The Sacred Cow Slaughterhouse: Ideas you think D&D's better without

[pemerton]

The Great Wheel.

I hated that.

*breaks out the popcorn and awaits*

The inner plane/outer plane distinction I can handle, and have used in my own (Rolemaster) games. But I have no real use for a seperate Astral and Ethereal plane.

As for the outer planes, I've treated them 4e style well before 4e started too, because the "wheel" makes no sense once you get rid of alignment - and then you can go for various sorts of thematic and pantheonic outer planes rather than the weird scattering of pantheons over planes that we've seen ever since the original DDG and the MotP.

 

[N'raac]

Here's an example where using different levels doesn't work: Frank wants his fighter to be a combat monster. Bob wants his bard to be the go-to guy in social encounters. If you insist that everyone is equally powerful in combat, the usual meaning of "balance", then you don't get to have specialists who are better at social interaction, exploration, or other aspects of the game but weaker at combat. And there are plenty of people who would like to play such characters.

Most players, I would think.

I wouldn't say most, but I would agree it is a non-trivially large percentage.

I think there's a chicken and egg issue here. If 90%+ of the game revolves around combat, and social and exploration tasks are either trivially easy or resolved outside of actual mechanics, this is a lot different from a game with approximately equal weighting, and similar levels of challenge, for all three.

As well, I think there are still a lot of people out there who resolve social challenges with a much heavier weighting on layer skill (did Tom make a good speech) than character skill (id the dice show Tom's character made a good speech). We've had combat resolution based on robust mechanics since the start of RPG's, and few of us will lay claim to being able to "role play" our combat actions. Social interaction, not so much, and the move to more mechanical resolution has not, I think, been accepted across the board.

Somewhat similar for exploration - take a secret door opened by moving a certain book in the bookshelf, for example. Some GM's will use mechanical resolution your search skill determines whether you fin and move that book. Others will stick to "either the player says he moves the book or he won't". In the middle ground are those who will use the Search skill to see indications of the secret door (hollowness when you tap the wall, a slight difference in the finish of the wall; disturbances in dust on the floor and/or bookshelf), but still want to hear "Move the book" before that door will open.

For me, since anyone can eventually move the book, the DC needs to be low enough that anyone Taking 20 will fin the door, because they will shuffle through all the books. So it's not going to need the guy with +15 Search to find this particular door.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Really? Not in my experience. I mostly played multiclass (demihumans) characters in 2E, and so did many others. They were simply better than straight class characters, the ability score bonuses were nice, the level caps were ignored...

Of course you did if you ignore level caps. House rules are fine, as long as you realize they WILL change the game significantly. Ignoring level caps is a good way to never see a human pc.

(In before, "but roleplaying")

 

[Kinak]

Of course you did if you ignore level caps. House rules are fine, as long as you realize they WILL change the game significantly. Ignoring level caps is a good way to never see a human pc.

As is running short campaigns that don't reach the level cap. Which, unless WotC has been consistently lying to us for no reason, includes the majority of all campaigns.

You're right on the net effect, only seeing non-humans, but that was also the net effect of running short campaigns or campaigns the players expect to be short. All removing those level limits actually does is reduce the impact of the "bet how long the campaign will last" stage of character creation.

(In before, "but roleplaying")

I mean, it's fairly weird from a worldbuilding perspective, but that's far from the only reason that people houseruled those out of existence.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[JRRNeiklot]

As is running short campaigns that don't reach the level cap. Which, unless WotC has been consistently lying to us for no reason, includes the majority of all campaigns.

Very short in some cases:

Dwarves: Fighter: 9, Assassin 9
Elves: fighter 7, Gnome fighter 6, Gnome Illusionist 7
Half-elf cleric 5, Druid, fighter, ranger, magic user 8
Halfling Fighter 6
Half Orc cleric 4, Half Orc thief 8

 

[Kinak]

Very short in some cases:

Dwarves: Fighter: 9, Assassin 9
Elves: fighter 7, Gnome fighter 6, Gnome Illusionist 7
Half-elf cleric 5, Druid, fighter, ranger, magic user 8
Halfling Fighter 6
Half Orc cleric 4, Half Orc thief 8

That's still not terrribly uncommon. That said, my experience with that rule is calibrated to 2nd Edition.

So your halfling fighter/thief can get to level 9/15. And the classic half-elf fighter/mage/thief can get to 9/12/12. So even the first limit doesn't kick in until your human mages have reached 9th level.

I don't think it's controversial to say most games have wrapped up or failed by then. And in old school play, you probably have a new character by that point.

But, all that the caps being lower forces you to do is move the bet to a different level. I can't say I much like the idea of people flipping through the PHB at the start of my campaign thinking "well, this'll be best if we never make it past level 4, but if the campaign lasts a while..." Obviously, your mileage may vary, but I don't want to start my games off by creating a deadpool. And I want a system that can support short campaigns if I want to run one.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[TwoSix]

Very short in some cases:

Dwarves: Fighter: 9, Assassin 9
Elves: fighter 7, Gnome fighter 6, Gnome Illusionist 7
Half-elf cleric 5, Druid, fighter, ranger, magic user 8
Halfling Fighter 6
Half Orc cleric 4, Half Orc thief 8

I actually think ACKS did a pretty good job with it. The racial classes that take the most experience to level are also the ones with the lowest level cap, so that everyone reaches max level at roughly the same amount of experience.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

That's still not terrribly uncommon. That said, my experience with that rule is calibrated to 2nd Edition.

So your halfling fighter/thief can get to level 9/15. And the classic half-elf fighter/mage/thief can get to 9/12/12. So even the first limit doesn't kick in until your human mages have reached 9th level.

Wow, I hadn't realized 2nd edition had changed them that much. That indeed makes a big difference.

I don't think it's controversial to say most games have wrapped up or failed by then. And in old school play, you probably have a new character by that point.

In my experience, campaigns last to around 12th level, sometimes as high as 14 or 15. Of course, maybe not in 2nd edition because if I'm not mistaken, they also removed the gold = exp rule.

But, all that the caps being lower forces you to do is move the bet to a different level. I can't say I much like the idea of people flipping through the PHB at the start of my campaign thinking "well, this'll be best if we never make it past level 4, but if the campaign lasts a while..." Obviously, your mileage may vary, but I don't want to start my games off by creating a deadpool. And I want a system that can support short campaigns if I want to run one.

In a short campaign, demihuman abilities don't really matter all that much. Infravision is an all or none thing. Either everyone has it or no one does, as a lantern or torch will ruin it for everyone, or else the humans will be blind. Dwarves and halflings get some nice save bonuses, but in a short campaign, they won't be saving against much. The odd poisonous spider, maybe, or charm person.
There's a reason most of those limits are level 8 or lower, btw. At level 9 (8 for clerics, 12 for magic users) you get your stronghold. Your own private army. That's a HUGE bonus for humans.

 

[Kinak]

Wow, I hadn't realized 2nd edition had changed them that much. That indeed makes a big difference.

Yeah, I hadn't realized either. I did know there was some backlash during 1st edition against the rule, which ended up with two optional workarounds in the DMG, but I hadn't realized they'd also moved up the numbers that much.

In my experience, campaigns last to around 12th level, sometimes as high as 14 or 15. Of course, maybe not in 2nd edition because if I'm not mistaken, they also removed the gold = exp rule.

I have a factoid in the back of my head that says the majority of D&D campaigns end by 6th level, but damned if I can find the citation for it. Even if I'm remembering it correctly, it was data mentioned in the 4th Edition ramp-up, so it's entirely possible their "across editions of D&D" was tilted towards 2nd and 3rd.

In a short campaign, demihuman abilities don't really matter all that much. Infravision is an all or none thing. Either everyone has it or no one does, as a lantern or torch will ruin it for everyone, or else the humans will be blind. Dwarves and halflings get some nice save bonuses, but in a short campaign, they won't be saving against much. The odd poisonous spider, maybe, or charm person.
There's a reason most of those limits are level 8 or lower, btw. At level 9 (8 for clerics, 12 for magic users) you get your stronghold. Your own private army. That's a HUGE bonus for humans.

In my experience, the biggest boost with being demihuman is multiclassing. I agree the mechanical racial advantages never added up to much, certainly less than name level and/or high-level casting.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[JeffB]

THIEF...and eventually the Rogue.