Min/Max Boards

There are rules for templates, and since templates can be turned to classes (see the Savage Progressions articles), class-based type changes work the same way.

For more rules, there's the Type Pyramid in Savage Species 143, which basically says that some types do not get overridden by some other types. As far as I can tell, no one has ever actually used the type pyramid, but its there if you want it.

To your example problems: using the Type Pyramid, that warforged would remain a Construct (as Construct is higher in the type pyramid than Plant). On the other hand, if you do not use the type pyramid his type would become Plant. There's no such thing as a Plant Construct, but instead it would be a Plant (augmented construct).

Whether the Type Pyramid is used or not, a Necropolitan Alienist would become an Outsider (augmented undead).

The Sage is making recommendations throughout the FAQ;

I disagree. The way this is placed, he is making a recommendation in this instance. If his words at the end of the Freedom of Movement question were meant to be applied to the entire FAQ, it would either say so, or be in the introduction to the FAQ, or included with every question. He is explicitly making Freedom of Movement more restrictive than it would be otherwise, in order to make it more clear. He is not saying that the entire FAQ is the same.

And no, he makes no error in saying Hold Person does not allow any actions. The quote from the description of Paralysis says "A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions." The quote from Hold Person says "It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech." While I think Hold Person should just be paralysis, that isn't what the spell description actually says.

As for Eggy: I'm sure that is simply because he'd not known it was errata'd (or maybe answered the question before the errata was made), and was giving an accurate explanation of the pre-errata'd rule.

And to Kaelik: this is a case of specific trumps general, within a single spell. It says that the person affected by Hold Person
1. is paralized,
2. cannot take any actions
3. may take another saving throw as a full-round action each round on his turn
So, the specific that he may take this full-round action trumps the general that he cannot take any actions. So, a person affected by Hold Person may take that full-round action and no other action whatsoever. And that's all within the spell text, no external sources required.

As for physical vs mental, that is not such an arduous task. Stun says you can't take any actions: unlike paralysis, which says you can take purely mental actions. That you cannot take mental actions shows that it is not a purely physical impediment. So, the author's use of Hold Person is apt: Hold Person and the Stunned condition both prevent you from taking any actions, physical or mental, and so are beyond Freedom of Movement's ability to help.

EDIT: and while we're at it, we should talk about tone. Just because I did not quote the entire spell, does not mean I did not read it. You assuming other people are less than yourself is not going to get you anywhere. I am not hostile to you, so please, try to be civil.

It hasn't failed utterly, Eggy. If it had failed utterly, then it would not be able to answer Xelights' question. The FAQ fulfilled its purpose: the rules are clearer with the FAQ than without it, both in the cases where it points out existing rules and where it writes new ones. The fact that the FAQ is not inerrant does not change this: it clarifies far more than it obscures.

Which part of the FAQ, exactly, makes you confused?

I think I need some historical context. Is there any particular reason to ignore the FAQ? I don't mean "are there builds that ignore the FAQ or groups that ignore the FAQ," since I am sure there are, but unless somebody at WotC outright said that the FAQ should be ignored, then it shouldn't be. Because if the FAQ was not meant to be used, then why on Earth would Wizards of the Coast even write it?

If someone chooses to ignore what was intended to be used, couldn't one also ignore whatever else, including the PHB? If the designers say that this is how the rules are supposed to work, then you can be sure that this is, in fact, how the rules are supposed to work.

D&D is a game written for ordinary folk, not software programs. The Law of Common Sense should come into play at some point.

Rage is separate from "the most HP": there are more than one class that has or can get Rage, and not all of them have the most HP, so clearly they're two different features that may be applied to the same class.

The point isn't "the barbarian does not really have the most HP" (though of course he does not). Rather, it was "the barbarian is not defined by having the most HP, and having the most hp is not important."

Another option is to simply remove the boring stuff, especially from the prerequisites of other feats. Nobody actually likes the Dodge feat, for example, since it is tedious to track the +1 AC vs 1 opponent. The Toughness feat is just a number: the feats with Toughness as a prerequisite aren't that great*, and if the goal was to give the Fighter more HP you could easily give Fighters a d12 hit die like a barbarian or a warblade. While the Designers did not want the good stuff to come right away, we don't have to follow that. While removing boring feats from prerequisites would benefit everyone and not just the Fighter, it would benefit the Fighter and his mundane buddies more, since spellcasters don't usually care about combat feats.

*the exception to the shoddiness of Toughness feat chains is Troll Blooded, but that one is so good it should cost more than one feat by itself.

In addition to shortening feat chains by removing the boring parts, you could give the Fighter ToB manoeuvers and Ranger-level skill points, or even Rogue-level skill points and skills, since skills are mostly used out of combat. Then you have feats which are not boring, fancy tricks for combat, AND something to do out of combat as well.

I appreciate the tiers in how they've created a mutually-understood jargon for 3.5 gamers. However, I do find them not always accurate, and I also think there are too many tiers. I think it comes down to how people have thought too much about tiers, until the difference in class power was blown completely out of proportion.

For example, consider Sorcerer and Beguiler. Sorcerer is considered Tier 2 and Beguiler is Tier 3 – yet at 20th level, the Sorcerer knows 34 spells while the Beguiler knows 113. They're good spells, too: a lot of them are ones sorcerers would want to pick, and five are from Advanced Learning so you pick them yourself. And that's where the gap is narrowest, because the sorcerer gains his spells one at a time while the beguiler gets them all as soon as he reaches the new spell level (with the exception of Advanced Learning spells). To make matters worse for the sorcerer, the Beguiler has 6 skill points per level and actual class features. Thus the Sorcerer should be in the same tier as the Beguiler or lower, except in those specific cases where the sorcerer chooses spells that make up for the lack. Once we get into specific builds like that, we start noticing that there are many ways to gain spells known from another spell list, and other examples and counterexamples.

I could go on with other examples, but my point is this: the difference in power and versatility between the tiers is not that great. The tier system helped communicate the message that the balance issues in 3.5 could be worked around, but it obscured the other message that the balance issues were never that big in the first place.

If you do not want to inspire but rather want a dancing character in general, there are a number of classes and feats related to dance.

Base class: Battle Dancer. Its terrible, but fluff-appropriate. Perhaps your DM would be willing to modify it to increase its power level. My "lazy man's fix" is to give it skill points and class skills as per Rogue, saves as per Monk, and a d10 hit die, all of which makes sense for the class and would bump it up to a solid tier 4.

Prestige classes:
Astral Dancer (too plane-specific)
Blade Dancer
Cloaked Dancer
Dervish
Shadowdancer
Or, if you want to go a spellcasting route (likely using Cleric as the base class):
Sword Dancer (must be an Elf)
Spelldancer

Feats:
Cloak Dance (if you can't spare a feat, try the skill trick version, Shrouded Dance)
Dancing Blade
Path of Shadows (Kalashtar, appropriate for a spellcasting dancer)
Dancing with Shadows

You wouldn't be able to make Grease look like Heightened Create Water because Stylized Spell disguises the spell "as another spell of the same school and subschool with the same descriptors." Create Water has the Water descriptor, while Grease does not. Likewise for Scare and Animate Dead: Scare has the Fear descriptor, Animate Dead has the Evil descriptor.

However, there are plenty of combinations that make just as little sense. A Grease spell that looks like Obscuring Mist is a good example: anything that looks like obscuring mist is obscuring mist, because its visual effect is its entire purpose. Likewise, an Animate Dead spell can be made to look like Contagion.

The existing Ruse spells are all visually similar to the spell they're disguised as. For example: False Resurrection possesses a body with a shadow demon, but the body still looks and walks around as if alive. Therefore I think this metamagic should be carefully adjudicated by the DM to keep it in line with what can plausibly pass for one another. Otherwise, Stylized Spell is effectively a very powerful illusion effect with no Will save to disbelieve.

That, and potentially Knowledge. Being educated could make sense as a background trade, but Knowledge skills can have a pretty tangible effect in combat.

They can, but should they? I don't think how Knowledge works right now is good for the game.

A PC approaches a monster, and the player recognizes the hints the DM dropped. Only comes out at night or when overcast... noble's house with windows shuttered, and no mirror to be found... he approaches the creature, AND! fails the Knowledge (religion) check, so must pretend he does not know it is a vampire. Its just as bad the other way around, too. The PCs are surprised by the Bugblatter Beast of Traal, and the guy with Knowledge (nature) rolls high, so the DM must stop and explain what this thing's weaknesses are, and the player starts making battle plans OOC because in-game the PC knew what the beast was all along, and recognized it from his prior studies.

I recommend removing Knowledge altogether, and let the DM decide what the PCs should know, as appropriate to his campaign. If the setting's religions, nobility & royalty, history, local culture, or whatever is relevant to the plot, the DM will give his setting document to the players and if the player remembers a detail from it during a game session he may use it, no roll required. Likewise any sourcebook has an in-universe Equivalent, so if the players can know it the PCs can know it too. If the DM wants something to be a secret, he won't share it with the PCs, and if the DM wants to leave it up to chance Gather Information can be used as a substitute for the occasional use of Knowledge. The knowledge skill uses that aren't "know about X" are folded into other skills, and things that give Knowledge bonuses or bonuses based on Knowledge get removed or replaced.

Quote from: Samwise on April 20, 2016, 01:27:07 AM

2. Cut some excessive skill choices for "flavor".

Another option is to have two pools of skills. One could be close to what they are now, called Skills, and the other could be the more flavor-oriented ones, called Trades. This would allow people to put some mechanical representation of the fact that they have a background in hunting, blacksmithing, or underwater basket weaving on their character sheet without dipping into the same pool that fuels Knowledge, Concentration, and UMD.

Yet another option is to eliminate "fields". For example, instead of Craft, Profession and Perform, I use just two skills: Trades and Performer. Trades covers whatever sorts of background professions the character has: a PC tradesman can be the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker at no extra cost, and if the PC tradesman wants to acquire a trade he didn't already practice in the background, he roleplays out an appropriate training sequence and adds it to his list at no cost. Likewise, a Performer can know how to play string instruments, wind instruments, dance and sing as a single skill, or whatever else he uses in his performance. This is simpler than using two pools of skills, and I think the combined skills are useful enough to compare with adventuring skills.


My own approach to skills is to combine skills into a shorter list (23 skills), and to give everyone the same number of skill points per level (5) no matter their class or int score, and eliminate the class/cross-class distinction (everything's a class skill for everybody). Thus skills are effectively separate from the class system, and nobody is shafted.