What Do You Play?
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 3 of 712, 3, 4567
Author


Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5825
Joined: Nov 16, 2002
Last Visit: Mar 28, 2024
Location: Wichita, KS, USA

Post Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:09 pm 
 

Shingen wrote:I have been snoping around here for a few days, and I was wondering what games everyone here plays now, and how long?


The Greyhawk Wild Coast game that I was playing in for the past two years or so has pretty much fizzled out over the summer due to schedule conflicts, players moving away, and our DM being on a series of summer international internships.  He's a third year law student this fall, so we're not too likely to get the game back on its feet :(

We were playing a 3.5e based game, with a fair number of 3.0 rules hold overs, and bits of 1e thrown in (3.x language rules, for example, are horrible).


Allan Grohe ([email protected])
Greyhawk, grodog Style

Editor and Project Manager, Black Blade Publishing
https://www.facebook.com/BlackBladePublishing/

 WWW  


Active Collector

Posts: 92
Joined: Oct 07, 2004
Last Visit: Sep 04, 2010

Post Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:08 am 
 

deimos3428 wrote:
Fair enough.  He left the book behind so I'll quote directly from it.  Pg. 87, of the Epic Level Handbook.

Description here
Vengeful Gaze of God


It does have a "Spellcraft DC" of 419, which I'm told is impossibly high.


While that sounds really bad, allow me to expand and explain, updating terms and giveing perspective for some of you.

The Spellcraft DC you quoted is the Spellcraft check necessary to cast it. It is THE highest level spell (essentially) ever printed, and while some of you bristle at the idea of the theoretical munchkinry, it does have outlandish requirements. The 419 they must succeed at a d20 roll modified by their Intelligence/Wisdom, and then their skill ranks, which are at max level +3. This means, on roll of 20, the player still needs ridiculous amounts of feats and abilities to even get close.

Since it takes about 13 encounters  to gain a level on the average, and there are maybe 4-5 encounters in a game, a charcter levels up maybe once every 3-5 games or so. Even at 2 games to a level, the player would take 20 sessions to reach level 10. At that point, encounters become more difficult and slow, maybe 2-3 encounters a game. So you are looking at about 40 game sessions to get to level 20. This spell would require you to be somewhere in the as-yet-unseen and never acknowledged 50 levels range, meaninf it would take, roughly, 400 sessions or so to get there. Even then, success is not assured. It requires over 3 million gp, 150,000 xp, and 76 days of work to set it up.

Furthermore, I believe that particular spell is more relegated to an ability of the gods than to be commonly used as a spell.  It is one of those theoretically possible things.

So, anyways, the point of all this ranting is to say that while possible, it is unlikely. It is not intended for everyday use, and should not be used to illustrate the perceived rampant munchkinry of 3.5 D&D. I understand it seems excessive, but is definitely the exception, and not the rule.

  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3865
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Jul 20, 2023
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:26 am 
 

I look at the 3.0-3.5 game a little different.

I admit I am a throw back 1E guy who wonders what the hell happened to this game.  

I simply compare a 5th level 3.5E fighter to the same character in 1E. Not only would the 3.5E wipe the floor with our cagey veteran, but Mr. 3.5E could probably take on Mr. 1E and a couple of his freinds - at once.

I know this is a context thing...but still...munchkinism is munchkinism...

I knew 1E AD&D, and let me tell you, 3+E AD&D is not AD&D. :D


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:28 am 
 

Shingen wrote:So, anyways, the point of all this ranting is to say that while possible, it is unlikely. It is not intended for everyday use, and should not be used to illustrate the perceived rampant munchkinry of 3.5 D&D. I understand it seems excessive, but is definitely the exception, and not the rule.

Ok, ok, I was quoting from the Epic Level Handbook, one could hardly expect less.  Perceived rampant munchkinry isn't the real problem.  I'd still argue it's there, but it can be leashed by a competent DM.

I think the problem most "old school" players have with 3.0/3.5 is that there is a rule for everything, and everything has it's rule...er...guideline.  If you threw out half of the guidelines, it would make a perfectly useful system.  Munchkinism is not really the concern here, so much as leveraged rules-lawyerism.  

This all started with those rotten non-weapon proficiencies from the WSG and DSG in 1st edition...  :)

 YIM  

User avatar

Verbose Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 1709
Joined: Feb 04, 2004
Last Visit: Aug 23, 2016
Location: Chandler, AZ

Post Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:32 am 
 

Not that I have ever played 3rd edition, but I did have my wife get them to give me as a Christmas gift several years ago (it was what sparked my renewed interest in Dungeons & Dragons - along with Baldur's Gate).  Anyway, I can see a lot of cool ideas in the new rules such as ascending and escalated Hit points (it seems to bring more balance to powerful creatures).

. . . I think I had a point I was going to get to. . . oh yeah, I hear a lot about the complex rule system in 3E.  However, if you really want a complex rule system, then use everything in 1st ed. exactly as it is laid out.

None of those "modifications" that everyone made. . .

that's right, you gotta remember to use the weapon modifiers versus AC rules . . . and don't forget all the details of the "surprise" system and weapon speed and how about this little rule from page 70 of the DM guide:

 
As with missile fire, it is generally not possilbe to select a specific opponent in mass melee.  If this is the case, simply use some random number generation to find out which attcks are upon which opponents, remembering that only a certain number of attacks can usually be made upon one opponent.  . .


We all used that one right?  

How many times did your DM made you roll on the potion miscibility table after you took a swig of your second magical drought?

How about all those "automatic" rolls to detect invisible characters based on level and intelligence.

Rolling saving throws for every item after a Fireball explodes.

Determining "base value" of gems.

The incredibly complex tracking of encumbrance.

And how many times did your DM check each game month to see if you contracted a disease, parasitic infection or mental disorder?

Who can forget those huge charts for handling Psionics - I still am not sure I understand them.

But, everyone I met just sort of figured out how to disregard all the extraneous stuff (in most cases) and make the whole system work.





:)


"Gleemonex makes it feel like it's seventy-two degrees in your head... all... the... time! "

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5777
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Mar 22, 2024
Location: Cow Hampshire, US

Post Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:47 am 
 

I  actually did all the extraneous stuff. Slowed things down a little, but I found it made things much more detailed and realistic. The miscibility I ignored, and the "random" missile firing was limited to one possible target in a 10' radius of the primary target ONLY if the shot missed by 4 or more (ie. gross miss). Then I rolled a random zone, and if there was a target in there, I had the shooter attack at -4 (because he wasn't AIMING to hit). Could be beneficial in those cases where kobolds are swarming a character.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3865
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Jul 20, 2023
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:54 am 
 

I see your point, but the reality was that if you eliminated something like weapon speed it had no effect on your game. It was like it was never there.

Problem with 3E is that you can't ignore anything or the whole damn system fails.

Good arguement, but I am not buying.


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5777
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Mar 22, 2024
Location: Cow Hampshire, US

Post Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:08 am 
 

Oh, I definitely hate 3E. D20 system is fine, but the feats and all that other crap should have been left in Final Fantasy, 3E's video predecessor.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

  


Active Collector

Posts: 21
Joined: Nov 29, 2003
Last Visit: Jun 06, 2006
Location: Oahu, Hawaii

Post Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:18 am 
 

Shingen wrote:
Since it takes about 13 encounters  to gain a level on the average, and there are maybe 4-5 encounters in a game, a charcter levels up maybe once every 3-5 games or so. Even at 2 games to a level, the player would take 20 sessions to reach level 10. At that point, encounters become more difficult and slow, maybe 2-3 encounters a game. So you are looking at about 40 game sessions to get to level 20. This spell would require you to be somewhere in the as-yet-unseen and never acknowledged 50 levels range, meaninf it would take, roughly, 400 sessions or so to get there. Even then, success is not assured. It requires over 3 million gp, 150,000 xp, and 76 days of work to set it up.



For those of you that still don't realize what is wrong with 3x, read that again.  There isn't a more perfect example of why I don't play them, than this quote right here.

And for the satirically impaired:  That entire post screams munchkin.  Look harder.  Look again.

(Oh, and this isn't meant as a personal attack.  I would have attacked it no matter who tried to defend munchkinism with... more munchkinism.)


Insert interesting and/or humorous quote here.

  


Prolific Collector
Valuation Board

Posts: 681
Joined: Oct 13, 2003
Last Visit: Aug 16, 2023
Location: Denver, CO

Post Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:23 am 
 

The 3.0-3.5 game is easy to control if you require that the acquisition of every class and ability requires DM approval and a role-playing hook (find this person, do this for them, bring them X item from Y dungeon, pay X gold).  The trick is finding a group of players who wants to be controlled.  Most (all, in my limited experience) will refuse to play your game and go someplace else that gives them power on a plate.
:lol:

Once the Pandora's Box of player options is opened, it's very hard to close.  I miss the days of Tolkienesque human-dwarf-elf-halfling party alliances.  If I have to hear one more story about the average damage-per-round output of a half-troll / half-fiend fighter / sorcerer / ranger / thief / monk with two single-handed battle axes using great cleave, I'm going to scream.

  


Prolific Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 905
Joined: Apr 09, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 09, 2015
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

Post Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:23 am 
 

Nice post, btb!

Reminds me to look up some rules in the DMG...

I did ask for the fireball saving throws, after all. That was funny! Now they all keep their stuff in a portable hole. Must look up the saving throw for this item again. Failure would be such fun for me ... muhahahahaha ...


- "When the going gets weird, the Weird turn pro."

Hunter S. Thompson (July 18, 1937 - Feb 20, 2005)



  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:01 pm 
 

slydeshadowdart wrote:
Shingen wrote:
Since it takes about 13 encounters  to gain a level on the average, and there are maybe 4-5 encounters in a game, a charcter levels up maybe once every 3-5 games or so. Even at 2 games to a level, the player would take 20 sessions to reach level 10. At that point, encounters become more difficult and slow, maybe 2-3 encounters a game. So you are looking at about 40 game sessions to get to level 20. This spell would require you to be somewhere in the as-yet-unseen and never acknowledged 50 levels range, meaninf it would take, roughly, 400 sessions or so to get there. Even then, success is not assured. It requires over 3 million gp, 150,000 xp, and 76 days of work to set it up.




For those of you that still don't realize what is wrong with 3x, read that again.  There isn't a more perfect example of why I don't play them, than this quote right here.

And for the satirically impaired:  That entire post screams munchkin.  Look harder.  Look again.

(Oh, and this isn't meant as a personal attack.  I would have attacked it no matter who tried to defend munchkinism with... more munchkinism.)

I would also like to add my posts weren't personal attacks.   My personal attacks are much nastier  :D

I looked at Shingen's numbers and was a little shocked too.  At two sessions per week (minimum), we'd have 20th level characters in about 5 months?  He doesn't state the length of time in one session, but my group played at least 4 hours per session -- our record was 34 hours straight, I believe.  We played for a total of 12 years, (before we went into game development hibernation for a decade), and we never managed more than one set of 18 to 21st level characters...

 YIM  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 8011
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Mar 18, 2024
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:36 pm 
 

slydeshadowdart wrote:
Shingen wrote:
Since it takes about 13 encounters  to gain a level on the average, and there are maybe 4-5 encounters in a game, a charcter levels up maybe once every 3-5 games or so. Even at 2 games to a level, the player would take 20 sessions to reach level 10. At that point, encounters become more difficult and slow, maybe 2-3 encounters a game. So you are looking at about 40 game sessions to get to level 20. This spell would require you to be somewhere in the as-yet-unseen and never acknowledged 50 levels range, meaninf it would take, roughly, 400 sessions or so to get there. Even then, success is not assured. It requires over 3 million gp, 150,000 xp, and 76 days of work to set it up.




For those of you that still don't realize what is wrong with 3x, read that again.  There isn't a more perfect example of why I don't play them, than this quote right here.

And for the satirically impaired:  That entire post screams munchkin.  Look harder.  Look again.

(Oh, and this isn't meant as a personal attack.  I would have attacked it no matter who tried to defend munchkinism with... more munchkinism.)



I was laughing also.  It takes my groups, on the average, about two years of real time to reach 12th level or higher. That's gaming 2-3 times a month for two straight years. In 20+ years of gaming the highest level a character ever reached under my DMing was 18th, after ten years of playing off and on, and the character is now retired. I and my players wouldn't even know what to do with a 20th level character, maybe put some lights and ornaments on him and dress him up like a Christmas tree...

Mike B.

 WWW  


Prolific Collector
Valuation Board

Posts: 681
Joined: Oct 13, 2003
Last Visit: Aug 16, 2023
Location: Denver, CO

Post Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:47 pm 
 

Yes, from what I gather at EN-World etc., 1 experience level per 1-2 weeks of play is par for the course for an average group in 3.0/3.5.  Most speak of it taking 2 sessions to gain 1 level.  That was a specific design paradigm in 3.0, said to be put in place to accommodate busy lifestyles.  They reached the conclusion they needed that pace after player research and feedback.

To put that in 1E perspective, that's the equivalent of Temple of Elemental Evil (all of it) in January and February (16 sessions somehow, ending at level 8 ), G1-G2-G3-D1-D2-D3-Q1 in March and the first half of April (in only 12 sessions, ending at level 14), etc.  If they keep that rate up, in May, they surpass the power level of the strongest king in the Flanaess (19th level).  By the end of July, they're level 28, having surpassed the likes of Mordenkainen, and are far beyond the level of any NPC in the world.  If you assume some strict DM control at the epic levels, it might take until Christmas before they're facing down gods -- if their progression is halved after 18, they only hit level 35 at New Year's instead of 52.

There were some interesting letters in Dragon magazine around issue 50-70 or so, where players were asking what the degree of progression should be.  The answer was that in many long-standing Lake Geneva campaigns, 1 experience level was gained per year of play on average.  I remember feeling quite shamed by that at the time -- I was letting my players level once every 1-2 months, when we played weekend marathon sessions.  Add another level or two over summer vacation.  (Which I think is the average pace for 1E groups, when you don't have life and a job.)  But I believe the difference in play styles is quite clear:

Lake Geneva 1E (slowest):  1 level a year
darkseraphim 1E:  7-14 levels a year, slowing down dramatically after 12
3.0 low:  26 levels a year
3.0 high (fastest, I hope):  52 levels a year

Which I think is more akin to PlayStation or Diablo than D&D.

Here's that Gygax quote, on what the creator thinks of 3.5:
"The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good."

  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 1:26 pm 
 

darkseraphim wrote:Which I think is more akin to PlayStation or Diablo than D&D.

Hehehe.  I can't imagine "roleplaying" my 88th level barbarian from Diablo 2...not to mention my grossly "hacked" characters:
One was roughly level 2.1 billion, and that's the American billion, ie. 2x10^9.  :D

 YIM  


Prolific Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 905
Joined: Apr 09, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 09, 2015
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

Post Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:01 pm 
 

It seems Kent's and my campaign have a similar pace (Level 1 to 10 in 2 1/2 years). With the XP rewards noted in standard 2E adventures, you're basically at "Lake Geneva speed". I always thought the XP rewards in AD&D modules were ridiculously low. The way things turned out in 3.0/3.5 is even more ridiculous.

darkeraphim wrote:game was clearly designed after a huge amount of player and DM feedback was received. But since players outnumber DMs, the designers seem to have focused too strongly (much too strongly) on player empowerment.


I really think Kent hits the bull's-eye with this remark. Like 1st Edition AD&D focussed too strongly on the DM, because Gygax wanted it so, today it's exactly the other way round. I think most people complaining about 3.0/3.5 are DMs. I believe that 2E AD&D, with all its flaws, is the most balanced of the three game systems.


- "When the going gets weird, the Weird turn pro."

Hunter S. Thompson (July 18, 1937 - Feb 20, 2005)



  


Prolific Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 764
Joined: Feb 05, 2003
Last Visit: Dec 12, 2023

Post Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:26 pm 
 

Howdy All,


Ralf Toth wrote:I really think Kent hits the bull's-eye with this remark. Like 1st Edition AD&D focussed too strongly on the DM, because Gygax wanted it so, today it's exactly the other way round. I think most people complaining about 3.0/3.5 are DMs. I believe that 2E AD&D, with all its flaws, is the most balanced of the three game systems.


Absolutely. I have said it time and again, from UA on the game inexorably moved toward currying favor among players. DM's used to be the focus, and rightly so. No DM, no game, no players, no sales. DM's are the Lynchpin of success for AD&D, D&D, and any roleplaying game.

The sad fact is that no matter the state of the game there will always be more players than DM's. Business-wise players make a better consumer base. What post gygax T$R, WotC, and Hasbro don't understand is that they need to support and encourage DM's. The players will come regardless.

It's like building a house. Foundation blocks don't have a lot of mark-up but the bricks making up the walls do. So the company wants to sell a lot of bricks so they can make a killing. Unfortunately they don't produce enough foundation blocks and, despite selling a ton of bricks, quickly see the demise of their company.

You gotta' work on the fundementals first. Give D&D back to the DM's!


Futures Bright,

Paul


The Collector's Trove The online auction house that features the collections of game designers and artists.

 WWW  


Active Collector

Posts: 92
Joined: Oct 07, 2004
Last Visit: Sep 04, 2010

Post Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:28 pm 
 

Even though I know that nothing I will say will make anyone here give 3e a chance, I will still say some things in its defense.

First, on the complexity. The rules are simpler than they have ever been. All rolls go on the same style, and the modifiers are simple and easy to use. Combat has a simple system with set actions. Most of the extra rules I hear talk about have little basis in actual fact. Most of the supplemental rules that come out are Skills, Feats, Prestig Classes, Races and Monsters. No new rules. It is just more optional stuff to use.
If you want to talk complexity, lets use all the optional rules in all the 2e books. At least 3/4 of the kits were all broken to hell.

Second, on the munchkinry. This system is no less or more predisposed to munchkinry than any other system. As with every system, it has a potential to be munchkined, but the DM maintains control over that fact.
Furthermore, the reference to the xp and gold to cast that spell was not showing munchkinry; it was an attempt to show how incredibly impossible that spell is, because none of my damn players could ever cast it. In 2e I saw lots of munchkins too; it just depends on the players and DMs.

Third, alot of people dislike the fast leveling. Well, I do too. So I slowed it down. No big deal. No system is perfect. And the DM's perogative is to fix what he dislikes. And I may have made  slight miscalculation + oversimplification, but yes, characters level up fast. In my first ongoing game, before tweaking, we had players at 5th level after about 3 months of weekly, 4 hour long games.

The system also covers a lot of things I had been dealing with for a long time. The skill system allows your players to actually do things out of combat that make more sense. It is easier to track what they are good at. Furthermore, the dreaded feats allow charcters to actually be different in combat style, unlike characters from previous editions.

The Feats system is a bittersweet thing. I know it seems overpowered, but it is actually quite balanced considering all the monsters and NPCs have feats and special abilities too. And that the monsters are a lot beefier than before. It makes combat larger and more dangerous. Feats actually allow a player to make a charcter of his dreams, by customizing what he can do in combat. There are many unbalanced feats, especially those put out by third parties, but DM perogative again.

I think that 3e is possibly the best system yet. It has a way to deal withg almost any situation with a small set of rules. All rolls are made off of a d20 to do anything. Characters are much more detailed. You can actually do alot of things out of combat that make more sense. All in all, the system is , like the others as good as the DM allows it to be.

I think alot of the sentiement here is a sort of stubborn refusal to change, or give 3.5 a fair shake, because of assuredness that your current system is the only good thing out there. If anyone can provide actual play experience problems with the system, or a more informed argument, instead of "I saw this and didn't like it so I won't try it," I would like to hear it. Just a more complete argument.

And BTW, no offense taken on earlier posts either. I hope I have similarly not offended anyone personally.

  
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 3 of 712, 3, 4567