And, Charisma is not the useless stat in 3.0 that it was in 1e.
Charisma wasn't a useless Stat in 1st or 2nd Edition. It was only useless if you didn't use. By far intelligence was the most useless stat unless you happened to be a wizard. So you get more languages, big deal. Having a high Charisma meant henchmen and that cannon fodder was extremely useful.
I remember game where we'd go into the Undermountain using 2E and it was grind fest. Basically to see how far you could get and what level you were when died. No one ever got out of that Dungeon with that DM but it was a blast. We learned quickly that henchmen increased you survivability greatly. We'd end up going in with 15-16 people. 4 PCs and 10-12 henchmen, and a pack of war dogs. The best I ever did was got a cleric to 7th level before getting annihilated by a group of 12 trolls. In some cases you ended up playing one of your henchmen if you character died off too soon due a pit trap or something.
And, Charisma is not the useless stat in 3.0 that it was in 1e.Charisma wasn't a useless Stat in 1st or 2nd Edition. It was only useless if you didn't use. By far intelligence was the most useless stat unless you happened to be a wizard. So you get more languages, big deal. Having a high Charisma meant henchmen and that cannon fodder was extremely useful.
I remember game where we'd go into the Undermountain using 2E and it was grind fest. Basically to see how far you could get and what level you were when died. No one ever got out of that Dungeon with that DM but it was a blast. We learned quickly that henchmen increased you survivability greatly. We'd end up going in with 15-16 people. 4 PCs and 10-12 henchmen, and a pack of war dogs. The best I ever did was got a cleric to 7th level before getting annihilated by a group of 12 trolls. In some cases you ended up playing one of your henchmen if you character died off too soon due a pit trap or something.
This.
What's more is that number is a lifetime number. I've got a fighter in my 1e game who has his max henchmen. If one of them dies, that's it. It makes keeping them alive really matter.
That goes multiple ways Nexusphere, why does a player have to play an old tried and true archtype when they can create an interesting and unique character while barely looking at what classes define the character mechanically?
I can understand your stress over optimization, some people have different views on the subject, but I for one would hate to be stuck with pre-defined archtypes.But that's exactly what they *can* do! They just say "My guy is so and so, and he's like this all interesting and unique." Then he whatever and never looks back.
He doesn't have to look at what classes define the character mechanically, for the same reasons you mean it in 3.p. Except in 3.p, there's an action economy and things are rigidly defined (instead of 'what can I do in one minute?') So each class has to give specific powers to take advantage of that, and some are expressly better than other etc.
Or you can just come up with a rich idea, that's interesting and unique, pick a class (or multi-class) and role-play. No worrying about builds, or why you have to take a barbarian level or anything.
If its in my backstory I want to be able to do it.
The best changes I think are in the mechanics themselves:
In AD&D, armor class went down (ten was worst, -10 best), saving throws got lower as character level increased. Past a certain level, hitting opponents in combat was very easy, and making saving throws was essentially automatic at high level, regardless of caster level.
I really like the way the mechanics of 3.0 work in this regard. (A high level persona with +40 to hit? No problem, the opponent has an AC of 55).
The inclusion of criticals and skills in 3.0 is also good, as was cleaning up the rules for unarmed combat and other things that really didn't work well in 1e.
And, Charisma is not the useless stat in 3.0 that it was in 1e.
This is strange because again, because I see this as one of the strengths of the original game. The fact that there's a maximum, that humans stop gaining hit points around level nine, means that in fact we are talking about real people. You don't have 18th level characters asking if they can run up waterfalls or punch through dungeons in 1st edition. (Well, it hasn't come up in my game anyway)
The human cap is very helpful for allowing the game to continue to function at high levels.
For hit points, sure. I didn't mention those though - maybe because I was pre-emptively agreeing with you :)
But for armor class and saving throws high level 1e was not much fun - saving throws were easy to make, and a well equipped fighter could almost automatically hit virtually anything.
This might be a slight exaggeration, but I think the chances of failing a saving throw or missing an opponent in combat with a weapon are much higher in 3.0, which increases the potential for suspense.
And, Charisma is not the useless stat in 3.0 that it was in 1e.Charisma wasn't a useless Stat in 1st or 2nd Edition. It was only useless if you didn't use. By far intelligence was the most useless stat unless you happened to be a wizard. So you get more languages, big deal. Having a high Charisma meant henchmen and that cannon fodder was extremely useful.
I remember game where we'd go into the Undermountain using 2E and it was grind fest. Basically to see how far you could get and what level you were when died. No one ever got out of that Dungeon with that DM but it was a blast. We learned quickly that henchmen increased you survivability greatly. We'd end up going in with 15-16 people. 4 PCs and 10-12 henchmen, and a pack of war dogs. The best I ever did was got a cleric to 7th level before getting annihilated by a group of 12 trolls. In some cases you ended up playing one of your henchmen if you character died off too soon due a pit trap or something.
i never played 2e (skipped it for rolemaster). I frequently used charisma for a dump stat (unless the character was vain or a paladin), so it was fairly useless, at least for me (everyone I gamed with then too). Was it useful for anything besides henchmen? (I don't remember - and my books were unfortunately victimized so I don't have them anymore)
But I think it's hard to argue the point that it's getting a lot more use in 3.0/3.5.
This might be a slight exaggeration, but I think the chances of failing a saving throw or missing an opponent in combat with a weapon are much higher in 3.0, which increases the potential for suspense.
Certainly does. I guess it's a difference in campaign style. 3.x characters are meant to remain adventurers to 20th level. 1e characters were kind of expected to settle down, start a freehold or some such, and become leaders, adventuring only when the worst of powerful monsters came to threaten. The style of play was meant to change greatly at higher levels, where in 3.x it remains similar: face challenge one on one, defeat challenge. Thus, it's more important the system has one-on-one challenges.
Your dedication to the destruction of the human soul!One thing that is very important, but that a lot of people overlook, is that the game rules aren't set in stone. The GM is still the final arbiter. He can still do crazy stuff. Having a ruleset as complex as Pathfinder just means that the rules will be able to support him in his endeavour. And players questioning the GM when he uses creativity is not a problem of the game, it's a problem of the GM not ruling the writhing, pitiful worms that call themselves "players" with an iron fist! }> ;-)I prefer to think of myself as 'an iron fist in a velvet glove'.
Stroke the PCs egos with some encounters (combat and social) that show just how far they've come since the first day they set off from home.
Get the players to value and care for their PCs.
Then put the squeeze on them with an opponent who proves that no matter how far you've come, there's always someone who's a bigger, badder baddass than you.:)
Hm.... this sentence is only half-done!
Add something like "...is commendable. Daemonic, even!"
If you mentioned coup de gracing a player expect to get flamed.Though, in most situations that weren't already a TPK, having the BBEG go for the coup de grace is significantly immersion-breaking.
If you're in a position to be coup de graced, you're already out of the fight. If the BBEG still thinks he has a hope of winning, it doesn't make sense for him to jeapordize that in order to achieve ... absolutely nothing. Because once he wins, that character is dead anyway. Why would he waste a round doing something that doesn't help him defeat the PCs? Having the BBEG coup de grace anyone who goes down reeks of the DM breaking character in order to "defeat" the players.
Which is fine, as long as you don't expect the PCs to keep character when they see an advantage to be had.
Actually, with healing spells but now especially with Channel Energy, it's a pretty smart tactic. You could have three party members down and bleeding and then one channel suddenly brings them back up among your ranks.
I think this is fair, though I like some of the old mentality points better than others.
Example 1
AD&D - Each class has it's strong points and power is supposed to vary at levels. The Monk sucks at low levels, Magic Users die if they're not very careful, and Thieves have to try really hard to get a good backstab in before the combat ends.D&D 3.x - All classes are equal in combat, and each class should be roughly equal at all levels (I know that's not a reality, just a POV of the optimal situation, in my opinion).
Example 2
AD&D - The DM is encouraged to make new traps, tricks, and special rules for given situations, based largely on imagination. Early Dragon magazines are full of these things.D&D 3.x - The rules attempt to explain every possible trap, magic item, etc as being able to be created by a PC class, and people question things not explainable in RAW.
Example 3
AD&D - DMs are not discouraged from making very tough adventures with combat after combat after trap after trap. PCs are expected to die if they are not wise. Mr. Gygax was notorious for this.D&D 3.x - The rules calculate how much damage a party should take and the DM is expected not to give them too much challenge based on this.
Example 4
AD&D - Players make a character at 1st level, maybe with a character concept (moreso in AD&D 2nd Edition), and grow with the campaign.D&D 3.x - Many players determine when making their character how they expect the character to grow...
Example 1 - true, and I like varying character combat effectiveness as I find it more realistic.
Example 2 - true, but I think this is a positive change. It needs to be dialed back a bit because of the Christmas tree syndrome, but I always thought it was super lame and immersion-breaking that a PC could never so much as make a +1 dagger in older eds. There was too much DM fiat that no player could hope to do themselves. Having a little of that is fine, but there was too much and I like that routine things like magic items, traps, etc. are now more defined and achievable by PCs.
Example 3 - Semi true. I've played since 1e/basic and even then not everything was "killer dungeon", and groups even then hated the Tomb of Horrors and similar because of how much they did that. Now, there is a sense of player entitlement that 3e has brought - "I should be able to use any published crunch" is probably the biggest offense. When I tell players "You don't take a prestige class without my approval and there will be an in-game justification" the newer ones seem shocked.
Example 4 - True, and one of the problems with 3e I want to see more "fixed." You essentially HAVE to plan out your progression level by level because of the complex web of prereqs that feats, p-classes, etc. require. The irony is that the level by level flexibility of 3e is perfect for taking a more evolutionary approach - you end up on ships, you take some points in Prof: Sailor, you find yourself more in combat than your traditional thievery because you're caught up in a war, take a level of fighter. I think you could get the best of both worlds if the prerequisites were reworked to be simpler and more level based, so you could still take what you want level by level without having to worry about "will I have the right 3 feats and 6 ranks in 2 skills to become a knight later on..."
Example 2 - true, but I think this is a positive change. It needs to be dialed back a bit because of the Christmas tree syndrome, but I always thought it was super lame and immersion-breaking that a PC could never so much as make a +1 dagger in older eds. There was too much DM fiat that no player could hope to do themselves. Having a little of that is fine, but there was too much and I like that routine things like magic items, traps, etc. are now more defined and achievable by PCs.
I guess this boils down to preference. I think 1e was more "Tolkien-esque". Making magic items was an extremely high level thing to do, not a place PCs were ever intended to get to. I'm willing to bet there are some rules out there somewhere for high-level characters to make magic items, though my groups never used them.
In 3.x, I've personally never done much with item creation feats, though some of my players have. I guess if players enjoy it, it's good, but it does lend itself to the Walmart thinking of previous posts. If any mid-level wizard can make magic items, there have got to be tons of them around, logically.
Example 3 - Semi true. I've played since 1e/basic and even then not everything was "killer dungeon", and groups even then hated the Tomb of Horrors and similar because of how much they did that.
Maybe the players did hate it, to an extent, but they still played it. Tomb of Horrors is one of the most talked about modules ever. No, they weren't all killer dungeons, and there were jokes even back then about killer DMs. I tend to look at CR and Encounter Level when deciding what to throw at my players, and it's a helpful tool. But some people seem to think it can't be violated, and that, to me, is just silly. Throwing powerful threats at your party to make them think twice is a valid technique, and if the party loses every now and then, it will make the victories more sweet.
Example 2 - true, but I think this is a positive change. It needs to be dialed back a bit because of the Christmas tree syndrome, but I always thought it was super lame and immersion-breaking that a PC could never so much as make a +1 dagger in older eds. There was too much DM fiat that no player could hope to do themselves. Having a little of that is fine, but there was too much and I like that routine things like magic items, traps, etc. are now more defined and achievable by PCs.I guess this boils down to preference. I think 1e was more "Tolkien-esque". Making magic items was an extremely high level thing to do, not a place PCs were ever intended to get to. I'm willing to bet there are some rules out there somewhere for high-level characters to make magic items, though my groups never used them.
In, 1e, if my memory serves, PCs could make at least some magic items - but I think permanence (the 8th level magic-user spell) was a prerequisite. Wish could also be used (maybe limited wish?). So, for even minor magic items (excluding potions and scrolls), you'd need at least a 16th level magic user to create the item. High level, but maybe not out of reach for the PCs.
The difference in approach I think is that in 1e the methods for item creation were left largely undefined, with maybe a statement that a magic user could learn how to create items with enough research. The same for custom spells. They weren't explicitly included, but the option was there, and they could easily be added by a motivated player and a DM willing to allow it.
I think 3e just added explicit rules and guidelines to more easily enable it for the players and DMs.
In 3.x, I've personally never done much with item creation feats.
In 3.x, I haven't used them, either. The main reason was the fact that it burned XP. The abolishment of XP as a commodity was one of the best changes in Pathfinder RPG.
Now, I'm playing a wizard who does some item creation: His bonded ring is enchanted whenever a new option becomes available (i.e. the caster level rises sufficiently to improve the existing effect, or maybe add something new; of course, time and resources must be there, too), I used scribe scroll pretty much from the start, and now, at level 5, I've taken craft wand to up my arsenal of frequently-used spells (my first wand is a CL5 magic missile wand)
But some people seem to think it can't be violated, and that, to me, is just silly. Throwing powerful threats at your party to make them think twice is a valid technique, and if the party loses every now and then, it will make the victories more sweet.
Of course, this matter is a sword with so many edges that Cloud from Final Fantasy covets it with great envy.
On one hand, nothing says you cannot drop the occasional bomb in there, something the characters cannot overcome and should flee.
On the other hand, it's just plain mean to make a figure whose defeat is a key point in success unbeatable. Makes the adventure impossible, and that just isn't fun.
Plus, while there should always be a sense of danger to the PCs, especially if they are regularly fighting for their life, frequent deaths of characters do no lend themselves well to a story-driven campaign involving the characters in the plot. That often looks like a TV show where someone on the cast leaves because of creative differences, disputes over contracts, or death, and the writers need to write out a very important character out of the overarching plot.
The worst thing I've seen is when encounters were supposed to be escaped from, but the party had no hope to escape. Find the dragon will wipe the floor will you? Too bad for you, because retreat is not an option: You're on the open plain, no way to hide. You're far too slow to run away, and anyway, you've angered the thing so it will do its level best to see you dead. Great work, GM! What a big member you must have...
Similar to this is when you force players to break character while fleeing. Things like forcing a paladin to flee, leaving his mortally wounded companion behind to save himself can lead to intense roleplaying where the character has to come to terms with what happens, but no everyone wants that sort of play, so make sure you know your players are okay with situations like this.
Not to mention that situations like this can alter the character, driving her in a direction the player never wanted her to go. Again, some players like that, but others, who wanted to play a certain concept, might hate it.
Personal experience somewhat related:
I once played a LG chain-fighter. The character was supposed to be a great believer in law, worshipping the goodly and orderly government of his great empire. It seemed his greatest wish was fulfilled when he was invited into the Imperial Guard, even guarding the emperor personally.
But then it started: An attempt on the emperor while the characters were supposed to defend him. It reeked of scripted event, with assassins that could teleport away (and I think they even disappeared if slain), so the characters were accused.
What followed was a "trial" that was so obviously rigged it was just ridiculous.
So the characters were condemned to deadly exile in some sealed mines.
This completely shattered my character's belief in order and goodness. He saw that what he believed to be a great system was obviously just a tool for influential villains to further their own ends.
I announced that the character had a change of outlooks, turning him CN as a result of severe disenchantment.
The GM called it extreme and too much.
I was never quite able to really enjoy that campaign after the event.
On the other hand, it's just plain mean to make a figure whose defeat is a key point in success unbeatable. Makes the adventure impossible, and that just isn't fun.
Totally agree. I do sometimes make it very difficult, IF I know the characters can handle the challenge, but I don't make key points impossible.
But then it started: An attempt on the emperor while the characters were supposed to defend him. It reeked of scripted event, with assassins that could teleport away (and I think they even disappeared if slain), so the characters were accused.What followed was a "trial" that was so obviously rigged it was just ridiculous.
So the characters were condemned to deadly exile in some sealed mines.
This completely shattered my character's belief in order and goodness. He saw that what he believed to be a great system was obviously just a tool for influential villains to further their own ends.
I announced that the character had a change of outlooks, turning him CN as a result of severe disenchantment.
The GM called it extreme and too much.
That sucks completely. I have on occasion made sharp left turns in a campaign, but usually I gave the PCs some serious warnings ahead of time. Also, I think your decision to change alignment in the face of such events was not only appropriate, but excellent role playing, given the circumstances.
|
I think the reason AD&D had a more dangerous and GM friendly attitude of creativity and choices is that the rules were "softer." That is, the rules did not try to cover every possible situation imaginable, and the fluff came first and the rules are made to fit the fluff.
Now granted making the rules fit the fluff could be a problem when conflicting fluff happened. But, hey, Fluff Happens! sorry had to...
Honestly, I think a big rule that needs to be erased from 3.x and PFRPG is the rules for encounter design. I designed an adventure and play tested it. The combats were MUCH harder and higher than the "rules allow." The players quickly had to learn they could not just walk into a dungeon and expect to auto clear it with no sweat. Some of the players suggested I lower challenge levels for publication, but interestingly enjoyed the higher level play...
RPGs now are designed around the idea that PCs should expect to complete a dungeon with little challenge and even the encounters that are a challenge are essentially guaranteed the PCs win unless they totally screw up. If a PC dies due to anything other than a major tactical error, the encounter was badly designed (even bad dice rolls are mitigated to save the PC).
But let's face it, 3 goblins are NEVER going to be a serious challenge to a first level party. If you want goblins to be anything other than a joke, then use 3 x number of party members. This allows them some room for comedy and to be deadly as well. An encounter with 3 goblins is not even worth the paper and ink used to describe the encounter.
By the same token a single CL 5 monster is nearly never a real threat to a 5th level party. Fight should be won by the PCs in 3-5 rounds (18-30 seconds- not very heroic- more like a slaughter).
But let's face it, 3 goblins are NEVER going to be a serious challenge to a first level party. If you want goblins to be anything other than a joke, then use 3 x number of party members. This allows them some room for comedy and to be deadly as well. An encounter with 3 goblins is not even worth the paper and ink used to describe the encounter.By the same token a single CL 5 monster is nearly never a real threat to a 5th level party. Fight should be won by the PCs in 3-5 rounds (18-30 seconds- not very heroic- more like a slaughter).
LOL
One of my favorite stories a friend of mine tells is about a story he ran where one goblin ran a group of 4th level players insane.He had a whole dungeon all to himself, with secret passages (all small) running everywhere, traps he had control of, mirrors set up over pits so they showed ceiling and looked like floor, etc. He would taunt the players, lead them into traps, snipe them from hidden sniping spots, drop paint on them from the ceiling, even pee'd on one adventurer while he slept (the wizard of course, not letting him get his 8 hours of sleep).
It took them days to finally catch him. When they did, they had a big fight about who'd get to kill him. But he talked his way out by offering to show them where the relic they were looking for was, if the Paladin swore on his god's holy symbol to make sure the party didn't kill him and to try to kill them if they did. I loved the story. I can imagine how upset they were.
|
I started DND back in basic. I have always been the DM and over theyears have gone from Basic (red-Black) box sets, Ad&d 1st edition, 2nd edition Ad&d...what I call 2.5 or combat and tactics to 2nd. #rd edition, 3.5 an quickly back to 3.0, and 4th edition since it came out. I am excited and much more thrilled to play Pathfinder. It corrected 3.5 into a better system (No dead levels) and easy game play. 4.0 was a disappointment. We have played a campaign from 1st to 25th and quit. Lost many players and the fun was stripped right out of the game. Pathfinder is all about the character creation again and I have to bive props. Comparing all of them, Pathfinder seems the best and complete system right now.