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

 All Forums
 Realmslore
 RPG News & Releases
 3.5e - A Discussion
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
3414 Posts

Posted - 28 Dec 2015 :  11:51:04  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal

If a player wants to be awesome in physical combat or cast amazing fireball spells then I don't see why that cannot happen. The problem with 3.5 was enforced awesomeness.


One can be awesome in combat or spellcraft without resorting to over-inflated stats and numbers. But I agree that the math was definitely forced because the progression was just too steep IMO.

quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal

Bab meant that every fighter was awesome with every weapon to such a degree that it wasn't worth wearing armour or taking on a fighter in single combat unless you were also a fighter. The save bonuses likewise meant that every fighter would always save against fort effects. This is all past level 10 though when these problems appear.


I thought part of the figuring out process was finding monsters and enemies weaknesses. A fighter may have exceptional fortitude but in plate armor, will probably have poor reflex or will saves. Instead of draining his vitality with a Fort or die spell, ensnare his mind to fight for you. Stuff like that. Rarely did monsters have all 3 good saves.

quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal

As a result you get monsters with ever increasing stats which mean a wizard can never hope to hit it with a weapon and most casters cannot hope to hit it with spells because it needs to be effective against those with good progression and so becomes invincible of those with poor progression.


Yeah the poor BAB meant "you're never hitting AC, forget about it."

quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal

Then you end up with required magic items to boost the poor and good characters alike and we have the broken monster that is 3.5.

And all because 3.5 treats combat as a separate entity from role playing. There is almost no use for skills within combat and so if you aren't good in combat then you miss out on 50 percent of the game.



I don't think I understand, how is combat separated from role-playing? Skills can easily play a factor in combat, from bluffing to feint to tumbling for flanking to intimidating to demoralize your foes. You can sneak past the bad guy, use creatures with Handle Animal, and leap over enemies to the haning chandelier. Then there are Skill Tricks and feats and other mechanical gizmos to enhance this too.

4E Realms = Great Taste, Less Filling.

"If WotC were to put out a box of free money, people would still complain how it was folded."
Go to Top of Page

sleyvas
Great Reader

USA
5945 Posts

Posted - 29 Dec 2015 :  04:13:11  Show Profile Send sleyvas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

the main problem was just in how high the bonuses got. When your main die role is a d20, then you should have your highest die be about half of that. I admire 5e for trying to reduce the numbers, but essentially to me it seems to give the heros at the upper levels a very non-heroic feel. They should still understand that the ogre at 20th lvl isn't much of a threat to them, but they shouldn't just laugh at the concept. In that same vein, it became such that a high level wizard shouldn't even consider drawing a weapon, even though frankly they should have some challenges where they have to do exactly that.



I dunno, I like that a high leveled PC is still afraid or at least wary of giants and ogres and trolls. If a pack of trolls is just a minor inconvenience then the bonuses and stats have gotten too high.



you escalated what I said. I said an ogre. A troll beats an ogre any day. A pack of trolls beats a single troll. Giants beat trolls. So yes, I agree a high level PC should still worry about trolls and giants.... and even a lowly ogre might be able to hit him. That's why I stated the numbers like I did. However, in the reverse case, making the numbers too low makes a giant versus a couple of orcs something where that giant should be scared of being ganged up on by a handful of orcs.... and that shouldn't be the case (now a giant versus 20 orcs... yeah).

This especially applies if you're using the new flanking rules where flanking provides advantage, etc..... Advantage and disadvantage are major factors in the new game, and automatically giving "advantage" or "disadvantage" can also be a breaking point in the new rules if its applied too broadly versus situational bonuses (i.e. a bonus to hit, etc...).

Alavairthae, may your skill prevail

Phillip aka Sleyvas
Go to Top of Page

sleyvas
Great Reader

USA
5945 Posts

Posted - 29 Dec 2015 :  04:25:13  Show Profile Send sleyvas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
btw, Diffan, thanks for this conversation. I've noticed in past discussions that you're very good with the rulesets themselves, and it helps sometimes to talk through some of this stuff. For me, so many things have begun to blur between the various versions of the games I've seen over 30 years, that sometimes I "read" into the rules something that's not there. For instance, I initially automatically assumed that wizards memorized spells the same way in 5e as previous editions, and it wasn't until I took a closer look that I saw the difference. I have to say to that... what a difference.

This new methodology opens up some pathways for new magic items as well (and maybe they're already created and I haven't seen them yet, because life has gotten in the way of my reading). I can see there being a path for having magic scrolls, wands, and staves that give you the ability to use your own spell slots to cast a spell that you don't have memorized, all without damaging said item in any way. These same items would be highly useful to bards,sorcerors, and warlocks, as well as divine casters who may not want to have raise dead memorized, etc.... This would get around the issue of having say a single raise dead scroll and finding yourself in the situation where you need 3 castings. That spell may not be a good example, as it may be able to be ritualized, but you get the idea I'm sure.

Alavairthae, may your skill prevail

Phillip aka Sleyvas
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
3414 Posts

Posted - 30 Dec 2015 :  01:12:06  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

the main problem was just in how high the bonuses got. When your main die role is a d20, then you should have your highest die be about half of that. I admire 5e for trying to reduce the numbers, but essentially to me it seems to give the heros at the upper levels a very non-heroic feel. They should still understand that the ogre at 20th lvl isn't much of a threat to them, but they shouldn't just laugh at the concept. In that same vein, it became such that a high level wizard shouldn't even consider drawing a weapon, even though frankly they should have some challenges where they have to do exactly that.



I dunno, I like that a high leveled PC is still afraid or at least wary of giants and ogres and trolls. If a pack of trolls is just a minor inconvenience then the bonuses and stats have gotten too high.



you escalated what I said. I said an ogre. A troll beats an ogre any day. A pack of trolls beats a single troll. Giants beat trolls. So yes, I agree a high level PC should still worry about trolls and giants.... and even a lowly ogre might be able to hit him. That's why I stated the numbers like I did. However, in the reverse case, making the numbers too low makes a giant versus a couple of orcs something where that giant should be scared of being ganged up on by a handful of orcs.... and that shouldn't be the case (now a giant versus 20 orcs... yeah).


I agree there needs to be some middle ground. A place where an Ogre can scoff at 2-5 orcs but definitely want to run if there are more than 10 of them. I'm not sure any version of D&D has found this "sweet" spot yet.

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

This especially applies if you're using the new flanking rules where flanking provides advantage, etc..... Advantage and disadvantage are major factors in the new game, and automatically giving "advantage" or "disadvantage" can also be a breaking point in the new rules if its applied too broadly versus situational bonuses (i.e. a bonus to hit, etc...).



Something that I talked about plenty on my 5e playtest surveys was the huge impact (Dis)Advantage has in the game and that it should be used quite sparingly, because it can pull that much of a swing. When you view the game from a predominantly 3.5 and 4e lens, giving out bonuses for stuff seems almost routine but apply that to 5e and things will easily get out of hand. I wish there was a bit more advise given on when to use and not use the (Dis)Advantage mechanic. Sometimes a player does something cool and you want to reward that, but Advantage is just too easy of a choice in many circumstances.

4E Realms = Great Taste, Less Filling.

"If WotC were to put out a box of free money, people would still complain how it was folded."
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
3414 Posts

Posted - 30 Dec 2015 :  01:18:12  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

btw, Diffan, thanks for this conversation. I've noticed in past discussions that you're very good with the rulesets themselves, and it helps sometimes to talk through some of this stuff. For me, so many things have begun to blur between the various versions of the games I've seen over 30 years, that sometimes I "read" into the rules something that's not there. For instance, I initially automatically assumed that wizards memorized spells the same way in 5e as previous editions, and it wasn't until I took a closer look that I saw the difference. I have to say to that... what a difference.


Thanks, and I'm in the same boat. Even though my systems are limited to 3.x, Pathfinder, 4e, and a smidge of 5e it's easy to mix certain small elements from one to another (well, maybe less for for 4e). Something I always did was apply the same base mechanics for Charging in 3.5 to Pathfinde, 4e, and 5e and yep that's wrong for almost everyone. You don't get a +2 to Attack, -1 AC in 4e (just a +1 attack with your MBA) and I don't think you receive an AC penalty in Pathfinder. In 5e I don't think there even is a bonus for Charging an enemy?

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

This new methodology opens up some pathways for new magic items as well (and maybe they're already created and I haven't seen them yet, because life has gotten in the way of my reading). I can see there being a path for having magic scrolls, wands, and staves that give you the ability to use your own spell slots to cast a spell that you don't have memorized, all without damaging said item in any way. These same items would be highly useful to bards,sorcerors, and warlocks, as well as divine casters who may not want to have raise dead memorized, etc.... This would get around the issue of having say a single raise dead scroll and finding yourself in the situation where you need 3 castings. That spell may not be a good example, as it may be able to be ritualized, but you get the idea I'm sure.



I have to agree that the Vancian-ish style of 5e is FAR more to my liking than it was in either 3.5 or Pathfinder. I like how its far more versatile and that you can cant multiple spells you've memorized instead of being sure to memorize the same spell 2 or 3 times per day. It opens up a lot, as you say. I also like how Wands and Staffs can recharage at the beginning of the day and you're only really penalized if you use up ALL the charges and there's a chance ALl the magic is drained from the item. It makes using that last charge a serious question instead of "yep, just use it and get a new one." mentality of 3.5.

4E Realms = Great Taste, Less Filling.

"If WotC were to put out a box of free money, people would still complain how it was folded."
Go to Top of Page

sleyvas
Great Reader

USA
5945 Posts

Posted - 30 Dec 2015 :  14:01:21  Show Profile Send sleyvas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Its funny that you mention the charging rules being an issue, because my current DM had the same problem until I pointed it out. Its becoming part of the process of my own learning of 5e that I question any ruling he puts forth (in my head, not verbally) and look it up to see if it still works that way. I usually don't get the answer until after we've moved on, so we've adopted a "it happened that way this time, but we'll remember this for the next time" stance.

Yeah, I have to agree on the new wand mechanics in 5e being better than 3.5e and earlier editions. That being said, the current wand was somewhat designed in 3.5 for Eberron where they had something like infinite wands that could be used x times per day. I'd like to see a return somewhat of the feat concept for making magic items that 3.5e had, but I'd not like to see it be anywhere near as spread as it was in 3.5. For instance, I'd say a craft arms, armor, helmets,shoes, gloves, and constructscloaks, and other clothing feat (more appropriately named)... then a craft wands, staves, rods, scepters, and scrolls.... then a craft jewelry, cloaks, hats, and other wondrous items feat. Of course, if you did this, more feats would have to be available to be used than 5e generally gives. On these lines though, I'd like to see a lot more done with wands, staves and rods than being just repositories for certain spells. For instance, some staves might be entirely defensive, taking the place of bracers that provide armor class, etc.... Some wands or staves might only be used to enhance the caster casting spells of a certain type (as an example, maybe a wand used in casting can give a mage the equivalent of the elemental adept (fire) feat.... or maybe there's a wand which increases the save DC's of charm spells or a specific charm spell, etc....).

Alavairthae, may your skill prevail

Phillip aka Sleyvas
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2017 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000