Re: My take on 3e helms

How's this for a timely response?


On Jul 16, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Night_Druid wrote:

>     I certainly don't think the original helms were deficent,  
> silly, or any
> such thing, but rather that the context of the 3.x game makes the true
> "Spelljamming helm" somewhat implausable.  The assumed party is much
> smaller, on the order of half, and there is far less use of henchmen &
> hirelings these days than before.  Where as before a typical party was
> assumed to be 6-8 PCs (with many spellcasters) plus several henchmen,
> followers, & hirelings (many of whom could take the helm, if  
> necessary), the
> trend in the current edition seems to assume 3-4 PCs and only a few  
> NPC
> characters, with a goodly chance that most of the NPCs being animal
> companions or familiars!

While I do not have any issues with people tinkering with how helms  
work—I have done it myself—I believe that basing the changes on the  
above assumptions is flawed.

While D&D 3e does have a system that makes assumptions on how many  
people are in a adventuring party, I don't feel this somehow alters  
the reality of how people actually play. Just because the guidelines  
are based on a 4-person party, doesn't mean people never allow more  
than four people into a game. I have run a lot of 3e since its  
release, and well over half of them had more than four people,  
sometimes as many as seven or eight. I never once considered having  
fewer people in a 3e game than I would in a 2e game.

In addition, I have run 2e SJ games with only four or three players,  
and it all worked out fine.

Also, while 3e does, from a strictly rule-based point of view, reduce  
the number of henchman and hirelings a typical adventuring party is  
expected to have (as no one gets followers for "free"), I don't think  
this has much bearing on how a 3e Spelljammer is going to play. After  
all, Spelljammer is rarely played as a typical D&D game. Ships of any  
real size aren't going to be manned strictly by a party of  
adventurers regardless of game edition (unless it is one hell of a  
large adventuring party), so assuming they may want to hire a few  
lower level casters for basic travel is not unreasonable.

So, to summarize, I don't feel the system needs changed based on a GM  
tool in 3e.


> Additionally, trying to balance the spell-drain
> aspect of helms into the CR system can be a pain for DMs.  Spell- 
> drain is
> not a big deal for larger parties, but when you're a 4-man party,  
> two-man
> shifts on the helms can remove spells entirely from the party.  So  
> I figure
> its easier to do away with it rather than develop some complex  
> formulas for
> handling partial spell-drains.

The CR system is a tool to help GMs create balanced encounters, not a  
rule by which all things must be done. I don't think this aspect of  
helms needs to be removed just because it complicates the CR  
guidelines. Lots of things that can come up will complicate the CR  
guidelines, I think anyone who runs 3e for a while will be able to  
wing this kind of thing.

After all, a 2e GM had to wing it.


Leroy Van Camp III
malacoda@????????.net
ICQ #20039817

" We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff  
at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me."