Differences in powergaming in 1st/2nd and 3.0/3.5

[Li Shenron]

However, d20 D&D allow a lot of power in character building that, by the rules, take a lot of power from the DM.

I think that a much worse consequence is that 3ed character building takes a lot of player's attention away from the adventures.

I haven't played in previous editions (save for a few times), but at least in 3ed I've seen way too many players who constantly think about their character's stats & features, and don't pay much attention to the story...

 

[Sadrik]

The OP fails to compare the edtions with regard to powergaming but I would say it's much more prevalent in 3rd. 1st Ed had more focus on roleplaying (you had to back then) rather than the rules hungry 3rd.

I did/tried to in broad strokes. Hou know sort of like Pollock.

 

[theredrobedwizard]

I honestly think the main problem people have is that 3.x takes power away from the DM (removes the "Mother may I?" factor) and puts it in the hands of the players. Almost every person who has issues with 3.x's new "feel" has it because the DM isn't the almighty Lord anymore, and the players have more freedom to build what they want without asking permission to do so.

And that's the best part, really. I always hated that "Mother May I?" aspect. Now, don't get me wrong, it still exists (to a fashion) wherein players do still have to ask permission to use a certain source or feat or whatever.

Multi-classing is also much less ridiculous now, which is fantastic. Now, you can make nearly any concept you want without having a bunch of DM hand-wave-y bull-hockey. Just take x levels of y class before taking w levels of z class; add in feats m and n, and you have yourself a Warrior Wizard with Trapfinding that can heal (Sorcerer/Favored Soul/Ranger [with the Alt Class Feature from Dungeonscape]). Albeit you're nowhere near as powerful as the other characters in the group, but dang if you aren't a useful son of a gun.

Powergaming (in my experience) is actually less pronounced in 3.x than it was in 1e/2e. In a world where Clerics and Druids are the most powerful class, yet nearly ever group I've been in has sorely lacked in both...

And remember, the true test of DMing is being able to recall those bizarre rules off the top of your head without having to look them up OR break the flow of the adventure.

Maybe I just expect too much rules knowledge from my fellow players/DMs though.

-TRRW

 

[theredrobedwizard]

I think that a much worse consequence is that 3ed character building takes a lot of player's attention away from the adventures.

I haven't played in previous editions (save for a few times), but at least in 3ed I've seen way too many players who constantly think about their character's stats & features, and don't pay much attention to the story...

Hold on... there was a story in 1st Edition? I'm pretty sure every time I'd ever played it was "kill the monsters, take their treasure, level up, repeat". If the character names (see Erac's Cousin) were anything to be believed, I don't think most players even bothered naming their characters, let alone coming up with a backstory or personality.

Also, I really don't understand all the 'complexity' issues people seem to be having with 3rdEd; if you have trouble with Power Attack, make a power attack chart. If you're having trouble with buff spells (Bull's Strength, et al.) then make up index cards with the effects and duration of the spell on it.

Again, maybe I'm just expecting too much (which is entirely possible).

-TRRW

 

[rgard]

What what? People played humans in 1st edition? When? Why be a mage, when you could be a cleric mage, with more HP, better saves, healing spells, etc. All for the measly cost of being (on average) 1 level lower. Multiclassing was blatently the way to go, and in the vast majority of games (ie ones that didnt exceed the level limit), there was no contest. Humans were for chumps.

Yes and no. Sure the Half-Elf Fighter/Magic User/Cleric was a beast, but his levels were capped. 8/9/8 or something like that. You needed some serious DM generosity to get around that limit. Or say you have an Elf MU/Thief, sure the thief part was U for level cap, but once the character reached max MU level (11, I think) he could progress his thief levels, but had to continue to dump half his experience into MU which wasn't getting any higher in level.

I played both humans and demi-humans in 1e, the humans were by far the strongest at higher levels.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[rgard]

Hold on... there was a story in 1st Edition? I'm pretty sure every time I'd ever played it was "kill the monsters, take their treasure, level up, repeat". If the character names (see Erac's Cousin) were anything to be believed, I don't think most players even bothered naming their characters, let alone coming up with a backstory or personality.

Also, I really don't understand all the 'complexity' issues people seem to be having with 3rdEd; if you have trouble with Power Attack, make a power attack chart. If you're having trouble with buff spells (Bull's Strength, et al.) then make up index cards with the effects and duration of the spell on it.

Again, maybe I'm just expecting too much (which is entirely possible).

-TRRW

On the story side in 1e, it's like anything else in RPGs...depends on the DM and the players. I've seen as many 3e "kill the monsters, take their treasure, level up, repeat" campaigns as I saw with 1e. This is a playing style issue.

Agree with you completely on your complexity points. I make notes and charts when I need them. Did that in 1e as well as doing it now in 3e.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I remember campaigns in 2e with permissive DMs. Very busted. We had people abusing kits to get 8 attacks a round with a bow. Without Haste!

IMO, the big differences between 2e and 3.x when it comes to powergaming are only two-fold:

1) It was more difficult to powergame within the core rules in 2e.

2) Players know what they're doing in 3e (clearer rules generally), so if a player wants to break the game, they can more easily do so in 3e.

 

[Endur]

People claim double-classing in AD&D was powerful, but I wonder how many of these people actually double-classed characters in a real AD&D game.

Think about it.

In AD&D, it could take a year to go up a few levels. Most characters retired long before 10th level.

Admittedly, going up in the second class was fast. But your second class primary requisite stat had to be higher than your first class stat (first class stat 15+, second class stat 17+). How many people had their highest statistic in a secondary stat? Almost everyone I knew who built a 1st level character put their highest statistic in their primary stat -- i.e. almost no one qualified for double-classing.

The exception was computer games. In the AD&D computer games, everyone double-classed all the time because you could pick your stats, you didn't have to roll, and you knew what levels the computer game would go up to.

 

[Nikosandros]

In AD&D, it could take a year to go up a few levels. Most characters retired long before 10th level.

Fast yes, but also very wasteful in XP. Every time a level threshold is reached, XP accumulation stops until the character trains for the next level.

 

[Crothian]

In AD&D, it could take a year to go up a few levels. Most characters retired long before 10th level.

This was not my own experience though I know plenty of people say this. We leveled once every month or so and we loved the high level AD&D game. How else were we suppose to fight the gods?