3E: say it ain't so
Il Oh
the "10 things you can do to play right now" thing. Then I started
reading about stuff like "you keep getting hit dice after level 9" and
"you get a point of attribute every 4 levels".
I've always hated power gaming, and it looks like 3rd edition is all
about power gaming. I don't mind people having flexibility in developing
their characters, but I really dislike characters pumped up with riduculous
stats. If these rumors are true, I'll be making some heavy modifications
to the rules before I start using third edition. It just doesn't sound
like D&D any more.
Peter Seebach
>I've always hated power gaming, and it looks like 3rd edition is all
>about power gaming. I don't mind people having flexibility in developing
>their characters, but I really dislike characters pumped up with riduculous
>stats. If these rumors are true, I'll be making some heavy modifications
>to the rules before I start using third edition. It just doesn't sound
>like D&D any more.
I think it sounds like reasonable balance. Runequest let you train up stats,
and no one accuses *them* of powergaming.
Keep in mind, what's sauce for the players is sauce for the characters' fried
corpses, because it applies to the bad guys too.
I love it, personally; there's no reason that the only difference between a
25th and 26th level fighter should be 3hp.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636
Sea Wasp
>
> I liked the stuff I read in the FAQ on the Wizards web site. I liked
> the "10 things you can do to play right now" thing. Then I started
> reading about stuff like "you keep getting hit dice after level 9" and
> "you get a point of attribute every 4 levels".
You keep getting hit POINTS after a cap level... which isn't any
different from the prior editions AFAIK.
Since attributes are now open-ended, the additional points aren't as
significant as they would be in the old days. A 25 Strength is now no
longer "Gods", but just something pretty darn strong. A dragon is likely
in three digits.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Paul Kemp
or 17's in the prime requisites) they aren't going to skyrocket anytime
soon. One attribute point for every four levels is *not* a rapid pace.
I've personally never had a character greater than ninth level -- which
means that I would have had at most two attribute point "bump-ups" to my
original scores for my highest level character ever. Hardly seems
unbalancing.
Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in message
news:38B419...@wizvax.net...
Staffan Johansson
>
> You keep getting hit POINTS after a cap level... which isn't any
> different from the prior editions AFAIK.
That has been explicitly contradicted by Ryan Dancey. A 15th level
fighter in 3e has 15d10 hit points (plus 15 times Con adjustment).
Personally, I like it that way. Fighters always hit a "wall" in their
development around name level earlier (when all they got for each level
was 3hp and a point of THAC0) - in comparison to mages, who just
accellerated their ability development (more and more spells of higher
and higher levels). Now, they'll keep getting HD, and get nifty feats
too!
--
Staffan Johansson (bal...@crosswinds.net)
http://www.crosswinds.net/~baloosj
"Give a man a fire, and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and
he's warm for the rest of his life." -- Terry Pratchett, Jingo
Michael Brown
Il Oh <i...@q7.com> wrote in message news:95132289...@q7.q7.com...
> I've always hated power gaming, and it looks like 3rd edition is all
> about power gaming. I don't mind people having flexibility in developing
> their characters, but I really dislike characters pumped up with
riduculous
> stats.
The benefits from stats have been downgraded and spread out. There's
nothing to worry about. If a character pumps 8 levels of improvement into
one stat, do you know how much benefit he gets?
+1 to some rolls. How awful.
Please, would *someone* try to keep in mind that the stat tables are
different (no 'godlike' ranges over 18)?
-Michael
Bryan J. Maloney
> Il Oh wrote:
> >
> > I liked the stuff I read in the FAQ on the Wizards web site. I liked
> > the "10 things you can do to play right now" thing. Then I started
> > reading about stuff like "you keep getting hit dice after level 9" and
> > "you get a point of attribute every 4 levels".
>
> You keep getting hit POINTS after a cap level... which isn't any
> different from the prior editions AFAIK.
It has been officially stated on the WoTC served groups that you keep
getting hit dice. A 20th-level fighter gets 20d10
--
"Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we
should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are
dealing with our mental health crisis today."
Bryan J. Maloney
Seebach) wrote:
> In article <95132289...@q7.q7.com>, Il Oh <i...@q7.com> wrote:
> >I've always hated power gaming, and it looks like 3rd edition is all
> >about power gaming. I don't mind people having flexibility in developing
> >their characters, but I really dislike characters pumped up with riduculous
> >stats. If these rumors are true, I'll be making some heavy modifications
> >to the rules before I start using third edition. It just doesn't sound
> >like D&D any more.
>
> I think it sounds like reasonable balance. Runequest let you train up stats,
> and no one accuses *them* of powergaming.
In RuneQuest, maximum human stat value is 21. Likewise, training is more
difficult than four D&D levels.
Peter Seebach
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In RuneQuest, maximum human stat value is 21. Likewise, training is more
>difficult than four D&D levels.
I don't think so. Training was something you could do in months, for cost,
without having to "earn XP". Of course, that was just their general model
of training...
Still, I think the training rule is fairly immune to abuse. If I were to
roll up a fighter with 18 strength in 1E, I would have a reasonable chance
of having a character with strength at least two categories "above" a normal
18 strength. In 3E, I can be there by 8th level if I spend my points raising
str.
Llorac
> In article <95132289...@q7.q7.com>, Il Oh <i...@q7.com> wrote:
> >I've always hated power gaming, and it looks like 3rd edition is all
> >about power gaming. I don't mind people having flexibility in developing
> >their characters, but I really dislike characters pumped up with riduculous
> >stats. If these rumors are true, I'll be making some heavy modifications
> >to the rules before I start using third edition. It just doesn't sound
> >like D&D any more.
Agreed. Might be a fun game. Might even be a role playing game.
> Keep in mind, what's sauce for the players is sauce for the characters' fried
> corpses, because it applies to the bad guys too.
>
> I love it, personally; there's no reason that the only difference between a
> 25th and 26th level fighter should be 3hp.
There's no difference at all. Neither exist.
Peter Seebach
>> I love it, personally; there's no reason that the only difference between a
>> 25th and 26th level fighter should be 3hp.
>There's no difference at all. Neither exist.
No? They certainly did in 1st edition.
Nonetheless, compare the difference between a 2E fighter at 20th level,
and a 2E fighter at 19th level. Now, see what that same 250,000 XP's does
for a thief - 30 additional points. Or a cleric - additional spells.
I think 3E fixes a real gap, which is that by 9th level, a mage is liable to
dominate a party heavily. In a war situation, the mage fried *hundreds* of
enemy troops with walls of fire...
Bryan J. Maloney
Seebach) wrote:
> In article <bjm10-23020...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>,
> Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >In RuneQuest, maximum human stat value is 21. Likewise, training is more
> >difficult than four D&D levels.
>
> I don't think so. Training was something you could do in months, for cost,
> without having to "earn XP". Of course, that was just their general model
> of training...
>
> Still, I think the training rule is fairly immune to abuse. If I were to
> roll up a fighter with 18 strength in 1E, I would have a reasonable chance
> of having a character with strength at least two categories "above" a normal
> 18 strength. In 3E, I can be there by 8th level if I spend my points raising
> str.
Now, prove that a 3rd edition 20 is the same as a 2d edition 20.
Peter Seebach
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <ZnWs4.1055$%A3.2...@ptah.visi.com>, se...@plethora.net (Peter
>> roll up a fighter with 18 strength in 1E, I would have a reasonable chance
>> of having a character with strength at least two categories "above" a normal
>> 18 strength. In 3E, I can be there by 8th level if I spend my points raising
>> str.
>Now, prove that a 3rd edition 20 is the same as a 2d edition 20.
It's not; in fact, an 18 is arguably better in 3E than in 2E - but I'm not
sure that even a 3E *20* is as good as a 2E 18/00.
Michael Brown
news:ouXs4.1088$%A3.2...@ptah.visi.com...
> >Now, prove that a 3rd edition 20 is the same as a 2d edition 20.
>
> It's not; in fact, an 18 is arguably better in 3E than in 2E - but I'm not
> sure that even a 3E *20* is as good as a 2E 18/00.
Stat bonus wise, the trend is one point of bonus per 2 points over 10,
so a 20 would have all of five bonuses; probably distributed as +2/+3. This
is the same whompage level as 18/51 strength, 2 ranks over straight-18
(which is likely +2/+2 in 3E).
However, I'll bet the carry-weight issues are completely different than
in 2E; probably linear. They'd be idiots not to; a simple formula for carry
capacity would eliminate an entire table.
-Michael
PJS
16's
>or 17's in the prime requisites) they aren't going to skyrocket anytime
>soon. One attribute point for every four levels is *not* a rapid pace.
>I've personally never had a character greater than ninth level -- which
>means that I would have had at most two attribute point "bump-ups" to my
>original scores for my highest level character ever. Hardly seems
>unbalancing.
Even a 24th level character couldn't have more than a total of 6 points
added to his or her attributes . . . that's a maximum 24 Strength in an
extreme case.
--
If you can see the Fnord, it can't eat you.
Allister Huggins
>
> In article <bjm10-23020...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>,
> Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >In article <ZnWs4.1055$%A3.2...@ptah.visi.com>, se...@plethora.net (Peter
> >> Still, I think the training rule is fairly immune to abuse. If I were to
> >> roll up a fighter with 18 strength in 1E, I would have a reasonable chance
> >> of having a character with strength at least two categories "above" a normal
> >> 18 strength. In 3E, I can be there by 8th level if I spend my points raising
> >> str.
>
>
> It's not; in fact, an 18 is arguably better in 3E than in 2E - but I'm not
> sure that even a 3E *20* is as good as a 2E 18/00.
>
with a hill giant clocking in at 27. Given that I always assumed that
trolls had a STR of 18/00, a 3E *20* is no where near as good as a 20.
Allister H.
Staffan Johansson
>
> Stat bonus wise, the trend is one point of bonus per 2 points over 10,
> so a 20 would have all of five bonuses; probably distributed as +2/+3. This
It seems it'll be more like BD&D in that respect: an 18 gives +4 to hit
AND damage, and a 20 would give +5 likewise.
Michael Brown
> > Stat bonus wise, the trend is one point of bonus per 2 points over
10,
> > so a 20 would have all of five bonuses; probably distributed as +2/+3.
This
>
> It seems it'll be more like BD&D in that respect: an 18 gives +4 to hit
> AND damage, and a 20 would give +5 likewise.
Given that this scheme is obviously more munchkin than ever, why on
earth would you surmise that this is what will be in play?
-Michael
Sea Wasp
>
> In article <38B419...@wizvax.net>, sea...@wizvax.net wrote:
>
> > Il Oh wrote:
> > >
> > > I liked the stuff I read in the FAQ on the Wizards web site. I liked
> > > the "10 things you can do to play right now" thing. Then I started
> > > reading about stuff like "you keep getting hit dice after level 9" and
> > > "you get a point of attribute every 4 levels".
> >
> > You keep getting hit POINTS after a cap level... which isn't any
> > different from the prior editions AFAIK.
>
> It has been officially stated on the WoTC served groups that you keep
> getting hit dice. A 20th-level fighter gets 20d10
URK?
I'd better go and look at the recent version again. I coulda sworn the
Tenth Level Cap was still there.
Don
> the "10 things you can do to play right now" thing. Then I started
> reading about stuff like "you keep getting hit dice after level 9" and
> "you get a point of attribute every 4 levels".
>
> about power gaming. I don't mind people having flexibility in developing
> their characters, but I really dislike characters pumped up with
riduculous
> stats. If these rumors are true, I'll be making some heavy modifications
> to the rules before I start using third edition. It just doesn't sound
> like D&D any more.
I don't see it as power gaming. What are all the other rules that you
believe contribute to this shift toward 'powergaming'? An average or 2 or 3
extra points to a character's attributes in his *entire* lifetime (how high
a level does the average player get anyway?) is not all that outrageous.
Personally, I'm thrilled that the game is moving in this direction. Bonuses
starting earlier at lower attributes, the ability to increase attributes
without a wish, a possible removal of the +5 limit to magical weapons, etc.
Sure it may all sound like powergaming, but one has to keep in mind that
enemies will be just as powerful. It's nice to have a finer gradation in
these things (instead of just +1, +2, and +3).
- Don
Check out my dice collection at: http://members.xoom.com/dondueck/index.htm
"We did not follow cleverly invented myths when we told you about the power
and
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; we were eyewitnesses of his majesty."
- The Apostle Simon Peter, c66
AD
Llorac
> In article <36D30816...@myna.com>, Llorac <azm...@myna.com> wrote:
> >> I love it, personally; there's no reason that the only difference between a
> >> 25th and 26th level fighter should be 3hp.
>
> >There's no difference at all. Neither exist.
>
> No? They certainly did in 1st edition.
>
> Nonetheless, compare the difference between a 2E fighter at 20th level,
> and a 2E fighter at 19th level. Now, see what that same 250,000 XP's does
> for a thief - 30 additional points. Or a cleric - additional spells.
*nod* I'll concede this. :) I am happy with the 2E 'fading hero' effect, but it
sounds like 3E is better in this regard. I suspect this is one of those items I'll
eventually look back on and wonder how I could've managed in 2E. :)
> I think 3E fixes a real gap, which is that by 9th level, a mage is liable to
> dominate a party heavily.
It is possible, perhaps even likely, for a mage to dominate a party heavily.
Whether this needs to be fixed...I dunno. It works well in our campaign (which
includes a 9th level mage, ironically).
> In a war situation, the mage fried *hundreds* of enemy troops with walls of
> fire...
Which, in fact, our mage did in a recent war situation. (Particularly effective
since he put a wall of ice directly behind it. So much for jumping through. Hehe.)
It may be more dramatic than the bard's encouraging songs (+1 to hit for many,
more than once through the day).
It may be more obvious than the benefits the presence of a priest
provides...without any casting.
It may be more convenient than the hoards led by the fighter.
It may also be useless. (Um...sorry guys, I have wall of fire memorized...can't
help you against the Fire Elemental.)
It may also be countered. (Dispel magic.)
I agree, that given the appropriate situation and the appropriate spell(s)...the
mage dominates. Given a random situation...the mage saves his spells for future
developments, while other's dominate the party.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not (in this case) suggesting these 3E changes are bad. I
only claim there isn't a problem in 2E up to 10th level. (Beyond 10th in 2E is
speculation, since I've yet to get that far.)
Peter Seebach
>*nod* I'll concede this. :) I am happy with the 2E 'fading hero' effect, but it
>sounds like 3E is better in this regard. I suspect this is one of those
>items I'll
>eventually look back on and wonder how I could've managed in 2E. :)
I'm thinking it'll be "better"; I always disliked the huge difference between
9th level (5.5 average hit points sans con bonus, up to 9.5 average with) and
10th level (3 hit points, period) for fighters.
>It is possible, perhaps even likely, for a mage to dominate a party heavily.
>Whether this needs to be fixed...I dunno. It works well in our campaign (which
>includes a 9th level mage, ironically).
I would like the other party members to be more-able to compete.
>Don't get me wrong, I'm not (in this case) suggesting these 3E changes
>are bad. I
>only claim there isn't a problem in 2E up to 10th level. (Beyond 10th in 2E is
>speculation, since I've yet to get that far.)
I think there's a slight problem in 2E, but it's livable; 3E does sound
better.
Staffan Johansson
>
> Given that this scheme is obviously more munchkin than ever, why on
> earth would you surmise that this is what will be in play?
The character examples given. The now-removed Dungeon guidelines. What
playtesters have been saying.
Led Mirage
wrote:
>I think 3E fixes a real gap, which is that by 9th level, a mage is liable to
>dominate a party heavily. In a war situation, the mage fried *hundreds* of
>enemy troops with walls of fire...
Actually, I think WOTC probably did some polls and found out that most
people play to mid levels before dropping their campaign and start new
ones. So they changed the XP curve to a linear curve and add attribute
bonuses, number of attacks etc. so that people will continue play
after 9th level.
The Wraith
<mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Staffan Johansson <bal...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
>> > Stat bonus wise, the trend is one point of bonus per 2 points over
>10,
>> > so a 20 would have all of five bonuses; probably distributed as +2/+3.
>This
>>
>> It seems it'll be more like BD&D in that respect: an 18 gives +4 to hit
>> AND damage, and a 20 would give +5 likewise.
>
>earth would you surmise that this is what will be in play?
It does seem likely to me. I don't see why making characters with an
18 strength a bit more powerful precludes the writers from making the
decision to do so.
While we are at it, do you expect the bonuses for high Dex to be split
between Reaction Adjustment, Defense Adjustment and Missile Adjustment
(assuming that all three still remain)? I wouldn't think so.
--
Now, by popular demand, a new .sig!
I still can't think of anything witty to say, though.
The Wraith
The Wraith
>>> I love it, personally; there's no reason that the only difference between a
>>> 25th and 26th level fighter should be 3hp.
>
>>There's no difference at all. Neither exist.
>
>No? They certainly did in 1st edition.
According to what has been said by those in the know, 3E is intended
to top out at level 20. (Besides, AD&D never really handled character
levels above that well, anyway. That's at least partly because the
changes in power level from one ultra-high level to the next really
aren't significant, in general, compared to the overall power level of
the character, as was mentioned.)
>Nonetheless, compare the difference between a 2E fighter at 20th level,
>and a 2E fighter at 19th level. Now, see what that same 250,000 XP's does
>for a thief - 30 additional points. Or a cleric - additional spells.
Not that a few more spells or 30 discretionary points really makes
that much difference at those sort of levels anyway. I would be more
concerned with how the system starts to tear at the seams at extreme
levels.
Michael Brown
> > earth would you surmise that this is what will be in play?
>
> playtesters have been saying.
The last revalations here on the NG had the bonuses split. This makes
sense, it's fair, it's similar to what we're already used to ... I'd be
surprised if it were so easy for any character to get attack bonuses on par
with the old ranks of exceptional strength; the whole point of repairing he
top of the scale was to eliminate the overpower *of* exceptional strength,
after all - turning around and making it ubiquitous defeats that purpose.
-Michael
Michael Brown
The Wraith <wra...@powerup.com.au> wrote in message
> > Given that this scheme is obviously more munchkin than ever, why on
> >earth would you surmise that this is what will be in play?
>
> 18 strength a bit more powerful precludes the writers from making the
> decision to do so.
It's the 12-16 range mapping to what we're familiar with as 17, 18/01,
and 18/86 that bothers me.
> While we are at it, do you expect the bonuses for high Dex to be split
> between Reaction Adjustment, Defense Adjustment and Missile Adjustment
> (assuming that all three still remain)? I wouldn't think so.
Note, however, that since STR (unless changed) modifies both attack
*and* damage, the bonus is "double counted" on each attack - this is not the
case with the bonuses for Dex (dex adds its bonus *once* to any relevant
action). This strongly suggests to me that the combat bonuses from STR
should be cut in half in order to preserve fairness. Alternatively, the
system might split to STR for just damage and Dex for accuracy. Also
workable.
-Michael
Jim Walters
: On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:41:44 GMT, se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach)
: wrote:
:>In article <36D30816...@myna.com>, Llorac <azm...@myna.com> wrote:
:>>> I love it, personally; there's no reason that the only difference between a
:>>> 25th and 26th level fighter should be 3hp.
:>
:>>There's no difference at all. Neither exist.
:>
:>No? They certainly did in 1st edition.
: According to what has been said by those in the know, 3E is intended
: to top out at level 20.
My understanding was that the PHB and DMG stopped at level 20, but that
a supplement for higher levels was planned.
--
Jim Walters jwal...@clark.net
"My race is pacifist and does not believe in war.
We kill only out of personal spite." Brain Guy - MST3K
Larry Mead
: Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
:>
:> In article <38B419...@wizvax.net>, sea...@wizvax.net wrote:
:>
:> > Il Oh wrote:
:> > > I liked the stuff I read in the FAQ on the Wizards web site. I liked
:> > > the "10 things you can do to play right now" thing. Then I started
:> > > reading about stuff like "you keep getting hit dice after level 9" and
:> > > "you get a point of attribute every 4 levels".
:> > You keep getting hit POINTS after a cap level... which isn't any
:> > different from the prior editions AFAIK.
:>
:> It has been officially stated on the WoTC served groups that you keep
:> getting hit dice. A 20th-level fighter gets 20d10
: URK?
: I'd better go and look at the recent version again. I coulda sworn the
: Tenth Level Cap was still there.
No, Bryan is correct, friend Wasp.
DMgorgon
--
Lawrence R. Mead Ph.D. (Lawren...@usm.edu)
Eschew Obfuscation! Espouse Elucidation!
www-dept.usm.edu/~physics/mead.html
Larry Mead
[snip]
: Nonetheless, compare the difference between a 2E fighter at 20th level,
: and a 2E fighter at 19th level. Now, see what that same 250,000 XP's does
: for a thief - 30 additional points. Or a cleric - additional spells.
: I think 3E fixes a real gap, which is that by 9th level, a mage is liable to
: dominate a party heavily. In a war situation, the mage fried *hundreds* of
: enemy troops with walls of fire...
That's the way it should be 8-).
Larry Mead
: On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:41:44 GMT, se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach)
: wrote:
:>I think 3E fixes a real gap, which is that by 9th level, a mage is liable to
:>dominate a party heavily. In a war situation, the mage fried *hundreds* of
:>enemy troops with walls of fire...
: Actually, I think WOTC probably did some polls and found out that most
: people play to mid levels before dropping their campaign and start new
: ones. So they changed the XP curve to a linear curve and add attribute
: bonuses, number of attacks etc. so that people will continue play
: after 9th level.
THE CURVE IS *NOT* LINEAR !!!!!
Ahem. sorry for shouting.
Larry Mead
: On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:41:44 GMT, se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach)
: wrote:
:>>> I love it, personally; there's no reason that the only difference between a
:>>> 25th and 26th level fighter should be 3hp.
:>
:>>There's no difference at all. Neither exist.
:>
:>No? They certainly did in 1st edition.
: According to what has been said by those in the know, 3E is intended
: to top out at level 20. (Besides, AD&D never really handled character
: levels above that well, anyway. That's at least partly because the
: changes in power level from one ultra-high level to the next really
: aren't significant, in general, compared to the overall power level of
: the character, as was mentioned.)
:>Nonetheless, compare the difference between a 2E fighter at 20th level,
:>and a 2E fighter at 19th level. Now, see what that same 250,000 XP's does
:>for a thief - 30 additional points. Or a cleric - additional spells.
: Not that a few more spells or 30 discretionary points really makes
: that much difference at those sort of levels anyway. I would be more
: concerned with how the system starts to tear at the seams at extreme
: levels.
I always thought that 1e worked fine at levels over 20. What do you find
wrong with it?
Sea Wasp
>
> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
> : Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> :>
> :> In article <38B419...@wizvax.net>, sea...@wizvax.net wrote:
> :>
> :> > Il Oh wrote:
> :> > >
> :> > > I liked the stuff I read in the FAQ on the Wizards web site. I liked
> :> > > the "10 things you can do to play right now" thing. Then I started
> :> > > reading about stuff like "you keep getting hit dice after level 9" and
> :> > > "you get a point of attribute every 4 levels".
> :> >
> :> > You keep getting hit POINTS after a cap level... which isn't any
> :> > different from the prior editions AFAIK.
> :>
> :> It has been officially stated on the WoTC served groups that you keep
> :> getting hit dice. A 20th-level fighter gets 20d10
>
> : URK?
>
> : I'd better go and look at the recent version again. I coulda sworn the
> : Tenth Level Cap was still there.
>
> No, Bryan is correct, friend Wasp.
My god. That's .... annoying. Now I have another thing to rant about.
I **TOLD** them they should steal the Arduin mechanic, but NOOO, they
won't listen to me...
The Wraith
wrote:
Take another read of the post you quoted, Larry. A major part of the
difficulties I have encountered is described therein.
The Wraith
<jwal...@shell.clark.net> wrote:
>The Wraith <wra...@powerup.com.au> wrote:
>: On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:41:44 GMT, se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach)
>: wrote:
>:>In article <36D30816...@myna.com>, Llorac <azm...@myna.com> wrote:
>:>>> I love it, personally; there's no reason that the only difference between a
>:>>> 25th and 26th level fighter should be 3hp.
>:>
>:>>There's no difference at all. Neither exist.
>:>
>:>No? They certainly did in 1st edition.
>
>: According to what has been said by those in the know, 3E is intended
>: to top out at level 20.
>
>a supplement for higher levels was planned.
If there is to be an entire supplement devoted to it, I'm sure the
nature of progression at very high levels will change significantly.
You can't fill a supplement by telling people precisely how to
extrapolate the spell progressions, saving throw tables, combat
bonuses and so on for the next level up. Maybe they will produce
something that overcomes the natural breakdown of the system at the
extreme ends.
Adam Benedict Canning
Sea Wasp wrote:
> >
> > : I'd better go and look at the recent version again. I coulda sworn the
> > : Tenth Level Cap was still there.
> >
> > No, Bryan is correct, friend Wasp.
>
> My god. That's .... annoying. Now I have another thing to rant about.
>
> I **TOLD** them they should steal the Arduin mechanic, but NOOO, they
> won't listen to me...
>
Arduin Mechanic?
Please explain.
Adam
Sea Wasp
Dave Hargrave's Arduin Grimoire. Eliminated both the "first level
death" and the "20th level invincible" syndromes by making HP more
stable. The basic rules were:
1) Get a certain number of HP for your race (male humans were 14)
2) Add your Constitution.
3) If you constitution was over a certain amount, you added that many
more bonus points.
4) If you were a fighting class, you got some extra points
5) a certain number per level -- one per level if you were a fighter,
one every two levels for thief-types, and one every three for the
thinking types.
Bryan J. Maloney
> I **TOLD** them they should steal the Arduin mechanic, but NOOO, they
> won't listen to me...
They should have--it's a nice mechanic. I guess they were too flush from
stealing the Arcanum and Warhammer RPG mechanics.
--
"Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we
should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are
dealing with our mental health crisis today."
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>Adam Benedict Canning wrote:
>>
>> Sea Wasp wrote:
>>
>> > >
>> > > : I'd better go and look at the recent version again. I coulda sworn the
>> > > : Tenth Level Cap was still there.
>> > >
>> > > No, Bryan is correct, friend Wasp.
>> >
>> > My god. That's .... annoying. Now I have another thing to rant about.
>> >
>> > I **TOLD** them they should steal the Arduin mechanic, but NOOO, they
>> > won't listen to me...
>> >
>>
>> Arduin Mechanic?
>>
>> Please explain.
>
> Dave Hargrave's Arduin Grimoire. Eliminated both the "first level
>death" and the "20th level invincible" syndromes by making HP more
>stable. The basic rules were:
>
> 1) Get a certain number of HP for your race (male humans were 14)
> 2) Add your Constitution.
> 3) If you constitution was over a certain amount, you added that many
>more bonus points.
> 4) If you were a fighting class, you got some extra points
> 5) a certain number per level -- one per level if you were a fighter,
>one every two levels for thief-types, and one every three for the
>thinking types.
Well, Arduin was different from AD&D in that the HP differential
between high and low level pc's was not terribly significant. Good or
bad, the "nigh invulnerability" of HL pc's is something of a staple in
AD&D.
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
-
Spam Satan! www.sluggy.com
Remove the spam-block to reply
Adam Benedict Canning
Sea Wasp wrote:
>
> Adam Benedict Canning wrote:
> > Arduin Mechanic?
> >
> > Please explain.
>
> Dave Hargrave's Arduin Grimoire. Eliminated both the "first level
> death" and the "20th level invincible" syndromes by making HP more
> stable. The basic rules were:
>
> 1) Get a certain number of HP for your race (male humans were 14)
> 2) Add your Constitution.
> 3) If you constitution was over a certain amount, you added that many
> more bonus points.
> 4) If you were a fighting class, you got some extra points
> 5) a certain number per level -- one per level if you were a fighter,
> one every two levels for thief-types, and one every three for the
> thinking types.
>
Not unreasonable, and an improvement over say the Rolemaster mechanic
which mangages to miss the first level problem.
Thanks for posting it.
Adam
Sea Wasp
You're welcome. I've used it for many, many years now. It keeps HP
totals reasonably stable and permits, as Dave himself pointed out, the
apprentice warrior to fight alongside the experienced master swordsman
and still have some reasonable chance of surviving -- something which is
historically common AND common in fantasy literature, but which D&D
doesn't generally do well; a creature that's a credible threat to a 10th
or 12th level party will kill off the first-levellers by sheer accident.
Travis S. Casey
> You're welcome. I've used it for many, many years now. It keeps HP
>totals reasonably stable and permits, as Dave himself pointed out, the
>apprentice warrior to fight alongside the experienced master swordsman
>and still have some reasonable chance of surviving -- something which is
>historically common AND common in fantasy literature, but which D&D
>doesn't generally do well; a creature that's a credible threat to a 10th
>or 12th level party will kill off the first-levellers by sheer accident.
I've been using the following for a few years:
- All PCs get their CON as base hit points.
- PC hit dice are handled normally; thus, a fighter gets a d10 with
each level and a wizard a d4.
- However, there is no per-level CON bonus to hit points.
- Monsters get their normal dice, plus an extra 11 + Hit Dice hps.
This makes 1st-level characters, especially mages and thieves, more
survivable, while not significantly changing their power balance vs.
monsters. Further, it narrows the power gap between low-level and
high-level characters -- rather than a 2nd level fighter having on average
twice the hps of a 1st level fighter, most fighters have to advance to
third or fourth level before having twice their starting hps.
CON makes less of a difference for fighters with this system once they
reach mid to high levels; for example, in the standard system, a 7th level
fighter with a 17 CON will generally have about 21 more hit points than
a 7th level fighter with a 13 CON. Under this system, the 17 CON fighter
will generally only have 3 more hit points at any level. This means that
high CON becomes less important at higher levels.
Lastly, while it gives a boost at low levels, high-CON fighters wind up
having fewer hit points at high levels -- a 17 CON fighter, for example,
will have more hit points than under the standard method until 6th level,
but fewer after that.
--
|\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey <efi...@io.com>
ZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ No one agrees with me. Not even me.
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_)
Travis S. Casey
>Sea Wasp was heard to utter...
>> You're welcome. I've used it for many, many years now. It keeps HP
>> totals reasonably stable and permits, as Dave himself pointed out, the
>> apprentice warrior to fight alongside the experienced master swordsman
>> and still have some reasonable chance of surviving -- something which is
>> historically common AND common in fantasy literature, but which D&D
>> doesn't generally do well; a creature that's a credible threat to a 10th
>> or 12th level party will kill off the first-levellers by sheer accident.
>
>Interesting. How did you change damage-dealing spells to compensate for
>the low-20 hit point totals?
Well, I can't speak for what Sea Wasp is using, but I think he was a bit
off in his memories of Arduin's hit point system. As I recall, it goes
like this:
- Each character gets a starting number of hit points according to race
and sex; this is generally in the teens.
- Characters with high CON get a bonus based on it -- I don't recall
the details here.
- Characters get extra starting hit points according to their "type":
5 for "fighters", 3 for "semi-fighters", 0 for "non-fighters".
- Characters get extra hit points for each level gained, again
according to type: 3 for fighters, 2 for semi-fighters, 1 for
non-fighters.
Thus, a typical 1st level fighter would have around 20 hit points; a
typical 6th level fighter would have around 35 high points; and a typical
10th level fighter around 47 hit points.
Arduin, the system this comes from, tends to have a faster level rise than
D&D, in my experience -- the XP charts gives values for up to 100th level.
The spell system is also different, with wishes, for example, being 27th
level or so -- which you'd have to be a 50-somethingth level mage to use.
Thus, by the time Arduin mages are throwing high-damage area-effect
spells, the fighters have plenty of hit points.
Michael Brown
news:89habh$gfh$1...@hiram.io.com...
> I've been using the following for a few years:
>
> - All PCs get their CON as base hit points.
This wreaks havoc with the logic of base weapon damages, where the
average human is now able to take two blows from a longsword.
-Michael
Sea Wasp
That's because you're remembering it wrong. I assure you, I typed it
correctly. I have AGIII, the Runes of Doom, in front of me, and I've
used the system for 20 years. It's racial points (14 for male humans)
plus constitution score, plus a bonus number if your con is over 12
which is equal to CON-12, plus the bonus for being a fighter or
part-fighter type you note, plus one per level if you're a fighter, one
every two levels if you're a semi-fighter/thief type, and one every
three levels if you're a thinker type like psychics and mages.
Sea Wasp
>
> Sea Wasp was heard to utter...
> > You're welcome. I've used it for many, many years now. It keeps HP
> > totals reasonably stable and permits, as Dave himself pointed out, the
> > apprentice warrior to fight alongside the experienced master swordsman
> > and still have some reasonable chance of surviving -- something which is
> > historically common AND common in fantasy literature, but which D&D
> > doesn't generally do well; a creature that's a credible threat to a 10th
> > or 12th level party will kill off the first-levellers by sheer accident.
>
> Interesting. How did you change damage-dealing spells to compensate for
> the low-20 hit point totals?
Actually the average PC would be generally 30 to 40 (or for buff
fighter types, odd races, etc, even somewhat over forty. The record for
first-level HP being held by Thornhair Fallenstar, a young Saiyajin, who
had IIRC 58 HP at first level).
I generally didn't change the spells much. Yeah, not much instant
takeout effect, but the same was true of the weapons, and even more
importantly the same was true with respect to YOU. You couldn't just
take out every creature you met with one whack (unless you got a lucky
crit), but then again neither could they.
Bryan J. Maloney
<mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
No.
The average human is now able to have a good chance to defend against two
blows from a longsword.
--
Sea Wasp
>
> Sea Wasp was heard to utter...
> > takeout effect, but the same was true of the weapons, and even more
> > importantly the same was true with respect to YOU. You couldn't just
> > take out every creature you met with one whack (unless you got a lucky
> > crit), but then again neither could they.
>
> with 1st level PC's having scads of hit points (although 58 seems a tad
> excessive) - I thought the "average" sort of character would have
> somewhere around 20-30 at high levels, and so wouldn't be able to foot it
> for very long in combat (which I suppose is the whole point).
>
> Two fireballs and it's all over, no?
True, though it's not that bad (take your Bigass Fighter -- 18 Con,
human, 12th level -- that's 18+14+6+5+12, or 55 HP)
The "58" was because he was (A) a Saiyajin (see "Dragonball Z" -- the
species is about as tough as they come) and (B) had a hell of Con
anyway. This was good for him, since he ended up poking his nose
constantly into things he shouldn't.
Rather than tone down magic, it seemed more logical to me that
defenses/remedies for magic would be more common, which they were in my
game. But yeah, if you're without defenses and an 18th level mage
decides to roast the party, well... you can stick a fork in him, Bob --
he's DONE!
High level mages are NOT something you want to annoy. Ever.
Michael Brown
> > > - All PCs get their CON as base hit points.
> >
> > This wreaks havoc with the logic of base weapon damages, where the
> > average human is now able to take two blows from a longsword.
>
> No.
>
> The average human is now able to have a good chance to defend against two
> blows from a longsword.
If hit points are based on *Con* then we're not talking about fighting
ability, we're talking about raw toughness. It's clear from the model that
skill only inflates that total *later*. This mechanism has made all average
humans into 2+2 HD monsters!
I am very uncomfortable with the idea that a soldier has to administer
repeated beatings to put a peasant down; the balance of weapon damage should
be such that one hit (from most serious arms) is capable of *killing* the
average person - not of just *annoying* them.
-Michael
Travis Casey
> Travis S. Casey wrote:
Yep -- you're right, SW. I *thought* you were wrong, but wasn't sure...
which is why I only wrote "I think [Sea Wasp] was a bit off in his
memories..." rather than writing "Sea Wasp is wrong."
:-)
In any case, though, the point that Arduin itself tends towards higher
levels than AD&D is still true. To go back to the original poster's
question, do you also incorporate other Arduinian elements in your
campaign, do you have some other adjustment made to make magic less
deadly, or do you just have very deadly magic?
Sea Wasp
> Yep -- you're right, SW. I *thought* you were wrong, but wasn't sure...
> which is why I only wrote "I think [Sea Wasp] was a bit off in his
> memories..." rather than writing "Sea Wasp is wrong."
So we've learned something here, right? Never question my omniscience.
:)
> In any case, though, the point that Arduin itself tends towards higher
> levels than AD&D is still true. To go back to the original poster's
> question, do you also incorporate other Arduinian elements in your
> campaign, do you have some other adjustment made to make magic less
> deadly, or do you just have very deadly magic?
High level magic hurts. There's no two ways about it. But there are
always (A) ways to defend against it, and (B) ways to recover from it.
Since I postulate a world where mages do not dominate it, it follows
that there are such things, and the laws of magic in fact predict that
such defenses/remedies MUST exist. And so they do. :)
The Viper
> totals reasonably stable and permits, as Dave himself pointed out, the
> apprentice warrior to fight alongside the experienced master swordsman
> and still have some reasonable chance of surviving -- something which is
> historically common AND common in fantasy literature, but which D&D
> doesn't generally do well; a creature that's a credible threat to a 10th
> or 12th level party will kill off the first-levellers by sheer accident.
Interesting. How did you change damage-dealing spells to compensate for
the low-20 hit point totals?
TIA
--
The Viper
My e-mail isn't really WARMmail.com you know, I'm much hotter than that!
The Viper
> takeout effect, but the same was true of the weapons, and even more
> importantly the same was true with respect to YOU. You couldn't just
> take out every creature you met with one whack (unless you got a lucky
> crit), but then again neither could they.
I was actually thinking of the other end of things; I have no problem
with 1st level PC's having scads of hit points (although 58 seems a tad
excessive) - I thought the "average" sort of character would have
somewhere around 20-30 at high levels, and so wouldn't be able to foot it
for very long in combat (which I suppose is the whole point).
Two fireballs and it's all over, no?
Jimmy Kerl
>
> I've been using the following for a few years:
>
> each level and a wizard a d4.
> - However, there is no per-level CON bonus to hit points.
>
> - Monsters get their normal dice, plus an extra 11 + Hit Dice hps.
>
Yeah this is quite simular to what ive been using for a few years also.
> This makes 1st-level characters, especially mages and thieves, more
> survivable, while not significantly changing their power balance vs.
> monsters. Further, it narrows the power gap between low-level and
> high-level characters -- rather than a 2nd level fighter having on average
> twice the hps of a 1st level fighter, most fighters have to advance to
> third or fourth level before having twice their starting hps.
Yep exactly. It really is a much better system in my own opinion. Now
if only the 3e advocates would understand they might understand why i
do so greatly object to no limit of 9-10 Hit die for characters. This moves
in the oppisite direction.. One just has to playtest and run a system
simular to the one presented above to really understand. I'd recomend
every experienced DM try your system or one like it at least for 1 campaign.
My own system was only slightly different.
Inital Hp = Con + class & race modifer (human fighter = +6; human mage = -3)
levels 2-7 roll hit die, and add con bonus.
level 8-18 get bonus hp by class (+3 for fighters) no con bonus
Jimmy
Travis S. Casey
>Travis S. Casey <efi...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
>> I've been using the following for a few years:
>>
>> - All PCs get their CON as base hit points.
>
> This wreaks havoc with the logic of base weapon damages, where the
>average human is now able to take two blows from a longsword.
I said nothing about average humans -- I said PCs. PCs, in my AD&D
campaigns, are Heroes. 0-level NPCs get something else for their hit
points.
I also use critical hits; thus, it's still *possible* to take a
first-level PC or 1 HD monster who's fighting back down with one blow from
a longsword -- it's just less likely.
Joseph Oberlander
> average human is now able to take two blows from a longsword.
>
Well, in actual real-life, an armored opponent is not going to just
flat-out die from one glancing blow.(which is what "blows" in D&D are
evidently structured as) A Critical hit(impaling them for instance)
WILL likely kill them outright.
I always had a problem with the whole concept of townspeople and such
as being fodder - just hacking through them like a high-level Samurai
from a cheap movie. Real-life combat is just not *quite* that deadly
if you have armor.
Michael Brown
> >> - All PCs get their CON as base hit points.
> >
> >average human is now able to take two blows from a longsword.
>
> campaigns, are Heroes. 0-level NPCs get something else for their hit
> points.
Ahh. I suppose that patches the conceptual bridge, you're basically
giving all PCs some 5-10 bonus 'skill' hp as part of "training to be an
adventurer". Objection withdrawn.
-Michael
Michael Brown
Joseph Oberlander <oberl...@loop.com> wrote in message
news:38BD70DC...@loop.com...
> > This wreaks havoc with the logic of base weapon damages, where the
> > average human is now able to take two blows from a longsword.
>
> flat-out die from one glancing blow.
What on earth makes you think I'm talking about *glancing blows* against
armored opponents? I'm talking about average unclassed humans. Re-read the
context of the discussion. Swords do 1-8 hp damage. Standard humans have
1-8 hit points (avg 5-ish). This means that a *solid* blow with a sword is
capable of killing a normal person outright, a situation which matches well
with RL. Big holes kill people. If Travis had eliminated that possiblity;
ie; by making things such that being struck as solidly as a sword can strike
someone _doesn't kill them_, then a suspension of disbelief issue crops up.
However, Casey isn't using his Con hp rule for unclassed humans, so this
problem is not in fact present.
-Michael
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>The Viper wrote:
>>
>> Sea Wasp was heard to utter...
>> > You're welcome. I've used it for many, many years now. It keeps HP
>> > totals reasonably stable and permits, as Dave himself pointed out, the
>> > apprentice warrior to fight alongside the experienced master swordsman
>> > and still have some reasonable chance of surviving -- something which is
>> > historically common AND common in fantasy literature, but which D&D
>> > doesn't generally do well; a creature that's a credible threat to a 10th
>> > or 12th level party will kill off the first-levellers by sheer accident.
>>
>> Interesting. How did you change damage-dealing spells to compensate for
>> the low-20 hit point totals?
>
> Actually the average PC would be generally 30 to 40 (or for buff
>fighter types, odd races, etc, even somewhat over forty. The record for
>first-level HP being held by Thornhair Fallenstar, a young Saiyajin, who
>had IIRC 58 HP at first level).
>
> I generally didn't change the spells much. Yeah, not much instant
>takeout effect, but the same was true of the weapons, and even more
>importantly the same was true with respect to YOU. You couldn't just
>take out every creature you met with one whack (unless you got a lucky
>crit), but then again neither could they.
It's worth pointing that Arduin *split* the damage for spells like
Fireball. So, if six people are in the AoE of a 30 point FB, they
take *5* points each.
Sea Wasp
Arduin did. I didn't, however. That, to me, removed some of the point
of AoE spells like Fireball; as pointed out in the magic missile thread,
THAT one distributes its damage depending on your choices; Fireball
delivers all its damage to everyone.
Aristotle
>I liked the stuff I read in the FAQ on the Wizards web site. I liked
>the "10 things you can do to play right now" thing. Then I started
>reading about stuff like "you keep getting hit dice after level 9" and
>"you get a point of attribute every 4 levels".
>
>I've always hated power gaming, and it looks like 3rd edition is all
>about power gaming. I don't mind people having flexibility in developing
>their characters, but I really dislike characters pumped up with riduculous
>stats. If these rumors are true, I'll be making some heavy modifications
>to the rules before I start using third edition. It just doesn't sound
>like D&D any more.
Don't you know?
Power gaming sells books like mad.
-Aristotle@Threshold
--
VISIT THRESHOLD - Online Roleplaying at its Finest. Player run clans, guilds,
legal system, economy, religions, nobility, and more in a world where roleplay
is required! Roleplay online with thousands of people from all over the world.
http://www.threshold-rpg.com -**- telnet://threshold-rpg.com:23
Adam Benedict Canning
Aristotle wrote:
> Don't you know?
>
> Power gaming sells books like mad.
I hadn't noticed Synnibar doing well.
Adam
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
Agreed. I never saw the "liogic" for splitting FB damage, which
shouuld be equally damaging in it's AoE. But splitting does help
mitigate Arduin's lower HP numbers. 'Sides, there are *so* many more
entertaining spells than FB. Why settle for a simple explosion when
you can watch your opponent be turned messily, painfully and
completely inside out? <eg>
Robert Baldwin
<mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
<snip>
Big holes kill people.
<snip>
Nonsense. Big holes don't kill people, people who *cause* big holes
kill people. Next thing, you're gonna be demanding we *register* our
big holes so the government can confiscate them. Damn
commie-liberal-pinko!
The Wraith
Baldwin) wrote:
>On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 14:07:10 -0800, "Michael Brown"
><mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
><snip>
>
> Big holes kill people.
><snip>
>
>Nonsense. Big holes don't kill people, people who *cause* big holes
>kill people. Next thing, you're gonna be demanding we *register* our
>big holes so the government can confiscate them. Damn
>commie-liberal-pinko!
><g>
I used to know a guy who would, on occasion, wear a t-shirt that read,
"Guns don't kill people, I do". He said he would sometimes wear it
when working as a bouncer, back when he did that. And I know he *does*
have to skills to kill people. Good thing his martial art has that
philosophical part to it that says, "Don't hurt, maim or kill without
*damn* good reason".
--
Now, by popular demand, a new .sig!
I still can't think of anything witty to say, though.
The Wraith