Anyone interested in a forum based D&D game?

[Priss]

I assume you get the bonus 1 point/4 levels as well, for another 3 points.

The 28 points is including the 1 to 4 leveling bonuses.  25 points is the base amount.

Plus any bonuses for class?   And do you get the extra feat if you're a human?

Hmmm... well, you'd get your class feats, of course.  And yes, humans do get a bonus feat.  I can't say I'm aware of any bonus feats given to classes beyond the class feats, though.  >_>

[CyMage]

Ooook... You're allowing wizard, but in the next paragraph you ban both a specialised version of a wizard and the wizard itself.  A mage is just another name for a wizard.

Personaly I don't care about the Sorceror as I find it underpowered, but I don't see a reason to ban any of the base classes.  :/

[Figment]

I'd rather have 25 base points to spend and then add in the bonus points for levels afterwards.

As the way you have it right now limits us to increasing our highest stat only 1 point (provided it's 14<), instead of the 3 we should be able to.

[Priss]

Cy, I'm referring to the Mage prestige class of the Sorceror.   Perhaps I'm thinking of the Magus... >_>;;

But, I have a problem with the Sorceror class mainly because it uses Charisma as it's base for magical ability instead of Wisdom or Intellegance.  I'm sure others will disagree with me on this, but I unfortunately have always seen charisma as being about personal attractiveness, force of personality, and charm.  As a result, it disturbs me that a character with low Intellegence and/or Wisdom could be a powerful Sorceror due to a high Charisma score.  It strikes me as being effectively something like someone going out and being like "Hey, you!  You're a complete IDIOT but you can unleash powerful magics because you're a PRETTY BOY!"

It bothers me.  And I just refuse to have to deal with the idiocy that comes of it.  Necromancers are another one that end up with a high amount of idiocy in my experience.  Having the ability to raise dead doesn't mean one _should_ raise dead, and very few realize the difference.  Also, I highly doubt anyone here would really want to deal with the heavy penalties associated with being a Necromancer in the campaign this adventure is designed to fit into (-3 to 5 points permanent  loss to charisma due to the undead around the character and sheer odor from being around dead things so long for one).

As a result, I don't really want to deal with either of them in this adventure.

[CyMage]

You obviously have the same mindset about Necromancers as most people then.  A Necromancer deals with life and death, negative and positive energy.  The problem is that most people think that means having undead minions.  My character was going to be a Necromancer... But without the whole undead thing.

I won't get into an argument over the sorceror, but I think I might be dropping out of this game since I can't play the character I wanted.

[CyMage]

I've taken a look at the #sr logs and I must say, you need to either state all the house rules for the game ahead of time, or stick with the basic game as printed.   So far you're the only one who knows all the rules and the rest of us are trying to create characters using a completely diffrent set from yours apparently.  

I can also see the reason why you want to ban certain classes like the Necromancer... Except the fact that it seems to be a custom class in your game.   It would be really helpful if we just stuck to the official stuff as it makes it easier for us to find the info.  All of us at least own the PHB.

Plus if you do talk about a class, try and get it's full correct name to avoid confusion. :/

[Carthrat]

Charisma also measures internal confidence, self-control, and how you project yourself to others. It actually makes sense for it to relate to a spellcasting class.

I also think it makes sense for it to determine Will saves, but that's a balance issue, and neither here nor there.

At present, though, I'm not sure I agree with most of what you're saying about magic-users. Whence comes this animosity?

[Priss]

Personally, I don't have a problem with Necromancers provided that I can guarentee that I'm playing with people that know how to RP one without getting idiotic about it.  Now, true, the people I'd be dealing with here are most likely to be able to do this.

However, as I've stated several times earlier, what I'm doing here is trying fine-tune a adventure to be used within a table-top campaign.  In the campaign this will later be set in, the players tend to range from decent RPers to completely inept, are juvenile in behavior and RPing ability, and are, for the most part, complete beginners in RPing.  The classes I've listed as not being allowed are the classes which aren't allowed in the campaign.  Besides the Sorceror base class, which I also disagree with because of how it's set up in 3e, and the Necromancer which I asked them to disallow in the campaign of a reason which will be made obivious, for the most part all of these were determined prior to my being brought into the campaign as one of the DMs.

I was brought into the campaign as a DM in order to balance the DM styles of the other two players, because I happen to focus more on RPing than on dice rolling.  But, I was brought in about half way into the first adventure, instead of at the beginning of the second adventure as we had originally planned, in order to put something of a balance into the level of juvenile behavior being exibitied by the group.  I asked that the Necromancer class be made incredibly difficult to deal with, or have lots of disadvantages, because there was a player, who knew _nothing_ about how to RP well, who was trying to create an undead army.  In the Underdark.

Now that player decided to not have the Necromancer live, so he made him perform a "selfless act".  Aka, he drank something that would make him phyiscally explode and promptly hugged the undead supermonster (I can't remember it's name right now, I'd have to check the logs) and blew up.  Then the other two DMs let him become a monk, and I just kept my mouth shut because really, monks would have a hell of a time later on.

Now, I'm trying to test a new adventure, and I'm trying to keep it close to the campaign.  However, if this group only gets through because a Necromancer is along, it won't fit in the campaign. Of course if this group barely squeeks through it sure as hell won't make it through either.  -_-;

Hmm... alright.  I believe that with this group I won't have to deal with the Munchkins of the tabletop, so I'm going to allow the Necromancer with the provision that no more than two or three undead ever be raised at any given time, and that they must not be higher than third or forth level.

BTW, my animosty towards magic-users is directly related to the idiots who've played magic-users in my past experience of RPing, mostly tabletop RPing.  Mainly it's probably because one of the most forgotten unspoken rules with them is often "Don't cast area damaging effects, like fireball into the middle of a battle!".  When you loose three or four of your favorite and best characters to YOUR wizard's spells, especially when said wizard keeps surviving and is played by a damn Munchkin, you quickly develop an animosity towards magic users.  Especially the Munchkinesque ones that I seem to attract. -_-;

I still have no intention to allow Sorcerors though.  Yes, there are logical resaonings on why I should, but the Charisma thing bothers me too much. ^_^;;;

[tabyk]

I would be very interested in giving this a go... now I just need to figure out how to make a character.  *sweatdrop*  Is there room still available?

[tabyk]

I'd rather have 25 base points to spend and then add in the bonus points for levels afterwards.

As the way you have it right now limits us to increasing our highest stat only 1 point (provided it's 14<), instead of the 3 we should be able to.

In reading what I have, and based off of my experience with creating one character for 3rd edition so far, I unfortinately have to agree with Xaldaran.  Going with a base of 28 instead of 25 + 3 level advancements significantly lowers stat potential.

Of course... that may be your original intention.  ^^;

[Carthrat]

Your anecdotes lead me to believe that your problems stem from the players and not the classes, and thus you should probably be trying to find better ones rather than make a game for them which is going to get fucked up *anyway*.

Rather than limit choice for mature gamers, you should just apply boot to people who screw around. Take them outside the game and have a talk to them. Whatever. The GM administers in-game balance and adjudicates, true, but some problems won't be solved by excessive ruling. Such as the whole specialist wizard thing; what's with a specialist mage only casting spells from their own school? What's the reasoning behind it?

I don't really get the charisma thing, but that's a fair enough ruling either way. Why not just have another stat determine it? Wisdom would probably suit.

Hmm. Maybe you should just make a list of problems you have with the basic system, and create solutions based off the fact that you're going to be dealing with people who know who to play, and not mental reprobates.

[CyMage]

I see the rodent got to the main point before I did.  You can't try to fix the game by extra rules.  You need to work on the players themselves.  If you help them get better as players, later on you won't have to be so annoyingly anal with the extra rules.  

And since you're so fond of stories of your players being bad, here is one from the latest session of the game IY-chan and I go to.   We have a player who's fairly new to the whole D&D thing.  He has some experience in 3rd, but that's not really helping him in a mix of 1st/2nd ed.  That's not a problem, we're willing to help teach him.  The problem is his attitude.  We have been attacked during the night, and his character has been knocked out in two rounds.  He wasn't dead, but he was treating the character as dead because he figured the creature would keep attacking him the next round and was starting a small tantrum.  It didn't even have a chance as it was killed.  But the good part came after the combat.  Our current DM, we have two DMs, straight out said "Look, if that's how you will behave, I don't want you to come back next week."  That made him shut up and rethink his actions.  He was much better for the rest of the evening.   We'll see if he remembers it next week, but at least now it's in the open.

As for disliking wizards because of what the player did... That's incredibly foolish.   Educate the player on the fine art of choosing spells wisely instead of complaining about the class.

For your information, any wizard specialised in Necromancy that I play, will actually dislike undead... Because his choice spells don't work on them.  

CyMage

[Prince Herb]

I think I'd suggest just ditching the special rules designed to contain your playing group and see what happens.   This is a test-run, so it won't matter too much, right?

[Priss]

Hmm...

Herbie's got a point.  Alright.  Consider the class bans gone.  Sorceror class will be based upon Wisdom instead of Charisma.  Exotics are still going to be severely limited, but as a rule, consider them strictly forbidden if they're a Large size creature or stand on average at over 6.5 feet as per the Monsterous Compendium.  All other Exotics will be on a case by case bases, but there will _not_ be allowed more than two in the party.  

Point buy is twenty-five plus three.  Equipment is still free if under 300gp but at cost if above that, and yet subject to approval.  Character is overall subject to approval, of course.  Specialization of Wizards are strictly limited to the rules for them set out in the Player's Manual and DMG for 3e.

[Carthrat]

Question: The setting *isn't* Faerun, right? It's just the generic D&D fantasy module, or is there anything special about the world we should know?