Unintended(?) Consequence of No More X-Mas Tree?

[Reynard]

Honestly, what purpose would this have had? How do these limits make things more fun for anyone?

Limitations feed creativity, for one. Second, since D&D is a game of archetypes (and stereotypes) it reinforces the flavor of the setting and the races.

Note I didn't say that dwarves shouldn't be allowed to be wizards in 3E. What I said was the idea of limiting race/class combos would be a useful tool in the DM's arsenal for defining his milieu and campaign, and having an offical product display this fact would have gone a long way toward reinforcing it among the player base. Instead, you get a situation where the DM says, "This world is tolkienesque" and players that respond with elven monks, dwarven sorcerers and halfling barbarians.

 

[Terramotus]

One of the things about the "christmas tree effect" that is positive is that it allows the DM to control the "low-high fantasy" spectrum of the game fairly easily. If the DM wants a high fantasy feel, he can allow lots of items. if he wants a much lower fantasy feel, he can not allow lots of items.

Have you actually tried that with a game? It SERIOUSLY warps the game, especially as it goes higher in levels. It doesn't just lower the class of enemies they can face - it makes whole huge swaths of enemies unfightable. Even if you take out all monsters and have the party just face normal humans like themselves, it becomes a game of everybody hits everybody every single time, and Power Attack is the king of all feats.

Other issues are that many of the normal factors used to balance the classes such as Evasion, high saves, etc, become non-issues and skew the general balance of the game. You also need massive damage rules or some variant thereof... you're basically writing your own game. There's a reason why Iron Heroes was popular - it filled a niche that D&D absolutely could not fill without major shoehorning.

I would also submit that the reason why 2nd edition seems to work better for a wide variety of milieus is that it's actually little more than a skeleton of a game that is nearly flavorless except for the magic system and handles virtually nothing well through rules except combat. For 1st edition, take out the word "well". Of course it works well when everything comes down to DM fiat. The balance is also little more than a Wild-Assed Guess, which does actually make it easier to omit the (many, many) parts that don't work or don't fit well with your world.

And that's cool. I've got a fond place in my heart for both. But if you're fighting against systems that are more rules-heavy, then you're fighting against most of the RPG industry. After all, what reason do they have to exist if you've got everything you need in one pamphlet or a single book? If you hate the way 4th Ed. is going, you might have more fun with an extreme rules-light system. Because if you take out the magic items and spells of older editions, that's all they really are at heart. I'm not saying that facetiously, by the way. It's a genuine suggestion.

d20, IMO, has no particular handicap as a game engine regarding other settings, but D&D 3.x is horrendously bad at it - and I tried really hard to make it work. It can be forced to, but it's not elegant without a total redesign of everything but the most fundamental rules. So I really can't see where you're coming from if you're going to claim that 3.x had that flexibility. Older editions I can see, but that's mostly because of what rules they didn't have, rather than what they did.

And in response to the idea of racial level limits...

Limitations feed creativity, for one. Second, since D&D is a game of archetypes (and stereotypes) it reinforces the flavor of the setting and the races.

Note I didn't say that dwarves shouldn't be allowed to be wizards in 3E. What I said was the idea of limiting race/class combos would be a useful tool in the DM's arsenal for defining his milieu and campaign, and having an offical product display this fact would have gone a long way toward reinforcing it among the player base. Instead, you get a situation where the DM says, "This world is tolkienesque" and players that respond with elven monks, dwarven sorcerers and halfling barbarians.

I find it far more palatable to simply say that, for instance, halflings have no cultures that produce Barbarians. Or Elven Monks. At all. Level limits strike me as horribly arbitrary and don't even really work well. If the game starts low and goes high, you have players whose characters become suck-ass losers while the others rise to astonishing heights. That's no fun, and the players of such characters might as well kill them off and make new ones. If the game doesn't reach the height of the level limits the restrictions have no effect at all.

Not only that, but the traditional level limits were bizarre. If we're using Tolkien as a measuring stick, they certainly don't support that world. Elves were the most powerful magic users around - there were just very few of them. Gandalf wasn't even human, so he's out of the equation. Dwarves were tough fighters. But second-class citizens thanks to those level limits.

 

[Faraer]

Let's talk about those three for a moment. Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk were both built upon the foundation of A/D&D assumptions and implied setting, the "flavor" if you will (which is a function of both fluff and crunch).

The Realms was conceived independently of D&D and later partly adapted to its monsters and magic.

How will they look under 4E? Will they be D&D settings? Will they be modified to meet the new paradigm of D&D flavor?

Yes. The change to its flavour is evident from both the known changes and the tone of the designers' discussion. We don't know its extent, though.

There's no option to enforce genre or tone via exclusion*, which is generally what defines a fantasy setting (literary or gaming).

There was the option, but Wizards mainly decided against it.

For example, at the change over to 3E, FR suddenly had to account for gnome monks and dwarven wizards and half orc sorcerers. how did it do it? Did it come through unscathed? (Agian, I don't know since i am not a FR afficianado -- I am curious what the answer is.)

Dwarf mages were introduced via a retconned historical event called the Thunder Blessing. (I still don't understand the thinking there: instead of dwarven wizards being rare and special they became almost normal, just as halfling thieves becoming run-of-the-mill.) Monasteries of fighting-monks cropped up. The Red Wizards of Thay set up enclaves in some towns selling magic items, matching the new easier magic item creation rules. Things like that: some done with care, others not so much. Modest changes compared to the 4E ones. The designers then talked about 3E as a new, better lens to view the setting through (in some ways there were right, in others I think wrong and perhaps disingenuous) -- they aren't (with one or two exceptions) talking that way about the 4E Realms.

The thing about FR was that it broke a LOT of the 2E rules anyway.

Because the 2E rules had a weaker underlying philosophy than 1E or 3E, multiple interpretations flourished (which, it seems, eventually hurt sales), the Realms' included. Realms magic, for instance, was always only roughly approximated by D&D rules. Its complex, sophisticated but mostly unpublished underlying structure we saw mainly in examples, inferences, and isolated sections (as in Volo's Guide to All Things Magical).

There were a lot of "that's not permitted by the rules" exceptions in the Realms so the loosening of that straighjacket in 3E was welcomed.

I don't think it's fair to call it a straitjacket, because outside tournament play 1E assumes DMs make selective exceptions like this without needing explicit rules guidance. But allowing human multiclassing, in particular, suited the Realms well. And Realms characters (PCs very much included) often have strange personal powers that 'broke the rules', though which system facilitates them better is arguable.

As for Druids, its somewhat weird in that, even though the 1st novels (moonshaes trilogy) had a VERY strong druid influence, afterward, druids weren't anywhere close to being an essential part of the Realms.

Druids are important in Realms continuity as behind-the-scenes actors, it just happened that (like most priesthoods) they weren't glamorously highlighted in published Realmslore as some other elements were.

The Realms is a setting where top-dog has ALWAYS been the wizard. All the movers and shakers are of the magic using classes and all the mysteries of the Realms involve figuring out/dealing with ancient magics.

Again, while that's partly true, a lot of it's in the skewed way the Realms was presented by TSR and Wizards of the Coast, who were, for instance, keener to give us god stats than detailed treatments of their priesthoods.

 

[DreamChaser]

Which completely -- and succinctly, I might add -- supports my point: D&D has always been flexible and generic enough for diverse settings to exist within its framework through the use of flavor and minor mechanical changes.

And apparently undermines your initial point. 4e will be no less capable of this than any edition and may, in fact, be more capable of it than 3e. If, in 4e, you decide that there are no magical items, then there won't be but from the current info released, you will still have a playable game. If you decide to play a high magic Monte Haul, then you will still have a playable game.

Fighters can be limited to maneuvers / talents / powers / whatever that are more Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, Setting Sun, and Stone Dragon (using Bo9S) parlance (i.e. impressive but not inherently supernatural) or you can encourage lots of supernatural abilities. Paladins can be limited to a single order of male, monastic humans with blond hair, thus limiting their frequency. Wizards can be boosted with more effective powers, more magical items / scrolls, etc or fewer.

These will not change. And in fact--because by all accounts there are more things to choose from--the game will be more easily customized to specific genres rather than less. Currently, 2 clerics are pretty much indistinguishable except for their domains. In terms of min / maxing sorcerers are likely to run the same lines (similar spell selection; heck, there was even a Class Acts article in Dragon breaking down the "best" spells). Monks (skills and equipment notwithstanding - which all characters can in theory customize though again some choises stand out) are customizable in 8 ways (that's right 8 ways of combining their bonus feats, which are their only discretionary ability).

This means, that if I want to create a high magic version of the monk, I must go to post-core material or make crap up myself. If I want a low magic "brawler" with no supernatural "ki" powers, same thing.

Does the riverine halflings and staff / wand / orb wielding wizards make some assumptions?

Yes.

Is this new?

No. Halflings used to live in hills, then became nomads. For years, the "Great Wheel" has been the assumed cosmology. Wizards use spellbooks. Clerics have holy symbols. Bards play instruments. Monks wear little scraps of cloth rather than full outfits.

Assumptions within the core = normal
Variations on the core for different campaign worlds = normal.
Range of genres accommodated = moderate - anything sword / sorcery fantasy (again, not GURPs but much more flexible than say Car Wars or BattleMech)

Still not seeing a change in this and not really understanding where the hullabaloo is coming from.

DC

 

[VirgilCaine]

Wow. Narrowminded, judgemental and insulting. It's an internet message board trifecta.

On rpg.net, my handle AmesJainchill. I was not impressed with you in that thread and this threads point debate simply further reinforces that impression.

Range of genres accommodated = moderate - anything sword / sorcery fantasy (again, not GURPs but much more flexible than say Car Wars or BattleMech)

I would only disagree that D&D supports sword and sorcery fantasy--I say it supports it's own unique subgenre of fantasy.

 

[Lanefan]

Proving that D&D can support settings written with the AD&D ruleset in mind in the first place doesn't help your point, you know?

AD&D *is* D&D. So is 3e. So is OD&D. So yes, the game *can* support all sorts of settings...just pick the right edition, and go.

So, I'll reverse the question: how do you define a game that cannot emulate LotR, the Wheel of Time, A Song of Fire and Ice, Ursula K. LeGuin's Earthsea, Conan, Leiber's or Moorcock's writings just to name a few?

LotR can easily be emulated by taking something like OD&D or 1e and really slashing back the magic; I've seen it done, to good result.

Wheel of Time can be approximated closely by replacing all spells with psyonic abilities, then changing what those abilities(spells) actually are to suit the canon. I considered trying this once but never got around to it, and it'd help if the series would ever finish (not so likely now).

Song of Fire and Ice can probably be done via some tweaking of the Birthright setting; it somehow seems to fit, and though I'll not be the one to try it I'd be interested in hearing the results if someone did.

The rest, I'm sorry to say, I'm not familiar with...though from what I gather the 1e game I've been playing in on and off for many years has a rather strong foundation in Moorcock; I just keep missing the references.

If you're asking specifically what 3.x can do out of the box, then of course it's limited. If you're asking what the game as a whole can do in the hands of a competent DM, I think you'd be mighty surprised.

Lanefan

 

[Njall]

AD&D *is* D&D. So is 3e. So is OD&D. So yes, the game *can* support all sorts of settings...just pick the right edition, and go.

Yes, but these settings were written with D&D in mind.
It's like saying that D&D is flexible because it can emulate D&D.
Sure, if you drop the fluff and just go with the combat system, you can invent just about any setting to go with the crunch (as long as you assume vancian magic, wealth/level and so on...)...but it doesn't make the game flexible, since, as noted earlier, this can be done with virtually any game out there.

LotR can easily be emulated by taking something like OD&D or 1e and really slashing back the magic; I've seen it done, to good result.

Again, D&D doesn't work without healing magic and magic items, at least at mid-high levels.
If you tried to play LotR with D&D, the party would probably need 5/6 days of rest just to regain the lost HP after just about any fight.
Can you take a D&D party, strip it of magic items and call them "The Fellowship of the Ring"? Sure. Would it make for a fun game? Depends on the players and the DM.
Would it be balanced from a rules standpoint? Probably not.

Wheel of Time can be approximated closely by replacing all spells with psyonic abilities, then changing what those abilities(spells) actually are to suit the canon. I considered trying this once but never got around to it, and it'd help if the series would ever finish (not so likely now).

Actually, there's an official d20 WoT game.
It's not bad, check it out if you like the genre
Anyway, it uses scaling bonuses to AC to make up for the lack of magic items, and the magic system's been completely redone.
If D&D could emulate it so well, why all the changes? Why didn't they just make it a setting for D&D ( since, IIRC, WotC was the publisher for both)?

Song of Fire and Ice can probably be done via some tweaking of the Birthright setting; it somehow seems to fit, and though I'll not be the one to try it I'd be interested in hearing the results if someone did.

I'm not familiar with Birthright ( I know the setting but I never had a look at the rules system ), but Guardians of Order put out an "A Game of Thrones" RPG some years ago.
Again, the system needed a substantial overhaul to work and make it true to the books.
This doesn't make D&D any more flexible, IMO, it just means that the d20 system ( like just about any other rules system out there ) can be used to describe a guy that waves a sword (in D&D, though, that guy never learns how to dodge a sword blow ).
But if half the PHB (namely races, spells and classes ) has to be replaced to make a setting work, I'd say that D&D doesn't handle that setting well at all.

The rest, I'm sorry to say, I'm not familiar with...though from what I gather the 1e game I've been playing in on and off for many years has a rather strong foundation in Moorcock; I just keep missing the references.

If you're asking specifically what 3.x can do out of the box, then of course it's limited. If you're asking what the game as a whole can do in the hands of a competent DM, I think you'd be mighty surprised.

Lanefan

Yeah, a DM that's good enough can make the system work in most circumstances ( he'd probably do better with another game system, though, and still he'd have to make some substantial changes ).
This doesn't mean the game system is flexible, though, just that your DM's mind is

 

[Plane Sailing]

Reynard, VirgilCaine - I suggest you ignore each others posts in this thread if any previous history you have makes it harder for you to remain completely civil.

No further sniping in this thread, please.

 

[AllisterH]

re: Magic

The problem with D&D IMO has always been that it allowed PCs to be magic users. In fiction, when the protoganist is a MU, he completely outstrips the "mundane" guy. That's the whole point of magic in fiction and it seems like this is what people expect.

Yet at the same time, said magic user is supposed to NOT overshadow his mundane counterpart (the sword-wielder) but for many years in 1E-2E, they got away with it by simply not having a lot of people play at that level.

3E changed this and this is what led to the Xmas tree effect. Notice that a wizard not only doesn't have a Big six like the fighter but more importantly, even if the items are taken away, the wizard doesn't suffer as much.

Try it in any edition. Sure, there are the outlying cases (a wizard in 3E that didn't start with a high level of intelligence) but generally speaking, a wizard doesn't NEED magic items/equipment.

One solution is to pump up the fighter and that's going wuxia/superheroic but frankly, it seems more people want a high level fighter to be like Conan or Aragorn rather than Jubei-Chan. Even though Jubei-Chan is a more appropriate companion for your run of the mill 12+ level wizard IMO.

Thus, the other option. Nerf the wizard.

 

[Raven Crowking]

As thing stands, low magic is virtually impossible at high levels in 3.x without heavy house ruling, mainly because some stats ( AC, for example ) just don't scale with level (things may change in 4e, since the maths seems like it's being rebuilt from scratch, with defenses scaling with level and every class having some form of limited healing).

I maintain that this statement is untrue.

It is easy to run low magic at high levels in 3.X with a one simple houserule: Spellcasters gain normal level benefits at every second level. Thus, a houseruled 4th level wizard is equivalent to a 2nd level wizard. Don't like it? Don't play a spellcaster. After all, reducing the number of spellcasters is one of the necessary things to create a lower-magic game.

Because the higher level PCs are more vulnerable, lower-CR mooks are still a credible threat, and can be used as antagonists. Because the PCs are fighting lower-CR mooks, if you use the normal XP table, as they gain levels their rate of level gain with decline. This doesn't require a rules change from the DM; just some common sense.

RC