One of the few things 4E did nice is to do away with all that. What you care about for monsters is their final numbers, not how they got there, and 4E just gave you final numbers.
What I care about is both effective rules and useful fluff on how the monster can be used. Rules are sterile without a grounding in verisimilitude.
There are more reasons to use spells than 'adventurers attacking that day'. Consider for example the King's adviser. Care to take a guess on how many of his spells he has left? Hint: It's not all, because if he's doing his job he's used some divinations and wards already.
I've gotten the hang of it. Stats take about 20 seconds. Spells take a few minutes. Feats take a few minutes. Magic items take a minute or two. Spellbooks are the only things that take a half decent amount of time, but then high level wizards probably have it hidden away so it won't be found anyways, not in the guy's pocket. Skill points are less than a minute. End result is about 20 minutes for one of the most complex characters to write up at high levels. Since it's easily broken into very small chunks I can easily do bits at any time I have a minute or two to burn, and not even notice the prep cost.
In 3.5, you just remember a few codewords and you can get any stat in about 1 second of mental math. Don't know his saves offhand? Look at the casting stat, look at the spell level. "Ok, DC 30 save vs Implosion please." If the guy has Spell Focus, add that in too. You simply need to learn the shortcuts for maximum efficiency, something that I am very good at.
See edit. Stats = ability scores. You write 6 numbers, increase his prime stat by a number equal to his level / 4 rounded down (15th level wizard gets +3 int) then you do items which requires .5 second edits to the stats that the items boost. Why would that take two minutes?
If you aren't good at DMing, you don't run high level games. You run low level games and get there. Then you know what you're doing and can handle it.
Stop the edit tag.
If you aren't good at DMing, you don't run high level games. You run low level games and get there. Then you know what you're doing and can handle it.
But that's just the thing. I am an experienced DM. I have like 10 years of DMing experience though the various editions. I know the rules quite well, and still I find it extremely time consuming.
And hell, you yourself admitted that it took you 20 minutes to stat up an NPC wizard. That's a lot of time on a single monster, who is just a part of an encounter.
Again, I ask... can't we throw DMs any kind of bone, or are we just going to say "Don't run high level games unless you're prepared to devote an hour minimum to planning each encounter?"
Why are you so against anything that might make more DMs want to run this game?
You keep assuming it's 20. I'd say more like 15. Sometimes 10. Anything less complex than a Wizard is faster. Anything lower than level 15 is faster. Anything higher than 15 isn't that much slower as the options cap at 17 along with max spell level.
I don't see having more DMs willing to run it as necessarily being a good thing. It can be, but probably isn't. It is necessary to implement 'idiot filters' on all things to minimize the time wasters. Stripping away these filters, by making it easy for just anyone to DM means that I (and every other player) have more bad DMs to sort through to get the things we want to get. I dunno about you, but I optimize life, which means I hate wasting time on suboptimal options. The more of those get checked at the door, the better. Therefore, a modest entry fee of time and effort keeps a fair number of the bad DMs out.
|
Presumably, that NPC is having to use spells for other stuff. Your example is only valid if your NPCs are humanoid shaped packages of experience that exist for the sole purpose of getting stabbed in the face. Provided that ya know, they have their own motivations and desires and are more than just a video game sprite you are wrong.
3.5 creation is fast once you get the hang of it, and can be easily slipped into gaps so that once you know what way the PCs are going you can write ahead of them and they'll never notice. 4.0 creation? Constantly having to reference exact text so you don't get tripped up by minor changes that snuck in but change the entire meaning of the paragraph means it takes longer, especially since you are trying to shape raw Arbitriarium into something solid.
I encounter the same problem with Pathfinder by the way. Something reads like it does in 3.5, eyes glaze over, then I find out it's actually different and facepalm. 3.5 stuff has distinctness, and thus a lack of confusion going for it.
it really easy with a NPC generator, i got one for 3.5 now all we need is someone to code one for PF and we will be set. i agree i rather have a program to make up a NPC for me then use crap from 4.0.
i agree 100%, there are TOO many BAD 3.5 dms already, making DMing idiot proof will just increase the number of bad dms that we get running games not decrease them, not saying either of you are Bad DMs but i have found that ones that grow up on 3.5 dont have the same ideals the 2e DMs have(which is what i grew up on)
I don't see having more DMs willing to run it as necessarily being a good thing. It can be, but probably isn't. It is necessary to implement 'idiot filters' on all things to minimize the time wasters. Stripping away these filters, by making it easy for just anyone to DM means that I (and every other player) have more bad DMs to sort through to get the things we want to get. I dunno about you, but I optimize life, which means I hate wasting time on suboptimal options. The more of those get checked at the door, the better. Therefore, a modest entry fee of time and effort keeps a fair number of the bad DMs out.
I've seen more of that mindset in 4.0 than 3.5, which indicates it is getting worse over time. With that said I don't agree with the 2.0 mindset as it contains too much Arbitrarium. If I wanted freeform I'd play freeform and save my money I would have spent on books for other useful things. Also, lots of Arbitrarium encourages DM power tripping which is one more thing that has to be filtered for. Still, the fact it did have a bit more complex of a format, and variables were written as number ranges so you had to mentally convert it into the dice ranges did filter out the less intelligent and/or math apt which helped somewhat.
In summary, every edition has had varying problems with idiots, the later ones more so as it becomes more accessible and thus less elitist. Elitism in this case is a good thing.
|
|
In the defense of DMs everywhere, I think there is an equal proportion of bad players (in all editions). Selfish people are selfish people. I don't need an "idiot filter" to keep them out of my game. I just don't play with them. For example, I'm sure you would be shocked to hear that I would probably not ask you to be a part of my table. No hard feelings, but our personalities and play-styles simply would not work out, nor would you mesh with my other players. :)
Elitism is never a good thing. D&D is already elitist enough as it is, I don't think it needs any help losing players. I had a DM once that was as elitist as you could get. He is currently player-less and blames everything on the system and his players. The rest of us moved on with our lives.
In the defense of DMs everywhere, I think there is an equal proportion of bad players (in all editions). Selfish people are selfish people. I don't need an "idiot filter" to keep them out of my game. I just don't play with them. For example, I'm sure you would be shocked to hear that I would probably not ask you to be a part of my table. No hard feelings, but our personalities and play-styles simply would not work out, nor would you mesh with my other players. :)
Elitism is never a good thing. D&D is already elitist enough as it is, I don't think it needs any help losing players. I had a DM once that was as elitist as you could get. He is currently player-less and blames everything on the system and his players. The rest of us moved on with our lives.
That means you are using an idiot filter, otherwise you would not catch them at the door. You'd have to find out via trial and error. Mostly error.
I wouldn't be shocked at all. There are certain criteria I look for in my DMs, and you violate most of it. For example I get the feeling I could not even consider playing anything less than a Wizard in one of your games due to a flawed understanding of how things work on your part resulting in me being denied the things that make lesser classes work. In other words, you'd probably pull a core only is balanced on me, which is a blatant lie and denies the lesser classes their bug fixes that make them playable.
Example: Rogues are solid classes as long as you have a means to ignore blanket immunities to your sneak attack, reliably get said sneak attacks off, Canny Rogue your way past Fortification armor to cover the rest of your bases, and take some of the suck out of the TWF style via legally getting Perfect Two Weapon Fighting at level 10. Without all that though... have fun bouncing all over the place between half decent and utterly useless. Core gets one out of four right.
Speaking of which, Perfect Two Weapon Fighting is barely worth it as a single level 1 feat with no prerequisites. Anything more is just setting resources on fire.
Elitism means I don't need to devote nearly as much time to keeping my games free of crap. I don't care if D&D has a few hundred thousand players or a few million. I care about those few thousand good ones. The rest are irrelevant.
|
|
That means you are using an idiot filter, otherwise you would not catch them at the door. You'd have to find out via trial and error. Mostly error.
No, it means I try to gauge my players through conversation. And yes, through trial and error if I gauge incorrectly. I don't need it hardwired into the game, there are a lot of fun players I have gamed with that would not be intelligent enough to pass your "filter" but were otherwise fine.
I wouldn't be shocked at all. There are certain criteria I look for in my DMs, and you violate most of it. For example I get the feeling I could not even consider playing anything less than a Wizard in one of your games due to a flawed understanding of how things work on your part resulting in me being denied the things that make lesser classes work. In other words, you'd probably pull a core only is balanced on me, which is a blatant lie and denies the lesser classes their bug fixes that make them playable.
First: You are right, you would not enjoy my games.
Second: I think I understand how things "work" just fine, thank you. Feel free to ask any of my players on the boards here. The rules are a guide for some people. If we all did paint by the numbers where would the fun be?Third: Now you're putting words in my mouth.
Fourth: Non-core is often imbalanced for my tastes, for all classes. But you seem to be convinced otherwise, so good for you.
Example: Rogues are solid classes as long as you have a means to ignore blanket immunities to your sneak attack...
What did that have to do with anything? One of my players is perfectly happy playing as a Kobold Rog10, Core Only. He's still alive after 6 levels. Does that prove anything other than in his case he is happy?
In that case he's dependent on the DM being super nice to him as a long list of things utterly negate his ability to do anything. Especially since he took a Con penalty for whatever illogical reason which is always a bad choice, especially when you have to be within 30' of the enemy to do anything to them.
Having the DM be super nice so you can succeed as otherwise you can't is both undesirable and an unnecessary variable. A Rogue with the stuff I mentioned isn't entirely negated by about half the fights in the game by default (and this is before any specific moves come in).
C'mon, this discussion is going to the level of RIDICULOUS lads!
Isn't it easier for us all to agree that there are different people, and that the DM job is to make players happy and liking to play the game? Some players like to be challenged to the extreme, and they love to optimize their characters ("optimizer" is an offense whenever I say this word) to the max. Some others like to RP. SOME OTHER JUST LIKE TO PLAY CERTAIN CHARACTERS, EVEN IF THEY ARE WEAK. Some of them, hell, don't even like to play but LOVE being next to their friends and seeing they play.
What's so hard to understand that nothing is "undesirable" if you're making the players happy? I mean really happy, meaning "Satisfaction", be that with the rp or with the challenges.
No one can just say "there is a right way to play". This is foolishness, and whoever says this, and defends their own point as "the true and desirable way to play" is just as dumb as the lizardman on my avatar!
Just go play and be happy, leave other people's game style alone! Geez!
Oh!
And one more thing!
The dm must also be happy, liking to dm and playing, or else his players will never be happy playing. OF COURSE he should only play with people who'll make him happy. After all, the player don't have to play with a dm who won't make him happy, that blatantly goes against what he wants to play and that makes no effort at making him confortable, so why a DM should play with a player that is like this?
The dm is on a higher chair, however, and he should REALLY give a chance just to see how a player goes. If the player can't fit, won't be happy no matter what, and tries to destroy the game, FU*% SEND HIM TO ORCUS!
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
C'mon, this discussion is going to the level of RIDICULOUS lads!
Isn't it easier for us all to agree that there are different people, and that the DM job is to make players happy and liking to play the game? ....
No. Individuality is irrelevant. Resistance is futile. We wish to improve your game. Your gaming culture will adapt to service ours.
Tarren, I'll just have to express that: I'm laughing my lungs out because of your last post form some 30 minutes now. Really, you went one step up my concept, lad.
Um, last I checked the point of this game was overcoming challenges. If the DM is letting you win instead of I dunno... actually putting some challenges in your character's way, what's the point? Once you get to a certain point, you're either not working, or only working because the world is bending around you to let you work.
Sorry crusader, you're missing the point. I think you last checked the game when it was on Chainmail, or better, at 1st edition. There, the point was to have fun while overcoming challenges.
It is not the fact anymore. The point is to have fun. You can have fun overcoming challenges, of course. There are a LOT of people who love this, many Complete books to enhance this, a whole full five monster manual to make this possible and many things. But that's because many like it this way. The game, however, does not make it the necessary way, or else things like the great Dungeon Master Guide 2 wouldn't be necessary.
Now now, i'm not saying that you are wrong because you like to overcome challenges, oly that this is not necessary, and people like different things. C'mon, my players like to cry, laught and be nervous on my games. Overcoming challenges is necessary to this drama, but it's not what they seek...
The point is to have fun.
Fun is irrelevant. You are playing it wrong. All your game table are belong to us. Resistance is futile.
You guys are going to kill me from so much laughing!
|
|
Um, last I checked the point of this game was overcoming challenges. If the DM is letting you win instead of I dunno... actually putting some challenges in your character's way, what's the point? Once you get to a certain point, you're either not working, or only working because the world is bending around you to let you work.
Having the DM be super nice so you can succeed as otherwise you can't is both undesirable and an unnecessary variable. A Rogue with the stuff I mentioned isn't entirely negated by about half the fights in the game by default (and this is before any specific moves come in).
Seems like you are arguing at cross purposes. On one hand you want challenges and no DM hand-holding, but on the other you want the PCs to be powerful enough to never worry about having to fight desperately.
Oh, and the kobold rogue? He hides in the dwarf barbarian's backpack and makes sneak attacks in the first round, then tumbles out, skitters behind some posts, makes a hide check, rinse and repeat. Reason for playing a kobold? He wanted to.
The big question is: Do you think there will be problems with the "Fighter vs. Wizard" balancing in the group so that some people might be unhappy? If that is a danger to your groups fun then try to make as few magic items as possible. Why? The answer can be seen easily: Take a level 20 Fighter and a level 20 Wizard and compare the impact of a +6 Str / Int item on their power and you will see that the RELATIVE gain for the fighter is MUCH lower. Fighters are focusing all their efforts on improving the one thing they can do, while the wizard is the King of flexibility and adding new stuff. In this case the gained spell slots (and +3 DC for spells!) far outweigh the jump from maybe +36 BAB to +39 BAB (and +3 damage) for the fighter. It is the same effect for the jump from a +4 weapon to a +5 weapon (18k gold), where the wizard would get a much bigger increase in power for the same amount of gold.
You can pretty much replace "fighter" in the above with any other melee class. Of course melee classes are very much gear dependant, but that doesnt mean they gain the most from better gear.
Stop spreading lies. Especially when you can't even get your words right. There are no items that improve BAB. This becomes even more true when you argue for the very point you argue against. Fighters are spending all their wealth getting the things they must have. So how exactly does limiting access to the things they must have make them better? You also admit the Wizard covers his bases a lot cheaper and can therefore actually choose. How does having access to few magic items for a class that doesn't need that many make them any weaker?
Again, stop spreading lies. Last warning.
|
|
Lies? A mistake is not the same as a lie, and logic is not the same as truth.
Nothing is anything definitively. All possibilities are equally relavant. Learn to accept that other people may have fun with the game without having to min/max their characters. Many of my group enjoy the story of the game just as much or more than the actual combat encounters.
Lies? A mistake is not the same as a lie, and logic is not the same as truth.
Nothing is anything definitively. All possibilities are equally relavant. Learn to accept that other people may have fun with the game without having to min/max their characters. Many of my group enjoy the story of the game just as much or more than the actual combat encounters.
He said that, was corrected, and said it again. That makes it deliberate deception instead of merely being misinformed.
Your waffling is false. Also, learn what roleplaying means and look up the Stormwind Fallacy. Lastly, learn what min/max means. Optimizer and munchkin too, while you're at it.
Edit: Wait, how the hell is your reply even relevant to the subject at hand? Are you trying to argue Fighters don't need perfect gear and feat selections just to function at par? Not optimized, just usable? Because if so I hope you have fun by being utterly useless and incapable of influencing any and all outcomes, as that's what you'll get.
Trying to shape Arbitrarium into something solid is like trying to make Order out of the raw essence of Limbo. Not only is it not happening, the attempt likely will not go well. I dunno about you but I don't want my options for DMs limited to professional grade designers just to avoid some completely borked creation causing random TPKs. Keeping out the crap is one thing. Setting the bar too high quite another. I never said anything about 10 hour statblocks. Don't strawman me.
Also, I have DMs willing to run above 5th. In fact I won't touch anything lower than 3rd as there is absolutely no point in getting attached to a character that will just likely be randomly OHKOed by some meaningless mook.