De canistro textrinum

[Korwin]

Like when the GM bought this AD&D Wild or Chaos Magic thing and started using it in D&D 3.5, that killed the Campaign (I wasnt the only player who 'blamed' - was upset with - the GM). The GM got his GM rights pulled and someone other GM'ed for a while.

Did he make everyone use wild/chaos magic?

That would not be a fun setting.

Yes, everyone and everything. Even magic items (No clue if thats in the book or pulled out of his ass.)

[K]

Like when the GM bought this AD&D Wild or Chaos Magic thing and started using it in D&D 3.5, that killed the Campaign (I wasnt the only player who 'blamed' - was upset with - the GM). The GM got his GM rights pulled and someone other GM'ed for a while.

Did he make everyone use wild/chaos magic?

That would not be a fun setting.

Yes, everyone and everything. Even magic items (No clue if thats in the book or pulled out of his ass.)

Yuck. In my experience, even one player using wild magic can be really annoying.

A whole campaign would just be unplayable.

[Korwin]

Annoying as in: Oh, no you did'nt heal yourself, you turned yourself to stone...

[Winnah]

Tome of Magic's Wild Magic was primarily a CL modifier. There was only a 5% chance that a Wild Magic effect would occur, with the majority of the 'Wild' effects having the spell function, but with modifier parameters, like being really noisy or doubled effects. That is not to say there was not some annoying stuff on the list, but hardly anything game-breaking. Factor in that only a Wild Mage specialist would even be rolling on those tables, with the ability to modify those rolls, those rules are downright benign.

Now, Forgotten Realms had a few different versions of Wild Magic Zones floating around. They were pretty shitty, from what I had seen. Different versions appeared in different suppliments.

Monte Cook is responsible for one version of Wild Magic, Ed Greenwood should take the blame for the others.

[tussock]

any monster is CR whatever the DM feels like whenever s/he feels like it.[quote="3.5 MM, pg 8]In most cases, a monster entry describes a typical individual of the kind in question, which is the most common version encountered by characters on adventures. The DM can modify these entries, create advanced or weaker versions, or alter any statistics to play a monster against type and surprise the characters.

[/quote]

ADVANCEMENT: This book lists only the weakest and most common version of each creature. The advancement line shows how tough the creature can get, in terms of extra Hit Dice. (This is not an absolute limit, but exceptions are extremely rare.)

Oh, here I am back on the "3.5 is for Shadzar and people who enjoyed Savage Species" bus. Again. Fuck. Damn the 3.5 MM and it's long-ass stat blocks with monsters only full casters can realistically kill. Let's double the hit points of a Vrock while dropping it's CR by four points, that'll help the Fighters. Remember when Fighters had prestige classes that worked and monsters they could sword? Yeh, baby, me too. Downhill since 2003. /grognard.

PS: 2nd edition splatbook and 1st edition UA fighters also worked. Not so much elsewhere.

[Stubbazubba]

Of course you'll be upset, and you have a right to be upset, but not to blame the DM;

If I am upset, then most of the time I WILL blame someone other than myself. If I'm upset enough I'll stop playing the campaign. I think thats basic human nature?

Sure, but since when has human nature been an effective way to resolve interpersonal issues amicably?

Like when the GM bought this AD&D Wild or Chaos Magic thing and started using it in D&D 3.5, that killed the Campaign (I wasnt the only player who 'blamed' - was upset with - the GM). The GM got his GM rights pulled and someone other GM'ed for a while.

That has nothing to do with the scenario I described and here I would say you should object to what he did. That's not a communication breakdown at all, he's just forcing you to play dumb rules.

[Mistborn]

I am not strawmanning you. Your position is that there is a minimum competence necessary before your DM should be kind enough to allow you to have fun. That is awful, and you are awful for saying it over and over at every opportunity.

Mistborn's position is that matching the challenges a party faces to the party's capabilities in order to attain a desired outcome in success rates is genuinely bad if you find yourself lowering the difficulty below a certain point. Even though that is the entire purpose of the CR system he is using as his arbitrary point; to provide a framework for DM's to throw monsters at the party and be able to make predictions about resource expenditures and lethality rates.

No fuck you. I have said repeatedly that facing lower ECL encounters is of a different color that what K and nocker advocate. You can have a campagin where the players only fight lower CR monsters and humaniods with bad classes. This is still D&D just on easy mode. What I have contended though is that people dislike being told they are playing on easy mode so such campaigns rarely happen.

I have never opposed setting the bar lower if the players request it.

You show three attitudes (focus on combat competence only, rigid adherence to a half-baked "setting", incapable of figuring campaigns other than "murder hobos' killing spree") that are actively damaging to the hobby, because they scare newbies away and try to shoehorn D&D into an "unplugged MMO" niche. So fuck you for that.

Wow truly you are a masterful internet person if you can deduce from my posts that I advocate things that I have not advocated here. Oh wait your just being and idiot again.

Apparently you're campaigns are all fairy tea party all the time and your special snowflake charaters never sully themselves with blood. This is Dungeons and Dragons we are talking about it's a game about going into fucking Dungeons and fighting fucking Dragons. D&D is a system designed to have a lot of combat in it if you want something different find another game.

I've said why I opposed the CR 3 Vorcks many times. It's because demonic invaders that are easily dispatched by the village militia are a disgrace.

You clearly want something much different form D&D. You have stated your position is that the dice and the rules should be thrown out in order to tell what ever story you want. There is no reason than for you to ever bother to pick up a D&D book.

Also fuck you I put a huge amount of effort in to narratives in my campaigns and I never have to bend the rules to do it. Good storytelling comes from constraints, and this is doubly so in RPGs.

[Fuchs]

I've said why I opposed the CR 3 Vorcks many times. It's because demonic invaders that are easily dispatched by the village militia are a disgrace.

And you failed to explain in any way why having CR3 vrocks means that demonic invasions are easily dispatched by the village militia, since - as was pointed out very often - this does not preclude having CR9 vrocks, or other demons in the setting at all.

[ModelCitizen]

You know, I don't believe it's been discussed how douchy it is to want to use mid-level monsters, but not want to have mid-level characters because then OGOD THE PCS WOULD HAVE OUT-OF-COMBAT ABILITIES. I've seen the excuse several times that the DM just doesn't want to deal with "high-level" play, and I could sympathize if we were talking about stuff in the late-teens levels where the game legitimately doesn't make any sense, but we're talking about vrocks and fire giants here. Those things fall into the levels where 3e *works.* If a DM refuses to play at early mid levels I have to assume he's just unwilling to deal with PCs with any degree of narrative control. (Remember K's rant about how utility spells don't really do anything because you could just suck the DM's cock until he gives you what you want instead? I have Kaelik on ignore so I'm not sure, but I believe that argument segued directly into this one.)

[Korwin]

Tome of Magic's Wild Magic was primarily a CL modifier. There was only a 5% chance that a Wild Magic effect would occur, with the majority of the 'Wild' effects having the spell function, but with modifier parameters, like being really noisy or doubled effects.

Well in my case the MC rolled on the effect table not 5% of the time, but 100% of the time and there where fucking target turns into stone at the table and this effect got rolled when someone in the group was the target of an heal spell.

It doesnt even matter that the MC used the book incorrectly (ie. broke the rules and never looked back), he used an AD&D book in D&D 3.5, against the wishes of the players, that should be an big enough warning sign.

So yes, count me sceptical that most or even many MC can pull of an CR 3 Vrock, that still feels like an Vrock, without messing it or the campaing up.
Shit, lets be honest, there are enough pitfalls in homebrew creatures as is.
And yes, I know there are bad official monsters who should not have been printed.
But somehow its easier to spot mistakes in works that are not yours. So I still prefer the official ones.

I would'nt even try, but for another reason. #
I still see no point in it.
Why would I need to donwgrade an Vrock to CR 3 when there are so many CR 3 enemies out there published. I still need to check if that creature isnt not under CR'ed (if I have underperforming PC's).

Upping the CR is easy. Mabe because there are rules/guidlines for it?
Maybe if I played 4e where there are guidlines for what a Monster should be able to do at certain levels. But I dislike 4e for other reasons, so I never even looked at those rules and dont know how functional those are.

[Fuchs]

You know, I don't believe it's been discussed how douchy it is to want to use mid-level monsters, but not want to have mid-level characters because then OGOD THE PCS WOULD HAVE OUT-OF-COMBAT ABILITIES. I've seen the excuse several times that the DM just doesn't want to deal with "high-level" play, and I could sympathize if we were talking about stuff in the late-teens levels where the game legitimately doesn't make any sense, but we're talking about vrocks and fire giants here. Those things fall into the levels where 3e *works.* If a DM refuses to play at early mid levels I have to assume he's just unwilling to deal with PCs with any degree of narrative control. (Remember K's rant about how utility spells don't really do anything because you could just suck the DM's cock until he gives you what you want instead? I have Kaelik on ignore so I'm not sure, but I believe that argument segued directly into this one.)

You can have "narrative control" at level 1. The amount of narrative control you have depends on the GM anyway - if the GM is turned off you have no game at all, so that's the limit of your narrative control no matter what level.

As was pointed out, sometimes you simply do not have the time to level up to mid levels, and you don't want to start at those levels either, but simply wish to have some higher level threat in a lower level campaign.

While I personally don't shy away from mid-level gameplay, and don't fear handing PCs wishes and gate scrolls, I hate fake power progression that doesn't actually offer any new options, but simply makes the numbers bigger on both sides and brings with it more prep time for the DM without offering anything in return.

[Korwin]

As was pointed out, sometimes you simply do not have the time to level up to mid levels, and you don't want to start at those levels either, but simply wish to have some higher level threat in a lower level campaign.

Seriously? Is that a hypothetical situation?
Or had anyone here happen this to him? As MC or as Player?

[Stubbazubba]

D&D changes into a different game at different breaking points, requiring different approaches. Not everyone likes to play above level 6. That's why E6 is a thing. There's no reason to close off potential plotlines in a homebrew setting simply because your players prefer the relative simplicity of lower levels. I don't think that's playing D&D wrong. But that's a matter of taste and will vary from table to table, I imagine.

@Korwin: When the party is only part way through a campaign and the group realizes they're about to move away from each other and you want to wrap it up, going to the BBEG's lair and slaying him-style. This is the hypothetical that has been brought up.

[Korwin]

Yes E6 is a thing, but it did limit the monsters (last time I looked).
And for such playes it would really make sense to play E6, or not?

@Korwin: When the party is only part way through a campaign and the group realizes they're about to move away from each other and you want to wrap it up, going to the BBEG's lair and slaying him-style. This is the hypothetical that has been brought up.

Why not level them up, to be badass, not only feel badass?

[Stubbazubba]

While veteran players can level characters up and jump into a new battle with all cylinders going, some newer players wouldn't handle the jump as well.

Naturally, the more qualifiers we put on it, the more contrived it becomes. Leveling them up is also an option. Leveling down the opposition works, too, and might be more convenient if the DM is fairly experienced but the players are not.

[Giant Frog]

GIANTGIANT FROGGIANTFROGGIANT FROGGIANTFROGFROG FROGFROG GIANTGIANT

@Lord Mistborn:

any monster is CR whatever the DM feels like whenever s/he feels like it.

[quote="3.5 MM, pg 8]In most cases, a monster entry describes a typical individual of the kind in question, which is the most common version encountered by characters on adventures. The DM can modify these entries, create advanced or weaker versions, or alter any statistics to play a monster against type and surprise the characters.

[/quote]

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Why not level them up, to be badass, not only feel badass?

Would it really feel less cheap to dump a pile of levels on the party out of nowhere?

[erik]

GIANTGIANT FROGGIANTFROGGIANT FROGGIANTFROGFROG FROGFROG GIANTGIANT

@Lord Mistborn:

any monster is CR whatever the DM feels like whenever s/he feels like it.

[quote="3.5 MM, pg 8]In most cases, a monster entry describes a typical individual of the kind in question, which is the most common version encountered by characters on adventures. The DM can modify these entries, create advanced or weaker versions, or alter any statistics to play a monster against type and surprise the characters.

[/quote]

Nice. I'm dedicating my avatar-space to the various trolls this month who spout nonsense and ignore rules or fact based evidence.

[nockermensch]

GIANTGIANT FROGGIANTFROGGIANT FROGGIANTFROGFROG FROGFROG GIANTGIANT

@Lord Mistborn:

any monster is CR whatever the DM feels like whenever s/he feels like it.

[quote="3.5 MM, pg 8]In most cases, a monster entry describes a typical individual of the kind in question, which is the most common version encountered by characters on adventures. The DM can modify these entries, create advanced or weaker versions, or alter any statistics to play a monster against type and surprise the characters.

[/quote]
I guess this is one of those points where Misty finds hard to swallow the man juice he has been dutifully milking from the MM's authors. This applies to Kaelik too, in this case.

In B4 "we know what D&D is better than the hacks that wrote it"

[Fuchs]

GIANTGIANT FROGGIANTFROGGIANT FROGGIANTFROGFROG FROGFROG GIANTGIANT

@Lord Mistborn:

any monster is CR whatever the DM feels like whenever s/he feels like it.

[quote="3.5 MM, pg 8]In most cases, a monster entry describes a typical individual of the kind in question, which is the most common version encountered by characters on adventures. The DM can modify these entries, create advanced or weaker versions, or alter any statistics to play a monster against type and surprise the characters.

[/quote]

Getting schooled by Shadzar on 3.5 rules is a humbling experience. More so of course for those who were proven wrong by him.

[shadzar]

any monster is CR whatever the DM feels like whenever s/he feels like it.

In most cases, a monster entry describes a typical individual of the kind in question, which is the most common version encountered by characters on adventures. The DM can modify these entries, create advanced or weaker versions, or alter any statistics to play a monster against type and surprise the characters.

ADVANCEMENT: This book lists only the weakest and most common version of each creature. The advancement line shows how tough the creature can get, in terms of extra Hit Dice. (This is not an absolute limit, but exceptions are extremely rare.)

Oh, here I am back on the "3.5 is for Shadzar

um no, i dont like 3.x. maybe you are new here and dont get that point?

[Mistborn]

I guess this is one of those points where Misty finds hard to swallow the man juice he has been dutifully milking from the MM's authors. This applies to Kaelik too, in this case.

You might want to reread this thread nocker we've been over this already. The MM only has rules for weakened versions of printed monsters the same way it has rules for stating up the Jabberwock. If you want be an idiot you can slap the label Vrock on what ever homebrew monster you wanked into existence, but that's different from adding HD too a Vrock according to the MM guidelines.

One of those things is using the rules the other is lying to your players.

Those things fall into the levels where 3e *works.* If a DM refuses to play at early mid levels I have to assume he's just unwilling to deal with PCs with any degree of narrative control. (Remember K's rant about how utility spells don't really do anything because you could just suck the DM's cock until he gives you what you want instead? I have Kaelik on ignore so I'm not sure, but I believe that argument segued directly into this one.)

It's clear that nocker and his is ilk don't actually want to play D&D. They just want their warm motherlike DM pat them on the head and tell them what a pretty princess they are.

[Kaelik]

GIANTGIANT FROGGIANTFROGGIANT FROGGIANTFROGFROG FROGFROG GIANTGIANT

@Lord Mistborn:

any monster is CR whatever the DM feels like whenever s/he feels like it.

[quote="3.5 MM, pg 8]In most cases, a monster entry describes a typical individual of the kind in question, which is the most common version encountered by characters on adventures. The DM can modify these entries, create advanced or weaker versions, or alter any statistics to play a monster against type and surprise the characters.

Getting schooled by Shadzar on 3.5 rules is a humbling experience. More so of course for those who were proven wrong by him.[/quote]

I agree, DMG page 42 is the appropriate answer to every criticism of 4e.

[Fuchs]

GIANTGIANT FROGGIANTFROGGIANT FROGGIANTFROGFROG FROGFROG GIANTGIANT

Getting schooled by Shadzar on 3.5 rules is a humbling experience. More so of course for those who were proven wrong by him.

I agree, DMG page 42 is the appropriate answer to every criticism of 4e.[/quote]

Butthurt much that your precious "baseline" argument was totalled? And of course, still too insecure to admit you were wrong. Ah, dear Kaelik, so arrogant and hypocritical and so unable to admit a mistake.

And why can't you see that both 1) and 2) are only true if I am right about the baseline? I have defined the baseline already in this thread, the baseline is those characteristics essential to the being. All Vrocks have Greater Teleport, it is impossible to find a Vrock that does not (unless he is summoned, in which case, he is not really a Vrock). Likewise, all Vrocks have spores that do 1d8 damage followed by 1d4 for 10 rounds. Ect. If that isn't true, then you have changed what it means to be a Vrock.

Vrocks are a specific kind of fiend that is created by other fiends and souls and shit in fiery birthing pit, and when it comes out, it is not a baby Vrock, it is a full Vrock. And if you want to change the setting, you have to tell your players. But the fact that you have to tell your players only follows if that was the setting in the first place.

People have already, many times, including me, told you that we don't give a shit if you use the actual rules that people agreed to to change monsters before.

Remember those bits? The actual rules say we can change the vrocks and make them weaker.

We have explained several fucking times over how there are lots of non metagame effects of changing Vrocks. if you want to make completely hombrew CR 3 whatevers, you can make as many of those as you fucking want (provided you okay it with your players ahead of time) without changing the setting, but when you take established parts of the setting, like Vrocks, and change them, then you are changing the setting out from under the PCs, and making their choices not sane.

And as the quote proves, according to the rules the CR9 vrocks are not the weakest possible, but just the most common, so you're not changing the setting at all when you introduce weaker ones.

Your entire "Vrocks cannot be weaker than CR9 by the rules" argument was shown as stupid and wrong. Your sacred assumptions about the standard 3.5 game were proven wrong.

CR3 vrocks are totally legit, and anyone who thinks they cannot be is making assumptions based on his own preferences and house rules.

[Foxwarrior]

DSMatticus: Games that don't involve roleplaying typically make at least as much of an effort to bring their players up to some minimum level of competence as Lord Mistborn wants with D&D.

No, they really don't. No matter what your kill/death ratio is, there is no Call of Duty or Battlefield game which will boot you. There is no number of deaths at which your MMORPG account gets closed. There is no suckiness so grand that a game tells you you suck so much you don't deserve to play the game anymore.

But most of them will kill you over and over again until you play right. I do believe Lord Mistborn's position on exactly that was that the players should keep making new characters until they make something good.

Reaching the level of competence that Misty wants is not an attainable or a desirable goal for probably 70% of the player base. Giving them an ultimatum of "learn to play well or you don't get to play" means that they won't play because people don't accept dickish ultimatums concerning their recreational activities.

Lesson 1 in Social Skills 101 is called "Being a dick makes people not want to spend time with you."

Couldn't you have read my next sentence before responding, so you could be a little bit less focused on ultimatums? I'd still dispute that 70% of the player base is incapable of understanding optimization, and I'd say it is rather "desirable" that they play well, because intelligent emergent gameplay is the best kind.

Most games teach you to play them well. That neither you nor LM believe D&D is one of those games is a failing.