Monday, February 27, 2012

Revisiting D&D 3.5

I was bored this weekend. I've pretty much had enough of playing computer games and I'm looking to get back to tabletop gaming. My AD&D group was a bust this weekend since they canceled at the last minute so I started seeing what their characters would look like in D&D 3.5. I had their stats from 3rd level on and it was simple to backtrack them to 1st level again. The hardest part of the whole process was determining what skills and feats they would have selected for their characters.

It turns out that the NPC fighter in the group was ultra kickass at 1st level. The druid was less than spectacular. A complete role reversal from 1st edition AD&D. The assassin and wizard were about spot on if not more powerful than their 1st edition versions. I've been using an assassin class developed from expanding the prestige class from the DMG out to 20 levels. The druid would have been much more powerful if he was developed by the player from 1st level since the choices he made were within the framework of the AD&D rules. Druids used to advance lightning fast, gaining 2nd level spells at 2nd level! He was the first of the characters to break into the upper levels since his XP chart was so fast. In our AD&D game the assassin died from hypothermia early on (4th level) and the others died or lost levels at least once. The druid had lost 2 levels to wraiths and still was on top of the level charts. It would be interesting to see how these characters developed in both worlds and to see how much different advancement would have been after 12 years of running the same ones like we have in AD&D.

The conversion has whetted my appetite for more D&D 3.5. I started looking at my old Greyhawk Campaign from the beginning and wondered how different it would have been if I had done all the adventures by hand instead of adapting previously made modules from 1st edition. The game as I remember it was very power-hungry and it seemed to be even worse of an arms-race than 2nd edition. My preference for low-fantasy campaigns aside, I think it was a monty-hauler's dream come true. My only sticking point was that spells were so categorized and regimented that they lost all the charm of the magic system. Wizards also got the shaft since the progression of spell defenses quickly out-paced the power of the spells. Most of the classic "no save" spells of the early days now received saving throws which were so easy to make that the spells became pretty much useless. If you could cast 6th level spells, then it was pointless to use any spell below 6th level in combat since the opponents were likely to save against them. This is such a switch from 1st edition where the higher the spell level, the more dangerous the spell was to cast, while the lower level spells were much more utilitarian even in combat.

My only pet peeve about the later editions was how long it took to develop the monsters for each encounter. Unfortunately that is a big turn-off for me, especially since I like to adlib my way through an adventure sometimes. My stint as a fairly permanent DM for 5 years straight only proved that D&D 3.5 was a railroading engine made to glorify the PCs, not challenge them. Still, some of the more interesting bits of the game made everything make more sense as a whole. I like the fact that ability scores mean so much more now. I also like the idea of customization through skills and feats, although I think they went overboard with all the options. I truly wish that they had converted the older modules and reprinted these classics instead of releasing reams of unnecessary splatbooks. It would have been helpful for them to make a monster-designer book where they take you through the process of crafting unique individual encounters by showing you the match behind the conversion. Analyzing various stat blocks from DUNGEON magazine made it painfully obvious that some of the module writers were just using some creatures/classes to get a bonus in a min/max encounter design specifically made to screw the characters who were unprepared or knew too much. In fact, it seemed that EVERY adventure showcased at least one completely bizarre chimeric creature tricked out to the Nth degree for no reason other than "they could."

I've since returned to the simpler 1st edition AD&D because I prefer the speed of play and the reduction of options. But I would love to play in a campaign for D&D 3.5 where the players are well-versed in the way the system works and have no expectations of how play should proceed. A clean slate campaign, if you will, is a dream that I can no longer hope for. I would have to mine my archive of previous Greyhawk scenarios for a workable campaign and most of the players I've had have already experienced the adventures I've made. I would have to go whole-cloth on a revised campaign and no one has the time for that to happen!

No comments:

Post a Comment

D&D Premises: Heroes vs. Villagers

 I find that most D&D players are firmly entrenched in two different camps when it comes to adventurers: you either believe that adventu...