We have to stop Ed Stark before he kills again.

[Username17]

So I was talking with Stan! and some other ex-WotC employees. Apparently Ed Stark developed the design principle of sticking a razor cock in the mouth of anyone who wanted to pplay a monster. And he also wrote the new druid and the new Shapechange in order to "power them up".

So really, he feels that having a monstrous ability because you are a monster should be horribly expensive, but that if you are a druid you should simply get any monster abilities you want for free.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

Yeah, Ed Stark is on crack. Anyone who actually thinks the druid needs more power is a munchkin.

[User3]

over at the wotc boards, i was recently reading how snow savant interpets Wildshape to allow you to assume the form of an advanced animal - or an animal with the epic paragon template. or for that matter, a non-animal creature wildshaped into an animal who now has the [animal] descriptor. all are legal as wildshape fodder with the shoddy way wildshape is exactly worded. totally bizaarre.. mr. stark really needs to learn how to finesse his semantics.

[RandomCasualty]

Well in defense of wildshape, I really don't think it's possible to properly word polymorph and make it adaptable. There are always going to be rules lawyers who find one flaw or another in your rules, because polymorph is so damn broad in terms of what it can do that it's impossible to provide air tight rules that can't be interpreted one way or another by a player who wants them to suit his fancy.

Really, my only beef wtih the polymorph rules is that they don't include some kind of general "any ability or shape that the DM finds overpowered or not within the spirit of the spell can be disallowed at his option."

If you dont' have some kind of DM input built into polymorph, you can expect it to be abused. You can call in the best lawyers and contract writers in the country and you'll STILL have problems, or you'll have to have an entire book just dedicated to the subject.

[Lago_AM3P]

Really, my only beef wtih the polymorph rules is that they don't include some kind of general "any ability or shape that the DM finds overpowered or not within the spirit of the spell can be disallowed at his option."

If a spell needs THAT disclaimer, the spell is retarded and should probably not be used. Like... Wish. Or Miracle.

If you dont' have some kind of DM input built into polymorph, you can expect it to be abused. You can call in the best lawyers and contract writers in the country and you'll STILL have problems, or you'll have to have an entire book just dedicated to the subject.

Or you can eliminate the idea of polymorph making you into a form of named animal, and make a huge list of alterable, generic forms.

Well, hey, that's been proposed before, and it wouldn't make the game a rule nightmare.

[RandomCasualty]

1093409890[/unixtime]]
If a spell needs THAT disclaimer, the spell is retarded and should probably not be used. Like... Wish. Or Miracle.

I dunno, I don't really see any problems with giivng examples of what you think a spell should be able to do and then letting the DM run with it. You do have a DM for a reason after all, and often times you've got less loopholes with less rules.

I've often found broad disclaimers to be the best defense against rules abuse. Sure your DM can screw you over if he's a dick or not use the rule enough if he sucks, but in either case the game won't be good anyway. If your DM is somewhat competent putting in a disclaimer merely lets him know that the spell is putting a lot of discretion in his hands, and if the spell is unbalanced, it's his fault, not the spell.

Or you can eliminate the idea of polymorph making you into a form of named animal, and make a huge list of alterable, generic forms.

Well, hey, that's been proposed before, and it wouldn't make the game a rule nightmare.

Well the problem is that people can't even agree what they wnat polymorph to actually do, and I'm not talking in terms of effects, I'm talking in terms of actual tactical use.

Is it:

A) The spell to disguise you and let you infiltrate the enemy unnoticed.
B) The spell to turn you into lots of utility forms for various uses, like spying on your enemy as a raven or covering lots of distance in horse form.
C) The spell to turn you into a combat monster.
D) The spell to turn the party fighter into a combat monster.

Much like Frank's fighter paradigm thread proved, everybody has a different conception of what something should be doing, and polymorph is no exception.

[Maj]

I've often found broad disclaimers to be the best defense against rules abuse. Sure your DM can screw you over if he's a dick or not use the rule enough if he sucks, but in either case the game won't be good anyway. If your DM is somewhat competent putting in a disclaimer merely lets him know that the spell is putting a lot of discretion in his hands, and if the spell is unbalanced, it's his fault, not the spell.

Yes, but the rules are written for the average DM... You can't expect the average DM to do what you would do, and you can't speak for all DMs based on your group and your experience level.

[RandomCasualty]

Well, granted the average DM probably will run into a little trouble, but at the very least, he can change it around as he goes. And he knows that it's expected of him. One of the largest problems with 3rd edition is it promotes that idea that "everything is balanced, just run the rules" to the DM, and that intimidates a lot of average DMs into sitting pat with some broken mechanic. If you've got a questionable mechanic you want to provide the DM with some kind of encouragement to manage things on a case by case basis. Because when you're dealing with something as broad as polymorph or wish, or miracle, everything is a case by case basis.

With stuff like "OK, I think the chokers ability to give an extra action is unbalanced. You dont' get that any more."

And truly ridiculous stuff like balor vorpal blade mining is going to be out the window from the start. And other stuff can be tweaked according to the amount of min/maxing in the game.

Granted, it's not a great fix, but I honestly think it's the best one that can be done without creating "the book of polymorph forms"

[canamrock]

1093405354[/unixtime]]Apparently Ed Stark developed the design principle of sticking a razor cock in the mouth of anyone who wanted to pplay a monster. And he also wrote the new druid and the new Shapechange in order to "power them up".

Was that first part an exact quote from those guys? lol Man... it seems like Andy's just an example of a DM who plays favorites with some things, but on a grand scale.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

I think that the Poly-spells should be broken down into even smaller spells that allow access to one form or a small group of very similar forms. For example, Ogreform turns you into an ogre, and another form lets you turn into a human, elf, half-elf, gnome, halfling or dwarf, and so forth. These spells would declare on a case by case basis what you did and did not get from a particular form (Perhaps DracoForm give you the physical stats, size catagory,attacks, flight and one breath weapon of a specific type of dragon, but not the mental stats, or spellcasting ability.)

-Desdan

[Absentminded_Wizard]

1093415164[/unixtime]]

1093405354[/unixtime]]Apparently Ed Stark developed the design principle of sticking a razor cock in the mouth of anyone who wanted to pplay a monster. And he also wrote the new druid and the new Shapechange in order to "power them up".

Was that first part an exact quote from those guys? lol Man... it seems like Andy's just an example of a DM who plays favorites with some things, but on a grand scale.

Actually, Ed Stark is Andy Collins' boss, isn't he? That means he may have introduced these ideas into the game over Andy's objections. It's possible that not everything wrong with 3.5 is Andy Collins' fault.

The good news is that now message board malcontents have completed their Unholy Trinity of Bad D&D: Skip Williams, Andy Collins, and Ed Stark.

[RandomCasualty]

1093415164[/unixtime]]
Was that first part an exact quote from those guys? lol Man... it seems like Andy's just an example of a DM who plays favorites with some things, but on a grand scale.

They all are, and that's why we get crap like the frenzied berserker and all that broken druid stuff. And classes like the bard and fighter which seem to need some real help, go totally ignored so the designers can work more heavily on upgrading thier favorite already overpowered class.

[Lago_AM3P]

They all are, and that's why we get crap like the frenzied berserker and all that broken druid stuff. And classes like the bard and fighter which seem to need some real help, go totally ignored so the designers can work more heavily on upgrading thier favorite already overpowered class.

We really need to have a thread which gives us some insight onto how the game designers wreck/influence the game.

In fact, I'm going to do it RIGHT NOW. Hang on.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I think we all need to convince Skip to like Druids and barbarians now, so he'll give them the sorceror treatment.

[The_Hanged_Man]

1093406907[/unixtime]] . . . a non-animal creature wildshaped into an animal who now has the [animal] descriptor . . .

Would be funny if that wasn't exactly how my group interps wildshape as written.

[Username17]

If that wasn't how wildshape was actually written, yes that would be hillarious.

-Username17

[User3]

Which led to a long, pointless discussion about whether Animal Companion was an ex ability (that polymorph supposedly didn't give), or an ex attack (b/c the animal can attack). Didn't help that "When Animals Attack" was on the TV at the time.

One of the players had an idea that you could cycle through a lot of animal companions by wildshaping into a druid wildshaped into a bear. Funny.