Donnerstag, November 01, 2007

Also sprach Jonathan...

...Tweet nämlich. Daher hülle ich mich in ein ehrfurchtsvolles Ich-habs-euch-doch-schon-immer-gesagt.

I don't run 3rd ed any more. I shepherded my 5-year campaign through the madness of 15th-20th level play and managed to have it end on a high note instead of a random TPK. The game worked well enough for that. I still play 3rd, but I don't DM it any more. For me, the number one problem is spellcasters. Having a vast array of powerful per-day abilities is bad at both ends of the spectrum. During an easy battle, the smart spellcaster casts wimpy spells, if any, conserving power for the next encounter. Boring. During a tough battle, the spellcasters unleash the spells that are supposed to last them 4 encounters all at once, letting them dominate the battle. Prepping spells takes time, especially when the players are really trying hard to win. (My two current arcanist PCs don't prep: kobold warmage and human warlock.) Tracking buffs and effects slows the game down. If the spellcaster casts the wrong spells (e.g., using powerful spells on wimps), the whole party suffers. There are other issues with the game, but spellcasting is my number one bane.

Addendum: The warlock is evidence of a philosophical shift within D&D R&D. When we did the 3.0 classes, we sort of asked ourselves "What would a barbarian be like?" and "What would a ranger be like?" The warlock arises from a different sort of question: "How can we design a class that provides this-or-that game experience for the player?" The warlock's not the only class like that, but it's a clear example.

Fett gemacht durch meiner Einer.
Zitiert via, Link.

1 Kommentar:

Anonym hat gesagt…

Ich weiß schon warum ich vor der Festlegung der Mazeprowl-Archetypen alle Tasks aufgelistet und verteilt habe, um sicher zu stellen dass a.) immer was sinnvolles zu tun ist, egal was für einen Hansel man spielt und b.) sichere Nischen existieren.