Game "Balance" - the missing assumptions of social-dynamics

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Which is why I tend to:
  • avoid describing creatures by their names,
  • re-skinning them to have a completely different appearance
  • avoid using the popular monsters altogether.
My most memorable example was re-skinning an Aboleth to a giant sentient tree. Its roots and leaves spread out throughout the woods instead of a watery domain. Otherwise it was the same creature and no one knew. Awesome.

I did like the Tome of Foes, though (for brand new monsters).
How do you go about establishing the relative 'strength' of an 'oppositionistic' encounter? Meaning how do the players know which is a realistic choice they have in an encounter?


From Paizo Forums linking rpg.stackexchange
Paizo said:
What is Agency?

I personally define agency by three criteria:
1. The player has control over their own character's decisions.
2. Those decisions have consequences within the game world.
3. The player has enough information to anticipate what those consequences might be before making them.​

How do you do #3?
 
Getting a college degree in computer science is system mastery of that particular field. Of course the more experienced is going to have an easier time of it. It how life works.
Yet we are talking about a leisure activity. Or are you suggesting to properly play RPGs one should do due diligence and get a degree in Game Design/Theory? Or perhaps go to a War College?

The question for an RPG is whether can you use what you can see as if you were there as your character to be effective without having to plumb the depths the rulebook and supplements. In general the answer is yes even with 3.X.
Except the character doesn't have a convenient god's eye view....., well most don't.

Why?

Because 3.X like most RPGs of it class model reality in a way that position, time, speed, and space are important tactical consideration. Which means things like splitting your forces, flanking, cover, range all play a role. Ideally like life encounters would be occurring in a variety of terrain in a variety of circumstance. Meaning that even if you master the rule system, you still need to master how to apply them as part of a consistent tactical doctrine.
Seems like a different game that you be playing. Sure, in the normal convention position, time, speed, and space are important. In the fantasy realm where 'normal convention' isn't, not so much.

It turns out that with various wargames and RPGs like 3.X like GURPS, the application of tactics is often more important than the specifics of the rules. Of course the rules have some effect, if there a rule that give a power that allows you to vaporize anybody you see well position and range doesn't matter much.
If this is how you typically play, yeah I think someone isn't giving justice to the RPG. Edit. IF the RPG is replicating normal convention(i.e. historical gaming) then have at it.

But the 3.X Wizard doesn't have that level ability. The 3.X system is riddled with effects, counter effects, and defenses. So situation is still one where the application of tactics is the more important.
I question the voracity of skill these 3.x system wizards are that you play against.

Wait

If you were playing the 3.x systems wizard would the 3.x Fighter stand a chance?
Seems like a much better question to ask of you.

My point has been playing a 3.X fighter is as fun and enjoyable and effective as a 3.X wizards because of the process I had to do to apply what I can do to the situation at hand...
And this is where you lose not just some, but everyone. Nothing stops the wizard from employing the very same applications of tactics you keep talking about, they also have another whole set of tactics you cannot replicate.

You have two options here
  1. You are a Doctorate Level Tactician playing with Hobbyists
  2. You are blowing smoke up your own ass.
 
How do you do #3?

What would you do if you there as the character?

That the answer that works in my campaigns.

As for novices I do the following

  • The Majestic Wilderlands relies stereotypical genre tropes heavily
  • I explain and coach the players in what they need to know. Honed by multiple campaigns where I experimented to see what works and what doesn't work.
  • I run my campaign in a way, naturalistic?, that put the players in a first person view of their environment.
  • I also establish that I will supply information if the character would know. Along with a bunch of little things to make comfortable with the idea that I am not going to punish them for having a encyclopedic knowledge of the setting.
The combination of the above means that novices quickly get comfortable with my campaign and the Majestic Wilderlands setting. They think in terms of what they are seeing and doing as if they are there visiting. Which means while experience, both rules and tactics, helps, the general awareness of what fantasy is and it tropes mean that they have a foundation. While they may not know to add to their to-hit bonus to their initiative roll, or whether it better to take sleep, magic missile, or charm person. They have an idea of what going, and have enough information to allow them the agency to make meaningful decisions.

That doing the above works irregardless whether it is OD&D, Microlite, D&D 3.X, GUPRS, Harnmaster, D&D 5e, etc. All system (and other) I have run doing the above.

Not to say there are tweaks. The more "out there" a setting is the more I have to rely on coaching because the players can't make the assumptions they can with D&D style fantasy.

Adam Baldurstone ( Baulderstone Baulderstone ) experienced both the Majestic WIlderlands and Middle Earth being run this way.

Note that Middle Earth despite it being by Tolkien does not work like the D&D fantasy or generic fantasy most people have in their head. So there is more to explain and assumptions do not work as well. But it is less than Glorantha, Tekumel, or Glorantha.
 
How do you go about establishing the relative 'strength' of an 'oppositionistic' encounter? Meaning how do the players know which is a realistic choice they have in an encounter?

I rarely do random encounters without warning. I either leave clues in the environment about upcoming monsters, or, once the heroes are surprised, they can adjust or flee (and I count "flee!" as a different thing than combat).

But mostly this works for me because my players trust me that I'm not out to kill them all.

The giant tree Aboleth was surrounded in rumor and clues. The party KNEW that the forest was "haunted" or tainted by some spawn of a god and a mortal. And they saw the giant, unnatural tree from miles away.

While I don't religiously or mathematically stick to CR, I use it as a broad guideline. Also, I telegraph that not every foe must be killed to be defeated.

When in doubt, I tell the most knowledgeable player that "your character knows that this foe is beyond any of you".
 
Except the character doesn't have a convenient god's eye view....., well most don't.
They have a first person view.

If you were playing the 3.x systems wizard would the 3.x Fighter stand a chance?
Seems like a much better question to ask of you.
Yes a 3.X fighter stands a chance. But it requires that I close with the Wizard before my hit point run out. How that happens depends on the terrain and circumstances. But if it open and we start out 200 feet away from each. Then that what it boils down too.

And this is where you lose not just some, but everyone. Nothing stops the wizard from employing the very same applications of tactics you keep talking about, they also have another whole set of tactics you cannot replicate.

Sure, the wizard can have their own tactics and equipment as well. Ranged attacks are problematic for Boog. I have to close, I have to have some minimal equipment on me like Cure Light potions. The problem is not just with wizards but anything that can attack at range. In general what I opt to do is close as fast as I can. If the opposition has tactics that hinders me from doing this, or there is a lack of cover, I have to retreat.

This is not rocket science.

You have two options here
  1. You are a Doctorate Level Tactician playing with Hobbyists
  2. You are blowing smoke up your own ass.
Seriously do you lack English comprehensions. How many times I have to say, everything I talked only gives Boog a chance of winning. That is more than the 10% that everybody seems to think it is. I have lost and lost often.

No it doesn't fucking require a doctorate. It just require some damn common sense about how to use the terrain and positioning to your advantage. You know the shit that Gronan and coutless other old-time wargamers keep telling everybody that important.

If you fighting an opponent with a ranged weapon you close, if you can't close, then you retreat and work at it in a different way. What the build culture of 3.X tried to do with come up with "I-win" buttons. Combinations of traits that allow them or more commonly a team to instantly win every encounter.

That wasn't my goal with Boog or the other character types I tried. The goal was to be effective, that I did everything right I had a chance of wining. I can't control luck and sometime the other guy will just be a step ahead despite my best effort.
 
Last edited:
They have a first person view.


Yes a 3.X fighter stands a chance. But it requires that I close with the Wizard before my hit point run out. How that happens depends on the terrain and circumstances. But if it open and we start out 200 feet away from each. Then that what it boils down too.
Aga8nst a blasted wizard, maybe. But the maths has proved time after time that blasting is far less effective than targeting saves. A simple Hold Person or even Grease can pit paid to Charge the Wizard tactics.

And of course at not that high a level, Overland Flight plus Improved Invisibility basically render Fighters powerless. The only way a 3rd ed Fighter stays relevant past about 4th level is if the GM lets it.
 
I rarely do random encounters without warning. I either leave clues in the environment about upcoming monsters, or, once the heroes are surprised, they can adjust or flee (and I count "flee!" as a different thing than combat).

But mostly this works for me because my players trust me that I'm not out to kill them all.

The giant tree Aboleth was surrounded in rumor and clues. The party KNEW that the forest was "haunted" or tainted by some spawn of a god and a mortal. And they saw the giant, unnatural tree from miles away.

While I don't religiously or mathematically stick to CR, I use it as a broad guideline. Also, I telegraph that not every foe must be killed to be defeated.

When in doubt, I tell the most knowledgeable player that "your character knows that this foe is beyond any of you".
So you give them the information they need in order to make an informed decision on how to proceed.
What would you do if you there as the character?

That the answer that works in my campaigns.

As for novices I do the following

  • The Majestic Wilderlands relies stereotypical genre tropes heavily
  • I explain and coach the players in what they need to know. Honed by multiple campaigns where I experimented to see what works and what doesn't work.
  • I run my campaign in a way, naturalistic?, that put the players in a first person view of their environment.
  • I also establish that I will supply information if the character would know. Along with a bunch of little things to make comfortable with the idea that I am not going to punish them for having a encyclopedic knowledge of the setting.
The combination of the above means that novices quickly get comfortable with my campaign and the Majestic Wilderlands setting. They think in terms of what they are seeing and doing as if they are there visiting. Which means while experience, both rules and tactics, helps, the general awareness of what fantasy is and it tropes mean that they have a foundation. While they may not know to add to their to-hit bonus to their initiative roll, or whether it better to take sleep, magic missile, or charm person. They have an idea of what going, and have enough information to allow them the agency to make meaningful decisions.

That doing the above works irregardless whether it is OD&D, Microlite, D&D 3.X, GUPRS, Harnmaster, D&D 5e, etc. All system (and other) I have run doing the above.

Not to say there are tweaks. The more "out there" a setting is the more I have to rely on coaching because the players can't make the assumptions they can with D&D style fantasy.

Adam Baldurstone ( Baulderstone Baulderstone ) experienced both the Majestic WIlderlands and Middle Earth being run this way.

Note that Middle Earth despite it being by Tolkien does not work like the D&D fantasy or generic fantasy most people have in their head. So there is more to explain and assumptions do not work as well. But it is less than Glorantha, Tekumel, or Glorantha.
Hmm 355 odd words and never answered the question.
Again how does a "novice"
1. The player has control over their own character's decisions.
2. Those decisions have consequences within the game world.
3. The player has enough information to anticipate what those consequences might be before making them.

I'll answer your question though
What would you do if you there as the character?
As a player? Most likely end up playing 20 Questions five times in hopes of getting enough information to make a meaningful decision.

Or

I play as if I am standing there, not realizing I need to play 20 Questions five times with the universe, make a decision based upon what I am given and die. W00t Fun Times!
They have a first person view.
No they have a god's eye view
Yes a 3.X fighter stands a chance. But it requires that I close with the Wizard before my hit point run out. How that happens depends on the terrain and circumstances. But if it open and we start out 200 feet away from each. Then that what it boils down too.
Why would a Wizard care about your hitpoints? That isn't playing with even basic tactics.
Perhaps the wizard should target the AC as well? 1565632667615.png

Sure, the wizard can have their own tactics and equipment as well. Ranged attacks are problematic for Boog. I have to close, I have to have some minimal equipment on me like Cure Light potions. The problem is not just with wizards but anything that can attack at range. In general what I opt to do is close as fast as I can. If the opposition has tactics that hinders me from doing this, or there is a lack of cover, I have to retreat.

This is not rocket science.
Hmm, must be something that you are not understanding, perhaps you have a distinct playstyle?
wizard needs to stop Booger from closing and/or retreating. I wonder if they are able to do that without him knowing it's coming?

Seriously do you lack English comprehensions. How many times I have to say, everything I talked only gives Boog a chance of winning. That is more than the 10% that everybody seems to think it is. I have lost and lost often.

No it doesn't fucking require a doctorate. It just require some damn common sense about how to use the terrain and positioning to your advantage. You know the shit that Gronan and coutless other old-time wargamers keep telling everybody that important.

If you fighting an opponent with a ranged weapon you close, if you can't close, then you retreat and work at it in a different way. What the build culture of 3.X tried to do with come up with "I-win" buttons. Combinations of traits that allow them or more commonly a team to instantly win every encounter.

That wasn't my goal with Boog or the other character types I tried. The goal was to be effective, that I did everything right I had a chance of wining. I can't control luck and sometime the other guy will just be a step ahead despite my best effort.
The problem is your "common sense" tactics don't work in 3.x
The wizard doesn't care about Booger's HP or AC

It really shows you are blowing smoke up your own ass.
 
So you give them the information they need in order to make an informed decision on how to proceed.
I’m starting to remember why I had you on ignore.

I give them enough information to know that they’re up against mooks vs a mini boss vs. a foe that they need to be clever around or else they’re likely to get badly hurt. I never go so far as “oh even though it looks like a dinosaur, it’s totally just another troll: plan accordingly and bring lots of acid and torches”.
 
IDK why a peasant would be fighting a hydra. Seems awfully bold of them to be doing.

And yet that's the premise of most fantasy roleplaying games.

Folklore isn't mythology

|
round.jpg
[
 
Last edited:
Fun aside, one of the major fights you have in the video game Dragon's Dogma has you, a fisherman/fisherwoman taking on a Hydra.
 
Aga8nst a blasted wizard, maybe. But the maths has proved time after time that blasting is far less effective than targeting saves. A simple Hold Person or even Grease can pit paid to Charge the Wizard tactics.

Hold Person last 1 round/level and you get a save every rounds. Grease worse case, I fall and have to roll out of the area. The effect of both means I am delayed in closing with the wizard. So either I am able to take the subsequent damage until I am finally able to close, or I don't in which case I lose. In my testing I had to deal with Hold Person, I don't recall dealing with Grease.

Team fights are situational but if that we are talking about then I can bring in arbitrary teammates as well.

And of course at not that high a level, Overland Flight plus Improved Invisibility basically render Fighters powerless. The only way a 3rd ed Fighter stays relevant past about 4th level is if the GM lets it.

Well we are talking around 9th or 10th level with that kind of power in the core rules. By that point I would have bought a potion of flying, potion of invisibility along with a Eversmoking bottle and a set of healing potions kept in a type I bag of holding. All can be had for under 10,000 gp.

If I caught in the open I would set off the eversmoking bottle, quaff the potion of flying, and invisibility, then recover the bottle and get out of there.

Else I go inside or get to a unexposed area and wait. Perhaps light a sooty candle if there is an ingress and move away from the direct line of fire. If the smoke indicates the wizard entering the room/area then I will throw a Dust of Appearance.

Nothing I can do if the wizard chucks a fireball or other area damaging spells aside from enduring the damage and then healing up with what I can from the potions. I am

If I had a ring of X-Ray vision I may consider staying within the 50 foot radius of smoke and wait out the Wizard. Seeing if my supply of healing potions lasts longer than the amount of spells he can throw at me. At some point he either leaves or comes in after me, at which point I will see him outlined by the smoke which doesn't blind me due to the X-ray vision.

Like I said, nothing I came up with is an I win or offer certainty of victory, they just offer a chance. Nor does it require some kind of doctorate of tactics and paying attention to exploit the opportunities that arise.
 
So you give them the information they need in order to make an informed decision on how to proceed.
Hmm 355 odd words and never answered the question.
Again how does a "novice"
1. The player has control over their own character's decisions.
2. Those decisions have consequences within the game world.
3. The player has enough information to anticipate what those consequences might be before making them.
I did for #3, you don't like my answer and feel it a form of twenty questions. I disagree. If you want to see what I do here is a video.


 
Part of the fun of young, squishy mortals taking on huge monsters is finding out it’s weakness or making a sacrifice to obtain a weapon that can slay it.

Hell didn’t Hercules need to learn of a trick to defeat the Hydra? Even demi gods needed to be resourceful.
 
Two things can be true simultaneously:
1. WotC dramatically changed the capabilities of Wizards.
2. The situation is not as dire as the most extreme opinions think.

We have two extremes here.
One is Rob, who seems unable to criticise WotC about anything (ever), and claims that 3.x can be run like any other game.
The other is Brady, who say that fighters are completely useless and the system is broken past the first couple of levels

The truth is always somewhere in between.

Let’s say Justin, and to a certain degree, Rob, is correct, and the GM can go a long way towards mitigating the 3.x excesses by running the setting in a verisimilar, consistent fashion.

Where are GMs going to get that advice? WotC advice leads to games based solely on level appropriate combat, the 15-minute adventuring day, XP budgets, magic item shopping lists, and planning your prestige class build to 20 before you pick up the dice, with a list of adventures and splats that enforce this play style.

I can mitigate a lot of WotC problems, and I did, just through good, “setting balance”, Living World GMing. I could also fix most of it by going back to AD&D. :grin:

Yeah, some things can be fixed. However, that doesn’t mean you didn’t need to fix them, and new GMs shouldn’t have had to buy Ptolus to understand how a campaign is supposed to work.
 
I know you love to paint me in the least favourable light, Krugie darling, but I don't take extreme positions.

I'm not saying the fighter, nor the rogue for that matter, is utterly useless, they can be legitimately fun and useful at the lower levels, for example. But rather, that the higher the play, the less relevant they become, as the casters can and have proven to be more reliable and effective. Which is a completely different beast.

No one, especially not gamers, want to be irrelevant at any 'level' of the game. Even people who actively make the least capable adventuring character don't want to be.
 
Where are GMs going to get that advice?
From discussions on forums, like this one. Rob and Justin's blogs are good places too.

I'm not really a fan of 3.x, but if people found ways to make it work for them, it is a worthwhile to share it. Hardly any games out there actually do a good job of teaching you how to run them. Yeah, WotC is open to criticism for that, but it is interesting to hear what Rob and Justin have to say as well.
 
Incidentally, this thread marks the first time I've heard of this "Ptolus." Was it any good? Is it worth starting a thread over?
 
Incidentally, this thread marks the first time I've heard of this "Ptolus." Was it any good? Is it worth starting a thread over?
Do you like a massive settings? (it was originally, literally $120USD) Do you like D&D 3.x Magic being the central theme in the game world?
 
Do you like a massive settings? (it was originally, literally $120USD) Do you like D&D 3.x Magic being the central theme in the game world?
It's funny now that we live in the Kickstarter age how incredibly high that price seemed to me at the time.
 
Again how does a "novice"
1. The player has control over their own character's decisions.
2. Those decisions have consequences within the game world.
3. The player has enough information to anticipate what those consequences might be before making them.


If said "novice" is roleplaying their character, then all such questions are elementary.

1. The player has control over their own character's decisions.

This is true of pretty much every game. Situations where it is not would be a GM railroad or a system that compels characters to act in a certain way regardless of the player's wishes. The former is a symptom of bad GMing, well recognized from the beginnings of the hobby when the term was first coined. It has nothing to do with the player, novice or otherwise, and very little to do with the specific system. The latter has some edge cases. I would say the player should have control insofar as it's a situation that a person would have control of themselves in real life. And none of us have perfect control over ourselves. Access to memories is limited, assuming one does not have an eidetic memory. If we get hurt or contract a disease, then there are automatic consequences that a person has no personal control of, and can only abet or manage through medical practices or intervention by healers. The same is true to an extent regarding mental health. A player may not have control over their character's sanity in a game, in the same way that in real life a person has to deal with the psychological consequences of being exposed to extreme situations. Likewise, no one has perfect control over their emotions, which is why a system like Pendragon's Passions works.

2. Those decisions have consequences within the game world.

This is the mark of a good system and GM. A competent GM blends logic, common sense, and experience to determine the realistic consequences of a character's actions. A good system supports and assists this. There are times when a GM's ruling should supersede the system in order to enforce realistic consequences. Like the age old example of a high level character with a large amount of hit points jumping off a cliff. This is also an example of why "railroading" is much maligned in the hobby - if a character's choices don't matter, instead inevitably lead to the same outcome predetermined by the GM, this isn't roleplaying so much as "connect the dots" as players are funnelled through a GM's fanfiction. So again, this is something that has no relation to whether a player is novice or experienced, it's in the hands of the GM.

3. The player has enough information to anticipate what those consequences might be before making them.

Which doesn't mean perfect knowledge, obviously. A character from their PoV as a resident of the shared imaginary reality should have the same knowledge of an equivalent person in the real world facing a similar situation. Hence the previous examples of a Navy Seal taking on a bear. The Navy seal does not know a Bear's Hit Points. If they've never seen a bear, or studied them, then they likely don't know exactly how a bear will likely attack, how fast or strong it is specifically, nor what sort of "strategies" it might adopt in a combat situation. But they would generally know that the bear is stronger than them, that it has claws and can bite, and is much physically tougher than them. They may be able to anticipate that the bear can outrun them, and hopefully they know that the bear is as capable a climber as a human adult. A player, just through common sense, can anticipate that in a situation where a Seal is forced to fight a bear (it doesn't matter why, if a person can't come up with a dozen scenarios how that could come about off the top of their head, then I seriously question if they are creative enough to be a GM), then they are likely to suffer serious injury, and the likelihood of death. The Player should be able to surmise that the Navy Seal, having extensive combat training and likely in peak physical condition, has a greater likelihood of surviving, if not winning, the fight, than you or I (I would probably be instant death due to an irresistible urge to tickle the bear's tummy).

Likewise, an adventurer encountering an unknown monster knows that if they engage in combat it is likely the monster is physically stronger and tougher than them. A visual appraisal will probably tell them the creature's obvious offensive and defensive adaptions (if it has scales, it's likely to be very resistant to physical injury, if it has large teeth, all the better to eat you with. The size of the creature might indicate it's general comparative strength to the character (a dog-sized creature is likely not as tough as bear-sized creature). If it has wings, it can probably fly, etc.

But on a basic level it's very easy for a novice or any human with a brain to anticipate that the consequences of engaging in combat with a creature are likely to be injury or death. This is the obvious consequence of any combat encounter. Which is why combat should not be entered into lightly, especially without foreknowledge of what one is facing. But that foreknowledge should be come across through the same way it is in the real world, not simply handing the player an opponent's stat card and giving them a bunch of OOC information to rely upon.
 
Last edited:
One is Rob, who seems unable to criticise WotC about anything (ever), and claims that 3.x can be run like any other game.

I find pretending to be a person in a setting with their actions adjudicated by a human referee to be the dominant factor not the system.

The clearest thing out there that represents my view on system is D&D 5e core versus Adventure in Middle Earth. If you get the design relationship between the two RPGs then you get my views on system.

The section where I complain about Wizards of the Coast
I find the presentation and organization of a rulebook to be a source of more problems than system design. I was able to understand and utilize effectively all four editions of D&D that Wizards of the Coast released using RAW. So I rarely feel the need to criticize WoTC on the design of their systems.

As for complaints about the WoTC editions
  • I do not care for the 20 level spread. I don't care for the fussy stat block arrangement of 3.0, 3.X, and 4.0.
  • D&D 5e stat blocks are marginally better.
  • I don't care for the one note wonder flavor that D&D 4th edition has.
  • Related to my dislike of the 20 level spread, D&D 4e is the worse offender in the insane amount work one has to do to make a brand class, or rework the flavor the core rules because of it Magic the Gathering style exception based design.
As for WoTC they totally fucked up the support of and presentation of D&D 4e supplements short of going bankrupt. Only course correction at the very end of essentials when it was too little and too late.

While the support of D&D 5th edition supplement is the polar opposite of D&D 4e, there is a faction within the company that despises digital content (and the OGL) and thus why they can't release straight forward PDFs of their line. The only reason we have the digital stuff we have now is because people has to pay the full price of the product (again). Thus mollifying the greedy assholes who make up this faction at WoTC. The only saving grace is that the digital shit actually works well now and is useful. I bought two things on Roll20 (the PHB and an adventure) along with the PHB from DnD Beyond and it nice and functions well. Just not full cover price nice.

I believe I been quite consistent about what I complain and praise about system and companies for over ten years. WoTC in particular.
 
Where are GMs going to get that advice? WotC advice leads to games based solely on level appropriate combat, the 15-minute adventuring day, XP budgets, magic item shopping lists, and planning your prestige class build to 20 before you pick up the dice, with a list of adventures and splats that enforce this play style.

As part of marketing, the supplemental material, and supporting the line I agree. But on the other hand when you look at the various DMGs that not how they present it in there. Especially in D&D 4e DMG. With 4.0, they wrote very good advice about how to make the campaign your own and lay out the options. Then for everything else in the line, what they talk about on-line, it just one thing and one thing only. The problem with the two 3.X DMGs is that first and foremost they are list of stuff for the referee.

Rating the DMGs

See another complaint about WoTC. :wink:
 
How do you go about establishing the relative 'strength' of an 'oppositionistic' encounter? Meaning how do the players know which is a realistic choice they have in an encounter?

This is one of those things where it feels like you're just coming from a completely different paradigm: By and large, I (as the GM) don't do that. It's not my responsibility to hold your hand. Figuring out how to gain information in order to make informed decisions is part of the game. If you want to turn the game into Russian Roulette by just rashly charging about making random, uninformed decisions in the belief that I'm under some obligation to warn you when the bullet has been chambered... well, you're probably going to end up with that bullet in your brain pan at some point.

You can disparage this as "playing 20 questions" in the apparent belief that PCs actually interacting with the game world and making meaningful choices is somehow a bad thing. On the other hand, I'm of the belief that the sort of "GM as nanny" model that you're advocating is the root of basically everything wrong with RPG design over the last 20 years.

Aga8nst a blasted wizard, maybe. But the maths has proved time after time that blasting is far less effective than targeting saves. A simple Hold Person or even Grease can pit paid to Charge the Wizard tactics. And of course at not that high a level, Overland Flight plus Improved Invisibility basically render Fighters powerless. The only way a 3rd ed Fighter stays relevant past about 4th level is if the GM lets it.

The problem is your "common sense" tactics don't work in 3.x. The wizard doesn't care about Booger's HP or AC. It really shows you are blowing smoke up your own ass.

I was kind of kidding about the 1-vs-1 gladiatorial thing, guys, but seriously: "My character can beat up your character in a 1-vs-1 fight" is basically completely irrelevant to the question of balance in D&D.

Where are GMs going to get that advice? WotC advice leads to games based solely on level appropriate combat, the 15-minute adventuring day, XP budgets, magic item shopping lists, and planning your prestige class build to 20 before you pick up the dice, with a list of adventures and splats that enforce this play style.

Honestly? The 3.0 DMG.

The virulent fetishization of balance didn't come out of the DMing advice given in the 3.0 rulebooks. By and large, it often relied on ignoring a lot of the advice given in those books. A moment I often point to is the ferocious online response to the roper encounter in Forge of Fury: It was perfectly in keeping with the guidelines and advice given in the DMG, but the internet howled that a CR 10 encounter in an adventure for 5th level characters wasn't "balanced." It's pretty clear that this fundamentally shifted the design culture at WotC... and Cook and Tweet were already out the door at that point. You can't blame them.

There's certainly stuff that Cook, Tweet, and Williams did that had unintended consequences. But, by and large, it's pretty clear that they were designing tools with the expectation that everybody would use them to continue running D&D games the way they always had. If you look at Cook's adventure design all the way up to the end of 3rd Edition, it's certainly consistent with that.

I think the biggest thing Cook, Tweet, and Williams failed to anticipate was, in fact, the 'net. The rise of online forums essentially turned hardcore theory-crafting into the mainstream of the RPG hobby. (Or, at least, the most visible and vocal part of that hobby.) I suspect one of the reasons I don't see the sea-change between AD&D and D&D3 that some people do is that I've been participating in online RPG communities since 1990, so I'd been seeing this kind of magic item wishlist / planning your multiclassing and kits / imaginary white room arguments about how the wizard is always better than the fighter / etc. for a decade by the time 3rd Edition showed up.

Incidentally, this thread marks the first time I've heard of this "Ptolus." Was it any good? Is it worth starting a thread over?

It's a phenomenal work, particularly once you include the penumbra of material designed around it (Banewarrens, Chaositech, Night of Dissolution, Queen of Lies, Beyond the Veil). I've been running a campaign in Ptolus for over a decade now and we've still barely scratched the surface of what it has to offer. I'd be happy to discuss it in detail in a different thread.
 
Honestly? The 3.0 DMG.

What your opinion of the 3.5 DMG?

The virulent fetishization of balance didn't come out of the DMing advice given in the 3.0 rulebooks.

I concur although i wasn't particularly impressed with the 3.0 DMG, it was more useful than the AD&D 2e DMG but it felt more utilitarian. The one I was impressed with is the D&D 4th edition DMG. It alas was ignored faster than 3.X by the rest of the line until last into esstentials.
 
Hold Person last 1 round/level and you get a save every rounds. Grease worse case, I fall and have to roll out of the area. The effect of both means I am delayed in closing with the wizard. So either I am able to take the subsequent damage until I am finally able to close, or I don't in which case I lose. In my testing I had to deal with Hold Person, I don't recall dealing with Grease.

Team fights are situational but if that we are talking about then I can bring in arbitrary teammates as well.



Well we are talking around 9th or 10th level with that kind of power in the core rules. By that point I would have bought a potion of flying, potion of invisibility along with a Eversmoking bottle and a set of healing potions kept in a type I bag of holding. All can be had for under 10,000 gp.

If I caught in the open I would set off the eversmoking bottle, quaff the potion of flying, and invisibility, then recover the bottle and get out of there.

Else I go inside or get to a unexposed area and wait. Perhaps light a sooty candle if there is an ingress and move away from the direct line of fire. If the smoke indicates the wizard entering the room/area then I will throw a Dust of Appearance.

Nothing I can do if the wizard chucks a fireball or other area damaging spells aside from enduring the damage and then healing up with what I can from the potions. I am

If I had a ring of X-Ray vision I may consider staying within the 50 foot radius of smoke and wait out the Wizard. Seeing if my supply of healing potions lasts longer than the amount of spells he can throw at me. At some point he either leaves or comes in after me, at which point I will see him outlined by the smoke which doesn't blind me due to the X-ray vision.

Like I said, nothing I came up with is an I win or offer certainty of victory, they just offer a chance. Nor does it require some kind of doctorate of tactics and paying attention to exploit the opportunities that arise.
You really didn't get into the 3rd we magic stuff. Targeting hit points is the least efficient way for a wizard to deal with an enemy. Especially one that is very likely to have low Will saves.

3rd ed hadn't been out long at all when the blaster wizard had been repeatedly demonstrated to be the least effective approach to magic.

But if you insist on using a bad example to prove a weak point, that is your choice.
 
I know you love to paint me in the least favourable light, Krugie darling, but I don't take extreme positions.
Dude, get over yourself already. I also said Rob is taking an extreme position as well, and he’s someone I like and respect.

When you say shit like “How cute, you think fighters can be effective”, that’s pretty much the extreme position, that once casters hit 2nd level spells, fighters are irrelevant. That’s pretty much one end of the spectrum.
 
You really didn't get into the 3rd we magic stuff. Targeting hit points is the least efficient way for a wizard to deal with an enemy. Especially one that is very likely to have low Will saves.

3rd ed hadn't been out long at all when the blaster wizard had been repeatedly demonstrated to be the least effective approach to magic.

But if you insist on using a bad example to prove a weak point, that is your choice.
You didn't get into any specifics other than Hold Person and Grease. As for being a effective wizard, the common types, battlefield control, buffing, debuffing, all rely on the wizard being part of a team or being able to summon a team. Not fighting solo.

The point of the ever-smoking bottle is create terrain to provide cover, to buy the time that I need as Boog to either retreat or better terrain to fight the wizard. The ever-smoking bottle has a 100 foot radius.

Reviewing many of the spells used for battlefield control, buffing or debuffing. Many require you to see the target, have a way smaller area than a 100 foot radius cloud of smoke, or a close range that shorter than 100 feet.

Again to stress this doesn't make Boog superior or better, it just means that playing Boog I have options even against an attacker who is flying and invisible.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top