AC competition

[sephiroth1084]

Well I did paraphrase and give credit to the source and I didn't claim any rights pertaining to my post on this forum. So a lawyer would probably agree with me that I am within my fair use rights. Now had I posted a hyperlink to the entire work for everyone in the DDO community to download then it would be definite infringement. Plus I don't think WoTC is going to have that much beef about posting D&D 3.5 related content for the game that is supposed to be representative of D&D 3.5.

On the official D&D forums, from the WotC website, the rules are fairly strictly enforced, to the effect that moderators will delete posts or threads with non-OSL content, and users who repeatedly violate the OSL get banned. The point of the OSL isn't so much to prevent someone from making money off of the content, but to prevent people from giving the content away for free.

Think of it as equivalent to posting the latest CDs on your website in full for free download by anyone. You may give due credit, and you aren't trying to make money, but the artists and record labels will be really bent out of shape since they want to SELL this material.

I'm not trying to get on your ass about this, but pointing it out. And as I said, I doubt WotC trolls these boards searching for these kinds of violations, and I doubt Turbine does either, but it IS something to be aware of.

[Zaodon]

Taking 'feats' away from fighters isn't the right wording. I mean, fughter need better feat. Now, of course, it's debatable if these feats are any good for that purpose.

At least, it'd give a little edge to fighters AC-wise. Which is nice. Besides, it makes splashing rogue for Evasion less of a no-brainer.

I don't really like the idea... to be honest. I just don't think it's the way.

Rangers/Monks can only get the AC that they do by getting the best gear in the game, which couples directly with their base build, and doesn't require any special feats or enhancements other than Tempest.

It makes no logical sense to balance this by making Fighters give up the Feats/Enhancements that they have just to up their AC enough to match. Nevermind what Paladins would have to give up as Feats/Enhancements.

Since Ranger/Monks get their high AC from Gear, thus so should Fighters + Pallies.

[Borror0]

Under the way the OSL (license, not code, my bad), only certain material is marked as such. Basically, anything in the SRD is OSL and able to be copied directly. For everything else you are restricted in what you may say about it. Basically, it comes down to banning someone from representing an idea thoroughly enough that the idea may be used without having to check (buy) the book in which it appears.

I'm not talking about the Open Gaming Lisense.

I'm talking that for any copywrited book, you may quote a certain percentage and the owner can take any legal actionc against you. Now, maybe WotC have some special rules on their forums or maybe the law is different on your side of ther border, that I cannot know.

I know that almost everything in the PHB, MM and DMG is in the SRD, but I do know that some things are omitted, but am unsure as to what is including from the other books. I think some of the DMG II and PHB II is included.

I know that some monsters from the MM are exculded. Mindflayers and beholders come to mind.

[Borror0]

Yeah, creating more problems isn't really the way to handle it, but I don't know that they can easily fix stuff without causing problems either. Look at where the problems exist: availability of tomes, stat-boosting enhancements, availability of stat-boosting gear, and too many items that grant dodge or non-standard AC bonuses all much too early in the game.

It's all in the way you do it, but I think you're assuming my idea is more radical than it really is.

[sephiroth1084]

Rangers/Monks can only get the AC that they do by getting the best gear in the game, which couples directly with their base build, and doesn't require any special feats or enhancements other than Tempest.

It makes no logical sense to balance this by making Fighters give up the Feats/Enhancements that they have just to up their AC enough to match. Nevermind what Paladins would have to give up as Feats/Enhancements.

Since Ranger/Monks get their high AC from Gear, thus so should Fighters + Pallies.

Only partly true. And, most of the gear they have access to, so, too, do the heavy armor tanks. With lower ability scores, that set of +8 bracers wouldn't be such a huge leap above non-Dex-based AC characters.

Note that straight rangers have comparable AC to fighters and paladins, while it is the adding of a second stat (Wis) to AC, and the icy raiment that push their AC up so high. The Wis + Icy combines for ~+11 AC.

I think your other point is valid though: the fact that they achieve this AC with little build effort is really the issue. Those ranger/monks have higher AC AND, since they sacrifice little to attain that AC, have better offense still than fighters and paladins (often better, even, than offensively minded fighters and paladins).

[sephiroth1084]

It's all in the way you do it, but I think you're assuming my idea is more radical than it really is.

Perhaps. How much of a nerf are you talking about?

[Borror0]

Since Ranger/Monks get their high AC from Gear, thus so should Fighters + Pallies.

Fixing by gear is and will always be a bad idea. Period. No questioning it.

You know what to do with Icy Rainment? Change the bonus from dodge to Profane (or any other non-stacking bonus not yet available in DDO), then add a pair of bracers that give +2-3 Dodge and +X Profane. But that, is only part of the fix.

[Alcides]

A big difference between PnP and DDO, is that in PnP your DM is usually a friend of yours, and there is a personal relationship. As such, if something needs to be nerfed for game balance, the DM can speak with his FRIEND and try to work it out. MMO players are fickle, and have no such bond with Turbine.

Yeah, creating more problems isn't really the way to handle it, but I don't know that they can easily fix stuff without causing problems either. Look at where the problems exist: availability of tomes, stat-boosting enhancements, availability of stat-boosting gear, and too many items that grant dodge or non-standard AC bonuses all much too early in the game.

They can't remove the inherent bonuses people have now, and making tomes LESS available is going to irritate all the people who already feel they are too unavailable as it stands.

They could get rid of the stat enhancements (that'd be a good start). Our +4, +5 and +6 items aren't going to become less prevalent, and while they could remove a lot of the gear that boosts AC (chaosgarde, chattering ring, icy raiment, shroud insight weapons) they'd have to give something back to the players. It ALSO reads in the DMG, that in the event that the DM has to take away an item that is too powerful, the DM is implored to give the player something in compensation.

Besides, any change that affects AC tanks' max AC is going to require an alteration to the attack bonuses of the enemies we face so that the lower AC is still relevant.

DDO should be the quintessential power game. Any thing less is unacceptable.

[sephiroth1084]

DDO should be the quintessential power game. Any thing less is unacceptable.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[QuantumFX]

I'm not totally sure about this as my PnP knowledge is limited at best, but aren't there a fair amount of ways that dex based characters lose that dex bonus to their AC, being caught flat-footed, flanked, etc..., whereas the fully armored S&B tank pretty much always had their AC (not counting such things as incorporeal and whatnnot)?

Well, with the loss of the surprise round the DEX guys also lost a little something called Touch AC. This is AC without natural Armor, Armor or Shield bonuses. It's primarily used to dodge ray spells like enervation, disentegrate, scorching ray, etc. Omitting this defense from DDO screwed over Monks and Rogues big time. And to add insult to injury Turbine chose to implement a pseudo touch AC as giving ghosts a retardedly high "to Hit" number.

Fixing by gear is and will always be a bad idea. Period. No questioning it.

You know what to do with Icy Rainment? Change the bonus from dodge to Profane (or any other non-stacking bonus not yet available in DDO), then add a pair of bracers that give +2-3 Dodge and +X Profane. But that, is only part of the fix.

Or: Change the dodge bonus available on items to a "Dodge Enhancement bonus" so that the items don't stack.

[sephiroth1084]

Well, with the loss of the surprise round the DEX guys also lost a little something called Touch AC. This is AC without natural Armor, Armor or Shield bonuses. It's primarily used to dodge ray spells like enervation, disentegrate, scorching ray, etc. Omitting this defense from DDO screwed over Monks and Rogues big time. And to add insult to injury Turbine chose to implement a pseudo touch AC as giving ghosts a retardedly high "to Hit" number.



Or: Change the dodge bonus available on items to a "Dodge Enhancement bonus" so that the items don't stack.

Wouldn't hurt rogues over level 4, but it would hurt rangers and any other Dex-based character without uncanny dodge.

[QuantumFX]

Wouldn't hurt rogues over level 4.

Or Barbarians. But that's not the point. How do rogues like fort save effects that they should be able to dodge but can't thanks to a poorly coded to hit system?

[Alcides]

On the official D&D forums, from the WotC website, the rules are fairly strictly enforced, to the effect that moderators will delete posts or threads with non-OSL content, and users who repeatedly violate the OSL get banned. The point of the OSL isn't so much to prevent someone from making money off of the content, but to prevent people from giving the content away for free.

Think of it as equivalent to posting the latest CDs on your website in full for free download by anyone. You may give due credit, and you aren't trying to make money, but the artists and record labels will be really bent out of shape since they want to SELL this material.

I'm not trying to get on your ass about this, but pointing it out. And as I said, I doubt WotC trolls these boards searching for these kinds of violations, and I doubt Turbine does either, but it IS something to be aware of.

Just one more thing on this...Copyright law does allow for fair use. You can quote short excerpts of a copyrighted work without the permission of the author for commentary/parody/news reporting etc...unless that posting may damage that work's commercial value. Considering WoTC has moved on to marketing D&D 4.0, I would say that paraphrasing 3.5 material is going to do very little to none commerical damage to them because the 3.5 product line is being phased out. And since this forum is technically commentary anyway in sanctioned subject matter they wouldn't have much of a legal fight, nor do I think they would want the bad publicity it would generate from poaching their gaming base.

[Naash]

Well then let me suggest the following feats.

Heavy Armor Optimization
Source: Races of Stone p141
Prerequisites: Heavy Armor Proficiency, +4 Base Attack Bonus
Description: Any heavy armor that is worn by someone with this feat grants an extra +1 armor bonus to AC, and has it's armor check penalty reduced by 1.

Greater Heavy Armor Optimization
Source: Races of Stone p141
Prerequisites: Heavy Armor Optimization, Heavy Armor Proficiency, +8 Base Attack Bonus
Description: Any heavy armor that is worn by someone with this feat grants an extra +1 armor bonus to AC, and has it's armor check penalty reduced by 2. The modifiers granted by this feat stack with the modifiers of the Heavy Armor Optimization Feat.

As someone who hasnt been able to pull +5 mithral fulllplate for any of my fighters I would like to see this translated in some form.
Along with the armor ritual thats 3 more AC with a non-mithral full plate.
Not only would that make the black,white & blue dragonscale armors more effective it might save these armors from the vendor temporarily:

Giantcrafted Plate
Argentis Armor
Centurion Armor
Bastion of Fealty
Emerald Guard
Nightforge Plate

to a lesser extent:

Fullplate of Giants
Stonemeld Plate
Tourney Armor

Absoulutely not the solution but it helps non-mithral full plate users and saves some raid & non raid named armors from the trash heap.

[sephiroth1084]

Or Barbarians. But that's not the point. How do rogues like fort save effects that they should be able to dodge but can't thanks to a poorly coded to hit system?

What?

[sephiroth1084]

Just one more thing on this...Copyright law does allow for fair use. You can quote short excerpts of a copyrighted work without the permission of the author for commentary/parody/news reporting etc...unless that posting may damage that work's commercial value. Considering WoTC has moved on to marketing D&D 4.0, I would say that paraphrasing 3.5 material is going to do very little to none commerical damage to them because the 3.5 product line is being phased out. And since this forum is technically commentary anyway in sanctioned subject matter they wouldn't have much of a legal fight, nor do I think they would want the bad publicity it would generate from poaching their gaming base.

True enough. Hadn't even thought about that.

[Raithe]

Firstly, do not assume anything about the rest of my group, or any group but your own.

For all you know, I'm one of your guildmates on his other account. This is a discussion forum for DDO. We are all sitting at the same table talking about how play is going to go and what rules are going to be abided. Whether or not I am in your group isn't really relevant, because someone else that is in my group is doing the exact same things as you. I love how the elitist mindset pervades every discussion on here, though.

Secondly, and more importantly, the multiclassing restriction for paladins and monks does NOTHING to stop someone from using Divine Grace, and Sneak Attack together on one character. All it does is force a character who would like to do so to take the paladin levels as one chunk and then never touch them again. So, that rogue who suddenly finds Heironious, but feels that his ability to sneak and catch a foe where it hurts will make him a better servant cannot go back and forth. And for no real reason.

Umm... the rules sometimes don't prohibit you from metagaming because it just hasn't been encountered in high volumes and it violates the whole purpose for playing, so why bother? The fact that paladin/rogue is an allowed combination never enticed very many roleplayers to actually create one. Translating PnP to a MMO format should have seen rogue take on the same alignment restrictions as bards and barbarians, however. It keeps metagamers out of other people's hair.

There are PLENTY of RP reasons to go into and out of paladin or monk and back again as a character. Just because you haven't thought of them doesn't mean that allowing it spoils some immersion. Honestly, if someone multiclassing against your belief of what's proper spoils your immersion in the game, you likely weren't too immersed anyway. In MY group, immersion is based upon role-playing and storyline, and so long as someone can RP an idea well, the mechanics that support that idea are usually secondary.

And yet my quote actually listed 2 particular feats being used in conjunction with an enhancement, and I said nothing about multi-classing levels. Perhaps in your world it can make sense to roleplay both as a divine and noble defender of truth and order, but still assassinate opponents without their foreknowledge. In mine, those are diametrically opposed philosophies that can't be reconciled.

Besides, many of the game mechanics ARE cheesy, but that certainly has naught to do with a paladin or monk multiclassing in, what you consider, and odd fashion. And, in my opinion, your being so upset at someone doing so at the gaming table seems like metagaming to me.

Yes, that is one of the chief problems with metagaming: it requires more metagaming to combat it. Good thing we have forums for airing our metagame interests or disinterests, and good thing I don't ever speak about these topics in game, then, huh?

In any case, one of the greatest draws for me to play DDO over some other MMO is the number and variety of options. Restricting those options for some arbitrary reason seems silly. 4th edition completely removed both the alignment and multiclassing restrictions to paladins, as well as the requirement to only follow Heironious, another idiotic rule. Why should other deities not have their own paladin-esque champions? Both Pelor and St. Cuthbert were PERFECT candidates to have their own orders of paladins, yet, under the game rules, they could not. Does this make sense? Being Lawful makes sense, and being good makes some sense, but one my be both lawful and good in the service of someone who is not.

Arbitrary reason? Like paladins being all about order and justice, and the very term rogue meaning "out of acceptable boundaries?" That's "arbitrary?" How about monks being highly devoted followers and trainees of a philosophy and ethos, so much so that they obtain special abilities because of it? But really, why can't they go ranger after a couple of decades as a monk and retain all those special attributes. I hear it's the latest fad in Tibet, too...

As far as 4th edition goes, I've already given my opinion on it several times now. It's an attempt to turn the original roleplaying game into a mechwarrior combat simulation, and discussion of it is really outside the relevance of any discussion of D&D gaming that existed before.

[sephiroth1084]

For all you know, I'm one of your guildmates on his other account. This is a discussion forum for DDO. We are all sitting at the same table talking about how play is going to go and what rules are going to be abided. Whether or not I am in your group isn't really relevant, because someone else that is in my group is doing the exact same things as you. I love how the elitist mindset pervades every discussion on here, though.

I honestly have no clue what you are trying to say here.

Umm... the rules sometimes don't prohibit you from metagaming because it just hasn't been encountered in high volumes and it violates the whole purpose for playing, so why bother? The fact that paladin/rogue is an allowed combination never enticed very many roleplayers to actually create one. Translating PnP to a MMO format should have seen rogue take on the same alignment restrictions as bards and barbarians, however. It keeps metagamers out of other people's hair.

There are, in fact, prestige classes designed specifically for paladin/rogues. Why should the rogue have an alignment restriction? There are some rogues who (outside of DDO) focus almost entirely upon the skills available to the class and play any number of a range of characters that have little or nothing to do with the common perception of rogues in general, while there are others still who play an honorable thief. Then there are those who use the rogue class as a basis for a fencer, something which is entirely alignment independent.

And yet my quote actually listed 2 particular feats being used in conjunction with an enhancement, and I said nothing about multi-classing levels. Perhaps in your world it can make sense to roleplay both as a divine and noble defender of truth and order, but still assassinate opponents without their foreknowledge. In mine, those are diametrically opposed philosophies that can't be reconciled.

And that is the beauty of the 3.5 system of gaming and role-playing: what is true for one player/character, may not be for another, and yet both may not only exist, but may coexist! As for assassinating, I do not view sneak attack that way, and thus the entire argument is moot. And I happen to know some players who HAVE played paladin/rogues. I, personally, wouldn't, because that character doesn't fit my own preferences, but am I not so egotistical as to force my view or belief of the matter onto someone else, restricting THEIR options and ability to play a character of their choosing.

Yes, that is one of the chief problems with metagaming: it requires more metagaming to combat it. Good thing we have forums for airing our metagame interests or disinterests, and good thing I don't ever speak about these topics in game, then, huh?

Again, what are you talking about?

Arbitrary reason? Like paladins being all about order and justice, and the very term rogue meaning "out of acceptable boundaries?" That's "arbitrary?" How about monks being highly devoted followers and trainees of a philosophy and ethos, so much so that they obtain special abilities because of it? But really, why can't they go ranger after a couple of decades as a monk and retain all those special attributes. I here it's the latest fad in Tibet, too...

Actually, many spiritualists and martial artists in real life move from one philosophy or training to another, as a way of expanding their knowledge and self, and some of them return to their earlier training, while some do not. Besides, the person who leaves the path, whether in-game or in real life, attains a more varied skill set or outlook, but is not quite as adept at either class (in the gaming case) as someone who studies it exclusively. That's well represented by the fact that, when multiclasing, a character will gain more abilities, and become more diverse, but will never reach the pinnacle of any of their individual classes.

Ultimately, your entire argument looks like: "I DON'T LIKE IT THIS WAY SO IT SHOULDN'T BE THIS WAY BECAUSE I SAY SO AND NYAH NYAH NYAH!!!"

[Borror0]

The fact that paladin/rogue is an allowed combination never enticed very many roleplayers to actually create one. Translating PnP to a MMO format should have seen rogue take on the same alignment restrictions as bards and barbarians, however.

First of, from a RP persective it makes no sense.

Secondly, that's removing build options and quite frankly, that's bad. One of the marvelous things about 3.5 D&D is how many valid builds there are out there. there are so many valid permutations even to acheive the same goal! Different feats, starting abilities, class mixes, it's great and part of the fun. Even the most casual players actually enjoy this.

Perhaps in your world it can make sense to roleplay both as a divine and noble defender of truth and order, but still assassinate opponents without their foreknowledge. In mine, those are diametrically opposed philosophies that can't be reconciled.

Then you simply don't understand what a rogue is about.

What you have described, is an assassin. It's a PrC available to those of Evil alignment. Those are the ones made to kill, without asking questions and without caring about who is right or wrong. They just kill. But, that is not a rogue! That's an assassin! Rogues are about overcoming obstables with their intelligence and dexterity rather than use brute force. That's all they are.

Rather than tearing an opponent into shears with a greataxe, they will hit them where it hurts most with a rapier. That's how they overcome stuff. There is nothing about being a rogue that forces you to kill without asking. Yes, there are facades of a rogue that may lead to chaoticness but nothing says you will automaticly be.

Arbitrary reason?

Yes. Alignment restrictions are one of the most stupid things of 3.5 D&D.

Why can't a barbarian be lawful? Ok, he enters in rage once in a while, but it's not like he looses control over his actions. Why can't a bard be lawful? He's an artist and thus can't be lawful? Totally silly. Why can't a paladin be Lawful Neutral if he worships a LN diety, most likely this deity will ask him to perform LN acts, rather than LG ones... no? Why does a monk have to be lawful? Some chaotic really can't train hard enough? That's hell of a non-sense there.

They make not much sense. The one for barbarian and bard have an in-game explanation but it's rather weak.

[Gornin]

Yes. Alignment restrictions are one of the most stupid things of 3.5 D&D.

Why can't a barbarian be lawful? Ok, he enters in rage once in a while, but it's not like he looses control over his actions. Why can't a bard be lawful? He's an artist and thus can't be lawful? Totally silly. Why can't a paladin be Lawful Neutral if he worships a LN diety, most likely this deity will ask him to perform LN acts, rather than LG ones... no? Why does a monk have to be lawful? Some chaotic really can't train hard enough? That's hell of a non-sense there.

They make not much sense. The one for barbarian and bard have an in-game explanation but it's rather weak.

Agree with the first part of post, so I edited it out. Just gonna remark on this part.

IMO, alignments in 3.5 were fine and never had a problem with them, but hearing the horror of DM's who controlled the players through their alignment, I can understand the sentiments of those who have experienced that. Like most complaints about 3.5, it can almost always be pointed out that it was a bad DM causing the issue, not the rules, either RAW or RAI.

Just offering some ideas for the questions you posed. Not saying they are correct, but this is how I use the alignments and the restrictions when I DM.

Barbarians being chaotic, I believe the thought is that those who are of a chaotic nature are usually much more self aware and independant. It is important to have a strong sense of self identity, or else you could be lost to the rage.

Bards being chaotic is a similar issue of independence. Artists tend to go against the grain, even stirring up trouble by tweaking the local authorities and popping those big heads of theirs. They don't like being told what to write/sing/sculpt/paint about. Also, bards are loosely based on the Celtic/Brit model of traveling troubadours that collected news and events and passed them along, who were also used as messengers by nobles, since Bards had a certain immunity due to their notoriety and usefulness ( and knowing secrets ), and not being above petty larceny and such to survive. So for Bards, its a combo of historical and personality that tend to paint them as chaotic.

Monks are disciplined. The training instills discipline which leads to power. Sure a chaotic individual can learn techniques similar to a monks, and be effective martial artists, but the mastery of self leads to the special powers, like disease and poison immunity. That is what separates the monk from a martial artist.

Like I said, just some views that might be worth something.