Old player gets new insight into D&D from ToEE PC Game

[Atridis]

I haven't played any of the CRPGs, but I basically set up 3rd ed adventures the same way I did earlier editions. As a DM, I tend to stick to the old-school Easy-Easy-Tough progression of fights, rather than the 3rd ed Moderate-Moderate-Moderate. This way, the PCs only need to recover if they've totally messed up the Easy fights (which happens sometimes, if only through poor luck). It took me a little while to adjust to 3rd ed because everybody - the PCs and the monsters - are more dangerous.

Norfleet makes a good point; a computer game is going to have more combat encounters, in part because they progress faster. For me, in a game that meets once or twice a month, for 4-8 hours at a time, an average adventure only has 3 or 4 real combats anyway, so there's rarely any need to rest in the middle of anything.

 

[Schmoe]

Thanks for all the replies

I just thought I'd ask again for DMs to give examples of how they pace their games so that the rests don't feel forced.

Thanks!

The answer really depends on how the DM wants to pace the game, as well as what's happening in the game.

For example, lately my group has been doing a lot of travelling, so one encounter every few days is pretty standard, and therefore it's no problem to rest between encounters.

If the party is storming a stronghold or humanoid-infested dungeon, then it really becomes an issue of how much you want the party to be able to accomplish in one "go". If you want the party to be able to reach their goal the first time, then you can either put in many weaker encounters or a few stronger encounters. If you want the party to struggle and need to come back multiple times (ala Against the Giants), then it's fine to have many difficult encounters.

If you are just dungeon-delving, I would recommend a mix of encounters that are below the party's level, with just a few at or above the party's level, so that the party can feel like they actually make some progress.

 

[Norfleet]

Hogwash.

A wizard is a fine melee combatant when he runs out of spells. Put a bow in his hand with a feat for it and he's gravy. Who in there right mind would have their wizard wade into battle with dagger anyway? In an edition? I seem to remember back in 1E that was a good and quick why to die. The same holds true in 3E.

Err.....buh? What's he going to do with a bow in melee? Use it as an improvised club? Bows aren't melee weapons....how does having a wizard hold a bow make him a better melee combatant?

 

[Henry]

Err.....buh? What's he going to do with a bow in melee? Use it as an improvised club? Bows aren't melee weapons....how does having a wizard hold a bow make him a better melee combatant?

5-foot step, or judicious use of the Tumble skill when the opponent has reach. Works for my psion all the time.

Plus, consider that with a bow, said wizard will not have to get into "actual" melee; he can stay within 30 feet of the front line of combat, and put his bow to good use. He can then move to interpose himself between the enemy and the nearest meat shield, forcing an Op attack from any enemy that wishes to charge him or intercept him.

Thinking back, I NEVER sent a straight wizard into melee in 1st or 2nd edition D&D. Therein lay sheer suicide, short of a Tenser's Transformation.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

And in fact for my first 3e game the wizard had the biggest number of 'kills', not due to magic, but a crossbow, point blank shot, and a decent dex. he eventually took precise shot as well, so he could fire into hand to hand more safely.

If a wizard in 1e cast a spell while in combat he just plain lost the spell. In 3e he gets a concentration roll, of can even cast defensively, making a concentration roll and denying the enemy their attack of opportunity.

A wizard with d4s for hit dice, the worst chance to hit, a dagger, and no armor was being, ummm, a little foolish if he got into combat in 1e. Being able to use a crossbow is a major improvement!

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* And in ToEE being able to make wands kicks serious butt!

 

[Mystery Man]

Err.....buh? What's he going to do with a bow in melee? Use it as an improvised club? Bows aren't melee weapons

Well, I would shoot a bow since that's their intended purpose. But if you wish to go club someone with it by all means go for it.

....how does having a wizard hold a bow make him a better melee combatant?

It makes him an effective ranged combatant when his spells run out.

 

[MorganDracon]

Another thought at 1E to 3.5

John,

I also played 1E, as well as 2E. I just recently resumed playing 3.5 and I have to tell you that the biggest change I saw was the combat abilities of mosters. Brown Bear in 1E had relatively poor "to-hit" rolls and 1d6 damage. In 3.5, the same bear is +11 with each claw and does 1d8+8 damage. Bite is 2d6 + 4 for damage. Your average lone bear now does moe damage per round than he did in the entire encounter in 1E. Of course, players can do more damage also, but the play balance is totally different and your lessons learned from 1E/2E have to be unlearned in 3.5!

I think 3.5 gives much better tools to design balanced adventures than 1E did, but you have to follow the system as other posters have shown, rather than let 1E expereicne lead you astray.

[edited for faulty memory of 1E MM Brown Bear Damage]

 

[Goobermunch]

John,

I also played 1E, as well as 2E. I just recently resumed playing 3.5 and I have to tell you that the biggest change I saw was the combat abilities of mosters. Brown Bear in 1E had relatively poor "to-hit" rolls and 1d3 damage. In 3.5, the same bear is +11 with each claw and does 1d8+8 damage. Bite is 2d6 + 4 for damage. Your average lone bear now does moe damage per round than he did in the entire encounter in 1E. Of course, players can do more damage also, but the play balance is totally different and your lessons learned from 1E/2E have to be unlearned in 3.5!

I think 3.5 gives much better tools to design balanced adventures than 1E did, but you have to follow the system as other posters have shown, rather than let 1E expereicne lead you astray.

Of course, that kinda makes sense. A brown bear should be able to tear apart your average joe in a little under 3 seconds. A Grizzly should take slightly longer.

--G

 

[John_Daker]

Thanks for the feedback!

Nice to get such warm support for what might have been seen as a bit of an esoteric question!

 

[diaglo]

the Computer game is wrong.

in face to face clerics don't get spells back after resting.

they pray for them once per day at a set time.

the computer game restores them after only 8 hours rest.