Flavorless 3e- Advantage- players

[jasamcarl]

Wow...condescending 101....

Not once did I ever advocate having players slog it through the mud all the time. However, it is fun to use such things as a character or story building concept.

The challenges do not really increase either. More HD and more damage, maybe, heck, better tactics too, but high level abilities in 3e tend to be about numbers alone. Describe it to your heart's content, but there is still no meaning.

However, selective use of "penalties" can make a game really meaningful. No, you do not do it ALL the time, but you can do it some of the time for cool adventure hooks.

You must have been burned in the past by "penalties." Understandable.

Alluding to a lack of GM skill in a game you've never played is highly presumtuous, or maybe it is easier to act like a jerk when you do not have to face someone.

Excuse me? If I'm to understand your point, you think the game is too easy because there are no penalties to offset the abilities the players get as they level. I'm saying the penalty is the fact that you are expected to face more powerful monsters and challenges in order to gain experience and thus level (the most objective 'win' scenario in DnDs case) in addition to the fact that, if a dm is so inclined and has a brain, the 'fluff' stakes will also rise. Let's take this from the opposite direction; assume players leveled after getting the requisite experience, but didn't get any of the benefits of that advancment (hp, bab, skill, feats, class abilities, etc). Would they survive against the monsters that they would need to fight to advance in level further? Of course not. Would the game become incredibly more difficult to the point of being unplayable? Uh huh. Would those bonuses be called for then even under your sylogism (that bonuses need to be offset). Yup. This is obvious I know, but you don't seem to be thinking it through. The larger picture of the game affords a penalty; it doesn't require another on your character sheet.

And you don't help yourself by implying that high-level is no different than low-level. I think you see the large modifiers, the larger number of abiltities, but not the qualtative difference that these imply. In other words you don't know the rules.

DnDs paradigm of increased options and abilities and changes in play dynamics over time is suppossed to imply a very obvious flavor. That of high-fantasy heroes that come from the low end and at the conclusion fights dragons to save the kingdom. That is flavor. You don't seem to have a broad enough vision to look past a spell description.

Also keep in mind i'm not commenting on your houserules, but rather your ultra-dubious assertion that the game is flavorless, when in actual play its anything but. Its a case of solid gamist design complementing genre tropes as oppossed to contradicting them.

 

[hong]

As a Gygaxian purist I used to hate this notion - PCs should be special! Even 1st level ones!
But really, 3e is so built around videogame paradigms that it suffers when those paradigms _aren't_ adhered to. In pretty much any MUD, persistent online world, or such, the NPC city guards are damn tough - they need to be or players will casually slaughter them.

I would think that a game where players kill everything they can, just because they can, is not particularly representative of most D&D games, even the "hack-n-slash" ones. A convention of most videogames is that you have friendly NPCs and non-friendly ones, and it's generally the non-friendly ones who have most attention lavished on them regarding balance.

Basically the level of NPC city guards should not be a major issue. You can scale their level to match the PCs if you want, but I really can't see a group of PCs deciding to sack a town just because you failed to do so. If anything, the videogame convention says that PCs would be more likely to treat a town like a safe location, where they can sell off loot, heal up, and do other non-combat stuff.

 

[S'mon]

I would think that a game where players kill everything they can, just because they can, is not particularly representative of most D&D games, even the "hack-n-slash" ones. A convention of most videogames is that you have friendly NPCs and non-friendly ones, and it's generally the non-friendly ones who have most attention lavished on them regarding balance.

Basically the level of NPC city guards should not be a major issue. You can scale their level to match the PCs if you want, but I really can't see a group of PCs deciding to sack a town just because you failed to do so. If anything, the videogame convention says that PCs would be more likely to treat a town like a safe location, where they can sell off loot, heal up, and do other non-combat stuff.

I was thinking more that the situation in MUDs with a wide variety of characters of many different power levels wandering around parrallels the typical 3e world, the difference being that in the tabletop game most of those are NPCs not PCs. It only takes one mid-level evil-MUD-player or evil NPC party to slaughter dozens of 1st level Warriors, making the level distribution Monte presents highly unstable. And I was thinking about 'low fantasy' settings, where the PCs or evil NPCs might tangle with Old Bob the veteran guardsman rather than the 500 Death Commandoes of Thrall. If Old Bob is 1st level he'll die at the first pinprick; if he's 5th level he can be a figure of some awe to 1st level PCs and still respected as they get to 8th or 9th.

 

[S'mon]

You can scale their level to match the PCs if you want, but I really can't see a group of PCs deciding to sack a town just because you failed to do so.

Well, this has happened to me plenty of times, the worst excesses though were back in 1e (1986 or thereabouts) - that rule that Fighters can attack as many times/round as they have Levels when fighting level-0 NPCs has a lot to answer for.

 

[Belen]

If I had a reason to contest the Taint option, it would mostly be because it's so nebulous. As written, it's not clear how it works. Does it affect all necromancy spells? That would make Death Ward a real problem, and that's a very necessary spell at higher levels. Spells like Slay Living (one of the few cleric direct offensive spells) and Finger of Death (a wizard/sorc staple).

You've basically put an opportunity cost on a lot of the cleric's offensive spells, which he has few of, and introduced a whole bunch of odd effects with things like Gentle Repose, Astral Projection and other spells that now taint you. While at the same time, summoning things like a shadow doesn't appear to give you any taint at all, which is a little odd, too.

Perhaps some clarification might make it easier. both of the changes, while interesting, certainly seem to penalize the spellcasters and reward the melee characters. This may be why they're giving you some resistance.

The changes themselves seem fine.

I didn't notice if you mentioned...are these mid-campaign or at the start?

The Taint rule is really supposed to affect those people constantly using negative energy, not spells with the necromancy descriptor, just those that rely on negative energy and only if the use of them is excessive.

Haven't started the game yet. The campaign does not begin until May or June.

 

[hong]

I was thinking more that the situation in MUDs with a wide variety of characters of many different power levels wandering around parrallels the typical 3e world, the difference being that in the tabletop game most of those are NPCs not PCs. It only takes one mid-level evil-MUD-player or evil NPC party to slaughter dozens of 1st level Warriors, making the level distribution Monte presents highly unstable. And I was thinking about 'low fantasy' settings, where the PCs or evil NPCs might tangle with Old Bob the veteran guardsman rather than the 500 Death Commandoes of Thrall. If Old Bob is 1st level he'll die at the first pinprick; if he's 5th level he can be a figure of some awe to 1st level PCs and still respected as they get to 8th or 9th.

Oh, well, MUDs (and MMORPGs like Everquest) are a beast of their own. You have balance problems in MMOGs that don't really arise to the same extent with single-player, or with a small group Eg the evil-MUD-player is a significant problem that has to be dealt with within the rules framework if you're talking about a MMOG, but if you're only talking about an individual DM and their players, then it's much more straightforward to handle things outside the game. If someone is messing around and spoiling the game for the others, then you talk to them and tell them to straighten out their act. This isn't really a viable option with a player base of thousands, but it is viable for a group of 4-6 gamers.

Of course, from the world-building consistency point of view, things are still going to be screwy. But then, D&D is hardly the best ruleset if you want world-building consistency anyway.

 

[hong]

Well, this has happened to me plenty of times, the worst excesses though were back in 1e (1986 or thereabouts) - that rule that Fighters can attack as many times/round as they have Levels when fighting level-0 NPCs has a lot to answer for.

Heh, fair enough. One thing I've learned is to DM only for people who I know I can trust. Doing otherwise just risks heartburn.

 

[ElerethBerantor]

In general, 3e have little real consequences. Almost everything is quickly cured or healed. The players can do almost anything and the consequences are quickly solved. It's like a video game. Poisioned for 6 seconds, then fine etc.

You've got to be kidding. Sure, if you have a good cleric or something in your party, you can heal most mundane wounds, but if you're having problems with this, throw things against them that do a bit of vile damage or something.

Diseases or curses are not always easy either, especially magical diseases--mummy rot nearly killed 2 characters int he 5-person party I DM for because they were quite a long ways away from any city where they could buy a remove curse spell.

Keep in mind that as the DM it is your job to make it challenging for the players. If it's too easy, sorry, but that's you fault.

Here's a few ideas on how to make it more challenging for them:
--Curative potions are rarer/cost more. Or maybe just make rather limited supplies at any given time.
--Many enemies do some vile damage, or have poisons or cause diseases. Remember that just because you cure a poison doesn't mean you've cured the ability score damage. I highly doubt any cleric will appreciate constant castings of Resoration or Greater Restoration due to the XP cost--most of the time they will just have to let the ability damage heal naturally.

 

[Belen]

Excuse me? If I'm to understand your point, you think the game is too easy because there are no penalties to offset the abilities the players get as they level. I'm saying the penalty is the fact that you are expected to face more powerful monsters and challenges in order to gain experience and thus level (the most objective 'win' scenario in DnDs case) in addition to the fact that, if a dm is so inclined and has a brain, the 'fluff' stakes will also rise. Let's take this from the opposite direction; assume players leveled after getting the requisite experience, but didn't get any of the benefits of that advancment (hp, bab, skill, feats, class abilities, etc). Would they survive against the monsters that they would need to fight to advance in level further? Of course not. Would the game become incredibly more difficult to the point of being unplayable? Uh huh. Would those bonuses be called for then even under your sylogism (that bonuses need to be offset). Yup. This is obvious I know, but you don't seem to be thinking it through. The larger picture of the game affords a penalty; it doesn't require another on your character sheet.

And you don't help yourself by implying that high-level is no different than low-level. I think you see the large modifiers, the larger number of abiltities, but not the qualtative difference that these imply. In other words you don't know the rules.

DnDs paradigm of increased options and abilities and changes in play dynamics over time is suppossed to imply a very obvious flavor. That of high-fantasy heroes that come from the low end and at the conclusion fights dragons to save the kingdom. That is flavor. You don't seem to have a broad enough vision to look past a spell description.

Also keep in mind i'm not commenting on your houserules, but rather your ultra-dubious assertion that the game is flavorless, when in actual play its anything but. Its a case of solid gamist design complementing genre tropes as oppossed to contradicting them.

In fact, I know the rules quite well. It is my players who feel that high level play has no meaning. They have ranted about how easy it is to come back to life and how combat is not fun at high levels because no fear exists.

The fact that the would rather fight than do some of the RP that high level brings is probably a factor in their belief that high level is no fun, but I also believe that it comes, in part, from the rules.

Heroic play is fine, and a lot of fun. But, without fear, then a lot of the meaning of high level play is lost. The threat of losing the character just isn't there.

Your problem is that you're arguing for balanced combat. It's the video game mentality that combat is the entire purpose of the game. For you, it is "solid gamist design."

I am arguing for rules that support story components outside of combat. Fire and Forget Vancian magic supports combat and that has only gotten worse with 3.5.

In any event, I have not been arguing mechanics. In fact, I referenced a second edition effect of a spell and how I thought that it was a cool RP effect, and you have decided that "I do not know the rules." Advocating random penalties for RP reason will sure destroy that "solid gamist design."

However, please keep the insults coming. Since you know that I obviously do not know the rules.

 

[Belen]

You've got to be kidding. Sure, if you have a good cleric or something in your party, you can heal most mundane wounds, but if you're having problems with this, throw things against them that do a bit of vile damage or something.

Diseases or curses are not always easy either, especially magical diseases--mummy rot nearly killed 2 characters int he 5-person party I DM for because they were quite a long ways away from any city where they could buy a remove curse spell.

Keep in mind that as the DM it is your job to make it challenging for the players. If it's too easy, sorry, but that's you fault.

Here's a few ideas on how to make it more challenging for them:
--Curative potions are rarer/cost more. Or maybe just make rather limited supplies at any given time.
--Many enemies do some vile damage, or have poisons or cause diseases. Remember that just because you cure a poison doesn't mean you've cured the ability score damage. I highly doubt any cleric will appreciate constant castings of Resoration or Greater Restoration due to the XP cost--most of the time they will just have to let the ability damage heal naturally.

I have not gotten to high level 3.5 play yet. We just finished a 3e campaign, so I have not had experienced with the spell changes yet.

However, ability damage and diseases failed to affect the party in my last campaign after 7th level spells came into play.