So we might mess up, so what? Forked Thread: Fudging the Numbers in 3ed

[amethal]

However, suppose the Elf Wizard has a save bonus of +5 (very believable, if the Barbarian has a +12). He's still screwed on nothing but a twenty. You can fix it on the fly, but in 3.5 characters can have stats so widely divergent in the same group, with nothing but the core 3 books even, that a challenge for one party member is still certain death for all the others, making it hard to make a challenge that the whole group can share. You're going to have some difference between your wizards and your fighters, mind you, but you could have a seven to ten point gap between characters of even the same CLASS in 3e. It's one of the things that bugs me about 3.5 once play gets over 11th level or so.

I agree with you, but I think its a different issue to what I was discussing.

If an NPC is optimised to target a PC's worst save then 3.5's "solution" is the Raise Dead spell.

As a DM, one of the things I am enjoying about War of the Burning Sky is that once the characters have completed the second adventure they basically get an "extra life"; the first attack each day that would leave them below -9 hit points instead stabilises them at -9.

There is an in-game reason for it in WotBS, but I'm seriously considering adopting it as a house rule for all my 3.5 games from now on.

 

[BryonD]

However, suppose the Elf Wizard has a save bonus of +5 (very believable, if the Barbarian has a +12). He's still screwed on nothing but a twenty. You can fix it on the fly, but in 3.5 characters can have stats so widely divergent in the same group, with nothing but the core 3 books even, that a challenge for one party member is still certain death for all the others, making it hard to make a challenge that the whole group can share. You're going to have some difference between your wizards and your fighters, mind you, but you could have a seven to ten point gap between characters of even the same CLASS in 3e. It's one of the things that bugs me about 3.5 once play gets over 11th level or so.

For me the thought that any elf wizard can (without serious magic support) endure a fort save situation that would challenge a high level dwarf barbarian just invokes a cringe.

Honestly, to me it is simply wrong. If you enjoy it fine, but TO ME, it is wrong.

It is wrong really on two counts. I really dislike that all characters end up getting homogenized to a certain extent in that all their rolls are in a fairly tight ballpark. Not enough diversity there for my preference. And I also like that the team is forced to solve problems that work with individual strengths and weaknesses.

Second, it just doesn't capture my view of the concept of a dwarf barbarian and elf wizard. These are radically different characters.

Avoiding a deadly threat by being smart is huge fun.
Getting smacked because you failed to avoid the deadly attack in the first place equals still very fun.
Getting past a "deadly" threat because it was toned significantly down do to a rigged number system making everyone nearly as rugged as the dwarf barbarian equals yawn, lets do something else.

 

[Desdichado]

All my posts assume reasonable players and DM with some self-awareness.

My gaming time is too precious to deal with anything but.

That is my own personal rule #0 right there.

It's amazing how many other problems melt away in the presence that rule.

 

[Pbartender]

My gaming time is too precious to deal with anything but.

Others aren't always so lucky to be so choosy.

And sometimes you don't always realize who you're playing with until it's too late.

 

[Desdichado]

Others aren't always so lucky to be so choosy.

I'm not so sure that on gaming at all isn't better than bad gaming with the wrong people. But it's true that you don't always know until you've done it for a little while. Sometimes.

My gaming group now includes some of my best local friends; guys I really enjoy hanging out with, and would even if we weren't gaming. But most of us had to kinda take a chance on each other because we met each other through here. I suppose it could have gone very differently.

But if it had, I probably wouldn't still be gaming with them anyway.

 

[S'mon]

I sure avoid a lot of trouble by using the Henry/S'mon Quick NPC System (see sig) for monsters as well as NPCs, these days.

The trick is to base everything off hit dice, add a +2 where appropriate, and then assign a CR based on overall threat level. Usually CR = 1/2 hd.

eg: I want to use my giant minotaur mini. So I give him 9 hit dice, good CON (+2 to hit die & Fort save), and great STR (+4, so +6 dmg with axe). Other stats +0. I give him +9 to hit, near enough, 2d8+6 damage on a hit. Hit points 6x9=54 hp. If he makes a save, Will or Ref wil be Poor (+3), Fort Good (+6, plus another 2 for CON) = +8. AC 14. He looks CR 5 for my game, so I rate him that. Takes about 30 seconds.

Edit: Mind you my current 3e campaign has had 8 PC deaths in 9 sessions. 2 1st level Sorcerer PCs managed to blunder into said minotaur's lair after the party had killed a regular 6 hd minotaur earlier, and...

"Hello. My name is Inigo Minotaur. You killed my brother. Prepare to die."

...they were swiftly dispatched.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm not so sure that on gaming at all isn't better than bad gaming with the wrong people. But it's true that you don't always know until you've done it for a little while. Sometimes.

My gaming group now includes some of my best local friends; guys I really enjoy hanging out with, and would even if we weren't gaming. But most of us had to kinda take a chance on each other because we met each other through here. I suppose it could have gone very differently.

But if it had, I probably wouldn't still be gaming with them anyway.

I think that using the right system for you and your players is a good idea. Maybe some DM's just can't cope with "mathematical" flukes of a game system, because they feel they have to obey the rules, and the players expect the same. Sure, they could try to change their opinion on that, but why? Why do I have to change myself for my hobby, when I can change the hobby instead?

A game system that has less mathematical flukes and creates less unexpected difficulties would be far more satisfying to a DM or players that prefer to rely on the rules instead of fudging the numbers.

If you enjoy fudging numbers in your game, do it. I don't care. I might wonder if you're not wasting your mental resources on technical stuff, resources you could spend on bringing more color and story to your game. But if you perceive no problems in your games, it doesn't matter.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

I really don't sweat the numbers anymore. Problematic spells, items, and combinations simply cause more problems then mere numbers ever did.

 

[Khairn]

My whole point is - no mistake is the end of the world - and as you go along making your mistakes you get a better feel for what to look out for and how to correct them. I am taking a long view. . .

el, I understand what you're saying and agree completely.

No matter what the edition, or even the system, a GM should never worry about the long term impact of making a "tweak" to a rule, class or ability during a game. A caveat I would add is that the GM should be able to understand what changed, and make a call if it was ultimately something that helped or hurt the fun of the game. If it ended up being a "mistake", don't do it again and go on with the rest of your game. If it worked for you and your players, remember what you did and do it again when the opportunity presents itself. The only other aspect of making changes I would make, is the importance of consistency. Once you've tried it out and finally made a call on adding or subtracting a rule, then stick with it. Don't flip flop back and forth.


I know this might not be a popular opinion, but the ability to "wing it" with monsters existed in earlier games, and was not a creation of 4E. It's been with us since Day 1. It appears to me that more than a few players seem to be under the impression that the 4E's take on building monsters is some kind of grand revelation. Almost as if the rules pulled back a veil that had been keeping GM and players blind for 'lo these many years. GM's have had that ability for many years. If you've never taken advantage of it, and only ran a game RaW, then you've missed out on some great fun.

 

[Dragonblade]

For me the thought that any elf wizard can (without serious magic support) endure a fort save situation that would challenge a high level dwarf barbarian just invokes a cringe.

Honestly, to me it is simply wrong. If you enjoy it fine, but TO ME, it is wrong.

It is wrong really on two counts. I really dislike that all characters end up getting homogenized to a certain extent in that all their rolls are in a fairly tight ballpark. Not enough diversity there for my preference. And I also like that the team is forced to solve problems that work with individual strengths and weaknesses.

Second, it just doesn't capture my view of the concept of a dwarf barbarian and elf wizard. These are radically different characters.

Avoiding a deadly threat by being smart is huge fun.
Getting smacked because you failed to avoid the deadly attack in the first place equals still very fun.
Getting past a "deadly" threat because it was toned significantly down do to a rigged number system making everyone nearly as rugged as the dwarf barbarian equals yawn, lets do something else.

I see where you are coming from but my personal preference lies in the opposite direction. I hate it when there is such a wide disparity of save bonuses that the barbarian is almost always guaranteed to make it and elf guaranteed to fail. To me, that was a flaw with 3e's design.

I like having the bonuses be much tighter so that both characters get to make a roll that is actually meaningful.

This to me is a good example of why I think that some of the differences between 4e and 3e fans are irreconcilable. Our likes and dislikes in a lot of cases are just totally opposite.