Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
What do you ban? (3.5)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5425453" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>Agreed. Sometimes I read someone saying about how much the game has changed between 1e and 3e, and I first think to myself, "What do you mean? I'm DMing in pretty much exactly the same way I did then?". Then I look at my rules set and go, "Oh yeah. I'm not necessarily playing the game you are."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, 3rd edition rules, 1e edition feel. One of the things that annoyed me most about my experience of stock 3rd edition is that as you increased in level, the chance you'd pass your saving throws actually decreased because the DC of the saves was increasing faster than your saving throw bonus. This was exactly the opposite of my experience with 1e which was that as you went up, you got less and less likely to fail a save. This was essential, because as you leveled up you got more and more likely to encounter "save or die" rather than "save or suck". (Actually, most things were save or die back then, but if 3e wasn't some improvement, I would still play 1e.) Then I got to thinking about 3e at levels above 9th, and I realized that alot of it was being driven by this one fact. In 1e, you mainly cast direct damage spells, because even on a save you still were going to do alot of damage. In 3e, direct damage was somewhat nerfed and so "save or suck" ruled the day, basically on the expectation that if you matched your spell to the opponents poor save, they'd need to roll a 17 or better to save (same as a 1st level character 1e). I didn't like at all what this did to combats, strategy, or the survivability of PC's. </p><p></p><p>So it struck me that the spell level of the spell adding to the DC (and the HD of the monster adding to the DC of special attacks) was redundant. Higher level characters (and more powerful monsters) would already have higher DC attacks just based on their ability bonus. While it intuitively seemed like a more powerful spell ought to be harder to save against, D&D had never worked that way before. It was an unnecessary attempt at 'realism' in the middle of a nebulous spellcasting system, and worse yet it didn't have to be thought of that way. Why should a harder to cast and less well mastered spell necessarily be harder to avoid than one which was well practiced and mastered by the caster? Metamagic (Heighten Spell) now directly adds to the DC of save under my rules, representing 'juicing up' a spell you have already mastered.</p><p></p><p>And keep in mind - there is pretty widespread agreement that the 3rd stock classes are basically balanced up until about 9th level (some would say 7th, others, 12th, but the cluster of votes would be around 9th). Precisely because this tweak "for low level spells it doesnt matter as much, but the higher the spell the more it shows" it does more than any other single change I can think of to restore some balance between spellcasters and non-casters. Which again, reminds me of 1e, although the exact means to that end is different.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Honestly, it just works better. It brings the old game back. "Save or die" now is a high risk, high reward choice. Yes, you may gain a big boost in the action economy, but you also might waste your own action to no effect. Direct damage - good old fashion fireballs and such - are now a much more viable option, which in turn reduces the burden on play of a lot of dynamic bonuses (something you could conceivably have had in 1e, but rarely in practice did). And because of the changes in Constitution and other increases to average hit points, direct damage, while quite powerful doesn't completely overshadow what you can do swinging a sword.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>For the record, I've stripped down both Ranger and Barbarian for thematic reasons almost identical to the reasons I dumped Druid. Ranger is now 'Hunter' and has no implicit or explicit ties to a protector of the forest or druidic magic. The class is now regularly used for NPC (and PC) scouts, bandits, hunters, and assassins without adding unnecessary baggage. Barbarian is now 'Fanatic' and has no explicit ties to a primitive wildernes or chaotic culture. 'Fanatics' can come from any culture where it makes sense. They can be terrorists, elite assault troops, sadistic pit fighters, pyschotic mad men, sworn temple gaurdians, or yes initiates of a tribe's masculine warrior cult. The interesting thing about this is that in published works, you'll frequently find the Barbarians class used to stat up these vary sorts of character concepts - even if the character in fact has no background that would indicate that they come from a primitive wilderness area. So why not do away with the unnecessary baggage?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 5425453, member: 4937"] Agreed. Sometimes I read someone saying about how much the game has changed between 1e and 3e, and I first think to myself, "What do you mean? I'm DMing in pretty much exactly the same way I did then?". Then I look at my rules set and go, "Oh yeah. I'm not necessarily playing the game you are." Again, 3rd edition rules, 1e edition feel. One of the things that annoyed me most about my experience of stock 3rd edition is that as you increased in level, the chance you'd pass your saving throws actually decreased because the DC of the saves was increasing faster than your saving throw bonus. This was exactly the opposite of my experience with 1e which was that as you went up, you got less and less likely to fail a save. This was essential, because as you leveled up you got more and more likely to encounter "save or die" rather than "save or suck". (Actually, most things were save or die back then, but if 3e wasn't some improvement, I would still play 1e.) Then I got to thinking about 3e at levels above 9th, and I realized that alot of it was being driven by this one fact. In 1e, you mainly cast direct damage spells, because even on a save you still were going to do alot of damage. In 3e, direct damage was somewhat nerfed and so "save or suck" ruled the day, basically on the expectation that if you matched your spell to the opponents poor save, they'd need to roll a 17 or better to save (same as a 1st level character 1e). I didn't like at all what this did to combats, strategy, or the survivability of PC's. So it struck me that the spell level of the spell adding to the DC (and the HD of the monster adding to the DC of special attacks) was redundant. Higher level characters (and more powerful monsters) would already have higher DC attacks just based on their ability bonus. While it intuitively seemed like a more powerful spell ought to be harder to save against, D&D had never worked that way before. It was an unnecessary attempt at 'realism' in the middle of a nebulous spellcasting system, and worse yet it didn't have to be thought of that way. Why should a harder to cast and less well mastered spell necessarily be harder to avoid than one which was well practiced and mastered by the caster? Metamagic (Heighten Spell) now directly adds to the DC of save under my rules, representing 'juicing up' a spell you have already mastered. And keep in mind - there is pretty widespread agreement that the 3rd stock classes are basically balanced up until about 9th level (some would say 7th, others, 12th, but the cluster of votes would be around 9th). Precisely because this tweak "for low level spells it doesnt matter as much, but the higher the spell the more it shows" it does more than any other single change I can think of to restore some balance between spellcasters and non-casters. Which again, reminds me of 1e, although the exact means to that end is different. Honestly, it just works better. It brings the old game back. "Save or die" now is a high risk, high reward choice. Yes, you may gain a big boost in the action economy, but you also might waste your own action to no effect. Direct damage - good old fashion fireballs and such - are now a much more viable option, which in turn reduces the burden on play of a lot of dynamic bonuses (something you could conceivably have had in 1e, but rarely in practice did). And because of the changes in Constitution and other increases to average hit points, direct damage, while quite powerful doesn't completely overshadow what you can do swinging a sword. For the record, I've stripped down both Ranger and Barbarian for thematic reasons almost identical to the reasons I dumped Druid. Ranger is now 'Hunter' and has no implicit or explicit ties to a protector of the forest or druidic magic. The class is now regularly used for NPC (and PC) scouts, bandits, hunters, and assassins without adding unnecessary baggage. Barbarian is now 'Fanatic' and has no explicit ties to a primitive wildernes or chaotic culture. 'Fanatics' can come from any culture where it makes sense. They can be terrorists, elite assault troops, sadistic pit fighters, pyschotic mad men, sworn temple gaurdians, or yes initiates of a tribe's masculine warrior cult. The interesting thing about this is that in published works, you'll frequently find the Barbarians class used to stat up these vary sorts of character concepts - even if the character in fact has no background that would indicate that they come from a primitive wilderness area. So why not do away with the unnecessary baggage? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
What do you ban? (3.5)
Top