• 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!

D&D 5E You can't necessarily go back

B.T.

First Post
In 3E Every time the party rests for the night they heal to full... because the cleric converts every spell he didn't cast into a healing spell and sprinkles it on to the party one by one until they are all cured. If for whatever reason the cleric runs out of spells due to a grueling day, then they break out the CLW wand. Every game of standard 3E I've ever played has seen the party heal to full after a night's rest. In 4E every time a party takes an extended rest this process is hand waved and everyone simply heals to full. The effect is the same in both systems.
And you're using up resources to do so. The "effect" is not at all the same because the cleric is out of spells until he rests again.
Every 3E character I've ever played has been able to survive more than one hit before dropping (with one exception see below). First level is the only time a character remotely has a chance to be one shot. And the first level wizard I played I assigned con as his secondary best score and gave him the toughness feat, so he started off with enough plot protection to keep him safe as well.
This is wrong. Any flat bonus damage + a decent crit modifier can drop a PC for a good while. (And, armor of fortification aside, if you get crazy with it, it can drop almost any PC throughout the entire game.)

There's also the issue of full attacks. While a monster in 3e is unlikely to drop a PC with a single attack (crits notwithstanding), it has a fair chance of dropping a PC in a single full attack, especially when you consider lots of attacks = lots of chances to crit. A pit fiend does 2d8+13 + 2d8+13 + 2d6+6 + 2d6+6 + 4d6+13 (plus a poison that does 1d6 Con damage) + 2d8+6 on a full attack. Now, a single attack from a pit fiend isn't going to drop a PC, but a few lucky attacks will. When it dies, balor forces a DC 15 Fortitude save not to die from massive damage. Heck, a level one fighter with a scythe is going to do something like 8d4 + 24 damage on a crit.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mallus

Legend
And you're using up resources to do so. The "effect" is not at all the same because the cleric is out of spells until he rests again.
But the cost of those resources in 3e is trivial, especially if you use the standard healing item prices.

The radical reduction in the price of healing first occurred in 3e. 4e simply continued the trend.

Sure, you can jack up the price or reduce the availability of healing in a 3e campaign, but that is a deviation from the RAW, unless you'd like to argue the low cost in gold for healing items in 3e was meant to imply they were scarce -- which is kinda nonsensical in economic terms, but perhaps that's not so strange given D&D's historic treatment of economics. :)
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
In school, be it high school or uni, I doubt most campaigns last more than a year or two simply because people are so mobile.
Often true, I'm sure; but our core group came together in university in the early '80's and is still going.
Granted, I don't have any hard data, so, I'm reading the chicken entrails here too. But, from every poll and piece of evidence I've seen, anything beyond about two years is pretty rare. As Lanefan says, any sort of "Adventure Path" style campaign isn't going to last that long and I think that people's groups simply don't stay together long enough to get multi-year campaigns off the ground very often.
As with so many things, it comes down to the DM and her attitude. If going in she's thinking of a 2-year run and that's it, then at best that's probably what she'll get. But if her thinking all along is "I'll design this campaign to last almost forever and run it as long as people are willing to play it" then it'll probably last until she either runs out of players or (and this has happened to me in the past) runs out of ideas and wants to start fresh.
And, let's be honest here, every version of D&D has tended to top out after about 18 months of weekly play. Other than maybe BECMI. But, after about 18 months, most groups are probably looking at starting new campaigns. Look at how little high level play gets actually played. There's a reason we don't get high level modules all that often. Everyone still plays low to mid level, because it takes too darn long to get up to high level.
I'd argue this for 2e, as advancement there is slow enough that 2 years might just get you nicely started. Same is true if you take xp-for-g.p. out of 1e.

Lanefan
 

Badapple

First Post
And you're using up resources to do so. The "effect" is not at all the same because the cleric is out of spells until he rests again.

This is wrong. Any flat bonus damage + a decent crit modifier can drop a PC for a good while. (And, armor of fortification aside, if you get crazy with it, it can drop almost any PC throughout the entire game.)

There's also the issue of full attacks. While a monster in 3e is unlikely to drop a PC with a single attack (crits notwithstanding), it has a fair chance of dropping a PC in a single full attack, especially when you consider lots of attacks = lots of chances to crit. A pit fiend does 2d8+13 + 2d8+13 + 2d6+6 + 2d6+6 + 4d6+13 (plus a poison that does 1d6 Con damage) + 2d8+6 on a full attack. Now, a single attack from a pit fiend isn't going to drop a PC, but a few lucky attacks will. When it dies, balor forces a DC 15 Fortitude save not to die from massive damage. Heck, a level one fighter with a scythe is going to do something like 8d4 + 24 damage on a crit.

I think you are mistaking “grittiness” for “deadliness”. In which case, sure 3E especially first level or extremely high level games are more deadly than 4E. But grittiness also encompasses a "low magic feel" and also a feel of attrition.

A balor is something like a CR 18 creature I believe… so yeah you got a creature designed to dish out ~120 points of damage in a full attack (if he hits with all six attacks) to someone in an 18th level 3E adventuring party. Typically if balor rolled extremely well he would hit with maybe four or five of those six attacks and one would be a crit and the damage would wind up being ~120 plus maybe if the players weren’t immune they would have their bear’s endurance enhanced con get temporarily nullified by poison ability score damage. 18th level clerics and fighters can outright survive this. 18th level wizards would shrug off enough of the attacks with stoneskin to survive. 18th level rogues, well, maybe they get hosed but they’ve probably gotten used to it by now, more likely they have taken some sort of prestige class or multiclass combo to survive as well. Even more likely there are some sort of magic items or buffs (armor of fortification, displacer cloak, contingency spell etc) that allows for damage mitigation or survivability. In my experience with 3E, we never made it that high in level anyway. After about 14th level or so, so many combatants were getting killed on a regular basis from disintegrates, death rays, holds, dominates, harms, overlapping fireballs, etc and then getting raised or resurrected after the fight that there was no sense of “grittiness”. Far from it, it was more of an MMO rocket tag feel where people were regularing getting killed or dropped, then resurrected after each fight. I’m not saying that wasn’t fun by the way… it’s just don’t mistake the term “grittiness” for “deadliness”. High level 3E was plenty deadly, and I’ll grant that it was deadlier than high level 4E… but with everyone flying, turning ethereal, hasting, enlarging, killing each other and then resurrecting, readjusting their spreadsheet every time they took ability score damage it took on more of a superheroes rpg flavor than anything remotely resembling a gritty fantasy game.

But those are the outliers anyway. In my longer running 3E campaigns maybe 5% of the total game time was spent at levels 1-3, and maybe 10% of the time was spent beyond level 12 and the other 85% of the campaign was spent at levels 4-12. During that so called “sweet spot” I never experienced characters getting taken from full hitpoints to -10 hitpoints from a monster crit. Yes, it’s theoretically possible for a fighter with a scythe to rip apart a pc, but when the rubber met the road at the game table what we wound up with were ogres and gnolls and gelatinous cubes and trolls and warriors with swords or axes and whatever else in the MM and PCs with full hitpoints didn't get one shot killed by a single monster's turn.

Usually when I see characters go down quickly in 3E it is because of a combo (party gets hit by a fireball in a surprise round, then some poor sucker gets ravaged by two monster full attacks before he wins initiative) and this is no different than the 4E combos of lurker strikes at PC, dazes PC, and then skirmishers gang up on PC to do enhanced damage. In neither game do I usually see a single monster drop a single pc in one round unless there are spells or some save or die attack is used.

Unlike 4E, 3E did have those save or die effects, but by the time those were common, then very high level magic was involved, the party was flying/invisible/teleporting/enlarging/hasting/scrying/find the path/commune/scry and those high level magic effects (either by a high level spellcaster or a fighter or rogue outfitted with hundreds of thousands of gp worth of magic items) cancelled out any feeling of “grittiness”.
In some combat ways I suppose low level 3E was a little grittier than 4E, but in non combat ways I found 4E to be grittier overall… the default setting in 4E was points of light, where there were a few havens but most of the world was savage war torn monster infested wilderness, and the lack of divinatory “I win” investigative utility spells and the severe nerfing of fly and invisibility made for a more “lower level” feeling game world even when the players were in their low teens in levels. While a first level 3E game felt maybe a little grittier than a first level 4E game, a 12th level 4E game felt much grittier than a 12th level 3E game. Third edition was a little more deadly and fourth edition was a little bit more “low magic” but deadliness and low magic alone aren’t the sole components of grit. I think it all pretty much cancels each other out, and both systems I would still classify as “non gritty” systems, unless the DM specifically emphasized it in his choice of settting, adventure goals, and house rules.

As for healing… those CLW wands really are a game changer. I think because of them (I use them and you don’t) we have totally different frames of reference. Which I’ll discuss in my next post.

TLTR

Grittiness encompasses deadliness, low magic feel, and attrition based gameplay.
3E is more deadly than 4E
4E is more low magic than 3E
Neither is particularly deadly or low magic RAW
CLW wands have a direct impact on the level of attrition.
 

Badapple

First Post
Cure Light Wound Wands

I think there are two different forms of 3E that are being played. One has CLW wands and one doesn’t. I believe, more than any other factor, the CLW wand changes the game experience in so many ways that they are almost two totally different games.

CLW wands have a negligible cost, whether crafted or purchased, so there are effectively no resources that are spent when using them. In games with CLW wands, clerics are free to use up much more of their spell slots for offensive or utility casting and they become extremely powerful characters. Occasionally if a party member is seriously in trouble a high level spell is used to drastically heal the player. But otherwise the little nicks and dings of combat are ignored until the encounter is over. Over time the DM compensates by making individual encounters slightly more challenging since instead of 3 people fighting and one person healing there are 4 people fighting. When the encounter is over, the party is completely healed to full, with the cleric not expending any of his spells, by simply having everyone hang around for five minutes and healing the party literally one hit point per round with wands of lesser vigor.

CLW wands eliminate the attrition that is inflicted on the party from having multiple easier fights. Over time the DM compensates for this by not wasting the game time with smaller encounters that would only do a few hits on the party before they win, since all involved know it’s a predetermined outcome with no risk and the wands will heal everyone up after the fight is over and no resources are lost. Because there are fewer, but more challenging adventures in a day, vancian characters shine more than non vancian characters, because one of the primary advantages of a non vancian character is a higher resistance to attrition. Parties in 3E awaken after a full night’s rest with full hitpoints because they have full hitpoints after each encounter anyway, the night’s rest is to recharge spells not hitpoints.

3E games with CLW wands have:

  • Players healing to full after each encounter after a five minute rest.
  • Clerics casting maybe 1-2 significant heals per fight, but primarily being offensive spellcasters.
  • The party regaining full hitpoints and spells after a night’s rest.
  • The adventuring day consisting of less encounters, but each encounter being more “at party level” significant challenges, with very few “easy” encounters.
In short, 3E games with CLW wands tend to have more of a 4E feel to them, and 3E games without CLW wands have more of an AD&D feel to them.
 

Hussar

Legend
I think pre-3e you could play longer than eighteen months on a weekly basis. I probably did play nearly that often for four years. Pretty much all through high school. Obviously we missed a weekend here or there but we played more often than every two weeks for sure. When college began we dropped off dramatically in our play schedules. Group average level was around 14 or 15 at that time.

Did you play XP for gold? Because, if you did, and followed the DMG treasure guidelines - random treasure tables I mean- then you should have been FAR higher level.
 

Hussar

Legend
/snip
I'd argue this for 2e, as advancement there is slow enough that 2 years might just get you nicely started. Same is true if you take xp-for-g.p. out of 1e.

Lanefan

Depends what critters the 2e DM uses. Any demons/devils from 2e are worth SO much xp, that a couple of demon encounters (IIRC even very minor devils like spinagons are worth thousands of xp) and you can jack up PC levels in a serious hurry.
 

Abraxas

Explorer
3E games with CLW wands have:

  • Players healing to full after each encounter after a five minute rest.
  • Clerics casting maybe 1-2 significant heals per fight, but primarily being offensive spellcasters.
  • The party regaining full hitpoints and spells after a night’s rest.
  • The adventuring day consisting of less encounters, but each encounter being more “at party level” significant challenges, with very few “easy” encounters.
In short, 3E games with CLW wands tend to have more of a 4E feel to them, and 3E games without CLW wands have more of an AD&D feel to them.
I've been following this thread (and the others like it) and just wanted to say this is pretty much completely opposite of what I experienced throughout 3/3.5E - and when I DMed I allowed every WoTC product to be used. I believe it to be more of a case that many people just fundamentally play the game differently from others not in their area.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
In short, 3E games with CLW wands tend to have more of a 4E feel to them, and 3E games without CLW wands have more of an AD&D feel to them.
I've been following this thread (and the others like it) and just wanted to say this is pretty much completely opposite of what I experienced throughout 3/3.5E
Really? You found that CLW wands tended to make 3e work like AD&D and absence of them pressaged 4e?

Or are you just saying you never saw anyone make much use of wands?
 

S'mon

Legend
For instance, when Essentials came out, they said they'd gotten a lot of feedback that the fighter was too complicated, so they came out with the Knight and Slayer - which, didn't have dailies, BTW. Did that and other attempts to address complaints about 4e and appeal to nostalgia make Essentials a success? No, it was with Essentials that Pathfinder finally pulled ahead of 4e.

LOL - yeah. IME what a real newbie player actually needs to begin with is something resembling an Elite Monster stat block; an Essentials PC is still far too complicated. But Essentials' main failings were:

(1) Bad titling - the "Heroes of" books didn't even appear on the radar of most newbie players. Should have called Heroes of the Fallen Lands "Player Class Book 1" or similar.

(2) Horrible presentation on the Online Character Builder. Players would bring charbuilder PCs to my game and neither they nor I could work out what the Hell their abilities were. Ironically the presentation in the actual HotFx books was a lot better, I created a HotFL Thief PC manually and found it much easier than trying to decipher the PHB.
 

Remove ads

Top