# Does 3E/3.5 dictate a certain style of play?



## CruelSummerLord (Jan 2, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Times have changed.




This was said in response to something I posted on another thread, about how 6th level being exceptional and magic items scarce, as EGG wrote in the late 1970s, were major factors in shaping my views on D&D.  It was pointed out by another contributor that 3E/3.5 is designed to allow players access to many magical items, and that imbalances occur if the DM messes with this.  

This makes me wonder-were previous editions actually more flexible in their styles of play?  You could play with miniatures or without, could ramp up the power level and still find suitable opponents, could turn down the power level and still have appropriate challenges-but now, with magic items much easier to manufacture, and even seeming to be a necessity these days, and powerful monsters routinely having CRs over 20, I wonder whether it's even possible to enjoy a lower-tone style of play anymore.  

Kingdoms of Kalamar and the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, with their predominance of characters under 20th level, seems to suggest that you can still have enjoyable adventures without powergaming, but I can't help but feel that I'd have to take several hit dice off some of the more powerful monsters (reduce the number of hit dice for giants from what it is now to around 8-12, so they can have class levels without having their CRs go through the roof, reduce the hit dice for a monster like the ocean strider from 36 to, say, 12), or drastically cut down the magic item counts and levels of various NPCs (Elminster is "only" a 27th level wizard, Red Wizards only sell potions and scrolls at their magic shops, 10th level is the benchmark for 'exceptional', few if any Epic-level abilities not specifically plot-related, etc.)  

So, in a nutshell I'm wondering if it's possible to have that kind of "toned-down" campaign without screwing everything up?

  If I seem like a bitter old-timer, I'm actually not: I'm only 24.  I must admit that I hate the idea of magic being a cheap commodity (the DMs' Option: High Level Campaigns book featured a drawing of a wizard pushing a shopping cart down an aisle, examining various magic wands available in a bin), and find the sheer numbers of variant races/templates/fusions bewildering (if dwarven innkeepers bar customers just for being elves or humans, and mercenary guilds deny membership to certain people because they are women, elves or halflings, what chance does a person who is so obviously unusual have of thriving in a world where racial and sexual discrimination are a very unfortunate but very real part of life?), to say nothing of prestige classes (I prefer to take the existing classes and make role-playing/ability variations as needed).  

So, in this day and age, am I completely out of step?  Is there still any place for non-powergamers around the game table?


----------



## Crothian (Jan 2, 2007)

CruelSummerLord said:
			
		

> So, in a nutshell I'm wondering if it's possible to have that kind of "toned-down" campaign without screwing everything up?




Of course it is.  Run the game you want to run and don't get bullied by what the books seem to indicate.  They don't really dictate any play style.


----------



## DragonLancer (Jan 2, 2007)

CruelSummerLord said:
			
		

> So, in this day and age, am I completely out of step?  Is there still any place for non-powergamers around the game table?




I'm in full agreement with you. Too much of 3.X is devoted to min/maxing, miniatures and the nessecary tactics that come with them. 

Go with what you want to do. If you want to tone things down, then do it. Cut back on whatever aspects you find get in the way of the enjoyment of D&D.


----------



## Psion (Jan 2, 2007)

CruelSummerLord said:
			
		

> So, in this day and age, am I completely out of step?  Is there still any place for non-powergamers around the game table?




I find a lot of what you lament has nothing to do with power gaming.

However, I did gnash my teeth over some changes in 3.5 that make miniature use more implicit... but I manage nonetheless (mainly, the new concealment and facing rules). I stick with 3.0 rules and find it pretty easy to eschew minis where appropriate.

Regarding magic items... 3e sets a standard, one that was absent in prior editions. So if you throw the standard out the window, you are just as on your own as you were in earlier editions.

There are some variant products that can win you some of this back. Grim Tales (which has rules for magic-light campaign, and estimating power of characters without items) and Iron Heroes (which give PCs powers but assumes few or no items.)


----------



## Seeten (Jan 2, 2007)

> So, in a nutshell I'm wondering if it's possible to have that kind of "toned-down" campaign without screwing everything up?
> 
> If I seem like a bitter old-timer, I'm actually not: I'm only 24. I must admit that I hate the idea of magic being a cheap commodity (the DMs' Option: High Level Campaigns book featured a drawing of a wizard pushing a shopping cart down an aisle, examining various magic wands available in a bin), and find the sheer numbers of variant races/templates/fusions bewildering (if dwarven innkeepers bar customers just for being elves or humans, and mercenary guilds deny membership to certain people because they are women, elves or halflings, what chance does a person who is so obviously unusual have of thriving in a world where racial and sexual discrimination are a very unfortunate but very real part of life?), to say nothing of prestige classes (I prefer to take the existing classes and make role-playing/ability variations as needed).
> 
> So, in this day and age, am I completely out of step? Is there still any place for non-powergamers around the game table?




The books exist to give options. DM's can pick and choose what exists in their game worlds. Magic Shops included. If your PC's dont have magic items, many monsters will be TPK's without fixes, so if you change the balance, you need to be willing to change the balance everywhere, creating some extra work.

Iron Heroes, by Mike Mearls can alleviate many of your headaches, tho


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 2, 2007)

3E may be more geared toward certain play styles than others, but it can handle almost anything. IME, there's not a single sort of game that could be run with 1E/2E that cannot also be run with 3E.

I've run low-magic games. I've run mysteries. I've run brutal/savage games. I've also run games very close to "by-the-book." And I've had fun with all of 'em.

You don't want magic items easily available? Don't make them easily available. And ignore people who say "But that'll throw off the Challenge Rating system!" The CR system is an approximation anyway. As long as you, as DM, have some sense of how powerful your group is, and are willing to modify challenges and encounters accordingly, it doesn't matter how off the baseline you actually are.


----------



## Andre (Jan 2, 2007)

CruelSummerLord said:
			
		

> This makes me wonder-were previous editions actually more flexible in their styles of play?




Yes, previous editions were more flexible, as the rules were less complete and detailed. The flexibility came from the very lack of rules, since more rules create more constraints when someone tries to modify the system to suit a particular playing style. Of course, the lack of rules also created limitations, as too many GM's were put in the role of game designer, for which most of us were not prepared.

The designers of 3.x have admitted many times that they had certain goals in mind when crafting the new rules, one of which was to limit the damage an arbitrary GM could cause. Another was an assumption when balancing classes and challenges that magic would be plentiful. And we were constantly warned when the game came out to be careful about introducing house rules without first trying the game as is, since changing one rule usually had significant unintended consequences. In short, the 3.x game system was designed to work best for a particular type of play, while also trying (somtimes unsuccessfully) to keep enough flexibility to suit a wide variety of gamers.

That said, if you're willing to do the work and your players trust you, a GM can use 3.x for many different play styles. Take a day or two to view the threads on these boards and you'll see that many (most?) are tweaking the game to some degree to match their preferences. Or, if you prefer, try out one of the new rules sets, ala Castles and Crusades or Iron Heroes to see if they better meet your needs.

By the way, rules never (IMO) *dictate* a particular style or play, but they should and do *encourage* particular styles.


----------



## MerricB (Jan 2, 2007)

The difference with 3e is that there are now balancing tools you can feel free to ignore. It allows as great a freedom with how you play it as ever, and perhaps more.

(It should be noted that it was 2e, not 3e, that gave big power-ups to giants, something that I regret occuring).

There are a huge range of approaches to 3e. Psion is a big non-fan of new classes, but I (and my group) embrace them. There are people who use core rules only, there are people that use every supplement that comes out. 

If I may comment on a few aspects of your post:

*"You could play with miniatures or without"*
If you need minis to play 3e, I'm in big trouble. I have over 2,000 D&D Minis, and I don't actually use them every session. In fact, 50% or more of sessions are probably played without minis. (I ran about 80 sessions of D&D last year...)

*could ramp up the power level and still find suitable opponents*
Hmm - I'd almost say there are more high-level opponents in 3e than before, actually.

*could turn down the power level and still have appropriate challenges*
Still a lot of low-level challenges.

*powerful monsters routinely having CRs over 20*
I must have missed something. There are still plenty of threats out there, many making good "boss" monsters and the like, which have CRs nowhere near 20.

It should be noted that most of the games I run play on a fortnightly basis, thus after a year of my main campaign the PCs are 10th level. If I were playing more often, I'd reduce XP awards to fit my playstyle (something that is discussed in the DMG). 

Cheers!


----------



## Glyfair (Jan 2, 2007)

Andre said:
			
		

> Yes, previous editions were more flexible, as the rules were less complete and detailed. The flexibility came from the very lack of rules, since more rules create more constraints when someone tries to modify the system to suit a particular playing style. Of course, the lack of rules also created limitations, as too many GM's were put in the role of game designer, for which most of us were not prepared.




I think this is possibly a key difference between AD&D and 3E.  AD&D gives great DMs more flexibility to tweak on the fly.  However, when a non-great DM rules on the fly those rules can be quite flawed and over time build up.  A slightly below average DM will have bad call build over bad call over time creating a truly bad game.

3E feels different.  A great DM will probably still run a great game.  However, they might feel constrained by the rules.  Some DMs might not even be able to deal with it because they style is to ignore rules.  Non-great DMs, on the other hand, will have more consistent games  and the experience will be better for their players over time.  

Of course, bad DMs will be a bad experience with any version of the game.  However, a strong group of players in 3E might be able to make it playable (of course, it's probably better if one of the players takes over DMing).


----------



## Crothian (Jan 2, 2007)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> I'm in full agreement with you. Too much of 3.X is devoted to min/maxing, miniatures and the nessecary tactics that come with them.




Where is all this stuff that is devoted to min maxing, minis, and tactics?  I've got a lot of books and these areas just are not in them.


----------



## Aaron L (Jan 2, 2007)

We don't use minis and have never suffered for it.  The wealth guidelines are something that was added as a helpful tool that 1E and 2E lacked and ignoring them is easy.  Having a tool available that you can freely ignore is always preferable to not having a tool when you may need it.


----------



## IceFractal (Jan 2, 2007)

3E no more forces its playstyle than putting a straw in a drink forces you to drink through the straw. 

CRs, expected wealth, and so forth - those aren't unbreakable rules, they're guidelines that go together: if you use the guidelines for PCs, the CRs for monsters will be relatively accurate.  Otherwise they won't be, but nothing stops you from eyeballing them and picking whatever challenges you feel will work.


----------



## MerricB (Jan 2, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> 3E feels different.  A great DM will probably still run a great game.  However, they might feel constrained by the rules.




And some DMs will make the rules dance to their tune.  Seriously, in 3e I've found that applying the rules is not constraining - it's liberating. Instead of having to run things entirely on the fly, my knowledge of the rules is good enough to have them enhancing the game rather than them slowing things down.

Cheers!


----------



## Psion (Jan 2, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Where is all this stuff that is devoted to min maxing, minis, and tactics?  I've got a lot of books and these areas just are not in them.




On the same page as far as min/maxing, but I found things like determining concealment by tracing lines across objects on the battlemat instead of DM determination of what things were like, introduced when they gutted the cover/concealment rules, to be something that is devoted to minis and I felt appropriate to house rule back to the old version in order to better facilitate miniless play.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 2, 2007)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> 3E no more forces its playstyle than putting a straw in a drink forces you to drink through the straw.




Ice, I don't do quotes in my sig, but if I did, this would have just made the top of the list. Excellent metaphor.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jan 2, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> On the same page as far as min/maxing, but I found things like determining concealment by tracing lines across objects on the battlemat instead of DM determination of what things were like, introduced when they gutted the cover/concealment rules, to be something that is devoted to minis and I felt appropriate to house rule back to the old version in order to better facilitate miniless play.



I draw lines on the battlemap the same way I always have: in my mind. None of this stuff is nearly as mandatory as people make it out to be.


----------



## the Jester (Jan 2, 2007)

Although I need a week or two to do some prep work on it first, I'm about to run the 2nd arc of a low-magic campaign for our group.  I've tweaked the 3e rules for it but it is definitely still dnd.  It works great.


----------



## Kurotowa (Jan 2, 2007)

Games have rules, rules set limits on what and how you do things, limits create a style of play.  What seperates a roleplaying game from improv storytelling is that it does have rules and a style of play.  This is was true for D&D 1st edition as it is now for D&D 3rd edition.  The style has just shifted over time, with levels and magical items coming more quickly than they once did.  What you call powergamers are just using a different style of play than the one you would prefer.

However there are degrees to this.  Some games have very modular rules, where different elements can be subtracted or changed easily.  Other games have very interconnected rules, where small changes ripple out and have a major impact.  The early editions of D&D were more the former, while D20 is much more the latter.  That's why people will often object when a GM makes a change in one place (amount of magical gear) without making a balancing change in another place (warrior dependance on gear vs caster dependance on gear).

My point, to state it clearly, is that every RPG has a style of play best suited to its rules.  This is an inescapable fact.  You can be willing to enjoy a game for what it offers, decide to find a different game better aimed at your tastes, or go under the hood and try to homebrew something exactly to your desires.  The biggest trouble with the homebrew option is that it's so easy to do badly.  So first you ought consider if you can enjoy D&D 3.5 for what it is instead of hating it for what it isn't.  Then if you really want to go ahead you need to make an effort to understand why the rules are the way they are now, and what effect the changes you want will have, and how to effectively encourage the play style you want.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 2, 2007)

The last 3.5 campaign I ran, the party didn't get a magic item until almost 3rd level.  It was a +2 Shortsword.

There were no balance problems.

I've been using minis since I started playing D&D back in 1977, so the emphasis on minis in 3.5 doesn't bug me.  I've also played many other systems (more than 50), all with varying degrees of "mini-orientation" in their rules.  My experience has been that things run more smoothly if the players can see the entire battlespace (or at least most of it), regardless of the details of the combat system.  Sometimes, I satisfied that with just a sketch on a piece of graph paper and some dots, dashes, asterisks, etc.


----------



## CruelSummerLord (Jan 2, 2007)

Lots of interesting food for thought.  I must admit that I'd feel more comfortable dramatically raising the levels needed to acquire the feats to craft magic items-given that you need to be 18th level to craft a permanent magic item, and 12th level or thereabouts to craft a magic wand, that dramatically reduces the number of magic items available in the campaign-and this applies just as much to villains as it does to heroes, which means that as DM I'd have to think up ways around these limits, which is only fair, after all!  

And, as I mentioned, I'd in all likelihood dramatically trim the number of hit dice for certain monsters-giants being the most obvious, but but prominent NPCs would also see their arsenals and power levels reduced appropriately.  I've often found that I'd feel comfortable cutting levels by as much as one-half to two thirds, especially when I cannot think of any real rationale or background for these powerful characters.  

Funny thing, actually; my ideal game would be a hybrid of all three editions, with the 1E system of combat (one-minute round and segments that allow for more DM adjudication), character abilities and monster stats, fused with the 2E rules for specialist wizards, and the 3E skills and some of the feats, without prestige classes.  Granted, it might be a hopeless mishmash, but at least I tried, right?  (BTW, I even came up with ideas on how to fuse the THACO system with multiclassing and giving monsters classes, although one could as easily say that a monster simply has a higher THACO, the way the original G3 module had Snurre fighting like a cloud or storm giant, depending on whether he had his sword or not.)  

I'm glad to see the positive responses to my concerns.  I must admit that I'm speaking more from the POV of a storyteller or novel writer as opposed to a DM, since I have no one to game with.  Indeed, one of my own personal pipe dreams/hopeless delusions is to write role-playing novels that have deep characterizations on the level of Tolstoy's _War and Peace_ or Dickens' _A Tale of Two Cities_, Dumas's _The Count of Monte Cristo_, or what have you.  It's still swords and sorcery with D&D motifs, only the characterization and history are on the level of Shakespeare or Homer.  Rangers struggling with alcoholism, gnomes who have war flashbacks, halflings who sow political mayhem and exploit the weaknesses of men with their _hats of disguise_, that sort of thing.  

And yes, I know I'm nuts.


----------



## Kurotowa (Jan 2, 2007)

If you really want to go ahead with that, let me echo the people suggesting you look at Iron Heroes or Black Company or one of the varient systems that supports it.  Heck, there are games out there besides D&D to try.  But in D&D 3.5 the warrior types really need their magical gear to keep up with the casters.  Without items a Wizard's spell does just as many d6 damage, a Cleric's buffs are just as strong, and the poor Fighter and Rogue hit less often for less damage while taking more hits themselves.  

(Note that how strongly this shows depends on party level, group playstyle, and PC builds.  I played a campaign from 1st to 19th level where the DM decided to reign in the treasure we got.  The disparity first started to show around 9th level.  By 15th level the party stratagy was that the Druid nuked, my battle Cleric hulked up and smashed things, and the rest of the party tried not to die.  The effect on a group can be mitigated by low levels and/or casters devoted to party buffs.)


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jan 2, 2007)

Hmm. How many threads can be combined into a single post?

Criticism of "power gamers." Check. "Is 3.x like old D&D?" check. Miniatures mentioned. Check. Magic items. Check.

But I'll fall for it once more.

To answer the first part of the post, D&D 3.x works just fine in a setting where 6th level characters are "high level." You just fight large dragons rather than huge dragons and the devils big devils of the campaign are ice devils rather than pit fiends. Nobody casts raise dead except from scrolls. And it will work just fine and you can have fun. You will also, incidentally, get a relatively low-magic campaign. If 6th level characters are high level characters then a character is, according to the by the book default, unlikely to have more than two or three permanent magic items and those items won't be too impressive. Gauntlets of ogre power, a +2 shield, and a +1 sword is about as high magic as a character is likely to achieve.

Of course, all that assumes that you really want to run a "toned down" campaign. In that case, there are quite a few parts of 3.x you won't use if you want to run a toned down campaign. For starters, you can probably ignore most of the spells of 5th level and above. Your PCs won't get to use them and if your NPCs use them, they'll kill the PCs. The same for all those high CR monsters. Ocean Striders? They're probably not on the menu if you're running a lower-powered game. But I've been playing for years and never run into an ocean strider so you can definitely have fun without running into them.

On the other hand, if you don't really want to run a toned down campaign, but what you want to do is throw world-shattering monsters at low-level PCs, then 3.x is not a particularly good venue for that. Things like balors and the tarrasque have earned their fearsome reputation and 6th level PCs are not likely to be able to oppose them. (But that was true of previous editions too. Trying to run 1st level PCs through the hall of the fire giant king would have been an exercise in sadism. Truth to be told, the older editions of the game weren't exactly problem free if you didn't give out magic items either. A high level fighter without a magic weapon and magic armor and girdle of giant strength or something similar was an even sorrier spectacle than his 3.x counterpart)

Now, all of this has nothing to do with power gaming (which is or should be an entirely separate whine). High level characters can be power-gamed, but low level characters can be power-gamed too. For every initiate of the sevenfold veil I've seen played, I must have seen a dozen 20str, 14-16 con, 6 charisma half-orc barbarian/fighters with their standard issue greatsword/greataxe. Power gaming is about creating a powerful character within the given ruleset and whether you are playing high level or low-level, high magic or no magic merely determines the way that powergaming will play out. (Though, I must say that my experience suggests that a lot of low magic campaigns encourage powergaming because if the PCs aren't getting power from their equipment, they need to get if from their stats and class/feat/skill decisions).

But, to answer the last question, "is there a place for a non-powergamer at the table," the answer depends upon what you mean. You could be championing the role-wimp ("Look, my aspiring master swordsman has taken Skill Focus and Greater Skill Focus: Underwater basket weaving, didn't bother with weapon focus, and chose druid for his starting class even though I wear metal armor and can't use the druid powers--ok, he's utterly useless at everything, but it all makes sense because it's in the seventeen pages of semi-literate backstory (which really amounts to a thinly devised ripoff of a b-movie or comic book character) that I wrote for the character." If that's the case, my attitude is "good for you, you've proved that you're not one of those evil power gamers, now get lost." If, on the other hand, you just want your single classed human barbarian with a 16 starting strength and the obvious PHB feats (Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Cleave, etc) to be viable, then there's plenty of room for you in the games I write and run.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jan 2, 2007)

CruelSummerLord said:
			
		

> Lots of interesting food for thought.  I must admit that I'd feel more comfortable dramatically raising the levels needed to acquire the feats to craft magic items-given that you need to be 18th level to craft a permanent magic item, and 12th level or thereabouts to craft a magic wand, that dramatically reduces the number of magic items available in the campaign-and this applies just as much to villains as it does to heroes, which means that as DM I'd have to think up ways around these limits, which is only fair, after all!




Fine with me(then again so is everything), I love a well mangled hybrid ruleset.  Even though I go the opposite way and prefer high-powered campaigns to DM and play I agree with that inner reluctance at characters becoming too overburdened with magic objects.  There's an idea I use to avoid that.  

Hong came up with it, and while I don't generally agree with Hong on most things I really like this one.  Its the Imbued Magic Items rule found here www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/imbued_magic.htm  I use a variant of it myself and automatically siphon off a portion of XP from every encounter, in return armor and weapons gain magical bonuses over time all on their own.  Growing with the characters, it also means I don't have to keep dropping the appropriate magical weapons and armor.  At the least it might give you some ideas.


----------



## DeadlyUematsu (Jan 2, 2007)

Yes. Like its predecessors, 3E is not a generic fantasy game and it does dictate a certain style of play. One that I enjoy if I might add.


----------



## Echohawk (Jan 2, 2007)

CruelSummerLord said:
			
		

> and powerful monsters routinely having CRs over 20



Of the 2671 creatures with listed CRs that have appeared in WotC 3.X books, only 231 have CRs greater than 20.

Of those 231...
97 are Great Wyrm (or similarly old) dragons
73 are from the _Epic Level Handbook_
39 are unique demon lords, archdevils, aspects of archdevils from _Fiendish Codex II_ or unique archons from _Book of Exalted Deeds_
Which leaves us with a mere 22 ordinary creatures with CRs of 21+. And of those, only three have appeared in print in the last two years: the Revered Elder Phaerimm (_Lost Empires of Faerûn_), the Elder Brain (_Lords of Madness_) and the Zeitgeist (_Cityscape_).

So I don't think it is really fair to say that monsters "routinely" have CRs over 20. They don't.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 2, 2007)

I feel your pain. Yet, I had the same problems and a huge preference for low level games... then I found out while playing that it's not a problem at all. With a few minor changes and good rules knowledge, my campaign ran to level 15 and worked.

One thing I always preferred: Magic items were handed out rarely. I rather had one pretty strong magic sword with a story than 9 +1 short swords for the whole group. This might cause balance problems inside of the group though.

Crafting magic items: Let the PCs do what they want, you can control it by the amount of money and time they have. Trust the rules and if your players have a similar style of gaming like you have, you'll do fine.


----------



## reutbing0 (Jan 2, 2007)

DeadlyUematsu said:
			
		

> Yes. Like its predecessors, 3E is not a generic fantasy game and it does dictate a certain style of play. One that I enjoy if I might add.




While I don't think 3E dictates a certain style of play, I do feel that it encourages a certain style of play. There's quite a big difference between the two. If you prefer using a lot supplements to run your game I do think you'll find that these do nudge you in the "preferred" direction; an emphasis on fast-paced location-based adventuring that incorporates 3.5 "dungeonpunk" stylistic elements and archetypes, and employing battle maps and miniatures. This also happens to be a style I like (but not exclusively).


----------



## DragonLancer (Jan 2, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Where is all this stuff that is devoted to min maxing, minis, and tactics?  I've got a lot of books and these areas just are not in them.




While propably not intending to do so, the mechanics can (not always) lead to some serious min/maxing. I know. I've had a player in the past who was heavy into his min/maxing through the class abilities and feats. If a player wants to go that route, theres a lot that he can do with it. If thats your bag then fine, but the modular nature of the game mechanics allows for a fair bit of min/maxing.

Minis and tactics. It's all in the PHB. Combat is now geared towards the use of minis and their positions on a map. I;ve seen some games where combat has become much like chess, with figures being moved square by square to avoid AoO's and achieve the best position for flanking, setting to charge, avoiding hitting party members with spells and missile weapons.
This wasn't a part of earlier editions anywhere near as much.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jan 2, 2007)

I don't think 3E forces you into a certain style of play. I've done extended lower level adventures in 3E by throttling XP, in order to maximize the window they would encounter certain creatures I wanted to use. And I've done higher level play.

One thing that seems to stick in people's minds is the distribution of magic items. The big difference in 3E is that if you want to blow the feats, you don't have to wait for the DM to hand you a magic item: you just make it yourself. If that didn't happen in 1E and 2E it's because s that for all practical purposes, there were no rules for it at all. 

We've been over this a few times, but let's review: despite all the caterwauling about how magic items should be rare, precious things such that a person should feel lucky to have a +1 weapon at tenth level or whatever... 1E doesn't live up to that and _never did._ Modules are stocked with +x items and more powerful things besides. 

And let's not forget that fact that after a certain level 1E and 2E requires you to have a certain level of +n weapon to even affect certain encounters. A gargoyle isn't just resistant to non-magical weapons, it's _invulnerable _ to them. That among a couple other things is why the wizard totally dominates higher level 1E and 2E play: at the end of the day, he's the only one that can put out enough damage across the widest possible range of monsters. One DM I had put it very well: Fighters serve. After about, oh, 12th level that's all they are: servants. Especially if they don't have their magic armor and arms.



			
				CruelSummerLord said:
			
		

> I must admit that I'm speaking more from the POV of a storyteller or novel writer as opposed to a DM, since I have no one to game with. Indeed, one of my own personal pipe dreams/hopeless delusions is to write role-playing novels that have deep characterizations on the level of Tolstoy's War and Peace or Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities, Dumas's The Count of Monte Cristo, or what have you. It's still swords and sorcery with D&D motifs, only the characterization and history are on the level of Shakespeare or Homer.
> 
> And yes, I know I'm nuts.




Bah, nonsense. Doing games and doing novels is apples and oranges. What works well in a game doesn't work that well in a novel, though the reverse is not nessesarily true. You have vastly more leeway in novel and story writing than you do with a game: you don't have to have a lot of the metagaming rules that prevent players from going hogwild and accumulating Stuff with no risk to themselves at all (see other threads about why it costs XP to produce magic items, for instance).

Now, if you're looking for a game _that by it's very rules _ will expressly translate into the sorts of things you see in a novel, then you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't think there_ is _ a _game _ that lets you do that, not even your indie barely-a-game-at-all games. That's why we have GM's and players. In combination and cooperation with each other, I've seen game sessions that easily rival drama in a play or novel.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jan 2, 2007)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> While propably not intending to do so, the mechanics can (not always) lead to some serious min/maxing. I know. I've had a player in the past who was heavy into his min/maxing through the class abilities and feats. If a player wants to go that route, theres a lot that he can do with it. If thats your bag then fine, but the modular nature of the game mechanics allows for a fair bit of min/maxing.



Yeah, but people have *always done this*. The term "min-maxing" didn't appear out of thin air in 2000. They did it in Second Edition, even before _Skills & Powers_. They did it in First Edition. They did it in D&D.

Any time you have the opportunity to lessen competence or ability in one facet of a character's skillset in order to improve competence or ability in another facet, you get people who will take that opportunity and min-max their characters.

That there's more to mess around with in this regard in Third Edition means nothing. GURPS is an order of magnitude more flexible, and no-one bloody well calls it a munchkin's game.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jan 2, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> The big difference in 3E is that if you want to blow the feats, you don't have to wait for the DM to hand you a magic item: you just make it yourself. If that didn't happen in 1E and 2E it's because s that for all practical purposes, there were no rules for it at all.



Hell, I clearly remember the example of magic item creation in the Second Edition _Dungeon Master's Guide_. It involved several solo adventures (for instance, completing a dwarven rite of passage in order to be taught their secrets of metalworking), exotic components, _et cetera_.

Now that's all very well and good - it certainly establishes something of a mythic, legendary feel. On the other hand, is it *practical* in a game involving more than one player for the wizard to be off gallivanting around in dwarven dungeons just to make the fighter a magical sword?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 2, 2007)

reutbing0 said:
			
		

> While I don't think 3E dictates a certain style of play, I do feel that it encourages a certain style of play. There's quite a big difference between the two. If you prefer using a lot supplements to run your game I do think you'll find that these do nudge you in the "preferred" direction; an emphasis on fast-paced location-based adventuring that incorporates 3.5 "dungeonpunk" stylistic elements and archetypes, and employing battle maps and miniatures.




QFT.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 2, 2007)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> While propably not intending to do so, the mechanics can (not always) lead to some serious min/maxing.




You can min max in any game.  D&D does not support it.  If you don't want people to min max just tell them to stop or play with different people.  



> Minis and tactics. It's all in the PHB. Combat is now geared towards the use of minis and their positions on a map. I;ve seen some games where combat has become much like chess,




While some games are like this, it doesn't have to be.  I've played entire campaigns without minis.  It is just as easy to do as with or withour mins minis and in some ways easier and faster without.  It's all about what the people want, not what the game wants.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 2, 2007)

I wouldn't call it 'dictate', but the rules do support certain styles better than others.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Psion (Jan 2, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I draw lines on the battlemap the same way I always have: in my mind. None of this stuff is nearly as mandatory as people make it out to be.




For me, whether you can trace the lines mentally or not on the battlemat is not the point; the battlemat is still in the equation. The fact that the rules changed to hinge around the battlemat at all is a problem for me. The grid is artificial measuring tool. D&D is a game of the imagination. Making me imagine on a battlemat is, when it's not facilitating play, a cumbersome intermediate step. I, as the DM, prefer to tell you whether the orc is lurking behind a corner. I do not think it's the place of the battlemat to tell me.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 2, 2007)

The only thing, that is a little difficult to adjudicate without the map, are AoO, or not?

I think when those are reduced to a minimum, playing without a map works just fine.

I like the map, though, and we used it long before D&D 3E already, mostly to give everyone the same base, because it did happen way too often, that the visualization resulting from the descriptions were quite a bit different to each other. The battlemap puts everyone on the same level. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Darklone (Jan 2, 2007)

My biggest problem while playing without a battlemap: How to get to the wizards 

Is the big brute fighter in the way or not? Where's the archer...?

"Kill the mage first!" was the most important rule in D&D since I played it. How do I do that without knowing how to get there?


----------



## Bacris (Jan 2, 2007)

Battlemats aren't the advent of 3E.  I used battle mats in AD&D and 2nd Ed, as it made the scene a lot easier for the DM and players to absorb.  Sure, I could say "You walk into a circular room with sconces lining the walls and the smell of sulfur.  Three robed figures are standing around a circle made of chalk.  In the middle of the circle is another figure chained to the floor."   or I could have 3 robed minis standing around a drawn circle with another chained mini laying on the floor AND describe it.

I've always found that the battle mat makes it easier for everyone involved to have an unbiased view of the battle, as opposed to "I try to maneuver around the orc without drawing attacks of opportunity" and the DM deciding willy-nilly if he wants the orc to attack me or not.  Vindictive DMs will say "there's no way to do that without drawing an AoO", while lenient DMs will say "ok" - the mat makes it objective as opposed to subjective.  Is there enough room to do it?  Let's take a look and see instead of off-the-cuff.

But this has been something since 2E, not 3E.  3E just introduced rules that cater to it.

I'm also more of one who believes that off-the-cuff rules make for problems as opposed to better games.  The plot should be the focus, not determining how tripping or AoOs or Arcane Spell Failure or Turn Undead works in your game.


----------



## Psion (Jan 2, 2007)

Bacris said:
			
		

> Battlemats aren't the advent of 3E.  I used battle mats in AD&D and 2nd Ed, as it made the scene a lot easier for the DM and players to absorb.




Absolutely.

But when the rules move the battlemat from facilitating the action to dictating it, overruling the GMs conception about what the environment is like, it has overstepped it's domain.


----------



## reutbing0 (Jan 2, 2007)

Darklone said:
			
		

> "Kill the mage first!" was the most important rule in D&D since I played it. How do I do that without knowing how to get there?




I think this is very true. I see Psion's point when he says that the battlemat is an "artificial measuring tool", but on the other hand a person's mind and imagination are very subjective measuring tools. It all depends on how much you want emphasize the 'fairness' and explicit tactical elements of your D&D game.There's really no right or wrong answer.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 2, 2007)

Bacris said:
			
		

> Battlemats aren't the advent of 3E.




Certainly not. Midgard, a german RPG that's like 10-15 years older than D&D3E, utilized battlemats in a similar fashion already (including something akin to AoO; but also with actual facing rules). And it might not even have been the first there. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Crothian (Jan 2, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> But when the rules move the battlemat from facilitating the action to dictating it, overruling the GMs conception about what the environment is like, it has overstepped it's domain.




How does it over rule the GM's conception of the enviroment?  As a tool shouldn't the GM have the battle mat fit his conception?  Or is it that the battle mat for some reason just can't do that?


----------



## Psion (Jan 2, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> How does it over rule the GM's conception of the enviroment?




By the RAW 3.5, if I trace a line across a corner drawn on the battlemat, the target gets cover.

In RAW 3.0, I, the DM, decide how much cover the target is warranted.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 2, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> By the RAW 3.5, if I trace a line across a corner drawn on the battlemat, the target gets cover.
> 
> In RAW 3.0, I, the DM, decide how much cover the target is warranted.




Can't the DM just draw it out so that things get cover that he feels should?  And can't you just erase and redraw it if something gets cover that shouldn't?  I'm not a good art person so I make mistakes on the battlemat.  I think that it's important for a group to know that the battlemat is not the final answer.


----------



## Psion (Jan 2, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Can't the DM just draw it out so that things get cover that he feels should?




The rules don't allow for different iterations of cover like in 3.0. So I could draw all day, cover is cover, and situations are handled by ad hoc rulings or you take what you get by tracing corners. Drawing on the map won't cover things like swiss-cheese style barricade or how bold or shy the creature on the other side is.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 2, 2007)

CruelSummerLord said:
			
		

> This makes me wonder-were previous editions actually more flexible in their styles of play?  You could play with miniatures or without, (. . .)





Regarding miniatures, the group I began play with, when the game first came on the market in 1974, all came out of a tradition of wargaming, including miniatures wargaming, so I've/we've always used them to help define physical locations when appropriate, necessary, or just helpful (though some situations where they could be used certainly don't require that they _must_ be used).




			
				CruelSummerLord said:
			
		

> So, in this day and age, am I completely out of step?  Is there still any place for non-powergamers around the game table?





Perhaps unrelated to your other point, I've been involved in games that were of varying (sometimes extremely varied) power levels in all editions of the game.  I don't think it is the rules that dictate the style of play or power level of the game so much so as the DM and players at any given table.  A new player could walk into a game store or convention (or two people's homes, if invited) and find two tables using the same books but find two very different games being played, and neither would be, strictly speaking, breaking the RAW.

The rules address the adjustments a DM is meant to make if the power level of the game changes from, not what is assumed to be proper but, what the rules are capable as handling as a middle ground as well as what the rules are capable as handling as a range beyond that middle ground.  The rules as written don't accuse those trying to play at different power levels as wrong.  The rules as written try to accomodate them, admittedly with varying degrees of success.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Jan 2, 2007)

CruelSummerLord said:
			
		

> If I seem like a bitter old-timer, I'm actually not: I'm only 24.  I must admit that I hate the idea of magic being a cheap commodity




Cheap magic will be a cheap commodity. Expensive magic will be expensive. If you want mysterious, rare magic, in Kord's name, why are you playing D&D?



> and find the sheer numbers of variant races/templates/fusions bewildering (if dwarven innkeepers bar customers just for being elves or humans, and mercenary guilds deny membership to certain people because they are women, elves or halflings, what chance does a person who is so obviously unusual have of thriving in a world where racial and sexual discrimination are a very unfortunate but very real part of life?), to say nothing of prestige classes (I prefer to take the existing classes and make role-playing/ability variations as needed).




Turn the scenario around. 

If *my* D&D is a world where terrible monsters exist and clerics of gods that want lots of people dead are routinely attacking society, and non-humans walk around your city every day (gnomes, halflings, dwarves, half-orcs, and IMC, civilized orcs, fair ogres and fair giants, and the occaisional goblinoid, kobold, or similar, with magically enforced paperwork documenting their status as civilized beings), then accepting someone with green skin and silver hair (as a recent tiefling PC had in a one-shot adventure) is not a problem.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 2, 2007)

I don't know about dictating any certain styles of play. There are differences to be sure, but I find there isn't any more min/maxing going on than there was in earlier editions (notably 2E), especially with all the introductions of new races and the increasingly (IMO) overpowerful kits that the Complete books kept coming out with. 

As far as magic items go, I know that our OD&D characters used to be pretty loaded down with magic items themselves, even moreso at earlier levels than 3E characters seem to be, IMO. 

Then again, I don't game nearly as much these days as I did back then, so maybe I'm missing something.

There are definite tradeoffs, though. I find it is easier to balance things now, and I really enjoy the customization of feats, etc. But it isn't as easy to just create games on the fly (something my brother used to be really good at), and things (combat, notably) seem to go a lot more slowly.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Jan 2, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> As far as magic items go, I know that our OD&D characters used to be pretty loaded down with magic items themselves, even moreso at earlier levels than 3E characters seem to be, IMO.




There was a thread that compared Keep on the Borderlands with Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury. 
The Keep was ridiculously packed with magic items. Lots of magic weapons and armor, but then, these could easily be destroyed. 
The 3e modules had fewer, more powerful items, which are harder to destroy than in 1e. 

Of course, the _item creation_ is entirely diffrent. My 1e DMG says nothing about when you can create permanent magic items other than "high level magic-users" can do it.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 2, 2007)

CruelSummerLord said:
			
		

> )  So, in a nutshell I'm wondering if it's possible to have that kind of "toned-down" campaign without screwing everything up?
> 
> ....
> 
> So, in this day and age, am I completely out of step?  Is there still any place for non-powergamers around the game table?




Yes.  I couldn't say.  Yes.

The current edition is more clear and open about it's assumptions, and the resultsof those assumptions, than any other RPG, ever.  A GM who wants to pay attention can mangle it in a variety of ways and have it still function.  In the past, the GM didn't have the assumptions clearly spelled oout, and flexing was done poorly, or by the seat of the pants...

I think RPG players have become a bit more sophisticated over time, and they've become more accustomed to being given exactly what they want - so that they are less tolerant of a system that doesn't give them that out of the box.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 2, 2007)

I find that it does.  AD&D-d20 lends itself to near-immediate superheroics.  It takes a *lot* of DM effort to keep the game from spinning out of control and winding up with characters walking around shouting the names of major demons trying to get them to show up so the party monk can one-punch them.  

When I DM'ed d20 D&D*, I found that I had to dispense with the whole challenge rating thing - the (frankly annoying and arrogant) _expectation_ that characters _had to_ get _x_ amounts of gold, XP and magic items to be "on schedule" with certain level presuppositions at a certain point in the game.  Otherwise...once again, paladins calling Tiamat out for a rough-and-tumble.  I found those rules to be a set of fetters.  Treating d20 D&D's rules as "guidelines" to be done away with at my leisure meant that I was basically ripping out and replacing things I found distasteful left and right...which meant at the end of it all I was doing more work to pare the system down to a style of play I like (gritty fantasy, lowered advancement...err...basically AD&D) instead of using what I already had:

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 1st Edition.

I have a certain style of play that I prefer as a DM and as a player.  And the entirety of players whom I've gamed with haven't had a problem with that, at conventions, or at home.

But I'm wandering.  Back to the original question.  Yes, again, the game lends itself to out-of-the-box superheroes.  And everyone can be one.  Orc paladin with a celestial background and all of the baggage that entails?  Warforged Halfling Clerics?  Dire Weredragon Half-Elves?  I don't like those things in my game.  I don't allow those things in my game.  Those are all suppositions that are allowed out of the box in d20 D&D.  Ergo, that play-style associated with those kinds of superheroics is dictated by the rules.  

*=YES


----------



## buzz (Jan 2, 2007)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> If you want mysterious, rare magic, in Kord's name, why are you playing D&D?



Amen.

Also: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/20/



			
				Ron Edwards said:
			
		

> So everyone just did it locally. I consider role-playing to have been constructed independently in a vast number of instances across the landscape, sometimes in parallel, sometimes very differently. Over time, further unifications or contact-compromises occurred, whether through tournament standards, military bases, conventions, or APAs, or simply by people meeting when they converged on college campuses. Full unification never occurred. There never existed a single, original D&D.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 2, 2007)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Of course, the _item creation_ is entirely diffrent. My 1e DMG says nothing about when you can create permanent magic items other than "high level magic-users" can do it.




Consult your _Player's Handbook_.  It comes when _enchant an item_ can be cast.


----------



## Griffith Dragonlake (Jan 2, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> … Yes, again, the game lends itself to out-of-the-box superheroes.  And everyone can be one.  Orc paladin with a celestial background and all of the baggage that entails?  Warforged Halfling Clerics?  Dire Weredragon Half-Elves?  I don't like those things in my game.  I don't allow those things in my game.  Those are all suppositions that are allowed out of the box in d20 D&D.  Ergo, that play-style associated with those kinds of superheroes is dictated by the rules.




QFT.

My only issue with 3.x is that it has evolved D&D to a SuperHero game far more than previous editions and that players expect campaigns to reflect this. I believe that this has been in response to the success of computer games. Clearly I'm out of step with the marketplace and I'm OK with that. The pool of available players who enjoy playing D&D the way I do has shrunk considerably which while highly disappointing really shouldn't be a surprise after almost 30 years of gaming. In order for D&D to thrive it must adapt and evolve to meet the needs of the new generation of gamers. My friend Mark runs a 3.5 game for his teenaged son and friends. Mark once told me that D&D has really changed a lot since we last played (1st. Ed AD&D) but that the teens really enjoy it. I say mission accomplished.

For us old fogeys, I see a number of options:
1. Give out a lot less experience points but otherwise play by the rules. Use Core Rules only. Emphasize roleplaying. This keeps the campaign much lower on the superhero scale.
2. Play Castles & Crusades (or older editions of D&D) for that 'old school' feel.
3. Play Conan RPG, Iron Heroes, Thieves' World, Black Company, etc.
4. Play 3.x but with some judicious supplements like Mythic Vistas: Medieval Player's Handbook (best job I've ever seen for capturing the true Medieval feel).
5. Build your own d20 campaign + house rules or RPG.

This allows for varying degrees of compromise between your personal preferences as a GM and the players.

PS. For what's it worth, EGG has posted a number of times that he thinks 3.x has become a superhero game that's veered far away from the traditional archetypes. I wholeheartedly agree with him but add that most D&D players today are happy with that change, as judged by sales. To each his own.


----------



## shilsen (Jan 2, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> I find that it does.  AD&D-d20 lends itself to near-immediate superheroics.  It takes a *lot* of DM effort to keep the game from spinning out of control and winding up with characters walking around shouting the names of major demons trying to get them to show up so the party monk can one-punch them.




I've never played 1e, and very little of 2e, so I may be misinformed here, but from what I've read on these boards from a lot of much more experienced gamers, I get the serious impression that a PC in their teens in 1e (and 2e, but perhaps less so) could go kicking around dragons and demons with the greatest of ease. In 3e, there are a lot of things out there which would give a character of a similar level a much tougher time. I played a little of Against the Giants in 2e and whereas a group of 10th lvl PCs there could walk through G1 without too much difficulty, IIRC, a group of 10th lvl 3e characters would get TPKed if they tried that without being very, very careful. I'm running a 3e game (see sig) with extremely buff 11th lvl PCs, and a bunch of goblins can still give them a very hard time. I believe 3e is the first edition of the game where that's actually possible.

That being said, from what I've seen of D&D across the editions (most of it about the earlier editions being hearsay, as mentioned above), it has always been a superhero game with fantasy trappings. 3e is just much more explicit about it than earlier editions, though still not completely so. It's also a remarkably versatile toolbox, and lots of creative people on these boards are running games that span the entire spectrum. 3e may lend more easily towards certain types of games, but it hardly dictates a style of play, IMNSHO.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 2, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> I've never played 1e, and very little of 2e, so I may be misinformed here, but from what I've read on these boards from a lot of much more experienced gamers, I get the serious impression that a PC in their teens in 1e (and 2e, but perhaps less so) could go kicking around dragons and demons with the greatest of ease.




That's not the issue; that's going to happen in whatever game you have.  Play _Champions_ long enough and you'll have characters using Dr. Destroyer as a houseboy.  Play _Star Frontiers_ long enough and the characters will simply send out a few starships full of power-armor wearing troops to deal with the Sathar once and for all.  Play _Metamorphosis Alpha_ long enough and the characters will have learned how to "fix" the _Warden_ and get her back on course*.  The point, at least _my_ point, is that it happens too fast in d20 D&D.

*=although Jim Ward actually stated that this was a desirable thing; that it was his intention for characters to attain that lofty goal.


----------



## Psion (Jan 2, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> But I'm wandering.  Back to the original question.  Yes, again, the game lends itself to out-of-the-box superheroes.  And everyone can be one.  Orc paladin with a celestial background and all of the baggage that entails?  Warforged Halfling Clerics?  Dire Weredragon Half-Elves?  I don't like those things in my game.  I don't allow those things in my game.  Those are all suppositions that are allowed out of the box in d20 D&D.  Ergo, that play-style associated with those kinds of superheroics is dictated by the rules.




I think you misspeak.

The word you use is _dictated_. The word that really applies here is _allowed_. Templates and prestige classes are not in the PHB for a reason, and there is a step 0 to chargen for a reason. Those are not implicitly allowed options. I know many people who don't allow such options at all. I find the word "dictates" in this context off-target.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 2, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> The point, at least _my_ point, is that it happens too fast in d20 D&D.




Doesn't the DM set the pace of advancement?  There are guidelines in the DMG for DMs to give out less XP or just have the players level when the DM wants to so slowing down and speeding up advancement is in the game.  One should be able to play at the pace the group wants to.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 2, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Doesn't the DM set the pace of advancement?  There are guidelines in the DMG for DMs to give out less XP or just have the players level when the DM wants to so slowing down and speeding up advancement is in the game.  One should be able to play at the pace the group wants to.




Do they?  Can they really?  I found that the (frankly needless and restrictive) "challenge rating" rules practically put the DM in a slot-car track and held the trigger all the way down (so to speak); that if I put the players up against, say, a couple of ogres at the wrong point then they were dogmeat (because after all the ogres now have feats and abilities, too), but then at another juncture it was a yawnfest for the players because said ogres were pushovers.  Therefore they only came at the exactly right mathematically correct time.

I found that exceedingly irritating.

That also ties in with my dislike of the "one XP chart for everybody" thing, but that's another gripe.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 2, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> Do they?  Can they really?  I found that the (frankly needless and restrictive) "challenge rating" rules practically put the DM in a slot-car track and held the trigger all the way down (so to speak); that if I put the players up against, say, a couple of ogres at the wrong point then they were dogmeat (because after all the ogres now have feats and abilities, too), but then at another juncture it was a yawnfest for the players because said ogres were pushovers.  Therefore they only came at the exactly right mathematically correct time.




The same was true in 1E and 2E. The ogres might not have had a CR number assigned, but that doesn't change the fact that they were dangerous against a party of X average level, a reasonable challenge for Y average level, and pushovers for Z average level. All the CR system does--with greater or lesser degree of accuracy--is express that particular difficulty level.

Ogres are, in fact, more flexible now, because the DM has the option of tweaking feats or adding class levels.


----------



## Psion (Jan 2, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The same was true in 1E and 2E. The ogres might not have had a CR number assigned, but that doesn't change the fact that they were dangerous against a party of X average level, a reasonable challenge for Y average level, and pushovers for Z average level. All the CR system does--with greater or lesser degree of accuracy--is express that particular difficulty level.




Yep. As was discussed in an earlier thread, the CR system was already there, it just provided a raw XP number instead of giving an "appropriate level of challenge."


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 2, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The same was true in 1E and 2E. The ogres might not have had a CR number assigned, but that doesn't change the fact that they were dangerous against a party of X average level, a reasonable challenge for Y average level, and pushovers for Z average level. All the CR system does--with greater or lesser degree of accuracy--is express that particular difficulty level.




Well of course - some monsters are fit for lower level parties, some for higher level.  That's kind of bread and butter to all games that fall in to this sort of system.  Heck, that's pretty much universal, I'd say.

I frown on a system that dictates to DMs when - exactly - they can and can't challenge their players with certain obstacles.  Heck, would _you_ think an ogre and an owlbear were overpowered for a 1e* group of four adventurers (one of whom was a spellcaster, the other a thief)?  Sounds pretty nasty, yet that same encounter was overcome by a group I ran back in '99.  They used their brains and good tactics and not a little bit of deceit and were able to pull down the big win.  It was neat to watch and a pleasure to DM, but the current system simply says "The numbers don't add up, don't do that."


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 2, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> Well of course - some monsters are fit for lower level parties, some for higher level.  That's kind of bread and butter to all games that fall in to this sort of system.  Heck, that's pretty much universal, I'd say.
> 
> I frown on a system that dictates to DMs when - exactly - they can and can't challenge their players with certain obstacles.  Heck, would _you_ think an ogre and an owlbear were overpowered for a 1e* group of four adventurers (one of whom was a spellcaster, the other a thief)?  Sounds pretty nasty, yet that same encounter was overcome by a group I ran back in '99.  They used their brains and good tactics and not a little bit of deceit and were able to pull down the big win.  It was neat to watch and a pleasure to DM, but the current system simply says "The numbers don't add up, don't do that."




And I disagree with your assessment that the current system dictates "exactly" when the DM can use certain monsters. Just like the XP rewards in 1E, the CR system in 3E is a guideline, not a hard-and-fast rule. I've seen parties in 3E overcome challenges far above their level through good tactics or good luck. I've threatened parties with creatures far below their CR, as well.

It's no less about how the monsters and the PCs are run now than it was in 1E or 2E. It's just that the _guideline_ is now stated overtly, rather than implied.

(And for the record, the book even says outright that CR vs. party level is a guideline, not a rule.)


----------



## Crothian (Jan 2, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> that if I put the players up against, say, a couple of ogres at the wrong point then they were dogmeat (because after all the ogres now have feats and abilities, too), but then at another juncture it was a yawnfest for the players because said ogres were pushovers.  Therefore they only came at the exactly right mathematically correct time.




I'm not sure what this has to do with how fast characters level in the game.

But even in the older versions of the game ogres were really only a challenge at certain levels.  But those games did not have the options to advance weaken ogres like todays game to make ogres a challenge at any level.


----------



## Psion (Jan 2, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> I frown on a system that dictates to DMs when - exactly - they can and can't challenge their players with certain obstacles.










"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

It doesn't _dictate_ to you. It warns you. In fact, there's a section in the 3e DMG that discusses planning around the party or leaving encounters that aren't keyed to a party's level.

It's really all on you as the DM. Really.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 2, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> the current system simply says "The numbers don't add up, don't do that."





No, it actually doesn't do that at all.  It says that if a lower level party defeats them that maybe the DM should award more XP since that encounter would be more challenging.  The only thing the CR systems says is that encounters 10 higher or lower then the party level should only be encounter under special circumstances.  But even those the game does not right out forbid.  The DM runs the game.


----------



## CruelSummerLord (Jan 2, 2007)

Interesting responses all around.  It's quite a relief to see that my fears are apparently unfounded, for the most part.  I've also noticed that I'm much better at the fluff parts of RPGs-background, stories, personalities, etc.-than the crunchy nuts and bolts.  I admit that what works in games doesn't necessarily work in novels, but I must still say that worlds with broadly defined professions, a variety of sentient races that are either friendly with or hostile to humanity, with their own histories, cultures and outlooks on life, and a variety of recognizable monster species the likes of which fantasy RPGs have influenced my preferences on fantasy.  That's not to say that I don't consider D&D fantasy the only kind that can exist, but rather that it shaped my own preference.  Gygax's early writings, those which had less to do with how the game was presented or handled than parts of its actual content-the parts about magic items and levels-were a major influence.  If EGG said one thing and did another, I still picked up on his writings.  

I suspect that the problem comes from seeing the bloated (by my standards) power levels one sees in the supplements of the likes of Sean K. Reynolds.  Many of the recent Kingdoms of Kalamar modules prove otherwise, it seems.


----------



## CruelSummerLord (Jan 2, 2007)

Just for the record, I think the part about "routinely high CRs" was misinterpreted.  I meant monsters that have class levels, like giants, aboleth, mind flayers, and other sentient creatures that could have class abilities.  If a fire giant king like Snurre Iron Belly was a fifth level fighter, by 3E standards with the increased hit dice, what would that do to his CR?  How could 11th-13th level characters take him on if they only have a few magic items between them?  

I must admit I liked the scenarios like in the old Giants series where the players could be fighting a mob of giants, or taking on Snurre in his throne room, which-at least judging by the responses in some other threads-are much more difficult.  Monsters are much more lethal, or at least they can be.

And it's nice to see that there are other people out there who agree with me, of course.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 2, 2007)

CruelSummerLord said:
			
		

> Interesting responses all around.  It's quite a relief to see that my fears are apparently unfounded, for the most part.  I've also noticed that I'm much better at the fluff parts of RPGs-background, stories, personalities, etc.-than the crunchy nuts and bolts.
> 
> I suspect that the problem comes from seeing the bloated (by my standards) power levels one sees in the supplements of the likes of Sean K. Reynolds.  Many of the recent Kingdoms of Kalamar modules prove otherwise, it seems.




All you need is players that match the style of game you want to run and then find those books that also match the style of game you want to run.  And that can be harder then it sounds at times, but I find that the people one games with actually can dictate the style of play much more then any book.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 2, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."




Frown?


> It doesn't _dictate_ to you. It warns you.




Oh.  Well, no, I don't agree with that.  But whatevs.


----------



## CruelSummerLord (Jan 2, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> All you need is players that match the style of game you want to run and then find those books that also match the style of game you want to run.  And that can be harder then it sounds at times, but I find that the people one games with actually can dictate the style of play much more then any book.




Heh, too true.  And thanks to everyone who suggested the Iron Heroes supplement.  Just to clarify, is that a supplement for a grimmer, lower style of D20/D&D, or a different system altogether?  

Another thought crossed my mind about advancement and XP-and again, this is just an idea-but would using 1E XP values, while still keeping the 3E XP table, work to slow down advancement?  I must confess to liking how the resulting XP values could be something like 1,377 XP, 298 XP, or what have you-something that wasn't a multiple of five or ten.  Instead of additional XP based on gold, it's based instead on story goals and role-playing.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 2, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what this has to do with how fast characters level in the game.




You're right; I did wander somewhat and I apologize for that.  





> But even in the older versions of the game ogres were really only a challenge at certain levels.  But those games did not have the options to advance weaken ogres like todays game to make ogres a challenge at any level.




Watch this: _These are starved, young ogres with a mere 5 hit points each.  For combat purposes treat them as 1+1 HD monsters.  The stronger creatures in the dungeon have not yet discovered this weakness so they have their normal treasure._

_These are particularly skilled and wicked ogres.  For combat purposes treat them as 8 HD monsters.  They brutalize all of the monsters in the surrounding dungeon and demand tribute from them, so they have 5x their usual treasure (type C).
_


----------



## Crothian (Jan 2, 2007)

CruelSummerLord said:
			
		

> Heh, too true.  And thanks to everyone who suggested the Iron Heroes supplement.  Just to clarify, is that a supplement for a grimmer, lower style of D20/D&D, or a different system altogether?




It is still d20.  It has the same power levels of the PHB, but without need for magic or magical items.  The characters get more feats and abilities to make up for the lack of magic.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 2, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> It is still d20.  It has the same power levels of the PHB, but without need for magic or magical items.  The characters get more feats and abilities to make up for the lack of magic.




OTOH, it involves a lot more bookkeeping on the fly, since many character abilities are based on "token pools" that rise and fall with actions in combat.

I have nothing but respect, personal and professional, for Mike Mearls, but for me, the game was just too cumbersome. That, however, is purely a question of personal taste, and _not_ a slam on the product as an RPG. I prefer things a little mechanically simpler, but if you feel differently, it might indeed be the game for you.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 2, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> Watch this: _These are starved, young ogres with a mere 5 hit points each.  For combat purposes treat them as 1+1 HD monsters.  The stronger creatures in the dungeon have not yet discovered this weakness so they have their normal treasure._
> 
> _These are particularly skilled and wicked ogres.  For combat purposes treat them as 8 HD monsters.  They brutalize all of the monsters in the surrounding dungeon and demand tribute from them, so they have 5x their usual treasure (type C).
> _




I know in the modules they did this all the time, I just don't remember there being any rules for this like now in the MM there is a section on how to advance monsters.


----------



## buzz (Jan 2, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> The point, at least _my_ point, is that it happens too fast in d20 D&D.



I've been in an ongoing campaign for going on four years now that meets biweekly very regularly. Currently, our PCs are at 15th level. We have been using standard XP awards. Our PCs are fairly badass, but so are our opponents. The EL of an encounter has never prevented our DM from pitting it against us. Sometimes it's a cakewalk, sometimes (mostly) it's challenging.

Ergo, I don't really agree with any of your assessments.

If you prefer 1e, that's cool. I don't see that it says anything about what 3.x is or isn't, other than "to your taste."


----------



## cthulhu_duck (Jan 2, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> By the RAW 3.5, if I trace a line across a corner drawn on the battlemat, the target gets cover.
> 
> In RAW 3.0, I, the DM, decide how much cover the target is warranted.




Is there a reason why you can't use the 3.0 cover rules in a 3.5 game?  My 3.0 books are still sitting on my shelf, I have the 3.0 SRD floating around somewhere..?


----------



## buzz (Jan 2, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> OTOH, it involves a lot more bookkeeping on the fly, since many character abilities are based on "token pools" that rise and fall with actions in combat.



This has never been an issue in the IH games I've played. The token pools are just another set of points you track, like hit points. And given that magic is mostly removed from IH, and magic is the single greatest source of complexity for D&D (any edition), I found that IH actually necessitates less bookkeeping, overall.

The tokens basically replace some of the other managed resources you'd have access to in a standard D&D game in order to keep combat tactically robust. If tactically robust combat is not what you're after, then, yeah, IH is probably not a good fit. Granted, I don't think D&D would be a good fit, either, but that's a whole 'nother ball o' bat guano.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 2, 2007)

cthulhu_duck said:
			
		

> Is there a reason why you can't use the 3.0 cover rules in a 3.5 game?  My 3.0 books are still sitting on my shelf, I have the 3.0 SRD floating around somewhere..?




No reason I can think of. I actually like the cover rules from 3.0 myself. They're not supported anymore, but if you want to use them, it shouldn't cause any major problems, I wouldn't think.


----------



## Jim Hague (Jan 2, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> Watch this: _These are starved, young ogres with a mere 5 hit points each.  For combat purposes treat them as 1+1 HD monsters.  The stronger creatures in the dungeon have not yet discovered this weakness so they have their normal treasure._
> 
> _These are particularly skilled and wicked ogres.  For combat purposes treat them as 8 HD monsters.  They brutalize all of the monsters in the surrounding dungeon and demand tribute from them, so they have 5x their usual treasure (type C).
> _




And what, pray tell, prevents you from doing this in 3.0 or 3.5?  Not the CR system, nothing in any of the Monster Manuals, DMG...you need to, at the least, take a look at those before trying to support your point with, frankly, utter bull.  Your point here is unsupported by the rules, therefore pretty much negating any rules argument you might be trying to make.


----------



## Bacris (Jan 2, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> Oh.  Well, no, I don't agree with that.  But whatevs.




But what is there to disagree with?

The DMG is pretty clear that an encounter of CR = party level is designed to use up about 20-25% of the party's limited resources (spells / hit points / potions, etc).  It even says what to expect using encounters 2-3 above or below the party level.  Nowhere does it say "you cannot use encounters 5 above the party" - but it does say that such encounters are likely to have PC death.

That's the difference between dictate and recommend.  The DMG / MM *recommend* using CR = party level.  It does not *dictate* it - it even gives recommendations if you choose to not use CR = party level.  Hence Psion saying your use of dictate is inaccurate - and dictate carries some heavy connotations that aren't correct.

It may be STRONGLY recommended, but it's still only a recommendation


----------



## Psion (Jan 2, 2007)

cthulhu_duck said:
			
		

> Is there a reason why you can't use the 3.0 cover rules in a 3.5 game?




No reason at all. That's why I do. 

My point was, speaking in degrees, that this represents a modest push in the game between 3.0 and 3.5 being more dependent upon the battlemat.


----------



## Clavis (Jan 2, 2007)

AD&D seemed designed to recreate the worlds of classic fantasy fiction. 3.X Edition seems designed to recreate the worlds of computer gaming. The first was intended for a literate audience (although it didn't always work out that way in practice, of course). The designers of 3.X edition seem to have realized that few people read classic fantasy anymore, so they changed the basic assumptions of the game accordingly.

Trying to play 3.X edition without buying into the whole powergamer mentality is an ecercise in frustration. The ENTIRE game is balanced in a way that penalizes any player whose character is not maximized for tactical combat and dripping with magic items. I also absolutely refuse to DM a 3.X Edition game, because I find its magic-heavy premise ridiculous, adventure prep about as much fun as doing taxes, and its combat system excruciatingly slow and boring. I have tried adjusting the rules to my style of play, and found that I had to change so much that it became just too much work for something that's supposed to be fun.

The old-style game is now represented by Castles & Crusades. It should tell you something that the co-creator and main creative mind of D&D prefers C&C to the overgrown mess that is 3.X edition.


----------



## Jim Hague (Jan 2, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> AD&D seemed designed to recreate the worlds of classic fantasy fiction. 3.X Edition seems designed to recreate the worlds of computer gaming. The first was intended for a literate audience (although it didn't always work out that way in practice, of course). The designers of 3.X edition seem to have realized that few people read classic fantasy anymore, so they changed the basic assumptions of the game accordingly.




I was wondering when someone would trot out the '3.x is teh 'putar gamez!' fallacy.



> Trying to play 3.X edition without buying into the whole powergamer mentality is an ecercise in frustration. The ENTIRE game is balanced in a way that penalizes any player whose character is not maximized for tactical combat and dripping with magic items. I also absolutely refuse to DM a 3.X Edition game, because I find its magic-heavy premise ridiculous, adventure prep about as much fun as doing taxes, and its combat system excruciatingly slow and boring. I have tried adjusting the rules to my style of play, and found that I had to change so much that it became just too much work for something that's supposed to be fun.




Go read the Story Hours on this very site and try to say that with a straight face.  Go on.  You don't like it?  Super.  That's differing tastes.  But don't try to roll out tired old saws that have been disproven to the point where bringing them up is quite literally a joke.



> The old-style game is now represented by Castles & Crusades. It should tell you something that the co-creator and main creative mind of D&D prefers C&C to the overgrown mess that is 3.X edition.




It tells you that the co-creator also made games like Cyborg Commando and Lejendary Journeys, both considered pretty wretched games.  It also tells you that your statement has absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand, other than to ham-handedly bash a game you don't like and hype one you do.  Gary's views, while I don't share them, are pretty well known as far as D&D 3e goes.  I don't think he needs someone putting words in his mouth.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 2, 2007)

A lot of the "few magic items" nostalgia people have is probably related to the fact that campaigns used to routinely peter out in their teens. Up through 6th to 9th level, each character is likely to have only a handful of magic items. At higher levels, characters have an amazing amount of crap. That is essentially unchanged. 

Several things have. First of all, the "magic shop" has appeared, suggesting a staggering surplus of wealth and professional spellcasting in the standard world (easily ignored by limiting cities to 50,000 people or so, but that creates an interesting scarcity problem). Second, magic item creation has been streamlined to make it the province of PCs, if they wish to go that route, whereas before, it was rare for a PC to make a magic item, which typically involved an idiosyncratic formulation and a certain amount of adventuring. Third, higher level encounters involved simply adding more and more magic items to the hoards, for no really apparent reason... they are unlikely to be extremely useful, so this is essentially just more cash and magic that has to be explained.  Fourth, NPCs are routinely equipped with magic items, whereas before, this was mainly the province of adventurers and creatures with hoards, rather than a function of level itself. 

Just as a for instance, in AD&D, a death knight was 75% likely to have a magical sword. Ha! Nowadays, he probably has a +1 unholy humanbane longsword. But in either case, there are enough death knights in the world that a 10th level fighter is eventually going to end up with several backup magic weapons.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 2, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> Trying to play 3.X edition without buying into the whole powergamer mentality is an ecercise in frustration.




Maybe for you.  But it is has run perfectly smooth for me for almost 7 years now.  And I'm about as anti power gamer as you can get.  THe game is what you make of it, and if you can't have fun without power gaming in d20 the fault lies not with the game.  




			
				Clavis said:
			
		

> The old-style game is now represented by Castles & Crusades. It should tell you something that the co-creator and main creative mind of D&D prefers C&C to the overgrown mess that is 3.X edition.




It doesn't really.  There are enough people like myself that perfer the old style and use d20 to do that and choose that over C&C.  There are plenty of people that choose C&C over d20.  But the true fans I think stuck to the old system


----------



## billd91 (Jan 2, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Several things have. First of all, the "magic shop" has appeared, suggesting a staggering surplus of wealth and professional spellcasting in the standard world (easily ignored by limiting cities to 50,000 people or so, but that creates an interesting scarcity problem). Second, magic item creation has been streamlined to make it the province of PCs, if they wish to go that route, whereas before, it was rare for a PC to make a magic item, which typically involved an idiosyncratic formulation and a certain amount of adventuring. Third, higher level encounters involved simply adding more and more magic items to the hoards, for no really apparent reason... they are unlikely to be extremely useful, so this is essentially just more cash and magic that has to be explained.  Fourth, NPCs are routinely equipped with magic items, whereas before, this was mainly the province of adventurers and creatures with hoards, rather than a function of level itself.
> 
> Just as a for instance, in AD&D, a death knight was 75% likely to have a magical sword. Ha! Nowadays, he probably has a +1 unholy humanbane longsword. But in either case, there are enough death knights in the world that a 10th level fighter is eventually going to end up with several backup magic weapons.




This is really different from 1e? We had backup weapons in 1e as well, quite likely several if we had played through more than one TSR-published module. Magic shops appeared in campaigns back in those days as well, and the typical treasure haul was even more cash than under 3E recommendations. 
Of course in those days, you had to spend unholy gobs of cash to level-up. So the money tended to get sucked away pretty quickly.

The main real changes that I see in 3E out of the ones you cite are the easing of magic item creation rules and the likelihood that the death knight has a tricked out sword rather than an unspecified magic one. Everything else I had encountered fairly regularly in 1e.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 2, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> AD&D seemed designed to recreate the worlds of classic fantasy fiction. 3.X Edition seems designed to recreate the worlds of computer gaming. The first was intended for a literate audience (although it didn't always work out that way in practice, of course). The designers of 3.X edition seem to have realized that few people read classic fantasy anymore, so they changed the basic assumptions of the game accordingly.
> 
> Trying to play 3.X edition without buying into the whole powergamer mentality is an ecercise in frustration. The ENTIRE game is balanced in a way that penalizes any player whose character is not maximized for tactical combat and dripping with magic items.




3E may include some elements that work with computer gaming, but that's also a part of catering to the audience. A lot more kids approach gaming from that background and so the game has adjusted to have some appeal to them.

But I disagree that 3E penalizes any player who doesn't powergame their characters. It rewards ones who do, sure. But as long as the play styles of the DM and players are a good fit, there's no reason to expect the game to penalize non-powergamed characters.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 2, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> This is really different from 1e? We had backup weapons in 1e as well, quite likely several if we had played through more than one TSR-published module. Magic shops appeared in campaigns back in those days as well, and the typical treasure haul was even more cash than under 3E recommendations.




Beat me to it. I was just going to say the same- there were tons of magic items to go around back in the 1E/OD&D days, and in the campaigns my friends and I ran, we routinely ended up introducing magic item shops in the major cities to buy and sell things we got that we did/didn't want.



> Of course in those days, you had to spend unholy gobs of cash to level-up. So the money tended to get sucked away pretty quickly.




That part must have been an aspect of the game we didn't use (sounds like it might have been Unearthed Arcana?). We didn't have to spend cash to level up when we played OD&D, and since there really wasn't a lot to spend it on otherwise (aside from the aforementioned magic item shops) we had PCs running around with gobs of cash. It didn't really help matters that you got xp for gp, so they ended up completely looting dungeons down to the last tiny shred of tapestry even though there really wasn't any conceivable way for them to make off with the sheer tonnage of it all. 



> The main real changes that I see in 3E out of the ones you cite are the easing of magic item creation rules...




As far as magic item creation, Gaz3 for OD&D was the first time we ever really had any substantial rules for magic item creation (wasn't playing AD&D at that time, at least not very much). The costs were pretty exorbitant (but, again, PCs had tons of cash to throw around), but wizards actually got xp for creating items rather than losing it. I'm still not entirely sure I like the switch, but I can see the rationale for it.


----------



## MerricB (Jan 2, 2007)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> There was a thread that compared Keep on the Borderlands with Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury.
> The Keep was ridiculously packed with magic items. Lots of magic weapons and armor, but then, these could easily be destroyed.




Actually, they couldn't. The Keep was Basic D&D, and didn't have rules for magic item destruction. 

Cheers!


----------



## sniffles (Jan 2, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> AD&D seemed designed to recreate the worlds of classic fantasy fiction. 3.X Edition seems designed to recreate the worlds of computer gaming. The first was intended for a literate audience (although it didn't always work out that way in practice, of course). The designers of 3.X edition seem to have realized that few people read classic fantasy anymore, so they changed the basic assumptions of the game accordingly.
> 
> Trying to play 3.X edition without buying into the whole powergamer mentality is an ecercise in frustration. The ENTIRE game is balanced in a way that penalizes any player whose character is not maximized for tactical combat and dripping with magic items. I also absolutely refuse to DM a 3.X Edition game, because I find its magic-heavy premise ridiculous, adventure prep about as much fun as doing taxes, and its combat system excruciatingly slow and boring. I have tried adjusting the rules to my style of play, and found that I had to change so much that it became just too much work for something that's supposed to be fun.
> 
> The old-style game is now represented by Castles & Crusades. It should tell you something that the co-creator and main creative mind of D&D prefers C&C to the overgrown mess that is 3.X edition.



I can't understand these assertions at all. 

I admit I haven't played OD&D at all, and only a limited amount of heavily house-ruled AD&D. So I can't really effectively compare 3E to the earlier versions of the game. But I find that 3E is entirely suitable to a roleplay-heavy, non-power-game campaign as I understand those terms. I've been playing in such games ever since 3E was released. 

In my opinion, all it takes to get rid of the power-gamer aspects of the game is a group of players who are interested in something other than that. It doesn't matter what system you're playing.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 2, 2007)

The original poster to whom I replied said this:



> But those games did not have the options to advance weaken ogres like todays game to make ogres a challenge at any level.




I showed him that in a quick-and-dirty fashion that yes, yes I can weaken ogres or strengthen them.  Then you had this aneurism:



			
				Jim Hague said:
			
		

> And what, pray tell, prevents you from doing this in 3.0 or 3.5?  Not the CR system, nothing in any of the Monster Manuals, DMG...you need to, at the least, take a look at those before trying to support your point with, frankly, utter bull.  Your point here is unsupported by the rules, therefore pretty much negating any rules argument you might be trying to make.




So I don't know what you're on about.  *plonk*


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 2, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Certainly not. Midgard, a german RPG that's like 10-15 years older than D&D3E, utilized battlemats in a similar fashion already (including something akin to AoO; but also with actual facing rules). And it might not even have been the first there.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




You know this is the one thing that always makes me laugh at my fellow 1e players - the complaint about minis and D&D "these days".  I've _always_ taken a very wargame-y approach to AD&D.  I've got a shedload of minis (Reaper, thanks; I don't care for plastics) and Dwarven Forge and things tend to get pretty tactical at my table - up to the point they can.  There's still a lot of abstraction going on.  But anyway, the _Dungeon Master's Guide_ goes in to mini use at length.  So the arguments that somehow d20 D&D has suddenly thrown in minis as a must-buy rule strike me as a little odd.


----------



## buzz (Jan 3, 2007)

You see me now a veteran of a thousand edition wars
I've been living on ENWorld so long
Where the flames of d02 hat roar
And I'm young enough to look at
And far too old to see
All the scars are on the forums
I'm not sure if there's anything left of me

Dont let these threads go on
It's time we had a break from it
It's time we had some leave
We've been living in the flames
Posting arguments so lame
Oh, please dont let these threads go on

You ask me why I'm weary, why I can't post to you
You blame me for my lurking
Say it's time I logged off and grew
But the wars still going on dear
And there's no end that I know
And I can't say if were ever...
I can't say if were ever gonna to be free

Dont let these threads go on
It's time we had a break from it
It's time we had some leave
We've been living in the flames
Posting arguments so lame
Oh, please dont let theses threads go on

You see me now a veteran of a thousand edition wars
My fingers spent at last
And my Buddy List is destroyed
I have used up all my smilies and I'm helpless and bereaved
Wounds are all I'm made of
Did I hear you say that this is victory?

Dont let these threads go on
It's time we had a break from it
Send me to the Rules Forum
Where the tides of madness swell
And been sliding into hell
Oh, please dont let threads go on
Dont let these threads go on
Dont let these threads go on


----------



## molonel (Jan 3, 2007)

CruelSummerLord said:
			
		

> This makes me wonder-were previous editions actually more flexible in their styles of play? You could play with miniatures or without, could ramp up the power level and still find suitable opponents, could turn down the power level and still have appropriate challenges-but now, with magic items much easier to manufacture, and even seeming to be a necessity these days, and powerful monsters routinely having CRs over 20, I wonder whether it's even possible to enjoy a lower-tone style of play anymore.




Were they more flexible? As in, 1st Edition and 2nd Edition AD&D?

Yes, no and it depends.

Yes, in some senses, they were more flexible in that certain game mechanics were not defined. I read a thread on this forum one time where someone typed out the description of how to write scrolls from a 1st Edition book, and compared it to a 3rd Edition book. The former read a little like something out of a fantasy novel. The latter sounded like it had been written by an accountant. The former had reference to collecting rare materials, and penning on rare, specially prepared parchment using quills plucked freshly from a cockatrice, or somesuch.

The only problem was, the 1st Edition book said absolutely nothing about the mechanics to use in writing scrolls. A lot of people didn't even make scrolls in 1st Edition. Since it was undefined, in a sense, it was more flexible. But it's rare to encounter a mid-level wizard in 3rd Edition that does NOT make scrolls. Because he doesn't need to ask the DM for every single cotton-picking thing about the process. It's all right there in the core PHB. If he wants to make a scroll, and has the time, boom! He does it.

No, in the sense that earlier editions of the game had their own constraints. In 1st Edition, every fighter wielded a longsword, and wore full plate with a shield. Unless you used Unearthed Arcana, all rangers and paladins were human. In 2nd Edition, elven bladesingers were all the rage for a while. Level limitations on demihuman races made no sense whatsoever.

It all depended on how you ran the game then, and how you run it now.



			
				CruelSummerLord said:
			
		

> Kingdoms of Kalamar and the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, with their predominance of characters under 20th level, seems to suggest that you can still have enjoyable adventures without powergaming, but I can't help but feel that I'd have to take several hit dice off some of the more powerful monsters (reduce the number of hit dice for giants from what it is now to around 8-12, so they can have class levels without having their CRs go through the roof, reduce the hit dice for a monster like the ocean strider from 36 to, say, 12), or drastically cut down the magic item counts and levels of various NPCs (Elminster is "only" a 27th level wizard, Red Wizards only sell potions and scrolls at their magic shops, 10th level is the benchmark for 'exceptional', few if any Epic-level abilities not specifically plot-related, etc.)




As some other folks have already pointed out, you're crunching a lot of unrelated complaints into one post. There are so many ways to curtail powergaming in D&D that it's not even funny.

Rule 0 is the first one to remember.

The second rule is to control what materials are used in your game. In my games, only the core rules are certain, and even then, I've made changes. Shadowdancers annoy me, so they don't exist. Hide in Plain Sight is a Rogue special ability that isn't available before 13th level. Paladins don't get Sense Evil. Instead, they get a scaling divine bonus to Sense Motive. And so on, and so forth.



			
				CruelSummerLord said:
			
		

> So, in a nutshell I'm wondering if it's possible to have that kind of "toned-down" campaign without screwing everything up?



\

Of course it is, and the DMG provides suggestions for how to do so. There are alternate rules sets, like Midnight and Conan, if you want something off the shelf.

Or just make up your own rules, and change them to suit the style and taste of play that you want in your game.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jan 3, 2007)

For the OP: you're answer is an uncategorical Yes.

RPGs could be played in a library using high level math and Pchem books as rules, but that doesn't make it fun.  Rules influence what most players will be willing to do in a game.  In aggregate, we all seek the least path of resistance.  By making d20 easier to modify in some respects and more difficult to houserule in others it shapes predominate styles of play.

"Playing the rules" doesn't necessarily mean players ignoring any aspect of the game that isn't covered by the rules.  Nor does it mean being creative with the rules and only the rules.  It can also mean when the players have run up against the limits of a rule and cannot get past it without extensive redesigning.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jan 3, 2007)

CruelSummerLord said:
			
		

> Just for the record, I think the part about "routinely high CRs" was misinterpreted.  I meant monsters that have class levels, like giants, aboleth, mind flayers, and other sentient creatures that could have class abilities.  If a fire giant king like Snurre Iron Belly was a fifth level fighter, by 3E standards with the increased hit dice, what would that do to his CR?  How could 11th-13th level characters take him on if they only have a few magic items between them?




Hmm. If I answer that, do I confess to having ranks in profession: powergamer? The long and the short of it is that 11th-13th 3.x characters would take on Snurre with only a few magic items between them by:

A. Creating the most ridiculously multiclassed characters ever, borrowing from five splatbooks (with or without erratta, depending upon which version was more useful) in order to create characters who were powerful enough to succeed without magic items.

B. Ridiculous rules exploits (if each pint of flaming oil does 1d6 damage, how much does a five  gallon barrel of flaming oil do? if I fling it at the BBG using Telekinesis? Answer--it doesn't matter against Snurre, but if you let each pint do 1d6, it does more damage than being immersed in boiling lava). 

C. All being spellcasters who could use long-term spells to partially make up for their lack of magic items. (The battle cleric, for instance, doesn't suffer nearly as much as the fighter or paladin from a lack of magic items; similarly, an arcane trickster can deal with a lack of magic items more easily than a single-classed rogue). I noticed a lot of this in RPGA living campaigns three years or so ago when they were either trying to be low-wealth or the characters were still recovering from spending levels 3-7 or so in a low-wealth environment.

D. Clever strategy and tactics.

E. Dull but effective strategy and tactics that capitalize on a gaping weakness of the creature (ie cast a widened entangle and a few evards' black tentacles spells, ray of enfeeble him, and then fly away from him while shooting him until he dies).

The most likely answer is a combination of all of the above. In my experience, however, the more overmatched and underequipped the PCs feel, the more likely that A and B are going to figure prominently among their means of handling the situation.

Of course, from what I remember, the answer would have been the same in earlier editions with the exception that there were a lot more ridiculous rules exploits to make because there were either only rules that the DM made up on the spot or there were five different sets of rules for any given situation, and one of them was bound to be exploitable.



> I must admit I liked the scenarios like in the old Giants series where the players could be fighting a mob of giants, or taking on Snurre in his throne room, which-at least judging by the responses in some other threads-are much more difficult.  Monsters are much more lethal, or at least they can be.




I think the long and the short of it is that you aren't really looking for a "toned down" game. From the sounds of this, you want a hopped up one where PCs can triumph over fire giants at 5th level and over Snurre at 10th level. 3.x definitely made a lot of monsters more lethal and more durable and thus upped the levels where they could be taken on. If you don't like D&D games past 11th level or so, then this could be a problem for you if you want to run all of the high level stories for low-mid level characters without changing any of the rules. It would be quite possible to get that effect by changing things up (if you give ogres the fire subtype and change their equipment, you could call them all fire giants and run the stories you want to run five or six levels lower than you would do when using fire giants, but that involves more work than running straight out of the book and leaves you with less room at the low end of the power scale, so while it's fine if you want to play one mod, if you want to start from 1st level and scale up traditionally, you'll be missing the mid levels).


----------



## VirgilCaine (Jan 3, 2007)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> B. Ridiculous rules exploits (if each pint of flaming oil does 1d6 damage, how much does a five  gallon barrel of flaming oil do? if I fling it at the BBG using Telekinesis? Answer--it doesn't matter against Snurre, but if you let each pint do 1d6, it does more damage than being immersed in boiling lava).




A *barrel* of flaming oil, [Scotty]how quaint![/Scotty]

Use one wizard to _Fabricate_ a large glass kettle-shape while another is _Major Creating_ a large amount of oil inside the kettle...TK _that_ at the _ice_ giants. 



> E. Dull but effective strategy and tactics that capitalize on a gaping weakness of the creature (ie cast a widened entangle and a few evards' black tentacles spells, ray of enfeeble him, and then fly away from him while shooting him until he dies).




Where's Snurre's bag of rocks...or, since he's civilized, bags of slag chunks or lead eggs?


----------



## CruelSummerLord (Jan 3, 2007)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Hmm. If I answer that, do I confess to having ranks in profession: powergamer? The long and the short of it is that 11th-13th 3.x characters would take on Snurre with only a few magic items between them by:
> 
> ...
> 
> I think the long and the short of it is that you aren't really looking for a "toned down" game. From the sounds of this, you want a hopped up one where PCs can triumph over fire giants at 5th level and over Snurre at 10th level. 3.x definitely made a lot of monsters more lethal and more durable and thus upped the levels where they could be taken on. If you don't like D&D games past 11th level or so, then this could be a problem for you if you want to run all of the high level stories for low-mid level characters without changing any of the rules. It would be quite possible to get that effect by changing things up (if you give ogres the fire subtype and change their equipment, you could call them all fire giants and run the stories you want to run five or six levels lower than you would do when using fire giants, but that involves more work than running straight out of the book and leaves you with less room at the low end of the power scale, so while it's fine if you want to play one mod, if you want to start from 1st level and scale up traditionally, you'll be missing the mid levels).




I hope this will not be taken as hijacking the thread, but I would like to respond if I may: 

I never intended to denigrate powergamers.  I was merely asking whether 3E/3.5 required a certain amount of "power-gaming" with the need for numerous magic items to balance out encounters, and the advent of monsters with classes leading to very high CRs.  The conclusion I've drawn is that this is true to a certain extent, and some gamers dislike it, but as others have pointed out, alternatives exist and it is certainly possible to iron out these difficulties.  Some people pointed out that my fears were in many respects unfounded (Merric being a particular example) and for that I am grateful.  

If some gamers enjoy a style of play that has the players acquiring many magical items and quickly reaching high levels, then all power to them.  There are some that do not, and I am one of them.  If I offended anyone, I apologize.  Such was not my intent.  

I do not think being rude or sarcastic necessarily makes for a better discussion.  I do not believe I have acted that way, but that is of course for others to decide.  And by the same token, I do not appreciate being mocked when I ask what I feel is a legitimate enough question.


----------



## MerricB (Jan 3, 2007)

If I may,

3e and 1e tend to diverge in play style after 12th level. Until them, they're actually pretty similar in terms of magic items, power levels and the like. PCs don't really have many magic items from levels 1-10 - possibly more smaller items than 1e, but not much more.

Of course, 1e play above 12th level was pretty rare. Demi-humans were no longer really worth it, and there wasn't really much support for it. We may have seen more if Gygax had remained with TSR - see the expanded high-level rules in _Isle of the Ape_, but alas! that didn't happen.

3e does have a higher level gain than 1e, but it is easy to adjust. I did when I was playing weekly in my main campaign; as my main campaign plays fortnightly, it feels just right.

Cheers!


----------



## molonel (Jan 3, 2007)

CruelSummerLord said:
			
		

> I never intended to denigrate powergamers. I was merely asking whether 3E/3.5 required a certain amount of "power-gaming" with the need for numerous magic items to balance out encounters, and the advent of monsters with classes leading to very high CRs.




Out of curiosity, would you expect a normal group of human beings to be able to defeat a room of giants twenty or more feet high using non-magical metal swords and chainmail? I wouldn't.



			
				CruelSummerLord said:
			
		

> The conclusion I've drawn is that this is true to a certain extent, and some gamers dislike it, but as others have pointed out, alternatives exist and it is certainly possible to iron out these difficulties.




It's not that I dislike it. I simply think you are hopelessly steeped in nostalgia for a system I'm not at all sure you played that much. I own original copies of the giant modules, and the drow modules that followed them. I played them when you could still buy the original modules off the shelves. I remember the original modules had the Hammer of Thunderbolts in one of the treasure hordes.

Lolth was a joke. She wasn't a goddess. Nobody thought it then, and nobody would think it now. She had 99 hit points. She was a paper tiger that was designed to roar loudly and crumple like a b**** when you socked her in the jaw.

I would MUCH rather play the modules now, not because I am a rampant powergamer (nor do I take offense at the term, either) but simply because fighting an encounter of that scope and magnitude is NOT a low level adventure.

D&D very quickly spun out of control in 1st Edition after 10th level. That wasn't a strong point of the game, either. There were things I liked about 1st Edition, but the levels above 10 were poorly designed. Third Edition falls apart in a similar fashion somewhere between 15th and low epic levels, in my opinion.

I played 1st Edition, and Basic. I played 2nd Edition. D&D is more fun now than it's ever been before. It has a wider audience. It has better product support. It doesn't have TSR hunting down websites and trying to squelch customer loyalty by being a bunch of punks. It has Monte Cook, and Mongoose's Conan variant and the OGL license spawning a LOT of work. Some good, some bad, but all good for the game.

I loved 1st Edition. But if I had the power to turn back the clock, I wouldn't. Because things are better now.


----------



## MerricB (Jan 3, 2007)

I've just grabbed out my old copy of G1-3 (boy, I got it over 20 years ago... I'm feeling old).

King Snurre is (incredibly) in area 3 of the adventure - surely the earliest of any "boss" monster of any dungeon? He fights as a storm giant when armed with his sword (7-42 damage!) or as a cloud giant when not. 

Interestingly, King Snurre actually *has* 3e stats, due to the D&D Miniatures release of his figure (a very nice one, as well)

Here's how he ended up:

*King Snurre*: CR 14; large giant fighter 4, HD 19, HP 226, Init +4, AC 25, Spd 30 ft
Atk: Sword +30/+25/+20 (3d6+23 magic plus 3d6 fire/17-20) or Rock +14 (2d6+12 plus 2d6 fire)
SV: Fort +20, Ref +8, Will +10
AB: S 35, D 10, C 24, I 12, W 14, Ch 13
F: Cleave, Improved Overrun, Power Attack.

So, a good challenge for a 12th level party within the context of the adventure. A regular Fire Giant has CR 10, btw. (HD 15, HP 142, AC 23, Atk +20/+15/+10 for 3d6+15)

Cheers!


----------



## VirgilCaine (Jan 3, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> F: Cleave, Improved Overrun, Power Attack.




Of course, with 19 HD, he would have three times this many feats (10) in full 3e...Improved Critical, Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack/Combat Expertise/Whirlwind Attack sounds very nasty...not to mention anything from PHBII or CW.


----------



## MerricB (Jan 3, 2007)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Of course, with 19 HD, he would have three times this many feats (10) in full 3e...Improved Critical, Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack/Combat Expertise/Whirlwind Attack sounds very nasty...not to mention anything from PHBII or CW.




He does actually have more feats, but they're constant ones (e.g. Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec), not conditional ones. Only conditional feats needed in play are listed.

Cheers!


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 3, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, would you expect a normal group of human beings to be able to defeat a room of giants twenty or more feet high using non-magical metal swords and chainmail? I wouldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that I dislike it. I simply think you are *hopelessly* steeped in *nostalgia* for a system I'm not at all sure you played that much. I own original copies of the giant modules, and the drow modules that followed them. I played them when you could still buy the original modules off the shelves. I remember the original modules had the Hammer of Thunderbolts in one of the treasure hordes.




"hopelessly" - could you please be more patronizing?  I can almost cut through it with a knife.  Next time go for "too thick to drip".

"Nostalgia".  That's another one.  I hear that term bandied about by post 1e gamers and I've reached the (correct) conclusion that the definition being used here is "hey, you're playing and advocating an older system I don't like any more!" It's never used in the positive - at best it's a little conversational condescension, at worst a thinly-veiled insult



> Lolth was a joke. She wasn't a goddess. Nobody thought it then, and nobody would think it now. She had 99 hit points. She was a paper tiger that was designed to roar loudly and crumple like a b**** when you socked her in the jaw.




Sixty-six.  She could heal herself fully 2x a day.  She was attended by her Handmaidens (remember them?  you had to plow through them while she was _gate_ing in all types of demons), she'd be using magic-user and cleric spells nearly at-will, psionically attacking and if all else failed she could simply will the PCs away or will herself away.

Don't mistake a badly run monster for a badly designed monster.  It isn't the module's fault you had a poor DM.



> I played 1st Edition, and Basic. I played 2nd Edition. D&D is more fun now than it's ever been before. It has a wider audience.




....eeeeeeeexcept it doesn't.  Name a current D&D supplement that's sold two hundred thousand copies.  At it's peak in the early 80's, D&D enjoyed an audience of some four million players.  What is it now, one point five?  Maybe two with the wind at it's back?



> It has better product support.




It has a diluted product base where the industry basically goes "throw it to the wall, see what sticks!" courtesy of OGL/d20.



> I loved 1st Edition. But if I had the power to turn back the clock, I wouldn't. Because things are better now.




"better" is purely subjective.


----------



## buzz (Jan 3, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> Name a current D&D supplement that's sold two hundred thousand copies.



This is kind of a specious argument, given that no one involved in this conversation has access to reliable sales data. You're also comparing an edition that had a 10-year lifespan to one with a four-year (or six, if you merge 3.0 and 3.5). Where are you getting your numbers?

Regardless, you could probably make a good case for _Spell Compendium_, PHB2, and some of the _Complete_ series, as they've been in the Amazon Gaming Top 10 since their release.



			
				thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> At it's peak in the early 80's, D&D enjoyed an audience of some four million players.  What is it now, one point five?  Maybe two with the wind at it's back?



According to WotC, it's 4 million. As far as I know, these numbers are up from the tail end of 1e and the 2e eras.  Ref: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6261698/

There's also the D&D MMORPG, the various bestselling novels, bestselling CRPGs, _Dummies_ books, movies, minis game... the big RPG wave of the early '80s may be over, but D&D as a brand is strong as heck.



			
				thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> It has a diluted product base where the industry basically goes "throw it to the wall, see what sticks!" courtesy of OGL/d20.



That bubble burst a few years ago. I would think this argument would also contradic your previous assertion about 3.x's unpopularity. 

And if any edition screams "Throw it to the wall, see what sticks," it's 2e. I mean, TSR went bankrupt partly due to this.



			
				thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> "better" is purely subjective.



Possibly... though I think that both 2e and 3e were objectively better in some ways, at least in terms of textual clarity.

Still, sure, it's subjective. Please remember that. It does not follow that, because you like 1e, 3e must be somehow deficient. It's possible for both of them to be perfectly enjoyable, but some prefer one over the other.

BTW, you need to go hang out on dragonsfoot.org. You can complain about 3e all day and get resounding agreement.


----------



## Jim Hague (Jan 3, 2007)

> Sixty-six.  She could heal herself fully 2x a day.  She was attended by her Handmaidens (remember them?  you had to plow through them while she was _gate_ing in all types of demons), *she'd be using magic-user and cleric spells nearly at-will, psionically attacking and if all else failed she could simply will the PCs away or will herself away.*




But remember, folks - 3e is 'video gamey' and 'powergamey'.  As opposed to an NPC using cleric and magic-user spells at will, gating in demons and psionically attacking.  Yeah.  Let's not forget the supervillain escape clause there, either.



> Don't mistake a badly run monster for a badly designed monster.  It isn't the module's fault you had a poor DM.




And don't mistake a poorly designed, overpowering creature for a bad DM.



> ....eeeeeeeexcept it doesn't.  Name a current D&D supplement that's sold two hundred thousand copies.  At it's peak in the early 80's, D&D enjoyed an audience of some four million players.  What is it now, one point five?  Maybe two with the wind at it's back?
> 
> It has a diluted product base where the industry basically goes "throw it to the wall, see what sticks!" courtesy of OGL/d20.
> 
> "better" is purely subjective.




That's 4 million current D&D players in the US...plus another, oh, 1-2 million playing other games.  Just in the US.  And that's just a rough, rough estimate.  The RPG market is fragmented to an extent, yes, but there's also a huge variety of games out there that simply weren't present in the 1980s.  Stop sitting there and making specious arguments.


----------



## buzz (Jan 3, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> That's 4 million current D&D players in the US...plus another, oh, 1-2 million playing other games.  Just in the US.  And that's just a rough, rough estimate.



It's worth noting that our sources for these numbers, both now and in the past, are typically the game's publisher (TSR then, WotC now), and thus you can raise all sorts of doubts. FWIW, WotC (via Charles Ryan) claimed that, as of the 30th anniversary, there were more people playing D&D than at any point previous.

I think all we can really say is that, of the total gaming population, the majority of them are playing some edition of D&D. The 2e era was probably the only time there was a noticeable loss of fanbase. Anecdotal evidence would probably point to 3e, if anything, bringing fans _back_ to D&D, not to mention creating a whole new sector of the market via the d20STL/OGL. (A model which 1e fans are benefiting from, BTW, via OSRIC and, arguably, C&C.)


----------



## Umbran (Jan 3, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> As opposed to the snarky tone you're taking?  .... Pot, meet kettle.






Folks, I am sorry that I'm going to have to remind everyone here to please not get personal in the discussion.  Everyone has their own tastes, and returning snark with more snark, or by getting "in your face" as a response to percieved snark, is not constructive.  Getting confrontational is not a solution to the problem, so please avoid doing so.

If you cannot respond to a post without referring to what you think is the other poster's state of mind, instead of the post content, you probably should reconsider responding at all.  That goes for _everyone_ here.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 3, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> Sixty-six.  She could heal herself fully 2x a day.  She was attended by her Handmaidens (remember them?  you had to plow through them while she was _gate_ing in all types of demons), she'd be using magic-user and cleric spells nearly at-will, psionically attacking and if all else failed she could simply will the PCs away or will herself away.
> 
> Don't mistake a badly run monster for a badly designed monster.  It isn't the module's fault you had a poor DM.




So she could heal herself and she had a very strong AC. But at 66 hit points, she was still designed to have a glass jaw. Healing herself or even willing herself away wasn't going to do any good if she didn't manage to use it. She was designed to be defeatable by 12-15th level characters as the climax to the series... and she most certainly was.


----------



## Jim Hague (Jan 3, 2007)

buzz said:
			
		

> It's worth noting that our sources for these numbers, both now and in the past, are typically the game's publisher (TSR then, WotC now), and thus you can raise all sorts of doubts. FWIW, WotC (via Charles Ryan) claimed that, as of the 30th anniversary, there were more people playing D&D than at any point previous.




True - the question is, how much of that is enthusiasm, how much is hard data, and how much is PR flacking?  Answer - we don't know.  Charles is a nice guy, but at the time he was also beholden to WotC.  At an estimate (and a wide one, at that), I'd say the numbers may have shrunk _some_, in the D&D market, but expanded in other directions in the '90s prior to the CCG 'crash'.  Given that, if the market's shrunk, I say it'd be very little; fragmentation is another matter entirely.



> I think all we can really say is that, of the total gaming population, the majority of them are playing some edition of D&D. The 2e era was probably the only time there was a noticeable loss of fanbase. Anecdotal evidence would probably point to 3e, if anything, bringing fans _back_ to D&D, not to mention creating a whole new sector of the market via the d20STL/OGL. (A model which 1e fans are benefiting from, BTW, via OSRIC and, arguably, C&C.)




I know it brought me and my group back to D&D, and that certainly seemed the case when 3e came out, at least here in Austin.  There's a goodly-sized gaming population here, so take that for what you will.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 3, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> So she could heal herself and she had a very strong AC. But at 66 hit points, she was still designed to have a glass jaw. Healing herself or even willing herself away wasn't going to do any good if she didn't manage to use it. She was designed to be defeatable by 12-15th level characters as the climax to the series... and she most certainly was.




Well, she was designed to be a lethal challenge; nobody should get out of her throne room going "Oh that was easy." (played properly, again), at least in this ol' gamer's opinion.

But yeah going the other way it wasn't like the characters were squaring off against Hextor or Tharizdun, I recognize that.  I just don't view it as that much of a cake walk is all.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 3, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> So she could heal herself and she had a very strong AC. But at 66 hit points, she was still designed to have a glass jaw. Healing herself or even willing herself away wasn't going to do any good if she didn't manage to use it. She was designed to be defeatable by 12-15th level characters as the climax to the series... and she most certainly was.




Well her pretty good AC was -10 I believe.  That is as good as it gets.  With a 70% MR, which against a 14th level party still gives her a 55% chance of voiding incoming spells.   Her HP are a bit low but along with her other abilities makes her competitive with other demon lords of the time.  I don't know if she was really a god at that point.  12th-15th level is pretty bad ass in 1e too.  Epic one could say.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 3, 2007)

I've read through most of this thread but I'm going to go back to the original subject line:


> Does 3E/3.5 dictate a certain style of play?




Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Yes, absolutely, without question.

Realistically though, every rules system dictates a style of play.  The designer(s) of any rules system created them for a reason (at least one would hope).  A rules system is designed to emulate some kind of action.  Which actions and how they are to be emulated is inherent in the rules.

It also depends on the a person's definition of "style of play".  Some people seem to take offense to the idea that a system dictates or at least encourages a certain style of play.  For example, per the rules as written, Teleport is a 5th-level spell.  You have a general idea when the characters will be able to cast teleport and what will happen when they gain access to it.

That's how I define style of play.  The creators of 3ed put teleport in for a reason.  In their view of the iconic D&D world, teleport exists.  That's a style of play choice.  Same with raise dead, fireball, and even create water.  These things define the "style" that everyone plays in.

Again, per the absolute RAW, even thing like the overall power level of a campaign, the rate at which the characters advance, and the amount of character wealth is defined.  All of these affect the style of play.  I don't really consider 3ed to be a rules "toolbox".  When you crack open a 3ed campaign, you know generally what you are going to get.

Look at the AP's.  They are iconic examples of the levels 1-20 D&D campaign.  Certain things change depending on the level of the campaign.  D&D's various "break points" dictate a style of play.

Now of course many of these things can be changed: level of wealth and treasure, rate of advancement, power level, etc.  These are all variables that change the style of play.  But to change one of these reaffirms the fact that there is an intrinsic style of play in 3ed to begin with.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 3, 2007)

For clarity's sake: Lolth, as written, from Q1:

Frequency: Unique
No. Appearing: 1
Armor Class: -10(-2)
Move: 1"* 9" (15")
Hit Dice: 66 hit points (16 HD)
% In Lair: 25%
Treasure Type: Q(X5), R, X(x3)
No. of Attacks: 1 and 1 (1)
Damage/attack: 4-16 + poison and *webs* (or by weapon type)
Special Attacks: See Below
Special Defenses: See below
Magic Resistance: 70%
Intelligence: Godlike
Alignment: Chaotic evil
Size: L (M)
Psionic Ability: 266
Attack/defense modes: all/all
Level/XP Value: X/12470 for destroying material form, 124700 for destroying permanently.

The demoness Lolth is a very powerful and feard demon Lord.  She usually takes the form of a giant black widow spider when she is on the Prime Material Plane, and she sometimes assumes this form on her own plane (of the Abyss) as well, but she also enjoys appearing as an exquisitely beautiful female Dark Elf (the statistics for this form as given in parentheses).  Little is known about her aims, and only the fact that the DCrow worship of Lolth causes her to assume form on the earth permits compilation of any substantial information whatsoever.

Loloth enjoys the company of spiders of all sorts - giant species while in her arachnid shape, those of normal, large and even huge species while in her humanoid form.  She is able to converse with all kinds of spiders and they understand and obey her unquestionlingly.

Although the Queen of Spiders has but 66 hit points, her high armro class prevents most damage, and she is able to *heal* herself at will, up to thrice/day.  As lolth enjoys roving about in one form or another, she will seldom be encountered no matter what th eplane, unless worshippers have invoked her to some special shrine or temple.

In the form of a giant spiderLolth is able to cast web strands 30' long from her abdominal spinnerets which are equal to a *web* spell with the addition of 1-4 points of damage per round accruing to webbed victims due to a poisonous excretion upon the strands.  During the same melee round she is able to deliver a vicious biting attack for 4-16 hit points of damage plus death if the vicitim fails to make his, her or its saving throw versus poison at -4.  In her humanoid form, Lolth will use weapons common to Drow.

As a giant spider, the demoness can use any one of the following poewrs, one per melee round, at will: *comprehend languages, confusion, darkness 15' radius, dispel magic;  twice per day she may use phase door, read magic and  shape change*; and once per day she may *gate* - 66% chance for a type I (45%), type II (35%) or type III demon (20%); *summon spiders* - either 9-16 large (20%), 7-12 huge (30%), 2-8 giant (40%) or 1-4 phase spiders (10%); *teleport* with no error, *tongues* and *true seeing*.  In her humanoid shape, Lolth is a 16th level cleric/14th level magic-user with commensurate abilities.  However, in the latter form she is unable to wear armor of any sort and her psionic powers are not available to her (see below).

Lolth is not affected by weapons which are not magical, silver does her no harm (unless enchanted to at least +1) and cold, electrical and gas attack forms cause only one-half damage.  Acid, poison and *magic missiles* (if her magic resistance fails her, naturally), affect the demoness normally.  Lolth is especially suceptible to holy water, taking 6 points of damage from a splash and 6-21 points (3d6+3) from a direct hit.

The visual range of the demoness extneds into the infrared and ultraviolet spectrums to a normal distance of 120'.  Lolth has limited *telepathy* communication ability as do demons in general.

Her psionic disciplines include the minor devotions of *body equilibrium, clairvoyance, domination* and the major sciences of *dimension walking, mind bar, molecular rearrangement* and *probability travel*.  These disciplines (as well as her magical powers) are performed at 16th level of ability (experience).

The following is a list of suggested spells for Lolth.  They are arranged according to type and level.  The information in the prenthesis after each spell includes the casting time (C), range in feet (R), duratino (DR) and the number carried (x#), where applicable.  A reversal of a normal spell is indicated by an asterisk (*) after the spell name; abbreviations are used for the terms "turns" (t), "rounds"(R) and "segments" (s).  This information is included for the convenience of the DM, where useful.  The DM may wish to change the spells listed below; if this is done, care should be taken to modify Lolth's attack and defense strategies as presented in the module.

*Clerical Spells* (as 16th level cleric):

First level: Cause fear* (x3, C4s), protection from good* (x2, C 4s, DR 48r), resist cold (C 1r, DR 16t), Sancutary (x3, C 4s, DR 18r)
Second Level: hold person (x5, C 5s, R 60', DR 20r), resist fire (C 5s, DR 16t), silence 15' radius (x3, C5s, R120', DR 32r)
Third level: continual darkness (C 6s, R120'), dispel magic (x2, C6s, R 60'), glyph of warding (x4)
Fourth Level: cause serious wounds (x5, C 7s), sticks to snakes (C 7s, R 30', DR 32r)
Fifth Level: flame strike (x3, C 8s, R 60'), slay living (x2, C 1r, R 30')
Sixth Level: blade barrier (c 9s, R 30', DR 48r), harm (x2, C1r)
Seventh level: unholy word (C 1s, R 30')

*Magic-User's spells* (as 15th level magic user):
First Level: Magic missile (x3, C1s, R 200'), shield (C1s, DR 70r), ventriloquism (c 1s, R 60', DR 16r)
Second level: detect invisibility (C 2s, R 140', DR 70r), invisibility (x2, C 2s), web (x2, C 2s, r 70', DR 28t)
third level: dispel magic (c 3s, r120'), fireball (x2, C 3s, R 240'), haste (c 3s, R 60', DR 17r), phantasmal force (C 3s, R220')
Fourth level: fire shield (C 4s, DR 16r), fire trap (C 3r), ice storm (C4s, R140'), polymorhp other (C 4s, R 70')
Fifth level: cone of cold (x4, C 5s, R 70')
Sixth level: death spell (C 6s, R 140'), globe of invulnerability (C 1r, DR 14r)
Seventh Level: power word stun (C1 s, R 70')

*Spider Abilities* (usable _only_ if in spider form:

Spell effect/rate of use:
comprehend languages/once per round
confusion/once per round
darkness 15' radius/once per round
dispel magic/once per round
phase door/twice per day
read magic/twice per day
shape change/twice per day
teleport/once per day
tongues/once per day
true seeing/once per day
gate/once per day
summon spiders/once per day

*Optional Abilities*

As a lesser goddess, Lolth has certain attributes common to all divine beings.  The DM may choose not to use these in this module, since a properly played Lolth will easily destroy most invaders.  However, should these abilities be desired or needed for confrontationswith a high-level partythe DM may include them in Lolths abilities.  Note that if these optional abilities are used, changes in Lolth's spell selection should be made.

Those characteristics (strength, intelligence, etc.) of Lolth which exceed 18 are explained below.  A full explanation of divine characteristics is given in *DEITIES & DEMIGODS* Cyclopedia, now available from TSR Hobbies, Inc.

S: 21 (+4, +9), I: 21 W:16 D:21 C:21 CH: 3 (23 as Drow)

Strength: when in humanoid form, +4 "to-hit" roll, +9 on damage
Intelligence: 97% chance to know a magic-user's spell, minimum of 13 spells per level; *immune* to illusion/phantasm spells of 1st through 3rd level (these spells will have no effect on Lolth whatsoever).
Dexterity: +4 reaction/attack adjustment, =5 defensive adjustment.
Constitution: +2 on saving throws vs. poison, regenerate 1 hit point every 5 turns
Charisma (when in humanoid form): +60% reaction adjustmen, +90% lolyaty base; at will, *Awe power* of 8 HD (any creature or character of 8 HD or less will be *awed* by the sight and presence of Lolth, and will be unable toinitiate any action other than physical defense).  This works through _any_ control up to and including a *magic jar* spell.
*Saving Throws*: all gods and demigods (Lolth included) have a saving throw of 2 in all categories (i.e., they will only miss a save by rolling a 1).  This is in addition to magic resistance, of course.  All saving throwas are unchangeable regardless of magical aids and/or adjustments.

Lolth has the following abilities common to most gods and demigods, over and above th eabilities previously listed.  These abilities all fucntion instantaneously and at will but not continuously.
*Command*: as the spell, but lasting two rounds, no saving throw.
*Comprehend Languages*: as the spell, except that the deity also gains the ability tspeak and write the language in question.
*Detect Alignment*: as the spell but with no error and applicable to creatures and objects.
*Gate*: appolicable to ther beings of the same mythos (demons an non-human deities; see *DEITIES & DEMIGODS* Cyclopeida for more details).
*Geas*: as the spell but with a range of 9"
*Quest*: As the spell but with no saving throw and a range of 9".
*Teleport*: as the spell but possible from plane to plane as well from place to place.
*True Seeing*: as the spell.

...

Lolth is _one bad cookie_.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Jan 3, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> He does actually have more feats, but they're constant ones (e.g. Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec), not conditional ones. Only conditional feats needed in play are listed.
> 
> Cheers!




Ah, thank you.


----------



## molonel (Jan 3, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> "Nostalgia". That's another one. I hear that term bandied about by post 1e gamers and I've reached the (correct) conclusion that the definition being used here is "hey, you're playing and advocating an older system I don't like any more!" It's never used in the positive - at best it's a little conversational condescension, at worst a thinly-veiled insult




Nostalgia is what you feel for a game you probably haven't played very much. I played it when you could buy new 1e books off the shelf. I can look at what I liked about 1st Edition, and incorporate those elements into my gameplay now. You're still struggling to figure out if you can play 3rd Edition without powergaming. I'm completely at peace with what I liked about previous editions, and completely at peace with the game, now. If I had to state my order of preference, I like 3rd Edition best, then 1st Edition, then 2nd Edition. 

I feel no nostalgia because I realize that there were a lot of things about 1st Edition that were rather silly. 

It was a great game. My 1e books are well-thumbed, and I can still pull them off the shelf and start reading on any page with interest. But I can recognize the problems with the game the same way I recognize the problems in 3rd Edition. 3.X is not a perfect game, either. Some of the problems raised in this thread deal with its very real faults. 

But the main problem with 3rd Edition is NOT that it simply isn't more like 1st Edition. Making it mechanically similar to 1st Edition would be a mistake.

Nolstalgia is not a positive thing. It's putting on rose-colored glasses to look at something, and ignoring its faults.

In my opinion, that is what you're doing.



			
				thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> Sixty-six. She could heal herself fully 2x a day. She was attended by her Handmaidens (remember them? you had to plow through them while she was _gate_ing in all types of demons), she'd be using magic-user and cleric spells nearly at-will, psionically attacking and if all else failed she could simply will the PCs away or will herself away.




Pardon me. The goddess Lolth, ruler of an entire plane, had 66 hit points. I missed it by 33. My bad.

I think you need to decide, though, whether 3rd Edition compels you to be a rampant powergamer, or whether we just don't understand how powerful you had to be in 1st Edition game to defeat the goddess Lolth, because these two positions aren't quite meshing.



			
				thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> Don't mistake a badly run monster for a badly designed monster. It isn't the module's fault you had a poor DM.




I had an extraordinary DM, thanks for asking. Lolth was still a joke. I think in the Greyhawk novel, Queen of the Demonweb Pits, they stuffed her into a Portable Hole filled with holy water. My eyes ached for days from rolling them into the back of my head.



			
				thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> ....eeeeeeeexcept it doesn't. Name a current D&D supplement that's sold two hundred thousand copies. At it's peak in the early 80's, D&D enjoyed an audience of some four million players. What is it now, one point five? Maybe two with the wind at it's back?




....eeeeeeeexcept it does.

D&D is the top game in a market that competes more heavily with better-designed and more aggressive competitors. Did Gary Gygax have to compete with World of Warcraft selling a million copies in the first week of its release? No, he didn't. And he'd be crapping in his pants if he did.

When D&D came out, there was nothing else like it. We had Pong for video games, back then. Remember? Oh wait. You couldn't, because you weren't there. GURPS was a distant blip on the horizon. World of Darkness wasn't even an angst-ridden gleam in eyes of goths who didn't exist.



			
				thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> It has a diluted product base where the industry basically goes "throw it to the wall, see what sticks!" courtesy of OGL/d20.




Crappy books are nothing new to 3rd Edition, nor to 2nd Edition, nor to 1st Edition. 2nd Edition: Complete Book of What? And lest we forget, 1st Edition gave us the glorious tradition of writing down the hit point totals of gods. We used to call the 1st Edition Deities and Demigods the Hunting Manual for Gods. When I was in junior high school, I had friends who ran battles against the Knights of the Round Table so that they could loot Excalibur. A friend of mine was so proud when he figured out a way to kill Elric, and use the Ring of Kings to defeat Thor and take Mjolnir.

Ah, those were the days!



			
				thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> "better" is purely subjective.




Indeed it is. But that is my opinion, and I have every right to hold it.


----------



## molonel (Jan 3, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> Lolth is _one bad cookie_.




On paper, yes.

But back then, we'd comb through books and Dragon Magazine articles looking for artifacts to thwart her strengths. There was a Chinese deity who was an assassin of the gods. He had a necklace that was a triangle of stone that could transform into any weapon you wanted. Or you figured out a way to kill Elric and take the Ring of Kings or Stormbringer. Why not? They were statted out, if you had the first run of Deities and Demigods. 

Those were the zannier solutions, of course. We had serious ones. I don't even remember what they were, but all you needed was one good attack on her. No time to heal. No chance to respond.

There was always a way, and her pathetic hit points gave her a glass jaw.

Or we'd come up with some whacked-out solution like a Portable Hole full of holy water, like they did in the novel. The reason TSR could publish a novel with that sort of climax in the story was because people DID things like that in their games.


----------



## theemrys (Jan 3, 2007)

Back to the original question... I personally love running my campaign in Kingdoms of Kalamar and like to keep it "rare magic".  That is, magic isn't all that common, but when the party gets an item, it's usually pretty good.  I still pretty much use the CR system in most cases and really haven't had any issues with spellcasters outstripping the fighting types... but I also tend to have more encounters between resting periods than is "recommended", which means spellcasters have to be a bit more frugal with their abilities.  

I don't really break any of the RAW and find it still works well.  Mostly I think it just has to do with the DM style and players.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 3, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I've read through most of this thread but I'm going to go back to the original subject line:
> 
> 
> Short answer: Yes.
> ...




What you're getting at here isn't a dictated style of play. You're describing more of a _*default*_ style of play, or even more accurately, a default set of tools that work well with a set of styles of play. But you can still have a variety of different true styles of play even with those default tools ranging from swashbuckling action high-roleplay romance in the royal courts to beer and pretzels kicking in the doors in a dungeon. 

There is no dictatorial relationship between the rules and which style of play you actually use.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 3, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> It also depends on the a person's definition of "style of play".




Maybe.  Or maybe it depends on what you consider "dictating".

To me, for rules to dictate a style of play, it would have to be very difficult for me to play otherwise.  In my experience, most of the elements people point to when saying D&D calls for a certain style of play are pretty easily modified.  The system is more open than most in that regard.

So, has a default style, sure.  I'll even buy "encourages".  But "dictates" is pretty strong.


----------



## molonel (Jan 3, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Maybe.  Or maybe it depends on what you consider "dictating".
> 
> To me, for rules to dictate a style of play, it would have to be very difficult for me to play otherwise.  In my experience, most of the elements people point to when saying D&D calls for a certain style of play are pretty easily modified.  The system is more open than most in that regard.
> 
> So, has a default style, sure.  I'll even buy "encourages".  But "dictates" is pretty strong.




QFT.

I don't like the paladin's Detect Evil ability. Never have in any addition. I call it the Beatdown Radar, because evidently it's okay to kill anything that registers as evil to the pally.

So in 3rd Edition, I changed it to a divine bonus to Sense Motive that scales with level. That way, it's still possible for an order of paladins to be infiltrated without everyone constantly wearing jewelry that protects them from detection spells.

Most of these problems have solutions, and fairly easy solutions at that.

"The game moves too fast!"

So cut XP awards in half. Or keep XP awards privvy only to the DM. Spellcasters tell you when they make items, and how much XP they spent, and you keep track of the total.

"Magic should be more rare!"

So don't use the standard wealth tables. Or remove item creation feats besides Brew Motion and Scribe Scroll from the game. Or do what we did in Ye Goode Olden Days, and hand out weapons and armor that seem custom-designed in particular treasure hoards.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 3, 2007)

Molonel, your opinions about me, about how I game, about why I game and about pretty much everything else vis a vis my gaming "life" are wholly wrong.


----------



## buzz (Jan 3, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> But "dictates" is pretty strong.



For an RPG to dictate, it'd need to come with an armed escort.  

System Does Matter... but is 3.x really delivering a fundamentally different default experience than earlier editions, _as-written_? I don't think so. IMO, it does the core D&D experience, and does it very well (better, personally).


----------



## Crothian (Jan 3, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> I don't like the paladin's Detect Evil ability. Never have in any addition. I call it the Beatdown Radar, because evidently it's okay to kill anything that registers as evil to the pally.




That's not the game though, that's the person playing the Paladin.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 3, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Maybe.  Or maybe it depends on what you consider "dictating".
> 
> So, has a default style, sure.  I'll even buy "encourages".  But "dictates" is pretty strong.




Semantics.  

Regardless of campaign setting or story arcs or enemies, you still know largely what you are going to get in a RAW 3ed game.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 3, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> In my opinion, that is what you're doing.




Hey, I thought my prior warning about getting personal was pretty darned clear.  The Rules warn against this kind of thing, for good reason.

The internet is not a medium fit for mind-reading.  Nobody here is in a position to say what another person thinks.  Doing so is, more often then not, dismissive, undervaluing the opinions of your fellow board members, and downright rude.

So, I don't want to see any more of it in here.  Next person who does so may well find themselves on vacation.  If you have a problem with that, please take it up with a moderator in e-mail.  Our addresses are available in a post stickied to the top of the Meta Forum.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 3, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Semantics.




You say that as if it were necessarily a bad thing.  Without semantics, language would be impossible.  Saying what we actually mean is important.



> Regardless of campaign setting or story arcs or enemies, you still know largely what you are going to get in a RAW 3ed game.




Yes.  And that's a good thing.  Having a clear baseline is a feature, not a flaw.  Problems only arise when the GM cannot make reasonable alterations to the baseline with reasonable amounts of work - which would, to my mind, be crossing the line between "default behavior" and "dictated behavior".  We, of course, then get into discussion what is "reasonable" 

D&D is more flexible than most games, in this regard.  It lays out the assumptions in easy-to-reach places.  So I find it hard to see it as a major problem of the game.  Try to do similar flexiblity within, say, a White Wolf game (with their nigh-inextricably entwined setting, rules, and assumptions of desired power levels), and you'll find yourself pulling your hair out.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 3, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> D&D is more flexible than most games, in this regard.  It lays out the assumptions in easy-to-reach places.  So I find it hard to see it as a major problem of the game.  Try to do similar flexiblity within, say, a White Wolf game (with their nigh-inextricably entwined setting, rules, and assumptions of desired power levels), and you'll find yourself pulling your hair out.




Quoted, as you kids say, for truth.

Trust me, I tried ... oh whaddyacallit... _Exalted_ and thought to make some changes to it to make it a little more "me".  Uh-uh, no way buddypal.  Hands, meet hair.  Hair, meet floor.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 3, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> You say that as if it were necessarily a bad thing.  Without semantics, language would be impossible.  Saying what we actually mean is important.





Self-parody?


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jan 3, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> Quoted, as you kids say, for truth.  Trust me, I tried ... oh whaddyacallit... _Exalted_ and thought to make some changes to it to make it a little more "me".  Uh-uh, no way buddypal.  Hands, meet hair.  Hair, meet floor.




I know what you're talking about.  I think Exalted is a masterpiece, beautiful setting, well-designed, evocative.  But I could just never get into the Storyteller system it uses and it's all so meshed together that I couldn't really use it for anything else.  3e is the only system with the flexibility to handle my admittedly imperfect and at times ham-handed homebrewing.

Of all the things about it though the BattleQue in Exalted 2e seems so perfect for making combat more than "take a 5ft step and full attack."  At the very least I'm trying to convert the basic timing aspects of it over to work for d20 so I can use it in my homebrew.  

What?  Why yes it is a plug for my thread in House Rules


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 3, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> I know what you're talking about.  I think Exalted is a masterpiece, beautiful setting, well-designed, evocative.  But I could just never get into the Storyteller system it uses and it's all so meshed together that I couldn't really use it for anything else.  3e is the only system with the flexibility to handle my admittedly imperfect and at times ham-handed homebrewing.
> 
> Of all the things about it though the BattleQue in Exalted 2e seems so perfect for making combat more than "take a 5ft step and full attack."  At the very least I'm trying to convert the basic timing aspects of it over to work for d20 so I can use it in my homebrew.
> 
> What?  Why yes it is a plug for my thread in House Rules




I remember leafing through the Exalted book and wanting to yell "STOP! STOP SUCKING SO BAD!" at every turn of the rules (not the setting - and yes I know we were just saying they're inextricable).  But what would have fixed Exalted would've been a lot less smugness on WW's part regarding fantasy gaming (read that sickening, patronizing Forward again to see what I mean) and just caving in and putting a few pages of charts and formulas in the middle of the book for handling things.

I'm sorry, I really don't need to read through six pages of the Lay of Count Bloodula just to find out how to compute a frigging to-hit roll. :-/  Yet there we go.

So I myself ended up tearing the setting out, throwing in the _Deities & Demigods_ rules, statting the characters appropriately and going from there.

Worked well, but the players tired of the setting after a while.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 3, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> OTOH, it involves a lot more bookkeeping on the fly, since many character abilities are based on "token pools" that rise and fall with actions in combat.
> 
> I have nothing but respect, personal and professional, for Mike Mearls, but for me, the game was just too cumbersome. That, however, is purely a question of personal taste, and _not_ a slam on the product as an RPG. I prefer things a little mechanically simpler, but if you feel differently, it might indeed be the game for you.



In the interests of cooling things down a bit, here's something off-topic!

Ari: In addition to what buzz said (namely, that a token pool is just another set of numbers like hp, and thus quite easy to track), I'll also note that IH has no prestige classes and is largely free of magic items, spell buffs, and duration- and per-day oriented abilities; those things tend to make it much *less* complicated than D&D. They also make the power of high-level characters much easier to control.

Now, back to EDITI0N W4RZ! I'll state my position because, heck, it's the Internet and everyone has to have an opinion!

First, the facts, just so we're all in agreement.

1) D&D 3e very clearly presents CRs, ELs, and wealth by level as *guidelines.* All of these things, like prestige classes, the rules for playing monsters as races, and custom magic items, are in the DMG (or MM), and are explicitly under the control of the DM. Moreover, in the case of CRs, wealth by level, and XP advancement, the guidelines are clearly stated not to be hard-and-fast rules, but rather default expectations. The only implication of not following those expectations is, as Psion noted, a cautionary one; a party with a lower level of magic items will have difficulties facing an encounter of X CR, and a party with a higher level of items will have an easier time. Likewise, the book *warns* that an encounter of a CR 5 or more over the party's effective level is likely to result in a total defeat for the PCs; it in no way "prohibits" or "dictates against" the use of such an encounter (and, in fact, Heroes of Horror mentions the use of such encounters as a horror tactic). 

2) High-level characters *were* allowed by the RAW in 1e and before. Much as EGG might like to say at this stage that 10th level was unbelievably high for 1e, the XP tables in the PHB went up to 20th level, and the spells by level tables up to 29th level. Many, many campaigns, including ones I played in, had PCs of 15th level or higher. There are 1e modules (H1-4, anyone?) that allow for PCs of 20th level or potentially even higher.

3) Magic items were simultaneously more difficult to create but far more abundant in modules in 1e than in 3e. The vast hoards of items in G1-3 are a good example of that; no mid-level module in 3e can remotely compete with what's available in those modules.

Now on to the opinion part:

A) 1e has playstyle expectations, just as 3e. XP awards were determined by a monster's strength, just as in 3e. The level at which characters were supposed to encounter monsters of a certain power level (I-X) was in fact set forth in the DMG. Likewise, it was at least *somewhat* expected that characters of a certain level would be walking around with a certain level of magic items; PCs would, for example, be dead in the water against a Type IV-VI demon without a couple of +2 weapons or better in the party. In fact, D1-3 seems to constitute a pretty significant acknowledgement of the need to provide greater wealth to balance a party for tougher encounters, since it gives the party scads of items that are intended to be useful only for the duration of that adventure series (disintegrate in sunlight, anyone?). 

B) The only difference between the playstyle expectations set by 1e as opposed to 3e is that 1e's expectations are all implicit, and as such have no internally-consistent mechanic for altering them.  3e's mechanics are explicit, and as such tinkering with them has obvious consequences. *That does not make them hard-and-fast rules.* Just because changing a thing has easily-visible consequences, it does not mean that said thing is any harder to change. In fact, it's often easier, because one can worry less about how to measure the change. My major complaint with 3e is that there's no easy way to adjust the party's effective level based on its wealth; one has to (as in 1e) just wing it.

C) DM fiat applies just as strongly in 3e as in 1e. I'm curious as to why people attribute this magical quality of house rule-ability to 1e as opposed to 3e. If anything, at least 3e *says* that if the DM doesn't like something, he can change it (Rule 0, anyone?), whereas EGG has been known to mention that if you're playing 1e with house rules, you're not playing (A)D&D...

D) Superhero characters? The major difference between editions (and, IMHO, 3e does not go far *enough* in this regard) is that the superheroes of 1e are all spellcasters. XP tables notwithstanding, a wizard who survives to 12th level in 1e (750,000 XP, same as an 11th-level fighter) is the king of the party. 3e at least brings the other characters up to snuff (and introduces a far cleaner mechanic by way of the single XP table).


----------



## molonel (Jan 3, 2007)

Exalted is a very cool game. If you'd asked if Exalted dictates a certain style of play according to certain standards, I would have said yes, absolutely. It's an anime-based, Eastern flavored game where characters pretty much start off as Solars, and then work their way up the food chain. There is no such thing as a low-powered Exalted game.

World of Darkness has always had a bit of pretensiousness about it. Kind of like Mac users. That doesn't mean the Mac isn't an excellent computer. It just means that Steve Jobs can be a bit of a putz, and his company and some Mac users sometimes reflect that quality.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Jan 3, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> That's not the game though, that's the person playing the Paladin.




With the "scourge of evil" attitude, I think you mean "that's the person playing the Fighter."


----------



## shilsen (Jan 3, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Likewise, the book *warns* that an encounter of a CR 5 or more over the party's effective level is likely to result in a total defeat for the PCs; it in no way "prohibits" or "dictates against" the use of such an encounter (and, in fact, Heroes of Horror mentions the use of such encounters as a horror tactic).




Just to add to the above, the DMG (see Table 3-2, pg. 49) explicitly says that a well-constructed adventure should have 5% of encounters at EL 5+ party level and that 15% of adventures should be at EL 1-4+ party level. 

Anyone who says that the core rules mandate only using balanced party encounters has evidently not actually made the effort to read the core rules, or just has a very convenient/ineffective memory.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 3, 2007)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> With the "scourge of evil" attitude, I think you mean "that's the person playing the Fighter."




Only if the DM is willing to do that.  From that post it just didn't sound like as a DM he did anything.


----------



## molonel (Jan 3, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> That's not the game though, that's the person playing the Paladin.




The Beatdown Radar has a long and distinguished history. In a lot of D&D games - perhaps not all, but many - evil is a big target painted on your forehead, and a license to kill.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 3, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> The Beatdown Radar has a long and distinguished history. In a lot of D&D games - perhaps not all, but many - evil is a big target painted on your forehead, and a license to kill.




Doesn't mean it is playing the game by the rules.  A lot of people playing the game bad doesn't make the bad way the correct way.


----------



## buzz (Jan 3, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Kind of like Mac users.



Only because we really are better than everyone else. Honest!


----------



## molonel (Jan 3, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Doesn't mean it is playing the game by the rules. A lot of people playing the game bad doesn't make the bad way the correct way.




Yes, I can't imagine where I got the idea that someone with Detect Evil and Smite Evil might go around using those abilities on a regular basis.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 3, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Yes, I can't imagine where I got the idea that someone with Detect Evil and Smite Evil might go around using those abilities on a regular basis.




Huh?  I'm not questioning where you got that idea or that people play that way.  I am questioning in the books that it says Paladins are allowed to go around killing anything that happens to detect as evil just because it detects as evil.  I'm also saying that DMs allow players to get away with it because I guess this is the type of game they want.  But as VirgilCaine skillfully pointed out, Paladins who do this should become fighters as they lose their abilities.  

And if you want to discuss this more, please start a thread on it.  This tangent has gone on long enough and people around here love Paladin threads.


----------



## Bacris (Jan 3, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Semantics.




Except in a purely-text based mode of communication, semantics and connotations of the words used are absolutely critical.  Dictate has a negative connotation, as it specifies lack of other options.  Recommends has more of a neutral connotation.  Default has a neutral connotation.

To specify that something dictates when it really recommends, even strongly or patronizingly recommends, gives a false statement.  Hence why the original poster's question of does it dictate a specific playstyle was met with quite a few "no, but it does recommend a specific playstyle."



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Regardless of campaign setting or story arcs or enemies, you still know largely what you are going to get in a RAW 3ed game




I've played in low-powered 3.5 games and Monty-Haul 3.5 games.  Games with 6 encounters in a single game day and 1 encounter a day for six sessions straight.  3.x may expect a specific playstyle for its assumptions, but it also allows for alternate playstyles and even gives recommendations for alternate playstyles.

So perhaps dictate was the wrong word to use by the OP, or maybe it's what he meant, I don't know, but dismissing semantics in a pure-text discussion isn't necessarily the best course of action 

Just IMO.


----------



## molonel (Jan 3, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Huh?  I'm not questioning where you got that idea or that people play that way.  I am questioning in the books that it says Paladins are allowed to go around killing anything that happens to detect as evil just because it detects as evil.  I'm also saying that DMs allow players to get away with it because I guess this is the type of game they want.  But as VirgilCaine skillfully pointed out, Paladins who do this should become fighters as they lose their abilities.
> 
> And if you want to discuss this more, please start a thread on it.  This tangent has gone on long enough and people around here love Paladin threads.




If it continues, I'll be happy to move it to another thread. The paladin's code is just vague enough that if your DM wants to be a putz about it, he can tighten the screws as much or as little as he pleases. Personally, I'd rather just remove an element from the game which - to me - is annoying and subtracts more than it adds to the game and replace it with something that creates more possibilities rather than eliminating them.

That's just my opinion.


----------



## Garnfellow (Jan 3, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> First, the facts, just so we're all in agreement.




Great post -- I strongly agree with just about everything you wrote here.



			
				ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> C) DM fiat applies just as strongly in 3e as in 1e. I'm curious as to why people attribute this magical quality of house rule-ability to 1e as opposed to 3e. If anything, at least 3e *says* that if the DM doesn't like something, he can change it (Rule 0, anyone?), whereas EGG has been known to mention that if you're playing 1e with house rules, you're not playing (A)D&D...




In addition, I find it much, much easier as a DM to evaluate new rules or crunchy bits in 3e because of the mechanical consistency throughout the system. I played around with a lot of variant rules back in 1st edition -- from "reputable sources" like _Dragon_ or _White Dwarf_ to kookier things like Arduin or fanzines. And I'll tell you, it usually felt like a complete crapshoot bringing some of that stuff into the game.

But with 3e? A lot less worries. Oh, there are plenty of broken things out there, but they're much easier to spot. For example, I am working on a conversion of an old BD&D module, and needed some 3.5e stats for a couple of monsters. A Google search turned up some fan-made conversions, which were quickly deemed Good Enough to Swipe. Before 3e, I would have been very, very reluctant to have just grabbed something like that off the internet.


----------



## Psion (Jan 3, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> C) DM fiat applies just as strongly in 3e as in 1e. I'm curious as to why people attribute this magical quality of house rule-ability to 1e as opposed to 3e.




Necessity is the mother of invention.

I learned to house rule when playing 1e (and 2e) precisely because I felt it needed it so much.

When I translated my 2e game to 3e, my house rule document dropped by a factor of about 10, from 50 to 5 pages.


----------



## molonel (Jan 3, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> When I translated my 2e game to 3e, my house rule document dropped by a factor of about 10, from 50 to 5 pages.




Ah yes, the infamous black 3-ring binder that was the staple of 2nd Edition games. I remember it well! I know part of what makes some people miss 2nd Edition was the great amount of retooling it required. The game became yours, in a personal sense. Sometimes it's hard to remember the problems with 2nd Edition because everyone worked so hard to smooth those out in houserules.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 3, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Necessity is the mother of invention.
> 
> I learned to house rule when playing 1e (and 2e) precisely because I felt it needed it so much.
> 
> When I translated my 2e game to 3e, my house rule document dropped by a factor of about 10, from 50 to 5 pages.



Heh!!!

I agree with rulelawyer here.
But you also make a very good point!!


----------



## CruelSummerLord (Jan 3, 2007)

Bacris said:
			
		

> So perhaps dictate was the wrong word to use by the OP, or maybe it's what he meant, I don't know, but dismissing semantics in a pure-text discussion isn't necessarily the best course of action
> 
> Just IMO.




When I wrote "dictate", I meant that the system required characters to have a higher number of magical items and powers to ensure reasonable chances for success on the part of the players.  I had read elsewhere that 3E/3.5E relied heavily on magical equipment to balance out the different encounters, and that was the statement I was initially worrying about.  So perhaps "dictate" was too strong a word; what I meant to say is that such a style of play lends itself more to play balance in the game than others, which is why I was wondering if people who enjoy lower-toned games can't really do that anymore playing by the new rules.  From what I've seen, 3E does lend itself more to a certain style of play, and one that I don't necessarily agree with, but a skilled DM and players can often work things out, and there are alternatives for those who want them.


----------



## CruelSummerLord (Jan 3, 2007)

Kormydigar said:
			
		

> To me, the new vs. old debate has less to do with soul, than freedom. The soul (or lack thereof) is driven by the players and GM and not the rules. There is a difference in the feel of freedom in the new rulesets. I know that one can ignore anything that is undesirable from any set of rules but, that's not the point. The newer rules seem to be driven by limitations rather than imagination. To illustrate the shift in mindset lets look at the evolution of gaming for a bit.
> 
> During the early days of RPG's, there were many situations the rules didn't cover. The GM and players were expected to fill those gaps with what worked for thier group. At this time video and computer games were quite primitive and couldn't simulate an RPG very well at all. As time went on, computer games gained popularity and made great strides in simulating RPG type play. Video games became heavily influenced by tabletop style RPGs. The games got good- real good, but they were (and still are) limited by the programmers code. There are no permissible actions that are not forssen ( and written) by the code writers.
> 
> ...






			
				KenSeg said:
			
		

> I do think that the "soul" of the player has changed and that this is being reflected in the mechanics of the game. I believe that the biggest difference between the old-school and newer players is our imaginative background. This is what affects the "soul" of our play.
> 
> Those players in the late 70s through the 90s took our imaginative background from literature, specifically sword and sorcery novels and fantasy. I can easily say that I have read well over several thousand books in the genre and have this deep well of fantasy background in my playing and DMing. D&D for us was a way to live out the fantasy stories that we read as children and adults and I do believe that our emphasis on the character background and roleplaying is a result of this environment.
> 
> I believe that a majority of the gamers today have a computer imaginative background, coming from games such as WOW, DOC, Everquest and such. The plots and stories in these games are poor substitutes to the wealth of drama included in literature and gives the game a more shallow feeling with emphasis on crunch instead of story. I wish that today's children would take the time to enjoy reading more instead of spending endless hours infront of the computer screen. There is a universe of ideas, plots and characters out there for you to discover. I think that you will find the investment well worth your time and will find that it lends depth and color to your gaming.




After reading comments like this in the 1,000 post-plus [Edition WARZ] thread, I think I've hit the crux of my annoyance-the trends that lead to min-maxing of multiclassing, feats and prestige classes, characters with bizarre combinations of templates and abilities with no rhyme or reason, and magic items being increasingly common among players.  That's what drives me crazy-characters seem to be developed for their maximum effectiveness as killing machines, and magic items are less strange and wonderful objects than high-powered additions to the PC arsenal that can be used to blow the heads off the next monster that comes along.  

This is not WotC's fault, nor is it a swing at 3E.  WotC is a business, and it cannot be faulted for responding to market trends.  If 3E reflects these changes in player tastes...well, what can WotC do if it doesn't want to go out of business?  Other industries might be regulated for social or environnmental reasons-the gaming industry is not one of them, and the companies that are in the gaming business have to respond to what their customers want.  

You can see this in quite a few of the role-playing novels that are based on games, too.  FR novels are stereotyped for their morally flawless heroes, flash-bang special effects, and cliched plotlines-things that couldn't hold a candle to Tolkien, Moorcock, Shakespeare or Howard.  I personally think D&D, regardless of edition, could be spun into a fascinating mythology of its own, one that could have a solid backing, and while it may not be able to match the myths of the masters, it could still be something far more than what seems to be a shallow trend today.  

Same thing with gaming novels-who's to say they couldn't take their cues from Tolstoy or Shakespeare, and at least become more sophisticated and intelligent?  This is more the writer talking than the gamer, but it's almost the same thing.  While one may not rival the masters, they could still be well-done, couldn't they?  That's one thing I love about D&D-the "mythology" that's sprung up around it, similar to the kind that springs up around the myths of the Greeks, the Norse, or any other real-life culture, or around the works of Howard, Lieber or even authors like J.K. Rowling and Brian Jacques, who have created their own myths with their own twists.  

3E has its critics, and its defenders point out that you can overcome these deficiencies.  It's a lot of the same thing, really.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 4, 2007)

buzz said:
			
		

> System Does Matter... but is 3.x really delivering a fundamentally different default experience than earlier editions, _as-written_? I don't think so. IMO, it does the core D&D experience, and does it very well (better, personally).




    The question then becomes, how many people were using the sketchier and less consistent rules of earlier editions to play something divergent from the 'core D&D experience'?  I think _this_ may account for a lot of the dissatisfaction--3E is arguably the best D&D at being D&D, but as Edwards and others have pointed out, a lot of people using D&D weren't using it to play 'D&D' as such.  

     Matthew L. Martin


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 4, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Ah yes, the infamous black 3-ring binder that was the staple of 2nd Edition games. I remember it well! I know part of what makes some people miss 2nd Edition was the great amount of retooling it required. The game became yours, in a personal sense.



You know, I really think you've stumbled onto something important here.  Like it or hate it, the 0-1-2e game(s) you ran were *yours* and no-one else's in a way no other game could be, because with explicit encouragement by the designers you built it the way you thought it ought to work.  And your black 3-ring binder (well, red, in my case) starkly symbolized that; never mind the "blue book" (players' binder, replaces much of the PH), or the 2 white binders for spells...

3e, no matter what you do to it, still feels like WotC's game...much as modified Monopoly still feels like Parker Bros.' game...there's much less of that sense of personal investment.  And that's a key difference between the editions.

Lanefan


----------



## BryonD (Jan 4, 2007)

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> The question then becomes, how many people were using the sketchier and less consistent rules of earlier editions to play something divergent from the 'core D&D experience'?  I think _this_ may account for a lot of the dissatisfaction--3E is arguably the best D&D at being D&D, but as Edwards and others have pointed out, a lot of people using D&D weren't using it to play 'D&D' as such.
> 
> Matthew L. Martin



There are (at least) two different types of house rules.  Rules that "fix" something and rules that change the tone.  Even without taking into account the vast availability to D20 fantasy alternates out there, I think many threads and polls here have shown that people do not hesitate to chnage the nature of their game when they want to.

But the binders are mostly gone because, looking at the gaming community overall, the amount of "want" in 3X is vastly less than the "need + want" of prior editions.

I certainly would disagree with any implication that 3E is any more demanding that the players stay to the "core experience".  It allows as much change as any prior edition.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 4, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> You know, I really think you've stumbled onto something important here.  Like it or hate it, the 0-1-2e game(s) you ran were *yours* and no-one else's in a way no other game could be, because with explicit encouragement by the designers you built it the way you thought it ought to work.  And your black 3-ring binder (well, red, in my case) starkly symbolized that; never mind the "blue book" (players' binder, replaces much of the PH), or the 2 white binders for spells...
> 
> 3e, no matter what you do to it, still feels like WotC's game...much as modified Monopoly still feels like Parker Bros.' game...there's much less of that sense of personal investment.  And that's a key difference between the editions.
> 
> Lanefan



Why?
Or more to the point, why is that true for you and not for me?

I'll offer one possibility:  I think in quite a large number of cases older versions became the DMs "own" purely because it was forced on them.  In 3X the need is greatly reduced so the drive to change is equally reduced.  But again, there is a difference between need and want.  Now, it sounds like you WANT change but somehow find it unachievable.  Which I don't understand.


----------



## molonel (Jan 4, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> You know, I really think you've stumbled onto something important here.  Like it or hate it, the 0-1-2e game(s) you ran were *yours* and no-one else's in a way no other game could be, because with explicit encouragement by the designers you built it the way you thought it ought to work.  And your black 3-ring binder (well, red, in my case) starkly symbolized that; never mind the "blue book" (players' binder, replaces much of the PH), or the 2 white binders for spells...3e, no matter what you do to it, still feels like WotC's game...much as modified Monopoly still feels like Parker Bros.' game...there's much less of that sense of personal investment.  And that's a key difference between the editions.




And that's a fair criticism, in my opinion. I like the standardization, and I have enough experience from 1st and 2nd Edition that I can, and have, made 3rd Edition my own in that sense. I think what some people are forgetting is that the sort of personal investment we're talking about from previous edition was the work of playing it over and over and over again during the course of years. 3rd Edition hasn't actually been out that long, by comparison. But in the games I see, people are starting to invest themselves and decide on houserules. I'm starting to see more houserules in the games where I play, and more confident DMs with the experience to decide what they will allow, and what they won't. Third Edition is starting to mature as a game, because its players and DMs are maturing. Much as some people hate to admit it, the Complete Mage is a damn good book. Some folks would like to believe that all of the books coming out of WotC are crap, and shlock designed to make a profit. And some of them are. (Big shock, since 2nd Edition added new meaning to the phrase "rules bloat.") But the game itself is growing, and often growing better. Conan d20 is an incredible game, and some of the folks writing for it blow me away. Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed is an excellent and interesting game. 3rd Edition is maturing in many different forms, and in many ways, is a better game than 1st Edition ever aspired to be.


----------



## buzz (Jan 4, 2007)

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> The question then becomes, how many people were using the sketchier and less consistent rules of earlier editions to play something divergent from the 'core D&D experience'?  I think _this_ may account for a lot of the dissatisfaction--3E is arguably the best D&D at being D&D, but as Edwards and others have pointed out, a lot of people using D&D weren't using it to play 'D&D' as such.



Exactamundo, Mr. Martin. One thing that I've noticed on these boards is that the people I encounter who actually played older D&Ds by RAW tend to be pretty satisfied with 3e... or else don't see it as different enough to bother switching. 

It's when I see people who talk wistfully of "sense of wonder" or other Sim- and Nar-drifted experiences that I see dissatisfaction. What I don't get is why these people don't just give all the cool RPGs that aren't D&D, and that fit their needs to a "T", a shot.


----------



## buzz (Jan 4, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> ...because with explicit encouragement by the designers you built it the way you thought it ought to work.



BryonD beat me to it:



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> I think in quite a large number of cases older versions became the DMs "own" purely because it was forced on them.



Yup.

I don't remember any explicit encouragement. I remember dissatisfaction and a certain amount of frustration. And I don't think I'm alone; heck, _Rolemaster_ began as a set of plug-ins for AD&D. There's a lesson there.

I don't feel that the 3e games I run are any less "my own" than the 1e I ran. If anything, the rules actually make sense to me now, which certainly engenders more affection for the game on my part.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jan 4, 2007)

There are several problems with the ambition to have gaming novels be great works of art:

First, there is the limited availability of great artists. A genius like Shakespeare comes about maybe once a millenia. Even if you're generous and say that there has been a Shakespeare every century, what are the odds that this century's Shakespeare is going to be interested in gaming novels, or even novels at all. Maybe the next Shakespeare's medium is cinema or television. Or maybe computer games. (Tolstoy was more interesting in his self-appointed role as a prophet and champion of the peasant than in writing novels; had he been as interested in writing novels, his peasants and family might have been happier and the world enriched by more quality literature).

The truth is that 99% or more of the art that is created is lousy. It may be good enough to pass time with when it is published, but it won't stand the test of time and few people will mourn its passing. (Compare which of the 19th century novels people still think worth reading to the vast number that were produced, for instance, and you'll have an idea of what I mean. A lot more people wrote gothic stories novels than Mary Shelley and Edgar Allen Poe, but they're about the only ones who are better than our current crop of drek which is both easier to find, written in a more accessible language, and with a worldview that more closely approximates our own). If that's true of fiction (and writing) in general, why should we expect gaming fiction to be any different.

Another matter in this regard is that gaming novels are, almost by definition written in someone else's world with at least some of other peoples' characters. A lot of the better artists would rather write in worlds that are set up to more fully explore their themes and ideas than which are consistent with the latest sourcebook on the new edition of the game.

Now, if you fancy yourself a potentially great artist and have an interest in gaming fiction, you're welcome to try writing the intelligent and sophisticated gaming fiction that you want to see. But writing gaming fiction on assignment doesn't seem like the kind of situation calculated to produce great writing, so I'd expect significantly less than 1% of it to have any lasting value anyway.



			
				CruelSummerLord said:
			
		

> Same thing with gaming novels-who's to say they couldn't take their cues from Tolstoy or Shakespeare, and at least become more sophisticated and intelligent?  This is more the writer talking than the gamer, but it's almost the same thing.  While one may not rival the masters, they could still be well-done, couldn't they?  That's one thing I love about D&D-the "mythology" that's sprung up around it, similar to the kind that springs up around the myths of the Greeks, the Norse, or any other real-life culture, or around the works of Howard, Lieber or even authors like J.K. Rowling and Brian Jacques, who have created their own myths with their own twists.
> 
> 3E has its critics, and its defenders point out that you can overcome these deficiencies.  It's a lot of the same thing, really.


----------



## MerricB (Jan 4, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> You know, I really think you've stumbled onto something important here.  Like it or hate it, the 0-1-2e game(s) you ran were *yours* and no-one else's in a way no other game could be, because with explicit encouragement by the designers you built it the way you thought it ought to work.  And your black 3-ring binder (well, red, in my case) starkly symbolized that; never mind the "blue book" (players' binder, replaces much of the PH), or the 2 white binders for spells...




The trouble is... how typical was this? Lots of house rules has never been my scene. My games often rely on strong narrative elements and personal PC stories; not to mention memorable dungeons. So my binders (or more likely, head) would be full of NPCs, plot threads, kingdoms, villainies and the like, but new rules? Nope.

For me, D&D is about the adventures, not the system that enables them. Although the system is not unimportant, neither does having to modify it appeal to me.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Jan 4, 2007)

CruelSummerLord said:
			
		

> That's what drives me crazy-characters seem to be developed for their maximum effectiveness as killing machines, and magic items are less strange and wonderful objects than high-powered additions to the PC arsenal that can be used to blow the heads off the next monster that comes along.




Welcome to the game aspect of D&D. It's been there since the beginning.

A major part of D&D is overcoming what the DM throws at you. You can play a fighter with a 9 strength and 18 intelligence if you want... but it won't be a good fighter. So, people don't do that unless the DM is running a game that is nearly only roleplaying - and is pretty far from what D&D is about.

Cheers!


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 4, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> You can play a fighter with a 9 strength and 18 intelligence if you want... but it won't be a good fighter. So, people don't do that unless the DM is running a game that is nearly only roleplaying - and is pretty far from what D&D is about.





Naw.  Like many, you fall into the trap of thinking the game is mainly about the portion they focus on in the rules because it can be more easily quantified.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 4, 2007)

buzz said:
			
		

> Only because we really are better than everyone else. Honest!



A testimonial on the superior qualities of Mac.


----------



## Jim Hague (Jan 4, 2007)

CruelSummerLord said:
			
		

> After reading comments like this in the 1,000 post-plus [Edition WARZ] thread, I think I've hit the crux of my annoyance-the trends that lead to min-maxing of multiclassing, feats and prestige classes, characters with bizarre combinations of templates and abilities with no rhyme or reason, and magic items being increasingly common among players.  That's what drives me crazy-characters seem to be developed for their maximum effectiveness as killing machines, and magic items are less strange and wonderful objects than high-powered additions to the PC arsenal that can be used to blow the heads off the next monster that comes along.




And I say that's a player and GM issue, not a system issue.  I've had Core-only games where players deliberately take sub-optimal choices - like _Profession: Moneylender_ for a contemplative half-orc Monk, or _Knowledge: Royalty_ for a noble but non-Palaidn knight, or Feats that don't give them maximum oomph, or items they found and kept because they were 'neat' but useless in combat - and been perfectly happy, even happier, with characters that weren't min-maxing, twinked-out killing machines.  

It ain't the system, man.  They system provides _maybe_ some encouragement in that direction as the default mode, but you can, utterly without changing a blessed thing, run it otherwise successfully.  You keep making these huge, sweeping statements, and once again I direct you to the Story Hours posted here in ENworld for proof and pudding that it _just ain't so_.


----------



## kaomera (Jan 4, 2007)

I've seen it stated that AD&D & 3.5 levels map pretty closely to one-another, and 3.5 just "goes higher". I'm not sure I completely agree with that. Name level in AD&D was 9th level (or a bit higher), in 3.5 I'd put that closer to 15th. Likewise, a lot of the bigger monsters have been beefed up quite a bit. And on top of that there is no longer the gradual slow-down in level gain as one reaches the top levels. Two consequences of this are that your "plusses" get really big (a negative, for me), the other is that before the PCs "top out" they get access to a lot of high-level abilities (teleport, etc.; this is a positive to my mind).

There is a definite feeling among a lot of players that 3.5 encourages or even demands a specific play-style (or, at least, that a specific play-stlye is the best way to have fun with D&D), and in the end this ends up being close to the same thing as if it specifically did so. If the players want to play min-maxed (or just plain poorly thought-out monstrosities with little RP possibilities, not that I'm bitter...) characters, then it's up to the DM who wants something else to either convince them otherwise or else find new players. And convincing them otherwise is, IMHO, _hard_.

One thing I'm kind of interested in (because I've had it suggested to me, and I can't really be sure, myself): Does anyone here think that 3.5 assumes less willingness to kill PCs than AD&D did?


----------



## MerricB (Jan 4, 2007)

kaomera said:
			
		

> One thing I'm kind of interested in (because I've had it suggested to me, and I can't really be sure, myself): Does anyone here think that 3.5 assumes less willingness to kill PCs than AD&D did?




No.

AD&D 2E had that in it, as it tended much more to narrative play.

3e is brutally deadly, although it's more likely that _raise dead_ will be available. Still, when you hear of Gygax's games, there's a lot of _wishes_ available.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Jan 4, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Naw.  Like many, you fall into the trap of thinking the game is mainly about the portion they focus on in the rules because it can be more easily quantified.




Rubbish.

D&D has a range of play-styles, from heavy role-playing/narrative to strict gaming/dungeon-delving and many axes as well. However, if you play a heavy role-playing game with no rule use, then you're not playing D&D.


----------



## kaomera (Jan 4, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> AD&D 2E had that in it, as it tended much more to narrative play.
> 
> ...



OK, that makes sense, certainly do stupid thing still equals make pretty red spot on walls and/or ceiling for the next group through to find*. But for some reason I'm not seeing nearly as many _purely random_ low-level deaths in 3.5 as was the case in AD&D (like, um, *1* vs. far too many to count...   ). I wonder if that's down to better-equipped (and significantly less, y'know, pre-teen-ish) players, me maturing as a DM over the last 20 years, or the CR system smoothing out the "random batch of trolls vs. 1st level party" thing... (I'm betting it's a bit of each).

*If the dungeon you're in is at all known (ie: you found it to get inside in the first place, and there's no adventurer-stains, that's a good sign there's a gelatinous cube about...   )

EDITED TO ADD: I would have thought that the introduction of critical hits would have made up for the lack of the AD&D wandering monster tables, but so far it has not in my games...


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 4, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> D&D has a range of play-styles, from heavy role-playing/narrative to strict gaming/dungeon-delving and many axes as well. However, if you play a heavy role-playing game with no rule use, then you're not playing D&D.





Heavy roleplaying games require plenty of rule use.  It's just that those rules aren't the primary focus of what you get in the books since 1974. The RPGing part of the game has always been more nebulous and left more in the hands of the DM and players.  IMO, it's the main reason games (and playing styles) vary so widely from group to group.  It's still all D&D, though.


----------



## reutbing0 (Jan 4, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Heavy roleplaying games require plenty of rule use.  It's just that those rules aren't the primary focus of what you get in the books since 1974. The RPGing part of the game has always been more nebulous and left more in the hands of the DM and players.  IMO, it's the main reason games (and playing styles) vary so widely from group to group.  It's still all D&D, though.




But that doesn't really address MerricB's comment. If there's literally no use of any D&D rules, are you playing D&D?


----------



## CruelSummerLord (Jan 4, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> And I say that's a player and GM issue, not a system issue.  I've had Core-only games where players deliberately take sub-optimal choices - like _Profession: Moneylender_ for a contemplative half-orc Monk, or _Knowledge: Royalty_ for a noble but non-Palaidn knight, or Feats that don't give them maximum oomph, or items they found and kept because they were 'neat' but useless in combat - and been perfectly happy, even happier, with characters that weren't min-maxing, twinked-out killing machines.
> 
> It ain't the system, man.  They system provides _maybe_ some encouragement in that direction as the default mode, but you can, utterly without changing a blessed thing, run it otherwise successfully.  You keep making these huge, sweeping statements, and once again I direct you to the Story Hours posted here in ENworld for proof and pudding that it _just ain't so_.




That's what I just said.  It's not the system's fault by itself-the rules might lean in that direction, but WotC is responding to market shifts, sad as those shifts may be.  I wasn't faulting 3E or WotC for doing so.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 4, 2007)

kaomera said:
			
		

> But for some reason I'm not seeing nearly as many _purely random_ low-level deaths in 3.5 as was the case in AD&D (like, um, *1* vs. far too many to count...   ).




Well, just to add a counter-point, I've seen--and, I must admit, personally experienced   --more random deaths in 3E than I did in AD&D.


----------



## Glyfair (Jan 4, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Well, just to add a counter-point, I've seen--and, I must admit, personally experienced   --more random deaths in 3E than I did in AD&D.




I imagine that's group specific.  A lot of the AD&D "accidental deaths" I remember seeing or hearing about where because the DM didn't really have a grip on appropriate challenges.  There were only a few guidelines about that in AD&D, and it wasn't very systematic but more based on DMs intelligence guided by experience.  More experienced DMs saw less of this.

3E has more guidelines to give less experienced DMs a better feel for appropriate encounters (even if it isn't completely accurate, as some want).  However, there are a lot more random areas of the game for that sort of "accidental death."  Off the top of my head, 3E has a critical hit system that AD&D lacked.

In fact, that's another group specific variable.  AD&D had a lot of groups that loved criticals & fumbles.  Having some of the more severe systems definitely would add to the random deaths.  Take the RQ critical system where you could fumble and critical hit yourself to the head and kill yourself just because of poor rolls.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 4, 2007)

reutbing0 said:
			
		

> But that doesn't really address MerricB's comment. If there's literally no use of any D&D rules, are you playing D&D?





There's never really such a situation.  Nearly only roleplaying, as he first states it above, between the players and the DM still requires the DM to be keeping it in perspective internally with rules, surmising possible consequences for actions taken, doling out descriptions of environs and encounters based on the developing (so-called) narratives*, etc. even if the rules are not apparent and/or overtly expressed.  And that's still D&D.  It's just that most of the hard and fast rules are built up around the more finite and more easily quantified D&D experiences, like combat.



*Never cared for the word "narrative" in relation to gaming as it seems to imply something that has already happened rather than something that is currently developing.


----------



## reutbing0 (Jan 4, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> There's never really such a situation.  Nearly only roleplaying, as he first states it above, between the players and the DM still requires the DM to be keeping it in perspective internally with rules, surmising possible consequences for actions taken, doling out descriptions of environs and encounters based on the developing (so-called) narratives*, etc. even if the rules are not apparent and/or overtly expressed.  And that's still D&D.  It's just that most of the hard and fast rules are built up around the more finite and more easily quantified D&D experiences, like combat.




Fair enough, even though I would be inclined to say that such a person is playing a free-form fantasy RPG in the D&D universe rather than playing the D&D Game (tm). But I certainly see your point.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 4, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> For clarity's sake: Lolth, as written, from Q1:
> Snip for brevity.




Heh, I solo'd Queen of the Demonweb pits with a 14th level paladin armed with aforementioned Hammer of Thunderbolts.  Took exactly 1 round to kill Lloth since I was pumping out 50 points of damage per hit and with a +5 weapon, +6 strength bonus and a THACO of what 7?  I pretty much couldn't miss.

That's how powerful high level characters could get in 1e when you played nothing but modules.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 4, 2007)

kaomera said:
			
		

> OK, that makes sense, certainly do stupid thing still equals make pretty red spot on walls and/or ceiling for the next group through to find*. But for some reason I'm not seeing nearly as many _purely random_ low-level deaths in 3.5 as was the case in AD&D (like, um, *1* vs. far too many to count...   ). I wonder if that's down to better-equipped (and significantly less, y'know, pre-teen-ish) players, me maturing as a DM over the last 20 years, or the CR system smoothing out the "random batch of trolls vs. 1st level party" thing... (I'm betting it's a bit of each).
> 
> *If the dungeon you're in is at all known (ie: you found it to get inside in the first place, and there's no adventurer-stains, that's a good sign there's a gelatinous cube about...   )
> 
> EDITED TO ADD: I would have thought that the introduction of critical hits would have made up for the lack of the AD&D wandering monster tables, but so far it has not in my games...




In my current World's Largest Dungeon game, we've just finished our 69th session and I've whacked 21 PC's.  14 permanently.  I've never seen this much carnage in earlier editions for one simple fact - 3e creatures do FAR more damage in a round than earlier edition creatures do.  Most creatures of a given CR can kill most PC's in a single round of full attacks with a bit of luck.  And, considering I only have to get lucky once, while the players have to get lucky in every fight, well, the odds definitely favour the house.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 4, 2007)

buzz said:
			
		

> It's when I see people who talk wistfully of "sense of wonder" or other Sim- and Nar-drifted experiences that I see dissatisfaction. What I don't get is why these people don't just give all the cool RPGs that aren't D&D, and that fit their needs to a "T", a shot.





That's simple, for me anyway.

I am not yet done re-writing all of the rules to make a ruleset that fits my needs to a "T".    


RC


----------



## WayneLigon (Jan 4, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> 3e, no matter what you do to it, still feels like WotC's game...much as modified Monopoly still feels like Parker Bros.' game...there's much less of that sense of personal investment.  And that's a key difference between the editions.




I look at 3E as more like 'my' game than any previous edition because it's the first edition I have not had to use extensive house rules or third party add-ons to make it playable, useful, and enjoyable. This is the edition that brought every gamer I know back to D&D because beforehand we could stomach it for a little while but eventually _had _ to play something else for a while to get the taste out of our mouths.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 4, 2007)

reutbing0 said:
			
		

> Fair enough, even though I would be inclined to say that such a person is playing a free-form fantasy RPG in the D&D universe rather than playing the D&D Game (tm). But I certainly see your point.





I would be inclined to agree if the group didn't normally play D&D and the DM wasn't base his decisions and adjudicating situations based on of D&D rules.

However, in the circumstance I'm discussing, it is a D&D group who regularly plays D&D but simply has a period of time in which its mostly, maybe even all, roleplaying so that the dice don't get used and no rules need be discussed.  It's perfectly reasonable, for instance, for a DM to decide that a series of actions can be taken and that if they are done in a careful manner he will allow the most likely result, often the most favorable result, to be the consequence.  The players might even be in a position to describe their actions in such a way as to make the results of those actions a foregone conclusion.  It might even be that events are transpiring that make results the players are not intending to be a foregone conclusion.

For instance, the PCs might be of such power or renown in a region that when they describe traveling from one community to another, you know that they can do so unaccosted, and so you simply give a description of that travel without any dice rolling or discussion or rules.  Or, perhaps, you simply don't want the focus of the game at that time to be on potential wandering encounters between the towns.  This is an example that happens time after time in D&D games.  Obviously, in that light, I am sure any DM could think of many more such situations.

I realize you were agreeing to some extent but I thought I would take a moment to make my point a bit more clear.


----------



## reutbing0 (Jan 4, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I would be inclined to agree if the group didn't normally play D&D and the DM wasn't base his decisions and adjudicating situations based on of D&D rules.
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> I realize you were agreeing to some extent but I thought I would take a moment to make my point a bit more clear.




Agreed, that's a case where the inner logic and inner workings of D&D are internalized to such an extent that the rules do not need to be made explicit as the DM is perfectly capable of adjudicating the game without resorting to a written rule.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 4, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I look at 3E as more like 'my' game than any previous edition because it's the first edition I have not had to use extensive house rules or third party add-ons to make it playable, useful, and enjoyable. This is the edition that brought every gamer I know back to D&D because beforehand we could stomach it for a little while but eventually _had _ to play something else for a while to get the taste out of our mouths.



Pardon me for saying this, but that means you and your players really don't like D&D. You like d20 (Fantasy).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 4, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Pardon me for saying this, but that means you and your players really don't like D&D. You like d20 (Fantasy).




Actually, when you look at the people who support 3e the strongest, there is a tendency among them to also be the people who claim that they disliked 1e and 2e the most.  I would assume that, for those who actually "like D&D" and "the core D&D experience", the only difference between editions would be how they view the mechanics.  

This doesn't seem to be the case among the most vocal IME and IMHO, although there are a large number of EN Worlders who seem to like various editions for their differing strengths.  My own homebrewing is an attempt to use what I view as the strengths of each edition together, rather than letting a single edition heavily influence playstyle.

To each his own pudding, though.


RC


----------



## Umbran (Jan 4, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Pardon me for saying this, but that means you and your players really don't like D&D. You like d20 (Fantasy).




While I'm all for making semantics clear, there's also something to be said for not trying to tell people what they do and don't like.  Please refrain from doing so in the future.  Thank you.


----------



## molonel (Jan 4, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Actually, when you look at the people who support 3e the strongest, there is a tendency among them to also be the people who claim that they disliked 1e and 2e the most.




I loved First Edition AD&D. It was the first roleplaying game I ever played. I loved the game, I loved the books, I loved the artwork and I still get little geekgasms when I see a 1st Edition Player's Handbook.

2nd Edition killed the game for me.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 4, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Actually, when you look at the people who support 3e the strongest, there is a tendency among them to also be the people who claim that they disliked 1e and 2e the most.  I would assume that, for those who actually "like D&D" and "the core D&D experience", the only difference between editions would be how they view the mechanics.




I loved 1E.

Unlike a lot of people, I loved 2E. I thought it had its flaws, but my enjoyment of D&D as a game never once wavered throughout the entirety of the 2E lifespan. (That said, I avoided the various Players Options books, so who knows if my experience would have changed?)

I love 3E. I think, in most ways, it's a mechanical improvement over all prior editions. Are there a few details of the older games I'd prefer they have kept? Sure. I don't know a single player who can't find _something_ they preferred about an older edition.

But my love and support of 3E certainly doesn't stem from a dislike of any prior version.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 4, 2007)

I loved 1e, too.  I admit, though, that I thought 2e was pretty durn shiny when it came out.  I liked the expansion of specialist wizards.  I liked speciatly priests.  I enjoyed using the Kits mechanic to differentiate cultural groups and racial types.  2e had a lot going for it.....but, ultimately, it was 2e that almost got me to quit playing the game as well.  In my 3e houserules, I'm doing a lot of throwbacks to 1e.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 4, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> But my love and support of 3E certainly doesn't stem from a dislike of any prior version.





I didn't mean to suggest that I was speaking of any identifiable individual.  Certainly, I wouldn't claim that you are a strident "3e is the one true game" kind of person!    

And, I agree with you about the mechanics.  In terms of the base mechanics, and in terms of a lot of the specific mechanics (though not all, IMHO), 3e is an improvement over prior editions.


RC


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 4, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I loved 1e, too.  I admit, though, that I thought 2e was pretty durn shiny when it came out.  I liked the expansion of specialist wizards.  I liked speciatly priests.  I enjoyed using the Kits mechanic to differentiate cultural groups and racial types.  2e had a lot going for it.....but, ultimately, it was 2e that almost got me to quit playing the game as well.  In my 3e houserules, I'm doing a lot of throwbacks to 1e.
> 
> RC





Well good lord man, don't leave me in suspense!  Start another thread and hit us with some!


----------



## billd91 (Jan 4, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I loved 1E.
> 
> Unlike a lot of people, I loved 2E. I thought it had its flaws, but my enjoyment of D&D as a game never once wavered throughout the entirety of the 2E lifespan. (That said, I avoided the various Players Options books, so who knows if my experience would have changed?)
> 
> ...




I enjoyed 2e too though it's also the edition I probably house-ruled the most because of things I considered problematic. And I liked kits as well as a way of differentiating different fighters from each other and so on (though I agree that too many kits were poorly designed). I looked into the Players Options books and never used much from them.

I adapted to 3E with some doubt but was won over by the mechanics, the choices, and the way the game plays. Does it still need work? Sure. But I find that the 1e game I'm still playing in doesn't have the same appeal to me now that I've tasted a better game system that still produces the kind of action and adventure that I favor.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 4, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> Well good lord man, don't leave me in suspense!  Start another thread and hit us with some!





Actually, there are several earlier threads where I updated material I had written for my 1e or 2e houserules and/or campaign flavour documents.  I returned the electrum piece to my world's currency.  I restored equipment options from 1e and 2e.  I restored some of the descriptive text, and I restored Gary's _*advice to players*_ from the 1e PHB (absolutely a must).

If you want more, email me.

RC


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 4, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Actually, there are several earlier threads where I updated material I had written for my 1e or 2e houserules and/or campaign flavour documents.  I returned the electrum piece to my world's currency.  I restored equipment options from 1e and 2e.  I restored some of the descriptive text, and I restored Gary's _*advice to players*_ from the 1e PHB (absolutely a must).
> 
> If you want more, email me.
> 
> RC





I do, and done!


----------



## Rothe (Jan 5, 2007)

To continue the gaming love. 

I loved OD&D, I loved 1e AD&D when it came out, I completely missed 2e, and don't know enough about 3.xe to form a strong view one way or the other.  But I also loved CT, CoC and TFT.

What I don't love is D&D centricism, or even worse, edition centricism that leads to "the way it was meant to be" thinking. 

But to the OP, I haven't played 3.xe but remember the different mechanics when we went from OD&D to 1e did influence tactics but not style of play, even though character progression and combat were fairly different in the advantages and restrictions.  The same could be said when we went from OD&D to CT to TFT and back again.  The rules that worked for our style of play got the most use, those that did not were not used, simple as that.


----------



## 00Machado (Jan 5, 2007)

I don't think the game dictates a certain style of play, but the RAW reward a certain style. Breaking out of that mold is easy if the people at the table have an agreed upon idea of what they want to get out of the game, campaign, etc. It can usually be a few minor and consistent changes that make it work for everyone. For example, you might give out more skill points for a skill heavy game, then give more XP for successful and appropriate skill use than for fighting, and so on.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 5, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Pardon me for saying this, but that means you and your players really don't like D&D. You like d20 (Fantasy).




I know this one raised Mod hackles, and I don't mean to pour any fuel on the fire, but, I'm honestly curious what is meant by this.

D&D is a fairly generic gaming system for playing heroic fantasy.  To me, the only difference between D&D and d20 Fantasy is the inclusion of certain creatures and names.  Since I've never really cared for published settings, the names and creatures mean nothing to me and never have.  Mordenkainen was just a name in a book that I vaguely knew was a character played by the game's creators.  His role within Greyhawk was of no interest to me as I never had any interest in the setting.

Does that mean that for the past twenty years or so, I haven't been playing D&D?  That only those who tie their games into particular settings, namely Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms are truly playing D&D?

Or are you saying that D&D in it's current edition is somehow not D&D.  That by prefering 3e, and strongly disliking earlier editions, somehow means that it's not D&D?

I have to admit, I play 3e, not because I dislike 1e or 2e or even Basic/Expert D&D, but because I feel that it is a better game for me.  It does what I want it to when I want it to do it.  It also helps that there are a large number of gamers who feel the same as I do, meaning I can always find players.  That doesn't make earlier editions bad.  Not at all.  I certainly hope I didn't spend all those years playing a game I didn't like.  However, I do view 3e as an improvement.  Just as I viewed 2e in the same light.  And AD&D as well over Basic/Expert D&D.  Purely for myself, I view each iteration of the game that I've played as a step forward, with each new generation correcting the problems I had with the previous generation.  And, likely, the next generation of D&D will correct issues I have with 3e.


----------



## Sound of Azure (Jan 5, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> And, likely, the next generation of D&D will correct issues I have with 3e.




I think that's something we all want.  If D&D become something I don't like, I'll just play around with d20 for longer, or go play something else. It's pretty simple.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 5, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> D&D is a fairly generic gaming system for playing heroic fantasy.




Unless one suggests that the D&D rules should be able to model classical fantasy novels, in which case D&D is its own genre.

D&D = The Game with Multiple Personality Disorder!


----------



## MerricB (Jan 5, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Unless one suggests that the D&D rules should be able to model classical fantasy novels, in which case D&D is its own genre.
> 
> D&D = The Game with Multiple Personality Disorder!




LOL! Yeah, too true.

I tend to feel that D&D is its own genre, but that 3e D&D has the ability to model more types of world than 1e did. Hmm. That's not quite right - you can do a lot with 1e - but I think the level of tinkering needed is different.

Although I enjoy all editions of D&D, I can definitely say that most of my _players_ prefer 3e greatly. (And given I don't have the problems some people have running 3e, there's no hassle there).

Cheers!


----------



## el-remmen (Jan 5, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Rubbish.
> 
> D&D has a range of play-styles, from heavy role-playing/narrative to strict gaming/dungeon-delving and many axes as well. However, if you play a heavy role-playing game with no rule use, then you're not playing D&D.




Yeah, I TOTALLY disagree with this.

As far as I am concerned, unless you are playing some wholly different rule set - it is ALL D&D - we all play D&D, from the strict by the rules type to people with monstrous numbers of house rules that just use some stuff from D&D rulebooks as its basis.

To me D&D is not a brand, D&D is an idea that is implemented in as many different ways as there are gaming groups.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 5, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Unless one suggests that the D&D rules should be able to model classical fantasy novels, in which case D&D is its own genre.
> 
> D&D = The Game with Multiple Personality Disorder!




I did say fairly.  

Really though, D&D has never been about novel simulation.  It's been a very poor fit in any edition.  D&D does heroic fantasy - which is a genre that covers pretty much anything from Conan to Middle Earth (Conan being Sword and Sorcery fantasy which is a sub-genre of Heroic Fantasy as Leiber defined it).  Can it simulate a specific novel?  Not particularly well since novels don't fit into games very well.  Can it simulate the genre?  I'd say fairly well.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 5, 2007)

I don't know.  There are so many assumptions built into 3.x that I feel it only really does a good job of modeling D&D.  If you want to model Conan style S&S you have to make a lot of changes, or buy OGL Conan. If you want to model ME style fantasy you have to make a lot of changes.  Now if you want to model FR style fantasy with a vast abundance of magic, or Eberron, or Greyhawk, then you are fine as is.  D&D does D&D style fantasy very well, other types not so well without modification.  This isn't unique to 3e by any means though.


----------



## el-remmen (Jan 5, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> D&D does D&D style fantasy very well, other types not so well without modification.




Yeah, but modification has been part of the D&D experience since Day 1.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2007)

I honestly feel that the 3.xE of DnD encourages and rewards players for rules lawyering, power gaming, min/maxing, and munchkinism in general. It gives players a sense of entitlement to knowledge outside the scope of thier PC and encourages metagaming.

All that being said I still play and DM it, as I have every other edition when it was released but I have never felt more in tune, or in the zone if you will as I did when DMing 1E ADnD.

With 3.xE I spend more time as a DM pouring though books during play time double checking rules etc. then I ever did in all the previous editions combined. In ADnD I had mastered the rules in 3.xE I am enslaved by them.


----------



## Psion (Jan 5, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I don't know.  There are so many assumptions built into 3.x that I feel it only really does a good job of modeling D&D.




Just what does this mean, though? Despite this, I have experienced a lot of different styles under D&D with relatively minimal changes. Political intrigue, shady criminals, Arthur-esque knights, classic dungeon crawl, classic quest fantasy, martial arts mayhem, struggles for suvival in desolate wastelands, etc. The most that most of these require is the selection of options.

You add the variants in UA into the mix (an official D&D book, I'll remind you), the doors get blown wide open.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jan 5, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Pardon me for saying this, but that means you and your players really don't like D&D. You like d20 (Fantasy).




They are the same thing. The exact and same thing. Even if I'm playing Arcana Unearthed/Evolved or Iron Heroes or Midnight, I'm really playing D&D.

Previously, we liked D&D but we could take it only for so long before we _had _ to play something else, something that didn't have the silly inconsistant restrictions meant to 'balance' the game. The vast majority of our problems with D&D disappeared with 3E and it's very rare that we play anything other than a d20 game these days. If we do, it's truly to take a break and just try something else out for a time. But for the last six years we've come back to D&D. 

Classes are something we could probably live without, but we like the convenience they provide. It's simply easier, and since we normally use unlimited multiclassing it's easier to cerate a character I like than it ever has been before. 

We could lose the quasi-Vancian magic system, but I look for that to go away in an edition or two. We can wait, since it's _still _ not a deal-breaker, that tipping point beyond which we go 'we'll just play something else'. If it were up to me, D&D would have something like the Arcana system in Blue Rose/True20, or a variant of what's in True Sorcery. It makes magic much, much more like what you see in _everything else _ under the sun _but _ D&D.

See, when everything else does things differently than D&D, that means it's time for _D&D_ to change. And it has, (too) gradually over the years. And it will continue to change and grow more apart from the OD&D/1E roots, as it has to, as all things must.

But next phase, new wave, 4E, anyways, it's still D&D to me.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 5, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I don't know.  There are so many assumptions built into 3.x that I feel it only really does a good job of modeling D&D.  If you want to model Conan style S&S you have to make a lot of changes, or buy OGL Conan. If you want to model ME style fantasy you have to make a lot of changes.  Now if you want to model FR style fantasy with a vast abundance of magic, or Eberron, or Greyhawk, then you are fine as is.  D&D does D&D style fantasy very well, other types not so well without modification.  This isn't unique to 3e by any means though.




I'm in the not convinced camp as well.

Which assumptions do you mean?  The wealth/level ones?  That's a simple baseline, and, really, pretty easy to get around in the single digit levels.  You can strip out all the wealth from a party, simply bump the point buy to about 45 (which models Conan heroes pretty well) and you have a Conan setting so long as you set the level limits to about 11th.  Use mostly human and humanoid enemies, with the odd aberation and dire animal tossed in, and that's pretty darn close.

Might have to nix a few of the classes, but, that's more a setting thing than rules anyway.  Paladin's wouldn't fit in Conan too well, not because of power or balance issues, but because paly's don't fit.  

Middle Earth?  Meh, not too hard at all.  Good grief, the Fellowship is literally dripping with magic halfway through the first book.  Granted, Gandalf would have to be NPC'd, cos, well, if I had a high double digits level wizard in Moria, there'd be a stack of dead goblins before I retreated.  

As I said, trying to emulate specific novels is pretty difficult.  Not because of the mechanics so much as the fact that players are FAR more pragmatic than any novel writer.  Heck, players would have handed the Ring to Tom Bombadil and then went off to check out something else.  Novel emulation isn't a game problem, it's a player one.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 5, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> AD&D seemed designed to recreate the worlds of classic fantasy fiction.




This is entirely inaccurate.

Use the 1e AD&D rules to create for me an accurate portrayal of characters from classic fantasy fiction. Try making the Gray Mouser. Or Fafhrd. Or Gandalf. Or any of about a hundred other characters. Look at the 1e _Deities and Demigods_. Look at the number of heroic fictional characters statted up in that book. Look at how many actually follow the 1e AD&D rules.

Look at the AD&D monster list. How many match up to the creatures of classic fantasy fiction. Look at the mountains of treasure and magic goodies handed out like lollipops at your local bank branch in 1e AD&D modules. Look at Gygax's descriptions of the D&D campaigns that gave genesis to the design of 1e AD&D - look at how they included laser guns, trips to the moon and mars, dragons being hauled around in wagons for use as siege engines, and other over the top silliness.



> _3.X Edition seems designed to recreate the worlds of computer gaming. The first was intended for a literate audience (although it didn't always work out that way in practice, of course). The designers of 3.X edition seem to have realized that few people read classic fantasy anymore, so they changed the basic assumptions of the game accordingly._




The 3e rule set allows me as a player and as a DM to emulate the works of classic fantasy much better than any previous edition ever did. The rule set is flexible enough, and customizable enough that I can do just about anything with it, and have it work. This was decidedly not the case for earlier editions of the game.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 5, 2007)

> 3.X Edition seems designed to recreate the worlds of computer gaming. The first was intended for a literate audience (although it didn't always work out that way in practice, of course). The designers of 3.X edition seem to have realized that few people read classic fantasy anymore, so they changed the basic assumptions of the game accordingly.




I missed that little gem.  Let me point out a couple of things.  First off, "Classic Fantasy" doesn't exist.  Fantasy as a genre distinct from Science Fiction only came in the 80's.  When AD&D was released, most of the books on the biblio list in the DMG had been out of print for more than a few years.  By the beginning of the 80's, it was virtually impossible to find authors like Vance and Leiber on bookshelves.  Never mind that there has been more genre novels written in the past fifteen years than in the past century.  That 3e is perhaps not drawing on Tolkein or Leiber is simply a reflection of the fact that the genre has expanded exponentially in the past couple of decades.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 5, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Middle Earth?  Meh, not too hard at all.  Good grief, the Fellowship is literally dripping with magic halfway through the first book.





What?  Sam and Frodo had...luggage.  And Sam's cooking gear.

Unless you meant halfway through _The Fellowship of the Ring_...which would be the dividing point between *BOOK I* and *BOOK II*, and at that point you could make the case for Sam, Merry and Pippin having *short sword +1 versus undead (each)*, Frodo was wearing mithril chain, and carrying Sting (a *short sword +1* or maybe *+2*).  Gandalf had Glamdring, a *+3* or *+4* weapon.  Other than Frodo, only half the party had one "magic item" each.  Considering that the hobbits' blades were only proof versus the undead king, I'm not even sure I'd count those.  Hardly "dripping with magic".

After they leave Lorien...well, that's another story.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 5, 2007)

Someone actually made a list of the magic items that the Fellowship is carting around by the end of the books.  It's lengthy to say the least.  But, yes, I did mispeak on the timing.  My bad.  Then again, at the point you mention, in D&D terms, we're looking at 1st, maybe second level characters, all with magic weapons.  And Frodo's carting around a 4th or 5th level character's wealth by 3e standards, not even counting the Ring.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 5, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Someone actually made a list of the magic items that the Fellowship is carting around by the end of the books.  It's lengthy to say the least.  But, yes, I did mispeak on the timing.  My bad.  Then again, at the point you mention, in D&D terms, we're looking at 1st, maybe second level characters, all with magic weapons.  And Frodo's carting around a 4th or 5th level character's wealth by 3e standards, not even counting the Ring.





But - and while I don't disagree - that's balanced on the other end by the fighter types having _no_ magic items at all, ever, for the duration of the books.  Unless you count Anduril/Narsil, which while being a keen blade wasn't really given any "magic" properties.  I guess we could be generous and call it a *longsword +1* or *+2*.  

Hmm...just for S&G let me see if I can do a scratch list here for Frodo (note I am not listing the  *One Ring*):

*Sting* (a *shortsword of enemy detection +1* or *+2* as you like )
*The Phial of Galadriel*, a glass of *Continual Light* (when held, unlim. charges)
An *Elven Cloak*
Elfin Chain (in pure *AD&D* terms, not magical, just very light to the point of not being an armor burden)

Hmm...the waybread wasn't magic, the broach on his cloak wasn't magic...what else was there?  It's been about a year since I last read the books but I honestly don't recall what else he had.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I honestly feel that *every version* of DnD *as played by certain players* encourages and rewards players for rules lawyering, power gaming, min/maxing, and munchkinism in general. It gives players a sense of entitlement to knowledge outside the scope of thier PC and encourages metagaming.




I made some revisions to your statement to make it more accurate. If you don't think 1e/2e had more than its fair share of rules lawyering, power gaming, min/maxing, munchkining players with a sense of entitlement to knowledge outside the scope of their PC and a healthy streak of metagaming, then I would say that it is likely that you (a) didn't play a lot of 1e/2e, (2) are looking back at your 1e/2e play experienced with rose colored glasses, or (3) were very, very lucky.

The 1e/2e player base was rife with all of these faults. Heck, "metagaming" and "acting on player knowledge not character knowledge" weren't even considered to be bad form for much of the early 1e era. Gygax has portions of the 1e DMG devoted to dealing with players trying to invent gunpowder and other modern conveniences based upon their real world knowledge - he doesn't say it is bad form for them to do so, just that the DM should place obstacles in their way to prevent their being successful.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 5, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> Hmm...just for S&G let me see if I can do a scratch list here for Frodo (note I am not listing the  *One Ring* - he never used it, although Sam did):





I believe you are misremembering. Frodo uses the One Ring on no fewer than four occassions - once in the Shire, once in the Prancing Pony, once on Weathertop, and once to escape Boromir.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 5, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I believe you are misremembering. Frodo uses the One Ring on no fewer than four occassions - once in the Shire, once in the Prancing Pony, once on Weathertop, and once to escape Boromir.





D'oh! Thank you.  I knew that didn't sound right.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 5, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Just what does this mean, though? Despite this, I have experienced a lot of different styles under D&D with relatively minimal changes. Political intrigue, shady criminals, Arthur-esque knights, classic dungeon crawl, classic quest fantasy, martial arts mayhem, struggles for suvival in desolate wastelands, etc. The most that most of these require is the selection of options.
> 
> You add the variants in UA into the mix (an official D&D book, I'll remind you), the doors get blown wide open.




I just mean you can't really play a Conan style game under standard 3e assumptions.  Conan didn't have 69 magic items, and the magic system is totally fire and forget with no real side effects.  ME is similar in those regards.  Conan or Iron Heroes seem to be better fits for such gaming.  Of course you can do those with some tinkering.  Sure you can run political intrique with all the D&D assumptions.  The game styles you mention don't really affect the base assumptions of D&D worlds, characters dripping with magic items, spell casters left and right, and basically fantasy superheroes.  Core D&D isn't like putting a GURPS Fantasy setting together where there aren't as many stylistic assumptions in place.  I guess my view is that D&D is NOT a toolkit for generic fantasy gaming.  Nothing wrong with that, it does what it does well.


----------



## buzz (Jan 5, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> D&D is a fairly generic gaming system for playing heroic fantasy.





			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> I tend to feel that D&D is its own genre...



I agree with Merric here. IMO, D&D is "generic" only in the sense that it defined a specific genre that is, in some ways, the baseline for most typical RPGs. D&D has a host of assumptions built into (classes, races, magic, mode of play, morality, etc) it that prevent it from really being considered "generic" IMO.



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> ...but that 3e D&D has the ability to model more types of world than 1e did. Hmm. That's not quite right - you can do a lot with 1e - but I think the level of tinkering needed is different.



I agree with this 100%.



			
				el-remmen said:
			
		

> To me D&D is not a brand, D&D is an idea that is implemented in as many different ways as there are gaming groups.



This is interesting.

I once asked the people in my Saturday group why it was they were so insistent on playing D&D. I thought their stated play-style preferences were poorly supported by the system. E.g., "I'm not really into combat."

Their answers were almost uniformly: a) nostalgia, i.e., "D&D was the first RPG I ever played"; and b) color, i.e., "I love the trappings of D&D," e.g., beholders, mind flayers, paladins, dungeons, specific setting elements, etc. Not a single answer, IMO, really pointed at all to caring about the mechanics, nor that the mechanics helped make their preferred gaming experience happen. (Which they don't, and that's been consistent in every session I've played with them.)

So, really, el-remmen's point above gives us a clue as to why threads like these are so problematic, and I think "brand' is actually the best terminology for our use here. To whit:

*To many people, "D&D" has absolutely nothing to do with the system.* D&D is a brand with certain expectations, yet even these expectations vary from person to person. At the core however, is a system focused on killing things and taking their stuff. *Every edition of D&D* has been focused on this mode of play in terms of mechanics. 

However, every edition has also made nods to world-building and simulation, 2e probably most of all. There are also some inklings of "storytelling" and narrative concerns; again, 2e was the probably most overt. These have acted as springboards (especially in early editions) for people to drift from the core model of play into areas less supported by the actual mechanics. Ergo, we see reiteration of Ron Edward's point about the various "D&Ds" created by individual play groups.

So... I think there are two phenomena that contribute to the current state of edition wars:

1. Whether edition X matches up with your individual "D&D"
2. That 3e is vastly superior to most previous editions in this regard: it's, for the most part, not trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

(I'm sure I''ll get flak for #2, but I think it's true.)

I.e., 1e was a "fighty miniatures game," but then Gary added in all this stuff about setting verisimilitude. 2e was also a "fighty miniatures game," but many books tacked on a lot of (IMO) BS about "storytelling" and equivocating combat with "bad roleplaying," not to mention the horde of settings published for 2e (again, the world-building angle).

3e, however, is a "fighty miniatures game," AND IT MAKES ALMOST NO BONES ABOUT THAT FACT. Granted, there are still some nods to both the verisimilitude aspect of 1e and the "story" aspects of 2e, but, for the most part, WotC is focused on supporting the core D&D experience of combat, monsters, and treasure. IMO, this is simply good design, and it's one of the reasons I like 3e so much.

Not that 3e can't be drifted _like any other edition_, of course. Nonetheless, I think 3e's forthrightness about what it is and what it does is probably very off-putting to people whose heavily-drifted games are what they consider "real D&D." (That, and people who may simply prefer the fighty miniatures rules of edition X.)


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 5, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm in the not convinced camp as well.
> 
> Which assumptions do you mean?  The wealth/level ones?  That's a simple baseline, and, really, pretty easy to get around in the single digit levels.  You can strip out all the wealth from a party, simply bump the point buy to about 45 (which models Conan heroes pretty well) and you have a Conan setting so long as you set the level limits to about 11th.  Use mostly human and humanoid enemies, with the odd aberation and dire animal tossed in, and that's pretty darn close.
> 
> ...




Dripping?  Compare what Aragorn was packing compared to the gear a mid teens level D&D ranger would pack according to the suggested wealth tables.  He would have magic armor, magic shield, magic rings, magic amulets, a couple magic weapons, etc. And he wasn't a regular hero, he was very special.  Was Boromir packing a load of magical items, or Gimli?  Frodo had somes stuff that other characters gave him no doubt. High level in middle earth was still guys riding horses fighting with swords and stuff.  Of course Gandalf was like having a Planetar in the group.  In D&D it's teleporting, flying, super strength, super dex, etc.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 5, 2007)

Aragorn has an artifact level sword for one.  However, I have no interest in this discussion.  Mostly because I fairly strongly dislike Tolkein in general and find discussions of The LOTR to be extremely boring.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 5, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Aragorn has an artifact level sword for one.  However, I have no interest in this discussion.  Mostly because I fairly strongly dislike Tolkein in general and find discussions of The LOTR to be extremely boring.




Artifact level sword?  What does it do?  How many primary powers and secondary powers did it have?


----------



## Umbran (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I honestly feel that the 3.xE of DnD encourages and rewards players for rules lawyering, power gaming, min/maxing, and munchkinism in general. It gives players a sense of entitlement to knowledge outside the scope of thier PC and encourages metagaming.




When you find a decent game for which this cannot be said, then maybe I'll find it a valid criticism. Because sure as heck there were power-gaming, min/maxing, munchkins apleanty playing earlier editions!  And playing WW's Storyteller!  And playing various superhero games!  And... playing everything!  Monopoly!  Poker!  Parcheesi!  

Games, by their nature, have rules.  Any time you have rules, you will have people who try to run the ragged edge of those rules for their benefit.   That's one way to have fun with a game.  There really is nothing new here.  If it isnt' new, it is unlikely to be the fault of the new edition.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 5, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> But - and while I don't disagree - that's balanced on the other end by the fighter types having _no_ magic items at all, ever, for the duration of the books.  Unless you count Anduril/Narsil, which while being a keen blade wasn't really given any "magic" properties.  I guess we could be generous and call it a *longsword +1* or *+2*.
> 
> Hmm...just for S&G let me see if I can do a scratch list here for Frodo (note I am not listing the  *One Ring*):
> 
> ...




I don't think it's necessarily true to say that the fighter types had no magic items and that Anduril would only have been a low + weapon. We ultimately don't know anything about most of the gear the characters carried because there's no specific reference to anything significant either way. We know the daggers given the hobbits were significant but there's no reason to think Boromir's weapons weren't equally significant, Minas Tirith being the seat of the heirs of Westernesse and Boromir being the steward's heir. He probably had some significantly good gear, just not important to the story (aside from the horn) to merit mention.
One other thing to remember is that magic in ME is generally subtle and in the few cases where it is not, it's dangerous because it reveals who and where you are. Everyone had the elven cloaks out of Lorien but their effect is relatively subtle, same with Sam's rope. There's no overt magic to them, but they clearly are best modeled as magic items in D&D.

Ultimately JRRT wasn't interested in detailing magical powers of equipment so I don't think we can really say that it's best to model the characters as being devoid of magic in D&D terms. Particularly not considering how significant and experienced some of the characters are.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 5, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Artifact level sword?  What does it do?  How many primary powers and secondary powers did it have?




We don't know because JRRT never described them. Yet the blade was well known and managed to cut the finger off a demigod as well as survived 3000 odd years of wear and tear even while broken up. Surely it had some notable mojo.

Whatever powers it has should probably be subtle though. That fits in with the milieu better than flashy magic like with many D&D magic items. Some good pluses, make it keen, maybe increase some of the wielder's stats (particularly Charisma). Stuff like that.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 5, 2007)

buzz said:
			
		

> I.e., 1e was a "fighty miniatures game," but then Gary added in all this stuff about setting verisimilitude. 2e was also a "fighty miniatures game," but many books tacked on a lot of (IMO) BS about "storytelling" and equivocating combat with "bad roleplaying," not to mention the horde of settings published for 2e (again, the world-building angle).
> 
> 3e, however, is a "fighty miniatures game," AND IT MAKES ALMOST NO BONES ABOUT THAT FACT.




I'd agree that editions 1-3 are fighty, but I'd strongly disagree with the idea that editions 1&2 are miniatures games.


RC


----------



## buzz (Jan 5, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I'd agree that editions 1-3 are fighty, but I'd strongly disagree with the idea that editions 1&2 are miniatures games.



For the sake of not opening up that can of worms again, I'm using "fighty miniatures game" to simply mean predominantly focused on combat and tactical challenges. As opposed to, say, RPGs that provide mechanics for losing your humanity or how much you love your spouse. That's all.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 5, 2007)

buzz said:
			
		

> For the sake of not opening up that can of worms again, I'm using "fighty miniatures game" to simply mean predominantly focused on combat and tactical challenges. As opposed to, say, RPGs that provide mechanics for losing your humanity or how much you love your spouse. That's all.




Then, perhaps, "combat-focused" would be more accurate.

RC


----------



## Psion (Jan 5, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I just mean you can't really play a Conan style game under standard 3e assumptions.




Maybe (though I'll renew my protestation that it doesn't take that much to get it there, though I'd agree you'd be swimming upstream less using Grim Tales or Iron Heroes or even, er, Conan.)

But my principal point is that "D&D" while, as written it only represents a subset of fantasy styles, can fairly do a LARGE number of them, so this isn't as damning as I think you want the statement to be.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 5, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I'd agree that editions 1-3 are fighty, but I'd strongly disagree with the idea that editions 1&2 are miniatures games.




Well, given that in 1e movement and ranges are given in inches (for example), I think there is a good basis for calling that edition an overgrown miniatures game. Sure, you could play it without miniatures, but that is true of all editions of D&D.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 5, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Well, given that in 1e movement and ranges are given in inches (for example), I think there is a good basis for calling that edition an overgrown miniatures game. Sure, you could play it without miniatures, but that is true of all editions of D&D.





1e states specifically that miniatures might help, but are not needed.  I seldom used minis with 1e, and it was far easier to run combats under that system without minis than 3e.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Games, by their nature, have rules.  Any time you have rules, you will have people who try to run the ragged edge of those rules for their benefit.   That's one way to have fun with a game.  There really is nothing new here.  If it isnt' new, it is unlikely to be the fault of the new edition.




Although it is tempting to to go on and on citing examples of how and why this edition of the game rewards and encourages this sort of behavior I will instead refer you to the "Character Optimization Board" on the WoTC DnD Website to make the case for me.

Every time I see someone post about how they want to make a fighter/rogue/barbarian/ranger/assasin/invisible blade/shadowdancer I have to swallow the bile rising in my throat.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 5, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> We don't know because JRRT never described them. Yet the blade was well known and managed to cut the finger off a demigod as well as survived 3000 odd years of wear and tear even while broken up. Surely it had some notable mojo.




I think it was just a +1 Keen Longsword that was wielded by the King.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 5, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Maybe (though I'll renew my protestation that it doesn't take that much to get it there, though I'd agree you'd be swimming upstream less using Grim Tales or Iron Heroes or even, er, Conan.)
> 
> But my principal point is that "D&D" while, as written it only represents a subset of fantasy styles, can fairly do a LARGE number of them, so this isn't as damning as I think you want the statement to be.




I don't want anything to be damning.  AD&D, Or C&C for that matter have the same "limitations" in them.   I've been playing D&D, and D&D variants, for 20+ years.  I enjoy the D&Disms in all versions*, 3e went overboard in some areas but overall it is still a solid system for gaming. 


*well save for 2e...


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 5, 2007)

buzz said:
			
		

> *To many people, "D&D" has absolutely nothing to do with the system.* D&D is a brand with certain expectations, yet even these expectations vary from person to person.





For me, that expecation is to have the largest possible pool of players that play the same game.  With each new edition, this hits a peak that drops off steadily as the modifications, supplements, and enhancements used fragment what type of game D&D is in their mind at any given time.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2007)

I am not saying it dictates this style of play but I do believe that it is encouraged and rewarded.

Ps. I am also one of those people who were outraged that Rangers suddenly all go the ability to dual weild based off the exploits of a stupid drow ranger.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Every time I see someone post about how they want to make a fighter/rogue/barbarian/ranger/assasin/invisible blade/shadowdancer I have to swallow the bile rising in my throat.




Then perhaps you'll look with sympathy on those of us who have to swallow a lot of bile when we listen to complaints like yours that blame the tools for the behavior of the players. 

People play D&D in many different ways. Some are attracted to getting the most out of the mechanics, some are not. Let them play their way while you play your way. Don't read the threads that don't appeal to you. And don't let anybody else's idea of how to make the game fun prevent you from doing it in your own way.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I am not saying it dictates this style of play but I do believe that it is encouraged and rewarded.
> 
> Ps. I am also one of those people who were outraged that Rangers suddenly all go the ability to dual weild based off the exploits of a stupid drow ranger.




Then I take it your outrage started with 2nd edition? Because that's where it started. Until that drow came along, every ranger I had experience with in D&D had focused on archery.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Although it is tempting to to go on and on citing examples of how and why this edition of the game rewards and encourages this sort of behavior I will instead refer you to the "Character Optimization Board" on the WoTC DnD Website to make the case for me.




And, had the internet been around in 1982, you would have found the exact same thing provided for 1e. Sure, you _can_ min/max, munchkinize, rules-aywer, and power-game your way through 3e, but no more than you could in 1e. Arguments that are premised on the idea that players doing these sorts of things are somehow new to 3e, or even more common using 3e, are, in my experience, simply wrong on the facts.



> _Every time I see someone post about how they want to make a fighter/rogue/barbarian/ranger/assasin/invisible blade/shadowdancer I have to swallow the bile rising in my throat._




I suppose it should not surprise me that someone playing a character that they would enjoy playing would cause you so much revulsion. After all, D&D isn't about fun, it is about . . . well, if it isn't about fun I'm not sure why one would play the game.

Of course, playing a fighter/rogue/barbarian/ranger/assassin/invisible blade/shadowdancer would almost certainly be a suboptimal choice, so I guess it isn't min-maxing or power-gaming that bothers you. Perhaps you would care to elucidate what bothers you about suboptimal character build strategies.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And, had the internet been around in 1982, you would have found the exact same thing provided for 1e. Sure, you _can_ min/max, munchkinize, rules-aywer, and power-game your way through 3e, but no more than you could in 1e. Arguments that are premised on the idea that players doing these sorts of things are somehow new to 3e, or even more common using 3e, are, in my experience, simply wrong on the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think that is a colossal strecth to think anything could have been done with ADnD that would have even remotely approached the character optimization board for this edition which epitomizes the rules bloat and power creep that is 3.xE dnd.

It makes me sad to think someones enjoyment of DnD hinges upon playing a fighter/rogue/barbarian/ranger/assassin/invisible blade/shadowdancer.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Then I take it your outrage started with 2nd edition? Because that's where it started. Until that drow came along, every ranger I had experience with in D&D had focused on archery.




Correct you are, I played 2E and had fun but never forgave the designers for the curse of Drizzit. The worst part was finding out the only reason he could dual weild was because his daddy the fighter taught him...DOH!


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I think that is a colossal strecth to think anything could have been done with ADnD that would have even remotely approached the character optimization board for this edition which epitomizes the rules bloat and power creep that is 3.xE dnd.



Character optimization in the same way? No. Rules bloat and power creep? Do you remember a particular hardback volume by the name of Unearthed Arcana, circa 1985, that introduced two classes that made fighters look like utter wimps, a character generation method that involved rolling as many as NINE dice, drop 6, playable drow and duergar (which, without the LA mechanic, were simply better than elves or dwarves, even without the drow magic resistance), and some insanely overpowered spells (stoneskin, tempus fugit)? Or perhaps a year and a half later when Oriental Adventures introduced even MORE powerful classes and weapons?


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I think that is a colossal strecth to think anything could have been done with ADnD that would have even remotely approached the character optimization board for this edition which epitomizes the rules bloat and power creep that is 3.xE dnd.




It was _much easier_ to optimize characters in 1e than in 3e, because of the power disparity inherent in the dual-class/multiclass rules and the inherently unbalanced nature of demi-humans combined with several overly powerful combinations of magic items. This does not even begin to explore issues raised by _Unearthed Arcana_ and subsequent books. The fact that you think it could not have been done in 1e simply leads me to beleieve that you are looking back to 1982 with rose colored glasses.



> _It makes me sad to think someones enjoyment of DnD hinges upon playing a fighter/rogue/barbarian/ranger/assassin/invisible blade/shadowdancer._




Who said it hinges on that? On the other hand, why is it that a character that someone enjoys playing causes you to experience stomach distress? More to the point, why is such a suboptimal character design causing you distress? Is it just that the holy writ of 1e is somehow distrubed by playing unusual characters?


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Who said it hinges on that? On the other hand, why is it that a character that someone enjoys playing causes you to experience stomach distress? More to the point, why is such a suboptimal character design causing you distress? Is it just that the holy writ of 1e is somehow distrubed by playing unusual characters?




Well first off I find it amusing that you keep referring to it as suboptimal as if it were a real build plucked from the COB instead of a hastily thrown together list of classes and Prcs to mock some of the stuff listed on the COB. 

Secondly I am amazed that you really think that the power cherry picking that goes on in those kind of builds is really about a cool concept when we all know in fact that its all about OMG by cherry picking these classes and Prcs I can get AC99, 23 attacks per round and +200 to hit and damage and +50d6 SA im soo awsome who cares if it makes no sense for someone to actually be a fighter/ranger/rogue/ninja/assasin/warmage/druid/battledancer.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Although it is tempting to to go on and on citing examples of how and why this edition of the game rewards and encourages this sort of behavior I will instead refer you to the "Character Optimization Board" on the WoTC DnD Website to make the case for me.




I don't think the first will prove the point.  Such examples exist in any game in which tactics matter, and 1e and 2e are similarly combat oriented. You go ahead and start a list, and the other side of the argument will start a list.  And we'll find that list-sizing is not an answer.

And the message boards are so terribly _wrong_ for proving such a point, for two very basic reasons - 1)the people on message boards are not a valid random sampling of gamers for purposes fo displaying trends and 2) message boards of these sorts are newer than the prior editions - so behavior on them is apt to be about the computer technology, rather than the game.

Unless you can make a cogent argument that players of 1e and 2e would never have done such things if they'd have the tech available?  I don't think you can.

The rpg is a _direct_ outgrowth of wargaming.  Any behavior you expect out of wargamers, you'll see in a goodly chunk of rpg players, and for the same reasons.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I don't think the first will prove the point.  Such examples exist in any game in which tactics matter, and 1e and 2e are similarly combat oriented. You go ahead and start a list, and the other side of the argument will start a list.  And we'll find that list-sizing is not an answer.
> 
> And the message boards are so terribly _wrong_ for proving such a point, for two very basic reasons - 1)the people on message boards are not a valid random sampling of gamers for purposes fo displaying trends and 2) message boards of these sorts are newer than the prior editions - so behavior on them is apt to be about the computer technology, rather than the game.
> 
> ...




I apologize for not clarifying my statement I was not referring to the bad behavior that can be found on those boards but the libraries of 4,6 or even 7 class and Prc builds that can be found there. I do not think this would have been the case if we had eric noah's ADnD news and reviews site or a TSR message board. This is not to say that there couldn't have been an ADnD COB but rather to say that it could never have approached the absurdity of the 3.xE COB.

*Edited to add the last line.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 5, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> The rpg is a _direct_ outgrowth of wargaming.  Any behavior you expect out of wargamers, you'll see in a goodly chunk of rpg players, and for the same reasons.





I agree, insofar as any game that has a mechanical component that, by embracing and exploiting it, provides a means to do better within the frame work of the game, that is to say, to be more successful within the game, will engender that behavior in many of its players (though the reasons to do so might not be direct).


----------



## Jim Hague (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I apologize for not clarifying my statement I was not referring to the bad behavior that can be found on those boards but the libraries of 4,6 or even 7 class and Prc builds that can be found there. I do not think this would have been the case if we had eric noah's ADnD news and reviews site or a TSR message board. This is not to say that there couldn't have been an ADnD COB but rather to say that it could never have approached the absurdity of the 3.xE COB.
> 
> *Edited to add the last line.




And your proof is...?


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2007)

Don't misunderstand me if a players says man I have always loved Ninjas and want to play one, I am totally cool with it. But the notion that a ranger/fighter/barbarian/hulking hurler/order of the bow iniatiate/assasin is somehow reasonable logical or about anything other than number crunching really baffles me.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 5, 2007)

I think that it is reasonably obvious that, the more choices one has in character generation (and the more those choices are independent of each other), the more types of options one has to create any type of character.  It is easier to powergame when choices have actual meaning.  

"Powergaming" in 1e consists, at best, of deciding where to put one's stats and buying the best weapons/armor/equipment one can afford.  At worst, it is simply cheating on die rolls.

Powergaming in 3e consists of milking race/class/feat/skill/prestige class/magic item combos for as much power as you can get.  Unlike 1e, where you didn't pick your magic items (or even your spells, by Crom), in 3e you can make these choices.  The ability to make these choices grants, by consequence, the ability to optimize these choices.  

Your DM can, of course, limit your choices, and you can limit yourself (as a group or as an individual), but the idea of "Mastery" built into the ruleset presupposes (IMHO) that _not_ limiting yourself is a good thing.  You don't have to play this way, but WotC _encourages_ you to play this way.  After all, it sells more books.    

The easiest test of the "1e would have had the same if the Internet existed then" is that the Internet _does_ exist now, and there are still many people who play earlier editions of the game.  There are web sites devoted to 1e, and to OSIRIC, the 1e-like OGL game system.  If 1e and 3e were the same in this way, it would seem reasonable to suppose that, if not a plethora, at least some "1e optimization" sites/threads would be out there somewhere.

Try http://www.planetadnd.com/ (the closest thing I know of the EN World for 1e and 2e) and see what you can find.

RC

EDIT:  Just to be clear, I prefer options.  I'd rather have more options and deal with people who want to powergame than have fewer options and not have to tell someone "no".  YMMV.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> And your proof is...?




Ahh yes the old "I'm rubber your glue" defense this must be the part where I am supposed to shout across the schoolyard "no you prove it" or better yet "my dad can beat up your dad" lol.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Ahh yes the old "I'm rubber your glue" defense this must be the part where I am supposed to shout across the schoolyard "no you prove it" or better yet "my dad can beat up your dad" lol.




You are the one making the assertion. It seems to me that you should not be surprised when people expect you to back up your claims with something resembling evidence.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 5, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I think that it is reasonably obvious that, the more choices one has in character generation (and the more those choices are independent of each other), the more types of options one has to create any type of character.  It is easier to powergame when choices have actual meaning.




Well, sort of. The key to the difference bwteen 1e and 3e in this regard is that, in 1e, there were choices that were obviously, and clearly superior to other choices. So the path for a power gamer was clearly lit with big neon lights.



> _"Powergaming" in 1e consists, at best, of deciding where to put one's stats and buying the best weapons/armor/equipment one can afford.  At worst, it is simply cheating on die rolls._




And deciding which flavor of elf you want to play, and deciding if you want to play a cavalier or fighter/magic-user or you want to try one of the other _Unearthed Arcana_ classes.



> _The easiest test of the "1e would have had the same if the Internet existed then" is that the Internet does exist now, and there are still many people who play earlier editions of the game.  There are web sites devoted to 1e, and to OSIRIC, the 1e-like OGL game system.  If 1e and 3e were the same in this way, it would seem reasonable to suppose that, if not a plethora, at least some "1e optimization" sites/threads would be out there somewhere._




People who are still playing 1e don't need anyone to show them how to optimize their characters. At this point, anyone who hasn't figured how to do that in 25 or so years of tooling with the system is beyond help in that regard.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I apologize for not clarifying my statement I was not referring to the bad behavior that can be found on those boards but the libraries of 4,6 or even 7 class and Prc builds that can be found there.




And? Why exactly are these a problem other than they somehow violate the writ that your class is your label for your career? Classes and PrCs are simply packages of attributes put together in usable form. You seem to make a big deal out of multiple class combinations, but don't really seem to have any rationale for them being bad other than "they are bad, so there!"



> _I do not think this would have been the case if we had eric noah's ADnD news and reviews site or a TSR message board. This is not to say that there couldn't have been an ADnD COB but rather to say that it could never have approached the absurdity of the 3.xE COB._



_

Because munchkining in 1e was so much easier to do, you didn't need to work at it._


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And deciding which flavor of elf you want to play, and deciding if you want to play a cavalier or fighter/magic-user or you want to try one of the other _Unearthed Arcana_ classes.
> QUOTE]
> 
> The notion that you equate this to Pun-Pun and friends amuses me to no end.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Don't misunderstand me if a players says man I have always loved Ninjas and want to play one, I am totally cool with it. But the notion that a ranger/fighter/barbarian/hulking hurler/order of the bow iniatiate/assasin is somehow reasonable logical or about anything other than number crunching really baffles me.




How about a fighter/ranger/barbarian/bard/cleric?

Or a rogue/ranger/fighter/wizard?

Because I know some fantasy authors who would take issue with you on combinations like those.

Of course, a ranger/fighter/barbarian/hulking hurler/OoBI/assassin is a pretty weak character mechanically, so there is generally no number crunching reason to make one. Which makes one wonder why you dislike these sorts of things other than some sort of antipathy for the newfangledness of the 3e multiclassing system.


----------



## molonel (Jan 5, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And deciding which flavor of elf you want to play, and deciding if you want to play a cavalier or fighter/magic-user or you want to try one of the other _Unearthed Arcana_ classes.




Or using the 1st Edition AD&D Oriental Adventures, or Double Weapon Specialization from Unearthed Arcana, or the UA Barbarian, or articles snipped from Dragon Magazine which included new spells, new magic items, or new races like the half-ogre.

C'mon! This is just goofy to argue that people didn't powergame like mad fiends in earlier editions of the game.

I knew people who could tick off on their fingers the gods they'd killed in 1st Edition. I knew one kid who had Thor's Hammer, belt and gauntlets, Stormbringer, the Ring of Kings and that little triangle of stone from some Chinese deity that you could turn into any weapon you wanted.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 5, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> I knew people who could tick off on their fingers the gods they'd killed in 1st Edition. I knew one kid who had Thor's Hammer, belt and gauntlets, Stormbringer, the Ring of Kings and that little triangle of stone from some Chinese deity that you could turn into any weapon you wanted.




/raises hand

We so did that.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> The notion that you equate this to Pun-Pun and friends amuses me to no end.




The idea that you think Pun-Pun is a playable character is amusing in and of itself.

But the idea that you don't see the inherently unbalanced nature of a gray elven cavalier tells me that you don't remember the rules of the 1e system very well. And you don't even have to work very hard to get to the point where you have made every other character (except the "appearing-in-the-same-supplement-but-virtually-unplayable" barbarian) completely obsolete. Unlike somehting like Pun-Pun, which requires work, pulling material from several supplements (and using material together that you have to gloss over rules problems to make work together), in 1e, you just made sure to pick the obviously more powerful options laid out for you.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Or using the 1st Edition AD&D Oriental Adventures, or Double Weapon Specialization from Unearthed Arcana, or the UA Barbarian, or articles snipped from Dragon Magazine which included new spells, new magic items, or new races like the half-ogre.
> 
> C'mon! This is just goofy to argue that people didn't powergame like mad fiends in earlier editions of the game.
> 
> I knew people who could tick off on their fingers the gods they'd killed in 1st Edition. I knew one kid who had Thor's Hammer, belt and gauntlets, Stormbringer, the Ring of Kings and that little triangle of stone from some Chinese deity that you could turn into any weapon you wanted.




That is Monte Hall DMing which can occur in any edition, we are talking about if 3.xE DnD lends itself to or evn encourages Knight/warlock/fighter/invisible blade/dervish/ninja/shadowdancer PCs because i sure didn't see any walking around in ADnD.


----------



## Brimshack (Jan 5, 2007)

He, we used to kill a god a game for awhile in 1st edition. When I got my own campaign in order, it included a full page of boosts for the gods. Did the same for dragons.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 5, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> How about a fighter/ranger/barbarian/bard/cleric?
> 
> Or a rogue/ranger/fighter/wizard?
> 
> Because I know some fantasy authors who would take issue with you on combinations like those.






That's a bit of a faulty argument; D&D isn't a fantasy literature simulator, it is a fantasy _trope_ simulator.  


I'm quite sure I could find some fantasy characters that even the current incarnation couldn't simulate without DM fiat, fudging and all that.

It's like when people get their panties in a wad over the AD&D ranger, claiming that hey, Aragorn didn't cast *magic missile* or do this or do that...and that's why it (the class) isn't called "Dunedan" or "Tolkien Ranger" or "Ranger of Arnor"...there are aspects of the "Ranger" as envisioned by Tolkien in the class.  There are also aspects of the classical European "Woodsman" type persona, and some things thrown in that are purely Gary's own inspired work.

What a poor game D&D would be - in any edition, by any name - if it merely aped others' work!


----------



## Crothian (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> , we are talking about if 3.xE DnD lends itself to or evn encourages Knight/warlock/fighter/invisible blade/dervish/ninja/shadowdancer PCs because i sure didn't see any walking around in ADnD.




Those options for the most part were not there.  So, it's a moot point.  

But 3.x doesn't lend itself to that type of gaming.  I've never seen anything like that and I play quite a biut.  Now, there are players that will play that kind of character.  But in claiming the game lends itself to that character it must cause people who wouldn't play that way to play that way: and it does not.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The idea that you think Pun-Pun is a playable character is amusing in and of itself.
> 
> But the idea that you don't see the inherently unbalanced nature of a gray elven cavalier tells me that you don't remember the rules of the 1e system very well. And you don't even have to work very hard to get to the point where you have made every other character (except the "appearing-in-the-same-supplement-but-virtually-unplayable" barbarian) completely obsolete. Unlike somehting like Pun-Pun, which requires work, pulling material from several supplements (and using material together that you have to gloss over rules problems to make work together), in 1e, you just made sure to pick the obviously more powerful options laid out for you.




How strange that in all those years of DMing there was never a single grey elf cavalier yet in 3.xE I would be hard pressed to cite an example of a single instance where someone intended to go single class from level 1 to 20. Why no level 1 to 20 single class characters perhaps it's because the 3.xE rules encourage and reward cherry picking classes/ abilities crazy stuff.


----------



## molonel (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> That is Monte Hall DMing which can occur in any edition, we are talking about if 3.xE DnD lends itself to or evn encourages Knight/warlock/fighter/invisible blade/dervish/ninja/shadowdancer PCs because i sure didn't see any walking around in ADnD.




No, that's POWERGAMING using every available resource at your disposal, including gear but also Weapon Specialization and Double Weapon Specialization from Unearthed Arcana, and Drow (which were introduced for the first time as a PC race in that book) and classes like the Cavalier and the Barbarian and the Ninja from Oriental Adventures. That's leafing through the Deities and Demigods book like it's a Neiman Marcus catalog deciding who you're going to kill, first.

It was powergaming then, and it's powergaming now.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Those options for the most part were not there.  So, it's a moot point.
> 
> But 3.x doesn't lend itself to that type of gaming.  I've never seen anything like that and I play quite a biut.  Now, there are players that will play that kind of character.  But in claiming the game lends itself to that character it must cause people who wouldn't play that way to play that way: and it does not.




How often in your experience in 3.xE DnD do your players resist the siren's call of cherry picking and actually play a single class with no Prc 1 to 20 by choice?


----------



## Crothian (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> How strange that in all those years of DMing there was never a single grey elf cavalier yet in 3.xE I would be hard pressed to cite an example of a single instance where someone intended to go single class from level 1 to 20. Why no level 1 to 20 single class characters perhaps it's because the 3.xE rules encourage and reward cherry picking classes/ abilities crazy stuff.




That's is because of prestige classes, options that were not in the erarly game.  If they were the same problem would happen.  Also, multi classing is much easier now.  

And if you want to cite someone who went from 1-20 in one class cite me.  I've done it with a Ranger and with a Bard.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> How often in your experience in 3.xE DnD do your players resist the siren's call of cherry picking and actually play a single class with no Prc 1 to 20 by choice?




I limit this to the campiagns that went to 20th level.

First campaign of 3.0 we had three players.  1 took wizard to 20th level, the other two did base class 10/prestige class 10.  No cherry picking

Second campaign: 4 players.  2 did 10/10, one did a 5/5/10, the other did a 15/5

Third campaign 3 players.  One went 10/10, the other two did 20 levels one class.  

Those were me as DM.  As a Player I've taken Bard nad Ranger 1-20.  

I've had players that multi class , but I have never had a player cherry pick.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> And if you want to cite someone who went from 1-20 in one class cite me.  I've done it with a Ranger and with a Bard.




You have no idea how happy I am to read this but I am afraid you might be more the exception than the rule in 3.xE.

Hey I am not saying I hate 3.xE I play it and enjoy it for what it is but I would be lying if i said I got even a 10th of the enjoyment from Dming it that I did with ADnD.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 5, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> That's a bit of a faulty argument; D&D isn't a fantasy literature simulator, it is a fantasy _trope_ simulator.
> 
> 
> I'm quite sure I could find some fantasy characters that even the current incarnation couldn't simulate without DM fiat, fudging and all that.



But the fact remains that 3e can simulate a wider range of archetypes without DM fiat than 1e can. That's a net benefit.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I limit this to the campiagns that went to 20th level.
> 
> First campaign of 3.0 we had three players.  1 took wizard to 20th level, the other two did base class 10/prestige class 10.  No cherry picking
> 
> ...




That's 3 out of 10 that went 1 to 20 single class no Prc.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> You have no idea how happy I am to read this but I am afraid you might be more the exception than the rule in 3.xE.
> 
> Hey I am not saying I hate 3.xE I play it and enjoy it for what it is but I would be lying if i said I got even a 10th of the enjoyment from Dming it that I did with ADnD.




I know it is a rare thing, though I do imagine among the people that use core rules only it is more common.  

For me the enjoyment doesn't come from the game but from the group.  I love the group of players I have now and if we played oD&D or 3.5D&D we would still have an enjoyiable time.  Heck, I think we'd have fun with practically any game (I don't think they could handle Nobolis though).


----------



## billd91 (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> That is Monte Hall DMing which can occur in any edition, we are talking about if 3.xE DnD lends itself to or evn encourages Knight/warlock/fighter/invisible blade/dervish/ninja/shadowdancer PCs because i sure didn't see any walking around in ADnD.




Perhaps not, but you saw plenty of fighter/thief/bard-druid thingies running around. And those PCs rocketed up the bard XP chart like nothing else... and got tons of hit points to boot because those were a whole lot more hit dice, meaning the Con modifier applied again.

1e bards: the original prestige class


----------



## Psion (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> How strange that in all those years of DMing there was never a single grey elf cavalier yet in 3.xE I would be hard pressed to cite an example of a single instance where someone intended to go single class from level 1 to 20. Why no level 1 to 20 single class characters perhaps it's because the 3.xE rules encourage and reward cherry picking classes/ abilities crazy stuff.




For reference, I find single class characters to be the norm for 3e. Only a minority of players seem to be willing to consider multi-class characters.

Much to my chagrin. I'm sure this mentality is behind the to-me-incomprehensible love of the execrable duskblade class among some players.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> For me the enjoyment doesn't come from the game but from the group.  I love the group of players I have now and if we played oD&D or 3.5D&D we would still have an enjoyiable time.  Heck, I think we'd have fun with practically any game.




On this notion I wholeheartedly agree.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> That's 3 out of 10 that went 1 to 20 single class no Prc.




If we add in the groups that I played in that had a character go from 1-20 it would be

When I played the bard, the monk also went 1-20.  The barbarian and Druid did not.

When I played the Ranger the wizard and rogue went 1-20, the fighter would have but he was forced by the DM to mutliclass.  That was wierd.  But that game we really didn't care about the rules as much and just had fun.  It was a surreal experience becasue in all honesty the DM was really bad.  Basically we liked our characters but didn't care enough about the game to put in the effort to take a different class.  

But even just using that 30% number, I have to think it is a bit higher then the national average.

I also think that prestige classes that are for a single core class should be seen as an extension of that class and not a seperate class.  So a Wizard archmage should not be seen as multi classing.  But I didn't include those characters in the above.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> For reference, I find multiclass characters to be the norm for 3e.




Perhaps this is the crux of my problem with the state of the game in 3.xE. I have trouble accepting that multiclassing should not only be the norm but actually be rewarded and encouraged.

Maybe I am just a gaming Dinosaur unable to adjust to the new climate that is DnD and slated for extinction lol.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 5, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> That's a bit of a faulty argument; D&D isn't a fantasy literature simulator, it is a fantasy _trope_ simulator.




And 1e did a bad job of simulating fantasy tropes. Which isn't really the argument here.



> _I'm quite sure I could find some fantasy characters that even the current incarnation couldn't simulate without DM fiat, fudging and all that._




And the list would be far shorter than the list that 1e could not simulate. No system is perfect at this sort of thing. Some systems are better than others.



> _It's like when people get their panties in a wad over the AD&D ranger, claiming that hey, Aragorn didn't cast *magic missile* or do this or do that...and that's why it (the class) isn't called "Dunedan" or "Tolkien Ranger" or "Ranger of Arnor"...there are aspects of the "Ranger" as envisioned by Tolkien in the class.  There are also aspects of the classical European "Woodsman" type persona, and some things thrown in that are purely Gary's own inspired work._




Considering that Gary didn't design the 1e ranger class, that would be hard to argue (it first appeared in _The Strategic Review_, penned by another author, I can't remember who). In point of fact, the 1e ranger is a virtual clone of Aragorn, with almost every single one of the class's abilities easily traceable to some action the character took in LotR.



> _What a poor game D&D would be - in any edition, by any name - if it merely aped others' work!_




And it is a much better game when it allows players to emulate characters from myth, legend, and literature, or simply excercise their imaginations concerning characters.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Perhaps this is the crux of my problem with the state of the game in 3.xE. I have trouble accepting that multiclassing should not only be the norm but actually be rewarded and encouraged.




Why not? How many people do you know do only one thing their entire lives? How many characters in real life, myth, legend, or literature do you know who could be pigeonholed into a single D&D class? Why should the game make such an artificial  limitation when the source material for the game clearly does not?

Besides, there are already benefits for single classing built into the game - single classed characters are usually much better at the specialist functions of the class than anyone else. There are exceptions here and there (fighters gain little benefit to being just fighters, but I don't know any character who would be truly accurately modeled by a straight D&D fighter).


----------



## Voadam (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> How strange that in all those years of DMing there was never a single grey elf cavalier yet in 3.xE I would be hard pressed to cite an example of a single instance where someone intended to go single class from level 1 to 20. Why no level 1 to 20 single class characters perhaps it's because the 3.xE rules encourage and reward cherry picking classes/ abilities crazy stuff.





My D&D group.

1e era for 15 year long campaign:
1 wild elf assassin
1 wild elf assassin
1 drow ranger became a fighter when he fell
1 drow cleric/MU eventually became a wight
1 human MU with sea mage kit once 2e complete wizard came around for his pirate mage character.

now in the 3e campaign that started around the time 3e did:
1 human who gained +1 LA template druid 5/master of many forms 5/Warshpaper 5 
1 Dwarven fighter 4/Cleric 12
1 human rogue 5/wizard 5/arcane trickster 5/archmage 1
1 human fighter 1/paladin 6/homebrew templar of cuthbert 9
1 elven fighter 16


----------



## billd91 (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Perhaps this is the crux of my problem with the state of the game in 3.xE. I have trouble accepting that multiclassing should not only be the norm but actually be rewarded and encouraged.




Why shouldn't there be an advantage to it? There surely was in 1e, it's just that only demi-humans could do it. And I'd argue that the benefits of multiclassing in 1e are even more dramatic than in 3E because, though you had to do it from level 1, that PC had 2 classes (or even 3) that were generally only 1 level behind his single-class peers.

The reward for multiclassing is being able to tailor your PC to be a little more like the way you want your PC to be. Want a cleric who has more skill with his weapons? Take a fighter level or two. You trade off some potential in upper level spells, but it might be worth it if that's what you want to play.
Some players take it to extremes for very specific schticks. But what's really wrong with that if that's the way they and their friends play?


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> How strange that in all those years of DMing there was never a single grey elf cavalier yet in 3.xE I would be hard pressed to cite an example of a single instance where someone intended to go single class from level 1 to 20. Why no level 1 to 20 single class characters perhaps it's because the 3.xE rules encourage and reward cherry picking classes/ abilities crazy stuff.



Allow me to introduce you to Appppil, my 3e attempt to build a 1e Illusionist.  Despite the fact that it would certainly be mechanically better for her to dip into another class or two, she will be and remain an Illusionist till she drops.   So far, 10 levels and counting...

Lanefan


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> How strange that in all those years of DMing there was never a single grey elf cavalier yet in 3.xE I would be hard pressed to cite an example of a single instance where someone intended to go single class from level 1 to 20. Why no level 1 to 20 single class characters perhaps it's because the 3.xE rules encourage and reward cherry picking classes/ abilities crazy stuff.




I really fail to see why sticking with one class for 20 levels is such a big deal. And why multiclassing is inevitably "cherry-picking". Most of the time multiclassing reduces the effectiveness of a character. Sometimes it helps, but lots of multiclassing choices end up hindering the character mechanically more than they help in the long run.

I think people rarely play a single class from level 1-20 because there is rarely a situation in which a single base class, and its array of predetermined abilities, matches exactly with what a player has in mind for his character.

Philosophically, I lean the other direction from you on multiclassing - I think the mechanic should be used _more_, not less. I'd be happier without the proliferation of base classes and would instead prefer a very limited core of three or four base classes and define all of the other elements via multiclassing and feat choices. Make a single "warrior" class, and then have characters differentiated by multiclassing and selecting feats for things like rage or wilderness skills and so on. (The _Unerathed Arcana_ rules for generic classes are close, but not quite what I would like in this regard, I'm working on something though).


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Why shouldn't there be an advantage to it? There surely was in 1e, it's just that only demi-humans could do it. And I'd argue that the benefits of multiclassing in 1e are even more dramatic than in 3E because, though you had to do it from level 1, that PC had 2 classes (or even 3) that were generally only 1 level behind his single-class peers.




My personal experience in ADnD with multiclassing was that a multiclass cleric was never as good a healer as a single class, that a multiclass wizard was never as good as a single class a multiclass fighter never had as good an AC as a single class etc etc.

* Now lets look at these posts about how my 6th level character has AC 61 or whatever it is and tell me it's all the same.


----------



## molonel (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> How strange that in all those years of DMing there was never a single grey elf cavalier yet in 3.xE I would be hard pressed to cite an example of a single instance where someone intended to go single class from level 1 to 20. Why no level 1 to 20 single class characters perhaps it's because the 3.xE rules encourage and reward cherry picking classes/ abilities crazy stuff.




I saw tons of grey elf cavaliers, drow, fighters with double weapon specialization, and fighters with 18/91+ percentile strength (and maybe 1 or 2 fighters with a percentile strength below 50). Even if they somehow managed to roll below 91 on their percentile strength, it was usually because they had Gauntlets of Ogre Power and that immediately brought them up to 18/00. 

Part of the reason you haven't seen too many people play 1 to 20 in a single class is because the majority of people don't play one character through 20 levels of play. I've had a lot of single-classed characters who got capped at 5th, 8th, 10th, 12th or single-classed characters that ran in a game that went to 5th, 8th or 11th level and then ran out.

Heck, I'm having a hard time remembering 1st Edition characters that I played from 1st through 20th in a single class, or 1st through 10th.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Heck, I'm having a hard time remembering 1st Edition characters that I played from 1st through 20th in a single class, or 1st through 10th.




In my ADnD experience people multiclasses for the good of the group when we were simply short on players but still needed a healer so someone bit the bullet and played a fighter/cleric etc.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> My personal experience in ADnD with multiclassing was that a multiclass cleric was never as good a healer as a single class, that a multiclass wizard was never as good as a single class a multiclass fighter never had as good an AC as a single class etc etc.




And that is true in 3e as well. A multiclass wizard is going to be less effective at being a wizard than the straight wizard will be. So will the cleric. A multiclass fighter will usually have a hard time keeping his AC up to where a single class fighters is, since he will likely have to ecshew heavier armor to keep his class abilities. And so on.

And, to tell the truth, a multiclass character in 3e is likely to be more hampered in these respects than a multiclass character in 1e was. A multiclass 1e fighter/magic-user (for example) adventuring with an 8th level party was probably a 7th/7th level character (or thereabouts) lagging one level behind his single classed 8th level magic-user buddy, and almost as good a fighter as his single classed 8th level fighter pal (all at the same or very similar experience point totals). A multiclassed 3e fighter/wizard in an 8th level party is either a 4th/4th level character, much worse at both fighting and spellcasting than his counterparts, or he has to pick which side he wants to favor - he can be a better fighter, but he has to be a worse caster, or vice versa.



> * Now lets look at these posts about how my 6th level character has AC 61 or whatever it is and tell me it's all the same.




Of course, the purported character in question was a _single classed artificer_, who might be able to have a high AC for a minute or two a day (or not) who has not been shown to be rules legal. But he shouldn't be a problem for you, because he's a _single classed character_.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> My personal experience in ADnD with multiclassing was that a multiclass cleric was never as good a healer as a single class, that a multiclass wizard was never as good as a single class a multiclass fighter never had as good an AC as a single class etc etc.
> 
> * Now lets look at these posts about how my 6th level character has AC 61 or whatever it is and tell me it's all the same.




How about that 14th level bard with a good THAC0, good thief skills, great druid spell-casting, and 150 hit points? Meanwhile, his adventuring buddies are around 11th-12th level.

In 3E, a multiclass cleric isn't quite as good as a single-class one either. And depending on how many classes he's dipped into and for how many levels, he's going to be farther behind the rest of his party in clerical spell-casting than his 1e equivalent.

Even if someone managed to get a 6th level character up to AC 61 because of multiclassing (a very fishy-sounding suggestion), he'll have an achilles heel compared to other 6th level characters.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 5, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Where is all this stuff that is devoted to min maxing, minis, and tactics?  I've got a lot of books and these areas just are not in them.





No?  Remember the "Power Plays" from dragon magazine?  Take this race, this class, and these two feats to get +12 to X at first level?  And it wasn't just feasable within the rules, but actually suggested as a standard tactic by the designers.


----------



## molonel (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> In my ADnD experience people multiclasses for the good of the group when we were simply short on players but still needed a healer so someone bit the bullet and played a fighter/cleric etc.




The good of the group? Meh. Sometimes. Usually, it was because playing an elven fighter/magic user was cooler than just playing a fighter, or just playing a magic user. 

I played a dwarven fighter/rogue because I wanted to sneak around in my +5 leather armor, and if I recall correctly (I may not) dwarves were unlimited (U) in rogue.

We all powergamed back then. Trying to find a non-multiclassed character now is probably like trying to find a high-level fighter that did NOT have a Girdle of Storm Giant Strength - Heh, I still love talking about my fighter wearing a girdle! - or a +5 longsword (because those were the most common weapons).


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 5, 2007)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> 3E no more forces its playstyle than putting a straw in a drink forces you to drink through the straw.




That all depends on how tight they put the lid on.


----------



## molonel (Jan 5, 2007)

Does anyone else remember rolling for percentile strength, and not telling the DM which die was supposed to be the tens until after they fell on the table?

DM: "Is that a 19 percentile strength?"
Me: "Uh ... no, that's 91!"


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 5, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The last 3.5 campaign I ran, the party didn't get a magic item until almost 3rd level.  It was a +2 Shortsword.




This is low magic?  I've known 10th level AD&D characters who would love to have such an item.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 5, 2007)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> No?  Remember the "Power Plays" from dragon magazine?  Take this race, this class, and these two feats to get +12 to X at first level?  And it wasn't just feasable within the rules, but actually suggested as a standard tactic by the designers.




And looking at most of those simply illustrates the limiting problem with such builds - they were really good at one thing, and not very good at most other things. Sure, having a halfling monk with Iron Will means that you are virtually immune to fear effects. And? Now you built your character to be good at one thing that happens every now and then and he's pretty mediocre at most other things.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 5, 2007)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> No?  Remember the "Power Plays" from dragon magazine?  Take this race, this class, and these two feats to get +12 to X at first level?  And it wasn't just feasable within the rules, but actually suggested as a standard tactic by the designers.




No, I don't.  I don't get Dragon.  But even a few miner dragon articles I don't think equates to all this stuff. Good man Games also had Powergamers guide to Wizards or something.  THere has been a few things but nothing I'm worried about.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> * Now lets look at these posts about how my 6th level character has AC 61 or whatever it is and tell me it's all the same.



If you are honestly making this comparison then "your experience" is greatly inadequate for this discussion and that is the root of the matter.

Yeah, there are ways to break 3X.  No one has ever disputed that.  
And frankly, if someone wants to play that way then good for them.  I hope they have fun because that is all that matters.
But to act like it is something new to 3X is just absurd.  In 3X you get a group of rules experts together on a forum to squeeze every drop of boost out of 10+ books.  In 2E you go buy the latest "complete" book and pick a kit.

So you're wrong on two counts:  1) It ain't a 3X thing and 2) The extreme doesn't define the standard.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 5, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> That's is because of prestige classes, options that were not in the erarly game.  If they were the same problem would happen.





But they were not there, and that is the point.  The increase in options means an increase in the ability to cherry pick options.  When you look at the 1e powergaming examples from the posts above, you will note that they revolve around options introduced in Unearthed Arcana and/or Dragon Magazine.  Adding those options then increased the capacity for powergaming, just as the plethora of options now increases the capacity for powergaming manyfold.

I argue that the tradeoff (more options vs. the potential of more powergaming) is worth it.  After all, a good DM can nip that sort of thing in the bud (or work around it, or just have fun with it).  I just think that the argument that the number of options _doesn't increase the capacity for powergaming_ is pretty strange.


----------



## molonel (Jan 5, 2007)

Just a minor point of interest, Shadeydm. How many 1st Edition AD&D characters have you played from 1st all the way to 20th in one single class?


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> If you are honestly making this comparison then "your experience" is greatly inadequate for this discussion and that is the root of the matter.
> 
> Yeah, there are ways to break 3X.  No one has ever disputed that.
> And frankly, if someone wants to play that way then good for them.  I hope they have fun because that is all that matters.
> ...




Speaking of wrongness we were not talking about 2E but ADnD aka 1E.

Character optimaztion is achieved in 3xE via multiclassing and as has already been stated by others in this very post in 3.xE multiclassing is the norm. Therefore 3.xE encourages and rewards this behavior.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 5, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I just think that the argument that the number of options _doesn't increase the capacity for powergaming_ is pretty strange.




Who made that arguement?


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Just a minor point of interest, Shadeydm. How many 1st Edition AD&D characters have you played from 1st all the way to 20th in one single class?




To be totally honest I don't think there was a single class that had 20 levels but its been a while so I might be wrong. But I can tell you in all honesty that in ADnD single classing was the norm in my experience multiclassing was rare and usually done due to lack of a certain class in the party.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Character optimaztion is achieved in 3xE via multiclassing and as has already been stated by others in this very post in 3.xE multiclassing is the norm. Therefore 3.xE encourages and rewards this behavior.




It encourages mutli classing becasue it is so easy.  However, it does not reward it or does is have anything to do with character optimaztion.  If multi classing was rewarded, all multi class options would be better then a non multi classes character and this is clearly not true. Multi classing can be used to achieve powerful characters but at the same time it can also be used to create weak characters.


----------



## Psion (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Perhaps this is the crux of my problem with the state of the game in 3.xE.




I wondered why you were agreeing with my until I noticed my typo. I find *single* class characters to be the norm. Far more so than in 1e, for which you could make excellent combos like fighther/magic user/thieves.

In my first 3e game, we had no multiclass characters.
My second, long-running 3e campaign featured 1 multiclass character out of 6 or so.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Character optimaztion is achieved in 3xE via multiclassing and as has already been stated by others in this very post in 3.xE multiclassing is the norm. Therefore 3.xE encourages and rewards this behavior.




That's not really a good syllogism. Speeding is the norm on our highways yet the police discourage and penalize the behavior as does your gas mileage.
Like speeding, there are trade-offs to multiclassing in 3E. You get some results you want but, since base classes now tend to receive some benefits throughout their 20 levels, you give up other ones.


----------



## molonel (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> To be totally honest I don't think there was a single class that had 20 levels but its been a while so I might be wrong. But I can tell you in all honesty that in ADnD single classing was the norm in my experience multiclassing was rare and usually done due to lack of a certain class in the party.




Translation: none?

There's some water spurting up between your toes in that-there boat, my friend. You might want to stop knocking holes in the bottom of it.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> To be totally honest I don't think there was a single class that had 20 levels but its been a while so I might be wrong.




The table may not have gone up to level 20, but they all ended with +X XP for each additional level. So, they all had as many levels as one needed.


----------



## MerricB (Jan 5, 2007)

In my Age of Worms campaign, the PCs are:

Human Fighter 18
Aasimar Paladin 17
Human Wizard 18
Human Cleric 18
Elf Rogue 18
Human Druid 18

Cheers!


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 5, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> then "your experience" is greatly inadequate for this discussion and that is the root of the matter.



I think this is exactly the problem. No wonder Shadeydm has so many issues with 3.x!


----------



## Umbran (Jan 5, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I agree, insofar as any game that has a mechanical component that, by embracing and exploiting it, provides a means to do better within the frame work of the game, that is to say, to be more successful within the game, will engender that behavior in many of its players (though the reasons to do so might not be direct).




Yep.  

Now, here's the kicker - 3.xe can really only be said to encourage said behavior if we see a notable number of people engaging in this behavior _who otherwise would not have done so_.  Or, at the very least, a notable increase the amount or degree of the behavior.

It is not enough to show that it is done.  You gotta show that, in a different system, they wouldn't even try.  Otherwise what we have is a system that enables success at the behavior, but that doesn't encourage it.

They are two separate criticisms.  One is, "The game turns my players into munchkins."  The other is, "The game makes my munchkin players too good."


----------



## Psion (Jan 5, 2007)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> This is low magic?  I've known 10th level AD&D characters who would love to have such an item.




We have DMs that tend stingy in these eras too.

A few data points for you.

Quasqueton's analyses of treasure hauls in classic 1e modules show what some of the standards-setting adventures thought the treasure levels should be. Those pretty much matched my experience. Well, for the more toned down games at least. The more monty haul games of the day made the GDQ series look like scrounging for loose change.

Another anecdote: veteran "old school" game designer Jim Ward was criticized in his early d20 adventure submissions for busting the treasure by level guidelines. In a later book, he laments the standard, and provides low, medium, and high treasure guidelines. The low treasure guidelines are the ones that conformed to the 3e treasure guidelines.


----------



## molonel (Jan 5, 2007)

Rogue is my favorite class for single-class play. The broad skill list means that you can play a confidence man (charisma-based skills), a technician (open locks, search, disable device), a scout (hide, spot, move silently, listen) or a combat rogue that focuses on tumbling in and flanking, and spends feats on the TWF tree.

After rogue, probably wizard or cleric is my favorite.


----------



## MerricB (Jan 5, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> The table may not have gone up to level 20, but they all ended with +X XP for each additional level. So, they all had as many levels as one needed.




Cleric: No limit. XP table to level 11, with "+225,000 XP for each level beyond 11th", but spell table to 29th.
Druid: Maximum level of 14th (changed in UA)
Fighter: No limit. XP Table to level 11, "To Hit" table to level 17.
Paladin : No limit. XP Table to level 11. Spell table to level 20.
Ranger: No limit. XP Table to level 12. Spell table to level 17.
Magic-User: No limit. XP Table to level 18. Spell table to level 29. 
Illusionist: No limit. XP table to level 12. Spell table to level 26.
Thief: No limit. XP table to level 12. Thief Ability table to level 17. "To Hit" table to level 21.
Assassin. Maximum level of 15th.
Monk: Maximum level of 17.

Cheers!


----------



## Crothian (Jan 5, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Cheers!




Thanks!!  I don't have the book handy so couldn't post specifics.


----------



## molonel (Jan 5, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Monk: Maximum level of 17.




Ah yes! The Grandmaster of Flowers!


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 5, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> How about that 14th level bard with a good THAC0, good thief skills, great druid spell-casting, and 150 hit points? Meanwhile, his adventuring buddies are around 11th-12th level.




A 14th level bard used the attack matrix of a 7th (at best) level fighter.  He had (at best) 7d10+1d6++10d6+3+con bonus.  He may have a lot of hit points, but the straight druid can cast 7th level spells compared to his 5th, not to mention a ton of lower level spells, has the exact same attack matrix, immunity to disease, can shapechange, etc.  The bard gets some decent charm abilities, a few low level thieving abilities that he'll never get to use if there is a monk or thief in the party because they will always be better at it.  Oh yeah, and he gets to use a longsword instead of a scimitar, which only matters when facing large sized creatures.  The bard also must have the following minimum attributes:  S:15 D:17 C:10 I:12 W:15 CH:15.  That's a 43 point character using point buy.  Good luck with that.  Now when you're comparing him to the 3e bard, the 1e bard wins in spades.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 5, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> I wondered why you were agreeing with my until I noticed my typo. I find *single* class characters to be the norm. Far more so than in 1e, for which you could make excellent combos like fighther/magic user/thieves.
> 
> In my first 3e game, we had no multiclass characters.
> My second, long-running 3e campaign featured 1 multiclass character out of 6 or so.



In 1e, single-class was the norm.  A few people tried fancy 3-class builds but they were the exception, and double-classing was and is usually done for character reasons rather than power (except at 1st-level).

In 3e we mostly play single-class characters mainly because that's what we're used to, and we don't have any powergamers hardcore enough to sacrifice characterization for numbers.  In fact, come to think of it, I - who usually detest multi-classing - have the only multiclass PC in the party!  My tank Ranger, for various in-game character reasons, has taken Cleric as a class and will build that until it matches the Ranger in level (though I suspect the game will end first).

Whenever I see a 3e build with more than 2 base classes and at least one of those is 1st-level, my first thought is the build was done for power rather than character; and my second thought is sadness that my first thought was probably accurate.

Lanefan


----------



## buzz (Jan 5, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Whenever I see a 3e build with more than 2 base classes and at least one of those is 1st-level, my first thought is the build was done for power rather than character; and my second thought is sadness that my first thought was probably accurate.



Enworlder rowport is in my Saturday group. He regularly makes massively multiclassed PCs. Like 4-5 classes before even hitting 10th level. It's a running joke between us how incredibly ineffective these PCs often are. He doesn't really care, because he's more focused on creating interesting combos and unique characters.

Personally, I've had much more success with single-classed PCs in terms of RAW butt-kicking potential.

I'll also leave aside the issue of what the heck is wrong with wanting to build powerful characters.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> My personal experience in ADnD with multiclassing was that a multiclass cleric was never as good a healer as a single class, that a multiclass wizard was never as good as a single class a multiclass fighter never had as good an AC as a single class etc etc.
> 
> * Now lets look at these posts about how my 6th level character has AC 61 or whatever it is and tell me it's all the same.




Really? Mine was that the drow cleric/MU rolled as well on his dex and bargained better to gain first dibs on the best magic armor found so he had a slightly better AC than the two weapon double specialized in short sword drow fighter.

As for a spellcaster, he had twice the spells of the single classed MU with his clerical hold persons being real power house multi foe stopping ones. He still had to ration out his spellcasting though because of the pacing of the number of encounters each day. He had more clerical slots to devote to healing than he would have as a straight cleric because he could use his full complement of MU spells to fill the other casting niches he would have used his clerical ones on. His AC and hp were far above that of the straight MU.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 5, 2007)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> A 14th level bard used the attack matrix of a 7th (at best) level fighter.  He had (at best) 7d10+1d6++10d6+3+con bonus.  He may have a lot of hit points, but the straight druid can cast 7th level spells compared to his 5th, not to mention a ton of lower level spells, has the exact same attack matrix, immunity to disease, can shapechange, etc.  The bard gets some decent charm abilities, a few low level thieving abilities that he'll never get to use if there is a monk or thief in the party because they will always be better at it.  Oh yeah, and he gets to use a longsword instead of a scimitar, which only matters when facing large sized creatures.  The bard also must have the following minimum attributes:  S:15 D:17 C:10 I:12 W:15 CH:15.  That's a 43 point character using point buy.  Good luck with that.  Now when you're comparing him to the 3e bard, the 1e bard wins in spades.




Or an 8th level fighter if he managed to get the right magical book (+1 over the 7th level fighter if you used the option on the DMG table), benefits from weapon specialization (once UA came out), his caster level was still 14th (I believe) so those 1-5th level druid spells could still pack a punch (16d8 call lightning), the thieving may not have matched the single-class thief or monk but they were still pretty good particularly with the Dex mods from his minimum 17 Dex, and while mechanically the long sword might not do more damage, fully 70% of all magical swords were long swords. So they were a heck of a lot more common than magical scimitars.
And let's not even get into the bard's unbelievable endurance when facing level-draining undead! That vampire has to suck down 29 levels just to make himself a spawn.

How does that compare in general to 3E's multi- and prestige-classing? Perhaps not as extreme, but still pretty potent and it mimicked much of the same behavior. It was without a doubt the best way to get more hit points than pretty much everyone else.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 5, 2007)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> This is low magic?  I've known 10th level AD&D characters who would love to have such an item.



Clearly not AD&D characters who played through T1, I3-5, S2, G1-3, or....

Oh forget it. I give up. You people return to your fun.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Yep.
> 
> Now, here's the kicker - 3.xe can really only be said to encourage said behavior if we see a notable number of people engaging in this behavior _who otherwise would not have done so_.  Or, at the very least, a notable increase the amount or degree of the behavior.
> 
> ...




I would argue that by rewarding the behavior (cherry picking for optimization) it does in fact encourage it. The very fact the people are described as not carrying thier weight for not optimizing thier characters both disturbs and disappoints me. The notion that one would have to be dumb not to grab a levels of ranger, barbarian and fighter for your rogue is not agreeable to me but is rewarded by the game.

I must confess that reading the bottom half of this page with all of you posting about single class 3.XE characters does give me a sense of hope.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> The very fact the people are described as not carrying thier weight for not optimizing thier characters both disturbs and disappoints me. The notion that one would have to be dumb not to grab a levels of ranger, barbarian and fighter for your rogue is not agreeable to me but is rewarded by the game.




Who are these people?  Your group?  Becasue unless they are and directly influenceiung your game why does it matter what other people in other games are doing?

I've never seen anything like this.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2007)

I am pretty sure there was a thread like that on this very site reciently belittling people for making suboptimal choices for thier characters race and class combinations.


----------



## molonel (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> The notion that one would have to be dumb not to grab a levels of ranger, barbarian and fighter for your rogue is not agreeable to me but is rewarded by the game.




?!?!?!

I really have a hard time believing you've seen this in an actual 3rd Edition game.

I've been playing it since it came out. Every once in a while you see a heavily multiclassed rogue. One of the first characters in our long-running evil campaign was a rogue ?/ranger 1/fighter 2/assassin 1/shadowdancer 2. I've seen a couple of characters similar to it. None of them ever make it past 8th or 9th level, because when Will saves start becoming more common in the game they bend over and say, "Mama!"

Rogues are one of the hardest classes to multiclass because their strengths are their Sneak Attack Progression, and their skill points. Ranger is easy to multiclass in a couple of levels, but not very synergistic because Track doesn't do a whole lot unless you keep putting ranks into Survival.

A level or two of fighter won't kill you, and sometimes an extra feat is nice, but the 2 skill points per level generally hurts pretty bad.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jan 5, 2007)

You see people saying that you would "be dumb" to not multiclass in various locations.  At the risk of over generalization I will say I've seen it mostly on Character Optimization Boards but most of the stuff I've read on those boards, in my opinion, is dumb.  

If you are playing a combat rogue you may want to pick up a fighter level or two.  If you are playing a fighting rogue it would make sense and be in character.  If you are playing a skill-monkey rogue you would be stupid TO pick up the fighter level.  It would be out of character (not to mention the mechanical reasons to not do it as well) and add almost nothing.

As an engineer I do find it interesting to see how high I can get hit points or an Armor Class as a mechanical exersize.  But the vast majority (possibly even 'all') of those characters I have seen have so many weaknesses that they would never live to be that level in an actual game.  There is a reason there is the MIN in Min/Max.  The more you specialize the more likely the DM will throw something at you that will play to your weakness and possibly end up taking you out. (Not with the intention of hurting you personally - mind you.  Just do to the fact that they can't play to your strengths ALL of the time the DM will likely end up tossing something at you that you will not be effective against).


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2007)

I have enjoyed this discussion folks, heading out for dinner and a movie now.

-Peace out


----------



## Crothian (Jan 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I am pretty sure there was a thread like that on this very site reciently belittling people for making suboptimal choices for thier characters race and class combinations.





Even if there was, so what?  These aren't the people in your game and they have zeri influence on it.  I imagine you as most people would bulk at giving second level characters 30k gold pluse a gem or True Seeing.  I did that in my game and had a thread about it.  But just becasue it worked and was fun for my game doesn't mean that it would work for everyone.  Also, this is the internet and there is a saying don;'t believe everything you read here.  So, just becasue someone says it in a thread doesn't make it true.


----------



## molonel (Jan 5, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> You see people saying that you would "be dumb" to not multiclass in various locations. At the risk of over generalization I will say I've seen it mostly on Character Optimization Boards but most of the stuff I've read on those boards, in my opinion, is dumb.




On optimization boards, sure. Those are the same boards where you see mathmatical exercises like how you can do the most amount of damage with a single spell, or people with too much time and an Excel spreadsheet juggle numbers and see what they can come up with.

But most of those characters never see the light of day. They exist as numbers on a page, just like the dozens of characters I wrote up for 1st Edition when I wasn't actually playing the game. 



			
				Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> If you are playing a combat rogue you may want to pick up a fighter level or two. If you are playing a fighting rogue it would make sense and be in character. If you are playing a skill-monkey rogue you would be stupid TO pick up the fighter level. It would be out of character (not to mention the mechanical reasons to not do it as well) and add almost nothing.




Yeah, but barbarian or ranger?

It's like the characters that people talk about with five or six templates applied. I've found that anything with more than a +1 or maybe +2 ECL tends to have a glass jaw rather than dominating combat. The loss of hit dice hurts too much.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 6, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I would argue that by rewarding the behavior (cherry picking for optimization) it does in fact encourage it. The very fact the people are described as not carrying thier weight for not optimizing thier characters both disturbs and disappoints me. The notion that one would have to be dumb not to grab a levels of ranger, barbarian and fighter for your rogue is not agreeable to me but is rewarded by the game.




First off, basing your arguments on "stuff I saw people talking about on the internet" rather than, say actual play experience with the system, seems to me to be a dubious way to make an evaluation.

And you keep making statements not actually supported by the rules. "Cherry picking" as you call it usually isn't a particularly rewarding strategy. Compare, for example, a 10th level single classed barbarian with any number of "cherry picking" combinations.

The barbarian has 1d12 HD, +10/+5 BAB, rage 3 times per day, fast movement, uncanny and improved uncanny dodge, trap sense +3, and DR 2/-. He is one level away from the greater rage ability, a highly useful attribute.

Assume, for example, that he had instead "cherry picked" a level of, say rogue to get some skill points, sneak attack and trapfinding, making him a barbarian 9/rogue 1. His BAB goes down to +9/+4. He loses a d12 HD, and replaces it with a d6 HD, and his DR goes down to 1/-. He is now two levels away from greater rage. He gets +1d6 sneak attack and the trapfinding ability.

Suppose he instead "cherry picked" a bunch of classes - a few levels of ranger, barbarian, fighter, and rogue in varying degrees seem to be logical combinations for the most part, and have some synergy. But by taking those levels, he delays or even forecloses obtaining high level abilities. Every level of barbarian puts off getting the ranger's improved combat style, evasion, combat style mastery and so on. Every level of ranger delays greater rage and indomitable will. Every level of fighter puts off the selectable rogue special abilities and sneak attack progression. Yes, you get benefits from multiclassing, but the opportunity costs need to be considered as well.

And this is just melee oriented classes, which generally synergy together reaosnably well. Multiclassing spell casting classes is usually a ticket to suboptimal city. There's nothing wrong with doing that, and many times I (and other people I have gamed with) have had lots of fun playing characters who were built that way, but when your multiclassing makes you a less effective facsimile of a single classed bard, I don't see how you are power gaming.



> _I must confess that reading the bottom half of this page with all of you posting about single class 3.XE characters does give me a sense of hope._




Hope for what? That people will stop making characters that aren't as Gygax intended them to be?


----------



## Hussar (Jan 6, 2007)

Let's see, in my current WLD game, which is the highest level game I've DM'd in a long time, I've got:

Orc Barbarian 14
Kobold Bard 14
(forget race +1 LA) Fighter 11
Halfling Monk 5/Paladin 5/ Pious Templar 4 (easily the least effective character in the group - although excellent mage killer)
Human Evoker 11
Changeling Rogue/Cleric/Chameleon (new charry just introduced).

So, about half the party is single classed.  And, hands down, single classed characters are more effective.  The existence of numerous PrC's like Mystic Theurge and others show that.  If you could have an effective multiclassed caster, there would be no need for these PrC's.

I see the addition of Substitution Levels as one of the best innovations in the game in a long time.  Now you can switch out some abilities for ones that actually fit with your character without taking levels in classes that screw you over later.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 7, 2007)

Subthread of old, arise from your grave . . .   



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> Exactamundo, Mr. Martin. One thing that I've noticed on these boards is that the people I encounter who actually played older D&Ds by RAW tend to be pretty satisfied with 3e... or else don't see it as different enough to bother switching.




   I think we need to nuance this a bit more, though.  It should be remembered that there are three different streams flowing into 3E--AD&D 1E, AD&D 2E, and BD&D.  (I seriously doubt that the designers looked at OD&D, and the players still playing it now likely will not switch before the Day of Doom.   )

   All three had differences not only in mechanics, but in philosophy.  1E, from my limited knowledge of it, seems to be what 3E holds to closest in many ways, but with the Gamist element turned up to 11.

   For an example of how things were different, I submit the following selection from an essay by Steve Winter, found in the 1993 TSR Master Catalog, Collector's Edition, titled "Why do I Play the ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Game?"



			
				Steve Winter said:
			
		

> Three elements of the AD&D game keep me coming back:  its simplicity, its flexibility, and its emphasis on heroic adventure.
> 
> Some people balk when told that the AD&D game is simple.  The two essential rulebooks, the _Player's Handbook_ and the _DUNGEON MASTER Guide_, contain 450 pages.  That number alone makes any claim to simplicity seem a bit incredible.
> 
> ...




   Now, you can argue with Winter's characterization of other systems and styles, and you can point out the downside of the virtues he touts:  the lack of ways to make characters different mechanically, the reliance on DM judgement which can be a double-edged sword, and the lack of tactical options.  You could even argue that this represents a departure from AD&D 1E's wargaming roots.

    But what I think this selection _does_ demonstrate, without argument, is a philosophy of the game and its design that is dramatically different from that of today.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> It's when I see people who talk wistfully of "sense of wonder" or other Sim- and Nar-drifted experiences that I see dissatisfaction. What I don't get is why these people don't just give all the cool RPGs that aren't D&D, and that fit their needs to a "T", a shot.




  One of the unexpected boons of the d20 license, I think, and one that has only really begun to prosper in the past couple years, is the possibility to create variants on the core system that suit different styles of play.  If you have a copy of _Thirty Years of Adventure_, check out Peter Adkison's essay on 3E design philosophy.  There were three different schools of thought at WotC--one that just wanted to tune up the rules, one that wanted a more streamlined 'storytelling' game, and one that wanted a fully integrated, systematized, and highly complex system.  The third is what Adkison supported, and what won out.

   However, I think C&C has filled the niche for the first, and True20 may do the same for the second.  I know I'm giving it consideration, although STAR WARS d20 Saga Edition sounds very promising, and BESM 3E is a dark-horse candidate.  

   Matthew L. Martin


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 7, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





The argument that 1e and 3e are equal in terms of friendliness to powergaming (such as those made by others upthread) almost requires that one disregards the factors that increase the capacity for powergaming in the later system.  If options increase the capacity for powergaming, and if 3.x clearly has more options than 1e, then 3.x clearly has more capacity for powergaming than 1e.

That, to my mind, is part of the tradeoff between systems.

If you have good players, and/or can deal with (or enjoy) more powergaming combos, then the additional options are well worth the potential cost.  If, however, you are more concerned with potential powergaming combos than options, the cost might seem too high.

Saying that there is effectively no difference, though, is just silly.


RC


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Saying that there is effectively no difference, though, is just silly.




Sure there are differences. For example, it was _much_ easier to powergame using the 1e rules.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Sure there are differences. For example, it was _much_ easier to powergame using the 1e rules.





I hope that answered your question, *Crothian*.


RC


----------



## DragonLancer (Jan 8, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Sure there are differences. For example, it was _much_ easier to powergame using the 1e rules.




With respect, where do you get this idea from? powergaming is much easier under 3.X because the game is modular, and with with feats/spells/class abilities, its much easier to create a combo. 1st ed never had anything like that. The closest that 1st ed had was the overpowered options in Unearthed Arcana.


----------



## Psion (Jan 8, 2007)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> With respect, where do you get this idea from? powergaming is much easier under 3.X because the game is modular, and with with feats/spells/class abilities, its much easier to create a combo. 1st ed never had anything like that. The closest that 1st ed had was the overpowered options in Unearthed Arcana.




At the same time, I feel that in 1e, "balance" was a concept in its infancy, and several approaches were taken that, in retrospect, were shown not to work:

The "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger _some kewl powers_ today" syndrome of balancing demihumans. When, in truth, a large segment of the D&D populace testifies they never played D&D past 9th level.
The "kewl powers for bad attitudes" design philosophy behind the Barbarian and Cavalier. The upshot is that you actually rewarded wince-worthy behavior that other character types were not rewarded for. This was one of the early examples of trying to balance mechanical advantages with roleplaying disads, a folly games like GURPS went on to replicate, and many or most designers now recognize as being problematic.
The "kewl powers lottery" that was 1e psionics.
The "kewl stuff hidden in obscure rules" effect that came with the likes of odd but oft time very effective if you knew how to master them rules like dual classing, bards, speed factors, two weapon fighting, and pummeling rules.
The "reward power with more power" effect of the way powerful classes were supposedly "balanced" by having stringent entry requirements. The result with a lucky (or twinky) player would invariably be the ones with the most powerful character classes.
The UA races. Free power on a silver platter.

Hindsight is 20/20 now, and even back then, many DMs recognized the problems (to the first person wanting to reply how they never allowed psionics/UA/etc.: I rest my case). Though you can still dig out combos, we've avoided most problems like power lotteries and powers-for-roleplay disads, which are more blatant problems.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 8, 2007)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> With respect, where do you get this idea from? powergaming is much easier under 3.X because the game is modular, and with with feats/spells/class abilities, its much easier to create a combo. 1st ed never had anything like that. The closest that 1st ed had was the overpowered options in Unearthed Arcana.




Where do I get the idea? From actually playing 1e for several years.

3e is harder to powergame with because it requires more effort on the part of the powergamer. he has to know a lot of options and use a lot of small accumulations of benefits to get an edge. In 1e, powergaming was simply about picking the obviously better choices. Elves, for example, were better than anyone else (unless you knew the campaign was going to get to post-10th level, which was fairly uncommon), elven subraces introduced in _Unearthed Arcana_ were pretty much even better than elves. Multiclassing (or dual classing) was superior to single classing. And so on. It was far easier to figure out how to powergame in 1e than in 3e, and far easier to accomplish.


----------



## molonel (Jan 8, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Sure there are differences. For example, it was _much_ easier to powergame using the 1e rules.




Heck yeah! Powergaming solutions were much easier to come by in 1st Edition. Some folks take these weird funky combos of numbers, spells, items and prestige classes as proof of how broken 3rd Edition is. But look at how much WORK some of those combos are, and you don't get there until 10th, 12th or even 20th level before some of this stuff kicks in. I saw a bard build on one forum to prove that bards were "broken" were the juicy stuff didn't kick in until 17th or 18th level! Powergaming was much easier in 1st Edition, than in 2nd or 3rd.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 8, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> 3e is harder to powergame with because it requires more effort on the part of the powergamer.




Actually, the first person to powergame a combo in 3e can have a hard time.  But everyone else just has to get on line and find all the exploits.  I don't even have to have the books!! So, the ease of communication makes it much easier to powergame in 3e.  In 1e we had to do it all ourselves.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 8, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Where do I get the idea? From actually playing 1e for several years.
> 
> 3e is harder to powergame with because it requires more effort on the part of the powergamer. he has to know a lot of options and use a lot of small accumulations of benefits to get an edge. In 1e, powergaming was simply about picking the obviously better choices. Elves, for example, were better than anyone else (unless you knew the campaign was going to get to post-10th level, which was fairly uncommon), elven subraces introduced in _Unearthed Arcana_ were pretty much even better than elves. Multiclassing (or dual classing) was superior to single classing. And so on. It was far easier to figure out how to powergame in 1e than in 3e, and far easier to accomplish.





This strikes me as odd.  It seems that what you're saying is "In *AD&D*, it's easy to powergame as long as you know the rules.  But in third edition, it's only easy to powergame if you know the rules."

???


----------



## buzz (Jan 8, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It was far easier to figure out how to powergame in 1e than in 3e, and far easier to accomplish.



Totally. Once you figured out "dual-wielding elven f/m-u," you were set. UA simply added the elven subrace decision point, assuming you didn't just go Cav or Barb.

3e? Twinking 3e takes work. I also find it to be pretty fun, to produce a wide variety of interesting builds, and to not be particularly game-breaking.


----------



## buzz (Jan 8, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> This strikes me as odd.  It seems that what you're saying is "In *AD&D*, it's easy to powergame as long as you know the rules.  But in third edition, it's only easy to powergame if you know the rules."



He's pointing out the difference in effort, and variance of options. 1e has a few obvious options. 3e has a bajillion once you start plundering sourcebooks.


----------



## molonel (Jan 8, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> This strikes me as odd.  It seems that what you're saying is "In *AD&D*, it's easy to powergame as long as you know the rules.  But in third edition, it's only easy to powergame if you know the rules."
> 
> ???




No, that's not what he's saying.

In 1st Edition, the choices were obvious. It takes work to powergame in 3rd Edition. The Hulking Hurler build that people are so fond of talking about doesn't get really powerful until an ECL of 18 or more, and it required taking calculating the maximum possible carrying capabilities of a creature with a strength of 60 or higher.

The game didn't explode at 3rd level, in other words, or in blatantly obvious ways.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 8, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> This strikes me as odd.  It seems that what you're saying is "In *AD&D*, it's easy to powergame as long as you know the rules.  But in third edition, it's only easy to powergame if you know the rules."




I'm saying that in AD&D there are obvious choices that are simply better than others, that are easy to identify and exploit. And some people seem to consdier such obvious exploits to be "normal" that they become frustrated when 3e won't let their uber character be translated over (witness the various threads that involve people complaining that 3e won't let them properly translate their Skills and Powers cleric or multiclassed elf or whatever and keep him as powerful as he was in previous editions). And in 1e these exploits are found in the PHB and UA, front and center, and easy to find, and, for the most part, the bonuses and benefits kick in the day the character starts adventuring.

In 3e, you may be able to create an overbalanced character, but it requires you to hunt down non-obvious choices to do so. In 3e, to powergame you have to be able to have access to a pile of books, hunt through them all to find the combination of feats, classes, spells, and race attirbutes that will give you the edge you are looking for (which usually comes with some sort of disadvantage, or requires that you deliberately misinterpret a rule somewhere to make work), an in play, assemble them (usually requiring several levels of advancement to make it work) until your plan crystallizes a year into the campaign. And then it usually requires several rounds of specific preparation to make the combination work, during which time, your "nonpowergaming" allies will have dealt with the opposition on their own, and be left wondering why all you did was cast four buff spells that will expire before you get to the next challenge.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 8, 2007)

I tend to agree with the sentiment that powergaming in 3E takes a lot of work, and constantly marvel at the builds I see people put together. I can't decide whether they are ingenious, the builders have way too much time on their hands, or some combination of the above.

One fact that may come into play that makes 3E seem more powergamey than earlier editions is the proliferation of information via the internet. I remember letters in Dragon back in the day about people posting their uber-characters and builds (the Waldorf scenario being a key absurdist highlight), but nothing to the extent of what you see nowadays. There simply wasn't a medium for it back then.

[EDIT- Crothian beat me to it.]


----------



## molonel (Jan 8, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> I tend to agree with the sentiment that powergaming in 3E takes a lot of work, and constantly marvel at the builds I see people put together. I can't decide whether they are ingenious, the builders have way too much time on their hands, or some combination of the above.




Heh. No kidding. And even having access to the information doesn't translate into the ability to break the game. There is one guy in our World's Largest Dungeon campaign that we know reads the powergaming boards. He refuses to admit it, though. He came in with an Iajitsu Master. I was actually looking forward to seeing what it could do, but we never got the chance because he got turned into a road pizza in the 2nd or 3rd combat encounter. Being able to do uber butt-tons of damage doesn't mean anything when you have a REALLY bad AC and you're caught in a web.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 8, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I'm saying that in AD&D there are obvious choices that are simply better than others, that are easy to identify and exploit. And some people seem to consdier such obvious exploits to be "normal" that they become frustrated when 3e won't let their uber character be translated over (witness the various threads that involve people complaining that 3e won't let them properly translate their Skills and Powers cleric or multiclassed elf or whatever and keep him as powerful as he was in previous editions). And in 1e these exploits are found in the PHB and UA, front and center, and easy to find, and, for the most part, the bonuses and benefits kick in the day the character starts adventuring.
> 
> In 3e, you may be able to create an overbalanced character, but it requires you to hunt down non-obvious choices to do so. In 3e, to powergame you have to be able to have access to a pile of books, hunt through them all to find the combination of feats, classes, spells, and race attirbutes that will give you the edge you are looking for (which usually comes with some sort of disadvantage, or requires that you deliberately misinterpret a rule somewhere to make work), an in play, assemble them (usually requiring several levels of advancement to make it work) until your plan crystallizes a year into the campaign. And then it usually requires several rounds of specific preparation to make the combination work, during which time, your "nonpowergaming" allies will have dealt with the opposition on their own, and be left wondering why all you did was cast four buff spells that will expire before you get to the next challenge.






I'm not trying to be obtuse but we're back to square one: you can powergame in AD&D if you know the rules.  You can powergame in current D&D if you know the rules.  

And a corollary to that is: you can't powergame in _any_ edition if the DM won't have it!


----------



## molonel (Jan 8, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to be obtuse ....




Mmmm-hmmm.

I believe you. Totally.


----------



## buzz (Jan 8, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to be obtuse but we're back to square one: you can powergame in AD&D if you know the rules.  You can powergame in current D&D if you know the rules.



This is true of all RPGs; you're not actually addressing the question. The issue at hand is whether doing the actual powergaming is easier or more difficult from edition to edition. If someone is going to assert that 3e better facilitates powergaming, then I'd assume they mean that 3e makes doing so easier. Actual evidence of 3e play contradicts this.

Granted, I don't really know why this issue really matters. Rules mastery is part-and-parcel of D&D, IMO. The fact that 3e makes this process robust, facilitating lots of options in the build process, is a plus in my book. 

If one really finds "powergaming" that abhorrent, I don't see why they should play a system that so actively rewards it... which, IMO, is true of every edition of D&D ever published.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 8, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to be obtuse but we're back to square one: you can powergame in AD&D if you know the rules.  You can powergame in current D&D if you know the rules.




You can easily powergame in 1e if you can spot the obvious rules exploits that are readily apparent when you crack open the first pages of the PHB. You can only powergame in 3e if you can spot the connections between a wide variety of possible options spread out over a dozen different sourcebooks and figure out a way to jigger them together. You also, almost always have to accept some sort of disadvantage (things like "he can deal lots of damage, but his AC is 4 and he only has 22 hit points at level 12") or misinterpret various rules. Most of the time, the "powergaming" example involve pumping a character up with spells of extremely limited duration, which means you are spending valuable time in combat buffing yourself rather than actually dealing with the threat (the "AC 56 at 6th level" character is an example of this, parsing him out revealed that you had to use four or five wands to cast protective spells, a couple of which would only last for a couple of minutes to accomplish the 'easy" goal). These are flaws that are rarely revealed on things like the optimization board. It looks easy to have a 12th level cleric who casts five big buffing spells to make himself a combat monster - in actual play, the challenege is over, or nearly so, before he gets going.

You can powergame in 1e from level 1, with an overbalanced character right out of the gate. To powergame in 3e, you have to build your character over the course of several levels, spend time pumping yourself up, and don't get any kind of pay off until your character has avoided getting his til then underpowered head handed to him for months.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> You can easily powergame in 1e if you can spot the obvious rules exploits that are readily apparent when you crack open the first pages of the PHB.





And what are they, exactly?

RC


----------



## Psion (Jan 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And what are they, exactly?




Do you have me on ignore? See my post #332 for a few.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 8, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Heh. No kidding. And even having access to the information doesn't translate into the ability to break the game...




That's a great anecdote, and very true. Much as I hate to make the comparison- due to critics of 3E complaints about it being a game for computer gamers- I've seen the same thing happen in MMORPGs. You get a person who powerlevels their character because they want to play an 'uber' guy and not have to actually go through the process of getting the experience, and they end up getting beaten because, powerful as they may be, they have absolutely no idea how to play the game.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And what are they, exactly?




In 1e, play a nonhuman (specifically, an elf), and multiclass for a start. If you are playing an a campaign that you know will go to high level, play a human, and dual class. If you are usuing UA, play an elven subrace. If you want to get fancy, find the rules for dual wielding, and do that, especially if you are playing UA and can specialize and double specialize. Alternatively, when using UA, make sure to play a cavalier or barbarian, if you can do that as a nonhuman, all the better.

Now, it has been more than a decade since I last tried to play 1e, and I remember these rules exploits off the top of my head. Every party of adventurers was overrun with (gray or drow) elven fighter/magic-users and half-elven fighter/clerics or cleric/magic-users and so on. Why? Because the alternatives were, for the most part, clearly inferior.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 8, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Do you have me on ignore? See my post #332 for a few.





I see a bunch of bitching about the overall feel of the game there but I don't see any hard numbers that add up to massive exploits, honestly.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Do you have me on ignore? See my post #332 for a few.




Of course not!    

However, I note (and have previously agreed) that the UA opened up lots of powergaming options.  That's not the same thing as "readily apparent when you crack open the first pages of the PHB".

RC


----------



## molonel (Jan 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Of course not!
> 
> However, I note (and have previously agreed) that the UA opened up lots of powergaming options.  That's not the same thing as "readily apparent when you crack open the first pages of the PHB".
> 
> RC




Since you were an idiot to play a melee fighter with a 17 strength or less, my personal favorite was not to tell the DM which of the two percentile dice was the tens until after I'd rolled. I don't think I played a melee-oriented character with less than an 18/91 strength unless I had Gauntlets of Ogre Power, ever.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> In 1e, play a nonhuman (specifically, an elf), and multiclass for a start.




Which will increase your overall versatility at 1st level, but it's been my experience that these characters don't level as fast as the rest of the party, and are actually relatively balanced.  



> If you are playing an a campaign that you know will go to high level, play a human, and dual class.




How, exactly, is this powergaming?

What I am seeing is that, if you include the UA, you gain a number of powergaming options.  That is granted.  That is also not the first few pages of the PHB.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Since you were an idiot to play a melee fighter with a 17 strength or less, my personal favorite was not to tell the DM which of the two percentile dice was the tens until after I'd rolled. I don't think I played a melee-oriented character with less than an 18/91 strength unless I had Gauntlets of Ogre Power, ever.





That's not the fault of the rules.  That's cheating.


RC


----------



## buzz (Jan 8, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> I see a bunch of bitching about the overall feel of the game there but I don't see any hard numbers that add up to massive exploits, honestly.



That multiple people have independently identified all of the same tricks isn't support enough? What kind of hard numbers are you looking for?


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That's not the fault of the rules.  That's cheating.
> 
> 
> RC





QFT


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 8, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> I see a bunch of bitching about the overall feel of the game there but I don't see any hard numbers that add up to massive exploits, honestly.




At the same experience point level, one could be a human 7th level fighter; or one could be a gray elven 6th/6th level fighter-magic user. Compare:

As a gray elf, you got +1 Int, +1 Dex, -1 Con, infravision, +1 to hit with bows and the long and short sword (pretty much the best weapons in 1e mechanical terms), infravision, 90 resistance to sleep and charm, a bevy of bonus languages, the ability to move silently, and a few other sundry abilities. As a fighter, if you were using UA, you could specialize and double specialize, just like the single classed guy. You got to use the best attack matrix, and saved as the better of your two classes. Since you were a fighter multiclass, you could have percentile Strength, and take advantage of the higher Constitution bonuses, if you qualified. You also got all the spell casting abiltiies of a 6th level magic-user tacked on to your fighter abilities, all for the negligible cost of a single fighter level.

As a human, you get no racial abilities. You can specialize and double specialize, and get the ability to have percentile Strength and use the high Constitution bonuses. You can't cast any spells, and use only the fighter's save matrix, meaning your save bonuses are worse than your companion's. Your attack matrix may (or may not) be better than the multiclass guys, since you are a level higher in fighter, but the tables had funky oddness, in many areas, elminated your edge on that score.

Are you really not seeing the inherent problem here?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2007)

buzz said:
			
		

> That multiple people have independently identified all of the same tricks isn't support enough? What kind of hard numbers are you looking for?





I would imagine some sort of numbers that identify clear mechanical advantages of the "tricks" being cited, when the tricks themselves are part of the rules and not simply ignoring the rules (such as cheating on rolling percentile strength or for psionics).


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> As a fighter, if you were using UA, you could specialize and double specialize, just like the single classed guy.





I could be wrong, but I thought this was resticted to single class fighters.


RC


EDIT:  And, again, UA.  A far cry from simply glancing at the first few pages of the PHB.


----------



## Psion (Jan 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Of course not!
> 
> However, I note (and have previously agreed) that the UA opened up lots of powergaming options.  That's not the same thing as "readily apparent when you crack open the first pages of the PHB".




I concur, though you'll note 3 of the options I mention as problematic were right out of the PHB.

But if one if going to indict 3e for the possible combinations in (literally) dozens of sourcebooks, one ought to call including one central 1e supplement fair game.


----------



## molonel (Jan 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That's not the fault of the rules.  That's cheating.
> 
> RC




No, that's just good sense. You could have a 17 strength, and get +1 to-hit or damage, or you could have a high percentile strength, and your effectiveness went up x2 or x3. The system itself made a 17 or less strength almost meaningless. In 3rd Edition a strength of 12 gives you +1, 14 gives you +2, 16 gives you +3, 18 gives you +4. The system actually scales instead of doing a J-curve after 17.

I mean, a 16 strength gave you +0 to-hit, and +1 damage? What the heck is that?


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Which will increase your overall versatility at 1st level, but it's been my experience that these characters don't level as fast as the rest of the party, and are actually relatively balanced.




Then your experience differs. Sure, they don't level as fast as single classed characters. But, given the geometric progression of the 1e experience point tables, they would generally lag one level behind their single classed counterparts at the same experience point total, and sometimes not even that. At the same experience point total, a 5th level single classed character is usually matched by a 4th/4th level multiclass character. And sacrificing one level in one class for four levels in another is a huge edge.



> _How, exactly, is this powergaming?_




Dual classing was, by its very structure, powergaming. Since the dual classed character used his new class experience point chart for advancement after switching, it usually only took him a level's worth of experience progression match that old class (for a 7th level character, getting enough experience points to become 7th level again), meaning that he was able to add all of the abilities and attributes of a second class at the same level as his previous class in the time that it took his single classed companions to advance one level in their single class. Which would you rather be? A 10th level fighter, or a 9th/9th level fighter/cleric (or whatever)?


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I could be wrong, but I thought this was resticted to single class fighters.




You are wrong. In 1e, specialization and double specialization were available to all fighters and rangers. Multiclassed or otherwise.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> You are wrong.





{Shrug}  Crom knows it wouldn't be the first time.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Then your experience differs.




Or yours does.    

IME, this wasn't a huge edge, and multiclassed characters ultimately didn't succeed the way single-classed characters did.  Being a fighter who cannot wear armor, for example, meant that many fighter/magic users got a few extra hit points for that drop in level because they only went into combat as a last resort.  The multi-classed characters had to divide their XP equally between classes; playing a three-class character was simply suicidal.



> Dual classing was, by its very structure, powergaming. Since the dual classed character used his new class experience point chart for advancement after switching, it usually only took him a level's worth of experience progression match that old class




But let us not forget that, if he used any abilities from his previous class *he gained no XP* for that session.  If you're hanging around with your old buddies, the odds are good that you'll either end up falling back on your old skills (for survival) or you won't survive.  The rules, therefore, ameleorate the effect you are talking about here.  IME, they ameleorate it so much that very few players chose to dual class. 

Finally, molonel, changing the outcome of a die roll because you don't like the result you get is cheating, pure and simple.  It doesn't matter if it is during character generation, combat, or whathaveyou.  You may argue that cheating is "just good sense", but that doesn't change what it is.


RC


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Or yours does.




Perhaps, but, on the other hand, when I was playing AD&D, I moved several times and played with literally dozens of groups. The enhanced effectiveness of multiclassed characters was constant throughout every group.



> _IME, this wasn't a huge edge, and multiclassed characters ultimately didn't succeed the way single-classed characters did.  Being a fighter who cannot wear armor, for example, meant that many fighter/magic users got a few extra hit points for that drop in level because they only went into combat as a last resort.  The multi-classed characters had to divide their XP equally between classes; playing a three-class character was simply suicidal._




Ultimately, but then again, most campaigns never got to the point where things that were "ultimately" true actually mattered. You might also note that in 1e, fighter/magic-users were not prevented from wearing armor, so your argument there seems to fall apart. And if that were a problem, think of the class not as a fighter with magic-user tacked on, but as a magic-user with fighter tacked on. Compared to a 6th level magic-user, a 5th/5th level fighter/magic-user gains much, and gives up almost nothing.

The fact that multiclassed character had to divide their experience equally between two classes was not really a hindrance. The nature of the 1e experience point tables meant that they lagged one level behind (or two levels behind for a triple classed character) the single classed characters. But they added all the abilities of a second class one level below that of the single classed character (and sometimes not even that, at several experience point totals, the single classed character would be matched in level by the multiclasser, entirely eliminating the single classers purported advantage).

Given your notes concerning the limitations you think multiclassed characters labored under, I think you are remembering limitations imposed upon them in 2e, many of which appear to have been a direct outgrowth of the abuses they were prone to in 1e. 2e, however, had its own powergaming problems.



> _But let us not forget that, if he used any abilities from his previous class *he gained no XP* for that session.  If you're hanging around with your old buddies, the odds are good that you'll either end up falling back on your old skills (for survival) or you won't survive.  The rules, therefore, ameleorate the effect you are talking about here.  IME, they ameleorate it so much that very few players chose to dual class._




They ameliorate it almost not at all. In 1e, especially as played by Gygax and company, it was not uncommon for characters of widely differing levels to adventure together to begin with. The cohesive party of the modern era was not yet developed, and instead parties of dungeon delvers would assemble and set out together, so it was not uncommon for a 5th level character to adventure with some 9th level guys and so on. Further, even if that is not the case, the level ramp up is so fast, that it would take almost no time to bump up to repsetable level in your second class. For a 9th level character, accumulating 2,000 experience points was almost trivial. A fight or two and the resulting plunder probably. That makes you 2nd level. Then third comes quickly too, and before a single night of gaming is done, you probably accumulate enough experience points to beef up to 5th level or so. At that point, solely relying on your new classes abilities for the next couple of weeks or months of gaming is not much of a sacrifice at all.



> _Finally, molonel, changing the outcome of a die roll because you don't like the result you get is cheating, pure and simple.  It doesn't matter if it is during character generation, combat, or whathaveyou.  You may argue that cheating is "just good sense", but that doesn't change what it is._




I agree here.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but, on the other hand, when I was playing AD&D, I moved several times and played with literally dozens of groups. The enhanced effectiveness of multiclassed characters was constant throughout every group.




Yup.  Me too.

Wisconsin (home of D&D), Indiana, Missouri, Lousiana, Virginia.



> Ultimately, but then again, most campaigns never got to the point where things that were "ultimately" true actually mattered.




Our mileage obviously varies.    



> You might also note that in 1e, fighter/magic-users were not prevented from wearing armor, so your argument there seems to fall apart.




That's true; but since magic-user spells cannot be cast in armor, the poor schmoe had to choose either to be a magic-user with better hit points and weapons, or a fighter with fewer hit points.



> And if that were a problem, think of the class not as a fighter with magic-user tacked on, but as a magic-user with fighter tacked on. Compared to a 6th level magic-user, a 5th/5th level fighter/magic-user gains much, and gives up almost nothing.




Only if you assume that the halving of XP doesn't matter.  IME, it mattered quite a bit.  We had some multi-classed characters (generally two classes; as mentioned, 3 would be suicidal), but by the time that the single-class characters were mid-level, the effects of multi-classing were certainly being felt.

Simply having fewer hit points made a difference in the groups I played with.  Not to mention that the spellcasting types had fewer spells available (which is a bigger deal in 1e than in 3e).  Our fighter/magic-user could operate as a magic-user until his spells ran out, and then change into armor, but this was only a good option if you lugged a spare set of armor with you.

I have to say that, although I played 1e in 5 states with hundreds of different people, powergaming was never a problem.



> They ameliorate it almost not at all. In 1e, especially as played by Gygax and company, it was not uncommon for characters of widely differing levels to adventure together to begin with.




True.  In fact, still true IMC.  That doesn't mean that the weaker characters don't die while the stronger ones carry off the loot, though.  Hanging out with the big boys was a crap shoot -- like going straight to the lowest level of the dungeon -- it could pay in spades, or you could wind up very, very dead.


RC


EDIT:  Of course, I grant that I might have simply been extremely lucky with the groups I ran games for, or played in the games of.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That's true; but since magic-user spells cannot be cast in armor, the poor schmoe had to choose either to be a magic-user with better hit points and weapons, or a fighter with fewer hit points.




Actually, the 1e rules don't actually say that. They say magic-users and illusionist cannot wear armor, but provide no prohibition on casting magic-user spells in armor. Armored 1e fighter/magic-users casting in full plate were the order of the day.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Actually, the 1e rules don't actually say that. They say magic-users and illusionist cannot wear armor, but provide no prohibition on casting magic-user spells in armor. Armored 1e fighter/magic-users casting in full plate were the order of the day.





I don't have my books with me at work, so I'll get back to you on this.


----------



## molonel (Jan 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Finally, molonel, changing the outcome of a die roll because you don't like the result you get is cheating, pure and simple. It doesn't matter if it is during character generation, combat, or whathaveyou. You may argue that cheating is "just good sense", but that doesn't change what it is.




And when the system only rewards outcomes above a certain point, it is drastically encouraging cheating. It wasn't that I just "Didn't like" the result. There were simply no rewards whatsoever for lower results, or very little. 

Percentile strength, in and of itself, was stupid. The fact that you could go from 16 (+0/+1) to 17 (+1/+1) to 18/00 (+3?!?!/+6?!?!) encouraged that sort of stupidity.

I was in junior high. But I could still do the math.

You guys asked what the obvious solutions for powergaming in 1st Edition were. I'm just sayin' that was easy enough for a 12 year old to figure out.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 8, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Actually, the 1e rules don't actually say that. They say magic-users and illusionist cannot wear armor, but provide no prohibition on casting magic-user spells in armor. Armored 1e fighter/magic-users casting in full plate were the order of the day.



Did we (all) houserule that, then?  Because I'm sure there was some sort of prohibition against casting out of metal armour, and a penalty if casting out of leather or similar...might not have applied to Elves, though...?

Lanefan


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 8, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Actually, the 1e rules don't actually say that. They say magic-users and illusionist cannot wear armor, but provide no prohibition on casting magic-user spells in armor. Armored 1e fighter/magic-users casting in full plate were the order of the day.





No it isn't.  From the *PLAYER'S HANDBOOK*:



> 2.  The character may mix functions freely and still gain experience, *although restrictions regarding armor, shield, and/or weapon apply with regard to operations particular to one or both classes.*




(emphasis mine)


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 8, 2007)

Nope. That's in 2e, but not in 1e. In 1e, it was absolutely permissible to cast spells while wearing armor if you were multiclassed or dual-classed.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 8, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Did we (all) houserule that, then?  Because I'm sure there was some sort of prohibition against casting out of metal armour, and a penalty if casting out of leather or similar...might not have applied to Elves, though...?
> 
> Lanefan




Elves didn't suffer that restriction, no.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 8, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Nope. That's in 2e, but not in 1e. In 1e, it was absolutely permissible to cast spells while wearing armor if you were multiclassed or dual-classed.




Nope.  See the quote from the *PLAYER'S HANDBOOK* above yours.[/b]


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jan 8, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Did we (all) houserule that, then?  Because I'm sure there was some sort of prohibition against casting out of metal armour, and a penalty if casting out of leather or similar...might not have applied to Elves, though...?



I didn't house-rule it.  A multi-classed fighter/magic-user in OAD&D could use armor and cast spells.  In fact, here's a quote from the _Players Handbook_, pg 18:


> Note that non-human and semi-human race characters who are multi-classed are typically bound by the limitations of the thief class, only.  That is, a fighter/magic-user can benefit from both armor, weaponry, and spells; a fighter/thief is limited by the constraints of the thief class.


----------



## Psion (Jan 8, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Actually, the 1e rules don't actually say that. They say magic-users and illusionist cannot wear armor, but provide no prohibition on casting magic-user spells in armor.




Incorrect.

_Multiclass_ characters could cast spells in armor. _Dual class_ characters ("character with two classes") could not. Even once they surpassed the level of their original class, they were still required to abide by armor restrictions to act as a magic user (1e PHB, page 33, bullet point 2 under "Character with two classes").

Which, all other abuses of the system considered, was fair enough. Dual classed characters got to keep the HP of their first class instead of being forced to go with the average like multiclass.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 8, 2007)

Wait - was the discussion about multi-class or dual-class?  If it was multi-class then no, there was no restriction.  I was referring strictly to dual-class (for humans).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> You guys asked what the obvious solutions for powergaming in 1st Edition were. I'm just sayin' that was easy enough for a 12 year old to figure out.





Sure.  And in any edition, you get better bonuses for having higher scores.  Just say you rolled all 18s.  And, hey, there isn't a reward for rolling a 5 on an attack roll....why not just say it was a 20?

You can blame the game system for your cheating, if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't make the game system responsible.


RC


----------



## molonel (Jan 8, 2007)

Different systems for multiclassing humans and demihuman (demi?) races was also one of my absolute FAVORITE parts of 1st Edition, too!

Have I mentioned that?


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jan 8, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> Nope.  See the quote from the *PLAYER'S HANDBOOK* above yours.[/b]



That quote applies to dual-classed characters, but not to multi-classed characters.

_Edit -sheesh, I'm slow..._


----------



## Lalato (Jan 8, 2007)

I welcome anyone to actually read the rules in 1e and 2e and run a game with the rules as written.  I bet you'll find that it's just as constraining as 3e albeit in a different way.   And just like you could ignore the rules you didn't like back then, you can ignore the rules you don't like now.

--sam


----------



## molonel (Jan 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Sure.  And in any edition, you get better bonuses for having higher scores.  Just say you rolled all 18s. And, hey, there isn't a reward for rolling a 5 on an attack roll....why not just say it was a 20? You can blame the game system for your cheating, if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't make the game system responsible.




The difference between having a 16 and an 18 strength to-hit or damage in 3rd Edition is +1. The difference between 16 and 18/00 in 1st Edition was +3 to-hit and +5 damage. Percentile strength made no sense, and it was a stupid rule that encouraged cheating on stat rolls.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 8, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> That quote applies to dual-classed characters, but not to multi-classed characters.




Yep, and since I was talking about an elven fighter/magic-user, the quote doesn't apply.


----------



## Psion (Jan 8, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Different systems for multiclassing humans and demihuman (demi?) races was also one of my absolute FAVORITE parts of 1st Edition, too!




Hated it.

This was one of those "house ruled it away before 3e came along" things for me.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> The difference between having a 16 and an 18 strength to-hit or damage in 3rd Edition is +1. The difference between 16 and 18/00 in 1st Edition was +3 to-hit and +5 damage. Percentile strength made no sense, and it was a stupid rule that encouraged cheating on stat rolls.





Sure. And in any edition, you get better bonuses for having higher scores. Just say you rolled all 18s. And, hey, there isn't a reward for rolling a 5 on an attack roll....why not just say it was a 20? You can blame the game system for your cheating, if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't make the game system responsible.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 8, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> The difference between having a 16 and an 18 strength to-hit or damage in 3rd Edition is +1. The difference between 16 and 18/00 in 1st Edition was +3 to-hit and +5 damage. Percentile strength made no sense, and it was a stupid rule that encouraged cheating on stat rolls.




To the point that UA essentially made cheating on stat rolls legal with the alternate stat generation system it provided.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> To the point that UA essentially made cheating on stat rolls legal with the alternate stat generation system it provided.




I seem to recall that the UA alternate methods require DM approval.  Do it on your own, it's cheating.  Do it with approval, it's not.


----------



## molonel (Jan 8, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> To the point that UA essentially made cheating on stat rolls legal with the alternate stat generation system it provided.




I must confess, I don't even remember that.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Sure. And in any edition, you get better bonuses for having higher scores. Just say you rolled all 18s. And, hey, there isn't a reward for rolling a 5 on an attack roll....why not just say it was a 20? You can blame the game system for your cheating, if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't make the game system responsible.




Not just BETTER bonuses. Astoundingly better bonuses.

If you see percentile strength as sensible and good, then good on ya.

I thought it was stupid then, and I think it's stupid now.

But God knows, we can't have a 1st Edition advocate admitting that there were any problems with the system! Percentile strength? It makes perfect sense. Fighters are just ... stronger ... somehow ... than other people .... with the same attribute score. It was such a good idea it should have carried over into other stats. Wizards could have 18/00 Int. Clerics could have 18/00 Wis.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> If you see percentile strength as sensible and good, then good on ya.
> 
> I thought it was stupid then, and I think it's stupid now.





Well, that I can agree with.   I'd not care to return to percentile strength.    

EDIT:  And you are right about it carrying into other stats; there should either be percentiles for all or for none.  I vastly prefer 2e/3e here.

But, if you know what the rules are, and you break those rules, then it is you who is responsible and not the rules.  Some rules (in every edition, IMHO) cry out to be changed.  If you sit down as a group (or as a DM) and houserule them, and let everyone know that you have done so, then you are (hopefully) improving the game.  If you are instead lying about your die rolls, you're just cheating.  Clear and simple, IMHO.


RC


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jan 8, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> If you see percentile strength as sensible and good, then good on ya.
> 
> I thought it was stupid then, and I think it's stupid now.



I always thought it was weird, too.  I don't think it's game-breaking, but it always struck me as odd.  I prefer the B/X attribute mods over the OAD&D ones.


----------



## molonel (Jan 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> But, if you know what the rules are, and you break those rules, then it is you who is responsible and not the rules.  Some rules (in every edition, IMHO) cry out to be changed.  If you sit down as a group (or as a DM) and houserule them, and let everyone know that you have done so, then you are (hopefully) improving the game.  If you are instead lying about your die rolls, you're just cheating.  Clear and simple, IMHO.




It seems like you're trying to convince me that cheating is wrong, when I never said it was right.

I did, however, say that the system encouraged it and rewarded ONLY the highest stats, and therefore encouraged cheating on dice rolls for character generation on melee characters in particular, since percentile stats only existed for such.

I played a lot of First Edition, and I know I saw a LOT more characters with percentile strength in the 91 - 100 range than I saw in the 01 - 10 range.

So I know this wasn't something that just happened in my gaming group.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> It seems like you're trying to convince me that cheating is wrong, when I never said it was right.




No.  Merely that cheating is cheating, and that it is the responsibility of the one doing it.

Moreover, even if everyone cheats in exactly the same way, you can hardly expect the game rules to be designed based upon an assumption of cheating.  I've known a lot of people to "roll" high (combat, stats, saves) but the game rules are not broken because their characters always hit/have great stats/never fail a save.  

Lots of arguments can be made why D&D 1e was sub-optimal.  That you, me, or anyone else was prone to cheating isn't one of them.


RC


----------



## molonel (Jan 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No. Merely that cheating is cheating, and that it is the responsibility of the one doing it. Moreover, even if everyone cheats in exactly the same way, you can hardly expect the game rules to be designed based upon an assumption of cheating. I've known a lot of people to "roll" high (combat, stats, saves) but the game rules are not broken because their characters always hit/have great stats/never fail a save. Lots of arguments can be made why D&D 1e was sub-optimal. That you, me, or anyone else was prone to cheating isn't one of them.




I respectfully disagree. When the system only really rewards people who have 18/91+ strength, then you're not really going to see anything else. That's what I saw, then. Or everyone had Gauntlets of Ogre Power, strangely. The fiat came through DM item granting (you just HAPPENED to find it), or through modified dice schemes (like the one mentioned in UA) or simply through player iniative.

It was a weak statting system on every level, and it encouraged cheating more than a system that rewards stats on a sensible curve, especially when there were very few ways to increase stats back then. You played the hand you were dealt.

You disagree. That's fine. 

But nothing you've said has convinced me otherwise.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> I respectfully disagree.




Sure. And you can blame the game system for your cheating, if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't make the game system responsible.


----------



## MerricB (Jan 8, 2007)

If I may note...

Percentile Strength was introduced in OD&D Supplement I: Greyhawk; it's primary function was to make fighters better than they had previously been - which was actually quite weak.

Specialisation, added in Unearthed Arcana, also had the same idea behind it.

The trouble with both systems was that they rewarded fighters more at 1st level (when they didn't need it) than at 10th level (when they did!)

In original D&D, you used 3d6 for your stats. Rolled in order. Cool.  What happened was that you got a lot of unplayable characters, and shortly thereafter a lot of dead characters where players would deliberately "suicide" their PCs to get one better. Life was cheap in those days. 

So, you got the alternative generation versions in the DMG for AD&D.

Cheers!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Did we (all) houserule that, then?  Because I'm sure there was some sort of prohibition against casting out of metal armour, and a penalty if casting out of leather or similar...might not have applied to Elves, though...?
> 
> Lanefan





I believe that, if you went through the effort of digging out old The Dragons, you'd find a Sage Advice (then Official Answers to Your Rules Questions) that said, in effect, that because multi-classed characters who cast wizard or illusionist spells could wear armor, but because wizards and illusionists could not wear armor (it being anethema to their spells), that multi-classed wizards and illusionists could only cast spells while not wearing armor.

HOWEVER, even if I am remembering this correctly, it does seem to be a nerfing of multiclassed characters as described in the PHB, and thus would seem to make the point that multi-classing caused problems _more clearly_ (after all, why nerf something that isn't getting out of control?).

So, even though I never had any problems with this issue (and I had a wide play experience with 1e) I guess I have to put this lack of problems down to really good luck or really good players, or some combination of the two.    

RC


----------



## molonel (Jan 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Sure. And you can blame the game system for your cheating, if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't make the game system responsible.




I have agreed to disagree with you, and simply stated that you have not demonstrated the logic or reasoning to convince me. Since you are incapable of simply doing the same, I will be the more mature party here, and leave it at that.

Cheers.


----------



## MerricB (Jan 8, 2007)

Do you have a Dragon issue number for that RC? (Mind you, a couple of those answers in the first installmenets are very dodgy, from memory).

If you check the 1e PHB, you'll find passages like, "Although able to operate freely with the benefits of armor, weapons, and magical items available to the clases the character is operating in, any thieving is restricted to the armor and weaponry usable by the thief class." (PHB 16). So, elven fighter/magic-users could cast spells in full plate; but elven fighter/thieves could not backstab or pick locks when in anything more than leather.

Another quote, "Cleric/Magic-User: This combination gives the character a great variety and selection of spells, as well as the use of armour and more weapons." - PHB 32

"Fighter/Magic-user: Obviously, this combination allows excellent armour protection, the use of weaponry, and spells." - PHB 32

It wasn't until 2e that the "no casting in armour" rule came in. (Interestingly, elven fighter/magic-users in elven chain could cast spells, as a specific exception to the rule!)

Cheers!


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> HOWEVER, even if I am remembering this correctly, it does seem to be a nerfing of multiclassed characters as described in the PHB, and thus would seem to make the point that multi-classing caused problems _more clearly_ (after all, why nerf something that isn't getting out of control?).




I recall this crystallized (for me) in a letter written to _Dragon_ during an era when there was much consternation about Monty Haul campaigns (which seemed to be a huge problem in the early 1980s, as there was little real guidance as to how to run a "balanced" campaign outside of various editorials and advice articles in _Dragon_). The writer was describing his encounter with a DM who ran such a campaign (that, if I remember correctly included things like 75 foot tall mutant orcs and magic-users blasting entire cities with _fireballs_ and so on). The player asked if he could play the most powerful legal character he could think of - a half-elven 5/8/8 cleric/fighter/magic-user armed with _Stormbringer_ and the _Ring of Kings_. Note that the most powerful character he could think of was a multiclassed demi-human. (The "shocker" was that the DM rejected the character as not powerful enough, this was evidence as to how Monty Haul the campaign was).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2007)

MerricB,

Wish I did, and not sure I'm right.  But, if I am right, it serves to point out that people had real issues with what the PHB seems to indicate.  IOW, whether I'm right or wrong about Sage Advice, my experience re: powergaming using multiclass (or lack thereof) is probably not typical.


----------



## Rothe (Jan 8, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Not just BETTER bonuses. Astoundingly better bonuses.
> 
> ...




Stupid?  Maybe not, ad hoc and a poor design choice, yes.  A standardization of ability benefits and scales would have been a good idea.

One thing I never liked about the percentile table was invariably a female player would note the limitation to % strength based on gender.  And we wonder why some women consider D&D an adolescent male power trip, in the negative sense, and very condescending.  I once had them quip that maybe men should have a cap on wisdom or better yet constitution, as women live longer than men and are better at enduring pain, don't even think of contradicting a women on this last one if she's given birth.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> I have agreed to disagree with you, and simply stated that you have not demonstrated the logic or reasoning to convince me. Since you are incapable of simply doing the same, I will be the more mature party here, and leave it at that.
> 
> Cheers.




Trying to get the last word isn't being "the more mature party".  If it was, I wouldn't have just done it!    

Seriously, if you want to say that the game made you cheat, who am I to say otherwise?  People have been saying D&D is Satanic for years...maybe it "possesses" certain players.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 8, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> I respectfully disagree. When the system only really rewards people who have 18/91+ strength, then you're not really going to see anything else. That's what I saw, then. Or everyone had Gauntlets of Ogre Power, strangely. The fiat came through DM item granting (you just HAPPENED to find it), or through modified dice schemes (like the one mentioned in UA) or simply through player iniative.




The easiest (and most reliable) way of getting an 18/00 strength using legal methods was to play a Cavalier. If you used the alternate stat generation method in UA, you rolled the following dice (and keep the highest three for each stat) for your ability scores: Str 8d6, Int 6d6, Wis 4d6, Dex 7d6, Con 9d6, and Cha 3d6. If, using this method, you somehow rolled lower than Str 15, Int 10, Wis 10, Dex 15, and Con 15, you got the minimums.

But, here is the reason you made a Cavalier: each such character rolled percentile dice for Strength, Dexterity and Consitution. At each level, the cavalier would roll 2d10, and add that much to his percentile amount. If the percentile amount went over 100, the Cavalier's base stat went up by one, until all three reached 18/00 (which had no real effect for Constitution or Dexterity over simply having an 18 in the score). The Cavalier could exceed even racial or gender based limitations in these scores. Given the high minimum scores, most Cavaliers would have 18s in all three by mid-levels, and probably an 18/00 Strength about the same time.

For extra abuse, make the character a paladin, who, as of UA, got all of the cavalier abilities _as well_ as all of the standard PHB paladin abilities. The Paladin rolling method in UA was: Str 7d6, Int 5d6, Wis 8d6, Dex 3d6, Con 6d6, Cha 9d6. Once again, a paladin can train their physical stats each level. They are likely to start a little behind the straight cavalier (because they get fewer dice for the physical scores), but since they just write in "15" if they don't make the minimum using this method, they are pretty well-off as well.


----------



## molonel (Jan 8, 2007)

Rothe said:
			
		

> Stupid? Maybe not, ad hoc and a poor design choice, yes. A standardization of ability benefits and scales would have been a good idea.




Stupid, silly, ad hoc, poor design choice. Pick any or all at your leisure. Being an effective fighter meant having a high strength. Not just an 18 strength, which is very unlikely on a 3d6 system, but also a subsequent percentile role in the upper 80s to 90s, at least. Even a 17, which by all accounts should be a character of tremendous physical strength, only gave you a +1/+1. A 16? +0/+1.



			
				Rothe said:
			
		

> One thing I never liked about the percentile table was invariably a female player would note the limitation to % strength based on gender. And we wonder why some women consider D&D an adolescent male power trip, in the negative sense, and very condescending. I once had them quip that maybe men should have a cap on wisdom or better yet constitution, as women live longer than men and are better at enduring pain, don't even think of contradicting a women on this last one if she's given birth.




Heh. Yeah. Those were the days!


----------



## molonel (Jan 8, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The easiest (and most reliable) way of getting an 18/00 strength using legal methods was to play a Cavalier. If you used the alternate stat generation method in UA, you rolled the following dice (and keep the highest three for each stat) for your ability scores: Str 8d6, Int 6d6, Wis 4d6, Dex 7d6, Con 9d6, and Cha 3d6. If, using this method, you somehow rolled lower than Str 15, Int 10, Wis 10, Dex 15, and Con 15, you got the minimums. But, here is the reason you made a Cavalier: each such character rolled percentile dice for Strength, Dexterity and Consitution. At each level, the cavalier would roll 2d10, and add that much to his percentile amount. If the percentile amount went over 100, the Cavalier's base stat went up by one, until all three reached 18/00 (which had no real effect for Constitution or Dexterity over simply having an 18 in the score). The Cavalier could exceed even racial or gender based limitations in these scores. Given the high minimum scores, most Cavaliers would have 18s in all three by mid-levels, and probably an 18/00 Strength about the same time. For extra abuse, make the character a paladin, who, as of UA, got all of the cavalier abilities _as well_ as all of the standard PHB paladin abilities. The Paladin rolling method in UA was: Str 7d6, Int 5d6, Wis 8d6, Dex 3d6, Con 6d6, Cha 9d6. Once again, a paladin can train their physical stats each level. They are likely to start a little behind the straight cavalier (because they get fewer dice for the physical scores), but since they just write in "15" if they don't make the minimum using this method, they are pretty well-off as well.




Ahahahahahaha!!!

God, it's been ages since I thought in these terms.

But of course, it's all a myth. There was no such thing as powergaming back then. It was all about CHARACTER!

.... wasn't it?


----------



## MerricB (Jan 8, 2007)

Rothe said:
			
		

> One thing I never liked about the percentile table was invariably a female player would note the limitation to % strength based on gender.  And we wonder why some women consider D&D an adolescent male power trip, in the negative sense, and very condescending.  I once had them quip that maybe men should have a cap on wisdom or better yet constitution, as women live longer than men and are better at enduring pain, don't even think of contradicting a women on this last one if she's given birth.




"You will find no pretenious dictums herein, no baseless limits arbitrarily placed on female strength or male charisma..." - Gary Gygax, preface to AD&D Players Handbook, page 6.

Cheers!


----------



## Rothe (Jan 8, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The easiest (and most reliable) way of getting an 18/00 strength using legal methods was to play a Cavalier. If you used the alternate stat generation method in UA, ....snip.




  I never picked up UA but egad that's got powergaming all over it.  Wasn't UA sold as Gary Gygax's houserules, now for your use?


----------



## Rothe (Jan 8, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> "You will find no pretenious dictums herein, no baseless limits arbitrarily placed on female strength or male charisma..." - Gary Gygax, preface to AD&D Players Handbook, page 6.
> 
> Cheers!




MerricB,  am I off-base, I thought for sure I saw this in the PHB (first priniting is what I have)  It's at home but you seem to have access to it.  I thought the cap was at 18/75 or some such.

On this part: "You will find no pretenious dictums herein,..."  I think those were saved for editorials in The Dragon.


----------



## MerricB (Jan 8, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Stupid, silly, ad hoc, poor design choice. Pick any or all at your leisure. Being an effective fighter meant having a high strength.




See Palladium's ability bonus system.

I wouldn't use the word "effective" as you do. You could be an extremely effective Fighter even with a 16 Strength. My main objection to the percentile system is that luck meant that a fighter could be hugely more dangerous than another fighter, especially at low levels.

I don't mind there being some variance on abilities, but, to my mind, Moldvay Basic D&D handled it much better. 13-15 was +1, 16-17 was +2 and 18 was +3. The variance wasn't as much. +6 to damage was just so much in those days.

Cheers!


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 8, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Ahahahahahaha!!!
> 
> God, it's been ages since I thought in these terms.
> 
> ...




Oh yeah. But the stat bonus increases (which make the "raise one stat one point every four levels" system in 3e look anemic by comparison, despite the horror that many 1e/2e players expressed at the "new" rule when 3e came out) were only one part of the munchkiness of the 1e cavalier. The cavalier could choose three "weapons of choice" (which made the bonuses given by fighter/ranger specialization seem narrow and paltry), including the lance, with which he eventually got a +3 bonus to attacks and +(his level) bonus to damage (if used while mounted, and a +2 bonus to attacks with one type of sword and either a mace, military pick, or flail. When mounted, the cavalier attacked as if he were one level higher (no penalty for attacking while on foot). The cavalier could parry - the only class that could do so. The cavalier got an array of bonuses related to riding. Good cavaliers were immune to fear, and radiated a _protection from fear_ effect. They were 90% resistant to magic that affected the mind, and (unlike everyone else) could function at a negative hit point total.

Now add all the paladin abilities too.


----------



## MerricB (Jan 8, 2007)

Rothe said:
			
		

> MerricB,  am I off-base, I thought for sure I saw this in the PHB (first priniting is what I have)  It's at home but you seem to have access to it.  I thought the cap was at 18/75 or some such.
> 
> On this part: "You will find no pretenious dictums herein,..."  I think those were saved for editorials in The Dragon.




Here you go:

Male/Female maximum Strengths:

Human: male 18/00 , female 18/50
Half-Orc: male 18/99, female 18/75
Dwarf: male 18/99, female 17
Half-Elf: male 18/90, female 17
Elf: male 18/75, female 16
Gnome: male: 18/50, female 15
Halfling: male: 17, female 14

There is no limitation on male Charisma. The combination of Gary's preface and the ability score tables is just really amusing. (and sad). Gary has said that he regretted later including female strength limits.

Interesting note: Male Half-orcs are made inferior to humans with strength, but the Females are stronger than human females. Weird.

Cheers!


----------



## molonel (Jan 8, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I wouldn't use the word "effective" as you do. You could be an extremely effective Fighter even with a 16 Strength. My main objection to the percentile system is that luck meant that a fighter could be hugely more dangerous than another fighter, especially at low levels.




A dangerous fighter WAS an effective fighter. A fighter's role hasn't changed that much. They kill things. The faster they kill them, the better they are at their job. 

Luck rarely had anything to do with it, either. 



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> I don't mind there being some variance on abilities, but, to my mind, Moldvay Basic D&D handled it much better. 13-15 was +1, 16-17 was +2 and 18 was +3. The variance wasn't as much. +6 to damage was just so much in those days.




+6 damage was a LOT in those days. That's why everyone wanted it.

And, just about everyone got it, one way or another.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Oh yeah. But the stat bonus increases (which make the "raise one stat one point every four levels" system in 3e look anemic by comparison, despite the horror that many 1e/2e players expressed at the "new" rule when 3e came out) were only one part of the munchkiness of the 1e cavalier. The cavalier could choose three "weapons of choice" (which made the bonuses given by fighter/ranger specialization seem narrow and paltry), including the lance, with which he eventually got a +3 bonus to attacks and +(his level) bonus to damage (if used while mounted, and a +2 bonus to attacks with one type of sword and either a mace, military pick, or flail. When mounted, the cavalier attacked as if he were one level higher (no penalty for attacking while on foot). The cavalier could parry - the only class that could do so. The cavalier got an array of bonuses related to riding. Good cavaliers were immune to fear, and radiated a _protection from fear_ effect. They were 90% resistant to magic that affected the mind, and (unlike everyone else) could function at a negative hit point total. Now add all the paladin abilities too.




Ay!

God, there is so much I'd forgotten.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

Rothe said:
			
		

> I never picked up UA but egad that's got powergaming all over it.  Wasn't UA sold as Gary Gygax's houserules, now for your use?




It was "Official Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" material. From Gygax's introduction:



> This new material grew from my own camapign, articles published in _Dragon_ magazine, and input from many Dungeon Masters and players also. . . The compiled material which lies herein offers fresh new approaches to play without materially affecting any ongoing campaign adversely.




And from Jeff Grubb's introduction to the book:



> In the time since the publication of the _Dungeon Master's Guide_ in 1979, the AD&D game has not stood still. In _Dragon_ Magazine, Gary Gygax has continued to expand the frontiers of the game, offering new ideas, experiments and rules.
> 
> In this book those ideas are made concrete. The eperiments are completed. The suggested rules *are now official and final*.




[Emphasis added].

That sounds to me like a little more than "Gygax's house rules".


----------



## Rothe (Jan 9, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It was "Official Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" material. From Gygax's introduction:
> 
> "Quote:
> This new material grew from my own camapign, articles published in Dragon magazine, and input from many Dungeon Masters and players also. . . The compiled material which lies herein offers fresh new approaches to play without materially affecting any ongoing campaign adversely. " ...




 Got to laugh on that last one.  Obviously, Mr. Gygax's use of the term "material" and that propounded by the SEC vary greatly.    The cavalier sounds like an uber character that would far outshine any other, unless his xp chart was much more difficult.








> That sounds to me like a little more than "Gygax's house rules".




Yes it does.  [sarcasm] And I know that if I'm not playing AD&D by the official rules as written, then I'm not playing AD&D, at least according to an editorial I once read in Dragon magazine.  Can I just ignore UA, isn't ignorance of the rules an excuse?  [/sarcasm]


P.S.  Just so it's clear.  I never liked these "It's my way or the highway" pronouncements from TSR.  I recall from the many I knew circa 1977-1984 we ignored them or took the highway to other games, or just more dating, sports, etc.  It's not like we didn't have a social life outside of D&D.

I also never could fathom why one would antagonize your customer base unless you had dreams of this becoming something really mainstream (like professional football) and you really needed people to play one way so you could increase your tournament audience, and hence convention revenue.  

Nevertheless, I still really like 1e; I just don't like or understand putting on airs about it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2007)

Obviously, the biggest differences between the 1e I played and the 1e some others here played is that 

(1)  The DM (or trusted alternate) was there for character generation, so the rampant cheating that some engaged in wasn't a problem, 

(2)  The game limitations for certain classes (such as the Cavalier's Code) were enforced, so that they were not necessarily optimal choices,

(3)  The games had things other than combat going on, so again the Cavalier wasn't always the optimal choice,

(4)  Excellent house rules (mostly from The Dragon at that time),

(5)  Great players, and

(6)  Reasonably adequate DM.

If you had at least a majority of those things, you probably enjoyed 1e.  If you didn't, you probably didn't.


----------



## molonel (Jan 9, 2007)

Rothe said:
			
		

> Yes it does.  [sarcasm] And I know that if I'm not playing AD&D by the official rules as written, then I'm not playing AD&D, at least according to an editorial I once read in Dragon magazine.  Can I just ignore UA, isn't ignorance of the rules an excuse?  [/sarcasm]
> 
> P.S.  Just so it's clear.  I never liked these "It's my way or the highway" pronouncements from TSR.  I recall from the many I knew circa 1977-1984 we ignored them or took the highway to other games, or just more dating, sports, etc.  It's not like we didn't have a social life outside of D&D.
> 
> ...




Yeah, me too. The way TSR sometimes treated their fanbase by going after people who set up websites and stuff like that completely mystified me. It was 180 degrees in the opposite direction from the OGL. And then, in Second Edition, they flooded the market with The Complete Book of My Butt Crack and other worthy tomes.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

Rothe said:
			
		

> Got to laugh on that last one.  Obviously, Mr. Gygax's use of the term "material" and that propounded by the SEC vary greatly.    The cavalier sounds like an uber character that would far outshine any other, unless his xp chart was much more difficult.




The cavalier's experience point chart was tough, but not especially so. To advance as a cavalier required the following experience points (I have listed the experience point total at which one would advance to the level listed, and what level a fighter at the same experience point total would be):

Cavalier 2     2,501    Fighter 2
cavalier 3     5,001    Fighter 3
cavalier 4    10,001    Fighter 4
Cavalier 5    18,501    Fighter 5
Cavalier 6    37,001    Fighter 6
Cavalier 7    85,001    Fighter 7
Cavalier 8   140,001   Fighter 8
Cavalier 9   220,001   Fighter 8
Cavalier 10  300,001  Fighter 8

Note that at upper levels, the Fighter is stuck at 8th level, while the Cavalier rockets past him. And the cavalier is never more than a few thousand experience points behind the fighter in advancing to a particular level (the biggest gap is 8th level, where the fighter advances to 8th at 120,001 experience points, but the cavalier needs an additional 20,000 experience points to catch up, at all other levels, the gap is smaller, or vanishes entirely and is reversed).

Oh, and one ability of the Paladin once it was attached to the Cavalier that I forgot - they would advance their Charisma score just like (and in addition to) the ability of standard Cavaliers to advance their Strength, Dexterity and Constitution scores, so they would almost certainly end up with 18/00 Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma by mid levels.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Obviously, the biggest differences between the 1e I played and the 1e some others here played is that
> 
> (1)  The DM (or trusted alternate) was there for character generation, so the rampant cheating that some engaged in wasn't a problem,




The alternate methods were descibed by TSR as being perfectly fine. Who were teenagers to argue with them?



> _(2)  The game limitations for certain classes (such as the Cavalier's Code) were enforced, so that they were not necessarily optimal choices,_




The cavalier's code wasn't any kind of real hindrance, if playing a good cavalier, they pretty much just reinforced what the game defined as "good behaviour".



> _(3)  The games had things other than combat going on, so again the Cavalier wasn't always the optimal choice,_




The cavalier, as defined in UA, had a host of social advantages and attributes that would make them highly effective in such campaigns. There was almost no drawback to the class of any consequence.



> _(4)  Excellent house rules (mostly from The Dragon at that time),_




_Dragon_ is where most of UA got its genesis.


----------



## Psion (Jan 9, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The cavalier's code wasn't any kind of real hindrance, if playing a good cavalier, they pretty much just reinforced what the game defined as "good behaviour".




I don't really agree. A cavalier pretty much had to be foolhardy. There was three ways this played out in my experience:
1) The DM didn't like the cavalier, and used this as an excuse to de facto ban the cavalier by killing any of them that came along.
2) Same as above, but the rest of the party felt an obligation to stick together, so the cavalier's weakness became the party weakness.
3) The DM saw that putting the cavalier in a tough spot would be deadly, but didn't want to kill the character, so played it with a light touch, effectively giving the cavalier those abilities for free.

None of these being particularly desirable IMO.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> I don't really agree. A cavalier pretty much had to be foolhardy.




Sort of. They had to attack the opposition's most powerful looking foe, but given their souped up combat abilities, they were almost always the best suited member of the party to take on that job. The only PC class that could probably compete with the Cavalier in a stand up fight was the other overpowered UA class, the barbarian.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The alternate methods were descibed by TSR as being perfectly fine. Who were teenagers to argue with them?




Even as a teenager, I never had any problem deciding which method worked best for my game.  I started making those decisions within weeks of picking up the Holmes blue box set.

I have a very, very hard time imagining that you in particular were unwilling to argue with TSR (or anyone else).      (And I mean that kindly, because I appreciate a good argument.)



> The cavalier's code wasn't any kind of real hindrance, if playing a good cavalier, they pretty much just reinforced what the game defined as "good behaviour".




Then why all the threads about the emasculated paladin's code now?  This wasn't my experience, and I doubt it was the experience of the majority.



> _Dragon_ is where most of UA got its genesis.




And there was a lot of good stuff in The Dragon, too.  Actually, there is a lot of good stuff in UA.  What your group, perhaps, failed to have was a DM and players capable of _using_ the material in the book, as opposed to _abusing_ it.  Actually, this is probably the same problem that some groups have with 3e today.  

Really, there is no way to abuse any edition of D&D without the DM being complicit (though ignorance, inaction, or action) in the abuse.  The DM's authority to say No to anything in 1e was explicit.  It is not as explicit now, but it is still the same.  Actually, the authority to say No to anything in the game is available to everyone -- you can vote with your feet.

Powergaming, to me, is an attempt to exceed the baseline of the campaign to your benefit.  In order to do so, there has to be a baseline, and there has to exist the means to shift over it.  3e has a baseline, but you can be darn sure that a good DM will shift encounter difficulty to take into account whatever min/maxing the PCs did.  I think this shifting was easier in 1e, where the baseline was more fluid.

I accept that there were better combos in 1e for certain situations, but playing with hundreds of gamers over 5 states, this never came up.  I have to assume, again, that this is a problem with how the material is approached.  Moreover, it seems to be a problem with the DM(s) allowing the campaign to denigrate into an arms race.

Of course, you have the same problem today with people claiming that classes like the bard are underpowered......because what constitutes power is greatly dependent upon the depth and variety of the campaign setting.


RC


RC


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Even as a teenager, I never had any problem deciding which method worked best for my game.  I started making those decisions within weeks of picking up the Holmes blue box set.




The assumption was generally that the systems that were given for character generation were all fair  and would all work. No one worked out the probailities until we started doing computer simulations crunching the numbers, but that was later, when 1e was pretty much heading for the out door.



> _Then why all the threads about the emasculated paladin's code now?  This wasn't my experience, and I doubt it was the experience of the majority._




The cavalier code was not the paladin's code. And I haven't been talking about the currently emasculated code, so you must have me confused with someone who thinks that.



> _And there was a lot of good stuff in The Dragon, too.  Actually, there is a lot of good stuff in UA.  What your group, perhaps, failed to have was a DM and players capable of using the material in the book, as opposed to abusing it.  Actually, this is probably the same problem that some groups have with 3e today._




And the material from UA was explicitly billed as "stuff from _Dragon_ and other sources that has been tested, and made good." remember those quotes from the introduction to UA? remember this:



> . . . without materially affecting any ongoing campaign adversely.




How about these (not before quoted, but addeed because they are apropos):



> Yes, some material has appeared previously, but here it is carefully revised, edited and compiled so as to change it from a possible insertion to an integral part of a vital campaign




and:



> Much of the material within this book first saw the light of day in _Dragon_ magazine, but in the time since has been playtested, questioned, discussed, re-tailored, re-presented, and re-playtested.




Is it any wonder that many gamers figured that the material was the best _Dragon_ could offer refined and polished to make it even better?



> _Really, there is no way to abuse any edition of D&D without the DM being complicit (though ignorance, inaction, or action) in the abuse.  The DM's authority to say No to anything in 1e was explicit.  It is not as explicit now, but it is still the same.  Actually, the authority to say No to anything in the game is available to everyone -- you can vote with your feet._




Sure you could. But it seems to me telling that, over the course of a dozen gaming groups, involving many campaigns run by dozens of DMs involving many dozens of players, the assumptions on this score remained almost constant.


----------



## Rothe (Jan 9, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> ... A cavalier pretty much had to be foolhardy. ..






			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Sort of. They had to attack the opposition's most powerful looking foe, ...




This sounds not so much as a drawback but a common tactic, assuming the cavalier was allowed to "sneak up" on there opponents, or better yet used ranged weapons.

One of our common tactics was to send a tank into tto engage the most powerful bad guy.  Maybe having to hew down some followers in the process.   Generally for four reasons (which usually applied) take out the big dude and the followers may run away, second the big dude may be a spell caster so start smacking them so they can't get those spells off, third the big guy's probably has got the best stuff-kill 'em before he uses it, and fourth take him out while still fresh and you can still take some of his blows.  It would really have gone well with our party strategy of piling magic on the fighter to give a low AC but fast as possible fighter.  So I'm not seeing this cavalier code as much of a drawback.

It appears then, that the cavalier except for this code, is better than a fighter in everyway.

Not saying they wouldn't be fun and maybe added a fighter better balanced against MUs and clerics.  As a DM I could certainly think of ways to challenge such a party.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

Rothe said:
			
		

> This sounds not so much as a drawback but a common tactic, assuming the cavalier was allowed to "sneak up" on there opponents, or better yet used ranged weapons.




He could "sneak" if that involved getting to his foe as fast as possible. He couldn't use ranged weapons, that was one of the "drawbacks" of the class. But since most 1e D&D was dungeon crawling, it wasn't much of a hindrance. Cavaliers also couldn't use pole arms other than the lance, but in 1e almost no one ever used them anyway (they provided no real benefit, and were pretty much inferor to choices like the longsword).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The assumption was generally that the systems that were given for character generation were all fair  and would all work. No one worked out the probailities until we started doing computer simulations crunching the numbers, but that was later, when 1e was pretty much heading for the out door.




IME, they did.  In your experience, perhaps not.  But, then again, the people are the only difference (assuming we were using the same books!), so I propose that the problems you encountered were related to the people you played with.



> The cavalier code was not the paladin's code. And I haven't been talking about the currently emasculated code, so you must have me confused with someone who thinks that.




No.  The cavalier code was more restrictive than the current paladin code.  As the less restrictive code still gets a lot of discussion about how restrictive it is, it seems reasonable to believe that the older code was also restrictive.  Moreover, that was my experience in 5 states with hundreds of players.  Finally, its purpose was to be restrictive.

Whether or not _*you personally*_ found it restrictive is another matter.  Again, the people are the only difference (assuming we were using the same books!), so I propose that the problems you encountered were related to the people you played with.



> And the material from UA was explicitly billed as "stuff from _Dragon_ and other sources that has been tested, and made good."




And I didn't have any problems with them, despite using the rules in 5 states with hundreds of players.  Again, the people are the only difference (assuming we were using the same books!), so I propose that the problems you encountered were related to the people you played with.


RC


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 9, 2007)

I ran several long term ADnD adventures and never had any problems with multiclass characters outshining single class in fact things usually worked out quite the opposite.

All this stuff about stats generated by alternate methods are silly you are assuming the use of non standard methods of ability score generation that I can't imagine a DM actually allowing.

All this talk of certain ADnD classes bring more powerful than others please allow me to refer you to the 3.XE Druid and Cleric.

When the single class wizard learns Fireball and Lighting Bolt the Multiclass is still stuck with 2nd levels spells. When the single class cleric is casting Heal the multiclass might have cure critical wounds. Which would you rather have in your party??

Meanwhile the 3.XE rogue can dip a level into barbarian and get an extra 10' movement (great for tumbling spring attacking etc) and the ability to rage. He can dipevels into ranger and get TWF fav enemy, tracking etc. There are many such choices which clearly benefit the3 rogue character refer to the CO board for details. Dipping = rewarded in 3.xE.

Does 3.XE dictate a certain style of play no...does it reward it hells ya!


----------



## VirgilCaine (Jan 9, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Meanwhile the 3.XE rogue can dip a level into barbarian and get an extra 10' movement (great for tumbling spring attacking etc) and the ability to rage. He can dipevels into ranger and get TWF fav enemy, tracking etc. There are many such choices which clearly benefit the3 rogue character refer to the CO board for details. Dipping = rewarded in 3.xE.
> 
> Does 3.XE dictate a certain style of play no...does it reward it hells ya!




Rogue 9/ Barbarian 1 or Rogue 9/Ranger 1 vs. Rogue 10: 
Rogue 10 gets their first special ability at 10th level, multiclass rogue is taking a *20%* experience hit, unless you are human, halfling, half-orc, or half-elf.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 9, 2007)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Rogue 9/ Barbarian 1 or Rogue 9/Ranger 1 vs. Rogue 10:
> Rogue 10 gets their first special ability at 10th level, multiclass rogue is taking a *20%* experience hit, unless you are human, halfling, half-orc, or half-elf.




Over 20 levels those are marginal at best and of course this is a human skill bonuses bonus feat etc. Don't forget the bab boosts for those levels.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I ran several long term ADnD adventures and never had any problems with multiclass characters outshining single class in fact things usually worked out quite the opposite.
> 
> All this stuff about stats generated by alternate methods are silly you are assuming the use of non standard methods of ability score generation that I can't imagine a DM actually allowing.




Methods officially approved in the official rule books of the day. But the game was well-designed.



> _All this talk of certain ADnD classes bring more powerful than others please allow me to refer you to the 3.XE Druid and Cleric._




Somehow those classes never outshine the others in actual play.



> _When the single class wizard learns Fireball and Lighting Bolt the Multiclass is still stuck with 2nd levels spells. When the single class cleric is casting Heal the multiclass might have cure critical wounds. Which would you rather have in your party??_




And this is _even more true in 3e_. Taking a multiclass delays your advancement in things like spell acquisition even more. In 1e, you could have a 5th/5th level fighter/cleric, who would adventure with 6th level single classed characters. In 3e, the same type multiclass character traveling with the 6th level single class characters would be 3rd/3rd level. Which system rewards mutliclassing inordinately again?



> _Meanwhile the 3.XE rogue can dip a level into barbarian and get an extra 10' movement (great for tumbling spring attacking etc) and the ability to rage. He can dipevels into ranger and get TWF fav enemy, tracking etc. There are many such choices which clearly benefit the3 rogue character refer to the CO board for details. Dipping = rewarded in 3.xE._




And every dipped level in another class puts him further away from getting high level rogue special abilities. If the delay in getting _fireball_ is a big deal, why is waiting more levels to get high level class abilities not? Sure, he gets fast movement, and rage by taking a level of barbarian, but he slows his sneak attack progression, loses 4 skill points, probably has a hard time advancing his rogue class skills (including, for example, tumble), and puts off getting high level rogue selectable special abilties.

The cost for multiclassing in 3e is significant, as opposed to the cost in 1e, which was trivial. Like I said before, if you are going by what you saw on an internet board to determine what works in actual play, then you aren't getting a good idea of how the system works, because it never seems to work out nearly as well as the optimization guys say it does.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Over 20 levels those are marginal at best




So, until he is 20th level the character is hampered? But that's not a problem somehow? I think you are falling into the same trap that a lot of people on the optimization board do - "this character is AWESOME: take three levels of this, four levels of that, two levels of somethings else, select the right combination of five feats and cast three spells and he is totally powerful!!!" Sure he is. Once he gets to 12th level or so. Until then, he's lame and the rest of the party wonders why he's even bothering to adventure.



> _and of course this is a human skill bonuses bonus feat etc._




This makes no sense as written.



> _Don't forget the bab boosts for those levels._




This statement also makes no sense as written.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 9, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> So, until he is 20th level the character is hampered? But that's not a problem somehow? I think you are falling into the same trap that a lot of people on the optimization board do - "this character is AWESOME: take three levels of this, four levels of that, two levels of somethings else, select the right combination of five feats and cast three spells and he is totally powerful!!!" Sure he is. Once he gets to 12th level or so. Until then, he's lame and the rest of the party wonders why he's even bothering to adventure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ok allow me to spell it out this character could easily build up 5 levels of rogue dip those three or four levels in other classes and return to rogue through 20 with the benefits far outweighing the drawbacks. 3 cheers for frontloaded class design hip hip horray!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Methods officially approved in the official rule books of the day. But the game was well-designed.




Well, AD&D 1e wasn't designed with the idea that each campaign would follow the same baseline.  As a result, DMs were given some options as to how characters were generated.  That seems reasonable to me.  In fact, you can use alternate methods of assigning attribute scores in every edition of D&D.



> Somehow those classes never outshine the others in actual play.




I, for one, am willing to grant that they must have done so for some people, simply on the basis of third-party evidence and my recollection of the Sage Advice column.  That said, these problems seem very much to belong to certain groups/DMs.



> The cost for multiclassing in 3e is significant, as opposed to the cost in 1e, which was trivial.




This I don't believe.  The more front-loaded class abilities are -- and the more class abilities exist -- the more you are going to gain from taking a dip.  Not to mention that, in 1e, _taking a dip was impossible_.  If you changed classes, you couldn't go back.  If you were multi-classed, you kept paying that XP penalty even if you could no longer gain in one of your classes.



RC


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 9, 2007)

and of course this is a human skill bonuses bonus feat etc.  



This makes no sense as written.

To clarify for you it was in response to a question about race that this rogue would be human to take advantage of the bonus feat and bonus skill points that choice grants omg more 3E powergaming.

Quote:
Don't forget the bab boosts for those levels.  


This statement also makes no sense as written.

This is listing yet another benefit of dipping +1 bab for each level of dip.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 9, 2007)

And the beauty of all this is that while you need to keep refering to UA for your arguement my point has been made using just the 3.xE players handbook. I haven't even opened the powergaming can of worms that is the complete series and PHB2 and all the other spat books out there that are official wotc materials lol.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Jan 9, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Over 20 levels those are marginal at best and of course this is a human skill bonuses bonus feat etc. Don't forget the bab boosts for those levels.




"Marginal at best"? Improved Evasion, marginal? Skill Mastery, _marginal_?

I agree with the other posters here--1e had a few obvious choices to powergame, 3.X makes you work for it. Storm Raven's comment about 1e vs. 3.X multiclassing was what I was going to say.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This I don't believe.  The more front-loaded class abilities are -- and the more class abilities exist -- the more you are going to gain from taking a dip.  Not to mention that, in 1e, _taking a dip was impossible_.  If you changed classes, you couldn't go back.  If you were multi-classed, you kept paying that XP penalty even if you could no longer gain in one of your classes.
> 
> RC




In 3e, a level is a level. You don't have separate XP charts. Multiclassing is something you have to think about, to do carefully. 

In 1e, you didn't need to "take a dip"--from what other people have said, you could easily match your level in both classes because the XP chart started over.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Ok allow me to spell it out this character could easily build up 5 levels of rogue dip those three or four levels in other classes and return to rogue through 20 with the benefits far outweighing the drawbacks. 3 cheers for frontloaded class design hip hip horray!




And he gives up quite a bit by dipping in another class. You don't seem to understand opportunity cost. Dipping four levels of barbarian costs the rogue +2d6 sneak attack, a net of 16 skill points, and two rogue selectable special abilities.

Dipping four levels of barbarian nets the rogue rage twice per day, and fast movement. The barbarian's uncanny dodge ability overlaps the rogue's, and since the rogue is getting 16 levels of rogue, that doesn't benefit him.

The rogue gains no net gain in BAB. He gains a net +3 to his Fort save, but loses a net +1 to his Reflex save. He gains a little durability - gaining on average +12 hit points (raising him from an average of 70 hit points as a 20th level rogue, to 82 as a rogue 16/barbarian 4). In addition, the barbarian skill list doesn't mesh incredibly well with the rogue list, meaning he will either have a couple skills permanently at relatively low levels (driven by his barbarian selections) or buy some rogue skills at double cost with his barbarian skill points, or have to navigate what skills appear on both lists. In any event, he is less skillful than the straight rogue.

How is this a powergaming tradeoff? How is this particularly beneficial to the rogue? What he gains is _at best_ as valuable as he gives up, and probably less valuable. "Dipping" is likely a net loss for the rogue.

I think your "powergaming" claim has pretty much been nullified as the hookum that it actually is.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> To clarify for you it was in response to a question about race that this rogue would be human to take advantage of the bonus feat and bonus skill points that choice grants omg more 3E powergaming.




Humans gain those abilities to balance them with other classes. Where a human gets a bonus feat, elves, dwarves, _et al_ get a host of other bonuses. I don't think you really understand any of what you are talking about here.



> This is listing yet another benefit of dipping +1 bab for each level of dip.




Only if the class is a full BAB class. Otherwise, you only get +0 BAB for that first level. And whether you actually _net_ +1 BAB is an open question. A rogue who "dips" four levels of barbarian or ranger nets a total of +0 BAB for his dip over the course of his career. This is yet another sign of your actual unfamiliarity with the system.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> And the beauty of all this is that while you need to keep refering to UA for your arguement my point has been made using just the 3.xE players handbook.




You haven't even come close to "making your point". You keep talking about how you "dip this" and "dip that", and yet, when you evaluate what happens if a character actually did make the choices you talk about, the "dipping" character always seems to give up at least as much as he gets. Your unfamiliarity with the system keeps tripping you up when you make your grand pronouncements about how 3e works.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2007)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> In 3e, a level is a level. You don't have separate XP charts. Multiclassing is something you have to think about, to do carefully.




If I am a wizard, and I take a 1-level dip into fighter, what do I get for it?

What do I lose?

Now, same question, except that I have either wizard or fighter as my favored class.

One of the reasons that WotC seems to be considering having an easter egg at every level for every class is probably, IMHO, that dipping is a no-brainer, obvious way of improving certain characters.  It is certainly a better option than multiclassing in 1e.

OTOH, this may again be due to the relative skills and merits of different player groups.  No one I personally know has to "think about" or "do carefully" multiclassing in 3e to make it effective.


RC


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This I don't believe.  The more front-loaded class abilities are -- and the more class abilities exist -- the more you are going to gain from taking a dip.  Not to mention that, in 1e, _taking a dip was impossible_.  If you changed classes, you couldn't go back.  If you were multi-classed, you kept paying that XP penalty even if you could no longer gain in one of your classes.




The problem with people who say "take a dip in this class" or "take a dip in that class" is that they almost never understand opportunity cost. Sure, you get some low-level class abiltiies from some other class, but it always means losing out on high level class abiltiies somewhere else. Dipping can be fun, but it is not really a very good path to power, because you have to give stuff up to do it. As I pointed out already in this thread, for a rogue (for example) dipping, for example, four levels of barbarian (or, similarly four levels of ranger) works out _at best_ as a net wash for the rogue in terms of power. Dipping one level of barbarian works out as a net wash.

For all the ballyhoo about "dipping", it is not a particularly rewarding strategy in 3e when you actually evaluate the costs.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 9, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> You haven't even come close to "making your point". You keep talking about how you "dip this" and "dip that", and yet, when you evaluate what happens if a character actually did make the choices you talk about, the "dipping" character always seems to give up at least as much as he gets. Your unfamiliarity with the system keeps tripping you up when you make your grand pronouncements about how 3e works.




I never said anything about taking 4 levels of barbarian but feel free to fabricate where ever you need to try and make your point.Take for instance a human rogue with 16 rogue levels 2 ranger levels 1 barbarian level and a level of fighter for good measure considering the PHB only is superior to a straight 20 level rogue again using the PHB only. If you really want see the power creep of all the splat books, complete books etc. ask someone else as its a style of play I refuse to embrace. a one level dip into barbarian is pretty good as is two levels of ranger etc. 10' movement, fav enemy, tracking, rage, TWF, fighter bonus feat, 4 pts of bab a better fort save etc etc etc.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If I am a wizard, and I take a 1-level dip into fighter, what do I get for it?
> 
> What do I lose?




Let's see what the end result is:

The Wizard 20 has caster level 20, 20d4 hit dice (average 50 hit points), +10 BAB, +6/+6/+12 on his saves, four wizard bonus feats, can cast 4 spells per day of every level. He has wizard weapon proficiencies, and no armor proficiencies.

The Wizard 20/Fighter 1 has caster level 19 19d4+1d10 hit dice (average 53 hit points), +10 BAB, +8/+6/+11 on his saves, three wizard bonus feats, one fighter bonus feat, can cast 4 spells per day of levels 0 through 7, and 3 spells per day of level 8 and 9. He has martial and simple weapon proficiencies, and all armor and shield proficiencies.

So, the "dipped" wizard" gains: simple and martial weapon proficiencies, armor and shield proficiencies, +2 Fortitude saves, 3 hit points, and one fighter bonus feat.

He loses +1 Will save, +1 caster level, one wizard bonus feat, and the ability to cast 1 8th and 1 9th level spell per day.

Doesn't look at all obvious who got the better deal. I know I would rather be able to cast more 8th and 9th level spells though. That's certainly better (in my opinion) than being able to use a longsword at +10 BAB when you are 20th level. In my opinion, the "dip" character is less effective than the non dip character.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I never said anything about taking 4 levels of barbarian but feel free to fabricate where ever you need to try and make your point.Take for instance a human rogue with 16 rogue levels 2 ranger levels 1 barbarian level and a level of fighter for good measure considering the PHB only is superior to a straight 20 level rogue again using the PHB only. If you really want see the power creep of all the splat books, complete books etc. ask someone else as its a style of play I refuse to embrace. a one level dip into barbarian is pretty good as is two levels of ranger etc. 10' movement, fav enemy, tracking, rage, TWF, fighter bonus feat, 4 pts of bab a better fort save etc etc etc.




Okay, let's look at your "dip" character compared to a straight rogue.

There is no BAB advantage, despite your constant bleating on that score. A barbarian 1/ranger 2/fighter 1/rogue 16 has a +15 BAB, just like a rogue 20. So let's go over the salient points (everything I don't bring up is the same between the two characters):

The straight rogue 20 has 20d6 hit dice (average 70 hit points), +15 BAB, +6/+12/+6 BAB, 184 skill points, +10d6 sneak attack, trap sense +6, and four rogue special abilities.

The rogue 16/ranger 2/barbarian 1/fighter 1 has 16d6+2d8+1d10+1d12 hit dice (average 77 hit points), +15 BAB, +11/+11/+5 save, 170 skill points, trap sense +5, two rogue special abilities, +8d6 sneak attack, Track (not particularly useful, since he cannot drive his Survivial skill high enough to track things at high level), Two-Weapon Fighting, rage once per day, fast movement, one favored enemy, wild empathy +1, and a fighter bonus feat. He gains medium and heavy armor proficiencies (useless to him), and martial weapon proficiencies.

So, the dipper gains +7 hit points, +5 Fortitude save, Track, Two-Weapon Fighting, martial weapon proficiencies, useless armor proficiencies, rage once per day, fast movement, a fighter bonus feat, wild empathy +1, and a favored enemy.

He gives up 14 skill points, +1 Reflex and +1 Will saves, +1 trap sense, two rogue special abilities, and +2d6 sneak attack.

Once again, when you actually evaluate what the "dipper" gets, it works out to pretty much a net wash. Especially when you consider that the rogue special abilities are, in general, more valuable than any ability he gets by dipping. Opportunity cost. Learn what it is, and what ignoring it does to your arguments.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 9, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> There is no BAB advantage, despite your constant bleating on that score. A barbarian 1/ranger 2/fighter 1/rogue 16 has a +15 BAB, just like a rogue 20. So let's go over the salient points (everything I don't bring up is the same between the two characters):




Just to clarify, the Rog 16 / Full BAB 4 multiclass has a +1 BAB advantage over the Rog 20.

For every 4 levels of medium BAB class you take, you lose 1 BAB vs. the full BAB progression.

Rog 16: +12 BAB
Full BAB 4: +4 BAB
-----------------
+16 BAB

Rog 20: +15 BAB


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2007)

Okay, Storm Raven, if you assume that you will make it to 20th level with any character, and that you have no advantage in gaining XP, survivability, gaining treasure, etc., by being more powerful sooner, then I can except that _eventually_ things will balance out.

However, if you break it down level-by-level, the 1-level dip into fighter pays well _now_ with no clear loss _later_ which is, by any rational standard, a good deal.


RC


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Just to clarify, the Rog 16 / Full BAB 4 multiclass has a +1 BAB advantage over the Rog 20.




Sorry about that: math error. Too much number crunching on the fly. I'm pretty sure I got the rest of the numbers right though. Feel free to check.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Okay, Storm Raven, if you assume that you will make it to 20th level with any character, and that you have no advantage in gaining XP, survivability, gaining treasure, etc., by being more powerful sooner, then I can except that _eventually_ things will balance out.




Except that's not what anyone is claiming. Dipping hampers you _right now_ by putting off abilities that you would otherwise get. It was ther "pro-dip" side that said "over 20 levels the loss doesn't matter much", not the "dipping is not a great strategy" side.



> _However, if you break it down level-by-level, the 1-level dip into fighter pays well now with no clear loss later which is, by any rational standard, a good deal._




Dipping 1 level of fighter as a wizard costs you spell progression. Always. A 4th level wizard/1st level fighter can't cast 3rd level spells. A 5th level wizard can. A 5th level wizard/1st level fighter can cast fewer 2nd and 3rd level spells than a 6th level wizard, and casts them less effectively (he is one caster level lower). His familiar is less effective, he loses out on wizard bonus feats, and so on. At any point that you care to make the "dip" the dipping character gives up higher level class abilities in his primary class for low-level class abilities in the "dipped" class, and it is generally a losing proposition, or a wash. And the loss _later_ is clear - the dipped character will _never_ be as good a wizard as the single classed one, he will never get a fourth bonus feat, he will never be able to cast as many upper level spells, and so on.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Jan 9, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Sorry about that: math error. Too much number crunching on the fly. I'm pretty sure I got the rest of the numbers right though. Feel free to check.




I did the math and noticed you had replied, and so didn't reply.   

16th level nets you a rogue special ability, so the dipper has three.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> I did the math and noticed you had replied, and so didn't reply.
> 
> 16th level nets you a rogue special ability, so the dipper has three.




True. So mark that down.

However, what I _didn't_ get into was how useless some of the sundry abilties the "dipper" gets are for him. Wild empathy is capped at +2 (only two ranger levels), although he could get a synergy bonus for having 5 ranks in Knowledge: Nature. Track is mostly useless, since he only has three levels of classes with Survival as a class skill, which will make it difficult to raise the necessary skill levels to anything that would make the feat useful. Fast movement seems good, until you realize that it can be replicated by a moderately costed magic item. Rage is a once per day thing, and without the hit points and BAB to go toe to toe with the big guns, will likely be hazardous to the rogue's health. The martial weapon proficiencies are nice, but most of the weapons the rogue would want o use with two-weapon fighting are already available to him as a rogue. The armor proficiencies are useless, since most of his sundry class abiltiies rely on him not wearing it. Favored enemy is highly situational, and +2 is a tiny bonus at that point. When you pare down how much truly useful stuff there is among all the chaff, it turns out to be "not much".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Except that's not what anyone is claiming. Dipping hampers you _right now_ by putting off abilities that you would otherwise get. It was ther "pro-dip" side that said "over 20 levels the loss doesn't matter much", not the "dipping is not a great strategy" side.




Ah, well I'm not on a particular _side_.  I am going from what I think to be correct, and am willing to be swayed.  I initially didn't believe that a reasonable percentage of the 1e players had problems with multiclassing.  I accept that I was wrong -- I suspect that this is a group dynamic/DM thing.  

I'm not sure what you mean by "pro-dip" either.  Those who think that dipping can cause problems would, presumably, be the "anti-dip" side.    




> Dipping 1 level of fighter as a wizard costs you spell progression. Always.




This confuses me, though, because when we were discussing 1e multiclassing, it was apparently a non-issue.

I am also a bit confused by the idea you seem to be espousing that the cost over 20 levels does matter much, in light of your statements like "Once again, when you actually evaluate what the "dipper" gets, it works out to pretty much a net wash." and "Doesn't look at all obvious who got the better deal."

I have to admit, though, that to me (especially when the math is corrected), the dipper at 20th level is doing better than the non-dipper in all examples you've shown.  Again, this may be a group dynamic/DM thing.  The more diverse events in a a campaign world are, the more (IMHO) dipping is rewarded.


RC


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This confuses me, though, because when we were discussing 1e multiclassing, it was apparently a non-issue.




It wasn't as much of an issue, and more than compensated for in 1e multiclassing. In 1e, losing the one level of spellcasting to multiclass meant getting many levels of fighter (for example). In 1e, losing the 1 level of caster level means getting 1 level of fighter.

Which is the better deal in 1e? Being a 5th level magic-user, or a 4th/4th level fighter/magic-user?

Which is the better deal in 3e? Being a 5th level wizard, or a 1st/4th level fighter/wizard?

See the difference?



> _I am also a bit confused by the idea you seem to be espousing that the cost over 20 levels does matter much, in light of your statements like "Once again, when you actually evaluate what the "dipper" gets, it works out to pretty much a net wash." and "Doesn't look at all obvious who got the better deal."_




I have to admit, though, that to me (especially when the math is corrected), the dipper at 20th level is doing better than the non-dipper in all examples you've shown.  Again, this may be a group dynamic/DM thing.  The more diverse events in a a campaign world are, the more (IMHO) dipping is rewarded.[/i][/quote]

Really? You truly think that gaining a fighter feat, 3 hit points, and the ability to use martial weapons and armor is better than a wizard bonus feat, +1 caster level, and the ability to cast an extra 8th and 9th level spell per day? I think I'd rather be able to cast an extra _meteor swarm_ and _horrid wilting_ every day even without the other benefits being a 20th level wizard gives me over being a 1st level fighter/20th level wizard.

And as for the the rogue dipper, he does have a lot of abilities, but most of them are useless to him. He doesn't have the Survival skill to power track, his Wild Empathy is ineffective, the weapon and armor proficiencies he gains don't synergy with the Two-Weapon Fighting ability. What he gains is just not really worth more than what he gives up.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It wasn't as much of an issue, and more than compensated for in 1e multiclassing. In 1e, losing the one level of spellcasting to multiclass meant getting many levels of fighter (for example). In 1e, losing the 1 level of caster level means getting 1 level of fighter.
> 
> Which is the better deal in 1e? Being a 5th level magic-user, or a 4th/4th level fighter/magic-user?
> 
> ...




Excepting, of course, that our 4th/4th ftr/m-u still had the hit points of a 4th level character.  If the fighter averages 5.5 hp per level, a 5th level fighter has 5.5 x 5 = 27.5, say 27 hp.  The f/m-u has an average of {(2.5 x 4) + (5.5 x 4)}/2 = {10 + 22}/2 = 32/4 = 16 hit points.  The f/m-u, if he fights at all, has a much lower life expectancy.  And, if he doesn't fight, he has gained 4 hp at the cost of a spell level (lvl 5 m-u averages 2.5 x 5 = 12.5, say 12 hp).

No, sorry.  This doesn't seem to be a clear advantage to me.



> Really? You truly think that gaining a fighter feat, 3 hit points, and the ability to use martial weapons and armor is better than a wizard bonus feat, +1 caster level, and the ability to cast an extra 8th and 9th level spell per day? I think I'd rather be able to cast an extra _meteor swarm_ and _horrid wilting_ every day even without the other benefits being a 20th level wizard gives me over being a 1st level fighter/20th level wizard.




Especially when you add in that +2 bonus to Fort over a loss of +1 to Will, yes.  Those proficiencies represent how many feats?  You can use them how many times a day?

Or else, what did you mean by "Once again, when you actually evaluate what the "dipper" gets, it works out to pretty much a net wash." and "Doesn't look at all obvious who got the better deal." ?

RC


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Especially when you add in that +2 bonus to Fort over a loss of +1 to Will, yes.  Those proficiencies represent how many feats?  You can use them how many times a day?




And? With a +10 BAB, the extra weapon proficiencies are trivial. His melee attacks with them would be so much wasted effort against appropriate level foes. The armor proficiencies are not particularly useful, since he can't cast spells in armor without suffering ASF chances. The question, when evaluating character power, isn't how much stuff you have written on your character sheet. It is "how useful is the stuff you have". The 20th level wizard's 1st level spells are more valuable to him than all of the fighter weapon and armor proficiencies would be _combined_.



> _Or else, what did you mean by "Once again, when you actually evaluate what the "dipper" gets, it works out to pretty much a net wash." and "Doesn't look at all obvious who got the better deal." ?_




I mean, it works out to a net wash in most cases, or the single class character has the better end of the deal. The 20th level wizard's advantages are at least as valuable as the benefits gained by taking 1 level of fighter instead of staying with the wizard class.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Excepting, of course, that our 4th/4th ftr/m-u still had the hit points of a 4th level character.  If the fighter averages 5.5 hp per level, a 5th level fighter has 5.5 x 5 = 27.5, say 27 hp.  The f/m-u has an average of {(2.5 x 4) + (5.5 x 4)}/2 = {10 + 22}/2 = 32/4 = 16 hit points.  The f/m-u, if he fights at all, has a much lower life expectancy.  And, if he doesn't fight, he has gained 4 hp at the cost of a spell level (lvl 5 m-u averages 2.5 x 5 = 12.5, say 12 hp).




He also gains the ability to use the fighter attack matrix, fighter weapon and armor proficiencies with no penalty (remember, in 1e, a fighter/magic-user could cast spells in armor, unlike in 3e, where he still suffers ASF chances). He gets to save as the better of either class, whicher save table is better at the time. Compared to the fighter, he has four levels of magic-user. Compared to the magic-user, he has all the advantages of a fighter.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And? With a +10 BAB, the extra weapon proficiencies are trivial.




What is, and what is not, trivial is very much determined by campaign play.  For example, in an "as is" world, the statement "His melee attacks with them would be so much wasted effort against appropriate level foes" is meaningless.  In many games, the ability to strap on armor might be more important than the ASF chance.....indeed, you might be able to also dip into a prestige class to mitigate this.



> The question, when evaluating character power, isn't how much stuff you have written on your character sheet. It is "how useful is the stuff you have".




I agree.  And, if you assume that you'll be having four encounters per day, and that those encounters will be balanced in a particular way, you might be correct.  If you assume that you are automatically going to survive until 20th level, or that any character lost is going to be replaced with a like level character, you may be correct.  If you assume that you are going to have particular types of encounters, and that you can therefore optimize for those types of encounters (i.e., that being a specialist is always better than being a generalist) you may be correct.

This is similar, in fact, to the cavalier argument re: 1e.  The cavalier has a few things going for it, but deep in the dungeons below Castle Greyhawk some of his advantages might be lethal to him.

It seems, in fact, to me that this discussion highlights that the campaign assumptions that 1e works best for and the campaign assumptions 3e works best for are very, very different.


RC


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> What is, and what is not, trivial is very much determined by campaign play.  For example, in an "as is" world, the statement "His melee attacks with them would be so much wasted effort against appropriate level foes" is meaningless.




Completely untrue. Foes who are an appropriate level challenege him, and the question of his power is salient. Foes who are below that appropriate level are nuisances at best, and mostly completely irrelevant. For a 20th level wizard character (for example) a CR 10 foe is totally outclassed in such a way that having the ability to fight one with a sword is completley meaningless. The foe is no challenge at all, no more than killing a mouse would be to you, so whether he has some other way of dealing with it or not is a question of no import.



> _In many games, the ability to strap on armor might be more important than the ASF chance.....indeed, you might be able to also dip into a prestige class to mitigate this._




And dipping into the prestige class results in its own drawbacks - most of the ones that mitigate ASF do not have full spell progression, don't have bonus feats, and so on, so you give up benefits to get the benefits of the prestige class. But that isn't the question you asked. You asked about the 1 level of fighter dip. resorting to saying "you could take levels in _yet another class that will cost you even more_ to offset the problems of the dip seems to me to prove my point. The dip isn't a problem.



> _I agree.  And, if you assume that you'll be having four encounters per day, and that those encounters will be balanced in a particular way, you might be correct._




I'm not, and yet I am still correct.



> _If you assume that you are automatically going to survive until 20th level, or that any character lost is going to be replaced with a like level character, you may be correct._




I'm not. if you go back and read the thread, you will find that I said that dipping makes you less effective at lower levels. That dipping delays your progression to higher level abilities. It was the "dipping is the way to ULTIMATE POWER" guys who said "it doesn't matter over 20 levels". Dipping is likely to hamper your power _at the moment of dipping_, and is generally, at best a power neutral choice.



> _If you assume that you are going to have particular types of encounters, and that you can therefore optimize for those types of encounters (i.e., that being a specialist is always better than being a generalist) you may be correct._




Being a specialist may or may not be "better" than being a generalist. However, being a generalist doesn't get you any additional benefit in most cases int he 3e system, since your "generalized" abilities often don't match up to where they need to be for the foes you face. And when they do, the foes are trivial ones, who the specialist can _still_ deal with at least as well or better than you can.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> He also gains the ability to use the fighter attack matrix, fighter weapon and armor proficiencies with no penalty (remember, in 1e, a fighter/magic-user could cast spells in armor, unlike in 3e, where he still suffers ASF chances). He gets to save as the better of either class, whicher save table is better at the time. Compared to the fighter, he has four levels of magic-user. Compared to the magic-user, he has all the advantages of a fighter.




The rules don't actually _say_ he can cast spells in armor; they say that he can wear armor and that he can cast spells.  If someone has the Dragon Compilation, and could look up the Sage Advice reference, that would be handy.

In any event, even if you ruled that a f/mu could cast spells in armor, on an encounter-by-encounter basis, you'd get either a better defended (but less potent) spellcaster or a weak fighter.  In 1e, when you got hit in combat while casting you didn't make a Concentration check -- you lost your spell.  Casting spells while engaged in melee was a suicidal option.

Of course, again, I concede that if you played in a far less challenging campaign model than was true IME these considerations might never have come up....much the way that a less challenging 3e environment can remove the benefits of level dipping.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Completely untrue.





If you are merely trying to say that level dipping is not the way to ULTIMATE POWER, then I agree with you 100%.

Otherwise, I find your arguments less than convincing.


RC


----------



## VirgilCaine (Jan 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This is similar, in fact, to the cavalier argument re: 1e.  The cavalier has a few things going for it, but deep in the dungeons below Castle Greyhawk some of his advantages might be lethal to him.




If paladin AND Cavalier abilities can't help the Cavalier fighting against the most dangerous foe the party is fighting, the *party* will survive because of the Cavalier's heroic death warning them to run the hell away. A true heroes end.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If you are merely trying to say that level dipping is not the way to ULTIMATE POWER, then I agree with you 100%.
> 
> Otherwise, I find your arguments less than convincing.




Which ones? The ones where I pointed out that CR 10 foes are a trivial issue for 20th level characters? or the ones where I showed that a 20th level wizard is better off on the whole than a 19th level wizard/1st level fighter?

Simply saying "I don't like your arguments" as you have, is less than persuasive.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2007)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> If paladin AND Cavalier abilities can't help the Cavalier fighting against the most dangerous foe the party is fighting, the *party* will survive because of the Cavalier's heroic death warning them to run the hell away. A true heroes end.





True.  I think that, often enough, people who played these classes in 1e were looking for a character whose _story_ (including that heroic death scene) would be cool.  I know that, when I played a paladin, I was often willing to die heroically so that the party (or village, or innocent NPCs) could survive.  It was the funnest thing about the class, IMHO.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The rules don't actually _say_ he can cast spells in armor; they say that he can wear armor and that he can cast spells.




Actually, they do. look up the multiclassing rules in the 1e PHB, they explicitly say that the _only_ limitation on wearing armor is thieving abilities.



> _In any event, even if you ruled that a f/mu could cast spells in armor, on an encounter-by-encounter basis, you'd get either a better defended (but less potent) spellcaster or a weak fighter.  In 1e, when you got hit in combat while casting you didn't make a Concentration check -- you lost your spell.  Casting spells while engaged in melee was a suicidal option._




So you stayed out of melee and cast spells, or you joined in and fought in melee. Or you used a wand (like standard wizards were recommended to do in combat), or any number of other things. You still have yet to show how losing a signle level of fighter for four levels of magic-user _isn't_ horrendously overpowered.



> _Of course, again, I concede that if you played in a far less challenging campaign model than was true IME these considerations might never have come up....much the way that a less challenging 3e environment can remove the benefits of level dipping._




Please. The "your campaigns aren't as tough as mine" silliness is petty and childish at best. The reason for using the various 1e rules-exploits was _tougher_ campaigns, a wimper level of opposition would have made the drive to find the loopholes less pressing. The level dipping benefits you tout for 3e are entirely illusory, and have been thoroughly debunked at this point. The "dipping" wizard ends up less powerful than his single classed companion (not a lot, but certainly not as well off). "Dipping" is almost always a counterproductive strategy, especially for a caster class.


----------



## molonel (Jan 9, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> "Dipping" is almost always a counterproductive strategy, especially for a caster class.




Multiclassing for a spellcasting class without a 1 per level casting progression is almost always a loss. 

I just played a rogue up through 25th level. I multiclassed lightly, because the strengths of rogues are their skill points and their Sneak Attack progression. I didn't even LOOK at any prestige classes with less than six skill points per level. 

Fighter and melee types suffer the least, but stacking a lot of them on top of each other leaves your saves tanked. A Fighter 2, Ranger 2, Barbarian 2 has a base Will save of +0.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Which ones? The ones where I *claimed* that CR 10 foes are a trivial issue for 20th level characters? or the ones where I *said* that a 20th level wizard is better off on the whole than a 19th level wizard/1st level fighter?





Fixed that for ya.     

An inability to make a challenging encounter for a 20th level character with CR 10 foes seems more a failure of imagination than a failure of rules IMHO.    

Seriously, though, you seem to be thinking of a campaign model that is *a lot* less challenging than the one I use.  Which is fine.  To each his own pudding.  I doubt very much that you would enjoy the sort of game that I do.

When you die in my game, you don't get to come back at APL.  And, if you're not careful, you may well die.  _Raise dead_ isn't easy to come by.  You aren't guaranteed average wealth by level -- you get what you find, what you make, and what you earn.  I dish out 1/2 normal XP.  The 1-level dip, when used, is used before 5th level (generally) because there is no guarantee that you'll be making it to 20th, and because it can help you survive to 6th.  Rust monsters are more than a one-trick pony, and so is everything else....which means that creatures can, and will, stack the odds in their favor. 

The one thing that you have convinced me of is that, in the years I have been playing this game (in various editions since 1979, in 7 states [2e in California and Rhode Island] and 2 countries [US and Canada]) I have been extraordinary lucky in encountering literally hundreds of players with whom, regardless of edition, everything clicked.  I've run games with as few as 1 player and as many as (about) 15 using 1e with no problems.  With 3e, I've run games for as few as 1 player and as many as 9.  Again, no problems.

I think you mistake "the system" for the campaign style you prefer, or for the default campaign style outlined in 3e.  The system is more hearty than that.  Campaign assumptions vastly affect what is, or is not, powerful in a given game.  

You respond to the notion that your assumptions might not be universal with "Completely untrue."  This isn't unconvincing merely because "I don't like your arguments" but because it _*isn't an argument at all*_....no matter how many ways you reword it in a single paragraph.

Completely untrue. Foes who are an appropriate level challenege him, and the question of his power is salient. Foes who are below that appropriate level are nuisances at best, and mostly completely irrelevant. For a 20th level wizard character (for example) a CR 10 foe is totally outclassed in such a way that having the ability to fight one with a sword is completley meaningless. The foe is no challenge at all, no more than killing a mouse would be to you, so whether he has some other way of dealing with it or not is a question of no import.​
The above is simply saying the same thing over and over again.  This to the statement "What is, and what is not, trivial is very much determined by campaign play".  You ignore that Challenge Rating in and of itself is an imperfect method of determining what opponent would challenge a party of four PCs with a set standard of wealth used in a fairly narrow way _assuming that the encounter was a relatively straightforward combat encounter wherein each character can bring all of his abilities to bear_.

As an obvious example, if a game world contained antimagic zones ala the Forgotten Realms, then the ability to cast spells within those zones is meaningless and the one-level dip is critical.....especially if the party otherwise contains no heavy fighter types.

When you are right (weapon specialization was allowed to all fighters and rangers in UA, multi-classing must have caused a fair percentage of players problems, level dipping is not the way to ULTIMATE POWER) I'll be happy to say so.  However, simply repeating your stated opinions as though they were facts ad infinitum ad nauseum isn't convincing.

(I've done the same, of course, but I am sure no one is convinced by that either.    )

So, _*if*_ you want to convince me, _*then*_ you will need a better line of argument.  If you don't want to convince me, then you don't need anything.....after all, I certainly don't care if you personally find my statements "less than persuasive".  I am responding to what you write for my own benefit, and for the (dubious) benefit of others, lest they come to the erroneous conclusion that since some statements remain unchallenged they must be true, and their own personal experiences therefore somehow false.

In any event, it is a frequent internet argument technique to make a claim of a single case, then attempt to prove that single case untrue, thus trying to demonstrate that the larger case is untrue.  That is simply fallicious reasoning.  Unless the statement being made is "At 20th level, all single dips show a clear benefit"....which, in my case at least, it is not.

My position can be summed up as:

"One or more level dips, when taken, can provide an immediate benefit that aids a character in survival _*now*_ with little or no (or shall I say, debateable?) long-term cost." and "Given that it is easier to balance three things than fifty-three things, the sheer number of options in 3e make unbalanced combinations more probable to exist (including race, class, template, feats, skills, spells, and equipment); in fact, greatly unbalanced combos _do_ exist, both in greater number and with greater potential balance problems than in 1e".

Caveat to the 2nd point:  "This is a logical extension of more options, and given that more options are a good thing, the balance problems are well within tolerance under the eye of a vigilant DM and/or gaming group."

Clear enough?


RC


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> An inability to make a challenging encounter for a 20th level character with CR 10 foes seems more a failure of imagination than a failure of rules IMHO.




Please. Show me a CR 10 foe that is anything other than a trivial challenge for a 20th level wizard.



> _Seriously, though, you seem to be thinking of a campaign model that is *a lot* less challenging than the one I use.  Which is fine.  To each his own pudding.  I doubt very much that you would enjoy the sort of game that I do._




There you go with the petty and childish claims again.



> _When you die in my game, you don't get to come back at APL.  And, if you're not careful, you may well die.  Raise dead isn't easy to come by.  You aren't guaranteed average wealth by level -- you get what you find, what you make, and what you earn.  I dish out 1/2 normal XP.  The 1-level dip, when used, is used before 5th level (generally) because there is no guarantee that you'll be making it to 20th, and because it can help you survive to 6th.  Rust monsters are more than a one-trick pony, and so is everything else....which means that creatures can, and will, stack the odds in their favor._




And? It may surprise you that I have DMed and played in campaigns using some, or all of the modifications you are talking about. And in none of them was "dipping" anything that really helped the PCs.



> _I think you mistake "the system" for the campaign style you prefer, or for the default campaign style outlined in 3e.  The system is more hearty than that.  Campaign assumptions vastly affect what is, or is not, powerful in a given game. _




You seem to think that you are the only one here who has made changes to the baseline. I believe you are sadly mistaken. And hopelessly arrogant on that score.



> _You respond to the notion that your assumptions might not be universal with "Completely untrue."  This isn't unconvincing merely because "I don't like your arguments" but because it *isn't an argument at all*....no matter how many ways you reword it in a single paragraph._




I didn't assert that the assumptions might not be universally true. I asserted that it was completely untrue that making the sorts of changes you are talking about have _any impact on this sort of character balance_. The fact that you, for some reason, ignored the actual argument and instead chose to erect some sort of strawman in your mind (which you didn't actually try to argue against, but rather stated "I don't believe you") isn't a failing on my end of the stick. This might have been easy to figure out, had you actually explained your reasoning in the first place - because then your straw man would have been exposed right away.



> _The above is simply saying the same thing over and over again.  This to the statement "What is, and what is not, trivial is very much determined by campaign play".  You ignore that Challenge Rating in and of itself is an imperfect method of determining what opponent would challenge a party of four PCs with a set standard of wealth used in a fairly narrow way assuming that the encounter was a relatively straightforward combat encounter wherein each character can bring all of his abilities to bear._




Give a CR 10 challenge that would be more than trivial to a 20th level wizard. Under any assumptions.



> _As an obvious example, if a game world contained antimagic zones ala the Forgotten Realms, then the ability to cast spells within those zones is meaningless and the one-level dip is critical.....especially if the party otherwise contains no heavy fighter types._




Please. Even with antimagic zones, the wizard remains better off staying a wizard than trying to wade into battle with a longsword, +10 BAB, and 53 hit points at 20th level. And you are not talking about a CR 10 challenege then either, you have made the fundamental mistake of changing the nature of the challenge without realizing you have done so.



> _"One or more level dips, when taken, can provide an immediate benefit that aids a character in survival *now* with little or no (or shall I say, debateable?) long-term cost."_




And that statement has been shown, repeatedly, to be completely untrue. The cost is paid _right now_, you don't advance in your "primary" class, and often get benefits that are less useful than those you would get by going up a level in your primary class. The fact that you don't realize this makes me think that your claims about how hard campaigns are isn't actually a measure of how hard the campaigns are, but something else.



> _and "Given that it is easier to balance three things than fifty-three things, the sheer number of options in 3e make unbalanced combinations more probable to exist (including race, class, template, feats, skills, spells, and equipment); in fact, greatly unbalanced combos do exist, both in greater number and with greater potential balance problems than in 1e"._




Once again, completely untrue. In 1e, there were only a handful of balance problems in the rules, but they were _clearly_ better than the alternatives, to the point where characters who did not take those options were significantly hampered by comparison. By contrast, the only thing you have shown with your "fighter dip" argument is that the 20th level wizard is better off.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 9, 2007)

So what does all this mean to the original question?

Does 3E/3.5 dictate a certain style of play?

Dictate no, reward yes, are people generally encouraged by rewards yes, so by extension a certain style of play is encouraged but not dictated.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Does 3E/3.5 dictate a certain style of play?




No.



> _Dictate no, reward yes, are people generally encouraged by rewards yes, so by extension a certain style of play is encouraged but not dictated._




Reward? If you are talking about rewarding level dipping? No.


----------



## molonel (Jan 9, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Please. Even with antimagic zones, the wizard remains better off staying a wizard than trying to wade into battle with a longsword, +10 BAB, and 53 hit points at 20th level. And you are not talking about a CR 10 challenege then either, you have made the fundamental mistake of changing the nature of the challenge without realizing you have done so.




Oh my God. A 20th level wizard with no operable magic items in an antimagic zone is a 20th level commoner. Nothing more, nothing less. Taking one level of fighter is not only NOT a no-brainer. It's completely irrelevant. Spellcasters are among the least likely to multiclass in 3rd Edition games with classes that don't give them caster level progression.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Please. Show me a CR 10 foe that is anything other than a trivial challenge for a 20th level wizard.




Pick a CR 10 foe.  Show me your CR 20 wizard.  I guarantee that I can write an encounter using your foe and your wizard that is challenging.  And, I bet, so can 90% of the people on EN World.  I am not the only one here who has made changes to the baseline.  I assume that the average person here can do the same.  That isn't arrogance; that's an assumption of standard competence.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Give a CR 10 challenge that would be more than trivial to a 20th level wizard. Under any assumptions.




Um.....You are aware of the difference between a creature's Challenge Rating and the Encounter Level of an encounter that might feature said creature, aren't you?  If not, that might explain why you can't create an challenging encounter for a lvl 20 character using a CR 10 foe.  

If you meant to say that an _EL 10 encounter_ isn't challenging to a _party of lvl 20 characters_ then...*so long as you change the meaning of the term "EL" to match any adjustments to the relative power of lvl 20 characters*....you are correct _by definition_.

EDIT:  The obvious exception, of course, is when the EL 10 encounter is part of a series of encounters, and the character is drained due to previous encounters to the point where the EL 10 encounter is challenging.

It would also explain comments like "you have made the fundamental mistake of changing the nature of the challenge without realizing you have done so."

No.  I realize that I have done so.  What you fail to realize is that the advantages of specialization are not absolute, given any campaign environment in which conditions exist that can limit the specialist in his trade.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The cost is paid _right now_, you don't advance in your "primary" class, and often get benefits that are less useful than those you would get by going up a level in your primary class.




If you'd like to make this argument, you can use a wizard as base class, and at each level see what benefits are gained from taking either a wizard or a fighter level.  Then you could start as a fighter and see what benefits are gained at each level by taking a barbarian level.  For my purposes, the first six levels would be sufficient for you to demonstrate your point.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2007)

BTW, this:



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Once again, completely untrue. In 1e, there were only a handful of balance problems in the rules, but they were _clearly_ better than the alternatives, to the point where characters who did not take those options were significantly hampered by comparison. By contrast, the only thing you have shown with your "fighter dip" argument is that the 20th level wizard is better off.




Doesn't actually answer this:



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> and "Given that it is easier to balance three things than fifty-three things, the sheer number of options in 3e make unbalanced combinations more probable to exist (including race, class, template, feats, skills, spells, and equipment); in fact, greatly unbalanced combos do exist, both in greater number and with greater potential balance problems than in 1e".




Your statement is only that the ones in 1e are _more obvious_.....which is, again, debatable based upon playstyle.


RC


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 9, 2007)

All the number-crunching regarding "dipping" seems to be avoiding or ignoring one key point: does the character have an in-character *reason* to dip?  If yes, then more power to ya.  If no, then the RP in RPG has taken a sad back seat to numbers management...

Also, the most common dip seems to be one level of Rogue...presumably for maximum benefit you'd start as a Rogue to get all the extra skill points, then take up your real class at 2nd and keep going from there...

Lanefan


----------



## molonel (Jan 9, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Also, the most common dip seems to be one level of Rogue...presumably for maximum benefit you'd start as a Rogue to get all the extra skill points, then take up your real class at 2nd and keep going from there...




One level of Rogue is rarely a dip I see, either for melee builds or spellcasters. The skill set - no Concentration, no Knowledge: Arcana or Knowledge: Religion, no Spellcraft - means that you're behind on important skills for a spellcaster at level 2, and low hit points makes it extremely unwise for a melee character. I can see doing something like that for an in-character reason, but we're talking about a dip, so it seems you're talking about a 1-level tap for maximum advantage. And rogue isn't really an advantage, in that regard, except perhaps a Wilderness Rogue variant that goes into Ranger.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 9, 2007)

Moderator/
Raven Crowking and Storm Raven - please stop arguing with one another from this point onwards. Please do not refer to one another again in this thread and it would probably do you both some good if you put each other on 'ignore' for a week or so.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2007)

Molonel, what dips do you see?


----------



## MerricB (Jan 10, 2007)

You know, the more play I see of D&D 3e, and the players get more comfortable with the system, the less I see "random" dipping into classes. 

I still see quite a few multiclass characters, but almost without exception they're trying to get the benefits of particular prestige classes: Mystic Theurge, Arcane Hierophant, Fochluchan Lyrist.

In my AoW campaign, the paladin is a Ftr 4/Paladin 14. It gives him the benefit of Weapon Specialisation and Melee Weapon Mastery, but he's lost quite a bit of paladin abilities. So much so, that the Holy Avenger he has is much less good than it should be.

"Dipping" when playing a spellcaster is almost always a particularly bad move. There are very few classes that actually give you abilities that mesh with your spellcaster abilities.

Fighter/Barbarian combinations I see a bit of, (Ftr 4/Brb X). However, it isn't a no-brainer. You're giving up something when you do it. Barbarian 1/Fighter X is also quite nice, but becomes less effective as levels are gained.

RC: A 1e elf fighter/magic-user can wear armour. There are numerous references in the 1e rules to this. There aren't "restrictions" on armour/weapons in 1e, rather you begin being unable to use any, and you are granted the ability to use them. We can find corrobative evidence in the AD&D adventures with pregen characters.

*S1: Tomb of Horrors*
#5: Elf F5/MU 11 - +1 chainmail, +3 shield
#10: Half-Elf C5/Ranger7/Magic-User 6 - +2 chainmail, +1 shield (interesting combo; not listed in PHB, although C/R is)

*A1: Slave Pits of the Undercity*
#9: Elf Ftr4/MU 4 - Elfin chain & shield

*DL6: Dragons of Ice*
Gilthanas - Elf Ftr 5/MU 6- Chainmail & Shield.

The true cost of multiclassing in 1e was the level limit, and - often - reduced hit points. 

Cheers!


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 10, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> RC: A 1e elf fighter/magic-user can wear armour. There are numerous references in the 1e rules to this. There aren't "restrictions" on armour/weapons in 1e, rather you begin being unable to use any, and you are granted the ability to use them. We can find corrobative evidence in the AD&D adventures with pregen characters.
> 
> *S1: Tomb of Horrors*
> #5: Elf F5/MU 11 - +1 chainmail, +3 shield
> ...



Interesting.  I'd always assumed that was why Elven chain ("elfin chain") was so rare and-or outrageously expensive, because it had been designed by the Elves so they *could* cast spells out of it.  But from this it seems the base assumption was that a multi-classed Elf could cast arcane out of any armour.  Fascinating.

Lanefan


----------



## MerricB (Jan 10, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Interesting.  I'd always assumed that was why Elven chain ("elfin chain") was so rare and-or outrageously expensive, because it had been designed by the Elves so they *could* cast spells out of it.  But from this it seems the base assumption was that a multi-classed Elf could cast arcane out of any armour.  Fascinating.




Elfin chain had the advantage of weighing half as much as regular chain (15 lbs, instead of 30 lbs) and not reducing movement rate.

Elfin chain is also an example of Gary changing his mind in UA. He notes in the 1e DMG, in italics: "_There is no magical elfin chain mail._" (DMG 28) In UA, magical elfin chain mail.  

Note, all magical armour in AD&D weighs as much as clothing and does not restrict movement. (DMG 164)

By UA, Elfin Chainmail is described as "magical armour of a sort that is so fine and light that it can be worn under normal clothin without revealing it is there. Because of its incredible lightness and flexibility, thieves can utilize it, though it may slightly hinder their activities." (UA 104)

Cheers!


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 10, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Oh my God. A 20th level wizard with no operable magic items in an antimagic zone is a 20th level commoner. Nothing more, nothing less. Taking one level of fighter is not only NOT a no-brainer. It's completely irrelevant. Spellcasters are among the least likely to multiclass in 3rd Edition games with classes that don't give them caster level progression.




However, even in that circumstance, the single classed wizard is likely to be more useful. Because (a) not all of your encounters are going to be in an _antimagic zone_ where the straight caster is straight up more effective, and, (b) even when confronted by an _antimagic zone_, the wizard can cast spells outside the region that have effects in the region that are more useful than wading in with a (nonmagical) sword trying to emulate a hit point starved 10th level warrior. _Gate_ for example, or _Greater Planar Binding_ to try to obtain an extradmiensional being with significant melee power to enter the area spring to mind as possibilities (just off the top of my head).


----------



## molonel (Jan 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Molonel, what dips do you see?




A rogue with 2 levels of ranger isn't uncommon, because the skill sets are complementary. If you combine these with the Wilderness Rogue variant that adds Survival to the Rogue's skill list, it's a very synergistic build.

Melee builds suffer the least from multiclassing. Two levels of monk on a lawfully-aligned character gives you +3 on all saves, Improved Unarmed Strike and a couple of feats.

Four levels of paladin gives you Cha to saves, and turning attempts to feed Divine Might.

A level or two of barbarian on a non-lawfully aligned fighter-type isn't uncommon, or a level or two of fighter on a barbarian for feats. A melee build with the first level in barbarian means you get maximum starting hit points with a d12 hit die.

A level of cleric with properly chosen domains can spice up a fighter build.

A divine spellcaster with a level of monk can eventually shed his armor, and gain that fat wisdom bonus to all sorts of AC (touch, FF and incorporeal touch), but in my experience this is more rare.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 10, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> RC: A 1e elf fighter/magic-user can wear armour. There are numerous references in the 1e rules to this. There aren't "restrictions" on armour/weapons in 1e, rather you begin being unable to use any, and you are granted the ability to use them.





Well, if there is anyone closer to an absolute authority on the history of the game than MerricB, I've yet to meet him.  I must be thinking of a house rule.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 10, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> A rogue with 2 levels of ranger isn't uncommon, because the skill sets are complementary. If you combine these with the Wilderness Rogue variant that adds Survival to the Rogue's skill list, it's a very synergistic build.
> 
> Melee builds suffer the least from multiclassing. Two levels of monk on a lawfully-aligned character gives you +3 on all saves, Improved Unarmed Strike and a couple of feats.
> 
> ...





So, then, even if you disagree with my (admittedly off the cuff) examples, would you agree that "One or more level dips, when taken, can provide an immediate benefit that aids a character in survival now with little or no (or shall I say, debateable?) long-term cost."?


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 10, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> A rogue with 2 levels of ranger isn't uncommon, because the skill sets are complementary. If you combine these with the Wilderness Rogue variant that adds Survival to the Rogue's skill list, it's a very synergistic build.
> 
> Melee builds suffer the least from multiclassing. Two levels of monk on a lawfully-aligned character gives you +3 on all saves, Improved Unarmed Strike and a couple of feats.
> 
> ...




I've seen most of these at one time or another. I've also seen many of the players who made those decisions dissatisfied with the results. In my experience, many "dips" _seem_ attractive, but when people start doing them, they don't work as well as desired, and the player ends up regretting the choice to do it. Sometimes they do work out, and the player is happy with the choice, but I've seen fewer and fewer of these as players become more experienced with the system. I've also never seen the "dip" strategy result in a character who was noticeably more powerful than his "non-dipping" companions (which, in my opinion, is why some of the "dippers" have been disappointed).

When the question is "does 3e reward dipping", my experience is that it does not - because dipping provides no noticeable power advantage over not dipping. It might slightly penalize dipping (many dips are subpar choices), but not so much that it would eliminate a character concept that used it to accomplish the player's vision (for example, a gray mouser based character, who would be mostly rogue with a little bit of wizard and maybe a little bit of fighter). But rewarding dipping? No.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 10, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Interesting.  I'd always assumed that was why Elven chain ("elfin chain") was so rare and-or outrageously expensive, because it had been designed by the Elves so they *could* cast spells out of it.  But from this it seems the base assumption was that a multi-classed Elf could cast arcane out of any armour.  Fascinating.





You know, I thought the same thing.

MerricB, do you know of any source where this might have been true?  I'm wondering if it was a carry-over in my mind from an earlier edition?

RC


----------



## MerricB (Jan 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You know, I thought the same thing.
> 
> MerricB, do you know of any source where this might have been true?  I'm wondering if it was a carry-over in my mind from an earlier edition?
> 
> RC




Yes. It's true in 2nd edition.

In 2nd edition, elven fighter/magic-users can only wear elfin chain when casting spells.

Cheers!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 10, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Yes. It's true in 2nd edition.
> 
> In 2nd edition, elven fighter/magic-users can only wear elfin chain when casting spells.
> 
> Cheers!





Thanks.


----------



## MerricB (Jan 10, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> When the question is "does 3e reward dipping", my experience is that it does not - because dipping provides no noticeable power advantage over not dipping. It might slightly penalize dipping (many dips are subpar choices), but not so much that it would eliminate a character concept that used it to accomplish the player's vision (for example, a gray mouser based character, who would be mostly rogue with a little bit of wizard and maybe a little bit of fighter). But rewarding dipping? No.




I will note that in 3e, dipping was a lot more attractive than 3.5e, due to the toploaded classes. A rogue taking one level of ranger would get Ambidexterity and Two-weapon fighting for free, which was extremely useful with sneak attack. One level of paladin did nice things to saving throws, and one level of monk could also be interesting to the right PC.

In 3.5e, these holes were plugged. 3 levels of a class is too significant to easily "dip" into now.

Cheers!


----------



## molonel (Jan 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, then, even if you disagree with my (admittedly off the cuff) examples, would you agree that "One or more level dips, when taken, can provide an immediate benefit that aids a character in survival now with little or no (or shall I say, debateable?) long-term cost."?




You asked me what I'd seen. I told you. You didn't ask me what was most advantageous. Like Storm Raven, I've also seen players become dissatisfied with all of those choices in the longterm. I'm in a campaign right now for the World's Largest Dungeon that's gone into Epic levels, and one of the things that everyone has been most grateful for is the retraining option the DM has allowed. And guess what? Everyone used the option to shed 1- and 2-level dips they'd made earlier in the campaign. Did they provide immediate benefits? Sure. With little or no longterm cost? No. Characters with less dipping started gaining bonus epic feats faster. People got to 20th level, and their BAB stopped wherever it was. Some characters never got their 4th iterative attacks because of sacrificed BAB. The spellcasters didn't dip because they wanted their spell progression.

I think your "off the cuff" examples arise out of the fact that you're building characters on paper rather than playing them out in actual gameplay. Does dipping happen? Sure. It can spice up a character and give it extra flavor. It can, and frequently does, create annoying and frustrating gaps or weaknesses in a character in the longterm, particularly if taken to excess. A fighter 2, barbarian 2 is just not ZOMG! Uberpowerful!!! when compared to a fighter 4. A fighter 1, rogue 1, monk 1, ranger 1 isn't, either.

Where dipping sometimes offers the sort of benefit you're talking about is when the synergy of special abilities from what is usually a diverse set of books creates a particular effect.

For example, one person who died came back as a Druid 5 (PHB), Warshaper 5 (Complete Warrior), Nature's Warrior 3 (Complete Warrior), Master of Many Forms 7 (Complete Adventurer). He does this frequently, and I should note that most of his creations have died a rather ignoble death due to the unbalanced nature of his creations and the lopsided weaknesses they contain. I think he's on character number 5, while my mostly straight PHB Rogue is still my first character, and I'm quite satisfied with him. It's also worth mentioning that my character has been the only one capable of performing the tasks he does in the group, and everyone can tell you about his personality and antics throughout the course of what is now a 25 level campaign. They could even tell you how tall he is (2' 10"), because it's a running joke. The guy playing the druid-warshaper-nature's warrior-master of many forms? I couldn't even tell you what he looks like. The other casters like to make fun of him because I think he can cast 3rd level spells.

It was also funny when he was saying, "Yeah, but I'm a tank" and I calmly described how I would kill his character if I had to, using Use Magic Device, some wands, and some scrolls. Yes, it would have taken some time, and yes, he could just run away. But the fact that my 2' 10" rogue could kill his uber creation bothered him.



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> I will note that in 3e, dipping was a lot more attractive than 3.5e, due to the toploaded classes. A rogue taking one level of ranger would get Ambidexterity and Two-weapon fighting for free, which was extremely useful with sneak attack. One level of paladin did nice things to saving throws, and one level of monk could also be interesting to the right PC. In 3.5e, these holes were plugged. 3 levels of a class is too significant to easily "dip" into now.




Yeah. The 3.0 Ranger was worthless. TWF was also way too expensive, requiring two feats, and so the 1-level dip made even more sense. Now it's two levels to get one feat on the Ranger, and Track doesn't make any sense unless you've got Survival ranks updated to make it a worthwhile feat.


----------

