Is 3rd edition too "quantitative"

[DungeonMaster]

But that wasn't the point that I was discussing. It has been alleged that any 3e character would wipe the floor with any equivalently "experienced" 1e or 2e character. I think this is simply false. Multiclassed or dual classed characters in 1e and 2e were orders of magnitude more powerful than 3e characters could ever hope to be.

Um... no. While 3E core banished the spectre of multiclass or dual classed characters 3.5 brought it back in grand style with Mystic Theurges and even loonier Unearthed Arcana gestahlts. In fact the prestige class is the single dirtiest word in gaming today, much moreso than the multiclass ever was.

I want to see a 1E or a 2E core F/MU kill a room full of titans and balors (balrogs for the old guys) as a free action.
Here's a 3.5 core rules cleric my friends:
Good domain + prayer bead of karma + spell power from hierophant + orange ioun stone + greater metamagic rod of quicken spell.
Feats: spell penetration and greater spell penetration.
Caster level for holy word +1+4+1+5 = 11 higher than his actual level.
This 19th level core 3.5 rules cleric can as a free action kill a room FULL of balors, pitfiends and titans. Poof. All dead. No save, no SR either because the caster level is 34.

 

[maddman75]

Comparing 1e/2e characters to 3e characters is irrelevent. 3e monsters are much more flexible and powerful. I know I never want to return to the days of no monster actually having a Strength score. Even if 3e characters are more powerful, so what? What does that prove? Is the game with the most powerful characters the 'cheesy, munchkin' one? In that case, why not compare 3e characters to BRP Call of Cthulhu characters to make them look even worse? Or if you like 3e compare them to Exalted characters to show how non-munchkiny they are?

AD&D was a good game for its time. But it crushed itself under the weight of its own suppliments, and without them the game wasn't flexible enough - every fighter was a clone of the others. Character differences should be quantifiable. I don't want to give an AD&D fighter a rapier and call him a swashbuckler, and have a second one ride a horse and call himself a knight. There should be real differences between the two, and one should not be crippled compared to the other.

 

[Belen]

Um... no. While 3E core banished the spectre of multiclass or dual classed characters 3.5 brought it back in grand style with Mystic Theurges and even loonier Unearthed Arcana gestahlts. In fact the prestige class is the single dirtiest word in gaming today, much moreso than the multiclass ever was.

I want to see a 1E or a 2E core F/MU kill a room full of titans and balors (balrogs for the old guys) as a free action.
Here's a 3.5 core rules cleric my friends:
Good domain + prayer bead of karma + spell power from hierophant + orange ioun stone + greater metamagic rod of quicken spell.
Feats: spell penetration and greater spell penetration.
Caster level for holy word +1+4+1+5 = 11 higher than his actual level.
This 19th level core 3.5 rules cleric can as a free action kill a room FULL of balors, pitfiends and titans. Poof. All dead. No save, no SR either because the caster level is 34.

One spell? GMs still get to say 1 free action per round.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Well, since "crunch" is a pretty strong perjorative, too, i don't see the problem.

I've never seen "crunch" used in a perjorative sense on ENworld though... it tends to be used in such a way that it suggests "substance" as compared with fluffs "lack of substance". There have been long discussions on this very issue in the past in fact.

I still think that "context" makes a better choice than "fluff". An interesting example was in the first Relics & Rituals book, where each spell had a "context" section that described how the spell was created and who used it, followed by the "crunch" section which gave the distinct rules on how it worked. The "context" is everything apart from the "crunch".

Plus there is a nice alliteration.

Regards,

 

[Storm Raven]

Um... no. While 3E core banished the spectre of multiclass or dual classed characters 3.5 brought it back in grand style with Mystic Theurges and even loonier Unearthed Arcana gestahlts. In fact the prestige class is the single dirtiest word in gaming today, much moreso than the multiclass ever was.

If you think that a Mystic Theurge is "overpowered", then you haven't bothered to try them in actual play. Actual working experience with the class destroys your entire argument on that score. And gestalt characters are (1) an entirely optional variant rule found in an entirely optional supplement, and (2) specified as being more powerful, and cautioned for use for that reason. Finally, since PrCs are all optional (and not core), whether a particular one gets into a campaign or not is entirely up to the DM.

I want to see a 1E or a 2E core F/MU kill a room full of titans and balors (balrogs for the old guys) as a free action.

There were no free actions in 1e, or 2e. So your "challenge" is ridiculous on its face.

But killing titans? Just hand the guy a hammer of thunderbolts, belt of storm giant strength, and gauntlets of ogre power, and watch them fall. And that's just a single classed fighter. A high level wizard in 1e could accomplish the same thing without much trouble, since there was no damage cap on destructive spells, and monsters had far fewer hit points, making a 19th level MU with a fireball (19d6 damage, average of 66.5, more than most titans) just about as damaging as your tricked out 3.5 cleric.

Here's a 3.5 core rules cleric my friends:
Good domain + prayer bead of karma + spell power from hierophant + orange ioun stone + greater metamagic rod of quicken spell.

Except that the heirophant is not core rules. It, like all PrCs is optional. Making your point irrelevant.

Feats: spell penetration and greater spell penetration.
Caster level for holy word +1+4+1+5 = 11 higher than his actual level.
This 19th level core 3.5 rules cleric can as a free action kill a room FULL of balors, pitfiends and titans. Poof. All dead. No save, no SR either because the caster level is 34.

As long as they are all within a 40 foot radius spread of the caster. Since titans take up a 15 foot by 15 foot area each, and have 15 feet of reach, you're not gonna be likely to get more than one or two with your spell.

And of course, none of this is relevant. The original claim was the the most basic 3e character was much more powerful than the most tricked out 1e/2e character. A claim that is patently false in the face of actual expeirence and a brief examination of the rule sets.

 

[woodelf]

I've never seen "crunch" used in a perjorative sense on ENworld though... it tends to be used in such a way that it suggests "substance" as compared with fluffs "lack of substance". There have been long discussions on this very issue in the past in fact.

Maybe not on EnWorld. I'm pretty certain the terms date back to r.g.f.misc and/or r.g.f.advocacy, and as i understood them at the time, they were both tongue-in-cheek perjoratives--like two very good friends, Jewish and Hispanic, calling each other "spic" and "kyke", respectively [no idea if i've spelled those right]. That is, both started out as derogatory terms used to denigrate the other side, and eventually both lost their overtly negative connotations and have simply become descriptive.

It's no surprise that, hanging out in a forum where most people like lots of crunch in their game books, and not lots of fluff, "fluff" would more often be used in a negative sense than "crunch" is. [To defend that one pre-emptively: As RPGs go, D&D3E's core books are particularly devoid of fluff, and have a *lot* of crunch; other D20 System RPGs are generally just as crunchy, even if they also have lots of fluff. i claim it is a reasonable generalization that most participants of EnWorld are fans of D&D3E and/or D20 System.]

 

[Plane Sailing]

The first time I remember seeing it used was in an ENworld news report of comments from a D&D designer (I forget which one), but I wouldn't be surprised if it had an earlier derivation as you suggest!

Cheers

 

[Belen]

The first time I remember seeing it used was in an ENworld news report of comments from a D&D designer (I forget which one), but I wouldn't be surprised if it had an earlier derivation as you suggest!

Cheers

Sean Reynolds wasn't it? At least, I remember something came out with the Silver Marches talking about Bean Counters etc.

 

[Storyteller01]

In addition to avoiding the WotC supplements, you should maybe give the 3rd-party stuff a chance. Some of it is quite good--in fact, i think the best of it is better than anything WotC has produced of late. You might find some stuff you really like, without limiting yourself to just the core rules. Just a thought. [/digression]

It actually gotten to the point that I only buy OGL sources. I only own WotC core 3.0 and some of the splat books. I'm at the point that I can't buy Dragon mag any more. Too many numbers, not enough fun (MMV).

Some of the exceptional OGL intro new magic or combat systems that fit well both mechanically and theatrically.

 

[DungeonMaster]

If you think that a Mystic Theurge is "overpowered", then you haven't bothered to try them in actual play.

That's a good way of reasoning - I guess I could say you've never seen a fig/mu in actual play and that destroys your entire argument as well?

Gestahlts are insane. They're 3.5 too. PrC are omnipresent.

There were no free actions in 1e, or 2e. So your "challenge" is ridiculous on its face.

You know what I mean. Do it casually, no dice rolls, like in 3.5.

But killing titans? Just hand the guy a hammer of thunderbolts, belt of storm giant strength, and gauntlets of ogre power, and watch them fall. And that's just a single classed fighter. A high level wizard in 1e could accomplish the same thing without much trouble, since there was no damage cap on destructive spells, and monsters had far fewer hit points, making a 19th level MU with a fireball (19d6 damage, average of 66.5, more than most titans) just about as damaging as your tricked out 3.5 cleric.

So if I apply the same logic as above all items are optional in 1st edition and up to the DM? Even with those items you don't kill balrogs, pitfiends, gelugons and the whole host of Type whatever devils and demons in one round without rolling a single die, no save no SR.
The 19th level MU has to contend with 60% magic resistance and is not even CLOSE to as damaging as the cleric. Try again if you really want but I'll be ultimately surprised if you can come even close to Andy Collin's uber broken holy word and the general 3.5 trend to not label caster level increase.

Except that the heirophant is not core rules. It, like all PrCs is optional. Making your point irrelevant.

Core 3.5 DMG PrC. Just like the I don't know, Eldricht Knight? that screams of fig/mu to me.

As long as they are all within a 40 foot radius spread of the caster. Since titans take up a 15 foot by 15 foot area each, and have 15 feet of reach, you're not gonna be likely to get more than one or two with your spell.

You can fit 10 easily in that radius. With a core 3.5 metamagic rod of widen spell you could get 20 or 30. You could fit an entire left wing of the Infernal armies in there. Gobs of pitfiends, gelugons, cornugons, all dead *poof* no save, no SR.
Entire 20th level parties *poof* all dead. Or merely paralyzed then coup de grace if you don't use the PrC. That's balance for you, I guess.

The original claim was the the most basic 3e character was much more powerful than the most tricked out 1e/2e character. A claim that is patently false in the face of actual expeirence and a brief examination of the rule sets.

You've provided no actual experience or examinations of the rulesets. In fact you just claim vaguely "a fig/mu is overpowered" while I've provided an example of a core 3.5 cleric with a handful of magic items and a core 3.5 PrC that dwarfs anything seen in previous editions.
I don't know what you mean by "most basic 3e character" and most "tricked out 1e/2e character.
As far as I can tell the most "tricked out 1e/2e character" is a complete chump compared to a core rules 3.5 cleric with one spell and a hankering for caster level increase. If I were to go truly non-core rules we could easily kill hextor as a standard action.
Or have fun with 1-->16 power attack ratios and spells like shivering touch.

I've seen all editions of the game, I play a core 3rd edition game because I like the rules not because I think the rules are in any way "better balanced" than previous editions. Any claim to that effect is erroneous. 3rd edition characters are much more powerful than previous edition characters. The flexibility inherent in the system that allows you to increase ability scores without limits that always net you benefit is enough to prove that point. The flexibility inherent in a feats and skills and level for level multiclassing system is more than enough to prove that point. It's the quantitative nature of the system that allows this. Everything is the bigger bonus and the bigger bonus is everything.
I can't even pick up a single 3rd edition or worse 3.5 supplement and find something that isn't broken in some horrible fashion or another. You're hamstrung to either re-write, ban, cross your fingers the players won't notice it or just forget about the whole supplement idea in the first place. I