D&D has a lot of rules!

[Herremann the Wise]

I think that many, many people who were/are playing 3e don't think that's "Okay". That it's a rigid framework where there's a rule for everything, and because of that, you have to do it.

It wasn't until 4e came out and it literally said "Hey, you don't have to use a formula, and you can just fudge the stats in the first place" that I realized that was okay to do.

I honestly thought that if I didn't account (and have a legitimate rule reason) for every +1 in there, that it would be broken and either too weak or too tough.

In the context of 3E and 4E though, adhering to the rules is more important in 3E than 4E. In 4E as effects are smaller (particularly compared to high level 3E save or die effects), it is less unfair on the players if you overcut the DC by a point or two. In 3E, you could have a player roll a 13 which means they are right on the cusp of making their save... or not. It would be unfair to have it a fail when somewhere in one of the books is a rule that would have them succeed. If I was playing this on the fly, I'd most probably say they succeeded rather than failed if I wasn't sure... but that always seems a little less exciting - reducing the true threat of the encounter.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[RFisher]

Count me among those for whom this is one reason I don’t DM 3e anymore.

I’ve considered running it again (or at least a variant thereof), but I’ll be very clear up-front that I intend to ignore/fudge the rules whenever I feel like it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't get too hung up on the specifics of it, so I generally don't need the pages open.

Fiendish? It can smite good, maybe has some fire resistance.

Umber Hulk? I'd have the book open for that.

Gaze? -4 to hit it or you have to save, and it can choose to make you save as an attack.

Confusion? Roll a die to determine your action.

Getting it precisely "right" isn't enough payoff, so I don't really worry about it.

 

[malraux]

I think that many, many people who were/are playing 3e don't think that's "Okay". That it's a rigid framework where there's a rule for everything, and because of that, you need to or at least should do it.

It wasn't until 4e came out and it literally said "Hey, you don't have to use a formula, and you can just fudge the stats in the first place" that I realized that was okay to do.

I honestly thought that if I didn't account (and have a legitimate rule reason) for every +1 in there, that it would be broken and either too weak or too tough.

Yup. For me, I had this sort of trouble in 3e because aside from literal rules interpretations it was rather difficult to determine the "right" AC, HP, damages, etc. Without those guidelines, all you have left are the rules.

 

[S'mon]

Building creatures by the RAW in 3e isn't any more fair to the players than just assigning the stats arbitrarily, AFAICS. Fairness to players is about setting a fair CR for the threat level of the monster, which should be done after all stats are assigned. Mechanistically applying the RAW often gives a much less 'fair' result - the RAW tell me a Commoner-6 is the same CR as a Troll!

Edit: In fact my players complement me on my fair challenges and CRs, because I don't expect the rules to set CRs for me without my judgement. I kill a lot of PCs, but not by hitting level 3 PCs with 'CR 5' trolls doing 40+ damage/round the way the RAW would let me do.

 

[delericho]

As to the design philosophy of trimming away anything that cannot be used in a single combat or reducing to just "signature" abilties, that would be the exact opposite of what I feel an experienced group needs to maintain their interest and excitement since it takes almost no time at all for experienced players to become all too familiar with a simple bag of tricks.

Perhaps. I generally prefer to deal with that by using a wide range of creatures for different purposes. When I have thousands to choose from, I don't really need them all to be powerful all-rounders. YMMV, of course.

 

[S'mon]

BTW the formula I use for setting monster attack bonus, saves & save DCs:

Attack Bonus = Hit dice.
Good Saves: 1/2 hit dice +2. +4 if they're really tough.
Poor saves: 1/3 hit dice.
Save DCs: 1/2 hit dice +2.

This mostly* gives fairly low saves & save DCs, but that's fine by me. When a PC spellcaster casts a spell, it's not much fun if the monster saves (unless maybe it's a dragon). Likewise it's not much fun for a PC to fail a saving throw. If things are too easy, one can always add more monsters.

*Although my ghouls work out nastier than standard 3e, 3 attacks at +2 and a Fort DC 13 paralysation save. So I give more XP for beating them.

 

[charonsg]

Building creatures by the RAW in 3e isn't any more fair to the players than just assigning the stats arbitrarily, AFAICS. Fairness to players is about setting a fair CR for the threat level of the monster, which should be done after all stats are assigned. Mechanistically applying the RAW often gives a much less 'fair' result - the RAW tell me a Commoner-6 is the same CR as a Troll!

Edit: In fact my players complement me on my fair challenges and CRs, because I don't expect the rules to set CRs for me without my judgement. I kill a lot of PCs, but not by hitting level 3 PCs with 'CR 5' trolls doing 40+ damage/round the way the RAW would let me do.

CR something that is D&D only. if you play other rpgs, the gm can throw antagonists at you that are above your fighting skills and you just have to run to save your life

 

[FireLance]

CR something that is D&D only. if you play other rpgs, the gm can throw antagonists at you that are above your fighting skills and you just have to run to save your life

Even in D&D, the DM can throw an antagonist against you with a CR much higher than your average party level, and your best option would be to run. There's no actual rule that the DM can't do that in any version of D&D. They're more like guidelines...

 

[S'mon]

Even in D&D, the DM can throw an antagonist against you with a CR much higher than your average party level, and your best option would be to run. There's no actual rule that the DM can't do that in any version of D&D. They're more like guidelines...

3e DMG actually advises GMs to do that with 5% of encounters (EL = 5 or more over party level).