Why I Love D&D 3.5: Less Player Whining

[Mark]

I cut the group down to five players and warned everyone ahead of time that if they had a problem with a ruling I made that couldn't be solved with a single quotation from the rulesbook, then they have to wait until a break in the game or until after the session to discuss it with me.

That certainly seems fair. I take it they have to produce the quote right away, and that they all know that is what is expected?

 

[RodneyThompson]

That certainly seems fair. I take it they have to produce the quote right away, and that they all know that is what is expected?

Absolutely. It's one of the new Table Rules that I put into place formally at the outset of this campaign. They are as follows:

1. Everyone is here to have fun. If something you are doing is impeding someone else's ability to have fun, then stop doing it.
2. No laptops, non-D&D books, Magic cards, miniatures games, or other distraction items are allowed at the table. Period. This applies to the DM as well as the players.
3. If you have a problem with a ruling, either don't bring it up until you can produce a single quote in the rulebook that undisputedly solves it, or until a break in the gaming session or after the gaming session.
4. Bring your PHB, character sheet and dice to every session. The DM will supply pencils and other books.
5. If you have a miniature of your character, bring it to every session. If not, the DM will provide one when needed.
6. Be courteous during gameplay by taking all conversations not directly related to the situation at hand outside the room. This includes character optimization discussions, rules lawyering, and game plot conspiracy theories not directly related to the current situation.
   1. Corollary: If you are outside the room having a conversation and it comes time for your character to act, you forfeit your right to declare your character's actions and she/he becomes an NPC until you return.
   2. Caveat: Bathroom breaks and brief snack runs do not apply; we'll wait if you hurry.
7. Do not pout when things don't go your way. The punishment is that we will mock you until you lighten up.
8. 5 players are the maximum at the table without DM approval. Do not invite friends, girlfriends, boyfriends, or others to play on a whim.

Am I a tabletop Stalin? Not usually. But, frankly, it got to the point where we'd have whole sessions where nothing would get done in recent campaigns. We had players reading other game systems' books, two players who would strike up a game of Magic when their characters weren't involved in the action, etc. They didn't do it while their character was acting, of course, but when the party was split or when one character was running the show. It got to be very distracting to the active players. When the torch was passed to me once more, I put these rules in place after making sure each player was cool with the rules. So far, they've worked.

 

[Vigilance]

Very different from "Unicorn, I choose youuuu!", right?

A nicely written example to be sure... but with the rules as written there was already a way to simulate that... or Gandalf calling the "lord of all horses".

However in 3.5 there is no way to simulate Lancelot... or the Paladin from 3 Hearts and 3 Lions... (a major influence on the original paladin class) except by having the Paladin buy a normal warhorse.

My objection to Pokemounts isnt that you would have to TREAT them as something silly... rather that it further pushes the paladin toward some sort of hybrid spellcaster and away from the "noble knight" that is, in my not so humble opinion, the basis of the class. I mean... is there a class in the game as is that sumulates the Knights Templar? The Knights of the Round Table? The peers of Charlemagne?

Were they fighters? Clerics? Rangers?

Something I liked about 3.0 was that you could do a Fafred and the Grey Mouser campaign without a house rule... you could do a decent Conan write up for the first time without a house rule... you could do a King Arthur campaign without a house rule... the classes handled those archetypal fantasy games. Maybe not perfectly... but I appreciated the fact that I could buy 3 books and do those types of "core" games (and yeah that pun was purposeful).

3.5 decided to change that.

And why was it done? So some rules lawyer couldnt whine about how rarely he got to use his warhorse I suppose.

Im sorry... Pokemounts are just lame. The fact that a ranger and a druid can have a trusty steed that grows in experience as he gains levels, seeing him through many dangers, but not the paladin... no the Paladin summons something from the celestial grazing grounds.

Because... you know... lots of noble knights in literature and fantasy fiction did that. Right?

Chuck

 

[Lord Pendragon]

As Von Ether pointed out, now that animal companions are handled differently in 3.5, his DM can't nerf them.

As a DM, this comment made me laugh.

 

[FireLance]

However in 3.5 there is no way to simulate Lancelot... or the Paladin from 3 Hearts and 3 Lions... (a major influence on the original paladin class) except by having the Paladin buy a normal warhorse.

My objection to Pokemounts isnt that you would have to TREAT them as something silly... rather that it further pushes the paladin toward some sort of hybrid spellcaster and away from the "noble knight" that is, in my not so humble opinion, the basis of the class. I mean... is there a class in the game as is that sumulates the Knights Templar? The Knights of the Round Table? The peers of Charlemagne?

Were they fighters? Clerics? Rangers?

Something I liked about 3.0 was that you could do a Fafred and the Grey Mouser campaign without a house rule... you could do a decent Conan write up for the first time without a house rule... you could do a King Arthur campaign without a house rule... the classes handled those archetypal fantasy games. Maybe not perfectly... but I appreciated the fact that I could buy 3 books and do those types of "core" games (and yeah that pun was purposeful).

May I humbly suggest that you've got it backwards? First, you decide what abilities they have, then you decide what class or combination of classes (ain't multiclassing great?) to give them. Trying to create a 20-level core class for each of these organizations (Knight Templar, Round Table Knight, Peer of Charlemagne) is an exercise in futility, IMO. At most, if you really want to define unique abilities for a character belonging to each organization, it would be better to use PrCs, and that's not covered in Core 3.5.

Anyway, if none of these characters have displayed the ability to summon a special mount, turn undead or generate an aura of courage, but they can lay on hands, they obviously can't have more than two levels of Paladin (or if they do, they just chose not to use those abilities). Fighter x/Paladin 2 would probably do nicely, and without house rules, too.

Alternatively, they might just be using third-party feats or PrCs that allow them to cherry pick the abilities they want. I don't know who's running the Arthurian campaign, but don't expect to get away with that in any of my games.

Because... you know... lots of noble knights in literature and fantasy fiction did that. Right?

They could have, but they didn't take enough levels in Paladin.

 

[Hypersmurf]

[*]If you have a problem with a ruling, either don't bring it up until you can produce a single quote in the rulebook that undisputedly solves it, or until a break in the gaming session or after the gaming session.

[blink]

But sometimes you need to cross-reference two quotes to indisputably solve something...!

-Hyp.

 

[JoeGKushner]

3.5 made a lot of good changes.

But the changes to cover and the Pokemounts are still just silly.

And I've heard the balance arguments that Pokemounts let the Paladin get greater use out of his mount... somehow I just dont see Lancelot going "Great Steed I choose you!"

Chuck

And that's when the water came shooting out of the mouth and nose. So much for that $1.25 bottle of Aquafina...

 

[Psion]

A nicely written example to be sure... but with the rules as written there was already a way to simulate that... or Gandalf calling the "lord of all horses".

Gandalf was a wizard... or so it is alleged.

However in 3.5 there is no way to simulate Lancelot... or the Paladin from 3 Hearts and 3 Lions... (a major influence on the original paladin class) except by having the Paladin buy a normal warhorse.

My objection to Pokemounts isnt that you would have to TREAT them as something silly... rather that it further pushes the paladin toward some sort of hybrid spellcaster and away from the "noble knight" that is, in my not so humble opinion, the basis of the class.

Look, something that Vig and I heartily agree on vis a vis knightly figures.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Well, I'd agree that the core rules might not be the best place to do the whole knightly thing but I'm sure we'll agree that this has left third party companies plenty of room to add their own touches.

Of course getting GM's to approve books like Legends of Excaliber and R&R: Excaliber, as well as the Cavalier's Handbook, is another matter altogether.

I've player with people who only used WoTC products and with people who used everything. In the former case, it's a little easier to control as the spread isn't so wide, but with the latter, unless playtested and used with more than a smidge of common sense.

 

[diaglo]

Shapechange... nuff said.