Evolving editions?

[Jhaelen]

Each piece builds upon the other, so modifying one thing can have unintended consequences.

Exactly. I used to houserule the hell out of 1e and 2e and it was easy to do without having to grasp the entire system.

In 3e I only felt comfortable to slowly introduce houserules after I'd played the system for about two years. Only after that time I was confident I'd be able to properly gauge the effect of the changes I made.

 

[am181d]

Exactly. I used to houserule the hell out of 1e and 2e and it was easy to do without having to grasp the entire system.

In 3e I only felt comfortable to slowly introduce houserules after I'd played the system for about two years. Only after that time I was confident I'd be able to properly gauge the effect of the changes I made.

Can you give any examples? I also don't remember having any apprehension about tinkering with 3.x rules.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Only if you deliberately try to break it, or make a really egregious (and thus usually easily spotable in the theoretical) mistake.

OTOH, there seems to be evidence that even the original designers didn't spot the implications of all the rules changes they made. Or is it your contention that CoDZilla, caster supremacy, and the class tiers are a) non-issues or b) intended?

 

[Desdichado]

My contention is that they were intentional to some extent (i.e., a recognition that the CoDs needed to be more powerful to appeal to players, who generally had avoided them in the past--a stated design goal from back in the early 3e days, IIRC, combined with a possibly more subconscious favoritism towards casters in general) but that they were largely the result of bad design.

Again; bad design of a class is not indicative of difficulty in houseruling the system. I said as much earlier to (P)SH--I fail to see how that's a relevent point about how difficult the system is to houserule. If anything, it's a strong argument for why it needs to be houseruled. As well as motivation and incentive to do so.

 

[GreyICE]

I always found 3E hard to positively house rule as well. Let me be clear here, I'm not talking things like "adding a sanity system." That's not particularly hard, you tack an extra system onto things, and let it influence with +2/-2 modifiers, let other things influence it... all quite simple.

I'm talking about things like "fixing the monk." The monk is not really a class, I get this. But... how do I go about fixing it? I mean certainly I can bump his 'once per day/week' skills up to more frequent use. But which ones are balanced? Which ones are so weak that the monk really shouldn't be using them anyway? Which ones are overpowered? It's really quite hard to judge, because of the vast complexity of using many of them. What point can I take Wholeness of Body to (actually, how does wholeness of body work? Can I use it in combat? what sort of action is it?). Can I let the Monk use Abundant Step 5 times per day? How do I go about fixing Flurry of Blows and the 3/4 BAB so that it results in a viable character that isn't overpowered at some level?

At the end of the day, rather than try and solve these problems, I found it easier just to chop entire sections out of the rulebook. "You want to play a Monk? Go play an unarmed swordsage. Problem solved!"

I'm not sure it's so much complexity as an utter lack of transparency in what the system was trying to accomplish.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Again; bad design of a class is not indicative of difficulty in houseruling the system. I said as much earlier to (P)SH--I fail to see how that's a relevent point about how difficult the system is to houserule. If anything, it's a strong argument for why it needs to be houseruled. As well as motivation and incentive to do so.

Well, how are we defining 'difficulty'? It's less effort to rebuild a 3E class than a 4E class, for example, but it's more challenging to make sure that it doesn't throw anything terribly off balance. 3E is a tremendously expandable system due to its vast amount of material, basic resolution mechanism and ability to set an option's complexity at numerous levels. However, its lack of transparency and extensive chains of dependency and interaction mean that changes or additions can easily have unforeseen consequences.

In addition, designers and gamers can be wrong at first glance. Not only do we have caster supremacy and the like, but remember all the hullaboo about how monks, mystic theurges and warlocks were overpowered?

 

[GreyICE]

Wait, what, people thought monks were overpowered?

Monks are so bad that they might beat out certain NPC classes for "worst waste of paper ever."

They're radioactive!

 

[M.L. Martin]

Wait, what, people thought monks were overpowered?

Monks are so bad that they might beat out certain NPC classes for "worst waste of paper ever."

They're radioactive!

It was a concern at the Dawn of Time (2000).

 

[Desdichado]

Well, how are we defining 'difficulty'? It's less effort to rebuild a 3E class than a 4E class, for example, but it's more challenging to make sure that it doesn't throw anything terribly off balance. 3E is a tremendously expandable system due to its vast amount of material, basic resolution mechanism and ability to set an option's complexity at numerous levels. However, its lack of transparency and extensive chains of dependency and interaction mean that changes or additions can easily have unforeseen consequences.

And saying that there are things like chains of dependency and interactions doesn't make it so either. I still haven't seen a single example of one. Every time I ask, I just get pointed to bad rules that already exist. I don't see how that's supposed to demonstrate any inherent difficulty in creating houserules.

If that's evidence of a system that's difficult to houserule, then 2e with skills and powers must have been the most difficult D&D system to houserule that ever existed. Or maybe 1e with UA.

In addition, designers and gamers can be wrong at first glance. Not only do we have caster supremacy and the like, but remember all the hullaboo about how monks, mystic theurges and warlocks were overpowered?

No. I remember a lot of hullabaloo about the monk being underpowered, though.

Honestly, most of the complaints about the monk are flavor complaints more than actual mechanics complaints anyway, though.

 

[GreyICE]

It was a concern at the Dawn of Time (2000).

I trust you, but Monks overpowered in 3.0, while Wizards and Druids didn't receive comment...

I suppose we've gotten a lot better at evaluating good options versus bad.