Author Topic: What SHOULD be banned?  (Read 23124 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

psyx

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 29
    • Email
Re: What SHOULD be banned?
« Reply #100 on: July 07, 2011, 07:14:52 AM »
There's an awful lot that's non-core. Making an observation based on comments about even twenty non-core features would be jumping the gun.

To make things better, it's the six-seven foot elves that are *less* strong than humans and dwarves.  :D

Although D&D elves aren't tall. Quite the opposite. Which is kinda the reasoning behind my point. if a scrawny 5' elf gets +2 str, those dwarfs are getting the short end of the stick.


ShadowViper

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Don't go looking for snakes, you might find them.
Re: What SHOULD be banned?
« Reply #101 on: July 07, 2011, 08:57:03 AM »
Really just pointing out that just because something is non-core doesn't mean it's "outrageous," as it seemed to be needed.  ;)

Not a big deal, heh.

And while we're at it, it's usually better for a DM to explain his/her dislike of something to his/her players, rather than just labeling it "outrageous" and banning it. At least in my opinion/experience.

As to elves with +2 STR... Once again, that's why there are sub-races, to add a bit of variety and offer more options. And hey, the great thing about D&D is, think dwarves should get a +2 to STR(as an example)? Not a problem, simple house rule will fix it. It's important to remember that as a DM, your world can be whatever you(and your players) want it to be.

Now personally I don't really have a problem with any of the races(or sub-races), but then again I'm not prone to slapping "outrageous" labels on things all willy nilly, just because I may dislike it. I'd much rather(if at all possible) leave the option open to the players and figure out how to react/counter/handle/adapt to it rather than just hit it with the ban hammer. After all, anything the players can do, the DM can do better.  :plotting
« Last Edit: July 07, 2011, 07:24:18 PM by ShadowViper »
I hear it's amazing when the famous purple stuffed worm in flap-jaw space with the tuning fork does a raw blink on Hara-Kiri rock! I need scissors! 61!

" 'Giving up' kills people. When a person refuses to give up, he earns the right to walk down the road of humanity." - Alucard

Kajhera

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1167
Re: What SHOULD be banned?
« Reply #102 on: July 07, 2011, 10:37:08 AM »
Gray elves (and apparently sun elves, but all I know about those is one helped me secure ownership of my ship) are taller and grander in physical appearance than others of their race, but are the ones who get -2 strength.

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: What SHOULD be banned?
« Reply #103 on: July 07, 2011, 05:53:36 PM »
Gray elves (and apparently sun elves, but all I know about those is one helped me secure ownership of my ship) are taller and grander in physical appearance than others of their race, but are the ones who get -2 strength.

They're like lobsters or crabs, really.  Their muscles/claws are optimized to look large and impressive, but the selection pressure upon appearance results in a degeneration of actual function.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

veekie

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 9034
  • WARNING: Homing Miko
Re: What SHOULD be banned?
« Reply #104 on: July 07, 2011, 06:01:53 PM »
Or possibly same muscle mass....for a taller creature just means less effective muscle.
The mind transcends the body.
It's also a little cold because of that.
Please get it a blanket.

I wish I could read your mind,
I can barely read mine.

"Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. At 2:15, it begins rolling up characters."

[spoiler]
"Just what do you think the moon up in the sky is? Everyone sees that big, round shiny thing and thinks there must be something round up there, right? That's just silly. The truth is much more awesome than that. You can almost never see the real Moon, and its appearance is death to humans. You can only see the Moon when it's reflected in things. And the things it reflects in, like water or glass, can all be broken, right? Since the moon you see in the sky is just being reflected in the heavens, if you tear open the heavens it's easy to break it~"
-Ibuki Suika, on overkill

To sumbolaion diakoneto moi, basilisk ouranionon.
Epigenentheto, apoleia keraune hos timeis pteirei.
Hekatonkatis kai khiliakis astrapsato.
Khiliarkhou Astrape!
[/spoiler]

There is no higher price than 'free'.

"I won't die. I've been ordered not to die."

psyx

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 29
    • Email
Re: What SHOULD be banned?
« Reply #105 on: July 14, 2011, 06:37:25 AM »
-2STR because they're spindly wasters, who've never done a decent day's work in their life!

I'm of the opinion that ill-thought things shouldn't need to be house-ruled, because they kinda shouldn't be there in the first place. D&D has many faults because of its sheer size, the fact that crowd-sourcing on such a wide scale will find any break, and the fact that the comprehensive rules means that they're often considered sacrosanct. But then it also has a lot of faults that simple seem to have been down to lack of thought.

And while we're at it, it's usually better for a DM to explain his/her dislike of something to his/her players, rather than just labeling it "outrageous" and banning it. At least in my opinion/experience.

...but then again I'm not prone to slapping "outrageous" labels on things all willy nilly, just because I may dislike it...

Which I do. But this is a forum, where we don't physically have time to deliver every intricate aspect of our thinking, and tend just to share conclusions.

Can you please just lay off the passive aggressiveness?

ShadowViper

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Don't go looking for snakes, you might find them.
Re: What SHOULD be banned?
« Reply #106 on: July 15, 2011, 03:57:16 AM »
My apologies, really just cautioning against throwing around the "outrageous" label.
I hear it's amazing when the famous purple stuffed worm in flap-jaw space with the tuning fork does a raw blink on Hara-Kiri rock! I need scissors! 61!

" 'Giving up' kills people. When a person refuses to give up, he earns the right to walk down the road of humanity." - Alucard

Vaerenth

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • Email
Re: What SHOULD be banned?
« Reply #107 on: July 15, 2011, 09:54:31 PM »
Isn't Truenamer supposed to be borked? I'm not familiar with them but from what I've heard...
4e tried to fix this problem by toning it all down by a lot and eliminating the wild card spells that were too powerful or dynamic. The issue is no one likes to go from Phenomenal Cosmic Power to itty bitty living space. Which is exactly what 4e tried to force on people.

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: What SHOULD be banned?
« Reply #108 on: July 15, 2011, 10:06:49 PM »
Isn't Truenamer supposed to be borked? I'm not familiar with them but from what I've heard...
broken as in non-functional, yeah.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

Tenebrus

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 255
    • Email
Re: What SHOULD be banned?
« Reply #109 on: July 19, 2011, 11:56:12 PM »
But also easily fixed.  It's a level vs. CR thing.  But I don't know enough to tell you if Truenamer is worth saving.

Echoes

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
Re: What SHOULD be banned?
« Reply #110 on: July 21, 2011, 02:17:52 PM »
But also easily fixed.  It's a level vs. CR thing.  But I don't know enough to tell you if Truenamer is worth saving.

They get some reasonably level-appropriate effects. The problem with fixing them is that it's pretty much impossible to balance the DCs. Because of the sheer variety and magnitude of skill-boosting options, if you set the DCs low enough that max ranks + Int got you reasonable returns, it's trivially easy to pile on bullshit bonuses until you go off the RNG entirely. On the flipside, if you set the DCs high enough that you need all those boosts then everybody who doesn't dumpster-dive for bullshit bonuses is screwed - which is the case right now. Either way, the RNG is fucked.

Edit: Fixed Tags.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 07:21:33 PM by Echoes »
BrokeAndDrive speaks the Truth (linked for great justice and signature limits)

Quotes I Found Entertaining:

Huge amounts of people are fuckwits. That doesn't mean that fuckwit is a valid lifestyle.

As a general rule, murdering people and taking their stuff is pretty much superior to breaking their stuff, murdering them, then not having any stuff to take.

Out of Context Theater
[spoiler]
Oh I'll make a party. I'll make a party so hard... I'll make a party that makes you feel so awkward downstairs.

You'll see the party and only be able to respond, "Oh yeah baby."
[/spoiler]

wotmaniac

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2207
  • Emperor's Enforcer
Re: What SHOULD be banned?
« Reply #111 on: July 21, 2011, 05:42:19 PM »
But also easily fixed.  It's a level vs. CR thing.  But I don't know enough to tell you if Truenamer is worth saving.

They get some reasonably level-appropriate effects. The problem with fixing them is that it's pretty much impossible to balance the DCs. Because of the sheer variety and magnitude of skill-boosting options, if you set the DCs low enough that max ranks + Int got you reasonable returns, it's trivially easy to pile on bullshit bonuses until you go off the RNG entirely. On the flipside, if you set the DCs high enough that you need all those boosts then everybody who doesn't dumpster-dive for bullshit bonuses is screwed - which is the case right now. Either way, the RNG is fucked.


it's the dumpster-diving that's the problem.  get rid of the ability to do that, and a whole lot of things immediately fix themselves.

[spoiler]
If you stop ignoring 289 pages telling what the intent is to stretch "more power" in your own god complexion of your interpretation trumps all to cover ability adjustments from aging then I will ignore a quarter page of rules that exist within a sidebar.
I think in this case the grammar is less important than whether the Str and Dex bonus provided to your created undead scales.

Greenbound Summoning RAI
Expanded Gestalt
More Savage Progressions[/spoiler]
Report any wrongs I have done here.

Littha

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2155
    • Email
Re: What SHOULD be banned?
« Reply #112 on: July 21, 2011, 09:32:48 PM »
Best fix I saw for true naming made it part of the class ability rather than a skill then reduced the DCs by about 50%.
This means that you will only get the 3+class level+mod and the single magic item that specifically boosts true naming to your attempts and thus you have a much more predictable outcome.

Generally you want a 95% chance of using the utterance the first time each day and then a rapidly declining chance at the later ones.

Tenebrus

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 255
    • Email
Re: What SHOULD be banned?
« Reply #113 on: July 25, 2011, 11:03:56 AM »
Anything in Truenamer that makes it worth all this work?  It is part of the Tome of Flavorful New Magic That Often Doesn't Really Work.

Bozwevial

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4497
  • Developing a relaxed attitude to danger.
Re: What SHOULD be banned?
« Reply #114 on: July 25, 2011, 12:40:26 PM »
Eh. I'm not a huge fan of the "utterances get more difficult the more you use them" idea. Kellus has a fix (archived in the compendium) that I rather like, though.

rot42

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
Re: What SHOULD be banned?
« Reply #115 on: July 25, 2011, 01:57:51 PM »
Anything in Truenamer that makes it worth all this work?  It is part of the Tome of Flavorful New Magic That Often Doesn't Really Work.

Spell Rebirth (4th level utterance, undoes a dispel) is a really nice ability that pretty much any party would like to be able to access. Too bad the item creation rules for that chapter are also ... a bit underdeveloped.

Tenebrus

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 255
    • Email
Re: What SHOULD be banned?
« Reply #116 on: July 26, 2011, 12:50:24 AM »
Eh. I'm not a huge fan of the "utterances get more difficult the more you use them" idea. Kellus has a fix (archived in the compendium) that I rather like, though.
Is there a handy link?

Bozwevial

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4497
  • Developing a relaxed attitude to danger.
Re: What SHOULD be banned?
« Reply #117 on: July 26, 2011, 01:14:26 AM »
Eh. I'm not a huge fan of the "utterances get more difficult the more you use them" idea. Kellus has a fix (archived in the compendium) that I rather like, though.
Is there a handy link?
*click*

*scroll*

*click*

Littha

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2155
    • Email
Re: What SHOULD be banned?
« Reply #118 on: July 26, 2011, 03:17:49 PM »
I actually rather like the difficulty increase, it should have been implemented much better.
It seems like it should work rather like a wizards spells per day. Some advantages and disadvantages there (you will always have at least a 5% chance to cast but never more than a 95% chance) at which point you have to way infinite spells per day (given enough tries) vs a percentage chance of failing while in combat.

Bozwevial

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4497
  • Developing a relaxed attitude to danger.
Re: What SHOULD be banned?
« Reply #119 on: July 26, 2011, 04:05:05 PM »
I actually rather like the difficulty increase, it should have been implemented much better.
It seems like it should work rather like a wizards spells per day. Some advantages and disadvantages there (you will always have at least a 5% chance to cast but never more than a 95% chance) at which point you have to way infinite spells per day (given enough tries) vs a percentage chance of failing while in combat.
I prefer a mixture of abilities so that you're never completely useless. That said, if I were doing a Truenamer fix, here's what I'd do.

1) Each time you use an utterance, the base DC of that utterance rises by a certain amount. The difficulty increase caps at a certain point; past there, it gets no harder.

2) Every X points your check is over the base DC increases the result in some fashion. More damage, higher save DC, what have you. There's a cap on this too. A result of 900 does the same as a result of 800.

3) DCs reset after resting.

4) Truenaming gets smacked around a little with some special rules so you can't pull the usual skill shenanigans. I'd need to toy with this one, do some math, but it should eliminate splatdiving for bonuses.

Each time you use your utterances that you can augment most of the time, they become less potent on average. Each time you use the more powerful stuff, it gets harder to use. You should always have a reasonable chance to use an utterance, thanks to the caps, but there's resource management to consider.

...actually, let's add a new rule. Utterances where you get the weakest possible result don't add to the base DC, and you can voluntarily use a lower result. That gives you more control over when to pull out the stops.