| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
 Posted - 18 Jul 2006 : 00:32:12
|
Yes, exactly what I was thinking on both points.
Has anyone tried to change the item creation feats to the 2e standard of getting XP the first time you make an item and then getting/losing nothing all times thereafter? |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
 |
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jul 2006 : 01:17:19
|
The option presented in the Complete Wizard's Handbook, which also gave EXP for spell research, creation, etc.? No, but it makes a heck of a lot of sense to me. Experimetnation and creation of new things should GIVE you experience, not take it away.
But the games I've DMed never actually got quite high enough to even create magical items, anyway, since I substituted 2E's rules. |
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 - 19 Jul 2006 : 02:33:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
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.
Just fixed the ‘puter, hope it lives awhile longer...
...anyway, with firm respect for Hoondatha and a full knowledge of just how silly tit-for-tat message board posts can be, I must never-the-less state that from a factual standpoint, the above statements are false.
The problem lay in Hoondatha’s using a subjective definition for what ‘creative’ or ‘creativity’ means. By taking his own subjective (and negative) opinion of the 3E magic item creation process and applying it wholesale, he’s ending up with a definition for creative that unfortunately forgets a few things:
1) Not all people hate the 3E magic item creation rules.
2) Not all people who use these rules are lacking in creativity.
3) The 3E rules do not eliminate creativity from the process of item creation. On the contrary, the rules require it.
4) Players who build their characters over time by earning their way to new levels enjoy being able to reap the rewards of the game.
It’s a fact of the design history of Third Edition that the magic item creation rules were designed specifically to remove the ambiguity surrounding what passed for 2E item creation rules and to answer the feedback from the (all 2E) gaming community, which was in part, “...give us a system for item creation that works”.
By including consistent rules, and relying on firm DM permission before items can be produced, the game allows players and DMs to use a toolkit that can produce any item the DM wishes to allow in play. And even then players do not have access to such items, because of the numerous restrictions already mentioned in the scroll.
The 3E rules --unlike any that came before in previous editions-- are designed to allow DMs (and players) to take whatever gamers can imagine for magical objects and translate those into game mechanics, which can be used to make said items.
As a 3E DM who’s run a campaign for six years, I’ve seen this first hand on numerous occasions (and not just in-play; Realms Sourcebooks consistently demonstrate how this is done by their magic item listings).
::::
@GothicDan I'm sorry your DM from awhile back hosed your character. I can understand DMs wanting to stick with the Core Rulebooks (less scary, I suppose), yet by doing so they really put the breaks on what 3E is designed to do.
It would have been much more fair of your DM to apply modifiers or % adjustments to your item creation activities based on what you could show you had access to in-game, as the rules (generally ) suggest.
I would have, at any rate.
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 19 Jul 2006 02:37:35 |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2006 : 02:36:27
|
What about those of us who liked the ambiguity, though?
What I personally miss is just that about the current system. I don't want a person to be able to make a Wand of Fireballs exactly the same, each and every time, provided they follow the same 6 steps.
That makes magic a little too like science. And it's not that I don't like science - I'm a physics student - but I just prefer a clear delineation of genres.
As to my DM - he's following the rules, and the rules say X or Y. This shows why a certain lack of ambiguity can be harmful.
And, a completely different DM refused a lot of character ideas I had, in trying to personally explain why I felt that one could use Intelligence to control Undead if one was a Wizard rather than Charisma - and because the rules stated Charisma, specifically, was used to control undead, it was a no. I was trying to work within the bounds of the game - creating a new Feat and entirely new PrC - but it was a no-show. Two completely separate DMs who had never had contact with each other.
Very different from my 2E DM who said simply, "Sure, gnomes can be psionicists. It fits their culture." |
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 19 Jul 2006 02:42:04 |
|
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2006 : 03:01:26
|
Statistically, you became part of the minority.
Additionally, you/we can't have it both ways.
The game rules as they stand now better serve the majority of gamers.
FWIW I'm sure those of us who've 'been there' can still remember clearly the pages upon pages of custom rules we, our friends and our fellow gamers toted around, which we used to deal with all the various situations the old rules simply didn't cover (and for those of you who started with 3E, such situations were many in number).
Item creation was a part of that, despite what was published later on in 2Es history.
FWIW, there's still plenty of wiggle-room in the item creation rules as they stand now.
For example, DMs are still well within their rights to encourage (or even require, based on campaign conditions) players to seek out certain raw materials for item creation.
Remember the magic item creation rules are in the DMG for a reason. What's allowed is still up to the DM, which -beyond game balance concerns- allows the DM to weave item creation as much into his campaign as he or she wants.
If DMs want to make the process more story involved, they can by imposing house rules/quests/NPC dealmaking onto the PCs in exchange for the spells/raw materials the characters would need to make items.
On the contrary, DMs who don't want to fuss overmuch with such things (who, again, are the majority) can apply the rules as-is, and use their best judgment before deciding if a player's item idea is good/bad for the campaign.
<Jeremy makes a last, desperate stab at trying to keep this scroll on topic...>
In my own campaign I've vetoed magic item creation proposals from my players. As recently as last month a PC who firmly hates the Guild of Book Binders in Waterdeep proposed the creation of a pedestal-like magic item that could effectively copy any non-magical book in minutes, one at a time, with unlimited usage...he wanted to drive the guild out of business for getting him arrested...and by the RAW such an item is relatively cheap.
I said no to the item creation idea as the player had described it. Instead, I ruled he could make a limited use item, but at 5 times the cost of the original, which I thought was fair and balanced (shoo, shoo, O’Reily!). The player balked and hasn’t decided if he wants to go ahead or not.
Anyway, there’s far more room for flexibility (and, dare I say it, ambiguity) in 3E than I think most people realize. What I’m getting from our discussion is that it’s really up to the DM to set the tone for how much.
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 |
|
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2006 : 03:07:01
|
Just saw your edit: You do realize there are numerous rules that allow for a variety of different kinds of Wands of Fireball (several of which are found in 3E Realms sourcebooks, mind), yes?
The base rules for item creation are by no means the be-all and end-all of item creation, to be sure.
As to your other statement: again, this is the DM's call to make, just as it would have been in 2nd Edition. I don't see enough evidence (and can't find commonality, based on my own experience with 2E) that, say, all or even most 2E DMs would be 'more loose' with the rules.
Again, being totally honest in this public forum, I would have seriously considered your idea were I your DM. If you'd have offered to spend a feat (which don't grow on trees) I'd have been about 95% on your side.
Sounds like two tough DMs to me.
But FWIW ***I*** could be in the minority here, as far as how I would have rules vs. most other 3E DMs.
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 19 Jul 2006 03:07:57 |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2006 : 03:13:20
|
quote:
Just saw your edit: You do realize there are numerous rules that allow for a variety of different kinds of Wands of Fireball (several of which are found in 3E Realms sourcebooks, mind), yes?
You'd think this would have been presented in the DMG, then. Or perhaps, since I've only ever had one character with an Item Creation feat, I just didn't see it enough...
But, for example, who says that you HAVE to know Fireball to create a Wand of Fireballs? What if you happen to find an ancient, magical gem that holds the captured soul of an Efreet in the sandy ruins of Calimshan?
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.. I don't want there to be so many rules about this sort of thing. Guidelines are okay, but 3E has given us far more than guidelines.
The point was that in 2E, DM's didn't have to be more loose with the rules because the rules were innately looser in some things. |
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 |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2006 : 03:28:07
|
They may have been looser, but when alternate rules were introduced in one particular supplement, they rarely meshed well with the alternate rule presented in another source.
The things that I like about 3/3.5, is that several things that were assumed as part of EVERY character's experience are now optional, and you can take your character in a different direction. Don't feel particularly like having followers? Don't take leadership, and use the feat for something else. Don't want to make magic items, or only want to make certain one? Just take the feats you want to.
I think some of the 3.5 rules really work better for portraying characters from stories and novels. When characters are mentioned as being better at casting certain spells then others, or that they have certain kinds of arcane skills, there wasn't much you could do in 2nd edition to simulate this. You either cast fireball or you didn't.
As far as magic items go, I think its always been a given that the spellcaster needs to give of himself to make magic permanent. Its just the game definition of what "giving of yourself" means.
I guess I'm just of the opinion that 3rd/3.5 is more flexible than 2nd edition, and that no system is going to be perfect. Also, I don't expect the 3rd or 3.5 DMG to present every possible way of making magic items that might be specific to given campaign worlds. I don't really want Artifacers to take up room in the Player's Handbook (I know, it wasn't out then, but I'm using this as an example), so I don't expect any FR only options in the DMG. As long as it doesn't make something impossible in the Realms, I'm okay with the core concept.
|
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2006 : 03:47:19
|
See, I think it's more flexible because in general there's less rules, so it gives more ability for DMs and players to work things out individually and custom tailor their needs.. Whereas if there's concrete rules about something, there's less of a chance a DM is willing to compromise.
Amazingly enough, it's the DMs who have also played in previous editions that seem to be able to really, intelligibly implement the 3E item creation ruleset. |
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 |
|
|
|
Fletcher
Learned Scribe
USA
299 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2006 : 23:42:06
|
I love 3rd edition, both as a player and as a GM. It is true that you have to really watch your players, but the ability to be able to make a Kobold archwizard with a beholder familiar, kobold monk bodyguards and an assortment of nasty surprises is awesome.
This edition has enabled me and my co-gamers to explore many facets of character development that we never have been able to do before. And I really like the new psionics.
The major downside is that there are so many books coming out, you need a second job just to afford them all.
All in all: Way to go staff! |
Run faster! The Kobolds are catching up! |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2006 : 23:52:02
|
I haven't tried to run a Realms campaign with 3E, but I did run a Greyhawk one. It worked OK, but I had to waste a certain amount of effort adjusting for the inherent tendencies of the rules, their philosophy and the ideas it can encourage in players. I think 3E represents the Realms better in some ways, worse in others. (In the case of magic item creation it's worse: here 3E is further from the Realms norm, which we know (barring a few 2E rules artefacts) from Volo's Guide to All Things Magical.)
Fletcher, I can't see why you need 3E to do the things you mention there. |
|
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2006 : 00:44:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Fletcher, I can't see why you need 3E to do the things you mention there.
Probably because there aren't any rules in 2E to use! 
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 - 20 Jul 2006 : 00:45:30
|
Probably because it should have been up to a DM's jurisdiction, and not something the players should have had easy access to. :)
2E emphasized lore and theme (at least FR did) - so there were no fast rules to make things that fell outside of such things.
Of course, Planescape emphasized the potential for anything to happen, so, with a few rare exceptions, I wouldn't mind 3E applied to a Planescape game.
It's just a matter of appopriateness. For instance, trying to use standard core D&D rules to run a game in Middle Earth just wouldn't work. |
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 20 Jul 2006 00:47:11 |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2006 : 00:56:06
|
| Giving monsters class levels wasn't explained formally as it is in 3E, but it was certainly done, in effect -- at least as early as the Monster Manual. 1E and 2E also describe, let alone allow, plenty of nasty surprises. |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2006 : 00:56:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
I haven't tried to run a Realms campaign with 3E, but I did run a Greyhawk one. It worked OK, but I had to waste a certain amount of effort adjusting for the inherent tendencies of the rules, their philosophy and the ideas it can encourage in players. I think 3E represents the Realms better in some ways, worse in others.
Just out of curiosity, in what ways do you think 3E represents the Realms better than 2E? |
"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) |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2006 : 01:07:02
|
| Off the top of my head: human multiclassing, skills, some of the class tweaks, templates, the transparency of the basic rolling mechanic, counterspelling in theory. |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2006 : 01:12:01
|
The flexibility, Lady Rinonalyrna. Before you had kinda sorta lots of problems a thief casting cantrips while still doing his nightjob, spells he learned after he joined the thieves' guild. Dual-classing didn't cover it, and multiclassing for a human (with the sole exception of Toth's scrivener priests) was impossible, and on top of it not wanted since the thief only wanted to do a few cantrips, not more... 3e solves this problem.
Also, a very nice touch was the bonus spells for INT-based casters, it made things a whole lot of easier, and more logical. As for item creation, since I'm loathe to read books as PDF I really haven't checked out the Volo's guide at all, what I can say is this: my friend playing the wizard finally can see his character going places, so far the party always had to rely on found items, which is ok, but now they have the chance to improve their group with planned actions, I like THAT a lot because I can now just stop figuring out what the party might need etc, and just roll on the random treasure table, still giving treasure out heavily controlled, but still. PLUS I do not have to tell them about the damage reduction thingy anyways *VEG* |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2006 : 01:25:36
|
Several characters seemed to have multiple classes over the years, and there was never really any provision for these characters, except to say that either "special rules" applied to them or that they had "unlearned what they had learned." So yes, the human multi-classing definately is part of it. Heck, "demi-humans" learning classes later in life, instead of having to choose every class all at once made more sense as well.
In lore we got comments about some wizards being better at casting some spells or another, and that some wizards learned some skills better than others, but in game terms, every wizard was either a generalist or a specialist. Being a specialist didn't make your spells that much better than a generalist, but you got more of them to cast, and the characters in the books that could cast some spells better than others didn't really seem to be specialists anyway.
It makes a lot more sense that not every wizard learns to make magic items, or every type of magic item, that some wizards can get really good at casting some spells and not others, that some are good at counterspelling while others don't really learn more than the rudimentary aspects of it, etc.
It also makes sense that not every upper mid level character will be good at attracting followers, for example. All of this is modeled a lot better, I feel, by the feat system in 3.5 than the much more narrow rules in 2nd edition.
|
Edited by - KnightErrantJR on 20 Jul 2006 01:32:16 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2006 : 01:29:22
|
*nods* I do rather like the new multiclassing system, myself. I also like how 3E officially did away with racial level limits. |
"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) |
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 20 Jul 2006 01:30:15 |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2006 : 01:44:10
|
Whatever you may prefer, wizards in the Realms, except as presented in some 3E sources, can't make magic items as easily as in the 3E rules, and they can't be routinely shopped for.
'Sense' is in the particular context of what kind of experience a set of rules is intended to support. AD&D's 'name level' and stronghold rules make perfect sense in a game and setting where that's what characters of such prowess and social status tend to do (though they aren't mandated to, and in this sense the difference between systems is that 3E gives you something in exchange if you opt out). In the context of the Realms, I agree that AD&D's stronghold system isn't such a good fit.
The spellcasting feats are a more ambiguous case. While some of that flexibility mirrors the Realms, it's at the expense of having to keep track of even more fiddly rules bits. |
Edited by - Faraer on 20 Jul 2006 01:47:47 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2006 : 03:05:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
'Sense' is in the particular context of what kind of experience a set of rules is intended to support. AD&D's 'name level' and stronghold rules make perfect sense in a game and setting where that's what characters of such prowess and social status tend to do (though they aren't mandated to, and in this sense the difference between systems is that 3E gives you something in exchange if you opt out). In the context of the Realms, I agree that AD&D's stronghold system isn't such a good fit.
Hmmm *scratches head*...actually, I thought it was the other way around--that many (not all, but many) powerful people in the Realms try to establish power bases for themselves. |
"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) |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2006 : 03:32:57
|
| True, and it's something that until Power of Faerûn was neglected in published lore. It's just that the AD&D/Greyhawk norm -- PC builds personal class-based stronghold and starts pacifying wilderness (and never before 9th level) -- is somewhat different from the less stylized Realms norm in which, for instance, an adventuring company sometimes lives/retires together (as in The Temptation of Elminster). On the other hand, in 1E especially there's prominent material on this in the DMG (which, as usual, the DM is not expected to follow literally) while in 3E it's more marginalized. |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2006 : 03:38:23
|
Note that in 2E, Specialists were vastly better than Mages, and got some special abilities, as presented in the Wizard's Handbook and later in Spells and Magic. Then there were kits on top of this. Where exactly is the idea coming from that Wizards in 2E were all alike? That's not to mention Wizards and Rogues of the Realms, either!
Beyond that, such singular power would really be verging on overpowered (which is a line that 3E crossed), and should be up to the DM and the player to work out - not in a simple feat or PrC. |
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 20 Jul 2006 03:40:49 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2006 : 05:20:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
True, and it's something that until Power of Faerûn was neglected in published lore. It's just that the AD&D/Greyhawk norm -- PC builds personal class-based stronghold and starts pacifying wilderness (and never before 9th level) -- is somewhat different from the less stylized Realms norm in which, for instance, an adventuring company sometimes lives/retires together (as in The Temptation of Elminster). On the other hand, in 1E especially there's prominent material on this in the DMG (which, as usual, the DM is not expected to follow literally) while in 3E it's more marginalized.
Ah, I see what you mean now--thanks for the clarifaction. |
"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) |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2006 : 11:17:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
Note that in 2E, Specialists were vastly better than Mages, and got some special abilities, as presented in the Wizard's Handbook and later in Spells and Magic. Then there were kits on top of this. Where exactly is the idea coming from that Wizards in 2E were all alike? That's not to mention Wizards and Rogues of the Realms, either!
Beyond that, such singular power would really be verging on overpowered (which is a line that 3E crossed), and should be up to the DM and the player to work out - not in a simple feat or PrC.
Sorry, I must have completely misremembered my whole 2nd edition experience. According to what I remember from the 2nd edition Player's Handbook, the only difference was that specialists had an easier time learning spells from their school, and they got an extra spell per spell level.
With all due respect, if you are going to throw in optional 2nd edition rulebooks that came along later to support how good specialists were in 2nd edition, you can't discount the fact that some of your misgivings about 3rd/3.5 have been dealt with in later books that were not in the core PH/DMG and still make a consistant arguement.
|
|
|
|
Fletcher
Learned Scribe
USA
299 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2006 : 16:25:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
I haven't tried to run a Realms campaign with 3E, but I did run a Greyhawk one. It worked OK, but I had to waste a certain amount of effort adjusting for the inherent tendencies of the rules, their philosophy and the ideas it can encourage in players. I think 3E represents the Realms better in some ways, worse in others. (In the case of magic item creation it's worse: here 3E is further from the Realms norm, which we know (barring a few 2E rules artefacts) from Volo's Guide to All Things Magical.)
Fletcher, I can't see why you need 3E to do the things you mention there.
I didn't need to have 3rd ed, but it made it easier, and made for more transparency. Plus I truly enjoy the way that levels work now. I always disliked the whole multi classing/dual classing thing. And i am enjoying having clearer rules on how to play non human races, and clearer rules on creating monsters appropriate to party level.
The way that a player is able to really work out a concept for a character and explore it is so much more enjoyable in 3rd ed than 2nd ed.
And skills...ah! I'll leave that giddy drool topic for another day. |
Run faster! The Kobolds are catching up! |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2006 : 17:29:54
|
| There's one of the basic disagreements and not one where people often change their mind; preference for discreet, detailed, definitive rules or more freeform ones. |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2006 : 18:33:07
|
quote:
Sorry, I must have completely misremembered my whole 2nd edition experience. According to what I remember from the 2nd edition Player's Handbook, the only difference was that specialists had an easier time learning spells from their school, and they got an extra spell per spell level.
Also, easier time CREATING spells from their school, and getting a -1 to others' saves on spells they cast from their school. So, that's about 4 benefits to being a specialist, in the base PHB. Also, in the Complete books (pretty darn close to core), they gained certain special abilities - some had their spell bonuses increased to -2, and the necromancer got the ability to 'speak with dead' as a special ability, etc.
This isn't going into Spells and Magic, where further improvements were made (which also led to powergaming - which shows you can only provide too many avenues for specialization before things start going a little bit.. bad).
quote:
With all due respect, if you are going to throw in optional 2nd edition rulebooks that came along later to support how good specialists were in 2nd edition, you can't discount the fact that some of your misgivings about 3rd/3.5 have been dealt with in later books that were not in the core PH/DMG and still make a consistant arguement.
Uh. Not in the ones I've seen so far. :) Care to point out any?
And I think pointing out specific FR-related material (Volo's Guide to All Things Magical, the kits provided in Wizards and Rogues of the Realms) is just fine, and you can do the same, too. |
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 20 Jul 2006 18:36:23 |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2006 : 18:38:42
|
quote:
There's one of the basic disagreements and not one where people often change their mind; preference for discreet, detailed, definitive rules or more freeform ones.
Agreed, Faraer. This is pure opinion, and no way we can try to logically change each others' mind about it.
I prefer more freeform rules, probably because it's closer to the way that I learned to play and love AD&D, and I think it makes roleplay more likely. |
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 - 21 Jul 2006 : 09:21:59
|
The irony here (to me, at any rate) is that D&D and AD&D rules were never in my experience thought of as 'free form'.
Which is to say there were probably as many (if not more) DMs back then as now who treated the rules as the be-all, end-all, with firm "no thank you"(s) to the Complete Series, specialty priests, etc...
And those that didn’t still cursed the rules for not ‘including more’ to cover different situations in play. Granted this led to DMs having to make stuff up, but between different DM’s campaigns we as players could never be sure what would or wouldn’t be the same.
What's more, again I see statements that imply the 3E Core rules are somehow 'more rigid', when this isn't the case. These rules are specifically built and designed to morph, change and alter to suit a DM's needs, as well as a player's.
The additional in-print rules that are being pointed out as 'definitive and discrete' are in fact perfect examples of the current rules system's ability to expand as needed to fit new concepts and ideas, while also adhering to the basic mechanics of the game and keeping some form of play/game balance (this last being something 2E wasn’t all that good at).
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 21 Jul 2006 09:24:24 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Our experiences with 3.0 & 3.5 rules as Realms DMs
