2012-07-16: The One Where We Talk About D&D Next

[Lukkai]

Fluff vs crunch. The bard and cleric are fucktarded sounding and weaksauce in terms of the story (crunch)
But if you analyze the powers they are quite good.

It's just that everyone wants to play Aragon. Or maybe Legolas or Gimli. But some guy with a music instrument? "Nah, that's gay!"
Personally, I like both classes background as well. Leaves room for quite cool a chara actually.

It doesn't qualify as tier 2 though. The gulf between tier 3 and tier 2 is huge and massive. A tier 2 character breaks campaigns if played well and can only be reigned in by DM fiat and nerfs.

Possibly true. But not explaining why the other class has to be pushed down a tier. Since we already were having different levels on the same tier after all.

And sure, a wizard can be quite strong on low levels already. But won't become gamebreakingly strong until having reached a certain one.
He certainly is one of the most flexible classes from the very start though. Until he runs out of spell slots for the day.

As I said, it is certainly useful. But not what we call in German "der Weisheit letzter Schluss". Translating more or less to "the ultimate truth". And every GM will have to adjust it a little according to his players style of course, but that's a given and never denied by the list.

Oh, and with meleer's my fav is abusing the fuck out of reach for a ton of AoOs. 3 feats for great cleave (1 extra attack per killing blow, up to an infinite amount per round) and http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#combatReflexes
Now get a large fighter (+1 square reach), equip with a spear or another reach weapon (+1 square reach) and cast enlarge person (+1 square reach). Whenever a normal opponent tries to engage you in melee they must go through 3 squares where you can reach them and they can't reach you. Giving you 3 attacks of opportunity against them (free attack that happen on THEIR turn). And these repeat every turn thanks to you moving around (5 ft step) to force more AoO and if they try fleeing they also trigger AoO... oh, and healing a downed ally... its hilarious

Okay, now that's just sick!
Needs a gm allowing for large races. But then even with one square less, it would still be very effective. Perfect to block a corridor, that's for sure.
Won't be as effective as possible on longer ranges though.

[taltamir]

Fluff vs crunch. The bard and cleric are fucktarded sounding and weaksauce in terms of the story (crunch)
But if you analyze the powers they are quite good.

It's just that everyone wants to play Aragon. Or maybe Legolas or Gimli. But some guy with a music instrument? "Nah, that's gay!"
Personally, I like both classes background as well. Leaves room for quite cool a chara actually.

Are you saying you prefer it when people min max munchkin without a thought about the roleplay aspect?
I prefer gandalf myself by there is nothing wrong with playing Aragorn, legolas, or Gimli... Or even the hobbits... or gollum... or Sarumon...
But the thing is playing a class with retarded flaff isn't the same as good roleplaying...

There is the whole stormwind fallacy, the fallacy is the claim that playing a mechanically weak character leads to better roleplaying; the point made in the argument for there being a fallacy is that a mechanically weak character cannot roleplay properly as they always have to make the same gamy choices to just survive. While a mechanically strong character can roleplay as they survive making mistakes and acting stupid or emotional because that is what their character would do.
Then there is a counter argument of course of people who think otherwise.

But both sides agree that you should be playing a character whose fluff is fun / cool / awesome / weird / interesting...

Playing a boring, stupid, silly and stupid (fluffwise) character because it is weak NEVER happens.
Playing a boring, stupid, silly and stupid (fluffwise) character because it is strong happens quite often and is a sign of min maxing.
Playing a cool, fun, interesting character is the ideal... and within that you could either play a mechanically strong or mechanically weak one.

People play weak classes with good fluff... a dude with a music instrument? sounds fucking stupid.

I read the 3.5e design blogs about clerics... when they came up with the class NOBODY wanted to play it because it was stupid. So they kept on making it stronger and stronger until a sufficient percent of the players choose to play as clerics. Rather then fix the retarded fluff they went with boosting power to ridiculous heights to attract munchkins.

He certainly is one of the most flexible classes from the very start though. Until he runs out of spell slots for the day.

At level 1 it costs 6XP + 12GB (Can sell your XP at 1XP per 5GP for crafting) to make a scroll. Sleep gives you a Save or Lose with more then 50% chance of success against anything under 4HP.
I would like to see the fighter slaughter 4HD enemies like that. (once asleep you can coup de grace them)

With access to the right supplement they start raping dragons at level 5.

Oh, and with meleer's my fav is abusing the fuck out of reach for a ton of AoOs. 3 feats for great cleave (1 extra attack per killing blow, up to an infinite amount per round) and http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#combatReflexes
Now get a large fighter (+1 square reach), equip with a spear or another reach weapon (+1 square reach) and cast enlarge person (+1 square reach). Whenever a normal opponent tries to engage you in melee they must go through 3 squares where you can reach them and they can't reach you. Giving you 3 attacks of opportunity against them (free attack that happen on THEIR turn). And these repeat every turn thanks to you moving around (5 ft step) to force more AoO and if they try fleeing they also trigger AoO... oh, and healing a downed ally... its hilarious

Okay, now that's just sick!
Needs a gm allowing for large races. But then even with one square less, it would still be very effective. Perfect to block a corridor, that's for sure.
Won't be as effective as possible on longer ranges though.

Yea, but you work REALLY well as a "cover" for the party squishes to cast spells at the enemy from afar... OR you can have the party mage throw a single web trapping the enemies. Then you run in wearing an anti-web item (say, boots)...
Every turn the enemies need to deal with the web... if they get trapped and attempt to escape they trigger yet ANOTHER AoO . And they also get penalties for being in web (like half walk speed)
And at a full run you cover more then the basic distance of a bow... of course, enemy snipers are scary... They could be head shoting you for 50 damages a hit from over a mile away while ignoring cover with the right builds .

[Lukkai]

Are you saying you prefer it when people min max munchkin without a thought about the roleplay aspect?

Nah, I'm saying that I find the background fluff of clerics and especially bards to be not even half as bad as many make it sound. Where other players go over the background of the bard and read "annoying guy with a flute", I read "well-travelled jack of all trades". And the problem with the cleric is mainly, that you really must want to play a guy, putting his whole life into the service of his god. If you want to play John Constantine, this is not the class for you. It's more along the lines of father Richard Moore. Most players don't want that. It's probably the same reason as for why I don't see many players playing a cleric in Dark Heresy. You have to be willing and able to pull of someone insanely faithful to do this class justice. And while quite a lot of people are able to do it, not so many are also willing.

There is the whole stormwind fallacy, the fallacy is the claim that playing a mechanically weak character leads to better roleplaying; the point made in the argument for there being a fallacy is that a mechanically weak character cannot roleplay properly as they always have to make the same gamy choices to just survive. While a mechanically strong character can roleplay as they survive making mistakes and acting stupid or emotional because that is what their character would do.
Then there is a counter argument of course of people who think otherwise.

I personally think both sides are wrong in that it's not the powerlevel of a character that decides on its roleplaying possibilities, but its player's set of mind.

But both sides agree that you should be playing a character whose fluff is fun / cool / awesome / weird / interesting...

But then what is cool will always be a subjective choice. Well, most of the time. But in my opinion, it is with the D&D bard and cleric.
And it can be heavily influenced by the media. The number of players suddenly wanting to play an elf after the first LOTR movie came out, especially players that considered the whole race as just as "Buh, gay!" as the bard before it, attests to that. And is still subject to quite a many jokes.

At level 1 it costs 6XP + 12GB (Can sell your XP at 1XP per 5GP for crafting) to make a scroll. Sleep gives you a Save or Lose with more then 50% chance of success against anything under 4HP.
I would like to see the fighter slaughter 4HP enemies like that. (once asleep you can coup de grace them)

A halfway well done fighter going through an enemy with max 4 HP in two turns is not really a rare sight. And the wizard potentially has an additional cost, counting in scrolls. The real goodie for wizards here lies in the fact, that he's also useful outside of combat. In comparison to the fighter who's then pretty much relegated to being used as a threat by the diplomat of the group. Or a hauling device.

Yea, but you work REALLY well as a "cover" for the party squishes to cast spells at the enemy from afar... OR you can have the party mage throw a single web trapping the enemies. Then you run in wearing an anti-web item (say, boots)...
Every turn the enemies need to deal with the web... if they get trapped and attempt to escape they trigger yet ANOTHER AoO . And they also get penalties for being in web (like half walk speed)
And at a full run you cover more then the basic distance of a bow... of course, enemy snipers are scary... They could be head shoting you for 50 damages a hit from over a mile away while ignoring cover with the right builds .

In the end a perfect example of combining the strengths of different classes to cover up their weaknesses. With a hint of how the tactic can be countered.

[taltamir]

But then what is cool will always be a subjective choice.

Yes, but when you said "everyone wants to play legolas or gimly etc" you implied that playing what you find subjectively cool is bad and you should intentionally play a class you personally find boring for good roleplay

A halfway well done fighter going through an enemy with max 4 HP in two turns is not really a rare sight.

Did I write HP? I meant HD. HD = Class Level + Racial modifiers.

A level 1 wizard who isn't min/maxed beyond spell selection going up against a level 4 fighter uses sleep and has more then 50% chance of downing it with that single spell, at range. And sleep can actually hit multiple enemies at once.
A level 1 fighter going up against a level 4 fighter gets his ass handed to him unless he is exceptionally lucky OR is min maxed up the wazoo.

[RGE]

I read the 3.5e design blogs about clerics... when they came up with the class NOBODY wanted to play it because it was stupid. So they kept on making it stronger and stronger until a sufficient percent of the players choose to play as clerics. Rather then fix the retarded fluff they went with boosting power to ridiculous heights to attract munchkins.

I found that one of the main problems with clerics is that the default gods in any given setting are generally pretty lame, because 90% of everything is crap, and the remaining 10% varies according to taste. So I'm thinking that perhaps they could've fixed the 'fluff' by allowing the player of a cleric to design that cleric's god and introduce it into the game world as a minor or major deity depending on how well the DM thinks that it fits in with the rest of the gods. Though perhaps that is done nowadays? I wouldn't know, because I gave up on D&D several years ago.

[taltamir]

I read the 3.5e design blogs about clerics... when they came up with the class NOBODY wanted to play it because it was stupid. So they kept on making it stronger and stronger until a sufficient percent of the players choose to play as clerics. Rather then fix the retarded fluff they went with boosting power to ridiculous heights to attract munchkins.

I found that one of the main problems with clerics is that the default gods in any given setting are generally pretty lame, because 90% of everything is crap, and the remaining 10% varies according to taste. So I'm thinking that perhaps they could've fixed the 'fluff' by allowing the player of a cleric to design that cleric's god and introduce it into the game world as a minor or major deity depending on how well the DM thinks that it fits in with the rest of the gods. Though perhaps that is done nowadays? I wouldn't know, because I gave up on D&D several years ago.

Clerics don't need gods in 3.5. They may follow an alignment or just believe in a concept, like the concept of them being awesome (not to mention the Ur priests who outright steal power from gods and their goals are to kill the gods off).
If a cleric actually bothers following a god, the god cannot take away his powers, merely seal them away. The spell atonement breaks that seal. It can be cast by another gods' cleric if you switch out, by your own gods clerics if they believe you atoned or by a cleric who doesn't think you atoned and is doing something forbidden himself (which will get their powers sealed too).

A cleric is most typically given their power via "investment", a process performed by other clerics.

[Lukkai]

Yes, but when you said "everyone wants to play legolas or gimly etc" you implied that playing what you find subjectively cool is bad and you should intentionally play a class you personally find boring for good roleplay

Not that implying that ever was my intention. What I wanted to say is, that players (new ones at least) usually go for the classes that represent what they know as the main hero from their favourite stories. Most often that will be a fighter or ranger type. Sometimes a wizard. And sometimes a barbarian or a rogue. Though both rogue and wizard more often tend to be part of the supporting cast. The cleric practically always is, as is the bard. Hence not a lot of motivation to play them for a lot of players, these classes not having a chance of becoming the most important hero of the campaign anyway in their minds. Which, let's face it, practically all of us want to be deep down. At the very least wanted to when we first started playing.
I intentionally left open as to whether that's good or bad. Merely pointed to it as one of the reasons not a lot of players like to play bards. Who suffer even moreso from this, because where they do appear in stories, they often tend to be annoying, purely there for comedic relief, or both. (Troubadix anyone?)

I guess that's also what you meant by "uncool background"?

Did I write HP? I meant HD. HD = Class Level + Racial modifiers.

Actually read HD as in hit dice myself, but notice now that usually won't work. I've seen level 2 fighters going through 4 hit dice monsters in two turns though. And they were not necessarily maxed out. Depended on the monster of course. Hit dice alone don't make a challenge rating after all.
What you say about the wizard vs. fighter fight there holds a certain merit. If the fight starts at longer ranges though, the fighter will have killed the wizard long before he's in reach for sleep, unless you made him melee only. If it starts at close range, it pretty much becomes a question of who's first to act. Wizard has a good chance of sending the fighter to (potentially deadly) sleep if he acts first, fighter is practically garantued to off the wizard with one attack if he does.
1st level fighter against 4th level wizard however... Yeah, he's definitely screwed here.
So while the wizard stands a chance against a fighter level 1 vs. 4, though not even half as good as you made it sound, a fighter against a wizard with reversed odds is dead by whatever means the wizard has a liking for.

Truth be told, sleep is one hell of a spell for the first few levels! Becomes pretty much useless thereafter though.

[taltamir]

Not that implying that ever was my intention. What I wanted to say is, that players (new ones at least) usually go for the classes that represent what they know as the main hero from their favourite stories. Most often that will be a fighter or ranger type. Sometimes a wizard. And sometimes a barbarian or a rogue. Though both rogue and wizard more often tend to be part of the supporting cast. The cleric practically always is, as is the bard. Hence not a lot of motivation to play them for a lot of players, these classes not having a chance of becoming the most important hero of the campaign anyway in their minds. Which, let's face it, practically all of us want to be deep down. At the very least wanted to when we first started playing.

Ok, that makes sense. Newer players often draw from movies and books because that is what they know... I guess that is why you have a plague of dual wielding chaotic good drow male rangers .

Truth be told, sleep is one hell of a spell for the first few levels! Becomes pretty much useless thereafter though.

Yes, but by the time it becomes obsolete you have more goodies in your bag of tricks. And I don't just mean deep slumber (sleep that works up to 10HD monsters)... although it is a cool spell too .

And then there is the out of combat tricks. The fighter can do nothing BUT kill things...
I love my prestidigitation..
DM: "your party crawls out of the sewer and..."
Me: I cast prestidigitation, I clean and dry self and then everyone else in the party, we now smell minty fresh and have not a drop of much on us.

Rope trick, teleport, charm, dominate, resurrect, etc... Oh, and golems, a familiar using shared spell to become a hydra, etc etc.

BTW, clerics as healers? Pah lease.. use a druid to summon a unicorn . http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/unicorn.htm
A unicorn can use cure light wounds three times per day and cure moderate wounds once per day (caster level 5th) by touching a wounded creature with its horn. Once per day it can use neutralize poison (DC 21, caster level 8th) with a touch of its horn. The save DC is Charisma-based.

And the poor rogue. Wizard just casts "knock"... disarm trap? ha no... summon creature 1 and have it walk into it.
Detecting traps is good... but you want multiple characters with that.

[Lukkai]

Ok, that makes sense. Newer players often draw from movies and books because that is what they know... I guess that is why you have a plague of dual wielding chaotic good drow male rangers .

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.p ... y2ty2yiial

And then there is the out of combat tricks. The fighter can do nothing BUT kill things...
I love my prestidigitation..
DM: "your party crawls out of the sewer and..."
Me: I cast prestidigitation, I clean and dry self and then everyone else in the party, we now smell minty fresh and have not a drop of much on us.

Rope trick, teleport, charm, dominate, resurrect, etc... Oh, and golems, a familiar using shared spell to become a hydra, etc etc.

Small things sometimes. But making life just so much easier for the group!
Being a many tricks pony can often be more important and satisfying than being the most badass. Respectively can actually make you the most badass over time!

BTW, clerics as healers? Pah lease.. use a druid to summon a unicorn . http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/unicorn.htm
A unicorn can use cure light wounds three times per day and cure moderate wounds once per day (caster level 5th) by touching a wounded creature with its horn. Once per day it can use neutralize poison (DC 21, caster level 8th) with a touch of its horn. The save DC is Charisma-based.

The cleric however can heal more often and, sometimes quite important, more inconspicuously. And doesn't rip apart your preset combat formation while doing so.

And the poor rogue. Wizard just casts "knock"... disarm trap? ha no... summon creature 1 and have it walk into it.
Detecting traps is good... but you want multiple characters with that.

Now I remember a certain Knights of the Dinner Table episode with a lot of cattle used.
Truth be told though, there will be lots of traps you don't want to trigger at all! So no way around disarming them. And making a habit out of offhandedly sacrificing creatures might have other consequences like a slow drift into evil alignment. Depending on how serious the dm takes the conduct of the characters. If it's the only way for the group, sure. But if there already is a professional (so to speak) in the group, it becomes unnecessary cruel.

Plus you shouldn't go overboard. If you try to do anything with your magic, you might run out of spell slots and scrolls just when you most need them. And even if they are (relatively) cheap, scrolls still don't come for free. That's money and experience you could have used to forge something bigger. Or makes you advance ever so slower than your teammates in dire cases.

[taltamir]

Now I remember a certain Knights of the Dinner Table episode with a lot of cattle used.
Truth be told though, there will be lots of traps you don't want to trigger at all! So no way around disarming them. And making a habit out of offhandedly sacrificing creatures might have other consequences like a slow drift into evil alignment.

there is nothing evil about killing a dumb animal for profit. mmm, steak...
And as for summon # line, those are conjurations. they create a magical simulacra not summon an actual creature.-