D&D 3E/3.5 4E reminded me how much I like 3E

[Stalker0]

As for the Wizard vs Fighter argument, remember that fantasy books don't talk about levels. Its easy to imagine the evil wizard as the highest level character in the world. And it actually makes a lot of sense, who would be more likely to survive to high level...the guy who kills things from a nice safe distance, or the guy that jumps into the dragon's mouth swinging away.

But...I've always been of the opinion that a wizard should terrified of an equal level fighter, because that fighter is a machine of death. The wizard can change memories, open portals to other dimensions, but when it comes down to a one on one grudge match, I think the fighter should win.

Now in 4e, they've tried to make everyone equal but different. We will see how well they've done. As far as class balance goes, I wouldn't have minded classes in 3e being imbalanced....if the fighter's were on the high end. Combat is what fighter's do, they should be teh best at it. Afterall, out of combat Wizards have plenty of magic to do plenty of other fun things.

In 4e the classes look balanced in combat, but they also are fairly balanced out of combat. Everyone can get training in skills with feat, which everyone gets at the same pace. And martial users can also be involved in rituals and do some forms of magic.

 

[Delta]

Until you reach the 1950's, almost all spellcasters in books or myths are bad guys. Merlin is about the only recognizable 'spellcaster' that comes to mind that isn't an outright enemy of the sword- and spear-weilding heroes and even he's in that grey area. Now what that means is that generally the mage gets his butt handed to him by children with rocks, the kid with a spear or sword, or whatever. Usually they have to outwit him but more than half the time when it comes down to a contest between steel and magic, steel wins every time.

Even in modern books, very few mages have the sheer versatility and power that a high-level D&D wizard possesses. They typically have one or the other, and even then they get put in their place more often than not by rogues and warriors.

In other words, as has been pointed out in many other places, the only literary genre D&D has ever modeled is itself. To make it model a particular genre or sub-genre you generally have to start writing house rules. The very first thing that changes is the magic system.

I can agree with you about the timeframe, but if powerful wizard protagonists are an exception, then D&D is pretty explicitly built on those literary exceptions.

In addition to Merlin post-1950, you have Gandalf (Tolkein's Lord of the Rings), Mazirian and Rhialto and others (Vance's Dying Earth), Prospero and Roger Bacon (Bellair's Face in the Frost), etc., etc.

Those latter books were explicitly mentioned in Gygax's DM's Guide as being the inspiration for the AD&D magic system. Plenty of specific spells were lifted directly from those books. It's not true that the D&D magic system was purely "self-modeled".

 

[Dinkeldog]

I like Save or Die. I like the tension that it brings to the table.

Two words. Disintegrated red dragon. Well, that's three words, and required a certain optimized alteration specialist wizard. Wow, what an anti-climactic end to a campaign.

Not that this is the only thing we ever disagreed on, or even the most important.

 

[rounser]

Well that's twice he's called me passive-aggressive in this thread, and I guess one of us doesn't know what the term means.

"The Straight Dope" is right when it says that this term is usually used when the proper word to use would be "annoying". But that doesn't sound like an attack on someone insinuating that they have a behavioural problem like "passive aggressive" does, so that gets used in preference.

 

[The Highway Man]

"The Straight Dope" is right when it says that this term is usually used when the proper word to use would be "annoying". But that doesn't sound like an attack on someone insinuating that they have a behavioural problem like "passive aggressive" does, so that gets used in preference.

I prefer the much simpler "you're being a dick", personally. (c. Erik Mona)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, large groups of low-level monsters aren't a challenge, and the very imperfect EL system obviously breaks down there. Low-level foes can't hit the PCs and don't do appreciable damage when they do. Any DM can or should be able to see that after the first time such an encounter happens and not make the same mistake again.

I made a minor change to the combat rules to make mobs more dangerous. Effectively, you can fight for 2xCON rounds before you begin to get tired. Taking even a 1-round "respite" prevents this. As a result, a large enough mob will eventually drag down the most powerful foe.

In addition to making mobs more dangerous, this adds points in a duel where the participants stop a round to trade insults.

Undead and constructs, btw, do not tire.


RC

 

[GnomeWorks]

You mean "What has become of the moment when I tell everyone not playing the wizard to roll up a wizard, since their rogue/ranger/fighter/whatever is now useless because I have a hard-on for spellcasters?" Hopefully, the rogue shivved it and it's lying in a ditch, quietly bleeding out.

So, to generalize your argument, there shouldn't be any point at which a character is able to do something specifically because of their class, because that would be telling the other players that they should reroll?

That sounds dreadfully dull.

I mean, in explaining what you hoped happens to such an event, you specifically call out a single class to perform an action. Well, that's not very fair; it's not fair that the rogue should get to shiv the idea, and not anyone else. So the rogue shouldn't get to shiv ideas. Same logic.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Two words. Disintegrated red dragon. Well, that's three words, and required a certain optimized alteration specialist wizard. Wow, what an anti-climactic end to a campaign.

Not that this is the only thing we ever disagreed on, or even the most important.

Well, no, we actually agree on that!

I don't know if you've been following my ENworld blog, but one of the things I've specifically mentioned to fix Save or Die is to tie them to the "bloodied" condition.

I don't have a problem with Save or Die-- I just don't want them used to open-- and end-- the combat in the first round.

I'm sure the fight would have gone much differently if we'd been forced to reduce Ashardalon below 50% of his hit points before opening up the wizard's big guns.

But in terms of dramatic tension, believe me, I was sweating it every time those spells were used against ME.

 

[grickherder]

Well, you know what? If 4e somehow convinced you that you have your credibility back, I am not gonna complain. I can happily chalk that up as a "win" for 4e, even though I still don't understand why folks need to have something so obvious spelled out for them.

You're demonstrating that you're not understanding my point here. I'm talking about what is accepted by the participants in the game as a credible statement of fact about the shared story. 3.x heavily encouraged the participants to rely on the system, it's formulas and the results of die rolls to determine what is true in the game world. 4e does as well, but not quite to the same extreme. 3e's system disempowered the DM and empowered the players by giving their input traction through system results. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a departure from previous editions of D&D. 4e restores some of the feel of pre-3.x D&D in this regard, but still not anywhere to the degree of the old red box game, for example.

In order to do what you claim is "so obvious", one needs to effectively ignore the 3.x rules. That's cool if the players are right there with you, but at that point, someone could say you're not actually playing 3.x but some version of it where you've replaced system results with freeform gaming and DM fiat. In order to do what is "so obvious" one has to effectively break the rules of the game, or set them aside completely.

A fictional example:
"I rolled a 32 on my jump check. Let's see, that means I jumped all the way to there (points to a spot on the map)."
"No, you fell in the pit you're trying to jump over."
"Umm. I just jumped 13 feet further than the edge of the pit. See, it's right here under the skill description. I got a 32, so I jumped this far."
"That doesn't matter. The roll wasn't high enough. You fell in."
"So these rules we claim to be using... this game we claim to be playing... are we?"

A real life example of this would be on a post I saw on story-games.com. The player (in a 3.5 game) said "I attack the scout!" and picked up his d20 to roll. To which the DM responded, before the player could roll, "You cut him down and he falls beneath your blade gasping his last breath" (or somesuch). The player was looking to use the combat system to give credibility to his intent to attack and kill his enemy. The DM, having no real stake in the scout continuing to live, just had the scout die.

The player was really ticked over this. 3.x (and to a lesser extent 4e) encourage the type of play the player was looking for. OD&D, encouraged the type of play the DM was giving.

If it really is the group that determines how much this is the case, then they're not playing any of the games they claim to be. They're choosing instead, to set certain parts of it aside in favor of their own game rules. To play their own bastardized edition of the rules which they claim is the real thing.

Which statements are accepted as credible facts in the shared story and which are not is not just "so obvious". It's an incredibly complex issue that is at the heart of what type of play is produced by a given set of rules.

If anyone is looking for a means to see this solidly in actual play that they participate in, I'd recommend giving a session of Donjon or The Pool a go (both can be found for free with a web search). Those rules explicitly empower different participants and different times with the rights to decide what is a credible statement of fact about the shared story. After giving one of those games a go, break out red box, play that and compare and contrast.

I guess I just figured the distinction between how different games handle this issue to be so obvious that I didn't think anyone would need it spelled out to them. My bad. I guess it's only natural that people will miss it when all they do is ignore the rules and play every game the same.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

You're demonstrating that you're not understanding my point here.

No, you're demonstrating that you're not understanding mine, and I'll snip the thousand words you took to do it.

A fictional example:
"I rolled a 32 on my jump check. Let's see, that means I jumped all the way to there (points to a spot on the map)."
"No, you fell in the pit you're trying to jump over."
"So these rules we claim to be using... this game we claim to be playing... are we?"

There's absolutely no way to go from what I said to that example. You're setting up a strawman.

Which statements are accepted as credible facts in the shared story and which are not is not just "so obvious". It's an incredibly complex issue that is at the heart of what type of play is produced by a given set of rules.

Oh for f--- sake, give The Forge theories a rest. We're talking about not sweating the details when they don't matter.

Those rules explicitly empower different participants and different times with the rights to decide what is a credible statement of fact about the shared story.

Yeah, that's productive.

I guess I just figured the distinction between how different games handle this issue to be so obvious that I didn't think anyone would need it spelled out to them. My bad. I guess it's only natural that people will miss it when all they do is ignore the rules and play every game the same.

You're so passive-aggressive.