3e a headache!!!!!!!!!
SP
people have had to say, and discussions I have overheard, I seriously
believe that 3rd edition sucks. Not the idea that there SHOULD be a third
edition, but what they have done to it.... I don't like it one bit.
Eric Noah
http://www.rpgplanet.com/dnd3e/ -- I'd hate for someone to make a decision
without having the facts. You might end up missing out on a game you'd
really enjoy.
Eric Noah
"SP" <s...@ask.me> wrote in message
news:9QGO4.272617$Hq3.6...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
Peter Knutsen
SP wrote:
>
> From what I've read so far in the press, on this newsgroup, and heard what
> people have had to say, and discussions I have overheard, I seriously
> believe that 3rd edition sucks. Not the idea that there SHOULD be a third
> edition, but what they have done to it.... I don't like it one bit.
What don't you like? Everything I've heard sounds as improvements.
The only things wrong are a very few things which WotC aren't
improving, but they aren't making anything worse, as far as I
can see.
--
Peter Knutsen
Reginald
"SP" <s...@ask.me> wrote:
>
> From what I've read so far in the press, on this newsgroup, and
> heard what people have had to say, and discussions I have
> overheard, I seriously believe that 3rd edition sucks. Not the
> idea that there SHOULD be a third edition, but what they have
> done to it.... I don't like it one bit.
Would you care to be specific? So far there are good points:
1. No Exceptional Strength (yes, they're revising the table)
2. Half-orc, missing in 2nd edition, returns.
3. Humans can multiclass.
4. No Class level limit for demihumans.
5. Demihumans can be Paladins and other classes that was once
restricted.
6. Monk and Barbarian classes, missing in the 2nd Edition, return.
7. Assassin class return as an optional PC class.
8. Priest & divine spellcasters will have spells up to level 9.
9. Wizard & arcane spellcasters can use simple weapons (e.g.,
crossbow).
10. Wizard & arcane spellcasters can have bonus spells due to high INT
score.
11. All classes multiple attacks at higher level.
And there's more...
Shadowknight
"Denakhan the Arch-Mage" <denakhant...@home.com> wrote in message
news:r1LO4.188517$Dv1.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> Hiya.
>
> Peter Knutsen wrote in message <390B401C...@knutsen.dk>...
> >
> >
> >SP wrote:
> >>
> I'm looking over the 3E rules online (Erics site) right now. Here are
> some things that I don't really like; (the test "in quotes" is from the
> site)...
>
> >>>"Some info on the combat round, from Ryan Dancey, VP of TSR: In 3rd
> Edition, combat is "real time", in that nobody has to make a choice about
an
> action until the moment arrives when it is their turn to act. This makes
> combat more unpredictable, but also removes bookkeeping and DM ruling
> headaches."
>
> Problem; Smart creatures. How does a DM play creatures in combat that
> happen to have, say, Genius intelligence? I'll tell you; the DM listens
to
> what the players say there characters are doing, and then he adjuicates if
> the creature could have deduced the pc's tactic. The smarter the
creature,
> the more leeway the DM should give the creature. Example: PC1 is fighting
a
> Mind Flayer. The player states that he is going to try a called shot to
the
> creatures tenticles. The DM then decides, based on the situation and the
> PC's former tactics, weapons, etc., if the Mind Flayer could guess this.
If
> the PC had tried it several times already, I would rule that the Mind
Flayer
> is "wise to that trick", and might use it agains the PC. The way the 3E
> system seems to work, the players *don't* have to state there intentions
> untill it is there turn; thus, rendering this important DM tool useless.
> This is a VERY bad thing, IMHO.
Before, in initiative, you stated what you were going to do. THEN you did
your action during your initiative number. Now, you're not stating before
initiative
is rolled, you just say what you're going to do when it's your turn. If a
mind flayer
was "wise" to a trick, he'd be defending during that round, a passive
action. Thus,
he wouldn't get an attack.
> >>>"How do you handle multiple attacks with the new initiative system
> (answered by Der Verdammte)? "Multiple attacks occur all at once, at the
> character's initiative." "
>
> Problem: Just silly. The way the combat round works now, the pc is
> basically doing *nothing* untill it is his turn. He isn't parrying,
> dodging, maneuvering around, etc. He's more or less just sitting there
> waiting to 'get his turn'. Then, all of a sudden, Ragamuffin the 20th
Level
> Ranger turns into a whirling mass of blades as his longsword and hand axe
> slash out...all 5 attacks...all taking place "at the same time" (for sake
of
> logic, I'll say this take at -least- 1 second). Want more silly? Lets
say
> Ragamuffin is using a 2-handed-sword..."only" 4 attacks...but he gets them
> all at the "same time" within 1 second. Can you picture that? hehehe.
> Reminds me of bad fantasy movies.
It's always been assumed that attacks and parries were made during the
combat
round... You were rolling for the SUCCESSFUL attacks, or if parrying,
concentrating
on defending yourself (hence, the AC bonus). When you get to the higher
levels, you
get better at penetrating your opponent's defenses. The new way is just so
you don't
have players who forget to take their second or third attack later in the
combat round.
Cuts down on the bookkeeping.
> >>>"Two mages, standing side by side. Fire Giant is running towards them.
> Both mages have the same initiative.
> One decides to "delay", the other fires a spell. If the spell is
sufficient
> to kill the Giant, the second mage can change targets and shoot something
> else. If not, the second mage can cast something else at the original
> Giant. If they both went on the same initiative, the DM would be
justified
> in ruling that damage would be made after both mages cast spells - so one
> might waste a spell on a target that would have been stopped by the
other."
>
> Problem: Silly yet again. *This* takes the cake. This makes
absolutely
> NO sense whatsoever. ..."What? It's an illusion? Oh, then I won't use
> fireball. I'll cast Infravision on myself then."... This is so-o stupid.
> It's like a warrior with a two-handed sword..."What? I need a magical
weapon
> to hit it? Oh, then I'll use my dagger+1 instead." ??? So, our friend
> Raggamuffin the Ranger is about to temporarily turn into a walking blender
> with his 2h-sword; but he learns that he needs a magical weapon. All of a
> sudden, he drops his 2h-sword, pulls out his magical dagger, and still
gets
> his 4 attacks in 1 second. If it dies, he simply does the reverse. This
> sounds like "anything that the character is carrying he can use in any
> instant he decides to".
Agree with you here.. Due to casting times, a mage COULD elect to chant
slower to delay his spell, and choose another target. OR he could stop
chanting,
and elect to not cast the spell. But changing spells in mid casting is a bad
idea.
> ...I'm getting bug-eyed at reading all this 3E stuff...and I've only hit
the
> "first page" (Combat).
>
> Suffice it to say, I reserve my judgement until a later date when I
have
> actually played the game. ;-)
Me too...
> ^_^
>
> Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Shadowknight
Barry Smith
> > From what I've read so far in the press, on this newsgroup, and
> > heard what people have had to say, and discussions I have
> > overheard, I seriously believe that 3rd edition sucks. Not the
> > idea that there SHOULD be a third edition, but what they have
> > done to it.... I don't like it one bit.
>
> Would you care to be specific? So far there are good points:
Officially, from the strictly official 2E viewpoint, you'd be correct.
Here's how I have successfully modified my 2E campaign to the elements
below that you claim are improvements to 2E via 3E:
> 1. No Exceptional Strength (yes, they're revising the table)
I never saw any reason to lose this one. It's worked for years IMC, and
doesn't overpower fighters, a class that needed significant improvements
to keep on par with the rest of the classes IMO. I won't be using this
one.
> 2. Half-orc, missing in 2nd edition, returns.
Got it. Officially, he was missing...
> 3. Humans can multiclass.
This I feel is (will be) a good addition to 2E... ;) So to speak.
> 4. No Class level limit for demihumans.
Got it.
> 5. Demihumans can be Paladins and other classes that was once
> restricted.
Got it. Goodness knows that there have been enough supplement and
articles for variation on this one for 2E over the years...
> 6. Monk and Barbarian classes, missing in the 2nd Edition, return.
Got them. Never let them go, actually. Although, I have read on the 3E
monk and might change to that class version. It sounds intriguing.
> 7. Assassin class return as an optional PC class.
Got them. Again, I never saw the official need to drop them because 2E
*said* so...however, the majority of these are NPCs in my campaign, for
the obvious group cohesion issues that invariably spring up. :)
> 8. Priest & divine spellcasters will have spells up to level 9.
Now this is a interesting switch, one that I'm still unsure if I'll even
bother changing to. 7th level priest spells have always had enough kick
for me. If you add Quest spells to this mix, no need for 2 added spell
levels IMO.
> 9. Wizard & arcane spellcasters can use simple weapons (e.g.,
> crossbow).
Uggg. A crossbow is a simple weapon for a non-martial mage to use? Ok...
Fighter/mages and other multiclassing characters, fine, as they've had
the training in the martial arts at least a little. This is one element
of 3E I won't be using. Too catch all as far as weaponry is concerned
(it sounds). It reminds me too much of computer RPGs, where mages can
use many types of weaponry without penalty.
> 10. Wizard & arcane spellcasters can have bonus spells due to high INT
> score.
Don't have it, but plan on using it from 3E. A good addition, and a fair
one for highly intelligent mages.
> 11. All classes multiple attacks at higher level.
Hmmm. I haven't read enough on this one, so no opinion. It will have to
allow the fighter a greater frequency of attacks than all the other
classes in order for me to adopt it, though.
--
"Oh look! A wild horse! It's coming straight towards us. Awww, it wants
to kiss, I wonder why??!"
'Because that Staff of Power smells really good', thought the
Disenchanter.
Sea Wasp
> Problem: Silly yet again. *This* takes the cake. This makes absolutely
> NO sense whatsoever. ..."What? It's an illusion? Oh, then I won't use
> fireball. I'll cast Infravision on myself then."... This is so-o stupid.
> It's like a warrior with a two-handed sword..."What? I need a magical weapon
> to hit it? Oh, then I'll use my dagger+1 instead."
And where's the problem?
George the fighter has his two handed sword out.
George after watching realizes he needs his +1 dagger.
George then has to take some actions in order to either drop or
re-sheath the 2-hander and draw out his dagger.
The fact that you have watched to make a decision DOES NOT make the
result of that decision instantaneous. In the case of casting a spell,
it may or may not be possible to switch on demand, depending on how one
interprets magic and so on. It's CERTAINLY not possible to have weapon A
out, wait until the last second, and then without pause have Weapon B
out instead and get all one's usual attacks.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Travis Casey
> I'm looking over the 3E rules online (Erics site) right now. Here are
> some things that I don't really like; (the test "in quotes" is from the
> site)...
>
> >>>"Some info on the combat round, from Ryan Dancey, VP of TSR: In 3rd
> Edition, combat is "real time", in that nobody has to make a choice about an
> action until the moment arrives when it is their turn to act. This makes
> combat more unpredictable, but also removes bookkeeping and DM ruling
> headaches."
>
> Problem; Smart creatures. How does a DM play creatures in combat that
> happen to have, say, Genius intelligence? I'll tell you; the DM listens to
> what the players say there characters are doing, and then he adjuicates if
[snip]
This isn't a problem for me because I never played it that way. I
started with Basic D&D and 1st edition AD&D back in 1980 -- and they
didn't have a declaration phase. I've never used a declaration phase in
*any* RPG I ran, so all this does for me is make what I'm doing the
"official way" again.
> >>>"How do you handle multiple attacks with the new initiative system
> (answered by Der Verdammte)? "Multiple attacks occur all at once, at the
> character's initiative." "
>
> Problem: Just silly. The way the combat round works now, the pc is
> basically doing *nothing* untill it is his turn. He isn't parrying,
> dodging, maneuvering around, etc. He's more or less just sitting there
> waiting to 'get his turn'. Then, all of a sudden, Ragamuffin the 20th Level
> Ranger turns into a whirling mass of blades as his longsword and hand axe
> slash out...all 5 attacks...all taking place "at the same time" (for sake of
> logic, I'll say this take at -least- 1 second). Want more silly? Lets say
> Ragamuffin is using a 2-handed-sword..."only" 4 attacks...but he gets them
> all at the "same time" within 1 second. Can you picture that? hehehe.
> Reminds me of bad fantasy movies.
Well, D&D combat is supposed to be abstract -- but I've never liked
abstract combat anyways. I've been using a 6-second melee round since
about 1985 or so, with various other changes to the combat rules. I like
that 3e's combat round is coming in sync with mine, but I don't like the
"all attacks come at once" idea. I probably won't be using it.
(However, I do know several groups which play this way, so I can see why
they're converting to it -- a lot of people find it simpler than trying
to remember who gets to go again later.)
> >>>"Two mages, standing side by side. Fire Giant is running towards them.
> Both mages have the same initiative.
> One decides to "delay", the other fires a spell. If the spell is sufficient
> to kill the Giant, the second mage can change targets and shoot something
> else. If not, the second mage can cast something else at the original
> Giant. If they both went on the same initiative, the DM would be justified
> in ruling that damage would be made after both mages cast spells - so one
> might waste a spell on a target that would have been stopped by the other."
>
> Problem: Silly yet again. *This* takes the cake. This makes absolutely
> NO sense whatsoever. ..."What? It's an illusion? Oh, then I won't use
> fireball. I'll cast Infravision on myself then."... This is so-o stupid.
> It's like a warrior with a two-handed sword..."What? I need a magical weapon
> to hit it? Oh, then I'll use my dagger+1 instead."
Works fine for me if the mage either has the components out for the spell
he/she is switching to or it's a spell that has no material components.
To me, it's like a warrior having a sword in high right hand and a dagger
in his left, and deciding to use the dagger instead of the sword.
> Suffice it to say, I reserve my judgement until a later date when I have
> actually played the game. ;-)
Good for you -- there's plenty of people who seem to have decided
already.
I like most of what I've read about 3e, but I'm dubious about a few
things. I plan, though, to try out the "official way" first before
making modifications -- I'm as capable as being wrong about something as
anyone else, after all.
--
|\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey <efi...@io.com>
ZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ No one agrees with me. Not even me.
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_)
nahoko ishibashi
initiative is rolled. It affects the die roll in the first place anyway! I
rule that the smartest fastest characters declare last, after the slower dumber
guys commit to their actions... if they want to change their mind they can go
right ahead and add a few more points to their initiative roll... heck you
could spend the whole round changing your mind (it happens). If it's apropriate
I let the players know what it looks like the monster is trying to do, (or what
it wants the players to think it is trying to do), and the pc's declared
actions go through a referee filter and are passed on to the bad guys, an
extremely usefull way of letting the smart and fast have an edge they deserve.
Denakhan the Arch-Mage wrote:
> Hiya.
>
> Peter Knutsen wrote in message <390B401C...@knutsen.dk>...
> >
> >
> >SP wrote:
> >>
> >> From what I've read so far in the press, on this newsgroup, and heard
> what
> >> people have had to say, and discussions I have overheard, I seriously
> >> believe that 3rd edition sucks. Not the idea that there SHOULD be a third
> >> edition, but what they have done to it.... I don't like it one bit.
>
> I'm still unconvinced of it's improvements. However, it's still being
> developed, and untill the fat lady sings, it ain't over. ;-)
>
> >What don't you like? Everything I've heard sounds as improvements.
> >The only things wrong are a very few things which WotC aren't
> >improving, but they aren't making anything worse, as far as I
> >can see.
>
> I'm looking over the 3E rules online (Erics site) right now. Here are
> some things that I don't really like; (the test "in quotes" is from the
> site)...
>
> >>>"Some info on the combat round, from Ryan Dancey, VP of TSR: In 3rd
> Edition, combat is "real time", in that nobody has to make a choice about an
> action until the moment arrives when it is their turn to act. This makes
> combat more unpredictable, but also removes bookkeeping and DM ruling
> headaches."
>
> Problem; Smart creatures. How does a DM play creatures in combat that
> happen to have, say, Genius intelligence? I'll tell you; the DM listens to
> what the players say there characters are doing, and then he adjuicates if
> the creature could have deduced the pc's tactic. The smarter the creature,
> the more leeway the DM should give the creature. Example: PC1 is fighting a
> Mind Flayer. The player states that he is going to try a called shot to the
> creatures tenticles. The DM then decides, based on the situation and the
> PC's former tactics, weapons, etc., if the Mind Flayer could guess this. If
> the PC had tried it several times already, I would rule that the Mind Flayer
> is "wise to that trick", and might use it agains the PC. The way the 3E
> system seems to work, the players *don't* have to state there intentions
> untill it is there turn; thus, rendering this important DM tool useless.
> This is a VERY bad thing, IMHO.
>
> >>>"How do you handle multiple attacks with the new initiative system
> (answered by Der Verdammte)? "Multiple attacks occur all at once, at the
> character's initiative." "
>
> Problem: Just silly. The way the combat round works now, the pc is
> basically doing *nothing* untill it is his turn. He isn't parrying,
> dodging, maneuvering around, etc. He's more or less just sitting there
> waiting to 'get his turn'. Then, all of a sudden, Ragamuffin the 20th Level
> Ranger turns into a whirling mass of blades as his longsword and hand axe
> slash out...all 5 attacks...all taking place "at the same time" (for sake of
> logic, I'll say this take at -least- 1 second). Want more silly? Lets say
> Ragamuffin is using a 2-handed-sword..."only" 4 attacks...but he gets them
> all at the "same time" within 1 second. Can you picture that? hehehe.
> Reminds me of bad fantasy movies.
>
> >>>"Two mages, standing side by side. Fire Giant is running towards them.
> Both mages have the same initiative.
> One decides to "delay", the other fires a spell. If the spell is sufficient
> to kill the Giant, the second mage can change targets and shoot something
> else. If not, the second mage can cast something else at the original
> Giant. If they both went on the same initiative, the DM would be justified
> in ruling that damage would be made after both mages cast spells - so one
> might waste a spell on a target that would have been stopped by the other."
>
> Problem: Silly yet again. *This* takes the cake. This makes absolutely
> NO sense whatsoever. ..."What? It's an illusion? Oh, then I won't use
> fireball. I'll cast Infravision on myself then."... This is so-o stupid.
> It's like a warrior with a two-handed sword..."What? I need a magical weapon
> to hit it? Oh, then I'll use my dagger+1 instead." ??? So, our friend
> Raggamuffin the Ranger is about to temporarily turn into a walking blender
> with his 2h-sword; but he learns that he needs a magical weapon. All of a
> sudden, he drops his 2h-sword, pulls out his magical dagger, and still gets
> his 4 attacks in 1 second. If it dies, he simply does the reverse. This
> sounds like "anything that the character is carrying he can use in any
> instant he decides to".
>
> ...I'm getting bug-eyed at reading all this 3E stuff...and I've only hit the
> "first page" (Combat).
>
> Suffice it to say, I reserve my judgement until a later date when I have
> actually played the game. ;-)
>
> ^_^
>
> Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Ryan S. Dancey
> Would you care to be specific? So far there are good points:
Here's some more:
1. Magic effects templated to make adjudicating effects of spell resistance
and "resistance to X" type effects easier
2. "Templates" used for monster descriptions so monsters can be assigned
higher than normal levels, "grow in size" (like Dragons) and accept
"character classes" to make unique and interesting variants from any basic
monster
3. Armor Class protection is additive, so no more Thac0; just a simple die
roll, add a few modifiers, check AC to determine hit.
4. Completely re-written skill system replaces clunky proficiencies,
handles un-trained use, provides interesting flexibility for character
development.
5. Arcane spellcasters can wear armor - if they want a chance of spell
failure and want to forgo other important "wizard" type abilities.
6. Saving Throws reduced from arbitrary categories and arbitrary
application to three easy to remember types: Fortitude, Reflex and
Willpower - application of each type of save much easier to determine.
7. Magic item effects "templated" making it easy to determine how to create
most items, how to calculate the cost of doing so, and how to "stack"
various interesting abilities in one item.
8. Specialty Cleric system built into core rules; allows DMs to easily
create pantheons and apply portfolios to specialty clerics.
9. Critical hit system added to basic combat engine.
10. Interesting additions to combat system like Attacks of Opportunity,
Reach, and Concentration checks to avoid spellcasting failure after taking
damage
Ryan
Reginald
"Barry Smith" <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote:
>
> Reginald wrote:
> >
> > Would you care to be specific? So far there are good points:
>
> Here's how I have successfully modified my 2E campaign to the elements
> below that you claim are improvements to 2E via 3E:
>
> > 1. No Exceptional Strength (yes, they're revising the table)
>
> I never saw any reason to lose this one. It's worked for years IMC,
and
> doesn't overpower fighters, a class that needed significant
improvements
> to keep on par with the rest of the classes IMO. I won't be using this
> one.
It does work in the core rules alone, but not every campaign is going to
limit themselves on just the core rules alone. Some may want to play
other races particularly those who do have racial STR bonus (now that
the Monster Manual will tailor for such an option... as OPTIONAL RULES).
Like a generic custom-built computer, I want a system that able to
expand without inconsistencies.
> > 2. Half-orc, missing in 2nd edition, returns.
>
> Got it. Officially, he was missing...
>
> > 3. Humans can multiclass.
>
> This I feel is (will be) a good addition to 2E... ;) So to speak.
>
> > 9. Wizard & arcane spellcasters can use simple weapons (e.g.,
> > crossbow).
>
> Uggg. A crossbow is a simple weapon for a non-martial mage to use?
Ok...
Historically, a crossbow is the easiest missile weapon to use. One need
to pull the string back, either by hand or by a portable windlass, then
cock the trigger so the string stays in place, and place a bolt. Then
simply aim the bow and pull the trigger.
I suggest you check the library or on the website for information on
crossbow... or here, as they've been discussed and analyzed at length.
BTW, weapons will also be categorized in three groups: Simple (i.e.,
even the village idiot can use it), Martial (common weapon used in war),
and Exotic (having more than one functions or basically exotic as
martial arts weapon from the Far East).
> Fighter/mages and other multiclassing characters, fine, as they've had
> the training in the martial arts at least a little. This is one
element
> of 3E I won't be using. Too catch all as far as weaponry is concerned
> (it sounds). It reminds me too much of computer RPGs, where mages can
> use many types of weaponry without penalty.
Well, it does expand their weapon list a bit (IMHO, that's unfair). Now
if I could petition WotC to allow light armor use as standard core
rules. ;)
> > 10. Wizard & arcane spellcasters can have bonus spells due to high
INT
> > score.
>
> Don't have it, but plan on using it from 3E. A good addition, and a
fair
> one for highly intelligent mages.
Yeah it was unfair that the priest can cast more spells at low level
than wizards with severely limited weapon list and no armor.
> > 11. All classes multiple attacks at higher level.
>
> Hmmm. I haven't read enough on this one, so no opinion. It will have
to
> allow the fighter a greater frequency of attacks than all the other
> classes in order for me to adopt it, though.
Well considering they've reduced the combat round from one minute to six
seconds, that would eliminate the fractional attack rate (e.g., 3/2
rounds = 3 attack per 2 rounds) and go with simple whole number of
attacks per round. High-level fighters will be able to make 4 attacks
per round.
Reginald
"Denakhan the Arch-Mage" <denakhant...@home.com> wrote:
>
> Hiya.
>
> Reginald wrote in message <8efqm3$sms$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>...
> >
> >Would you care to be specific? So far there are good points:
> >
>
> could be stronger than the 'other' classes. It's what they do.
By your logic, wizards should have Exceptional Intelligence, priest
should have Exceptional Wisdom, and thieves shoud have Exceptional
Dexterity.
But then again, that's too much of hassle. You might as well eliminate
Exceptional attributes and revise the table. Besides, the Strength
table will be more true to scale, especially in terms of monsters (e.g.,
Dragons having a STR of 40-50, Giants 30-40, Titans... damn close to
100? Hehehe).
> >2. Half-orc, missing in 2nd edition, returns.
>
> This is good. However, I've always played 1st ed, so I never
> "lost" him.
>
> >3. Humans can multiclass.
>
> BAD idea, IMHO. Blurs the line between humans and demi-humans.
> I like the Dual class idea. A human
> Fighter/Cleric/MagicUser/Thiefe/Ranger seems...uh, "not good".
That is if, they he's willing to split his power level in each class.
Besides, the human have a better advantage of being a multiclass
character than the long-lived demihumans. ;)
> >4. No Class level limit for demihumans.
>
> VERY STUPID! Sorry, but can you *please* explain how come elves,
> as a whole, are not listed as "All elves know how to fight. The
> level range for the fighter class is 50 +2d100". It's simple
> numbers; elves live longer.
>
> If a human can get to 20th level in 60 years, a 600 year old elf
> should be around...200th level. Even if they change the level
> 'advancement' so that it constantly gets wider and wider gaps
> between levels, you are still looking at levels for a 1,000 year
> old elf to be in the dozens and _dozens_ of levels.
If the players still wish to play the elf and reach level 200 (that's a
whole lots of campaign), by all means, go ahead. They have that right
as as species with longer lifespan.
> >5. Demihumans can be Paladins and other classes that was once
> >restricted.
>
> Personal prefference; don't like it. A full fledged Paladin
> should ONLY be human (one of those human-only things). Some other
> kind of "holy-warrior" thing would be good....just don't call them
> Paladins. A nit pic, sure, but hey.
Then it'll be a waste of space in the book, telling them that demihumans
cannot choose a Paladin class but can choose a (example) Crusader class
which is basically have same abilities as Paladin but open for
demihumans only.
> >6. Monk and Barbarian classes, missing in the 2nd Edition, return.
>
> Good thing.
>
> >7. Assassin class return as an optional PC class.
>
> Good again.
>
> >8. Priest & divine spellcasters will have spells up to level 9.
>
> Makes no difference to me really.
>
> >9. Wizard & arcane spellcasters can use simple weapons (e.g.,
> >crossbow).
>
> *shrug* What's the difference between using a dagger or a short
> sword? Both are thrusting weapons, ones just bigger than the other.
One are simple and common to the peasant, the other may be familiar but
have not used them because they're used for war.
> >10. Wizard & arcane spellcasters can have bonus spells due to high
> >INT score.
>
> Only fair.
>
> >11. All classes multiple attacks at higher level.
>
> On paper this looks odd. But it might work. We'll see.
Well, like I said in an earlier post, combat round have reduced to six
seconds which do away with fractional attack rate (3 attack per 2
rounds). Fighter always have greater number of attacks at high level.
Reginald
"Ryan S. Dancey" <ry...@frpg.com> wrote:
>
> Reginald <reg...@cchnl.com> wrote:
>
> > Would you care to be specific? So far there are good points:
>
I believe the high point for 3E is the introduction of Feats. My
advice: be careful. This new concept design may make or break the new
D&D rules.
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Matthew aka Tiama'at
> I'm still unconvinced of it's improvements. However, it's still
> being
>developed, and untill the fat lady sings, it ain't over. ;-)
Why should this stop you? This is USENET - and the unfounded,
unresearched, hell - even the unthought opinion is given 1000%
validity.
>>What don't you like? Everything I've heard sounds as improvements.
>>The only things wrong are a very few things which WotC aren't
>>improving, but they aren't making anything worse, as far as I
>>can see.
>
> I'm looking over the 3E rules online (Erics site) right now. Here
> are
>some things that I don't really like; (the test "in quotes" is from
>the site)...
>
>>>>"Some info on the combat round, from Ryan Dancey, VP of TSR: In 3rd
>Edition, combat is "real time", in that nobody has to make a choice
>about an action until the moment arrives when it is their turn to act.
> This makes combat more unpredictable, but also removes bookkeeping
>and DM ruling headaches."
>
> Problem; Smart creatures. How does a DM play creatures in combat
> that
>happen to have, say, Genius intelligence?
Um, use metagame knowledge (ie. well, Player 1 always uses that magic
sword with all the powers so you plan a take-away/disarm type action,
Player 2 may be slow [b/c of they lack a good Init modifier] but is
powerful so use speed to disable, etc...).
>>>>"How do you handle multiple attacks with the new initiative system
>(answered by Der Verdammte)? "Multiple attacks occur all at once, at
>the character's initiative." "
>
> Problem: Just silly.
Not really. Been playing like that for years.
> Problem: Silly yet again. *This* takes the cake.
I think you just have a problem understanding the concept of real-time
combat. Holding back gives you that split second "WAIT- I change my
action" feel that players have been trying for years to use, and get
upset when you remind them that once they declare at the start of a
round they cannot change their action.
But again it seems people want to, for lack of anything else to do with
their time, make mountains out of molehills. So be it.
--
Matthew Hickey aka Tiama'at ][ "in a moment we lost our minds here
matthe...@hotmail.com ][ and lay our spirit down
WS/Soc (H) IV - Carleton U (Can)][ today we lived a thousand years
ICQ: 12954569 (Tiama'at) ][ all we have is now" - Live
Tetsubo
> From what I've read so far in the press, on this newsgroup, and heard what
> people have had to say, and discussions I have overheard, I seriously
> believe that 3rd edition sucks. Not the idea that there SHOULD be a third
> edition, but what they have done to it.... I don't like it one bit.
Isn't it a bit early to be making these kinds of decisions? Have you checked
out Eric Noah's page? http://www.rpgplanet.com/dnd3e/ What about 3E don't you
like?
--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"I surmise that your basement is made of skin and is never depleted of
nurses."
The Surrealist Compliment Generator
http://www.madsci.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/~lynn/jardin/SCG
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Reginald wrote in message <8efqm3$sms$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>...
>
>"SP" <s...@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>> From what I've read so far in the press, on this newsgroup, and
>> heard what people have had to say, and discussions I have
>> overheard, I seriously believe that 3rd edition sucks. Not the
>> idea that there SHOULD be a third edition, but what they have
>> done to it.... I don't like it one bit.
>
>Would you care to be specific? So far there are good points:
>
>1. No Exceptional Strength (yes, they're revising the table)
Not a good point, IMHO. I *liked* the fact that fighter-types could be
stronger than the 'other' classes. It's what they do.
>2. Half-orc, missing in 2nd edition, returns.
This is good. However, I've always played 1st ed, so I never "lost"
him.
>3. Humans can multiclass.
BAD idea, IMHO. Blurs the line between humans and demi-humans. I like
the Dual class idea. A human Fighter/Cleric/MagicUser/Thiefe/Ranger
seems...uh, "not good".
>4. No Class level limit for demihumans.
VERY STUPID! Sorry, but can you *please* explain how come elves, as a
whole, are not listed as "All elves know how to fight. The level range for
the fighter class is 50 +2d100". It's simple numbers; elves live longer.
If a human can get to 20th level in 60 years, a 600 year old elf should be
around...200th level. Even if they change the level 'advancement' so that
it constantly gets wider and wider gaps between levels, you are still
looking at levels for a 1,000 year old elf to be in the dozens and _dozens_
of levels.
>5. Demihumans can be Paladins and other classes that was once
>restricted.
Personal prefference; don't like it. A full fledged Paladin should ONLY
be human (one of those human-only things). Some other kind of
"holy-warrior" thing would be good....just don't call them Paladins. A nit
pic, sure, but hey.
>6. Monk and Barbarian classes, missing in the 2nd Edition, return.
Good thing.
>7. Assassin class return as an optional PC class.
Good again.
>8. Priest & divine spellcasters will have spells up to level 9.
Makes no difference to me really.
>9. Wizard & arcane spellcasters can use simple weapons (e.g.,
>crossbow).
*shrug* What's the difference between using a dagger or a short sword?
Both are thrusting weapons, ones just bigger than the other.
>10. Wizard & arcane spellcasters can have bonus spells due to high INT
>score.
Only fair.
>11. All classes multiple attacks at higher level.
On paper this looks odd. But it might work. We'll see.
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Jigga4evr
more balanced than 2ed; initiative, skills, feats etc are all good ideas, so is
the standardized xps, the thief class, spell casting, the sorcerer kit, bards
etc. All systems have kinks, so will third ed. The only thing is that it is
hard for power gamers to accept that they wont get billions in gold which can
be translated to xp etc.
David K.
Arch-Mage" <denakhant...@home.com> writes:
>>1. No Exceptional Strength (yes, they're revising the table)
>
> Not a good point, IMHO. I *liked* the fact that fighter-types could be
>stronger than the 'other' classes. It's what they do.
It is my understanding that in place of the initial strength bonus (which
is available only to those fighters who managed to roll an 18 for strength
in the first place -- one of my many gripes with the current system)
all characters have the ability to increase their ability scores (so fighters
can grow stronger with experience) and that fighters in particular will
be able to learn feats that apparently will give them extraordinary combat
abilities beyond those available to other classes.
In fact, I get the impression that these "feats" are the great equalizer,
as the character types who were weakest and dullest under 2E rules
(notably human fighters) will have access to the most feats.
David "Kaviyd"
Reading mail from me in a Usenet group does not grant you the
right to send me unsolicited commercial e-mail. All senders of
unsolicited commercial e-mail will be reported to their postmasters
as Usenet abusers.
David K.
Arch-Mage" <denakhant...@home.com> writes:
>>4. No Class level limit for demihumans.
>
> VERY STUPID! Sorry, but can you *please* explain how come elves, as a
>whole, are not listed as "All elves know how to fight. The level range for
>the fighter class is 50 +2d100". It's simple numbers; elves live longer.
>If a human can get to 20th level in 60 years, a 600 year old elf should be
>around...200th level. Even if they change the level 'advancement' so that
>it constantly gets wider and wider gaps between levels, you are still
>looking at levels for a 1,000 year old elf to be in the dozens and _dozens_
>of levels.
They only gain levels if they undertake dangerous adventures, which
greatly reduces the chances of them reaching older ages to begin
with. Remember that in 2E elves are only 1st level at the age of
100 + 5d6, so even with their increased longevity most of them will
still be well below name level a few centuries later. The more heroic
adventurer type characters could gain quite a few levels, but few of
that type live very long at all regardless of race -- if they don't retire
they eventually die of unnatural causes as the odds finally catch up
with them.
Chad Lubrecht
> >4. No Class level limit for demihumans.
>
> VERY STUPID! Sorry, but can you *please* explain how come elves, as a
> whole, are not listed as "All elves know how to fight. The level range
for
> the fighter class is 50 +2d100". It's simple numbers; elves live longer.
> If a human can get to 20th level in 60 years, a 600 year old elf should be
> around...200th level. Even if they change the level 'advancement' so that
> it constantly gets wider and wider gaps between levels, you are still
> looking at levels for a 1,000 year old elf to be in the dozens and
_dozens_
> of levels.
So is every elf NPC in your game at his level limit? If not, then you have
your answer already. Most elves don't even adventure. Those that do,
often retire before their level limit, not because they're too old, but
because
they've satisfied whatever reasons they had to adventure in the first place,
or because they just no longer feel the risks are worth the benefit.
And I believe that in 3rd edition they're redoing how experience is
applied. the experience needed to grow a level no longer doubles
with each level, but the amount of experience given varies depending
on how difficult an obstacle was overcome. So at high levels, it will be
difficult for characters to find things to do to earn enough experience.
A'koss
"Denakhan the Arch-Mage" <denakhant...@home.com> wrote in message
news:C5OO4.188631$Dv1.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> Hiya.
Heya.
> >1. No Exceptional Strength (yes, they're revising the table)
>
> Not a good point, IMHO. I *liked* the fact that fighter-types could
be
> stronger than the 'other' classes. It's what they do.
Why can't mages be "smarter", clerics "wiser" or thieves "more agile" than
other classes? Quite frankly the exceptional strength idea is stupid. I
dropped that *years* before playtesting 3e. You want to be a buff fighter,
place your bonus ability score points in strength.
> >2. Half-orc, missing in 2nd edition, returns.
>
> This is good. However, I've always played 1st ed, so I never "lost"
> him.
With rules in 3e for monsters gaining classes and PCs playing monsters,
the half-orc's placement is almost irrelavent.
> >3. Humans can multiclass.
>
> BAD idea, IMHO. Blurs the line between humans and demi-humans. I
like
> the Dual class idea. A human Fighter/Cleric/MagicUser/Thiefe/Ranger
> seems...uh, "not good".
How can you not see a level playing field as a good thing? The dual class
rules suck, yesss suck. No more, "I switch classes and now I can't use the
skills I've learned." garbage. Each races has it's own advantages and
disadvantages still.
> >4. No Class level limit for demihumans.
>
> VERY STUPID! Sorry, but can you *please* explain how come elves, as a
> whole, are not listed as "All elves know how to fight. The level range
for
> the fighter class is 50 +2d100". It's simple numbers; elves live longer.
> If a human can get to 20th level in 60 years, a 600 year old elf should be
> around...200th level. Even if they change the level 'advancement' so that
> it constantly gets wider and wider gaps between levels, you are still
> looking at levels for a 1,000 year old elf to be in the dozens and
_dozens_
> of levels.
Geez Denakhan, of the things you should be complaining about - these
things you're bringing up are not issues. Experience is handled very
differently in 3e and that Elf does not have *any* advantages, even if he
lived to be a million. Unfortunately, I can't discuss how it works - but I
wish I could...
> >5. Demihumans can be Paladins and other classes that was once
> >restricted.
>
> Personal prefference; don't like it.
I'm beginning to see a pattern here...
> A full fledged Paladin should ONLY
> be human (one of those human-only things). Some other kind of
> "holy-warrior" thing would be good....just don't call them Paladins. A
nit
> pic, sure, but hey.
Whatever.
> >6. Monk and Barbarian classes, missing in the 2nd Edition, return.
>
> Good thing.
>
> >7. Assassin class return as an optional PC class.
>
> Good again.
Lo and behold.
A'koss!
Willow_R
> 11. All classes multiple attacks at higher level.
>
If you call in the next fifteen minutes we'll even throw in the Greyhawk
Campain Setting!
But wait, there's still more!
Pay in cash and we'll even give you this free voucher for the Psionics
rules, whenever it is when they come out, so call NOW!
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Chad Lubrecht wrote in message ...
>
>> >4. No Class level limit for demihumans.
>>
>> VERY STUPID! Sorry, but can you *please* explain how come elves, as
a
>> whole, are not listed as "All elves know how to fight. The level range
>for
>> the fighter class is 50 +2d100". It's simple numbers; elves live longer.
>> If a human can get to 20th level in 60 years, a 600 year old elf should
be
>> around...200th level. Even if they change the level 'advancement' so
that
>> it constantly gets wider and wider gaps between levels, you are still
>> looking at levels for a 1,000 year old elf to be in the dozens and
>_dozens_
>> of levels.
>
>
>So is every elf NPC in your game at his level limit?
Nope. Most elf NPC's in my game don't even have a class. They are
simply elves. As for the important ones that *do* have a class, they are
limited by the nature of my multiverse to 10th. Period. The EXCEEDINGLY
important ones are limited to 20th. And the all time limit (for all
'mortal' beings) is 30th. it is impossible to go higher than that.
Check out my page (under construction) here...
http://members.tripod.com/themings/denslair/rpgs/kalamar/kofk_rules.htm#leve
llimits
> If not, then you have
>your answer already. Most elves don't even adventure. Those that do,
>often retire before their level limit, not because they're too old, but
>because
>they've satisfied whatever reasons they had to adventure in the first
place,
>or because they just no longer feel the risks are worth the benefit.
See my page for how I work level limits.
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Geoff Watson
Barry Smith <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote in message
news:390B9081...@premier1.net...
> Reginald wrote:
>
> > > From what I've read so far in the press, on this newsgroup, and
> > > heard what people have had to say, and discussions I have
> > > overheard, I seriously believe that 3rd edition sucks. Not the
> > > idea that there SHOULD be a third edition, but what they have
> > > done to it.... I don't like it one bit.
> >
> > Would you care to be specific? So far there are good points:
>
> Here's how I have successfully modified my 2E campaign to the elements
> below that you claim are improvements to 2E via 3E:
>
>
> doesn't overpower fighters, a class that needed significant improvements
> to keep on par with the rest of the classes IMO. I won't be using this
> one.
>
The problem with exceptional strength, is that a fighter with 18 strength is
hugely stronger than a fighter with 17.
Geoff Watson.
Kodiak
>
> bother changing to. 7th level priest spells have always had enough kick
> for me. If you add Quest spells to this mix, no need for 2 added spell
> levels IMO.
I think (I don't work for WotC, so I don't know) that they're not really
"adding" more power to the priest spells, just adding two more power
gradients. (i.e. take the existing spell powers and spread them out more, not
necessarily make even more powerful spells)
> > 9. Wizard & arcane spellcasters can use simple weapons (e.g.,
> > crossbow).
>
> Uggg. A crossbow is a simple weapon for a non-martial mage to use? Ok...
Crossbows *are* simple weapons to use. You can train someone to use one (as
opposed to say, a sword or bow) in a rather short amount of time... it's
almost like training someone to use a gun. Just point and click... the only
hard part requiring any muscle mass is reloading... and that's little more
than pulling back the string and setting the quarrel.
It's part of why the things were outlawed for awhile... any moron could become
an efficient killer.
-----
Kodiak
Matthew aka Tiama'at
>>>
>>> From what I've read so far in the press, on this newsgroup, and
>>> heard what people have had to say, and discussions I have
>>> overheard, I seriously believe that 3rd edition sucks. Not the
>>> idea that there SHOULD be a third edition, but what they have
>>> done to it.... I don't like it one bit.
>>
>>Would you care to be specific? So far there are good points:
>>
>
> could be
>stronger than the 'other' classes. It's what they do.
No they fight better, should Wizards be allowed to have Exceptional
Intelligence?
>>3. Humans can multiclass.
>>4. No Class level limit for demihumans.
>
> VERY STUPID! Sorry, but can you *please* explain how come elves,
Actually more to the point the core rules no longer impose artifical
(read: camapaign world-specific) expectations on character creation.
Now choices such as multiclassing, race restrictions and the like are
up to the individual DM and placed in the context of the specific game
world. More choice. As a DM you can opt to keep the old restrictions
perfectly.
>>5. Demihumans can be Paladins and other classes that was once
>>restricted.
>
> Personal prefference; don't like it.
Whoop de doo. - My opinion.
Again, the PHB is not making any restrictions the "Default" for a given
game setting. Such information, I feel, was always more suited to the
individual campaign boxed sets than in a core rulebook (unless of
course the game is set up using only ONE campaign world, ever).
Matthew aka Tiama'at
>>
>
>I believe the high point for 3E is the introduction of Feats. My
>advice: be careful. This new concept design may make or break the new
>D&D rules.
That's all we DON'T need - a book of broken, unbalanced feats showing
up.
Shadowknight
>
> "Denakhan the Arch-Mage" <denakhant...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hiya.
> >
> > Reginald wrote in message <8efqm3$sms$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>...
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Not a good point, IMHO. I *liked* the fact that fighter-types
> > could be stronger than the 'other' classes. It's what they do.
>
> should have Exceptional Wisdom, and thieves shoud have Exceptional
> Dexterity.
No, that's not what he means. Not every one can cast wizard spells, not
every one can get help from their god. Not every one knows how to tumble
a lock... but all of these classes CAN use weapons. It makes sense for
the fighter class to have an advantage over the others in more ways than
just THACO.
Shadowknight
A'koss
"Shadowknight" <shadow...@boone.net> wrote in message
news:TpYO4.4389$Vv4.1...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
> > By your logic, wizards should have Exceptional Intelligence, priest
> > should have Exceptional Wisdom, and thieves shoud have Exceptional
> > Dexterity.
>
> No, that's not what he means. Not every one can cast wizard spells, not
> every one can get help from their god. Not every one knows how to tumble
> a lock... but all of these classes CAN use weapons. It makes sense for
> the fighter class to have an advantage over the others in more ways than
> just THACO.
THAC0, hit points, # of attacks, specialization, use of any weapon and
armor - and that's just in 2e, in 3e...
Seems like there are a few advantages you forgot. Exceptional Strength is
just a bad idea that is thankfully getting purged.
A'koss!
Barry Smith
> > Uggg. A crossbow is a simple weapon for a non-martial mage to use? Ok...
>
> Crossbows *are* simple weapons to use. You can train someone to use one (as
> opposed to say, a sword or bow) in a rather short amount of time... it's
> almost like training someone to use a gun. Just point and click... the only
> hard part requiring any muscle mass is reloading... and that's little more
> than pulling back the string and setting the quarrel.
>
> It's part of why the things were outlawed for awhile... any moron could become
> an efficient killer.
Even the huge heavy crossbows, with the winch and pulley system used to
cock and set the bow for firing? I think a minimum strength is
I see how everyone thinks the lesser crossbows could be used by mages,
and you all are right, but the heavy? Somehow, I have a vision in my
head of a weakling mage trying and trying to turn this winch over and
over to get it recocked, and failing.... ;)
Barry Smith
> >1. No Exceptional Strength (yes, they're revising the table)
>
> Not a good point, IMHO. I *liked* the fact that fighter-types could be
> stronger than the 'other' classes. It's what they do.
I agree.
> >3. Humans can multiclass.
>
> BAD idea, IMHO. Blurs the line between humans and demi-humans. I like
> the Dual class idea. A human Fighter/Cleric/MagicUser/Thiefe/Ranger
> seems...uh, "not good".
I think it's finally time *I* drop that old archaic ruling and allow
humans to choose, just as much as demihumans have over the years.
However, I agree with you on the multiple classes thing, and won't be
going over that "invisible line" of up to 3 classes per character.
Something seems really alien, like you said, about the character above
with 5-6 classes, I don't care HOW long it takes him to go up in
levels.... :)
> >4. No Class level limit for demihumans.
>
> VERY STUPID! Sorry, but can you *please* explain how come elves, as a
> whole, are not listed as "All elves know how to fight. The level range for
> the fighter class is 50 +2d100". It's simple numbers; elves live longer.
> If a human can get to 20th level in 60 years, a 600 year old elf should be
> around...200th level. Even if they change the level 'advancement' so that
> it constantly gets wider and wider gaps between levels, you are still
> looking at levels for a 1,000 year old elf to be in the dozens and _dozens_
> of levels.
This is an age old argument, Denakhan, and one I've never been able to
find even an adequate solution for. The age discrepancies between the
classes never has made any sense, and until I see something that changes
my view on that, I'll just keep letting it float as a "no-rule" ruling.
Jay A. Hafner, D.C.
because the door to his trailorhouse doesn't whork, whining about the 'price.'
Jay H
Barry Smith
> They only gain levels if they undertake dangerous adventures, which
> greatly reduces the chances of them reaching older ages to begin
> with. Remember that in 2E elves are only 1st level at the age of
> 100 + 5d6, so even with their increased longevity most of them will
> still be well below name level a few centuries later.
See? Why is that? If time is linear for ALL races, starting their
adventuring careers at X in time, if that elf happens to be 124 at 1st
level, and the human is 16 at 1st level, X number of years still have to
pass for both of them, one year at a time. And what about the previous
123 years for this elf? Any adventuring time in there? What has the elf
been doing all that time, if not adventuring? Growing up, being a child,
etc...of course. 123 years of fun, games, learning, and growing up.
Sounds great! Heh.
The question then becomes: Since elves and other demihumans far outlive
humans, exactly how long can they adventure? That's the key to solving
this riddle. If one assumes that elves adventure well after several
human generations come and go, of course they'd be 200th level. How
could they NOT be?
Yet, if the experience tables follow the same path for every race, then
demihumans would get to the top of their class (from their perspectives)
very fast!
"It only took me 15 years to get to 12th level. Now what do I do?" ;)
The more heroic
> adventurer type characters could gain quite a few levels, but few of
> that type live very long at all regardless of race -- if they don't retire
> they eventually die of unnatural causes as the odds finally catch up
> with them.
Retirement is always an option, but what exactly does an elf do at 159,
knowing full well that he has another 3-400 years of life left? ;)
Barry Smith
> > Would you care to be specific? So far there are good points:
>
> Here's some more:
>
> 1. Magic effects templated to make adjudicating effects of spell resistance
> and "resistance to X" type effects easier
>
> 2. "Templates" used for monster descriptions so monsters can be assigned
> higher than normal levels, "grow in size" (like Dragons) and accept
> "character classes" to make unique and interesting variants from any basic
> monster
Those two sound intriguing.
> 3. Armor Class protection is additive, so no more Thac0; just a simple die
> roll, add a few modifiers, check AC to determine hit.
Heh. THacO remains in my game, despite the ease of 3E's new system. I've
never had a problem with math...and I've always liked the negative AC
values creatures have. People need to go to school if the old THacO
system is too taxing on the brain. :/
> 4. Completely re-written skill system replaces clunky proficiencies,
> handles un-trained use, provides interesting flexibility for character
> development.
Clunky? LOL. How clunky can a check against my Dexterity be? Gee, my Dex
is 15....I need a 15 or lower. If there's penalties to that Dex check,
15 *minus* the penalty....if there's a bonus, 15 *plus* the modifier.
Hardly clunky....
> 5. Arcane spellcasters can wear armor - if they want a chance of spell
> failure and want to forgo other important "wizard" type abilities.
But why would a wizard do that? Spell failure for the added benefits
higher ACs, more encumbrance, and less maneuverability? Tank mages are a
definite no show IMC.
This reminds me of that Conan movie where Akira walks around in heavy
plate or is carrying a ton of stuff, staggering around like a monkey,
while Conan wonders what's taking so long...
> 6. Saving Throws reduced from arbitrary categories and arbitrary
> application to three easy to remember types: Fortitude, Reflex and
> Willpower - application of each type of save much easier to determine.
Heh. So far to date, I've never forgotten a saving throw category or
failed to decide where a particular, unusual saving throw should be
saved under. Sometimes, change is a bad thing.
> 7. Magic item effects "templated" making it easy to determine how to create
> most items, how to calculate the cost of doing so, and how to "stack"
> various interesting abilities in one item.
This sounds intriguing. We'll see.
> 8. Specialty Cleric system built into core rules; allows DMs to easily
> create pantheons and apply portfolios to specialty clerics.
Why on earth would I want to do that? I have more important things to do
like run a campaign than totally re-create a pantheon. I suppose it
might be a good thing for beginning DMs. As a veteran DM, though, I have
all the deities I'll ever need IMC right now, so this part of 3E is
wasted space.
> 9. Critical hit system added to basic combat engine.
It's gonna have to be pretty good to beat the MERP critical hit system
I'm using now...
> 10. Interesting additions to combat system like Attacks of Opportunity,
> Reach, and Concentration checks to avoid spellcasting failure after taking
> damage
These sound good. We'll see once they're known.
A'koss
> "Ryan S. Dancey" wrote:
> > 3. Armor Class protection is additive, so no more Thac0; just a simple
die
> > roll, add a few modifiers, check AC to determine hit.
>
> Heh. THacO remains in my game, despite the ease of 3E's new system. I've
> never had a problem with math...and I've always liked the negative AC
> values creatures have. People need to go to school if the old THacO
> system is too taxing on the brain. :/
True, but if you accomplish the exact same thing in 3e, only easier - why
not?
> > 4. Completely re-written skill system replaces clunky proficiencies,
> > handles un-trained use, provides interesting flexibility for character
> > development.
>
> Clunky? LOL. How clunky can a check against my Dexterity be? Gee, my Dex
> is 15....I need a 15 or lower. If there's penalties to that Dex check,
> 15 *minus* the penalty....if there's a bonus, 15 *plus* the modifier.
> Hardly clunky....
However, a Stat check doesn't accurately reflect the *skill* of the person
attempting the task. 3e takes both skill and natural talent into
consideration.
> > 5. Arcane spellcasters can wear armor - if they want a chance of spell
> > failure and want to forgo other important "wizard" type abilities.
>
> But why would a wizard do that? Spell failure for the added benefits
> higher ACs, more encumbrance, and less maneuverability? Tank mages are a
> definite no show IMC.
The light to mid weight armor's penalties are quite easy to swallow, even
for spellcasting. Plus, what about when the spells run out... Armor him up,
give him a crossbow and tell him to keep his head down. ;)
> > 6. Saving Throws reduced from arbitrary categories and arbitrary
> > application to three easy to remember types: Fortitude, Reflex and
> > Willpower - application of each type of save much easier to determine.
>
> Heh. So far to date, I've never forgotten a saving throw category or
> failed to decide where a particular, unusual saving throw should be
> saved under. Sometimes, change is a bad thing.
Why is fireball fired from a wand treated differently than when cast by a
mage or breathed by a monster? Completely identical effects - 3 different
saving throws.
> > 9. Critical hit system added to basic combat engine.
>
> It's gonna have to be pretty good to beat the MERP critical hit system
> I'm using now...
It's not, it's very abstract - but quick to resolve.
A'koss!
Matthew aka Tiama'at
>Kodiak wrote:
>> Crossbows *are* simple weapons to use. You can train someone to use
>> one (as opposed to say, a sword or bow) in a rather short amount of
>> time... it's almost like training someone to use a gun. Just point
>> and click... the only hard part requiring any muscle mass is
>> reloading... and that's little more than pulling back the string and
>> setting the quarrel.
>I see how everyone thinks the lesser crossbows could be used by mages,
>and you all are right, but the heavy? Somehow, I have a vision in my
>head of a weakling mage trying and trying to turn this winch over and
>over to get it recocked, and failing.... ;)
Then put a minimum Strength score requirement on it - remember just
because someone's a wizard doesn't mean they have a STR < 9.
Jimmy Kerl
> Here's some more:
>
> 1. Magic effects templated to make adjudicating effects of spell resistance
> and "resistance to X" type effects easier
Sounds good. that 2e MR never did much for me. The pseudo-MR in bD&D/RC
worked well i think. I liked the monster X is immune to all 1st-Nth level
spells.
> 2. "Templates" used for monster descriptions so monsters can be assigned
> higher than normal levels, "grow in size" (like Dragons) and accept
> "character classes" to make unique and interesting variants from any basic
> monster
good. but i think theres just WAY to many monsters. id like to see
campaign worlds designed with specific listings of only these monsters
exist here... and these few extra exist only in this world. course i
usually dont buy pre made worlds
> 3. Armor Class protection is additive, so no more Thac0; just a simple die
> roll, add a few modifiers, check AC to determine hit.
yippieee!
> 4. Completely re-written skill system replaces clunky proficiencies,
> handles un-trained use, provides interesting flexibility for character
> development.
ok i didnt think it was clunky, but this does sound like a little
improvement *IF* its still very simple to run/use. I really would not
want a complex or even slightly complex prof system.
> 5. Arcane spellcasters can wear armor - if they want a chance of spell
> failure and want to forgo other important "wizard" type abilities.
good. same type fo thing for theifs?
> 6. Saving Throws reduced from arbitrary categories and arbitrary
> application to three easy to remember types: Fortitude, Reflex and
> Willpower - application of each type of save much easier to determine.
good and bad. refining saves sounds great; reducing to merly 3 saves
im not sure about. (I use 8 saves in my gameworld)
> 7. Magic item effects "templated" making it easy to determine how to create
> most items, how to calculate the cost of doing so, and how to "stack"
> various interesting abilities in one item.
Excellent.
> 8. Specialty Cleric system built into core rules; allows DMs to easily
> create pantheons and apply portfolios to specialty clerics.
Iiiickoooo on the system built into core rules; It was already eazy to
create pantheon and speciality cleric classes.
> 9. Critical hit system added to basic combat engine.
Implementation will determine the virtue of this. do this mean
there will be more than 2 dice rolls per attack? (to hit + dmg ) ?
> 10. Interesting additions to combat system like Attacks of Opportunity,
> Reach, and Concentration checks to avoid spellcasting failure after taking
> damage
again implementation, and its not sounding good so far.
> Ryan
Ok for achange youve presented some good points for 3e again.
but it really is sounding worse than better; but at least there'll
be a few good ideas to plunder from it hopefully.
m
taking cues from the rest of the gaming industry.
I will miss the arcane feeling of 1st ed - the rules that worked, but weren't
linear or especially logical, except in EGG's mind, perhaps. What I will miss
in the 3rd edition is the obscurity of it all. AD&D is becoming more like every
other RPG on the planet - linear, logical.
It's kind of like boxing, or football, or horse racing. Going into battle, how
easy is it to determine who is going to win? What are the particular strengths
and weaknesses of each character class. If you make the system more linear, you
will be able to see rather obviously what the strengths and weaknesses are.
On the other hand, if it allows the game designers to balance the game more
readily,it's a good thing. Once the first campaign I was in got to be high
level, we would dungeon crawl, and the magic users would fireball every new
room we got to, leaving nothing for the fighters to do, and melting all the
gold & silver while they were at it - not that we needed it we were all in the
millions of Gold range anyway.
So if they can make the fighters more balanced with mages at all levels, then I
think I would want to take a second look at this game.
I'm a rules lite kind of guy anyway. If I even buy the 3rd ed books, I probably
won't even read them through. I know enough of the rules to run a campaign, and
that's all I care about.
-m
Jimmy Kerl
>
> "SP" <s...@ask.me> wrote:
> >
> > From what I've read so far in the press, on this newsgroup, and
> > heard what people have had to say, and discussions I have
> > overheard, I seriously believe that 3rd edition sucks. Not the
> > idea that there SHOULD be a third edition, but what they have
> > done to it.... I don't like it one bit.
>
>
> 1. No Exceptional Strength (yes, they're revising the table)
Great.
> 2. Half-orc, missing in 2nd edition, returns.
Never cared for 1/2 races, but i think ordnary orcs would be kewl.
but i'd saygood to this since its so popular w/ others.
> 3. Humans can multiclass.
& multiclassing greatly fixed
This sounds just wonderful
> 4. No Class level limit for demihumans.
Eeeeck, we'll just have to see on this one; if the races still
have a measure of balance this is good.
> 5. Demihumans can be Paladins and other classes that was once
> restricted.
i really dont care for this myself but ok.
> 6. Monk and Barbarian classes, missing in the 2nd Edition, return.
Monk: kewl,
Barbarian: WHAT is the difference
between a barbarian and a fighter?
> 7. Assassin class return as an optional PC class.
Eeeeeck; IMC, i just gave all human theifs and assinate ability. the
idea that a whole class is devoted to basicaly a single skill (and thus
defining that class as evil by doing so just doesnt impress me.)
> 8. Priest & divine spellcasters will have spells up to level 9.
blah; cosmetics only. Yuck, are we making priests MORE powerful ?!?!?!
> 9. Wizard & arcane spellcasters can use simple weapons (e.g.,
> crossbow).
kewl
> 10. Wizard & arcane spellcasters can have bonus spells due to high INT
> score.
YUCK! what should of been done is removing the
@#!@#$ bonus spells priests get.
> 11. All classes multiple attacks at higher level.
right up there with "no limit to hit-die or PCs" this REALLY sucks!
>
> And there's more...
Some good, some terrible. All a bit more complex and detialed it seems. :(
Jimmy
--
A'koss
"Jimmy Kerl" <j...@icok.net> wrote in message news:384582...@icok.net...
> Ryan S. Dancey wrote:
> > 2. "Templates" used for monster descriptions so monsters can be
assigned
> > higher than normal levels, "grow in size" (like Dragons) and accept
> > "character classes" to make unique and interesting variants from any
basic
> > monster
>
> good. but i think theres just WAY to many monsters.
Heresy!
> > 5. Arcane spellcasters can wear armor - if they want a chance of spell
> > failure and want to forgo other important "wizard" type abilities.
>
> good. same type fo thing for theifs?
Of course. But then again you could in 2e as well.
> > 6. Saving Throws reduced from arbitrary categories and arbitrary
> > application to three easy to remember types: Fortitude, Reflex and
> > Willpower - application of each type of save much easier to determine.
>
> good and bad. refining saves sounds great; reducing to merly 3 saves
> im not sure about. (I use 8 saves in my gameworld)
I had 6 before 3e, one for each stat... ;)
> > 9. Critical hit system added to basic combat engine.
>
> Implementation will determine the virtue of this. do this mean
> there will be more than 2 dice rolls per attack? (to hit + dmg ) ?
Your first attack roll will determine whether there is the potential for a
critical hit or not. There is a Critical "Threat" range associated with each
weapon (which can be modified by skill and magic) - usually a natural 20,
but sometimes as great as 17-20 (before mods). After a threat roll is
achieved you roll d20 again and if you hit, you score a critical.
> > 10. Interesting additions to combat system like Attacks of Opportunity,
> > Reach, and Concentration checks to avoid spellcasting failure after
taking
> > damage
>
> again implementation, and its not sounding good so far.
Think C&T.
A'koss!
Ryan S. Dancey
> > 10. Interesting additions to combat system like Attacks of Opportunity,
> > Reach, and Concentration checks to avoid spellcasting failure after
taking
> > damage
>
> again implementation, and its not sounding good so far.
Here's some things to thing about:
Attacks of Opportunity
You're standing toe to toe with an orc, exchanging blows. You get hit, and
realize you're way low on hit points. Acting quickly, you pull out a potion
of healing and toss it down in one swallow; ready to return to battle.
In 2e, that's exactly what would happen per the rules.
In 3e, when you pull out that potion and drink it, you're not paying
complete attention to the orc right in your face - he gets a free swing at
you for "dropping your guard". Maybe you should run away first before you
go for the potion. Maybe you should try one more attack and see if you can
take the orc down and remove the threat. In any event, the tactics of
combat got more complex by adding one very small rule to the mix.
Reach
Imagine you're facing a Fire Giant. Why does the Giant let you run right up
to his ankles before attacking you? Imagine you're the golf-ball, and his
club is the driver! With "Reach", the Giant can start hitting you with
melee attacks before you can hit him; simulating the effects of his much
larger size.
Also, imagine how much cooler it will be to have a long pike or pole-arm.
If you're in the second row behind the front-line fighters, and you have a
weapon with "Reach", you can still attack the opponents facing the front
line!
Also, imagine that you're being attacked by monsters with a touch-attack
(like level draining, perhaps). If your party uses weapons with "Reach",
you can attempt to kill any monster that comes near - >before< they're in
range to use their touch-attacks!
Adding the element of "Reach" means combat does a better job of addressing
size differences and it allows us to make weapon selection more interesting;
again, by adding a small, lightweight rule to the game.
Ryan
Teresa J. Bowker
>From what I've read so far in the press, on this newsgroup, and heard what
>people have had to say, and discussions I have overheard, I seriously
>believe that 3rd edition sucks. Not the idea that there SHOULD be a third
>edition, but what they have done to it.... I don't like it one bit.
>
HOW CAN YOU, OR ANY OF YOU pass judgement on a subject about which all
you know is hearsay? I don't think I've heard so much whining and
complaining in my entire life. Why can't you just let 3rd Edition be
released, look it over, then give comments. At least them your
complaints will have some basis in fact rather than assumption. All
your crying does is prove that people despise change. CHANGE IS
INEVITABLE. Get over it and yourselves. Give those of us intelligent
enough to reserve our opinions until after we've read the material a
break.
Roger Bonzer
Denakhan the Arch-Mage <denakhant...@home.com> wrote:
>>4. No Class level limit for demihumans.
>
> VERY STUPID! Sorry, but can you *please* explain how come elves, as a
>whole, are not listed as "All elves know how to fight. The level range for
>the fighter class is 50 +2d100". It's simple numbers; elves live longer.
>If a human can get to 20th level in 60 years, a 600 year old elf should be
>around...200th level. Even if they change the level 'advancement' so that
>it constantly gets wider and wider gaps between levels, you are still
>looking at levels for a 1,000 year old elf to be in the dozens and _dozens_
>of levels.
You should ask a 1e DM for advice on this matter. In 1e, elves, dwarves,
gnomes, halflings and half-elves *all* had unlimited advancement as
Thief. Surely someone has by now solved the "hip-deep in 600th level
elven thieves with more hit points than Thor" problem to explain
why the world isn't hip-deep in 600th level elven warriors and wizards
as well.
I'll also note that in 1e, half-orcs were given "unlimited" advancement
as Assassin -- a class which stopped at level 15. Perhaps 3e "no level
limits" simply means "no additional level limits levied by race".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Bonzer | Wishes may bring problems such that you regret them.
mino...@teleport.com | Better that, though, than to never get them.
| -- Into the Woods
David K.
writes:
>Retirement is always an option, but what exactly does an elf do at 159,
>knowing full well that he has another 3-400 years of life left? ;)
He gets into a less dangerous line of work, I suppose. That is pretty
much the same thing that most real world military personnel do after
a relatively short time in the service.
It is the danger that I see as limiting demi-human advancement, as
a life span of several centuries does you little good if you have a
non-trivial chance of violent death with each experience level gained.
Combine their relatively low numbers with a somewhat increased
sense of self-preservation and you will have relatively few elves or
other demi-humans willing to take the risks necessary to reach very
high levels. A small handful will try -- most will be killed, but a very
few will indeed reach very high levels -- and even they will be greatly
outnumbered by the high level humans who managed to find magic
potions or other means to extend their lives. However, the odds against
anyone reaching level 20+ alive are long enough that very few members
of any race will do so regardless of lifespan.
Duane Vanderpol
>> >>>"Two mages, standing side by side. Fire Giant is running towards
them.
>> Both mages have the same initiative.
>> One decides to "delay", the other fires a spell. If the spell is
>sufficient
>> to kill the Giant, the second mage can change targets and shoot something
>> else. If not, the second mage can cast something else at the original
>> Giant. If they both went on the same initiative, the DM would be
>justified
>> in ruling that damage would be made after both mages cast spells - so one
>> might waste a spell on a target that would have been stopped by the
>other."
>>
>> Problem: Silly yet again. *This* takes the cake. This makes
>absolutely
>> NO sense whatsoever
>
> Agree with you here.. Due to casting times, a mage COULD elect to chant
> slower to delay his spell, and choose another target. OR he could stop
> chanting,
> and elect to not cast the spell. But changing spells in mid casting is a
bad
> idea.
But that's not what's happening. You are applying 2E assumptions to 3E,
seeing that they don't fit, and then declaring that 3E is therefore broken.
2E assumed that at the beginning of the round all casters who declared they
were casting spells began casting them immediately regardless of when
initiative determined they would actually be completed and their effects
resolved. 3E assumes that for most spells the bulk of their casting has
been done beforehand and there is only a brief bit of casting that needs to
be done to complete them. Therefore, the mage in the original example who
decides to "delay" is not assumed to already be involved in casting a spell
even if that is ultimately his intent. The final decision for what he's
doing isn't made until his turn comes up and in the example he'd elected to
delay the time for that decision. So, after seeing the first mage's spell
succeed in bringing down the giant he can decide to complete the casting for
a different spell.
--
Duane VanderPol
http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp
Alea jacta est. In omnia paratus. Ars gratia artis.
Reginald
Five by five.
> > "Ryan S. Dancey" <ry...@frpg.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Reginald <reg...@cchnl.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Would you care to be specific? So far there are good points:
> > >
> > > Here's some more:
> >
> > I believe the high point for 3E is the introduction of Feats. My
> > advice: be careful. This new concept design may make or break the
> > new D&D rules.
>
> That's all we DON'T need - a book of broken, unbalanced feats showing
> up.
We know that feats can range from simple to very powerful, I can hope
they balanced them by imposing certain restrictions and/or requirements,
just like they did with the Whirlwind Attack feats they posted in the
Dragon Magazine issue not so long ago (I believe it was the Fighter
article).
But I also believe this makes the Fighter class a very viable option
(trust me, I have players who don't glance at the Fighter, but head
straight for the Paladin class).
Reginald
"Barry Smith" <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote:
>
> Kodiak wrote:
>
> > > Uggg. A crossbow is a simple weapon for a non-martial mage to
> > > use? Ok...
> >
> > use one (as opposed to say, a sword or bow) in a rather short
> > amount of time... it's almost like training someone to use a gun.
> > Just point and click... the only hard part requiring any muscle
> > mass is reloading... and that's little more than pulling back the
> > string and setting the quarrel.
> >
> > could become an efficient killer.
>
> Even the huge heavy crossbows, with the winch and pulley system used
> to cock and set the bow for firing? I think a minimum strength is
Heck, even the longbow requires certain minimum strength, not only to
pull back the string but able maintain the pull until you set your aim.
But huge heavy crossbow? Heck they require a sturdy support, a stand.
I believe you're referring to the arbalest. Now THOSE are heavy
crossbows.
> I see how everyone thinks the lesser crossbows could be used by mages,
> and you all are right, but the heavy? Somehow, I have a vision in my
> head of a weakling mage trying and trying to turn this winch over and
> over to get it recocked, and failing.... ;)
Well, thank goodness when you choose to be an Arcane Spellcaster they do
not penalize your Strength score. ;)
If you happen to have a Wizard with 18 Strength, then more power to you.
The only thing that them apart from Warriors is the combat bonus, they
don't devote as much as their time to training with weapons then they do
with training with magic.
Duane Vanderpol
> > 1. No Exceptional Strength (yes, they're revising the table)
>
> doesn't overpower fighters, a class that needed significant improvements
> to keep on par with the rest of the classes IMO. I won't be using this
> one.
The problem with exceptional strength is not that it necessarily
overpowers fighters but that it's a heinously screwy method of stat
determination and progression. It gives a vast power jump from a simple 18
to a simple 19 unlike all the numerical increases up TO an 18 and it's a
mechanic that is kept unique to STR. "Dropping" exceptional strength
involves removing the percentiles and fitting those bonuses better into a
normal progression of whole numerals in the strength stat.
Are you saying that if you use 3rd Edition that you will promptly
replace the old STR table with percentile progression?
> > 7. Assassin class return as an optional PC class.
>
> Got them. Again, I never saw the official need to drop them because 2E
> *said* so...however, the majority of these are NPCs in my campaign, for
> the obvious group cohesion issues that invariably spring up. :)
I think there were a number of factors involved in deciding to drop
assassins. The two biggest were probably Political Correctness, and the
perceived unfairness of the assassination table. A little too much
arbitrary/insta-kill power there that was too easily abused. Their omission
from 2nd Edition wasn't a matter of "Thou shalt NOT have assassins" but
"This edition does not contain support for assassins."
> > 8. Priest & divine spellcasters will have spells up to level 9.
>
> Now this is a interesting switch, one that I'm still unsure if I'll even
> bother changing to. 7th level priest spells have always had enough kick
> for me. If you add Quest spells to this mix, no need for 2 added spell
> levels IMO.
It's not a matter of adding 2 levels worth of new spells exceeding the
power of existing spells in order to bring the total up to 9, but stretching
7 levels of spells into 9 and then filling in the thinned-out areas with new
spells of various levels.
> > 9. Wizard & arcane spellcasters can use simple weapons (e.g.,
> > crossbow).
>
> Uggg. A crossbow is a simple weapon for a non-martial mage to use? Ok...
It's a simple weapon for _anyone_ to use. That's a well-established
reality. As for the possibility of unbalancing the power of the mage as a
class, if I have a choice between facing a 20th level mage throwing a dagger
and a 20th level mage firing a crossbow it's nearly a tie - they both have
bupkus for a chance to ever hit anything anyway so the higher damage of
crossbow isn't really a significantly higher threat.
Reginald
"Barry Smith" <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote:
>
> "Ryan S. Dancey" wrote:
>
> > > Would you care to be specific? So far there are good points:
> >
> > Here's some more:
> >
> > simple die roll, add a few modifiers, check AC to determine hit.
>
I've
> never had a problem with math...and I've always liked the negative AC
> values creatures have. People need to go to school if the old THacO
> system is too taxing on the brain. :/
Never did like the negative AC value. Always have to remember that when
you have magical armors and shields, positive = negative (now that's a
weird mathematical assumption).
With THAC (my name for it), you basically roll higher than the modified
AC (armor + DEX bonus + other bonuses) of your opponent with your
modified attack roll (d20 + STR or DEX bonus + other bonuses).
> > 4. Completely re-written skill system replaces clunky
proficiencies,
> > handles un-trained use, provides interesting flexibility for
character
> > development.
>
> Clunky? LOL. How clunky can a check against my Dexterity be? Gee, my
Dex
> is 15....I need a 15 or lower. If there's penalties to that Dex check,
> 15 *minus* the penalty....if there's a bonus, 15 *plus* the modifier.
> Hardly clunky....
It now put less emphasis and less dependency on the relevant attributes,
and more on skill level.
> > 5. Arcane spellcasters can wear armor - if they want a chance of
spell
> > failure and want to forgo other important "wizard" type abilities.
>
> But why would a wizard do that? Spell failure for the added benefits
> higher ACs, more encumbrance, and less maneuverability? Tank mages are
a
> definite no show IMC.
>
> This reminds me of that Conan movie where Akira walks around in heavy
> plate or is carrying a ton of stuff, staggering around like a monkey,
> while Conan wonders what's taking so long...
I have yet to be convinced as to why mages cannot cast spell in armors,
not even those reasons you stated above has not changed my mind.
As for Akira, it is his choice to wear them clunky armor but at least
his magic is not affected.
> > 6. Saving Throws reduced from arbitrary categories and arbitrary
> > application to three easy to remember types: Fortitude, Reflex and
> > Willpower - application of each type of save much easier to
determine.
>
> Heh. So far to date, I've never forgotten a saving throw category or
> failed to decide where a particular, unusual saving throw should be
> saved under. Sometimes, change is a bad thing.
At least when the spell description is revised it will tell what saving
throw you have to make. I'm wondering what's the official stance on
what saving throw against Fireball? Reflex (rolling for less damage) or
Fortitude (withstand the impact)? Most likely Reflex, especially when I
have been applying DEX bonus to that particular saving throw in the 2nd
Edition AD&D.
> > 8. Specialty Cleric system built into core rules; allows DMs to
> > easily create pantheons and apply portfolios to specialty clerics.
>
> Why on earth would I want to do that? I have more important things to
> do like run a campaign than totally re-create a pantheon. I suppose
> it might be a good thing for beginning DMs. As a veteran DM, though,
> I have all the deities I'll ever need IMC right now, so this part of
> 3E is wasted space.
Maybe because a generic cleric is not enough, not even the druid. Being
an ordained servant of a deity meaning you follow it to a detail. If
you're a Priest of Odin, and that Odin is fond of his longspear,
shouldn't you?
> > 9. Critical hit system added to basic combat engine.
>
> It's gonna have to be pretty good to beat the MERP critical hit system
> I'm using now...
MERP? Bah! Rolemaster is the way to go, especially for the intelligent
complex-minded adults! ;)
Regardless, even MERP and Rolemaster are not the kind of system a newbie
should begin their first journey into roleplaying (sorry, ICE).
Granted, D&D combat system is abstract but it simple.
> > 10. Interesting additions to combat system like Attacks of
> > Opportunity, Reach, and Concentration checks to avoid spellcasting
> > failure after taking damage
>
> These sound good. We'll see once they're known.
I wonder if some of them are those successful rules component from
Player's Option.
Sea Wasp
>
> Denakhan the Arch-Mage wrote:
>
> > >1. No Exceptional Strength (yes, they're revising the table)
> >
> > stronger than the 'other' classes. It's what they do.
>
> I agree.
I don't. It was always ludicrous. Not ONE other character class has a
special division of the stats just for its use.
The difference ain't in the strength. It's in the skill.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
jbs
> Problem; Smart creatures. How does a DM play creatures in combat that
>happen to have, say, Genius intelligence? I'll tell you; the DM listens to
>what the players say there characters are doing, and then he adjuicates if
>the creature could have deduced the pc's tactic. The smarter the creature,
>the more leeway the DM should give the creature. Example: PC1 is fighting a
>Mind Flayer. The player states that he is going to try a called shot to the
>creatures tenticles. The DM then decides, based on the situation and the
>PC's former tactics, weapons, etc., if the Mind Flayer could guess this. If
>the PC had tried it several times already, I would rule that the Mind Flayer
>is "wise to that trick", and might use it agains the PC. The way the 3E
>system seems to work, the players *don't* have to state there intentions
>untill it is there turn; thus, rendering this important DM tool useless.
>This is a VERY bad thing, IMHO.
Eh? What about genius PCs? In 2E they don't have a chance to
anticipate the monsters' moves. Seems a little more fair to me.
> Problem: Just silly. The way the combat round works now, the pc is
>basically doing *nothing* untill it is his turn. He isn't parrying,
>dodging, maneuvering around, etc. He's more or less just sitting there
>waiting to 'get his turn'. Then, all of a sudden, Ragamuffin the 20th Level
>Ranger turns into a whirling mass of blades as his longsword and hand axe
>slash out...all 5 attacks...all taking place "at the same time" (for sake of
>logic, I'll say this take at -least- 1 second). Want more silly? Lets say
>Ragamuffin is using a 2-handed-sword..."only" 4 attacks...but he gets them
>all at the "same time" within 1 second. Can you picture that? hehehe.
>Reminds me of bad fantasy movies.
What? Where the hell did you get this? This is so absurd I don't
even know where to begin. Even if that were true it's not any sillier
than Ragamuffin having to wait in between each of his attacks for
everyone else to attack.
> Problem: Silly yet again. *This* takes the cake. This makes absolutely
>NO sense whatsoever. ..."What? It's an illusion? Oh, then I won't use
>fireball. I'll cast Infravision on myself then."... This is so-o stupid.
>It's like a warrior with a two-handed sword..."What? I need a magical weapon
>to hit it? Oh, then I'll use my dagger+1 instead." ??? So, our friend
>Raggamuffin the Ranger is about to temporarily turn into a walking blender
>with his 2h-sword; but he learns that he needs a magical weapon. All of a
>sudden, he drops his 2h-sword, pulls out his magical dagger, and still gets
>his 4 attacks in 1 second. If it dies, he simply does the reverse. This
>sounds like "anything that the character is carrying he can use in any
>instant he decides to".
?? It's not 1 second. It's six seconds! A combat round is *_6_*
seconds long. GURPS has 1 second rounds. Are you sure you're in the
right newsgroup?
If you're gonna bitch about the new rules at least get them right.
You only make yourself look like an idiot otherwise.
>...I'm getting bug-eyed at reading all this 3E stuff...and I've only hit the
>"first page" (Combat).
>
> Suffice it to say, I reserve my judgement until a later date when I have
>actually played the game. ;-)
Well, at least this makes some sense.
jbs
jbs
<nish...@vfs.com> wrote:
>Denakhan is right on this one; players should declare what they're doing before
>initiative is rolled. It affects the die roll in the first place anyway! I
>rule that the smartest fastest characters declare last, after the slower dumber
>guys commit to their actions... if they want to change their mind they can go
>right ahead and add a few more points to their initiative roll... heck you
>could spend the whole round changing your mind (it happens). If it's apropriate
>I let the players know what it looks like the monster is trying to do, (or what
>it wants the players to think it is trying to do), and the pc's declared
>actions go through a referee filter and are passed on to the bad guys, an
>extremely usefull way of letting the smart and fast have an edge they deserve.
No. You're both wrong. Inish is only modified by Dex in 3E (at least
AFAIK). Inish only sets up the order in which characters act, and
even that is mutable through character actions.
3E is no more or less fair than the 2E method. It is no more or less
realistic either. They're both abstractions of real combat. What it
is is more exciting, faster paced and more playable.
I think most ppl will agree that real time combat is more exciting.
That's why most crpgs are real time nowdays. It's faster paced
because you don't have to roll inish each round anymore. And it's
more playable because when it's your turn - you go. No more having to
stagger all actions.
jbs
jbs
<denakhant...@home.com> wrote:
>Hiya.
>
>Reginald wrote in message <8efqm3$sms$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>...
>>
>>"SP" <s...@ask.me> wrote:
>>>
>>> From what I've read so far in the press, on this newsgroup, and
>>> heard what people have had to say, and discussions I have
>>> overheard, I seriously believe that 3rd edition sucks. Not the
>>> idea that there SHOULD be a third edition, but what they have
>>> done to it.... I don't like it one bit.
>>
>>Would you care to be specific? So far there are good points:
>>
>>1. No Exceptional Strength (yes, they're revising the table)
>
> Not a good point, IMHO. I *liked* the fact that fighter-types could be
>stronger than the 'other' classes. It's what they do.
Really? I was under the impression that they fought... Maybe that
was a change you missed from sticking with 1E. :) So what do you
think of the stats going above 18 now? Doing away with the exp STR
doesn't hurt the fighter at all considering they can raise their score
above 18 eventually anyway. I know, I know. So can the mage. But
why would the mage?
>
>>3. Humans can multiclass.
>
> BAD idea, IMHO. Blurs the line between humans and demi-humans. I like
>the Dual class idea. A human Fighter/Cleric/MagicUser/Thiefe/Ranger
>seems...uh, "not good".
I like the dual class idea too. And am a little sorry to see it go.
But the new multiclass rules are better than dual class and multiclass
rules from the previous editions. Truthfully, a human
Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue/Ranger doesn't sound any worse than a
(pick any other race) Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue/Ranger.
>>4. No Class level limit for demihumans.
>
> VERY STUPID! Sorry, but can you *please* explain how come elves, as a
>whole, are not listed as "All elves know how to fight. The level range for
>the fighter class is 50 +2d100". It's simple numbers; elves live longer.
>If a human can get to 20th level in 60 years, a 600 year old elf should be
>around...200th level. Even if they change the level 'advancement' so that
>it constantly gets wider and wider gaps between levels, you are still
>looking at levels for a 1,000 year old elf to be in the dozens and _dozens_
>of levels.
Right it makes so much more sense to just say that 600 year old elf
doesn't get any better after 12th level. Think before you spout this
stuff off man!
>>5. Demihumans can be Paladins and other classes that was once
>>restricted.
>
> Personal prefference; don't like it. A full fledged Paladin should ONLY
>be human (one of those human-only things). Some other kind of
>"holy-warrior" thing would be good....just don't call them Paladins. A nit
>pic, sure, but hey.
You're right. A nit pick. If it walks like a paladin and talks like
a paladin...
>>6. Monk and Barbarian classes, missing in the 2nd Edition, return.
>
> Good thing.
>
>>7. Assassin class return as an optional PC class.
>
> Good again.
>
>>8. Priest & divine spellcasters will have spells up to level 9.
>
> Makes no difference to me really.
>
>>9. Wizard & arcane spellcasters can use simple weapons (e.g.,
>>crossbow).
>
> *shrug* What's the difference between using a dagger or a short sword?
>Both are thrusting weapons, ones just bigger than the other.
Aye.
>>10. Wizard & arcane spellcasters can have bonus spells due to high INT
>>score.
>
> Only fair.
>
>>11. All classes multiple attacks at higher level.
>
> On paper this looks odd. But it might work. We'll see.
As long as they all get the multiattacks slower than the fighter (and
they do) I don't really have a problem with this. Although it did
take a few weeks to get used to the idea of Wizards actually getting
more than one melee attack...:)
This is actually turning into one of my favorite things about 3E.
It's not really more powerful than multiattacks in 2E since each
additional attack is at a -5 penalty.
Compare that to S&Ps Grand Master. Munchy.
jbs
jbs
Please?
On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 21:32:28 -0700, "Ryan S. Dancey" <ry...@frpg.com>
wrote:
>Reginald <reg...@cchnl.com> wrote in message news:8efqm3
>
>> Would you care to be specific? So far there are good points:
>
>Here's some more:
>
>1. Magic effects templated to make adjudicating effects of spell resistance
>and "resistance to X" type effects easier
>
>2. "Templates" used for monster descriptions so monsters can be assigned
>higher than normal levels, "grow in size" (like Dragons) and accept
>"character classes" to make unique and interesting variants from any basic
>monster
>
>3. Armor Class protection is additive, so no more Thac0; just a simple die
>roll, add a few modifiers, check AC to determine hit.
>
>4. Completely re-written skill system replaces clunky proficiencies,
>handles un-trained use, provides interesting flexibility for character
>development.
>
>5. Arcane spellcasters can wear armor - if they want a chance of spell
>failure and want to forgo other important "wizard" type abilities.
>
>6. Saving Throws reduced from arbitrary categories and arbitrary
>application to three easy to remember types: Fortitude, Reflex and
>Willpower - application of each type of save much easier to determine.
>
>7. Magic item effects "templated" making it easy to determine how to create
>most items, how to calculate the cost of doing so, and how to "stack"
>various interesting abilities in one item.
>
>8. Specialty Cleric system built into core rules; allows DMs to easily
>create pantheons and apply portfolios to specialty clerics.
>
>9. Critical hit system added to basic combat engine.
>
>10. Interesting additions to combat system like Attacks of Opportunity,
>Reach, and Concentration checks to avoid spellcasting failure after taking
>damage
>
>Ryan
>
jbs
Shadowknight
"Duane Vanderpol" <dua...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gI0P4.10911$g4.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "Shadowknight" <shadow...@boone.net> wrote in message
> news:%jLO4.736$Vv4.3...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
> >> >>>"Two mages, standing side by side. Fire Giant is running towards
> >
Did I SAY I thought 3rd ed, something I haven't seen is broken? No.
I just find it overly convenient a mage can switch spells. The way it sounds
like,
the mage does ALL of the casting JUST in their initiative phase. Casting
complex
spells takes TIME. 2nd edition or not, the more complex the spell, the
longer
the casting time. This is something, when I run a game, I won't abandon, as
otherwise
it smacks of the players retroactively changing their actions.
> --
> Duane VanderPol
> http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp
> Alea jacta est. In omnia paratus. Ars gratia artis.
>
>
Shadowknight
Reginald
"Jimmy Kerl" <j...@icok.net> wrote:
>
> Reginald wrote:
> >
> > Would you care to be specific? So far there are good points:
> >
>
> have a measure of balance this is good.
Well, I can never understand why a race with a longer lifespan than
human (human being used as a base point of reference) should be
inherently less ambitious (Longer Life = Lazy Ass? Yeah, right).
> > 6. Monk and Barbarian classes, missing in the 2nd Edition, return.
>
> Monk: kewl,
> Barbarian: WHAT is the difference
> between a barbarian and a fighter?
Actually, the question should be what is a difference between a
barbarian and a ranger? We'll know for sure when the next Dragon
magazine (May?) comes out. The only thing I know is based on 1st
Edition AD&D/Unearth Arcana, in which the barbarians are very
superstitious as they do fear magical weapons. They are even wary of
blessed weapons, too (magical weapons created by priests).
> > 7. Assassin class return as an optional PC class.
>
> Eeeeeck; IMC, i just gave all human theifs and assinate ability. the
> idea that a whole class is devoted to basicaly a single skill (and
thus
> defining that class as evil by doing so just doesnt impress me.)
Like a fighter? Oh, I'm sure Assassin character can be as well-rounded
as any individual, even though his primary talent lies in terminating
people. ;)
> > 8. Priest & divine spellcasters will have spells up to level 9.
>
> blah; cosmetics only. Yuck, are we making priests MORE powerful
?!?!?!
No, the power level of the divine spells will be on par with the power
level of the arcane spells. Heck, even I thought the 7th level clerical
spells of the previous editions of AD&D is on par with 9th level magical
spells.
> > 10. Wizard & arcane spellcasters can have bonus spells due to
> > high INT score.
>
> YUCK! what should of been done is removing the
> @#!@#$ bonus spells priests get.
What's this have to do with wizards? Their problem, besides the lack of
armor and severe weapon use, is the lack of casting more spells at first
level then the armor-wearing, better weapon-wielding clerics (with the
second best attack than the warriors).
At least this way, they make themselves less dependent on other who are
better at physical combat, especially when they have more than one spell
up their sleeve.
> > 11. All classes multiple attacks at higher level.
>
> right up there with "no limit to hit-die or PCs" this REALLY sucks!
Why? Even I can't stand the one attack per 1-minute round, especially
when that's a tell-tale sign that the disguised character is not what he
appears to be (e.g., a Rogue, which a renamed Thief in 3E, is disguised
as a knight entering into a castle, so he can later let his friends
inside under the cover of darkness).
Reginald
"Shadowknight" <shadow...@boone.net> wrote:
>
> "Reginald" <reg...@cchnl.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Denakhan the Arch-Mage" <denakhant...@home.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hiya.
> > >
> > > Reginald wrote in message <8efqm3$sms$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>...
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not a good point, IMHO. I *liked* the fact that fighter-types
> > > could be stronger than the 'other' classes. It's what they do.
> >
> > should have Exceptional Wisdom, and thieves shoud have Exceptional
> > Dexterity.
>
> No, that's not what he means. Not every one can cast wizard spells,
not
> every one can get help from their god. Not every one knows how to
tumble
> a lock... but all of these classes CAN use weapons. It makes sense for
> the fighter class to have an advantage over the others in more ways
than
> just THACO.
Oh, I do know what he means. I'm merely using his logic to explain that
if the warriors can have exceptional STR in the previous edition of
AD&D, then why can't wizards have exceptional INT, or cleric have
exceptional WIS?
To me, it would be an added mess, so not why not just dump the
exceptional abilities altogether, and redo the scale. So what may be 25
for an average Storm Giant's STR score in previous edition of AD&D,
shall now become 39 (I'm guessing here).
Reginald
"Teresa J. Bowker" <tjbo...@ici.net> wrote:
>
> "SP" <s...@ask.me> wrote:
>
> > From what I've read so far in the press, on this newsgroup, and
> > heard what people have had to say, and discussions I have
> > overheard, I seriously believe that 3rd edition sucks.
>
> you know is hearsay? I don't think I've heard so much whining and
> complaining in my entire life. Why can't you just let 3rd Edition be
> released, look it over, then give comments. At least them your
> complaints will have some basis in fact rather than assumption. All
> your crying does is prove that people despise change. CHANGE IS
> INEVITABLE. Get over it and yourselves. Give those of us intelligent
> break.
Give them time. I know that I at first was wary of a new edition of
AD&D (now aptly called D&D). But when I heard what was in it, the
improvements they've made over the previous edition, I'm slowly
beginning to change my mind.
Of course, with everything, what is IN the final product that truly
matters. And I will always take a wait-and-see approach. But the 3E
has some definite improvements.
Just one more advice to the 3E designers: Just because we now live in
the age of computers does not necessarily means you should let THEM
proofread and edit the material's content and context. For once, I want
to be able to buy a rulebook with ZERO error (typo, grammatical, etc.)
and ZERO inconsistency (say one thing in one chapter, then say a
different thing in a different chapter with the same rules component,
like you did with custom-built bow for Strength in the Bow weapon
description of the Money & Equipment chapter and in the Missile Weapon
of the Combat chapter).
There's no better editing tool than the human eyes and brain.
Duane Vanderpol
> Did I SAY I thought 3rd ed, something I haven't seen is broken? No.
Sorry. First sentence of my reply was too strongly worded.
> I just find it overly convenient a mage can switch spells. The way it
sounds
> like,
> the mage does ALL of the casting JUST in their initiative phase. Casting
> complex
> spells takes TIME. 2nd edition or not, the more complex the spell, the
> longer
> the casting time. This is something, when I run a game, I won't abandon,
as
> otherwise
> it smacks of the players retroactively changing their actions.
But, as I said, the mage is NOT switching spells because he isn't
casting until the very moment when he DOES decide which spell to cast - at
which time it's effects are also immediately resolved. 3E simply handles
the whole affair so differently than 2E that you can't just take it based on
"what it sounds like" in light of what's always been done. You have to
examine it in light of how _3E_ handles everything else that's happening.
E.g., the mage DOES do "all" of the casting _on his turn_, or more
precisely he does the last bit of casting that completes the spell which
he's already pre-cast. Rather than assume extensive memorization followed
by elaborate casting rituals as 2E does, 3E assumes extensive "pre-casting"
and a fairly rapid (but no less interruptable) casting to complete the
spell. This eliminates long-standing arguments about spell memorization as
well as provide for a much more efficient mechanic for spell resolution
given the other 3E combat mechanics.
Ryan S. Dancey
> Just one more advice to the 3E designers: Just because we now live in
> the age of computers does not necessarily means you should let THEM
> proofread and edit the material's content and context.
Trust me, there are dozens of human eyeballs on the text.
Ryan
Barry Smith
> The problem with exceptional strength is not that it necessarily
> overpowers fighters but that it's a heinously screwy method of stat
> determination and progression. It gives a vast power jump from a simple 18
> to a simple 19 unlike all the numerical increases up TO an 18 and it's a
> mechanic that is kept unique to STR. "Dropping" exceptional strength
> involves removing the percentiles and fitting those bonuses better into a
> normal progression of whole numerals in the strength stat.
> Are you saying that if you use 3rd Edition that you will promptly
> replace the old STR table with percentile progression?
Well, I've pretty much ingrained myself into the 1-25 ability score
ranges, and removal of the exceptional strength sets seems like it may
be getting too close to those divine ability scores I'm so afraid of
giving out to players. 3E, at least this is the impression I have so far
on ability scores, seems to inflate that to the upper ranges, and it
quickly becomes a dangerous line to tread. Under 2E, 19s and higher are
the beginning of "divine" level ability scores. What will that be in 3E?
> > > 7. Assassin class return as an optional PC class.
> >
> > Got them. Again, I never saw the official need to drop them because 2E
> > *said* so...however, the majority of these are NPCs in my campaign, for
> > the obvious group cohesion issues that invariably spring up. :)
>
> I think there were a number of factors involved in deciding to drop
> assassins. The two biggest were probably Political Correctness, and the
> perceived unfairness of the assassination table. A little too much
> arbitrary/insta-kill power there that was too easily abused. Their omission
> from 2nd Edition wasn't a matter of "Thou shalt NOT have assassins" but
> "This edition does not contain support for assassins."
Which I never accepted, anyhow.
> > > 8. Priest & divine spellcasters will have spells up to level 9.
> >
> > Now this is a interesting switch, one that I'm still unsure if I'll even
> > bother changing to. 7th level priest spells have always had enough kick
> > for me. If you add Quest spells to this mix, no need for 2 added spell
> > levels IMO.
>
> It's not a matter of adding 2 levels worth of new spells exceeding the
> power of existing spells in order to bring the total up to 9, but stretching
> 7 levels of spells into 9 and then filling in the thinned-out areas with new
> spells of various levels.
Ehhh, I still don't see the need. All this apparently is doing is
shortening one spell level list for the lengthening of another.
--
"Oh look! A wild horse! It's coming straight towards us. Awww, it wants
to kiss, I wonder why??!"
'Because that Staff of Power smells really good', thought the
Disenchanter.
Barry Smith
> >Retirement is always an option, but what exactly does an elf do at 159,
> >knowing full well that he has another 3-400 years of life left? ;)
>
> He gets into a less dangerous line of work, I suppose. That is pretty
> much the same thing that most real world military personnel do after
> a relatively short time in the service.
>
> It is the danger that I see as limiting demi-human advancement, as
> a life span of several centuries does you little good if you have a
> non-trivial chance of violent death with each experience level gained.
> Combine their relatively low numbers with a somewhat increased
> sense of self-preservation and you will have relatively few elves or
> other demi-humans willing to take the risks necessary to reach very
> high levels. A small handful will try -- most will be killed, but a very
> few will indeed reach very high levels -- and even they will be greatly
> outnumbered by the high level humans who managed to find magic
> potions or other means to extend their lives. However, the odds against
> anyone reaching level 20+ alive are long enough that very few members
> of any race will do so regardless of lifespan.
Thank you. I also have a fairly high mortality rate for all races and
adventurers, not only elves, but I see what you mean. Curiously, what
say you about those elves that DO achieve 20th level? How much time did
they have to spend to achieve that? A "few" years, according to humans,
or a lifetime according to elves? The time ratio between humans and
demihumans is so wide that it makes it hard to understand what elves do
before and after their careers.
Reginald
>
> > Just one more advice to the 3E designers: Just because we now live
in
> > the age of computers does not necessarily means you should let THEM
> > proofread and edit the material's content and context.
>
> Trust me, there are dozens of human eyeballs on the text.
That's what they say about the so-called "revised 2nd Edition." ;)
Don't worry, I will put a little bit of trust in WotC... LITTLE.
Barry Smith
> > Heh. THacO remains in my game, despite the ease of 3E's new system. I've
> > never had a problem with math...and I've always liked the negative AC
> > values creatures have. People need to go to school if the old THacO
> > system is too taxing on the brain. :/
>
> True, but if you accomplish the exact same thing in 3e, only easier - why
> not?
Personal preference, with a pinch of stubbornness thrown in for good
measure.
> > Clunky? LOL. How clunky can a check against my Dexterity be? Gee, my Dex
> > is 15....I need a 15 or lower. If there's penalties to that Dex check,
> > 15 *minus* the penalty....if there's a bonus, 15 *plus* the modifier.
> > Hardly clunky....
>
> However, a Stat check doesn't accurately reflect the *skill* of the person
> attempting the task. 3e takes both skill and natural talent into
> consideration.
Mmmm. Good point. Although, I've always thought the natural talent of a
character and his skill at doing it were the same thing. Every character
has skill based on their ability scores, which are then modified. It'll
be interesting to see how they add skill to that equation in 3E.
> > But why would a wizard do that? Spell failure for the added benefits
> > higher ACs, more encumbrance, and less maneuverability? Tank mages are a
> > definite no show IMC.
>
> The light to mid weight armor's penalties are quite easy to swallow, even
> for spellcasting. Plus, what about when the spells run out... Armor him up,
> give him a crossbow and tell him to keep his head down. ;)
Heh heh. Kind of like the sniper how shoots blindly over cover hoping to
hit anything that moves? ;)
I don't know. I have another old stereotype here that pure mages
shouldn't wear heavy armor, or any armor for that matter. It'll take a
good explanation to convince and rip me away from that one. :)
> > Heh. So far to date, I've never forgotten a saving throw category or
> > failed to decide where a particular, unusual saving throw should be
> > saved under. Sometimes, change is a bad thing.
>
> Why is fireball fired from a wand treated differently than when cast by a
> mage or breathed by a monster? Completely identical effects - 3 different
> saving throws.
Which I think is a good thing, not a bad thing. It gives more variety
and considers the source of the Fireball, not treating everything
equally. It seems in 3E that every Fireball should and will be saved
against uniformly, as if the possibility for the DM to have a stronger
or weaker Fireball source won't be a possibility. Damage will be a
variable, but not the save.
> > > 9. Critical hit system added to basic combat engine.
> >
> > It's gonna have to be pretty good to beat the MERP critical hit system
> > I'm using now...
>
> It's not, it's very abstract - but quick to resolve.
Not as quick as mine, but we'll see. The MERP system I use also allows
for a very wide interpretation of effects of a critical, not the
previous, static effects from the PO books and other sources. :)
David K.
writes:
>Thank you. I also have a fairly high mortality rate for all races and
>adventurers, not only elves, but I see what you mean. Curiously, what
>say you about those elves that DO achieve 20th level? How much time did
>they have to spend to achieve that? A "few" years, according to humans,
>or a lifetime according to elves? The time ratio between humans and
>demihumans is so wide that it makes it hard to understand what elves do
>before and after their careers.
Total time could be highly variable, but time spent adventuring would
probably be comparable to that of humans. Player characters would
probably do it all in one "burst" comparable to a human lifetime, while
NPCs might spread their adventures out over several centuries -- but
the main problem for the latter is that after you have "retired" from
adventuring for a century or two it would take a lot to motivate you to
take it up again.
jbs
wrote:
>> 3. Armor Class protection is additive, so no more Thac0; just a simple die
>> roll, add a few modifiers, check AC to determine hit.
>
>Heh. THacO remains in my game, despite the ease of 3E's new system. I've
>never had a problem with math...and I've always liked the negative AC
>values creatures have. People need to go to school if the old THacO
>system is too taxing on the brain. :/
Do you always choose the hard way over the easy way?
>> 4. Completely re-written skill system replaces clunky proficiencies,
>> handles un-trained use, provides interesting flexibility for character
>> development.
>
>Clunky? LOL. How clunky can a check against my Dexterity be? Gee, my Dex
>is 15....I need a 15 or lower. If there's penalties to that Dex check,
>15 *minus* the penalty....if there's a bonus, 15 *plus* the modifier.
>Hardly clunky....
Clunkier than "Roll d20. Roll high. Add your attribute bonus. What
did you get?" Remember, 75% of the reason for 3E is to make it easier
for *new* players to learn. The simpler it is, the easier it'll be to
teach to new blood. And I think we *all* want new blood in the hobby.
>> 5. Arcane spellcasters can wear armor - if they want a chance of spell
>> failure and want to forgo other important "wizard" type abilities.
>
>But why would a wizard do that? Spell failure for the added benefits
>higher ACs, more encumbrance, and less maneuverability? Tank mages are a
>definite no show IMC.
>
>This reminds me of that Conan movie where Akira walks around in heavy
>plate or is carrying a ton of stuff, staggering around like a monkey,
>while Conan wonders what's taking so long...
Tee hee. You're funny.
Why would a bookworm want to go on a dangerous adventure and not want
to protect himself? Sure he could cast the armor spell. What if he
never learned it? He can pick up a suit of leather easy enough.
>> 6. Saving Throws reduced from arbitrary categories and arbitrary
>> application to three easy to remember types: Fortitude, Reflex and
>> Willpower - application of each type of save much easier to determine.
>
>Heh. So far to date, I've never forgotten a saving throw category or
>failed to decide where a particular, unusual saving throw should be
>saved under. Sometimes, change is a bad thing.
Oh. I guess you *do* prefer the hard way over the easy intuitive way.
Unfortunately, we get back to that "bringing new blood in" thing.
>> 7. Magic item effects "templated" making it easy to determine how to create
>> most items, how to calculate the cost of doing so, and how to "stack"
>> various interesting abilities in one item.
>
>This sounds intriguing. We'll see.
>
>> 8. Specialty Cleric system built into core rules; allows DMs to easily
>> create pantheons and apply portfolios to specialty clerics.
>
>Why on earth would I want to do that? I have more important things to do
>like run a campaign than totally re-create a pantheon. I suppose it
>might be a good thing for beginning DMs. As a veteran DM, though, I have
>all the deities I'll ever need IMC right now, so this part of 3E is
>wasted space.
Everyone together now: "NEW BLOOD!" Heh, wasted space because you
don't need it? K. Personally, I don't like clerics as an adventuring
class at all. I prefer they keep them at the same level as the city
guard.
>> 9. Critical hit system added to basic combat engine.
>
>It's gonna have to be pretty good to beat the MERP critical hit system
>I'm using now...
So this is more wasted space? And everyone else should go out and get
the MERP books too?
>> 10. Interesting additions to combat system like Attacks of Opportunity,
>> Reach, and Concentration checks to avoid spellcasting failure after taking
>> damage
>
>These sound good. We'll see once they're known.
Why is it that everytime someone at WotC gives us some news about
what's going to be in 3E some one who's been playing since Gygax was
in diapers takes it upon themselves to point out how half the stuff
won't be needed ITC, and therefore 3E is a waste of time?
"That's not so great. We've been doing it that way since the original
GH boxed set."
"Armor class goes backwards? That's stupid. Everyone knows armor
class goes down. Now all those monstrous compendiums I spent
thousands of dollars on are WORTHLESS."
"They got rid of level limits and class restrictions for demihumans?
Now what's to keep every elf from feeling just like every human?
(DUH!)"
"They changed the saving throws? But saving vs spells is so more
realistic and intuitive than simply dodging out of the way. I'm going
to keep using the old ST tables NO MATTER WHAT."
Sheesh.
jbs
jbs
<shadow...@boone.net> wrote:
>> By your logic, wizards should have Exceptional Intelligence, priest
>> should have Exceptional Wisdom, and thieves shoud have Exceptional
>> Dexterity.
>
>No, that's not what he means. Not every one can cast wizard spells, not
>every one can get help from their god. Not every one knows how to tumble
>a lock... but all of these classes CAN use weapons. It makes sense for
>the fighter class to have an advantage over the others in more ways than
>just THACO.
You mean like having no weapon or armor restrictions? Or having the
biggest HD? Or getting multi-attacks?
Considering exceptional STR only benefitted .5%* of the fighters out
there I don't think it was that big of a loss to the class as a whole.
*Statistically speaking the chances of rolling an 18 on 3d6 is 1/2
percent.
jbs
Barry Smith
> > Heh. THacO remains in my game, despite the ease of 3E's new system.
> I've
> > never had a problem with math...and I've always liked the negative AC
> > values creatures have. People need to go to school if the old THacO
> > system is too taxing on the brain. :/
>
> Never did like the negative AC value. Always have to remember that when
> you have magical armors and shields, positive = negative (now that's a
> weird mathematical assumption).
Over the course of 20+ years, it's become second nature to me. This new
system reminds me too much of the Diablo CRPG, not that that's a bad
thing, but it's just not the system I prefer on D&D tabletop. Armor
Classes of 43 in D&D seem...weird. :)
> > > 5. Arcane spellcasters can wear armor - if they want a chance of
> spell
> > > failure and want to forgo other important "wizard" type abilities.
> >
> > But why would a wizard do that? Spell failure for the added benefits
> > higher ACs, more encumbrance, and less maneuverability? Tank mages are
> a
> > definite no show IMC.
> >
> > This reminds me of that Conan movie where Akira walks around in heavy
> > plate or is carrying a ton of stuff, staggering around like a monkey,
> > while Conan wonders what's taking so long...
>
> I have yet to be convinced as to why mages cannot cast spell in armors,
> not even those reasons you stated above has not changed my mind.
>
> As for Akira, it is his choice to wear them clunky armor but at least
> his magic is not affected.
Thus, my point. Shouldn't his magic or ability scores be affected by
wearing armors? It's the distinction made in fantasy that mages never
wear armor, and it's one I'm comfortable using. It also will prevent the
mage from selecting the only magical armor in the treasure pile before
the fighter "....because I can use it, too." ;)
The fighter's gonna stand around saying, "Ok, now what am I supposed to
do with this stick?" ;)
> > Why on earth would I want to do that? I have more important things to
> > do like run a campaign than totally re-create a pantheon. I suppose
> > it might be a good thing for beginning DMs. As a veteran DM, though,
> > I have all the deities I'll ever need IMC right now, so this part of
> > 3E is wasted space.
>
> Maybe because a generic cleric is not enough, not even the druid. Being
> an ordained servant of a deity meaning you follow it to a detail. If
> you're a Priest of Odin, and that Odin is fond of his longspear,
> shouldn't you?
Heh. My priests of <insert Realms deity here> already gain that ability.
See the Faiths and Avatars, Power and Pantheons, and Demihuman Deities
books for the preferred weapons they're expected to use, and they're not
all blunts... :)
> > > 9. Critical hit system added to basic combat engine.
> >
> > It's gonna have to be pretty good to beat the MERP critical hit system
> > I'm using now...
>
> MERP? Bah! Rolemaster is the way to go, especially for the intelligent
> complex-minded adults! ;)
Heh heh. Drollmaster? *spits* ;)
> Regardless, even MERP and Rolemaster are not the kind of system a newbie
> should begin their first journey into roleplaying (sorry, ICE).
> Granted, D&D combat system is abstract but it simple.
Aye. It's that heavy leaning towards "simplicity" about 3E that's
turning me off of it, too. Some things are going to be good changes,
though.
jbs
wrote:
>Well, I've pretty much ingrained myself into the 1-25 ability score
>ranges, and removal of the exceptional strength sets seems like it may
>be getting too close to those divine ability scores I'm so afraid of
>giving out to players. 3E, at least this is the impression I have so far
>on ability scores, seems to inflate that to the upper ranges, and it
>quickly becomes a dangerous line to tread. Under 2E, 19s and higher are
>the beginning of "divine" level ability scores. What will that be in 3E?
There are two answers to this. 1) The line is fuzzy now. There isn't
a clear one. And 2) It's still 18. That's the normal human max.
Bear in mind that normal humans are 0-level fighters. Anything else
isn't normal anymore and isn't held to that standard.
Make sense?
>Ehhh, I still don't see the need. All this apparently is doing is
>shortening one spell level list for the lengthening of another.
I think the main point was to make mages and clerics use the same
spell progression table. Probably for ease of saying that spell
progression is equal between the two.
jbs
Barry Smith
> >Well, I've pretty much ingrained myself into the 1-25 ability score
> >ranges, and removal of the exceptional strength sets seems like it may
> >be getting too close to those divine ability scores I'm so afraid of
> >giving out to players. 3E, at least this is the impression I have so far
> >on ability scores, seems to inflate that to the upper ranges, and it
> >quickly becomes a dangerous line to tread. Under 2E, 19s and higher are
> >the beginning of "divine" level ability scores. What will that be in 3E?
>
> There are two answers to this. 1) The line is fuzzy now. There isn't
> a clear one. And 2) It's still 18. That's the normal human max.
> Bear in mind that normal humans are 0-level fighters. Anything else
> isn't normal anymore and isn't held to that standard.
>
> Make sense?
Thank you. It's still fuzzy (1), but I'd be very concerned over
"anything else isn't normal" (2), which would imply that 18+ ability
scores would be allowed in 3E. We'll have to wait and see since we can't
have any breakages of NDAs. :)
> >Ehhh, I still don't see the need. All this apparently is doing is
> >shortening one spell level list for the lengthening of another.
>
> I think the main point was to make mages and clerics use the same
> spell progression table. Probably for ease of saying that spell
> progression is equal between the two.
Ok. Heh.
Shadowknight
"Ryan S. Dancey" <ry...@frpg.com> wrote in message
news:sgpe6t...@corp.supernews.com...
> > the age of computers does not necessarily means you should let THEM
> > proofread and edit the material's content and context.
>
> Trust me, there are dozens of human eyeballs on the text.
>
EWWW!!! Does WOTC really want to bring back the rumors of
Satanism?
Free! With every purchase of the new D&D.... REAL HUMAN EYEBALLS!!
Shadowknight, who has a VERY strange sense of humor, sometimes...
Shadowknight
"jbs" <j...@excelonline.com> wrote in message
news:gqapgssj3aq6cjev8...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2000 11:36:34 -0700, "Shadowknight"
> <shadow...@boone.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> By your logic, wizards should have Exceptional Intelligence, priest
> >> should have Exceptional Wisdom, and thieves shoud have Exceptional
> >> Dexterity.
> >
> >No, that's not what he means. Not every one can cast wizard spells, not
> >every one can get help from their god. Not every one knows how to tumble
> >a lock... but all of these classes CAN use weapons. It makes sense for
> >the fighter class to have an advantage over the others in more ways than
> >just THACO.
>
> You mean like having no weapon or armor restrictions?
The thief can use most bladed weapons, and the cleric isn't restricted
to what armor they can wear.
Or having the
> biggest HD? Or getting multi-attacks?
Fighters don't get more attacks till 7th level (without specialization).
As for the hit die, its only got a maximum of 2 points more than the clerics
HD...
who get more powers to boot. PLUS some speciality clerics can use bladed
weapons...
>
> Considering exceptional STR only benefitted .5%* of the fighters out
> there I don't think it was that big of a loss to the class as a whole.
Part of the incentive to play a fighter, a class that is less versatile than
the other classes (magic spells, clerical spells, thiefly abilities).
I still don't see the point in getting rid of it either...
> *Statistically speaking the chances of rolling an 18 on 3d6 is 1/2
> percent.
>
>
> jbs
Shadowknight
Barry Smith
> Do you always choose the hard way over the easy way?
No.
> >Clunky? LOL. How clunky can a check against my Dexterity be? Gee, my Dex
> >is 15....I need a 15 or lower. If there's penalties to that Dex check,
> >15 *minus* the penalty....if there's a bonus, 15 *plus* the modifier.
> >Hardly clunky....
>
> Clunkier than "Roll d20. Roll high. Add your attribute bonus. What
> did you get?" Remember, 75% of the reason for 3E is to make it easier
> for *new* players to learn. The simpler it is, the easier it'll be to
> teach to new blood. And I think we *all* want new blood in the hobby.
Remind me again where in the previous sentence I said I didn't want new
players into the hobby again?
> >This reminds me of that Conan movie where Akira walks around in heavy
> >plate or is carrying a ton of stuff, staggering around like a monkey,
> >while Conan wonders what's taking so long...
>
> Tee hee. You're funny.
I try. :)
> >Heh. So far to date, I've never forgotten a saving throw category or
> >failed to decide where a particular, unusual saving throw should be
> >saved under. Sometimes, change is a bad thing.
>
> Oh. I guess you *do* prefer the hard way over the easy intuitive way.
> Unfortunately, we get back to that "bringing new blood in" thing.
And again, I don't object to new blood in the hobby. I do object to the
idea (as you just confirmed for me, thank you) that 3E is being dumbed
down for the newbie player and DM. Funny, it's never been "hard" for
everyone who's ever tried playing AD&D up to now, but suddenly, now it
appears to be. I wonder why that is.
> >Why on earth would I want to do that? I have more important things to do
> >like run a campaign than totally re-create a pantheon. I suppose it
> >might be a good thing for beginning DMs. As a veteran DM, though, I have
> >all the deities I'll ever need IMC right now, so this part of 3E is
> >wasted space.
>
> Everyone together now: "NEW BLOOD!" Heh, wasted space because you
> don't need it? K. Personally, I don't like clerics as an adventuring
> class at all. I prefer they keep them at the same level as the city
> guard.
Stop overemphasizing something I don't object to, please. Please. I
don't need that part of 3E because I already have it completely
configured in my campaign. To scrap all that and start my pantheon over
would be redundant and a waste of my time.
> >It's gonna have to be pretty good to beat the MERP critical hit system
> >I'm using now...
>
> So this is more wasted space? And everyone else should go out and get
> the MERP books too?
*sigh*
Sea Wasp
> Thank you. It's still fuzzy (1), but I'd be very concerned over
> "anything else isn't normal" (2), which would imply that 18+ ability
> scores would be allowed in 3E. We'll have to wait and see since we can't
> have any breakages of NDAs. :)
This part's already been talked about.
All stats are open-ended.
All stats are on the same table.
All creatures (Characters and Monsters) use the same stats.
Thus a 25 is NOT the equivalent of a God.
It's just pretty damn strong/smart/whatever.
255 might be closer to a Godly strength.
Brad Thompson
>
> Free! With every purchase of the new D&D.... REAL HUMAN EYEBALLS!!
Good with spaghetti! Who needs meatballs!?
-Brad
Shadowknight
> "Shadowknight" <shadow...@boone.net> wrote in message
> news:9o1P4.208$hl4.1...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
> > Did I SAY I thought 3rd ed, something I haven't seen is broken? No.
>
> Sorry. First sentence of my reply was too strongly worded.
Don't worry, no problems here.
Oh, okay. I haven't heard about this. It's more like binding a spell to one
word
(or putting a bullet in a gun), then at the right time, pulling the
trigger/saying the word.
THAT does make sense. Oddly enough, I had a similar idea a few months a ago,
for
a new spell that allowed you to do something like this in emergency
situations,
where you needed to cast a long, complicated spell... Gues me and WOTC think
alike :)
> --
> Duane VanderPol
> http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp
> Alea jacta est. In omnia paratus. Ars gratia artis.
>
>
By the by, what's the translation on your sig?
Shadowknight
Reginald
"Barry Smith" <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote:
>
> Reginald wrote:
>
> > > Heh. THacO remains in my game, despite the ease of 3E's new
> > > system. I've never had a problem with math...and I've always
> > > liked the negative AC values creatures have. People need to
> > > go to school if the old THacO system is too taxing on the
> > > brain. :/
> >
> > Never did like the negative AC value. Always have to remember
> > that when you have magical armors and shields,
> > positive = negative (now that's a weird mathematical
> > assumption).
>
> Over the course of 20+ years, it's become second nature to me.
> This new system reminds me too much of the Diablo CRPG, not that
> that's a bad thing, but it's just not the system I prefer on D&D
> tabletop. Armor Classes of 43 in D&D seem...weird. :)
And looking like Diablo CRPG would be a bad thing because...? ;)
BTW, WotC will publish a Diablo campaign setting. Lawd know when it
will come out though and what version (2nd edition or 3E).
> > > > 5. Arcane spellcasters can wear armor - if they want a
> > > > chance of spell failure and want to forgo other important
> > > > "wizard" type abilities.
> > >
> > > But why would a wizard do that? Spell failure for the added
> > > benefits higher ACs, more encumbrance, and less
> > > maneuverability? Tank mages are a definite no show IMC.
> > >
> > > This reminds me of that Conan movie where Akira walks around
> > > in heavy plate or is carrying a ton of stuff, staggering
> > > around like a monkey, while Conan wonders what's taking so
> > > long...
> >
> > I have yet to be convinced as to why mages cannot cast spell in
armors,
> > not even those reasons you stated above has not changed my mind.
> >
> > As for Akira, it is his choice to wear them clunky armor but at
least
> > his magic is not affected.
>
> Thus, my point. Shouldn't his magic or ability scores be affected by
> wearing armors?
Yeah, but not so much that it will prevent him from using magic. I
don't see armor as a nullifier or a suppressor to the wizard's magic,
like "yellow kryptonite"(?) nullifies Superman and makes him as normal
as human.
> It's the distinction made in fantasy that mages never wear armor,
> and it's one I'm comfortable using. It also will prevent the mage
> from selecting the only magical armor in the treasure pile before
> the fighter "....because I can use it, too." ;)
Don't worry. The wizards have to devote a feat slot to take armor, and
more slots to use heavier armor. Considering that he, like almost the
rest of the class, get only one feat per 4 levels, it'll be some time
before he can become a "tank mage."
> The fighter's gonna stand around saying, "Ok, now what am I supposed
to
> do with this stick?" ;)
Find another stick and rub it together. ;)
> > > Why on earth would I want to do that? I have more important
> > > things to do like run a campaign than totally re-create a
> > > pantheon. I suppose it might be a good thing for beginning
> > > DMs. As a veteran DM, though, I have all the deities I'll
> > > ever need IMC right now, so this part of 3E is wasted space.
> >
> > Maybe because a generic cleric is not enough, not even the
> > druid. Being an ordained servant of a deity meaning you
> > follow it to a detail. If you're a Priest of Odin, and that
> > Odin is fond of his longspear, shouldn't you?
>
> Heh. My priests of <insert Realms deity here> already gain that
> ability. See the Faiths and Avatars, Power and Pantheons, and
> Demihuman Deities books for the preferred weapons they're
> expected to use, and they're not all blunts... :)
True, if you're taking a specialty priest class. Again, they're
offering you options, not limits. It's up to Dungeon Master to consider
the limitation of his campaign.
> > > > 9. Critical hit system added to basic combat engine.
> > >
> > > It's gonna have to be pretty good to beat the MERP critical hit
> > > system I'm using now...
> >
> > MERP? Bah! Rolemaster is the way to go, especially for the
> > intelligent
> > complex-minded adults! ;)
>
> Heh heh. Drollmaster? *spits* ;)
Besides, isn't MERP a Rolemaster version of the D&D Basic boxed Set? ;)
> > Regardless, even MERP and Rolemaster are not the kind of system
> > a newbie should begin their first journey into roleplaying
> > (sorry, ICE). Granted, D&D combat system is abstract but it
> > simple.
>
> Aye. It's that heavy leaning towards "simplicity" about 3E that's
> turning me off of it, too. Some things are going to be good changes,
> though.
Perhaps you have simply outgrown D&D. People have a wide range of
choice these days. But still, D&D is one of the first choices for
newbie role-players.
Reginald
"Jason Hatter" <towo...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> reg...@cchnl.com (Reginald) proclaimed:
>
> >2. Half-orc, missing in 2nd edition, returns.
>
> ? He's been back since the Complete Book of Humanoids, along with
> a whole host of others.
No, I mean it's back as a standard PC race IN the core rules (Player's
Handbook), just as it was when it first appeared in the 1st edition
Player's Handbook.
The Complete Handbooks series are considered optional rules, meaning you
have to buy one or more to include in your campaign.
Christopher Adams
>>>4. No Class level limit for demihumans.
>>
>> come elves,
>
> Actually more to the point the core rules no longer impose
> artifical (read: camapaign world-specific) expectations on
> character creation.
<snip>
>>> 5. Demihumans can be Paladins and other classes that
>>> was once restricted.
>>
>> Personal prefference; don't like it.
>
> Whoop de doo. - My opinion.
> Again, the PHB is not making any restrictions the "Default"
> for a given game setting. Such information, I feel, was
> always more suited to the individual campaign boxed sets
> than in a core rulebook (unless of course the game is set
> up using only ONE campaign world, ever).
This is one of the more positive things about Third Edition, as far as I am
concerned - it's presenting a system that looks to be a lot more adaptable and
generic than D&D has ever been before. I think it's probably partly a reaction
to systems like GURPS or the Storyteller System, which were designed to be
adaptable to pretty much any type of game (although obviously the real
"universal" system is the bare-bones D20 system, while D&D remains the "fantasy"
expression of that system); but, perhaps unwittingly, it also accomodates those
who like the freedom to alter the rules as they see fit. D&D always made it
clear that the DM's word was final, but I think now more than ever before you'll
be able to get that feel from the rules themselves, not just the designer's
blurb at the beginning. The very fact that the underlying system is designed to
be flexible means that this feeling of freedom *has* to come through.
When it comes to concrete examples like no demihuman level limits, opening up
multi-classing to all comers and removing racial class restrictions, again it
makes the DM's option to impose his or her own restrictions on the game more
obvious and important. Things like this *should* be done; though D&D does have a
definite overarching feel (like with elves having wizard as a preferred class),
as little as possible should be set in stone. Level limits seem to have
traditionally been one of the things that players ignored anyway, so why include
it? It's just a waste of textual space. D&D isn't set in one single gameworld,
and even games that do are often hijacked to other purposes by their players
(though why one would want to use the MERP rules for another world is beyond me
;) ).
--
Kit
A man of no fortune, and with a name to come.
Vice-President, SUTEKH 2000
-------------
Get thee behind me, thetan.
- Lee Ann Rucker
Christopher Adams
>>
>>
>> If a human can get to 20th level in 60 years, a 600 year
>> old elf should be around...200th level. <snip>
>
> If the players still wish to play the elf and reach level 200
> (that's a whole lots of campaign), by all means, go ahead.
> They have that right as as species with longer lifespan.
I think the issue some people have with demihumans not having level limits is
that it means that the most powerful fighter/wizard/thief (priests are
presumably kept in check by their deities) in the world would *always* be a
member of the longest-lived PC race, simply because he or she can just "keep
going" and level up again and again.
It becomes an issue of campaign balance, which is why for my part I prefer to
just make the assumption that there is a limit to how much experience, skill,
knowledge and power one person can accumulate, which is modelled in the game
(for me) by 20th level; that's the upper limit because it's just as good as you
get. Of course, exceptional circumstances mean that you could have a more
powerful PC or NPC, but that's the stage where you stop dealing with class
levels and start dealing with issues of demigodhood and so forth. It's kind of
like the old D&D Immortals rules, except that it's not modelled by levels
anymore. In any case, my point is that in a system like that the "ancient elves
would be 2000th level" objection doesn't apply, because NO-ONE is 2000th level,
and progressing to a level of power beyond 20th class level would be a mark of
destiny, not something that would have anything to do with how much time you had
left in your lifespan to improve.
Eric Noah
the product yourself before buying. That way you don't need to "trust"
them--you can see for yourself if it looks good or not.
Eric Noah
D&D 3E News
http://www.rpgplanet.com/dnd3e/
"Reginald" <reg...@cchnl.com> wrote in message
news:8eifqo$d15$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com...
>
> "Ryan S. Dancey" <ry...@frpg.com> wrote:
> > Trust me, there are dozens of human eyeballs on the text.
>
Gerard
to keep monsters at bay, does that mean you just get an extra attack
for reach or are there rules you can use to keep a monster (ghoul)
away from you????
Also do you still have something like damage type slashing, bashing
and so on???
Gerard
On Sun, 30 Apr 2000 12:42:13 -0700, "Ryan S. Dancey" <ry...@frpg.com>
wrote:
>Reach
>
>Imagine you're facing a Fire Giant. Why does the Giant let you run right up
>to his ankles before attacking you? Imagine you're the golf-ball, and his
>club is the driver! With "Reach", the Giant can start hitting you with
>melee attacks before you can hit him; simulating the effects of his much
>larger size.
>
>Also, imagine how much cooler it will be to have a long pike or pole-arm.
>If you're in the second row behind the front-line fighters, and you have a
>weapon with "Reach", you can still attack the opponents facing the front
>line!
>
>Also, imagine that you're being attacked by monsters with a touch-attack
>(like level draining, perhaps). If your party uses weapons with "Reach",
>you can attempt to kill any monster that comes near - >before< they're in
>range to use their touch-attacks!
>
>Adding the element of "Reach" means combat does a better job of addressing
>size differences and it allows us to make weapon selection more interesting;
>again, by adding a small, lightweight rule to the game.
>
>Ryan
>
>
Tetsubo
> Even the huge heavy crossbows, with the winch and pulley system used to
> cock and set the bow for firing? I think a minimum strength is
>
> I see how everyone thinks the lesser crossbows could be used by mages,
> and you all are right, but the heavy? Somehow, I have a vision in my
> head of a weakling mage trying and trying to turn this winch over and
> over to get it recocked, and failing.... ;)
I think you misunderstand the function of a winch and pulley cocking system. The
winch arms are as much as 12" long, giving you a 24" stroke. The winch also has a
ratchet within it, meaning you only have to move it from one "tooth" to the next.
Additionally the pulley grants you a significant mechanical advantage. As long as
the mage in question is in relatively decent physical condition they should be able
to cock and load a heavy crossbow. If they have a really low ST or CN stat you might
add additional time to the prossess. But they should still be able to use one. You
might also consider using a gastraphetes for seige warfare. Here is some info on
them:
http://www.nzp.com/0400tensionart.html
http://www.unc.edu/courses/rometech/public/content/special/Kat_Smith/ROMANARTILLERY.htm
http://home.t-online.de/home/d.baatz/catgastr.htm
http://www.dragonridge.com/stories/Ancient_Fortification_Artillery.html
--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"I surmise that your basement is made of skin and is never depleted of nurses."
The Surrealist Compliment Generator
http://www.madsci.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/~lynn/jardin/SCG
A'koss
"Barry Smith" <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote in message
news:390CC69E...@premier1.net...
> A'koss wrote:
> > Why is fireball fired from a wand treated differently than when cast
by a
> > mage or breathed by a monster? Completely identical effects - 3
different
> > saving throws.
>
> Which I think is a good thing, not a bad thing. It gives more variety
> and considers the source of the Fireball, not treating everything
> equally. It seems in 3E that every Fireball should and will be saved
> against uniformly, as if the possibility for the DM to have a stronger
> or weaker Fireball source won't be a possibility. Damage will be a
> variable, but not the save.
On the contrary, in 3e the strength of the wizard, magic and certain feats
are also factors in saving against his spells.
> > > > 9. Critical hit system added to basic combat engine.
> > >
> > > It's gonna have to be pretty good to beat the MERP critical hit system
> > > I'm using now...
> >
> > It's not, it's very abstract - but quick to resolve.
>
> Not as quick as mine, but we'll see. The MERP system I use also allows
> for a very wide interpretation of effects of a critical, not the
> previous, static effects from the PO books and other sources. :)
Quick as in "You don't need to refer to any chart" quick. I prefer more
detailed critical wound system myself. I've begged for Wizards to include
one in the DMG... We'll see. Mayfair's Blood and Steel and Rolemaster set
has some good critical charts as well.
A'koss!
Matthew aka Tiama'at
><snip>
>
>>>> 5. Demihumans can be Paladins and other classes that
>>>> was once restricted.
>>>
>>> Personal prefference; don't like it.
>>
>> Whoop de doo. - My opinion.
>> Again, the PHB is not making any restrictions the "Default"
>> for a given game setting. Such information, I feel, was
>> always more suited to the individual campaign boxed sets
>> than in a core rulebook (unless of course the game is set
>> up using only ONE campaign world, ever).
>
>This is one of the more positive things about Third Edition, as far as
>I am concerned - it's presenting a system that looks to be a lot more
>adaptable and generic than D&D has ever been before. I think it's
>probably partly a reaction to systems like GURPS or the Storyteller
>System, which were designed to be adaptable to pretty much any type of
>game (although obviously the real "universal" system is the bare-bones
>D20 system, while D&D remains the "fantasy"
I agree, although WoD games are not what I truly consider generic -
they are tied to their specific settings. Storyteller and Silhouette
are generic systems - Vampire and Tribe 8 are setting-specific
variations of those systems.
--
Matthew Hickey aka Tiama'at ][ "in a moment we lost our minds here
matthe...@hotmail.com ][ and lay our spirit down
WS/Soc (H) IV - Carleton U (Can)][ today we lived a thousand years
ICQ: 12954569 (Tiama'at) ][ all we have is now" - Live
Jason Hatter
(Denakhan the Arch-Mage) proclaimed
<r1LO4.188517$Dv1.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>:
>say Ragamuffin is using a 2-handed-sword..."only" 4 attacks...but
>he gets them all at the "same time" within 1 second. Can you
>picture that? hehehe. Reminds me of bad fantasy movies.
Then its a good thing that it occurs in a six second period of time,
isn't it?
--
Jason
ICQ#24332701
Sith Lords should learn to stay away from wells.
Jason Hatter
proclaimed <8efqm3$sms$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>:
>2. Half-orc, missing in 2nd edition, returns.
? He's been back since the Complete Book of Humanoids, along with a
whole host of others.
Jason Hatter
proclaimed <52jpgsk37gksmeqvq...@4ax.com>:
>There are two answers to this. 1) The line is fuzzy now. There
>isn't a clear one. And 2) It's still 18. That's the normal human
>max. Bear in mind that normal humans are 0-level fighters.
The way I understood it, 18 was the *starting max (ie, no starting
human character could have higher than an 18) but that they could
continue onwards.
After all, even a 20th level fighter with an 18 to start with who
puts all his stat increases into Str is still going to have many
creatures, including giants, who are stronger.
Jason Hatter
(Shadowknight) proclaimed
<RR5P4.2782$Ie5.2...@news-west.usenetserver.com>:
>specialization). As for the hit die, its only got a maximum of 2
>points more than the clerics HD...
Maximum of 4, actually, if you factor in the bonus HP fighters get
from Con.
Of course,thats offset by the fighters ridiculously high XP
requirements, especially in regards with Clerics, so it's a good
thing they got rid of that as well...
Jason Hatter
proclaimed <390C9F...@wizvax.net>:
> I don't. It was always ludicrous. Not ONE other character
> class has a special division of the stats just for its use.
Not true. Cavaliers did. They had three of 'em, in fact...and they
all improved.
Jason Hatter
proclaimed <D_ZO4.191090$Dv1.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>:
> Why is fireball fired from a wand treated differently than when
> cast by a
>mage or breathed by a monster? Completely identical effects - 3
>different saving throws.
They're not "completely identical". 1) They're generated
differently. 2) The wand is actually more powerful than a wizard of
the same level as the casting level of the wand, because it does a
minimum of 2 points of damage per die.
I can see having a separate category of saves when the effect being
generated is from a mindless source, instead of from a living (or
sentient) creator.
Jason Hatter
Smith) proclaimed <390CECA2...@premier1.net>:
>being dumbed down for the newbie player and DM. Funny, it's never
>been "hard" for everyone who's ever tried playing AD&D up to now,
>but suddenly, now it appears to be. I wonder why that is.
True. It's never been hard for *everyone*...but for some people it
is. I game with 3 people who've been gaming for 6+ years who STILL
can't remember if they have to roll high for Saves or low...and
they're not idiots.
A'koss
"Jason Hatter" <towo...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:8F27114C0towon...@207.211.168.94...
> On 30 Apr 2000, in rec.games.frp.dnd, infi...@home.com (A'koss)
> proclaimed <D_ZO4.191090$Dv1.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>:
>
> > Why is fireball fired from a wand treated differently than when
> > cast by a
> >mage or breathed by a monster? Completely identical effects - 3
> >different saving throws.
>
> They're not "completely identical". 1) They're generated
> differently. 2) The wand is actually more powerful than a wizard of
> the same level as the casting level of the wand, because it does a
> minimum of 2 points of damage per die.
Really now... That's odd because every class actually has an *easier* time
saving against the wand than they would against the cast spell. However the
difference between the two saves is almost negligable (always within 1 point
of one another for every class). If that's the case then I don't see why we
need to make the distinction in that fashion. Saves should be based on the
power of the spell and the power of the caster.
A'koss!
Christopher Adams
> they are tied to their specific settings. Storyteller and Silhouette
> are generic systems - Vampire and Tribe 8 are setting-specific
> variations of those systems.
Oh, yes. I mean, Vampire is not exactly the same as Werewolf or Mage, but they
all use the Storyteller system - just as D&D won't be exactly the same as Star
Wars, but they both will use the D20 System.
Christopher Adams
>
> By the by, what's the translation on your sig?
Alea jacta est = the die is cast. It's what Gaius Julius Caesar is reputed to
have said before crossing the Rubicon, though some sources claim that he quoted
his favourite Greek poet, Menander, and said, "Let the dice fly high!"
In omnia paratus = preparation in everything, though I would translate it
loosely as "Be prepared."
Ars gratia artis = art for art's sake.
The Wraith
<matthe...@icqmail.com> wrote:
>I can hear you, Denakhan the Arch-Mage, can you hear me?
>>Reginald wrote in message <8efqm3$sms$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>...
>>>
>>>1. No Exceptional Strength (yes, they're revising the table)
>>
>> Not a good point, IMHO. I *liked* the fact that fighter-types
>> could be
>>stronger than the 'other' classes. It's what they do.
>
>No they fight better, should Wizards be allowed to have Exceptional
>Intelligence?
Well, yes.
Using the standard 3-18 scale and assuming the 3d6 rolling method is
supposed to model the general population of the game world, having an
18 really just means the character is in about the top half-percentile
of the population in that stat. It is perfectly valid to want to get
more detailed than that at the high end of the scale, which is where
heroic fantasy generally focusses, and Exceptional Strength provides a
facility to do that, for Strength. Exceptional Intelligence provides
the same facility for Intelligence.
Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that fighters tend to have
better Exceptional Strength, and that wizards tend to have better
Exceptional Intelligence.
There are a couple of problems with the Exceptional Strength system,
though. Firstly, the system assumes that everybody in that top
half-percentile of the population is a character with a class, and
that class is a warrior type. This ties in with the second problem,
which is the fact that every warrior gets that Exceptional Strength -
there's no provision for the warrior who isn't quite exceptional.
Really, both these problems would be solved by giving 18 Strength
characters a chance to have Exceptional Strength, and making that
chance better for warriors. Thirdly, only Strength gets this upper-end
detail boost - easily fixed by adding other Exceptional Attributes.
Fourthly, balance problems with Exceptional Strength have been noted,
which could be handled simply by reworking the bonuses.
So in short, there's plenty of reason why some might like to have a
well-done exceptional attribute system. It's just that Exceptional
Strength is not particularly well-done.
--
Now, by popular demand, a new .sig!
I still can't think of anything witty to say, though.
The Wraith
The Wraith
wrote:
>Denakhan the Arch-Mage wrote:
>
>> VERY STUPID! Sorry, but can you *please* explain how come elves, as a
>> whole, are not listed as "All elves know how to fight. The level range for
>> the fighter class is 50 +2d100". It's simple numbers; elves live longer.
>> If a human can get to 20th level in 60 years, a 600 year old elf should be
>> it constantly gets wider and wider gaps between levels, you are still
>> looking at levels for a 1,000 year old elf to be in the dozens and _dozens_
>> of levels.
>
>This is an age old argument, Denakhan, and one I've never been able to
>find even an adequate solution for. The age discrepancies between the
>classes never has made any sense, and until I see something that changes
>my view on that, I'll just keep letting it float as a "no-rule" ruling.
There's a simple solution for it. Have elves advance more slowly, at a
rate commeasurate with their life spans. To explain the slower
advancement, merely give elves a world-view and lifestyle that matches
their life span. The elves of fantasy fiction with 1000-year life
spans are the sort of characters who will go on an adventure with some
humans, then disappear back into the elven forests only to emerge 20
years later and go on an adventure with the children of the humans in
the first group, without having paid much attention to the time that
has passed between times.
The problem is more that players tend to just change the numbers and
not bother considering what other changes should go with those
changes. That's what produces the level 200 elf.
Of course, we aren't often interested in playing characters who can
disappear for 20 years without really considering that passage of time
particularly significant. Since this is the case, we should be
considering using elves with shorter life spans.
The Wraith
wrote:
>
>Just one more advice to the 3E designers: Just because we now live in
>the age of computers does not necessarily means you should let THEM
>proofread and edit the material's content and context.
Of course, humans aren't perfect either. I've just spent most of my
weekend running a roleplaying module at a convention. My handout
material for this game has all been gone over by playtesters, then I
got a friend of mine who is a qualified editor to proofread the
material for me, and the game ran several times at the con. Finally,
at the start of the very last session of play, I noticed one of the
players put a proofreading mark on one of the character sheets,
denoting a typo that had been missed by *every* other player of that
character, the proofreader and me.
Andrew Tellez
Denakhan the Arch-Mage wrote:
> Reginald wrote in message <8efqm3$sms$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>...
> >
> >1. No Exceptional Strength (yes, they're revising the table)
>
> Not a good point, IMHO. I *liked* the fact that fighter-types could be
> stronger than the 'other' classes. It's what they do.
But ONLY the fighters with an 18 strength get boosted. Fighters in
general are no stronger than anyone else. If you want stronger
fighters, giving them 1d4 extra points of strength, which would benefit
all fighters, is better than giving only the strongest more bonuses.