3rd Edition too quick? too powerful?

[Fenes 2]

Re: Re: Re: 3rd Edition too quick? too powerful?

Damn, I though *I* was a stingy DM with magic items. By level 4 my guys had a +1 magic dagger and even some +1 arrows! I salute you for your restraint and especially for being able to pull that off without having your players start a minor revolution against you!

Hmm... by level 8 my party had one magic ring of bonded mount storing and... hm.. come to think of, they had nothing else in the way of permanent magic items.

(By level 11, soon to be 12, the paladin and the swashbuckler each have a magic weapon (+2 and some additional powers), and the paladin wears an everbright mithril full plate. The elven archer has a magical longbow string that adds +1 to attack rolls. Bard has nothing magical.)

 

[Arnwyn]

You sound offended that you're being "ignored," when this simply isn't the case.

Then you've read wrong. Apparently, you didn't read my post above that. Indeed, I have done the adjusting for XP gained (50%), and provided those suggestions to the original poster. It has worked very *very* well. I have found making adjustments to 3e to be very easy and intuitive, and very easy to integrate. Wonderful!

Please read the whole thread, Piratecat. Same goes for you, francisca.

 

[Piratecat]

I did. Then I stated how your "shoe-horned" comment sounded to me. Thanks for the lecture on how to post, though.

My point probably wasn't clear; I maintain that complaining about WotC's choice for a relatively quick advancment isn't entirely fair, as the DMG contains guidelines for variations. They went with what they thought was best for the most people. I can't fault that, even if it doesn't apply to me.

 

[DonAdam]

I will say that it's unfortunate that WOTC chose to make this the standard.

Sure, I can house rule all day long (and I do), but it means that I can't use published adventures without serious reworking. All the 1E and 2E players that liked the old advancement charts and running prefab'd modules now have alot more work to do.

Many of the modules assume that you'll go up in level fast enough to keep pace with how frantically fast the adventure is. While this may not affect a small module, it's going to have a huge impact on something like Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. This requires basically rewriting huge sections of the module.

In 1st edition, modules seemed to be such an important part of the overall D&D experience, even if it was just for one shots. These days, few people use them, and IMHO the quality has gone down (esp with 2E, less with 3E).

The causality of this could run either way or both ways, and I don't mean to insinuate that bad modules have driven people away from buying them, especially with the huge variety of publishers in d20 (Monkey God is writing very cool modules, but again they go up in level too fast).

I don't feel cheated by this. Nowhere on the PHB does it say that these rules will let me run prefab'd modules and have the advancement in them be to my liking. They fulfilled all obligations to me by providing me with a 95% amazing set of core rules on which to base my games. However, my feelings do remain that this is an unfortunate side effect of switching over from a previous precedent.

 

[Piratecat]

You know, Don, that's a really good point that I hadn't considered. I know that something like ToEE2 requires fast advancement to survive. I can see how that makes module use a little more challenging.

(Don, on a totally unrelated note, look for an email from me. I wanted to ask you something. Thanks. )

 

[shadow]

Personally I love how characters advance faster in 3e. In 2e, the XP required for advancement was based on approximately an exponetial scale, while 3e required XP is based on a linear scale-much more reasonable.

In 2e, character advancement took forever. If you ever honestly got past 3rd level, you must have had a real dedicated group. Unfortunately, my 2e group got bored after spending countless sessions at first level, and eventually always ended up playing another game. The highest level I ever HONESTLY got a character on in 2e, was 3/2 (multiclassed fighter/mage). Even then the DM gave party members a little extra XP from encounters to speed up advancement.

I'm glad 3e characters advance more rapidly. I'd rather have a sense of accomplishment from gaining a level, than feeling frustrated by playing a month and still remaining on first level.

 

[jgbrowning]

I will say that it's unfortunate that WOTC chose to make this the standard.

Sure, I can house rule all day long (and I do), but it means that I can't use published adventures without serious reworking. All the 1E and 2E players that liked the old advancement charts and running prefab'd modules now have alot more work to do.

My thoughts as well. I've always found scaling up much much easier to do than scaling down. I wish they would have doubled the exp requirements.. that would be more to my speed.


joe b.

 

[Arnwyn]

I did. Then I stated how your "shoe-horned" comment sounded to me. Thanks for the lecture on how to post, though.

No prob. Sometimes even moderators/administrators need to be reminded.

My point probably wasn't clear;

It wasn't.

I maintain that complaining about WotC's choice for a relatively quick advancment isn't entirely fair, as the DMG contains guidelines for variations. They went with what they thought was best for the most people. I can't fault that, even if it doesn't apply to me.

I totally agree (and if you noticed, I didn't "complain"). I just pointed out that one cannot say that the rapid advancement universally "isn't a bad thing", especially when it clearly *is* for a certain D&D demographic - which is what this thread is about.

Thankfully there are, as we all noted, guidelines to make adjustments. Woo-hoo!

 

[officeronin]

Experience -- okay, you could modify it. The only concern I have in this is that it seems you and your players have different expectations. Sounds like a brewing problem. On the other hand, it's been many months since any of my PCs fought an encounter of equal or lower CR. A week ago, I put three night hags, each with 5 levels of classes, against a party of 3 10th level PCs. They walked through it, and, afterwards, asked me, "That's it?" (They had time to prep, true, and they knew that there were at least 2 hags, but it still should have been a problem.) Personally, I like to pose them with a really powerful foe, and allow them to make a plan. The more involved the plan, the more roleplaying. I once had them raid a prison camp, with the goal to save the prisoners, knowing the guards had orders to begin slaughtering the prisoners if an attack occurred. Giving them xp is fine -- just make them work for it...

Wealth and Magic -- I once gamed with a DM who carefully made sure that the PCs had that amount of wealth (to the g.p.), but also carefully selected magic items that no one would ever want. Right after everyone springs for MW longswords, we get a +1 club as our "reward". His game folded in a hurry. You can be stingy as long as the players feel rewarded. I give fewer magic items, but I create cool, custom items. A house (and/or it's furnishings) is a huge reward, even though it has little game effect. (Of course, if you threaten to burn it down every 3 sessions, then it's not really a reward -- it's a leash.) Take the time to learn what the PCs want. Again, if magic items are rare and mysterious, a +1 or +2 sword is really boring.

Lots of people here are talking about "low-magic worlds", but there is no DM without players -- that's a group decision. Even so, a personal pet peeve is being told "It's a low magic world", when, in reality, "It's a low magic group in a standard world."

OfficeRonin

 

[LuYangShih]

Personally, I love 3E. I love the magic, I love the CR system, I love the wealth, and I really am happy with the system provided. I never really cared for previous editions, and 3E is the first system I've been able to really enjoy. It's simple, easy to use, and balanced, for the most part. As for experience, I think you should just give out what seems right. You are not inextricably bound to the base experience system, after all.