The General D&D thread

Now I posted this in its own thread a while ago, a 3.5 question.

Compared to singular spellcaster classes, how well does a Gestalt Warrior class stack? With it, you basically start (using only PHB) as a Rogue, Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, Ranger or Paladin and every 5th level you Gestalt another one of those classes, gaining all the advantageous traits of that class as if you had leveledit equally as your total 'Warrior' level.

It won't do much to address the balance issue. All melee classes are good at hitting things. Making your character better and better at hitting things doesn't give you the same level of versatility as a spellcaster.

edited 10th Sep '12 1:29:30 PM by nightwyrm_zero

So yeah. My DM has a real hard-on for "balance".

I came up with a work-around for the situation we brought up before. I asked him why we couldn't just ask the good gods to allow us to create a seal around Hell so that the damned souls escaping can't escape and instigate Hell on Earth. He said that the gods of good don't have the power to create a barrier around Hell. So I say, "And four demon lords do? You just said the other day that both good and evil have equal power, and you said that the gods of good outnumber the gods of evil."

So he goes, "Look, it just doesn't work that way, okay? Good and Evil both work to keep the balance. The gods of evil don't want to do destroy the world, so they keep the irredeemable souls in Hell. The gods of good just want Earth to have free will, free from good or evil."

And just between you and me, gang, this—this right there—is why I hate the Balance Between Good and Evil trope. Why is good always the pussiest faction in this type of situation? Why the FUCK would good gods NOT want the world to be good? Free will? So why would they not see Demonic Invaders as a problem? Why NOT put a goddamn seal around Hell if it keeps the bad guys in there and they have the power to do so? If their entire purpose is to make sure balance is never broken, then why don't they ever do anything SMART?

. . . Rant over. I'm sorry, I just felt like getting that off my chest. Thankfully, this completely asanine plot arc is over after tonight. And the result sucked as much as I feared it would.

He should have just said MST3K Mantra.

I would like to say, for the record, that I think I'm going to stomp a new mudhole in my players next session.

I'm running Savage Tide, and we're at the end of the fourth adventure. Bar-lgura demons! Spirit nagas! A giant statue of Demogorgon that comes to life and crushes people to death! Gnomes and gorillas dangling perilously over blazing fire pits!

This fight is going to be glorious.

The problem with that is that he also wants us to take the story seriously. Because if I had made the wrong choice, I would have utterly screwed the world over.

Even the work-around I used sucks because it involved my protagonist fighting the solution (again, turning good-aligned deities evil without their consent) because it relies on the flimsy premise that gods of good would want to sacrifice themselves to preserve the balance. In other words, when the gods asked him to turn them evil to save the world, it became a thousand times less heinous, but still a rather counterproductive thing for a champion of good to do.

Oh well. Like I said, the arc is over now.

edited 11th Sep '12 7:15:26 AM by KingZeal

Look, in any scenario involving real, actual Higher Powers of one sort or another, the question will always arise: Why don't the Good Powers do all the legwork of fighting evil, instead of leaving it to the puny mortals? There are lots of reasons, but the question itself is as old as mankind, and unlikely to ever be answered to the satisfaction of some poor schlub who just saw his family get eaten by a demon.

When you're talking about a High Fantasy roleplaying game, the answer always comes down to Anthropic Principle: without some reason for ordinary mortals to fight evil, there wouldn't be a story.

It's kind of disingenuous of you to quiz your GM about it, although in your defense I will say that if he has gone to all the trouble of detailing exactly why The Powers That Be don't just duke it out themselves, you are free to poke holes in that logic.

Hey guys hey guys hey hey guys guys, I made a custom base class!

... That's all! Woo!

Oh, wow, the MAD is strong with this one. It's like you are trying to be both a monk, a rogue and a ranger at the same time, and suck at all three.

It would probably make a good skill monkey if you specially build it that way, but not much else, and rogues will still be better at it, in addition to being more useful in combat. The special features are only useful in situations that requires a DM to come up with an insane variety of environmental hazards. Since in a typical party, you are the only one capable of handling such hazards, the campaign would constantly have to go out of its way to make sure your class features aren't completely wasted.

I like the fluff, but the class itself doesn't look like something that can be used effectively.

Additionally, there are rare times when Gods cannot actually do anything personally to deal with a situation. Many Elder Evils are explicitly immune to divine magic and effects. But then again, Elder Evils to begin with are exceedingly rare and almost never appear.

edited 11th Sep '12 10:55:07 AM by Crinias

That's a different discussion altogether and has little to nothing to do with the problem as I described it. I'm fine with gods using good guys as gophers—what I'm not fine with is a heavy-handed attempt to sabotage any solution I make which has any sort of positive outcome. The entire campaign came to a crashing halt because every solution I proposed to the DM basically led to the destruction of the world as we knew it because we dared to try to find a way that didn't screw absolutely everybody over or deliberately call for the eternal torment and/or Mind Rape of one individual to save many.

At one point, I even stated that my character would probably just say screw it and allow Hell on Earth to happen because it's in his nature to not willingly perform an evil act, even if that act would almost assuredly allow others to perform a greater evil. Then this got shot down when I was "outvoted" by the group.

Originally, this wasn't a criticism on how his world worked. It's a criticism on railroading an entire team to follow your morality or Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies.

Remember, my DM/GM gave me no context on how this universe works, but challenged me to "figure it out" when we were confused as to what the end goal was. So, he wanted me to figure out how to fix the problem, but every solution I proposed that wasn't heinously evil resulted in the entire world being destroyed.

edited 11th Sep '12 11:52:46 AM by KingZeal

Wouldn't this discussion be better served in the "bitch about your DM" thread?

Speaking of, isn't that thread a complaint thread? I thought those were prohibited! Has it been grandfathered in?

In that case I can see the problem; if he's railroading you into the only solution that he considers acceptable without telling you what that is, it's a recipe for frustrated players.

@Tomu: I can't say that we've taken the time to review that thread. Maybe we should.

Yeah. The problem I have is that the DM was trying to (as he later confessed to) enforce his own world view that the "best" solution to anything is "balance". So, he had already made up his mind that any Good solution to the problem I proposed would allow Evil to win because it was a problem only Evil was allowed to fix. Keep in mind, my character is a Lawful Good Dragonborn Paladin.

edited 11th Sep '12 12:01:13 PM by KingZeal

Fighteer: Crap, I shouldn't have said anything!

It's basically people ranting about how shit happened in their latest tabletop game session.

There's also a "bitch about your group" thread.

Zeal: Yeah, this sounds like your DM has a pet outcome and won't let things roll any other way. That seems like the opposite of the advice most D Ms are given - namely, to realize that the story is about your players and you should reward roleplaying and ingenuity by letting them figure out how to accomplish their goals.

I don't have a problem with giving you the morally difficult option presented here (though yes, it has a bunch of logic problems), but if you come up with a workable alternative, he should give you the chance to put that into effect. Maybe it will be harder than the "easy way" of corrupting the demigods, but doing the harder but better thing is what heroism is all about, amirite?

Yeah, I would've been fine with that. I think I initially got peeved when every single outcome I tried was rejected, and then the DM said I wasn't "thinking it through" because I was "too focused on doing the right" thing. He said that he didn't care if I did the "right" thing, so long as I did the "logical" thing.

For this exact reason, when I DM, I opt for Fun > Logic. The layperson is not a epistemology professor. Deciding that it's more ethical to kick 12 puppies or slap one baby and demanding everyone agree with you is asking for trouble. But a band of demons that needs smashing? Yeah, that we can all agree with. Except for that one guy.

Morality Quests, as I call them, are always hard to pull off.

Sometimes it's easier for a campaign to have a moral theme- mine, for instance, has constant elements of "You have to stand up for what you believe in even if no-one else will" and general Black And Grey morality stuff- but only if it doesn't derail the asskicking.

In this case, "think it through" really seems to mean "come to the same conclusion as me."

@Kayeka: Funnily enough, the only feedback I got so far on GitP is that the class is overpowered. Huh.

I've always had an interest in D&D and a friend of mine at work is planning a to start a new campaign and has invited me to join. I've done my research and have a pretty good idea as to what I want to play (Fighter), but their are a few niggling thoughts I have. Is there any advice you guys have to a newbie?

Yes. Yes there is.

What edition is this? 4E?

3/3.5 E. Luckily too because that's the one I read up on most before the DM told us. Actually theres one question I have: I've found a prestige class (Gladiator) and it sounds like it would be fun to play as instead of being a run-of-the-mill fighter. Now I know that prestige classes are not for first timers, but could you style a normal class after a prestige one?

edited 14th Sep '12 7:53:20 AM by AtomJames

Nothing wrong having prestige class as a newbie. Just remember that you can't be a gladiator at level one. Prestige classes have prerequisites(usually a minimum base atk bonus, skill levels at a certain value, etc). Just find out what the Gladiator requires and keep those in mind when you pick skills/feats/etc when leveling.

You might not be 'optimized' this way, but if the DM's any good, they'll be cutting you at least a little slack as a new player.

Take your concept and run with it and don't be afraid to ask advice: from us, your group, or your DM.

D&D is as much about collaborative storytelling as it it about playing a game. Do whatever you think is a cool idea and run with it.

If the character performs below whatever bar the group sets, arrange a glorious death and try again.