Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
A New Culture?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7192286" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Most of 'em don't. Most of 'em don't for any other edition, too.</p><p></p><p>The system provided a mechanism to integrate non-combat challenges into the game with the same weight as combat challenges, and in a way that kept everyone involved. (One of the over-looked reasons combat seems to dominate in D&D is that combat, thanks to initiative, thanks to every class having some solid combat abilities, involves every player, while non-combat often involves only single caster & a single spell or a single expert and a roll or two - the DM can neither string out such things to fill a substantial proportion of the game, nor afford to do so, and leave the rest of the group out of it for so long, cf, Netrunner Problem.)</p><p></p><p> It's been a pet peeve of mine ever since Mearls articulated the Pillars, but: <strong>the whole game is roleplaying</strong>, combat, interaction, exploration, it's all roleplaying. </p><p></p><p>What you mean is that 3e 'social skills' tended to obviate social interaction scenes. "I diplomacize him" :rattle: "68. He's Helpful now." Yeah, it's a point. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>Skill Challenges were a reaction to that. Instead of one character making one roll, they involved the whole party. They were mechanically effed at first, but banged into workable shape quickly. They could have developed into a system to rival the depth/interest the combat system had achieved, but they only evolved for about 2 years or so, rather than for 3 decades... </p><p></p><p>But, the deeper issue goes back further than the edition war. There's always been an odd juxtaposition, in D&D, between resolving actions based on the abilities of the character vs based on the abilities of the player. In the earliest game, it seems, there was a strong streak of 'puzzle game' to the experience. Players learned to recognize monsters, to quiz the DM for environmental details to find traps & secret doors, and so forth. Spells were push-buttons and attacks were based almost wholly on the character, but most everything else - the whole 'exploration' and 'social' pillars of those early days, were based on the interaction of player & DM.</p><p></p><p>I know a lot of us look back fondly on that aspect of play. And some of us arguably 'abused' it (What do I need CHA for? The party'll use the Pally's CHA modifier for reaction checks, after that all that matters is what we have to say) - I know I did. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> But the games been moving away from it for virtually its entire history. As soon as Greyhawk introduced the Thief, things just everyone had been doing by 'player skill,' became percentile rolls (rolls so bad, a lot of players /tried/ to keep doing everything by player skill!). It was an inauspicious beginning, but ever so slowly we got secondary skills, non-weapon proficiencies, Skills & Powers, d20 skill ranks, and, finally Proficiency. </p><p></p><p>If you let it, the system has increasingly allowed players to play characters different from themselves in way other than physical strength & magical ability. That's all to the good, IMHO.</p><p></p><p> The only point I can think of against optimization going all the way back ("let's all use iron spikes, they're cheap, and do a d6 like every other weapon!") is that there was a definite shift with the release of the 2e 'Complete' books, towards more player-chosen options to define their characters and what those characters could do. </p><p></p><p>Prior to that, you chose race, class and from then on, you *were* the spells you were able to add to your book, and the magic items you found. Everything else was prettymuch locked in. </p><p></p><p>Come the Complete ______ Handbook, and you could at least add a Kit...</p><p></p><p> Nod. A better way to look at it is that optimization or system mastery are skillsets or tools, even though it seems like 'optimizing' is a goal. It's not, you choose something to optimize /for/, that's the goal. </p><p></p><p>Concept is a goal. </p><p></p><p>You can optimize for that. You can ignore it and optimize for DPR (or Diplomancy or whatever else). You can optimize for a balance or synergy among several goals. (And, it's synergistic more often than people might realize.)</p><p></p><p> Yep, understandable. In essence, a Reaping Mauler was a PrC, specific to a marginal concept, that was strictly inferior to less obvious builds. The very definition of a 'Trap.' Better-balanced systems avoid such 'Timmeh Card' artifacts, 3e built them in on purpose - Cook, I think it was, came right out and said so. The advantage of avoiding introducing trap options in the first place is that you can fairly easily create the character you want, by taking the obvious choices, and not be severely disadvantaged for it.</p><p></p><p>For instance, ironically, in 3.x I decided I wanted to play what I called a 'canny fighter' who was a damaged-goods veteran sort of personality (I'd been reading a lot of military SF at the time). Those were concepts, but they immediately suggested certain feats. Expertise, because of the INT requirement, and Combat Reflexes because it felt to me like the 'twitchy' combat-veteran who reacts as if he were in a fight, even in peace-time, but whose reflexes save his life in battle. I then applied my nascent system mastery and came up with something not entirely unlike one of the notorious optimal fighter builds - the chain-gun-tripper. Except I disarmed, because I was nostalgic for the Ransuer. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> </p><p></p><p>It was a pretty fair build, in spite of the 'sacrifices' for concept, and I did have a lot of both RP and tactical-combat fun with it over the years, but ultimately he was barely staying relevant much of the time because he was along-side full casters, even though there builds were decidedly non-optimal. </p><p></p><p>That campaign wrapped in 3.5, at 14th level, and we segued into 4e. In the meantime I'd briefly played a Paladin 'combat diplomancer' - he was a very low-grade optimized-diplomat, and a modest combatant who tried to help & organize his party. It was optimizing up-hill, to say the least, but it was intriguing, and one or two instances where it really worked were kinda awesome. An interview with a playtester talking about a warlord reminded me of one of the incidents where that build actually worked well. So, I partially combined the two concepts I'd been struggling to bring to life in 3e, and created a Tactical Warlord - a brash (low WIS), brilliant (18 int) young officer, this time, not a twitchy veteran. He had modest (14) STR & CHA, too, and that was about the limit of what I could squeeze out of point-buy. But, wow, did it work. Every round of every fight I was doing something to help my allies fight better. </p><p></p><p>Y'know what didn't work in 4e? The chain-gun-tripper...</p><p></p><p> Much more constructive. The optimizers back then should have been pointing to the build options that did work for the concept. But, part of the optimizer personality very often is a certain - *ahem* impolite - elitism.</p><p></p><p> That's applied system mastery - sure. Optimize the character for something, make sure that you can /make/ that something happen. </p><p></p><p> The Utility-Belt Wizard was pretty generalist in a lot of ways. </p><p></p><p> Especially the Fighter. But, then, it had long been the case. Every since 1e UA introduced (OK, a dragon mag article introduced it first, IIRC), Weapon Specialization, the Fighter has been obliged to be very, well, specialized. Even before that, once he acquired a good magical weapon (or other magic item), he'd use it as much as possible, often 'warping the character around it.'</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7192286, member: 996"] Most of 'em don't. Most of 'em don't for any other edition, too. The system provided a mechanism to integrate non-combat challenges into the game with the same weight as combat challenges, and in a way that kept everyone involved. (One of the over-looked reasons combat seems to dominate in D&D is that combat, thanks to initiative, thanks to every class having some solid combat abilities, involves every player, while non-combat often involves only single caster & a single spell or a single expert and a roll or two - the DM can neither string out such things to fill a substantial proportion of the game, nor afford to do so, and leave the rest of the group out of it for so long, cf, Netrunner Problem.) It's been a pet peeve of mine ever since Mearls articulated the Pillars, but: [b]the whole game is roleplaying[/b], combat, interaction, exploration, it's all roleplaying. What you mean is that 3e 'social skills' tended to obviate social interaction scenes. "I diplomacize him" :rattle: "68. He's Helpful now." Yeah, it's a point. ;) Skill Challenges were a reaction to that. Instead of one character making one roll, they involved the whole party. They were mechanically effed at first, but banged into workable shape quickly. They could have developed into a system to rival the depth/interest the combat system had achieved, but they only evolved for about 2 years or so, rather than for 3 decades... But, the deeper issue goes back further than the edition war. There's always been an odd juxtaposition, in D&D, between resolving actions based on the abilities of the character vs based on the abilities of the player. In the earliest game, it seems, there was a strong streak of 'puzzle game' to the experience. Players learned to recognize monsters, to quiz the DM for environmental details to find traps & secret doors, and so forth. Spells were push-buttons and attacks were based almost wholly on the character, but most everything else - the whole 'exploration' and 'social' pillars of those early days, were based on the interaction of player & DM. I know a lot of us look back fondly on that aspect of play. And some of us arguably 'abused' it (What do I need CHA for? The party'll use the Pally's CHA modifier for reaction checks, after that all that matters is what we have to say) - I know I did. ;) But the games been moving away from it for virtually its entire history. As soon as Greyhawk introduced the Thief, things just everyone had been doing by 'player skill,' became percentile rolls (rolls so bad, a lot of players /tried/ to keep doing everything by player skill!). It was an inauspicious beginning, but ever so slowly we got secondary skills, non-weapon proficiencies, Skills & Powers, d20 skill ranks, and, finally Proficiency. If you let it, the system has increasingly allowed players to play characters different from themselves in way other than physical strength & magical ability. That's all to the good, IMHO. The only point I can think of against optimization going all the way back ("let's all use iron spikes, they're cheap, and do a d6 like every other weapon!") is that there was a definite shift with the release of the 2e 'Complete' books, towards more player-chosen options to define their characters and what those characters could do. Prior to that, you chose race, class and from then on, you *were* the spells you were able to add to your book, and the magic items you found. Everything else was prettymuch locked in. Come the Complete ______ Handbook, and you could at least add a Kit... Nod. A better way to look at it is that optimization or system mastery are skillsets or tools, even though it seems like 'optimizing' is a goal. It's not, you choose something to optimize /for/, that's the goal. Concept is a goal. You can optimize for that. You can ignore it and optimize for DPR (or Diplomancy or whatever else). You can optimize for a balance or synergy among several goals. (And, it's synergistic more often than people might realize.) Yep, understandable. In essence, a Reaping Mauler was a PrC, specific to a marginal concept, that was strictly inferior to less obvious builds. The very definition of a 'Trap.' Better-balanced systems avoid such 'Timmeh Card' artifacts, 3e built them in on purpose - Cook, I think it was, came right out and said so. The advantage of avoiding introducing trap options in the first place is that you can fairly easily create the character you want, by taking the obvious choices, and not be severely disadvantaged for it. For instance, ironically, in 3.x I decided I wanted to play what I called a 'canny fighter' who was a damaged-goods veteran sort of personality (I'd been reading a lot of military SF at the time). Those were concepts, but they immediately suggested certain feats. Expertise, because of the INT requirement, and Combat Reflexes because it felt to me like the 'twitchy' combat-veteran who reacts as if he were in a fight, even in peace-time, but whose reflexes save his life in battle. I then applied my nascent system mastery and came up with something not entirely unlike one of the notorious optimal fighter builds - the chain-gun-tripper. Except I disarmed, because I was nostalgic for the Ransuer. ;) It was a pretty fair build, in spite of the 'sacrifices' for concept, and I did have a lot of both RP and tactical-combat fun with it over the years, but ultimately he was barely staying relevant much of the time because he was along-side full casters, even though there builds were decidedly non-optimal. That campaign wrapped in 3.5, at 14th level, and we segued into 4e. In the meantime I'd briefly played a Paladin 'combat diplomancer' - he was a very low-grade optimized-diplomat, and a modest combatant who tried to help & organize his party. It was optimizing up-hill, to say the least, but it was intriguing, and one or two instances where it really worked were kinda awesome. An interview with a playtester talking about a warlord reminded me of one of the incidents where that build actually worked well. So, I partially combined the two concepts I'd been struggling to bring to life in 3e, and created a Tactical Warlord - a brash (low WIS), brilliant (18 int) young officer, this time, not a twitchy veteran. He had modest (14) STR & CHA, too, and that was about the limit of what I could squeeze out of point-buy. But, wow, did it work. Every round of every fight I was doing something to help my allies fight better. Y'know what didn't work in 4e? The chain-gun-tripper... Much more constructive. The optimizers back then should have been pointing to the build options that did work for the concept. But, part of the optimizer personality very often is a certain - *ahem* impolite - elitism. That's applied system mastery - sure. Optimize the character for something, make sure that you can /make/ that something happen. The Utility-Belt Wizard was pretty generalist in a lot of ways. Especially the Fighter. But, then, it had long been the case. Every since 1e UA introduced (OK, a dragon mag article introduced it first, IIRC), Weapon Specialization, the Fighter has been obliged to be very, well, specialized. Even before that, once he acquired a good magical weapon (or other magic item), he'd use it as much as possible, often 'warping the character around it.' [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
A New Culture?
Top