Of all the complaints about 3.x systems... do you people actually allow this stuff ?

Recidivism · Jan 23, 2012

SlyDoubt said:
Right but it's the exploit part that has to do with trust. Unless you the DM are encouraging it, your players should trust you and you them not to exploit things in ways you didn't intend.

That develops over time but really there's no difference like you said. What you said definitely applies to being dropped into a group of players you don't know though. I agree with you there.

3E in general is a lot more binary than 4E, and resting up has stronger and more versatile benefits. If a couple of players take more damage in a fight than they're comfortable with, or the Cleric and Wizard blow powerful spell slots and want to rest (or feel like their prepared spells are not suited for whatever lies ahead of them), it doesn't seem like it's my place as a DM to say, "Nope, you're not allowed to rest because I say so."

Even if I voice my unhappiness with this behavior, and my players are cooperative with me and decide to continue onward instead of resting, the nature of 3E is that a lucky roll on my part can kill a player even in an encounter that I would normally consider not threatening. So I can't really blame players for wanting to be cautious. The behavior is a consequence of how the game's mechanics work as a whole.

Rechan · Jan 23, 2012

Recidivism said:
Even if I voice my unhappiness with this behavior, and my players are operative with me and decide to continue onward instead of resting, the nature of 3E is that a lucky roll on my part can kill a player even in an encounter that I would normally consider not threatening. So I can't really blame players for wanting to be cautious. The behavior is a consequence of how the game's mechanics work as a whole.

Reminds me of an anecdote off the boards here. DM was running a published adventure for 12th level PCs. PCs come into a room and out pops a single bodak. A bodak, being a CR 8 monster, is well below their challenge rating. But bam, two PCs killed in the surprise round because of the save-or-die gaze attack.

Tequila Sunrise · Jan 23, 2012

Evenglare said:
The big one is the what... 20 minute adventure day ? Rules as written yes, this "theoretically" could be a problem. The thing is , I have been running campaigns for about 15 years now and I can honestly say I have never had this problem. This brings me to my question, does this ACTUALLY happen in your games? If so, why do you allow it?

Yes, I occasionally experienced these problems when I ran 3.x.

Evenglare said:
Any one agree, disagree? Have your own stories or thoughts on the matter?

In my opinion, it's more fun to play a game where the DM doesn't have to fix what the designers broke. Even occasionally. Of course perfect balance is unattainable, but that doesn't mean I don't want my game striving for it.

GMforPowergamers · Jan 23, 2012

My problem I call a 15min work day, but only becuse it is the meme. My prblem is the rest when I am out day.

an 11th level wizard with a good resrve feat and a dozen potions and scrolls, and 3-4 wands and staffs. a good ring and armor, and 3-4 wondurus items.

an 11th level cleric, and a 2/3/3/3 Fighter/rogue/ranger/prestige class all working well togather, with 4 or so wands of healing (say 3 cure lights and 1 cure mod) and a scroll or two of remove XYZ as a group items.

we don't do 1 encounter then stop... we do 3-4 encounters, each one gets 3-5 low level spells and 1 or 3 BIG spells... then when those spells run out we rope trick, or teleport, or plane shift or what ever, and start again tomorrow.

Raith5 · Jan 23, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
To whatever extent balance was achieved, it was done by radically altering the basic capabilities of the magical characters that I alluded to above, and granting nonmagic characters the ability to do sometimes supernatural things on an arbitrarily use-limited basis (i.e. magic).

In other words, what people dislike is not that the issue was "fixed", but that the distinction was largely removed.

In any case, my point is that perfect balance between magic and not magic isn't feasible while maintaining said distinction. That isn't necessarily a problem. Discounting the underlying D&Disms, the common meaning of the word "magic" is pretty incompatible with the notion of "balance".

I think this is line that 4th ed magic is not magical is overdrawn.

In 4th ed, sure casters do things like MM that feel similar to say twinstrike. But they still do heaps of things still do a large number of things that still are pretty magical that alter battles in ways that are 'magical'. For example the wizard utility arcane gate can reshape a battlefield in way that non-casters just cant.

I just cant see that the line between magic and non-magic was busted in 4th ed.

The line between arbitrarily use-limited basis in respect to magic and martial prowess is even weaker. If you can imagine limits to the capacity of mage in using X amount of magic per day why is it so hard to imagine a non-caster being able to use his or her capacities X amount of times per day or encounter?

SageMinerve · Jan 23, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
I think it's a style that lengthens prep time, not so much the rules. A rules-lite game is of course easier to prep, but D&D hasn't been that for a long time (we'll see about 5e).

I don't think it's so much the rules themselves, but rather the tools you have as a DM in 4th edition. For example, I know Combat Roles for monsters have been demonized in some circles, but it's a tool that allows to quickly adjust monsters / create new ones.

Ahnehnois said:
That will never be balanced with nonmagic abilities, nor should it be.

Ahnehnois said:
I would quite happily see increased costs and difficulty for spellcasting and more powerful high-level fighter abilities. I've adopted several substantial fixes to that effect for my game.

To me, your second quote is one way of balancing magic and non-magic abilities. I never meant that magic powers and martial powers should have the exact same damage output / combat effects. That's one way (the 4th edition way) of balancing. It wouldn't be my prefered choice, but I vastly prefer this to no balance at all, as is the case with all pre-4th editions.

So after all, maybe we want the same thing

Ahnehnois said:
Of course, that's part of the reason 3.X is still a viable game; it's very option-friendly, very receptive to UA-type changes.

And, IMHO, 4th is even more option-friendly. But that's my opinion, not a scientific fact.

Ahnehnois said:
My intent is not to offend; I'm speaking more about some of the abuses of polymorph or any number of min-max build experts who break the game on purpose, or DMs who abuse save-or-die abilities and alienate their players from lethality.

I appreciate that; I didn't necessarily think wou meant to insult, but allowing you to clarify your thoughts is a good thing, I think.

Ahnehnois · Jan 23, 2012

SageMinerve said:
To me, your second quote is one way of balancing magic and non-magic abilities. I never meant that magic powers and martial powers should have the exact same damage output / combat effects. That's one way (the 4th edition way) of balancing. It wouldn't be my prefered choice, but I vastly prefer this to no balance at all, as is the case with all pre-4th editions.

So after all, maybe we want the same thing

I have no objection to that outcome. I would happily see changes to the game to address balance and gameplay issues, I only oppose those that I think make things worse.

Nellisir · Jan 23, 2012

The other thing is the so called "Caster / Melee" rift. Where wizards and other casters are basically much better than every one else. Has anyone ever actually encountered this in their games? I personally haven't, perhaps it's because my group isn't into min maxing or something. People who play fighters or monks or whatever, they have a fantastic time. They kill enemies just as much as any other character, and I personally have just never seen all of these horrible terrible game breaking elements that seem to be so rampant.

I played an intentionally min-maxed human abjurer for a few levels, something like 12th-14th level. There was almost no disagreement that he was the most powerful character at the table, and in a (hypothetical) PC vs PC battle, could wipe the floor with the rest of the party. Only the cleric came close.

That said, he had a glaring achilles heel, which was his prep time. He had several defenses that could be raised simultaneously, but his initiative was never that great, and anyone getting to him early on had a good chance of screwing things up. Party tactics while I played him ran heavily towards the "give the wizard cover for the first few rounds, and then get the hell out of the way" variety. I never tried to steal anyone's thunder, and there were always enough monsters to go around. Everyone had fun.

The min-maxing definately had mins as well as maxs. Hit points were good, but my unspelled AC was terrible (or so I remember).

TheAuldGrump · Jan 23, 2012

Tequila Sunrise said:
Yes, I occasionally experienced these problems when I ran 3.x.

In my opinion, it's more fun to play a game where the DM doesn't have to fix what the designers broke. Even occasionally. Of course perfect balance is unattainable, but that doesn't mean I don't want my game striving for it.

In my opinion, if the DM is running a game with reasonable consequences for the PCs dragging their feet then the world feels more real.

Again, failure should always be an option. Just because the PCs are taking a nap does not mean that the bad guys won't steal a march on them.

The Auld Grump

pemerton · Jan 23, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that nonmagical abilities and magical ones are fundamentally similar?

I'm suggesting that they can be made functionally equivalent, in at least certain respects.

Ahnehnois said:
Even the best manipulator is a long way from Dominate Person

Well, isn't this what is up for grabs? I mean, D&D traditionally models Orpheus's powers of song in terms of magic-user spells, but one could equally use Orpheus as a model of what the most persuasive heroic persona in the world can do, and then treat magic-user spells as some more sinister attempt to approximate to that (sinister, because conferring upon the magic-user a charisma that is, in a certain sense, not really theirs)

Ahnehnois said:
one can't fly, climb, or jump through walls or across the world in a second.

Walls can be bashed down or through. It's true that flying takes time, but teleport can also be made to require time (casting time) or to be limited in places that can be teleported to (which is one way that 4e approaches it). These sorts of tweaks can make flying a worthwhile but different alternative.

Ahnehnois said:
Nor is a firebomb the equivalent of a fireball

I'm not sure why not, but I'm personally not a big fan of bombs in my D&D - the equivalent of a fireball is a whirlwind attack of some sort.

Ahnehnois said:
a keen eye the equivalent of True Seeing, a solid disguise comparable with Alter Self, or Summon Monster spell the same as calling in a friend.

Why not? In all these cases, there is no good reason - other than tradition - for it to be so.

Ahnehnois said:
I feel pretty safe in concluding that most D&D spell effects are things that could not reasonably be duplicated without the use of magic.

If you mean "duplicated by the toughtest firefighter or special operations soldier or circus strongman or clever charlatan" then I agree. If you mean "duplicated by a heroic but non-sorcerous figure of legend", then I disagree. King Arthur's knights, the Greek heroes, the protagonists of celtic and nordic myth, all do pretty dramatic stuff, and call in pretty hefty friends, many without being sorcerers.