Pros and Cons of each edition

[Ratter]

Now, I know the mods will think I am trying to start an edition war. I AM NOT. This is me simply asking for Pros and Cons of each edition because I have only ever played 5th and want to know if I should get into Pathfinder/2e/AD&D. Examples of Pro Con is a more balanced game as well as a more homebrewable and simple game, but lots of complexity is gone for 5e. Thank you. (:

[zergling.exe]

I believe you may want this in the general Roleplaying Games forum if you want comparisons to OD&D, AD&D and 4E, since this sub forum is specific to 3E.

[Ratter]

I was thinking it would fit here under D20, because other systems like savage worlds are in others, while only really OD&D didnt use D20

[zergling.exe]

I was thinking it would fit here under D20, because other systems like savage worlds are in others, while only really OD&D didnt use D20

The D20 system is basically 3Es OGL, all the homebrew and new systems made using the D20 system are 3E derivatives. Yes 4E and 5E used d20s, but they are not really part of the 'D20 system' itself. OD&D and AD&D don't use the d20 in a unified system as the default roll. WotC started the d20 trend.

[Falontani]

5th edition did a lot well; however IMO it's main draw is it is easy to get into, easy to teach, and is great to draw people into dungeons and dragons as a whole.
4th edition didn't do too well; IMO it was trying too hard to be a video game while using paper n pencil style. it piqued the interest of quite a few people that played video games/MMOs and drew people in for 5th edition, however it did get a lot of it's older fanbase to leave
Pathfinder (also known as 3.75) is amazing and still doing well; IMO It took the widely popular 3.5 and expanded on it, and made it truly their own. It is widely customizable, and no two games will ever be the same. However it is very complex and hard to get into.
Finally 3.5, my personal favorite; IMO 3.5 gave us a huge system that can be used to create nearly anything that you would like to create. It is the most complex system (that I've typed about) and not at all friendly to new players. However a player that learns it can do things with this system that others have likened to Art (see the Iron Chef Challenges). It is very enjoyable, while time consuming.

I have not used 2nd or 1st enough to know the ins and outs, or to give an opinion on it. The only opinion I'll give is that THAC0 is weird.

[Jormengand]

3.5 is less balanced than 5th, and slightly more complex. There, the problems with 3.5 by comparison to 5th end.

The skill system is actually there, with DCs you don't have to make up on the spot because they're actually written in the damn book. The classes mostly actually do something worth doing and your wizards and sorcerers feel like wizards and sorcerers, rather than adepts on an ego trip. Advancement is a meaningful thing (for example, at high levels in 3.5 you can actually pass DC 10 checks 100% of the time without being a rogue or pumping the relevant stat) and you stop being threatened by lucky level 1 characters after a while. While the class imbalance is significant, even a samurai - one of the worst classes in the game - can actually walk through a small army without worrying that he's going to die horribly, rather than having to worry that bounded accuracy will mean that he's poked to death by the little guys. Oh, and there's just more of it, so you don't have to worry that your character concept doesn't exist (your concept is that you steal famous dead people's souls and tack them onto your body for magical power? There's a class for that!).

Pathfinder is 3.5, only they fixed some things and broke some other things.

Pathfinder 2nd edition is maybe like 5th, only they fixed maybe one or two things and broke everything else.

[exelsisxax]

3.5 is less balanced than 5th, and slightly more complex. There, the problems with 3.5 by comparison to 5th end.

The skill system is actually there, with DCs you don't have to make up on the spot because they're actually written in the damn book. The classes mostly actually do something worth doing and your wizards and sorcerers feel like wizards and sorcerers, rather than adepts on an ego trip. Advancement is a meaningful thing (for example, at high levels in 3.5 you can actually pass DC 10 checks 100% of the time without being a rogue or pumping the relevant stat) and you stop being threatened by lucky level 1 characters after a while. While the class imbalance is significant, even a samurai - one of the worst classes in the game - can actually walk through a small army without worrying that he's going to die horribly, rather than having to worry that bounded accuracy will mean that he's poked to death by the little guys. Oh, and there's just more of it, so you don't have to worry that your character concept doesn't exist (your concept is that you steal famous dead people's souls and tack them onto your body for magical power? There's a class for that!).

Pathfinder is 3.5, only they fixed some things and broke some other things.

Pathfinder 2nd edition is maybe like 5th, only they fixed maybe one or two things and broke everything else.

Hey, it's way too early to say how many things they fixed and how many they broke. For all we know barb rage makes you invulnerable and they forgot to give druids spellcasting, but they totally fixed equipment/magic items and spell lists. I mean. I bet they didn't but we don't know!

[Jormengand]

Hey, it's way too early to say how many things they fixed and how many they broke. For all we know barb rage makes you invulnerable and they forgot to give druids spellcasting, but they totally fixed equipment/magic items and spell lists. I mean. I bet they didn't but we don't know!

To be clear, I mean that it's (maybe) (like 5th but they fixed a few things and broke everything else) not that it's (maybe like 5th) (but they fixed a few things and broke everything else). All I can see is how Paizo tells me that PF2 stacks up, and it's not pretty so far.

[FreddyNoNose]

Now, I know the mods will think I am trying to start an edition war. I AM NOT. This is me simply asking for Pros and Cons of each edition because I have only ever played 5th and want to know if I should get into Pathfinder/2e/AD&D. Examples of Pro Con is a more balanced game as well as a more homebrewable and simple game, but lots of complexity is gone for 5e. Thank you. (:

I'd bet you could google that....

[Elder_Basilisk]

I'll give it a shot. In terms of handling unusual character concepts that are not the standard class bundles (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard, etc).

AD&D. We have a few classes. Limited options and simple character creation are part of the attraction.

2e. There's a kit for that. Buy some splatbooks and pick a unique set of abilities that you get starting at level 1. However, like AD&D your profession and abilities are pretty much set at character creation. (Other than dual classing which is highly restricted and not terribly useful).

3e and 3.5 there are feats, multi-classing, and prestige classes for that. Your character is differentiated from others as you gain new abilities through play. The downside is that it does not have nearly the same options for a simple but effective progression as other editions did (well, other than wizard 20, cleric 20, and druid 20 but even those need a wise selection of feats and abilities to be effective).

Pathfinder. There's a base class for that. Seriously, we've got 20 million of them just look. Not what you wanted? There's an archetype for that. It's like a 2e kit except that the abilities aren't all front loaded. And if you really want to you can multiclass. Oh yeah and you get feats too.

4e. There's a base class for that. Well, unless you want a different form of resource management (like previous editions vancian spells) or combat resolution (like previous editions save or die/lose mechanics or magic missile stype auto-hit mechanics). There's also paragon paths and epic destinies too.

5e. We've got a few base classes and some heroic archetype thingees. You can multiclass if you really want to but it will probably suck. We have a few feats too. But not many. The end result seems to be about 80% AD&D and 20% Pathfinder.

[Tvtyrant]

AD&D: Combat is very swingy, things die so easily that every option is a save or die (including swords). Control spells are actually somewhat weaker here because dead is a better stat condition then everything else. Out of combat is a giant mess but lots of cool ideas found over a lot of splat books.

3.X: Combat was made to be less swingy, and casters less punished. Now a fighter no longer casts Finger of Death in sword form, and casters no longer die from a good sneeze. Also spells became so permissive that upper level casters wear underwear that can kill gods. Lots of options available, more streamlined.

4E: Everyone is a 3.5 caster in combat, no one is a 3.5 caster out of combat. I feel like they needed to decouple in and out of combat mechanics, but it os the best for combat.

5E: i didn't enjoy it much, only played five sessions so I will leave this to others.

[Selene Sparks]

3.5 is less balanced than 5th, and slightly more complex.I actually have to disagree here. It's easier for a wizard to totally break the game in 5e over their knee without even trying in 5e, because at least one archetype is explicitly encouraged to do so with their signature spell, and clerics and lore bards can pretend they're wizards enough to be everyone who's not in the previous list. 3.5 doesn't stick incantatrix and persistent spell right in the core book.

The skill system is actually there, with DCs you don't have to make up on the spot because they're actually written in the damn book. The classes mostly actually do something worth doing and your wizards and sorcerers feel like wizards and sorcerers, rather than adepts on an ego trip. Advancement is a meaningful thing (for example, at high levels in 3.5 you can actually pass DC 10 checks 100% of the time without being a rogue or pumping the relevant stat) and you stop being threatened by lucky level 1 characters after a while. While the class imbalance is significant, even a samurai - one of the worst classes in the game - can actually walk through a small army without worrying that he's going to die horribly, rather than having to worry that bounded accuracy will mean that he's poked to death by the little guys. Oh, and there's just more of it, so you don't have to worry that your character concept doesn't exist (your concept is that you steal famous dead people's souls and tack them onto your body for magical power? There's a class for that!).While I feel this is excessively harsh, this is also all still completely true and deserves emphasis, especially this skill system.

Pathfinder is 3.5, only they fixed some things and broke some other things.Notably here, they nerfed basic melee options into the ground. Or at least did from the beginning, I really don't have the time or energy to go through the rather user-unfriendly wiki to figure out if it's changed since I last looked.

But seriously, improved disarm and power attack were nerfed while casters got even better. That's the bottom line of Pathfinder, at least for me.

To more directly answer the OP:

5e: You've already played it. It's super simple, which is a plus, but it's also super reliant on GMs "ruling" everything ever because they have no actual skill system. Bounded accuracy was a flawed concept that could have, theoretically, been handled, but it really wasn't. Also, there's little variation between characters, because there are so few choices to make, and the choice between ASIs and feats is just about the worst game design choice imaginable.
4e: To avoid the edition wars, what I will say is that it was innovative in the extreme. It took a bunch of way out there ideas, and implemented them in a system that was actually pretty well balanced. The downside was that it has essentially no out-of-combat system. Seriously, skill challenges don't do what they're supposed to, and there's the silliness like ice getting slipperier as you level up or the disassociative nature of powers. Furthermore, your rulebooks themselves won't be too useful, because there were a huge number of stealth erratas when a new exploit was found. On the plus side, it's actually well-balanced so long as you're sticking to and has actually gotten a couple of non-gamers I've met into D&D.
3.PF: Essentially, it's like 3.X with a bunch of tiny, fiddly changes. The systemic problems weren't addressed, but it was the only source of new 3.X-ish stuff for a decade. I'm not a fan, as I've said, but I know people who switched over for the new content and had it go over fine.
3.X: are broken. It's a sad fact, but casters are just flat better than anyone who's not a caster. It's okay, though, both because support casting is really good, you can make casters do non-castery things anyways, plus once you get to leave core, you can get the non-caster decent classes like Warblades, Binders, or Incarnum users. Furthermore, every character can be distinct because you have so many options, with a bit of work you can build essentially whatever you feel like. Also, the low-end stuff is amazingly detailed, with the skill system mapping real life very well up to level 5~, and so I've really never had a situation where a game came to a halt because we didn't know how to handle whatever a problem was, and without the GM having to make anything up. The big downside is the prevalence of Save-Or-Dies at higher levels(Although they can be avoided if you know what you're doing), which means combat winds up annoyingly swingy and randomly risky unless you work hard on defenses.
2e: Ah, the days of THAC0, before people realized that counting in a consistent manner was a good thing. It's a bit like 5e in that 5e decided to take in a bunch of frankly awful elements of 2e and bring them back(Such as Rakashasa being able to ignore the party unless you metagame something fierce) and the system goes out of its way in many cases to spit on player agency. Also, there really aren't any skill rules because the writers weren't really talking to each other at all, because this was pre-2000 and only White Wolf was really up on this whole "computer" thing. Also, you need to roll stats, and you need to roll very well, or else you miss out on class features and thus suck at life. This was also the days of race-based level caps that nobody ever actually used. On the other hand, fighters are actually decent(Assuming they can get that lovely percentile strength), wizards have some built-in weaknesses that got dropped, and clerics are simply better than everyone else, especially if they're drow. HP in general was lower(Especially if you weren't a fighter), so damage was actually something you tried for. Also, between all the kits lying around, Skills and Powers, and Player's Option, you could make some really silly things happen. It's a mixed bag, really.

[RoboEmperor]

3.5 - Pro:You can do virtually anything you want. ANYTHING. You can spend years customizing perfecting a character to your exact liking. This means among skilled players, no two PCs are the same. Every PC is super unique and is the incarnation of the player's personality and desires.
Con:Too many ways to break the game. Players have to hold themselves back to not break the game.

5e - Pro:Easy to get into
Con:Very little customization. You will often see identical PCs.

PF - a mid point between 3.5 and 5e. Everyone goes pure base class here so very little customization, but a lot more than 5e.

[Psyren]

3.5 - Pro:You can do virtually anything you want. ANYTHING. You can spend years customizing perfecting a character to your exact liking. This means among skilled players, no two PCs are the same. Every PC is super unique and is the incarnation of the player's personality and desires.
Con:Too many ways to break the game. Players have to hold themselves back to not break the game.

5e - Pro:Easy to get into
Con:Very little customization. You will often see identical PCs.

PF - a mid point between 3.5 and 5e. Everyone goes pure base class here so very little customization, but a lot more than 5e.

I'll echo this but with a caveat - "pure base class" in PF can result in extremely different builds due to Archetypes. For example, you could do a party of 5 bards where every one of them has a totally unique playstyle.

With that said, Sturgeon's Law does apply heavily to PF (as it does to 3.5) and there are trap options everywhere, resulting in system bloat.

[Wings of Peace]

3.5 is an imbalanced, overly complicated, and mentally taxing game when you're a newbie. At the same time, the sheer breadth of official content available for the edition means that nearly anything is possible and clever players are well rewarded for their creativity.

[Malimar]

I'm sure I'm gonna get blowback on this, but: The main difference I've noticed between 3.5 and PF is not mechanical, but a fundamental design philosophy:

3.5e feels like 3.5e. All its myriad of options and monsters and components work more or less together to feel more or less like its own beast. When it takes from other fictions, it is inspired by them, not making slavish copies.

PF feels like a mashup of everything you've ever liked or not liked in fiction, taken mostly literally from the source material. Gunslingers, everything from the Cthulhu mythos, half the archetypes out there are based on some specific archetype from fiction, and so on, they all combine to feel more kitchen-sinky than 3.5e. Like they're throwing everything they think players might think is cool at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Name any random monster, class, PrC, or whatever from the wide world of 3.5e content, most likely either you'll be able to trace it back to 2e, or you won't be able to trace it back to anything. Name any random monster, class, archetype, or whatever from the wide world of PF content, most likely you'll be able to trace it back to a specific published work of fiction.


3.5 - Pro:You can do virtually anything you want. ANYTHING. You can spend years customizing perfecting a character to your exact liking. This means among skilled players, no two PCs are the same. Every PC is super unique and is the incarnation of the player's personality and desires.
I think this is only true at an intermediate level of skill. At very low skill, one isn't aware of all the uniqueifying options. At very high skill, one is aware of the single most powerful option (and there usually is one option that's head and shoulders above the rest). Only those at a medium skill level, or those of high skill who deliberately choose not to go with the most powerful option, will actually make unique characters.

But yes, among people who are of the proper skill level and mindset, 3.5e allows more uniqueness than virtually any other edition.

[Mordaedil]

I guess I'll give my simplified input.

AD&D - The best edition. Gives you control of all your little soldier and gives you access to special classes if you roll really well. Timeless and some neat psionic rules.

AD&D 2nd edition - The best edition. Gives you a lot of cool multiclassing options and fixes a lot of problems with older editions and is widely regarded by most people as when D&D was best. Broken psionics that nobody likes.

D&D 3rd edition - Defunct edition. They fixed the troublesome rules where lower AC is better and now made rules make sense for a progression as it was built. Has interesting psionics that nobody likes.

D&D 3.5 edition - The best edition. Fixes everything bad about 3rd edition, but forgoes having enchantment on weapons matter, instead dumping all the damage reduction rules into "magic". Has psionics, but forget about that and check out the shadowcaster, warblade and factotum.

D&D 4th edition - The divise edition. Some people love this. A lot of people hated this. A lot of people loved that some people hated this. Eventually got all of its base classes in order. Multiclassing has crashed, would you like to reset?

D&D 5th edition - The best edition. Goes back to 3.5 edition, but makes things simpler in a good way. Doesn't have psionics. Multiclassing refuses to start.

Pathfinder - The best edition. Has everything D&D 3.5 edition has, but makes everything a little stronger. Wizards aren't so bad at 1st level. Fighters are "better" at higher level. Multiclassing still works. Has 3rd party psionics, but forget about that and check out the alchemist, gunslinger and witch.

[Sir_Leorik]

Having played most editions of D&D extensively (other than 1E AD&D), I have some opinions on what the differences are.

Basic D&D (BXCMI/Rules Compendium) this was a streamlined version of the OD&D rules that eventually ballooned into to its own bloated system. Basic makes everything a class, including races like Dwarf and Elf. You get XP for finding treasure, but there is a dearth of healing options (Clerics don't get spells until 2nd level). Basic can be very good for beginners to teach them the tropes of dungeon crawling, but in the last twenty five years since basic was discontinued, better systems for that have come out. (Like Dungeonworld.)

2E began by making cosmetic changes to 1E (there was an insistence from management that David "Zeb" Cook make it backwards compatible), but the supplemental rules is where the system innovated. Notably, kits and non-weapon proficiencies were an area to innovate, but they contributed to system bloat. There were two different kits for beggars that I'm aware of, and two different NWPs for begging, because the editors didn't always pay attention to things like this. 2E can be counter-intuitive, with no central mechanic for task resolution. For combat, you roll a d10 to determine initiative, roll a d20 needing a high number to hit, for NWPs you roll a d20 and need to roll under a number, and Thief skills require a d100 and rolling under. That being said, as a DM I have looted 2E often for great ideas for my 3.X, 4E and 5E campaigns. Some of the best D&D campaign settings came out of 2E: Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Planescape and my favorite, Ravenloft.

3.X is the beginning of unified mechanics for D&D. Roll a d20, add a modifier, try to beat a number, whether its AC or a skill DC. 3.X is very crunchy, where there is a rule for any task you might want to try. There are players who like this level of crunchiness, while others may find it daunting. Equally daunting, 3.X has been out for 18 years, including the Pathfinder supplements and myriad 3PP material. As a new DM it can be overwhelming to see the ocean of feats and Prestige Classes that are available for players, NPCs and monsters. My personal advice to a new DMs: adopt the 5E guideline of Core + 1: a player chooses one splatbook that their PC can take feats and PrCs from, which will cut down on the system bloat. Even if you don't want to limit yourself that way, put a limit on what players can take.

I'm going to say something controversial: for what it is, 4E is not a bad game. However it is its own thing and you need to abandon any preconceptions about what D&D is if you're going into it. If you do, know that combats in 4E can take up to an hour to resolve and that the Skill Challenge system doesn't work, and that the math of the system was flawed with a feat tax instituted to fix it. But it is a fun game, IMO, and doesn't deserve the vitriol it receives.

I am currently running a 5E game, and I occasionally play in Adventurer's League. Having played since 1990 in multiple editions, I can see the legacy of each edition in 5E. It has the theatre of the mind popular in 2E, the unified skill system from 3.X, several innovations from 4E, and the streamlined nature of Basic. However it is streamlined in a way to prevent the crunchiness of 3.X and 4E, and some players may be turned off by this. I recommend staying with 5E unless there is a feature of an older edition you prefer.

Also this thread should be moved to the General RPG section.

[Florian]

Let´s look at a different angle: Player Empowerment.

oD&D to AD&D 2nd: Rules light, heavy on the sub-systems, but mainly "Mother May I?"

3.0, 3.5 and PF: Rules heavy, but geared towards shifting the decision-making process towards the system, away from the gm.

4E: Rules and procedure heavy, delves could actually played without a gm, most of the empowerment happened on the side of the players by handing them the concrete tools.

5E: Middle ground.

[2D8HP]

Whitebox + supplements (most importantly Greyhawk) AKA "0e"

Pros: Most fun game I've played EVER!
Cons: You're trying to figure out how to play by reading the rules?

HAHAHAHAHA

HA!

Folklore or go home.

(Seriously, the Oracle of Delphi was less opaque)



1977 "bluebook" Basic rules

Pros: 48 pages of sublime concentrated D&D.
You may crave more, but it's all you need.

Really.
Cons: Some pitiful needy folk want more options (make them wear the DM hat!).


1977 to 1979 AD&D AKA "1e
Pros: More options, and the writing is a bit more clear, but still charming.
Cons: Only a little bit more clear, and trying to follow all the RAW is too hard.


1985's Unearthed Arcana
Pros: More options
Cons: Foul balance destroying HELLSPAWN OPTIONS!

FLEE BEFORE YOU'RE DOOMED!

DOOMED I SAY!


2e AD&D:
Pros: Less opaque.
Cons: I never played it.


1991/1994 "Blackbox"/Classic/Rules Cyclopedia
Pros: Easiest to learn from reading the rules version of D&D EVER!
Cons: That we're not playing it right NOW!


"3e D&D"
Pros: Actually a pretty good game.
Cons: I payed full price for those books damn it!

YOU MADE IT OBSOLETE SO SOON!

DAMN YOU WIZARDS!

DAMN YOU TO HELL!


3.5
Pros: Lots of nice friendly people play it.
Cons: Steep learning curve
there's ...... just ...... so ...... much!

AND YOU OWE ME A REFUND WIZARDS OF THE COAST, I HAD JUST BOUGHT THE 3e BOOKS!


*rant, rave, mumble, fume*

4e D&D:
Pros: Want some cheap barely used books? A few people really like it.
Cons: Too few people. Good luck finding a table.


5e:
Pros: Lots of nice friendly people play it. The most significant rules are free.

FREE!

Some simple classes are available that are fun to play.

Launching arrows at Dragons that sit on giant piles of treasure again!

Cons: Players want to use all the myriad not free rules/options.

SWEET SILKY LOLTH, I'M NOT LEARNING ALL THAT TO DM!


Can I interest you in a game of King Arthur Pendragon?

[Telok]

AD&D: Opaque, significantly dependent on a good/flexible DM, character options through roleplay and player decision making.
Pros: fast character generation, simple base rules, some table lookups, surprisingly balanced, easily moulded into being more than a dungeon crawl.
Cons: opaque, DM dependent, unsuited to video game style play.

AD&D 2e: ThAC0, Kits, Spelljammer! Dark Sun! Ravenloft! Still pretty much like 1e.
Pros: full compatibility with AD&D.
Cons: still opaque, still DM dependent, ThAC0.

3e: The grand unification theory of d20 meets D&D. The rise of easy and safe spell casting, severe HP inflation, and gating fighter class features behind the choose-the-good-feat challenge.
Pros: More character building options, introduction of prestige classes and spontaneous casters, skills open up across classes.
Cons: Skills lock down and exclude character abilities, some saves stop getting better as you level up, casting is too easy and extra spells from stats are normal, the fighter/mage concept dies in a fire.

3.x: Even easier spell casting, and more more more of everything. Introduced CoDzilla, arseplomancer, and metamagic reducers.
Pros: More options, extreme flexibility in character options, skills and skill DCs are pretty easy to adjudicate, new and interesting sub-systems.
Cons: Skills become binary yes/no due to high bonuses, metamagic reducers, spell power bloat, monster complexity, starts having significant difficulty doing anything but D&D style games.

4e: The great balancing of combat. Sadly lacking in non-combat and suffering from multi-hour combat slogs. AEDU generally precludes variants and sub-systems.
Pros: Balanced combat. Just following the instructions created reasonable combats.
Cons: Got the math wrong the first time around, no real out of combat support, slow combat, not allowed to have actors change sides in a fight due to severe differences in pc/monster numbers, characters have difficulty doing things that aren't powers written down on the character sheet, the system can't really handle anything but the D&D style.

5e: The great retcon. Simpler characters and a return to depending on the DM to write or make up rules for the game to run. The introduction of bounded accuracy.
Pros: Easier to build characters and run a game than 3.x, more D&D feel than 4e.
Cons: Severe HP bloat, the d20 roll becomes more important than the character sheet, skills revert to NWPs but without the power and clarity, returns to being extremely dependent on DM skill, limited character options, characters get worse at saving throws as they level up.

[2D8HP]

....skills revert to NWPs but without the power and clarity...


:confused:

"NWP's"?

What does that stand for?

[zergling.exe]

:confused:

"NWP's"?

What does that stand for?

'Non Weapon Proficiency' I believe.

[Florian]

:confused:

"NWP's"?

What does that stand for?

Non-Weapon Proficiency.

And the critique is mostly right on this one. In 3E/4E, many skills had fixed DCs for certain tasks listed, so you could a) gauge how your chances are and b) handle a lot of tasks on your own without having to consult the rules or gm further.

[Nifft]

unsuited to video game style play.

Just as an aside, you should know that the most popular D&D video game franchise was based on a faithful AD&D -- it's the Baldur's Gate series.

AD&D includes some very arcade-game like mechanics ("The boss wizard started attack animation casting, quick hit it for damage to force the attack animation spellcasting to abort!"), faithfully reproduced in BG.

AD&D 2e is therefore the most video-game edition.


The introduction of bounded accuracy.

The editions from oD&D to 1e kinda introduced Bounded Accuracy, it just didn't have a name back then.

For example, in 1e AC went from 10 down to -10, and no further. AC -10 was the limit.

1e ability scores went up to 25, and no higher. 5e bounds at 20 instead.

Bounded Accuracy is another retro feature of 5th Edition.

[Mordaedil]

So faithful they removed the turn-based mechanics that makes D&D interesting and feature no actual roleplaying.

[Elder_Basilisk]

The editions from oD&D to 1e kinda introduced Bounded Accuracy, it just didn't have a name back then.

For example, in 1e AC went from 10 down to -10, and no further. AC -10 was the limit.

1e ability scores went up to 25, and no higher. 5e bounds at 20 instead.

Bounded Accuracy is another retro feature of 5th Edition.

Not really. If you stuck to the AC Max at -10 rule (and a lot of people didn't), then it would have been bounded inaccuracy. Your THACO and attack bonuses could get to the point that you could hit AC -10 relatively easily and the system did nothing to stop it. It was (at most) a lower bound, but there was, practically speaking, not an upper bound any more than there is in 3.x

Likewise, while strength scores were boundaried at 25, the system gave increasing bonuses every number from 16 on up (and multiple sets of bonuses for different values of 18(??)). As a consequence the score limit of 25 gave a number of distinct bonus levels equivalent to a hard cap of 40 in 3.x (15 different bonus levels). While that is theoretically a hard cap, it is one that many 3.x campaigns would never run into and results in much more headroom for bonus increasing than the 5e caps do.

The big way that 5e went retro wrt stats was returning stat boost items to granting static ability scores rather than bonuses just like in 1e and 2e. Thus a belt of giant strength can give you strength 25 whether your starting strength is 3 or 20 and an item that gives you strength 20 is useless if you already have it naturally. There are pros and cons of both methods but it doesn't have much to do with bounded accuracy.

[Nifft]

Your THACO and attack bonuses could get to the point that you could hit AC -10 relatively easily and the system did nothing to stop it.

You're thinking of 2e, which introduced THAC0.

This is one way in which 1e was different from 2e, one distinction that changed the game's balance.

[Elkad]

You're thinking of 2e, which introduced THAC0.

This is one way in which 1e was different from 2e, one distinction that changed the game's balance.

2e just added the notation, so you didn't need to check the hit matrix every time.
Since most of us were already doing the math in our head anyway, nothing changed except accessibility for newbies.

[Nifft]

2e just added the notation, so you didn't need to check the hit matrix every time.
Since most of us were already doing the math in our head anyway, nothing changed except accessibility for newbies.

... and the boundaries defined by using tables instead of a formula, those boundaries were also removed. Bounded AC was removed.

You're right that newbies would see nothing change, because they'd be playing within those boundaries anyway.

You're wrong that nothing changed, though. Here's one of the charts:

https://i.imgur.com/whHONP9.png


A 1e Fighter (2nd level) could not hit AC -6 even on a 20, but she could hit -5 and up. With a 19, she could only hit AC 2 or higher. THAC0 math will not give that same result. THAC0 is not identical to the 1e tables.

THAC0 only fits the middle of the chart, from level 11 and beyond, where the on-a-20 tail event isn't in scope, and the curve became a line.

So yeah, 2e was a simplification of 1e, which lost some bits in the simplification.

5e brought back one of those bits.

[FreddyNoNose]

You're thinking of 2e, which introduced THAC0.

This is one way in which 1e was different from 2e, one distinction that changed the game's balance.

Thac0 Existed before 2e. Just look at the First Edition DMG if you want proof!

[Nifft]

Here's one of the charts:

https://i.imgur.com/whHONP9.png


A 1e Fighter (2nd level) could not hit AC -6 even on a 20, but she could hit -5 and up. With a 19, she could only hit AC 2 or higher. THAC0 math will not give that same result. THAC0 is not identical to the 1e tables.

THAC0 only fits the middle of the chart, from level 11 and beyond, where the on-a-20 tail event isn't in scope, and the curve became a line.

So yeah, 2e was a simplification of 1e, which lost some bits in the simplification.

5e brought back one of those bits.


Thac0 Existed before 2e. Just look at the First Edition DMG if you want proof!

Checked, screencap'd, and posted.

What sort of THAC0 you see in that chart?

[Elder_Basilisk]

But the table you provided does not give the effect you describe.

First, unlike bounded accuracy, it has a band of "do not roll, you miss, even on a 20." That's not bounded accuracy. Secondly, if you look at the right side of the chart, there's a big fat section of, "you hit on less than a 1." That's not bounded accuracy either.

The fighter with +5 plate armor, a +5 shield, and a Dex bonus is literally unhittable--especially by 1st level opponents and, if he is of sufficient level, literally can't miss them.

You are mistaking bounded absolute numbers for bounded accuracy (for defense only--as far as I can tell, there was no limit to how many bonuses you could add to the d20 attack roll except for the number and value of bonuses in the system--you could have bless, prayer, a +5 sword, a bonus from your 24 strength from a belt of giant strength, and whatever other bonuses you could dig up in unearthed arcana or any source the DM allowed). As the chart demonstrates, you can have bounded absolute values for defense without having the effect of bounded accuracy.

[Nifft]

But the table you provided does not give the effect you describe.

First, unlike bounded accuracy, it has a band of "do not roll, you miss, even on a 20." That's not bounded accuracy. Secondly, if you look at the right side of the chart, there's a big fat section of, "you hit on less than a 1." That's not bounded accuracy either.

The fighter with +5 plate armor, a +5 shield, and a Dex bonus is literally unhittable--especially by 1st level opponents and, if he is of sufficient level, literally can't miss them.

Yes, it is bounded. I can point to the bounds. They are -10 at one end, and 10 at the other.

I think you're saying that 1e bounds don't imply the exact same game behavior as what 5e uses for bounds -- and that would be accurate, 1e and 5e have different concepts and implementations of bounds.

5e uses bounds to impose a type of fairness. Personally I like this -- I think 5e uses bounds better than 1e did, since I like that fairness.

1e doesn't use bounds in that way. But 1e plainly does use bounds, and that's one of the ways that 1e was different from 2e.

It's not a big deal, but it's true, and you should acknowledge that truth.

2e's THAC0 was not identical to 1e's Attack Matrix tables.

[FreddyNoNose]

Checked, screencap'd, and posted.

What sort of THAC0 you see in that chart?

Goto to section E in the DMG. You will see it there.

[Nifft]

Goto to section E in the DMG. You will see it there.

Oh you were only talking about MONSTER rules.

Sorry, no, I mean rules for PCs -- guess that wasn't clear from my example of a Fighter PC attacking.

The idea that PCs and monsters use the same attack mechanic is something that did not exist in 1e. Monsters were simpler than PCs -- an idea that was discarded by 3e, and picked up again by 4e.

THAC0 was not a thing for PCs in 1e. That changed in 2e, where PCs started to use the simplified monster mechanic instead of having an Attack Matrix.

Was that the only source of confusion?

[Elkad]

Pretty sure AC was extended to -15 or so somewhere.
And every DM I ever played with just left it uncapped anyway. Monsters (or my Paladin) with AC: -35 or better weren't exactly uncommon.

I'm positive the to-hit table (or table anyway - for monsters) were extended in 1e, as I'm looking right at it now. Including giving you bonus damage if you needed less than a 1 to hit your target.

And I admit I forgot about 2e change to rolling a 20 (and the 5x repeated 20 roll on the old matrix)

[FreddyNoNose]

Oh you were only talking about MONSTER rules.

Sorry, no, I mean rules for PCs -- guess that wasn't clear from my example of a Fighter PC attacking.

The idea that PCs and monsters use the same attack mechanic is something that did not exist in 1e. Monsters were simpler than PCs -- an idea that was discarded by 3e, and picked up again by 4e.

THAC0 was not a thing for PCs in 1e. That changed in 2e, where PCs started to use the simplified monster mechanic instead of having an Attack Matrix.

Was that the only source of confusion?

It was used by DM's for PCs. Perhaps not you but there was a number of us who did. Because it was quick. IIRC, there might have been a product with it. In any case, it still works for PCs because you can calculate it. It exists without having it be spelled out for you.

Now, I was close to TSR people and GMed official ADND tournies so my experience with it is different from others. So you can call that on me if you want but it was still there. Call it bleeding edge if you like, but it was still there.

By 1981, I had switched my game from using thac0 for PCs to my natural system. See, if you look at thac0 the right way, you can create a number for each monster that can be universally hit. Each PC gets a number based on class/level and adds it to your to hit roll. If the number >= this number, you hit. So when I prepared some material, I just needed that number with the hp total. It was quick for me.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Yes, it is bounded. I can point to the bounds. They are -10 at one end, and 10 at the other.

I think you're saying that 1e bounds don't imply the exact same game behavior as what 5e uses for bounds -- and that would be accurate, 1e and 5e have different concepts and implementations of bounds.

5e uses bounds to impose a type of fairness. Personally I like this -- I think 5e uses bounds better than 1e did, since I like that fairness.

1e doesn't use bounds in that way. But 1e plainly does use bounds, and that's one of the ways that 1e was different from 2e.

It's not a big deal, but it's true, and you should acknowledge that truth.

2e's THAC0 was not identical to 1e's Attack Matrix tables.

You can point to the number boundaries--well one of them at least--but that does not make accuracy bounded. Any system where there is absolutely no chance for some people to hit and absolutely no chance for other characters to miss does not have bounded accuracy. heck, 3.0 with the "a 1 always misses and a 20 always hits" rule has more bounded accuracy than the various forms of 1e. In 1e, accuracy ranges from 0 to 100%. In the various incarnations of 3e, accuracy ranges from 5-95% in most situations (barring miss chances, rerolls, or roll replacing mechanics such as Pathfinder's law domain ability etc). It is impossible for accuracy to be less bounded than it is in 1e.

As far as the bounds go, however it only makes sense to discuss it in terms of a boundary on AC. Saying that the table caps the accuracy of fighting classes is like saying that 3rd edition has bounded accuracy because you can't get higher than 20 BAB in the players handbook.

[Nifft]

And every DM I ever played with just left it uncapped anyway.

It was used by DM's for PCs. Perhaps not you but there was a number of us who did.

There were people who ignored the rule, therefore the rule didn't exist?

C'mon, citizens of the Internet. That's a terrible argument.

It's like saying 3.x didn't use Favored Classes.

The edition did, even if you didn't.


And I admit I forgot about 2e change to rolling a 20 (and the 5x repeated 20 roll on the old matrix)
I suspect that the (relatively) long run of 20s in the 1e Attack Matrix was the origin of the 2e / 3e / etc. critical hit.

As an aside, I had totally forgotten the PUMMELING / GRAPPLING / OVERBEARING tables.

Now I want to play a 5e Moon Druid named OVERBEAR.


EDIT:

As far as the bounds go, however it only makes sense to discuss it in terms of a boundary on AC. ... and ability scores (bounded at 25).

... and saving throws (bounded at 2).

Seriously, 1e was a system that had many well-established bounds, not just AC.

5e's bounded accuracy goes hand in hand with bounds for AC, skills, and saves.

5e brought back several things that earlier editions had done, including bounds.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Just to clarify the previous post, in 1e, armor class is bounded but accuracy is not.

[Nifft]

Just to clarify the previous post, in 1e, armor class is bounded but accuracy is not.

5e's bounded accuracy is a reprise of 1e's bounds, and 5e's boundaries include more than just accuracy

5e's bounded accuracy requires as its foundation the bounds that 5e also puts on AC.

If AC were unbounded in 5e, accuracy would be unbound.

(Specifically at the "miss" end.)

[Zanos]

3.5 is less balanced than 5th, and slightly more complex. There, the problems with 3.5 by comparison to 5th end.

The skill system is actually there, with DCs you don't have to make up on the spot because they're actually written in the damn book. The classes mostly actually do something worth doing and your wizards and sorcerers feel like wizards and sorcerers, rather than adepts on an ego trip. Advancement is a meaningful thing (for example, at high levels in 3.5 you can actually pass DC 10 checks 100% of the time without being a rogue or pumping the relevant stat) and you stop being threatened by lucky level 1 characters after a while. While the class imbalance is significant, even a samurai - one of the worst classes in the game - can actually walk through a small army without worrying that he's going to die horribly, rather than having to worry that bounded accuracy will mean that he's poked to death by the little guys. Oh, and there's just more of it, so you don't have to worry that your character concept doesn't exist (your concept is that you steal famous dead people's souls and tack them onto your body for magical power? There's a class for that!).

Pathfinder is 3.5, only they fixed some things and broke some other things.

Pathfinder 2nd edition is maybe like 5th, only they fixed maybe one or two things and broke everything else.
I argue with Jormengand a lot, but this is exactly what I would have written down.


Name any random monster, class, PrC, or whatever from the wide world of 3.5e content, most likely either you'll be able to trace it back to 2e, or you won't be able to trace it back to anything. Name any random monster, class, archetype, or whatever from the wide world of PF content, most likely you'll be able to trace it back to a specific published work of fiction.
One of the big reasons I don't like PF. It's like the dude who's PC is always Dirzt D'uhurden or Saucekay Ushia wrote an entire game.

[Elder_Basilisk]

5e's bounded accuracy is a reprise of 1e's bounds, and 5e's boundaries include more than just accuracy

5e's bounded accuracy requires as its foundation the bounds that 5e also puts on AC.

If AC were unbounded in 5e, accuracy would be unbound.

(Specifically at the "miss" end.)

If you want to trace the origins of 5e's bounded accuracy, you should look in 4th edition where the designers explicitly made it a design goal that there should be bounded accuracy for attack rolls and skill checks. (I would say that they coined the term but it could be that it was around before and I didn't bhear it until then) Allegedly they didn't screw up the math in 5th edition.

They may have stolen a mechanic (bounded armor class) from earlier editions to do it, but it's ludicrous to describe an edition which explicitly had ACs that were actually unhittable for some monsters and ACs that were actually unmissable for some characters as the origin of bounded accuracy. It is literally impossible to get further from the design goal of bounded accuracy than early D&D was.

There is no indication that bounded accuracy was ever a design goal in early D&D and the mechanics actually explicitly guaranteed unbounded accuracy, so if it somehow was a design goal, they missed it harder than the designers of 4th edition missed their targets which is saying something.

[Nifft]

If you want to trace the origins of 5e's bounded accuracy, you should look in 4th edition where the designers explicitly made it a design goal that there should be bounded accuracy for attack rolls and skill checks. (I would say that they coined the term but it could be that it was around before and I didn't bhear it until then) Allegedly they didn't screw up the math in 5th edition. I don't think that the way 4e used accuracy was really congruent to 5e's game-spanning accuracy bounds.

Here's what happened regarding 4e:
- 4e codified and systematized the bonus progression that was implicit in 3.x, including enhancement bonus & stat boosters.
- 4e unified weapon and spell mechanics such that all hostile effects were attacks against one of AC / Fort / Ref / Will.
- 4e unified spell and mundane mechanics such that all attacks used either a weapon or an implement, and implements filled the role of weapons for the purpose of granting an enhancement bonus to attacks.
- 4e systematized monster progression, such that HP and defenses were easy to derive for any given difficulty and role.
- 4e systematized PC progression, such that it was trivial to see if your PC was on-target (or below spec, or above).

4e made it obvious that PCs and monsters progressed in lockstep across 30 levels, but the game's expectations for hitting at level 1 were not in the same ballpark as the expected range at level 30. Monster AC was 29 points higher, for example.

But the lockstep progression led a lot of us to ask: "What if we just didn't do that?"

That's how 5e's bounded accuracy was related to 4e's lockstep progression.

5e was a reaction to 4e, as I said previously.

5e also reprised bits from 1e.



They may have stolen a mechanic (bounded armor class) from earlier editions to do it, but it's ludicrous to describe an edition which explicitly had ACs that were actually unhittable for some monsters and ACs that were actually unmissable for some characters as the origin of bounded accuracy. It is literally impossible to get further from the design goal of bounded accuracy than early D&D was.

Nah, you're still missing the point. You're waving around one of 5e's design goals as if it somehow created a universal law which didn't previously exist, and that's just silly. 5e didn't perfectly achieve its design goal. That's fine. They did a good job anyway, but they're just human, and 5e isn't perfect -- just like 1e wasn't perfect, but it was pretty good, especially for its time.

5e borrowed some mechanics from 1e, like I said. They bounded some things for the same reasons that 1e bounded some things: to confine the game's mechanics within a range where fun things could occur.

However, you're seeing problems where there were none. There weren't a whole lot of level-appropriate monsters with ACs in the "unhittable" range, so that's a straw man.

There's not that much difference in terms of "unhittable". 5e can also produce level 1 characters who can't hit some level 20 monsters, and with absurd enough ability rolls 5e can also produce characters who break 5e's bounded AC to become unhittable themselves -- but that's about as realistic an expectation as having +5 everything in 1e, which is to say it's not at all a realistic expectation.

Finally, you're (deliberately?) forgetting all the other things I mentioned:


... and ability scores (bounded at 25).

... and saving throws (bounded at 2).

Seriously, 1e was a system that had many well-established bounds, not just AC.

5e's bounded accuracy goes hand in hand with bounds for AC, skills, and saves.

5e brought back several things that earlier editions had done, including bounds.

[ericgrau]

Your options are basically 2e, 3.5e, 4e and 5e (though now I'm remembering OD&D and... no, must stop).

IMO keep playing 5e for a bit until you understand it and are bored, then try 3.5e. 3.5e is much more complicated but gives you many more options as others have explained. Many people love making their characters with 3.5e as much as they like playing them. It would be good to play with an existing group first if possible, but I guess the same is true for 5e. In spite of what people say about balance, well that's always an issue on all games but when you first start 3.5e it's not a big deal. Once you get into the complicated combo tricks maybe. More likely when you first start you'll wonder why such and such "uber" class is so weak because it's hard for you to learn to play it well (even if it's supposedly easy to learn to play it ok). The big issue here is fun customizability vs overcomplication.

Once you play D&D for 10 years and want to nerd out, try 2e for that classic old fogey feel. Get actual paper books. Find an old campaign. Loot some dungeons. Talk about THAC0. It will be simpler again which is nice, and yet also have little pointless complicated quirks like that.

I skipped 4e not only because it's not that great, but also because 5e makes it that much more pointless. 4e is oversimplified after the monster that was 3.5e, yet there's so few choices that it gets dull if you want more. 5e tries to blend multiple editions including 4e and keeps things pretty simple without being too limiting. But if you're overwhelmed by what you're hearing about 3.5e and want something in the other direction, try 4e. Many people still enjoy that style and play it, and that's fine if you do too.

[Psyren]

My favorite edition by far is 3.P. Take the "you can create literally anything" benefit from 3.5 and crank it up to 11, because now there are three times as many alchemical items if you want your low-magic setting to function, you don't have to jump through hoops to make archery not suck, and there is a wealth of third-party material for any kind of setting or character you can imagine.

I've been enjoying Starfinder lately too, moreso than 5th anyway. I was always a fan of science fantasy though.



Pathfinder 2nd edition is maybe like 5th, only they fixed maybe one or two things and broke everything else.

Since your future self clearly has a copy of the finished product, mind asking him the winning lottery numbers for me too?

[Jormengand]

Since your future self clearly has a copy of the finished product, mind asking him the winning lottery numbers for me too?

Dear god, do you need the word "Maybe" in like 50 foot tall flaming letters or something?

[Psyren]

Dear god, do you need the word "Maybe" in like 50 foot tall flaming letters or something?

You applied it to the "fixed" while leaving the broken as an absolute so my statement stands, in whatever size font you deem fit.

[Jormengand]

You applied it to the "fixed" while leaving the broken as an absolute so my statement stands, in whatever size font you deem fit.

"Pathfinder 2nd edition is [maybe] [like 5th only they fixed maybe one or two things and broke everything else.]" not "Pathfinder 2nd edition is [maybe like 5th] [only they fixed maybe one or two things and broke everything else.]" Hey, it's almost as though I already made literally this exact clarification already. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22933016&postcount=8)

[Psyren]

"Pathfinder 2nd edition is [maybe] [like 5th only they fixed maybe one or two things and broke everything else.]" not "Pathfinder 2nd edition is [maybe like 5th] [only they fixed maybe one or two things and broke everything else.]" Hey, it's almost as though I already made literally this exact clarification already. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22933016&postcount=8)

I'm sorry I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of your replies to other people? :smallconfused:

[Cosi]

Since your future self clearly has a copy of the finished product, mind asking him the winning lottery numbers for me too?

Yes, heaven forbid that we judge the product by the promotional materials that were intentionally released by the company making the product to give us an idea of what the product will be like. Clearly, the only rational thing to do is to assume that those materials represent the worst parts of the edition, and all complaints have already be assuaged in the material they opted not to release to us.

[Jormengand]

I'm sorry I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of your replies to other people? :smallconfused:

I mean, the thread is literally two pages long. It might have helped you to check what I'd actually already said.

Also, as Cosi says, it seems ridiculous to assume that if what they've shown us - what Paizo thinks we most want to see - is awful, that says nothing much about the finished product. Why would they be showing us at all if it said nothing about the finished product?

[Psyren]

I mean, the thread is literally two pages long. It might have helped you to check what I'd actually already said.

Again, you weren't replying to me.



Also, as Cosi says, it seems ridiculous to assume that if what they've shown us - what Paizo thinks we most want to see - is awful, that says nothing much about the finished product. Why would they be showing us at all if it said nothing about the finished product?

It's a playtest. (Actually, it's not even that, it's a preview of a playtest.) The point of those is generally to see what needs changing, not to advertise "the finished product." If it were finished, they wouldn't be playtesting it.

[Falontani]

can we get off the subject of pathfinder 2.0 speculation guys? They temporarily blocked the other thread for similar reasons and I'd hope we can continue giving good feedback about the various systems already in play

[Psyren]

You're right, my apologies.

3.P is my favorite for reasons stated.

[Zaq]

3.5 Pros:

Tons of variety. It's an overstatement to say "if you can dream it, you can build it," but there's an awful lot of fun routes to explore. This is honestly the system's biggest pro. There's so much material, and it's really fun to explore weird and different and obscure tricks to build around.
If you love building characters as much as I do, there's a lot of reward to be had in fiddling with the finicky bits. Finicky bits can sometimes be a lot of fun.
If you're comfortable with by-the-book monsters (there's a little bit of tension in that assumption, to be fair), there's loads of monster books.
The system lends itself to homebrew reasonably well. That's mostly because it was pretty ambitious and tried to do a lot, so there's lots of loose ends that inspire you to patch things up and make something workable.
Characters have a lot of choices, meaning that they have a lot of chances to feel different from one another.
As much of a headache as they are when making a 20 level build from the ground up, I actually really like skill points.
If you like having a high power ceiling, full casters have you covered.


3.5 Cons:

It's kind of a nightmare to GM. Players can accidentally end up with wildly disparate power levels even without intentional powergaming, which is a headache, and the CR system is so borked as to be basically worthless most of the time, making building encounters almost 100% art rather than science, which takes a lot of time.
Save-or-lose effects are awful game design (an encounter should never, ever open by randomly telling a player that they don't get to play this encounter), and they're everywhere.
The numbers (HP/AC/to-hit/saves/average damage/etc.) get weird at high levels.
I hate the bloody item system SO MUCH. It cannot be cleanly excised, but there's just so much work involved with properly kitting out even a character of level 6-8, to say nothing of a character level 14+. I grinned and bore it when it was my primary system, but after being exposed to stuff like Legend's item system (or even 4e's, which, while flawed, is a hundred times better), I'm basically too old for that crap now.
It requires a certain level of basic system mastery to make sure that your character can do what you think they can do. Outside of, like, ToB, DFAs, and a few other examples, there are very few classes that a newbie is basically guaranteed to make functional without help.
While the finicky bits are fun at times, if you're forced to make a new character when you don't want to, it can take an awfully long time.
While I understand that it's better at this than earlier editions were, there's still a certain degree of "guess what Gary's thinking" in the monsters, meaning that a lot of them are disproportionately dangerous without a certain hard counter that you'd better hope you just happen to have with you.
I don't play with many people who would choose to make this a problem, but if you play with folks who would tend to go out of bounds without something keeping them in place, T1 casters can and do reshape campaign worlds in their image. Sometimes more literally than others. No system can hard-code against people being jerks, but if someone chooses to be a jerk in 3.5, the system lets them cause more havoc (before the GM shuts it down) than certain other systems do.

4e Pros:

Building characters is simultaneously easy and satisfying. There's enough variety that the characters don't all feel the same and you feel rewarded for putting your unique spin on a character, but it's also way easier to construct something in 4e than in 3.5.
Every class gets options. You don't end up with "I full attack. Again." characters unless you intentionally build them that way.
Healing surges are a neat mechanic that balances the urge to have HP be a semi-finite resource over the course of an adventuring day with the urge to let the heroes start most encounters at or near full health. Also, most "spend a healing surge" powers are minor actions rather than standard actions, so you rarely have to choose between healing someone and getting to attack.
Encounter powers. Encounter powers are awesome.
Building monsters is really easy, especially because the CR system actually means something and the system really does have formulas that it sticks to quite rigidly.
Off-turn actions are fun and satisfying.
The item system is far from perfect, but it still makes way more sense than it did in 3.5.
The basic assumptions about encounter building (like the fact that every PC should have a dancing partner, the way minions work, the four basic PC roles, and so on) are, overall, quite good things.
The classes feel different. A Swordmage defends wildly differently from a Fighter, who defends wildly differently from a Paladin, but they're all defenders, and they're all effective. Just because classes all have powers doesn't mean that they work the same way.
You get enough feats that you have some build currency to throw into customization or even into flavorful, less-than-optimal options without crippling yourself.
Love the character builder. Love the Compendium.


4e Cons:

WotC doesn't want you to play it anymore, so it's hard to get into it if you don't already have access to the online resources.
The Compendium is wonderful if you know what you're looking for. When it comes to feats, it's very difficult to use it if you're just randomly browsing and you don't already know what you're looking for.
All of the monsters published in or after the MM3 use the proper formulas. Earlier monsters don't. It's awesome that the formulas exist, but it can be slightly tedious to update old monsters to the proper formulas by hand.
Skill challenges are an awful implementation of an interesting concept. They're basically anti-fun as written unless you've got a really creative GM, though.
Balance is worlds better than 3.5, but there are still trap options and straight up bad build choices that aren't always as immediately obvious as one might hope.
Items get a little weird at high levels. Once you've got your character properly kitted out (which is far easier to do in 4e than in 3.5), you don't always want to give anything up, so it can be awkward to drop items that a high-level party really wants more than what they've currently got.
Some people don't like the non-Euclidean grid system. It doesn't bother me because it's pretty intuitive and I don't get too uptight about "omg square fireballs," but I guess some people don't like it?
If you don't hit, you don't matter. There are relatively few classes that have a proper effect on the battlefield if their dice are cursed.
Some groups get confused with the timing of off-turn actions. I think having a four-interrupt pileup is hilarious, but it can make things like PbP rather awful.

I own the 5e books, but I haven't really played it. The reason I haven't really played it is because I really don't like what it offers, though. I don't see any routes towards making characters unique and special, and the game seems terrified of characters actually doing anything.

[Kane0]

5e. We've got a few base classes and some heroic archetype thingees. You can multiclass if you really want to but it will probably suck.

Could you elaborate please?

[Raven777]

Just as an aside, you should know that the most popular D&D video game franchise was based on a faithful AD&D -- it's the Baldur's Gate series.

AD&D includes some very arcade-game like mechanics ("The boss wizard started attack animation casting, quick hit it for damage to force the attack animation spellcasting to abort!"), faithfully reproduced in BG.

AD&D 2e is therefore the most video-game edition.



The editions from oD&D to 1e kinda introduced Bounded Accuracy, it just didn't have a name back then.

For example, in 1e AC went from 10 down to -10, and no further. AC -10 was the limit.

1e ability scores went up to 25, and no higher. 5e bounds at 20 instead.

Bounded Accuracy is another retro feature of 5th Edition.

Every time someone mentions Baldur's Gate, someone, somewhere, decides to reinstall Shadows of Amn. :smallwink:

[Ratter]

your wizards and sorcerers feel like wizards and sorcerers, rather than adepts on an ego trip.
what?

even a samurai - one of the worst classes in the game - can actually walk through a small army without worrying that he's going to die horribly, rather than having to worry that bounded accuracy will mean that he's poked to death by the little guys.
Really? That doesnt sound like a very good thing... I mean all it is is taking away crits and fumbles and adding more AC, that seems to really only hurt the game, if you disagree, please tell me.

[Jormengand]

what?

You heard me. I enjoy actually being able to use my earth-shattering arcane might more than once a day, thanks.


Really? That doesnt sound like a very good thing... I mean all it is is taking away crits and fumbles and adding more AC, that seems to really only hurt the game, if you disagree, please tell me.

"Taking away" fumbles which were never there doesn't seem to be a major issue. And yes, I like my high-level characters high-level. No-one wants to hear the story of the master samurai who got his arse handed to him by a peasant with a yari and some good rolls.

[Ratter]

You heard me. I enjoy actually being able to use my earth-shattering arcane might more than once a day, thanks.

But, I mean, feeling like a high level wizard and being able to do god like feats constantly are not the same

"Taking away" fumbles which were never there doesn't seem to be a major issue. And yes, I like my high-level characters high-level. No-one wants to hear the story of the master samurai who got his arse handed to him by a peasant with a yari and some good rolls.
I mean, sure, but by the brutal overpowered-ness of a high level character, why dont they just send them to ohko the enemies armies in any given conflict?

[2D8HP]

what?

Really? That doesnt sound like a very good thing... I mean all it is is taking away crits and fumbles and adding more AC, that seems to really only hurt the game, if you disagree, please tell me.


Nope, it took a year for me to understand what folks meant, but I like "Bounded Accuracy".


You heard me. I enjoy actually being able to use my earth-shattering arcane might more than once a day, thanks.



"Taking away" fumbles which were never there doesn't seem to be a major issue. And yes, I like my high-level characters high-level. No-one wants to hear the story of the master samurai who got his arse handed to him by a peasant with a yari and some good rolls.


Actually peasants beating the high and mighty is totally my jam, I'm a much bigger fan of The Seven Samurai than I am of Avengers: Age of Ultron.

[Cosi]

I mean, sure, but by the brutal overpowered-ness of a high level character, why dont they just send them to ohko the enemies armies in any given conflict?

For the same reason that the US doesn't fight wars using tanks.

That is, they totally do and it is a reasonable and expected part of the setting that battles over objectives high level characters care about are largely decided either by high level characters or by armies of monsters sufficiently powerful that high level characters can't kill them en mass without risk. Armies of normal humans are useful for policing territory and enforcing laws, not for invading kingdoms ruled by high level Wizards.

[Jormengand]

But, I mean, feeling like a high level wizard and being able to do god like feats constantly are not the same

I mean, if I ever want to play a guy who can lob a couple of level-appropriate abilities and then proceed to hide in the corner for the rest of the day, I'll play a first-level character, not 5e.


I mean, sure, but by the brutal overpowered-ness of a high level character, why dont they just send them to ohko the enemies armies in any given conflict?

You mean to tell me that small bands of heroes fighting off tons of enemies isn't a standard fantasy trope? This is news to me.

[2D8HP]

....I'll play a first-level character, not 5e....


I'd say that first level 5e PC's are approximately as powerful as third level 1e PC's.

[Jormengand]

I'd say that first level 5e PC's are approximately as powerful as third level 1e PC's.

Eesh. First-level 3.5 characters are already deficient at basic real-world human competence, 5e ones are worse, and I shudder to think what 1e ones are like.

(I tried building myself in 3.5 once and it turns out I need at least 3 levels just to get all my skills sorted).

[Ratter]

You mean to tell me that small bands of heroes fighting off tons of enemies isn't a standard fantasy trope? This is news to me.

They dont win by default, whats the point of fighting if you win every single time, all thats used for is being able to say "I can kill infinite goblins," it would be a pointless encounter, and wizards can almost always do something, they just arent gods, you guys are talking about high level, so lets assume 16, you dont have a lvl 9 spell but are high level, thats 18 spells+5 infinite cast spells, thats enough to get you through 18 easy encounters or the reccomended dosage of 6 medium encounters, with spells to spare, thats a wizard. Casting wish 3 times a day, thats a god.

[Jormengand]

They dont win by default, whats the point of fighting if you win every single time, all thats used for is being able to say "I can kill infinite goblins," it would be a pointless encounter, and wizards can almost always do something, they just arent gods, you guys are talking about high level, so lets assume 16, you dont have a lvl 9 spell but are high level, thats 18 spells+5 infinite cast spells, thats enough to get you through 18 easy encounters or the reccomended dosage of 6 medium encounters, with spells to spare, thats a wizard. Casting wish 3 times a day, thats a god.

If you're still fighting goblins, only more of them, at level 20, then there's a problem. Really, now, what's the point in advancement if it's of the order of magnitude of "And now I can fight slightly more green nuisances before I keel over and die?"

[2D8HP]

If you're still fighting goblins, only more of them, at level 20, then there's a problem. Really, now, what's the point in advancement if it's of the order of magnitude of "And now I can fight slightly more green nuisances before I keel over and die?"


Frankly I just prefer PC's that are closer to mortal.

I want to play the Gray Mouser, not Thor (nothing wrong with wanting to play Thor, or Dr. Strange, et cetera, it's just not my thing).

[Jormengand]

Frankly I just prefer PC's that are closer to mortal.

I want to play the Gray Mouser, not Thor (nothing wrong with wanting to play Thor, or Dr. Strange, et cetera, it's just not my thing).

That's literally what low levels are for, though. You can absolutely play low-level concepts, but when 5e doesn't let you play high-level concepts and 3.5 lets you play high or low level concepts, there's a clear winner in terms of system versatility for a start.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I'd say that first level 5e PC's are approximately as powerful as third level 1e PC's.I guess the idea that your PC should start out as a complete chump is a holdover from older editions. IMO however you feel about late game PCs being superheroes, 3e/4e PCs starting out with a basic level of competence is a point in favor of those editions.

[Knaight]

That's literally what low levels are for, though. You can absolutely play low-level concepts, but when 5e doesn't let you play high-level concepts and 3.5 lets you play high or low level concepts, there's a clear winner in terms of system versatility for a start.

On the other hand, this allows the smaller region covered to be better defined. At a high level of abstraction levels basically correspond to a range with a bunch of tick marks in it. Size of the range and closeness of tick marks is opposed, and while you can add more tick marks there's a mechanical weight to doing so. This creates a balancing act, and different people have different preferences in terms of number of marks, distance between marks, and size of the scale. Designs that work well for some preferences don't necessarily work well for others.

[2D8HP]

I guess the idea that your PC should start out as a complete chump is a holdover from older editions. IMO however you feel about late game PCs being superheroes, 3e/4e PCs starting out with a basic level of competence is a point in favor of those editions.


5e PC's seem plenty powerful to me at first level, and actually one of my complaints with many 5e games is that the DM's have the PC's get too powerful, too fast.

But I tend to prefer Call of C'thullu to Champions so different strokes.

[Jormengand]

On the other hand, this allows the smaller region covered to be better defined. At a high level of abstraction levels basically correspond to a range with a bunch of tick marks in it. Size of the range and closeness of tick marks is opposed, and while you can add more tick marks there's a mechanical weight to doing so. This creates a balancing act, and different people have different preferences in terms of number of marks, distance between marks, and size of the scale. Designs that work well for some preferences don't necessarily work well for others.

Still, I don't see that adding different degrees of chumpitude takes away from the essential problem of never not being a chump.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

5e PC's seem plenty powerful to me at first level, and actually one of my complaints with many 5e games is that the DM's have the PC's get too powerful, too fast.

But I tend to prefer Call of C'thullu to Champions so different strokes.It doesn't take a Champions character to contend with a common street thug at the beginning of the game. 5e PCs might look like their numbers are okay, but that's only because the baseline numbers for all combatants (especially health) have increased. If the PCs are still weak relative to the most basic threats, they are chumps, period.

[Cosi]

3e characters probably are too weak at 1st level. Built off the elite array, a 1st level character built for melee combat is looking at something like a +4 attack bonus (+1 BAB, +2 for 15 STR, +1 for Weapon Focus/Racial Bonus/Whatever), an AC on the order of 15 (+3 or 4 from armor, +1 or 2 from DEX), and maybe 10 HP. That just doesn't leave a lot of space at the bottom for weaker things, and there are a lot of things that I think probably should be weaker than a 1st level character.

I think a trained soldier is probably a reasonable reference point for what a 1st level martial character should be. Taking that as a reference, I think there are probably two-or-three levels of thing that are weaker than a 1st level character, but not so weak as to be non-threatening (and hence not need stats). A soldier can probably win a fight with an untrained civilian, who in turn would win a fight with a dog, who would win a fight with a housecat, but none of those are such curbstomps that I would expect a 100% victory rate or no injuries to the winner. 3e just doesn't leave you enough room for stuff to be weaker than a 1st level character (which is why you get stuff like housecats killing Wizards).

[magicalmagicman]

3e characters probably are too weak at 1st level. Built off the elite array, a 1st level character built for melee combat is looking at something like a +4 attack bonus (+1 BAB, +2 for 15 STR, +1 for Weapon Focus/Racial Bonus/Whatever), an AC on the order of 15 (+3 or 4 from armor, +1 or 2 from DEX), and maybe 10 HP. That just doesn't leave a lot of space at the bottom for weaker things, and there are a lot of things that I think probably should be weaker than a 1st level character.

All 1st level characters have an additional 10hp. 1st level characters are intended to extensively use the stabilization rules. Everyone gets one shotted, but through teamwork no one dies and everyone struggles together until you escape chumphood. Only a TPK encounter will truly result in PC death, unlike higher levels where PCs can get one shotted 100 to -10.

[Knaight]

Still, I don't see that adding different degrees of chumpitude takes away from the essential problem of never not being a chump.

This is what I mean about preferences (along with being unable to identify other preferences). You have little to no interest in the low power version of the game. Tick marks there are totally pointless for you, and that design actively opposes your preference.

Meanwhile, I'd usually prefer that entire campaigns stay within your chumpitude range, as that's what interests me, with stuff outside that range maybe showing up occasionally in certain campaigns.

[Cosi]

All 1st level characters have an additional 10hp. 1st level characters are intended to extensively use the stabilization rules. Everyone gets one shotted, but through teamwork no one dies and everyone struggles together until you escape chumphood. Only a TPK encounter will truly result in PC death, unlike higher levels where PCs can get one shotted 100 to -10.

Eh. My problem is that it is stupid if fighting a cat has any real chance of killing you. I'm not particularly physically fit, but I am 100% confident that I would win a fight with a cat. I would almost certainly get hurt, and I'm not morally willing to kill a cat, but I don't think I'd have any physical problem doing that. It's not really better if the housecat just knocks me unconscious and my friends stabilize me.

Basically, it's a verisimilitude issue, not really a balance issue. Housecats don't kill people. Even dogs don't have any real chance of killing armed, trained people one-on-one.

[Jormengand]

This is what I mean about preferences (along with being unable to identify other preferences). You have little to no interest in the low power version of the game. Tick marks there are totally pointless for you, and that design actively opposes your preference.

Meanwhile, I'd usually prefer that entire campaigns stay within your chumpitude range, as that's what interests me, with stuff outside that range maybe showing up occasionally in certain campaigns.

If you want low-level-5e levels of chumpitude in 3.5, you can have them. You can build a soulknife and then poke out your eyes with your own mind blade, say. I just don't see why on earth anyone would enjoy that.

[2D8HP]

Still, I don't see that adding different degrees of chumpitude takes away from the essential problem of never not being a chump.


It doesn't take a Champions character to contend with a common street thug at the beginning of the game. 5e PCs might look like their numbers are okay, but that's only because the baseline numbers for all combatants (especially health) have increased. If the PCs are still weak relative to the most basic threats, they are chumps, period.


This is what I mean about preferences (along with being unable to identify other preferences). You have little to no interest in the low power version of the game. Tick marks there are totally pointless for you, and that design actively opposes your preference.

Meanwhile, I'd usually prefer that entire campaigns stay within your chumpitude range, as that's what interests me, with stuff outside that range maybe showing up occasionally in certain campaigns.


If you want low-level-5e levels of chumpitude in 3.5, you can have them. You can build a soulknife and then poke out your eyes with your own mind blade, say. I just don't see why on earth anyone would enjoy that.


Eh. My problem is that it is stupid if fighting a cat has any real chance of killing you. I'm not particularly physically fit, but I am 100% confident that I would win a fight with a cat. I would almost certainly get hurt, and I'm not morally willing to kill a cat, but I don't think I'd have any physical problem doing that. It's not really better if the housecat just knocks me unconscious and my friends stabilize me.

Basically, it's a verisimilitude issue, not really a balance issue. Housecats don't kill people. Even dogs don't have any real chance of killing armed, trained people one-on-one.


I do agree that 0e/1e PC's could sometimes be killed by a housecat (not likely but possible), and that first level in old D&D was often too much of a "meat-grinder", but I haven't found that to be true of 5e, and that few 5e DM's actually work to make the foes more dangerous challenges.

I guess I'm one with @Knaight in preferring playing "chumps".

"God-Wizards" just aren't my jam.

[Knaight]

If you want low-level-5e levels of chumpitude in 3.5, you can have them. You can build a soulknife and then poke out your eyes with your own mind blade, say. I just don't see why on earth anyone would enjoy that.

You're missing the point. The use of a wider power scale means that any individual part is less well supported. If you're playing a game with characters at a largely human scale to low end pulp heroes 3.5 is just a bad fit. 5e is a better (if still bad) fit.

That example character does a good job demonstrating it - you're talking about a character who is still an effective warrior, who fights while blind with a blade made of psychic energy. The entire concept there is way out of scope for that style of game.

[magicalmagicman]

You're missing the point. The use of a wider power scale means that any individual part is less well supported. If you're playing a game with characters at a largely human scale to low end pulp heroes 3.5 is just a bad fit. 5e is a better (if still bad) fit.

That example character does a good job demonstrating it - you're talking about a character who is still an effective warrior, who fights while blind with a blade made of psychic energy. The entire concept there is way out of scope for that style of game.

3.5 has more level 1-10 material than 5e has in their entire edition.

[Knaight]

3.5 has more level 1-10 material than 5e has in their entire edition.

That's both true and irrelevant. The relevant areas are more like levels 1-6 of 3e (hence e6), and 1-10 of 5e. Regardless of the quantity of material having six big building blocks and that's it is clunky. This is a matter of structure, and having more content for that structure doesn't actually resolve structural matters in any way.

[magicalmagicman]

That's both true and irrelevant. The relevant areas are more like levels 1-6 of 3e (hence e6), and 1-10 of 5e. Regardless of the quantity of material having six big building blocks and that's it is clunky. This is a matter of structure, and having more content for that structure doesn't actually resolve structural matters in any way.

I don't get your argument. You can simply limit classes to the ones you deem fun and ban all the ones that don't fit your idea of a good game.

Are you saying that 5e is the superior edition because power gaming optimizers can't get as powerful in 5e than in 3.5?

[Tvtyrant]

I don't get your argument. You can simply limit classes to the ones you deem fun and ban all the ones that don't fit your idea of a good game.

Are you saying that 5e is the superior edition because power gaming optimizers can't get as powerful in 5e than in 3.5?

No, he is saying that 5E has more power gradations because its first 10+ levels are the same as 6 levels in 3.5. You can have a longer period of meaningful advancement, just like if you made an E10 game where you gained a new spell level every level and an additional attack every other level it would be functionally the same powerwise as 3.5 but would have less gradation.

[Kish]

3.5 is less balanced than 5th, and slightly more complex. There, the problems with 3.5 by comparison to 5th end.

The skill system is actually there, with DCs you don't have to make up on the spot because they're actually written in the damn book. The classes mostly actually do something worth doing and your wizards and sorcerers feel like wizards and sorcerers, rather than adepts on an ego trip. Advancement is a meaningful thing (for example, at high levels in 3.5 you can actually pass DC 10 checks 100% of the time without being a rogue or pumping the relevant stat) and you stop being threatened by lucky level 1 characters after a while. While the class imbalance is significant, even a samurai - one of the worst classes in the game - can actually walk through a small army without worrying that he's going to die horribly, rather than having to worry that bounded accuracy will mean that he's poked to death by the little guys. Oh, and there's just more of it, so you don't have to worry that your character concept doesn't exist (your concept is that you steal famous dead people's souls and tack them onto your body for magical power? There's a class for that!).
You left out the part where 5ed has explicit, universal-except-for-humans-and-part-humans racial morality, such that a nonevil orc has to struggle constantly against evil instincts.

I suppose whether that's a pro or a con depends on one's point of view (you can tell mine from context, I'm pretty sure).

[Telok]

But I tend to prefer Call of C'thullu to Champions so different strokes.

Funny, I prefer CoC and Champions to any WotC version of D&D. They, and AD&D 1e, are honest about what's going on. In CoC you play normal people who confront things they can't solve with simple violence. In Champions you play superheros who are not threatened by random mooks (unless you do a low point game, but then you still know what's going on). In AD&D you start out as a farm kid with hand-me-down gear or a wizard apprentice with a single spell, you are the mook. But as you advance the levels have titles, including Superhero and Archmage. Zero to superhero, right in the level charts.

[Knaight]

I don't get your argument. You can simply limit classes to the ones you deem fun and ban all the ones that don't fit your idea of a good game.

Are you saying that 5e is the superior edition because power gaming optimizers can't get as powerful in 5e than in 3.5?

I'm not calling 5e the superior edition at all. What I'm saying, in convenient list form:
1) Different games are good for different things. You wouldn't use Exalted to run a game of normal people, and you wouldn't use Everyone is John to play hyper-competent characters.

2) Scope, degree of focus, and minimization of mechanical load are all somewhat opposed to each other. A game with an extreme scope (with degree of character power being the particular scope we're looking at here, but the principle is broader) is generally going to have a lower degree of focus for a smaller part of the scope, or is going to have a lot of extra mechanical load to have that focus everywhere.

3) Given this, for the specific context of trying to run a more grounded, lower powered game 5e is a better fit than 3.x. It's not a good fit (I'd shy far away from any D&D edition there, massive power growth is one of the major distinctive traits of every edition), but it's better.

[Nifft]

You left out the part where 5ed has explicit, universal-except-for-humans-and-part-humans racial morality, such that a nonevil orc has to struggle constantly against evil instincts.

I suppose whether that's a pro or a con depends on one's point of view (you can tell mine from context, I'm pretty sure).

WotC wants to sell books into two incompatible playstyles:

- Yours, where monster races are all ironically composed of misunderstood rebels; and

- The one you dislike, where monster races are irredeemable abominations and it's morally correct to stab them on sight.


IMHO either of these can be fine in isolation -- I'm a fan of Shadowrun where orcs are just people, for example, which would presumably suit your playstyle -- but WotC sells to people who want to use orcs in both ways, so they try to take a position in the middle.

[hamishspence]

WotC wants to sell books into two incompatible playstyles:

- Yours, where monster races are all ironically composed of misunderstood rebels;

A better way of describing it might be "there's no such thing as a "monster race" - there's only "commonly used for PCs" and "uncommonly used for PCs".

That combined with "no such thing as racial morality".

You can have orcs be, "underneath their unprepossessing exterior" exactly the same as humans - and yet, still have evil orcs, and nonevil orcs, just as adventures often have both evil humans and nonevil humans.

[Nifft]

A better way of describing it might be "there's no such thing as a "monster race" - there's only "commonly used for PCs" and "uncommonly used for PCs".

That combined with "no such thing as racial morality".

Nah, because even if you allow traditionally wicked humanoids to be "just people", there are more bridges to cross:

- Monstrous Humanoids are humanoid-ish races. Are yuan-ti just victims of racism and cultural imperialism? When they sacrifice warm-bloods to their scaled gods, is that their right under freedom of religion?

- Aberrations have races. Are grell just misunderstood loners? How about illithids? When they eat a human brain, is that just exercising their right to exist?

- Fiends have races. Is the dark lord Dispater just a brooding anti-hero? When a succubus drains a human soul, is that morally justified?

- Undead appear in "races". Are they just vitality-challenged people? (A certain comic has something to say (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html) about that.)


D&D seems to be built around lethal combat being the national passtime -- and if you want lethal combat to be a common thing, then you need some kind of designated target which is morally valid to face-stab. Tolkien gave us the orc, but plenty of other fantasy races, including undead and fey and fiends, can fill that role.

As long as all the players can separate fantasy from reality, then I see no problem with designated-evil fantasy races. (If a player can't do that, then you have a serious problem regardless of how you treat fantasy races.)

[hamishspence]

if you want lethal combat to be a common thing, then you need some kind of designated target which is morally valid to face-stab.
Basing it on actions rather than "creature type" has its own advantages.

[awa]

D&D seems to be built around lethal combat being the national passtime -- and if you want lethal combat to be a common thing, then you need some kind of designated target which is morally valid to face-stab. Tolkien gave us the orc, but plenty of other fantasy races, including undead and fey and fiends, can fill that role.

As long as all the players can separate fantasy from reality, then I see no problem with designated-evil fantasy races. (If a player can't do that, then you have a serious problem regardless of how you treat fantasy races.)

first undead can be people just read one of the many urban fantasies out there for that, it just depends on the setting and the rules that the undead follow.

And second while i am not inherently opposed to evil races (though personally i prefer them to be more complicated then simply evil), bandits/ slavers/cultists /the armies of the evil empire all work fine as designated antagonists that may be freely stabbed.

[Nifft]

Basing it on actions rather than "creature type" has its own advantages.

That's also fine -- but note my "also", not "rather than".

I also enjoy games about face-stabbing Nazis and Nazi-analogues, just as much as face-stabbing zombies / devils / orcs.

The idea that some kind of inherent evil moral nature applies to various fantasy beings is unproblematic, so long as everyone is able to separate fantasy from reality.



EDIT:


first undead can be people
Yes, that's what I said. Or they can be not-people (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html), which I also said.

In Core D&D, they tend to be not-people by default -- but some late-game "undead races" like Necropolitan are intended to be people.


bandits/ slavers/cultists /the armies of the evil empire all work fine as designated antagonists that may be freely stabbed.
It's noteworthy that orcs originally were the army of the evil empire, and that's why they were constantly presented as designated antagonists.

There were also men who served the shadow of Mordor, and they were no less face-stabbable than the orcs.

The distinction was that all orcs were in the evil imperial army.

[Cosi]

Basing it on actions rather than "creature type" has its own advantages.

Yes. Super obviously yes. If a species is "basically people" (in that they are moral agents capable of meaningful choices), having it be okay to murder all of them is bad.

But Nifft is also right that you want some species that it is okay to stab. The point is just that those races can't be moral agents. Which means that if you want Orcs to be okay to murder, they need to be like Warhammer 40k Orks, where they grow from fungi and just inherently want to murder people. They can't have Orc children, or Orc civilians.

In D&D, I think that space is filled pretty well by Demons, Undead, and to a lesser extent Aberrations. It is genuinely okay to kill Zombies, because they are not people and are motivated purely by a desire to eat your brains.

[2D8HP]

A normal warlock without dragon magazine content has "meaningful advancement" every level. So does a fighter and Barbarian. You can be in whatever range of power for the entire 20 levels of the game in 3.5 by selecting the proper tier of classes.As Jormengand said, 3.5 is capable of everything while 5e is not, and 3.5 has more options for every power tier than 5e, so I'm failing to see this argument.....


Is 3.5 capable of a relatively easy "training wheels" class that's not too much of a burden to the Party?

This is not a rhetorical question, I genuinely want to know, as I received an invitation to play a 3.5 game (I've owned the 3e PHB since 2000, but I didn't get a 3.5 PHB till this year, and have played neither).

Most of the D&D I've played was long ago games of 0e and 1e, and mostly I've played Fighters, withThieves a.distant second, and for 5e I've mostly played Rogues, with Champion Fighters a close second.

These days I'm a very slow learner and when I read rulebooks I remember the "fluff" but soon forget the "crunch" which I don't begin to remember well until I've used a rule in play a few times.

My firat thought would be to play a Fighter in 3.5, but "Feats" are a hurdle, and the last time I rolled stats (in order) fot 5e, I got an 18 INT, looked at the 5e rules for Wizard, said "No thanks" (too much for me to keep track of) and made the PC a High Elf Rogue with the Firebolt Cantrip, which made another player get on my case 'cause "sub-optimal", which left a bad taste, and I never played a rolled stats for a 5e PC game again, and I don't want to get ragged on 'bout "sub-optimal" again.

All the classes for both 3.5 and 5e are more complex/have more options than old D&D at first level, and I really don't see a "training wheels" class like the "Champion" Fighter for 5e.

Are there any?


Funny, I prefer CoC and Champions to any WotC version of D&D. They, and AD&D 1e, are honest about what's going on. In CoC you play normal people who confront things they can't solve with simple violence. In Champions you play superheros who are not threatened by random mooks (unless you do a low point game, but then you still know what's going on). In AD&D you start out as a farm kid with hand-me-down gear or a wizard apprentice with a single spell, you are the mook. But as you advance the levels have titles, including Superhero and Archmage. Zero to superhero, right in the level charts.


I well remember "level titles", the one I most craved was "Ranger Lord", but the highest level I've played in any edition of D&D was 11th level, which I didn't enjoy much.

Back in the 1980's my gaming circle really liked Champions but it just wasn't my jam as detailed builds with many options and superpowers just isn't my jam.



Yes. Super obviously yes. If a species is "basically people" (in that they are moral agents capable of meaningful choices), having it be okay to murder all of them is bad.

But Nifft is also right that you want some species that it is okay to stab. The point is just that those races can't be moral agents. Which means that if you want Orcs to be okay to murder, they need to be like Warhammer 40k Orks, where they grow from fungi and just inherently want to murder people. They can't have Orc children, or Orc civilians....


IIRC the old Keep on the Borderlands module by Gygax's had Orc "whelps" in it, causing a moral quandary.

5e adventures seem to mostly have goblins as antagonists, but I remember it being mostly animated skeletons and giant spiders as foes in my old games.

[Jormengand]

Is 3.5 capable of a relatively easy "training wheels" class that's not too much of a burden to the Party?

I haven't played warlock or dragonfire adept, but from what I know of them they seem to fill this relatively easily. You have a bunch of at-will powers, now go kill.

For all my grievances against the Tome of Battle, I'm pretty sure all the classes in there are decent and relatively easy.

If you're in core for whatever reason, any of the primarily-casting classes other than wizard - sorcerer, bard, druid, or cleric - are pretty easy to get the hang of. You either prepare or learn spells, if you learn awful spells you're less good and if you prepare awful spells you can change them, then go and point at the thing you want to blow up and it dies. They're really not dissimilar from the 5e versions of the classes except that you upcast automatically because your spells actually freaking goddamn scale (with, ironically, the exception of most cantrips; the only one which I can think of which does is ghost sound).

EDIT: As an aside, I have absolutely shoved 25th-level characters into relatively new players' hands (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ATasteOfPower) and they got on fine. The classes were wizard, cleric, and fighter (the fighter stayed relevant in combat by using an odd combination of feats to great cleave his way through an army) but the wizard and fighter were only simple because they were pre-built.

[RoboEmperor]

Is 3.5 capable of a relatively easy "training wheels" class that's not too much of a burden to the Party?

This is not a rhetorical question, I genuinely want to know, as I received an invitation to play a 3.5 game (I've owned the 3e PHB since 2000, but I didn't get a 3.5 PHB till this year, and have played neither).

If you're playing with beginners any class is easy to play. Just go fighter 20 or barbarian 20 and just figure out stuff as you go. Dungeon Crasher fighter that goes power attack, leap attack, and shock trooper is strong and requires no skill to play.

If you're a beginner mixed with experienced players who optimize then no matter what you do you will do less than others.

[Telok]

I'll second J's recommendations. 3.5 cleric and wizard are pretty much AD&D cleric and wizard with feats and the concentration skill. Warlock gets you a small box of magic tools that you'll need to creatively leverage sometimes, but you'll never be useless in a fight. It's difficult to completely screw up a ToB character, but stay away from swordsages for your first one because those can easily have problems at lower levels.

I'll add warmage and beguiler to the list. I'd also say not to do druid, they have complications from having to manage lots of different animal stat blocks at once.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I do agree that 0e/1e PC's could sometimes be killed by a housecat (not likely but possible), and that first level in old D&D was often too much of a "meat-grinder", but I haven't found that to be true of 5e, and that few 5e DM's actually work to make the foes more dangerous challenges.

I guess I'm one with @Knaight in preferring playing "chumps".

"God-Wizards" just aren't my jam.You're conflating the level 1 issue with the level 20 issue. Table the level 20 issue with the god wizards and the PC-vs-army scenarios and the dismissive Champions comparisons for a second. I am focusing on level 1, the game's entry point, where many more session hours occur in games. At that level, no one is expected to kill armies single-handedly*, no one is expected to be a god among men, and in fact no one is even expected to be all that competent. I'm talking about a very basic level of competence for a fantasy hero at the start of their journey that the PC lacks in 5e.

One example I used was being able to contend with a common thug one on one**. It's incredibly swingy in OD&D/AD&D, but at the very least the PC should be a mild favorite. In 3e/4e the PC is a decent favorite but could still lose. In 5e the PC is going to get trounced barring great luck. The same idea applies to accomplishing basic tasks outside of combat, when they require a roll. In fact, if we are to apply Knight's concept of scope to this level 1 issue, this low level power discrepancy increases the scope and reduces the mechanics/focus you can apply to that "sweet spot" where PCs are heroic but unable to steamroll an army by themselves.

1st level may not be a massive meat grinder in 5e, but that's only because the DM is encouraged to go all Elder Scrolls and send the equivalent of mud crabs at the party until they have reasonable capabilities, turning those earliest levels into tutorials-by-another-name.

*At an actual table
** Yes, it's a team game, but often enough you're occupied fighting enemy A while other people are occupied fighting enemies B through Z.

[gooddragon1]

3.5 is the ff7 of D&D
3.0 is more broken than 3.5
3.pf is less broken than 3.5 and +1 LA/CR

4e tried to appeal to people by making the gaming experience more in line with constant balance updates of online computer games

5e tried to appeal to people by offloading the balance onto the DM by making things ambiguous (DM determines success and failure much more) and reigning in the sources and amounts to which numbers/bonuses could accrue.

I believe that if a player isn't willing to invest a certain amount of effort into learning the basic system of the game they aren't too far from just going to a computer game rather than a simplified system. More players, more content, faster content, easier access to other people because of the internet.

I think that balance should come from players and the DM as much as from the system. The system does need to have some rules though and shouldn't offload too much onto the players or the DM. The problem, imo, is that new players and DMs don't know what is broken and what isn't. A new player playing a druid and the rest playing tier 4-5 could have problems with the druid trivializing encounters and not knowing why. A new DM may throw a monster that is CR "appropriate" against a group who can't handle it. A combination could have the druid doing all the heavy lifting in the encounter and the rest of the players fleeing for their lives.

What if we could make homebrew classes, feats, and items that are simple to understand but effective for the players and content (monsters etc.) for DMs that is also simple but effective for 3.5 D&D? They could then learn the game with the easier content and progress into more advanced content. They'd still have to learn grapple rules and all the other base mechanics, but maybe not include spells (or a very limited selection if at all and the monsters could be handled without much or any spells). The classes could even be used against harder content.

Of course, we'd have to have an argument discussion about what goals to set and how to achieve them for player and DM content.

Just an idea anyways.

[Ratter]

In 5e the PC is going to get trounced barring great luck.

assuming mild thug=bandit, we can calculate out average winners, A fighter, doing 2d6 damage per turn+his strength mod does on average (Assuming standard array and a +1 to strength through race) 2d6+3 damage per turn, so 9 damage per turn on average and will have 10-12 HP, meanwhile the bandit, with the same HP as the fighter, only does 4 damage per turn, so fighter wins

The monk does, at level 1, 1d4 damage per turn+dexterity, so he will generally do 1d4+3 damage per turn, or 5, however he has an AC of 15 most of the time, so it will take around 2 hits to kill him, and you will hit him 50% of the time, while he hits you most of the time, so its really close, but I would give the edge to the monk.

Cleric has cure wounds so he can really stomp the bandit

Rogue can kill with 1d6+1d8+3 damage if he has sneak attack or 10 damage, so he kills in 2 turns, without sneak attack the result is the same

Everything else has spellcasting so they can stomp the bandit

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

A thug, as one might expect, is a thug, not a bandit.

[Ratter]

A thug, as one might expect, is a thug, not a bandit.

Thugs are on the level of hobgoblins, and yes, any spellcaster can take a thug, any ranged boy can take a thug, bards stomp them so hard, its really only the people in melee that have trouble.

[Dimers]

Is 3.5 capable of a relatively easy "training wheels" class that's not too much of a burden to the Party?

Barbarian or warlock. Barbarian's only decision-making is "when do I rage". Warlock picks twelve abilities over the course of 20 levels, and you can have all of them be passive. They both do enough damage to matter in a combat, and they can both have skills that are useful to a party. Barbarian, I feel, is especially nice for this, because they have a very easy time picking feats if your goal is to keep it simple -- there are plenty of feats that make you rage more often or rage harder.

But I don't think 3.5 would suit you well. Every character has skills and feats, and every non-caster depends on having lots of magic equipment, so there's a lot of complexity no matter what you do.

[Ratter]

Barbarian or warlock. Barbarian's only decision-making is "when do I rage". Warlock picks twelve abilities over the course of 20 levels, and you can have all of them be passive. They both do enough damage to matter in a combat, and they can both have skills that are useful to a party. Barbarian, I feel, is especially nice for this, because they have a very easy time picking feats if your goal is to keep it simple -- there are plenty of feats that make you rage more often or rage harder.

But I don't think 3.5 would suit you well. Every character has skills and feats, and every non-caster depends on having lots of magic equipment, so there's a lot of complexity no matter what you do.

this a 3.5 question/Paizo question, if I ever did run it, my internet friends (As I have no real ones) are super heavy on optimization and balance, would I have to ban casters just to make the game playable?

[2D8HP]

Barbarian or warlock....

...so there's a lot of complexity no matter what you do.


Thank you very much for the info!

[Dimers]

this a 3.5 question/Paizo question, if I ever did run it, my internet friends (As I have no real ones) are super heavy on optimization and balance, would I have to ban casters just to make the game playable?

Depends entirely on your friends. Sorry to be vague, but I don't know whether your friends are the type to bring high-op tricks into a low-op game. Not much you can do if they are ... just don't play low-op games with those people.

[Kish]

Is 3.5 capable of a relatively easy "training wheels" class that's not too much of a burden to the Party?
This forum is massively dominated by people who treat optimization as mandatory and make a number of assumptions to support that. Don't let that give you the wrong impression of D&D 3.5; optimization is as optional as it was in any earlier edition or is in 5ed. Play what looks like fun to you and don't worry about whether it would be seen as "optimized enough" by the forum posters here.

[2D8HP]

....don't worry about whether it would be seen as "optimized enough" by the forum posters here.


Thanks @Kish, but it's orher players in the game making that complaint I worry about.

[Telok]

I personally feel that the WotC versions of D&D have a problem that's generally gotten worse over time. The lack of monster/npc morale and the lack of initial reaction rolls.

Playing with newer or less experienced DMs has become fairly dull and tedious as every encounter starts with the initative roll or surprise round and can only end when the players successfully flee (almost impossible) or everything on one side is dead.

[Zanos]

Yes. Super obviously yes. If a species is "basically people" (in that they are moral agents capable of meaningful choices), having it be okay to murder all of them is bad.
You're kind of pushing the credulity of a "moral agent" when 99.999% of individuals within the species "choose" to be Evil. Stabbing them in that case is just sane. And if you actually want to do the "rebel against my kind" trope, it's supposed to be a difficult path fraught with people who don't believe you, because they're sane. Not bigots.

[Knaight]

In 5e the PC is going to get trounced barring great luck. The same idea applies to accomplishing basic tasks outside of combat, when they require a roll. In fact, if we are to apply Knight's concept of scope to this level 1 issue, this low level power discrepancy increases the scope and reduces the mechanics/focus you can apply to that "sweet spot" where PCs are heroic but unable to steamroll an army by themselves.

Absolutely - the scope is wider (reducing the lower bound increases the gap, just like increasing the upper bound). It makes 5e a little worse suited for your defined sweet spot, and a little better suited for handling characters who absolutely deserve to get trounced by your basic bandit.

The key point here is that different people have different sweet spots, and that they can even vary among the same group of people for different campaigns. A combat focused campaign involving starter combatants who can probably take some street thug who's experience is likely more in intimidation and breaking the occasional knee cap but who can't handle professional killers who raid caravans for a living is just fine for some people, 5e services that niche better than 3e (though again, I wouldn't use any edition of D&D there).

Your described sweet spot sounds like one handled by a lot of pulp games - a starter pulp hero is probably better than a bandit if they're a combatant at all, basically no pulp hero can fight armies. Said lot of pulp games exist partially because it's a common sweet spot. On the other hand, there are games like Paranoia or Everyone is John, where that bandit has levels of competence you can only dream of, and games like Bunnies and Burrows, where that bandit is a massive dangerous predator to which you are a prey species, and any "fight" you get in is going to consist of a save or die against one arrow while you run for your tiny rabbit lives.

[Tvtyrant]

Thanks @Kish, but it's orher players in the game making that complaint I worry about.

I think the ultimate easy mode character is a Dragonfire Adept. Grab only 24 hour buff powers for most levels, max your constitution and go towershield+heaviest armor (eventually Mountain Plate) you can afford. Every turn is a small decision about where to shoot your aoe from to minimize friendly casualties, but you are going to use a cone attack and then huddle behind a shield.

[Malimar]

minimize friendly casualties
Take and use the invocation that gives 24-hour immunity to your breath weapon. The potential for friendly fire is still there, especially if your allies like to summon stuff, but is not an every turn thing. (Which is kind of too bad, because that would be an interesting tactical decision to have to make every round.)

[Tvtyrant]

Take and use the invocation that gives 24-hour immunity to your breath weapon. The potential for friendly fire is still there, especially if your allies like to summon stuff, but is not an every turn thing. (Which is kind of too bad, because that would be an interesting tactical decision to have to make every round.)

So don't do it. The character has to make more choices the other way, with the enduring elements ability you simply breath on the biggest clump of opponents you can find.

The bad part about DFA is your choices often boil down to "slow breath or entangling exhalation?"

[Cosi]

You're kind of pushing the credulity of a "moral agent" when 99.999% of individuals within the species "choose" to be Evil. Stabbing them in that case is just sane. And if you actually want to do the "rebel against my kind" trope, it's supposed to be a difficult path fraught with people who don't believe you, because they're sane. Not bigots.

That's not how Orcs work. This isn't even conjecture or anything. The Orc's entry for alignment says they are "often Chaotic Evil" (MM 203), which (per MM 305) means that only 40% to 50% of them actually are Chaotic Evil. That means something around half of Orcs aren't Chaotic Evil (of course, some of them might be Neutral Evil or Lawful Evil, but even a fairly conservative estimate concludes that 30% or more of Orcs are Neutral or Good). The fact that a person is or is not an Orc tells you very little about their alignment, according to RAW.

So sure, you can fight Orcs and even kill them if you are at war with Orcs. But that doesn't make them a monster race (or require them to be a monster race) any more than the fact that you can fight and kill Elves or Gnomes or even Humans you are at war with makes them a monster race.

[Kish]

Thanks @Kish, but it's orher players in the game making that complaint I worry about.
You know them, I don't, but I will say again that this forum's emphasis on MUST OPTIMIZE is not normal. You shouldn't expect it anywhere else by default.

[Selene Sparks]

Nope, it took a year for me to understand what folks meant, but I like "Bounded Accuracy".




Actually peasants beating the high and mighty is totally my jam, I'm a much bigger fan of The Seven Samurai than I am of Avengers: Age of Ultron. This is fine, that's a perfectly valid playstyle, but it's a complete failure in emulating the heroic fantasy genre, which is how D&D bills itself.

Really, if you want that, you need an unleveled, skill-based system. L5R can do this, for example, an Exalted-derived system could handle it, but D&D is just about the worst possible system to make that the central underpinning of the entire system, because the whole "You must be this tall to ride" is literally the entire purpose of levels. Especially since, if you look at the numbers, the ronin in The Seven Samurai were low-level characters anyways (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2). Or, basically, in D&D, or any heroic fantasy game generally, at mid to high levels, you're supposed to be the Avengers, or Achilles, or Odysseus, or so on, because that's what high-level means.

They dont win by default, whats the point of fighting if you win every single time, all thats used for is being able to say "I can kill infinite goblins," it would be a pointless encounter, and wizards can almost always do something, they just arent gods, you guys are talking about high level, so lets assume 16, you dont have a lvl 9 spell but are high level, thats 18 spells+5 infinite cast spells, thats enough to get you through 18 easy encounters or the reccomended dosage of 6 medium encounters, with spells to spare, thats a wizard. Casting wish 3 times a day, thats a god.No, wizards are pretty much gods in 5e, but that's beside the point.

Look, in the Illiad, the gods were concerned that Achilles was going to personally win the war. Achilles was then killed, not by massed peasant archers, the solution to, but by another named character. When Aries was wrecking the face of the Greek army, it was Diomedes, not a bunch of peasant archers, that sent him packing. In the kind of story that D&D is based on, being higher level does, in fact, mean that lower-level mooks need not apply.

And, as a final note, if the proper solution to any problem is a bunch of peasant archers, there is no point to having PCs. If a single peasant can so much as scratch Smaug, you don't need Bard and his magic arrow, you just need a hundred peasants. Or two hundred. Or more. But they're peasants, so you can always scale up.

On the other hand, this allows the smaller region covered to be better defined. At a high level of abstraction levels basically correspond to a range with a bunch of tick marks in it. Size of the range and closeness of tick marks is opposed, and while you can add more tick marks there's a mechanical weight to doing so. This creates a balancing act, and different people have different preferences in terms of number of marks, distance between marks, and size of the scale. Designs that work well for some preferences don't necessarily work well for others.Except that's really not the case because, unless you're a caster, pretty much all growth in 5e is an illusion.

Seriously, unless you're a rogue, you will never be vastly better at even skills than a peasant. It's obvious that if you have a +5 on your roll, a +0 will still win an opposed roll over 25% of the time. That number is almost the entirety of the skill system. Your AC will generally not meaningfully improve, and even then you still die to peasant archers. You never get decent flight without Glyph abuse, so you will always die to flying archers. Your saves don't improve at all unless you spend feats on them, so you're always going to lose to a caster with the right spell. The Unless you're a caster, the game never meaningfully changes. You just get some more HP and that's really it. Flight is concentration and has no duration, so you can't go visit a castle in the sky, you can't meaningfully protect from hostile environments, so plane-hopping is pointless or counterproductive, so the game is always at the same level, narratively and functionally.

5e PC's seem plenty powerful to me at first level, and actually one of my complaints with many 5e games is that the DM's have the PC's get too powerful, too fast.

But I tend to prefer Call of C'thullu to Champions so different strokes.It's funny you bring up Call of Cthulhu, because 5e runs into the single biggest problem of CoC, which is that skills do not function. There is no such thing as beginner-level skills or skilled tasks or anything like that, unless you're a rogue. You're always going to be on the RNG of an untrained peasant. Really, in a game I played, the dex 10 wizard was "the sneaky guy" because the ranger rolled moderately below average and the wizard moderately above. In both CoC and 5e, the only meaningful value in skills is to convince the DM you don't have to roll, because if you do, you're only marginally more useful than an untrained peasant.

The power thing, as mentioned above, is flatly incorrect from a mathematical perspective unless you're talking about casters(Mostly because Animate Dead/Simulacrum(AKA peasant militia as a class feature)>Summons>Literally everything else in the game)

Eh. My problem is that it is stupid if fighting a cat has any real chance of killing you. I'm not particularly physically fit, but I am 100% confident that I would win a fight with a cat. I would almost certainly get hurt, and I'm not morally willing to kill a cat, but I don't think I'd have any physical problem doing that. It's not really better if the housecat just knocks me unconscious and my friends stabilize me.

Basically, it's a verisimilitude issue, not really a balance issue. Housecats don't kill people. Even dogs don't have any real chance of killing armed, trained people one-on-one.The housecat problem is a combination of the cat being overstatted, commoners being understatted, and the importance of armor. But dogs can and do maul armed people.

You left out the part where 5ed has explicit, universal-except-for-humans-and-part-humans racial morality, such that a nonevil orc has to struggle constantly against evil instincts.

I suppose whether that's a pro or a con depends on one's point of view (you can tell mine from context, I'm pretty sure).No. That is never, ever a pro. Racism, or in this case what amounts to the full-throated endorsement of racist ideas directly relevant to a huge amount of real oppression is not okay. You want to have your "rebel from an evil society" thing? Then have it be that the orc society is super messed up, and you can RP the struggle of changing the way you think(Something real indoctrinated people do struggle with, see interviews with anyone deradicalized), but "[Racial group X](who, worth keeping in mind, are very often described and portrayed as dark and/or with words like "savage") is effectively biologically incapable of morality/advanced thought/civilization/etc," is not, and will never be, an okay thing(And, no, one miraculously civilized "savage" doesn't make the narrative better).

Seriously, read the orc entry, substitute it for any real-world ethnic group, and it reads flat-out like colonialist propaganda. It's not okay with orcs who "gather in tribes that... satisfy their bloodlust" and who "[make] no innovation," for whom "Strength and power are the greatest Orcish values," especially with negative framing around the fact that they "[reject] racial purity," and who are compelled to make babies with everyone they can(AKA "they're taking our women"). It's not okay with Doppelgangers, who are literally only ever described in the Monster Manual as stealing, murdering, and raping(Because they're "too lazy or self-interested to raise their young," with a side element of "they're taking our women"), with the added benefit that once they've done the raping, any children resulting thereof wind up doing the same thing regardless of anything else, because apparently the authors missed that race-essentialism went out of style 70 years ago. None of it is okay, because it's a direct extension of horribly racist narrative that continue to stick around, or at least have their effects still felt, in modern society, and continuing that narrative is directly harmful to real people.

In other words, the idea of Drizzt isn't compelling because he's an innately evil thing trying to overcome the natural inferiority that resulted from him being born dark-skinned because the One True Godtm got mad at his ancestors, it's because he grew up in a toxic environment and is dealing with that. And that's perfectly fine, that's a real thing, and if you want a character to be from an evil environment and dealing with that, that's a perfectly valid character idea. But racist nonsense like having a racial group be genetically morally inferior is absolutely not okay.

You're kind of pushing the credulity of a "moral agent" when 99.999% of individuals within the species "choose" to be Evil. Stabbing them in that case is just sane. And if you actually want to do the "rebel against my kind" trope, it's supposed to be a difficult path fraught with people who don't believe you, because they're sane. Not bigots.First of all, stabbing people without provocation is pretty much one of the most definitively evil acts I can think of, but beyond that, if you have a racial group whose whole schtick is entirely "lol we're evil and stuff," that is, at best, a case of bad writing, and more likely worse, but beyond that, the portrayed struggle in that narrative is every bit as much internal as external, if not vastly more internal. And, again, stabbing someone because you don't like their kind is pretty much a textbook example of racism. It even has its own word, starts with a L.

Even in the most iconic version of that archetype, Drizzt isn't the Only Good Dark Elftm. There is a literal goddess and religion around that idea. And, in what of the series I read, disliking Drizzt based on the fact that he was a drow was framed as a bad thing.

So, basically, there's a difference between a work featuring racism and a work being racist. One of them is normal, even a good thing if handled well, and one of them isn't.

You know them, I don't, but I will say again that this forum's emphasis on MUST OPTIMIZE is not normal. You shouldn't expect it anywhere else by default.I'd like a citation on both claims you're making here.

[Zanos]

I guess we're just ignoring that entirely different species aren't "racial groups", and that many of the classically Evil species were either created by an Evil deity or power, or have one as their primary patron.

There's a serious difference between "bad dark skinned people" and "species who's entire society from life until death has been patronized by a demon prince so 99% of them are ****ed up as a result."

Treating a creature that isn't human like it isn't human isn't racism.

Yes it's a setting and writing choice, but I seriously doubt anyone is going to argue that Ethergaunts or Shoggoths are People Too(TM).

[Kish]

I'd like a citation on both claims you're making here.
Both claims being...this forum insists on MUST OPTIMIZE, and most places don't?

I'm afraid, much as I appreciate and agree with your ethical views on fantasy racism, I'm not going to hunt down examples of people on this forum insisting on optimization, responding to "I want to play a monk" with "what's wrong with you? play an unarmed swordsage" or to "I want to bar Conjuration as a wizard" with "No no no, bar Evocation instead!"; they're too easy to find and too unpleasant for me to look at. And I'm certainly not going to try to prove that most D&D players don't do it. So feel free to decide I'm just randomly sharing my hallucinations with the thread.

[Zanos]

Both claims being...this forum insists on MUST OPTIMIZE, and most places don't?

I'm afraid, much as I appreciate and agree with your ethical views on fantasy racism, I'm not going to hunt down examples of people on this forum insisting on optimization, responding to "I want to play a monk" with "what's wrong with you? play an unarmed swordsage" or to "I want to bar Conjuration as a wizard" with "No no no, bar Evocation instead!"; they're too easy to find and too unpleasant for me to look at. And I'm certainly not going to try to prove that most D&D players don't do it. So feel free to decide I'm just randomly sharing my hallucinations with the thread.
You're right that people here push optimization harder than most, but people generally don't come to D&D forums asking for feedback on how to write a character. They generally have an idea and want to know how to make it mechanically good.

[Selene Sparks]

I guess we're just ignoring that entirely different species aren't "racial groups", and that many of the classically Evil species were either created by an Evil deity or power, or have one as their primary patron.Except that both Orcs are objectively the same species as humans and elves(they're interfertile) and different races in D&D are different racial groups! It's why they're called, you know, races. But beyond that, "they're all evil because they're demon-worshipers and/or cursed by God" really doesn't make the narrative any better.

There's a serious difference between "bad dark skinned people" and "species who's entire society from life until death has been patronized by a demon prince so 99% of them are ****ed up as a result."Beyond your problematic conflation of race and society for a moment, I've explicitly stated that a culture creating a toxic environment is fine, although should very much be handled with care. There's a huge difference between "Where the largest number of [racial group X] come from is a super messed-up place" and "[Racial group X] are morally inferior by dint of genetics." The problem is that, up until now, that's not what you were arguing for. As you, yourself, brought up:

You're kind of pushing the credulity of a "moral agent" when 99.999% of individuals within the species "choose" to be Evil. Stabbing them in that case is just sane. And if you actually want to do the "rebel against my kind" trope, it's supposed to be a difficult path fraught with people who don't believe you, because they're sane. Not bigots.
Furthermore, seriously, people move. Whether its due to displacement, slow border creep, or just stray travelers, the idea that 99% of a race in D&D terms living in one very local area is bizarre at best, making your argument even more absurd.

Treating a creature that isn't human like it isn't human isn't racism.Is the being you're referring to intelligent? Capable of abstract thought? Language? Self-determination? If so, then it most certainly is a person. Its narrative role is as a person, it is perceived by everyone present on a meta-level as a person. And dehumanization of people is a basic part of a racist narrative.

This is a very, very basic part of what the genre of fantasy is. You get just far enough away from reality that you can look at things from a slightly different perspective, so your point is silly at best. To take a direct quote from Tolkien, for example:
"The dwarves of course are quite obviously - wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic obviously, constructed to be Semitic."The dwarves were, in Tolkien's work, explicitly modeled off of his perception of Jewish people, which were mostly positive (https://io9.gizmodo.com/5892697/whats-classier-than-jrr-tolkien-telling-off-nazis-absolutely-nothing)(although not without problem, as seen with the whole greedy dwarf thing). Now imagine, for a moment, a cosmetically similar story involving short, bearded, gold-loving dwarves, but the author has them all be evil, treacherous murderers secretly working for demons and controlling vast chunks of the world by conspiracy. That would obviously be incredibly not okay. Now, with that in mind, look back at orcs. Do you see why this is a problem? You cannot divorce fiction from the broader narratives of society, because fiction reflects the broader narratives of society, and having a race(note the word here) of explicitly evil, savage, and stupid people described as having and depicted with low forheads (https://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/2017/03/05/phrenology-and-scientific-racism-in-the-19th-century/) and prominent (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Scientific_racism_irish.jpg) lower jaws (http://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/files/2017/03/phrenology-2.gif) very, very much ties directly into a very strong racist narrative, and that's before getting into the previously mentioned "wanting to take our women" garbage.

Yes it's a setting and writing choice, but I seriously doubt anyone is going to argue that Ethergaunts or Shoggoths are People Too(TM).See my above question. If so, yes they are.

Look, here's the bottom line: If there are racist or ignorant villagers that cause trouble for the Token Good Racial Rebeltm, that's one thing, especially given the framing, but if your narrative is that "stabbing orcs because they're orcs isn't bigoted, it's sane," the narrative is absolutely extremely racist. A work in which the logical solution to a problem is a Final Solution is utterly and completely unacceptable on every level. It is never, never okay.

Both claims being...this forum insists on MUST OPTIMIZE, and most places don't?

I'm afraid, much as I appreciate and agree with your ethical views on fantasy racism, I'm not going to hunt down examples of people on this forum insisting on optimization, responding to "I want to play a monk" with "what's wrong with you? play an unarmed swordsage" or to "I want to bar Conjuration as a wizard" with "No no no, bar Evocation instead!"; they're too easy to find and too unpleasant for me to look at. And I'm certainly not going to try to prove that most D&D players don't do it. So feel free to decide I'm just randomly sharing my hallucinations with the thread.I genuinely don't think I've ever seen a thread here in all my time lurking where the general response to a request for build follows the steps you're suggesting. What I normally see is "The monk really isn't a good unarmed fighter, so you might want to look at [Swordsage/Psychic Warrior/other pet unarmed class] instead, but if you're set on monk, try Y and Z to help you."

[Zanos]

Except that both Orcs are objectively the same species as humans and elves(they're interfertile) and different races in D&D are different racial groups! It's why they're called, you know, races.
Except not all "races" are capable of producing viable offspring, despite being called that. Also, reproducing to create fertile offspring isn't the sole determinate of species.

What I can tell you is that all Orcs are mentally deficient and physically strong by human standards by virtue of their ability modifiers.


But beyond that, "they're all evil because they're demon-worshipers and/or cursed by God" really doesn't make the narrative any better.
Why not? A group's history making it beholden to a dark power is a pretty classic trope in pretty much all mythologies. A god molding the creatures of the earth and imbuing them with different characteristics is as old as writing itself.



Beyond your problematic conflation of race and society for a moment, I've explicitly stated that a culture creating a toxic environment is fine, although should very much be handled with care. There's a huge difference between "Where the largest number of [racial group X] come from is a super messed-up place" and "[Racial group X] are morally inferior by dint of genetics." The problem is that, up until now, that's not what you were arguing for. As you, yourself, brought up:
Morally inferior by typical standards, maybe. Barring that evolution probably doesn't exist in a fantasy setting, I don't see what it's insane that any selective process could produce a species as sapient as humans are but with more or less altruism. Mental and social characteristics are partially genetic, even in humans.



Furthermore, seriously, people move. Whether its due to displacement, slow border creep, or just stray travelers, the idea that 99% of a race in D&D terms living in one very local area is bizarre at best, making your argument even more absurd.
Not really. Drow are mostly confined to the Underdark because they take penalties in light, have Darkvision, and have adapted their equipment and culture to do well there. While it's feasible that drow migrate, migrating to areas you're less capable of thriving in isn't going to happen as much.



Is the being you're referring to intelligent? Capable of abstract thought? Language? Self-determination? If so, then it most certainly is a person. Its narrative role is as a person, it is perceived by everyone present on a meta-level as a person. And dehumanization of people is a basic part of a racist narrative.

Absolute nonsense. Cthulhu is intelligent, capable of (very) abstract through, language, and self-determination. So are demons, devils, angels, intellect devourers, mind flayers, beholders. Their narrative role is absolutely not that of a "person." Things can be sapient and not be held to the same standards as a human. In fact, the narrative role of half of those things is explicitly to be too alien for a human to truly understand.



This is a very, very basic part of what the genre of fantasy is. You get just far enough away from reality that you can look at things from a slightly different perspective, so your point is silly at best. To take a direct quote from Tolkien, for example:The dwarves were, in Tolkien's work, explicitly modeled off of his perception of Jewish people, which were mostly positive (https://io9.gizmodo.com/5892697/whats-classier-than-jrr-tolkien-telling-off-nazis-absolutely-nothing)(although not without problem, as seen with the whole greedy dwarf thing). Now imagine, for a moment, a cosmetically similar story involving short, bearded, gold-loving dwarves, but the author has them all be evil, treacherous murderers secretly working for demons and controlling vast chunks of the world by conspiracy. That would obviously be incredibly not okay. Now, with that in mind, look back at orcs. Do you see why this is a problem? You cannot divorce fiction from the broader narratives of society, because fiction reflects the broader narratives of society, and having a race(note the word here) of explicitly evil, savage, and stupid people described as having and depicted with low forheads (https://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/2017/03/05/phrenology-and-scientific-racism-in-the-19th-century/) and prominent (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Scientific_racism_irish.jpg) lower jaws (http://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/files/2017/03/phrenology-2.gif) very, very much ties directly into a very strong racist narrative, and that's before getting into the previously mentioned "wanting to take our women" garbage.
See my above question. If so, yes they are.
Basing an in-universe species off of your real world perception of an ethnic groups characteristics is racist. Having a species have sufficiently different baseline capabilities from humans such that they develop to fill different roles is not racist in general.



Look, here's the bottom line: If there are racist or ignorant villagers that cause trouble for the Token Good Racial Rebeltm, that's one thing, especially given the framing, but if your narrative is that "stabbing orcs because they're orcs isn't bigoted, it's sane," the narrative is absolutely extremely racist. A work in which the logical solution to a problem is a Final Solution is utterly and completely unacceptable on every level. It is never, never okay.
What if we killed all the demons? Devils? Mind Flayers? Red Dragons? Drow?

Fantasy has always contained creatures which are bad. People aren't bigots for assuming that Drizzt is like almost every other drow that exists. In fact, accepting a drow that says they're good at face value is incredibly dangerous, because the overwhelming majority of drow are CE lying schemers.

[Cosi]

The housecat problem is a combination of the cat being overstatted, commoners being understatted, and the importance of armor. But dogs can and do maul armed people.

Sure. But (I don't think) that dogs actually consistently win fights with armed humans. Obviously the dataset there is probably not super large, but I think it's probably reasonable to say that there should be a gradation below "person" for "dog" (particularly smaller dogs).


What if we killed all the demons? Devils?

Sure. Those are not moral agents. A Devil is made of evil in the same way that a Fire Elemental is made of fire. It is no more able to choose not to be evil than the Fire Elemental is able to choose to not be on fire. Also note the absence of any potentially complicating moral factors -- there are no Demon children, or Devil craftsmen.


Mind Flayers?

Maybe? But not because lots of them are personally evil *****. "Kill all the Mind Flayers" is an acceptable thing to call for to the degree that Mind Flayers have to eat people to survive. If it's impossible for Mind Flayers to survive without killing sentient beings to eat their brains, they should be wiped out for the same reason that we wipe out diseases that are fatal to humans. If they merely enjoy eating peoples' brains, it is still ethically permissible to kill any of them who actually do eat people's brains (or enslave people, or do horrific biomagical experiments on people), but killing someone simply for being a Mind Flayer would be wrong.


Red Dragons?

I think the fact that you are asking this question at all reflects a misunderstanding of the other side (or at least of my position). It is acceptable (at least within the context of D&D) to kill people who are evil. What is problematic is the idea of branding entire races as evil because those races happen to contain lots of evil people. So if we consider Smaug as the modal example of "Red Dragon", it is totally ethically acceptable to kill Smaug. He invaded the Dwarves' home, killed and consumed hundreds or thousands of them, and stole all their stuff. He is then killed when he invades and attempts to destroy Laketown because he thinks the Dwarves passed through it on their way to the Lonely Mountain. You don't have to invoke the idea that killing all dragons everywhere is ethically justified to justify killing Smaug (or the various other dragons of the source material who do things like kidnap princesses).


Drow?

The depiction of Drow is actually super screwed up and problematic. Drow are the number one example of why the way race is depicted in D&D is bad. Most obviously, they are an Elven subrace, which essentially completely erodes the "they are actually different species and therefore not directly analogous to races in the real world". So you have this group that is exactly analogous to a human ethnic group. And then look at how they're depicted. They're black and they're matriarchal. It's hard not to see that as depicting those traits as evil (particularly because those traits are often what makes them distinct from surface Elves), which is ... deeply screwed up for reasons that are hopefully obvious. Now, yes, they do have a bunch of cultural traits that are evil (slavery, rampant assassinations, human sacrifice). But that doesn't actually justify hating all Drow any more than you would have been justified in punching the Germany guy who lived across from your house in 1943 because the Nazis were German and also evil so therefore he must be evil.

[Tvtyrant]

Sure. But (I don't think) that dogs actually consistently win fights with armed humans. Obviously the dataset there is probably not super large, but I think it's probably reasonable to say that there should be a gradation below "person" for "dog" (particularly smaller dogs).



Sure. Those are not moral agents. A Devil is made of evil in the same way that a Fire Elemental is made of fire. It is no more able to choose not to be evil than the Fire Elemental is able to choose to not be on fire. Also note the absence of any potentially complicating moral factors -- there are no Demon children, or Devil craftsmen.



Maybe? But not because lots of them are personally evil *****. "Kill all the Mind Flayers" is an acceptable thing to call for to the degree that Mind Flayers have to eat people to survive. If it's impossible for Mind Flayers to survive without killing sentient beings to eat their brains, they should be wiped out for the same reason that we wipe out diseases that are fatal to humans. If they merely enjoy eating peoples' brains, it is still ethically permissible to kill any of them who actually do eat people's brains (or enslave people, or do horrific biomagical experiments on people), but killing someone simply for being a Mind Flayer would be wrong.



I think the fact that you are asking this question at all reflects a misunderstanding of the other side (or at least of my position). It is acceptable (at least within the context of D&D) to kill people who are evil. What is problematic is the idea of branding entire races as evil because those races happen to contain lots of evil people. So if we consider Smaug as the modal example of "Red Dragon", it is totally ethically acceptable to kill Smaug. He invaded the Dwarves' home, killed and consumed hundreds or thousands of them, and stole all their stuff. He is then killed when he invades and attempts to destroy Laketown because he thinks the Dwarves passed through it on their way to the Lonely Mountain. You don't have to invoke the idea that killing all dragons everywhere is ethically justified to justify killing Smaug (or the various other dragons of the source material who do things like kidnap princesses).



The depiction of Drow is actually super screwed up and problematic. Drow are the number one example of why the way race is depicted in D&D is bad. Most obviously, they are an Elven subrace, which essentially completely erodes the "they are actually different species and therefore not directly analogous to races in the real world". So you have this group that is exactly analogous to a human ethnic group. And then look at how they're depicted. They're black, they're matriarchal, and they're into BDSM. It's hard not to see that as depicting those traits as evil, which is ... deeply screwed up for reasons that are hopefully obvious. Now, yes, they do have a bunch of cultural traits that are evil (slavery, rampant assassinations, human sacrifice). But that doesn't actually justify hating all Drow any more than you would have been justified in punching the Germany guy who lived across from your house in 1943 because the Nazis were German and also evil so therefore he must be evil.

The funny thing is that you are trying to claim that it is ethically wrong to imitate an ethically wrong action, but only so far as it incorrectly justifies you committing imitation murder. Creating elaborate justifications or simple ones, ethical justifications or unethical ones is still beside the point that you are playing a scenario where you get to kill things without consequences.

Either this is okay, in which case complaining about the ethics of a particular justification is meaningless as imitation is not the same as reality. Or it isn't okay, in which case the complaint is still meaningless as you are committing the greater ethical violation and attacking the smaller.

[Zanos]

Also note the absence of any potentially complicating moral factors -- there are no Demon children, or Devil craftsmen.
I seem to recall it mentioned that succubi can reproduce sexually, and the Chain Devil actually does have ranks in Craft(Blacksmithing).



Maybe? But not because lots of them are personally evil *****. "Kill all the Mind Flayers" is an acceptable thing to call for to the degree that Mind Flayers have to eat people to survive. If it's impossible for Mind Flayers to survive without killing sentient beings to eat their brains, they should be wiped out for the same reason that we wipe out diseases that are fatal to humans. If they merely enjoy eating peoples' brains, it is still ethically permissible to kill any of them who actually do eat people's brains (or enslave people, or do horrific biomagical experiments on people), but killing someone simply for being a Mind Flayer would be wrong.

The issue is that a Mind Flayer that abstains from eating brains is such a rarity and you take a huge, potentially lethal risk by trusting him to not uses his overwhelming mental powers to paralyze you and devour your brain. If you stab every mind flayer you see, the chances of you killing a good one are so low they're close to not existing. When you're attacking a Mind Flayer city that's been kidnapping people, you don't really have time to perform an oral inspection on every Mind Flayer to check for brain bits.



I think the fact that you are asking this question at all reflects a misunderstanding of the other side (or at least of my position). It is acceptable (at least within the context of D&D) to kill people who are evil. What is problematic is the idea of branding entire races as evil because those races happen to contain lots of evil people. So if we consider Smaug as the modal example of "Red Dragon", it is totally ethically acceptable to kill Smaug. He invaded the Dwarves' home, killed and consumed hundreds or thousands of them, and stole all their stuff. He is then killed when he invades and attempts to destroy Laketown because he thinks the Dwarves passed through it on their way to the Lonely Mountain. You don't have to invoke the idea that killing all dragons everywhere is ethically justified to justify killing Smaug (or the various other dragons of the source material who do things like kidnap princesses).

Red Dragons are quite literally born Evil, per their Wyrmling monster entry. You should also read the MM description for them, because Red Dragons are "always" Smaug, except the very small proportion that are not.

The point here being that a Red Dragon is not a human. From birth, it has different impulses and desires than a human does. It's still a completely sapient being with equal to and potentially greater mental capacity and free will than a human, but it will wind up being awful such a huge percentage of the time anyway.



The depiction of Drow is actually super screwed up and problematic. Drow are the number one example of why the way race is depicted in D&D is bad. Most obviously, they are an Elven subrace, which essentially completely erodes the "they are actually different species and therefore not directly analogous to races in the real world". So you have this group that is exactly analogous to a human ethnic group. And then look at how they're depicted. They're black and they're matriarchal. It's hard not to see that as depicting those traits as evil (particularly because those traits are often what makes them distinct from surface Elves), which is ... deeply screwed up for reasons that are hopefully obvious. Now, yes, they do have a bunch of cultural traits that are evil (slavery, rampant assassinations, human sacrifice). But that doesn't actually justify hating all Drow any more than you would have been justified in punching the Germany guy who lived across from your house in 1943 because the Nazis were German and also evil so therefore he must be evil.
There are so few evil matriarchal societies and so many evil patriarchies in fiction that I don't really see that as a problem. And Drow are usually depicted as being literally black, purple, or blue, rather than as a dark-skinned human.

And Drow are an Elven subrace, but they're pretty explicitly cursed/patronized by Lolth.

[Cosi]

The funny thing is that you are trying to claim that it is ethically wrong to imitate an ethically wrong action, but only so far as it incorrectly justifies you committing imitation murder. Creating elaborate justifications or simple ones, ethical justifications or unethical ones is still beside the point that you are playing a scenario where you get to kill things without consequences.

Either this is okay, in which case complaining about the ethics of a particular justification is meaningless as imitation is not the same as reality. Or it isn't okay, in which case the complaint is still meaningless as you are committing the greater ethical violation and attacking the smaller.

"The ethics of the game are not the same as the ethics of reality" does not imply "the ethics of the game are totally meaningless". Also, I think that "it is okay to kill people who are cannibalistic murderers" is a better approximation of real world morality than "it is okay to kill people for being the race they are". People may not endorse vigilante justice, but at least they agree that cannibal murders are bad. On the other hand, when asked which side is right in the debate over whether we should blame all people of X race for the actions of persons of X race, most people are correctly able to identify that position as monstrous.

I mean, we all agree that RaHoWa and FATAL are bad, right? So clearly there is some amount of morally offensive stuff you can put in the game that is problematic. Which means the question is really "is having a race of dark skinned people who are inherently evil that you can kill without feeling bad about it regardless of their individual actions enough like white supremacist propaganda to make us uncomfortable", to which I should hope the answer is "yes, obviously".

[Cosi]

I seem to recall it mentioned that succubi can reproduce sexually, and the Chain Devil actually does have ranks in Craft(Blacksmithing).

The children of succubi would be half-fiends, not demons.


The issue is that a Mind Flayer that abstains from eating brains is such a rarity and you take a huge, potentially lethal risk by trusting him to not uses his overwhelming mental powers to paralyze you and devour your brain. If you stab every mind flayer you see, the chances of you killing a good one are so low they're close to not existing.

... is that how you think morality actually works? You understand there are options that aren't "trust entirely" and "violently murder", right? You could wait for the Mind Flayer to prove he's trustworthy before dealing with him. You don't have to jump straight from "I'm not sure I trust you" to "therefore I must stab you", and doing so in fact makes you the bad guy.


Red Dragons are quite literally born Evil, per their Wyrmling monster entry. You should also read the MM description for them, because Red Dragons are "always" Smaug, except the very small proportion that are not.

I literally just said that it is okay to kill Smaug for doing Smaug-things. If Smaug has taken over your mountain full of treasure and slaughtered your people, it is totally okay by me if you kill him for doing that (as the Dwarves attempt to do). Hell, it is okay to kill Smaug while he is merely invading your kingdom and trying to take your riches or slaughter your people (as Bard does). What is not ethical is killing Smaug just because he is a Red Dragon and you are super sure he will eventually do something evil.


There are so few evil matriarchy societies in fiction that I don't really see that as a problem.

What the hell stupid excuse is this? "People don't do it a lot, so it can't be that bad." That doesn't make any sense at all.


And Drow are an Elven subrace, but they're pretty explicitly cursed/patronized by Lolth.

There is literally a Wikipedia page explaining how real-life racists claimed real-life black people were cursed by god to be morally inferior (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain#Racism_in_religion). I don't personally find "but the racist propaganda is literally true" all that compelling of an excuse, but you do you.

[Tvtyrant]

"The ethics of the game are not the same as the ethics of reality" does not imply "the ethics of the game are totally meaningless". Also, I think that "it is okay to kill people who are cannibalistic murderers" is a better approximation of real world morality than "it is okay to kill people for being the race they are". People may not endorse vigilante justice, but at least they agree that cannibal murders are bad. On the other hand, when asked which side is right in the debate over whether we should blame all people of X race for the actions of persons of X race, most people are correctly able to identify that position as monstrous.

I mean, we all agree that RaHoWa and FATAL are bad, right? So clearly there is some amount of morally offensive stuff you can put in the game that is problematic. Which means the question is really "is having a race of dark skinned people who are inherently evil that you can kill without feeling bad about it regardless of their individual actions enough like white supremacist propaganda to make us uncomfortable", to which I should hope the answer is "yes, obviously".

See I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I have committed planetary suicide in Civilization IV via nuclear barrage, yet I have no desire to see the world end in an apocalyptic war. Everyone on this subsection has played a murderous little hobo who commits actions that would be jail worthy in the real world, and had to create an entire world of justifications to get away with those. First person shooters don't increase shootings, and 4X games don't increase civic engineer numbers.

Games are in fact not real, and do not inform the ethics of the participants. Finding some play uncomfortable is fine, and you are free to not participate. It is not wrong for that play to exist, any more then any other consensual play is.

TLDR: Personal comfort is not a useful measurement for ethical statements.

[Zanos]

... is that how you think morality actually works? You understand there are options that aren't "trust entirely" and "violently murder", right? You could wait for the Mind Flayer to prove he's trustworthy before dealing with him. You don't have to jump straight from "I'm not sure I trust you" to "therefore I must stab you", and doing so in fact makes you the bad guy.
The problem with waiting for a Mind Flayer to prove he's trustworthy is that, without some serious precautions, he can gib a normal human pretty much any time the fancy takes him. I generally don't hang around cannibals that constantly have a gun pointed at the back of my head.

So in that case I'm going to say that the sane option between the two extremes here is to tell the Mind Flayer to get the hell out of your town and not come back. But I guess that's racist.



I literally just said that it is okay to kill Smaug for doing Smaug-things. If Smaug has taken over your mountain full of treasure and slaughtered your people, it is totally okay by me if you kill him for doing that (as the Dwarves attempt to do). Hell, it is okay to kill Smaug while he is merely invading your kingdom and trying to take your riches or slaughter your people (as Bard does). What is not ethical is killing Smaug just because he is a Red Dragon and you are super sure he will eventually do something evil.
But what if all that talk about Smaug is just propaganda?


What the hell stupid excuse is this? "People don't do it a lot, so it can't be that bad." That doesn't make any sense at all.
I'm not really sure what your point is either on that topic tbh. Why is a matriarchy that is Evil bad? There's plenty of evil fantasy governments run by men. Last I checked Drow weren't Evil because of some inherent property of Drow women that men don't have, and Drow men who obtain power are just as awful.


There is literally a Wikipedia page explaining how real-life racists claimed real-life black people were cursed by god to be morally inferior (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain#Racism_in_religion). I don't personally find "but the racist propaganda is literally true" all that compelling of an excuse, but you do you.
Not being able to recognize the difference between a fantasy that has objectively provable deities and a reality where nutjobs invent excuses to hate people is your problem, not mine.

[Cosi]

Games are in fact not real, and do not inform the ethics of the participants. Finding some play uncomfortable is fine, and you are free to not participate. It is not wrong for that play to exist, any more then any other consensual play is.

But we're not talking about your personal choices. We're talking about the game as a whole. My position is not that people should come to your house and stop you from having evil Drow in your games (although, it is that having evil Drow in your games is still problematic even if you do not believe that it is), it is that the default position of the game as a whole should not be "it is okay to kill the black Elves".

Also, I ask you again -- are RaHoWa and FATAL things that should exist? Should we all just accept that people publishing literal racist propaganda as a game is okay because they're not forcing us to play it, or should we take the (apparently bold and controversial somehow?) position that saying "it's a game" doesn't make racism less racist?


The problem with waiting for a Mind Flayer to prove he's trustworthy is that, without some serious precautions, he can gib a normal human pretty much any time the fancy takes him. I generally don't hang around cannibals that constantly have a gun pointed at the back of my head.

Yes. Because he is CR 8 and normal humans are CR 1/2. But any CR 8 character could gib a normal human if she wanted to. This raises another point actually -- if the mind flayer wanted to eat your brains, he could just do that. So the fact that he has not is evidence he doesn't want to, particularly if he tells you he doesn't want to. The risk of possibly being evil is not unique to mind flayers (and frankly the people at risk probably couldn't tell a mind flayer from a minotaur to decide what to discriminate against), it also includes perfect normal looking people who happen to be disguised dopplegangers or apocalypse cultists.


But what if all that talk about Smaug is just propaganda?

Smaug openly admits to having eaten Dwarves before (in his conversation with Bilbo he says "I know the smell (and taste) of dwarf", and he gives a speech boasting about killing the King Under the Mountain and the Lord of Dale), and he is ultimately killed when he attacks Laketown and attempts to destroy it. Insofar as we trust the veracity of the text at all, it is clear that Smaug was evil as a function of his actions. If we don't trust the text at all, then sure, you shouldn't kill Smaug for doing things he didn't do. But you should still kill someone who did do the things the text claims Smaug did.

But yes, if it is just propaganda, don't kill Smaug. But that's not really helping your argument, unless you think that we should kill people against whom there is a lot of propaganda because they are from groups we think are bad. This is another one of those things where I shouldn't have to explain why saying it makes you sound like a monster.


I'm not really sure what your point is either on that topic tbh. Why is a matriarchy that is Evil bad?

If Drow are evil and ruled by women and Elves are good and ruled by men, that's sending a pretty clear message about how the setting views female leadership. The problem is not that the Drow are Evil and Matriarchal in a vacuum. It's that the Drow are Matriarchal and the Elves (who are good) aren't. If, like, Goblins were Evil and Matriarchal, that would be totally unobjectionable.


Not being able to recognize the difference between a fantasy that has objectively provable deities and a reality where nutjobs invent excuses to hate people is your problem, not mine.

So you think the problem with the arguments on that page is not the arguments themselves, but the fact that god doesn't exist?

[2D8HP]

You know them, I don't, but I will say again that this forum's emphasis on MUST OPTIMIZE is not normal. You shouldn't expect it anywhere else by default.


Thanks again for the encouragement.

:smile:


This is fine, that's a perfectly valid playstyle, but it's a complete failure in emulating the heroic fantasy genre, which is how D&D bills itself.

Really, if you want that, you need an unleveled, skill-based system. L5R can do this, for example, an Exalted-derived system could handle it, but D&D is just about the worst possible system to make that the central underpinning of the entire system, because the whole "You must be this tall to ride" is literally the entire purpose of levels. Especially since, if you look at the numbers, the ronin in The Seven Samurai were low-level characters anyways (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2). Or, basically, in D&D, or any heroic fantasy game generally, at mid to high levels, you're supposed to be the Avengers, or Achilles, or Odysseus, or so on, because that's what high-level means.
No, wizards are pretty much gods in 5e, but that's beside the point.

Look, in the Illiad, the gods were concerned that Achilles was going to personally win the war. Achilles was then killed, not by massed peasant archers, the solution to, but by another named character. When Aries was wrecking the face of the Greek army, it was Diomedes, not a bunch of peasant archers, that sent him packing. In the kind of story that D&D is based on, being higher level does, in fact, mean that lower-level mooks need not apply.

And, as a final note, if the proper solution to any problem is a bunch of peasant archers, there is no point to having PCs. If a single peasant can so much as scratch Smaug, you don't need Bard and his magic arrow, you just need a hundred peasants. Or two hundred. Or more. But they're peasants, so you can always scale up.
Except that's really not the case because, unless you're a caster, pretty much all growth in 5e is an illusion.

Seriously, unless you're a rogue, you will never be vastly better at even skills than a peasant. It's obvious that if you have a +5 on your roll, a +0 will still win an opposed roll over 25% of the time. That number is almost the entirety of the skill system. Your AC will generally not meaningfully improve, and even then you still die to peasant archers. You never get decent flight without Glyph abuse, so you will always die to flying archers. Your saves don't improve at all unless you spend feats on them, so you're always going to lose to a caster with the right spell. The Unless you're a caster, the game never meaningfully changes. You just get some more HP and that's really it. Flight is concentration and has no duration, so you can't go visit a castle in the sky, you can't meaningfully protect from hostile environments, so plane-hopping is pointless or counterproductive, so the game is always at the same level, narratively and functionally.
It's funny you bring up Call of Cthulhu, because 5e runs into the single biggest problem of CoC, which is that skills do not function. There is no such thing as beginner-level skills or skilled tasks or anything like that, unless you're a rogue. You're always going to be on the RNG of an untrained peasant. Really, in a game I played, the dex 10 wizard was "the sneaky guy" because the ranger rolled moderately below average and the wizard moderately above. In both CoC and 5e, the only meaningful value in skills is to convince the DM you don't have to roll, because if you do, you're only marginally more useful than an untrained peasant....


Most of the D&D I've played was pre-2e and most of that was at low levels, and the legendary/myth/popular culture narratives of

Robin Hood (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood),


The Battle on the Ice (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_the_Ice),


The Battle of Crécy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cr%C3%A9cy),


The Battle of Little Big Horn (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Little_Bighorn),

and

Defiance (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defiance_(2008_film))

where commoners/natives beat Knights/professiinal soldiers, are the stories l like.

I do want those who know and are acclimated to their lands to win against the invaders, and enough yeoman/peasants with Longbow to be able to defeat their foes.

Completely invulnerable Superheroes/Supervillians just aren't my thing.

While I never saw it in play, I can see that potentially a housecat could kill a particularly unlucky first level PC in oD&D and 1e AD&D, which does seem a problem with old D&D, but I really don't see that potential in 5e WD&D.

A common complaint is that in 5e enough goblins may still kill a 20th level PC in 5e, if true (I've never played at that high of a level in any version of D&D) that seems like a good thing to me.

I want enough goblins/orcs/peasants with bows to win even against PC's.

I want my PC's mortal, I don't want to play gods.


...Racism,.


This is a bit painful, sorta like realizing that someone you love is a bigot, but I'm currently re-reading the Conan stories by Howard which were a big inspiration of D&D (as were the Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser stories by Fritz Leiber, the John Carter novels by Burroughs, and the Middle Earth books by Tolkien), and yes one can definitely see that those works are "Of their times" (especially those of Burrough's and Howard).

I still enjoy and appreciate those works, but I'm less forgiving when the authors are my age or younger and still living.

Also that D&D Elves, Humans, and Orcs are actually the same species is a concept well worth exploring "fluff-wise". (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=22503627#post22503627)


You're right that people here push optimization harder than most, but people generally don't come to D&D forums asking for feedback on how to write a character. They generally have an idea and want to know how to make it mechanically good.


Well I have, in the

Backstory for a happy Adventurer? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?511979-Backstory-for-a-happy-Adventurer)

thread, but it's true that I've asked more "crunch" based questions.

[Zanos]

But we're not talking about your personal choices. We're talking about the game as a whole. My position is not that people should come to your house and stop you from having evil Drow in your games (although, it is that having evil Drow in your games is still problematic even if you do not believe that it is), it is that the default position of the game as a whole should not be "it is okay to kill the black Elves".
It's a good thing that I don't really care what other people judge to be "problematic." If I never did anything that somebody, somewhere considered problematic, I doubt I would be doing much at all. Although then people would complain that I was a good for nothing.



Also, I ask you again -- are RaHoWa and FATAL things that should exist? Should we all just accept that people publishing literal racist propaganda as a game is okay because they're not forcing us to play it, or should we take the (apparently bold and controversial somehow?) position that saying "it's a game" doesn't make racism less racist?
I guess that depends on what you mean by "should." Do I think they're enjoyable products? No. But people should be able to make whatever crap they want: I don't think RaHoWa has actually inspired any action.



Yes. Because he is CR 8 and normal humans are CR 1/2. But any CR 8 character could gib a normal human if she wanted to. This raises another point actually -- if the mind flayer wanted to eat your brains, he could just do that. The risk of possibly being evil is not unique to mind flayers (and frankly the people at risk probably couldn't tell a mind flayer from a minotaur to decide what to discriminate against), it also includes perfect normal looking people who happen to be disguised dopplegangers or apocalypse cultists.
The chance that a random person you're talking to is a doppleganger or cultist that wants to eat your brain is much lower than the chance that the mindflayer you're talking to wants to eat your brain.

The fact that the Mind Flayer can eat your brains once he's in talking range is actually a good point in favor of keeping him at crossbow range.




Smaug openly admits to having eaten Dwarves before (in his conversation with Bilbo he says "I know the smell (and taste) of dwarf", and he gives a speech boasting about killing the King Under the Mountain and the Lord of Dale), and he is ultimately killed when he attacks Laketown and attempts to destroy it. Insofar as we trust the veracity of the text at all, it is clear that Smaug was evil as a function of his actions. If we don't trust the text at all, then sure, you shouldn't kill Smaug for doing things he didn't do. But you should still kill someone who did do the things the text claims Smaug did.
I'm just trying to establish a baseline here. Do you have to personally witness the events in question to make a judgement?



Also, it kind of sounds like you're endorsing the position that we should murder people if there is lots of propaganda against them, which is another one of those things were I shouldn't have to explain why saying it makes you sound like a monster.
I think you're casting things that known to be true about the universe as propaganda. It's not exactly propaganda that Mind Flayers eat brains, or the Drow kidnap and enslave thousands of humans. You can go to their cities and see the slave pens.




If Drow are evil and ruled by women and Elves are good and ruled by men, that's sending a pretty clear message about how the setting views female leadership. The problem is not that the Drow are Evil and Matriarchal in a vacuum. It's that the Drow are Matriarchal and the Elves (who are good) aren't. If, like, Goblins were Evil and Matriarchal, that would be totally unobjectionable.
I don't think core Elves have a patriarchal structure? Even if they did I wouldn't think that was bad unless it was a theme for the writer. There's a segment in one of the Star Wars cartoons where the Light Side is represented by a woman and the Dark Side is represented by a man, and I don't consider that "problematic."


So you think the problem with the arguments on that page is not the arguments themselves, but the fact that god doesn't exist?
There's a big difference between "some guy says some thing that we can't prove exists made those people Evil" and "that superpowered being over there waving at you made those things that enslaved your friend Evil."

There'd be more of an argument if we were talking about Eberron or something, but Faerunian deities make it no secret that they definitely exist and Lolth especially provably has a hand in the creation and governance of drow.

[Cosi]

The fact that the Mind Flayer can eat your brains once he's in talking range is actually a good point in favor of keeping him at crossbow range.

Except you can't "keep him at crossbow range" if he wants to murder you. He gets at-will charm monster and can invade with an army of thralls if he actually wants your brains. Also, if your only defense is "shoot it with crossbows if you think it's bad", you are not high enough level to know that the thing you are seeing is a Mind Flayer. Sure, maybe your plan would work, but what happens when you open up on the Coatl who could (and would) help defend your village because you are a bunch of first level characters and you thought it was a Yuan-ti?


I think you're casting things that known to be true about the universe as propaganda. It's not exactly propaganda that Mind Flayers eat brains, or the Drow kidnap and enslave thousands of humans. You can go to their cities and see the slave pens.

Is it okay to blame all Germans for the Nazis? Is it okay to blame all Muslims for ISIS? The fact that people in a group do bad things does not make all people in that group bad. Saying that it does is the clearest cut possible example of bigotry. The fact that the game sets up excuses for you to do this to groups that it also describes as people does not make this behavior more okay, it just makes the game more offensive.


There's a big difference between "some guy says some thing that we can't prove exists made those people Evil" and "that superpowered being over there waving at you made those things that enslaved your friend Evil."

I don't think there's any evidence that Lloth has made Drow biologically evil. She's made them culturally evil, but while that is a very good reason to kill Lloth, it doesn't make individual Drow any worse. Just like the behavior of Hitler was a reason to overthrow Hitler, not to murder German people whenever you met them.

[Zanos]

Except you can't "keep him at crossbow range" if he wants to murder you. He gets at-will charm monster and can invade with an army of thralls if he actually wants your brains. Also, if your only defense is "shoot it with crossbows if you think it's bad", you are not high enough level to know that the thing you are seeing is a Mind Flayer. Sure, maybe your plan would work, but what happens when you open up on the Coatl who could (and would) help defend your village because you are a bunch of first level characters and you thought it was a Yuan-ti?
I guess you should just let all the weird potentially murderous creatures in the Realms just saunter into your village unmolested, then? Creatures that want to help a random village are pretty rare; if they aren't then the core conceit of the setting, adventuring, can't exist.



Is it okay to blame all Germans for the Nazis? Is it okay to blame all Muslims for ISIS? The fact that people in a group do bad things does not make all people in that group bad. Saying that it does is the clearest cut possible example of bigotry. The fact that the game sets up excuses for you to do this to groups that it also describes as people does not make this behavior more okay, it just makes the game more offensive.

The percentage of Germans that were Nazis is not anywhere close to the percentage of Drow that are Evil in FR. Your entire argument presumes a difference in grouping that doesn't exist. There's not Drow and Drow Nazis. There's just Drow. If you're at war with the Drow and you go into a Drow city and kill every armed Drow of combat age, is that wrong? My answer is still no.


I don't think there's any evidence that Lloth has made Drow biologically evil. She's made them culturally evil, but while that is a very good reason to kill Lloth, it doesn't make individual Drow any worse. Just like the behavior of Hitler was a reason to overthrow Hitler, not to murder German people whenever you met them.
Hitler wasn't a magician with the ability to influence the minds and direction of society with the power of the divine, last I checked. What a ridiculous comparison.

[Cosi]

I guess you should just let all the weird potentially murderous creatures in the Realms just saunter into your village unmolested, then? Creatures that want to help a random village are pretty rare; if they aren't then the core conceit of the setting, adventuring, can't exist.

Okay. so how do you keep away only the evil ones? And if the answer is "you don't, you keep away anything that isn't human", why are you describing this as an anti-Mind Flayer policy rather than a generalized policy? Do you just enjoy saying things that make you sound more bigoted than you actually are?


The percentage of Germans that were Nazis is not anywhere close to the percentage of Drow that are Evil in FR. Your entire argument presumes a difference in grouping that doesn't exist. There's not Drow and Drow Nazis. There's just Drow. If you're at war with the Drow and you go into a Drow city and kill every armed Drow of combat age, is that wrong? My answer is still no.

Again, you are actually wrong by RAW. Per RAW Drow are "usually Evil", meaning that a majority of them are Evil. Wikipedia says there are 44 million people of German descent in the US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Americans) and 82 million people in Germany, of which 80% are ethnic Germans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany). Assuming those demographics were roughly the same in 1943 (relatively speaking, because what we care about is a percentage), that makes just under 60% of Germans in that period Nazis. Which, hey, is pretty much the demographics that the MM claims for the core, Lloth-worshipping Drow.

Also, this gets much worse for the merely "often Evil" Orcs you would also like to be able to freely murder.


Hitler wasn't a magician with the ability to influence the minds and direction of society with the power of the divine, last I checked. What a ridiculous comparison.

None of that makes it sound any less like "depose Lloth, rebuild Drow society to be less evil" is any less the solution. As a reminder, the solution to Hitler was exactly "depose Hitler, rebuild German society to be less evil". If Lloth rules the Drow, and Lloth's leadership makes them evil, the solution is "kill Lloth", not "be racist against Drow".

So has Lloth done anything to make Drow she doesn't rule more evil? Or is Lloth just the leader of a really nasty Drow cultural movement (again, much like Hitler was).

[Selene Sparks]

Except not all "races" are capable of producing viable offspring, despite being called that. Also, reproducing to create fertile offspring isn't the sole determinate of species.Oh for crying out loud, are you deliberately missing the point?

Look, the term "race" in D&D is deliberate, just like it was deliberate when Tolkien used it, and when any of the other old fantasy writers used it. It refers to people groups, and so when you are describing the Elf race, the Orc race, or the Anglo-Teutonic race, you are referring to specific groups of people. Fantasy races are racial groups because that's what the words mean! But, please, do go on about these definitions of species that exclude interbreeding, that's sure to make your point.

What I can tell you is that all Orcs are mentally deficient and physically strong by human standards by virtue of their ability modifiers.Disregarding the fact that stat modifiers really do go into some distinctly uncomfortable territory(And manage to be even worse in Birthright, much like everything else in Birthright), you're flatly wrong here.

The average NPC is built on the average array, that is 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. So you could perfectly plausibly have an orc with 12/9/10/11/10/9, for example, and so would be, in actuality, slightly above average. Furthermore, a -2 stat penalty translates to a -1 on skill checks based on the stat, meaning that any degree of ranks, feats, or resources will immediately drown out the penalty, so your "mentally deficient" phrase is a gross exaggeration.

Why not? A group's history making it beholden to a dark power is a pretty classic trope in pretty much all mythologies. A god molding the creatures of the earth and imbuing them with different characteristics is as old as writing itself. A trope's age is entirely unrelated to whether or not the trope is problematic.

Seriously, "they worship the devil" has been used IRL to support ethnic cleansing, and that's without getting into things like the Curse of Ham/Mark of Cain and their role in the promotion of the instution of slavery. So, again, you want a state that's got an evil theocracy thing going on, and everything inside is terrible? That's fine. But when you say a whole race of people is evil because "they were made by the devil," "they're marked as unclean," or what have you so just killing them on sight is ethical, that is racist in the exact same way that is was racist over 200 years ago.

Morally inferior by typical standards, maybe. Barring that evolution probably doesn't exist in a fantasy setting, I don't see what it's insane that any selective process could produce a species as sapient as humans are but with more or less altruism. Mental and social characteristics are partially genetic, even in humans.Welp, here's some goalpost-moving.

Even disregarding that, the idea is, in fact, insane. First of all, again, interbreeding with humans means they're closely related, but beyond that, humans evolved the way we did because we're social animals. You don't get intelligence or society or anything like that without the kind of altruism that comes in social animals.

Not really. Drow are mostly confined to the Underdark because they take penalties in light, have Darkvision, and have adapted their equipment and culture to do well there. While it's feasible that drow migrate, migrating to areas you're less capable of thriving in isn't going to happen as much. Except for the whole Cult of Naked Dancing and Powergaming Clerics, you mean?

Absolute nonsense. Cthulhu is intelligent, capable of (very) abstract through, language, and self-determination. So are demons, devils, angels, intellect devourers, mind flayers, beholders. Their narrative role is absolutely not that of a "person." Things can be sapient and not be held to the same standards as a human. In fact, the narrative role of half of those things is explicitly to be too alien for a human to truly understand. First off, you don't get to use Cthulhu here because Cthulhu never actually did anything. Demons, devils, and angels are slightly more complex in that their actual self-determination is very much up for debate, depending on the setting. But mind flayers very much are narratively people. They explicitly have society we get to see, they plan and think, and while they're designated antagonists, they still very much qualify. Of special note in Eberron, where an illithid is literally mayor of a town. Beholders, I think, deserve special mention as they are pretty much a caricature of what you're talking about, in that they, themselves, see other beholders in a genocidal light, but even then, in Spelljammer, they are antagonist factions. You get ships, built and piloted and commanded by groups, with their own objectives and plans and such.

Basing an in-universe species off of your real world perception of an ethnic groups characteristics is racist. Having a species have sufficiently different baseline capabilities from humans such that they develop to fill different roles is not racist in general.Generally, yes. This is a large part of science fiction and fantasy, we take traits we see in ourselves and create a space and people to put it on to get a better understanding of said traits or ideas. Vulcans are, for example, fine. The problem is when you have these different races in the story tie into, mirror, or otherwise be drawn from highly racist narratives or themes. Just in case you're not being deliberately obtuse here, there's a difference between "Oh, hey, we have the designated 'strong person' group who tend to behave like this" and "Oh, hey, this race is by definition, evil and stupid, oh and they're dark skinned with low foreheads and prominent lower jaws and they want to take our women." Fiction does not exist in a vacuum.

What if we killed all the demons? Devils? Mind Flayers? Red Dragons? Drow?Again, demons, devils, and anything else with an Alignment subtype has questionable self-determination, so that's neither here nor there. But for the others? Give Mind Flayers a bunch of Rings of Sustenance and suddenly there's no need for any conflict, so if you killed them, that'd be murder. Red dragons, again, you'd be killing intelligent creatures who weren't a direct threat, also known as murder. And drow? Well (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Eilistraee), I (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Qilu%C3%A9_Veladorn) can (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Liriel_Baenre) think (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Drizzt_Do%27Urden) of (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Iljrene_Ahruyn#2e) a (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Cavatina_Xarann) few (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Ysolde_Veladorn) problems (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Seyll_Auzkovyn) with (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Tash%27kla) that (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Karsel%27lyn_Lylyl-Lytherraias).

As always, responding with violence when violence isn't warranted, most generally by violence or the imminent threat of violence, is wrong.

Fantasy has always contained creatures which are bad. People aren't bigots for assuming that Drizzt is like almost every other drow that exists. In fact, accepting a drow that says they're good at face value is incredibly dangerous, because the overwhelming majority of drow are CE lying schemers.The real world also has creatures that are bad. You know what the world doesn't have? Peoples that are bad. Because any given people group is made up of people, shockingly enough, and people as a whole aren't "bad."

Beyond that, and directly onto the subject of Drizzt, yes they are! Forgotten Realms has the religion of good drow and naked dancing, one of the Seven Sisters is a drow, and, again, drow are people.

And, just as I'm about to post, a huge number of new posts pop up.

Sure. But (I don't think) that dogs actually consistently win fights with armed humans. Obviously the dataset there is probably not super large, but I think it's probably reasonable to say that there should be a gradation below "person" for "dog" (particularly smaller dogs).Fair enough. I'm pretty sure that trained attack dogs can and do pose real threats to people unless they're wearing pretty serious protection, but I'll concede on the sampling issue, especially since I don't feel like googling even more super depressing things at the moment.

Maybe? But not because lots of them are personally evil *****. "Kill all the Mind Flayers" is an acceptable thing to call for to the degree that Mind Flayers have to eat people to survive. If it's impossible for Mind Flayers to survive without killing sentient beings to eat their brains, they should be wiped out for the same reason that we wipe out diseases that are fatal to humans. If they merely enjoy eating peoples' brains, it is still ethically permissible to kill any of them who actually do eat people's brains (or enslave people, or do horrific biomagical experiments on people), but killing someone simply for being a Mind Flayer would be wrong.100% truth, I just want to point out that Rings of Sustenance are a thing.

The depiction of Drow is actually super screwed up and problematic. Drow are the number one example of why the way race is depicted in D&D is bad. Most obviously, they are an Elven subrace, which essentially completely erodes the "they are actually different species and therefore not directly analogous to races in the real world". So you have this group that is exactly analogous to a human ethnic group. And then look at how they're depicted. They're black and they're matriarchal. It's hard not to see that as depicting those traits as evil (particularly because those traits are often what makes them distinct from surface Elves), which is ... deeply screwed up for reasons that are hopefully obvious. Now, yes, they do have a bunch of cultural traits that are evil (slavery, rampant assassinations, human sacrifice). But that doesn't actually justify hating all Drow any more than you would have been justified in punching the Germany guy who lived across from your house in 1943 because the Nazis were German and also evil so therefore he must be evil.Also, very much this. I was avoiding going into these elements of drow because I was concerned for the derail, but you're very much correct here. Despite the whole Curse of Ham thing they've got going on, I feel the sexist elements are far deeper and more damaging than the racist elements(which are still depressing, considering the date the last drow book was published).

The funny thing is that you are trying to claim that it is ethically wrong to imitate an ethically wrong action, but only so far as it incorrectly justifies you committing imitation murder. Creating elaborate justifications or simple ones, ethical justifications or unethical ones is still beside the point that you are playing a scenario where you get to kill things without consequences.

Either this is okay, in which case complaining about the ethics of a particular justification is meaningless as imitation is not the same as reality. Or it isn't okay, in which case the complaint is still meaningless as you are committing the greater ethical violation and attacking the smaller.Nope. You're arguing against something no one has ever said. There is a large difference between having a fictitious scenario about an ethically wrong action and framing something wrong in a way that it's not.

There is a difference between a story were racism exists and a story where racism is endorsed. One can have a story where Nazis are featured, even as protagonists, but that's distinct from framing the Nazis as a whole "the good guys."

The issue is that a Mind Flayer that abstains from eating brains is such a rarity and you take a huge, potentially lethal risk by trusting him to not uses his overwhelming mental powers to paralyze you and devour your brain. If you stab every mind flayer you see, the chances of you killing a good one are so low they're close to not existing. When you're attacking a Mind Flayer city that's been kidnapping people, you don't really have time to perform an oral inspection on every Mind Flayer to check for brain bits. And again, you're moving goalposts.

Nobody is arguing the morality of violence against an active kidnapper. But by your logic, I'm taking a huge risk every time I don't stab random bystanders, because they might stab me for the fact that I could totally kill someone with a knife, and so just stabbing people is a morally decent choice. And, as a final note, the alignment of the mind flayers in question are entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If you're killing intelligent beings who aren't an active threat to yourself or others, that's evil. Dead stop, the end.

The point here being that a Red Dragon is not a human. From birth, it has different impulses and desires than a human does. It's still a completely sapient being with equal to and potentially greater mental capacity and free will than a human, but it will wind up being awful such a huge percentage of the time anyway.The bolded was where you should have ended your post, because that's the bottom line.

There are so few evil matriarchal societies and so many evil patriarchies in fiction that I don't really see that as a problem. And Drow are usually depicted as being literally black, purple, or blue, rather than as a dark-skinned human. You're missing the point in both of these. First of all, the drow don't really behave like they have women in charge anyways, but the problem in here is framing. The drow are evil, dark-skinned, and generally have women in charge. The surface elves are good, blonde-haired white folks who follow dudes. Then when you get further, every step of the way, the drow power structure is framed as essentially unnatural and wrong by its nature as having women in charge when you get into the novels, but that's beside the point here. The problem with drow isn't that they're an evil matriarchy, beyond the fact that as far as I can tell that's the only flavor matriarchy comes in in D&D, but it's their connection to the other elves. The fact that they have women in charge is why the drow are evil. The followed a woman instead of a man in the god war thing, and so they're evil and follow women, as opposed to the basically everywhere Good in D&D-land, where it's dudes in charge as far as the eye can see, with the only minor exception being the Seven Sisters, who aren't even a good example thereof.

And Drow are an Elven subrace, but they're pretty explicitly cursed/patronized by Lolth.Worth keeping in mind, they were actually cursed by Corellon Larethian for siding with Lolth. It is literally just the Curse of Ham.

The problem with waiting for a Mind Flayer to prove he's trustworthy is that, without some serious precautions, he can gib a normal human pretty much any time the fancy takes him. I generally don't hang around cannibals that constantly have a gun pointed at the back of my head.Okay. A wizard could totally gib you at any time and might be a secret cannibal.

I'm not really sure what your point is either on that topic tbh. Why is a matriarchy that is Evil bad? There's plenty of evil fantasy governments run by men. Last I checked Drow weren't Evil because of some inherent property of Drow women that men don't have, and Drow men who obtain power are just as awful.It's framing. Disregarding some of the more horrifically sexist elements(so most of the Drizzt books, really), the drow aren't an evil matriarchy, they are evil because they're a matriarchy.

Not being able to recognize the difference between a fantasy that has objectively provable deities and a reality where nutjobs invent excuses to hate people is your problem, not mine.Fiction doesn't exist in a vacuum. You don't get to say "Oh it's just fantasy, it's not meant to be racist" and render it not racist.

The fact that the Mind Flayer can eat your brains once he's in talking range is actually a good point in favor of keeping him at crossbow range.Yeah, because peasants with crossbows are really noted to be effective against CR8 monsters.

I'm just trying to establish a baseline here. Do you have to personally witness the events in question to make a judgement?I'm not going down this road with you. We all know what you're doing here.

I think you're casting things that known to be true about the universe as propaganda. It's not exactly propaganda that Mind Flayers eat brains, or the Drow kidnap and enslave thousands of humans. You can go to their cities and see the slave pens. Care to cite numbers on both the numbers and types of slaves obtained by the drow?

I don't think core Elves have a patriarchal structure? Even if they did I wouldn't think that was bad unless it was a theme for the writer. There's a segment in one of the Star Wars cartoons where the Light Side is represented by a woman and the Dark Side is represented by a man, and I don't consider that "problematic."The elves are patriarchal. Their pantheon is lead by a man and they're drowning in kings and such.

As for the latter, again, narrative is important. There's a difference between "There's a good woman and a bad man" and "being lead by women is bad, you should all come back and worship the chief dude-bro." This is especially true when you're supposed to be drawing parallels from the Son to the various Skywalkers, who are of course all men(well, the ones that matter, anyways). Furthermore, in that same area of the EU, there's Abeloth, a woman who took from both of their powers and turned into a huge, galaxy-wrecking force monster. But finally, there's also the fact that any narrative about women and women's power is fundamentally different from a narrative about men and men's power on account of the society we live in.


I don't think there's any evidence that Lloth has made Drow biologically evil. She's made them culturally evil, but while that is a very good reason to kill Lloth, it doesn't make individual Drow any worse. Just like the behavior of Hitler was a reason to overthrow Hitler, not to murder German people whenever you met them.This a hundred times over.

The fundamental problem with Zanos's arguments is that he keeps on conflating biology and culture.

I guess you should just let all the weird potentially murderous creatures in the Realms just saunter into your village unmolested, then? Creatures that want to help a random village are pretty rare; if they aren't then the core conceit of the setting, adventuring, can't exist.Really? What do you call adventurers then, if not exactly that?

The percentage of Germans that were Nazis is not anywhere close to the percentage of Drow that are Evil in FR.Citation on that?

Your entire argument presumes a difference in grouping that doesn't exist. There's not Drow and Drow Nazis. There's just Drow. If you're at war with the Drow and you go into a Drow city and kill every armed Drow of combat age, is that wrong? My answer is still no.Except no. There's the church of Lolth and then everyone else. It's explicitly stated numerous times that nobody likes Lolth, she just has enough power and grants her toadies enough power that what she says goes. Plus, as mentioned, there's both the goddess of naked dancing and power gaming and people who've had no choice in the matter. So what you're proposing is exactly the same as murdering all German folks because of the Nazis.

[Zanos]

Okay. so how do you keep away only the evil ones? And if the answer is "you don't, you keep away anything that isn't human", why are you describing this as an anti-Mind Flayer policy rather than a generalized policy? Do you just enjoy saying things that make you sound more bigoted than you actually are?
I would expect a bunch of mostly ignorant villagers to keep away any non-humanoid creatures they weren't familiar with, yeah. Mind Flayers aren't exactly a rare piece of lore, though. Kinda in the name what they do.



Again, you are actually wrong by RAW. Per RAW Drow are "usually Evil", meaning that a majority of them are Evil. Wikipedia says there are 44 million people of German descent in the US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Americans) and 82 million people in Germany, of which 80% are ethnic Germans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany). Assuming those demographics were roughly the same in 1943 (relatively speaking, because what we care about is a percentage), that makes just under 60% of Germans in that period Nazis. Which, hey, is pretty much the demographics that the MM claims for the core, Lloth-worshipping Drow.
The most generous classification I can think of for "is a Nazi" is "person who voted for Hitler", which would be 43.91% of votes cast in the 1933 German election. But when you say Nazi I'm pretty sure you mean someone actually involved in the war or operation of the government in that time period, which is closer to 12.5% of the population by total participation in the German military from 1935-1946. Of course conscription in to the Wermacht was mandatory for all males between the ages of 20-45, so the real number is probably even lower than that.

But fair enough with the "usually Evil", I'll concede that only the majority of Drow have personally murdered, tortured, and slaved enough to get the classification of Evil.


None of that makes it sound any less like "depose Lloth, rebuild Drow society to be less evil" is any less the solution. As a reminder, the solution to Hitler was exactly "depose Hitler, rebuild German society to be less evil". If Lloth rules the Drow, and Lloth's leadership makes them evil, the solution is "kill Lloth", not "be racist against Drow".
More difficult when over half the population is actively Evil rather than just apathetic. "Kill a literal God" seems kind of like a lofty goal for your day to day surface folk, though. An idealized solution to the problem that will definitely involve killing tens of thousand of Drow, but a fair one.


So has Lloth done anything to make Drow she doesn't rule more evil? Or is Lloth just the leader of a really nasty Drow cultural movement (again, much like Hitler was).
Lolth directly empowers clerics with divine magic to ensure that all Drow are under her rule or dead, yes. She also directly intervenes when their garbage fire society starts collapsing. If you're asking "does Lolth brainwash specific drow to be Evil", also yes.

[2D8HP]

A Drow? So dwells in the Orkney and Shetland islands off the mainland of Scotland, primarily lives underground, but ventures out at night to kidnap musicians, and "Drow" is sometimes spelled "Trow"

If they share traits associated with other Elf-kin they probably fear iron and church bells,.so leather, wood, and bronze armor and weapons only. They may also steal cattle and unbabtized human babies, and to retain their freedom, they.have to send a tithe in the blood of a fellow Elf or a human lover to Hell every seven years.

And they enjoy hunting mortals, but fall in love with mortal poets.

Or.... they live in the underground city of Erelhei-Cinlu, which was made from the first letters of the names of E."Gary" Gygax's first five children (Ernie, Elise, Heidi, Cindy, and Luke), and they are a weak fighter but a strong magic-user.

From age 39 of the 1977 Monster Manual:
"Drow: The "Black Elves," or drow, are only legend. They purportedly dwell deep beneath the surface in a strange subterranean realm. The drow are said to be as dark as faeries are bright and as evil as the latter are good. Tales picture them as weak fighters but strong magic-users.
Probably to emphasise that Elves aren't human the Gray Elves who "live in isolated meadowlands" are paler than Wood Elves who "make their home in shady forests", and the Drow live in a "strange subterranean realm" are dark skinned, which is the opposite of what you'd expect from humans, but if the only problem is someone objecting to the Drow being "dark skinned" that seems like an easy thing to re-flavor.

Something that has got me wondering, the first I ever heard of the Drow was in the '77 Monster Manual where they're described as "only legend" under the Elf entry, and then they were mysterious behind the scenes villains in the "Against the Giants" modules, until you follow their trail in the "D" modules into the Drow city of Erelhei-Cinlu, but it is clear that the existence of Drow are initially unknown to PC's.
Fast forward to the 5e PHB and the Drow are a recognized PC race, so I'm wondering about "fluff" reasons to explain the migration (maybe one was given during the 2e to 4e years that I missed when I wasn't getting to play D&D)?

Was there a civil war, or invasion of Llurth Dreier and/or Menzoberranzan and the Drow are refugees?

A few pioneer Drow came to the surface world and, found opportunities and came home with riches, and other Drow followed?

A "gap year" (decade?) in the human lands becomes fashionable after "Do'Urden's Guide to Faerun on five copper pieces a day is published"?

How many, and for how long?

What do you suggest?

Anyway, some more history:
"Descent to the Depths of the Earth" by Gary Gygax was published by TSR back in 1978 (I didn't get a copy until the mid '80's though), and this same description is from it:

"Ages past, when the elvenfolk were but new to the face of the earth, their number was torn by discord, and those of better disposition drove from them those of the elves who were selfish and cruel. However, constant warfare between the two divisions of elvenkind continued, with the goodly ones ever victorious, until those of dark nature were forced to withdraw from the lands under the skies and seek safety in the realm of the underworld. Here, in the lightless caverns and endless warrens of twisting passages and caves hung with icicles of stone, the Dark Elvenfolk, the Drow, found both refuge and comfort. Over the centuries they grew strong once again and schooled themselves in arcane arts. And if they were strong enough to face and defeat their former brethren in battle, the Drow no longer desired to walk upon the green lands under the sun and stars. They no longer desired a life in the upper world, being content with the gloomy fairyland beneath the earth that they had made their own. Yet they neither forgive nor forget, and above all else they bear enmity for all of their distant kin - elves and faeries - who drove them down and now dwell in the meadows and dells of the bright world. Though they are seldom if ever seen by any human or demi-human, the Drow still persist, and occasionally they enter lower dungeon levels and consort with other creatures in order to work out their schemes and inflict revenge upon those who inhabit the world above.

Description: Drow are black skinned and pale haired. They are slight of build and have delicate fingers and toes. Their features are somewhat sharper and ears are pointed and large, but this does not make them unhandsome. Their eyes are very large, being all iris and pupil. Male drow are of thin build, about 5' tall, have dead black skin and dead white hair, and the irises of their eyes are orange to orange-yellow. Females are slender and shapely, about 5 1/2' tall, and have glossy black skin and shining silvery hair. The eyes of female Drow are amber, though a few are said to possess irises of lambent violet.

The usual Drow fighting/travelling garb includes a pair of black boots and a hooded black cloak which comes to the ankles of the wearer. The boots are simply black boots of elvenkind manufactured by a different sort of material. The cloaks are woven of spider silk and some unknown fiber which combined with the silk makes them very strong, slippery, supple, and nearly impossible to detect in dungeon-like surroundings. Thus, in boots and cloaks the Drow are 75% undetectable unless they are moving/attacking within 20', the former in direct view of an observer. Drow cloaks are usually not harmed by blows from weapons, as they slide aside and do not tear easily, nor are they easily burned (+6 on saving throws versus fire attacks). However, these garments are very difficult to tailor, and to be effective, the cloaks must neither be above the ankles nor dragging on the ground. Any alteration of a Drow cloak requires a saving throw of 76% or better. Less than this score indicates the material frays and will ravel away when worn, so the cloak is useless.

Drow wear a fine mesh armor of exquisite workmanship. It is an alloy of steel containing adamantite, and even the lowliest fighters have in effect +1 chainmail, with the higher level Drow having +2, +3, +4, or even +5 chainmail. Small bucklers are also used, shields of unusual shape, those of greater experience level and importance in the society having bucklers fashioned of adamantite so as to be +1, +2, or +3 value.

The extraordinary nature of the Dark Elves' armor and weaponry, their magic-like but non-magical plusses, is due only in part to the adamantite alloy from which they are fashioned. The value of this alloy is that when it is exposed to the strange radiation in the Drow homeland (see MODULE D3, VAULT OF THE DROW) for a period of a month, its magical bonuses come to the fore. If the item is kept from this radiation for more than a month, it loses the bonus and becomes merely a finely made item of normal sort."

From Vault of the Drow (also from 1978)

“The Vault is a strange anomaly, a hemispherical cyst in the crust of the earth, a huge domed fault over 6 miles long and nearly as broad. The dome overhead is a hundred feet high at the walls, arching to several thousand feet height in the center. The radiation from certain unique minerals gives the visual effect of a starry heaven… These ‘star’ nodes glow in radiant hues of mauve, lake, violet, puce, lilac, and deep blue. The large ‘moon’ of tumkeoite casts beams of shimmering amethyst which touch the crystalline formations with colors unknown to any other visual experience. The lichens seem to glow in rose madder and pale damson, the fungi growths in golden and red ochres. The rock walls of the Vault appear hazy and insubstantial in the wine-colored light, more like mist than solid walls. The place is indeed a dark fairyland.”

And FWLIW IIRC in the original "D" modules commoner Drow were usually "Neutral", while Drow nobility were usually "Evil" but I'm now too tired to double-check my memories.

Good night, and sweet dreams!

[Goaty14]

Um... so should all of the ethical discussion be moved to another thread? It looks really derailed at this point.

Side Note: Why are you comparing real-life to a fantasy world? Irregardless of your views on blah blah ethics blah blah racism, it's ultimately up to the DM/setting maker as to what ethical problems exist, if any. Even if there was something worth arguing about, wouldn't it be inevitable for them to have a different set of ethics than we do (living in a drastically different world and all) at which point our views of how various stuff interacts with each other becomes utterly pointless.

TL;DR Why is there an argument over something that the DM determines?

[Zanos]

Oh for crying out loud, are you deliberately missing the point?

Look, the term "race" in D&D is deliberate, just like it was deliberate when Tolkien used it, and when any of the other old fantasy writers used it. It refers to people groups, and so when you are describing the Elf race, the Orc race, or the Anglo-Teutonic race, you are referring to specific groups of people. Fantasy races are racial groups because that's what the words mean! But, please, do go on about these definitions of species that exclude interbreeding, that's sure to make your point.
Is it deliberate? Because it seems like a mistake to me. Dwarves are not considered a subcategory of human, even by Toklien.



Disregarding the fact that stat modifiers really do go into some distinctly uncomfortable territory(And manage to be even worse in Birthright, much like everything else in Birthright)
I will, because I don't consider stat modifiers "uncomfortable."



The average NPC is built on the average array, that is 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. So you could perfectly plausibly have an orc with 12/9/10/11/10/9, for example, and so would be, in actuality, slightly above average. Furthermore, a -2 stat penalty translates to a -1 on skill checks based on the stat, meaning that any degree of ranks, feats, or resources will immediately drown out the penalty, so your "mentally deficient" phrase is a gross exaggeration.
They are mentally deficient. You are using an example of a specific orc to defy the average. On average, an Orc is a full standard deviation away from a Human in intelligence.


Seriously, "they worship the devil" has been used IRL to support ethnic cleansing, and that's without getting into things like the Curse of Ham/Mark of Cain and their role in the promotion of the instution of slavery. So, again, you want a state that's got an evil theocracy thing going on, and everything inside is terrible? That's fine. But when you say a whole race of people is evil because "they were made by the devil," "they're marked as unclean," or what have you so just killing them on sight is ethical, that is racist in the exact same way that is was racist over 200 years ago.
Fantasy isn't reality, and they aren't people.


Welp, here's some goalpost-moving.
Not the one comparing killing fantasy orcs with real life ethnic pogroms and genocide here, so I'd watch what kind of snarl you throw.



Even disregarding that, the idea is, in fact, insane. First of all, again, interbreeding with humans means they're closely related, but beyond that, humans evolved the way we did because we're social animals. You don't get intelligence or society or anything like that without the kind of altruism that comes in social animals.
Again, not reality. It's entirely possible for a creature to just be made from whole cloth with or without altruism by the deities that created the entire world from nothing, or for fantastic circumstances to exist that would result in intelligent without altruism.


Except for the whole Cult of Naked Dancing and Powergaming Clerics, you mean?
That should be killed too, but for entirely different reasons.


First off, you don't get to use Cthulhu here because Cthulhu never actually did anything. Demons, devils, and angels are slightly more complex in that their actual self-determination is very much up for debate, depending on the setting.
Are you arguing they don't have self-determination? Because there's at least one canon Good Succubus and many a fallen angel.


But mind flayers very much are narratively people. They explicitly have society we get to see, they plan and think, and while they're designated antagonists, they still very much qualify.
I think your definition of "person" stretches much farther than mine, then. If you take a person and make them a genius with natural superpowers that is subservient to a gestalt psychic consciousness, derives sustenance from consuming sentient brains, and reproduces by budding parasites off the gestalt consciousness and having them devour the brains of unwilling kidnapped hosts to puppet their bodies, I don't really consider that a person anymore. That's a monster.


Beholders, I think, deserve special mention as they are pretty much a caricature of what you're talking about, in that they, themselves, see other beholders in a genocidal light, but even then, in Spelljammer, they are antagonist factions. You get ships, built and piloted and commanded by groups, with their own objectives and plans and such.
Just because something plans like a person and engages in conversation sort of like a sick, Evil person might doesn't make it a person. Beholders are born with different biological inclinations than humans that make them overwhelmingly more likely to be Evil.



Generally, yes. This is a large part of science fiction and fantasy, we take traits we see in ourselves and create a space and people to put it on to get a better understanding of said traits or ideas. Vulcans are, for example, fine. The problem is when you have these different races in the story tie into, mirror, or otherwise be drawn from highly racist narratives or themes. Just in case you're not being deliberately obtuse here, there's a difference between "Oh, hey, we have the designated 'strong person' group who tend to behave like this" and "Oh, hey, this race is by definition, evil and stupid"
So how strong to tendencies have to be for it to be racist? If 90% of all Orcs are stronger and more aggressive than all humans, is that racist? What about 95? 99? 50?


oh and they're dark skinned with low foreheads and prominent lower jaws and they want to take our women."
Pretty sure I already said that deliberately modeling a fantasy creature after your own biases is racist.


Fiction does not exist in a vacuum.
Sure, but not every single thing in it needs to be political, either. I don't think saying Orcs are bad and adventurers stab Orcs is "problematic", just simple.


Again, demons, devils, and anything else with an Alignment subtype has questionable self-determination, so that's neither here nor there. But for the others?


Give Mind Flayers a bunch of Rings of Sustenance and suddenly there's no need for any conflict, so if you killed them, that'd be murder.
Mind Flayers eat as much for pleasure as they do for sustenance, so that's not really a solution. Their life cycle also inherently involves killing sentient's, and they tend to go (more) insane without the psychic influence of an Elder Brain. It's almost like they're not just people who eat brains.


Red dragons, again, you'd be killing intelligent creatures who weren't a direct threat, also known as murder.
Red Dragons, like Mind Flayers, are "Always Evil", which according to the source book means they're born being Evil as a result of their heritage. So Red Dragons are always a threat unless specifically conditioned not to be.



And drow? Well (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Eilistraee), I (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Qilu%C3%A9_Veladorn) can (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Liriel_Baenre) think (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Drizzt_Do%27Urden) of (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Iljrene_Ahruyn#2e) a (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Cavatina_Xarann) few (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Ysolde_Veladorn) problems (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Seyll_Auzkovyn) with (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Tash%27kla) that (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Karsel%27lyn_Lylyl-Lytherraias).
A few good apples doesn't change the fact that the realms would be a vastly better place if you just snapped your fingers and made all the Drow go away.


As always, responding with violence when violence isn't warranted, most generally by violence or the imminent threat of violence, is wrong.
Fantasy games are based in psuedo-medieval setting where violence is more readily used than it is in modern day. So the standard for "violence being warranted" is very different.


The real world also has creatures that are bad. You know what the world doesn't have? Peoples that are bad.
What? The real world absolutely has social groups that are bad. Maybe not racial groups, but then again Mind Flayers aren't a racial group of humans.

Beyond that, and directly onto the subject of Drizzt, yes they are! Forgotten Realms has the religion of good drow and naked dancing, one of the Seven Sisters is a drow, and, again, drow are people.


Nobody is arguing the morality of violence against an active kidnapper. But by your logic, I'm taking a huge risk every time I don't stab random bystanders, because they might stab me for the fact that I could totally kill someone with a knife, and so just stabbing people is a morally decent choice.
What? How is a random bystander in anywhere comparable to a creature who's very existent depends on you dying, and who's morality from it's very birth is designed to be okay with and even exalt that?


And, as a final note, the alignment of the mind flayers in question are entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If you're killing intelligent beings who aren't an active threat to yourself or others, that's evil. Dead stop, the end.
Define "active." Because if you sneak into an illithid compound and start killing sleeping mindflayers(do they even sleep?) that have been raiding nearby towns and happen to kill one that was only born a few days ago and hasn't eaten any brains yet, I'm not giving out Evil points. And if you do, your a garbage DM.


The bolded was where you should have ended your post, because that's the bottom line.
Sapience and free will aren't the same as morality. We both know that. Even in our own species, lack of empathy and altruism is a heritable genetic characteristic.


You're missing the point in both of these. First of all, the drow don't really behave like they have women in charge anyways, but the problem in here is framing.
They behave like there's Drow women in charge, I assume. I'm not sure how you think a species with women in charge would behave.



The drow are evil, dark-skinned, and generally have women in charge.
The Drow are purple, blue, literally black, and grey. Not the brownish hues we see in darker skinned humans. Drow are also described as beautiful, athletic, have a suite of natural magical abilities, are naturally resistance to magic, and have positive stat modifiers across the board except for constitution, which other elves also have a penalty to.


The surface elves are good, blonde-haired white folks who follow dudes.
Surface Elves are patronized by Corellon Larethian, all of whom are super androgynous looking and as far as I recall don't have a patriarchal society enforced by their deity.



Then when you get further, every step of the way, the drow power structure is framed as essentially unnatural and wrong by its nature as having women in charge when you get into the novels, but that's beside the point here.
You'll have to go more into that, because I was under the impression the Drow power structure is unnatural and wrong because it's propped up by the Queen of the Demonweb Pits and has it's entire power based on slavery and betrayal.


The problem with drow isn't that they're an evil matriarchy, beyond the fact that as far as I can tell that's the only flavor matriarchy comes in in D&D
There aren't any divinely enforced patriarchy's that I know of in Faerun at all. If we want to just talk about "places in Faerun where women were in power and it was good", you've got all of Mystra's various incarnations, the Simbul, and Alustriel Silverhand, off the top of my head.


The fact that they have women in charge is why the drow are evil. The followed a woman instead of a man in the god war thing, and so they're evil and follow women, as opposed to the basically everywhere Good in D&D-land, where it's dudes in charge as far as the eye can see, with the only minor exception being the Seven Sisters, who aren't even a good example thereof.
What? Lolth conspired with Gruumsh and half a dozen other Evil deities across many thwarted attempts to killed Correlon. It's not "because they followed a woman."

And, as mentioned above, women are responsible for ruling quite a few major kingdoms in the realms.



Worth keeping in mind, they were actually cursed by Corellon Larethian for siding with Lolth. It is literally just the Curse of Ham.
Their appearance is a result of the curse. Their behavior is all Lolth. Correlon did nothing to Lolth or any of the Drow to affect their minds.


Okay. A wizard could totally gib you at any time and might be a secret cannibal.
A good reason to not hang around powerful wizards, actually. But besides that, a Mind Flayer is a people eater. Not a secret maybe 1 in 100 chance that he eats people and covers it up.


It's framing. Disregarding some of the more horrifically sexist elements(so most of the Drizzt books, really), the drow aren't an evil matriarchy, they are evil because they're a matriarchy.
See above.


Fiction doesn't exist in a vacuum. You don't get to say "Oh it's just fantasy, it's not meant to be racist" and render it not racist.
See above.


Yeah, because peasants with crossbows are really noted to be effective against CR8 monsters.
Mind flayers actually have surprisingly little health and AC for CR8 monsters. A lot of crossbows actually stands a decent chance against them.


Care to cite numbers on both the numbers and types of slaves obtained by the drow?
"As a rule of thumb, half to two-third of a given drow settlement’s population consisted of slaves or non-drow without rights." - Underdark


The elves are patriarchal. Their pantheon is lead by a man and they're drowning in kings and such.
See above. Existence of kings is not the same as a divinely enforced patriarchy.



As for the latter, again, narrative is important. There's a difference between "There's a good woman and a bad man" and "being lead by women is bad, you should all come back and worship the chief dude-bro." This is especially true when you're supposed to be drawing parallels from the Son to the various Skywalkers, who are of course all men(well, the ones that matter, anyways). Furthermore, in that same area of the EU, there's Abeloth, a woman who took from both of their powers and turned into a huge, galaxy-wrecking force monster. But finally, there's also the fact that any narrative about women and women's power is fundamentally different from a narrative about men and men's power on account of the society we live in.
It's pretty important to remember that the Son and the Daughter aren't just a "good woman" and a "bad man", they're the literal personifications of the good and evil sides of the Force. You're also clearly mischaracterizing the nature of Lloths fall and her followers.


The fundamental problem with Zanos's arguments is that he keeps on conflating biology and culture.
Some creatures are biologically disposed to Evil, including Mind Flayers and Red Dragons. The books literally say this. Drow are not one of these creatures and are not Evil from birth, but their culture is a divinely enforced one and makes it extremely difficult for any individual to deviate.



Really? What do you call adventurers then, if not exactly that?
Humanoids don't generally eat other humanoids.


Citation on that?
As explained above the majority of Drow have the "Evil" alignment, which means they've slaved or murdered enough to get that. By contrast less than 1/8th of the German population even served in the military, the vast majority of which were conscripts.



Except no. There's the church of Lolth and then everyone else. It's explicitly stated numerous times that nobody likes Lolth, she just has enough power and grants her toadies enough power that what she says goes. Plus, as mentioned, there's both the goddess of naked dancing and power gaming and people who've had no choice in the matter. So what you're proposing is exactly the same as murdering all German folks because of the Nazis.
The majority of Drow are Evil, RAW.

Actually, while I have it open, let's read some passages from underdark.


Feared and reviled throughout the Lands Above, the drow (or dark elves) are perhaps the most numerous, powerful, and widespread of the Underdark’s native peoples. The majority of the dark elves live in city-states ruled by various noble Houses. Each House commands its own small army of fearless drow soldiers, cunning wizards, and zealous priestesses, as well as large contingents of slave soldiers, such as bugbears, ogres, and minotaurs. In fact, half to two-thirds of any drow city’s population consists of humanoid slaves and rabble, all of whom are subject to the cruelty and whims of any passing dark elf.

Personality: Most drow are cruel, arrogant, and hedonistic. Their eternal game of advancement at the expense of others, which is encouraged by the spider goddess herself, has transformed the dark elves into a race of scheming backstabbers eager to increase their own stations by pulling down those ahead of them and crushing their inferiors underfoot. Drow trust no one and nothing, and most are incapable of compassion, kindness, or love. Many dark elves are actively murderous and delight in the giving of pain.

Relations: Drow regard all other races as inferior. Some they view as potential slaves, others as deadly vermin to be exterminated. None, however, are considered truly equal to the dark elves. Drow maintain a grudging respect for duergar and mind flayers, since the gray dwarves and illithids also build powerful cities and have demonstrated the strength to stand up to repeated assaults from the dark elves. Though they despise humans and all other surface folk as weak creatures, the drow save their true venom for surface elves, particularly sun and moon elves. The dark elves hate their kinfolk with a blind passion and seize any chance to strike at their ancient enemies.

Alignment: The great majority of drow are evil through and through, and most tend toward the chaotic end of the lawfulchaotic spectrum. In general, drow believe in doing what they want to do, when they want to do it. Dark elves who turn to good are few and far between, but such can become powerful champions against tyranny and cruelty.
Good people, I'm sure.

[Cosi]

I would expect a bunch of mostly ignorant villagers to keep away any non-humanoid creatures they weren't familiar with, yeah. Mind Flayers aren't exactly a rare piece of lore, though. Kinda in the name what they do.

Well, then they get killed the first time anything they can't personally kill shows up. Driving off everything is a bad plan, because the things that can kill you off aren't going to stop. Only openness can protect you in the long run, because wall don't protect you from hungry dragons, armies of mind flayer thralls, or any number of other evil monsters. You need something on your side to do that, and most of the things that could be on your side look (from a peasant's perspective) indistinguishable from things that want to kill you.


The most generous classification I can think of for "is a Nazi" is "person who voted for Hitler", which would be 43.91% of votes cast in the 1933 German election. But when you say Nazi I'm pretty sure you mean someone actually involved in the war or operation of the government in that time period, which is closer to 12.5% of the population by total participation in the German military from 1935-1946. Of course conscription in to the Wermacht was mandatory for all males between the ages of 20-45, so the real number is probably even lower than that.

But fair enough with the "usually Evil", I'll concede that only the majority of Drow have personally murdered, tortured, and slaved enough to get the classification of Evil.

What reason do we have to suggest that the Drow are more active participants (or more willing participants) in Lloth's system than the Germans were in Hitlers? We didn't consider the people who fought for Hitler because he was the leader of their country to be kill-on-sight Evil simply for doing that. There's no reason to hold the Drow to a higher standard, other than your disturbing desire to justify genocide against them.

Seriously, no one is contesting your right to kill Drow (or Mind Flayers, or Red Dragons, or Demons) for doing things that are evil. The only thing we have problem with is your desire to kill them for being Drow. Are you really this attached to the ability to roleplay as a racist?


More difficult when over half the population is actively Evil rather than just apathetic. "Kill a literal God" seems kind of like a lofty goal for your day to day surface folk, though. An idealized solution to the problem that will definitely involve killing tens of thousand of Drow, but a fair one.

Wow, it's almost like describing yourself as Good requires you to hold yourself to a higher standard of personal behavior and do things not because they are easy but because they are right. If you want to get the stamp of "Good", I think the minimum you can do is not say "it's their own damn fault for being subjugated by demons and we should just kill the lot of them."


Lolth directly empowers clerics with divine magic to ensure that all Drow are under her rule or dead, yes. She also directly intervenes when their garbage fire society starts collapsing. If you're asking "does Lolth brainwash specific drow to be Evil", also yes.

None of that means the Drow are evil absent Lloth, so none of that means it is okay to kill Drow simply for being Drow. If Lloth convinces individual Drow to do evil things, they can be punished for those things (with whatever degree of mitigation or lack thereof you feel is appropriate for being forced to do so by god or culture).


it's ultimately up to the DM/setting maker as to what ethical problems exist, if any.

Sure. But it's not up to the DM to determine the solutions to those problems. The DM could absolutely say that the Drow are all super evil genetically because Lloth put spiders in their blood and nothing can be done to save them. The DM could say that the Drow are indoctrinated into an evil culture, but not fundamentally bad people. The DM could say that the Drow mostly regard active Lloth-worship as archaic and are basically good in the same way that Gnomes or Dwarves are. The DM could set up the moral situation of the Drow any number of ways. The DM could set up the reaction of the non-Drow peoples of the world to the Drow any number of ways. But ultimately the question of how Drow should be treated is one for the PCs to decide based on the inputs the DM provides.


Fantasy isn't reality, and they aren't people.

But fantasy reflects reality. Lord of the Rings didn't come from nowhere. It came from Tolkien, and it has shaped by his particular beliefs, interests, and values. Sometimes that is good (Gandalf's speech about mercy). Sometimes it is neutral (Tolkien drawing from European myths rather than African or Mesoamerican ones). Sometimes it is bad (Tolkien's hatred for industrialization).


Red Dragons, like Mind Flayers, are "Always Evil", which according to the source book means they're born being Evil as a result of their heritage. So Red Dragons are always a threat unless specifically conditioned not to be.

Yes. And no one has said that it is wrong to attack Red Dragons that threaten you. People have said that it is wrong to attack Red Dragons that don't threaten you, on the basis that doing so is incredibly obviously bigotry.


A few good apples doesn't change the fact that the realms would be a vastly better place if you just snapped your fingers and made all the Drow go away.

Which is obviously a reasonable standard to judge individual Drow by, while "Lloth is the reason Drow are evil, so blaming individual Drow beyond the extend of their individual actions is bigoted" is not.

[Zanos]

Wow, it's almost like describing yourself as Good requires you to hold yourself to a higher standard of personal behavior and do things not because they are easy but because they are right. If you want to get the stamp of "Good", I think the minimum you can do is not say "it's their own damn fault for being subjugated by demons and we should just kill the lot of them."
I'm going to sleep so I'll just say that what I'm saying obviously isn't D&D Good, just practical.

[Selene Sparks]

Is it deliberate? Because it seems like a mistake to me. Dwarves are not considered a subcategory of human, even by Toklien.Oh, really? And your evidence thereof is?

Look, the races, and by that I'm referring to both the "races of man," that is Numenoreans, Haradrim, and so on, as well as the other races(dwarves, elves, etc), are called as such because that's how people were grouped. Tolkien was a linguist and student of history and knew exactly the words he was using, and used them deliberately. Again, the dwarves are deliberately modeled after Jewish people. Tolkien was even rather explicitly anti-racist in ideal(although, being a white guy almost a century ago, not quite so good in practice).

I will, because I don't consider stat modifiers "uncomfortable."I suggest you look up the history of scientific racism.

They are mentally deficient. You are using an example of a specific orc to defy the average. On average, an Orc is a full standard deviation away from a Human in intelligence.No, I used a statline that is exactly average. If you're randomly generating the stats(not a good model to try to represent reality, but we'll go with it anyways), that 13 has an even chance of landing in any given stat.

Fantasy isn't reality, and they aren't people.Fantasy reflects reality, and they represent people.

Not the one comparing killing fantasy orcs with real life ethnic pogroms and genocide here, so I'd watch what kind of snarl you throw.No one is saying that. What myself and Cosi are pointing out is that the tropes in question line up far too well with racist tropes used to support oppression to this day, and reinforcing them is not good.

Again, not reality. It's entirely possible for a creature to just be made from whole cloth with or without altruism by the deities that created the entire world from nothing, or for fantastic circumstances to exist that would result in intelligent without altruism.And such a thing would by definition not be a social creature(something orcs explicitly are). Furthermore, Orcs, when charmed, behave exactly like everything else that's charmed. In other words, if you want to posit such a thing in the context of the discussion, you'd best provide some evidence instead of throwing out non-sequiturs.

That should be killed too, but for entirely different reasons.So the elves under the Curse of Ham who behave as morally as you'd expect of genetically inferior degenerates need to be purged because they're innately morally inferior, but the ones that are trying to suck up to the One True Godtm and overcome their inherent failings also need to be purged?

Are you arguing they don't have self-determination? Because there's at least one canon Good Succubus and many a fallen angel.On the subject of the succubus, I'd like something actually canon, please(And, no, the Fight Club thing isn't canon). But beyond that, you know something about fallen angels? They're not, to my knowledge, actually the angels in question. There's both aesthetic and mechanical changes. And the only canon source I'm aware of on the subject is Eberron, which explicitly disagrees with you, that they basically don't have self-determination, and if they change their ways at all, they become something other than the outsider they were.

I think your definition of "person" stretches much farther than mine, then. If you take a person and make them a genius with natural superpowers that is subservient to a gestalt psychic consciousness, derives sustenance from consuming sentient brains, and reproduces by budding parasites off the gestalt consciousness and having them devour the brains of unwilling kidnapped hosts to puppet their bodies, I don't really consider that a person anymore. That's a monster.Now you're assuming that "monster" and "person" are mutually exclusive.

Just because something plans like a person and engages in conversation sort of like a sick, Evil person might doesn't make it a person. Beholders are born with different biological inclinations than humans that make them overwhelmingly more likely to be Evil.And therein lies your problem. Even if 95% of beholders are evil, if you destroy all beholders, even those sitting all alone in the middle of the underdark and stewing in their hatred in peace or whatever, and there are 1,000 beholders in the world, you've killed 50 nonevil creatures, and that's without getting into the fact that some beholders, while evil, may have been harmless.

All in all, I find it rather concerning that your immediate reaction to something being described as evil is "kill it dead," without concern for any other criteria. That is, unless you're proposing to treat proud Aryan elves differently from the degenerate dark-skinned ones?

So how strong to tendencies have to be for it to be racist? If 90% of all Orcs are stronger and more aggressive than all humans, is that racist? What about 95? 99? 50?Now you're adding something entirely new to the conversation. And, furthermore, your math is off. Even assuming everyone caps at level 5, 80% of orcs aren't rolling a 16 for strength.

Pretty sure I already said that deliberately modeling a fantasy creature after your own biases is racist. So now you're arguing that the orcs as of 5e are deliberately racist?

Sure, but not every single thing in it needs to be political, either. I don't think saying Orcs are bad and adventurers stab Orcs is "problematic", just simple. Nothing isn't political, fiction especially so. Fiction, especially, since, again, the very point of fiction is to be able to safely examine topics that you might otherwise not be able to, or to come at things from a different angle than you otherwise would. And when you're writing fiction, you are always putting your views out, even if you're not doing so deliberately.

Look, in the real world, there are places that will execute people or imprison them for being gay. Many of those instances were pushed by people in the United States, trying to export that idea since it wasn't catching on there. "Corrective rape" of lesbians is a thing that happens with essentially official sanction in places. Nazis being bad can be considered "up for debate," depending on where you are, and that comes with all the baggage. In other words, people's lives are political, and whether or note you're wanting to deliberately, saying that "the savage, dark-skinned peoples with low foreheads and prominent lower jaws are all bad and killing them is a-okay" is a political statement. And maybe you're sufficiently insulated that you can avoid seeing these things, but I, personally, have been in the same room as people who I'm pretty sure would actually try to kill me if they knew more about me. Narratives matter.

Mind Flayers eat as much for pleasure as they do for sustenance, so that's not really a solution. Their life cycle also inherently involves killing sentient's, and they tend to go (more) insane without the psychic influence of an Elder Brain. It's almost like they're not just people who eat brains.Citation on the claim on brains, please. LoM says only that they gain no pleasure from any other food, not that they eat for pleasure. As for the latter two, they're not compelled to reproduce, and I'm sure they come up with something, and on the last one, so?

A few good apples doesn't change the fact that the realms would be a vastly better place if you just snapped your fingers and made all the Drow go away.For who? Define better. And, by that reasoning, Europe likely would have been a better place if, in 1940 or so, you had all the Germans magically disappear. And yet, you seem to be against hypothetically genociding Germans, but not our other hypothetical people.

What? The real world absolutely has social groups that are bad. Maybe not racial groups, but then again Mind Flayers aren't a racial group of humans.Exactly my point on the first, although I find your "maybe" there rather concerning, but again, see my prior criteria. Mind flayers, in the world of D&D, are people.

Beyond that, and directly onto the subject of Drizzt, yes they are! Forgotten Realms has the religion of good drow and naked dancing, one of the Seven Sisters is a drow, and, again, drow are people.
[quote]What? How is a random bystander in anywhere comparable to a creature who's very existent depends on you dying, and who's morality from it's very birth is designed to be okay with and even exalt that?I'd like a citation on the status of "newborn" illithids, please. And rings of sustenance are nice. And, as I've mentioned above, I've literally been in the same room as someone who I'm pretty sure if they knew more they'd want to kill me. Is preemptively attacking them, or anyone else I feel like if I feel they might be similar at all, acceptable?

Define "active." Because if you sneak into an illithid compound and start killing sleeping mindflayers(do they even sleep?) that have been raiding nearby towns and happen to kill one that was only born a few days ago and hasn't eaten any brains yet, I'm not giving out Evil points. And if you do, your a garbage DM. If you have perfect evidence the hypothetical single mindflayer has committed wrongs worth death, then it absolutely is.

Sapience and free will aren't the same as morality. We both know that. Even in our own species, lack of empathy and altruism is a heritable genetic characteristic. Yes, some mental illnesses are heritable. Should we be executing the mentally ill next?

They behave like there's Drow women in charge, I assume. I'm not sure how you think a species with women in charge would behave.I'd expect them to act like they're in charge. Instead they dress to show off to men, they seduce and trick men into doing what they want(rather than just commanding, because they're in charge), they keep inconvenient men, including men potentially damaging to the power structure, around because, in the case of Drizzt's dad, because he's apparently super good in the sack. All of this is absurd, especially considering that they're supposed to be ruthless and murder-happy and so on.

Furthermore, since we're getting onto this note anyways, we may as well take a brief diversion into the astounding sexism of the drow. First off, all drow are evil in the Drizzt books, as far as I could tell, save for two men. Second, the drow men all gain power from training and skill, their own innate abilities, women all gain power from their goddess, and if they fall out of favor they are rendered totally powerless; in other words, female power is unnatural. Drow priestesses literally fall out of favor at least once for not humiliating men enough; in other words, the unnatural female power can only be sustained by repressing the naturally powerful men. In WotSQ, there's literally a brothel run by a male elf where there are 14 priests of Lolth locked in a basement and raped by male drow who pay a bunch of money(and the matriarchs whose power, as noted, depends on humiliating and subjugating men let this slide, and the vengeful, spiteful goddess Lolth is a-okay with this apparently). I shouldn't even need to explain why this is messed up.

Surface Elves are patronized by Corellon Larethian, all of whom are super androgynous looking and as far as I recall don't have a patriarchal society enforced by their deity.Now you're proposing that patriarchy must be explicitly enforced to be a patriarchy? The important people are men. They're lead by a man. The evil version of this is a bunch of dark-skinned women who follow women.

You'll have to go more into that, because I was under the impression the Drow power structure is unnatural and wrong because it's propped up by the Queen of the Demonweb Pits and has it's entire power based on slavery and betrayal. Exactly. Women having power is framed as unnatural.

There aren't any divinely enforced patriarchy's that I know of in Faerun at all. If we want to just talk about "places in Faerun where women were in power and it was good", you've got all of Mystra's various incarnations, the Simbul, and Alustriel Silverhand, off the top of my head. You're getting caught-up in "divinely enforced," although you're missing the orcs in that, but here's a fun challenge: Go read the Drizzt series and find how many women who aren't the evil dark-skinned elves who actually matter. How many are in charge of anything. How many make decisions that matter.

But beyond that, you've got the Seven Sisters and... who else who's actually in charge of things?

What? Lolth conspired with Gruumsh and half a dozen other Evil deities across many thwarted attempts to killed Correlon. It's not "because they followed a woman."You're missing the broader narrative. It's the woman who's evil and has a bunch of woman-folk followers who are evil and have women in charge because they're evil and dared to oppose the manly god in charge.

Mind flayers actually have surprisingly little health and AC for CR8 monsters. A lot of crossbows actually stands a decent chance against them.Charm Monster says they have more hit points and AC than that.

"As a rule of thumb, half to two-third of a given drow settlement’s population consisted of slaves or non-drow without rights." - UnderdarkSure, and you failed to provide the other half.

See above. Existence of kings is not the same as a divinely enforced patriarchy. And count the number of non-divinely enforce patriarchies. Here's a hint: It's basically everywhere.

It's pretty important to remember that the Son and the Daughter aren't just a "good woman" and a "bad man", they're the literal personifications of the good and evil sides of the Force. You're also clearly mischaracterizing the nature of Lloths fall and her followers.First, you're grossly misrepresenting the nature of the force. The dark side and the light side aren't strictly "good and evil." It's called "balance" for a reason, what with Kyle Katarn, Mace Windu, and the various grey jedi and all, but beyond that, there was harmony. It had fallen apart, but the two could work together and produce greater than either could by themselves, and the failure of this to continue was a bad thing. And, again, the Son was supposed to directly compare to Anakin.

As for Lolth, you're missing the forest for the trees.

Some creatures are biologically disposed to Evil, including Mind Flayers and Red Dragons. The books literally say this. Drow are not one of these creatures and are not Evil from birth, but their culture is a divinely enforced one and makes it extremely difficult for any individual to deviate. So you advocate to murder a bunch of people coerced and indoctrinated from childhood?

Humanoids don't generally eat other humanoids.Except when they do.

Actually, while I have it open, let's read some passages from underdark.

Good people, I'm sure.Yes, we get it that the dark skinned ladies who the One True God hates and cursed with being dark-skinned are mostly super-double-plus evil. That's not being argued. What I'm saying is that this narrative is problematic.

It's super late, so I'm skipping the usual proof-reading I do before I post, so I may miss some stuff or be unclear. In anything I may have missed, Cosi is probably spot on, so you should listen to them.

[hamishspence]

On the subject of the succubus, I'd like something actually canon, please(And, no, the Fight Club thing isn't canon).

It's optional - but the point to be made is that it's possible - you can drop Eudocia into a campaign and not actually be "breaking any rules".

Fall-From-Grace in Planescape Torment is another example.

And in the Demonomicon: Malcanthet article in Dragon Magazine (written by one of the Fiendish Codex writers) a point is made of how rare redeemed succubi, such as Fall-from-Grace - are the one thing that makes Malcanthet feel close to sad.


the only canon source I'm aware of on the subject is Eberron, which explicitly disagrees with you, that they basically don't have self-determination, and if they change their ways at all, they become something other than the outsider they were.
Eberron has a True Neutral yugoloth - "The Captain", in Explorer's Handbook. He's still a yugoloth, and hasn't changed into something different. He does appear to have lost his [Evil] subtype somehow.


As explained above the majority of Drow have the "Evil" alignment, which means they've slaved or murdered enough to get that.


In Eberron at least, "having an evil alignment" is not proof of being a slaver or a murderer:

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041122a


In a crowd of ten commoners, odds are good that three will be evil. But that doesn't mean they are monsters or even killers -- each is just a greedy, selfish person who willingly watches others suffer. The sword is no answer here; the paladin is charged to protect these people. Oratory, virtue, and inspiration are the weapons of the paladin -- though intimidation may have its place.

and having Detect Evil does not grant a "licence to kill"


The Church does not define evil as "that which can be detected with detect evil"; as noted earlier, someone with an evil alignment may serve the greater good. Furthermore, a cleric of a good deity always possesses a good aura, regardless of her personal alignment. Rank within the church hierarchy is another complication: a pilgrim can't kill a cardinal and expect to get away with it because "he was evil." She will need proof of actions that went against church doctrine and harmed the innocent. Thus, a paladin's ability to detect evil allows her to judge the character of those around her -- but it's in no way a license to kill.

[2D8HP]

......Yeah, because peasants with crossbows are really noted to be effective against CR8 monsters.......



.......If you take a person and make them a genius with natural superpowers that is subservient to a gestalt psychic consciousness, derives sustenance from consuming sentient brains, and reproduces by budding parasites off the gestalt consciousness and having them devour the brains of unwilling kidnapped hosts to puppet their bodies, I don't really consider that a person anymore. That's a monster.....

......Mind Flayers eat as much for pleasure as they do for sustenance, so that's not really a solution. Their life cycle also inherently involves killing sentient's, and they tend to go (more) insane without the psychic influence of an Elder Brain. It's almost like they're not just people who eat brains.....

......Mind flayers actually have surprisingly little health and AC for CR8 monsters. A lot of crossbows actually stands a decent chance against them.......



....Only openness can protect you in the long run, because wall don't protect you from hungry dragons, armies of mind flayer thralls, or any number of other evil monsters. You need something on your side to do that, and most of the things that could be on your side look (from a peasant's perspective) indistinguishable from things that want to kill you.....


I for one am totally onboard for an all Human "dirt farmers" vs. Mind Flayers campaign!

An isolated small town or large village that can't get any help from a professional army (maybe they're in a rebellious province, or there's a war currently being fought, whatever) must field a peasant militia against brain eating abominations.

Two to four PC's per player to start, all Barbarians, Fighters or Rogues except maybe for one or two apprentices to the village Wise-woman or Shaman who my cast Dancing Lights so they can explore the darkness.

As they get deeper in the Underdark they instigate slave rebellions and they must find allies if they want to succeed or even survive!


...therein lies your problem. Even if 95% of beholders are evil, if you destroy all beholders, even those sitting all alone in the middle of the underdark and stewing in their hatred in peace or whatever, and there are 1,000 beholders in the world, you've killed 50 nonevil creatures, and that's without getting into the fact that some beholders, while evil, may have been harmless.....


Um... I'm pretty sure that's called "war".

And discussing the morality of war?

Well....

[Selene Sparks]

It's optional - but the point to be made is that it's possible - you can drop Eudocia into a campaign and not actually be "breaking any rules".Except in that one's case you would, because allowing fiends to exist is explicitly called out as evil, so the succubus couldn't have progressed in paladin.

Eberron has a True Neutral yugoloth - "The Captain", in Explorer's Handbook. He's still a yugoloth, and hasn't changed into something different. He does appear to have lost his [Evil] subtype somehow.So it's not different, save for the fact that it's pretty notably different?

Um... I'm pretty sure that's called "war".

And discussing the morality of war?

Well....No. It's absolutely not called "war." War is an armed conflict between different nations or states, or groups within said nations and states. Killing every beholder in existence is wiping out a huge number of creatures who you can't prove are an active threat to anyone, and with no broad connection to any nation or state that I'm aware of in D&D-land, simply and purely because of how they were born. The word you're looking for isn't "war," but "genocide."

[Cosi]

I'm going to sleep so I'll just say that what I'm saying obviously isn't D&D Good, just practical.

So Drow have to act according to their alignment, which makes it okay to kill them. But when you kill them, you don't have to act according to your alignment? If the surface dwellers are just going to kill any Drow they meet, and the Drow are just going to kill any surface dwellers they meet, how are those sides different enough to describe one as "good" but the other as "evil", aside from straight up racism?

What the hell is wrong with you that you are willing to jump through this many hoops and create so many logical contradictions to make "kill people who have never done anything wrong" okay?

[2D8HP]

...No. It's absolutely not called "war." War is an armed conflict between different nations or states, or groups within said nations and states. Killing every beholder in existence is wiping out a huge number of creatures who you can't prove are an active threat to anyone, and with no broad connection to any nation or state that I'm aware of in D&D-land, simply and purely because of how they were born. The word you're looking for isn't "war," but "genocide."


Fair point.

I meant in the sense that mass violence (as far as I know) always results in innocents harmed.


....What the hell is wrong with you that you are willing to jump through this many hoops and create so many logical contradictions to make "kill people who have never done anything wrong" okay?


I'm not who you addresses, but maybe because it's all a fictional construct for a wargame?

If you think of the characters as more like pieces of a checkers, chess, or Risk game then ypu don't feel as much of an emotional connection, and morality quandaries aren't felt.

Since it wasn't like we were communicating with other tables via CB radio ("Breaker Breaker Blackwolf calling Avatar"), I can't tell how common it was, but I remember that at the tables I played at in the late 1970's and early 80's, we thought of PC's and NPC's as more disposable than seems to usually be the case now

[Cosi]

I'm not who you addresses, but maybe because it's all a fictional construct for a wargame?

In that case, why are the Drow set up to be people whose situation is morally ambiguous? I don't have a problem with killing e.g. WH40k Orks en masse, because those actually are totally irredeemable. But the Drow aren't. They have a really ****ty government, and lots of them are individually ****ty people, but the game doesn't present them as any more fundamentally irredeemable than evil Humans or Dwarves.

[Nifft]

In that case, why are the Drow set up to be people whose situation is morally ambiguous?

Because there are several different campaign types which are supposed to be supported by the same basic game text, including:

- Classical fantasy wherein heros stomp the baddies and save the kingdom of goodness.

- "Oh gosh the baddies were just funny-looking misunderstood victims, like me in high school", which is every kid's first subversion of the classical tropes.


The Drow in the book might be morally ambiguous in order to prevent some flavor lawyer from angrily pointing at the game text when the Drow in a given game turn out to be irredeemable and/or redeemable.

[Selene Sparks]

Fair point.

I meant in the sense that mass violence (as far as I know) always results in innocents harmed.This is correct, but you're, in this case, both presupposing that the innocents being hurt is an acceptable outcome, and then taking that to mean that even taking unprovoked, aggressive action that you know will directly kill noncombatants is an acceptable decision.

I'm not who you addresses, but maybe because it's all a fictional construct for a wargame?Fiction doesn't exist in a vacuum.

If you think of the characters as more like pieces of a checkers, chess, or Risk game then ypu don't feel as much of an emotional connection, and morality quandaries aren't felt.

Since it wasn't like we were communicating with other tables via CB radio ("Breaker Breaker Blackwolf calling Avatar"), I can't tell how common it was, but I remember that at the tables I played at in the late 1970's and early 80's, we thought of PC's and NPC's as more disposable than seems to usually be the case nowIn chess and risk, the narrative isn't that they're people. We aren't meant to look at a pawn and see a person with all that comes with, we're supposed to see a piece on the board, because chess isn't about telling a story.

I can't speak for how your tables may have handled NPCs 40 years ago, but the disposability of characters has very little effect on the broader narratives in question.

In that case, why are the Drow set up to be people whose situation is morally ambiguous? I don't have a problem with killing e.g. WH40k Orks en masse, because those actually are totally irredeemable. But the Drow aren't. They have a really ****ty government, and lots of them are individually ****ty people, but the game doesn't present them as any more fundamentally irredeemable than evil Humans or Dwarves.One thing also worth keeping in mind is that, to use your example, Warhammer 40k started out as a satire. In other words, it is deliberately portraying messed up things to point out the fact that they're messed up.


Because there are several different campaign types which are supposed to be supported by the same basic game text, including:

- Classical fantasy wherein heros stomp the baddies and save the kingdom of goodness.Sure,and this isn't mutually exclusive with "drow are people, not humanoid blobs of evil." And, furthermore, you can have that narrative, but it runs into problems when all of a sudden all the Good People from the Good Kingdom of Goodness are white, while the evil faction of evil that's supposedly out to ruin GKoG's day and such are all not.

Furthermore, in LotR, the humans working for Sauron were explicitly called out as being deceived, their deaths were often portrayed as a tragic effect of the greater evil, and so on, so I'm not sure I buy into your idea of "classic fantasy" either.

The Drow in the book might be morally ambiguous in order to prevent some flavor lawyer from angrily pointing at the game text when the Drow in a given game turn out to be irredeemable and/or redeemable.That is a problem. Again, when you frame a racial group as being inherently morally inferior due to their race, that's an offensive narrative, and that's without getting into the broader racist elements of the drow.

In other words, the narrative of all the dark-skinned elves being 100% super double-plus made of evil(as opposed to the good pale elves) because they're dark skinned and god hates them shouldn't be a supported narrative, because it's an utterly abhorrent narrative. I really don't think this should have to be said.

[Dimers]

The narrative of all the dark-skinned elves being 100% super double-plus made of evil(as opposed to the good pale elves) because they're dark skinned and god hates them shouldn't be a supported narrative, because it's an utterly abhorrent narrative.

In my experience, the kind of gaming in which drow are acceptable targets doesn't actually rely on anything being bad about them as a group. Narratively, it doesn't matter if they're Evil -- they only get killed because they're in the PCs' way and the GM said "Roll initiative." Humans or pale elves or aasimar would get the same treatment. In that kind of game, the narrative is just "these drow are your obstacle", not "these drow inherently deserve smiting".

In an attempted-genocide situation, obviously the narrative would be different. I've never even seen that considered at a real table, though.

[2D8HP]

In that case, why are the Drow set up to be people whose situation is morally ambiguous? I don't have a problem with killing e.g. WH40k Orks en masse, because those actually are totally irredeemable. But the Drow aren't. They have a really ****ty government, and lots of them are individually ****ty people, but the game doesn't present them as any more fundamentally irredeemable than evil Humans or Dwarves.


IIRC, the Drow were set up that way so that the PC's could find allies among the commoner Drow


This is correct, but you're, in this case, both presupposing that the innocents being hurt is an acceptable outcome, and then taking that to mean that even taking unprovoked, aggressive action that you know will directly kill noncombatants is an acceptable decision....


I don't recall "presupposing" any such thing!

Please do not put words under my thumbs!

War is horrible, and I think that looking for moral guidelines from a wargame is mistaken.


...I can't speak for how your tables may have handled NPCs 40 years ago, but the disposability of characters has very little effect on the broader narratives in question.
One thing also worth keeping in mind is that, to use your example, Warhammer 40k started out as a satire...


:confused:

Where did you get the idea that D&D wasn't a satire?

Bat guano as a fireball spell component?

The players in the original games of Arneson'and Gygax'had characters named Xagyg the wizard, Yrag the fighter, Melf the Elf, Bellus of Telefono, Murylynd, and Sir Fang (http://blogofholding.com/?series=mornard) serious "storytelling" it wasn't!


...In other words, the narrative of all the dark-skinned elves being 100% super double-plus made of evil(as opposed to the good pale elves) because they're dark skinned and god hates them shouldn't be a supported narrative, because it's an utterly abhorrent narrative. I really don't think this should have to be said.

I agree.

The mostly good "surface Elves" ripped off from inspired by Tolkien are LAME!

I much prefer the Elves of Anderson, Clarke and Pratchett, which is why I made the Rules for Non Tolkienish Elves? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?502936-Rules-for-Non-Tolkienish-Elves) thread

This is fine, that's a perfectly valid playstyle, but it's a complete failure in emulating the heroic fantasy genre, which is how D&D bills itself..


What works are those?

I suppose Moorcock's Elric is "a one msn army" with his demonsword and his sorceries, but Howard's Conan, Moore's Jirel, and Leiber"s Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser are all more human scale than that!

Outside of comics (Dr. Strange) and myths (Cú Chulainn (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%BA_Chulainn)) the Swords & Sorcery fiction that inspired D&D just didn't have all those superpowers held by the heroes, your PC was supposed to build a stronghold and retire around 10th level!

Time passed and the game continued to grow as well as expand in unexpected directions. Level-creep--PC’s at high Levels that were never considered, let alone allowed for, began to proliferate. In the early years PC’s “retired” at Lvl 9 or 10 and a new PC started; this level-creep was eating up the game. We were getting pleas for help from DM’s and players alike.

The tipping point came one day in a letter I had to open *that day that spurred a supplement almost that very week. (I must have “had the duty” that day; we took turns opening and reading mail to TSR.) In this powerful thought provoker, a bewildered DM wrote the following, more or less (I will paraphrase a bit):

“Dear TSR, I don’t know where to go with my campaign next. Last session, my players went to Valhalla. They killed Loki, all the Valar, a dozen Valkyries, Thor and Odin and destroyed the Bifrost Bridge. “

I read this aloud to Gary and Brian; when we picked ourselves up off the floor or regained our senses, as the case may have been, ( I swear to you that this is true) we knew level-creep had gone too far. That week saw the impetus for one more supplement gather enough steam that I set out to edit the last of the RPG-oriented supplements,*Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes. This was the closest to a rule book that we came; we felt that PC’s should not be powerful enough to knock off gods. So we gave them really high amounts of HP: Odin 300, Thor 275. We charted out character levels undreamed of in the original game.

The source of the quote is here (http://kaskoid.blogspot.com/2016/02/how-i-helped-to-pull-rope-that-tolled.html?m=1)


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X9vECzikqpY[

[Ratter]

Just for sake of discussion, my table generally treats it like this, "If there is a criminal, we punish him, if there is a place with tons of people, some of which may be criminals, we punish the criminals."

[hamishspence]

Except in that one's case you would, because allowing fiends to exist is explicitly called out as evil, so the succubus couldn't have progressed in paladin.

That's a case where the BOVD makes so little sense, that it can safely be regarded as "not core". A redeemed fiend does not have to commit suicide, and "failure to commit suicide, when you're a fiend" does not qualify as an Evil act, regardless of what BOVD's poorly worded statement says.

"Allowing a fiend to exist is evil" is one of those over-generalizations that breaks down when you get to the specifics of redeemed fiends - so it can be ignored.

If Eludocia was a "rules-illegal but still DM-created" character, she'd be in the Creatures That Cannot Be section, not the Elite Opponents section.

3.5 didn't invent the concept of Redeemed D&D fiends, either - Planescape referenced them too:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AscendedDemon

(tabletop games section):

K'rand Vahlix is a general of the Risen Fiends who have fled to the various Upper Planes, organizing them into the Celestial Hosts, and is so powerful and good-aligned that he is completely unafraid of any Deep Cover Agents that might assassinate him, which is the main obstacle to most Risen Fiends associating with each other.

[Selene Sparks]

In my experience, the kind of gaming in which drow are acceptable targets doesn't actually rely on anything being bad about them as a group. Narratively, it doesn't matter if they're Evil -- they only get killed because they're in the PCs' way and the GM said "Roll initiative." Humans or pale elves or aasimar would get the same treatment. In that kind of game, the narrative is just "these drow are your obstacle", not "these drow inherently deserve smiting".Maybe, but that's not how D&D itself is and has presented the Drow.

I don't recall "presupposing" any such thing!

Please do not put words under my thumbs!

War is horrible, and I think that looking for moral guidelines from a wargame is mistaken. So are you positing that D&D is a war game, rather than an role-playing game?

Where did you get the idea that D&D wasn't a satire?

Bat guano as a fireball spell component?

The players in the original games of Arneson'and Gygax'had characters named Xagyg the wizard, Yrag the fighter, Melf the Elf, Bellus of Telefono, Murylynd, and Sir Fang (http://blogofholding.com/?series=mornard) serious "storytelling" it wasn't! Do you not know what satire is? Satire isn't just being silly, like what you're suggesting, satire is a specific form of humor. There is no specific vice or folly being ridiculed within the overdone joke of material components. And even beyond that, that would be entirely beside the point of what's being discussed.

Compare the "joke" of "Tee hee, the wizard makes some black powder to cast a fireball" with the parody of fascism in the Imperium in 40k. 40k deliberately put forward a messed up premise because the premise being messed up was the point. It was laughing at fascists. D&D was making fun of itself, and on a subject that had nothing to do with the social ills we're discussing here.

What works are those?

I suppose Moorcock's Elric is "a one msn army" with his demonsword and his sorceries, but Howard's Conan, Moore's Jirel, and Leiber"s Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser are all more human scale than that!

Outside of comics (Dr. Strange) and myths (Cú Chulainn (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%BA_Chulainn)) the Swords & Sorcery fiction that inspired D&D just didn't have all those superpowers held by the heroes, your PC was supposed to build a stronghold and retire around 10th level!So except for several examples you can list off the top of your head, and even more that you're preemptively dismissing because you feel like it, there are no examples at at?

That's a case where the BOVD makes so little sense, that it can safely be regarded as "not core". A redeemed fiend does not have to commit suicide, and "failure to commit suicide, when you're a fiend" does not qualify as an Evil act, regardless of what BOVD's poorly worded statement says.

"Allowing a fiend to exist is evil" is one of those over-generalizations that breaks down when you get to the specifics of redeemed fiends - so it can be ignored.

If Eludocia was a "rules-illegal but still DM-created" character, she'd be in the Creatures That Cannot Be section, not the Elite Opponents section.No, you don't get to flatly ignore text that you don't like in a discussion of the game as it is.

Bottom line: In D&D 3.5, allowing fiends to exist is evil. A paladin that commits an evil act cannot advance without atonement. These are both explicitly stated rules. Therefore, the succubus paladin cannot advance as such. And presuming the infallibility of a writer of a bunch of mediocre net articles over the explicit text of the books is an entirely indefensible argument.

3.5 didn't invent the concept of Redeemed D&D fiends, either - Planescape referenced them too:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AscendedDemon

(tabletop games section):

K'rand Vahlix is a general of the Risen Fiends who have fled to the various Upper Planes, organizing them into the Celestial Hosts, and is so powerful and good-aligned that he is completely unafraid of any Deep Cover Agents that might assassinate him, which is the main obstacle to most Risen Fiends associating with each other.I'm genuinely unsure as to what point you think you're making here. Neither computer games nor outdated fluff are terribly convincing arguments, but it's worth pointing out that, in the book you're referencing(which is presented as an in-character text), no stats are presented, no rules are given at all, and the idea that they're still innately evil is presented. In other words, your source doesn't meaningfully support your claims.

[Dimers]

Maybe, but that's not how D&D itself is and has presented the Drow.

That depends on edition -- I guess you could call that difference a "pro" or "con". Their presentation in 4th and 5th is a far cry from what it used to be; both editions have drow as playable races, with plentiful support in 4e. Neither edition says they're always, or even mostly, fundamentally Evil, much less smiteworthy.

They're also enemies, mind you, just like high elves, humans, angels and so forth.

[2D8HP]

...So are you positing that D&D is a war game, rather than an role-playing game?


That's what it said on the box:

https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1319078287l/2126232.jpg


The first version of what became D&D was the rules system inside Dave Arneson's mind.

The rules are there because players want some idea of what the odds are first, and it's easier to choose from a catalog than write on a blank page.

When D&D started there was no mention of role-playing on the box!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/SfSTvUzCu4I/AAAAAAAAA9A/9bUyti9YmUk/s320/box1st.jpg
While the 1977 Basic set did indeed say "FANTASY ROLE-PLAYING GAME"
http://i2.wp.com/shaneplays.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/dungeons_and_dragons_dd_basic_set_1stedition_origi nal_box_holmes_edition.jpg?zoom=4&resize=312%2C386
The phrase "role-playing" was not part of the 1974 rules.
http://i2.wp.com/shaneplays.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/original_dungeons_and_dragons_dd_men_and_magic_cov er.jpg?zoom=4&resize=312%2C494
Notice that the cover says "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames", not role-playing!
I believe the first use of the term "role-playing game" was in a Tunnels & Trolls supplement that was "compatible with other Fantasy role-playing games", but early D&D didn't seem any more or less combat focused than the later RPG's I've played, (in fact considering how fragile PC''s were avoiding combat was often the goal!) so I wouldn't say it was anymore of a "Wargame". I would however say it was more an exploration game, and was less character focused.
Frankly while role-playing is alright, it's the 'enjoying a "world" where the fantastic is fact' part that is much more interesting to me.

These rules are strictly fantasy. Those wargamers who lack imagination, those who don't care for Burroughs'
Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard's Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser
pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find Dungeons & Dragons to their taste. But those whose imaginations know no bounds will find that these rules are the answer to their prayers. With this last
bit of advice we invite you to read on and enjoy a "world" where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!
E. Gary Gygax
Tactical Studies Rules Editor
1 November 1973
Lake Geneva, WisconsinWhile I'm ever grateful to Holmes for his work translating the game rules into English, perhaps he (an academic psychologist) is to be blamed for mis-labelling D&D with the abominable slander of "role-playing" (a psychological treatment technique).
It's too late now to correct the misnomer, but D&D is, was, and should be a fantasy adventure game, not role-playing, a label no good has come from!

“If I want to do that,” he said, “I’ll join an amateur theater group.” (see here (http://www.believermag.com/issues/200609/?read=article_lafarge)).
While Dave Arneson later had the innovation of having his players "roll up" characters, for his "homebrew" of Chainmail:
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2016/04/the-original-dungeon-masters/

At first the players played themselves in a Fantastic medievalish world:
http://swordsandstitchery.blogspot.com/2016/10/in-celebrate-of-dave-arnesons-birthday.html?m=1

So a wargame was made into a setting exploration game, and then was later labelled a "role-playing" game.
While it's still possible to play D&D as the wargame it once was, I suppose it's okay that the game escaped the "wargame" appellation, which makes the game more attractive to those of us with 'less of an interest in tactics, however I argue (to beat a dead horse), that the labeling of D&D as a role-playing game is hurtful ("Your not role-playing, your roll-playing! etc.).
Just label D&D an adventure game, and people can be spared all the hand-wringing, and insults when acting and writing talents don't measure up to "role-playing" standards, and instead we can have fun exploring a fantastic world together.
Please?

DOWN WITH ROLEPLAY!

UP WITH ADVENTURE!




......So except for several examples you can list off the top of your head, and even more that you're preemptively dismissing because you feel like it, there are no examples at at?......


Several?

I thought I listed three examples:


....I suppose Moorcock's Elric is "a one msn army" with his demonsword and his sorceries, but Howard's Conan, Moore's Jirel, and Leiber"s Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser are all more human scale than that!

Outside of comics (Dr. Strange) and myths (Cú Chulainn (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%BA_Chulainn)) the Swords & Sorcery fiction that inspired D&D just didn't have all those superpowers held by the heroes, your PC was supposed to build a stronghold and retire around 10th level....


I've read thoroughly those works cited by Gygax as inspiration for D&D and I completely stand by my statement that for the most part high level play (even what's now considered medium level play) except for a tiny few works, just doesn't fit the fiction cited.

Besides knowing more about post 1970's D&D rules than me, you seem to have some stories in mind, so maybe you could please name them so I may learn from you?

[Selene Sparks]

That depends on edition -- I guess you could call that difference a "pro" or "con". Their presentation in 4th and 5th is a far cry from what it used to be; both editions have drow as playable races, with plentiful support in 4e. Neither edition says they're always, or even mostly, fundamentally Evil, much less smiteworthy.I can't speak for 4e, as I've paid next to no attention to it in almost a decade, but are we talking abot the same 5e? The PHB specifically says drow(and only drow, it's worth noting) are something you have to ask your GM to play, and have a side-bar about how all drow not written by RA Salvatore are evil and such. The Monster Manual goes on about how they're the "wickedest of the elves," because, you know, Curse of Ham and all, and, of course, all examples of them are evil. I'm not really seeing a "world of difference."

Now, I concede I may be missing something; the last several times I've actually looked into 5e in any real depth I've found another new and really awful thing, so I'm not exactly looking too hard here, but I'm not seeing anything that's not exactly what I would expect, given how little content was actually put out.

They're also enemies, mind you, just like high elves, humans, angels and so forth.No. In 5e, humans and high elves aren't in the monster manual. Humans and high elves aren't described essentially exclusively in terms of how evil they are. 5e replays the almost the exact same problematic narratives, just with a much lower volume of content.

That's what it said on the box:

https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1319078287l/2126232.jpg


The first version of what became D&D was the rules system inside Dave Arneson's mind.

The rules are there because players want some idea of what the odds are first, and it's easier to choose from a catalog than write on a blank page.

When D&D started there was no mention of role-playing on the box!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/SfSTvUzCu4I/AAAAAAAAA9A/9bUyti9YmUk/s320/box1st.jpg
While the 1977 Basic set did indeed say "FANTASY ROLE-PLAYING GAME"
http://i2.wp.com/shaneplays.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/dungeons_and_dragons_dd_basic_set_1stedition_origi nal_box_holmes_edition.jpg?zoom=4&resize=312%2C386
The phrase "role-playing" was not part of the 1974 rules.
http://i2.wp.com/shaneplays.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/original_dungeons_and_dragons_dd_men_and_magic_cov er.jpg?zoom=4&resize=312%2C494
Notice that the cover says "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames", not role-playing!
I believe the first use of the term "role-playing game" was in a Tunnels & Trolls supplement that was "compatible with other Fantasy role-playing games", but early D&D didn't seem any more or less combat focused than the later RPG's I've played, (in fact considering how fragile PC''s were avoiding combat was often the goal!) so I wouldn't say it was anymore of a "Wargame". I would however say it was more an exploration game, and was less character focused.
Frankly while role-playing is alright, it's the 'enjoying a "world" where the fantastic is fact' part that is much more interesting to me.
While I'm ever grateful to Holmes for his work translating the game rules into English, perhaps he (an academic psychologist) is to be blamed for mis-labelling D&D with the abominable slander of "role-playing" (a psychological treatment technique).
It's too late now to correct the misnomer, but D&D is, was, and should be a fantasy adventure game, not role-playing, a label no good has come from!
.
While Dave Arneson later had the innovation of having his players "roll up" characters, for his "homebrew" of Chainmail:
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2016/04/the-original-dungeon-masters/

At first the players played themselves in a Fantastic medievalish world:
http://swordsandstitchery.blogspot.com/2016/10/in-celebrate-of-dave-arnesons-birthday.html?m=1

So a wargame was made into a setting exploration game, and then was later labelled a "role-playing" game.
While it's still possible to play D&D as the wargame it once was, I suppose it's okay that the game escaped the "wargame" appellation, which makes the game more attractive to those of us with 'less of an interest in tactics, however I argue (to beat a dead horse), that the labeling of D&D as a role-playing game is hurtful ("Your not role-playing, your roll-playing! etc.).
Just label D&D an adventure game, and people can be spared all the hand-wringing, and insults when acting and writing talents don't measure up to "role-playing" standards, and instead we can have fun exploring a fantastic world together.
Please?

DOWN WITH ROLEPLAY!

UP WITH ADVENTURE!

Do you have anything that's, say, less than 30 years old?

Look, I'm sorry if you've had a bad time with some awful Real Roleplayerstm, but neither that nor your general views on the merits of RP has anything to do with what the game, in fact, is.

Several?

I thought I listed three examples:Only if you count "comics" and "mythology" as a single example.

I've read thoroughly those works cited by Gygax as inspiration for D&D and I completely stand by my statement that for the most part high level play (even what's now considered medium level play) except for a tiny few works, just doesn't fit the fiction cited.

Besides knowing more about post 1970's D&D rules than me, you seem to have some stories in mind, so maybe you could please name them so I may learn from you?First of all, I'm kind of curious at to where you pulled 1970s D&D from, considering we're in the forum for early aughts D&D, but that's neither here nor there.

Now, as for examples, I've already mentioned some; in the Illiad, the gods were actually concerned that Achilles was essentially going to essentially win the war by himself. Diomedes defeated and drove off Aries and Aphrodite. Beyond that, though, I suggest you go read Journey to the West. And if the kind of silly nonsense Sun Wukong got up to isn't good enough for you, I'd like to remind you that in Hindu mythology, there's actually a term for a single fighter capable of fighting 8,640,000 normal warriors at once (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharathi_(warrior)). And all that stuff is downright tame compared to what you'll see in Zelazny's work.

Look, I get that you like lower-level stuff. That's fine! It's an important thing to have in a game, but it's not more important than higher-level stuff.

[2D8HP]

...Do you have anything that's, say, less than 30 years old?


I bought the 3e "corebooks" (I have the 3e PHB ten feet from me in my locker at work right now, I boycotted the 3.5 corebooks when they came out because it was too soon after the 3e books but I bought the 3.5 PHB this year, and previously I bought The Complete Adventurer and Races of the Wild plus some other 3e or 3.5 books, the names and locations of which I've forgotten.

I bought the 4e PHB and DMG two years ago out of curiosity but I never got around to reading them, and I think there in my garage.

Since they came out just when my son turned the age I was when I discovered D&D I have almost all of the 5e books.

But my memories of '70's rules D&D are stronger, and I have my oD&D books, and most of my AD&D books with me now.


...I'm kind of curious at to where you pulled 1970s D&D from, considering we're in the forum for early aughts D&D...


The OP asked about AD&D as well:

This is me simply asking for Pros and Cons of each edition because I have only ever played 5th and want to know if I should get into Pathfinder/2e/AD&D.

and the OP made the same question in the
Pros and Cons of every D&D edition? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?554056-Pros-and-Cons-of-every-D-amp-D-edition) thread, which is in "General Role-playing" and that had a quote/link to this thread.


....all that stuff is downright tame compared to what you'll see in Zelazny's work.


I read Dilvish the Damned decades ago, but Amber was just too weird for me


...Look, I get that you like lower-level stuff. That's fine! It's an important thing to have in a game, but it's not more important than higher-level stuff.


How well a game handles the lower level stuff I like is more important to me, which is why I want to find Pro's and Con's about that, as for high power stuff, I chiefly want to find out if they may be made tolerable for me.

[hamishspence]

No, you don't get to flatly ignore text that you don't like in a discussion of the game as it is.

Bottom line: In D&D 3.5, allowing fiends to exist is evil. A paladin that commits an evil act cannot advance without atonement. These are both explicitly stated rules. Therefore, the succubus paladin cannot advance as such. And presuming the infallibility of a writer of a bunch of mediocre net articles over the explicit text of the books is an entirely indefensible argument.
I'm genuinely unsure as to what point you think you're making here. Neither computer games nor outdated fluff are terribly convincing arguments, but it's worth pointing out that, in the book you're referencing(which is presented as an in-character text), no stats are presented, no rules are given at all, and the idea that they're still innately evil is presented. In other words, your source doesn't meaningfully support your claims.

The point I'm making is that the 3.0 book BOVD is the outlier - editions before it portrayed fiends as redeemable, and online D&D info after it portrayed fiends as redeemable. The Dragon Magazine Demonomicon article for Malcanthet referenced the "computer game" character Fall-From-Grace - so it's not like it was something made once and then forgotten.



So, we can interpret "allowing fiends to exist is evil" as not applying in the case of a fiend that seeks redemption.

We're not given any reason to believe that the celestial who helped redeem Eudocia "fell for committing an evil act" either.

In the MM (and SRD, under [evil] subtype, it specifically discusses what happens when a being with the subtype changes alignment:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#evilSubtype

A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype.

demonstrating that it is "rules-legal" for them to change alignment.

Expecting such a being to then commit suicide because "allowing yourself to exist is an evil act" is not what that BOVD line was intended to demand IMO.

It was intended for fiends that are still evil and unrepentant.

[Kurald Galain]

How well a game handles the lower level stuff I like is more important to me, which is why I want to find Pro's and Con's about that, as for high power stuff, I chiefly want to find out if they may be made tolerable for me.

There's a big difference between lower level stuff being more important to you, and that no D&D'esque game should care about the most powerful characters from myth and fantasy because (as you claim) this is Not What Gygax Intended.

Sure, there's a market for it: 4E explicitly leaves such powerful characters to fluff only, ensuring their powers don't exist in crunch; 5E intentionally makes such characters not exist in the first place. But in both cases that means there's a wide range of fiction these systems just cannot support (and that are supported just fine in e.g. 3E/PF/Exalted). And as this thread shows, that doesn't necessarily make them better at supporting the more human-scoped characters, either. There's a limit of scope with no clear increase in focus.

[Nifft]

there's a wide range of fiction these systems just cannot support (and that are supported just fine in e.g. 3E/PF/Exalted).

Well, for some value of supported.

3.5e / PF kinda fall apart at high level, because they support creating characters at that level, but they don't have coherent intra-party balance between the characters you create.

That might be why later editions scrap that part of the range -- perhaps they prefer to avoid doing something poorly, rather than falsely present that segment of the spectrum as if it worked just as well as the rest.

[Cosi]

That might be why later editions scrap that part of the range -- perhaps they prefer to avoid doing something poorly, rather than falsely present that segment of the spectrum as if it worked just as well as the rest.

It feels like you're skipping the very obvious option of "have it actually work as well as the rest", which seems like the sort of thing you ought to try when designing a new edition of the game. "Ignore it, it's broken" is a passable solution when you're using a product, but it's a terrible excuse when you're creating one.

[Kurald Galain]

It feels like you're skipping the very obvious option of "have it actually work as well as the rest", which seems like the sort of thing you ought to try when designing a new edition of the game. "Ignore it, it's broken" is a passable solution when you're using a product, but it's a terrible excuse when you're creating one.

Yep. Also, he's conflating "it doesn't work for him" with "it doesn't work for anybody". You can't expect a big publishing company to cater to the personal pet peeve of every individual forum user.

[JyP]

For me, it was like this:

OD&D, Red Box : YEAH! Roleplaying Games!
OD&D, Gazetteers : some rules for skills
OD&D, Gazetteers, Orcs of Thar... and we can play monsters too !

AD&D: yeah, we can separate character class & race. Hello, Elf Barbarian ! Characters changing class after some time is a pain in the ass, Warhammer RPG is better for this.
AD&D2 : let's only play good guys, not orcs assassins kay? thx. Also, let's kill all existing assassins in Forgotten Realms.
AD&D2, Kits : let's buy a lot of books, one for each character archetype
AD&D2, Skills & Powers & co : let's really tailor your PC - but define his whole progression until high levels - you cannot change along the way
AD&D2, Planescape : What a wondrous setting. A shame D&D rules are not for it.

D&D3: why are you all coming to my AD&D2 Planescape with these D&D3 books ? Yeah, we can change class at every level ! Those "feats" are nifty, but way behind Virtues & Flaws in Ars Magica....
D&D3.5: let's play everything, even an intelligent spectral gelatinous cube, and buy lots of books
D&D3.75, aka Pathfinder: nice ideas to improve the rules & balance, but I already have too much books in mind with D&D3.5
D&D3.5, Tome of Battle: a set of powers which are reusable at each encouter, this is fun.

D&D4: all classes have a set of reusable powers, the same power level curve in combat, and each player should have a deck of power cards - outside combat, some rules & scales to play non-combat encounters, which is a good idea - previously developped in Rune RPG. Skill rules are still as bad as previous editions, which is a shame (but it's the same in all RPG except 'Rêve de Dragon' anyway). Moreover, you must have a mat & grid to play combats like Warhammer wargame, and you cannot play everything anymore.

D&D5: burned too much brain on previous editions, I skipped D&D5 for now to play simple retroclones with clever ideas - like Dungeonworld or Oltréé!

[Yondu]

For me, it was like this:

OD&D, Red Box : YEAH! Roleplaying Games!
OD&D, Gazetteers : some rules for skills
OD&D, Gazetteers, Orcs of Thar... and we can play monsters too !

AD&D: yeah, we can separate character class & race. Hello, Elf Barbarian ! Characters changing class after some time is a pain in the ass, Warhammer RPG is better for this.
AD&D2 : let's only play good guys, not orcs assassins kay? thx. Also, let's kill all existing assassins in Forgotten Realms.
AD&D2, Kits : let's buy a lot of books, one for each character archetype
AD&D2, Skills & Powers & co : let's really tailor your PC - but define his whole progression until high levels - you cannot change along the way
AD&D2, Planescape : What a wondrous setting. A shame D&D rules are not for it.

D&D3: why are you all coming to my AD&D2 Planescape with these D&D3 books ? Yeah, we can change class at every level ! Those "feats" are nifty, but way behind Virtues & Flaws in Ars Magica....
D&D3.5: let's play everything, even an intelligent spectral gelatinous cube, and buy lots of books
D&D3.75, aka Pathfinder: nice ideas to improve the rules & balance, but I already have too much books in mind with D&D3.5
D&D3.5, Tome of Battle: a set of powers which are reusable at each encouter, this is fun.

D&D4: all classes have a set of reusable powers, the same power level curve in combat, and each player should have a deck of power cards - outside combat, some rules & scales to play non-combat encounters, which is a good idea - previously developped in Rune RPG. Skill rules are still as bad as previous editions, which is a shame (but it's the same in all RPG except 'Rêve de Dragon' anyway). Moreover, you must have a mat & grid to play combats like Warhammer wargame, and you cannot play everything anymore.

D&D5: burned too much brain on previous editions, I skipped D&D5 for now to play simple retroclones with clever ideas - like Dungeonworld or Oltréé!
You forgot for AD&D steep level limits for non-humans, Combat tables needed to see if you can bash the enemy face, squishy wizards, Bludgeonning Cleric mandatory... AD&D2 remove some caps in levels, invent THACO, permit the use of deity weapon and make wizards a little bit less squishy but barely...
I still prefer the AD&D 2.5 (Player's options) as a game, because even with NWPs, there were linked to your attributes... even if the system was a little bit trickier, I really enjoy more my games than nowadays (I play PF, 3.5 never tried 4th or 5th)

[Nifft]

It feels like you're skipping the very obvious option of "have it actually work as well as the rest", which seems like the sort of thing you ought to try when designing a new edition of the game. "Ignore it, it's broken" is a passable solution when you're using a product, but it's a terrible excuse when you're creating one. Well, you're skipping the fact that making things which work well can be very difficult.

High-level / high-power RPG design is mostly a litany of failures, and that's presumably because it's hard to do. So "have it actually work as well as the rest" is like demanding that a bird should "fly as well as usual" when the bird is in space.


Yep. Also, he's conflating "it doesn't work for him" with "it doesn't work for anybody". You can't expect a big publishing company to cater to the personal pet peeve of every individual forum user. Good thinking, it's true that you can't expect a big publishing company to cater to the less-popular niche where most people don't play, even if it causes a few pet peeves amongst forum users.

Thanks for the supporting idea.

[Cosi]

Yep. Also, he's conflating "it doesn't work for him" with "it doesn't work for anybody". You can't expect a big publishing company to cater to the personal pet peeve of every individual forum user.

Eh, the content is pretty bad. It's hard for me to imagine someone for whom the high level game is "working as intended".


Well, you're skipping the fact that making things which work well can be very difficult.

Oh my god, it's almost like when people pay you for a product, they expect you to put effort into making that product good. Complaining that making the product you are selling do what people want it to is hard is a deeply unsatisfying argument that you do not need to make it work.


High-level / high-power RPG design is mostly a litany of failures, and that's presumably because it's hard to do. So "have it actually work as well as the rest" is like demanding that a bird should "fly as well as usual" when the bird is in space.

Most of the failures of high level RPG designs (that is, most of them above the admittedly high base rate for failures in RPG design in general) are because people tried to tack on high level play without thinking about it. If people actually thought about the high level games they designed, they would probably work pretty well.

[JyP]

You forgot for AD&D steep level limits for non-humans, Combat tables needed to see if you can bash the enemy face, squishy wizards, Bludgeonning Cleric mandatory... AD&D2 remove some caps in levels, invent THACO, permit the use of deity weapon and make wizards a little bit less squishy but barely...
I still prefer the AD&D 2.5 (Player's options) as a game, because even with NWPs, there were linked to your attributes... even if the system was a little bit trickier, I really enjoy more my games than nowadays (I play PF, 3.5 never tried 4th or 5th)
Each edition improved a bit from previous one, sure. I feel there's still some way to go for beginners though...

I agree about Player's options (skills & powers, spells & magics, combat & tactics) being AD&D2.5 . You could buy anything with Character Points, play a wizard in full plate armor, a shaolin monk, or even, heaven forbid, balance classes to not have puny warrior/godly wizard issues.

[Nifft]

Oh my god, it's almost like when people pay you for a product, they expect you to put effort into making that product good. Complaining that making the product you are selling do what people want it to is hard is a deeply unsatisfying argument that you do not need to make it work. Elon Musk has a car in space.

You can pay for a car, but your car will not reach space without significant additional effort, for which you are responsible.

Complaining hysterically that OH MY GOD YOU PAID GOOD MONEY FOR THIS CAR will not inspire the manufacturer to assume responsibility for getting your car into space. You need to do some work yourself if you want that to happen.

What you get by paying for the product is a car that can drive on the ground.



Most of the failures of high level RPG designs (that is, most of them above the admittedly high base rate for failures in RPG design in general) are because people tried to tack on high level play without thinking about it. If people actually thought about the high level games they designed, they would probably work pretty well. List some high-power / high-level RPG designs where you think the job was done well.

I can think of a lot of high-power RPGs, but none of them hold together well.

[Cosi]

Elon Musk has a car in space.

You can pay for a car, but your car will not reach space without significant additional effort, for which you are responsible.

Complaining hysterically that OH MY GOD YOU PAID GOOD MONEY FOR THIS CAR will not inspire the manufacturer to assume responsibility for getting your car into space. You need to do some work yourself if you want that to happen.

What you get by paying for the product is a car that can drive on the ground.

There has literally been one edition of D&D ever (5e, and it's not even over) that has not tried to provide a high level/high power experience. One. In the entire history of the game. I will stop claiming WotC is obliged to provide high level play when they stop selling books that claim to provide it. Even Pathfinder has their Mythic options.


List some high-power / high-level RPG designs where you think the job was done well.

If you pay careful attention, my claim was that high level RPGs failed because people didn't put in the work. I don't really see why you think this is a response.

[Nifft]

There has literally been one edition of D&D ever (5e, and it's not even over) that has not tried to provide a high level/high power experience. One. In the entire history of the game. I will stop claiming WotC is obliged to provide high level play when they stop selling books that claim to provide it. Even Pathfinder has their Mythic options. Basic D&D didn't exist in your world?

Even AD&D was supposed to end around level 10, when "name-level" was achieved.

3.x tried to extend the playable range, and was partially successful: I've run 3.x games up to level 16 or so, and those games held together fairly well (albeit with DM judgment duct-tape and a few house-rules).

But 3.x had a "sweet spot", where most people seemed to prefer to play, and each edition since has focused on expanding that "sweet spot". That's the publisher catering to their audience. The various people on this forum may or may not be in that audience. Hopefully at least some of us are, because I like games that cater to me, but who knows.


If you pay careful attention, my claim was that high level RPGs failed because people didn't put in the work. I don't really see why you think this is a response. If you were correct, then there ought to exist some RPGs which did "put in the work". I want you to name them. If you can't name any RPGs that "put in the work", then I think you might not be making an argument from evidence.


Also, regarding terminology: 4e and 5e handle level 20 just fine, so that can't be what you actually mean. In fact, the base game of 4e even goes up to level 30, so it's clearly higher-level than 3.5e. Do you approve of 4e as a "high level RPG"?

My counter-claim is that high-power RPGs haven't been mechanically because they're difficult to achieve, so you're making a false assumption when you say that the only reason 5e didn't include high-power content was a failure to put in the work.

But you can prove that claim wrong by showing me some high-power RPGs which did "put in the work" and got the mechanics right.

Can you show me any?

[Kish]

Basic D&D didn't exist in your world?
Well, there's Basic D&D, the box that had only the first three levels, and there's what people generally use "Basic D&D" to mean, all five boxes.

If you mean the latter, you couldn't be more wrong; the fourth box was entirely aimed at people who were playing high-level characters who were working on becoming gods, the fifth box was aimed at people who were playing gods.

If you mean the former, you're right only in the most technical of senses, considering all the "NOW BUY THE EXPERT RULES SO YOU CAN GO OUTSIDE A DUNGEON AND GET BEYOND THIRD LEVEL!" tags it had.

AD&D sure had a lot of "and when you reach Name level this happens and this and this" for the assumption that it was actually "when you reach Name level you retire that character."

[Nifft]

Well, there's Basic D&D, the box that had only the first three levels, and there's what people generally use "Basic D&D" to mean, all five boxes.

His claim is that 5e -- which goes up to level 20 characters who cast level 9 spells -- isn't "high-level".

His claim is either entirely technical, or it's just plain wrong.

In the former case, Basic D&D is evidence against.

EDIT:
AD&D sure had a lot of "and when you reach Name level this happens and this and this" for the assumption that it was actually "when you reach Name level you retire that character."

Yeah, stuff like "you establish a stronghold".

Things a retired character would do.

[Cosi]

Basic D&D didn't exist in your world?

You mean "Basic" as in "BECMI" in which the I stands for "Immortals", a game about characters who "who discovered the multiverse, and decided to give it order and purpose" which is "an expansion to the Basic Set". Or is there some other Basic D&D I'm not aware of?


Even AD&D was supposed to end around level 10, when "name-level" was achieved.

I don't know about AD&D 1e, but Dragon Kings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Kings_(Dark_Sun)) is an AD&D 2e sourcebook for taking characters in Dark Sun up to 30th level and eventually transforming into Dragon Kings or Avangions.


If you were correct, then there ought to exist some RPGs which did "put in the work". I want you to name them. If you can't name any RPGs that "put in the work", then I think you might not be making an argument from evidence.

Or, alternatively, most RPGs are bad in some ways and when high level RPGs work, it's generally in part rather than in whole. 3e works better than other games at high power levels, particularly as a skirmish combat game, but it doesn't work perfectly. I don't think I could name a RPG I think "put in the work" in an absolute sense period, even if I was allowed to pick things for criteria other than "is high power".


My counter-claim is that high-power RPGs haven't been mechanically because they're difficult to achieve, so you're making a false assumption when you say that the only reason 5e didn't include high-power content was a failure to put in the work.

The RPG industry is tiny, and the people in it are incompetent. There are lots of things that would definitely make money, but have not been made competently. Why is there not a competent YA Fiction RPG where you can play Katniss, Harry Potter, and Percy Jackson to topple whoever the bad guys from the Maze Runner books were? Is "IP scrub six to ten properties" actually hard? Or are people just not taking the low hanging fruit because they are not very good at their jobs? Remember, this is an industry where one of the most successful games of all time has a core-only finite power loop because people forgot to check whether the sets "things that can use planar binding" and "things that can be summoned with planar binding" had any overlap.

[Cosi]

His claim is that 5e -- which goes up to level 20 characters who cast level 9 spells -- isn't "high-level".

Oh, so your claim is that I am wrong, and there is literally no version of D&D which has not claimed to offer me a high power game and is therefore not obligated to provide a working version of that game?

Because, sure, if you want to make that claim -- that literally no game ever has not claimed to do the thing you say they are not obligated to do because they didn't claim to do it -- you can absolutely make that claim.

[Nifft]

Or, alternatively, most RPGs are bad in some ways and when high level RPGs work, it's generally in part rather than in whole. 3e works better than other games at high power levels, particularly as a skirmish combat game, but it doesn't work perfectly. I don't think I could name a RPG I think "put in the work" in an absolute sense period, even if I was allowed to pick things for criteria other than "is high power".


The RPG industry is tiny, and the people in it are incompetent.


Oh, so your claim is that I am wrong, and there is literally no version of D&D which has not claimed to offer me a high power game and is therefore not obligated to provide a working version of that game?

Because, sure, if you want to make that claim -- that literally no game ever has not claimed to do the thing you say they are not obligated to do because they didn't claim to do it -- you can absolutely make that claim.

Actually no, this is my claim:


Well, for some value of supported.

3.5e / PF kinda fall apart at high level, because they support creating characters at that level, but they don't have coherent intra-party balance between the characters you create.

That might be why later editions scrap that part of the range -- perhaps they prefer to avoid doing something poorly, rather than falsely present that segment of the spectrum as if it worked just as well as the rest.

... and you responded by making a claim that the RPGs should just "put in the work" and then they'll cover high-power play just as easily as they cover low-power play.

I'm asserting that high-power RPG creation is difficult, and that I haven't seen it done well, so I'm doubtful that one could just "put in the work" and be assured of a good result.

You are apparently making a tsundere support case for my argument by claiming that no high-power RPG has ever been well-made, which seems to contradict your claim that they could just "put in the work" and get a good high-power game.

It looks like we're basically in agreement, in spite of all protestations.

[edathompson2]

Actually no, this is my claim:



... and you responded by making a claim that the RPGs should just "put in the work" and then they'll cover high-power play just as easily as they cover low-power play.

I'm asserting that high-power RPG creation is difficult, and that I haven't seen it done well, so I'm doubtful that one could just "put in the work" and be assured of a good result.

You are apparently making a tsundere support case for my argument by claiming that no high-power RPG has ever been well-made, which seems to contradict your claim that they could just "put in the work" and get a good high-power game.

It looks like we're basically in agreement, in spite of all protestations.

I ran 3 games from low level into epic level.

It wasn't until the third game that I could handle epic level gaming. High level 3.5 gaming, piece of cake. You gotta be good at an open sand box format.

[Cosi]

I'm asserting that high-power RPG creation is difficult, and that I haven't seen it done well, so I'm doubtful that one could just "put in the work" and be assured of a good result.

It is not actually hard to make good games. The same company that makes D&D makes another game (MTG) that achieves balance at a wide variety of power levels fairly consistently (there have been several periods where Standard, Modern, and Legacy were simultaneously considered good, not to mention Limited formats). Mechanical balance is simply not very hard to do if you are good at game design. The fact that you think it is hard is evidence that you do not understand the difference between "being bad at your job" and "having a difficult job".


You are apparently making a tsundere support case for my argument by claiming that no high-power RPG has ever been well-made, which seems to contradict your claim that they could just "put in the work" and get a good high-power game.

You would think that before arguing with people, you would read their posts. Go back and read what I actually said about RPG quality, then make a reply that responds to that, not the version of the post you think I should have made.

[2D8HP]

There has literally been one edition of D&D ever (5e, and it's not even over) that has not tried to provide a high level/high power experience. One. In the entire history of the game. I will stop claiming WotC is obliged to provide high level play when they stop selling books that claim to provide it. Even Pathfinder has their Mythic options.....


oD&D before the Greyhawk supplement didn't support high level play in the modern sense, and not much afterwards unless you consider all TSR D&D one "edition" from 1974 to 1999.

Yes there was "no theoretical limit to how high a character may progress, i.e. 20th-level Lord, 20th-level Wizard, etc."

but

they were no spells above 6th level, and all classes after 11th level only accumulated one hit point with each level, Elves and Hobbits could not be Fighting-Men/Fighters past 4th level, Dwarves couldn't get past 6th level, Elves couldn't get higher than an 8th level Magic Users, indeed only Elves and Humans could be Magic-Users at all, and only Humans could be Clerics, so until Greyhawk and the introduction of the Thief class, no non-humans could be a 9th level or above anything.

Epic?

Mythic?

Nope

not in terms of later D&D/AD&D, but it was still gloriously fun.

Continually, folks in this Forum don't seem to acknowledge 20th century D&D's existence.

Why?

Besides, in my experience of 5e, compared to the D&D I knew, 5e DM's throw new levels, at you at a dizzying rate, instead of 1500 to 2500 XP and months of play you hit second level after just a couple of sessions, and only 300 XP, and new abilities, powers, spells are really piled on with each level!

Compared to the D&D I knew, all 5e classes are much more powerful per session and XP, and 5e PC's being called "too weak" hasn't been my experience at all, quite the opposite.

Please tell me that 3e/3.5/4e PC's at least level up slower than 5e, because while I like where they start at first level, to me 5e PC's get way too powerful, way too fast.

I'd like it to take no less than twice as long to reach the equivalent of a 5e level 20 (which should be a level 35 to 40, so that there may be less power increases per level).

From what I read here, 3e to 4e PC's get even more powerful than 5e PC's, but how fast do they get that powerful?

Do you get to catch your breath, or do you rocket up the levels like in 5e?


II'd like to remind you that in Hindu mythology, there's actually a term for a single fighter capable of fighting 8,640,000 normal warriors at once (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharathi_(warrior)). And all that stuff is downright tame compared to what you'll see in Zelazny's work.

Look, I get that you like lower-level stuff. That's fine! It's an important thing to have in a game, but it's not more important than higher-level stuff.


That is expanding the definition of "Heroic Fantasy" from Swords & Sorcery to encompass Epic Myth, which is not what Dungeons & Dragons originally was about!

Once again I'll quote Gygax:


"....those who don't care for Burroughs'
Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard's Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser
pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find Dungeons & Dragons to their taste."

E. Gary Gygax
Tactical Studies Rules Editor
1 November 1973
Lake Geneva, Wisconsin


"The most immediate influences upon AD&D were probably de Camp & Pratt, REH, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, HPL, and A. Merritt."


-Gygax
16 May 1979

The type of superpowered "Epic" and "Mythic" PC's is what Gygax called "Dungeons and Beavers not Dungeons & Dragons" back in the 1970's


"D&D IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE DM

Successful play of D&D is a blend of desire, skill and luck. Desire is often initiated by actually participating in a game. It is absolutely a reflection of the referee's ability to maintain an interesting and challenging game. Skill is a blend of knowledge of the rules and game background as applied to the particular game circumstances favored by the referee. Memory or recall is often a skill function. Luck is the least important of the three, but it is a (actor in successful play nonetheless. Using the above criteria it would seem that players who have attained a score or more of levels in their respective campaigns are successful indeed. This is generally quite untrue. Usually such meteoric rise simply reflects an incompetent Dungeonmaster.

While adventurers in a D&D campaign must grade their play to their referee, it is also incumbent upon the Dungeonmaster to suit his campaign to the participants. This interaction is absolutely necessary if the campaign is to continue to be of interest to all parties. It is often a temptation to the referee to turn his dungeons into a veritable gift shoppe of magical goodies, ripe for plucking by his players. Similarly, by a bit of fudging, outdoor expeditions become trips to the welfare department for heaps of loot. Monsters exist for the slaying of the adventurers — whether of the sort who "guard" treasure, or of the wandering variety. Experience points are heaped upon the undeserving heads of players, levels accumulate like dead leaves in autumn, and if players with standings in the 20's. 30's and 40's of levels do not become bored, they typically become filled with an entirely false sense of accomplishment, and they are puffed up with hubris. As they have not really earned their standings, and their actual ability has no reflection on their campaign level, they are easily deflated (killed) in a game which demands competence in proportionate measure to players' levels.

It is therefore, time that referees reconsider their judging. First, is magic actually quite scarce in your dungeons? It should be! Likewise, treasures should be proportionate both to the levels of the dungeon and the monsters guarding them. Second, absolute disinterest mast be exercised by the Dungeonmaster, and if a favorite player stupidly puts himself into a situation where he is about to be killed, let the dice tell the story and KILL him. This is not to say that you should never temper chance with a bit of "Divine Intervention," but helping players should be a rare act on the referee's part, and the action should only be taken when fate seems to have unjustly condemned an otherwise good player, and then not in every circumstance should the referee intervene. Third, create personas for the inhabitants of your dungeon — if they are intelligent they would act cleverly to preserve themselves and slay intruding expeditions out to do them in and steal their treasures. The same is true for wandering monsters. Fourth, there should be some high-level, very tricky and clever chaps in the nearest inhabitation to the dungeon, folks who skin adventures out of their wealth just as prospectors were generally fleeced for their gold in the Old West. When the campaign turkies flock to town trying to buy magical weapons, potions, scrolls, various other items of magical nature, get a chum turned back to flesh, have a corpse resurrected, or whatever, make them pay through their proverbial noses. For example, what would a player charge for like items or services? Find out, add a good bit, and that is the cost you as referee will make your personas charge. This will certainly be entertaining to you and laying little traps in addition will keep the players on their collective toes. After all, Dungeon masters are entitled to a little fun too! Another point to remember is that you should keep a strict account of time. The wizard who spends six months writing scrolls and enchanting items is OUT of the campaign for six months, he cannot play during these six game months, and if the time system is anywhere reflective of the proper scale that means a period of actual time in the neighborhood of three months. That will pretty well eliminate all that sort of foolishness. Ingredients for scroll writing and potion making should also be stipulated (we will treat this in an upcoming issue of SR or in a D&D supplement as it should be dealt with at length) so that it is no easy task to prepare scrolls or duplicate potions.

When players no longer have reams of goodies at their fingertips they must use their abilities instead, and as you will have made your dungeons and wildernesses far more difficult and demanding, it will require considerable skill, imagination, and intellectual exercise to actually gain from the course of an adventure. Furthermore, when magic is rare it is valuable, and only if it is scarce will there be real interest in seeking it. When it is difficult to survive, a long process to gain levels, when there are many desired items of magical nature to seek for, then a campaign is interesting and challenging. Think about how much fun it is to have something handed to you on a silver platter — nice once in a while but unappreciated when it becomes common occurrence. This analogy applies to experience and treasure in the D&D campaign.

It requires no careful study to determine that D&D is aimed at progression which is geared to the approach noted above. There are no monsters to challenge the capabilities of 30th level lords, 40th level patriarchs, and so on. Now I know of the games played at CalTech where the rules have been expanded and changed to reflect incredibly high levels, comic book characters and spells, and so on. Okay. Different strokes for different folks, but that is not D&D. While D&D is pretty flexible, that sort of thing stretches it too far, and the boys out there are playing something entirely different — perhaps their own name "Dungeons & Beavers," tells it best.*It is reasonable to calculate that if a fair player takes part in 50 to 75 games in the course of a year he should acquire sufficient experience points to make him about 9th to 11th level, assuming that he manages to survive all that play. The acquisition of successively higher levels will be proportionate to enhanced power and the number of experience points necessary to attain them, so another year of play will by no means mean a doubling of levels but rather the addition of perhaps two or three levels. Using this gauge, it should take four or five years to see 20th level. As BLACKMOOR is the only campaign with a life of five years, and GREYHAWK with a life of four is the second longest running campaign, the most able adventurers should not yet have attained 20th level except in the two named campaigns. To my certain knowledge no player in either BLACKMOOR or GREYHAWK has risen above 14th level.

By requiring players to work for experience, to earn their treasure, means that the opportunity to retain interest will remain. It will also mean that the rules will fit the existing situation, a dragon, balrog, or whatever will be a fearsome challenge rather than a pushover. It is still up to the Dungeonmaster to make the campaign really interesting to his players by adding imaginative touches, through exertion to develop background and detailed data regarding the campaign, and to make certain that there is always something new and exciting to learn about or acquire. It will, however, be an easier task. So if a 33rd level wizard reflects a poorly managed campaign, a continuing mortality rate of 50% per expedition generally reflects over-reaction and likewise a poorly managed campaign. It is unreasonable to place three blue dragons on the first dungeon level, just as unreasonable as it is to allow a 10th level fighter to rampage through the upper levels of a dungeon rousting kobolds and giant rats to gain easy loot and experience. When you tighten up your refereeing be careful not to go too far the other way."

-Gygax
THE STRATEGIC REVIEW APRIL 1976


My son likes Naruto, and Magic the Gathering which look like high level post Gygax D&D to me, and it's nice to know that they're RPG's for that (Champions seemed a bit like that as well, and by reputation so does Exalted), but I on the other hand like Conan.

Does 3e/3.5/4e do Conan well or does doing Amber/an Rúraíocht get in the way?

[Cosi]

oD&D before the Greyhawk supplement didn't support high level play in the modern sense, and not much afterwards unless you consider all TSR D&D one "edition" from 1974 to 1999.

What are you basing that on? I haven't read the source material, but the description of the Immortals box set certainly makes it sound like high power play in the vein of the Epic Level Handbook in 3e. And looking at the Wikipedia entries for the Basic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_Basic_Set) and Immortals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_Immortals_Rules) sets it was just under a decade between "Basic D&D exists" and "Basic D&D has rules for epic-tier craziness". I guess you could make the case that 1e AD&D didn't (because it looks like Immortals drops at around the same time as 2e), but it's never been clear to me exactly how different the various AD&D versions were or were presented as.

[Nifft]

It is not actually hard to make good games. The same company that makes D&D makes another game (MTG) that achieves balance at a wide variety of power levels fairly consistently (there have been several periods where Standard, Modern, and Legacy were simultaneously considered good, not to mention Limited formats). Mechanical balance is simply not very hard to do if you are good at game design. The fact that you think it is hard is evidence that you do not understand the difference between "being bad at your job" and "having a difficult job". Man, the disingenuity at work here is almost impressive.

You're the first one to mention "hard evidence" so yeah, the person framing the argument with those words didn't understand. We can agree about that.

The claim that it's possible to make great card games says nothing about making high-power RPGs.

You've been asked to provide the names of some well-written high-power RPGs, as examples in support of your claim. This smoke-screen is your response, so I suspect you're starting to doubt the veracity of your claim, but who knows. Maybe this is really the best you can do.

Would it be possible to induce to you to respond to something I actually said, instead?



You would think that before arguing with people, you would read their posts. Go back and read what I actually said

You jumped on my post, which was a response to Kurald Galain, who had been responding to 2D8HP.

Go back and look at who was trying to argue with whom. You would think that before trying to condescend to people about re-reading the thread, you'd "put in the work" to read the thread yourself.

[Cosi]

You're the first one to mention "hard evidence"

I did not, in fact, mention "hard evidence". In fact, the first mention of "evidence" at all in this particular argument is in one of your posts. This is a bizarrely stupid think for you to lie about. What exactly were you trying to achieve here? I've seen some stupid gotchas (for example, all the times you try to misparse other people's posts to prove they secretly agree with you), but this doesn't even make sense on any level.


The claim that it's possible to make great card games says nothing about making high-power RPGs.

I don't think that's true at all. I would say that the ability to write a good webcomic is evidence that good novels can be written. Different mediums have different challenges, but the idea that nothing transfers is basically absurd.


You've been asked to provide the names of some well-written high-power RPGs, as examples in support of your claim. This smoke-screen is your response, so I suspect you're starting to doubt the veracity of your claim, but who knows. Maybe this is really the best you can do.

Do I need to explain why "RPGs are bad" implies that "high powered RPGs are bad" without implying "high powered RPGs are hard"?

Again, if the reason RPGs don't exist is because it is hard to make them, what about "generic YA RPG" is hard? If "generic YA RPG" is not hard, then the reason that RPGs do or don't exist isn't just which ones are hard.

These are not difficult concepts, and I am running out of smaller words to use them to explain them to you.

[Selene Sparks]

SnipYou know what? Fine. You're arguing from a flatly wrong premise(Again, Zelazny has freaking interstellar horses and personal-scale time travel), but it's about crap I genuinely don't care about. All I'll say here is that you shouldn't portray opinions as facts. Saying that you dislike high-level games is fine, but portraying high-level games as objectively bad, not supported by the premise of the genre, and so on, isn't.

The point I'm making is that the 3.0 book BOVD is the outlier - editions before it portrayed fiends as redeemable, and online D&D info after it portrayed fiends as redeemable. The Dragon Magazine Demonomicon article for Malcanthet referenced the "computer game" character Fall-From-Grace - so it's not like it was something made once and then forgotten.And, again, I don't care, because I'm citing rules and you're not.

Here's the bottom line, even if we accept that a fiend can be good, they, by definition, cannot be not evil, because that's what having the evil subtype means, and their existence is by definition an evil act, because the rules say it is.

So, we can interpret "allowing fiends to exist is evil" as not applying in the case of a fiend that seeks redemption.Nope. You most certainly cannot, because "interpretation" doesn't mean "throwing out text I don't like."

We're not given any reason to believe that the celestial who helped redeem Eudocia "fell for committing an evil act" either.Do Celestials follow the paladin code?

In the MM (and SRD, under [evil] subtype, it specifically discusses what happens when a being with the subtype changes alignment:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#evilSubtype

A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype.

demonstrating that it is "rules-legal" for them to change alignment.And you can Dominate a fiend into Atoning, for example. But this tangent doesn't have anything to do with what I've been saying.

Expecting such a being to then commit suicide because "allowing yourself to exist is an evil act" is not what that BOVD line was intended to demand IMO.

It was intended for fiends that are still evil and unrepentant.I'd like a citation on that.

Well, for some value of supported.

3.5e / PF kinda fall apart at high level, because they support creating characters at that level, but they don't have coherent intra-party balance between the characters you create.Not true at all. A sorcadin, a wizard, a CoDzilla, and an artificer can all hang out at any level.

That might be why later editions scrap that part of the range -- perhaps they prefer to avoid doing something poorly, rather than falsely present that segment of the spectrum as if it worked just as well as the rest.Oh, really? So you're saying that a 5e wizard, who can create an arbitrary number of minions on demand, is outside the range of high power?

Well, you're skipping the fact that making things which work well can be very difficult.I don't care. They're billing a 1-20 system, so it needs to function and have real, meaningful growth from levels one to twenty.

High-level / high-power RPG design is mostly a litany of failures, and that's presumably because it's hard to do. So "have it actually work as well as the rest" is like demanding that a bird should "fly as well as usual" when the bird is in space.Got a citation on that?

Good thinking, it's true that you can't expect a big publishing company to cater to the less-popular niche where most people don't play, even if it causes a few pet peeves amongst forum users.

Thanks for the supporting idea.Got a citation on your assessment of each range's popularity?


Elon Musk has a car in space.

You can pay for a car, but your car will not reach space without significant additional effort, for which you are responsible.

Complaining hysterically that OH MY GOD YOU PAID GOOD MONEY FOR THIS CAR will not inspire the manufacturer to assume responsibility for getting your car into space. You need to do some work yourself if you want that to happen.

What you get by paying for the product is a car that can drive on the ground.Except this is a untrue and you know it. We paid for systems that, to use your analogy, promised cars in space. If you promise a car in space, you'd best deliver it, and if you don't, you lied about your product.

List some high-power / high-level RPG designs where you think the job was done well.

I can think of a lot of high-power RPGs, but none of them hold together well.Earthdawn. Your move.

Actually no, this is my claim:



... and you responded by making a claim that the RPGs should just "put in the work" and then they'll cover high-power play just as easily as they cover low-power play.

I'm asserting that high-power RPG creation is difficult, and that I haven't seen it done well, so I'm doubtful that one could just "put in the work" and be assured of a good result.And I guess making cars is hard, so maybe we shouldn't get to mad if a promised general-purpose car can't hit 20MPH when not going down hill?

In other words, I don't care if it's difficult. If its a product you're selling, you should meet the expectations you put forward. And beyond that, it's actually on you to prove your assertions, not on us to disprove them. So can you come up with some real proof that high-power RPGs are so difficult that even bothering to try is a waste of effort?

You are apparently making a tsundere support case for my argument by claiming that no high-power RPG has ever been well-made, which seems to contradict your claim that they could just "put in the work" and get a good high-power game.Earthdawn. Heck, if we want to stick to D&D, Frank & K's Tome series works perfectly fine, and it was made by a couple of guys in their spare time for free.

It looks like we're basically in agreement, in spite of all protestations.Nope. All you're doing is making a bunch of baseless assertions and faulty logic.

Continually, folks in this Forum don't seem to acknowledge 20th century D&D's existence.Oh, for crying out loud.

No one is doing this. Rather, you are the one who is loudly deriding the idea of anything that doesn't meet your idea of what the One True D&Dtm is like, which is exclusively stuff that is over 40 years old and horribly outdated in numerous ways.

That is expanding the definition of "Heroic Fantasy" from Swords & Sorcery to encompass Epic Myth, which is not what Dungeons & Dragons originally was about!That's a load of bull and you know it. But, again, you don't get to cite Zelazny(you know, Creatures of Light and Darkness) and either discard mythology or say that you're on low power. So even in your bizarre, archaic, retro-fetishist views, you are objectively wrong. You don't get to claim low power and have statted beings from myths where they fight things that literally burn the entire world, or lift(or fight) things that are literally planetary in size. You are fawning over glories that never were!

Once again I'll quote Gygax:

snipYou neglected to read your own citations. The only complaint Gygax is really making is as a matter of XP delivery, that people are progressing too fast, not too far. And keep in mind, you're talking about Greyhawk here, were people imprisoning and jacking power from gods is a thing(Zagyg), there mere magic WMDs that wiped countries off the map(Rain of Colorless Fire/Invoked Devastation), and so on.

So, again, even if you stick to the bizarre idea that the RPG industry came into existence in fully-formed perfection over 40 years ago and hasn't evolved and improved over that time(what with the inclusion of fancy new innovations like "math"), you are simply, objectively wrong.

Does 3e/3.5/4e do Conan well or does doing Amber/an Rúraíocht get in the way?I already linked to an article on this in this thread multiple times; 3.5 does do low level stuff very well from the ranges of levels 1-6, maybe going as high as 8 if you want to push it. That's the basis of E6.

[Rhedyn]

Lol are some people unable to handle 2d8HP's gonard-ism?

He is not going to kick down your door, burn your 3e books, and force you to play -1 edition of D&D that he personally exhumed from Gygax's pickled brain until you come to understand that the "old ways are best".

Either enjoy the ramblings of D&D from the years of yesterlore, or realize that you have very different taste than the old guard of the hobby.

[Nifft]

I did not, in fact, mention "hard evidence". In fact, the first mention of "evidence" at all in this particular argument is in one of your posts. This is a bizarrely stupid think for you to lie about. Not a lie, it was an honest mistake.

Your disingenuity was frustrating enough that I misread. Score one point for you, if that's what you were going for.



I don't think that's true at all. I would say that the ability to write a good webcomic is evidence that good novels can be written. Different mediums have different challenges, but the idea that nothing transfers is basically absurd. Okay, then provide some support for your assertion that high-power RPGs can be written at all. Provide examples, as I've requested three times now.

I think it's difficult to write them, but nobody says it ~can't be done~. I'm saying that I haven't seen it done well. Show me.



Do I need to explain why "RPGs are bad" implies that "high powered RPGs are bad" without implying "high powered RPGs are hard"?

Again, if the reason RPGs don't exist is because it is hard to make them, what about "generic YA RPG" is hard? If "generic YA RPG" is not hard, then the reason that RPGs do or don't exist isn't just which ones are hard.

These are not difficult concepts, and I am running out of smaller words to use them to explain them to you. 1 - I'm not familiar enough with the YA market to have an opinion on YA RPGs, if there are or are not such things. So I can't engage with that argument, and my inability to engage doesn't prove anything except that I have some awareness of my own ignorance.

2 - The discussion was about how high-power RPGs are relatively worse than low-power RPGs, so the idea that you'd think "all RPGs are bad" would be somehow relevant to the conversation is bizarre, unless you're trying to claim that all RPGs are equally bad (which would make you wrong in a new and different way).

[2D8HP]

What are you basing that on? I haven't read the source material, but the description of the Immortals box set certainly makes it sound like high power play in the vein of the Epic Level Handbook in 3e. And looking at the Wikipedia entries for the Basic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_Basic_Set) and Immortals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_Immortals_Rules) sets it was just under a decade between "Basic D&D exists" and "Basic D&D has rules for epic-tier craziness". I guess you could make the case that 1e AD&D didn't (because it looks like Immortals drops at around the same time as 2e), but it's never been clear to me exactly how different the various AD&D versions were or were presented as.


Immortals came out in 1986 and was an expansion of the 1983 Basic rules.

The 1981 Basic set established the "BD&D"line as distinct from "AD&D" line, unlike the beloved by me 1977 Basic set which was in a nether region between "Original" and "Advanced" (it had a five-point alignment system instead of three or nine, etc.).

So Immortals wasn't part of oD&D, unless (as I suggested) you lump all of TD&D as one "edition", or as two (oD&D/BD&D vs. 1e AD&D/2e AD&D).

But to me oD&D + supplements circa 1977 was closer IMNSHO to AD&D than to the later BD&D, so distinct.

On a more personal note, I never bought 1986's Immortals, because of how displeased I was of 1985's Unearthed Arcana AD&D supplement where Gygax introduced new OP elements that unbalanced and wrecked his own game (2e AD&D eliminated a lot of UA stuff, but I didn't know that at the time).

I didn't buy any new TSR rules after '85 because I thought it would be further game ruining stuff like Unearthed Arcana.

I did buy 3e, but then since so quickly did both 3.5 and 4e come out afterwards, I skipped them as well, and I would've skipped 5e as well except my son turned the same age I was when I got the 1977 Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set, so I got the 2015 rules.



You know what? Fine. You're arguing from a flatly wrong premise(Again, Zelazny has freaking interstellar horses and personal-scale time travel), but it's about crap I genuinely don't care about. All I'll say here is that you shouldn't portray opinions as facts. Saying that you dislike high-level games is fine, but portraying high-level games as objectively bad...


I have no memory of saying "objectively bad", as I recall the words I used were "not my jam".



...not supported by the premise of the genre, and so on, isn't.


I have the 1974 rules next to me, I quoted relevant passages from those rules, and I've cited how those rules just plain didn't do "Epic", and the works cited in it as inspirations (Burroughs, Howard, Leiber) were Swords & Sorcery, not Epic.

"Epic" came after how the game was originally, good or bad is a matter of taste, but I still stand by that


...And, again, I don't care, because I'm citing rules and you're not....


You cited later D&D rules that showed that 3.5 can do more "Epic" than 5e, fine, nice to know, but I already wrote that high level "isn't my jam" so you weren't responding to what I wanted to know.


...I already linked to an article on this in this thread multiple times; 3.5 does do low level stuff very well from the ranges of levels 1-6, maybe going as high as 8 if you want to push it. That's the basis of E6.


I saw one link to site I couldn't read on my phone so I asked my question again, which you finally answered with:

"3.5 does do low level stuff very well from the ranges of levels 1-6, maybe going as high as 8 if you want to push it."

That's what I wanted to learn!

Thank you for that!

Now given what I've indicated of my taste is the "very well from the levels of 1-6" close to 0e,1e AD&D, B/Xand 5e,?

Better?

Worse?

Because if it's just a little worse, I'm eager to learn and play 3.5, as I am, of course if it's better.


Lol are some people unable to handle 2d8HP's gonard-ism?

He is not going to kick down your door, burn your 3e books, and force you to play -1 edition of D&D that he personally exhumed from Gygax's pickled brain until you come to understand that the "old ways are best".

Either enjoy the ramblings of D&D from the years of yesterlore, or realize that you have very different taste than the old guard of the hobby.

:amused:

No need for me to have "personally exhumed from Gygax's pickled brain" anything, that's all widely documented, but if I could see the true creator of Fantasy Adventure games Arneson in action, oh man that would be AWESOME!

As would time travel.

[Kish]

I would venture that 5ed is definitely substantially closer to 1ed and 2ed than 3.anything is.

From where I'm sitting that's a negative; I switched away from 2ed without looking back when 3ed came out, I do not in the least understand why anyone wanted buff items of your-base-stat-is-irrelevant* back, "we simplified everything by changing rules we found overly complex to NO RULE FOUND HERE" is an "improvement" that is lost on me, and I find the absolute racial morality presented in 5ed nauseatingly bad writing. But if someone wants those things, then I have good news for them: the most recent and currently supported edition of D&D is aimed at them and not at me.

I have a different answer if someone's question is "can I play D&D 3.5 or is it too complicated?"


And, again, I don't care, because I'm citing rules and you're not.
One can, however, point out that you're citing 3.0 rules--and whether "it's evil to permit a fiend to exist" is the case in 3.5 is substantially more questionable.

*Should this be unclear: 2ed Gauntlets of Ogre Power: Your Strength becomes 18(100). 5ed Gauntlets of Ogre Power, secondhand information: Your Strength becomes 18. 3.5ed Gauntlets of Ogre Power: Your Strength is increased by +2.

[RoboEmperor]

One can, however, point out that you're citing 3.0 rules--and whether "it's evil to permit a fiend to exist" is the case in 3.5 is substantially more questionable.

3.0 is 3.5.

SpC directly calls out BoVD's demonologist as an example PrC about whether to add spells in SpC to its class list or not.
FCII directly calls out BoVD as the book with the Archfiend's true stats.

[Selene Sparks]

"3.5 does do low level stuff very well from the ranges of levels 1-6, maybe going as high as 8 if you want to push it."

That's what I wanted to learn!

Thank you for that!

Now given what I've indicated of my taste is the "very well from the levels of 1-6" close to 0e,1e AD&D, B/Xand 5e,?

Better?

Worse?

Because if it's just a little worse, I'm eager to learn and play 3.5, as I am, of course if it's better.Infinitely better than 5e(in that, it's a functional system), and probably better than 2e(Although I have very limited experience with 2e, TBH).

One of the things worth noting is that the math for low level stuff really is good. In the article (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2) I linked, it walks through how most things the mechanics model for people at levels 1-5 map incredibly well to what we see IRL. It's better-balanced generally than higher-level 3.5, but the system of 3.5 can still cover basically whatever you'll actually need it to do(Like, for example, mundane fire, something 5e can't). If you want 1-6 D&D for the entirety of the game, here's a really good system for sticking with it (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?206323-E6-The-Game-Inside-D-amp-D).

All in all, if you strongly prefer Conan or LotR-level stuff, lower-level 3.5, especially e6, does a very good job of handling it, so I strongly recommend it.

I would venture that 5ed is definitely substantially closer to 1ed and 2ed than 3.anything is.I disagree. With the whole Player's Option thing, 2e actually had options. It also had actual mechanics, and generally wasn't so completely scornful of the idea that players are people with agency(although it still was). 5e, frankly, rather reads like a parody of what people think of AD&D, rather than what a great deal of it actually was. Not saying AD&D was actually good on any of those, but it at least put forward more than 5e did.

One can, however, point out that you're citing 3.0 rules--and whether "it's evil to permit a fiend to exist" is the case in 3.5 is substantially more questionable.Not unless you find more recent and authoritative 3.X text on the subject, because BoVD is explicit on this.

We can discuss how mind-bogglingly stupid the D&D alignment system is overall if you want, but the rules are pretty clear here.

[2D8HP]

Infinitely better than 5e(in that, it's a functional system), and probably better than 2e(Although I have very limited experience with 2e, TBH).

One of the things worth noting is that the math for low level stuff really is good. In the article (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2) I linked, it walks through how most things the mechanics model for people at levels 1-5 map incredibly well to what we see IRL. It's better-balanced generally than higher-level 3.5, but the system of 3.5 can still cover basically whatever you'll actually need it to do(Like, for example, mundane fire, something 5e can't). If you want 1-6 D&D for the entirety of the game, here's a really good system for sticking with it (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?206323-E6-The-Game-Inside-D-amp-D).

All in all, if you strongly prefer Conan or LotR-level stuff, lower-level 3.5, especially e6, does a very good job of handling it, so I strongly recommend it....


Thank you very much for that!

:smile:

The second link works for me and is intriguing!


....We can discuss how mind-bogglingly stupid the D&D alignment system is overall if you want, but the rules are pretty clear here.

I could go on for pages on how Law vs. Chaos works in the writings of Poul Anderson, Michael Moorcock (and what Arneson and Gygax ripped off borrowed and mangled from them), and Genevieve Cogman (I thought she had a new and fun take on it).

But I won't argue your point (except that I'd call it "bonkers" rather than "stupid").

But like a lot of questions about ethics and morality at this Forum, when in doubt, more and more I find that asking "What would @Kish say" works, so from an old thread:


Having read some Michael Moorcock, I'm also pretty sure the Lawful vs. Chaotic axis exists because Gary Gygax didn't understand the concept of satire or the possibility that the reader was supposed to disapprove of the protagonist.

Yeah, +1 that!

[Kish]

3.0 is 3.5.
Pfft, what? No, see...3.5 is 3.5. 3.0 is 3.0.

Carrying over unupdated material (or not) is the DM's discretion. You can bind yourself to every bit of nonsense a writer wrote in a non-core book from an earlier edition, if you want, but don't expect me to join you there.

[Knaight]

Okay, then provide some support for your assertion that high-power RPGs can be written at all. Provide examples, as I've requested three times now.

I think it's difficult to write them, but nobody says it ~can't be done~. I'm saying that I haven't seen it done well. Show me.

Mythender, Mutants and Masterminds, Eclipse Phase, high Refresh Desden Files.

D&D emphatically doesn't make this list, and all of these expect you to pretty much stay at your power level (though Mythender is a bit of an odd case there, as you've got three high power levels you fluctuate between a bit, and you can accidentally become a god and thus need to be put down).

[2D8HP]

[....](though Mythender is a bit of an odd case there, as you've got three high power levels you fluctuate between a bit, and you can accidentally become a god and thus need to be put down).


If PC"s powerful enough to become gods actually do get put down, I for one welcome the deity PC slayin' rules system.

(And now that I think of it, @Selene Sparks, in the Corum books by Michael Moorcock, gods of Chaos are slain and also are (accidentally) gods of Law. You might dig it, I certainly did)

[Rhedyn]

Mythender, Mutants and Masterminds, Eclipse Phase, high Refresh Desden Files.

D&D emphatically doesn't make this list, and all of these expect you to pretty much stay at your power level (though Mythender is a bit of an odd case there, as you've got three high power levels you fluctuate between a bit, and you can accidentally become a god and thus need to be put down). Mythic Pathfinder

Diety ranks in 3e

Epic Destinies in 4e

Hell even 5e has those epic perk thingys.

D&D supposedly has supported truly high power play for a long time. Maybe older editions were more grounded but nothing modern.

(Aside: PCs work so weirdly in 5e that if you don't feel like a god [low g] by level 4, then I don't know what you are doing)

[Kurald Galain]

(Aside: PCs work so weirdly in 5e that if you don't feel like a god [low g] by level 4, then I don't know what you are doing)

You mean, at the point where you finally become a whole five percent better than a first-level character? I'm baffled how you would consider any of that godlike, really.

[JyP]

Besides, in my experience of 5e, compared to the D&D I knew, 5e DM's throw new levels, at you at a dizzying rate, instead of 1500 to 2500 XP and months of play you hit second level after just a couple of sessions, and only 300 XP, and new abilities, powers, spells are really piled on with each level!

There was a change of paradigm here in fact.

with AD&D2 & before, you needed more and more play sessions to gain levels - to pass from 6th to 7th level needed months of playing.

with D&D3 (or D&D4 ?), it was not true anymore - you need to play 3 sessions to gain a level, be it from 1st to 2nd or 18th to 19th.

[Rhedyn]

You mean, at the point where you finally become a whole five percent better than a first-level character? I'm baffled how you would consider any of that godlike, really.
Your HP and all the tools your class has given you compared to how little monsters have anything in the way and abilities should mean that most mortal threats are trivial to you by level 4. You don't even remotely resemble a normal human in terms of what is actually a threat to you barring truly terrible tactics or vast amount of DM skill system Fiat to effectively give NPCs the abilities they need to be a threat.


There was a change of paradigm here in fact.

with AD&D2 & before, you needed more and more play sessions to gain levels - to pass from 6th to 7th level needed months of playing.

with D&D3 (or D&D4 ?), it was not true anymore - you need to play 3 sessions to gain a level, be it from 1st to 2nd or 18th to 19th.
I level my players after every session regardless of the system.

[Jormengand]

Your HP and all the tools your class has given you compared to how little monsters have anything in the way and abilities should mean that most mortal threats are trivial to you by level 4. You don't even remotely resemble a normal human in terms of what is actually a threat to you barring truly terrible tactics or vast amount of DM skill system Fiat to effectively give NPCs the abilities they need to be a threat.

Uhm... that isn't even true in 3.5 barring excessive optimisation, let alone 5e. Bounded Suckiness means that at level 4, you're still doomed to fail DC 15 - strictly ordinary - skill checks a fair deal of the time, a few humans with swords and shields are still dealing enough damage, on the regular, to keep you occupied while their shockingly-similar-to-yours AC keeps you at bay for a while.

[JNAProductions]

(Aside: PCs work so weirdly in 5e that if you don't feel like a god [low g] by level 4, then I don't know what you are doing)

Citation needed. Really, really needed.

As a general rule, a god should be able to stroll wherever they want and only rarely, at most, feel challenged. Your average 5th edition level 4 character stands a not insignificant chance of losing to a Brown Bear.

[Rhedyn]

Uhm... that isn't even true in 3.5 barring excessive optimisation, let alone 5e. Bounded Suckiness means that at level 4, you're still doomed to fail DC 15 - strictly ordinary - skill checks a fair deal of the time, a few humans with swords and shields are still dealing enough damage, on the regular, to keep you occupied while their shockingly-similar-to-yours AC keeps you at bay for a while.
Skill checks don't matter though. No rules set the DCs or decide what is or isn't possible beyond a nebulous difficulty.

Bounded suckiness also means foes that should just have bigger numbers are easily killable. They also lack real abilities while PCs get loaded with them.

Maybe your thinking "my character solo can't" when the reality is "my party can"

3.5 monsters weren't just sacks of HP that explode like gold pinatas. It's an entirely different paradigm.

[Malimar]

One context in which one might "feel like a god" at 4th level in 5th edition is that the power curve is so shallow that you can easily take on much higher-level foes without much more challenge than lower-level foes. This isn't a factor of 4th level PCs being strong, it's a factor of 14th level monsters being weak. (This reflects my (limited) experience -- I've only played one game of 5e, but in that game we were regularly roflstomping CR13-15 encounters at level 5-8.)

[JNAProductions]

Skill checks don't matter though. No rules set the DCs or decide what is or isn't possible beyond a nebulous difficulty.

Bounded suckiness also means foes that should just have bigger numbers are easily killable. They also lack real abilities while PCs get loaded with them.

Maybe your thinking "my character solo can't" when the reality is "my party can"

3.5 monsters weren't just sacks of HP that explode like gold pinatas. It's an entirely different paradigm.

Okay. 5 4th level 5E characters will lose, on average, to a pair of Treants. Now, they'll clobber the heck out of most ordinary town guards... In small enough numbers, but if they try to, say, attack a town with 100 guards, they'll almost certainly lose, unless they have absolutely WICKED stealth abilities and plan very well.


One context in which one might "feel like a god" at 4th level in 5th edition is that the power curve is so shallow that you can easily take on much higher-level foes without much more challenge than lower-level foes. This isn't a factor of 4th level PCs being strong, it's a factor of 14th level monsters being weak. (This reflects my (limited) experience -- I've only played one game of 5e, but in that game we were regularly roflstomping CR13-15 encounters at level 5-8.)

May I get more details? Like, how many encounters per rest, and how large was the party?

[Tvtyrant]

The real question is where do I get a gold pinata? Because that sounds radical.

On the 5E subject, my primary experience was as a Moon Druid but I remember feeling a little like I was wielding a nerf bat. Because accuracy is fixed damage tends to be pretty low per hit, which makes big groups a little more bearable to fight but means smaller battles feel slow and indecisive.

[Malimar]

May I get more details? Like, how many encounters per rest, and how large was the party?
Generally one or so encounters per long rest, sometimes more, and a largish party of 6-7. So yes, both of those things were part of it.

But in 3.5 or PF, which is my general frame of reference, even a huge party fresh from an 8-hour rest won't usually be able to beat a CR+5 or +10 dragon, let alone do so multiple times with no fatalities. (Unless extremely well-optimized, but the party I played that 5e campaign with was almost entirely non-optimizers.)

[2D8HP]

There was a change of paradigm here in fact.

with AD&D2 & before, you needed more and more play sessions to gain levels - to pass from 6th to 7th level needed months of playing.

with D&D3 (or D&D4 ?), it was not true anymore - you need to play 3 sessions to gain a level, be it from 1st to 2nd or 18th to 19th.



....I level my players after every session regardless of the system.



Uhm... that isn't even true in 3.5 barring excessive optimisation, let alone 5e. Bounded Suckiness means that at level 4, you're still doomed to fail DC 15 - strictly ordinary - skill checks a fair deal of the time, a few humans with swords and shields are still dealing enough damage, on the regular, to keep you occupied while their shockingly-similar-to-yours AC keeps you at bay for a while.


Again, given the speed in which one levels up in 5e (and if I read @JyP right other new D&D editions), "bounded accuracy" rules seem like a good thing to me.

Mostly though, what I like and don't like in 5e (judging by the PHB's and what people post about each) it seems to share with 3.5 as distinct from old D&D.

Likes:
Unified core mechanics add some needed simplicity

Harder for housecats to kill PC's

Races other than Half-Elves and Humans can be Rangers

Half-Orcs can be Paladins

Much easier for a Human to have levels in both Fighter and Thief

You can have "Swashbuckler" as a class name

Your PC will probably survive to second level

You can find tables to play it!


Dislikes:
All the extra abilities are a lot to keep track of

Level-ups happen at a dizzying speed

Most levels add more to keep track of (not just a small number change on the character record sheet)

That PC's are so hard to kill encourages players to have their PC's rush into melee a lot more often

The same with super quick healing

Faerun



As for old D&D, just reverse the Likes and Dislikes

Now for all D&D

Likes:
Arrows, Dragons, treasure and wands!


Dislikes:
The division of Drow and Elves just seems LAME! I'd prefer they combined features.

Same with Gnomes and Goblins.

Orcs. They're slightly stronger humans that can see better in the dark. That's all. BORING!

[JNAProductions]

Generally one or so encounters per long rest, sometimes more, and a largish party of 6-7. So yes, both of those things were part of it.

But in 3.5 or PF, which is my general frame of reference, even a huge party fresh from an 8-hour rest won't usually be able to beat a CR+5 or +10 dragon, let alone do so multiple times with no fatalities. (Unless extremely well-optimized, but the party I played that 5e campaign with was almost entirely non-optimizers.)

6 Level 8 players have a CR 14 encounter as a medium challenge. If you got one per day, you SHOULD be wiping the floor with them.

It's fine to dislike that-but it IS the system working as intended.

[Florian]

@Mr. 2nd level Cleric:

Guy, as much as I like you and have a conversation with you, you do have to accept the fact that the field of RPGs has moved way beyond imitating the original literary sources and "D&D" doesn't actually define the hobby for quote some time.

Edit: The core problem we have when talking about this is "spells".

[Kish]

The Dungeon Master's Guide for 3.5 explains that the idea behind the CR system is that PCs should gain a level every 13 or 14 encounters on average.

Don't know whether you consider that dizzyingly fast; it doesn't strike me as terribly different from earlier editions, just more explicitly planned and less haphazard. It's definitely a lot slower than "every session." What is a change according to JyP, is that a group of level 1 PCs who overcome a CR 1 orc fighter gain the same proportion of a level as a group of level 10 PCs who overcome a CR 10 dragon, instead of needing ever more encounters with each higher level.

I am unaware of any similar statement in the 5ed DMG; I'm not sure how fast PCs are expected to level in 5ed, as distinct from 3.5ed and from earlier editions.

Fast or slow, I don't really think "it's good that high-level characters still can't reliably hit goblins because I would prefer they weren't high-level" is a good takeaway. Especially when a high-level fighter might not be able to count on hitting goblins in 5ed, but a high-level wizard can absolutely count on obliterating entire cities of goblins with a wave of their hand; bounded accuracy punishes those who are dependent on d20 rolls to accomplish anything (melee and skill-based classes), putting them further behind those who are not (magic-based classes).

[JNAProductions]

The Dungeon Master's Guide for 3.5 explains that the idea behind the CR system is that PCs should gain a level every 13 or 14 encounters on average.

Don't know whether you consider that dizzyingly fast; it doesn't strike me as terribly different from earlier editions, just more explicitly planned and less haphazard. It's definitely a lot slower than "every session." What is a change according to Jyp, is that a group of level 1 PCs who overcome a CR 1 orc fighter gain the same proportion of a level as a group of level 10 PCs who overcome a level 10 dragon, instead of needing ever more encounters with each higher level.

I am unaware of any similar statement in the 5ed DMG; I'm not sure how fast PCs are expected to level in 5ed, as distinct from 3.5ed and from earlier editions.

Fast or slow, I don't really think "it's good that high-level characters still can't reliably hit goblins because I would prefer they weren't high-level" is a good takeaway. Especially when a high-level fighter might not be able to count on hitting goblins in 5ed, but a high-level wizard can absolutely count on obliterating entire cities of goblins with a wave of their hand; bounded accuracy punishes those who are dependent on d20 rolls to accomplish anything (melee and skill-based classes), putting them further behind those who are not (magic-based classes).

Have you played 5E? Because it's got a much flatter power curve for EVERYONE, casters included.

I'm not saying that's the right way to play-I also enjoy the bonkers-crazy power levels you can achieve in 3E. But the classes are pretty well balanced against each other in 5E.

[2D8HP]

@Mr. 2nd level Cleric:


Old first level Ranger actually, yes two hit dice at first level, can't have that can you Paladin!


Guy, as much as I like you and have a conversation with you, you do have to accept the fact that the field of RPGs has moved way beyond imitating the original literary sources and "D&D" doesn't actually define the hobby for quite some time.


Admit? Yes. Acknowledge? Okay.

Accept?

NEVER! TILL MY LAST DYING BREATH! ON THIS HILL....

yeah you got a point, and that was already true in the early 80's.

Dagnabbit.


The Dungeon Master's Guide for 3.5 explains that the idea behind the CR system is that PCs should gain a level every 13 or 14 encounters on average....


That sounds good the first few levels, but I like it slower for subsequent ones, like it used to be.


....Fast or slow, I don't really think "it's good that high-level characters still can't reliably hit goblins because I would prefer they weren't high-level" is a good takeaway.


It makes high levels more palatable for me.


Especially when a high-level fighter might not be able to count on hitting goblins in 5ed, but a high-level wizard can absolutely count on obliterating entire cities of goblins with a wave of their hand; bounded accuracy punishes those who are dependent on d20 rolls to accomplish anything (melee and skill-based classes), putting them further behind those who are not (magic-based classes).


That's a fair point, and I prefer high level D&D Magic Users to be NPC's only, and that was true of old D&D as well, and in that way I was out of the mainstream back then as well.

Most changes are ones most players wanted, like gunslinger characters, which I didn't want in the 1980's, but my players sure did.

[Florian]

Accept?

Stop swearing. Age =/= wisdom, but just accumulated experience. Wisdom is what you really make off of it.

That said, just some food for though for you: A key problem with a level and class based system and talking about its aspirations is always that we talk about the "finished product". We do actually have to decide that the advancement stops with Conan, or we do have to decide that it starts with Elric.

[Kish]

Have you played 5E? Because it's got a much flatter power curve for EVERYONE, casters included.

I'm not saying that's the right way to play-I also enjoy the bonkers-crazy power levels you can achieve in 3E. But the classes are pretty well balanced against each other in 5E.
Not personally, though I've read the books and until recently had only not played because of random chance; now that they've announced that one of 5ed's tenets is imposed racial morality for nonhumans I never will. I've read the 5ed forum here enough to know that there seem to be a lot of people who, while playing 5ed by preference to any other edition, disagree with you about the power cap for spellcasters, though.

Whether a wizard can obliterate cities of goblins at high levels or not, it remains that bounded accuracy only punishes those classes that rely on d20 rolls.


It makes high levels more palatable for me.

This seems to amount to saying you want the game to be broken. That the greatest warrior alive shouldn't be too good at fighting, the greatest ranger alive should still have to hope they get lucky when they want to track something. At which point I'm not sure what you're looking for from posters here; no one is likely to say as a pro for a system, "High levels are delightfully nonfunctional, it's like that 1 in the tens column of your level isn't even there!" That is, I am glad to say, definitely not 3.5; "I have no chance of failing that Jump check" is something I've said in one of the play-by-post games I'm in right here, with a half-orc warblade.


Most changes are ones most players wanted, like gunslinger characters, which I didn't want in the 1980's, but my players sure did.
There are no gunslingers in 3.5 core.

Probably in an obscure supplement somewhere.

They definitely exist in Pathfinder, but while I'm not certain, I don't think they're in core there either.

[2D8HP]

....A key problem with a level and class based system and talking about its aspirations is always that we talk about the "finished product". We do actually have to decide that the advancement stops with Conan, or we do have to decide that it starts with Elric.


True that, which is a reason to find "where" and "how fast".


....That the greatest warrior alive shouldn't be too good at fighting, the greatest ranger alive should still have to hope they get lucky when they want to track something.


Yes!

Well said!

When the game loses that suspense it's time for me to quit.


....At which point I'm not sure what you're looking for from posters here; no one is likely to say as a pro for a system, "High levels are delightfully nonfunctional, it's like that 1 in the tens column of your level isn't even there!" That is, I am glad to say, definitely not 3.5; "I have no chance of failing that Jump check" is something I've said in one of the play-by-post games I'm in right here, with a half-orc warblade.....


I've gotten a lot of useful information from posters in this thread already


Blanket statements about "A game is better than B" shouldn't be accepted, as one persons "pro" may be another's "con"

I'd likely enjoy high levels of 3.x even less than I like high levels of 5e

If the DM is following the guidelines then I may get to play at the levels I like longer in 3.5 than in 5e.

Orcs are even closer to humans in 3.5, but with some nice add-ons, and less negatives.

Some ways 3.5 is closer to the D&D I knew, in other ways 5e is.



Bottom line:

I think I'd really like to play a 3.5 Orc starting at first level, but I'd be reluctant to start at a higher level (which is a common 5e practice).

Thanks!

[Nifft]

I think I'd really like to play a 3.5 Orc starting at first level, but I'd be reluctant to start at a higher level (which is a common 5e practice).

It was also common in 3.x to start above level 1, because people wanted some assurance that their backstories would remain relevant for more than one combat.

I usually saw games start in the 3 to 5 range, and end in the 10 to 12 range -- the longest 3.5e game I ran ended around 16th level.


-- -- --

In terms of pro / con, when we started 4e we started from level 1, and 4e's level 1 felt like 3.5e's level 3.

A level 1 4e PC was already a competent professional, right out of the gate.


-- -- --

I've heard some people say that 5e's levels 1-3 represent Apprenticeship, and you shouldn't consider your PC a grown-up professional before level 3 (or so).

If you were a fan of the old school "level 0" apprentice rules, then 5e's level 1 might be the place to start for that feeling.

[2D8HP]

...If you were a fan of the old school "level 0" apprentice rules, then 5e's level 1 might be the place to start for that feeling.


FWLIW, I've found that in most 5e games, 1st level feels like playing a 2 or 3rd level PC (usually 3rd) in a 1st level Dungeon.

[Kurald Galain]

When the game loses that suspense it's time for me to quit.

I want the story to be suspenseful.

When the game expects me to randomly fail 30% of the time at everything I try (and mind you, 5E's rules do precisely that) then I don't find this suspenseful, just frustrating.

[Ignimortis]

I want the story to be suspenseful.

When the game expects me to randomly fail 30% of the time at everything I try (and mind you, 5E's rules do precisely that) then I don't find this suspenseful, just frustrating.

Well said!



Whether a wizard can obliterate cities of goblins at high levels or not, it remains that bounded accuracy only punishes those classes that rely on d20 rolls.

That is, I am glad to say, definitely not 3.5; "I have no chance of failing that Jump check" is something I've said in one of the play-by-post games I'm in right here, with a half-orc warblade.


A level 17 wizard can obliterate about one goblin city per day in 5e, provided the city isn't too big. Meteor Swarm, then finish off with Fireballs and Earthquake as needed. Not as easy as in 3.5, but still quite possible.

And being able to say "I can't fail this check, watch this!" is a good feeling and a sign of character being actually capable.


The Dungeon Master's Guide for 3.5 explains that the idea behind the CR system is that PCs should gain a level every 13 or 14 encounters on average.


Never actually seen this in play. It's usually every 7-10 (or even less, if the DM is big on boss fights or awards non-combat EXP as well) encounters, because most DMs rarely want to waste time on pushovers, and throwing a CR+1 or +2 enemy at a tier 3-4 party is usually fine, unless it's something that's got a "this tall to ride" mechanic like incorporeality (magic weapons), etc.

[Mordaedil]

I level my players after every session regardless of the system.
That seems really boring. You barely get into your new abilities and capabilities before you have to make another adjustment and adapt to your character again every session. I think I'd go insane from being unable to figure out where my character stands in the world.

[Telok]

5e, the D&D where a dog has a non-zero chance to beat a 20th level archmage at dc 15 arcana checks and chess.

5e has no trained only skill cut out. A dog trained to do tricks, arcana and chess, rolls 1d20-4. The archmage is capped at 1d20+11. The dog succeeds at dc 15 on a roll of 19+ and the archmage fails on a roll of 3-, so roughly 1.5% of the time the dog succeeds when the archmage fails. Chess is even worse if the archmage can't convince the DM to let him add proficency to the roll, then he drops to 1d20+5.

And no, I'm not a fan of this.

[Kurald Galain]

5e, the D&D where a dog has a non-zero chance to beat a 20th level archmage at dc 15 arcana checks and chess.

Lol. Yes, well put.

[RoboEmperor]

Pfft, what? No, see...3.5 is 3.5. 3.0 is 3.0.

Carrying over unupdated material (or not) is the DM's discretion. You can bind yourself to every bit of nonsense a writer wrote in a non-core book from an earlier edition, if you want, but don't expect me to join you there.

SpC and FCII are books from an earlier edition? I'm confused. If these 3.5 books directly reference and use content from BoVD, a 3.0 book, without any changes then it's pretty clear all 3.0 books are to be included in 3.5.

[hamishspence]

It's a source to draw rules mechanics from. That doesn't mean that everything it says is "valid".

Several of the PRCs and templates need updating to be used in 3.5 (references to currently nonexistent skills like Read Lips and Innuendo, for example) - and there's no online 3.5 update for them.

Result- homebrewing your own update for them becomes necessary.

[Kurald Galain]

SpC and FCII are books from an earlier edition? I'm confused. If these 3.5 books directly reference and use content from BoVD, a 3.0 book, without any changes then it's pretty clear all 3.0 books are to be included in 3.5.

"One element of 3.0 is valid in 3.5" therefore "all elements of 3.0 are valid in 3.5"... there's clearly a flaw in your logic here. "Some X are Y" doesn't imply that "all X are Y".

[RoboEmperor]

Result- homebrewing your own update for them becomes necessary.

It's not homebrew if you follow the update booklet to the letter.


"One element of 3.0 is valid in 3.5" therefore "all elements of 3.0 are valid in 3.5"... there's clearly a flaw in your logic here. "Some X are Y" doesn't imply that "all X are Y".

The RAW in DMG? PHB? clearly stats that all 3.5 material is compatible with 3.0 material, and we have two clear examples of 3.5 books using 3.0 material, therefore all 3.0 material is included in 3.5.

It doesn't say only include BoVD. It says all 3.0 is included, and BoVD is an official example of one such material included in 3.5.

3.0 material may need to be updated, but all of its material is fully intended to be included in 3.5.

A DM excluding 3.0 material is no different than a DM sticking to only core, a DM only allowing complete books, or a DM excluding setting specific material. It's a DM excluding materials that he doesn't like.

[hamishspence]

It's not homebrew if you follow the update booklet to the letter.


BoVD wasn't covered in the update booklet. Fiend Folio, Epic Handbook, MM2, Deities & Demigods, Manual of the Planes - most major splatbooks were covered - but not BoVD.

So an element of having to choose how to update it comes into play - how much DR to replace DR 50/+2 with, which skill to swap Read Lips for when you already have Spot on the PRC list, and so forth.

Different people trying to update BOVD will have slightly different results.

[Kurald Galain]

The RAW in DMG? PHB? clearly stats that all 3.5 material is compatible with 3.0 material,

Please provide a citation for that.

[Knaight]

Mythic Pathfinder

Diety ranks in 3e

Epic Destinies in 4e

Hell even 5e has those epic perk thingys.

D&D supposedly has supported truly high power play for a long time. Maybe older editions were more grounded but nothing modern.

(Aside: PCs work so weirdly in 5e that if you don't feel like a god [low g] by level 4, then I don't know what you are doing)

The question specified systems which do this well, not systems which try to do this at all. D&D doesn't make that cut.

As for PCs feeling like a god by level 4 in 5e, it's not entirely wrong, but only works for very specific gods. 5e advancement is weird, with certain areas advancing pretty dramatically and others being pretty glacial. The HP growth can result in even low level D&D characters feeling super-humanly tough, the differences in magical power between low and high level mages is downright staggering (even if it has been trimmed a bit compared to 3e) and even by 4th level there's some pretty serious magic being thrown around (D&D levels of healing are routinely the sort of thing restricted to divine beings in a lot of fantasy, particularly when it doesn't even wear the caster down significantly, and 2nd level cleric spells alone include Lesser Restoration and it's nonchalant disease curing, Prayer of Healing and its mass rapid healing, and as an added bonus Zone of Truth). On the other hand at skills that aren't magic or killing things 5e PCs are still pretty terrible, and even certain combat skills are less than impressive - the 4th level 5e archer isn't going to picking flies out of the air at a hundred feet, your standard war god with any archery capacity almost certainly can.

A lot of this applies just as much to older editions - D&D magic has always had some serious clout, HP growth has mostly sped up but didn't exactly start slow, and everything else has lagged behind, though exactly how far it lags behind varies a fair bit.

[Rhedyn]

With bounded accuracy, there is no reason for a level 4 Archer to not be able to pick flies out of the air.

Depending on the build or party comp such a thing may be trivially easy.

5e's terrible skill system (worst than any edition, especially the ones that didn't even have a skill system) stems from the 4e philosophy that non-combat rules should have the least crunch.
Many of the spells even don't consider how they might work to effect an encounter the caster isn't in. (Like twin Polymorph giant apes, the balance factor is concentration, but if the sorcerer isn't in the combat what balances this spell?)

[Nifft]

stems from the 4e philosophy that non-combat rules should have the least crunch.

How is that a 4e thing, and not a thing about D&D in general?

3.x has far less non-combat crunch.

2e has non-weapon proficiencies -- do you notice how even the name is slanted towards combat being the most relevant thing in the game?

1e has far less non-combat crunch.

Etc.

Combat has always been where the crunch lived, because D&D was originally derived from wargaming. Guess what kind of crunch you get from wargames?

Delicious crunchy grognola.

[Kurald Galain]

How is that a 4e thing, and not a thing about D&D in general?
2E and 3E have extensive rules on exploration, world building, crafting, etc. Sure, these make up for less page count than the in-combat rules, but they are substantially present. By comparison, 4E and 5E have barely any out-of-combat rules at all, except for "roll your best skill and make something up".

I mean sure, it's trivially true that 25% and 0.1% are both "less than 50%", but that doesn't mean they're both equal.

[RoboEmperor]

Please provide a citation for that.


This is an upgrade of the d20 System, not a new edition of the game. This revision is compatible with existing products, and these products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments.

So...
1. It's not a new edition, so all 3.0 material is not removed from the edition.
2. All 3.0 is compatible with 3.5
3. 3.5 books reference and use 3.0 books, with BoVD being one example that I can think of on the top of my head because I've studied SpC and FCII very deeply for my builds.
4. Conclusion: 3.0 is 3.5, and 3.5 is 3.0. In the world of 3.5, every 3.0 book is included, therefore a DM that excludes 3.0 material is a DM cutting official RAW 3.5 material from his game because of whatever reason.


BoVD wasn't covered in the update booklet. Fiend Folio, Epic Handbook, MM2, Deities & Demigods, Manual of the Planes - most major splatbooks were covered - but not BoVD.

So an element of having to choose how to update it comes into play - how much DR to replace DR 50/+2 with, which skill to swap Read Lips for when you already have Spot on the PRC list, and so forth.

Different people trying to update BOVD will have slightly different results.

There is a generic update booklet for books not directly updated.

As you said each person's application of the update booklet to the BoVD is slightly different, but that's because these people make mistakes in some way. By heavy debating and RAW rule lawyering I'm confident that everyone can agree upon one version of an updated BoVD, not that it really matters.

Also you don't swap Read Lips with something else, it's been merged with spot.

[hamishspence]

For monsters with "deleted skills" like Innuendo and Scry, it simply says "Replace with equal ranks in another skill" - but it's up to the DM which skill.

A similar principle may apply to BOVD prestige classes that grant deleted skills. One DM might replace "Innuendo as a Class Skill" with "Knowledge: The Planes as a Class Skill". Another might replace it with something different. A third might feel that the prestige class granted too many class skills originally and replace it with nothing at all.

All are arguably following RAW.

[RoboEmperor]

For monsters with "deleted skills" like Innuendo and Scry, it simply says "Replace with equal ranks in another skill" - but it's up to the DM which skill.

A similar principle may apply to BOVD prestige classes that grant deleted skills. One DM might replace "Innuendo as a Class Skill" with "Knowledge: The Planes as a Class Skill". Another might replace it with something different. A third might feel that the prestige class granted too many class skills originally and replace it with nothing at all.

All are arguably following RAW.

Fair enough. I still wouldn't call it homebrew though. More like trying to figure out RAI instead of using dysfunctional RAW level of ruling, not homebrew.

[JyP]

Thinking about it during the weekend, there's clearly a change of opinion about leveling over time there. In first D&D editions you needed more and more time to gain levels, which was a way to say that killing monsters & looting treasures in dungeons should be efficient only at low levels.
but also :
- at high levels, you could gain XP by leading armies (Orcs of Thar)
- magic users would not gain XPs by killing monsters, more by finding rare tomes to study & creating spells (Principalities of Glantri)

Warriors suck vs godly wizards was already an issue in AD&D, there were some attempts to mitigate this - for example Birthright setting where rulers got some "powers" from their baronies.

Then you go to 3rd edition :
- Leadership feat... always forbidden in the Playground :smallbiggrin:
- tiers system... . No wonder fighters suck if you can't have your castle & knights like in AD&D :smallbiggrin:

=> both of these point to a style of play where exploring dungeons & being a team of murderhobos without troops should always be the focus, even at high levels. This was even more the case with D&D4. Maybe inspired by videogames like Diablo ?

=> This focus on murderhobos on rampage went hand in hand with another change over time, more POWAH!
- rules for PCs are no more the same than for NPCs
- PCs are no more mere mortals but special snowflakes from level 1 onward
- leveling got quicker and quicker, as we don't need to take mere mortals as a template

D&D is now setup to play heroes from the get go - whereas you started more like a peon in old editions.

[Kurald Galain]

- PCs are no more mere mortals but special snowflakes from level 1 onward
Well, not exactly.

It's a common claim about 4E that you are a Special Hero right from the start. And this is true... right until the moment that you put your heroism to the test. If you end up in a fight with farmers or peasants or whatnot, you're going to find that these are every bit as "heroic" and "strong" as you are. Which is to say, your character is pretty much as strong as the average peasant. For that matter, if you're level fifteen and fighting city guards (which does happen in several printed adventures) then you're pretty much as strong as the average city guard, too.

So it's a good example of where the description says one thing, and the actual numbers say the opposite.

[JyP]

Well, not exactly.

It's a common claim about 4E that you are a Special Hero right from the start. And this is true... right until the moment that you put your heroism to the test. If you end up in a fight with farmers or peasants or whatnot, you're going to find that these are every bit as "heroic" and "strong" as you are. Which is to say, your character is pretty much as strong as the average peasant. For that matter, if you're level fifteen and fighting city guards (which does happen in several printed adventures) then you're pretty much as strong as the average city guard, too.

So it's a good example of where the description says one thing, and the actual numbers say the opposite.
I think it's common to all editions in fact, regarding farmers or guards - you setup levels mechanisms to show a progression and gain of experience on PCs, then you have to use some same parts also on NPCs - at least to balance adventures and for verisimilitude.

But between a level one magic user in OD&D who can cast one spell per adventure, and a D&D3 warlock with eldritch blasts at will, you can see changes over editions ^^.

Basically, D&D started at sword and sorcery levels, where magic users were supposed to be rare - but you could play them. With D&D3 official setting, Eberron, we got glimpses of high fantasy where magic was used as a common technology - and PC group must have a magic user. Since D&D 4, you can play humanoid dragons as PCs :smallbiggrin:

[Kurald Galain]

I think it's common to all editions in fact, regarding farmers or guards - you setup levels mechanisms to show a progression and gain of experience on PCs, then you have to use some same parts also on NPCs - at least to balance adventures and for verisimilitude.
There's one clear difference here.

In 1E/2E/3E, there are explicit stats for farmers and guards. At low level, your character will have stats pretty close to that, so you do not start as a hero. After a few levels, your character will have markedly better stats, and at that point you are a hero. You grow in power compared to the world around you.

In 4E, farmers and guards are scaled to your level. At low level, your characters will have stats pretty close to that, so you do NOT start as a "special snowflake hero", but the game insists that you are one anyway. After a few levels, your character will have better stats, and so do the farmers and guards. So you are still not a special snowflake hero. Every part of the world that you interact with grows at more-or-less the same rate as you do, so you never grow in power compared to the world around you.


But between a level one magic user in OD&D who can cast one spell per adventure, and a D&D3 warlock with eldritch blasts at will, you can see changes over editions ^^.
A change that we're definitely seeing is magic becoming more common. But that tends to apply to NPCs as well as PCs.

[2D8HP]

...A change that we're definitely seeing is magic becoming more common. But that tends to apply to NPCs as well as PCs.


Since the 1975 Greyhawk supplement, the general trend in D&D has been towards more magic and power, but it was still a shock for me to go from '81 rules to '14 rules, and see in play just how much more.

[Nifft]

There's one clear difference here.

In 1E/2E/3E, there are explicit stats for farmers and guards. At low level, your character will have stats pretty close to that, so you do not start as a hero. After a few levels, your character will have markedly better stats, and at that point you are a hero. You grow in power compared to the world around you. That's why there's no such thing as the Grey Hand Enforcer in 3.x, which would be an elite town guard for a special town like Waterdeep, but obviously that sort of high-level town guards didn't exist.


https://i.imgur.com/E2But5j.png

Note: the above image must be fake. I would blame the Illuminati but they'd find me.


There certainly was no such thing as the Union Sentinel (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/prestigeClasses/unionSentinel.htm), which would be an Epic town guard class (if it existed).

Face facts: guards were scaled to your level in 3.x


In 4E, farmers and guards are scaled to your level. Not the ones in the core rulebooks:


https://i.imgur.com/u3pg93x.png


Farmers would be "rabble", and they're Minions so they would drop in one hit, any one hit. That means they were significantly weaker than a level 1 PC, who would not drop from one hit.



tl;dr - The available evidence contradicts your assertions.

[Jormengand]

That's why there's no such thing as the Grey Hand Enforcer in 3.x, which would be an elite town guard for a special town like Waterdeep, but obviously that sort of high-level town guards didn't exist.


https://i.imgur.com/E2But5j.png

Note: the above image must be fake. I would blame the Illuminati but they'd find me.


There certainly was no such thing as the Union Sentinel (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/prestigeClasses/unionSentinel.htm), which would be an Epic town guard class (if it existed).

Face facts: guards were scaled to your level in 3.x

I mean sure, the Grey Hand Enforcers, the elite guards of the City of Splendours, are mid- to high-level. The Union Sentinels, guardians of the Demiplane City of Union (see Chapter 6) are epic level. The town watch of a small fishing town are probably low-level warriors. But if you go to Union at level 1 or a small fishing town at level 25 or Waterdeep at level 12, the Sentinels will still be low epic, the warriors will still be first- or second-level, and the Enforcers will, by sheer coincidence, be around your level. I can't speak for 4e, but in 3.5, it's simply not true that town guards scale to your level - the guards in Union are Union Sentinels, and that remains true whether you're sent to Union accidentally at level 1, plane shift there the moment you get the spell, or lay siege to Union with your 50th level party.

[Nifft]

I mean sure, the Grey Hand Enforcers, the elite guards of the City of Splendours, are mid- to high-level. The Union Sentinels, guardians of the Demiplane City of Union (see Chapter 6) are epic level. The town watch of a small fishing town are probably low-level warriors. But if you go to Union at level 1 or a small fishing town at level 25 or Waterdeep at level 12, the Sentinels will still be low epic, the warriors will still be first- or second-level, and the Enforcers will, by sheer coincidence, be around your level. I can't speak for 4e, but in 3.5, it's simply not true that town guards scale to your level - the guards in Union are Union Sentinels, and that remains true whether you're sent to Union accidentally at level 1, plane shift there the moment you get the spell, or lay siege to Union with your 50th level party.

By that thinking, the 4e human guards are all level 3 Soldiers forever. That's also fair and consistent.

So yeah, either edition doesn't make the guards scale to your level -- but both editions do allow it. It might be that other poster's experience that the town guards scale up in 3.x or 4e, but it's not the base system forcing that. It's the DM and/or the module, and the DM has support to do so under 3.x rules just as they have support to do so under 4e.



Personally, what I'd do in 4e for a party of higher level (e.g. a level 8 party returning to town where they last fought guards at level 2) is scale the town guards up to level 7 Minions, so they'd still be a challenge -- but they'd drop in one hit, thereby demonstrating how awesome the PCs have become. The PCs previously had to whittle down the Soldier guards, but now they are powerful enough to one-shot those punks.

Technically that would be scaling the guards up, but in terms of how it feels to the players it's an expression of how much the PCs have grown in strength.

I loved that 4e mechanic, and I wish it was a thing in 5e.

[Florian]

Since the 1975 Greyhawk supplement, the general trend in D&D has been towards more magic and power, but it was still a shock for me to go from '81 rules to '14 rules, and see in play just how much more.

Take a closer and a bit more informed look, then. Pre-3E D&D had a sharply defined power bottom and ceiling and owning magic items could really lift you up or make it break the ceiling fast. Post-3E D&D took the step to formularize WBL (wealth per level) and more or less made that a fixed part of character advancement. Magic items became common, but also less powerful. Gauntlets of Ogre Power did once grant you the strength of an Ogre, no matter your original strength, now they gave a +2 bonus to Strength, relative to your starting Strength score. This is why we came to term some items "the big six", because you need them and they're tied into the whole underlying math of the system

[Jormengand]

By that thinking, the 4e human guards are all level 3 Soldiers forever. That's also fair and consistent.

I mean, sure. Like I said, I can't really say much about 4e because I've never played it (although I can say some things, like "The minion mechanic seems really awful mechanically and narratively, and I don't like it") but I can say that it's simply false that 3.5 guards scale to your level.


Personally, what I'd do in 4e for a party of higher level (e.g. a level 8 party returning to town where they last fought guards at level 2) is scale the town guards up to level 7 Minions, so they'd still be a challenge -- but they'd drop in one hit, thereby demonstrating how awesome the PCs have become. The PCs previously had to whittle down the Soldier guards, but now they are powerful enough to one-shot those punks.

See, this feels wrong to me. If I leave a town and I come back and the previously-level-2 guards have gained 5 levels in our absence, I would expect there to be a reason why they're suddenly stronger. What happens if I become the leader of an orc warband (of level 1-3 orcs) and drag my level 8 party into combat with some town guards while the orcs attack some other town guards (or even drag the orcs into the same combat)? Then, the guards are simultaneously the same level 2 guards who whould be weaker than the level 3 orcs, and the level 7 minions who should be challenging to level 8 PCs but go squish if a level 1 orc hits them on the backswing. "Minion" is a really weird abstraction which doesn't hold up if a mid-level warleader is trying to lead low-level troops into battle.

(You could, of course, have enemies which have standard hit points but automatically take lethal damage if a PC hits them, but that still raises the question of what level they should be - if they're still level 2, they've become weaker against the PCs than even a standard level 2 guard, if they're level 7, they're now able to crush the orcs but PCs are anathaema to them).

[hamishspence]

There's an element of "Guards scale to the level of the adventure" in both 3e and 4e.

When you're low level, you'll generally be negotiating with the mayor of a hamlet - their guards will be low level.

When you're high level, you'll generally be negotiating with the ruler of a city - their guards will be high level.