Talk:Spirit of the Warrior (3.5e Spell)

Level 20 Stats

Looking at a 44ish AC at level 20?--Tavis McCricket 19:08, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Something like that. Note that even a monk could have... 10 (Base) + 10 (Dex) + 8 (Wis) + 5 (Monk) + 8 (Bracers) + 5 (Natural) + 5 (Deflection) = 51 by level 20. --Ghostwheel 19:14, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

20th level fighter +6 fullplate, +5 tower shield, +5 deflection +5 Natural armor +1 dex +10=44--NameViolation 20:08, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Bravo

I like this spell, but why give this to wizards? To me it mitigates the difference between the two classes, and the bard seems to lose it's flavor if wizard types get it too. I want to know if it was a balance issue or just your personal game theory beliefs?--Teh Storm 18:07, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Why shouldn't wizards get it? Tenser's Transformation sucks, and no one uses it ever. There are far better spells for ending encounters at this level. Why not give it to wizards? It's about the mechanics, not the flavor--flavor's completely mutable, and for the most part irrelevant to balance. Flavor the spell any way you want. Furthermore, bards can get this spell 2 levels before wizards can. --Ghostwheel 19:10, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

That is the mentality that I hate when it comes to Bard spells. Just giving Bard spells to wizards for no good reason besides why not is bullshit. Circle Dance is clearly a Bard spell, but some how wizards, who have no ranks in any performance skills or even social interaction skills, still somehow can dance well enough to work magic into rhythm? I say no.--Teh Storm 20:47, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

When magic is involved, logic rarely is. Just saying.--Tavis McCricket 20:55, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

@Storm: You still haven't given a half-decent reason as to why not to give it to wizards apart from, "I don't like it"--and that doesn't hold any water in my book. --Ghostwheel 20:57, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

I try to keep water out of my books. Just saying.--Tavis McCricket 21:02, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Blasphemy! All my books contain water. Gallons and gallons of it. --Ghostwheel 21:17, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

My books contain blood which is thicker than water so put that in your pipe and smoke it...I mean the blood, smoke it.--Stryker-Fyre 11:05, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

In AD&D, Bards were the closest thing to a prestige class they had. To be a Bard, you had to be practiced in stealth, combat and magic and survive long enough to put in your qualifications. Now, Bards are a base class, which I think is a good choice, but of late their spell selection made them little more than arcane paladins; weakened spell casting to make up for special abilities and combat skill. The spell list has next to no unique Bard spells, and the expansions only seem to add salt to this wound, creating three bard-wizard spells for every unique Bard spell. I think this is a stain on the bardic tradition.

And as a side note, why make the spell allow either spellcraft or perform? Spellcraft is available to every spellcasting class, but perform is very specialized. Either make it bard only and use perform, or continue with your blasphemy and use only spellcraft. Make this your own damn spell!!!--Teh Storm 18:05, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

um i do believe they have made this their own spell--NameViolation 18:20, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

You have not been following the war song war, have you?--Teh Storm 20:35, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

oh i totaly have been. This wiki allows for similar feats/classes/spells/anything else to exist. They made a version of the spell you attempted to, but this one has much less glaring mechanical flaws. its like saying "eldrich knight exists, so there is a "gish" class, make up something new, or we have rougue why do we need an assassin class" all you seem to want to do is trash talk other material, say how good AD&D was, and expect undeserved praise. I'm not saying you have bad ideas, but the stink you rose on the original war song, and refusal to change anything despite everyones advise, is what caused this spell to be made in the first place. THe current version of war song (revised) has no similarity to this, so whats not original? this is alot closer to ripping of Tensers transformation than what you originally posted. --NameViolation 20:50, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

It was never my intention to rip off of Tensers, or anyone else. There are a lot of things about 3.5 that are pure awesome, like a better skill system, easier to use classes, and a more fluid combat system. Really, all I miss about AD&D is the brutality. It was brutal. Players died constantly from die rolls, and I miss that. I believe that combat should be lethal, to everyone, from all angles. And it is also why I give out experience for things other than combat. In my worlds, you are not even considered a threat or competent until at least 5th level, because most characters that have worked hard, forged alliances, and established themselves in their field get to fifth level, and may have only been involved in one bar fight. I'm a story teller, and part of the story of a hero is danger.--Teh Storm 21:06, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Might like this then, makes combat a lot more "brutal". --Ghostwheel 21:13, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, though I achieve a similar effect with my not too popular superior critical and epic fail charts, not to mention a segmented monster rule I found in another wiki.--Teh Storm 02:07, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but the difference is that the sourcebook makes all combat more brutal, rather than just limiting it to fumbles and crits that TPK parties wholesale. --Ghostwheel 04:31, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, but one must realize that any level progression system is terrible for realistic... anything. I play D&D for my cinematic, fantastical gaming. When I want a truly dark, gritty realistic game, I switch to World of Darkness.--Teh Storm 17:54, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

...Have you even read through the mechanics? Despite the name and the author's continued statements that it's more "realistic" (it isn't very), it's still very much D&D and still fairly fantastical in all the ways D&D is. Just a lot more brutal. --Ghostwheel 00:44, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and brutal in what sense? If realism is one's goal, there are some criteria that are essential. One great example is an axe to the back of the head. Under the GnG rules, a 20th level character would not only survive, but with the right build can still be hyper effective. Not to mention it eliminates the benefits and follies of luck in combat, where luck can make or break success, tactics used, even lives. --Teh Storm 20:29, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you actually read it first before saying things that are completely lies? Level 20 vs. a similar character; since you're saying to the back of the head, we'll assume that the defender rolls low (3ish) vs. an 18 from the attacker; attack vs. defense are cancelled out due to BAB, and damage is easily going to be 6.5 (average of 1d12) + 5 (magic) + 18 (str) + 19 (RD) = 48.5 on average, which is enough to kill even a level 20 character with 20 constitution. In fact, your statements above are completely and outright lies--in GnG, tactics and luck are even more important. Luck due to how both the attacker and defender roll, and tactics due to how a higher attack bonus (from things like flanking--you know, tactics?) gives more damage. Seriously, get your facts right before spewing lies. On the other hand, with your critical hit/fumble rules, unless the guy with the axe actually rolls a 20, he's never going to have a chance of killing the other guy. Probably not even if he gets in 5 hits if he doesn't crit. So no, your statements above are complete hogwash. Please check your facts before making statements. --Ghostwheel 07:19, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to a 20th vs noob scenario. I did the math after reading the rules and I found A) the level 20 would survive unless the noob was armed with magic weaponry, B) under GnG there is no chance for a noob to kill a level 15 or higher, not even when dying in the process, and C) Wizards would kill anyone in the system. The last point is already referenced in the text, so I'm not worried about it. While luck is a minor factor in GnG, it is trumped by skill in all ways, which makes me sad.

And as a side note, your point about my system is valid in a vacuum. I have a wide variety of systems, most of which I have not published here for reasons of controversy. However, I will let it be known that my games have a variety of expansions for coup de grace. Thus not only would the noob vs lvl 20 have the noob automatically hit, but it would be a coup de grace that would take out about a third of the level 20 hit points if it did not kill them out right.--Teh Storm 22:43, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

And then there's what high-level characters actually look like. Your game sounds like a travesty, and I'm glad I'm not in it. --Ghostwheel 01:37, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

→

While I agree with these points in a combat context, I still think that strategy is the epitome of gaming. I like games where the object is to get the mission done in minimal damage and time. I try to present that in the games I run. If you can sneak through a wizards keep and steal all his artifacts just after tipping off a local army that the wizard is weak at the moment, I believe that not only should you get more XP than the party that fought all of his minions and killed him in single combat, but the wizard should die if you set it up right, regardless of level. Thus, not only is it possible to kill level 20 characters in my campaigns, but there are executioners and "cowardly" bastards that do it all the time. Sure, only the level 20's that have no friends stay dead in most cases, but that is how I play. Hell, I'm actually offended if I am asked to roll to hit in certain occasions. If you want a list I can provide one.--Teh Storm 02:44, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Are you familiar with, "internal consistency"? No this isn't "realism" (who cares about that), but something more important. Let me illustrate. By the time a character is 5th level, they'll have gone through 13.3333 x 4 combats to reach that level, which means 53 encounters more-or-less. Even if each combat lasts only 4 encounters, and a character makes one attack per round, they'll have made over 200 attacks over the course of their career. That means 10 fumbles, and according to your system, they'd statistically be dead. So no, your rules don't even work to allow characters to reach level 3, much less higher levels, what with characters dying half the time whenever they fumble (and sometimes even taking their whole party with them). Add on that some characters attack more than once per round (TWF, monks, etc) and virtually everyone who engages in combat is dead, leaving a world full of pacifists and cripples who can't or won't fight. Furthermore, your above example wasn't relevant whatsoever to what we were discussing. And please stop with the logical fallacies--I never said that level 20 characters shouldn't die. But virtually no one who attacks in combat is going to survive to third level. I don't care about your list, but I can tell you that the the variant critical/fumble rules suck incredibly hard in the worst of ways. --Ghostwheel 03:11, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest moving this to a forum? Havvy 03:46, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Nah, here's fine. --Ghostwheel 04:03, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

This is becoming a play style argument, which as pointless (if not more so) than a religious argument. Ghost would hate to play in my games because he would die over and over again from facing enemies that refuse to fight stupidly, and I would hate to play in Ghosts games because my favorite weapons would be gone (real-world strategy, politics, science and clever thinking). So can we please get back to the original question: why not take out perform if spellcraft is also used? Perform is limited to bards, but all spellcasters get spellcraft. Kinda makes perform obsolete in the context of this spell.--Teh Storm 04:23, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, it isn't. Play style and this are completely different. I'm pointing out inconsistencies in your rules, and how a world like the one your house rules give doesn't exist. And again with the logical fallacies. Please stop with the straw mans. Putting words into people's mouths to "win" an argument is bad. You understand that? B-a-d. It's not going to win you any points here, or anywhere else. So please stop that. In fact, it's quite the opposite--under the crit/fumble rules, strategy doesn't matter for crap in battle. It all comes down to luck. Who gets the first crit, who gets the first fumble. That person is either winning or dead, and there aren't too many other choices. Strategy makes no difference there--you've basically gutted it from the system, and mutilated any chance of actual strategy. It doesn't matter if you have the high ground, are also flanking the enemy, and caught them flatfooted all the while they're in the middle of pissing. One round later, and if they get a fumble or a crit, everything you did goes to hell. On one hand, if they get a crit, you're probably dead, and all your strategy was for nothing. If they fumble, then they and half their party is dead anyway, and any strategy you used is worthless anyway, since they basically killed themselves. Heck, let's even say that no one rolled either until the last round. Your strategy went perfectly. You slaughtered the evil creatures you were supposed to. And then the fighter, on the last attack to kill that last evil goblin or whatever fumbles. Uh oh. Half the party's dead. Where's your strategy then?

Okay, let me explain something. Strategy relies on shifting the odds. When you use good strategy, your odds get better. When you use bad strategy, your odds get worse. But inject so much randomness that you mutilate the odds and they go to hell, and strategy doesn't matter. Just who rolls what. And that's what you did with your failtacular fumble/crit rules. Let me reiterate if it wasn't clear. You erased just about any semblance of strategy, and any meaning that strategy would have added to the game. So please don't put words into my mouth, and realize the ramifications of your rules before making false accusations or changing the whole game to "who can roll 1/20 first?" Basically, you've reduced strategy to gambling. --Ghostwheel 04:43, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Did you even bother reading my last post? Why are you still arguing your point!?! I didn't even think this kind of selective listening was possible in a written form!!! I have a friend studying to be a psychologist... can she do a case study on you?

Sarcasm aside, you still have not answered my question.--Teh Storm 04:49, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

You'll notice from my first sentence that I read your post, and brushed off your ineffective attempts at getting the last words in on the subject. And at this point, I think all you deserve for a reason is, "Because I can." Enjoy. --Ghostwheel 04:56, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

What attempt at getting a last word in? I agreed with you that you would hate my games, just as I would hate yours. Anyway, if you are the brilliant game mechanic you try to be, then you would realize that the spell as written naturally negates perform as a feasible skill, as any decent bard would have ranks in spellcraft anyway, and the spell prevent additional bonuses that Bards attach to perform from factoring in.

Oh, and strategy is never game mechanics. Stop using that as an argument. Strategy IS stacking the odds in your favor, but it is NEVER limited to the rules. The best strategies in D&D came from never having to roll dice. My favorite example: Washougal Public Library, May of 2010, a small group playing under the infamous Sean were trapped on a hill with an epic level plant monster known only as the First Plant. The party rogue then had the idea to have the cleric, who was outside, go into town for some lye. He came back a week later, sent a signal to take cover, and tossed the lye into the hole on the hill. The lye reacted with the plants acidic blood and killed it in a massive explosion. Total rolls: 1 (there was not enough cover to go around, so the rogue was forced to make a reflex save. he succeeded.--Teh Storm 05:15, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

You know what that's called? "Magical tea party." If you're not using the rules as written (or as interpreted, basically), you're not really playing D&D anymore. Making things up as you go along, like it sounds like you did there, is magical tea party. It's not necessarily bad--but at that point, it's not D&D either, so don't try to make it look like it is. --Ghostwheel 05:22, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

By that definition, if you ever have your character sit in a tavern, buy ale and harass wenches or look for employers you are no longer playing D&D. Yet every game I have seen some how has the audacity to say they are playing D&D during these scenes, even though rules are never cited, events are played out and agreed upon without rules debates, and they have lasting impact on the game.--Teh Storm 05:29, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Big difference--the D&D system's rules are mostly based around combat. Are there rules for buying ale, harassing wenches, etc etc etc? *checks the PHB* Nope, doesn't look like it. So that's a horrible analogy. --Ghostwheel 05:41, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

→

Not that big a difference, especially once politics come in. I have used that same tavern scene as described to slay legions. All it takes to start wars is the right rumor in the right place. My personal favorite example was when the party bard told the tale of how the army that was coming to invade was a army of trained dragon slayers out to kill the two dragons in hills. Of course any ancient dragon would have a spy network to report this, so of course the dragons flew out and killed the invading army. Of course, at the time I was playing under a complete butt-munch for a DM who decided that a second army the ability to see invisible objects was teleported in after the bard told the tale. Sigh...--Teh Storm 06:07, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

BTW, how this thread go from "Bravo! Just a few questions about your performance..." to me and Ghost pissing at each others playing styles?--Teh Storm 06:09, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this page turned into kinda an odd mess. Oh well, it happens. Discussion is good, even if it goes off topic. Now, I'm gonna try and shed a bit of outside perspective and hopefully that will add some clarity. Now, we know everyone plays DnD differently, and you can play it however you want. It's a game, so if everyone at your group is having fun, you're doing it right. Now, as for designing game mechanics, that's different. We use game mechanics as judgement and meaning for our roleplaying. Swinging a sword at an orc's shin and calling him a "warty dill hole" is just as much roleplaying as sitting around a table coming up with a plan to trick some marauders into searching for the fabled Head of Vecna. These are just examples, don't read to much into them. Now, swinging a sword represents character ability and approximation of effects, so we use dice and numbers to find an outcome. I know this seems introductory, and it is, just bear with me, I'll get to my point.

Ghostwheel's argument seems to be something along the lines of "players can and should be able to do what they want, so long as the rules are there to let them do it. When the rules aren't there, there's not much you can do but wing it". From having talked much with Ghostwheel over the past few months, I recognize that he is greatly concerned with having an even mechanical playing field (note that this does not mean that all classes are the same, in fact, it means much the opposite, as each class has a specific given role to perform) when it comes to creating rules. While I don't always agree with him, I'm always sure that that's on his mind. As for using Perform as the skill of choice for bards, to me it is quite clear. Bards use Perform as a primary skill. Many bard class abilities rely on this skill. With Spellcraft, that's primary for primary casting classes. To ensure that there isn't a disparity, Perform is used for bards. Bam, done, answered.

Teh Storm, please avoid using so much anecdotal evidence to support your argument. Anecdotal evidence means nothing, really, avoid it. Telling stories is fine, but it has no bearing upon the case at hand. It's obvious that your groups play loose with the rules. That's fine, keep doing so and have fun, but keep in mind that this is game design (which isn't easy), and when designing rules, it's all about making mechanics as easy-to-use and fair as possible, so when it comes down to it, swinging that hammer or convincing errant farmers that you're not a bad dude (even though you're a ninja, and you totally kidnapped the president... er, princess) is as easy to do and fair to do within the context of a living, changing (often highly magical) world.

I hope this all helps. --Ganteka Future 07:06, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

It did. Thank you.--Teh Storm 07:59, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Ale costs 2sp per gallon. No magical tea party there. Wenches cost 1sp a day for a bad time, or 3sp per day for a good time. Don't bring your allegations against ale and wenches here. --TK 10:10, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

5th Level

"In my worlds, you are not even considered a threat or competent until at least 5th level"

I think you're probably a bad DM.--Tavis McCricket 15:19, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

That's kind of unnecessary; in a particular campaign world there's nothing wrong with having the mean or median levels be set such that fifth level (or whichever) is roughly around the point where you're not just another adventurer. There could be legitimate reasons for this, and yet all you're offering is unprovoked hostility. What gives? -- Jota 16:11, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Hostility may be infered, but it wasn't intended. It was merely an observation. I'm sure Storm is an outstanding player, and I'm love to run a game with him in it, or play one along side him. But I think he'd make a bad DM.

If he wants level 5 to be the average or baseline for a competent PC or NPC, he's already tossed the Monster Manual out the window. Seeing the things he considers balanced, I don't trust him to present players with reasonable threats based on their potential. I think that most encounters will be either vastly underpowered, or markedly overpowered.

So, based on the above (which are my observations and assumptions, nothing more), I think Storm is likely a bad DM, even if he is indeed (which I suspect) a clever and savvy player.--Tavis McCricket 16:40, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

An interesting observation. Allow me to explain: the vast majority of people are uninteresting and unknown. By fifth level, you are out of obscurity and become someone people go to. It is with this idea in mind that most craftsmen that my player get referred to are 5th level, at least. The up and comers are below 5th and often are the ones that need help from the players. In keeping with this idea of the world, I got rid of the commoner and use the zero level character from AD&D.--Teh Storm 17:58, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so you meant "threat or competent" in a political/reputation sense, not in a combat sense. I now view that statement as being much more logical.--Tavis McCricket 18:09, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

I attack the darkness!

"Oh, and strategy is never game mechanics. Stop using that as an argument. Strategy IS stacking the odds in your favor, but it is NEVER limited to the rules. The best strategies in D&D came from never having to roll dice. My favorite example: Washougal Public Library, May of 2010, a small group playing under the infamous Sean were trapped on a hill with an epic level plant monster known only as the First Plant. The party rogue then had the idea to have the cleric, who was outside, go into town for some lye. He came back a week later, sent a signal to take cover, and tossed the lye into the hole on the hill. The lye reacted with the plants acidic blood and killed it in a massive explosion. Total rolls: 1 (there was not enough cover to go around, so the rogue was forced to make a reflex save. he succeeded."

Sounds like a bad DM. No ranged attack roll to hit the plant, no Fort save on the part of the epic plant, and it couldn't even kill you with a week of you trapped with it. Also, did any of the characters involved have enough ranks in Knowledge: Alchemy or Knowledge: Botany to execute this without metagaming? How did the players avoid death via carbon monoxide when the Lye interacted with the glucose in the plant? Why did the plant explode? Acids and bases negate each other not blow each other up, and lye is stable even if corrosive. Is this Sean infamous for not applying the rules of D&D and science to D&D and science?

Please know, I understand that you highly value actually role-play over pure combat. That's a good thing. Too many players and DMs regard D&D as combat first, RP second. That being said, once again, you're taking a legitimate position and defending it terribly.--Tavis McCricket 20:15, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

A) The hole on the top of the hill was the opening to the plants "adventurer trap", it's feeding device. So, if you really want to apply attack rolls to a "feed-the-plant" action, be my guest, but I would walk out. B) When a base and a acid react, they form a new compound, in this case carbon monoxide. And as anyone who has played with lemon juice and baking soda knows, if the gas is trapped as it is expanding in a container, that container will eventually rupture. As I was listening in, Sean ruled that it was taking 6d6 damage per round per barrel from a cycle of this reaction. The group used three barrels and killed it over 6 rounds, during which they were running and trying to find a way out of the hill. I did not know if anyone had ranks in Alchemy, but it seemed like the group knew it had acidic blood as they recalled the fighter nearly dying from the things blood spurting as he was hacking it. And C) Sean is infamous for trapping adventuring parties in no win situations and becoming deeply saddened for every player that comes out alive.--Teh Storm 21:01, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

When acid and base react, they cancel each other out. When Lye and sugar mix, it generally forms carbon monoxide. I'm not sure why gasses created in this reaction didn't vent out the feeding hole, but I imagine a diagram of sorts is needed to properly explain what went down. As per rules listed in most any spell or invocation that deals damage overtime; once you're taking damage from fire or acid from a persistant effect, that damage can't be stacked on itself. For example, if I hit you with Melf's Acid Arrow twice, you don't take 4d4 damage each round, the duration of the 2d4 damage is simply reset. So, if the DM ruled that being soked in Lye is 6d6 damage per round (and I can't exactly argue with that damage), that's the most the plant could take from it per round, you couldn't stack it up to 18d6. Also, Lye can't be transported in wood, glass, bronze, copper or any type of potery. It has to be iron or plastic. Secondly, strong acids and bases have the same effect on most flesh, there is no way to know which end of the pH scale the liquid is on without testing, anecdotal "it burned me so it's acid" is metagaming. Furthermore, without Knowledge Alchemy they wouldn't know that Lye was a base, or that bases and acids react to each other (but, like I pointed out before, not how the DM applied it).

Lastly, I should point out that a DM that sets out to kill players, and then fails, is incompetent. A DM literally has the entirity of his gaming universe at his beck and call, and has only to will death upon the players for it to happen. Any being with those resources at his disposal, who then fails to kill whom he wishes to kill, is not worthy of the power or title. It's akin to an omnipotent god losing rock-paper-scissors.--Tavis McCricket 22:05, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

"Sean is infamous for trapping adventuring parties in no win situations and becoming deeply saddened for every player that comes out alive." Now that is just an outright lie/misunderstanding. The only people who really die are those that want to die so much as to act suicidal. Also, there are so many players going into and out of the game at any game session (it is between 8 and 12 players on average) that relying on knowledge checks becomes difficult in the campaign, especially if one of the players keeps bringing a different oddly flavored character to each session. Havvy 22:10, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

A DMs job is dificult by nature. I don't subscribe to the mentality that "Oh, it's hard to do my job, so I'm allowed to do it poorly". He has a job, and he should do it right. Part of that is discouraging metagaming, and certainly not rewarding it.--Tavis McCricket 22:17, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

If having a high school education is what you call "metagaming", then I feel sorry for you. That isn't even how D&D defined metagaming in the DMG. They define metagaming as assuming that the DM is providing circumstances to affect the players, either to success or failure. The example they gave was a party assuming a trap could be bypassed because "their DM would never place a trap they can't bypass."--Teh Storm 19:36, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

metagaming is using any knowledge that you have as a person and letting the character use that knowledge when they have no reason to know that. Does your barbarian know the capital of California is Sacramento? unless that barbarian has been there or has ranks in knowledge, he shouldn't. How did the cleric know what lye wasw? did the cleric goto a proper education highschool? whats to say he wasn't a drop out or a bad student? hell, how were the rogue and cleric in your example communicating? unless the characters were talking to eachother thats exactly metagaming. turning to the other people in the group and saying "hey, i need your character to run in the room I'm in and heal me" when the character has no idea whats going on in that room is asmetagame as you get.

also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming_%28role-playing_games%29

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=metagaming

just to clear up anything i missed --NameViolation 20:20, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

"I figure there'll be a lever on the other side of the pit that deactivates the trap" a player says to the others, "because the DM would never create a trap that we couldn't deactivate somehow." That's an example of metagame thinking. Any time the players base their characters' actions on logic that depends on the fact that they're playing a game; they're using metagame thinking. This behavior should always be discouraged, because it detracts from real roleplaying and spoils the suspension of disbelief. Page 11, DMG 3.5e

Storm, for starters you quoted the entry quite wrong, because in fact it completely contradicts your point. Metagaming is using out of game knowledge to impact an in game choice or action. It can be as simple as two players formulating a plan when their character have no actual means to communicate. It can be as innocent as a lvl 2 fighter with a Int 9 and no ranks in any knowledge skill warning his team that the green dragon has a poison gas breath weapon. It can be as blatant as a player inventing gunpowder and bombs without the technology for either existing yet. Metagaming is the antithesis of roleplaying, and as such a self-declared RPer, I'm surprised that you're completely clueless about it.

Quite simply, metagaming is cheating, regardless of the intent behind it. It's the same as peaking at an opponents hand when playing poker or M:TG. A DM should always, always discourage and punish cheating. The fact that you seem to reward and celebrate such behavior simply supports my belief that you're a bad DM. You can argue that metagaming isn't bad or that what they did wasn't a good example of it, but you need to know what it is that you're actually talking about before you come back with a retort. I recommend actually reading a core 3.5e source book.--Tavis McCricket 22:37, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

The rogue in the example were using Sending spells to commune, first off. Second off, if ideas are metagaming, you have lost me entirely. I reward creativity, plain and simple. The mere fact that all craft skills, including Craft Alchemy, can be used untrained is, I think, the very designers off the game you love saying that creativity should be rewarded. So what if the group has no wizard? If the players were ever children at some point they might have heard the terrible story of Sir Douchebag who charged a green dragon and was poisoned ever more. That could be a simple intelligence roll and completely in keeping with the rules. Maybe the party rogue had the cool idea of creating a fast burning powder and decides to research it. If he has the down time and wants to dedicate the expenditures necessary to make such a material, why not reward them? I think that a game needs to have achievements mean something, and I don't think that just because the DM doesn't like the idea it should fail.--Teh Storm 20:16, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Gunpowder was invented by accident by Chinese alchemists searching for an immortality potion. After it's creation, it took nearly 300 years for it to be applied to weapons. To say a rogue could just whip up both, purposefully and for weapons, bypasses 300 years of research and history. And that also assumes he already has access to saltpetre, giving him the stepping stones to work with. If not, set him back another 800 years in the research.--Tavis McCricket 23:09, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Gunpowder is bat shit and charcoal! That's all it takes! In a world with magic, 800 years of research can be bypassed by using divination magic; just cast commune and pester the gods. That is the major flaw in most gaming worlds. The mere existence of magic negates nearly all problems in communication, medicine and transportation. The only real argument for not having to many technological advances is the following: "necessity is the mother of invention". If your magical is world is without jet packs and flying cars, it is because the fly spell is easier than researching anti-gravity and rocket science. If you are willing to run the adventures and the player is willing to track down the research and information, then the efforts should be rewarded.--Teh Storm 04:05, June 23, 2010 (UTC)