Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 4867045" data-attributes="member: 58197">Exactly. I think the change MM is talking about is that 3E has &quot;encapsulated&quot; actions - you're frozen in time until the start of your turn, then you take a turn's worth of actions in a world of statues, then you go back to being a statue yourself and the next guy animates. Certain actions you take can animate the guy next to you long enough for him to make an opportunity attack, but you have control over that and can plan for it.Pre-3E, initiative worked rather differently. As I recall, everybody declared what they were going to do, rolled initiative (every round!), then did it in initiative order. A caster who rolled poorly on initiative could be attacked by a monster with a better initiative roll, and if the monster rushed over and whacked the caster, the spell would fizzle without so much as a Concentration check.I certainly would never advocate a return to the old system. The new one is far smoother and less cumbersome. But it did have a drastic effect on the balance between people whose actions could be disrupted and people whose actions couldn't be.If they were playing it smart, they more than pulled their own weight. Save-or-die spells exist even at level 1. See sleep and color spray.I came in via fantasy fiction, but I take the &quot;balance&quot; side and always have. Level is an arbitrary designation. There's no reason why the uber-powerful wizard of fantasy fiction has to be the same level as the fighters trying to stop him, and without that restriction, the whole comparison breaks down.IMO, level should be a measure of character power. A character who is uber-powerful, for any reason, should be higher level. If you want a world with uber-powerful wizards but no comparably powerful fighters, then put a cap on the level the fighter can attain.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 4867045, member: 58197"] Exactly. I think the change MM is talking about is that 3E has "encapsulated" actions - you're frozen in time until the start of your turn, then you take a turn's worth of actions in a world of statues, then you go back to being a statue yourself and the next guy animates. Certain actions you take can animate the guy next to you long enough for him to make an opportunity attack, but you have control over that and can plan for it. Pre-3E, initiative worked rather differently. As I recall, everybody declared what they were going to do, rolled initiative (every round!), then did it in initiative order. A caster who rolled poorly on initiative could be attacked by a monster with a better initiative roll, and if the monster rushed over and whacked the caster, the spell would fizzle without so much as a Concentration check. I certainly would never advocate a return to the old system. The new one is far smoother and less cumbersome. But it did have a drastic effect on the balance between people whose actions could be disrupted and people whose actions couldn't be. If they were playing it smart, they more than pulled their own weight. Save-or-die spells exist even at level 1. See [I]sleep[/I] and [I]color spray[/I]. I came in via fantasy fiction, but I take the "balance" side and always have. Level is an arbitrary designation. There's no reason why the uber-powerful wizard of fantasy fiction has to be the same level as the fighters trying to stop him, and without that restriction, the whole comparison breaks down. IMO, level should be a measure of character power. A character who is uber-powerful, for any reason, should be higher level. If you want a world with uber-powerful wizards but no comparably powerful fighters, then put a cap on the level the fighter can attain. [/QUOTE]

Verification