| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
 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.
|
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
Edited by - Sanishiver on 14 Jul 2006 08:36:54
|
|
|
Arkhaedun
Senior Scribe
869 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 06:28:19
|
This could be an interesting and instructive topic, depending on how it goes. Please, since there are a lot of personal opinions, make sure that we are being respectful of each other (nothing wrong so far, just pointing this out), and make sure that when we present our opinions, that we recognize that sometimes our opinions cannot be proven as right or wrong . . . we can only make arguements that we feel will support our case and try to be persuasive or instructive.
That disclaimer out of the way, have fun. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread, already in progress . . . |
 |
|
|
Dhomal
Senior Scribe
USA
565 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 06:32:15
|
Hello-
This reply is going to be short (I hope!).
My experience is loosely based on only a couple of sessions so far - and having played in roughly a dozen or so more (other people's games). (*These comments are in regard to 3.x edition. older editions - lots more experience - and thats partially what I see as an issue.*)
I am just scared. :) I see the bonuses stack up FAST fo rthe PCs - and it worries me. I'm reassured by my players that it will be OK in the long run. I just have to use recomended CR/EL stuff - and go from there. I'm learning - and hopefully - I wont be as scared in the future!
Dhomal |
I am collecting the D&D Minis. I would be more than willing to trade with people. You can send me a PM here with your email listed - and I can send you my minis list. Thanks!
Successfully traded with Xysma! |
Edited by - Dhomal on 14 Jul 2006 06:41:59 |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 07:40:43
|
It's less the actual rules with me, as much as the mindset that the rules foster. And yes, I am of the firm opinion that rules foster certain mindsets, be they in RPGs, real life societies, or in video games. There's real no point in trying to argue this point with me, either, so I'll just have to admit now that I'm going to be a stubborn, stick-in-the-mud, pretentious and pig-headed old man on this first claim.
The way the books are presented is that sure, the DM's have final say on everything, but that's almost a footnote - a single sentence, often, if that, lost in chapters and chapters of mechanics. And I think the fact that something is written down makes it more concrete, more justified, in a player's mind - so it ultimately seems 'not fair' when DMs say no to it (see the opinion of some in the Spell-lists thread for an example of this). And in large part, 3E is a lot about equality, too (PCs should be able to do everything the NPCs of equal level can, for example).
And, in general, I think it got a lot easier for members of certain classes (non-magic users specifically) at the mid to higher levels; this really is a fact, given that 3E streamlined the level system for this as one main result. Thus, it's harder to make PCs of 'correct' level really fear that evil archmage to their boots. It's harder to make them really fear weird, amazing new spells when they can just counterspell them with a Dispel Magic.
The streamlining has taken a lot out of the game as a fantasy RPG - which is probably why I can't stand video games of any sort. The streamlining has made things easier for the players in all ways, and the fact that there's mechanics for everything means that ultimately there's less up to the DM in manipulating situations.
And I am not taking into account Rule 0 in any of the above, since I don't think it's right to apply that rule when analyzing things - because one person might Rule 0 one thing, while another may not. I'm looking as the game, as it stands, with all rules and mechanics in play, because that's personally how I analyze a system. The fact that everything is printed means that, potentially, everything can arise that may be something the DM may have to deal with if the players happen to own the right book. For me, it's not so much a matter of what I've personally experienced, but a matter of what the PCs MIGHT be able to do without Rule 0.
I've always been a fan of DMs having full control - and out of 11 years or so of experience, I've only DMed a handful of the games I've been in. I liked it when the DM adjucated everything with some guidelines and nothing more. 3.5 has a lot more of the 'nothing more.'
PS: Oh, and to show that I have nothing at all against the 3.5 system as a whole? I absolutely adore the Game of Thrones D20 book. I L-O-V-E it. I mean, this is what I think D&D 3E should have been (albeit with more powerful magic). |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
Edited by - GothicDan on 14 Jul 2006 07:53:31 |
|
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 08:33:49
|
GothicDan,
Just curious: how much of your opinion is drawn from DMing experience (or even playing experience) with the 3.0/3.5 system in the Realms?
It's integral to the scroll-subject, after all, since this allows us to separate <read the books; form an opinion> from <DM the game; form an opinion>.
J. Grenemyer |
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
Edited by - Sanishiver on 14 Jul 2006 08:39:18 |
|
|
|
Snotlord
Senior Scribe
Norway
476 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 17:26:44
|
After DMing 2e since the beginning (1989?) 3e was a great relief. The steamlining of all the oddities like thaco, differences in power and utility between classes, murky combat rules and the constraints in multiclassing bugged me to the point of almost quitting rpg altoghether (Alternity, especially Dark Matter, saved me).
Good experiences:
- Flexible classes. Easier to create Realms characters as they should be. Elminster himself is a good example, from what I've read about the character. The NPC classes are a huge improvement to the 2e variant.
- Cooler combat, more moves and options.
- High level play that actually works. It actually work very well, especially when the Players get to prepare tactics and the DM don't 
- Magic item construction rules that work and encourage players to create items.
- The many character options has brought back the enthusiasm for my gang of jaded 30-something players.
- WOTC production values. The books looks great, and they are sturdy. I like that.
Bad experiences:
- There is a certain Diablo II feel about the magic items. Great sources like the Players Guide to Faerûn helps alot, but we really need more cool realms items. The items in the DMG is as fun as tax laws, and I get enough of that as it is.
- To fast level progress. This is easily fixed however.
- High level play is too much work. Hence my love of lots to stated npcs in the published material.
- Not enough CR 15+ monsters. The monsters in the ELH does not help much. |
Edited by - Snotlord on 16 Jul 2006 10:21:16 |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 18:29:13
|
quote:
Just curious: how much of your opinion is drawn from DMing experience (or even playing experience) with the 3.0/3.5 system in the Realms?
I've DMed a few games. But I DMed then in my own world, with certain rules already restricted entirely. I've played in two separate campaigns, one of which lasted a semester in length, the other one about 2 1/2 months.
quote:
It's integral to the scroll-subject, after all, since this allows us to separate <read the books; form an opinion> from <DM the game; form an opinion>.
I probably wouldn't have replied, except for the fact that you mentioned me by name. :)
And, mind you, to me, campaign setting makes a huge difference as to how rules should be written. I would allow almost anything in 3E to be used in a Planescape game I DMed - not in a Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, or Greyhawk game. It may seem that I'm just making up my opinions uninformed, but I actually am thinking about this stuff ahead of time. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
Edited by - GothicDan on 14 Jul 2006 18:31:46 |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 23:51:04
|
My experiences with 3.5 so far... not much to say, really, since I only just started it... old dog new tricks thing, y'know.
What I can say is this: I've been GMiing basically since I started playing some 20 years ago, been there done that. I either GMed or played almost every game that somehow surfaced (even Recon!), am/was I biased? Hell yes! I've played AD&D 1st and 2nd edition, and original D&D, so the old rules were a shoe I had worn so damn long that I hardly noticed the ache of my feet, so to speak. D20 is almost on par with my favorite gamesystem (which also had some flaws!), which is StarWars by WEG. Why almost? Star Wars had so much flexibility it was FUN to play and GM. D&D is still a class based system, and that's ok with me, wouldn't want to have it any other way, defensive capabilities still are item-centric which I will remedy in my game sooner or later cuz now UA gives me the tools.
As far as the system itself, the dice-rolling goes, it is as simple as Star Wars with so many nuances to it that it will go deeper and deeper the longer you play, just like StarWars (*my precious*) does. The learning curve is ... what learning curve? you roll a d20 add your whatever and have to be higher than a target number... that's all there is.
I just wish they would stop adding more and more rules cuz sooner or later 3.5 will be 3.75 or even 4.0...new core classes, didn't need them 15 years ago...I don't need more *patches* to fix the latest *insert random TV-series* fanboi's needs. D&D survived with its core-classes for 25 or so years, sure the monk and assassin went, as did the cavalier and the barbarian, but it all came back...somehow... now we have hexblades, warlocks (barlocks?), ninjas and wu-jen also as core classes. Hexblade is such an ... whiskey tango foxtrot... it seems that Wizards is turning D&D into a collectible game now, now PrCs, feats, spells... with the well over 1k feats or some such insane number... spells, ok, flavor...but in an average group you have maybe 2 fighters...they have some 20 feats or so when they reach lvl 20, there is a mathematical way to find out which feat combination buildy the most damage output and even if a player doesn't go that way he will still have a 'path' lined up for him, so basically 980 feats for this player are a waste of paper...
*rant off*
I like the game system, it is clear cut, logical and quick to learn, that's all I want from a game... as for tables, thankfully my players are almost all outfitted with items that will stay with them and prolly not be heavily modified either...we will see...more on my 3.5 experience when we have gamed some more...
at the rate we are playing (once/month) it will prolly be next year... |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Wenin
Senior Scribe
585 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2006 : 00:06:13
|
quote:
The way the books are presented is that sure, the DM's have final say on everything, but that's almost a footnote - a single sentence, often, if that, lost in chapters and chapters of mechanics. And I think the fact that something is written down makes it more concrete, more justified, in a player's mind - so it ultimately seems 'not fair' when DMs say no to it (see the opinion of some in the Spell-lists thread for an example of this).
This is a very good point. When you have players that search all the books, they'll find a class combination they want, or a spell... and they'll want it.
The reason this wasn't an issue in 2nd so much, was because there wasn't a template to it all. It was really hit or miss, so things could be over powered. The DM could easily wave such issues away.
Though I see that as a weakness of 2nd. The rules were so unclear, and incomplete.
As for monsters, I find them to be more challenging, because the DM can run the equations and find out just about how challenging an encounter will be and it will generally be on the mark. With 2nd, you had to ballpark it and hope you got close. Also since when did an orc become a problem for 8th level characters? Now I can manufacture an 18th level orc that is more than a challenge for an entire party.
It just takes a while to create that 18th level NPC. =)
Every system has it's strong points and weak points. |
Session Reports posted at RPG Geek.
Stem the Tide Takes place in Mistledale.
Dark Curtains - Takes place in the Savage North, starting in Nesmé. I wrapped my campaign into the Hoard of the Dragon Queen, but it takes place in 1372 DR. |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2006 : 01:26:34
|
| I'll fully admit that there's some things about 3E that I truly do like. I just wish they had handled the campaign-specific stuff better, and that they had stopped putting out so many rules... In the Game of Thrones RPG, they say simply, "rules dealing with this or this have been taken out," and "X feat was taken out because it was overpowered," and so on. I really liked that. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2006 : 05:04:06
|
Thanks to everyone who posted. For those who did, I'm curious also to know how the rules have effected running a campaign in the Realms.
Specifically, I've seen comments posted that the rules somehow mysteriously detract from telling a good character driven, Realmsian story. Is this true for you in your campaigns?
J. Grenemyer |
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
|
|
|
Conlon
Learned Scribe
Canada
132 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2006 : 05:44:43
|
I think that as the DM, occasionally, you just have to make things happen the way you want, whether or not the rules allow for it. Like Mr. Schend's signature says: "Of course truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense".
Well, in a D&D game, the players don't always have to know the truth, or why things happen the way they do. It is your job as the DM to be creative and make a fun, interesting tale and spin it to entertain and confound your players. If the rules stifle your creativity sometimes and interrupt the flow of the story you are putting together, perhaps you can just deviate a bit from the rules to keep things fun.
That's just how I do it anyway. Although one of my players in an extremely knowledable gamer/gaming editor, he just goes with the flow and enjoys the tale. |
My hopes are ashes, my dreams are dust. All my intentions mean nothing unless they are followed by action. |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2006 : 06:06:20
|
quote:
Thanks to everyone who posted. For those who did, I'm curious also to know how the rules have effected running a campaign in the Realms.
Specifically, I've seen comments posted that the rules somehow mysteriously detract from telling a good character driven, Realmsian story. Is this true for you in your campaigns?
J. Grenemyer
I haven't DMed 3E in the Realms, but it's detracted in some part because of how much time I've have to spend on looking over lots of mechanics; on excessively statting out NPCs and dungeons down to the last nail (since 3E mechanics are so much more numerous, if not complicated); and in having to tell players why, no, they can't use the Shadow Adept PrC in my world because the Shadow Weave doesn't exist, and why I do not allow the Shugenja or Samurai or Green Star Adept or Warlock or this feat, or that feat, or why there are no Monks in this region of the world... etc. It can be very frustrating to have players argue with you about the suitability of things for YOUR campaign, just because they're printed in a book.
The more rules there are, it means the more you have to remember. It's tiresome and distracting to have to pull out books every few minutes to take into account Concealment rules, Attacks of Opportunity rules, all of the range modifiers, flipping through monster manuals over and over to see what X or Y ability is, because it's not written right in the monster description...
Oddly enough, I've never had to do this with any people who have played 2E; it's only been with people who have started playing specifically in 3E.
A lot more mechanical preparation is needed, and less time to be spent on the actual story. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
Edited by - GothicDan on 15 Jul 2006 06:09:16 |
|
|
|
Snotlord
Senior Scribe
Norway
476 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2006 : 07:58:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
Thanks to everyone who posted. For those who did, I'm curious also to know how the rules have effected running a campaign in the Realms.
I can't really say, because I never ran a 2e FR campaing. That said, my games has shifted towards more combat with 3e, but this is as much about lack to time as it is the system. I have a couple of overworked daddies in my group these days that miss out on most sessions, so deep plots are toned down in favor of steamventing combat.
3e certainly are better suited for kick in the door style of gaming than 2e, which is good in my case.
It a shame really that the D&D Diablo II books turned out the way they did. I liked them, off course, but I can see why so many did not |
|
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jul 2006 : 09:39:34
|
Now, some responses to GD’s comments in the Magazine thread. Note msatran posited that from his POV the 3E game rules make play “too easy” for characters. Dan agreed, than said why. I’ll contrast GD’s comments with my own experiences using the rules in the Third Edition FR Campaign I’ve been running over the last six years.
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
I agree, too. There's a lot of really subtle ways that this is played out. One of which is the fact that it's vastly easier to create magic items now,
It’s worth noting that ‘easier to create’ doesn’t mean ‘easier to obtain’ …not even by a long shot.
Consider: PCs who wish to make magic items must still be the correct character class, spend Feats on item creation, possess the appropriate spells, be of the appropriate level, have adequate funds, have adequate in-game downtime for item creation and (most important of all) be willing to part with precious Experience Points to spend on crafting an item.
For my Realms Campaign both PC Mages selected item creation feats. Neither went for metamagic feats (which still surprises me to this day). Anyway, I observed that XP costs were a very strong inhibitor for creating magic items.
Yet the PCs did make several minor items, including sending tokens (which they gave to NPCs they’d befriended all over the northern Realms, with the offer to give aid to said NPCs if such were ever needed) and a few medium items (such as Headbands of Intellect for the aforementioned mages).
Regarding the Headbands: I observed the mage PCs enjoyed the boost to skills and spells granted by the Headbands, and that these boosts meant they had a better than average chance to beat DCs for Spellcraft & Knowledge: Arcana checks.
I found this didn’t unbalance play, or make things too easy for my players. Instead my players seemed proud that they’d used their character abilities to make such needed items (I hadn’t awarded any of these as treasure). They also used their primary arcane skillsets more during play, which allowed me more opportunities to put arcane puzzles of my own devising into the game (like deciphering what spells might activate via a hanging spell-thread or figuring out what spells might have once existed in a place where ‘now’ only tattered spell-remnants remain).
I also observed that they observed they were falling behind the other characters in XP.
After that, magic item creation slowed to a crawl in my campaign. I actually had to create rules for sharing in XP costs for item creation in order to open things up again.
I also elected to introduce more magic effecting and magic item destroying creatures (for a short time Ghazneths; later Nishruu, Nightwalkers and Nightwings, amongst others) since I knew my players could repair/re-create destroyed items, which they ended up having to do.
For anyone else out there: Did you find the magic item creation rules made things too easy for the PCs in your Realms Campaign? Or too hard? Or neither?
And did these rules pull the focus away from the Realms at all in your games?
J. Grenemyer |
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
|
|
|
Snotlord
Senior Scribe
Norway
476 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jul 2006 : 10:20:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
I also observed that they observed they were falling behind the other characters in XP.
For anyone else out there: Did you find the magic item creation rules made things too easy for the PCs in your Realms Campaign? Or too hard? Or neither?
The rules that actually work for constructing magic items is IMO one of the best new additions to D&D with 3e. Yes, characters what create items do fall behind with xp, but it is of no consequence if they create worthwhile items. With high-level play levels gradually matter less, while the right gear and preparation matter more when compared to lower levels.
And I do think this a good addition to a realms game, as magic and magic items are an important feature of the setting. |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jul 2006 : 17:41:49
|
For me, the new magical item creation rules are one of the absolute worst things in 3e. Just for that I'd never switch. It's a Diablo II assembly line. The mystery, mystique, and difficulty are all gone. Just get a few spells, a few days, and a feat or two and you're cranking out magical items at will.
I use the magical item creation rules from Volo's Guide to All Things Magical. They're clear, realtively concise, and leave the door wide open for DM ingenuity and player creativity. Plus, when they finally finish the item, there's a real sense off accomplishment. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 00:21:14
|
Supplemented with Spells and Magic (not the silly proficiencies or point-buy systems), I vastly prefer 2E's magic system.
I don't want PCs to be able to make magic items that easily. It was harder in 2E, where you lost a permanent Con point, and during which it was nearly impossible (not completely) to circumvent this, or heal it until higher levels. This is in addition to all of Volo's suggestions, as well.
I didn't use the Item Creation feats when I DMed.
The proliferation of magic items in the FR setting is false. Magic is not supposed to be as common or as assembly-line in FR even as it is presented in Aurora's Whole Realms Catalogue (though I'd say that such material might work for -certain- places, such as old Myth Drannor, maybe High Netheril, and maybe Halruaa or Thay).
Magic is profusive in Faerun, but not in any way that it can be easily, regularly, and simply channeled. I WANT rules to be sometimes obtuse and confusing, because the method in which things are taught definitely affects the stigma attached to the knowledge in a person's mind. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
Edited by - GothicDan on 17 Jul 2006 00:23:51 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 03:37:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
I use the magical item creation rules from Volo's Guide to All Things Magical. They're clear, realtively concise, and leave the door wide open for DM ingenuity and player creativity. Plus, when they finally finish the item, there's a real sense off accomplishment.
I like that method, too. And, for those that don't know, this book can be downloaded for free from the Wizards downloads page. 
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 03:41:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
Supplemented with Spells and Magic (not the silly proficiencies or point-buy systems), I vastly prefer 2E's magic system.
I don't want PCs to be able to make magic items that easily. It was harder in 2E, where you lost a permanent Con point, and during which it was nearly impossible (not completely) to circumvent this, or heal it until higher levels. This is in addition to all of Volo's suggestions, as well.
I didn't like the loss of a Con point in 2E, but that was about the only thing I didn't like.
I really don't like how in 3E, just about any spell can be loaded into a wand or made into a potion. I also don't like the way some magical items were changed. For example, I don't like the thing about how wands can only hold one spell... Sure, making it a bit more defined does make sense, but when spells are related (like shocking grasp and lightning bolt, to use the wand of lightning as an example), why can't they both be in the same stick of wood? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 04:42:53
|
I dislike how they completely destroyed a lot of the magesty and uniqueness of the more unusual rods, staves, and wands. Netherese Blast Scepter comes to mind, but it's one of distressingly many. It seems to me that they tried to make the magic more user-friendly and lost the magic part of it.
And with Enchant an Item, you only had a 5% risk of losing a Con point with permanency. My players always thought that was a fair chance, and we worked it into the Volo's Guide version. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 05:11:17
|
| I was really sure that the Con point was permanent - because in Volo's Guide to All Things Magical was the only way I knew of getting around it, specifically for that reason. There was a 7th level Necromancy spell called Bloodlink, which drained the 1 Con point from the recipient. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 05:14:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
I was really sure that the Con point was permanent - because in Volo's Guide to All Things Magical was the only way I knew of getting around it, specifically for that reason. There was a 7th level Necromancy spell called Bloodlink, which drained the 1 Con point from the recipient.
I remember that...and only evil people (IIRC) would use such a spell. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 05:59:10
|
| It's a little confusing. The impression in the DMG is that the drain happens every time a permanent item is created, but if you read the spell in the PHB, it says that there's only a 5% chance of a Con drain. Considering that we have people who have made hundreds of magical items (Laeral, for instance), I've always sided with the 5%. Enough to make the die roll interesting, but small enough that the players are willing to risk it. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 06:16:35
|
Can we please turn the subject back to that of what our collective experiences are as Dungeon Masters running the Realms with the Third Edition Rules please?
Don't get me wrong: I don't mind reading other's highly subjective descriptions of how the 3E rules work or reading people's equally subjective opinions of how the Realms are 'supposed' to be, much less antiquated 2E rules talk or snippets of revisionist history regarding 2E...just not in this scroll, thanks, because that's not the subject.
OTOH if you've drawn those opinions in some way from actually DMing the Realms via 3E, then do tell how the rules affected play!
:::::
@Hoondatha:
Have you had the opportunity to participate in or run a Third Edition FR game? And if yes, did you observe that your opinions were born out in regular play? Do you have any DM or in-character experiences using 3E in the Realms to share?
If yes, I hope you'll share because I'd like to learn if/how things really went that bad.
J. Grenemyer |
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
Edited by - Sanishiver on 17 Jul 2006 06:19:21 |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 06:26:21
|
Yes. I've played several wizards in 3e, and DM'ed on occasion. I don't particularly like the ruleset, but I like not playing even more. I've never seen a wizard make more than a few scrolls or potions, and have on two instances had wizards talk the DM into exchanging item creation feats for something "actually useful." One was me, the other was a player I was DM'ing.
Wizards (and sorcerers by extension), more than practically anyone else, live and die by their spells. Clerics have armor, hit points, and the ability to actually whack something effectively. Druids have wildshape. Bards have other skills. But a wizard really only has his spells and items, and the faster they can get better spells, the better chance they have of living. I've yet to see a wizard willing to give up XP (and by extension delaying those new spells) by creating items. The return on investment is just too small.
I know this will go a little off topic, but I like the artificer's craft reserve feature. It allows the character to actually create something. It takes the edge off of the hurt. I think I might actually get into making things as an artificer, at least on occasion. But then, if you're not going to craft, there's no reason to be an artificer. That's what the whole class is built around. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 06:43:07
|
Hoondatha:
Thank you for sharing. I find there's a lot of value to be had from direct in-game experiences, even if they're not always positive. Good advice for DMs in what you wrote just now, regardless of what edition they play.
:::::
@Snotlord: You mentioned that you liked the 3E rules on magic items. I'm curious if you (as a player or Realms DM) have tried to branch out from the 'norm' of what's found in the core rulebooks for magic items, and if any of your players (or you as a player) have had experience with the magic item creation rules that were good or bad, or that affected play in the Realms in any way.
FWIW in my 3E Realms Campaign I've taken to introducing all manner of magic items and item variants from other third-party D20 publishers (especially Monte Cook's Complete Book of Eldritch Might and Sword and Sorcery Studio's Relics and Rituals volume I and II).
One of the key features of the Realms is its diversity of magic; by including a variety of new items from other sources, I was able to maintain a level of mystery and uncertainty (and, to be honest, an 'eager to find more' feeling) in my players.
J. Grenemyer |
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 16:51:46
|
I'd note that when I DMed my 3E game, no one was upset with the loss of the 3E item creation feats; they felt that 2E's ruleset for item creation was "cooler" as well as made more sense in a fantasy game. So, there's my DMing in 3E experience applied to the topic. :)
And in the 3E game I played starting at above 1st level (10th), my character took the Craft Wondrous Item feat. He also had the Leadership feat. When I tried to craft some items, he didn't want to take anything into account that wasn't "in the book" - for instance, me having a dozen wizard apprentices helping me, me having access to far more readily accessible materials (the head of the death clergy of an entire region of the country, and in good standing with several guilds as well), or the fact that the temple had access to hundreds of years worth of research notes, spells, and magical theory tomes.
It wasn't in the RAW, so he refused to take it into account. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
Edited by - GothicDan on 17 Jul 2006 20:39:37 |
|
|
|
Snotlord
Senior Scribe
Norway
476 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 17:20:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
@Snotlord: You mentioned that you liked the 3E rules on magic items. I'm curious if you (as a player or Realms DM) have tried to branch out from the 'norm' of what's found in the core rulebooks for magic items, and if any of your players (or you as a player) have had experience with the magic item creation rules that were good or bad, or that affected play in the Realms in any way.
Its a bit odd perhaps, I like the system although the items in the DMG bores me to tears. I think Magic of Faerun and Players Guide of Faerun give us much cooler items to play with. (We really need and updated Magic of Faerun!)
I don't mind branching out from the norm, but try to find matching spells and bonuses to codify the effects. For instance, the Belt of Lions from MoF is a good example of a item inside the norm made cooler with a nifty concept. More realmslore coating would have been nice, the PGtF was better.
It I can't find matching spells I try to eyeball the cost, which is the tricky part with the new system given the cost's importance. I rarely do this, not because I don't want to, but because really clever ideas are hard to come by anyway.
Then there is always the artifacts, that don't have costs. Gamebreaker/plotbreaker items are usually artifacts anyway, to the construction system don't apply.
So I usually design within the norm, or artifacts, when I design anything.
My players has not made all that many items. They usually stick to upgrading arms and armor, or crafting wands. This meshes well with my idea of the Realms. But then again, I usually hang with the dungeonpunk kids when it comes to edition wars anyway
|
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 20:13:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
It wasn't in the RAW, so he refused to take it into account.
I've noticed that as well. From what I've seen, 3e tends to encourage more literal thinking. 2e was more free-flowing, and encouraging both the DMs and players to be creative. (At least in the field of magical item creation, which is the topic). Heck, by 3e RAW, there IS no creativity. You buy your feat, your workshop, spend your time, money, and XP, and whamo! A magic item. I hate that. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 20:36:39
|
| DMs can always encourage otherwise, of course, but that doesn't fix the problem that the core rules do not encourage it. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Our experiences with 3.0 & 3.5 rules as Realms DMs
