Why doesn't 3.5 make SENSE?

[StreamOfTheSky]

I think this is another area where the rules should just get out of the way. Why would anyone need a spot check to see a mountain?

The rules are only designed to adjudicate where there's a realistic chance of success or failure.

The rules were out of the way. Spot was never intended for things like seeing mountains in the distance. At least, not using the same DCs and modifiers for distance. Spot as written is mostly to oppose Hide checks, to spot people who are hiding. It can als obe against a set DC to notice other things, but no one ever intended that an archer trying to shoot someone 400 ft away would need to make a DC 40 spot check to even see an enemy that far away.

The real problem is not enough rules. Yes, a problem with 3E involves not having enough rules.

The details of spotting distances and how far away two or more groups may notice each other and thus begin combat rounds, isn't defined very extensively or well in the 3.5 DMG. I think 3.0 had more rules on the topic, but I can't really verify that anymore (gave books to my friend).

 

[Snoweel]

It's all game logic, not fantasy or history/wargaming logic.

I generally agree with your post but I don't see how you can say 4e is "not fantasy".

I don't know if it was always the case, but fantasy is definitely part of pop culture right now, which means fantasy is evolving just like everything else.

4e mightn't be Tolkien (although it will probably always have the legacy of Tolkien-inspired tropes) but it most definitely is fantasy.

The details of spotting distances and how far away two or more groups may notice each other and thus begin combat rounds, isn't defined very extensively or well in the 3.5 DMG.

Line of sight mate.

If lighting becomes an issue, or resolution due to long distances like spotting people across a valley, I find the DM handwave and/or a single skill check works nicely.

 

[haakon1]

The details of spotting distances and how far away two or more groups may notice each other and thus begin combat rounds, isn't defined very extensively or well in the 3.5 DMG.

When I'm DMing, I use the RECON 2nd Edition rules for sighting distances, taking into account vegetation and lighting conditions, but not something like Spot checks. Works for me in "what's the distance between encountering groups"/"how far can the archers" see determinations.

 

[korjik]

I am pretty sure that were I to dig out my 1e AD&D DMG, I could find where the original DM said: 'If you dont like it, fix it' (paraphasing).

The rules arent gospel. Pelor is not going to come down and smite you if you change out the rules.

Heck, if the Wiz uses Shapeshifting responsably (i.e. dosent blow the game by hogging the limelight) then why is the spell a problem?

If your players are having fun, the game, or any aspect of it, isnt broken.

 

[haakon1]

Fantasy logic v. game logic

I generally agree with your post but I don't see how you can say 4e is "not fantasy".

I don't think I said 4e "not fantasy". Indeed that's nonsense.

Not to repeat myself too much, but what I mean is there's a fundamental difference in what earlier D&D was trying to do, versus 4e.

In earlier editions, it's pretty clear that the rules on werewolves or bows are INSPIRED by something outside the game -- the legends and movies and pulp fiction about werewolves, and the actual medieval history + wargaming usage of bows, respectively.

The rules exist to turn pre-existing ideas into a gameable collective fantasy.

Whereas in 4e, all is sui generis -- Radiant Blah exists because of a need to balance against other powers of that level and frequency of use for other classes, to fire up this ability against that defense. It's NOT trying to simulate a myth or a story in pulp swords & sorcery, or a historical/war gaming reality -- it's trying to create a balanced game, with a fantasy setting.

That is, earlier D&D is FANTASY first, turned into a game. The fluff comes first, rules only later, to turn the fantasy into game we can step into and play around in.

This delights some because it feels rightbut it annoys others because the rules aren't necessarily clean and balanced, and have a lot of weird elements.

Fans love the fluff driven rules: Werewolves are what we grew up with them being, and legends about silver weapons and wolvesbane are applicable because they exist in legend, so they were ported to the game.

Foes think about it from a gamey perspective and have no interest in the fluff where it makes for fiddlely rules: "Who added this wolvesbane power? How is it balanced that eating a plant remove a curse, but only in this one type of curse? Where are the rules how to activate this power? Why doesn't it fit into the normal rules for removing curses or making potions or something?"

4e is a game, with fantasy fluff. The rules come first, fluff is an afterthought. This delights some because it's clean and balanced, and annoys others because it feels bizarre.

Fans says, "Ah, I can breathe free. Finally all classes work by the same logic - an At Will is an At Will, I no longer care if they fluff says its a spell or a sword swing. And balance means no more dump stats, all stats can contribute to a defense and/or offense of some kind."

Foes says, "Wait, I can attack with my sword using a CHARISMA modified to hit if I take this power for paladin. How the heck can use Charisma to swing a sword? And my Reflex defense is based on my Intelligence? Why? How are smart people better at dodging?"

I get all this from 29 years of AD&D and 3e, and 1 night (last night!) of 4e. But I think I understood it right.

 

[Snoweel]

I don't think I said 4e "not fantasy". Indeed that's nonsense.

Yep my bad.

You did say "not fantasy" but looking back I see I took you out of context (which was "not fantasy or history/wargaming logic").

Not to repeat myself too much, but what I mean is there's a fundamental difference in what earlier D&D was trying to do, versus 4e.

Agreed.

Whereas in 4e, all is sui generis -- Radiant Blah exists because of a need to balance against other powers of that level and frequency of use for other classes, to fire up this ability against that defense. It's NOT trying to simulate a myth or a story in pulp swords & sorcery, or a historical/war gaming reality -- it's trying to create a balanced game, with a fantasy setting.

I agree to an extent, though I don't think you're giving the implied fluff enough credit - Radiant Blah, for example, doesn't have to exist. It exists to provide that trope of 'holy' smiting power, and mechanically it happens to be balanced.

Radiant Blah (I do love that term) mightn't be the press-X-to-win button it was in previous editions (I refer to turning undead) but it is definitely unbalanced on an encounter-to-encounter basis (ie. it is stronger vs some enemies than against others). And I think that's good for the game. As I said in an earlier post in this thread, it's the asymmetries that have always given the game its flavour.

Foes says, "Wait, I can attack with my sword using a CHARISMA modified to hit if I take this power for paladin. How the heck can use Charisma to swing a sword? And my Reflex defense is based on my Intelligence? Why? How are smart people better at dodging?"

I think creative fluffery and some reimagining of earlier D&D assumptions can solve all of this.

For example, it was 3.x that showed me that CHA can mean more than just how big a character's personality is. Using CHA in a melee attack could represent the Divine force behind a specially empowered character's (like a Paladin for instance) emotional strength, or some inner conduit to the Astral Sea or whatever.

And I've always thought INT should aid in defence - I think INT is as good as DEX for representing a character's ability to anticipate threats; with only 6 ability scores, there has always been some overlap between which real-life qualities are represented by STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS and CHA. For example, I think STR is the best determinant of running speed but I acknowledge most people will say it's DEX. I certainly don't think they're wrong.

I get all this from 29 years of AD&D and 3e, and 1 night (last night!) of 4e.

Did you have fun?

 

[Noumenon]

BTW I ran very high level 1e, we never had any trouble with Shapechange. The most powerful non-unique monsters in 1e pretty much topped out with the huge ancient gold dragon; I guess Titans were nifty. By the time PCs were 18th level though the only real threats came from uniques - Tarrasque, Tiamat (houseruled to 128 hp), Arch-Devils & Demon Princes, and especially high level enemy NPCs, including Liches. Since you couldn't shapechange into uniques, there was never really any problem.

The problem with 3e is that it sought to create balance by providing viable foes for very high level PCs, AND kept in the old Shapechange as written.

Wow. This is pretty much a complete answer to "Why doesn't Shapechange make SENSE?" It lets the designers be people who think exactly the same way I do, but get blindsided by unintended consequences. XP!

This is the mindset that set me free as a DM, however it also started my slow falling out of love with 3.x - it's so detail driven that I had trouble 'glossing over' the speedbumps... I myself find 3.x statblocks a lot more interesting to peruse than those of 4e but at the table interesting statblocks run a distant second to story elements.

That's interesting! It is the statblocks, really, that make me love 3.5. I remember every tricky ability by using index cards. I can't make myself work on the plot because I love spending time on the monsters. I did run a 4E one-shot for my friends recently and looking back, a lot of my OCD stuff went into stuff like themes and motivations that actually came up at the table, because the monsters didn't need it. Great session, too.

I think this resolves the other conundrum in this thread: sure Shapechange is unbalanced, but why does it make me mad? It's because I have this irrational love for the details and the game seems to share that, until some design element means none of the details matter and it's an autowin/autofail. But they did care about the details, there was just too much history, too much fantasy, and too many contributors to make game balance the determining factor.

The details of spotting distances and how far away two or more groups may notice each other and thus begin combat rounds, isn't defined very extensively or well in the 3.5 DMG.

I spent a whole thread looking into this issue and came up with

"Encounters start at a distance of 10 feet times the amount your Spot or Listen check beat the DC. (The DC starts at 0 or the opponents' Hide check, plus the regular modifiers.) If you beat the DC by 10 more than the opponents did, you get a surprise round."

Like Snoweel says, this is the rule you actually need -- the Spot check details aren't important except for Hide checks. 4th Edition just has this: "For outdoor encounters, start the characters 10 squares away from the monsters." (DMG p. 60) Plus exceptions for fog and flatlands, that's all you need.

 

[S'mon]

Haakon, I think your explanation of the 4e paradigm is a bit off. Traditional fantasy tropes do still clear heavily influence the content of 4e, just as they influenced the content of prior editions.

But in previous editions, as you indicate, the primary concern was simulation of the trope, with balance a secondary consideration if at all. (Of course there were also non-fantasy tropes in prior editions; many of the attack spells seem influenced more by WW1-WW2 wargaming than by fantasy). So the question is "How do we model (eg) Invisiility so it looks like invisibility in stories like The Hobbit"?

In 4e, they take the trope, then they think about how it can slot into the overarching balance paradigm of the 4e rules.

So the question with the 4e approach is either "What power level would Hobbit-style invisibility be within these rules? Somewhere Epic..." or else it's "How powerful should a low-level Invisibility effect be? Until end of next turn looks right..."

Neither approach is entirely disassociated from the source, though.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Wow. This is pretty much a complete answer to "Why doesn't Shapechange make SENSE?" It lets the designers be people who think exactly the same way I do, but get blindsided by unintended consequences. XP!

That's basically it. This spell was mostly copied from previous editions. 3.5 is odd in that it is the first edition that is concerned with balance almost at all. In 2e or 1e, you expect there to be a huge imbalance. No one really complained at how powerful Shapechange was in 2e when I played. Instead we just said "Come on and cast Shapechange and just kill all of the enemies and we'll get on to moving further into this dungeon." We expected it was an "I Win" button. It was a high level spell. It was expected that it was that powerful. But Wizards and magic users of all kinds have the ability to turn into dragons in books and movies. They should have it in D&D. And turning into a DRAGON should pretty much be an immediate win.

Or so the 2e logic goes. And me and all my friends accepted this back in the day. Periodically, we'd get annoyed that we were forced to play the fighter since the party needed one while someone else got to win with one spell. But we sucked it up and moved on.

3.0 and 3.5 was the start of a shift in philosophy. It said "Why do you HAVE to suck it up? Couldn't the rules just be balanced so that no matter what option you chose you were just as good as everyone else?" Only the problem was, they didn't want to change the game TOO much. So, they kept a bunch of rules the same as they were in previous editions because someone on the design team would say "But Shapechange was one of my favorite spells, it's classic D&D to become a dragon and kill all the enemies".

In fact, most of the real balance issues in 3.5e came from "open ended" rules. Any time a spell said "pick any monster" or "choose a bonus" or "immunity" or things like "escapes from all methods of restraint" or "opens all locks" it generally became imbalanced.

 

[MerricB]

That's the beauty of those games -- shooting an arrow works like reality, translated to a game -- you fire, and your chance to hit depends on your coordination, your training/skill/experience, how far the target is, whether the target is armored and/or has a shield, and how fast they can flinch.

Except, well... it doesn't reflect reality that well. Not with only two shots per minute. Or six per 10 seconds, depending on which edition you're looking at.

D&D is unashamedly a game first in every edition.

(And I fail to see how one bit of your arrow firing example fails to apply to 4e).