JadedDM wrote:
I get that you are trying to make a point, and probably just pulled something random out of the air, but what in the world does getting a +5 to DR have to do with hitting something?
I know, it sounds crazy. But no, I'm not making up the weird class/race combos. I probably got the DR thing wrong because I forget how it works. Isn't it a Difficulty Rating and it adjusts thaco or something?
I'm just speaking of my own experiences in my own games. Generally speaking, I've found that old school gamers tend to care more about killing things and taking their stuff, while the younger crowd is more interesting in telling a shared story. It's not really surprising, either. Remember that if you go back far enough, to D&D's roots, the game evolved from wargaming, not actual roleplaying. If anything, I've found that D&D focuses on roleplaying more nowadays than it ever did.
Like I said, that's mind-boggling to me. I've only ever seen the exact opposite. Sure, we've always seen powergamers and roleplayers in each and every edition. But I've observed a massive trend towards powergaming in 3E and beyond, with little to no regard for roleplaying - with the reverse in 1E and 2E.
In fact, if I'm running a game and I say, "You come across a goblin sitting next to the road. He's wearing leather armor and has a sword on his belt. He isn't doing anything threatening, he's just sitting there snacking on some moldy cheese." Generally, in my experience, the younger players will approach the goblin, ask him what he's doing, determine if he's a threat, and if not, move on. The older players will immediately attack and kill him. Doesn't matter he was just sitting there minding his own business.
I'd say most of my players would probably send scouts around to flank him or look for whether there are reinforcements lurking about, and then kill him.
But I'm not sure that's the best example, as goblins and orcs are seen as universally evil. Now if it were a different monster that might not necessarily be evil, I think that would open the door to more roleplaying.
Okay, but you understand that's a joke, right? In both links you provided, the author outright states it's meant to be humorous.
From the first link: "i decided a gelatinous cube would make a hilarious character..."
Well he admits they're humorous and fun. Doesn't mean he didn't design them for serious use. But try telling that to the 3E group at WOTC back in the early 2000's! It spawned several threads of equally absurd suggestions. And they were
dead serious.
And in the Wizards article, the author states up front:
Though most versions fit best into D&D campaigns, one version in this installment is for the d20 Modern game, so you can use the creature in your modern-day or future campaigns too. One of this set -- the monk cube -- is relatively powerful, but be sure that it uses all its abilities to evade damage, slow falls, or deflect arrows in front of the PCs, or they won't get the full effect. The rest of the cubes here are pretty strange, but still suitable for lower-level groups. Let's admit it. As far as monsters go, gelatinous cubes can be pretty amusing. Every one of these versions has some humorous element to it -- so enjoy!.
So yeah, the author is serious too. He admits the gelatinous cube is odd and humorous and can be fun, but
he fully intends for people to actually use this idiotic thing!
The internet. I haven't run a face-to-face game in over two decades now.
That's an odd experience. I'm still scrathing my head trying to figure out how you got the opposite result that me and so many others have. Maybe a better player pool, being it's mainly online?
The 2E books did a better job explaining what a roleplaying game is for people who were brand new to the concept. Honestly, the 1E books came off as rambling and dis-coherent to me.
Well Gygax certainly rambled a bit and used "creative" English.
But if the average 6th grader at the time could figure it out...
Are there such people any more? Lord of the Rings is one of the most popular movie franchises ever made. Nerds are mainstream now.
That may be changing. But you see what I'm saying.
I don't think video games had much to do with the ways D&D changed. I think the changes they made were things people asked for.
I'd argue that can't possibly be true. Look how many 1E gamers refused to go to 2E, and how many 1E and 2E gamers refused to play 3E. I'd say the changes were put in because the squeaky wheel always gets the grease. Good gamers played the game, took the risks, and accepted the results. Poor gamers whined about
"Oh, I hate dying...and why do I have to make a system shock for being petrified...and why can't I have more kewl powerz?" and those were the voices that were heard. And most of them were video gamers. 3E, when I read the books, felt like a video game instruction manual to me. First thing that popped into my head.
Yes, death is less punishing in later editions. As is poison and level draining.
Hell, a
LOT less punishing! Virtually a slap on the wrist, if that! Literally every spell that required a system shock roll to survive (
haste, polymorph, petrification, wish, etc) in 1E and 2E no longer required any such roll. Casting
gate no longer aged anyone, neither did it require a system shock roll. Same for
haste. This is huge. Why would any wizard
not memorize tons of haste spells and write haste scrolls and give everyone in the party multiple attacks? Worse yet,
all classes in 3E got multiple attacks. So let's compare a 2E and a 3E group:
2E
Fighter - 1 att/rd, then 3/2 rds, then 2/rd
Wizard - 1att/rd
Cleric - 1att/rd
Thief - 1att/rd
So even at 10th level, the party gets 5 total attacks per round. Let's say the wizard hastes the entire party. They now get a total of 10 attacks per round. But each person must make a system shock or die, and each one ages 1 year. Do this more than once or twice, and someone is going to die. And they you have the resurrection survival roll to deal with, which does not exist in 3E. Plus, the aging adds up.
Now, I don't have a 3E PHB handy, but I know all classes ended up with at least 2 att/rd, and fighter classes got 4, so...
3E
Fighter - 4
Wizard - 2att/rd
Cleric - 2att/rd
Thief - 2 att/rd
A 3E party would get as many attacks per round as a hasted 2E party. Now, why in the hell would any wizard not have tons of haste spells ready, so that the party can get 20 attacks per round (twice as many as a hasted 2E party) and never have to worry about system shock rolls or dying?
But a lot of people hated those mechanics. You obviously disagree, but you are clearly in the minority.
I wouldn't say the minority at all. A lot of people whined about them, sure. But most mature gamers handled it. Granted, nobody seems to like level drains. But I've almost never had a complaint about system shock rolls, or resurrection survival rolls, or complaints about aging as a result of casting or receiving the effects of a spell.
If your character is level drained, you can no longer be as useful to the party anymore. You are now a burden, someone that can't contribute fully but still must be protected until you can regain those levels. That's not fun, for anyone involved. So they made it easier. Because that's what the fans wanted. The game has changed because the audience has changed.
That's precisely my point. The audience they went after has changed. It's easier to write stat blocks for poor powergamers who don't understand roleplaying or demand more from the game than:
"Pow! Zap! Bang!".
In fact, the main reason people wanted it easier to avoid or return from death in later editions is because they would get attached to their characters and want them to live on. In the old days, characters were pretty expendable. It wasn't common for players to roll multiple characters, as backups, for when the originals inevitably died.
In the old days, that was the purpose and challenge of the game. If you kept your character alive, you received praise and higher levels. And people definitely got attached to their characters even back then. The longer they survived, the more they got attached and therefore the more careful they had to be. But then comes 3E and you don't have to worry about dying because:
1) Almost
nothing is truly dangerous outside of sheer damage
2) Literally
every form of damage or death was toned down and made safer and had an easy, instant, cheap fix - whether it was
greater restoration or
mass heal, etc.
3) No form of injury was permanent. Level drains were temporary and got saving throws. And if that wasn't enough, let's create a spell (
greater restoration) that can restore 20 r more drained levels with a single casting! Of course, let's make it easy to get, and inexpensive (500 xp to restore 20 levels)!
4) There was no limit to the number of times you could die.
Come on! I can't honestly look at 3E as anything other than a sad joke, a capitulation to sad, whiny, poor gamers. 99.9% of the risk was removed. Character became essentially immortal.
