Brainstorming Thread for a Basic FAQ

[Hecuba]

There are likely a very small few points a variance from RAW that are truely universal enough to be part of the common presupposition.

That's the point: in practice, there are elements of judgement we insert into RAW discussions. I agree that, when discussing the rules legality of a certain element, it's the only reasonable place to start, but when you hit something that doesn't make sense, there's no reason to treat it with greater deference than, say, healing by drowning. Essentially, my complaint against the idea of RAW and RAMS is that we already make alterations in RAW, almost habitually, because of things that don't make sense. They operate on the same principles, we just haggle over the magnitude.

Moreover, there are times when what doesn't make sense is not an in-universe effect, but a design element. For the monk proficiency example, it wouldn't create any glaring incongruities for an in-universe observer, but it makes little sense to design a class for hitting things with bare fists and presume in its design a non-proficiency penalty without ever noting its effect or rolling it into existing penalties.

[Bovine Colonel]

TVTropes has a very good list of logical fallacies.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...ilLogicForever

[Mr. Zolrane]

TVTropes has a very good list of logical fallacies.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...ilLogicForever

WARNING:

WHILE HIGHLY INFORMATIVE, THE LINK IN QUESTION IS LACED WITH A DANGEROUSLY ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCE.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

This should probably be something added to whatever the FAQ says on Tome of Battle, but there definitely needs to be a mention that, while a Warblade is basically a fighter, that does not mean that it is intended to replace the Fighter class and even a Fighter X/Warblade Y is not only effective to play, but also meshes seamlessly.

[Darth Stabber]

That's the point: in practice, there are elements of judgement we insert into RAW discussions. I agree that, when discussing the rules legality of a certain element, it's the only reasonable place to start, but when you hit something that doesn't make sense, there's no reason to treat it with greater deference than, say, healing by drowning. Essentially, my complaint against the idea of RAW and RAMS is that we already make alterations in RAW, almost habitually, because of things that don't make sense. They operate on the same principles, we just haggle over the magnitude.

Moreover, there are times when what doesn't make sense is not an in-universe effect, but a design element. For the monk proficiency example, it wouldn't create any glaring incongruities for an in-universe observer, but it makes little sense to design a class for hitting things with bare fists and presume in its design a non-proficiency penalty without ever noting its effect or rolling it into existing penalties.

In the three specific examples I was referring to are all cases of bad templating (or lack of any), all obviously and agregiously erronious to any observer with the smallest modicum of rules knowledge when demonstrated, imperceptable without a high degree of system mastery or demonstration, and with a universal fix applied identically that requires no great faculty on the part of the player or gm who observes it. The standard for these corner cases is very high, and the number of them is quite small, and could be listed as a default presupposition in the formal logic FAQ or the preposed FAQ that is the topic of this thread.

[Darth Stabber]

This should probably be something added to whatever the FAQ says on Tome of Battle, but there definitely needs to be a mention that, while a Warblade is basically a fighter, that does not mean that it is intended to replace the Fighter class and even a Fighter X/Warblade Y is not only effective to play, but also meshes seamlessly.

Actually, would some post discussing the old "melee can't have nice things" debate/attitude be a reasonable inclusion? It is commonly invoked, and could be presented in a neutral but informative manner. I personally think it is bordering on a fallacy, since it removes elements that bring some balance to the game, but in very low op groups these "nice things" can be more effective than the massively powerful but frequently poorly utilized things non-melee gets.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Actually, would some post discussing the old "melee can't have nice things" debate/attitude be a reasonable inclusion? It is commonly invoked, and could be presented in a neutral but informative manner. I personally think it is bordering on a fallacy, since it removes elements that bring some balance to the game, but in very low op groups these "nice things" can be more effective than the massively powerful but frequently poorly utilized things non-melee gets.

I think What do you mean, mêlée can't have nice things? would be a fine question. It is one of the more frequently encountered assumptions, at least in my experience, and that's what this handbook is supposed to cover.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Actually, would some post discussing the old "melee can't have nice things" debate/attitude be a reasonable inclusion? It is commonly invoked, and could be presented in a neutral but informative manner. I personally think it is bordering on a fallacy, since it removes elements that bring some balance to the game, but in very low op groups these "nice things" can be more effective than the massively powerful but frequently poorly utilized things non-melee gets.

I am very much in favor of that, I just worry that it'll devolve into another ToB scrap for 30 bloody pages. If there's a way to safeguard against that, the idea has my support.

[Hecuba]

I think What do you mean, mêlée can't have nice things? would be a fine question. It is one of the more frequently encountered assumptions, at least in my experience, and that's what this handbook is supposed to cover.

We should also add "Why Mialee can't have nice things." And the answer is that she looks kinda creepy.

[Mr. Zolrane]

We should also add "Why Mialee can't have nice things." And the answer is that she looks kinda creepy.like she's half Klingon or something.

Fixed that for ya.

[Darth Stabber]

I am very much in favor of that, I just worry that it'll devolve into another ToB scrap for 30 bloody pages. If there's a way to safeguard against that, the idea has my support.

I find it intensely amusing that the book that does the most to bring balance (between casters and non-casters) to the game is the one that catches the most flak.

[Mr. Zolrane]

I find it intensely amusing that the book that does the most to bring balance (between casters and non-casters) to the game is the one that catches the most flak.

Oh, don't get me wrong; I'm right there with ya. I just don't know if a certain segment of the forum population will be able to restrain itself.

[Veyr]

It's much too controversial, I think, for an FAQ, but along those lines, I would desperately like to see this post answered. It never was in that thread, despite five more pages of discussion on the topic after I made that post.

If someone with editing skills I lack wants to use that post (or others similar to it; I have a few more in that thread) as the basis for something, like "Why do people seem to assume I don't want mundanes to have nice things just because I ban Tome of Battle?", I'd be very happy to see that.

But again, as has been mentioned... probably not entirely appropriate for an FAQ which is supposed to represent the forum broadly.

[Mr. Zolrane]

It's much too controversial, I think, for an FAQ, but along those lines, I would desperately like to see this post answered. It never was in that thread, despite five more pages of discussion on the topic after I made that post.

Heh, I remember unleashing that thread upon the world.

Also: Dear sweet Pelor, it's happening already...

[Veyr]

Also: Dear sweet Pelor, it's happening already...

Point, but I don't think that we need to really discuss the merits or lack thereof of Tome of Battle here, so much as discuss the merits of discussing it in the FAQ. The obvious reasons to want to are the same reason to not want to: it's controversial, and it's likely that we won't find a nice neutral thing to include in the FAQ.

In fact, I'm a little worried that this thread seems to lack the anti-ToB crowd; our opinions are seeming a little one-sided as a result.

[Lateral]

After this long, I think the anti-ToB crowd has pretty much been ground down to a handful of people on this forum. It's like the freaking aftermath of baryogenesis.

[Darth Stabber]

I will concede that "melee nicethings", might be too controversial for an FAQ thread.

I can. How ever answer this following question:

Why do people seem to assume I don't want mundanes to have nice things just because I ban Tome of Battle?", I'd be very happy to see that.

Mundane melee outside of ToB is forced to make a very tough decision. When creating a character you can either be really good at one thing, or crappy at a number of things. A caster's hands are not so tightly bound. If a caster wants to deal a butt load of damage he might pick up a menagerie of metamagic reducers, and metamagic feats and prepare a bunch of empowered twinned repeating sonic orbs, whereas mr. Fighter/Barrbarian will grab power attack, shocktrooper, leap attack, and some levels in PRCs that specifically support that. Now if we put the characters in a situation that does not allow their primary tactic, the caster is still a caster, and if he has a brain in his head his spell selection will be diverse enough that he can contribute something. Whereas if the warrior can't charge he is effectively removed from the encounter. If the warrior decides he wants to be able to charge and trip so he can contribute in a wider variety of encounters, he will not be very good at either since those 2 specialities have entirely different feat trees and utilize a somewhat different set up of classes. Casters just use different spells. ToB allows you to be good at multiple things. Now, while you may not like the way ToB resolves mundane melee's crippling overspecialization problem, it is the ONLY official material that solves it. Banning it is like not going to the only hospital in town when your leg is broken because you don't like the wallpaper.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Now, while you may not like the way ToB resolves mundane melee's crippling overspecialization problem, it is the ONLY official material that solves it. Banning it is like not going to the only hospital in town when your leg is broken because you don't like the wallpaper.

May I sig this?

[NineThePuma]

May I sig this?

Me too. x3

[Hiro Protagonest]

I will concede that "melee nicethings", might be too controversial for an FAQ thread.

I can. How ever answer this following question:


Mundane melee outside of ToB is forced to make a very tough decision. When creating a character you can either be really good at one thing, or crappy at a number of things. A caster's hands are not so tightly bound. If a caster wants to deal a butt load of damage he might pick up a menagerie of metamagic reducers, and metamagic feats and prepare a bunch of empowered twinned repeating sonic orbs, whereas mr. Fighter/Barrbarian will grab power attack, shocktrooper, leap attack, and some levels in PRCs that specifically support that. Now if we put the characters in a situation that does not allow their primary tactic, the caster is still a caster, and if he has a brain in his head his spell selection will be diverse enough that he can contribute something. Whereas if the warrior can't charge he is effectively removed from the encounter. If the warrior decides he wants to be able to charge and trip so he can contribute in a wider variety of encounters, he will not be very good at either since those 2 specialities have entirely different feat trees and utilize a somewhat different set up of classes. Casters just use different spells. ToB allows you to be good at multiple things. Now, while you may not like the way ToB resolves mundane melee's crippling overspecialization problem, it is the ONLY official material that solves it. Banning it is like not going to the only hospital in town when your leg is broken because you don't like the wallpaper.

I have a counter argument. In my low-op group, I beat a third level druid with my third level fighter, and my fighter was using a bastard sword two-handed (originally with shield, but it became a pain to draw both of them, especially after I took quick draw), and he was a half-orc who took dodge and EWP for the bastard sword, as well as not having power attack (I used to think the damage bonus wasn't worth the attack penalty). This was my first campaign, which the DM just decided to stop after we got to fourth level, as it had been so long since our last session (we don't play at all during the school year).

By the time we got into the new campaign, I had been a member of the forums for a couple months, and had picked up ToB. My new character was a warblade, we had started at fifth level. He started to think it might be overpowered when it didn't say for leaping dragon stance whether or not the extra 10 ft. applied to high jumps (we just decided it didn't), and it got worse when I almost one-shotted a catapult with mountain hammer (gotta remember to never use that as a lockpick in this group). My character hasn't been scrapped ,but the DM's thinking about making me rewrite it as a fighter.

[Darth Stabber]

I have a counter argument. In my low-op group, I beat a third level druid with my third level fighter, and my fighter was using a bastard sword two-handed (originally with shield, but it became a pain to draw both of them, especially after I took quick draw), and he was a half-orc who took dodge and EWP for the bastard sword, as well as not having power attack (I used to think the damage bonus wasn't worth the attack penalty). This was my first campaign, which the DM just decided to stop after we got to fourth level, as it had been so long since our last session (we don't play at all during the school year).

By the time we got into the new campaign, I had been a member of the forums for a couple months, and had picked up ToB. My new character was a warblade, we had started at fifth level. He started to think it might be overpowered when it didn't say for leaping dragon stance whether or not the extra 10 ft. applied to high jumps (we just decided it didn't), and it got worse when I almost one-shotted a catapult with mountain hammer (gotta remember to never use that as a lockpick in this group). My character hasn't been scrapped ,but the DM's thinking about making me rewrite it as a fighter.

Low op D&D games are a mess, and playing in them requires either a lack of system mastery, or willful self sabatoge, and in the case of the former character parity gets thrown right out the window about three sessions after some newb decides to play a druid. Druids, Clerics, Dread Necro, Beguiler and ToB classes are remarkably newb friendly, and hard to build poorly. As such timmy "toughness is a great feat" dorkenstien can be a warblade, take toughness at every opportunity, and pick the worst manuevers at every level , and his character will be surprisingly not terrible, much like druid and cleric spell selections only matter that day, and tomorrow they could be amazing by only changing their spells prepped, even if they took nothing but toughness for feats and spent all their skill points on profession(dirt farmer), and Craft (lame excuse). Beguiler and dread necromancer only require you to stop being a dork to be good. So "they're broken in low op" is crap, your warblade isn't doing anything that druids and clerics can't already do better if they actually roleplayed their wisdom score.

[Darth Stabber]

May I sig this?

Me too. x3

Sig away.filler text

[Hiro Protagonest]

Low op D&D games are a mess, and playing in them requires either a lack of system mastery, or willful self sabatoge, and in the case of the former character parity gets thrown right out the window about three sessions after some newb decides to play a druid. Druids, Clerics, Dread Necro, Beguiler and ToB classes are remarkably newb friendly, and hard to build poorly. As such timmy "toughness is a great feat" dorkenstien can be a warblade, take toughness at every opportunity, and pick the worst manuevers at every level , and his character will be surprisingly not terrible, much like druid and cleric spell selections only matter that day, and tomorrow they could be amazing by only changing their spells prepped, even if they took nothing but toughness for feats and spent all their skill points on profession(dirt farmer), and Craft (lame excuse). Beguiler and dread necromancer only require you to stop being a dork to be good. So "they're broken in low op" is crap, your warblade isn't doing anything that druids and clerics can't already do better if they actually roleplayed their wisdom score.

I think I will just make a fighter, but I will go for a basic power attack/trip build with the spiked chain and the weapon focus line, it'll be decently optimized while still within the group's power level.

Also, it's not so much the druid and cleric who are the problem (they actually aren't in this new campaign, so I might play a cleric instead of a fighter), it's the guy who plays the sorcerer. He likes blasting spells, and really the only thing that isn't a blast spell on his spell list is invisibility (we actually planned for him to use it on the scout, so he could sneak up and put a blast disc on the catapult, but the guy playing a rogue or ranger decided to just charge the enemy without any spell buffs. Luckily, we used this plan to take out another catapult).

[Mr. Zolrane]

Low op D&D games are a mess, and playing in them requires either a lack of system mastery, or willful self sabatoge, and in the case of the former character parity gets thrown right out the window about three sessions after some newb decides to play a druid. Druids, Clerics, Dread Necro, Beguiler and ToB classes are remarkably newb friendly, and hard to build poorly. As such timmy "toughness is a great feat" dorkenstien can be a warblade, take toughness at every opportunity, and pick the worst manuevers at every level , and his character will be surprisingly not terrible, much like druid and cleric spell selections only matter that day, and tomorrow they could be amazing by only changing their spells prepped, even if they took nothing but toughness for feats and spent all their skill points on profession(dirt farmer), and Craft (lame excuse). Beguiler and dread necromancer only require you to stop being a dork to be good. So "they're broken in low op" is crap, your warblade isn't doing anything that druids and clerics can't already do better if they actually roleplayed their wisdom score.

Thank you. You said a lot of what I wanted to say, but lacked an intelligent way to put it.

Sig away.filler text

Thank you much.

[Darth Stabber]

Thank you. You said a lot of what I wanted to say, but lacked an intelligent way to put it.

Your quite welcome, I tend to find it refreshing when I can channel my often arrogant, frequently sarcastic, and occasionally condescending bile into something helpful. Most of the time it just torques people off.

[Veyr]

To be fair, that same post had already included a (much longer) answer to that question. I think there's some aspects to it that might warrant inclusion, perhaps. Though I'm also very tired and may not be thinking coherently.

[Saintheart]

Hi guys -- can I contribute a potential answer to a question?

What?! Bards suck, what are you talking about?!?!

Spoiler

Show

What we're talking about is that bards are the Q-ships of D&D: their potential is well-disguised on an initial reading of their class description. They look like jack-of-all-trades in a game where specialisation rules. They're not the best caster, melee'r, or skillmonkey. Countersong is the single most useless class feature known to man. Fascinate is the second most useless.

It does take a few splatbooks to bring out their full potential ... but ... the rate at which a bard can be improved with the right feats is exponential in comparison to many other core classes, and greatly outweighs the suckitudes of their drawbacks.

The best thing about bards is probably Inspire Courage -- or, more particularly, how cheaply, how impressively, and how early this feature can be improved. Sure, +1 to a party’s attack and damage ain’t impressive on its own. But when you've got feats such as Song of the Heart, Words of Creation, and a couple of relatively cheap magic items which quite feasibly and easily raise this to +5 bonuses at levels as low as 7 or 8 – that's a different story.

And it can be done without any prestige classing shenanigans or reaching RAW interpretations. (If anything, Words of Creation conservatively provides a +5 bonus: depending on how you read the feat, it could actually be as high as +7 to +10.) And since the bard’s base Inspire Courage effect just gets better with levels, it only gets better from there.

If you look at BAB alone, this is basically boosting your melee fighters by anywhere up to five levels. Hell, just consider the (massive) book cost or (outright non)availability of a single +5 weapon to a level 7 or 8 party. And bear in mind a bard provides everyone with this bonus, doesn’t need to do much more than be able to talk to do it, can keep on doing it more or less indefinitely in a fight, and can do it more times per day than there are likely to be fights per day. It's so powerful as to render morale-boosting magic items obsolete.

Even better is that bards don’t pay for this tremendously useful ability with being paralytically MAD or glass-cannon specialised. Many of their class skills and abilities key off Charisma, making them terrifying Diplomancers if built right. They aren’t quite as customisable as, say, a cleric or mage, but they can also be built to become passable in combat (Snowflake Wardance + a Crystal Echoblade), fear builds (Inspire Dread), or buffing allies with many d6s of energy damage (Dragonfire Inspiration).

And if this all gets boring and you’d like to start being a proper arcane caster, you can get into some nice prestige classes (Sublime Chord, Virtuoso and Swiftblade being three of the more popular ones) which move towards full arcane versatility or add to the bard's bag of tricks whilst preserving all of these very lovely features from the bard base. They're spontaneous casters with access to some of the best arcane spells (Glitterdust et. al.) and have a close-to sorcerer progression.

All in all, it’s the bards, not the healbot, that are everybody’s friend. This is why bards do not suck, and you should never say so again.

[Darth Stabber]

Darth stabber's official guide to moderately optimized Druids. This guide will show you how to make a character that can contribute in all but the highest optimization levels. Read carefully as there is a lot of information here.

Spoiler

Show

Step one: get wisdom as high as it will go without LA or racial hit dice.
Step two: don't take any ACFs
Step three:don't multiclass, and the only prc worth considering is planar shepard
Step four: take natural spell at level 6, and augment summoning ASAP.
Step five: If in doubt, BEAR is the proper answer (or fleshraker if your feeling cheesy)
Step six: profit, no question marks needed.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Darth stabber's official guide to moderately optimized Druids. This guide will show you how to make a character that can contribute in all but the highest optimization levels. Read carefully as there is a lot of information here.

Spoiler

Show

Step one: get wisdom as high as it will go without LA or racial hit dice.
Step two: don't take any ACFs
Step three:don't multiclass, and the only prc worth considering is planar shepard
Step four: take natural spell at level 6, and augment summoning ASAP.
Step five: If in doubt, BEAR is the proper answer (or fleshraker if your feeling cheesy)
Step six: profit, no question marks needed.

Just wondering, do you think banning natural spell would be a good first step to bringing druids back down to earth a bit? You know, by requiring them to shoot any bears they plan on shooting before becoming a bear themself. Before you answer, I'm aware that there's a certain level of cheese against which no defense exists, but in say, a moderate-op group, would this be a good "fix."

[Lateral]

Just wondering, do you think banning natural spell would be a good first step to bringing druids back down to earth a bit? You know, by requiring them to shoot any bears they plan on shooting before becoming a bear themself. Before you answer, I'm aware that there's a certain level of cheese against which no defense exists, but in say, a moderate-op group, would this be a good "fix."

It could help; make them think a bit more before using Wild Shape. It's far less damage to them than the PF polymorphing nerfs, and even with that they're still easily tier one.