[D&D 3.5] The Unconventional Wisdom of the Den

[Chamomile]

Well, dunno. I first saw Ur-Priests on Book of Vile Darkness, a supplement criticized for NOT including enough rules for rape, evil sex and sexual torture.

What, seriously? Why exactly do you need rules for that? The Book of Vile Darkness served my purposes just fine.

[sake]

Thought that the whole point of Ur-Priest was giving atheists a way to play Clerics.

Ur-Priests were anti-theists, not atheists, since they were still using divine magic from the gods (and knew perfectly well that they were doing They think gods should go fuck themselves but still want to cast holy magic, so they steal it in some fashion or other.

Yeah, you'd think this concept could have just been turned into an alternate class feature for the Cleric... but this is the same edition that once renamed and reprinted a PrC almost word for word rather than just throw in a rule update somewhere that said "Assassins can now be of non evil alignments'.

[Prak]

Yeah, you'd think this concept could have just been turned into an alternate class feature for the Cleric... but this is the same edition that once renamed and reprinted a PrC almost word for word rather than just throw in a rule update somewhere that said "Assassins can now be of non evil alignments'.

That was an April Fools joke.

[jadagul]

You know, I was always under the impression that the purpose of the Ur-priest class was really stupid cheese builds...

[Chamomile]

Yeah, you'd think this concept could have just been turned into an alternate class feature for the Cleric... but this is the same edition that once renamed and reprinted a PrC almost word for word rather than just throw in a rule update somewhere that said "Assassins can now be of non evil alignments'.

That was an April Fools joke.

It speaks poorly of the edition that I wasn't immediately suspicious of the PrC that's basically "Assassins for non-evil alignments." Granted, anyone determined to hate on something will hate it, but I'm not all that determined to hate 3.5e. I actually like it alright.

[Koumei]

Keep in mind the fact that the "evil sex" the book DID cover was, aside from the corpsefucker feat, EVIL NIPPLE PIERCINGS!

[Chamomile]

Yeah, the "unconventional sex is Evil with a capital E" bit kind of confused me. What exactly is the backing behind that? Never mind the fact that alignment debates are screwed up to begin with, but to take the most egregious example, if Joe gets off on being abused and/or humiliated, how does that make the world a worse place?

[CapnTthePirateG]

Because the gods said so! And the gods have our best interests at heart, which is why we live in mud and our own shit!

[Username17]

Here's something different.
Most of the other boards accept (and debate regularly) the tier system.
The Gaming Den? Pissed on that system, and cast it from Valhalla, etc, etc...

At the risk of getting things on topic, yeah. JaronK made a reallz big chart of his crack ass random tier assignments based on completely insane criteria (Archivists are OP because your DM is going to let you get scrolls of obscure spells from the Shugenja list, Factotums are OP because for some unexplained reason only they are allowed to use the completely broken item familiars, and Rogues are UP because he can't see any DM allowing someone to play a completely core Flask Rogue. What the fuck?). In much of the internet, these assignments were accepted as gospel. Here on the Den, we dissected the placements and decided it was completely fucking insane, and moved on with our lives.

The Den really acknowledges 4 "balance points" based on how things fare against monsters of their level. We talk about "Wizard Tier", "Rogue Tier" and "Fighter Tier". Where Wizards pull their weight until they pull ahead at higher levels, Rogues pull their weight at most levels, and Fighters pull their weight for a few levels before they fall behind. Sometimes people talk about "Monk Tier" for classes that don't pull their weight.

The Den does not bother distinguishing between classes that have 2 game brekaing power loops and classes that have 5. Since we generally sandbag any infinite power loops in actual play, the existence of one or more of them for any class is irrelevent for our assignment of power tiers for it.

-Username17

[Prak]

Yeah, you'd think this concept could have just been turned into an alternate class feature for the Cleric... but this is the same edition that once renamed and reprinted a PrC almost word for word rather than just throw in a rule update somewhere that said "Assassins can now be of non evil alignments'.

That was an April Fools joke.

It speaks poorly of the edition that I wasn't immediately suspicious of the PrC that's basically "Assassins for non-evil alignments." Granted, anyone determined to hate on something will hate it, but I'm not all that determined to hate 3.5e. I actually like it alright.

Except it wasn't basically "Assassins for non-evil alignments" it was "for fucks sake, just change the name and a couple requirements and stop bitching, people." because it was literally "rename, change polarity."

[Chamomile]

Point here is that I, someone who is if anything biased in favor of 3.5e, had no trouble accepting that they changed a few words and tried to call it a new PrC and were totally serious about it. This speaks to how PrCs in general got out of control with 3.5e.

[wotmaniac]

Except it wasn't basically "Assassins for non-evil alignments" it was "for fucks sake, just change the name and a couple requirements and stop bitching, people." because it was literally "rename, change polarity."

Point here is that I, someone who is if anything biased in favor of 3.5e, had no trouble accepting that they changed a few words and tried to call it a new PrC and were totally serious about it. This speaks to how PrCs in general got out of control with 3.5e.

Yeah, this was just their way of driving home the point that you (as a gaming group) are actively encouraged to make your own shit as you see fit. (It's kinda like that one April Fool's joke when they were supposedly putting out a book to provide you with an imagination so that you could figure out how to determine stuff like your character's hair color and shit.)
Just for emphasis, here's the actual excerpt from the DMG:

The example prestige classes
are certainly not all encompassing or definitive. They
might not even be appropriate for your campaign. The
best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones
you tailor make yourself.

I don't know how much more definitive you can get.

[souran]

Just for emphasis, here's the actual excerpt from the DMG:

The example prestige classes
are certainly not all encompassing or definitive. They
might not even be appropriate for your campaign. The
best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones
you tailor make yourself.

I don't know how much more definitive you can get.

Except this is total bullshit. You wouldn't accept anything so fucking general from a 4e statement.

The 3e designers had to have an inkling that if you make the multi-classing system screw people over for not keeping their classes balanced, but class balancing DOESN'T WORK as a player build then the classes that you are allowed to dip into without penalty are going to be a mandatory part of the freaking game.

Also consider that prestige classes get all their class abilities over 5 or 10 levels and that abriviated power aquisition makes them awesome for a game that is basically about cherry picking abilities. The authors should have been able to see what every player with half a brain was able to about 3 months into playing.

Further, most dms are not going to make a whole shitload of classes when the company making the game is putting out a magazine and 2 books a month each with 3 to 5 prestige classes a month.

3E was a video game edition just as much as 4e its just that the video game was final fantasy tactics or any other of a hundred jrpgs where you could become a new "class" by putting on a new hat or some such bs.

[Psychic Robot]

3E was a video game edition just as much as 4e

lolno

[Maxus]

3E was a video game edition just as much as 4e its just that the video game was final fantasy tactics or any other of a hundred jrpgs where you could become a new "class" by putting on a new hat or some such bs.

Hardly.

3e, whatever its faults, let you really, truly interact with the gameworld and influence it as you saw fit.

Sure, some video games take a try at that, but there's limits to what you can program but not to what you can imagine.

[Chamomile]

Also, one of the biggest drawbacks of Final Fantasy Tactics is that it's really, really difficult to switch up to a new class.

[Josh_Kablack]

Keep in mind the fact that the "evil sex" the book DID cover was, aside from the corpsefucker feat, EVIL NIPPLE PIERCINGS!

Which is sad.

This is D&D, you have form-changing and mind control magic, you have crazy halfbreeds as playable races, you have a variety of exoparasitoid monsters -some of which are sentient, you have intelligent undead in both the attractive and repugnant varieties and you have freaking Yellow Musk Creeper Fetish Erotica (NSFW, if you couldn't guess) already on the Intertron.

There's really little excuse for a book about "evil sex in D&D" to not go into truly creepy crazy kinky land.

[Whatever]

There's really little excuse for a book about "evil sex in D&D" to not go into truly creepy crazy kinky land.

Maybe for a 3rd party publisher. But it'd be a terrible business move by Wizards.

[sabs]

The Book was a terrible move by Wizards in the first place. It's too prurient for the people who aren't prudes, and it's already too kinky just by it's name for the Paladin crowd.

[Josh_Kablack]

Maybe for a 3rd party publisher. But it'd be a terrible business move by Wizards.

Moreso than releasing a book that is supposed to be about evil sex in D&D but isn't anywhere close? Only going as far as Superbowl Halftime Shows and Twilight Novels isn't really much of a read. (Nipple Jewelry and Sleeping with Vampires)

People who are gonna get offended are gonna get offended by the concept itself. People who might buy the book are going to care about execution and content. I'm hardly a financial genius, but I think that this is a case of don't do it halfway - you'd be better off either Not Releasing such a book at all or Going All the Way with it.

[Ancient History]

You know, I was always under the impression that the purpose of the Ur-priest class was really stupid cheese builds...

Ur-Priest is Archivist meets Spell Thief, but eeeeevil.

Really, there's a number of "prestige classes" that would work better as limited-level classes without the prereqs.

[Archmage Joda]

Here's something different.
Most of the other boards accept (and debate regularly) the tier system.
The Gaming Den? Pissed on that system, and cast it from Valhalla, etc, etc...

At the risk of getting things on topic, yeah. JaronK made a reallz big chart of his crack ass random tier assignments based on completely insane criteria (Archivists are OP because your DM is going to let you get scrolls of obscure spells from the Shugenja list, Factotums are OP because for some unexplained reason only they are allowed to use the completely broken item familiars, and Rogues are UP because he can't see any DM allowing someone to play a completely core Flask Rogue. What the fuck?). In much of the internet, these assignments were accepted as gospel. Here on the Den, we dissected the placements and decided it was completely fucking insane, and moved on with our lives.

The Den really acknowledges 4 "balance points" based on how things fare against monsters of their level. We talk about "Wizard Tier", "Rogue Tier" and "Fighter Tier". Where Wizards pull their weight until they pull ahead at higher levels, Rogues pull their weight at most levels, and Fighters pull their weight for a few levels before they fall behind. Sometimes people talk about "Monk Tier" for classes that don't pull their weight.

The Den does not bother distinguishing between classes that have 2 game brekaing power loops and classes that have 5. Since we generally sandbag any infinite power loops in actual play, the existence of one or more of them for any class is irrelevent for our assignment of power tiers for it.

-Username17

Ah, the tier system, I had actually forgotten about that one. While I like the archivist in theory (simply because I like having lots of spells, even if there's no practical need to have every spell i come across), I seem to remember reading on the den about how the beguiler was much better than anything in that tier system said it was.

Didn't someone protest and try to present a reorganized tier system when JaronK first presented his?

[souran]

3E was a video game edition just as much as 4e its just that the video game was final fantasy tactics or any other of a hundred jrpgs where you could become a new "class" by putting on a new hat or some such bs.

Hardly.

3e, whatever its faults, let you really, truly interact with the gameworld and influence it as you saw fit.

Sure, some video games take a try at that, but there's limits to what you can program but not to what you can imagine.

Wait, are you seriously trying to argue that because 3.x D&D is open ended that that makes it not a video game?

Fuck, neverwinter nights is open ended as well, and can run adventures that are dialogue focused.

The interaction with the gameworld is all through the DM. So its all pretty well up to them how "hands on" the game is. This is true universally of roleplaying.

3.x is a videogame were all the strategizing or player input happens before the game proper, like the Total War games or the afformentioned FFT. There is the illusion of lots of choices for any character (and tons of hidden traps as well) but in the end everything that appears in play is a one trick poney because that is all anything can afford to be.[/i]

[quanta]

3.x is a videogame were all the strategizing or player input happens before the game proper, like the Total War games or the afformentioned FFT.

??? That's not true. The stronger classes definitely have tactical depth after being built.

There is the illusion of lots of choices for any character (and tons of hidden traps as well) but in the end everything that appears in play is a one trick poney because that is all anything can afford to be.

Pssshhhh... there are also MEGAGODS like Wizards. Hardly a one trick pony.

And there's the rogue. Which probably has roughly as much variety as the average 4e character does (for the well-supported 4e classes).

The interaction with the gameworld is all through the DM. So its all pretty well up to them how "hands on" the game is. This is true universally of roleplaying.

Well, not all games have DMs.

[Neurosis]

I also agree with that interpretation.

It still doesn't make the class that great. It's ok, I think, better than a lot of classes, and if you pull crazy stunts with Iaiutsu Focus and Item familiar and so on, you can probably get it to perform on par with a rogue, but it's nowhere as versatile and useful as some BG regulars, primarily JaronK, think.

Yeah, JaronK has this weird hard on for Iajutsu Focus and Item Familiar is plain broken period so that's not even something in favor of the Facto. I think he get pissed on time when someone else used Item Familiar during a "contest" against the Facto. I say that it doesn't even matter which way you interpret the feat it either make the class just barely okay or a waste of feat slots.

Oh, and what does sandbagging mean in that context? (Non-native speaker here, and an online translator didn't spit out anything useful)

Pretty much it means to keep your head just above water. You just get abilities that will ultimately get you were you want to be but not screw you in the mean time.

Hey Leress, where is your avatar from?