Is D&D getting too powerful?

[takyris]

Personally, I've got no problem at all with a new edition of D&D coming out, provided that the experience point stuff they do is as close to d20 Modern as possible. That system finally spells out in no uncertain terms the idea that characters get experience for Story, not for killing stuff. And the methods used to determine how much XP people get for successfully TALKING with a mob boss, rather than just killing him, make it possible to be intelligent and cautious while still gaining XP.

Personally, I think that I advanced my PCs too quickly through their levels. I had them fight too many things that were too powerful, resulting in a lot of player frustration at having to stop and rest so much, or at yet another combat where only one person was left standing at the end of it. I don't need to complain about the XP system being too messed up -- I am pretty much in tune with the fact that the XP system worked fine, and that I put my PCs through a crucible that left the players paranoid and defeatist for several levels afterward.

So next time, more goblins, fewer ogres with class levels. That should make things just about normal.

-Tacky

 

[diaglo]

Now, now... The only thing I shake my fist at is gronards telling me that the way it's written is the way it "should" be done.

 

[Davelozzi]

I find the level of histrionics over advancemet ridiculous. If advancement, or magic, or whatever other alleged problem in the game doesn't work, don't use it.

Regarding advancement, I agree.

But when you throw in magic, not so much. The level of magic (& treasure) in the game is an integral part of the of the CR/EL system. Its very difficult to scale down the magic without throwing the whole CR system out the window or making major changes to it.

 

[Gothmog]

No offense taken Psion. I had read through the DMG and have seen the time based XP awards, but they didn't reward good gaming, just the amount of time spent gaming. There were some ad hoc awards ideas as well, but they didn't suggest much XP being given for roleplaying, so I developed my own system. I think in the DMG it said something like 50 x level XP for good roleplaying, something "just large enough for the player to notice". IMO, good role playing ought to be rewarded more, thus I made this sytem. Also, this system can refute those players that might complain "if we don't kill stuff for XP, its all subjective and we'll get hosed." So far, it has worked very well, and has reduced the bloodthirtiness of my group. Try it, it works wonders.

 

[barsoomcore]

D&D has gotten much too powerful. Who can stop it? Who can stand against the power of D&D?

GURPS? Nay, not so, for it is overburdened with supplements and troubled with quirks.

HERO SYSTEM? Alas, it cannot be.

White Wolf? Speak not that name! Aieee! A thousand curses be upon you!

No, my people, it is up to us. The great power that D&D has become can only be defeated if we join our forces now, now before it is too late, now while we still have a chance.

D&D IS becoming too powerful. Soon it will rule the world. We must resist, or be overwhelmed and forgotten.

To me, ENWorlders! To me!

 

[William Ronald]

takyris wrote:

Personally, I've got no problem at all with a new edition of D&D coming out, provided that the experience point stuff they do is as close to d20 Modern as possible. That system finally spells out in no uncertain terms the idea that characters get experience for Story, not for killing stuff. And the methods used to determine how much XP people get for successfully TALKING with a mob boss, rather than just killing him, make it possible to be intelligent and cautious while still gaining XP.

Takyris, a lot of people would be pretty annoyed if WotC released 4th Edition within a few years of D&D 3.5. There is already scepticism about D&D 3.5 as being nothing more than a money-making ploy . (I do not hold this view.) The chorus of outrage would be a bit louder if they announced in a year or so that 4th edition is in the works.

Davelozzi: It is hard to alter the CR system and taking some magic away from it. A possible solution is to use more NPCs as opponents. Possibly the 3.5 version of the DMG will have more advice for altering the rules to fit a DMs specific tastes.

 

[Mystic_23]

I mean, the experience system ALONE is enough reason to redo it. You need a masters in algebra and a scientific calculator to figure out wether or not you halfling gained a level in barbarian!

I would like to reply to this. No disrepsect meant...but I don't think the experience system is that hard to figure out. If you ask the people I roleplay with, they'll tell you that I am horrible with math. I mean, I have to count on my fingers to add 15 to 32. When I was Dungeon Mastering, I didn't have a huge problem figuring out experience each session. It seems confusing at first, but it makes sence once you've done it a couple of times.

3rd Ed. is MUCH MUCH better than 2nd. Perhaps it does seem a little too powerful, but it is easy to fix by lowering xp and treasure given. I think 3 Ed. Revised will definately help this. For example, fixing haste so you can't cast multiple spells will help quite a bit. Redoing harm/heal will also help. (Our group has disallowed harm because it is too powerful. But we do allow heal as it is).

 

[JacktheRabbit]

As for going out of your way for being politically incorrect, you make that sound like it's a virtue, or an excuse. You're just saying "I deliberately try to be offensive, intolerant, and cruel". Well, welcome to polite civilization. Please leave the hate and self-absorbtion at the door.

Yeesh.

Stop now before this gets political.

BTW, since a talk of politics is banned on this forum then I think by the same virtue all forms of political correctness MUST be banned as well.

Being polite is one thing. Having the steaming offal that is PC (Political Correctness not P'Cat ) shoved down your throat is completely different.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

BTW, part of the problem here with DnD3.0 in my opinion is in the basic game format as well as peoples ideas on it.

How many people here either always chose combat feats or know someone who always choses combat feats?

I started a thread a few weeks back about punishing someone who put no points at all into social abilities and I was hit pretty had by people here.

3.0 would not be half as munchkin as it is if DM's didnt game to that. Look at a fighter who choses nothing but combat feats and compare him to one who takes Iron Will to offset his weak will save and Alertness to help with his lack of those class skills.

The straight combat guy will do more damage, or get more attacks or something and will muchkin up the place more. The other fighter is more balanced and better outside of combat but this doesnt matter if the DM doesnt play towards that. Instead most people here think that you should cater your game so much to how a player creates their character that it is wrong to exploit weaknesses.

 

[Mordane76]

...The straight combat guy will do more damage, or get more attacks or something and will muchkin up the place more. The other fighter is more balanced and better outside of combat but this doesnt matter if the DM doesnt play towards that. Instead most people here think that you should cater your game so much to how a player creates their character that it is wrong to exploit weaknesses.

I think the problem is your definition of "munchkin." Your tone relays an assumption -- that you think high-damage-dealing characters are munchkins, and that those who choose to make such characters aren't really looking to roleplay, just "rack up points," so to speak. While your statement may be correct some of the time, I don't think it's correct all of the time.


I can see a fighter who has all combat feats, low social attributes, low social skill points, and who is still a compelling character, if that fighter is in the hands of a player who can characterize. If the fighter is a fighting powerhouse, socially inept, and so on, then he should be played as such -- but that doesn't mean he can't have compelling backstory elements such as family and friends that will lead to emotive scenes and provide good character development opportunities.

...3.0 would not be half as munchkin as it is if DM's didnt game to that. Look at a fighter who choses nothing but combat feats and compare him to one who takes Iron Will to offset his weak will save and Alertness to help with his lack of those class skills.

Another assumption that your post conveys is one I partially agree with as well. DM's are responsible for a portion of the "munchkin" behaviors in their games. But there is an interplay that your post doesn't seem to recognize -- good DMs cannot completely override munchkin players. Even if they try, there will still be this slow power-creep if players are trying to twink out for combat.


Going back to the original idea of this thread -- I believe there is a degree of power-creep occuring in 3E, and will probably be continued in 3.5E; combat is becoming harder and harder to control, because players simply have so many options. Take with that the questions of advancement and the question of magic item necessity, and an argument for this increase in power level can definitely be made. However, I don't think the levels of magical items and spells has changed too much from 2E to 3E -- I think the amount of integration and expectation changed during the process of revision.

Magical items, IMO, became more an expected piece of equipment in 3E than in 2E. Characters are expected to have much easier access to these items in 3E, and I think some of this change comes from a change in society. When D&D was originally developed, there were no real home computers, and hence no computer games. I think that some of this magical item expectation is part of the CRPG trend -- items are readily available in computer games, so much so that they are REQUIRED to complete some aspects of the game.

There are those of us who don't use the extra bells and whistle when we play our CRPGs. I stopped playing most CRPGs because they just don't appeal to my sensibilities anymore -- I want some real interaction, some compelling development, not just numbers and hack-factor. But there is either a majority or a very vocal minority of the RPG consumers who WANT this kind of game, or there is a re-inforced perpetuating misconception that all RPGers want the things in these books because we keep buying product that supports this style of play.

Sure, we're modifying it at home. And I think that's how it's going to have to be. The nay-sayers might feel that the industry should bow to our demands and slow the advancement and slash treasure accrual, but they won't -- we're telling them it's okay because we keep buying the product.

Personally -- I think 3E is more powerful. But that doesn't stop me from buying the books, because they provide me with the framework I need to make my campaigns. What elements I keep, and what elements I modify to my standards are unimportant, and I think able DMs and players can meet and develop a game that suits their tastes on power with the rules provided and changes they make to those rules.