D&D3E is the BEST D&D ever.(LONG)
Henry Cotter
and Dragons game to us, the unwashed masses. And in this time, we
bought the first two books and have read them and are now comparing the
editions. I knew there were going to be some D&D players, who despite
playing with a broken system, weren't going to change to 3E. Bt I'm
mighty suprised as to why they're not changing. Their reasons have
nothing to do with taste(as in, "I like playing an old, illogical, and
out of date system.") No, they have to attack the system itself. Let's
look at why D&D3 is light years ahead of the inferior AD&D lines:
1. Any race can be any class- This is a great thing for no gaming
company can tell us what we can or can't do. One stupid thing with AD&D
was that dwarves couldn't become wizards. Why not? There is much
fantasy fiction in which dwarves do indeed become great magic users.
The race/class restrictions are also a racist idea. It somehow makes it
look like only one race(the human race) can ever become a paragon of
good(paladin.) Why? What makes the human so special that only they can
become the paragon of good? What about elves, who in much literature
are just as good, if not more so, than their human neighbors? And what
about the poor goblinoids? What if one rejected their violent
upbringing and became the "chosen one" to save the world from the
ultimate evil? According to the old TSR, this would be impossible
without the addition of house rules(and house rules don't count despite
what some fools will say. You can only honestly compare systems with
the way they were written. Afterall, with enough house rules I can turn
a game like hopscotch into arena football.)
2. No level limits- bravo for this one as well. This restriciton makes
absolutely no sense. Why can't an elf become better at magic than a
human? Why can't a dwarf get better with his axe than a human? What's
the reasoning? The lame reason is because TSR never made humans a
viable PC race(which is my next point.) In order to "balence" out the
races, TSR decided to put arbitrary limits to other races. But that
also takes away from what appears in fantasy literature. What about an
elven arch-mage? It's certainly a concept which has appeared more than
once, yet the inferior AD&D editions have decided to ignore this whole
plethora of fantasy writing.
3. Humans are finally a playable race- As in, there's actually a bonus
to playing a human instead of being able to do something that only 1% of
the human population could do. In AD&D, the only bonuses were that
humans can become paladins(which required huge stat scores off the bat.
In fact, I've never seen a paladin honestly rolled up using the original
method.) The other bonus is that humans have no level limits, but
seriously, unless you were involved in a long campaign with script
immunity, this bonus never mattered. Now, the humans get a few extra
skill points, any favored class, and a bonus feat, which balences them
out much better with the demihuman races, which keep most of their
bonuses.
4. The new rolling method(4d6 drop lowest, allocate as choice) produces
the character you want. The original method was roll 3d6 for each stat,
no allocating, which basically meant that you didn't decide what you
were to become, but the dice did. On another note, the dropping of
ability score requirements also has opened up the game. No longer does
a player have to rely on exceptional luck or DM fudging of rolls to
become the character they want to become. I know, I can hear the old
farts crying "Well paladins are going to be all over the place", which
is simply not true. It's still hard to be a paladin if DMed right, and
few people have what it takes to stay on that road.
5. Muticlassing- The old multiclassing rules were so broken one would
have to be braindead to not see an improvement in 3E. Why? Because in
the old rules, a multiclass character was leaps and bounds above a
single classed one with equal experience. In 2nd Edition, a 17th level
fighter needed 2,250,000 XP. With the same amount of XP's, a multiclass
character could be a 12th level fighter/13th level mage. Why on earth
would many people take single classed players if a multiclass one could
be so much better?
The new multiclass rules would make he player have a choice in which
class he wanted to be 9th level- fighter or mage- and he stays 8th level
in the other. In 3rd Edition, there is an actual trade-off of becoming
a multiclasser. This is a good thing for game balence.
6. Experience awards- in the old editions, one could get XP for doing
mudane tasks and it was almost always based off of combat. Without
houserules, the only significant way for a player to advance would be
for the players to fight, and win. With the new rules, one could jump
up in levels by solving puzzles, roleplaying, and it all depends on what
the challenge of the problem was. No longer does the gaming company
tell you what you should award your players- they give you guidelines.
7. Saving throws-again, another massive increase in the D&D system.
Instead of having 5 wierd catagories(Hey Luddites, you want to tell me
why rods/staves/wands have a different saving throw than spells?), you
have three catagories based on attributes. So, not only does your class
and level matter when figuring saving throws, but your attributes matter
as well. One with great dexterity should be better at dodging wizard's
ray, for example, then oe with average scores.
The second great thing about the new saves is that a more powerful
spell by a higher level wizard is harder to save against than in
previous editions. In 2nd Edition, there was no difference in what you
needed to roll to save against a 5th level wizard who slung a fireball
and an 18th level archmage who slung chain lighting. In 3E, the
difference is that I'd have to roll 16 higher against the archamage,
than against the lowely one. A much significant difference.
8. Spell resistance- finally, it goes back to it's roots in that a
spell cast by a more powerful wizard should be able to penetrate a
creature's resistance than a wizard who's of lower level.
9. Skill system- again, this is light years ahead of the old NWP
system. In the old NWP system, your score to succeed didn't matter
much based on level. Now, your level determines how good you do at a
certain skill as well as your atribute. Also, the bonus to the new
skill system is that one could take any skill they want- a fighter can
now pick locks if he so wanted to while a 2nd Edition fighter couldn't
without massive house rules.
10. The d20 system- I don't know why so many people have a problem with
this. One retard, who's name I shall not mention, claimed it was "too
predictable." Yeah, a 20 sided die which has the same chance to roll a
1 as it does with a 10 is predictable. Whatever. But back to the
point, D&D decided to move into the next decade by adding a standard
resolution mechanic. Instead of having to roll a d10 to find certain
unsafe floors(gnomes), a d6 for secret doors(other demihumans), a low on
the d20 for NWP's, a high on a d20 for "to hits" and saves, and a d100
for magic resistance, we have one standard way to resolve things- high
on a d20. It's much more intuitive and cleaner. The only things which
don't use this are initiative and damage, but in those things I don't
think it really matters. Setting a number and telling the player to
roll above it(adding modifiers) is an elegant way to doing things(almost
every other RPG system does this as well.)
11. Initiative/combat round- The new intitiave is much easier and
makes more sense than it used to. In 2nd Edition, a combat round was 1
minute and it was assumed that in that time the damage was the amount of
defenses worn off of an opponent. It assumed feints and various other
postures, but it made little, if any sense. Take the example of the
dagger. If used in melee, it's damage is based off of how much you've
worn your opponent down in that round, while throwing it, you're not
spending your time dodging/feinting. So what does the character do for
the next 55 seconds of combat? In 3E, combat is speeded up to the right
amount of time(6 seconds seems about right) and it goes in cycles where
the most dextorous goes first and the slower ones go last, kind of like
real life.
12. Feats- again, this can only be seen as a good thing. No longer are
the days where every fighter is the same. Now a fighter has more
special abilities. The feats, added with the no hit die cap, makes the
fighter a much more attractive class than it used to be. In 2nd
edition, the difference between a 15th level fighter and a 10th level
fighter was almost nil(+15 HP's, +5 to hit, .5 attacks per round) In
3rd Edition, the differences are much greater, which is as it should
be(afterall, in 2nd and 1rst Edition, a 9th level fighter was much
greater in difference to a 4th level one.)
The new metamagic/item creation feats also make the wizard
more customizable. No longer do all wizards know how to make wands.
They can instead learn how to cast spells in armor with no arcane spell
failure.
13. The healing factor- probably the most mis-understood aspect of 3rd
Edition. It's not that the cleric can heal which has these old farts
screaming, it's that the numbers are larger. Yet, the one thing these
dimwits don't seem to get is that the damage has been scaled up as well.
The natural healing rate improves with level, which makes more sense.
Why does a 1rst level fighter who's reduced to almost death (1HP) get up
in two days while a 5th level one takes much longer? Going with the HP
model, it represents loss of defensive ability, not straight physical
damage. So in essence, the 5th level fighter and 1rst level fighters
who are reduced to 1 HP take the same amount of *physical* damage.
Last thing about this is that the cleric's ability to swap spells
for healing is only a bonus because it fixes the long time problem with
D&D clerics- they used to be walking band-aids.
14. The classes are more defined- this mostly effects the Druid, who in
previous editions was little more than a watered down cleric. Now, the
druid has more advantages and can use certain spells that a cleric
can't. The bard is also better definded in 3rd Edition, instead of
being the mess he was in 1rst Edition and the lame jack of all trades
hodgepodge he was in 2nd Edition.
15. Maybe this is minor, but I'm glad that aging for certain spells has
been lifted(as well as aging attacks.) The reason I hated such things
was because it penalized humans and half-elves more than other
demihumans. One of the things which was put as balence in AD&D was
level limits/class restrictions which prevented long living races from
casting such powerful spells, but what about an elf who could cast
"haste"? In 2nd Edition, a person ages a year. Naturally, humans used
that spell very rarely, while an elf could cast it many more times.
Also, an elf was at a much better advantage against a ghost than a human
was, because the aging attack didn't affect them nearly as much. Now,
the XP penalty affects all races equally.
16. Spells have been cleaned up and are explained much more clearly
this time around. Thank God. Also, darkvision is much better
explained. And the cleaning up of the ability score charts is another
great thing.
17. Attacks of Opportunity- my last point. I've heard many complaints
on this one as well. I can't say many who do complain about this have a
clue as to what they're talking about. Obviously in combat there will
arise times when you're going to put your defenses down. It only makes
sense that the game should allow players to make these attacks- which
are basically open shots.
Call me a WotC sheep if you want. With all of these things put
together, it shuld be quite easy to tell that D&D3 is a much *better*
system than any previous edition. Many of the Luddites will still cling
to their old ways and try to claim D&D3 in munchkin/stupid, but they're
the ones looking like fools. Anyone have any comments? Corrections?
Flames?
BTW- Thanks for anyone who took the time to read this long post.
DESMOND PEOoPLES
Henry Cotter
I think D&D3 outshine the previous editions:
18. Prestige Classes- These allow players to customize their characters
even further without terribly unbalencing the campaign. Say for
example, you want to have a character who can warp time(I just got done
beating Chrono Cross, which is a kick ass game BTW, so sue me.) Instead
of having a player advance as a time master from the get go, you can
create a prestige class that when the player advances to enough
abilities, they can then advance in the new prestige class without
upsetting the campaign. One of the major reasons I hated Forgotten
Realms was that so many of the major NPCs were able to do things a PC
couldn't, without any specific in game explanation. With the new FR
book due in a few months and what I've read on Eric Noah's site, it
sounds like all the NPCs and their special abilities will follow a
pattern so that concievably a PC can follow that road without the
campiagn getting all munchkin.
19. Criticals- mostly used a house rule in previous editions they are
much welcomed to be added in the new game. It's interesting to see how
the PHB does it, with each weapon getting it's own "threat range."
20. No XP penalty for changing alignments- again a great idea which in
fantasy literature is common- a character gets his world view changed by
his experiences. Contrary to what many would say, alignment isn't
pigeonholing- it's simply a tool, a worldview if you will.
OK, now I'm finished. Talk amongst yourselves.
Kreidian
Personally I find 3E to be the best RPG out there right now for the type of
game it is trying to run. (Notice I didn't say the best RPG period.) In
other words, this is the best way to run the type of game that is commonly
assciated with D&D (fantasy / adventure).
One other things I have to say that is a major advantage to this edition is
that, while this is not readily noticable, it is very flexible and can be
used to run nearly any kind of imaginable game with it. This goes back to
the d20 system architecture. If you look at the details in the DMG, (or even
the overall structure in the PHB) you will see that you have enough to
concivably run any campaign you could imagine. Whatever you don't have, the
DMG already provides enough background, ideas, and suggestions that you can
easily generate any additional material you might need.
On the other hand, I should also point out that 2ed is still a very good
gaming platform. Granted, every single 2ed I currently play in uses MASSIVE
amounts of modifications. (i.e. specialty priest from FR, humanoid PC's, and
ofcoarse S&P) Still I suspect that it will continue to be played for years
to come. Though I hope that eventually all of my games move over to 3ed.
Just my $.02,
Kreidian
Jesse Willson
now official... Yahoo the best!
But of course there are some changes to be made, like dwarves get an armor
class bonus vs giants because of "special training" Puhleez thats so dumb...
due to size sure but secret ninga dwarves only giant dodging school? 2nd
edition gave the bonus due to size I think. Naturally there are other
points to change but definatly a great thing.
Barry Smith
<snip accurate post if applied to officially to AD&D>
> Call me a WotC sheep if you want. With all of these things put
> together, it shuld be quite easy to tell that D&D3 is a much *better*
> system than any previous edition. Many of the Luddites will still cling
> to their old ways and try to claim D&D3 in munchkin/stupid, but they're
> the ones looking like fools.
Heh. Was this an attempt to make me reconsider my evil ways and swear
away 2e forever and beg for forgiveness because I happen to think AD&D
isn't broken? ;)
Did you ever consider the concept that DMs might have made many of the
changes you wrote about and are included in 3e prior to the arrival of
3e? If you think in the "official" AD&D limelight, toe the AD&D line as
strictly as one can, you are exactly right, many of the things you
mentioned cannot be done in AD&D. Officially. ;)
Yes, AD&D has flaws, every system does...*gasp* even 3e! Despite your
official, and yet true, appraisals of the 3e system compared to 2e,
that's all it is to me. An official opinion and comparison of what you
prefer. It doesn't make you right, it only make you right for the game
you prefer. It doesn't affect how others view the games they want to
play (unless they are sheep); they're going to play the game how they
like regardless. I do think 3e has improved things in some areas, but
it's far from perfect. I plan on incorporating some of these changes
into my 2e campaign because they are better. I certainly wouldn't toss
out a 2e rule in favor of a 3e one that I didn't prefer simply because
of conformity, and I hope most people would have similar common sense.
What you have done is accurately reflect the failings of 2e if everyone
were playing 2e under the "official rules". I seriously doubt too many
3e DMs are going to end up sticking to 3e to the letter of its law.
They'll end up incorporating more than just the written word from the
hardbound books into their campaigns. It's only a matter of time. And
does my use of 3e material in my 2e campaign mean that I'm not playing
AD&D 2e? I HOPE so! :)
--
Long live 2e.
Julian Mensch
want to switch back from 3E to 2E. I love the new
system for many of the reasons. That said, this
message is one of them, if only to spite the writer.
Henry, could your tone possibly have been any more
arrogant and condescending? "retard"? "dimwit"? This
is not a war to choose editions. You may play whatever
game you want. You may even criticize or applaud
whatever game you want. (Hell, I flame RPGs fairly
commonly.) But your message certainly isn't going to
win you any friends or help support your position.
To be clear, I agree with every point you make here,
but the way you make them is repulsive and childish.
You are voicing an opinion, no more (or less) valid
than anyone else's. You are not dictating to us the
One True Way of gaming. If you try, we'll just laugh
at you.
-- Julian Mensch
Joe Fernandez
there's so much opposition to 3rd ed. Oh well...
John Kim
First of all, let me say that I largely agree with the subject and
the original poster in the D&D3 seems far superior to AD&D1 and AD&D2.
Whether it is "better" than the Cyclopedia depends on what you are
looking for. The Cyclopedia is more newbie-friendly than D&D3,
while D&D3 has other advantages.
I have a fairly detailed review on the web (in draft form)
at http://www.ps.uci.edu/~jhkim/rpg/reviews/dnd3_ph.html
Kreidian <krei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Personally I find 3E to be the best RPG out there right now for the type of
>game it is trying to run. (Notice I didn't say the best RPG period.) In
>other words, this is the best way to run the type of game that is commonly
>assciated with D&D (fantasy / adventure).
Well, I might agree, but obviously it depends on how narrowly
you define its "type". What exactly do you see as its competition
here? I would concur that D&D3 compares favorably with _Rolemaster_
and _Palladium FRPG_. But if we consider other fantasy RPG's like
_Sengoku_ or _Elric_, I don't think I would agree.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>One other things I have to say that is a major advantage to this edition
>is that, while this is not readily noticable, it is very flexible and can
>be used to run nearly any kind of imaginable game with it. This goes back
>to the d20 system architecture.
Hm. D&D3 lacks some basic structures that many other RPG's
provide. For example, it lacks any structure for a character's
personal inborn and/or social features -- like social status,
contacts, blessings, curses, and so forth. This makes it difficult
to do some campaign features, like having races that aren't balanced
(i.e. Tolkien elves, etc.).
Further, while the class system has more flexibility than previous
editions, there are still many things built-in, like escalating hit points.
It is hard to change these without major overhaul of the system.
Basically, while it is more flexible than previous editions,
D&D3 is still fairly specific to its world assumptions. I would have
a hard time using it to do a fantasy setting like Lloyd Alexander's
Prydain or C.S. Lewis' Narnia. While the D&D3 system could be made
to work for these, I think it is far less suited for the task than
many other systems.
--
John H. Kim | Whatever else is true you
jh...@fnal.gov | Trust your little finger
www.ps.uci.edu/~jhkim | Just a single little finger can
UC Irvine, Cal, USA | Save the world. - Steven Sondheim, "Assassins"
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
<<snip excellent post, btw>>>
I'll keep it short...VERY short.
PRECURSOR: I DO *NOT* OWN ANY 3E STUFF!!!!! I AM *ONLY* GOING BY WHAT I'VE
READ ABOUT IT IN REVIEWS, TALKING WITH PEOPLE ONLINE, NG'S AND WITH REAL
PEOPLE!
I don't *think* I'll like 3E for almost all of the reasons you
mentioned.
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Willow_R
> It's been a little over a month since WotC has released the new Dungeons
long post.
Nice day for flame-trolling huh?
Jonas Lind
opportunity attacks, which still seems a little illogical to me. Not that
you get opportunity attacks, which is logical..but they way you get it, and
when you get it.
Other than that I think it's a shame to have made a class :Barbarian. It
just seems like a no-brain beserk fighter to me. They should rather have
used their energy on making Beserks, No-Two-Oppenents-Can-Flank-You, and
Unflankable feats. and maybe some more as well. The Barbie does not stand
for an ideology or a way of life as the ranger and the paladin. He's more of
a _really_ aggressive fighter, with some nice new feats IMO.
Another think is the spellsystem, which is still 30 years behind current
events. I _hate_ memorization, it's stupid, it's not logical, it impairs the
flexibility of spellcasters, and it almost certainly never let's you cast
some of the more funny nice-idea-but-not-harmful-spells since you never have
those around when you need them. Fortunately it's just a matter of having
some houserules instead (which we do), but come on....it has been what,
20-25 years since D&D started, and they still have this hopeless system.
Playing spellcasters with spellpoints is much more fun, and once you get
used to it, it's really frustrating to play games like Baldurs Gate and
Icewind Dale afterwards :-)
jo...@just.my.0.02$
Henry Cotter <mano...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22860-39...@storefull-126.bryant.webtv.net...
<snip -- long post, many points>
Kreidian
looking at a relatively narrow field of view here based on what I'm looking
for.
"John Kim" <jh...@cascade.ps.uci.edu> wrote in message
news:8psdkg$sm8$1...@news.service.uci.edu...
> This is a reply to Kreidian concerning the D&D3 system.
> First of all, let me say that I largely agree with the subject and
> the original poster in the D&D3 seems far superior to AD&D1 and AD&D2.
> Whether it is "better" than the Cyclopedia depends on what you are
> looking for. The Cyclopedia is more newbie-friendly than D&D3,
> while D&D3 has other advantages.
I agree that it depends alot on what you're looking for, yes.
> I have a fairly detailed review on the web (in draft form)
> at http://www.ps.uci.edu/~jhkim/rpg/reviews/dnd3_ph.html
I read this review and found it very informative. There are a few points on
which I would disagree, but they are simply personal preferences and not
worth debating over. I did have a few problems with it, however, in that I
don't belive it was a complete review of the entire game. The review seems
only concerned with the PHB. Within that sigular context it provides a
healthy amount of useful detail. However many of the claims in the review do
not take into consideration the entire game once you introduce the other
core books and the other possibilities within the game. The PHB is, in my
view, simply a guide for the player. It lists the important rules, gives the
useful equipment and weapon tables, has a complete list of spells, etc. etc.
It is not, however, the entire game. Reading through the DMG alone, you will
find that alot of the defficiencies in the PHB are explained, compensated
for, and often overcome, by the additional material in the DMG.
Remember that the first rule of 3E (both in the PHB and DMG) is that the DM
makes all the rules.
> Kreidian <krei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Personally I find 3E to be the best RPG out there right now for the type
of
> >game it is trying to run. (Notice I didn't say the best RPG period.) In
> >other words, this is the best way to run the type of game that is
commonly
> >assciated with D&D (fantasy / adventure).
>
> Well, I might agree, but obviously it depends on how narrowly
> you define its "type". What exactly do you see as its competition
> here? I would concur that D&D3 compares favorably with _Rolemaster_
> and _Palladium FRPG_. But if we consider other fantasy RPG's like
> _Sengoku_ or _Elric_, I don't think I would agree.
Again, this depends largely on what you're looking for. This 3E system is
best designed for an action / adventure type of game (where things like
combat and special heroic are more of the core as oppossed to 'pure'
role-playing). Based on my experiences, I think 3E is best suited for these
specific kinds of games.
I haven't personally played Sengoku nor Elric so I can't say which is better
in those cases, and I don't want to get in a descussion I an not qualified
for. If you say these systems are better than 3E then I will simply take
your word for it until I have had a chance to try them out myself.
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-
> >
> >One other things I have to say that is a major advantage to this edition
> >is that, while this is not readily noticable, it is very flexible and can
> >be used to run nearly any kind of imaginable game with it. This goes back
> >to the d20 system architecture.
>
> Hm. D&D3 lacks some basic structures that many other RPG's
> provide. For example, it lacks any structure for a character's
> personal inborn and/or social features -- like social status,
> contacts, blessings, curses, and so forth. This makes it difficult
> to do some campaign features, like having races that aren't balanced
> (i.e. Tolkien elves, etc.).
>
> Further, while the class system has more flexibility than previous
> editions, there are still many things built-in, like escalating hit
points.
> It is hard to change these without major overhaul of the system.
>
> Basically, while it is more flexible than previous editions,
> D&D3 is still fairly specific to its world assumptions. I would have
> a hard time using it to do a fantasy setting like Lloyd Alexander's
> Prydain or C.S. Lewis' Narnia. While the D&D3 system could be made
> to work for these, I think it is far less suited for the task than
> many other systems.
>
This is where I disagree with you. Again, I think you really need to
read the DMG before you can say this is true. Something like social status,
contacts, etc. can easily be added into the game. There are multitudes of
ways to do this that fit in perfectly with the game system. The DMG has a
few simple guides for this, or you can, for example, make higher (or lower)
social status into feats if that fits into you personal campaign better.
I don't see any reason why one would not be able to use this system for
alternate fantasy settings like the one's you described. I persoanlly have
already developed alternate settings my 3E game which are completely
contrary to the classical fantasy RPG given. (i.e. steampunk, cyberpunk,
Star Trek, Savage Jungle, Vicotrian historical era, Wild West, etc., etc.)
I think the issue here is that, as I've said before, the 3E system was
designed for a more specific type of RPG. These are specifically the
Action/Adventure style settings. This is why things like class systems and
their scaling hit points are built in the way they are. These tools are some
of the best ways to accomplish these sorts of adventures. For example, if
every time you get hit you have to apply all forms of odd penalties to see
if you are dead yet (i.e. Vampire; the Masquarade), then most of the time
the characters will avoid danger rather than face the hassle. Though it's
great for some kinds of role playing games, there isn't much adventure in
that. The 3E system facilitates combats and damage in such a way that
players can focus on the adventure aspects of the game.
This is not always the best system for other more drama oriented
campaigns. In those cases you would be correct to say that 3E might not be
well suited for those settings. But then you start comparing apples to
oranges which I think is missing the point.
"Ofcoarse that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."
> --
> John H. Kim | Whatever else is true you
> jh...@fnal.gov | Trust your little finger
> www.ps.uci.edu/~jhkim | Just a single little finger can
> UC Irvine, Cal, USA | Save the world. - Steven Sondheim, "Assassins"
Kreidian
(P.S. Since you're over at UCI, you're fairly nearby. If you're intertested
feel free to get in touch with me through this email -
krei...@mindspring.com - I'm always looking for more indepth roleplayers in
my campaigns :^)
JuanCudz
not move to 3ed. After roleplaying for 20 years I really haven't got the
enthusiasm to learn what is to all intents a brand new, and what I consider
complicated, system. But not only the system itself, but the layout of the
books (eg where each spell is roughly) and sometimes is easier to stay put
than take a leap of faith. I also have many other commitments outside
gaming that go with being a 36 year old and if I was 20 years younger I
would embrace 3ed with open arms.
And call me old fashioned, but I really can't get my doddering brain cells
around the concept of halfling cleric ninja wielding two rapiers thank you
very much.
johnc
>It's been a little over a month since WotC has released the new Dungeons
>and Dragons game to us, the unwashed masses. And in this time, we
>bought the first two books and have read them and are now comparing the
>editions. I knew there were going to be some D&D players, who despite
>playing with a broken system, weren't going to change to 3E. Bt I'm
<<snipped long analysis>>
>Call me a WotC sheep if you want. With all of these things put
>together, it shuld be quite easy to tell that D&D3 is a much *better*
>system than any previous edition. Many of the Luddites will still cling
>to their old ways and try to claim D&D3 in munchkin/stupid, but they're
>the ones looking like fools. Anyone have any comments? Corrections?
>Flames?
>
>BTW- Thanks for anyone who took the time to read this long post.
>
>DESMOND PEOoPLES
>
>
Dude, you still can't have my old D&D stuff. ;)
Cerberus AOD
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:44:00 GMT, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which was
quite moldy, JuanCudz, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his antennae:
:-) >I am not going to post a long reply but give a personal reason why I will
:-) >not move to 3ed. After roleplaying for 20 years I really haven't got the
:-) >enthusiasm to learn what is to all intents a brand new, and what I consider
:-) >complicated, system.
Not compared to 2e :)
> But not only the system itself, but the layout of the
:-) >books (eg where each spell is roughly
Well, Fireball is just after Feather Fall...(alphabetical order in 3e)
> ) and sometimes is easier to stay put
:-) >than take a leap of faith.
That it can be, but where's the fun? :)
> I also have many other commitments outside
:-) >gaming that go with being a 36 year old and if I was 20 years younger I
:-) >would embrace 3ed with open arms.
hhhhhmmm....only a year ahead of that...
:-) >And call me old fashioned, but I really can't get my doddering brain cells
:-) >around the concept of halfling cleric ninja wielding two rapiers thank you
:-) >very much.
I can't either. But he would have to be high level or suck at some of his stuff
to function well as that...
------------------
Cerberus AOD / A Paper Cut (ernieSCR...@DoddsTech.com)
ICQ UIN: 8878412 (take out SCREWTHESPAM to mail me, okay?)
"Children of tomorrow live in the tears that fall today"
-Children of the Grave, Black Sabbath
Patrick Berry
> It's been a little over a month since WotC has released the new Dungeons
> and Dragons game to us, the unwashed masses.
That's a myth. Most of us *do* wash occasionally. :)
> And in this time, we
> bought the first two books and have read them and are now comparing the
> editions. I knew there were going to be some D&D players, who despite
> playing with a broken system, weren't going to change to 3E. Bt I'm
> mighty suprised as to why they're not changing. Their reasons have
> nothing to do with taste(as in, "I like playing an old, illogical, and
> out of date system.") No, they have to attack the system itself.
Henry, what is the point of a post like this? I like 3E as much as you
do, but I see nothing to be gained by ridiculing and insulting those who
feel differently.
"Broken system"? That's a matter of opinion, surely. Every game system
has flaws, but 2E's flaws certainly didn't make it unplayable, or how
would we have continued to play D&D for the last 11 years? "Old"? Sure
it is -- so what? I'm 40 myself, so you can call me old if you wish;
I'll just smile and say "Thanks." "Illogical"? Again, that's an
opinion. "Out of date?" In the sense that it's no longer the newest
edition, yes. But I'm aware of no cosmic law that requires us to play
only the newest version of anything.
> Let's look at why D&D3 is light years ahead of the inferior AD&D lines:
"Inferior"? Now I'm sure: you're deliberately trying to set off a
flamewar. Haven't we had enough of that here lately? If you want to
discuss why you, personally, prefer 3E to previous editions, that's
fine. But can't you do it without inflammatory terms like "inferior"?
> Call me a WotC sheep if you want.
I'd prefer to avoid name-calling completely, if that's OK with you.
> With all of these things put
> together, it shuld be quite easy to tell that D&D3 is a much *better*
> system than any previous edition.
Better for whom? You're entitled to make your own choice, but please
stop trying to dictate to everyone else.
> Many of the Luddites will still cling
> to their old ways and try to claim D&D3 in munchkin/stupid, but they're
> the ones looking like fools. Anyone have any comments? Corrections?
Yes, I have a correction. The fact that someone has an opinion or
preference that differs from yours does not make them a fool. However,
you're making *yourself* look a bit foolish by making such claims. Why
don't you climb down from that high horse so that we can discuss the
pros and cons of 3E on a friendly basis like fellow gamers, instead of
hurling insults and sneers?
> Flames?
No, thanks. I prefer civil conversation. How about you?
Patrick Berry
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:44:00 GMT, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which was
> quite moldy, JuanCudz, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his antennae:
>
> > I also have many other commitments outside
> :-) >gaming that go with being a 36 year old and if I was 20 years younger I
> :-) >would embrace 3ed with open arms.
>
> hhhhhmmm....only a year ahead of that...
I'm 40, and I'm charging recklessly into the uncharted territory of 3E.
So I don't think it's age-related. It must have something to do with
these "commitments outside gaming" that Juan speaks of. I think he was
trying, in a very diplomatic way, to tell us that he has a life. I
wouldn't know anything about that. :)
Bryan J. Maloney
> I am not going to post a long reply but give a personal reason why I will
> not move to 3ed. After roleplaying for 20 years I really haven't got the
> enthusiasm to learn what is to all intents a brand new, and what I consider
> complicated, system. But not only the system itself, but the layout of the
Complicated? You've played ANY version of AD&D and are worried about
"complicated"? AD&D 1st and 2d editions are the poster childs of
"complicated".
> books (eg where each spell is roughly) and sometimes is easier to stay put
> than take a leap of faith. I also have many other commitments outside
> gaming that go with being a 36 year old and if I was 20 years younger I
> would embrace 3ed with open arms.
I'm 34 with children, a full time job, and other things in my life, too.
It's no big adjustment. Your implication that anybody who would learn the
3rd edition is a lifeless geek is both false and ill-informed.
--
For those in the know, potrzebie is truly necessary.
Carl Perkins
}Another think is the spellsystem, which is still 30 years behind current
}events. I _hate_ memorization, it's stupid, it's not logical, it impairs the
}flexibility of spellcasters, and it almost certainly never let's you cast
}some of the more funny nice-idea-but-not-harmful-spells since you never have
}those around when you need them. Fortunately it's just a matter of having
}some houserules instead (which we do), but come on....it has been what,
}20-25 years since D&D started, and they still have this hopeless system.
}Playing spellcasters with spellpoints is much more fun, and once you get
}used to it, it's really frustrating to play games like Baldurs Gate and
}Icewind Dale afterwards :-)
}
}jo...@just.my.0.02$
"Sorcerer".
--- Carl
Carl Perkins
}I am not going to post a long reply but give a personal reason why I will
}not move to 3ed. After roleplaying for 20 years I really haven't got the
}enthusiasm to learn what is to all intents a brand new, and what I consider
}complicated, system. But not only the system itself, but the layout of the
Actually, the "find the spell" part is easier than before: they are all
listed in one section alphabetically. There is also a by class, by
spell level cart that gives a 1 line description of each spell.
Since they are starting over, the basic list is also a consolidation
of spells from what used to be multiple sources (although it doesn't
seem to cover all of the spells that have been available in those multiple
sources, it seems to cover a good chunk of them and in a fairly good mix
for spreading them across the various categories of magic).
And hey, cleric/druid spells go up to 9th level now, too. No more pouting
clerics with "why do I only get 7th level spells when Archmage Fuzwitz over
there gets 9th level spells?"
}than take a leap of faith. I also have many other commitments outside
}gaming that go with being a 36 year old and if I was 20 years younger I
}would embrace 3ed with open arms.
}And call me old fashioned, but I really can't get my doddering brain cells
}around the concept of halfling cleric ninja wielding two rapiers thank you
}very much.
Well, then you should try the gnome barbarian/monk instead.
--- Carl
John Kim
Kreidian <krei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"John Kim" <jh...@cascade.ps.uci.edu> wrote:
>> I have a fairly detailed review on the web (in draft form)
>> at http://www.ps.uci.edu/~jhkim/rpg/reviews/dnd3_ph.html
>
>I read this review and found it very informative. There are a few points on
>which I would disagree, but they are simply personal preferences and not
>worth debating over. I did have a few problems with it, however, in that I
>don't belive it was a complete review of the entire game. The review seems
>only concerned with the PHB.
Well, it does say at the top that it is a review of the
Players Handbook. The DMG has been out, what, 4 days now? Give
me a little time. :-)
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>> What exactly do you see as its competition here? I would concur
>> that D&D3 compares favorably with _Rolemaster_ and _Palladium FRPG_.
>> But if we consider other fantasy RPG's like _Sengoku_ or _Elric_,
>> I don't think I would agree.
>
>Again, this depends largely on what you're looking for. This 3E system is
>best designed for an action / adventure type of game (where things like
>combat and special heroic are more of the core as oppossed to 'pure'
>role-playing). Based on my experiences, I think 3E is best suited for
>these specific kinds of games.
Fair enough. Most of my fantasy game experience is not in
action/adventure -- more exploration and intrigue. On the other hand,
you said you didn't know _Sengoku_ or _Elric_, which is fair enough.
However, you didn't say what you considered its competition to be,
though. i.e. What are the other RPG's within its niche that you
consider D&D3 to be superior to?
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>>> One other things I have to say that is a major advantage to this edition
>>> is that, while this is not readily noticable, it is very flexible and
>>> can be used to run nearly any kind of imaginable game with it.
>>
>> Hm. D&D3 lacks some basic structures that many other RPG's
>> provide. For example, it lacks any structure for a character's
>> personal inborn and/or social features -- like social status,
>> contacts, blessings, curses, and so forth. This makes it difficult
>> to do some campaign features, like having races that aren't balanced
>> (i.e. Tolkien elves, etc.).
[...]
>This is where I disagree with you. Again, I think you really need to
>read the DMG before you can say this is true. Something like social
>status, contacts, etc. can easily be added into the game. There are
>multitudes of ways to do this that fit in perfectly with the game system.
Well, as I said, the DMG is pretty darn new so it seems a bit
much for me to debate experience with it. However, for any RPG it is
possible to make up new ways of doing things. I did not say that
it was impossible to do these things in D&D3 -- just that it is more
difficult than in many other systems, such as GURPS.
Frank T. Sronce
>
> And hey, cleric/druid spells go up to 9th level now, too. No more pouting
> clerics with "why do I only get 7th level spells when Archmage Fuzwitz over
> there gets 9th level spells?"
>
That's another change I liked.
"Hey, how come my cleric's spells end at 7th level? Why do the mages
get 8th and 9th level spells and not us?"
"It's because their spells are constructed by careful design and
experimentation. So they can be more powerful."
"What are MY spells constructed from, then?"
"Oh, YOUR spells are created by the gods."
"So they're weaker than spells made by mortal men?"
"Um... yeah..."
Kiz
Vern Ryan
Just one point I had to comment on.
>
> Further, while the class system has more flexibility than previous
> editions, there are still many things built-in, like escalating hit
points.
> It is hard to change these without major overhaul of the system.
My solution to this is a critical hit system that doesn't just double or
triple damage but allows for wounds, broken bones, and sometimes even death.
As it stands the critical hit system of doubling damage just makes the
higher level characters more invincible when facing a mob (as long as they
can avoid getting swarmed) double the normal damage of a longsword is more
deadly to low level characters then it is to high level character. But if
even the highest level character can be incapacitated by the rare hit in
combat it makes the battles a serious challenge and makes people unwilling
to rush into a hoard of enemies.
Daniel R. Pace
Actually 3E is pretty cool. Probably take a few minutes to write up a
page of houserules that say "no ninjas, no multiclass, no rapiers, no
two weapons" or whatever. If you're a player you don't have to be an
expert on the rules, do you? If you're a DM, take the lazy approach
like I have and make your players fight it out with custom designed
characters in an arena of death. That way you can see how the rules
(at least combat rules) function and get a sense of what you like and
don't like. If you've been playing for 20 years you probably have
some old lead figures and a battle map that's been gathering dust
since you put away your Battlesystem stuff. I find that the 3E rules
do an excellent job with tactical movement and playing out combats
with lead figures has been loads more fun than it ever was in earlier
editions.
I say - keep the braincells warmed up - even if it's not with D&D.
You'll need them in life when they invent androids and hovercrafts and
trips to Mars and stuff (or just another new operating system).
Plenty of time for rest in the grave (to loosly paraphrase the Conan
movie...)
"JuanCudz" <John.C...@uwe.ac.uk> wrote:
>I am not going to post a long reply but give a personal reason why I will
>not move to 3ed. After roleplaying for 20 years I really haven't got the
>enthusiasm to learn what is to all intents a brand new, and what I consider
>complicated, system. But not only the system itself, but the layout of the
>books (eg where each spell is roughly) and sometimes is easier to stay put
PJS
I tend to think you can't be racist where fictitious races are concerned...
--
The Ox is like the Bamboo
Floating on the Ocean.
Daniel R. Pace
>Excellent post. I seem to agree with you on most points, except maybe for
>opportunity attacks, which still seems a little illogical to me. Not that
>you get opportunity attacks, which is logical..but they way you get it, and
>when you get it.
What I did to illustrate the AoO to my friends was have one of them
spar with me while another one sat next to us tying his shoes. It was
pretty easy to see how I could score a telling blow against the shoe
guy while still keeping my opponent engaged. If that explanation
isn't convincing then I'm stumped.
>
>Other than that I think it's a shame to have made a class :Barbarian. It
>just seems like a no-brain beserk fighter to me. They should rather have
>used their energy on making Beserks, No-Two-Oppenents-Can-Flank-You, and
>Unflankable feats. and maybe some more as well. The Barbie does not stand
>for an ideology or a way of life as the ranger and the paladin. He's more of
>a _really_ aggressive fighter, with some nice new feats IMO.
I think if you take the Conan novels as a model you might find it
possible to give barbarians an ideology - while it might not be
something to put in a hymnal, it probably does qualify as a
philosophy. But why not drop the barbarian, ranger, and paladin
anyway and force people that play fighters to do some role playing?
>Another think is the spellsystem, which is still 30 years behind current
>events. I _hate_ memorization, it's stupid, it's not logical, it impairs the
>flexibility of spellcasters, and it almost certainly never let's you cast
>some of the more funny nice-idea-but-not-harmful-spells since you never have
>those around when you need them. Fortunately it's just a matter of having
>some houserules instead (which we do), but come on....it has been what,
>20-25 years since D&D started, and they still have this hopeless system.
>Playing spellcasters with spellpoints is much more fun, and once you get
>used to it, it's really frustrating to play games like Baldurs Gate and
>Icewind Dale afterwards :-)
I agree with you here, but we also use houserules for a spell point
system, so it's no biggie. Still, it would be nice for mainstream D&D
to conform with that (would be nice for it to conform with all of my
whims). When I saw the spell point system in the one Players Option
book, I thought it might happen.
IMC we use a system similar to what the bard/sorcerer use now. You
can't case *every* spell you've ever glanced at, but you can
"memorize" a fairly long list of spells from a book, and cast your
daily number from that list.
>
>jo...@just.my.0.02$
>
>Henry Cotter <mano...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>news:22860-39...@storefull-126.bryant.webtv.net...
>
Brad ~Tristan~ Daeda
I think you've covered everything. Good job!
(-Brad
Henry Cotter wrote:
> 2. No level limits- bravo for this one as well. This restriciton makes
> absolutely no sense. Why can't an elf become better at magic than a
> human? Why can't a dwarf get better with his axe than a human? What's
> the reasoning? The lame reason is because TSR never made humans a
> viable PC race(which is my next point.) In order to "balence" out the
> races, TSR decided to put arbitrary limits to other races. But that
> also takes away from what appears in fantasy literature. What about an
> elven arch-mage? It's certainly a concept which has appeared more than
> once, yet the inferior AD&D editions have decided to ignore this whole
> plethora of fantasy writing.
>
> 3. Humans are finally a playable race- As in, there's actually a bonus
> to playing a human instead of being able to do something that only 1% of
> the human population could do. In AD&D, the only bonuses were that
> humans can become paladins(which required huge stat scores off the bat.
> In fact, I've never seen a paladin honestly rolled up using the original
> method.) The other bonus is that humans have no level limits, but
> seriously, unless you were involved in a long campaign with script
> immunity, this bonus never mattered. Now, the humans get a few extra
> skill points, any favored class, and a bonus feat, which balences them
> out much better with the demihuman races, which keep most of their
> bonuses.
>
> 4. The new rolling method(4d6 drop lowest, allocate as choice) produces
> the character you want. The original method was roll 3d6 for each stat,
> no allocating, which basically meant that you didn't decide what you
> were to become, but the dice did. On another note, the dropping of
> ability score requirements also has opened up the game. No longer does
> a player have to rely on exceptional luck or DM fudging of rolls to
> become the character they want to become. I know, I can hear the old
> farts crying "Well paladins are going to be all over the place", which
> is simply not true. It's still hard to be a paladin if DMed right, and
> few people have what it takes to stay on that road.
>
> 5. Muticlassing- The old multiclassing rules were so broken one would
> have to be braindead to not see an improvement in 3E. Why? Because in
> the old rules, a multiclass character was leaps and bounds above a
> single classed one with equal experience. In 2nd Edition, a 17th level
> fighter needed 2,250,000 XP. With the same amount of XP's, a multiclass
> character could be a 12th level fighter/13th level mage. Why on earth
> would many people take single classed players if a multiclass one could
> be so much better?
> The new multiclass rules would make he player have a choice in which
> class he wanted to be 9th level- fighter or mage- and he stays 8th level
> in the other. In 3rd Edition, there is an actual trade-off of becoming
> a multiclasser. This is a good thing for game balence.
>
> 6. Experience awards- in the old editions, one could get XP for doing
> mudane tasks and it was almost always based off of combat. Without
> houserules, the only significant way for a player to advance would be
> for the players to fight, and win. With the new rules, one could jump
> up in levels by solving puzzles, roleplaying, and it all depends on what
> the challenge of the problem was. No longer does the gaming company
> tell you what you should award your players- they give you guidelines.
>
> 7. Saving throws-again, another massive increase in the D&D system.
> Instead of having 5 wierd catagories(Hey Luddites, you want to tell me
> why rods/staves/wands have a different saving throw than spells?), you
> have three catagories based on attributes. So, not only does your class
> and level matter when figuring saving throws, but your attributes matter
> as well. One with great dexterity should be better at dodging wizard's
> ray, for example, then oe with average scores.
> The second great thing about the new saves is that a more powerful
> spell by a higher level wizard is harder to save against than in
> previous editions. In 2nd Edition, there was no difference in what you
> needed to roll to save against a 5th level wizard who slung a fireball
> and an 18th level archmage who slung chain lighting. In 3E, the
> difference is that I'd have to roll 16 higher against the archamage,
> than against the lowely one. A much significant difference.
>
> 8. Spell resistance- finally, it goes back to it's roots in that a
> spell cast by a more powerful wizard should be able to penetrate a
> creature's resistance than a wizard who's of lower level.
>
> 9. Skill system- again, this is light years ahead of the old NWP
> system. In the old NWP system, your score to succeed didn't matter
> much based on level. Now, your level determines how good you do at a
> certain skill as well as your atribute. Also, the bonus to the new
> skill system is that one could take any skill they want- a fighter can
> now pick locks if he so wanted to while a 2nd Edition fighter couldn't
> without massive house rules.
>
> 10. The d20 system- I don't know why so many people have a problem with
> this. One retard, who's name I shall not mention, claimed it was "too
> predictable." Yeah, a 20 sided die which has the same chance to roll a
> 1 as it does with a 10 is predictable. Whatever. But back to the
> point, D&D decided to move into the next decade by adding a standard
> resolution mechanic. Instead of having to roll a d10 to find certain
> unsafe floors(gnomes), a d6 for secret doors(other demihumans), a low on
> the d20 for NWP's, a high on a d20 for "to hits" and saves, and a d100
> for magic resistance, we have one standard way to resolve things- high
> on a d20. It's much more intuitive and cleaner. The only things which
> don't use this are initiative and damage, but in those things I don't
> think it really matters. Setting a number and telling the player to
> roll above it(adding modifiers) is an elegant way to doing things(almost
> every other RPG system does this as well.)
>
> 11. Initiative/combat round- The new intitiave is much easier and
> makes more sense than it used to. In 2nd Edition, a combat round was 1
> minute and it was assumed that in that time the damage was the amount of
> defenses worn off of an opponent. It assumed feints and various other
> postures, but it made little, if any sense. Take the example of the
> dagger. If used in melee, it's damage is based off of how much you've
> worn your opponent down in that round, while throwing it, you're not
> spending your time dodging/feinting. So what does the character do for
> the next 55 seconds of combat? In 3E, combat is speeded up to the right
> amount of time(6 seconds seems about right) and it goes in cycles where
> the most dextorous goes first and the slower ones go last, kind of like
> real life.
>
> 12. Feats- again, this can only be seen as a good thing. No longer are
> the days where every fighter is the same. Now a fighter has more
> special abilities. The feats, added with the no hit die cap, makes the
> fighter a much more attractive class than it used to be. In 2nd
> edition, the difference between a 15th level fighter and a 10th level
> fighter was almost nil(+15 HP's, +5 to hit, .5 attacks per round) In
> 3rd Edition, the differences are much greater, which is as it should
> be(afterall, in 2nd and 1rst Edition, a 9th level fighter was much
> greater in difference to a 4th level one.)
> The new metamagic/item creation feats also make the wizard
> more customizable. No longer do all wizards know how to make wands.
> They can instead learn how to cast spells in armor with no arcane spell
> failure.
>
> 13. The healing factor- probably the most mis-understood aspect of 3rd
> Edition. It's not that the cleric can heal which has these old farts
> screaming, it's that the numbers are larger. Yet, the one thing these
> dimwits don't seem to get is that the damage has been scaled up as well.
> The natural healing rate improves with level, which makes more sense.
> Why does a 1rst level fighter who's reduced to almost death (1HP) get up
> in two days while a 5th level one takes much longer? Going with the HP
> model, it represents loss of defensive ability, not straight physical
> damage. So in essence, the 5th level fighter and 1rst level fighters
> who are reduced to 1 HP take the same amount of *physical* damage.
> Last thing about this is that the cleric's ability to swap spells
> for healing is only a bonus because it fixes the long time problem with
> D&D clerics- they used to be walking band-aids.
>
> 14. The classes are more defined- this mostly effects the Druid, who in
> previous editions was little more than a watered down cleric. Now, the
> druid has more advantages and can use certain spells that a cleric
> can't. The bard is also better definded in 3rd Edition, instead of
> being the mess he was in 1rst Edition and the lame jack of all trades
> hodgepodge he was in 2nd Edition.
>
> 15. Maybe this is minor, but I'm glad that aging for certain spells has
> been lifted(as well as aging attacks.) The reason I hated such things
> was because it penalized humans and half-elves more than other
> demihumans. One of the things which was put as balence in AD&D was
> level limits/class restrictions which prevented long living races from
> casting such powerful spells, but what about an elf who could cast
> "haste"? In 2nd Edition, a person ages a year. Naturally, humans used
> that spell very rarely, while an elf could cast it many more times.
> Also, an elf was at a much better advantage against a ghost than a human
> was, because the aging attack didn't affect them nearly as much. Now,
> the XP penalty affects all races equally.
>
> 16. Spells have been cleaned up and are explained much more clearly
> this time around. Thank God. Also, darkvision is much better
> explained. And the cleaning up of the ability score charts is another
> great thing.
>
> 17. Attacks of Opportunity- my last point. I've heard many complaints
> on this one as well. I can't say many who do complain about this have a
> clue as to what they're talking about. Obviously in combat there will
> arise times when you're going to put your defenses down. It only makes
> sense that the game should allow players to make these attacks- which
> are basically open shots.
>
> Call me a WotC sheep if you want. With all of these things put
> together, it shuld be quite easy to tell that D&D3 is a much *better*
> system than any previous edition. Many of the Luddites will still cling
> to their old ways and try to claim D&D3 in munchkin/stupid, but they're
> the ones looking like fools. Anyone have any comments? Corrections?
Brad ~Tristan~ Daeda
> Cheers! I was amazed as I read the book and so many of my house rules were
> now official... Yahoo the best!
I was personally amazed at how many of my group's house rules were in the
book. It really made us feel like we did a good job and weren't alone with our
rules :-)
(-Brad
Brad ~Tristan~ Daeda
happy with it. I guess I'd be expecting too much if that were the case. The
things I'm not happy with are very minor though, so that's an accomplishment
:-)
Some things in particular are:
The drawing of the rapier
The general artwork
The look of Gnomes
The look of a female Half-orc
The unrealistic weights of most weapons.
No coin capacity for things like; pouches; sacks, and backpacks.
See? Very minor :-)
One thing I am *very* impressed with though is how balanced the game is. I
can't figure out which character to create because there are so many good
ways to go, and no way to really make my ultimate class. As frustrating as
it is, its refreshing :-)
(-Brad
Bokman7757
"To Live and Die in L.A."
Hang on a second....
Gangrel
Ed Chauvin IV
>4. The new rolling method(4d6 drop lowest, allocate as choice) produces
>the character you want. The original method was roll 3d6 for each stat,
>no allocating, which basically meant that you didn't decide what you
>were to become, but the dice did.
Haven't played it in years, but didn't 2e include this as an optional rolling
method?
BTW, everything else you said was pretty much spot on.
Ed Chauvin IV
--
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Jesse Willson
"Vern Ryan" <vmr...@home.com> wrote in message
news:4wsw5.9035$Y7.1...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
>
> "John Kim" <jh...@cascade.ps.uci.edu> wrote in message
> news:8psdkg$sm8$1...@news.service.uci.edu...
>
> Just one point I had to comment on.
>
> >
> > editions, there are still many things built-in, like escalating hit
> points.
> > It is hard to change these without major overhaul of the system.
>
> triple damage but allows for wounds, broken bones, and sometimes even
death.
> As it stands the critical hit system of doubling damage just makes the
> higher level characters more invincible when facing a mob (as long as they
> can avoid getting swarmed) double the normal damage of a longsword is
more
> deadly to low level characters then it is to high level character. But if
> even the highest level character can be incapacitated by the rare hit in
> combat it makes the battles a serious challenge and makes people unwilling
> to rush into a hoard of enemies.
>
What I do is have a damage location table that has eighteen entries, with
the most deadly at 2 and the least deadly at 19... Whatever the natural d20
roll was (if it succedeed in hitting) is the location you do damage too...
the severity (or sever-ity) is really reletive to the creatures current
hp's...
The end result doesn't slow down game time at all really, and every battle a
hero stands a very good chance of losing a finger or ear (happens all the
time). Not for everyone but my players enjoy it alot... it works both ways
and is a little more realistic (and gorrier).
Michael T. Richter
news:nko4sss2rf5q2tj9p...@enews.newsguy.com...
> Henry Cotter wrote:
>> 4. The new rolling method(4d6 drop lowest, allocate as choice) produces
>> the character you want. The original method was roll 3d6 for each stat,
>> no allocating, which basically meant that you didn't decide what you
>> were to become, but the dice did.
> Haven't played it in years, but didn't 2e include this as an optional
rolling
> method?
1e had it as an option, in fact.
Daniel R. Pace
long as words like "inferior" are directed at products and not people
I'm comfortable with it. That being said, I support your position
that people should be polite towards one another, and the next time I
see the word "munchkin" I hope it's directed at me and not someone who
cares.
I also wish you the best in your campaign as far as going with 2E or
whatever you choose, but hope that you give 3E a look because I really
feel they did a good job.
Patrick Berry <patric...@usa.alcatel.com> wrote:
>Henry Cotter wrote:
>
>> It's been a little over a month since WotC has released the new Dungeons
>> and Dragons game to us, the unwashed masses.
>
>That's a myth. Most of us *do* wash occasionally. :)
>
>> And in this time, we
>> bought the first two books and have read them and are now comparing the
>> editions. I knew there were going to be some D&D players, who despite
>> playing with a broken system, weren't going to change to 3E. Bt I'm
>> mighty suprised as to why they're not changing. Their reasons have
>> nothing to do with taste(as in, "I like playing an old, illogical, and
>> out of date system.") No, they have to attack the system itself.
>
>Henry, what is the point of a post like this? I like 3E as much as you
>do, but I see nothing to be gained by ridiculing and insulting those who
>feel differently.
>
>"Broken system"? That's a matter of opinion, surely. Every game system
>has flaws, but 2E's flaws certainly didn't make it unplayable, or how
>would we have continued to play D&D for the last 11 years? "Old"? Sure
>it is -- so what? I'm 40 myself, so you can call me old if you wish;
>I'll just smile and say "Thanks." "Illogical"? Again, that's an
>opinion. "Out of date?" In the sense that it's no longer the newest
>edition, yes. But I'm aware of no cosmic law that requires us to play
>only the newest version of anything.
>
>> Let's look at why D&D3 is light years ahead of the inferior AD&D lines:
>
>"Inferior"? Now I'm sure: you're deliberately trying to set off a
>flamewar. Haven't we had enough of that here lately? If you want to
>discuss why you, personally, prefer 3E to previous editions, that's
>fine. But can't you do it without inflammatory terms like "inferior"?
>
>> Call me a WotC sheep if you want.
>
>I'd prefer to avoid name-calling completely, if that's OK with you.
>
>> With all of these things put
>> together, it shuld be quite easy to tell that D&D3 is a much *better*
>> system than any previous edition.
>
>Better for whom? You're entitled to make your own choice, but please
>stop trying to dictate to everyone else.
>
>> Many of the Luddites will still cling
>> to their old ways and try to claim D&D3 in munchkin/stupid, but they're
>> the ones looking like fools. Anyone have any comments? Corrections?
>
Daniel R. Pace
not get so bent towards people who like one game system or another.
Anyone who wants to challenge your ideas will hopefully state some
clear reasons and avoid name calling. I hope you do the same.
As what you would call an "old fart", I was very disappointed with 2ED
as compared to 1ED. It started out ok, with them dropping some of the
rules that didn't seem to work in 1ED, but then it just degenerated
into Complete Handbooks and what I think were just poor supplements.
What would have been a $6 module in 1ED became a $30 boxed set and
novel trilogy. I could substantially lengthen this post with a list
of my criticisms of what has come before.
But the last time I was as pleased with a D&D hardcover book as I was
with the 3ED PHB was the Monster Manual II. Of course, as a chaotic
evil DM I'm going to make substantial campaign related changes to the
available classes, spells, equipment, and races. But who doesn't? I
still think the core system is excellent and the effort that has been
put forth from the start to the end of the book has been higher than
what I've seen in a long time. I finally get the feeling that
someone's playing the D&D game that they're creating.
The last 10 or 11 years has been a gloomy time for me in regards to
gaming, and I'm relieved to see some life come back into it. Not
because 3E is new, there was plenty of new crap in the last decade and
it didn't cut the mustard (and if you think I'm being too harsh, let
me tell you about something called the Complete Wizard's
Handbook,...). This time, it's a good system.
I think that anyone who continues to play 2ED (or 1ED or whatever)
will be playing a game that they and their friends are happy with and
I respect that. But I think it's possible to look at 2ED as written
and find much more stuff that is "broken" than you can in 3ED. I
would like to take time and write a long rant about 2ED, just as a way
of hoping that things don't ever go down that road again.
I was floored when I saw that they had released a *dungeon module* for
3ED in the early line up. Their intent really seems to be that you
*play* the game and not just read about campaign settings and
characters. I thought I was just nostalgic for the last 10 years, but
now it seems like something had really changed, and now I'm hoping
it's changing back again.
Thomas Bagwell
wrote:
>I am not going to post a long reply but give a personal reason why I will
>not move to 3ed. After roleplaying for 20 years I really haven't got the
>enthusiasm to learn what is to all intents a brand new, and what I consider
>complicated, system. But not only the system itself, but the layout of the
>books (eg where each spell is roughly) and sometimes is easier to stay put
>than take a leap of faith. I also have many other commitments outside
>gaming that go with being a 36 year old and if I was 20 years younger I
>would embrace 3ed with open arms.
>And call me old fashioned, but I really can't get my doddering brain cells
>around the concept of halfling cleric ninja wielding two rapiers thank you
>very much.
Then I think you underestimate yourself...speaking as a 37 year old,
with two children and many outside commitments myself. Gaming has
been reduced to every other weekend, but I still love trying and
learning new systems.
Tom B.
Dirk Collins
I'm with you on that one. Even when I was playing 0D&D we
routinely allowed characters to improve the "Stat" they used
most for every 4 levels of experience they gained. I adopted
A Skills and "Feats" list from the Avalon Hill Runequest
gamesystem years ago. I found percentile dice rolls, and gaining
and losing skill points based on succeeding and failing
d100 skill proficiency checks easy to implement, understand,
and teach to other players. Still, I will use some of the
*new* spells in PHB 3Ed because they are interesting. Further,
having tables of combat modifiers for cover and size mods on
targets are nice. I think I'll be adding the Saving throw
modifiers per class out of 3E also into my campaigns.
To good gaming!
Regards,
Dirk
The Sigil
alum). Here's my two bits...
John Kim wrote:
> >> What exactly do you see as its competition here? I would concur
> >> that D&D3 compares favorably with _Rolemaster_ and _Palladium FRPG_.
> >> But if we consider other fantasy RPG's like _Sengoku_ or _Elric_,
> >> I don't think I would agree.
> >
> >Again, this depends largely on what you're looking for. This 3E system is
> >best designed for an action / adventure type of game (where things like
> >combat and special heroic are more of the core as oppossed to 'pure'
> >role-playing). Based on my experiences, I think 3E is best suited for
> >these specific kinds of games.
>
> Fair enough. Most of my fantasy game experience is not in
> action/adventure -- more exploration and intrigue. On the other hand,
> you said you didn't know _Sengoku_ or _Elric_, which is fair enough.
> However, you didn't say what you considered its competition to be,
> though. i.e. What are the other RPG's within its niche that you
> consider D&D3 to be superior to?
I would say that 3e is in a niche of RPGs that focus on "action with abstract
combat" - that is, you have a system where "action" is more encouraged than
"role-playing" but that combat is abstracted - unlike GURPS or BattleTech or a
million other systems, the "realism" of combat isn't there; you have no rules
for hittting different parts of the body, breaking bones, etc. Everything just
hits one big lump of hit points and you go until you drop. This puts it in (I
only list those systems I am familiar with) a niche with Palladium and its whole
line of products and previous versions of (A)D&D.
Games it is NOT in the same niche with:
1.) White Wolf products (very much encourage roleplaying over action)
2.) GURPS/BattleTech (very detailed resolution of combat with different areas
getting hit and having different hp totals).
3.) Shadowrun/Cyberpunk genre (lots of action, but not quite as abstract as 3e
- you have wound levels - it runs in between BTech/GURPS and D&D).
4.) Warhammer 40K - (no roleplaying at all, mass combat)
As far as I can tell, D&D is a genre for those who want about 1 part roleplaying
to 2 parts action to zero parts detailed, real-life combat.
> >>> One other things I have to say that is a major advantage to this edition
> >>> is that, while this is not readily noticable, it is very flexible and
> >>> can be used to run nearly any kind of imaginable game with it.
> >>
> >> Hm. D&D3 lacks some basic structures that many other RPG's
> >> provide. For example, it lacks any structure for a character's
> >> personal inborn and/or social features -- like social status,
> >> contacts, blessings, curses, and so forth. This makes it difficult
> >> to do some campaign features, like having races that aren't balanced
> >> (i.e. Tolkien elves, etc.).
> [...]
> >This is where I disagree with you. Again, I think you really need to
> >read the DMG before you can say this is true. Something like social
> >status, contacts, etc. can easily be added into the game. There are
> >multitudes of ways to do this that fit in perfectly with the game system.
>
> Well, as I said, the DMG is pretty darn new so it seems a bit
> much for me to debate experience with it. However, for any RPG it is
> possible to make up new ways of doing things. I did not say that
> it was impossible to do these things in D&D3 -- just that it is more
> difficult than in many other systems, such as GURPS.
Yes and no. GURPS is a very well-designed and well-thought-out system for what
it aims to do: produce very realistic worlds (or at least consistent ones - I
guess "magic" might be called unrealistic) with very gritty, real world
fighting, very balanced characters, and a high mortality rate among would-be
heroes. Contacts, studying, and many other things are accounted for in GURPS.
Prior to 3e, GURPS was my Role-playing system of choice. But I went back to D&D
because it re-introduced the "hero." GURPS heroes tend to be too mortal or
immortal - it's hard to get a middle ground. D&D strides the line well -
characters can do legendary stuff but are still just mortal enough to stay
humble.
In my mind, D&D is "high fantasy" - one were you have semi-legendary heroes
doing amazing things and is rather action oriented (not to say that it has to be
HnS or anything, but adventures in D&D tend to have quite a bit of action). The
problem with 1e and 2e is it got bogged down in details and eventually in
tactics because of all the stuff released for it. GURPS is very realistic, but
players are far more wary - it would be, I guess, "realist fantasy." White Wolf
is, as far as I can tell, "dark fantasy" - suitable (and tailored) for those who
want to look at the darker side of life, explore their own angst, and in
general, act like goths and typical evil-wannabes (yes, that is VERY
prejudiced). I guess it keeps them from committing homicide or suicide (can you
tell I don't like the White Wolf system or most players I've encountered?).
Palladium is "stupid fantasy" - characters begin as insanely powerful in Rifts
and underpowered in every other Palladium series and really gain very little as
they advance in level (ever look at the difference between a level 1 and a level
12 Palladium character? Other than items attained, it is VERY little - almost
NO improvement of a character's basic abilities goes on). There is little real
character growth statistically in Palladium. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot
I like about the Palladium system, but the problem I have is characters gain
almost nothing as they advance in level.
The Sigil
John Kim
The Sigil <inv...@noway.com> wrote:
>John Kim wrote:
>> What are the other RPG's within its niche that you consider D&D3
>> to be superior to?
>
>I would say that 3e is in a niche of RPGs that focus on "action with
>abstract combat" - that is, you have a system where "action" is more
>encouraged than "role-playing" but that combat is abstracted -
>This puts it in (I only list those systems I am familiar with) a niche
>with Palladium and its whole line of products and previous versions
>of (A)D&D.
Hm. Well, I would certainly agree that _Palladium Fantasy_
is in the same niche as D&D, and I would put D&D3 above it. On the
other hand, I'm not so sure about the whole Palladium line. For
example, is _Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles_ really in the same niche
as D&D3? i.e. For a offbeat comic superhero campaign, how many
people would consider D&D3 and TMNT but not any other system?
Now, as I cover below, it is possible to adapt D&D3 to very
different genres. However, if you accept D&D3 as competition for
doing a TMNT campaign, then I think the definition of "niche" has
suddenly become pretty darn broad. With that breadth, I would then
say that _Ars Magica_ is strong competition to D&D for doing action-
packed swords and sorcery well.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
[Re: adapting D&D3 to other settings]
>>
>> However, for any RPG it is possible to make up new ways of doing
>> things. I did not say that it was impossible to do these things
>> in D&D3 -- just that it is more difficult than in many other
>> systems, such as GURPS.
>
>Yes and no. GURPS is a very well-designed and well-thought-out system
>for what it aims to do: produce very realistic worlds
[...]
>In my mind, D&D is "high fantasy" - one were you have semi-legendary
>heroes doing amazing things and is rather action oriented (not to say
>that it has to be HnS or anything, but adventures in D&D tend to have
>quite a bit of action).
My point was not that GURPS does what D&D does better, my
point was simply that systems _like_ GURPS are more easily adapted for
doing other settings. The two fantasy examples I gave were Lloyd
Alexander's Prydain and C.S. Lewis' Narnia. Neither of these is
especially realistic, but I still would say it is simpler to adapt
GURPS to handle them than it is to adapt D&D3.
Let's try something simple: suppose you wanted to do an
action-oriented fantasy campaign with no PC spellcasters (like most
of Robert E. Howard's Conan series, for example). IMO, it is
non-trivial to make a well-differentiated party of starting PC's
with only the 3 non-magic classes. It is not very tough to do, but
this would be a non-issue in a system like _Pendragon_, _Ars Magica_,
GURPS, etc.
Jonas Lind
in the range of spells that she can cast. I do not think such a restriction
is good. Another thing is that with spellpoints you can choose to cast
whatever spell you want and then pay a cost. You can spend all your
spellpoints casting the highest level if you want, and that is not possible
with a sorceror. A sorceror being able to cast 3rd level spells, cannot use
all spellslots (IIRC) on 3rd level spells, but will after exhausting the 3rd
level still be able to cast 1st and 2nd level spells.
jonas
Carl Perkins <ca...@gerg.tamu.edu> wrote in message
news:15SEP200...@gerg.tamu.edu...
> "Jonas Lind" <blo...@rhk.dk> writes...
> }Another think is the spellsystem, which is still 30 years behind current
> }events. I _hate_ memorization, it's stupid, it's not logical, it impairs
the
> }flexibility of spellcasters, and it almost certainly never let's you cast
> }some of the more funny nice-idea-but-not-harmful-spells since you never
have
> }those around when you need them. Fortunately it's just a matter of having
> }some houserules instead (which we do), but come on....it has been what,
> }20-25 years since D&D started, and they still have this hopeless system.
> }Playing spellcasters with spellpoints is much more fun, and once you get
> }used to it, it's really frustrating to play games like Baldurs Gate and
> }Icewind Dale afterwards :-)
> }
Mr. Tines
<fsr...@myriad.net> writes
"No, what you get is that you don't have to wait an those extra
couple of levels to get your powerful stuff."
However, it should only be a consideration if your campaign ever
actually features characters of such levels that the change is other
than an academic one. I don't know about the new system, but I've
always found the sweet spot of the earlier versions has always been 4th
to 7th level, and even I've never been in a game where characters have
reached levels so as actually been able to cast spells above 6th.
-- PGPfingerprint: BC01 5527 B493 7C9B 3C54 D1B7 248C 08BC --
_______ {pegwit v8 public key =581cbf05be9899262ab4bb6a08470}
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___ {69c10bcfbca894a5bf8d208d001b829d4d0}
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-< http://www.ravnaandtines.com/
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@ravnaandtines.com PGP key on page
Mr. Tines
Fernandez <fer...@earthlink.net> writes
>Amen brother!! I agree with all your points and I still can't figure out why
>there's so much opposition to 3rd ed. Oh well...
For much the same reason as there was opposition to 2nd through out the
'90s - different people have different views on what parts of the system
work and which don't, so a change that some people thing fixes something
broken, others may regard as at best irrelevant tinkering (8th and 9th
level clerical spells), or outright breaking (losing the tailored spell
lists of specialty priests). Meanwhile, many groups will have built up
their own corpus of house rules, to fix the things they see as broken;
and where things have been changed but not fixed, that whole exercise in
patching would have to be gone through again.
In the number and pervasiveness of the changes between 2 and 3, far more
extensive than between previous versions, are also enough that players
may be more encumbered than assisted by their familiarity with the
previous versions. I know that my own negative reaction to RuneQuest 3
was in part due to the fact that a lot of familiar rules from the
previous edition had been changed, so that play was more hampered by the
similarity than it was helped. This is something that changing to a
completely different rules set, where you don't expect things to be the
same, doesn't encounter.
Jason
bj...@cornell.edu says...
> In article <G0x9p...@bath.ac.uk>, "JuanCudz" <John.C...@uwe.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > I am not going to post a long reply but give a personal reason why I will
> > not move to 3ed. After roleplaying for 20 years I really haven't got the
> > enthusiasm to learn what is to all intents a brand new, and what I consider
>
> "complicated"? AD&D 1st and 2d editions are the poster childs of
> "complicated".
>
D&D (any version) is hardly complicated. But then, I dont find full-on
Rolemaster complicated either.
Scott Barrie
wrote:
Out of curiosity, what systems do you find complicated? Or do you not
notice/pay attention to an RPG's level of complication when reading
it? (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
Scott B. Barrie Physics Grad Student
Quest Free RPG -AD&D flavour, but without
the annoying parts. And I didn't write it
http://trollsden.physics.uwo.ca/quest.htm
Nis Haller Baggesen
Has anybody considered comming up with feats to fix this? IMHO it wouldn't hurt
to have more feats. After all if there is a feat people don't like you can
always change or drop it. It would have less of a balance impact than changing
a class-ability since all feats are available to pretty much everybody, and you
can just avoid feats that you don't think are worth it.
So one could imagine:
Extra spell-slot feat. This could either simply be more spell slots or it could
be metamagic allowing you to put two x-level spells into one x+1 level
spell-slot.
Extra known spell feat. Extra variance for barda and wizards.
Unprepared casting feat: Metamagic that allows an unprepared x-level spell if
he has an unfilled x+1 level spell slot free. Or you could allow unprepared
casting of certain of spells - Mastered spells would seem like a good choice.
Or you could reintroduce bookcasting.
Overwriting spells: Allows a wizards to spend 15 minutes overwriting a
memorized spell instead of having to have a free spellslot.
Draining Magic: Allows spellcasting without expending slots at the expense of
hp - One could imagine something like 1d10 points of damage pr. spell level.
This would also allow you to simulate other kinds of magic in the D&D system.
Inate Spell: Makes one spell a inate ability. You might allow all classes to
get this feat if you wanted lots of magic but not a lot of multiclassing.
Divine Spell: Allows a cleric to drop a prepared spell in favor of a domain
spell instead of just in favor of cure/inflict. (This is IMHO a good standard
rule, but could be introduced as a feat).
Prophet: Allows a cleric to choose an extra domain, from his gods domains.
(Might be better as a prestige class ability).
For the non spell-casters we could imagine:
Armor Specialization: Negates or reduces some of the penalties of armor - Max
Dex, Dex penalties, arcane spell failure etc. Might even increase your AC when
wearing a certain type of armor. Could be split into several feats.
Versatility: Turns a cross class skill into a class skill.
Jack of all trades: Gives you a 'fictive' skill rank in (5) skills you have
rank 0 in. However to raise the skill you would still have to buy that first
rank.
Luck: One re-roll per session;
Will to Live: Allows you to make a fortitude save to avoid dropping when you
reach 0 hp.
Blessed/Natural resistance: +1 to all saves.
One could propably imagine more feats. All of these should of course have
prerequests etc, but still I think that that are the perfect goodie for
sourcebooks. Since almost every class can take every feat they disrupt fairness
less, and it easier to judge on a feat by feat basis whether it fist your game
or not. With new character classes thats harder IMHO.
One could also imagine feats that had class or race prerequests. These would
represent optional instead of fixed race or class powers, giving much more
leeway for character customization. In one world it might fit that orcs could
have a 'Roar of Fear' feat while it would seem out of place for a halfling. If
people don't like such retrictions they are also much easier to lift or adjust
on a feat by feat basis than in larger packages.
Then one might say that this is what prestige classes are for, but once you
stuff abilities into a classyou fix the sequence of abilities much more, and
you affect hit-rolls, hit points, saves and a whole lot of other things. Plus
it's very hard to make a new class that is interesting for spell-users, since
they loose their spell-progression. Feats they can get and still advance in
their primary class.
mvh
Nis
Bryan J. Maloney
<sul...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
It is extremely complicated compared to most other games out there. 3rd
edition is less complicated than previous editions, I'll grant that.
Rolemaster is not as complicated as is D&D. Far fewer special rules and
unique circumstances.
--
For those in the know, potrzebie is truly necessary.
aetherson
jh...@cascade.ps.uci.edu (John Kim) wrote:
>
> Let's try something simple: suppose you wanted to do an
> action-oriented fantasy campaign with no PC spellcasters (like most
> of Robert E. Howard's Conan series, for example). IMO, it is
> non-trivial to make a well-differentiated party of starting PC's
> with only the 3 non-magic classes. It is not very tough to do, but
> this would be a non-issue in a system like _Pendragon_, _Ars Magica_,
> GURPS, etc.
Hmmm. Ars Magica would be an interesting choice for an entirely non-
spellcaster game.
Also: Three classes? You're counting monks as a "magic" class? True,
they've got some supernatural abilities at high levels, but I don't
know that they'd be out of genre for a Conan-like game.
At any rate, I'm not sure you're right about this. True, a lot of the
differentiation in D&D3 comes from the spellcasting classes, but...
Look at the source material? How differentiated are the characters in
it, on the basis of ability alone?
My only exposure to Conan comes from the first movie, a couple of comic
books, and comments I've read about it on usenet, but, taking the
movie, all the characters seem to be pretty similar in ability -- they
kick ass, hide in shadows, and chew bubblegum.
I think that Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue can actually handle it well
(especially since in D&D3, "Rogue" is nearly a catch-all class).
Maybe add the NPC class from the DMG, the Expert, depending on how
action-oriented you are.
That strikes me as easier than an Ars Magica conversion, though this is
probably to a large extent a matter of how familiar you are with the
system.
Mike (aetherson)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
aetherson
"Jonas Lind" <blo...@rhk.dk> wrote:
> Nope. A sorceror is not the same thing. For one he/she is severely
limited
> in the range of spells that she can cast. I do not think such a
restriction
> is good. Another thing is that with spellpoints you can choose to cast
> whatever spell you want and then pay a cost. You can spend all your
> spellpoints casting the highest level if you want, and that is not
possible
> with a sorceror. A sorceror being able to cast 3rd level spells,
cannot use
> all spellslots (IIRC) on 3rd level spells, but will after exhausting
the 3rd
> level still be able to cast 1st and 2nd level spells.
So, you essentially want a spellcaster with the spell list of a Wizard
and more flexibility than a sorceror. Fair enough.
How are you changing all the other classes to rebalance the game?
John Kim
aetherson <aeth...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>John Kim <jh...@cascade.ps.uci.edu> wrote:
>> Let's try something simple: suppose you wanted to do an action-oriented
>> fantasy campaign with no PC spellcasters (like most of Robert E.
>> Howard's Conan series, for example). IMO, it is non-trivial to make
>> a well-differentiated party of starting PC's with only the 3 non-magic
>> classes. It is not very tough to do, but this would be a non-issue
>> in a system like _Pendragon_, _Ars Magica_, GURPS, etc.
>True, a lot of the differentiation in D&D3 comes from the spellcasting
>classes, but... Look at the source material? How differentiated are
>the characters in it, on the basis of ability alone?
>
>My only exposure to Conan comes from the first movie, a couple of comic
>books, and comments I've read about it on usenet, but, taking the
>movie, all the characters seem to be pretty similar in ability -- they
>kick ass, hide in shadows, and chew bubblegum.
First of all, the movie is different than the books -- but
that's off topic. I think what you say goes to my point. In D&D,
fighting ability is largely a single number (i.e. attack bonus) -
so all characters who "kick ass" are rather alike.
In contrast, other systems allow for more differentiation
of such characters. For example, I played in a campaign set in Tang
dynasty China using the Hero system (with _Ninja Hero_). All of the
PC's were kung fu martial artists, but the system allowed differentiation
between my Drunken Boxing fighter and another player's Tiger Style
swordsman.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>Hmmm. Ars Magica would be an interesting choice for an entirely non-
>spellcaster game.
Well, this is to my point. _Ars Magica_ was originally for
magical advancement, while D&D was originally for dungeon-crawling.
However, the _Ars Magica_ system handles differentiating Conan-esque
characters perfectly well as-is, while your answer (at least) for D&D
is that all characters should look alike.
aetherson
jh...@cascade.ps.uci.edu (John Kim) wrote:
>
> aetherson <aeth...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >John Kim <jh...@cascade.ps.uci.edu> wrote:
oriented
> >> fantasy campaign with no PC spellcasters (like most of Robert E.
> >> Howard's Conan series, for example). IMO, it is non-trivial to
make
> >> a well-differentiated party of starting PC's with only the 3 non-
magic
> >> classes. It is not very tough to do, but this would be a non-
issue
> >> in a system like _Pendragon_, _Ars Magica_, GURPS, etc.
> >True, a lot of the differentiation in D&D3 comes from the
spellcasting
> >classes, but... Look at the source material? How differentiated
are
> >the characters in it, on the basis of ability alone?
> >
> >My only exposure to Conan comes from the first movie, a couple of
comic
> >books, and comments I've read about it on usenet, but, taking the
> >movie, all the characters seem to be pretty similar in ability --
they
> >kick ass, hide in shadows, and chew bubblegum.
>
> First of all, the movie is different than the books -- but
> that's off topic. I think what you say goes to my point. In D&D,
> fighting ability is largely a single number (i.e. attack bonus) -
> so all characters who "kick ass" are rather alike.
>
> In contrast, other systems allow for more differentiation
> of such characters. For example, I played in a campaign set in Tang
> dynasty China using the Hero system (with _Ninja Hero_). All of the
> PC's were kung fu martial artists, but the system allowed
differentiation
> between my Drunken Boxing fighter and another player's Tiger Style
> swordsman.
I do understand that the movie and the books are wildly different, and
I understand your point about stylistic differentiation of fighting...
But I don't see that in the movie (at least).
In fact, I think that the feats of D&D3 provide greater fighting
definition than that particular movie supports.
I think, however, that the Lord of the Rings movies may set a new and
better standard for this. We could reasonably expect them to be very
popular among at least the roleplaying segment of the audience, and
they will present characters who are by and large not users of magic.
Oh, sure, Gandalf's hanging around, but my memory of the LotR is that
for the most part, he doesn't do spectacular feats of magic very
often. Further, I've heard that they're planning on carefully
differentiating the styles of combat used by various races and
characters.
Of course, maybe the LotR movies will just suck.
> >Hmmm. Ars Magica would be an interesting choice for an entirely non-
> >spellcaster game.
>
> Well, this is to my point. _Ars Magica_ was originally for
> magical advancement, while D&D was originally for dungeon-crawling.
> However, the _Ars Magica_ system handles differentiating Conan-esque
> characters perfectly well as-is, while your answer (at least) for D&D
> is that all characters should look alike.
My answer was actually that /for the Conan movie/, all characters
should look alike, or that the fighting styles are differentiated
primarily into "barbarian and not barbarian."
Dirk Collins
than any version of XD&D. It's just that for 3E, for me, I don't
want to put in the time to learn the whole system, so I adopted
what is good from 3E, and left the rest in the books so to speak.
regards,
Dirk
teknohippyŽ
14 Sep 2000 19:17:52 -0500 (CDT), when
mano...@webtv.net (Henry Cotter) did
quoth:
Why, when you actually had some
resonable, well put and clearly written
points to make did you resort to petty
insults and jibes?
--
teknohippyŽ | www.teknohippy.com
Rick Pikul
sba...@julian.uwo.ca says...
> notice/pay attention to an RPG's level of complication when reading
> it? (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
Well, he could have played ASL or Global War[1] from AH. I don't
think any RPG has rated an AH 10.
[1] Advanced Third Reich and Empire of the Rising Sun played as a
single game.
--
Phoenix
Paul Jackson
> that's off topic. I think what you say goes to my point. In D&D,
> fighting ability is largely a single number (i.e. attack bonus) -
> so all characters who "kick ass" are rather alike.
>
> In contrast, other systems allow for more differentiation
> of such characters. For example, I played in a campaign set in Tang
> dynasty China using the Hero system (with _Ninja Hero_). All of the
> PC's were kung fu martial artists, but the system allowed differentiation
> between my Drunken Boxing fighter and another player's Tiger Style
> swordsman.
In all honesty, I think D&D3 is about as well differentiated as
is Hero (assuming very, very limited Powers in Hero). Beserkers,
fighters and Rangers all feel quite different. And there is a whole
slew of Feats to allow further differentiating of combat styles.
When you combine this with a REAL choice of weapons and
armour you end up with quite a bit of variety.
In my experience with Hero combat types very rapidly fall
into one of 2 categories, the "Brick" or the "Martial Artist". While
there is definitely some differentiation between characters
within the type it doesn't tend to be that big.
As for different types of Martial Arts, there is a very real risk
of it degenerating into Martial Strike vs Defensive Strike, which
in turn just degenerate into +a OCV, +b OCV and are often almost
indistinguishable from a character with a bunch of levels.
In Hero, the characters are built very differently. But they PLAY
very similarly. In D&D3 its almost the opposite. They all
choose from the identical sets of options but the choices they
make affect how they feel in play quite a lot.
SD Anderson
jh...@cascade.ps.uci.edu (John Kim) wrote:
>
> aetherson <aeth...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >John Kim <jh...@cascade.ps.uci.edu> wrote:
oriented
> >> fantasy campaign with no PC spellcasters (like most of Robert E.
> >> Howard's Conan series, for example). IMO, it is non-trivial to
make
> >> a well-differentiated party of starting PC's with only the 3 non-
magic
> >> classes. It is not very tough to do, but this would be a non-
issue
> >> in a system like _Pendragon_, _Ars Magica_, GURPS, etc.
> >True, a lot of the differentiation in D&D3 comes from the
spellcasting
> >classes, but... Look at the source material? How differentiated
are
> >the characters in it, on the basis of ability alone?
> >
> >My only exposure to Conan comes from the first movie, a couple of
comic
> >books, and comments I've read about it on usenet, but, taking the
> >movie, all the characters seem to be pretty similar in ability --
they
> >kick ass, hide in shadows, and chew bubblegum.
>
> First of all, the movie is different than the books -- but
> fighting ability is largely a single number (i.e. attack bonus) -
> so all characters who "kick ass" are rather alike.
>
> In contrast, other systems allow for more differentiation
> of such characters. For example, I played in a campaign set in Tang
> dynasty China using the Hero system (with _Ninja Hero_). All of the
> PC's were kung fu martial artists, but the system allowed
differentiation
> between my Drunken Boxing fighter and another player's Tiger Style
> swordsman.
>
> >
> >Hmmm. Ars Magica would be an interesting choice for an entirely non-
> >spellcaster game.
>
> Well, this is to my point. _Ars Magica_ was originally for
> magical advancement, while D&D was originally for dungeon-crawling.
> However, the _Ars Magica_ system handles differentiating Conan-esque
> characters perfectly well as-is, while your answer (at least) for D&D
> is that all characters should look alike.
>
Many moons ago, Dragon ran an "Up on a Soapbox" column where the
author denounced the level names then in use in AD&D. As part of the
argument, he pointed out that players tended to refer to characters
as "Their Fighter" or "Their Magic User" instead of by whatever title
their level was supposed to confer on them. He then went on to detail
specific problems with specific level names.
But he pointed out a critical problem. Players refered to their
characters by Class rather than other identifying characteristics.
Such as their names.
It's NOT universal, you can find campaigns where names are primarily
used, but the chess piece mindset is still there. Most games developed
after AD&D 1st seem to have a much easier time letting players break
out of that bad habit.
Will D&D 3e prove more flexible in this regard than it's
predecessors? The fact that classes are more interchangeable may help,
or it might not.
In the case of Conan you really don't have a large group of obvious
classes to differentiate characters. Howard wasn't thinking in terms
of classes so his characters tended to be PEOPLE. People with
*occupations*, and generally the ones Conan dealt with tended to have
occupations of violence.
The main exception were wizards who almost invariably had allied
themselves with dark powers to gain their sorcery.
So most of the notable characters Conan encounters are fighters and
thieves in D&D terms, the occasionaly courtier who might be an
Alternity style Diplomat class and a Priest of Evil known as a wizard.
Scott Shupe
>
> 4. The new rolling method(4d6 drop lowest, allocate as choice) produces
> the character you want.
It's also been around since 1st edition AD&D. That's new?
> 6. Experience awards- in the old editions, one could get XP for doing
> mudane tasks and it was almost always based off of combat. Without
> houserules, the only significant way for a player to advance would be
> for the players to fight, and win.
Unless you're playing 2nd edition AD&D.
> 14. The classes are more defined- this mostly effects the Druid, who in
> previous editions was little more than a watered down cleric. Now, the
> druid has more advantages
Not in my 3E PHB.
> and can use certain spells that a cleric
> can't.
This has always been true.
> With all of these things put
> together, it shuld be quite easy to tell that D&D3 is a much *better*
> system than any previous edition.
Better is pretty subjective. The best system is the one that the group
has the most fun with.
Jason
> >Rolemaster complicated either.
>
> notice/pay attention to an RPG's level of complication when reading
> it? (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
Its a long time ago, but I remember Aftermath seeming complicated. Same
with Powers & Perils. I never tried ASL, but from all reports its about
as complicated as it gets (but its a wargame, not a RPG).
aetherson
SD Anderson <10225...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> Many moons ago, Dragon ran an "Up on a Soapbox" column where the
> author denounced the level names then in use in AD&D. As part of the
> argument, he pointed out that players tended to refer to characters
> as "Their Fighter" or "Their Magic User" instead of by whatever title
> their level was supposed to confer on them. He then went on to detail
> specific problems with specific level names.
>
> But he pointed out a critical problem. Players refered to their
> characters by Class rather than other identifying characteristics.
> Such as their names.
Hmmm. I'd be more inclined to call a character by class (or, say, Clan
in Vampire) when I'm describing him or her to someone not familiar with
my game group. That is, if I were talking about my character Dar to
the GM of the game, I'd say, "I really enjoyed playing Dar. It was my
standard trickster archetype, sure, but maybe a little more grown up."
To you, I'd say, "I had a Thief I really enjoyed playing. He didn't
have too much in common with the class conventions, though."
> It's NOT universal, you can find campaigns where names are
primarily
> used, but the chess piece mindset is still there. Most games
developed
> after AD&D 1st seem to have a much easier time letting players break
> out of that bad habit.
I'd say the WoD games are at least as "bad" in this regard. It's just
a matter of giving people a handle to use. I /can't/ describe a GURPS
character that way, and that's why I won't.
Mike (aetherson)
Jason
bj...@cornell.edu says...
> > Rolemaster complicated either.
> >
>
> edition is less complicated than previous editions, I'll grant that.
> Rolemaster is not as complicated as is D&D. Far fewer special rules and
> unique circumstances.
Yes. Rolemaster is pretty simple. The character creation rules are a bit
slow, but are needed for the realistic flexibility Rolemaster allows
(based on the initial premises).
I think the most troublesome thing for alot of people is that RM uses
math. Simple math mind you, but alot of people seemed to be scared of
maths.
As for the complexity of D&D, once you add all the rules from all the
'complete' books it started to get a bit unwieldy and complex. Actually
the 3e skill system (the resolution mechanic at least) reminded me very
much of the Rolemaster one. Perhaps its Monte showing his Rolemaster
roots.
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
"Jason" <sul...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.1432c39ed...@news.dingoblue.net.au...
> with Powers & Perils. I never tried ASL, but from all reports its about
> as complicated as it gets (but its a wargame, not a RPG).
With regard to Powers & Perils; it's not a war game (not sure if that
was what you meant/said). Also, it's actually not very complicated either.
Like any game, once you get the basics down and start to get a feel for how
it works, the rest is just details.
The main thing, for me, that seems to be cumbersome is how CEP and MEP
are determined (Combat Expericnce Points and Magic Experience Points). But
it's easy enough to fix.
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Rick Pikul
pm...@home.com says...
>
> "Jason" <sul...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1432c39ed...@news.dingoblue.net.au...
> > In article <55gbssorqgnapri64...@4ax.com>,
> > sba...@julian.uwo.ca says...
> > Its a long time ago, but I remember Aftermath seeming complicated. Same
> > with Powers & Perils. I never tried ASL, but from all reports its about
> > as complicated as it gets (but its a wargame, not a RPG).
>
> With regard to Powers & Perils; it's not a war game (not sure if that
> was what you meant/said). Also, it's actually not very complicated either.
> Like any game, once you get the basics down and start to get a feel for how
> it works, the rest is just details.
No, he was referring to Advanced Squad Leader, the game which
caused AH to redefine it's complexity scale.
Actually, as an infantry-only game in the ETO ASL isn't that
complicated. It just gets bad when you start playing with armour, in the
PTO, being amphibiously landed, with air and naval gun support.
--
Phoenix
Kirt Loki
: Haven't played it in years, but didn't 2e include this as an optional rolling
: method?
Yes. In fact, 2e had a lot of different methods available to DMs. Several
of these made it to the 3e DMG as wel.
--
Kirt "Loki" Dankmyer -- finger xiom...@io.com for more information
My opinions are my own. PGP public key available. Surreal poetry on request.
"I waked, she fled, and day brought back my night." --Milton
Halaster Blackcloak
emergency surgery to take out my appendix, and complications set in. So
I've kinda fallen out of current events. But lo and behold, I come back
and one of the first posts I get treated to is an overblown 3E
Worshipper's rude and arrogant pronouncement as to how stupid those of
us who aren't switching are. Of course, I felt obligated to reply. >;-)
Henry Cotter wrote:
>It's been a little over a month since WotC has released the new
Dungeons and Dragons game to us, the unwashed masses. And in this
time, we bought the first two books and have read them and are now
comparing the editions. I knew there were going to be some D&D
players, who despite playing with a broken system, weren't going to
change to 3E<
Or perhaps the system wasn't "broken". I myself, and most gamers in my
area, found both 1E and 2E (as well as basic) very easily played, not
at all broken. Room for improvement? In some areas, sure, why not? But
not "broken". "Broken" implies is doesn't work, when obviously (for all
of us dinosaurs) it DOES.
>Bt I'm mighty suprised as to why they're not changing. Their reasons
have nothing to do with taste(as in, "I like playing an old, illogical,
and out of date system.") No, they have to attack the system itself. <
"Old, illogical and out of date" to *you* perhaps, but to others it's
the best system ever. So you don't like the idea of us old fogeys
attacking the 3E system itself? Are you saying that you'd give us more
credence if we just said "It doesn't FEEL like D&D to me", with no
sound technical reasons as to why we don't like 3E?
>Let's look at why D&D3 is light years ahead of the inferior AD&D
lines: <
Or perhaps, "why D&D 3E is change for the sake of change"?
>1. Any race can be any class- This is a great thing for no gaming
company can tell us what we can or can't do. One stupid thing with
AD&D was that dwarves couldn't become wizards. Why not? <
Funny, I always thought the rules were simply guidlines and that 1E and
2E both stated that the DM can allow any race and any PC class. Maybe
you had a special edition of 2E that excluded that part? And why can't
dwarves be wizards? They CAN in 2E, if the DM allows it...it's just not
a very common thing, it doesn't fit the traditional view or feel of D&D.
>According to the old TSR, this would be impossible without the
addition of house rules(and house rules don't count despite what some
fools will say. You can only honestly compare systems with the way
they were written. Afterall, with enough house rules I can turn a game
like hopscotch into arena football.)<
What an arrogant little gnome you are. Only "fools" use house rules?
From what I've been reading here, MANY of your fellow 3E devotees are
implementing house rules. Are they fools as well? D&D has always
encouraged house rules in order to tweak the system for maximum
enjoyment. That's how it is and will be with 3E also. No charge for the
clue...this time!
>2. No level limits- bravo for this one as well. This restriciton
makes absolutely no sense<
I can agree here. And I can't think of a single DM in my area who ever
enforced the racial level limits rules. Again, not such a big change,
if no one used it to begin with.
>What about an elven arch-mage? It's certainly a concept which has
appeared more than once, yet the inferior AD&D editions have decided to
ignore this whole plethora of fantasy writing.<
You obviously never read things like Elves of Evermeet, an accessory
that gives elves magic that is extremely high powered and not available
to non-elves. Another non-complaint to many of us 1E/2E devoteees.
>3. Humans are finally a playable race- <
Funny, I thought it has ALWAYS been playable. More than half of all the
PCs I've ever DM'd for have been human. They've always been the most
common race in any game I've played.
>Now, the humans get a few extra skill points, any favored class, and a
bonus feat, which balences them out much better with the demihuman
races, which keep most of their bonuses.<
And in our old "outdated" edition, they had unlimited level
advancement, they had no class restrictions, etc. Realistically, humans
don't need more "advantages". Elves and dwarves can see in the dark,
are more resistant to poison, whatever, because they're FANTASY races.
Humans don't need to be "pumped up". Everything doesn't boil down to
power, you know.
>4. The new rolling method(4d6 drop lowest, allocate as choice)
produces the character you want. The original method was roll 3d6 for
each stat, no allocating, which basically meant that you didn't decide
what you were to become, but the dice did<
Funny, but *MY* PHB has several methods listed for rolling characters,
and each has it's own advantages or disadvantages. I've never seen
anyone have problems over die roll creation. Sure, few rolled well
enough to be a paladin, but that's how it should be. In my experience,
it was very unusual for a player to not get the character he wanted.
Oh, btw...your cool, newfangled, 4d6 rolling method isn't that new
after all. In my 1989 copy of the 2E PHB, page 13, Method V...it is
exactly the same as your finely tuned "modern" 3E system. Roll 4d6,
discard the lowest roll, then assign scores where you want. Amazing
how "advanced" 3E is, huh? I had that method 11 years ago in my 2E
guide!
>On another note, the dropping of ability score requirements also has
opened up the game. <
I think it's stupid. It's hard for me to picture a paladin running
around with a low charisma or low wisdom. Doesn't seem very paladin-
like to me. Or a cleric with a low wisdom or charisma. Or a wizard with
a low intelligence. Bah!
>No longer does a player have to rely on exceptional luck or DM fudging
of rolls to become the character they want to become. <
I forgot, 3E is about being able to do anything, regardless of how
absurd it is, such as an armored gnomish paladin/wizard/barbarian with
a 5 Charisma and pickpocket skills. Sounds like SO much fun. Not.
>5. . Muticlassing- The old multiclassing rules were so broken one
would have to be braindead to not see an improvement in 3E. Why? <
Yeah, "why" exactly? I didn't see them as broken at all, they worked
fine in my campaigns and in everyone else's campaigns I know of.
>Because in the old rules, a multiclass character was leaps and bounds
above a single classed one with equal experience. In 2nd Edition, a
17th level fighter needed 2,250,000 XP. With the same amount of XP's,
a multiclass character could be a 12th level fighter/13th level mage.
Why on earth would many people take single classed players if a
multiclass one could be so much better?<
Maybe because some of us are more mature than power-gamers obsessed
with being mighty? Perhaps because some of us don't define "better"
as "more powerful"? That 12th level fighter/13th level mage has
problems the 17th level fighter doesn't have, like armor restrictions.
Also, he's not nearly as good in combat as the 17th level fighter, has
less hps, worse saves, etc. Or perhaps some people don't need a
superpowered, armored tank that can not only hack a dragon into hors
d'ouvres, but can also spit a fireball out his ass while also picking
his buddy's pockets, all at the same time?
>6. Experience awards- in the old editions, one could get XP for doing
mudane tasks and it was almost always based off of combat<
REALLY??? Funny, but *MY* 2E DMG provides for XP for the following:
Creating magical items, using a special ability, using skills,
furthering one's ethos or religion, having a clever idea, roleplaying a
character well, encouraging others to participate, etc.
>Without houserules, the only significant way for a player to advance
would be for the players to fight, and win. <
That aint' about to change for 3E bub, trust me!
>With the new rules, one could jump up in levels by solving puzzles,
roleplaying, and it all depends on what the challenge of the problem
was<
Oh, I can just imagine how exciting THAT campaign would be!
Players (to DM, after several hours of deliberation): "The answer
is: 'Man fears time, but time fears the pyramids!'."
DM (to players): "Ok, you solved the 56th riddle of the Great
Sphinx...you each get another 250 xp!! Man, by the time you guys solve
the 100th riddle, you may have gained a level!"
>No longer does the gaming company tell you what you should award your
players- they give you guidelines. <
They also gave guidlines in the older editions and also noted that the
DM is NOT obligated to give out xp if he feels the players didn't earn
it. Sounds like 3E isn't all that progressive after all, huh?
>7. Saving throws-again, another massive increase in the D&D system.
Instead of having 5 wierd catagories<
I never found them weird. They always worked for the majority of us. No
one I ever knew of had serious problems with them. But yes, I do agree
that the new saving throw system is more streamlined and perhaps more
workable, but it's not exactly the Second Coming, ya know?
>The second great thing about the new saves is that a more powerful
spell by a higher level wizard is harder to save against than in
previous editions. In 2nd Edition, there was no difference in what you
needed to roll to save against a 5th level wizard who slung a fireball
and an 18th level archmage who slung chain lighting. In 3E, the
difference is that I'd have to roll 16 higher against the archamage,
than against the lowely one. A much significant difference<
I also like this, but my house rule (which took all of 5 minutes to
implement), handled this quite well. YEARS before 3E addressed it.
>8. Spell resistance- finally, it goes back to it's roots in that a
spell cast by a more powerful wizard should be able to penetrate a
creature's resistance than a wizard who's of lower level.<
I also like this idea, and in some campaigns I kept the 1E rule.
However, while I haven't read the 3E system of resistance that deeply,
I get the impression it favors PCs, just like the rest of the system
does.
>9. Skill system- again, this is light years ahead of the old NWP
system. In the old NWP system, your score to succeed didn't matter
much based on level. Now, your level determines how good you do at a
certain skill as well as your atribute. Also, the bonus to the new
skill system is that one could take any skill they want- a fighter can
now pick locks if he so wanted to while a 2nd Edition fighter couldn't
without massive house rules. <
"Massive house rules"? As in "the DM says your fighter can take
lockpick skills"? THAT is considered massive change to you? I have to
wonder what game some of you 3E fanatics were playing before 3E,
because I fail to see why you had such a hard time with earlier
editions. Maybe they had to "dumb down" 3E for a reason? Also, I think
the total lack of restrictions is a crock. A priest with pickpocket
skills indeed! Absurd!
>10. The d20 system- I don't know why so many people have a problem
with this. One retard, who's name I shall not mention, claimed it
was "too predictable." <
Thank god we have infinitely wise being like yourself to correct all
the retards, fools, and Luddites here. I was afraid they were on the
verge of "taking over" with their outdated, heathen 1E/2E stuff! Sigh.
Amazing how self-important some people here are, and how easy it is for
them to be overbearing assholes.
>But back to the point, D&D decided to move into the next decade by
adding a standard resolution mechanic. Instead of having to roll a d10
to find certain unsafe floors(gnomes), a d6 for secret doors(other
demihumans), a low on the d20 for NWP's, a high on a d20 for "to hits"
and saves, and a d100 for magic resistance, we have one standard way to
resolve things- high on a d20. It's much more intuitive and cleaner.<
Some like it better, some prefer the old system. Whichever works for
you is fine, doesn't mean one is "better".
>11. Initiative/combat round- The new intitiave is much easier and
makes more sense than it used to<
I don't think so. I don't like cyclical initiative...never did, never
will.
>Take the example of the dagger. If used in melee, it's damage is
based off of how much you've worn your opponent down in that round,
while throwing it, you're not spending your time dodging/feinting. So
what does the character do for the next 55 seconds of combat? <
Obviously you've never been in a knife fight.
>12. Feats- again, this can only be seen as a good thing. No longer
are the days where every fighter is the same. Now a fighter has more
special abilities<
All fighters weren't the same in 1E or 2E either. They could pick from
any numbers of skills, weapons, armors, abilities, alignments, etc.
>In 2nd edition, the difference between a 15th level fighter and a 10th
level fighter was almost nil(+15 HP's, +5 to hit, .5 attacks per round),
Sounds like you're power-obsessed to me. An additional 15 hp and +5
thaco is hardly "nil" in my book. You also forgot that the 15th level
fighter's saving throws are almost HALF what the 10th level fighter's
is. If you call that "nil", then you're a power gamer. What would you
call "significant"? A +20 thaco bonus difference? Also, that 15th level
fighter has more NWPs than the 10th level character, hence more skills.
>No longer do all wizards know how to make wands. They can instead
learn how to cast spells in armor with no arcane spell failure.<
Which to many of us is stupid and absurd, and goes against the
traditional "feel" of D&D. It's a ridiculous system if wizards can
eventually walk around in full plate, casting spells with no spell
failure.
>13. The healing factor- probably the most mis-understood aspect of 3rd
Edition. It's not that the cleric can heal which has these old farts
screaming, it's that the numbers are larger. Yet, the one thing these
dimwits don't seem to get is that the damage has been scaled up as well<
My, you are an arrogant asshole, aren't you? Perhaps you missed the big
post I made showing how over-powered healing is in 3E, the one I posted
shortly before my hospital stay? I haven't gotten time yet to go back
and rebutt everyone since I've been layed up for two weeks, but let me
summarize:
Hand axes still do d6 damage. Battle axes still do d8. Swords, arrows,
clubs...they all pretty much do the same exact damage in 3E as they did
in 2E. Only now, clerics can heal MANY more times per day, characters
heal at a GREATLY accelerated rate, and mass-heal spells abound. Also,
from the little I've seen, monsters do pretty much the same damage.
Perhaps the dimwits are the ones who fail to see how super-charged
healing has become in 3E, and not the other way around? And let's not
forget the other "healing" boosts, such as being able to resurrect
without having even a tiny piece of the original body, such as raised
characters not losing memorized spells, such as not having to make a
system shock role for being raised, etc.
Go back and read my post, it spells it out quite clearly how much more
powerful (overly so) healing is in 3E.
>Last thing about this is that the cleric's ability to swap spells for
healing is only a bonus because it fixes the long time problem with D&D
clerics- they used to be walking band-aids.<
Funny, not in my campaigns they weren't. Maybe that's because my
players relied on wit and intellect to survive and not on maxed-out
scores and unlimited healing to pull their asses through when it got
rough?
>14. The classes are more defined- this mostly effects the Druid, who
in previous editions was little more than a watered down cleric. <
Poppycock! The druid was distinct in 2E as well as 1E! If anything,
he's more generic in 3E because they took out the druidic hierarchy,
the hierophant levels, etc. He had his spheres in 2E, and the spell
selection in 3E is so similar to what he was allowed in 2E that it's no
big change. And having him actually change into an elemental instead of
simply entering elemental planes is yet another power-escalation of 3E.
The classes are LESS defined, they're simply generic templates in 3E,
not traditionally defined class types. Paladins can pick pockets in 3E,
wizards can wear armor and bear halberds, gnomes can be
illusionist/bard/barbarians with alchemy skills. It's utter crap.
>15. Maybe this is minor, but I'm glad that aging for certain spells
has been lifted(as well as aging attacks.) The reason I hated such
things was because it penalized humans and half-elves more than other
demihumans. <
I saw this as unbalanced, but I simply translated it to reflect, say,
the elven equivelant of human years and applied that amount. Simple 3rd
grade math, and aging now becomes a problem for other races besides
humans. I think the xp loss for certain spells is absurd and stupid.
Makes no sense...you use powerful magic, so you then lose the ability
to cast it because you lost a level? A crock of shit, and no less
absurd than the stickler that many 3E fanatics whine about...permanent
life level drain.
>Now, the XP penalty affects all races equally. <
And it's also idiotic bullshit. People have the nerve to whine about
life level drain, and yet it's ok to lose levels by casting spells?
Absurd!
>16. Spells have been cleaned up and are explained much more clearly
this time around<
Maybe a few, but I didn't see a big difference.
>17. Attacks of Opportunity- my last point. I've heard many
complaints on this one as well. I can't say many who do complain about
this have a clue as to what they're talking about.<
To me, the combat system wasn't broken, and this along with the new
standard criticial hit system just makes combat more complicated. Bah!
>Call me a WotC sheep if you want<
"WotC sheep!"
>With all of these things put
together, it shuld be quite easy to tell that D&D3 is a much *better*
system than any previous edition<
Funny, but you haven't managed to stir my soul into a frenzy to jump
into your "much improved" 3E garbage fest. I think 3E sucks, I think
it's all about power gaming, and lack of sensible limits, it's a
generic RPG, not D&D. It's a computer game mentality converted to paper.
>Many of the Luddites will still cling to their old ways and try to
claim D&D3 in munchkin/stupid, but they're the ones looking like fools.<
Fools because we play a system we enjoy, that isn't "broken", that
works for us, that provides countless hours of entertainment, and that
we love? Fools because we don't feel like blindly engaging in a new
system that we find to be overblown with powergaming features, that we
feel sucks, that we feel suffers from munchkinism and video-game
mentality? Fools because in the land of freedom we've chosen to
exercise our freedom of thought and speech to say that 3E is NOT the
Second Coming? I think the only fools are the arrogant asses like
yourself who are obsessed by and enslaved to our society's manic urge
to always "upgrade" even when an upgrade is not needed, and who roundly
condemn anyone who resists the urge to jump on the bandwagon-to-nowhere
as "dimwits".
>Anyone have any comments? Corrections? Flames?<
A little bit of each. Us 1E/2E devotees believe in a truly well rounded
style.
--
Halaster Blackcloak
"Undermountain, the Realms' deadliest dungeon? I prefer to call it
home."
"Elminster? Bah! Neophyte!"
Jim Davies
>Out of curiosity, what systems do you find complicated? Or do you not
>notice/pay attention to an RPG's level of complication when reading
>it? (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
I think this is a matter of terminology. Complicated (aka complex) and
Difficult (aka awkward, cumbersome, messy) are different things.
To take a computing analogy, I would regard Visual Basic as
complicated (the manual is hundreds of pages thick) but easy.
Programming an ideal Turing engine is trivially simple (there are,
like, 4 instructions, IIRC) but mindbendingly difficult.
I'd regard AD&D1 as very easy (2/10) but moderately complex (7/10),
AD&D2 with all the splatbooks as easy (3/10) but complex (8/10), AD&D3
as very easy (2/10) and fairly simple (4/10).
Jim Davies
------------------------------------------
Spamfilter: remove all clothing to reply.
This does not affect your statutory rights.
aetherson
Scott Shupe <sh...@ca.metsci.com> wrote:
> Henry Cotter wrote:
> >
> > 4. The new rolling method(4d6 drop lowest, allocate as choice)
produces
> > the character you want.
>
> It's also been around since 1st edition AD&D. That's new?
Well, it was "optional" before, but, in my experience, nigh-universally
applied.
> > and can use certain spells that a cleric
> > can't.
>
> This has always been true.
Welllll......... Depends what you mean by "cleric." In AD&D2, a druid
was a specific example of a specialty cleric, just like illusionist was
a specific example of a specialty mage. The druid got spells that
weren't available to a vanilla cleric, but were drawn from a larger
pool of priest spells that any appropriate deity might grant.
The classes are somewhat further apart in D&D3.
> Better is pretty subjective. The best system is the one that the
group
> has the most fun with.
Hand the man a prize.
Mike (aetherson)
Cerberus AOD
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 21:32:58 GMT, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which was
quite moldy, Halaster Blackcloak, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his
antennae:
:) >Well, I've been out of the loop for a few weeks here, I had to have
:) >emergency surgery to take out my appendix, and complications set in. So
:) >I've kinda fallen out of current events. But lo and behold, I come back
:) >and one of the first posts I get treated to is an overblown 3E
:) >Worshipper's rude and arrogant pronouncement as to how stupid those of
:) >us who aren't switching are. Of course, I felt obligated to reply. >;-)
Usenet Reply Button Syndrome?
:) >
:) >Henry Cotter wrote:
:) >
:) >>It's been a little over a month since WotC has released the new
:) >Dungeons and Dragons game to us, the unwashed masses. And in this
:) >time, we bought the first two books and have read them and are now
:) >comparing the editions. I knew there were going to be some D&D
:) >players, who despite playing with a broken system, weren't going to
:) >change to 3E<
:) >
:) >Or perhaps the system wasn't "broken". I myself, and most gamers in my
:) >area, found both 1E and 2E (as well as basic) very easily played, not
:) >at all broken. Room for improvement? In some areas, sure, why not? But
:) >not "broken". "Broken" implies is doesn't work, when obviously (for all
:) >of us dinosaurs) it DOES.
And some of us never felt good about adopting it because it didn't make enough
sense, so we used bastardized versions, depending on DM.
:) >
:) >>Bt I'm mighty suprised as to why they're not changing. Their reasons
:) >have nothing to do with taste(as in, "I like playing an old, illogical,
:) >and out of date system.") No, they have to attack the system itself. <
:) >
:) >"Old, illogical and out of date" to *you* perhaps, but to others it's
:) >the best system ever. So you don't like the idea of us old fogeys
:) >attacking the 3E system itself? Are you saying that you'd give us more
:) >credence if we just said "It doesn't FEEL like D&D to me", with no
:) >sound technical reasons as to why we don't like 3E?
Duh. Trolls do that :)
:) >
:) >>Let's look at why D&D3 is light years ahead of the inferior AD&D
:) >lines: <
:) >
:) >Or perhaps, "why D&D 3E is change for the sake of change"?
Or why D&D 3e is change that is good because it makes more sense in general, and
hasn't altered the roleplaying aspect at all (like say, going from D&D to a
white-wolf type game would)
:) >
:) >>1. Any race can be any class- This is a great thing for no gaming
:) >company can tell us what we can or can't do. One stupid thing with
:) >AD&D was that dwarves couldn't become wizards. Why not? <
:) >
:) >Funny, I always thought the rules were simply guidlines and that 1E and
:) >2E both stated that the DM can allow any race and any PC class. Maybe
:) >you had a special edition of 2E that excluded that part? And why can't
:) >dwarves be wizards? They CAN in 2E, if the DM allows it...it's just not
:) >a very common thing, it doesn't fit the traditional view or feel of D&D.
This part isn't really the feel of "D&D", is it? It is the feel of that DM's
world. So basically a non-issue. No real point in having the restrictions in the
first place.
:) >
:) >>According to the old TSR, this would be impossible without the
:) >addition of house rules(and house rules don't count despite what some
:) >fools will say. You can only honestly compare systems with the way
:) >they were written. Afterall, with enough house rules I can turn a game
:) >like hopscotch into arena football.)<
:) >
:) >What an arrogant little gnome you are. Only "fools" use house rules?
:) >From what I've been reading here, MANY of your fellow 3E devotees are
:) >implementing house rules. Are they fools as well? D&D has always
:) >encouraged house rules in order to tweak the system for maximum
:) >enjoyment. That's how it is and will be with 3E also. No charge for the
:) >clue...this time!
Sorry I left out mine this week, RP got cancelled at the last minute :-/
(Or :-) for those of you who replied to them all the time)
:) >
:) >>2. No level limits- bravo for this one as well. This restriciton
:) >makes absolutely no sense<
:) >
:) >I can agree here. And I can't think of a single DM in my area who ever
:) >enforced the racial level limits rules. Again, not such a big change,
:) >if no one used it to begin with.
...
:) >
:) >>What about an elven arch-mage? It's certainly a concept which has
:) >appeared more than once, yet the inferior AD&D editions have decided to
:) >ignore this whole plethora of fantasy writing.<
:) >
:) >You obviously never read things like Elves of Evermeet, an accessory
:) >that gives elves magic that is extremely high powered and not available
:) >to non-elves. Another non-complaint to many of us 1E/2E devoteees.
Never heard of it...what about common sense. "It is a 400 year old elven wizard,
guys...are you SURE you want to piss him off? I thought not..."
:) >
:) >>3. Humans are finally a playable race- <
:) >
:) >Funny, I thought it has ALWAYS been playable. More than half of all the
:) >PCs I've ever DM'd for have been human. They've always been the most
:) >common race in any game I've played.
Same. Nice that the rules finally give this though. I never really saw a problem
before (except level limits and multiclass/dualclass rules), but like the new
stuff enough to allow it (except half-breeds...).
:) >
:) >>Now, the humans get a few extra skill points, any favored class, and a
:) >bonus feat, which balences them out much better with the demihuman
:) >races, which keep most of their bonuses.<
:) >
:) >And in our old "outdated" edition, they had unlimited level
:) >advancement, they had no class restrictions, etc. Realistically, humans
:) >don't need more "advantages". Elves and dwarves can see in the dark,
:) >are more resistant to poison, whatever, because they're FANTASY races.
:) >Humans don't need to be "pumped up". Everything doesn't boil down to
:) >power, you know.
No, but it sucks being the party weenie ;)
If you roleplay it well, it doesn't matter...
:) >
:) >>4. The new rolling method(4d6 drop lowest, allocate as choice)
:) >produces the character you want. The original method was roll 3d6 for
:) >each stat, no allocating, which basically meant that you didn't decide
:) >what you were to become, but the dice did<
:) >
:) >Funny, but *MY* PHB has several methods listed for rolling characters,
:) >and each has it's own advantages or disadvantages. I've never seen
:) >anyone have problems over die roll creation. Sure, few rolled well
:) >enough to be a paladin, but that's how it should be. In my experience,
:) >it was very unusual for a player to not get the character he wanted.
:) >Oh, btw...your cool, newfangled, 4d6 rolling method isn't that new
:) >after all. In my 1989 copy of the 2E PHB, page 13, Method V...it is
:) >exactly the same as your finely tuned "modern" 3E system. Roll 4d6,
:) >discard the lowest roll, then assign scores where you want. Amazing
:) >how "advanced" 3E is, huh? I had that method 11 years ago in my 2E
:) >guide!
They left out several methods though, like 2d8+2, 5d4-2...
:-)
Never really saw a problem. The DM tells you how you get your stats, and you do
it. Then you play it. Done. When it is my campaign, I choose my method, when it
is yours, you do it your way, etc.
One thing the 3e way will likely increase are the people coming to the meet with
an already "rolled" character...sure...re-roll...
:) >
:) >>On another note, the dropping of ability score requirements also has
:) >opened up the game. <
:) >
:) >I think it's stupid. It's hard for me to picture a paladin running
:) >around with a low charisma or low wisdom. Doesn't seem very paladin-
:) >like to me. Or a cleric with a low wisdom or charisma. Or a wizard with
:) >a low intelligence. Bah!
One of the reasons I went to point-distribution...but some of the old
requirements were a bit high. And for ones like paladins, if they can play it,
they can do it (If you have a low charisma, don't show off your shiny armor, do
other religious LG stuff. Having a player do this once when I allowed him to be
a low-Cha paladin makes me like the no stat requirments).
:) >
:) >>No longer does a player have to rely on exceptional luck or DM fudging
:) >of rolls to become the character they want to become. <
:) >
:) >I forgot, 3E is about being able to do anything, regardless of how
:) >absurd it is, such as an armored gnomish paladin/wizard/barbarian with
:) >a 5 Charisma and pickpocket skills. Sounds like SO much fun. Not.
Hehe. A thief with 3 Dex...I NEED to play one if I get the chance :)
armored wizard will fail spells. Cannot be a berserker and paladin at the same
time. And his levels in each would suck. I'd allow something like that just
because he would have hardly any power at all and plenty of XP penalties likely.
3e has taken out a lot of absolute restrictions that have really been the DM's
area in the past anyway. Such things don't really make all that much of a
difference, since many DMs didn't use the stat req's, and allowed dwarven mages,
and allowed armored wizards, etc.
Now it is just encourage/discourage (And with the arcane spell failure, very few
wizards will bother with anyhting above leather , if any armor)
:) >
:) >
:) >>5. . Muticlassing- The old multiclassing rules were so broken one
:) >would have to be braindead to not see an improvement in 3E. Why? <
:) >
:) >Yeah, "why" exactly? I didn't see them as broken at all, they worked
:) >fine in my campaigns and in everyone else's campaigns I know of.
Why don't dualclasses get experience using old class abilities? If not, why
bother? Why average HD and such? The rest I fail to see too much of a problem,
except that at lower levels the multis were slightly better off.
:) >
:) >>Because in the old rules, a multiclass character was leaps and bounds
:) >above a single classed one with equal experience. In 2nd Edition, a
:) >17th level fighter needed 2,250,000 XP. With the same amount of XP's,
:) >a multiclass character could be a 12th level fighter/13th level mage.
:) >Why on earth would many people take single classed players if a
:) >multiclass one could be so much better?<
:) >
:) >Maybe because some of us are more mature than power-gamers obsessed
:) >with being mighty? Perhaps because some of us don't define "better"
:) >as "more powerful"? That 12th level fighter/13th level mage has
:) >problems the 17th level fighter doesn't have, like armor restrictions.
...and now, a 17th level character would only make 8ftr/9wiz, and would still
have armor problems (15% spell failure in studded leather, 30% in chainmail,
etc., and shields add some also).
:) >Also, he's not nearly as good in combat as the 17th level fighter, has
:) >less hps, worse saves, etc.
Which in 3e is slightly handled by having pretty good save progression per
level, and stacking between levels instead of picking the best. So that 8f/9w
isn't too bad off, but has a Fort (Constitution) save far less than a 17ftr. and
less of a combat bonus.
> Or perhaps some people don't need a
:) >superpowered, armored tank that can not only hack a dragon into hors
:) >d'ouvres, but can also spit a fireball out his ass while also picking
:) >his buddy's pockets, all at the same time?
Some allowed that, unfortunately. The 3e rules discourage it, though a good DM
would have done better :)
In 3e that is hard with the rules, not just common sense of DM.
:) >
:) >>6. Experience awards- in the old editions, one could get XP for doing
:) >mudane tasks and it was almost always based off of combat<
:) >
:) >REALLY??? Funny, but *MY* 2E DMG provides for XP for the following:
:) >
:) >Creating magical items, using a special ability, using skills,
:) >furthering one's ethos or religion, having a clever idea, roleplaying a
:) >character well, encouraging others to participate, etc.
XP for combat? What's that? :)
So far my characters have had no real combat. Two boxing matches (the fighter)
is all so far. All roleplaying...damn fun, too. And why does the ruleset need to
get spcific on the roleplayong part?
:) >
:) >>Without houserules, the only significant way for a player to advance
:) >would be for the players to fight, and win. <
:) >
:) >That aint' about to change for 3E bub, trust me!
Nope, and that's how it should be...
:) >
:) >>With the new rules, one could jump up in levels by solving puzzles,
:) >roleplaying, and it all depends on what the challenge of the problem
:) >was<
:) >
:) >Oh, I can just imagine how exciting THAT campaign would be!
sounds...normal. They have just gotten to quantifying the difficulty of a given
task. Liekly the whole CR bit will be more useful for newbies to the hobby than
anything else (I remember wondering how the DM decided how much XP for X monster
or Y roleplaying...ah, the memories that thief...)
:) >
:) >Players (to DM, after several hours of deliberation): "The answer
:) >is: 'Man fears time, but time fears the pyramids!'."
:) >DM (to players): "Ok, you solved the 56th riddle of the Great
:) >Sphinx...you each get another 250 xp!! Man, by the time you guys solve
:) >the 100th riddle, you may have gained a level!"
lol. DM common sense...
:) >
:) >>No longer does the gaming company tell you what you should award your
:) >players- they give you guidelines. <
:) >
:) >They also gave guidlines in the older editions and also noted that the
:) >DM is NOT obligated to give out xp if he feels the players didn't earn
:) >it. Sounds like 3E isn't all that progressive after all, huh?
Different rule system. the basic principles have not changed at all.
the numbers on the sheets have chnaged, but the characters and players have not.
And hopefully will not.
:) >
:) >>7. Saving throws-again, another massive increase in the D&D system.
:) >Instead of having 5 wierd catagories<
:) >
:) >I never found them weird. They always worked for the majority of us. No
:) >one I ever knew of had serious problems with them. But yes, I do agree
:) >that the new saving throw system is more streamlined and perhaps more
:) >workable, but it's not exactly the Second Coming, ya know?
No. It is much nicer and easier to teach to those who haven't played much D&D
(we're in the process of converting a Vampire LARPer, so I know it is much
easier :)...the problem is he is getting us into Vampire(sp) as well...only so
much free time for this stuff!)
:) >
:) >>The second great thing about the new saves is that a more powerful
:) >spell by a higher level wizard is harder to save against than in
:) >previous editions. In 2nd Edition, there was no difference in what you
:) >needed to roll to save against a 5th level wizard who slung a fireball
:) >and an 18th level archmage who slung chain lighting. In 3E, the
:) >difference is that I'd have to roll 16 higher against the archamage,
:) >than against the lowely one. A much significant difference<
:) >
:) >I also like this, but my house rule (which took all of 5 minutes to
:) >implement), handled this quite well. YEARS before 3E addressed it.
Yes. Note also how many of the 3e rules resemble house rules many have been
using. Like starting off with your max HP at 1st level, FI.
:) >
:) >>8. Spell resistance- finally, it goes back to it's roots in that a
:) >spell cast by a more powerful wizard should be able to penetrate a
:) >creature's resistance than a wizard who's of lower level.<
:) >
:) >I also like this idea, and in some campaigns I kept the 1E rule.
Which was? (just curious)
:) >However, while I haven't read the 3E system of resistance that deeply,
:) >I get the impression it favors PCs, just like the rest of the system
:) >does.
Oh, really? Remember though, it is also made such that enemies are now treated
just like PCs in many cases. An orc is no longer just an orc. He could be a 7th
level rogue orc, with feats to help him use that +4d6 sneak attack damage to its
greatest effect :)
This is also how I've always done it. Nice that it is in the rules, so the MM
can now be used as is, not as a guideline for a whole other write-up of the race
as a PC/NPC race.
:) >
:) >>9. Skill system- again, this is light years ahead of the old NWP
:) >system. In the old NWP system, your score to succeed didn't matter
:) >much based on level. Now, your level determines how good you do at a
:) >certain skill as well as your atribute. Also, the bonus to the new
:) >skill system is that one could take any skill they want- a fighter can
:) >now pick locks if he so wanted to while a 2nd Edition fighter couldn't
:) >without massive house rules. <
:) >
:) >"Massive house rules"? As in "the DM says your fighter can take
:) >lockpick skills"? THAT is considered massive change to you? I have to
:) >wonder what game some of you 3E fanatics were playing before 3E,
:) >because I fail to see why you had such a hard time with earlier
:) >editions. Maybe they had to "dumb down" 3E for a reason? Also, I think
:) >the total lack of restrictions is a crock. A priest with pickpocket
:) >skills indeed! Absurd!
LOL!
Talking about by-the-book, though. And unless the priest is of an evil deity, I
wouldn't allow pick pockets. BUT with such a deity, there is no reason for him
not to have something in that skill :)
It basically allows more sutomization w/o house rules. It does so by having
implimented many previously in use house rules. Look through the PHB, and look
at campaign websites out there. Note how many similarities you find :)
:) >
:) >>10. The d20 system- I don't know why so many people have a problem
:) >with this. One retard, who's name I shall not mention, claimed it
:) >was "too predictable." <
:) >
:) >Thank god we have infinitely wise being like yourself to correct all
:) >the retards, fools, and Luddites here. I was afraid they were on the
:) >verge of "taking over" with their outdated, heathen 1E/2E stuff! Sigh.
:) >Amazing how self-important some people here are, and how easy it is for
:) >them to be overbearing assholes.
Yes, quite. I still fail to see what is so great about this "d20" thing. It is
basically the same thing it has always been, but now always rolling high.
*yawn* Such a revoltuion, huh?
:) >
:) >>But back to the point, D&D decided to move into the next decade by
:) >adding a standard resolution mechanic. Instead of having to roll a d10
:) >to find certain unsafe floors(gnomes), a d6 for secret doors(other
:) >demihumans), a low on the d20 for NWP's, a high on a d20 for "to hits"
:) >and saves, and a d100 for magic resistance, we have one standard way to
:) >resolve things- high on a d20. It's much more intuitive and cleaner.<
:) >
:) >Some like it better, some prefer the old system. Whichever works for
:) >you is fine, doesn't mean one is "better".
Nope. Changing the die will amount to the same hting in-game as using plusses
and minuses on the roll. Nice to have one die for it all, but still
evoltutionary, not revolutionary in any way. Except it is weird to see the WotC
logo on the book :)
:) >
:) >>11. Initiative/combat round- The new intitiave is much easier and
:) >makes more sense than it used to<
:) >
:) >I don't think so. I don't like cyclical initiative...never did, never
:) >will.
It works for Xena type stuff. One hits, the other hits, etc.
I'm just going to use it because my players aren't much on rolling in combat. If
it saves them a d20 roll each round, they are happy, so I'll live with it :-/
(I prefer chaos. I think re-rolling is good, giving a bonus tot he roll for
refocusing and stuff would work out great)
:) >
:) >>Take the example of the dagger. If used in melee, it's damage is
:) >based off of how much you've worn your opponent down in that round,
:) >while throwing it, you're not spending your time dodging/feinting. So
:) >what does the character do for the next 55 seconds of combat? <
:) >
:) >Obviously you've never been in a knife fight.
Most people haven't. Still, when he throws it...
:) >
:) >>12. Feats- again, this can only be seen as a good thing. No longer
:) >are the days where every fighter is the same. Now a fighter has more
:) >special abilities<
:) >
:) >All fighters weren't the same in 1E or 2E either. They could pick from
:) >any numbers of skills, weapons, armors, abilities, alignments, etc.
And now it is more powerful per ability, and on a slot-based system of choosing
them. A change, but again, not a revolutionary one. I like it because the skills
and feats are nicely separated. Not a biggie, though.
:) >
:) >>In 2nd edition, the difference between a 15th level fighter and a 10th
:) >level fighter was almost nil(+15 HP's, +5 to hit, .5 attacks per round),
:) >
:) >Sounds like you're power-obsessed to me. An additional 15 hp and +5
:) >thaco is hardly "nil" in my book. You also forgot that the 15th level
:) >fighter's saving throws are almost HALF what the 10th level fighter's
:) >is. If you call that "nil", then you're a power gamer. What would you
:) >call "significant"? A +20 thaco bonus difference? Also, that 15th level
:) >fighter has more NWPs than the 10th level character, hence more skills.
In 3e, this works out to be quite similar. I'm failing to see this "nil" part,
too...
:) >
:) >>No longer do all wizards know how to make wands. They can instead
:) >learn how to cast spells in armor with no arcane spell failure.<
:) >
:) >Which to many of us is stupid and absurd, and goes against the
:) >traditional "feel" of D&D. It's a ridiculous system if wizards can
:) >eventually walk around in full plate, casting spells with no spell
:) >failure.
But using up slots _4_ levels higher! Sorry, but I'm all for making wands and
using no armor....
These feats will be really cool for like when the party is tied up, and one guy
has still spell, and finds a kickass use for whatever spell he prepared with it.
And the item creation ones cost XP, so I wouldn't use them, either.
:) >
:) >
:) >>13. The healing factor- probably the most mis-understood aspect of 3rd
:) >Edition. It's not that the cleric can heal which has these old farts
:) >screaming, it's that the numbers are larger. Yet, the one thing these
:) >dimwits don't seem to get is that the damage has been scaled up as well<
:) >
:) >My, you are an arrogant asshole, aren't you? Perhaps you missed the big
:) >post I made showing how over-powered healing is in 3E, the one I posted
:) >shortly before my hospital stay? I haven't gotten time yet to go back
:) >and rebutt everyone since I've been layed up for two weeks, but let me
:) >summarize:
:) >
:) >Hand axes still do d6 damage. Battle axes still do d8. Swords, arrows,
:) >clubs...they all pretty much do the same exact damage in 3E as they did
:) >in 2E. Only now, clerics can heal MANY more times per day, characters
:) >heal at a GREATLY accelerated rate, and mass-heal spells abound.
"abound" if your cleric is high enough level and has that domain.
With Con bonuses for everyone, you have more HP in general. with lower Str
giving damage bonuses, you have more damage added in general. So more healing.
Is xd8 too much? I don't know. If anyone is smart enough to play a cleric (Yes,
I have a cleric-less party now), I might see.
> Also,
:) >from the little I've seen, monsters do pretty much the same damage.
:) >Perhaps the dimwits are the ones who fail to see how super-charged
:) >healing has become in 3E, and not the other way around? And let's not
:) >forget the other "healing" boosts, such as being able to resurrect
:) >without having even a tiny piece of the original body,
Not IMC... :)
I disagree with this also.
> such as raised
:) >characters not losing memorized spells, such as not having to make a
:) >system shock role for being raised, etc.
Over-powered, to be sure. I'd allow it but enforce psychological effects of
having died (The player can make them up, but he better do a good job) :)
:) >
:) >Go back and read my post, it spells it out quite clearly how much more
:) >powerful (overly so) healing is in 3E.
ugh...not gonna search for anything like that. Do you know how many posts on
this there were?!
:) >
:) >>Last thing about this is that the cleric's ability to swap spells for
:) >healing is only a bonus because it fixes the long time problem with D&D
:) >clerics- they used to be walking band-aids.<
:) >
:) >Funny, not in my campaigns they weren't. Maybe that's because my
:) >players relied on wit and intellect to survive and not on maxed-out
:) >scores and unlimited healing to pull their asses through when it got
:) >rough?
Probably. I have yet to play with anyone who played a walking first aid kit type
character. Most would have a few healing spells on hand, and the rest would be
useful spells. The priest spell list was rather large.
:) >
:) >>14. The classes are more defined- this mostly effects the Druid, who
:) >in previous editions was little more than a watered down cleric. <
:) >
:) >Poppycock! The druid was distinct in 2E as well as 1E! If anything,
:) >he's more generic in 3E because they took out the druidic hierarchy,
:) >the hierophant levels, etc. He had his spheres in 2E, and the spell
:) >selection in 3E is so similar to what he was allowed in 2E that it's no
:) >big change. And having him actually change into an elemental instead of
:) >simply entering elemental planes is yet another power-escalation of 3E.
Kindof a cool one, though :)
:) >The classes are LESS defined, they're simply generic templates in 3E,
Haven't they always been this way? Every game I've played they have been. 3e
just makes that part of the general ruleset.
:) >not traditionally defined class types. Paladins can pick pockets in 3E,
And if you are an LE paladin, why not?
:) >wizards can wear armor and bear halberds,
Yes. They will suck at it compared totheir fighter counterparts, but yes, they
can. I've never seen a problem with this.
> gnomes can be
:) >illusionist/bard/barbarians with alchemy skills. It's utter crap.
Look in the PHB for what you can do with alchemy...
And why shouldn't they be allowed to do this? They could do this in 2e, couldn't
they? Well, aside from not ebing able to take a 3rd class they could. You can
now have an illusionist/bard/barbarian. But anyone who does better have a good
roleplaying reason or be prepared to suck at anything they do.
:) >
:) >>15. Maybe this is minor, but I'm glad that aging for certain spells
:) >has been lifted(as well as aging attacks.) The reason I hated such
:) >things was because it penalized humans and half-elves more than other
:) >demihumans. <
:) >
:) >I saw this as unbalanced, but I simply translated it to reflect, say,
:) >the elven equivelant of human years and applied that amount. Simple 3rd
:) >grade math, and aging now becomes a problem for other races besides
:) >humans. I think the xp loss for certain spells is absurd and stupid.
:) >Makes no sense...you use powerful magic, so you then lose the ability
:) >to cast it because you lost a level? A crock of shit, and no less
:) >absurd than the stickler that many 3E fanatics whine about...permanent
:) >life level drain.
XP usage != level drain. Still stupid :)
:) >
:) >>Now, the XP penalty affects all races equally. <
:) >
:) >And it's also idiotic bullshit. People have the nerve to whine about
:) >life level drain, and yet it's ok to lose levels by casting spells?
:) >Absurd!
No, you do NOT lose levels. You CANNOT. It should be treated as an XP deficit.
You have to get so many XPs before you can start adding them to your total. it
is essentially that way in that you can't lose levels from it now.
:) >
:) >>16. Spells have been cleaned up and are explained much more clearly
:) >this time around<
:) >
:) >Maybe a few, but I didn't see a big difference.
Easier when just flipping through, I guess. The biggest help was the list of
spells with abbreviated descriptions. THAT is a major help, as is organizing
them alphabetically.
:) >
:) >>17. Attacks of Opportunity- my last point. I've heard many
:) >complaints on this one as well. I can't say many who do complain about
:) >this have a clue as to what they're talking about.<
:) >
:) >To me, the combat system wasn't broken, and this along with the new
:) >standard criticial hit system just makes combat more complicated. Bah!
Complicated, sure. But it handles more situations better than before, in the
rules, not just with DM fudging. I like what they've done. Some of it won't get
much use, but it is nice it is there. And AoOs have allowed rogues to become a
cool class. They were kinda shafted before. House rules fixed that though :)
:) >
:) >>Call me a WotC sheep if you want<
:) >
:) >"WotC sheep!"
WotC makes M:TG and Pok...po....I can;t even say it!
They allowed D&D to survive. That's pretty cool. the rest is your opinion :)
:) >
:) >>With all of these things put
:) >together, it shuld be quite easy to tell that D&D3 is a much *better*
:) >system than any previous edition<
:) >
:) >Funny, but you haven't managed to stir my soul into a frenzy to jump
:) >into your "much improved" 3E garbage fest. I think 3E sucks, I think
:) >it's all about power gaming, and lack of sensible limits, it's a
:) >generic RPG, not D&D. It's a computer game mentality converted to paper.
That is is. the CRPG part anyway. But why bother playing CRPGs...? Esp. made
from P&P RPG rules? D&D 3e is a good system. If it was just like 1e or 2e, it
wouldn't deserve the title of 3e. The rules have changed. those of us who like
simpler, consistent rules that make sense will prefer 3e. Those who can memorize
half-way decently might like 3e, but can stick w/ earlier editions just fine.
:) >
:) >>Many of the Luddites will still cling to their old ways and try to
:) >claim D&D3 in munchkin/stupid, but they're the ones looking like fools.<
:) >
:) >Fools because we play a system we enjoy,
You're supposed to just on the bandwagon. Didn't you know that? Are you NOT of
the Lawful/Stupid alignment? :-)
It is kinda like that star wars scene where vader almost kills the guy for
insulting his ancient ways and all...
> that isn't "broken", that
:) >works for us, that provides countless hours of entertainment, and that
:) >we love? Fools because we don't feel like blindly engaging in a new
:) >system that we find to be overblown with powergaming features, that we
:) >feel sucks, that we feel suffers from munchkinism and video-game
:) >mentality?
Video game mentality is just that: mentality.
If you play it like you always played D&D, nothing has changed but the numbers
you used. Powergaming is the same way. Powergaming will always exist. I have yet
to see how ANY game system has been better or worse to powergamiers. If you
powergame, you will powergame. In 1e, in 2e, and in 3e. If you don't like
powergaming, you won't. The system has nothing to do with that. Me and my
players don't. We have officially kicked out the one munchkin we had.
> Fools because in the land of freedom we've chosen to
:) >exercise our freedom of thought and speech to say that 3E is NOT the
:) >Second Coming?
Yes, duh :)
Who has called it the second coming anyway? (And how much of a life does this
person have aside from gaming?) For some of us it is a good step. Simple as
that.
> I think the only fools are the arrogant asses like
:) >yourself who are obsessed by and enslaved to our society's manic urge
:) >to always "upgrade" even when an upgrade is not needed,
*cough* Microsoft and Realnetworks *cough*
:-)
> and who roundly
:) >condemn anyone who resists the urge to jump on the bandwagon-to-nowhere
:) >as "dimwits".
Bandwagon to nowhere? Not really...it is going to our enjoyment. I'd call that
somewhere.
:) >
:) >>Anyone have any comments? Corrections? Flames?<
:) >
:) >A little bit of each. Us 1E/2E devotees believe in a truly well rounded
:) >style.
hehe. ANyone who believes the game's aim has changed is wrong. Numbers have
changed.
------------------
Cerberus AOD / A Paper Cut (ernieSCR...@DoddsTech.com)
ICQ UIN: 8878412 (take out SCREWTHESPAM to mail me, okay?)
"Children of tomorrow live in the tears that fall today"
-Children of the Grave, Black Sabbath
Peter Seebach
Halaster Blackcloak <halaster_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Well, I've been out of the loop for a few weeks here, I had to have
>emergency surgery to take out my appendix, and complications set in.
I hope you're feeling better. Need a Cure Light? :)
>Or perhaps the system wasn't "broken". I myself, and most gamers in my
>area, found both 1E and 2E (as well as basic) very easily played, not
>at all broken. Room for improvement? In some areas, sure, why not? But
>not "broken". "Broken" implies is doesn't work, when obviously (for all
>of us dinosaurs) it DOES.
2E was broken. Can you name *ANYONE* who used all the kit rules, and all
the other stuff, without house rules? I can't.
>Or perhaps, "why D&D 3E is change for the sake of change"?
I don't think it's "change for the sake of change". I think it's "change
for the sake of cleaning up inconsistencies and eliminating excess tables".
The new to-hit mechanism is even cooler than THAC0, which was, in turn, a huge
step forwards from the "attack matrix" of early 1E.
>What an arrogant little gnome you are. Only "fools" use house rules?
That's not what he said. His point was that, if you want to compare two
systems, you need to compare them *as written*. Fair enough.
>I can agree here. And I can't think of a single DM in my area who ever
>enforced the racial level limits rules. Again, not such a big change,
>if no one used it to begin with.
I've seen a lot of people who used them; Mr. Klassen, for instance. And
I've seen a *lot* of people argue that, without them, non-human races were
"too powerful", and I tend to agree.
>Funny, I thought it has ALWAYS been playable. More than half of all the
>PCs I've ever DM'd for have been human. They've always been the most
>common race in any game I've played.
Me too, but only because of house rules favoring them, or DM fiat outright
*forbidding* other races. Otherwise, everyone played elves.
>Humans don't need to be "pumped up". Everything doesn't boil down to
>power, you know.
But it's nice for the power to be fairly well balanced.
>Oh, btw...your cool, newfangled, 4d6 rolling method isn't that new
>after all. In my 1989 copy of the 2E PHB, page 13, Method V...it is
>exactly the same as your finely tuned "modern" 3E system. Roll 4d6,
>discard the lowest roll, then assign scores where you want. Amazing
>how "advanced" 3E is, huh? I had that method 11 years ago in my 2E
>guide!
It was in 1E too.
>I think it's stupid. It's hard for me to picture a paladin running
>around with a low charisma or low wisdom. Doesn't seem very paladin-
>like to me. Or a cleric with a low wisdom or charisma. Or a wizard with
>a low intelligence. Bah!
I used to have this explanation of why you couldn't have a paladin with a
three Charisma.
Ethelrede the Mighty strode into the bar, gold armor gleaming in the
last rays of the sunset. His sword, Demonbane, was strapped across
his back, a faint flickering the only sign of the holy fire it burned
with when drawn. He approached the bar, and, in a nasal, whiny voice,
announced "I WANT SOME MILK".
:)
3E does something I rather like. It doesn't *prohibit* a Wizard with an
intelligence under 9. On the other hand, without at least a 10, *YOU CAN'T
CAST SPELLS*.
I don't see a lot of people playing wizards with low int. But, I *do* see
the potential for someone to play a fighter with poor strength, who relies
on speed and competence. I do see the possibility of a slightly clumsy rogue,
who favors social engineering over picking locks.
3E allows these, and provides ways to run them. 2E doesn't.
>I forgot, 3E is about being able to do anything, regardless of how
>absurd it is, such as an armored gnomish paladin/wizard/barbarian with
>a 5 Charisma and pickpocket skills. Sounds like SO much fun. Not.
I have no problem with it; it'd be a fairly sucky character, but if the
backstory fits, great!
>Yeah, "why" exactly? I didn't see them as broken at all, they worked
>fine in my campaigns and in everyone else's campaigns I know of.
Why: Because multiclassed characters enjoyed psychotic power compared to
single-classed characters.
Dual-classing was even worse. If you give me a number of XP's to run with,
I'll make a fighter/mage, every time. Hit points and weapon selection, on
a mage. ;)
>Maybe because some of us are more mature than power-gamers obsessed
>with being mighty? Perhaps because some of us don't define "better"
>as "more powerful"? That 12th level fighter/13th level mage has
>problems the 17th level fighter doesn't have, like armor restrictions.
Oh, gee, tragic him; in 2E, the best AC you can get is from a non-armor
combo anyway. (bracers AC2, cloak +5, ring +6/+1).
Still, you miss the point; even if players don't "abuse" the system, *it
should be well balanced*. It should be easy for a DM to eyeball threat
levels.
>REALLY??? Funny, but *MY* 2E DMG provides for XP for the following:
Yeah, and so does 1E, within reason.
>That aint' about to change for 3E bub, trust me!
Actually, I think it's a lot different. I've been pushing players towards
more interesting puzzles, instead of monsters.
>Players (to DM, after several hours of deliberation): "The answer
>is: 'Man fears time, but time fears the pyramids!'."
>DM (to players): "Ok, you solved the 56th riddle of the Great
>Sphinx...you each get another 250 xp!! Man, by the time you guys solve
>the 100th riddle, you may have gained a level!"
Heh.
Yeah, but at least they *get* XP. ;-)
>I never found them weird. They always worked for the majority of us. No
>one I ever knew of had serious problems with them. But yes, I do agree
>that the new saving throw system is more streamlined and perhaps more
>workable, but it's not exactly the Second Coming, ya know?
It's not. No one change is, any more than any *one* difference between
a good meal and a mediocre meal is all that detectable... but the *overall*
experience is dramatically improved.
>I also like this, but my house rule (which took all of 5 minutes to
>implement), handled this quite well. YEARS before 3E addressed it.
Yup. But isn't it nice to have a standard rule address it in such a way
that you don't have to argue about it if you want to play in a game run
by some other guy?
>I also like this idea, and in some campaigns I kept the 1E rule.
>However, while I haven't read the 3E system of resistance that deeply,
>I get the impression it favors PCs, just like the rest of the system
>does.
I don't think the system "favors PC's". At all. Anywhere. I think the
system is *balanced*. That means that it doesn't necessarily hurt PC's
more than monsters... or the other way around.
Can you clarify why you think spell resistance rules favor PC's? I see no
advantage for them.
>"Massive house rules"? As in "the DM says your fighter can take
>lockpick skills"? THAT is considered massive change to you?
It's fairly substantial. How many points can I put in lockpick in your house
rules? "points"? Do fighters get the same armor/no armor bonuses thieves do?
What about armor the fighter can wear that a thief can't?
The new rule is clear and unambiguous, and easy to administer.
>the total lack of restrictions is a crock. A priest with pickpocket
>skills indeed! Absurd!
You must be too young to remember Oral Roberts.
>Some like it better, some prefer the old system. Whichever works for
>you is fine, doesn't mean one is "better".
It is possible to pick a set of criteria, and then determine which one is
better.
>I don't think so. I don't like cyclical initiative...never did, never
>will.
What do you prefer?
>All fighters weren't the same in 1E or 2E either. They could pick from
>any numbers of skills, weapons, armors, abilities, alignments, etc.
But they didn't vary nearly as much. I think this is a big win for 3E. I can
build 2nd level guards, and 2nd level hunters, both "fighters", and have them
both be good at their jobs, but not very good at each others' jobs.
>Sounds like you're power-obsessed to me.
If levels don't represent power, why bother? It's nice, IMHO, that you don't
"plateau" at a certain point.
>>No longer do all wizards know how to make wands. They can instead
>learn how to cast spells in armor with no arcane spell failure.<
>Which to many of us is stupid and absurd, and goes against the
>traditional "feel" of D&D.
Agreed, and I don't see anything in the rules allowing it. ;-)
>It's a ridiculous system if wizards can
>eventually walk around in full plate, casting spells with no spell
>failure.
I'm not sure about that. It certainly changes things, but I don't see any
fundemental absurdity to it, any more than it's absurd to imagine someone
who both uses computers *AND* sings in a choir.
>Hand axes still do d6 damage. Battle axes still do d8. Swords, arrows,
>clubs...they all pretty much do the same exact damage in 3E as they did
>in 2E.
Weapons don't kill people. *PEOPLE* kill people.
Joe Average Orc now has +2 to hit and +2 damage from his 14 average strength.
Jane Ogre now does 2d6+7, rather than 1d10.
A fighter with barely above-average strength will get a +1 damage bonus; in
2E, you only got that with a *16* strength.
>Only now, clerics can heal MANY more times per day, characters
>heal at a GREATLY accelerated rate, and mass-heal spells abound.
"Abound" == 5th level or higher, as high level as *RAISE DEAD*.
>Also,
>from the little I've seen, monsters do pretty much the same damage.
No. Monsters do substantially more damage. Orcs and ogres are pretty
obvious cases. Hobgoblins now have a strength bonus to damage.
>Perhaps the dimwits are the ones who fail to see how super-charged
>healing has become in 3E, and not the other way around? And let's not
>forget the other "healing" boosts, such as being able to resurrect
>without having even a tiny piece of the original body, such as raised
>characters not losing memorized spells, such as not having to make a
>system shock role for being raised, etc.
System shock was just a "you roll one die and you can lose your character
sheet" rule. I don't miss it. I do think the prepared spell thing is an
elaborate practical joke being played on us.
>Go back and read my post, it spells it out quite clearly how much more
>powerful (overly so) healing is in 3E.
But it does so, as pointed out before, based on a serious misunderstanding of
the damage potential of normal creatures.
>And it's also idiotic bullshit. People have the nerve to whine about
>life level drain, and yet it's ok to lose levels by casting spells?
>Absurd!
You can't lose levels by casting spells. Read the book. It is okay to slow
down advancement for permanency, and I think it's a lot fairer than random
Con damage.
>>16. Spells have been cleaned up and are explained much more clearly
>this time around<
>Maybe a few, but I didn't see a big difference.
I do. It's *MUCH* cleaner.
>To me, the combat system wasn't broken, and this along with the new
>standard criticial hit system just makes combat more complicated. Bah!
I like it a lot. AOO have caused players to start acting like people in
combat, not like heroes doing their nails while watching a combat.
>Funny, but you haven't managed to stir my soul into a frenzy to jump
>into your "much improved" 3E garbage fest. I think 3E sucks, I think
>it's all about power gaming, and lack of sensible limits, it's a
>generic RPG, not D&D. It's a computer game mentality converted to paper.
It's not about power gaming, it's about consistency of advancement.
Compare Return to KotB (for 1st-3rd level characters) to Sunless Citadel
(also for 1st-3rd level characters). Sunless Citadel has, I believe, three
magic items. Maybe four. Return to KotB had at least a dozen, including a
+3 two-handed sword.
3E has toned *down* power levels in substantial ways - at low levels. It
now has something like a linear curve.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Mark Rouleau
"Peter Seebach" <se...@plethora.net> wrote in message
news:39c94fd0$0$28248$3c09...@news.plethora.net...
> 3E does something I rather like. It doesn't *prohibit* a Wizard with an
> intelligence under 9. On the other hand, without at least a 10, *YOU
CAN'T
> CAST SPELLS*.
>
Rincewind the Wizzard, anybody?
Mark Rouleau
Scott Shupe
>
> 2E was broken. Can you name *ANYONE* who used all the kit rules, and all
> the other stuff, without house rules? I can't.
Weeellll.... the kits & the rest were all optional. Certainly the DM is
under no obligation to use them, although it does put a lot of work on
the DM to read all the optional crap in order to make a decision one way
or the other. I think the 2nd edition core rules were a good
improvement over 1st edition, and not at all broken. Seeing as the core
rules are all we've seen of 3E so far, comparing it to every 2nd ed.
product in existance isn't exactly fair.
WOTC may say that they're not going to publish reams of poorly
thought-out, unbalanced, and inconsistent supplements, but let's give
them some time yet. =)
John Kim
Paul Jackson <pa...@somanetworks.com> wrote:
>John Kim wrote:
>> In D&D, fighting ability is largely a single number (i.e. attack
>> bonus) - so all characters who "kick ass" are rather alike.
>>
>> In contrast, other systems allow for more differentiation of such
>> characters. For example, I played in a campaign set in Tang dynasty
>> between my Drunken Boxing fighter and another player's Tiger Style
>> swordsman.
>
>is Hero (assuming very, very limited Powers in Hero). Beserkers,
>fighters and Rangers all feel quite different.
>In Hero, the characters are built very differently. But they PLAY
>very similarly. In D&D3 its almost the opposite. They all choose
>from the identical sets of options but the choices they make affect
>how they feel in play quite a lot.
Hmm. It's rather difficult to discuss the "feel" of characters
as independent from the mechanics. Obviously, if you feel they are
different - then to you they are. I am a bit mystified as to how
characters that have what you admit is a *wider* range of capabilities,
can be considered more similar.
For example, suppose I start a Conan campaign in D&D. I make
an archer character. This might *feel* very different to you for your
own private reasons, but in fact everyone else can shoot a bow just
about as well as him (i.e. within 5%, assuming he took Weapon Focus).
In _Fantasy Hero_, I can make a starting character who is a
much better archer than she is a swordsman. For that matter, I can
reproduce all the variation you can get in a D&D3 character and
much, much more.
Scott Barrie
wrote:
>Also spracht Scott Barrie <sba...@julian.uwo.ca>:
>
>>Out of curiosity, what systems do you find complicated? Or do you not
>>notice/pay attention to an RPG's level of complication when reading
>>it? (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
>
>I think this is a matter of terminology. Complicated (aka complex) and
>Difficult (aka awkward, cumbersome, messy) are different things.
What is a matter of terminology? I asked a straightforward question,
and I got a nice satisfactory answer from Jason.
And where is difficult also known as messy or awkward?
Scott B. Barrie
Free RPG: Quest http://trollsden.physics.uwo.ca/quest.htm
Free Tables: TableSmith http://www.crosswinds.net/~mythosa/
Free Map Software: AutoREALM http://www.members.iex.net/~gryc/
Dr Nuncheon
John Kim <jh...@cascade.ps.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>Paul Jackson <pa...@somanetworks.com> wrote:
>>John Kim wrote:
>>> In D&D, fighting ability is largely a single number (i.e. attack
>>> bonus) - so all characters who "kick ass" are rather alike.
>>>
>>> In contrast, other systems allow for more differentiation of such
>>> characters.
>>
>>is Hero (assuming very, very limited Powers in Hero). Beserkers,
>>fighters and Rangers all feel quite different.
>[...]
>>In Hero, the characters are built very differently. But they PLAY
>>very similarly. In D&D3 its almost the opposite. They all choose
>>from the identical sets of options but the choices they make affect
>>how they feel in play quite a lot.
>
> Hmm. It's rather difficult to discuss the "feel" of characters
>as independent from the mechanics. Obviously, if you feel they are
>different - then to you they are. I am a bit mystified as to how
>characters that have what you admit is a *wider* range of capabilities,
>can be considered more similar.
Because the karateka's 'Hook Kick' and the kung fu practitioner's
'Backfist' are both Offensive Strikes - that'd be my guess anyway.
> For example, suppose I start a Conan campaign in D&D. I make
>an archer character. This might *feel* very different to you for your
>own private reasons, but in fact everyone else can shoot a bow just
>about as well as him (i.e. within 5%, assuming he took Weapon Focus).
Er, we are talking about 3e here, right? Do you mean to tell me that you
see no difference between a fighter with Power Attack, Cleave, and Sunder
and one with Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, and WF: Bow? And that's just
at first level. 3e allows a heck of a lot more differentiation than
earlier editions.
> In _Fantasy Hero_, I can make a starting character who is a
>much better archer than she is a swordsman.
Which you can do in D&D3, too.
> For that matter, I can
>reproduce all the variation you can get in a D&D3 character and
>much, much more.
Maybe so. Of course, character variation is not the be-all and end-all of
a system.
D&D3 doesn't have to be bad for FH to be good.
J
--
INTERNET SEEMS TO BE FULL OF MILLIONS OF | Jeff Johnston
IDIOTS & LUNATICS ! ! - c2 (ts...@my-deja.com) | jeffj @ io . com
John Kim
>> For that matter, I can reproduce all the variation you can get in a
>> D&D3 character and much, much more.
>
>Maybe so. Of course, character variation is not the be-all and end-all
>of a system.
>
>D&D3 doesn't have to be bad for FH to be good.
Hello? Clue?
I didn't say that D&D3 was "bad" for all things -- I said that
it had fewer structures for differentiating characters than many other
systems. Notably, it has no inborn advantages, no disadvantages, no
social traits of any sort, and no ability to trade-off between
abilities/skills/feats. For that matter, I also said (in an earlier
post) that it is more difficult to adapt D&D3 to a variety of settings
than it is for games with structures like the above (such as FH or Ars
Magica) -- not impossible, just more difficult.
Unless you are rabidly pro-D&D, I don't see how either of these
points amounts to saying that D&D3 is bad overall.
Paul Jackson
> For example, suppose I start a Conan campaign in D&D. I make
> an archer character. This might *feel* very different to you for your
> own private reasons, but in fact everyone else can shoot a bow just
> about as well as him (i.e. within 5%, assuming he took Weapon Focus).
>
> In _Fantasy Hero_, I can make a starting character who is a
> much better archer than she is a swordsman. For that matter, I can
> reproduce all the variation you can get in a D&D3 character and
> much, much more.
If you're comparing first level characters I hope that you're comparing
quite low powered (25+25 maybe) Fantasy Hero characters. A level
1 D&D character is definitely less powerful than a 50+50 FH character.
In most FH campaigns I've seen, almost all the points end up going
into stats. So, both the archer and swordsman will have similar
ST, CON, DEX etc. The swordsman may be a little
tougher, the archer a little more dextrous..
At 6 pts per 3 pts in Dex (assuming that speed is also being bought up,
this is the net cost) Dex is just so incredibly cost effective that most
people can't resist it. Sure, for the 6 pts you COULD buy +3
OCV with bows. But I've rarely seen it happen.
In D&D3 on the other hand I'd expect an archer to have a high
dex and nearly totally ignore STR. And he'd choose very different
feats than would a fighter.
Bradd W. Szonye
>I didn't say that D&D3 was "bad" for all things -- I said that
>it had fewer structures for differentiating characters than many other
>systems. Notably, it has:
>no inborn advantages
Ambidexterity? Iron Will? Lightning Reflexes? Improved Fortitude?
Toughness?
>no disadvantages
True. Unless you want to make one up for your character, for no
"points." Or you use the optional "called shot injuries" rule.
Does a system need to award points for disadvantages for them to be
worthy?
>no social traits of any sort
I'm assuming you don't mean things like Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive,
and the like? You mean things like wealth and contacts?
The closest things I can think of in the latter category are Leadership,
which allows you to attract cohorts and followers, and ordinary wealth
and contacts developed through play. I think that there are some
suggestions for creating wealthy characters in the DMG, but it's still
largely a DIP system.
>and no ability to trade-off between abilities/skills/feats
Is this a bad thing? As a Gamist, I've found that allowing free trade
between abilities, skills, and ads/disads is the easiest way to promote
munchkinism. In fact, the single most common rule in this area I've
heard among game designers is, "You cannot use disadvantage points
gained from a social disadvantage and use them to buy attributes!" In
other words, this is a valid design choice.
Also, you're forgetting Alertness, Skill Focus, and a couple of other
feats that allow you to trade feats for skills.
>Unless you are rabidly pro-D&D, I don't see how either of these points
>amounts to saying that D&D3 is bad overall.
It puts it in an undeserved negative light, I think, which is close
enough to outright saying it's bad. Especially when you compare it
(unfavorably) to a system like Hero, where there's "no way to
differentiate a karate chop from a rapier lunge--they're both Offensive
Strike." Champions has "character classes" (Brick, Tank, Telepath,
Energy Ray Guy) just like D&D does; it's just that they don't have rules
for the classes.
--
Bradd W. Szonye Work: br...@cup.hp.com
Software Design Engineer Home: bra...@concentric.net
Hewlett-Packard Cupertino Site, iFL Phone: 408-447-4832
Michael T. Richter
> to be worthy?
No. And, indeed, I've found that disadvantages-for-points engenders
precisely the wrong style of play for my tastes. People should play flawed
characters because they're more interesting, not because they'll get more
points. People who pick flaws only for points rarely play them out
plausibly.
Darel Finkbeiner
"Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
> >and no ability to trade-off between abilities/skills/feats
>
> Is this a bad thing? As a Gamist, I've found that allowing free trade
> between abilities, skills, and ads/disads is the easiest way to promote
> munchkinism.
<sarcasm><rant>
Oh, for shame. Don't you know that "munchkin" is not a well-defined and
acceptable term for use in relation to RolePlaying Games? In fact, anyone
who uses such terms simply does not comprehend or fully understand the
eminent utility of alternative verbal constructs describing the intricate
blah blah blah yakkety smackety....
</rant></sarcasm>
Dr Nuncheon
John Kim <jh...@cascade.ps.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>Dr Nuncheon <je...@fnord.io.com> wrote:
>>John Kim <jh...@cascade.ps.uci.edu> wrote:
>[Re: Fantasy Hero]
>>> D&D3 character and much, much more.
>>
>>of a system.
>>
>>D&D3 doesn't have to be bad for FH to be good.
>
> Hello? Clue?
>
>it had fewer structures for differentiating characters than many other
>systems.
This is in the context of how easy it is to adapt the rules set for
different types of campaigns, though, isn't it? It seems that you are
concentrating on what you see as a problem of D&D, without looking at the
strong points.
I think D&D would be great for a Conan-style campaign.
First, I'm not sure why you think that it would be so difficult to
differentiate characters. Personality is of course just as easy as in FH,
and by ability - it might have been difficult to tell two fighters apart
in older editions, but the whole Feat mechanic has really changed that
around in 3e.
Second, ease of character differentiation is not the only thing you should
look at when considering a system for a specific setting. D&D's combat
system, for example, was *made* to handle Conan-esque conflicts. You can
do them with GURPS (given enough optional rules) and in HERO too, but in
my experience the D&D combats are going to run far faster and easier.
> Unless you are rabidly pro-D&D, I don't see how either of these
>points amounts to saying that D&D3 is bad overall.
It looked to me like you were pushing 'Fantasy Hero is great because it
does these things better than D&D' bandwagon - and talking about things
that weren't even very important to the topic. If I jumped to conclusions
I apologize.
Character differentiation is hardly the first thing that I think about
when converting a setting or creating a campaign, and it's not even the
most important - I plan to run a 'mage school' game at some point, so
there'll really only be one class available for the players. I still
don't expect a problem in differentiation.
Bryan J. Maloney
Richter" <m...@ottawa.com> wrote:
People who play roleplaying games rarely play their characters plausibly.
--
For those in the know, potrzebie is truly necessary.
Lizard
>
> > Does a system need to award points for disadvantages for them
> > to be worthy?
>
> No. And, indeed, I've found that disadvantages-for-points engenders
> precisely the wrong style of play for my tastes. People should play flawed
> characters because they're more interesting, not because they'll get more
> points. People who pick flaws only for points rarely play them out
> plausibly.
I've found that the abscence of a disad system in 3e has forced me to
actually come up with a complete personality for my character, as
opposed to '40 points worth of disads'. It's a rather interesting change
of pace. :)
Bryan J. Maloney
I have trouble limiting my characters to 40 points of disadvantages from
the personality I devise BEFORE spending a single character point.
Bruce Baugh
>No. And, indeed, I've found that disadvantages-for-points engenders
>precisely the wrong style of play for my tastes.
I'm increasingly inclined to agree - I find that I get better results by
just giving players a few more point to spend as they want than hassle
the vast majority of disadvantages.
I do note that I make a strong exception here for the disadvantage
system in Nobilis, in which a disadvantage grants the character a
miracle point only when it actually is a disadvantage in an in-play
situation. That's fine.
--
Bruce Baugh <*> bruce...@spiretech.com
Information wants to be free. Entertainment wants to be valuable.
Lizard
>
> In article <jGsy5.84810$UO.2...@news22.bellglobal.com>, "Michael T. Richter" <m...@ottawa.com> wrote:
>
> >No. And, indeed, I've found that disadvantages-for-points engenders
> >precisely the wrong style of play for my tastes.
>
> I'm increasingly inclined to agree - I find that I get better results by
> just giving players a few more point to spend as they want than hassle
> the vast majority of disadvantages.
my GF, who has experience in play-by-email RPGs but little with tabletop
RPGs, created a character for my dimension-hopping game. Being somewhat
unfamiliair with GURPS, she began with a textual description of her
character, including a ton of data about family, etc, despite the fact
she knew the premise of the game was that she would be removed from her
home time/dimension and sent bouncing around the cosmos. No experienced
Hero/GURPS gamer would bother defining family unless you could take them
as Dependents, Hunteds, or the like.
Ben Brown
Lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
>
>The problems with the disad method were driven home to me recently, when
>my GF, who has experience in play-by-email RPGs but little with tabletop
>RPGs, created a character for my dimension-hopping game. Being somewhat
>unfamiliair with GURPS, she began with a textual description of her
>character, including a ton of data about family, etc, despite the fact
>she knew the premise of the game was that she would be removed from her
>home time/dimension and sent bouncing around the cosmos. No experienced
>Hero/GURPS gamer would bother defining family unless you could take them
>as Dependents, Hunteds, or the like.
Well, perhaps not "no", but I will admit it's less common.
Disad systems, like many other things rules-wise are essentially training
wheels. They were originally designed (as near as I can tell. I wasn't
in on the design) as a reward for good character design idea-wise. The
idea was to prevent characters who lived in a social vacuum and had all of
the personality of a ficus tree by giving people some advantage in
exchange for coming up with something better.
And like most of these rules-wise things, it's highly abusable.
I rather like BESM's solution: they've got disad points, of a sort,
but the GM is also allowed, nay, encouraged to give extra points to
players who come up with good description and backgrounds.
I'm not willing to count disad points out yet, although I think they
need to be seen for what they are.
-Ben
--
Marizhavashti Kali
Lizard wrote:
>
> home time/dimension and sent bouncing around the cosmos. No experienced
> Hero/GURPS gamer would bother defining family unless you could take them
> as Dependents, Hunteds, or the like.
You made me waste my last can of Dr. Pepper. Thank you *so* much. :-)
--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xe...@teleport.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
"Atlantic City is Oz envisioned by used car salesmen and pimps."
http://www.teleport.com/~xenya | --Rick Glumsky, Celtic Filth
Ryan Franklin
> In article <jGsy5.84810$UO.2...@news22.bellglobal.com>, "Michael T.
> Richter" <m...@ottawa.com> wrote:
>> plausibly.
>
Heh. It sounds awful and mean, but it's true. Sensible people would
never behave the way characters in roleplaying games do. (or the game
would be real short--as in, the sensible character would look at the
people surrounding him/her and say "Get me the fuck away from these
nutbags," look at the situation and say "Ain't no way I can handle this,"
and then leave town. As quickly as possible.)
--
because being sensible isn't always fun, and the game should be fun
ry...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net
Halaster Blackcloak
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
>I hope you're feeling better. Need a Cure Light? :)<
LOL! Thanks! Hell, if D&D were real-life, I'd have switched to 3E two
weeks ago, with Mass Heal, Healing Circle, etc! ;-)
>2E was broken. Can you name *ANYONE* who used all the kit rules, and
all the other stuff, without house rules? I can't.<
Oh. Well, I guess I better define 2E so I'm clear on what I'm referring
to. I kinda forgot all that stuff existed. I never got into the kits
(hated them), the high level campaign stuff, the spells and powers type
books, etc. All the late stuff I see as garbage tacked on. I guess I
should properly refer to what I consider 2E as 2E Core. :-)If you
inlcude all that other stuff, yeah, you could call it broken.
>I don't think it's "change for the sake of change". I think
it's "change for the sake of cleaning up inconsistencies and
eliminating excess tables".<
I'll admit, some of it was needed change, but some of it (like renaming
SO MANY spells) was just change for change. A lot of the spells had
perfectly fine names to begin with. Stuff like that.
>That's not what he said. His point was that, if you want to compare
two systems, you need to compare them *as written*. Fair enough<
But as I pointed out, people are going to use house rules and change
aspects of 3E also, that's almost an inherent thing in gaming, so it
balances out.
>Me too, but only because of house rules favoring them, or DM fiat
outright *forbidding* other races. Otherwise, everyone played elves.<
Weird. Most of my players tended to want humans. Elves were a second
choice, then dwarves. No one ever played gnomes. :-(
>But it's nice for the power to be fairly well balanced<
I'm just having trouble seing the balance with all that healing
available. As I pointeed out a month ago in that long comparison post,
there's definitely a HUGE increase in healing potential in 3E.
>I used to have this explanation of why you couldn't have a paladin
with a three Charisma.
Ethelrede the Mighty strode into the bar, gold armor gleaming in the
last rays of the sunset. His sword, Demonbane, was strapped across his
back, a faint flickering the only sign of the holy fire it burned with
when drawn. He approached the bar, and, in a nasal, whiny voice,
announced "I WANT SOME MILK".:)<
LMAO! DAMN! I just sprayed iced tea out my nose! ;-D
>3E does something I rather like. It doesn't *prohibit* a Wizard with
an intelligence under 9. On the other hand, without at least a 10,
*YOU CAN'T CAST SPELLS*.<
See, that's something I just can't understand. What's the point of
being a wizard if you can't cast spells? I mean, isn't it easier to
just say "you can't be a wizard with less than a 10 INT" rather than
allow it but make it impossible? I mean, it's kinda like the old DM
thing of not saying to a player "you can't do that" but rather
saying "Roll a natural 21 on d20 and you can do it". Kinda pointless.
Oh well, back to convalescing. ;-)
Lizard
> Disad systems, like many other things rules-wise are essentially training
> wheels. They were originally designed (as near as I can tell. I wasn't
> in on the design) as a reward for good character design idea-wise. The
> idea was to prevent characters who lived in a social vacuum and had all of
> the personality of a ficus tree by giving people some advantage in
> exchange for coming up with something better.
>
Also, look at where they first appeared:Champions. In the source
material, a character is defined almost as much by his weaknesses as his
powers. (Superman/Kryptonite;Green Lantern;Yellow) Further, every Marvel
hero stereotypically has one or more personality problems which again
define them just as much as their powers or costumes do.
Marizhavashti Kali
Lizard wrote:
>
> Also, look at where they first appeared:Champions. In the source
> material, a character is defined almost as much by his weaknesses as his
> powers. (Superman/Kryptonite;Green Lantern;Yellow) Further, every Marvel
> hero stereotypically has one or more personality problems which again
> define them just as much as their powers or costumes do.
Yes, the idea was to encourage players to take (for example):
Susceptibility to Kryptonite, Vulnerability to Magic, Code vs. Killing
and so on - reconstruct the elements that go into making a hero "human."
Sadly, they're not always used for this. :-(
Ryan Franklin
> Of course in an eglaritarian(sp?) society, many social disads
> have no place, so they should have no point value. But most
> fantasy roleplaying takes place in settings that are
> pseudo-medieval (but rarely truly medieval) which means
> that class matters.
>
> If you don't believe me, feel free to create a character with
> "Very Low Social Status" and "Very Low Wealth" for my
> Aerth campaign, and watch him get buttfucked by NPCs until
> he dies.
I just _have_ to ask....why? Not, "Why do characters who are dirt poor
with very low social status get screwed by NPCs?", but rather, "Why would
anyone in their right mind take the very low social status or very low
wealth disadvantages?" ;-)
I mean, I can see the reasoning behind making those disadvantages
available, but the consequences seem so dire that I can't imagine what
possible carrot you could offer that would make someone willingly submit
to a stick like that.
> The fact is, it's simply more difficult to play a character
> who is socially (note: *not* mentally) or economically
> impaired, because it makes it much more difficult (in
> extreme cases next to impossible) for the character to
> influence his surroundings.
...which could almost be construed as an argument in _favor_ of the
relatively flat social status of D&D characters. ;-) Weeds out the
extreme cases.
--
not that i think you're actually saying that, of course
ry...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net
Lizard
wrote:
>You get no such nonsense in class-free RPG rules systems.
>There, player characters will automatically relate to NPCs
>in a realistic fashion, as if the NPCs were people. *Always*.
>There is simply no room for thinking about character class
>because there is no such thing.
I disagree. Even in 'classless' systems, most NPCs easily fall into
recognizable types. The shifty guy in leather armor is probably a
thief. He might know some magic and how to use a sword, but that's a
sideline. There are no 'classes' in Star Wars, but its pretty easy to
class people as 'pirate', 'Jedi', 'Imperial spy', etc. Champions has
one of the most free-form systems around, but you'll still hear "I'll
take out their brick -- you two go after the energy projector, and
we'll let our martial artist take out their mentalist!"
Etc, etc, etc.
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
"I've heard of this thing men call 'empathy', but I've never
once been afflicted with it, thanks the Gods." Bruno The Bandit
http://www.mrlizard.com
Lizard
<halaster_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>See, that's something I just can't understand. What's the point of
>being a wizard if you can't cast spells?
Rincewind.
'nuff said.
Blackberry
2000 03:12:54 +0200 reached theears of the unsuspecting...
>
>> Ambidexterity? Iron Will? Lightning Reflexes? Improved Fortitude?
>> Toughness?
>
>big difference.
>
>An inborn advantage that can't be gained through play makes
>you special. In D&D 3E, anybody can edge into your territory
>by taking the same classes and Feats as you have.
They *can* be gained. They can *also* be inborn.
In HERO, a character could be born with Life Support. Another character could
save XP and gain Life Support later in life. What's the difference?
>I find that players never takes social (note: not psychological
>but social, the two are different) or econimic disadvantages
>upon their characters unless they are compensated for it.
That's too bad. My players incorporate those sorts of things into the role-play
of their characters. But I'm starting a new group now with some newbie gamers,
so we'll see.
Actually, I agree with something someone else posted -- in a game like
Champions, where players are almost forced to take physical and psychological
disadvantages for their characters, it becomes the GM's job to account for them
in play and challenge their weaknesses. It tends to remove the player from
role-playing the character's weaknesses.
Maybe not listing them as actual game structures is a better idea.
>> >no social traits of any sort
>>
>> I'm assuming you don't mean things like Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive,
>> and the like? You mean things like wealth and contacts?
>
>Or "High Social Status" or "Handsome Appearance".
Create some feats. You're allowed to do that.
>Yes, and that's the problem. Starting characters are too much
>the same, since they all start with the same level of wealth,
>and the same social status.
Whoa... characters in my campaign don't. I don't use D&D to determine those
traits, because it shouldn't be getting in the way. It should be a system for
resolving tasks, and it should stay as far away from my world as possible.
It's not D&D's job. It's the GM's and the player's.
>It's the player's duty to roleplay mental disadvantages,
>but it's up to the GM to make sure that social disads are
>felt.
That's the most important point.
>Of course in an eglaritarian(sp?) society, many social disads
>have no place, so they should have no point value. But most
>fantasy roleplaying takes place in settings that are
>pseudo-medieval (but rarely truly medieval) which means
>that class matters.
I agree, but be careful with blanket statements.
>If you don't believe me, feel free to create a character with
>"Very Low Social Status" and "Very Low Wealth" for my
>Aerth campaign, and watch him get buttfucked by NPCs until
>he dies.
Did the game system enforce those strictures, or did you?
>The problem with your rule, not allowing to trade points
>between social and combat-relevant traits, suggests to me
>that violent conflict is much more common in your games
>than nonviolent conflict. It's a valid playing style (if
>you make sure to tell the players before they start
>making characters), but I try to aim for a style in
>which all sorts of conflicts are equally common (except
>those that relates on player skill - I'm agressively
>Simulationist). So in my campaigns, a player who is
>skilled with his tongue is as valuable and useful as
>a character who is skilled with his broadsword.
Not allowing trade between categories of character creation points doesn't mean
that to me. Why do you say it must indicate that a campaign is focused on
combat? What if I said that all characters get 20 points total to assign to
stats, 1 feat, and 60 skill points that cannot be assigned to anything
combat-related? Is it still combat-oriented because you can't swap skill points
for feat points or ability points?
--------------------
"It's enough to make you wonder sometimes if you're on the right planet."
-- Frankie Goes to Hollywood
Brian -- le...@NOnwlinkSPAM.com -- remove "NOSPAM"
Michael Scott Brown
news:39CAAF60...@knutsen.dk...
> That's actually a step backwards compared to AD&D 2nd
> Edition, in which you could specialize up to five slots
> in one weapon.
Focus, Specialize, Improved Critical . . . these cover most of the
ground just fine.
-Michael
Peter Knutsen
"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:
>
> In article <39CA6270...@mrlizard.com>, Lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
>
> > "Michael T. Richter" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Does a system need to award points for disadvantages for them
> > > > to be worthy?
> > >
> > > No. And, indeed, I've found that disadvantages-for-points engenders
> > > precisely the wrong style of play for my tastes. People should play flawed
> > > characters because they're more interesting, not because they'll get more
> > > points. People who pick flaws only for points rarely play them out
> > > plausibly.
> >
> > I've found that the abscence of a disad system in 3e has forced me to
> > actually come up with a complete personality for my character, as
> > opposed to '40 points worth of disads'. It's a rather interesting change
> > of pace. :)
Yes, you might have a point, regarding the absence of mental disads.
But I find it necesarry to have non-mental disads available,
particularly social and economic ads/disads. As a GM, if a player
asks me for permission to play a character who is a noble or
the son of a rich merchant (or even the son of a rich noble),
on what should I base my yes or no? I don't want my roleplaying
gaming sessions to turn into popularity contests in which
the players try to please me so that I will treat their
characters well, so I GM through explicit rules rather than
whim. Which means I must have a little list with the most
common social and economic traits, and associated point
costs.
As for social and econimic disads, why would a player
create a character who is an escaped serf (or worse, an
escaped slave) or who is dirt poor, if there is no
mitigating point factor involved? It's much more diffi-
cult to play a character with low social status, in a
class-conscious society, and everywhere except in
Iain (M.?) Bank's "Culture" universe, it's more difficult
to play a poor character than a rich one.
Also, it makes for variation if the PCs in the party aren't
all of the same average wealth level and same average social
class.
> I have trouble limiting my characters to 40 points of disadvantages from
> the personality I devise BEFORE spending a single character point.
When I decided to graft an advantage/disadvantage system onto
Quest FRP, I ended up not listing any mental disadvantages.
There are social and economic disadvantages, and if a player
requests a physical disadvantage, I'll cook up rules for it,
but somehow I don't think it's a problem that mental disads
are lacking.
You risk stereotyping the character. Also, mental disads rely
very much upon the player remembering them, whereas social
disads relies on the GM, since they affect how the PC interacts
verbally with NPCs. So the player might forget mental disads,
but the GM is not inclined to forget social disads.
Also, instead of giving points once, for a social disad,
you can give out points continously for good roleplaying.
This ends up rewarding those players who gives their character
dramatically interesting quirks and flaws, rather than those
players who gives their characters extreme quirks and flaws.
I mean, how much fun is a character who is chronically
depressed, compared to one who is a pyromaniac? Yet in a
system where you get points for mental disads, the former
would get more points than the later.
I tend to define what I reward as being "less than max-
efficiency character behaviour, provided it is interesting/
amusing". Thus, if a character behaves like a piece in a
board game, there are no EPs for roleplaying (there will be
EPs from other sources, though). Behaviour at less than
max efficiency is rewarded, provided it's consistent with
the character, and amusing. The later clause (must be
amusing) is mostly to prevent one-trick ponies from earning
EPs by doing the same boring routine again and again.
So in my campaigns, a character with a chronic depression
would get few (if any) EPs for "good roleplaying" while
a character with pyromania would get a fair bit.
In general, I'm convinced that the reason advantage/disadvantage
systems have such a bad reputation is that a specific kind of
disadvantages, mental disads, are easily abused. Take those out
of the equation, and you get a very useful system.
> --
> For those in the know, potrzebie is truly necessary.
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
John Kim wrote:
> Further, while the class system has more flexibility than previous
> editions, there are still many things built-in, like escalating hit points.
> It is hard to change these without major overhaul of the system.
The class system is still a problem. Players will be tempted
to try to guess what class(es) an NPC has.
You get no such nonsense in class-free RPG rules systems.
There, player characters will automatically relate to NPCs
in a realistic fashion, as if the NPCs were people. *Always*.
There is simply no room for thinking about character class
because there is no such thing.
> John H. Kim
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
Kreidian wrote:
>
> I guess I would agree with most of your points. I will admit that I am
> looking at a relatively narrow field of view here based on what I'm looking
> for.
>
> "John Kim" <jh...@cascade.ps.uci.edu> wrote in message
> Remember that the first rule of 3E (both in the PHB and DMG) is that the DM
> makes all the rules.
Nevertheless, when I pay Steve Jackson Games, or WotC, I
expect them to give me material. (One kind of material is
rules)
What I pay for is the privilege of not having to do all the
boring rules work myself. I get them handed in a neat package.
Of course there will be rules I want to change, but it's
still much less work to change a few rules, than to create
your own consistent rules structure from scratch.
So I say to RPG producers: Give me rules. That's what I want.
Worlds I can build myself. (I can make my own rules systems,
but I've found it's too much work compared to the satis-
faction it gives me).
To RPG producers that refuses to give me rules (you guys
knows who you are) I show the backside of my longest finger.
> > Well, I might agree, but obviously it depends on how narrowly
> > you define its "type". What exactly do you see as its competition
> > here? I would concur that D&D3 compares favorably with _Rolemaster_
> > and _Palladium FRPG_. But if we consider other fantasy RPG's like
> > _Sengoku_ or _Elric_, I don't think I would agree.
>
> Again, this depends largely on what you're looking for. This 3E system is
> best designed for an action / adventure type of game (where things like
> combat and special heroic are more of the core as oppossed to 'pure'
> role-playing). Based on my experiences, I think 3E is best suited for these
> specific kinds of games.
I accept your claim that the *D&D family of rules systems are
best suited for action/adventure games. My own favourite
system, Quest FRP, is the same although to a lesser degree
(it has more rules for non-action stuff), and I've managed to
expand the rules so that it's suitable for all kinds of games
in the fantasy genre (the most notable changes I've made was
adding a advantage/disadvantage system, and adding social
skills). I don't think D&D 3E can be changed so that it is
as good a fit for all campaign types as Quest FRP can be
made into, because the underlying class structure lacks
flexibility (to make a generic, non-action/adventure-
specific fantasy system, you either need to go fully skill-
based or else adopt an enforced combination class system
like I did when I made the Multiclass RPG system). And
anyway, GURPS is still better suited for generic campaigns
than Quest FRP with my modifications, but I like the magic
system of Quest FRP better, and also the way technology
skills work. Oh, and the nine attributes are totally
superior to the four in GURPS. So I'm not changing to
GURPs.
But I'd like you to define the term "real roleplaying",
because I'm completely unable to figure out what you mean
by it.
> > Basically, while it is more flexible than previous editions,
> > D&D3 is still fairly specific to its world assumptions. I would have
> > a hard time using it to do a fantasy setting like Lloyd Alexander's
> > Prydain or C.S. Lewis' Narnia. While the D&D3 system could be made
> > to work for these, I think it is far less suited for the task than
> > many other systems.
> >
> This is where I disagree with you. Again, I think you really need to
> read the DMG before you can say this is true. Something like social status,
> contacts, etc. can easily be added into the game. There are multitudes of
I have a system for Quest FRP, that provides every starting PC
with a number of Contacts. It can easily be ported to *D&D. (I've
posted about it twice in r.g.f.dnd, so I'm not particularly
tempted to explain it a third time, but it's fairly simple)
Grafting a system for social status, complete with random rolls
for NPC Attutide/Reaction, was also fairly easy, and did not
rely on the already-existing Quest FRP rules system, so
adding a similar system to *D&D should be doable.
> ways to do this that fit in perfectly with the game system. The DMG has a
> few simple guides for this, or you can, for example, make higher (or lower)
> social status into feats if that fits into you personal campaign better.
I don't think social status is well simulated by Feats.
The same goes for the "Bardic Immunity" advantage that
somebody mentioned in another thread. I was going to
write a posting about BI, but my newsreader crashed and
I lost the entire posting before I managed to send it.
It boiled down to making BI into a sort of benefit from
membership of the Bardic Guild, which in turn would
require certain minimum levels in a number of skills,
but not that the character has the Bard class at all
(so a Rogue could join the Bardic Guild, although he'd
need to gain more levels than a Bard would, to be able
to meet the skill requirements).
I don't think something similar can be done with social
class. The only proper way you can simulate social class
(or differentiated starting wealth levels) is by using
an advantage/disadvantage system.
> I don't see any reason why one would not be able to use this system for
> alternate fantasy settings like the one's you described. I persoanlly have
> already developed alternate settings my 3E game which are completely
> contrary to the classical fantasy RPG given. (i.e. steampunk, cyberpunk,
> Star Trek, Savage Jungle, Vicotrian historical era, Wild West, etc., etc.)
Sorry, but if you offered me a billion dollars if I would
convert my Aerth campaign from Quest FRP to D&D 3E, I'd refuse.
(and I'm a dirt poor student, so it's not because I wouldn't
want the money).
I'd need to spend decades changing and tweaking D&D 3E until
it became consistent with the laws of physics of my campaign
world.
> I think the issue here is that, as I've said before, the 3E system was
> designed for a more specific type of RPG. These are specifically the
> Action/Adventure style settings. This is why things like class systems and
> their scaling hit points are built in the way they are. These tools are some
> of the best ways to accomplish these sorts of adventures. For example, if
> every time you get hit you have to apply all forms of odd penalties to see
> if you are dead yet (i.e. Vampire; the Masquarade), then most of the time
> the characters will avoid danger rather than face the hassle. Though it's
The way I see it, a combat system that is not nonrealistic
wille encourage the player characters to behave like human
being rather than boardgame pieces. IMO that's a good thing.
I don't know about vampire, but I can assure you that both
GURPS and Quest FRP contains ways in which the characters can
participate in combat without getting wounded too often (thus
avoiding the realistic spiral of death): Wear armour, have
a tough body (in GURPS a high Health attribute, in Quest FRP
have a large body and high Constitution), and remember to
use the Dodge and Parry options. Oh, and don't be afraid to
run away if you're overwhelmed.
> Kreidian
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
Dr Nuncheon wrote:
>
> John Kim <jh...@cascade.ps.uci.edu> wrote:
> > In _Fantasy Hero_, I can make a starting character who is a
> >much better archer than she is a swordsman.
>
> Which you can do in D&D3, too.
Not very well. D&D 3E characters tends to be equally good
with all weapons, possibly with a +5%p or +10%p greater
chance of hitting with one favourite weapon.
That's actually a step backwards compared to AD&D 2nd
Edition, in which you could specialize up to five slots
in one weapon.
> > For that matter, I can
> >reproduce all the variation you can get in a D&D3 character and
> >much, much more.
>
> Maybe so. Of course, character variation is not the be-all and end-all of
> a system.
I consider it a primary task of a RPG rules system to keep
characters differentiated from each other, and also ensure
that it's possible to have characters who are very different
from the players who plays them - the more difference is
possible, the better.
> J
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
"Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
>
> On 21 Sep 2000 17:08:10 GMT, John Kim <jh...@cascade.ps.uci.edu> wrote:
> >I didn't say that D&D3 was "bad" for all things -- I said that
> >it had fewer structures for differentiating characters than many other
> >systems. Notably, it has:
>
> >no inborn advantages
>
> Ambidexterity? Iron Will? Lightning Reflexes? Improved Fortitude?
> Toughness?
Those aren't inborn, they're gainable through play. Makes a
big difference.
An inborn advantage that can't be gained through play makes
you special. In D&D 3E, anybody can edge into your territory
by taking the same classes and Feats as you have.
> >no disadvantages
>
> True. Unless you want to make one up for your character, for no
> "points." Or you use the optional "called shot injuries" rule.
>
> Does a system need to award points for disadvantages for them to be
> worthy?
I find that players never takes social (note: not psychological
but social, the two are different) or econimic disadvantages
upon their characters unless they are compensated for it.
> >no social traits of any sort
>
> I'm assuming you don't mean things like Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive,
> and the like? You mean things like wealth and contacts?
Or "High Social Status" or "Handsome Appearance".
> The closest things I can think of in the latter category are Leadership,
> which allows you to attract cohorts and followers, and ordinary wealth
> and contacts developed through play. I think that there are some
> suggestions for creating wealthy characters in the DMG, but it's still
> largely a DIP system.
Yes, and that's the problem. Starting characters are too much
the same, since they all start with the same level of wealth,
and the same social status.
> >and no ability to trade-off between abilities/skills/feats
>
> Is this a bad thing? As a Gamist, I've found that allowing free trade
> between abilities, skills, and ads/disads is the easiest way to promote
> munchkinism. In fact, the single most common rule in this area I've
> heard among game designers is, "You cannot use disadvantage points
> gained from a social disadvantage and use them to buy attributes!" In
> other words, this is a valid design choice.
It's the player's duty to roleplay mental disadvantages,
but it's up to the GM to make sure that social disads are
felt.
Of course in an eglaritarian(sp?) society, many social disads
have no place, so they should have no point value. But most
fantasy roleplaying takes place in settings that are
pseudo-medieval (but rarely truly medieval) which means
that class matters.
If you don't believe me, feel free to create a character with
"Very Low Social Status" and "Very Low Wealth" for my
Aerth campaign, and watch him get buttfucked by NPCs until
he dies.
The fact is, it's simply more difficult to play a character
who is socially (note: *not* mentally) or economically
impaired, because it makes it much more difficult (in
extreme cases next to impossible) for the character to
influence his surroundings.
The problem with your rule, not allowing to trade points
between social and combat-relevant traits, suggests to me
that violent conflict is much more common in your games
than nonviolent conflict. It's a valid playing style (if
you make sure to tell the players before they start
making characters), but I try to aim for a style in
which all sorts of conflicts are equally common (except
those that relates on player skill - I'm agressively
Simulationist). So in my campaigns, a player who is
skilled with his tongue is as valuable and useful as
a character who is skilled with his broadsword.
> --
> Bradd W. Szonye Work: br...@cup.hp.com
--
Peter Knutsen