3.5 Complexity Revisited: Core Books Only, Low Levels . . .

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I liked the idea of E6 very much, but I never tried it, ultimately because one thing is missing - I like high level play. I hate its complexities and mindless number-crunching, but I want to have those amazing powers higher level characters have, be it by spells, magic items or class abilities. I like the plane-hopping, the teleporting, and all that.

The game is different at higher levels, not just because of the numbers. There are different abilities at work, different things at stage.

If it wasn't for the preparation and the lack of good modules at high levels, our group would have ventured in epic levels, just to enjoy the view from there.

One of our fellow posters, Fenes runs a higher level campaign pretty succesfully. His play-style seems very different from ours, and using what he does is a lot of work if transferred to that of my group, but a major factor that seems to help him is:
1 Less combats (that's the part I couldn't do)
2 Throw away all those buffs and magical items that just create number-crunching. (Because of my objection 1, 2 gets insanely more complicated.)

Really, to "fix" the high level game, you "just" have to take away most of the stuff that just changes some numbers. Options, not restrictions was one of the mottos for 3E. The 3E fix is Options, not numbers.

Teleport is an option. Mass Cat's Grace is numbers.

Of course, spells like Scry, Teleport or other "utility" spells create their own problems on adventure design - but I feel they can be dealt with better. You know there is a time where you do the overland-travel, and there is a time where the party needs their teleport spell in the first place to get where they want.

 

[Aus_Snow]

E6's play benefits greatly from some of its optional rules, such as capstone feats, prestige feats, and alternatives to 'no high level spells at all' such as Incantations. Or whatever other 3rd party options or house rules do the trick.

IME, anyway. Those kinds of things are not essential for the game to be fun, but they can bring back some of that higher power awesome, albeit more subtly and selectively rather than in 3e's usual full on, gung ho way.

 

[S'mon]

Lately I've been struck by how commonplace the "3.5 is too complex to DM" idea has become. It seems to get repeated over and over as if it is almost self-evident, and no room for debate or clarification exists.

Now without question, 3.5 is a complex game. But let me ask the following: if a DM were to only use the three core rulebooks and was only interested in running a low-level adventure/campaign (say, levels 1-8 or something), would DMing 3.5 still be a painfully complex affair?

And if you will indulge a second question, give me a quick answer to this one: is 3.0 more, less, or of equal complexity to 3.5?

First question last - 3.5 is of identical complexity to 3.0. 3.0 has more problems with overpowered spells IMO, I prefer 3.5 but they're very similar.

Second question - I too burned out on 3e and didn't run it for several years (2006 through 2008). What I did was exactly what you suggest - in July I started a new 3.5e campaign based around the old Basic D&D modules - B7 Rahasia, B5 Horror on the Hill, etc. Initially core rules only, though I've allowed a few non-core since, with a low-level, low-power setting and a campaign intended to run from 1st to ca 8th/9th. Furthermore, I don't use the 3e Monster Manual, I use my own monster & NPC stats based off the Mentzer Basic/Expert stats (& conversion inspired by C&C) which makes things a lot simpler. Alternatively, a limited palette of standard NPCs and monsters (nothing too complex, but a decent variety) would probably work just as well.

One thing I suggest is scaling the world to your intended level range - if running a 1-8 level D&D campaign I suggest capping NPCs at 8th or maybe 10th (for BBEG); likewise the biggest dragons should be around CR 12, not 23. A few things may need changing (eg let Forge Ring be a 6th or 9th level feat; maybe reduce CLs for some magic items); with dragons I suggest use the existing CR-appropriate stats but reduce or eliminate spellcaster levels and increase the size so they look more fearsome - if the book says a CR 5 baby dragon is Small or Medium, make it a Large adult; if it says a CR 12 young adultis Large, it can be a Huge Ancient.

 

[S'mon]

Avoid monsters/abilities that produce level drain and ability damage...there is little more annoying in 3.5e than having to continuously recalculate BAB, HP and defenses each round. Avoid grapple too. I think you can keep the complexity down to acceptable levels.

Level drain is pretty rare, and the "negative level" mechanic (-1 all d20 rolls) keeps it simple in play. I agree completely about ability drain though; and STR drain in particular is terrible in 3e as it cripples fighter types. I have poision do simple hit point damage (typically 1d6 per monster hd, primary & secondary) and that works fine. I'd probably give Shadows a temporary level drain attack (save or take a negative level).

 

[S'mon]

---Nah, it just requires going back to an easy going laid back attitude, rather than an overly anal, attention to every detail, attitude.

This is true - though it requires both GM and players to be ok with a laid-back approach.

 

[S'mon]

IReally, to "fix" the high level game, you "just" have to take away most of the stuff that just changes some numbers. Options, not restrictions was one of the mottos for 3E. The 3E fix is Options, not numbers.

Teleport is an option. Mass Cat's Grace is numbers.

I agree with this, and even back in 1e I avoided having NPCs use buffs (ie Prayer). Most 3e monsters are overpowered for their CRs anyway and they rarely need buffs; if anything their stats work better without buffs (eg a 3e dragon that buffs its AC can easily become unhittable), I don't get the impression the authors took buff powers into account in the statting.

The gap at the heart of the whole 3e crunchiverse is that there is no mechanism for turning stats into CRs - CRs are simply eyeballed. That being the case, I might as well eyeball the stats based on some simple formulae, then set a reasonable CR based on those stats. The PCs defeat the critter, they get the XP based off the CR. Smart tactics & good luck still make for easy victories, poor tactics and bad luck still make for tough fights or defeats. I find this works great, much better than trying to mechanistically apply page-long 3e stat blocks.

 

[Delta]

... with dragons I suggest use the existing CR-appropriate stats but reduce or eliminate spellcaster levels and increase the size so they look more fearsome - if the book says a CR 5 baby dragon is Small or Medium, make it a Large adult; if it says a CR 12 young adultis Large, it can be a Huge Ancient.

That's exactly what I did in my DimD20 rules, so if someone wants the statistics they can grab it directly out of the linked document, below. (Giants get the same treatment, i.e., back to OD&D/Basic/1E hit dice.)

 

[Delta]

The gap at the heart of the whole 3e crunchiverse is that there is no mechanism for turning stats into CRs - CRs are simply eyeballed. That being the case, I might as well eyeball the stats based on some simple formulae, then set a reasonable CR based on those stats

I think it's pretty self-evident that there can't be a mechanism for turning stats into CRs. (Since there's always an open-door to any new special abilities, those will inherently be left out.) The only way to get solid CRs is through practical playtesting (which could have been refined over time through Open Gaming, but got the heave-ho by WOTC in 4E).

Here's my stopgap measure. I wrote a Windows program where you feed in statistics for a monster (special abilities not considered, just raw combat stats), and it runs about a million staged fights against NPC Fighters. Then it tells what Fighter is the closest match (from 3.0 DMG) and you can use that as a starting point for CR decisions or playtests.

Open Gaming Combat Simulator for Windows: Software for Windows & DOS by Daniel R. Collins

 

[S'mon]

That's exactly what I did in my DimD20 rules, so if someone wants the statistics they can grab it directly out of the linked document, below. (Giants get the same treatment, i.e., back to OD&D/Basic/1E hit dice.)

Yeah, I'm doing that too in my current campaign - 8 hit dice hill giants, 10 hd frost giants, etc. Planning to run 'Against the Giants'; may well use the standard stats for hill giant chief and frost giant jarl!

 

[S'mon]

I think it's pretty self-evident that there can't be a mechanism for turning stats into CRs. (Since there's always an open-door to any new special abilities, those will inherently be left out.) The only way to get solid CRs is through practical playtesting (which could have been refined over time through Open Gaming, but got the heave-ho by WOTC in 4E).

Yeah, but they could have gone with a system like 1e where stats directly translated into an XP total (like 1hd = 10 XP) and then Monster Level was assigned by XP total. My friend Upper Krust (Craig Cochrane) has published in several places a mechanistic system for assigning CRs which looks ok, but I'm happy to eyeball it. I find my intuition is usually accurate, and if I find in play that I overlooked an important factor I can always adjust accordingly (eg an NPC Sorc-6 with Fireball is notably higher CR than one without, IME).