Of course. 3E is a paper video game.

"What's that big round thing rushing towards me.............I wonder if it'll be friends? ":D

GraysonAC wrote:It never ceases to amaze me how folks put on the blinders when they're looking at the 3E system. The game is only as good, or as bad, as you make it.

That's of course the same as in any rpg, GraysonAC.  I found the entire premise of status quo vs. tailored encounters absurd from the release of the 3.0 DMG onward; naturally I don't use tailored encounters in my games regularly:  if the PCs hear that Smaug lives in Lonely Mountain, and decide to go take him on, they're toast if they're not up to the task.  



That said, 3e does have good things about the system, including the fact that you can really challenge PCs with environmental hazards in a much better manner than how you could in AD&D (which had about as many different rules for holding your breath and drowning as there were modules with water in them).  3e does a lot of other things well, too, but the baseline mentality that it encourages for gameplay is not compatible with my vision of D&D:  PCs should not hit 20th level by the end of a year of gaming, among other things....

MShipley88 wrote: After the invention of weapons specialization, AD&D campaigns tended to break down after the fighters reached 7th level. The monsters could no longer compete.

you are kidding right?



you clearly didnt play D3 or Q1. that comment there is sadly flawed my friend.



Al

MShipley88 wrote: After 7th level, the fighters had two swings per round and the campaign would run out of challenges about 9th level.



The new system fixes most of those problems by the application of logic and uniform math skills. Monsters the same benefits as PCs. Much, much, much more attention has been paid to the math. Fighters no longer overpower all of the other character classes...although there still seems to be little reason to run a Paladin or a straight rogue.



I ran D3 as the game master, so I was able to make it work. That was in the days before weapon specialization. Still, the drow mostly annoyed the PC's rather than threatening them. I buzzed through Q1 as a player.



But, I also know of one DM who has cheerfully ignored the morphs of AD&D and still runs a Sunday afternoon game in his living room using the first edition rules. I visited his game recently. I recognized many of the same faces I last saw at his game 20 years ago. They did not seem to mind that the world had turned many times and AD&D had changed a lot. More power to 'em, I says.

without getting the players handbook out, i thought you have 3 attacks in 2 rounds from 7th onwards and 2 attacks per round after 14th?



as for fighters overbalancing other classes, well i strongly disagree there. if i was able to pick a 15th level character of any class....although i like fighters mostly, i reckon a magic-user would turn him to dust rather fast, a monk, well need i say - damn hard at that level, clerics totally rock - you get my drift - it isnt quite as plain sailing as you think.



i'm not belittling later editions - they are later editions because they were meant to improve the system, but i think they went too far in that regard.



i played and DMd D3 a number of times on the run through from G1 to Q1 - the players who played were not crap either - good intelligant lads, but they never found it easy at all - i DM'd the drow for what they are, a very intelligant race - they are in their domain and scenarios in the module changed depending on what the party did. and as for cruising through Q1 i simply cannot believe that if you play Q1 correctly as a DM, sure there are parts which are really easy, but there are also sections which are exceptionally hard, and dont forget it is a question of attrition, especially with spells as they don't all work and they can't be regained.



but hey i get your point and. i don't agree, but i get it



each to their own.



Al

Deadlord36 wrote:
It's all about realism. I mean, come on, Great Cleave? Whirlwind Attack? Give me a break.

i should just send frank a PM and ask him to reply for me - he just says it the best



Al

In BECMI I beefed up dragons a bit and added a horde of new monsters that more than adequately challenge 10th-20th level characters.



However, I also included a mathematical system to gauge the level of the encounters proportionate to the party. Unfortunately it seems that someone decided that all encounters should be 'proportionate' (survivable), an unwarranted extrapolation.  :roll:

Our DM quite simply played Lloth wrong.  Very, very wrong.



As everyone knows, the G,D,Q series is a very long campaign.  We were 14 years old, had been playing a monster 12 hour+ session, and we were all tired but too absorbed to call it a night.



Nearing the end, we ran into Lloth.  Somehow, we achieved surprise, won initiative, and rolled a convenient natural 20 with a hammer of thunderbolts/girdle/gauntlets to the head.  



She doesn't have a ton of hp, so that was that.   I'm fairly sure she was a victim of the dreaded "plot device", but at that point we agreed to retire the characters, anyway.  



I'd love to go back through and "play the ending right" someday.  We had a blast (and a challenge!) up until the finish, which was severely anti-climactic.

grodog wrote:I found the entire premise of status quo vs. tailored encounters absurd from the release of the 3.0 DMG onward; naturally I don't use tailored encounters in my games regularly: if the PCs hear that Smaug lives in Lonely Mountain, and decide to go take him on, they're toast if they're not up to the task.

And no good DM is going to disagree. Neither do the 3E rules.



The "tailored" encounters means +/- 4 Challenge Rating. A group of 4 level 10 characters should run into a fair number of CR10 encounters (somewhat challenging), some CR 11 (a bit tougher), the occasional CR12 (tough), the rare CR 13 (in deep crap now), and CR 14 is reserved for the Big Bad encounters, because chances are pretty good that some or all the group isn't going to survive.



3E doesn't kill off groups of players with wildly varying random encounters. For example, you don't run into 1d3 Ogres at first level wandering through the forest on your way to the dungeon

3e does a lot of other things well, too, but the baseline mentality that it encourages for gameplay is not compatible with my vision of D&D: PCs should not hit 20th level by the end of a year of gaming, among other things....

Nor will that happen in 3E. The CR system is designed to level up a character after approximately 7 encounters where the CR=Player Level. This means that on average, a player goes up after 6 encounters, assuming he hasn't died. You get almost no XP for killing monsters much lower level. The Nodwick comic where a guy runs into a bar, screaming that a 15th level fighter only needs 5xp to level, and everyone runs away, comes to mind



Most modules are going to give you a level or two, possibly 3 if they're long and/or very dangerous.

Monsters such as dragons were sword fodder and other PC classes could not compete.  Giants were a laugh...died by the dozens.  After 7th level, the fighters had two swings per round and the campaign would run out of challenges about 9th level.

If your DM was having dragons sit around to get hacked to death with a sword, then the problem is your DM, not the dragon. Dragons get breath weapons and spells for a reason



Giants are just as weak in 3E. In fact, I'd say they're weaker in 3E, because there are so many more options for killing them off at range. A 7th level wizard with Fly and Improved Invisibility can annihilate giants at a whim.

without getting the players handbook out, i thought you have 3 attacks in 2 rounds from 7th onwards and 2 attacks per round after 14th?

Nope, 2/1 at 7th with weapon spec.

as for fighters overbalancing other classes, well i strongly disagree there.

Agreed. Spell damage is a much greater threat at higher levels in all editions of D&D. And the mobility of a spellcaster at higher level seals the deal.



A lot of folks think Fighters are underpowered in 3E, at higher levels (I'm not one of them, but it's not an uncommon belief, backed up with math).

It's all about realism. I mean, come on, Great Cleave? Whirlwind Attack? Give me a break.

  Someone standing in a 10'x10' room and getting blasted with 3 Fireballs.. and still standing.. isn't realistic either. The hit point system tosses realism out the window. All editions of D&D are a heroic system - not a realistic one.

Unfortunately it seems that someone decided that all encounters should be 'proportionate' (survivable), an unwarranted extrapolation.

Hate to disagree with you Frank, but I do. There's no "Everything should be exactly this hard." in the 3E rules. Unless the players do something stupid (like going after Smaug), then they're unlikely to get TPK'd wandering through the forest. But tossing in encounters with a CR of 2- 4 (depending on player level) above the baseline CR of the party is going to make for some challenging, and likely lethal, fights.



And there's nothing stopping the DM from using nearly random encounter tables. Personally, I never found unwinnable fights fun as a player, or as a DM. It's one thing I'm quite glad to see dissapear.

how many attacks a round for something they cant reach?

Yup. In 3E, monsters have a certain Reach based on their size. Humans can reach 5', but a Huge dragon can reach 10' with claws, and 15' with a bite/tail slap. And there are plenty of rules provided for things like grappling - that huge dragon could, instead of letting you swing that shiny sword at it's precious body, just grab you and sit on you, not-so-slowly crushing you to death.  ;)