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

pemerton

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

<snip>

For example the wizard utility arcane gate can reshape a battlefield in way that non-casters just cant.
Completely agree. I mean, I can go through the 3E rulebook and format a whole lot of feats and class abilities as powers (I'm thinking many of the barbarian and monk ones, some of the rogue special abilities, the power attack, expertise, whirlwind attack etc feats, and so on), and format a whole lot of spells as powers, without changing the mechanics. Would this suddenly drain the "magic" of its magic? Would the babarian suddenly be a spellcaster because its ability to rage is formatted in the rulebook in the same way as a spell?

I don't get this line at all.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

pemerton

Legend
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.

<snip>

Just because the PCs are taking a nap does not mean that the bad guys won't steal a march on them.
Would you agree that this is scenario-specific? For example, that it applies more strongly in (say) a "break into the castle to assassinate the duke before he starts the invastion" scenario, then in (say) a "loot this ancient tomb whose location is known only to the PCs" scenario?

Which then raises the interesting question, which I don't recall the 3E books discussing, of whether the ruleset is better suited to one sort of scenario than the other. Does 3E play better, for example, if there's always a rival team trying to loot the tomb?

failure should always be an option
I tend to agree with this, but prefer that failure should (at least almost) always be on stage.

An example: in my 4e game I incorporated elements of H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth, including a "rescue the prisoners from the gnolls" scenario. The PCs failed to rescue all the prisoners, but not because they dallied for too long. It was because, when they confronted the gnoll cultists performing their "ritual of doom", they decided to approach the fight in a defensive way, holding the entrance to the room and then advancing cautiously in without risking being surrounded. And this despite the fact that they could see the two prisoners lying unconscious in magic circles, with a couple of gnolls performing the ritual next to them.

Once one of the prisoners died in a blaze of arcane energy, the players changed their PCs' tactics a bit, and went in hard to save the other prisoner - which they did.

I'm not saying my way is better than your way - and I think that 4e is better suited to my way than is 3E (which also relates back to the point about what sorts of scenarios are supported). But I think it is important that the designers of 5E think about what range of scenarios and playstyles they want to support, and then on that basis include sensible advice in their rulebooks.
 

TheAuldGrump

First Post
Would you agree that this is scenario-specific? For example, that it applies more strongly in (say) a "break into the castle to assassinate the duke before he starts the invastion" scenario, then in (say) a "loot this ancient tomb whose location is known only to the PCs" scenario?

Which then raises the interesting question, which I don't recall the 3E books discussing, of whether the ruleset is better suited to one sort of scenario than the other. Does 3E play better, for example, if there's always a rival team trying to loot the tomb?

I tend to agree with this, but prefer that failure should (at least almost) always be on stage.

An example: in my 4e game I incorporated elements of H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth, including a "rescue the prisoners from the gnolls" scenario. The PCs failed to rescue all the prisoners, but not because they dallied for too long. It was because, when they confronted the gnoll cultists performing their "ritual of doom", they decided to approach the fight in a defensive way, holding the entrance to the room and then advancing cautiously in without risking being surrounded. And this despite the fact that they could see the two prisoners lying unconscious in magic circles, with a couple of gnolls performing the ritual next to them.

Once one of the prisoners died in a blaze of arcane energy, the players changed their PCs' tactics a bit, and went in hard to save the other prisoner - which they did.

I'm not saying my way is better than your way - and I think that 4e is better suited to my way than is 3E (which also relates back to the point about what sorts of scenarios are supported). But I think it is important that the designers of 5E think about what range of scenarios and playstyles they want to support, and then on that basis include sensible advice in their rulebooks.
I generally run urban games, intrigue games, and military games.

I have not done much by way of dungeon crawls in years - even my brief foray with Rappan Athuck had a timeline.

Not new to me with D&D either - that is how I have been running games since 1981 or so. (Before that I had more dungeon crawls, but even then war was a common theme.)

I do not like static worlds, if time is passing then something is happening. One of the first things that I hammer out is a timeline. Hell, sometimes I have things happening in several places at the same time - if the party is at location A then something can happen at location C even though they don't find out about it until they get back to location B.

This came up in a river reccon scenario - while the party was sneaking up on an orc village a bunch of orc warriors were sneaking up on the town that the party had just left, so that they could go and investigate the orc village.... They followed the river, the orcs traveled overland, though there were a few places where their routes overlapped.

The Auld Grump
 

Something like "pun-pun" - I doubt it ever happened in anything but the character optimization boards.

Something like 15 minute adventure days? Totally. All the time. Paizo/Dungeon Adventure Paths back then required it basically.

Caster dominance? Yes, a lot, but we usually managed to reduce the effect somewhat by investing a lot in ridicilious amounts of buffs to the non-spellcasters. But that requires basically two spellcasters (Cleric + Wizard ideally) for two non-spellcasters (Fighter + Rogue).

We also had our golf bags. Most interesting tactic may have been using Admantite Weapons (that gave a +2 natural enhancement bonus) and an Anti-Magic field to deal with dangerous enemy casters or spell-like ability users.

Oh, and the stacks of Wand of Cure Light Wounds we used.

The entire game really felt silly in the regard with all the buffs and wands that we went through. It didn't feel even a tiny bit like heroic fantasy. Or mythical heroes. Or superheroes. It was... its own, unique brand, only possible with D&D (maybe even only 3E?). You probably wouldn't even find in D&D fiction books!
 

FireLance

Legend
High level casters? My 6th-level character pulled off the following nearly 8 years ago. I even posted about it.

Spontaneously casting hammer of righteousness (from Book of Exalted Deeds) - Cost: one third level spell slot, being a good cleric, 1d3 Strength damage (sacrifice component) :erm:

Casting at 6th caster level - Cost: being a Cleric 4/Human Paragon 2 (from Unearthed Arcana) with access to the Good domain :)

Boosting caster level by 4 - Cost: one feat (Divine Spell Power, from Complete Divine), one turn undead attempt, a good turning roll :D

Maximizing the spell - Cost: one feat (Maximize Spell), one action point to apply a metamagic feat known to a spell being cast without increasing the spell level or casting time (as per the rules in Unearthed Arcana) :]

Look on the DM's face when his BBEG, who was grandstanding just the round before, fails the Fortitude save and dies after taking 80 points of force damage: Priceless :p
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
The big one is the what... 20 minute adventure day ?
5 minutes. Yes, it happened quite a lot. Low level AD&D often degenerated into that sort of thing, too. After one or two fights the Cleric's out of healing, someone's dropped, and it's back to town to rest... 4e had a few little carrots to encourage you to keep going, but it suffers from the phenomenon, too.


I have been running campaigns for about 15 years now and I can honestly say I have never had this problem.
That's called 'anecdotal evidence,' and what it proves is that you say you didn't have the problem. That's all it proves.

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?
OMG. I was in a couple of very well-run campaigns that ran the whole life of 3e. In them, the serious hardcore powergamers played melee types and the more casual gamers played casters. By double-digit levels, the bleeding-edge powergamed non-casters were really starting to get shown up consistently by the casual casters. It's not just a problem, at higher levels, it's an insurmountable problem. People who say they 'never saw this problem' either stuck to single-digit levels, or just plain /like/ having casters dominate.
 

malkav666

First Post
5 minutes. Yes, it happened quite a lot. Low level AD&D often degenerated into that sort of thing, too. After one or two fights the Cleric's out of healing, someone's dropped, and it's back to town to rest... 4e had a few little carrots to encourage you to keep going, but it suffers from the phenomenon, too.


That's called 'anecdotal evidence,' and what it proves is that you say you didn't have the problem. That's all it proves.

OMG. I was in a couple of very well-run campaigns that ran the whole life of 3e. In them, the serious hardcore powergamers played melee types and the more casual gamers played casters. By double-digit levels, the bleeding-edge powergamed non-casters were really starting to get shown up consistently by the casual casters. It's not just a problem, at higher levels, it's an insurmountable problem. People who say they 'never saw this problem' either stuck to single-digit levels, or just plain /like/ having casters dominate.

Couldn't your experiences also be lumped into the 'anecdotal evidence' category? Or anyones for that matter? I have seen many posters post in this thread and say that they have not had a problem with a 20 minute day, I have seen many post that they have. When looking at these posts I assume that both groups of posters are in fact having the experiences they post.

The 15 minute workday applies to 4e as well. Your dudes could go in blow their dailies rest and do it again. There is nothing in the rules preventing them from doing so and it would provide a huge tactical advantage. But I am sure thats not in the spirit of the game, just as its not in the spirit of the game for any other edition of D&D.

As far as disparity, thats a group dynamics thing mostly. One of the things that I loved about older editions is that casters and melee were different, sure if you are going to push it to the max or try and hog the limelight you can do it easier with a caster, but why would you want to do that in a game designed around group play? I would rather deal with problem players when they come up than have a system where everything for everyone is largely the same. But thats just me and my opinion. Play what you think is fun, but please don't assume to know how I play (assuming I like to have casters dominate (fighters have always been the preferred class in my groups) or am playing a certain range) just because I didn't have the same experiences as you.

love,

malkav
 

Tequila Sunrise

Adventurer
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
I don't believe I mentioned anything about 'no consequences' or 'no failure.'

But since you did, I've noticed a consequence of design that rewards the 5-minute workday and favors one kind of class over another: players do sometimes want those rewards. And it's usually not because they're jerks.
 

Henry

Autoexreginated
I'll put it this way -- I've lived an example of almost every one of these, in 3.5E D&D.

20 minute adventuring day? Seen it, and it's hard to argue "no, you can't rest here" or "you get attacked every time you rest" without players taking umbrage. Deadlines or hostile territory is fine once in a while, but it gets old when there's a deadline every other adventure.

In practice, even among friends, what usually happens is this: Players prefer carrots to sticks. If you give them an incentive for not resting, and trying to conserve their daily resources for "the next possible fight", then they'll gladly do it. however, forcing them to keep moving, through timetables, dangerous environments, etc. tends to make them dislike the scenario. Dislike it enough, and they'll stop you as DM by expressing dislike for the campaign, and move on to another person at the table DMing, or another game system altogether who doesn't have this problem.

What I think would solve it? Go TOTALLY metagame, and say spells, barbarian rages, etc. replenish "once per session, with "session length being defined by the game master, with the recommendation that it replenish after at least four or five hours of gameplay." Very few players in my experience are willing to stop playing two hours early because they "went nova" on someone who wasn't a major challenge. The stick of "limited time" is replaced by the carrot of "continuing your play" :) I've seen many systems use resources per session, and I like the way it actually plays out at the table.

Caster/melee difference? I've seen a prepared 12th level caster (Artificer from Eberron, actually) teleport with improved invisibility into the corner of a room with five 10th level NPCs that he scryed ethereally beforehand (while using a ring that boosted his hide and move silently), then proceed to turn to stone, disintegrate, hold person, and generally lay waste to the 10th level party. A level 11 fighter or barbarian, of ANY stripe, could not do this. This problem, however, was laid firmly at the feet of WotC's Splatbooks such as Complete Arcane, Complete Divine, and Spell Compendium.

These were not combat-only games, filled with plenty of roleplay and exploration to make things fun, but they were mentally VERY draining to prepare for, and in the end I offered challenge by turning the tables on said caster by using many of his own tricks against him, and once he was feasibly well-known enough, sending threats against him tailored to defeat him by the BBEG. The players had a lot of fun with the tactical aspect of it still, but to prepare for the tactical portion was made more difficult by many of WotC's supplements that in the end I started restricting from later campaigns.

To be fair, Pathfinder (which I play now) ended up solving the problem by reigning in many "save or lose" magics like the scry-buff-teleport, insta-death spells, super-duper-invisibility, etc. that had really tough counters, and boosting some of the melee combatants' choices. They actually have done a pretty good job of it, but the one-to-two encounter adventure day is still annoying when it arises occasionally. I think personally this is a factor of making spells more common than under 1st edition AD&D, but not as common as under 4E. 3E occupies a middle ground of spell capacity that I think promotes the "go nova and rest" mentality I've seen.

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?

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.
 
Last edited:

TheAuldGrump

First Post
I don't believe I mentioned anything about 'no consequences' or 'no failure.'

But since you did, I've noticed a consequence of design that rewards the 5-minute workday and favors one kind of class over another: players do sometimes want those rewards. And it's usually not because they're jerks.
No, it is because the are lazy.

But, as I said, my timelines aren't because they make the 15 MAD unprofitable, it is because, for me at the least, it makes the world more believable.

And, for what it is worth, the players figure out that the 15 MAD isn't a great idea long before world damning events are in the cards. Sure, the war that they were trying to prevent may happen, the town they were trying to protect may be razed, or the little girl that they were trying to rescue may have been cooked and eaten by the hag, but that does not mean that the campaign stops. The world changes a bit, but time moves on.

And only once, since 1976, has this happened - I have never had complaints in that regard, and knowing that I have a timeline makes my players believe in my world a bit more.

The Auld Grump
 

Remove ads

Top