Is D&D becoming more fantastical?

[ruleslawyer]

Yet, oddly enough, it is also necessary to beef up those spellcasters, even at mid- to high-levels, to keep them on par with the fighters......

You're joking, right? 3e has kept spellcasters pretty much level with their 1e/2e counterparts in terms of power at mid- to high levels, and 4e likely will nerf at least some of the worst abuses in terms of problem spells. The idea that there's "beefing up" of spellcasters going on in any way that tilts the power curve further out of whack in their favor at high levels is baseless.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You're joking, right? 3e has kept spellcasters pretty much level with their 1e/2e counterparts in terms of power at mid- to high levels, and 4e likely will nerf at least some of the worst abuses in terms of problem spells.

No; I'm referring to some of the arguments others are making for the "per-encounter" system. They claim that, because the spellcasters use their resouces so early, in the long run they are nerfed in relation to the fighters. I see it as a different set of options, myself, for how you approach the problems in the game.

RC

 

[The Shaman]

Are people NOT remembering just how weak most of the opposition was?

That example upthread is pretty contrived to skew things in the direction of the fighter, most of all because the dragon's tactics are severely gimped - no effective breath weapon, no spells, and no ability to fly. In actual play, assuming the fighter is wearing a ring of fire resistance or the like, that dragon's breath weapon is going to do either 22 or 66 points of damage per turn, probably as the dragon swoops by out of reach of the fighter's magic sword. The dragon is also going to be casting spells, again out of reach.

It also assumes that the dragon is unaided by minions - speaking for myself, dragons in my games tended to accumulate an eclectic group of allies (my encounter designs were heavily influenced by Wormy . . .) - and does not have a lair that is dangerous in and of itself - such as volcanic caves or a geyser complex in the case of an ancient red dragon.

This is an artificially weak example, not a typical example in play, at least in my experience refereeing the game, so no, I don't see it as representative of 1e monsters at all. In my games, a 10th level lord would not undertake such a quest on his own if he could help it, and if he did he was most likely on a suicide mission.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is an artificially weak example, not a typical example in play, at least in my experience refereeing the game, so no, I don't see it as representative of 1e monsters at all. In my games, a 10th level lord would not undertake such a quest on his own if he could help it, and if he did he was most likely on a suicide mission.

It is also shorn of the atttition model, which meant that Joe Fighter was not at his best when confronting Wendy Dragon.

1e had a lot more "mook fights" than 3e IME.

1e had what I'd like to call a "slow attrition model" where ever battle might give you minor attrition, but allow you to continue on. Resting was possible, but had attendent dangers. Wandering monsters, for example, were encouraged. There were spells to help mitigate these problems, but choosing them removed some other vital resource, and you could only gain them with the DM's permission.

3e has what I'd like to call a "fast attrition model" where any battle that might give you attrition will give you at least 5% attrition, meaning that you can have somewhat less than 20 encounters before you have to rest, where none of those encounters (except perhaps the last) have an actual chance to kill you.

Using the lowest-possible CR encounters leads to an attrition level which, in 3e, is probably closest to that used in 1e. The only problem is that a deadly encounter in 1e might nonetheless leave you relatively fresh, whereas in 3e that likeliness goes way down, so that you must choose between a few deadly fights or a lot of minor, boring fights.

It seems that 4e is going to try to model both paradigms. I admit that this, most of all, is what I am curious about. It was, IMHO, the slow attrition model that made interesting mook fights possible in 1e. How will they make mooks that are both significant and still mooks, if they are nerfing the attrition model at the same time?

RC

 

[Thurbane]

What's that quote from The Incredibles? "When everyone's special, no one is."

 

[Steel_Wind]

What's that quote from The Incredibles? "When everyone's special, no one is."

The same could be said for magic items; when all items are magical, nothing is.

Meh. They have turned "magic items as chocolate" into potatoes.

And then changed the rules so they could rarely, if ever, be destroyed in combat... "because that's not fun".

Hell - WotC even attempted to dictate that magic items could not be stripped from a character when beginning Hordes of the Underdark. "That's old style D&D design - not new."

I repeat: The designers of D&D have lost their way.

 

[AllisterH]

That example upthread is pretty contrived to skew things in the direction of the fighter, most of all because the dragon's tactics are severely gimped - no effective breath weapon, no spells, and no ability to fly. In actual play, assuming the fighter is wearing a ring of fire resistance or the like, that dragon's breath weapon is going to do either 22 or 66 points of damage per turn, probably as the dragon swoops by out of reach of the fighter's magic sword. The dragon is also going to be casting spells, again out of reach.

.

Which is JUST as true in the 3E model. If people are going by what the opposition can actually do when compared to the PCs, 3E IME tends to be less fantastic.

How can "magic be fantastic" when in the classic 4-person party, even in OD&D, half of the party were literally magic personified?

Even with regard to magic items, it didn't seem that they were THAT special. Take for example what the leader of the bodyguards of a 9th level fighter possessed.
A 5th level fighter was expected to have axe +2 while a 7th level fighter had plate mail +1, shield +1 and broadsword +2 with a horse with horseshoes of speed.

That's not exactly low magic there...

 

[Mad Mac]

That example upthread is pretty contrived to skew things in the direction of the fighter, most of all because the dragon's tactics are severely gimped - no effective breath weapon, no spells, and no ability to fly. In actual play, assuming the fighter is wearing a ring of fire resistance or the like, that dragon's breath weapon is going to do either 22 or 66 points of damage per turn, probably as the dragon swoops by out of reach of the fighter's magic sword. The dragon is also going to be casting spells, again out of reach.

I guess you missed the post where I posted a few stats of the 3rd edition dragon, which is leagues stronger than the 3rd edition fighter, across the board. Better Breath Weapon, better magic, better melee, better everything. Besides, my original point was that a high-ish level 1E fighter can pound almost any monster in melee, not that he was completely invincible.

I didn't think my point was so subtle. Apparently, special attacks make a 3rd edition fighter more "fantastical" even though his ability to wade through reams of monsters is considerably less than the 1st edition fighter. The fact that a 1st edition fighter has fewer choices in combat does not make the aftermath of his dice-rolling any less superheroic.

Besides that, it's not like the classes even changed that much between editions. Trade the 1E Assassin out for the 3rd Edition Barbarian and add in the Sorc, and you're left with the same list of core classes. The only 1e edition classes who are non-magical are the Fighter, Thief, and Assassin. The only 3rd edition classes who are non-magical are the Fighter, Rogue, and Barbarian. Big shake-up there.

 

[The Shaman]

I guess you missed the post . . .

No, I didn't miss it - I consciously and deliberately ignored it.

I'm not interested in comparing editions. I responded to something posted about 1e - I said nothing about 3e, and have no intention of discussing 3e whatsoever.

 

[Eric Tolle]

It strikes me that the concept of being 'human' has changed through the years. The average 'person' in D&D is now a lot more magical, can easily gain supernatural abilities, and can use magic more often. D&D to me appears to be becoming more fantastical.

Yeah. it's started when they allowed Magic users" and "Clerics" as PC classes. I mean, WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!?!!? THEY RUINED THE GAME!!11!1

It's interesting that "average person" is pretty much translated out as "average fighter", moreso since the "average person" in D&D has never translated into "average starting character", no matter how much the "grim and gritty" fans have insisted otherwise.

It's more interesting to me why people are so bent on pursuit of some neo-medieval purity that never realy has existed in games. In the last 28 or so years I've played D&D frankly the limited magic, emphasis on realism people have been very much in the minority. Outside of coming up with interesting damage tables, very few players have been obsessed with grittiness or realism. Arduin Grimore, with its weird PC races, laser rifles, and wacky humor was eagerly seized upon by many groups; others grabbed Traveller and Space Opera, just so they could have powered armor and fusion guns pop up in their games.

I remember talking to a guy back in 82 or so who mentioned that his character survived a point-blank nuclear explosion "because he made his saving throw; the first time I ran Tomb of Horrors the characters circumvented 3/4 of the module, because one had his pet ancinet bronze dragon dig a hole in the side of the tomb, while the other had his type VII demon henchman help. And those weren't even some of the weirder situations I saw. But evidently, these, and all the other oddballs I saw over the years weren't actually playing D&D as she is meant to be played.

So don't talk to me about anime and movies corrupting D&D, because I find the "grim and gritty" movement to be pretty damn recent; It certainly isn't any "old school" I recognize. their fantasy are a pretty slim minority.