3.5 Stat Blocks Kill my creativity

Actually, I think a lot of this "C&C versus 3e" conflict is unwarranted and counterproductive.

Although these games share a common source (D&D), they have different virtues and vices.

3e virtues: lots of options for characters, lots of guidance/structure for DMs, detailed combat, etc.

3e vices: DM burden in terms of prep work, slow combat, miniatures effectively required, high level play tedious, etc.

C&C virtues: fast to prepare and play, simple rules that facilitate 'immersion' in the story, compatibility with all editions of D&D, etc.

C&C vices: lack of options for PCs, simplistic combat system, etc.

Neither system is intrinsically 'better' than the other -- they just appeal to different needs and tastes.

Likewise for Warhammer FRPG (which strikes me as hitting the 'sweet spot' between C&C and 3e in terms of pace and options, but -- alas -- is fundamentally tied to a specific campaign setting).

Likewise for Conan, etc...

Pointing out that a particular system might be best for one group or GM -- given their interests -- is not necessary a criticism of other systems!

Dark Jezter said:

Get over yourself, Akrasia. I wasn't even talking to you.

Click to expand...

But I could swear that you were looking right at me!

I have removed my preemptive C&C strike. It was neither appropriate, nor necessary.

While I do not have a problem with statblocks there are those who do, and believe it or not I was intending to defend them with my post here... but somehow it turned into a C&C rant. I think that I rolled a 1. Followed by another 1 to confirm the fumble. Sorry about that.

There are a lot of ways to deal with statblocks, E-Tools is one, PCGen is another (and my preferrence). Jamis Buck's NPC generator is useful, as is Monsterbase or any of the other monster stat block databases. I seldom bother converting statblocks to 3.5 from 3.0, though I have used the updated statblocks on anything that I have written since it came out.

The reason that I like statblocks is that it makes the NPCs and creatures more individual than was possible under previous editions, it gives the opportunity to tweak the encounters to fit my scheme of taking over the world, err to customize my adventures.

The Auld Grump, there, much more polite.

*EDIT* Or in other words I am strange enough to enjoy that portion of the 'DM's Burden'.

Akrasia said:

But I could swear that you were looking right at me!

Click to expand...

No, that was me.

The Auld Grump

Huh, that's strange, my ears are burning.

Akrasia said:

I have encountered hords of annoying 3e 'fanboys' who cannot comprehend the notion that some people might prefer other games.

Click to expand...

That's one.

Akrasia said:

Nonetheless, I would be happy to accept a WotC book as a gift, and do not think that the fanboys' poor manners reflect on the game itself. (After all, I do not have to play with them!)

Click to expand...

...two..

Dark Jezter said:

I know it's not fair to judge a system based on annoying fanboys, but it's getting really hard for me not to cringe whenever I see Castles & Crusades mentioned.

Click to expand...

...THREE!
Really, you'd think people would know not mention my name three times.
Anyways, to actually help, here are some sugestions:

I'd use one of the alternitive skill systems in UA. For feats and some other info, I'd use the character traits tabels and the character background tables. So to streamline the statblock process, I'd use the default array, choose skills (no points in either system), pick a trait, and use the background tables to generate feats. Add it all up, and there you go. I throw in the traits because, in a streamlined statblock, personality is very important. The traits listed in UA give bonuses or penalties, but I'd ignore them mostly and just go for the role-playing.

Alternitively, you can use the Expert, Warrior, and Spellcaster classes for NPC generation, again using the simplfied Skill system, to make so interesting characters. The Spellcaster is nice because you only need to choose spells known. Before doing this, I'd expand the number of class features that can be taken as bonus feats, just for variety.

(C&C fanboy sidestepping the 3.5 vs rules lite scrum)

Personally, I feel your pain about stat blocks; and I have a great deal of respect for d20 DMs. Ive never felt comfortable in my d20 DM-fu to take full advantage of its options to throw interesting enough challenges at players. Those that can I have a great deal of respect for.

But while d20 does require more work, it also provides more options.

One of the good things about 3.5 is the fact that it is so well supported, arguably the most supported PRPG in history. It has alot of options and alot of resources. I would use Dragon and Dungeon and the Wizards website and many of the orther sites like Sean K Reynolds et all to do the work for you. Wing it for mooks but get interesting ideas from these sources to throw interesting challenges at players. Or just plain steal from them.

I feel winging it has a place for a haggard DM, but not utilizing interesting feats and skills for bad guys doesnt take advantage of all the game has to offer.

TheAuldGrump said:

No, that was me.

The Auld Grump

Click to expand...

You both look so dark and ... grumpy.

Sorry for the confusion!

Akrasia said:

You both look so dark and ... grumpy.

Sorry for the confusion!

Click to expand...

No, I'm grumpy, he's crabby, and I. Dunno's on third.

The Auld Grump, what?

two said:

Like, some flavor in the combat (no statted feats, so, well, can I really justify improved trip on the fly even though it would be completely useful at this precise moment)?

Click to expand...

Sorry to single out one sentence in a fairly long post, but I felt I had to address this.

Of course you can justify it. You can justify anything you want to as DM, and your players shouldn't mind, so long as you do it to make the game more enjoyable for everyone.

My players know me, and they trust me. They know full well that anything I do in game is intended to make the campaign more enjoyable. They know I'm not out to screw them, or to "win," so if I do something that seems to screw them, they know that it's tied into the ongoing story and/or setting development, and that it will be explained down the road. (Sure, I make mistakes occasionally, but it's not common.)

I feel, and most of my players agree, that campaigns are more fun when the battles are challenging. So I do what I need to in order to make the fights challenging, without making them unbeatable. If deciding, on the spur of the moment, that giving Unnamed Fighter 247 the Improved Trip will make the fight more challenging and more fun, then he has Improved Trip. Pure and simple. Obviously, if every fighter always has the exact proper feat for the circumstances, that's going to get unfair. So I don't do it every time; only when it really feels dramatically appropriate.

Lots of people would accuse me of cheating, but again, my point isn't to win. In fact, I tweak NPCs or monsters down as often as I do up. This isn't because I'm unwilling to kill characters--I've killed quite a few, down the years--but because I want my fights to be fun. I don't tweak to avoid danger; I tweak to avoid blatant unfairness and lack of fun, whether it means strengthening or weakening the enemy in the process. I still let the dice fall where they may most of the time, and I never deliberately pit the PCs against a foe whose only purpose is to prove how much tougher they are than the PCs. And not only do most of my players approve, they're only rarely aware I've done it at all.

And as regards missing spells or the like, deciding what spells my important NPC casters have is one of the details I do work out ahead of time. And if, by some bizarre chance, the party winds up in a fight with a spellcaster I didn't expect them to fight, and don't have a spell list prepared, I have enough spell lists from old characters that I can just pull one out and run with it. Or, worst comes to worst, I just make it up as I go. Not every spellcaster should be a tactical genius when it comes to combat, and if it's an NPC caster unimportant enough that I didn't generate a spell list for him, then it wasn't meant to be a challenging encounter anyway.

The other technique of which I make frequent use is the "file off the serial numbers" approach. For instance, just a few weeks ago, I needed a band of 1st-level warriors.

Jump to the "orc" entry in the MM. They function well enough as slightly stronger-than-average human warriors, if you ignore the light sensitivity.