PDA

View Full Version : I hope that 4E never comes.



Pages : [1] 2

Zeta Kai
2007-07-31, 07:15 AM
I, for one, have spent a lot of money buying 3.0 & 3.5 books, a lot of time reading/studying/analyzing rules (both crunch & fluff), & a lot of effort crafting monsters/spells/feats/classes/PrCs/PCs/NPCs/adventures/campaigns et cetera. At this point in my life, I don't think that I really have the money/time/effort to re-learn a brand new ruleset to come along & supplant the very fabric that most of my gaming universe has been built upon.

Now, to be fair, if 4E came out tomorrow, I'm sure there would still be a devoted following of 3.X gamers 10 years from now. And I know that WotC can only publish so many splatbooks before the sweet siren song of another edition calls them out to the Sea of Riches. And I also know that there is a very vocal sector of the gaming community howling for a mythical Perfect Ruleset to come down from on high to fix all of our problems with its indeniably-sublime mathematical Nirvana.

But I don't wanna see it. Ever.

I don't want D&D 4.0 to arrive. I don't want to rock the boat. I'm happy with my feats & my prestige classes. I like my core rules & my splatbooks. I am content with my content. I don't care if Fighters/Rogues are boring, or Monks/Paladins are weak, or Wizards/Clerics/Druids are broken. I don't care if Half-Elves/Half-Orcs are lame, Gnomes are goofy, or Dwarves need a LA. I love this game in spite of its idiosyncratic quirks, & because of them as well. This is a beautifully crafted game that simulates reality in an unprecedented amount of detail & accuracy, & although it may not be perfect, it's as close as most have come with paper & dice.

Fourth Edition will one day come down from on high, & it won't be perfect. It will have flaws. It will have quirks. Wizards will probably still pwn at higher levels. Gnomes will probably still be goofy. Magic will probably still trump melee every time. Gamers will probably still mock its flaws & howl at it's shortcomings, & a vocal sector of the gaming community will probably be looking forward to 5.0 within 2 years of 4.0's release.

But no matter how great or awful 4E may be, we'll all either have to start from scratch or fall behind. Your favorite campaign setting? Rewritten. Your favorite splatbook? Irrelevant. Your favorite homebrew? Obsolete. Your favorite spell/feat/ability/feature? Updated or errata'd into unrecognizable form.

If this is what we have to look forward to, then I hope 4.0 never comes.

Morty
2007-07-31, 07:26 AM
I belive it's fairly certain 4.0 won't be released any time soon. WoTC is probably going to release some new books to 3.5- they're still to release sequel of Complete Warrior and Complete Psionics, for example.
When 4.0 comes out, it will be mildly annoying that my money spent on 3.5 books is wasted, but on the other hand I haven't bought all that many books. And who knows, maybe Wizards will introduce some conversion system to encourage people to buy 4.0?

banjo1985
2007-07-31, 07:29 AM
Whatever they do with 4th edition I sure hope they don't pack the shelves with near pointless extra fluff like they have with 3.5!

Having said that, I'd by the 3 core books, they're all that's really needed, I'd be interested to see if they've sorted out the immense cheesiness of the current rules...

Xefas
2007-07-31, 07:36 AM
Hilariously (or sadly) enough, having inherited all my original D&D stuff from my older brother, which was in 2nd edition, and never having thought about exploring anything about the game beyond those several books I got from him, I had never learned there was even a 3rd (much less a 3.5) edition until about 2-3 years ago.

Hehe, it amuses me to think that I and my original players played 2nd Edition for 4-5 years together without realizing that there was anything more to it. We had the DMG, MM, PHB, and A&E Guide, and we didn't even know there were other books besides, nor that there were any actual "settings". Every game was just a hombrewed setting with made up cultures, geographies, and all that jazz. It might've helped if my brother had taught me anything about the game, but meh...

Anyways, my point is, it doesn't matter if some 4th edition shows up; so long as you and a couple associates stay blissfully oblivious (blatant denial works).

Respond to it like you would someone speaking of a Matrix sequel. Just start screaming bloody murder mid-sentence and don't stop until the subject has changed.

Matthew
2007-07-31, 07:41 AM
Personally, I am rather looking forward to the emergence of 4e. For one thing, it will be amusing to listen to all the people who think 3e is 'perfectly fine and doesn't need a new edition', but I am also interested to see what direction the game will be heading in next. My only real concern is how 4e interacts with the Open Gaming License, as if that is somehow rescinded, it could affect a lot of ongoing projects, such as OSRIC.

It would be very funny to listen to 3e apologists in ten years time, explaining why it didn't matter that Wizards, Druids and Clerics were overpowering, why drowning rules weren't a big deal and that 'nobody really used Divine Meta Magic or Pun Pun.'

Premier
2007-07-31, 07:43 AM
It will come, and the majority of 3E players will migrate to it with little to no grumbling. The minority that sticks with 3.x will be cast away by their beloved WotC, and considered backwards fogeys by the mainstream core of 4E players. They'll go to the official WotC chat channel, mention they play 3E, and promptly get called "lame" or "retard" by some 14 y.o. spoiled kid simply because 3.x is so uncool. Forums will be bristling with declarations that BAB (or substitute any very basic, very simple 3.x mechanic) used to be so damn ridiculously difficult and complicated and hard to use it was a wonder anyone did. 3.x will be commonly called inferior because it had Prestige Classes / didn't have Cascading Feat Synnergy / didn't use the Take 25 Mulligan rule (and gosh! How could an RPG exist without the Take 25 Mulligan! Boggles the mind.) The more adventurous 3.x-ers will go to gaming conventions and FLGS-s, set up table, and invite people for a game of "old-school 3.x", only to be arrogantly told "I only play 4E".

And maybe, just maybe, some of the more emotionally aware 3.x players will stop and think "Gee, they're treating us exactly the same way most of us used to treat old edition players! And it sucks! Could it be that... <gasp>... we used to be just as intolerable jerks to them as everyone's being to us right now? And lo! there few people will be born into wisdom, and verily, they will feel ashamed about their earlier in-your-face-ness.

Thus it is written. Thus it shall be. Just wait and see. :P



EDIT: On a slightly more serious note, Matthew, the OGL cannot be rescinded. It's a perpetual license, meaning that not even its original issuer can withdraw it. Says so in the license itself.

Matthew
2007-07-31, 07:46 AM
Hah, hah, exactly.

Jayabalard
2007-07-31, 08:25 AM
But no matter how great or awful 4E may be, we'll all either have to start from scratch or fall behind. Your favorite campaign setting? Rewritten. Your favorite splatbook? Irrelevant. Your favorite homebrew? Obsolete. Your favorite spell/feat/ability/feature? Updated or errata'd into unrecognizable form.

If this is what we have to look forward to, then I hope 4.0 never comes./shrug

If you don't want to move to 4.0, then don't. There's no D&D police that will be forcing people to move on to the next edition; there's no "falling behind"

I didn't see any reason to move to 2nd edition when it came out, and I'm only vaguely interested in 3.x; I certainly won't waste any of my money on a system that I don't want to play.

Swooper
2007-07-31, 08:58 AM
Well, we all know that it will come eventually. I just hope it won't happen soon. Mainly because when it does come, 3.x books will be hard to get, no new ones will be published and forums such as this one will shift focus on the new edition, meaning it will be impossible to even talk about 3rd Edition any more. And personally, I want to play 3rd Edition for a few more years before all the books I (some recently) invested in become obsolete.

Matthew
2007-07-31, 09:09 AM
Are you kidding? Judging by what happened to 1e and 2e Books, 3e books will be ridiculously easy to get hold of, because a huge swathe of people will be selling their old 3e books to offset the cost of 4e.

Indon
2007-07-31, 09:12 AM
If 4E does come, you could just keep playing 3'rd edition. I mean, plenty of people are still playing 2'nd edition AD&D to this day.

Saph
2007-07-31, 09:14 AM
I'm with Zeta Kai. I can't be bothered to learn a new set of rules, and I really can't be bothered to teach the new rules to everyone in my gaming group.

Many of the people in my group have only a tenuous grasp on the 3.5 rules. Unless the 4th edition rules have some kind of amazing simplification that makes them really easy to learn (and let's face it, that's not going to happen) then moving to a new edition will mean going back to square one, and explaining the rules from the beginning all over again. Yuk.

- Saph

MisterSaturnine
2007-07-31, 09:35 AM
I'm very new to the game (very VERY new), but I've already bought a bunch of sourcebooks and I'm cheap, so I'd have to agree. I'd rather not deal with 4e. Plus, rule problems are what houserules are for. :smallwink:

Oh, and hi again, everyone. You don't remember me, but I was gone for a month or so. It's good to be back.

Tormsskull
2007-07-31, 09:39 AM
I don't really mind when it comes, and I'd rather it take a long time and be a quality product rather than have them just ship garbage. I'll do the same thing with 4th (or 5th, or any successive edition) that I did with the previous editions: Read the PHB and DMG, and then decide if it would work.

Though I must say it would be funny to see all the 3.x fanbois protesting.

ALOR
2007-07-31, 09:58 AM
Unless thier is some radical change that improves the game incredibly, I will not buy 4e. I'm prefectly content with 3.x (and the fist fulls of dollars i've pumped into it) and i really don't have that many big gripes with it. I know it's going to happen, and probably sooner than later.

Charity
2007-07-31, 10:03 AM
Hard to get (http://search.ebay.co.uk/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=ad%26d)
hard to get? (http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=ad%26d&category0=)
I don't think so.
4.0 meh it will be fine I'm sure, I'm still an edition behind, and you know what? It really doesn't matter, it is not a big deal. (http://www.ukay.net/cosmicart/b04.jpg)

Morty
2007-07-31, 10:05 AM
A related question to people who have been playing D&D longer than me(i.e almost everyone): how long had it been between release of 2nd and 3rd edition?

Jayabalard
2007-07-31, 10:12 AM
Yay Wikipedia: D&D Edition History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_&_Dragons#Edition_history)

11 years between the release of 2nd ed AD&D and 3rd ed D&D; I'd say that the fact that there were only 3 years between 3rd edition and 3.5 edition is more relevant.

Reinboom
2007-07-31, 10:23 AM
A related question to people who have been playing D&D longer than me(i.e almost everyone): how long had it been between release of 2nd and 3rd edition?

Between AD&D and 2nd Edition AD&D: 12 or 11 years ish.
Between 2nd Edition AD&D and 3.0: 11 years. (Unless you account for "2.5" - 1995)

If this rate is honored, I'm expecting 2010 or 2011. 2009 seams more reasonable however. I'm expecting between then and now to have a "year of the compendiums" however. Spell, MIC, and Rules are just testing the waters...

Dausuul
2007-07-31, 10:35 AM
Hmm... frankly, I'd love to have a 4E, if it would address some of my core problems with the game:

#1. Too much arithmetic and book-keeping. I'd like to see fewer modifiers overall, and way fewer that have to be calculated on the fly. Not to mention the annoyance of keeping track of a pile of 1-round-per-level duration buffs.
#2. Not enough options for non-casters, especially at high levels.
#3. Not nearly enough skill points. For anybody. Even the skill-monkey classes don't get enough skill points IMO. While we're at it, how about scrapping the concept of "class skills?"
#4. A reworking of the standard action-move action-swift action system. Theoretically swift actions are faster than either standard or move actions, yet you can't give up your standard or move action to get an extra swift action... huh?
#5. Scrap most of the alignment restrictions on character classes, and re-work the alignment system to be clearer and more consistent across the system (especially the law/chaos axis, which is very poorly defined right now).

Were-Sandwich
2007-07-31, 10:41 AM
I stoped buying D&D books ages ago, so I don't care either way, unless 4e turns out to be Teh Hawtness, in which case I'll just get it off Limewire.

Pokemaster
2007-07-31, 10:45 AM
Personally, 3E was such a massive improvement over 2E in terms of customizability and simplicity that I think it was worth converting to, but I don't see how 4E could really add anything more. The only improvement that I could think of would be to base it off of the Star Wars Saga Edition (encouraged multiclassing, even higher customizability with talents, less cluttered rules for skills, more dynamic combat), but I don't think it would work very well with the D&D caster classes, and there's probably a homebrew conversion on the internet somewhere.

Matthew
2007-07-31, 10:58 AM
Between AD&D and 2nd Edition AD&D: 12 or 11 years ish.
Between 2nd Edition AD&D and 3.0: 11 years. (Unless you account for "2.5" - 1995)

If this rate is honored, I'm expecting 2010 or 2011. 2009 seams more reasonable however. I'm expecting between then and now to have a "year of the compendiums" however. Spell, MIC, and Rules are just testing the waters...

Yeah, basically it went like this:

1977 - 1e Monster Manual
1978 - 1e Player's Handbook
1979 - 1e Dungeon Master's Guide

1989 - 2e Monster Compendium, Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide
1993 - 2e Monster Manual,
1995 - Revised 2e Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide

2000 - 3e Monster Manual, Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide
2003 - Revised 3e Monster Manual, Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide

So, best guess is that 4e is probably due anytime in the next few years, probably no later than 2010.

Kurald Galain
2007-07-31, 11:09 AM
Personally, 3E was such a massive improvement over 2E in terms of customizability and simplicity that I think it was worth converting to, but I don't see how 4E could really add anything more.

I hope you realize that people said precisely that about 2nd edition, and again about the Skills & Powers line.
:smallbiggrin:

ZeroNumerous
2007-07-31, 11:18 AM
I hope you realize that people said precisely that about 2nd edition, and again about the Skills & Powers line.
:smallbiggrin:

And they'll say it when 4e updates to 4.x. Then when 4.x updates to 5.. Etc, etc..

4th Edition: I don't look forward to it, but then again.. I don't particularly mind much. I'll probably still play 3.x. Just like I still play Star Wars d20 rather than SAGA.

Reinboom
2007-07-31, 11:22 AM
I hope you realize that people said precisely that about 2nd edition, and again about the Skills & Powers line.
:smallbiggrin:

There are many aspects of the game purposely designed to be illogical, confusing, or inefficient. These aspects are set into place so that, if they can't find anything else to improve, they will replace these first. When TSR started to fall, and wizards caught the products, to recapture all those who were loyal before and to grab more customers, they clearly needed to use one of these "safety switches". The most obvious one? THAC0. Gary Gygax? Marketing extraordinaire. Too bad he left TSR so long ago.
[/paranoia...sorta]

I wouldn't mind a new edition if wizards gave us warning room for it. And it was after next year. And easily convertible and workable between 3.5 to 4th (sort of like between 3.0 and 3.5).

bosssmiley
2007-07-31, 11:33 AM
Are you kidding? Judging by what happened to 1e and 2e Books, 3e books will be ridiculously easy to get hold of, because a huge swathe of people will be selling their old 3e books to offset the cost of 4e.

+ there'd be no good reason for WotC not to offer previous edition pdf downloads for the nostalgia crowd, just as they let Paizo do with 1st & 2nd Ed stuff now. It means they're getting a (small) supplementary income on material that would otherwise be of absolutely no profit to them.

I for one have no problem at all with paying a couple of $s for 'obsolete' material that's of as good a quality as (say) the Birthright or Ravenloft settings.

As for fourth Ed. I'm more hoping for 3.6 first. Basically an official version of the class rebalancing and system streamlining stuff that most people seem to homebrew anyway.

Matthew
2007-07-31, 11:37 AM
Given the broad similarity between 1e, 2e and 3e, I seriously doubt that 4e will be very difficult to convert or that it will be much a departure from what went before, mechanically speaking. Just like every edition, there will be things to like more and things to like less.


+ there'd be no good reason for WotC not to offer previous edition pdf downloads for the nostalgia crowd, just as they let Paizo do with 1st & 2nd Ed stuff now. It means they're getting a (small) supplementary income on material that would otherwise be of absolutely no profit to them.

I for one have no problem at all with paying a couple of $s for 'obsolete' material that's of as good a quality as (say) the Birthright or Ravenloft settings.

Almost certainly. Many 3e Books can be picked up as PDFs now, but the price is too much for my taste.


As for fourth Ed. I'm more hoping for 3.6 first. Basically an official version of the class rebalancing and system streamlining stuff that most people seem to homebrew anyway.

Heh, then what would be left for 4e? A forlorn hope, I fear. It's Adventures and Campaign Settings all the way to 4e now, I reckon.

Morty
2007-07-31, 11:45 AM
It's Adventures and Campaign Settings all the way to 4e now, I reckon.

Well, there's still sequel of Complete Warrior to be released, and this Rules Compendium someone mentioned here... so I guess we haven't seen the last of 3.x even if 4th will be released in 2010 or 2011.

Matthew
2007-07-31, 12:00 PM
Yeah, I keep hearing about this sequel to Complete Warrior, but I see no signs as of yet. I don't think that the Rules Compendium really counts, though, does it?

ranger89
2007-07-31, 12:26 PM
My prediction for 4e: good-bye pen & paper only! Technology will be integrated into the game to give it broader appeal to the masses (read: the philistines :smallwink:) who prefer video games.

IMO, the 2e to 3e shift was all about simplifying certain key aspects of the game while simultaneously introducing new rules to regulate game play. Simplifying the game made it more attractive within the tabletop community who found 2e rather daunting. Regulating game play made it easier for players to move from one gaming group to another, have tournaments, etc. by making the game much more consistent and board game like (combat at least).

Like others in this thread, I honestly don't see how they can improve on 3e. Not that WoTC won't find a way, I just don't see how. Any improvement I can think of would just be expansion books or minor rule changes that would be more like a 3.6e and not a 4e. But I can definitely see WoTC incorporating technology into the game (e.g., custom D&D PDAs, table touch screens and the like) to attract potential players who are turned off by the game's low tech feel, the amount of paperwork, accounting, etc. Plus, think of the extra money WoTC could make selling fluff books and electronic game assistants. (Hmm... kinda like what they did with 3e and miniatures.)

Another prediction: Years from now, when my prediction above comes true, I'll look back on this post and cry, wondering why I didn't cash in on the idea myself. :smallconfused:

TSGames
2007-07-31, 12:35 PM
Fourth Edition will one day come down from on high, & it won't be perfect. It will have flaws. It will have quirks. Wizards will probably still pwn at higher levels. Gnomes will probably still be goofy. Magic will probably still trump melee every time. Gamers will probably still mock its flaws & howl at it's shortcomings, & a vocal sector of the gaming community will probably be looking forward to 5.0 within 2 years of 4.0's release.
...
If this is what we have to look forward to, then I hope 4.0 never comes.

I stopped supporting Wizards of the Coast. That is to say, I do not purchase any of their books or give them any of my money in any way anymore. I found them to be a very unethical corporation, and until they change I will not buy a single Magic deck, booster pack, dice set, book, or anything else from them. I think I will go about acquiring 4E books the same way I do 3.X books. 4E will be the same as 3.5, hopefully a little better, but you're quite right, 4E is coming, it's coming hard and fast like Chuck Norris' fist.

I hear rumors of a 2011 release.

Yuki Akuma
2007-07-31, 12:37 PM
I stopped supporting Wizards of the Coast. That is to say, I do not purchase any of their books or give them any of my money in any way anymore. I found them to be a very unethical corporation, and until they change I will not buy a single Magic deck, booster pack, dice set, book, or anything else from them. I think I will go about acquiring 4E books the same way I do 3.X books. 4E will be the same as 3.5, hopefully a little better, but you're quite right, 4E is coming, it's coming hard and fast like Chuck Norris' fist.

I hear rumors of a 2011 release.

You're just hurting your game store here, not Wizards. Wizards already got their money when your local game store bought its stock.

Indon
2007-07-31, 12:46 PM
You're just hurting your game store here, not Wizards. Wizards already got their money when your local game store bought its stock.

If a game store can't sell its' Wizards stock, they'll stop buying it.

Optimally, buy materials from other RPG companies, such as White Wolf (provided you don't disagree with their policies).

Irreverent Fool
2007-07-31, 12:49 PM
(Regarding 4E:) Respond to it like you would someone speaking of a Matrix sequel. Just start screaming bloody murder mid-sentence and don't stop until the subject has changed.

That's EXACTLY how I deal with mentions of such things. Can I put that in my sig? :)

mudbunny
2007-07-31, 12:51 PM
I found them to be a very unethical corporation...

Unethical??

Care to expand on this??

TSGames
2007-07-31, 12:54 PM
If a game store can't sell its' Wizards stock, they'll stop buying it.

Optimally, buy materials from other RPG companies, such as White Wolf (provided you don't disagree with their policies).

I think I may. A friend has been telling me a lot about Mage, and I think I like the sound of it.


I don't want to derail the thread more than I already have, if you're that interested I could PM some information

Move along people, there's nothing to see here, get back on topic.

mudbunny
2007-07-31, 01:01 PM
I think I may. A friend has been telling me a lot about Mage, and I think I like the sound of it.


I don't want to derail the thread more than I already have, if you're that interested I could PM some information

Move along people, there's nothing to see here, get back on topic.


Sure, I have lots of room in my inbox.

Gnorosch
2007-07-31, 01:19 PM
Like others in this thread, I honestly don't see how they can improve on 3e.Oh, there are plenty possibilities for that - just read the RPG design essays over at WotC to get some ideas. For example, the magic system could be completely changed.

Oh, and when D&D 4th ed arrives, I am quite sure Premier's augury will come true - including a Beholder and Barracks (http://www.trolllord.com/newsite/) game, which (according to old-school 3rd ed gamers) will be what "D&D 4th ed should have been". And the grognards will gather at sites like Prestige's Home (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/), where they will call the new edition "TETMNBM".

Oh and there are plenty other games besides D&D, if you have any troubles with WotC there are hundreds of games you can get into: Conan, Earthdawn, RuneQuest, Ars Magica, Artesia, Warhammer FRP - just to name variants for fantasy alone.

Roderick_BR
2007-07-31, 01:21 PM
Hmm.. I really don't see how a 4th edition would work. 2nd edition came as both a rules expansion (with race-class stuff), and a way to use D&D without it being called D&D (business stuff. A lot of people know that story)
Then 3rd edition came to revolutionize the system, with the free race-class, feats, prestige classes, and more detailed rules (like skill points and ability scores about 25). 3.5 came because the producers found several errors and tried to fix them.
To make a "4E", they'd need to make a whole new set of rules. With so many games around using OGL, I really don't see them making anything like that. In a worst case scenario, a "4E" would just be like "3.5", trying to fix imbalances, and fixing rules from 3E.

And as it was said, it's too risky to release this sort of product now, because it may not sell properly, with so many people preferring to stick to 3rd and 3.5 books. I really doubt they'd take this kind of risk. I mean, they pushed it with 3.5, but it's still 3rd edition.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-31, 01:23 PM
Why are people so paranoid that 4E is going to Come Out & Ruin Their Lives Any Minute Now! Really, Any Minute!? That fear has been around for years. It'll be around for years more. When it does come out, it'll almost certainly be far better designed, just because of how much has been learned *about* game design in the last several years--by WotC and in general.

When 4E does come out (2011? 2015? Who knows?)...
If you already buy lots of 3.5 splatbooks, you'll just be buying 4E books instead of 3.5 splatbooks. You'd be spending that money anyway. Sure, you won't be able to use your 3.5 crunch much anymore--but you already don't use giant chunks of your splatbooks. You'll be able to go back for the fluff, and use different sections of the splatbooks. Sure, you won't get as much use out of'em, but hey--it happens over time.
If you haven't bought splatbooks since the Completes, or since core, or only occasionally buy the really good ones, then you'll be able to read over 4E, maybe the 4E SRD, and decide whether it's worth a buy--if it's not, you'll be able to keep running the same 3E core-only or core-mostly games you have been while other people ran games with 50 books.

Matthew
2007-07-31, 01:40 PM
Why are people so paranoid that 4E is going to Come Out & Ruin Their Lives Any Minute Now! Really, Any Minute!? That fear has been around for years. It'll be around for years more. When it does come out, it'll almost certainly be far better designed, just because of how much has been learned *about* game design in the last several years--by WotC and in general.

'Better' is such a relative term.

Morty
2007-07-31, 01:48 PM
'Better' is such a relative term.

True. However 4ed will look like, and whenever it comes out, it's bound to cause a hell lot of argument, due to the sheer amount of people who claim their opinion of what's better for D&D the only right, while none is really more accurate than others. I'm personally hoping for more flexible classes- but that's not going to happen, as it's better for WoTC to later release books with new ones.
I'm not all to worried myself; in 2010 -the earliest possible date of 4ed release, I think- I'm likely to not play D&D at all.

Deepblue706
2007-07-31, 01:48 PM
I look forward to 4E, as I'm curious if whether or not WotC will ever clean the damn game up. But, I don't think that'll ever happen. I'm sure the entire edition will be as half-assed a project as Neverwinter Nights 2.

Regardless, I'd still give it a shot. It's not like I invested a lot of money into 3.x (I had the core set, and like, Sword and Fist of 3.0, and just used the SRD for 3.5. My friends bought the books, so I never had to), so I wouldn't be sour about buying new books. It'd just take some time for me to adjust...considering, I still have a hard time looking at the Knight class from the PHB2.

Oh, there better not be a "Knight's Challenge" in 4E.

Also, they need to find better writers. And editors. And less people who like making worlds where halflings ride dinosaurs. I don't care if it's different. Water World was a different movie, but that doesn't change the fact that it's Water World.

No doubt, the same rubbish will carry over, and it'll be a sucktastic game that dominates the RPG world because nobody likes GURPS, and all other RPGs games are somehow worse.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-31, 01:52 PM
To some extent, yes--there'll always be people who prefer the old thing. But, hey, there are people who prefer 2E, and other people who only play 2E and are convinced it's Gaming System Perfection and 3E is Satan. There's no accounting for (what is in my opinion) bad taste.

Overall, however, WotC does seem to have learned a lot about game design, as have other companies and gamers in general. Back when 1E came out, game design as a theory didn't exist. Wizards seems to know that it does exist, now; just look at the Tome of Battle (melee is more fun to play, balanced per-encounter [and, hey, so are skill tricks] and generally fixed various problems with playing Fighters and the like), the PHB II, the Magic Item Compendium (and the web articles (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070302a), which show a lot of learning about game design from the days of core items... namely that "Most magic items in D&D are awful" and that new items "had to compete with the top tiers of items available to players." The third article even acknowledges the need for a design guide, something that pretty clearly wasn't present when core items were being drawn up--much less when anything in 2E was made)...

Game designers overall have learned a lot about the theory of game design. Just look at the new World of Darkness: people may or may not like the new fluff, but the new game is definitely a whole lot more neatly designed than the old one, which was essentially a haphazard collection of stuff added piecemeal rather than with any sort of intention. Old Vampire plays a lot like D&D; new Vampire is a lot more likely to run as a "roleplaying game of personal horror.

Wizards has learned a lot about design, too. They'll doubtlessly learn even more... but with 4E, what they've learned will be implemented from the beginning.


Edit: the Knight's Challenge is a neat mechanical fix for the "tanks can't protect the squishies" design problem, and Eberron is an example of good game design... not only are dinosaur-riding halflings awesome, but Eberron is designed well in many aspects: for the exploration-age feel, for PCs-taking-center-stageness (check the levels on the big bads--now on the white-hat NPCs), and to just generally deal with the weirdness that a world based on the D&D system will have.

Matthew
2007-07-31, 01:57 PM
Oh, there better not be a "Knight's Challenge" in 4E.

I sympathise.


Also, they need to find better writers. And editors. And less people who like making worlds where halflings ride dinosaurs. I don't care if it's different. Water World was a different movie, but that doesn't change the fact that it's Water World.

So true.

As far as Game Design Theory goes, I'm pretty sure Wizards only use it insofar as it relates to Game Marketing Theory, which is infinitely more important to them. That's why D&D 3e is reminiscent of Magic the Gathering, not just because the same company produced both.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-31, 02:02 PM
As far as Game Design Theory goes, I'm pretty sure Wizards only use it insofar as it relates to Game Marketing Theory, which is infinitely more important to them. That's why D&D 3e is reminiscent of Magic the Gathering, not just because the same company produced both.

Balderdash! Like I said, read the Magic Item Compendium articles. That's good game design at work--and as a result, the MIC is a great book. Similarily, the move towards "per-encounter" mechanics, Eberron's action points... c'mon, just compare the PHB II to the PHB.

Well-designed books are better-selling books. Just check the massive popularity of the Tome of Battle in the favorite books thread--there've been several splats after it, so it's no longer the "flavor of the month"; you don't see Complete Champion receiving that kind of treatment. It's because it's a very well-designed book.

And remember--WotC may want more money, but the individuals writing new books, new mechanics, new fluff, they're people--generally, gamers--who do want to make a good game, whether or not they've succeeded.

Morty
2007-07-31, 02:16 PM
Balderdash! Like I said, read the Magic Item Compendium articles. That's good game design at work--and as a result, the MIC is a great book. Similarily, the move towards "per-encounter" mechanics, Eberron's action points... c'mon, just compare the PHB II to the PHB.

Well-designed books are better-selling books. Just check the massive popularity of the Tome of Battle in the favorite books thread--there've been several splats after it, so it's no longer the "flavor of the month"; you don't see Complete Champion receiving that kind of treatment. It's because it's a very well-designed book.

And remember--WotC may want more money, but the individuals writing new books, new mechanics, new fluff, they're people--generally, gamers--who do want to make a good game, whether or not they've succeeded.

That's all true, but past things that are really fundamental, definition of "good game design" may and do vary, especially when it comes to non-mechanical things. Example: you said above that Eberron is awesome. But I belive it's rubbish and the only good thing in it are action points. So "good game design" isn't really all that obvious. Even ToB isn't praised by everyone.

Dairun Cates
2007-07-31, 02:19 PM
Hmm... frankly, I'd love to have a 4E, if it would address some of my core problems with the game:

#1. Too much arithmetic and book-keeping. I'd like to see fewer modifiers overall, and way fewer that have to be calculated on the fly. Not to mention the annoyance of keeping track of a pile of 1-round-per-level duration buffs.
#2. Not enough options for non-casters, especially at high levels.
#3. Not nearly enough skill points. For anybody. Even the skill-monkey classes don't get enough skill points IMO. While we're at it, how about scrapping the concept of "class skills?"
#4. A reworking of the standard action-move action-swift action system. Theoretically swift actions are faster than either standard or move actions, yet you can't give up your standard or move action to get an extra swift action... huh?
#5. Scrap most of the alignment restrictions on character classes, and re-work the alignment system to be clearer and more consistent across the system (especially the law/chaos axis, which is very poorly defined right now).

You might want to try GURPS or another point buy system then. You mostly just described the advantages such systems have over D&D... Of course, then you'll get a whole new set of problems that you don't like and just keep spiraling down until you play one of the few systems that is "perfectly balanced" like: Paranoia XP, Risus, and Generic Internet Forum Role-playing.

Edit: In case I came off a bit brash, I'm mostly joking. All systems have stupid faults, but if these are the ones that specifically bug you, you might try a different system for a couple of sessions.

As for Fourth Edition, I imagine there'll be a similar issue to the new edition of Heroes. If anything, fans will complain that it's too similar in order to make conversion possible.

de-trick
2007-07-31, 02:22 PM
if its any different from 2nd edition to 3.0 id be lost, i looked at a 2.0 books before and was lost i remember saying why would you want a AC of 1. But if its like 3.0 to 3.5 it should not be that hard to get used to.

My gaming group just bought all the forgotten realms source books and 10 other books at least and to say that we would be a token a minority to D&D.


Even if they come out with 4.0 and everyone gets a large library of books 4.5 or 5.0 comes out and everyone out alot of money

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-31, 02:25 PM
That's all true, but past things that are really fundamental, definition of "good game design" may vary, especially when it comes to non-mechanical things.
I'm talking about mechanical things. I'm talking about game design, not game fluff, which will always displease a large number of people (and that's why WotC supports multiple settings rather than just one)... I mean, hey, some people think Exalted's setting/flavor is oh god yes while others hate it with a hatred so strong it could light up a city if one could just turn it into energy.


Example: you said above that Eberron is awesome. But I belive it's rubbish and the only good thing in it are action points. I also consider ToB overratet. So "good game design" isn't all that obvious.
What's so bad about Eberron? Design-wise, not "I don't like how magic is used too scientifically!" or "halflings on dinosaurs are uncool." You don't have to like Eberron's flavor (although I'll think you're strange) to acknowledge that it's well-designed to support that flavor: the four new races all explore various kinds of personal-identity issues, the Mysterious Depths of Xen'Drik, airship travel, and the largely unknown nature of Sarlona and Argonessen support the exploration-age feel, action points combined with the lack of powerful good NPCs work to make PCs the heroes of the setting; et cetera.
I don't like, let's say, Wushu, but I acknowledge that it's well-designed to do what it does.
I do like the old World of Darkness, but I acknowledge that it has tons of design problems.

For example, a design problem with the Forgotten Realms include an overabundance of high-powered NPCs, both bad and (especially) good. If the PCs are trying to prevent the North from being invaded, why aren't Drizzt and the wizardess in Silvermoon there again? There's also the very-high-magic nature of the setting which somehow manages to not affect the common people and the standard of living for any of the classes except the richest a jot.

Deepblue706
2007-07-31, 02:28 PM
Edit: the Knight's Challenge is a neat mechanical fix for the "tanks can't protect the squishies" design problem, and Eberron is an example of good game design... not only are dinosaur-riding halflings awesome, but Eberron is designed well in many aspects: for the exploration-age feel, for PCs-taking-center-stageness (check the levels on the big bads--now on the white-hat NPCs), and to just generally deal with the weirdness that a world based on the D&D system will have.

Oh, I never said they didn't have their ups, I just don't like the delivery. The Knight's Challenge does help out with the mechanics, but the concept of it makes me wonder if the developers got the idea that all the knights of medieval europe ran around saying "I CHALLENGE THEE!" to everyone they met in battle.

It works, but it's just a little silly to me. I think they could have done it better.

Honestly, I know little about Eberron - every time I go to read it, something regarding the images I get in my head turn me right off. But, I'm not going to deny it's a bold attempt at innovation. The asthetics are just not something I care for. I hear good stuff about other material inside it, though.

Diggorian
2007-07-31, 02:32 PM
4th edition will be nothing more than a source of material to be ripped out and spliced into my game. Anyone I recruit into my game will be promised "the brand new Xth Ed. D&D, with some houserules". Houserules being anything I like from any D20 product fluffed to fit to gether.

I'll get the 4th Ed. core stuff, learn the basics, then tweak'em and combine'em with stuff I know. Splat books, schmack books: "Good game design" is what I'll call my improvements to the raw material WotC tries to charge me for.

SilverClawShift
2007-07-31, 02:33 PM
Iiiiiiidunno....

I like 3.0 and 3.5, it's the first PNP RPG I've ever had any contact with. Your first love is always the one you really truly remember, and I personally havea lot of time and effort invested into 3.5 in terms of homebrewed projects, as does my DM and the rest of our group. The Dustlands world we're working on has been a LOT of mental effort and time expended into bringing it into existance.

That said? I'm looking forward to 4.0

And why wouldn't I? It's not as if 4.0 is going to represent "Two guys getting drunk and coming up with an RPG". Wizards is a massive company, and they will invest a lot of money and tmie into making something enjoyable and appealing. Maybe they'll only be doing it to get gamers to whip out their debit cards, but really, who cares? If what they've produced is QUALITY, I will enjoy having it, regardless of their motives.
And frankly, there's only so much material you can possibly release for a system before you start scraping the bottom of the barrel. Of course new ideas will always exist, but sooner or later, we're going to see splatbooks called "Accountants: The Tome of Business" released just because there's so few directions left to go.

There's also the fact that the release of 4.0 will not mean 3.5 is somehow purged from existance. Necromancer Specialists and Swordsages and Binders and Underpowered Paladins and Overpowered Dwarves and random crap like Elans will still all exist. And just as some people still play 2nd edition today, there will still be people who want to crack open Heroes of Horror and pit an elf Archivist against a swarm of 3.5 Ed zombies and vampires.
D&D isn't a collection of paintings made to hang on your wall, it's a GAME. The game is about you and your friends, or the additional games built up from the rules systems (like neverwinter nights), or the homebrew games you might come up with on your own using the system as a reference.
That game will always still be there. Anytime you and anyone else who cares about it wishes to sit down and enjoy 3.5, you need only crack open a book and enjoy it.
If you're treating the game as a collection instead, then why be worried about another edition? Simply by every 3.0/3.5 book released and say "I have every 3.0 book in my personal collection".

I'm not trying to sound rude or condescending in the slightest, forgive me if I do. I just can't feel worried about this at all. I would rather know that the largest company creating content for 'people like us' is going to continue creating content, and knowing I can go and pick what of that content I feel like buying at my whims.
I say bring 4.0 on, and if it sucks, then we'll collectively groan and tell them to bring 5.0 on!
And ni the meantime, I'll keep making stuff for 3.5

So if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go work on my "Accountant" prestige class.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-31, 02:34 PM
Oh, I never said they didn't have their ups, I just don't like the delivery. The Knight's Challenge does help out with the mechanics, but the concept of it makes me wonder if the developers got the idea that all the knights of medieval europe ran around saying "I CHALLENGE THEE!" to everyone they met in battle.

It works, but it's just a little silly to me. I think they could have done it better.
I'm not sure why you'd think that. It's not like, monks, clerics, paladins, druids, and so on and so forth in D&D are like their real-life counterparts; why would the Knights be?
In any case, my point is, the ability shows a better understanding of game design.


Honestly, I know little about Eberron - every time I go to read it, something regarding the images I get in my head turn me right off. But, I'm not going to deny it's a bold attempt at innovation. The asthetics are just not something I care for. I hear good stuff about other material inside it, though.
Hey, it's not for everyone, you're welcome to your... whatever it is you do. I like Eberron a lot, but I'm not talking about whether the flavor is cool or not, I'm talking about how it's good game design (compared to some other settings, at least).

Morty
2007-07-31, 02:39 PM
I'm talking about mechanical things. I'm talking about game design, not game fluff, which will always displease a large number of people (and that's why WotC supports multiple settings rather than just one)... I mean, hey, some people think Exalted's setting/flavor is oh god yes while others hate it with a hatred so strong it could light up a city if one could just turn it into energy.

But "good mechanical design" can be controversial too. Of course, less than fluff, but it's still impossible to have a game mechanics without having people arguing about it. For example, magic. Some people(I, for one) say that vancian system is good, some that it should be got rid of. Some people say that there should be many classes, and some that there should be few very flexible classes. Releasing new edition that is bound to replace at least some of the older version's mechanics will spurn such debates on a big scale.


What's so bad about Eberron? Design-wise, not "I don't like how magic is used too scientifically!" or "halflings on dinosaurs are uncool." You don't have to like Eberron's flavor (although I'll think you're strange) to acknowledge that it's well-designed to support that flavor: the four new races all explore various kinds of personal-identity issues, the Mysterious Depths of Xen'Drik, airship travel, and the largely unknown nature of Sarlona and Argonessen support the exploration-age feel, action points combined with the lack of powerful good NPCs work to make PCs the heroes of the setting; et cetera.


Well, fair enough then. On a side note, Eberron personifies the aspect of D&D that's in my opinion the most badly designed- magic so common and reliable it's not magic anymore.


For example, a design problem with the Forgotten Realms include an overabundance of high-powered NPCs, both bad and (especially) good. If the PCs are trying to prevent the North from being invaded, why aren't Drizzt and the wizardess in Silvermoon there again? There's also the very-high-magic nature of the setting which somehow manages to not affect the common people and the standard of living for any of the classes except the richest a jot.

I don't quite think powerful NPCs are design problem. There are many ways for DM to prevent them from interfering -while said interference isn't a bad thing, it adds to a heroic feel high-level campaigns are supposed to have- and it's good to know that even high-level PCs can be smacked down by someone bigger than them. As for high-magic, I don't know, I'm not familiar with FR(even though my DM runs it...) except for Baldur's Gate games. But from what I've heard, high magicness there affects common people quite a lot.
As for Knight's Challenge- it is a bit of silly. It allows a Will save, but many enemies would just say "screw that, I'm not going to attack that guy when I can finish off his wounded friend". Not to mention that paladins and knights are less likely to fall for this this than rogues.

Dausuul
2007-07-31, 02:42 PM
You might want to try GURPS or another point buy system then. You mostly just described the advantages such systems have over D&D... Of course, then you'll get a whole new set of problems that you don't like and just keep spiraling down until you play one of the few systems that is "perfectly balanced" like: Paranoia XP, Risus, and Generic Internet Forum Role-playing.

Edit: In case I came off a bit brash, I'm mostly joking. All systems have stupid faults, but if these are the ones that specifically bug you, you might try a different system for a couple of sessions.

I've played other systems, and D&D is certainly far from being my favorite. But it does have certain advantages. Number one, everybody knows it and you can almost always find people to play with; number two, it is extremely well supported and will continue to be well supported.

In making that list, I deliberately limited myself to things that I felt could be done without changing the fundamental nature of the game--even though I personally would prefer a fundamentally different game, I recognize that isn't about to happen and perhaps shouldn't. D&D is what it is. I just want what it is to be more polished and run more smoothly. :smallsmile:


But "good mechanical design" can be controversial too. Of course, less than fluff, but it's still impossible to have a game mechanics without having people arguing about it. For example, magic. Some people(I, for one) say that vancian system is good, some that it should be got rid of. Some people say that there should be many classes, and some that there should be few very flexible classes. Releasing new edition that is bound to replace at least some of the older version's mechanics will spurn such debates on a big scale.

But many of those debates come down to a question of what the mechanics are supposed to be doing. You can't say whether or not Vancian magic is a "good" mechanic until you decide on its purpose. However, once you know what the purpose is, you can evaluate different mechanics on how well they fulfill that purpose.

Take THAC0 versus BAB. The purpose is clear: To make it so higher-level characters have a better chance to hit things, and to make melee classes better at hitting things than caster classes. But THAC0 is extremely counter-intuitive and hard to grasp, while BAB is quite straightforward. You may or may not like what BAB is designed to accomplish, but it's pretty clear that it accomplishes it more cleanly than THAC0 did.


Well, fair enough then. On a side note, Eberron personifies the aspect of D&D that's in my opinion the most badly designed- magic so common and reliable it's not magic anymore.

I agree, but that isn't a mechanical decision--it goes to the core of what the game is supposed to do. While I do sorta hope they dial the magic factor back a bit in 4E, it's a question of flavor rather than balance.

Mordokai
2007-07-31, 02:44 PM
It was already mentioned, but let me say again. Nobody will FORCE you to play 4.0 edition. I have serious doubts that WotC will send anybody to your house with a gun and a 4.0 edition of PHB, DMG and MM(at the very least) that will tell you, "Play this, or die now.".

That said, I understand you. I started playing D&D about a year ago and the only book I purchased was PHB. So, if 4.0 hits the shelves tommorow morning zhe passing to the new edition won't be painful for in the least. I imagine it must be a little harder if you played this edition from the start. But the show must go on! I know people who still play AD&D, just because they think 3.0 and 3.5 sucks. Granted, they always find counter arguments to arguments of those who play 3.5, but still, I think you must move on.

I started my D&D path with AD&D cRPGs(Baldur's gate, Icewind dale) and I liked the system. The passage to 3.5 was... confusing, to say at least. Skills, feats, BAB intead of THAC0, positive AC instead of negative, only three kind of saves intead of five... But in the end I found out that it is much better system, and now I'm happy with it. If 4.0 edition proves to be better then 3.5 I will gladly change it.

Guess what all this rambling is about is that new things aren't neccesary bad. People often seem to think that, but it isn't neccesary true.

Jasdoif
2007-07-31, 02:52 PM
After reading Complete Psionic, and hearing about a couple of the options in Complete Champion (dip for Pounce and spontaneous wizardry, anyone?), I wonder if WotC is intentionally "poisoning the pot" for 3.X before the next edition.

On the other hand, I also wonder if "4.0" is going to be just "3.6" converted to Ad-speech. A friend of mine said that Star Wars Saga edition is based on an in-development 4.0. While I don't believe that, I realize that using it as a public beta (and a paid one at that!) for alternative mechanics (like skills) would make a lot of sense.


Now, ideally 4.0 would be written by, say...Fax, Vorpal Tribble and Matthew; people who I know would comprehend what they're doing with it, as opposed to people who are paid by a company with the intent of making more money. I'm not sure I should get my hopes up on this, though.

Deepblue706
2007-07-31, 02:53 PM
I'm not sure why you'd think that. It's not like, monks, clerics, paladins, druids, and so on and so forth in D&D are like their real-life counterparts; why would the Knights be?
In any case, my point is, the ability shows a better understanding of game design.

There's generally something there that shows similarity between the Classes and their RL counterparts, or at least other things in pop culture. Clerics pray, and stuff. Paladins are very, um...Good..ly. Druids live in the woods!

Knights...challenge people? Maybe to a duel, but in the midst of combat? That's just screaming "fantasy action flick", to me. Okay, pop culture constantly has this crap happening when Good Swordy-Guy fights Evil Swordy-Guy, but when specifically labelled to the Knight, it seems wrong. There could have been something else. This seems more of an all-around martial fighter thing, than specifically a Knight thing. Do Knights get anything regarding Mounts? I think that'd be more fitting.

You might ask how the work with the Knight differs from that of a Monk - to me, it doesn't. I hate the Monk. The other classes too, really, but it's just the absurdity seems more prevalent in this case.


Hey, it's not for everyone, you're welcome to your... whatever it is you do. I like Eberron a lot, but I'm not talking about whether the flavor is cool or not, I'm talking about how it's good game design (compared to some other settings, at least).

I just kinda play homebrew.

Greyhawk? Blah.

FR? Drizzt is lame, and Elmnister sucks too. Baldur's Gate was neat, but only because Sarevok was badass. Thieves Guilds were neato too. But, I dislike how epic things would get in BG 2 and the expansions - if that says anything about the game world, then it's not something I think I'd enjoy.

I've thought about trying Ravenloft, but there's also this thing with me and already-made worlds. As a DM, I love to write all that nonsense - borrowing the material makes me feel like I'm just being lazy, too. Playing in it, though...yeah, I'd give it a shot.

I get that you're talking about the game design rather than the flashy colors and pictures...it's just that I consider the flavor to be only a step behind mechanics in importance. If a campaign setting provides a great new approach to a commonly held problem, but the world absolutely sucks, I don't think of it as a good product. It's a crappy product with one snippit of good info, which I'll photocopy onto another piece of paper so I never have to look through the rubbish to find it again. I would like to be able to enjoy the whole supplement - and while that can't ever be guarenteed, I do believe WotC could put some more effort into it.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-31, 02:57 PM
Now, ideally 4.0 would be written by, say...Fax, Vorpal Tribble and Matthew; people who I know would comprehend what they're doing with it, as opposed to people who are paid by a company with the intent of making more money. I'm not sure I should get my hopes up on this, though.

Oh, come on. Maybe the people designing stuff for WotC are worse at it than Fax and Vorpal Tribble (who, you'll note, put out a much smaller quantity of material, and can thus afford to tweak and examine it a lot more) and maybe they aren't, but they're people, gamers, working for Wizards... it's not like they have desire or orders to make it crappy. Crappy supplements don't make nearly as much money. Just check Complete Psionic's popularity/sales versus Tome of Battle's. When they're told to "make a _certain kind of thing_ for _some book_", they're going to try to make something good. The idea that everyone working on the books is a jaded faceless suit who wants to drink your soul through your wallet is wrong and frankly annoying.

Tormsskull
2007-07-31, 02:58 PM
Well-designed books are better-selling books. Just check the massive popularity of the Tome of Battle in the favorite books thread--there've been several splats after it, so it's no longer the "flavor of the month"; you don't see Complete Champion receiving that kind of treatment. It's because it's a very well-designed book.


But you also have to admit it makes good business sense for WotC to make decent initial books with "well-designed" splat books. Looking at it from a very pessimistic view, if a company is selling a broken product and people are willing to buy it, which in turn allows them to sell additional products that fix the initial broken product with patches here and there, then it is great for business.

I know very little of Tome of Battle, only as much as I have been able to piece together on here. But in truth, I am not really interested in purchasing it because anything beyond the core that I want to add I'll homebrew myself.

mudbunny
2007-07-31, 03:01 PM
Oh, come on. Maybe the people designing stuff for WotC are worse at it than Fax and Vorpal Tribble (who, you'll note, put out a much smaller quantity of material, and can thus afford to tweak and examine it a lot more) and maybe they aren't, but they're people, gamers, working for Wizards... it's not like they have desire or orders to make it crappy. Crappy supplements don't make nearly as much money. Just check Complete Psionic's popularity/sales versus Tome of Battle's. When they're told to "make a _certain kind of thing_ for _some book_", they're going to try to make something good. The idea that everyone working on the books is a jaded faceless suit who wants to drink your soul through your wallet is wrong and frankly annoying.

Also don't forget that there are, in addition to the writers, maybe 20 other people who might look over it to see if it is balanced.

That is *very* different from the untold thousands of people who look at new books with a view to *breaking* the new rules in conjunction with every other rulebook out there.

Matthew
2007-07-31, 03:08 PM
Balderdash! Like I said, read the Magic Item Compendium articles. That's good game design at work--and as a result, the MIC is a great book. Similarily, the move towards "per-encounter" mechanics, Eberron's action points... c'mon, just compare the PHB II to the PHB.

Well, that's your opinion. Most of the concepts you above describe I find boring and unsuitable for my game, especially 'per encounter mechanics, which is completely unsuitable for my Adventure Design Ethic. Compare the PHB 1 to the PHB 2? What are you talking about? The writing style? The Base Classes? The purpose of the two books is entirely different, one is an expansion for the other.


Well-designed books are better-selling books. Just check the massive popularity of the Tome of Battle in the favorite books thread--there've been several splats after it, so it's no longer the "flavor of the month"; you don't see Complete Champion receiving that kind of treatment. It's because it's a very well-designed book.

Tome of Battle is popular because it's a power up for Melee Combat, not because it is well designed. That's not to say that it isn't well designed (in my opinion it could be better), but that's not its main selling point.


And remember--WotC may want more money, but the individuals writing new books, new mechanics, new fluff, they're people--generally, gamers--who do want to make a good game, whether or not they've succeeded.
Sure, but they also want to keep their jobs and their job is to make money for the company. Game design is subservient to the dollar sign, that's just how it is. I have no problem with that, but don't dress it up as some kind of 'we're getting better at designing games and better design is bringing in more revenue', because that's not what's happening. People buy supplements for the nifty powers, and the power level between and within supplements varies widely.


After reading Complete Psionic, and hearing about a couple of the options in Complete Champion (dip for Pounce and spontaneous wizardry, anyone?), I wonder if WotC is intentionally "poisoning the pot" for 3.X before the next edition.

I have to admit, in my more paranoid moments, I have wondered exactly that.

Dairun Cates
2007-07-31, 03:08 PM
I've played other systems, and D&D is certainly far from being my favorite. But it does have certain advantages. Number one, everybody knows it and you can almost always find people to play with; number two, it is extremely well supported and will continue to be well supported.

In making that list, I deliberately limited myself to things that I felt could be done without changing the fundamental nature of the game--even though I personally would prefer a fundamentally different game, I recognize that isn't about to happen and perhaps shouldn't. D&D is what it is. I just want what it is to be more polished and run more smoothly. :smallsmile:

Ah. Fair enough. That's the wonderful advantage to being a DM. If you can convince your group to trying something new, you can play whatever the hell you want no matter how obscure. Of course, I'm not sure I could ever get my regular group to want to play 3rd Edition D&D oddly enough. It's really not about 4 of the players' cups of tea.

Deepblue706
2007-07-31, 03:15 PM
Sure, but they also want to keep their jobs and their job is to make money for the company. Game design is subservient to the dollar sign, that's just how it is. I have no problem with that, but don't dress it up as some kind of 'we're getting better at designing games and better design is bringing in more revenue', because that's not what's happening. People buy supplements for the nifty powers, and the power level between supplements varies widely.

I agree with this sentiment. But, I do believe there are a few within the company who sincerely hope to make a product they like, too.

Jasdoif
2007-07-31, 03:24 PM
Oh, come on. Maybe the people designing stuff for WotC are worse at it than Fax and Vorpal Tribble (who, you'll note, put out a much smaller quantity of material, and can thus afford to tweak and examine it a lot more) and maybe they aren't, but they're people, gamers, working for Wizards... it's not like they have desire or orders to make it crappy. Crappy supplements don't make nearly as much money. Just check Complete Psionic's popularity/sales versus Tome of Battle's. When they're told to "make a _certain kind of thing_ for _some book_", they're going to try to make something good. The idea that everyone working on the books is a jaded faceless suit who wants to drink your soul through your wallet is wrong and frankly annoying....what exactly are you going on about, here?

I'm sorry if this annoys you, but I prefer a known good to an unknown. I'm afraid I don't have a precise list of exactly who wrote exactly what in Tome of Battle, or Complete Psionic, or the vast majority of most of the WotC published material out there. Meanwhile a quick look at creations by the people I mentioned (and any other homebrewer) shows their own handiwork.

And I don't think the people writing the books are trying to do a bad job...however, somewhere above them in the hierarchy is someone whose job revolves around profitability and setting deadlines. And what happens when those deadlines don't leave adequate time for the entire creative process? Corners must be cut. Things left unfinished, or unrefined. That isn't the fault of the people writing the stuff, but that doesn't improve the quality once the book gets published.

mudbunny
2007-07-31, 03:29 PM
...what exactly are you going on about, here?

It's rather simple.

Having a deadline (and a limited number of play-testers and a limited number of hours in which to play-test)makes putting out things that have every known breakable/broken feat/spell combination removed much more difficult.


And I don't think the people writing the books are trying to do a bad job...however, somewhere above them in the hierarchy is someone whose job revolves around profitability and setting deadlines. And what happens when those deadlines don't leave adequate time for the entire creative process? Corners must be cut. Things left unfinished, or unrefined. That isn't the fault of the people writing the stuff, but that doesn't improve the quality once the book gets published.

Cheap
Fast
Good

You only get to pick two of them.

That puts a big limitation on things.

nagora
2007-07-31, 03:37 PM
Like others in this thread, I honestly don't see how they can improve on 3e.

They could just go back to 1st edition.

3rd edition basically took all the problems with 1st and either left them in or made them worse, and then added a whole bunch of blunders of its own. It beats me why anyone plays 3rd; it's hopeless. I know I'm in a minority on this forum but I genuinely think that you would all be having much more fun with AD&D than this WotC mess.

So, for me, 4th edition can come when it likes - unless it says Gygax on the cover (unlikely, given his state of health), then it'll just be another bunch of bozos' house rules.

Zincorium
2007-07-31, 03:38 PM
Having bought the SW Saga Edition, which is definitely a preview of where they might be going, I think if WotC just pays a bit more attention to the easily available customer feedback on both their forums (especially the optimization section) they'll be able to produce a very high quality product that will present a meaningful upgrade to those who are interested.

Will that happen? I can't say. Probably not if they release it before 2011 or so. What WotC needs is less a bunch more schlock to put on shelves and more a high quality, well written, well edited, completely self contained set of books to really kick start the product and make sure it's a distinctly better option. But their market analysis may say differently.

Personally, I think Eberron is a good thing, and those who don't like it certainly aren't forced to use it. I also think that Greyhawk needs to be put back in the box for a while (most boring official setting I've played), and settings like planescape and dark sun need a big, well advertised resurrection. The style of those games is perfect for a completely new direction in D&D.

Matthew
2007-07-31, 03:44 PM
I agree with this sentiment. But, I do believe there are a few within the company who sincerely hope to make a product they like, too.

Absolutely, and I think that applies to the majority of designers, rather than the minority; however, they have to work within certain limits (particularly time constraints) and the game can suffer as a result.
There are some great things about 3e and I think its appeal is very wide ranging, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it has therefore been well designed to meet every criteria. It just means it has been well designed to meet specific aims, particularly to generate revenue.

The thing about 'perfectly' designed games (and this was my point when I said that 'better is subjective') is that their perfection is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I don't see the different editions of D&D as being advances on one another, I see them as all part of the same corpus. If I want to run the 1e Tomb of Horrors, I'll use 1e AD&D. if I want to run the 3e Tomb of Horrors, I'll use 3e D&D. If I want to run a long term Home Brewed D&D Campaign, it won't directly resemble any edition.

[Edit]
Damn your slanderous lies against Greyhawk! Seriously, though, it's supposed to be 'boring', by which is meant generic. Without it, you'll just have somebody recreating it to fill the void. It couldn't really get any more back into the box than it already has anyway.

Saying that, I really am hoping to see some Planescape and Dark Sun 3e products (maybe even some Birthright). Only problem would probably be that the art would change, which was very setting specific.

Dausuul
2007-07-31, 05:04 PM
They could just go back to 1st edition.

3rd edition basically took all the problems with 1st and either left them in or made them worse, and then added a whole bunch of blunders of its own. It beats me why anyone plays 3rd; it's hopeless. I know I'm in a minority on this forum but I genuinely think that you would all be having much more fun with AD&D than this WotC mess.

So, for me, 4th edition can come when it likes - unless it says Gygax on the cover (unlikely, given his state of health), then it'll just be another bunch of bozos' house rules.

I've played 1E. I've played 2E. I've played 3E in both the original and the 3.5 incarnations. And I can state with confidence that I would not be having more fun playing 1E. If you like it, more power to you, but there are plenty of gamers who were extremely happy to make the jump from 2E to 3E and have neither desire nor intention to go back.

And as for 3E not fixing any of the problems with 1E/2E...

THAC0 -> BAB.
Rod/Staff/Wand, Paralyzation/Poison/Death Magic, Petrification/Polymorph, Breath Weapon, Spell -> Fortitude, Reflex, Will.
Totally useless Charisma -> sometimes useful Charisma.
Clerics who have to spend all their spell slots on heals -> spontaneous casting of healing spells.
Fixed percentages on thief abilities -> skill checks with difficulties.
Wacked-out class-specific XP tables -> single unified XP table.

And on and on...


Saying that, I really am hoping to see some Planescape and Dark Sun 3e products (maybe even some Birthright). Only problem would probably be that the art would change, which was very setting specific.

I would be ecstatic if the Dark Sun art changed. Love the setting, hate the artwork.

Manave_E_Sulanul
2007-07-31, 05:52 PM
This again? Oh, O.k! :smallwink:

I, for one, do hope that 4th edition comes, but no sooner than 2010. I started playing D&D in high school with 3rd edition, and updated to 3.5 rather quickly, and I've tried the previous versions and it is my opinion that the current incarnation of the game is the most fun for me and my group of gamers.

I don't mind the fact that much of the money I spent becomes obsolete either, too much. I am having fun with them and will have had fun when the next edition comes out. I'll probably sell off a few books then, myself, but I think I'll keep my little collection mostly intact and use it as long as I can.

And good God I hope that 4th edition is good. Personally I'd like to see something more akin to the generic classes system but I doubt that would happen. I would hope, at least, they take a good long time designing and testing the system and try to distribute the power-love a little more evenly among the different classes.

I'd love to see D&D 4.X feature for base classes at least one class similar to the Swordsage and make Psionics core material, and fix this whole polymorph issue...

Matthew
2007-07-31, 06:18 PM
I would be ecstatic if the Dark Sun art changed. Love the setting, hate the artwork.

I think this pretty much sums up the entirety of my reaction to your post; I think we have to admit that how we want the to game work is subject to preference.

Almost every thing you mentioned that D&D 3e fixed seems to me to have caused its own problems (Iterative Attacks, Vulnerability of Saving Throws), something that I cannot agree with (Charisma was useful in previous editions for Henchmen, Reaction Checks and Proficiencies/Attribute Checks based on Charisma) or was a trade off (Sneak and Hide as Skills have brought their own problems). Indeed, even the Spontaneous Healing Spells of Clerics have contributed to an over powered Base Class. I even prefer variable XP Charts.

Heh, you cannot please all of the people all of the time :smallwink:

Dervag
2007-07-31, 06:26 PM
They could just go back to 1st edition.

3rd edition basically took all the problems with 1st and either left them in or made them worse, and then added a whole bunch of blunders of its own. It beats me why anyone plays 3rd; it's hopeless.I must respectfully disagree.

First and second edition (essentially similar; 2nd edition was fully backwards compatible) had a number of problems that were removed in 3rd edition, not least among them the high fatality rate imposed by system shock checks and save-or-die poisons.

Matthew
2007-07-31, 06:32 PM
High fatality rate was a problem? Heh, heh. Yeah, it could be. Just depended on your style of play. The more I hear from people who continue to play 1e the more I hear about the mortality rate as a virtue.

ranger89
2007-07-31, 07:08 PM
They could just go back to 1st edition.

3rd edition basically took all the problems with 1st and either left them in or made them worse, and then added a whole bunch of blunders of its own. It beats me why anyone plays 3rd; it's hopeless. I know I'm in a minority on this forum but I genuinely think that you would all be having much more fun with AD&D than this WotC mess.

With all due respect, I'm always amazed when I read how someone really, truly despises 3e. But the fact that you're still playing 2e is really what this thread is about: playing a game that you have fun playing and ignoring subsequent versions that just don't work for you. Unless 4e has something that blows me away, I can see myself playing 3e for a long, long, long time and loving it. :smallbiggrin:

Deepblue706
2007-07-31, 08:18 PM
High fatality rate was a problem? Heh, heh. Yeah, it could be. Just depended on your style of play. The more I hear from people who continue to play 1e the more I hear about the mortality rate as a virtue.

Mortality is great! Even moreso when playing a game like, say, HACKMASTER! If your character dies, you MUST reroll at level 1, regardless of the rest of the group's power. What an excellent game.

Really, I agree higher rates of in-game death is better. Of course, I love making very rich backstories, and it really sucks when the characters die...but a victory is so much sweeter when you have a significant chance of failure. When things are in a more lethal world, the perspective changes - and being "brave" is more likely to mean something. Sure, DMs can "fake" a threat, but players will eventually realize that nobody's taken a fall after enough sessions.

I'm sure there'd be more players who focus on defensive tactics, and not so many fights would come to "kill them really fast, so we take less damage and thus waste less of the cleric's spells" if there was more lethal combat. It may encourage players to be well-balanced, and able handle multiple situations, rather than stick to one-or-two combat tricks.

But I understand not everyone's into that. I, myself, would actually want it to be formally declared at the start of play - I generally enjoy it, but it depends on what kind of game it is. Mood and setting are important when considering this.

The Vorpal Tribble
2007-07-31, 08:53 PM
Oh, come on. Maybe the people designing stuff for WotC are worse at it than Fax and Vorpal Tribble (who, you'll note, put out a much smaller quantity of material, and can thus afford to tweak and examine it a lot more)
In most cases you're correct, though I do admit to having around 250 monsters made to date. Everything else though, yeah, a lot more manageable numbers. Thanks for the shout-outs either way :smallbiggrin:

Wizards the last year or two though has been... wishy-washy. Some really great stuff has come out (Complete Scoundrel) and some UTTER trash (Complete Psionic). I won't trust its gonna be good any more until I get a preview of it.

Jack_Banzai
2007-07-31, 08:57 PM
I'm very happy with the rules from the new Star Wars Roleplaying Game: Saga Edition, and if these changes were implemented into D&D 4.0 I'd be well-pleased. If you want to know what the changes are... ehhh, find them somewhere else. I'm too tired to lay it all out.

Diggorian
2007-07-31, 10:17 PM
SAGA SW I'm not overly keen on, lots of obvious miniature crossover (essentially, I'm not gonna be over 30 and buying toys for myself :smallwink: ) They flat out tell ya to buy the Starship Minis to do space combat ... think I'll do it narrative style.

The only major change I can envision 4.0 doing is making things even more class generic like a skill system. Give all the core classes talent trees in place of level determined special abilities and you'll likely have it.

Dervag
2007-07-31, 11:04 PM
Mortality is great! Even moreso when playing a game like, say, HACKMASTER! If your character dies, you MUST reroll at level 1, regardless of the rest of the group's power. What an excellent game.The annoying thing about First Edition death was that so much of it was effectively unblockable, and that there were fairly tight limits on the countermeasures you could use to escape it.

It's one thing if your character dies because they were doing something that logically ought to be risky, and if they could have hypothetically been safe if they had been smarter or more resourceful or taken more time to prepare.

When character death is random, not so much.

atatassault
2007-07-31, 11:04 PM
They flat out tell ya to buy the Starship Minis to do space combat ... think I'll do it narrative style.One, its only sensible for a company to cross advertise its products. Two, it makes a lot of sense to handle Vehicle Combat like character combat (where, as common sense dictates, you could use anything to represent your character/vehicle, not just the in house chunks of plastic). Three, if you wish to handle it narratively instead of tactically, that is your prerogative as GM (which it always has been, Saga or no).

And lets face it, the d20 system has always had miniature cross over. Saga decided to cut the middle man (such as listing squares in feet and meters when its still a matter of squares) and stop dancing around the issue.

...

The way the Force is handled in Saga could solve a crap load of problems with the Non-Caster/Caster imbalance. For those that don't know: The Force is used with the skill, Use the Force. The skill itself can do minor things. You take a feat, Force Training, to get some powers like Force Lightning and Mind Trick (you can take this feat multiple times, gaining multiple uses of a power). When you all your allocations of a power, you've got to wait for it come back (several ways for this to happen. They'll automatically come back if you spend 1 minute out of combat). Powers can be further augmented by class features (think metamagic feats).

However, it won't solve everything. One of the biggest problems with the magic system is that you've got spells imbalance the system by just existing (basically any high level spell). If don't want a massively powered arms race, you don't power up Non-Casters, you power down Casters. Massively powered spells shouldn't be down away with (because what would a high fantasy setting be without powerful spells), but they should be rare and costly (just like they are in actual fantasy stories).

Saga also handles this well: There are these things called Destiny Points. You get one per level, and once spent, they don't come back. Force User can access Force Secrets. They're like Metamagic. You use Force Points (read: Action Points) or Destiny Points to fuel Force Secrets. Using a Destiny point on a Force Secret can double the damage on a Force Power, let you affect something on the other side of the star system, let you affect really massive targets (like ripping out a star's core). You cant do this X amount of times per day (like you can with 9th level spells in 3.x), because you've got to spend a super rare, non regenerating resource.

BardicDuelist
2007-07-31, 11:16 PM
The only thing I won't like about 4e is how dense my gaming group is. I can't explain how hard it was to convert from 2 to 3 with them, so 4 will be like pulling teeth.

Really though, I house rule so much, it won't matter.

Devils_Advocate
2007-07-31, 11:49 PM
So... clicking around, I happened to find some interesting commentary on the Wizards board about changes between editions and where the game is headed. I thought it might be worth adding to the discussion here:


*My* ideal hack-n-slash D&D-ish role-playing system would be one where you can pick up the rules in one day, where there are lots of options that are flavorful and interesting but no real bad choices or good choices, and where, ideally, there is no DM in the referee sense. There might be someone who sets up the scenarios and decides on the game structure, but no one whose job it is to design the system on the fly.

It should be a game where four or five people can just go out and buy it and *start playing that afternoon*, and where the decision of who gets to be the DM is as simple as "Who wants to do it?" "I have an interesting idea for a campaign!"

*Not* "Who wants to do it?" "I will, because I'm the only one who owns all the relevant books and who's been DMing for the past 20 years and is familiar with the secret spaghetti-ball of houserules that our game depends on." "Well... okay."

D&D 3e is not this system. But it's getting there. They're trying. They've been trying as far back as 2e, but 2e accomplished this goal extremely poorly.


Linky! (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13243450&postcount=559)

horseboy
2007-08-01, 12:27 AM
Anyone remember that story about how if you put 1000 monkeys in a room with type writers eventually one of them will produce one of Shakespeare's sonnets?
Yeah, that's WotC in a nut shell. Monkeys slapping at keyboards, smearing pages with poop.

My biggest gripe about their products is that I've payed them to do a job for me. After they've done their job I've got to go back over the job and redo it.

Matthew
2007-08-01, 05:59 AM
So... clicking around, I happened to find some interesting commentary on the Wizards board about changes between editions and where the game is headed. I thought it might be worth adding to the discussion here:



Linky! (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13243450&postcount=559)
Oh dear, somebody has a bee in their bonnet! A perfect example of why 'good/better/bad/worse' is subjective and reliant on the preference of the people playing the game. Sounds like he had some very bad experiences with 1e/2e.

Kiero
2007-08-01, 07:41 AM
But no matter how great or awful 4E may be, we'll all either have to start from scratch or fall behind. Your favorite campaign setting? Rewritten. Your favorite splatbook? Irrelevant. Your favorite homebrew? Obsolete. Your favorite spell/feat/ability/feature? Updated or errata'd into unrecognizable form.

Um...why? You're under absolutely no obligation to stop playing what you have and buy any putative new edition whatsoever. That's purely personal choice. There's plenty of people out there still playing earlier editions and having lots of fun with them.

This isn't like computer operating systems where the loss of support eventually means you have no redress if things start going wrong. What you buy or don't is entirely optional.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-01, 08:32 AM
:haley: (shoots an arrow that swings around a corner) Huh? How did I do that?

:vaarsuvius: I think we are being converted to 4th edition!

:roy: Well, I do feel more challenging...

:elan: Ooh, trait points! *ding*

:belkar: Hey! Why am I a friggin' dwarf now?!!! This totally succks!

:durkon: Heh.

Jayabalard
2007-08-01, 08:43 AM
Oh dear, somebody has a bee in their bonnet! A perfect example of why 'good/better/bad/worse' is subjective and reliant on the preference of the people playing the game. Sounds like he had some very bad experiences with 1e/2e. It sounds like they should just go pick up the munchkin card game...that meets all of thier criteria.


Anyone remember that story about how if you put 1000 monkeys in a room with type writers eventually one of them will produce one of Shakespeare's sonnets?The infinite monkey theory. You'd only actually need a single "monkey" (random character sequence generator) and infinite time. Although:
researchers have concluded that the infinite monkey theorem does not apply to real monkeys; despite their entertaining methods, they make poor random number generators, as well as needing to be fed.

mudbunny
2007-08-01, 09:15 AM
Anyone remember that story about how if you put 1000 monkeys in a room with type writers eventually one of them will produce one of Shakespeare's sonnets?
Yeah, that's WotC in a nut shell. Monkeys slapping at keyboards, smearing pages with poop.

My biggest gripe about their products is that I've payed them to do a job for me. After they've done their job I've got to go back over the job and redo it.

I will repeat what I have previously said. When you ask for something, there are three criteria which get applied to the manufacturing.

Good.
Cheap.
Fast.

You only get to pick two.

Arbitrarity
2007-08-01, 09:27 AM
Hey, if it's cheap and fast enough, one will eventually (statistically) be good, right?

mudbunny
2007-08-01, 09:28 AM
Hey, if it's cheap and fast enough, one will eventually (statistically) be good, right?

For a given value of eventually, yes.

Stephen_E
2007-08-01, 09:53 AM
Game designers overall have learned a lot about the theory of game design. Just look at the new World of Darkness: people may or may not like the new fluff, but the new game is definitely a whole lot more neatly designed than the old one, which was essentially a haphazard collection of stuff added piecemeal rather than with any sort of intention. Old Vampire plays a lot like D&D; new Vampire is a lot more likely to run as a "roleplaying game of personal horror.


Just one point on the new World of Darkness.

If anyone gets hold of the person who chose the heading script and colour can I help crucify hi/her/it.
To those who haven't seen it, it's a very flowing fancy curling script done in a faint faded reddish colour. It's faster working out what the section is by reading it than by deciphering the heading!

Stephen

horseboy
2007-08-01, 10:36 AM
I will repeat what I have previously said. When you ask for something, there are three criteria which get applied to the manufacturing.

Good.
Cheap.
Fast.

You only get to pick two.

I want Good and _______
D&D hasn't had a "good" thing published since before Player's Option. They're not Cheap. So that really just leaves Fast. Yes they are fast.

IF they'd get a hold of some half competent non munchkin at heart who would actually fix some of the issues with this game it might actually make it fun instead of a simulator for pulling eye teeth.

Arbitrarity
2007-08-01, 10:45 AM
I want Good and _______
D&D hasn't had a "good" thing published since before Player's Option. They're not Cheap. So that really just leaves Fast. Yes they are fast.

IF they'd get a hold of some half competent non munchkin at heart who would actually fix some of the issues with this game it might actually make it fun instead of a simulator for pulling eye teeth.

True munchkins appreciate the challenge of a balanced system :smalltongue:

Actually, if you take most people on the theroetical optimization boards I bet, they probably want some sort of game balance. Pun-pun, Total damage > (2.5*10^36530)^^73600, using Knuth's up-arrow notation, Hulking hurler, Supermount, etc, are more mathematical experiments than actually used, and Pun-pun just trumps everthing else. See how most threads ignore that the overdiety is infinitely better at it? That's an illustration of how the CO board reflexively "balances". See how we reflexively rarely say "planar shepard", and often recommend against Incantatrix, or Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil? Balance. Many "munchkins" feel that these remove the challenge from optimization. It's no longer a careful, exact science of where to put points, skills, feats, neccessarily. It's "Wizard 5/Incantatrix 10/Archmage 3/full casting 2. If going into epic, Wiz5/Incantatrix10/IOTSOV 7/Archmage 3 by level 25.

Dausuul
2007-08-01, 11:12 AM
True munchkins appreciate the challenge of a balanced system :smalltongue:

Actually, if you take most people on the theroetical optimization boards I bet, they probably want some sort of game balance. Pun-pun, Total damage > (2.5*10^36530)^^73600, using Knuth's up-arrow notation, Hulking hurler, Supermount, etc, are more mathematical experiments than actually used, and Pun-pun just trumps everthing else. See how most threads ignore that the overdiety is infinitely better at it? That's an illustration of how the CO board reflexively "balances". See how we reflexively rarely say "planar shepard", and often recommend against Incantatrix, or Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil? Balance. Many "munchkins" feel that these remove the challenge from optimization. It's no longer a careful, exact science of where to put points, skills, feats, neccessarily. It's "Wizard 5/Incantatrix 10/Archmage 3/full casting 2. If going into epic, Wiz5/Incantatrix10/IOTSOV 7/Archmage 3 by level 25.

Well spoken. Frankly, WotC's balance problems don't stem from having too many munchkin designers, they stem from not having enough munchkin playtesters. You'll never know how broken your designs are until you have someone try to break them... hard.

horseboy
2007-08-01, 11:17 AM
True munchkins appreciate the challenge of a balanced system :smalltongue:


That's pretty much true. Notice, however did I say they were "Good" munchkins. Indeed, they haven't even admitted it to themselves yet. Yet the abilities to, oh say ability to just now BUY a +5 sword, shows that they want to play in a manner that is contrary to their "mission statement."

Yes, it's fun to try and push the system as hard as you can, but it shouldn't break the minute I say "I'll play a tree humper."

Arbitrarity
2007-08-01, 11:18 AM
Well spoken. Frankly, WotC's balance problems don't stem from having too many munchkin designers, they stem from not having enough munchkin playtesters. You'll never know how broken your designs are until you have someone try to break them... hard.

Precisely. People like Tleilaxu_Ghola, TLN, and Tippy would make pretty good playtesters, even only for read-overs.

IIRC, there was a thread about playtesting paradigms at some point, and it had some comments from a WOTC playtester or somesuch, which showed that they didn't think the same way about optimizing that some do. I.e. "If they want to hit something, why don't they play a fighter?" when told about CoDzilla.

Dausuul
2007-08-01, 01:13 PM
That's pretty much true. Notice, however did I say they were "Good" munchkins. Indeed, they haven't even admitted it to themselves yet. Yet the abilities to, oh say ability to just now BUY a +5 sword, shows that they want to play in a manner that is contrary to their "mission statement."

They have a mission statement? Must have missed it.

As far as the "magic item Wal-Mart" goes, I don't think that has anything to do with munchkinism--I think they simply realized that in the system as it was set up in previous editions, it made NO SENSE that there was no buying and selling of magic items. If I've already got a +5 sword and I find a +4 sword, why on earth would I not look for a way to unload it at a profit?* And if there's a fighter out there who has a +2 sword and some money and wants a better weapon, why would that fighter not want to buy my +4 sword? And why would some enterprising wizard-merchant not spot the opportunity here and set up a magic item trading post?

*Yeah, yeah, I know, my +5 sword might get broken or stolen... fine, I have a +5 sword and a +4 backup, and I find a +3 sword. Whatever. Sooner or later there will come a point when I no longer need more magic swords, and neither does anyone else in my party.

So the designers went with the simple answer, which was to say that you can buy and sell magic items just like anything else. If you don't like that, you're free to say there are no magic item shops in your game; you'll have to work a little harder to make sure the players get appropriate gear for their level, but you had to do that in 2E, too.

They did try to inject a bit of scarcity with the caps on how expensive an item you can buy in any given town. Of course, that's largely irrelevant since you can teleport or plane shift to a big enough metropolis to get almost anything you like... but since both of those spells are left over from 2E, I don't think it's possible to blame the 3E designers for that.

(I will add that I am not fond of the Magic Item Wal-Mart; I feel it takes away from the mystery and thrill of magic items. But it is a logical consequence of the way D&D is built. From 1E on, magic items in D&D have always been simply valuable tools, and it's only reasonable that people would buy and sell such tools. To make it otherwise would require a rethinking of what magic items are and how they work. Simply saying "Uh, there just are no magic shops," doesn't make much sense.)

Tormsskull
2007-08-01, 01:32 PM
As far as the "magic item Wal-Mart" goes, I don't think that has anything to do with munchkinism--I think they simply realized that in the system as it was set up in previous editions, it made NO SENSE that there was no buying and selling of magic items.


I've always seen a connection between munchkinism and the availability of magic items. As in, munchkins prefer a world where they can get their hands on magic items easily because it provides them with more ways of overpowering their characters as much as possible.

Also, there was buying/selling of magic items in previous editions, its just that the prices weren't spelled out so explictly. They were left completely in the domain of DM judgment. Some players (note, not all) seems to think that the books entitle them to things. So if the DMG says that a magic sword costs 2,000 gold, those types of players think that magic swords should always cost 2,000 gold for those same type. If the DM changes the price of those same types of swords, those types of players will think their DM is "screwing" them or not playing D&D "by the books".

And I dunno. Every world is different. In a world where magic is rare, selling a magical item could attract a lot of unwanted attention. Therefore it would make sense for someone to not sell their "extra" magic items. Of course, it such a world it would be rare for someone to have an "extra" magic sword for example anyway.

Roderick_BR
2007-08-01, 01:33 PM
I agree that there should be less magic itens available. The XP cost is a way to reduce the number of magic itens that can be found and made, but they should find more restrictions.
I do like that they have prices, so it doesn't happen like in 2nd edition, where you had millions of gold pieces, but couldn't do anything with it, other than buy castles and pay minions.

Dausuul
2007-08-01, 01:45 PM
I've always seen a connection between munchkinism and the availability of magic items. As in, munchkins prefer a world where they can get their hands on magic items easily because it provides them with more ways of overpowering their characters as much as possible.

Munchkins like readily available magic items, sure. This does not mean that readily available magic items imply the involvement of munchkins.


Also, there was buying/selling of magic items in previous editions, its just that the prices weren't spelled out so explictly. They were left completely in the domain of DM judgment. Some players (note, not all) seems to think that the books entitle them to things. So if the DMG says that a magic sword costs 2,000 gold, those types of players think that magic swords should always cost 2,000 gold for those same type. If the DM changes the price of those same types of swords, those types of players will think their DM is "screwing" them or not playing D&D "by the books".

True, but that issue again comes from a different source--in this case, the decision to really nail down the rules and make everything crystal clear. Previous editions left a huge amount of stuff to DM fiat, which could be quite a burden for the DM trying to be consistent and fair while making on-the-fly rulings every half hour.

The 3E designers tried to make life easier on the DM by laying out clear and explicit rules for everything. I think they overcompensated, but the underlying impulse was not a bad one.


And I dunno. Every world is different. In a world where magic is rare, selling a magical item could attract a lot of unwanted attention. Therefore it would make sense for someone to not sell their "extra" magic items. Of course, it such a world it would be rare for someone to have an "extra" magic sword for example anyway.

Of course, but D&D is not and has never been well suited to low-magic settings. Even in 2E, low-magic didn't work well without lots of house-ruling. It was just too easy for a PC wizard to stomp the hell out of everything.

Jack_Banzai
2007-08-01, 05:52 PM
One, its only sensible for a company to cross advertise its products. Two, it makes a lot of sense to handle Vehicle Combat like character combat (where, as common sense dictates, you could use anything to represent your character/vehicle, not just the in house chunks of plastic). Three, if you wish to handle it narratively instead of tactically, that is your prerogative as GM (which it always has been, Saga or no).

And lets face it, the d20 system has always had miniature cross over. Saga decided to cut the middle man (such as listing squares in feet and meters when its still a matter of squares) and stop dancing around the issue.

...

The way the Force is handled in Saga could solve a crap load of problems with the Non-Caster/Caster imbalance. For those that don't know: The Force is used with the skill, Use the Force. The skill itself can do minor things. You take a feat, Force Training, to get some powers like Force Lightning and Mind Trick (you can take this feat multiple times, gaining multiple uses of a power). When you all your allocations of a power, you've got to wait for it come back (several ways for this to happen. They'll automatically come back if you spend 1 minute out of combat). Powers can be further augmented by class features (think metamagic feats).

However, it won't solve everything. One of the biggest problems with the magic system is that you've got spells imbalance the system by just existing (basically any high level spell). If don't want a massively powered arms race, you don't power up Non-Casters, you power down Casters. Massively powered spells shouldn't be down away with (because what would a high fantasy setting be without powerful spells), but they should be rare and costly (just like they are in actual fantasy stories).

Saga also handles this well: There are these things called Destiny Points. You get one per level, and once spent, they don't come back. Force User can access Force Secrets. They're like Metamagic. You use Force Points (read: Action Points) or Destiny Points to fuel Force Secrets. Using a Destiny point on a Force Secret can double the damage on a Force Power, let you affect something on the other side of the star system, let you affect really massive targets (like ripping out a star's core). You cant do this X amount of times per day (like you can with 9th level spells in 3.x), because you've got to spend a super rare, non regenerating resource.

Thank you for articulating the same points I would have articulated had I the time or inclination, you put it very well. :)

I might add that I will not buy any starship minis nor do I play the miniatures game. My group uses a dry/erase board for most battles.

Diggorian
2007-08-01, 09:00 PM
One, its only sensible for a company to cross advertise its products. Two, it makes a lot of sense to handle Vehicle Combat like character combat (where, as common sense dictates, you could use anything to represent your character/vehicle, not just the in house chunks of plastic). Three, if you wish to handle it narratively instead of tactically, that is your prerogative as GM (which it always has been, Saga or no).

Yet, Saga goes so far as to outsource an essential part of the game. Refering to another game for Starship combat is like getting to the Magic chapter of the PHB and reading you have to buy Magic: The Gathering cards. (I hope they dont do that in 4E :smallconfused: )

Vehicle rules could work, starships are vehicles, but it's too like the old one IMHO. I was expecting improvement -- or atleast a noticeable difference -- in Saga in all regards.


And lets face it, the d20 system has always had miniature cross over. Saga decided to cut the middle man (such as listing squares in feet and meters when its still a matter of squares) and stop dancing around the issue.

QFT. I didnt even realize they were trying to dance around the issue. They've got pictures of minis in the comabt chapter. :smallamused:

I'm still reading up on the Force changes, but I'm not sure how much they'll inform 4E magic.

atatassault
2007-08-01, 10:40 PM
Vehicle rules could work, starships are vehicles, but it's too like the old one IMHO. I was expecting improvement -- or atleast a noticeable difference -- in Saga in all regards.But there is a noticeable difference. Instead of having to memorize character and vehicle rules, you've merely got to memorize the very few differences between the 2 (very, very few). Instead of a starship battle taking an entire session under RCR, a starship battle takes just as long as a character battle under Saga. That's a major improvement in my book. The only gripe I had is they took out facing, but its no big loss (since if an ISD really wanted to, it could fire all its weapons at one target in RCR anyway).
QFT. I didnt even realize they were trying to dance around the issue. They've got pictures of minis in the comabt chapter. :smallamused:I think you may have missed the "stop" in "Saga decided to cut the middle man and stop dancing around the issue".

And besides, given the fact that the Saga book writes out rules for both types of combat the phrase (which I can't find. Its probably in introductory paragraphs which I never read) "you use SWM/SSB for X combat" really means "you use our hunks of plastic to to represent characters and creatures". I'll concede a little arrogance on WotC's part, but they are a business. Its not like you don't encounter cross advertising elsewhere. So we can just brush this little comment off and use paper cutouts if we really want to.

Tor the Fallen
2007-08-01, 10:58 PM
I'm talking about mechanical things. I'm talking about game design, not game fluff...What's so bad about Eberron? Design-wise....

Artificers.


More on topic-
I agree 1000% (that's right, there's ten of us) with Matthew; D&D feels like a friggin Magic session. What I would like to see would be a much GREATER divorce between fluff and mechanics. I've never played GURPS, but I think if a step in that direction was taken, where one used a set of abstract values to create a character that had 'balance' so as to avoid many of the issues between playability, fluff, and sensibility. For instance, my friend is playing a Warforged Juggernaught who took barbarian 1 for purely mechanical reasons, and found that Bear Warrior dovetailed quite nicely with his smackdown build. Nevermind that he just made a goofy-ass, mighty-morphin, pissed off robot bear. We're all a little wowed with both how absolutely ridiculous the build is, and frankly how nonsensical it is with fluff.

Alright, so a sociopathic transformer is pretty cool. Except this is supposed to be a real swords&sorcery game. The predominant reason he went Bear Warrior was mechaincal- we all have to powergame pretty hard to keep up with everyone else (DM included). I have no problems with powergaming, it's just all the baggage (ie, 'fluff') that comes with it. IotSFV = waaaay good. Too bad it's a frellin carebear. It's a class I don't think I'll ever play, because when asked what I can contribute to the party, I'll have to say "Oh, you know, I use the power of rainbows to defeat my enemies." *Hair flip*

If there was a ruleset available for the actual crafting of what we now call classes, rather than using precrafted classes to make characters, I think that would very much be a step in the right direction.

Dausuul
2007-08-02, 12:26 AM
If there was a ruleset available for the actual crafting of what we now call classes, rather than using precrafted classes to make characters, I think that would very much be a step in the right direction.

Hmm. I can't see D&D abolishing the class system entirely--it's just too fundamental. That said, a "build-your-own-class kit" could be very cool.

Of course, we don't really need 4E for that. 2E had a half-assed system in the DMG that didn't work terribly well. I'd be very interested to see 3.5E try a new take on it.

Aquillion
2007-08-02, 12:37 AM
As far as the "magic item Wal-Mart" goes, I don't think that has anything to do with munchkinism--I think they simply realized that in the system as it was set up in previous editions, it made NO SENSE that there was no buying and selling of magic items. If I've already got a +5 sword and I find a +4 sword, why on earth would I not look for a way to unload it at a profit?* And if there's a fighter out there who has a +2 sword and some money and wants a better weapon, why would that fighter not want to buy my +4 sword? And why would some enterprising wizard-merchant not spot the opportunity here and set up a magic item trading post?

I disagree with the logic that magic items "have" to be available for purchase. First, you have to remember that high-level characters are rare. Even a decent-sized city might only have a handful of people above level 5. On top of that, most of these people aren't adventurers--they don't have +5 swords, they don't find +5 swords, they don't need or want +5 swords. They just reached a high level as a secluded wizard or captain of the guard or whatever.

With these assumptions, it makes perfect sense to say that magic items are rare. Not rare as in "hard to find one on the shelves" rare; rare as in "the king of a small kingdom might own a single +1 sword as a family heirloom." Sure, there are more than people expect buried beneath the ground or in dragon hordes or ancient tombs or wherever adventurers find them, but there are actually very few adventurers in the D&D world (that's why there are still so many magic items in those locations), so those items tend to stay hidden.

All of this combines to make magic items not simply rare, but nearly priceless. Sure, the players can buy them... but the idea was to make it so buying a significant magic item would be a significant adventure in and of itself, with actual roleplaying time devoted to finding someone who has the item in question, actual work involved in persuading them to part with it (often involving quests or combat) and then the actual payment for the item (which would often involve more than just money, and could involve more adventuring).

Sure, players sometimes have extra magic items they'd like to sell. In the real world, people sometimes decide to sell a Caravaggio painting. The 2nd-edition logic was that there was no more a "market" for magic swords than there is a market for Old Master paintings.

Counterspin
2007-08-02, 12:46 AM
Of course magic item availability varies from game to game and setting to setting, but D&D was designed with the presumption of unfettered magic item access, and changing that would renders the already questionable CR system pretty much useless.

Tor the Fallen
2007-08-02, 12:57 AM
I disagree with the logic that magic items "have" to be available for purchase. First, you have to remember that high-level characters are rare.

Not with power creep, and not with the fact that at high levels, the only challenges are also high level critters/NPCs. Not to mention that the outer planes are chock-full of epic level denizens and a corresponding economy.


Even a decent-sized city might only have a handful of people above level 5. On top of that, most of these people aren't adventurers--they don't have +5 swords, they don't find +5 swords, they don't need or want +5 swords. They just reached a high level as a secluded wizard or captain of the guard or whatever.

By 9th level, the cleric can cast Plane Shift and Divination, his wizard ally can cast teleport. Combined, they can reach virtually any and all vendors or would be vendors of magic items.


The issue is one of internal consistency and the fact that instantaneous transportation and perfect knowledge really screw with our preconcieved notions of how an economy would function in a world with magic. Or something like that.

Dausuul
2007-08-02, 01:32 AM
Not with power creep, and not with the fact that at high levels, the only challenges are also high level critters/NPCs. Not to mention that the outer planes are chock-full of epic level denizens and a corresponding economy.

By 9th level, the cleric can cast Plane Shift and Divination, his wizard ally can cast teleport. Combined, they can reach virtually any and all vendors or would be vendors of magic items.

The issue is one of internal consistency and the fact that instantaneous transportation and perfect knowledge really screw with our preconcieved notions of how an economy would function in a world with magic. Or something like that.

Precisely. The market would be a small one, no doubt, but since both buyers and sellers are likely to have access to high-level spells, it's really not hard for them to find one another.

This is just one of many reasons I often ban long-range teleportation magic from my games.

Fhaolan
2007-08-02, 01:55 AM
For instance, my friend is playing a Warforged Juggernaught who took barbarian 1 for purely mechanical reasons, and found that Bear Warrior dovetailed quite nicely with his smackdown build. Nevermind that he just made a goofy-ass, mighty-morphin, pissed off robot bear. We're all a little wowed with both how absolutely ridiculous the build is, and frankly how nonsensical it is with fluff.

I was going to post something on this topic, something that might have been interesting to some and maybe even pithy. And then I read this, and my brain went squish.


Too bad it's a frellin carebear. It's a class I don't think I'll ever play, because when asked what I can contribute to the party, I'll have to say "Oh, you know, I use the power of rainbows to defeat my enemies." *Hair flip*

Just for a second, I recovered what I was going to write. Then squish again.


If there was a ruleset available for the actual crafting of what we now call classes, rather than using precrafted classes to make characters, I think that would very much be a step in the right direction.

I was actually surprised when I first saw 3rd edition, and that it didn't include this ruleset. I thought it would be the natural evolution from 2nd edition, basically rejiggering the Spells & Powers stuff to make some sort of sense along with all the other clean-ups and fiddles they did. I expected it to be in the DMG, but when I saw how thin the 3.0 DMG was I knew they hadn't. So, I thought maybe they'll put out a revised Spells & Powers suppliment, but it never happened.

I wish 4th edition will have something of the sort, but I don't have a lot of hope. That would run counter to current 'good game design' methodologies, where new classes, races, powers, etc. are revealed in each new supplement. Having a class building ruleset would damage this methodology.

OD&D and 1st edition AD&D had good game design for the kind of game that was being played. (Horrible editing job, but that's something else.) High mortality was part of it, because that was part of the game. Your characters were disposable pieces used to play the game, not an end unto themselves, just like the wargames that 1st edition was only a step or two removed from. The concept of 'fluff' versus 'crunch' is almost meaningless in context. The game actually began the second you started to 'roll up' a character. If you were unlucky, you ended up with a junk character. Oh well, see how far you get. Maybe you'll 'win' next time. It's just a game.

Modern game design has characters being more important. Characters need to be crafted carefully. They're more difficult to create, more points of differentiation between them, fluff and crunch melded together to create a whole. The death of a character is traumatic, just from the time and effort invested in it.

The entire focus of the game has changed over the years. Before, the challenge was to get a character to suvive until 'name level' (9th-10th or so), at which point you were probably bored and wanted to start a new character back at 1st level. Now, many think the game doesn't *start* until 10th level or higher. The way the game is played is different now. In 20 years, it will be different again and 'good game design' will dictate something as different from 3rd edition as 3rd edition is from Chainmail.

Rockphed
2007-08-02, 02:10 AM
My biggest gripe with WotC is that they do not properly edit their products. In every book I have seen, excluding (maybe) the core 3, there has been at least 1 place where I was ready to rip somebody's head off for missing a table that was improperly formatted. Also, they often had bad grammar, punctuation, or simply the wrong STINKING WORD!

Thus, before they come out with a new edition, I hope they hire 1 editor for each writer they currently employ.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-02, 04:53 AM
Hmm. I can't see D&D abolishing the class system entirely--it's just too fundamental. That said, a "build-your-own-class kit" could be very cool.

Yeah, but I remember from the 2E one that if you simply stack up enough restrictions you can have Real Ultimate Power and yet gain levels at 200 exp each. Wizard spells? Yeah, but only two schools (invoc/trans, gives you 80% of useful spells in 2E). Cleric spells, but only two domains (take the two biggest ones, of course). Rogue abilities, full attack, d12 hit dice. But add a bunch of taboos, can't have followers, can't own stuff he can't carry, etc etc etc. It gets very munchkinny.


Oh and yeah, the fallacy of the Magic Item Market is not in the assumption that people would buy and sell such things like they buy and sell everything else, but in the assumption that in fact that many magical items exist in the world. I'm sure you can buy a "magical sword" in any reasonably big city, for some value of "magical". That does not mean you'll find a +3 keen frostbrand undead-bane scimitar if you need one. Plus you'll have to watch out for low-level wizards selling random stuff with Nystul's Aura on it.

Zincorium
2007-08-02, 05:05 AM
Yeah, but I remember from the 2E one that if you simply stack up enough restrictions you can have Real Ultimate Power and yet gain levels at 200 exp each. Wizard spells? Yeah, but only two schools (invoc/trans, gives you 80% of useful spells in 2E). Cleric spells, but only two domains (take the two biggest ones, of course). Rogue abilities, full attack, d12 hit dice. But add a bunch of taboos, can't have followers, can't own stuff he can't carry, etc etc etc. It gets very munchkinny.

Exactly, they already screwed it up once, now it's a bit clearer how to make a more balanced version.

For the most part, 'flaws' are a munchkin's main course in any point based system. Any time you can get a bonus you will use for a penalty that you won't, it leads to unbalancing. And the thing is, you don't need to put a value on restrictions, they can be purely voluntary in nature. Have a code that you have to follow? Cool. But you don't get a feat for it or anything.

A point based system where you could mix and match class features in a balanced way would be very interesting. Kind of like the variants in unearthed arcana and elsewhere, except an even greater degree of freedom. Want a ranger that shapeshifts like the PHB 2 druid? Sure, if you spend points on it instead of weapon styles or an animal companion.

I think the biggest advantage is that things with scads of powerful class features (I'm looking at you, CODzilla) would obviously have to be pared down, and classes that are underpowered as it is now would get a chance to adjust back up.

Tormsskull
2007-08-02, 05:46 AM
For the most part, 'flaws' are a munchkin's main course in any point based system. Any time you can get a bonus you will use for a penalty that you won't, it leads to unbalancing. And the thing is, you don't need to put a value on restrictions, they can be purely voluntary in nature. Have a code that you have to follow? Cool. But you don't get a feat for it or anything.


Yeah, they certaintly can be. I think that when the designers make flaws they have to try to make sure that they will come up during regular game play on occassion.

But in the end, it is up to the DM to determine how muchy a flaw really effects the character. I remember back in second edition one of the PCs in my group took the trait "lucky". That was such a subjective trait that it was hard to really work it in all that much.

ian demagi
2007-08-02, 07:40 AM
Hi guys,

I am Ian , and this is my first post here so be gentle.

I think an important thing to consider is that WotC is own by Hasbro and Hasbro is a huge corporate conglomerate. Does Hasbro really understand gamers-that is a huge question.

I think an important idea for 4.0 is backward compatabilty. Fix some things like Pun-Pun & CoDzilla & prestige classes, but not invalidate all of 3.5.
If they do trash 3.5 without 4.0 being absolutely spectacular, they will be very disappointed in how much profit they dont make, Ian.

Aris Katsaris
2007-08-02, 08:15 AM
As far as the "magic item Wal-Mart" goes, I don't think that has anything to do with munchkinism--I think they simply realized that in the system as it was set up in previous editions, it made NO SENSE that there was no buying and selling of magic items.

You can always think of ways to explain it by having the idea of atleast some magical objects needing their allegiance earned by "right of conquest" (or atleast inheritance).

Tiny, tiny spoiler about the recent Harry Potter book.
Kinda like the "Elder Wand" in Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-02, 08:29 AM
Does Hasbro really understand gamers-that is a huge question.

In a word, no. They have too wide a variety of items to sell, including kids' toys.

That said, WotC understands gamers quite well, so as long as they call the shots and aren't rushed or pushed by Hasbro, they'll do fine. Perhaps not the greatest in the world, but certainly fine.

Dausuul
2007-08-02, 12:44 PM
You can always think of ways to explain it by having the idea of atleast some magical objects needing their allegiance earned by "right of conquest" (or atleast inheritance).

Tiny, tiny spoiler about the recent Harry Potter book.
Kinda like the "Elder Wand" in Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows.

There are lots of ways to address the issue. My favorite is to say that every magic item has a will of its own, and they don't take kindly to being bought and sold. But that requires figuring out, well--what exactly happens when you do something your +4 sword doesn't like, or when you get an item without earning its allegiance (e.g., taking it off the corpse of a guy someone else killed)?

That's what I mean by "rethinking what magic items are and how they work."

nagora
2007-08-02, 04:42 PM
I
And as for 3E not fixing any of the problems with 1E/2E...

THAC0 -> BAB.


THAC0 wasn't in 1st editon. It did make things simpler and frankly anything would be better than the abortion that is 3rd edition combat.



Rod/Staff/Wand, Paralyzation/Poison/Death Magic, Petrification/Polymorph, Breath Weapon, Spell -> Fortitude, Reflex, Will.


Saving throws need reworked, and needed reworked. Just tinkering with the type of saving throws did not actually achieve anything worthwhile. There is an inherent contradiction between HPs and saving throws. The contradiction is all the more apparent in the giveaway campaigns of 3rd ed. where there are far more hit points given away more easily than in 1st.



Totally useless Charisma -> sometimes useful Charisma.


Never had any bother with it.


Clerics who have to spend all their spell slots on heals -> spontaneous casting of healing spells.

Clerics who had an intimate relationship with their deities -> Clerics who pick ther god from a catalogue and then never have to worry about them again.


Fixed percentages on thief abilities -> skill checks with difficulties.

No skill system -> a skill system which constantly undermines a core part of the game system (classes). Is that better? I'd call it a draw at best.


Wacked-out class-specific XP tables -> single unified XP table.

The single unified XP table is the biggest design blunder in 3rd edition. It's so stupid that it staggers me every time I see it. It is the big reason why so many classes are unblanced now. The person who designed this rule simply did not know anything about D&D (or RPGs in general) and should never have been allowed near the rules.


And on and on...

Indeed, on and on and on. One foolish design error after another and in the end we have a once-great game reduced to a load of tedious, bland munchkin fodder and fit only for the bin.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-08-02, 04:49 PM
Edit: Um, okay, then, I won't... that's a really weird rule. Can I say that it looks like the person is being intentionally bellicose and isn't interested in any kind of constructive discussion?

Matthew
2007-08-02, 04:51 PM
Rachel, the Forum Rules prohibit us from accusing people of being Trolls.

[Edit]
No idea. If in doubt ask a Moderator. Simplest answer is to either ignore posts that strike you as being of that type or put the Poster on your ignore list.

atatassault
2007-08-02, 04:57 PM
THAC0 wasn't in 1st editon. It did make things simpler and frankly anything would be better than the abortion that is 3rd edition combat.Do explain.
Saving throws need reworked, and needed reworked. Just tinkering with the type of saving throws did not actually achieve anything worthwhile. There is an inherent contradiction between HPs and saving throws. The contradiction is all the more apparent in the giveaway campaigns of 3rd ed. where there are far more hit points given away more easily than in 1st.This is where the 3 Defenses of Saga works really well. You have 3 static defenses. All the rolling is in the hands of the attacker. You've Got Ref Def (Mold AC and Ref Save), which is for anything that has to target and contact you to work. You've got Fort Def (defends against every Fort Save does). Like wise for Will Def. There isn't any numerical change in rolling, the rolling just shifts hands. And, you get a bonus to your Defs equal to your heroic levels (that is, any level that isn't an NPC level). You get your Abilities mods as bonuses, as usual, and a class bonus that ranges from +1 to +6. So the Defs/Saves scale quite nicely with attacks. Its kinda hard to explain in one post, best to try to find a game of Saga and see how it plays.
Clerics who had an intimate relationship with their deities -> Clerics who pick ther god from a catalogue and then never have to worry about them again.Clerics having a relationship with an NPC is a roleplaying aspect, not a mechanical aspect. The game shouldn't tell the player or the GM how dieties need to be run. If it did, the concept of RP might finally die.
No skill system -> a skill system which constantly undermines a core part of the game system (classes). Is that better? I'd call it a draw at best.Not sure what this means.
The single unified XP table is the biggest design blunder in 3rd edition. It's so stupid that it staggers me every time I see it. It is the big reason why so many classes are unblanced now. The person who designed this rule simply did not know anything about D&D (or RPGs in general) and should never have been allowed near the rules.:confused: I've never played the older editions, but how does one person get cool new abilites before some else seem balanced? Part of the excitement of leveling is what new feature do you get. It really sucks when one person misses out on XP and levels later than everyone else. Logic would suggest that it sucks even more when a class inherently misses out when others get new, cool abilities.
Indeed, on and on and on. One foolish design error after another and in the end we have a once-great game reduced to a load of tedious, bland munchkin fodder and fit only for the bin.I see a veritable treasure hoard of Opinion without support.

Jasdoif
2007-08-02, 05:00 PM
I do see some truth there. The core mechanics in 3.5 are pretty simple and easy to grasp. And then there's the legion of modifiers applied to everything, undermining the simplicity. There's even metamodifiers that let you add other modifiers to rolls, like Divine Grace. When you get to the point of things like determining how many different modifiers you have to your Charisma score, to use in addition to all your other modifiers to your saving throws...eventually those simple mechanics are buried under a mountain of modifiers and stacking rules, and it's not quite so simple.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-08-02, 05:13 PM
Rachel, the Forum Rules prohibit us from accusing people of being Trolls.

[Edit]
No idea. If in doubt ask a Moderator. Simplest answer is to either ignore posts that strike you as being of that type or put the Poster on your ignore list.

But... I'd like to caution other people not to take the bait. I know I tend to get worked up when I see, well, baiting, and having it pointed out for what it is can help me say "wait a moment, this is pointless!"
This forum has really, really weird rules.

Matthew
2007-08-02, 05:20 PM
Do explain.

Basically, I think he is saying that 2e combat was less complicated. This is true when talking about the Core Rules. Whether it's desirable is another question and a matter of opinion.


This is where the 3 Defenses of Saga works really well. You have 3 static defenses. All the rolling is in the hands of the attacker. You've Got Ref Def (Mold AC and Ref Save), which is for anything that has to target and contact you to work. You've got Fort Def (defends against every Fort Save does). Like wise for Will Def. There isn't any numerical change in rolling, the rolling just shifts hands. And, you get a bonus to your Defs equal to your heroic levels (that is, any level that isn't an NPC level). You get your Abilities mods as bonuses, as usual, and a class bonus that ranges from +1 to +6. So the Defs/Saves scale quite nicely with attacks. Its kinda hard to explain in one post, best to try to find a game of Saga and see how it plays.

Yeah, the emphasis on the roller hasn't really changed much (i.e. the attacker now rolls the D20 and the defender 'takes 10' is no different from the other way round), but the way it scales has. Saga's scaling Saving Throws I like a lot. Still, it was a lot easier to save in 2e, though the method was a bit random.


Clerics having a relationship with an NPC is a roleplaying aspect, not a mechanical aspect. The game shouldn't tell the player or the GM how dieties need to be run. If it did, the concept of RP might finally die.

This is an old chestnut. Basically, you're both right. Mechanics and fluff interacted heavily on this point in 2e, but just as often there was no actual effect on gameplay.


Not sure what this means.:confused: I've never played the older editions, but how does one person get cool new abilites before some else seem balanced? Part of the excitement of leveling is what new feature do you get. It really sucks when one person misses out on XP and levels later than everyone else. Logic would suggest that it sucks even more when a class inherently misses out when others get new, cool abilities.

Well... here is something to take into account. Not all Classes are equal in 3e. Some are better than others, so doesn't it make sense to have them advance at different rates? That was the idea in 2e. If the Classes were all balanced and used the same experience progression that would be fine, but they aren't.


But... I'd like to caution other people not to take the bait. I know I tend to get worked up when I see, well, baiting, and having it pointed out for what it is can help me say "wait a moment, this is pointless!"
This forum has really, really weird rules.

Probably best to bring it up in the Forum for Board Issues. As I understand it, the basic idea is that reacting to fire with fire (even a little) is liable to cause more trouble than it's worth.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-08-02, 05:26 PM
Well... here is something to take into account. Not all Classes are equal in 3e. Some are better than others, so doesn't it make sense to have them advance at different rates? That was the idea in 2e. If the Classes were all balanced and used the same experience progression that would be fine, but they aren't.

The problem here is with the classes (or, generally, the spell lists); this way keeping track of level and experience is easy. Arcana Evolved has been brough up before, and it's a pretty good example: experience goes like it does in third edition, but it's far better balanced than 3rd ed and 2nd ed both.

Edit: but cautioning against feeding the whatsit-under-the-bridge isn't reacting with fire. It's trying to avoid fire--quick, angry responses to baiting would be fighting fire with fire.
But whatever, I'm gonna let it drop now.

Matthew
2007-08-02, 05:38 PM
The problem here is with the classes (or, generally, the spell lists); this way keeping track of level and experience is easy. Arcana Evolved has been brough up before, and it's a pretty good example: experience goes like it does in third edition, but it's far better balanced than 3rd ed and 2nd ed both.

Yeah, as I said, if you do have balanced Classes this isn't a problem. 2e doesn't have balanced Classes, but it supposedly compensated with unequal progression. I don't mind either approach as long as it is implemented fairly. I think, for instance, that the Complete Warrior Samurai could do with a reduced cost progression!

Rachel Lorelei
2007-08-02, 05:42 PM
There are other problems with different progressions besides ease of tracking--for example, that you're behind varying amounts at varying points.

As for munchkinism in third edition... didn't the rules used to give XP ONLY for killing stuff and getting gold, plus locks and traps for "thieves"?

Matthew
2007-08-02, 05:46 PM
There are other problems with different progressions besides ease of tracking--for example, that you're behind varying amounts at varying points.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it was a perfect system, I'm just explaining to atatassault why it was in place.


As for munchkinism in third edition--didn't the rules used to give XP ONLY for killing stuff and getting gold, plus locks and traps for "thieves"?
Short answer, no. Even in 1e you could get experience for more than just killing stuff and gaining booty. However, those were mainly the objectives of that edition, which you have to take into account (i.e. Treasure was not just treasure, it was a measure of challenge and success - Powerful Monsters have more valuable Treasure and experience awards were calibrated with that in mind).
In 2e, experience was awarded for pretty much the same reasons as 3e.

Stephen_E
2007-08-02, 06:03 PM
But... I'd like to caution other people not to take the bait. I know I tend to get worked up when I see, well, baiting, and having it pointed out for what it is can help me say "wait a moment, this is pointless!"
This forum has really, really weird rules.

Basically it avoids the subtle bully, or less than subtle in many cases, that I've seen in other forums where abuse is banned. If someone's views are to far out of whack for the group meme they get accused of "hitting" ecetre, which effectively becomes a hitting tactic in itself.

The forum rule is if you think someone is trolling, PM a Moderator.
It reminds me of Rugby rules where it doesn't matter if the other guy punched 1st, if you punched you're guility to.
It does make for a politer forum (although some of that may be quality/process of moderators. Moderator activity is clear and specific when it occurs ecetre).

Stephen

Stephen_E
2007-08-02, 06:14 PM
I personally found different xp advacement for different classes a quite effective way for balancing the different strengths of classes.

That said I can't see how it would be anything other than a disaster in the free-flowing character developement system of 3.5.
In 1st and 2nd Ed, you choose your class and that was basically it.
In 3.X you're multiclassing, prestige classing, feat modifying ecetre. Basically in such an envioriment having different XP advancements for different classes would simply become a bookkeeping nightmare for most players, and a bonus to powergaming/optimising for others.

Stephen

atatassault
2007-08-02, 06:19 PM
Well... here is something to take into account. Not all Classes are equal in 3e. Some are better than others, so doesn't it make sense to have them advance at different rates? That was the idea in 2e. If the Classes were all balanced and used the same experience progression that would be fine, but they aren't.I had to give this some thought, so this is the best reply I've got: The reason you provided is a flaw I see in the system. No one class should be more powerful than the other. Magic becomes so absurdly powerful late game, its not even funny. Magic needs to be seriously toned down in 4e, (though not eliminating the possibility of powerful spells, just make them very rare and costly). Also, it only makes sense for Y amount of XP to mean the same thing for multiple classes. XP is the money of leveling up. Wouldn't you find it strange if buying dollars spent towards Product M were only were 50% of the same dollars spent towards Product N? You can't have a good economy if the value of your money isn't internally consistent.

Jasdoif
2007-08-02, 06:24 PM
Also, it only makes sense for Y amount of XP to mean the same thing for multiple classes. XP is the money of leveling up. Wouldn't you find it strange if buying dollars spent towards Product M were only were 50% of the same dollars spent towards Product N? You can't have a good economy if the value of your money isn't internally consistent.Do you happen to mean if Product M costs twice as much as Product N, because it's (supposedly) that much better? That was the gist there, some classes were simply better then others, so they cost more to buy.

I do agree that it's a flaw in the system that some classes are noticably better then others, while "costing" the same to advance.

atatassault
2007-08-02, 06:29 PM
Do you happen to mean if Product M costs twice as much as Product N, because it's (supposedly) that much better? That was the gist there, some classes were simply better then others, so they cost more to buy.I didn't mean the cost of the 2 products, I meant the value of the dollar. But I see how it could go both ways.
I do agree that it's a flaw in the system that some classes are noticably better then others, while "costing" the same to advance.:smallsmile:

I think the reason why some classes stayed a bit powered in 3E was to slowly wean those class from their previous power levels. Some people might have been upset if some classes all of a sudden got a major nerf. So I think, 4E, when it comes, will further nerf those classes.

Matthew
2007-08-02, 06:32 PM
I personally found different xp advacement for different classes a quite effective way for balancing the different strengths of classes.

That said I can't see how it would be anything other than a disaster in the free-flowing character developement system of 3.5.
In 1st and 2nd Ed, you choose your class and that was basically it.
In 3.X you're multiclassing, prestige classing, feat modifying ecetre. Basically in such an envioriment having different XP advancements for different classes would simply become a bookkeeping nightmare for most players, and a bonus to powergaming/optimising for others.

I would tend to agree.


I had to give this some thought, so this is the best reply I've got: The reason you provided is a flaw I see in the system. No one class should be more powerful than the other. Magic becomes so absurdly powerful late game, its not even funny. Magic needs to be seriously toned down in 4e, (though not eliminating the possibility of powerful spells, just make them very rare and costly). Also, it only makes sense for Y amount of XP to mean the same thing for multiple classes. XP is the money of leveling up. Wouldn't you find it strange if buying dollars spent towards Product M were only were 50% of the same dollars spent towards Product N? You can't have a good economy if the value of your money isn't internally consistent.

Sure, I agree that if experience progression is uniform so too should be the potential for power within the Classes. Magic is a huge problem, but so are the uneven application of Class Features and Feats. The thing is, the Classes were intended to be balanced in 3e, so we have to view it in that light. Hopefully, if they continue with the idea of uniform experience progression in 4e, they will be more successful in balancing the Classes and Races, but I won't be holding my breath.

For my Home Brewed and House Ruled AD&D Game, I build Races and Classes/Sub Classes in relation to experience points. Sometimes I allow variable progression within the party and sometimes I ask for uniform progression. On the whole, I haven't found it to be a problem either way, but I don't think that is a result of the way experience progression is implemented, it's just one small part of the whole, which is rather the point. If you alter one part of the game, you have to keep in mind the other parts. Variable experience progression probably wouldn't work for 3e, but it worked fine in 2e.

atatassault
2007-08-02, 06:38 PM
the uneven application of Class Features and Feats.This was solved by d20Modern. While the base classes' features were a little weak, its the progression that matters. You got a Talent (A Talent is a Class Feature chosen from thematic Talent trees) every odd level and feat every even level. I know I've been praising SW Saga since I joined, but it really does expand on this by having Talents that are comparable to 3.x or SW RCR class features. I've already explained how Magic could be handled the way the Force is handled in Saga.

Matthew
2007-08-02, 06:52 PM
Yeah, I am somewhat familiar with D20 Modern (never played it, just read the SRD over and a couple of sourcebooks), and it does strike me as better balanced. Mind, it also strikes me as being a bit more bland, which is an accusation I have heard levelled at Saga as well.
The way I see it, it's a trade off. The more variables you introduce, the less balanced things are likely to be. What I have read of Saga I have quite liked, probably because it institutes many House Rules I have advocated for 3e, but there are things I don't like as well. Certainly, there are elements of both Modern and Saga that, if adapted, would improve Dungeons & Dragons. Will the result suit everyone? Probably not, but it should be interesting anyway.

Golthur
2007-08-02, 07:00 PM
I personally found different xp advacement for different classes a quite effective way for balancing the different strengths of classes.

That said I can't see how it would be anything other than a disaster in the free-flowing character developement system of 3.5.
In 1st and 2nd Ed, you choose your class and that was basically it.
In 3.X you're multiclassing, prestige classing, feat modifying ecetre. Basically in such an envioriment having different XP advancements for different classes would simply become a bookkeeping nightmare for most players, and a bonus to powergaming/optimising for others.

Stephen

The different advancement rates weren't immune to being gamed in 1st Ed, certainly. I remember having a multiclass elven magic-user/druid that was only one level or so shy of a single class magic-user with the same XP - since druids had ridiculously low XP requirements to advance. I assumed this was because they had to fight for their uppermost levels, otherwise it made no sense to me.

Regardless, I generally agree that as it stands, you need to do one of two things:
Make the classes equivalent in power (albeit different, of course) at each level and use the same advancement table. I prefer this option, of course, even though it's harder to do :smile:
Keep the classes as they are, with differing power, and tweak the advancement charts to keep roughly the same power at equal XP amounts. This is the AD&D approach, more or less.


3.x does neither, and so it is subject to the "full casters win D&D" phenomenon.

horseboy
2007-08-02, 07:20 PM
Just had a weird thought:
Everybody remember the level caps for the demihumans? How many 2nd edition players played past these? Could it have been that since those high level spells were so powerful was because they were so rarely used? Now that "everybody" can be high level, only now is the problems becoming obvious?

Matthew
2007-08-02, 07:30 PM
Yep, that's pretty much what I said in another Thread, which I believe resulted in a discussion about your 13+ Level 2e Paladin Cavalier. :smallwink:

I did a bit of research after that and discovered that there were very few 1e and 2e Adventure Modules published for levels 13+. No idea how that reflects on the general gamer population, but in my experience it was the case that games rarely progressed to a high enough level to get access to the really powerful Spell Levels.

atatassault
2007-08-02, 07:59 PM
Yeah, I am somewhat familiar with D20 Modern (never played it, just read the SRD over and a couple of sourcebooks), and it does strike me as better balanced. Mind, it also strikes me as being a bit more bland,The blandness is mostly because of the genericness of the system. It lacks flavor.
which is an accusation I have heard levelled at Saga as well.I haven't heard that yet. Though there is a tinge of general in Saga due to the flexible nature of classes.

Saga is best described, IMO, as an augmentable system. There's a base of solid class mechanics that can be tweaked and customized to your liking. This makes it easy to keep balance in check because you don't have to worry about the base mechanics, instead you have to worry about what degree they can be augmented to, which is quite manageable.

Matthew
2007-08-02, 08:07 PM
As I recall, it was specifically aimed at the lack of customisation for Skills. Of course, given the number of Base Classes/Feats/Prestige Classes compared to D&D, there is always going to be an element of 'lacks diversity', comparatively speaking.

horseboy
2007-08-02, 08:13 PM
Yep, that's pretty much what I said in another Thread, which I believe resulted in a discussion about your 13+ Level 2e Paladin Cavalier. :smallwink:

I did a bit of research after that and discovered that there were very few 1e and 2e Adventure Modules published for levels 13+. No idea how that reflects on the general gamer population, but in my experience it was the case that games rarely progressed to a high enough level to get access to the really powerful Spell Levels.

Well, if you noticed I did say "a" high level character.:smallwink: "everyone had at least a character. You know, your "main". :smalltongue: But yeah, when you started getting that high, usually you just sorta left the plane pretty regularly. Therefore it wasn't really relevant that you had a "high level" contingent running around on the planet, since they were out in the planes.

Matthew
2007-08-02, 08:29 PM
Heh, sure, I noticed.

As I say, I can't really say anything definitively about the demographics of Levels, Players and AD&D. I just get the impression that few Players ever legitimately got their Characters up past level 13, which is to say, I would generally agree with your suggestion, the only caveat being that there will be exceptions.

atatassault
2007-08-02, 08:35 PM
As I recall, it was specifically aimed at the lack of customisation for Skills. Of course, given the number of Base Classes/Feats/Prestige Classes compared to D&D, there is always going to be an element of 'lacks diversity', comparatively speaking.You have touched upon a paradigm difference. You can either have bajillions of rigid inflexible classes and abilities to cover every possible concept, or you can have a few classes and abilities that are extraordinarily flexible. Both will achieve the same level of depth. The former requires you to memorize a bunch of things and their corresponding unique rules. The latter requires you to memorize the rules of tweaking the classes.

An analogous situation would be that of CG movies in video games: If you have massive amounts of easily accessible storage space but little processor power to spare, you can prerender the movies and save them as movie files. If you're short on storage space, but have processor power to spare, you can process the movies on the fly using the game engine. For the purposes of achieving depth of mechanical character ability, Humans are more like the second example. Thus, its far easier and quicker to have a few very flexible classes and abilities than it is to have bajillions of classes designed solely for one concept.

Aquillion
2007-08-02, 08:45 PM
By 9th level, the cleric can cast Plane Shift and Divination, his wizard ally can cast teleport. Combined, they can reach virtually any and all vendors or would be vendors of magic items.Those spells don't work as smoothly as you make them out to work. I'm going to go into a bit more detail than might seem necessary, since people people here keep bringing up the divination + plane shift + teleport solution to all sorts of problems here, and, by and large, it simply doesn't work.

First, Divination, which is the key part of the puzzle (without divinations to know where to go to buy the item that they want, the PCs won't know where to aim their teleports and plane shifts.) How does Divination work? Well, let's see:

Similar to augury but more powerful, a divination spell can provide you with a useful piece of advice in reply to a question concerning a specific goal, event, or activity that is to occur within one week. The advice can be as simple as a short phrase, or it might take the form of a cryptic rhyme or omen.A short phrase, cryptic rhyme, or omen, hmm? That's not much to go by, and you're relying heavily on the DM to be nice and give you useful information. Note, also, one very important part--it provides "a useful piece of advice." Not "complete instructions" or even "partial instructions." Most importantly, although you ask a question as part of the spell, nowhere does it say that that question is specifically and directly answered--only that you get a single piece of helpful advice related to it. If you asked "How can I obtain ultimate power quickly, easily, and efficiently, without putting anyone in danger or paying any more costs than are necessary?", the spell could quite easily give you a response of "Don't bother." It's helpful (for a certain definition of 'helpful'--your life might be happier if you take it, for instance), it's advice, it's a short phrase, and it's even plainly a reply to your question. Nobody says you have to like what Divination tells you.

Well, anyway. Now that we're clear on how Divination works, and we understand that it's probably not going to tell us outright what to do or where to go... Let's assume our DM isn't being a complete and total jerk, and we get at least some useful information (again--not explicit instructions, no matter how carefully we ask for them. Divination doesn't do that.) How well can Teleport work with just a cryptic rhyme?
You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination. The clearer your mental image, the more likely the teleportation works. Areas of strong physical or magical energy may make teleportation more hazardous or even impossible.Ow! In fact, the table Teleport provides for your chance of arriving successfully doesn't even have an entry for teleporting just based on a description--"viewed once" is the minimum requirement. So using Teleport with Divination is right out unless the Divination's response is "in your house" or something similar. (There's one way around this even with a lowly Teleport, but it has bigger problems, which I'll get to later.)

So I'll give you a break and go to Greater Teleport. (Note that we're now using 7th level spells, so the required level for the PCs becomes 13, not 9.) Surely Greater Teleport can function off of a cryptic rhyme?
This spell functions like teleport, except that there is no range limit and there is no chance you arrive off target. In addition, you need not have seen the destination, but in that case you must have at least a reliable description of the place to which you are teleporting. Whoops! Once again, you're relying on your DM being nice... but, by and large, I think that most people would agree that a "cryptic rhyme" is not the sort of reliable description that Greater Teleport requires.

Now, I mentioned one other option--yes, you can chain teleports together to scour the land using short hops, looking for someplace that matches the short rhyme you heard. The problem here is that there's nothing saying that the short phrase or rhyme is going to be particularly helpful in this regard--we could be teleporting around for months. On top of that, we're going to be travelling cross-country rather than instantly arriving at our destination, and there are risks involved in that no matter how careful you are. You'll have to rest, you might attract unwanted attention, you're probably going to have to go into towns and make gather information checks to see if you're close to the place the cryptic rhyme referred to... in short, you're basically adventuring. There are steps you can take to avoid problems, but no moreso than you could take with any other adventure.

Finally, there's one last piece to your puzzle, Plane Shift. This is where things really break down. With a sufficiently nice DM who decided to give you the best possible answer on a Divination spell, then let you use that very short description with a Greater Teleport, I'll grant you the teleport/divination trick might work. It's heavily dependant on the DM, since both spells involve a degree of DM fiat in the way you're using (with the text strongly implying a default answer of 'no'), but Plane Shift simply does not do what you want it to do here. From the text on Plane Shift:
You move yourself or some other creature to another plane of existence or alternate dimension.

...

Focus
A small, forked metal rod. The size and metal type dictates to which plane of existence or alternate dimension the spell sends the affected creatures.Whoops! Keep in mind, here, that Divination provides only a single piece of brief, cryptic advice--it is absolutely not going to tell you how to make one of those rods, no matter how carefully you word your question. Even if you ask it over and over and phrase things perfectly, you simply can't force that information out of it--e.g

"What metal do I make the rod out of?"
"Don't make it out of copper."

"What is the exact process I use to make the rod?"
"It involves a metal that is not copper."

"What is the complete process, explaining every step in detail, besides the fact that it involves copper?"
"Do not eat the rod after you have created it."

"How can I discover the process, then?"
"You will never discover the process by casting divination."

Divination is an extremely powerful spell if used properly, but it is ultimately only 5th level... it provides a single piece of brief, limited, and often cryptic advice about one subject, not exact answers to any question you can think up.

Cybren
2007-08-02, 08:48 PM
I'm looking forward to 4th edition, because worst case scenario, we all just keep playing 3.5


okay worst case scenario is that abysmal 4E sales bankrupt Wizards of the Coast and they're forced to sell the Dungeons and Dragons line to some other company.


Maybe White Wolf?

Matthew
2007-08-02, 08:55 PM
You have touched upon a paradigm difference. You can either have bajillions of rigid inflexible classes and abilities to cover every possible concept, or you can have a few classes and abilities that are extraordinarily flexible. Both will achieve the same level of depth. The former requires you to memorize a bunch of things and their corresponding unique rules. The latter requires you to memorize the rules of tweaking the classes.

An analogous situation would be that of CG movies in video games: If you have massive amounts of easily accessible storage space but little processor power to spare, you can prerender the movies and save them as movie files. If you're short on storage space, but have processor power to spare, you can process the movies on the fly using the game engine. For the purposes of achieving depth of mechanical character ability, Humans are more like the second example. Thus, its far easier and quicker to have a few very flexible classes and abilities than it is to have bajillions of classes designed solely for one concept.

Oh yeah, I agree it's a difference in approach. I think that's pretty much why so many people seem to despise the Fighter, but it's also a product selling tactic. Don't get me wrong, I prefer open ended Classes with plenty of options, I'm just explaining where accusations of 'mechanical blandness' come from. Like anything to do with RPGs, it's very much a matter of preference.

For my part, I play 1e, 2e and 3e when it's appropriate , which is how I approach any RPG. I still have my [I]Westend D6 Star Wars RPG and, chances are, that's the one I will run if I get the urge to play Star Wars, but given the option, I would also play D20 or Saga Star Wars.

However, when it comes to running Home Brewed material, I tend towards running a Home Brewed and House Ruled Game. When that is the case, then everything else becomes 'source material'.

Tor the Fallen
2007-08-02, 09:06 PM
Divination is an extremely powerful spell if used properly, but it is ultimately only 5th level... it provides a single piece of brief, limited, and often cryptic advice about one subject, not exact answers to any question you can think up.

That's why you cast it more than once. Combined with augury, which can be as simple as "Will teleporting 500 mile NNW lead me closer to that +5 sword?", and Commune (a quasit familiar gets that 1/week), it's relatively easy to set aside a day of adventure (or a week) to spam the necessary spells to get a reliable answer.

As for teleport, a simple scry will work. Even if they make their will save, you can see and hear ten feet in all directions from them. The sensor also follows at a speed of 150 feet, and lasts 1/min. level. The chance of successfully teleporting to a place you've scried is 94%. As for finding a creature to scry on, a simple gather info check, a bardic knowledge check, a knowledge:local check, or a legend lore spell would all supply enough information to make a scry with "secondhand knowledge".

A knowledge: planes check would give you the necessary info for crafting the rod. Even if the check gave vague info, you could simply make a series of Communes asking "is it this?" followed by yes-no answers.

Dausuul
2007-08-02, 09:41 PM
That's why you cast it more than once. Combined with augury, which can be as simple as "Will teleporting 500 mile NNW lead me closer to that +5 sword?", and Commune (a quasit familiar gets that 1/week), it's relatively easy to set aside a day of adventure (or a week) to spam the necessary spells to get a reliable answer.

As for teleport, a simple scry will work. Even if they make their will save, you can see and hear ten feet in all directions from them. The sensor also follows at a speed of 150 feet, and lasts 1/min. level. The chance of successfully teleporting to a place you've scried is 94%. As for finding a creature to scry on, a simple gather info check, a bardic knowledge check, a knowledge:local check, or a legend lore spell would all supply enough information to make a scry with "secondhand knowledge".

A knowledge: planes check would give you the necessary info for crafting the rod. Even if the check gave vague info, you could simply make a series of Communes asking "is it this?" followed by yes-no answers.

Remember also that you're not trying to find a super-secret hidden location. You're trying to find people who want to be found, because they want to do business. A single wizard in the high teens could organize the entire thing.

Diggorian
2007-08-02, 10:08 PM
But there is a noticeable difference. Instead of having to memorize character and vehicle rules, you've merely got to memorize the very few differences between the 2 (very, very few). Instead of a starship battle taking an entire session under RCR, a starship battle takes just as long as a character battle under Saga. That's a major improvement in my book. The only gripe I had is they took out facing, but its no big loss (since if an ISD really wanted to, it could fire all its weapons at one target in RCR anyway).

Literally noticeable, yes; figuratively noticeable as in significant to warrant comment not so much to me. New jargon is added but at it's core D20 SW vehicle combat has always been like character combat. I was expecting different since, you know, vehicles dont actually engage in combat like characters do.

I also like facing cause it's true to the films. Sure a starfighter in zero-G can spin to fire in any angle, but SW ships behave like WW2 fighters.

Giving vessels CR and CR mods I like. Giving them STR scores is kinda cool too. A YT-1300 being as nimble as a Death Star ... no.


And besides, given the fact that the Saga book writes out rules for both types of combat the phrase (which I can't find. Its probably in introductory paragraphs which I never read) "you use SWM/SSB for X combat" really means "you use our hunks of plastic to to represent characters and creatures". I'll concede a little arrogance on WotC's part, but they are a business. Its not like you don't encounter cross advertising elsewhere. So we can just brush this little comment off and use paper cutouts if we really want to.

To me cross advertising isnt the point. The point is I'd normally, if not for a discount I get on RP books, be paying as much for Saga as I did for RCR but getting less material. RCR said in effect "The minis can help with the system we have here", Saga says "The rules for starships are in this other product ya have to buy." Lame, business savy, but lame.

atatassault
2007-08-02, 10:19 PM
be paying as much for Saga as I did for RCR but getting less material.This was :censored: to death on WotC's forums. The main reason why the Saga Corebook has a smaller page count with smaller pages is that paper and ink prices are far higher than they were 5 years ago. Also, the amount of content is roughly the same. The RCR had lots of wordy language and lots of redundant language. Some enterprising soul once did and edit of the RCR for clarity, conciseness and elimination of redundancy and found you could shave 70 to 100 pages off the RCR. Also the Saga Corebook cut back on large illustrations and NPC stats (the former is obvious, they just aren't required, the latter is because its relatively easy to come up with stats for a crime lord or customs official), which shaved more off without really sacrificing anything.
"The rules for starships are in this other product ya have to buy." Completely Wrong. They only tell you that you should use the hunks of plastic they sell to represent your ships. Look at the orange side box on pg 166. It says you can use SSB if you want, because its quicker and faster, but since heroes cant affect the battle, that you should instead use the rules in this chapter [vehicle chapter] instead. Far from saying "yo, use our SSB game for starship combat".

Also, the stock YT-1300 is a bulk freighter. Much like the Container ships of Today. They ain't designed to be fast, nimble, or durable. The Millennium Falcon has been so heavily modified, its more like a heavy starfighter than it is a freighter.

Tor the Fallen
2007-08-02, 10:25 PM
Remember also that you're not trying to find a super-secret hidden location. You're trying to find people who want to be found, because they want to do business. A single wizard in the high teens could organize the entire thing.

I know. Aquillion needs it spelled out, as he's assuming the DM is trying to ****-block his efforts for, I dunno, playing D&D I guess.

horseboy
2007-08-02, 10:39 PM
That's why you cast it more than once. Combined with augury, which can be as simple as "Will teleporting 500 mile NNW lead me closer to that +5 sword?",
You should be thankful for your DM. The answer should be "eventually."

Diggorian
2007-08-02, 11:14 PM
This was :censored: to death on WotC's forums. The main reason why the Saga Corebook has a smaller page count with smaller pages is that paper and ink prices are far higher than they were 5 years ago. Also, the amount of content is roughly the same. The RCR had lots of wordy language and lots of redundant language. Some enterprising soul once did and edit of the RCR for clarity, conciseness and elimination of redundancy and found you could shave 70 to 100 pages off the RCR. Also the Saga Corebook cut back on large illustrations and NPC stats (the former is obvious, they just aren't required, the latter is because its relatively easy to come up with stats for a crime lord or customs official), which shaved more off without really sacrificing anything.

I just disagree with this editor then, as I dont consider setting detail fluff to be shaved for efficiency. I can edit RCR myself for my games, but what I pay for is new material from expert designers, which Saga does supply but not enough to warrant it's price IMHO.


Completely Wrong. They only tell you that you should use the hunks of plastic they sell to represent your ships. Look at the orange side box on pg 166. It says you can use SSB if you want, because its quicker and faster, but since heroes cant affect the battle, that you should instead use the rules in this chapter [vehicle chapter] instead. Far from saying "yo, use our SSB game for starship combat".

My quote was intended as a paraphrasing of the writers' intent by my interpretation. They do only suggest SSB for battles, but they also leave out a dedicated starship chapter that could have yielded useful material: prices for hiring passage, rules for ship modification, what are 'consumables' exactly, and other stuff I already have in RCR but more fleshed out.


Also, the stock YT-1300 is a bulk freighter. Much like the Container ships of Today. They ain't designed to be fast, nimble, or durable. The Millennium Falcon has been so heavily modified, its more like a heavy starfighter than it is a freighter.

Still a container ship should be harder to hit than the moon at equal ranges.

Tor the Fallen
2007-08-02, 11:17 PM
You should be thankful for your DM. The answer should be "eventually."

Good thing you get 8 more questions with only that one casting, huh?

It's like you guys are assuming you can only cast these spells once. They ain't rings of Wish, people, they're called 'clerics'.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-08-02, 11:41 PM
You should be thankful for your DM. The answer should be "eventually."

Contrary to popular belief, the purpose of spells with an interpretation/wording component ISN'T to screw one's players over.

atatassault
2007-08-02, 11:44 PM
My quote was intended as a paraphrasing of the writers' intent by my interpretation. They do only suggest SSB for battles, but they also leave out a dedicated starship chapter that could have yielded useful material: prices for hiring passage, rules for ship modification, what are 'consumables' exactly, and other stuff I already have in RCR but more fleshed out.Why have Vehicles and Starships seperate. I Real life, I'd see different rules for each, but Starships are like Airplanes of Star Wars. Its quite easy to consolidate them (and quite honestly, the RCR vehicle and Starship rules weren't all that different).
Still a container ship should be harder to hit than the moon at equal ranges.You've got to remember that AC/Def/Ref Def not only represents how hard you are to hit, but how effective a hit is. Its blindingly easy to hit the Death Star, but its Armor Bonus to Ref Def is going to be so ridiculously high, it doesn't matter if you can hit it or not, its not going to matter.

Diggorian
2007-08-03, 12:26 AM
Why have Vehicles and Starships seperate. I Real life, I'd see different rules for each, but Starships are like Airplanes of Star Wars. Its quite easy to consolidate them (and quite honestly, the RCR vehicle and Starship rules weren't all that different).

It's not for me a question for functionality. Saga's rules can definately work in air or space. It just doesnt show much innovation to me and less content overall. Respectable GMs may differ.



You've got to remember that AC/Def/Ref Def not only represents how hard you are to hit, but how effective a hit is. Its blindingly easy to hit the Death Star, but its Armor Bonus to Ref Def is going to be so ridiculously high, it doesn't matter if you can hit it or not, its not going to matter.

Reflex Defense implies to me slipping past shots. I'm more for the Armor as DR paradigm.

JadedDM
2007-08-03, 04:03 AM
Just had a weird thought:
Everybody remember the level caps for the demihumans? How many 2nd edition players played past these? Could it have been that since those high level spells were so powerful was because they were so rarely used? Now that "everybody" can be high level, only now is the problems becoming obvious?

Yeah, more or less. I've been playing 2E for over 10 years now, and never once have we made it past level 8. Got close once. So things like Raise Dead and Teleport only happen via scroll or high level NPCs.

Although this wasn't due to level limits. We just tend to get burned out by then. It usually takes a full year to get that far (one 5-hour session a week) on average.

Matthew
2007-08-03, 04:49 AM
I made it to Level 9 with an Elven Mage once, but that was as far as I ever got. All my other Characters tended to cap out at around Level 6. The games I DM'd tended to finish up somewhere between Level 6 and 9; last serious campaign was three years long and ninety sessions, took the Characters from Level 1 to Level 6.

Dausuul
2007-08-03, 05:51 AM
Contrary to popular belief, the purpose of spells with an interpretation/wording component ISN'T to screw one's players over.

Amen to that. If you don't want players using that sort of spell, just ban the spell entirely.

I'd also point out that divination says (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divination.htm):

"Similar to augury but more powerful, a divination spell can provide you with a useful piece of advice in reply to a question concerning a specific goal, event, or activity that is to occur within one week."

Emphasis mine.

nagora
2007-08-03, 09:25 AM
The different advancement rates weren't immune to being gamed in 1st Ed, certainly.

This is true; there is no perfect system other than to exclude players who insist on playing the rules instead of the character.


Regardless, I generally agree that as it stands, you need to do one of two things:
Make the classes equivalent in power (albeit different, of course) at each level and use the same advancement table. I prefer this option, of course, even though it's harder to do :smile:
Keep the classes as they are, with differing power, and tweak the advancement charts to keep roughly the same power at equal XP amounts. This is the AD&D approach, more or less.


I would suggest that the first option there is simply impossible, or rather more impossible. The second is far easier for a designer and can easily be tinkered with later if it turns out s/he has missed some trick which undermines or boosts the class too much.



3.x does neither, and so it is subject to the "full casters win D&D" phenomenon.

I think the problem is deeper, although this is part of it. Generally speaking D&D has always struggled with making high level character seem real* and not superhumans (er..supersentients). By making it so easy to gain levels, 3rd ed has made this worse and the classes that showed the problem first were always the spell-casters (one reason to make them earn more XP to level-up). Since 3rd edition is designed to indulge playing of 20th+ level characters in what used to be called Monty Hall campaigns, it's inevitable that full casters will dominate, by and large.

Giveaway games of the type encouraged by the 3rd edition rules simply jade players and lead to boredom and eventual abandoment of games.

Clearly any 4th ed is not going to address any of the problems I see with 3rd ed, let alone the problems I have with 1st edition and I don't think anyone at WotC wants to address any of them. Their design goals simply are totally the reverse of the 1st edition's which, IMHO, were to present a challenging game where adventure was rewarded but the emphasis was on long-term play.

Playing a character for ten years was not unusual and the rewards were low in terms of level advancement compared to 3rd edition (if playing RAW), but vast in role-playing and satisfaction terms. 3rd edition simply runs out of things to do for 30th level characters, just as 1st edition did.

*Where "real" means "someone you can relate to even if they couldn't exist".

Kurald Galain
2007-08-03, 09:30 AM
Contrary to popular belief, the purpose of spells with an interpretation/wording component ISN'T to screw one's players over.
Yes, however 'spamming' a deity with questions (as opposed to just casting the spell occasionally) is not something that every god will appreciate (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0040.html). I'd say that for flavor reasons, a spammed deity could easily send some kind of angel enforcer your way to tell you to cut it out.



Now that "everybody" can be high level, only now is the problems becoming obvious?
One of the main reasons why "problems become obvious" is the internet. People can communicate any powerful and/or game-breaking combos to one another almost instantly. Eight or ten years ago most people would not have heard of most combinations unless they found them themselves.



Maybe White Wolf?
Yay!

nagora
2007-08-03, 09:36 AM
Contrary to popular belief, the purpose of spells with an interpretation/wording component ISN'T to screw one's players over.

Contrary to popular belief, the purpose of clerics is to serve their gods, not the other way around. Bombarding your diety with questions is a good way to get them to ask YOU the question "Why exactly am should I give you all these spells every day if I end up doing all the work anyway?" Possibly followed by a flash of lightning.

nagora
2007-08-03, 09:56 AM
(I will add that I am not fond of the Magic Item Wal-Mart; I feel it takes away from the mystery and thrill of magic items. But it is a logical consequence of the way D&D is built. From 1E on, magic items in D&D have always been simply valuable tools, and it's only reasonable that people would buy and sell such tools. To make it otherwise would require a rethinking of what magic items are and how they work. Simply saying "Uh, there just are no magic shops," doesn't make much sense.)

It was workable in 1st because the ability to make magic items came so late on (in terms of character level) that it was unreasonable to believe that there were hords of items swashing around to be sold. Obviously there's a difference between the odd ring of defence +1 and a suit of +5 plate of etherealness, but by and large magic items were rare enough that the markets that existed resembled the modern day market for large diamonds - you had to know the right people to get invited to bid.

I had a system whereby I numbered all the non-trivial magic items in the DMG. Once that number of the item had been seen by the PCs that was it - there were no more. There simply was only 1 +5 Holy Avenger in the game world and if the players wanted it they had to go and get it off whoever or whatever had it. Rationing the items like this really gave the campaign a flavour boost and kicked off lots of ideas for quests and similar scenarios. Players started naming the magic swords and other weapons they encountered too, which was nice.

I can't see this making any sense in a 3rd ed. game where there simply are plenty of people capable of making items.

Golthur
2007-08-03, 11:09 AM
This is true; there is no perfect system other than to exclude players who insist on playing the rules instead of the character.
Well, exactly. AD&D, 2nd Ed. AD&D, and Skills and Powers all had their own ways of breaking the system, if you were inclined to do so. The problem I find is that with 3.x, you end up breaking the system as a full caster just by not intentionally nerfing yourself. :wink:


I would suggest that the first option there is simply impossible, or rather more impossible. The second is far easier for a designer and can easily be tinkered with later if it turns out s/he has missed some trick which undermines or boosts the class too much.

Yes, it's clear that the 2nd option is much easier to actually do in practice; it's just mechanically messier. It's a cleaner system to have a single advancement chart, and better for player head-space.

However, even with differing advancement rates, the system falls apart in the case of classes like the fighter - where there are limited/no class abilities, and everything is done via feats. Even if all we were dealing with were fighters (which would have the same advancement under either scheme), the power difference between one fighter and another can vary massively depending on choice of feats.

[As an aside, I prefer classes like the fighter where your abilities are granted by feat selection. It allows many varied characters from the same basic archetype; even if it is more work for a DM to create NPCs :wink:]


I think the problem is deeper, although this is part of it. Generally speaking D&D has always struggled with making high level character seem real* and not superhumans (er..supersentients). By making it so easy to gain levels, 3rd ed has made this worse and the classes that showed the problem first were always the spell-casters (one reason to make them earn more XP to level-up). Since 3rd edition is designed to indulge playing of 20th+ level characters in what used to be called Monty Hall campaigns, it's inevitable that full casters will dominate, by and large.

Well, yes, and also because of some fundamental design flaws:
Noncasters increase power linearly, whereas casters' power increases roughly geometrically. All you need to do is look here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm) to see that that's the case. That's also based on the (incorrect) assumption that all spells of an equal level are roughly equivalent in power.
Casters are specifically given the ability to duplicate or negate noncasters' abilities even at a very low level (e.g. knock, find traps, invisibility, spider climb, just to name a few).
Fighter saving throws got changed to be much worse than they were in AD&D. High-level fighters in AD&D were practically immune to everything. :smile:
Now, most of these were inherited from AD&D, but they were mitigated by the fact that when the thief was 11th level, the magic-user was still 9th.

As for the "super-human" phenomenon, yes, that's true. A 20th level wizard was pretty super in AD&D (although not nearly as super as in 3.x), but it was mitigated by the fact that most of his "save or Xs" wouldn't work on equivalently-high level characters very well, that he could reasonably be interrupted during casting in a fight, that he couldn't recover all of his spells with 8 hours of rest, and that most of his really, really good spells had horrible side-effects (e.g. system shock rolls "or die!" for polymorph self, aging for haste and friends, 2 to 8 days of weakness and bed rest for wish, constitution drain for permanency, etc.)


Giveaway games of the type encouraged by the 3rd edition rules simply jade players and lead to boredom and eventual abandoment of games.

Yes, I'm more or less in agreement with the ready availability of non-disposable magic items in 3.x vs. AD&D. When every 3rd level wizard can whip up magic items in his basement at minimal cost and no risk, you've got a full-blown magic item economy brewing in no time.

When disposable magic items (aside from scrolls) can't be created by anyone less than 12th level, and permanent ones by anyone less than 16th (and with the risk of permanent Constitution drain), they tend to be a lot more rare.


Clearly any 4th ed is not going to address any of the problems I see with 3rd ed, let alone the problems I have with 1st edition and I don't think anyone at WotC wants to address any of them. Their design goals simply are totally the reverse of the 1st edition's which, IMHO, were to present a challenging game where adventure was rewarded but the emphasis was on long-term play.

Playing a character for ten years was not unusual and the rewards were low in terms of level advancement compared to 3rd edition (if playing RAW), but vast in role-playing and satisfaction terms. 3rd edition simply runs out of things to do for 30th level characters, just as 1st edition did.

True, I agree. Those old-school advancement charts kept the advancement rate very low at the high level end of the game. I remember playing a high-level character (cleric, I think) for the better part of 2 years, and only going up one level. I could see some people viewing that as a problem with AD&D - the high level game somewhat peters out (rather than going out with a campaign-breaking bang like it does in 3.x :amused:). I didn't have any problems with it, but I could understand if someone did.

Nevar
2007-08-03, 11:36 AM
I know it's been talked about a little bit in this thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52317

However it made me think of areas that I would like to see imporvement in the new system if it were ever to tempt me to buy it.
1: Skills- several items with this area one being that spot or listen are not class skills to everyone. This is odd to me and the other item I have issues is the low amount of class skills for some classes
2: Balance between casters and non casters. This will be the hardest bit if you really think about it. There are a lot of ways you can take this, Make spells harder to cast, bring resistances up etc etc. however the tricky part is not nerfing them too much. In which case just the oppisite would happen and casters would be underpowered.
3: Classes: The classes that need to be either matched by bringing other classes down or these classes up to par: Monk, Barbarian and TWF Ranger

Is there anything else you all would like to see improved or other items you would like to stay the same?

PlatinumJester
2007-08-03, 11:43 AM
A balanced magic system. And maybe the deletion of the monk class because monks smell.

Quietus
2007-08-03, 11:44 AM
A balanced magic system. And maybe the deletion of the monk class because monks smell.

Not so much deletion of the Monk class, but maybe make it a variant of Fighter - or even make the increased damage progression part of Improved Unarmed Strike.

talsine
2007-08-03, 11:47 AM
why not just go to 4 basic classes (Caster, Thug, Skill Monkey, Hybrid [2 of the other 3 but toned down]) as per ther varient in UA, and let people tool box it from there. most classes are just variations on a theme, and i think something like this would work much better.

Matthew
2007-08-03, 11:47 AM
Golthur, just out of interest, what was the highest level you took a Player Character to in 2e?

Golthur
2007-08-03, 11:54 AM
Golthur, just out of interest, what was the highest level you took a Player Character to in 2e?
From 1st? 14, I think - that was the aforementioned cleric. I always ended up playing the cleric because no one else wanted to :biggrin:

That was a long, long, long campaign, though - and back in the day when I used to play every day at lunch.

My group occasionally played campaigns where we started the characters at higher than that, but that was only for specific types of campaigns (usually army- and keep- building, world-ruling sort of things).

rollfrenzy
2007-08-03, 11:58 AM
I agree, Streamline the rules. Make things less complicated and more flexible. there is something like 56 base classes in D20.

Other than that, make everything in the core books REALLY weak, so that when the splat books come out, they power creep up to powerful instead of diefic. :smallsmile:

Matthew
2007-08-03, 11:58 AM
Interesting. What would you say the average was?

PlatinumJester
2007-08-03, 11:58 AM
I think that when 4E come WotC should do a trade in (sorry if this has been mentioned but I don't really want to read 6 pages of forum chat). Anyway, it should be 5 3.5 books for 1, 4.0 core rule book (PH, DMG or MM).

At leas with 4.0 WotC might fix some of the broken crap like Wizards.

Golthur
2007-08-03, 12:03 PM
Interesting. What would you say the average was?
Well, that one was definitely on the higher end. I'd say most of the true campaigns (as opposed to one-offs) usually hit around 10 or 11 or so. Thieves and clerics were a bit higher, magic-users a bit lower, of course :wink:

Matthew
2007-08-03, 12:06 PM
That sounds about average to me. Maybe I will run a survey over at Dragonsfoot to get a wider sampling of the community.

bugsysservant
2007-08-03, 12:07 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing core classes reduced back to fighter, magic user, thief, cleric, with maybe a few others tossed in, such as druid. Then make everything more heavily based on feats, so that everytime you want a specialized class you don't hae to directly turn to a suplement. Then release supplements that give themed feats instead of core classes. Monk is a perfect example of this, since you should be able to make a monk through a few feats (unarmed strike progression+vow of poverty+something for defense).
And, of course, I would like to see really flexible, balanced magic, in core, at least. Supplements are expected to be a bit brakeable, but the solid rules of the game should have virtually no major exploits.
Also I would like to see the real world realism brought back with the slower 2nd ed. Xp progression so a sixteen year old can no longer go from working on his dad's farm to omnipotent deity crusher in a couple of years.

nagora
2007-08-03, 12:19 PM
From 1st? 14, I think - that was the aforementioned cleric. I always ended up playing the cleric because no one else wanted to :biggrin:

That was a long, long, long campaign, though - and back in the day when I used to play every day at lunch.

My group occasionally played campaigns where we started the characters at higher than that, but that was only for specific types of campaigns (usually army- and keep- building, world-ruling sort of things).

That matches my experience too: a couple of 13th and 12th level fighters, a couple of 11th and 12th level magic users and a few 7th-10th level characters over the course of many years play. Not all my characters, mind.

Aquillion
2007-08-03, 12:23 PM
Good thing you get 8 more questions with only that one casting, huh?

It's like you guys are assuming you can only cast these spells once. They ain't rings of Wish, people, they're called 'clerics'.Since Divination doesn't answer questions, only provides vague advice related to a single topic, and since the spell offers no guarantee that multiple castings will give more specific results (or even DIFFERENT results if they fundamentally touch on the same topic), multiple castings are not guaranteed to be useful.


Contrary to popular belief, the purpose of spells with an interpretation/wording component ISN'T to screw one's players over.No, it isn't. The purpose of the wording on Divination is to ensure that both players and DMs understand that the spell is meant to provide vague, often cryptic advice related to a topic--not exact answers to questions, not detailed instructions, not information good enough to let you just skip the adventure or grab the magic item you want without working for it.

Sure, if one of my players asked a question like this, I'd give them good advice as long as they weren't asking for something totally absurd--something like "if you befriend the duke of XYZ, he can lead you to what you seek" or "if you slay the dragon of XYZ, you will find your reward" or whatever. But the point is that the assumption that some people have, that divination + teleport + plane shift + augury = "I get whatever I want" is flatly absurd. None of the spell descriptions support anything remotely close to that interpretation. A DM who answers questions directly and noncryptically via Divination, either in response to one spell or through a combination of that spell and Augury, is not playing by the spells as they're written. That's fine if that's what floats your group's boat, but you have to realize your DM is playing Santa here.


Remember also that you're not trying to find a super-secret hidden location. You're trying to find people who want to be found, because they want to do business. A single wizard in the high teens could organize the entire thing.Not true at all. We're working under the assumption that magic items are extremely rare, and that very few people want to sell them. You're not looking for a magical Quik-E-mart; you're looking for someone who has the item you seek, whom you could theoretically convince them to part with it. If you ask for someone who is, specifically, selling that item at the moment, there's a good chance that your spell just won't find anyone anywhere in the (accessible and hospitable) planes selling it just then... the assumption I indicated at the part of this was that magic items are like valuable paintings, unique works of art. They require highly skilled craftsmen who make personal sacrifices and devote extended periods of labor to create them, they require masterwork equipment that takes even more time and a master craftsman to create, and they cannot be mass-produced. All of these things suggest are never sold in bulk, that there are no places, anywhere, where any specific magic item of any power is available regularly, and that and these items (when available) are at best sold through auction or some similarly difficult method.

Even if we assumed that all the above methods worked (they don't), they amount to, at most, creating a form of magical e-bay... even with e-bay operating, you still can't find valuable, hard-to-make, handcrafted items that require sacrifices from skilled craftsmen whenever you want them to appear.


"Similar to augury but more powerful, a divination spell can provide you with a useful piece of advice in reply to a question concerning a specific goal, event, or activity that is to occur within one week."
Again:

"Similar to augury but more powerful, a divination spell can provide you with a useful piece of advice in reply to a question concerning a specific goal, event, or activity that is to occur within one week."Not an answer. Not the exact piece of advice that you ask for. Not instructions.

"Give up" is perfectly useful piece advice in some situations, although I'll grant it's a bit harsh unless the question is totally absurd and relates to something the players can't hope to accomplish. "Your current course of action is more dangerous than you know" or "This path will cost you more than you can pay" are both useful advice, if not advice you'd usually want to hear. "If you would know the answers, seek the blind king" is perfectly useful advice, and could serve as the start of a campaign. "Your answers are found in the lost library of Quam" is extremely useful advice, all things considered. "No living man can answer that request" sounds like terrible advice until you think about it--it actually narrows things down considerably (no living men, anywhere, know about the place you're going? That tells you quite a few things.)

Weredwarf
2007-08-03, 12:30 PM
First I would like the alignment systeam to be completely gotten rid of. It turely suprises me how often other poeple in my group think instead of what thier chacter would do, they think what would a Chaotic good Chacter would do.

Second, the only half-breeds should be half-elf, half-orc and half-dwarf, Half-ogres and half-dragons are just wrong.

Finally, Removing the wizard I think the sorceror should be the main spell casting class.

Reinboom
2007-08-03, 12:34 PM
I, personally, wouldn't like the simplification down as far as what is stated above. It would be, I'd imagine, strenuous to try to rebalance everything like so and would involve WotC releasing something that isn't as thoroughly tested as the current system. And yes, the current system is thoroughly tested - just not by WotC.
I would like to see minor mid game simplifications. Currently, the person who digs through the rules has the greatest advantage. For example, haste also providing a +12 to jump checks.. sort of. Most of these synergies I wish to see noted in descriptions of the spells, at the very least. Also, stat enhancers - give them minute long cast time but make them last longer perhaps? It's annoying to apply these in the midst of battle.

I would also like to see them playtest with both a group of optimizers and their normal group - balance for the normal group and try to become more balanced (though, ultimately impossible to completely balance for) the optimizers.

-Edit-
Agreed to the removal of the alignment system.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-08-03, 12:35 PM
First I would like the alignment systeam to be completely gotten rid of. It turely suprises me how often other poeple in my group think instead of what thier chacter would do, they think what would a Chaotic good Chacter do.

Second, the only half-breeds should be half-elf, half-orc and half-dwarf, Half-ogres and half-dragons are just wrong.

Finally, Removing the wizard I think the sorceror should be the main spell casting class.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Why would they get rid of a system because people play it incorrectly, when getting rid of it only involves the DM saying "We're getting rid of alignment"

There's a reason why 3.5e was not 4e, it's because a whole new edition would not be tweaks to wizard balance, or replacing the monk class, a new edition would be an entirely new ruleset. Speculating on "do you think the monk will be better" is pointless, as pretty much all of what we're used to will be obsolete if and when 4e comes.

talsine
2007-08-03, 12:37 PM
First I would like the alignment systeam to be completely gotten rid of. It turely suprises me how often other poeple in my group think instead of what thier chacter would do, they think what would a Chaotic good Chacter do.

I totaly forgot about this, this is key. Alignment != fun/role playing/balance. Alignment is a relic that needs to be thrown away

Reinboom
2007-08-03, 12:40 PM
There's a reason why 3.5e was not 4e, it's because a whole new edition would not be tweaks to wizard balance, or replacing the monk class, a new edition would be an entirely new ruleset. Speculating on "do you think the monk will be better" is pointless, as pretty much all of what we're used to will be obsolete if and when 4e comes.

Not... quite true. Look between AD&D and AD&D 2nd edition.

Zophiel
2007-08-03, 12:58 PM
There are a lot of mechanics that have been introduced in Star Wars Saga Edition that I would love to see in D&D 4e; in fact, a friend and I were speculating the other day that Saga might be a sort of open playtest for mechanics WotC already intends to put into 4e.

(As a caveat, please not that I'm not editorializing on the degree of fitness for those mechanics in Star Wars, nor commenting on anything else contained in Saga beyond the new mechanics.)

Although I enjoy micromanaging skill points, in practical terms I'd just as soon move away from skill ranks. However, I'd like to see more degrees of competency built into the system than Saga presents.

On the whole, I would prefer taking a new direction with the HP mechanic, since that system has bothered me in D&D for quite some time now. I understand the players are playing heroes, who should by all rights be capable of avoiding an ignominious death by dint of their status as protagonists, but D&D doesn't have enough mechanics-based discrimination between "I'm okay" and "Man down!" for my tastes.

Pare down the number of base classes, make them archetypal, and present a good array of prestige classes. To wit, I would really like to see some current base classes be repurposed as prestige classes (bard, ranger, paladin and monk, most notably; but that's old hat for D&D). Similarly, offer those base classes more options in terms of diversification. I think that, on the conceptual level, Saga did a great job with this by effectively constructing talent trees. Now, the notion of a progression tree is hardly novel, but I really like the idea, and would like to see D&D latch onto it.

Adding drama dice/action points/fate points has been done time and again in all manner of systems, and I mostly like the concept. Implementations vary, and d20 systems already have several iterations of this sort of mechanic in place, but I would like to see something to this effect added to 4e.

Remove saves, replace them with defenses. This is something else I'm taking from Saga. Basically the traditional saves are converted to defense values that become the DC an aggressor must beat in order to affect the target with some manner of effect. I prefer that the actor (in the context of the one taking the action) be the one rolling dice, or both actor and actee making opposed rolls, but I don't like the flip-flop D&D has had in place for some time now.

I would like to see character powers, and especially magic, rebalanced on a per-encounter basis. Assuming a set number of encounters per day strikes me as rather silly and formulaic, and I feel a much more elegant default approach would be for a character to have his full bag of tricks at his disposal each encounter. This would in all likelihood tone down magic to a significant degree, but I don't perceive that to be a bad thing. Alternatively, or perhaps additionally, perhaps some especially potent spells or abilities could be useable once per day, but have them take so long to activate that using them in combat would be impractical (but perhaps activating them before an anticpated fight could be done, so I'm thinking the activation time shouldn't be prohibitively long).

Stop charging characters XP for doing things. In a system where XP is not originally designed as currency for advancement (as it is with WFRP and White Wolf games), charging characters XP for using certain spells or making magic items seems contrary and inequitable. Given that D&D is essentially a game about teamwork, penalizing the wizard for making a magic sword for a member of the team by, at least theoretically, causing him to gain his next level more slowly than the rest of the teammates, strikes me as being against the spirit of the game. I'm not saying there should be no balancing mechanic for magic item creation, but I am saying that I believe the current mechanic is a failure.

I have more, oh boy do I have more, but things get even more nitpicky beyond this point. And after looking over my wish list, I can't help wondering if it would even look like D&D any more if all these changes were made. But really, that's a pretty subjective argument, given how drastic a departure 3e was from 2e.

Also, officially republish Birthright. I would love to see them bring back that gem for 4e.

Citizen Joe
2007-08-03, 01:05 PM
Well you've got three basic actions: Feats, skills, spells. So your basic templates would follow that.

That actually boils down to mundanes, adepts (magic powered feats) and full casters.

And then take out the losing spells when you cast them business.

oh wait, I'm talking about Earthdawn :smallbiggrin:

KoDT69
2007-08-03, 01:36 PM
Let's just go back to AD&D 2.5 :smallwink:

Roderick_BR
2007-08-03, 02:00 PM
I agree that the magic system should both be more flexible to make casters more versatiles, and reducing the total impact they make at each level, as to not break the game, and fixing the problems with warrior types.

Skills still look good to me. As for the spot and listen example, they are not all class skills because high level adventurers are supposed to be better at some areas than others. Remember that adventurers are already more powerful than normal characters.

The alignment system works fine for me, but they could add it as optional for people that doesn't like it. Removing it completely will just turn D&D into generic medieval fantasy game #456. The battle of good vs evil is one of D&D most classic scenarios, and the alignment system reinforces it.
I completely disagree that simply taking it off the game will make it any better. It'll just give the players excuses to wreck the game (more than they already do, anyway)

As for simplifying classes. I'm not sure about it, so I'm not adding anything.

What I'd like to see:
New HP system, maybe using the Wounds alternative rules.
Defense system, like some games use, but without losing the use of armor.
A rule set that doesn't require you to play with a book under your arm for everytime your character moves.

Interesting note: The BAB system was used on a free system released by TSR shortly before WotC buying it and announcing 3E. It means that many successful rulesets out there available for D20 games can be added to official D&D games sooner or later

Dausuul
2007-08-03, 02:26 PM
Let me see. I shall start with...

MAGIC
1. As others have said, spells should replenish on a per-encounter basis. For spells that cause problems if you can cast them all day, include a mildly expensive material component or similar balancing factor; or give them an hours-long casting time.
2. While I personally detest Vancian wizards, enough people love them that it's not really fair to just scrap them entirely. However, Vancian casting should be wizard-only; all other casters should be spontaneous. Furthermore, wizards shouldn't have to rest 8 hours to prepare spells any more (see point #1), so the party doesn't have to stop and sleep in the middle of the dungeon. 5 minutes of spell prep should be enough to replenish the wizard's arsenal.
3. Tone down casters at higher levels. In particular:
3a. Remove Natural Spell and the self-buffs that result in CoDZilla. All combat buffing spells should be touch-range, no personal combat buffs.
3b. Change the polymorph line to grant a specified list of monsters a la summon monster, rather than allowing players to dig through the entire Monstrous Manual.
3c. Remove most save-or-die and save-or-lose effects. Recalibrate save-or-suck.
3d. Impose material component or XP costs on many of the "logistical" spells, including teleport, divination, et cetera.
3e. Likewise, impose material component or XP costs on spells that infringe on the territory of other classes, like knock and invisibility.
4. Reinstate the Intelligence-based limits from 2E on how many spells wizards can learn (of course, recalibrate it for the current stat system; say 6 + Int modifier per spell level). Add a feat that lets a wizard learn extra spells.
5. Allow non-casters to take certain item creation feats, particularly Craft Magic Arms and Armor.
6. Make it official and explicit that the XP required for item crafting can be provided by another character, so long as that character is willing.
7. Standardize material components to a smallish list; for instance, diamond dust as a material component for healing and resurrection-type spells, black sapphires for necromantic spells, et cetera.
8. Allow sorcerors to specialize, granting them extra spells known in exchange for severe limitations on their schools available.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-08-03, 02:44 PM
Contrary to popular belief, the purpose of clerics is to serve their gods, not the other way around. Bombarding your diety with questions is a good way to get them to ask YOU the question "Why exactly am should I give you all these spells every day if I end up doing all the work anyway?" Possibly followed by a flash of lightning.

And the answer would be "because I kill mother@#$!ing dragons in thy name, Lord; and yea verily, the holy mace I seek would enable me to smite that lich thou wishest me to."

What's more, Divination doesn't contact your deity. That's Commune--which can be passed off to agents of the deity, and if I were a deity that's what I'd do--which is going to get you accurate yes-or-no answers.
It never mentions anything about invoking the wrath of your god, likely because almost all gods are too intelligent and wise to be upset by their cleric asking the god's servants (who are doing... what, exactly?) questions he needs the answer to, and also because they don't intervene on a whim. If you have your deity smite his cleric for casting divinations, that's really obnoxious DMing. Where was that deity when the party nearly got TPKed? How about when the Fighter died and the cleric didn't have a Raise Dead yet? Why doesn't he ever make his presence known in ways other than smiting characters for trying to get magic items so they can do their jobs (serving the deity martially, in the cleric's case) better?


As to Divination, my point was simply that it's not all right to intentionally screw your players over like people seem to enjoy doing with Wish spells. Just because it says "might take the advice of a cryptic rhyme or phrase" doesn't mean that it has to be as cryptic as possible. The more grand the scope of the question the more cryptic the Divination is forced to be, more likely; "What did I have for breakfast?" should get you an answer of "eggs and toast" (or whatever it was).

In any case, Plane Shifting to a major planar metropolis should certainly make getting the item you want a lot easier. Where there's demand, there's supply, and if the PCs were the only people with class levels above four or so, then dragons would've eaten everyone already.


And sorry, but bringing up system shock rolls isn't a good way to make people think fondly of 2nd ed... those were terrible design.

Arbitrarity
2007-08-03, 02:59 PM
Or, in conjunction with the cleric, the wizard can call each major diety one a month or so, and play 20 questions, at the same time.

And the reason the god should hand out those spells is because it's an intrinsic part of godhood, because it helps conversion of others, thereby enhancing the god himself, and because it's nice to have your clerics do stuff rather than having to wander around blowing stuff up.

Really, screwing with divinations for fun, and making literally true answers, merely forces players to ask very, very, carefully designed questions, just like wish. "Were I one mile northwest of my current postion, would "X item" be in closer proximity to me than it is currently?"

And often, DM's don't like major planar metropolises :smallwink: . And remember plane shift has a focus component, so getting to Sigil may be difficult, as those foci are potentially difficult to find. Gate works, though.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-08-03, 03:03 PM
This is true; there is no perfect system other than to exclude players who insist on playing the rules instead of the character.
And 2E does absolutely nothing to discourage powergaming.


I would suggest that the first option there is simply impossible, or rather more impossible. The second is far easier for a designer and can easily be tinkered with later if it turns out s/he has missed some trick which undermines or boosts the class too much.
Impossible? Arcana Evolved. There, it's been done.
Designing XP tables that'll still hold true after a dozen splatbooks is going to be just as challenging. Underestimating a class' power (as was done with wizards, apparently) is going to lead to problems, either because it's more powerful or because the XP tables are wrong as a result of that underestimation (and no, they're not going to be adjusted--were they ever in 2nd edition? How would you adjust the XP table for a class that is destroying one game while being useless in another?).


I think the problem is deeper, although this is part of it. Generally speaking D&D has always struggled with making high level character seem real* and not superhumans (er..supersentients). By making it so easy to gain levels, 3rd ed has made this worse and the classes that showed the problem first were always the spell-casters (one reason to make them earn more XP to level-up). Since 3rd edition is designed to indulge playing of 20th+ level characters in what used to be called Monty Hall campaigns, it's inevitable that full casters will dominate, by and large.
3rd edition is not desiogned to indulge level 20+ games, and I don't know where you got that idea. The epic levels got less attention than anything else, including places that are really hot.

"Monty Haul" is a term for excessive, disproportionate loot. Following the Wealth-By-Level tables is not excessive or disproportionate, because that is what the PCs are supposed to have--monsters depend on it and take it into account. "Monty Haul" isn't having 13,000 gp worth of gear per character at level 6 like you're supposed, it's having a +5 Holy Flaming weapon.

Making it "so easy" to gain levels was a result of people's desire to experience the whole game (which, nevertheless, takes place largely in the low-to-mid levels) rather than having to game for years to do so.



Giveaway games of the type encouraged by the 3rd edition rules simply jade players and lead to boredom and eventual abandoment of games.
That's funny, I haven't noticed that in my games. Nor are they "giveaway". They are based on different assumptions, and magic items are factored into encounter difficulty. I think if my games were boring me, I'd know (and stop playing them).
Heck, take a look at Red Hand of Doom, Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, or any other good third edition published modules.
Then compare them to the "silly riddles and lots of hack-and-slash" that is original White Plume Mountain.


Clearly any 4th ed is not going to address any of the problems I see with 3rd ed, let alone the problems I have with 1st edition and I don't think anyone at WotC wants to address any of them. Their design goals simply are totally the reverse of the 1st edition's which, IMHO, were to present a challenging game where adventure was rewarded but the emphasis was on long-term play.
What 3rd edition did for the game was good. It turned the system from a nonsensical pile of unconnected mechanics into something with, well, a consistent system, eminently more customizeable and easier to work with.
1st edition was written before much was really known about game design, and how to do it well. Heck, so was third, but it was a lot closer.


Playing a character for ten years was not unusual and the rewards were low in terms of level advancement compared to 3rd edition (if playing RAW), but vast in role-playing and satisfaction terms. 3rd edition simply runs out of things to do for 30th level characters, just as 1st edition did.
"30th level characters" don't happen. When they do, it's rare, and generally at the end of a long campaign.

Are you kidding? YES playing a character for ten years was unusual... it's ten years! It's hard enough to keep a cohesive gaming group for one. I suppose in those idyllic days of yore, no one ever got tired of playing (or DMing), no one ever moved away or went to college, no one ever found something better to do with their weekend, but rather all players played the same character for years on end?
Sure.

3rd edition has faster advancement because people don't play for ten years. Frankly, I can't imagine any game I'd want to play for ten years--even a really good game like Nobilis, or one suited to it like Amber, much less D&D. There are other stories to be told, you know? And other priorities than being able to meet the same people every weekend for ten years.
That's why people level faster: because it makes the game easier and more fun to play.



Edit: presumably, making tuning forks of the right frequencies based on your knowledge of the planes is what the Knowledge: the Planes skill is for, no?

Dausuul
2007-08-03, 03:16 PM
And the answer would be "because I kill mother@#$!ing dragons in thy name, Lord; and yea verily, the holy mace I seek would enable me to smite that lich thou wishest me to."

That is definitely sig-worthy. :smallsmile:

Rachel Lorelei
2007-08-03, 03:19 PM
Aw, my first sigging! Thank you. :smile:

Was... was it good for you?

Dausuul
2007-08-03, 03:20 PM
Aw, my first sigging! Thank you. :smile:

Was... was it good for you?

Honey, I've never sigged anybody as good as you. :smallbiggrin:

Arbitrarity
2007-08-03, 03:24 PM
From the 3.5 PHB description of Plane Shift pg 262.

Focus: A small, forked metal rod. The size and metal type dictates to which plane of existence or alternate dimesnion the spell sends the affected creatures. Forked rods keyed to certain planes or dimensions may be difficult to come by, as decided by the DM.

Though logically, making a rod of a certain size and metal shouldn't be that tricky, and it should be something under knowledge (The planes). Then again, some DM's like to set impossible DC's, it seems. *cough*railroad*cough*

ZeroNumerous
2007-08-03, 03:26 PM
And the answer would be "because I kill mother@#$!ing dragons in thy name, Lord; and yea verily, the holy mace I seek would enable me to smite that lich thou wishest me to."

And this is why I prefer Cloistered Cleric to regular Cleric. He doesn't ask his god for a new mace, he just borrows spells and is on his way. :smalltongue:

Dausuul
2007-08-03, 03:26 PM
From the 3.5 PHB description of Plane Shift pg 262.


Though logically, making a rod of a certain size and metal shouldn't be that tricky, and it should be something under knowledge (The planes). Then again, some DM's like to set impossible DC's, it seems. *cough*railroad*cough*

Man, if there's one thing above all that I want out of 4E, it's an end to all the random friggin' foci and material components. I mean, having spells require expensive components is fine, it's just... tuning forks?

Tuning forks?

WHY?!?

Arbitrarity
2007-08-03, 03:28 PM
So that you might resonate on the appropriate frequency to enter the astral plane, and enter another realm.

Now, Sympathetic Vibration. That's what a real tuning fork is for.

ZeroNumerous
2007-08-03, 03:30 PM
I mean, having spells require expensive components is fine, it's just... tuning forks?

This is why I'd prefer material components to dealt with as follows:

"Assortment of components that cost XX gold and are consumed in the casting of this spell."

Much cleaner than "you need black onyxes that cost exactly 25 gold". Where, exactly, are all these onyxes coming from? Is there some poor fool mining these things and just barely turning a profit? If there is, then where is he? Shouldn't a caster be able to go there and mine his own for free?

Matthew
2007-08-03, 03:49 PM
And 2E does absolutely nothing to discourage powergaming.

Well, there are less available 'exploits' and the books were reasonably vocal on the subject. Depends what you mean by Power Gaming.


Impossible? Arcana Evolved. There, it's been done.
Designing XP tables that'll still hold true after a dozen splatbooks is going to be just as challenging. Underestimating a class' power (as was done with wizards, apparently) is going to lead to problems, either because it's more powerful or because the XP tables are wrong as a result of that underestimation (and no, they're not going to be adjusted--were they ever in 2nd edition? How would you adjust the XP table for a class that is destroying one game while being useless in another?).

Yeah, they were adjusted from time to time, but not in anything like a methodical way. It was just stuff like 'add 10% XP requirement to gain ability Y' and it was rare enough at that (I can only think of one instance off the top of my head). I don't really think it makes much of a difference as to whether you use unified or non unified XP progression tables, so long as they are balanced against other aspects of the game.


3rd edition is not desiogned to indulge level 20+ games, and I don't know where you got that idea. The epic levels got less attention than anything else, including places that are really hot.

Heh, I think he was using hyperbole there. In particular, I have in mind Adventure Paths that go from Level 1 to Level 20. As we were discussing earlier, it was very rare in 2e for Characters to exceed Level 12. More importantly, though, the power discrepency between a Level 1 and Level 20 Character in 3e is greater than it has ever been before, which does nothing to address the old 'Orcs aren't a challenge anymore' syndrome. Mind, you could always stack Class Levels on them, but it seems kind of patch up job (I actually think this was intentionally ignored for 3e, and that the Game Designers have just accepted it as 'part of the game').


"Monty Haul" is a term for excessive, disproportionate loot. Following the Wealth-By-Level tables is not excessive or disproportionate, because that is what the PCs are supposed to have--monsters depend on it and take it into account. "Monty Haul" isn't having 13,000 gp worth of gear per character at level 6 like you're supposed, it's having a +5 Holy Flaming weapon.

Indeed, though many feel 2e was much quieter on the wealth side of things, that was actually a bit of an illusion. The books and literature constantly advised keeping magic low, but the amount of loot in published adventures varied widely. Monty Haul has always been a subjective term. I do see 3e as 'Monty Haul', but it's all in the eye of the beholder.


Making it "so easy" to gain levels was a result of people's desire to experience the whole game (which, nevertheless, takes place largely in the low-to-mid levels) rather than having to game for years to do so.

I would like you to source that idea. I have never really known anybody who felt that way about the game, but I suppose somebody must have felt that way. I suspect it was more a design concept and selling point [People like going up levels!].


That's funny, I haven't noticed that in my games. Nor are they "giveaway". They are based on different assumptions, and magic items are factored into encounter difficulty. I think if my games were boring me, I'd know (and stop playing them).
Heck, take a look at Red Hand of Doom, Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, or any other [i]good third edition published modules.
Then compare them to the "silly riddles and lots of hack-and-slash" that is original White Plume Mountain.

Indeed. Of course, this is all preferential stuff. I constantly see modules like this being awarded 5 or 1 Star, simply because they are love/hate scenarios.


What 3rd edition did for the game was good. It turned the system from a nonsensical pile of unconnected mechanics into something with, well, a consistent system, eminently more customizeable and easier to work with.
1st edition was written before much was really known about game design, and how to do it well. Heck, so was third, but it was a lot closer.

*Le sigh*. What's the point in saying this? Why not say "in my opinion", please try and keep unproveable absolutes out of the discussion, it will only incite angry retorts from people who don't feel the same way and see such comments as patronising.


"30th level characters" don't happen. When they do, it's rare, and generally at the end of a long campaign.

Which is how it used to be for Level 13+ Characters, which suggests they have only moved the goal posts, not the design concept.


Are you kidding? YES playing a character for ten years was unusual... it's ten years! It's hard enough to keep a cohesive gaming group for one. I suppose in those idyllic days of yore, no one ever got tired of playing (or DMing), no one ever moved away or went to college, no one ever found something better to do with their weekend, but rather all players played the same character for years on end?
Sure.

Yes indeed, it was unusual. Remember, though, for a long time D&D was pretty much the only RPG on the block and very popular.


3rd edition has faster advancement because people don't play for ten years. Frankly, I can't imagine any game I'd want to play for ten years--even a really good game like Nobilis, or one suited to it like Amber, much less D&D. There are other stories to be told, you know? And other priorities than being able to meet the same people every weekend for ten years.
That's why people level faster: because it makes the game easier and more fun to play.

Come on now, this is again a very subjective statement. Some people do meet up regularly for long periods, even years, some don't. The default advancement rate of D&D 3e is set for those who don't. It's no big deal. Faster doesn't always equal easier or more fun, for some people it does, for others not so much.

Zincorium
2007-08-03, 05:12 PM
My biggest problem with alignment is that about 80% of the time I've seen it come up it's seemed very forced and artificial. People do not neatly separate out into nine groups that are very subjective in nature.

The DM should not have to worry about the alignment of every single NPC and monster, and in 3.x they do, simply because of the range of mechanics which directly correspond with alignment.

If alignment is present, it should be given as an optional system which doesn't have strict mechanical implementation.

Fhaolan
2007-08-03, 05:31 PM
1st edition was written before much was really known about game design, and how to do it well. Heck, so was third, but it was a lot closer.

I disagree with this. Game design did exist and was well known back in the days of 1st edition AD&D. And it was applied to that ruleset. It had an *awful* editing job done on it, but the game design was quite good.

It seems very complex and difficult to learn now-a-days, but the standards to judge by have changed. D&D back then was an outgrowth of Wargaming. Some of the top wargames of the time were incredibly complex and difficult to master, because people wanted hard games. If they wanted something easy, they'd go play checkers or tic-tac-toe or something. You want to play Star Fleet Battles? You slog through the thousand some pages of strangely indexed rules. Good game design of the time dictacted that a single action must have fifteen tables with twenty pages of footnotes, or it's too easy to be bothered with.

In the first ten years as a gamer I knew a group of dedicated gamers who were working through some kind of wargame, one of the members was our DM's father. Never found out exactly what the game was because I wasn't interested in Napoleonic wars at the time. They would play every Sunday, at the same time we were playing 1st edition D&D. They'd come in every once and awhile and leaf through our books out of curiousity. They were amazed at how simplistic D&D was. Where were the tables modifying movement rates by slope of terrain? Where were the precipitation modifiers? AD&D was obviously a kid's game, to prepare us to play 'real' games like whatever they had set up in the basement.

During those ten years, they supposedly played through four battles. Just four. A turn for one player might take two, three days RL.

That's the game design that was being used by Gygax et al when putting together D&D the first time. It was not meant to be a child's game. It was not meant to be easy. It was meant to be *hard* and *difficult to master*. And it fulfilled the design criteria.

Dausuul
2007-08-03, 06:06 PM
That's the game design that was being used by Gygax et al when putting together D&D the first time. It was not meant to be a child's game. It was not meant to be easy. It was meant to be *hard* and *difficult to master*. And it fulfilled the design criteria.

I find it very hard to believe that the only design criterion was complexity. It sounds as if the main design goal of the wargame was extreme realism. AD&D 1E failed abysmally at that.

Good computers are extremely complex machines. This does not mean that making your machine extremely complex will cause it to be a good computer.

Arbitrarity
2007-08-03, 06:15 PM
Or that making very complex code to run on the computer makes it good code. Or that monopolizing the processor is a good thing.

x = 1
while x > 0:
x += 1

Matthew
2007-08-03, 06:24 PM
No, you're right there. Complexity and realism was not necessarily the design aim of D&D, though, to be fair, there was a lot of 'aiming for realism' in conjunction with game development. For instance, the 'Armour to Weapon To Hit Modifiers' were a combination of 'realism' and 'game design', being as they differentiated the capabilities of the Weapons relative to the Armour they encountered, but were also modelling the real world. Same is true of the weapon lengths and room for use tables.

Realism, though, was very often sacrificed in AD&D in favour of playability, which is mentioned frequently by Gygax in the text.

The sole aim of AD&D was to provide a fun game. The criteria of 'fun' was not the same in 1e as it is in 3e. Adventures were geared for large numbers of combatants (eight or more Player Characters). The aim of the game was to survive and progress, literally, kill stuff, take their stuff, kill more powerful stuff, get better stuff. It wasn't limited to this paradigm, but that does seem to have been the focus of the game.

In many ways it was very like Heroquest and Advanced Heroquest in the level of abstraction employed, though there wasn't the same degree of emphasis on precise movement in combat (though it certainly could be focused on that).

High mortality rates were expected at lower levels, as were rich rewards in experience and gold when successful. It was supposed to be primarily a game of skill and luck, not the story driven adventures of modern RPGs. In many ways it was very simple in its approach.

However, it could also be very complex. As has been noted, AD&D was literally undeveloped by some standards. Very few actions were codified, which meant that there was greater freedom within the system to do as you wished. This did place a great strain on the DM.

Explaining how the game works and appreciating why it works the way it does relies on undermining a great number of things that we have come to see as desirable traits for modern RPGs. It doesn't make it better or worse, just different.

nagora
2007-08-03, 06:35 PM
And the answer would be "because I kill mother@#$!ing dragons in thy name, Lord; and yea verily, the holy mace I seek would enable me to smite that lich thou wishest me to."

What's more, Divination doesn't contact your deity. That's Commune--which can be passed off to agents of the deity, and if I were a deity that's what I'd do--which is going to get you accurate yes-or-no answers.

Fair point; I didn't have the rules to hand. Although the point still stands that many players treat their deities as useful bonuses rather than accept that their clerics have responsibilities too (not many pacifist gods, or ones that don't believe in healing magic being worshiped by PCs, are there?).


Where was that deity when the party nearly got TPKed? How about when the Fighter died and the cleric didn't have a Raise Dead yet? Why doesn't he ever make his presence known in ways other than smiting characters for trying to get magic items so they can do their jobs (serving the deity martially, in the cleric's case) better?

There is an assumed balance of power thing going on between the gods; otherwise they would not need clerics at all. That is the underlying reason for those things.


As to Divination, my point was simply that it's not all right to intentionally screw your players over like people seem to enjoy doing with Wish spells. Just because it says "might take the advice of a cryptic rhyme or phrase" doesn't mean that it has to be as cryptic as possible.

No, it should be cryptic (or whatever) enough to be fun and challenging. Just handing the players a map is neither, I think that's the real point most people are trying to make here.



The more grand the scope of the question the more cryptic the Divination is forced to be, more likely; "What did I have for breakfast?" should get you an answer of "eggs and toast" (or whatever it was).

In 3rd ed the answer to that would be "I only deal in future events", but I agree with the general point.


In any case, Plane Shifting to a major planar metropolis should certainly make getting the item you want a lot easier. Where there's demand, there's supply, and if the PCs were the only people with class levels above four or so, then dragons would've eaten everyone already.

All of that is subject to the campaign world/universe but the idea that there are no NPCs of higher than 4th or that dragons are common and/or active enough to eat everyone are not ones I would share.



And sorry, but bringing up system shock rolls isn't a good way to make people think fondly of 2nd ed... those were terrible design.

I never mentioned system shock, but it was a simple and logical idea. Moreso than hit points, really. It was mainly a game balance thing and it worked fine in that role. It may have been slightly clunky but it served a purpose that the game needed. What took its place?

Matthew
2007-08-03, 06:45 PM
What took its place?

Fortitude Saves, I would say, though for the most part they simply don't require System Shock Rolls for many effects that they did in the past. Of course System Shock Rolls were just a variation on Constitution Checks, so there's not a huge amount of difference.

Golthur
2007-08-03, 06:47 PM
And sorry, but bringing up system shock rolls isn't a good way to make people think fondly of 2nd ed... those were terrible design.

Yes, that was me who brought that up - and the point wasn't that they were good game design.

On the contrary, no one likes a "roll or die". However, the purpose that these sorts of penalties served was valuable - adding a risk or serious negative consequence to using the most powerful magic. A magic user in AD&D would have to think twice before using polymorph self, and determine if the situation were really worth the risk. There is no corresponding risk (even if it isn't "roll or die") in 3.x for these things.

KIDS
2007-08-03, 06:54 PM
Partially agreeing with what was said about alignments above...erm, anyways...

Personally, while it also affects caster vs. noncaster balance, I'd like to see the game balanced per encounter and not per day ratio; Tome of Battle, Warlock, Complete Mage and etc. are all good and measured steps in this direction. I hate it when I am supposed to throw 2 normal encounters and 2 ninja encounters per day so "I can keep casters in check". Keep them in check my ***!

Otherwise, I don't think there's actually room for too many improvements. It's all about very minor fixes, and most of the good work has been done already.

Matthew
2007-08-03, 07:07 PM
Actually, there was no System Shock Roll for Polymorph Self, just for Polymorph Other.

nagora
2007-08-03, 07:12 PM
And 2E does absolutely nothing to discourage powergaming.

Doesn't it? I've never looked at 2nd ed (literally: I've never even seen a 2nd ed book in real life) but 1st edition makes it very clear that powergamers are not to be treated as serious players in many places throughout the DMG an PHB.



Impossible? Arcana Evolved. There, it's been done.
Designing XP tables that'll still hold true after a dozen splatbooks is going to be just as challenging.

That's a problem with splatbooks.



Underestimating a class' power (as was done with wizards, apparently)


Wizards were not underestimated. High level casters were a known problem in 1st edition for years. The 3rd edition "designers" choose to ignore the problem, which is not the same thing as underestimating it. My personal opinion is that they were powergamers themselves and wanted wizards to be ultra-powerful.


is going to lead to problems, either because it's more powerful or because the XP tables are wrong as a result of that underestimation (and no, they're not going to be adjusted--were they ever in 2nd edition? How would you adjust the XP table for a class that is destroying one game while being useless in another?).

I was thinking about classes that were generally problematic like 1st edition Illusionists who were underpowered. The tables could, and should have been adjusted in later editions with little knockon effect for existing characters.



3rd edition is not desiogned to indulge level 20+ games, and I don't know where you got that idea.

Reading these forums, mainly.


The epic levels got less attention than anything else, including places that are really hot.

What do you mean?


"Monty Haul" is a term for excessive, disproportionate loot. Following the Wealth-By-Level tables is not excessive or disproportionate, because that is what the PCs are supposed to have--monsters depend on it and take it into account. "Monty Haul" isn't having 13,000 gp worth of gear per character at level 6 like you're supposed, it's having a +5 Holy Flaming weapon.

The issue is more about how easy it is to get to 6th level.


Making it "so easy" to gain levels was a result of people's desire to experience the whole game (which, nevertheless, takes place largely in the low-to-mid levels) rather than having to game for years to do so.

That's a design choice, and it's simply not one I agree with.


That's funny, I haven't noticed that in my games. Nor are they "giveaway". They are based on different assumptions, and magic items are factored into encounter difficulty. I think if my games were boring me, I'd know (and stop playing them).
Heck, take a look at Red Hand of Doom, Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, or any other good third edition published modules.
Then compare them to the "silly riddles and lots of hack-and-slash" that is original White Plume Mountain.

WPM is certainly not a good module but I don't think Ravenloft is either - it's trite and obvious. Hey, that's subjectivity for you!



What 3rd edition did for the game was good. It turned the system from a nonsensical pile of unconnected mechanics into something with, well, a consistent system, eminently more customizeable and easier to work with.

It is more customisable by dint of being much blander and it sacrifices balance and challenge at the alter of "simplicity".


1st edition was written before much was really known about game design, and how to do it well. Heck, so was third, but it was a lot closer.

1st edition was the result of a lot of playtesting by people who cared about the game; 3rd edition was a collection of badly thought-through power-gamers' mastabatory house rules which robbed the game of almost everything that made it worth playing [edit:to me].

Don't get me wrong: 1st edition is far from perfect and when I sat down one night 15 years ago and listed what was wrong with it I got 2 pages worth of mostly one-line subjects. On reflection, I realise now that some of those things (1 minute combat rounds, for example) were actually not flaws but in any case 3rd edition adds to the list without taking anything off it, as far as I can see. Apart from non-lethal combat; I think that's better now.


"30th level characters" don't happen. When they do, it's rare, and generally at the end of a long campaign.

Well, maybe 30th was an overstatement but these boards certainly give the impression that there are a lot more PCs in the 15th+ levels than there used to be and there are people playing, or claiming to play 20th+ level.


Are you kidding? YES playing a character for ten years was unusual... it's ten years! It's hard enough to keep a cohesive gaming group for one. I suppose in those idyllic days of yore, no one ever got tired of playing (or DMing), no one ever moved away or went to college, no one ever found something better to do with their weekend, but rather all players played the same character for years on end?
Sure.

Some players came and went and some games have paused but I'm playing characters today that have been on the go for 8 years and I'm in a game which is on hold until the DM comes back which is 15 years old. My entire gaming group, and the other groups that they are in outside of mine, can all tell the same story.


3rd edition has faster advancement because people don't play for ten years. Frankly, I can't imagine any game I'd want to play for ten years--even a really good game like Nobilis, or one suited to it like Amber, much less D&D.

Its not the game so much as the characters. The game enables that, or it should.


There are other stories to be told, you know? And other priorities than being able to meet the same people every weekend for ten years.

Gaming groups are like the carpenter's favourite hammer: the head's been replaced twice and the shaft three times.


That's why people level faster: because it makes the game easier and more fun to play.

As I said, that's a design choice. Some of us prefer to travel in style rather than worry about getting there quickly.

nagora
2007-08-03, 07:19 PM
Fortitude Saves, I would say, though for the most part they simply don't require System Shock Rolls for many effects that they did in the past. Of course System Shock Rolls were just a variation on Constitution Checks, so there's not a huge amount of difference.

Is there still a limit on resurrections (= starting CON)?

Matthew
2007-08-03, 07:23 PM
Is there still a limit on resurrections (= starting CON)?

Not really. Now you lose a level or if you are level 1, you lose 2 Points of Constitution.

Arbitrarity
2007-08-03, 07:23 PM
Well, if you die enough to go back to level 1, you start losing con each time rezed, though only 2/death. And leveling makes you lose those levels instead. And true resurrection negates level loss.

Roland St. Jude
2007-08-03, 07:26 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: I'm not sure we even need one 4E thread. Most version comparison threads get locked before too long. But I do know that we don't need two of them. So I've merged the pro-4E and con-4E threads. Please play nice!

Golthur
2007-08-03, 08:22 PM
Actually, there was no System Shock Roll for Polymorph Self, just for Polymorph Other.

Hmm. :confused:

There was another risk to polymorph self then, if I remember correctly - maybe losing your own consciousness and adopting that of your new form? Something like that.

Shows you how long it's been since I've even looked at an AD&D book, though... :smile:

Back onto the 4E topic, and less on the 1.x vs. 3.x, I can make my wishlist, certainly, but it's likely not WoTC's:

More generic classes, a la d20 Modern, if not completely classless. Your character's final rack of abilities is determined essentially by feat and talent selection. I like the fighter as a model for this, but you need more and better feats. This also means fewer base classes, in general, which goes against the current "splatbook of the week" mentality.


Toned-down magic, enough to bring them roughly in line with the other classes - both in the actual effectiveness of the individual spells, and in the rate at which they are acquired. Magic shouldn't immediately negate the need for other characters' existences. Some of the current splatbooks (XPH, for example) are better in this approach. "Save or die"s and "save or suck"s need to be reworked as a whole.


Souped-up melee classes, without necessarily having to go the whole wuxia route a la ToB. Again, this is to bring melee and magic back into line with each other. It should be a nice balance.


The capability of running either a low magic or a high magic campaign within the rules, without running into horrendous balance problems. Different folks like different games, you know? Heck, even I like to mix it up a bit from campaign to campaign. This means goodbye to the WBL, goodbye to requiring magic items for AC, and so on.

There are more, but I'll throw these ones out there to be torn to shreds :wink:

Stephen_E
2007-08-03, 08:28 PM
Re: Wizards -
It's interesting to note that Wizards aren't enourmously overpowered if you're playing blaster Wizards.
As far as I can see, what makes Wizard's uber-powerful at higher levels are the quantity of "no-save", "no SR" spells, combined with the ease to overwhelm Saves and SR. In particular the switch from High level Fighters having awesom saves, so that save or die/save or suck spells would probably bounce.

This suggests that you could reduce a lot of the Wizard problem simpy either dumping some of those non-blaster spells, or increasing their level, and fixing the melee class saves. Spells per encounter rather than per day would indeed be a good step, but it would require some harsh restructuring (read "booting many icon power spells) of the spell lists, as well as fixing the crap saves issue. I can't see the designers doing it. Maybe if you split spells into spontaneous and Ritual magic. Spontaneous gets done per encounter, ritual takes longer to cast and is per week or something. Burning action pts ecetre for the ritual magic might also work.

Re: Clerics: -
Clerics were deliberately boosted to make people play them because heal machines were needed, and heal machines tend to be boring. Simple - making the heal skill actually do serious healing so that you don't need a Cleric "heal machine" and push Clerics much more into the cloistered cleric area. Aslo strip off all the power "I'm a combat tank" nad give them to the Paladin instead.

Re:Fast leveling and roleplaying vs mechanics-
Outside of Thieves, IME in older editions outside of hit points and new spell levels, leveling up didn't really get you as much, so there was such a drive to level up, which did in some ways leave you to put more into the roleplaying. In 3.X leveling up gives you so much more for your PC, attritbute increases, feats - which go to feat trees, skills points, more class abilities, and all of this often working towards your prestige class. It's not that the earlier editions made it easier to roleplay, or that the current edition makes it harder, but their is so much more going on with your character mechanically, and leveling up is so much more important, that it is easier to get distracted by the mechanics. Those mechanics to give a lot more choice to the game, which is good, but.....
I don't know how to fix this, but at least identifying where the problem is occuring might help.
Maybe if they split up some of this stuff from the mechanic of leveling. Allowed PC's to buy feats and skills with XP as seperate from what happens when you level up.

Stephen

Matthew
2007-08-03, 09:02 PM
Hmm. :confused:

There was another risk to polymorph self then, if I remember correctly - maybe losing your own consciousness and adopting that of your new form? Something like that.

Shows you how long it's been since I've even looked at an AD&D book, though... :smile:

Heh. No, there were no drawbacks for Polymorph Self, save the limited duration and the form you choose (which you could change over the course of the Spell). However, the benefits of transformation were not very great:


Polymorph Self
(Alteration)

Range: 0 Components: V
Duration: 2 turns/level Casting Time: 4
Area of Effect: The caster Saving Throw: None

When this spell is cast, the wizard is able to assume the form of any creature, save those that are noncorporeal, from as small as a wren to as large as a hippopotamus. Furthermore, the wizard gains its physical mode of locomotion and breathing as well. No system shock roll is required. The spell does not give the new form's other abilities (attack, magic, special movement, etc.), nor does it run the risk of the wizard changing personality and mentality.
When the polymorph occurs, the caster's equipment, if any, melds into the new form (in particularly challenging campaigns, the DM may allow protective devices, such as a ring of protection, to continue operating effectively). The caster retains all mental abilities, including spell use, assuming the new form allows completion of the proper verbal and somatic components and the material components are available. A caster not used to a new form might be penalized at the DM's option (for example, -2 penalty to attack rolls) until he practices sufficiently to master it.
Thus, a wizard changed into an owl could fly, but his vision would be human; a change to a black pudding would enable movement under doors or along halls and ceilings, but not the pudding's offensive (acid) or defensive capabilities. Naturally, the strength of the new form is sufficient to enable normal movement. The spellcaster can change his form as often as desired for the duration of the spell, each change requiring a round. The wizard retains his own hit points, attack rolls, and saving throws. The wizard can end the spell at any time; when voluntarily returning to his own form and ending the spell, he regains 1d12 hit points. The wizard also will return to his own form when slain or when the effect is dispelled, but no hit points are restored in these cases.

So, there you go...


Back onto the 4E topic, and less on the 1.x vs. 3.x, I can make my wishlist, certainly, but it's likely not WoTC's:

More generic classes, a la d20 Modern, if not completely classless. Your character's final rack of abilities is determined essentially by feat and talent selection. I like the fighter as a model for this, but you need more and better feats. This also means fewer base classes, in general, which goes against the current "splatbook of the week" mentality.

Agreed. Never going to happen, though.


Toned-down magic, enough to bring them roughly in line with the other classes - both in the actual effectiveness of the individual spells, and in the rate at which they are acquired. Magic shouldn't immediately negate the need for other characters' existences. Some of the current splatbooks (XPH, for example) are better in this approach. "Save or die"s and "save or suck"s need to be reworked as a whole.

Agreed. Might possibly happen.


Souped-up melee classes, without necessarily having to go the whole wuxia route a la ToB. Again, this is to bring melee and magic back into line with each other. It should be a nice balance.

Not really my thing, but couldn't hurt; depends on the degree.


The capability of running either a low magic or a high magic campaign within the rules, without running into horrendous balance problems. Different folks like different games, you know? Heck, even I like to mix it up a bit from campaign to campaign. This means goodbye to the WBL, goodbye to requiring magic items for AC, and so on.

Agreed. This would probably have to take the form of multiple Campaign Sourcebooks, so it's unlikely (as they don't sell well), but possible. Problem would be lack of focus on the product development line.


Re: Wizards -
It's interesting to note that Wizards aren't enourmously overpowered if you're playing blaster Wizards.
As far as I can see, what makes Wizard's uber-powerful at higher levels are the quantity of "no-save", "no SR" spells, combined with the ease to overwhelm Saves and SR. In particular the switch from High level Fighters having awesom saves, so that save or die/save or suck spells would probably bounce.

This suggests that you could reduce a lot of the Wizard problem simpy either dumping some of those non-blaster spells, or increasing their level, and fixing the melee class saves. Spells per encounter rather than per day would indeed be a good step, but it would require some harsh restructuring (read "booting many icon power spells) of the spell lists, as well as fixing the crap saves issue. I can't see the designers doing it. Maybe if you split spells into spontaneous and Ritual magic. Spontaneous gets done per encounter, ritual takes longer to cast and is per week or something. Burning action pts ecetre for the ritual magic might also work.

Yep, it's a whole bunch of things that have conspired to power up Wizards. Easier access to higher levels, reduced saves for other Classes relative to Spells and removal of many limiting factors on the Spells themselves. Really, though, as long as you allow Wizards access to the sorts of Spells available at Levels 13+, they are always going to be over powerful.


Re: Clerics: -
Clerics were deliberately boosted to make people play them because heal machines were needed, and heal machines tend to be boring. Simple - making the heal skill actually do serious healing so that you don't need a Cleric "heal machine" and push Clerics much more into the cloistered cleric area. Aslo strip off all the power "I'm a combat tank" nad give them to the Paladin instead.

Disagree fairly strongly. Clerics are mechanically fine, the problem is Spells, Turn Undead and various Meta Magic advantages. Reduced Casting I could get on board with.


Re:Fast leveling and roleplaying vs mechanics-
Outside of Thieves, IME in older editions outside of hit points and new spell levels, leveling up didn't really get you as much, so there was such a drive to level up, which did in some ways leave you to put more into the roleplaying. In 3.X leveling up gives you so much more for your PC, attritbute increases, feats - which go to feat trees, skills points, more class abilities, and all of this often working towards your prestige class. It's not that the earlier editions made it easier to roleplay, or that the current edition makes it harder, but their is so much more going on with your character mechanically, and leveling up is so much more important, that it is easier to get distracted by the mechanics. Those mechanics to give a lot more choice to the game, which is good, but.....
I don't know how to fix this, but at least identifying where the problem is occuring might help.
Maybe if they split up some of this stuff from the mechanic of leveling. Allowed PC's to buy feats and skills with XP as seperate from what happens when you level up.

Stephen

Not much you can do about this, other than powering everything weak up or powering everything strong down. Mainly, though, it's the power spread over the levels. I doubt it's ever going to go away now.

Thinker
2007-08-03, 09:29 PM
Re: Wizards -
It's interesting to note that Wizards aren't enourmously overpowered if you're playing blaster Wizards.
As far as I can see, what makes Wizard's uber-powerful at higher levels are the quantity of "no-save", "no SR" spells, combined with the ease to overwhelm Saves and SR. In particular the switch from High level Fighters having awesom saves, so that save or die/save or suck spells would probably bounce.



Look at Ray of Enfeeblement and Enervation. It's just suck. No amount of SR, saves, or anything will counter that. You would have to eliminate all such abilities.

Arbitrarity
2007-08-03, 09:31 PM
:smallbiggrin: Ranged touch attacks.

But then again, who has high touch AC?

Matthew
2007-08-03, 09:33 PM
That's where you need Opposed Rolls for defence. Give the Fighter a chance to Dodge!

Arbitrarity
2007-08-03, 09:36 PM
The fighter has a chance. It's the wizard's attack roll.

Seriously, an attack roll is like a save, except that it goes after a static defense, wheras the save goes after a static DC. The only difference is that there can be discrepancy in the difference between attack and AC compared to save and DC. This is actually common at higher levels, where landing a touch on the Tarrasque is massively easy, and beating its fort save can be tough.

Matthew
2007-08-03, 09:45 PM
Er, yeah, I know. What I'm saying is that the Fighter should get the chance to make a Dodge on top of the Attack Roll (so the attack is reliant on passing two chances). Active Defence makes a huge difference in my experience.

Arbitrarity
2007-08-03, 09:49 PM
Oh, I see. I thought you meant non-static AC, but what you mean is.. wait.

You mean *Wizard attack +1d20, > fighter AC* *Fighter dodge, AC + 1d20 > wizard attack* wizard miss?

Or *Wizard attack +1d20, > fighter AC* *Fighter dodge, AC -10 + 1d20 > wizard attack* wizard miss?

EDIT: Or is it *Wizard attack + 1d20 < Fighter AC (normal) - 10 +1d20* Wizard miss?

Matthew
2007-08-03, 09:52 PM
Basically, how I currently envision it working for 3e is like this:

Wizard Rolls Attack - Result: X+1
Fighter's Touch AC = X
Fighter uses Immediate Action to make a Reflex Save at DC X+2.
Fighter Rolls Save - Result: X+2.
Fighter successfully Dodges Attack.

Arbitrarity
2007-08-03, 09:56 PM
So the wizard attacks, if he hits, fighter makes a ref save (as an immediate action), vs DC (Attack roll)+1, if he suceeds, he dodges?

And you give all classes (according to current standards) an effective +1 touch AC :smallbiggrin:

I think I've got it now.

Matthew
2007-08-03, 09:59 PM
Heh, heh. Yeah, but it rewards those who take Lightning Reflexes and have a high Dexterity or what have you. I was thinking of a Feat that would grant +4 to Dodge Attempts as well...

It would almost certainly work better with Saga save progression, that's for sure.

Golthur
2007-08-03, 11:26 PM
Heh. No, there were no drawbacks for Polymorph Self, save the limited duration and the form you choose (which you could change over the course of the Spell). However, the benefits of transformation were not very great:

So, there you go...
The fact that it's explicitly listing system shock and losing your own mentality indicates I'm not completely crazy here. These must be polymorph other and polymorph any object, or something. Now I'm going to have to go dig out the old boxes full of my old AD&D stuff... <grumble, grumble>

Re: Generic classes.

Agreed. Never going to happen, though.
Yeah, I know this one's a pipe dream. The funny thing is that it's likely you could end up making more and better books with a generic class system than the current incarnation.

Re: Magic tone-down.

Agreed. Might possibly happen.
For balance reasons, I think it will have to; but the end result won't be very D&Dish.

Re: Melee beef-up.

Not really my thing, but couldn't hurt; depends on the degree.
Really? That surprises me. I thought you were all about boosting up the fighter-types. :amused:

As I said, though, my view is boost up the fighters without having to do the whole flaming-blade-turn-invisible-run-up-the-walls-teleport-wherever-I-want wuxia thing. It's cool to have that stuff when you're in that sort of mood, but it's just not suitable for every sort of campaign.

Re: Low and high magic.

Agreed. This would probably have to take the form of multiple Campaign Sourcebooks, so it's unlikely (as they don't sell well), but possible. Problem would be lack of focus on the product development line.
I'm not sure that's necessary. Even if, in the core rules, they just put in a section "if you want high magic, do this" and "if you want low magic, do this", or set up the magical equipment system so that it balances both sides of all equations equally (e.g. attack bonuses vs. AC, saving throw bonuses vs. save DCs/ability boosts, etc.) so that the net impact of magical equipment is a +15 vs. +17 bonus instead of a +7 vs. +8.


Yep, it's a whole bunch of things that have conspired to power up Wizards. Easier access to higher levels, reduced saves for other Classes relative to Spells and removal of many limiting factors on the Spells themselves. Really, though, as long as you allow Wizards access to the sorts of Spells available at Levels 13+, they are always going to be over powerful.
Yeah, I more or less agree with this. As I said before, in AD&D, high level fighters could practically treat magic like water off a duck and just go mash the sucker. I've already mentioned the harsh limiting factors on the spells themselves, as well.


Disagree fairly strongly. Clerics are mechanically fine, the problem is Spells, Turn Undead and various Meta Magic advantages. Reduced Casting I could get on board with.
I don't entirely agree here, and agree more with Stephen_E's original comment. I'm pretty sure the reason why clerics are as powerful as they are is simply because people don't want to play them, image-wise. The archwizard or mighty warrior is inherently cool in a cliched fantasy way that the warrior-priest really isn't, IMHO. So, WoTC gave them mechanical advantages to outweigh the flavour problems.

I'm personally in favour of tossing divine magic out entirely, but that might be my current campaign setting talking. :amused:

When I'm in other moods, I can see the value of holy warriors, and direct divine interaction, wars of the gods, holy/unholy crusades, and all that jazz.

I just wish the distinction between the two magic types (arcane vs. divine) would make sense instead of the current muddled nonsense it is now.

Matthew
2007-08-03, 11:43 PM
The fact that it's explicitly listing system shock and losing your own mentality indicates I'm not completely crazy here. These must be polymorph other and polymorph any object, or something. Now I'm going to have to go dig out the old boxes full of my old AD&D stuff... <grumble, grumble>

Yep, as I said, Polymorph Other requires System Shock Rolls and Personality Subsuming Checks.


Really? That surprises me. I thought you were all about boosting up the fighter-types. :amused:

As I said, though, my view is boost up the fighters without having to do the whole flaming-blade-turn-invisible-run-up-the-walls-teleport-wherever-I-want wuxia thing. It's cool to have that stuff when you're in that sort of mood, but it's just not suitable for every sort of campaign.

Heh, depends on the context. In general, I would rather power everything down (Monsters included). Realistically, though, Melee Classes have to be powered up for advances on 3e, so in the context of fixing 3e I'm happy to power them up.


I'm not sure that's necessary. Even if, in the core rules, they just put in a section "if you want high magic, do this" and "if you want low magic, do this", or set up the magical equipment system so that it balances both sides of all equations equally (e.g. attack bonuses vs. AC, saving throw bonuses vs. save DCs/ability boosts, etc.) so that the net impact of magical equipment is a +15 vs. +17 bonus instead of a +7 vs. +8.

Thing is, it will confuse their base audience and make adventure writing too complicated. I could best imagine it working in an Unearthed Arcana style.


I don't entirely agree here, and agree more with Stephen_E's original comment. I'm pretty sure the reason why clerics are as powerful as they are is simply because people don't want to play them, image-wise. The archwizard or mighty warrior is inherently cool in a cliched fantasy way that the warrior-priest really isn't, IMHO. So, WoTC gave them mechanical advantages to outweigh the flavour problems.

I'm personally in favour of tossing divine magic out entirely, but that might be my current campaign setting talking. :amused:

When I'm in other moods, I can see the value of holy warriors, and direct divine interaction, wars of the gods, holy/unholy crusades, and all that jazz.

I just wish the distinction between the two magic types (arcane vs. divine) would make sense instead of the current muddled nonsense it is now.
I can see this point of view, but I just like Clerics. Reduce their access to magic I'm fine with, ditching their warrior style, not so much. That's not to say I dislike Cloistered Clerics, just that I think you should have the option of which you play. Anything that further conflates the Paladin with the Cleric = bad, as far as I am concerned.

Yeah, I have a very precise view of how I want to distinguish Clerics from Wizards.

ZeroNumerous
2007-08-03, 11:54 PM
Wizard Rolls Attack - Result: X+1
Fighter's Touch AC = X
Fighter uses Immediate Action to make a Reflex Save at DC X+2.
Fighter Rolls Save - Result: X+2.
Fighter successfully Dodges Attack.

Uh.. No. Thats abit of a bad idea. A wizard doesn't have a great attack roll to begin with. Level 20? His ranged touch is 10+5. The Fighter's Reflex is 6+DEX. And this basically makes Rogues completely immune to all touch attacks. That +8 Reflex save versus the Wizard's +5(absolute maximum) attack roll isn't exactly doing great. That is, of course, after the wizard tries to hit the Rogue's 14 Touch AC(15 with Dodge).

I'd advocate a gimping of Wizards, but making them completely ineffective blasters would just send people scurrying to Save-or-sucks as quickly as possible.

Thinker
2007-08-03, 11:58 PM
Uh.. No. Thats abit of a bad idea. A wizard doesn't have a great attack roll to begin with. Level 20? His ranged touch is 10+5. The Fighter's Reflex is 6+DEX. And this basically makes Rogues completely immune to all touch attacks. That +8 Reflex save versus the Wizard's +5(absolute maximum) attack roll isn't exactly doing great. That is, of course, after the wizard tries to hit the Rogue's 14 Touch AC(15 with Dodge).

I'd advocate a gimping of Wizards, but making them completely ineffective blasters would just send people scurrying to Save-or-sucks as quickly as possible.

I think the point is to get wizards to not use rays like Enervation and Ray of Stupidity. In general the only magic system that could be balanced is one built from the ground up with balance in mind.

Think about console RPGs. Blasting works because instant-kills and other such things never do for the party.

Matthew
2007-08-04, 12:08 AM
Indeed. The whole point is to make Characters less vulnerable to Touch Attacks.

A Rogue 20 with Dexterity 30 (+10) has a Reflex Save of +22. He also has a Touch AC of 20.

A Wizard 20 with Dexterity 20 (+5) has a Base Attack Bonus of 15.

He shoots the Rogue with a Fireball, the Rogue has to beat DC 23 (i.e. roll 2+. He shoots him with a Touch Attack, the Wizard only needs 5+. Doesn't sound fair to me. Now the Wizard needs a to roll a [7 + X], where X is the D20 Roll of the Rogue, but requires an Immediate Action.

Each to his own, though.

ZeroNumerous
2007-08-04, 12:50 AM
Think about console RPGs. Blasting works because instant-kills and other such things never do for the party.

But blasting spells which require touch attacks would also fail, thereby making blasting useless.


A Rogue 20 with Dexterity 30 (+10) has a Reflex Save of +22. He also has a Touch AC of 20.

A Wizard 20 with Dexterity 20 (+5) has a Base Attack Bonus of 15.

First: Dexterity is maybe a tertiary stat for wizards. INT/CON come first. I'd assume he'd have, at most, a 14.

Second: Dexterity is a primary stat for a rogue, however. I'd assume he'd put his highest possible into it. Lets assume this is an 18.

Third: The wizard wouldn't bother with +DEX items or +DEX stat ups. Why? They're really not needed. +INT/+CON is much more cost effective.

Fourth: The rogue would have dumped all his stat ups and items into buffing his DEX. This leaves the Rogue with 34 DEX versus 14(maybe an 18). Thats a +14(tops) versus a touch AC of 22. More with a Ring of Deflection(which, honestly, who doesn't have?)

At absolute maximum, a rogue would be sporting a touch AC of 28(base of 28+armor). The wizard might have +16 if he cares about touch attacks. Thats on top of the +24 Reflex Save(Oh, and Improved Evasion).

Thats a 12 to hit the Rogue's touch AC. 35% of the time he succeeds. The Rogue succeeds on the Dodge on(assuming a nat-20) a 12.

Tor the Fallen
2007-08-04, 12:58 AM
This is why I'd prefer material components to dealt with as follows:

"Assortment of components that cost XX gold and are consumed in the casting of this spell."

Much cleaner than "you need black onyxes that cost exactly 25 gold". Where, exactly, are all these onyxes coming from? Is there some poor fool mining these things and just barely turning a profit? If there is, then where is he? Shouldn't a caster be able to go there and mine his own for free?

Elemental plane of earth. An endless supply of all things earthy.

Fhaolan
2007-08-04, 01:01 AM
I find it very hard to believe that the only design criterion was complexity. It sounds as if the main design goal of the wargame was extreme realism. AD&D 1E failed abysmally at that.


Not the only one, but it was definately one of the criteria. These games were designed for *at minimum* college students and older. Arrogance, elitism, and derision for those who just 'don't get it' was rife and encouraged among players. Back then I was told more than once that if I wanted to play something with cleaner rules to go play checkers or tic-tac-toe. My gaming group at the time was laughed out of the first gaming convention in the region because we were high-school students. "You're obviously lost. The swings and slides are in the kiddie park across the road. Do you need a crossing guard to get there?"



Good computers are extremely complex machines. This does not mean that making your machine extremely complex will cause it to be a good computer.

Really? You should tell that to the dev department I work in. They won't listen to you, but I'd get a giggle out of their expressions. :smallsmile:

Where I work, needless complexity is called 'job security'. :smallbiggrin:

Tor the Fallen
2007-08-04, 01:18 AM
Uh.. No. Thats abit of a bad idea. A wizard doesn't have a great attack roll to begin with. Level 20? His ranged touch is 10+5. The Fighter's Reflex is 6+DEX. And this basically makes Rogues completely immune to all touch attacks. That +8 Reflex save versus the Wizard's +5(absolute maximum) attack roll isn't exactly doing great. That is, of course, after the wizard tries to hit the Rogue's 14 Touch AC(15 with Dodge).

I'd advocate a gimping of Wizards, but making them completely ineffective blasters would just send people scurrying to Save-or-sucks as quickly as possible.

1. A fighter may only take one immediate action/round. As spellcraft isn't a class skill, he's unlikely to know what spell is being flung at him. He can choose to dodge a harmless cantrip, only to get blasted with an ennervation.

2. Blaster casters aren't bad. They're actually quite powerful. It's the fact that WotC has decided that if you make an attack role, the defender doesn't get SR, or a save or both. Combine that with an effect that is save-or-die (because that's what having 0 dex or 1 str is), and the wizard can really shut you down [i]fast[i]. In 3.0, Ray of Enfeeblement requires a fort save. It's vastly less useful. (Geas, though, has no save, and Harm reduces an opponent to 1d4 HP, no save. And then there's Haste. It's give and take).

3. True Strike. For the low, low cost of a couple level 1 spells, a high level wizard can pretty much hit anything. Besides, touch attacks will still devestate giants, dragons, and other huge creatures.

ZeroNumerous
2007-08-04, 01:27 AM
1. A fighter may only take one immediate action/round. As spellcraft isn't a class skill, he's unlikely to know what spell is being flung at him. He can choose to dodge a harmless cantrip, only to get blasted with an ennervation.

Oops, look at that. One spell/round too. Unless he's using Quicken. But at that level, why not use one of your much better 9th level spells?


2. Blaster casters aren't bad. They're actually quite powerful.

Proposing a Reflex Save-or-Miss would make them useless against anything with Evasion, Good Reflex, or DEX heavy sneaky types.


3. True Strike. For the low, low cost of a couple level 1 spells, a high level wizard can pretty much hit anything. Besides, touch attacks will still devestate giants, dragons, and other huge creatures.

Ok, thats one round the wizard wastes to buff himself for one shot against a rogue. So the wizard now takes two rounds just to hit? And even then, theres still the chance that the rogue nat-20s his Dodge save. Further, no matter what he always takes half damage due to Imp. Evasion.

Tor the Fallen
2007-08-04, 01:29 AM
Oops, look at that. One spell/round too. Unless he's using Quicken. But at that level, why not use one of your much better 9th level spells?[quote]

Quicken spell.

[quote]Proposing a Reflex Save-or-Miss would make them useless against anything with Evasion, Good Reflex, or DEX heavy sneaky types.

Bummer.


Ok, thats one round the wizard wastes to buff himself for one shot against a rogue.

Quicken Spell.


And even then, theres still the chance that the rogue nat-20s his Dodge save. Further, no matter what he always takes half damage due to Imp. Evasion.

Bummer.

ZeroNumerous
2007-08-04, 01:31 AM
Quicken spell.

So he wastes an eighth level spell slot when he has much better options? I don't understand the logic here.


Quicken Spell.

Ok, he wastes a fifth level spell slot to buff himself for a second round. Thats an even worse trade off than before!

Since when did killing a lone rogue constitute expendature of an eighth level spell slot? Seriously?

Tor the Fallen
2007-08-04, 01:37 AM
So he wastes an eighth level spell slot when he has much better options? I don't understand the logic here.

Ok, he wastes a fifth level spell slot to buff himself for a second round. Thats an even worse trade off than before!

Rods, dude.


Since when did killing a lone rogue constitute expendature of an eighth level spell slot? Seriously?

Well, as it stands, it doesn't. And that is precisely what we all want to see fixed, except those who are wedded to "wizards are teh real ultimate pwr!!!1one"

You really don't see the problem, huh.

ZeroNumerous
2007-08-04, 01:45 AM
Rods, dude.

If you wanna go that far, give the Rogue a ring of blinking and Pierce Magical Protection/Concealment. Thats a grand total of 3 chances for the wizard to fail.


Well, as it stands, it doesn't. And that is precisely what we all want to see fixed, except those who are wedded to "wizards are teh real ultimate pwr!!!1one"

You really don't see the problem, huh.

Take a quick look at the eighth level spell list. No, seriously, open up the SRD, click over to it, and read it over.

Now tell me why an eighth level spell should be the norm for killing a single human. Which, by the way, has the potential to fail at killing said human.

Tor the Fallen
2007-08-04, 01:50 AM
tell me why an eighth level spell should be the norm for killing a single human

Oh. So you really don't get it.

Some of us think that a wizard's ability to single-handedly end a CR20 encounter with a single spell, is, well, a bit much. Such an encounter should eat up all of his resources (or a quarter if he's in a 4-man party). It seems only fair to me that a rogue gets a chance to not be automatically killed when hit with a single, metamagic'd level 1 spell, since the rogue has precious few ways of actually reaching a level 20 wizard.

Bosh
2007-08-04, 03:53 AM
I'm a bit confused why so many people are still attached to 2nd Ed. Now I haven't played 2nd ed in twelve years so my memory is a bit hazy but:

1. Most modern games have a single central way of resolving actions (roll a d20 and add appropriate mods and try to beat the difficulty, roll a handful of d10s equal to a relevant skill and attribute added together and try to get a certain number of high numbers, etc. whatever) while D&D 2end Ed is a bit mish-mash with d20s for this and d100s for that etc.
2. Most games either have highly detailed rules that cover a wide range of situations and potentialities (Rolemaster etc.), detailed rules that cover some situations while having very general rules that cover others (D&D 3.5 ed) or have really general rules that give basic guidelines to how to cover most situations (d6 Starwars etc.) both are good depending on the situations. 2nd Edition D&D has neither and has complicated Rolemaster-style charts for somethings (weapon speeds, saving throws, thief skills) and nothing whatsoever for whole classes of very common actions (sneaking about if you're not a thief). And not only that, but instead of providing very general mechanisms for resolving actions DMs had to make up whole new mechanics to resolve very basic actions, there no real conception of a DC, something that in one form or another you see in all modern RPGs. At least that's what I remember, like I said its been 12 years.
3. In order to make a game of D&D 2nd Edition work you need a DM who has a very good grasp of the rules and is excellent at making up balanced rules on the fly. If there's no rules for something like "I hide behind the box, does he see me?" and no general guidelines for resolving those things (like a DC system) the DM has to make up a lot of rules on the fly and then integrate them into the very rules-heavy bits of the rules that do exist. To do that well requires a lot of skill and I'm sure D&D 2nd edition is a lot of fun if you have that. However, all of the DMs I ever had in 2nd edition (and me when I DMed) were HORRIBLE at doing that and generally either made strange calls that unbalanced whole campaigns or were very very reluctant to let players succeed at things that weren't specifically spelled out in the rules.
4. I really don't get where the concept that 2nd edition being more RPer friendly than 3.5 edition comes from. I don't see anything in the rules that encourages that, in my experience 2nd edition rules were confusing enoug that we had to look through the book for rules a lot more with that than with 3.5 edition which did a lot to break immersion. Maybe the players back in the day were better RPers, my group definately wasn't. The closest thing we ever came to RPing was a very mature 4-hour debate about how hot a female character with low charisma could look (we were in middle school, go figure). Also 2nd edition adventure modules tend to be hack and slash to the extreme, much more so than 3.5 edition ones.

Maybe my memory is hazy after 12 years, I just don't remember too much good about 2nd edition mechanics. What am I missing?

Xuincherguixe
2007-08-04, 04:28 AM
Really? You should tell that to the dev department I work in. They won't listen to you, but I'd get a giggle out of their expressions. :smallsmile:

Where I work, needless complexity is called 'job security'. :smallbiggrin:

I'm a bit of a programmer and I try to design things so they're as easy to work with as possible. But then, there's that Job Security thing there. Not so much a concern for me as I mostly program as a hobby.