Third Edition Culture- Is is sustainable?

[der_kluge]

It certainly could. You could pretend that the GM doesn't have the dispensation to make a call.

I think some people are better at that than others. I'm not very comfortable making calls on the fly. I'd rather take the time, find the rule, learn it, so I don't have to make the call the next time an obscure rule comes up.

And it's not so much the combat aspects of D&D that irk me, and this is in response to the fellow asking me whether a previous edition of D&D might suit me better. Consider the following "pet peeves" I have:

-- All races have the same attributes, i.e., all elves are dextrous, all halflings favor rogues.
-- All classes are fundamentally the same. Without multi-classing, you can't build a cleric of a god of lies and deception where Bluff and intimidate are class skills. Furthermore, which skills are class skills are worked into the very balance of the game. Give Sorcerers diplomacy, and you make bards redundant.
-- Class hit dice versus racial hit dice. Halfling barbarians have d12 hit dice. Half-orc wizards have d4 hit dice. What?!
-- the magic item creation system makes no sense. Yea, at least there *is* one in 3rd edition. There still aren't any rules for rechargable magic items or consistent pricing guidelines in the core rules. Also, needing one feat to create boots of water walking, and a separate feat altogether to create a ring of water walking (and a stringent level requirement to boot).
-- The exponential scaling of level advancement. This one has been brought up on here already.
-- the d20 itself. I like HARP because it uses a 100 scale for things. For example, I'd like to see a gradual increase in armor, or weapons. Adding a +1 is a huge bonus in D&D, and it's the most granular thing you can get. For my next campaign, I wanted to introduce things like "tattered leather" being worse than "high quality leather", but neither being nearly as good as "crappy studded leather". You just can't get to that level of detail with a 20-point scale.
-- the concept that 20th level adventurers walking around a gritty, realistic village is a totally absurd concept. 20th level adventurers are simply out of place anywhere other than plane-hopping through the multi-verse battling dragons, and demons.
-- older editions have tons of other problems as well. Str 18/00 anyone? Elves in basic were all uber powerful fighter/sorcerers. What's up with that?
-- inconsistent CR ratings. 20 CR 1 goblins is a cakewalk, but 20 CR 1 shadows can TPK a high level party if used right.

Yea, PCGen and E-tools are nice, but one shouldn't need them to play the game effectively. Tools are created to fill a niche where a problem resides. That's why those programs exist. If it was easy to make NPCs in D&D, you think those people would sell any software? Anyone that's familiar with the Oracle Database software will understand. Anyone that uses that regularly pretty much has to use some high-dollar software called TOAD. Without TOAD, Oracle is a bloated, nightmarish, unwieldy piece of crap that appears to have been written by aliens from Ophiuchi. With TOAD, it's intuitive, and easy to use. Far be it from the programmers at Oracle to actually create an intuitive, easy to use interface. That'd be asking too much. Instead, TOAD by Quest software stepped in to fill a niche where a problem existed. Same with PCGen and Etools. The fact that they exist does not alleviate the fact that there is still a fundamental problem with the complexity of the system.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I find the "it's not rocket science" posts very condescending. Of course it's not but it implies that the person isn't capable of adding. Voicing your opinion or an alternate view is fine, I just don't like the demeaning replies.

And I feel the same way about the many 'high level D&D is for idiots who play video games and just want more power' posts being just as condescending.

High-level play in 3.x requires the DM to have a very strong grasp of the rules and be able to spout mechanics off the top of his. If you have a skittish DM or someone who has to consult the book about every spell, feat, or combat maneuver, you're going to be in for a long night.

There is an alternative to being an expert, but it does require confidence in yourself and the player's confidence in you as a DM. Wing it. It keeps play moving, and if you have a grasp of the basics of the d20 system(which aren't complicated at all) it isn't too much of a problem. And if you want direct book reference, have the player with his book open to the page with the spell/feat/whatever before his turn in initiative comes up so he can reference it without much flipping of pages, etc.

There ARE ways to keep things moving, and its obvious by the amount of people that DO play into high levels that it isn't impossible or even as insanely troublesome as is sometimes said.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I-- All classes are fundamentally the same. Without multi-classing, you can't build a cleric of a god of lies and deception where Bluff and intimidate are class skills.

Trickery Domain gives you Bluff, Disguise and Hide as class skills. There's also likely another non-Core Domain that gives Intimidate. But I don't see Intimidate as all that vital to a god od lies/deception as Bluff.

[/Off Topic]

 

[der_kluge]

There is an alternative to being an expert, but it does require confidence in yourself and the player's confidence in you as a DM. Wing it. It keeps play moving, and if you have a grasp of the basics of the d20 system(which aren't complicated at all) it isn't too much of a problem. And if you want direct book reference, have the player with his book open to the page with the spell/feat/whatever before his turn in initiative comes up so he can reference it without much flipping of pages, etc.

Maybe I should dredge up my Myer's Brigg's Personality Profile breakdown on ENWorld thread and couple it with a "how much do you enjoy 'winging it' thread." I'm not personality profile expert, but I suspect there would be a strong correlation between personality profiles of those who are comfortable "winging it" and those who simply are not that comfortable doing that.

For clarification, when the players decide they need to buy some piece of equipment, and I have to create a shopkeeper on the fly, I'm comfortable creating a personality on the fly. That's the DM's job. I enjoy that, and feel that I am pretty good at that.

However, I'm not comfortable trying to create rules on the fly for the game, when I'm trying to ascertain whether or not this tactic will work. Maybe it's because my players kept outsmarting me, and it got annoying after awhile, or because I'd rule something and it would differ with the rules that were later looked up, and they'd complain about, I don't know. But, all things being equal, I'd just rather not wing rules. I shouldn't have to.

 

[der_kluge]

Trickery Domain gives you Bluff, Disguise and Hide as class skills. There's also likely another non-Core Domain that gives Intimidate. But I don't see Intimidate as all that vital to a god od lies/deception as Bluff.
[/Off Topic]

How about a cleric of deception and thievery? What if I wanted to sacrifice my turning undead ability for additional skill points?

What if I wanted to make a mendicant (traveling, begging priest). Can I trade my armor proficiency off for something more useful? I'm a pacifist. Can I replace my BAB with something more appropriate to my character concept?

 

[Turjan]

There ARE ways to keep things moving, and its obvious by the amount of people that DO play into high levels that it isn't impossible or even as insanely troublesome as is sometimes said.

Wasn't there a poll some time ago asking which levels EN World members enjoyed the most in D&D? I cannot search for it, but the majority chose levels 6-10, if I remember correctly.

Winging high levels expects you to accept quite a high error margin with all those effects in place, I suppose.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Wasn't there a poll some time ago asking which levels EN World members enjoyed the most in D&D? I cannot search for it, but the majority chose levels 6-10, if I remember correctly.

Of course, ENWorld isn't a good representation of D&D players in general. Many of the attitudes I've seen on ENworld against high level play, certain spells, heck the whole 3.5 revision were quickly proved wrong when I actually ran games with face to face groups. We have NEVER had trouble with high level games. Its not a problem with the system, and its not even a problem with the people who do have trouble with high level play. It shouldn't be seen either way. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that its wrong/broken/etc

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

How about a cleric of deception and thievery? What if I wanted to sacrifice my turning undead ability for additional skill points?

That's why there's multiclassing.

What if I wanted to make a mendicant (traveling, begging priest). Can I trade my armor proficiency off for something more useful?

I don't mind changing around class abilities to go with certain concepts.

I'm a pacifist. Can I replace my BAB with something more appropriate to my character concept?

That goes into the whole realm of 'what use are you to the party'? Sure, a pacifist character is fine and all in concept, but when you put the character in an aventuring group, problems obviously arrise. Not to say that all D&D is about fighting, but it IS(and always has been) a major part of the game.

 

[Psion]

However, I'm not comfortable trying to create rules on the fly for the game, when I'm trying to ascertain whether or not this tactic will work. Maybe it's because my players kept outsmarting me, and it got annoying after awhile, or because I'd rule something and it would differ with the rules that were later looked up, and they'd complain about, I don't know. But, all things being equal, I'd just rather not wing rules. I shouldn't have to.

As I see it, you have two options: wing it or remember it. Here you profess not wanting to wing it. Earlier, you express the difficulties of remembering.

When you say you shouldn't have to, does that mean that you think the system should be different somehow? If so, consider what is going on when you select an easier system: you are simply going with a system for which "winging it" is codified or accepted as part of the rules. It certainly doesn't give those rules the sort of consistency or internal logic that those who seek "meatier" rules strive for.

This is why it is my professed philosophy to use the rules as long as it's convenient/helpful, and dispense with them when it gets in the way of the game. It's easier to ignore rules than try to maintain consistency when you are making up rules, as you might find yourself doing if you go to a lighter system.

A common table rule is mentioned here: if you can't find the appropriate rule in (some arbitrarily short period, such as 1 minute, 30 seconds, etc.), then let the players know that you will a) make up an answer and move along and b) look up the real answer AFTER, and remember it for next time.

I can certainly sympathize with not being comfortable wingning things, which is why I keep the HTML SRD on my desktop so I CAN find things in 30 seconds. The key here is to recognize when rules lookups are becoming a distraction. In the end, practicality won out with me, and I am more comfortable wingning things than I was when I first got the game.

 

[Turjan]

Many of the attitudes I've seen on ENworld against high level play, certain spells, heck the whole 3.5 revision were quickly proved wrong when I actually ran games with face to face groups.

Where is the logical connection of what you call "attitudes" and your claim that these had been "proved wrong"? You are simply telling me that you played the game and it worked/you had fun, which nobody doubts.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that its wrong/broken/etc

*shrug* Did anyone claim that? There are many things in 3.x which have objective problems. This does not mean in any way that you cannot play the game or cannot have fun. You can also play Rifts and have fun; this doesn't make the ruleset sacrosanct, though.