Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5281119" data-attributes="member: 80487">Vanna, I'd like to buy some relevance.Seriously, neither has BryonD nor have I "suggested" any such thing!The fact of the matter is that sweeping differences from the old game are already -- in 3e -- part of the context in which the issue of "SoD" is being considered.It is not surprising that details of the S have given way in discussion to the place of D, and D itself to sundry inconveniences from personal petrification to rusting of gear and beyond."The game" is a whole process. There are many different Poker games, so we need to know which one we are supposed to be playing. However, there are shared basic principles. If you don't like those, then anything someone who does thinks is worth calling Poker is probably not for you. The same holds for Chess -- and Chess is not Poker, nor Poker Chess.The Winner's Rule #1 is to Know the Victory Conditions. Whatever they are, a winning strategy is directed toward them.A game designer likewise needs first to have objectives for the design to implement. A lot depends on whether the players have the same objectives.Consider: I have seen a lot of talk about how spell-casters are "broken" in 3e. I certainly think they get huge concessions in the rules, which must be telling in any case (although there may also be some offsetting factors).However, one problem is not (as far as I recall) in "the rules", in the sense of the little fiddly situation-specific bits. It's in the larger context, which may popularly have been changed significantly not just from the original game -- the source of the "SoD" elements -- but maybe even from what the 3e designers intended.Although the 3e rules give PCs maximum h.p. at first level, and another hit dice each and every level, they still give m-us (even the lowliest now styled "wizards") only a four-sided dice.One might well wonder why that might be. Why does a wizard get only d4, while a fighter gets d10? What purpose does it serve? What is the anticipated result?(Here's a hint: In AD&D, and I think also in 3e, not only is a fire ball or lightning bolt from a peer on average "save or die" to an m-u, but even a successful save means losing on average 70% of full hit points. Meanwhile, the average fighter -- without a constitution bonus -- is still standing unless (a) the save fails and (b) the damage dice come up at least half 6, the rest 5. A failed save costs the fighter on average only 64%. The fighter is then just half a point per level behind a full-strength m-u.)In the old game, the anticipated result is that magic-users die like flies.If that were happening in 3e, then it would be even more significant. In AD&D, the x.p. to get an m-u from 1st to 6th get a fighter from 6th to 7th. In 3e, by the time a replacement wizard gets to 6th, the fighter will (with the same x.p.) be 8th.Go back Jack, do it again, and the fighter is 10th vs. the wizard's 6th.At the very least, the 3e resurrection spell calls for loss of a level (or 2 points of constitution if 1st level).No doubt that difference in hit dice is having that effect in some 3e campaigns, but it is not what I have seen or heard about! No, the "gentlemen's agreement" that seems usually to apply is ... basically just the way the designers of 4e say that their game actually works best in a lot of ways.Guess what else the 4e guys figured out? If you turn the wizard into more of a warrior, then -- if you really want the kind of balance they wanted -- either (a) you make the wizard less of a magician or (b) you make the fighter more of a magician or (c) a bit of each. They don't use hit dice, but give set numbers of points -- and lots of 'em. Again, that's not just an accident. It serves purposes.If you are not on board with the purposes, then the better they are served the worse the design will serve you.</blockquote>

Verification