The Traps Beginners should be warned of

[TSS]

That is a trap, but are there even high LA races that are available to PCs? LA itself isn't necessarily a trap as there are some uses that are worth it.

[RetroGamer24]

For older gamers getting back into D&D after not playing since 2nd edition. The game is co operative.  DM vs. Players no longer applies else you want to make  people only want to ruin the DM's plans.  Which in turn makes for loss of friends.

[veekie]

That is a trap, but are there even high LA races that are available to PCs? LA itself isn't necessarily a trap as there are some uses that are worth it.

Quite a few of them I think, but LA just never seems to work out. Either the race has abilities never meant to be PC accessible, or it grossly overestimates the value of ability score boosts.

Granted for martial types they generally aren't losing much in the process.

[TSS]

All the ones I can think of with high LA also have high racial HD. It has many of the same problems but isn't quite the same thing.

I'm also trying to think of a reason why a new player would be playing in a high level game. I can't see that working out, trap or not.

I think there's just a bit too much ambiguity to say that LA races are a trap, even though most are.

Same goes for races in general. Some races are really bad, but unlike sword and board, sneak attack, etc picking a bad race is not going to force you to die. There's nothing to gain and a lot to lose from picking a bad race but in the case of non LA races it's not harsh enough to result in death.

[InnaBinder]

I'm also trying to think of a reason why a new player would be playing in a high level game. I can't see that working out, trap or not.

One possible reason would be new players for a DM who is either experienced, or (more likely) relatively inexperienced at running games while simultaneously familiar with the various forums, where we, the veteran posters, frequently espouse the theory that low-level D&D is extremely swingy/a trap/not as much fun as mid-to-high level games.  "Hey guys, I've been reading the forums a lot, and I want to run a game so you can see how much fun 3.5 D&D is!  According to [posters I respect] and my own (singular) experience, the game starts to get interesting around 9th level, so we'll start there, okay?"

[Unbeliever]

I haven't played a game that started below 6th level in years.  That's just not the games we're interested in.  We shepherd newbies into our fold on occasion, though that's just what InnaBinder is talking about -- it's a bunch of experienced people and one or two newbs. 

/tangent

[TSS]

I'm also trying to think of a reason why a new player would be playing in a high level game. I can't see that working out, trap or not.

One possible reason would be new players for a DM who is either experienced, or (more likely) relatively inexperienced at running games while simultaneously familiar with the various forums, where we, the veteran posters, frequently espouse the theory that low-level D&D is extremely swingy/a trap/not as much fun as mid-to-high level games.  "Hey guys, I've been reading the forums a lot, and I want to run a game so you can see how much fun 3.5 D&D is!  According to [posters I respect] and my own (singular) experience, the game starts to get interesting around 9th level, so we'll start there, okay?"

It is common knowledge that low level D&D doesn't work. There's still a big difference between not playing level 1 and 2 and starting off at high levels.

Between that and most of the inexperienced types not allowing exotic races I don't think that one qualifies as a trap.

[dman11235]

It is common knowledge that low level D&D doesn't work.

Read as: "This is how I think it works, therefore everyone should think it works like this."

I've played low level D&D before, and I can tell you that not only does it work, it's less borked than high level.  High level is where the difference between casters and mundanes really takes off.  Low level involves more tactical in combat play (high level involves more tactical out of combat play, not my style).  Can you die more easily at low levels?  Yes.  Yes you can.  If you think this is a problem, then I suggest you take up a game where dying isn't a problem.  High level tier 1 magical tea time or something along those lines.  At low levels it's actually more of a "you made a mistake, you die/get injured severely because of it".  And before you spout some nonsense about how "monsters always have the advantage" or "it's all luck" or "wah wah, he made fun of my play style", I want you to take a step back, ignore your own prejudices, and think.  Take a good long think.  Think about how people can be different, and enjoy different things.  Think about how probabilities actually work and don't fall into the fallacy of "if it can happen, it will" or "if it has a low chance of happening it won't".  I know humans have a had time with that one.  Think about how a good DM will let his players survive without coddling them (it's possible: send enemies they are capable of dealing with, rather than just random stock monsters).  Think about how a good party will work together.  Think about how a good DM will cater the encounters (not just enemies) to fit the players, and not require IP proofing or accounting for every possible encounter at all times.  Think about those things.  If you do what I'm sure you will do and come back with a list of monsters than are under CRed, atypical, or otherwise special in some way, then I will know that you truly are just trolling.  This should be interesting.

But you know what?  I usually start games at level 6, generically.  I've started games at higher levels and lower levels too.  All are fine, but I do like the lower level play because casters get a major restriction at those levels, assuming your DM doesn't allow the stupid resting habits.  And I avoid really low levels (1-4) because you just don't have enough abilities, and your character has a hard time codifying.

[TSS]

I was wondering if there were any more traps, or if everything has already been covered. I was about to say that all the major ones have already been mentioned and this thread is complete.

Then you proved me wrong.

So here's the trap a lot of inexperienced players fall into: They think that just anything can work any kind of way. It isn't about any specific build or feat or any other part of the game. They just think they can do whatever they'd like and it all will work out. It doesn't actually work that way. Sometimes the DM will set them straight right away, but far too often the DM will encourage them. And then those same people go around making those same clearly and obviously false claims, which is the biggest reason why beginners have to be warned of traps and is why this thread exists.

You can identify these sorts of inexperienced players very easily. They make conflicting and contradictory claims, such as low levels being about skill and not randomness and then saying they avoid those same levels for the same or similar reasons. If the low levels were so great they'd enjoy playing them, and not skip them like everyone else. Or they will claim the DM is not coddling the players and then go on to describe deliberately making things easier than normal in several different ways.

Even a cursory glance at their claims reveals the many, myriad flaws.

However new players are apt to take words at face value without reading into them. Definite trap material.

[veekie]

For newbie traps in particular, LA is a big one. It looks horribly powerful at a glance due to enormous stats, and is the stereotypical powergamed character in media(half-dragon half ogre half golem for example, regardless of if it works). Its just that stats don't mean much, at all. So it fulfills the requirements to be a newbie trap, looking enticing, but failing to deliver the power expected.

Similar also to classes which have a level based damage dice progression, but no means to deliver multiple strikes effectively. Warlock when used as a blast oriented character, tends to perform poorly when that aspect is focused upon. Soulknife for similar reasons(in addition to others). They look like they should be dishing out wads of damage, but it takes non-obvious optimization paths to get there.

Rogues, at least, still can use full attacks, if at certain risks depending on their sneak attack source. Scouts with a bit more difficulty. Both have intuitive optimization paths to acquire their bonus damage, just add more attacks and more ways to fulfill their prerequisites.

[TSS]

Full attacks without sneak attack aren't going to do anything. Sneak attack without full attacks also won't do anything. Trying to make a Rogue that doesn't get stopped by everything is a very roundabout and counterintuitive process.

Who would think, without any background or foreknowledge that playing a Rogue at its best means playing a Barbarian with worse stats?

It's far more likely they'd try to play it like a Rogue in combat or forget about combat entirely... both of which are also traps.

You do raise a good point though.

At will abilities are near universally traps. They were made weaker because they're supposedly not use limited. They still are use limited, if for no other reason than running out of HP. You just end up being weaker. Even if abilities that are and were intended to be limited use ran out over the course of a typical day the at wills would still be bad. Since they don't run out, and are the only things powerful enough to make an impact...

[lans]

Since no one figured out the answer here it is.

At level 1 enemies average 13 HP. A 2 handed weapon user does 2d6+6, average 13 which takes out those enemies in one hit. A 1 handed weapon user does 1d8+4, a maximum of 12 damage. He never takes enemies out in one hit and occasionally doesn't take them out in 2. All he gets in exchange is +2 AC... which since enemies are living at least twice as long doesn't actually help and actually causes him to take more damage over the course of a fight than the guy who can kill them faster.

At any later level sword and board does even worse. At any point at which you are encountering anything other than attacks targeting AC sword and board does even worse. Those are ideal conditions and it's still terrible.

You are assuming the character has no abilities that are relevant to this. An azurin evil incarnate could be dealing d8+9 vs 2d6+11. Or he could drop the shield after the first round of combat and be dealing 2.5 pts less. Warblades  can use punishing stance and wolf fang strike to attack for  3d6+d8+6 vs 4d6+d3+6/8 with a greatsword, these are well into the killing average foe range.

And if your going to be using a THW your going to be using a reach weapon.

I assumed a simple default. 18 Str, no other abilities. It was meant to describe a generic character of that type, which it did.

If you insist though, the 2d6+11 guy always one shots things instead of needing average damage to do it, the 1d8+9 guy does not always one shot things. He is still worse offensively and defensively.

Yes, my main contention was that they would never one shot an average cr 1, secondary was showing that its only as much of a trap as using a greatsword with out other factors.

Dropping the shield wastes actions and still puts him behind, completely defeating the purpose.

What action? The move action that would otherwise let him get a full attack? At level 1 the move action isn't doing much. Granted if you have to move up to wack somebody you can't do that, but I didn't feel that had to be pointed out.

Punishing Stance also completely defeats the purpose as -2 AC is the only supposed disadvantage of the two handed weapon user

You enter it when your initiative comes up.

... and maneuvers are not usable every round.

Combat tends to only last 1-2 rounds, so its pretty close.

That particular maneuver also imposes very large to hit penalties unless you have a particular feat and still imposes large to hit penalties if you do.

Its only a -2 penalty, or are you talking about missing out on a bonus? What feat are you referring to?

Edit-How much healing on a given level do you think would make it worth it for levels 1-10?

[caelic]

For older gamers getting back into D&D after not playing since 2nd edition. The game is co operative.  DM vs. Players no longer applies else you want to make  people only want to ruin the DM's plans.  Which in turn makes for loss of friends.

It never did.  In a lot of ways, I think it's worse now than it ever was in first and second edition; certainly, I see a lot more "Help me screw over my DM" requests.

Newer players seem to have this vastly distorted notion of "old school gaming."

[RetroGamer24]

I agree and disagree with you caelic.  I played with older gamers and they have DM vs player mentality.  Now my experience may be unique in terms of this action.  If you please can tell me what "old school gaming" is.  I personally don't think it is worse, just about the same as when I read old 2nd ed threads back in the day still saw plenty of DM rage. 

[Sinfire Titan]

I agree and disagree with you caelic.  I played with older gamers and they have DM vs player mentality.  Now my experience may be unique in terms of this action.  If you please can tell me what "old school gaming" is.  I personally don't think it is worse, just about the same as when I read old 2nd ed threads back in the day still saw plenty of DM rage.

"Old-school gaming" is playing the Tomb of Horrors as intended: With a party that doesn't expect it and isn't optimized to deal with it. Theoretically that party could have fun if the DM really knows how to turn all of the BS into humor, but in practice it is far more likely to result in the players getting frustrated and revolting against the DM.

[TSS]

Yes, my main contention was that they would never one shot an average cr 1, secondary was showing that its only as much of a trap as using a greatsword with out other factors.

Showing some specific longsword build only does as well as a basic anything with a greatsword is not a point in your favor. After all the greatsword user can be doing 2d6+12 with 2 attacks a round.

What action? The move action that would otherwise let him get a full attack? At level 1 the move action isn't doing much. Granted if you have to move up to wack somebody you can't do that, but I didn't feel that had to be pointed out.

Except letting you close to the enemy so you can attack them. Either way anything involving using a thing that starts with dropping that thing is not viable.

You enter it when your initiative comes up.

And it still defeats the point.

Combat tends to only last 1-2 rounds, so its pretty close.

It would normally. With some guy trying to kill things with a one handed weapon?

Its only a -2 penalty, or are you talking about missing out on a bonus? What feat are you referring to?

It actually doesn't require TWFing or impose the normal TWFing penalties. It's still -2 to hit for no reason. There are only two reasons why you'd want to take -2 to hit at low levels: You are PAing, and you are using Whirling Frenzy.

Edit-How much healing on a given level do you think would make it worth it for levels 1-10?

It doesn't matter. Even if you did get yourself to the point where one person can heal one creature's damage output for one round it's just going to encourage them to focus on the healer and/or flat out kill their targets without allowing any chance to heal them. Both of which are easy to do and are often as simple as just having two creatures both attack the same target. In the meantime you have a Cleric playing healbot instead of a Cleric being a Cleric. That's two people's actions already accounted for every round.

[caelic]

"Old-school gaming" is playing the Tomb of Horrors as intended: With a party that doesn't expect it and isn't optimized to deal with it. Theoretically that party could have fun if the DM really knows how to turn all of the BS into humor, but in practice it is far more likely to result in the players getting frustrated and revolting against the DM.

It's amazing how Tomb of Horrors is always cited as being the exemplar of "old school gaming." 

First off, it wasn't; it was notorious as a killer module, and it was designed to be a killer module.

Second, it was designed as a tournament module, where the goal was to eliminate as many groups as possible in order to produce a clear-cut winner.

Third, it was entirely possible to do well in the majority of the module if you played intelligently and carefully, without a party specifically designed for the module.  There were two encounters I can think of offhand that were problematic in this respect (one being the demilich itself.)  Even there, intelligent play could trump the "killer" nature of the encounters.

I've heard of a lot of groups going through Tomb of Horrors--and I've never heard of a group "revolting against their DM" as a result.  Going through Tomb was viewed as a badge of honor; groups that actually won fairly had something to brag about, and groups that didn't could trade stories of which trap got them.

('Course, my group was one of the ones that had bragging rights, so I may be a bit biased. )

[caelic]

I agree and disagree with you caelic.  I played with older gamers and they have DM vs player mentality.

I am an older gamer.  I've encountered a lot of newer players who seem to think the DM is an employee, and one who isn't worthy of much respect, at that. 

I'd say the mentality of "old school gaming" is that the DM is the one going to the trouble of doing the lion's share of the work, and the players owe it to the DM to respect that.  On the other hand, I've seen quite a lot of newer gamers who disagree, and say "The DM is just another player, and his job is to entertain the other players and give them the game they want" (or words to that effect.)

I won't say that that's definitive of "new school gaming," but I've encountered it often enough to think that it's a pretty commonplace mindset.

I tend to use a food metaphor here:


The old school DM says, "I serve Korean food.  I make really good Korean.  If you like Korean, you're gonna love what I have to offer.  If you don't like Korean, there are always other restaurants, and I wish you all the best in finding one that suits you...but if you walk into my Korean restaurant and say, "Make me Eggs Benedict," I'm going to say no.  I don't enjoy making Eggs Benedict; I'm not good at making Eggs Benedict.  You'll have to find someone else to make that for you."

The newer school player says, "The customer is always right.  If I want Eggs Benedict, you should make me Eggs Benedict.  It's not my responsibility to find another restaurant, it's your responsibility as the cook to accommodate my desires."


Obviously, I tend more towards the former mindset--and, yes, that means there have been quite a number of players over the years who have not stayed at my table.  I'm totally fine with that; I see it as a win-win.  They're happier at another table with a DM better suited to meeting their wants; we're happier with them at another table, which frees us to play the way we enjoy without trying to change to meet their wants.

Is that DM-versus-players?  I don't think so.

[RetroGamer24]

@Caelic

I am not at all against older gamers and I hope I didn't come across that way.  In my, yes limited, experience with role playing I have found this attitude with two DMs.  With other DMs I have had it is not the attitude.  I posted an example of one of my DMs in the encouaging role playing thread.  He even told me that it was me vs him, why, because it is how he learned to play D&D.  If I didn't take this mentality I would constantly get stumped on things.

Later on I learned that it isn't the case but still it was something I think about a lot.  In another group I brought up this point and the whole group agreed.  Maybe it is just the area I live in that this attitude is abundant.

To be on topic:  Trap for beginner players is getting with a group of gamers who don't know the rules and make assumptions based on old edition knowledge.

[TSS]

If that's the definition of an old school gamer that describes a lot of people around here, many of which have never played the older editions.

There's also a lot of people around here that seem to think anything and everything they do should always work, even if that makes no sense such as not being prepared for common scenarios, which means they are not prepared for anything, is illogical such as expecting a DM to spend dozens of hours either rewriting the adventure or writing a filler adventure just so the party can grind back the level they lost because they all died in rapid succession, or is flat out impossible (no examples, but recent posts will show plenty).

This is an interesting discussion but it doesn't have anything to do with trap options... even the things that will set you up for failure such as a lackadaisical approach to character creation. Trap options are mechanical, not mindset. There is some overlap... certain mentalities will lead people straight to the trap options but personality shifting isn't the goal of this thread.