| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 06:21:23
Hey Everyone,
I saw some off-topic posts recently in the Best Dungeon Magazine FR Based Adventures? scroll that got me thinking hard about 3E/3.5E and what it’s been like for me as a DM to run this system in a Forgotten Realms Campaign.
I also saw some statements about Third Edition game structure and mechanics that were clearly incorrect, in which it was implied there exists a supposed built in lack of challenge that makes the game 'too easy' for PCs in Third Edition.
So, without further ado...
quote:
Originally posted by msatran
But in general, I've discovered that all numbers aside, the system is now designed for the PC's to roll over every monster. There are too many feats, too many classes, and too many special abilities and spells that destroy the ability of the dungeon master to create a character driven plot without creating a tough moral choice for the PCs. I really do have faith that my players will beat most monsters of an equivalent CR without miraculous rolling on the part of the monster.
...I respect a fellow Third Edition DM's experiences, but I also disagree with the statement about how the game is designed. In fact, the feats, classes and abilities are what make the game strongest (and, inversely, more difficult in-game for the players as I’ll show later on).
I can see a DM feeling this way if they’ve either lost control of their game or perhaps aren’t keeping track of their player’s character abilities.
Based on my DMing experiences, I’ve found no limits imposed directly or indirectly by the rules as far as story or plot are concerned. In fact my campaign has an extremely strong group of role-players and exceptional storly lines.
With regard to monsters: I could definitely see what you’re saying as being the case for 3.0 under certain conditions...but for 3.5 I’m not sure how this could be possible (unless you allow your players to rest and re-equip in between each encounter).
FWIW in my six-years running Third Edition Realms campaign, the players have never dominated to this degree. The have pwned my NPCs and monsters on occasion, but they’ve also paid the price for occasional overconfidence (and, truth be told, for their in-character bravery).
In fact from my perspective as a Realms DM, things got even harder for my players vis-à-vis creatures with the advent of 3.5.
quote:
Originally posted by msatran
I just have this feeling that the game is not as difficult as it used to be, and that the level of challenge for the PC's vs. joe monster has been vastly downgraded.
msatran I’m sorry your campaign is going this route.
I’m curious to know if you play 3.0 or 3.5 rules and what the level of your player’s characters are.
......so, anyone else have experiences running the Realms and/or dealing with the rules that are similar to msatran’s (or mine)? Anyone have any different experiences?
Please post if you did, and how/what you did to deal with them!
J. Grenemyer
After msatran’s post, GothicDan posted in agreement with msatran’s idea that the game isn’t as difficult as it used to be, then when on to say why.
It’s these assertions about Third Edition that I’ll either clarify or correct (and not necessarily in order) next post. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Xysma |
Posted - 01 Aug 2006 : 20:35:45
I almost had a TPK just last week with a band of cr 2 kobolds vs. three 5th level characters, at the beginning of the adventure. Once they drank nearly their entire reserve of healing potions, a CR4 Flameskull flew into the room, and almost killed them again. Then they promptly finished off the last healing potions in time for the rogue to fall 60 feet into a crevasse. While the duskblade climbed down to help him, a single skeletal equiceph (CR2) nearly killed the ranger4/druid1 and his hyena animal companion who had remained up top.
Of course, I am a notorious pc slayer, but I think the CRs are fairly accurate. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 28 Jul 2006 : 17:00:25
Like I have said before, 3.0/3.5 has allowed me to have regular campaigns going because the game is easier to play (outside of RP, which remains the same for the most part).
The PCs are in no way overpowered. I even allowed them to create characters with pretty darn high stats and still they got themselves killed a few times, a few close calls also. The CR format as opposed to simple individual xp awards from the monsters makes it much easier to create appropriate encounters, wether you want it to be easy, challenging, or overpowering.
I don't have to say how it affects me playing in the realms cause that's the only place I play in :P |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 27 Jul 2006 : 04:36:39
I do think that power gaming has existed in every edition of the game. Unearthed Arcana was the "Pandora's Box" of 1st edition gaming, and I think that the "Complete" line and the advent of the kits in them was the begining of the issue in 2nd edition (which is not to say that those books didn't have some valuable information in them). The first time I read about kits, it was in the Time of the Dragon boxed set, and the whole idea was that at 1st level, some characters culturally knew certain things, but you didn't get any feats for free, you had to pay them back as you progressed . . . the idea morphed a lot with each successive iteration of the "Complete" series. I'm also not saying that its limited to 2nd edition . . . the "Complete" 3.5 books have certainly allowed for some power creep. I'm just saying that 2nd edition wans't a perfect system, 3.5 is a more logical system, and its easier to teach new players, so as a system, I personally see it as being better.
In some ways I think we sometimes get our wires crossed between 3.5 core rules and what should have been done in the 3rd/3.5 FR books. If you want to argue that we should have had rules in "Magic of Faerun" to simulate the item creation notes in Volo's Guide to All Things Magical, I wouldn't disagree with you. If you want to say that the gods themselves didn't need stats and that we could have better seen the space in "Faiths and Pantheons" used to turn 2nd edition specialty priests into PrCs (which, BTW, is how I picture a properly structured PrC . . . as something that shows specialized training in a given field), I'm with you there too. Heck, I posted not too long ago tthat I would have rather seen a Spellfire Weilder template than a PrC. But, dispite all of that, I think we have gotten a lot of good material in 3rd/3.5 as well. I also think that we sometimes forget that we did have a few years, from time to time, in 2nd edition, where the products that came out for FR were pretty weak, or of limited use. Heck, the years that the Horde boxed set came out, the boxed set and its modules took up a lot of the FR product for the year, and the same thing happened the very next year with the Maztica products. It ebbs and flows. I'll not ask anyone to buy a product that they don't think they will like, but don't assume because a few in a row don't appeal to you that the line is never going to appeal to you again. And, as I said, 2nd edition had these ebbs and flows as well.
As far as people using the term "build" for characters, thats a hard one to pin on WOTC. What has happened is that while we were sleeping, a whole generation of roleplayers got their first taste of fantasy level/class based gaming from games like Diablo and Everquest, where the sum total of the "roleplaying" in the game usually has to do with customizing, or "building" your character. Hopefully such people, when they get around others interested in D&D in general and FR in particular will catch on how much fun actually ROLEPLAYING your character is rather than just rolling dice to kill things.
As far as planning out character progression in other editions, you could definately do it. You could plan out weapon specializations, weapon style specializatioins, dual class options, and even what magic items you hoped you would get, based both on what you wanted and what you thought your DM might give you, or you could talk them into.
As far as planning characters NOW, sure, I have done it. In one campaign I play a knight that is pledged to protect a prince whose kingdom was overrun, and I planned out what level I wanted to take Tactical Soldier at, because the class allows you to give your shield bonus to others, and allows you to be more flexible with flanking. As far as playing the character though, I have played him as a very stern knight who is questioning his prince's fitness to rule, despite liking him personally, one that is contantly admonishing him to be more careful about revealing his identity, and is wondering if he is the best knight for this job, and why he survived and his friends didn't. He also had what amounted to a nervous breakdown during one adventure when everything happened all at once. Its been very fun roleplaying him, but I don't think its any more invalid to plan a character progression than it is to plan out your education or career in real life. You may or may not end up following it depending on how life unfolds.
And finally, a note about skills that might be used to take the place of roleplaying. In my campaigns, I make anyone that is using skills such as bluff, intimidate, or diplomacy roleplay the encounter. If they roleplay really well, I give them a circumstance bons to their role, and if they don't really give a damn and are treading water until they get to roll the dice, they get a penalty (this has rarely happened). If they are gathering information, they have to tell me where they go to gather it, and who they talk to, and we often roleplay the highlights of the situation. If anything, the fact that they have to roleplay in order to get to roll the check in the first place encourages roleplaying, if you enforce this kind of situation.
I did feel bad one time, when the cleric of Helm in my campaign traveled to Silverymoon and was trying to recruit novice clerics for his new temple. Dispite giving a shining account of what he wanted to do, and all that he had done as an adventurer in the service of Helm, he rolled REALLY badly. He didn't get any help because the priest in Silverymoon though he was too detatched from the project (he had mentioned that he wanted to start it, but didn't want to be in a leadership position there). He went out, performed some deeds for the temple, and tried to convince the cleric again, and again, he rolled REALLY badly. I was starting to feel like the mechanics were damaging the storyline, but then, the druid/rogue of Meilikki decided to give back the suit of armor he had borrowed from the Altar of Sheilds in Tilverton, and went with the cleric to make his next pitch. The druid/rogue played up how heroic the cleric was, how inspirational he was, and how much Meriden's heroics had caused the church of Helm to be better regarded in the Dalelands. And the player of that character rolled really well. In the end, the situation made for some really good roleplaying, and even served to show off how close the party had become, and how well they worked as a group.
|
| GothicDan |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 21:47:18
In 2E, I had a multi-classed Mage/Thief who was significantly lower level than the rest of the party because of the mutli-classing restrictions. Anything after 5th level, and the power curve was very steep. Multi-classed characters just died out. So, I don't see how one could consider that power gaming, since it's effectively the same thing in 3E as the Gestalt option - only you DON'T have to split your XP.
Ultimately, the DM is the judicator of all things. But we're not discussing DM styles, here, we're talking about the innate characteristics of the system. If it was true that no system was any better than any other, than we wouldn't have people playing a whole bunch of systems.
I guess the key is to look at each and every system, and look at the merits and faults that each one offers, and then for your PERSONAL game style, decide which contributes the most to it.
With that said, there's little else with which I could actually add to this thread. I don't like 3E's versatility - period. I am a minimalist, for the most part, as far as games go. It's a purely personal opinion. So adding MORE options, more rules, more crunch, takes away from the idea that the DM has control.
And now, I'll leave.
Sanishiver: No need to respond to my last response to you, unless you want to. Have a good day. |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 21:37:08
I had a blast basically powergaming and roleplaying in the original D&D. You can powergame with every game, D&D always made it easy, compared to say Harnmaster or GURPS. It's always the GM who controls the power-level. The rules give options, nothing more. A multiclass dmi-human character back in the day was way more versatile and in the end more powerful than a single class human. Sure the single-class wizard was maybe 2 levels higher than his elven fighter/mage counterpart, but the fighter mage's chances for survival were way higher. And if it wasn't a fighter/mage, take the scrivener priest class as a very distinct example on what a modified, human multiclass character could do. Yes, he split his xp, but specialty priests leveled very quick, plus he got only the d8 hit-die from the cleric-class. By 5th level priest and wizard this person could cast bless on his party, heal the fighter, and blast the orcs to smithereens with his fireball.
OK, so the wizard lvl 7 could do a little more, but if you take into account that a spell like dimensional folding, the cleric's sophisticated equivalent of teleport, was only a level 4 spell, this guy has way more bang for his buck than the single class wizard.
If a GM allows power-builds and what not, that is HIS problem, NOT the game system's.
Plus, after playing a session or two with Harnmaster I don't really want the ultra realistic... |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 21:28:16
quote:
<Off Topic...are we both slacking at work right now?
J. -about to run out of quota time- Grenemyer>
I get to slack for about another month, here. Then it's back to school for me.
(Can't freaking wait.) |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 21:22:14
And.. I'll let Faraer handle his reply to you, as much as I'd like to jump in. But that may be considered bad form. ;) |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 21:21:02
<Off Topic...are we both slacking at work right now?
J. -about to run out of quota time- Grenemyer> |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 21:16:56
It's not a matter of what they tried to do, but how successful they were in doing so. That's sort of the point of the rules - to help moderate the players' attempts to abuse them and their DM/GM. I'm not sure how I'm nitpicking - you said that it was 'easy enough to multiclass,' and I think it's REALLY obvious (NOT nitpicking) that it was not, and for dual-classing, it was even harder, especially if you ever took into account actually trying to take a third class.
How the heck could players get all 18s or a vorpal sword +5, anyway? The former is pretty much impossible (especially since there were no quick stat increases like there are in 3E), and the latter only with DM's permission.
quote:
It seems to me like there's this illusionary concept being bandied about that 2E didn't encourage powergaming or cater to it. This needs to be dispelled, straight away.
Not if we felt that it is genuinely true. We could just as easily say the reverse, and follow it by such a sweeping, authoritarian statement, but it doesn't make our point of view any more valid.
I'm not trying to nitpick - I'm trying to genuinely compare and contrast, and trying to understand where you're getting some of the conceptions about 2E from that you are (which I think was part of your point, too, only with 3E). We've pointed out specific cases of 3E's ruleset that we have had problems with, yet all it seems you've given us about 2E in comparison are vague statements, not actual facts or experiences.
Just trying to have a nice, factual, give-and-take discussion. :) |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 20:16:27
@GothicDan Whether Multi-Classing or Dual Classing, it was still possible within the limits of the 2E rules to do. It seems to me like you're trying to pick nits on this, which I suppose is fine.
But that doesn't change the fact that the players in my campaign learned to build good characters early on with the rules they had.
It's also a fact that players in any edition of any game have always tried hard to get the most out of the rules that they could, in order to make the kinds of characters they wanted (which for D&D could have been out of bounds Uber characters with all 18s and a firm desire to get that trusty +5 Vorpal Sword by level 2, or there'd be hell for the DM to pay, or something a little more 'balanced').
It seems to me like there's this illusionary concept being bandied about that 2E didn't encourage powergaming or cater to it. This needs to be dispelled, straight away.
J. Grenemyer |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 20:05:07
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Good for them. Why do they plan out their level progression?
Why not? (Bad form to answer a Q with a Q, I know.)
That is, why not make the effort to build a character that works well with the group and also functions well individually (beyond having a character that's just plain-old fun to play, which is of course the point of the game)?
Why not have some goal(s) for the character (everything from character traits to far-reaching, long term goals to what the player wants his/her character to "do" in play) then pick skills, classes, PrCs, etc... that fit around that concept?
One wouldn't expect a Battlerager to opt for the Diplomacy Skill over the Climb Skill, right?
Why not modify those character build plans as play progresses to shore up weaknesses in the character or in the group?
You might as well ask, "Why play D&D?"
J. Grenemyer |
| Kajehase |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 04:43:04
So...what is RuneQuest?  |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 02:10:56
That's the problem when you get the magic-crowd and the nintendo crowd to do roleplaying. Quick leveling, collecting items and story so thin that Twiggy would most defnitely have appeared fat...well or StarWars would be equal to Hamlet in terms of story.
Gods, I feel old when I think of how things were in ye goode olde days...
ROFL I had a couple of younger players ask me recently what RuneQuest is... and I only started playing in the mid 80s!!! |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 02:02:13
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
I'd never allow any multiclassing without a good reason, an in-character reason.
Yes, that's important for me as well.  I've seen a lot of "builds" that make little to no sense from a roleplaying perspective. Or "builds" where actual roleplaying isn't even mentioned.
|
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 01:55:53
Well, if you wanna get to a specific point with a fighter you will have to plan how to do it, which I think is great.
The dwarf in my group for example is a follower of Clangeddin. During one adventure where he was basically only tagging along since the player was absent, he saved the day by going berserk and using two battle axes, like his god, to bash the nasties. Afterwards I basically gave him the 2-handed-combat proficieny which usually only a ranger gets. This was 2nd edition mind you. He later on basically ignored all tactics (like waiting for the wizard to fireball the monsters) and charged, screaming "Clangeddin!" and hacking everything in his path. Enter 3.5, I figured that this character was destined to be a Battlerager, since we retrofitted the characters so to speak I assigned him 1 level of Barbarian since that was the requirement for the PrC, then 6 levels Fighter, cuz that is what he really was/is... you could call it a "build", but in fact for the previous situation, storywise, it was the best solution.
The single classes were very easy to handle, the multiclasses were a little more difficult. The scrivener (7/7 mage/priest) wanted to change and he wanted to become a warwizard. I required him to take at least 1 priest level so the backstory would not have to be changed. Since we also have another priest in the group, he decided to put all his other levels into Wizard. Also a build so to speak...
Same goes for the ftr6/clr7 of eilistraee, she became a ftr2/cleric7 basically no real change there, but also a build...
Admittedly, since I knew the rules best I helped and suggested stuff...fact is, if you want to achieve a certain PrC you have to plan, especially if you deal with well-established characters who are being retrofitted.
I'd never allow any multiclassing without a good reason, an in-character reason. Then again, I could never see the battlerager dwarf deciding to also add wizard.
Sure you could go with Ftr2 just to gain the feats, but knowing my players well enough they would probably see it as a diminishing of their real class's abilities, after all a wiz2/ftr2 may of course survive more punishment but he will have to wait another 3 levels to get to his fireball instead of merely 1 level. |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 01:45:57
quote:
When I started playing some 20 years ago I GMed immediately and I had no clue, so basically I ran my sister and a couple of friends thru one dungeon after another...there was no role-playing. To get into the roleplaying thingy I had to play with more experienced people... THAT is always the thing
I learned to roleplay from writing and reading books, mostly, and then just using logic and the game books. :) I never even actually roleplayed until 3 years into having learned how to play the game in the first place, due to how scarce groups were at the time.
I remember the first time we played, it was with the original Dragonlance set. And I accidentally killed the black dragon.
Oops. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 01:42:52
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
What I don't understand about people not roleplaying in MORPGs is that, if they're treating it as an analytical exercise, what do they want pretty, atmospheric graphics for?
Perhaps the focus is on having the most efficient character possible. However, in my experience (and I only play story-based single player games, not player vs. player or games that are intensely combat-focused), as long as you try to make a decent character, you'll do well. I think focusing on being the most "efficient" character possible sucks the fun out of the game and makes it less relaxing--but that's just my opinion. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 01:25:09
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
In fact, they roleplay rather well and modify their level planning based on what happens in the game.
Good for them. Why do they plan out their level progression?quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I can understand "build" used to describe a game mechanic, but it seems to me sometimes that people just think about mechanics and forget about playing a character (isn't that the point of playing this game?), thus they substitute "build" for "character".
What I don't understand about people not roleplaying in MORPGs is that, if they're treating it as an analytical exercise, what do they want pretty, atmospheric graphics for? |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 01:16:24
I want to mention (for clarification) that I am an individualist, and thus I don't begrudge the playing styles of other people. If someone wants to play without roleplaying, hey--it's their game.
However, seeing "build" instead of "character" so often is sad for me, because for me much of the fun in this game comes from developing a personality. It's one thing to plan ahead a little (it's not like I've never done that), but these "build" threads I'm talking about involve stating a character out completely (with feats, skills, ability scores). Doesn't that take away some of the fun? |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 01:09:03
When I started playing some 20 years ago I GMed immediately and I had no clue, so basically I ran my sister and a couple of friends thru one dungeon after another...there was no role-playing. To get into the roleplaying thingy I had to play with more experienced people... THAT is always the thing |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 01:07:12
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
The 'build' idea is particularly bad because it encourages people to plan out level progression in advance and thus play characters who rather than living in the present and responding as people to their experiences, are monomaniacal teleological psychopaths focused on future level progression irrespective of what happens in the game.
Perfectly well put.
I can understand "build" used to describe a game mechanic, but it seems to me sometimes that people just think about mechanics and forget about playing a character (isn't that the point of playing this game?), thus they substitute "build" for "character". |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 00:16:23
quote:
C'mon now, don't pretend the rules were that stringent, or that the rules didn't provide for abilities to plan for. Either that or you must've had a hardcore DM back in the day.
Multiclassing wasn't that difficult. A'course a lot more did depend on the DM plus what you could pull off with magic items, but that doesn't change the fact that A) it was possible and B) players grabed for whatever they could (even the roleplayers, mind)
Only demihumans could multiclass, and you had to multiclass at 1st level, and only a certain amount of multiclassing variants were even open to demihumans. I'm still confused. What do you mean it wasn't that difficult?
I'm not taking into account what my DMs did or did not do, merely what the books said. The closest you could come to trying to get 'builds' was choosing a kit (and you could only have one at a time, and switching to a new one was never easy) and proficiencies (which were few an far between and only in the rarest of cases very overpowered [specifically looking at Player's Options, here, which, amazingly enough, served as the foundation of 3E on many levels]).
quote:
As for roleplaying: let's put it this way...nothing has changed in that department, and I did not expect it to change either. Maybe it's an advantage if you have a total of about 68 years of roleplaying experience total sitting around the table.
That's the key, really. People who currently play 3E have played AD&D for years and years, before 3E ever came about. The only way to really judge 3E on its own merit, and how it adds to roleplaying or subtracts from it, is to specifically aim questions at people who had never roleplayed before D&D 3.X. :) |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 24 Jul 2006 : 23:30:02
All right...I ran my first and second game-day with 3.5...
Was it any different than before? Yes. In a good way, the wizard got through memorizing his spells in under half an hour, since all spells are alphabetically organized and he made index cards for himself now using the SRD, that was a major plus since before it could take hours for him to select his spells...bogged the bugger down to almost a standstill. Same for the priest, with the spell lists showing the general effect she could make a preselection on what she wanted to learn. No brainwracking over high and low roles, like in the old version. Altho it still amazes me that after some 10 years of play some people never got the old system, but oh well.
The cool part: magic items! The group started, after getting their first 1500xp to spend them immediately on purchasing magic items, the plus for that was: they still haven't progressed significantly beyond their current level, and I got rid of all the excess cash the folks had amassed from their last adventure where GP=XP...now I can really go to town with them...and I will.
As for roleplaying: let's put it this way...nothing has changed in that department, and I did not expect it to change either. Maybe it's an advantage if you have a total of about 68 years of roleplaying experience total sitting around the table.
To sum it up, it was fun! |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 24 Jul 2006 : 23:19:34
C'mon now, don't pretend the rules were that stringent, or that the rules didn't provide for abilities to plan for. Either that or you must've had a hardcore DM back in the day.
Multiclassing wasn't that difficult. A'course a lot more did depend on the DM plus what you could pull off with magic items, but that doesn't change the fact that A) it was possible and B) players grabed for whatever they could (even the roleplayers, mind)
J. Grenemyer |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 24 Jul 2006 : 23:07:37
quote:
Hmmm....all the players in my campaign meticulously plan out there level progression (a habit all but one picked up from earlier editions of DnD, plus numerous other game systems;
How did they do this? There wasn't any real level progression planning in previous editions.. It was nigh-impossible to dual-class, and you multi-classed from 1st level.. *Blink*
quote:
The beauty of 3E (to me, at any rate) is that it accommodates all types of players, none of which are inherently ‘better’.
Which I guess is why I don't like it. I don't want certain players to play the game. Is that elitist? Sure. Is it pretentious? That depends on whether or not one thinks it's not right for me to want a game that caters to what I want to play. If someone considers that pretentious - sure, I'm pretentious, whatever.
But it's no different than me saying I don't like how preachy WhiteWolf (in the OWoD at least) is in their game design, and it's pretty obvious the type of players that such methodology attracts.
Simply put, I like a game that caters to what I want to play... Just like I read novels that, amazingly enough, are written in a way that I like to read them. :) |
| Mkhaiwati |
Posted - 24 Jul 2006 : 22:43:51
I have to agree with your post, Sanishiver. It depends on how the group wants to play. If a group is composed primarily of powergamers, than expect them to run over everything. But if composed of role-players, choices of feats and prestige classes are much more reasonable.
I feel the generic prestige classes hurt more than those designed for a setting. It allows too much picking and choosing, especially if you incorporate 3rd party materiel. Munchkins tend to start running numbers on the best combinations at that point. Campaign specific prestige classes allow characters to join and have abilities for a reason beside "I can kick more butt, now"
As I said before, this was around before 3.x. The term "munchkin" existed during 2e.
Mkhaiwati |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 24 Jul 2006 : 22:11:48
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
The 'build' idea is particularly bad because it encourages people to plan out level progression in advance and thus play characters who rather than...
Hmmm....all the players in my campaign meticulously plan out there level progression (a habit all but one picked up from earlier editions of DnD, plus numerous other game systems; that last player learned to do this from the others in our group over the last 6 years of play together), yet they also don't conform to the silly, rabid stereotype you depicted. :p
In fact, they roleplay rather well and modify their level planning based on what happens in the game.
Case in point: Aasimar Paladin opts to take levels in the Purple Dragon PrC after the events of the War in Cormyr --he fought alongside and even led brave Cormyreans, so he thought it was appropriate. After he learned of the offer for Barony of the Stonelands, said player took more Purple Dragon levels and is looking for appropriate PrCs that will enhance his leadership ability.
Could it be there are players who can straddle both sides of the fence? Methinks yes.
Could it also be there are players (and DMs) who still remember that PrCs are by DM permission only and most importantly that the PrC concept was designed specifically to allow DMs to take lore from their settings and turn it into mechanics players could use be more a part of said setting?
Again, yes.
Having said such, I heartily recognize there’ll always be powergamer/build types, but this has been true through all editions. I also recognize WotC and other design companies have moved away from campaign specific PrCs via ‘generic PrCs’ that don’t fit the specifics of a given setting.
It’s my opinion that the capacity to roleplay and use the rules for more than maxed out gameplay is still just as much a part of players now as it was then, just as the reverse is true.
The beauty of 3E (to me, at any rate) is that it accommodates all types of players, none of which are inherently ‘better’.
J. Grenemyer
|
| GothicDan |
Posted - 24 Jul 2006 : 18:41:51
quote:
I have an aversion to that particular mindset, because it is always easier to play dumber than to play smarter than you really are. Bluff is a good example. How many people in real life do you know can't tell a lie to save their own life? Yet, they are expected to bluff their way past something? Granted, they should make an attempt to role-play, it should not be all roll-play, and you can give modifiers based on how well they do. But sometimes a character can have skill the player can't.
I think you should be able to at least come up with a general idea - not the specifics, and not necessarily to act it out - before any rolls are required. I don't see the point in roleplaying if you completely disconnect yourself from your character's role. :) |
| Mkhaiwati |
Posted - 24 Jul 2006 : 18:07:01
quote:
1. Rollplaying. It encourages players to roll dice when using social skills. Instead of "Well, you see it's like this..." some players tend to go the "I roll a bluff check" route.
Depends on how you run your game. I, on the other hand, had a very bad experience 20+ years ago when playing Champions and the GM wanted to know how my character was to escape from a cell. The character had levels in electronics, math, many other sciences, and I was actually only in high school. I said he rigs the electronic door to open. The GM wanted to know how.... my response "I don't know how, but the character would!" was not an acceptable answer. and thus he was stuck.
I have an aversion to that particular mindset, because it is always easier to play dumber than to play smarter than you really are. Bluff is a good example. How many people in real life do you know can't tell a lie to save their own life? Yet, they are expected to bluff their way past something? Granted, they should make an attempt to role-play, it should not be all roll-play, and you can give modifiers based on how well they do. But sometimes a character can have skill the player can't.
quote:
2. The rules encourage a disproportionate amount of time spent studying the numbers to "build" the most powerful character at the expense of chosing a feat, class level or skill ranks that make sense for the background. Too many people throw in a few levels of Ranger for the two-weapon fighting, or a level or rogue to get the huge amount of skill points.
agreed. The last group I was with were huge powergamers, and would devise ways of creating the most powerful character when they gained a new level, using combinations of prestige classes, spells, feats, etc. But this is also a reflection of the group and players. I seemed to always create the weakest character because I always considered the characters background, goals, etc. If I found myself in a pure role-playing group, they could have considered my character on the power side. Depends on the group.
I was advised at one point by another player to take some initiative feats to keep up with others. I declined because I wanted something else to benefit a future goal, such as a item creation feat. Well, I left the group after three straight sessions of not doing anything except being attacked. The others would always take care of the monsters before I could react. Also, when I would role-play in a non-planned encounetr, such as buying equipment, the GM would say things like "why do you want to talk to this guy?" and stuff like that, and then skip to the next, planned encounter.
The group also had another campaign going, where they transfered characters from a long standing 2e campaign to 3.x. They complained they weren't as powerful so decided to allow "purchasing" feats for money, since they were also incredibly rich.
quote:
Until 3.x, I've never heard anyone use "build" in a sentence involving their PC's progression. There is a fascination with "levelling up" as if this were Zelda or Baldur's Gate.
Now - as to the arguments that the game is streamlined. Not really. In fact, with the literally thousands (I keep a database) of feats, hundreds of prestige classes, and unending number of supplements that players insist that they use because "if WotC didn't intend for it to be core for the player's use, they wouldn't have put a brown cover on it" it is cumbersome just adding a level to a PC.
agreed again. But the group I played in came from 2e and had just as many supplements there. But they always created (the term build wasn't used then) the most powerful character then, also. The number of supplements, which include feats, spells, and prestige classes, is related to the state of the industry. It is how the industry workd in that they need the flow of new supplements to continue getting income. They cannot rely upon the backlist to cover costs.
quote:
The DM's job has gotten infinitely harder due to the need to fully stat out non-stock adversaries in the off chance that they might need to use a skill or ability.
I also find the "it should take 13 encounters to level up" and "a party of 4 PC's at level x is challenged by a NPC of the same level/CR" to be completely bogus. You level up when you have enough XP, period. The DM decides what is challenging - running away is a smart option not often used enough - and then they players cry foul at a TPK.
good points. I find the same x encounters to level up thing bogus also. But again, some groups will swear by it and the wrong player in the group will always say "but we should be x level by now, I just did the math!"
Mkhaiwati |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 24 Jul 2006 : 08:38:23
Here is where I agree with Faraer.
That's one of the reasons I never particularly liked the ideas of PrCs in general. I would much rather roleplay out a character actively seeking to achieve certain abilities or magical tendencies in the game; I don't want it neatly packaged in a mechanicsl PrC.
This is why I liked kits more - they had much smaller, minor impact on the mechanics overall. |
|
|
