The New Design Philosophy?

[JRRNeiklot]

Catch up? From FOUR levels down? Note, the 2e fighter NEVER got a save throw at all, never mind any buffs to help him. Considering I can only gain one level at a time and I have to train each time, how in the heck am I going to catch up a four level deficit? Remember, this was from TWO hits. That's it. The creature hit me twice.

Maybe you should learn to avoid spectres? FEAR the undead, don't treat them like a lowly goblin. 3e undead are wimps. Just another encounter, a minor hassle, nothing to be alarmed about. Old school level draining rocks.

 

[jmucchiello]

I've never heard of the term Flavor lawyer...

Oh that's awesome.

"Hey, what do you mean there isn't a fair maiden trapped in the tower? What kind of fantasy game are you running?"

"Paladins should have prestidigitation as an at will ability so that their armor is always gleaming."

 

[Lanefan]

Prior to 3e, an energy draining creature hit you and you lost x levels. You can't really get much simpler than that. Hit, drop levels, go to half way through the level, press on. That's much simpler than 3e's gain a negative level with its encumbent penalties, followed by a saving throw the next day for a permanent level loss.

However, it is far less elegant. The game comes to a grinding halt because of a simple attack by a spectre for example. Say I toss a spectre into an encounter in an adventure in 2e for 6th level characters. The spectre hits the fighter twice and then dies. The fighter is now 2nd level adventuring with a group of 6th level characters.

Now, because restoration was pretty much beyond the grasp of a party of that level, either for price or whatever reason, the campaign comes to a grinding halt. You have two choices. Either the party babysits the 2nd level fighter until such time as he becomes useful again, if he ever does, or the character is retired. This means that a minor encounter with a creature throws a huge wrench into my entire campaign. Bob, the fighter player, doesn't want to sit on his hands for the next five sessions until he gains enough xp to pull a little bit more weight and I'm fairly sure the rest of the group isn't too thrilled with having this albatross around their neck.

Or the now-2nd Fighter becomes someone else's hench (thus allowing it to stay around and regain ExP, slowly) and Bob rolls up a new character if he's not already running two.

Of course, if the Spectre hits the Fighter twice more Bob's got an even bigger problem...he's now playing a weak Spectre... :\

And if the party can't pool their resources to fund a restoration, you're not giving out enough treasure. That said, one change I made long ago to restoration was that one casting would get back all levels lost in a single encounter, but if you lost levels at different times you'd need one restoration for each level (or batch).

From another perspective, I usually try to make sure the campaign can survive the loss or incapacitation of one character...

So, I don't use rust monsters. Before 3e I could probably count on one hand the number of times I used level draining undead. Both for the exact same reason. They are mechanics that, while very simple, caused far too many compexities in my game.

I use level-drainers on a regular, if infrequent, basis - and this in a 1e-based game - but I think I've only ever run one or two Rusties...must change this...soon....

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Hmm. I've just realized that while I've heard a lot of complaints about the new design philosophy, I haven't been hearing a lot of alternatives. How would you change the rules to be more in line with the style of game you'd like to play?

To answer that would take far longer than I've time for here, but it's taken over 20 years to get the 1e rules close to what I (and our crew in general seem to) like. It's not perfect, and there's always new ideas coming out, but it works for the most part, and that's what matters.

As for a redesign for a potential 4e, there's another thread or three (I don't know how to include the links) covering that.

Lanefan

 

[Plane Sailing]

That is not, in actual fact, true.

Oh, it applies to diplomacy - somewhat, depending on how seriously your DM took the reaction table. (Mind you, given that the DC of a Bluff check depends on how well the player constructs the Bluff, even that isn't a given).

However...
Spot checks are the 3e version of the Surprise roll.
Search checks are the 3e version of the "find secret door 1 in 6" or "34% chance to find traps"

Of course it is true.

The surprise roll was basically just a standard thing for all characters, except for those classes which had a specific benefit (rangers and monks primarily), apart from houserules. However, if the PLAYERS said "I watch the curtains carefully, to ensure that we can't get surprised by someone behind them", then you didn't get surprised.

I've never heard of nor experienced search checks done in the way you suggest. PLAYERS said "I search under the bed", "I look around the edge of the doorjamb for a secret switch" etc. etc.

Maybe you didn't do this, but this was the way *everyone* that I ever saw or knew played the game back in the 70s and 80s.

Fact. It relied upon player skill. There were no dice that you could just roll to get an answer, you had to be skilled at describing what you wanted and the DM adjudicated on that.

You might not like it, but that is the way that it was for most tasks in the pre-skill days. I find your attempt to compare that with the 3e skill system laughable.

In 3e, your rogue with 5 ranks in search will NEVER be able to find the DC25 secret door, and will ALWAYS be able to find the DC 24 secret door, with no role-playing and precious little thought involved. In 1e and earlier it depended upon your skill as a player ("I knock for hollow spaces in the upper section of the wall" / DM: it sounds hollow / "I can't be bothered with searching for secret catches, break out the pickaxes lads!")

Sure, someone can flavour-text around the die rolls in 3e, but it doesn't *depend* upon their descriptions, it depends upon a die roll and descriptions are just pasted on afterwards.

Cheers

 

[Hypersmurf]

I've had players in my games trying to "break" spells for many years; Command has existed throughout, and has never been a problem.

Our primary use of the Command spell in 1E was out-of-combat.

It lasted one round. So once we'd finished a combat, and had one bandit/goblin/guard/whatever left alive, we'd cast Command, and the DM would hit his stopwatch, and for one minute, the prisoner would 'Cooperate'. Which got us a lot of useful information over the years.

First time we tried it in 3E, the results were pretty lackluster. We gave the Command: 'Cooperate!' The DM hit his stopwatch. We got halfway through the first question... and six seconds was up.

-Hyp.

 

[Taraxia]

Of course it is true.

The surprise roll was basically just a standard thing for all characters, except for those classes which had a specific benefit (rangers and monks primarily), apart from houserules. However, if the PLAYERS said "I watch the curtains carefully, to ensure that we can't get surprised by someone behind them", then you didn't get surprised.

I've never heard of nor experienced search checks done in the way you suggest. PLAYERS said "I search under the bed", "I look around the edge of the doorjamb for a secret switch" etc. etc.

Maybe you didn't do this, but this was the way *everyone* that I ever saw or knew played the game back in the 70s and 80s.

Fact. It relied upon player skill. There were no dice that you could just roll to get an answer, you had to be skilled at describing what you wanted and the DM adjudicated on that.

You might not like it, but that is the way that it was for most tasks in the pre-skill days. I find your attempt to compare that with the 3e skill system laughable.

In 3e, your rogue with 5 ranks in search will NEVER be able to find the DC25 secret door, and will ALWAYS be able to find the DC 24 secret door, with no role-playing and precious little thought involved. In 1e and earlier it depended upon your skill as a player ("I knock for hollow spaces in the upper section of the wall" / DM: it sounds hollow / "I can't be bothered with searching for secret catches, break out the pickaxes lads!")

Sure, someone can flavour-text around the die rolls in 3e, but it doesn't *depend* upon their descriptions, it depends upon a die roll and descriptions are just pasted on afterwards.

Cheers

Well, this is why the DMG says the circumstance bonus or penalty is the DM's best friend. If someone is really good at describing their actions, add bonuses, and take them away if they don't.

The thing is that it's often not fun for a player to be expected to either actually have the mindset and skills of a brilliant detective or to be good at expressing his ideas in brilliant prose in order to play a high-skill PC.

 

[Taraxia]

Our primary use of the Command spell in 1E was out-of-combat.

It lasted one round. So once we'd finished a combat, and had one bandit/goblin/guard/whatever left alive, we'd cast Command, and the DM would hit his stopwatch, and for one minute, the prisoner would 'Cooperate'. Which got us a lot of useful information over the years.

First time we tried it in 3E, the results were pretty lackluster. We gave the Command: 'Cooperate!' The DM hit his stopwatch. We got halfway through the first question... and six seconds was up.

-Hyp.

Refresh my memory, but you can't do this with _command_ in 3.5 at all (I don't know about 3e). You can command it to approach, drop its weapon, flee, or halt, which makes these things much easier to run.

Not that it matters, because what you were doing with _command_ is the exact same effect as a different 1st-level spell in 3e, _charm person_. (Which doesn't let you make it do absolutely anything at all the way 1e _charm_, IIRC, did, but that's what _dominate_ is for. And you weren't doing anything required by _dominate_ anyway -- as long as you're out of combat _charm_ should get a guard to answer all the questions you want.

 

[Lanefan]

Refresh my memory, but you can't do this with _command_ in 3.5 at all (I don't know about 3e). You can command it to approach, drop its weapon, flee, or halt, which makes these things much easier to run.

And much less interesting to play, that's the problem; and why Command is being used here as an example.

Not that it matters, because what you were doing with _command_ is the exact same effect as a different 1st-level spell in 3e, _charm person_.

We-ell, not quite, in that a Command lasts for 1 round during which there's only so much info you can hope to get, while a Charm can last for ages. (though it may have been cut back in 3 or 3.5, in 1e the target got a new save at a frequency based on intelligence, but a series of failed saves could keep someone average charmed for weeks)

Lanefan

 

[Hypersmurf]

Refresh my memory, but you can't do this with _command_ in 3.5 at all (I don't know about 3e). You can command it to approach, drop its weapon, flee, or halt, which makes these things much easier to run.

Right. The Command menu is a 3.5 innovation; in 3E it was much the same single-word order as in 1E.

Although, from memory, the 1E version didn't allow a save... anyone confirm?

-Hyp.