How on Earth do you have a tightly controlled D&D world with normal magic (Long)

[Lalato]

And magic in D&D is so odd because it tries to be balanced. The whole Vancian concept is just one way of trying to limit power so that it can be put into a level based game. Thus, the game generally tries to make it common place and normal, while ignoring the effects it would actually have on society.

That's why you have all these wonderful debates.

D&D 3E is all about the attempted balance. And any time you try to shove balance into a system, you are going to have a certain degree of friction. Imagine this. You are an awesome boxer, you can pretty much win any fight you want. If a man with a gun walks up to you and shoots you, you pretty much can't do anything about it. Now, 3E balances this situation by saying the guy with the gun only has six bullets, and he can only get new bullets once a day. Realistic? Perhaps not, but it does try at balance. As long as you want your 10th level wizards in contention with your 10th Fighters (to nudge the old age debate), you are going to have this skweded and odd magic balance that creates the "unlike fantasy literature" element.

If you feel the "balance" of the classes is altered by the use of magic... one of the easiest ways to make things more balanced is to throw out the XP progression tables that were introduced in 3e. By making it more difficult to advance in spell-caster levels... you'll immediately change the game to lower magic.

--sam

 

[Shalewind]

If you feel the "balance" of the classes is altered by the use of magic... one of the easiest ways to make things more balanced is to throw out the XP progression tables that were introduced in 3e. By making it more difficult to advance in spell-caster levels... you'll immediately change the game to lower magic.

This is a commonly suggested solution to the problem of high level wizards. However, it makes playing them somewhat undesirable. Another solution is to only allow 1 caster level class per two character levels, thus a 20th level character would have a max of 10 caster levels in class levels.

Both of these limit the number and power of casters in the world. Personally I'm against XP penalties. For races or classes, as I think it unbalances the concept that 10th level is 10th level.

 

[jgbrowning]

This is a commonly suggested solution to the problem of high level wizards. However, it makes playing them somewhat undesirable. Another solution is to only allow 1 caster level class per two character levels, thus a 20th level character would have a max of 10 caster levels in class levels.

Both of these limit the number and power of casters in the world. Personally I'm against XP penalties. For races or classes, as I think it unbalances the concept that 10th level is 10th level.

I think its important to remember that almost every single person is going to be multi-classed. They have to be to truly represent the multiplicity common in a society. Barons are going to have some communication skills beyond what they can get as a fighter (or they may have aristocrat ). Personally, i think most people will pick up a level in rogue and not have any skills dealing with traps/locks, and instead have people-relation skills like bluff etc.. Rogue is the most useful, non-magical, class when dealing with any situation outside of direct combat.

PC's are an abberation. Most people won't risk their lives on a daily basis. Those that do are those who take the reins of power eventually, or they die trying. I don't think you have to reduce the magic implicit in D20 to have a functioning society.

just me .002$

joe b.

 

[WizarDru]

This is a commonly suggested solution to the problem of high level wizards. However, it makes playing them somewhat undesirable. Another solution is to only allow 1 caster level class per two character levels, thus a 20th level character would have a max of 10 caster levels in class levels.

More important, to my way of thinking, is that you've now thrown out one of the best parts of 3E, consistency. You've just lessend your ease of use by segregating into multiple experience point tables. Soon, you'll be keeping five save table and BAB progressions instead of three, multiple damage die tables by class, differing ability bonuses by class and stat, and so on, and so forth. If you want that extra work, more power to you...but I love that there is consistency and simplicity at work. An 18 ability gives you a +4 bonus, regardless of stat. A +4 bonus gives you one bonus spell per level up to the 4th level, be you cleric, druid, sorceror or wizard. A +4 bonus adds to your melee, AC or hit points....consistently.

That means a lot to me.

I can understand why folks wouldn't want to mess with that particular aspect. Especially as it works out to be a poor mechanism, IMHO, towards fixing the problem. Any good solution won't penalize a class choice, IMHO.

 

[Alchemist]

More important, to my way of thinking, is that you've now thrown out one of the best parts of 3E, consistency. You've just lessend your ease of use by segregating into multiple experience point tables. Soon, you'll be keeping five save table and BAB progressions instead of three, multiple damage die tables by class, differing ability bonuses by class and stat, and so on, and so forth. If you want that extra work, more power to you...but I love that there is consistency and simplicity at work. An 18 ability gives you a +4 bonus, regardless of stat. A +4 bonus gives you one bonus spell per level up to the 4th level, be you cleric, druid, sorceror or wizard. A +4 bonus adds to your melee, AC or hit points....consistently.

That means a lot to me.

I can understand why folks wouldn't want to mess with that particular aspect. Especially as it works out to be a poor mechanism, IMHO, towards fixing the problem. Any good solution won't penalize a class choice, IMHO.

I'm a bit confused...

Are you agreeing with him about limiting casters to 1/2 of character level, or disagreeing with him?

Or disagreeing with the idea of re-instituting multiple xp tables.

I think you're agreeing with Shalewind, but I'm not certain.

I'm so very tired.

 

[AEtherfyre]

Personally, i think most people will pick up a level in rogue and not have any skills dealing with traps/locks, and instead have people-relation skills like bluff etc.. Rogue is the most useful, non-magical, class when dealing with any situation outside of direct combat.

What about Expert? 2 less skill points per level, but you get to choose your own class skills, so it might work out pretty well.

 

[jgbrowning]

What about Expert? 2 less skill points per level, but you get to choose your own class skills, so it might work out pretty well.

expert would work as well. I kinda keep them for people who specilize in non-combat oriented skills, though... that's just my personal preference.

joe b.

 

[AEtherfyre]

Yeah, I understand that. I just (mistakenly?) thought that, when you were refering to everyone multiclassing and rogue for non-combat skills, some non-combat characters would be included - and I don't see it as terribly appropriate that every alchemist, herbalist, craftsman, or merchant know just where to stick a dagger in, should they ever end up in a fight.

 

[Lalato]

Soon, you'll be keeping five save table and BAB progressions instead of three, multiple damage die tables by class, differing ability bonuses by class and stat, and so on, and so forth.

Although I understand where you're coming from... I don't see why it has to go that far. Changing the XP tables just means that it's a little harder to become a high level magic user. It doesn't mean anything else.

I don't really consider that a penalty... especially when you take into account the truly powerful aspects of being a magic user.

The "reality" is that magic is powerful stuff... it should take a lot longer to master magic than it does to master a sword.

I really don't see how that suddenly creates massive inconsitencies throughout the game. Sure... it's not as simple as one progression table for all classes, but why is it inherently inconsistent?

That's just my opinion, though... YMMV.
--sam

 

[jgbrowning]

Yeah, I understand that. I just (mistakenly?) thought that, when you were refering to everyone multiclassing and rogue for non-combat skills, some non-combat characters would be included - and I don't see it as terribly appropriate that every alchemist, herbalist, craftsman, or merchant know just where to stick a dagger in, should they ever end up in a fight.

heh.... yeah. unfortunately there isn't a class that isn't combat oriented that provides the communication skill set a rogue gets. Bards are the closest, but they require magic. So many of the rogue skills are things that almost anyone would pick up... stealth, hide, listen, spot, blah blah blah... rogue would be the perfect multi-class for NPC's were it not for the sneak attack. Sneak attacks just don't fit very well with the idea.


joe b.