Does 3E/3.5 dictate a certain style of play?

[Psion]

The cavalier's code wasn't any kind of real hindrance, if playing a good cavalier, they pretty much just reinforced what the game defined as "good behaviour".

I don't really agree. A cavalier pretty much had to be foolhardy. There was three ways this played out in my experience:
1) The DM didn't like the cavalier, and used this as an excuse to de facto ban the cavalier by killing any of them that came along.
2) Same as above, but the rest of the party felt an obligation to stick together, so the cavalier's weakness became the party weakness.
3) The DM saw that putting the cavalier in a tough spot would be deadly, but didn't want to kill the character, so played it with a light touch, effectively giving the cavalier those abilities for free.

None of these being particularly desirable IMO.

 

[Storm Raven]

I don't really agree. A cavalier pretty much had to be foolhardy.

Sort of. They had to attack the opposition's most powerful looking foe, but given their souped up combat abilities, they were almost always the best suited member of the party to take on that job. The only PC class that could probably compete with the Cavalier in a stand up fight was the other overpowered UA class, the barbarian.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The alternate methods were descibed by TSR as being perfectly fine. Who were teenagers to argue with them?

Even as a teenager, I never had any problem deciding which method worked best for my game. I started making those decisions within weeks of picking up the Holmes blue box set.

I have a very, very hard time imagining that you in particular were unwilling to argue with TSR (or anyone else). (And I mean that kindly, because I appreciate a good argument.)

The cavalier's code wasn't any kind of real hindrance, if playing a good cavalier, they pretty much just reinforced what the game defined as "good behaviour".

Then why all the threads about the emasculated paladin's code now? This wasn't my experience, and I doubt it was the experience of the majority.

Dragon is where most of UA got its genesis.

And there was a lot of good stuff in The Dragon, too. Actually, there is a lot of good stuff in UA. What your group, perhaps, failed to have was a DM and players capable of using the material in the book, as opposed to abusing it. Actually, this is probably the same problem that some groups have with 3e today.

Really, there is no way to abuse any edition of D&D without the DM being complicit (though ignorance, inaction, or action) in the abuse. The DM's authority to say No to anything in 1e was explicit. It is not as explicit now, but it is still the same. Actually, the authority to say No to anything in the game is available to everyone -- you can vote with your feet.

Powergaming, to me, is an attempt to exceed the baseline of the campaign to your benefit. In order to do so, there has to be a baseline, and there has to exist the means to shift over it. 3e has a baseline, but you can be darn sure that a good DM will shift encounter difficulty to take into account whatever min/maxing the PCs did. I think this shifting was easier in 1e, where the baseline was more fluid.

I accept that there were better combos in 1e for certain situations, but playing with hundreds of gamers over 5 states, this never came up. I have to assume, again, that this is a problem with how the material is approached. Moreover, it seems to be a problem with the DM(s) allowing the campaign to denigrate into an arms race.

Of course, you have the same problem today with people claiming that classes like the bard are underpowered......because what constitutes power is greatly dependent upon the depth and variety of the campaign setting.


RC


RC

 

[Storm Raven]

Even as a teenager, I never had any problem deciding which method worked best for my game. I started making those decisions within weeks of picking up the Holmes blue box set.

The assumption was generally that the systems that were given for character generation were all fair and would all work. No one worked out the probailities until we started doing computer simulations crunching the numbers, but that was later, when 1e was pretty much heading for the out door.

Then why all the threads about the emasculated paladin's code now? This wasn't my experience, and I doubt it was the experience of the majority.

The cavalier code was not the paladin's code. And I haven't been talking about the currently emasculated code, so you must have me confused with someone who thinks that.

And there was a lot of good stuff in The Dragon, too. Actually, there is a lot of good stuff in UA. What your group, perhaps, failed to have was a DM and players capable of using the material in the book, as opposed to abusing it. Actually, this is probably the same problem that some groups have with 3e today.

And the material from UA was explicitly billed as "stuff from Dragon and other sources that has been tested, and made good." remember those quotes from the introduction to UA? remember this:

. . . without materially affecting any ongoing campaign adversely.

How about these (not before quoted, but addeed because they are apropos):

Yes, some material has appeared previously, but here it is carefully revised, edited and compiled so as to change it from a possible insertion to an integral part of a vital campaign

and:

Much of the material within this book first saw the light of day in Dragon magazine, but in the time since has been playtested, questioned, discussed, re-tailored, re-presented, and re-playtested.

Is it any wonder that many gamers figured that the material was the best Dragon could offer refined and polished to make it even better?

Really, there is no way to abuse any edition of D&D without the DM being complicit (though ignorance, inaction, or action) in the abuse. The DM's authority to say No to anything in 1e was explicit. It is not as explicit now, but it is still the same. Actually, the authority to say No to anything in the game is available to everyone -- you can vote with your feet.

Sure you could. But it seems to me telling that, over the course of a dozen gaming groups, involving many campaigns run by dozens of DMs involving many dozens of players, the assumptions on this score remained almost constant.

 

[Rothe]

... A cavalier pretty much had to be foolhardy. ..

Sort of. They had to attack the opposition's most powerful looking foe, ...

This sounds not so much as a drawback but a common tactic, assuming the cavalier was allowed to "sneak up" on there opponents, or better yet used ranged weapons.

One of our common tactics was to send a tank into tto engage the most powerful bad guy. Maybe having to hew down some followers in the process. Generally for four reasons (which usually applied) take out the big dude and the followers may run away, second the big dude may be a spell caster so start smacking them so they can't get those spells off, third the big guy's probably has got the best stuff-kill 'em before he uses it, and fourth take him out while still fresh and you can still take some of his blows. It would really have gone well with our party strategy of piling magic on the fighter to give a low AC but fast as possible fighter. So I'm not seeing this cavalier code as much of a drawback.

It appears then, that the cavalier except for this code, is better than a fighter in everyway.

Not saying they wouldn't be fun and maybe added a fighter better balanced against MUs and clerics. As a DM I could certainly think of ways to challenge such a party.

 

[Storm Raven]

This sounds not so much as a drawback but a common tactic, assuming the cavalier was allowed to "sneak up" on there opponents, or better yet used ranged weapons.

He could "sneak" if that involved getting to his foe as fast as possible. He couldn't use ranged weapons, that was one of the "drawbacks" of the class. But since most 1e D&D was dungeon crawling, it wasn't much of a hindrance. Cavaliers also couldn't use pole arms other than the lance, but in 1e almost no one ever used them anyway (they provided no real benefit, and were pretty much inferor to choices like the longsword).

 

[Raven Crowking]

The assumption was generally that the systems that were given for character generation were all fair and would all work. No one worked out the probailities until we started doing computer simulations crunching the numbers, but that was later, when 1e was pretty much heading for the out door.

IME, they did. In your experience, perhaps not. But, then again, the people are the only difference (assuming we were using the same books!), so I propose that the problems you encountered were related to the people you played with.

The cavalier code was not the paladin's code. And I haven't been talking about the currently emasculated code, so you must have me confused with someone who thinks that.

No. The cavalier code was more restrictive than the current paladin code. As the less restrictive code still gets a lot of discussion about how restrictive it is, it seems reasonable to believe that the older code was also restrictive. Moreover, that was my experience in 5 states with hundreds of players. Finally, its purpose was to be restrictive.

Whether or not you personally found it restrictive is another matter. Again, the people are the only difference (assuming we were using the same books!), so I propose that the problems you encountered were related to the people you played with.

And the material from UA was explicitly billed as "stuff from Dragon and other sources that has been tested, and made good."

And I didn't have any problems with them, despite using the rules in 5 states with hundreds of players. Again, the people are the only difference (assuming we were using the same books!), so I propose that the problems you encountered were related to the people you played with.


RC

 

[Shadeydm]

I ran several long term ADnD adventures and never had any problems with multiclass characters outshining single class in fact things usually worked out quite the opposite.

All this stuff about stats generated by alternate methods are silly you are assuming the use of non standard methods of ability score generation that I can't imagine a DM actually allowing.

All this talk of certain ADnD classes bring more powerful than others please allow me to refer you to the 3.XE Druid and Cleric.

When the single class wizard learns Fireball and Lighting Bolt the Multiclass is still stuck with 2nd levels spells. When the single class cleric is casting Heal the multiclass might have cure critical wounds. Which would you rather have in your party??

Meanwhile the 3.XE rogue can dip a level into barbarian and get an extra 10' movement (great for tumbling spring attacking etc) and the ability to rage. He can dipevels into ranger and get TWF fav enemy, tracking etc. There are many such choices which clearly benefit the3 rogue character refer to the CO board for details. Dipping = rewarded in 3.xE.

Does 3.XE dictate a certain style of play no...does it reward it hells ya!

 

[VirgilCaine]

Meanwhile the 3.XE rogue can dip a level into barbarian and get an extra 10' movement (great for tumbling spring attacking etc) and the ability to rage. He can dipevels into ranger and get TWF fav enemy, tracking etc. There are many such choices which clearly benefit the3 rogue character refer to the CO board for details. Dipping = rewarded in 3.xE.

Does 3.XE dictate a certain style of play no...does it reward it hells ya!

Rogue 9/ Barbarian 1 or Rogue 9/Ranger 1 vs. Rogue 10:
Rogue 10 gets their first special ability at 10th level, multiclass rogue is taking a 20% experience hit, unless you are human, halfling, half-orc, or half-elf.

 

[Shadeydm]

Rogue 9/ Barbarian 1 or Rogue 9/Ranger 1 vs. Rogue 10:
Rogue 10 gets their first special ability at 10th level, multiclass rogue is taking a 20% experience hit, unless you are human, halfling, half-orc, or half-elf.

Over 20 levels those are marginal at best and of course this is a human skill bonuses bonus feat etc. Don't forget the bab boosts for those levels.