Author Topic: Noob Handbook  (Read 13432 times)

Offline Captnq

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1602
  • Haters gonna hate. Dragons gonna drag.
    • View Profile
    • Ask the Captain
Noob Handbook
« on: March 30, 2013, 09:54:43 PM »
[ROUGH DRAFT - Submit Comments HERE]

So, ya wanna be a hero, kid? Well, whoop-de-do!
I have been around the block before with blockheads just like you!
Each and ev'ryone a disappointment, Pain!
For which there ain't no ointment
So much for excuses, though a kid of Zeus, is asking me to jump into the fray!
My answer is two words…"
*KER-POW*
"O.K
.”
- One Last Hope, “Hercules”

So you want to play d20 3.0/3.5 Dungeons and Dragons.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 01:54:34 PM by Captnq »
If you have questions about 3.5 D&D, you might want to look at the:
Encyclopedia Vinculum Draconis

Currently: Podcasting

Offline Captnq

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1602
  • Haters gonna hate. Dragons gonna drag.
    • View Profile
    • Ask the Captain
Re: Noob Handbook
« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2013, 09:55:27 PM »
Making Your PC

Wow. That’s a tough one. Well, I’d like to start with what kind of game are you playing. It sort of influences your general outlook of the PC you are going to make.

Wargame
In this sort of game, you’re going for combat. So, focus on dishing out the pain. Don’t bother with background or history or crap. You need to blow shit up with burning fists that make explosions that cause people nearby to blow up and damage other people nearby with exploding fire that look like fists. You will want to stick with core character types and focus on one thing. For example, hit well, sneak well, heal well, melt the laws of physics and warp causality well. Everybody has a role to play in the group, know yours.

Narrative
This is more about the roleplay then the stats. You might be able to destroy trolls with a single blow, but how are you when you get invited to a state run function? You might spend months in game time just dealing with political crap. This doesn’t happen very often. Other games are better suited for this then D&D, but I’ve run a game where for almost two months everyone got bogged down dealing with nation building and never killed a single monster. Heck, shopping sometimes took up an entire session all by itself. 11 game sessions of only role-playing bonus XPs. It’s what the players wanted, so I ran with it. If this the game, charisma is definitely not a dump stat.

Grab bag
This is a mix. Mostly you are killing monsters, but occasionally the DM throws you a curve ball. You are doing guard duty for a princess and you can’t wear your gear, so you have to handle the combat with only equipment that you can conceal in a tuxedo. In this sort of game, you can have more oddball classes and races and they don’t totally cripple the party. The DM makes it worth your while to be prepared for strange combat conditions.

Since I don’t know which one you are playing in, I’m going to speak in generalities. With time, you can customize your PC to your situation. So, lets go with some of the classics out there. What’s important is to be flexable and be prepared to be wrong.

Time to read your ten commandments. Both of them.

Caelic's 10 Commandments of Optimization
I. Thou shalt not give up caster levels.
II. Wieldest thou thy two-handed weapon with alacrity; but two weapons shalt thou not wield, excepting that thou hast a source of bonus damage such as Sneak Attack.
III. Doubt not the power of the Druid, for he is mighty.
IV. Avoid ye the temptation of Gauntlets of True Strike, for they shall lead thee astray down the Path of Non-Rule Cheese.
V. Thou shalt not give up caster levels. Verily, this Commandment is like unto the first; but of such magnitude that it bore mentioning twice.
VI. Makest thou no build with an odd number of fighter levels, for such things are not pleasing to the Spirits of Optimization.
VII. The Rules of 3.5 are paramount; invoke not the rules of 3.0 if a newer version be available.
VIII. When beseeching the Bretheren of Optimization, come thou not empty handed, lest they smite thee; rather, bringest thou thine own build, that they may offer suggestions and guidance.
IX. Invoke not "common sense," for it is not common.
X. Thou shalt call no build "The Ultimate X" unless his name be Pun-Pun, or thou shalt see thine "Ultimate" build topped by the Bretheren within five minutes of posting.

And his 10 Commandments of Practical Optimization
1. Not everything needs to be stated explicitly in the rules; some things just are.

A human doesn't have a hundred and fifty-seven arms, even though the rules don't explicitly say that he doesn't. A character doesn't continue running around after he dies, even though the rules don't explicitly list any negative effects for death. If the designers spelled out every single thing explicitly...even the glaringly obvious...the core rulebooks would be larger than the Encyclopedia Britannica, and would likely cost as much as a Ferrari.


2. "The rules don't say I can't!" is not practical optimization.

The second commandment is like unto the first. There are many things that the rules don't explicitly say you can't do. The rules don't explicitly say you can't do the "I'm a Little Teapot" dance and instantly heal back to full starting hit points as a result. The rules don't explicitly say your first level character can't have a titanium-reinforced skeleton and cybernetic weaponry.

This is because the rules are structured in such a way as to tell you what you can do--not what you can't. An underlying assumption is that, apart from common-sense actions which anyone can perform, the system will tell you if a given character has a given ability.


3. RAW is a myth.

This is one of the dirty little secrets of the board. The Most Holy RAW is invoked continuously by those who want to give their arguments the veneer of officiality. The problem is, RAW is generally applied not as "The Rules as Written," but rather as "The Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, Nyeah." The RAITAYCPIWN. Not quite as catchy an acronym, granted, but that's what it boils down to.

This game cannot be played without interpretation and the judicious application of common sense. Try to play the game strictly and exclusively by the rules as written, and you have an unplayable game.

Using "RAW" as a defense is similarly meaningless--particularly when your defense rests on interpretation. If you're going to claim that your build is RAW, you'd better be able to make sure that the rules specifically uphold your claim...not simply that they're sort of vague and COULD be interpreted in such a way as to not FORBID your claim. This becomes particularly important when your claim is especially controversial.

Yes, builds should adhere to the rules as written. Yes, any exceptions to that should be noted. But the RAW as some sort of entity unto itself, capable of rendering a build immune to criticism, is not a useful construction, and causes more problems than it solves.


4. Common sense is not a bad thing.

The rules were designed to be read with common sense. Yes, common sense will vary from person to person, but there has to be some basic level at which we agree on core assumptions, or the game is meaningless.

If we have one interpretation of the rules where two levels of a prestige class give you infinite caster level, and another interpretation where two levels of that same prestige class give you two caster levels, then common sense tells us that the latter interpretation is the correct one. If a character reaches negative ten hit points and dies, common sense tells us that he doesn't spring back to his feet and continue fighting unimpeded.


5. Intent matters.

I know, I know..."Blasphemy! No man may know the intent of the Most Holy Designers!" Except that, in some cases, we can. In some cases, the intent is glaringly, painfully obvious. In other cases, the intent has been clarified by various WotC sources, such as CustServ.

It makes sense to take these sources at their word, people. They work with the folks who design the game, they have access to them. If a conflict comes up, then it can be resolved, but I can't help but notice that for all the talk about how CustServ never gives the same answer twice, they've been remarkably consistent of late.

It's one thing to say "This rule is vaguely worded, and we don't know the intent." It's another thing to say, "The rule is vaguely worded, and therefore I can ignore the intent."

The first is sensible caution; the second is rules lawyering. When an ambiguity has been clarified, that should be the end of it.


6. Mistakes happen.

Everybody's human. You're human; I'm human; the folks at WotC are human. Sometimes, humans make mistakes. That shouldn't be seen as an opportunity to break the game.

Take the Vigilante from Complete Adventurer, for instance. Anyone out there seriously believe that his rather abrupt jump from 1 third level spell at level 6 to 20 at level 7 is NOT a mistake?

There are two ways to deal with a mistake like this: a sensible way, and a silly way.

The sensible way: "Hmm. There's a column for fourth level spells with no numbers in it, and a column for third level with numbers that can't be right in it. Clearly, this was a typesetting error, and the second digit in the third level spells column is supposed to be in the fourth level spells column."

The silly way: "Rules are rules! The rulebook says 20 third level spells at seventh level! If you do it any other way, you're houseruling! I'm gonna make some GREAT builds based on this rule!"

Basing a build on an obvious mistake isn't optimizing; it's silly.


7. Simple Is Good.

There are a LOT of WotC sourcebooks out there. I did a rough estimate on the value of my collection just of hardcover rulebooks; it cost more than my car.

Not everyone has that kind of cash to spend on this hobby. Not only that--a lot of people simply don't have the time to commit several thousand pages of rules, hundreds upon hundreds of prestige classes, and thousands of feats to memory.

So: builds which are simple are good. There's nothing WRONG with a build that incorporates eight different prestige classes from seven different sources, and then tosses in feats from five more...but that build is going to be useful only to the people who have those sources, whereas the Druid 20 build that doesn't go outside of Core is useful to everybody.

Sometimes, simplicity is worth more than raw power.


8. Tricking the DM is Bad.

We see a lot of "Help me trick my DM!" or "Help me make my DM cry!" requests on these boards. We see builds that are designed to look innocuous while at the same time being devastating to campaign balance. The idea is to lull the DM into allowing the character, then unleash its full power.

Bad idea. Bad, BAD idea.

At all times, two things should be borne in mind about the DM. One: he's in charge. If you try to trick him, he's totally within his rights to toss your character or YOU out of the game. Two: he's your friend. Trying to deceive your friends is bad.

Be honest with your DM about what you want to do. If he says "No," deal with it. That's part of a DM's job. If you don't think he's going to say "Yes" to something, then trying to sneak it into the game on the sly is a sure way to make him mad.


9. Respect the parameters of the request.

This used to be a given, but people have been backsliding a lot lately. Someone comes on and says, "Hey, I'd like to play a Bard 4/Cleric 4. Can anyone help me optimize this? He immediately gets responses which boil down to, "Only an idiot would play that! You should be playing Pun-Pun, he's MUCH more powerful!" Sometimes they're more nicely phrased than this, other times they're not.

The point is: people aren't offering him suggestions on how to make his character of choice better. They're telling him that he's "wrong" for playing that character, and that he should be playing a different character.

The same goes for threads in which the poster explains the DM's house rules and restrictions at the beginning of the thread. More often than not, if these restrictions amount to more than "No infinite power at first level," someone will respond with the oh-so-helpful suggestion "Your DM sucks. Quit his game and never talk to him again."

I only wish that were hyperbole. It's word-for-word from a thread a while back. Optimization is about working within the rules to greatest effect. ANYONE can optimize in an environment with no restrictions. It takes skill to optimize where options are limited.

Threads like these should be seen as an opportunity to demonstrate that skill...not belittle the poster or the DM.


10. If something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

I remember bounding onto the boards many moons ago, shortly after the first release of the Persistent Spell feat, to declare that I had discovered (ta da!) the UNBEATABLE COMBO. Since Time Stop was a Personal effect spell, it could be Persisted!

(Oooh, aaah!)

I couldn't imagine why nobody had thought of this before. Of course, as it turned out, LOTS of people had thought of this before. Within about five minutes, I was directed to a ruling that said, "You can't do it."

I was disappointed, sure...but I accepted it and moved on.

There are a LOT of folks here with a lot of knowledge of the rules. Some of 'em are a little scary. They love nothing better than to go over a new rulebook with a fine-toothed comb looking for hidden gems.

Sometimes, a genuinely overlooked concept will turn up. The recent builds using Sanctum Spell are a good example. The feat's been around for a while, but nobody really looked at what could be done with it.

More often, though, if a seeming "rules loophole" is being ignored by the boards, it's because it's been hashed out in the past and found not to work. Perhaps there's something elsewhere in the rules that nullifies it; perhaps there was a clarification. Very occasionally, there's simply a board-wide agreement that the rule is wrong...as with the recent FAQ claiming that Polymorph allowed the use of templated forms.

If it turns out that your discovery falls into this category, the best thing to do is accept it and move on. Maybe the next one won't.


The Tier System
We’ll go into detail on classes later, but let me mention the tier system. The tier system is both brilliant and idiotic. It is a system for breaking down the classes and rating them in tiers as to which one is more powerful (one is best, six is worst) all other things being equal.

That last part is the important part. For you, the player, it’s useful. For comparing different players to each other, it’s useless. The tier system puts wizards at one and monk at five. Yet, in the campaign I am running, the monk PC is the scariest thing I’ve ever seen. By the rules, I cannot kill her and she mops the floor with everyone. I’ve mind controlled the whole party and turned them against her and she not only won, but took them all alive. I’ve cheated and broke the rules and made monsters ten challenge ratings higher then her and in personal combat she mangles my worst monstrosities. I have literally stripped her of all equipment, dropped her in an alien dimension where reality does not work as intended, and nullified all magic. She never broke a sweat.

Now, when she was playing a wizard, it was ten times worse.

Some players have a gift. A knack for the game. She’s an accountant in real life and worked dealing with state and federal regulations and had to stare down the ATF more then once and won each and every time. (She does my taxes, btw.) Some people are deadly with a spreadsheet and she’s one of them. I don’t care what class or race you give her, she’s going to optimize it in ways that will make you gape and then…

She’ll get bored. Once she’s used a trick or combo, she’s done. It’s lost it’s luster. That’s what makes her so nasty. She never looks back. Never does the same thing twice. Once she comes up with something, I can prepare against it, but she never uses it again. We joke she’s kind of like Doctor Who. Unarmed, outgunned, outmatched, you still know the bad guys are going to lose. It’s not in the script, it’s just what she does.

This might be you. You might never reach this level of nerdvana. My point is, the tier system is only good at comparing the classes to each other. The mistake people make is to compare them across players. I’ll put my group of five players up against any other group of eight on the planet because my players are a lean, mean, optimized dungeon crawling machine.

What’s this got to do with the tier system? People are going to try to tell you to play X or be a Y because someone else told them that this was the way to play. Sometimes not knowing something won’t work is good, because you don’t know you can fail. It isn’t all about the best PC, because if it was, everyone would play Pun-Pun and be done with it. It’s a balance between teamwork, power level, optimization, and style. I got one player who couldn’t optimize his way out of a paper bag, but nobody makes the group fall down laughing more then he does. He also has the record for most resurrections with the same PC. So go look at the Tier System thread sometime, but take it with a grain of salt.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 02:04:23 PM by Captnq »
If you have questions about 3.5 D&D, you might want to look at the:
Encyclopedia Vinculum Draconis

Currently: Podcasting

Offline Captnq

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1602
  • Haters gonna hate. Dragons gonna drag.
    • View Profile
    • Ask the Captain
Re: Noob Handbook
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2013, 09:56:07 PM »
Getting Down To Business

“Parts of the game were intended to be linear. but that is not how things worked out. You can unknowingly find yourself on the low side of that linear, or way beyond the high side. This is not a closed circuit of rules like Checkers. This is the most massive rule set ever. Here there be Dragons.”
- DM Golem

The d20 system expanded way beyond anything anyone was expecting. If you include the 3rd party stuff, you can do just about anything. Want to play a super hero? They got that. Want to play a cat? They got that too. Even if you stick with the stuff that was “official”, whatever that might be, you’ve got close to a hundred books and supplements. Even if you discard everything but the player’s handbook, you got a few hundred pages to read.

Then, if you want some background, depending on your campaign setting, you might have a few dozen books to read. There are 22 Eberron books alone. 73 Forgotten Realms books. If you got an old timer like myself, who uses 1st and 2nd edition Forgotten Realms material for the setting, you can add another 143 books. Let’s not even go into the web enhancements.

Sound overwhelming? Well, it is. You won’t become an expert anytime soon. So how do you learn? Stick with the basics. Learn D&D 101 by sticking with simple characters and then, when you get the hang of the basics (and you can have quite a bit of fun with just the basics) THEN you move onto something more interesting.

More then one noob has started off wanting to be a half-dragon child of some important NPC, heir to the kingdom, and one heck of a special snowflake. Usually, some helpful Significant Other is more then willing to custom make your PC exactly how you want it, because the system can handle it. The problem is, you won’t learn ANYTHING. You need to learn the game first, then move on to weird combos. It won’t take long. A few game sessions and you’ll get the hang of combat, how the group works, and the flow of the campaign. Learn turn order and what the other players can do. Watch. Listen. Ask questions.

Then make your special snowflake. You will screw it up. Your PC will suck. However, you will know WHY it sucks. You won’t just throw your hands up in frustration because you can’t fight your way out of a paper bag. If you have a working knowledge of the basics, you will be able to learn from your failure. It happens. It’s part of the learning curve. We all did it. We were all noobs.


The Important Stuff On Your Sheet

Abilities
You got Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Three physical, three mental. Now, I suggest starting off with a SAD PC. That’s Single Ability Dependant. It means if you only got one good stat, would you be useful? The other side of that is MAD, or Multi-Ability Dependant. MAD tends to be harder to play then SAD. Stick with SAD to start.

Strength - Well, of all the SAD stats, this is the best. It increases your melee to hit rolls, your to hit damage, and gives you rippling pectorals. In the end, hitting someone often and hard is an excellent stratagem. If you got enough strength, you can hold your own as most starting characters.

Dexterity - The second best SAD stat. This is best for rogues, sneaky people, and those who prefer shooting people with ranged attacks. I suggest you stick with strength for now. Maybe you can experiment with this as your next PC.

Constitution - Increases your hit points. That’s good, right? Nobody ever won a fight if all they could do was take a hit, but never land a blow. It’s far more important to dish out damage then take it.

Intelligence - Skill points and extra spells for wizards. Both the best and worst SAD you can have. The problem is quite simple, wizards are complicated as hell. It is possible to build a really good wizard. It is possible to horrible screw one up. First timers need to go with Strength. Learn how to hit things with other things first. Move onto the mind bending/reality warping later.

Wisdom - Extra spells for CoDzillas (Cleric or Druid-zilla). There are handbooks for this, but most CoDzillas wind up MAD. Ironically, a good CoDzilla is far more complicated then a wizard to set up, but far less paperwork once created.

Charisma - A sorcerer’s best friend. For the most part, most DMs and players consider the stat useless. The rules claim the stat is important, but unless you are playing a spellcaster who needs this stat, or have a DM that MAKES the stat important, you can be fuggly as all get out and still kick ass. So for most people, this is known as a dump stat. Where you dump your lowest score.


Race
What race to play? Well, pick whatever race fits the class you want to play best, not the other way around. But here’s a good summary.

Human - Good over all.
Elf - Depends on the sub-race. Wizard, usually
Dwarf - Fighter
Halfling - Thief
Gnome - Gnomes suck.
Half-Orc - Barbarian
Half-Elf - It’s a trap!

Other - There are a bazillion, different, non-core races to play. Here’s a few guidelines:

1. Never take anything with a level adjustment, until you know what you are doing. You don’t know what you are doing.

2. Pick a race that has a good ability bonus, yet the ability penalty won’t screw you.

3. Avoid very specific perks. A +1 to all saving throws is much more useful then immunity to sleep, which is a single spell. An extra feat can make or break a build, if it’s the right one. Seeing in the dark is nice, but how often does your DM enforce lighting conditions?


Class
There are a number of classes to pick from, but for now, stick with the basic core classes. Learn the basics, then you have something to compare to when you play a half-celestial kolbold necromancer. One bit of advice for any build, stick to one thing. The more things you try to do, the more you suck at everything. A wizard/fighter sounds nice, but they just aren’t nearly as effective as a straight up fighter, or a straight up wizard.

Barbarian - RAR! I rush at you and hit with big club! Actually, surprisingly effective combat maneuver at low levels. It’s a good first player PC, because it’s uncomplicated and can teach the basics fairly easily. It only needs one ability, strength. It has a number of perks. They are easy to make. They don’t get bogged down in worrying about armor choices. If you are playing a big dumb barbarian and do something stupid, it’s in character. Last, but not least, it’s fun. Oog the Half-orc barbarian can be a ton of fun and in short order you will figure out combat, because that’s all you’ll do. Then Oog can wander off and you can make a new character that fits into the group better.


Bard - Unless you are playing an narrative game, no. Bards do a whole bunch of things, none of them very good. Again, the more you try to do, the more you suck at everything.


Cleric - Usually you wind up the party heal bot and playing combat medic usually isn’t that fun, because if your group is made well, most of the healing won’t be until after combat. Not fun to play unless you know what you are doing. To be effective, they wind up being very MAD, needing at least Wisdom and Strength to be effective.


Druid - Can be deadly, if you know what you are doing. Keep away as a Noob. Druids can turn into deadly killing machines, or spam monsters on the battlefield to make a wall of woodland creatures to soak up damage for the party. If you don’t know all the critters you can turn into, shapechange isn’t that effective. If you don’t know the combat rules very well, how will you handle a dozen giant rats, much less your own combat actions? Druids don’t have to be MAD to be effective, but you need to know what you are doing.


Fighter - When you did the Barbarian thing a few times, and you like hitting things with other things, consider the fighter. You’ll notice that there are many options, most of them suck. Fighters are actually better multi-classed, but you need to make sure you multi-class to classes that add to your ability to hit things with other things. Can be fun and there are many handbooks to direct you to building your thumper.


Monk - Being a monk is predicated on one central concept. You don’t need equipment. A monk is at it’s best when you are fighting buck naked in an antimagic zone. Here’s the problem, how often does that happen? Most DMs loath to throw anti-magic zones or capture-all-the-PCs-and-drop-them-naked-in-a-maze plots at players. It’s usually only fun once. Most players work HARD to get huge piles of loot. Players get pissed if they can’t use their loot. A monk is someone who focuses on being able to do things in situations that don’t come up very often, so you wind up being aquaman. Yes, you are the king of the sea and you have an entire aquatic nation that bows at your feet, but everything interesting is happening on land, so... (awkward silence).


Paladin - The Big Hero. The always lawful good, does what’s right and kicks ass in the name of all that is pure. Surprisingly not that impressive in combat. I’ve never been happy with the spell list. This is more of a roleplaying class then an effective one, but that said, this might be your kind of fun. A good second or third character choice, after you’ve broken in a barbarian.


Ranger - Straight out of the box, Rangers aren’t that good. You got two handed fighting rangers which sounds cool, but the figures don’t lie. One two-handed weapon beats two weapon fighting style, period. So what else can you do? Become a shmoe with a bow. It sounds cool to be the guy who can plug the bad guy at five hundred feet. How often are you fighting someone five hundred feet away? There are a few spells, like wind wall, that can shut you down and render you useless. The fact is, an archer is a great deal of work to make effective. The feat tree is bloated with useless dross. A barbarian with the same number of feat will most likely run through your hail of arrows and beat you into a red, gooshy paste. Like paladin, it’s a roleplaying class.


Rogue - Not a bad starting PC for a noob. If you don’t want to be the rush into battle guy, then this allows you to learn combat by learning how to use battlefield control. How to sneak up on someone, how to use flanking, that sort of thing. A rogue needs tactics to be effective, so playing one will give you a chance to learn them. And you get to be a pirate or a ninja. Maybe a pirate ninja. Power wise, rogues have to work at remaining useful. Enemies quickly start showing up with immunity to sneak attack at higher levels and that shuts down the rogues whole stabbity-stabbity thing.


Sorcerer - Sorcerers are really good spellcasters at dealing with a very limited set of problems. Sorcerers usually are good at one group of spells. Blow stuff up spells. Mind control spells. Battlefield control spells. That sort of thing. However, after that, they suck. They give up versatility in exchange for… well… actually. They are supposed to be the best at what they do, but usually they aren’t. The sad fact is, a specialized wizard is usually more effective then a sorcerer. What a sorcerer was supposed to be was the guy who can spam a small number of spells over and over, but if a wizard is willing to give up a few schools, they wind up being just about as effective.

See, the problem is, you might be able to cast fireball twenty times a day, but usually you might only need it three or four. So all those extra spell slots go to waste. Where as the wizard has less spells, but he can pick and choose. It is rare any spellcaster uses all his spells. So it looks nice on paper, but in practice, sorcerers kinda suck.

So you should totally play one.

Nope. I’m serious. To the Noob, the sorcerer’s disadvantages are advantages. Limited spell lists mean a severe lack of paperwork. You know what you can do so you don’t have to agonize over your spell list every game session. The sorcerer is based on Charisma, so you get to play the social bunny. Where everyone else has a dump stat charisma of 6, you got a 18, and that means you get to do much more roleplaying when you are in the city, doing shopping, talking to people about getting work, that sort of thing. And if you screw up and misuse a spell, it’s okay, you got a spare. Unlike a wizard who frets over every spell, because once he uses his only shield spell, he can’t use it again. You, on the other hand, are no where near as concerned about such things.

In short, playing a sorcerer is like being a spellcaster with training wheels, which is exactly what you need to learn the game.


Wizard - The best for last. In effect, if you play with all the rules, wizards can do anything the rest of the classes can do, but better. With time and planning and a few dozen scribed scrolls, wizards quickly can over shadow the rest of the party. There’s a down side. Too many choices.

It’s really easy to screw up a wizard build. It’s easy to get seduced by the spell’s description then discover it’s totally impractical for its intended purpose. It’s also a boat load of paperwork. I’ve seen PCs with no less then 12 different spell lists that they would select, depending on the up coming events they expect to deal with. Being a wizard means keeping track of lists and lists of spells. It’s the reason the player I mentioned before is playing a monk. She just got sick and tired of all the paperwork. She said she wanted to roleplay a wizard, not roleplay being an accountant.

The wizard list is huge. I mean HUGE. And that’s just the official spells, not the third party spells, or the spells you will want to research. Wizard is by far the most time intensive class you can select. Think carefully before wading into the deep end of the pool.


Other - Don’t. Just don’t. If you are reading this, you are a noob. Suck it up and spend a few weeks playing a boring, normal ordinary PC concept and learn the rules. I mean it. Every noob I ran for that stuck it out played something mundane and dull to start. Everyone who insisted on being the special snowflake, did not. Do not start out playing, A Desert Dwelling, Half-Dragon, Aquatic Elf, Grandchild of Elminster, druid/ranger. You will suck. Real gamers will mock you behind your back. You won’t have fun.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2014, 07:39:39 AM by Captnq »
If you have questions about 3.5 D&D, you might want to look at the:
Encyclopedia Vinculum Draconis

Currently: Podcasting

Offline Captnq

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1602
  • Haters gonna hate. Dragons gonna drag.
    • View Profile
    • Ask the Captain
Re: Noob Handbook
« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2013, 09:56:46 PM »
Admiral Akbar Says…


(Twenty One Traps for Noobs)

This is the section where I give you a whole bunch of warnings on what not to do. You’ll notice there is no section on what you should do. That is because you should do whatever you damn well please. Seriously. There are enough handbooks and guides on how to build the ultimate Fill-In-The-Blank. Hell, check out my Encyclopedia Vinculum Draconis if you need ideas. You see, if it’s fun, it’s not a bad choice. Even the following traps to avoid can be fun to play with. The only thing to remember is, you’re a noob, you’re going to make mistakes, you should learn from them.

Trap 1
Not making a character to fit the campaign. No, not to fit the party, the campaign.

I run a campaign which by anyone else’s standards is stingy and slow advancement. Players are normally below WBL, but a few times they exceeded it slightly. I track inherent bonuses against WBL. No magic mart. If you have a charisma of 6, chances of you finding some place to sell your magic items is next to nil. Hell, my players still bitch about the epic shit-fest they had to go through to acquire a stinking handy haversack. Advancement is slow as well. However, I run every Thursday for upwards of 8 to 12 hours. 50 weeks a year, going on year 8.

One of my players started playing with another group on Fridays. He went on and on about how awesome it was to start out at 10th and that advancement was one level a session and he had everything planned out for the next 10 levels. Then he discovered it didn’t matter what treasure the monsters had, because you could only have EXACTLY what your WBL allowed you to have. Also, you could have any magic item in the book just by going to town and buying it, so the other players had the most powerful magic items they could get for the money. He planned poorly, apparently.

Then after three sessions the DM got bored with running and wanted someone else to run. When he finally got back around to wanting to run again, he wanted to start a new campaign with new PCs.

My player went into that game with the idea that he was going to be able to play for another 10 levels. He built his PC around that idea. He was used to playing with me, where you can plan out the next 20 levels and know that I’m going to be here, every single week. The players in the other game were used to only having a few sessions then discarding the PC, so they planned short term.

Is one way better then another? No. I have a preference, but one is not better then the other. What’s important is to understand what to expect long term. Are we starting at 1st? How easy is it to get new magic items? How strict is the Wealth By Level enforced? Are we playing until we defeat the X? Is this an open ended campaign? What level should I expect to reach?

If it’s going to be a short run, plan your PC accordingly. Planning on being the Uber-Mage at level 15 means nothing if you never make it past level 8. Making the ultimate level 5 character means nothing if he has no room to grow and the campaign is going to last years.

In other words, the first trap is planning too much, or not enough, for the campaign you are playing in.


Trap 2
Self-nerfing.

The ugly truth of D&D is that 94% of everything is shit, 5% of everything is so awesome as to give the DM seizures, and that leaves 1% that is actually fairly balanced. I’m serious. See, as the game evolved, the developers got better at game balance. So the fairly balanced classes and feats and spells came late in the edition’s life cycle. That often means that if you want to get rid of the unbalanced crap, you’d be better off banning core. That’s right, the game works better if you get rid of most of the main rule books.

Well, that’s the DM’s job. He’s the one to figure out what’s balanced and what isn’t and what he can handle, and what’s out of control. It isn’t your job to limit yourself. It also isn’t a war. You are not trying to make the DM cry. You are not trying to stealth the ultimate combo past him. Talk to him. Lay out your plans. Ask for the combo of powers you want and let the DM decide if you are Son-Of-Pun-Pun, or if you’ll fit in the campaign.

Now, if your DM shuts down EVERYTHING you do, there are two possibilities. You are a twink and a powergamer or your DM is a dick. The solution is third party arbitration. Bring in the other players and point out the two options. Ask which one it is. Remember, the one consistant thing is all your failed relationships is you.


Trap 3
Everything has to be awesome.

Borderlands illustrates this absolutely perfectly for me. For those who are not familiar with it, it includes a weapon drop system that is randomized based on the power and type of creature that you kill, as well as the area in which you kill it. This leads to a phenomenon that most people who play the game are familiar with. You end up collecting terrible weapons that you wouldn't use even at 10 levels lower dropping from enemies at a frequent rate, weapons that you used to use at an uncommon rate, and then a new weapon to use every couple levels, or what seems like 15 bajillion hours later. People hated this (at least, people I knew), because, well, you just killed a boss, and he dropped some crap weapon that you can't use, they wanted something interesting dropping every time. While that makes sense from a player's standpoint, it's a horrible idea from a developer's standpoint. Those crap weapons need to exist to make the good weapons actually be good. If you constantly got better weapons (or even good weapons) you would end up with vastly overpowered weapons halfway through the game, and it would just not be fun. Not only that, but the choice would be hard, and people don't like that. And finally, it would make all of the guns seem the same (at least guns of a certain type). Does that last one sound familiar?

The reason so many guns were worthless was a mathematical certainty. If you have a good gun, then you have three options on any weapon drop: a better gun, the same gun, or a weaker gun. If there's a finite limit to power (which there is), then you will eventually run out of better guns, and every gun will be as good or worse. It's just a matter of how fast that happens. The slower you go, the more bad guns you'll experience on the way to the best, the faster you go the more time you'll spend with the best (making encounters too easy if you get better guns faster than you need them). And there's always room for complaint here because of it, since the balance is a subjective thing.

That same principle applies to D&D, though for a slightly different reason. In D&D, you have so many options that the likelihood of it not being a good option increases with each new system you add. Heck, each new tiny little ability (skill use, feat, etc.). It's a matter of complexity, it's so complex that it's absolutely impossible for any one person to look at every reaction and say "yup, that's going to affect this in this precise way". You can whine and such about how the core game is poorly balanced, but knowing what they knew then, it was balanced. Knowing what they know now, it's not. That's why ToB came out. And the classes like Beguiler, Warmage, Dread Necromancer, Binder, Incarnum, etc. The later you go into a system's development, the more reasonable the abilities become (note the balance and design on early supplements and core vs later supplements). And it's still really hard, because there's still combinations that they don't think of checking for.

So not every character has to be awesome. It’s okay to be okay. Sure, the game has a I-WIN mentality, but if you fit in with the group, then it’s okay to be average. And if you want to be the best, be the best, but don’t force everyone else to be the best right along with you. Every player is different and if you want to get people to improve, focus on talking about it in a friendly way, “Hey, ya know, if we work out your buffs ahead of time, we can really improve our chances of survival.” That’s a good way to put it. Ordering the Wizard to set aside certain slots for buffs, that you “need” because the combo is perfect with your X, will only make people want to strangle you.


Trap 4
Splitting Up The Party/Scouting/Being the Lone Assassin/Being the “Protagonist”

A problem noobs run into is what I call TV Blinders. You see a character on TV and want to play him, which is okay, except most TV characters don’t work on a team. Most protagonists wind up doing things alone while the rest of the cast is in a supporting role, or off camera entirely. So when you split up the party, run off as the scout, set yourself up as a lone assassin to kill the bad guy, or in general do anything that leaves everyone else sitting around for hours waiting for a chance to do something, you suck.

Not only do you suck, but everyone else will hate you, even if you do succeed in assassinating the Big Bad. Especially if you succeed and hog all the XP. That’s not to say that scouting sucks, but as a noob, avoid any concept, any tactic, or any power combo that involves going into another room and making the DM run back and forth to run the game.

That said, I’ve run sessions for only one player, but that’s was separate from my normal weekly game session. But that is up to your DM and his gaming style and how much time he has free to devote to the game.


Trap 5
Avoiding Information

I know I just said scouting is bad, but there is the other side of that, which is not gathering information. I’m not just talking the rogue wandering the city, but asking questions, pointing out you have knowledge skills and want to roll them so you know what you are fighting, asking the other players what they can do and how they do it and what you can do to help them and what they can do to help you. It means not working out combat maneuvers ahead of time. It means no planning, no rumors, and just barreling head long at the problem. It means not asking what’s going on.

You have to ask questions in character and out of character if you are going to learn.


Trap 6
Your class is your character.

The best wizard, if you aren’t going to exceed 7th level, is a ranger. It a mystic ranger/mystic theurge with a bizarre combo of questionable level substitutions and feats that let it double advance so he had 5th level spells at 7th. If your DM allows it, I can think of no stronger spellcaster at that character level.

Your class is not your character. Being a fighter does not limit you to fighting. Being a wizard does not limit you to spells. It is difficult to be something so contrary to your original class, but not impossible and sometimes pure advantage. There are many ways a wizard can do what the other classes do, and at high levels, he can often do them better.

Do not feel that there is nothing you can do. A wizard can still pick up a spear and fight in an antimagic zone. A fighter can pick up a few ranks in use magical device and keep a wand of fireballs in his pocket. At the higher levels, equipment is sometimes superior to a PC’s actual abilities.

As an example, Lancelot is a knight known for defying his king's orders and for going into wild rages when fighting. The knight class is practically his antithesis, and the paladin class doesn't work either. The barbarian class, on the other hand, fits his abilities well.

Another example, Gandalf is a servant of a deity whose powers are most effective against evil creatures. He is skilled with a sword, his mere presence makes people feel more courageous, and he can call a mystical horse to his side. He displays only minor magical abilities, most of which come from a magic ring related to fire. A D&D wizard is nothing like Gandalf, but the paladin class is a perfect fit.

Sometimes a title, is just a title.


Trap 6
Hording Resources

D&D is about resource management. Plan on three major encounters before you get a chance to rest and recharge and you should be okay. It is a major mistake of noobs to save their scrolls, wands, potions, and other non-replaceable magic items. Use them. You have a WBL, which means sooner or later you’ll replace those magic items you used. Okay, save one last Boom-Boom should you need to pull your ass out of the fire, but for the most part, noobs have a tendency to be too worried of being caught “defenseless” to use the big guns.


Trap 7
Spreading the damage

Which is more dangerous to you when you lose initiative? A level 10 fighter with one hit point, or a level 10 fighter with 100 hit points? Trick question, they are equally dangerous.

It takes a while to sink in, but D&D has a binary nature to it when it comes to hit points. You are just as dangerous with one hit point as with a hundred. Once you reach zero, you drop, but until then you suffer no ill effects. So a fireball that wounds a group of goblins is only useful in setting up a group of targets for a fighter with mighty cleave to go to town. It is far better to focus damage on one target, move to the next, then the next.

Another example, if you have a magic missile that will do 5 points of damage and you have a wounded target that is almost dead with one hit point left, and a target that has ten hit points, which one would you attack?

Well, in the real world, it would seem like the almost dead target would waste 4 points of damage, but in D&D, dropping a target this round means one less enemy to attack you next round. Better to over kill the wounded, then to leave two targets up to fight you next round.


Trap 8
Fighting at a distance.

First, most of the means of attacking at range do not actually let you attack at range. You're within 30 feet of the target or some other small distance. If you're going to be that close you might as well melee.

Second, the ones that do let you attack at range still don't give you THAT much range. Spotting distances are the biggest limiter here. Indoor encounters are going to put the enemies within melee range where a ranged weapon is nothing but a liability, outdoor encounters will put them close enough so it only takes a round or two to close at most... which brings us to the other half of that problem.

Third, those same things just don't do enough damage. Even on a ranged focused character you just can't kill things fast enough. If you're not ranged focused those ranged attacks will quickly become entirely ineffective. And that's before taking into account the many different things that shut down ranged combat.

Fourth, it costs too much to even try. In terms of feat costs, having to constantly replace your entire weapon several times, having to get the things you need in order to even attempt ranged combat...

Fifth, what about the rest of the party? If they're also ranged then you're not going to be able to kill things before they get to you. If they aren't... so you're hanging way back by yourself? There's a significant number of enemies that will be happy to take advantage of that and since archers are very easily killed you can imagine how that would go. You can only get away with that if you have some form of defensive abilities.

Sixth, there's a ton of things that stop ranged combat. From AC bonuses that only work vs ranged attacks to miss chances that only work vs ranged attacks to spells that stop all ranged attacks. They're even easier to shut down than sneak attackers. It doesn't help that the ones that are close range have all the same problems as sneak attackers in addition to the ranged problems, and in some cases there are far fewer solutions to the whole precision immunity/uncanny dodge/otherwise cannot get enemies unaware of you problems.

So, this means you shouldn’t play a ranged attacker? Well, as a noob, yes. Ranged attackers are occasionally effective. I’ve seen a few, but the chances of you pulling it off in your first few games is next to nil. Once you get to know the game, THEN you can experiment with ranged attackers and see what you can come up with, but right out of the gate, stick to something a bit more effective. Archery is something you do when you are waiting for the bad guys to close, not something you build as a noob.


Trap 9
Forgetting you have skills

Everyone has skills. Some skills are the bomb. Invisibility is countered by see invisible, whereas hide is countered by spot. If you have a hide of 40 and he has a spot of 20, guess who gets his throat slit? Whatever skill you take, make sure it’s something you actually will roll and has an effective on the game.

There are five basic skill types:
- Skills you want to max out: diplomacy, UMD, intimidate, concentration, certain knowledge skills, etc. These skills just get better, the more points you drop into them.
- Skills you want 5 ranks in for synergy bonuses: handle animal, bluff, certain knowledge skills, balance, etc. These skills give you a +2 to something else, you might want to roll them occationally, but that’s about it.
- Skills you want 1 rank in: obscure knowledge skills, anything that requires you to be trained in. This is for when you need a hail mary.
- Skills needed to qualify for PrCs and feats. These are basically a tax on qualifying for a given PrC.
- Finally, skills that are a waste of time. Profession: tailor is nice, but a waste of time if you never use it.


Trap 10
Taking your time

Speed Kills. I cannot stress this enough. Anything that lets you go first, go faster, move farther, hit sooner, improve initiative, and take more actions is awesome. Anything that slows your enemies down is also awesome. There are a number of save or suck attacks out there, meaning that if you don’t save, you are effectively dead/neutralized.

Don’t be slow. There may never be a next round.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2014, 07:49:26 AM by Captnq »
If you have questions about 3.5 D&D, you might want to look at the:
Encyclopedia Vinculum Draconis

Currently: Podcasting

Offline Captnq

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1602
  • Haters gonna hate. Dragons gonna drag.
    • View Profile
    • Ask the Captain
Re: Noob Handbook
« Reply #4 on: April 01, 2013, 10:10:26 AM »
Trap 11
Complex = Good.

If you need to spend ten minutes flipping though books to figure out what you are going to do, your character sucks. If you have to dumpster dive to find the most obscure spell dungeon magazine has to offer, your character sucks. If the DM doesn’t play with that rule book, your character sucks.

Look, you’re starting out, so this requires that you learn the system first. A common mistake is to read someone’s handbook and try to jump straight to making an ultimate magus/incantatrix. Before you try to handle unbridled power over the universe, stick to something simple. After you figure out the advantages of scorching ray vrs fireball, THEN you can move on to messing with the very underpinnings of reality itself.

We all want to the cool guy/hero. We all want to be the one who the other players go, “Wow”. Well, guess what? A barbarian in rage with a 20 strength, power attacking with a two handed club can squish the enemy in one shot. At 3rd level, that’s a wow. No special race, no special stats, no special nothing. A killing machine of meat and rage using core rules is remarkably effective. Don’t over think until you know what you are doing.


Trap 12
Melee Discussions

The main trap of melee is discussing it. Allow me to define the terms, then I’ll explain it what I mean.

TWF - Two Weapon Fighting. Statistically, the penalties to hit far out weigh the extra damage you get with the extra attacks. Unless you have some sort of means of adding extra damage to every attack you do, extra attacks aren’t worth the cost. Unfortunately it can cost up to three feats to use. Gloves of the Balanced Hand (MiC) gives you TWF or ITWF if you already have that which helps but you'll have to invest feats if you want this in full stride.

THF - Two Handed Fighting. One big weapon that you use both hands with so you maximize your damage and get a multiplier on your strength and power attack damage. Considered by most to be the most effective use of a melee weapon, because you only have to have one weapon. If you have two weapons, you have to spend more of your WBL buying both. One big weapon concentrates your damage, which means more one shot kills, and in a Binary Hit Point/Combat Effectiveness situation, it is mathematically the correct choice. And finally THF works very well with Charging and charge multipliers are essentially a losers handicap where no matter how poor your build is, you can still deal hundreds of damage per turn.

S&B - Sword and Board. One weapon, one shield. This is the classic D&D fighter, and the one they push from a design stand point. The random magic weapon generator even generates Long Sword more then any other melee weapon. The problem is, it just isn’t effective. The WBL costs of that shield far out ways the loss of damage and armor bonus. Math-wise, from 1st to 3rd level, a shield does have some numerical advantage, but after 4th, you become a 5th wheel.

Here’s the problem, you start to bring this up in discussion, and people start frothing at the mouth. I’ve found actual death threats over melee discussions elsewhere. Now, I don’t take them seriously, but it does seem that Melee Optimization Discussions bring out the worst in Gamers.

Here’s the thing, sometimes people just want to dual wield. It’s not combat effective. It’s expensive as hell, but it is possible with the right combination of weapon special abilities and feats to do something impressive. Half the fun of the game is optimization, but the other half is making something that is damn cool. Not everyone is optimizing towards the same goal. For some, the goal is a statistical nirvana of mathematical perfection. For others, it’s being a halfling holding two over-sized, six-handed scissor swords (meant to be wielded by a six-handed demon) who can throw them a hundred feet while tumbling to the attack. Combat effective? No. Cool-tastically Awesome image in my head? Hell Yes!

Both are perfectly valid goals to optimize towards. My point is, know what your goal is when you are optimizing. Don’t get caught up in discussing X is better then Y. Don’t get fooled into thinking your build sucks because anything other then a two handed weapon sucks. 2HWs are the statistically best weapons to use for combat, but they may not be the best choice for you, as a player.

So if you get caught up in an argument over melee styles, stop who you are talking to right there. Thank them for their advice then say, “We have different goals. I want to learn by doing. I need to do this my way, because I want my own experiences.” Then move on.


Trap 13
You win when everything else is dead.

Damage isn't everything. A barbarian who deals 1 million damage with a greataxe is useless against enemies who can fly. A charm person spell can defeat an enemy instantly, and is useful outside combat too. Hindering or weakening your enemies makes them easier to kill. Spellcasters have far more options than direct damage, while non-casters have a harder time attaining them.

You see, non-casters are usually stuck with different ways to inflict damage and that’s about it. Whereas a caster often have a number of save-or-suck attacks at their disposal. The over all goal is basically to render your enemies unable to fight, not to kill them. Hold person works just as well as 400 hit points of damage.

I ran an adventure where I created a number of one use staves of evil for the bad guys that basically made it suck to be alive in a hundred foot area for a minute. Undead were bolstered, healed, all sorts of crap made for some interesting combats. Well, the monk captured one, stuck it in a handy haversack and forgot about it.

A few months later I brought out my ultimate rules abused obscene challenge rating bad guy who was finally going to put the fear of DM in my player. Turns out she picked up an amulet that turns you into undead at some point. So she took out the staff of evil, put on the amulet, turned undead, used the staff and beat the ever living shit out of my creation.

See, I won’t cheat and add something to the NPCs sheet once combat’s begun. I never expected her to do that, had not planned on it, and even with his immunities, enough of the staff got through because I MADE it to over come immunities to use against the players. Furthermore, it boosted the monk. Add a few lucky crits and that was all she wrote.

Winning is not about dead bodies at your feet. It’s about crippling your enemies so you can kill them, or capture them, or whatever you wish to do. By the binary nature of D&D’s hit point system, a paralyzed NPC is the same as a dead NPC is the same as a nauseated/entangled NPC. If the NPC can’t do anything, it’s the same as winning.


Trap 14
The DM will save you.

You might be playing with a kind DM, in which case, he might give you a break. However, it is foolish to assume this. Again, TV blinders are a problem here. You might think you are creating a story, and you are, in a fashion. But D&D is primarily a simulation, not a republican adventure serial. If you do something stupid, the NPCs are more then likely to take advantage of that and kill you. There is no plot armor. The bad guys are not holding the idiot ball. If the DM asks the question, “Are you sure?” Stop and come up with a good reason why you want to proceed before you say, “Of course I’m sure.” That’s about the extent of the help you can expect.


Trap 15
Alignment is absolute.

Players get hung up on, “I’m Chaotic, so I have to act like a nut job!” or, “I’m Good, so I have to give the enemy a chance to surrender.” Well, it’s a bit more flexible then all that. There is wiggle room. Lawful Good doesn’t mean lawful stupid.

Alignment causes a lot of headaches, particularly when DMs and players disagree on what a particular alignment means - if you think this may come up then please, don't play a paladin unless you're a masochist. Remember that like class, alignment is not a straitjacket - don't think "my character keeps his word because he's lawful", think "my character is lawful because he keeps his word". Being Evil does not mean you do cruel things for no reason, being Chaotic is not the same thing as being insane, Lawful does not mean "follows the law" (it just means you like things orderly), and Good characters are compassionate but not necessarily naive. TV Tropes has a good summary of what the alignments mean and what they don't mean.


Trap 16
Healing in combat

Mathematically, healing in combat is bad. It’s part of the whole conservation of action thing. You can only do so many things in a round. If you spend your action healing, you need to heal more damage then the enemy inflicts to make it worth your time and effort. In hand to hand combat, where your enemy is using full round actions to attack, damage will outpace healing.

This is not a video game. Healing in combat is a last resort, or something you do when you can’t do anything else. Heal and mass heal are good, because they often outpace the damage you take in a round, plus mass heal can do damage against undead. Stick to using cure light wounds or lesser vigor in a wand to heal outside of combat. Gold to hit point healed cost ratio proves that a lesser vigor wand is the best for healing, if you have a few minutes to heal.

That said, sometimes you have a few rounds. Make sure to keep one or two healing potions that are as powerful as you can afford in your equipment list. Maybe the enemy will retreat for a few rounds to come at you from another direction. That’s when using your actions to heal is important, and you might not have 40 rounds to do it in.

At-will healing, like regeneration, sounds nice, but in play isn’t that useful, unless you are in a gauntlet. What that means is, instead of the typical 3 combats a day, you are not going to have a chance to rest and heal. There will be no spell recovery, and the only thing you can do is push on or fail. Then unlimited healing is nice. Otherwise, one ring of regeneration can buy a dozen wands of lesser vigor and the wand will occupy much less of your WBL.

There is one exception. If your allies have been debilitated, and healing them returns them to combat ready status, do it. This covers poison, paralyzing, being 0 to -9 hit points, weird diseases, and anything else that renders your allies from being effective. Bringing an ally back to fighting trim is worth taking the time to heal, because it acts as a force multiplier and increases the over all effectiveness of your side.


Trap 17
Tanks are awesome

In most video games, tanks are a viable option. Wading through a hail of arrows, laughing as you shake shrapnel out of your beard. Sounds fun. But in D&D, when you get to a level where you can do that, the enemy is using far more save-or-suck attacks. Furthermore, if the enemy is ineffective against you, your allies aren’t tanks. So they will just switch targets and pick them off one at a time, saving you for last.

Being a damage sponge isn’t good in a game where whittling your enemies down has no effect until the last hit point. Again, the binary nature of hit points makes this sort of build less then optimal. That said, they can be fun, just understand what you are getting into.


Trap 18
More dice is always better

Why yes, a 10d6 fireball looks nice, but on average it’s only 35 points. Add in a saving throw that succeeds half the time, you have a true average of 26.25. Assuming your enemy doesn’t have evasion, or fire resistance. Now, if you are 10th level to cast this spell, that means your enemies will typically have, on average 10 hit dice. That’s about 45 hit points. Oh wait, let’s say this mook has a con of 14. So that’s about 65 hit points. It will take three fire balls to kill a group of mooks, assuming they don’t spread out after the first one.

This is why people speak so poorly of evocation and direct damage spells. Not only does the damage seem to wind up at 1d6/level, but the spells often have so many ways to resist them, that they wind up being completely ineffective.

If you must use damaging attacks, what matters is: how much average damage multiplied by the percentage chance of success. Our fireball is countered by saving throws and fire resistance. A sword is countered by armor class and damage reduction. Almost everything in D&D has a means to resist, so you need to weigh the likelihood of your attack taking effect against the effect it has.


Trap 19
Play the averages

Normally, playing the averages is the way to go. Sometimes playing the numbers will get you killed.

Your party is getting hammered. Your fighter is down to two hit points and is right next to a raging troll barbarian that’s pretty close to full hit points. The cleric is still out of it — a victim of hideous laughter. The rogue ran away last round. You’d like to run away, but the troll is between you and the exit and all you’ve got left is scorching ray, vampiric touch, magic missile, and phantasmal killer. What are you going to do?

By the numbers, of course, you’re going to lose. Nothing you can cast has even a 50% chance of killing the troll this round with average damage. If you could somehow survive long enough to cast all of your damaging spells, the troll will have regenerated enough hit points to still be alive. What you need is not averages; you need to get lucky.

While the phantasmal killer spell is not normally a good choice against a foe with a decent Will save and a good Fortitude save, it at least offers the chance for you to get lucky and win the battle this round. This is a useful lesson in less dire situations as well. While certain death situations are rare for whole parties or any particular character, it is not unusual for a single party member to be one round away from death. In the previous situation, the mage might be perfectly safe — protected by the rogue and cleric — but the fighter would still be likely to die if he went for the safe average damage against the troll.

The wizard’s goal in that case would be to ensure that the fighter survives to shield him in the next fight not just to deal average damage to the troll. For that purpose, phantasmal killer is still a strong contender even though it is a bit of a long shot. Long odds are better than no odds. A skilled player knows when to forget about the averages and swing for the fences.


Trap 20
Damage Over Time

Continuous damage is not worth significantly more than normal damage. Sure, a spell caster taking continuous damage has to make a Concentration check (DC 10+1/2 damage + spell level) to cast a spell. But it’s not that significant. Continuous damage like acid arrow is generally pretty low, so the Concentration DC is rarely high enough to make a difference. A typical 3rd-level wizard will be able to make the Concentration check to cast Glitterdust with an acid arrow eating through his chest on a roll of 6 or higher. If you’re a 3rd-level wizard and want to disrupt an opponent’s spellcasting, you’re far more likely to succeed by readying an action to disrupt his spell with a magic missile. The same enemy will need to roll an 11 to make the DC 19 Concentration check to pull that off. Better yet, there’s no chance of missing entirely.

When it comes to damage, more is better, but now is best. That means that poisons are only useful the first round, given that most combats rarely last a full minute. Spells that promise huge payouts over time only work if your enemy is going to be alive all of those rounds. Chances are you are going to kill your targets one at a time by focusing your party’s attention on the weakest target then moving on up. If your target lasts only one round, every round after that is wasted damage.


Trap 21
Falling for the shell game

There’s a con, where someone hides an object under one of three shells and moves the shells around. His goal is to convince you that you can find the object, then giving you a choice of the three shells. The problem is, the object isn’t under ANY of the shells. He moved it to his pocket when you were distracted. A shell game is simply setting up conditions for winning, then convincing the victim that his options are limited to choices that are all doomed to fail.

Here's a simple scenario. There is a locked iron door between you and where you need to go. You don't have the key.

Barring specific class abilities, there are three main methods of dealing with this problem - pick the lock, break the door in one shot, and break the door via HP damage.

Pick the lock: The system heavily nudges you towards this one because it's a locked door, you're supposed to interact with the lock right? No, that's a trap. Since good locks are cheap, the locks on anything important will be well out of reach of your lockpicking abilities. Since it's an iron door it's clearly blocking something important. This is a means of wasting skill points on a skill that does nothing and that's all.

Break the door in one shot: This requires a DC 28 check that is Str + size + other benefits. Essentially if you are anything other than a Dungeoncrasher Fighter you're not breaking it down, even if you're strong it's not likely at the levels this constitutes a significant obstacle. If you are you're still not that likely to break it down unless you stack many different things that boost Str checks in addition to the +10 bonus from Dungeoncrasher levels. This isn't necessarily a trap, as you made that investment for Dungeoncrashing and breaking doors is just a random bonus but if you're anything else trying is a trap as you're only going to make a lot of noise and alert anything around to your presence and general intentions. The system does kind of nudge you towards this one, but not really.

Break the door via HP damage: It has hardness 10 and 60 HP which is decent at these levels. However it's an inanimate object. You can PA your entire BAB, use any accuracy penalties for more attacks and so forth and still hit so breaking it down is very easy. The system nudges you away from this one slightly. Despite it being clearly the best option as it works reliably without specific investment - any melee character can do it.

Now, these assume a number predicating factors. You’re a melee character, not a wizard who’s out of spells. It might also be possible to hide and wait for a guard change, to find the owner of the key and beat him up, use alternate movement modes like burrow, climb or flight, or comedy option: knock on the door and say in orcish "Pizza Delivery!"

This is part of what can make it hard for beginners is that sometimes existent linear solutions are worse than non-linear ones and at other times non-linear solutions are wasteful compared to simple solutions.  Evaluating this takes a level of skill mastery that many beginners don't possess and can render something as simple as a locked door a major puzzle to them while an advanced player would just power attack the damn thing. Sometimes you need to come at the problem sideways. Sometimes you need to pull out your sword and slash the Gordian Knot to ribbons. Don’t feel like you have to choose only from the choices given.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2014, 08:02:41 AM by Captnq »
If you have questions about 3.5 D&D, you might want to look at the:
Encyclopedia Vinculum Draconis

Currently: Podcasting