Strengths & Weaknesses in RPGs

[drothgery]

At a guess, your 'wizards don't do combat' stance was most likely due to your wizard player (you know, the guy who always seems to play the wizard?) focussing on utility over combat.

Because believe me - a wizard focussing on combat over utility made the rest of the party redundant in that area.

I'll say. My mid-to-high level 2e wizards (which were built to be good at combat) ended up delibrately using sub-optimal tactics unless we were risking a TPK, so that everyone else would have something to do.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Also included in the 2nd ed rules, was the idea that on a certain 'level' in the dungeon, you'd meet a certain power level of critter. This was a big concept of the game - if you didn't go to an inappropriate 'level' of the dungeon before you were ready, you'd mostly face critters that you could defeat. In fact I seem to recall Gary (although it could be another ultra-old-school DM) boasting that he'd tricked players into going down a level in a dungeon without realising it, and therefore they'd meet tougher creatures. As if that was the only way to make them face tougher creatures...

Most of the people worrying about role vs roll playing clearly didn't read Gary's early takes on the game. Yup. You've pegged that Gary boast for what it was. And, you've also pointed out that the "video game mentality" has been around since the beginning. Heck, that "more dangerous creatures the farther in/deeper you go" is needed so that the players can at least try to guage the risks and potential rewards of an adventure.

Now we jump to making gnomes and elves fey:

You might want to change (or at least consider) the spells which only affect 'humanoids' then. Otherwise (for instance), charm person doesn't work on them, and there is no enlarge spell which will work on them.

You are, of course, correct. Then again, I don't see either as a problem. Also, IMC there are spells and effects which would affect fey characters, but not humanoids.

On to the arcane/divine spellcasters:

There are no rules involved with this - it's purely flavour consideration.

Depends. First off, according to the core rules, a divine spellcaster gains his spells simply by reaching a specific level. If the deity worshipped by the character isn't powerful enough to grant those spells, there isn't any real problem. Something else steps in and the character gains the spells anyway.

I don't much care for that idea. I'd rather that the spells were based on what the deity could offer. And, I'd rather that access to spells and any other divinely given powers was based on maintaining the patron's good will.

In another thread, I stated that I thought healing spells should be evocation because they channel a deity's healing power. The response was, essentially, if you are just channeling power, why not make all your spells spontaneous? I am beginning to think that this may be a way to go: fewer effects, but all spontaneous. If it's within your caster level, you can ask for it at the time you need it.

Arcane casters might have more potential effects, but have to work harder to master them. Again, I am incomplete on details, but I think I could steal quite a few ideas from many of the alternate magic d20 products out there.

Really, you've given us nothing to work on. I suggest you pick a change, think through what you want out of it, and then make the change so it does two of the following three:

1. Makes the game simpler
2. Makes the game more 'realistic' - that is, it conforms to the reality you have imagined.
3. Makes the game more fun.

As an example - banning items or weapons fails on point number 3, but succeeds on points 1 and 2.

So far, making gnomes and elves into fey fails points 1 and 3 - fey aren't inherently more fun than humanoids, and making players of them remember what the 'fey' type does is making the game a bit more complex.

This is actually quite a good criteria for making change. Thanks.

I am not sure that the "fey elves and gnomes" change fails on point (3) though. If the races are more closely tied into the nature of the campaign world (and I have a lively faerie contingent...half of all the gods are Faerie Lords), wouldn't playing a member of those races be more fun? If not, wouldn't this argument also hold true for the races in the core rules? You have to remember what the "elf" racial type does, after all. Why not all humans?

(And that is not merely facetious. Your argument re: video game mentality was a good one!)

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed by author

 

[RFisher]

In older editions, every character class had strengths and weaknesess.

I used to lament the fact that AD&D made it hard for me to create Gandalf (a MU proficient with a sword) or the Gray Mouser (a human MU/Thief/Fighter).

These days, though, I recognize that it was designed foremost to be a game, not a literature simulator. It's a better game (IMHO) when the PCs must depend upon each other to make up for one another's weaknesses.

That said, I really like the way that 3e tried to replace restrictions with trade-offs. Sure, you're Wizard can wear full-plate, but he'll suffer a consequence. It's like how we used to let AD&D MUs use swords, they just couldn't be proficient. In some ways I think 3e did a good job of removing restrictions but keeping the previously restricted choice suboptimal.

In some cases, however, it did open up new options without making them suboptimal. I don't know that that is objectively good or bad, but it certainly changes the feel of the game. (Likewise, it changed the feel of the game by "nerfing" other choices.)

 

[Umbran]

So, the group should be able to defeat 80% of all encounters without a reasonable chance that a PC could die?

From a dramatic standpoint - about in five encounters may well kill you. That's not too shabby. It is often enough that the party should always be on their guard and cautious, but no so often that they're going to always die.

Instead, wouldn't it make sense to gear the encounters toward what makes sense in the area that is being explored?

No. I'm more of a storyteller than a simulationist. The game is not telling the story of the area. It is telling the story of the PCs. The proper choice is the one that puts the correct amount of dramatic tension in the PCs without killing them off so frequently that they cannot generate character-dependant stories.

This is not to say that everything must be a cake-walk, or that all places should be equally viable adventure-fodder. But the story is about the PCs, and therefore should be constructed relative to them.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed by author

 

[Felix]

RC, unless you post more specific changes you have in mind, those 5 examples of what you wanted to do to the game seemed much more superficial than mechanical changes. (And not superficial in a bad way, just that it doesn't seem likely to have much of an effect on the rules but rather the flavor.)

Gnomes and elves to fey:

Ok, so they're fey... Besides granting immunity to some spells and a reputation for mischeviousness this really doesn't change too much of anything.

Divine Spellcasters tied to diety more closely:

...They arn't tied to their diety? That's where they get thier spells. And if you want to switch around the spells they offer, perhaps you could do something like school specialization for Gods... clerics of the God of Death will have an extra Necromancy slot each level but be unable to cast Illusion or Enchantment spells. Or something like that. That gives certain gods different flavors without making them too off-balance. Who wants to be the cleric of a god who only can grant 3rd level spells?

Arcane spellcasters gain more of a "stealing power from the gods" feel.

Ok, make divine casters beat up arcane spellcasters any chance they have. Why? Because the arcanists are stealing power from the gods. Easy peasy. Flavor change.

Non spellcasting classes strengthened and structured into world.

Yeah, sorry. I don't know what this sentence means either.

A lot of new classes, including some from Monte Cooke, Oriental Adventures, the Medieval Player's Handbook, Master Class, and other sources.

That's what those other books are for. And you'll often find something like this written in the front cover: "Requires use of 3rd Edition Players Handbook". They're written to be inserted into worlds ready to go.

A lot of the sillier new bits (spiked everything, some of the new weapons, some of the new monsters, etc.) tossed out.

This isn't a game-shattering change. I have it in my homebrew. PC's can't use the spiked chain? Ok, so what? I'll use something else then...

Several new racial choices, and sub-races of humans, elves, etc.

You mean like Warforged, Shifters, Moon Elves, Dark Elves, Axani, Cansin,... ad nauseum? These things fit right in with the other book material and are made to slide fairly seamlessly into a d20 Greyhawk (or homebrew) campaign.

Some spells tightened, or made more difficult to cost.

This is S.O.P., dude: Standard Operating Procedure for most DMs. Lots of folks houseruled Harm, Haste, and other spells they thought caused problems. But it really isn't building anything from the ground up... you're changing what's available to the PCs. In the end that has to please you and the players. If it does, then it's a good change. Relics & Rituals has mechanics for ritual spells, and the Red Wizards of Thay set a standard for circle magic. The same mechanics could be applied to Druid Circles, Witch Covens, or your run of the mill arcanists.

Perhaps in your desire to change the rules to fit what you like you're missing the AD&D days of the binders of house rules. Maybe that's it, and maybe it's not. Either way, I think d20 has an admirable rules system and if you try to build something from the ground up, you'll be losing a lot of that. Granted, I don't think you're trying to build anything from the ground up except maybe a homebrew campaign world, but you shoudl know what you want before you dig in and start making changes.

If you're looking for concensus, I have no-to-little problems with d20 as written, but it does have a particular feel to it, what with magic being fairly powerful and not too uncommon. Changing that flavor is up to the DM, of course, and it is easily done within the rules.

Luck.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed by author