Moment of Nostalgia

[Kae'Yoss]

As a 3e-Disciple I have to comment.

rogues were thieves!

Ah. How I hated that. "He's a thief, he can't be trusted. I don't let him out of my eyes" And that for a "Scout"-like Charakter. OK, some people look for any excuse to play badly, but that was just too much of an opportunity to them.

2) Magic items and spells are not as readily available for purchase as the PH suggests. However, there are many spells out there that are 20 to 25% more powerful than the PH norm for a spell of that level.

Remember that wizards now get 2 free spells per level, so either your limit on spells will be moot, or you get rid of the 2 free spells and give the wizard a serious disadvantage (since it's the only class that needs to find his spells, everyone else either has his spells known or is provided by his god/power)

3) I have identified the power levels of the major players in the world. If your goal is political domination of an area, that goal will not continually be out of reach; it will be attainable if you survive long enough to defeat the existing power players.

I don't know how that is different from 3e. It depends on the DM, I think. In the first 3e-Campaign I played in, we were able to secure a lot of political power.

4) You must train to reach the “feat” levels, 3rd, 6th, 9th, etc. Training costs 1,000 gps for third level, and doubles for each subsequent training.

Another thing I always hated about pre 3e. You're out there, fighting for your dear life, and gain all the experience which for all purposes *is* your becoming better at what you do, but you have to find someone who trains you (and give him a lot of money) to actually become so. This just breaks my suspension of disbelief: Why would anyone go out adventuring on level 1, if adventuring doesn't let you advance? I'll just stay in my training facility and spend the 3 weeks the instructors need to get me up to level 20

5)I will roll all monster combat rolls publicly, and I will not pull any punches in monster strategy, hit points, or number. You get what you get. The players are playing against the rule system to survive and become legendary.

If I did that, I'd have a TPK within the first 3 combat rounds the campaign has ever seen. Thing is that I have infernal luck with rolling dice - when I'm DMing. It would be rude to the players to let them suffer for my luck ;-)

Besides, I like to dip the luck in favour of an unfortunate player - especially if he shows brilliant tactics and thinking, but gets blasted cause of bad luck with dice. I also *cheat* for my bad guys occasionally - especially if he'd be the third who'd die before he ever had the chance to do something, all the time I spend preparing him would be wasted and the fight which was supposed to be a memorable one for the whole party turns into a joke - these things are funny once, but after the 10th time it gets frustrating

6) In any place that calls for random encounters, the area will have a challenge rating, per the rules. The random encounter table for the area will have an EQUAL possibility of encounters ranging from five below to five above the area’s CR. The players will have to decide whether to fight or run. This will probably be a life-critical decision in any but civilized areas.

Can't argue with that.

7) Each feat level for each class has a well-recognized title.

What about PrC's? What about multiclassing?

8) At level 11, a character must have a stronghold to advance to level 12. The stronghold may be jointly held by a party. A stronghold reduces training expenses by 10%, for various reasons depending on class.

Also something I absolutely disagree with. Why should you stop becoming better just because you don't have a stronghold? What if I don't want a stronghold? Am I doomed to be stuck at lv 11 - even though I have done far more than that other guy and should be lv 17, but he's better cause he has killed one goblin - and bought a stronghold

9) At 15th level, the character’s bloodline will almost certainly be recognized as a noble line.

Should be a question of the campaign setting, not the rules - what makes you nobility in the world? Can you *become* nobility? Is it tied to your (abstract) power? Or does it require you to either be born noble or be declared so by a king? Being 15th level doesn't mean that you must have earned the gratitude of a king - you could just go to a lonely dungeon and slay 15 levels worth of monsters...

10) At level 20, epics will circulate about the character’s deeds, and eventually one of them will become the “standard” bardic poem, with codes and secret knowledge encrypted into its wording and music.

The same like nobility: It's not your level (which is abstract) that make you famous, it's the deeds you've done. You can reach level 40 by running through Undermountain and killing everything Halaster sets before you. Or, you can reach level 14 by saving the kingdom from the big magical plague that the beholders have created to turn everyone into an aberration.

11) At level 30, a character has enough internal power to be made immortal by epic spell or otherwise. To advance further, the character needs a stronghold on a plane other than the material plane. The existing stronghold can be moved (if the character has that sort of magic), kept as an extra fortress, or relinquished.

Same as with normal strongholds

12) At level 40, a character has the potential to become divine.

Another thing that depends on the campaign world.

14) I want to avoid the “video game” feel of the 3.0/3.5 advancement. Experience awards will be half the amounts shown in the book, to slightly draw out the amount of adventuring time required per level (anticipated at 3 sessions per level). Large roleplaying experience point bonuses will apply for interactions with NPCs, advancing a character’s network of contacts, undertaking religious development, political development, or initiating research (especially research that leads to quests). A “day” of research means eight hours, permitting limited adventuring for a wizard even during research. An adventure spent in roleplaying as described above will yield almost as much experience as a session spent in a dungeon adventure (but not, obviously, as much treasure).

Well, at the beginning, advancement tends to be really fast, but later it will be much slower (at least, that was how it happened in my campaigns). Personally, I prefer a somewhat faster advancement, but that is in part due to the fact that I like all levels of play (at least 1-20 should be in most campaigns) and we can't seem to get people to stay on long enough to play into the higher levels.

As you're saying that you want to start at level 10, and have written about level 40, this campaign might take a decade or more.

15) The sorcerer class is not available to players.

Do you mean it does not exist or just that players can't take it? It's another thing I don't like: making some rules only available to NPC's.

Beware of trusting your mentors too much, though; they are NPCs under my control, and we all know what that means.

NO, we don't know what it means. Enlighten us

 

[Mythmere]

Another duplicate post. Dang it! Sorry...

 

[Mythmere]

Kae-Yoss:
All your points are well taken. You DM the way I normally do, and generally for the same reasons.

"Remember that wizards now get 2 free spells per level, so either your limit on spells will be moot, or you get rid of the 2 free spells and give the wizard a serious disadvantage (since it's the only class that needs to find his spells, everyone else either has his spells known or is provided by his god/power)"

I'm going to keep the 2 free spells, but eliminate the ability to buy more with the exception that wizards guilds allow purchases of spells 2 levels lower than the player has the capability to cast. Trading spells is forbidden by various game mechanics that can be circumvented by a "law-breaking" type of adventure. Yes, this seriously disadvantages the wizard; I'm offsetting this by putting spells out there in the wilderness that are somewhat more powerful than the PH version. These will have Vancian names and effects.

Re power levels being identified: "I don't know how that is different from 3e. It depends on the DM, I think. In the first 3e-Campaign I played in, we were able to secure a lot of political power."

It is a DM guideline to notify the players that they can attain the goal without having it constantly pulled out of reach. I actually just cut and pasted DM guidelines that I'm going to give to the players. I have no problems with the 3.5 rules (or I'd just go back to 1E); my goal is to reproduce the feel not of the 1E rules, but of the "feel" that was predominant in early gaming.

Training:
"Another thing I always hated about pre 3e. You're out there, fighting for your dear life, and gain all the experience which for all purposes *is* your becoming better at what you do, but you have to find someone who trains you (and give him a lot of money) to actually become so. This just breaks my suspension of disbelief: Why would anyone go out adventuring on level 1, if adventuring doesn't let you advance? I'll just stay in my training facility and spend the 3 weeks the instructors need to get me up to level 20"

There are advantages to this system, too, however. In fact, lots of people think the "immediate level up" is what violates willing suspension of disbelief. I'm even up; the two systems have a different "feel," that's all.

Other notes:
Strongholds promote role playing and give the players a feeling of identity and rootedness in the fantasy world. Yes, the rule is arbitrary. I'm actually TRYING to reintroduce some arbitrariness into the feel of the campaign (just like with a big spread on random encounter strength). I want the players to feel that they are fighting against something impersonal and with a reality separate from my own decisions; the game system's rules provided challenges in 1E, whereas everything is up to the DM even by 2E.

There is a greater feeling of victory, I think, when you have outsmarted the somewhat arbitrary challenges of the game system's world than when you have just beaten a series of challenges pegged precisely to your capabilities, and feel that regardless of how powerful you become, your character's life will continue to be a series of challenges pegged to his capabilities. This is also the reason for not fudging DM die rolls.

Thanks for a comprehensive and well-thought-out answer! While I was writing my response, the overarching method of my madness got better defined in the paragraph directly above this one.

 

[Narfellus]

nostalgia

well, what i miss most about the old edition of the game is the NEWNESS. It's rehashed fantasy now. This helps me be a better DM as i have had years of experience, and it forces me to try new stuff. On the downside, that raw energy is not there unless it's being fed from a group of players. Gone are the days of plunging through the DMG like some secret tome of forbidden knowledge, reveling in black and white illustrations of monsters dark and dangerous. hm, that was fun.

 

[bolie]

As one of the potential players, I would like to say that I don't see a problem with any of this. By laying out the guidelines (training, strongholds, etc...) ahead of time, he's letting us know what's coming. We always have the option of refusing to play or telling him we really hate something that he's planning. It's not like he's going to ignore our feelings about the game and try to force us to play a way we hate. I kind of like the idea of playing in this campaign.

Regarding training - it seems quite reasonable to have a brief training period to refine techniques and lessons learned in the field. Learning by doing is very important, but if you don't apply some theory and some thought, then you may end up doing something dumb just because it worked that one time. Taking some time out to do some formal training is not unreasonable. Doing it once every three levels is a nice compromise.

Regarding the level identifications (nobility, epic, god-like) - Given that the whole level-based, class-based system is not especially realistic, I don't see a problem with certain levels being identified.

My own take on attributes and levels and experience is that they represent actual metaphysical changes to your character. Unlike our real world where physics dominate, the world of D&D (IMC) is dominated by metaphysics and magic. Each person is a being of psychic energy that is manifested by a body and mind. The six attributes are measures of metaphysical strength that are manifested by a strong body, quick mind, etc... Experience points represent the strengthen of your metaphysical "self". Hit points, increases in stats, level bonuses, etc... are all manifestations of this strengthening. That also explains why halflings can be just as strong as humans and why you can't just hit the gym to increase your strength.

Mythmere's system is perfectly reasonable given a similar sort of metaphysical reality. At certain levels (or metaphysical strengths), you affect the world around you in certain ways.

Oh, and with Mythmere as the DM, level 10 to level 40 could easily take decadeS, plural.

Bolie IV

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I'm going to keep the 2 free spells, but eliminate the ability to buy more with the exception that wizards guilds allow purchases of spells 2 levels lower than the player has the capability to cast. Trading spells is forbidden by various game mechanics that can be circumvented by a "law-breaking" type of adventure. Yes, this seriously disadvantages the wizard; I'm offsetting this by putting spells out there in the wilderness that are somewhat more powerful than the PH version. These will have Vancian names and effects.

Hm.... So you "problem" is with wizards bing able to know a thousand spells? OK, that's more or less cool with me. And I don't think that it will make the wizard too weak - especially since you limit the access, not shut it down entirely.

What I thought you'd do is take the choice of spells away from the players. I know that from a couple of DM's back in 2e. I remember running around with a Wizard 7 without any 4th level spells, or a wizards without fireball (in a campaign where battle was not irrelevant). That was because the DM was very miserly with scrolls - wouln't find them, couldn't buy them.

The way you'll do it is more of a limit on magic items.

As a side note: you could set up some customs amongst the wizardry that they trade scrolls amongst themselves - scrolls they made themself. It could be a code of conduct: Two wizards meet, they compare their spell selections, and maybe make a deal one spell against another (or perhaps more than one). Then they'll go scribe the scrolls and exchange them. You could incorporate that into your campaign world as an unwritten law. The code may state that the scrolls have to be created by the wizards themselves, and that nothing but scrolls are to be traded (for some reason, money won't do. Can be a rule from way back - a tradition, and wizards are all for tradition)
This way, wizards have to pay XP to learn new spells.

It is a DM guideline to notify the players that they can attain the goal without having it constantly pulled out of reach. I actually just cut and pasted DM guidelines that I'm going to give to the players. I have no problems with the 3.5 rules (or I'd just go back to 1E); my goal is to reproduce the feel not of the 1E rules, but of the "feel" that was predominant in early gaming.

As I have said: IMO this feel isn't 1e-only. I had it in 3e games, and the DM didn't set out to make a OD&D-Revival out of the campaign (In fact, that was my first 3e Campaign, and the DM - and other players - were more or less complete beginners when they started out. The DM wasn't even born yet when OD&D hit the shelves.)

Training:
There are advantages to this system, too, however. In fact, lots of people think the "immediate level up" is what violates willing suspension of disbelief. I'm even up; the two systems have a different "feel," that's all.

Well, it's a topic that has probably done to death - several times, with millions of gp worth of material components used to use true res on it, too - so I'll make it short:
Level is like your age: While officially you get older only one day a year - your birthday, you actually get older all the time. But instead of working with a more accurate date, we use full years for a lot of things to make matters easier. It's an abstraction. Even though you don't grow up on your 18th/21st birth day, you are considered adult on that date, which is not really accurate, but eaysier to manage.

The same is levels: While you become a better fighter with every enemy you defeat (well, more or less), you won't get a better BAB until you have enough XP to advance in a level. Even though your "real" BAB increases only from 5.999999 to 6/1 when you get the 21.000th XP, the game gives you that point all in one go, and even though you may be good enough to hit the enemy twice even with 20566 XP, you won't get the 2nd attack until you actually turn 21k. It's all an abstraction that makes stuff inaccurate, but that much easier.

Well, not exactly short...

Other notes:
Strongholds promote role playing and give the players a feeling of identity and rootedness in the fantasy world.

You're right. But these are rewards in and of themselves.

If the players want to belong somewhere and be someone, they get a stronghold, if not (or if they can attain these feelings without real estate), they don't.

But if you force them to get a Stronghold, they'll get it in order to advance, not for roleplaying reasons (for some Charakter concepts - Worshippers of Farlaghn/Shaundakul for example - it is actually bad roleplaying to get a stronghold....

There is a greater feeling of victory, I think, when you have outsmarted the somewhat arbitrary challenges of the game system's world

Sorry, but that sounds like an argument for cheating in Diablo and steal other poeple's most priced items ;-)

Besides, 3e reintroduced rule-based challenges. Want to enter a PrC? You have to reach a certain level, get some feats/skills/spells/BAB/whatever, and accomplish certain goals. And the good part, IMO: It is according to 3e's policy: tools, not rules: you can do it (and go for a PrC) or you can disregard it.

Of course, you could take this 3e-tool and infuse it with the flavour of older editions in an elegant way: Enforce PrC's. There are several ways to make that, with several "intensities" - and some of them might even change other things a little back towards older editions

- Cut the levels 11+ from all classes, and make the powers therein available in PrC's. You can just make it crude and introduce PrC's that have exactly the same properties the base classes have, or you specialize a little more (more in keeping with the concept of PrC's). Instead of the PrestigeCleric you'll have the undead hunter, the warpriest, the invoker. Rogues become thieves, dungeoneers and assassins. Druids beastmasters, skinwalkers, grand shamans...... Look up the Prestige versions of Paladin, Bard and Ranger in Unearthed Arcana.

- Introduce generic classes (again inspiration is to be found UA, and in d20 Modern) - either the UA way with "warrior", "magic user" and "expert", or d20M-like with strong hero, fast hero etc. The rest would work like above - but you should call the classes you make of the old base classes Advanced Classes. This way, you can introduce Prestige Classes as "Tier 3" of class advancement. Put Legendary Classes, meaning epic PrC's and the like as Tier 4 in the epic regions, and you have plenty of rules the players have to "beat".

Btw: the class change concept isn't taken from Pokemon where your monsters change that way, but rather from Seiken Densetsu 3 for SNES: You had 6 heroes to choose and would choose 1 main char and two supporters. There were Thief, Fighter, Grappler, Cleric, Wizard, Amazon (?). At level 18 (?), you could make a class change, where you could choose a light path and a dark path. The Thief hat the ranger as light and the ninja as dark, for example. 20 levels later, you'd get another chance to change, again light and dark, so you'd have LL, LD, DL, DD.

 

[bolie]

As one of Mythmere's players, I will say that we will figure out role-playing reasons to get a stronghold, etc... We know what the requirements are and, assuming we agree to them, then we will play with them. We do metagame, but we also work to come up with in-game reasons for things. We also all do "dumb" things for role-playing reasons. So while your comments may be true in general, in Mythmere's case, we'll work with him and play along.

Bolie IV

 

[Mythmere]

As one of Mythmere's players, I will say that we will figure out role-playing reasons to get a stronghold, etc... We know what the requirements are and, assuming we agree to them, then we will play with them. We do metagame, but we also work to come up with in-game reasons for things. We also all do "dumb" things for role-playing reasons. So while your comments may be true in general, in Mythmere's case, we'll work with him and play along.

Bolie IV

And actually, if someone wanted to play a cleric of Fharlangn, I'd waive the stronghold requirement. I don't feel any need to come up with an explanation of "why" it is the case that a character needs a stronghold to advance in levels beyond a certain point. The concept of "home" is so deeply rooted in saga and in the important fantasy literature that I feel it doesn't need to be justified in terms of making sense. Let's face it; heroes at that level are already powerful beyond human potential. Skill advancement already doesn't make "sense." Mythically powerful heroes are subject to the rules of myth, not physics, and the rules of myth are very, very clear on this point. Your home is part of your identity as a mythic hero, from Odysseus to Frodo to Beowulf to King Arthur to Conan. There is no such thing as a "rootless" mythic hero. Lost, yes. Far from home, yes. Traveling to a specific place to settle, yes (Moses). But just wandering with no plans to settle down? No. Home is a source of power for the mythic hero.