So, after a couple of months hiatus, my biweekly D&D group got together on Saturday. We're going through the Adventure Path modules and are currently tackling Lord of the Iron Fortress (15th level). This is bog-standard hide-bound D&D 3.5, which is actually where the game really shines. I've found that if you play D&D as it was meant to be played, and are on board with the whole "kill monsters and take their stuff" theme of the game, it can be awesome entertainment. Or it can suck ass. This bears some explanation.

See, I'm playing the group's tank. In the previous couple of sessions, I'd been noticing a significant drop-off in my character's effectiveness in the big fights. I was hitting less often and getting taken out of commission more often. The sessions were becoming less and less fun for me the higher the party rose in experience levels. Bottom line is, I had made some poor choices with feats and skills, and now I was paying the consequences in decreased effectiveness. And let me tell you, decreased effectiveness in this type of play is just no fun at all.

So, with the GM's permission, I decided to rework my character. I wasn't particularly looking forward to this process. See, I'm a casual D&D player; going through pages and pages of feats, skills, magic items, etc. for hours on end concocting the ultimate combos and such is not my cup of tea. I just want to roll some dice and kick ass, with the occasional role-playing here and there. And what should come out just around this time but the Power Gamer's 3.5 Warrior Strategy Guide. A timely release indeed. Basically, it did all of the work for me. All I had to do was read it and follow the guidelines. An hours-long process was reduced to about an hour (not counting the time it took to read the book, which was another couple hours for my slow-reading self).

And in our latest session, my character was kicking ass again. Life is good.

The moral of the story is, D&D, more than any other game I've played, relies heavily on player knowledge of the system as a key component of its enjoyment. Players who know the system well enough to maximize their character effectiveness have more fun, period. Learning the system to that degree is very rewarding, but also very time consuming. For the casual player like me, the "strategy guide" approach is a wonderful idea.

I have always gotten the same service out of fellow PCs but, yes, long-term decision making is vitally important to D&D3 play, and fucking up early on can suck for long term effectiveness and, thus, enjoyment of the game. This is, I think, the big hole in 3e as it is designed -- you really have to plan characters from level 1 all the way through level 20 to get decent mileage out of the game. More trouble than I care to take without aid.

I'm glad to hear that people are finally making strategy guides for the game. "Sword and Fist" had some tantalizing bits about character planning and when to flurry vs. strike for monks, but those were not replicated in later books, replaced by much less useful material.

yrs--
--Ben

That reminds me: The strategy guide was also useful during play. Since there are many strategic decisions that get made during a combat, it was nice to have some guidance, particularly in reference to the Power Attack feat (which allows you to take a penalty on your to-hit for an increase in damage). It wasn't just a char-gen book.

I hope this will start a trend and we start seeing strategy guides for spell-casters, and perhaps strategy info included with new material such as feats, classes (core and prestige) and spells. I might be more willing to look into non-core material if that were the case, and hell, I might even venture to play a non-warrior.

are you for real - or is this some type of subtle grognard satire?

Hi NN,
Nope, I'm totally serious. No sarcasm intended. I'm not 100% certain what you thought I was being sarcastic about, but I'm guessing it was the "venture to play a non-warrior" comment. In that case, the background info there is that, in general, I loathe playing spell-casters. Part of the reason for that loathing is an unwillingness to learn all the umpty-bazillion cool spells and how to use them. A strategy guide for spell casters would help immensely in that regard.

Then you would know when to attack the darkness with Magical Missile...
:)

I would like something that helped in the creation and playing of hybrid characters like my bard/druid. Often I make the mistake of taking or improving the wrong feats/skills...

Cheers,
Jonathan

(sorry for the bad joke...)

but, if you like the challenge of character creation, a strategy guide is sort of cheating, and if you dont, it just magnifies what you dont like..

I'm going to bookmark this thread as occasionally I still run into people who try to claim that the present incarnation of D&D is a good game for introducing noobs to this hobby.

I mean you need an entire book to design a decent FIGHTER? Good night , and fighers are supposed to be D&D's SIMPLE class!

Gimme Trollbabe any day! Pick one number and you're ready to roll, now that's what I call a beginners game.

Hi guys,

D&D bashing aside, its best to look at D&D 3.0 + as being a very successful application of Magic: The Gathering's strategy; Character creation and development is its own strategy, much like building a Magic deck, and then you have the actual play itself.

I believe ethan's point is that he enjoys the tactical play itself rather than the long term strategizing, in which case, the strategy book gives options much like preconstructed decks. And as far as the actual play tactics given, its no more "cheating" than a chess book is to chess.

Chris

What Chris (Bankuei) said. I don't want to solve the system, I just want to play.

I think a strategy guide approach for RPG's is legitimate and fruitful. I assume it would be more appropriate for Gamist systems or the pie slice of crunch for others. I'm thinking of TROS. They have those Advice from an Old Bladeslinger sidebars.

I know I only truly began to excel with Starcraft: Brood Wars (and thereby, far more fully enjoy) after several trips to starcraftuniversity.com. (Which, unfortunately, the site's no longer up.)

Come to think of it, that'd just be a killer section on any particular game's website: top strategies for a certain approach. That's what used to jazz me most about the Duelist when M:TG was still insanely popular: the card combo strategy breakdowns of the latest set. I'd read 'em, build a deck around 'em, and kick my friends' asses; and everyone thought I was ingenious:)

The more I think about it, the more I think the M:TG comparison with D&D is pretty much dead-on. (And yeah, those old issues of the Duelist rocked!)

Hi Ethan,

I want more actual play meat. Here's what I really wanna know.

What were the character's feats and skills at the very beginning of play?

What were they when you ran into the brick wall of "my guy sucks"?

What were they converted to such that suckage no longer obtains?

Best,
Ron

Am I a gamist or what? :) I looked at the sample chapter that they had on the web, and immediately started disagreeing with their ratings of various feats :) Particularly, Whirlwind Attack isn't nearly as useful as they claim it is, and Improved Grapple has offensive as well as defensive moves. If you're interested in honing your skills at tweaking characters, check out www.rpol.net - in the arena games, particularly, The Proving Grounds. There you can learn truly munchkin techniques, such as the proper abuse of grappling, and how to use Simalacrum for fun and profit :)

Here's the question I have: what sort of challenge ratings were being used as a guage of the party's effectiveness? That is, you mention Lord of the Iron Fortress being 15th level - was your character 15th level?

If your character was 15th level, were the others? If they were, then did they seem to have the problems that you did? If they didn't, were these players more intensely interested in the planning part of the game such that they made characters that were more suitable in power for the level indicated?

What I'm getting at is that I'm wondering if this is a matter of your character not measuring up to the challenges provided, or to the aplomb with which the other PCs were handling the challenges. Can you see why the difference is important?

Lastly, how do the other players seem to be handling the idea of you getting to rework your character with aid? See the pertinence of this question?

Mike

Here's my actual play notes:

1) I ran Lord of the Iron Fortress - not the lame prequel parts, just the cubic moon, with a pre-adventure setup of my own devising. It's a tough, tough module. The ugliest part in my session was when the PCs camped out in the cave of the two blue dragons (awesome aerial battle leading up to that) and the bad guys sent an expedition of Axiomatic Fire Giants and Hell Hounds after them, plus some Steel Predators and that dust mephit assassin. Bottled up in there the whole party almost got killed - they had to Dimension Door out at the last minute. I can't imagine the four sample characters in the back surviving it, actually - I had some really strong gamist players with characters that were tougher than those and they just barely got through.

2) Shadow Walk 'short circuited' the Iron Fortress.

3) If the Pit Fiend does Blasphemy every round and your characters don't have SR, it's over.

4) A big part of why I got dissatisfied with 3e is that not only do you have to 'build the deck' MtG-style, but you have to build it before you have the cards. You also have to decide what you're optimizing for - optimizing for epic level is different than optimizing for 20th (the PHB default), and every single decision you make, even back at 1st level, makes a difference. The game is very intricate in this way. Spellcasters are actually the easiest to optimize in 3e because multiclassing tricks are simpler - you only really have to worry about the PrCs that give you bonus caster levels, since high-level spells are so tough that they swamp other possible benefits for the most part - the cleric/wizard combination is insanely wussed out (though they tried to fix that with the mystic theurge PrC).

This also forms one of my chief complaints about the system - I think there are too many Unequivocally Right Answers for feat choice and sequence, especially for Rogues, Paladins, and Clerics, but also for Fighters, which latter especially shouldn't be the case. (Oh, yeah, and if you're not playing this way? You're playing it wrong - in the sense that you'll have Ethan's experience of losing enjoyment of the central part of play (combat) more and more frequently as time goes on. Why would you want to suck?)

5) All of the things in 4 are things someone else might like. I just revolt against them in the RPG context. I consider chess and go much more interesting games of this type than any RPG.

Um, hello? Currently Playing Lord of the Iron Fortress. A spoiler warning would have been nice. No harm done, though - I stopped reading and we've already dealt with the blue dragons. Could you make whatever points you had in another post without the spoilers?

Ron: I've pitched all the old character sheets, so I can't remember exactly what feats I had. I'm the new guy of the group (joined in via acquaintance with one of the players when the party was 9th level), and I made my fighter character at tenth level after flirting with playing a sorcerer (shudder). As far as I can remember, the brick-wall hitting character's feats were something like this:
Iron Will
Lightning Reflexes
Improved Initiative
Weapon Focus - Greatsword
Weapon Specialization - Greatsword
Improved Critical - Greatsword
Weapon Focus - Composite Longbow
Weapon Specialization - Composite Longbos
Improved Critical - Composite Longbow
Dodge
Mobility
Quick Draw
Point Blank Shot
Precise Shot

New character's feats:
Power Attack
Cleave
Great Cleave
Combat Expertise
Improved Trip
Iron Will
Dodge
Weapon Focus - Greatsword
Weapon Specialization - Greatsword
Greater Weapon Focus - Greatsword
Greater Weapon Specialization - Greatsword
Improved Critical - Greatsword
Blind-Fight
Combat Reflexes
Quick Draw

Skills haven't mattered to this character in this game. I've made maybe two skill rolls in dozens of sessions.

Basically, the melee-specialization (the guy was primarilly melee anyway and we have two other archers) has made all the difference. The previous character was spread thin in both melee and ranged and didn't take advantage of the feats available for either one if specialized.

Mike: All the characters are at 15th level. None of the other characters were sucking as much as me, except maybe the fighter-druid, and only sometimes. Most of the players are more strategically minded and planning-oriented than me, at least as far as I can tell. The guy playing the group's ranger is probably going to borrow of buy the book, though.

It's not a matter of aplomb - in the game prior to the rework, I cost the party a Wish to keep me alive. I was ineffective for the entirety of a combat - didn't hit once, didn't do any damage, and not for lack of trying.

As far as the other players are concerned, anyone could pretty much do what I did with the GM's approval; all they'd have to do to get that approval is ask. We're pretty loose about that sort of thing (one guy has done a new character for each of the past three modules). So I don't suspect there will be any resentment. We're all pretty much on board with the fact that the game is about having fun, first and foremost, and if character tweaks need to be made to increase the fun, everyone's pretty much fine with that.

Sorry, Ethan - tried to edit but I missed the deadline. Here's the relevant game-assessments again, though they may be a tangent for the thread:

4) A big part of why I got dissatisfied with 3e is that not only do you have to 'build the deck' MtG-style, but you have to build it before you have the cards. You also have to decide what you're optimizing for - optimizing for epic level is different than optimizing for 20th (the PHB default), and every single decision you make, even back at 1st level, makes a difference. The game is very intricate in this way. Spellcasters are actually the easiest to optimize in 3e because multiclassing tricks are simpler - you only really have to worry about the PrCs that give you bonus caster levels, since high-level spells are so tough that they swamp other possible benefits for the most part - the cleric/wizard combination is insanely wussed out (though they tried to fix that with the mystic theurge PrC).

This also forms one of my chief complaints about the system - I think there are too many Unequivocally Right Answers for feat choice and sequence, especially for Rogues, Paladins, and Clerics, but also for Fighters, which latter especially shouldn't be the case. (Oh, yeah, and if you're not playing this way? You're playing it wrong - in the sense that you'll have Ethan's experience of losing enjoyment of the central part of play (combat) more and more frequently as time goes on. Why would you want to suck?)

5) All of the things in 4 are things someone else might like. I just revolt against them in the RPG context. I consider chess and go much more interesting games of this type than any RPG.

Hi Sean,

I found much of the same problems myself, trying to run D&D at even 4th level. I ran a weekly game with each session being a self contained mission, and setting up a solid challenge was incredibly difficult. Challenge ratings were damn well useless, and it honestly came down to looking at the individual strengths and weaknesses of each PC and trying to gauge a challenge that wouldn't either be a pushover or stomp them out.

I think a great deal of D&D play, in any mode, relies heavily on the GM's right to fudge or make up things on the spot.

Chris

Whoa. I am definitely NOT a D&D basher, I played the hell out of it from the days of the boxed set with the goofy illustrations to AD&D, and I haven't had anything to do with it since then. I know, I should get out more.

All this time I've been reading people's posts about playing D&D, I've been thinking of it as my good old primitive "roll to hit and that's it" game. This modern D&D is as crunchy as a bucket of ball bearings on Pluto. Time for a major realignment of my gaming worldview. :)

And here I thought Exalted was the ultimate I'd-play-it-but-I'm-too-squishy game.

Yeah, with D&D3, the mechanics are dirt-ass simple. The devil is in the details. And there are approximately 50,000 pages of details. It can get almost stupidly complex.

I think that another potential problem with the design nowadays is that despite the complexity, it's become largely a "known" game.

Now, I've heard that there are places (enworld?) where they still debate some of these details. But as Sean puts it there are too many "Unequivocally Right Answers." This would make at least part of the game "known" meaning in Game Theory terminology that the optimal strategy has been discoverd (or is just obvious). Meaning that there's really nothing left for the player to discern, but to employ this strategy. So the player isn't challenged, and there's no real support for this complexity as a source of fun for gamism.

Can anyone else more familiar with 3E comment as to whether or not this is true? Obviously these strategies aren't totally apparent, as Ethan didn't immediately discern them. Or was it, Ethan, that you were making selections despite an obvious strategy that would have lead to the adjusted character?

Mike

See, I would say that the number of "unequivocally right answers" in D&D is really the systems charm -- it is, to use a slightly jargony phrse, a true "multiple path easter-egg hunt," and I think that's awesome.

There are a couple of questions which radically alter what path you take, though, and I think prevent the game from becoming a "solved" system:

1) What's your cresting level, in terms of effectiveness/level? This is a big deal -- a lot of people use 20, but that's really too high for most campaigns. A character who has a strong start (3-12) gets more effectiveness out of a standard-length D&D campaign.

2) D&D is, effectively, unsolvable, except in very constrained terms (like only using PHB and DMG), simply because the number of Prestige Classes, Feats, and the like available in the WotC books, not to mention all the 3rd part d20 stuff, is staggering, and because each group brings its own house rules and system assumptions to the table. The champion builders usually restrict themselves to WotC material, but use all of it, which doesn't correspond to most groups (who will simply use the books they have on hand, whatever they are, plus GM produced material.)

2a) Further, there needs to be a look at campaign focus. For instance, a minimaxed build in terms of my GMing style will excel at fighting single foes that are more powerful than them, and have a strong suite of backup skills -- particularly diplomacy, bluff, sense motive, and gather information, which I use all the time. Since there are, essentially, no hordes in my games, the feat Great Cleave is worthless. Likewise, if you are playing with my friend J, who loves hordes, you will totally want Great Cleave.

2b) In regards to campaign focus -- it is also possible, with some GMs, to do a thematic minimax. For instance, with my friend J, I know that if I play someone who has a certain "grim and gothic feel" (as he puts it), I will be more likely to recieve GM attention both in terms of focus time and special abilities, rules exceptions, etc.

3) It is my hypothesis that most of the minimaxing that goes on online is not totally optimized, simply because I've seen builds in home campaigns that trash stuff posted online. Now, I happen to game with a man I consider one of the most talented minimaxers in the nation, but that's neither here nor there.

yrs--
--Ben

Bankuei wrote: etting up a solid challenge was incredibly difficult. Challenge ratings were damn well useless, and it honestly came down to looking at the individual strengths and weaknesses of each PC and trying to gauge a challenge that wouldn't either be a pushover or stomp them out.

Mike wrote: Meaning that there's really nothing left for the player to discern, but to employ this strategy. So the player isn't challenged, and there's no real support for this complexity as a source of fun for gamism.

Can anyone else more familiar with 3E comment as to whether or not this is true?

Hi folks,

2a) Further, there needs to be a look at campaign focus....Since there are, essentially, no hordes in my games, the feat Great Cleave is worthless. Likewise, if you are playing with my friend J, who loves hordes, you will totally want Great Cleave.

Have you actually stomped out the group, ever?

Mike Holmes wrote: I think that another potential problem with the design nowadays is that despite the complexity, it's become largely a "known" game.

Now, I've heard that there are places (enworld?) where they still debate some of these details. But as Sean puts it there are too many "Unequivocally Right Answers." This would make at least part of the game "known" meaning in Game Theory terminology that the optimal strategy has been discoverd (or is just obvious). Meaning that there's really nothing left for the player to discern, but to employ this strategy. So the player isn't challenged, and there's no real support for this complexity as a source of fun for gamism.

Or was it, Ethan, that you were making selections despite an obvious strategy that would have lead to the adjusted character?

b_bankhead wrote: I'm going to bookmark this thread as occasionally I still run into people who try to claim that the present incarnation of D&D is a good game for introducing noobs to this hobby.

I mean you need an entire book to design a decent FIGHTER? Good night , and fighers are supposed to be D&D's SIMPLE class!

Gimme Trollbabe any day! Pick one number and you're ready to roll, now that's what I call a beginners game.

ethan_greer wrote: Also, the fact that an awful lot of people have different opinions about what the Unequibocally Right Answers are keeps things at least somewhat fresh.

In all fairness, I only went 5 levels - started the character at 10th and started sucking at 15th.

I like what you're saying about Unequivocally Right Answers. But can we agree that in D&D there are Unequivocally Wrong Answers? (Such as the Toughness feat, for example?)

ethan_greer wrote:
I like what you're saying about Unequivocally Right Answers. But can we agree that in D&D there are Unequivocally Wrong Answers? (Such as the Toughness feat, for example?)

OK, I think that we can probably agree that the game isn't entirely "known" then, at least to some extent.

Here's a better question. Is the strategy of making these choices really engaging (with the way levels work, it certainly is momentous), actually "difficult" enough to give the player a sense that they're making "good" or "bad" decisions? Is it fun to do?

Maybe more importantly, is the fact that the player can think it over, has access to other players, possibly has resources like the strategy guide - does any of this make the decisions less important?

Does the idea of leting Ethan get a "do over" represent some sort of drift? That is, shouldn't he be penalized for wrong decisions as part of the course of "normal" play? Or is the idea of penalizing a player for his decisions broken? Does that penalty in perpituity make the character "unfun" to play?

Mike

For some people, it is.

For some games, it is.

For others, it's not. Some people don't want to have to worry about whether their character is "powerful enough" and just play the game.

I can tell you that I have been in several games where there were people with highly-optimized characters, when mine was not; it didn't detract from my enjoyment one little bit. The games had a nice mix of situations where this power mattered, and situations where other things mattered.

Yes, a "do over" is drift, it really isn't part of the standard DnD paradigm... but that doesn't make it bad. His GM allowed it, it helped him enjoy the game, as long as noone else felt left out, then it's all good.

Drift is almost always a good thing. People forget that.

Would you say that there's an effect of "self-handicapping" that occurs? That is, the player refuses to play the optimization game, and instead focuses on winning, despite not having optimized? What Gleichman and others refered to as "Gentlement Gamists," IIRC?

On another note, can you say that you've never felt jealous of the PC with the most power in a party? I have, certainly.

Mike

Mike wrote: Would you say that there's an effect of "self-handicapping" that occurs?

The past few posts show players exploring the hard-core gamist side of D&D. They are maximining -- getting the biggest bang out of the limits imposed by the games.

Where is a good source of advice for Dungeon Masters interested in minimaxing -- reducing the bangs that the players can get. I don't mean by doing sneaky stuff or death-by-GM-fiat. I mean where -- in the spirit of gamist play -- a GM exploits every possible rule, feat/class combo, movement rule to keept the players on their toes.

Is there a guide to frustrating your players WITHIN THE RULES OF THE GAME, not by being an arbitrary creep?

epweissengruber wrote: Is there a guide to frustrating your players WITHIN THE RULES OF THE GAME, not by being an arbitrary creep?

Great example of Gamist DM play in the spirit of fair play, and good example of Calvinball.

I didn't know that Rune had such rules. That seems to be a smart design choice. You don't target players for vindictive reasons and monster aggression is another unpredicable challenge to the players to be factored into their strategizing.

But I need more examples of how to give the players a "Step On Up" challenge, the kind that really exploit the kinks and twists of the rule system.

(I am normally a Nar. game master, so I need to know how to make a D & D game fun for hard-core gamists)

Is 3e D&D 'solved'?

I don't think it's quite that kind of game. But I do think that there are right generic answers for most characters of most levels. Increasing splatbooks makes the decision space more complex but also yields increasing numbers of 'broken' combinations. (For example: add a Reverse Magic spell along with the Reactive Counterspell feat from Magic of Faerun.)

On the other hand, the problem is complex enough that even after I got good at it it would take a few hours of thought over several days to optimize a character with a level in the mid-high teens. And the fact that I did it for a while probably indicates that there's a game there that some people could really enjoy. It's just not my cup of tea.

I grant the point about the importance of cresting level in these calculations (and mentioned it myself for 20th vs. epic) but the issues about campaign focus etc. don't really quite wash for me. Of course such variables matter, but I'm not sure they matter in a principled way to evalutaion of a system like D&D, perhaps by definition. (I'd be interested to hear an argument against that, though.)

Ethan - I would agree that 1e provided a certain amount of support for Sim - think of all the non-game-essential details on those charming old official AD&D character sheets, or my preferred Armory ones - but in 3e I think that this is a trap. In particular, I think that old grognards who scream at minimaxers about 'not playing D&D right' are (a) expressing Sim priorities which had a place in many forms of 1e play and (b) in the wrong - the kids have it. 3e is a Gam-facilitating design and using Sim as a subsidiary mode will cause you to enjoy it less over time. I think your experience with your fighter is an example of that.

S

epweissengruber wrote: But I need more examples of how to give the players a "Step On Up" challenge, the kind that really exploit the kinks and twists of the rule system.

Good comments Sean.

Hans, Ethan, OK, so given that apparently one can play with handicapped characters, what does that say about Ethan's experience? I'm guessing that maybe this has to be a group CA for it to work? That is, Ethan didn't feel that way because there was no support for playing a sucky character well amongst the group?

Or was it just that the discrepancies get too large by 15th level. That is, characters can be so sucky as to be devoid of tactical relevance at all?

Mike

Mike,

Or was it just that the discrepancies get too large by 15th level. That is, characters can be so sucky as to be devoid of tactical relevance at all?

ack, hit "post" too soon.

Anyhow, the point is that a group of players who thought they were making highly-optimized "dream" characters for the long haul suddenly found themselves outmatched by the stock characters.

That suggests to me that high-level 3E play was designed with a *very* specific definition of "optimal" in mind, and that characters that stray from that definition start to suck past that threshhold.

Is there any chance that the "stock" characters were "cheaters" in that they couldn't have developed to that point from scratch? If not, were they "unlikely"? Or were they just incredibly well made (or the players in question not really good at optimizing)?

Would the solution have been to merely change the level requirements of the game? That is, wait until they had another level (or more) before presenting things? Would it be possible to see that coming? Would one or two levels have made the difference? Or were the disparities beyond that?

Mike

Regarding our group's CA, we're pretty much playing Gamist. There's an undercurrent of Sim going on, but that only comes into play during non-combat. We get some good role-play going, but it rarely if ever happens in combat. In combat, it's all about the Gamism - kicking ass and taking names, and when your character has a good round, you get high fives. It's a really fun atmosphere in which to play.

Now, "role-playing" is largely an undefined activity in D&D. Sure, there's the Bluff and Sense Motive skills and things like them, but they usually have defined combat uses, and non-combat uses are left pretty fuzzy as far as details go. So, my non-optimal character worked just fine in the role-play portions of the game, but sucked during combats (of which there are several per session). If combat were rarer, and the Gamism less prevelent, I could see having lots of fun playing Gwynn (my character) as he was.

I would certainly agree that D&D 3 is very Gam-facilitative. I would also point out that outside of combat, D&D is extremely driftable.

Mike,

I sincerely doubt that that stock characters were cheaters; they were the so-called "Iconic" characters (Tordek, Mialee, etc.) that were used by the Wizards as the core "playtest party" for 3E in general and for the modules in particular.

This also implies that the game's monsters and challenge ratings were calibrated w.r.t. the effectiveness of the Iconics at each experience level.

As for level requirements, normally I'd say "Yeah, give 'em another level and then try it again", but this problem (disparity relative to the stock characters) continued up through 20th level, which is where vanilla 3E tops out. Comparing the effectiveness delta between the Nth-level "build" of the WotC stock fighter and the player character's Nth-level incarnation, the effectiveness delta was sufficiently large as to render the game un-fun. (When your best fighters consistently can't hit unless they roll a 20, well, that's un-fun. I think my friend said that the magic-users had less of a problem than the fighter-types, so the game devolved into "Keep the Sorcerer alive while he does all the heavy lifting.")

Eventually, the players in question had to acquire an "epic level" or two in order to complete the adventure. Keep in mind that the "Epic Level Handbook" post-dates 3E, and post-dates the specific WotC-published adventures in question.

Ethan, when I said CA, I meant "subset of Gamism CA." That is, I'm guessing that the idea of Gentlemen Gamism would be foreign to them, or just not to their tastes? That they're more Powergamers?

Hans, that's a pretty large delta. But, again, I ask, was it player lack of skill, or are the Iconic's paragons of design? If the latter, then it seems to me like this is a design flaw to use these characters as the baseline. If the former, well, then the players just didn't play up to par.

Mike

hanschristianandersen wrote:
This also implies that the game's monsters and challenge ratings were calibrated w.r.t. the effectiveness of the Iconics at each experience level.

Mike wrote: If the latter, then it seems to me like this is a design flaw to use these characters as the baseline. If the former, well, then the players just didn't play up to par.

Mike Holmes wrote: I ask, was it player lack of skill, or are the Iconic's paragons of design? If the latter, then it seems to me like this is a design flaw to use these characters as the baseline. If the former, well, then the players just didn't play up to par.

Mike Holmes wrote:
Hans, Ethan, OK, so given that apparently one can play with handicapped characters, what does that say about Ethan's experience? I'm guessing that maybe this has to be a group CA for it to work? That is, Ethan didn't feel that way because there was no support for playing a sucky character well amongst the group?