I don't touch D&D anymore

[Super Squirrel]

I still have about 1 1/2 years worth of my subscription to Dragon Magazine and I wish I could get a refund. I can't so I still browse it. D&D has taking a very bad slide down the tubes of roleplaying.

3rd Edition as a concept wasn't bad. New rules that were standardized allowing a DM to change the rules of his game as he saw fit and remain, for the most part, compatable. However, after running a campaign for a full year, I realized just how bad the game system was.

No big deal, I found HERO and moved on. Now I'm seeing that D&D 3.5 is coming out. I'm sorry but the name alone sounds dumb. And I can't help but feel like I was gipped with my money invested was wasted on a system that needed to be rewritten after three and a half-years.

I am going to sell my old D&D stuff now and have no intention on playing it again for any time in the future. Maybe when D&D 4 comes out I will consider it but I think that pending the release of Fantasy HERO for 5th might satisfy all my needs.

[Monolith]

As everyone knows I am not a fan of fantasy games, so D&D has never held fascination for me in my entire 16+ year gaming career. I do not know that much about d20 (my only real looks at the game system involve SAS d20 and M&M) but I think the game system has some merit. Heck, I would think the magic system spells alone would make it worthwhile. :)

It is somewhat crappy that WotC would be coming out with a 3.5 version after only 3 years, but modifications do sometimes have to be made. It is quite possible that the changes to 3.5 might fix all the problems you had with the game after playing it a year. Anything is possible. :)

Maybe I am just a pack-rat, but selling games seems like something I could never do. You never know when that one useful piece of information on page 214 might just come in handy. :)

[TheEmerged]

It has its flaws, but it's not unplayable if you're willing to work with it.

RE: 3.5. You know what I find funny? I'm a regular on the D&D boards too. You can't go 24 hours without somebody mentioning some rule or the other that needs changing or clarifying (insert "Attack of Opportunity within" crack here). Most of the people complaining about the rules are now complaining about "having" to buy the rules again.

Frankly, it's clear that 3D&D got pushed out the door to make money. There are some interesting aspects that beg to be expounded on -- which is part of what's driving the "let's do X under d20!" bandwagon, in my opinion.

I've been impressed with most of the 3.5 changes I've seen, given the sacred cows I know aren't going to be dealt with. I hope they continue the program, myself -- some of the "quasi-core" issues like psionics could use a revamp, and it would be nice to see the splatbooks rebalanced and released as a single compendium.

[James Gillen]

Just think:
Two more months to Fantasy HERO,
two more months to Fantasy HERO...
:D

[SuperPheemy]

*Dons Environment Suit, checks oxygen, and heat-resistant coating. Ensures fireproofed shield is close at hand. Gives "ready sign" to pressure hose team standing behind.*

Okey dokey. Dungeons and Dragons version 3.5 is not a complete revision of the product (such as the revision from second edition to third, which changed core elements of the game design). It is an update incorporating many of the innovations, suggestions, and ideas from both WotC products and the third party publishers who took advantage of the OGL. Products that are produced after the new books come out will still be compatable with the current 3rd edition books as opposed to the incompatability of 3rd edition products with second or first edition rules sets.

Myself, I don't really like the "3.5 edition" tag line either. Mainly with all of the controversy and paranoia surrounding WotC being a part of the Hasbro corporation and the continuing fear that somehow they're going to screw the consumer out of any disposable cash with some Montgomery Burns inspired plot, calling any rules update a numbered edition change is just bad PR.

Having said all of this, I want to state emphatically that I do not intend for anyone to change their gaming preferance. If you never liked D&D, don't like D&D, and will never like D&D, then I'm not going to change your mind. I only wanted to help make clear what changes are being made to D&D.

*Gives pressure hose team the "GO sign" and waits for the expected firestorm*

[Super Squirrel]

See, my problem isn't the aspect of "3rd Edition has problems addressed in 3.5th Edition." My problem is that they rushed out 3rd Edition with all of these problems in the first place. I have spent well over $300 on a system that over the course of time became more apparent how buggy it is.

It isn't like you instantly find all the problems on day one. Here is an example. I had a group of 4 players. We played up to level 8 in a very short time. The first of my complaints became apparent, levelling is too easy. One of the four players retired his character and creates a level 7 monk.

Now before the monk has even played on session I have already purchased the PHB, DMG, MM, and 3 class books. Which puts me well over a hundred dollars. The monk isn't that bad, however, it becomes apparent later that it is a problem.

The players had decided to seek a poison that is lethal to dragons as the campaign has quickly turned into a case of dragon slayers. A very large black dragon was awoken and the players want to kill it. So I decide that in this forest to the east there is a rare berry that grows behind a waterfall that can produce a poison lethal to dragons. Of course, the players don't know that the berry is protected by dragons.

Next problem: I put the players, now level 12 against two young adult green dragons and a large green dragon. The scene is beautiful. The players reach the top of a cliff following a river to reach the waterfall. Below them about a hundred feet is a small lake. The dragons are there. One of them flies up to attack. Not wanting to die, the players cast feather fall and jump from the cliff with the exception of the monk (see later rant). A dragon casts fire wall vertically so that the two feather falled of the three players (one player was absent) pass through it. Despite the fact that this should have killed the players, the ranger casts a spell that makes the damage literally nil on the two of them.

The monk uses his special falling ability and lands on the ground with no difficulty. He rushes over and is able to punch to death two dragons with little difficulty despite the AC, HP, and such. The sorcerer uses cone of cold and other spells like mad and the ranger uses enhanced arrows (+1 or +2) I think.

In the end, I was fumed that my players were able to take out 3 dragons in under 15 rounds. Dragons should cremate players and under this new system, they don't.

So later in the campaign (by now I have two more books) I have built up the story to a climactic battle. I pit the players against not one, not three, but fifteen green dragons in this massive battle. And guess what, only an NPC died.

I was fudging numbers, both AC on dragons and HP. I gave all dragons max HP with some with max +50 and they still took out 15 dragons of variating ages. The monk was jumping from back to back of dragons punching through their necks and with four dragons working together they still could not stop him.

We later calculated that a level 15 monk can launch himself into orbit.

With all of the stuff I spent on D&D I felt invested. But that investment turned out to be a case of Enron where I felt cheated. I realized this when visiting some people in Asheville in September when we played 2nd Edition. At least with 2nd Edition that aspect of a challenge remained.

That is why I am so annoyed that now after $300 of my money that they are saying "we have decided to make a new version based on the complaints and suggestions of 3rd edition" that I feel like punching them.

[Bartman]

I abandoned D&D years ago. It didn't match my playing style. I still have a variety of books, mostly monster manuals. But I doubt I would ever play it again.



Just as a random note 3.5 makes me think of floppy disks. And I'm not the only one. I know several people who have started refering to it as D&D: Floppy Edition. That can't be good for marketing.

[SuperPheemy]

Like I said, I'm not trying to change your mind. Just laying out what changes are coming.

[TheEmerged]

Bartman -- If you think 3.5 is a bad name, how do you think people would have reacted to 3.1 :rolleyes:

[misterdeath]

Supposedly, all the changes that 3.5 is making will be in the SRD, which is still a free download.

While Hasbro would love for you to buy new books (and I've already got mine pre-ordered) it's not strictly necessary. Just print off the parts you need, 3 ring binder them, voila.
____

Some of the rules of 3.0 didn't work as well in actual gaming as in the playtesting. Haste and Spellcasters. Rangers with 1 level of the class, then bailing for Fighter. Bards. Monks. Confusion between Partial Action vs Move Equivalent vs Attack Actions. Just some of my pet peeves. And I'm one of the few that likes and understands Attacks of Opportunities.

And it looks like they're fixing things that I found wrong with the system. Now, I just have to see if I like the fixes, or if things are made worse.
____

Overall, I find the system to be quite amusing and fun, but then again I'm a point whoring rules lawyer. I look at the system to find it's peculiarities, and then twist them till they scream. (spiked chain wielders rock!)

I like 3E. I imagine I'll like 3.5 (the Floppy Edition Ha!) just as much.

D

[misterdeath]

Oh, yeah, in the FWIW department, Monte Cook is coming out with his own variant players handbook where he changes things he didn't like about the system.

I'm getting that one too. Sigh.

D

[Catacomb]

All I can say about fantasy is...RMSS

[Mark Taylor]

I haven't checked out D&D 3e. I have a bunch of 2e stuff, but my group drifted away from 2e years ago, basically because our style of roleplaying is very character driven. 2e (I can't comment on 3) doesn't really support that style because it provides only very limited support for personality modelling... basically it comes down to alignment. All my players prefer systems with disadvantages or some equivalent because it allows them to actually reap some reward for playing characters with a greater degree of depth and reality.

The other issue is that my players prefer a system that lets them realise their character concept in terms of abilities too, rather than a system that limits the range of character concepts which can be realised. To me, the only acceptable limits on character concept are power level and genre appropriateness. Arbitrary limitations like character classes aren't acceptable.

I've heard it said that good roleplaying has nothing to do with the system, it comes down to the players and how much work they put into their characters' backgrounds and personalities. There is some truth there, but in fact over 10 years of near constant GMing experience tells me that it's a damn sight easier for players to play 3 dimensional characters and far more likey that they will (especially if they are new to roleplaying) in a game that really supports character depth within the system.

Another strike against character roleplaying which D&D 2e made (though of course a DM could ignore it) was experience points for kills. Give players XP for kills, and all you are encouraging them to do is kill stuff... not to act like realistic characters. XP for kills IMO actually discourages in-depth roleplaying.

I find it unlikely that I'll have any need to check out 3e, because GURPS does everything I need for lower powered campaigns, and it now seems clear that HERO 5th will do the same for my higher powered campaigns.

The only d20 product I have looked at in any depth is The Wheel of Time, and it's not encouraging... it dedicates less than half a page to the all important matter of character personality and history. I am curious though... does 3e have any improvement in the areas I mentioned? I'd be interesed to hear opinions on it.

[TheEmerged]

Not really, unless you count a lot of campaign-specific material in the core rule books (one of my rant issues).

RE: Attack of Opp. Oh, I understand them now... but you've got to admit the original wording in the PlayHB is a shade above atrocious.

RE: Monte. Monte's opinion is interesting, even when it's dead wrong. I wonder if he's got a working ranger & sorcerer variant yet (because his last take isn't viable IMO).

[DocMan]

Originally posted by Realms of Chaos
I've heard it said that good roleplaying has nothing to do with the system, it comes down to the players and how much work they put into their character's backgrounds and personalities. There is some truth there, but in fact over 10 years of near constant GMing experience tells me that it's a damn sight easier for players to play 3 dimensional characters and far more likey that they will (especially if they are new to roleplaying) in a game that really supports character depth within the system.

Another strike againt character roleplaying which D&D 2e made (though of course a DM could ignore it) was experience points for kills. Give players XP for kills, and all you are encouraging them to do is kill stuff... not to act like realistic characters. XP for kills IMO actually discourages in-depth roleplaying.

It's funny you should put it that way. As I recall, under 2e one also gets XP for each GP value of treasure that one recovers. At one point in a campaign, we stopped counting kills because we got more significant XP from the treasure we brought back!

In the end, if the game isn't for you, don't play. Find something you like, and that's fine and dandy. But don't blame the game.

Squirrel, I hate to sound like I'm criticising you, but in the example you gave, it sounds like the players were doing their jobs. The GM is supposed to Challenge the Players, and the Players are supposed to Out-think the GM. It sounds like you have a group of good players who know D&D better than you do.

Doc

[Mark Taylor]

Originally posted by DocMan
It's funny you should put it that way. As I recall, under 2e one also gets XP for each GP value of treasure that one recovers.

Yup, that didn't spring to mind because we never used the XP for treasure rule. It always seemed obvious that treasure is it's own reward.

As for blaming the game, I was more stating the reasons why my group stopped playing it. It's obvious that just because it doesn't support our style of play, that doesn't mean it doesn't support other styles of play that other people enjoy more.

[buzz]

I touch D&D so much, one could say that I make sweet love to it. Can't wait to get my groove on with 3.5e and FH as well.

:D

[Enforcer84]

Gotta say I am a fan. I have been playing 3e Pretty regularly, and while some of the GM's I have run have been less than sterling I haven't failed to enjoy the over all experience. Althouth there was that 5 session stint (4 hours each) where we did nothing but book keep and travel. I thought I was going to start killing the other PC's just to have something to do besides wench and socialize (my fighter didn't really care about the financial aspects of the party).

[tengu]

I too am a fan of 3e, and am eagerly awaiting the new 3.5 edition.
Now, as for the XP complaint, saying that it's all just for kills... In the DMG, there are rules for Story Awards, Ad Hoc XP Awards (such as simply defeating a hazard to get to where you need to go gets you the same XP), and the like. No one said that you absolutely had to follow the rules as written... they are not set in stone. I see game books like these as guidelines, not hard and fast commandments.
Having said that, I am also looking forward to the new Fantasy Hero, especially since I plan on running a game of it at a convention next February.
You want old-style gaming? Check out Hackmaster . Brutal, old-style fantasy gaming. (I'm actually working on a 3e/HM fusion, among my other gaming projects.)

[misterdeath]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
Not really, unless you count a lot of campaign-specific material in the core rule books (one of my rant issues).

RE: Attack of Opp. Oh, I understand them now... but you've got to admit the original wording in the PlayHB is a shade above atrocious.

RE: Monte. Monte's opinion is interesting, even when it's dead wrong. I wonder if he's got a working ranger & sorcerer variant yet (because his last take isn't viable IMO).

Ditto on the "greyhawk" basis of the world. I don't wanna worship Wee Jas, I wanna worship my god.

A shade above atrocious, yes. Hideous. Straight out of a wargame.

You've seen the ones in Eldrich Might II (sorcerer) and Hallowed Might I (ranger) right?

I think I prefer the original Monte ranger to the one in hallowed might, but then again I'm a "Rangers got Shafted" guy.

We've tried Monte's sorcerer, and it worked pretty good, it's just impossible to add splatbook's spells to the spell list. Too much comparo/contrasto to make it work.

Neat ideas, I'm not sure how much actual playtesting goes on with it.

D

[tesuji]

DND 3.5... i don't plan to buy it myself. it does not seem like a good investment to me. i wont be implementing it at all in my current DND campaign, so i will just get the changes i want from the SRD which will be out the same day the books sell.

While i wont be buying it, i don't see why its a bad idea or something to be disappointed in. WOTC is responding to its customers and frankly. 3.5 years between REVISIONS, not REWRITES, to incorporate erratta and some new material is not by any means an egregious thing. heck, i seem to recall White Wolf getiing some second editions out within a year of the primary... the ink was barely dry on the first.

KILL FOR XP... well in DND 3e you do not get Xp fir killing anything. You get Xp for beating the challenge. If an ogre is guarding a bridge and the challenge YOUR GM DEFINES is to get across the bridge, then you get Xp for the orge if you fight and kill him or if you work your way around.

If the GM DEFINES the challeng as killing the ogre, then you get xp only for killing the ogre. DND 3e does not make you kill for XP. Some GMs may write their stories so that that is the case. I even suspect that on occasion some players of HERO games have on occasion scripted their game aand encounters so that sometimes you do need to fight the bad guys. I could be wrong, of course.

Dragons should be yahhdee yahhdee yahdeder... use big enough dragons and play them well and they will. Don't and they won't. In the default setting for greyhawk it is NOT a given that every dragon is a wildly monstrous force of nature level threat. Dragons are just one more fantastic element in a fantasitc world. They vary in size and threat from young and fragile to truely monstrous. They thus offer a variety of levels of encounter, not all jsut some terbile monstrous whomping force. If that level of variety does not fit your view of fantasy or gaming, then the Gm should alter that to make the greayhawk setting more to his liking. While i cannot fathom a monk punching out competent dragons, i really dont need to get into specific comparisons. One of two things is the case... the Gm did not understand and assess the dragons capabilities accurately based on their game stats OR the Gm misunderstood some situational aspects that threw the battle. if he chose the force and the encounter and expected it to be a wondrous thing, and it wasn't. its his choices that were inaccurate. (Many people tend to get confused by the CR system... they think an even CR is supposed to be a dangerous encounter.. it isn't its supposed to be a non-life-threatening win for the party that wears them down a little...20% or so.)

Anyway, three years plus before a significant revision... providing all the changes free online for those who do not wish to purchase new books... i can think of worse customer options.

[Fur Face]

Hey Super Squirrel,

I know how you feel. I played DnD for, well, decades. And I thought the 3rd edition was a marvelous improvement (which it was). I, too, have invested hundreds of dollars into the system, just to get the latest and the greatest.

Even then, I was always tinkering with the system, trying to get it to do what I wanted. Then I discovered Hero, and found out I could have the exact character I wanted, without having to worry about classes, feats, or whatever. I wouldn't be denied a power or skill that fit my character concept, just because I was locked into a prestige class.

The other problem I had was with balance. Any thought given to it was arbitrary. Who decides what spells are what levels, and for what effects? Just because I'm a tenth level mage now I can teleport anywhere in the plane? No, wait, now I have to go and think of a bunch little rules that don't let that work out in certain circumstances? Or, how come I get more powers/abilities just because I bought the latest supplement? Can't everyone have access to the same basic info?

What if I want to run in a genre besides fantasy? Would a .44 magnum affect a creature that can only be affected by weapons of +1 or greater? Who decides what creature is a +1, and why?

I guess things can't be all bad, because it kept me happy for years. It's just that with Hero I can have exactly what I want, when in want it, scaled to match the occassion. Between the systems, there's no comparison. For me, anyway! :)

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Fur Face

I, too, have invested hundreds of dollars into the system, just to get the latest and the greatest.

I tend to not try the keeping up with the joneses thing. if its useful for my game then i will look at it. There is just soooo much DND material being printed, even if you only consider core stuff much less third party stuff that the plethora of options exceed even my gaming budget.
Originally posted by Fur Face

Even then, I was always tinkering with the system, trying to get it to do what I wanted.

I tinker with any system, Any system is designed for mass market appeal. i don't need to make some of those compromises.
Originally posted by Fur Face

Then I discovered Hero, and found out I could have the exact character I wanted, without having to worry about classes, feats, or whatever. I wouldn't be denied a power or skill that fit my character concept, just because I was locked into a prestige class.

Well, in DND there are guidelines and suggestions for madifying classes to fit the character. its even recommeneded iirc.

A class to me is little more than a package deal. It shows your players what people in the world are like. this is very necessary info for a game set in a world much unlike our own.
Originally posted by Fur Face

The other problem I had was with balance. Any thought given to it was arbitrary.

I did not find it arbitrary.
Originally posted by Fur Face

Who decides what spells are what levels, and for what effects?

The game designers and the playtesters to a lesser degree. The same people who decide that 2d6 of stun only EB costs 10 ap, 2d6 of stun drain is 20 points, and 2d6 of AVLD stun is 30 points but 2d6 of mental blast is only 20. 2d6 of sight flash is 10 points and so is +5 ocv with your main attack was decided by the same people. They also decided that 5 power defense, water breathing and iirc eidetic memory were all 5 pts as is +1 with all int skills.


Originally posted by Fur Face

Just because I'm a tenth level mage now I can teleport anywhere in the plane? No, wait, now I have to go and think of a bunch little rules that don't let that work out in certain circumstances?

Well actually first you learned how to do local teleports at 7th with dimension door, if you chose that spell. Then you learned to do long range teleports at 9th if you chose to learn that spell. of course, teleport is not a guaranteed transit, there are potential risks and you do have to learn the areas you want to go to often or take the risks.
Originally posted by Fur Face

Or, how come I get more powers/abilities just because I bought the latest supplement? Can't everyone have access to the same basic info?

You get new abilities with new supplements because YOUR GM chose that to be the case. It works just like it does in any other game which has materials being produced, each new supplement is either allowed in, disallowed, or somewhere in between by the GM.

For instance, if i start a fantasy hero campaign now, when FH comes out we dont suddenly HAVE TO incorporate it, do we?

If your Gm chose to just "poof its there" then thats an issue you need to take up with him, if you do not like it.
Originally posted by Fur Face

What if I want to run in a genre besides fantasy?

get a game suited to such. What if i want to go boating? Should my ford minivan be criticzed for not being able to double as a boat?

My personal preference is for GENREic games and not GENERIC ones, but i do understand the appeal of the latter to those who want transgenre games.
Originally posted by Fur Face

Would a .44 magnum affect a creature that can only be affected by weapons of +1 or greater?

+1 or greater only is old style, now its DR 10/+1 and the like and soon to be 10/magic.

Anyway, the answer is that if you want to run that type of game D20 modern is not bad for it. Their Urban Arcana supplement is so far very cool.
Originally posted by Fur Face

Who decides what creature is a +1, and why?

The game designers and then the GM who uses it in his game. The same people who decided Dr Destroyer has 40 defenses and that obsidian is an alien or that hummingbird has mental powers.

Are you thinking there is some universal "way things are" reference which should guide these decisions?

Didn't the makers of HERo products just make stuff up too? Is there a actual manual that tells us how much defense Dr D is supposed to have? Are hero characters built by formula?
Originally posted by Fur Face

It's just that with Hero I can have exactly what I want, when in want it, scaled to match the occassion.

My experience, and from comments here and there i am not unique, is that with heri i can get exactly what hero will give. As long as i dont mind making the genre, maing what i want, fit into hero then your assessment is correct.

I much prefer making the system fit the genre, fit what i want, not vice versa.

the decisions i make for my campaign are not arbitrary at all.

[Fur Face]

Hey Tesuji,

I should have added that my questions were actually rhetorical in nature, which is what I meant. So much for writing too early in the morning! :)

In a nutshell, I think Hero is better when it comes to universitality and adaptability. But it suffers in environmental richness because of it. DnD already has an established, scaled system, and has a very rich environment because of it. And, even though they are branching out into other genre, the primary mechanism is still fantasy, and that is how everything is geared towards. I feel that is its one real weakness.

[buzz]

Originally posted by Fur Face
And, even though they are branching out into other genre, the primary mechanism is still fantasy, and that is how everything is geared towards. I feel that is its one real weakness.

I thought the primary mechanism was d20 + mods >= DC.

[MarkusDark]

Having not really touched D&D since 2nd Ed, I am planning on buying a few books when it reaches 3.5 Ed. I played in a couple of sessions for some down time recupe from Champs and I enjoyed it. Again, most of that would be due to the players I play with but still, it was fun.

The thing that D&D has over Hero is the rich, diverse and even rather well written out histories/backgrounds for the game. Whereas Hero releases a Genre Book, D&D is it's own genre, then has the Forgotten Realms/Dark Sun sub-genre books and then you have the Dales sub-sub book for Forgotten realms and you keep on going, each book increasing the detail of the previous until it is a very rich and almost alive realm.

Now, with Hero, I enjoy it because I get to create the detail and everything myself. But it is nice to know that you can go to a Con and when you play in a game, you can already know most of what the various background bits are about - whereas with Hero, UNTIL's and VIPER's actual powers and influence vary from game to game - if they are there at all.

[rowport]

"I touch D&D so much, one could say that I make sweet love to it. Can't wait to get my groove on with 3.5e and FH as well."

:eek: You scare me, Buzz.

[TheEmerged]

Hey Buzz and Misterdeath, you guys hear about the official ranger changes in 3.5? The two-weapon fighting thing is becoming a d20-Modern trait tree with two paths, their hit dice is droping to d8 (on average, 1 HP per level), and their skill points is going to 6 per. I know there are people that have a problem with that (esp. the Minsc fanbois) but that's closer to my own view of the Ranger.

In other news, Turbine announced they're going to do a D&D Online. No surprise of course, it'll be interesting to see what they're going to do about the obvious hurdles (sacred cow spell system, twinking, and level-based trade skills in particular).

[rowport]

:) Emerged-
I have very mixed feelings about the Ranger changes. From a metagame perspective, I understand the rationale, particularly in not "front-loading" the class encouraging cherry-picking multiclassing. But, as a Ranger player, I am not too stoked about weakening the class! There is some cool stuff added, admittedly, but overall the changes make the Ranger more like a forest-rogue than a forest-fighter IMO, and I am not sure how I feel about that. <shrug> Still, though, I look forward to 3.5.

[misterdeath]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
Hey Buzz and Misterdeath, you guys hear about the official ranger changes in 3.5? The two-weapon fighting thing is becoming a d20-Modern trait tree with two paths, their hit dice is droping to d8 (on average, 1 HP per level), and their skill points is going to 6 per. I know there are people that have a problem with that (esp. the Minsc fanbois) but that's closer to my own view of the Ranger.

In other news, Turbine announced they're going to do a D&D Online. No surprise of course, it'll be interesting to see what they're going to do about the obvious hurdles (sacred cow spell system, twinking, and level-based trade skills in particular).

I heard about the Feat Tree, and the 6 per, but not the d8.

Do you know how the feat tree idea is set up (don't own d20 modern, never had much interest in modern/post modern gaming)? How, in general, are the steps set up?

I don't have a problem with the d8 hit points. Even if I don't get two of them at 1st level, it's OK. ;)

I still see Rangers as Aragorn, not Drizzt, so is the feat tree concept switchable to other types of characters (not just two weapon ones)? I heard mension of an Archery Tree too, and I was just wondering. I can always make my own, or break down and look at d20 modern.

Thanks in advance.

My suggestion for an online thing would be to modified the Sorcerer rules for all spellcasting classes. Let them cast certain (few) known spells a large number of times. Just make the spell list a little more balanced.

D

[TheEmerged]

That's just it -- they haven't really de-gunned the Ranger: he's still a Fighter BAB and he's going to lose all of 1 HP per level (on average). The +2 Skill Points is going to be worth much more than the HP in all but the most dungeon-crawling of campaigns -- at least in part because it de-emphasizes the importance of INT for rangers, meaning that Rangers can put those rolls/points elsewhere.

RE: Feat Tree. I haven't seen an official version of this so I'll have to demure. The way I understand it's going to work is that it doesn't start until 2nd level (that whole "take one level of Ranger" twink thing), be at "full power" before 7th, and actually go further after that...

I do know however that there is only going to be two "branches" -- two-weapon fighting and archery. Sufficient for my uses, but of course there are people that wanted more...

RE: Sacred Cow magic system. See, that's the thing -- the spells as they exist right now are balanced around the idea of not being cast very often, especially at the lowest levels. Players familiar with MMORPG's are going to expect to cast spells a LOT more often than D&D is really balanced for. If they increase the numbers without nerfing the spells, fighters are screwed. If they nerf the spells too much (very easy to do), wizards are screwed.

I half expect them to go with a SPUM system (spell-point use magic), not unlike the current Psionics system.

[MarkusDark]

Originally posted by TheEmerged

In other news, Turbine announced they're going to do a D&D Online. No surprise of course, it'll be interesting to see what they're going to do about the obvious hurdles (sacred cow spell system, twinking, and level-based trade skills in particular).

As for the spell system, in Dark Ages (not of Camelot), the system used a 'recharge' rate on spells. Some spells were 'cast as long as you have mana' while others were, 'you can cast once only x amount of seconds'. I could see a similiar setup being used for the sacred cow spell system. Such a system would stop the over-whelming power of magic at higher levels.

Twinking is a case by case basis and various methods can be created for them.

Level based trade skills shouldn't be too big of a headache. I have seen people who have created Excel sheets that can handle this - should be relatively easy to script.

**Makes note to send resume**

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by MarkusDark
Level based trade skills shouldn't be too big of a headache. I have seen people who have created Excel sheets that can handle this - should be relatively easy to script.

The problem is more thematic than coding. Most MMORPG trade skill wonks (a clique to which I belong) are going to balk at the "book" system for Craft & Profession, by which their upper cap is level determined, "forcing" them to level in order to improve their skill. Unless 3D&D-Online differs wildly from the normal method of gaining XP in MMORPG's, this leads to the scenario in which someone can only become a better blacksmith by being a troll -- and to take that to its next step, someone can become a better blacksmith by killing enough trolls without ever picking up a hammer & tongs...

In a pencil-n-paper environment that's not an issue, since very strange indeed are the people that would rather spend the time making hammers in the city than dungeon delving. The problem here is that the very nature of an MMORPG means that it can attract those strange people (among whom, again, I am numbered). For many of these people the economics of the persistant world are one of its strongest charms.

And's all of that is BEFORE you get to the issue that the pencil-n-paper model for making magic items isn't going to work in an MMORPG environment -- without massive changes. Given 3D&D's penchant for being an equipment-intensive system anyway they could easily fall into the same trap as EQ.

[misterdeath]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
That's just it -- they haven't really de-gunned the Ranger: he's still a Fighter BAB and he's going to lose all of 1 HP per level (on average). The +2 Skill Points is going to be worth much more than the HP in all but the most dungeon-crawling of campaigns -- at least in part because it de-emphasizes the importance of INT for rangers, meaning that Rangers can put those rolls/points elsewhere.

I concur. Spend two less points on Int, put them on Con, voila same HPs.

RE: Feat Tree. I haven't seen an official version of this so I'll have to demure. The way I understand it's going to work is that it doesn't start until 2nd level (that whole "take one level of Ranger" twink thing), be at "full power" before 7th, and actually go further after that...

I do know however that there is only going to be two "branches" -- two-weapon fighting and archery. Sufficient for my uses, but of course there are people that wanted more...

Ok, that's my understanding too. Sounds like it'll work. Given two examples, well, I can make my own. Or just give the character Archery, and let them buy normal feats. Or something.

RE: Sacred Cow magic system. See, that's the thing -- the spells as they exist right now are balanced around the idea of not being cast very often, especially at the lowest levels. Players familiar with MMORPG's are going to expect to cast spells a LOT more often than D&D is really balanced for. If they increase the numbers without nerfing the spells, fighters are screwed. If they nerf the spells too much (very easy to do), wizards are screwed.

I half expect them to go with a SPUM system (spell-point use magic), not unlike the current Psionics system.

Truth. I've never played MMORPGs. My next suggestion would have been a SPUM system. Let people cast spells until they run out of points.
Thanks!

D

[allen]

Must admit, the saddest thing about 3e D&D (IMHO) is that they rebuilt the Ranger class to base it on Drizzt Do'Urden (to my knowledge , the first ranger to be all about two-weapon fighting) and then, when they present the character's stats, he has more levels of Fighter than Ranger -- quite a bit more as I recall.

Just plain sad that the archetypical D&D Ranger is a Fighter with a couple of Ranger levels, rather than the other way around.

So anyway, glad to hear they're changing the class...

allen

Ps. What's this about Attacks of Opportunity being "staight out of a wargame"? Bah, humbug. No self-respecting, halfway competent mini game designer would present such a muddle of badly-written rules -- even if he/she did, it would *not* make it through playtest as written. AoO are ubiquitous; how they work should've been better stated in the PH, and the playtesters should've caught it (for all I know, maybe they did and no one cared). I understand it's being re-written for 3.5, so another point in 3.5's favor.

Pps. I think 3 or so years is fine for the release of a revised edition.

[TheEmerged]

So everyone doesn't think Allen is being unduly harsh...

From the Player's Handbook page 122
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: If you move within or out of a threatened area, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity.

Catch that "within"? It led a lot of people, including my gaming group, to believe that you triggered AoO for moving INTO a threatened square. This meant instead of being a trivia question meant to keep people from retreating or barrelling through, it looks like pretty much every time you move into melee you trigger AoO. This makes the "Charge" manuever look far more important than it is, and makes Tumble look like THE rogue skill.

Even then, AoO is the ultimate example of what I mean when I say d20's learning curve is "exceptional" -- the exceptions are numerous and repeated.

[allen]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
So everyone doesn't think Allen is being unduly harsh...


Oops, didn't mean to be harsh... thanks for the assist, Emerged...

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by allen
Oops, didn't mean to be harsh... thanks for the assist, Emerged...

Nah, you weren't that bad. It's just that some people seem to assume anything said on the Internet is an exaggeration :D

[Super Squirrel]

Because of lack of facial expressions.

[tiger]

We still play D&D from time to time, but it's 2nd edition. Haven't tried D20 and doubt that I will. Between the Hero system and all the stuff we have for 2nd/3rd we see no reason.


I may pick up some of the Forgotten Realms material, plan on running it for FH. Hope they come out with more on Undermountain :D

[Thirdbase]

Originally posted by Bartman
I abandoned D&D years ago. It didn't match my playing style. I still have a variety of books, mostly monster manuals. But I doubt I would ever play it again.



Just as a random note 3.5 makes me think of floppy disks. And I'm not the only one. I know several people who have started refering to it as D&D: Floppy Edition. That can't be good for marketing.

I've been calling and gotten others to call it the Gates Edition. We released a game with bugs so we could reissue 3 years later to get more money. Windows 95, 98, ME, etc...
Anybody ready for D&D'06?

[zornwil]

Originally posted by tesuji
Anyway, three years plus before a significant revision... providing all the changes free online for those who do not wish to purchase new books... i can think of worse customer options.

This sounds fine with me, if HERO did such a thing I would certainly have no problem with it, in fact I would find it desirable. I don't think it would be necessary, unlike 3=>3e, so I can see the grumbling about 3 being so problematic. In fact as I thnk about it I'd have no problem with a HERO 5.1 book that incorporated salient points from the FAQ along with errata.

[misterdeath]

Originally posted by allen
Must admit, the saddest thing about 3e D&D (IMHO) is that they rebuilt the Ranger class to base it on Drizzt Do'Urden (to my knowledge , the first ranger to be all about two-weapon fighting) and then, when they present the character's stats, he has more levels of Fighter than Ranger -- quite a bit more as I recall.


Well, got my Dragon Magazine, and lo and behold there was the revision article, which talks about the New Ranger.

Today, I went searching for info on the New Ranger on the web.

I can see where he's coming from, but, honestly, I like Ranger as frontline combatant.

from Andy Collins here http://pub36.ezboard.com/fgameschat19968frm10.showMessageRange?topicID=239. topic&start=21&stop=25

I have to be honest here: I've never seen the 3.0 ranger as a front-line fighter, and part of the 3.5 change was to recognize that reality.

Look at the class: When utilizing its class features to the fullest, the class is a light-armor-wearing, no-shield-carrying character who isn't as devastating on offense as either the fighter or the barbarian, thanks to the -2 penalty he's sucking up on melee attacks. In fact, at most levels he's lucky to be as effective in a fight as a rogue who gets occasional sneak attacks.

But because he's got the fighter BAB and d10 HD, everybody seems to think that he should be standing on the front lines.

In two campaigns over the past 3 years, I've watched three players try to play a ranger as a front-line fighter, and in all cases the player has been clearly frustrated at the class's inability to accomplish that.

In one case, the character gave up on melee combat to become an archer (and that was before he got free archery feats, mind you), making his "bonus feats" absolutely useless.

In the second case, the character was so disillusioned by the class's weakness that after only two levels he switched to fighter, only to die two levels later because he couldn't "hack it" as a melee guy. Guess who didn't get raised?

In the third case, the character took a couple levels of fighter and spent most of his time wielding a greatsword instead of longsword and shortsword, because he thought that "rangers are just as good in a fight as fighters." By 8th level or so, it's finally dawned on the player that the plate-armor-wearing paladin is much more effective as an "offensive lineman" than his ranger--and that's *with* a few fighter levels in place of ranger levels!

Frankly, I'm surprised that *anyone* playing a ranger as a front-line fighter manages to survive a typical D&D campaign.

Watching those three characters struggle against this false image of the ranger as a front-line fighter made it very clear to me that despite the class's good BAB and d10 HD, he just can't cut it on the front lines without straying significantly from the basic archetype.

The result is the 3.5 ranger. His BAB is still just as high as the fighter's, making him a better warrior than the rogue, monk, or cleric. His HD is still a solid d8, giving him at least 85% of the hp of the fighter or paladin (assuming Con 12 or better--with higher Con, the percentage increases). He now has enough skill points to be good at the things a ranger should be good at--tracking, sneaking, scouting--without having to "spend" a good stat on Int (unlike the fighter or barbarian, the ranger really wants 4 solid stats, making Int an expensive choice). His favored enemy is more potent than before, letting him deal impressive damage against such foes even with light weapons. Or, if he chooses archery over two-weapon fighting--hewing to a classic hunter archetype--he can keep up with the fighter-archer without having to give up all his feat slots. Plus his spells are improved, and his animal companion is better than ever.

Nope, the 3.5 ranger isn't intended to be a front-line fighter. I'm specifically hoping that the changes will make it clearer to players that the "ideal" role of the single-classed, archetypal ranger in D&D is as a scout, secondary combatant, and skilled expert in all things wild and natural.

Which isn't to say that the ranger can't be a demon in a fight, particularly with a decent Con or a couple levels of fighter (or maybe better still, barbarian), just like the 3.0 ranger was a better scout with a high Dex or a few levels of rogue. The archer-ranger in my Bloodlines campaign deals out a tremendous amount of death with his bow, leaving the front-line combat to the paladin and fighter. And his stealth makes the party not worry that they don't have a full-time rogue around.

Nobody's foolish enough to think that any revision will please all the players, all the time. But I think it's important for the rules to present options as honestly as possible, without "tricking" players into making choices that look better than they are. And I think the 3.5 ranger is more "honest" than the 3.0 ranger (not to mention strictly superior at everything the 3.0 ranger could do, with the sole exception of hit points). And so far, I haven't heard a single person who's seen the actual class say anything negative about it (except maybe, "Is this guy too good?" which is a natural reaction based on how ineffective the class used to be).

Hey, change is tough. Sometimes it makes us think about things in ways we haven't before, and that can be frightening. But if you give it a chance, sometimes you find out that change can be pretty good, too.

Andy Collins
Senior Designer
Wizards of the Coast Roleplaying R&D


D

[MarkusDark]

Thing I find interesting is that this article seems to give the impression that his design change was based upon only three players.

Not that I am disagreeing with him, just interesting that three people's dissatisfaction would change a class for a game like D&D.

[MarkusDark]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
The problem is more thematic than coding. Most MMORPG trade skill wonks (a clique to which I belong) are going to balk at the "book" system for Craft & Profession, by which their upper cap is level determined, "forcing" them to level in order to improve their skill. Unless 3D&D-Online differs wildly from the normal method of gaining XP in MMORPG's, this leads to the scenario in which someone can only become a better blacksmith by being a troll -- and to take that to its next step, someone can become a better blacksmith by killing enough trolls without ever picking up a hammer & tongs...

In a pencil-n-paper environment that's not an issue, since very strange indeed are the people that would rather spend the time making hammers in the city than dungeon delving. The problem here is that the very nature of an MMORPG means that it can attract those strange people (among whom, again, I am numbered). For many of these people the economics of the persistant world are one of its strongest charms.

And's all of that is BEFORE you get to the issue that the pencil-n-paper model for making magic items isn't going to work in an MMORPG environment -- without massive changes. Given 3D&D's penchant for being an equipment-intensive system anyway they could easily fall into the same trap as EQ.

I would imagine that things would change so that levelling in craft skills would be based upon the use of that craft and not solely on how many critters you kill. You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned that no one is going to sit around a table and make hammers for any length of time, so there is a reason it was level based.

There are so many pitfalls an MMORPG can fall into - and I always find it rather interesting that they often fall into the same ones over and over again. You'd think they'd see the trap by now. ;)

[misterdeath]

Originally posted by MarkusDark
Thing I find interesting is that this article seems to give the impression that his design change was based upon only three players.

Not that I am disagreeing with him, just interesting that three people's dissatisfaction would change a class for a game like D&D.

It'd be more scary, if it weren't so right. 3E rangers don't have the cool combat abilities to stand toe to toe with the rest of the +1/level BAB folks.

They get two weapon fighting, which at low levels isn't worth much (although when you get a higher BAB and iterative attacks and take a full round action anyways it starts to get lots better.) and favored enemy, which only works if you can pick a useful one.

Fighters get extra feats, tons of them. Barbarians get raging and other toughness related stuff. Paladins get extra protections, plus extra stuff vs evil. Plus their spells are more useful in combat, although less when not in combat.

We've got
Fighters (skilled warriors)
Barbarians (tough warriors)
Paladins (holy warriors)
and Rangers (wilderness scouts)

Whereas in previous editions, Rangers were Knowledge warriors. They knew how to hit. Which might imply extra feats, but that tramples on the fighters toes.

So, basically, I see 3.5 Ranger being the culmination of what the 3.0 Ranger was meant to be, but didn't quite make

Possibly Unfortunate, since I for one am still in Ranger as Knowledge Warrior mode. Or, at the very least Commando Warrior mode.

Since, all I have is what we've discussed here, plus the Dragon Magazine, I don't have enough info to see if I can use 3.5 Ranger to make Commando Warrior.

D

[JohnOSpencer]

I agree with the idea that a ranger is not a front line fighter. I also saw alot of the one level in ranger, just for the feats. I personally ended my last campaign with a fighter 4/ rogue 3/ ranger 3, He was a good jack of all trades and definatly not a frontline figher. I like what WOTC is doing(boy that left a bad taste in my mouth), but i'm waiting for Fantasy Hero before I buy a dang thing.

John Spencer

[Doug McCrae]

Originally posted by Super Squirrel
The monk... rushes over and is able to punch to death two dragons with little difficulty.The line between high-level DnD character and superhero is a fine one.

[BlackSword]

Originally posted by JohnOSpencer
I agree with the idea that a ranger is not a front line fighter. I also saw alot of the one level in ranger, just for the feats. I personally ended my last campaign with a fighter 4/ rogue 3/ ranger 3, He was a good jack of all trades and definatly not a frontline figher. I like what WOTC is doing(boy that left a bad taste in my mouth), but i'm waiting for Fantasy Hero before I buy a dang thing.

John Spencer

Hmm, this thread seems to have switched from 'I hate 3e' to 'new and improved rangers.' Well, to continue with the hijack...

The only 3E rangers I played were in Neverwinter Nights. I would always play fire support for a heavy fighter, otherwise I would get clobbered. Rangers are deadly with archery, reading 3e I was sad to see them miss out on the Ranger-Archer package of 2e. The 2e ranger-archer was a long distance killing machine (btw, D&D is not about the killing, its about how effective you are at the killing ;). 3e core rules (I would have modified them if I ran a game) ruled out being able to specialize in a bow while sacrificing skill with close combat weapons. Instead 3e focused on close combat weapons for rangers. If I want a close combat warrior I'll get a fighter or a cleric, or a barbarian.

As for D&D being combat oriented, it depends. If anyone played Baldur's Gate 2, there is one scenario where monsters are attacking a village. If you go to talk with the monsters you can convince them to live in peace and even protect the village, and you get xp for solving the problem.

I don't think revising a system every three years is too bad, especially not if the rules fixes are ones that have been called for. The company needs revenue and not every company can write Hero supplements so good you have to buy them even if you don't need them. On the rpg.net boards I have seen several people discuss buying Hero supplements for SAS.

[Smeazel]

OK, I've got a regular 3E game going, that's been running long enough that the PCs have just hit epic levels (while having started the campaign at 1st level). And I have to say... at high levels, things really bog down. There are a number of practically game-breaking spells that can easily circumvent important plot elements: sure, you can work around those spells, but there are only so many times you can have a fortress with walls enchanted to prevent ethereal travel and have a god directly intervening to prevent detection of a character's location before it starts to feel really contrived. Sure, you can still design opponents who are a match for the party in combat, but I much prefer the problem-solving aspect of RPGs to combat, and the selection of spells a high-level wizard or cleric will have at his disposal has way too high a potential to short-circuit any such scenario.

Don't get me wrong, I like 3E for the most part; I wouldn't have been running my campaign for so long if I didn't. But... I'm really looking forward to this campaign being over now so I can start another campaign at first level again (or maybe a different game altogether). At high levels, 3E really loses much of its appeal to me.

[TheEmerged]

RE: Ranger change made because of 3 players. Depending on which set of rumors you believe, that might not be as out-of-character as it sounds. But that puts me dangerously close to a rant :D

[MarkusDark]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
RE: Ranger change made because of 3 players. Depending on which set of rumors you believe, that might not be as out-of-character as it sounds. But that puts me dangerously close to a rant :D

Eh, the 'rumor' I was referring to was the actual article the designer wrote - where he mentions that after witnessing these three examples, he was compelled to change things. The article that was referenced earlier in this thread.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by MarkusDark
Eh, the 'rumor' I was referring to was the actual article the designer wrote - where he mentions that after witnessing these three examples, he was compelled to change things. The article that was referenced earlier in this thread.

I know. I was referring to other rumors about the playtest process in general, and I apologize for failing to make that clear.

[MarkusDark]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
I know. I was referring to other rumors about the playtest process in general, and I apologize for failing to make that clear.

Ah, I understand, and agree. Working with MMORPGs, it has been interesting. The trouble is that you hear only about what the vocal minority doesn't like and think that there is something terribly wrong. However, if you don't check with the majority, you could wind up changing something that a great number of people already find perfect.

They often say that it is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease - well first you need to make sure whether or not that wheel is suppose to squeak.

[Agent X]

We play 2nd Edition, Options tricked out with stuff from Dragon Magazine and my own infernal imagination. It's as close to the Hero System as you can make D&D go and still be D&D. I never made the switch to Fantasy Hero because I started in D&D and really enjoy the enormous advantage of thousands of spells and incredible variety with monsters and the like. For superheroics, of course, nothing comes close to Champions but I can't get into Fantasy Hero until it gives me a lot more resources to play with - like seven volumes of clerical and magical spells.

As far as 3rd Edition, I had my friend "scout" the system out for me and he picked up on the "balance" problems at high levels pretty quickly. Also, many of the materials that are sold for it are on the superficial/video side of fantasy. I am a little more old school in my fantasy. The art certainly did not help it any.

[buzz]

Originally posted by Agent X
As far as 3rd Edition, I had my friend "scout" the system out for me and he picked up on the "balance" problems at high levels pretty quickly. Also, many of the materials that are sold for it are on the superficial/video side of fantasy. I am a little more old school in my fantasy. The art certainly did not help it any.

:Resists urge to refute all of the above, seeing as it's really just about preference:

:D

I don't get the "superficial/video" thing, though.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by buzz
:Resists urge to refute all of the above, seeing as it's really just about preference:

:D

I don't get the "superficial/video" thing, though. Well, yeah, superficial might not have been an objective description. I hold fast to the video description - although what I am referring to is that 3rd E is meant to play more like the computer role playing games that are out there. By superficial, I am getting at the underlying principles of why the fantasy system is what it is. 3rd E lacks definition by allowing almost any character concept. Now, if they were intent on setting genres with defined limits and using characters from those milieus as examples it would be more palatable.

I'm not from the school of fantasy that consists of plots that amount to science fiction with fairies (no monster ecologies are needed) or cares little about the background of why a gnome, elf, 2 dwarves, a halfling, 2 humans, and a half-orc are hanging out. I prefer fantasy campaigns that are rich in Mythistory and create scenarios for bands of heroes to do good deeds. I care little for the "You meet these guys at an Inn and answer the magical floating want ad to exterminate monsters in a dungeon."

Now, in 2E, these kinds of games were very common even though there was plenty of resources to avoid these tendencies, but in 3E, it seems that there is very little of substance for someone to latch onto to tell stories that avoid plots that are too self-aware that they are in a role playing game, my biggest complaint with many things that DnD has put out over the years. Forgotten Realms, for example, was far too self-aware of Adventurers and Dungeon Delving (almost equating it to a sport)

[buzz]

Originally posted by Agent X

...
3rd E lacks definition by allowing almost any character concept.
...
I care little for the "You meet these guys at an Inn and answer the magical floating want ad to exterminate monsters in a dungeon."

...but in 3E, it seems that there is very little of substance for someone to latch onto to tell stories that avoid plots that are too self-aware that they are in a role playing game, my biggest complaint with many things that DnD has put out over the years.
...

Well, I disagree with the first point and don't see what the second points have to do with and differences between editions... and on top of that I think 2e is basically the antichrist, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Whatever maintains the bouyancy of your warter-borne vehicle, as they say. :D

[Agent X]

Originally posted by buzz
Well, I disagree with the first point and don't see what the second points have to do with and differences between editions... and on top of that I think 2e is basically the antichrist, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Whatever maintains the bouyancy of your warter-borne vehicle, as they say. :D That's cool. But I'm stubborn and I feel like I have one more explanatory urge I must follow through with.

Any campaign has a genre, any genre has rules. Fantasy campaigns can have very few genre rules or very many genre rules. I prefer games with a tight cosmology and a setting that explains quite a few things - which sets more than a few genre rules. Why? Because I think it's difficult to tell stories that matter to most if they are built in a free-floating vapor that changes and mutates at whim. How does 3E contribute to this feelling? By encouraging default campaigns where no class/race combinations are off limits and by allowing characters to change classes at an alarming rate. Ultimately, we are playing a game in which our characters are all essentially human, possibly with many exaggerated qualities. Thus, our stories should have an air of plausibility within the suspension of disbelief. I don't want to hear someone explain how, in the course of a six-month period, their fighter decided to be thief for one adventure to gain a level there, then switch back, and heck, while we're at it switch over to cleric for Dungeon Expedition #5.

[buzz]

Originally posted by Agent X
How does 3E contribute to this feelling? By encouraging default campaigns where no class/race combinations are off limits and by allowing characters to change classes at an alarming rate.

3e puts these decisions where they should be: in the hands of the players and the DM. I don't really need Gygax (or Kuntz, or whomever) to lay down the law that, say, there are no elven clerics, or that halflings can only have so many levels of fighter; that's MY decision. As a HERO system fan, I'd think you'd appreciate this.

Classes are merely rule constructs. You conceive an overall picture of your PC, and then choose classes to fit it. If I want a PC like Grey Mouser, I take levels of rogue and then sprinkle in a couple of wizard and fighter levels. It doesn't mean he's jupming from "thief school" to "wizard school" at the drop of a hat; I'm just compiling those abilities that fit my concept, and/or reflect what's happened in the campaign.

Class/level limits were a poor attempt at game balance that a) didn't work and 2) were ignored by the vast majority of players. If you're one of the few who really liked them, adding them back in to 3e is a lot easier (and less unbalancing) than taking them out was in the old days.

I dunno. If you're happy with your 2e + Player's Option game, then more power to you. IMHO, however, 3e is a far better exaple of good system design. Rather than rely on a friend to "scout it out" for you and then wholly dismiss it, I'd suggest taking a look at the SRD or borrowing a friend's PHB and actually getting to know the system. At least, I'd reccomend doing so if you want to make grand pronouncements about what a bad game it is. :)

[tesuji]

The multiclassing rules in DND 3e represent a change in design theory.

In previous editions, the class was intended to be the character, you git your concept into a limited number of pissibilities, which cross referenced things like race and attributes into the mix.

In 3e, the class is meant to be just a part of the character definition and by taking advantage of multiclassing they enable you to use the classes to make your character, as opposed to the other way around. If i envision myself as a dirty fighter, i can mix levels of rogue and fighter in whatever proportion i see as good for my concept.

IMO, they only went halfway with this and made a mistake in keeping raceial preferences and such with the faviored classes and Xp penalties. I do not see why it is wrong to envision a character that is an elven dirty fighter (with a ratio of about 3 fighter levels for every rogue level) but its fine and balanced to pick the same character concept as a human or dwarf or half-elf, so wrong in fact that the guy loses 20% XP.

Those are hold overs from previous editions i think and, while i understand the desire to have holdovers, i think they were the wrong ones.

I think they took a step in the right direction. They are keeping the structure and logical development scheme of classes, which merely serve to group and define paths of advancement, while opening up the breadth of supported character concepts by an exponential degree. "Taking a level in rogue" is not changing one's life around... its just studying at different skills for a time.

Since they leave training et al as primarily a Gm decision with some options presented in the DMG, a Gm who wants classes to be more of s straightjacket, more of a character dominating element as opposed to simply a character building tool, can certainly implement any sort of house rules he wishes.

I knew one Gm who thought that spellcasting classes like wizard should be impossible to go into after character creation but who thought rogue and fighter would be easy so anyone could multiclass into rogue or fighter at the drop of a hat. Me, i felt he was underestimating the nnature of fighting prowess myself.

In my game, i dropped the favored classes. I allow any character to define at the outset the "background training" for his character as a ratio of classes. If he says "i am rogue-1 fighter-3 and i will call this virtual class a dirty fighter" then as his character advances and gains experience he can multiclass between fighter and rogue and as long as he keeps that ratio he suffers no XP penalty. if he multiclasses outside that ratio he suffers it... because he has stepped outside his core training. Exceptional circumstances can alter this during the course of the game.

Regardless, multiclass restrictions, classes allowed, racial tendencies and the like are IMO and to a degree in wotc's eyes (Realms has different rules for some of these than greyhawk) SETTING dependent choices. Some people miss the fact that the core DND books include setting specific rules as well as overall system rules and as such some of them are meant to be altered and tweaked for campaign specific needs... classes, races, etc are setting specific rules.

[buzz]

Originally posted by tesuji
IMO, they only went halfway with this and made a mistake in keeping raceial preferences and such with the faviored classes and Xp penalties. I do not see why it is wrong to envision a character that is an elven dirty fighter (with a ratio of about 3 fighter levels for every rogue level) but its fine and balanced to pick the same character concept as a human or dwarf or half-elf, so wrong in fact that the guy loses 20% XP.

The nice thing, though, is that you can remove "flavor" restrictions like this (as you mention doing in your campaign) without breaking anything. WotC does it themselves in different campaing settings (e.g., monk and paladin multiclass restrictions are different in FR than in the core books). In 1e/2e, what little balance exists gets blown away utterly if you remove the restrictions.

For me, it simply boils down to fun. 3e is simply way more fun for me than previous editions. The flexibility is more fun, the well-designed system is more fun, and the vast array of cool products spurred on by the OGL is more fun. For me, 2e was a big downer; and judging from all the people who spent the 90s playing Magic and Vamnpire (not to mention TSR essentially going into bankruptcy*), I don't think I was alone. :D

* Yes, I know the overall poor quality of 2e products wasn't the only reason, but I think it was certainly ONE of them.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by buzz
3e puts these decisions where they should be: in the hands of the players and the DM. I don't really need Gygax (or Kuntz, or whomever) to lay down the law that, say, there are no elven clerics, or that halflings can only have so many levels of fighter; that's MY decision. As a HERO system fan, I'd think you'd appreciate this.

Classes are merely rule constructs. You conceive an overall picture of your PC, and then choose classes to fit it. If I want a PC like Grey Mouser, I take levels of rogue and then sprinkle in a couple of wizard and fighter levels. It doesn't mean he's jupming from "thief school" to "wizard school" at the drop of a hat; I'm just compiling those abilities that fit my concept, and/or reflect what's happened in the campaign.

Class/level limits were a poor attempt at game balance that a) didn't work and 2) were ignored by the vast majority of players. If you're one of the few who really liked them, adding them back in to 3e is a lot easier (and less unbalancing) than taking them out was in the old days.

I dunno. If you're happy with your 2e + Player's Option game, then more power to you. IMHO, however, 3e is a far better exaple of good system design. Rather than rely on a friend to "scout it out" for you and then wholly dismiss it, I'd suggest taking a look at the SRD or borrowing a friend's PHB and actually getting to know the system. At least, I'd reccomend doing so if you want to make grand pronouncements about what a bad game it is. :) I have all the basic rulebooks and have read through them. My friend played in a campaign. I played a couple of pick-up games. I don't know how much of my money and time I have to spend before I get to have an opinion.

The problem with 3E and having multiple classes is that you go from one, to the other, and possibly back again, then back, back again. If you play in the serialized style of Fantasy I do, there won't be any switching from one class to another for many, many levels - because an appropriate time for that won't come up. It is clunky. The older multi-class system and the Fantasy Hero approach seem more appropriate to a campaign setting. Anything goes in a beer and pretzels game though.

I also find that there aren't many tactics by which to make an effective character. The feats are of unequal weight and, having talked to plenty of 3E players, find that whole new breeds of stereoptypical character constructions have cropped up.

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Agent X

I have all the basic rulebooks and have read through them. My friend played in a campaign. I played a couple of pick-up games. I don't know how much of my money and time I have to spend before I get to have an opinion.

Your comment about having had a fried spot imbalances for you may have resulted in some getting the impression that you were going from his assesssment, and not from experience. Perhaps oif you had said something like "from my read of the books i gathered..." then we would have not jumped to the wrong conclusion about your experience.

Originally posted by Agent X

The problem with 3E and having multiple classes is that you go from one, to the other, and possibly back again, then back, back again.

You certainly CAN do that... matter of fact that is precisely how you would represent say a "swashbuckler" concept of the roguish fighter... alternating level by level in fighter and rogue. if you character concept was for a character who spends time learning both, dividing his time between both thievery and thuggery perhaps, what would be wrong with that approach?

Just because something can be allowed when appropriate does not mean it must be allowed when inappropriate. I mean in FH a barbarian CAN buy magic spells with his next 5 xp... UNLESS the GM tells him "no thats not appropriate for this game."

I would expect any experienced hero player to recognize that. To assume that this is not applicable to other game systems is just odd.

How well does Fh work if the Gm never says no or adds in his own specific campaign limits? is there anything but the Gm stopping a character who has been a fighter for his entire life spending Xps on spells or dragon's breath? Not last time i checked.

You seem to be reaching the conclusion that using classes in this way is somehow just plain wrong in and of itself or that it must be without rhyme or reason.

It doesn't have to be. Characters wont always fit within any single class, nor in 3e are they really meant to be so constrained. 3e is intended to allow much broader characters with many more diverse possibilities for fantasy representation.

This may not appeal to everyone, but then, thats why we have GMs.

I personally never had a problem with characters which require two classes or even more to represent. in my current game we have a "forrestal " ranger-druid and a "warlock" wizard-rogue... everyone else is single classed and that seems to suit their characters just fine (although i have often thought the monk of fharlanghn should have multiclassed to cleric but he chose not to.)

Of course, with these things basically being a setting dependent set of restrictions and possibilities... the Gm can tailor them to his preference.

Originally posted by Agent X


If you play in the serialized style of Fantasy I do, there won't be any switching from one class to another for many, many levels - because an appropriate time for that won't come up. It is clunky.

I must wonder how you handle characters whose concepts don't fit well into single classes, like the fighter-rogue mentioned above. i wonder if you limit gaining new classes or limit gaining any class levels?
Originally posted by Agent X

The older multi-class system and the Fantasy Hero approach seem more appropriate to a campaign setting. Anything goes in a beer and pretzels game though.

I run a campaign, have for years now, and the multiclassing has worked fine. of course, i did tailor it to fit my campaign.
Originally posted by Agent X

I also find that there aren't many tactics by which to make an effective character. The feats are of unequal weight and, having talked to plenty of 3E players, find that whole new breeds of stereoptypical character constructions have cropped up.


I am surw within any group preferences will emerge and even may seem overpowering. This is often a matter of style.

Every aspect is weighed against the challenges presented and little else matters. In a campaign where combat is a premium, weapon specialization may seem favorable. in a campaign with lots of overland and environmental concerns, endurance will be seen in a new light. In a campaign where spellcasters are a predominant adversary, foregoing weapon specioalization for improved init or iron will or even quick draw may be seen as good. very little in terms of balance can ever be viewed outside of the sieve of "what challenges the particular Gm throws at us."

If your experiences show you a narrow set of preferred character builds then my suspicion is that this says more about the nature of gming and diversity thereof.

[Agent X]

You can make any system work for you and you guys have done that. What I don't like about 3E obviously doesn't bother you. I've been spoiled by 2E Options (expanded by Dragon Magazine articles and House Rules) and by Champions. I don't want to come up with new ways to express things I already can express with a system I am more familiar with and is demonstratedly more detailed in terms of description of character ability, skills, etc. The thing is, I can make any character concept that can be made in 3E with 2E Options and combat, levels, etc. seem to be more balanced based on personal experience and the comments I have heard from others, including many who like 3E.

[Rob_Knotts]

Originally posted by Super Squirrel
I still have about 1 1/2 years worth of my subscription to Dragon Magazine and I wish I could get a refund.That's what eBay is for :D

My group tried D&D 3e for a year, mainly hoping that we could recruit new players and introduce them to systems like Hero and GURPS. New players never stuck around, my current players never really got enthusiastic about D&D, and I eventually got frustrated with part of D&D that were confinine and parts that seemed just arbitary (especially with no coherent rules for creating spells or monsters). While d20 Modern seems to have a lot more potential for a good fantasy system than it's parent D&D 3e, it wouldn't take any less work to set up a fantasy d20m game than it would be to set up a Hero fantasy game, and to be honest I think Hero would be even easier by a long shot.

In fact, our last game session was supposed to be D&D, but we decided instead to discuss how to use Hero for a fantasy game, afterwards spending the rest of night playing 'Clix (my players had been dropping hints that they'd like to play Champions again, and that night both me and one of my players had been drooling over a copy of the USPD we found at the local game store).

There are some ideas background ideas from D&D I still like, particularly monsters and villians like Beholders, Drow, and Mind-Flayers, but given the choice of D&D 3.5 or Fantasy Hero, Fantasy Hero is where my money's gonna go.

[Pattern Ghost]

Here's another question for those who've read up on 3.5: Did they give Fighters intimidate and spot as class skills? Both of those seem very appropriate for fighters. Even the NPC Warrior class has Intimidate as a class skill. And the description for spot includes stuff such as spotting ambushes...hmm, sounds fighterly to me.

On a side note: Has anybody considered playing a low-magic, low-powered game using the NPC classes from the DMG? (Aristocrat, Expert, Adept, and Warrior). I was thinking that they may make for a good Black Company type game, where the more powerful bad guys have the better classes, and most of the magical power. (Of course, 3E assumes by default a certain amount of magic at X level, so you'd have to be a bit careful when assessing threats, but should be doable.)

[buzz]

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost
Here's another question for those who've read up on 3.5: Did they give Fighters intimidate and spot as class skills?

Fighters do get Intimidate in 3.5e. I don't know about Spot, though.

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost
On a side note: Has anybody considered playing a low-magic, low-powered game using the NPC classes from the DMG? (Aristocrat, Expert, Adept, and Warrior).

The "Game of Thrones" articles in last month's issue of Dragon talks about doing this, IIRC.

d20 Modern is actually a good choice for lower-powered, less-magic-reliant games, too.

[tesuji]

Originally posted by buzz

d20 Modern is actually a good choice for lower-powered, less-magic-reliant games, too.

I agree. A friend of mine was developing a d20 variant for a middle earth campaign and i pointed him towards d20 modern for a system designed more for low magic as a core rather than dnd.

[Pattern Ghost]

Thanks.

[TheEmerged]

RE: More 3.5 Information. Gnomes are having their favored class changed to Bard (from illusionist). The ability for a race to treat an exotic weapon as a martial wepaon, or to automatically have proficiency as a race, is apparently going to be much more widespread.

Also, the "Animal Affinity" line of spells (Bull Strength, Cat Grace, Eagle Splendor, etc) is being changed to a straight +5 enhancement bonus but last 1 minute (as opposed to 1d4+1 and 10/min per level). One rumor I'm hearing is that this change is at least partially due to playtesting of the Animal Affinity power for psionics -- which would be nice for a couple reasons. Number one, it would mean they're actually testing Psionics now (dangerously close to a rant here...). Second, this eliminates a min-max abuse. I expect that this change will probably carry over to Animal Affinity itself in the Psionic Update web enhancement said to follow 3.5 (Mark Jindra actually posted a "corrected" Animal Affinity he was working on a few months ago...).

[buzz]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
The ability for a race to treat an exotic weapon as a martial wepaon, or to automatically have proficiency as a race, is apparently going to be much more widespread.

Three races will have Weapon Familiarity: Orcs (not half-orcs), Dwarves, and Gnomes.

Originally posted by TheEmerged
Also, the "Animal Affinity" line of spells (Bull Strength, Cat Grace, Eagle Splendor, etc) is being changed to a straight +5 enhancement bonus but last 1 minute (as opposed to 1d4+1 and 10/min per level).

A thread on ENWorld said it would be +4 and 1min/lvl.

I also seem to remember hearing that the PsiHB might actually get a serious revision, as the setting contest winner is apparently very psionics-reliant. Can't remember where I heard that, though.

I'm looking forward to the new books so I don't have to rely on rumors any more. :)

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by buzz
I also seem to remember hearing that the PsiHB might actually get a serious revision, as the setting contest winner is apparently very psionics-reliant. Can't remember where I heard that, though.

You probably heard it an EN World, because that's where I heard it :D For the record, Mark Jindra (who has effectively replaced Bruce Cordell as the psionics guru) has said "this was news to him" and "until you hear it from us, don't believe it."

My money says there's some truth to it -- too many odd coincidences happened around the time of the setting contest announcement to dismiss this rumor. If the reports that the PsiHB outsold the FRCS are true (I take them with a grain of salt but I wouldn't be surprised), one thinks the money-grubbers would have already reacted.

What I also find interesting, at least from where I type, is the resistance psionics in 3D&D faces sometimes. Speaking for myself, I view it mostly as a replacement and/or addendum to the Sacred Cow Spell System -- another option, so to speak.


RE: Serious Revision. I'd love to see this happen, especially if they rebuilt the powers around the mechanic used for Call Weaponry.

However, given the attitude and statements of the two people most likely to be placed in charge of such a revision (Mark Jindra and Bruce Cordell), I'm trying not to get my hopes up. Bruce continues to say he "likes the ability damage system" and "doesn't understand why people have a problem with it". Mark has said nothing is wrong with the psychic combat system except for the lack of to-hit scaling. Both statements are horribly off-base; I think it says something that d20 Modern took the obvious route of eliminating this aspect.


I'm looking forward to the new books so I don't have to rely on rumors any more. :)

Ye ditto. Plan right now is for me to buy the PlayHB, the DM to buy the DMG, and to only pick up the MM1.5 if it looks worth it in the store.

[misterdeath]

The new Gnome rocks! Let's move them back to tricksters, and away from the (censored) tinker gnomes from (censored) (censored) Krynn. No more, or I'll rant. Bards (currently) may blow chunks, but hey, they're getting a revision, right?

All I heard was the 1/min per level for the buffing spells, hadn't heard a +4 or a +5 (personally, as player of a cleric, I want the +5 if I don't have hours and hours of spell).

It wouldn't surprise me entirely if Psi sold better than the FRCS. The FRCS had some neat sections on regional feats. And then a whole bunch of stuff slightly modified from all the other (hundreds, and yeah, I got almost all of em) FR products. Not enough crunchy bits if you didn't play FR. And not enough new info, if you did.

Of cource, my feeling is that the Psi book is like the Star Wars book. Lots of people bought it, and it sits on their shelf unused.

Ah, well, Paladins are supposedly getting more smiting, so that's a good.

Rangers supposedly are getting Good Ref as well as Fort saves.

D

[allen]

Interesting... there's a couple comments about d20 Modern in the last couple of days... personally, I think it's an immensely better class/level system than D&D 3E. The basic classes focused around a specific stat, leading to advanced classes, makes much more sense (to me, of course) than D&D core classes/prestige classes. To use an example: IMO paladin is a prestige class, not a core class.

[EDIT: In fairness, I should add that while I've played D&D, I have not played d20 Modern, so it may have problems that I didn't notice.]

Anyway... comment about Psionic Handbook sales... wasn't it pretty much the first hardback supplement after the core rules? There was a lot of enthusiasm for 3E at the time; it wouldn't surprise if it's sales were higher than FRCS (that's Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, right?).


Also, the "Animal Affinity" line of spells (Bull Strength, Cat Grace, Eagle Splendor, etc) is being changed to a straight +5 enhancement bonus but last 1 minute (as opposed to 1d4+1 and 10/min per level)... this eliminates a min-max abuse.

How did the original lead to min/max abuse? (Just curious)

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by allen
How did the original lead to min/max abuse? (Just curious)

It's not the *worst* abuse you've ever seen, but it does exist.

Because they were diced effects, they were valid for Empower Spell (+50% effect, +2 spell levels). They could then be made to last a whole day via Persistent Spell (from Tome & Blood, +4 levels). Meta-style feats can stack. The result was that if you can cast spells of that high of level, you can get a sizable bonus that lasts a long time.

This was more of a problem with the Psionic varient (Animal Affinity) because of the existance of an in-my-opinion-broken feat named Overpower -- +6 PP (+3 spell levels) to get +100% effect. Mini-rant, this feat should be eliminated in any psionic revision that includes innate scaling; it exists solely to "force" scaling and violates the FSBNNR principle -- Feats Should Be Nice Not Required. This problem is complicated by the fact that psionic's version of Permancy is VERY poorly written, leading many players to try and talk their DM's into allowing Incarnate to be used on Animal Affinity -- usually under the (weak) argument that "psions are weak, give them this to compensate."

Of course, given the fact that many, many players are unaware of the metapsionics cap, it looks even more ripe for abuse than it is. Figure Bruce Cordell's absurd Transcend Limits feat (from ITCK) and a few similar feats that have been sneaking their way into the system, it gets worse.

Again, it's not the most serious abuse out there and affects psionics worse anyway. Still, it's worth noting and I like the fact that, by all appearances, it was noted.

[Talon]

I've been running a 3E campaign for 2+ years now. It's not bad, but I'd run Fantasy Hero if I had to startover. There's a very important reason I didn't start with FH in the first place: players. I didn't know any gamers in the area, and I'm sure that a "Fantasy Hero" game wouldn't have had any takers.

I think 3E was a huge step forward, vastly better than 1E and 2E. At the time, they were very scared that it was too big a step, that people would be upset that it was departing too much from the original concepts of D&D. Now, obviously, they see that they could have gone even farther. Unfortunately, they aren't fully doing that in 3.5 -- they've already acknowledged that metamagic and multiclassing for spellcasters, two huge problem areas in 3E, are not going to be revised.

Given the class/level restrictions, 3E is fine for a system. As others have pointed out, 3E has a built-in genre definition (monsters, spells, etc.) that Fantasy Hero does not. In addition, 3E has a built-in notion of "magical technology level"; by looking at the spell lists and item creation rules, a DM can estimate what kinds of things can take place (scrying, divination, teleport, etc.). In a FH game, the GM is on his own to make those determinations -- and thus far, editions of FH have not helped at all. I'm hoping that the upcoming edition addresses this, much in the same manner that Star Hero did for technology levels.

I also find it amusing that the 3E spells are being tweaked to removed "absolute" effects. Remind anyone of another system?

I don't have any problems revising a system every 3 years...especially if that means Hero 5.5 will come out sometime soon. :)

[buzz]

Originally posted by Geoff Speare
Unfortunately, they aren't fully doing that in 3.5 -- they've already acknowledged that metamagic and multiclassing for spellcasters, two huge problem areas in 3E, are not going to be revised.

I know the "issue" with spellcasters multiclassing (i.e., comparative power loss), but what's the problem with metamagic?

[Talon]

Using spell levels as a cost for metamagic means that metamagic feats are amazingly inefficient at lower levels, becoming better and better as you gain levels. This makes them very hard to balance, as they have to be non-abusive at high levels, which tends to make them weak at low levels.

A 1st level character can't use metamagic at all (except +0 level feats); at 3rd level, using a +1 level feat effectively doubles the required spell level slot.

They acknowledged (http://www.enworld.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=37&page=1) that the system needed reworking, but that they didn't have time to playtest so they just left it as is.

The spellcasting one bugs me more; the problem had every right to show up in 3E, but it's huge enough that they should have done something for 3.5.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by buzz
I know the "issue" with spellcasters multiclassing (i.e., comparative power loss), but what's the problem with metamagic?

Not doing anything with multiclassing? You guys haven't seen the Mystic Theurge, have you...

The first problem with metamagic, briefly, is that they don't stack well. A spell that is both Silent and Still isn't nearly improved enough to warrant +2 spell levels, to name one example off the top of my head.

The second problem is that spontaneous arcane/divine casters are hamstrung by the rule that says using metafeats on spontaneous spells causes them to take a full round action. This makes the Quicken Spell feat completely useless for Sorcerers, for example, unless they take another feat (Prepare Spell, I think it's called) and doing THAT causes them to lose part of what makes them a sorcerer...

The third problem, related to the above, is that meta-style feats are FAR more useful to psions & psychic warriors because they lack that restriction (it's one of a couple of advantages psions have). Obviously, a middle ground needs to be plowed.

A fourth problem is the mechanic itself -- one can argue that the feats should be rewritten so that they can be used equally for psionics or magic.

A fifth problem, specific to Psychic Warriors, is that the (poorly-written and even more poorly placed) metapsionic cap rule gives them an odd advantage because they can meta-affect powers far in advance of the power levels they can actually use.

A sixth problem, stated simply, is that many meta-feats are simply over-priced. Quicken Power, for example, is whacked -- this should be +3 tops, and really even that is pushing it.

A seventh problem, related to the above, is that some problematically powerful feats have sneaked into the system. Most aren't 100% canon -- Persistent Spell/Power being the most noticeable example, Transcend Limits being another.

[buzz]

Originally posted by Geoff Speare
The spellcasting one bugs me more; the problem had every right to show up in 3E, but it's huge enough that they should have done something for 3.5.

Monte Cook came up with sort a "solution" for this in the Book of Hallowed Might by creating the Hallowed Mage prestige class; a PC needs to multi in both cleric and wizard/sorcerer, but the class sort of bumps up your caster level in both classes to your full level, as well as has a spell list that starts at 4th lvl.

I'm probably not explaining it well, but the book states specifically that it was an attempt to alleviate the multiclassing power hit.

The multiclassing thing never really bugged me that much; such is the price you pay for flexibility.

Thankfully, the OGL allows anyone to give fixing these problems a shot. :)

[buzz]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
Not doing anything with multiclassing? You guys haven't seen the Mystic Theurge, have you...

Oh, yeah. Funny thing is, eveyone over on ENWorld is complaining that it's way too powerful. Guess there's just no pleasing some people. :)

[Talon]

I've seen the Theurge, which highlights perfectly the problem with spellcaster multiclassing.

-- It's too powerful, because it is so much better than other prestige classes;

-- It's not too powerful, because it puts multiclass spellcasters on a par with multiclass fighters.

Unfortunately, Mystic Theurge only works for one (or a couple) combinations of classes. A real fix would be, for example, having a single chart for all of a character's spellcasting, so that multiclassing might affect spell selection, but the number and level of spells would stay the same.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by Geoff Speare
-- It's too powerful, because it is so much better than other prestige classes;

I disagree -- it's only vastly better than the PrC's we've seen to date. With a few exceptions I'll immediately agree to, most of the PrC's (especially in the "splatbooks") have been noticeably undergunned. IF, and that's capitalized and bolded for a reason, but IF the MT represents a new balance point for PrC's it speaks well for the future of PrC's in general.

What's more, pay attention to those "multiple abiltiy dependency" and "being a full power level behind in spell level acquisition" issues. From my experience playing a multiclassing psion/psychic warrior, those are bigger problems in practice than they sound in theory.

I'll be seeing for myself sometime soon anyway; we're starting our next campaign at 5th level and I'm building my PC to qualify for MT. Sometimes, all the playtesting and theory in the world is no comparison to an actual campaign with actual players and an actual DM...

BTW, Geoff, if anything the Rogue has more advantages multiclassing than a Fighter does because of the way skill caps work. I speak from experience there, as well :D

[Talon]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
I disagree -- it's only vastly better than the PrC's we've seen to date. With a few exceptions I'll immediately agree to, most of the PrC's (especially in the "splatbooks") have been noticeably undergunned. IF, and that's capitalized and bolded for a reason, but IF the MT represents a new balance point for PrC's it speaks well for the future of PrC's in general.

Judging from the new blackguard they revealed, this doesn't seem to be the case. Even if it is, though, they'll have to make a Prestige Class for each possible combination for spellcasting classes (including combinations involving Prestige Classes!) for the problem to be fixed.

What's more, pay attention to those "multiple abiltiy dependency" and "being a full power level behind in spell level acquisition" issues. From my experience playing a multiclassing psion/psychic warrior, those are bigger problems in practice than they sound in theory.

Definitely true -- but there has to be some drawback to getting full access to divine and arcane spells!

BTW, Geoff, if anything the Rogue has more advantages multiclassing than a Fighter does because of the way skill caps work. I speak from experience there, as well :D

I don't know about more, but it's definitely a nice combination for sure. I've had at least three Rogue multiclassers in my campaign so far.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by Geoff Speare
I don't know about more, but it's definitely a nice combination for sure. I've had at least three Rogue multiclassers in my campaign so far.

That's because whereas the fighter class tends to lose their best benefit when they multiclass (BAB), the rogue can make up for lost time with their skill ranks.

IMO, it was the Rogue taking a single level of Ranger, more than anything, that resulted in the Ranger's abilities being made less front-loaded.

[johnflang]

I think the main hit to being a Mytic Theruge PrC is that as you advance in levels your ability to turn undead does not go up and your familiars ability does not go up.