Sense of wonder?

[Altalazar]

First, I think it is all in the description - base it on what the character's know, not the players, and even if it is a "familiar" monster to the players, it will take them a second to figure out what it is (or longer) and even if they do, they have approached it from a different angle (through the character's eyes) and it gives back a sense of wonder.

And don't make all the items just be standard items - there was usually almost NOTHING standard in my game for magic - it was, to quote Pulp Fiction, "just a little bit different." After a while, those little differences give the campaign its own unique flavor. When I make a magic item as DM, I don't think in game terms, I think in real-life functional terms, add some gee-whiz, and some hidden spice and then put it in. Like a staff I put in that was absolutely indescructible - and also could dispell certain effects twice a day by striking them. Both features made for some interesting uses and because it was different than anything they'd ever heard of, it had its own unique character. Another item was a quiver of endless arrows that did a few other things. I didn't even look to see if such an item existed in the books - it was given as a gift to an arcane archer from a King who was grateful. It was also unique.

I see the magic items in the DMG as simply like a collection of spices, to be mixed, matched, and otherwise parceled out in various forms - and they are only one small part of my spice-rack.

You can get a sense of wonder if you just start with the assumption of having one, instead of saying "oh, you see a troll."

I can get my original sense of wonder (nostalgia like) just by looking at old pictures in the original PHB, MM, and DMG. Then I take that sensation and I use it to design my next adventure...

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I have seen many games where people have "built" a character to 20th before a game has begun. Right there, the player has made a choice that the campaign will not affect him. The events of the game do not matter as much as the mechanics of the character.

As opposed to, say, 2nd Edition, where *everyone* at 1st-level said, "I'll play an Elven Fighter / Wizard [or a Dwarven Fighter / Cleric, or a Human Evoker, etc.]," and "built" a character to 36th level (assuming, of course, that their race let them get that high)?

Or as opposed to, say, OD&D, where *everyone* at 1st-level said, "I'll play a Fighter [or an Elf, or a Halfling, etc.]," and "built" a character to 36th or demi-human rank H or whatever other gobbledegook it entailed?

Yeah, having a static character build from the get-go is certainly a 3E innovation ...

 

[Belen]

As opposed to, say, 2nd Edition, where *everyone* at 1st-level said, "I'll play an Elven Fighter / Wizard [or a Dwarven Fighter / Cleric, or a Human Evoker, etc.]," and "built" a character to 36th level (assuming, of course, that their race let them get that high)?

Or as opposed to, say, OD&D, where *everyone* at 1st-level said, "I'll play a Fighter [or an Elf, or a Halfling, etc.]," and "built" a character to 36th or demi-human rank H or whatever other gobbledegook it entailed?

Yeah, having a static character build from the get-go is certainly a 3E innovation ...

Except that characters in 3e are not static. Each level comes with attendant choices, even if those choices simplely revolve around skill selection. Not to mention that stating a character from 1-20 in 3e is a craptastic amount of work compared with just taking a class in the older editions.

 

[Henry]

A quick anecdote about building characters from low to high in 3E: In our recent Eberron campaign, we had one player of a Monk who around 4th level decided he wanted to go with the Drunken Master PrC; he found he had taken a couple of suboptimal feat choices for this and would only get to Drunk. Master by 10th level. He just stuck with Monk the whole way, and enjoyed his character immensely.

I've even had some players who were level drained almost decide to keep the draining because the class they chose they did not like as much as they thought they would!

Most of our players tend to stick with single-classes because it ultimately offers the greatest strength during level to level progression, with few exceptions (like Fighter/barbarian, or the barbarian/ranger.)

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Except that characters in 3e are not static.

Right ... So what's your point?

Some people continue to make 3E characters in the same way they made 2E characters.

The difference is that, during the life of the 3E character, it is *possible* to deviate from the plan - whether or not the player chooses to do so.

Only humans with god-like stats could do that before.

 

[Altalazar]

Most of our players tend to stick with single-classes because it ultimately offers the greatest strength during level to level progression, with few exceptions (like Fighter/barbarian, or the barbarian/ranger.)

I tend to agree - it is usually much better to pick a class and stick to it. That's what I generally did, though I had some characters that deviated from that because it made sense from a character background / personality standpoint - and it was really planned from the beginning.