The former Tomb of Horrors / current 3e debate thread
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 6 of 10123, 4, 5, 6, 78910
Author


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:47 pm 
 

Deadlord36 wrote:If you give fire giants +4/+10, then you need to give dragons +6/+12 or some such, and pruple worms the same.

Ummm....they did that already, I think.  I'm pretty sure the numbers are higher for dragons, though.  It's not pretty, anyway.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the d20 system. It is the ridiculous powers and characters that are in the game.

Agreed.  Roll whatever dice you want.  Or no dice at all.  Or whatever.
Let's see someone come forward and name a 3E player that they know that adds skill points to etiquette. Or weaving. Or forgery. No, can;t do that, it would be wasting points......
I don't really blame 3.5 for this one, except that they didn't scrap a bad idea when they had a chance.  Non-weapon feats (proficiencies!) are poorly written backstory footnotes at best, and an obscure attempts to get an edge at worst.  Roleplaying isn't about backstories, it's about forestories.  (Ok, I made that word up, but you get the point.)  Unless you're really going to spend an entire D&D session pretending to be weaving...  :roll:
Of the General feats in the Player's Handbook 68 out of 90 are combat related. That is well over 2/3. The addition of Feats in 3E is what ruins the game. No player, not even myself, can avoid min/maxing feats and skills in 3E, and that is not roleplaying, it's powergaming.

Thank god for small mercies!  Non-weapon feats are even more lame than weapon feats!

 YIM  


Sage Collector

Posts: 2639
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 11, 2006

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:57 pm 
 

deimos3428 wrote:Non-weapon feats (proficiencies!) are poorly written backstory footnotes at best, and an obscure attempts to get an edge at worst. Roleplaying isn't about backstories, it's about forestories. (Ok, I made that word up, but you get the point.)

Not sure I'd agree with that totally, but in general it's not usually about backplay. :P


:lol:

Maybe that wasn't the best analogy...


=
p.s. What is up with that poor avvy of yours, Deimos?

  


Prolific Collector

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:05 pm 
 

deimos3428 wrote:Actually, it is a very, very major thing. The initial constitution score of the character limited the number of times a character could be raised/ressurected. This number could never be changed, even if the constitution was later restored in some manner. Far more severe than a mere level of experience loss.


I don't see it as a major thing, as I've never played or ran a campaign where any character was raised from the dead more than a handful of times (at most). If your games have characters getting brought back from the dead 10+ times, then we're running games with very different feels.

A loss of a level is a massive penalty that the player feels immediately, and one that doesn't go away for a long time. You lose character strength, and that's something that makes for one heck of a deterrant ;)

If the penalty was losing a point of Con in 3.5, that would also hurt like a kick in the crotch from a fire giant (and they get their strength bonuses :P), but that's because of the way hit points work (+1hp/level for every two points of Con above 10). Going from 14 Con to 13 Con doesn't change anything in 1E, if memory serves. At worst, you lose a point to some of your saving throws (which is mirrored in 3.5, as you'd lose a +1 to your Fortitude save if you dropped to an odd Con score).

 WWW  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:22 pm 
 

GraysonAC wrote:The female drow example is funny to me, since the character I'm creating for one of my players (as mentioned before), happens to be a female drow. She's a bard/virtuoso though, not a paladin ;)

Well, the female drow paladin is the supreme badass in 1st Edition.  At only 5th level, you could conceivably have the following:

5d10+3 hp (plus constitution bonuses, if any)
detect evil (at will)
+2 save vs. everything
lay on hands
cure disease once a week
protection from evil, 10' radius
turn undead (as 3rd cleric)
call warhorse
3 attacks per round (drow ambidexterity, and wielding two paladin "weapons of choice")
+1 to hit with lance (mounted)
+1 to hit (broadsword or longsword or scimitar)
+1 to hit (horseman's mace or flail or pick)
+5 to damage with lance (mounted)
+1 to damage with lance (unmounted)
parrying ability
can ride a unicorn
str, dex, con, and chr increase with level, and racial limits do not apply
immune to fear
protection from fear, 10 radius
90% immunity to mind-affecting spells
+2 vs. illusions
continue to live up to -13 hp (but not fight)
elven resistance to sleep and charm
+2 vs magic
infravision
elven secret door detection
dwarven underground/stonework detections
elven silent movement
elven surprise
innate spells: (dancing lights, faerie fire, darkness 5', detect magic, know alignment, levitate, clairvoyance, clairaudience, detect lie, suggestion, dispel magic)

And of course, at higher levels, it gets worse.
Whew.  Or, you could play a human fighter.  :roll:

 YIM  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:24 pm 
 

actually guys, after reading that thread on dragonsfoot and further stuff here, i put this one to you.... grayson, i would be interested too, if 3E deals with this in any way....

on dragonsfoot, they are going on about the CON score and saying you can be raised X times depending on your CON score, ie. 15, allows you to be raised 15 times... ok?

even frank himself was confirming this "limiting the amount of times a character can be raised"

my question is this:

if you look at the constitution table in the players handbook, it has "minimum scores" for a number of classes and races. if you are any of them, and your score goes lower....what happens then?

if youre a dwarf and then it goes lower...does that mean you cant be a dwarf :D

say youre a 12th level ranger...does it mean you suddenly cant be a ranger?

how does everyone approach this situation in their games?

Al



  


Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:26 pm 
 

GraysonAC wrote:
deimos3428 wrote:Actually, it is a very, very major thing. The initial constitution score of the character limited the number of times a character could be raised/ressurected. This number could never be changed, even if the constitution was later restored in some manner. Far more severe than a mere level of experience loss.


I don't see it as a major thing, as I've never played or ran a campaign where any character was raised from the dead more than a handful of times (at most). If your games have characters getting brought back from the dead 10+ times, then we're running games with very different feels.

A loss of a level is a massive penalty that the player feels immediately, and one that doesn't go away for a long time. You lose character strength, and that's something that makes for one heck of a deterrant ;)

If the penalty was losing a point of Con in 3.5, that would also hurt like a kick in the crotch from a fire giant (and they get their strength bonuses :P), but that's because of the way hit points work (+1hp/level for every two points of Con above 10). Going from 14 Con to 13 Con doesn't change anything in 1E, if memory serves. At worst, you lose a point to some of your saving throws (which is mirrored in 3.5, as you'd lose a +1 to your Fortitude save if you dropped to an odd Con score).


One thing about decreasing Constitution score  though that has been overlooked so far, is the fact that as your Constitution decreases so does your System Shock numbers. :wink:  When your System Shock percentage numbers decrease it also means that it is harder to raise you successfully, so dying and ressurecting in 1st edition you kind of get double whammied. :twisted:


"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

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3593
Joined: Dec 20, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 25, 2021
Location: Canada

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:27 pm 
 

killjoy32 wrote:actually guys, after reading that thread on dragonsfoot and further stuff here, i put this one to you.... grayson, i would be interested too, if 3E deals with this in any way....

on dragonsfoot, they are going on about the CON score and saying you can be raised X times depending on your CON score, ie. 15, allows you to be raised 15 times... ok?

even frank himself was confirming this "limiting the amount of times a character can be raised"

my question is this:

if you look at the constitution table in the players handbook, it has "minimum scores" for a number of classes and races. if you are any of them, and your score goes lower....what happens then?

if youre a dwarf and then it goes lower...does that mean you cant be a dwarf :D

say youre a 12th level ranger...does it mean you suddenly cant be a ranger?

how does everyone approach this situation in their games?

Al


Never happened in my game, characters have never been in that situation!


Games can get you through times of no money but money can not get you through times of no games!!

 WWW  


Prolific Collector

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:39 pm 
 

killjoy32 wrote:grayson, i would be interested too, if 3E deals with this in any way....


There's no hard-cap on ressurections in 3E. The spell itself costs 5k in diamonds (or 10k for Ressurection [only need a piece of the corpse], 25k for True Ressurection [no corpse required]), has a time limit, and when the person is raised, they immediately lose a level. If they were 1st level at the time, they lose a point of Con. (Although I can't see any 1st level PC's getting raised without one heckuva story reason :P)

if youre a dwarf and then it goes lower...does that mean you cant be a dwarf :D


There's no race restrictions or level caps in 3E. Personally, I always thought that was one of the least sensical and most annoying things about the old D&D (and later AD&D).  I could never think of a particularily good reason why a devout dwarf couldn't be a paladin, or why races other than humans were capped in levels (other than to make playing a human more appealing).

 WWW  


Prolific Collector

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:41 pm 
 

bclarkie wrote:One thing about decreasing Constitution though that has been overlooked so far is the fact that as your Constitution decreases so does your System Shock numbers. :wink:  When your System SHock numbers decrease it also means that it is harder to raise you successfully, so dying and ressurecting in 1st edition you kind of get double whammied. :twisted:


Heh, true. And the chance of failure on that SS roll is pretty high once you get out of the high teens (assuming you were lucky enough to start there!)

 WWW  


Sage Collector

Posts: 2639
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 11, 2006

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:42 pm 
 

bclarkie wrote:When your System SHock numbers decrease it also means that it is harder to raise you successfully, so dying and ressurecting in 1st edition you kind of get double whammied. :twisted:

Sounds like a good incentive to avoid getting your characters killed in the first place: would have said that might be the biggest "whammy" ;)

Gee... a rule designed to encourage sensible roleplaying; who'd've expected that?! :D

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:46 pm 
 

GraysonAC wrote:There's no race restrictions or level caps in 3E. Personally, I always thought that was one of the least sensical and most annoying things about the old D&D (and later AD&D). I could never think of a particularily good reason why a devout dwarf couldn't be a paladin, or why races other than humans were capped in levels (other than to make playing a human more appealing).


in my 1E games, i dont have race restrictions or level capping either. stupid rule if you ask me and i allow ppl to play what they want.

mind you, i dont allow any of the new classes tho either....classic 1E and thats it :)

seems odd tho...in 3E you can do a true resurrection and not even have the body??!! wow how does that work then? go from memory? :D

Al



  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:48 pm 
 

killjoy32 wrote:if you look at the constitution table in the players handbook, it has "minimum scores" for a number of classes and races. if you are any of them, and your score goes lower....what happens then?

if youre a dwarf and then it goes lower...does that mean you cant be a dwarf :D

say youre a 12th level ranger...does it mean you suddenly cant be a ranger?

how does everyone approach this situation in their games?

Al


so c'mon all you DMs...how would you handle this situation? am real curious now. its never happened to me and am mulling over what i would do.



  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: Nov 09, 2021

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:55 pm 
 

harami2000 wrote:(And here's me thinking you read everything, Traveller :)) *friendly jab* ^^

OWWW!  Quiddit!  :lol:

I did have to downplay its importance, because for the gist of my argument about the consequences of Raise Dead between earlier editions and d20 Fantasy, it really is a minor thing. :wink:



  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:57 pm 
 

killjoy32 wrote:
killjoy32 wrote:if you look at the constitution table in the players handbook, it has "minimum scores" for a number of classes and races. if you are any of them, and your score goes lower....what happens then?

if youre a dwarf and then it goes lower...does that mean you cant be a dwarf :D

say youre a 12th level ranger...does it mean you suddenly cant be a ranger?

how does everyone approach this situation in their games?

Al


so c'mon all you DMs...how would you handle this situation? am real curious now. its never happened to me and am mulling over what i would do.

Well, I'd argue that if you can't be a dwarf, you can't be raised as a dwarf.  (That's what reincarnation is for, really.)

For a ranger, I'd let the character retain the class, with some sort of penalty to advancement (-5-10% xp).  For a paladin, no way -- that class is heavily based on image/status, you'd have to become a standard fighter.  Maybe a quest to retain the status.

 YIM  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:28 pm 
 

deimos3428 wrote:Well, I'd argue that if you can't be a dwarf, you can't be raised as a dwarf. (That's what reincarnation is for, really.)


so deim, wouldnt that be like saying then that the raise dead spell wont work?

so you would need to use a reincarnation spell to have any chance of success?

like the idea of the fighter tho and a quest to regain....good one!

Al



  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5648
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 18, 2021
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:51 pm 
 

There are level limits on nonhuman characters because they have other bonuses. If they didnt have restrictions, who in the world would want to play a human?


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

 WWW  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3593
Joined: Dec 20, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 25, 2021
Location: Canada

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 6:04 pm 
 

Deadlord36 wrote:There are level limits on nonhuman characters because they have other bonuses. If they didnt have restrictions, who in the world would want to play a human?


In 3.5 humans also get special abilities.  They get extra feats and can multi-class(once one multiclass) with no XP penalty.

3.5 plays very well.

J


Games can get you through times of no money but money can not get you through times of no games!!

 WWW  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: Nov 09, 2021

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 6:18 pm 
 

I just was cleaning out my hard drive a bit, and I found something rather interesting, regarding how to simplify d20 Fantasy. Granted Castles & Crusades already simplified d20, but for those who aren't interested in the retro feel of that system but want to make their lives a little bit easier, this might have appeal. It also is rather universal in that it can be applied to any d20 core ruleset from WotC (d20 Fantasy, d20 Modern, d20 Future, and d20 Star Wars).

[Note: The title actually is unwieldly, not to mention grammatically out of whack. It should actually be called "Simplifying the d20 System" or at worst, "Uncomplexifying the d20 System".]

Jack Bird wrote:Uncomplexificating the D20 System
Jack Bird
03 Apr 2004 10:51 p.m. PST


Somebody else did a d20 is too complicated post. I agree, and would have placed this post there, except that there are already 32 posts there, and many people would not see it, so here goes.

I agree that 3E is much more complex than all that comes before, and what most of us who loved D&D really liked was its simplicity. However, the complexity of 3E really is in the PCs. THis can be done away with by modifying three rules:

1. Prestige Classes:
Junk 'em. They don't add anything to the game, contribute to excess power-gaming, and focus the players attention too much on his character, rather than the adventure.

2. Skills:
Every character has all of his core skills at a level equal to his class level, all his cross-class skills at a level equal to half his class level (round up) and no other skills at all.

3. Feats:
These just translate into a number, equal to the number of feats the character would have on any level. They are used as follows: Any time the character really needs to accomplish something, he can expend one or more feats to represent a truly heroic effort on his part. Before he makes any die roll (for attack, damage, saving throw, skill check, or any other action taken by the character) he can declare the number of feats he is expending. Each feat allows one reroll, and the character can keep the best roll. He must declare ALL feats expended before the roll is made, and all feats so expended are lost, whether he needs the rerolls or not.

Each feat is usable once per day of adventuring.

Now, while this system has met considerable acclaim among my gaming group, I have heard two complaints about it:

1. What?! Without great cleave, power attack, et., my first level character can no longer cause 133 hit points damage per round! This bites!

To this one, I reply, tough. Go play d20 Munchkin. [Which can be found at http://www.sjgames.com. Traveller]

2. This takes away the individuality of my character. Now I can no longer create him to suit my taste. It is also less realistic, as it makes all characters the same.

This complaint is more legitimate, but I still think it fails. For one thing, the individualization of skills is a pretty modern, Western phenomenon. In the 21st century, you pretty much go to college and study what you like, join the military service that you like, learn the trade that you like, etc.

For most of human history, things were very different. Knights in the middle ages did not learn to read. This was an unmanly "priest's trick." Peasants did not learn swordsmanship. This was a noble's weapon. When the peasant fought, it was with the glaive, bow, axe, etc. Clerics and scholars did not become rulers (except of particular clerical sees) they were advisers to rulers and lawyers.

What's more, there was enormous social pressure NOT to deviate from one's class. A noble who decided to take up shoemaking would be as much frowned upon by his peers as a shoemaker who took up fencing. God put you in a place, and you stayed in that place, and you pretty much learned and did what your class dictated.

This all was true in the European middle ages, which, ironically enough, had enormous vertical and horizontal mobility compared to the rest of the world. In India, when Arjuna balks at killing his relatives in battle, Krishna tells him not to worry about it, just do as his class is supposed to do, and he'll be fine. In Japan, the situation is even more extreme, where the Samurai can kill virtually anyone of lower rank for just about any reason or none.

In short, whether or not this is realistic really depends on the time and period in which you are playing. For the free-wheeling modern world, I'd say use a skill based system (and here, you're probably better off with GURPS than D20). For a more stratified society, a purely level based system works just fine.



  
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 6 of 10123, 4, 5, 6, 78910