Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Products
 D&D Core Products
 Power level, perceptions, and misconceptions

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert Email Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]
Rolling Eyes [8|] Confused [?!:] Help [?:] King [3|:]
Laughing [:OD] What [W] Oooohh [:H] Down [:E]

  Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
Diffan Posted - 20 Mar 2020 : 19:52:22
So in another thread there was an opinion shared out about various edition's game mechanics beliefs or perceptions (and misconceptions) of what each one's power level (or brokenness there of) was. As someone who really delves into the mechanics side of D&D and one who has played 2e AD&D (not extensively tho), 3.0/3.5/PF, 4th Edition, and 5th Edition I'd love to start a discussion about the these concepts, beliefs, etc. *in a non Edition-warring way!*

We all have our preferred system and such, we get that. This discussion isn't designed to bash or pull down another edition you don't like or try to change someone's opinion for or against. Likely you've been around long enough to draw your own conclusions (hopefully with some measure of play and attempts of understanding).

This discussion is to try to come to some understandings about game design, concepts, balance, disparity (or homogenization) and possibly how to fix that in your relative home-game. Maybe the discussion gets you to try an older edition, maybe it gives you a new perspective about why or how something works that you didn't originally think? Maybe it answers questions you thought you knew but were wrong about? Again, these are ALL just opinions unless you specifically call out a certain game rule or mechanic that is Rules-as-Written.

So to start out, I'll go over some things that I feel are misconceptions about game design, balance, and power:

• The shift of power from one edition to the next: Back when I played 2E, I felt that playing a spellcaster - even a cleric - was like playing on "hard Mode". Not because the mechanics were really difficult to understand, but because attempting to cast spells in combat was decidedly dangerous and not always a thing you can count on. I mean, you cast a spell and it takes ROUNDS to resolve - in which time monsters move and attack, and sometimes multiple times!. Not to mention getting disrupted was something extremely bad and outright deadly sometimes.

I think this was a balance point in and of itself. It was difficult to do because the result was often encounter-ending. To bend or alter reality was something of a wonder back in the TSR days. Magic felt distant and amazing and kinda scary and not to be taken lightly. Was this good, though? To some, who enjoyed the decisiveness of being creative with your spells then absolutely! To those who never tried playing spellcasters for fear of doing it "wrong", yea it was a deterrent. So what WotC did when they got the game from TSR was make magic FAR more accessible. Spells resolving on your turn, Concentration skill, Combat Casting, and no adverse affects if your spell is disrupted means that casters seem to get such a significant boost (not to mention the 5-ft. step and the ton more spell slots they got). The effect this had wasn't just making spellcaster classes more available, but it also caused a greater disparity on classes that didn't cast spell.

• The Misconception of "sameness": When 4E is brought up, one of the first 'complaints' about it is that every class is the same, they do the same thing but with a different damage type and it's all too similar. I get it, I really do. Many use the same power-system of AEDU (at-will, encounter, daily, utility). A wizard can cast an at-will spell and the Fighter can use an at-will exploit and both require attacks and both deal damage. Same with encounter and daily concepts. The sameness is in the equality of encounter-changing abilities. Before, the wizard could cast sleep and simply end the entire thing, allowing everyone else to simply walk around and coup de-grace all the sleeping enemies or the Cleric simply does Greater Turning and a battle involving a wight and his skeletal minions goes from dangerous and engaging to " *poof* we're done".

And in 4E, the Fighter is a powerhouse in terms of dealing damage to one more multiple enemies, keeping them on lock-down while the Rogue is dealing lots of single-target damage and the Cleric is keeping everyone up while giving out buffs, and the wizard is using spells to keep enemies at a distance, or dealing damage from afar or using spells to affect the terrain so certain enemies can't engage. Sure, ALL of this is combat related but then again, most of the characters in the game are designed (in all editions of D&D) to engage in combat AND it's usually the thing everyone is involved in at the same time.

Out of combat, the Fighter and other Martial class have skills like Intimidation, Diplomacy, and Streetwise to aid in social interactions, not to mention things like Martial Practices that can be used similar to caster Ritual.

I feel "sameness" is really in the eye of the beholder. One could point to 3e/3.5 and how each and every prepared spellcaster's spell progression is exactly the same, how every character gets the same amount of feats at 3rd, 6th, 9th, etc. How the Sorcerer and Wizard have nearly the exact same spell-list. How almost anyone can grab "Bonus Fighter feats". But I don't think there's a sameness feeling with 3.5 either.

So what are some things about whichever edition you want to talk about and the misgivings about it, or the power balance it pushes (or lacks)? All I ask is that we're positive towards one another and each other's opinions and no Bashing.
30   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
sleyvas Posted - 01 May 2020 : 16:09:04
quote:
Originally posted by Delnyn

quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

Depends on the interaction, honestly. Significant dialogue would require knowledge of that creature's native language but to simply curse at them, Intimidate them, or for quick phrases I think Common is good enough.



Ask the pit fiend in Common. "Where is the bathroom? Oh, your leg!" Yep, that is an effective curse. Roll for intiative...



And thus the spell "summon incontinent puppy" was born.
Delnyn Posted - 30 Apr 2020 : 23:35:37
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

Depends on the interaction, honestly. Significant dialogue would require knowledge of that creature's native language but to simply curse at them, Intimidate them, or for quick phrases I think Common is good enough.



Ask the pit fiend in Common. "Where is the bathroom? Oh, your leg!" Yep, that is an effective curse. Roll for intiative...
Diffan Posted - 30 Apr 2020 : 15:05:46
Depends on the interaction, honestly. Significant dialogue would require knowledge of that creature's native language but to simply curse at them, Intimidate them, or for quick phrases I think Common is good enough.
Delnyn Posted - 27 Apr 2020 : 03:57:29
The issue of languages got me wondering how other players handled interactions between characters and sapient monsters. We seem to have a consensus that Common is good enough for "Where is the bathroom?" but deeper more nuances conversations with other humanoids needs to be in the regional language such as Damaran or Illuskan. I would propose it is the same when dealing with dragons, elementals, fey and especially outsiders, and even more vital.

Sure, many fiends have telepathy to make some kind of conversation easy. That said, not knowing the fiend's native language sounds like the player would be at a distinct disadvantage. Signing a baatezu contract, for example, without being able to read, speak and write Infernal is insanely reckless. And don't be surprised if the baatezu snuck in provisions that nullify certain provisions and enforce others in the contract if the signer casts comprehend languages before attempting to sign anything.

Investing in such languages as Draconic, Sylvan, Terran or Abyssal sounds like a worthwhile endeavor, especially for characters who like to call or summon creatures.
Delnyn Posted - 27 Apr 2020 : 02:41:07
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Okay, doing the language thing only at higher levels makes it far less painful. Still not a fan, but I'll not pursue it further.



No problem. I still appreciate and solicit the feedback from you and the rest of the Candlekeep community. Compared to the train wreck over which I presided in 2003, the differences of opinion here are a cake walk. Too bad I did not learn of this site's existence until 5 or 6 years ago.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 27 Apr 2020 : 01:44:36
Okay, doing the language thing only at higher levels makes it far less painful. Still not a fan, but I'll not pursue it further.
Delnyn Posted - 27 Apr 2020 : 00:45:06
I'll get the "quickies" first. You will find our sessions were indeed heavy on tracking. Thank goodness for spreadsheets!

I support the hp caps starting at level 9 or level 10 just like in 1ed and 2ed. The only reason I did not do that in this particular instance was because as DM, I wanted to avoid insta-kill for either the party or monsters while we were still learning 3.0ed epic. The more I pondered Diffan's feedback, the more I thought this is a great way to discourage the potential murderhobo who might ask to join the campaign. Our campaigns focus as much on business, exploration and politics as combat.

The skill point caps would not be affected by negative Int modifiers, just like high level hp would not be affected by negative Con modifiers. Skill point additions are kept even to account for cross-class skills. The group consolidates some skills much like 4ed or 5ed, such as folding Spellcraft under Arcana, Hide and Move Silently under Stealth, etc.

Here is where I hit myself over the head for bad communication on a Candlekeep thread. All the stuff about languages, Perform (oratory), Sleight of Hand, etc. was about casting spells at a caster level higher than 20. I did not indent the bullets further to emphasize they were sub-bullets. Reserve feats, domain powers in our campaign never increase a caster level above 20 by themselves. We put a conditional cap at caster level 20 to prevent high damage output, but more importantly, not to steamroller/obliterate spell resistances above 30. These provisions do not apply at caster level under 20, except when researching original spells. Then the language requirements apply. By the way, our houserule treats Speak Language as a class skill for clerics and wizards. In social interactions, they serve as handy translators without causing undue alarm by casting tongues or comprehend languages.

EDIT: The language paragraph below applies specifically to wizards and to original spell research. With your feedback, I believe in particular we can illustrate a substantive difference between wizardry and sorcery.

"Domo Arigato, Mr. Roboto" works perfectly as long as the caster is satisfied with CL 20. Casting spells at a higher capacity, however, is when we leave Styx territory. Combining Eragon and the Ignan example, the epic spellcaster understands "Brsingr" is not merely a word for fire, "Brsingr" is fire. To unlock magic's full potential, the researcher ultimately must bypass all derivative sources and go to the primary source.

EDIT: The skill paragraph below applies to arcane spellcasters. Based upon some reflection from Diffan's and Wooly Rupert's commentaries, I would posit wizards will have a harder time adjusting than sorcerors or warmages.

Perform and Sleight of Hand are not house-ruled to be class skills for clerics, druids, sorcerors and wizards. In blunt crass metagaming terms, they are meant to be inconvenient hurdles for the arcane spellcaster to hinder runaway caster levels. They also encourage full spellcasters to treat the party's bard and rogue very nicely *hint hint* to teach them these skills. Casting at epic levels requires the caster to have full vocal control and convey intent without even the slightest quaver in the voice. Sleight of Hand is the closest skill we had to force the caster to have full motor control of hands and fingers. It has nothing to do with hiding or palming small objects, and 5+ ranks in Bluff do not help in any way shape or form with the intricate gesticulations of spellcasting. If the spellcaster learns a few parlor tricks along the way, great.

And yes, tracking spell component pouches and expensive materials is on the books.

Our game is more stringent on permanent magic items than perhaps many Candlekeep scribes are used to. Wealth by level is more a very loose guideline. Magic items typically consist of potions, wands or scrolls with low level. The party will probably find or seize a dagger +1 when the average character level is 5 or 6.

Considering combat with foes that have damage reduction, characters with full BAB have some level-scaling capacity to bypass said damage reduction even with non-magical weapons. Characters with full BAB also have some class level-scaling capacity to reduce armor check and speed penalties for armor with which they are proficient. We also allowed class level-scaling increases in encumbrance limits for characters with full BAB classes. By the way, we included these features for crusaders and warblades too.
The problem was less between fighter, monk and paladin vs. ToB (which was not yet published) than it was wizard/cleric/druid/sorcerer vs everyone else.

Lastly, our group basically reconstructed fighters from scratch. The changes would merit a separate thread, and they reflect some unique features-quirks if you will-of our campaign where magic (and psionics) can not be taken from granted and is not always reliable. Think other planes of existence with the rules adapted from 1ed and 2ed. The premise is anything a fighter can do, any other class can do, and that is totally OK.





Wooly Rupert Posted - 26 Apr 2020 : 21:57:27
There's still a hell of a difference between being limited by gold or being unable to use the single defining feature of your class unless you want to waste skill slots on it.

I'm not saying you're wrong for wanting to limit wizards, but making them learn an entire language just to be able to memorize a few written words is way too limiting. You're basically giving them a choice: cast spells and be unable to do anything else at all, or be forever limited as a caster because you wanted to be able to do something other than cast spells.

If I was sitting down to a game table and I was told my caster had to learn a language for every type of spell he was going to cast, I'd never play a caster.
Diffan Posted - 26 Apr 2020 : 21:29:18
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

I should think that sticking with component restrictions would tend to help curb some of the issues with mages. Most games I've played, material components are generally just assumed to be there.


Well yes, that's sort of the issue. With components, you either have them or don't, and generally at 5gp most people buy them and it's assumed that you replenish in town or during the Adventure. Not only that, but one bag instantly has ALL the components you'll ever need so long as they're not "expensive" (anything deemed under 1gp). And there's not a lot of spells in the PHB that are too expensive.

What needs to be done is that there should be a limit on just how many casting these bags have. Whether it's a dozen, 20, etc so that the wizard needs to at least track something. If people are going to track rations, arrows, javelins, etc then Spell Components shouldn't get a free pass.

quote:

There is a difference with needing gold for class skills and needing a language, though... A warrior that finds armor can still wear it, even if he didn't purchase it. Saying a spellcaster can't cast any fire spells if he doesn't know a language that he'll only use for those spells is a different story. Especially since -- as I noted earlier -- you don't need to actually understand a language to repeat words from it. Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto!


One requires a Player decision and once selected, has it always (choosing skill points on languages) and one requires DM intervention to be allowed. A Fighter only "finds" heavy armor if the DM puts it in. A Fighter only buys Heavy armor if the DM puts enough gold in the Adventure for the Fighter to buy some. Aside from putting ranks into Craft (armorsmithing) and make their own, it's completely out of their hands.

The wizard has a choice early on: focus on more fire and damaging spells (burning hands, lesser orb of fire, flare) and grab Ignan or choose Rulathek and get some illusion spells (color spray, disguise self). If I get say 20 skill ranks, I also throw 2 points in and have both! A Fighter who rolls for GP gets 6d4x10 might roll max and get 240 gp. This is the only way to get heavy armor (splint is 200gp and the cheapest). I just rolled 6d4 x20 and the BEST I got was 190gp.

To me, I much rather have agency as a player than rely on the DM and a nice group just so I can utilize my class features.

quote:

Characters can always get more gold. More skill slots? Those aren't as readily acquired.

Like I said, I can see one required language for magic, but I think more than one language is just penalizing the caster for being a caster.



I see it as more of a decision on part of the player and not always having something for nothing. Again, wizard (specifically in 3.5) have the greatest versatility next to the Druid in magic and that ability is one reason they're a tier 1 class and really broken levels down the road.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 26 Apr 2020 : 18:02:34
I should think that sticking with component restrictions would tend to help curb some of the issues with mages. Most games I've played, material components are generally just assumed to be there.

There is a difference with needing gold for class skills and needing a language, though... A warrior that finds armor can still wear it, even if he didn't purchase it. Saying a spellcaster can't cast any fire spells if he doesn't know a language that he'll only use for those spells is a different story. Especially since -- as I noted earlier -- you don't need to actually understand a language to repeat words from it. Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto!

Characters can always get more gold. More skill slots? Those aren't as readily acquired.

Like I said, I can see one required language for magic, but I think more than one language is just penalizing the caster for being a caster.
Diffan Posted - 26 Apr 2020 : 16:46:18
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

I see it going the other way, myself: a caster has to spend skill slots on otherwise useless abilities just to be able to use his class features.



Unfortunately that's the nature of 3.5 D&D. Warrior classes (namely Fighter, Paladin, Crusader, etc.) automatically get free Heavy Armor Proficiency BUT has to spend gold just to use his class feature since heavy armor is all out of their price range at 1st level.

Now I don't know if I'd make every school of magic require a different language - that seems a bit more in-depth than what I'm looking for - but the sub-descriptors of alignment and the four elemental aspects (air, earth, fire, water) sure I could see the need to know that language to summon forth magic of those planes. Universal spells need no language requirements and of course this only affects spells that need verbal. I probably also wouldn't require a separate check light Slight of Hand either (again, too in-depth for me) but a prerequisite Dex stat to show that you have the inclination naturally for the hand motions and gestures for Somatic components (unless you take the feat Somatic Weaponry (use weapons for somatic component) does make a bit of sense (just like you need Dexterity 15 to two-weapon fight).

The thing is, magic is a trump-all element where MOST of the restrictions are either ignored or easily played off with common sense and tactics. Other classes are more defined and restricted by the rules and they're all exception-based design (meaning you take X, Y, and Z penalties BUT there's an exception if you take A, B, and C). None of that really applies to magic. Heck I was toying with the idea that certain based spells of higher level require a number of spells known/prepared to use them (similar to the Tome of Battle where you need to have so many known of one discipline to use a higher one). This would mean to cast Fireball (a 3rd level Evocation [Fire]) spell, you'd also need to have known a 2nd or 1st level [Fire] based spell (it can be from any school).

This, however, requires a massive overhaul of the 3.5 spell system that I just don't have the heart or desire to do. I just think that there needs to be some element of difficulty in how spellcasters simply can do all their great magicks (pertaining to 3.5).
Wooly Rupert Posted - 26 Apr 2020 : 15:44:40
I see it going the other way, myself: a caster has to spend skill slots on otherwise useless abilities just to be able to use his class features.

That's why I suggest splitting the difference: one dedicated language and everything has to be translated to that language. It doesn't penalize the caster for not knowing languages that they'll only use a few words of, and it keeps with prior Realmslore of mages altering their spells and how they write them down, to suit themselves.
Diffan Posted - 26 Apr 2020 : 15:24:34
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

I can see spells being crafted in other languages, but I otherwise disagree with this idea. I don't see a need to be able to say "where is the bathroom?" in a particular language just to be able to cast a spell in that language -- you don't need to understand words to be able to memorize them. How many of us speak Japanese, and how many sing along with the chorus of Mr. Roboto despite not knowning Japanese? I once memorized about half of a song from Macross Plus, despite only knowing maybe three words in the entire song, and there's a couple Irish tunes I can sing along with despite not knowing a word of the language.

Further, it's canon that spellcasters are constantly tinkering with spells, which could include changing the language of them.

In the Dresden Files books, Harry talks about how it's not the language that's important -- it's all in the intent. He uses Latin-ish words for his spells, because he found that an easier way to focus than some other languages. As I recall, his first instructor, Justin DuMorne, favored Egyptian.

What I could see doing is having a wizard use a similar approach -- he's got one language that he uses almost exclusively for magic. Any new spells he learns, he's got to translate into that language. He doesn't necessarily have to know the original language of the spell, but he either needs to have seen the spell cast, or he needs something to assist with the translation (a book, someone that does speak the language, etc).



I feel this is one in-game way to help wrangle in otherwise absurdly broken aspect that Magic was - at least in 3rd Edition. Speaking with a friend, he and his old D&D group disassembled 3.5 and decided that the only real fair way to make it more balanced was to splinter off each "style" of wizard into their own class and not allow too much cross-combination of spells. A Warmage (blasty), the Dread Necromancer, a Conjurer, etc. I'm not saying this was the best way to handle it, but it certainly showed that many people believed there was a balance problem.

I like the language-based aspect because it means that the caster has to focus his skills on more than just Concentration, Decipher Script, Knowledge, and Spellcraft. 2 points to learn Ignan to unlock all the Fire-spells; Terran to unlock Earth-based spells etc seems like a small investment for a significant bonus. It also means access isn't instantly granted with almost no consequences.
Diffan Posted - 26 Apr 2020 : 15:12:02
One of the cool ideas 4th Edition put forth was the idea of using Residuum when a magical item was broken down (as in the Ritual Disenchant Magic Item). Firstly, it allowed you to get something for that odd +2 three sectioned quarterstaff no one is proficient in and allowed you to use that "magical dust" as gold for trading AND you can use it in place of other reagents and components when crafting rituals. In 3.5, I certainly would entertain the idea that Residuum works in much the same way expensive components do - you can use that 5 gp of jade to cast Hail of Stone OR 5 gp worth of Residuum in the same way. The thing is, you can only get Residuum by disenchanting magic items. In 4E the conversion was 20% residuum of common items, 50% uncommon, 100% of rare. So in 3.5 terms I'd say weapons and armor of +1/+2 is Common, +3/+4 uncommon, +5 and above is rare. You'd also have to parcel out other items like staffs, wands, rings, and wondrous items but that shouldn't be too difficult.

I also recall somewhere about certain size of towns having an appropriate amount of magic items on hand, but I can't really remember where? It might have been in the DMG but I don't see it there. But basically you walk to a Hamlet or small town and you're likely to just find some potions and maybe a scroll of low level. A large town and you can find +1 items and maybe level 3 scrolls and like-level potions. Etc. So a place like Waterdeep or Suzail should have someone willing to make the magic item you want or possibly have one on hand. The way I handle it is flat bonuses (+1 to +5) are fairly common to come buy (depending on town) but a +2 flaming burst longsword is far less common and the rarity increases significantly with each magic enhancement placed on it. Named weapons are exceedingly rare - like Flametongue or Frost Brand and of course Realms-specific items are one of a kind.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 26 Apr 2020 : 15:02:51
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan


quote:
Originally posted by Delnyn


  • Spells with verbal components first had language requirements depending upon schools, subschools and descriptors. For three examples, the fire descriptor required fluency in Ignan. Illusion spells required Rulathek. Evil spells required either Abyssal or Infernal. Sorry folks, tongues and comprehend languages won't suffice. The Polyglot feat comes in extremely handy for those who can qualify.



  • This. Right here. Is awesome!! If/when I start up a new 3.5 game I am absolutely stealing this. Not only does it certainly make sense, but I'm going to sure as hell expand it to even cultural languages as well - especially for Named spells like Aganazzar's Scorcher or Gedlee's electric loop. Bravo!!



    I can see spells being crafted in other languages, but I otherwise disagree with this idea. I don't see a need to be able to say "where is the bathroom?" in a particular language just to be able to cast a spell in that language -- you don't need to understand words to be able to memorize them. How many of us speak Japanese, and how many sing along with the chorus of Mr. Roboto despite not knowning Japanese? I once memorized about half of a song from Macross Plus, despite only knowing maybe three words in the entire song, and there's a couple Irish tunes I can sing along with despite not knowing a word of the language.

    Further, it's canon that spellcasters are constantly tinkering with spells, which could include changing the language of them.

    In the Dresden Files books, Harry talks about how it's not the language that's important -- it's all in the intent. He uses Latin-ish words for his spells, because he found that an easier way to focus than some other languages. As I recall, his first instructor, Justin DuMorne, favored Egyptian.

    What I could see doing is having a wizard use a similar approach -- he's got one language that he uses almost exclusively for magic. Any new spells he learns, he's got to translate into that language. He doesn't necessarily have to know the original language of the spell, but he either needs to have seen the spell cast, or he needs something to assist with the translation (a book, someone that does speak the language, etc).
    Wooly Rupert Posted - 26 Apr 2020 : 14:47:25
    I like and dislike the Magic Shop approach...

    On the one hand, being able to stroll into a shop and pick out exactly what you need does go against canon.

    On the other hand, having to wait for the right loot to drop can draw vacuum, and it's also kind of immersion-breaking -- "Oh, this nameless nastybad has exactly the magic items that some of us need!"

    I can see limiting the magic shops, in some way, but at the same time, they're kinda like the Common Tongue: a sort of handwavium to facilitate gameplay.

    I played in one campaign where we could order the magic we wanted, but it wasn't always available right then. Sometimes we had to wait a couple weeks or so, in-game, for the items to be shipped to us, or we had to wait somewhat longer for the items to be crafted to order. Sometimes the items simply weren't available (like the weapons my character used). We still had the loot drops, but it was a mix of stuff we needed and stuff we didn't. In short, it was a split between relying on drops and relying on the magic shop.

    That particular character was my gun mage, so his class abilities revolved around his magelock pistol. His first magelock was supplied to him by his superiors (he was, covertly, in the military) and he later had enchantments added to it. He eventually got a better magelock pistol as a found bit of treasure. He had some other bits of magic that he was able to purchase along the way, as well.
    Diffan Posted - 26 Apr 2020 : 13:55:58
    quote:
    Originally posted by Delnyn

    I confess to once DM'ing an 3.0 edition epic session by RAW. The spellcasters (not just the wizard) completely, utterly relegated the non-casters to "Hold My Beer" duty. No surprise there. It was the first time the players and I used the Epic Level Handbook for play. It got bad enough I asked the players a mere hour into the session if we could halt the session and adjudicate the unintended and unwelcome consequences. Here is what we agreed:


    Wow, kudos to you for running such a high level game! Especially in an edition that is so heavily skewed towards casters, magic-item dependancy, and micro-management. I'm going to run down your impressive list here and ask some questions if that's cool.

    quote:
    Originally posted by Delnyn



    • Adopt minor incremental hp (no Constitution bonuses) after level 20 in the spirit of 1ed and 2ed. d4 classes got 1 hp per level; d6 and d8 classes got 2 hp per level; d10 and d12 classes got 3 hp per level



    This is pretty cool and I understand that HP can get pretty bloated in mid- to late-levels of 3e/3.5. Though why not start a bit earlier, like 10th level and on up? If my memory serves, it was after this level range that the hp slowed quite a bit.

    quote:
    Originally posted by Delnyn


  • Eliminate class bonus feats, even for fighters



  • Yikes, yeah I don't know about this one. On one hand I get it, a lot of classes bring other elements to the Game, even at low levels like a Ranger or Monk. But to make a bad class like Monk have to further invest feats (which are more precious than GP, XP, and a horde of class Features) into something they should have been good at to begin with? And the Fighter already struggles greatly even when ALL the feats of 3.5 are allowed, to remove basically their only thing...I feel this just furthers people to play a caster. Like, there's literally no reason to play a Fighter when the Paladin does everything they do AND you get spells and some utility.

    quote:
    Originally posted by Delnyn

  • Eliminate bonus skill points granted by high intelligence



  • This one is fine, but there'd have to be some caveats like you don't take away from having a negative Int modifier, you use a more paired down Skill list Ala 5e's. Maybe even add in Backgrounds that provide additional points or options. But then, I absolutely loathe Skill points and how micro managing they are. Usually I just pick a number of Skills equal to my allotment and max them. Boring, yes but not as boring as worrying if that +1 point is better spent starting Craft or another point in Swim - just in case.

    quote:
    Originally posted by Delnyn

  • For spellcasters and manifesters, no automatic caster level over 20. To cast spells or manifest powers over CL 20, the caster needed at least (CL-20)*spell level ranks in either Knowledge(arcana) or Knowledge(nature) or Knowledge(psionics) or Knowledge(religion) and at least (CL-20)*spell level ranks in either Spellcraft or Psicraft.



  • This one is pretty interesting, though i can't say how effective it is as I almost never play at that level. What is the restriction supposed to accomplish?

    quote:
    Originally posted by Delnyn


  • Spells with verbal components first had language requirements depending upon schools, subschools and descriptors. For three examples, the fire descriptor required fluency in Ignan. Illusion spells required Rulathek. Evil spells required either Abyssal or Infernal. Sorry folks, tongues and comprehend languages won't suffice. The Polyglot feat comes in extremely handy for those who can qualify.



  • This. Right here. Is awesome!! If/when I start up a new 3.5 game I am absolutely stealing this. Not only does it certainly make sense, but I'm going to sure as hell expand it to even cultural languages as well - especially for Named spells like Aganazzar's Scorcher or Gedlee's electric loop. Bravo!!

    quote:
    Originally posted by Delnyn


  • Spells with verbal components also require at least (CL-20)*spell level ranks in Perform(oratory). Bards may substitute Perform (sing).



  • Would one then assume that classes which get spells have Perform as a Class Skill? Especially with them not having more ranks due to better Intelligence...

    quote:
    Originally posted by Delnyn


  • Spells with somatic components needed a minimum 8 +1/2*spell level (round up) score in unenhanced Dexterity and at least (CL-20)*spell level ranks in Sleight of Hand.



  • I like the Dex requirement - though even 9th level spells simply need a Dex 13 to cast, so I'm not sure how steep this requirement is? I could certainly see spells and poisons that mess with your dexterity messing up you day badly - which is good IMO.

    But the Slight of Hand - I dunno? I've seen people try to make this skill do a LOT more than it's intent. It's simply how well you can do misdirection parlor tricks. It reminds me of a show called The Magicians which is like Harry Potter - the College Years. In it, a magician named Quintin is really good at the slight of hand ability and a good caster too. Another Magician, named Alice, is prodigious but I'd say she has very little skill in Slight of Hand.

    Also, is this another skill Casters are proficient with?

    quote:
    Originally posted by Delnyn

  • Psionics required (ML-20)*power level ranks in Concentration and Autohypnosis and at least 10+1/2*power level (round up) unenhanced scores in the two mental abilities not connected to manifesting.

  • Metamagic and metapsionic level enhancements also count when determining necessary ranks.

  • If any requirement was not met, the caster level remained at 20.




  • These are all pretty cool, though I don't usually have Psionics in my games (no one wants to use them for some reason?). I really do like a lot of ideas here though, consider some of them stolen

    quote:
    Originally posted by Delnyn

    Monsters faced none of these restrictions for their base hit dice. Any class levels or prestige class levels they had, however, would face these restrictions.

    I already mentioned a few other non-epic house rules in a different Candlekeep thread. We also cracked down on Monty Haul encounters. The so-called "Ye Olde Magic Shoppe" was heavily monitored and restricted. We generally limited such markets to potions, wands, low-level scrolls or other limited-use items. Sure, the government of Cormyr sells goblinthrasher longswords to the public, but rest assured the War Wizards will monitor any buyer. If you want to buy stronger stuff with no questions asked, go visit a Thayan enclave. Good luck.



    That makes sense, though how did it affect the Wealth-by-level guideline? I mean the game practically required you to have certain level items to boost AC, saves, ability scores, attacks to keep up with monster Challenge Ratings. Did they just fine stronger loot in lairs and on people they fought?
    Delnyn Posted - 25 Apr 2020 : 15:20:59
    I confess to once DM'ing an 3.0 edition epic session by RAW. The spellcasters (not just the wizard) completely, utterly relegated the non-casters to "Hold My Beer" duty. No surprise there. It was the first time the players and I used the Epic Level Handbook for play. It got bad enough I asked the players a mere hour into the session if we could halt the session and adjudicate the unintended and unwelcome consequences. Here is what we agreed:

    • Adopt minor incremental hp (no Constitution bonuses) after level 20 in the spirit of 1ed and 2ed. d4 classes got 1 hp per level; d6 and d8 classes got 2 hp per level; d10 and d12 classes got 3 hp per level

    • Eliminate class bonus feats, even for fighters

    • Eliminate bonus skill points granted by high intelligence

    • For spellcasters and manifesters, no automatic caster level over 20. To cast spells or manifest powers over CL 20, the caster needed at least (CL-20)*spell level ranks in either Knowledge(arcana) or Knowledge(nature) or Knowledge(psionics) or Knowledge(religion) and at least (CL-20)*spell level ranks in either Spellcraft or Psicraft.

    • Spells with verbal components first had language requirements depending upon schools, subschools and descriptors. For three examples, the fire descriptor required fluency in Ignan. Illusion spells required Rulathek. Evil spells required either Abyssal or Infernal. Sorry folks, tongues and comprehend languages won't suffice. The Polyglot feat comes in extremely handy for those who can qualify.

    • Spells with verbal components also require at least (CL-20)*spell level ranks in Perform(oratory). Bards may substitute Perform (sing).

    • Spells with somatic components needed a minimum 8 +1/2*spell level (round up) score in unenhanced Dexterity and at least (CL-20)*spell level ranks in Sleight of Hand.

    • Psionics required (ML-20)*power level ranks in Concentration and Autohypnosis and at least 10+1/2*power level (round up) unenhanced scores in the two mental abilities not connected to manifesting.

    • Metamagic and metapsionic level enhancements also count when determining necessary ranks.

    • If any requirement was not met, the caster level remained at 20.


    Monsters faced none of these restrictions for their base hit dice. Any class levels or prestige class levels they had, however, would face these restrictions.

    I already mentioned a few other non-epic house rules in a different Candlekeep thread. We also cracked down on Monty Haul encounters. The so-called "Ye Olde Magic Shoppe" was heavily monitored and restricted. We generally limited such markets to potions, wands, low-level scrolls or other limited-use items. Sure, the government of Cormyr sells goblinthrasher longswords to the public, but rest assured the War Wizards will monitor any buyer. If you want to buy stronger stuff with no questions asked, go visit a Thayan enclave. Good luck.
    Diffan Posted - 21 Apr 2020 : 17:03:40
    quote:
    Originally posted by Icelander

    quote:
    Originally posted by Diffan

    If the Forgotten Realms are set in a time similar to Earth's early 14th to 15th century, personal hygiene isn't exactly super high on people's priority list as a whole, so most likely the smell of someone in armor all day will just mingle with the other...ah scents common then, lol. At least in any area even lightly populated. Wilderness might be something else altogether.


    The Forgotten Realms aren't set at a time similar to Earth's early 14th century (how could they, that was a time when plate armour wasn't really in use?) and nor are they really similar to the 15th century (right armour, but wrong for many other reasons).

    Technologically, some parts match the 15th century, many things from the 16th century hold true, shipping and logistics are closer to the 18th century and international travel is more common than at any time before the 19th century.

    And technology aside, hygiene doesn't require any inventions not present in the Forgotten Realms. The standards of cleanliness and tolerance for odours is a cultural thing, mostly ancillary to technology. At most, you need enough wealth to fund warming water and use of soap, to make it more attractive for the general public, but most parts of the Realms are clearly wealthier than any society on Earth before the 19th century.


    That really depends on where you go in the Realms, doesn't it. I would say the amount of cleanliness varies greatly in parts of the city and from city to city, especially if we're to take into account Canon from novels. Examples: Luskan is a rotting fish pile that can be smelled from miles away. I'm sure portions of Baldur's Gate (particularly in the poorer areas) and down by the docks have odors that rival that of sweaty armored guys. Westgate is another city that has places where there are foul odors too - due in part to uncleanliness.

    SO yes, I misspoke that it's a mimic of 14th-15th Earth. Realms as a whole have people that are cleaner and more affluent. But that doesn't mean that a guy wearing armor for 2 days and not shoring is going to be smelled 50-ft. away in a bustling city or town. Outdoors- to creatures with a keen sense of smell (creatures that have the scent ability) I'd certainly give the benefit to but ordinary people? Nah.

    Case in point, there were days I'd help out a homeless guy by my work. He was really nice and appreciative of anything I'd offer him and just overall a decent person and the many times he'd come to my car and I'd talk with him he didn't smell terrible. I'm not saying he didn't get clean all the time, but the opportunities weren't always there.
    sleyvas Posted - 20 Apr 2020 : 21:42:09
    Diffan,

    I love this thread concept. So, I've thought about some of this too, and I think we have some slightly different views on earlier versions. My focus will be on magic, because honestly my memory on old combat systems is rusty.

    Back in 2e, it usually didn't take rounds to cast a spell. It was just the matter of not getting interrupted during the round. Back in 2e though, while I loved magic... it was broken as hell.... However, like you say, it could take an archmagi a WEEK to memorize his spells and he could blow them all in minutes. I actually developed spells for simply "renewing used spell slots with the same thing" just to save time. But, EVERY WIZARD could learn EVERY "triggered" spell. Granted, they had to get access to them, but there were dozens of them. Further, there were numerous "hang a spell and release it instantly" effects... then there were the release multiple at once effects. Then to add into things, most things were "absolutes" and thus there was no way around them (for instance, I remember dropping wall of force, proof from teleportation and cloudkill on the same spot a lot, effectively giving people without defenses no way to escape). Another example was stoneskin, which just stopped ANY attack or various protection spells that just stopped everything (I think protection from normal missiles used to do this too). There were few defenses against weird damage types (such as sonic). There were a lot of missing clarifications on what you could combine into a spell (for instance, putting beneficial spells into a rainbow shield to buff large numbers of people). Quite frankly, I loved 2e casting, but looking back through the lenses of history, I realize how broken it was.

    When 3e came out it had seriously bad multi-classing issues, but they made a good effort to clean it up in 3.5. The best thing they introduced was the concept of damage reduction (either with weapons or various "energy resistances"). No longer was their complete immunity or "half damage" all the time. The concept of feats for the various metamagic concepts was an extremely balancing factor compared to what I could do in earlier editions. I mean SERIOUSLY balancing. No longer could I be the person with a constant defense for everything AND a contingency to back it up. Furthermore, craft contingent spell... EXPENSIVE... It gets to a point where a person might do better to make a magic item that's catered to their needs rather than try to make contingent temporary effects. You could also fairly easily multi-class a character that's going up in 2 magic classes (for instance, cleric/wizard, archivist/wizard, druid/wizard, psion/wizard, etc..) or some odd hybrid with full casters (anima mages, etc..), giving you enough spell slots that casting was no issue. Later they added some feat that let you cast lesser powered spell effects like they were cantrips (reserve feat maybe?). Also, unlike 2e, it took you no time whatsoever to restore your spells. So, you could blow your allotment at any time, you'll just renew it tomorrow. Then there were the issues with the numbers just blowing up at high levels mathematically (especially if you used multiple bonus types to enhance one type of "ability" or "skill" or "AC" etc...)

    I won't speak to 4e, other than to say I didn't playtest it enough, but it felt constrained as heck to me. HOWEVER... I'll give the designers one major pat on the back... RITUALS! This is by far one of the best and most logical improvements to the game that I've seen, and oddly I don't know why it took so long (granted, in 2e, you COULD cast from your spellbook, but it erased it).

    Now we're at 5e. Bounded Accuracy is the watch word here, but I think its a little TOO constrained, but its going the right direction. They've nerfect spellcasting severely (you only have a handful of high level spell slots no matter what level you are). You can only maintain concentration on a single spell, and people that really pay attention to that realize how much it turns most people into nothing more than a blaster. From a spellcasting perspective, they've tried to make a lot of spells "simpler"... but as a I study it more, I'm realizing how broken its become as a result. Why become a lich when you can just clone yourself to stay young (well, for the most part)? Multi-classing as any combat class isn't too bad, but as a caster its horrible. That being said, with some tweaks this can be fixed, and I wont say that the concentration thing is bad. What it means to me is that... like craft contingency... it opens up an option for building your character down a certain path that allows them to find some way to concentrate on multiple things at once or hand off the concentration to another thing/being (such as a familiar). However, 5e lacks that piece... built in "options" slots. They do give feats, but they aren't many and you have to give up some rather sizable bonuses to get them. This is why I threw in an option to trade in daily hit dice for feats. Then I developed feats to allow a person to multi-class more effectively as a spellcaster. So, they might choose to take a feat that makes them a pure wizard with the ability to concentrate on multiple spells.... OR... they make use that feat instead to be able to do that eldritch knight path as a fighter and still get GOOD spellasting (not great, but good).
    Delnyn Posted - 20 Apr 2020 : 08:01:07
    Wow, I got a hygiene sub-thread going. While the monsters/NPC's smelling you in advance, especially downwind or with scent ability is serious and used in my DM'ing sessions, the stinking cloud was an exaggeration. I wanted to conjure the image of Pigpen in those old Charlie Brown cartoons for a bit of satirical levity. That is how I envision Thibbledorf Pwent when he is not fighting.

    back to Ayrick's amusing post, I have noticed a lack of enforcement about the fatigue penalties of sleeping in armor without the Endurance feat. I have instituted a house rule that a dwarf who is proficient with armor can sleep perfectly fine in that armor.
    Icelander Posted - 20 Apr 2020 : 03:16:52
    quote:
    Originally posted by Diffan

    If the Forgotten Realms are set in a time similar to Earth's early 14th to 15th century, personal hygiene isn't exactly super high on people's priority list as a whole, so most likely the smell of someone in armor all day will just mingle with the other...ah scents common then, lol. At least in any area even lightly populated. Wilderness might be something else altogether.


    The Forgotten Realms aren't set at a time similar to Earth's early 14th century (how could they, that was a time when plate armour wasn't really in use?) and nor are they really similar to the 15th century (right armour, but wrong for many other reasons).

    Technologically, some parts match the 15th century, many things from the 16th century hold true, shipping and logistics are closer to the 18th century and international travel is more common than at any time before the 19th century.

    And technology aside, hygiene doesn't require any inventions not present in the Forgotten Realms. The standards of cleanliness and tolerance for odours is a cultural thing, mostly ancillary to technology. At most, you need enough wealth to fund warming water and use of soap, to make it more attractive for the general public, but most parts of the Realms are clearly wealthier than any society on Earth before the 19th century.

    When you consider the benefits of magic to the economy, even if fairly few actually have direct access to it, this makes perfect sense. The Realms are richer because magic and the churches with access to it allows communications, banking, investment and other necessary factors in more advanced economies than medieval to flourish.

    And judging from most Realms sources, on the Sword Coast, in the Heartlands and around the Sea of Fallen Stars, bathing is popular with all classes that can afford it, down to fairly ordinary people.
    Icelander Posted - 20 Apr 2020 : 03:06:55
    quote:
    Originally posted by Diffan

    The thing is, how often are "lazy Saturdays" actually role-played out with the group on a consistent basis? Do parties of Player Characters really spend a portion of their playing time figuring out their daily routine when they're not adventuring? Seems......very sims like and certainly not my cup of tea, lol.


    Much more common than combat in any RPG campaign I've been a part of, whether as player or DM/GM.
    Wooly Rupert Posted - 20 Apr 2020 : 03:00:56
    quote:
    Originally posted by Diffan


    If the Forgotten Realms are set in a time similar to Earth's early 14th to 15th century, personal hygiene isn't exactly super high on people's priority list as a whole, so most likely the smell of someone in armor all day will just mingle with the other...ah scents common then, lol. At least in any area even lightly populated. Wilderness might be something else altogether.


    That's the rough correlation, but it breaks down in a lot of areas. Ed has said that hygiene isn't that bad in the Realms. Maybe not up to modern, first-world standards, but better than medieval European standards.
    Diffan Posted - 19 Apr 2020 : 19:22:25
    quote:
    Originally posted by Delnyn


    Trip this combat-spells-only wizard over a cliff. Unfortunately, I witnessed PC vs. PC fights where stuff like this has happened.

    No feather fall? Uh, no quickened fly? Hmm, can you cast that quickened polymorph you were saving for combat? How about shape change...oops quickened version only for specially trained epic wizards. Do you think you can get your spell off in time while in free fall? (Home Brew DM Note: Concentration DC for spells taking at least one standard action to cast is equal to the potential falling damage+10.)

    Silly me, how foolish of me. Wizards of course place contingencies on themselves for fatal situations like this. What?! You did not set contingencies?! Why? Oh, you were too busy stocking up on combat spells.
    *SPLAT*


    I mean, that's why they also get access to things like wands, rods, and other items to be more versatile. Why prep Feather fall when there's a cheap Ring? There's boots of flying, flying brooms, boots of teleportation, anklets of translocation, dimension hop, Swift fly, etc.

    Not that they need to have all of these but simply having one is enough to thwart such instances of falling. Of course you can mess them up other ways but the proliferation of magic items that have minor effects is one reason we see such a change of direction with 5e now.

    quote:
    Originally posted by Delnyn

    Ayrik's description of the fighter who never takes off armor is amusing. Reminds me of Thibbledworf Pwent.

    Maybe the DM should institute a stench rule. The rule is the offending character is surrounded by an odor equal to a stinking cloud. The odor lasts until the character takes a full bath (with soap!) and his armor gets cleaned and oiled. Until then, party members should socially distance themselves by more than 20 ft. or face Fortitude saves every round to avoid the nauseated condition.


    If the Forgotten Realms are set in a time similar to Earth's early 14th to 15th century, personal hygiene isn't exactly super high on people's priority list as a whole, so most likely the smell of someone in armor all day will just mingle with the other...ah scents common then, lol. At least in any area even lightly populated. Wilderness might be something else altogether.

    quote:
    Originally posted by Delnyn

    It becomes impossible to surprise opponents because they can smell the character with 30 ft. Rough rule of thumb: 20 ft. upwind, 60 ft. downwind. Triple the ranges for creatures with scent ability. Remove penalties for tracking, at least for creatures with scent.



    In wilderness areas, I could see this certainly being a thing and kinda fun. It's MUCH better than the supposed penalties for sleeping in armor (which isn't hard for some people). I'd definitely use this in my games
    Delnyn Posted - 19 Apr 2020 : 00:49:50
    quote:
    Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

    Like encumbrance, hygiene and reasonable attire are both oft ignored by players in D&D, I've noticed. Characters are ALWAYS in armor and ALWAYS have all their weapons handy.


    This is where a foe with a wand of misplaced objects comes in handy.
    Delnyn Posted - 18 Apr 2020 : 18:28:31
    quote:
    Originally posted by Diffan

    The thing is, how often are "lazy Saturdays" actually role-played out with the group on a consistent basis? Do parties of Player Characters really spend a portion of their playing time figuring out their daily routine when they're not adventuring? Seems......very sims like and certainly not my cup of tea, lol.



    Actually, when all but one player could not make a session, this is exactly what happened in a campaign that I played in the 1990's. The concept need the DM and players to watch the world's calendar (and clock) diligently to pull this off.

    This is where characters could conduct company/government/temple/guild business without other players hearing what was going on. The characters researched inquiries, purchased or upgraded equipment, called in favors, and even earned money via "day jobs". The character even earned experience depending upon how well he or she conducted business.

    By keeping track of clocks and calendars, the DM could track which characters (not just players) were available or unavailable for each session. In many ways, the kept tension in those sessions where all or most players were present. Sometimes the cleric who volunteered to officiate at a church for a month was a key needed actor for some mission.
    Wooly Rupert Posted - 18 Apr 2020 : 16:43:03
    Like encumbrance, hygiene and reasonable attire are both oft ignored by players in D&D, I've noticed. Characters are ALWAYS in armor and ALWAYS have all their weapons handy.
    Delnyn Posted - 18 Apr 2020 : 15:04:09
    quote:
    Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

    I've never understood the hate on wizards for being powerhouses at higher levels.

    Yeah, it is true that they get very freaking powerful as they get higher in level... But they're still squishy if you can get in close, and I've always felt that the fact that they were "one and done" at lower levels balanced out being able to kill armies at higher level.

    (On a related note, I once got in an argument here with someone who insisted that there was no possible reason -- none at all -- that any wizard shouldn't have a full complement of combat spells memorized every single day. Planning on doing research, crafting a few items, then going to the beach with his lady? Nope, he's a moron if he's not packing every combat spell he can memorize. )



    Trip this combat-spells-only wizard over a cliff. Unfortunately, I witnessed PC vs. PC fights where stuff like this has happened.

    No feather fall? Uh, no quickened fly? Hmm, can you cast that quickened polymorph you were saving for combat? How about shape change...oops quickened version only for specially trained epic wizards. Do you think you can get your spell off in time while in free fall? (Home Brew DM Note: Concentration DC for spells taking at least one standard action to cast is equal to the potential falling damage+10.)

    Silly me, how foolish of me. Wizards of course place contingencies on themselves for fatal situations like this. What?! You did not set contingencies?! Why? Oh, you were too busy stocking up on combat spells.
    *SPLAT*

    Ayrik's description of the fighter who never takes off armor is amusing. Reminds me of Thibbledworf Pwent.

    Maybe the DM should institute a stench rule. The rule is the offending character is surrounded by an odor equal to a stinking cloud. The odor lasts until the character takes a full bath (with soap!) and his armor gets cleaned and oiled. Until then, party members should socially distance themselves by more than 20 ft. or face Fortitude saves every round to avoid the nauseated condition.

    It becomes impossible to surprise opponents because they can smell the character with 30 ft. Rough rule of thumb: 20 ft. upwind, 60 ft. downwind. Triple the ranges for creatures with scent ability. Remove penalties for tracking, at least for creatures with scent.


    Wooly Rupert Posted - 23 Mar 2020 : 04:15:45
    quote:
    Originally posted by Ayrik

    My counterargument was meant as sarcasm, lol.


    Fair enough. My bad.

    Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2024 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
    Snitz Forums 2000