|
Post by Draxy on Oct 30, 2003 2:30:30 GMT -5
Oh, come on Merkuri, how do you and your group do this? Enquiring minds want to know.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 30, 2003 5:07:00 GMT -5
Now that, I blame on the DM. If you can't control your players or you wish to run a really high powered campaign, then more power to ya (Not you Draxy, the generic you). Take a look at the CIty of MIthril if you want to see what I do. All the characters are posted there, although their stats aren't. Right now, of the six players I have, I have a half orc, an elf and four humans. Why? Because I said right at the beginning, only PHB character races. Period. I don't want to run that kind of campaign where people are the uber-munchkin power monkeys. I never have and I never will. I do applaud tactics, but I deplore power gaming. There is a fine line there, I realize, but, I consider myself more of a war gamer than munchkin. I will use tactics and the basic rules of the game to develop something, but I won't go out of my way to develop insane 1/2 dragon 1/2 troll sorcerers in full plate. To me, that's not a failing of the game, but a failing of the DM. I think it comes from newer DM's who just haven't learned yet. You and me Draxy have been around for quite a while. We've done the ultra powerful crap (Or at least I have) and realized that that's boring. In the past ten years I think I've had maybe 1 character go above 10th level. And that was because of an experiment. We always retired our characters long before then.
I think the point needs to be made. Can 3e be munchkin? Of course it can. Can 2e be munchkin. Again, of course. Does it have to be? No. Whose fault is it if the campaign goes off into munchkinland? The DM's, not the game's.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 30, 2003 10:28:05 GMT -5
Sure, no one ever said that 2e CAN'T be munchy. The statement has always been that tendencies show, clearly, that is why I talk about hitting the characters section att PAD&D to verify it, that 3e is more made for abuse than 2e is.
In 2e you didn't see the Half Dragon Sorceror/Monk/Druid/God Eater because the game itself was BETTER designed to avoid it. Now they, not your way, which is infinitely more reasonable, IS the standard. That's not my opinion man. That is verifiable and independant of any one persons opinion simply by looking at the sites dedicated to the two games. THEY, not you or I, tell the story all to graphicly.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Oct 30, 2003 12:08:27 GMT -5
Oh, come on Merkuri, how do you and your group do this? Enquiring minds want to know. Hmm... well let's see. My first group was made up of me and my sister. I was the DM and my sister played three (yes, all three at once) pre-made characters out of the box set. My second group was made up of me, my sister, and one of our friends. The friend was the only one with real D&D experience, but no DM experience. He was a slightly better DM than I was. That was about 5 years ago and lasted for about two weeks. I don't remember how we rolled. And the group I had after that was... here. Well, not here specifically, but online. I actually haven't had a decent real live group. That's why I wasn't getting involved.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 30, 2003 13:38:05 GMT -5
*lol* At least you replied though. That's more than most of our fellow forumites. *sigh* Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 30, 2003 23:49:58 GMT -5
Umm, Draxy, now here I was waving a truce flag, and you gotta go shooting at me... Well, once more into the breach my friends.
I don't know about the characters sections on Planet, nor do I really care. All I know is what I saw while gaming. Look at the pregen characters included in most modules. Nearly every one of them has at least one 18. And that's from official sources.
As far as abuse goes, using the humanoids book, I could make a 1/2 ogre with a 20 strength that needs the same xp to go up a level as your human fighter with a 10 strength. And, that's using official rules too.
The ubermench character you keep pointing too has so many limitations that it's not even funny. Hmm, 1/2 dragon, ECL 4, which means he needs a 5th level characters xp just to hit 2nd. The super multi class also only has about 4 levels in each class meaning that he gets his ass handed to him by any single classed character. The problem is, people toss out the limitations which are in place to keep the game balanced. Again, that's not the fault of the game, but the DM.
You want to get into a pissing contest about who can create the bigger munchkin character in which edition? Hey, here's one for you. My 5th level Priest of Kossuth can wear armor, use a sword, cast any wizard spell with the words fire or flame in the title as a cleric spell (ie. without a spellbook and without learning chance) and can summon an 8 hd fire elemental 1/week with no chance of failure or losing control. Not bad for a character with a 5th level druid's xp.
The point is, both systems were and are easily abusable. It is incredibly simple to make munchkin characters in either system. You seem to think that 3e is geared for it, and I respectfully disagree. I think that 3e has done an excellent job in limiting the abuses that occured in 2e. But that is only my opinion. You are certainly entitled to yours. I think it is best if we simply agree to disagree and leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 31, 2003 4:29:16 GMT -5
Sure. I disagree with you entirely and could again bring a boat load of reasons, but at this point I agree that it serves no real purpose.
Anyway, the idea of this thread was to discuss die rolling conventions. You've played 2e, so, how did you and yours roll up characters?
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 31, 2003 8:39:02 GMT -5
I just used 4d6 drop the lowest six times. If the character came out really crappy, (Like your Father Generic all 10's above) then the player could reroll 6 more times. I was pretty lenient on rolls since I always played in really small groups. With only 2 or 3 players, you needed the characters to be a little tougher just to survive.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 31, 2003 9:04:15 GMT -5
And, Ah heck, since the suspense is killing me, bring on your reasons you disagree with me. It should be worth a laugh or two.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 1, 2003 7:31:41 GMT -5
Well, for a chuckle then: The most signifigant are the ones that are readily verifiable to anyone... not just what you think OR what I think.
Go and LOOK in the PAD&D characters section and grab the third ten of each type (for instance... or the first thirty, or last fifty, et al... just to get a more randomized selection) and compare and contrast. The 3e Charatcers are FAR more abused and abusive... simply because the new system promotes it more and makes it easier.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 1, 2003 11:06:19 GMT -5
That's the second time you've mentioned that. I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you provide a link? The only thing that sort of looks like a character listing is the NPC ranker and it only had a single 2e 19th level wizard on it. Sorry, don't know what the character section is.
The thing is, what do you consider abuse? Is a wizard who takes a level in fighter so that he can get some extra hp abusing the system? Even if he can come up with an excellent back story for it? Or, is he simply being intelligent?
Is a 2e fighter who takes two weapon fighting and ambidexterity being munchkin? Is he abusing the system? He is certainly trying for extra damage.
At what point do you say that something is abusing the system?
I'll look at what you're talking about. And, I'll even try to keep an open mind.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 2, 2003 14:01:43 GMT -5
The bloody page is down. I looked at it some time back and that is why I was suggesting it. It was all to obvious which suffered from the most abuse. Many of the thirty or so 2e charcters were Monte'd out yes, but at least half were strong but usable and the 3e ones were ALL hellishly Monte'd out.
(I say this as there was not a single non exotic racial type in the front twenty or a single character with less than a 20 in something in the front FIFTY of the 3e characters. It was sickening.)
But, as to your question about the wizard taking a level as a fighter... it depends. If his background is fixed on the idea of the integration of both, then it works fine, if he was always a schoalr and suddenly he just happens to wap the equivalent of a level as a fighter from no where... yeah, you darned right I see a problem.
As to the two weapon style and ambixterity, that actually has a historical basis; the Forentine and Prisian fencing schools (among others) that actually TAUGHT that style to tens of thousands of young men at one time. It's hard to fault something as Monte' when it was a standard practice for centuries.
As a side note to that, I only allow that combination with fencing weapons or within individual cultural types were it fits... such as the Danes with the long and short bladed sword combos, or the several gladiatorial types, or the Egyptian Sacares. But if it can't be explained though; nope, it doesn't go. THAT though is a house rule.
The problem is explainability. Most published worlds other than "the Realms" (which is the most prevalent 3e setting too, not just 2e) don't go magic insane. The converse of what you just brought out is possible to in 3e, which is the problem.
Thrud, the Barbarian horror, after x number of levels and more hit points than a god of magic usually has, suddenly becomes Thrud the Conjuror. It makes no sense and can NOT hang together logicly without MASSIVE set up, yet in 3e it too is not only possible, but unrestricted. Sure, ol' Thrud looses some of his Barbarian bonuses, but he can just swing right into being a Mage without missing a beat. THAT is abuse.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 2, 2003 23:54:02 GMT -5
Now, that I blame on the DM. If Thrud the barbarian suddenly wants to become a sorcerer, there had better be a good reason for it, other than "Hey, that would make me more powerful". Sure, it's possible under the rules, but, it's the DM's fault, not the game's.
Take Darksun for example. If I remember properly, all Darksun characters start at fourth level and most have psionics. Is it munchkin? No. It's a reality of the campaign that you NEEDED those things in order to survive. The campaign was that brutal. My point being, what is munchkin in one campaign, may not be in another.
BTW, Forgotten Realms is not the standard for 3e, Greyhawk is. 2e Forgotten Realms had some of the most munchkin stuff I've ever seen. Faiths and Avatars being probably the worst culprit.
I have to admit though, I never played or collected much from the Forgotten Realms stuff. The few books that I did buy just struck me as so overpowered that I refused to buy more. Take a half ogre character from the Humanoids book. At first level, it got a +2 to strength, meaning it could have a 20 2e strength! That was insane.
Something you really have to get away from is comparing 2e scores to 3e scores. Sure, a 20 in a score is insane, I'll admit that, but, it is far less powerful than a 2e 20 where you either got huge bonuses, magic immunities, regeneration or whatever. Sure, on paper the 3e characters look so much more powerful, but, in play, they simply aren't.
Take Thrud the barbarian for a second. He goes up 15 levels in barbarian. He has more hp than a god, he can pump out huge amounts of damage. He should, he's a 15th level character. That was true in any edition. Now, he takes 1 level in sorcerer. He gains a couple of 1st level wizard spells. Realistically, from a game balance point of view, who cares? His overall power is not really increased by this. Is it stupid and does it make not sense? Sure. Any roleplayer worth his salt would laugh at this. But, from a game mechanics point of view, it makes little or no difference.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 3, 2003 6:15:31 GMT -5
Oh I disagree here almost completely.
1) It is NOT just the DM's fault. The DM is following the official, published PRIMARY game manual, the PHB, in what is predicated by the game itself to be acceptable. THAT is an enormous difference from a DM/Player stand point. This isn't something from a auxillary source... this is a standard procedure from the MAIN source book.
2) I never said that Forgotten Realms was a standard... just that it was prevalent. Besides which fact, what 2e Greyhawke books there were had the same tendencies for munchiness... there were just FAR less of them and thus less chance for abuse.
3) The stats in the two games do not mean the same thing, true, but the tendency that I saw was towards a FAR greater number of stats being above what was considered humanly possible. THAT is abuse and it is FAR mopre prevalent because the system makes it so.
4) It's not the power thing that is the problem with ol' Thrud... atleast not directly. The problem is that such a thing is even possible in the first place when it flies so in the face of even game centered reason.
Too, the example given was not Thrud the newly frocked Sorceror, for which continuity would only need to be bent out of shape... it was Thrud the Conjuror; a Wizard by any other name who is a specialist in Conjurative magics, that is totally unreasonable.
It takes the standard Wizard, according to the 3E PHB, "...the years before that spent in apprenticeship..." not just the "looking over the party mage's shoulder" and the finding of a mentor for the time it takes to gain the exp to go to next level, to become a Wizard. Too, the Barbarian mindset, as it is presented in the PHB is completely at odds with the Wizardly one. THAT is the problem. In 2e if you are going to make such a completely life altering mind set change it takes time and there is no easy turning back.
A 3e multiclassed character can (not neccesarily will, but can) change his class like most 2e characters change their shirts. THAT too is a problem. It makes the concept of background utterly immaterial.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 3, 2003 7:58:16 GMT -5
Oh, sure, he can change his class very often, but he does suffer some serious penalties for doing so.
Let's ignore the 4+ characters for a while, since having that many classes actually makes your character much weaker than stronger. You simply do not have enough levels to spread around and make any sort of bid for power.
2e had equal problems with multiclassing. For the xp of a 9th level fighter, I can make a 8th fighter/10 mage/ 11th thief. So, for one level of fighter and a few hp, I gain 10 levels of mage, and 11 levels of thief. All in the same amount of time as it took that poor human to reach 9th level. So, instead of speeding things along later in life, I suddenly gain 3 times as many levels as the single classed character. Since most characters in most campaigns have roughly equal xp, by the time your fighter hits 9th, I'll have my levels.
At least in 3e, the best I can do is still a 9th level character. 3/3/3. I have the fighter power of a 4th lvl fighter, second level mage spells and at best 4th level thief skills. Now, which multiclassing rules look more munchkin?
The 2e F/MU/Th has a maximum hit points of 60(10*8+4*10+10*6+2)/3. Not too far off the max for a 8th level fighter, max for a 11th level thief and well over max for the mage. The 3e character has a max of 60(10*3+4*3+6*3). Hey, what do you know? Exactly the same. So, hit points aren't a consideration.
So, in every measurable way the 2e multiclass is far more powerful than the 3e. He has better attacks, more spells, greater thief abilities and the same restrictions. So, again, how is the 3e multiclass a munchkin?
|
|