The former Tomb of Horrors / current 3e debate thread
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 3 of 912, 3, 4 ... 789
Author


Prolific Collector

Posts: 752
Joined: Jun 29, 2005
Last Visit: Aug 09, 2020
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada, eh?

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:05 am 
 

killjoy32 wrote:a 15th level Favoured Soul??!!! WTF :D :D :D :D


A Favored Soul is a divine spellcaster that isn't necessarily pious, but channels the energy of a divine being regardless. This particular guy is a gung-ho priest of an elven god of archery, and he wields a mean longbow ;)


with that, you HAD to be inventive on how you did things to try and get an upper hand on things.


I keep seeing things like this, and I have to wonder - do you actually have players that just sit back and let their stats do the work for them? I've never seen that stats make all that much difference in 3E, other than the ability to qualify for certain Feats. Beyond that, they're just a framework to develop a character around, and I really don't see how bad stats help in any special way.

i feel this way, it allows more balance in the game, and you dont end up with a low-level character bristling with magic items that will dispose of anything and everything.


.. why are low-level characters "bristling with magic items"?

I don't disagree with the sentiment (the "Identify" spell doesn't exist in my current campaign, requiring you to have a Bard handy to help identify an item, or have a wizard that's taken an item identification Feat that repliates the bardic knowledge for the purposes of identifying an item), but if you've somehow managed to let low-level characters amass an a large amount of magical items, something is going very wrong.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8219
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 12, 2017
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:09 am 
 

bclarkie wrote:Dude seriously, did your DM allow the monsters to think at all or did they just stand there and go toe to toe with your group of 20 characters. :? I can guarentee that if you are playing the game they it is supposed to be played allowing the giants for appropriate bonuses for strength and playing the giant as the intelligent being that he/she is upposed to be, that a 11th level character should have a very difficult time at best


i agree.

relating to giants:

remember stormber's (i think it was him?) picture of the melee between the giants and the party from G1-2-3 that he had laid out in miniature format? told its own story did that.

i remember one time DMing G1-2-3, where the party (who incidentally were ALL 15th level and were convinced they were going to stroll it) in the frost giant rift (after getting their butts well and truly kicked in hill giant steading), decided they were good enough for a head on fight with the frost giant jarl. well giants aint stupid and the alarm went up and the rest came charging from everywhere. while the party was fighting a group of giants (nowhere close to the jarl i might hasten to add)...the rest just pounded them with boulders and anything else they could get their hands on.

the whole fight (where 2 escaped...one VERY low on hp) took around 11-12 rounds before the were battered into a pulp.

soon shut them all up about how "easy" it was going to be.

THAT is playing giants properly.

wouldnt ANY monster who has a decent hefty HD and moderately intelligant, gonna know enough to use every advantage to their size and ability that they have?

Al



  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8219
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 12, 2017
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:17 am 
 

GraysonAC wrote:A Favored Soul is a divine spellcaster that isn't necessarily pious, but channels the energy of a divine being regardless. This particular guy is a gung-ho priest of an elven god of archery, and he wields a mean longbow ;)


well you learn something new every day :)

GraysonAC wrote:I keep seeing things like this, and I have to wonder - do you actually have players that just sit back and let their stats do the work for them?


you will always have players who have better stats than others. i find that they dont tend to do as much as the other players and tend to get around situations, relying on their stats some, as they are slightly better than the others.

GraysonAC wrote:.. why are low-level characters "bristling with magic items"?

i didnt say mine are :) i have been in games tho, where that has been the case. DM not doing job properly imo. mine get "some" magic items, but they are never much to write home about and dont really have that much of an impact on the game anyway.

GraysonAC wrote:but if you've somehow managed to let low-level characters amass an a large amount of magical items, something is going very wrong.


i've actually had the case that it has taken them soooo long to try and find what an item is, that they have gotten fed up trying to find out and have just sold it for buttons :D :D i dont give out magical items easily and have probably been criticised for being stingy that way tbh. but if i feel they have earned something, then the rewards are there....not just some everyday thing which was a stroll.

Al



  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3861
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Jan 28, 2021
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 11:11 am 
 

Ship old boy,

Your entire arguement is based on 2x specialization from UA. Everyone knows that particular rule is a game system problem at higher levels, and most people I knew at the time eliminated 2x specialization flat out. Not too mention UA didn't exist during the major balance of 1st Ed.'s life span.

An 11th level fighter w/ +3 long sword and Str of say 18/50 is going to average about 13 damage per hit with no specialization. W/ 1x specialize it is+2 better (? do not have my books here).  At two attacks per round, I fail to see how this fighter is going to wipe out said cloud giant in one round.

Also, your example is tailored to make your arguement. Since most AD&D is played with a party of adventurers, the encounters are generally structured to fit the levels being played. If a DM wants a group of 11th level characters to confront a single suicidal cloud giant, heh, that's his decision. More likely, the encounter would be more balanced.

And I am not sure comparing a 3.5 ed. Clould Giant to a 1 ed. Cloud Giant is apples to apples. The 3.5 Cloud has been adjusted to deal with our new and improved Mr. 3.5. The accurate comparison is a nonUA 1st ed. fighter to a standard MM Clould Giant.  

Then we have Mr. 3.5 (11th level fighter). With carefully chosen feats he is can "cleave" his way through similarly powered monsters at the same rate.

At any rate, I am not cutting down 3.5. I don't play it and do not care who does. Simply, my vision of AD&D is not what it has become. I can tell you that if AD&D looked  Like 3.5 back in the day, I probably would have stopped playing in favor of something else.


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

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: May 02, 2021

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:30 pm 
 

GraysonAC wrote:
Traveller wrote:I think that about sums it up, although I would also add the lack of consequences to casting spells like raise dead compared to AD&D


Maybe my memory is fuzzy, but the only consequence I remember is losing a level. 3E is the same - you lose a level, and it costs 5k in cash to cast.


Raise Dead in AD&D had very nasty (and balancing) side effects.  If you survived the system shock roll, you were revived with one hit point and had to spend one week in bed for every level you were.  In d20 Fantasy, there is no system shock roll, and you return to play immediately with one hit point for every level you are.

GraysonAC wrote:
Traveller wrote:There are other things about the system that are annoying, such as the fact you cannot change one rule without having to change every rule that is affected by that change (removing Attacks of Opportunity for a simple example). The game is internally balanced, just as OD&D, BECMI, and AD&D were balanced.


That's the same for any game system that's got a tight set of rules.


The point is that the rules do NOT need to be that tight.  People are supposed to be using their imaginations to play this type of game, not expecting an external influence (i.e. the rules) to do it for them.  Laziness is what it is, nothing more, nothing less.

What's in the book should be guidelines, not hard and fast rules.  Every version of Dungeons & Dragons was built with that in mind.  d20 Fantasy threw that idea out the window.

GraysonAC wrote:
Traveller wrote:d20 Fantasy is certainly a product of its time, having been created for people weaned on video games. But, as can be seen below, the d20 wave is seen by some to be dying out, with the exception of "sub-brands" based on the d20 SRD. It seems that the market is correcting itself, with games NOT based off of d20 making a resurgance.


It wouldn't surprise me to see the market collapse inwards to just support the good brands. That's normal. But, in all honesty, TSR didn't survive at all.


It didn't survive because the person at the helm of TSR at the time (the POG as Frank Mentzer refers to her) didn't know anything about role playing games, and didn't give a damn about role players.  In that respect, nothing has changed, because Hasbro/WotC doesn't give a damn about you either.



  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5626
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: May 13, 2021
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:20 pm 
 

[quote]

The point is that the rules do NOT need to be that tight. People are supposed to be using their imaginations to play this type of game, not expecting an external influence (i.e. the rules) to do it for them. Laziness is what it is, nothing more, nothing less.

What's in the book should be guidelines, not hard and fast rules. Every version of Dungeons & Dragons was built with that in mind. d20 Fantasy threw that idea out the window.

[quote]

And that is just it. There is no imagination or roleplaying in 3E.
Great Cleave? How can anyone justify that as remotely realistic? Well, in Final Fantasy maybe.


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

 WWW  


Sage Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 2884
Joined: Nov 04, 2004
Last Visit: May 09, 2020

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:52 pm 
 

Wow, this is great. I thought I'd get 10 page views and maybe two responses when I posted the original item. :)

I admire the 3e fans defending the system on a site that is decidedly non-3e, but it doesn't make me like the system any more. To paraphrase a line I first heard a couple of years ago, 3e is all about Phat Lewt and Kewl Tats ... it doesn't do a thing for me.

Unless I'm playing Neverwinter Nights, that is. In that case, Great Cleave is the rOxX0r!

 WWW  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 752
Joined: Jun 29, 2005
Last Visit: Aug 09, 2020
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada, eh?

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:30 pm 
 

Traveller wrote:Raise Dead in AD&D had very nasty (and balancing) side effects. If you survived the system shock roll, you were revived with one hit point and had to spend one week in bed for every level you were. In d20 Fantasy, there is no system shock roll, and you return to play immediately with one hit point for every level you are.


Ah. Well, I certainly concede that then. I do remember the system shock roll, although I think by 2nd Edition (again, if memory serves), there was no bed rest required.

I happen to agree that raising characters from the dead is too easy. In my game, Raise Dead (normally 5th) takes the place of Ressurection (7th), and Ressurection gets moved to True Ressurection (9th). True Res is the domain of the Powers only, not players or NPC spellcasters.

GraysonAC wrote:The point is that the rules do NOT need to be that tight. People are supposed to be using their imaginations to play this type of game, not expecting an external influence (i.e. the rules) to do it for them. Laziness is what it is, nothing more, nothing less.

What's in the book should be guidelines, not hard and fast rules. Every version of Dungeons & Dragons was built with that in mind. d20 Fantasy threw that idea out the window.


I agree that the rules don't need to be that tight. I don't agree that having a solid set of rules limits roleplaying or creativity in any way. Guys in my game try to do stuff that isn't "in the rules" all the time ;)

And, like any sane DM's game, Rule 0 is always in effect.

And that is just it. There is no imagination or roleplaying in 3E.


:roll:   Honestly, I don't expect much of a cogent argument from you Deadlord, but that's pushing the boundaries of ridiculous, even for you.

Great Cleave? How can anyone justify that as remotely realistic? Well, in Final Fantasy maybe.


Neither is 'dodging' a fireball by rolling a saving throw. Or heck, throwing the fireball in the first place. D&D, in all it's incarnations, is a heroic setting game - folks do all kinds of stuff that's not realistic at all. Like, say, the example of the human fighter against the cloud giant - in realistic terms, the cloud giant wins, there's no contest. There really just isn't much you can do against something triple your size, and anyone who's taken high school physics can do the math on a giant club hitting a fleshy little sword-swinger :P

 WWW  


Active Collector

Posts: 26
Joined: Oct 13, 2005
Last Visit: Nov 29, 2005
Location: Athens, Greece

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 4:01 pm 
 

I normally stay out of these kind of fights because they make me feel old.  I'm hearing the Arduin vs. D&D fights again.  I'm  hearing the "my anti-paladin can beat up your ninja" fights.  Video games are ruining today's youth?  That's exactly the same argument I heard from my fossilized elders about how playing D&D "on a perfectly good day when you should be out riding your bike" was ruining me.

Those same elders seem pretty comfortable with my paying 35 grand a year in taxes to keep them in Social Security and Medicare, using skills I developed through years of role-playing, so I'm willing to cut kids today a little slack that they'll come out all right when it's their turn to step up and support me in my dotage.  

I don't care who likes or plays what.  I personally think that Champions was the lamest excuse for an RPG to ever come down the pike, but I have many good friends with great memories of their Champions games.  Good on them.  I know someone who still likes Aftermath!, which to me is a real puzzler, but, hey, it takes all types.

However, I have to step in and support the guys fighting the good fight for 3e.   It's a good system, it's an interesting system, and it's a flexible system.  It isn't perfect, but neither was 1st edition.  It can be roll-playing focused, or role-playing focus depending on the emphasis.  I love the fact that when it was released, it was decried by the 1st editioners as being too "touchy feely" with its skills rules.  "True AD&D," we were told, "is kicking in doors, killing the monsters, and taking their loot."  This same group now decries 3e for being too "roll-playing focused?"  Because you know, there was a lot of role-playing that took place in the Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl or Descent into the Depths of the Earth.  They may be great memories, but be honest, how many times did you shoot the s**t with the Jarl or any of his cronies as opposed to going through their pockets for spare change after the fight?

As for arguments about d20 books being too shiny?  Good lord.  Still using a VGA monitor because SVGA is too colorful?  3e isn't the "true descendent" of 1e?  I'm sorry, but the removal of negative AC scores does not create a rupture in continuity that forces 3e to a lifetime of bastardized shame.  I actually heard someone complain about how 3e was "too miniature focused" as if 1e didn't list all of its distances in table top measurements.

Grayson, Blackmoor -- we're fighting against the haze of nostalgia.  It's hopeless.  I know it because I have it, too.  I love 1st edition because I loved it when I was 9 years old with the kind of passion that is impossible to work up over a game in my late 30s.  But for me, it's a love that isn't blind, and I have as much fun growing with a new system as I do fondling my collection of the old.


"Remember, wherever you go... there you are."

  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 752
Joined: Jun 29, 2005
Last Visit: Aug 09, 2020
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada, eh?

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 4:05 pm 
 

Yama-Arashi wrote:Grayson, Blackmoor -- we're fighting against the haze of nostalgia. It's hopeless. I know it because I have it, too. I love 1st edition because I loved it when I was 9 years old with the kind of passion that is impossible to work up over a game in my late 30s. But for me, it's a love that isn't blind, and I have as much fun growing with a new system as I do fondling my collection of the old.


I'm not "fighting" anything ;)  I don't expect to convince folks to suddenly like 3E. A lot of folks just don't like it, some hate it because it changes the game in ways they don't like. What I would like is to see is the end to ridiculous garbage like "There is no imagination or roleplaying in 3E".

 WWW  


Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6463
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 04, 2021

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 4:20 pm 
 

Let me repost my previous post as I imagine folks didnt see it on the other page:

Personally IMHO I think this 1 edition versus 3 edition argument is kind of silly. I say this becuase it is like trying to compare apples and oranges. The current rules system in place for 3rd edition is not Dungeons and Dragons. The similarities in 1st ed and 3rd ed are the fact that they are both FRPGs and they both deal with characters and monsters. Other than that there is virtually no common ground shared by the 2 editions at all. Personally I dont see who you can take a game, tear up everything and start from the begining again, make it completely different than the original and want to call it the same thing. Imagine if some modern day artist took the original Mona Lisa tore it up and made a new painting. In this new painitng there was a dark haired woman standing at a party of people with all of her freinds in the mid-city location.This new painting created the artist now wanted it the Mona Lisa. Would anyone in their right mind ever believe that the new painting was now the Mona Lisa? Of course not, so why does anyone accept the fact that 3rd edition is actually Dungeons & Dragons, because it is clearly not. The current edition of D&D is clearly geared toward the video game crowd, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't mean that it should be accepted as D&D either.

As far as SRD and OGL goes this was and is WOTC allowing for other people and companies to advertise for them for free. They know at the time no one else sees any real money in attempting a new tabletop FRPG and so it makes all the sense in the world for them to allow other to both create and advertise on thier behalf without having to worry about losing money over it. I can guarentee if someone would come in that was veiwed a serious competitor to thier market using SRD & OGL, those licences would be shut down immediately.


"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -Neitzche

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8219
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 12, 2017
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:36 pm 
 

in the end, as much as i like my 1E game, i have no true feeling about 3E other than i just didnt like it when i played it.

if ppl enjoy it as their game now, then cool, go for it! :)

i did like that 15th level Holy whatcha-ma-call-it tho :)

i just found it the same as rolemaster/runequest. i spent so long working things out, i didnt enjoy the story or what was going on. maybe i am just too old now to sit there learning a new system :D

each to their own and so long as youre having fun - thats the main thing :)

Al



  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: May 02, 2021

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:27 pm 
 

GraysonAC wrote:Ah. Well, I certainly concede that then. I do remember the system shock roll, although I think by 2nd Edition (again, if memory serves), there was no bed rest required.

I happen to agree that raising characters from the dead is too easy. In my game, Raise Dead (normally 5th) takes the place of Ressurection (7th), and Ressurection gets moved to True Ressurection (9th). True Res is the domain of the Powers only, not players or NPC spellcasters.

I forgot the Constitution loss for making the system shock roll (CON permanently reduced by 1), but that's a minor thing. :) I also went by memory in regards to the time required in bed, and how that time was determined, and my memory was faulty. Thankfully, I don't believe that the fault invalidates my point.

The 1st and 2d Edition versions of the spell are identical in that regard, so to recap:

1. Player of the raised character must make a successful system shock roll, or the character is irrevocably dead. Success reduces CON permanently by 1.

2. Raised character has one hit point.

3. Raised character is confined to bed for a number of days equal to the time the character was dead.

Now, in my Castles & Crusades games, I haven't eliminated True Resurrection or Mass Heal yet, but am seriously debating it. Given that I have not started a game with that system as of yet, it hasn't been a big priority, unlike Limited Wish and Wish. In my game world, magic is on the decline, and powerful spells of ages past have been forgotten except as legends. Limited Wish and Wish fall into that category of powerful spells of ages past. True Resurrection and Mass Heal, as well as the Illusionist's Alter Reality spell, could all easily be put into that grouping, without me losing all that much sleep over it.

You're on the right track in moving Raise Dead to 7th level and Resurrection to 9th level, as OD&D, in Greyhawk, introduced Raise Dead Fully, which did everything Raise Dead did, but eliminated the weakness and the bed rest. In its final form, Raise Dead Fully in fact became the AD&D spell Resurrection.

Yet of course, there is no system shock roll and thus no chance of not coming back from the dead in either case.

GraysonAC wrote:I agree that the rules don't need to be that tight. I don't agree that having a solid set of rules limits roleplaying or creativity in any way. Guys in my game try to do stuff that isn't "in the rules" all the time ;)

And, like any sane DM's game, Rule 0 is always in effect.

Rule 0 should have to be stated as a rule, but as an automatic. There was never a rule 0 in any version of Dungeons & Dragons. For d20 Fantasy though, it became not just a rule, but a requirement.

Sometimes having a "tight" ruleset is a curse, especially if you have to change a rule that doesn't suit your tastes. Because you have to change all the rules that are affected by the rule change. I use Attack of Opportunity as a simple example of the interdependency of the rules, because taking Attack of Opportunity out of the combat system affects how combat is conducted, affects the rogue, affects every feat that requires attacks of opportunity, and affects movement in combat. I'm sure there are more interdependencies that I have not gone into in regards to AoO, but it's not necessary to highlight everything that may need to be changed in regards to that one rule, especially as it can take quite some time to rifle through every rule in the PHB and DMG.

I found the d20 Fantasy rules to be far too unwieldly, which is why I went to Castles & Crusades. That game system gives me the feel I remember so well, with far less crunch than in d20 Fantasy. Combat runs a hell of a lot faster with AoO taken out of the mix, as well as the requirement to use a battlemat and minatures. The beauty of the system though is that unlike d20 Fantasy, where the rules are interdependent, Castles & Crusades is modular.

I know of many Castles & Crusades groups that have in fact added some feats and some skills to the system. I know of at least one that has ported Sorcerers over to the system. I'm sure there are other d20 specific things that can be brought over. That alone should be enough to prove the point that the modularity of Castles & Crusades is a boon, because it allows you to add the things you want to the system, without running the risk of breaking it, like what happens in a system like d20 Fantasy, where each rule is interdependent.



  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 02, 2021

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:51 pm 
 

deimos3428 wrote:
MShipley88 wrote:After Unearthed Arcana, an 11th level fighter with a +3 sword could be expected to massacre almost every creature in the Monster Manual single-handed, and possibly take almost no damage.

I don't see any modifications to the fighter class in UA at all, unless you're referring to comeliness, social class, or weaponless combat... :?  Barbarian/Cavalier, sure...they were experiments gone awry that unfortunately spawned what we have today. :wink:


   See also: "weapon specialization" and "double weapon specialization."


"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 752
Joined: Jun 29, 2005
Last Visit: Aug 09, 2020
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada, eh?

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:57 pm 
 

Traveller wrote:The 1st and 2d Edition versions of the spell are identical in that regard, so to recap:

1. Player of the raised character must make a successful system shock roll, or the character is irrevocably dead. Success reduces CON permanently by 1.

2. Raised character has one hit point.

3. Raised character is confined to bed for a number of days equal to the time the character was dead.


Ah. 3E doesn't have the system shock roll, but you automatically lose a full level of experience. Blammo, no roll to avoid it.

For d20 Fantasy though, it became not just a rule, but a requirement.


I have yet to ever play, run, or hear of a game that didn't have somethign Rule 0'd by the DM. It's a requirement for any RPG that I've ever played or ran - there'll always be things the DM doesn't like about the system ;)

Sometimes having a "tight" ruleset is a curse, especially if you have to change a rule that doesn't suit your tastes. Because you have to change all the rules that are affected by the rule change. I use Attack of Opportunity as a simple example of the interdependency of the rules


No doubt. Although honestly, removing AoO's wouldn't really change that much. Personally, I'm a fan of the AoO system, although it definately can bog the game down with a lot of extra rolling and strategizing. But, it also makes a lot of sense (most of the time) - pulling out your backpack and rifling through it for that potion is a bit silly when there's a guy hacking at you with a greatsword ;)

The beauty of the system though is that unlike d20 Fantasy, where the rules are interdependent, Castles & Crusades is modular.


I haven't read anything about C&C, but I honestly can't see any game system as "modular". Game balance isn't a series of unconnected factors - doing something like you mentioned, adding the Sorcerer to the game, would affect a lot of other things. Each "module" of the rules would have to be balanced against each other to keep a good game, and that makes them interdependant by their very nature.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 02, 2021

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:02 pm 
 

bbarsh wrote:And I am not sure comparing a 3.5 ed. Clould Giant to a 1 ed. Cloud Giant is apples to apples. The 3.5 Cloud has been adjusted to deal with our new and improved Mr. 3.5. The accurate comparison is a nonUA 1st ed. fighter to a standard MM Clould Giant.

Then we have Mr. 3.5 (11th level fighter). With carefully chosen feats he is can "cleave" his way through similarly powered monsters at the same rate.


   Cleave is an ability that only works if monsters are already damaged (or against low hit dice monsters).  I regard it as a handy way to quickly end a fight that is already essentially over.  

    I still stand by my "giants had no chance argument."  They didn't...even in early 1st edition AD&D, and even in a campaign like mine, where magic items were hard to come by.  Of course, it took an entire party to render the monsters dead...clerics, mages and such thrown in.   :)

    My point, however, is exactly that the monsters in 3.5 have also been updated to smack on 3.5's upgraded characters.  Our current 11th level barbarian has around 187 hit points...and that is enough to last one round against a cloud giant if the rolls go against him.  3.5 combat has a way of sneaking up on you and rendering you dead just when you thought you were winning.

    Actually, I don't know why I am arguing this as I could just as easily join the side dissing 3.5.  It is rules heavy and does give the players greater say and responsiblity than some DM's would prefer.  I think it works for me because after 25 years or so of an ongoing campaign, the game is much more of a shared creation between the GM and the players...a concept that 3.5 encourages.


"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 405
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
Last Visit: Aug 28, 2007
Location: Orlando, Fl

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:07 pm 
 

Stumbling back into this thread, I feel like doing a Cartman impersonation and yelling "Cripple Fight!!"  :D

Yama-Arashi, you a person of zen wisdom, may you make more RolePlayers for this world. :P

Most people know my opinion, I'm active in 3.5e but love every edition.

Really, I'd rather just be playing with my RC and Gazateers.  :wink:


There are no bad editions of D&D, just Boring Players and Unimaginative DMs.

  


Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6463
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 04, 2021

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:09 pm 
 

MShipley88 wrote: ...I still stand by my "giants had no chance argument." They didn't...even in early 1st edition AD&D, and even in a campaign like mine, where magic items were hard to come by....


As a DM I would take that Cloud Giant every time 1 on 1 versus your 11th level fighter even with your double speciallization argument.


"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -Neitzche

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 02, 2021

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:15 pm 
 

bclarkie wrote:
MShipley88 wrote: In the first edition of AD&D, an 11th level fighter would not really be even slightly afraid of a single cloud giant. This was even more true after the publication of Unearthed Arcana sent the rules spinning out of control. After Unearthed Arcana, an 11th level fighter with a +3 sword could be expected to massacre almost every creature in the Monster Manual single-handed, and possibly take almost no damage.


Dude seriously, did your DM allow the monsters to think at all or did they just stand there and go toe to toe with your group of 20 characters. :? I can guarentee that if you are playing the game the way it is supposed to be played allowing the giants for appropriate bonuses for strength and playing the giant as the intelligent being that he/she is supposed to be, that a 11th level character should have a very difficult time at best


    I don't recall any monster bonuses for strength in 1st edition.  There were also no constitution or dexterity bonuses for monsters.

    There was one place in the DM Guide where giant strength was quantified for the purposes of wearing a Girdle of Fire Giant Strength, but the actual strength of any given monster was calculated into the base damage with no bonuses to hit other than the standard attack chart that was eventually replaced with a THACO score.

    Giving ability scores and bonuses to monster is exactly the strength of 3.5.


"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

  


Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6463
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 04, 2021

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:24 pm 
 

MShipley88 wrote:
bclarkie wrote:
MShipley88 wrote: In the first edition of AD&D, an 11th level fighter would not really be even slightly afraid of a single cloud giant. This was even more true after the publication of Unearthed Arcana sent the rules spinning out of control. After Unearthed Arcana, an 11th level fighter with a +3 sword could be expected to massacre almost every creature in the Monster Manual single-handed, and possibly take almost no damage.


Dude seriously, did your DM allow the monsters to think at all or did they just stand there and go toe to toe with your group of 20 characters. :? I can guarentee that if you are playing the game the way it is supposed to be played allowing the giants for appropriate bonuses for strength and playing the giant as the intelligent being that he/she is supposed to be, that a 11th level character should have a very difficult time at best


 I don't recall any monster bonuses for strength in 1st edition. There were also no constitution or dexterity bonuses for monsters.

 There was one place in the DM Guide where giant strength was quantified for the purposes of wearing a Girdle of Fire Giant Strength, but the actual strength of any given monster was calculated into the base damage with no bonuses to hit other than the standard attack chart that was eventually replaced with a THACO score.

 Giving ability scores and bonuses to monster is exactly the strength of 3.5.


Why do you think that they were quantified in 1st edition. For shits and giggles? No they were meant to be used as modifiers for all of that strength category. THACO was for To Hit AC 0 and it was meant to be used before any modifiers were put in place. This was to be used for both monsters and PCs alike. You don't honestly think that your character wearing a Gridle of Fire Giant Stength and using a weapon gets +4 to hit and +10 for damage and a Fire Giant using the same weapon doesnt get the same bonuses do you? :?


"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -Neitzche

  
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 3 of 912, 3, 4 ... 789