The one caveat, is I did play with one DM that gifted each level 1 player with +100 hp. He didn't scale the damage as you might expect, he just wanted to be able to do a LOT more encounters and combat. It was kind of like Diablo for D&D. It was fun for a few sessions, but we always went back to our other DM before long.
Well, I think you could make a very strong argument that a Fighter with 14 str (with nothing higher) is a capable character; 14 gives a solid str bonus (half of what 18 offers), if you dex is low you wear heavy armour, and if you ended up with decent int, you might be able to take Combat Expertise, making you a downright good tank. In 1st and 2nd, 14 str granted no significant combat benefits, which seems very bonkers to me; a person able to benchpress substantially more weight is usually able to hit harder.
I had a rogue with 13, 15, 14, 12, 8, 14 for stats. This would be Garrick bad in 2nd, but was a devestating 3rd ed combat oriented thief. Helped to roll good HP too though!
I like gritty rule sets, ie ones where even very high level characters are going to be in trouble vs a sizeable mob. In Thieves' World d20, even a 20th level fighter-type should hesitate before picking fights, and at low levels, fighting is VERY dangerous. Still, there is a place for DnD type Superman PCs, sometimes playing a titan is fun too.
The best aspect of a high HP total is it enables injuries that are very minor % wise, yet you might still have big damage sources, ie 20 damage from a sword is proportional to 2 damage to a 10 HP character... but what if you wanted something like an aura that deals very low but ongoing damage? If you've played MtG and Yu Gi Oh (...yes, I did both and many others! I still have a 1st ed Yata Garasu!), the health system of each shapes things quite a bit. For YGO, the huge value means you can have cards that deal only 1 or 200 damage, which is way less than 1 damage in MtG. Same with life gaining obviously! It also allows creatures to have way more variance in attack/defense power, and allows 'pay life to activate' type effects that end up rather cheap, but still might end up unplayable eventually.
I think using the much larger values will always add some complications, and tedium.
@the_spyder Fair enough. I guess I'm a bit too inclined to take things like that seriously nowadays...as you said, things like sarcasm and irony are often lost on the internet.
I like that 18 is "Human Maximum" and that anyone beyond that has to be non-human. I liked that 1e Paladins and Rangers (and the Monk, actually, and the Illusionist) were pretty rare. If you managed to qualify (i.e. Rolled the stats to play one), you felt like a Super Star. It was a little better with the 4d6 drop lowest, arrange as desired version. Elsewhere, I've discussed the different mind-sets between the first 3 versions of AD&D. In D&D and 1e, you are an everyman. in 2e, you are a hero. In 3e You are a Superhero. 1e and original D&D had characters who were, for the most part, ordinary. My first D&D (Metzger version) Character was Zenobia, a female human fighter with a 14 strength. Nowadays, nobody would play a fighter with a strength that low. But for the time, that was actually pretty good. And she kicked butt.
QFT. The thing I hated most about 3rd edition was that - at least from my experience - you get punished for trying to create a believable character with a realistic range of abilities, because while you're struggling with one goblin, the min-maxing powerbuilder can steamroll over an entire army.
I suppose it depends on the vibe of the game, and the rest of the players...if everybody creates believable characters, and the GM accounts for this, a fighter with a strength of 14 can still be useful. My favourite character to play is a ranger with 15 dex (which goes up to 16 later on), who is a specialist bowman, but in most NWN2 servers, he gets totally overshadowed by the 18 strength fighter, or the 18 dex rogue/sorcerer.
@Squire It was. It appealed to power-gamers long term, but I think most people tried it at least once. Yeah, I can have a character with a string of 17s and 18s, but again, what's the point? After a while, it's just as boring as using the KillSw01 in BG and BG2. Okay, you chunk everything, but where is the challenge?
LOL. We had a guy try to join our regular group once. He asked if he could bring "One of his own characters" (this was Advanced, not that it will end up mattering). He claimed that he rolled it up 'Completely legitimately' using 3D6 right down the line (no rearranging of stats). As it turned out, the character had all 18s (including an 18/00 for STR) except Charisma, which was a 17.
His "Completely legitimate" way of rolling the character up involved a computer and a random number generator program that spit out THOUSANDS of characters a minute. He merely selected the 'Best' roll among them and used that as his character.
My DM actually let him join the group. With the DM's playing style, it really made very little difference except that the guy kept on saying "But with my 18 I should be able to do XXX". The DM made sure EVERYONE had an opportunity to participate and have fun. The guy never joined for a second session.
I guess at the end of the day, while I've played with a LOT of power gamers (mainly online) my experience is that PnP shouldn't really matter much about your stats. If you have something exceptional, that is a bonus. Most of the campaigns I played in never got much beyond 10th level so you didn't need to worry about tapping out for advancement. The DM crafted the encounters such that they were challenging, but not impossible "For whatever we could handle" irrespective of our relative stats. If we were all weak, the encounters scaled, something that apparently CRPGs can't do as well.
@DreadKhan - I think the point that you are missing is that "Any" character CAN be viable, regardless of stats so long as your DM plays to have everyone enjoy themselves. However, with CRPG games, everything is (and almost has to be) balanced against those who choose the power gamer avenue. And since the game is designed around it, players migrate towards it.
For the record, my wizard in PnP looked like this (STR-8, INT-17, WIS-11, DEX-13, CON-10, CHA-10) for a grand total of 69 points (yes, as teenage boys we were VERY immature about that one). He ended up being the best and most fun (and most successful) character I ever played.
I'd bet there are very few NWN players who would ever even consider playing such a character.
Thats categorically untrue, 3rd ed did not require even as good stats as 2nd ed. If you play a fighter 14 str, dex and cons as you play one with all 18s, you will be toast. 2nd ed gives nothing for mid-level ability scores in combat, 3rd gives actual benefits from 12.
The big difference is that 3rd ed makes use of CR rather than relying on flat xp, meaning we are told that for example 3 goblins is about as dangerous as a lvl 1 NPC with PC class. CR did great up to about level 10 imho, but I admit at very high levels, CR got wonky at times. Some enemies were rated way too low, though in 3.5 not many were rated too high. The issue at high levels was people very good at character building with complete freedom from their DM could make characters that functioned a few levels above their ECL, while really poor chatacter builders or those with too many restrictions (DM based or RP makes little difference here) would often be a bit weak, probably a level lower. If you were REALLY bad, ie 1 lvl in many, many low bab progression multiclasses can generate a lvl 4 character with 0 BAB! The thing is though, you likely have inanely good saves, and huge versatility. Unless you've got an XP penalty, you can probably get by.
Now, I will agree certain classes were just plain harder to use; Monks in 3.5 require the best stats of any class, and require a very good player to be effective. But early edition monks were straight up bad for some time, so its hard to find fault.
I do agree CRPGs tend to get mobbed by powergamers, but look at how few BG players liked Xan or Xzar? They don't even have bad stats, just not as good as Edwin. What about Garrick? You can't judge a PnP system by how people use it in a CRPG I think.
My DM actually let him join the group. With the DM's playing style, it really made very little difference except that the guy kept on saying "But with my 18 I should be able to do XXX". The DM made sure EVERYONE had an opportunity to participate and have fun. The guy never joined for a second session.
Oh my god, seriously? This guy actually played with the sole purpose of having his super-badass character totally overshadow everybody, and refused to play when he couldn't force his badassery on everybody else? Sounds like the GM did this guy a favour.
For the record, my wizard in PnP looked like this (STR-8, INT-17, WIS-11, DEX-13, CON-10, CHA-10) for a grand total of 69 points (yes, as teenage boys we were VERY immature about that one). He ended up being the best and most fun (and most successful) character I ever played.
I'd bet there are very few NWN players who would ever even consider playing such a character.
That's the kind of character creation mentality that I like...average stats, with a few strengths and weaknesses. That super-high IQ is balanced off by having poor scores in strength. Because nobody's perfect, not even the great hero. The whole point of a party based CRPG is that everybody has strengths and weaknesses that complement each other, otherwise, if one person can do everything, what's the point of everybody else?
in 2E, you didn't NEED bonuses for mid-level stats. The lack thereof did not make the difference in survivability.
QFT. That's exactly why I liked the 2nd edition stat tables; you don't need bonuses because they don't make the difference between life and death the way they do in 3rd edition.
It helps that he was a wizard. And I played up his weaknesses to the hilt. We had a Dwarf in the party that I brow beat into carrying my gear because of my low strength. I played lame if anyone wanted him to do any sort of physical labor like climbing walls (with a rope) or swimming a moat. And I played him a bit dim when it came to things like wisdom and morality. Just role playing what I got. But yeah, he was a blast to play with. And it helped that my DM was more focused on the players having fun than on "Beating" the players.
And I agree that "In PnP" 2E you could get away with weaker stats. But even on this site if you look you will see how important it is to players to have 'At least a certain stat score total', and there are those that actually re-roll many, MANY times to get the stats that they want. There is no denying that in the CRPG arena that 'Optimizing' your stats is important.
I don't "necessarily" blame 3E, although I can see that they took the momentum that existed in 2E and enhanced it, towards Min/Maxing. I think that ship sailed when we started seeing wider than your local group and the competition between players that resulted. Then, when they were developing 3E and knew it was going to have to fit into the CRPG arena, they pushed it even further.
I won't say that 3E was 'Bad' or anything objective of that nature. Nor that competition is 'Wrong'. Merely that I personally prefer 2E with all of it's flaws. And that I personally like the STAT Caps, lack of STAT progression and the random die rolls, all of which were prevalent in 2E.
As a side note, I once downloaded a MOD for BG2 which was supposed to convert the game to 3E. Although the mod was well done and I am sure people liked it, I personally did NOT. I played for about an hour before I uninstalled it outright and deleted it from my hard drive.
@the_spyder thats a poor argument, unless your DM starts giving bonud XP, which is something you can do in any system to make killing very weak enemies more worthwhile.
Considering official modules made sure to recommend a lvl, either 2nd edition has a built in cake-walk if you happened to role really well. Mid-result roles are what 3rd edition CR are based on, ie standard array for 4 pc party. Standard array is 15,14,13,12,10,8 arranged as desired. Thats a totally viable roll in either edition imho. Not many would be running that in a CRPG though, a 72 total. Its what 3.0 is tested and balanced for.
The issue of unduly strong or weak PCs in 3rd stem from choices like class, skills, feats, spells, and equipment.
But the point spyder and I are trying to make is that, in 2nd edition, it doesn't matter anywhere near as much whether you roll really well or not.
If you use that array in 2nd edition, you'll be a pretty decent character. If you roll less than that, you'll still be a decent character. Even if you roll mainly 12s and 13s with only one 14, you'll STILL be a decent character. If you roll much higher than that, you'll be a good character, but not a ridiculously OP superman (or woman).
If you use that in 3rd edition you'll be an average character, but if you roll any less, you'll be a horribly gimped character who will struggle with a standard CR for his level, and if you roll higher then you'll be a ridiculously OP superman.
The point we are trying to make is that, in 2nd edition, ability scores don't matter as much as they do in 3rd. The bonuses were lower, meaning they didn't matter as much, and hence the mentality was different. Roll all 10s and your character is still playable in 2nd. In 3rd, forget it.
In 2nd edition it was "Oh cool, I have a +1 to my attacks! Nice." In 3rd it was "Bah, I only get +1 to my attacks? I'm a rubbish fighter!"
I loved my NWN2 ranger (and NWN2 uses point buy so that's still a good amount of stats), but he struggled to fight single monsters at his own CR, while the finely tuned rogue/sorcerer cut through entire armies with very little risk. 3rd edition punishes you for trying to create a rounded, believable character, instead encouraging you to come up with a finely tuned and optimised powerbuild. This isn't just an NWN2 quirk because I've seen powerbuilds applied in PnP games too. Whether this is due to point buy, the ability tables, or the multiclassing system, I don't know - maybe its all of these combined - but this is my experience of 3rd edition. It was much harder to powerbuild/optimise in 2nd.
You know, this is making me want to play 2nd edition again...does anybody fancy running a Skype game? XD
Yeah, you seem to be missing MY point, that the standard array that 3.x is playtested with (ie to assign CR) is clearly not a good roll. Its not an abysmal role, but its certainly not got any really high values. Roll really well, you get better abilities but other than Arcane casters, you'd get WAY more for a great roll in 2nd. This isn't really a debateable point; 17 str is much, much less powerful than 18/90, for example. Odds are abysmal you'd actually roll great superstrength mind, but its a built in unbalance.
You will not really be a decent fighter if you rolled all 13s in 2nd ed, but in 3.x you can very much make that a decent character. Unless your DM adjusts things (which can be done in any system), you won't be up to fighting recommended for your level foes. Try fighting a trio of Xvarts with a lvl 1 fighter with standard gear using all 13s. Good luck. And non-combat your low stats remove many, many options.
Rolling all 10s is PLAYABLE?? In 2nd?? You COULD struggle with a 3rd ed Thief, Ranger or Barbarian with atrocious stats, but no, most rolls below the 12ish point average of 4d6 are unuseable essentially. It falls under the category of a 'challenge' plsythroughin BG beyond question, and PnP had way more side effects from poor stars. You can handle a challenge in BG by metaknowledge, not so much in PnP usually.
The entire counter to 3.x stats can really be boiled down to player reaction, not actual mechanics. I agree you'll get unagreeable players if some people are forced to play a low average with no good stats, but in 3.x you can do a fair bit with anything but monks, which even with great stats kinda suck at lower levels.
@DreadKhan - I am guessing that you are either deliberately ignoring significant portions of my posts or there is some form of communication barrier. I am also guessing that you and I have had VERY different experiences in PnP.
In CRPG (which is where I am talking) like NWN 1 & 2 and IWD2, they use point buy system. Within the confines of THAT arena, I would be willing to bet that less than 5% of all players ever playing one of the games listed have played with a Primary stat of less than 14. Further, I'd be willing to bet that even fewer have ever played without at least ONE stat above 15. The point buying system allows for 18s. Further, a fair number of the higher level abilities require higher stats to be accessible.
In PnP, my experience is that any good DM will modify any module or encounter such that their players have a challenging time of it without it being impossible. If the players have stats all below 12, any decent DM will scale down the encounter appropriately. If your DM did not do these types of things, I kind of feel sorry for you and your experience. The WHOLE reason behind having a living DM involved in PnP is so that they have a brain and the capacity to understand how to make the game fun and not merely rote quoting every single thing in the printed module.
This isn't monopoly wherein 'The rules are the rules'. The ENTIRE point of PnP is social interaction. If the DM levies unreasonable expectations (such as requiring that players tackle encounter after encounter that they are incapable of handling), the players will (and should) stop having that DM.
Gary Gygax himself is quoted as saying (and I am 99% sure it is actually printed in the DMG) something on the order of "These are intended to be guidelines and nothing more." If you can't have fun with it, if you are a rules lawyer, play checkers. You will be a lot happier.
@Squire I am running a 2e game in the roleplaying section. Check it out.
@the_spyder I cannot tell you how much that whole "Optimized for these stats" made me feel when they were mentioned in regards to 3e. Pretty bad, tbh. A GM should be able to scale things to players no matter their stats and the whole "Optimized for X stats" just makes me feel a little sick inside. Like the game is being "dumbed down" for DMs who don't know how to DM. And I agree with you about the optimized characters thing. In fact, having low-optimal (or even minimally optimal) stats and succeeding anyway seems to me to be even more heroic than having a character who is a combat monster with super stats who then succeeds. Even normal people can do heroic feats, and it's more heroic to be a nobody and yet succeed than someone who is a "golden boy" who has every advantage and does the same. If you know what I mean. Thus, my contention that Original D&D and 1e had everyman characters who did heroic acts, 2e has heroic characters, and 3e is superheroes. 1e even had skills (for Oriental Adventures, anyway) that were *not* combat based, like Flower Arranging and Ettiquette. I noticed when 3e did Oriental Adventures, they did away with all that, presumably because they were not for combat.
3e is more a combat-oriented system than 1e or 2e. It's focused more around combat and doing damage and has become a bit more "Roll-play"-y than "Roleplay"-y. Not completely, but it feels wildly different, at least to me. And I simply prefer 2e more, warts and all.
@DreadKhan The point is, if you play a 14 strength character, vs and 18 strength character, there is little mechanical difference between them in 2e. In fact, unless you roll an 18/50 or better on strength, the bonus to hit is only +1, a 5% difference to the character with the 14, who gets no bonus at all. Damage does go up a little faster, but really, you can still whiff and do minimum damage at 18/whatever strength just as easily as at a 14. Damage may add up, but it's still predicated on hitting in the first place. and 5% is not enough to make a difference, I'm sorry to say, especially in the middle of combat. Slightly better, yes, but not a humungous difference. So a character with a 14 strength acting like a character who has an 18 strength is not "toast" any more than the 18 strength character would be in the same situation.
Just finished another session today and I am fully immersed into the current PnP campaign. We have a GM that really knows what he's doing. Incredibly strict, but also very creative and interesting. Something I forgot to mention in my opening post is the character I rolled the day we began the campaign.
Our GM, for some reason, didn't allow us to roll 4d6 drop low (yea, he's one of THOSE kind of GMs). We had to roll 3d6 for each stat. No second chances on rolls above 9.
Get a load of my character. He is a Half-Orc Berserker Priest named "Tragg" (AD&D 2nd E).
18/30 17 16 13 18 9
That was rolling 3d6, mind you. No second chances. After rolling six times I put the numbers on the ability I wanted. Needless to say my character is by far the best of the group. And I'm the only noob.
Edit: I forgot to mention he added a 7th ability he calls "perception". So the extra roll combined with my half-orc bonuses make the roll a little easier to get.
In my 'Advanced' game playing, the DM always made sure that each and every character had a few non-combat skills to play with and routinely made use of them. But as I've said several times already here, our games were very often entire sessions with no combat.
@the_spyder Yeah. I think I remember reading somewhere that if you had high stats in the original "Gold Box" games, the game was harder on you vs. if you had lower stats. I don't know if that is true, but it certainly was an assertion I heard. I never had cause to test it out, though.
@the_spyder Gygax was actually a bit of a rules stickler in most of his stuff I've read, at least the very old stuff; he might have mellowed later. I'd even say he was downright curmudgeonly about things.
CRPGs have nothing to do with a PnP discussion. I never said 'everyone in (blank) CRPG will play with low stats', I said 3.x was a VERY accomodating system for pretty bad rolls, and without having to bend the rules. I also stated that well rounded scores are pretty valuable in 3rd. Regarding eventually requiring higher stats for feats, you do get 5 ability score increases in 3rd, meaning a 13 can become an 18 without magical aide; beyond that, you can further increase with magic.
There are many reasons different people play PnP, and while some do value to social experience the highest, thats not necessarily universally true. Some people like different things, and there are definately going to be people who don't care as much for socialization, though I admit PnP would be awfully odd as a fit for such people. There are people who like trying to work within the rule sets, either to min-max munchkin style, or to find a way to make an unusual RP conceot viable. 3.x is very appealing to an RPer, because you really can get quite deep into designing the granulariy of your character. You can RP without numbers of course, but some people enjoy having the numbers as an additional tool. RPing a character is a different process if he has most of his capabilities known, and thus yoh have restrictions, adding some challenge as well.
DMs adjusting rules is a universal, as you note, which makes it KINDA irrelevant to the topic. For those interested, a DM could obviously skew things enough for a human rogue with min 2nd ed stats to win whatever, but its a hit of a pointless excercise eventually. You aren't accomplishing anything, the DM is handing things to you. *shrug* This is something you can do in any system.
@LadyRhian I clearly stated that 17 vs 18/90 being a colossal jump. Also, having +1 to hit and +2 damage is much like having specialization in every weapon you're proficient with. Also, considering how low HP totals were in 2nd ed for many enemies, including very powerful ones, +2 damage is pretty significant.
3.x does not remotely make high stats mandatory. As I pointed out, you can easily make an exceptional tanking warrior with a pretty abysmal roll in 3rd, while in 2nd you can, well, RP whatever you want, which you can still do in 3rd anyways. Does every group RP hardcore? Nope, but this is also completely universal in any numbers based DnD system.
Regarding the argument that 3.x is inherently more combat oriented, I disagree again, but I do sgree most groups likely plsy it combat oriented. In 3.0, a decently designed Bard could bypass a great many conflicts. 3.0 had a nice attempt to codify influencing, via Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate and mostly opposed by Sense Motive. The rules had issues at higher levels I think, but it was VERY possible to run a solid, rules based campaign without swinging a sword.
Now, I think we can all agree that 3.x enabled different play styles that previous DnD editions really couldn't support very well, including some very obnoxious ones! Munchkins, Min-maxers, Rules Lawyers, etc. It also added in rules to better support a very wide range of campaign styles, many if which I agree probably weren't used very much.
In fact, having low-optimal (or even minimally optimal) stats and succeeding anyway seems to me to be even more heroic than having a character who is a combat monster with super stats who then succeeds. Even normal people can do heroic feats, and it's more heroic to be a nobody and yet succeed than someone who is a "golden boy" who has every advantage and does the same.
Exactly!! There was one gaming session that really swung me in favour of this. It was in a Warhammer FRP game, and we'd reached a point in the campaign where we were going to a meeting in which the new Emperor was going to be decided. The GM did this epic speech where he was all "You're going to help decide who's going to be the new Emperor! Six months ago, you were a farmer, you were a bodyguard, you were a dodgy deals merchant..." etc. Admittedly, this was a different system...in WFRP you have careers, not classes, and many of those careers are "farmer", "peasant", "street urchin", etc, and there's a mechanism where you randomise your starting career instead of choosing, so you really can start with a low background.
But anyway, since then, I've always preferred games where you start off with a humble, lowly background, no better than the average guard (and only slightly better than the other commoners), because it makes for a much more heroic tale when you eventually become a mover-and-shaker. I suppose 3e can be written that way, if you scale everything up appropriately, but it's much harder when you're already a pretty heroic fighter who can take on most monsters with relative ease. Somebody once told me that, as a 1st level character in D&D, you're already pretty heroic and a cut above the average guard. I don't really like that style of play, because I feel quite strongly that people should have to earn the right to be heroes and not just have it handed to them.
Slightly OT but something I've always wanted to add is a "size" attribute, where you basically average your stength and constitution scores to determine how "big" you are...whether that's height or build is up to you, but if you're a high-strength high-con character, you should really look the part...I find it a bit silly when characters have a Hollywood stick body while being stronger than Schwarzenegger. It also allows the GM to decide whether looted armour will fit you or not.
@Stormvessel seriously? You rolled two 18s on 3d6 rolls?? The dice gods must love you! Remind me never to play you at Bolt Action. One reason I'm not a fan of the 3d6 method, actually...it's too open to freak rolls. For everyone who rolls two 18s, there's a poor sod who rolls 2 3s.
@DreadKhan - Well, having met both Gary and Frank, and sat in on seminars that they both held on the game, I can say that your impressions of Gary are a bit skewed.
I wish I knew were my copy of the DMG was because I am sure there is a passage in the very first chapter about how the rules are guidelines and nothing more. alas, I don't have the time nor the inclination to attempt to open the eyes of someone who refuses to see.
But plenty to be smug? *shrugs* I had hoped for better. I can dig out some pretty condescending very old DnD books, but as I stated, books never change, and Gygax could have.
I am willing to concede that 3rd ed's sheer openness (and the fact that seemingly every other line said something about how rules aren't meant to be concrete) might have made some stuff seem even more condescending. The bit about how every player curious about trying to RP monstrous character was particularly insulting; while certainly many monsters are completely unbalanceable, but others would be quite interesting. Apparently the only reason you could be curious about RPing a Centaur was extreme munchkinism.
We've both edged close to semi rudeness, but lets either drop the topic or both be polite?
This isn't monopoly wherein 'The rules are the rules'. The ENTIRE point of PnP is social interaction. If the DM levies unreasonable expectations (such as requiring that players tackle encounter after encounter that they are incapable of handling), the players will (and should) stop having that DM.
In fact, having low-optimal (or even minimally optimal) stats and succeeding anyway seems to me to be even more heroic than having a character who is a combat monster with super stats who then succeeds. Even normal people can do heroic feats, and it's more heroic to be a nobody and yet succeed than someone who is a "golden boy" who has every advantage and does the same.
Exactly!! There was one gaming session that really swung me in favour of this. It was in a Warhammer FRP game, and we'd reached a point in the campaign where we were going to a meeting in which the new Emperor was going to be decided. The GM did this epic speech where he was all "You're going to help decide who's going to be the new Emperor! Six months ago, you were a farmer, you were a bodyguard, you were a dodgy deals merchant..." etc. Admittedly, this was a different system...in WFRP you have careers, not classes, and many of those careers are "farmer", "peasant", "street urchin", etc, and there's a mechanism where you randomise your starting career instead of choosing, so you really can start with a low background.
But anyway, since then, I've always preferred games where you start off with a humble, lowly background, no better than the average guard (and only slightly better than the other commoners), because it makes for a much more heroic tale when you eventually become a mover-and-shaker. I suppose 3e can be written that way, if you scale everything up appropriately, but it's much harder when you're already a pretty heroic fighter who can take on most monsters with relative ease. Somebody once told me that, as a 1st level character in D&D, you're already pretty heroic and a cut above the average guard. I don't really like that style of play, because I feel quite strongly that people should have to earn the right to be heroes and not just have it handed to them.
Slightly OT but something I've always wanted to add is a "size" attribute, where you basically average your stength and constitution scores to determine how "big" you are...whether that's height or build is up to you, but if you're a high-strength high-con character, you should really look the part...I find it a bit silly when characters have a Hollywood stick body while being stronger than Schwarzenegger. It also allows the GM to decide whether looted armour will fit you or not.
@Stormvessel seriously? You rolled two 18s on 3d6 rolls?? The dice gods must love you! Remind me never to play you at Bolt Action. One reason I'm not a fan of the 3d6 method, actually...it's too open to freak rolls. For everyone who rolls two 18s, there's a poor sod who rolls 2 3s.
Actually, no. I rolled only one 18 which I put on wisdom. I got +1 bonuses to strength and con.
@DreadKhan - here is a direct quote from the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Dungeon Master Guide:
"Take the time to have fun with the AD&D rules. Add, create, expand, and extrapolate. Don't just let the game sit there, and don't become a rules lawyer worrying about each piddly little detail. If you can't figure out the answer, MAKE IT UP! And whatever you do, don't fall into the trap of believing these rules are complete. They are not. You cannot sit back and let the rule book do everything for you. Take the time and effort to become not just a good DM, but a brilliant one.
I don't know how YOU personally read that, but I take it to mean that the rules are the beginning, not the end. The DMG goes on to further say:
"At conventions, in letters, and over the phone I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question—what do you feel is right? And the people asking the questions discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines."
This is the forward written by Zeb Cook as publishing Editor of the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons "Dungeon Master's Guide". Not sure how much more official you can get than that. As a side note, I tried to dig out my 1st edition book (which predates this one and has a lot more of this kind of thing) but this was all I could find.
I kind of think that (coming from, not just A source book but THE Dungeon Master's Guide) pretty much sums things up from my perspective. Throw in that there are any number of "Alternate" rules which exist within the source books not to mention any number of interpretations about any given rule, it seems pretty clear that the system was intended to be a guideline (word for word FROM THE PASSAGE ABOVE), not monopoly or checkers.
As far as the rest of it, discussing the difference between CRPG and PnP is a perfectly valid perspective when there are concrete defined areas within the rules that apply; in this case, random die rolls versus a point buy system. These are defined areas with rules which are easily agreeable and understandable. The topic is not if player A CHOOSES to use system 1 or system 2, it is merely a discussion ABOUT systems 1 and 2 and how they play out different.
The reason I kept on trying to bring it back to CRPG was because every time I tried to discuss the individual systems, you kept on saying "But that's an optional rule". It may be. I'd like to discuss the difference between the standard rule and the optional rule because when CRPG games came out, they used this "Optional rule" as the standard.
Finally, when discussing 3E, you HAVE to discuss CRPGs. The long and the short of it is that a significant percentage of the total population of 3E gamers have played Neverwinter Nights or one of the other CRPG variants (quite a few exclusively and having never played PnP). In other words, it is a relevant portion OF 3E, pure and simple. Ruling it out as 3E would be the same as ruling out something like deities and Demi-gods or the second Monster Manual.
Tell you what happened in my last session. I am really bummed about it so I thought I would ask you guys what you think:
We go into a bandit camp to kill the bandits and take their banner which we are to take back for a reward. Inside one of the tents there was a chest with something magical inside. We didn't have a thief to open it but I know it was magical because I cast detect magic. Anyway, when we get to one of the towns the locksmith won't open it. Says it sounds shady. So we take it to a Mage. The Mage wants to know what it's all about so we lied and said we lost the keys. He wanted to know what it was inside so our Wemic lies and says it's his "grandmothers ashes". He says not to open the chest, just unlock it. The Mage agrees and says to come back the next day.
Well, long story short, when we finally get the chest back the next day and take it back to our inn, we open it up, and guess what it is?
Take a wild guess what was in the chest.
An urn full of ashes. Non magical.
I guess our GM thinks he's clever.
OK, so that was a jerk move.
So we go back to confront the Mage and he plays stupid and threatens to call the authorities. And we didn't have a leg to stand on because what was in the chest was what we said was in the chest. One of our players even tried to roll a check to see if the Mage was lying but the GM said he "appears" to be telling the truth.
Granted, I am new to D&D but this seemed a tad bit cruel. I think the GM just doesn't want us to have anything good. We went through quite the ordeal and I feel ripped off by the GM. This kind of crap would never happen in Baldur's Gate. I want my chest. And I am sicking of wearing leather armor. Bunch of BS IMHO.
Okay, bear in mind that your characters are supposed to be living in a world full of living breathing people. I know it doesn't always feel that way, and one mistake a lot of RPG gamers make is thinking the whole world revolves around them. You basically gave the mage exactly what he needed to con you, and he did what any less-than-honest person would do in his situation. You can't blame the GM for making NPCs behave realistically.
If you know something magical is inside, chances are the mage can also find out that something magical is inside. If you tell him it's something non-magical, and he knows it's magical, he'll know you're lying. People don't like being lied to, so somebody in his position might well decide to teach you a lesson, or use the opportunity to score some loot because he knows you can't do anything about it since you obviously stole it, otherwise why lie about it?
Although you guys found it annoying, I personally think it was a good trick by the GM, and if I was in that situation, I'd be congratulating him privately after the session. You should take it as a lesson to be careful whom you trust, especially when you want to start playing riddle games with mages (what's the main ability requirement for a mage again? ). Learn from it and move on.
Just my personal take on the topic: The "Intent" of having a locked chest in the camp was quite possibly to show you a weakness in your party makeup. You attempted to circumnavigate that weakness by paying an NPC and as far as the GM was concerned, that pretty much invalidated the lesson.
But take it from a real world situation. Some "Adventurers" walk into your locksmith shop asking you to open a locked chest of dubious origins. IRL, that could mean that this was probably stolen from somewhere and who knows who will come looking for it after the adventurers are gone. I can see him not wanting to touch that with a ten foot pole.
As for the wizard, he has already proven himself shady enough to open a locked chest without knowing for a fact that it is yours. And you TRUST him after that?
Also, remember, he's got to be a smart guy to be a wizard, so who is to say He didn't do a 'detect lie' (spell or skill) to determine the veracity of your claim? Or more simply, once he casts the spell, he opens the chest and finds out you lied. Either way, you haven't been up front with him so he figures he that if you lie to him, he has every right to lie right back at you. Or, he was simply greedy and the item was too good to pass up. In either case, finders, keepers.
I'd take it as 'lesson learned: Next time bring along a thief or a knock spell'. Alternately, have the wizard for hire cast the spell in front of you. Or simply have your warrior take an axe to the chest and hope whatever is inside survives.
Those quotes aren't from the oldest products, those are from after he got feedback, such as 'your style of writing is working, except for the fact that you talk down to players'. *shrug* As I said, he may well have changed. I'll dig around for some quotations, probably tomorrow.
Note, the fact that the guides say 'yeah, feel free to change stuff' is still 100% irrelevant. You can fidfle with any gaming system ever made. The ironic part is how 3rd Ed doesn't need this to make a party with poor roles viable, the rules present enough options that even the weakest party can find tactics that work. 2nd ed suffers from significantly less options in he rules, both limiting customization and making it much harder to make suboptimal roles function well. For example, if you decide to roll in order in 3rd ed, and your fighter managed only two good stats, int and cha, guess what? He's now the party's tank, and he will be able to choose feats like combat expertise and Goad, and he'll be not only 'contributing', he'll be very effective. In 2nd ed, the rules are not very helpful to a fighter with similar rolls.
...no, we actually don't have to talk about CRPGs, because 2nd Ed had games too. Plenty of them iirc. I have played 6 or 7 old DnD games, amd definately did not play them all. 3rd ed had IWD2, NWN, NWN2, and ToEE iirc. We're talking about this on a forum devoted to one of the top CRPGs, which happens to be 2nd Ed. People usually have to get QUITE good at BG to play a charname with bad rolls, though BG2 less so, as NPCs have god-like rolls, and you can lean on them. A fighter with all 13s is garbage in BG1, and requires serious talent to survive long enough to get good enough gear to get by, yet somehow, people using point buy in NWN is not comparable to BG which allows you to infinitely reroll and then re-arrange stats??
Complaining about 3rd ed stats because a few games use point buy is every hit as silly as arguing 2nd Ed gives overpowered character everytime because you can infinitely reroll and re-arrange stats.
If I haven't made it clear, I can accept someone not liking point buy, especially if they are used to rolling. Point buy results in low totals, but can allow a character to minmax a bit... but point buy still isn't standard for 3rd ed, and its still not very relevant. Complaints like 'I don't like 13 str/dex/cons giving any bonus' are valid, but seem self-evidently a weak position. 13 is well above average; a person the average person considers strong, tough, or quick should get a mechanical advantage, if not a huge one.
In the end all DMs have an individual style, and you need to find one whose style you like, or at least put up with. A player who likes grimdark wouldn't really enjoy my dumb pop culture references and blatant rip-offs of old Doctor Who episodes for plots.
In the end all DMs have an individual style, and you need to find one whose style you like, or at least put up with. A player who likes grimdark wouldn't really enjoy my dumb pop culture references and blatant rip-offs of old Doctor Who episodes for plots.
Yeah, thats a truism. If the DM doesn't fit the groups style, and won't adapt, its not going to work very well. Some groups like a pretty forgiving game rule-wise, some prefer a stickler. Some groups like lots of silly comedy, some like blsck humour, other prefer things to feel serious.
Some groups quickly devolve into referencing pop culture incessantly, some actually like to play
Comments
The one caveat, is I did play with one DM that gifted each level 1 player with +100 hp. He didn't scale the damage as you might expect, he just wanted to be able to do a LOT more encounters and combat. It was kind of like Diablo for D&D. It was fun for a few sessions, but we always went back to our other DM before long.
I had a rogue with 13, 15, 14, 12, 8, 14 for stats. This would be Garrick bad in 2nd, but was a devestating 3rd ed combat oriented thief. Helped to roll good HP too though!
I like gritty rule sets, ie ones where even very high level characters are going to be in trouble vs a sizeable mob. In Thieves' World d20, even a 20th level fighter-type should hesitate before picking fights, and at low levels, fighting is VERY dangerous. Still, there is a place for DnD type Superman PCs, sometimes playing a titan is fun too.
The best aspect of a high HP total is it enables injuries that are very minor % wise, yet you might still have big damage sources, ie 20 damage from a sword is proportional to 2 damage to a 10 HP character... but what if you wanted something like an aura that deals very low but ongoing damage? If you've played MtG and Yu Gi Oh (...yes, I did both and many others! I still have a 1st ed Yata Garasu!), the health system of each shapes things quite a bit. For YGO, the huge value means you can have cards that deal only 1 or 200 damage, which is way less than 1 damage in MtG. Same with life gaining obviously! It also allows creatures to have way more variance in attack/defense power, and allows 'pay life to activate' type effects that end up rather cheap, but still might end up unplayable eventually.
I think using the much larger values will always add some complications, and tedium.
I suppose it depends on the vibe of the game, and the rest of the players...if everybody creates believable characters, and the GM accounts for this, a fighter with a strength of 14 can still be useful. My favourite character to play is a ranger with 15 dex (which goes up to 16 later on), who is a specialist bowman, but in most NWN2 servers, he gets totally overshadowed by the 18 strength fighter, or the 18 dex rogue/sorcerer.
And that Unearthed Arcana method sounds horrible.
His "Completely legitimate" way of rolling the character up involved a computer and a random number generator program that spit out THOUSANDS of characters a minute. He merely selected the 'Best' roll among them and used that as his character.
My DM actually let him join the group. With the DM's playing style, it really made very little difference except that the guy kept on saying "But with my 18 I should be able to do XXX". The DM made sure EVERYONE had an opportunity to participate and have fun. The guy never joined for a second session.
I guess at the end of the day, while I've played with a LOT of power gamers (mainly online) my experience is that PnP shouldn't really matter much about your stats. If you have something exceptional, that is a bonus. Most of the campaigns I played in never got much beyond 10th level so you didn't need to worry about tapping out for advancement. The DM crafted the encounters such that they were challenging, but not impossible "For whatever we could handle" irrespective of our relative stats. If we were all weak, the encounters scaled, something that apparently CRPGs can't do as well.
@DreadKhan - I think the point that you are missing is that "Any" character CAN be viable, regardless of stats so long as your DM plays to have everyone enjoy themselves. However, with CRPG games, everything is (and almost has to be) balanced against those who choose the power gamer avenue. And since the game is designed around it, players migrate towards it.
For the record, my wizard in PnP looked like this (STR-8, INT-17, WIS-11, DEX-13, CON-10, CHA-10) for a grand total of 69 points (yes, as teenage boys we were VERY immature about that one). He ended up being the best and most fun (and most successful) character I ever played.
I'd bet there are very few NWN players who would ever even consider playing such a character.
The big difference is that 3rd ed makes use of CR rather than relying on flat xp, meaning we are told that for example 3 goblins is about as dangerous as a lvl 1 NPC with PC class. CR did great up to about level 10 imho, but I admit at very high levels, CR got wonky at times. Some enemies were rated way too low, though in 3.5 not many were rated too high. The issue at high levels was people very good at character building with complete freedom from their DM could make characters that functioned a few levels above their ECL, while really poor chatacter builders or those with too many restrictions (DM based or RP makes little difference here) would often be a bit weak, probably a level lower. If you were REALLY bad, ie 1 lvl in many, many low bab progression multiclasses can generate a lvl 4 character with 0 BAB! The thing is though, you likely have inanely good saves, and huge versatility. Unless you've got an XP penalty, you can probably get by.
Now, I will agree certain classes were just plain harder to use; Monks in 3.5 require the best stats of any class, and require a very good player to be effective. But early edition monks were straight up bad for some time, so its hard to find fault.
I do agree CRPGs tend to get mobbed by powergamers, but look at how few BG players liked Xan or Xzar? They don't even have bad stats, just not as good as Edwin. What about Garrick? You can't judge a PnP system by how people use it in a CRPG I think.
in 2E, you didn't NEED bonuses for mid-level stats. The lack thereof did not make the difference in survivability.
However, I feel we aren't going to see eye to eye on this. Best of luck.
And I agree that "In PnP" 2E you could get away with weaker stats. But even on this site if you look you will see how important it is to players to have 'At least a certain stat score total', and there are those that actually re-roll many, MANY times to get the stats that they want. There is no denying that in the CRPG arena that 'Optimizing' your stats is important.
I don't "necessarily" blame 3E, although I can see that they took the momentum that existed in 2E and enhanced it, towards Min/Maxing. I think that ship sailed when we started seeing wider than your local group and the competition between players that resulted. Then, when they were developing 3E and knew it was going to have to fit into the CRPG arena, they pushed it even further.
I won't say that 3E was 'Bad' or anything objective of that nature. Nor that competition is 'Wrong'. Merely that I personally prefer 2E with all of it's flaws. And that I personally like the STAT Caps, lack of STAT progression and the random die rolls, all of which were prevalent in 2E.
As a side note, I once downloaded a MOD for BG2 which was supposed to convert the game to 3E. Although the mod was well done and I am sure people liked it, I personally did NOT. I played for about an hour before I uninstalled it outright and deleted it from my hard drive.
Considering official modules made sure to recommend a lvl, either 2nd edition has a built in cake-walk if you happened to role really well. Mid-result roles are what 3rd edition CR are based on, ie standard array for 4 pc party. Standard array is 15,14,13,12,10,8 arranged as desired. Thats a totally viable roll in either edition imho. Not many would be running that in a CRPG though, a 72 total. Its what 3.0 is tested and balanced for.
The issue of unduly strong or weak PCs in 3rd stem from choices like class, skills, feats, spells, and equipment.
If you use that array in 2nd edition, you'll be a pretty decent character. If you roll less than that, you'll still be a decent character. Even if you roll mainly 12s and 13s with only one 14, you'll STILL be a decent character. If you roll much higher than that, you'll be a good character, but not a ridiculously OP superman (or woman).
If you use that in 3rd edition you'll be an average character, but if you roll any less, you'll be a horribly gimped character who will struggle with a standard CR for his level, and if you roll higher then you'll be a ridiculously OP superman.
The point we are trying to make is that, in 2nd edition, ability scores don't matter as much as they do in 3rd. The bonuses were lower, meaning they didn't matter as much, and hence the mentality was different. Roll all 10s and your character is still playable in 2nd. In 3rd, forget it.
In 2nd edition it was "Oh cool, I have a +1 to my attacks! Nice." In 3rd it was "Bah, I only get +1 to my attacks? I'm a rubbish fighter!"
I loved my NWN2 ranger (and NWN2 uses point buy so that's still a good amount of stats), but he struggled to fight single monsters at his own CR, while the finely tuned rogue/sorcerer cut through entire armies with very little risk. 3rd edition punishes you for trying to create a rounded, believable character, instead encouraging you to come up with a finely tuned and optimised powerbuild. This isn't just an NWN2 quirk because I've seen powerbuilds applied in PnP games too. Whether this is due to point buy, the ability tables, or the multiclassing system, I don't know - maybe its all of these combined - but this is my experience of 3rd edition. It was much harder to powerbuild/optimise in 2nd.
You know, this is making me want to play 2nd edition again...does anybody fancy running a Skype game? XD
You will not really be a decent fighter if you rolled all 13s in 2nd ed, but in 3.x you can very much make that a decent character. Unless your DM adjusts things (which can be done in any system), you won't be up to fighting recommended for your level foes. Try fighting a trio of Xvarts with a lvl 1 fighter with standard gear using all 13s. Good luck. And non-combat your low stats remove many, many options.
Rolling all 10s is PLAYABLE?? In 2nd?? You COULD struggle with a 3rd ed Thief, Ranger or Barbarian with atrocious stats, but no, most rolls below the 12ish point average of 4d6 are unuseable essentially. It falls under the category of a 'challenge' plsythroughin BG beyond question, and PnP had way more side effects from poor stars. You can handle a challenge in BG by metaknowledge, not so much in PnP usually.
The entire counter to 3.x stats can really be boiled down to player reaction, not actual mechanics. I agree you'll get unagreeable players if some people are forced to play a low average with no good stats, but in 3.x you can do a fair bit with anything but monks, which even with great stats kinda suck at lower levels.
In CRPG (which is where I am talking) like NWN 1 & 2 and IWD2, they use point buy system. Within the confines of THAT arena, I would be willing to bet that less than 5% of all players ever playing one of the games listed have played with a Primary stat of less than 14. Further, I'd be willing to bet that even fewer have ever played without at least ONE stat above 15. The point buying system allows for 18s. Further, a fair number of the higher level abilities require higher stats to be accessible.
In PnP, my experience is that any good DM will modify any module or encounter such that their players have a challenging time of it without it being impossible. If the players have stats all below 12, any decent DM will scale down the encounter appropriately. If your DM did not do these types of things, I kind of feel sorry for you and your experience. The WHOLE reason behind having a living DM involved in PnP is so that they have a brain and the capacity to understand how to make the game fun and not merely rote quoting every single thing in the printed module.
This isn't monopoly wherein 'The rules are the rules'. The ENTIRE point of PnP is social interaction. If the DM levies unreasonable expectations (such as requiring that players tackle encounter after encounter that they are incapable of handling), the players will (and should) stop having that DM.
Gary Gygax himself is quoted as saying (and I am 99% sure it is actually printed in the DMG) something on the order of "These are intended to be guidelines and nothing more." If you can't have fun with it, if you are a rules lawyer, play checkers. You will be a lot happier.
@the_spyder I cannot tell you how much that whole "Optimized for these stats" made me feel when they were mentioned in regards to 3e. Pretty bad, tbh. A GM should be able to scale things to players no matter their stats and the whole "Optimized for X stats" just makes me feel a little sick inside. Like the game is being "dumbed down" for DMs who don't know how to DM. And I agree with you about the optimized characters thing. In fact, having low-optimal (or even minimally optimal) stats and succeeding anyway seems to me to be even more heroic than having a character who is a combat monster with super stats who then succeeds. Even normal people can do heroic feats, and it's more heroic to be a nobody and yet succeed than someone who is a "golden boy" who has every advantage and does the same. If you know what I mean. Thus, my contention that Original D&D and 1e had everyman characters who did heroic acts, 2e has heroic characters, and 3e is superheroes. 1e even had skills (for Oriental Adventures, anyway) that were *not* combat based, like Flower Arranging and Ettiquette. I noticed when 3e did Oriental Adventures, they did away with all that, presumably because they were not for combat.
3e is more a combat-oriented system than 1e or 2e. It's focused more around combat and doing damage and has become a bit more "Roll-play"-y than "Roleplay"-y. Not completely, but it feels wildly different, at least to me. And I simply prefer 2e more, warts and all.
@DreadKhan The point is, if you play a 14 strength character, vs and 18 strength character, there is little mechanical difference between them in 2e. In fact, unless you roll an 18/50 or better on strength, the bonus to hit is only +1, a 5% difference to the character with the 14, who gets no bonus at all. Damage does go up a little faster, but really, you can still whiff and do minimum damage at 18/whatever strength just as easily as at a 14. Damage may add up, but it's still predicated on hitting in the first place. and 5% is not enough to make a difference, I'm sorry to say, especially in the middle of combat. Slightly better, yes, but not a humungous difference. So a character with a 14 strength acting like a character who has an 18 strength is not "toast" any more than the 18 strength character would be in the same situation.
Our GM, for some reason, didn't allow us to roll 4d6 drop low (yea, he's one of THOSE kind of GMs). We had to roll 3d6 for each stat. No second chances on rolls above 9.
Get a load of my character. He is a Half-Orc Berserker Priest named "Tragg" (AD&D 2nd E).
18/30
17
16
13
18
9
That was rolling 3d6, mind you. No second chances. After rolling six times I put the numbers on the ability I wanted. Needless to say my character is by far the best of the group. And I'm the only noob.
Edit: I forgot to mention he added a 7th ability he calls "perception". So the extra roll combined with my half-orc bonuses make the roll a little easier to get.
In my 'Advanced' game playing, the DM always made sure that each and every character had a few non-combat skills to play with and routinely made use of them. But as I've said several times already here, our games were very often entire sessions with no combat.
CRPG gaming is QUITE a different animal.
CRPGs have nothing to do with a PnP discussion. I never said 'everyone in (blank) CRPG will play with low stats', I said 3.x was a VERY accomodating system for pretty bad rolls, and without having to bend the rules. I also stated that well rounded scores are pretty valuable in 3rd. Regarding eventually requiring higher stats for feats, you do get 5 ability score increases in 3rd, meaning a 13 can become an 18 without magical aide; beyond that, you can further increase with magic.
There are many reasons different people play PnP, and while some do value to social experience the highest, thats not necessarily universally true. Some people like different things, and there are definately going to be people who don't care as much for socialization, though I admit PnP would be awfully odd as a fit for such people. There are people who like trying to work within the rule sets, either to min-max munchkin style, or to find a way to make an unusual RP conceot viable. 3.x is very appealing to an RPer, because you really can get quite deep into designing the granulariy of your character. You can RP without numbers of course, but some people enjoy having the numbers as an additional tool. RPing a character is a different process if he has most of his capabilities known, and thus yoh have restrictions, adding some challenge as well.
DMs adjusting rules is a universal, as you note, which makes it KINDA irrelevant to the topic. For those interested, a DM could obviously skew things enough for a human rogue with min 2nd ed stats to win whatever, but its a hit of a pointless excercise eventually. You aren't accomplishing anything, the DM is handing things to you. *shrug* This is something you can do in any system.
@LadyRhian I clearly stated that 17 vs 18/90 being a colossal jump. Also, having +1 to hit and +2 damage is much like having specialization in every weapon you're proficient with. Also, considering how low HP totals were in 2nd ed for many enemies, including very powerful ones, +2 damage is pretty significant.
3.x does not remotely make high stats mandatory. As I pointed out, you can easily make an exceptional tanking warrior with a pretty abysmal roll in 3rd, while in 2nd you can, well, RP whatever you want, which you can still do in 3rd anyways. Does every group RP hardcore? Nope, but this is also completely universal in any numbers based DnD system.
Regarding the argument that 3.x is inherently more combat oriented, I disagree again, but I do sgree most groups likely plsy it combat oriented. In 3.0, a decently designed Bard could bypass a great many conflicts. 3.0 had a nice attempt to codify influencing, via Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate and mostly opposed by Sense Motive. The rules had issues at higher levels I think, but it was VERY possible to run a solid, rules based campaign without swinging a sword.
Now, I think we can all agree that 3.x enabled different play styles that previous DnD editions really couldn't support very well, including some very obnoxious ones! Munchkins, Min-maxers, Rules Lawyers, etc. It also added in rules to better support a very wide range of campaign styles, many if which I agree probably weren't used very much.
But anyway, since then, I've always preferred games where you start off with a humble, lowly background, no better than the average guard (and only slightly better than the other commoners), because it makes for a much more heroic tale when you eventually become a mover-and-shaker. I suppose 3e can be written that way, if you scale everything up appropriately, but it's much harder when you're already a pretty heroic fighter who can take on most monsters with relative ease. Somebody once told me that, as a 1st level character in D&D, you're already pretty heroic and a cut above the average guard. I don't really like that style of play, because I feel quite strongly that people should have to earn the right to be heroes and not just have it handed to them.
Slightly OT but something I've always wanted to add is a "size" attribute, where you basically average your stength and constitution scores to determine how "big" you are...whether that's height or build is up to you, but if you're a high-strength high-con character, you should really look the part...I find it a bit silly when characters have a Hollywood stick body while being stronger than Schwarzenegger. It also allows the GM to decide whether looted armour will fit you or not.
@Stormvessel seriously? You rolled two 18s on 3d6 rolls?? The dice gods must love you! Remind me never to play you at Bolt Action.
I wish I knew were my copy of the DMG was because I am sure there is a passage in the very first chapter about how the rules are guidelines and nothing more. alas, I don't have the time nor the inclination to attempt to open the eyes of someone who refuses to see.
I am willing to concede that 3rd ed's sheer openness (and the fact that seemingly every other line said something about how rules aren't meant to be concrete) might have made some stuff seem even more condescending. The bit about how every player curious about trying to RP monstrous character was particularly insulting; while certainly many monsters are completely unbalanceable, but others would be quite interesting. Apparently the only reason you could be curious about RPing a Centaur was extreme munchkinism.
We've both edged close to semi rudeness, but lets either drop the topic or both be polite?
"Take the time to have fun with the AD&D rules. Add, create, expand, and extrapolate.
Don't just let the game sit there, and don't become a rules lawyer worrying about each
piddly little detail. If you can't figure out the answer, MAKE IT UP! And whatever you
do, don't fall into the trap of believing these rules are complete. They are not. You cannot
sit back and let the rule book do everything for you. Take the time and effort to become
not just a good DM, but a brilliant one.
I don't know how YOU personally read that, but I take it to mean that the rules are the beginning, not the end. The DMG goes on to further say:
"At conventions, in letters, and over the phone I'm often asked for the instant answer to
a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question—what
do you feel is right? And the people asking the questions discover that not only can they
create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only
guidelines."
This is the forward written by Zeb Cook as publishing Editor of the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons "Dungeon Master's Guide". Not sure how much more official you can get than that. As a side note, I tried to dig out my 1st edition book (which predates this one and has a lot more of this kind of thing) but this was all I could find.
I kind of think that (coming from, not just A source book but THE Dungeon Master's Guide) pretty much sums things up from my perspective. Throw in that there are any number of "Alternate" rules which exist within the source books not to mention any number of interpretations about any given rule, it seems pretty clear that the system was intended to be a guideline (word for word FROM THE PASSAGE ABOVE), not monopoly or checkers.
As far as the rest of it, discussing the difference between CRPG and PnP is a perfectly valid perspective when there are concrete defined areas within the rules that apply; in this case, random die rolls versus a point buy system. These are defined areas with rules which are easily agreeable and understandable. The topic is not if player A CHOOSES to use system 1 or system 2, it is merely a discussion ABOUT systems 1 and 2 and how they play out different.
The reason I kept on trying to bring it back to CRPG was because every time I tried to discuss the individual systems, you kept on saying "But that's an optional rule". It may be. I'd like to discuss the difference between the standard rule and the optional rule because when CRPG games came out, they used this "Optional rule" as the standard.
Finally, when discussing 3E, you HAVE to discuss CRPGs. The long and the short of it is that a significant percentage of the total population of 3E gamers have played Neverwinter Nights or one of the other CRPG variants (quite a few exclusively and having never played PnP). In other words, it is a relevant portion OF 3E, pure and simple. Ruling it out as 3E would be the same as ruling out something like deities and Demi-gods or the second Monster Manual.
We go into a bandit camp to kill the bandits and take their banner which we are to take back for a reward. Inside one of the tents there was a chest with something magical inside. We didn't have a thief to open it but I know it was magical because I cast detect magic. Anyway, when we get to one of the towns the locksmith won't open it. Says it sounds shady. So we take it to a Mage. The Mage wants to know what it's all about so we lied and said we lost the keys. He wanted to know what it was inside so our Wemic lies and says it's his "grandmothers ashes". He says not to open the chest, just unlock it. The Mage agrees and says to come back the next day.
Well, long story short, when we finally get the chest back the next day and take it back to our inn, we open it up, and guess what it is?
Take a wild guess what was in the chest.
An urn full of ashes. Non magical.
I guess our GM thinks he's clever.
OK, so that was a jerk move.
So we go back to confront the Mage and he plays stupid and threatens to call the authorities. And we didn't have a leg to stand on because what was in the chest was what we said was in the chest. One of our players even tried to roll a check to see if the Mage was lying but the GM said he "appears" to be telling the truth.
Granted, I am new to D&D but this seemed a tad bit cruel. I think the GM just doesn't want us to have anything good. We went through quite the ordeal and I feel ripped off by the GM. This kind of crap would never happen in Baldur's Gate. I want my chest. And I am sicking of wearing leather armor. Bunch of BS IMHO.
If you know something magical is inside, chances are the mage can also find out that something magical is inside. If you tell him it's something non-magical, and he knows it's magical, he'll know you're lying. People don't like being lied to, so somebody in his position might well decide to teach you a lesson, or use the opportunity to score some loot because he knows you can't do anything about it since you obviously stole it, otherwise why lie about it?
Although you guys found it annoying, I personally think it was a good trick by the GM, and if I was in that situation, I'd be congratulating him privately after the session. You should take it as a lesson to be careful whom you trust, especially when you want to start playing riddle games with mages (what's the main ability requirement for a mage again?
But take it from a real world situation. Some "Adventurers" walk into your locksmith shop asking you to open a locked chest of dubious origins. IRL, that could mean that this was probably stolen from somewhere and who knows who will come looking for it after the adventurers are gone. I can see him not wanting to touch that with a ten foot pole.
As for the wizard, he has already proven himself shady enough to open a locked chest without knowing for a fact that it is yours. And you TRUST him after that?
Also, remember, he's got to be a smart guy to be a wizard, so who is to say He didn't do a 'detect lie' (spell or skill) to determine the veracity of your claim? Or more simply, once he casts the spell, he opens the chest and finds out you lied. Either way, you haven't been up front with him so he figures he that if you lie to him, he has every right to lie right back at you. Or, he was simply greedy and the item was too good to pass up. In either case, finders, keepers.
I'd take it as 'lesson learned: Next time bring along a thief or a knock spell'. Alternately, have the wizard for hire cast the spell in front of you. Or simply have your warrior take an axe to the chest and hope whatever is inside survives.
Note, the fact that the guides say 'yeah, feel free to change stuff' is still 100% irrelevant. You can fidfle with any gaming system ever made. The ironic part is how 3rd Ed doesn't need this to make a party with poor roles viable, the rules present enough options that even the weakest party can find tactics that work. 2nd ed suffers from significantly less options in he rules, both limiting customization and making it much harder to make suboptimal roles function well. For example, if you decide to roll in order in 3rd ed, and your fighter managed only two good stats, int and cha, guess what? He's now the party's tank, and he will be able to choose feats like combat expertise and Goad, and he'll be not only 'contributing', he'll be very effective. In 2nd ed, the rules are not very helpful to a fighter with similar rolls.
...no, we actually don't have to talk about CRPGs, because 2nd Ed had games too. Plenty of them iirc. I have played 6 or 7 old DnD games, amd definately did not play them all. 3rd ed had IWD2, NWN, NWN2, and ToEE iirc. We're talking about this on a forum devoted to one of the top CRPGs, which happens to be 2nd Ed. People usually have to get QUITE good at BG to play a charname with bad rolls, though BG2 less so, as NPCs have god-like rolls, and you can lean on them. A fighter with all 13s is garbage in BG1, and requires serious talent to survive long enough to get good enough gear to get by, yet somehow, people using point buy in NWN is not comparable to BG which allows you to infinitely reroll and then re-arrange stats??
Complaining about 3rd ed stats because a few games use point buy is every hit as silly as arguing 2nd Ed gives overpowered character everytime because you can infinitely reroll and re-arrange stats.
If I haven't made it clear, I can accept someone not liking point buy, especially if they are used to rolling. Point buy results in low totals, but can allow a character to minmax a bit... but point buy still isn't standard for 3rd ed, and its still not very relevant. Complaints like 'I don't like 13 str/dex/cons giving any bonus' are valid, but seem self-evidently a weak position. 13 is well above average; a person the average person considers strong, tough, or quick should get a mechanical advantage, if not a huge one.
Some groups quickly devolve into referencing pop culture incessantly, some actually like to play