Cascade effect of rule changes

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I take "Christmas tree effect" to be a generic description of PCs with dozens of items hanging off them, like a Christmas tree. The specifics of what those items do are the subject of other debates, like the ubiquity of the "big 6" (which is what the MIC was trying to address, by making non-big-6 items cheaper and more useful/interesting).

Yes, I think there might be a need for a distinction.

Chrismas Tree: Loaded with magical items.

Big Six: Everyone uses the same/similar items to get the best out of magical items.

Big Six => Christmas Tree, but not Christmas Tree => Big Six.

The Big Six automatically lead to the Christmas Tree, because everyone has these 6 items, and seems even to be required to do so to "compete" with the monsters of his level range.

The Christmas Tree in turn was made possible with the "magical item shops" implied by the market price limits on towns/cities. But it wouldn't have helped removing them,, there was still the fact that you needed these items to get the "expected" numbers for a given level, and so you either have a Christmas Tree, or TPKs (at worst).

4E seems to reduce the "Big Six" to the Big "3" (Weapon/Implement, Armor, Cloak/Vest). What it does with market price limits and so on remains to be seen...

 

[Dausuul]

I take "Christmas tree effect" to be a generic description of PCs with dozens of items hanging off them, like a Christmas tree. The specifics of what those items do are the subject of other debates, like the ubiquity of the "big 6" (which is what the MIC was trying to address, by making non-big-6 items cheaper and more useful/interesting).

The thing is, though, the Christmas Tree Effect is only a problem because of the Big 6. 3E monsters are built on the assumption that players will be armed with their wealth by level invested mostly in Big 6 items. If the players don't have those items, they'll be understrength. Worse, the impact of not being decked out in the Big 6 does not fall equally on all classes; melee warriors suffer more than casters. Hence, trying to remove the Christmas Tree Effect from 3E causes a host of problems.

If the Big 6 and their ilk are gone, then the Christmas Tree Effect ceases to be an issue, because magic items add versatility instead of raw power. DMs can adjust the level of magic items in their games to suit their liking and that of their players, without worrying too much about the impact on game balance. If you enjoy having PCs decked out in fifteen different kinds of magic loot, you can do that. If you like magic items to be rare and exciting, you can do that, too.

(The designers have indicated that 4E will have a "Charlie Brown Christmas Tree Effect," or maybe a "Christmas Shrub Effect." Presumably what they mean is that there will still be +X weapons/implements and +X armor, and challenges will be scaled to match. However, we've also been assured that DMs who want to strip even this level of evergreen out of the game can do so with a minimum of fuss.)

 

[AllisterH]

Actually, I thought it was the other way around.

I mean, a CR 20 creature released at the beginning of 3.0 is definitely a few CRs weaker than a CR 20 creature at the tail end of 3.5 and that's directly because of designers realizing that the party would HAVE the big six. They started designing monsters based on the expectation that the party would be decked in that gear.

I don't think Tweet et al envisioned that every party would basically have the Big six. Sure, they probably might have guessed that every one would have magic items but not those SPECIFIC items which IMO was the direct problem.

The combat effectiveness of a fighter with the Big Six versus a fighter with six other magic items is MUCH, MUCH higher than if you take a fighter with non-big six items and compared it to a magic less fighter.

To relate to the topic.

Magic items being common: Probably envisioned by Tweet et al based on the fact that they came up with the Wealth guidelines.

Big Six being necessary: Probably not given the relatively cheap costs for their effects that the original items had especially compared to other magic items in the DMG.

 

[Mercule]

The Christmas Tree effect has been around since 1e/2e though it was not nearly as evident. It really exploded with 3e. I blame Monte, Tweet, and Skip for the CTE as we know it today.

Some of the causes of CTE aggravation in 3e were things like a buff spell (and item) for each stat, and those boosts scaling beyond 18. Just to pick on that one; sure, it kinda sucked in 1/2e that a fighter with an 18/50 strength got a lot less use out of gauntlets of ogre power than the rogue with a 12 strength, but it also meant that the gauntlets weren't so important to the fighter, either, and he'd be fine without them. Likewise, the wizard didn't have fox's cunning or headbands of intellect to bump his intelligence -- and even if he had, there were no bonus spells or save DC benefits from it.

Of course, there also weren't the skills (NWPs don't count), thus the skill-boosting items and DC issues that go along with that. The revamp of the saving throws is on a similar path -- it's a rarity to find a "level appropriate" encounter (or magic item) that generates an effect that is likely to succeed against most PCs, except in flukes.

I've already mentioned, in many other threads, the issues with scaling up monsters to higher levels, but leaving the spell levels alone. The short form is that it screws fighters, specifically, and game play in general because of the uneven expectations.

These issues don't make 3e a bad game or that it was designed by morons. On the contrary, I think 3E was a necessary stepping stone to a better game system. It just isn't a durable system, IMO. There were too many core design decisions that "read great, play poorly".

 

[Mercule]

I don't think Tweet et al envisioned that every party would basically have the Big six. Sure, they probably might have guessed that every one would have magic items but not those SPECIFIC items which IMO was the direct problem.

Absolutely agree. I don't think the Big Six were intended. They grew organically out of the core design of the game. Basically, the math encouraged it. The 3e designers just didn't see the full impact of the changes they were introducing.

 

[Dragonblade]

Absolutely agree. I don't think the Big Six were intended. They grew organically out of the core design of the game. Basically, the math encouraged it. The 3e designers just didn't see the full impact of the changes they were introducing.

I agree. I don't think it's something they intended.

 

[olshanski]

Not all problems were systemic in nature.

...

Thank you for the excellent analysis. That's why I come to these boards.

 

[Scribble]

That's an excellent summary of 3E weaknesses. I do have a few quibbles (I don't, for example, think that Undead are as powerful as you suggest) , but I essentially agree with you.

I think that further displays one of the weaknesses of 3e, and it's "tight" rules package.

The "tightness" of the rules effected even the CR of monsters, and make them somewhat variable.

In 3e, undead have a somewhat roving CR. Sure, stat/level drain attacks aren't that bad... provided you have a cleric to counter them. Sure the rogue can't sneak them.... but you have a cleric to turn them right?

If you change one basic rule assumption (that there will be a cleric in the party) another rules assumption (that undead are a certain CR) changes.


Which also brings to mind another thing I hope they got right in 4e (and it sounds like they did.)

The idea that in order for one character to "shine" they have to be able to do something no one else can.

In prior editions this was even more evident, but it was still prevalent in 3e. In 4e I hope it's a distant memory.

 

[rkanodia]

And thank god that preposterous "system mastery" canard is going out the window. Let's attract players to a non-competitive, teamwork-based game by giving them ways to shoot themselves in the foot right from the get-go. Great design work there, guys.

I always wanted there to be a section of 'secret feats', maybe sandwiched somewhere in between the 3rd- and 4th-level Bard spells, and not mentioned in the table of contents, containing 'the REAL dodge'. You know. For players who had 'mastered' the 'system' of 'reading'.

 

[Firevalkyrie]

Oh, sure, blame the splats.



Because Dodge was a choice that only suckers would make*, even without any splats. It was designed that way.


*Spring Attack was pretty cool. But it was weighted down with two feats that no one would otherwise take.

And Desert Wind Dodge is even worse, because it's a Dodge where you have to move around and provoke attacks of opportunity. Bleah. I really, truly hope that no further such feats are added.