67 replies to this topic

[SimDing0]

Explain? Just for the sake of the thought of being raised from the dead, I believe it`s totally justifiable that it costs that much. Let`s think about it, raising a dead person isn`t that simple from the point of view of realism (relative realism) and since 3E is about making the whole system much more realistic (at least that`s what everyone on its side says), I`d say it`s a pretty normal price to be paid.

Why? What's realistic in the real world doesn't translate into what's realistic in the setting. In Dragonlance, raising the dead is impossible with a few exceptions. On the other hand, in FR, it's really not that impressive, so it doesn't seem justified to have huge costs and penalties for it while you can play with all sorts of far more wacky magic without the same restrictions.

[SimDing0]

Neither do realistic and magic, but...

[Thorium Dragon]

I like 3/3.5 edition more. I am always in favor of greater flexability and options.

[khay]

Because it`s damn boring to be raised back each time after dying. The game gets pretty boring that way and I really see no point of bothering to be careful with your character having thoughts like 'ah, I died again.. Bleh, no big deal, I can just come back to life and go on like nothing happened...'

[SimDing0]

That's a flaw in the conception of the FR setting, then. And I agree entirely. I think Raise Dead being available as a level 5 spell says a lot.

[khay]

Amen, brother!

[kirkjobsluder]

I think the point of having high costs on raise dead (and some other spells) is because some of the higher-level spells out there can be really unbalancing to game play if one is able to cast them once per day. Raising the dead for example is asking a deity for a major boon to cover your ass due to a stupid mistake. Imprisonment for example is a major kick-ass spell that had a high cost and high risk. Many of the 8th and 9th level spells were designed in such a way that you used them once a quest rather than once a day. The party quested for the components of the spell, then used the high-level spell to complete the quest.

I can see doing without the monitary cost for raise dead (but not for Gate or Imprisonment). The way I would handle it is that the character comes back with 1 hp, and 1 constitution, and regains constitution at 1 point per day of bedrest. In addition, the cleric must roleplay out the request and give a convincing prayer. The deity also has every right to refuse the request if the raised character is of the wrong alignment or ethos. A badly done request or too many raise dead spells in the same campaign can result in the deity slapping the priest back a few levels or the priest falling out of favor.

Which is one of the balances on clerical spells that frequently gets lost. High-level clerical spells are requests for aid from the deity. The spell must be cast to aid the ethos of the deity. It is quite possible that Lathander might not want the Lawful-Evil Necromancer in the party to benefit from Heal. An evil deity might prefer to let the Good paladin or ranger die. Mages don't have to worry about being in anyone's favor so they can cast what they want, when they want, and how they want to with impunity.

[raptor]

I prefer the 3.5E by far.

It have faults, but so does 2E, and i really loved the cleanupp they did on dice roling and most of the base stuff in the 3E and 3.5E. Also that warriors, and other non casting classes actually got a bit more variety in combat than just "attack, attack, move, attack".
I especialy liked the new skills system, the feats are fun, but really overpowering, and i feel that spells is getting less powerfull, a decent "buildt" fighter can whak out more Dmg than most mages i have seen :-/

regardding 2E vs 3E books, (dont recall who brought it upp) i both agree and disagree, i do however often look upp the 2nd ed books to find more info, but they tend to have different info, so i use both. And i never liked prestige classes.

[Kish]

I consider 3.anything a huge improvement, in every way.

[Echon]

I play AD&D 2E with a couple of house rules (most of which remove various restrictions).

-Echon

[Wiskas]

AD&D is better
multiclassing in 3E isn't very logical - for example a mage has to study for about 10 years to learn how to cast one 1st lvl spell/day and a fighter has to train every day for 5 years to become 1st level
then comes 3E and you can switch classes as fast as your boots
and I really miss THAC0

[Zandilar]

Heya,

Hmm... I have done some "in depth" study of the Raise Dead line of spells in 3.5e, and come to some interesting conclusions - even in the Forgotten Realms, someone able to cast Raise Dead is not easy to come by...

Raise Dead is a 5th level spell, which means that a cleric needs to be at least 9th level to cast the spell. The Priest or the person requiring the Priest to cast the spell must provice 5000gp worth of diamonds as a spell component that will be consumed in the casting!!!

The 5000gp worth of diamonds is not a cost, it's not what the priest charges, it's actually a spell component - think of it as a sacrifice directly offered (and taken) by the god granting the spell.

Now, lets use Baldur's Gate as an example. Baldur's Gate is a metropolis with a population of 42,103 people.

The rules in the 3.5e DMG suggest that at a minimum, the highest level cleric for that sized community would be 13th level, while at maximum, the highest level cleric for that sized community would be 18th level... But because this is such a large community, there are actually four clerics of the highest level. Now, if the highest level clerics were 15th level...

Beneath those four are 8 7th level clerics, 16 4th level clerics, 32 2nd level clerics, and a whopping 64 1st level clerics. So, out of a city with a population of 42,103 people, we can see that there are a grand total of... 4 clerics capable of casting Raise Dead (they are also capable of casting Ressurection, but not True Ressurection)... of course, this is not taking into account any special residents that may also make Baldur's Gate home.

(Of course, if the four highest clerics are 18th level, there'd be 8 9th level clerics, which would mean that there would be 12 clerics in Baldur's Gate capable of casting Raise Dead or better - however, I'm just using static numbers, there could be 1 18th level cleric (2 9th level clerics), 1 16th level (2 8th level clerics), 1 14th level (2 7th level), and 1 13th level (2 6th level) as the highest clerics in the city - for a total of just 6 capable of casting Raise dead of better)


I hope I haven't lost you in all that.

On top of that, you then have Role Playing concerns. How many of those clerics are available to a person off the street? Have the PCs done something that would make that church think positively of them? Are some of those clerics involved in churches that the PCs have offended or are opposed to? What kind of service or cost will the church impose on the PCs who have requested their help? Raising the dead should never be easy.

I can see doing without the monitary cost for raise dead (but not for Gate or Imprisonment).  The way I would handle it is that the character comes back with 1 hp, and 1 constitution, and regains constitution at 1 point per day of bedrest.  In addition, the cleric must roleplay out the request and give a convincing prayer.  The deity also has every right to refuse the request if the raised character is of the wrong alignment or ethos.  A badly done request or too many raise dead spells in the same campaign can result in the deity slapping the priest back a few levels or the priest falling out of favor.

A quick look in the Players Handbook reveals that Temporary Ability Damage comes back at a rate of 1 point per full night's rest (8 hours), or 2 points per day (24 hours) of complete bed rest.

Also imposing that penalty goes against the established rules for the spells concerned. Raise Dead has the following penalties: You loose a level, or 2 points of Constitution (permanently) if 1st level. A raised creature has a number of hit points equal to its hit dice (so 1 point if 1 HD or level 1, or 2 points if 2 HD or level 2 etc). Magical diseases and curses are not undone by this process (though normal poisons are neutralised and ordinary diseases are cured). Any missing parts from the body, such as lost limbs, are not restored by this spell. Raise Dead can't bring back to life those who have been made into Undead (even if killed again), or those who were killed by a death effect (such as Finger of Death). Constructs, Elementals, Outsiders, and Undead can't be raised by the spell, and it cannot bring back a creature that has died of old age.

Which is one of the balances on clerical spells that frequently gets lost.  High-level clerical spells are requests for aid from the deity. The spell must be cast to aid the ethos of the deity. It is quite possible that Lathander might not want the Lawful-Evil Necromancer in the party to benefit from Heal. An evil deity might prefer to let the Good paladin or ranger die.  Mages don't have to worry about being in anyone's favor so they can cast what they want, when they want, and how they want to with impunity.

The philosophy for 3rd Edition is that a numerical benefit (or penalty) cannot be balanced by a role playing penalty (or benefit)... For the game to be fairly balanced, it needs to be based on cold hard rules. Spells work regardless of whom they are being cast on - the god might have a few words to say to their priest later (in the form or a vision or an omen), but I seriously doubt they'd hold back a spell they'd already granted. (That's why priests pray for spells at the same time each day - it's the same as a wizard memorising a spell, which is why clerics don't cast spells like sorcerers.)

[Archmage Silver]

3.5 & 3E are better than 2e. As Thorium said, greater flexibility.

[Stone Wolf]

Well, I think the 3E rules made it just too easy. A coupel of my friends didn't agree, so I made a couple characters that basically rolled over anything.

I also don't like the way that 3E changes stuff other than game mechanics. The changes to the Planes annoy the heck outta me, so I won't be buying the books. Overall, I still prefer 2E.

[VigaHrolf]

There are pros and cons to both systems, but I think I like 2E a bit better for the simplicity of it. Now some may say that I am obviously smoking something, but let me explain.

In 2nd edition, you did have a lot of numbers you had to figure out, like THACO, AC, all the adjustments and saving throws, but once you did that once, you didn't have to calculate so much on the fly. You just rolled the dice. In 3E you have not just regular AC, but Deflection AC, unarmored AC (for certain spells), and all sorts of weird adjustments. Combat, due to all the feats actually becomes more complex, with more calculation and more modifiers. And don't get me started on Attacks of Opportunity. While it makes sense in some cases, the rules don't in others. A lot of these changes were wrought for realism, but really only added more complexity.

And then there is the Hit points and Attack Bonuses situation. You have creatures with 500 hp and a +45 to hit. That means a player's got to be able to dish out some insane amounts of damage.

And finally, the biggest thing was the discounting of stat points. No adjustments and a 16 and a 17 are effectively the same thing. That sucks in my opinion because a 17 is statistically harder to get than a 16 (6+6+5 as opposed to 6+5+5 or 6+6+4) but it doesn't mean anything. So those stat points you get don't mean much either.

Then there are things I'm ambivalent about, such as having to AIM magical attacks. And having to use the native combat bonuses of your spellcaster (which suck) to do so, effectively limiting his usefulness to anything other than buffing spells or magic missile until he's high high level. While it is A LOT more realistic, it add another roll. And no combat action in my opinion should have more than 2 rolls except in special occaisions. Which it now can (to hit, saves, and damage) At least they should have had a spellcaster attack chart, different from the usual one.

Now, there are some things I like, the higher the number the better the AC (but not all the weird situational stacking rules they have now), improving stat numbers over time, a better skill system (but not the skill point distribution or the distribution across classes: like why do priests and mages only get 2 points per level and wh aren't spot and listen, two basic skills if you ask me, not just general??)

As to the flexibility - I don't like the removal of the stat restrictions because it does cheapen the classes some, now anyone can be a pally or a ranger instead of having to roll well enough to be one. The species restrictions don't bother me as much. But this flexibility, this ability to choose usually leads in one way. MASSIVE UBER POWERGAMING. Which I do in CRPG but I absolutely despise in RPG. At least in 2E it was damn hard to get away with it. Now, you can create UU's uber cheese characters and make em legal. 2E you could allow an elven paladin or a gnome mage fighter or a tiefling or anything, but as a DM you could just say no and have the rules back you up. Now, if someone produces a character that is pure mutated powergamer goodness, if you say no, they can whine and complain about how the rules clearly allow them to do it. It's the reason I stopped DMing.

So, some of the cosmetic stuff was pretty dang good. But the core changes they made in my opinion take away a lot of the difficulty and challenge, that is now replaced with overpowered monsters and the like. If I ever do play again, it will probably be a mutated form of the two.

Okay.. I've rambled long enough.