4E Drow in chainmail bikinis should get a +5 damage bonus.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:15 am

Talisman: The road that says 'bridge out' still traps your car if you take it. Doesn't matter if you know it's there, a pit trap is still a trap. You can call it a pit, but if it works like a trap, doesn't matter the signage.

I think it's unfair to 'expect' a player to know how a class and race will play in a DM's game beforehand. Psionics just don't run in the players I've seen.

-Crissa

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:30 am

Crissa, at this point, you're using "trap", as stated, to mean anything that is a bad choice.

If I say 'this is a bad choice", as either the game writer or the DM, how much more do you need to recognize "Hey. Maybe I shouldn't do this?"

Omniscience?

Apparently not.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:34 am

And I think you're exaggerating the danger, Crissa.

You're saying "the bridge must never be out, no matter what." I'm saying, "if the bridge is out for some reason, put up a big damn sign."

If you drive your car through a "bridge out" sign and into the river, you do not get to sue the city for having a bridge out because they made every effort to warn you.

If I as a player read "Orcs rarely become wizards because their racial intelligence penalty is a severe hindrance," I have four options:

1) Play something else;
2) Play an orc wizard being aware that it's a suboptimal choice;
3) As the GM for ways to make Orc Wizard non-suboptimal.
4) Play an orc wizard expecting to be optimal, then cry when I realize I'm not.

Option #4 makes me look really stupid. I prefer not to cater to stupid people, because then they start to expect it.

I expect anyone who's participating in a RPG to have a modicum of intelligence. If you don't, only total generic equality will save you, and that leads to communism.

Edit: In any RPG, there will be options that are better for one type of character than another. It's just a fact of life. Highlighting those options as such is really the only reasonable way to deal with them unless you want to play Tapioca: The Puddinging.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:52 am

Yes, but that doesn't say it's a bad choice. It's fluff.

An option that says 'Orc wizards are not player character because they're not going to be able to lift their share in the group' would be more appropriate.

That's why they put big damn cement blocks between you and the bridge out.

-Crissa

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:56 am

It's not fluff to say that orcs tend to lack the Intelligence to be good wizards when Intelligence is a game stat.

If someone is dumb enough to play a race that gets a penalty that will cripple them and that penalty is clear as day, they're dumb enough to try and drive through the cement blocks.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:59 am

Crissa wrote:Yes, but that doesn't say it's a bad choice. It's fluff.

An option that says 'Orc wizards are not player character because they're not going to be able to lift their share in the group' would be more appropriate.

That's why they put big damn cement blocks between you and the bridge out.

-Crissa

My thoughts exactly. "Blah blah blah don't normally do blah blah blah" is like a big neon sign to newbie role players saying 'If you play against type, you'll have a unique character and everyone will respect you more.'.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:02 am

With due respect to how we want to have the game be playable to as wide an audiance as reasonably possible, these guys are the kind of people who would put an 8 in Intelligence anyway.

Why? "Because you'll have a unique character blah blah blah."

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:05 am

CatharzGodfoot wrote:My thoughts exactly. "Blah blah blah don't normally do blah blah blah" is like a big neon sign to newbie role players saying 'If you play against type, you'll have a unique character and everyone will respect you more.'.

And you'll be slightly less powerful. Not crippled and unplayable.

We've been describing this as "bridge out," when it's really more of a large pothole.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:06 am

Yeah. Something like a minotaur, maybe, which is probably marked with "unplayable" as things stand anyway (we may adjust this but at-the-moment), is just plain not an option...for anything.

"Get back to us when we have balanced mechanics."

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:16 am

Talisman wrote:
CatharzGodfoot wrote:My thoughts exactly. "Blah blah blah don't normally do blah blah blah" is like a big neon sign to newbie role players saying 'If you play against type, you'll have a unique character and everyone will respect you more.'.
And you'll be slightly less powerful. Not crippled and unplayable.

Except a lower Int does cripple a Wizard in D&D.

-Crissa

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:23 am

Okay, what Int do we expect from a level 1 Wizard (without modifiers for race)? 16?

An orc has 14.

-1 to spell DCs.

A few fewer bonus spells.

By the time he gets spells over 4th level, he has over 14 Int, so he's not losing access to spell levels at all.

He's not "Crippled". Particularly since the wizard is still overpowered compared to the fighter.

Even without that...he's weaker but not by that much.

No cripple here.

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:29 am

If you start with at least a 15 Int, you'll be guaranteed to have a high enough Int for spellcasting just from your natural increases. With items, you could start lower.

While a penalty to Int hurts certain casters (Enchanters, for instance) significantly, someone who mainly uses non-attack or no-save spells is only going to be down a spell slot or two - hardly "crippled".

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:31 am

Even if he does use a lot of spells with DCs, he's only having his spells fail 5% more of the time.

That's identical to the difference between Weapon Focus: The Weapon I use most Often and your "other" weapon/s as a fighter.

It may well eventually bite him harder. But he's not "crippled".

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:42 am

Elennsar wrote:Or deal with the fact anyone stupid enough to pick a class refered to as "unfit to be an adventurer" for adventuring will suck.

It's like whining that the DM says he's running a level 10 game, and you're told that your level 8 character needs to be upgraded two levels. You're intentionally being a difficult arse towards basic precepts of the game just walking in.

If they're that stupid, let them die through in-game choices. You don't need to add fuel to the fire of character uselessness.

While I don't mind a lack of system mastery resulting in suboptimal characters, that's usually through allowing multiple options and thus it would take an aggregate of bad choices. If but one choice can screw your character over, such as a terrible race for wizards, then it shouldn't be an option.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:45 am

If they insist on playing a race that makes a level inappropriate wizard, they're doing the same thing as insisting on playing a lower level character.

If they're really determined to drive off a cliff, why is the DM supposed to make it so that you magically are teleported away at the last moment?

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:53 am

It's instant death for driving off a cliff, so the resolution is quick, as is the opinion of the player doing such; they don't want to play that character. Creating a terrible character can and does result in a long, drawn out death where you continually underperform, drag down the party, and potentially think that you're not the cause for frustration (which is doable when everyone else is level-appropriate, since party survival is likely in D&D).

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:59 am

The point still stands. If the player will not heed the warnings, then I really don't want to play with someone who is either too stubborn too or stupid to care to the extent this matters (if it doesn't hurt the group's enjoyment, then the fact they could take on more challenges isn't a problem).

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 7:04 am

If you don't want to play with someone playing like that then why defend the option that lets them play like that.

I'll tell you why. Because you are lying to everyone's faces about your motivation for allowing the option.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 7:07 am

I don't want to play in a game where someone is ruining my fun. Limiting the number of encounters equal to our level that we can face (or increasing it) has no direct impact on my fun.

Its the person being an ass, not a weakling, that ruins my fun. Being excessively weak might be a form of assery, but if they're the kind of person who is intelligent enough to recognize excessively weak and respecful enough to care, then saying "this is a bad idea because ___." is plenty.

Prohibiting it is not necessary any more than prohibiting using a pike or fighting with your offhand.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 7:21 am

Crissa wrote:Talisman: The road that says 'bridge out' still traps your car if you take it. Doesn't matter if you know it's there, a pit trap is still a trap. You can call it a pit, but if it works like a trap, doesn't matter the signage.

If you're that retarded, then you deserve to fall into the pit.

Good Lord. People need to get it through their heads that not every bad decision needs to be impossible to make. If players are fucking stupid and ignore all the warnings about how wizards need Intelligence and how minotaurs aren't good wizards because they suffer a -10 to Intelligence, then said players deserve to have a shitty character. Why? Because purposely ignoring good advice (and common sense, to a lesser extent) equates to failure. When that minotaur wizard can't cast cantrips, the player is going to realize that he's fucked something up. So what do you do? Let him reroll.

Seriously, folks. The fact that the rules state that you need to have an Intelligence equal to 10 + the spell's level to cast a spell should warn all but the heaviest mouthbreathers away from playing a wizard with 6 Intelligence.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 7:35 am

Good point there.

As a counter scenario, what about races that are actually balanced in various classes, but grossly more powerful for their level in one specific class? Such as a race that make passable fighters and archers, but would make grey elves wet themselves in fear were they to be a wizard; such as race with +10 Int or something.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 7:39 am

That I would say runs the risk of being too powerful, and not just "higher level".

It'd be "he's such a good fighter we don't -need- a rogue." (or in this case, wizard)

Races that much better than the average should have a LA equal to the amount its really better and things set up so that a LA +2 is equal to you when you are two levels higher.

Races that are too powerful for the range we want PCs in at all (or too weak at anything) should be removed from the list, however.

Having adult dragons in a game that treats 10th level as very high is just impractical.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 7:42 am

virgileso wrote:Good point there.

As a counter scenario, what about races that are actually balanced in various classes, but grossly more powerful for their level in one specific class? Such as a race that make passable fighters and archers, but would make grey elves wet themselves in fear were they to be a wizard; such as race with +10 Int or something.

Yeah, that's totally fine. You just need to put a warning that says "warning: few orcs are warriors, because orc warriors are brokenly good". Then if anybody plays an overpowered character and ruins the campaign, it's just their fault for being stupid.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 7:47 am

But holy fucking shit PR it isn't even supposed to be a bad decision.

It has been established the ONLY reason it is a bad decision is that Ellinsar wants it to be one.

Actually creating a outcast runt of an intelligent orc wizard is a COOL CHARACTER CONCEPT.

Such things SHOULD be supported. It would make players happy to have cool shit like that supported.

But Ellin insists on NOT supporting it, indeed punishing it but still allowing it. So as a result we have a cool concept that is allowed but punished FOR NO FUCKING REASON.

Seriously. The reason he gives is "Because I don't like the feeling of eliminating massive measurable bias against what I recognise as cool and valid character concepts."

That's it. That's why it's punished because it makes him uncomfortable to do anything but punish a cool character concept when his juvenile stereotype of orcish inferiority wanking is on the line for so much as even a single fucking character, even if it isn't even HIS damn character!

It's not that the bridge is out and he want's to put up signs and Crissa wants signs AND cement barriers.

Crissa wants a bridge. He is uncomfortable with that because he dislikes bridges so he smashes it up and just puts up lame warning signs that vaguely intimate danger.

Crissa is all Holy shit, at least put up some "you will die" signs and cement barriers.

Then he comes back with Oh, yeah, well, Sure I smashed the bridge because I hate it, but despite the danger involved I want people to have the OPTION to try and cross it for freedom or some shit... (Oh and Orcs drool and Elves rool! WOOOOOO!)

This is NOT a sane fucking argument. This is "we likes it, we hates it, we likes it" shit.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 7:49 am

I suppose that kind of situational class synergy would be like an LA that only applies to classes it makes more powerful (assuming LA to be balanced).