Discontinuity: 3e and D&D

[Silverleaf]

Uh...Ok. I don't really see that. 3E characters may be a little tougher than their 2E counterparts, maybe. However, the monsters seem to be tougher as well. The mortality rate of characters IMC's is either the same or higher in other editions.

If it all balances out in the end, why increase the power level? This is not a dig at 3e, I'm just wondering what their motive was. Because adding more numbers that just cancel out seems like just a waste of time.
Also, you should try Basic D&D, 3d6-in-order chargen, you play what you roll. Magic-users and thieves get 1d4 hit points, clerics 1d6, and fighters 1d8. Max CON bonus is +3 hp/level. After 9th level you don't roll for hit points anymore. And get this... clerics don't get any spells until 2nd level! Of course, the monsters are weaker too, and they all use d8's to roll their hit points. But everyone feels much better once they get past 1st level (and the cleric can finally cast CLW).

 

[Silver Moon]

So many stories told on this forum (or on the Story Hour forum, by god) can pass for any edition of the game. Its only when you look down at the details of the mechanics do you see the differences.

And they do. I play both 1st and 3rd Editions. I have groups playing both. I even have two campaigns set on the same world at the same time but using different versions of the rules. Some of my posts here are in relation to one group, some another, some both. Similarly, I have Story Hours posted from both. Questions of what version of the rules I'm using has only come up once or twice by the readers. The key is to have a group of enthusiastic players with active imaginations. The rules are just mechanics to help move the story along.

 

[Kanegrundar]

If it all balances out in the end, why increase the power level? This is not a dig at 3e, I'm just wondering what their motive was. Because adding more numbers that just cancel out seems like just a waste of time.
Also, you should try Basic D&D, 3d6-in-order chargen, you play what you roll. Magic-users and thieves get 1d4 hit points, clerics 1d6, and fighters 1d8. Max CON bonus is +3 hp/level. After 9th level you don't roll for hit points anymore. And get this... clerics don't get any spells until 2nd level! Of course, the monsters are weaker too, and they all use d8's to roll their hit points. But everyone feels much better once they get past 1st level (and the cleric can finally cast CLW).

I know. I've played OD&D, 1E, and 2E as well as 3E. All of my players have lost numerous characters at level 1, and just about every level beyond. They don't breathe easy, ever.

3E/3.5E is about as good as I've seen D&D. I enjoy it. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I like and that's enough for me.

Kane

 

[JamesDJarvis]

"I ran out of good plot ideas! It must be 3E's fault!"

Not what i said at all.

 

[JamesDJarvis]

Uh...Ok. I don't really see that. 3E characters may be a little tougher than their 2E counterparts, maybe.However, the monsters seem to be tougher as well.
The mortality rate of characters IMC's is either the same or higher in other editions. As for them being heroes, I don't know how your campaigns are ran, but IMC's the characters have to gain a reputation before they are regarded as "heroes."

I'm not talking In My Campaign or in your campaign I'm talking about the game as it is right out of the rule books. I'm also not talking about the comparative power of classes between games. I'm talking about the style of play written into the rules.

Every character type artracted followers, or would most certinaly attract them upon setting up a stronghold or some other such abode. Classes got different types and nubers of followers at different points in the characters career upon establishing themesleves at name level (or near that). Some character had to compete with higher level members of thier own class to progress. One major goal written in tp the rules for every character was to become an important part of the camapign settings establishment.

In 3.x folks adventure so they can gain more power and have adventures with ever more powerful creatures. That is the play style written into the rules.

 

[Ranes]

In 3.x folks adventure so they can gain more power and have adventures with ever more powerful creatures. That is the play style written into the rules.

Twas ever thus.

Also, you should try Basic D&D, 3d6-in-order chargen, you play what you roll.

Or you can do that in 3e. I accept the argument that the default power level of 1st level characters is somewhat higher in 3e than it was in previous editions. But 3e is flexible enough for you to play any way you like.

 

[JamesDJarvis]

Twas ever thus.

No it really wasn't. Just look at an old wilderness encounter tables in different editions. Clearly the wilderness wasn't keyed to be the same challenge it was for a low level party as it was for a high level party. Sure there are good reason for it now but there was no chart for an EL6 forest in earlier version of the game. The wilderness didn't stay in scale with the players (the hamater wheel effect i mentioned earlier). Sure characters became ever more powerful as they gained in levels but increases in campaign power and the place the character had in the campaign were built into the classes , not so these days. A 11th level fighter with his own castle was going to have a body of followers. In 3e the fighter only gets those followers and henchmen if he invested in a feat and it isn't specificaly tailored to each class or a specific level or a specific set of triggers.

 

[Ranes]

James, I agree with everything you said in your last post, apart from the first sentence.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Every character type artracted followers, or would most certinaly attract them upon setting up a stronghold or some other such abode. Classes got different types and nubers of followers at different points in the characters career upon establishing themesleves at name level (or near that). Some character had to compete with higher level members of thier own class to progress. One major goal written in tp the rules for every character was to become an important part of the camapign settings establishment.

In 3.x folks adventure so they can gain more power and have adventures with ever more powerful creatures. That is the play style written into the rules.

True, 3E doesn't support the "feudal lord" style of play as well as earlier editions did--but it doesn't mandate it as much either. That can be either a bane or a boon, depending on how much you liked it.

It's a matter of taste, like so much else. And I say that as someone who likes the underlying structure of 3E, but has an undefinable issue with something about it--I'm not sure if it's the campaign assumptions, the presentation, the online culture, or something else. (Can't be actual play--I'm an armchair gamer. )

Matthew L. Martin

 

[Silverleaf]

Or you can do that in 3e. I accept the argument that the default power level of 1st level characters is somewhat higher in 3e than it was in previous editions. But 3e is flexible enough for you to play any way you like.

Sure, you can change it. But I'm wondering what the designers had in mind. In other words, what's the real story behind the power creep.
In 2e, some of the monsters (dragons & giants) were beefed up a lot because the designers decided the old ones were too weak and didn't represent their (and apparently many players') idea of what those monsters should be like.
So the question is: in 3e, everything was beefed up because....?
The're only two reasons I could think of:
1. Critical hits. In Basic D&D there is no such thing as a critical hit. A natural 20 is always a guaranteed hit, and that's all. I seem to recall an optional critical hit rule in 2e though (on a natural 20 you attack again, if you hit the second time you do double damage... sound familiar?) I suppose you could also consider the 1e "massive damage" rule (50+ hit points in one blow -> save or die) to be a critical hit system of sorts too, but that might be stretching it (normal weapons don't do 50+ damage, at least not when wielded by low-level Fighters or weaker monsters).
2. Combat feats. There aren't any feats in B/X D&D to rack up more damage with (though the Rules Cyclopedia has Weapon Mastery...) But in 2e, Fighters could get multiple attacks and weapon specialization. Ditto in 1e.
I'd say that point #2 can be taken out of the equation, since 3e and most previous editions had some provision for Fighters to deal lots of damage. But point #1 still stands. Are critical hits enough of a reason for 3e to have upped the power level accross the board?
I'm not very familiar with Hackmaster, but I know it gives everyone a 20 hit point kicker at 1st level (and monsters get it too, though weaker ones get a smaller boost). How does the power level compare between HM and 3e... anyone know?

Other things to consider: 3e did away with the System Shock & Resurrection Survival rolls, how come? To be fair, these don't exist in Basic D&D either, although it's debatable whether they were left out to keep the game simpler (other ability score adjustments were left out too).