D&D has a lot of rules!

[Vegepygmy]

When I was playing 3e, I cut down on in-game referencing by doing out-of-game preparation.

Same here. I just print the relevant pages from my .pdf versions of the rulebooks, and I'm ready to run the encounter. It only takes a few minutes (and I don't even consider it "extra" prep time, since I'd be doing a quick review of those rules even if I wasn't planning to print them out anyway).

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Why the hell were the second two not in the first?

The fiendish template and the full text of the confusion power should have all been factored into the stats. If the Fiendish template effected the DCs, then it should just be there in the SCAP book what the DCs were!

If not, that's just shoddy work right there.

I don't have the book in front of me, but from memory it didn't have the DC for the Confusion Gaze listed. I thought that was a bit strange but maybe I just overlooked it in the rush of getting the combat up and running. It listed the Confusing Gaze as a tactic but it didn't give a full description of what the gaze actually did.

I didn't think the fiendish template affected the Confusion DC but I wanted to double check since I was just basing the DC off the MM.

Olaf the Stout

 

[delericho]

The SCAP Hardcover open to 2 sections, one page to get the Umber Hulk's stats, and another to see it's tactics.
The MM open in 2 sections, one page to the Umber Hulk page to get the full description of it's Confusion ability, the other page to the fiendish description to make sure that the template didn't affect the Confusion save DC.
The PHB open to the Confusion spell description.
The DMG open to the page with rules about dealing with crowds.
The Rules Compendium open to the rules about dealing with gaze attacks.

This was just a bit of an extreme case.

That was very much an extreme case. When I ran that encounter (from the magazines, not the hardcover, so it might be different), I didn't need to access the MM, since everything I needed for the monster was in the magazine. The magazine also gave the info I required for dealing with the crowd, and I happened to know the rules for gaze attacks. So, I made do with two sources, the magazine and the PHB.

However, the larger point is a good one - this game has a lot of rules spread out across a lot of sources. And in 3e, it's not arranged as well as it could be, especially when dealing with monsters and spell-like powers. The 4e designers were probably right that creatures should have fewer powers overall, focussing on their 'signature' powers. They are certainly right that everything you need for a monster should be present in the monster description.

Additionally, the 4e 'exception-based' design is somewhat easier on the rules look-ups, since you only need to know what you need to know for the encounter; everything doesn't connect to everything else as in 3e.

(However, there are also big downsides with exception-based design. Firstly, it runs the risk of exceptions being forgotten or overlooked. Secondly, much more effort is required to make sure all the exceptions are placed where they should be - in 4e you can avoid the Medusa's gaze by closing your eyes, but not the Basilisk's gaze. Thirdly, there's a danger of 'duelling exceptions' where one special case contradicts another, and it's not clear which should have precedent.)

 

[CapnZapp]

That is why I will never DM 3e again.

This.

 

[vagabundo]

I feel 3xe is a game that you need prep time for - really need it. And it can be very satisfying in it's own way. If you dont have prep time then fudging or a very good memory is needed.

Running a smooth 3e game can be hard and demanding on the DM.

I'd suggest importing a lot of 4e concepts into the game or moving to 4e. I have found it a lot easier to prep or just run an ad hoc game.

 

[kensanata]

Yes, I've noticed the same thing. In order to work around it, I suggest to ignore or fudge some powers, making up rules on the spot.

In this case for example, I'd have said that difficult confusion DC would be somewhere between 18 and 22, pick 20. And confusion means many things, most of them suck. So roll 1d10: On a 1 you will attack your friends for the rest of the encounter; otherwise you're just incoherent and will wander off (similar to a panic, except not so fast). Make confused stuff up on the spot, too.

If there is a template and you don't remember what it does, make stuff up. Fiendish suggests some sort of damage resistance. Pick 5/magic. And something to make it tougher. I suggest +4 to Con.

Done.

What do you think?

I also liked S'mon's comment elsewhere:

Some players won't want to play OD&D - at my games club my solution was to run OD&D (well, BECM) on my side of the screen, while my players play 3.5e on their side. That works fine. [1]

 

[delericho]

I'd suggest importing a lot of 4e concepts into the game or moving to 4e. I have found it a lot easier to prep or just run an ad hoc game.

MM4 and MM5 also help a great deal - those pre-statted 'advanced' creatures that were so hated when the books were published have actually proven to be real time-savers for me. (Similarly, the pre-statted creatures in Draconomicon, Libris Mortis, Lords of Madness, the Fiendish Codices, Sons of Gruumsh, and Red Hand of Doom.)

 

[vagabundo]

MM4 and MM5 also help a great deal - those pre-statted 'advanced' creatures that were so hated when the books were published have actually proven to be real time-savers for me. (Similarly, the pre-statted creatures in Draconomicon, Libris Mortis, Lords of Madness, the Fiendish Codices, Sons of Gruumsh, and Red Hand of Doom.)

Having a big set of pre-stat'd stuff is a big help, but I think some of the problems stem from spell-like monster abilities.

Part of his prep should probably be to pick one or two of the more interesting ones and write a one liner power:

Confusion - Encounter - (Will DC20): Roll a D10; 1 - Attack Ally; 2 - Act normally; 3/5 - Do nothing; 5/7 - Flee; 8/10 - Attack Nearest

Requires a bit more prep, but would be easier to run at the table.

 

[FEADIN]

Sometimes I need 2 or 3 books but it's very rare, I know nearly all the combat rules, I read before I DM a fight and I have a good memory for the most part trained by D&D since 1981 (Imagine all those rules in my little head.....)

 

[Baumi]

Olaf, I had the same experience and that was the reason why I stopped GMing 3.x. It was ok as a player but simply to much work to GM for me (changed to GMing other systems).

But it's certainly something that every GM has to test out for themselves. Another GM from my group stayed happily with it until the end of 3.x.

Now I'm in love with 4E since it specifically addressed my main problems and so I could return to GM the great D&D again! 8D