Yes, this again

Ideas and suggestions for game mechanics and rules.
Locked
User avatar
Mayhem
Otyugh
Posts: 906
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:45 pm
Location: Norfolk

Post by Mayhem »

AlmightyTDawg wrote:So if that's the reason, now we're evaluating on the basis of a) how much XP to gain at 1st level, b) campaign impacts, and c) canon impacts.

For example, lesser races solves a) and b), but has an issue with c).
So your primary reason for not choosing lesser races is canon?
AlmightyTDawg previously wrote: It's not what canon does: Who cares? Canon doesn't also have wealth standards, doesn't have different XP growth, doesn't have different item slots, doesn't allow all of the abilities we do, is not real time, and doesn't force you to start at level 1. So should we all stop playing? Or should we recognize the differences, adjust, and move on?
*** ANON: has joined #channel
ANON: Mod you have to be one of the dumbest f**ks ive ever met
MOD: hows that ?
ANON: read what I said
ANON: You feel you can ban someone on a whim
MOD: i can, watch this
ANON: its so stupid how much power you think you have
User avatar
AlmightyTDawg
Githyanki
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 12:56 am

Post by AlmightyTDawg »

There's a difference between in-game day-to-day canon and structural/mechanics canon. One affects all the stories, descriptions, history, and milieu in an appreciable way - the other... doesn't. You can change the XP system to 137.6% of what it is today and nothing in-game changes; mechanics don't reflect there. If you change the idea that dwarves are stout drunks who typically talk in a Scottish accent and now there's something more serious.
Turquoise bicycle shoe fins actualize radishes greenly!
Save the Charisma - Alter your reactions, even just a little, to at least one CHA-based check a day!

Quasi-retired due to law school
Past PC: Myrilis Te'fer
User avatar
Mayhem
Otyugh
Posts: 906
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:45 pm
Location: Norfolk

Post by Mayhem »

Lucky, then that the lesser races fix is pretty much entirely mechanical. :D
*** ANON: has joined #channel
ANON: Mod you have to be one of the dumbest f**ks ive ever met
MOD: hows that ?
ANON: read what I said
ANON: You feel you can ban someone on a whim
MOD: i can, watch this
ANON: its so stupid how much power you think you have
User avatar
AcadiusLost
Chosen of Forumamus, God of Forums
Posts: 5061
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:38 am
Location: Montara, CA [GMT -8]
Contact:

Post by AcadiusLost »

I wouldn't call Lesser Races "mechanical" in the least- changing SR into a plus to saves is a major IC difference, as are removing invisibility and a number of the other Lesser Races modifications. I haven't seen any prospective LA player willing to accept a complete rewrite of the LA racial abilities, and it changes the IC situation dramatically. Would it mean all the NPC drow opponents would lose their SR as well? Suddenly mages don't have to fear drow anymore, it's a totally different equation. Calling it a change that wouldn't affect the IG experience (like ATD's % XP example) is just flat out wrong.

I really don't see Lesser Races or Savage Species as legitimate options, in any way, shape or form. Playing with the advancement model happens in the scripts and behind the scenes, that's negotiable.

Diminishing down most of the aspects that make these races unique and desirable to play, and turning them into "drowish-themed" elves, under the banner of "fairness" doesn't strike me as something any prospective LA player is going to stand for.
User avatar
AlmightyTDawg
Githyanki
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 12:56 am

Post by AlmightyTDawg »

I'd love to somehow wed the phrase "that's what she said" to AL's post, but I'll settle for "+1."

Seriously, you have to be argumentative and deliberately obtuse not to get the distinction I was making.

To clarify, it's not that I don't see Lesser Races as not valid within its own frame - I just see it as more of a nuclear option that we don't really need. DM fiat like that exists all the time. But I think what it does is water down what's a genuinely unique gameplay option into something like what AL described. It also sets a bad precedent - most of us agree that dwarves suck, so why don't we go and reduce their save bonus v spells to just +2 v. fort, and their poison save bonus to half of what it is, and while we're at it reduce their AC dodge bonus v. giants to +1. I mean, it's still the flavor of dwarves, right?

I don't see why we'd mess with the "races" chapter of the FRCS with an alternate rule premised on something we don't believe applies to us (the need to make these races playable at level 1), when on the other side we have this sort-of-maybe-kind-of-quasi-semi-restriction about starting at level 1 we can loosen up on instead.
Turquoise bicycle shoe fins actualize radishes greenly!
Save the Charisma - Alter your reactions, even just a little, to at least one CHA-based check a day!

Quasi-retired due to law school
Past PC: Myrilis Te'fer
Thangorn
Haste Bear
Posts: 2081
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 1:00 pm
Location: Queenstown, New Zealand

Post by Thangorn »

I wont support any solution to this ECL playability issue that involves nerfing the races from their FR canon racial abilities. Watering down these races makes their stories completely different, so much so as to make them unrecognisable as belonging to a character of the race they are meant to represent.

I still havent seen a compelling argument that the regular 3.5 ECL ruling where you have to earn extra xp to advance to the next level is a problem at all. DMs and builders just have to be mindful of it when scaling encounters (within reason) and when placing statics (within reason). Provide adequate infrastructure for ECL races where it is canon to do so, same as if you were providing dwarven and elven infrastructure to assist them in playing out their character's story.

Yes I believe, it should take longer for a long lived underdark race to advance since they need to master more powers than a surface race.

In terms of the technical aspects of this, I think it would be best to ensure ECL races get access to /all/ their powers to earn their full ECL nerf and to make their lower levels more bearable.
On indefinite real life hiatus

[22:52] <Veilan> obviously something sinister must be afoot if a DM does not have his social security number in his avatar name!
User avatar
BlakOrkz
Kobold Footpad
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:31 pm
Location: Freihung, Germany

Post by BlakOrkz »

Thangorn wrote:I wont support any solution to this ECL playability issue that involves nerfing the races from their FR canon racial abilities.
Not to be a smart-#%@ to anyone (especially not Thangorn) but Level Adjustment +2 is listed under "Racial Abilities". in the FRCS. I'm still using the 3E book, maybe this has all changed.
Powerful Races pg. 21, paragraph 1:
"You need your DM's approval before playing a character of such a race. To maintain the balance of power between player characters, adjustments have to be made to characters of these races so that the game remains fair and enjoyable for all involved."
This was the main reason I silently accepted the genasi ban, even though I personally love them and had ZERO say in the matter. The DMs said no. I think this semi-heated discussion is proof enough that the issue is detracting from the fun of it all and proves the FRCS true. Sometimes WoTC and Ed Greenwood know why they do things.

Unlike Burger King, DMs have never advertised their campaign as "Have it your way". Are they willing to work with us, yes, but within the rules - hopefully.

A good solution would be to gear the UD encounters to UD characters. Let's face it, most characters confront more human villains than anything else. Why not let Level Adjusted creatures fight similar Level Adjusted creatures? A drow lvl 1 fighting a drow lvl 1 would be in the same danger as a human lvl 1 fighting a human lvl1 while earning the same proportion of xp. Now, if the drow kills CR 1/4 monsters all day and expects to level up like a human doing it, that is unfair.

There are ways to make it more survivable (and make level progression EQUAL in the UD), maintain the fluff, and not unbalance the play-balanced system. I think that would serve to fulfill everyone's wishes for the UD. Since all UD races have this ECL issue, they wouldn't be penalized unless in a very wide-spread leveled party. This should be how it is, anyway.

I personally found this thread rather close-minded and uncompromising. Two parties standing on their soap-boxes and yelling at each other like two Baptist Preachers. "PROVE ME WRONG!" "PROVE YOURSELF WRONG!"

ECL races -could- legitimately (yes, not cheating, not changing ANYTHING, not requiring DM skewing) level up at the same rate as non-ECL. Just throw ECL encounters at them. Don't throw 3rd level priests and wizards and fighters at them. Throw same level duergar, drow, etc. Isn't this how humans, dwarves and elves do it?
paragraph 4:
"The player already has the advantage of playing a powerful race. She should not also get the advantage of starting with more experience points than another starting race."
I think that is pretty clear. Now, if we fancy ourselves as FR purists, straying from that would be pretty severe. Go form a non-ALFA UD server if you want to change how the UD are and not consider a compromise that maintains the rules.

I agree on several points, if anyone forces Lesser Races on the UD races, that would make me cry into my proverbial ale. It would be sad, it would be taking "Racial Abilities" from some great races, but sadly, as the 3E FRCS is written, so would be taking away and/or changing the Level Adjustment +1-3.

I have been outside the US for 4 years now, so I haven't been kept up-to-date with 3.5E. If some of this information changed, please let me know, and I am sorry.

My 2 copper.
User avatar
Rusty
Retired
Posts: 2847
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:36 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Rusty »

Three Principles, and one Problem, dominate this discussion:

1. Power costs.
Players who wish to play powerful PCs, that start more powerful than their peers, have to pay for that power.

2. Fairness.
We will have an experience system that is fair to all our players.

3. The Low HD Hurdle.
We are not going to have a system for LA races that favours only those who can guarantee benevolent DMing for extended periods while penalising everyone else.

Those three are non-negotiable principles behind the XP system, and all other discussions are secondary to them.

And the problem:

4. Complexity.
It is unlikely that we are going to have an XP system that relies upon complicated behind-the-scenes formulae to adjust gain by ECL.

_____

Similarly, there are four (ok, six) Options, with one Long-shot:

1. Obsidian.
Everyone starts with nothing. LA races have to earn their ECL straight up.

Pro: clear; everyone starts equal.
Con: LA races face unplayable low HD hurdle.

2. SUM(LA)
LA races start with SUM(LA)*1,000 XP.

Pro: makes LA races more playable.
Con: everyone does not start equal; why should any player get to start with a more powerful PC than another?; LA races still face low HD hurdle.

2A. SUM(LA) +XP
Optional XP (500-2,000) to all PCs at creation.

Pro: reduces low HD hurdle for everyone.
Con: everyone does not start equal; why should any player get to start with a more powerful PC than another?

2B. SUM(LA) +XP (non LA)
Optional CP (500-2,000) to non-LA PCs at creation.

Pro: reduces low HD hurdle for non-LA PCs.
Con: everyone does not start equal; why should any player get to start with a more powerful PC than another?

3. LR
Adjustment of race features per canon rules.

Pro: clear; ruleset solution; everyone starts equal.
Con: changes LA race implementation.

4. ECL 3
Everyone starts at up to ECL 3. (Smurfs nerfed to +2/dropped).

Pro: clear; everyone starts equal; smurfs nerfed/dropped.
Con: universal increase in starting level; smurfs nerfed/dropped.

And the long-shot:

5. XP Curve
All XP gain adjusted by formula derived from LA.

Pro: ameliorates low HD hurdle for LA race PCs; maintains LA XP penalty.
Con: complicated; requires understanding (and acceptance) by LA DMs.

_____

Personal conceptions of relative power between races, personal conceptions of canon power, and endless single-level CvC comparisons - even if logically sustained - are simply not critically important to creating an XP system that is fair to every ALFAn. And that means fair to non-LA PCs and fair to LA PCs - and, importantly, fair to those who are new to ALFA and who have never played an LA race PC before. Commentary outside of this framework is, frankly, not germane.
Last edited by Rusty on Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:36 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
AlmightyTDawg
Githyanki
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 12:56 am

Post by AlmightyTDawg »

Rusty wrote:2A. SUM(LA) +XP
Optional XP (500-2,000) to all PCs at creation.

Pro: reduces low HD hurdle for everyone.
Con: everyone does not start equal; why should any player get given free XP at creation?; why should some players get given more XP at creation than others?
Just to clarify - this hasn't been really well worked out; it was kind of open ended. It could work in multiple ways - first of all as either an "automatic" XP, or an "optional" XP (grab it if you want it), then second of all, deciding the XP generally awarded, and third whether or not players could choose any intermediate value or whether it's "all or nothing." That depends kind of on the parameters - 2000 came when I was trying to keep all characters within 1k of 2nd level.

Personally, I'd say "optional" 1000, can also be selected as 500.

It's fairness of opportunity rather than equality of output. You self-select your own benefit/handicap. Practically speaking, it would need to be managed "culturally" which is to say no overt punishment or pressure to force people not to take it - do as you feel.
Turquoise bicycle shoe fins actualize radishes greenly!
Save the Charisma - Alter your reactions, even just a little, to at least one CHA-based check a day!

Quasi-retired due to law school
Past PC: Myrilis Te'fer
User avatar
Rusty
Retired
Posts: 2847
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:36 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Rusty »

It'd be optional, however implemented.

Regardless, the principle behind the pro/con remains the same.
Locked