The fragmentation of the D&D community... was it inevitable?

[GreyLord]

I don't think that according to the rules a Drow Druid/Ranger/Wizard is actually allowed....

Of course with DM fiat you could do anything...but the same would also apply to 4e as well. You could have that Drow/Druid/Ranger/Wizard...and have strange rituals added in.

Maybe you got that from the Race book, the Complete Elf...I never really was a fan of the Complete books, so maybe that's where I'm missing a rule somewhere.

I believe elves were overall restricted to being cleric, fighter, mage, thief, or ranger, multi-class options of fighter/mage, fighter/thief, fighter/mage thief, or mage/thief.

pg 21. 2e PHB.


I see this posted

It appeared in a Dragon article back in the 1980's, when the mag was "100% Official."

Issue # please. I have all of them, though I would have to go dig it up out of storage.
I'll finish up the thread...but that's the first thing that sort of struck me odd right there.

I'll look up the article...issue #100?

I still find it looking suspicious, but I'll look it up.

However, in that case...since any rule is inclusive...

First problem is that if you have a multiclass of any significance...you won't have those levels in 3e. Your classes are automatically reduced and hence your powers that you vaunt are reduced right there. (official conversion rules nerfed MC levels GIGANTICALLY). (what level was he so we can see just how much he lost when you did a "conversion" on him...you DID DO IT by the book? Right...since there was actually an 'official' way to do it as opposed to any conversions you do to 4e which is basically however the heck you feel like converting them).

At least in 4e you could do a Hybrid Multiclass with Drow...if you are saying any rule is allowable...and that's not even including the Dragon rules...and you could even stay the same level!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The issue has been posted:

druid/ranger article issue 100 page 9

The exact level of the PC isn't handy to me at the moment, it being after 1AM where I am, but the general upshot was he (and about 6 other PCs in the group would be considered Epic in 3.X (and in 2Ed as well- see Skip Williams' 2Ed release, High-Level Campaigns) As I recall, he's around 28th level (maybe less).

3Ed's Epic rules didn't exist at the time we started the conversion, but they did by the time we got to converting the top tier PCs (by that time, 17 years old). We didn't use them because the Epic rules added a bunch of stuff that simply didn't make sense, especially in the case of magic spells (those spellseed rules would have resulted in significant power-ups).

Instead, we stuck to standard leveling, including spells. (IOW, spells still had their damage capped.)

If all if this still bugs you, try my Human Ftr/Illusionist/Assassin (same campaign, lower level PC) on for size...

 

[shadzar]

By the DMO:HLC 10th and up was high-level, and druids were supposed to top-out at level 14 due to their hierarchy system presented in the PHB.

But like PO, the DMO was treading well away from anything with any real structure and into pretty much make it up as you go and ignore all of the books territory. So you were pretty much technically out of the AD&D system when using the DMO...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And yet, that book plus others supported PCs up to 30th level.

Yes, his Druid levels were capped in 2Ed- but not so low that he didn't have shapechanging or some pretty potent spells. His Ranger levels were capped, too. He still advanced as a MU, though.

And once converted to 3.X, he continued to advance (mostly Druid & Transmuter) up until 2008.

(as for "breaking" the game, we didn't even TOUCH the insanity of TSR's modules for 100th level PCs)

At least in 4e you could do a Hybrid Multiclass with Drow...if you are saying any rule is allowable...and that's not even including the Dragon rules...and you could even stay the same level!

And said PC wouldn't have the abilities Darkethorne has...and has had for some time.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Darkethorne was versed in the ways of arcane magic, as well as The Old Faith. He also took time to patiently learn the woodcraft and combat techniques of the wilderness men of the surface, and applied them to environments other than the piney woods above his home city. Eventually, he left the Underdark to live full time among the surface dwelling humans, dwarves and yes, even elves.

Still, though, he did not linger in the cities of the world, preferring the wild to walls. And even that became too limiting for him, and he discovered how to wander the planes. With transformative magics- innate and external- from both of his mystical traditions, he found he could blend in anywhere. Likewise, both paths provided the power he needed to escape whatever trouble he found in his journeys. And even when stripped of all his mystic resources, he remained a formidable enough warrior to give anyone pause.

So your character is literally "I am awesome at everything."

Not only can I not convert that to 4e, I honestly can't even begin to imagine how that could be converted to 3e. Or any edition, for that matter.

Your guarantees are utterly meaningless in the face of the actual experience of running the PC.

Dude, you were level 28. Druids capped at level 14 as being the most powerful druid in the world. Most 2e games ended at about level ten.

I think it's a safe statement that you didn't experience the norm of gameplay.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So your character is literally "I am awesome at everything."

No. I was asked to present the PC without reference to mechanics; I did so.

Throw undead at him and he had serious trouble. Intangible foes were also a problem beat left to others. If the target was immune to electricity, he had few direct attack spell options from the MU side.

Were you to actually see his MU spell list, you'd find it devoid of most "power spells"- no Sleep, no MM, no disintegrate- except for lighting bolt. Most if his MU spells were transmutations and divinations.

Not only can I not convert that to 4e, I honestly can't even begin to imagine how that could be converted to 3e. Or any edition, for that matter.

Then try the Human Ftr/Assassin/Illusionist from the same campaign.

Or try one of my purely 3.5Ed PCs: a Clc/Wiz/MT/Geomancer who uses Turns to heal dozens at a time; a Human Sorc who breathes lightning and rarely casts spells. Etc.

Dude, you were level 28. Druids capped at level 14 as being the most powerful druid in the world. Most 2e games ended at about level ten.

1) Where is your evidence that "most 2e games ended at about level ten?" I'll answer that one for you: you don't have any; you have anecdotes.

2) As stated above, due to racial restrictions, he could not achieve level 14 Druid. I believe it was capped between 11th-13th. His Ranger levels were similarly capped.

I think it's a safe statement that you didn't experience the norm of gameplay.

Yes- not many campaigns last 23 years.

 

[lutecius]

making some races and classes unavailable at launch didn't help conversion either, particularly classes like the druid that had been in the core books for 30 years. this is also true for some iconic monsters. but conversion is just one factor that may have helped widen the rift.

I think the key is trying to give the majority of fans what they want, not what some designer thinks is "cool". and again, I think the market research was lacking here.

were balance between classes, the lack of options for fighters, dependency on the cleric, underpowered multiclass combos, complexity at higher levels and save-or-die effects a problem for many players? maybe.

did a vast majority of players want every class to follow the same pseudo-vancian fire-and-forget system? healing, movement and other effects being further divorced from the fluff? harsh restrictions on multiclassing? new races (with questionable aesthetic choices) being pushed to the forefront? apparently not.

were those changes necessary to fix 3e issues? I really don't think so.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

1) Is it possible to create an edition of D&D that could largely satisfy 90% of the player base?

Given that specific phrasing, YES. That is, an edition that would not 100% satisfy, merely "largely" satisfy (meaning that significantly more would be satisfied with it than dissatisfied). And that the aforementioned sector would amount to 90% of the player base with the remaining 10% thinking the whole thing stinks like yesterdays diapers.

That is pretty much the situation that exists now, though my perception is that it is deteriorating because the set of rules that WotC is currently using carries consequences they clearly did not see (but should have) back when they first headed down this road in 2000 with 3E.

Yes, it IS possible to create yet another edition of D&D rules which can at least somewhat please at least 90% of the player base.



2) If it's not possible now, was it possible in 2007, before 4e was released?

Yes. Just as it is now given the aforementioned parameters, it was possible before 4E was released. It was and is possible to create an edition that has less of a divisive, and continually degrading effect upon the player base.



3) If it's not possible (now or then), what should Wizards, or whoever owns the D&D IP in the future, do about it?

Look at what elements made the game popular in the first place. Look at what elements are being sought by those who dismiss 4E and choose earlier editions as their game of choice. Look at what they have REMOVED from D&D, at least as seriously as what they added. Not all that glitters is gold...

I believe it should be possible to construct an edition that re-embraces key elements of D&D that were discarded as outdated, undesireable and unnecessary to maintain the games popularity within its own existing community - yet without saddling the game with the feel of a dull, clunky, antiquated RPG.

 

[Dausuul]

Deleted by author because it was contributing to incipient thread derailment and edition skirmish, and it would be a shame to see this thread collapse.

 

[Reigan]

The seeds of the split were sown right from the beginning of 3e. A mainstream game like D&D should never of had that much system mastery built into it, it was bound to cause problems later. The change from 3.0 to 3.5 created a climate where another incremental upgrade as opposed by a major overhaul would have been unacceptable.

WotC are also too big. Unlike most rpg companies, they have massive resources that allow them to make signification changes, most edition changes are not that big. They are also being driven to achieve a larger market share than is realistic by their corporate overlords, something that other companies don't have to worry about, leading flailing around and random changes in direction in desperate attempts to drum up more sales.

The internet age also makes thing difficult. 20 years ago, if there was a rule you didn't like, you would house rule it & move on. These days you look on-line, find other, like-minded people to declare why you hate that game & never play it again.