Why do we have such different experiences?

[resistor]

In short, NPC design in 3e was never hard for me because I never worried about details I considered unimportant. PC design was never a chore because I knew what I wanted.

I agree with you factual points, but not your assertion that this is tied to one gaming history. As I've pointed out, I started gaming with 3e, and developed a DM'ing NPC style essentially the same as what you explained.

I think it has much more to do with mindset than history.

 

[Hussar]

For the fighters, assume an AC of 24, 42 HP, an attack bonus of +8, and damage of 1d10+4. (This would be a sword-and-board fighter. AC down to 22, damage up to 2d6+7 for a two-handed fighter. Neither of these are anywhere near optimized. Because this monster does so much damage if both claws hit, the fighters are fighting defensively, and flanking.)

How are your fighters getting an AC of 24? Full plate and Shield is 20. Where are the other 4 points coming from? And, that's presuming max armor and shield. Many players don't want to go the heavy armor route simply because of the penalties to movement.

Looking at the percentages, it should be pretty clear that it would take fairly horrible luck for a fighter to die before the troll goes down. With average luck and good tactics, the fighters will all still be well conscious, with maybe -- maybe -- 40 damage spread out among them.

Bold mine.

And therein lies the rub. Why would any damage be spread, ever? Don't your creatures attack one target with everything until that target is dead?

This might be another point of deviation as well. I always have creatures focus all their attacks on one PC in a given round, and typically will continue to focus on a wounded PC if it can. Why switch targets? Kill one and move on.

 

[dmccoy1693]

How are your fighters getting an AC of 24? Full plate and Shield is 20. Where are the other 4 points coming from? And, that's presuming max armor and shield. Many players don't want to go the heavy armor route simply because of the penalties to movement.

+2 armor, +2 shield. Other ways, Amulet of natural armor, Shield of Faith spell, +1 size if playing a small character. plenty other ways.

And therein lies the rub. Why would any damage be spread, ever? Don't your creatures attack one target with everything until that target is dead?

This might be another point of deviation as well. I always have creatures focus all their attacks on one PC in a given round, and typically will continue to focus on a wounded PC if it can. Why switch targets? Kill one and move on.

Generally, when the DM had to bad guy move to another character is when the DM was feeling guilty for making the encounter so hard (because he didn't use the ECL table) that he almost killed the PC. At that point he'd make the NPC do a dumb move just to not have players any more mad at him then they already are for making the encounter to hard.

If you'll notice from the last paragraph, one dumb move (not using the ECL table) leads to fixing the problem by doing other dumb moves. This constant stream of 'feeling like they need to fix the system' on the DM's part, IME, leads to 'feeling like the whole system is broken.' 3.5 was designed for a single style of play (several encounters per day at a prescribed levels of difficulty). In that single style of play, the system works rather well. Deviate and it starts to break down.

 

[catsclaw227]

3.5 was designed for a single style of play (several encounters per day at a prescribed levels of difficulty). In that single style of play, the system works rather well. Deviate and it starts to break down.

I sorta agree with you on this point.

But could you imagine what would happen if someone stated that 4e was designed for a single style of play? Both sides of the line would be choking on their chicken bones.

 

[The Ghost]

And therein lies the rub. Why would any damage be spread, ever? Don't your creatures attack one target with everything until that target is dead?

This might be another point of deviation as well. I always have creatures focus all their attacks on one PC in a given round, and typically will continue to focus on a wounded PC if it can. Why switch targets? Kill one and move on.

I think there is something to be said for how we play monsters in battle. When I write up encounters I will decide what the monsters role (not 4e sense) in the battle is. For example, I may write up an encounter with a couple of Hill Giants. Their role in combat is to be rampaging monsters - they charge through the battlefield smashing any who are in their way and wrecking general havoc on the buildings around them. They don't care about taking attacks of opportunity as their goal is general destruction. They may charge the fighter round one. Charge the rogue round two. Smash the local inn round three. Charge the fighter round four, etc. etc. etc. At a later point in the campaign I may use Hill Giants again only this time their role is to defend the hill/cave/etc. that they are on. Their tactics change to focus their attacks on whoever engages them first.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'll second (or third) character level as being a big factor. I don't even need to compare against other groups, as the "sweet spot" is a huge factor even within my normal group:

Levels: 1-3 or so - players feeling like they are bottom of the barrel, but generally willing to go along with an engaging storyline; Me, the GM, having absolutely no trouble providing something interesting.

Levels: 4-12 or so - players increasingly enjoying themselves; Me still able to provide something interesting and having fun with a bit of extra drudge work.

Levels: 13+ - players looking to push through something all the way to 20th; Me increasingly frustrated and looking for ways out.

Well, the normal answer to the "sweet spot" is to play in the spot. However, that falls apart when people in the same group want to flirt with things out of range on opposite sides of the spot. All the other things that I do differently than the seeming majority of players (7-10 players, absolute zero fudge, etc.) are stylistic differences that obviously give a different experience--but they would (and have) give a different experience with any system. (In some ways, 3E adapts to that style of play easier than most systems.)

The intersection of the 3E sweet spot with actual players or DMs always gives a bit of a different experience, and when you consider everyone in a group, the effects can be grossly magnified or mostly cancel each other out or anything in between.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

How are your fighters getting an AC of 24? Full plate and Shield is 20. Where are the other 4 points coming from?

Plate armor, +1 heavy steel shield, +1 Dex, and (sheesh, it's right in the portion of the post you quoted!) fighting defensively. I didn't even make an attempt to optimize ... a 5th level fighter can reasonably get a substantially higher AC, making things even worse for the troll.

Why would any damage be spread, ever?

Because the fighters aren't idiots. If wounded and at any real risk, an individual fighter will pull out, and maybe use his composite long bow. If the troll follows, fine ... it takes nasty AoOs and -- because it moved -- can't possibly rend.

This is basic D&D tactics, along with things like doing Aid Another to give +2 to AC to the wounded fighter. If a group just allows a monster to do what it wants to do, well, yeah, PCs are gonna die. A lot.

Seriously, I'm shocked by the lousy tactical imagination displayed in these replies. Anybody who thinks they can kill one of four 5th level fighters with a standard troll, and wants to put some money on it, let me know.

EDIT: I do want to apologize for sounding snarky. I just truly am puzzled, because this matchup -- a troll versus four fighters -- illustrates practically a Kobayashi Maru scenario for the troll, unless the DM seriously tilts things in its favor by means of terrain and the like.

As an exercise for the reader, and further illustration: Assume a 40-foot by 40-foot room and the four fighters on troll. The four fighters can all but guarantee that the troll will never have an opportunity to rend. How?

 

[S'mon]

And therein lies the rub. Why would any damage be spread, ever? Don't your creatures attack one target with everything until that target is dead?

This might be another point of deviation as well. I always have creatures focus all their attacks on one PC in a given round, and typically will continue to focus on a wounded PC if it can. Why switch targets? Kill one and move on.

Indeed. There's no justification for the troll not putting down 1 PC then moving on to the next. And it does so much damage that 'putting down' will often mean 'kill'.

 

[S'mon]

Plate armor, +1 heavy steel shield, +1 Dex, and (sheesh, it's right in the portion of the post you quoted!) fighting defensively. I didn't even make an attempt to optimize ... a 5th level fighter can reasonably get a substantially higher AC, making things even worse for the troll.

Because the fighters aren't idiots. If wounded and at any real risk, an individual fighter will pull out, and maybe use his composite long bow. If the troll follows, fine ... it takes nasty AoOs and -- because it moved -- can't possibly rend.

This is basic D&D tactics, along with things like doing Aid Another to give +2 to AC to the wounded fighter. If a group just allows a monster to do what it wants to do, well, yeah, PCs are gonna die. A lot.

Seriously, I'm shocked by the lousy tactical imagination displayed in these replies. Anybody who thinks they can kill one of four 5th level fighters with a standard troll, and wants to put some money on it, let me know.

Well, this is the crux of the thread - why do we have such different experiences. Because I'm going by my experience of actual play, and in about 6 years of running 3e about every 2 weeks, about 150 sessions or so, I have never seen anyone use Aid Another to boost another PC's AC. I have never seen a 5th level PC with 25 hp left retreat from a monster, far less from a monster with Reach. And with one exception (a PC totally focused o defense) I have never seen a PC Fight Defensively - I've seen Full Defense a few times, and use of Combat Expertise.

As far as allowing a monster to do what it wants, well the PCs vs troll type fight usually lasts 2 combat rounds, 3 if the troll got a surprise round. The troll will often drop a PC in the first round, before there's any time to be thinking of fancy tactics.

 

[The Ghost]

Indeed. There's no justification for the troll not putting down 1 PC then moving on to the next. And it does so much damage that 'putting down' will often mean 'kill'.

Really? None? What if the creature (troll) has only ever encountered bugbears - and in those encounters he has learned that once you have hit them all they run away. Why would that not be a justifiable tactic against the adventurers? What if that same creature were backed into a corner? Would his tactics change? What if he is mentally unstable? Overconfident? There is more than one way to define a creature (troll in this case) and how he acts in combat.