>a guy I know from ttrpg unrelated hobby says he's putting up a D&D 3.5 game and asks if I want to join
>well why not
>show up, make lvl 1 half-minotaur fighter with spiked chain which the DM explicitly says ok to
>first encounter
>walk to 15 feet of an enemy and take a swing, it's a miss
>enemy turn, dm makes him swing at me
>point out that he's way too far
>DM: okay he steps closer
>grab dice and state he eats AoO
>NNNOOOO YOU CAN'T PLAY BY THE RULES
I was speechless. Apparently a lvl 1 fighter with reach is too high of an optimization level for this guy to deal with. My dude even lacked proficiency for frick's sake and was more of meme character. I played the session through out of common courtesy but never went for another, a guy that oblivious to simplest of rules can't possibly run a good game anyway. What really really gets me is that this guy has supposedly been running games for decades.
 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
I will take things that never happened for 200
This is believable, sadly. Only the barnacles stuck to the underside of the barrel are still playing 3.5 anymore.
>Anymore.
5e was terrible. Making 5e tolerable turned out to be a mountain of work I don't want to do. Easier to try to fix 3.5. It's core rulebooks are more workable, and it has some supplemental content that's actually interesting.
GURPS is fine for what it's good at, but I don't always want to play GURPS.
I switched to Shadow of the Demon Lord myself, it's similarly built to 5e but does way more with what they're working with.
I truly wish it didn't. If this was some rando I wouldn't care but I'll be seeing this dumbass in another hobby of mine.
My dude you would be surprised. 3.5 has a frequent problem with people just forgetting that the combat rules exist, because martial players seldom take full advantage of them, because to keep up with casters they get fixated on damage numbers.
OP is being BTFO about 3.5 and made the thread.
The amount of seethe this editions inflicts in OSRtrads and 4rrie never ceases to amaze me and is one of its best features.
I believe it because I did some similar shit when I ran my first pf1 game. all things I regret
it wasn't so simple as that, though. it was more "I started the campaign with a dungeon I'd intended to take up the whole first session and the druid had stone shape." which is still really simple.
the second room of the dungeon had a bigass stone door that had to be opened by pulling two levers in opposite sides of the dungeon so it would have basically completely bypassed the whole thing
I've since learned that this is dogshit design for a game like 3.pf, and that it's dogshit referee-ing to panic and say "the door is magically sealed and your spell fizzles" when it's a mechanical door, but I've also since learned that I fricking hate that system in general, so I don't run it anymore
I'd also gripe about moderately optimized builds. I was a railroading dumbfrick moron too proud of the CONTENT I'd PREPARED.
I had this shit happen to me constantly and would pull this shit all the time so his pet player can steal the spotlight.
I don't believe this happened simply because there is no way a 3.5e autist going for the spiked chain build would ever play any race besides human for the bonus feat
That's the point, I wasn't going for any sort of optimization besides big burly smelly hairy dude with a chain to wrap up other dudes with, no homosexual of course.
>I wasn't going for any sort of optimization
>Except for the fact that I was planning on using one of the most well known gimmicky mechanic abusing builds
Is your next character going to be a kobold wizard with a viper familiar?
>which the DM explicitly said ok to
Which part of this eludes you?
I actually forgot which side I was arguing and flipped halfway through by accident.
This will be my last post in this thread, out of shame.
I've done this more times than I'd like to admit
>There goes mah hero
NTA but the spiked chain's still a bit of a red flag due to how gimmicky/OP it is - especially combined with extending the reach.
Hell, if you weren't proficient I'd probably house rule that you can't make opportunity attacks anyway. I can certainly see the logic
why is D&D so bad that you can break it just by picking a particular weapon and a feat designed to take advantage of its strengths?
>I wasn't going for any sort of optimization
Half-minotaur is an absolutely broken template from dragon magazine that only costs +1 LA. This story is extremely believable, because I have seen this happen before personally. OP and his DM deserve each other.
>because I have seen this happen before personally.
If that's the case, the DM also sucked the wiener of every player if that was allowed.
Nah, OP has an axe to grind and time to waste.
>>show up, make lvl 1 half-minotaur
I've read enough, you're the moron in this story.
Well excuuuusee mee for not explicitly stating out the ecl.
>a guy I know from ttrpg unrelated hobby says he's putting up a D&D 3.5 game
You fricked up.
I mean does a half minotaur still have 4 hooves, or only two?
You’re thinking of centaurs.
Minotaur have internal hooves. It's congenital.
Both are taurs though, which denotes a quadrupedal body with a humanoid upper body replacing the head.
No, you fricking imbecile furry, -taur indicates having to do with bulls. Greek isn't that fricking hard.
but why are they called centaurs then, isn't that stupid?
Centaur basically means something like Arrow-Bull. No one is actually quite sure why.
Minotaur means something like "Bull of Minos".
Any other -taur is the invention of some fool who doesn't have any grasp on the greek root words that a lot of English is based off of.
>Centaur basically means something like Arrow-Bull. No one is actually quite sure why.
Chiron the big boy centaur's foster father was Apollo, archery god, and the guy himself is an archer
that's my guess as to why
Where does the bull part come from? The bottom half is a horse. Shouldnt it be something like Cenalogo?
They hunted bulls, effectively from horseback
The Minotaur’s name was Asterion, meaning Starry One, and was also the name of Minos’s foster father.
Also any similar monster naming scheme would be Father-taur so like…
If the monster’s father was named Dave it would be a Davetaur.
The words etymology seems to be related to a Greek word for one of the Scythian offshoots- so it began life as a way of saying "horse archer" but I've got no idea why it's not cenhippa other than that word sounds kinda stupid.
Bull with a human head. Which only makes bull noises. Or tries.
Nah you're confused, but it's understandable. What you're thinking of is the Manotaur. Some variants just have the human head plastered on the bull neck
A half-minotaur is only 1/4th bull obviously, so he's just a cow-themed satyr.
But would a female half-minotaur have a cow udder, teats on her chest or just really big human mammaries, one or two pairs?
The bovine skull shape would make it impossible for a half-minotaur to breastfeed her young if she has regular human chest shape/size.
One time when I used to play 40k back during 7th edition, I brought my guard list to play a necron guy. I had a platoon of guardsmen behind an aegis defense line. Evidently this was some mind blowing cheesy tactic. He acted like I was some power gamer WAAC lord.
He went on our local Facebook group and wrote a lengthy post essentially accusing me of being a cheater for putting guardsmen behind cover. He was that mad about it. I had to defend myself in public in order to avoid being shunned by everyone. What a weird butthole thing to do.
People who get mad about basic, well-known things you can do in games definitely exist.
did you talk to your DM about it like a normal fricking human being, or are you seriously quitting a game because they forgot a rule a single time?
How do you play d&d for decades and manage to forget about AOO?
My man, perhaps the DM just wasn't that used to reachchads? Technically coming closer within their extended reach counts as leaving a threatened square, I suppose, but it's kind of an unusual situation.
Again, how about OP actually opens their mouth, and talks about it, like a normal fricking human being? It's not that hard.
i disagree with this, tediously arguing with a DMs ruling can ruin the game for everyone else. sometimes you just realize that a group/DM isn't for you.
this is stuff straight from the players handbook. if you haven't read the book eye 30 years of this system being available I really can't help you. when you actively just delete rules a player built their character around with no warning, as a DM, you just expect your players to be fine with it and just vibe?
this is a huge red flag for the type of player OP clearly is. not every person is compatible at a tabletop, and this isn't a bad thing.
OPs gay friend should have picked a different system and not one so rule heavy, the crowd that likes 3e is going to have certain expectations about rules and builds, B/X would have been a better fit for this DM
unironically 5th edition was made for this DM, it has basically no rules.
Reach weapons do not give aoo if you get closer because you threaten the 5' around you, and the other 5' added by the reach weapon (or 10' as in the case of op).
But most reach weapons do not allow the player to attack adjacent enemies (which personally i think its moronic, a -4 o -2 penalty should be enough) with the exception of the Spiked Chain, in op case, he threatens the 15' around him.
But both entering a threatened zone which op hasnt specified that his minotaur has some kind of prepared action, some feat that allowed that or something like that, means that op does not deserve the aoo.
And finally, the 5' step do not give aoo in most scenarios, and using it to leave a threaten zone to attack in your next action does not count as aoo, this was made so everytime you lose your reach with a reach weapon you can have a 5' step back and roll attack.
tl;dr op is a fricking moronic who should actually read the manual its basically free at this point
>But most reach weapons do not allow the player to attack adjacent enemies (which personally i think its moronic, a -4 o -2 penalty should be enough) with the exception of the Spiked Chain, in op case, he threatens the 15' around him.
or literally any natural weapon with reach, which anyone who's played the game at all would be intimately familiar with since the game's fricking DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS, and it turns out fighting DRAGONS with bite/claw/claw/wing buffet/tail slap attacks is exceedingly common
yeah no thats bullshit, 3.5 is all i play, and there is no way a character without certains feats or special abilities, to have more than 1 AoO per turn and per character.
Moving inside threaten area does not give the enemy an AoO, your former DM was an butthole
moving inside a threaten area in 3.5 its not considered an AoO to the defender, neither circling around him.
unless specified for the creature, moving between the threaten area does not give AoO
have sex and get back into school so you learn how to read the fricking manual
moron projects his illiteracy onto others
have sex
I did with your mom. Son I am disappoint.
actual illiterate morons
>an attack of opportunity is a single melee attack you can only make one per round
>single melee attack
>single
>you can only make one per round
>one per round
>one
>if you have the combat reflexesfeat you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round.
havent ever played 3.5, but i assume his character has this or something
You're the illiterate, the pic you posted literally describes what a threatened square is then goes on to describe how to trigger an AoO.
A threatened square is a square into which you can make a melee attack. Right?
Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes and AoO from the threatening opponent. Right?
So if your reach is 15ft. and an opponent is stood within range, if they move away from the square you are threatening, you can make an AoO. Regardless of whether they are leaving your range or not.
>moving inside a threaten area in 3.5 its not considered an AoO to the defender, neither circling around him.
That is not supported by the rule you posted. Is there an errata somewhere I'm not aware of?
You don't provoke by moving *into* a threatened square. But I don't see anything there that says when you move from one threatened square to another threatened square from the same enemy, it does not provoke.
> But I don't see anything there that says when you move from one threatened square to another threatened square from the same enemy, it does not provoke.
Neither does the handbook which i just checked, so by that it means that you can circle around an enemy all you want without causing an AoO unless your DM homebrew a rule for that so.
i admit defeat
Moving out of a threatened square into another threatened square is still moving out of a threatened square.
lets say you have a reach of 15 feet. if a creature is within that range but not in their reach to hit you, they will have to move closer to you. that means they are leaving the threatened square at 15 feet distance to move adjacent to you (5 feet distance). this gives you two opportunities to have an aoo. you are leaving a threatened square, as it says directly in what you posted. this has been a recognized meme build for a fricking decade you newbie.
no you dumbass, you played 5th edition way to much. its melted your brain, maybe you stupid. slow. moronic even.
moving around in someone's reach absolutely triggers aoo.
Some tables don't use AOO, like in old-school games.
Then those games are wrong. If it's in D&D3.x, then it's a good mechanic and it should be in all games. 3.5 was literally the perfect system and it's the only one that people should play.
Yeah because it's so great when ganking the squishy casters is even easier.
>we need to nerf martials in the most OP caster edition of dnd
>did you talk to your DM about it like a normal fricking human being
it's just a story, you're the one acting like a girl.
>dm wants to try out 3.5
>show up with minmaxed freakshit
>"why is the dm a moron"
Frick off and never come back bottom feeder
The outcome would've been the same with any character with reach. Do you consider having reach as some obscure minmax build?
>my template stacking moron fest of a character is the same as a normal fighter.
Stop pretending you did anything normal.
The fricking point was that the DM was oblivious to a simple rule which would've come up even with human fighter with a reach weapon.
A metal chain.
The outcome would have been the same with a polearm, moron.
A metal chain.
I think it's good you didn't go back because you come from entirely different worlds of gaming. You're from the kind of circles where people talk about character builds and he's not. You fundamentally want entirely different things from the hobby. He functionally speaks an entirely different language from you. When he checks sheets to okay them he isn't even looking at their combat performance, he's probably looking at their backstory, not perks. Yes, it is possible that a player knows combat rules better than their GM. This is me in most games(!!) and I am grateful I can get someone else to GM at all.
You didn't do your due diligence by just sending him your sheet to be okayed. You should have flat out told him what your plan for the game is. Increased communication. It's wild how autists in this hobby put 99% of the work on the DM and then get pissy when the DM has different values from them.
That said I still think your choice to stop playing with this group was good for everyone involved and it sounds like you avoided sperging so I will actually give you props for that.
Everyone was new at some point. But if you can't be bothered to learn the basic rules (in TWO DECADES of running games) AND you start seething when you're actually schooled you have no business running D&D. Play some forge shit or something.
>You fundamentally want entirely different things from the hobby. He functionally speaks an entirely different language from you. When he checks sheets to okay them he isn't even looking at their combat performance, he's probably looking at their backstory, not perks.
Then the DM is cancer and shouldn't be involved in tabletop gaming. The mechanics are EVERYTHING. If you're can't get those right, don't play
holy autism, theater kids love ttrpgs for the collaborative storytelling element. in fact, its what draws most people into the hobby.
The wrong kind of people. Games aren't stories.
As a GM I just give character sheets a quick skim to make sure the player filled it out correctly. It's on the players to get their mechanics right, not me.
100%. I check to make sure the players didn't frick it up or show up with something that looks like combo winter meme build shenanigans (locate city nuke, etc). I would not care about 'the fighter has reach'. If you want to wrap people up in combat, go for it.
OP didn't mention 5ft step. I assumed the enemy moved into range from say, 30ft away, thus triggering an AoO because reach weapon.
100%. If you want a 'rulings, not rules' system, why pick a system with so many rules?
> when you actively just delete rules a player built their character around with no warning, as a DM, you just expect your players to be fine with it and just vibe?
I once had a DM bork summoning when I built a summoner (concept, not class). He told me in advance 'just trust me bro, it'll be great' without telling me what the changes were. I was concerned but went along with it. It was not great, and I had to rework the character from then on to play without any summons. If he had just wanted me to not build a summoner, he could have said so and I would have built a different character. Nobody enjoys a rugpull.
Well the player got the mechanics right, so there's no problem.
i can relate. when i want to play d&d, i expect some epic fantasy journey with high priority on the narrative like in the fantasy books that defined the genre. this is the image i have when i talk of ttrpg. but factually people like minmax builds and put heavy emphasis on "builds" and having an optimized character instead of fantasy archetype and backstory.
i think certain groups of people cant find common ground on this. imho the rules are a suggestion to put away when the flow of the game needs it. rule 0 even states that all rules are ultimately not relevant.
You want some pretentious forge shit, not D&D.
>factually people like minmax builds and put heavy emphasis on "builds" and having an optimized character instead of fantasy archetype and backstory.
Learning to make optimized characters and "builds" makes you better at creating interesting characters who can be expressed mechanically.
What do you mean, "instead of"?
It's just reach and from the first encounter, dude.
Reading and understanding the character sheets is the GM's job. Communicating any rulings that deviate from the rulebook that could affect character creation is the GM's job. The player's character sheet did not violate any rules in the book, at least the part described here. The player has not done anything wrong.
catty homosexual
>anons itt pretending like AoO is some kind of gimmicky powergaming bullshit
Holy nogames
>Anon pretending that 15ft range spiked chain isn't some gimmicky powergaming bullshit
Holy nolife
A metal chain.
It’s fun watching optimizers have autistic sperg outs and leave every single table they join or put together
Reminds me of a game in where the supposedly veteran GM had a caster try to summon something, I just moved towards him and attacked, then told him to roll for concentration to not lose the spell...he stood there like I was speaking in another language, told him summoning takes a full round and still couldn't understand
>point out that he's way too far
>DM: okay he steps closer
>grab dice and state he eats AoO
Moving inside threatened squares does not count as attack of opportunity unless specifically you prepared an action beforehand which you didnt, like bro just google the srd its just 20 second at max,
In 3.5 specifically, moving around inside someone's reach provokes AoO. Later editions changed this to when you are leaving the totality of someone's reach, but in 3.5 if you moved around somebody in a circle, you'd provoke eight attacks of opportunity.
>first time DM
>Shows up with a half minotaur with spiked chain
you are a moron and an butthole, I hope all your friends never talk to you again, for frick sake.
>play game with strangers
>make an butthole character
>people call you an butthole
So mysterious.
A metal chain.
Environmental kills are always fun, there’s nothing like a cliff or a pit of spikes to add some flavor to a fight. And it can even help with balance, as Roy demonstrates.
Having interesting environments should be the top piece of advice for any encounter design. It somehow instantly makes even boring fights with generic stat blocks into a more engaging experience.
Of course, since the players and GM are viewing the battlemat from above, they would have been well aware of the location of the cliff, so this never would have happened.
I wouldn't overestimate the situational awareness of PCs and GMs, Especially one who's brilliant strategy is to just spam the same set of moves over and over.
where is that rule?
I don't remember reach weapons provoking an AoE unless you are already adjacent.
I knew where this is going the moment I saw "spiked chain".
You knew what were you doing and you saw that the DM has no idea. You could've been the sporting type but you deliberately made that shitty situation happen and have the gal to take the high ground on this.
Frick you, guy. Literally 0 self awareness