D&D 3e/3.5e/d20The forum for conversations specifically related to the rules and procedures of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, 3.5 Edition, or any fantasy game using the d20 system or a variant thereof (commercially published or not).
i wouldn't be so sure no one has drawn out the internal organs of a flumph dnd can be weird some times. Im almost positive their was a second edition rule book that went deep into beholder biology
i wouldn't be so sure no one has drawn out the internal organs of a flumph dnd can be weird some times. Im almost positive their was a second edition rule book that went deep into beholder biology
Lords of Madnass in 3.5 does for Beholders, Aboleths, Mind Flayers and one other abberation who's name escapes me. As far as Beholder's go, there really isn't a spot that wouldn't be a weak point. Pretty much all their major organs are just below the skin. I mean, they are a giant ball of flesh.
There's also the fact that a Beholder is a giant floating eye. Its kind of easy to guess where you should stab/bludgeon/blast it. Unless it doesn't have a big eye, then you should hit the little ones.
Legend of Zelda gave me favored enemy: Aberration, I think.
I had a DM ban the "Blinding Spittle" spell for my lvl 4 druid when he cast it against an ogre in a 10ft wide hallway.
The same DM had, in previous games as a player:
Cast Dance of Ruin from BoVD as a standard action.
Made a character based entirely on Necrotic spells from Libris Mortis, where the spell Necrotic Cyst suddenly allows no save and can be cast of up to a range of "line of sight."
Used a Barricade Buckler as a swift action to break a Balor's grapple while wielding his +4 holy adamantine keen vorpal fullblade of speed (at level 15). The sword was a gift from a friendly dragon at character creation.
Fired off hailstorms of arrows per turn as a ranged paladin, combining Rapid Shot and Manyshot on a full attack with a +blah blah blah bow of speed. Also "can I just roll the damage all at once?" Sure, nothing around CR 20 has DR that your [Magic] only bow wouldn't automatically pierce. And definately not high enough DR to make 1d8 insignificant. Side note: Not one of his ranged attacks missed until it came to facing down a Pseudonatural troll that was knocked prone the previous round by failing a save against Earth Reaver. The AC (51 or 54?) was exactly what his attack roll totalled...but missed because prone gives +4 to AC vs ranged attacks (whoops!)
Used a straight lvl 15 fallen paladin to "Jump up, grab [my scout/warlock gestalt, who was invisibly spider-walking the ceiling] by the head, fling him to the ground, kick him in the gut hard enough to send him flying into the party behind him, doing damage to all of us from the force of the impact." This was done before initiative was rolled, after a full round of dialogue between him and the party. His equipment: A vile +something or whatever bastard sword, and a suit of evil something something armor. Picking up the armor appearantly "revolted" my character and he was unable to use any of the gear because it was so extra evil. My scout/warlock was a Hellbred, with Evil Exception.
Also this strikes me as odd and I can't decide if it's basically cheating or just very crafty, but the same guy rolls attacks then arranges his d20s based on the result with his attack bonuses, giving the best chance to hit with as many attacks as possible.
Oh and that lvl 4 druid I mentioned earlier? We met up with the boss baddie in the lair, an evil wizard who was draining the life from the surrounding area making everything dead and rotten in a 1 mile radius. When our party started fighting him, the paladin decided to take the deal the guy offered to go kill his evil ex-lover. The druid fought on, and was promptly Power Word Killed. At level 4.
__________________
Just in case, in any game I've applied to without being selected: DMs are more than welcome to use my submission as an NPC as they wish!
Huge thanks to Howl for puting some Boomstick in my avatar
Also this strikes me as odd and I can't decide if it's basically cheating or just very crafty, but the same guy rolls attacks then arranges his d20s based on the result with his attack bonuses, giving the best chance to hit with as many attacks as possible.
I'm assuming you know everything else you mentioned is flat-out cheating, so I won't bother to explain why that's true (though you have my sympathies, idiots who know some of the rules are the worst)
but this is also cheating. If I'm understanding you correctly, he'll have say 3 attacks at 15/10/5 and then roll, say 19, 14, and 8 in that order
instead of having 15+19, 10+14, 5+8, he would rearrange them to 15+8, 10+14, 5+19 to have better odds of hitting?
that's just plain cheating. you're taking rolls that applied to bonus A, and applying them to bonus B. it's not different than if I rolled a will save against a fear-based enchantment effect with slippery mind, botched the roll, and then said "oh, no, I'm going to apply that to my autohyposis check instead" you just can't do that.
one easy way to circumvent this is to make him use 3 different colors of dice. even for players who don't want to try and cheat, this does save a lot of effort knowing which roll is at which bonus. that way you can always know "blue is first iterative, red is second, green is third" no matter how he tries to reshuffle them.
I'm assuming you know everything else you mentioned is flat-out cheating, so I won't bother to explain why that's true (though you have my sympathies, idiots who know some of the rules are the worst)
but this is also cheating. If I'm understanding you correctly, he'll have say 3 attacks at 15/10/5 and then roll, say 19, 14, and 8 in that order
instead of having 15+19, 10+14, 5+8, he would rearrange them to 15+8, 10+14, 5+19 to have better odds of hitting?
that's just plain cheating. you're taking rolls that applied to bonus A, and applying them to bonus B. it's not different than if I rolled a will save against a fear-based enchantment effect with slippery mind, botched the roll, and then said "oh, no, I'm going to apply that to my autohyposis check instead" you just can't do that.
one easy way to circumvent this is to make him use 3 different colors of dice. even for players who don't want to try and cheat, this does save a lot of effort knowing which roll is at which bonus. that way you can always know "blue is first iterative, red is second, green is third" no matter how he tries to reshuffle them.
Or, if he's using a dice roller app (as I do, sometimes), make sure he uses one that shows the rolled results as separate numerical values. I use Dice Box (iOS) for that, but the d20 dice roller online works just as well. Then, rolls are shown in left-to-right order, and can be resolved in that order. (If multiple enemies are attacking multiple party members asynchronously, I resolve them clockwise from me, so everything remains fair even in the oddest of cases.)
That, however, requires a level of trust that would allow a DM to use a dice roller without arousing suspicion in the players, which it doesn't sound like this DM has earned.
There you go. The original post in all of its glory. Here's the link.
*twitches a little*.................*slaps the fire out of lord gareth* WHY?! Why would you inflict that on all of us!!!!?????
__________________
I am not seaweed. That's a B.
Praise I've received
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell
Kelb, recently it looks like you're the Avatar of Reason in these forums, man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTwerewolf
[...] bringing Kelb in on your side in a rules fight is like bringing Mike Tyson in on your side to fight a toddler. You can, but it's such massive overkill.
Lords of Madnass in 3.5 does for Beholders, Aboleths, Mind Flayers and one other abberation who's name escapes me. As far as Beholder's go, there really isn't a spot that wouldn't be a weak point. Pretty much all their major organs are just below the skin. I mean, they are a giant ball of flesh.
Three others actually; Neogi, Grell, and Tsochar. There were internal anatomy discussions for each of them. Tsochar are, IMO, the creepiest thing ever officially printed for 3.5. (I really like that book.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Careless
There's also the fact that a Beholder is a giant floating eye. Its kind of easy to guess where you should stab/bludgeon/blast it. Unless it doesn't have a big eye, then you should hit the little ones.
Legend of Zelda gave me favored enemy: Aberration, I think.
If you see a beholder that doesn't have the big AMF eye, f***ing run. That's a beholder mage, and he -will- kill you.
(seriously, one of my favorite books.)
__________________
I am not seaweed. That's a B.
Praise I've received
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell
Kelb, recently it looks like you're the Avatar of Reason in these forums, man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTwerewolf
[...] bringing Kelb in on your side in a rules fight is like bringing Mike Tyson in on your side to fight a toddler. You can, but it's such massive overkill.
If you see a beholder that doesn't have the big AMF eye, f***ing run. That's a beholder mage, and he -will- kill you.
(seriously, one of my favorite books.)
an alternate and equally terrifying possibility is that it is either a polymorphed character or a momf.
take assume supernatural ability (eye rays) (chameleon 2 is my favorite way) and not antimagic field. you'll have a full field of range to shoot eye beams at enemies, even right in front of you! a really good way to lull enemies into a false sense of security. "I'm safe in front of him, no eye rays" (ZAP!) wrong!
an alternate and equally terrifying possibility is that it is either a polymorphed character or a momf.
take assume supernatural ability (eye rays) (chameleon 2 is my favorite way) and not antimagic field. you'll have a full field of range to shoot eye beams at enemies, even right in front of you! a really good way to lull enemies into a false sense of security. "I'm safe in front of him, no eye rays" (ZAP!) wrong!
I was assuming that the person I was addressing was talking about a beholder that didn't physically have the central eye, but yeah, if it's still got the eye, and it's opened, but you're not being AMF'ed, probably a good idea to assume it's either some sort of shapechanger or a spellcaster. Fleeing is still advised until you can get a clearer picture of the situation.
I have to disagree with your use of "equally" though. Nothing is as terrifying as a beholder mage.
__________________
I am not seaweed. That's a B.
Praise I've received
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell
Kelb, recently it looks like you're the Avatar of Reason in these forums, man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTwerewolf
[...] bringing Kelb in on your side in a rules fight is like bringing Mike Tyson in on your side to fight a toddler. You can, but it's such massive overkill.
On my first table we used to have everyone who rolled a 1 on an attack hit himself.
Monks tended to suicide.
We also did fail to understand the animal companion table, and believed that the -X thingie was that you could use said animal companion at X level (having all the bonuses for a companion of that level).
Due to almost not giving magical items vow of poverty ended being banned, it was overpowered.
I only used trip once, after that all the enemies were stable, four legged or levitated.
take assume supernatural ability (eye rays) (chameleon 2 is my favorite way)
Fighter: Did you... what happened to your head? You kind of look like a Beholder. Maybe we should get the Cleric to...
Chamelon: Naw, naw man. It's all good. This is what real power looks li-
Cleric: WTF? BREAK ENCHANTMENT! [fails]
Chameleon: No, no. It's not a curse, it's a-
Paladin: WTF?! SMITE EVIL!!!! [attacks Chameleon]
Chamelon: OWW.... Calm down, it'-
Paladin: BEGONE FOUL DEMON!! THE POWER OF HEIRONEOUS COMPELS YOU
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy
By level 20 though, you aren't capturing a wizard. A character lives to level 20 by being the most ruthless, lucky, capable, and paranoid bastard around. A wizard is throwing around a 30+ Int score and has, entirely in character, planned contingencies for his contingencies. He may well be running around with flat out total immunity to harm, he does not walk outside without an entire bevy of defensive magics around him and enough magic items to buy himself a nation.
Last edited by Slipperychicken : 10-29-2012 at 06:46 PM.
I wrote a one-act play based off of that story in my high school english class, it ended up on stage.
To say it was a hit would be an understatement.
On topic: First campaign I''ve ever run, starts off with goblins charging the party on the surprise round and getting sneak attack damage.
One of my players immediately says that sneak attack won't work, because they're not sneaking.
I open up the SRD Hypertext and point to the clause that says that sneak attack works on any creature who is denied a dex bonus to their AC.
Me:"So it was a surprise round, that means you're flat footed, right?"
Him:"Right."
Me:"Therefore, you are denied your dex bonus to armor class, right?"
Him:"Right."
Me: "And because of that, sneak attack works."
Him:"No."
Me:" Yes it do- why not "
Him: "Because they were charging at us! That's not a sneak attack!"
__________________
Sup ho.
Avatar by the profilic kaptainkrutch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime32
Really, getting mad at a story for using tropes is about as sane as getting mad at the book it's printed in for using atoms.
Last edited by Darthteej : 10-29-2012 at 07:12 PM.
Some text that amounts to "MY DM IS AN IDIOT!" if interprated a certain way.
Seriously, new DM here, been DMing for 6 months, hi. My players complain about nearly every single thing I do ever, because it poses a severe risk to their character, since I usually give them something meant to challenge them and it ends up working too well.
A few mistakes here and there, biggest mistake I've ever made has to do with the Wizard's Spells, which was remedied in a way that had very little requirement for an explaination on my part about said screw up. Yes I had to explain myself, but I made it fit into the game and took away a free Wish. Tried to extract the other one, but they couldn't see anything in it for them.
Point is, new DMs should be expected to make more mistakes in general, than more experienced DMs. However, they should also invest more time in the game, reading up on the rules and creating their own unique stories for the players to involve themselves in, than any of the players. They shouldn't just be a tool that a player can use to tell a story about their "awesome character who never fails at anything." They should challenge all players and make the game as enjoyable as possible for everyone at the table.
If you're the only one upset by how your DM has been running things, then your group just likes playing a crazy broken system. If more of your group hate how things are run and the only two people who enjoy it are the DM and the PDM, then things need to change. And fast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthteej
Me:"So it was a surprise round, that means you're flat footed, right?"
Him:"Right."
Me:"Therefore, you are denied your dex bonus to armor class, right?"
Him:"Right."
Me: "And because of that, sneak attack works."
Him:"No."
Me:" Yes it do- why not "
Him: "Because they were charging at us! That's not a sneak attack!"
Can't argue with his reasoning there, I like that in a player, logic.
Last edited by Threadnaught : 10-29-2012 at 08:38 PM.
these were mistakes i made in my first game of 3.0
now 3.0 had just come out and we young and had played second edition for years before hand.
so im a level 1 ranger ex slave who ends up firebombing some slavers in a major city that has legal slavery.
1) im running away from town guard and we "know" monks are faster then normal since the free character generator gave my ranger the same speed as the monk we concluded that rangers must be faster then normal as well so i was able to evade them.
2) i open fire with 2 arrows a round as a standard action (that's how it worked in second edition)
3) I add +4 hit from favored enemy because that how it worked in second edition
4) the sorcerer cast mage armor which im pretty sure was not legal in 3.0 and it certainly wouldn't have stacked with my regular armor.
I eventually was killed becuase the monk "tackled" me which only involved an attack roll (also the monk was adding his unarmed strike damge to his weapon damge for 2d6 at level 1)
I had a DM rule that Wizards only gain spells at 2 level and they have to pay for them by buying the scrolls. Not as a house rule, just as how he read it.
I had another DM decide that because 10 attacks in a row from an army of archers and swords men couldn't hit my AC (32 at the time), that she would just not roll any of their attacks as I pushed my way in to their general. Ruling in my favor, but still...
Lastly, I plainly and clearly laid down all of my house rules and had my players completely misunderstand. They were really simple too.
Some text that amounts to "MY DM IS AN IDIOT!" if interprated a certain way.
{Scrubbed}
Quote:
Originally Posted by Threadnaught
Seriously, new DM here, been DMing for 6 months, hi. My players complain about nearly every single thing I do ever, because it poses a severe risk to their character, since I usually give them something meant to challenge them and it ends up working too well.
A few mistakes here and there, biggest mistake I've ever made has to do with the Wizard's Spells, which was remedied in a way that had very little requirement for an explaination on my part about said screw up. Yes I had to explain myself, but I made it fit into the game and took away a free Wish. Tried to extract the other one, but they couldn't see anything in it for them.
If you admit you goofed up and fix your mistakes, then that's okay, but it sounds like the OP's DM is too stubborn to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Threadnaught
Point is, new DMs should be expected to make more mistakes in general, than more experienced DMs. However, they should also invest more time in the game, reading up on the rules and creating their own unique stories for the players to involve themselves in, than any of the players. They shouldn't just be a tool that a player can use to tell a story about their "awesome character who never fails at anything." They should challenge all players and make the game as enjoyable as possible for everyone at the table.
Who said that, and where?
__________________
Spoiler
Last edited by Roland St. Jude : 11-03-2012 at 02:41 PM.
Seriously, new DM here, been DMing for 6 months, hi. My players complain about nearly every single thing I do ever, because it poses a severe risk to their character, since I usually give them something meant to challenge them and it ends up working too well.
A few mistakes here and there, biggest mistake I've ever made has to do with the Wizard's Spells, which was remedied in a way that had very little requirement for an explaination on my part about said screw up. Yes I had to explain myself, but I made it fit into the game and took away a free Wish. Tried to extract the other one, but they couldn't see anything in it for them.
Point is, new DMs should be expected to make more mistakes in general, than more experienced DMs. However, they should also invest more time in the game, reading up on the rules and creating their own unique stories for the players to involve themselves in, than any of the players. They shouldn't just be a tool that a player can use to tell a story about their "awesome character who never fails at anything." They should challenge all players and make the game as enjoyable as possible for everyone at the table.
If you're the only one upset by how your DM has been running things, then your group just likes playing a crazy broken system. If more of your group hate how things are run and the only two people who enjoy it are the DM and the PDM, then things need to change. And fast.
Can't argue with his reasoning there, I like that in a player, logic.
Mistakes are to be expected. We're all human after all.
It doesn't become a problem until the DM refuses to either see or admit to mistakes and/or remains willfully ignorant of the rules he's trampling on.
In many if not most other RPG's the rules aren't quite as deep or as important as they are in 3.5. (understated much?) IMO, if you're not willing to learn the rules, or to use them when you do learn them, then why play 3.5 to begin with?
For a DM at least, you choose to run a D&D 3.5 game because you -want- a system of deep and intricate rules to work with. If that's not true, you should try a different system.
__________________
I am not seaweed. That's a B.
Praise I've received
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell
Kelb, recently it looks like you're the Avatar of Reason in these forums, man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTwerewolf
[...] bringing Kelb in on your side in a rules fight is like bringing Mike Tyson in on your side to fight a toddler. You can, but it's such massive overkill.
I would LOVE to see that in real life. That's ten swings per second!
That's exactly what I imagine when I think "monk that works". Not on par with "I can re-write the laws of physics as a standard action while summoning countably infinite angels", but worth playing beside someone that.
__________________
If it's not obvious, insert a after my post.
If you admit you goofed up and fix your mistakes, then that's okay, but it sounds like the OP's DM is too stubborn to do that.
Who said that, and where?
Actually, the bold there is correct. The rules shouldn't just be a tool for making a character that's awesome at everything and never fails. Neither should they just be a tool for the DM to tell his epic story with no player input.
What the rules are supposed to be, in my (and I'd wager more than few others') opinion, is a tool for the group as, a whole, to tell awesome stories with awesome characters from both sides of the screen.
It's not just the DM's story and it's not just the players' story, it's everybody's story and a way to have a good time.
__________________
I am not seaweed. That's a B.
Praise I've received
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell
Kelb, recently it looks like you're the Avatar of Reason in these forums, man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTwerewolf
[...] bringing Kelb in on your side in a rules fight is like bringing Mike Tyson in on your side to fight a toddler. You can, but it's such massive overkill.
RSS Feeds: 
Re: Worst interpretation of the rules ever?
But 
BREAK ENCHANTMENT! [fails]
OWW.... Calm down, it'-
