I Have A Problem With 3E

[MoogleEmpMog]

I think it's safe to say that if any one of your proposed changes (aside, perhaps, from Power Attack) were made, I would never play another game of D&D anything close to by the book again.

 

[Psion]

Well if I see a rock fall on someone and kill them, I believe I'm right in assuming it's a bad thing, right?

Nightfall,
I have no clue on what you are trying to say here. While having a rock fall on you is not a good thing, there must be a meaningful correlation for this to stand as an example... and I am not seeing it.

I'm just saying dice rolling doesn't always work out the way people want or expect.

You are right. I expect characters built by point buy to be repetitive, bland pattern characters. I'd rather have what I don't expect in this situation.

The problem of weak characters can be managed in other ways, so I consider your so-called "substantive proof" to exhibit a false dichotomy. If I understand the point you are trying to make (which I am not sure I do.)

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

You are right. I expect characters built by point buy to be repetitive, bland pattern characters. I'd rather have what I don't expect in this situation.

The problem of weak characters can be managed in other ways, so I consider your so-called "substantive proof" to exhibit a false dichotomy. If I understand the point you are trying to make (which I am not sure I do.)

Rolling creates the same characters, just potentially more powerful. Its not like anyone's going to put their 9 they rolled into strength for their fighter. You have your dump stats where you put your low rolls, and your prime stats where you put your better ones.

 

[Psion]

Rolling creates the same characters, just potentially more powerful. Its not like anyone's going to put their 9 they rolled into strength for their fighter. You have your dump stats where you put your low rolls, and your prime stats where you put your better ones.

In the sorts of roll systems I would favor, you wouldn't.

You are operating under the assumption I'm espousing the classic "4d6 keep 3, arrange to taste" thing. I'm not, necessarily.

I'm currently leaning towards either the grid variant, which has been discussed here, or some sort of "allocate your dice, THEN roll" scheme.

 

[Greg K]

1. Multiclassing
OK, first off, you should really start viewing multiclassing not as starting a new career, but players building custom classes for their characters with the tools available to them. Player A isn't a fighter/ranger, he's a militant woodsman scout, a ranger who is more focused on martial arts than the norm.

See, I disagree. There is already a suggestion in the PHB for handling this-customizing the character through class variants. The authors even provide an example of tailorng the fighter to be a former Thieve's guild enforcer. I don't see how the militant woodsmen be much different. Use the thug example as a starting point, but make the additional skills wilderness related or perhaps use the ranger that receives a bonus feat instead of a new spell level.

 

[Psion]

See, I disagree. There is already a suggestion in the PHB for handling this-customizing the character through class variants. The authors even provide an example of tailorng the fighter to be a former Thieve's guild enforcer.

I'm with AaronL on this one. Though customizing is a useful tool, I would consider it only after the existing tools have failed.

 

[Greg K]

I'm with AaronL on this one. Though customizing is a useful tool, I would consider it only after the existing tools have failed.

Whereas, I would only consider multiclassing after the other existing tools have failed

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

1. Multiclassing
I'm at a loss to see why this is a problem. If it's YOUR character then... don't multiclass. If it's not your character then it's NOT YOUR CHARACTER, and hence it's NOT YOUR PROBLEM and as a DM it is not your choice to make. Let players develop their own characters.

2. Free Metamagic
Can't really address this one. I can tell you that metamagic didn't do anything for me right from the outset. Apparantly it never did much for my players either. The result is that neither side ever uses it.

3. Synergy
Core Rules only.

Potential Solution: Allow each player access to one sourcebook ONLY outside of the three core rulebooks. This prevents most forms of synergy. Of course it reduces player options so it is not an ideal solution.

People really need to get over this idea that inhibiting player options is some form of sacrilege. Players options are not RIGHTS.

4. Two-Handed Weapons
This is not a problem with rules, it is a problem with players who no longer look beyond rules - players who are obsessed with maximizing their lethality index as being the ONLY TRUE PATH to fun and interesting characters. Thankfully it is a problem I do not have with players. They have their characters take the weapon attack styles that they feel fit the character, not what calculations show yields the highest DPR.

5. Balancing Per Encounter Instead of Per Day
If I understand your complaint here you are simply misreading the DMG which does NOT dictate encounter design that conforms to the PC's capabilities. It says the very opposite - that a variety of encounters both easier and harder (including encounters capable of killing one or more PC's) should be your goal, NOT conformity to the PC's level with each encounter.

Individual encounter design, as well as ongoing patterns of encounters in a campaign IS NOT SCIENCE. It's art. We don't have plug-and-play formulae here, though people seem to want to use it that way. All we have are tools that enable a better ability to scale encounters where we want them and be able to rely more on consistent outcomes - but that doesn't mean that every encounter is intended to be one of EL=party level. That is simply the baseline reference. Not only must it still be adjusted for a suitable variety of encounters for the very SAKE of variety, it must be adjusted for the play styles and individual capabilities of the players and PC's present which will not conform to simple formulae.

6. Neverending Buffs
No argument from me here. This is a part of the 3E game that invites a deserved, but unwanted comparison to video games. The only solution as I see it is, as you suggest to make them less desirable options due to short duration, or higher costs.
"Forget situational spells. Just memorize the ones that keep you perpetually powered-up!" That's bland.Indeed. Not just bland, I think it actively works to blunt the exercise of creativity and imagination.

7. Combat Expertise and Power Attack
Methinks you're overthinking the math again. If you're that focused on maximum mathematical benefits and not enjoying it then you simply need to refocus on the other non-mathematical aspects of play. As you say, house rule it as a standard adjustment and move on. If you're not the DM then just limit the options to yourself. All it requires is the desire to do so.

8. Point Buy

As if we needed more excuses for players to focus on character creation as opposed to actually playing the game. The world isn't that fair. I don't know why we would expect our characters to be "equal" either (as if that ideal were even possible). Besides, it ruins the excitement of rolling up a really nice set of scores.
Potential Solution: Roll ability scores.

This, of course, is a pet peeve of mine. I like rolling as well as removing a certain amount of free-placement in scores from players to eliminate clone characters and foster creativity. Use the method that works for you or that you simply like over others - but don't try to tell me that it's really doing anything meaningful in the way of establishing "fairness". The notion that NOBODY must EVER have advantages over anyone else is chronically CHILDISH. Even if you're a child there comes a time when you need to start to learn that. The sheer complexity of the game at every point prevents all but the most vague capabilities of establishing equanimity. To suggest that point-buy is a SOLUTION to that is delusional.

9. Rerolls
? I can only assume this is coming from the use of supplementary material that I don't use or don't even have. Again, Core Rules. If anyone complains that they can't enjoy the game if they are limited to Core Rules then they need their attitude adjusted. JMHO.

10. Magic Item Creation

It costs XP to make magic items. So my character unlearns things for succeeding at a task. How on earth does that make sense?
Potential Solution: Just drop the XP cost for magic item creation. It already costs your character a feat. Or make the creation of magic items difficult by requiring rare components that must be quested for.

Or here's an even better solution that I just thought of! Give item-creation characters a set amount of "Item Creation Points" to spend every level that increases relative to the XP amounts for that character level. Characters then do not "unlearn" XP, but are still similarly limited in how many/how powerful magic items they can create. Add in the ability to recoup points for periods of inactivity so that spellcasters (especially NPC's) could consistently create certain items to be able to earn a living at it or maintain consumable magic supplies for an organization.

If someone doesn't develop details for that then I certainly will do so for future campaigns.

 

[Aaron L]

Rolling creates the same characters, just potentially more powerful. Its not like anyone's going to put their 9 they rolled into strength for their fighter. You have your dump stats where you put your low rolls, and your prime stats where you put your better ones.

Point buy tends to give everyone the same stats, merely placed in a different order.

Which is fine if that's what you want. But it is repetitive. I just let players pick their own stats.

See, I disagree. There is already a suggestion in the PHB for handling this-customizing the character through class variants. The authors even provide an example of tailorng the fighter to be a former Thieve's guild enforcer. I don't see how the militant woodsmen be much different. Use the thug example as a starting point, but make the additional skills wilderness related or perhaps use the ranger that receives a bonus feat instead of a new spell level.

Disassembling and reassembling classes and trying to keep it balanced is a lot harder to do than simply multiclassing. For example. I would never consider a feat to be worth an entire level of spells.

 

[Greg K]

1. Multiclassing
I'm at a loss to see why this is a problem. If it's YOUR character then... don't multiclass. If it's not your character then it's NOT YOUR CHARACTER, and hence it's NOT YOUR PROBLEM and as a DM it is not your choice to make. Let players develop their own characters..

Wrong. As the DM it is part of my job to enforce the verisimilitude of the campaign. If I am using the optional training rules (or a variant thereof), I can deny you the multiclassing of your character if you don't have access to a trainer. I can also deny your access to a PrC if your character is unaware of the PrC, cannot find some person or organization to train them, or fails to secure training from said person or organization- let alone if the PrC does not exist in the world.
If it takes months or years of training (formal or informal) in my campaign setting to reach level 1 in a particuliar class, I want some method to represent that in game. It makes no sense that the PCs that started off at first level in a class had undergone months or years of training, but, after play starts, some other character can just instantly become level 1 in a new class.