DMs: How available do you make magic items? And what about the craft feats?

[Bendris Noulg]

I have been running the same low magic game since 2E and converted it to 3E.

...

Thats all I can think of right now. If anything else comes to mind, I'll post it as well.

Ditto on both counts, although here's one that came to mind:

The world has ley lines, which are kinda like scars on the universal fabric caused by The Renderer after the Age of Chaos when he attempted to destroy the cosmos at the time of Gods' Fall. At these points, magical energies radiate outwards into the rest of the world. Where two lines connect, a power-point can be found. Teleporting spells function to bring a person to one of these points (which, of course, requires you to know where they are) rather than just any old place the caster desires.

Naturally, over time, various locations have been built upon several of these locations: Wizard's towers, temples, Druidic groves, neolithic circles, a palace or two, etc.

 

[hong]

Than it's balanced poorly.

No, it's balanced well.

 

[hong]

The world has ley lines, which are kinda like scars on the universal fabric caused by The Renderer after the Age of Chaos when he attempted to destroy the cosmos at the time of Gods' Fall.

I had this problem with my renderer too. Whenever I tried to play any 3D game, it would always crash with a blue screen of death, saying something like "nv4mini.sys has caused an infinite loop". Bloody third-grade rendering engines, with fourth-grade quality control. The solution was to upgrade to the latest NVidia Detonator drivers for Windows XP, which solved all these rendering problems.

HTH!

 

[Bendris Noulg]

No, it's balanced well.

For a specific setting, it's balanced well.

However, it claims to be generic. Thus, it's balanced poorly because it only represents one possibility and makes it hard for some folks to believe that other possibilities can occur, occur easily, and be quite well balanced. Something about drawing within the lines.

 

[hong]

For a specific setting, it's balanced well.

For many specific settings, it's balanced well.

However, it claims to be generic. Thus, it's balanced poorly because it only represents one possibility and makes it hard for some folks to believe that other possibilities can occur, occur easily, and be quite well balanced. Something about drawing within the lines.

D&D never claimed to be universal. Only generic. Thus it isn't tied to any one particular game world, unlike (say) Legend of the 5 Rings, or RIFTS, or even White Wolf's World of Darkness; all sorts of D&D worlds exist from FR to Greyhawk and further afield. That doesn't mean it makes no setting assumptions, or that those setting assumptions are faulty in some way.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

For many specific settings, it's balanced well.

Except that 3.5 shows that even the designers of the game have found serious issues with that balance. These aren't small changes being announced; Some of these are major changes. These changes aren't occuring because someone in WotC R&D got a bug up their rump. They are changing so drastically because there are serious balance issues that require them.

So, yes, that balance might indeed be"balanced well" for many specific settings. But guess what? They, like the Core Rules, are obviously broken because they are built on broken rules and used those rules to establish many of the "realities" of that world.

Including Greyhawk, aka the specific "generic" world.

 

[hong]

Except that 3.5 shows that even the designers of the game have found serious issues with that balance. These aren't small changes being announced; Some of these are major changes.

These are MINOR changes.

What isn't being changed:
- Everyone getting one feat at 1st level, then another every 3 levels.
- Spells like fireball being 3rd level, raise dead being 5th, resurrection being 7th, and wish being 9th.
- Fighters don't get innate supernatural abilities like flight or penetrating DR. They'll still need magic items for that.
- Monster funky abilities like SR, energy drain or spell-like abilities like unholy blight.
- New classes that aren't focused on killing monsters and taking their stuff. (No Star Wars noble or Rokugan courtier, for instance.)
- Rates of awarding XP, so that people go from 1st to 20th level in about 2 years of gaming.

The overall philosophy behind 3E isn't changing, nor is the rules framework. What IS changing is that they're addressing some of the more notorious avenues for cheese, that slipped past playtesting back in 1999-2000. If anything, some of the changes make it even easier for people to go into dungeons and kill stuff, eg powering up the bard, ranger and barbarian. At high levels, you're still going to have people flying and teleporting, while toting a dozen or more magic items, and monsters dishing out 100+ points of damage per round, etcetera.

These changes aren't occuring because someone in WotC R&D got a bug up their rump. They are changing so drastically because there are serious balance issues that require them.

Balance is not synonymous with game flavour. You said that yourself.

So, yes, that balance might indeed be"balanced well" for many specific settings. But guess what? They, like the Core Rules, are obviously broken because they are built on broken rules and used those rules to establish many of the "realities" of that world.

_Some_ rules are broken. That doesn't mean the game as a whole is broken, unless you have a very strange definition of "broken".

 

[Bendris Noulg]

What IS changing is that they're addressing some of the more notorious avenues for cheese, that slipped past playtesting back in 1999-2000.

Tomato vs tomato, a rose by any other name, broken cheese. Know what I mean?

At high levels, you're still going to have people flying and teleporting, while toting a dozen or more magic items, and monsters dishing out 100+ points of damage per round, etcetera.

Well, other people will. You might be. I won't be playing in nor will be DMing for such.

But those that do will be doing so more balanced.

Supposedly.

Balance is not synonymous with game flavour. You said that yourself.

Which is why 3E's claim of balance is double-E wrong: First, all the errors that had to be cleaned up originally and now a refit, second, by being based on issues of flavor which the rules shouldn't touch or effect. Indeed, for a company that was using a marketing catch-phrase about rules and flavor being unrelated, they took extensive liberties regarding flavor decisions.

_Some_ rules are broken. That doesn't mean the game as a whole is broken, unless you have a very strange definition of "broken".

Actually, it does. Obviously, Rangers, Bards and Barbarians are under-powered. Anyone with Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting has one Feat for the price of two. Buff spells last far too long.

Indeed, while I understand everyone preaching 3E and balance when it first came out (folks didn't know better and they bought into the marketing hype), it makes little sense now, especially when staff and designers are refering to various parts of the game as broken, needing to be balanced, and fixed (and this is clearly read in the 3E Revision section here on ENWorld). Heck, there's even an admission of something that needed fixing but didn't get fixed for lack of time: Metamagic Feats. So even in the revised books, we already know that the designers have acknowledged an unsolved problem with the Feats.

And there's this:

Andy talked about the R&D mantra for revised 3e, "do no harm." If there was something cool to change but it didn't really need to be done, it wasn't.

So what would "really need to be done" other than stuff that, quite simply, was broken in some regard and needed fixing?

And let's not even overlook the flippin' conversion manual that taking material back-and-forth is going to require (or supposedly require; It might just be Conversion for Dummies and be completely unnecessary).

Granted, I'm sure this is a hard fact for D&D's hard-core adherents to face, but it's true none-the-less.

 

[hong]

Tomato vs tomato, a rose by any other name, broken cheese. Know what I mean?

Not really, no.

Well, other people will. You might be. I won't be playing in nor will be DMing for such.

Is that supposed to be a meaningful statement, or are you just glad to see me?

But those that do will be doing so more balanced.

Supposedly.

Which is why 3E's claim of balance is double-E wrong: First, all the errors that had to be cleaned up originally and now a refit,

Waah, the game isn't perfect. You'll excuse me while I search for an umbrella to keep off the sky that is, even now, falling on my head.

Supposedly.

second, by being based on issues of flavor which the rules shouldn't touch or effect. Indeed, for a company that was using a marketing catch-phrase about rules and flavor being unrelated, they took extensive liberties regarding flavor decisions.

D00d, we're talking about balance, not flavour. Are you finished killing your strawman yet?

_Some_ rules are broken. That doesn't mean the game as a whole is broken, unless you have a very strange definition of "broken".

Actually, it does.

Actually, it doesn't.

Obviously, Rangers, Bards and Barbarians are under-powered. Anyone with Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting has one Feat for the price of two. Buff spells last far too long.

Yes, because, as we all know, 3E consists solely of rangers, bards and barbarians, everyone fights with two weapons, and the only spells available are buff spells.

Supposedly.

Indeed, while I understand everyone preaching 3E and balance when it first came out (folks didn't know better and they bought into the marketing hype), it makes little sense now,

And, even taking into account the flaws that have emerged since 3E's release, it's still pretty well-balanced compared to what came before. Your point is?

especially when staff and designers are refering to various parts of the game as broken, needing to be balanced, and fixed (and this is clearly read in the 3E Revision section here on ENWorld).

Waah, the designers actually listen to their customers. You'll excuse me again while I search for that umbrella.

Heck, there's even an admission of something that needed fixing but didn't get fixed for lack of time: Metamagic Feats. So even in the revised books, we already know that the designers have acknowledged an unsolved problem with the Feats.

Waah, 3.5E is not going to be a perfect snowflake, unique in every way. Where's that damn umbrella already?

And there's this:

Andy talked about the R&D mantra for revised 3e, "do no harm." If there was something cool to change but it didn't really need to be done, it wasn't.

So what would "really need to be done" other than stuff that, quite simply, was broken in some regard and needed fixing?

You're not making sense. Would you like to try again, while I track down that umbrella?

And let's not even overlook the flippin' conversion manual that taking material back-and-forth is going to require (or supposedly require; It might just be Conversion for Dummies and be completely unnecessary).

What about it?

Granted, I'm sure this is a hard fact for D&D's hard-core adherents to face, but it's true none-the-less.

Supposedly.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Not really, no.

Actually, yes.

Is that supposed to be a meaningful statement, or are you just glad to see me?

Disclaimer: I take no responsibility for how may statements may rub the inferiority complex of others.

Waah, the game isn't perfect. You'll excuse me while I search for an umbrella to keep off the sky that is, even now, falling on my head.

Cute, but over-emphasised. I'm not wanting the game to be perfect, just an acknowledgement that it wasn't (and still won't be) as balanced as some folks like to claim. After all, that is the point of this debate between you and I, is it not?

D00d, we're talking about balance, not flavour. Are you finished killing your strawman yet?

It's not a strawman, it's fact. Don't cry a river because you can't disprove it.

Actually, it doesn't.

It does. Gee, won't this get us far?

WotC has stated, plain and clearly, that parts of the game were broken, that spell schools weren't balanced, that metamagic feats need fixing, etc. That makes that game broken. No, it's not unplayable, but it's far from balanced (thus, games based on those same rules are also far from balanced).

Yes, because, as we all know, 3E consists solely of rangers, bards and barbarians, everyone fights with two weapons, and the only spells available are buff spells.

Gee, did I say that..? Let's see here... Oh, golly gee willerkers, I didn't say that at all.

Time for you to put your own strawmen away.

And, even taking into account the flaws that have emerged since 3E's release, it's still pretty well-balanced compared to what came before. Your point is?

It's well balanced unless you like, as you put it, "cheese".

Waah, the designers actually listen to their customers. You'll excuse me again while I search for that umbrella.

Yes, and it's about time they showed it.

Waah, 3.5E is not going to be a perfect snowflake, unique in every way. Where's that damn umbrella already?

I'm not asking them to be perfect. I'm asking for the Preachers of Balance to put their D&D Bibles away because their arguements are void by the fact that the balance they preach isn't perfect.

I guess you allowed yourself to get side-tracked a bit for some reason.

Tsk tsk...

You're not making sense. Would you like to try again, while I track down that umbrella?

Might I suggest English lessons instead?

What about it?

If the book is really needed, then they aren't the "minor changes" you'd like to claim.

Supposedly.

Call it an educated guess.