|
This seems to be the opinion held by quite a few people, and it surprises me.
One of our recent games had a combat wherein the PCs were not outnumbered and the EL was appropriate, that lasted for 3 hours.
We have had player's turns that have taken greater than ten minutes. And this is not a rare occurance.
I cannot think of a single game session that does not loose a significant chunk of time to referencing rules and clarifications.
I can think of a few spells and rules that are blatantly contradicted in different references or withing their core descriptions. (Dispel Magic anyone?)
And these are not all, just some of the bigger ones. Is my group unique? We have fun, don't get me wrong, but surely better is possible.
How do you feel about 3.5 and its successes and failings? What would you change?
Tam
I think that your problem isn't uncommon, but that is one reason that a player should try an research an action before doing it.
A player shouldn't build a grappling character if they don't know how to use the grapple rules. Even an experienced grappler should probably have a quick reference card or printout made up of all useful rules and modifiers, both for their use and for the DM. This helps everyone.
If you are going to introduce something that your DM specifically is inexperienced at dealing with, then you should provide them with the references you used to set up the situation in question.
I know some players try to play 'stump the DM' or 'Outwit the DM'. Usually if I don't know a rule satisfactorily to make a judgement. I may take a minute or so to review whatever I can find on the subject, and rule from my impression of the intent and spirit of the rule/ability. This keeps play from slowing to a snails pace, which can easily happen in 3.5 and in every incarnation of D&D.
For you or your DM, be decisive. Remind your players that the DMs rules go. If they aren't trying to be a problem they should understand this. If they throw a fit if a ruling goes against their interpretation of the rule in question, then perhaps next time they will make that quick reference for the DM.
Food for thought.
This seems to be the opinion held by quite a few people, and it surprises me.
It's certainly true that there are several areas where 3.5e is weak. Grapple is a big one, as is the prevalence of buffs and particularly de-buffing spells such as Dispel Magic and Disjunction. Polymorph has always been a big mess, and the recent errata do nothing to fix the issue properly. Multiclass spellcasters are too weak, and the patches that have been applied aren't a real solution. Oh, and Level Adjustment is crippled.
However, many of your specific complaints aren't necessarily problems with the system, nor are they necessarily going to be fixed in 4e:
One of our recent games had a combat wherein the PCs were not outnumbered and the EL was appropriate, that lasted for 3 hours.
It's impossible to talk about this without knowing more. How many rounds did the combat go? Was the environment particularly complex, or did it allow greater than normal (and/or 3d) movement? Oh, and how many PCs do you have? Henchmen/Cohorts? Animal companions?
We have had player's turns that have taken greater than ten minutes. And this is not a rare occurance.
That sounds like unprepared or dithering players, neither of which are a system problem, or anything 4e can do anything about. To fix it, you need to do two things:
1) Tell your players that they have 10 seconds from the start of their turn to describe their first action of the round, or they lose their turn. This will require them to be decisive, as befits the situation in which their characters find themselves. Note that you cannot do the same for subsequent actions in the round - the situation may well change if they take an AoO, or kill their opponent. However, they can be reasonably expected to act efficiently.
2) Remind them that the DM is always busy during combat, dealing with something, but that the players are inactive for 75% of the time in a four person group. Therefore, if they want to do anything that might need looked up, they should look it up and have the book open and ready to hand to the DM to check if necessary before their turn starts. This includes grappling, sundering, disarm, casting any spell, using any psionic power, and a variety of other things.
I cannot think of a single game session that does not loose a significant chunk of time to referencing rules and clarifications.
That's a genuine problem. Much of it comes down to getting players to look things up in the free time while waiting for their turn. Reducing the number of supplements also makes a huge difference. However, a reference table, listing page and book references for frequently-checked issues, is also a big help.
Note that this will only be fixed temporarily by 4e - within a year we'll be back to having many books to reference again, not to mention signficant amounts of errata. Indeed, depending on what they do with the Digital Initiative, this may well be worse under the new edition.
I can think of a few spells and rules that are blatantly contradicted in different references or withing their core descriptions. (Dispel Magic anyone?)
What's wrong with Dispel Magic? It seems perfectly clear to me.
See my note above about dealing with multiple sources.
And these are not all, just some of the bigger ones. Is my group unique? We have fun, don't get me wrong, but surely better is possible.
How do you feel about 3.5 and its successes and failings? What would you change?
No, I don't think your group is unique. I also don't think 4e will serve as a magic bullet in this instance.
There is nothing wrong with 3.5 edition, that can't be fixed by what is right with 3.5 edition.
When in doubt, I always rule in favor of the spirit of the rules, even if the wording suggests otherwise (or doesn't clarify well enough). Case in point: Player discovers Spectral Hand is freaking nuts when used defensively (tags 8 friendly targets in a round within line of sight, regardless of how far apart they are). Yeah...that's getting a few limits put on it.
My main concern is diluting the game. Sure some mechanics are more complex than others, but I like having the options for them. I would rather have the option to grapple, even if you think it is complex (I don't), then to not have the option to "grapple the troll". If I want simple games I'll play HeroQuest again (combat consisted of you rolling a certain of dies hoping for skulls and your foe hoping for shields, if your skulls were more than their shields you either hurt or killed them based on their "hp").
As for rounds taking awhile, well if a player is not ready, I skip them, letting them know I'll give them a chance to act when they are, as long as it is before their next turn. This is useful for the fact that my games tend to be pretty laid back with people getting up to go to the bathroom or get a drink or something and so we have to have a way to deal with their brief absent. It also might help if you have a player that isn't very decisive for the DM or some other player to suggest an action. "So what do you want to do? Charge this guy?" "Ah, sure." "Great. Roll your attack."
|
I think it is more of the case of whiney players and lazy DMs...
Look at Monte Cook (the Dee und Dee entry) - he is about to start two more campaigns so he can experiment with new house rules! The game takes time, energy, and effort.
Delericho's post pretty much covers it. But there are a few more points to cover.
No system, absolutely none, will ever be without flaws.
That is a given.
The points that Tambryn brought up about his/her game (without further specific details) suggest that the players are - fundamentally - bored with the system.
At least, by my observation. That is what my group suffers. The only time we have a game slow down (we play several systems, currently D&D, Exalted, Alternity, and a couple of 'one shots' from other systems [Palladium and Street Fighter come to mind]) it is always D&D, and always because the player really isn't into that particular combat.
Even when we have huge mass combats, of dozens per side, it always starts out great but fizzles after the first round. The players just lose interest.
And this didn't happen at the start of us using 3.x. Back then it was still exciting... Or at least as exciting as D&D is want to be.
So, everything Tambryn points out that we see in our games, is really a player problem - and not a system problem.
I want to take a moment to address 4th Edition in relation to this thread. WoTC claims that they are streamlining the rules, and that will speed up combat. In short, that is a lie. Unintentional, maybe, but still a lie. What they are really doing is trying to make combat more exciting, so that it will appear to have improved combat. Odds are very good that once the honeymoon wears off, that combat will "bog down" just as much as it does now. Of course, it remains to be seen how long the honeymoon will last...
I'm a player in Tam's group. And while not the most experienced player, I'm definitely no novice. While I do have my moments where I'm not prepared, the big slowdowns of the current game are that 1.) Both players are playing 2 gestalt character for the Savage Tide Adventure Path and that 2.) We both decided to try to go for some new character types we've never played before. I've never really played a cleric until this game and the other had never really played a spell caster at all. So part of it is that we are currently referencing books (mostly the PHB and Spell Compendium) for the rules of the characters and spells. I cut down some of the time for my characters by typing out their abilities, feats, etc. and the spells that the Fighter/Warmage uses. But the big chunk of my time was taken up when trying to prepare the Cleric Spells for the day. There are just so many that its so hard to remember half of them and what they do.
Some of the spells that Tam is talking about are spells like daylight/darkness. One paragraph says they suppress each other, the other says they dispel each other. The description of Demon Dirge under the spells list says that it deals 3d6 damage, but under the actual spell description it says 2d6. We've come across more but those are the ons that currently come to mind.
A bit from my Horde.
Ahh... Two players playing four characters will certainly bog things down - a lot. There just isn't enough "free time" to look stuff up.
That too, isn't a system problem. But I wouldn't lay it on the shoulders of the players either.
I don't think there is any system that would improve that situation.
Oh, and a side note, Spell description always trumps the "Quick lists." That doesn't help you any, I know. But there it is.
But the big chunk of my time was taken up when trying to prepare the Cleric Spells for the day. There are just so many that its so hard to remember half of them and what they do.
I recommend Googling Emass Web, and downloading spell sheets from there. You should be able to get a sheet listing all the Cleric spells from all the (D&D, not d20/OGL) books that you use, with a quick summary of each. This should help you to prepare your spells more quickly.
Also note that you don't have to redo the list every day - most of the time you'll want to use the same few spells, maybe swapping one or two out. Alternatively, you could spend a bit of time working up a couple of 'standard kits' of spells - the spells for general adventuring, the spells for fighting undead, and so on.
That should help save you a bit of time.
Yeah I saw a post on the "Limiting Cleric Spell Lists" thread about making different spell lists, its a good idea that I hadn't thought of. But since my cleric died this past game session, I'm going to try playing a favored soul which uses the cleric spell list to spontaneously cast divine spells. So maybe that too will help cut down on time.
|
The biggest problem with 3.5 is inconsistency.
They did so much when they went to d20 (everything is 'higher is better', everything is d20+relavent mods, etc) then they missed things.
Likewise quality has been inconsistent. Editing and proofreading seem to optional. Sometimes they hit something out of the park, othertimes they fall way short.
And finally, things are inconsistently themed. Some books seem to have extra chapters tacked on that don't belong.
Some prime examples:
Concealment is a percentage, not a d20 roll, or a modifier.
The five nations book for eberron was written by multiple people. Each chapter is organized differently, some have sections that others don't, etc. It is about 5 countries, and should have been presented as an almanac.
The PHB II is a beautiful book, but it has a huge chunk of space allocated to organizations, which may be PC run or have PC members, but it just didn't fit right in the book. Meanwhile, some, but not all of the existing classes got retouched with variant abilities.
oh well, my 2 cp
I think we'll see a little from Column A and a little from Column B. There are areas in the rules that can be cleaned up and the way some things, inherit in the system, are done is particularly slow and cumbersome. This sort of thing can be improved with a rewrite. In other aspects its the nature of a complex system like D&D - especially after 10 new source books are released, that results in the game slowing to a crawl.
Personally my players and myself where weighing the the pros and cons of going to 4th edition until the start of our first combat after the news two weeks ago. The players where debating what would likely be on the other side of a teleporting tower and had decided that Dragon was the probable answer. They where wrong, just some Arcane Oozes but once they got it into their heads that Dragon was the probable answer then buffing became important. 3.5 makes buffing an important part of the system, especially for the cleric. But party buffing is a massive time sink. My players eventually cast 13 buff spells but in choosing them, making sure that they stacked and arranging them in the correct order so that short duration buffs went last, coordinating between all the spell casters and writing down what the benefits were took upwards of 45 minutes. By the time it was done we where all in agreement that we could not wait for 4th edition.
My players eventually cast 13 buff spells but in choosing them, making sure that they stacked and arranging them in the correct order so that short duration buffs went last,
Oh yeah, this is a huge one.
There are two things I am hoping 4e will do about this (and if I don't switch, which I will be doing with House Rules at some point):
1) Standardise the buff durations somehow. Either switch everything to a duration of five minutes (and thus being good for essentially one encounter), or provide some sort of option for casters to place buffs in a suite, such that they must be cast together, but then apply together and expire together. I'm thinking the first option is probably the best.
2) Reduce stacking. Simply by reducing the number of named benefits (seven distinct names sounds good), the complexity of the buff spells reduces dramatically, especially if you also get rid of unnamed bonuses and the stacking exception for Dodge bonuses.
|
The question isn't "Is nothing wrong with 3.5e?" - that answer is obvious, as the other posts in this thread attest to. The question is "Are 3.5e's flaws bad enough that we need a new edition of the game now?"
I don't really think so. I'll be sticking with 3.5, maybe with a few of 4e's changes, but the whole thing just reeks of "Hasbro wants more profits from us, time for a new edition!"
|
|
Sure there are some things wrong with 3.5. I can't dispute that. I do think if you take the three core books on their own merits they create a quality game that can still be a ton of fun.
I would love to reduce prep time though I think I have a pretty good job making it as efficient as I can.
Combat could be re-worked, smoothed out, and simplified. That would take care of a good amount of my trouble. I have been kicking around some serious house rules in that regard for a long time.
I agree buffs could really stand a re-write. I didn't mind the buff durations from 3.0 all that much.
Otherwise I am generally happy with the game and I am not sorry I have dropped hundreds of dollars on the system.
I think we are seeing a surge of support for the benefits of 3.5 because of the way WotC has decided to present 4e. I know I am tired of reading previews for 4e that constantly trash 3e. Look, I've played this game for over seven years, 3.5 for 3 (?). I know the system has issues. Some of those issues are universal and some of them are based on perspective. But I know I don't need to be told how 3e handled some aspect of the game terribly and how 4e is going to clean it all up because its so cool. In most cases we don't even get a snippet on what the actual change is. I am glad they are excited for the game but just give me the details on how the system will work and I will make the judgement call on whether I think it is an improvement for my game or not. I don't like being told how silly I am for playing the game the way I do or that I enjoy 3.5.
Somewhat off topic...
What's funny is when I got back from Gencon I was pretty much excited for 4e. I thought I was ready for a new edition. Then something odd happened. Both of my groups just "clicked" and I could see how 3.5 really worked when players and DMs are invested in the game. That's a player/DM issue and not a system issue. Combined with some things I have heard I am cautious yet still interested.
Some of the spells that Tam is talking about are spells like daylight/darkness. One paragraph says they suppress each other, the other says they dispel each other.
Don't know about the other spell you mentioned, but this one is actually accurate. It describes the effect that the two have on each other when their ongoing effects overlap. The other is describing Counterspelling. Meaning, you can Counterspell a daylight spell with a darkness spell. In other words, they can be cast as a counterspell action to dispel each other.
There is no discrepency. Just a misunderstanding of the descriptions.
One of our recent games had a combat wherein the PCs were not outnumbered and the EL was appropriate, that lasted for 3 hours.We have had player's turns that have taken greater than ten minutes. And this is not a rare occurance.
Wow. This only shows up in my group when someone hasn't adequately prepared for their character-- you get a standard action (commonly either a spell or an attack) and a move action. As long as you know what your spells all do, and have your character designed around a combat concept with which you are familiar (I took improved trip but haven't read the trip rules, woooooo!), I don't understand how that can happen. I can't imagine taking 3 hours on a single encounter unless it was designed that way.
If buffing is the issue, have the players prepare a list of who gets what beforehand so you can just say "We buff according to plan alpha" and be done with it.
I think we'll see a little from Column A and a little from Column B. There are areas in the rules that can be cleaned up and the way some things, inherit in the system, are done is particularly slow and cumbersome. This sort of thing can be improved with a rewrite. In other aspects its the nature of a complex system like D&D - especially after 10 new source books are released, that results in the game slowing to a crawl.
Jeremy makes an excellent point here. 3.0/3.5 combat was quick, and the rules were easy to remember when you were just dealing with the three core rule books.
4.0 will be the exact same way, faster when you go back to using just three books.
Then the suppliments will start to come out. Add ons and tack ons and "compleats" and "compendiums". And once again the game will begin to bog down.
I was so happy when 3.0 came out because this was exactly what had happened to 2nd edition... then it happened all over again. Is it the nature of the beast? I'm starting to think "yes", and wondering if there is anything that can be done about it.
To sum up, 4.0 will be faster for awhile and I will eventually shift over after I run one or two more campaigns. How long can Hasbro hold off from selling us stuff that will "slow the game down again"? I give um 3 months after the final core rule book comes out.... maybe 2 months with todays faster "internet society".
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Wow. This only shows up in my group when someone hasn't adequately prepared for their character-- you get a standard action (commonly either a spell or an attack) and a move action.
And some free actions. And a swift action. And possibly actions for mounts, animal companions, and familiars...
|
|
Well let me clarify. I did not intend to suggest that I had lazy, inesperienced or unprepared players. I will blame this on that fact that my original post was not detailed enough.
My point about long rounds should have went more like "Even when the players and I do everything right at least as far as I can tell, there still seem to be situations that the rules just do not handle well." I am actually quite pleased with my player's preparedness. Dragonlvr, who posted above had actually typed up summaries of every one of his beguiler and warmage spells to have on hand as a quick reference. He went much further than I would have expected to be well prepared.
High level combat is one of those situations that I would say the rules do not handle as well as I personally would like. My opinion though.
3rd edition to me is still hugely preferable to 2nd ed.
Tam
In my opinion, it's not that 3.5 has nothing wrong with it, it's that it's really f~%&ing easy to fix, modify, and jerry-rig.
But that's just me.
It's comments like this that make you more than welcome at my table.
3.x is far from perfect. That's why I play it. If a game doesn't force you to think outside of the box every now and then, it's nowhere near as fun to play for me. House rules (provided they stop well short of rewriting the entire PHB) make the die worth rolling.
I want to take a moment to address 4th Edition in relation to this thread. WoTC claims that they are streamlining the rules, and that will speed up combat. In short, that is a lie. Unintentional, maybe, but still a lie. What they are really doing is trying to make combat more exciting, so that it will appear to have improved combat. Odds are very good that once the honeymoon wears off, that combat will "bog down" just as much as it does now. Of course, it remains to be seen how long the honeymoon will last...
Not only do I agree with you, but will point to a recent product WotC produced that they claimed would speed up and simplify combat: Star Wars Saga. The new system, vastly superior to the old system (it could ONLY get better), is still as complex as it ever has been, only in new ways.
If I were to run another 3.5 game, I would rip it apart and rebuild it to my liking. So, yeah, from that standpoint theres nothing wrong with 3.5. In my opinion, the game didn't break at our table until enough splat books introduced easily exploitable combos. But thats bound to happen with 4.0 eventually as well.
4.0? I'm hoping that I won't have to rip it as far apart to make it the game I want it to be.
The question isn't "Is nothing wrong with 3.5e?" - that answer is obvious, as the other posts in this thread attest to. The question is "Are 3.5e's flaws bad enough that we need a new edition of the game now?"
I don't really think so. I'll be sticking with 3.5, maybe with a few of 4e's changes, but the whole thing just reeks of "Hasbro wants more profits from us, time for a new edition!"
Or to be more economically minded, "are the flaws bad enough that it warrants shelling out another $150 for the DM, $50 for each player, just to fix them?" ($50 per core book x3 for the DM, $50 per PHB for each player)
For me, the answer is no. I just did that last year, when I upgraded my campaign to 3.5 from 3.0. (I spent nearly 7 years with 3.0 and will probably spend another 7 with 3.5.) I'll continue to buy the odd 3.5 supplement (cheap that they will be after 4ed comes out) to enhance my 3.5 game, but I've still got a lot of life in those books before I start over again, from scratch.
Greg
P.S. Yes, I do believe that 3.5 is flawed, but in my opinion its better then 3.0, which was better than 2nd ed AD&D, which was better than AD&D, etc, etc, etc. 4th ed may end up being better than 3.5, but 3.5 is good enough for me, for sure.
Since I have heard of 4th Editions future release, I have been seeing more and more problems with my game. I was very apprehensive at first, but now I'm very excited. Reading through the Star Wars Saga rules just to see some hints on the future of D&D.
|
|
Since I have heard of 4th Editions future release, I have been seeing more and more problems with my game. I was very apprehensive at first, but now I'm very excited. Reading through the Star Wars Saga rules just to see some hints on the future of D&D.
Huh. As soon as I heard 4.0 was arriving, I saw less flaws with 3.5. I guess I percieved 4.0 as a 'threat' and I've started to 'defend' 3.5. Wierd.
|
|
Since I have heard of 4th Editions future release, I have been seeing more and more problems with my game. I was very apprehensive at first, but now I'm very excited. Reading through the Star Wars Saga rules just to see some hints on the future of D&D.Huh. As soon as I heard 4.0 was arriving, I saw less flaws with 3.5. I guess I percieved 4.0 as a 'threat' and I've started to 'defend' 3.5. Wierd.
Like I said, I am the exact same way. I saw all the good things about 3.5 despite the claims by WotC that so much was wrong.
I am not even sure I see 4e as a threat, just the marketing that is used to sell the game so far.
And some free actions. And a swift action. And possibly actions for mounts, animal companions, and familiars...
Wow. This only shows up in my group when someone hasn't adequately prepared for their character-- you get a standard action (commonly either a spell or an attack) and a move action.
And summoned creatures, lets not forget them.... :-)
|
|
Since I have heard of 4th Editions future release, I have been seeing more and more problems with my game. I was very apprehensive at first, but now I'm very excited. Reading through the Star Wars Saga rules just to see some hints on the future of D&D.Huh. As soon as I heard 4.0 was arriving, I saw less flaws with 3.5. I guess I percieved 4.0 as a 'threat' and I've started to 'defend' 3.5. Wierd.Like I said, I am the exact same way. I saw all the good things about 3.5 despite the claims by WotC that so much was wrong.
I am not even sure I see 4e as a threat, just the marketing that is used to sell the game so far.
4.0. Rorg.
|
I remember when we played D&D and combat took only a few minutes, because we didn't have to use miniatures. It was all in the mind. Now everyone wants the game to be "realisitic." Come one, we're throwing spells and attacking dragons, realism has nothing to do with it!
Now combat takes forever, because RPGs have returned to their roots and become table top games. You know the game is too complex when it is nearly twice the size of any previous addition.
To add to the complexity there is 3.0 vs 3.5. For years we used 3.0 and then we changed to 3.5. Oh what a mistake that was. Now spells behave differently, so we always have to look up every single spell just to be sure, no matter how many times we cast it. Some rules are missing entirely, others changed radically. All under the guise of tweaking. Which means that we can never know for certain if we are getting rules right.
Which brings me to my next 3.5 rant. Too many rules. Ever played GURPS or even Shadowrun? GURPS is the ultimate in rules light RPGs. Combats are fast and easy, but characters are the most well developed and individualized in the industry. Shadowrun has rules for a lot of different areas, magic, cybernetics, automatic weapons fire, but essentially they are all the same at their roots. Easy to use and apply, and combat is fast and simple. And neither requires you to have a 4x8 table with a huge grid and hundreds of minis so you can have a combat.
D&D was made to be a ROLE Playing Game, not a table top tactical simulation. Take that nonsense out and the game gets back to lean and fast.
Unfortunately it seems that 4.0 is destined to just as complex. They have an entire line of minis they have to support, and an online table top simulator to support, so I expect rules to be much much more complex than anyone really wants.
Here's a toast to Dungeons and Dragons Version 5.0 by Paizo! Can't wait.
Unfortunately it seems that 4.0 is destined to just as complex. They have an entire line of minis they have to support, and an online table top simulator to support, so I expect rules to be much much more complex than anyone really wants.
You are likely more correct on that point than you want to be.
One of the "improvements" they have made to combat is to encourage movement during combat. No real details yet, but stuff like the Scout's Skirmish ability, "but better."
With the push to encouraging movement, and taking away any incentive to stand still (no more full attack with iterative attacks), that certainly encourages more mini use.
But that is just my take on it.
If buffing is the issue, have the players prepare a list of who gets what beforehand so you can just say "We buff according to plan alpha" and be done with it.
This defeats the whole point of spell casters. Spell casters bring a diverse tool set to the table which can be utilized to overcome a wide range of obstacles. There are no cookie cutter threats. You can't just design a list to deal with Undead - a Death Knight is not an Undead Druid with a highly enhanced Tyrannosaurus Animal Companion. There would be overlap in the buffs to take on each type of encounter but they would not be the same.
I can see no way of creating a master buff list that allows the players to deal with the reality at the table unless my encounters where simplified - and whats the point of that? If I'm at the top of my game as a DM then most of the encounters I throw at my players are change ups and curve balls. My whole objective is to get my players to treat every encounter as something new and intriguing. If they have a 'plan Alpha' that actually works then I suspect I'm failing as a DM. I should probably introduce more diversity into my encounters.
GURPS is the ultimate in rules light RPGs. Combats are fast and easy, but characters are the most well developed and individualized in the industry.
You're rocking my world here. You think GURPS has simple combat? I currently play in both a GURPS game and a D&D game. Just to make a simple attack in GURPS requires so much more complication.
In D&D:
1. player rolls d20 and adds attack modifier, calls out a number, GM says "hit" or "miss".
2. player rolls damage. the monster loses some hp, it either goes out of the fight or it's fine.
In GURPS:
1. player rolls weapon skill roll.
2. GM rolls defense roll.
3. assuming the attack roll succeeds and defense roll fails, damage is rolled. opponent's DR is subtracted from damage and the remaining damage is multiplied by a number that depends on weapon type and hit location.
4. Next the GM determines if the amount of damage is enough to force a stun and knockdown roll, or (possibly multiple) instant death rolls.
5. Finally, we now have to keep track of the shock penalty the injured creature has, and whether the injured creature now needs to make unconsciousness rolls at the beginning of each of its turns.
GURPS is a more realistic system than D&D, but has a lot of overhead. Both the examples above are simple ones, but when GURPS combat gets complicated, it gets way more complicated than any D&D game I've ever seen.
I actually look forward to many of the changes that 4.0 seems to promise us, and now that I'm running a game for a group of five 18th level characters in which every session consists of one very long fight against one very tough creature, or small group of creatures, I can't wait to see them.
That said, some of the changes in 4.0 seem to contradict the basic concepts that have been in D & D since the begining. And if Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast really wanted to make money off of this project and get new players involved, I feel that changing the name of the game itself might be appropriate.
This defeats the whole point of spell casters. Spell casters bring a diverse tool set to the table which can be utilized to overcome a wide range of obstacles. There are no cookie cutter threats. You can't just design a list to deal with Undead
Most of the buffs apply entirely to the PCs, and apply to things that don't change according to the opposition. It doesn't matter if you're fighting a dragon, a skeleton, or a balor, Bull's Strength is Bull's Strength - most of the time, the party will want it.
There will be some changes, such as the choice of energy to apply Resist Energy to, and whether to use that Negative Plane Protection, and so on, but those changes are actually fairly minor.
I can see no way of creating a master buff list that allows the players to deal with the reality at the table unless my encounters where simplified
Step 1: Write down the list of all the buffs the casters have available.
Step 2: Sort these according to duration - longest duration first.Step 3: Pick a common type of opposition.
Step 4: Determine which of the buffs are actually desirable against this opponent. Eliminate all the others.
Step 5: Remove further buffs, depending on the ability of the casters to actually prepare all these spells, their willingness to expend the resources, stacking, and so on and so forth.
This has created "Buff Plan A". Repeat steps 3 - 5 for other common opposition types, to create "Buff Plan B", "C", "D" and "E". This should cover most eventualities.
When dealing with another set of circumstances, it is likely one of the existing plans will remain 90% effective, but need some small modifications. So, apply the modifications, and record the change as "Buff Plan F", and so on.
It should be noted that because circumstances change, it is important with each "Buff Plan" to record the individual modifiers for each step in the plan, not just the end result. Otherwise, if the Cleric has had to burn his Bull's Strength for healing, the whole plan must be recalcuated, rather than just not applying the appropriate step.
The target here should not be to develop a "one size fits all" approach to buffs. The goal is to create a couple of tools to quickly speed up what is known to be a rather slow aspect of the game.
I still agree, though, that buffs need some work, specifically in the areas of standardising durations and reducing stacking.
About buffs, it seems like in alot of the games of folks, they predominately get the drop on their foes? I mean if you get bushwacked, are you going to be spending several rounds buffing, while they are wailing on you? At least in the games I have run and played it seems more often than not, the PCs are the ones getting jumped and so only a limited amount of buffing usually occurs.
I had one session where the party was attacked by a green dragon. While it was strafing the party, the wizard ran behind a tree and began buffing himself. When he was done (several rounds later), he jumped out from behind the tree, just as someone else killed the dragon. It was like that scene in Big Trouble in Little China, where Kurt Russel loses his knife and by the time he gets it again, his friend has beaten all of the guards.
Combat in 3.5 can take a while, especially at high levels. My own campaign has recently hit 21st level and when combat breaks out it can take forever.
The way I speed things up is to eliminate some of the stuff that causes real slowdown problems.
Grappling being one that I avoid like the plague if at all possible.
And there are some monsters that have so many options and defences that they slow things down, high CR demons and devils for example.
I also try and avoid combats with too many villainous spellcasters at once, especially if they are a mixture of divine and arcane casters.
Instead I have shifted the campaign towards a more political theme. The PC's are now amongst the most powerful mortals in the world and can wipe out small armies, but winning favour at court requires more subtle tactics.
And to be honest I get bored of constant combat. We haven't done a dungeon crawl in a year and combat tends to be with a few powerful individuals backed up with ranks and file minions.
This may not suit a lot of people, but as we tend to get 2 to 2.5 hrs a week of game time, high level combats are something to be kept to a minimum. I'd hate the game to crawl to the rate of 1 encounter per week.
Role-playing is not just about combat. It's a bunch of friends meeting to play a game, have some fun and watched with bemusement as someone rolls their 3rd fumble in a row.
And if you wonder how they level without combat.... overcoming an enemy is all they need to do. If they can outwit a political rival that's as much a victory as beating him to death with stick.
About buffs, it seems like in alot of the games of folks, they predominately get the drop on their foes? I mean if you get bushwacked, are you going to be spending several rounds buffing, while they are wailing on you? At least in the games I have run and played it seems more often than not, the PCs are the ones getting jumped and so only a limited amount of buffing usually occurs.
I guess this would depend on the usual circumstances in your game. I find that a great deal of the time my players are the initiators of the adventure. That is they move toward the site and then proceed to explore it eliminating opposition as it is encountered.
This is essentially your standard dungeon crawl type set up - though obviously the area being explored can change from an enemy keep or fort, to the Under Dark to a haunted tower.
In any circumstance like this players, especially as they move into mid levels, have significant resources at their disposal to acquire information about the opposition. Rogues and Ninja's can be turned invisible and scout ahead. Wizards can cast spells like Clairvoyance to get some idea about whats beyond doors. Clerics can cast various divine spells to gather information regarding the likely opposition and this is probably the tip of the iceberg. My players are big on Windwalk as a scouting tool and there is a spell that creates eyes under the wizards control and these can be sent scouting.
All of this being said there are barriers etc. that the DM can throw up that can confuse the issue. Monsters may not be passive so knowing whats in the next room might not tell you what may reinforce that room. Most scouting techniques are vulnerable to secret doors. Usually you either don't have time to take 20 or your spell does not have the ability to discern their existence even if they did have enough time to actually do the search.
My players are big on information. They want to know what they are likely to be up against. I can't stop them from getting some information but I work hard to make sure that I have at least some tricks up my sleeve. That said - when my players are in doubt they are likely to prepare for the worst, this can be frustrating, as in my example above where my players felt Dragon was a high probability and yet it was just a couple of Arcane Oozes. Lots of time spent buffing and most of it more or less wasted as Arcane Oozes just did not present that large of a threat to the players.
It doesn't matter if you're fighting a dragon, a skeleton, or a balor, Bull's Strength is Bull's Strength - most of the time, the party will want it.
See this is what I don't get about buffs, and definitely don't like. They just seem like pointless time-wasting. If everyone on both sides of a conflict zaps themselves with Bull's Strength, every single time, then what's the point? You may as well remove Bull's Strength from the game because it all comes out the same anyway. Instead of having STR, you have STR+Standard Buff. Buffs become less like magic spells and more like essential equipment with an annoying timer. Things like Bull's Strength are only ever used in combat encounters so you may as well decide to save time just by giving everyone Gauntlets of Ogre Power. And then they'll still cast Bull's Strength on themselves.
I just don't get buffs. I think the game would be much better without them. It's not like a video game where you just press X and your buff is automatically applied, maintained, and ended when the time's up. You have to keep track of them manually and its a chore. Personally I think there's nothing more boring in a game than an arms race.
I agree with the original poster's assertion that combat takes excessively long at present. A few months back I was starting to wonder either if I was getting rusty as a DM or if my players were simply inept. Therefore, over the course of our ongoing campaign I have literally sank several months’ worth of time into putting as many timesaving devices into the character sheets as possible:
* All spells list book, page number, recharge time and what components are required. (I think I might add whether Spell Resistance applies too.)
* Skills list common conditional or conditional synergy bonuses immediately next to them and (since the sheets are all stored in a database), the calculations are hidden so that it's easy to see the correct modifier at-a-glance.
* Feats all have a concise yet complete listing of their rules along with the book/page reference.
* Sheets are color-coded and laid out in the chronological order of combat from Purple (Initiative) to Blue (making attacks, grappling), Teal (saves), Green (resistances), Gold (full, touch and FF AC/Defense), Orange (damage reduction) and Red (taking damage aka Hit Points).
* I added character-specific charts on all the player's sheets that have a quick-lookup for how much damage a hit translates into based off of what types of damage reduction that character has and whether or not it is bypassed. (Eliminates an extra step of subtraction.)
* Full monster manual stats for their mounts are on every sheet.
* Concise yet full rules for all racial and class features are listed.
* I even researched how to make a cell formula for Excel that gets the damned thing to sort text so that I could have a DM quick-chart showing me the most-used stats of every character in the party. This includes whether or not there will be an encounter (listen, spot, hide, move silently) to interaction (gather info, search, sense motive, bluff, diplomacy, intimidate) to combat basics, saves and ability score modifiers.
* Made a separate report that ranks ALL of the party members according to their level of aptitude in each of those areas.
These steps all helped to improve the speed of gameplay. I can often now simply bypass having to ask players to make rolls that are better made in secret (or that they still can't find in spite of color-coding).
But my God... there's no good reason why I should have had to sink soooo many nights and weekends into such endeavors! This isn't even talking about all the months I spent trying to re-engineer 3.5 into working how I wanted it to.
IMO then, the way I see it is:
If 3.5 is "good enough" then why have I and others I know spent so much time trying to *fix* it?
One thing that would definitely help my group is if offensive combat magic was categorized by effect. By this I mean, allowing the caster to customize their spell at the time of casting in order to fit the effect to what is needed (i.e. 20’ radius vs. 60’ line vs. 40’ cone vs. ray vs. missile). This would be a tremendous help for the more casual players in my group who like to play D&D but don’t know the rule books and all the spells by heart.
It’s easy for a player who know tactics but not rules to look at the layout of minis on the table and say, “Ooh, those hobgoblins there are all in a row, I want to use something that just strikes in a line.” However, expecting that same girl who is casually into playing D&D with her friends because she gets to “be” a pixie warmage to know that at her level lightning bolt is really the only viable spell she can use for what she’s got in mind… that’s a whole different level of complexity.
That right there is the difference between what’s great about D&D vs. what’s great about computer RPGs. When You’ve got a DM, essentially even new players ought to be able to get by just describing the abstraction of what they want to do. On the flip-side, with a computer everything is already set in stone and You are in a certain sense shielded from the pitfalls of that sort of creative freedom. Both have their merits and their places but I want to PLAY D&D not have to wade thru only one or two encounters per session.
Anyway, sorry if this has sounded like a flame or off-topic, but I agree that things just take far longer to "get done" than I like. I'm optimistically holding out hope that 4th Edition might provide some small measure of relief.
They just seem like pointless time-wasting. If everyone on both sides of a conflict zaps themselves with Bull's Strength, every single time, then what's the point? You may as well remove Bull's Strength from the game because it all comes out the same anyway. Instead of having STR, you have STR+Standard Buff. Buffs become less like magic spells and more like essential equipment with an annoying timer. Things like Bull's Strength are only ever used in combat encounters so you may as well decide to save time just by giving everyone Gauntlets of Ogre Power. And then they'll still cast Bull's Strength on themselves.
Bull's Strength wasn't a particularly well chosen example, precisely because most melee characters will immediately acquire a Belt of Giant's Strength as soon as possible, and thus render the spell moot.
Still, the thing about buff spells is that they are not an infinite resource. Unless the party is able to ensure they will only have one encounter in the day (unlikely), then they will have to decide how much of their magical power to expend on buffs for each encounter. Do you use Bull's Strength now, or do you hold it back for later, and for an encounter when you might really need it?
However, expecting that same girl who is casually into playing D&D with her friends because she gets to “be” a pixie warmage to know that at her level lightning bolt is really the only viable spell she can use for what she’s got in mind… that’s a whole different level of complexity.
To be fair, I don't think it's really a flaw in the game system if an inexperienced player running a very complex character takes a while to work out what she wants to do. (And, yes, a Pixie Warmage is a very complex character - non-standard race with all sorts of strange powers, and an arcane caster class that has more available spells in any given round than any PHB caster class.)
Yes, my bad for allowing someone new to the game to try and actualize the idea they had for what they thought would be a cool character. ;)
Sarcasm aside, I agree that a pixie warmage is a complex build. However, in comparison to building a melee character (i.e. what many DMs would consider a rules-lite character), the pixie's flight and invisibility mean that by and large she can act in combat without having to know a thing about reach, attacks of opportunity, 5-foot steps, etc.
In otherwords, the unique aspects of playing an invisible, miniature DeathStar eliminated what most of my players see as even more confusing rules. (The steel sqwire spell templates take a lot of guess-work out of things too.)
Regardless, I don't believe that the experience of the player in question invalidates my assertion that there are other ways of building a magic system that are potentially more intuitive.
Regardless, I don't believe that the experience of the player in question invalidates my assertion that there are other ways of building a magic system that are potentially more intuitive.
Yes, why not allow the players to shape the effect of any spell they cast at the time of casting. Heck why stop there, why not allow any spell to function like magic missile if they wish (no save, no attack roll, auto hit), that seems like it would be the "easiest" choice.
Yes, why not allow the players to shape the effect of any spell they cast at the time of casting. Heck why stop there, why not allow any spell to function like magic missile if they wish (no save, no attack roll, auto hit), that seems like it would be the "easiest" choice.
It's always rewarding to go into a detailed explanation or analysis of something on the Internet only to receive a snarky one or two line reply. Thanks for that.
Yes, why not allow the players to shape the effect of any spell they cast at the time of casting. Heck why stop there, why not allow any spell to function like magic missile if they wish (no save, no attack roll, auto hit), that seems like it would be the "easiest" choice.It's always rewarding to go into a detailed explanation or analysis of something on the Internet only to receive a snarky one or two line reply. Thanks for that.
Aye, welcome to the internats. The only things we argue about are the things we love, that being D&D.
But to give you a decent response. You shouldn't -have- to put that much time into making the game accessible to your players because you should expect your players to take up their share of the load too.
For instance, this site is what I force my players to use when I'm DM'ing for their spell sheets. I hand out a extended four page character sheet that I've found here and that basically means we're all set to go.
For the rest, I expect my players to read the PHB back to front once and to stop asking the layman questions by session five.(five 8 hour sessions that is). If your players just expect you to do all the work in making it easy for them, well you've set yourself so that players will do almost nothing in return to make it easier for themselves.
DM'ing should be fun too, so make sure that it is.
Yes, my bad for allowing someone new to the game to try and actualize the idea they had for what they thought would be a cool character. ;)
No, that was a good move. I think I would have advocated Sorcerer, though. Although the class is signficantly weaker than the Warmage, it's also much easier to run on a round-by-round basis (only a handful of spells available, instead of dozens).
Regardless, I don't believe that the experience of the player in question invalidates my assertion that there are other ways of building a magic system that are potentially more intuitive.
Absolutely. Counterspelling doesn't work right, metamagic could use some overhaul, the buffs are a problem, dispel magic is a major book-keeping problem, and I'm sure there are some other things I've missed. Also, horror of horrors, a mana-pool system or fatigue system would probably be more intuitive to new players.
I don't disagree that there are problems with the system. It just struck me as odd that the system was being blamed for a new player having problems with a complex character.