PDA

View Full Version : The Myths of 3E



emeraldstreak
2008-09-15, 01:20 PM
So 4E is taking over the DnD community, but before moving on let's take a look back to 3/3.5.

What were the most widespread myths in the community, beliefs that were eventually proven wrong?

Are there any myths about 3E left?

Any points of disagreement between your view and the view of the majority?

Mike62
2008-09-15, 01:22 PM
Lets not be too hasty. Some of us are not going to 4e. Some of dont even like 4e.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-15, 01:26 PM
So 4E is taking over the DnD community, but before moving on let's take a look back to 3/3.5.

What were the most widespread myths in the community, beliefs that were eventually proven wrong?

Are there any myths about 3E left?

Any points of disagreement between your view and the view of the majority?

Myths: As in false beliefs rampant throughout 3rds history?
Psionics are overpowered.
Monks are overpowered.
Druids aren't overpowered.
Clerics can't be overpowered.
Paladins are easy to play
Evocation specialist spellcasters are a good idea
Core is balanced (without houserules).
Non-core classes are more powerful than Core classes.

I can go on and on, but that looks good for now.

emeraldstreak
2008-09-15, 01:27 PM
Lets not be too hasty. Some of us are not going to 4e. Some of dont even like 4e.

OK, I'll chalk up "fans switching to 4E en masse" as one of the myths currently existing :smallsmile:

However, let's not make this thread a 3E v 4E. There are enough of them already.

SurlySeraph
2008-09-15, 01:28 PM
I feel that Batman wizards are overrated and overdiscussed. Yes, they can beat everything if they know enough spells and know what they're going to be up against in enough detail to prepare a perfect counter for it. But a halfway decent DM will not let the wizard learn every spell WoTC has ever published, will not tell the players exactly what enemies they will be facing in what kind of terrain, and will adjust an encounter on the fly if it looks like one player is doing all the work.

On the other hand, the myth that Monks are overpowered has been pretty thoroughly debunked by now.

Grynning
2008-09-15, 01:33 PM
*casts "Protection from Monk-Related-Derailment" on this thread*

Frosty
2008-09-15, 01:34 PM
I feel that Batman wizards are overrated and overdiscussed. Yes, they can beat everything if they know enough spells and know what they're going to be up against in enough detail to prepare a perfect counter for it. But a halfway decent DM will not let the wizard learn every spell WoTC has ever published, will not tell the players exactly what enemies they will be facing in what kind of terrain, and will adjust an encounter on the fly if it looks like one player is doing all the work.

On the other hand, the myth that Monks are overpowered has been pretty thoroughly debunked by now.

Where's Sir Gia when we need him?

bosssmiley
2008-09-15, 01:42 PM
So 4E is taking over the DnD community, but before moving on let's take a look back to 3/3.5.

Not here it ain't; maybe on the WOTC boards. :smalltongue:

If anything 4E has fragmented the D&D fandom, rather than subsuming all in its path and resetting the cultural calender of D&D to year 0 (as WOTC would doubtless greatly prefer).

Some players have welcomed 4E as the brave new hope of D&D, some designers have drunk from the poison chalice of the GSL, but many have not and likely never will. Gamers and designers both cleave to their flawed, but well-loved systems, adapting WOTC's discarded toy (the SRD) to their own purposes. Grognards and retro-gamers sift the half-forgotten, half-buried substrate of the hobby for inspiration. While some turn away from D&D outright and discover new vistas of gaming. Unintended a thousand flowers bloom. :smallamused:


I feel that Batman wizards are overrated and over discussed. Yes, they can beat everything if they know enough spells and know what they're going to be up against in enough detail to prepare a perfect counter for it. But a halfway decent DM will not let the wizard learn every spell WoTC has ever published, will not tell the players exactly what enemies they will be facing in what kind of terrain, and will adjust an encounter on the fly if it looks like one player is doing all the work.

Given that you can make a workable Batman (control-and-suppression) wizard with little more than school specialisation and the 2 new spells/level that Core gives you, I'd say they're still a factor in play rather than a myth of 3E.

Xuincherguixe
2008-09-15, 02:09 PM
3rd edition was created when Gary Gygax went to visit someone, and an asylum denizen who happened to be around read his mind. Unfortunately, so was a demon wizard.

The Demon Wizard then went on to posses a gerbil, and began talking to a person, relating the same information that the psychic asylum denizen received. However he just assumed he was hallucinating and just ignored it. However in ignoring this, the gerbil had forgotten to be fed.

Later, the Demon Wizard possessed some other guy and formed Wizards of the Coast. Interestingly enough, that guy was the only actual wizard. He named it this way to distract people.

The guy then wrote 3rd edition himself, and had some other people take credit.


... Oh, you didn't mean that kind of myth.

Sholos
2008-09-15, 02:10 PM
Monks are a good idea.

To be fair, though, this is probably due to the fact that monks were good. Very, very, very good. In 2nd Edition.

ghost_warlock
2008-09-15, 02:17 PM
So 4E is taking over the DnD community, but before moving on let's take a look back to 3/3.5.

What were the most widespread myths in the community, beliefs that were eventually proven wrong?

Are there any myths about 3E left?

Any points of disagreement between your view and the view of the majority?

Well, one myth would be that 4e has taken over the 3e gaming community. :smalltongue:

I'm playing in a 4e game right now because it's the first game I've had a chance to play in recently that I didn't have to DM...it's a nice change of pace being on this side of the screen again. For the record, the 3e game had seven players (including DM) and the 4e only has 3 (including DM). Hmmm...

Anyway...other myths:

Monkey Grip is a good feat.
Spontaneous spellcasting is more powerful than prepared casting.
Splatbooks unbalance the game (companion to "Core is Balanced").

That's all I can think of for now...need...sleep... :smallsigh:

nightwyrm
2008-09-15, 02:22 PM
Myth:
Fighters are a good class for newbies.
Warlocks are overpowered.
Mystic Theurge (or any other theurge type class) is overpowered.

Eldariel
2008-09-15, 02:22 PM
Myths: As in false beliefs rampant throughout 3rds history?
Psionics are overpowered.
Monks are overpowered.
Druids aren't overpowered.
Clerics can't be overpowered.
Paladins are easy to play
Evocation specialist spellcasters are a good idea
Core is balanced (without houserules).
Non-core classes are more powerful than Core classes.

I can go on and on, but that looks good for now.

You left out one very important one:
-Fighters are easy to build.

It's perhaps the single most rampant misunderstanding about 3.X in existence. As tangents, there's stuff like:
-Weapon Focus is worth taking.
-Most feats are created equal. (aside from the obvious ones like the skill boosters, Endurance, Toughness and most core feats - fact is that about 10% of feats are actually worth taking as something other than prerequisites.)


Another very important one:
-Your character class determines how you should roleplay your character.
and by extension:
-Heavily multiclassed characters are munchkiny powergaming and mean you aren't interested in roleplaying.

*Fact: Heavy multiclassing for non-casters is a direct consequence of poor class-design. If classes had more worthwhile abilities (or class features at all), there'd be an incentive not to multiclass all the time. Likewise, if spellcasting advancement was written well, spellcaster/noncaster multiclassing could be done without PrCs. In 3.X rules, you need PrCs to make spellcasting progression happen while gaining other abilities (since otherwise you're left too far behind to work).

*Fact: You can write any kind of fluff for any kind of build. Class names are trivial - what matters is the combination that comes out of them, and that combination you can flavour as you please.

Grynning
2008-09-15, 02:40 PM
Another very important one:
-Your character class determines how you should roleplay your character.
and by extension:
-Heavily multiclassed characters are munchkiny powergaming and mean you aren't interested in roleplaying.

*Fact: Heavy multiclassing for non-casters is a direct consequence of poor class-design. If classes had more worthwhile abilities (or class features at all), there'd be an incentive not to multiclass all the time. Likewise, if spellcasting advancement was written well, spellcaster/noncaster multiclassing could be done without PrCs. In 3.X rules, you need PrCs to make spellcasting progression happen while gaining other abilities (since otherwise you're left too far behind to work).

*Fact: You can write any kind of fluff for any kind of build. Class names are trivial - what matters is the combination that comes out of them, and that combination you can flavour as you please.

Q to the F to the $^@%*#in T.

I get really annoyed with one of my groups sometimes, because they always classify me as a "power-gamer" and tell me that building characters to be mechanically effective isn't good for "role-playing."

I'm running into the same problem in the 4th edition game I'm going to run - I have a couple who want to both be halflings - but they want to be classes and builds that get little benefit from being halflings. While it's not as big a deal in 4th ed. as it was in 3rd, when I tried to explain to them that they could make mechanically better versions of their characters by picking different classes, they got mad at me, and they don't seem to understand that they can keep the exact same concepts and backstories and just have different mechanics :smallannoyed:

Tengu_temp
2008-09-15, 02:42 PM
The biggest myth about 3.x is that, because it's easy to create setting for it (which is true), it does a good job at representing those settings (which is completely false - it even does bad at representing its default, heroic high-fantasy setting).

Erk
2008-09-15, 02:52 PM
I'm running into the same problem in the 4th edition game I'm going to run - I have a couple who want to both be halflings - but they want to be classes and builds that get little benefit from being halflings. While it's not as big a deal in 4th ed. as it was in 3rd, when I tried to explain to them that they could make mechanically better versions of their characters by picking different classes, they got mad at me, and they don't seem to understand that they can keep the exact same concepts and backstories and just have different mechanics :smallannoyed:

I'd be mad at you too. A well-made character in 4e can be balanced with any race/class combo. Less optimum, but still plenty good. If they want to play halflings and are aware (as it says right in the phb) that their choices are suboptimal, why are you trying to stop them?

Anyway. Biggest myth IMO about 3e: It models classic fantasy well.

Person_Man
2008-09-15, 02:53 PM
I'd say that the biggest myth of 3.0 or 3.5 is that "X is overpowered" or "X is broken." Few things are overpowered or underpowered. They are just more or less powerful then other abilities/spells/whatever. Balance doesn't depend on any objective measure. It's just a general goal that the group should be generally balanced against each other, so that no one player dominates the game, and everyone has a chance to shine and be challenged.

Also, its been my experience that the 3.5/4E split has been roughly 50/50 on the boards, at game stores, in the groups I play in, and at the one gaming con I've been to since the changeover. If WotC manages to make up those losses with new players, then more power to them. If not, then it will go down in history as the biggest marketing blunder in gaming history.

Grynning
2008-09-15, 02:56 PM
I'd be mad at you too. A well-made character in 4e can be balanced with any race/class combo. Less optimum, but still plenty good. If they want to play halflings and are aware (as it says right in the phb) that their choices are suboptimal, why are you trying to stop them?


I didn't try to stop them, I'm letting them make their own characters...I just pointed it out.

Tormsskull
2008-09-15, 03:06 PM
*Fact: Heavy multiclassing for non-casters is a direct consequence of poor class-design. If classes had more worthwhile abilities (or class features at all), there'd be an incentive not to multiclass all the time. Likewise, if spellcasting advancement was written well, spellcaster/noncaster multiclassing could be done without PrCs. In 3.X rules, you need PrCs to make spellcasting progression happen while gaining other abilities (since otherwise you're left too far behind to work).

ROFL. This is about the worst argument I've heard when someone questions rampant multi-classing.

"No guys, see, I can't obtain all the character power that I am trying to with only one or two classes. Surely you understand now?"

Eldariel
2008-09-15, 03:19 PM
ROFL. This is about the worst argument I've heard when someone questions rampant multi-classing.

"No guys, see, I can't obtain all the character power that I am trying to with only one or two classes. Surely you understand now?"

The reason for multiclassing is simply the fact that single class doesn't offer much later into the progression. If the mechanical class design were better, I may actually build my character that's flavoured as a "weapon master" as a "Fighter 20". However, that would mean the character would just suck horribly and I'd rather not have my characters suck horribly ('cause sucking horribly tends to lead into party hatred ("Why aren't you pulling your weight and why do you deserve any treasure?") and quick character death, neither of which does much to evoke enjoyment). Besides, Fighter 20 isn't any better in mechanically presenting a Weapon Master than a Fighter/Warblade/Ranger/Barbarian multiclass.

I'm sorry, but I'd rather have a good time playing and having a character not suck mechanically is pretty key to that. I'll hammer out a build pre-game. That way I don't need to worry about mechanics at all during the game and can focus all my attention on the character itself.

Saph
2008-09-15, 03:36 PM
The biggest 3e myths are more like assumptions. People rarely talk about them, but they're the underpinnings of most of the arguments.

Myth 1: High-level games are the norm - No-one ever says this, but an amazing amount of people start off with 20th-level as a baseline when they're judging a class. In actual fact, 1st-level games outnumber 20th-level games by something like 100 to 1 - if you really want a baseline, 1st-level is probably the mode.
Myth 2: Everyone optimises - Most players do not tune their characters for power in anything but the most basic and straightforward way. This is because the majority of players fall into one of these three categories: a) newbies, b) casual players, or c) roleplay-types. The first group doesn't know how to optimise, the second group can't be bothered to optimise, and the third group doesn't want to optimise. This means that a build which is incredibly powerful when tuned but which requires hours of preparation and study to learn to use isn't practical for most gamers.
Myth 3: Encounters don't scale - Assuming your GM is minimally competent, character power is subjective. The challenges you meet will be scaled to whatever difficulty level your GM wants you to deal with. This is how one player can play a 15th-level wizard in his campaign, and find it difficult, dangerous, and challenging, and how another player in another campaign can play a 15th-level monk and spend the whole time boasting about how overpowered he is.

Oh, and the 4th-ed/3.5 split is about 50/50 where I live, too. Casual players go more for 4e, while longer-term players tend to prefer 3.5 or the editions they grew up on.

- Saph

Lord Tataraus
2008-09-15, 03:40 PM
Also, its been my experience that the 3.5/4E split has been roughly 50/50 on the boards, at game stores, in the groups I play in, and at the one gaming con I've been to since the changeover. If WotC manages to make up those losses with new players, then more power to them. If not, then it will go down in history as the biggest marketing blunder in gaming history.
*crosses fingers*come on WotC, you can fail these 4e-ers just like you did Hecatomb and Dreamblade, don't let those guys down, they feed off the spite of your failings.

Another big 3.x myth: Everyone has played it.
And: "Wait, there are other roleplaying games?!" or "Wait, there are non-D20 systems?!"

MeklorIlavator
2008-09-15, 03:52 PM
Myth: Level 1 is a good starting point for players.

Level 1 PC's are generally fragile and have trouble with any given role. Generally, level 3 gives a nice compromise between complexity and survivability.

Eldariel
2008-09-15, 04:09 PM
Oh yeah:
-High-level play is determined by who wins the initiative.

Fact: High-level characters have defenses growing in synch with their offense. High-level fights should actually last longer and be more forgiving than low-level bouts due to the variety of defensive effects and fallback plans characters accrue through spells, maneuvers, magic items and feats throughout the levels (as long as all-in builds aren't involved). And yes, I'm assuming the most broken spells are dealt with through bannings or similar.

Chronos
2008-09-15, 04:12 PM
Myth:
Fighters are a good class for newbies.This probably comes from 2nd edition. In 2nd edition, fighters had very few options, both in character creation and in combat, so it was hard to make mistakes that would come back to bite you. The only aspect of the game system they used was the same one used by everyone else. So it was a good way to be involved in the group, while you learned the more detailed rules for things like thief skills and spells.

The fact that this carried over to 3e is probably in part a consequence of the fact that the 3e equivalent of the 2e fighter (the simple class that you can't do much to screw up) is still the class most similar to the fighter, the barbarian.

Innis Cabal
2008-09-15, 04:16 PM
The biggest 3e myths are more like assumptions. People rarely talk about them, but they're the underpinnings of most of the arguments.

Myth 1: High-level games are the norm - No-one ever says this, but an amazing amount of people start off with 20th-level as a baseline when they're judging a class. In actual fact, 1st-level games outnumber 20th-level games by something like 100 to 1 - if you really want a baseline, 1st-level is probably the mode.
Myth 2: Everyone optimises - Most players do not tune their characters for power in anything but the most basic and straightforward way. This is because the majority of players fall into one of these three categories: a) newbies, b) casual players, or c) roleplay-types. The first group doesn't know how to optimise, the second group can't be bothered to optimise, and the third group doesn't want to optimise. This means that a build which is incredibly powerful when tuned but which requires hours of preparation and study to learn to use isn't practical for most gamers.
Myth 3: Encounters don't scale - Assuming your GM is minimally competent, character power is subjective. The challenges you meet will be scaled to whatever difficulty level your GM wants you to deal with. This is how one player can play a 15th-level wizard in his campaign, and find it difficult, dangerous, and challenging, and how another player in another campaign can play a 15th-level monk and spend the whole time boasting about how overpowered he is.

Oh, and the 4th-ed/3.5 split is about 50/50 where I live, too. Casual players go more for 4e, while longer-term players tend to prefer 3.5 or the editions they grew up on.

- Saph


Nothing to add, because of the above quote. Thank you

Draz74
2008-09-15, 04:55 PM
Myth: Everyone tends to follow the guideline in the DMG of 4 encounters/day pretty closely.
Myth: Most parties only actually have to deal with 1 encounter/day.

There are groups at each end of this spectrum and everywhere in between. But people tend to assume everyone else plays the same as their group.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-15, 04:58 PM
Oh yeah:
-High-level play is determined by who wins the initiative.

Fact: High-level characters have defenses growing in synch with their offense. High-level fights should actually last longer and be more forgiving than low-level bouts due to the variety of defensive effects and fallback plans characters accrue through spells, maneuvers, magic items and feats throughout the levels (as long as all-in builds aren't involved). And yes, I'm assuming the most broken spells are dealt with through bannings or similar.

Problem with assumption is not all DMs do ban those spells. So That myth is more fact than fiction. Rocket Tag.

Eldariel
2008-09-15, 05:01 PM
Problem with assumption is not all DMs do ban those spells. So That myth is more fact than fiction. Rocket Tag.

My experience is that if a DM is inexperienced enough not to ban those spells, the players are inexperienced enough to use them too (since generally inexperienced DMs have inexperienced players and they'll probably be drooling over Delayed Blast Fireballs, Polar Rays and Chain Lightnings). But bleh, I just feel people are missing a world of fun in high-level dimension hopping and multiplanar encounters simply because they don't want to give high-level games (with few judicious bannings) a chance. I feel many players could enjoy such games. Something like Bastion of Broken Souls gives a great introduction, for example.

Frosty
2008-09-15, 05:14 PM
Or if the DM doesn't ban them the first game, then the SECOND campaign they're definitely banned, if the plaeyrs exploited it.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-15, 05:19 PM
My experience is that if a DM is inexperienced enough not to ban those spells, the players are inexperienced enough to use them too (since generally inexperienced DMs have inexperienced players and they'll probably be drooling over Delayed Blast Fireballs, Polar Rays and Chain Lightnings). But bleh, I just feel people are missing a world of fun in high-level dimension hopping and multiplanar encounters simply because they don't want to give high-level games (with few judicious bannings) a chance. I feel many players could enjoy such games. Something like Bastion of Broken Souls gives a great introduction, for example.

Hmm, I am not sure if Poilar Ray needs its own myth?

Myth: Polar Ray is not underpowered in Core.

I mean, look at Duskblade and Polar Ray is a lower level and no breakage found...

DM Raven
2008-09-15, 05:26 PM
I feel that Batman wizards are overrated and overdiscussed. Yes, they can beat everything if they know enough spells and know what they're going to be up against in enough detail to prepare a perfect counter for it. But a halfway decent DM will not let the wizard learn every spell WoTC has ever published, will not tell the players exactly what enemies they will be facing in what kind of terrain, and will adjust an encounter on the fly if it looks like one player is doing all the work.

On the other hand, the myth that Monks are overpowered has been pretty thoroughly debunked by now.

Batman wizards being overpowered isn't really a myth. Pretty much all the core casting prep classes (druid, cleric, wizard) are op when you compare them to other classes at mid to high-level play. Only the barbarian stands a chance from the melee grouping.

Eldariel
2008-09-15, 05:36 PM
Hmm, I am not sure if Poilar Ray needs its own myth?

Myth: Polar Ray is not underpowered in Core.

I mean, look at Duskblade and Polar Ray is a lower level and no breakage found...

Damage spells in general. Removing the damage caps and giving them secondary effects wouldn't be broken. Really, Polar Ray is about as good as an empowered Cone of Cold, which is two levels lower. And Cone of Cold could easily be a level 3 spell without breaking anything (and Fireball and Lightning Bolt could be level 2). I think Fireball should at least have the "Reflex/Fort vs. Prone"-line. And Lightning Bolt should instill Daze or similar. And Cone of Cold et co. some variety of Slow. Or just make them all into one shapeable energy attack á la Psionics, give them a variety of effects dependant on the element you choose, make the form shapeable and remove the damage cap. Ta da! One spell doing all the blasting you'll ever need!

Raven: Barbarian holds up how again? He doesn't get notably better at hitting things as levels go up. He gets a grand total of two Rage-improvements over 20 levels (and the ability to actually use Rage). Sure, he'll make a decent charger, but definitely doesn't hold up to casters.

Thrud
2008-09-16, 12:40 AM
The biggest 3e myths are more like assumptions. People rarely talk about them, but they're the underpinnings of most of the arguments.

Myth 1: High-level games are the norm - No-one ever says this, but an amazing amount of people start off with 20th-level as a baseline when they're judging a class. In actual fact, 1st-level games outnumber 20th-level games by something like 100 to 1 - if you really want a baseline, 1st-level is probably the mode.
Myth 2: Everyone optimises - Most players do not tune their characters for power in anything but the most basic and straightforward way. This is because the majority of players fall into one of these three categories: a) newbies, b) casual players, or c) roleplay-types. The first group doesn't know how to optimise, the second group can't be bothered to optimise, and the third group doesn't want to optimise. This means that a build which is incredibly powerful when tuned but which requires hours of preparation and study to learn to use isn't practical for most gamers.
Myth 3: Encounters don't scale - Assuming your GM is minimally competent, character power is subjective. The challenges you meet will be scaled to whatever difficulty level your GM wants you to deal with. This is how one player can play a 15th-level wizard in his campaign, and find it difficult, dangerous, and challenging, and how another player in another campaign can play a 15th-level monk and spend the whole time boasting about how overpowered he is.

Oh, and the 4th-ed/3.5 split is about 50/50 where I live, too. Casual players go more for 4e, while longer-term players tend to prefer 3.5 or the editions they grew up on.

- Saph

Thanks Saph, so nicely put I feel no need to put in my own post.

Woot Spitum
2008-09-16, 01:00 AM
Myth: As long as you have a good DM, you will never have any balance issues.

Thurbane
2008-09-16, 02:31 AM
Myth 2: Everyone optimises - Most players do not tune their characters for power in anything but the most basic and straightforward way. This is because the majority of players fall into one of these three categories: a) newbies, b) casual players, or c) roleplay-types. The first group doesn't know how to optimise, the second group can't be bothered to optimise, and the third group doesn't want to optimise. This means that a build which is incredibly powerful when tuned but which requires hours of preparation and study to learn to use isn't practical for most gamers.
Testify! It's so refreshing to hear that. :smallsmile:

Frosty
2008-09-16, 02:36 AM
That is a myth on its own. The third group may or may not wish to optimize base on their own personal preferences. Some of the best rpers I know are also good optimizers.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-16, 02:40 AM
Oh yeah:
-High-level play is determined by who wins the initiative.

Fact: High-level characters have defenses growing in synch with their offense. High-level fights should actually last longer and be more forgiving than low-level bouts due to the variety of defensive effects and fallback plans characters accrue through spells, maneuvers, magic items and feats throughout the levels (as long as all-in builds aren't involved). And yes, I'm assuming the most broken spells are dealt with through bannings or similar.You're wrong. High-level play is over much faster, IC. It's just that OoC takes longer as players decide which things the enemy probably does or doesn't have defenses against. If the enemy isn't immune to Sneak Attack, the Rogue kills it in the first round with a full-attack for massive damage. If he's not immune to Power attack, the Fighter charges and implodes it. If it's vulnerable to mind-affecting, the Wizard Dominates it. If it's immune to all of those, the Cleric tosses a Save-or-Die that it probably fails. All of that took less than 6 seconds, in-game. Out-of-game, it took 30 minutes. Yes, everyone at high levels has a lot of defenses, but it's sort of like having several types of nukes and several types of anti-nuke shields. All it takes is one hole, one thing not prepared against, and the battle's over.

Justin_Bacon
2008-09-16, 03:33 AM
You're wrong. High-level play is over much faster, IC. It's just that OoC takes longer as players decide which things the enemy probably does or doesn't have defenses against. If the enemy isn't immune to Sneak Attack, the Rogue kills it in the first round with a full-attack for massive damage. If he's not immune to Power attack, the Fighter charges and implodes it. If it's vulnerable to mind-affecting, the Wizard Dominates it. If it's immune to all of those, the Cleric tosses a Save-or-Die that it probably fails. All of that took less than 6 seconds, in-game. Out-of-game, it took 30 minutes. Yes, everyone at high levels has a lot of defenses, but it's sort of like having several types of nukes and several types of anti-nuke shields. All it takes is one hole, one thing not prepared against, and the battle's over.

This doesn't describe my experience with high-level play.

First, I'll admit that I've removed literal save-or-die mechanics and replaced them with Con damage. This does remove some of the "nukes" you're talking about from the table, but not all of them. (And 3d6 or 4d6 points of Con damage is pretty devastating even if it doesn't kill you outright.)

But I suspect the biggest reason I haven't experienced this is encounter design (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/encounter-design.html). I've just never embraced the common myth that 3rd Edition encounters should revolve around a single creature with a CR equal to the party's level. High-level play for me has always been the place where I can design huge encounters with multiple opponents, cascading reinforcements, and all kinds of complex NPC tactics.

And when you do that, suddenly this nuke vs. anti-nuke strategy evaporates. Power word kill can only hit one guy at a time; dominate is now a tactical spell (how long does it take for demonic horde to realize their general has been mind-controlled?), and you'd better hope that the fighter is imploding guys because you're in a target-rich environment.

... and how many of those high-level spells do you really? Looks like you're going to have to start getting creative with that lower-level "fodder".

Of course, with sufficiently sneaky scouting and clever planning, my players still manage to throw me a few curve balls while rapidly wiping out opponents that I thought would be far tougher. ("Wait... you're triggering the rock slide where?") But that's only a bad thing if you view the sneaky scouting and clever planning as a waste of time.

We view it as fun.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-16, 04:40 AM
"The skill system is realistic"

"Yes, we really do need five different classes that each represent a meleeing weapons expert"

"Taking multiple base classes is so overpowered that it needs an experience point penalty"

"Batman wizards are about singlehandedly defeating any encounter" (whereas in fact they are about making their group fight better)

"Nobody should ever play an evoker / warmage"

And, let's not forget the two classics, Stormwind and Oberoni...

Morty
2008-09-16, 06:02 AM
And, let's not forget the two classics, Stormwind and Oberoni...

The former has actually spawned an entirely another fallacy I like to call Anti-Stormwind Fallacy, that you either optimize the ever-loving heck out of your character or you can't do squat in any fight.

Tormsskull
2008-09-16, 07:03 AM
The former has actually spawned an entirely another fallacy I like to call Anti-Stormwind Fallacy, that you either optimize the ever-loving heck out of your character or you can't do squat in any fight.

And the "if you apply a word in front of the word Fallacy it makes it true" fallacy.

Morty
2008-09-16, 07:25 AM
And the "if you apply a word in front of the word Fallacy it makes it true" fallacy.

That predates Stormwind Fallacy, I think, if only in the form of saying "you're using a fallacy" instead of "I disagree".

Serenity
2008-09-16, 07:31 AM
"Tome of Battle turns fighter-types into absurd anime-type magical guys!"

Well, yes, anime (and also wuxia, but no one ever mentions that one for some reason) was an inspiration for the book. But if you believe that feel has no place in D&D, most of the maneuvers are still eminently useful to you, as a more than cursory glance reveals them to be relatively mountain, or just over the border of the fantastic. And why shouldn't a fantasy hero be able to pull off superhuman feats of swordsmanship and athletics?

Kurald Galain
2008-09-16, 07:45 AM
relatively mountain

Whuh?
Whuh?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-16, 07:48 AM
I'm sure he either meant "mundane" or was talking about Stone Dragon. :smalltongue:

Eldariel
2008-09-16, 09:36 AM
You're wrong. High-level play is over much faster, IC. It's just that OoC takes longer as players decide which things the enemy probably does or doesn't have defenses against. If the enemy isn't immune to Sneak Attack, the Rogue kills it in the first round with a full-attack for massive damage. If he's not immune to Power attack, the Fighter charges and implodes it. If it's vulnerable to mind-affecting, the Wizard Dominates it. If it's immune to all of those, the Cleric tosses a Save-or-Die that it probably fails. All of that took less than 6 seconds, in-game. Out-of-game, it took 30 minutes. Yes, everyone at high levels has a lot of defenses, but it's sort of like having several types of nukes and several types of anti-nuke shields. All it takes is one hole, one thing not prepared against, and the battle's over.

Talking about encounters, not single opponents... Also, I don't see much point in using monsters without class levels if I intend on making it a challenge (some Outsiders and Dragons not withstanding).