sniff sniff...Do I smell 2nd edition mistakes?

[3catcircus]

people want the books. Look on the boards and see the threads that talk about them. Its not as much as it used to be since there are just so many books to discuss, but the Complete books have been discusses to near death in rules. I always thought it was better to have too many books, then too few.

People want the books out of a sense of heightened expectations. After they've purchased them and seen just how crappy they are, they get a sense of disillusionment; hence, the message traffic one how bad people think the current state of D&D affairs is...

 

[Psion]

Miasma spells that suffocate you without save?

You know that's been fixed, right?

No, disagreed fundamentally. The kitted character vs. unkitted is in no ways worse off than the core class using core rules vs the non-core PRC munchaholic using non-core rules.

I am afraid I have to disagree. Kits gave you abilities, and drawbacks that supposedly compensated (some did, most didn't. Many had things like NPCS like you or hate you, so the disadvantage itself turns out to be a wash). But then, even if the kit's drawback did balance, you also got bonus proficiencies. You were always better off seeking out a kit in 2e than going without.

This is not the case with correctly designed 3e class. To take a level in prestige class or to play a non-human race, those are levels you cannot take in your character class. You have to pay for it. It lacks the "tacked on powers and hand motions of drawbacks to pay for it" non-functional paradigm of 2e supplements.


Yes, there are some ill thought out classes, especially in 3.5e. However, you can eliminate these problems by exclusion or house rule. I consider this situation superior to the way it was in 2e. There was no quality control; almost all generic supplements were freelanced out. This lead to early "Complete" sourcebooks being totally different in design approach, effectiveness, and usability than the later ones (in fact, I daresay the later Complete books were the better ones, as they forced you to pay for your abilities by giving up other abilities, rather than use handwaved drawbacks that had little real effect on play.) Skills & Powers couldn't be used with the earlier 2e books without lots of house rules to make things match up, and the Player's Option ruleset, despite being the first true sign of flexibility in the game, needed some serious tweaking to even be used by itself, let alone alongside earlier supplements. Even straddling the 3.0/3.5 divide is much less problematic than that task was.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

-snip-

So we're all broken disparate mish-mashes therefore we're all happy?
You compare a core fighter using core feats vs. vanilla build frenzied berzerker. Saying "well the core fighter can take those non-core feats and PrC too" is admitting the power-creep.

I compare a CORE DRUID whose "munchkining" is limited to the (Core) natural spell feat to a vanilla build frenzied berserker (or hulking hurler).

Hi, Frenzied Berserker. Say hello to a legion of summoned monsters, a higher strength, gargantuan size, a grapple check you simply cannot compete with, more hit points, total versatility, and no drawbacks whatsoever. Wow, you suck.

Hi, Hulking Hurler! I'm bigger than you (gargantuan vs. large), if I bothered crippling myself to get your ability I could do it better than you, I have an army of summoned monsters to get your attention, I can move through the ground with the greatest of ease (as an earth elemental) to get inside your range, and I can take you down with any one of my numerous save or die spells. Admittedly, though, I can't let you hit me even once. You're competitive, and you may even have an edge in pure combat in the open field.

Hi, rogue with OK non-core spells and very good core ones, perhaps including my own! You're a rogue, and I'm stealthier than you. You suck. Next.

Hi, core fighter. Core fighter? Are you there? Oh, I accidentally swatted you with my Godzilla-like paw, causing a massive damage save which you botched? Sorry, bud, but you're 18th-level and a core fighter; I'm a spellcaster who would be more than balanced with you if I had no spellcasting. You don't even count as sucking.

But of course, the issue here seems to be less about balance between players than balance between PCs and monsters. Specifically, dragons. Yes, 18th-level characters have a chance to specifically prepare for and eliminate dragons, possibly in a single hit. Of course, the only reason that stands out is because dragons are the only CR-equivalent creatures that can't be one-hit-KOed by any core spellcaster.

 

[Dark Jezter]

How exactly is elven plate mail broken? Is it any less broken than say something I pull out of the arms and equipement guide book? Or a core +5 mithral buckler with 0 ACP?

Never read the Arms & Equipment guide for 2e, but if it allowed things that had the same characteristics of elven plate, then I wouln't allow it either.

Call me anal-retentive, but when a suit of armor provides just as much protection as regular full plate but only weighs as much as chain mail, I want at least some explaination why. And "Because teh elves made it!" is not an explaination.

Double arrow shot is akin to plain rapid shot? No?

Rapid shot in 3e at least requires that the user take a feat first. Double arrow shot in CBoE was available to all elves.

Artificial limbs are um broken how? How about your vanilla multi-armed 3.5 monster
template? Or plain polymorph? Or a thri-kreen?

Right. And I suppose that if a suppliment was released that gave elves the disintigrate eye ray as an option, it wouldn't be broken because already beholders have it.

Claiming that something is overpowered just because certain monsters have it dosen't always fly when you're talking about player characters.

How exactly is a bladesinger overpowered, are you suggesting a 12/15 fig/wiz cannot be replicated by say an eldricht knight in 3.5?

The problem with the bladesinger class kit was that it got a lot of bonuses, and the only real drawback was a roleplaying penalty (and it was established long ago that giving mechanical bonuses in exchange for roleplaying penalties doesn't work). Yes, bladesingers got a -1 penalty to hit when trying to attack with something other than their chosen weapon, but this was a tiny penalty compared to all the good stuff they got.

 

[wingsandsword]

I will say that it is a lot easier for a DM to keep an eye on things in 3.x than in 2nd ed. A lot more care was taken on play balance, and there is no Complete Elf horror. (I had a player try to insist that I had to allow the use of that peice of drek, because it was official...)

Yeah, attitudes like that are why I have a low tolerance for people insisting that I "have to" allow anything into my game, and that anything is balanced or appropriate just because it has the TSR (or later WotC) logo on it.

Now, personally I think that 3e is generally much better about balance than 2e ever, ever was, even with the splats, but it is a set of rules, written by people, it isn't inherently perfect and will never be (especially with the complexity of the game), and that's why we have living DM's instead of computers running the games, to make judgment calls and say "not in my game!".

Try writing a 1000+ page set of rules (the size of the 3.5e core) to be a flexible and easy-to-learn set of rules representing a fantasy game, that holds up a 3 decade tradition of what people already expect, make it flexible enough to work on a wide variety of campaign worlds, make it perfectly balanced so that no single character model is too strong compared to others of it's level. On top of all that, be able to write additional suppliments that are all perfectly balanced and useful add-ons with a corporate master giving you inflexible deadlines and rigid page-count quotas. When you think about the production pressures and the difficulty of their job, they are doing exceptionally good work.

However, back in the 2e era, someone asked to be in my game, and I told him "sure" (I was short on players, and while this player had a bad reputation with local gaming groups, I thought I might give him a trial period to disprove the rumors). I was running a quasi-historic game using the "Green Book" Crusades suppliment. Before I could really even start to explain the setting and campaign to him, he already was babbling on about his character, which he had already rolled up and written up and was looking for a campaign to play it in . . .

A Lawful Evil Elven Mage/Thief, Spellfilcher Kit (from the Complete Book of Elves), with Psionic Wild Talent of Disintegrate (which he swore he legitemately rolled), and not a single ability score below 14, including a 19 Dexterity. I told him NO WAY, since it was a historic game, so no elves, I never allow Evil PC's, mages were heavily modified and powered-down, and Psionics weren't allowed in this campaign, and even if I did he'd have to roll it right in front of me. He got indignant and personally offended, saying I had no choice but to allow this into my game since it was from a TSR Official book, and I couldn't restrict it. Needless to say, he never joined my game, or the games of any DM I know.

 

[MerricB]

Yeah, attitudes like that are why I have a low tolerance for people insisting that I "have to" allow anything into my game, and that anything is balanced or appropriate just because it has the TSR (or later WotC) logo on it.

Absolutely. I know that the Wizards sense of game balance is very close to my own, but do I allow every little thing they publish in my game? Not a chance.

Cheers!

 

[eyebeams]

Mind you, there were problems from the beginning - witness the Complete Priest's Handbook(1990), which spent about 80 of 128 pages discussing a faith system that, though a good idea, was completely on a different power level from the Player's Handbook!

Cheers!

Too true. Again, though, I think it comes from the fact that each of those books was really designed to make campaigning with a single class an end in of itself. So they were great for Elf-only or Priest-only games, but seriously sucked once you combined them.

 

[Ranger REG]

If you ask me, WotC have got to be more aware of the new rules material they put out, so as not to conflict with other previously published material, at least for 3.5e.

If that means they have to delay the product release in order to be meticulous, then they should do so.

That goes double for the "Sage Advice" answers, which usually ended up in their official FAQ.

If you want to re-introduce character kits, the only way I'll accept them is there has to be a trade-off, and Special Hindrance does not count as a trade-off. If you have eyes for rules mechanics, I recommend you look at how the bloodline in UA work, where they offer you special abilities in exchange for a number of character levels devoted to the "bloodline" class.

 

[MerricB]

Too true. Again, though, I think it comes from the fact that each of those books was really designed to make campaigning with a single class an end in of itself. So they were great for Elf-only or Priest-only games, but seriously sucked once you combined them.

I think you grant them too much credit for having a systematic approach to the books.

That's mentioned as the approach in the Thief's handbook, but I don't think it holds for all of them.

Cheers!

 

[eyebeams]

I think you grant them too much credit for having a systematic approach to the books.

That's mentioned as the approach in the Thief's handbook, but I don't think it holds for all of them.

Cheers!

IIRC, most of the books had a section for using them for one class/race games. The Priest and Elf books both said that they assumed a variant from the standard PHB.