The evolution of D&D
Seebs
one of the side-effects of which has been regularization, which removes some
of the "fantastic" feel of earlier editions.
This is probably a big part of why many of us who've been playing for a long
time end up feeling like D&D no longer "feels like D&D". Mirror image used
to provide a pretty large chance that an attack would hit one of the images
instead of the target; displacement *guaranteed* an initial miss on the first
attack, even if you knew about it. Now they're just AC bonuses of one sort
or another, and I think that does feel somewhat less magical.
In first edition, essentially all magic was written up as one-off effects;
each spell had its own basic model of what it did and how, and while there
was a vague common framework ("casting time"), there was no barrier to
mixing spells which took an hour to cast with spells which took a few
"segments" to cast. This was "cleaned up" a little in second edition --
and a lot of people, me among them, felt that second edition felt more
barren and less baroque than first edition.
In third edition, we actually migrated even further away from the sheer
madness of 1st edition, but since the resulting rules really were a lot more
playable and responsive, a lot of people could deal with that. Furthermore,
the improvement to the design of spells, with each class having its own
spell list, brought us a long way back towards the 1E feel where different
casters would find the same spells much easier or much harder to cast.
In fourth edition, nearly all the effects that were once strange one-off
effects have been regularized. You no longer need to remember the difference
between putting a bag of holding in a portable hole, and putting a portable
hole in a bag of holding. Potion miscibility is gone. Many of the
strangest monsters no longer exist, and even those that do have had many
of their powers simplified. Dragons no longer have special rules for
subdual which apply to no other creatures.
This does make the game substantially less "fantastic" in its feel; it is
no longer like being a first-time Nethack player, unaware that you can
identify many rings by dropping them in sinks. On the other hand, it
regularizes and streamlines gameplay; you can use more powers with less
book research during play.
The reason, I think, that it still "feels like D&D" to me is that my habit
in every edition has been to regularize and standardize effects so I could
keep track of them, and I've always loved standardization of effects and
powers at least within reason. I didn't *like* that Displacement had this
one-off effect which nothing else really matched. I love having a standard
skill system rather than a small set of specialized stat effects which have
to be looked up on particular tables. And, of course, my habit is also
to modify a ton of things on the fly, tweak things, replace them, and so on...
4E fits me, not because the basic rules "feel like D&D", but because of the
underlying principle of simple rules *with many exceptions*. The exceptions
are where individual monsters get to be unique and contrary to expectations,
but the underlying rules framework is easier to use and more streamlined.
-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
Bryant Durrell
Seebs <usenet...@seebs.net> wrote:
>Hypothesis: D&D has been going through a gradual process of development,
>one of the side-effects of which has been regularization, which removes some
>of the "fantastic" feel of earlier editions.
<snip>
>4E fits me, not because the basic rules "feel like D&D", but because of the
>underlying principle of simple rules *with many exceptions*. The exceptions
>are where individual monsters get to be unique and contrary to expectations,
>but the underlying rules framework is easier to use and more streamlined.
Yep; generally agreed.
One of my very early thrill moments with 4e was when the DM trotted out...
I think it was a spider? Maybe a snake. Either way I got in position
and was all ready to handle it and it shifted 6 squares past me.
"It can DO that?"
"Yep."
"AWESOME."
--
Bryant Durrell // dur...@innocence.com // dur...@gmail.com
Seebs
>>4E fits me, not because the basic rules "feel like D&D", but because of the
>>underlying principle of simple rules *with many exceptions*. The exceptions
>>are where individual monsters get to be unique and contrary to expectations,
>>but the underlying rules framework is easier to use and more streamlined.
> Yep; generally agreed.
One thing I've found is that the stat blocks lend themselves very nicely
to being turned into other things. I used one of the homonculus variants
for a while as a generic monster. They were terrifying scorpions made out
of shadow which could apparently phase through walls. In fact, all I did
was take the plain old wussy homonculus, and declare by fiat that this
variant could move through things like thatch. And it was an awesome,
spooky, monster.
I'm not sure why this seemed harder to pull off in previous editions, but it
just seems to go more smoothly now.
Dragonkat
> Hypothesis: D&D has been going through a gradual process of development,
> one of the side-effects of which has been regularization, which removes some
> of the "fantastic" feel of earlier editions.
> In third edition, we actually migrated even further away from the sheer
> madness of 1st edition, but since the resulting rules really were a lot more
> playable and responsive, a lot of people could deal with that. Furthermore,
> the improvement to the design of spells, with each class having its own
> spell list, brought us a long way back towards the 1E feel where different
> casters would find the same spells much easier or much harder to cast.
>
> In fourth edition, nearly all the effects that were once strange one-off
> effects have been regularized. You no longer need to remember the difference
> between putting a bag of holding in a portable hole, and putting a portable
> hole in a bag of holding. Potion miscibility is gone. Many of the
> strangest monsters no longer exist, and even those that do have had many
> of their powers simplified. Dragons no longer have special rules for
> subdual which apply to no other creatures.
>
> This does make the game substantially less "fantastic" in its feel; it is
> no longer like being a first-time Nethack player, unaware that you can
> identify many rings by dropping them in sinks. On the other hand, it
> regularizes and streamlines gameplay; you can use more powers with less
> book research during play.
> 4E fits me, not because the basic rules "feel like D&D", but because of the
> underlying principle of simple rules *with many exceptions*. The exceptions
> are where individual monsters get to be unique and contrary to expectations,
> but the underlying rules framework is easier to use and more streamlined.
>
So, does Pathfinder (3.5+) go on as a fantastic "D&D" in all but name?
Dunno.
Is there ideas of one transferable to the other(3.5E/P vs. 4E)?
Hybridination is a part of House Rules, so yes in both directions.
Seriously.
Are there going to be those favoring 3E/Pathfinder or 4E over the
other? Yep.
Is Wizards going from personal affordability to group affordability in
4E?
Clueless...
Dragonkat
Hadsil
You're getting it, and this does explain why you like 4E so much while
I hate it. Where as you hated Displacement, I liked it. Things that
trouble you in 3E, I enjoy. Things you savor in 4E, I despise.
Hence, as in evolution, D&D has now "branched", with you taking the
mutated (scientific term, not insult) path and me taking the stock.
Gerald Katz
Seebs
> You're getting it, and this does explain why you like 4E so much while
> I hate it.
I think so. But "you're getting it" sounds sort of condescending, when if
you'd been able to articulate this, I would have gotten it ages ago. :)
> Where as you hated Displacement, I liked it.
I am not sure I hated it. I like the streamlining, I'm not as sure about
the shift in character. 4E's got different ways for adding character, and
I'm not totally sold on them (or totally unsold on them). I think on
the whole I think kobolds get more distinctive flavor from "shifty" than
they ever did from a bunch of flavor text many people ignored.
> Things that trouble you in 3E, I enjoy. Things you savor in 4E, I despise.
> Hence, as in evolution, D&D has now "branched", with you taking the
> mutated (scientific term, not insult) path and me taking the stock.
I guess, to me, it's all mutations all down the line from chainmail, and
always in this same direction -- towards more regularized rules with less
"well, we threw that in to see what would happen".
Consider the Hat of Difference (1E UA). You get to level in a whole new
class, starting at 1, retaining your own ability scores and hit points.
Conclusion: If you have a strength of at least 9, you should level to
9ish or so as a fighter, get a hat of difference, and level as a wizard
thereafter, because you will be unstoppable. This item clearly Makes No
Sense.
A ton of what I liked about 1E games could be easily added back in 4E by
simply adding a ton of rituals -- since it was nearly all rare/one-off
spells with long casting times anyway.
Fundamentally, I really like having combat be fast and interesting, with
people consistently getting to make interesting choices every round. The
non-combat aspects are richer in principle, although the PHB1 gave a pretty
mediocre supply of rituals; adding the rituals from PHB2, the caster Power
books, and suchlike does a wonderful job of addressing this, though.
I don't know. I sometimes miss a game where an 18th level wizard was
extremely hard for anything but an 18th or higher level wizard to kill, but
I also find that there's a lot to be said for a game where the various
classes are more evenly matched.
-s
--
David Trimboli
> On 2009-12-17, Hadsil<foru...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> You're getting it, and this does explain why you like 4E so much while
>> I hate it.
>
> I think so. But "you're getting it" sounds sort of condescending, when if
> you'd been able to articulate this, I would have gotten it ages ago. :)
>
>> Hence, as in evolution, D&D has now "branched", with you taking the
>> mutated (scientific term, not insult) path and me taking the stock.
>
> I guess, to me, it's all mutations all down the line from chainmail, and
> always in this same direction -- towards more regularized rules with less
> "well, we threw that in to see what would happen".
Thanks for being the one to respond this way. The attitude of "the
version I like is standard, and all other versions are wrong" gets me
riled, and I'm not sure my own response would have done justice.
I agree with you in a large part: changes have usually been about
standardization. Not always, though. The D&D Basic and Expert sets took
the original D&D boxed set and simplified and standardized a lot of it,
but then the Companion, Masters, and especially the Immortals sets took
it in a completely new direction. A lot of the new rules in those sets
were quite experimental.
--
David Trimboli
http://www.trimboli.name/
Seebs
> Thanks for being the one to respond this way. The attitude of "the
> version I like is standard, and all other versions are wrong" gets me
> riled, and I'm not sure my own response would have done justice.
I figure "standard" is the main product line, like it or not. Pathfinder
could be an awesome game, but it wouldn't be the standard of D&D. But
that doesn't make it "wrong".
> I agree with you in a large part: changes have usually been about
> standardization. Not always, though. The D&D Basic and Expert sets took
> the original D&D boxed set and simplified and standardized a lot of it,
> but then the Companion, Masters, and especially the Immortals sets took
> it in a completely new direction. A lot of the new rules in those sets
> were quite experimental.
True enough -- I think what we tend to see is
* new system comes out, trying to standardize and clean up existing
material.
* updates and addons come out, adding interesting new stuff that
is still sort of experimental.
So, 1E AD&D was really an attempt at standardizing and cleaning up "D&D" --
thus the level limits for races because that allowed them to approximate
the way in which elves/dwarves/halflings had previously had limited ability
to progress. Alignment got cleaned up into a nice two-dimensional grid,
and lots of things got regularized and cleaned up. Then we saw things
like UA and OA, which started adding really crazy stuff.
2E restandardized a bit, trying to clean up the multiple casters by
merging druid into cleric (a disaster, IMHO) and illusionist into mage
(I didn't like it, but it wasn't unthinkably awful). Then we got a ton
of splatbooks and "kits" and things like that. Same deal; by the end of
the 2E cycle, there were rules for all sorts of wacky things that were
now far beyond the design limits of the game system.
3E was another cleanup pass, but it was a smarter one -- they understood
about archetypes, and they even realized that the exponential XP system
created some weird bugs in dual-classing and multiclassing, so they tried
to fix that up. They sort of did a second iteration of crazy new stuff
(psionics, etc.) and cleanup (3.5E), then more crazy stuff (incarnum,
Bo9S, etcetera). (BTW, I just found a copy of Bo9S in my basement, I didn't
even think I had it!)
4E is another cleanup pass. The 3E "action" system was a huge improvement
over 1E/2E segments and initiative cycles, but it was gratuitously
complicated. Simply dropping full-round actions and letting people use their
good attacks after a move helped hugely, and the newly simplified
"minor/move/standard" model really is a big win... But it's still based on
the same kinds of things. 4E replaced 3E's elaborate "moving from one
square to another in your threatened area or leaving your threatened area"
AoO with "leaving any square in your threatened area". MUCH simpler.
The big shift is in the powers, but if you look at monks, warlocks, and
Bo9S in 3E, you already see the basics of that system being invented. The
decision to break a ton of stuff out to rituals really does help with a
number of balance issues, and encourages a lot of creative play -- because
you don't have to sacrifice combat ability to think of good uses for your
non-combat spells.
I've been running 1E modules in 4E, and it's actually EASIER than it
was to use them in 3E. For 3E, I had to do a fair amount of bookkeeping
to update monsters. For 4E, it takes little enough time that I can
just run straight from the module and play at a reasonable pace.
tussock
> Hypothesis: D&D has been going through a gradual process of development,
> one of the side-effects of which has been regularization, which removes some
> of the "fantastic" feel of earlier editions.
Steady regularisation of methods? Perhaps, but they're all over
the show with content. 2nd edition stopped jamming more an more ideas
on a single map, like they'd done for Greyhawk, the Realms, and the
Known World through the 80's, but it produced a far more varied set of
worlds and characters as a result.
And then 3e went back to everything stuck into two (or three)
worlds, but had a fleet of class mechanics more akin to old school
variations over time, and still managed to print up a thousand new
monsters that could use all those classes in any combination.
3e's variety came from regularisation of the levels, HD, skill
system, and so on, but it was built to go that way, to sell books full
of alternate classes that you can swing into over time.
> [4e's Mirror Image and Displacement are] just AC bonuses of one sort
> or another, and I think that does feel somewhat less magical.
Which is weird, because "when you are first hit in a combat, make
an immediate save to negate the attack, which then acts as if it
missed you" as a power would have fit so well, and Mirror Image could
have saves when attacked that count down if they work (as the AC bonus
does now).
Or force a reroll on attacks, or worst of two dice, or any number
of things.
Every now and then I get the impression they really didn't try all
that hard to port DnD to their new fantasy battle engine, or perhaps,
more generously, that they started doing so a bit late in development
and found it hard to get their head around how the two would fit. I
mean, there's nothing /wrong/ with 4e's Mirror Image, it's just, ....
<snip: spell effects through editions>
> This does make the game substantially less "fantastic" in its feel; it is
> no longer like being a first-time Nethack player, unaware that [...].
Hey! Spoilers, much. 8]
> On the other hand, it regularizes and streamlines gameplay; you can use
> more powers with less book research during play.
I see an awful lot of people around the net using power cards and
board tokens. Ah, for the days when you could fit everything on a
character sheet or, for that matter, when an encounter description was
"3 Goblins: 3, 4, 5."
> 4E fits me, not because the basic rules "feel like D&D", but because of the
> underlying principle of simple rules *with many exceptions*. The exceptions
> are where individual monsters get to be unique and contrary to expectations,
> but the underlying rules framework is easier to use and more streamlined.
So, why are unique and contrary monsters good, while unique and
contrary spells are bad? You're dealing with a far higher turnover in
monsters as DM than any player is as a spellcaster. You wrote a pretty
good description of what I see missing in the 4e magic, I'm sure they
could have gone deeper into the "simple rules with many exceptions"
design there too.
Powers needed to be a small, consistent size? Maybe.
Hell, the lack of an in-game justification for martial power
limits, some sort of fatigue point system would've been fine; little
things like that just seem like they'd /add/ to the game, to me. Same
for all the classes, let me decide where I spend my encounter-limited
mojo. <sigh>
--
tussock
Reginald Blue
> One thing I've found is that the stat blocks lend themselves very
> nicely
> to being turned into other things. I used one of the homonculus
> variants for a while as a generic monster. They were terrifying
> scorpions made out of shadow which could apparently phase through
> walls. In fact, all I did was take the plain old wussy homonculus,
> and declare by fiat that this variant could move through things like
> thatch. And it was an awesome, spooky, monster.
>
> I'm not sure why this seemed harder to pull off in previous editions,
> but it just seems to go more smoothly now.
Well, not sure it applies in this case, but, in previous editions you had to
worry about side effects of adding some "non-standard" power (especially 1st
edition). For example, if you said "they can only be hit by escrutian
silver (I made that up), someone will say "well, can my sword of all-hitting
still hit them?" "uh..."
The one example of this in the 1e rules that was particularly madenning was
some case related to perception, where the one side sometimes got "can see
hidden creatures on a 2 in 6" and the other side sometimes got "can only be
seen on a 1 in 12". oookay... how do I resolve that, again? I may be
misremembering the specifics, but, there was a lot of that where you had to
decide which of a particular set of corner-case rules trumped the other.
In 4e, they've gutted all of that. He slides 6 squares. Period.
Much easier to play to be sure.
--
Reginald Blue
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my
telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my
telephone."
- Bjarne Stroustrup (originator of C++) [quoted at the 2003
International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces]
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Seebs wrote:
>> One thing I've found is that the stat blocks lend themselves very
>> nicely
>> to being turned into other things. I used one of the homonculus
>> variants for a while as a generic monster. They were terrifying
>> scorpions made out of shadow which could apparently phase through
>> walls. In fact, all I did was take the plain old wussy homonculus,
>> and declare by fiat that this variant could move through things like
>> thatch. And it was an awesome, spooky, monster.
>>
>> I'm not sure why this seemed harder to pull off in previous editions,
>> but it just seems to go more smoothly now.
>
> Well, not sure it applies in this case, but, in previous editions you had to
> worry about side effects of adding some "non-standard" power (especially 1st
> edition). For example, if you said "they can only be hit by escrutian
> silver (I made that up), someone will say "well, can my sword of all-hitting
> still hit them?" "uh..."
Depends on what you meant when you came up with the Only Hit by
Excrutian Silver, and where the All Hitting comes from. If you meant to
make it a REALLY pain in the ass defense, then the answer is no, his
All-Hitting doesn't work, unless the All Hitting comes from some deific
force so powerful that the source of the Excrutian Defense isn't up to
stopping it.
Easily resolved -- if you actually understand your world at all. If you
don't, well, that'll be a problem, but I think that's the essence of
GMing. Know your world.
>
> The one example of this in the 1e rules that was particularly madenning was
> some case related to perception, where the one side sometimes got "can see
> hidden creatures on a 2 in 6" and the other side sometimes got "can only be
> seen on a 1 in 12". oookay... how do I resolve that, again?
How easy is it for the OTHERS to spot hidden creatures? If it's, say, 1
in 6, then the 2 in 6 guy has twice the normal chance. So he has a 2 in
12, or 1 in 6, chance of spotting the other. Simple.
>
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
sw
> Seebs wrote:
>> One thing I've found is that the stat blocks lend themselves very
>> nicely
>> to being turned into other things. I used one of the homonculus
>> variants for a while as a generic monster. They were terrifying
>> scorpions made out of shadow which could apparently phase through
>> walls. In fact, all I did was take the plain old wussy homonculus,
>> and declare by fiat that this variant could move through things like
>> thatch. And it was an awesome, spooky, monster.
>>
>> I'm not sure why this seemed harder to pull off in previous editions,
>> but it just seems to go more smoothly now.
>
> Well, not sure it applies in this case, but, in previous editions you had to
> worry about side effects of adding some "non-standard" power (especially 1st
> edition). For example, if you said "they can only be hit by escrutian
> silver (I made that up), someone will say "well, can my sword of all-hitting
> still hit them?" "uh..."
I think that's a very poor case to make for 4.0 vs 3.5; by 3.5 the various
rules of what weapon trumps what DR were pretty well ironed out. The sword
of all-hitting (a weapon which attunes to "whatever their material DR is"
after the first hit) was straight up in the game.
3.5 does kind of encourage the kind of monster design where you try and
crunch numbers for a bit combining templates. But there's nothing in 3.5
that says you *can't* just change things around. If you want to repurpose
a monster into something else, there's nothing stopping you mechanically,
you just have to conquer the habit of trying to make everything fit
perfectly.
This is one of the philosophies 3.5 DMs might choose to loot from the
body of 4.0, after they've killed it and are taking its stuff.
--
--- An' thou dost not get caught, do as thou wilt shall be the law ---
"Religion disperses like a fog, kingdoms perish, but the works of
scholars remain for an eternity." - Ulughbek
Seebs
> Steady regularisation of methods? Perhaps, but they're all over
> the show with content. 2nd edition stopped jamming more an more ideas
> on a single map, like they'd done for Greyhawk, the Realms, and the
> Known World through the 80's, but it produced a far more varied set of
> worlds and characters as a result.
Somewhat. (Side note: It's interesting to me to see old Greyhawk stuff
in the current FR book.)
I was thinking more about the rules than the extra content, but... 2nd
edition gave us Spelljammer. WTF. Also the Arabian setting, and Ravenloft,
and so on... All of which messed around with new rules.
> 3e's variety came from regularisation of the levels, HD, skill
> system, and so on, but it was built to go that way, to sell books full
> of alternate classes that you can swing into over time.
I think so.
>> [4e's Mirror Image and Displacement are] just AC bonuses of one sort
>> or another, and I think that does feel somewhat less magical.
> Which is weird, because "when you are first hit in a combat, make
> an immediate save to negate the attack, which then acts as if it
> missed you" as a power would have fit so well, and Mirror Image could
> have saves when attacked that count down if they work (as the AC bonus
> does now).
Oh, wait. I was totally wrong anyway. Mirror image is an AC bonus.
Displacement is:
All melee and ranged attacks have a 50% chance to miss the displacer
beast. The effect ends when the displacer beast is hit by an attack,
but it recharges as soon as the displacer beast moves 2 or more
squares on its turn. Critical hits ignore displacement. (See also
/shifting tactics/.)
Shifting Tactics (free, when an attack misses the displacer beast
because of its displacement; at-will) The displacer beast shifts
one square.
... Which means that I was *precisely* wrong. 4E displacement never becomes
a straight AC penalty, and actually relies on confusion about where the
DB is. Meanwhile:
Displacement Wizard Utility 16
Encounter * Arcane, Illusion
Immediate Interrupt Ranged 5
Trigger: A ranged or melee attack hits you or one ally in range.
Effect: The attacker must reroll the attack roll.
So they're not quite the same, and the displacer beast one is probably better.
Note that there's some depth to this rule which is not obvious if you're not
familiar with the rules. In particular:
* "shift" is a term of art for "a move which does not provoke AoO"
* "ranged" and "melee" are terms which specifically exclude AoE
effects. (AoE would be "area" or "close".) So both displacement
effects are effective only against direct attacks, not AoE.
Interestingly, this means that a wizard fighting a displacer beast, even
though it's a level 9 or 13 elite monster, may well be best off using those
first level at-will area powers.
> Every now and then I get the impression they really didn't try all
> that hard to port DnD to their new fantasy battle engine, or perhaps,
> more generously, that they started doing so a bit late in development
> and found it hard to get their head around how the two would fit. I
> mean, there's nothing /wrong/ with 4e's Mirror Image, it's just, ....
I sort of like the simplifying effect. I also like that images are used
up only when attacks miss, so you keep your +6 AC bonus (which is pretty
good, in practice) for a while.
>> On the other hand, it regularizes and streamlines gameplay; you can use
>> more powers with less book research during play.
> I see an awful lot of people around the net using power cards and
> board tokens. Ah, for the days when you could fit everything on a
> character sheet or, for that matter, when an encounter description was
> "3 Goblins: 3, 4, 5."
Now, you could just do "3 Kobold Skirmishers" -- since hit points are not
rolled, there's nothing more to say. But! Stat blocks and the like are
USEFUL, because if you have two stat blocks handy, you don't need to open
the monster book at all to have every stat available.
> So, why are unique and contrary monsters good, while unique and
> contrary spells are bad?
Unique and contrary spells are not necessarily bad. Again, "simple rules,
many exceptions". Many spells or powers break a rule. Rogues have a power
which compells enemies to make AoO -- which turn out to be made on themselves.
The thing is, I'm not sure it's either "good" or "bad". I think that these
things have good and bad traits. Overall, I think the progression from 1E's
incredibly baroque rules (subdual damage, but only for dragons, or the
famously amazing unarmed combat rules) towards 4E's much simpler rules, but
with tons of individual exceptions, makes it easier to run a game -- and,
interestingly, in some ways easier to make interesting variants, because
there's a well-established framework for figuring out how the exceptions
work.
> You're dealing with a far higher turnover in
> monsters as DM than any player is as a spellcaster. You wrote a pretty
> good description of what I see missing in the 4e magic, I'm sure they
> could have gone deeper into the "simple rules with many exceptions"
> design there too.
I think they did pretty well. The big key is that if you expect all of a
wizard's options to be found in the "wizard power list", you're missing the
point of rituals. A TON of the crazy shit got moved into ritual land...
But still exists, and is if anything easier to work into gameplay.
So there's a lot of stuff, like Phantom Steed, or Passwall, which isn't gone,
merely moved outside a specific class description. The "weird effects" are
mostly still there.
The tradeoff works for me. The "what the !@#!# does that do, let's go look
it up again" part of combat is mostly gone, but the weird effects are still
in the game.
> Hell, the lack of an in-game justification for martial power
> limits, some sort of fatigue point system would've been fine; little
> things like that just seem like they'd /add/ to the game, to me. Same
> for all the classes, let me decide where I spend my encounter-limited
> mojo. <sigh>
I don't mind that at all, any more than I mind all classes using hit points.
... And actually, there ARE class differences, if you look more closely.
Most daily attacks are half damage on miss. However! A fair number
of martial dailies are instead "reliable" -- you still have the power if
you don't hit with it. There's other distinctions happening. Some classes
tend to get "regain use of encounter power" type specials, other classes
get other things. So there is some noticeable difference.
Seebs
> worry about side effects of adding some "non-standard" power (especially 1st
> edition). For example, if you said "they can only be hit by escrutian
> silver (I made that up), someone will say "well, can my sword of all-hitting
> still hit them?" "uh..."
Yeah. The rules for such powers are now usually carefully modified so that
it seems to be clear which power wins.
> The one example of this in the 1e rules that was particularly madenning was
> some case related to perception, where the one side sometimes got "can see
> hidden creatures on a 2 in 6" and the other side sometimes got "can only be
> seen on a 1 in 12". oookay... how do I resolve that, again? I may be
> misremembering the specifics, but, there was a lot of that where you had to
> decide which of a particular set of corner-case rules trumped the other.
Oh, yeah, there were a ton of those. Was the extra chance to see hidden
things +1 in 6, x2, or an overriding "is always 2 in 6"? We have no idea.
You could make a good case for 2 in 12, 3 in 12, or 4 in 12.
There was also the thing with 3d12+15 (18-51) getting used a bunch, but
all that was written in the rules was "18-51". So... Was that ACTUALLY
3d12+15, or was it 11d4+7?
WDS
> There was also the thing with 3d12+15 (18-51) getting used a bunch, but
> all that was written in the rules was "18-51". So... Was that ACTUALLY
> 3d12+15, or was it 11d4+7?
The most common one was 3-12. 3d4 or d10+2?
Reginald Blue
True enough, though, oftimes in those days the powers would come from
different modules (perhaps from different editions, perhaps the same), and
mixing them produced results like this.
Yes, you can reasonably argue that "You should have considered this before
you ran module X and Y." but, really, is it necessary to force that on the
already overburdened GM to have to go through the modules with a fine
toothed comb looking for these kinds of weird inconsistencies?
Obviously, if you make up all the adventures yourself, then it's LESS likely
to happen, though, honestly you start to run into the Soap Opera problem
(where you start to forget that 3 seasons ago, Joanna had an operation and
can't have kids anymore, so, how exactly is she pregnant now?) In other
words, you start to forget all the factors that are in play.
>> The one example of this in the 1e rules that was particularly
>> madenning was some case related to perception, where the one side
>> sometimes got "can see hidden creatures on a 2 in 6" and the other
>> side sometimes got "can only be seen on a 1 in 12". oookay... how
>> do I resolve that, again?
>
> How easy is it for the OTHERS to spot hidden creatures? If it's, say,
> 1 in 6, then the 2 in 6 guy has twice the normal chance. So he has a
> 2 in 12, or 1 in 6, chance of spotting the other. Simple.
:-)
Sure, you and I and everyone else good at math comes at this easy. But
compare it to now... Bob gets a +4 to his hide (stealth) rolls, Greg gets a
+4 to his spot (perception) rolls. Easy as pie to figure that one out, even
if you're an art history major. (No offense to art history majors is
intended.)
Seebs
My general rule: If you can do it by summing standard dice, it's just the
sum of those standard dice.
I originally concluded that 18-51 was 11d4+7, but it later occurred to
me that 3d12+15 was "more likely" because that's (d12+5)*3.
Reginald Blue
> On 2009-12-17, Reginald Blue <Regina...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, not sure it applies in this case, but, in previous editions
>> you had to worry about side effects of adding some "non-standard"
>> power (especially 1st edition). For example, if you said "they can
>> only be hit by escrutian silver (I made that up), someone will say
>> "well, can my sword of all-hitting still hit them?" "uh..."
>
> I think that's a very poor case to make for 4.0 vs 3.5; by 3.5 the
> various rules of what weapon trumps what DR were pretty well ironed
> out. The sword of all-hitting (a weapon which attunes to "whatever
> their material DR is" after the first hit) was straight up in the
> game.
wasn't actually trying to compare 3.5 (or even 3.0) to 4 there... that was
more 1e/2e vs 3e/3.5e/4e.
But I believe there are still cases (not specific to DR vs. attack) where
3.5 is difficult to judge vs. 4e.
Of course, they generally resolved that by REMOVING (complicated)
capabilities.
Just to make this clear: My opinion of 3.5e vs. 4e is that 4e, if you take
it on it's own without consideration of the history, is an excellent game,
very easy to play and run, and I find it enjoyable. I also find 3.5e
enjoyable, due to it's diversity and complexity. But if you take 4e and
compare it directly to it's predecessors, then a lot of people seem to have
the Erik Cartman reaction... where he's expecting to get the Red Megaman, so
he can add it to the Blue, Green, and Yellow Megamen to make the Ulta-Mega
Megaman. And, instead, he gets Ants in the Pants. And he flips out.
People were expecting 4e to be the Ultra-Mega D&D... and got Ants in the
Pants. Ants in the Pants is a fine game, but, not what people were
expecting.
Seebs
> Just to make this clear: My opinion of 3.5e vs. 4e is that 4e, if you take
> it on it's own without consideration of the history, is an excellent game,
> very easy to play and run, and I find it enjoyable. I also find 3.5e
> enjoyable, due to it's diversity and complexity. But if you take 4e and
> compare it directly to it's predecessors, then a lot of people seem to have
> the Erik Cartman reaction... where he's expecting to get the Red Megaman, so
> he can add it to the Blue, Green, and Yellow Megamen to make the Ulta-Mega
> Megaman. And, instead, he gets Ants in the Pants. And he flips out.
> People were expecting 4e to be the Ultra-Mega D&D... and got Ants in the
> Pants. Ants in the Pants is a fine game, but, not what people were
> expecting.
It actually continues to remind me a ton of the reaction of a lot of the
console gaming community to the Wii -- or, twenty years ago, to the original
NES. Experienced players tend to expect something that's interestingly
complicated at their level of experience, and if they see something that
novices can pick up, it's easy to dismiss it as not really having any
substance.
In fact, though, I've found that there are plenty of Wii games which are
well-built and interesting, while the PS360 hasn't got anything I'm not
already sick of... There's a lot to be said for focusing on getting the
foundational game design as solid as possible, and interestingly, now that
I know it, I'm finding 4E to be more flexible in the kinds of interesting
complexity I want in game worlds, even though some of that flexibility comes,
not from a detailed model, but from explicitly *avoiding* the detailed model
that gave 3E so much trouble.
3E was dodgy at best in the relations between levels and hit dice, and wasn't
really built to scale up well. 4E has done a much better job of scaling
smoothly.
Loren Pechtel
>Bo9S in 3E, you already see the basics of that system being invented. The
>decision to break a ton of stuff out to rituals really does help with a
>number of balance issues, and encourages a lot of creative play -- because
>you don't have to sacrifice combat ability to think of good uses for your
>non-combat spells.
Yeah, while I don't like 4E in general the rituals sound good.
Vincenzo Beretta
> while I hate it. Where as you hated Displacement, I liked it.
> Things that trouble you in 3E, I enjoy. Things you savor in 4E,
> I despise. Hence, as in evolution, D&D has now "branched",
> with you taking the mutated (scientific term, not insult) path
> and me taking the stock.
It is amazing how this simple, basic physolophy gets lost fast when one
talks about RPGs with someone from "The Forge". :^D
However, my disappointment with 4E doesn't lies only with the system. True,
I don't like it, and my players don't like it either, so there is harmony in
my group. However, as a DM, I was quite ready to import good narrative ideas
from 4E into my 3.5E campaign. After all in the past I stole ideas from Call
of Cthulhu to Tom Clancy.
What amazed me, at least from the supplements I read (and bought, sigh...)
is the sheer bad quality of the contents. The FR 4E are unexplicable. I'm
not even talking about the wild (and much vilified) retconning, or about how
little the two books give if compared with the single 3E book (and it is
little). I'm talking about the loads of internal inconsistences, bad
writing, uninspired additions, gaming material that doesn't even seem to
have been tested (like the "introductory" adventure) and so on. In short, I
found them an amateurish campaign setting published unedited. While a lot of
reasons can be quoted for changing the system, and even the setting, there
is no excuse for this.
Now, should they republish "Ravenloft" tweaked to appraise the "Twilight"
crowd... THAT would be an istant buy. At least we could spend some fun
evenings by reading it aloud.
WDS
> True enough -- I think what we tend to see is
> * new system comes out, trying to standardize and clean up existing
> material.
> * updates and addons come out, adding interesting new stuff that
> is still sort of experimental.
You missed:
* inconsistencies and incompatibilities and general bloat among the
updates and addons eventually cause the system to collapse under its own
weight.
If you don't think this will happen to 4e you are a fool. In fact, it
already sounds like it has begun from a few discussions I've seen here
given they are updating some of the *core* rules already.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Yes. If you can't stand the detail, get out of the GM's chair!
> Obviously, if you make up all the adventures yourself, then it's LESS likely
> to happen, though, honestly you start to run into the Soap Opera problem
> (where you start to forget that 3 seasons ago, Joanna had an operation and
> can't have kids anymore, so, how exactly is she pregnant now?) In other
> words, you start to forget all the factors that are in play.
Anything important to the players, they'll remind you of. Occasional
MISTAKES will happen, yes, but that's different than having no idea how
your world works and thus making decisions which come back to bite you
in ways that could potentially ruin the whole campaign.
Seebs
I think they are a really good design. It's sort of like the thing where
some DMs would let you cast a spell directly from your book given about
the amount of time it would take to prep it. (I can't remember whether
that was official in any version.) Basically, it means that you don't
sacrifice combat flexibility or power in order to have Cool Weird Stuff
available. I like that. (The downside is that it now costs components
to use them, but this isn't all bad; it means they're still somewhat
limited in uses, albeit differently.)
Interestingly, this is one of the cases where a fairly significant apparent
flaw in the design of the game is, in fact, quite thoroughly solved ... by
something unexpected occuring somewhere else in the game. If you didn't
have the starting expectation that the wizard spell list would have every
magical effect wizards could create, it wouldn't look like wizards lost
all their cool stuff, because you'd find out about rituals and look into
them, and see that all the cool stuff (and more!) is there.
Seebs
> updates and addons eventually cause the system to collapse under its own
> weight.
Heh.
> If you don't think this will happen to 4e you are a fool. In fact, it
> already sounds like it has begun from a few discussions I've seen here
> given they are updating some of the *core* rules already.
I don't doubt it. On the other hand, core rules in 3E were being updated
all along. How many times did they rewrite polymorph between the original
PHB, all the sage advice columns, and so on?
But I'm fine with that. The rewrites, thus far, have been reasonably clean
and small, and have generally been straightforward improvements. I printed
out some of the errata, taped them to the DM screen, and I'm good to go. :)
Chris
> In fourth edition, nearly all the effects that were once strange one-off
> effects have been regularized.
You said in another thread that every class plays differently. So is
it different or is it standard?
> Potion miscibility is gone.
I don't think that survived the 1e-2e conversion.
> Dragons no longer have special rules for
> subdual which apply to no other creatures.
I don't think that was in 2e, either.
> The reason, I think, that it still "feels like D&D" to me is that my habit
> in every edition has been to regularize and standardize effects so I could
> keep track of them, and I've always loved standardization of effects and
> powers at least within reason.
It's a lot easier now that every class power is mechanically the same,
isn't it?
> I didn't *like* that Displacement had this
> one-off effect which nothing else really matched.
This is kind of funny to use as an example. Displacement has a unique
effect. Totally unique in the world, except for everything that uses
it exactly the same way, like the cloak of displacement, and the
displacement spell, and the displacer beast's special ability called
Displacement, which all work similarly to concealment, which also has
a lesser version (and the blur spell) which works in the same way with
a lower miss chance. And the 4e version has an ability called
Displacement for the displacer beast that works totally differently
from the wizard spell called Displacement, and you call this
standardization.
Not pickin on you, Seebs, just sayin..
Reginald Blue
> 3E was dodgy at best in the relations between levels and hit dice,
> and wasn't really built to scale up well. 4E has done a much better
> job of scaling smoothly.
Very interesting... I haven't gotten to see that yet (haven't seen past 2nd
level yet in play).
Have you reached one of the transition levels yet (darn, forget the names...
Heroic, Paragon, Epic maybe?)
The way it looks, it would seem as if something "magic" happens at those
points, but, I can't see what that would be. Seems like it would just keep
going.
Reginald Blue
> Reginald Blue wrote:
>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>> Easily resolved -- if you actually understand your world at all. If
>>> you don't, well, that'll be a problem, but I think that's the
>>> essence of GMing. Know your world.
>>
>> before you ran module X and Y." but, really, is it necessary to
>> force that on the already overburdened GM to have to go through the
>> modules with a fine toothed comb looking for these kinds of weird
>> inconsistencies?
>
> Yes. If you can't stand the detail, get out of the GM's chair!
Or you could just GM 4e and not have to worry about it. ;-)
(sorry, couldn't resist.)
Kinda reminds me of the one dimension of the Myers-Briggs test, honestly...
J vs. P... being highly detail oriented and keeping careful track of those
details is a strong J type personality trait (and I'm suspicious you're a J,
but I could easily be wrong). But the strong J's often dismiss the
spontenaity of the P's... the ability to go with the flow and handle things
on the fly. (Strong P's tend to dismiss the abilities of the J's too.)
I recall one particular game I played at the one GenCon. That was VERY
enlightening. It was pure cooperative storytelling... no real rules per se.
I'd bet anything he was a strong P, as he could just go with the flow and
not sweat the small stuff.
Each of them seem to have their place, to my view. There are times when
being detail oriented adds to the wonder of the world... like seeing the
intricate pieces of a finely made Swiss watch come together and work. But,
then again, if all you care about is "what time is it", any old clock will
do. Or, worse:
"Sister, time, it be time, ya know wha mean? Dread, at control, mon, an' I
an' I come a Freeside when I an' I come...", Neuromancer, William Gibson
Seebs
> On Dec 16, 3:47�pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> [...]
>> In fourth edition, nearly all the effects that were once strange one-off
>> effects have been regularized.
> You said in another thread that every class plays differently. So is
> it different or is it standard?
Yes!
There's two layers of play. There's the basic question of "how do I know
what my options are", and there's "how do I use those options effectively".
Everything has basically the same *structure*. What you have using that
structure varies widely. That turns out to be a nice compromise. You can
easily learn to play a new character, because you only have to learn the
mechanics of a few things -- specific powers, say, which you can read the
descriptions of and then use effectively, because they have common core
mechanics (like hit points). On the other hand, the characters have very
different sets of options available.
Think of it as like the invention of currency. Being able to use the same
kind of money to buy everything makes it much easier to have a much larger
range of possible things you could buy.
> I don't think that was in 2e, either.
Probably not.
> It's a lot easier now that every class power is mechanically the same,
> isn't it?
Not necessarily the same -- just based on the same underlying structure.
> This is kind of funny to use as an example. Displacement has a unique
> effect. Totally unique in the world, except for everything that uses
> it exactly the same way, like the cloak of displacement, and the
> displacement spell, and the displacer beast's special ability called
> Displacement, which all work similarly to concealment, which also has
> a lesser version (and the blur spell) which works in the same way with
> a lower miss chance. And the 4e version has an ability called
> Displacement for the displacer beast that works totally differently
> from the wizard spell called Displacement, and you call this
> standardization.
The 3E Displacement is actually a lot more standardized than the 1E -- and,
I'd note, the 4E is actually pretty similar to it. And yes, the 4E wizard
spell is weaker than the displacer beast's power. But then, that kind of
thing happened a lot.
Note that I don't think they work the same as concealment in 4E.
The standardization comes in the fact that the wizard spell now has the same
basic "how do I use this" rules as any other spell, and they're fairly
simple rules.
Seebs
>> 3E was dodgy at best in the relations between levels and hit dice,
>> and wasn't really built to scale up well. 4E has done a much better
>> job of scaling smoothly.
> Have you reached one of the transition levels yet (darn, forget the names...
> Heroic, Paragon, Epic maybe?)
Not yet.
> The way it looks, it would seem as if something "magic" happens at those
> points, but, I can't see what that would be. Seems like it would just keep
> going.
A lot of it is under the hood; they simply set certain kinds of powers to kick
in at those levels, so for instance, you get much better travel options in
paragon tier, because the spells you'd need are rituals of 11th or higher
level. So a fair bit of it is just stuff like a bunch of powers having
effects which change when you reach 11th, or 16th, or 21st level.
Seebs
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> Yes. If you can't stand the detail, get out of the GM's chair!
> Or you could just GM 4e and not have to worry about it. ;-)
You know, it is an interesting point. I like 4E because it makes it easier
for me to maintain reasonable consistency without tracking all the details,
because I can't handle the cognitive load of modelling all the details.
FWIW, on Meyers-Briggs, I'm INTP, and soooo far out on the P side as to be
sort of worrisome. I don't seem to have much in the category of "settled
conclusions".
Baird Stafford
"Reginald Blue" <Regina...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> The one example of this in the 1e rules that was particularly madenning was
> some case related to perception, where the one side sometimes got "can see
> hidden creatures on a 2 in 6" and the other side sometimes got "can only be
> seen on a 1 in 12". oookay... how do I resolve that, again? I may be
> misremembering the specifics, but, there was a lot of that where you had to
> decide which of a particular set of corner-case rules trumped the other.
And yet, for me as a player, all that uncertainty that others found
frustrating merely added to the mystery, to the sense of the unknown, to
the willing suspension of disbelief and the wonder of fantasy. In point
of fact, part of the definition of "fantasy," for me, is, "Just because
it worked last time doesn't mean it's going to work this time!"
What surprises can possibly lie in wait when everything works the same?
Oh, well, different strokes for different folks, I guess....
<snip>
Baird
dating himself
--
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice
there is. -Yogi Berra
Seebs
> And yet, for me as a player, all that uncertainty that others found
> frustrating merely added to the mystery, to the sense of the unknown, to
> the willing suspension of disbelief and the wonder of fantasy. In point
> of fact, part of the definition of "fantasy," for me, is, "Just because
> it worked last time doesn't mean it's going to work this time!"
You know, I think that's a big part of it. There's sort of an implicit
tradeoff between "stable enough to be playable" and "fantastic enough to
amaze".
4E, I think, expects the GM to provide the fantastic, 1E had it baked into
the rules and if you didn't want it you were hosed.
Reginald Blue
> On 2009-12-17, Reginald Blue <Regina...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>> Yes. If you can't stand the detail, get out of the GM's chair!
>
>> Or you could just GM 4e and not have to worry about it. ;-)
>
> You know, it is an interesting point. I like 4E because it makes it
> easier for me to maintain reasonable consistency without tracking all
> the details, because I can't handle the cognitive load of modelling
> all the details.
>
> FWIW, on Meyers-Briggs, I'm INTP, and soooo far out on the P side as
> to be sort of worrisome. I don't seem to have much in the category
> of "settled conclusions".
I didn't want to say as much, but... honestly... 3.5 seems to fit best for
the J's and 4.0 best for the P's.
Perhaps that's too strong... but... as I collect data points, that's the
very strong trend I'm seeing.
As for me, I think I have the coolest position on J v P. DFC. (Dead
Center). Let's me see both sides... and point out where arguments arise
because of the two different personality types.
It's also a bit weird though, because seeing J's and P's argue with each
other with such vehemence... "the other guys is just WRONG"... kinda
disturbs me at times, because I know what's happening.
Hadsil
> Just to make this clear: My opinion of 3.5e vs. 4e is that 4e, if you take
> it on it's own without consideration of the history, is an excellent game,
> very easy to play and run, and I find it enjoyable. I also find 3.5e
> enjoyable, due to it's diversity and complexity. But if you take 4e and
> compare it directly to it's predecessors, then a lot of people seem to have
> the Erik Cartman reaction... where he's expecting to get the Red Megaman, so
> he can add it to the Blue, Green, and Yellow Megamen to make the Ulta-Mega
> Megaman. And, instead, he gets Ants in the Pants. And he flips out.
> People were expecting 4e to be the Ultra-Mega D&D... and got Ants in the
> Pants. Ants in the Pants is a fine game, but, not what people were
> expecting.
>
> --
> Reginald Blue
As Lucy told Schroeder: " That's it!"
:)
Gerald Katz
Hadsil
> On 2009-12-17, WDS <B...@seurer.net> wrote:
>
> > * inconsistencies and incompatibilities and general bloat among the
> > updates and addons eventually cause the system to collapse under its own
> > weight.
>
> Heh.
>
> > If you don't think this will happen to 4e you are a fool. In fact, it
> > already sounds like it has begun from a few discussions I've seen here
> > given they are updating some of the *core* rules already.
>
> I don't doubt it. On the other hand, core rules in 3E were being updated
> all along. How many times did they rewrite polymorph between the original
> PHB, all the sage advice columns, and so on?
>
> But I'm fine with that. The rewrites, thus far, have been reasonably clean
> and small, and have generally been straightforward improvements. I printed
> out some of the errata, taped them to the DM screen, and I'm good to go. :)
>
> -s
> --
Polymorph only became a "problem" because they kept publishing new
Monster Manuals with new kewl monsters with kewl abilities and
everyone just assumed that because it was published it had to be used
in the game and every wizard knows about it to use it for
polymorphing. People resented having to be a DM to realize that
nothing exists in the game without the DM's permission.
Gerald Katz
Sheldon England
>
> I didn't want to say as much, but... honestly... 3.5 seems to fit best for
> the J's and 4.0 best for the P's.
I'm an INTJ and I like both and both feel like D&D to me.
There's another data point for ya. :)
- Sheldon
Seebs
> Polymorph only became a "problem" because they kept publishing new
> Monster Manuals with new kewl monsters with kewl abilities and
> everyone just assumed that because it was published it had to be used
> in the game and every wizard knows about it to use it for
> polymorphing. People resented having to be a DM to realize that
> nothing exists in the game without the DM's permission.
I don't think so.
Here's my thought: The essential shift in tone is between the long-term use
of polymorph to, say, become a bird for one hour per level, allowing you to
make very good time travelling, and between the use to polymorph into "a human
with 18 strength and dex". The decision that you could use the physical
attacks of the forms and use their physical stats was, I think, the
game-breaker. It's not just a question of what the DM allows in the game;
it's that the DM might allow something into the game with intent that it be
a monster, not a polymorphable target.
It's not obvious how to fix this; if you can turn yourself into a bear, maybe
you SHOULD be able to whack someone's head clean off. I mean, that'd be
consistent with you actually being a bear.
Me, I probably would have left it with one hour per level, broken the moment
you took or dealt damage. Instead of trying to balance the spell around
combat, balance non-hostile polymorphs around utility functionality, and
simply don't allow them to be used in combat.
-s
--
Keith Davies
> On 2009-12-17, David Trimboli <da...@trimboli.name> wrote:
>> Thanks for being the one to respond this way. The attitude of "the
>> version I like is standard, and all other versions are wrong" gets me
>> riled, and I'm not sure my own response would have done justice.
>
> I figure "standard" is the main product line, like it or not.
> Pathfinder could be an awesome game, but it wouldn't be the standard
> of D&D. But that doesn't make it "wrong".
In terms of stock and mutation, I'd say
* 3.5 was the previous stock
* Pathfinder is a close mutation
* 4e is a greater mutation than Pathfinder.
Never mind what 'standard' is. I'm prepared to accept 4e as 'standard',
since that's what the publisher is publishing... but to me, Pathfinder
is a closer derivate than 4e is.
> 4E is another cleanup pass. The 3E "action" system was a huge
> improvement over 1E/2E segments and initiative cycles, but it was
> gratuitously complicated. Simply dropping full-round actions and
> letting people use their good attacks after a move helped hugely, and
> the newly simplified "minor/move/standard" model really is a big
> win... But it's still based on the same kinds of things. 4E replaced
> 3E's elaborate "moving from one square to another in your threatened
> area or leaving your threatened area" AoO with "leaving any square in
> your threatened area". MUCH simpler.
Are you sure? I just checked the RSRD, it says for Moving:
"Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of
opportunity from the threatening opponent. There are two common
methods of avoiding such an attack -- the 5-foot step ['shift' in 4e]
and the withdraw action [run away!]"
I see nothing particularly complicated there. It certainly doesn't
require movement between two threatened squares... but that may be a
3e-ism corrected in 3.5.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "Do you know what is in beer? The strength
keith....@kjdavies.org to bear the things you can't change, and
keith....@gmail.com wisdom to ignore them and fsck off for
http://www.kjdavies.org/ another beer." -- Owen, discussing work
Keith Davies
Or consider the following options:
* you don't get the physical ability scores presented in the monster
book, instead you replace your racial modifier with the animal's. A
Str 4 human druid wildshaped into a bear is going to be a very weak
bear (and the barbarian who wildshapes into a bear when raging -- had
a prestige class based on this IMC -- can be expected to be a very big
and very strong bear). Similarly for Dex and Con.
* the benefits gained are commensurate with the spell level. A second-
level /polymorph/ might give you +4 to a single ability score (take
the form of a wolf, get +4 to Dex or Con, in addition to the wolf
shape). A higher-level /polymorph/ could give you bigger or more
benefits.
* when you /polymorph/ you become that kind of creature. I think this
was Trollman's solution -- /polymorph/ to wolf, 'your figure gets
replaced with a wolf', and when the effect wears off you get your
normal stuff back. There may still have been limitations on what you
could change form to, but I don't remember.
Seebs
> Are you sure? I just checked the RSRD, it says for Moving:
>
> "Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of
> opportunity from the threatening opponent. There are two common
> methods of avoiding such an attack -- the 5-foot step ['shift' in 4e]
> and the withdraw action [run away!]"
>
> I see nothing particularly complicated there. It certainly doesn't
> require movement between two threatened squares... but that may be a
> 3e-ism corrected in 3.5.
I think so. They used to have this fancy language about leaving the
threatened area or moving between squares in it, but it could easily have
gotten fixed in 3.5.
I would grant that Pathfinder has changed less from 3.5 than 4E has, but
I don't think that really says anything; there could easily be a variant
game out there somewhere which is closer to 2E than 3E was, but that doesn't
make 2E not the real D&D.
D&D has changed. On the whole, I think they're good changes.
Baird Stafford
<fef41947-11e3-43e8...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Hadsil <foru...@netzero.com> wrote:
> Polymorph only became a "problem" because they kept publishing new
> Monster Manuals with new kewl monsters with kewl abilities and
> everyone just assumed that because it was published it had to be used
> in the game and every wizard knows about it to use it for
> polymorphing. People resented having to be a DM to realize that
> nothing exists in the game without the DM's permission.
Heh. My house rule was always, "If you haven't met one, you can't be
one." The corollary was, "If it's supernatural and strong enough to
have its own name, it'll probably resent impersonators."
Baird
Tetsubo
> In article
> <fef41947-11e3-43e8...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> Hadsil <foru...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Polymorph only became a "problem" because they kept publishing new
>>Monster Manuals with new kewl monsters with kewl abilities and
>>everyone just assumed that because it was published it had to be used
>>in the game and every wizard knows about it to use it for
>>polymorphing. People resented having to be a DM to realize that
>>nothing exists in the game without the DM's permission.
>
>
> Heh. My house rule was always, "If you haven't met one, you can't be
> one." The corollary was, "If it's supernatural and strong enough to
> have its own name, it'll probably resent impersonators."
>
> Baird
>
That's how I have handled it as well.
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article
> <fef41947-11e3-43e8...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> Hadsil <foru...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>> Polymorph only became a "problem" because they kept publishing new
>> Monster Manuals with new kewl monsters with kewl abilities and
>> everyone just assumed that because it was published it had to be used
>> in the game and every wizard knows about it to use it for
>> polymorphing. People resented having to be a DM to realize that
>> nothing exists in the game without the DM's permission.
>
> Heh. My house rule was always, "If you haven't met one, you can't be
> one." The corollary was, "If it's supernatural and strong enough to
> have its own name, it'll probably resent impersonators."
Indeed. If you don't know enough about the monster, you can't be one.
And if you impersonate something powerful and intelligent, it won't be
happy with you.
Reginald Blue
>
> As Lucy told Schroeder: " That's it!"
>
> :)
I'll skip the part where I flip over backwards and land in a heap. :-)
Reginald Blue
If you could only ever DM one of those... which would you pick?
Jasin Zujovic
>> * inconsistencies and incompatibilities and general bloat among the
>> updates and addons eventually cause the system to collapse under its own
>> weight.
>
> Heh.
>
>> If you don't think this will happen to 4e you are a fool. In fact, it
>> already sounds like it has begun from a few discussions I've seen here
>> given they are updating some of the *core* rules already.
>
> I don't doubt it. On the other hand, core rules in 3E were being updated
> all along. How many times did they rewrite polymorph between the original
> PHB, all the sage advice columns, and so on?
>
> But I'm fine with that. The rewrites, thus far, have been reasonably clean
> and small, and have generally been straightforward improvements. I printed
> out some of the errata, taped them to the DM screen, and I'm good to go. :)
Small?
"Delete the items Property."
"This is now an Encounter power rather than an At-Will power."
"You know where we said you can use this in light armour? You can't. You
can only use it in no armour."
"You know how you used to get bonuses when you got hit? You don't. You
get bonuses for hitting others."
Improvements undoubtedly, but some of the changes are pretty major, up
to completely changing the encouraged behavior and synergistic effects
(if you get bonuses when you get hit, you want hp over AC and attack, if
you get them when you hit, you want attack over AC and hp).
--
Jasin
Jasin Zujovic
>>> * inconsistencies and incompatibilities and general bloat among the
>>> updates and addons eventually cause the system to collapse under its own
>>> weight.
>> Heh.
>>
>>> If you don't think this will happen to 4e you are a fool. In fact, it
>>> already sounds like it has begun from a few discussions I've seen here
>>> given they are updating some of the *core* rules already.
>> I don't doubt it. On the other hand, core rules in 3E were being updated
>> all along. How many times did they rewrite polymorph between the original
>> PHB, all the sage advice columns, and so on?
>>
>> But I'm fine with that. The rewrites, thus far, have been reasonably clean
>> and small, and have generally been straightforward improvements. I printed
>> out some of the errata, taped them to the DM screen, and I'm good to go. :)
>
> Monster Manuals with new kewl monsters with kewl abilities and
> everyone just assumed that because it was published it had to be used
> in the game and every wizard knows about it to use it for
> polymorphing. People resented having to be a DM to realize that
> nothing exists in the game without the DM's permission.
Polymorph is hugely problematic even if you use just the MM.
V. hags, giants, pit fiends.
--
Jasin
Jasin Zujovic
That's probably even more problematic.
It's slightly less abusive in that it doesn't allow a druid or a wizard
to completely dump his physical stats and then ignore the supposed
drawback through polymorphing, but in practice you'll get Str 14 druids
and Dex 16 wizards with even higher stats when polymorphed.
> * the benefits gained are commensurate with the spell level. A second-
> level /polymorph/ might give you +4 to a single ability score (take
> the form of a wolf, get +4 to Dex or Con, in addition to the wolf
> shape). A higher-level /polymorph/ could give you bigger or more
> benefits.
Trailblazer (probably others as well). :) That's decent, yeah.
> * when you /polymorph/ you become that kind of creature. I think this
> was Trollman's solution -- /polymorph/ to wolf, 'your figure gets
> replaced with a wolf', and when the effect wears off you get your
> normal stuff back. There may still have been limitations on what you
> could change form to, but I don't remember.
If done well, I'd like that one best, probably.
It still allows for a druid who becomes a bear and rips someone head off
or the evil sorcerer who polymorphs into a regenerating demon when
cornered, and for the utility uses as well (bird for flight, fish for
breathing water &c.). But it puts a stop to dwarfs fighters spending
most of their active adventuring career in the shape of a stone giant
rather than a dwarf.
--
Jasin.
Jasin Zujovic
>> Polymorph only became a "problem" because they kept publishing new
>> Monster Manuals with new kewl monsters with kewl abilities and
>> everyone just assumed that because it was published it had to be used
>> in the game and every wizard knows about it to use it for
>> polymorphing. People resented having to be a DM to realize that
>> nothing exists in the game without the DM's permission.
>
> Heh. My house rule was always, "If you haven't met one, you can't be
> one." The corollary was, "If it's supernatural and strong enough to
> have its own name, it'll probably resent impersonators."
I've never liked that as a solution to the problems with polymorph.
In a world of magical divinations and +40 knowledge skill modifiers,
knowledge of monsters seems to be a very flimsy limiting factor.
Plus, the limitation, if such it is intended to be, is gone when the
polymorphing character does meet one.
--
Jasin
sw
> "Reginald Blue" <Regina...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The one example of this in the 1e rules that was particularly madenning was
>> some case related to perception, where the one side sometimes got "can see
>> hidden creatures on a 2 in 6" and the other side sometimes got "can only be
>> seen on a 1 in 12". oookay... how do I resolve that, again? I may be
>> misremembering the specifics, but, there was a lot of that where you had to
>> decide which of a particular set of corner-case rules trumped the other.
>
> And yet, for me as a player, all that uncertainty that others found
> frustrating merely added to the mystery, to the sense of the unknown, to
> the willing suspension of disbelief and the wonder of fantasy. In point
> of fact, part of the definition of "fantasy," for me, is, "Just because
> it worked last time doesn't mean it's going to work this time!"
>
> What surprises can possibly lie in wait when everything works the same?
If it's going to work differently /every/ time, why do we even have rules?
--
--- An' thou dost not get caught, do as thou wilt shall be the law ---
"Religion disperses like a fog, kingdoms perish, but the works of
scholars remain for an eternity." - Ulughbek
Tetsubo
But isn't there the limited factor of the CR? How often do parties
encounter a monster so far outside their CR range that polymorphing into
such a beastie is unbalancing? If it's a fair creature to throw at the
party, isn't it also a valid polymorph form for the party to use
*aganst* the nasties?
Also, I required the caster to have personal knowledge of the creature
in question. Preferably with physical remains as reference. And while
+40 Knowledge checks are *possible*, I never saw one in play. Maybe my
players weren't trying hard enough...
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Baird Stafford wrote:
>>> Polymorph only became a "problem" because they kept publishing new
>>> Monster Manuals with new kewl monsters with kewl abilities and
>>> everyone just assumed that because it was published it had to be used
>>> in the game and every wizard knows about it to use it for
>>> polymorphing. People resented having to be a DM to realize that
>>> nothing exists in the game without the DM's permission.
>>
>> Heh. My house rule was always, "If you haven't met one, you can't be
>> one." The corollary was, "If it's supernatural and strong enough to
>> have its own name, it'll probably resent impersonators."
>
> I've never liked that as a solution to the problems with polymorph.
>
> In a world of magical divinations and +40 knowledge skill modifiers,
> knowledge of monsters seems to be a very flimsy limiting factor.
If you don't know about the monster, (1) you can't divine about it,
because you don't know the question to ask. And thus your +40 skill
modifier is irrelevant, as the target number will be 9999999.
>
> Plus, the limitation, if such it is intended to be, is gone when the
> polymorphing character does meet one.
Again, if it's a big dumb monster, he'll earn the right to shapeshift
to it by having to kick its ass himself with his party. If it's an
intelligent being, he MAY have to kick its ass or not, but it won't be
happy about people imitating it (any more than I'd be happy about some
shmoe shapeshifting into MY guise), and if it's powerful enough that the
mage thinks it's going to be better than being in his normal form,
presumably it's powerful enough the mage doesn't want to fight it himself.
Gary Thompson
> On 2009-12-17, Reginald Blue <Reginald_B...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Seebs wrote:
> >> 3E was dodgy at best in the relations between levels and hit dice,
> >> and wasn't really built to scale up well. 4E has done a much better
> >> job of scaling smoothly.
> > Have you reached one of the transition levels yet (darn, forget the names...
> > Heroic, Paragon, Epic maybe?)
>
> Not yet.
>
> > The way it looks, it would seem as if something "magic" happens at those
> > points, but, I can't see what that would be. Seems like it would just keep
> > going.
>
> A lot of it is under the hood; they simply set certain kinds of powers to kick
> in at those levels, so for instance, you get much better travel options in
> paragon tier, because the spells you'd need are rituals of 11th or higher
> level. So a fair bit of it is just stuff like a bunch of powers having
> effects which change when you reach 11th, or 16th, or 21st level.
>
This I like. I like the idea of segmenting certain types and classes
of powers, rather than a generic X feels more powerful than Y.
Especially when some class ends up getting power X way earlier than
everyone else for "balance." Having tiers like this should make it
much easier for a GM to plan adventures suitable for the party. As
opposed to either having the group roll through the challenge with the
greatest of ease because you forgot that THIS PrC gets dimension door
this level, or coming up with an awkward rationale for why it doesn't
work, blatantly tailored to nerf that one specific power. Not that I
don't mind getting broadsided occasionally by clever players, mind
you, but you _do_ want to be able to present a challenge.
Any other examples besides travel?
Seebs
> Small?
In terms of bulk of text, not necessarily in terms of affects.
Look at the scale of the polymorph changes, and the waffling on
whirlwind/cleave in 3E; they've done similar things.
> Improvements undoubtedly, but some of the changes are pretty major, up
> to completely changing the encouraged behavior and synergistic effects
> (if you get bonuses when you get hit, you want hp over AC and attack, if
> you get them when you hit, you want attack over AC and hp).
Yes. But I figure stuff like that is pretty livable, and I'm happier
to see obvious rule bugs fixed than left alone for five years.
Seebs
> Any other examples besides travel?
Not totally sure yet, but there seem to be some general rules. You can
get +1 AC or improved crit ranges at higher levels, not at lower levels.
The feat that lets you omit squares from an Area attack is epic tier,
and it probably should be -- that's insanely powerful. ("Oh, look, I
just fireballed everything EXCEPT the tank, who was surrounded.")
I think teleports are basically epic, while "good" travel is basically
paragon. Epic tier starts seeing powers which start out "Once per day,
when you are reduced to 0 hit points or lower, you can..."
Loren Pechtel
<keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>Or consider the following options:
>
>* you don't get the physical ability scores presented in the monster
> book, instead you replace your racial modifier with the animal's. A
> Str 4 human druid wildshaped into a bear is going to be a very weak
> bear (and the barbarian who wildshapes into a bear when raging -- had
> a prestige class based on this IMC -- can be expected to be a very big
> and very strong bear). Similarly for Dex and Con.
Yes. This certainly should be how it works. You're weak, you're
going to be weak for whatever form you take.
Loren Pechtel
>On 12/16/2009 10:08 PM, Seebs wrote:
>> True enough -- I think what we tend to see is
>> * new system comes out, trying to standardize and clean up existing
>> material.
>> * updates and addons come out, adding interesting new stuff that
>> is still sort of experimental.
>
>You missed:
>
>* inconsistencies and incompatibilities and general bloat among the
>updates and addons eventually cause the system to collapse under its own
>weight.
>
>If you don't think this will happen to 4e you are a fool. In fact, it
>already sounds like it has begun from a few discussions I've seen here
>given they are updating some of the *core* rules already.
Yeah--the apparent cleanness of 4E is simply due to it's being new.
Loren Pechtel
>> Yeah, while I don't like 4E in general the rituals sound good.
>
>I think they are a really good design. It's sort of like the thing where
>some DMs would let you cast a spell directly from your book given about
>the amount of time it would take to prep it. (I can't remember whether
>that was official in any version.) Basically, it means that you don't
>sacrifice combat flexibility or power in order to have Cool Weird Stuff
>available. I like that. (The downside is that it now costs components
>to use them, but this isn't all bad; it means they're still somewhat
>limited in uses, albeit differently.)
>
>Interestingly, this is one of the cases where a fairly significant apparent
>flaw in the design of the game is, in fact, quite thoroughly solved ... by
>something unexpected occuring somewhere else in the game. If you didn't
>have the starting expectation that the wizard spell list would have every
>magical effect wizards could create, it wouldn't look like wizards lost
>all their cool stuff, because you'd find out about rituals and look into
>them, and see that all the cool stuff (and more!) is there.
I've been thinking on how to port them back to 3.5 without having to
do it on a case-by-case basis.
Thoughts so far: General rule:
A wizard in his lab with the spellbook open can cast anything he knows
and has in front of him in 1 round + 1 round/level.
A wizard in the field can do the same thing in 1 minute + 1
minute/level.
A cleric in a temple devoted to his deity can do the same thing at 1
round + 1 round/level except for any spells that require his deity to
actually do something about it--miracle & anything that brings back
the dead.
Any spell with a longer casting time takes 1 hr + 1 hr/level, if this
doesn't exceed the casting time then it can't be cast this way,
period.
I think there should be some costs added to this but I haven't decided
what.
Thoughts?
Seebs
> Yeah--the apparent cleanness of 4E is simply due to it's being new.
Partially true. The fact is, it *is* temporarily cleaner.
When I clean my office, it doesn't stay clean -- that doesn't mean it's
not clean right after I do it. And if I reorganize, it may well be easier
to keep it functional and clean, even though it eventually gets messy.
Jasin Zujovic
>>>> Polymorph only became a "problem" because they kept publishing new
>>>> Monster Manuals with new kewl monsters with kewl abilities and
>>>> everyone just assumed that because it was published it had to be used
>>>> in the game and every wizard knows about it to use it for
>>>> polymorphing. People resented having to be a DM to realize that
>>>> nothing exists in the game without the DM's permission.
>>>
>>> Heh. My house rule was always, "If you haven't met one, you can't be
>>> one." The corollary was, "If it's supernatural and strong enough to
>>> have its own name, it'll probably resent impersonators."
>>
>> I've never liked that as a solution to the problems with polymorph.
>>
>> In a world of magical divinations and +40 knowledge skill modifiers,
>> knowledge of monsters seems to be a very flimsy limiting factor.
>
> If you don't know about the monster, (1) you can't divine about it,
> because you don't know the question to ask. And thus your +40 skill
> modifier is irrelevant, as the target number will be 9999999.
However, someone with a +40 skill modifier probably does know about the
monster, because that's what a +40 in a knowledge skill represents:
knowledge.
Add the magical pulling of knowledge out of thin air, and relying on
(the lack of) knowledge as the limiting factor for an annoyingly
powerful effect seems to be contrived an ineffective compared to just
addressing the rules problems with the effect itself.
>> Plus, the limitation, if such it is intended to be, is gone when the
>> polymorphing character does meet one.
>
> Again, if it's a big dumb monster, he'll earn the right to
> shapeshift to it by having to kick its ass himself with his party. If
> it's an intelligent being, he MAY have to kick its ass or not, but it
> won't be happy about people imitating it (any more than I'd be happy
> about some shmoe shapeshifting into MY guise), and if it's powerful
> enough that the mage thinks it's going to be better than being in his
> normal form, presumably it's powerful enough the mage doesn't want to
> fight it himself.
That's not how it works in actual play in 3.5. Giants and outsiders (and
large animals, for druids) are extremely powerful shapes without being
overwhelmingly powerful as opponents.
--
Jasin
Jasin Zujovic
> Jasin Zujovic wrote:
>
>> Baird Stafford wrote:
>>
>>>> Polymorph only became a "problem" because they kept publishing new
>>>> Monster Manuals with new kewl monsters with kewl abilities and
>>>> everyone just assumed that because it was published it had to be used
>>>> in the game and every wizard knows about it to use it for
>>>> polymorphing. People resented having to be a DM to realize that
>>>> nothing exists in the game without the DM's permission.
>>>
>>>
>>> Heh. My house rule was always, "If you haven't met one, you can't be
>>> one." The corollary was, "If it's supernatural and strong enough to
>>> have its own name, it'll probably resent impersonators."
>>
>>
>> I've never liked that as a solution to the problems with polymorph.
>>
>> In a world of magical divinations and +40 knowledge skill modifiers,
>> knowledge of monsters seems to be a very flimsy limiting factor.
>>
>> Plus, the limitation, if such it is intended to be, is gone when the
>> polymorphing character does meet one.
>
> But isn't there the limited factor of the CR? How often do parties
> encounter a monster so far outside their CR range that polymorphing into
> such a beastie is unbalancing? If it's a fair creature to throw at the
> party, isn't it also a valid polymorph form for the party to use
> *aganst* the nasties?
No.
Polymorphing into giants and shapechanging into pit fiends is
ridiculously powerful, at the level where giants and pit fiends are not
ridiculously powerful opponents.
> Also, I required the caster to have personal knowledge of the
> creature in question. Preferably with physical remains as reference. And
> while +40 Knowledge checks are *possible*, I never saw one in play.
> Maybe my players weren't trying hard enough...
That's where a high level wizard is at, in my experience.
But all of this just makes the polymorpher jump through hoops to get
ridiculous power. It's still ridiculous once he does, and that's the
issue that should be addressed. (Alternately, if you feel that polymorph
doesn't offer an inordinate amount of power, then there's no problem,
and no need to contrive limitations.)
--
Jasin
Seebs
> (the lack of) knowledge as the limiting factor for an annoyingly
> powerful effect seems to be contrived an ineffective compared to just
> addressing the rules problems with the effect itself.
Yes.
> That's not how it works in actual play in 3.5. Giants and outsiders (and
> large animals, for druids) are extremely powerful shapes without being
> overwhelmingly powerful as opponents.
Yeah. Part of this is the general rule, observed quite a bit in 3E: An
at-will power is much less of a big deal in a monster than in a PC, because
the monster isn't on-camera as long.
Baird Stafford
Jasin Zujovic <jasin....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Baird Stafford wrote:
> >> Polymorph only became a "problem" because they kept publishing new
> >> Monster Manuals with new kewl monsters with kewl abilities and
> >> everyone just assumed that because it was published it had to be used
> >> in the game and every wizard knows about it to use it for
> >> polymorphing. People resented having to be a DM to realize that
> >> nothing exists in the game without the DM's permission.
> > Heh. My house rule was always, "If you haven't met one, you can't be
> > one." The corollary was, "If it's supernatural and strong enough to
> > have its own name, it'll probably resent impersonators."
> I've never liked that as a solution to the problems with polymorph.
> In a world of magical divinations and +40 knowledge skill modifiers,
> knowledge of monsters seems to be a very flimsy limiting factor.
We were originally talking about 1E, which lacked the knowledge skill
modifiers. For 3.x, I'd probably change it to, "If you haven't
dissected one (*not* burnt it to cinders!) as well as seen it in action,
you can't be one." The quotation in my .sig line explains why.
> Plus, the limitation, if such it is intended to be, is gone when the
> polymorphing character does meet one.
Um. We're talking about *my* campaign world, here. *I* choose what the
PCs meet and, by extension, what they don't meet. The limitation is
therefore absolute.
Baird Stafford
wrote:
> On 2009-12-18, Baird Stafford <ba...@newstaff.com> wrote:
> > In article <hgdkfl$chl$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > "Reginald Blue" <Regina...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> The one example of this in the 1e rules that was particularly madenning
> >> was
> >> some case related to perception, where the one side sometimes got "can see
> >> hidden creatures on a 2 in 6" and the other side sometimes got "can only
> >> be
> >> seen on a 1 in 12". oookay... how do I resolve that, again? I may be
> >> misremembering the specifics, but, there was a lot of that where you had
> >> to
> >> decide which of a particular set of corner-case rules trumped the other.
> >
> > And yet, for me as a player, all that uncertainty that others found
> > frustrating merely added to the mystery, to the sense of the unknown, to
> > the willing suspension of disbelief and the wonder of fantasy. In point
> > of fact, part of the definition of "fantasy," for me, is, "Just because
> > it worked last time doesn't mean it's going to work this time!"
> >
> > What surprises can possibly lie in wait when everything works the same?
>
> If it's going to work differently /every/ time, why do we even have rules?
My original point was regarding 1E and the complaints about perceived
inconsistencies in the rules published for it - they provided for
variations of effect (the Potion Miscibility Table and the Wand of
Wonder are the most salient examples I can think of at the moment). In
other words, I was talking about established rules *and* I said nothing
at all about things working differently _every_ time.
Seebs
> We were originally talking about 1E, which lacked the knowledge skill
> modifiers. For 3.x, I'd probably change it to, "If you haven't
> dissected one (*not* burnt it to cinders!) as well as seen it in action,
> you can't be one." The quotation in my .sig line explains why.
I'd probably split it into "polymorph-for-combat" and "polymorph-for-motion".
You want to be a bird? You go right ahead, duration in the hour-per-level
range, you can pick forms and run around. You want to be a big strong thing
that can deal damage? You're looking at a round per level or so, at best,
and it won't be quite as awesome as all that.
>> Plus, the limitation, if such it is intended to be, is gone when the
>> polymorphing character does meet one.
> Um. We're talking about *my* campaign world, here. *I* choose what the
> PCs meet and, by extension, what they don't meet. The limitation is
> therefore absolute.
Yeah, but if you refused to use any monster which, played by the rules,
was overpowered as a polymorph target, that would suck. There's a ton of
mobs which have odd traits like that.
Seebs
> inconsistencies in the rules published for it - they provided for
> variations of effect (the Potion Miscibility Table and the Wand of
> Wonder are the most salient examples I can think of at the moment).
Interestingly, once you'd figured out what a pair of potions did, they
nominally did the same thing every time.
Hmm. You raise an interesting question, indirectly:
Would it be possible, or fun, to build a "1E-style variance" set of rules
as a 4E expansion? e.g., add potion miscibility rules, create a bunch of
not-so-standard items, cursed items, things like that.
I bet it would, and I think it might be really fun. I think the rules
engine would be plenty flexible to handle it.
Hadsil
> On 2009-12-18, Hadsil <forum...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > Polymorph only became a "problem" because they kept publishing new
> > Monster Manuals with new kewl monsters with kewl abilities and
> > everyone just assumed that because it was published it had to be used
> > in the game and every wizard knows about it to use it for
> > polymorphing. People resented having to be a DM to realize that
> > nothing exists in the game without the DM's permission.
>
>
> Here's my thought: The essential shift in tone is between the long-term use
> of polymorph to, say, become a bird for one hour per level, allowing you to
> make very good time travelling, and between the use to polymorph into "a human
> with 18 strength and dex". The decision that you could use the physical
> attacks of the forms and use their physical stats was, I think, the
> game-breaker. It's not just a question of what the DM allows in the game;
> it's that the DM might allow something into the game with intent that it be
> a monster, not a polymorphable target.
>
> It's not obvious how to fix this; if you can turn yourself into a bear, maybe
> you SHOULD be able to whack someone's head clean off. I mean, that'd be
> consistent with you actually being a bear.
>
> Me, I probably would have left it with one hour per level, broken the moment
> you took or dealt damage. Instead of trying to balance the spell around
> combat, balance non-hostile polymorphs around utility functionality, and
> simply don't allow them to be used in combat.
>
> --
> Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
You can't polymorph into a human with 18 strength and 18 dex. While
you do get the physical scores of the creature you polymorph into,
it's only the the typical, namely what's listed in the Monster
Manual. (Humans aren't even in there. :) ) For a human you would get
10 ST, 10 DX, 10 CO.
A stereotype tactic is to use Benign Polymorph on the Fighter into a
creature with high strength and reach and also a decent AC through
natural armor and Dex since the Fighter's own armor is no longer
usable, thus his AC doesn't change too much, which is fine for a 5th
level spell. However, more Monster Manuals provided more monsters
with higher Strength and AC within the HD limits of Benign Polymorph
than the first Monster Manual. Add in Polymorph Any Object and
Shapechange, more than the base physical stuff of monsters became
possible, with all such fancy doodads in the new Manuals.
It's possible a monster or two in the original Monster Manual might
have been an issue. I know there has been debate on whether when
using Shapechange to become a Balor do you get the vorpal swords since
they are listed as an extraordinary ability as opposed to simply being
equipment a Balor encountered as a monster typically has. The problem
is not Shapechange but rather the listing of the vorpal sword as an
extraordinary ability.
Still, DMs resented having to be a DM in making judgment calls with
every new Monster Manual that came out.
Gerald Katz
Hadsil
>
> * you don't get the physical ability scores presented in the monster
> book, instead you replace your racial modifier with the animal's. A
> Str 4 human druid wildshaped into a bear is going to be a very weak
> bear (and the barbarian who wildshapes into a bear when raging -- had
> a prestige class based on this IMC -- can be expected to be a very big
> and very strong bear). Similarly for Dex and Con.
>
> level /polymorph/ might give you +4 to a single ability score (take
> the form of a wolf, get +4 to Dex or Con, in addition to the wolf
> shape). A higher-level /polymorph/ could give you bigger or more
> benefits.
>
> was Trollman's solution -- /polymorph/ to wolf, 'your figure gets
> replaced with a wolf', and when the effect wears off you get your
> normal stuff back. There may still have been limitations on what you
> could change form to, but I don't remember.
>
> --
> Keith Davies "Do you know what is in beer? The strength
> keith.dav...@kjdavies.org to bear the things you can't change, and
> keith.dav...@gmail.com wisdom to ignore them and fsck off forhttp://www.kjdavies.org/ another beer." -- Owen, discussing work- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pathfinder does this.
Gerald Katz
Tetsubo
OK. I'm not getting this part. If they aren't powerful opponents, how
can they be powerful forms for the players? I'm seeing this as
self-limiting.
>
>> Also, I required the caster to have personal knowledge of the
>> creature in question. Preferably with physical remains as reference.
>> And while +40 Knowledge checks are *possible*, I never saw one in
>> play. Maybe my players weren't trying hard enough...
>
>
> That's where a high level wizard is at, in my experience.
>
> But all of this just makes the polymorpher jump through hoops to get
> ridiculous power. It's still ridiculous once he does, and that's the
> issue that should be addressed. (Alternately, if you feel that polymorph
> doesn't offer an inordinate amount of power, then there's no problem,
> and no need to contrive limitations.)
>
>
--
Hadsil
When you're that high level, the power level is up to par.
Gerald Katz
Hadsil
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's not even that clean. Skill Challenge DCs were changed within
months of first publishing. The Orb Of Inhibition has been causing
all sorts of hysteria.
Gerald Katz
Sheldon England
> Sheldon England wrote:
>> Reginald Blue wrote:
>>> I didn't want to say as much, but... honestly... 3.5 seems to fit
>>> best for the J's and 4.0 best for the P's.
>> I'm an INTJ and I like both and both feel like D&D to me.
>>
>> There's another data point for ya. :)
>
> If you could only ever DM one of those... which would you pick?
I would create a hybrid that also incorporated bits of other games I
like too.
But if I really, really, really had to just choose one or the other to
DM under pain of death ... I would choose 3.5 simply because I am more
familiar with it. I have yet to be a DM in 4E, just been a player.
I enjoy the exciting combats of 4E and don't see any real difference in
roleplaying opportunities settings/stories between 3.5/4 but I'm still
not entirely sold on skill challenges and the magic items still feel
underwhelming.
- Sheldon
Seebs
> OK. I'm not getting this part. If they aren't powerful opponents, how
> can they be powerful forms for the players? I'm seeing this as
> self-limiting.
In 3E, there is no limit on the use of Mind Blast by mind flayers. Why?
Because keeping track of a limit is annoying, and it turns out they don't
live long enough for anyone to care.
Balance for monsters and balance for PCs are not the same thing.
How much does +3 to hit and damage affect play? Well, that depends on
whether you make four attacks in play or thirty-four.
-s
--
Seebs
> It's not even that clean. Skill Challenge DCs were changed within
> months of first publishing. The Orb Of Inhibition has been causing
> all sorts of hysteria.
I think you're looking at a different level. "Clean" of a design doesn't
mean "doesn't need to be tweaked", it means "tweaks can usually be general
rather than a ton of one-off special cases".
Seebs
> I enjoy the exciting combats of 4E and don't see any real difference in
> roleplaying opportunities settings/stories between 3.5/4 but I'm still
> not entirely sold on skill challenges
The DMG2 does a much better job of describing the (somewhat improved)
mechanic.
> and the magic items still feel
> underwhelming.
Many of them sort of are. There's some good material on how to make more
interesting ones, including artifacts, but a lot of the items are sort of
mediocre. I think that's the tradeoff of trying to make them more
manageable; compare with the Ring of Shooting Stars, which had different
sets of powers indoors and outdoors, all on different usage limitations
and cycles, and some of which were one-off unique powers with underspecified
rules. I think the shift is overall beneficial, but it sure is a big
change from the days when you could figure out that your ring of water
walking actually had something like six different powers and command words.
tussock
Seebs wrote:
> [...]
>
> > In fourth edition, nearly all the effects that were once strange one-off
> > effects have been regularized.
>
> You said in another thread that every class plays differently. So is
> it different or is it standard?
They do different things in the same way, you see. One rolls d20
vs DC to damage and push you with a shield, the other d20 vs DC to
pull and damage you with a mystical taunt. Totally different, or so
say the pro-4e crowd. 8]
> > Potion miscibility is gone.
>
> I don't think that survived the 1e-2e conversion.
Definitely in 2nd edition, not in 3rd.
> > Dragons no longer have special rules for
> > subdual which apply to no other creatures.
>
> I don't think that was in 2e, either.
2e has subdual possible against most things, but 1/4 of the total
hung around as real damage. 3e removed the partially real bit, which
meant you could safely knock people out over and over and over and
over and over .... 4e lets you subdue anyone instead of killing them,
after the fact (all the effect, none of the work).
--
tussock
Bryant Durrell
Hadsil <foru...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>It's not even that clean. Skill Challenge DCs were changed within
>months of first publishing. The Orb Of Inhibition has been causing
>all sorts of hysteria.
Orb of Imposition.
The theoretical value of locking down one creature for an entire
encounter turns out to be much less important than the people who
do character optimization in a vacuum assume it is, though. Also
less easy.
--
Bryant Durrell // dur...@innocence.com // dur...@gmail.com
tussock
<Re: Polymorph>
> Or consider the following options:
>
> * you don't get the physical ability scores presented in the monster
> book, instead you replace your racial modifier with the animal's.
I like this for Reincarnation or a permanent curse type of spell,
but not for a short-term effect. Work to reward ratio messed up.
> * the benefits gained are commensurate with the spell level.
This for the hybrid effects, like if you gain the claws and teeth
of a bear and +4 Str and Con, go all furry, can't use weapons or
shields, but are otherwise basically human. Fits the totem Barbarian,
Psi Warrior, or a combatant Druid. Advantage, you keep all your class
features, spells, most of your gear, and so on, doesn't stack with the
other buffs.
> * when you /polymorph/ you become that kind of creature.
This perhaps the best thematically, and is perhaps the easiest.
Your stat block is strait out of the monster manual, only without
equipment, spells, spell-likes, and supernaturals. You're not Bob the
Wizard, you're Bob the Troll. Excellent for any effect that's free of
restrictions on number of forms and changes between them.
Ideally, they'd have had more care with the monster design. Far
too many have out of range stats, the attack rules are inconsistent
with characters, and Natural Armour is just some arbitrary number that
cancels out size and Dex penalties and still gives a certain high AC
without gear and magic.
As if a dragon couldn't have had gear and magic as well as natural
armour </old argument>.
--
tussock
tussock
<Re: Polymorph>
> But isn't there the limited factor of the CR? How often do parties
> encounter a monster so far outside their CR range that polymorphing
> into such a beastie is unbalancing? If it's a fair creature to throw at the
> party, isn't it also a valid polymorph form for the party to use
> *aganst* the nasties?
Most of the "problems" come from stacking. A level 12 party might
have +20 everything from tweaking out all their numeric bonus stacks,
the monster they face, likewise, has +20 everything, but it's usually
just a brute force natural +20 that stacks anew when you polymorph
into it.
Level 12, +20. CR 12, +20. Level 12 polymorphed, +40. Oops.
--
tussock
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On 2009-12-18, Jasin Zujovic <jasin....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Add the magical pulling of knowledge out of thin air, and relying on
>> (the lack of) knowledge as the limiting factor for an annoyingly
>> powerful effect seems to be contrived an ineffective compared to just
>> addressing the rules problems with the effect itself.
>
> Yes.
This is simply a differing interpretation. To me, +40 knowledge applies
only to things you can reasonably be expected to know. And you have to
have REASON to do the roll. "Because I as the player want to know this
AWESOME MONSTER" isn't a reason. Player motivations do not affect
character motivation directly, although they can affect what I, as the
GM, may make available.
This is triply true of "monster in some new book that I, the GM, don't
have". I haven't made any decision at that point as to whether the
creature even EXISTS; if it does, most likely it's in a part of the
world that your "knowledge" doesn't cover (like "Knowledge:Religion"
covers only religions that you either belong to, or have a reasonable
chance of having encountered or heard about. You don't know about a cult
that exists on the other side of the planet and that no one from your
side has never encountered.
>
>> That's not how it works in actual play in 3.5. Giants and outsiders (and
>> large animals, for druids) are extremely powerful shapes without being
>> overwhelmingly powerful as opponents.
>
> Yeah. Part of this is the general rule, observed quite a bit in 3E: An
> at-will power is much less of a big deal in a monster than in a PC, because
> the monster isn't on-camera as long.
If it's a useful ability enough to make it a pain, why isn't it a pain
when you fight it?
Hell, from my point of view they've been constantly nerfing Shapechange
for years. When *WE* used shapechange, it gave you *EVERYTHING* --
physical attacks, psionics, magic, special abilities, the whole enchilada.
But if something was so badass that you as a mage would rather be THAT
than yourself, well, that indicates that it's badass enough that you
wouldn't want to go up against it. And, of course, if it was something
badass AND smart enough to be a "person", it probably will take your
impersonation of it for conveniences' sake to be at the least annoying,
and at worst a deadly offense.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On 2009-12-19, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> OK. I'm not getting this part. If they aren't powerful opponents, how
>> can they be powerful forms for the players? I'm seeing this as
>> self-limiting.
>
> In 3E, there is no limit on the use of Mind Blast by mind flayers. Why?
> Because keeping track of a limit is annoying, and it turns out they don't
> live long enough for anyone to care.
If they don't live long enough, Mind Blast must not be a particularly
useful ability, or else turning into a Mind Flayer must make you awfully
wussy in some other way.
>
> Balance for monsters and balance for PCs are not the same thing.
It is if you put them all on the same set of stats and capabilities.
Which was 3e's basic approach, and one of the reasons it was vastly
better than prior editions.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
As the Mythbusters would say, "Well THERE'S your problem". If you're
transforming into Creature X with Leet Combat Skillz, you're using ITS
combat capabilities. NOT YOURS. Wanna use yours? Train up IN THAT FORM.
For LEVELS. You aren't used to that body, and the skill you're gaining
magically isn't compatible with the skill you normally have. The
creature's +20 is presumed to be a combination of the same kind of
things that make YOU +20 -- natural class/level bonuses, special
weapons, Weapon Specialization, etc., so no, it shouldn't be stacking.
KNOWLEDGE skills, yeah, you still have those. Magic, maybe, though if
the body isn't very close to identical with your original I'd be real
concerned about anything using somatic (gesture) components. But
physical skills depend on an intimate EXPERIENCE of the way the body works.
Keith Davies
> Keith Davies wrote:
>
><Re: Polymorph>
>> Or consider the following options:
>>
>> * you don't get the physical ability scores presented in the monster
>> book, instead you replace your racial modifier with the animal's.
>
> I like this for Reincarnation or a permanent curse type of spell,
> but not for a short-term effect. Work to reward ratio messed up.
How so?
>> * the benefits gained are commensurate with the spell level.
>
> This for the hybrid effects, like if you gain the claws and teeth
> of a bear and +4 Str and Con, go all furry, can't use weapons or
> shields, but are otherwise basically human. Fits the totem Barbarian,
> Psi Warrior, or a combatant Druid. Advantage, you keep all your class
> features, spells, most of your gear, and so on, doesn't stack with the
> other buffs.
Could be used to model that, yes.
>> * when you /polymorph/ you become that kind of creature.
>
> This perhaps the best thematically, and is perhaps the easiest.
> Your stat block is strait out of the monster manual, only without
> equipment, spells, spell-likes, and supernaturals. You're not Bob the
> Wizard, you're Bob the Troll. Excellent for any effect that's free of
> restrictions on number of forms and changes between them.
I think this was Trollman's solution, but I don't remember the details.
> Ideally, they'd have had more care with the monster design. Far
> too many have out of range stats, the attack rules are inconsistent
> with characters, and Natural Armour is just some arbitrary number that
> cancels out size and Dex penalties and still gives a certain high AC
> without gear and magic.
> As if a dragon couldn't have had gear and magic as well as natural
> armour </old argument>.
One of my older projects is to revise creatures that would reasonably
have gear so that they do, and their stats reflect it. The balor
doesn't have +lots natural armor, he has +some natural armor, and magic
full plate. Other things came up, such as 'why do all balors have this
ability instead of that one? What if they studied magic instead?',
which led to deconstructing the monster types, which led to... you see
what happens.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "Do you know what is in beer? The strength
keith....@kjdavies.org to bear the things you can't change, and
keith....@gmail.com wisdom to ignore them and fsck off for
Keith Davies
> On 2009-12-19, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> OK. I'm not getting this part. If they aren't powerful opponents, how
>> can they be powerful forms for the players? I'm seeing this as
>> self-limiting.
>
> In 3E, there is no limit on the use of Mind Blast by mind flayers.
> Why? Because keeping track of a limit is annoying, and it turns out
> they don't live long enough for anyone to care.
It would not be inappropriate to limit uses of mind blast, though.
Functionally, 3/day is near equivalent to unlimited in most cases. PCs
see illithid, they break out the big guns Right Now... though that DC28
is a bitch at eighth level (CR8, they made the Sor10 cry).
"I drop three /fireball/s on it." [3e /boots of speed/ + synystodweomer
(mispelled, and IIRC name) -> 35d6 fire per round]
"Roll SR please."
"12, bah. 23..."
"nope"
"... bugger. 26?"
*grin*
"fuck."
Keith Davies
> On 2009-12-19, Sheldon England <sheldon...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> and the magic items still feel
>> underwhelming.
>
> Many of them sort of are. There's some good material on how to make
> more interesting ones, including artifacts, but a lot of the items are
> sort of mediocre. I think that's the tradeoff of trying to make them
> more manageable; compare with the Ring of Shooting Stars, which had
> different sets of powers indoors and outdoors, all on different usage
> limitations and cycles, and some of which were one-off unique powers
> with underspecified rules. I think the shift is overall beneficial,
> but it sure is a big change from the days when you could figure out
> that your ring of water walking actually had something like six
> different powers and command words.
Ring of Elemental Control -- not just water walking.
Item identification has gotten a lot easier through the editions as
well. AD&D1 /identify/ spell was a *bitch*, AD&D2 wasn't quite as bad
(IIRC; can't be arsed to look it up right now), 3e is relatively easy
(still costs 100gp unless you're casting it as a domain spell, only
takes one hour instead of eight, no surprize buttsecks if the item's
cursed). I don't know what they're doing in 4e.
Keith Davies
> Keith Davies wrote:
>>
>> * you don't get the physical ability scores presented in the monster
>> Str 4 human druid wildshaped into a bear is going to be a very weak
>> bear (and the barbarian who wildshapes into a bear when raging -- had
>> a prestige class based on this IMC -- can be expected to be a very big
>> and very strong bear). Similarly for Dex and Con.
>
>
> It's slightly less abusive in that it doesn't allow a druid or a
> wizard to completely dump his physical stats and then ignore the
> supposed drawback through polymorphing, but in practice you'll get Str
> 14 druids and Dex 16 wizards with even higher stats when polymorphed.
You are correct that the characters would be even more powerful in their
animal forms than they would be by RAW. HOwever, I find this suits how
I want my campaign to feel[1], so it's thematically appropriate and at
this point, I'm okay with it.
[1] after all, the shapechanging barbarian has Str 20 before he starts,
so he'll still be stronger -- and gain more from it than he would
have RAW (stock brown bears are Str 27, so he'd gain 7 points of
Str, but under this rule he'd be a *strong* brown bear, getting a
racial bonus of +16, for a total of Str 36).
This is on purpose. I want him to be seriously badass, especially
since he can't use his damn greataxe while he's at it.
>> * the benefits gained are commensurate with the spell level. A second-
>> level /polymorph/ might give you +4 to a single ability score (take
>> the form of a wolf, get +4 to Dex or Con, in addition to the wolf
>> shape). A higher-level /polymorph/ could give you bigger or more
>> benefits.
>
> Trailblazer (probably others as well). :) That's decent, yeah.
Simple to adjudicate, I think, if you're willing to do the math. I'm
still considering tussock's idea of condition tracks for each ability
score -- negative *and* positive. Perhaps instead of improved Strength
giving you +4 to Str, you get treated as if you're a size larger.
Greater carrying capacity, can use large weapons, harder to wrestle,
etc. Or something; that's getting to be a bunch of things that get
adjusted :/
>> * when you /polymorph/ you become that kind of creature. I think this
>> was Trollman's solution -- /polymorph/ to wolf, 'your figure gets
>> replaced with a wolf', and when the effect wears off you get your
>> normal stuff back. There may still have been limitations on what you
>> could change form to, but I don't remember.
>
> If done well, I'd like that one best, probably.
>
> It still allows for a druid who becomes a bear and rips someone head
> off or the evil sorcerer who polymorphs into a regenerating demon when
> cornered, and for the utility uses as well (bird for flight, fish for
> breathing water &c.). But it puts a stop to dwarfs fighters spending
> most of their active adventuring career in the shape of a stone giant
> rather than a dwarf.
I should probably look this up. I'm certain it was Trollman, I just
need to find it.
Keith Davies
>
> This is simply a differing interpretation. To me, +40 knowledge applies
> only to things you can reasonably be expected to know. And you have to
> have REASON to do the roll. "Because I as the player want to know this
> AWESOME MONSTER" isn't a reason. Player motivations do not affect
> character motivation directly, although they can affect what I, as the
> GM, may make available.
If you accept the tier philosophies (Justin's, as described in
_Calibrating Expectations_, or my variation), +40 bonus to Knowledge
checks generally happens only about the time you're damn near a god of
knowledge. 23 ranks (almost epic) and +9 from Int 28 gets you to +32,
you still need +8 from another source to hit +40.
If it can be known in the mortal world, you probably should have access
to it. There's still lots outside that, of course, but by definition
you're going to start exploring those other things soon anyway.
If you don't accept the tier philosophies, ignore the above.
> This is triply true of "monster in some new book that I, the GM, don't
> have". I haven't made any decision at that point as to whether the
> creature even EXISTS; if it does, most likely it's in a part of the
> world that your "knowledge" doesn't cover (like "Knowledge:Religion"
> covers only religions that you either belong to, or have a reasonable
> chance of having encountered or heard about. You don't know about a cult
> that exists on the other side of the planet and that no one from your
> side has never encountered.
Of course.
Keith Davies
>> On 2009-12-19, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> OK. I'm not getting this part. If they aren't powerful opponents, how
>>> can they be powerful forms for the players? I'm seeing this as
>>> self-limiting.
>>
>> In 3E, there is no limit on the use of Mind Blast by mind flayers. Why?
>> Because keeping track of a limit is annoying, and it turns out they don't
>> live long enough for anyone to care.
>
> If they don't live long enough, Mind Blast must not be a particularly
> useful ability, or else turning into a Mind Flayer must make you awfully
> wussy in some other way.
AC 15 to start, and not a lot of hit points, and arrow magnets.
At least, all the ones I've seen get filled with arrows right quickish.
Keith Davies
Muscle memory accounts for a lot of it, yeah. If you have to think
about what you're doing, you're going to get your ass kicked by the guy
who has the cycles free to think about what *you're* doing, instead of
what *he's* doing.
Hence Trollman's solution, I think. You turn into a standard example of
the target creature type (which may or may not allow for the 'racial
modifier' version of /polymorph/, depending what you want). You have
its abilities, not your own, and when the magic goes away you return to
your normal form and abilities. *Nothing* but perhaps memories carry
across.
Seebs
> Ring of Elemental Control -- not just water walking.
That was my point -- you think it's water walking unless you find out
otherwise.
> Item identification has gotten a lot easier through the editions as
> well. AD&D1 /identify/ spell was a *bitch*, AD&D2 wasn't quite as bad
> (IIRC; can't be arsed to look it up right now), 3e is relatively easy
> (still costs 100gp unless you're casting it as a domain spell, only
> takes one hour instead of eight, no surprize buttsecks if the item's
> cursed). I don't know what they're doing in 4e.
Basically, it's assumed that you can identify stuff if you have a while
to mess with it. Sorta cheezy, but I don't find that I miss identification
at all.
Seebs
> If they don't live long enough, Mind Blast must not be a particularly
> useful ability, or else turning into a Mind Flayer must make you awfully
> wussy in some other way.
Actually, mind blast isn't a polymorphable power anyway. The point was
more generic -- I just used that example because, when I wrote Sage
Advice to ask whether there were any limits on mind blast, that was
what got me the explanation.
Basically, it turns out that some powers are much more significant to PCs
than they are to NPCs.
>> Balance for monsters and balance for PCs are not the same thing.
> It is if you put them all on the same set of stats and capabilities.
It wouldn't be even then, because of the effect of screen time, but
even so...
> Which was 3e's basic approach, and one of the reasons it was vastly
> better than prior editions.
Except it wasn't. NPC classes. Monster hit dice totally different from
PC hit dice. Look how different fast healing is between PCs and NPCs; in
PCs, it's hugely powerful, in NPCs, it's a slight speedbump in killing
them.
The shift in screen time really does have that much effect.
Tetsubo
One solution Trollman had for this was that the caster is *replaced* by
a monster under his control. The caster goes *poof* and is gone and in
his place is a monster identical to the Monster manual under his mental
control. It would be a standard form of course. I think this might
mitigate the stacking issue to a degree.
Harold Groot
wrote:
> Also, I required the caster to have personal knowledge of the creature
>in question. Preferably with physical remains as reference. And while
>+40 Knowledge checks are *possible*, I never saw one in play. Maybe my
>players weren't trying hard enough...
>Tetsubo
"Trying hard enough"? I'd say that depends on the level of the
characters and how they see their roles in the game.
I'm currently playing an 11th level Cleric. She has 3 primary rolls in
the party: Healer, Buffer, and.... Skillmonkey. (Note that Melee
Combatant is not on the list.) Although she has never used a
POLYMORPH spell, she could. She has access to POLYMORPH spells via
the Spell Domain and GREATER ANYSPELL (lets her memorize a spell from
the Wizard/Sorcerer spell list up to 5th level).
She actually put her highest original stat into INT (getting extra
skill points throughout the levels), with her 2nd highest into WIS (as
well as the bumps at 4th & 8th level and her Enhancement item - she
does OK for WIS). She also took the Jack Of All Trades feat (so even
at low levels she was an excellent resource for Knowledge skills).
She deliberately sought out a TOME OF WORLDLY MEMORY and she uses
DIVINE INSIGHT liberally. By herself she can cast FOX'S CUNNING (via
ANYSPELL) and HEROISM (again, via ANYSPELL) and PRAYER. If she could
get another +2 from outside knowledge (LEGEND LORE or other divination
spells, or someone who could give her +2 via Help Another) she could
hit DC 40 by taking 10. And that's in the Knowledge Skills where she
has no actual ranks. With Kn:Arcana (8 ranks) or Kn:Religion (10
ranks) an average roll puts her near DC 50. And if there was a
worthwhile reason to top out a category on skill points she'd do it.
With more time she can do even better. She is a member of the The
Order Of Arcane Mysteries (DMG 2, p. 212). They can provide a sage
with a +15 modifier for any Knowledge skill in 2 weeks. (That's
generally done via submitting a question in writing, but she could
arrange a face-to-face. They owe her.) She could use IMBUE WITH SPELL
ABILITY on their sage to give him the DIVINE INSIGHT bonus (+15
Insight), loan him the TOME (+5 Competence) and hit him with PRAYER
(+1 Luck) and FOX'S CUNNING (+2 Enhancement to his INT) and HEROISM
(+2 Morale) and then do Help Another herself (+2 Circumstance). We've
just hit DC 42 before the sage even rolls the d20. So hitting DC 50
would be a "Take 10" result, and a DC 60 is quite possible. Hmmmm,
with time she could also buy a scroll of GREATER HEROISM to boost the
Morale bonus to +4 for the sage. That would mean a 16 or better role
(a 1 in 4 chance) of making that DC 60 roll.
So she could, say, ask bards to sing songs about the most fabulous
monsters they know songs about, then do research and learn about them.
She has access to several large libraries as well to get ideas about
monsters from around the world(s). (As well as the normal resources,
in the current expedition under The War Tower in Greyhawk they found
and cleared out a full magical library DEVOTED JUST TO MONSTERS. She
could REALLY get some ideas for POLYMORPH there.) If you JUST make it
a DC 40 roll, she's got it covered. If you make it "Personally have
seen in action and disected afterwards - and you must have seen any
power demonstrated if you want to copy it" then it becomes more
manageable from the DM's point of view.
(As for her Non-Melee Oriented bit: That's just how I decided to play
her. I know Clerics can do awesome things in melee if they wish. I
=could= have her buff herself up and go the melee route. DIVINE POWER
and RIGHTEOUS MIGHT and POLYMORPH and so on. Maybe I'll even do that
for The Final Battle against The Big Bad. But that's not her normal
style of play. I often have much fun playing when I go against type.
So she's Non-Melee Oriented and buffs the team instead.)
Harold Groot
>On 2009-12-17, Loren Pechtel <lorenp...@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 17 Dec 2009 04:08:09 GMT, Seebs <usenet...@seebs.net> wrote:
>>>Bo9S in 3E, you already see the basics of that system being invented. The
>>>decision to break a ton of stuff out to rituals really does help with a
>>>number of balance issues, and encourages a lot of creative play -- because
>>>you don't have to sacrifice combat ability to think of good uses for your
>>>non-combat spells.
>
>> Yeah, while I don't like 4E in general the rituals sound good.
>
>I think they are a really good design. It's sort of like the thing where
>some DMs would let you cast a spell directly from your book given about
>the amount of time it would take to prep it. (I can't remember whether
>that was official in any version.)
I think it was back in 1E you could use pages in your spellbook as
scrolls. It took the same amount of time to read as a scroll would,
the page went blank after you read it, and there was a chance that it
would also wipe out the pages in front of it and behind it. Because of
the difficulty in replacing spells on the road in 1E it was a "little
known and seldom used" feature. I only used it once myself (long,
long ago), and that was from necessity. My Magic User got knocked
unconscious (thus losing all pre-memorized spells) at the beginning of
The Final Battle. After being located and healed up a bit, the battle
was raging and the other PCs (who had been without their Artillary)
were losing. My MU didn't have a lot of magical items to use instead
of memorized spells (magic items were pretty rare in that campaign).
So his Traveling Spellbook got pretty much stripped of everything in
it above 2nd level and we won the fight.
I don't even recall these days just where they go into that option. I
do recall having to show the DM just where it said you could do that,
and if memory serves it wasn't in an obvious place. Still, it existed
somewhere. Maybe UA??
Jasin Zujovic
>>> But isn't there the limited factor of the CR? How often do
>>> parties encounter a monster so far outside their CR range that
>>> polymorphing into such a beastie is unbalancing? If it's a fair
>>> creature to throw at the party, isn't it also a valid polymorph form
>>> for the party to use *aganst* the nasties?
>>
>>
>> Polymorphing into giants and shapechanging into pit fiends is
>> ridiculously powerful, at the level where giants and pit fiends are
>> not ridiculously powerful opponents.
>
> OK. I'm not getting this part. If they aren't powerful opponents,
> how can they be powerful forms for the players? I'm seeing this as
> self-limiting.
As a general rule, giants as opponents have huge Str and Con, a good
natural armour bonus to keep their AC competitive even with their crappy
armours, medium BAB, d8 for hp and no special abilities beyond rock
throwing.
When a PC wizard polymorphs a fighter into a giant, the fighter gets
huge Str and Con inceased by the fighter's magic items; a good natural
armour bonus which stacks with the fighter's already present ability to
keep his AC competitive (rings of protection, magic armour, full plates
rather than the hides and chain shirts more common with giants); good
BAB; d10 for hp; and all of his fighter feats.
Just stat up an compare: a stone giant from the MM; a 14th-level fighter
polymorphed into a stone giant; a 14th-level fighter buffed by some
other 4th-level Sor/Wiz spell.
--
Jasin
Jasin Zujovic
> She deliberately sought out a TOME OF WORLDLY MEMORY and she uses
What's that?
I have a character who likes to use a lot of the same things, so this
might interest him.
--
Jasin
Jasin Zujovic
>>>> Polymorph only became a "problem" because they kept publishing new
>>>> Monster Manuals with new kewl monsters with kewl abilities and
>>>> everyone just assumed that because it was published it had to be used
>>>> in the game and every wizard knows about it to use it for
>>>> polymorphing. People resented having to be a DM to realize that
>>>> nothing exists in the game without the DM's permission.
>>> Heh. My house rule was always, "If you haven't met one, you can't be
>>> one." The corollary was, "If it's supernatural and strong enough to
>>> have its own name, it'll probably resent impersonators."
>> I've never liked that as a solution to the problems with polymorph.
>>
>> In a world of magical divinations and +40 knowledge skill modifiers,
>> knowledge of monsters seems to be a very flimsy limiting factor.
>>
>> Plus, the limitation, if such it is intended to be, is gone when the
>> polymorphing character does meet one.
>
> When you're that high level, the power level is up to par.
Have you ever played a shapechanged 20th-level wizard?
Have you ever played a fighter next to a shapechanged 20th-level wizard?
Have you ever tried, as a DM, to challenge both of the above at the same
time?
The power level is not up to par for the level.
--
Jasin
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> This is simply a differing interpretation. To me, +40 knowledge applies
>> only to things you can reasonably be expected to know. And you have to
>> have REASON to do the roll. "Because I as the player want to know this
>> AWESOME MONSTER" isn't a reason. Player motivations do not affect
>> character motivation directly, although they can affect what I, as the
>> GM, may make available.
>
> If you accept the tier philosophies (Justin's, as described in
> _Calibrating Expectations_, or my variation),
I hadn't even HEARD of "tier philosophies" until now, so no, I don't.
> +40 bonus to Knowledge
> checks generally happens only about the time you're damn near a god of
> knowledge. 23 ranks (almost epic) and +9 from Int 28 gets you to +32,
> you still need +8 from another source to hit +40.
A true God of Knowledge doesn't DO "knowledge checks". They have the
power "Omniscience". So, no, you're not even near a god of knowledge in
any sense.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> Seebs wrote:
>>> On 2009-12-19, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> OK. I'm not getting this part. If they aren't powerful opponents, how
>>>> can they be powerful forms for the players? I'm seeing this as
>>>> self-limiting.
>>> In 3E, there is no limit on the use of Mind Blast by mind flayers. Why?
>>> Because keeping track of a limit is annoying, and it turns out they don't
>>> live long enough for anyone to care.
>> If they don't live long enough, Mind Blast must not be a particularly
>> useful ability, or else turning into a Mind Flayer must make you awfully
>> wussy in some other way.
>
> AC 15 to start, and not a lot of hit points, and arrow magnets.
>
> At least, all the ones I've seen get filled with arrows right quickish.
>
So shapeshifting to one should be something not particularly
awe-inspiring.