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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

Though beware: To some extent, buffs and debuffs are important to the game. But there shouldn't be too many of them, and most importantly: They should only matter in specific situations. They are there to "make a point" - to bring through an attack that needs to hit. But buffs that you just have running to keep the status quo are usually terrible. They provide no interesting tactical option, and after you have figured out that it's a good idea to give everyone a Bulls Endurance (especially 3.0 style), it's no longer an interesting part of the game.

It's a little paradox - changing statistics is awkward, and long-running buffs should be a preferable. But they are not. They just add book-keeping.

Buffs that stay interesting seem to be those that directly affect an end number - like "+2 to attack" or "+2 to AC" and don't interact much with others - keep the stacking consistent. Spells grant a spell bonus, items an enhancement bonus, for example.

 

[RFisher]

I forgot to add:

1. Yes, I think sticking mainly to the core books is a good idea. Even as a player, I still find plenty worth exploring therein. Supplemental material should be approved on a case-by-case basis, and I’d even reserve the right to yank or modify such during play.

2. My favorite edition is c. 1981 B/X or it’s clone, Labyrinth Lord. This is what I choose to DM these days instead of 3e. It took some time, however, for me to understand it and come to that conclusion.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

OK, I thought you wanted increased options without complexity, not a flat power level.

You weren't entirely wrong. I do want increased options without complexity. But I have to admit I like building characters (so "you don't have to do much choosing" retro-clones don't spark me).

The thing is that I'd like it if I could have a lot of choices but that didn't involve changing any numbers. Ex. The "Spring Attack" feat is okay, "Weapon Focus" isn't. I know it's kinda silly, since RPGs usually run on numbers. But I find the numbers the most boring part of the whole process.

 

[S'mon]

Though beware: To some extent, buffs and debuffs are important to the game. But there shouldn't be too many of them, and most importantly: They should only matter in specific situations. They are there to "make a point" - to bring through an attack that needs to hit. But buffs that you just have running to keep the status quo are usually terrible. They provide no interesting tactical option, and after you have figured out that it's a good idea to give everyone a Bulls Endurance (especially 3.0 style), it's no longer an interesting part of the game.

It's a little paradox - changing statistics is awkward, and long-running buffs should be a preferable. But they are not. They just add book-keeping.

Buffs that stay interesting seem to be those that directly affect an end number - like "+2 to attack" or "+2 to AC" and don't interact much with others - keep the stacking consistent. Spells grant a spell bonus, items an enhancement bonus, for example.

Yeah, I agree with your design philosophy. The one time as GM I really 'enjoyed' a buff was back running 1e AD&D; a villain Hasted a bunch of second-string NPC anti-heroes to make them the equal of the superior PCs in a climactic battle. With Haste's great power, aging, and risk of death when the spell ended, it made for a powerful dramatic statement, the kind of thing you might see on a TV show or comic like Buffy/The Hulk/Superman. It also made for a fun battle.

 

[S'mon]

I forgot to add:

1. Yes, I think sticking mainly to the core books is a good idea. Even as a player, I still find plenty worth exploring therein. Supplemental material should be approved on a case-by-case basis, and I’d even reserve the right to yank or modify such during play.

2. My favorite edition is c. 1981 B/X or it’s clone, Labyrinth Lord. This is what I choose to DM these days instead of 3e. It took some time, however, for me to understand it and come to that conclusion.

1. That's what I'm doing.
2. I share the love, LL is my current darling, and I've just started a LL PBEM that's shaping up very nicely. I'm a bit scared of trying to get players for an LL (etc) game after poor experience with C&C, hence my current 3e/BX mash-up campaign.

 

[Delta]

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...

Yeah, I'll really have to disagree with all that -- it doesn't matter how many steps you create in the process, no mechanical process can really assign CR properly all the time (as much as we'd all love there to be).

Frankly, I thought that was the best thing about 3E CR's -- the up-front admission that only solid playtesting can set those numbers right, and divorced them (correctly so) from other statistics. The attempt to give rules for modifications by templates, etc., was a bad misstep.

 

[The_Gneech]

3.5 core only below 10th level is very workable and makes for a very fun game. Throw in some Dungeon Crawl Classics and issues of Dungeon magazine (the real one, on paper) and you've got yourself an awesome campaign.

Above 10th level it can start to drag at the table as good guys and badguys alike spend the first several rounds buffing up, which starts adding lots of numbers all over the place. It's still playable, and is probably still less complex than, say, Rolemaster, but definitely more work.

Heck, even letting in splatbooks isn't that bad, as long as you do it sparingly.

-The Gneech