PDA

View Full Version : Enjoyability?



Tola
2007-01-19, 10:31 AM
...Though my impression may be skewed by the impressions I get from the forums, I have to ask: How DOES a melee-type enjoy themself in battle and out of it when they're as 'weak' and 'underpowered' as they they apparently are?

Or perhaps a better question: How DO you enjoy the game, full stop?

JellyPooga
2007-01-19, 10:40 AM
Answer to question 1) : By playing your character. A majority of melee types will tend to fairly aggressive. When you've engaged an enemy and 'your kill' is 'stolen' by that pesky mage again, get pissy about it and complain loudly about putting you off balance, etc. If you're not playing an aggressive/arrogant melee type...umm, well I got no suggestions.

Answer to question 2) : If you hadn't guessed by my answer to 1), simply play your character rather than a set of stats. If everyone plays in character, then 'power' in the "I'm a lvl 17 Wizard so your lvl 16 fighter is so completely redundant now" sense means nothing what-so-ever.

Talyn
2007-01-19, 10:43 AM
Yeah, the fun isn't in being able to kick another character's ass in combat, it's about interacting with the world in a unique way. Seriously, I usually play melee types (when I can play, which is rare because I usually DM), even the much-maligned Paladin, because they are just more fun to play.

pestilenceawaits
2007-01-19, 10:43 AM
Just because you are a melee character doesn't mean you can't roleplay out side of combat. That being said a good DM should always make combat fun for everyone (not every single battle but over all). if every battle starts with the wizard reducing the enemy to ashes or whatever before the fighter gets a chance to attack then the DM isn't doing something right.

Mick_the_Rogue
2007-01-19, 10:45 AM
Two words

"Anti-magic field"

Then look at the wizard and note that he is a pathetic little man with few HP and a crap BAB

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 10:47 AM
...you... have fun by only playing games where antimagic fields are omnipresent or at least highly prevalent?

???

Thomas
2007-01-19, 10:57 AM
Two words

"Anti-magic field"

Then look at the wizard and note that he is a pathetic little man with few HP and a crap BAB

Sure sounds enjoyable to the wizard's player! I bet he or she will want to stay in that game for a long time!


Edit: To answer the OP's question...

In D&D, none of us bother playing wizards to their full effect. (Too much thinking and looking up unfamiliar spells. Usually we just use blaster sorcerers.) We memorize fireball and lightning bolt, and the guy who dominated our entire first 3.0 campaign with a druid kindly refrains from playing druids all of the time, and generally makes an effort to downplay and not use all of his powers (not staying wildshaped all the time, not using combinations that will rule the battles unfairly, etc.). We never even have a cleric, really.

But we have even more fun playing something like RuneQuest, where there's no classes and everyone can learn magic, gain heroic abilities and superpowers, and so on. (In the new edition, the types of magic are actually balanced to each other. The shaman has an advantage here, the wizard has an advantage there, and the priest has an advantage elsewhere, but no one is fundamentally more powerful than the others.)

Matthew
2007-01-19, 11:05 AM
By playing at low levels?

Optimisation is different from actually playing the game. Some games will be boring regardless and some will be horribly unbalanced and still tremendous fun.

NullAshton
2007-01-19, 11:06 AM
I actually enjoy my warmind character a lot in the couple of battles I've tested him in. He doesn't have anything like a wizard has with save or die... but still has nice damage.

I guess the fun in a character is how much fun you want it to be.

NEO|Phyte
2007-01-19, 11:24 AM
My enjoyability is a fairly equal mix of coming up with a character idea, finding a way to build the character to match the idea, then playing said character.

One such example is my WereDireWeasel Human Psychic Warrior that has the Illithid Heritage featline. Is he powerful? Probably not. Is he halfway optimized? Maybe a bit. Is he a brain-eating tentaclefaced weasel thing? HELL YES!

pestilenceawaits
2007-01-19, 11:27 AM
WereDireWeasel Human Psychic Warrior that has the Illithid Heritage featline.

I may have nightmares for the rest of my life. That is the craziest thing I have ever heard of. I bow to your imagination sir.:smalltongue:

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 11:30 AM
Is he a brain-eating tentaclefaced weasel thing? HELL YES!

You say that as though it were a plus, rather than one of the signs of the impending Apocalypse.

Behold_the_Void
2007-01-19, 11:33 AM
Roleplay roleplay roleplay. A lot of the stuff you CAN do with Wizards or whatever also relies on highly theoretical conditions that won't always work out just the way they should, in theory. Also, just because a Wizard CAN do it doesn't mean the player is going to do it because a lot of times it doesn't make a lick of sense for them to do so in a real campaign.

Or if you're looking for more of a Hulk-Smash type game, get Tome of Battle and run a Warblade.

Indon
2007-01-19, 11:38 AM
Tabletop RPG's are not about min-maxing or optimization, in my view. There are thousands of better-suited games for that purpose out there, most of which are on computer or console.

Tabletop RPG's are about crafting an interesting, interactive story, and that's what's fun about them.

Shazzbaa
2007-01-19, 01:22 PM
My enjoyability is a fairly equal mix of coming up with a character idea, finding a way to build the character to match the idea, then playing said character.

One such example is my WereDireWeasel Human Psychic Warrior that has the Illithid Heritage featline. Is he powerful? Probably not. Is he halfway optimized? Maybe a bit. Is he a brain-eating tentaclefaced weasel thing? HELL YES!

This post is... pretty much exactly how I look at it myself. (And it's wonderful :smallbiggrin: )

I've said before, in the D&D campaign I'm in currently, I'm pretty clearly the weakest character, but the character's fun so I'm completely having a blast. As long as I'm contributing something (which I typically am), it doesn't bother me that the others often do more. I get my moments to shine.

Besides, the cleric in our party has proven multiple times over to the other players that he's exceedingly powerful.... but as far as the other characters; my barbarian and the fighter still deride him as a weakling because he's still scrawny. :smalltongue:

MrNexx
2007-01-19, 01:39 PM
You know, I'm thinking about it, and I've finally pinned down the feel of 3.x, as sometimes advocated on these boards, for me.

Knights of the Dinner Table.

Now, I haven't read the book since college, but some of the vibe from the early issues seems to be there. The Uber Bonuses. The Magic Swag. The character optimization.

Anyone remember the issue where Bitter Stevil and Weird Pete are using rules from an obscure Czech supplement, and can bend Nitro over a barrel because Hard 8 published it (indirectly)? Or Bob blatantly whoring his way to 5th level cleric with his HackStart human cleric of Knu-Kyle-Ra by manipulating the rules... only to have it snatched away by a careful reading of the rules regarding Dave's character?

Doesn't anyone else get the feeling that their sorcerer is about to say "Fireballs coming on line" or their thief is about to "Waste 'em with their crossbow"?

I'm not quite sure what this revelation will do for my enjoyment of the game, scant as it was already.

skrue_luse
2007-01-19, 01:49 PM
My enjoyability is a fairly equal mix of coming up with a character idea, finding a way to build the character to match the idea, then playing said character.


I feel the same way. For me, it's about bringing a charater to life. I do no more Min/Max or optimization than needed to get the character where they need to be to fit the image in my mind.



One such example is my WereDireWeasel Human Psychic Warrior that has the Illithid Heritage featline. Is he powerful? Probably not. Is he halfway optimized? Maybe a bit. Is he a brain-eating tentaclefaced weasel thing? HELL YES!

:smalleek: Wow... :smallamused: That is freakin' sweet!

Roderick_BR
2007-01-19, 01:52 PM
I have a friend that can play a two-weapon fighting lawful evil human Fighter and have as much fun as playing a crossbow wielding chaotic good gnome wizard(ilusinist). Dude, you'd be impressed on how much trouble a single gnome can do, without using fireballs... :smallwink:

Morty
2007-01-19, 02:10 PM
Meh. Personally I don't understand optimizing and powergaming beyond the level of being able to contirbute in fight and out of it. That's just me, but I don't really have the need to say "Lo, behold the awesome might of my Character Sheet". I'm currently playing non-optimized wizard(conjuration banned, 'cause it's dumb school) and I'm fine.

NullAshton
2007-01-19, 02:43 PM
Meh. Personally I don't understand optimizing and powergaming beyond the level of being able to contirbute in fight and out of it. That's just me, but I don't really have the need to say "Lo, behold the awesome might of my Character Sheet". I'm currently playing non-optimized wizard(conjuration banned, 'cause it's dumb school) and I'm fine.

I tend to brag just a touch about my character sheets, but just because running on walls and being able to get to an opponent in the air by a series of running on walls and jumping is just cool.

I enjoy my characters because they can do cool things. If something has cool things but utterly ineffective in combat, I'd probably still enjoy playing it.:smallsmile:

krossbow
2007-01-19, 02:48 PM
manipulating everone and being a jackass; it doesn't matter that the others are more powerful than I as long as I carefully note their weaknesses, piss them off, and then hold an ace in their face when they get pissed.



Example: Character with no abilities except an insanely good will save; I then seek out an evil item with a uber curse of doom and "except the burden" Just so that I can tell the fighter that killing me is a bad idea since the thing might then possess some random guy without a +22 will save.
________
Yamaha Xv1600A Specifications (http://www.yamaha-tech.com/wiki/Yamaha_XV1600A)

Matthew
2007-01-19, 03:32 PM
You know, I'm thinking about it, and I've finally pinned down the feel of 3.x, as sometimes advocated on these boards, for me.

Knights of the Dinner Table.

Now, I haven't read the book since college, but some of the vibe from the early issues seems to be there. The Uber Bonuses. The Magic Swag. The character optimization.

Anyone remember the issue where Bitter Stevil and Weird Pete are using rules from an obscure Czech supplement, and can bend Nitro over a barrel because Hard 8 published it (indirectly)? Or Bob blatantly whoring his way to 5th level cleric with his HackStart human cleric of Knu-Kyle-Ra by manipulating the rules... only to have it snatched away by a careful reading of the rules regarding Dave's character?

Doesn't anyone else get the feeling that their sorcerer is about to say "Fireballs coming on line" or their thief is about to "Waste 'em with their crossbow"?

I'm not quite sure what this revelation will do for my enjoyment of the game, scant as it was already.

Heh. Yeah, Knights does feel a lot like 3.x. However, the same could said about previous editions. It's all about attitude and group dynamic.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-19, 03:45 PM
I enjoy the game by being slightly useful, and trying to stay out of the spotlight (and occasionally failing.) Our Wizard is usually in the spotlight because he's the group's face. He's the guy who talks to people, not because he has a good Charisma, but because he uses Charm Person, Ensnare the Heart and my personal favorite, Geas, as well as other, similarly manipulative spells.

When he's not there, we end up having to fight our way through stuff, and that's where I come in handy, because I'm a Cleric. I guess the only time I really stole the spotlight was when we were fighting a dragon, and she had knocked out two of our party members due to damage. I was able to get over and heal them, but they still weren't awake. The dragon was still next to me, and I had no idea what to do. So I prayed to my god, hoping to get some sort of roleplaying bonus for my act, and cast Slay Living. I was out of Harms for the day, and I didn't think an Inflict could do enough to kill her. I realized that even if I did get past her spell resistance, she'd probably make her fortitude save and only take 3d6 damage, but I was hoping for some divine intervention.

Then I rolled a 20 for the caster level check to get past her spell resistance. She made her fort save, but died anyway when I did 21 damage. (The DM said she had 7 left)

So, I don't know how the DM rigged my roll for the good roleplaying, or if there really is a Reorx. Either scare me.

Diggorian
2007-01-19, 04:34 PM
My enjoyment comes from the collaborative story-telling the group participates in. The possibilites of infinite scenarios combined by the unique reactions of our PC's -- individually and as a group -- create narratives that rival, or are outright better than most things on TV or in books. I favor highly sensational descriptions of actions in game.

I hate running and playing in published adventures for this reason, they feel alien cause the writer doesnt know me nor my unique character and I feel like a chess piece.

I prefer melee types cause of the type of guy I am. I've been an athlete, taken martial arts training, won and lost physical altercations ... aggressive competition I closely relate to. Tome of Battle is new favorite of mine.

Wizards, though ultra-ubber-world sunderingly powerful seem a bit boring to me. In situation A, cast spell B, saves vary. X number of enemies vanish in an ash mushroom cloud, are electrically fried to cinders, etc. How I use my feats and manuevers in a given scenario is as interesting to me as how a caster decides to use which spells.

The fact that I dont have as many advantages as magic grants makes my victories that much sweeter to me. Let Casty McSpell destroy whole armies with a few standard actions. As long as I can get Wings of Flying to duel a pit fiend in mid-air like Gandalf did at the begininning of Two Towers, I'm pleased.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-19, 04:36 PM
My players roleplay more then they get into fights or roll for random stats. It's way more fun for everybody.

And for the combat-savy melee player who wants to give the mage a whacking, I let them have "honor duels" where neither combatant is allowed to use any deadly or dangerous attack, thus limiting the casters' best spells and allowing the melee'er to shine a little more. At least until the caster figures out good magic combos to boost their own melee prowess...

I really enjoy watching these duels about as much as the players like to have them, constantly. Sometimes unforeseen funny things can happen that influence the story, like when the raged barbarian//fighter who just lost his axe to a disarm decided to punch the half-dragon on a double critical for over 30 beyond the half-dragon's remaining health. He was knocked the hell out for a while, and I imposed a temporary spot penalty due to having the world's most bruised black eye.

Ravyn
2007-01-19, 06:18 PM
For me, the answer comes down to "Who needs mechanics?" I'm there to chew up the scenery. To come up with inventive solutions to unlikely problems. To snark my foes into forgetting their tactics. To find a really sweet way to describe that last hit. For interaction. And for writing practice, since most of my gaming is text-based.

krossbow
2007-01-19, 06:29 PM
Which means absolutely nothing.


A group of orcs are charging you!


Plyaer: "Okay, I use my quick wit to make them break formation!"

DM: Dude.... HOW?

Player: because I can?

DM: .... Okay, so I take it your delaying your turn; the orc's roll... they hit, you take 15 damage...




Unless you take feats dude, you can't just do that kind of stuff. You can bluff, but thats only before combat. It means jack de little in combat unless your feinting and such.



If you don't care about Mechanics, your playing the wrong game. Try a pure RP one, because D&D is very crunch heavy.

Not that you can't RP, just in battle theirs very little options for you.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-19, 06:35 PM
Which means absolutely nothing.


A group of orcs are charging you!


Plyaer: "Okay, I use my quick wit to make them break formation!"

DM: Dude.... HOW?

Player: because I can?

DM: .... Okay, so I take it your delaying your turn; the orc's roll... they hit, you take 15 damage...




Unless you take feats dude, you can't just do that kind of stuff. You can bluff, but thats only before combat. It means jack de little in combat unless your feinting and such.



If you don't care about Mechanics, your playing the wrong game. Try a pure RP one like Mushuu or something, because D&D is very crunch heavy.

Not that you can't RP, just in battle theirs very little options for you.

Speaking is a free action, you could use your quick wit and not delay.

krossbow
2007-01-19, 06:38 PM
Okay... so your saying speaking (not bluff, intimidate, or diplomacy, as those are skill checks, and not free actions) will somehow confuse the enemy? Right.




Thats pure DM fiat; pretty much along the line of him saying "You win! Don't roll, as heroes, you have now defeated the enemy!"

mikeejimbo
2007-01-19, 06:41 PM
Okay... so your saying speaking (not bluff, intimidate, or diplomacy, as those are skill checks, and not free actions) will somehow confuse the enemy? Right

No, I'm not saying that, I'm just saying that you can speak all you want. :smalltongue:

krossbow
2007-01-19, 06:50 PM
ah, sorry, my bad :smalltongue:

misunderstood you there.
________
Vaporizer affiliates (http://vaporizeraffiliateprogram.com)

jjpickar
2007-01-19, 08:01 PM
My take on fighters having fun is that whenever I play a game or DM a game (Which is a lot more often) the wizards and sorcerers tend to disappear after an enemy uses a fire ball on them whereas the fighter just grunts and wonders what all the fuss about the warm weather is. It's not as though go out f my way to destroy spell casters in my games, its just that whenever they actually get attacked they usually fair poorly and it gives those characters with more H.P. than them a bit of satisfaction to see the all powerful bender of the universe's laws brought low by a smelly kobold sorcerer.

Oh, and Hooray Kobolds!

Talyn
2007-01-19, 10:23 PM
Which means absolutely nothing.


A group of orcs are charging you!


Plyaer: "Okay, I use my quick wit to make them break formation!"

DM: Dude.... HOW?

Player: because I can?

DM: .... Okay, so I take it your delaying your turn; the orc's roll... they hit, you take 15 damage...




Unless you take feats dude, you can't just do that kind of stuff. You can bluff, but thats only before combat. It means jack de little in combat unless your feinting and such.



If you don't care about Mechanics, your playing the wrong game. Try a pure RP one, because D&D is very crunch heavy.

Not that you can't RP, just in battle theirs very little options for you.

Also, that's bad running of the encounter by the DM.

"I use my quick wit to break the orc's formation."

"How?"

"...because I can."

A good DM, here, would acknowledge that just because the CHARACTER has a 19 intelligence doesn't mean the player has to, and might allow an intelligence check (DC 15, maybe) to give the player a flash of inspiration in the form of a DM hint as to HOW to break the formation.

Being clever doesn't and shouldn't require a feat. My players do a LOT of damage despite being deliberately unmaximized because they are smart (high INT) people playing high WIS characters, and they do clever things.

Saph
2007-01-20, 05:33 AM
...Though my impression may be skewed by the impressions I get from the forums, I have to ask: How DOES a melee-type enjoy themself in battle and out of it when they're as 'weak' and 'underpowered' as they they apparently are?

Yes, your impression's skewed. Sigh . . . This is why I wish Bears and the others would stop going on constantly about weak they think the fighter is. "Casters have more fun in D&D" is, quite simply, rubbish. I have seen absolutely no reason to believe this, in any game, ever.

Anyway, to your question:

1) Start at low levels. Way, WAY too many people start up games at levels well over 10, sometimes even close to 20, and wonder why the game seems unbalanced. D&D is designed for the PCs to start at level 1 or thereabouts. You can up this a bit, but the game becomes less and less balanced the higher level you get to.

2) Fighter-types have more hitpoints than sorcerers/wizards. The people who tell you that this doesn't matter because a caster will always forsee what might hit him and have a spell ready to stop it are dreaming. You WILL make a mistake or get caught by surprise eventually.

3) "Having fun" is not directly proportional to "being powerful". In fact I'd almost say the opposite - the RPGs I've enjoyed the most have nearly always been ones where our party was seriously outgunned and couldn't rely on brute power to win.

4) You know those hyper-optimised caster builds and tricks you see around on this forum and others? They don't actually exist. That is, they might work by the RAW, but almost no-one plays them in a game, because a. DMs are unlikely to allow them, b. they're created for entertainment value more than anything else, and c. they're usually not all that much fun to play anyway.

5) It's true that casting classes are more abuseable than melee classes, but fully optimising a caster (and keeping them fully optimised) is a hell of a lot of work. You have to keep on rethinking your spell selection and strategy every time your situation changes, which can be a dozen times a session. Most people either can't be bothered to do it, don't have a good enough knowledge of the spell system, or both.


These discussions of "which class is more powerful" are done for entertainment value and for people who are interested in house-rules. They are NOT recommendations for people thinking of playing a character. If you pick your character class and build solely on the basis of what someone else has told you is the most powerful, I guarantee you won't enjoy playing the character much.

In short: Ignore the power debates, just play whatever character you want to play. You'll have more fun that way.

- Saph

Dareon
2007-01-20, 06:13 AM
3) "Having fun" is not directly proportional to "being powerful". In fact I'd almost say the opposite - the RPGs I've enjoyed the most have nearly always been ones where our party was seriously outgunned and couldn't rely on brute power to win.
Signed. You can have fun playing a powerful character, but it's not always the power that makes the character fun.

Case in point, in my current game, I'm playing a Warlock, going into 3 levels of Mindbender, arguably two of the weakest non-NPC classes. I don't mind only being able to do one of two or three things a round combat-wise, although Eldritch Spear and Baleful Utterance have ended some fights that would have dragged on and had much greater losses on our side. I don't mind because I have an interesting persona to play, plus his social skills are through the roof.

Occasionally I make jokes about how I used to be awesome, especially since our Shifter Totemist (Ironically, considering the discussion, a melee type to my caster-type) can now make four attacks per round, each at around a +9 bonus, dealing, if all four hit, 2d6+2d8+6d4+16 (Not the actual distributed rolls, just the total he can do overall). Meanwhile, I'm in the back row with a +6 touch attack (from 250 feet away) doing 3d6. Still, we both enjoy playing our characters (The Shifter's a great joker, he once blinked right above our grumpy ranger and yelled "Catch me!"), and I wouldn't switch to a more powerful class if I had the chance.

Thomas
2007-01-20, 12:13 PM
You know, I'm thinking about it, and I've finally pinned down the feel of 3.x, as sometimes advocated on these boards, for me.

Knights of the Dinner Table.

Now, I haven't read the book since college, but some of the vibe from the early issues seems to be there. The Uber Bonuses. The Magic Swag. The character optimization.

That's kind of hilarious, considering that KotDT was written during and based on AD&D, and when Hackmaster was actually written and published, it was based on the older editions.

The editions have nothing to do with whether the games are full of "über bonuses", "magic swag" (how is it even D&D without swag and magic and magic swag?), and character optimization.

Were-Sandwich
2007-01-20, 01:50 PM
Signed. You can have fun playing a powerful character, but it's not always the power that makes the character fun.

Case in point, in my current game, I'm playing a Warlock, going into 3 levels of Mindbender, arguably two of the weakest non-NPC classes. I don't mind only being able to do one of two or three things a round combat-wise, although Eldritch Spear and Baleful Utterance have ended some fights that would have dragged on and had much greater losses on our side. I don't mind because I have an interesting persona to play, plus his social skills are through the roof.

Occasionally I make jokes about how I used to be awesome, especially since our Shifter Totemist (Ironically, considering the discussion, a melee type to my caster-type) can now make four attacks per round, each at around a +9 bonus, dealing, if all four hit, 2d6+2d8+6d4+16 (Not the actual distributed rolls, just the total he can do overall). Meanwhile, I'm in the back row with a +6 touch attack (from 250 feet away) doing 3d6. Still, we both enjoy playing our characters (The Shifter's a great joker, he once blinked right above our grumpy ranger and yelled "Catch me!"), and I wouldn't switch to a more powerful class if I had the chance.
I alays wanted to play a Totemist for that reason-Nightwalker ftw!

Serakus_DeSardis
2007-01-20, 03:05 PM
DND is the most open ended game in existence.

With nothing but the Player's Handbook you can do anything you want to do.

Its all about getting a good group of people, with a good storyteller to DM and having fun while you do it. If someone is an optimizer, then raise the bar for encounters. If your whole group prefers to talk it out, then just focus more on dialogue and politics.

We are all guilty of forgetting that this game is what we make of it. I see way too many people on this board that tend to be rules lawyers and tend to approach things as "if it is not approved WotC content then it isn't really content. -or- if its homebrewed its unbalanced -or- WotC puts out too much material just to make money and it breaks the game"" Well who cares? Did you have fun? Did everyone else have fun? Are you gonna do it again next week? Nuff said.

If your gaming sessions are not working out you may be playing with the wrong people or the you may not be playing the right game. If you want a rigid controlled gaming enviroment, 50$ and 15 bucks a month will get you a MMO subscription. Play 24/7 and never have to think of what happens.

This post may seem a little off-topic....but hell it sums up the underlying issue.

Thomas
2007-01-20, 04:52 PM
DND is the most open ended game in existence.

Hardly. There are plenty of games that are more open-ended, because they have actually been designed to be open-ended. D&D is as open ended as any other game with a very cohesive and consistent set of rules where almost everything is interconnected (which I would say is "fairly open-ended"), but a lot of games are better at it.


Not that I consider open-endedness a virtue. Games that have been designed around a particular genre, specific themes, and a certain style of play always do a better job at the genre, themes, and style than games that "can be used to play anything."

jjpickar
2007-01-20, 06:07 PM
Hardly. There are plenty of games that are more open-ended, because they have actually been designed to be open-ended. D&D is as open ended as any other game with a very cohesive and consistent set of rules where almost everything is interconnected (which I would say is "fairly open-ended"), but a lot of games are better at it.


Not that I consider open-endedness a virtue. Games that have been designed around a particular genre, specific themes, and a certain style of play always do a better job at the genre, themes, and style than games that "can be used to play anything."

"Cohesive and consistent set of rules?" If you read any of these threads on this forum you witness DMs and players alike literally throwing out any existing rule they find unwanted and substituting their own. It is completely open ended.

Shazzbaa
2007-01-20, 06:18 PM
All the same, that's not the point of Serakus' post.


Did you have fun? Did everyone else have fun? Are you gonna do it again next week? Nuff said.

QFT. I think this is a good thing to point out.

MrNexx
2007-01-20, 08:24 PM
That's kind of hilarious, considering that KotDT was written during and based on AD&D, and when Hackmaster was actually written and published, it was based on the older editions.

The editions have nothing to do with whether the games are full of "über bonuses", "magic swag" (how is it even D&D without swag and magic and magic swag?), and character optimization.

I know. However, the style of play engendered by 3.5 seems closer to KoDT than what I'd experienced in other systems. It's more "kick in the doors, blast 'em, and take their stuff", more niggling with regards to the rules.

In previous editions (2nd edition especially; I was active in discussions of 2nd edition rules and an active player and DM), different interpretations of the rules were expected. 3.5, like KoDT, has carried with it that "the precise letter of the rule must be followed, because the rules are very specific"... if not in play, then in the discussions on the boards.

Obtree
2007-01-20, 08:57 PM
As GM, make spell components mandatory.

I don't have a PHB in front of me this second, but for example the identify spell requires a pearl worth + than 100gp. For 2nd lvl PCs that can be a lots of gps (even if you don't consider the availability of said pearl in, say, a rural town.) So this brings at least one question to mind: is it worth it to splurge on that extra shiny high level spell for every encounter? Maybe since the fighter can do the same thing for free, we should let him out of his cage for a bit.

I think that gives you another thing to consider, from the kick-in-door point-of-view anyway. I play DND to roleplay mostly, and fighters, barbarians and paladins are great for that.

Sulecrist
2007-01-20, 09:23 PM
Make wizards track spell components. All of them. Even if they have a pouch, they still have to track what's inside it.

Coral? Gotta go to an ocean. Or find a fence. Force spell learning (and implementation) to be as challenging for a caster as finding that fancy +3 sword of heroes is for a fighter. Build in side quests. It'll make the wizard value their spells even more--and it'll limit how they use them.

Or they can burn a feat for Eschew.

Divine casters, now--that's even easier. Limit Shapechange, etc to animals that have been personally studied and encountered (I usually let the caster memorize a number of forms equal to their relevent ability modifier). Druids should have to track down an animal's spirit before imitating it. Clerics are duty-bound to touch/not touch some things--and take out those Libris Mortis Turn cheese rods. And for Pete's sake, use Tome of Battle.

Also, there's nothing wrong with antimagic/nullstone in small amounts. Just don't make your casters as frustrated as your warriors. (A bush-sized null spot or a single character with high SR is okay. A continent full of it isn't.)

Woot Spitum
2007-01-20, 09:48 PM
Don't forget attrition. A wizard may have many incredibly powerful abilities, but if he runs out, who's going to finish the job? The melee classes. As a DM, you don't have to let the party rest the moment the casters get down to one quarter of their total spell slots. Make the party keep fighting until the fighters have gotten the chance to kill a few things. If the party has to fight many encounters without resting, the casters have to ration their spells more carefully, allowing everyone else the chance to participate a bit.

NullAshton
2007-01-20, 09:57 PM
Make wizards track spell components. All of them. Even if they have a pouch, they still have to track what's inside it.

Coral? Gotta go to an ocean. Or find a fence. Force spell learning (and implementation) to be as challenging for a caster as finding that fancy +3 sword of heroes is for a fighter. Build in side quests. It'll make the wizard value their spells even more--and it'll limit how they use them.

Or they can burn a feat for Eschew.

Divine casters, now--that's even easier. Limit Shapechange, etc to animals that have been personally studied and encountered (I usually let the caster memorize a number of forms equal to their relevent ability modifier). Druids should have to track down an animal's spirit before imitating it. Clerics are duty-bound to touch/not touch some things--and take out those Libris Mortis Turn cheese rods. And for Pete's sake, use Tome of Battle.

Also, there's nothing wrong with antimagic/nullstone in small amounts. Just don't make your casters as frustrated as your warriors. (A bush-sized null spot or a single character with high SR is okay. A continent full of it isn't.)

So... uh... how the heck does that make it enjoyable for the wizard?

Roderick_BR
2007-01-20, 10:07 PM
Even better. When facing the BBEG, remember that they are usually smart, so they'll find ways to weaken the most powerful members. Maybe they'll bring monsters resistant to magic or something. Tactic wise, they would try to choose opponents to keep the group split and weak. I DMed a game once where the villain hired characters prepared to face each class of the group. If the fighter haven't noticed it, they would have lost.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-20, 10:08 PM
As GM, make spell components mandatory.

I don't have a PHB in front of me this second, but for example the identify spell requires a pearl worth + than 100gp. For 2nd lvl PCs that can be a lots of gps (even if you don't consider the availability of said pearl in, say, a rural town.) So this brings at least one question to mind: is it worth it to splurge on that extra shiny high level spell for every encounter? Maybe since the fighter can do the same thing for free, we should let him out of his cage for a bit.
Um. Expensive components are already tracked. Most spells don't have expensive components.


Make wizards track spell components. All of them. Even if they have a pouch, they still have to track what's inside it.

Coral? Gotta go to an ocean. Or find a fence. Force spell learning (and implementation) to be as challenging for a caster as finding that fancy +3 sword of heroes is for a fighter. Build in side quests. It'll make the wizard value their spells even more--and it'll limit how they use them.

Or they can burn a feat for Eschew.
Oh no! They have to spend a feat! That'll balance them!
As for "tracking spell components", how does it balance them? "I buy fifty of everything." "Guys, we need to stop here. How many doses of guano can I scrape up, DM?" It adds horrific bookkeeping--which D&D already has too much of--and doesn't actually *balance* anything.


Divine casters, now--that's even easier. Limit Shapechange, etc to animals that have been personally studied and encountered (I usually let the caster memorize a number of forms equal to their relevent ability modifier). Druids should have to track down an animal's spirit before imitating it. Clerics are duty-bound to touch/not touch some things--and take out those Libris Mortis Turn cheese rods. And for Pete's sake, use Tome of Battle.Druids can summon animals, and encounter them in the fores. The druid is still a bear, or a dire tiger. Clerics are overpowered without Nightsticks.
Using Tome of Battle is a good idea.


Also, there's nothing wrong with antimagic/nullstone in small amounts. Just don't make your casters as frustrated as your warriors. (A bush-sized null spot or a single character with high SR is okay. A continent full of it isn't.)
There's always Orb of X spells, for example, to fire into AMFs. But, yes. Antimagic fields being prevalent will tone the wizard down. Of course, if you have to sprinkle antimagic fields liberally all over your campaign, something's wrong.


Don't forget attrition. A wizard may have many incredibly powerful abilities, but if he runs out, who's going to finish the job? The melee classes. As a DM, you don't have to let the party rest the moment the casters get down to one quarter of their total spell slots. Make the party keep fighting until the fighters have gotten the chance to kill a few things. If the party has to fight many encounters without resting, the casters have to ration their spells more carefully, allowing everyone else the chance to participate a bit.
The melee classes, who lose HP with each fight?
Most of the time, a wizard only needs to spend two to four spells on a fight. Sometimes you need more , sometimes a single spell does it. This'll only work in the low-to-mid levels, really.

Thomas
2007-01-20, 10:16 PM
"Cohesive and consistent set of rules?" If you read any of these threads on this forum you witness DMs and players alike literally throwing out any existing rule they find unwanted and substituting their own. It is completely open ended.

In so far as any other game is. (Rolemaster is just as open-ended as D&D is.) A lot of games are built more open-ended and are either easier to customise or less likely to require any revising of rules. (I hate repeating myself, you know.)


In previous editions (2nd edition especially; I was active in discussions of 2nd edition rules and an active player and DM), different interpretations of the rules were expected. 3.5, like KoDT, has carried with it that "the precise letter of the rule must be followed, because the rules are very specific"... if not in play, then in the discussions on the boards.

That's just silly. The discussions on the board are mostly about the rules as written, and it's kind of useless to start talking about the rules as we use them at our own table in that context (except to mention them as ideas for alternative rulings). Actually, looking at the boards, I would be inclined to say that maybe 10% of people actually use the rules precisely as they're written.

Even the most hardcore "this is how the rules work!" people on these boards seem to play in games where the RAW is changed to accommodate the group's tastes. Only a bunch of masochists wouldn't do that.

Diggorian
2007-01-20, 10:22 PM
In previous editions (2nd edition especially; I was active in discussions of 2nd edition rules and an active player and DM), different interpretations of the rules were expected. 3.5, like KoDT, has carried with it that "the precise letter of the rule must be followed, because the rules are very specific"... if not in play, then in the discussions on the boards.

Thanks to Rule 0, 3.5 isnt quite as strict as Hackmaster, but I do know what you mean Nexx.

While I've enjoyed KoDT for a while now, I never have enjoyed players of the type B.A. has to put up with. I house-rule whatever makes the story/game better without breaking it. I inform my players before hand, field questions, explain motivations, let'em make retroactive tweaks, and proceed with the entertainment. A player that disagrees without proposing a better option can adapt or seek another DM, no hard fellings.

Board discussions encompass many different RP styles, maturity and experience levels; hence a lot RAW quoting as a commonality we all can reference. I've never met a GM that didnt house-rule something; all of the RAW are a collection of standardized house-rules the designers prefer really ... until someone shows them a better option.

Ironically, when I played 2nd edition I thought of the rules as too complex for me to be a good DM. Our group's DM forbade us from reading many of the books and never loaned out any of his. We'd say what we wanted to do in game, he told us what to roll and add to it. I started running other systems as a padawan GM.

When D20 came out, it's consistently unified system reminded me of the skill-based one-die-type systems I'd been runing. I was like, "Finally, a D&D I can understand."

Years later, I referenced some of the old 'forbidden' books from 2nd Ed and found them INCREDIBLY simple. Turns my old DM has allows had an acute house-rule complusion, you should see the variant D&D 4.75 ed he's cooked up. :smallbiggrin:

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-20, 10:22 PM
Yeah, take a look at, say, Wushu, and then try to tell me that D&D is open-ended.

Woot Spitum
2007-01-20, 10:26 PM
Wands and potions of cure wounds. Never leave town without them. A few minutes to cast cure spells is different from eight hours of uninterrupted rest and spell preperation. If the party is absolutely drained, then yes, let them rest. In any event, if the spellcasters aren't holding back and are ending practically every fight before it can get properly started with "save or lose the encounter" type spells, the fighters won't have taken much damage (if any) in the first place, and that is the scenario that I think this thread is most concerned with, at least in my opinion.

Whoa, simued. Bad.

Kantolin
2007-01-20, 10:33 PM
Personally, fighter is my favorite class.

I'm a bit different from most, however, as I'm perfectly content to spend an entire run doing nothing at all. Thus, I have fun regardless.

The primary method that most melee units in campaigns I'm in have fun is that everyone pretends things are not the way they are, so at least in theory, everyone's able to contribute. If there is a test of martial skill, the party cleric will fully endorse than the fighter is the person who should take that test, despite that not at all being the best person to do so. People just pretend that everything's balanced, and in situations where someone coincidentally shines, everyone heaps the praise on them (A few lucky chains of crits can make pretty much anyone shine).

I mean, we're not at all out to outperform each other here, so that works out.

Now, the big trouble comes from the other melee'rs in the party when, well. The Wizard presses his I win button, or the Cleric is routinely being the only relevant combatant. None of these are with powergaming... just the cleric using the very basic 'Hey, a combat! Let me cast divine power/Righteous might!'

When the fighter spends the five rounds he was involved in combat either whiffing or lightly knicking the Balor, while the cleric then walks over and smashes said Balor or at much lower levels the fighter walks over and whiffs, while the wizard puts the baddy to sleep leaving the fighter for cleanup at best... well, then the game is at least temporarily not fun for that unit.

And it's not a matter of 'Aw man, I don't feel useful unless I'm comparing to X'... more of an 'Aw man, I didn't do anything, and/or was completely irrelevant.

Situations like those happen... um, with fair frequency. The mild counter is that you have combats where everyone can coincidentally do something that at least feels relevant, whether that's from splitting up the enemies, surprises, or what-not. Since so long as everyone's doing something, everyone's happy.

And then you be sure to take the plot and noncombat situations to focus on each character at least once. If the plot revolves for an arc around the Elven Paladin for a time, then the Elven Paladin is almost guaranteed to have fun.

So hey. I really love D&D, regardless of the significant imbalance.

...at the same time, I don't begin to pretend it doesn't exist. :P Without any powergaming required, Clerics, Druids, and Wizards. Do my job and better, almost automatically. But hey... I'd like that fixed, but I can live.

Mike_G
2007-01-20, 11:41 PM
I know. However, the style of play engendered by 3.5 seems closer to KoDT than what I'd experienced in other systems. It's more "kick in the doors, blast 'em, and take their stuff", more niggling with regards to the rules.

In previous editions (2nd edition especially; I was active in discussions of 2nd edition rules and an active player and DM), different interpretations of the rules were expected. 3.5, like KoDT, has carried with it that "the precise letter of the rule must be followed, because the rules are very specific"... if not in play, then in the discussions on the boards.

I really think that's more of a board thing, since hosuerules are one animal, but a large diverse group discussion centers on the common RAW.

Plus, the early editions were so muddled and inconsistent that multiple interpretations were unavoidable.

I've played with a lot of the same people since AD&D, and we like the unified mechanic a lot, and like the system changes, but haven't changed our play style any. This board seems tilted toward the optimizers, which is very different for me. None of my group would think about taking Spiked Chain, since it's a silly concept, however mechanically god it may be, and we do, as I said elsewhere, have a Fighter who weilds two daggers.

I really don't think the system encourages more kick in the door min maxing rules lawyers. I think experience with video games before tabletop games encourages that mentality, since you can't housrule World of Warcraft.

Kantolin
2007-01-20, 11:57 PM
None of my group would think about taking Spiked Chain, since it's a silly concept, however mechanically god it may be,
Ah, I did forget to mention this too.

We've had the least effective builds ever in our group. Like, man. We had a Sorceror/Wizard multiclass who only had about five spells (Mage Armour, Magic Missile, Protection from Arrows, Fireball, and Lightning Bolt). Heck, in our current campaign, my character's the eldritch knight who pretends he can frontline competently, and uses an orc double axe as a weapon and a couple two-weapons with it.

But hey, those follow the same sequence. Just ignore and the like, and try to ensure that everyone can do something.

At the same time, we occasionally try to utilize house rules or creative classes such that really lousy options can be more useful.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-21, 12:29 AM
The spiked chain isn't some kind of god-weapon.

Shazzbaa
2007-01-21, 12:38 AM
I really don't think the system encourages more kick in the door min maxing rules lawyers. I think experience with video games before tabletop games encourages that mentality, since you can't houserule World of Warcraft.

This... is a really interesting hypothesis. What do the rest of you guys think?

All I can say is that the one group I'm in that's largely composed of gamers sticks very closely to the rules -- frequently to the extent of "if it's WotC approved it's fair game" with the only exceptions being things that the DM has had bad experiences with. Whereas, the group I'm in that's composed largely of artists (with only a couple casual gamers)... keeps homebrewing new systems. ^^;

Though despite my inability to form a valid comparison, I can say that elements of "videogame-esque" play are noticable in the former group's game. But that's just one group, so I can't really make an informed assertation one way or the other. Does anyone else's experience back up or refute this?

Diggorian
2007-01-21, 01:46 AM
I've definately noticed that videogame/hack-slash correlation.

My first session with one such group they sat in awe as my Paladin spent her first round warning some bugbears to speak their intentions peaceably or face the peril of combat. They didnt know D&D 3ed had an Intimidate skill, and that you can add ranks to it cross class. They could tell ya the best build for Dwarf Barbarian :smallamused:

Though I do enjoy the steamventing of slaying minions, hack-n-slash, kick-in-the-door ALL the time aint my cup of coffee.

Seatbelt
2007-01-21, 01:53 AM
I have a friend that can play a two-weapon fighting lawful evil human Fighter and have as much fun as playing a crossbow wielding chaotic good gnome wizard(ilusinist). Dude, you'd be impressed on how much trouble a single gnome can do, without using fireballs... :smallwink:


I tried running a gnome like that. DC 17 on cantrips at 8'th level. For the entire campaign, every time I cast a spell that would have had an impact on the battle, all the baddies made their saves. The only time I was ever effective was when I used a damage spell. He finally got his chance to shine in a battle against a powerful wizard.. and he got drilled by a flamestrike in the second round and died. He was so powerful in theory. People NEVER failed a save against one of my effects. I was really bumming. I wanted to play a fighter so bad. :(

Edit: DM wasnt being mean or anything. He rolled everything in the open. I *watched* the fighter who would never make my DC 21 will save roll a 19 and breeze on by like nothing.

Indon
2007-01-21, 02:13 AM
This... is a really interesting hypothesis. What do the rest of you guys think?

All I can say is that the one group I'm in that's largely composed of gamers sticks very closely to the rules -- frequently to the extent of "if it's WotC approved it's fair game" with the only exceptions being things that the DM has had bad experiences with. Whereas, the group I'm in that's composed largely of artists (with only a couple casual gamers)... keeps homebrewing new systems. ^^;

Though despite my inability to form a valid comparison, I can say that elements of "videogame-esque" play are noticable in the former group's game. But that's just one group, so I can't really make an informed assertation one way or the other. Does anyone else's experience back up or refute this?

I also agree. I think it's due to significant influence from the console/computer genre of gaming, in which it's simply easier to put in mob recolors than novel creatures, or an extra dungeon crawl rather than a bit of plot, and next to impossible to have the kind of open-ended problem that you can do in a tabletop.

I would go further to claim that the reading of good science and/or fantasy fiction can counter this, or teach players to compliment rules-playing with role-playing.

Matthew
2007-01-21, 08:37 AM
Even the most hardcore "this is how the rules work!" people on these boards seem to play in games where the RAW is changed to accommodate the group's tastes. Only a bunch of masochists wouldn't do that.

Hey! I'm not a masochist.


This... is a really interesting hypothesis. What do the rest of you guys think?

All I can say is that the one group I'm in that's largely composed of gamers sticks very closely to the rules -- frequently to the extent of "if it's WotC approved it's fair game" with the only exceptions being things that the DM has had bad experiences with. Whereas, the group I'm in that's composed largely of artists (with only a couple casual gamers)... keeps homebrewing new systems. ^^;

Though despite my inability to form a valid comparison, I can say that elements of "videogame-esque" play are noticable in the former group's game. But that's just one group, so I can't really make an informed assertation one way or the other. Does anyone else's experience back up or refute this?

I would have thought you could easily customise World of Warcraft, there are mods and cheats for all kinds of games. I wonder if that's where some of RAW is RAW mentality comes from?

Anyway, I would say that video games are somewhat responsible, but also that 3.x specifically caters to that market (and logically too). Still, there's nothing about 3.x that can't be traced back to a previous edition rules wise.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-21, 10:39 AM
It takes a little while before most any video game "roleplaying game fan" understands in a tabletop game that he's never roleplayed in his life. Suddenly, having the best stats isn't so important! The player that's roleplaying most intelligently is having the most fun and figuring out the better solutions! The stats! The stats mean nothing! Waaaaaaargh!

It's not so bad if there's at least either a seasoned tabletop gamer in the group or someone who's never touched an RPG video game before. The former knows the gig, the latter says "Can I do this?", and despite the guffaws of their fellow players, I say "Yes, just roll this first" and everyone stares with wide-eyed wonder.

the_tick_rules
2007-01-21, 12:31 PM
i have to commend this thread for not quickly turning into people saying why spellcasters are good and fighters, barbarians etc suck. i swear if i have to read one more post about how anyone who doesn't have 9th level spells is useless. as for enjoyability, if you want to have meele people shine there's lots of ways to limit the high level spell casters.

fear- in most fantasy setting most spellcasters were feared, hard to acquire material componets or acess to new spells to write down when nobody wants anything to do with you.

or just engineer combats to show meele. spell casters are weak in meele, have your enemies able to close/swarm easily.

John_D
2007-01-21, 01:07 PM
I think that a lot of the time this is something that needs to be addressed by DMs as much as players. In my experience every so often each player needs to be thrown an encounter that allows them to use their favourite ability to its utmost. Other times that ability should be less effective, or used in an unorthodox way.

For example, if your fighter took the cleave feats you might want to throw in a mob of weak enemies for him to fight off while the casters concentrate their firepower on the big bad. It's all a case of tweaking your adventures so that each player gets the most out of the experience.

edit>> Did a post just disappear?

Roderick_BR
2007-01-21, 01:25 PM
I tried running a gnome like that. DC 17 on cantrips at 8'th level. For the entire campaign, every time I cast a spell that would have had an impact on the battle, all the baddies made their saves. The only time I was ever effective was when I used a damage spell. He finally got his chance to shine in a battle against a powerful wizard.. and he got drilled by a flamestrike in the second round and died. He was so powerful in theory. People NEVER failed a save against one of my effects. I was really bumming. I wanted to play a fighter so bad. :(

Edit: DM wasnt being mean or anything. He rolled everything in the open. I *watched* the fighter who would never make my DC 21 will save roll a 19 and breeze on by like nothing.
That was a lot of bad luck. Passing Will Saves with DC 17 at 8th with fighters?
He needs to roll a 19 to pass the test? Imagine if he needed to roll 19s to hit attacks.
And your DM need to remember that in most cases, a character can't roll to disbelieve a illusion, unless he thinks something it wrong. So, if a huge half orc barbarian is charging a guy in the middle of a battle, and you make a fighter running at his side, the target will not stop to think that that fighter may be an illusion. Now, if you met in the middle of the city, without anyone fighting, and no one else noticing the fighter, and cast the same fighter illusion, the target will think something is wrong, and can roll a Will save.

Btw, my friend that played the gnome used very few spells. He set some traps in a room (normal traps, like throwing slipery liquid in the ground) and pilling barrels of powder to ignite them from distance... hehe

Sulecrist
2007-01-21, 09:59 PM
Regarding spell components:

The object is to make wizards less flippant about throwing away spells. Let's face it, most people play the mechanical wizard either because they want a complicated, versatile character (a crunchy one, that lets them do more than roll a D20, add their BAB, and roll d8+d6+19 for damage) or because they want copious amounts of blasting and/or rerouting power. Most of the games I DM revolve around moral dilemmas and/or resource management (cities, towns, whatever) anyway, so the real roleplayers in my group don't even bother tracking most of the stuff, as they don't really use spells that often.

A wizard that's forced to cope with scarcity will think twice before using the same crap over and over again.

Are there other RAW fixes? Not really. That's why I play Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay--magic is intentionally unbalanced, because it's as dangerous to the caster as it is to the target.