PDA

View Full Version : [3.5e] What's Broken?



Fax Celestis
2008-12-06, 09:22 PM
...and before this devolves into "ZOMG WIZ BEETS FTR N00B", let me make something clear:

For the purposes of this discussion, "broken" is defined as, "overly complex1; does not function in the fashion it should2; is not specified within the core rules3; or is nonsensical4."

PLEASE stay to core, as that's what I'm going to be working with.

Now, that being said: What is "broken" in D&D 3.5?

FOOTNOTES:
1Like Turn Undead or Grapple.
2Like drowning rules.
3Like what happens if you lose prestige class requirements.
4Like that nothing in the dead condition actually prevents you from moving.

Crow
2008-12-06, 09:30 PM
Dude grappling is not that complex.

Anyhow, Celerity+Timestop is broken. *The way the rules are written, you can interprit it as working in order to give the wizard extra turns, or you can interprit it as the wizard being dazed for those extra turns. This leads to a lot of arguments and often breaks the game when interprited the first way.

*I am not taking a stand on this one, but just pointing out that people do interprit it in different ways.

Also under not clearly defined in the rules (please correct me if I'm wrong), it doesn't specify if worn stat-boosting items which increase your ability scores affect benefits gained at level-up (such as skill points, or number of followers allowed by leadership).

mikeejimbo
2008-12-06, 09:32 PM
Multiclassing. No, not because it's overly powerful (which we aren't arguing), but because it's complicated. Especially with favored classes and multiclass penalties, and adding prestige classes in there just makes it harder.

(For a minute, I read "OMG BEETS ARE BROKEN" or something to that effect. I don't know, they don't seem too over-powered, although they are very nutritious AND useful in pickling. Mmm, pickled eggs.)

Fax Celestis
2008-12-06, 09:33 PM
Dude grappling is not that complex.

Yeah, I know. I just know every time it's come up in a game, it's caused a slowdown as both player and DM added together all their little situational modifiers to determine what actually happens. It's "complex", in that regard, as it causes a delay at the game table, in the same fashion that Turn Undead does: roll, look up information, roll again, look up information, ask your DM for info, determine effect. Frankly, in my opinion, anything more complicated than "roll to hit, roll effect, determine effect" is "complex".

Starbuck_II
2008-12-06, 09:37 PM
...and before this devolves into "ZOMG WIZ BEETS FTR N00B", let me make something clear:

For the purposes of this discussion, "broken" is defined as, "overly complex1; does not function in the fashion it should2; is not specified within the core rules3; or is nonsensical4."

PLEASE stay to core, as that's what I'm going to be working with.

Now, that being said: What is "broken" in D&D 3.5?

FOOTNOTES:
1Like Turn Undead or Grapple.
2Like drowning rules.
3Like what happens if you lose prestige class requirements.
4Like that nothing in the dead condition actually prevents you from moving.

1) Dragon Deciple: while it follows from super script 3. You stop qualifying making you re-qualify...stuck in a time loop.

2) Gate items like the Candle: Gate itself functions exactly as it says, but the items are too cheap for a 9th level spell (who prices this stuff?)

3) Mind Blank: doesn't it techniquely block itself?

Matthew
2008-12-06, 09:38 PM
The mounted combat rules and mounted combat feats. The wording technically makes no sense, if I recall.

Two weapon fighting needs some sort of correction.

The relationship between armour and dexterity.

(Do I need to explain these?)

Roderick_BR
2008-12-06, 09:39 PM
The fact that learning and casting spells have no real cost in D&D. Aside from material components, and XP cost at some spells, most wizards feels nothing when channeling spells that can warp reality through their bodies, and to learn said spells they just need to happen upon a scroll or spellbook, and read it once.
It's easier to learn magic than engineery.

While paladins have a badly worded and strict code, clerics are pretty much free to do anything. Unlike AD&D, there's no difference between clerics of different deities.
Your cleric of undeath can spent his career without ever creating/controling undead, a cleric of peace can open heads to his heart's contents, and a cleric of war can run from battles without any actual rule to make him "fall", except by changing alignment, and DM fiat. Their chosen domains give powers and spells, but no restrictions or codes.

Those are my main pet peeves.

Proven_Paradox
2008-12-06, 09:40 PM
One could argue that experience points are broken due to complexity. That may just be me not properly understanding it, but as I recall it's rather difficult to do without a calculator--I find it probable that simpler ways of dividing experience exist.

The CR system in certain instances is broken in that it doesn't perform its specified purpose--giving a number to how challenging a creature is--very well. This is case-by-case of course, but there are some creatures placed in CRs beside certain others that don't even come close to being the same challenge.

SurlySeraph
2008-12-06, 09:51 PM
1. Wish and Gate (especially scrolls thereof and Candles of Invocation), because of the possiblity of infinite wish-loops. Come on, even a five-year-old can tell that allowing you to wish for more wishes is going to let you become too powerful. And allowing you to wish for as many 15,000 gp items as you want, one at a time, is similarly overpowered. No spell should let you get as much income as you want without limits.
2. Polymorph. Do I even need to explain why?
3. Spiked chains. Because by any reasonably standards they should be ridiculously unwieldy, and in practice you can do amazing things with them easily.
4. Diplomacy, because of the fixed DCs.
5. Traps. Barring the abuse possible with weapon traps and portable traps and such, traps are very weak for the amount of time and money they take, to the point that PCs really can't trap anything without magic.
6. Material components and focuses for spells. When's the last time you made a wizard buy or craft a small clay ziggurat before letting him cast Tongues? Does anyone make the wizard sacrifice his dagger - "a small iron blade" and tote around a bag of dirt to cast Move Earth? Do you take away 15 gp for a spoon, model portal, and piece of marble every time the wizard casts Magnificient Mansion? Either these components should be actually tracked, or they should be done away with entirely.

Crow
2008-12-06, 10:06 PM
1. Wish and Gate (especially scrolls thereof and Candles of Invocation), because of the possiblity of infinite wish-loops. Come on, even a five-year-old can tell that allowing you to wish for more wishes is going to let you become too powerful. And allowing you to wish for as many 15,000 gp items as you want, one at a time, is similarly overpowered. No spell should let you get as much income as you want without limits.

You still have to pay the Gate XP cost with the candle...not that it fixes it or anything. Spiked chain isn't broken. It's just the one exotic weapon worth spending a feat on.

Emperor Tippy
2008-12-06, 10:12 PM
Um, a lot of you need to reread the OP. Fax said "For the purposes of this discussion, "broken" is defined as, "overly complex; does not function in the fashion it should; is not specified within the core rules; or is nonsensical."".

The power level of spells or anything else is irrelevant for purposes of this thread.

As he said in the OP, the drowning rules are broken not because they are game breakingly powerful but because they don't make sense or function in the fashion that they should.

AslanCross
2008-12-06, 10:13 PM
The mounted combat rules and mounted combat feats. The wording technically makes no sense, if I recall.

Two weapon fighting needs some sort of correction.

The relationship between armour and dexterity.

(Do I need to explain these?)

I think the issue with Mounted Combat was more of Ride-By Attack contradicting the rules on charge. Ride-By Attack says you continue the straight line of the charge, but the charge rules say you can't charge through another creature's space.

Crow
2008-12-06, 10:16 PM
I think the issue with Mounted Combat was more of Ride-By Attack contradicting the rules on charge. Ride-By Attack says you continue the straight line of the charge, but the charge rules say you can't charge through another creature's space.

Do you have to charge directly at an enemy? Or can you charge the square adjacent to him and attack him diagonally?

Matthew
2008-12-06, 10:24 PM
I think the issue with Mounted Combat was more of Ride-By Attack contradicting the rules on charge. Ride-By Attack says you continue the straight line of the charge, but the charge rules say you can't charge through another creature's space.

I think it is more of an action issue related to charging (who does the charging, the character or the mount?), but it has been a while since I was looking at the rules for it; I just recall that something did not make sense. There was a thread here about it somewhere, which if I recall correctly Fax_Celestis participated in.

Lert, A.
2008-12-06, 10:25 PM
I would put forth that the spells themselves are (usually) not broken.

Casting times however are. A (very) few go the x minutes route but for the most part they are a standard or full round action with the occasional swift. That's it.

Fixing the problem would mean looking all the spells and adjusting casting time on a case-by case basis unfortunately.

BobVosh
2008-12-06, 10:31 PM
Peasents passing stuff to break the speed of light.

1d4 for a pick, 1d6 for a heavy pick, 8 hardness on a stone

All the price stuff (ladders vs 10ft poles, spellbooks have more paper than paying strictly for paper costs +a cover, etc)

Aforementioned peasent trick except for mounting and dismounting as free actions with a high enough ride check.

Eldariel
2008-12-06, 10:32 PM
Let's see:
-Favoured Class: I guess the point is that "characters of this race are usually this class", but in the end, all it does is give some builds random XP penalty, and since there's only one FC per race, common things like "Elven Rangers" or "Dwarven Clerics" actually aren't supported by FC rules. The addition of similar base classes (Scout/Ranger, anyone?) and PrCs further muddle the mixture. This simply does not accomplish the goal it's trying to (Racial Substitution Levels, on the other hand, do but aren't Core and thus outside the scope of this).

-Caster Multiclassing: It's fine for non-casters, but caster multiclassing doesn't work as intended, which is why you always need a dual progression PrC to actually advance the caster abilities while picking up your other abilities. Now, you could argue that this is a power thing and that "there's nothing stopping you from multiclassing between casters", but the fact remains that multiclassing doesn't work as intended for casters (it's obviously intended to be the replacement/simplification for AD&D multiclassing, and that's something it's not; they need some character level-dependent/class level-independent benefits, like BAB for non-casters, to function properly).

-Tumble/Diplomacy: Fixed DCs against characters of any power and no chance of failure with sufficient modifiers generate all kinds of problems. It's hardly rational that you're as easily able to tumble past a master thief knowledgable in all the tricks you know (in regards to Tumbling) and then some, or the legendary fighter who defeated Kiffrag the Great Red, as it is to tumble past a common Orc. It's also hardly rational that the amount of effort it takes to persuade a God to become your bestest friend is the same as the amount of effort it takes to persuade a petty Imp.

-Skill system in general: Setting interesting DCs and basing anything off skills due to the amount of means some characters have to buff their skills, which are unavailable to others, and due to the size of bonuses some spells and effects grant, is impossible unless done on a case-by-case basis pretty much defeating the point of the whole system. Also, the fact that most level 20 adventurers are just as blue-eyed as they were on level 1 is hardly sensical (that is, have the same Sense Motive). And overall, the fact that you need to be an insane genius to be able to learn all the skills you need to survive as a thief.

EDIT:

-Shapechanging and ability modifiers: It's not documented if the shapechange-stats override ability buffs and damage or if it's carried over to the new form. Likewise, it isn't documented how HP is calculated if your Con in your new form is altered.

Aquillion
2008-12-06, 10:32 PM
I've mentioned this before, but: Metaconcert (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/metaconcert.htm). It simply leaves out information essential to ever using it in a game.

What's the ML of the mental entity created with metaconcert? (Remember, unlike with spells, knowing this always essential for psionics, because it determines the number of power points you can spend in a round.) Where do the powers it manifests originate from? Can the other characters in the Metaconcert continue to act individually and use their own powers separately? Can the conductor? How much of their actions have to be devoted to 'directing' it? It mentions that the entity gets a bonus to its saves, but how can it be attacked in the first place? Does it have a location? What if it takes damage or is subject to an effect other than ability damage?

There are other problems, too, but you could go on forever. And these aren't like the "drowning technically can heal you" problem -- Metaconcert is so badly worded that even the intention can't be determined. If the created entity gets its own separate actions and can be directed by the conductor as a free action, it's a fairly powerful spell (although if you compare it to Schism it isn't as amazing as it seems) -- and you still have to come up with houserules for the ML problem and the rest if it comes up. If the conductor has to devote all their actions to control the entity, it's less powerful. Neither of these options are obviously 'wrong.' And while taking the ML of the conductor for the entity's ML is logical and doesn't cause any problems, there is absolutely nothing in the text that even hints at this being what is intended.

Basically, Metaconcert as it stands cannot be used at all without extensive houseruling -- not just houseruling to eliminate silly word issues, but houseruling that basically creates substantial parts of its effect whole-cloth, with no guidance from the text. Now that is broken.

Seriously, though, you'd think they'd playtest these things a little. I can see someone overlooking how drowning technically heals you... but the problems with metaconcert become obvious the instant you try to manifest it, which means that nobody ever playtested it even once. They ought to do something like with software playtesting, and insist that their playtesters try and use every ability in the new book at least a few times...

Zeful
2008-12-06, 10:37 PM
Um, a lot of you need to reread the OP. Fax said "For the purposes of this discussion, "broken" is defined as, "overly complex; does not function in the fashion it should; is not specified within the core rules; or is nonsensical."".

The power level of spells or anything else is irrelevant for purposes of this thread.

Point of View Tippy. From my point of view spells are broken because they don't make sense. Not because it's magic, but because the cost[1] of the spell doesn't match the magnitude of the effect. Magic is too damn easy to use. To the point where there should be nothing but caster classes, in any setting. This is wrong, it follows none of D&D's mythological sources which almost unanimously agree that magic is Nintendo hard.

1: The cost of a spell includes; Scribing time and costs, XP cost, material component cost, casting time and other miscellaneous penalties.

Keld Denar
2008-12-06, 10:54 PM
The problem with Ride By Attack lies primarily in the charge rules.



You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). Hereís what it means to have a clear path. First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. (If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you canít charge.) Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you canít charge. (Helpless creatures donít stop a charge.)

Emphasis mine.

And



Ride-By Attack [General]
Prerequisites
Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat.
Benefit
When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge). Your total movement for the round canít exceed double your mounted speed. You and your mount do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent that you attack.

Again, emphasis mine.

Now, unless you START your charge slightly off to the side, but no further than the reach of your lance (usually 10'), you can't make a RBA. This is because charging to the closest square where you can reach your opponent is usually gonna cause the line that extends from your starting position to the closest point you can charge to project THROUGH YOUR OPPONENT. Since you can't move through an opponent, you can't continue your movement, thus, RBA is broken, and doesn't work as intended.

AslanCross
2008-12-06, 10:57 PM
Do you have to charge directly at an enemy? Or can you charge the square adjacent to him and attack him diagonally?


You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent.

I guess this means you can't run tangent to your opponent and slash him as you run by (though it sounds like something perfectly normal, though).


I think it is more of an action issue related to charging (who does the charging, the character or the mount?), but it has been a while since I was looking at the rules for it; I just recall that something did not make sense. There was a thread here about it somewhere, which if I recall correctly Fax_Celestis participated in.

Hmmm. Well, actions while being mounted do beg a lot of questions. My personal favorite is whether a second mounted character who is not holding the reigns can take full round actions or not. Corollary to this is how many of <Size X> creatures can a <Size Y> carry? For example, how many Kobolds can ride on a Bluespawn Stormlizard (Large)? I relish the thought of having a handful of kobolds riding on one, letting loose Rapid Shot repeating crossbow full attacks on PCs.

zaei
2008-12-06, 10:59 PM
While paladins have a badly worded and strict code, clerics are pretty much free to do anything. Unlike AD&D, there's no difference between clerics of different deities.
Your cleric of undeath can spent his career without ever creating/controling undead, a cleric of peace can open heads to his heart's contents, and a cleric of war can run from battles without any actual rule to make him "fall", except by changing alignment, and DM fiat. Their chosen domains give powers and spells, but no restrictions or codes.

Those are my main pet peeves.

On the other hand, the Paladin is free to worship Erythnul with nary a word from the rulebooks.

Mystic Theurge + Sorc == no new sorc spells.

Matthew
2008-12-06, 11:10 PM
Hmmm. Well, actions while being mounted do beg a lot of questions. My personal favorite is whether a second mounted character who is not holding the reigns can take full round actions or not. Corollary to this is how many of <Size X> creatures can a <Size Y> carry? For example, how many Kobolds can ride on a Bluespawn Stormlizard (Large)? I relish the thought of having a handful of kobolds riding on one, letting loose Rapid Shot repeating crossbow full attacks on PCs.

Heh, heh. Sounds vaguely reminiscent of Dune.

RelentlessImp
2008-12-06, 11:27 PM
The 20d6 cap on falling damage is nonsensical, in my opinion, since a high level Fighter or Barbarian can jump from any height and shrug off the damage. And nice to see you posting again Fax. ^_^

Draken
2008-12-06, 11:43 PM
Combat options. Bull rush, overrun, both are pointless in comparisson to Charge & attack. Even Disarm and Grapple are much maligned, while they could have a lot more potential.

I will not even go into how Sunder is only an option for DMs, since players wont want to damage what can very well be their loot.

The mere fact that Two-weapon fighting is subpar to two-handers is an issue to be adressed. Also, not only armor-dexterity interaction. The entirety of the AC progression (lack of progression, in fact) should be adressed.

Mounted combat... I would make a simple rule (like the rider uses a move action once a turn to make the mount perform a specific full round action, or the mount simply acts as it sees fit. Both working on the same initiative and yada, yada.)

Stupendous_Man
2008-12-07, 12:10 AM
What are you talking about? Core is completely balanced.

Neek
2008-12-07, 12:33 AM
I don't think the commoner railgun is at all that weird: You can't do explosive damage with it, because an object thrown does damage without regards to inertia: A spiked chain being thrown does no more damage than it wielded (and does nothing good), same with a dagger, or a great sword.

I'm more bothered about the Craft skill. For instance, a level 5 Expert Boywer with 18 Intelligence (+17, +4 int, +3 Skill Focus, +8 skill ranks, +2 masterwork tools) can make a mastercraft composite longbow in one month. From what I recall, making a Welsh Longbow, which would simply be a masterwork longbow, would take 3 years, not because the difficulty in it, but because to ensure the wood is properly cured to the curve it needs to be.


Per weekly,
400 gp (100 base, +300 masterwork) == 4,000 sp
Average check (10) on DC 15 makes 27 (27 * 15, as per the Craft chart == 405 sp/progress)
Average check (10) on DC 20 makes 27 (27 * 20, as per the Craft rules = 520 sp/progress).
That's, on average, 925 sp/progress a week. It takes a four weeks and a third (28.33~ days) of a day to complete the project!


The rules for Craft, and determining how it's handled, are a pain in the ass as well. First figure out the base price, pay a third of that in gp, then take that same amount, and times it by 10 (or 100 for working 1 day in a week, which apparently working 7 days a week leaves less progress than working whatever you do on your weekly check!) Make your roll, and consult the chart. If the DC * check earned in silver pieces (or copper pieces) exceeds the sp cost of the item, you passed, otherwise it's just progress (and less progress/day*7 than progress/week). Of course, as per the SRD, you cannot make more than one item per day, because even if you were to succeed the check three or four-fold (like say an equivalent bonus, on average, will grant 405 sp of progress, and you were attempting to craft sunrods, you wouldn't be able to craft 20 of them in a day. Nosiree!)

It's bulky, requires a lot of math, and the bit about Alchemy? I've never seen it become a problem if you weren't.

I have a complaint, also, about the Profession skill. A Profession (Smith) doesn't make any more money than an equally skilled Lawyer or Ditchdigger--but the Smith, Lawyer, and Ditchdigger aren't definably doing anything smithily, lawyerly, or ditchdiggerly--they could goof off for a week, and still all make the same amount of money.

As for the issue of Tumble, there are alternative rules in the DMG that turns the Tumble check result into your AC for determing the attack of opportunity when moving through a threatened square. This was detailed in the DMG 3.0, I'm not sure if they included it into the DMG 3.5

Ryuuk
2008-12-07, 12:57 AM
Hmm, I don't have access to the book, but I've read that the Divine Mind from complete psionics falls under the "nonfunctional" definition of broken.

LurkerInPlayground
2008-12-07, 01:06 AM
Point of View Tippy. From my point of view spells are broken because they don't make sense. Not because it's magic, but because the cost[1] of the spell doesn't match the magnitude of the effect. Magic is too damn easy to use. To the point where there should be nothing but caster classes, in any setting. This is wrong, it follows none of D&D's mythological sources which almost unanimously agree that magic is Nintendo hard.

1: The cost of a spell includes; Scribing time and costs, XP cost, material component cost, casting time and other miscellaneous penalties.
If you're familiar with second edition, then ignore me. If not, then I think 2e was trying to stay true to the "Nintendo hard" school of thought, even to the point of being arbitrarily unfair sometimes.

But in any case, spellcasting was far more rigid in 2e. It's much easier to disrupt spells in 2e, you get no metamagic feats and higher level spells actually gave you a penalty to your initiative roll (which you rolled each round). There were simply no feats, just class abilities. Likewise, crafting magic items didn't have any specific rules to them, that was the domain of DM improvisation, and might've required a side quest of some sort. So you don't get a cheap supply of scrolls. I think you also had to spend more time memorizing spells, but I don't remember the details.

Haste aged you a year. As did Gate, if I remember correctly. You also had to bargain with the Gated creature to either not eat/punish/ignore you. Wish didn't have any pre-defined abilities per se. That was completely up to DM adjudication, where he was also permitted to screw you on the wording. If Fly cut out on you, you took fall damage instead of having a built-in safety mechanism like they do in 3e. Fireball was also intended to be something of a trade-off, since the large-blast radius was as much a liability as an asset that you didn't get to route around by a certain PrC ability. Polymorph spells also ran the risk of killing people by "system shock" and a chance that your target would permanently lose her identity if she remained too long in a certain form.

Actually, I think a forumite pointed out that Haste also had a "system shock" roll involved with it too, as ruled by official errata. This was silly because you could then end up using it as an *offensive* spell.

There were also plenty of benign spells, but these were probably less potent than other spells that did have "side effects."

Zeta Kai
2008-12-07, 01:29 AM
I think a better question might the corollary: What does 3E do well?

Kellus
2008-12-07, 02:24 AM
One key thing to fix is Level Adjustment. Because it doesn't work. At all.

In fact, while you're at it, get rid of any kind of XP cost ever. People shouldn't have to cripple their characters to use their class features.

SurlySeraph
2008-12-07, 03:11 AM
I think a better question might the corollary: What does 3E do well?

It gives you a lot of flexibility. It lets you make functional (if not optimal) characters who fit a vast range of concepts. It's a pretty good balance between gamism and simulationism.

Yukitsu
2008-12-07, 03:16 AM
I'd say everything in D&D 3.5 is broken.

On the other hand, it's infinitely more fun to take the shattered pieces and do essentially whatever you want with them. There is no real limit to what you can or can't do with the system, depending on which pieces you use.

Zeful
2008-12-07, 03:26 AM
If you're familiar with second edition, then ignore me. If not, then I think 2e was trying to stay true to the "Nintendo hard" school of thought, even to the point of being arbitrarily unfair sometimes.

But in any case, spellcasting was far more rigid in 2e. It's much easier to disrupt spells in 2e, you get no metamagic feats and higher level spells actually gave you a penalty to your initiative roll (which you rolled each round). There were simply no feats, just class abilities. Likewise, crafting magic items didn't have any specific rules to them, that was the domain of DM improvisation, and might've required a side quest of some sort. So you don't get a cheap supply of scrolls. I think you also had to spend more time memorizing spells, but I don't remember the details.

Haste aged you a year. As did Gate, if I remember correctly. You also had to bargain with the Gated creature to either not eat/punish/ignore you. Wish didn't have any pre-defined abilities per se. That was completely up to DM adjudication, where he was also permitted to screw you on the wording. If Fly cut out on you, you took fall damage instead of having a built-in safety mechanism like they do in 3e. Fireball was also intended to be something of a trade-off, since the large-blast radius was as much a liability as an asset that you didn't get to route around by a certain PrC ability. Polymorph spells also ran the risk of killing people by "system shock" and a chance that your target would permanently lose her identity if she remained too long in a certain form.

Actually, I think a forumite pointed out that Haste also had a "system shock" roll involved with it too, as ruled by official errata. This was silly because you could then end up using it as an *offensive* spell.

There were also plenty of benign spells, but these were probably less potent than other spells that did have "side effects."

The System Shock roll was caused by the Magical aging effects of those spells I believe.
And Arbitrarily unfairness would be "Casting x kills you. Roll a new character." No spell actually does that, it makes it easier through aging, but never outright kills the caster.


In fact, while you're at it, get rid of any kind of XP cost ever. People shouldn't have to cripple their characters to use their class features.Your point? Magic across all of legend is dangerous or crippling to the caster, it should be dangerous to use. The greater the magic, the greater the danger to the caster. You should never look at the rules and ask yourself, "why don't people do x, it makes so much sense". Introducing magic to the economy shouldn't break it over it's knee, it should just be another option. There should be hard and fast limits of magic, rules that Cannot Be Broken. There aren't. Nearly every "limitation" of magic in D&D only exist to those who don't look to hard.

AslanCross
2008-12-07, 03:45 AM
It gives you a lot of flexibility. It lets you make functional (if not optimal) characters who fit a vast range of concepts. It's a pretty good balance between gamism and simulationism.

I agree. When I started, I was very pleased to see that the system gave so many options that one could make almost any character concept. (Of course, the same can also be used as an argument against its balance.)

LurkerInPlayground
2008-12-07, 03:45 AM
The System Shock roll was caused by the Magical aging effects of those spells I believe.
And Arbitrarily unfairness would be "Casting x kills you. Roll a new character." No spell actually does that, it makes it easier through aging, but never outright kills the caster.
I'm just saying 2e arbitrarily screwed you sometimes. Why? Certain magical effects from spells and/or monsters had very specific ways of countering them. Sometimes a spell would cancel out the effect even though you'd have no reason to expect it to from anything other than some vague relationship in fluff.

Likewise, magical items were simply not bounded by conventional spells or their abilities. For all intents-and-purposes, a lot of the abilities were made up. So don't ever break that Staff of Power unless you're certain you want to lose your character.

Then there's the level draining mechanic.

The point being, if the DM can always choose to kill your characters, it just seemed like 2e provided more ways of doing that for a DM that was so inclined to "play lethally."

Aquillion
2008-12-07, 04:18 AM
Likewise, magical items were simply not bounded by conventional spells or their abilities. For all intents-and-purposes, a lot of the abilities were made up. So don't ever break that Staff of Power unless you're certain you want to lose your character. "To be fair, though...

That tended to lead to a lot more interesting items for 2e. More broken items? Sure. But if you ever flipped through one of those old 2e books of magic items, there was a lot of interesting stuff in there that later editions (which generally used a more balanced, planned-out framework) couldn't match.

Talic
2008-12-07, 04:25 AM
Broken: Wish provides a GP limitation on non-magical items, but no such limitation on magical ones. Further, by the rules, if you wish for a magic item, ANY magic item, as it's a listed effect of a wish, it should work.

So while a gem valuable enough to trap the soul of an ancient red dragon is out...

a +5 Vorpal greataxe is fine. Heck, if you go by DMG2, you can even wish for an entire location (Locations as magic items). Congratulations, you just created Disney World.

Satyr
2008-12-07, 04:43 AM
Too many options in magic, too few for melee characters. That has slightly improved with ToB, but on the cost of maximum flashyness that may not fit in well with the mood and atmosphere of many campaigns. Many low-level spell effects are actually extremely easy to transfer to melee 'special atacks / target evaluation / called shots'. This lead to the weird situation that you can do almost nything with magic, but you can't do even the most obvious actions without it. D&D fighters are unable to target weak chinks in an armor, or to kick someone in the kidneys, or to break an opponent's arm, or to aim for the eyes... while everything this would do can be simulated with magic.

And people do not learn to defend themselves. Everybody improves the Art of how to hit things, but no one learns the Art of how you are not hit.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-12-07, 04:54 AM
The 20d6 cap on falling damage is nonsensical, in my opinion, since a high level Fighter or Barbarian can jump from any height and shrug off the damage. And nice to see you posting again Fax. ^_^

They can also shrug of lightning bolts going straight through them, I don't see the nonsensical part of terminal velocity.

Aquillion
2008-12-07, 04:59 AM
Technically, as long as a lightning bolt goes right through you and doesn't go through your brain or heart, it's not that hard to survive. Magical damage can always be handwaved as it just being magic -- the lightning isn't that close to real lightning, or the fireball isn't that hot, or whatever.

Now, taking multiple solid hits from a battle-axe and still being able to fight, that's stupid. Just look at one of those some time. Seriously, D&D melee battles should look like King Arthur vs. the Black Knight every single time.

Waspinator
2008-12-07, 05:20 AM
I would call the OGL a success of 3.x. It made 3rd parties turn out some unbalanced junk, true, but it also allowed many cool things to be made that probably wouldn't have otherwise (Etherscope, Dragonmech, Dragonstar, the Warcraft d20 books, etc...)

JellyPooga
2008-12-07, 05:55 AM
Now, taking multiple solid hits from a battle-axe and still being able to fight, that's stupid. Just look at one of those some time. Seriously, D&D melee battles should look like King Arthur vs. the Black Knight every single time.

To amplify this...

Hit points and their relationship with Constitution, Combat, Magic and your characters state of well-being.

I've heard a million times how HP is considered an abstract concept of health rather than an absolute one, but so many things seem to coontradict this abstraction. Falling damage is one example of this (the damage you take from falling off a cliff is definitely not combat-fatigue, cuts and scrapes or the like...it's bone-crushing death). If they'd actually thought about the HP system, certain things would inflict damage as factors or fractions of HP (e.g. you take one quarter HP damage).

Following from this HP abstraction-damage contradiction, how is it that a million and one magical doodahs result in horrendous effects (blindness, nausea, stat drain) without resulting in HP loss? If HP is an abstract concept of combat effectiveness, surely being blind would reduce that effectiveness. The "because it's magic" rebuttal doesn't work against this, because it's not a matter of the magic doing damage, it's the result of the adverse effect taking its toll on your combat-effectiveness (HP).

Coming from the other side, how does losing HP not result in certain adverse effects? If you're at half your HP and HP is a measure of your ability to remain in combat, then surely your ability to participate in that combat should also be reduced?

Anyway, I'm rambling and starting to say things that have already been said, so I'll stop.

Greg
2008-12-07, 06:33 AM
The 20d6 cap on falling damage is nonsensical, in my opinion, since a high level Fighter or Barbarian can jump from any height and shrug off the damage. And nice to see you posting again Fax. ^_^
Not nonsensical - terminal velocity exists (although probably not by falling 200ft). Cats have a nonfatal terminal velocity, for example - as long as they can prepare for the landing. Terminal velocity for a human caps at around 100ft (terminal velocity for a human is around 56m/s here (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/JianHuang.shtml)).

Stephen_E
2008-12-07, 06:50 AM
For falling damage you could handle it by substituring dam per HD for D6's*distance..

Example
10' = 1d6 sundual.
20'' = 1d6*HD
21-40' = 2d6*HD
41-89' = 3d4*HD
81-160' = 4d4*HD
161'+ = 5d4*HD

Thus been high lev helps little beyond protective items and Con boosts increasing your hps.
You might want to tone down my example slightly since it's pretty damned lethal at 801'+

------------
Broken is death at -10 hps.

Con and level increase your hps for staying up, but once you're down you dies as easily as your 1st lev Con 3 peasant.

Personally I'd make your death point Con+level.

Stephen E

Talic
2008-12-07, 07:27 AM
Assuming a simplification acceleration rate of 10 meters per second squared (actual acceleration is 9.81) - drag coeffecient...

And assuming that drag is irrelevant until terminal velocity is reached, guaranteeing the greatest acceleration in the shortest distance (example: A trained skydiver diving into the wind up to terminal velocity)...

Then the distance fallen will look more or less like this (without drag)
{table=header]End of second | speed | distance fell this second | total distance
1 | 10 | 5 | 5
2 | 20 | 15 | 20
3 | 30 | 25 | 45
4 | 40 | 35 | 80
5 | 50 | 45 | 125[/table]

So, 5 seconds, and 125 meters fallen, or roughly 360-375 feet. For a trained skydiver. For the average person, acceleration rate will slow as drag builds, until the terminal velocity is reached, many seconds later, likely at double or even triple the distance fallen.

But, under the most conservative estimates in favor of shorter distance, you're looking at approximately double the D&D number.

Douglas
2008-12-07, 08:03 AM
Broken: Wish provides a GP limitation on non-magical items, but no such limitation on magical ones. Further, by the rules, if you wish for a magic item, ANY magic item, as it's a listed effect of a wish, it should work.

So while a gem valuable enough to trap the soul of an ancient red dragon is out...

a +5 Vorpal greataxe is fine. Heck, if you go by DMG2, you can even wish for an entire location (Locations as magic items). Congratulations, you just created Disney World.
Did you miss the part about paying twice the xp normally required to create the item, in addition to the base 5000 just for casting Wish in the first place? Your +5 Vorpal greataxe just cost you 21000 xp. It's really no more broken than any of the item creation feats, which just let you trade xp for a bit more equipment. It only gets broken if you combine it with a way to ignore the xp cost.

Note: Casting Wish from an item does not allow you to break this. It just transfers the xp cost from the item user to the item crafter, and you can't spend more xp than the crafter put into it - which is normally the absolute minimum. A Wish from a default Ring of Three Wishes can't create magic items at all because each Wish only has the minimum 5000 xp available.

Curmudgeon
2008-12-07, 09:03 AM
Mordenkainen's Disjunction is broken in the "overly complex" sense (1), and "not specified" sense (3). To do it correctly you need to look up the description of every magic item, compare its save to that of the owner, and roll the better one. Then there's the unspecified issue of in which order you check magical containers and their contents, and what happens to the contents if the container fails the save.

Thrawn183
2008-12-07, 10:20 AM
Freedom of movement: all these things with open ended descriptions, means the interpretation is really just that, interpretation.

Crawling: can you 5 ft. crawl? Can you jump out of a grease spell without standing? What is your speed while crawling? This actually comes up a lot in my games when people get knocked prone and have a big bruiser standing right over them.

Fan
2008-12-07, 10:23 AM
Wizard's easily.
They do anything, and everything at the same time.
You want focus, but DAMN will they do that, and everything else well.

Morty
2008-12-07, 11:32 AM
Once more, we have a thread that's a living testament to the lack of reading comprehension.
Anyway, I've always thought that crafting rules are a bit too unnecesarily contrived. They could be easily laid out much more simply, all those figures are a tad intimidating.

Zeful
2008-12-07, 12:15 PM
Mordenkainen's Disjunction is broken in the "overly complex" sense (1), and "not specified" sense (3). To do it correctly you need to look up the description of every magic item, compare its save to that of the owner, and roll the better one. Then there's the unspecified issue of in which order you check magical containers and their contents, and what happens to the contents if the container fails the save.

99% of the time, when targeted by Mordenkainen's Disjunction, your save is better than the items. And besides, if the player or DM doesn't write down what the level of every item is, it's there fault the spell is complex.


Once more, we have a thread that's a living testament to the lack of reading comprehension.
Anyway, I've always thought that crafting rules are a bit too unnecesarily contrived. They could be easily laid out much more simply, all those figures are a tad intimidating.
Are you speaking of the "nonsensical" requirement of broken Fax listed in the OP? If you are, then everything in the (core) game applies, because "nonsensical" is a personal interpretation issue.


Did you miss the part about paying twice the xp normally required to create the item, in addition to the base 5000 just for casting Wish in the first place? Your +5 Vorpal greataxe just cost you 21000 xp. It's really no more broken than any of the item creation feats, which just let you trade xp for a bit more equipment. It only gets broken if you combine it with a way to ignore the xp cost.

Note: Casting Wish from an item does not allow you to break this. It just transfers the xp cost from the item user to the item crafter, and you can't spend more xp than the crafter put into it - which is normally the absolute minimum. A Wish from a default Ring of Three Wishes can't create magic items at all because each Wish only has the minimum 5000 xp available.
SLAs don't cost XP. Solars, Pit Fiends, Efreeti, Noble Djinn all have Wish SLAs. Gate, Planar binding, and Simulacrum allow you to bring or create a monster with a wish SLA under your control. You may then wish for a +9x10150000000 Vorpal, Flaming, Flaming burst, Abberation Bane, Animal Bane, Construct Bane, Dragon Bane, Elemental Bane, Fey Bane, Giant Bane, Aquatic Humanoid Bane, Dwarf Bane, Elf Bane, Gnoll Bane, Gnome Bane, Goblinoid Bane, Halfling Bane, Human Bane, Reptilian Humanoid Bane, Orc Bane, Magical Beast Bane, Monstrous Humanoid Bane, Ooze Bane, Air Outsider Bane, Chaotic Outsider Bane, Earth Outsider Bane, Evil Outsider Bane, Fire Outsider Bane, Good Outsider Bane. Lawful Outsider Bane, Water Outsider Bane, Plant Bane, Undead Bane, Vermin Bane, Brilliant Energy, Dancing, Defending, Frost, Shock, Icy Burst, Shocking Burst, Ghost Touch, Keen, Ki Focus, Merciful, Mighty Cleaving, Spell Storing, Throwing, Distance, Thundering, Vicious, Wounding, Fullblade of Speed and the DM has to give it to you because it's one of the listed effects of wish.

Kurald Galain
2008-12-07, 12:21 PM
Vorpal, Flaming, Flaming burst, Abberation Bane, Animal Bane, Construct Bane, Dragon Bane, Elemental Bane, Fey Bane, Giant Bane, Aquatic Humanoid Bane, Dwarf Bane, Elf Bane, Gnoll Bane, Gnome Bane, Goblinoid Bane, Halfling Bane, Human Bane, Reptilian Humanoid Bane, Orc Bane, Magical Beast Bane, Monstrous Humanoid Bane, Ooze Bane, Air Outsider Bane, Chaotic Outsider Bane, Earth Outsider Bane, Evil Outsider Bane, Fire Outsider Bane, Good Outsider Bane. Lawful Outsider Bane, Water Outsider Bane, Plant Bane, Undead Bane, Vermin Bane, Brilliant Energy, Dancing, Defending, Frost, Shock, Icy Burst, Shocking Burst, Ghost Touch, Keen, Ki Focus, Merciful, Mighty Cleaving, Spell Storing, Throwing, Distance, Thundering, Vicious, Wounding, Fullblade of Speed

Obligatory Link... (http://pw1.netcom.com/~rogermw/ADnD/SickKids1.html)

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-12-07, 12:24 PM
99% of the time, when targeted by Mordenkainen's Disjunction, your save is better than the items. And besides, if the player or DM doesn't write down what the level of every item is, it's there fault the spell is complex.What level is your +6 headband? Your HHH? Your +1 Greatsword with Flaming, Holy, Bane, and Speed? Most characters have dozens of magic items, some of which are customized, others which are a combination of standard items, and some which are hidden in extra-dimensional holes in the spell's area. My item list already takes up a couple pages once I play past level 10, I'm not going to add more info onto it, especially when that info so rarely matters.

NEO|Phyte
2008-12-07, 12:37 PM
SLAs don't cost XP. Solars, Pit Fiends, Efreeti, Noble Djinn all have Wish SLAs. Gate, Planar binding, and Simulacrum allow you to bring or create a monster with a wish SLA under your control. You may then wish for a +9x10150000000 Vorpal, Flaming, Flaming burst, Abberation Bane, Animal Bane, Construct Bane, Dragon Bane, Elemental Bane, Fey Bane, Giant Bane, Aquatic Humanoid Bane, Dwarf Bane, Elf Bane, Gnoll Bane, Gnome Bane, Goblinoid Bane, Halfling Bane, Human Bane, Reptilian Humanoid Bane, Orc Bane, Magical Beast Bane, Monstrous Humanoid Bane, Ooze Bane, Air Outsider Bane, Chaotic Outsider Bane, Earth Outsider Bane, Evil Outsider Bane, Fire Outsider Bane, Good Outsider Bane. Lawful Outsider Bane, Water Outsider Bane, Plant Bane, Undead Bane, Vermin Bane, Brilliant Energy, Dancing, Defending, Frost, Shock, Icy Burst, Shocking Burst, Ghost Touch, Keen, Ki Focus, Merciful, Mighty Cleaving, Spell Storing, Throwing, Distance, Thundering, Vicious, Wounding, Fullblade of Speed and the DM has to give it to you because it's one of the listed effects of wish.
*poof*
The Fullblade appears! It is sized for a Fine creature, meaning that a Medium creature is incapable of wielding it.

Of course, this just means that their NEXT wish is for another sword, only the proper size.

Zeful
2008-12-07, 12:53 PM
*poof*
The Fullblade appears! It is sized for a Fine creature, meaning that a Medium creature is incapable of wielding it.

Of course, this just means that their NEXT wish is for another sword, only the proper size.

A DM way only twist a wish when it goes beyond the listed limits of the spell. There is no restriction of any kind for the creation of Magic items, therefore any wish for any magic item is allowed and the DM must provide appropriate results.

The argument could be made that since the weapon was never given a size or a location it could be fine sized several hundred miles away, but the same could be said of a colossal weapon appearing on top of the wishee. Besides, a reduced Fairy could make use of the weapon. I never said who was wishing.

NEO|Phyte
2008-12-07, 01:01 PM
A DM way only twist a wish when it goes beyond the listed limits of the spell. There is no restriction of any kind for the creation of Magic items, therefore any wish for any magic item is allowed and the DM must provide appropriate results.

The DM is only allowed to twist the wish when it goes beyond the limits. The creature powering the Wish, on the other hand...

Lets just say you'd probably be best sticking to Solars and Noble Djinn.

Crow
2008-12-07, 01:34 PM
The DM is only allowed to twist the wish when it goes beyond the limits. The creature powering the Wish, on the other hand...

Lets just say you'd probably be best sticking to Solars and Noble Djinn.

Yes, there is no need to be greedy. Just pay for the scrolls of Gate, and gate in Solars for all your safe wishing needs. 9k for any item in the book isn't that bad.

Emperor Tippy
2008-12-07, 01:58 PM
Yes, there is no need to be greedy. Just pay for the scrolls of Gate, and gate in Solars for all your safe wishing needs. 9k for any item in the book isn't that bad.

And with Effertie it's self sustaining because they give you 3 wishes. Wish for another gate scroll and then 2 items.

Crow
2008-12-07, 02:14 PM
And with Effertie it's self sustaining because they give you 3 wishes. Wish for another gate scroll and then 2 items.

I was talking about getting around the creature twisting your wish...as most DM's will have the Efreeti do...Whether that's BS or not is up to you. In the case of an uncooperative DM, the Solar is safer.

Curmudgeon
2008-12-07, 02:26 PM
99% of the time, when targeted by Mordenkainen's Disjunction, your save is better than the items. Tell that to all the Barbarians. I'm sure they'll be pleased at how much better their Will saves suddenly are. :smallmad:

And besides, if the player or DM doesn't write down what the level of every item is, it's there fault the spell is complex. So now you're blaming the victims? Nice. Very nice. :smallfrown:

Thane of Fife
2008-12-07, 02:34 PM
Obligatory Link...

That was....

:smalleek:

I'm going to have nightmares about that for weeks.

Matthew
2008-12-07, 04:05 PM
Yikes! Mindboggling.

Hal
2008-12-07, 04:14 PM
I'm going to throw my hat in for Profession rules as well.

Under these rules, someone with a modicum of training is going to be making a pittance. On average, a first level commoner with 4 ranks in a profession is going to make something like 14 silver a week. Common man should eat a common meal (3sp/day) and have common lodging (5sp/day). That leaves very little left over for other matters, especially if the common man has a family to care for as well.

And this isn't even taking taxes into account.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-12-07, 04:18 PM
I'm going to throw my hat in for Profession rules as well.

Under these rules, someone with a modicum of training is going to be making a pittance. On average, a first level commoner with 4 ranks in a profession is going to make something like 14 silver a week. Common man should eat a common meal (3sp/day) and have common lodging (5sp/day). That leaves very little left over for other matters, especially if the common man has a family to care for as well.

And this isn't even taking taxes into account.Read some history. That's pretty normal for the feudal system, which essentially survived by making serfs that were so poorly off most of them would have preferred being slaves.

Roderick_BR
2008-12-07, 05:54 PM
It gives you a lot of flexibility. It lets you make functional (if not optimal) characters who fit a vast range of concepts. It's a pretty good balance between gamism and simulationism.
Except that there's only half a dozen concepts that are considered good enough to actually work in a game. And 5 out of these 6 concepts requires you to be a full caster.
The rest is so unusable that'll just make everyone else look better at you at your own job.

Greg
2008-12-07, 06:13 PM
And with Effertie it's self sustaining because they give you 3 wishes. Wish for another gate scroll and then 2 items.
Or wish for 3 rings of wishes.

Oslecamo
2008-12-07, 06:16 PM
Or wish for 3 rings of wishes.

And then you find out the BBEG also did it, and he wished for all your wishes to don't work.:smalltongue:

Stupendous_Man
2008-12-07, 06:18 PM
"I wish for this wish to not work!"

Yukitsu
2008-12-07, 06:21 PM
"Oh noble efreeti, I have summoned thee for three wishes."
"Sure, make it quick."
"I wish that he who makes his next wish from ye does not have his wish granted, be it by you, by fate, or by contract, or in any other manner."
"Ya, sure, whatever."
"I wish to confirm that my first wish occured as I desired."
"...You're a Richard."

Draco Dracul
2008-12-07, 06:27 PM
"I wish for this wish to not work!"

I'm pretty sure that make a wish like that will create an loop that will keep going untill it uses all the magic in the universe.

Innis Cabal
2008-12-07, 06:31 PM
I'm going to throw my hat in for Profession rules as well.

Under these rules, someone with a modicum of training is going to be making a pittance. On average, a first level commoner with 4 ranks in a profession is going to make something like 14 silver a week. Common man should eat a common meal (3sp/day) and have common lodging (5sp/day). That leaves very little left over for other matters, especially if the common man has a family to care for as well.

And this isn't even taking taxes into account.

Ya...that seems to make sense.

As for whats broken....ultimatly...the inability of your DM to say no and hit you with his dice bag.

Curmudgeon
2008-12-07, 06:32 PM
And then you find out the BBEG also did it, and he wished for all your wishes to don't work.:smalltongue: No, there's something even better: your (obviously) smarter opponent summoned the creature, shared a nice meal with them, and had a pleasant chat about this nasty adventurer who might have overweening aspirations. The result: a Contingency to run a Magic Mouth in your voice if you should happen to summon said creature:
I wish to be securely gagged!
I wish for Mordenkainen's Disjunction to be cast on me!
I wish for Harm to be cast on me!
Now, this won't kill you -- but it will teach you not to tempt the Fates (AKA DM).

metagaia
2008-12-07, 06:35 PM
Hmm, wish is also the ultimate destructive spell.

"I want 10^3000 holly and mistletoe sprigs to be created, compressed into the density of a neutron star, and to appear...3 miles over that city there...

Crow
2008-12-07, 06:40 PM
Except that there's only half a dozen concepts that are considered good enough to actually work in a game. And 5 out of these 6 concepts requires you to be a full caster.
The rest is so unusable that'll just make everyone else look better at you at your own job.

That's a bunch of hoo-hah. Thousands of people have played Fighters that weren't uber-chargers or trip-monkeys, Clerics that weren't zilla, and Wizards that weren't batman, and it probably worked out just fine (our group falls here) the majority of the time.

The only time it really becomes a problem is in rare instances when people ruin the game for other people on accident (Druid, I'm looking at you), or in the intances when players are deliberately trying to do so (which they probably wouldn't have done so easily were it not for the wonders of internet message boards).

In short, your statement is steeped in the hyperbole which has sadly become so common on these boards.

As to the profession skills, and the cost of common lodging and meals: I always assumed these were the prices that you could expect to pay at an Inn. As in, it's more expensive that way. I don't think most commoners are paying rent by the night, and a turnip that you grow yourself is going to end up being a lot cheaper than the one you buy from the innkeeper.

Oslecamo
2008-12-07, 06:46 PM
No, there's something even better: your (obviously) smarter opponent summoned the creature, shared a nice meal with them, and had a pleasant chat about this nasty adventurer who might have overweening aspirations. The result: a Contingency to run a Magic Mouth in your voice if you should happen to summon said creature:
I wish to be securely gagged!
I wish for Mordenkainen's Disjunction to be cast on me!
I wish for Harm to be cast on me!
Now, this won't kill you -- but it will teach you not to tempt the Fates (AKA DM).

Brilliant! Teaches them a lesson, is original, funny and nonlethal!:smallbiggrin:

Yukitsu
2008-12-07, 06:47 PM
No, there's something even better: your (obviously) smarter opponent summoned the creature, shared a nice meal with them, and had a pleasant chat about this nasty adventurer who might have overweening aspirations. The result: a Contingency to run a Magic Mouth in your voice if you should happen to summon said creature:
I wish to be securely gagged!
I wish for Mordenkainen's Disjunction to be cast on me!
I wish for Harm to be cast on me!
Now, this won't kill you -- but it will teach you not to tempt the Fates (AKA DM).

For some reason, I read "Harm" as "Harem" the first time I read this. :smallconfused:

Stupendous_Man
2008-12-07, 06:48 PM
I'm going to throw my hat in for Profession rules as well.

Under these rules, someone with a modicum of training is going to be making a pittance. On average, a first level commoner with 4 ranks in a profession is going to make something like 14 silver a week. Common man should eat a common meal (3sp/day) and have common lodging (5sp/day). That leaves very little left over for other matters, especially if the common man has a family to care for as well.

And this isn't even taking taxes into account.

People were dirt poor in the middle ages.

In other news, turnips are wonderful.

Optimystik
2008-12-07, 06:48 PM
No, there's something even better: your (obviously) smarter opponent summoned the creature, shared a nice meal with them, and had a pleasant chat about this nasty adventurer who might have overweening aspirations. The result: a Contingency to run a Magic Mouth in your voice if you should happen to summon said creature:
I wish to be securely gagged!
I wish for Mordenkainen's Disjunction to be cast on me!
I wish for Harm to be cast on me!
Now, this won't kill you -- but it will teach you not to tempt the Fates (AKA DM).

You're... evil...!

Bayar
2008-12-07, 07:02 PM
And no one mentioned Truenamers yet...a class so broken that nobody can play it. Think the designers lost a couple of pages of info, were running out of time and just printed what scraps they had lying around...

Zeful
2008-12-07, 07:03 PM
Tell that to all the Barbarians. I'm sure they'll be pleased at how much better their Will saves suddenly are. :smallmad:
So now you're blaming the victims? Nice. Very nice. :smallfrown:

Keeping track of magic item's cater level is part of the book keeping involved with them, at the very least the DM should have written down the CL should dispelling occur. Any item crafted by the PC should have the CL known. If your not writing this stuff down, you kinda deserve it.

Curmudgeon
2008-12-07, 07:07 PM
You're... evil...! Hey! I resemble that statement! :smallconfused:

Starbuck_II
2008-12-07, 07:09 PM
Brilliant! Teaches them a lesson, is original, funny and nonlethal!:smallbiggrin:

Killing magic items isn't nonlethal. It is evil!

Oslecamo
2008-12-07, 07:26 PM
Killing magic items isn't nonlethal. It is evil!

Mormekdain's magnificent slaughter of inocent and pure artifacts hasn't got the evil descriptor, so it isn't evil. Ah!

Devils_Advocate
2008-12-07, 07:30 PM
As I mentioned in another recent thread, supposedly mindless automatons being allowed to demonstrate more intelligence than creatures with Int 1.


One could argue that experience points are broken due to complexity.
They XP/level system is definitely more complex than it needs to be. The number of experience points needed to go up a level and the number you get from defeating something of a given CR varies with level. They shouldn't need to use more than one of those. Unfortunately, XP costs based around the existing system mean that this isn't simple to fix.


I've mentioned this before, but: Metaconcert (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/metaconcert.htm). It simply leaves out information essential to ever using it in a game.
For that matter, Reincarnate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/reincarnate.htm). What, exactly, are "abilities associated with its new form"? Despite how helpful it would be for a game with all sorts of shapechanging magic, the rules do not clearly divide aspects of creatures into mind-associated aspects and body-associated aspects. Not that that alone would bring much clarity here, since if some cultural thing is shared by all members of a race -- e.g. elven weapon proficiencies -- it could be considered "associated" with their form.

Are you supposed to possibly gain or lose racial hit dice or LA? Who the hell knows?

The spell description doesn't even say that you lose abilities associated with your old form, though it obviously should. Your brand-new body has your old ability scores but modified for your new race, which doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it. This spell also randomly screws with game balance a la the Deck of Many Things.


Hit points and their relationship with Constitution, Combat, Magic and your characters state of well-being.
The worst part is that the PHB talks about hit points representing "the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one." Ugh. Reading that quite naturally creates expectations that hit points will function in a way completely out of keeping with the actual rules. Given the rules regarding hit points, they should have said "In D&D, hit points represent the ability of cinematic fantasy characters to routinely have ridiculously lethal things happen to them and yet be just fine." That would be honest and create expectations in keeping with all of the actual rules about how hit points work.

On a related note, the massive damage rule is ridiculous because the amount of damage needed to trigger the save and the save DC are both fixed constants, instead of scaling with the target's max hit points and the damage dealt respectively. So you get high-level battles with a bunch of rolls for a 1 in 20 chance of instant death.

To illustrate the absurdity of the first part: If you're doing somewhere from 50 to 100 points of damage per round, it's better to have all of that damage bundled into one attack. If you're doing over 100 points of damage per round, it's better for it to be spread out over two attacks.

Hal
2008-12-07, 07:36 PM
Read some history. That's pretty normal for the feudal system, which essentially survived by making serfs that were so poorly off most of them would have preferred being slaves.

Oh, history's great. It's just that we're not talking about history, we're talking about D&D. You know, the place where a level 10 anything has gold falling out of their ears.

Let's change it around and make it a level 10 commoner. At this point, our friendly commoner is pretty darn skilled at their profession, having at least 13 skill ranks in their profession. This is going to be akin to a well-skilled, very well trained person, yet still only earns them on average ~23 silver/week.

That just doesn't seem like something that ends up generating the level of wealth a level 10 NPC is listed as having. But then, that's WBL rules, which probably also ought to go in the pile of "don't really work out" rules.

Oslecamo
2008-12-07, 07:51 PM
To illustrate the absurdity of the first part: If you're doing somewhere from 50 to 100 points of damage per round, it's better to have all of that damage bundled into one attack. If you're doing over 100 points of damage per round, it's better for it to be spread out over two attacks.

It's only absurd if you want it to be.

After all, there's just so much you can smash a part of a person untill it won't be more lethal if you smash it more. But still painfull as hell.

So for example, if you push a sword into your oponent's guts so hard it comes on the other side, dealing 200 damage, you force him to make one fortitude save, because you probably hit something vital.

On the other hand, if you had spread your strenght over two attacks, each dealing 100 damage and impaling the enemy, you may actually hit two vital points instead of one.

But with just one stroke you just can't hit that many vital spots.

Anyway, what's the other possibility? That a fireball actually kills you 90% of the time no matter how skilled you are because you're just gonna burn to death? Who would play D&D in those conditions?

Stupendous_Man
2008-12-07, 08:00 PM
Oh, history's great. It's just that we're not talking about history, we're talking about D&D. You know, the place where a level 10 anything has gold falling out of their ears.

Let's change it around and make it a level 10 commoner. At this point, our friendly commoner is pretty darn skilled at their profession, having at least 13 skill ranks in their profession. This is going to be akin to a well-skilled, very well trained person, yet still only earns them on average ~23 silver/week.

That just doesn't seem like something that ends up generating the level of wealth a level 10 NPC is listed as having. But then, that's WBL rules, which probably also ought to go in the pile of "don't really work out" rules.

NPCs don't follow PC WBL, do they?

Starbuck_II
2008-12-07, 08:02 PM
Are you supposed to possibly gain or lose racial hit dice or LA? Who the hell knows?


First, you don't gain LA because the spell doesn't say you do. Do you lose LA? That is the mystery.

Racial HD: Easy, look up the Monster Manual: look up Type, that tells you what a Racial HD would lose.

Innis Cabal
2008-12-07, 08:04 PM
Oh, history's great. It's just that we're not talking about history, we're talking about D&D. You know, the place where a level 10 anything has gold falling out of their ears.

Let's change it around and make it a level 10 commoner. At this point, our friendly commoner is pretty darn skilled at their profession, having at least 13 skill ranks in their profession. This is going to be akin to a well-skilled, very well trained person, yet still only earns them on average ~23 silver/week.

That just doesn't seem like something that ends up generating the level of wealth a level 10 NPC is listed as having. But then, that's WBL rules, which probably also ought to go in the pile of "don't really work out" rules.

Said level 10 with gold comming out his ears is killing dragons and armies for a living. Delving into crypts long sealed by powerful necromancers.

Those commoners are making baskets.

Ya.....

Crow
2008-12-07, 08:08 PM
Said level 10 with gold comming out his ears is killing dragons and armies for a living. Delving into crypts long sealed by powerful necromancers.

Those commoners are making baskets.

Ya.....

I level 10 commoner would be the merchant who has a couple ships moving freight, and owns a couple profitable caravans to boot. Most of his WBL is tied up in property, lifestock, trade goods, and sailing ships. He probably doesn't work for someone else, so doesn't get paid a wage. If he did, his vast background and experience would secure him a better-paying job than the guy who wanders in off the street.

Keld Denar
2008-12-07, 08:17 PM
Those commoners are making baskets.

Ya.....

Hey, Basketweaving is serious business. If you don't believe me, check out the CharOp boards guide to Basketweaving. Fear what you can do with fully optimized basketweaving!

RS14
2008-12-07, 08:23 PM
Grapple rules as they are written require grapplers to squeeze into their target's space. If they are at least twice the size of their target, they must use an escape artist check to do so.

Stupendous_Man
2008-12-07, 08:30 PM
Hey, Basketweaving is serious business. If you don't believe me, check out the CharOp boards guide to Basketweaving. Fear what you can do with fully optimized basketweaving!

Basket weaving?

Pfft.

True power lies in Animal Husbandry, for there is no problem that cannot be overcome by an imaginative and vigorous use of the Animal Husbandry skill!

Waspinator
2008-12-07, 08:34 PM
Also, Broken is 3.5.... IN SPACE!
http://www.brokensolaris.com/

Hal
2008-12-07, 10:11 PM
I level 10 commoner would be the merchant who has a couple ships moving freight, and owns a couple profitable caravans to boot. Most of his WBL is tied up in property, lifestock, trade goods, and sailing ships. He probably doesn't work for someone else, so doesn't get paid a wage. If he did, his vast background and experience would secure him a better-paying job than the guy who wanders in off the street.

Not according to the Profession rules. According to Profession rules, he gets 13+1d20 sp/wk.

That's why I think Profession doesn't work quite the way it's intended to.

Yukitsu
2008-12-07, 10:13 PM
"You can practice your trade and make a decent living, earning about half your Profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work."

So 12 GP per week, since by level 10 he has one +1, even with the peasant array.

Crow
2008-12-07, 10:34 PM
Not according to the Profession rules. According to Profession rules, he gets 13+1d20 sp/wk.

That's why I think Profession doesn't work quite the way it's intended to.

What I was saying is that the level 10 commoner doesn't need to make profession checks anymore. His employees do that. A profession check represents a job that a level 1 commoner would be working. A commoner doesn't make it to level 10 by slaying dragons, and he doesn't make it there by working an entry-level job his whole life.

He made it to level 10 by overcoming challenges. In this case it would be challenges like scraping a living to save up for a horse, wagon, and some wares. Then it was making his first trip away from his village to sell goods 300 miles away. After that, it was starting his own trading company, growing that company, and overcoming all the challenges inherant in that undertaking. By the time all of this is over, our level 10 commoner hasn't made a profession check for a long time. He isn't pushing a pencil outside his employer's office. He is the employer. Other commoners make profession checks to make the (4+1d20)/2 gp/wk that he pays them.

dyslexicfaser
2008-12-07, 10:36 PM
I'm afraid I haven't read every post, so forgive me if this has been mentioned before, but for me the AoO rules are worse than Grappling, Mounted Combat, or Turn/Rebuke Undead checks.

Slows down andconfuses the game far too much for a little more realism. I believe Shamus Young said it right: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=792.

Person_Man
2008-12-07, 11:06 PM
Wildshape/Polymorph/etc - Ridiculously cool, but crazy.
XP - Especially as it relates to spells and crafting items.
Skills - In that they could have been consolidated
Hide - Exactly when and how can you Hide?
Concealment and Cover - Why both, and what exactly counts?
Feats - In that they interact poorly
Attacks of Opportunity - What provokes?
Special Attacks - Often confusing.
Arcane Archer - Good idea, poor execution.
NPC Classes - Why?
Epic Rules - Totally screwy.
Spells - So many examples.

I love 3.5, I do. I wish that they had taken the best parts, cleaned up the rules, and republished it as 3.75. But sadly that was not to be.

Devils_Advocate
2008-12-07, 11:27 PM
Anyway, what's the other possibility?
Tossing out the massive damage rule entirely? Changing the Fort save to DC 10 + (damage dealt/10)? You could raise the amount of damage required to trigger the save with level, too, if you think that the same amount of HP represents less damage for higher-level characters.

I gather that a lot of groups play with some sort of house rule for massive damage, because of how absurd the RAW gets.


That a fireball actually kills you 90% of the time no matter how skilled you are because you're just gonna burn to death?
I'm not advocating that. When I say that HP as they actually function allow characters to survive ridiculously lethal things, that genuinely isn't a criticism of how HP work. That's entirely appropriate to a flashy, cinematic story set in a magical fantasy world, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that sort of story or that sort of setting.

Rather, I am criticizing many players and an actual D&D rulebook for pretending that HP represent things that they blatantly don't, because that makes my head hurt, man. It leads people to think that all sorts of particulars of how hit points work are flaws that need to be fixed, instead of hit points work exactly how they ought to.

When you're paralyzed, you still have all of your hit points, and if no one uses a full round to make a coup de grace, you just have a -5 Dex mod and additional -4 penalty to AC. This is entirely appropriate because hit points aren't skilled dodging or falling back from blows, they're a character's Ability to Not Get Killed by Damage. In a magical world, things like that can actually exist as fundamental aspects of reality that aren't abstractions of anything else. This is why bull's strength works on constructs. It doesn't enhance muscles, that would be going the long way around. It enhances Strength directly. In a world where Strength is its own actual thing, it can do that.

Similarly, Evasion can save a rouge in the middle of a fireball because the rouge is very Good at Not Getting Hit By Stuff. And that's a feature, not a bug. d20 isn't good at simulating the real world because its characters don't live in the real world. So long as you accept this basic premise, counterintuitive rules aren't problematic unless they're hard to remember or make the game world unrealistic in a particular way that you dislike.

Matthew
2008-12-07, 11:33 PM
When you're paralyzed, you still have all of your hit points, and if no one uses a full round to make a coup de grace, you just have a -5 Dex mod and additional -4 penalty to AC. This is entirely appropriate because hit points aren't skilled dodging or falling back from blows, they're a character's Ability to Not Get Killed by Damage. In a magical world, things like that can actually exist as fundamental aspects of reality that aren't abstractions of anything else. This is why bull's strength works on constructs. It doesn't enhance muscles, that would be going the long way around. It enhances Strength directly. In a world where Strength is its own actual thing, it can do that.

I think that is an unfortunate artifact of the D20/3e move towards increasing the importance of hit points as the primary defence. The infamous line from the PHB, p. 145, is "Even if you have lots of hit points, a dagger through the eye is a dagger through the eye", which of course it isn't (unless you're using the optional wounding rules from the D20/3e DMG). In previous editions this is more likely to ahve held true, as a result of things like the "inescapable death" rule, so I suppose this to be a vestige of that sort.

Neek
2008-12-08, 12:44 AM
Back to Profession for a minute, it's stupid that your ranks in Profession has no bearing on your status in the world. Even if you had a +13, you're neither a novice or a master. You can't Bluff your way into making more money (other than rolling a 20, which nets you +10 sp/week... what?) than you normally should.

Sure it's a simple mechanic, but it reflects that Experts and Commoners, Wizards and Fighters, all who have ranks in Profession, are relegated into working for chicken scratch. Obviously, you don't want your PCs to realize that they could Monte Hall the campaign with Profession checks instead of dungeon raids. I just wish that Profession represented more than a paycheck.

HP's has been a point of conjecture, but I generally work the opposite way it's being described: It's called hero armor. And as well, the description of the attack is indicative of the damage dealt, not the other away around--a low HP hit means it's a grazing blow, while a massive amount of damage is more lethal, appropriate to the character's HP. No one in my gaming group has complained about it, because that's how we all see it. Now, if you really have a problem with the HP system, try the Injury system from UA (link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/injury.htm)). This makes combat FAR more lethal, more realistic, and highly more baroque (the presented alternatives don't always make it better, even if they might fix the problem altogether!)

TheCountAlucard
2008-12-08, 10:34 AM
...and the DM has to give it to you...


(slaps with a textbook) RULE ZERO!


Given the rules regarding hit points, they should have said "In D&D, hit points represent the ability of cinematic fantasy characters to routinely have ridiculously lethal things happen to them and yet be just fine." That would be honest and create expectations in keeping with all of the actual rules about how hit points work.

I'm going to steal that, if that's all right with you.

Oslecamo
2008-12-08, 10:50 AM
Tossing out the massive damage rule entirely? Changing the Fort save to DC 10 + (damage dealt/10)? You could raise the amount of damage required to trigger the save with level, too, if you think that the same amount of HP represents less damage for higher-level characters.

I gather that a lot of groups play with some sort of house rule for massive damage, because of how absurd the RAW gets.


Well, as far as I remember, the whole rule is actually optional, so I normally just ignore it, unless the plyers bring it up and insist on using it, in wich case I just roll the dice and the monster passes 95% of the time. When it fails, well, I roleplay it like it was one damn lucky hit that brought down that big bad monster down

But personally I see the same amount of HP as the same amount of damage to any character.

For example, a commoner barely conscious(0 HP) whoreceives a cure light wounds spell will probably be completely healed.

A 20th level hero who's at 0 HP and receives a cure light wounds will still be missing hundreds of HP.

Why does the cure light wounds completely heals oe the Farmer but just stitches up a little Sir Artur the slayer of gods?

Because Sir Artur the slayer of gods, trough years of training, luck, and having his body infused with supernatural forces so many times, can now lose several liters of blood, flesh and vital organs and keep going, while Joe the commoner would be long dead.

But of course, all that missing blood, organs and flesh will be a lot harder to replace, so Sir Artur needs stronger magic to be healed.

potatocubed
2008-12-08, 11:39 AM
The mathematics of spell volumes - I remember this being troublesome in 3.0, so it might have been fixed in 3.5.

Basically, when something affects 'x' cubic feet of space, can you subdivide that into 12^3 = 1728 cubic inches? How about some bizarre quantity of cubic millimetres? If not, why not? Can I get a higher-level variant of, say, stone shape that can?

Because a 5th-caster-level stone shape, flattened to mm in width to maximise square footage, can wreak havoc on a stone dungeon. Or building. Or mountain.