Talk:Races of War (3.5e Sourcebook)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

This is the last of the Tomes. Sadly, it's incomplete (this is most noticeable in the Armor section), but I'm sure the reader could adapt or invent what he needs to. There's more that could be done--like making the appropriate charts and there's a section I left out--about a mass combat mini-game--because I didn't want to deal with the formatting just yet. That being said, I'm taking a break until I stop thinking in terms of wiki formatting. Genowhirl 21:50, 12 May 2008 (MDT)

Feats kinda unfair[edit]

For example Murderous Intent: with this, All I need to do is be a monk and have you fail a fort save (stunning fist) and then you just die.

And wizards get finger of death. What's your point?
That is false. A Coup de Grace is a standard action, as is stunning them. You only get one standard action in a round. Surgo 15:03, 7 September 2008 (MDT)
I don't know about what he said, but the rules for Special Combat-whatever say Coup de Grace should be a critical hit. So I guess that would keep a Monk from doing the Stun-and-Slay option of Murderous Intent.

And according to how I interpreted this, if I have a BAB of 16, all I have to do is just say I want a feat and then instantly I have full knowledge of how to do it amazingly?

Yep, that's the way they work. The Murderous Intent thing isn't as bad as you'd think. If we're talking about a PHB monk, he gets the ability to coup de gras a stunned enemy at level 15. And how many times have you seen a character actively try to stun someone else?
I realize that the full version of scaling feats can make people blink, because it seems such a huge step up in power (as well it is). But I think it's covered in the Failure of Feats section about how having feat chains pretty much reams any chance of diversifying your character and remaining level-appropriate, so all the feats were designed to provide options and bonuses that you'd actually care about at the level you get them.
I understand Frank and K designed their classes so that one alone is able to go, on average, 50/50 with monsters with CR equal to their level. That's not "easily win," that's "be able to win at all about half the time against level-appropriate monsters". And at high levels, monsters have some pretty crazy abilities, so if a character's going to be stay on the level-appropriate train, at high levels characters have to get abilities that are likewise a little crazy. It's not unreasonable, but it does require that you decide for yourself and your games what a character should be able to do at level 15.
To get an idea...Look up a Marut. It's in the SRD. It's got Dimension Door at will, so a combat person can't stay back and used range. It can cast Earthquake to turn you into an instant fossil and it can cast Plane Shift so if it wanted, it could actually send you to Hell and its melee abilities can either blind or stun you, as well as do 2d6 + 12 + 3d6....
...and at level 15, your character is supposed to be able to usefully contribute to the party being able to beat it while expending only 20% of their useable resources. If you're a PHB fighter or monk, good luck with that.Genowhirl 03:03, 8 November 2008 (MST)
Monks get abundant step at level 11, the marut is cr 15
Are you really suggesting that the ability to Dimension Door once per day helps you keep up with a critter than can Dimension Door every round?

How about when you get the feat you start off with the first benefit. Then the next level if you meet the first BAB req, then you get that ability, then the next level, you get the next ability and so on and ect. So, if you meet the highest req, like 16 BAB, then you gain one ability from the feat each level. --T G Geko 15:09, 16 May 2008 (MDT)

Well, you interpreted it right, although that is an interesting progression idea you have there. The point is that if you take a feat at a level between the upgrade points (which are levels 1, 6, 11, and 16 if you've got Full BAB or max ranks) you get an ability that's appropriate for you to have at your level. Basically, around the time you get to level 11 and definitely by the time you've reached level 16, you've reached that area of DnD known as CrazyTown, and CrazyTown does not much care for combat people--if you're going to be able to contribute against the monsters above level 10 as something other than a target to distract them from attacking the people who do the real damage...You're going to need some likewise crazy abilities. I'd suggest trying it out however it works for you, though. Genowhirl 23:02, 22 August 2008 (MDT)
Use the stuff here with whatever caveats you're comfortable with. Just understand that there are some basic assumptions underlying what's gone in here, and you might be surprised if you tried it as written.Genowhirl 22:24, 16 May 2008 (MDT)
Couldn't we just use the old feats but make them available at every level? That would seem a lot simpler. Furthermore, it would allow characters to become more diversified without having this newer
The old feats are awful. Compare Whirlwind Attack to the Fireball spell. At 7th level, a wizard can cast 3-4 Fireballs a day for 22 damage at range as a standard. A fighter can attack 8-15 enemies (if they all happen to surround him) with a Full Round action. These are not even remotely equivalent, and it only gets worse from there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 10:17, 9 June 2008 (MDT). Please sign your posts.

Featured Article Nomination[edit]

No mark.svg.png — This article did not become a featured article. --Green Dragon (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2013 (MDT)
Please feel free to re-nominate it once it meets the FA criteria and when all the major issues brought up in this nomination have been dealt with.

Frank and K stuff was always gold, I read this before and it's still tasty now. So I figured, why not? Give them a little bit in the spotlight, FA, here we go. -- Eiji 21:04, 7 June 2008 (MDT)

Support — This article is well thought out and over-all well done. It is the type of article others should strive for.--Ramses IV 21:07, 7 June 2008 (MDT)

Support — I support this article, if you wanna know why, just read it.-Risek 21:48, 7 June 2008 (MDT)

Sure, only...what is it? A campaign Setting or something? --Sir Milo Teabag 13:32, 17 June 2008 (MDT)
It's an article...thing about what rules work and what rules don't, with suggested changes to help things work better. There's three previous Tomes on here--the Tome of Necromancy, the Tome of Fiends, and the Dungeonomicon. --Genowhirl 09:04, 21 June 2008 (MDT)

Support — I wouldn't have posted this if I didn't think it was worthy of being on here. It helps melee characters actively contribute alongside the casters, and it's entertaining and thought-provoking besides. Genowhirl 11:20, 25 July 2008 (MDT)

Support — and I came on to put this back in its original form. Surgo 21:18, 31 August 2008 (MDT)

Comment — I think this page gets the award for longest table of contents. --Green Dragon 05:02, 8 November 2008 (MST)

Ain't that the truth? But there's a lot of material and, well, if someone's going to use this, at least they have a quick reference/link. Genowhirl 12:38, 10 November 2008 (MST)
Actually, GreenDragon, this might be forward of me, but maybe you could set up a sub-category in D&D Other for the Frank & K Tome material? And then the articles could be split down into their component parts, and we wouldn't have these, for example, 206 KB articles to sort through.Genowhirl 20:59, 10 November 2008 (MST)
DnD Sourcebooks for all the sourcebooks on D&D Wiki. --Green Dragon 11:33, 6 April 2009 (MDT)

Support: Now that I've broken it down into sub pages its much more manageable. The information is vast and would be a great addition to our main page.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   08:01, 9 January 2009 (MST)

Support: Just stumbled across this and all I can say is wow. Lots of interesting ideas and concepts put forth that I'd never really thought about before. Jota 10:11, 9 January 2009 (MST)

Comment: It appears as if this one may have enough support to become the FA.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   09:17, 14 January 2009 (MST)

Comment: Well, of course its great. Rarely is an article actually both interesting and fun to read (especially one this long, without it feeling like work). But, unfortunately, it has essentially no wiki formatting or language links. If its gonna be a Featured Article, its gonna need those. Additionally it would be nice to have an image for this article as well, something along the lines of a mocked-up book cover of sorts. Something professional looking to show off on the front page for being a Featured Article. --Ganteka 13:18, 11 February 2009 (MST)

The base classes should be links (they already exist on the Wiki), the PrCs also need to be split out. Aside from that, what else in terms of formatting needs to be improved? Surgo 13:20, 11 February 2009 (MST)

Comment — I think this needs to be made into a sourcebook, comparable to Arachonomicon; the Book of Spiderkind (4e Sourcebook) (just for 3.5e and included in a new section made for 3.5e sourcebooks). That should solve many of the formatting issues and make for a nicer presentation. As well as that it will no longer be in other. And then the categories could be changed. Instead of Category:Tome it could be changed to Category:Sourcebook and then Category:Races of War Sourebook could be added to all of the corresponding pages. --Green Dragon 03:43, 14 March 2009 (MDT)

For the sourcebook: sure. There was no sourcebook preload to begin with, which is why that didn't happen. In fact, there's still no Sourcebook preload or breadcrumb for 3.5e, only 4e. But as for the category change -- I'd have to say no. There is a decent amount of general 'Tome' stuff that doesn't actually fall into one of the four Tome sourcebooks. I also cannot edit the "Add new" page to make an entry for sourcebooks. Surgo 10:43, 14 March 2009 (MDT)
All the information on Dungeons and Dragons is actually pulled to from each individual page, so you can add DnD Sourcebooks (when made) to that page yourself (it uses Template:x0). Admin rights are not needed.
And about the tome category. What constitutes a tome then? Would Tome of Battle, etc be in Category:Tome too? I mean it is just a name attached onto sourcebooks. Although I see the problem. You want to make it so all the information from the three tomes from Frank and K is together in the same category. What if instead a category of Category:Frank and K was added and then you could use a dpl to get the results you want. Also each sourcebooks would have their one category (like Category:Races of War Sourcebook, etc). --Green Dragon 19:28, 14 March 2009 (MDT)
Sorry about any confusion; Surgo and I and most of the people who use Frank and K's material tend to refer to it as 'Tome' Material (Tome of Necromancy, Tome of Fiends, Dungeonomicon, Races of War. There's also the incomplete Book of Gears and the odd bit written by one or the other when people ask or whatever). There's been some suggestions to name them collectively as 'Tome of Awesome' or similar, but none of the names have stuck. -- Genowhirl 19:36, 14 March 2009 (MDT)
So why not call it "Frank and K Material"? It would then also fit the same organizational structure as the the publication list (starting at somewhere like Publishers of d20 and D&D Products onwards), however on a new area created for Homebrew options. --Green Dragon 19:59, 14 March 2009 (MDT)
Two reasons: one, it's always been called "Tome" and second, there are more people writing stuff for it out there than just those two. Surgo 21:15, 14 March 2009 (MDT)
Why is "Frank and K" given more credit then the other people behind the project? Why not just have each item have it's author attached all under the name of the sourcebook. So, for example, if Genowhirl made the Dragon Lancer (DnD Prestige Class) then he/she would have his/her name on it instead of "Frank and K". Keeping in mind that if "Frank and K" made the item they would have their name on it still, of course. And then all the items would be attached by the sourcebook category. It would be like if someone made something spider oriented for fourth edition, talked to Sam Kay, and got it added into Arachonomicon; the Book of Spiderkind (4e Sourcebook). Almost the same idea as here, saving that this was just done earlier and not through D&D Wiki.
Although then what should be done to get all the sourcebooks made by "Frank and K" together? Simple. Since everything would be linked to by categories one can cross-reference them to get the results you want. This would produce the non-content pages of these sourcebooks.
   category=Tome of Fiends Sourebook|Tome of Necromancy Sourcebook|Dungeonomicon Sourebook|Races of War Sourebook|Book of Gears Sourebook
This would produce everything related to the "Frank and K" books.
   category=Tome of Fiends Sourebook|Tome of Necromancy Sourcebook|Dungeonomicon Sourebook|Races of War Sourebook|Book of Gears Sourebook
--Green Dragon 09:58, 15 March 2009 (MDT)

Comment — This needs to be formatted as per the 3.5e Sourcebook Preload. --Green Dragon 08:50, 25 March 2009 (MDT)

It has now been made into a sourcebook and formatted correctly. Surgo 00:14, 1 April 2009 (MDT)
I know links were added to the classes, but why not do the same for all the other things which that can be done to? Such as the feats, races, etc. Not only does it make it so more people will see this sourcebook's material, but it also un-clutters a lot of the sub-pages. --Green Dragon 11:31, 6 April 2009 (MDT)
For the could I make them even follow the normal feat template? The races don't really follow the preload very much -- most of those sections are unused. If that's fine, tell me and I'll work on splitting them out too, but I don't quite see the point of splitting out an entire sourcebook's content from the sourcebook itself. What's the point of even having a sourcebook section in that case? Surgo 12:44, 6 April 2009 (MDT)
If these races do not fit into the race preload (no fluff for example) then I agree they should just be kept as is. The reason for splitting up pages is so the content can be seen by more people and not just people who find this through DnD Sourcebooks. If you feel that they would not work as a stand-alone D&D creation (no fluff, different rule sets, etc) then just keep it on this page. But I would say move what you can (so more people see the contents). --Green Dragon 12:55, 6 April 2009 (MDT)

Comment — All FA's need an image. --Green Dragon 11:32, 6 April 2009 (MDT)

I'll dig one up. --Genowhirl 11:37, 6 April 2009 (MDT)
Is this wiki allowed to use those free art samples they give out on the Wizards website? And a second question: Would a title image, rather than than an image of soldiers fighting, be allowable? --Genowhirl 11:42, 6 April 2009 (MDT)
What do you mean by a title image? Something like D&D Wiki's logo or something like the image on Arachonomicon; the Book of Spiderkind (4e Sourcebook) (with a title and image)? And I am not sure about the free art samples... I know we use one as our background and on a few other pages, but on wikipedia they just link to them and do not host them on their own servers. --Green Dragon 12:15, 6 April 2009 (MDT)
Yes, that's it. A logo. That's what I was thinking of. And, all ight on the images. If nothing else, I'll poke around and find an online artist with a suitably warlike picture and ask their permission. --Genowhirl 13:10, 6 April 2009 (MDT)
Why, exactly? Some times, no image is appropriate. Surgo 12:41, 6 April 2009 (MDT)

Support: This "book" has really put things in perspective about the differences in power between magic and melee. --T G Geko 09:59, 7 June 2009 (MDT)

Support: This Tome makes martial classes balanced in reguards to other classes. When you read it you begin to see gaps in WotC's system & this will fix those problems. --Milo High-Hill 17:33, 12 January 2011 (MST)

Comment — Many of this sourcebook's subpages are incomplete, in disrepair, etc and have been so for some time. --Green Dragon (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2013 (MDT)

Stop changing the mechanics[edit]

Anonymous people need to stop going through and changing mechanics, especially mechanics they don't understand. I just went through and removed a bunch of unwarranted changes by a few anonymice and put the document back to the way it was originally. No typo correction, newly created tables, etc. were changed, just random edits that changed mechanics without reason. Surgo 21:17, 31 August 2008 (MDT)

I can protect it from IP if you like?--Lord Dhazriel 12:01, 14 January 2009 (MST)

Tried to Straighten This Discussion Out[edit]

I noticed it was a little disorganized, and there were comments on here that were in the middle of other comments, so...yeah...Genowhirl 03:02, 8 November 2008 (MST)


Thanks, Rith. That picture has just the right amount of cheese on it and...actually, there's no way he could be a background character, so that's another plus. --Genowhirl 09:55, 24 June 2009 (MDT)

Monster Conversions... not... making... sense[edit]

Could someone please help me with F&K's monster conversions? I tried following his steps in creating a PC-playable bugbear race, and I totally failed. I got a Bugbear with -2 Intelligence, and then I looked at their work and they had +4 Strength, +2 Constitution, +2 Dexterity, -2 Charisma... I don't understand. Please, halp! --For Valor 11:06, 6 July 2009 (MDT)

It's unsaid in the book, but the bugbear is one of the monsters that specifically was not built using the elite array (it uses the standard array instea). Surgo 12:15, 6 July 2009 (MDT)
Alright, gotcha. So for future reference, when should I use the elite stat array and when should I use the standard one?
Anything with no LA listed uses the elite array. The rest, unfortunately, is not so obvious and requires your best judgment. Surgo 23:42, 6 July 2009 (MDT)

Picture Change[edit]

I've looked at the new one, waited a day or two, looked at it again...Decided I didn't like it. The other one wasn't exactly perfect, but it did have a cheesy retro look, like the early DnD box set covers--and it had the title of the article on it. Maybe the Tome Fighter page pic could be captioned or something... --Genowhirl 09:07, 28 August 2009 (MDT)


I see where this is leading to and I do not like it. This is supposed to improve the balance .

Balance between casters and non casters

The problem with this is that balance between casters and noncasters is something that depents on situation. And the DM decides about the situation...

Most simples case: The adventure today plays in a dungeon that is completly inside a antimagic field, dead or caotic magic zone... Spellcasters still overpowered?

It do not have to be so bad every time Spells need material commponets and foci that can but do not have to be avaible..

Furthermore the power of a spellcaster is not constant. With every spell he cast he is losing power.

An inteligent enemy knows that. He sends minions or just waits for his time. Until the spellcaster has burned his energy or is just preparde for something else and then the enemy strikes. To counteract this a spellcaster has to safe energy. And while he safes energy the non casters do thier job. A spellcasters that is constantly stealing the other characters the show is just someone who needs to be taught that his life depends on saving energy.

So as long as a fighter is much stronger then a spellcaster without spells. And much weaker then a spellcaster with full spells. The DM can always run the game in a style that let both contribute the same...

Balance between caracters and monsters Who wants this? Balance between charcaters an monsters means that in 50% of the cases the Caracters will die... And that means you will basically never see them with level 5+... The CR was not constructed for balance but for "Can just be beaten up." Why are the monsters than so much stronger then the characters of the same level? Synergies! The game is a group game the group is much stronger than sum of its parts. Please note that one wants to have synergies to make the group work together. The CR is designed to fit for this. So it is NOT designed to fit without.

There are not only optimal character builds there are also optimal group builds. If you use a suboptimal group build then the CR has to be addapted... This problem exists what ever kind of classes you use as long as you has synergies.

So what is really changes when one is using this source books Before the DM has to force the casters to save energy. Now he has to let them throw it out because otherwise the noncasters get all the action. The typical encounter has to go with higher CR because every body is stronger.

The casters has to think a little bit less because they have to burn their stuff anyhow The fighter has to think more because they have more options. And everybody is happy.

No. The change in balance will be minor But the change of the world is huge. In some of the other source books there is stated the society that you will end up with these rules And I totally believe it. The D&D heroes are unbelievable strong and this books just make them stronger. And that is ripping the world appart.

In SRD the Power of the non casters are limited. So they can not overpower society so easily. The power of the spellcasters is not constant. They CAN overpower society but if they do at the same time paint a big bullseye on they head. Because then they can easily be watched by an enemy. And the moment they are not prepared...

This is why in normal D&D setting the role of the princess is not always to prostitute herselve to the high level barbarian. And an aristrocate may be a better ruler then a fighter because the fighter has at least one of CH, IN or Wis as a dump score and the aristrocate not...

But I not doubt that this is well intended. This is made for and from people who wants to rule the country, and wants the princess to marry their IN=Wis=CH= 8 barbarian and like it.

But who am I to tell people what they do in their free time. I mean this seriously Please note that I do not try to rate the classes involved. I just want to say that there are many D&D worlds that just will not work with these classes.

PS: I know my english is not a language but a crime. Anybody may feel free to correct my writing errors.

You misunderstand the balance between characters and monsters. One character should, ideally, be able to go fifty-fifty with a challenge with a CR equal to his level, with the challenges being things like "bruisers" or "magic-using monsters" and "groups". So you can write character classes to cover different bases. And, basically, D&D is sort of low-fantasy from levels 1-5, medium-fantasy from about five to thirteen, and high fantasy thereafter. Races of War moved the fighty-types to medium fantasy. So different character classes can cover different bases. Oh, and what kind of jerk DM would run an entire adventure in an antimagic field? The fact is, D&D is a game. It should at least make the effort to be fun for everyone involved. And every session of it is ALSO a game, and should be enjoyable. Continually making life hard for the guy playing a wizard is not good policy. Funny enough, there's a crowd out there that, once they have a character that can survive, will just say "There." and enjoy themselves and not try to break the game in half. --Genowhirl 20:52, 15 September 2010 (MDT)

You think I misunderstood. As I think you misunderstood. Thats subjective. Objective is: We understood it differently. Please note that you have to rewirite the game so that your way of seeing it makes sence and I do not. And if you think that the CR of the monsters should correspond to CL one to one. And they do not why are you not changing the CR? I mean dragons traditionally lives alone... So a chalange for a group(!) of heroes is one dragon in rare cases two. Do you really want the group of 6 people fight 6 dragons?

No. What I personally want is the characters to be brought up to more or less the same level, and a lot of kinks in the rules worked out. And you still don't understand the meaning of the 50/50 or how the CR system is stated to work. In the DMG, fighting something with a CR 4 higher than you means you -may- be able to win if you pull out all the stops. Now, the default has always been assumed to be a four-man party. The four man party can fight something with a CR equal to party level and they're supposed to win and expend only 30-40% of their resources. But the CR guidelines also had a couple of handy notes: Halving the size of the party raises the CR of challenge by 2. Halving it again is another 2. So CRs are increased by 4 for a solo character.

At the creature side I read: CR: This shows the average level of a party of adventurers for which one creature would make an encounter of moderate difficulty.

Average Level Not Sum Level

So the four man party with Level 16 each fights the Level 16 Dragon together and should win

"Halving the size of the party raises the CR of challenge by 2." So the two man party with Level 18 each fights the CR 16 Dragon and win So the one man party with Level 20 each fights the CR 16 Dragon and win

If taken "Halving the size of the party raises the CR of challenge by 2."seriously That is a factor 4...

You are fighting a fight that is supposed to be won by 4 times peoble with one person insteat Do you really thing thats translates into 50/50 to win I do not believe.

Good, real good plan, synergy, heavy use of resources a little luck.. May make it possible that you do the CR+4 thing But in Straight numbers it can be impossible and certainly do not have to be 50/50

But still you have a point the rule implies an exponetial grow in power That a SDR fighter only does by equipment and support of casters but not on his own. I honestly do not know if the recommented wealth per level is good for this Because I do not tend to use it...

Still he is defintely usefull.

That means a single character of level 6 should be able to win against half of CR 6 challenges, and at least contribute in some way against a routine fight in a way the other characters can't. But in the SRD, not all of the classes can do it (Fighter, Paladin, and Monk are very much the opposite, being a liability in an equal-CR fight unless you really know what you're doing). And not all classes will be good at the same thing. Here's the killer: If you wanted to turn 3.5 into a perfectly balanced system, you'd have to re-write all of the spells and monsters (because monsters use spells, too). That's so much work you should just make a new system. But, by making melee classes fit in with the rest of the game, it serves as a patch and puts them in the ballpark with everyone else. It is a patch, but it works. It makes some melee classes with genuinely interesting abilities and lets them contribute to the world. Admittedly, the game makes no sense past level 15 or so, (hereafter referred to as Crazy Town), anyway. --Genowhirl 03:38, 17 September 2010 (MDT)

Wizzards are unbelievable powerful but they come with tought restrictions. If DM do not let the player feel the restrictions then they are only unbelivable powerful, but then the lack of balance is some decition the DM made...

"D&D is a game. It should at least make the effort to be fun for everyone involved. And every session of it is ALSO a game, and should be enjoyable"

You assume that what is funny for you is funny for everybody else. You want to run arround with a really awesome charcter. And do real cool stuff. And if your real awesome charcter dies that like a kick in the face.

For some people the fun in the game comes from trying to solve real problems with limited resources. No problem is worth thinking about, that can be solved with full charge at the moment you notice it. So if you have a real problem and the barbarian makes full charge directly it will most probably kill him. If it does not kill him, it was no real problem... That does not mean that barbarians are useless. Only that their full charge has to be timed in a bigger plan properly. Even a barbarian should be able to learn this in let us say 5 levels...

Obviously the concept of thinking real hard for solving problems having real strong charcters, combined implies you need fucking strong monsters. There are several fantasy worlds where it is stated that dragons are the bigges monster arround. So the fucking strong monster is the dragon... But if one character alone is as strong as a dragon then this will just not work out in these settings.

I know not everybody thinks it is fun to spend an evening with planning. As not everybody thinks it is funny to play chess.

If you want to just walk in the dungeon kill everything. And want to use not optimized group builds. And not want to just change the challange rate of the monsters . And not want to use strong magic items to compensate Yes then you will have to power up your character classes as you did because your charcters will not survive it otherwise...

But please realize that this is a consequence of your playing style. And do not holds for everybody. There are people who are having quite much fun with the game as it is..

Oh, ye gods. You are quite the piece of work. You made so many assumptions that are so blindingly wrong that I'm somewhat at a loss of where to begin deconstructing. But, oh, is it on now. You've made all these assumptions about how I roll, and let your own pig-eyed prejudice blind you. I'll happily enlighten you.

Good that you do not lack confidence...

I want to be able to pick a concept and have it be viable and not have to worry about having to fight the system to make it work. In the SRD, TWF requires a lot of feats for not much benefit. Weapon Finesse still makes you worse than someone who wields a greatsword and wears heavy armor. If I want to play a guy who dual-wields rapiers and works a certain Errol Flynn vibe, the system punishes me left and right with less AC and less damage and making me pay feats out the wazoo, and use weapons with less damage. And it isn't mechanically sound, it's a trap for someone who doesn't know the system already.

In every system you can make stupild decitions And you can call them trapps if you want.

I very much dislike that. It rewards min-maxxers for dumpster-diving and punishes people who don't want to play a cookie-cutter build that focuses on making one number as big as it can get. But, irony of ironies, it takes a serious pair of optimizers to come up with character classes and a few rules patches to remove some of the more hideous traps and rules loops and come up with something that, while it's definitely a higher power level, it's hard to significantly swing the power level. Or mess a character up; the Barbarian is pretty much self-contained.

For building characters that the SDR Classes fail to realize Other peoble build homebrew classes too. But not everybody build classes that are in every sense much stronger then the corresponding SDR...

I can not say somethingt sensefull if your system is much more balanced. I would have to invest much more work

And...Saying it's my fault because I don't want to play optimized groups builds? That is honestly insulting. That's saying I'm a bad player because I don't play cookie-cutter groups with two casters and two or three melee people. Actually, I DM more than I play these days. I fill the players in on the setting, let them pick their classes, and then I roll with it. If necessary, I make a few gentleman's agreements with people who do things like play wizards and know how to use them to keep the game rolling. So far, I've never had a game dissolve because it wasn't fun or because the players got on each other's nerves or they didn't like the way the game was going. I'd call that a successful track record, wouldn't you? Not all groups play the standard make-up. They shouldn't be punished for it.

I have not said that it is your fault. But it was your decision. Thats a difference. If the game is designed for a specific playstyle and you want to use an other style. Then perhaps it may be a good idea to change the game. But that was your decision. That does not means that the original game was bad. If everybody is happy in your group you don not have a problem. But is it so hard to imagine that there are groups out there who reached the same state. With the normal rules and not because they are all stupild and did not really understand them?

And I quite enjoy chess. And Scrabble. And liverpool. And I've been thinking about the deconstruction of Objectivism found in the first Bioshock for the past week or so, when I haven't been brushing up on some Lovecraft so I get a proper chilling effect on the players in an upcoming game session. And I hold a deep love for elaborate planning and out-of-left-field tactics and encourage them in the games I run, and try to do them in the games I play. Are you familiar with the Midas Meteor?

I was not doubting your intelectual level. You know there are very intelligent peoble out there who do not like to play strategy games...

Except I love strategy games and it turns up in how I play D&D. When I DM, I tend to lay out the problem/challenge out and let the players handle the fine details and see what they do. This has led, on occasion, to things like setting a barn on fire as a distraction with an summoned Fire Mephit that has Invisibility cast on it.

No, of course you aren't, because I'm the one who came up with it (I did dabble with the name Damocles' Ingot, but y'know, I like the Midas Meteor better). It uses the 5th-level spell Major Creation to crack open any building you'd care to name, up to and probably including an adamantine fortress. How do you do it? You stand on a great height which can also support a great weight. You take a gold piece and cast Major Creation to make gold by the cubic foot. Gold weighs about 1,200 pounds (or about 545.5 kilos if you're more used to metric) a cubic foot. This is an interesting fact I've found out in the course of my geology degree. It means that a wizard can create at least a six-ton lump of gold and drop it onto a target below. The gold will evaporate in a couple of minutes, but it'll have already blown through the roof of any building. It also has a ten-minute casting time, giving the rest of the party members time to get into position. The tremendous noise makes a great distraction, as does the hole in the roof (which is also an entry point if you want to go that way.)

So when you think of major creation There is nothing slowly created (and has to be somehow stable in the meantime) But just pops up at the end of the casting time? Again one do not have to see it this way. Note I do not say you are wrong we are speaking about a fantasy word. And mine and yours do not have to be the same.

Finding a platform is the hitch. I've done it in an Eberron game off a large airship and in Dragonmech with a few coglayer shenanigans. Whether the Meteor is formed fast or slow, the result is the same. You have at least nine or ten cubic feet of gold at the end, and you drop--whether via a trapdoor or turning off the force field it happens to be standing on--onto something below you.

And you do not thing that the main feature is the Platform right above the enemy? You know if you have one you can reach the same effect with dropping a real big rock...

I very much like the Tome classes and writeups because they gave me some things to think about, and the classes aren't ever boring and let every player have something to contribute to the game. This means the plans tend to get better when the Fighter can stand up and say "I can sneak in with the rogue and we can secure the treasure room's hallway" and the Barbarian can, in fact, say he'll be able to fend off a guardian monster for a while. Elaborate plans tend to get better when all participants can actually contribute without hand-holding. And the melee classes aren't completely boned by the casters, either. I don't know if you've ever looked at the spell Forcecage? That is a disrespectful slap to any one who isn't playing a full caster, seeing as how it lasts for hours and all effects which can help you escape are...high-level magic. Wizards and Clerics, if they so choose, can bypass what you call the harsh restrictions.

Having more options do not automatically make better plans. If some options are to strong they will in effect just kill every other... Also peoble tend to thing in game mechanics if they have to many of them. Yes I know force cage. Its brocken No doubt about this. You can solve the problem two ways You power it down or everybody else up. I prefer the first one you the second.

Did you know a wand of Cure Light Wounds costs 750 GP, contains 50 charges, and means the Cleric doesn't have to burn his spells-per-day on healing? It's an easy workaround. Did you know that at early levels, Color Spray--a level 1 illusion spell--is an absolute terror able to make a whole group of enemies drop at once? Did you know around level 10, if a wizard casts SRD: Solid Fog and then SRD: Black Tentacles, they will single-handedly destroy most encounters? Do you know what happens when a Cleric casts some of his buffing spells on himself? Particularly Divine Power? Did you know that Entangle, a level 1 Druid Spell, will lock down many many enemies and make them sitting ducks? Are you aware of the might of SRD: Prestidigitation? Use it to change the color of your clothes for an instant disguise. Cast it on fireplace ashes for instant makeup. Conjure up a balloon with a note tied to it to get it up a cliff. It's a really nice spell. I'd rather have it than Magic Missile.

Yes I know Would it not be strange to defend SDR If I would not know it at least a little bit? I already said that without restrictions spellcasters are unbelievable powerfull. Why do you want to discuse what we already agreed on?

Because those effects are everywhere. At level 1, a longsword can kill you in a hit. Color Spray can remove you from combat by giving you a seizure at the same level. At level 10, Black Tentacles can result in a case of tentacle rape for the whole party. At level 15, you have stuff like Shapechange and Finger of Death and monsters which can decided to squash you flat by rolling over onto you. I don't care about the PVP arena-style combat people tend to have with "Wizard vs. Fighter!!!!" but when characters consistently can't contribute to the party's effectiveness? That's not good for the party and not good for the player and not good for the game. It's a cooperative story-telling game, so everyone should have something distinctive they can do within the party, and buffing the PCs up a little means the cooperative story can continue for longer, and it can smooth out some rules glitches which can halt play while there's a spirited search for the truth. --Genowhirl 11:27, 17 September 2010 (MDT)
Spellcasters aren't unbelievably powerful. Or, if they are, so are the monsters, since they can also use spells or spell-like effects So that's several hundred pages of the game that's unbelievably powerful (spells and monsters). Melee classes, however, are not unbelievably powerful and if they're limited to SRD, there's only a few really viable ways to play them and NOT get killed; if you happen to own the things like Compete Warrior, huzzah, go dumpster-diving for feats to pump your trip check up as high as you can. It's still just one big number, and one big number does not a character make. So, to fix this problem, one could either re-write the casting classes, hundreds of spells, and hundreds of monsters to tone them down, so much work that you might as well write your own new edition of D&D, or you could invite the melee classes to play the same game as everyone else. The first option results in 4th Edition. This is the result of taking option 2. Warriors live in a world where at level 8, they could be expected to help kill a T-Rex (CR 8) with nothing but what they know, can do, and have on them at the time. This is very much a problem for someone who hasn't gotten exponentially stronger, faster, and better with his weapons. --Genowhirl 11:27, 17 September 2010 (MDT)

I'm fully aware the Tomes mean a few things have to be considered when you're making a setting. My game is better for that, since I've actually thought about D&D settings and how characters interact with the economy and power structures in any given setting. The melee classes contained in here can't break the game. Technically, D&D doesn't make sense at all, considering a character fighting four encounters a day can go from level 1 to level 20 in a few months, which means the world should be getting rearranged by some adventuring party which hit it big at least once a year. But people act like a samurai able to cleave a Force effect or a Barbarian who's as good as ever after he's had a minute to catch his breath is somehow shockingly broken. --Genowhirl 03:38, 17 September 2010 (MDT)

As I said you thought about your setting and the implication for the world And I already agreed that you are probably right one this. How stable the world is depends on how much power a small group of persons can get individually and with your classes that is just much more. So you changed the world... And I like the older version more. But that is just my personal taste...

I didn't write this. I liked it enough to put it up here on the wiki, with the other three articles (links at the bottom), but this isn't mine, though I feel very grateful to the two guys who wrote it. I keep an eye on this for edits and respond. And arguing a case means I have to think about the argument and my answer to it. Exercise for my brain's D&D muscles. And you're hitting on one of the answer. You can have fun with the SRD system. But you're having fun despite the system's problems, probably because of immersive roleplaying or you and your buddies are all in a good. This speaks nothing for the system's mechanical virtues. With the right crowd, you can have fun doing just about anything. This does not mean the system doesn't have its (really, really bad problems). This article, and the three before it, sort those problems out and make a game where you can concentrate more on the playing rather than the rules-lawyering, by going the short way of inviting the melee people to play along. If you want to go the other route, I wish you all the luck in the world. You'll have to do a lot of work if you want to make a systemic, consistent approach to toning D&D down. Just don't forget to re-write the monsters, seeing as how they'd be much stronger than the party otherwise.--Genowhirl 11:27, 17 September 2010 (MDT)

Why do you think I have to rewrite spells and monsters. When The DM controll the access to spells and magic Items and the time when monsters apear. The great reward for a caster is to get a real cool spell The great reward for a fighter is to get a real cool amor or weapon And the monster is coming when the group is ready for it.

Let me phrase it this way that the most powerful arcane spells in the world. Can be bought in a shop. Or can be learnd by killing monsters Is an assumption that do not has to be made by everyone.

Fast healing Sorry to point that out but outside a fight even fast healing 1 means that having both arms and legs brocken, and a sword sticking in the stomach Is slightly more inconvinient then: Have to go to toilet But less inconvinient then: Forgot to buy peanuts at the supermarked. Because EVERY injury that is not klilling you vanishes without trace after a few minutes. It do not make much difference in fight. But every stupild action you do outside fight, will have to kill or you to have no consequences at all. There is a fire. Walk arround it? Why? Walk through it! That is much faster... For low level that IS brocken! If "Barbarian who's as good as ever after he's had a minute to catch his breath" is your aim than give him the full round action Self healing: that heals his BAR Level hit points. That will still tends to kill the role of a healer But ensures that the best way is arround the fire and not through it. So peoble do not all the time do all kind of really stupild stuff because there are no consequences.

A Barbarian's big problem is overwhelming force. They can still die from a fall, can still die from being jumped in the middle of a fight (Oh, and after a while, characters will go through the flames because it's 1) More dramatic 2) normal fire doesn't do much damage). Now, the barbarian can still be killed, seeing as how the Barbarian's mechanical niche is front-line fighting in a world where you have creatures both larger and stronger than the Barbarian, bristling with natural weapons and strange powers and reach and really big damage dice. Sometimes there's groups of these guys. So, the Barbarian's chosen niche for the SGT -is- a frontal assault, which is a very badly-supported tactic. But this Barbie was written with the idea of being able to do that and stand a decent chance at surviving. The Fast Healing kicks in because the Barbarian really could bankrupt the cleric's wands of healing. It tends to happen in my games like this: You're aware of how most action-movie heroes take a beating, get bloodied and bruised and wounded, but after a bit they can keep soldiering on? We've never actually discussed it, but it's how it always turned up in my game. Maybe I'm lucky that I have players who more or less cooperate both in character and out of it, and most of them aren't interested in breaking the setting in half.

The kind of damage action heroes tends to recover very fast in D&D is in most cases non lethal damage anyhow... But OK if you think of action films as a standart.

May I remind you " With the right crowd, you can have fun doing just about anything."

The problems of overpowering are as real as the power deficit. (Both exist only in some books and in our mind) As you can decide to just not rip the word apart. You can also decide that some creature has a different CR. Or some Spell is secret knowlegde and not avaible on free market... Believe me it works.

Please note that I would never come to the idea to play a roleplay game with people who are not the right crowd. Lets phrase it this way... The players play each one character ... The DM plays the rest of the world, including some gods perhaps...Do you honestly believe that if the DM not belonging to the right crowd the best game mechanics in the world will help?

And as the DM your task is to throw problems at the other players.. If you have some who take that personal it will just do not work.

Cleave a force effect At that point I tend to agree with you. The force effects themselves tends to be brocken. Cleaving them is harmles in comparison. I would solve the problem another way, but thats nothing to argue about.

Pardon if I fail at this editing bit but I felt compelled to write after seeing this comment. The English errors aside the commenter has put out the general feeling I think I was having when reading this tome if a bit more passionately than it was for me. I am just now getting into DND and this tome stuck out to me as 'this makes bloody sense' but my personal application will most likely be a mix of your two opinions, i.e. a slightly less powerful version for the combat classes and more freedom for the casters while retaining the strategy element. Thanks for the good read.

I think you should check the others in the series to get a look at the adjustments I was talking about above--Tome of Necromancy (3.5e Sourcebook), Tome of Fiends (3.5e Sourcebook), and the Dungeonomicon (3.5e Sourcebook). --Genowhirl 03:38, 17 September 2010 (MDT)

Sorry but it would like to end the dicussion. My girlfriend has returned from her travel on saturday. And honestly in the neares future I want to spend my free time with her and not discussing in the internet. Feel free to erase anything I wrote or let it stand as it is.

Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!