[D&D] On House Rules, the Internet, and Character Optimization (Long)

[Aron Times]

Before I begin, I play D&D from the gamist perspective, and my player archetype (from the 4e Dungeon Master's Guide) is Storyteller/Powergamer.

Short Version:

I play 4e because it is more convenient.

Long Version:

The more I learn about 2e, the more I get the feeling that it is unintentionally more balanced than 3e. Sure, the Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards problem still exists, but the game's lethality is so high that it doesn't really matter how powerful the mage gets; one wrong move and even the lowly thief can kill him.

One reason is that mages were a lot more fragile than their 3e counterparts. Any damage taken disrupts a spell, and anyone using a fast weapon can easily keep an unprotected mage from even casting a single spell. 2e mages didn't have Concentration to allow them to cast while taking damage. Another reason, more important than the first, is that combat spells used to have casting times measured in rounds, whereas combat spells in 3e can be cast with a standard action. Finger of Death, Disintegrate, Time Stop, etc. didn't go off in one round, leaving the mage open to disruption before he could cast his tide-turning spell.

Wizards introduced attacks of opportunity to allow fighters to disrupt spellcasting like in 2e, but in practice, they don't really work. First, the wizard can simply take a 5-foot step (shift in 4e) and he can cast his spell with impunity. Second, a moderately optimized wizard will rarely fail his Defensive Casting check past a certain point. There are feats that allow fighters to negate Defensive Casting and 5-foot steps, but now we run into FSBNNR (Feats Should Be Nice Not Required). Basically, the anti-mage character has to spend precious feats to be able to do what his 2e counterparts without any investment.

Now, a good set of house rules can mitigate or even eliminate the inherent problems of a flawed system. It can be as simple as giving extra items to weaker classes, players agreeing not to go all-out with theoretical optimization builds on the DM, or simply not being a jerk to the group. The latter is how people get away with CharOp power builds; if you're a nice guy, the DM will generally let you get away with anything.

Note that I haven't committed the Oberroni Fallacy in the previous paragraph. House rules can fix a broken system, but that doesn't mean that the system wasn't broken in the first place. Committing the fallacy is like using your mechanical skills to fix a broken car and then claiming that there was no problem with the car in the first place.

DMs the world over have successfully used Rule Zero to fix what was broken in the past, so why is it such a problem in 3e? I believe this is because 3e was released at a time when Internet usage was rapidly growing. It was during 3e and 3.5's time that Play-by-Post and Play-by-Email became popular, and as a result, players could now effortlessly play in multiple groups at the same time. This led to a new problem - how to deal with multiple sets of house rules from different games.

Players develop different assumptions about the game depending on how they learned how to play. My first D&D group played 3e the way the designers intended. For example, evokers were considered overpowered; one player's ultimate goal was to survive long enough to be able to cast the almighty Fireball. It wasn't until a little before 4e was announced that I really understood just how weak Fireball and most Evocations were.

This was around the time when I began lurking in CharOp. Like most players, I was told all sorts of negative things about CharOp. My curiousity grew until I decided to see if it was as bad as I was told. To my surprise, the CharOp regulars were among the most civil members of the forums. People on either side of debates used logic and scientific data to back their claims, as opposed to the ad hominem attacks employed by "True Roleplayers." Also, they didn't learn to break the game in order to "win" D&D; they did it so they would know how not to break it.

The Internet basically opened my eyes to just how broken the system was, and that Rule Zero was no longer enough to fix it. As there was no universal fix for the system, each DM had to reinvent the wheel by introducing his own house rules. These often clashed with players' assumptions about the game, and was also a drain on the DM's time. Time spent coming up with house rules is time not spent coming up with adventures.

D&D 4e isn't perfect, but it requires far less house ruling than previous editions. This means that most of my core assumptions about D&D 4e remain true in most groups. I don't have to learn, remember, and confuse dozens of house rules from multiple games. Furthermore, the game is easier to house rule, including the creation of custom monsters.

All of the characters in my signature come from different campaigns. Currently, I have four active 4e characters and one 3.5 character pending approval. None of the house rules in the four 4e games I am playing in have clashed with my core assumptions of the game. My 3.5 character pending approval, on the other hand, belongs to a moderately house ruled game that does clash with my core assumptions. I find this to be true with most 3.5 games I have played through the Internet, which is why I limit myself to just one active 3.5 character at a time.

I value convenience more than complexity, and this is why I play 4e most of the time. What do you think?

[Matthew]

Sounds reasonable to me. I think D20/4e is probably the most standardised and homogeneous D&D branded adventure game of the various editions, with perhaps the exception of D&D B/X, but it incorporates more complexity than that version of the game as well.

I value a simplicity in my D&D these days, so I am more inclined towards AD&D/2e or D&D B/X. I play in a couple of online games, one AD&D, one D&D B/X, and both are pretty much as I would hope they would be. The version of AD&D I run face to face has more house rules, though.

[Tyndmyr]

Before I begin, I play D&D from the gamist perspective, and my player archetype (from the 4e Dungeon Master's Guide) is Storyteller/Powergamer.

Short Version:

I play 4e because it is more convenient.

Long Version:

The more I learn about 2e, the more I get the feeling that it is unintentionally more balanced than 3e. Sure, the Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards problem still exists, but the game's lethality is so high that it doesn't really matter how powerful the mage gets; one wrong move and even the lowly thief can kill him.

One reason is that mages were a lot more fragile than their 3e counterparts.

This is actually true for 3e as well, in pvp situations and solo/duo scenarios. Or in extremely hard, lethal campaigns.

At low levels, the sheer lack of AC and HP is a huge problem for mages(ok, not druids and clerics, but the arcane casters). In the solo dungeons, there is a *huge* bias torward melee characters, and the same is true, to a somewhat lesser degree, in the arena.

I mean, if you put a barbarian against a mage at level 1, that mage has to pull out significant optimization to pull off a one hit kill if he's going to have a chance at all. A lot more mobs are able to one-shot the mage.

It's an issue of levels, really. If you play E6 or something, it's never as apparent, but balance does sort of come apart at high levels. Provided you avoid them, it's never really an issue. Honestly, my experience in 2nd ed, was that making it to high levels was reasonably unlikely in the first place. In 3rd ed, you can have that sort of lethality, but it isn't there by default.

[Krazddndfreek]

I personally prefer 3.5 over 4e. 4e for me focuses too much on mechanics and balance, not giving too much over in the way of fluff. What I mean by this is, if a wizard fires a fireball, it's no different from fighter swinging his sword in terms of mechanics. A characters' ability scores become meaningless, and are simply used as combat statistics, rather than the basis for the way a character is role-played. So in a sense it gives too much leeway for fluff, but it tends to have little to no meaning in the game.

I like 3.5 better because it has many rules already set out, and is an easy base for homebrewing. The mechanics of your character actually have a correlation to the fluff and background you put behind it. I agree with you wholly that 3.5 is much more complex, perhaps too much more, but for me 4e is far too strict in its mechanics building, and feels a bit too videogamey. They're both two sides of the spectrum for me but I prefer 3.5 solely for its attempt at realism and believability.

EDIT: And I don't think its at all reasonable to have to pay a monthly fee to keep up with the current rules.

[Yukitsu]

Before I begin, I play D&D from the gamist perspective, and my player archetype (from the 4e Dungeon Master's Guide) is Storyteller/Powergamer.

Short Version:

I play 4e because it is more convenient.

I value convenience more than complexity, and this is why I play 4e most of the time. What do you think?

Good for you, but on the same note, convenient, simple systems make me gag. I just chalk that up to different strokes.

[arguskos]

Interesting thesis there Joseph. Personally, I find that I value the mutability of 3e more than the rigidity of 4e or the disorganization of 2e.

However, I will go ahead and throw down that the prevalence of RAW and "builds" is, frankly, aggravating as hell. I dislike the unholy level of fervor that some folks have for the RAW above all. I personally think it's done the game and the community as a whole a massive disservice, just because I don't think the RAW matters all that much. Yes, it's the only baseline, but really, WHO CARES? It's a hobby, a fun game, should we really slave ourselves to a book of self-proclaimed guidelines as Holy Writ? I think no, but hey, if some folks enjoy it, awesome. ^_^

DISCLAIMER: The above is opinion only, I'd ask that no one take offense, since I'm not calling anyone out, just voicing a feeling. :smallsigh:

[Tyndmyr]

Interesting thesis there Joseph. Personally, I find that I value the mutability of 3e more than the rigidity of 4e or the disorganization of 2e.

This.

I agree that 4e is more balanced than 3.x, but in order to do this, they sacrificed so much versatility and depth in the system...I just don't like the tradeoff. It ends up feeling like just a combat simulator to me, rather than an actual world.

[arguskos]

This.

I agree that 4e is more balanced than 3.x, but in order to do this, they sacrificed so much versatility and depth in the system...I just don't like the tradeoff. It ends up feeling like just a combat simulator to me, rather than an actual world.
Much as I may or may not agree, let's keep this away from edition wars, yeah? It ain't called for and doesn't help Mr. Silver's thesis, which is plenty decent w/o edition warring. OD&D FOREVAH!!

[Yukitsu]

Much as I may or may not agree, let's keep this away from edition wars, yeah? It ain't called for and doesn't help Mr. Silver's thesis, which is plenty decent w/o edition warring. OD&D FOREVAH!!

It's basically his position that 4e is not flawed because of aspects X Y and Z, and that 3.5 is flawed for (not) having those aspects. That's pretty much one side of the edition war anyway, so it can't really be said that he didn't invite that on him.

[arguskos]

It's basically his position that 4e is not flawed because of aspects X Y and Z, and that 3.5 is flawed for (not) having those aspects. That's pretty much one side of the edition war anyway, so it can't really be said that he didn't invite that on him.
Even IF that was the only reading one could make (it's not, btw), why shouldn't we be the bigger folks and not devolve to that level of warfare?

There is an more interesting thesis at work here, that of "what qualities attract you to what versions of D&D, and why?" Let's discuss that, yes? :smallcool:

[Yukitsu]

Even IF that was the only reading one could make (it's not, btw), why shouldn't we be the bigger folks and not devolve to that level of warfare?

What do you think this is? Something that isn't the internet? :smallwink:


There is an more interesting thesis at work here, that of "what qualities attract you to what versions of D&D, and why?" Let's discuss that, yes? :smallcool:

Oh that's easy. 3.5's the one my buddies play.

[ericgrau]

I'm afraid the exact same things were said about 2e and 3e, to the T. IIRC people are already breaking 4e, it's just taking time to figure out. Solution: don't break the game. Seriously, that's all it ever took in every real life 3e group I've been in.

[oxybe]

eh. i honestly don't care much for multiple subsystems personally. one of 3rd's biggest turnoffs for a lot of casuals i know is that while your ability to crawl is effectively the same across the board (task resolution system, saves, HP, ect...), lots of classes have their own unique mechanics (vancian prepared/spontaneous and to an extent warlock invocations since they use the vancian spells as the base, psionics, incarnum, ect...) so you have to relearn how to walk when you change class.

i personally don't find widely different subsystems more flavorful or interesting then one shared among all classes. i find much more value in something that is simple and gets it's point across then one that is complicated for it's own sake.

[Tyndmyr]

Even IF that was the only reading one could make (it's not, btw), why shouldn't we be the bigger folks and not devolve to that level of warfare?

There is an more interesting thesis at work here, that of "what qualities attract you to what versions of D&D, and why?" Let's discuss that, yes? :smallcool:

I hadn't intended my post as an edition war sort of statement...I even recognized that 4e has some beneficial attributes, I simply prefer those offered by 3.x.

But yeah....since the op did describe editions heavily, I guess a version war was sort of a foregone conclusion. So, without further ado, DEATH TO FOURTH ED!

[Haven]

Even IF that was the only reading one could make (it's not, btw), why shouldn't we be the bigger folks and not devolve to that level of warfare?

There is an more interesting thesis at work here, that of "what qualities attract you to what versions of D&D, and why?" Let's discuss that, yes? :smallcool:

Eh? The OP civilly laid out the reasons why he prefers 4e, the person you replied to politely disagreed. Since when is that "warfare"?

[AshDesert]

I think one of your assumptions is that third edition needs fixing, and that all DMs have a multitude of houserules. I've found both to be untrue. I've found that most groups that can optimize generally don't try to break the game, and that the groups that can't optimize don't know how to break the game. Besides, the more powerful classes are better off spending their time making the less powerful classes more effective while making the enemies less effective (i.e., look at the Batman Wizard). When you're actually playing in a group, the game works just fine. Sure, there are silly problems with the game, like housecats kicking the living daylights out of Commoners, but it's not like the rules were built around cats fighting common folk.

I guess my point is, that if you don't play with jerks, then you don't need to modify the game. And if you do play with jerks, then, well, why are you playing with a jerk?:smalltongue:
Also, I don't really get the claim of the DM letting you anything as long as you're a nice person.

[arguskos]

Eh? The OP civilly laid out the reasons why he prefers 4e, the person you replied to politely disagreed. Since when is that "warfare"?
It wasn't. However, it was meant as a general "this is dangerous territory folks, let's tread with care" statement. :smallsmile: Basically, this topic is an intriguing one to read and write about, but it has this massive tendency to go to hell VERY fast.

Also, Tyndmyr, I see what you did there. :smallamused:

[erikun]

The more I learn about 2e, the more I get the feeling that it is unintentionally more balanced than 3e. Sure, the Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards problem still exists, but the game's lethality is so high that it doesn't really matter how powerful the mage gets; one wrong move and even the lowly thief can kill him.
Well, on the one hand, yes. Mages were more killable in 2e, even at high levels, and depending on the party far more. You died, you died a lot, and it wasn't too strange to see a 1st level character in the same party as a 5th level character. By contrast, 3e assumes that everyone makes it through alive and at the same general level.

On the other hand, I think you might be looking back on 2e with rose-tinted glasses. Or perhaps by just listening to the nostalgia of others. AD&D 2nd edition was full of houserules, from supplement books with new options to new spells to new campaigns to DM personal preference. Sure, the "core assumptions" will be the same with 2e, but all that really meant were the base classes and experience tables. A question as simple as "can I dual-wield crossbows" would be answered with yes, or no, or yes with penalities, or only specific types, or only specific classes, or only with high ability scores. There was just so much that wasn't covered that anything more unusual that sword-n-shield needed to be OKed by the DM, and the workability would be wildly different at different tables.

I believe there is a quote somewhere saying that 2nd edition was virtually a different game at every table - hence the reason for standardizing 3e. I happen to feel they went too far, along with focusing too much on translating 2e into d20, without considering how the system worked.

[RebelRogue]

Well, on the one hand, yes. Mages were more killable in 2e, even at high levels, and depending on the party far more.
I really liked the fact, that - in general - higher level spells were slower to cast. With he everpresent fear of fizzling, this could be something of a gamble. I miss that mechanic sometimes (weapon speed as well), but I think I would find it a bit clumsy if I actually went back to it. Wow, it's been a long time since I actually played 2nd ed!

[Draz74]

I really liked the fact, that - in general - higher level spells were slower to cast. With he everpresent fear of fizzling, this could be something of a gamble. I miss that mechanic sometimes (weapon speed as well), but I think I would find it a bit clumsy if I actually went back to it. Wow, it's been a long time since I actually played 2nd ed!

Yeah, I'd love to find a non-clunky way to implement 2e-style casting times and weapon speeds into my homebrew, but those things only worked in 2e because 2e had a clunky Initiative system anyway. :smallsigh:

It is ironic, however, that the OP mentioned Finger of Death taking a long time to cast, when in fact the main appeal of Finger of Death compared to other Save-or-Dies or even other Level 7 spells was its exceptional Casting Time 1. :smallamused:

[Sstoopidtallkid]

eh. i honestly don't care much for multiple subsystems personally. one of 3rd's biggest turnoffs for a lot of casuals i know is that while your ability to crawl is effectively the same across the board (task resolution system, saves, HP, ect...), lots of classes have their own unique mechanics (vancian prepared/spontaneous and to an extent warlock invocations since they use the vancian spells as the base, psionics, incarnum, ect...) so you have to relearn how to walk when you change class.

i personally don't find widely different subsystems more flavorful or interesting then one shared among all classes. i find much more value in something that is simple and gets it's point across then one that is complicated for it's own sake.See, that's what I love. I grow bored with one set of mechanics quickly. I like being able to make characters that feel different when I play them, rather than just feeling like a new skin on the same mechanics. Warlocks and Rangers do not draw power from the same source, they do not accomplish the same tasks, so why should they play the same?

[Kurald Galain]

D&D 4e ... requires far less house ruling than previous editions.
I don't think that is the case, really.

It's still true that every DM plays differently. It's also still true that most DMs don't have a Codex Of House Rules, just one or two details they change. It's also still true that players can break the system through powergaming (or simply through being a jerk), and it's also still true that this "breakage" is much more prominent on forum discussions than it is in actual gameplay.

Most groups don't require a lot of houserules because most players don't really care about balance and power level as long as they're having fun.

[Myrmex]

I think what's really interesting is, how after almost a decade of close study of the rules, how much the idea of what a D&D world looks like has changed. The idea of a pseudo-medieval world run by tyrant-kings isn't a very logical conclusion given the rule set.


This is actually true for 3e as well, in pvp situations and solo/duo scenarios. Or in extremely hard, lethal campaigns.

At low levels, the sheer lack of AC and HP is a huge problem for mages(ok, not druids and clerics, but the arcane casters). In the solo dungeons, there is a *huge* bias torward melee characters, and the same is true, to a somewhat lesser degree, in the arena.

I mean, if you put a barbarian against a mage at level 1, that mage has to pull out significant optimization to pull off a one hit kill if he's going to have a chance at all. A lot more mobs are able to one-shot the mage.

It's an issue of levels, really. If you play E6 or something, it's never as apparent, but balance does sort of come apart at high levels. Provided you avoid them, it's never really an issue. Honestly, my experience in 2nd ed, was that making it to high levels was reasonably unlikely in the first place. In 3rd ed, you can have that sort of lethality, but it isn't there by default.

This is true in my experience, as well.


Interesting thesis there Joseph. Personally, I find that I value the mutability of 3e more than the rigidity of 4e or the disorganization of 2e.

Definitely why I like 3e way more than 4e. I really want to like 4e- I love their system- but character building is almost as much fun as playing characters!

[bosssmiley]

I play 4e because it is more convenient.

4E : B/X :: Java : Lisp


"We were not out to win over the Lisp programmers; we were after the C++ programmers. We managed to drag a lot of them about halfway to Lisp." -- Guy Steele, Java spec co-author

+


"Yup, that's right. At WotC we're playing OD&D. I read Jeff Rients' report of his Winter War OD&D game, and I had to run the game." -- Mike Mearls

4E is the gateway drug to real D&D. Come to the old side, we have cookies. :smallwink:


D&D 4e isn't perfect, but it requires far less house ruling than previous editions.

You say houserule like it's a bug, not an intended feature of the game. :smallconfused:


"...we are not loath to answer your questions, but why have us do any more of your imagining for you?" -- Gary Gygax, Afterword, (O)D&D vol. III

"D&D was meant to be a free-wheeling game, only loosely bound by the parameters of the rules." -- Timothy J. Kask, Foreward, Eldritch Wizardry

[dsmiles]

Maybe it's just me, but the system/edition makes no difference to me. I just relish the chance to go game with my friends. Sometimes we play 4e, sometimes 3.x, sometimes ADnD (1e or 2e). Sometimes we even get out of DnD completely, we play HARP, RIFTS, Palladium FRPG, TMNT, Ninjas & Superspies, etc. Primarily we play whatever edition is current in each respective system.

As far as houserules go, I broke the magic system even further by using the system from BESM: The Slayers d20. It requires insanely high saves, and is extremely powerful, but fast and hilarious. The creatures also had access to this system, which made for a high mortality rate among both BBEGs and PCs. We all love it, because, for us, the best part of the game is introdicing a new character.

EDIT: Houseruling doesn't seem like a bug to me, it seems like adding a mod to a video game. So, if I like big heads and little bodies, I'm gonna make it that way. My groups have always houseruled by consensus, we all enjoy this houserule, so we implement it.

[Aron Times]

To AshDesert:

But deciding ahead of time not to break the game IS a house rule, which proves my point. A house rule is basically anything that isn't part of the RAW.

As for my claim of getting away with anything as long as you're nice, I am not speaking literally. No sane DM will allow Pun-Pun, even if he is 100% RAW. What I mean is that the DM is much less likely to veto any of your character building plans if you don't act like a jerk.

To erikun:

I never said that 2e games weren't heavily house ruled. In fact, 2e games needed more house ruling than 3e because of it's generally clunkiness. In fact, the need to personalize one's D&D experience through house ruling is widely accepted to be the reason why D&D became so popular.

What I said was that house ruling to fix what was broken became problematic during 3e/3.5's reign because people were starting to play with multiple groups through the Internet. Back in 2e, when Internet rules wasn't so prevalent, most people played in a single group, so house rule compatibility and consistency wasn't a problem.

To everyone:

Speaking of the Internet, there was a massive edition war between 2e and 3e when the latter was announced. As Yogi Berra would say it, "It's deja vu all over again." But because Internet usage wasn't as widespread "back in the old days" and people tend to have short collective memories, it seems that the edition war is something new.

My original D&D group, which overlapped with my Magic: The Gathering group, starting playing in D&D 2e and Magic 5e (give or take a few editions). I joined the group right after 3e was released, and the group basically upgraded with no problems. The thought of arguing about which edition was the "true" D&D never occurred to us. Also, when Wizards streamlined the Magic rules in 6e, we converted to the new rules without any problems. The same holds true for Magic 2010, which brought with it radical changes to the game.

Basically, we were too busy having fun with D&D and Magic to spend time on D&D and magic edition wars. In fact, we were completely unaware of the existence of edition wars in D&D and in Magic until I started spending time on the Wizards forums (I'm the only one in the group that posts in D&D and in Magic forums). Our reaction can basically be summed up as, "Meh. Whatever."

[Saph]

I value convenience more than complexity, and this is why I play 4e most of the time. What do you think?

I think this looks like another "Why my system is better than your system" thread, no matter how politely you've phrased it.

4e is simpler and more balanced than 3.5. However, it pays for that simplicity and balance by drastically reducing character variety and versatility. I'm still on the fence as to whether this was a good tradeoff or not.

[Foryn Gilnith]

3.5's the one my buddies play.

Yeah. Pretty much. I'm moving more towards freeform-ish systems as my buddy group becomes people who don't care enough to learn complex RPGs.

[dsmiles]

I think this looks like another "Why my system is better than your system" thread, no matter how politely you've phrased it.

4e is simpler and more balanced than 3.5. However, it pays for that simplicity and balance by drastically reducing character variety and versatility. I'm still on the fence as to whether this was a good tradeoff or not.

Character versatility and variety? Skip DnD entirely, go HARP.
Simplicity? Go DnD 4e.
Game-Breaking? Go DnD 3.xe.
Confusing rules about when to roll high and wen to roll low? Go ADnD 1e or 2e.
Even more confusing rules about everything? Go any Palladium system game.

[AshDesert]

To AshDesert:

But deciding ahead of time not to break the game IS a house rule, which proves my point. A house rule is basically anything that isn't part of the RAW.
:smallconfused: Deciding not to break the game in no way involves any rules, unless I'm just confused about what you're trying to say.


As for my claim of getting away with anything as long as you're nice, I am not speaking literally. No sane DM will allow Pun-Pun, even if he is 100% RAW. What I mean is that the DM is much less likely to veto any of your character building plans if you don't act like a jerk.

Hmm, well, I guess it's different from table to table, but I would veto anything that I thought would make the game less fun for others, no matter how nice they are.

[The J Pizzel]

Good thread by the way.

ON EDITIONS:
I've played since 2E. It was fun then cause it was new to me. Then I took a long break and starting playing again right when 3.0 evovling into 3.5. I liked it. Introduced a lot of friends to and they liked it. So we starting playing it.

I heard 4E was coming out. Said I'm not switching cause I own way too many 3.5 books to start buying new ones. Oddly enough, when they came out, whether or not it was "real DnD" or a "stream-lined" or any of the other potential factors never really came up.

I got my hands on a .pdf of the PHB (I'm a bad person, sue me) and really liked it. Showed it to some other players and they liked it. So, I bought the Core books and now we play 4E. That was the motives.

The reactions:
Me entire group likes both editions for several different reason.

First and foremost, we all agree (as have many people on these boards) 4E really does seem easier to play. It's easier to teach new players (we've had 3 additions since we started, 2 of which didn't want to play 3.5 cause they said it was too complicated) and it does streamline game play, as well as DMing.

Example: One of my players was surprised to find that they're fighting a Big Red next week. He said "pizzel, you used to hardly never run Dragons" to which I replied "yeah, they were kinda time consuming to get ready. Gotta get the size, then the all the damages, then the sorcerer spells, etc". Remember I didn't say it was hard, I simply said time consuming. Then I showed him the statblock for a dragon in the 4E DMG. He was totally surprised at how easy it would be to run a dragon in 4E. Then he said "yeah, but don't you miss having the sorcerer spells and all that?" To which I replied, "yep, but I'd still prefer having this".

And to me, that sums up the differences. They both still feel like DnD. They have the same amount of "role-playing", because the books don't dictate how my group role-plays. Their role-playing hasn't changed a single bit. 4E is just an easier game to play, run, and introduce new people too. Now, all that being said...

I still love 3.5. I'm not selling my books and all my players still have their level 15 characters that we left off on and we'll probably still play random 3.5 games. But for now, we're just enjoying the ease of 4E.

ON THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD
I can honestly say that this site changed the way we played. My players played blasters and monkey-grippers and even....duh, duh, duh...MONKS. They didn't know about divine metamagic, natural spell, and the significance of save-or-die spells. My players would rather empower fireball than prepare celerity. And honestly, none of that was a bad thing. Some of them started playing a little different. But our monk player continued playing monks, but our wizzie starting preping different stuff. So I can honestly say, that the internet (this site) did change how we play 3.5. Did it ruin or break the game. Absolutely not. Did it encourage some houseruls, maybe, could it ruin some other players games, maybe, but it didn't ruin mine. It simply changed a little bit.

Just my thoughts.

[Aron Times]

This thread wasn't intended to be a "My system is better than yours!" thread. The topic is about how house rules, the Internet, and character optimization changed the way we play D&D. The former is the easiest solution to the system's problems, but the influence of the latter two means that it often clashes with players' expectations.

From an RTS perspective, 3e is to 4e as Total Annihilation is to Starcraft. Total Annihilation has a steep learning curve compared to Starcraft, and the same holds true for 3e and 4e.

[lesser_minion]

Confusing rules about when to roll high and wen to roll low? Go ADnD 1e or 2e.
Even more confusing rules about everything? Go any Palladium system game.

Confusing? Anything but.

You need a roll of 1-3 on a d6 to open that door. Easy.

It could be hard to remember, but it was always spelled out exactly what dice you rolled and what result succeeded. It was by no means confusing.

In my experience, Palladium wasn't especially bad for this either, although I read a heavily modified version of the system.

I can see where the OP is coming from with houserules, and there are a few articles on the Alexandrian which discuss various issues with them.

Consistency is important, but it isn't as important as allowing each and every group to play the game they want to play.

[Tehnar]

The internet introduced a proliferation of house rules because a lot of tricks became widely known. How many people would have thought of Pun-Pun? Or the locate city bomb? However most of those things are easily houseruled, just by saying "don't be a jerk".

[dsmiles]

The internet introduced a proliferation of house rules because a lot of tricks became widely known. How many people would have thought of Pun-Pun? Or the locate city bomb? However most of those things are easily houseruled, just by saying "don't be a jerk".

I prefer, "Don't be a jack@$$," myself.

[FatR]

The more I learn about 2e, the more I get the feeling that it is unintentionally more balanced than 3e. Sure, the Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards problem still exists, but the game's lethality is so high that it doesn't really matter how powerful the mage gets; one wrong move and even the lowly thief can kill him.
Only if the mage failed his roll to learn Stoneskin (which persisted until used up and completely blocked 1d4 physical attacks + 1 attack per 2 levels).



One reason is that mages were a lot more fragile than their 3e counterparts. Any damage taken disrupts a spell, and anyone using a fast weapon can easily keep an unprotected mage from even casting a single spell. 2e mages didn't have Concentration to allow them to cast while taking damage. Another reason, more important than the first, is that combat spells used to have casting times measured in rounds, whereas combat spells in 3e can be cast with a standard action. Finger of Death, Disintegrate, Time Stop, etc. didn't go off in one round, leaving the mage open to disruption before he could cast his tide-turning spell.
Wrong. They did. You probably mistake speed for rounds. The above-mentioned Stoneskin took care of disruption by weapon attacks. The staple 3.X ways of not being hit mostly were at least as effective as well.

In short, AD&D 2E wizards generally were more powerful that the rest of the party combined by 9th level, and the only class to get any real features after 14th.

[Kurald Galain]

The above-mentioned Stoneskin took care of disruption by weapon attacks.
That depends on how lot of things are ruled. Does it stack with itself? Does it block only damage or also spell disruption? Does a series of darts take it away in one round? Can a scroll or book of it be found in the first place?

Yes, a DM can let stoneskin be ridiculous. He can also let spell disruption remain a viable threat to wizards. I believe the latter to be RAI, and I know for a fact that's how the DMs in my area ruled it.

All in all, it's just one spell. 2E wizards aren't nearly as uber as 3E wizards.

[Tehnar]

One of the better things AD&D had for it was the different rates of XP progression. Also Fighters had the best saves; so at higher levels they made their saving throws more often then not.

[lesser_minion]

By the time the wizard was 9th level, everyone else would be pretty close to maxed out. A 9th level wizard needed something like 640k experience, IIRC (the formula got a bit weird past a certain level, which I don't remember exactly).

Considering the relatively small chance that you would even be permitted to play a wizard, I don't think it was as unbalanced as you think.

[John Campbell]

The more I learn about 2e, the more I get the feeling that it is unintentionally more balanced than 3e.

Hint: It wasn't unintentional.

[lesser_minion]

Hint: It wasn't unintentional.

OK, I thought I was the only person who believed that 3.5 deliberately wrecked a variety of elements of 3.0 as part of some kind of planned obsolescence program.

So you're saying that the 3.0 designers deliberately unbalanced the game?

[The Rose Dragon]

So you're saying that the 3.0 designers deliberately unbalanced the game?

He means that 2nd Edition wasn't unintentionally balanced. The balance was quite intentional, as it stood.

[lesser_minion]

He means that 2nd Edition wasn't unintentionally balanced. The balance was quite intentional, as it stood.

My understanding was that AD&D balance was mostly based on having the most powerful character classes also be the rarest - paladins aren't all that common when you only have a 1 in 54 chance of rolling the needed charisma score alone.

The only way JC's comment makes sense in the light of the post it quotes is if it was meant to imply that 3.0 was intentionally unbalanced. Unless someone now is going to go back in time and write 2.0...

[Kurald Galain]

So you're saying that the 3.0 designers deliberately unbalanced the game?
I believe that the 3E designers were ignorant of numerous safety features present in 2E.

[lesser_minion]

I believe that the 3E designers were ignorant of numerous safety features present in 2E.

I'm not sure how far that is the case, really. 3.0 removed a lot of the restrictions on spells, but it still gave spells some limitations.

Alter Self couldn't give your character godly AC, druids couldn't cast spells, use magic items, or make fourteen poisoned attacks in wild shape, Planar Ally had much better handling and Animal Companions were a spell rather than an extra party member.

The changes made in 3.5 were essentially determined by rolling percentile dice.

[Matthew]

I believe that the 3E designers were ignorant of numerous safety features present in 2E.

This.

And to be fair, I pretty much was as well. Until I actually played D20/3e I had not fully appreciated exactly why those features were in place.

[DabblerWizard]

I just wanted to mention, Joseph Silver, that the clarity of your post is refreshing.

Thanks! :smallsmile:

[Edit]


Sure, there are silly problems with the game, like housecats kicking the living daylights out of Commoners, but it's not like the rules were built around cats fighting common folk.

Flaws are often unintended. It doesn't matter if the developers didn't plan on cats fighting commoners, a flaw is still present.

It's perfectly fine to ignore a flaw here or there, but when flaws become glaringly obvious, and start amassing in large numbers, it's alright for people to complain about the system as a whole.

[Zaydos]

I like 3e because of the options and most of my friends do too; the two who don't are the ones who either try to break the game or have played a long time and fail at everything. Personally I feel 4e neutered everything non-combat, but that is just an opinion. In 4e's favor it's lack of non-combat rules encourage house rules in those regards making it more like 2e.

As far as houserules go mine (in 3e) have either been to create a race/class/feat/etc because I wanted one in my world, to add a class skill I felt a class should have for RP reasons, to increase the efficiency of Speak Language just because it's not worth taking and I felt sorry for people who took it more than once. In 2e or 4e when there's something I don't know is accounted for in the rules I just houserule it, with 3e I find it, or google it if I don't know where it is already.

As far as the internet affecting game play: I haven't seen it yet, except once or twice googling a rule. I have used it in making my next character and it encouraged me to steer away from blasting as a mage although he still has several blasting spells (the orb spells, the lesser orbs, and a level 2 Dragolance blasting spell) and actually no more or less of a percentage than normal. I have found it useful for asking advice with homebrew or looking for interesting homebrew for which I thank the playgrounders (only place I've bothered to look). I have had players I am glad didn't use it in making their characters but that was when we were changing from 3.0 to 3.5 (in little bits since I was DMing and didn't have the money to buy new books), and I have one player who's about to start DMing who is using it to optimize/find homebrew for his DMPC (PC from my campaign that he is continuing). He is mostly going the "Undying Warlock" route so it is all self-target defense buffs, I wonder how long it will take him to realize this will encourage us to send him in to tank (I'm the wizard having two people with 34+ AC at level 9 is nice when Atk bonuses for melee bruisers average +18). It has yet to have an serious effect but may soon.

[Bob]

3.x classes and magic items lack identity. Sometimes I wonder if editing was outsourced to a non english speaking country, and something was lost in translation.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

3.x classes and magic items lack identity. Sometimes I wonder if editing was outsourced to a non english speaking country, and something was lost in translation.I disagree. They have a nice suite of generics(Cleric, Wizard, Fighter, Rogue), then sourcebooks give you more customization(Dread Necromancer, Malconvoker, Dungeoncrasher, Chameleon Rogue). Yeah, they don't require you to have studied at a university or apprenticed to an older thief or something, but that's so that players can write their own characters rather than needing to use the default fluff.

[John Campbell]

OK, I thought I was the only person who believed that 3.5 deliberately wrecked a variety of elements of 3.0 as part of some kind of planned obsolescence program.

So you're saying that the 3.0 designers deliberately unbalanced the game?

No... or, rather, I can't really rule that out, but that wasn't my point.

I'm saying that the balance of AD&D was not unintentional. It was not a coincidence or a mistake. There was a lot of stuff in AD&D that was put in intentionally by the game designers as balancing measures, but that WotC systematically removed from 3E for their own reasons. I don't think that WotC actually set out to unbalance the game, but in destroying those various very deliberate balancing mechanisms, that's what they did.

There seems to be this idea among the kids who never knew TSR that AD&D was some bizarre and esoteric thing that just somehow happened, without any conscious volition on anyone's part, and it was up to WotC to take this pile of random rules that they discovered when they looted TSR's corpse and refine it into a playable game. But that's not how it went down. AD&D was designed. All those weird and inconsistent bits were like that for a reason - because Gary Gygax or Zeb Cook or someone looked at the game, and thought about it, and decided that, for one reason or another, that way was the best way to do it. And probably intentionally rejected the superficially obvious solution along the way, for a reason.

And I think that when WotC produced 3E, they did it without sufficient knowledge or understanding of why AD&D was like it was to begin with, and without putting sufficient thought into what the ultimate effects of their changes would be, or how changes that might make sense in their immediate context would affect the bigger picture.

[lesser_minion]

Actually, the same could be said of WotC's attempt to 'simplify' 3.0.

3.5 broke a lot more than it fixed.