JRRNeiklot
First Post
I prefer the 1e model. It's not a ton of work to stop a mage. You just need a six year old with a rock.
Of all the complaints about 3.x systems... do you people actually allow this stuff ?
I prefer the 1e model. It's not a ton of work to stop a mage. You just need a six year old with a rock.
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
I didn't hear of the 15 min. adventuring day (15MAD) until the internet told me about it. I almost never see it. When I do, it's almost always solely the DM's fault. Either because he's doing "travel random encounters" which almost always means 1 or 2 fights at most that day, or just not putting enough fights in a dungeon or location. Myself and all of my friends I often play with want to keep going as long as possible before resting. One fight and out is incredibly lame.
My current games:
[sblock]- A 17th level game, since I joined has been mostly social but the last 8 sessions have been one giant brawl fighting through a fortress filled with enemies, we're on about combat round 30 now iirc.
- A 16th level gestalt game. DM is one of my aforementioned good friends and thus hates the 15MAD. We basically never have a single combat in a day. If we're travelling or exploring, either we'll go through the day unscathed or run into an area filled with creatures generally. When we do a dungeon, it's a major part of the game's plot and the dungeons last many sessions. Right now we're still on our first day...probably been in the place for less than an hour. We've already had about 10 different combat encounters. Probably not even halfway through the tower, and the tower is basically the entrance to the real dungeon. (Thanks to an NPC that's backstabbing the BBEG, we know for a fact we'll have a chance to rest in between locales, but still...lots of combat!)
- A 5th-6th level game run by same DM as in game #1. We frequently have single combat days, because he insists on doing random encounters and our game involves traveling up to a month between plot locations... Players themselves seem down with doing many encounters in a day, the only time we seek to rest is when we really are down on our resources.[/sblock]
Caster martial disparity I have noticed a lot. 15MAD definitely exacerbates this massively, if it happens in your game. I find that providing lots of out of combat healing (wands of CLW / lesser vigor, auras to give people slow but constant fast healing, and other things in the rulebooks) is the single best way to avoid this. Then the only resource limiting what the party can do is the casters' spells, and if they blow them all early to shine, they should expect to suffer. When I play a caster, I have never once exhausted all of my spells. Even in the 2nd game DM's super dungeons. I always hold something in reserve in case it's needed for a harder fight later. I've also noticed the disparity more in games with strict magic item rules/handouts. When you can't buy what you want from magic walmart or find it in loot, it hurts the noncasters more. The games with the least disparity tend to have lots of magic item purchasing and loot tailored to occasionally give PCs stuff they want. Especially weapons, armor, and other things casters don't care about.
I play non-casters in the 1st and 3rd games listed. I optimized them a lot and IMO the casters in those respective games...did not. But regardless, in neither the low nor high level game has my noncaster ever felt useless. In combat, they tend to do most of the killing, out of combat, I built them well rounded and skilled enough to contribute. The biggest hindrances they and pretty much all of my noncasters have ever experienced to being relevant was DM not allowing the party have more encounters in the day and DM being heavy handed with magic item handouts/availability, not anything with the rules themselves.
My current games:
[sblock]- A 17th level game, since I joined has been mostly social but the last 8 sessions have been one giant brawl fighting through a fortress filled with enemies, we're on about combat round 30 now iirc.
- A 16th level gestalt game. DM is one of my aforementioned good friends and thus hates the 15MAD. We basically never have a single combat in a day. If we're travelling or exploring, either we'll go through the day unscathed or run into an area filled with creatures generally. When we do a dungeon, it's a major part of the game's plot and the dungeons last many sessions. Right now we're still on our first day...probably been in the place for less than an hour. We've already had about 10 different combat encounters. Probably not even halfway through the tower, and the tower is basically the entrance to the real dungeon. (Thanks to an NPC that's backstabbing the BBEG, we know for a fact we'll have a chance to rest in between locales, but still...lots of combat!)
- A 5th-6th level game run by same DM as in game #1. We frequently have single combat days, because he insists on doing random encounters and our game involves traveling up to a month between plot locations... Players themselves seem down with doing many encounters in a day, the only time we seek to rest is when we really are down on our resources.[/sblock]
Caster martial disparity I have noticed a lot. 15MAD definitely exacerbates this massively, if it happens in your game. I find that providing lots of out of combat healing (wands of CLW / lesser vigor, auras to give people slow but constant fast healing, and other things in the rulebooks) is the single best way to avoid this. Then the only resource limiting what the party can do is the casters' spells, and if they blow them all early to shine, they should expect to suffer. When I play a caster, I have never once exhausted all of my spells. Even in the 2nd game DM's super dungeons. I always hold something in reserve in case it's needed for a harder fight later. I've also noticed the disparity more in games with strict magic item rules/handouts. When you can't buy what you want from magic walmart or find it in loot, it hurts the noncasters more. The games with the least disparity tend to have lots of magic item purchasing and loot tailored to occasionally give PCs stuff they want. Especially weapons, armor, and other things casters don't care about.
I play non-casters in the 1st and 3rd games listed. I optimized them a lot and IMO the casters in those respective games...did not. But regardless, in neither the low nor high level game has my noncaster ever felt useless. In combat, they tend to do most of the killing, out of combat, I built them well rounded and skilled enough to contribute. The biggest hindrances they and pretty much all of my noncasters have ever experienced to being relevant was DM not allowing the party have more encounters in the day and DM being heavy handed with magic item handouts/availability, not anything with the rules themselves.
Wormwood
Adventurer
ಠ_ಠ
I had the same exact group of players in both versions of the game, yet with only one game system did I have to deal with the problems enumerated above.
So either five people miraculously stopped being 'malcontents and 'incompetents' , or the new system effectively addressed the issues we had with the old game.
I have seen some of the effects of 3E's serious imbalances first hand, even though I haven't played too many long-running 3E campaigns. In the longest running 3E campaign I was part of, one of the players played a completely min-maxed multiclass fighter/barbarian built around duel-wielding spiked chains geared towards mass-tripping. The build worked on occasion, but not nearly as well as advertised and never surpassed the capabilities of the team's warlock, paladin and bard. Heck, even my backup character, a slightly under-leveled mystic theurge who relied on basic spells like magic missile, force orb, fireball, and cure spells could keep up perfectly fine.
It convinced me that the base fighter in 3E was so weak and boring that even a complete Character Optimization board monster was a one-trick pony that could only keep up with the other classes in the game, even if the situation was optimal for it. The player of the fighter eventually got tired of it and respeced his character into a Tome of Battle class when that book came out.
I think it is worth pointing out the melee/caster divide in 3E is better described as the Fighter/Wizard divide. Other melee classes such as the Paladin and Barbarian function perfectly well, while some casters such as the Warlock are Psion are pretty well balanced. The problem is that the Fighter has no means of keeping up with other classes thanks to its lack of options, while the Wizard, Cleric and Druid have access to stupidly powerful spells. 3E was generaly better balanced than people often paint it, other than the PHB big four classes.
It convinced me that the base fighter in 3E was so weak and boring that even a complete Character Optimization board monster was a one-trick pony that could only keep up with the other classes in the game, even if the situation was optimal for it. The player of the fighter eventually got tired of it and respeced his character into a Tome of Battle class when that book came out.
I think it is worth pointing out the melee/caster divide in 3E is better described as the Fighter/Wizard divide. Other melee classes such as the Paladin and Barbarian function perfectly well, while some casters such as the Warlock are Psion are pretty well balanced. The problem is that the Fighter has no means of keeping up with other classes thanks to its lack of options, while the Wizard, Cleric and Druid have access to stupidly powerful spells. 3E was generaly better balanced than people often paint it, other than the PHB big four classes.
It's just plain bizarre that you don't realize you answered your own problem. Somehow this works for you in 4E. This really generic statement. But that's just impossible in 3E?
In 4E you're ok with doing more than just simply running the game as a rules moderator. In 3E though suddenly that's off the table? You can't also develop trust with your players? For what reason?
Maybe this has more to do with the style of game you and your players run. My players usually like the obstacle of trying to get some sleep. It usually means having to set up traps and trip lines and bells and things. They see resting for 8 hours as just another obstacle to overcome.
Edit: Reading other posts...
If you make resting constantly advantageous with little or no downside, why wouldn't your players do things like the 15mad? It doesn't require intense thought or preparation to simply make doing that too dangerous.
I agree that 3e has some intense statblocks and preparation with respect to big bad guys and npcs. 4E's way of doing things is definitely simpler, but I'm not sure the cost in terms of flexibility is worth it. Not for my kind of playing at least. Maybe I'm not 'traditional' or maybe I am. I can't tell because whenever someone talks about AD&D it seems to be two completely different approaches and apparently both are 'Gygaxian' to different people.
The DM has to work to make things shine. No matter the edition.
Last edited:
Aenghus
Explorer
These issues can arise in long running 3.x games even when players aren't trying to exploit class imbalance. Every new spell, every summonable monster increases the potential power of spellcasters, while non-spellcaster power grows slowly if at all.
Some of the solutions put forward in this thread are to me worst than the problem.
Maybe it comes down to what each of us thinks the game is about in essense. I as a player would resent my PC constantly being under time pressure in a game even when it doesnt make any in -game sense as a bandaid to an inherent balance flaw in the system.
Some of the solutions put forward in this thread are to me worst than the problem.
Maybe it comes down to what each of us thinks the game is about in essense. I as a player would resent my PC constantly being under time pressure in a game even when it doesnt make any in -game sense as a bandaid to an inherent balance flaw in the system.
malkav666
First Post
I don't put effort into countering spellcasting. I just try and make scenarios that challenge my groups with or without casters. Your hold person example is a good one. If the mage is using those spells they will be very powerful at the levels in which that is their highest slot, and thats cool, I want my wizards to feel powerful. But if you design an encounter that only has one or two bads and your wizard trumps it and then you provide an easy mechanism for them to rest and do it again then the game is being paced poorly. Save DCs scale so at high levels that 1st to 2nd level becomes less effective.
You also have to take into account that magic in 3.x is one of the few actions that has multiple ways to FAIL. Spells provoke attacks of opportunity and can be interrupted with damage, spells can be countered, spells can be thwarted with magic resistance, creatures can pass their saving throws against spells. No matter how great a wizard is unless your cheesing with some with the old haste rules or some of the latter books action economy sillyness the mage only ever gets to cast one spell a round. Spells have material components.
I have seen some cheese with 3.x summoners, but that is one of the few cases where my group had to step up and make a houserule limiting the amount of summons the character could use simultaneously. And TBH it had more to do with the player taking too long on their turn then it did the actual spells. But then we do that to everyone. When a players turn comes up they are expected to have an idea of what it is they would like to do, they should have their spell looked up (or feat or whatever).
As far as the point I made about the enemy mages having magic as well. It does not usually end up being "mage on mage" in my games. In fact I would go so far to say that when an encounter comes up my parties almost invariably go after the casters first. There could be 10 other combatants and my groups will always try and deal with the mage first and foremost. This has been pretty much universal for most of the groups I have played with. The point I was making about the enemies having the spells as well was a party vs. monsters point. If your group has SOD/S and they are using them then why wouldn't enemy casters use them as well? Magic is a wild card and in a world where magic is present, then your mages are in terrible danger. Meaning that if the bombs they can drop arent enough to kill all opposition that they will face a great deal more aggro than the rest of the group. They end up using some of their spells to buff themselves or mitigate threats.
Mage on mage is kind of a classic fantasy theme as well if you look at it. Who better to deal with an enemy caster than your own groups magic specialist? But I guess in the end that is a playstyle choice and not a question of rules. If you don't like it who I am I to tell you what is fun for you. But on the other side of the same coin is the idea that in the games my group enjoys that its totally cool for the the gorups mage to go into counterspell mode and try and keep an enemy caster locked down while the rest of the group wades through the battlefield to try and eliminate the caster.
As far as the organization bit. It does not take an evil far reaching organization to have a tracker, or use some divination magic to locate the group. If your heroes are known (which I am assuming if they are receiving rewards from local leaders and helping out folks in general that they are known) then it becomes even easier to find them. Maybe they drink in the same bar every night or have a keep. It should not be any easier for your players to find a remote lair of an enemy as it is for that enemy to have a crack at finding the players home base.
In the end a wizard has some really cool toys, but they come with strings and balancing mechanisms, if you choose to let wizards have all the great toys and do not employ any of the balancing mechanisms or strum any of the strings that limit them, then of course they are better than anything else. Thats like letting your fighters loose and not applying DR or tracking HP.
But in the end its really a playstyle and pacing argument. In a game like 4e everyone is a wizard so the same kind of pacing issues effect it to lesser degree. If you choose to set up an environment whereby characters with daily resources can replenish them with no difficulty then is it really the fault of the system or the players? Design your world to be more resilient to metagame cheese. Storytelling games are a collaboration, it is the Dms job to challenge and the players and reward them for overcoming challenges.
And BTW the real bad guys in against the giants are drow elves not giants. If I am a drow elf using giants as pawns and some group is coming each day and killing a handful of giants with magic and coming back the next day and repeating the process, I have to imagine that after a day or two im gonna send in some of my magically resistant drow pals to deal with the 15 minute threat, or using some of the divination magic that my drow deity gives to find out where they are running off to and killing them in the night. But maybe I read the modules and missed the part where the evil clerics running the show would be cool with some random group whittling down their numbers one encounter at a time and they they would just wait for this force to get to them eventually after many many 15 minute sessions.
Its not 10 x the work to read all of the modules you plan to run and see that there are clerics involved and drop in a cleric or two or some drow warriors to challenge the group. Its just trying to let the enemies not be autonomous sacks of HP and GP waiting there to be slaughtered. I assume my bad guys (and girls) actually want to win. And letting a group come in and use the exact same tactic over and over again to wear them down over a very long period of time is just silly. If you had some bad guys attack a keep your players maintained and they came in with spells and killed a few guards and left, and started doing it every day, I bet your players could devise a plan in just a few short minutes that would have a real good shot at stopping the threat in its tracks. And your players consist of a group of 3-8 individuals of random backgrounds. Give the monsters a chance to act logically as well.
Sorry for the long post and thanks for the banter.
love,
malkav
Last edited:
IMO, 3.5's Psion was a thing of beauty, with psionic spells well balanced and effective at the same time. I wish the psionics system had been the default Wizard. The wilder and soulknife were weak, but the Psychic Warrior made a really solid gish.
(I also loved the Duskblade and Dread Necromancer classes, and the Beguiler was my favorite class by far. Sadly those came so late. Much more effective than multi-classing, much more flavorful than Specialized Wizards.)
Last edited:
I played a Duskblade in a sadly short-lived campaign. It is definitely my favorite sword-mage class, since it goes beyond just giving a character BAB and spell levels and takes the step of letting a mage-warrior cast spells through physical attacks. You can't get that kind of synergy through multiclassing.
Recidivism
First Post
The statement about building up trust with your players is not a version-specific one. However it is pretty obvious that 3rd Edition has a lot more built-in ways for a party to exploit resting, and more incentives to do so.
Similar Threads
