DMs: Share your strategies/tricks for making 3.5 more manageable

[Kraydak]

1. I didn't stat out enemies completely. I just set benchmarks for AC, saves, attack, and damage. I leave the rest out. After all, you don't usually need most of it. Lets say that your players drain 6 points of strength from an enemy. You don't need to know its total strength score unless it was 6 or below. You just need to know that whatever it was before, its now 6 points less.

Until an annoying player innocently asks about the strength drained, heavily loaded enemy's encumbrance bracket! 6 points of strength can easily result in the target getting overloaded. It is little details like that that make me prefer more fleshed out NPCs, and the semi-random aspect (10 to 1 you didn't stat the NPC up specifically so they could/couldn't get strength drained across an encumbrance category) they add to games improves verisimilitude.

 

[Voadam]

Or get rid of dispel magic as a debuff; IME, the major hassle comes when folks have to refigure numbers in combat, so either buffs in combat, or debuffs (especially area ones) slow things down.

Consider using the pathfinder one. It does not do areas and only removes one spell effect total using one die roll (targets most powerful first) and no +10 check cap. This makes it much easier to resolve and readjust stats when it is one effect only.

 

[EricNoah]

1) Don't feel like you have to use every tool in the toolbox. The tools for levels 12 and up are optional - if you want a game world where the highest level characters are 12th, do that and have fun.

2) I have not run a high level game but I have played in a couple. My thought as I was playing was: once we get to a point where every PC and NPC are using the same magical strategies or countering each other's magical strategy with the same methods over and over again, let's call a truce and say neither side will use this strategy again. 3.0 haste for example - once every character had a haste item, and NPCs did too, I think the DM should have said "ok, no more haste items on either side of the combat". Same deal with dispel magic over and over again. If the party gets to the point where every PC is immune to poison or immune to grappling, the DM should just come out and say "Ok, no need to worry about poison or grappling attacks any more." Takes one complication off the table.

3.x is my game, but I'm the first to admit at the highest levels it can be quite a chore to prep and run. But you know what, even if it were easy (or even if I were playing 4e) I probably wouldn't run a game at that end of the spectrum anyway - I don't really have any good adventure or campaign ideas for PCs with that kind of power.

 

[Dross]

Get rid of Buffspells!

We have started using PC focused sheets for the buff spells that show bonus and type. So if you have a shield bonus of +1, then a shield spell gives you a +3, not a plus four. Simple and quick + and - all way round.

To the OP: if you are someone that wants a copy of the PCs at each level or major change, you now have a list of NPCs handy. Just change the name and weapon and you're set.

 

[Simon Atavax]

Until an annoying player innocently asks about the strength drained, heavily loaded enemy's encumbrance bracket! 6 points of strength can easily result in the target getting overloaded. It is little details like that that make me prefer more fleshed out NPCs, and the semi-random aspect (10 to 1 you didn't stat the NPC up specifically so they could/couldn't get strength drained across an encumbrance category) they add to games improves verisimilitude.

Please. If a player asked me about an NPC's "encumbrance bracket" I would smack them upside the head for their pathetic, blatant metagaming. Then I would say, "Apparently the NPC is still able to carry his gear. Because, he's, like, carrying it!"

One thing that I don't like about 3.x is how it seemed to inadvertently encourage this kind of brutal rules lawyering, where players actually question a monster's encumbrance limits. Grrr.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

1) Don't sweat the statblock "details." NPCs exist to provide obstacles to the PCs. To hell with the "rules." They have what they have because that's what they have to have to be interesting.

2) You'll almost always be over-prepared. Never underestimate your players' ability to waste table time on red herrings and other trivial matters.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

One thing that I don't like about 3.x is how it seemed to inadvertently encourage this kind of brutal rules lawyering, where players actually question a monster's encumbrance limits. Grrr.

I once tried to make a sorcerer who abhored damage spells and violence in general, he started at level 1 and his main "attack" spells were Daze and Ray of Enfeeblement. When the DM sicced some way too powerful warrior on me in full plate, I knew my 1d6 str penalty wouldn't keep him from killing me. But I sure as hell hoped it'd leave him encumbered so I could run away. Why is that rules lawyering?

[sblock]If you care, I missed the touch attack and was saved by NPC deus ex machina.[/sblock]

 

[Kunimatyu]

Creating 3.5 monsters is way too complex and also sucks.

Don't play their game - take a prebuilt monster that's close in CR and general stats to what you want, strip its abilities, then add your own. Your players won't know and it takes 5 minutes not 30, especially if you can copy/paste from the SRD.

 

[S'mon]

Please. If a player asked me about an NPC's "encumbrance bracket" I would smack them upside the head for their pathetic, blatant metagaming. Then I would say, "Apparently the NPC is still able to carry his gear. Because, he's, like, carrying it!"

That's my gut reaction, though I wouldn't have trouble with a player asking if a STR-drained monster was slowed by encumbrance, should it be relevant - eg the PC is fleeing the monster.

 

[aboyd]

Play loose and fast, don´t use grapple as written, simple statblocks for unimportant NPCS and strip the implied playerentitlement from the rules!!!!

I like Olli's advice. I created an enemy for my players that had a "troublesome" quality -- if he rolled his max damage, there was one player with low HP who could be killed in a single strike. Rather than obsess about altering the stat blocks or picking a new monster, I just said to myself, "He can't roll max damage."

Lo and behold, the character with low HP (the rogue) is sent in to do some stealth recon, and the enemy (a golem) has the ability to see through invisibility, and thus wallops the rogue, and yes, rolls max damage. I just shrugged and told the player, "You're at zero hit points, staggered, you can still take a single action." Play moved on. No death. No need to be a slave to rules and exacting perfection.

If a player asked me about an NPC's "encumbrance bracket" I would smack them upside the head for their pathetic, blatant metagaming.

Actually, I'd say this is a good reason to have more fully statted NPCs. If a player asked me about this, I'd really want to check and halt the NPCs' movement if he really were overloaded. I guess I don't mind this stuff -- if the spell is supposed to do this, then I'd be a nice DM to actually make sure the spell has the intended effect, if indeed it works. However, I'd reserve my fallbacks. For example, if the strength drain juuuuusst put the NPC into an encumbered bracket, I'd be very willing to say, "the NPC just dropped his backpack/shield/thing and continues attacking you at full movement."

Having said that, I would note that I'd never tell the players what the NPCs' strength is, nor would I tell them what encumbrance load the NPC could tolerate. I'm merely suggesting that I'd let them prompt me to take a look at it for myself, and decide if the spell had done what they intended.

As a final note, I thought I'd attach what I've done in order to speed up & simplify my 3.5 edition games. I got a ton of 4x6 cards. I put a line down the middle. On one side, I list out the enemy's first few attacks. I do this because I have found that in the heat of combat, I completely forget the monster's special abilities. If I wing it, I end up playing a monster that is a few CR weaker than what is on the books, because I fail to use half the monster's capabilities. So I write down the first few attacks, at my leisure, when I have time to make sure I'm doing all the things a monster should. Then on the other side (the right side of the card) I put down what happens if the characters attack the monster. I run through a few questions -- for example, if the monster is immune to fire, then I would write, "Is the attack fire-based? Ignore it."

So when I come to the game, I have 4x6 cards for each potential enemy. If the players engage one of those enemies, I do not look at the monster's stat block, nor do I spend time reading the module's description of the monster tactics, or whatever. Instead, I just follow step 1. Then step 2. And so on. It seems to have made some very complicated combats less overwhelming.

(Sorry about the quality of the photo of the card; I was using my iPhone, which has a terrible camera with no flash.)