ?