Has D&D become too...D&Dish?

[SSquirrel]

Again, this is false. Wizards at high levels need less xp than any other class other than rogues. At early levels wizards were tough, but, at high levels, they were bumping levels faster than just about everyone else.

Well, looking at the 1E AD&D PHB, you have Fighters needing a total of 1 million XP at the upper end of level 11 and 250k/level after. Clerics were same cost/level and 900k at the top end. Thieves topped level 12 at 660k and only needed 200k/level. Wizards level chart tops out at 3,375,000 and needs another 375k/level. So no, the mages require far more XP.

So at the top of level 18 for each of the 4 core classes we would have:

(ie 1 more XP will level them)
Wizard 3,375,000
Fighter 2,750,000
Cleric 2,650,000
Thief 1,860,000

So I dunno what PHB you were looking at, unless we're talking Basic and the n I hafta go into the next room and grab Basic thru Immortal

 

[The Shaman]

(Snipped for brevity.)

I don't think what Quasqueton has done rises to the level of "analysis."

Comparing two things that can't be compared directly, then drawing conclusions without addressing either this inherent incompatability or certain critical differences in the underlying assumptions of each system, may serve to obfuscate more than enlighten - in short, it gives a false sense of authority to the "results."

To be done correctly, the two systems being compared must share a common metric, and the assumptions of each system spelled out explicitly and their effects on the outcome considered. While Quasqueton has certainly made a yeoman's stride in that direction by collecting the numbers, the numbers left to themselves tell a misleading story.

 

[Hussar]

Check out the 2e PHB.

RC - the kill xp you got in 1e was DWARFED by the xp from treasure. You could likely remove all the kill xp from a 10th level character and lose maybe 1 level if you played modules exclusively.

The comparison is specious.

As far as the latin complaint about limitations to paladins, well, can someone please explain to me how it can be a limitation on a character class if no one can approach that limit?

The no three rangers bit is similar, but not quite the same. Sure, the assumption isn't that there are three of every other class first. However, classes and treasure found are not the same thing. The limitation was a flavour issue because rangers were supposed to act independently.

I would point out that this limitation was removed in 2e when the flavour of the class was changed.

However, the 10 items limit for paladins was kept because it was a mechanical limitation on a class which was a fair bit more powerful than the other classes. The assumption has to be that other PC's would have more than 10 items. If no one does, then the limit has no meaning.

 

[Particle_Man]

re: the 10 item limit on paladins -- note that it was, specifically, 1 magic armor, 1 magic shield, 4 magic weapons, 4 other magic items (even potions count). This means that the limitation might come up even if one doesn't "max out" at 10 items.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Check out the 2e PHB.

RC - the kill xp you got in 1e was DWARFED by the xp from treasure. You could likely remove all the kill xp from a 10th level character and lose maybe 1 level if you played modules exclusively.

The comparison is specious.

Hussar, how conversant are you with 1st Edition? I mean, do you have the books before you? If we assume that one is playing the RAW in either 1e or 3e, wouldn't knowledge of the RAW be necessary for any clear analysis?

IME, XP for gp value was the most often ignored rule in the game -- even more than weapon bonus vs armor type -- but we shouldn't assume that mine was an average game. What we should assume is that the balance of treasure required work to locate, work to identify as treasure, and work to turn into gp (which is when it would become XP per RAW). This work was not to be done by a Seach Check followed by an Appraise Check, but by the players' own wits.

Again, my group recently went through the caves in Keep on the Borderland updated to 3e. Even with their Search and Appraise checks, they got about 10-15% of the available treasure and completely failed to recognize any magic weapon as such. The only thing that "pinged" magic to them was a shield used as a tray. The catnip actually interested them far more than the gold.

This is in a low-money, low-magic campaign world where they could use that stuff. Not surprisingly, this group had roughly the same reactions to the Caves as the groups I ran through the original module Lo these many years ago.

As far as the latin complaint about limitations to paladins, well, can someone please explain to me how it can be a limitation on a character class if no one can approach that limit?

Don't forget that the limit is far more specific than 10 items. It tells you exactly what those items can be. There is no "golf bag of magic swords" for the 1e paladin. That poor soul could easily be thwarted on magic items well before reaching 10. Ten items is the cumulative effect of a lot of lower prohibitiions. Again, read the text.

Therefore, the following bit of reasoning

However, the 10 items limit for paladins was kept because it was a mechanical limitation on a class which was a fair bit more powerful than the other classes. The assumption has to be that other PC's would have more than 10 items. If no one does, then the limit has no meaning.​

fails because it fails to take into account what the limitation in the rules actually is.

 

[Hussar]

Four magic weapons isn't a golf bag? True, you could hit the magic limit in one area before another. But, again, let's take weapons. That's TWENTY FOUR magic weapons in the party before the limit is hit (assuming a 6 man party).

As far as what rules were chucked and kept, well, I thought we were discussing RAW. Comparisons of campaign x vs campaign y are pretty pointless.

For example, finding magic weapons. Magic weapons glowed. Not tricky to find. They may not have in your campaign, but, by RAW, they did. If your guys only found 15-20% of the equipment, I would wonder about your players and if you are using the 200ish page book of house rules you have touted before. You have also mentioned before that you force players to specify exactly what they are doing when they search and "I search the room" is not good enough.

My lot finishes off an area, piles everything that isn't nailed down into one room and whacks it with a detect magic. They don't miss much.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Four magic weapons isn't a golf bag? True, you could hit the magic limit in one area before another. But, again, let's take weapons. That's TWENTY FOUR magic weapons in the party before the limit is hit (assuming a 6 man party).

Nah. The magic user might not have a magic weapon...he's hardly a melee guy. The cleric wants to wade in melee, but per RAW most magic weapons are swords, so he's out of luck. Magic weapons gravitate toward certain character types. That doesn't mean that everyone in the party has one.

And that hard limit for paladins doesn't just mean that they cannot use 5 magic weapons at once. It means they cannot carry 5 magic weapons. They are not allowed to even bring back their enemies magic bling to sell.

And that fifth potion? To bad, so sad.

For example, finding magic weapons. Magic weapons glowed. Not tricky to find. They may not have in your campaign, but, by RAW, they did.

And yet, also by RAW, they might not have appeared magical until unsheathed. Moreover, by RAW, they did not have to glow at all.

If your guys only found 15-20% of the equipment, I would wonder about your players

Are we getting personal now?

and if you are using the 200ish page book of house rules you have touted before. You have also mentioned before that you force players to specify exactly what they are doing when they search and "I search the room" is not good enough.

That book of house rules is, at the moment, rewritten races, rewritten classes, clarifications on skills and additional skills (psychic and weapon skills), feats, alignment, personality, & description. For example, in those house rules elves are very different than in standard D&D -- they are fey, have a court and host, etc. Nothing that exactly prevents you from finding treasure.

"That battle with those orcs was tough! Let's go somewhere and rest up for a couple of days" OTOH, does lead to "Hey, where did those orcs go? And they took all their stuff?!?" Natural consequences for action or inaction.

You are correct in saying that I give (potentially massive) bonuses to Search checks based upon description of where you search. A thing hidden inside the fireplace is easier to find when searching the fireplace than simply the room, and easier still if you look inside the fireplace. If there's something hidden beneath a pillow, no roll is low enough to miss it if you state specifically that you are looking below the pillow. I also modify social skill checks based on what you actually say, so you might get a big bonus to your Diplomacy check if you make a reasonable offer.

D&D should challenge both the player and the character.

When you examine the 3.X combat system, it is apparent that the player is intended to make many tactical decisions that the character was previously expected to make. In other words, the combat system is designed to challenge the player as much as the character. There's nothing wrong with that. Thinking, however, that the previous editions challenged the player and the new edition does not, however, is simply wrong. All that has changed is where that challenge occurs (combat and character creation)....and with it a stronger focus on exactly those areas.

My lot finishes off an area, piles everything that isn't nailed down into one room and whacks it with a detect magic. They don't miss much.

I guess you don't use all the RAW yourself:

You detect magical auras. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.

1st Round: Presence or absence of magical auras.

2nd Round: Number of different magical auras and the power of the most potent aura.

3rd Round: The strength and location of each aura. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Spellcraft skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura; DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + half caster level for a nonspell effect.)

Magical areas, multiple types of magic, or strong local magical emanations may distort or conceal weaker auras.​

Per RAW, you should first detect that there is, indeed, magic in that pile. However, because it is in that pile "In that pile" is probably the most you'd get from detect magic. The stronger items would "ping" easily enough, but anything under other stuff could well be out of line of sight, and the weaker items are probably distorted or concealed. And lets not forget that, per RAW, some things that were magical but are magical no longer might still seem to be dimly magical.

Your group doesn't miss much because you are generous. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but I'm not so generous.

RC

 

[Hussar]

Well, no, because, by RAW, after the third round you get the "strength and location" of each item. Pretty simple to move the pile around and triangulate.

Or, instead of pile, simply lay everything out in a single layer (which is actually what my bunch do - sorry, I wasn't precise enough in my description, my bad all things considered) and you no longer have to worry about the DM trying to screw you over.

But, like the other thread, I'm just tired of people looking at both versions of the game through some very nostalgia colored glasses. No, not all 1e games were "low magic" and, if you ran modules, there were bloody bags of magic lying around. The idea that there has been this fundamental shift in the game is not due to anything other than the recognition in the rules of things that were always true but ignored by many DM's.

 

[The Shaman]

D&D should challenge both the player and the character.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Or, instead of pile, simply lay everything out in a single layer (which is actually what my bunch do - sorry, I wasn't precise enough in my description, my bad all things considered) and you no longer have to worry about the DM trying to screw you over.

Natural consequence of action is not "the DM trying to screw you over." I've had lots of players use the single layer tactic described above successfully....but they could only then detect what was in the layer. It didn't make the things they failed to take detectable. And, IME, players (myself included when a player) fail to take the darndest things.

As a DM, I never say what was missed. I always assume that they, or another group, will go back to the same area one day. I used to run this huge homebrewed dungeon beneath a city (the Dungeon of Thale, 25 levels, 6 sub-levels, an average of over 200 rooms per level, containing towns and cities within it) for several groups. It was a lot of fun. I imagine that your WLD setup must be similarly fun. One of the things I did was include the caches of a lot of NPC adventurers...just extra equipment they had stashed in the dungeon, or treasure that they didn't want taxed.

(Eventually, PCs could discover a way in and out of the dungeon through the sewers, some buildings, etc., and avoid the taxes.)

But, like the other thread, I'm just tired of people looking at both versions of the game through some very nostalgia colored glasses.

It is not nostalgia to say that 1e was more flexible in terms of what sort of campaign you wanted to run. It is not nostalgia to say that running the gamut of 1-20 levels was not what 1e was about. It is not nostalgia to say that statting out opponents in 3e takes longer than in 1e, or that 3e combats take longer than 1e combats to run.

No one said (to my knowledge) that all 1e games were low magic. However, in 1e you could easily make that choice, and no one tried to imply that the game would implode. In reality, 3e is more flexible than 1e (trying to run a mundane people in fantasy world game ala Lewis, DeLint, Burroughs, or numerous other authors just didn't work in 1e IME and IMHO), but all too often players of 3e seem to buy into this mindset that any change will destroy the game.

That's a paradigm shift, and a bad one.

That things could be possible in the rules "but ignored by many DM's" is a good thing. If something was ignored by most DMs, there was probably a good reason.

RC