Discontinuity: 3e and D&D

[Kanegrundar]

I see what you're saying, James, but I don't agree. I disliked those assumptions built into the earlier editions. Very rarely did any group I've played with ever utilized those rules. I like that 3E is built in a way that those assumptions aren't built in as something a character is going to get at level X. It's still there if the player wants his character to build him/herself up in that manner. A DM (and player) has the freedom backed up by the rules to decide when the characters gain a following instead of "Well you're level 10, you now have followers you have to deal with." Like I said, those rules in earlier editions are easily ignored, but some players have always felt that if the rules says they get this, then they should.

Kane

 

[ThirdWizard]

Not what i said at all.

Plot is plot is plot.

You want adventuring daring do? Do it.

You want to rule a kingdom? Do it.

You want to make alliances with powerful men and women? Do it.

Don't complain that now that 3E is out you can't do any of these things. If the players arn't willing to go out and do these things in 1E then they arn't going to do it in 3E. "Oh no, the rules don't say I have a stronghold at level 9!" If that's what you want, then go for it. At level 5, at level 15, whatever. Take some action and do it.

I could easily say 1E was about heading off to the dungeon, selling loot in town, and then heading off to the next conveniently located dungeion within a mile of town. I won't. You know why? Because you can play it however you want to play it.

 

[fanboy2000]

3e has the leadership feat, A much better way of handling follewers in D&D.

 

[jmucchiello]

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.

Does it really make sense that everyone who puts a fort in the wilderness will suddenly attract dozens of raw warriors who are automatically loyal to him? Does it really make sense that guild of thieves will appear out of nothingness if the name level thief decides to put a shingle out: "Thieves' Guild"? Don't these kinds of things just scream "DM's decision"?

I played/DMed all editions* of D&D at least once and I never had a character/PC who just decided to stop adventuring and petition the local lord for a plot of uncharted land and go off and build a stronghold. I always considered that text in the PHB an explanation for what OTHER high level members of that class would do. Did you have characters who would habitually abandon the adventuring life at 9th-10th level? In games I played in 9th-10th level was when it just started getting interesting.

* Boxed OD&D was not attempted until the mid 90s so play of that game was influenced bu later editions. I never attempted 2.5 edition: Options and Powers. But then, by the time it came out, our 2e game was too house ruled to use much of any official material as written.

 

[S'mon]

D&D has changed.

Once adventurers were talented and daring folks who would become heroes and then lords of fantastic realms (or peers of such folk) now adventurers are born heroes and continue on a hamster wheel of heroic action.

This is true, there is a change in the default assumptions of the way a 3e campaign works compared to 1e - away from retirement at 9th level and towards the hamster wheel right from 1st to 20th. I prefer the 1e approach - mostly because 3e dungeon bashes over 10th level haven't worked well IME - and have recently been modifying my campaign to make it more 1e-ish again, eg by restoring 1e level distribution, the concept of "Name Level" at ca 9th, etc.

 

[S'mon]

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.

I'm not sure, but I'd guess it was influenced by fantasy CRPGs, which though based off D&D tended to have a much steeper power gradient - eg Bard's Tale, Diablo et al. 1e wasn't really intended to function much beyond 10th-12th level, at which point PCs can kill Lolth. 2e tried to make it playable to 20th without really changing the rules. BECMD&D had the 1st-36th system, and was probably the most playable within its intended parameters.

I think with 3e there was the design decision to keep the rate of progression - of relative power gain - constant, and it was settled on PCs doubling in power every 6-7 game sessions/2 levels. The idea being to combine a playable game with maximising player satisfaction, satisfaction being linked in designers' minds to rate of power increase. To me though there's a problem in that at high levels the numbers are now too big for the d20 mechanics to handle; the endless NPC stat blocks are a nightmare to GM.

 

[Akrasia]

... To me though there's a problem in that at high levels the numbers are now too big for the d20 mechanics to handle; the endless NPC stat blocks are a nightmare to GM.

Yup.

 

[Testament]

To me though there's a problem in that at high levels the numbers are now too big for the d20 mechanics to handle; the endless NPC stat blocks are a nightmare to GM.

No argument here. I've always been of the opinion that the numbers get so big that the system starts to break down in the mid teens, and dies on its posterior around 17th level. Honestly, when a monster has +28 to hit, you're really just rolling to see if you crit or automiss.

 

[Staffan]

So the question is: in 3e, everything was beefed up because....?

I think it's a matter of the monsters "catching up". In 1e, fighters plodded along doing their 1d8, once per round against most monsters (3 times per 2 rounds at level 7). If they had really good Strength, they might do 1d8+2. If they got magic weapons, they could get some more plusses.
Then came 2e with Weapon Specialization (I think this was in Unearthed Arcana originally, but since I never played 1e I can't be certain), giving half an extra attack per round, +1 to hit, and +2 damage. That beefed fighters up pretty good. Then came the Complete Fighter's Handbook, with both kits and some more fighter-beefings, and then came the other Complete books to let other classes catch up. Finally, there were the Player's Option books, which also allowed for some pretty nifty things. During all this time, monsters pretty much stayed the same.

So, 3e came around. It wouldn't be a smart move to roll back all these cool PC benefits, because people would feel WOTC were robbing their characters of their kewl powahs. So, instead the monsters got beefed up (which in the process made spells like fireball a lot less powerful, because they didn't get to share in the general power-up).

 

[S'mon]

Except now you can cast an Empowered Maximised fireball, so I think spells have kept pace with fighter attacks ok.

I think monsters did need beefing up - in fact if you compare stats in 1e MM to 1e MM2 it's clear Gygax realised this too, early on. 120 hp Orcus was ok in OD&D vs 8th level Fighting Men, but when 1e players were getting 15th level Fighter or Magic-User PCs he was no longer much of a threat.