HEEEEEEEELPPPPPPP!

[Markdoc]

Yamo, I think you were missing the point a bit - the balance comment was referring to mages versus other characters in DnD. At the start, the mage flings his one puny spell and then hides behind the fighters, while some levels later, when comparing notes after a fight, the fighters find they have killed 12 gnolls each and the mage about 400.

 

That's not a slam on DnD - most of us have played it, and I at least, still do from time to time. But the imbalance is real and it is built into the rules. A lot of "in game knowledge" is also built into the rules. Even in 3e, saying "8th level ranger" gives you a decent snapshot of the character, whereas saying "150 point character" does not.

 

But that's got precious little to do with game balance. TFT was even more succinct, but that didn't make it more balanced.

 

To reply to your earlier post, it seems like the magic system you propose should work fine, although it gives mages a hell of a lot of firepower. That's probably OK, since your comments about limitations and Cosmic power pools suggest you want powerful mages. I allow mages to use multis in my game - it balances fine because non-mages can also use multis for "cool tricks" or martial arts and because I control the limitations allowed.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Old Man]

Anybody ever considered using two of the accepted spell conventions together?

 

What I mean is, the initial allotment of spells be in the form of a Multipower. All spells after that are bought individually. Or you could say that if the mage has access to a full blown magical college and library he can add into the multipower. If not, then the spell is bought on its own.

 

Not a refined idea at all, just random thought.

[Lucius]

Winter in Maine

 

My "bias is duly noted."

 

Right. A bias based on reading the game, knowing the game, playing and running the game for years.

 

I guess if I observe that winter is cold in Maine, based on the three winters I spent there, my bias about Maine will be duly noted.

 

On the other hand, although the climate of Maine is unlikely to change, I am aware that I have never played the current edition of D&D. The one bias that SHOULD be noted is that my comments refer only to the older editions. I don't know enough about the latest version of the game to comment on it. Maybe it's totally unlike the game I knew.

 

And maybe Maine had a warm winter last year.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Ask the palindromedary, it was there too.

[tesuji]

Re: Winter in Maine

 

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Lucius

Right. A bias based on reading the game, knowing the game, playing and running the game for years.

Actually, a bias based on your own subjective definition of what entails "balance" and what causes it.

Originally posted by Lucius

I guess if I observe that winter is cold in Maine, based on the three winters I spent there, my bias about Maine will be duly noted.

Well, I am perhaps unbaised enough to know the difference between a subjective definition such as "what is game balance" and an objective observation such as "what temperature does the thermometer read?"

 

Until you can recognize even the slightest difference between the two things you are trying to compare, we probably have little hope in meaningful communication.

 

Aside from the various units issues (degrees f, degrees C or in wierd situations degres K) a temperature reading is an objective thing. Game balance is not.

 

Now, there would be the argument that what constitutes "cold" weather for some might not be considered "cold" weather for others, However i doubt anyone would classify Maine as anything but cold in the wintertime.

Originally posted by Lucius

On the other hand, although the climate of Maine is unlikely to change, I am aware that I have never played the current edition of D&D. The one bias that SHOULD be noted is that my comments refer only to the older editions.

Ok, then I may be confused. Did you say balance in DND "is" a joke or "was" a joke?

 

If someone wrote a post complaining about balance issues and rules conflicts in HERO system or Champions and left out that they were talking about 3rd edition would you consider it a reasonable complaint or criticism? Should we populate these threads with discussions of 20 year old rules that have long since been changed?

Originally posted by Lucius

I don't know enough about the latest version of the game to comment on it. Maybe it's totally unlike the game I knew.

So, lets talk about ECs in second edition and how they worked?

Originally posted by Lucius

And maybe Maine had a warm winter last year.

Again, if you consider game balance to be as objective a thing as a temperature measurement, then I doubt there is much more going to come of this.

 

As i stated earlier, game balance is derived IMO from the choices made by the Gmas to what challenges he presents his players and their characters. Barring the grossest of mismatches (character A has exactly everything B has and also has these extra things) there wont be any objective imbalances. I will also point out that those grossest of imbalances (A has exactly everything B has and then some) are MORE likely to appear in a points system (Player A and B build silimar characters but B is far more experienced than a at milking the system) and typically wont occur in a classed system where the gaining of abilities is scheduled and is irregardless of "minmaxing aptitude."

 

Or in other words...

 

If two players sit down in DND to generate "10th level fighters" then even when one is far more skilled than the other and more knowledgable about using the system, they will end up with trade offs that compensate to some degree at least.

 

If two players sit down to generate two FH fighters and when one is far more skilled and experienced at milking the system it is entirely possible for one to end up clearly superior with no relevent compensations. Heck, finessing the rounding rules alone could produce it.

[Old Man]

I think skill should count for more during character creation than luck.

[tesuji]

While I am not a fan of luck having a major role, which is why i love that modern DND has chargen systems officially available which have no luck involved (point buy) and i use them, I think luck would be preferable in moderation to a heavy swing towards skill.

 

In my ideal whimsical myth of a game, neither would play a significant role. A newbie player would have every bit as much a chance to generate a character just as efficiently as a veteran would. The "system" would not get in the way. The "system" would not favor 14 over 13 oir vice versa and would make either worth what you paid and nothing more.

 

Unfortunately, that system does not exist yet.

 

One of the things i use in judging the merits of s system is its learning curve and i gauges it in terms of both... ready for this... frequency and severity.

 

FREQUENCY: How long is it going to be that a newbie player needs to ask advice when creating characters? How long before they will feel comfortable? How long before they are veterans?

 

HERO has a high frequency, it will last for a long time, maybe forever, to get the hang of it. DND has a much lower frequency. After 1-2 characters or even 1 character for a while, the hang of the system is grasped. One of the reasons this is true is the classed system gives you delineated examples.

 

SEVERITY: How gross a difference will there be between a veteran built character and a rank newbie? How severe will the power level or efficiency difference be Iseen in play?

 

HERO has again a high severity. THe differences will be drastic, evidenced in play and just very difficult to ignore. DND with core classes, is not too bad. DND with all the various and sundried PRCs and splatbook feats and splatbook spells... is more like HERO. I dont see it as quite there, but it may well be close to as severe as hero.

[Old Man]

Assuming two players with equal rules skill, their characters will come out reasonably balanced. FH does favor the brick somewhat in the way that Champions does, but by and large you don't see the wild power variation between wizards and warriors the way you do in certain other systems.

[tesuji]

I ran three different Fh campaigns and played in two. None had the same magic system. in each the "balances" between "classes" varied a great deal.

 

Given the relative absence of a formal system for creating wizards and warriors, with even the new FH not going to include an official magic system, this seems hard to justify.

 

I would agree completely that a GM can create a magic system and limit his players choices to achieve different balance results between "classes." in FH.

 

Then again, they can do the same thing in "certain other systems" where even with classes modifying classes is not only endorsed but encouraged, albeit recommend in moderation.

 

Regardless, balance is only relevent when gauged against the challenges presented by the GM. its the needs and necessities of the scenario, adventure and campaign that determines the "power" of any individual character and the "weakness" of any other, barring the grossest of abberations.

 

The grossest of abberations wont appear in a classed system as often as they will in a pointed one, particular a pointed one with a high learning curve.

 

Originally posted by Old Man

Assuming two players with equal rules skill, their characters will come out reasonably balanced. FH does favor the brick somewhat in the way that Champions does, but by and large you don't see the wild power variation between wizards and warriors the way you do in certain other systems.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by tesuji

I ran three different Fh campaigns and played in two. None had the same magic system. in each the "balances" between "classes" varied a great deal.

 

Given the relative absence of a formal system for creating wizards and warriors, with even the new FH not going to include an official magic system, this seems hard to justify.

 

The formal system presented in 4th ed. FH balanced just fine at practically any power level. The college system was clunky, but it worked. Of course many GMs like to tinker with the magic system in FH, so of course you'll get different balances depending on how you tweak it.

[Lord Liaden]

I'm anticipating that the new Fantasy HERO will include a lot of suggestions on how to balance spell systems, and the effect of certain choices on the effectiveness of spell casters relative to other types of characters, particularly Power Frameworks. Spellcasting abilities are one of the elements that can give one character a big edge over others if not handled right.

 

Old Man, you and I may be in the minority in approving of the old FH spell colleges. The type and amount of Limitations built into those spells made them very useful to characters as individual buys, without outpowering them relative to weapon or stealth specialists. And I for one thought that the sfx of the individual Colleges added a lot of unique flavor to them. I could never understand the protests of some people that all colleges were the same because they all had a damage spell, a Detect, a Dispel and a Force Field. There's a real difference between a FF defined as a flock of birds that surround you to block attacks, and a FF defined as turning your skin into reptile scales (both of which are in the book).

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Lord Liaden

And I for one thought that the sfx of the individual Colleges added a lot of unique flavor to them. I could never understand the protests of some people that all colleges were the same because they all had a damage spell, a Detect, a Dispel and a Force Field. There's a real difference between a FF defined as a flock of birds that surround you to block attacks, and a FF defined as turning your skin into reptile scales (both of which are in the book).

 

Interesting i thought that was one of the worst sins of the Fh presentation. I had hoped for the spell colege SFX thing to actually provide meaningful differences, rather than just cosmetic flavor wrapped around the same game mechanics necessities... 'everyone needs a force field/armor so regarldess of FX we will give everyone one..."

 

See, instead of a fire force field, i would rather see fire mages using a fireshield... when those approaching to hit you get burned and where arrows and the like get burned upo on approach. Instead we get yet another "wall of defense" force field.

 

The most egregious to me was the one you mention... the "animal lover" college whose basic defensive spells causes local animals to throw themselves in, taking the shots for the mage... again represented by the oh so points efficient force field.

 

to each his own of course.

[Chris Goodwin]

Originally posted by Lord Liaden

I could never understand the protests of some people that all colleges were the same because they all had a damage spell, a Detect, a Dispel and a Force Field. There's a real difference between a FF defined as a flock of birds that surround you to block attacks, and a FF defined as turning your skin into reptile scales (both of which are in the book).

 

Mechanics wise there really isn't any difference, so from a straight mechanics standpoint there isn't really any reason to choose one over the other. And some (I'd say most) people don't like that. It bothered me, but not a huge amount.

 

My big problem with colleges was in the way the "Must have X points in college" Limitation was used. For instance, most of the colleges had that for all of their spells, all at the same level. So you couldn't have, for instance, an apprentice necromancer, because all spells required 30 points in the college. (Actually, you could, but you just couldn't cast any of them until you had 30 points worth.) The way it should have been done was to make a few basic or apprentice level spells for each college without the limitation, make a bunch of journeyman level spells that required 10 points, make a bunch of craftsman level spells that required 20 points, a bunch of master level spells that required 30 points, and a bunch of archmage level spells that required 40 points. Optionally, include points spent in a KS or SS of the college's magic type as part of those base points.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Lord Liaden

Old Man, you and I may be in the minority in approving of the old FH spell colleges. The type and amount of Limitations built into those spells made them very useful to characters as individual buys, without outpowering them relative to weapon or stealth specialists. And I for one thought that the sfx of the individual Colleges added a lot of unique flavor to them. I could never understand the protests of some people that all colleges were the same because they all had a damage spell, a Detect, a Dispel and a Force Field. There's a real difference between a FF defined as a flock of birds that surround you to block attacks, and a FF defined as turning your skin into reptile scales (both of which are in the book).

 

Well, I didn't like the way the old spell colleges were executed. I really do not think that every college should be entitled to a Force Field and an RKA. That 'requirement' resulted in some spell concepts that were really reaching. The "life bolt" out of the Body Mastery college was one. The example you list, the Flock Of Birds Force Field, was another. So was the Solid Flames Force Field.

 

What does work is the limitation concept wherein the char gets an extra limitation on her spells whose value increases with the points spent on spells. That helps to level the field for Real Mages as compared to warrior wizards or one spell wonders. The thing is that you have to allow the value of the limitation to remain constant across all the spells bought by a given character, rather than fixing the limitation for a given spell. I think this is how the college spell lists were meant to be used--they just had to put in some value for the published spell listing, otherwise they couldn't show us the math.

[Lucius]

Cold and Balance

 

Tesuji has written:

Now, there would be the argument that what constitutes "cold" weather for some might not be considered "cold" weather for others, However i doubt anyone would classify Maine as anything but cold in the wintertime.

 

I know what I mean by "cold." I acknowledge I can feel cold in the same room someone else finds warm, but I think most people would agree that Maine, especially Loring AFB Maine, is cold in the winter. I also know what I mean by "balanced" and "unbalanced." And I doubt many people would classify a 1st level mage and a 1st level fighter in the AD&D I knew as "balanced" and the same goes even more so for a 20th level magic user and a 20th level fighter (or anything else.)

 

Tesuji has written:

Until you can recognize even the slightest difference between the two things you are trying to compare, we probably have little hope in meaningful communication.

 

If you can tell me with a straight face that you think a 20th level magic user and a 20th level fighter in AD&D are balanced, then you may be right that we "have little hope of meaningful communication" at least until I know what you mean when you use the word "balance." But that is not a question of "bias" it is a matter of you using the same word I am using and, apparently, meaning something completely different by it. You might as well accuse me of "bias" if I refer to someone who snubbed me giving me the "cold shoulder" or say I’m backing out of an enterprise because of "cold feet" without reference to the actual temperature of the body parts in question.

 

Tesuji has written:

Ok, then I may be confused. Did you say balance in DND "is" a joke or "was" a joke?

 

 

I think I said "is" a joke. Perhaps it should have been "was." About whatever is currently marketed under the name "D&D" I can only plead ignorance. I have heard that it has improved by incorporating ideas from better systems. This may make it a better game than it was in several respects, including balance, but probably not as good as the systems it is deriving its better ideas from. In any case, if the game has changed so much that my criticism is no longer valid, then it has changed its fundamental nature and is not really a "3rd edition" of the same game, any more than Fuzion was an "edition" of Hero. Like Fuzion, it is a different game being called by the same name.

 

Tesuji has written:

If someone wrote a post complaining about balance issues and rules conflicts in HERO system or Champions and left out that they were talking about 3rd edition would you consider it a reasonable complaint or criticism?

 

That depends. Much has changed in HERO, but it is FUNDEMENTALLY the same. For example if one were to say that it suffers from being too complicated, I could counter that to SOME degree that complexity is necessary if a game is to, for example, permit as much freedom and latitude as HERO does, but I would have to concede that the system is still more complex than it absolutely has to be. And the fundamental objection would still be as valid in HERO5 as it was in the original Champions - perhaps more so. So the question is - has D&D in fact become more balanced and I am not aware of the fact? Has the game changed enough that the statements I have made about it are no longer true? I don’t know.

 

Tesuji has written:

If two players sit down in DND to generate "10th level fighters" then even when one is far more skilled than the other and more knowledgable about using the system, they will end up with trade offs that compensate to some degree at least.

 

 

Which may be true, but even so, that does not contradict anything I have said. I’m not TALKING about two 10th level fighters or any two fighters at any given level. I am talking specifically about comparing a fighter and a magic user of equal level. If you want to talk about two fighters that’s fine, but it’s not the conversation I thought I was having.

 

And if the only "objective imbalance" you acknowledge is two characters who are absolutely identical, except that one is better, then a 1st level thief was not "unbalanced" against a 20th level fighter, because the latter can’t pick locks.

 

And just to get back on topic…..

 

Lord Liaden has written:

Old Man, you and I may be in the minority in approving of the old FH spell colleges. … And I for one thought that the sfx of the individual Colleges added a lot of unique flavor to them. I could never understand the protests of some people that all colleges were the same because they all had a damage spell, a Detect, a Dispel and a Force Field. There's a real difference between a FF defined as a flock of birds that surround you to block attacks, and a FF defined as turning your skin into reptile scales.

 

I kind of liked them too, and I fully agree with what you say here. I DID think in some cases they really "stretched" the FX to get a certain kind of spell, but as I pointed out elsewhere, if you’re running the game right, ideally two wizard players might never realize that their separate spells are "mechanically" identical. But yes, a lot could have been done to further differentiate the colleges, and I an see the point that not EVERY school of magick should have had certain spells (Maybe Detect and Dispel - differentiated by SFX - but not "everybody gets an EB, an RKA, a Force Field, etc."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And the verdict is - innocent! Feed them to the palindromedary!

[tesuji]

Lucius...

 

Once you get into characters with differing abilities, such as wizard and fighter, and away from the case of the extreme where both characters have unique abilities, then you are INDEED into the realm of "balance by challenge"... a 20th level fighter who needs to decipher a script to release the djinni is not going to be able to accomplish that task and is for all intents and purposes "over-powered" by the low level thief who can.

 

That is an EXTREME example, but then you are the one chosing to use 20th vs 1st as core to your points.

 

Ecept for the "total subset" case, which will happen much easier in point systems than class systems (because class systems give unique abilities to each class...typically) balance is defined by the intersection of challnges and abilities... not by any objective measure.

 

************************

 

The fighter on fighter comparison was an example in simplest terms regarding the difference in the total subset balance issue between classed systems ala dnd and point systems ala hero... and was directed directly at your notion it seems of an objective balance. I hope that clears up its relevence. if not, i doubt i can keep propping up your end of this discussion. you will just have to try and keep up on your own.

[Lucius]

Originally posted by tesuji

Lucius...

 

 

 

That is an EXTREME example, but then you are the one chosing to use 20th vs 1st as core to your points.

 

 

i doubt i can keep propping up your end of this discussion. you will just have to try and keep up on your own.

 

Comparing a 1st level anything to a 20th level anything was not "core to my points." I was comparing a 1st level fighter to a 1st level magic user, or conversely, a 20th level fighter to a 20th level magic user.

 

But in any case, this discussion is degenerating past the point where it has any point. Gratuitously insulting me does little towards advancing your argument, but is a good way to convince me of the futility of further discussion.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And a palindromedary with indigestion.

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Lucius

Comparing a 1st level anything to a 20th level anything was not "core to my points." I was comparing a 1st level fighter to a 1st level magic user, or conversely, a 20th level fighter to a 20th level magic user.

Ok, so it wasn't you but someone else, maybe someone else using your sig, that said...

 

"And if the only "objective imbalance" you acknowledge is two characters who are absolutely identical, except that one is better, then a 1st level thief was not "unbalanced" against a 20th level fighter, because the latter can’t pick locks"

 

Do you have any idea who this mystery man posting using your name is?

 

My apologies for thinking that the Lucius" who posted this, bringing 1 vs 20 into the mix was actually you.

 

Originally posted by Lucius

But in any case, this discussion is degenerating past the point where it has any point.

I thought we were already there, starting sometime around the point where you took the opportunity to interject the obligatory dnd slam into a discussion of how to make hero work.

 

Of course, you have now backed off that statement, effectively changing it from a slam at DND to a reference to old dnd, so there is probably no point in it as discussions about old systems merits serve little benefit to those playing newer systems.

 

Glad to see it all worked out in the end.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Old Man

What does work is the limitation concept wherein the char gets an extra limitation on her spells whose value increases with the points spent on spells. That helps to level the field for Real Mages as compared to warrior wizards or one spell wonders. The thing is that you have to allow the value of the limitation to remain constant across all the spells bought by a given character, rather than fixing the limitation for a given spell. I think this is how the college spell lists were meant to be used--they just had to put in some value for the published spell listing, otherwise they couldn't show us the math.

 

I didn't get a chance to really dig into the magic system. Are you saying this limitation was in the system or that it should have been?

 

Another way to do the dabbler vs the full mage would be allow full mages to have their spells in a multipower and have the dabblers buy each spell seperately. Deciding where to draw the line might be difficult though.

[Old Man]

The system was there, but worded in such a way that made it seem like it didn't work:

 

-1/4 requires 10 points in college

-1/2 requires 20 points in college

-3/4 requires 30 points in college

-4/4 requires 40 points in college

 

So the usual interpretation is that the character has to spend at least 10 points in college spells before he can purchase a spell that has the -1/4 limitation on it. This presumes a fixed spell list, which is just lame, especially if you're using the megasuck spell lists out of 4th ed. FH.

 

What would work is if the caster could throw the same limitation on every spell he has:

 

-1/4 caster has spent 10 points on college spells

-1/2 caster has spent 20 points on college spells

etc.

 

That way someone who invests 40 points on related spells gets a 'free' -1 limitation, whereas the dabbler only gets a -1/4. And you don't have to arbitrarily decide who is a dabbler and who isn't, as you would with the multipower.

[Old Man]

So if you don't use a fixed spell list how do you prevent the 40pt one shot wonder?

[Old Man]

Hey, if you want to dump 1/3 of your points into a single spell, go for it. With the required lims that's at least 160 points active, so you'd need a magic skill of, what, 27- to cast it half the time... so that'll cost another 31 points for the magic skill to cast it, plus the ten points spent on INT.

 

160 points... hmm, that could be 11d6RKA, or else 7d6RKA explosion... ha ha ha ha!

[Mancer]

Variable Point Pool: Too expensive, too abusive, and too slow in play. Even if you limit it to only pre-approved spells, the "Cosmic" Advantages required to make it as useful as I'd like in combat still adds a massive +2 to the cost. How can I have a decent 100 point starting mage when basic proficiency with magic (say, a meager 20-point VPP) is going to run him 90 points? And improving it would take ages and probably just lead to the frustrated player giving up an leaving for a system where he can at gets better at magic on a regular basis

 

VPP for most fantasy mages would not require the +2 Cosmic advantage. In fact, "Magic SFX Only" is worth a -1/4 limitaion (slightly limited).

 

Here is a simple magic system, using VPP, that my group uses:

 

Mages have a VPP. There a few schools which a mage must be familiar with in order to cast spells (a seperate KS is required for each). The mage can theoretically cast any spell he can fit into his/her pool but must first make the appropriate KS roll (KS: Evocation for a Lightning Bolt, for example) in order to know the spell (usually rolled after spell is designed, minuses based off active pts like the RSR lim). If the mage makes it, the spell is added to his/her repertoire. If not, the spell cannot be "known" to the mage until further study (at which he may attempt to "know" it again). We use 3 schools Evocation (manipulation of energy or forces) Alteration (manipulation of matter) and Anima (Manipulation of the mind or spirit). Cross-over spells (e.g., a spell which transforms the mind and body of an opponent) require the mage to have all necessary KSs. Here is a sample VPP from one of our mages:

 

Magi Magic Pool: VPP (Magic Pool), 35 base + 6 control cost, Spells Can Be Changed As A Half-Phase Action (+1/2) (61 Active Points); Gestures (-1/4), Requires both hands (-1/4), Requires A Magic Skill Roll (Active Point penalty to Skill Roll is -1 per 20 Active Points, RSR Skill is subject to Skill vs. Skill contests -1/2), Only Evocation Spells Limited (-1/2), Not While Wearing Cumbersome Armor Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (-1/2), Requires a KS: Evocation Roll to "Know" Spells (-1 per 10 active pts.) Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (-1/2), Incantations (-1/4), Spells Failed Remain Unknown Indefinitely Power loses about a fourth of its effectiveness (-1/4)

41 real pts.

 

Anyway, that's it in a nutshell (obviously there is slightly more to it) but I'm sure you get the gist. Good luck finding the right system for you.

 

MANCER

[ToolMan]

D&D (Was: Re: Re: Winter in Maine)

 

Originally posted by tesuji

 

If two players sit down in DND to generate "10th level fighters" then even when one is far more skilled than the other and more knowledgable about using the system, they will end up with trade offs that compensate to some degree at least.

 

[/b]

 

Okay, first of all this is patently wrong. I have seen an actual person make an incredibly wimpy fighter because he didn't have a clue. 3E character creation rules are complex and interesting and it is one of the best systems ever created.

 

In fact, I cannot hesitate to say that for playing in D&D worlds, it is *the* best system around. For playing other settings it is not nearly as good. For most original games, you need something with the flexibility of Hero. The two games are two completely different paradigms.

 

One thing that has to be taken into account when balancing D&D is economics. At each level, the player should have accumulated X value worth of equipment. If this is followed, the cost for spellcasters to buy material components and transcribe spells (for wizards) means that money is used for what some might think of as "inherent" powers. Fighters use it to buy better armor and weapons. In "low-magic" campaigns, DM's often (espec. those who played previous editions) reduce the amount of magic items available to players while still allowing wizards to find spells. Spell components are often left out completely of any campaign. Thus, the inherent game balance has been destroyed.

 

I find two phallacies prevalent in the discussion of D&D on this board:

 

High level wizards will destroy high level fighters. Whatever.

 

1st level mages are wimps hiding from the monsters while fighters save the day. Has anybody actually played 3E?

 

Regardless of level, if the economic rules are followed for magic and game balance, it is possible to make competitive, balanced characters in any class. I can make a lvl 20 fighter that will have a lvl 20 wiz wizzing all over himself. And I can make a lvl 20 druid that will waste them both.

 

That said, there's been a lot of cool suggestions on this board that will help me with my upcoming FH games. One thing I'm interested in is: pets. How do you guys like to handle that?

[Killer Shrike]

I have played 3e extensively. I found (IMO) that its fun from 5th to 15th and then promptly falls apart.

 

Also, D&D 3e to me has become "too much of a good thing"; the sheer amount of material available is exhausting. As the GM I found I was spending more time trying to keep abreast of new material than on game design. As a player I found that when building a character there were multitudinous options scattered across dozens of supplements from a double handful of different publishers to consider when leveling. Further the level of quality was extremely uneven, particularly after the original core development team departed WoTC.

 

Dieties and Demigods was the begining of the end and the Epic Level handbook was the turning point for me. I read thru that and felt my stomach go sour. Fortunately FREd was available by then and suddenly I could get people to play the HERO System again

[misterdeath]

Re: D&D

 

Originally posted by ToolMan

Okay, first of all this is patently wrong. I have seen an actual person make an incredibly wimpy fighter because he didn't have a clue. 3E character creation rules are complex and interesting and it is one of the best systems ever created.

 

In fact, I cannot hesitate to say that for playing in D&D worlds, it is *the* best system around. For playing other settings it is not nearly as good. For most original games, you need something with the flexibility of Hero. The two games are two completely different paradigms.

 

One thing that has to be taken into account when balancing D&D is economics. At each level, the player should have accumulated X value worth of equipment. If this is followed, the cost for spellcasters to buy material components and transcribe spells (for wizards) means that money is used for what some might think of as "inherent" powers. Fighters use it to buy better armor and weapons. In "low-magic" campaigns, DM's often (espec. those who played previous editions) reduce the amount of magic items available to players while still allowing wizards to find spells. Spell components are often left out completely of any campaign. Thus, the inherent game balance has been destroyed.

 

I find two phallacies prevalent in the discussion of D&D on this board:

 

High level wizards will destroy high level fighters. Whatever.

 

1st level mages are wimps hiding from the monsters while fighters save the day. Has anybody actually played 3E?

 

Regardless of level, if the economic rules are followed for magic and game balance, it is possible to make competitive, balanced characters in any class. I can make a lvl 20 fighter that will have a lvl 20 wiz wizzing all over himself. And I can make a lvl 20 druid that will waste them both.

 

Preach on brother.

 

D