Why I'm not going to bother with 3E.
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Ok, lately I've been giving my opinions about some 3E stuff...and
getting a "few" light-flamings. Expected, and I have no problem with that.
As I've stated many times, I am only going by what I read at Eric's site,
various other RPG review sites and this (and other) NG's. I almost went
down and bought the PHB 3E on Friday. Almost. I held off, waiting for some
more $$$. I am coming into $35 tomorrow so I should have enough now (after
bills, food, gas, etc) (it's $36.00 canadian here). I've decided to not buy
right now. My reasons are simple: from the looks of it, I wouldn't be
playing it anyway. Things I don't like about it...
1) Any Race / Any Class
2) Unlimited Level Advancement for everyone
3) Multiclass up the wazoo.
4) Combat 'round' thing.
5) No weapons speed factors.
6) Spells *seem* more geared towards "does damage", and "does more damage".
7) AoO combat stuff (just don't like the way it seems to be done)
8) Ability score Increases as level increases
9) The d20 system in general (to predictable, IMHO)
10) WotC tend's to lie/exagerate/ignore legal stuff (the OGL and D20 License
thing); so I don't want to give them more money if at all possible.
11) Feats seem to powerful/important to the system, and to "players choice"
for my liking..
12) [Rumor I heard] Assassins casting spells. *shudder*
13) Healing...too much, IMHO.
14) Healing. Oh, I said that...well, it's still too much.
Those are them in a nutshell. When I come into a LOT more money, I'll
probably pick one up to check it out. Until then, there just seems to be to
many thing's in the game I'd have to change to suit my style, making it just
not worth it.
Concider me Silenced, 15'r. on 3E until I get a book (if ever).
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Hong Ooi
<pm...@home.com> wrote:
>12) [Rumor I heard] Assassins casting spells. *shudder*
It's true. The horror, the horror!
(Assassins with at least 11 Int get a small number of arcane spells per
day, starting at 1st level. The max spell level they can cast is 4th,
and they prepare spells like Wizards do.)
--
Hong Ooi | "Game guys, Java has been around since
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | 1994. It's DEAD."
http://www.zip.com.au/~hong | -- T.
Canberra, Australia |
Niilo Paasivirta
>playing it anyway. Things I don't like about it...
Weird, I'm not very enthusiastic about playing or DMing 3rd ed. either,
but we seem to have completely different opionions! Let's see...
>1) Any Race / Any Class
>2) Unlimited Level Advancement for everyone
>3) Multiclass up the wazoo.
I like those things!
>4) Combat 'round' thing.
I think it is still much better than one minute round.
>5) No weapons speed factors.
Yes, those should be used. Easy to add, but makes 3rd ed's combat even
more complex.
>6) Spells *seem* more geared towards "does damage", and "does more damage".
Perhaps, but really, they do less damage than in 1st edition, and less damage
than in pre-2.5 2nd edition. And everyone now has more hit points.
But subdual and "the other" damage seem just silly, as the latter is still as
abstract as ever. Smash someone with a spiked club, and, if that someone
has enough hit points, won't even have real bloody wounds!
>7) AoO combat stuff (just don't like the way it seems to be done)
I just wonder what AoO means...
>8) Ability score Increases as level increases
Yep, abilities should be somehow trained or something.
>9) The d20 system in general (to predictable, IMHO)
It doesn't have fumbles (or I haven't noticed them?)! So if you do use
that obnoxious dire flail, you never hit yourself, which, in real life,
would be inevitable.
>10) WotC tend's to lie/exagerate/ignore legal stuff (the OGL and D20 License
>thing); so I don't want to give them more money if at all possible.
I decided not to even think about their legal crap. We re-write the rules and
the game worlds, and write our own adventures, and simply never publish any.
People say that some of our stuff is actually good. Thanks to WotC, you will
never see any of it :) Nyah nyah.
>11) Feats seem to powerful/important to the system, and to "players choice"
>for my liking..
One flaw is that all feats "cost" the same. Prerequisites help a bit, but
their "cost" is now based only on prerequisites.
Although we don't believe that all characters must be exactly and equally
powerful at the beginning, as most game developers seem to.
>12) [Rumor I heard] Assassins casting spells. *shudder*
It's up to the DM to restrict magic.
>13) Healing...too much, IMHO.
>14) Healing. Oh, I said that...well, it's still too much.
DM can easily restrict healing. People always assume you have to play D&D
by the book. Well, we NEVER play by the book!
--
Niilo Paasivirta E-mail: n...@co.jyu.fi URL: http://www.co.jyu.fi/%7Enp/
Michael Scott Brown
> right now. My reasons are simple: from the looks of it, I wouldn't be
> playing it anyway. Things I don't like about it...
>
> 1) Any Race / Any Class
So you think that the game should circumscribe *everyone's* choices to
meet your personal preferences?
> 2) Unlimited Level Advancement for everyone
As opposed to limited advancment for some demihumans? Are you truly the
kind of idiot that thinks this was a good rule?
<shakes head sadly>
> 3) Multiclass up the wazoo.
Please show us in the rulebook where it says "yes! multiclass like
crazy!". Oh, wait, you *can't*, because you haven't read the rulebooks.
Please show us on Eric's site where the designers commented on how
multiclassing is always *sooo* much better than single-classing. Oh, wait,
you *can't*, because they said that they wrote their rules so as to ensure
that players of either kind of character are in parity - and in fact, the
single classed character will often have much more raw power.
> 4) Combat 'round' thing.
Which is a vast improvement over the artificial stupid-fest of the
original initiative system.
> 5) No weapons speed factors.
Which were utterly and completely wrong.
> 6) Spells *seem* more geared towards "does damage", and "does more
damage".
Please show us in the rulebook how this trend is borne out. Oh, wait,
you *can't*.
> 7) AoO combat stuff (just don't like the way it seems to be done)
What, people that drop their defenses get thwacked is a poor way to do
it?
Perhaps if you ever *learned* what the rules were, but wait, you
*can't*.
> 8) Ability score Increases as level increases
It's a good idea. But at least *this* complaint doesn't render you a
fool for finding it not your style.
> 9) The d20 system in general (to predictable, IMHO)
How does *rolling* a d20 against a success/failure chance become too
predictable?
> 10) WotC tend's to lie/exagerate/ignore legal stuff (the OGL and D20
License
> thing); so I don't want to give them more money if at all possible.
Please show us where this appears in the PhB. Oh, wait, you *can't* . .
> 11) Feats seem to powerful/important to the system, and to "players
choice"
> for my liking..
Players choice is *bad*?
> 12) [Rumor I heard] Assassins casting spells. *shudder*
Ninja. Check out the legends. Rangers and Paladins can. So can Bards.
Wouldn't a character who specializes in killing people *want* to study some
magic?
> 13) Healing...too much, IMHO.
This statement is one of pure and utter ignorance.
> Those are them in a nutshell. When I come into a LOT more money, I'll
> probably pick one up to check it out. Until then, there just seems to be
to
> many thing's in the game I'd have to change to suit my style, making it
just
> not worth it.
>
> Concider me Silenced, 15'r. on 3E until I get a book (if ever).
If only we could hope this were true.
-Michael
Sheitan
> 1) Any Race / Any Class
> 2) Unlimited Level Advancement for everyone
> 3) Multiclass up the wazoo.
> 4) Combat 'round' thing.
> 5) No weapons speed factors.
> 7) AoO combat stuff
> 8) Ability score Increases as level increases
> 9) The d20 system in general )
> 11) Feats
These are all Good Things, IMO.
Ahh well, different strokes and all that.
- Sheitan
"Denakhan the Arch-Mage" <pm...@home.com> wrote in message
news:ka%u5.283734$8u4.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
Sheitan
>
> I just wonder what AoO means...
Attack of Opportunity.
- Sheitan
Jeremy Reaban
Denakhan the Arch-Mage wrote in message ...
<snip>
> Things I don't like about it...
All those things are actually reasons I bought 3E. I've always hated
the restrictiveness of AD&D. I've always done away with level limits,
class restrictions, and such when I DMed, and now I'm glad it's
official. And the other things tend to make the game quicker/less
obtrusive. Yeah, stuff like weapon speed factors are more realistic,
but a PITA to actually use. Feats have sort of a silly name, but make
the characters more intersesting. And are much like the
advantages/disadvantages systems found in most other RPGs, only
eliminating the bad aspect of it. (Taking something negative like tone
deafness so you can have a +1 to hit). All in all, a pretty good job.
Well, not
"10) WotC tend's to lie/exagerate/ignore legal stuff (the OGL and D20
License"
And even then, I tend to disagree with you about how bad WOTC is. Yes,
they're probably wrong legally about how much of a rule system a
company can own, but as they've shown in the past, they have deep
enough pockets to sue anyone over it and win by attrition. And now
their pockets are even deeper since Hasbro owns them. And their
policy is liberal enough to not really bother most people.
In fact, it's encouraging people to print supplements and such for
it. Why is that bad? There are already enough rules systems out there
, this just lets them concentrate on making source
material...especially smaller companies...
Nocturnal Rambler
wrote:
>Strange.... many of the reasons I *like* about 3E are on your list too.
Some of these things do not bother me. Some of them bother me greatly.
>
>> 1) Any Race / Any Class
I have a problem with this. I have problems envisioning some races as
some classes.
>> 2) Unlimited Level Advancement for everyone
This I am already doing when I referee.
>> 3) Multiclass up the wazoo.
This I am already doing when I referee.
>> 4) Combat 'round' thing.
I am not sure what you mean here.
>> 5) No weapons speed factors.
This is something I do hate.
>> 7) AoO combat stuff
What the nuke??
>> 8) Ability score Increases as level increases
Bzzzzzzzzzz This would not be allowed in my campaign _if_ I ever go
3E in any form.
>> 9) The d20 system in general )
I do not think I have a problem with this.
>> 11) Feats
Some of the feats are not a problem. The one I can think of would be
plain discarded and banned forever from my campaign is the magic item
creation feat. No way would I allow this to be used. Enchant an Item
(6th level mage ), equivalents, and sequals do the job quite nicely.
>
>These are all Good Things, IMO.
>
>Ahh well, different strokes and all that.
Yes, I am glad we do agree on this one general concept.
>
>- Sheitan
>
[snip original posting]
Chatdemon2000
> So you think that the game should circumscribe *everyone's* choices to
>meet your personal preferences?
<<snip>>
>
> If only we could hope this were true.
>
>-Michael
AHA! The wotc 3e sheep strike again. I have no problem with people liking 3e
better, but get off your high horse, please.
personal replies please use :
chatde...@yahoo.com
icq#: 14943385
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
"Michael Scott Brown" <The_Z...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:OqXtCe8GAHA.316@cpmsnbbsa09...
<<<snip asshole remarks>>>
Bah.
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Hong Ooi
wrote:
>
>AHA! The wotc 3e sheep strike again. I have no problem with people liking 3e
>better, but get off your high horse, please.
I do wish people would learn to use their mindless epithets correctly.
If it relates specifically to 3E, use "munchkin". Only if it relates to
other WOTC issues should you use "sheep". Get it right!
Llorac
> Hiya.
>
> Ok, lately I've been giving my opinions about some 3E stuff...and
> getting a "few" light-flamings. Expected, and I have no problem with that.
> As I've stated many times, I am only going by what I read at Eric's site,
> various other RPG review sites and this (and other) NG's. I almost went
> down and bought the PHB 3E on Friday. Almost. I held off, waiting for some
> more $$$. I am coming into $35 tomorrow so I should have enough now (after
> bills, food, gas, etc) (it's $36.00 canadian here). I've decided to not buy
> right now. My reasons are simple: from the looks of it, I wouldn't be
> playing it anyway. Things I don't like about it...
>
> 1) Any Race / Any Class
> 2) Unlimited Level Advancement for everyone
*nod* Since some like, and some dislike this, and it's generally easier for a DM
to overrule restrictions than to add them in, it'd have been better over all to
leave the restrictions in.
> 3) Multiclass up the wazoo.
Not sure about this. Multiclasses work way different in 3E. Kinda tough to judge
the advantages/disadvantages without actually playing it out. There's probably a
disproportionate number of people talking about it (compared to actually playing
it) since it is rather new.
> 4) Combat 'round' thing.
> 5) No weapons speed factors.
Ya. 3E took what was bad (2E initiative) and made it equally bad. Appears to
have made some people happy...although, I can't fathom why.
> 6) Spells *seem* more geared towards "does damage", and "does more damage".
Maybe. Dunno. Even so, 3E char's have more hp, etc....so you can't really
compare it to 2E.
> 7) AoO combat stuff (just don't like the way it seems to be done)
Ditto. If/when I play 3E, AoO will likely be one of the first things to go.
(I'll try it first, though.)
> 8) Ability score Increases as level increases
Different. I don't have a big problem with it.
> 9) The d20 system in general (to predictable, IMHO)
Get rid of your weighted dice. *grin*
> 10) WotC tend's to lie/exagerate/ignore legal stuff (the OGL and D20 License
> thing); so I don't want to give them more money if at all possible.
Typical of most successful businesses, unfortunately. People fall for BS on a
regular basis, so companies will continue dishing it out. Also unfortunate, is
that so few people will 'take a stand' and refuse to buy services/goods on
principle. (eg. Does anyone actually *like* AOL?)
> 11) Feats seem to powerful/important to the system, and to "players choice"
> for my liking.
I like the feats. It'll likely be cut and pasted into 2E.
> 12) [Rumor I heard] Assassins casting spells. *shudder*
Depends on the spells...but since classes all (?) get 'personalized' spell
lists, I don't expect it'll be that bad. I don't expect it'll be that good,
either.
> 13) Healing...too much, IMHO.
> 14) Healing. Oh, I said that...well, it's still too much.
Ya. Seems to be popular consensus that "lying in bed for weeks healing" ruins
the fun, although it (usually) only takes moments of game time. I know that many
interesting, exciting, fun scenarios have developed because of the odd exception
to 'usually'. Full healing overnight, or even during the day, will limit these
opportunities. It also has the potential of turning a priest into a walking
medic since they can (and will often be...uh...encouraged strongly to swap
spells). Less often will "Sorry, you'll have to wait for my morning prayers." be
a valid deferral.
> Concider me Silenced, 15'r. on 3E until I get a book (if ever).
Too bad Mikey wasn't standing next to you. His mindless whining, flaming and
lack of any constructive commentary could benefit greatly by a silence spell.
--
- Don aka Llorac
The Complete Game History: http://www.myna.com/~azmodan/index.htm
A rather unique initiative system: http://www.myna.com/~azmodan/initiative.htm
Rob Bruce
Hong Ooi <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:oreprs81nufa0vqhg...@4ax.com...
> On 11 Sep 2000 10:41:44 GMT, chatde...@aol.com (Chatdemon2000)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >AHA! The wotc 3e sheep strike again. I have no problem with people liking
3e
> >better, but get off your high horse, please.
>
> I do wish people would learn to use their mindless epithets correctly.
> If it relates specifically to 3E, use "munchkin". Only if it relates to
> other WOTC issues should you use "sheep". Get it right!
This munchkin3 sheep6 (prestige class) quite likes the 3e DMG.
Rob
jwal...@toad.net
<pm...@home.com> wrote:
>right now. My reasons are simple: from the looks of it, I wouldn't be
>playing it anyway. Things I don't like about it...
>
>1) Any Race / Any Class
>2) Unlimited Level Advancement for everyone
>3) Multiclass up the wazoo.
>4) Combat 'round' thing.
>5) No weapons speed factors.
Why do you think these are bad?
>6) Spells *seem* more geared towards "does damage", and "does more damage".
No more so than in earlier editions.
>7) AoO combat stuff (just don't like the way it seems to be done)
What is AoO?
>8) Ability score Increases as level increases
This would be a major problem if ability scores still topped out at
25. As it is, things aren't bad. A 3e character can't be as strong
as an ogre before 12th level. Fighters can start as strong as ogres
in 1e and 2e.
>9) The d20 system in general (to predictable, IMHO)
I consider it a strength of the system. You never have to remember
what kind of dice you need to roll, and whether you want to roll high
or low.
>10) WotC tend's to lie/exagerate/ignore legal stuff (the OGL and D20 License
>thing); so I don't want to give them more money if at all possible.
>11) Feats seem to powerful/important to the system, and to "players choice"
>for my liking..
Another strength, IMO. They allow for greater character
customization.
Hong Ooi
Hmm. You're not in or around Canberra, are you? I'm still looking around
for a 3E group.
Lawrence Mead
ROTFL. Bravo, Denakhan.
DMgorgon
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lawrence Mead
jwal...@toad.net wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 06:43:28 GMT, "Denakhan the Arch-Mage"
> <pm...@home.com> wrote:
[snip]
> >8) Ability score Increases as level increases
>
> This would be a major problem if ability scores still topped out at
> 25. As it is, things aren't bad. A 3e character can't be as strong
> as an ogre before 12th level. Fighters can start as strong as ogres
> in 1e and 2e.
In those versions, there is but a 1/21600 chance of that happening
(you need an 18, a 1/216 chance and then a 00, 1/100), or slightly
greater with the 4D6 drop lowest system. But *all*
fighters surviving to 12th level can now choose to have ogre strength
(and thus almost certainly will).
Why would you think that is a good idea to allow any old fighter to be
that strong?
Anthony Pitman
getting a "few" light-flamings. Expected, and I have no problem with that.
As I've stated many times, I am only going by what I read at Eric's site,
various other RPG review sites and this (and other) NG's. I almost went
down and bought the PHB 3E on Friday. Almost. I held off, waiting for some
more $$$. I am coming into $35 tomorrow so I should have enough now (after
bills, food, gas, etc) (it's $36.00 canadian here). I've decided to not buy
playing it anyway. Things I don't like about it...>>
<<snip more waste of bandwidth>>
<add own waste of bandwidth>
To put it succinctly; Who cares?
<end own waste of bandwidth>
--
Anthony Eugene Kennedy Pitman
The AD&D Source
http://members.xoom.com/dndsource/
"This is going to hurt." - The Elven Dragon Slayer before every battle.
Dr Nuncheon
Nocturnal Rambler <nocturna...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 20:56:33 +1200, "Sheitan" <sheit...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Strange.... many of the reasons I *like* about 3E are on your list too.
>
>Some of these things do not bother me. Some of them bother me greatly.
>
>>> 1) Any Race / Any Class
>
>I have a problem with this. I have problems envisioning some races as
>some classes.
That's cool. You should definitely limit them in your campaign. I will,
if it's appropriate for the gameworld. That's the sticker though - it
needs to be appropriate for *my* game, and not just because TSR told me
so.
>>> 8) Ability score Increases as level increases
>
>Bzzzzzzzzzz This would not be allowed in my campaign _if_ I ever go
>3E in any form.
"No matter how much I train with this sword, I never get any stronger..."
I think that ability increases were a long time coming, personally.
J
--
INTERNET SEEMS TO BE FULL OF MILLIONS OF | Jeff Johnston
IDIOTS & LUNATICS ! ! - c2 (ts...@my-deja.com) | jeffj @ io . com
Dr Nuncheon
>Denakhan the Arch-Mage wrote:
>>
>> 1) Any Race / Any Class
>> 2) Unlimited Level Advancement for everyone
>
>*nod* Since some like, and some dislike this, and it's generally easier for a DM
>to overrule restrictions than to add them in, it'd have been better over all to
>leave the restrictions in.
Why, exactly, do people think this? Is it a 'long-time D&D player'
attitude? I ask because I as a GM find it incredibly easy to say, "You
can't do X, Y, and Z for this campaign." Easier to do that then to lift a
restriction (like the level restriction) and then have to worry about how
that changes the game balance.
>> 7) AoO combat stuff (just don't like the way it seems to be done)
>
>Ditto. If/when I play 3E, AoO will likely be one of the first things to go.
>(I'll try it first, though.)
I think AoO is going to be important tactically. Otherwise you can go
charging at a line of pikes and not take a hit. Kind of silly if you ask
me.
>> 12) [Rumor I heard] Assassins casting spells. *shudder*
True rumor. On the other hand, if you want a 1e-style assassin, just make
a Rogue who kills people for a living.
>Depends on the spells...but since classes all (?) get 'personalized' spell
>lists, I don't expect it'll be that bad. I don't expect it'll be that good,
>either.
The spell list for assassins is pretty sparse - 4 spells possible to know
per level (no, 5 at first, my bad). They're mostly useful for,
well...assassination. Things like alter self, spider climb and dimension
door - no damaging spells at all. They only get up to 4th level spells,
max of 2 spells per day of each level (plus Int bonus spells if any).
>> 13) Healing...too much, IMHO.
>> 14) Healing. Oh, I said that...well, it's still too much.
>
>Ya. Seems to be popular consensus that "lying in bed for weeks healing" ruins
>the fun, although it (usually) only takes moments of game time. I know that many
>interesting, exciting, fun scenarios have developed because of the odd exception
>to 'usually'. Full healing overnight, or even during the day, will limit these
>opportunities.
I'm tellin' ya, make it 'per week' instead of 'per day'. Does exactly
what you want.
>It also has the potential of turning a priest into a walking
>medic since they can (and will often be...uh...encouraged strongly to swap
>spells).
As opposed to 1/2e where they were 'strongly encouraged' to take all
healing spells anyway?
green...@my-deja.com
>
> Ok, lately I've been giving my opinions about some 3E stuff...and
> getting a "few" light-flamings. Expected, and I have no problem with
that.
> As I've stated many times, I am only going by what I read at Eric's
site,
> various other RPG review sites and this (and other) NG's.
I seem to be having this discussion quite a bit in different forums
lately. The real problem is that (as you acknowledge), you haven't read
the book and don't have all the facts. However, just by going to the
web sites you mentioned and read this news group, you should see that
the vast majority of people seem to prefer the new system (with maybe a
few gripes). I assure you, most of these people have now read the 3e
PHB at least and have a better overview of the new rules, and most will
also have had some previous experience of the *D&D system to compare
with. I suspect that if you actually read the rules in full, you may
change your opinion (then again, maybe not, but at least your
objections will have a better basis).
> I almost went
> down and bought the PHB 3E on Friday. Almost. I held off, waiting
for some
> more $$$. I am coming into $35 tomorrow so I should have enough now
(after
> bills, food, gas, etc) (it's $36.00 canadian here). I've decided to
not buy
> right now. My reasons are simple: from the looks of it, I wouldn't be
> playing it anyway. Things I don't like about it...
>
> 1) Any Race / Any Class
This has been highly over emphasized IMO. There is clear roleplaying
information included with each race and class, and some races are
simply better suited to some classes than others in any event. But, if
you want to go ahead and play a class unsuited to your race, the rules
no longer stop you. Believe me, under the new rules, this will be a
roleplaying decision (which should be encouraged IMO), not a
rollplaying one.
> 2) Unlimited Level Advancement for everyone
I have always considered level advancement restrictions to be one of
the worst features of previous editions of *D&D. The reason is that it
does nothing in a low level campaign, while making Humans (or other
races with unlimited advancement in their class/classes) the only
viable racial choice in a really high level campaign. I would much
rather have seen level limits removed and have the races relatively
balanced against one another (which 3e seems to have done very nicely
IMO).
> 3) Multiclass up the wazoo.
Again, this is over-emphasized IMO. Multiclass combinations DO NOT work
the same way in 3e as they do in all previous editions of the game. The
closest equivalent I can think of is the Palladium Fantasy
multiclassing system. Or you could think of previous editions of D&D's
Dual Class system as a close varient, but with the ability to take
multiple classes and move freely between them. Multiclass characters
will not be as powerful as they were in previous versions of D&D, and
can often even be weaker than single class equivalents. You will find
many powergamers will now only take one or two levels in other classes
in 3e (maybe), while mainly concentrating on a single class.
> 4) Combat 'round' thing.
> 5) No weapons speed factors.
These two are tied in together. The whole idea of 3e seems to be to
reduce complications in the average combat round (although there will
still be instances where 4 or more dice rolls will be needed to
determine the results of a specific attack). Since you only need to
roll for initiative once per combat, combat will be a little more
predictable under the new system (which may not be a good thing), but
it will speed gameplay. Ditto with speed factors - it reduces the
amount of "figuring out" you need to do each round.
> 6) Spells *seem* more geared towards "does damage", and "does more
damage".
Actually, the number of damage inflicting spells is roughly the same.
The major difference is that there is now a better reason to use higher
level spells than ever before - you can usually guarantee that they
will cause more damage (on average), or have some greater effect than a
lower level spell. And higher level spells are now universally harder
to save against, which was a feature sorely lacking in previous
editions.
> 7) AoO combat stuff (just don't like the way it seems to be done)
AoO (attack of opportunity) does seem to have a few problems. However,
the basic idea behind AoO's seems sound - if you are close to a hostile
creature and let your guard down, that foe might take the opportunity
to take a swipe at you. This is merely an expansion of previous rules,
and I don't see too much wrong with the principle. The actual wording
of the rule in the PHB at least could have been a bit better though IMO.
> 8) Ability score Increases as level increases
I like this rule. As characters become more experienced, they (slowly)
become better (only 1 ability score increase every 4 levels is
permitted). It means you no longer need an 18 when you create your
character to cast the top level spells of your class (if you are a
Priest or Wizard type character). It means that players can be happier
if they don't get the highest rolls during character creation. And it
means the "average" higher level character will not only be more
skilled, but have higher ability scores, than the "average" lower level
character.
Think of it this way. A person decides to become a bodybuilder. During
the first few sessions, the person might learn a few techniques, but
overall there's not much real improvement (ie: aquires some class
skills, but no ability score increase at 1st level). Over a few months,
you might start getting some real muscle definition going (an ability
score increase). If you persisted with this for several years, you may
eventually become much better muscled than you were originally (several
ability score increases). In 3e, there's no real restriction on what
ability score you increase (some people I know have proposed a house
rule which requires this), but it would only make sense to increase one
which is associated with your character's class and skills.
> 9) The d20 system in general (to predictable, IMHO)
The d20 system does present 20 equally possible results, which is about
as good a range as I've seen commonly used except for the d100 system.
Since d100 usually requires the rolling of multiple dice, I think the
d20 system presents the best practical combination of range of results
and ease of obtaining them (unless you are using a computer to make the
rolls for you).
> 10) WotC tend's to lie/exagerate/ignore legal stuff (the OGL and D20
License
> thing); so I don't want to give them more money if at all possible.
No comment on this, except to say that the d20 system really is WotC's
intellectual property, and there is *no* requirement for them to allow
*any* other company to make products using it. If game designers find
they can make games using the OGL, fine. If they find the OGL
restrictions to limiting for what they want to do, they can just create
their own system, as has always been done in the past anyway.
> 11) Feats seem to powerful/important to the system, and to "players
choice"
> for my liking..
Feats are important to 3e in the way Weapon Proficiencies were
important to previous editions, except that Feats are now more general
and include things targetted towards magic (about time, IMO). The pre-
requisites for many Feats are no joke either - Whirlwind Attack is a
classic example which requires Int 13+, Dex 13+, a *Base* Attack bonus
of 4+ , and 4 other Feats as well. All of this means that only a Human
Single Class Fighter could possibly qualify for this Feat at 4th level,
and all other non-Fighter classes would have to wait until Level 12 at
least (15 if not Human). Even relatively simple feats like Weapon Focus
and Weapon Finesse require a +1 base attack bonus, so only members of
the Fighter. Barbarian, Paladin or Ranger classes could possibly take
either of these Feats at 1st level.
As for the power of Feats? Well, the Whirlwind Attack feat I mentioned
previously which has so many pre-requisites, requires a Full Attack
action which replaces *all other attacks* and only permits *one* attack
against each nearly foe. Most of the other combat Feats either provide
only limited benefits, or a significant benefit but only in limited
situations. Some other combat Feats do provide some significant
benefits, but also have significant pre-requisites as well. Spring
Attack falls into this category - in return for being able to go up to
a character, make *one* attack (only one is permitted) and then retreat
before the opponant can react, the character must have Dex 13+ and 2
other Feats. Meanwhile, the character you attacked may well be able to
attack you with a ranged weapon multiple times per round. Most of the
magical Feats require some sacrifice to be used, either of actual
character XP and gold, or the use of a higher level spell slot than the
spell would normally require (in some cases, a MUCH higher level spell
slot), or make it easier to cast spells in combat without provoking an
attack of opportunity while doing so (but still not guaranteeing
success).
> 12) [Rumor I heard] Assassins casting spells. *shudder*
As others have already pointed out, Ninjas were traditionally
associated with spellcasting, or at least had several spell-like
abilities. Besides, there has never been anything preventing a
conventional Wizard from becoming an assassin in previous versions of
*D&D, and even a mid-level Wizard would make a very effective assassin
IMO.
> 13) Healing...too much, IMHO.
> 14) Healing. Oh, I said that...well, it's still too much.
Since these 2 points also seem related :), I'll deal with them
together. While it's true there is far more healing in 3e than there
was in previous edtions, the monsters also seem far more capable of
inflicting damage. And it really won't matter if your Cleric can heal
your entire party in one round if your party's Arcane spellcaster has
just been fried (ie KILLED) by a single breath attack from a Dragon. At
least it's not as bad as in my copy of Palladium Fantasy (revised
edtion) where a pair of Priests could heal 1d8 HP every second round
(for every character except the Priest) without using a single spell,
and could theoretically do this all day if necessary. Personally, I
would leave the healing spells in, but I might consider preventing the
Cleric from spontaneously swapping out previously memorized spells and
force them to prepare all healing spells in advance (then again, maybe
not since I want Clerics to do more in combat than just be the party's
medic).
green...@my-deja.com
Umm, no, that's not what the new rules allow at all. IF the character
starts with an 18 strength (not easy under the new rules by any means),
and IF the player puts every ability score bonus into strength, then
yes, a 12th level character could have the same Strength as an
*average* 4HD Ogre. But if that Ogre also took a character class and
added another 8 levels, it could have added more to it's own Strength,
so a 12th level character (created using any of the standard races)
could never compete strength wise with an equivalent 4/8th level Ogre
(especially if that Ogre were progressing as a Barbarian, which is
quite likely).
Furthermore, you are also ignoring the new rule about carrying capacity
on P142. Even though your 21 Strength character has the same ability
score as a 21 Strength Ogre, the Large Ogre can carry twice as much
weight. So maybe the character could compete with the Ogre in an arm
wrestling constest, but weightlifting is a clear victory for the Ogre
any way (weigh :) you look at it.
Blackberry
2000 06:43:28 GMT reached theears of the unsuspecting...
>
>Hiya. [...]
Hi there! Almost every reason you outlined for not wanting to play it is
exactly why I would never play 2E and have switched from GURPS to 3E.
>Things I don't like about it...
>
>1) Any Race / Any Class
I can't stand the way 2E handles this. Who are they to say that in my world,
dwarves cannot be paladins? Not everyone runs their game in Forgotten Realms.
>2) Unlimited Level Advancement for everyone
This never made any sense to me in 2E. Dwarves, built for fighting, cannot
advance past 9th level in Fighter? Gnomes, who excel in illusion magic, cannot
advance past 7th level in Illusionist? What is the in-world justification?
"I'm sorry, teacher, I just can't cram any more knowledge into my head. You
know that thing you just showed me about swinging my axe better? I forgot it.
It won't fit in my head. I think it's because I'm an elf and my brain isn't
shaped to contain axe-swinging knowledge."
>3) Multiclass up the wazoo.
I never looked at 2E much, but in 1E, once you picked a class, that's what you
were for life (unless you were lucky enough to be human and did that awful
dual-class thing). If you were a fighter, you couldn't go pick up a little
skill in wilderness survival (ranger) or urban survival (rogue). Not at all.
It just wouldn't fit into your brain.
In 3E, your class at 1st level reflects your upbringing, apprenticeship, and
general training, and each class level after that is more like a "training
package" of abilities that you pick up. What's wrong with that? Makes sense to
me. If I want my fighter to learn a little magic, why shouldn't I be able to do
it?
It moves D&D away from the "character as playing piece" idea.
>4) Combat 'round' thing.
In 1E, a combat round lasted 1 minute. It off-handedly explained that your one
attack roll per minute represented a flurry of attacks, parries, etc. ... ugh,
but okay. So, if you attacked hand-to-hand with a dagger, you were attacking
multiple times in a minute, which translated into one to-hit roll and 1d4
damage. If you threw a dagger, you were only throwing *once*, but you still got
one to-hit roll and 1d4 damage, compared to a flurry of attacks? How does that
work?
6 seconds makes much more sense to me.
>5) No weapons speed factors.
Thank the gods. The speed factors were a reasonably good idea that was
implemented badly. As someone else pointed out, weapon speed relates to how
easy it is to swing the weapon and then recover it after swinging; a dagger is a
lot quicker to recover and swing again than a halberd. However, since the 1
minute round assumes you're already swinging multiple times and abstracting it
all, why does it matter who swings first?
>6) Spells *seem* more geared towards "does damage", and "does more damage".
I don't know about that. Just breaking out my PHB1 and skimming the spells, a
ton are for combat and damage. I'd say it's probably not much different in that
regard.
>7) AoO combat stuff (just don't like the way it seems to be done)
I like it, it makes sense to me, but I haven't played it out yet.
>8) Ability score Increases as level increases
Makes sense to me. You mean, over 30 years of hard physical training and
endless combat expertise, your fighter would gain exactly 0 Strength?
>9) The d20 system in general (to predictable, IMHO)
Rolling a d20 is too predictable? What do you use for combat and saving throws
in 2E?
>10) WotC tend's to lie/exagerate/ignore legal stuff (the OGL and D20 License
>thing); so I don't want to give them more money if at all possible.
Any company will play these games, but it's originally why I chose to go with
Steve Jackson's GURPS -- SJG was ready, willing, and able to support fans who
supported them back. TSR wanted to crush all fan support. WotC supports fans
again. They're even letting you *PUBLISH* your own game using *THEIR* game
system! Gygax would have hired the Mob to take you out if you so much as made a
house rule!
>11) Feats seem to powerful/important to the system, and to "players choice"
>for my liking..
I much prefer them to the Player's Option books. With the PO system, you have
to own the book to get its advantages. Those who couldn't afford $500 in books
couldn't create characters as effective as the others.
It also makes sense to me. Now, I could play a Wizard with some fighting feats
and be pretty darn good, or I could play a Fighter with some spread-out feats to
be a jack of all trades. It lets you customize your character but still keep it
on an even keel with the rest.
>12) [Rumor I heard] Assassins casting spells. *shudder*
First: *shudder*? What's wrong with assassins picking up some magic, or picking
up some tracking and stalking ability (ranger), or picking up some lore ability
(bard)?
Second: This is essentially the Rolemaster "semi-spell user" idea. Basically,
the concept is that "Fighter" is a straight-ahead warrior. Ranger trades off a
little of that in exchange for some magical study, as does Paladin. Assassin is
that same idea applied to the Rogue -- specialist, trading off some rogue
abilities for special-use abilities and magical study.
Answer: Assassin is one of the new prestige classes in the DMG, and they do get
access to up to 4th level spells. Their spell list is very limited, to
self-altering and obscuring magic.
All of the prestige classes are *EXAMPLES*. You don't have to use them as
they're written, or at all. The DMG *ENCOURAGES* you to create prestige classes
that make sense for your world.
>13) Healing...too much, IMHO.
Someone still hasn't given me a good example of "too much healing".
--------------------
"It's enough to make you wonder sometimes if you're on the right planet."
-- Frankie Goes to Hollywood
Brian -- le...@NOnwlinkSPAM.com -- remove "NOSPAM"
Doug
> Hiya.
hi.
> <snip why he can't buy it>
If nothing else, borrow a friend's copy and give it a good read through. I
think you'll be pleasantly surprised when you see how things really work out.
I'm not trying to sound like a fanboy, but I find it to be a big improvement.
> 1) Any Race / Any Class
The way I see it is that the basic rules allow for that, but as individual game
worlds are released, a few restrictions may be sprinkled in. (No official
rumors, just my opinion) For example, I can't imagine a 3E Dragonlance setting
with halfling/kender Knights of Solomnia.
> 2) Unlimited Level Advancement for everyone
So people don't stop learning anymore? How is that bad? I always hated the idea
of an elf that could live for hundreds of years, maxing out in what they've
trained in over the course of a few year campaign and then not being able to
switch to anything else. Now both options are avaialable.
> 3) Multiclass up the wazoo.
Personally I see this as a good thing. I started with D&D like most people, but
after trying other games where you weren't locked into one template for life I
began to really like the idea of a character changing over time. That's now
possible in D&D. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. (Some grumpy
dwarf fighters will always be fighters... :)
> 4) Combat 'round' thing.
It seems to me that it's just a lot more in line with other systems out there
now. I always thought that 1 minute thing was silly.
> 5) No weapons speed factors.
Ok, it's a little less realistic. But there are dragons and magic... It makes
it a little more like a Conan story than a simulation, but I don't think it
completely breaks the mechanics to get rid of one more modifier either...
> 6) Spells *seem* more geared towards "does damage", and "does more damage".
I haven't seen many of the spells played yet, so I can't make an informed
comment on this one.
> 7) AoO combat stuff (just don't like the way it seems to be done)
Read it through a few times. It sounds convoluted to cover most every
possibility, but it really does only apply to things where you're leaving
yourself open to attack.
> 8) Ability score Increases as level increases
It's about time. The fact that people didn't learn from their experiences, or
build up some muscle after lugging a suit of armor across a continent always
seemed strange to me.
> 9) The d20 system in general (to predictable, IMHO)
But MUCH easier. Personally, I would have gone with percentile dice to remove
some of the granularity, but then you do run the risk of tables for everything.
A nice compromise. (I guess a lot of these are opinions aren't they... sorry.)
> 10) WotC tend's to lie/exagerate/ignore legal stuff (the OGL and D20 License
> thing); so I don't want to give them more money if at all possible.
Here's one point I agree with you on. It hurts a little bit to support a company
that does some of this stuff, but I'm getting over it by hoping that by spending
my money on this good product of theirs, but nothing else they'll take a hint.
Of course it's just me so it probably won't sink in, but I can justify my
actions that way...
> 11) Feats seem to powerful/important to the system, and to "players choice"
> for my liking..
It's another way of making characters more unique. Characters in Basic 2E were
too template based for my liking. They tried to overcome it with the complete
handbook series and players choice things which were very poorly done and added
way too much complexity. This seems like a nice attempt at a compromise. We'll
see how it works out once a fighter gets all their feats, but it doesn't look
too bad yet.
> 12) [Rumor I heard] Assassins casting spells. *shudder*
And a mage/thief assassin couldn't before?
> 13) Healing...too much, IMHO.
Do you mean hit points per level per day? I don't have a problem with it because
a) who ever waited for natural healing anyway? b)A high level fighter having to
rest for 3 months bugged me before...
> 14) Healing. Oh, I said that...well, it's still too much.
Or if you mean the clerics getting healing spells even if they didn't prepare
them in advance, I see that as a brilliant move to make clerics more playable.
The only cleric characters that anyone enjoyed playing in my time with D&D were
ones that refused to memorize healing spells (or maybe one or two for
themselves...). New players were always asking the cleric for help and he'd
bandage them up and leave. Drove them nuts. :) Now they can memorize the
spells they want to and still help out if the group really needs it.
I guess that turned into far too many opinions, but I hope that first idea about
completely reading the book sticks.
Thanks for listening...
-Doug (the other one)
Blackberry
2000 10:24:59 GMT reached theears of the unsuspecting...
>
>On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 20:56:33 +1200, "Sheitan" <sheit...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Strange.... many of the reasons I *like* about 3E are on your list too.
>
>Some of these things do not bother me. Some of them bother me greatly.
>
>>
>>> 1) Any Race / Any Class
>
>I have a problem with this. I have problems envisioning some races as
>some classes.
Isn't that something that should be handled in the GM's *world*, rather than in
the rules? What if I want to run a different world than you are using? What if
I want to use a world of my own design, where elves are holy warriors and
dwarves practice lots of magic?
Blackberry
2000 12:47:48 GMT reached theears of the unsuspecting...
You forget that a 19 STR in 3E is an example *half-orc* strength, not ogre
strength. The scale is totally different now.
Michael Scott Brown
> > If only we could hope this were true.
> AHA! The wotc 3e sheep strike again. I have no problem with people liking
3e
> better, but get off your high horse, please.
Den has made a career here of late spouting off like a whining infant
about what he "doesn't like" about the 3E system while quite often being
*exactly wrong* about the rules he whines about and their impact. He's
allowed to have his opinions, of course - but *I* am allowed to have
opinions about his utter lack of education on the issue. He's like an
American in Britain criticising the locals for driving on the left side of
the road.
-Michael
Brad Murray
> *nod* Since some like, and some dislike this, and it's generally easier for a DM
> to overrule restrictions than to add them in, it'd have been better over all to
> leave the restrictions in.
Okay I'm intrigued. In what way is it easier to overrule restrictions than
to add them? House rules are house rules and, in general, having a simulation
system that provides for everything is A Good Thing. This puts matters of
world design (like class/race limitations) firmly in the realm of (go figure)
my world design instead of my simulation rules.
Division of church and state: it's a good thing.
--
Brad Murray * Always carry a short length of fibre-optic cable. If
Senior Geek * you get lost, then you can drop it on the ground, wait
Alcatel Canada * ten minutes, and ask the backhoe operator how to get
Perl Geek * back to civilization. (Alan Frame)
Michael Scott Brown
news:8pik9f$5va$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > 25. As it is, things aren't bad. A 3e character can't be as strong
> > as an ogre before 12th level. Fighters can start as strong as ogres
> > in 1e and 2e.
>
> In those versions, there is but a 1/21600 chance of that happening
> (you need an 18, a 1/216 chance and then a 00, 1/100), or slightly
> greater with the 4D6 drop lowest system. But *all*
> fighters surviving to 12th level can now choose to have ogre strength
> (and thus almost certainly will).
And there you go again, spouting off idiotic analyses that have no hope
of being right or meaningful.
How do you do this so consistently?
(1) To have "ogre" strength (21, +5/+5) by level 12, the fighter has to
have an *18* strength to start with. Please explain to us, Larry, how ALL
fighters in 3E will start the game with 18 strength?
(2) For those warriors starting with 18 strength - +4/+4, please explain
how shifting to +5/+5 *ELEVEN* levels later changes the balance of power at
all.
(3) Please explain how having+3/+6 bonuses *ever since first level* in
those earlier editions is 'perfectly acceptable' because it was "rare".
> Why would you think that is a good idea to allow any old fighter to be
> that strong?
What about the concept of "gradual rewards" did you fail to understand?
In 3rdEdition, 21 strength is not godlike, or even giant-like.
Of course, *YOU* will never learn this fact, because you are incapable
of bothering to learn a gods-damnned thing about 3rd edition, you pathetic,
lazy sod.
-Michael
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
> In article <39BCBF0B...@myna.com>, Llorac <azm...@myna.com> wrote:
> >Denakhan the Arch-Mage wrote:
> >>>
> >> 2) Unlimited Level Advancement for everyone
> >
> >*nod* Since some like, and some dislike this, and it's generally easier for a DM
> >to overrule restrictions than to add them in, it'd have been better over all to
> >leave the restrictions in.
>
> Why, exactly, do people think this? Is it a 'long-time D&D player'
> attitude? I ask because I as a GM find it incredibly easy to say, "You
> can't do X, Y, and Z for this campaign." Easier to do that then to lift a
> restriction (like the level restriction) and then have to worry about how
> that changes the game balance.
Not only that, but if you put in restrictions, what restrictions
should that be? Sure, it might be easier to remove them, but what
about changing them? "Sorry, in this game, dwarves can only become
level 7 clerics, not 9 as in the rule book... because I say so". There
are an almost infinite amount of possible restriction combinations,
which one should be the official one?
I never understood the restrictions mysef, so I would probably remove
them completely anyway.
/L
Kris Aspinall
Sorry, but these two points were some of the things that annoyed me the
most in 1E and 2E.
I never could see how Dwarves, a Lawful race with tendancies towards good,
didn't have any paladins at all.
Neither could I see how Elves, supposedly one of the most magic adept races
ever, could only ever rise to learning 1 9th level spell.
> 3) Multiclass up the wazoo.
It looks very wierd, but it does honestly seem to work a lot better than
before. It allows much more flexible characters, without seemingly making
them overpowerful.
> 8) Ability score Increases as level increases
Why? Its hardly huge amounts, and certainly doesn;t unbalance the game.
After all, a normal person now can increase their strength and
constitutuion simply by regular exercise - I thin kthat after a few months
adventuring, you'd be a lot fitter than before... :)
> 12) [Rumor I heard] Assassins casting spells. *shudder*
As long as its from the old school of shadow, I don;t see a problem with
that. After all, at the moment your average rogue can make a superb assasin
as is, so the ability to go invisible or hurl darkness around wouldn't be
that unbalancing.
(and, in a society with magic, would probably be necessery)
14) Healing. Oh, I said that...well, it's still too much.
I don;t understand why everyone is so against this.
The monsters have become so much incredibly tougher in this edition, the
players will need a lot more healing... :)
Kris Aspinall
Jimmy Kerl
>
> Things I don't like about it...
>
You said it! this theme permutates the entire phb, by allowing
class skills (feats) to be picked and choosen by players.
> 2) Unlimited Level Advancement for everyone
> 4) Combat 'round' thing.
> 7) AoO combat stuff (just don't like the way it seems to be done)
> 9) The d20 system in general (to predictable, IMHO)
> 11) Feats seem to powerful/important to the system, and to "players choice"
> for my liking..
> 12) [Rumor I heard] Assassins casting spells. *shudder*
> 13) Healing...too much, IMHO.
> 14) Healing. Oh, I said that...well, it's still too much.
I agree with you here on most of your points. The other points (below)
i probably mostly agree with.
> 3) Multiclass up the wazoo.
Err actually, i they have made multiclassers quite a bit weaker though
they have introduceda few new flaws.
> 5) No weapons speed factors.
Yeah, i guess if you use casting times, weapon speeds seem only appropiate.
Seems a little cumbersome though.
> 6) Spells *seem* more geared towards "does damage", and "does more damage".
errr i don't know; i think theydid a really good job of catagorizing spells
and editing them IMOO. Spellcasting in general seems to be really well
done in 3e if ya ask me.
> 8) Ability score Increases as level increases
I'm netural on this one. you have to look at 3e ability score system as a
seprate system and scale. Excepting that they have no idea how to
define WIS and CHA. The abbility scores seem better than previous editions.
> 10) WotC tend's to lie/exagerate/ignore legal stuff (the OGL and D20 License
> thing); so I don't want to give them more money if at all possible.
Well there learning, They do seem to be at least polite about it in the
group here. (but then i havent been following it too closely)
> Those are them in a nutshell. When I come into a LOT more money, I'll
> probably pick one up to check it out. Until then, there just seems to be to
> many thing's in the game I'd have to change to suit my style, making it just
> not worth it.
Thats why i got one just to look at; no WAY i'd ever run a game that complex,
and free with character design. I run a bd&d game though; and i do
think 3e vastly outweighs 2e in virtues, but compared to 1e its got its
pluses and minuses. IMOO. I bought the book as a source of misc. ideas, and
it does seem to have a few things that made me think about my own house rules
i think i may pick up the DMG for same reason (im expecting to get even more
out of it though (hopefully)). But yeah i wouldn't DM a 3e game as long as ive
got something far better (bd&d + my house rules)
However, if i did dm a 3e game, id expect that there is far fewer house
rules that id implement, because the game is quite consitent and well thought
out overall.
> Concider me Silenced, 15'r. on 3E until I get a book (if ever).
Well i thought most of your comments were right on even though you didn't
have a book.
Id add a few complaints i have
A) skills --What *happened* where did all the good skills go?
The codified things that have always been dm judgement calls into specific
rules and dice rolls making the game unessarly complex and then threw out
all the interesting skills.
specifically: Search, spot, listen, sense motive, intimidate, innuendo, bluff,
diplomacy, gather information, forgery, etc.
REALLY are NOT needed! most of them shouldn't be used at all (codified into
specific rules) and for the ones where they are needed occasionally, an
ability check works just fine.
B) feats
almost the same issue. This is a collection of things that should be class
features and skills. instead there a mix and match make any kind of
goofey character you want. They really did not need the feats system; what
they should of done is define the character classes with these skills already
in them.
The other thing about feats is there NOT balanced with respect to each other.
Some are quite worthwhile while some are just not very benifical.
most of the meta magic feats are a complete waste of a good feat. (excepting
still spell and silent spell) IMOO, as the benifit simply eithor is less than
the cost of using them (additional spell levels) or balanced with such. Meaning
that a spellcaster without such feats is really not missing anything significant
compared to one with them.
ok im stoping now as i realize i could go on and on.
Jimmy
> ^_^
>
> Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Bokman7757
So your major complaints about the game are the three best things about it?
These things MAKE SENSE in ways that previous restrictions didn't. It's
fantasy, there should be unlimited possibilities, not "in no world can Dwarves
cast spells".
Bokman7757
Yep, abilities should be somehow trained or something.
>>
The only good rules for "training" I ever saw were in FASA's STAR TREK RPG,
where they were used to decide what skills you had. Most of the time it's just
too complicated.
Bokman7757
that strong? >>
'Cause a 12th-level-fighter probably ain't just any old 12th-level-fighter;
he's a Hero. Beowulf was able to tear out the arm of a giant monster with his
bare hands- he's described as having the strength of thirty men. An experienced
D&D hero should be able to attain that level.
Blackberry
2000 18:47:24 GMT reached theears of the unsuspecting...
>
>Denakhan the Arch-Mage wrote:
>>
>> Things I don't like about it...
>>
>> 1) Any Race / Any Class
>
>You said it! this theme permutates the entire phb, by allowing
>class skills (feats) to be picked and choosen by players.
Okay... you don't like it when players can pick and choose?
>> 8) Ability score Increases as level increases
>
>I'm netural on this one. you have to look at 3e ability score system as a
>seprate system and scale. Excepting that they have no idea how to
>define WIS and CHA. The abbility scores seem better than previous editions.
How would you define them differently? And by definition, they did have an idea
how to define them -- their idea is written down in millions of copies of a book
called the Player's Handbook. You may not like the idea, however.
>A) skills --What *happened* where did all the good skills go?
>
>The codified things that have always been dm judgement calls into specific
>rules and dice rolls making the game unessarly complex and then threw out
>all the interesting skills.
>
>specifically: Search, spot, listen, sense motive, intimidate, innuendo, bluff,
>diplomacy, gather information, forgery, etc.
>
>REALLY are NOT needed! most of them shouldn't be used at all (codified into
>specific rules) and for the ones where they are needed occasionally, an
>ability check works just fine.
Why shouldn't, say, Diplomacy skill be used? or Forgery? What if I want to be
diplomatic, and I've had previous training in it? How do you represent that?
>B) feats
>
>almost the same issue. This is a collection of things that should be class
>features and skills. instead there a mix and match make any kind of
>goofey character you want. They really did not need the feats system; what
>they should of done is define the character classes with these skills already
>in them.
That goes back to the "character as game piece" philosophy. Not everyone fits a
cookie-cutter mold so easily. For instance, I am a computer programmer.
However, I have *vastly* different background, abilities, and experience from
many other computer programmers.
If I'm playing a wizard who uses a rapier and knows how to use it well, why
shouldn't I be able to have a feat to match?
>The other thing about feats is there NOT balanced with respect to each other.
>Some are quite worthwhile while some are just not very benifical.
Well, this is another issue. Since each one only costs one feat slot, there
isn't much leeway. I don't think any one feat is so much better than another
that it warrants taking 2 feat slots to get.
>
>most of the meta magic feats are a complete waste of a good feat. (excepting
>still spell and silent spell) IMOO, as the benifit simply eithor is less than
>the cost of using them (additional spell levels) or balanced with such. Meaning
>that a spellcaster without such feats is really not missing anything significant
>compared to one with them.
I agree here, but then I haven't played yet. We'll see what I think when a PC
has those feats and can use them well.
jwal...@toad.net
<lrm...@orca.st.usm.edu> wrote:
>In article <39bcbadd...@news.toad.net>,
> jwal...@toad.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 06:43:28 GMT, "Denakhan the Arch-Mage"
>> <pm...@home.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> >8) Ability score Increases as level increases
>>
>> This would be a major problem if ability scores still topped out at
>> 25. As it is, things aren't bad. A 3e character can't be as strong
>> as an ogre before 12th level. Fighters can start as strong as ogres
>> in 1e and 2e.
>
>In those versions, there is but a 1/21600 chance of that happening
>(you need an 18, a 1/216 chance and then a 00, 1/100), or slightly
>greater with the 4D6 drop lowest system.
In a "4d6, arrange as you like" system the odds of getting a single 18
are closer to 1 in 36.
>But *all*
>fighters surviving to 12th level can now choose to have ogre strength
>(and thus almost certainly will).
Not *all* fighters, just the fighters who already started with a Str
of 18, and who put all their bonus points into Str. Raising your Con
and Dex are also very useful.
>Why would you think that is a good idea to allow any old fighter to be
>that strong?
Which is a better idea, allowing a player to earn that strength
through 12 levels of struggle, or giving it to a player for a single
lucky roll?
Barry Smith
> Which is a better idea, allowing a player to earn that strength
> through 12 levels of struggle, or giving it to a player for a single
> lucky roll?
Both are equally valid. Characters could grow up amazingly strong (19)
without adventuring being the main focus for their natural strength,
perhaps as farmers, lumberjacks, or any other physically demanding
profession. This could easily be represented as a 18 strength given as a
die roll at the start of that lumberjack's adventuring career if his
adventuring career begins at age 25...
I also like the idea that someone who starts out with a 12 strength can
take up adventuring, and after 13 levels, can end up with a 18 strength.
--
Long live 2e.
Barry Smith
>
> The unfortunate translation of "Denakhan's Vogon Poetry reading from Mon, 11 Sep
> 2000 06:43:28 GMT reached theears of the unsuspecting...
> >
> >Hiya. [...]
>
> Hi there! Almost every reason you outlined for not wanting to play it is
> exactly why I would never play 2E and have switched from GURPS to 3E.
>
> >Things I don't like about it...
> >
> >1) Any Race / Any Class
>
> I can't stand the way 2E handles this. Who are they to say that in my world,
> dwarves cannot be paladins? Not everyone runs their game in Forgotten Realms.
The real question is: Why did it take a new edition for everyone to
realize that many of the things you mention here are valid changes to
the system? *Your* system? It matters not what engine you use imo. There
are good elements from every edition of the game, and including those
elements and rules into your campaign (note I didn't say 1e, 2e, or 3e
campaign) is a Good Thing (tm) if you like them, and shortsighted if you
don't include them.
I hear people say that 3e is the best system ever made. Perhaps it is,
but trashing a favorite 1e or 2e rule you happen to like *because* 3e
doesn't allow it is plain stupidity imo. Vice versa, as well, which is
exactly why my campaign will be a hybrid. I think hybrids are the best
campaigns people can play in because they offer the most unique
challenges and rules that are as individual as the DM who make the
world.
--
Long live 2e.
Michael Scott Brown
> >Why would you think that is a good idea to allow any old fighter to be
> >that strong?
>
> Which is a better idea, allowing a player to earn that strength
> through 12 levels of struggle, or giving it to a player for a single
> lucky roll?
This is something that Mead will never understand.
-Michael
Aaron Pound
> I also like the idea that someone who starts out with a 12 strength can
> take up adventuring, and after 13 levels, can end up with a 18 strength.
Minor nitpick. In 3e, after 13 levels, a character who starts with a 12
Strength could only have a maximum of 15 Strength barring magical or divine
intervention.
Aaron J. Pound, Esquire
Aaron Pound
Two answers:
First, a twelfth level fighter would have had to start with 18 Strength to
equal the average 3e Ogre. Second, maybe it is because he has spent years
on end dedicating himself to warfare and armed struggle, and his muscle
bulk has increased correspondingly.
Aaron J. Pound, Esquire
Aaron Pound
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 20:56:33 +1200, "Sheitan" <sheit...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Strange.... many of the reasons I *like* about 3E are on your list too.
>
> Some of these things do not bother me. Some of them bother me greatly.
>
> >
> >> 1) Any Race / Any Class
>
> I have a problem with this. I have problems envisioning some races as
> some classes.
Then disallow some race/class combinations. I can't think of any reason not
to have dwarven paladins and wizards, so I'm going to allow them, but you
get to define the parameters of your campaign.
> >> 5) No weapons speed factors.
>
> This is something I do hate.
Do you hate weapon speed factors or the lack of them? I hate weapon speed
factors, they have no real basis in any kind of educated guess about armed
combat, and in many cases whoever came up with them displayed a stunning
lack of knowledge about how weapons are used.
> Bzzzzzzzzzz This would not be allowed in my campaign _if_ I ever go
> 3E in any form.
So, you are just as strong, smart, wise, agile, healthy and personally
magnetic as you were when you were seventeen? You haven't improved any
aspect of yourself since then? If so, you are the exception, and I pity you.
> >> 11) Feats
>
> Some of the feats are not a problem. The one I can think of would be
> plain discarded and banned forever from my campaign is the magic item
> creation feat. No way would I allow this to be used. Enchant an Item
> (6th level mage ), equivalents, and sequals do the job quite nicely.
I see no reason to do this, but whatever you think is best for your campaign
I guess.
Aaron J. Pound, Esquire
Aaron Pound
> Things I don't like about it...
>
> 1) Any Race / Any Class
I, on the other hand, find this to be a great improvement.
> 2) Unlimited Level Advancement for everyone
I, on the other hand, find this to be a great improvement.
> 3) Multiclass up the wazoo.
I, on the other hand, find this to be a great improvement.
> 4) Combat 'round' thing.
I, on the other hand, find this to be a great improvement.
> 5) No weapons speed factors.
I, on the other hand, find this to be a great improvement.
> 6) Spells *seem* more geared towards "does damage", and "does more damage".
You appear not to have actually read through the rules on this.
> 7) AoO combat stuff (just don't like the way it seems to be done)
I, on the other hand, find this to be a great improvement.
> 8) Ability score Increases as level increases
I, on the other hand, find this to be a great improvement.
> 9) The d20 system in general (to predictable, IMHO)
I, on the other hand, find a single mechanic resolution system to be a great
improvement.
> 10) WotC tend's to lie/exagerate/ignore legal stuff (the OGL and D20 License
> thing); so I don't want to give them more money if at all possible.
I, on the other hand, being a lawyer, have found WOTC to have been perfectly
above-board and accurate concerning the OGL and D20 Licensing issues, and have
no reason to think that your assertion has any validity.
> 11) Feats seem to powerful/important to the system, and to "players choice"
> for my liking..
I, on the other hand, find this sort of system to be a great improvement. Are
you actually saying that players having choices about the nature of their
characters is a bad thing?
> 12) [Rumor I heard] Assassins casting spells. *shudder*
I have seen the Assassin prestige class, and the spell casting ability makes
perfect sense for them. Note that they are not, and ae not intended to be, the
same sort of class as the 1e version.
> 13) Healing...too much, IMHO.
You appear not to have read through the rules on this subject and combat and
damage in general.
> 14) Healing. Oh, I said that...well, it's still too much.
Same comment as to number 14.
Aaron J. Pound, Esquire
Bokman7757
You expect fermented honey to have reasoning capability?
Aaron Pound
> Denakhan the Arch-Mage wrote:
> >
> > Things I don't like about it...
> >
> > 1) Any Race / Any Class
>
> You said it! this theme permutates the entire phb, by allowing
> class skills (feats) to be picked and choosen by players.
So, you are opposed to player choice when it comes to defining their characters? How
very boring.
> Thats why i got one just to look at; no WAY i'd ever run a game that complex,
> and free with character design.
So, you have never played/run GURPS, Hero, Fudge, Rolemaster, Runequest or any of
the other games out there that do not force your characters into tightly defined
boxes? Once again, how boring.
[SNIP]
> Id add a few complaints i have
>
> A) skills --What *happened* where did all the good skills go?
What skills are missing? There are 44 listed and some (such as Profession and Craft)
are actually dozens of skills that are given a shorthand description for list
purposes. What "cool skills" are missing? Just about every 2e skill has a reasonable
equivalent in 3e, and there are several skills put forward in 3e that have no real
equivalent under the 2e rules.
> The codified things that have always been dm judgement calls into specific
> rules and dice rolls making the game unessarly complex and then threw out
> all the interesting skills.
>
> specifically: Search, spot, listen, sense motive, intimidate, innuendo, bluff,
> diplomacy, gather information, forgery, etc.
>
> REALLY are NOT needed! most of them shouldn't be used at all (codified into
> specific rules) and for the ones where they are needed occasionally, an
> ability check works just fine.
Each of these skills does different things. I take it that you have never played a
game where your character had any personal skills set out in the rules. How would
you determine if an NPC was intimidated? Or a forgery was well done? Or you managed
to con someone?
Also, do you really believe that someone who has spent a few years practicing his
ability to duplicate documents is just as good as someone who just picked up the
pen? That is essentially what you get if you just use "ability checks" rather than
skills.
> B) feats
>
> almost the same issue. This is a collection of things that should be class
> features and skills. instead there a mix and match make any kind of
> goofey character you want. They really did not need the feats system; what
> they should of done is define the character classes with these skills already
> in them.
So players having choices as to what abilities their characters have is a bad thing?
How boring.
> The other thing about feats is there NOT balanced with respect to each other.
> Some are quite worthwhile while some are just not very benifical.
Some are prerequisites for other, more useful feats. Perhaps you missed that part.
Must characters always choose the best option? Can no one have a character concept
that includes a power or attribute that is under powered, or unusual?
> most of the meta magic feats are a complete waste of a good feat. (excepting
> still spell and silent spell) IMOO, as the benifit simply eithor is less than
> the cost of using them (additional spell levels) or balanced with such. Meaning
> that a spellcaster without such feats is really not missing anything significant
> compared to one with them.
Which is why Wizards get extra feats that they can only use for metamagic feats.
They give up nothing and get a cool power. Perhaps you missed that part.
> ok im stoping now as i realize i could go on and on.
Apparently you would not be able to do so with much of a point, since thus far you
have appeared to have none.
Aaron J. Pound, Esquire
Jason Hatter
(Nocturnal Rambler) proclaimed
<21cprs03oq4hfo8go...@4ax.com>:
>>> 1) Any Race / Any Class
>
>I have a problem with this. I have problems envisioning some races
>as some classes.
"Okay, gang, before we start to make characters tonight, there are a few house
rules I'd like to announce..."
--
Jason
ICQ#24332701
Sith Lords should learn to stay away from wells.
Jason Hatter
(Lawrence Mead) proclaimed <8pik9f$5va$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>slightly greater with the 4D6 drop lowest system. But *all*
>fighters surviving to 12th level can now choose to have ogre
>strength (and thus almost certainly will).
Really? What about that fighter who rolled a 17 as his highest
score? It's going to take him to 16th level. Apparently he's
already got an 18 Dex or Constitution, since he's dumping everything
into Strength.
>Why would you think that is a good idea to allow any old fighter
>to be that strong?
Why do you think that it's a bad idea to allow people to train up
ability scores? Do people not improve their abilities in the real
world, even years after adolesence?
Blackberry
2000 17:26:37 -0700 reached theears of the unsuspecting...
>
>Blackberry wrote:
>>
>>The unfortunate translation of "Denakhan's Vogon Poetry reading from Mon, 11 Sep
>> 2000 06:43:28 GMT reached theears of the unsuspecting...
>> >
>> >Hiya. [...]
>>
>> Hi there! Almost every reason you outlined for not wanting to play it is
>> exactly why I would never play 2E and have switched from GURPS to 3E.
>>
>> >Things I don't like about it...
>> >
>> >1) Any Race / Any Class
>>
>> I can't stand the way 2E handles this. Who are they to say that in my world,
>>dwarves cannot be paladins? Not everyone runs their game in Forgotten Realms.
>
>The real question is: Why did it take a new edition for everyone to
>realize that many of the things you mention here are valid changes to
>the system? *Your* system?
It didn't.
However, if I have to change such a basic tenet of the entire system just to fit
it to my game world, then (a) maybe the rest of the system won't be such a good
fit, and (b) what other assumptions is the system making that I've just fudged
up by changing that?
>It matters not what engine you use imo.
Sure it does. GURPS, for instance, makes assumptions as a system, but it
doesn't make assumptions about what kind of character you can design for
yourself. Be a nasty holy warrior, or a sword-swinging wizard, or a bookworm
with a penchant for prostitutes. The rules don't tell you "You can't do A with
B".
>There
>are good elements from every edition of the game, and including those
>elements and rules into your campaign (note I didn't say 1e, 2e, or 3e
>campaign) is a Good Thing (tm) if you like them, and shortsighted if you
>don't include them.
That may be true; however, there would be a disagreement over which of those
things is good and which is bad.
>I hear people say that 3e is the best system ever made. Perhaps it is,
>but trashing a favorite 1e or 2e rule you happen to like *because* 3e
>doesn't allow it is plain stupidity imo. Vice versa, as well, which is
>exactly why my campaign will be a hybrid. I think hybrids are the best
>campaigns people can play in because they offer the most unique
>challenges and rules that are as individual as the DM who make the
>world.
I agree. I don't think D&D 3E is the best system ever... I just think it works
well and does what I need -- it's a simple, fantasy-flavored game system that
has enough assumptions to bolster beginning players but lets advanced players
expand to their limits.
>Long live 2e.
You should play what you want to play. I still have an Atari 800 that I break
out to play Joust, Q-Bert, and Star Raiders.
johnc
----------
In article <MR7v5.67608$47.8...@news.bc.tac.net>, Brad Murray
<b...@binky.phreeow.net> wrote:
>Llorac <azm...@myna.com> wrote:
>> *nod* Since some like, and some dislike this, and it's generally easier for a DM
>> to overrule restrictions than to add them in, it'd have been better over all to
>> leave the restrictions in.
>
>Okay I'm intrigued. In what way is it easier to overrule restrictions than
>to add them? House rules are house rules and, in general, having a simulation
>system that provides for everything is A Good Thing. This puts matters of
>world design (like class/race limitations) firmly in the realm of (go figure)
>my world design instead of my simulation rules.
>
My guess would be that players are happy when they are given something
(lifting a rule restriction), and conversely are unhappy when something is
taken away (adding a restriction).
In most cases mature players have no problem with either situation, however,
some DM's are not always that lucky and you end up having to deal with a
Whiner.
Blackberry
Sep 2000 01:39:06 GMT reached theears of the unsuspecting...
>
><< This is something that Mead will never understand. >>
>
>You expect fermented honey to have reasoning capability?
Just try explaining it. The mead will just sit there as if it were an inanimate
liquid.
I thought he was talking about Margaret Mead, though, and trying to tie into a
recent discussion on rec.games.frp.misc. Or perhaps about the binder and school
paper products company. They'll never understand the intricacies of D&D 3rd
edition, though they may be able to get you a book cover to protect it.
Robert Baldwin
<pm...@home.com> wrote:
>
>"Michael Scott Brown" <The_Z...@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:OqXtCe8GAHA.316@cpmsnbbsa09...
>
><<<snip asshole remarks>>>
>
> Bah.
>
>
>^_^
>
>Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Quoted in its entirety, as this is the most relevant and intelligent
post re 3e Denakhan has made to date.
Am I the only one who sees the irony in an "Arch-Mage" who refuses to
be exposed to new information?
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
"Pain is inevitable; Misery is an option".
-
Remove the spam-block to reply
Robert Baldwin
<pm...@home.com> wrote:
>Hiya.
>
> Ok, lately I've been giving my opinions about some 3E stuff...and
>getting a "few" light-flamings. Expected, and I have no problem with that.
It should be expected. Willful ignorance is not well-accepted in this
NG.
>As I've stated many times, I am only going by what I read at Eric's site,
>various other RPG review sites and this (and other) NG's. I almost went
>down and bought the PHB 3E on Friday. Almost. I held off, waiting for some
>more $$$. I am coming into $35 tomorrow so I should have enough now (after
>bills, food, gas, etc) (it's $36.00 canadian here). I've decided to not buy
>right now. My reasons are simple: from the looks of it, I wouldn't be
>playing it anyway.
All of which is fine. A valid reason for not changing from 1e is
*not* the same as a valid complaint against 3e, on it's own merits.
Things I don't like about it...
<snip list>
[But don't really now anything about...]
Robert Baldwin
Paasivirta) wrote:
>Denakhan the Arch-Mage <pm...@home.com> wrote:
>>right now. My reasons are simple: from the looks of it, I wouldn't be
>>playing it anyway. Things I don't like about it...
>
>Weird, I'm not very enthusiastic about playing or DMing 3rd ed. either,
>but we seem to have completely different opionions! Let's see...
>
>>1) Any Race / Any Class
>>2) Unlimited Level Advancement for everyone
>>3) Multiclass up the wazoo.
>
>I like those things!
I do as well. And considering that the relative power potential of
multi-classing went *down* in 3e, it's a weird thing to complain
about.
>>4) Combat 'round' thing.
>
>I think it is still much better than one minute round.
>
>>5) No weapons speed factors.
>
>Yes, those should be used. Easy to add, but makes 3rd ed's combat even
>more complex.
If you have a system which makes any *sense*, as opposed to the prior
AD&D systems, that is...
<snip>
>>7) AoO combat stuff (just don't like the way it seems to be done)
>
>I just wonder what AoO means...
Attack of Opportunity. A bit more complex that I feel is needed,
given that I've used a very similar mechanic for two decades now. Then
again, my system required "DM's discretion" as it's basis, and that
may not be to everyone's taste. The new rules appeal to me more as a
player than as a DM, but that's because they are so similar
(conceptually) to where I allready was.
>>8) Ability score Increases as level increases
>
>Yep, abilities should be somehow trained or something.
Such "training" is an ssumed part of the character's activities.
>>9) The d20 system in general (to predictable, IMHO)
>
>It doesn't have fumbles (or I haven't noticed them?)! So if you do use
>that obnoxious dire flail, you never hit yourself, which, in real life,
>would be inevitable.
<shrug> I'm no great fan of the d20 system myself, but I'm not
against it either. And now that I know Arduin is coming back as a d20
system, I may even change my POV on that.
<snip>
>>11) Feats seem to powerful/important to the system, and to "players choice"
>>for my liking..
>
>One flaw is that all feats "cost" the same. Prerequisites help a bit, but
>their "cost" is now based only on prerequisites.
Feats are a Good Thing. No, make that a G*O*O*D T*H*I*N*G*. They
give a great balance between customization of characters and
standardized classes.
<snip>
>>13) Healing...too much, IMHO.
>>14) Healing. Oh, I said that...well, it's still too much.
Until and unless one compares *relative* healing to HP's avaialable
and damage sustained, the "more healing" complaint is gibberish.
Sir Bob
news:8pk2da$1i...@edrn.newsguy.com...
'cept, of course, for having fast-paced dramatic combat. Sorry,
just a pet peeve of mine. The system would be *perfect* for my
needs it there was an alternative to that goddamn unwieldy combat
system that doesn't, as you stated in (b), screw up the rest of
the system.
Sir Bob
P.S. Nih!
Duane Vanderpol
news:8pik9f$5va$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Why would you think that is a good idea to allow any old fighter to be
> that strong?
Why would YOU think it is "better" to forbid _any_ PC fighter - EVER -
to be that strong?
--
Duane VanderPol
http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp
Alea jacta est. In omnia paratus. Ars gratia artis.
Joe Fernandez
"Denakhan the Arch-Mage" <pm...@home.com> wrote in message
news:ka%u5.283734$8u4.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
<snip>
> 1) Any Race / Any Class
The PHB doesn't encourage allowing any race/class combination, it just
doesn't strictly forbid it. What if a DM wants to create a world where
dwarves are prominent magic users, or magic is very prevalent and *everyone*
can use it. In a typical D&D world, there should be some restriction and
the DMG mentions this. The point is, it's up to the DM to decide what to
restrict.
> 2) Unlimited Level Advancement for everyone
Same as above, the DM should control how he wants to restrict level
advancement.
> 3) Multiclass up the wazoo.
Again, the DM, not the rulebook should have final say in what multiclasses
to restrict.
> 4) Combat 'round' thing.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but if you mean using one initiative
for the whole battle, then that can easily be changed by a house rule if
you'd rather use round-by-round init.
> 5) No weapons speed factors.
Hmm...think realistically for a moment. How does weapon speed in real-life
battle determine who is faster? It doesn't, the person's dexterity does and
that's why it's better to make init a dex check.
> 6) Spells *seem* more geared towards "does damage", and "does more
damage".
The HPs on all sides are scaled somewhat higher than previous editions
(which doesn't coincide to how powerful they are, if it's balanced out).
There are just as many non-damage and even non-combat spells if not more in
3e than in 2e.
> 7) AoO combat stuff (just don't like the way it seems to be done)
AOOs are another aspect of combat that makes it more realistic. It's a
little complex, but not any moreso then those damn speed factors.
> 8) Ability score Increases as level increases
Another thing the DM can restrict, although it would make sense that you
would get stronger, more agile, more intelligent, etc as you get more
experienced.
> 9) The d20 system in general (to predictable, IMHO)
Is making something easier make it predictable. I guess you liked doing the
reverse math, working with negative numbers, and wondering whether you need
a higher or lower roll to succeed. Now you ALWAYS know higher is better.
> 10) WotC tend's to lie/exagerate/ignore legal stuff (the OGL and D20
License
> thing); so I don't want to give them more money if at all possible.
This I can't comment on, and it has nothing to do with the rules themselves.
> 11) Feats seem to powerful/important to the system, and to "players
choice"
> for my liking..
Well many powerful feats have prerequisites, and those that don't are not
unbalancing for starting characters. Now you can't have weapon
specialization (just weapon focus) at 1st lev like you could in 2e.
> 12) [Rumor I heard] Assassins casting spells. *shudder*
It's up to the DM to use prestige classes, and even if they do, the
character has to qualify for the class and earn the abilities the assassin
PC offers. Also the Assassin spell list is VERY limited and is geared
towards things that would benefit assassins (like sneaking, hiding in
shadows, etc...)
> 13) Healing...too much, IMHO.
I thought 2e had too little healing. You'd have to deal with just cure
light wounds until you could cast 4th level spells. And considering spells
can and will be created, saying that 3e has too much healing, or too much
damage spells is a moot point, because many campaigns will use custom spells
anyway...or possibly disallow official spells.
HADSIL
something. Why bother to be a GM anymore?
Gerald Katz
Paladins rule!
epic_sou...@my-deja.com
> 10) WotC tend's to lie/exagerate/ignore legal stuff (the OGL and D20
License
> thing); so I don't want to give them more money if at all possible.
People have comented on your other points. But do you know WTF you're
talking about when you write this as a complaint? It's true, as others
have pointed out on this group, it's not exactly an "open" gaming
license. It is, however, a free one. If you want to publish a D20
adventure, you have to abide by a few rules, such as not putting the
character creation stuff in. How the hell does this impact you at
all? It doesn't apply to people putting up a D&D web page, it doesn't
apply to almost anything that you are likely to do. This D20/OGL is
not exactly an act of benevolence on their part, certainly, but it
doesn't make them drooling servants of Cthulu either.
Epic
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
The DM
pm...@home.com says...
> Hiya.
>
> Ok, lately I've been giving my opinions about some 3E stuff...and
> getting a "few" light-flamings. Expected, and I have no problem with that.
> various other RPG review sites and this (and other) NG's. I almost went
> down and bought the PHB 3E on Friday. Almost. I held off, waiting for some
> more $$$. I am coming into $35 tomorrow so I should have enough now (after
> bills, food, gas, etc) (it's $36.00 canadian here). I've decided to not buy
>
> 1) Any Race / Any Class
> 5) No weapons speed factors.
> thing); so I don't want to give them more money if at all possible.
> for my liking..
> 14) Healing. Oh, I said that...well, it's still too much.
>
> probably pick one up to check it out. Until then, there just seems to be to
> many thing's in the game I'd have to change to suit my style, making it just
> not worth it.
>
> Concider me Silenced, 15'r. on 3E until I get a book (if ever).
>
> ^_^
>
> Denakhan the Arch-Mage
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"Closed mindedness is what makes a man truly unintelligent."
I felt the same way until I tried the system...overall....i like it.
Ignore most of the posts in here...there is just WAY TO MUCH BITCHING
going on. These are not really news groups they are just a bunch of
people bitching because they have nothing better to do.
I can respect the fact that you want to stay with the old system because
of $$$ and preference...and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Blackberry
21:12:14 -0600 reached theears of the unsuspecting...
>
>[...]
>'cept, of course, for having fast-paced dramatic combat. Sorry,
>just a pet peeve of mine. The system would be *perfect* for my
>needs it there was an alternative to that goddamn unwieldy combat
>system that doesn't, as you stated in (b), screw up the rest of
>the system.
You speak of GURPS, right? That's why I dropped it too. I don't want to spend
6 hours of an 8 hour RPG session in *one* combat. GURPS basic combat was too
basic, and advanced combat was too advanced. D&D3 find a good spot between the
two, in my opinion.
Matt Frisch
scribed into the ether:
>
>"Michael Scott Brown" <The_Z...@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:OqXtCe8GAHA.316@cpmsnbbsa09...
>
><<<snip asshole remarks>>>
>
> Bah.
The fact that he was right on every single point just makes this reply all
the dumber.
Matt Frisch
scribed into the ether:
>In article <39bcbadd...@news.toad.net>,
> jwal...@toad.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 06:43:28 GMT, "Denakhan the Arch-Mage"
>> <pm...@home.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> >8) Ability score Increases as level increases
>>
>> This would be a major problem if ability scores still topped out at
>> 25. As it is, things aren't bad. A 3e character can't be as strong
>> as an ogre before 12th level. Fighters can start as strong as ogres
>> in 1e and 2e.
>
>In those versions, there is but a 1/21600 chance of that happening
>(you need an 18, a 1/216 chance and then a 00, 1/100), or slightly
>greater with the 4D6 drop lowest system.
Ok, with you so far.
> But *all*
>fighters surviving to 12th level can now choose to have ogre strength
>(and thus almost certainly will).
So your interpretation of the rules is that all fighters start with an 18
strength? You must have read a much different book than the one I read.
>Why would you think that is a good idea to allow any old fighter to be
>that strong?
I think that any old fighter won't end up that strong, and thus the
question becomes irrelevant.
BlakGard
>>people liking 3e better, but get off your high horse, please.
>
>I do wish people would learn to use their mindless epithets correctly.
>If it relates specifically to 3E, use "munchkin". Only if it relates to
>other WOTC issues should you use "sheep". Get it right!
Bahahaha... a sheep is a sheep.
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
BlakGard
>>
>>ever go 3E in any form.
>
>
>I think that ability increases were a long time coming, personally.
Um... the reverse works too.
"No matter how much I (personally) train with a two-handed sword, I will never
EVER (read: 'in a million years') advance my strength the way my character will
in the game." Basically, 3e has made it too easy to advance your ability
scores.
BlakGard
>>
>> 1) Any Race / Any Class
>> 2) Unlimited Level Advancement for everyone
>> 3) Multiclass up the wazoo.
>> 4) Combat 'round' thing.
>> 5) No weapons speed factors.
I like all of these. I see no reason why everyone's campaign world needs to
follow the designs of those held by TSR in the past. In a realistic world,
every race is likely to be every class, and there certainly should not be any
restrictions placed on level advancement. As far as I'm concerned these
limitations are no different than saying "black people cannot do certain things
as well as white people," etc. Yes, I know this is just a game (and I'm not
saying it is racist), but there has never been an adequate explanation for
these restrictions, in my opinion. Im my opinion, multiclass characters should
be the rule, instead of the exception. Most people do have skills only in one
area -- if they are smart, they diversify themselves as much as possible. Many
campaign worlds are either late Middle Ages or early Renaissance -- ever hear
of a "Renaissance Man?" The term was coined to mean a person with varied
skills/interests (ie, a person with multiple classes). As for weapon speed...
heh... well, we haven't really used it since... well... as far back as I can
remember.
>> 6) Spells *seem* more geared towards "does damage", and
>>"does more damage".
>> 7) AoO combat stuff (just don't like the way it seems to be
>>done)
Agreed. AoO will not make it into my game.
>> 8) Ability score Increases as level increases
Honestly, we adopted a system for increasing ability scores ages ago, and it
doesn't need to change. We won't be using WotC's method.
>> 9) The d20 system in general (to predictable, IMHO)
>> 10) WotC tend's to lie/exagerate/ignore legal stuff (the OGL
>>and D20 License thing); so I don't want to give them more
>>money if at all possible.
The d20 License and OGL matter not in the least to me. Whomever lays their head
down on that chopping block deserves their fate.
>> 11) Feats seem to powerful/important to the system, and
>>to "players choice" for my liking.
Feats seem too similar to 2e's Kits... they will not be in any game that I
run... ever. I keep getting scared of finding the "Alter Ego" feat, which
allows a "mild mannered" character to become "UberKnight"... what scares me
more is that I think I've already read a few.
No thanks. I'll pass.
>> 12) [Rumor I heard] Assassins casting spells. *shudder*
I won't use assassins as a class, so this hardly affects me or my players.
>> 13) Healing...too much, IMHO.
>> 14) Healing. Oh, I said that...well, it's still too much.
Spells are the single most important thing that a DM has the ability to fully
control. You don't like the way healing is, then don't make it like that. Nuff
said.
Cerberus AOD
advancement. wouldn't it suck if your character runs every day, on top of normal
travelling (which should amount to some work anyway), engages in any local
fighting training he can, etc. and never gets even a slightly better CON, even
though he has worked for it for sevral levels, which may amount to potentially
years of in-game time. Likewise with any other stat. The mental ones are the
only ones I'd be wary about modifying, but since they encompass more than at
first glance, it seems OK (raising your IQ by level shouldn't work. Raising your
base knowledge might).
Oh, and how is 4 levels too easy? Unless you fly through them, 4 levels is quite
a bit of play. IME, it has been days worth of playing for even a single
level-up. One stat point every few real world months (once a week sessions)
doesn't sound too bad.
On 12 Sep 2000 06:25:25 GMT, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which was quite
moldy, BlakGard, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his antennae:
:-) >>>>> 8) Ability score Increases as level increases
:-) >>>
:-) >>>Bzzzzzzzzzz This would not be allowed in my campaign _if_ I
:-) >>>ever go 3E in any form.
:-) >>
:-) >>"No matter how much I train with this sword, I never get any stronger..."
:-) >>
:-) >>I think that ability increases were a long time coming, personally.
:-) >
:-) >Um... the reverse works too.
:-) >
:-) >"No matter how much I (personally) train with a two-handed sword, I will never
:-) >EVER (read: 'in a million years') advance my strength the way my character will
:-) >in the game." Basically, 3e has made it too easy to advance your ability
:-) >scores.
:-) >
:-) >-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
:-) >"Somewhere there's danger;
:-) >somewhere there's injustice,
:-) >and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
------------------
Cerberus AOD / A Paper Cut (ernieSCR...@DoddsTech.com)
ICQ UIN: 8878412 (take out SCREWTHESPAM to mail me, okay?)
"Children of tomorrow live in the tears that fall today"
-Children of the Grave, Black Sabbath
Michael Scott Brown
news:2jhv5.4503$%p2.2...@newsread03.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "Lawrence Mead" <lrm...@orca.st.usm.edu> wrote in message
> news:8pik9f$5va$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Why would you think that is a good idea to allow any old fighter to be
> > that strong?
>
> Why would YOU think it is "better" to forbid _any_ PC fighter - EVER -
> to be that strong?
Except *right at first level*, of course.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:20000912022525.08240.00000868@ng-
> "No matter how much I (personally) train with a two-handed sword, I will
never
> EVER (read: 'in a million years') advance my strength the way my character
will
> in the game." Basically, 3e has made it too easy to advance your ability
> scores.
5 times over the career from level 1 to 20 hardly seems *easy*.
Especially given that the last three require reaching 12th, 16th, and 20th
level. Given that the changes are only mechanically apparent in even
batches (in general) this all amounts to the character gaining a net of +2
to his bonuses over his career if he pours it all into a single stat.
<yawn>
-Michael
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Robert Baldwin wrote in message <39bd1688...@news.rio.com>...
>On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:56:22 GMT, "Denakhan the Arch-Mage"
><pm...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Michael Scott Brown" <The_Z...@msn.com> wrote in message
>>news:OqXtCe8GAHA.316@cpmsnbbsa09...
>>
>><<<snip asshole remarks>>>
>>
>> Bah.
>>
>>
>>^_^
>>
>>Denakhan the Arch-Mage
>
>Quoted in its entirety, as this is the most relevant and intelligent
>post re 3e Denakhan has made to date.
>
>Am I the only one who sees the irony in an "Arch-Mage" who refuses to
>be exposed to new information?
*sigh* I'm not refusing to be exposed to new information. I just don't
want to pay for a book I'm not going to use (most likely). As I said, when
I get a lot of money, I'll pick it up. Until then, well, I'll happily
remain ignorant I guess.
Seeing as I seem to be annoying people by voicing my opinions about 3E
*from my current knowledge base* (key phrase there), and my experience as a
DM, I might just have to dig down deep into the pockets-es, buy the damn
book, read it and then write what I don't like about it. I could be wrong
on all accounts...I just doubt it.
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
PS: Same thing goes for you...feel free to email me and I'll give you my
address so you can send be a PHB. ;-) ;-) ;-)
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
epic_sou...@my-deja.com wrote in message
<8pk9l6$7qj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>> 10) WotC tend's to lie/exagerate/ignore legal stuff (the OGL and D20
>License
>> thing); so I don't want to give them more money if at all possible.
>
>People have comented on your other points. But do you know WTF you're
>talking about when you write this as a complaint? It's true, as others
>have pointed out on this group, it's not exactly an "open" gaming
>license. It is, however, a free one.
News flash: ALL rpg systems are free. (key word...*SYSTEM*)
>If you want to publish a D20
>adventure, you have to abide by a few rules, such as not putting the
>character creation stuff in.
I can publish a D20 adventure any time I want...for free or for money.
WotC can't/couldn't do a damn thing about it...other than sue me 'just
because'. If I had enough money to actually see the case to a ruling, I'd
more than likely win.
> How the hell does this impact you at
>all?
It just irks me to think that people that have no real idea of what can
and can't be copyrightable, as well as how to use TM's are being suckered in
to *giving away* rights by signing the current license. That's all. A
personal thing; not a 3E rule thing.
> It doesn't apply to people putting up a D&D web page, it doesn't
>apply to almost anything that you are likely to do. This D20/OGL is
>not exactly an act of benevolence on their part, certainly, but it
>doesn't make them drooling servants of Cthulu either.
...not yet.... ;-)
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Sheitan
"BlakGard" <blak...@aol.comspiracy> wrote in message
> >>>> 8) Ability score Increases as level increases
> >>
> >>Bzzzzzzzzzz This would not be allowed in my campaign _if_ I
> >>ever go 3E in any form.
> >
> >"No matter how much I train with this sword, I never get any stronger..."
> >
> >I think that ability increases were a long time coming, personally.
>
> Um... the reverse works too.
>
> "No matter how much I (personally) train with a two-handed sword, I will
never
> EVER (read: 'in a million years') advance my strength the way my character
will
> in the game." Basically, 3e has made it too easy to advance your ability
> scores.
Too *easy*?
Only if you give levels too fast.
IMC, gaining 12 levels would take a very, *very* long time and involve a lot
of stuff.
- Sheitan
Aristotle
>> 2) Unlimited Level Advancement for everyone
>> 3) Multiclass up the wazoo.
>> 4) Combat 'round' thing.
>> 5) No weapons speed factors.
>damage".
>> 7) AoO combat stuff (just don't like the way it seems to be done)
>License
>> thing); so I don't want to give them more money if at all possible.
>choice"
>> 12) [Rumor I heard] Assassins casting spells. *shudder*
>> 14) Healing. Oh, I said that...well, it's still too much.
I agree that the loss of weapon speed factors is a shame, and also I find
WoTC's business practices to be pretty repulsive. However, everything else on
your list is an interesting improvement to the game.
As for the healing, get a grip. Sheesh.
-Aristotle@Threshold
--
VISIT THRESHOLD - Online Roleplaying at its Finest. Player run clans, guilds,
legal system, economy, religions, nobility, and more in a world where roleplay
is required! Roleplay online with thousands of people from all over the world.
http://www.thresholdrpg.com -**- telnet://thresholdrpg.com:23
Aristotle
>some classes.
Why? It is very easy to make a house rule that Race A cannot join Class Z.
However, it is a lot easier to ADD support for a certain race to be in a
certain class, since there might be things that need to be tweaked to do so.
It is better for the game to allow all combinations, have rules in place for
such, and then allow you to just nix the ones you don't like.
Beyond that, I have to also add that I cannot really see any logical problem
any race would have with any class.
Michael Scott Brown
news:tinv5.13410$%l.313941@news-
> I agree that the loss of weapon speed factors is a shame,
How is it a shame to toss a rule that was unrealistic and flat-out
wrong?
-Michael
Dr Nuncheon
BlakGard <blak...@aol.comspiracy> wrote:
>>>>> 8) Ability score Increases as level increases
>>>
>>>Bzzzzzzzzzz This would not be allowed in my campaign _if_ I
>>>ever go 3E in any form.
>>
>>"No matter how much I train with this sword, I never get any stronger..."
>>
>>I think that ability increases were a long time coming, personally.
>
>Um... the reverse works too.
>
>"No matter how much I (personally) train with a two-handed sword, I will never
>EVER (read: 'in a million years') advance my strength the way my character will
>in the game." Basically, 3e has made it too easy to advance your ability
>scores.
You're kidding, right? My strength, dexterity, *and* constitution have
gone up measurably over the past few years, and I *really* doubt that
going to karate class 3 times a week has gotten me to 12th level.
J
--
INTERNET SEEMS TO BE FULL OF MILLIONS OF | Jeff Johnston
IDIOTS & LUNATICS ! ! - c2 (ts...@my-deja.com) | jeffj @ io . com
Lawrence Mead
As Jason Hatters detailed and thoughtful post has shown, MSB is indeed
incorrect about the amount of healing 3E clerics can do. In any case,
corrctness does not excuse bad behavior.
DMGorgon
Lawrence Mead
green...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8pik9f$5va$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,> > jwal...@toad.net wrote:
> > > On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 06:43:28 GMT, "Denakhan the Arch-Mage"
> > > <pm...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > >8) Ability score Increases as level increases
> > >
at
> > > 25. As it is, things aren't bad. A 3e character can't be as
strong
> > > as an ogre before 12th level. Fighters can start as strong as
ogres
> > > in 1e and 2e.
> >
> > In those versions, there is but a 1/21600 chance of that happening
> > (you need an 18, a 1/216 chance and then a 00, 1/100), or slightly
> > fighters surviving to 12th level can now choose to have ogre
strength
> > (and thus almost certainly will).
be
> > that strong?
> >
>
> starts with an 18 strength (not easy under the new rules by any
means),
> and IF the player puts every ability score bonus into strength, then
> yes, a 12th level character could have the same Strength as an
> *average* 4HD Ogre. But if that Ogre also took a character class and
> added another 8 levels, it could have added more to it's own Strength,
> so a 12th level character (created using any of the standard races)
> could never compete strength wise with an equivalent 4/8th level Ogre
> (especially if that Ogre were progressing as a Barbarian, which is
> quite likely).
Yes, you are quite right. I should have said 1/100 as both eds have
to start at 18.
> Furthermore, you are also ignoring the new rule about carrying
capacity
I am not ignoring it, but simply was unconcerned about carrying capacity
which plays no role in combat: doing damage.
> on P142. Even though your 21 Strength character has the same ability
> score as a 21 Strength Ogre, the Large Ogre can carry twice as much
> weight. So maybe the character could compete with the Ogre in an arm
> wrestling constest, but weightlifting is a clear victory for the Ogre
> any way (weigh :) you look at it.
DMgorgon
David R. Klassen
> >
> > 1) Any Race / Any Class
>
> meet your personal preferences?
I would prefer a list of racially prefered classes - so when I make my
DM ruling of "no dwarven mages" there is at least *something* in the
rule book that can back me up. I heard rumor that this does exist -
is this true? [Local store was sold out last time I checked...]
> > 2) Unlimited Level Advancement for everyone
> As opposed to limited advancment for some demihumans? Are you truly the
> kind of idiot that thinks this was a good rule?
> <shakes head sadly>
Actually, I *did* like this rule as a balance. The multiclassing and
casting in armor and all the cool racial abilities made demi-humans a
tad bit more powerful. By having the cap (and I just use the psychology
reason for quitting - e.g. elves get bored, dwarves decide it's time
to go home) that meant a player had to make a power decision - more now
for less later.
> > 3) Multiclass up the wazoo.
> Please show us in the rulebook where it says "yes! multiclass like
> crazy!". Oh, wait, you *can't*, because you haven't read the rulebooks.
> Please show us on Eric's site where the designers commented on how
> multiclassing is always *sooo* much better than single-classing. Oh, wait,
> you *can't*, because they said that they wrote their rules so as to ensure
> that players of either kind of character are in parity - and in fact, the
> single classed character will often have much more raw power.
I'm still getting used to the idea of switching between classes and calling
that "multi"... For some reason I still don't understand why in 2e a
character with two classes *wasn't* half the level of the single class
folks in each of his classes. However, with the xp chart the same for
everyone, wouldn't working on two at the same time be as slow as switching
between classes?
> > 5) No weapons speed factors.
> Which were utterly and completely wrong.
Hear, hear! No weapon speeds *without* weapon lengths!
> > 8) Ability score Increases as level increases
> It's a good idea. But at least *this* complaint doesn't render you a
> fool for finding it not your style.
I used this in 2e - modeled after the Cavalier. Each character could,
after gaining a level, spend x.p.'s to raise abilities. Each 100 x.p.
spent gave them a d10 roll and that was the number of 100th of a point
they got to add. A character could spend up to 600 x.p. each level
but could put no more than 3d10 on any single ability. Once I got rid
of excpetional strength, these extra points did nothing until they added
up to a full point.
--
David R. Klassen voice: 856-256-4500 x3273
Department of Chemistry & Physics fax: 856-256-4478
Rowan University
201 Mullica Hill Road kla...@rowan.edu
Glassboro, NJ 08028 http://elvis.rowan.edu/~klassen
David R. Klassen
>
> >2) Unlimited Level Advancement for everyone
>
> advance past 9th level in Fighter? Gnomes, who excel in illusion magic, cannot
> advance past 7th level in Illusionist? What is the in-world justification?
>
> "I'm sorry, teacher, I just can't cram any more knowledge into my head. You
> know that thing you just showed me about swinging my axe better? I forgot it.
> It won't fit in my head. I think it's because I'm an elf and my brain isn't
> shaped to contain axe-swinging knowledge."
It's not that they *can't*, it's that they *don't*. The cant' part is
the rule for the player only. In the psychology of the elf, there is
only so long they desire to keep adventuring and focusing on this
magic stuff, after awhile it's time to go learn how to paint or
write poetry, etc. For dwarves their responsibility to home and hearth
eventually takes over and they go home. Keep going for whatever race
you want.
Sir Bob
> > Please show us in the rulebook where it says "yes!
multiclass like
> > crazy!". Oh, wait, you *can't*, because you haven't read the
rulebooks.
> > Please show us on Eric's site where the designers commented
on how
> > multiclassing is always *sooo* much better than
single-classing. Oh, wait,
> > you *can't*, because they said that they wrote their rules so
as to ensure
> > that players of either kind of character are in parity - and
in fact, the
> > single classed character will often have much more raw power.
> I'm still getting used to the idea of switching between classes
and calling
> that "multi"... For some reason I still don't understand why
in 2e a
> character with two classes *wasn't* half the level of the
single class
> folks in each of his classes.
Because class abilities didn't stack in 2e. Just taking the
better of the two, as 2e specifies, he'd be half the power level
of his single-classed companions. Unlike 3e, where saving
throws, attack bonuses, etc. stack across classes.
> However, with the xp chart the same for
> everyone, wouldn't working on two at the same time be as slow
as switching
> between classes?
In theory, yes. However, the rules for covering "partial
character levels" were too complex to make it into the PHB
('cause you see, if you start with two classes at first level,
you'd effectively be, for example, a Ftr0.5/Sor0.5, which does
funky stuff to class ability balance, hence necessitating special
rules to cover it).
Sir Bob
P.S. Nih!
Doug
> >>>> 8) Ability score Increases as level increases
> >>
> >>Bzzzzzzzzzz This would not be allowed in my campaign _if_ I
> >>ever go 3E in any form.
> >
> >"No matter how much I train with this sword, I never get any stronger..."
> >
> >I think that ability increases were a long time coming, personally.
>
> Um... the reverse works too.
>
> "No matter how much I (personally) train with a two-handed sword, I will never
> EVER (read: 'in a million years') advance my strength the way my character will
> in the game." Basically, 3e has made it too easy to advance your ability
> scores.
But you're also not Conan...
Remember, this is supposed to be a high fantasy game. If you want gritty realism,
try GURPS or some other system. Or if you and your players all agree, skip that
part... I really like the idea of a hero that grows into the role of someone who
can change the world. Be it legendary strength, quickness, or charm, the idea of a
hero with better than believable abilities is a staple of heroic fiction.
Just my $0.02.
-Doug (the other one)
Dr Nuncheon
David R. Klassen <kla...@rowan.edu> wrote:
>Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>>
>> "Denakhan the Arch-Mage" <pm...@home.com>
>> > right now. My reasons are simple: from the looks of it, I wouldn't be
>> > playing it anyway. Things I don't like about it...
>> >
>> > 1) Any Race / Any Class
>>
>> So you think that the game should circumscribe *everyone's* choices to
>> meet your personal preferences?
>I would prefer a list of racially prefered classes - so when I make my
>DM ruling of "no dwarven mages" there is at least *something* in the
>rule book that can back me up. I heard rumor that this does exist -
>is this true? [Local store was sold out last time I checked...]
Well, every race has a 'preferred class'. And in the description of the
classes it says things like 'halfling paladins are very rare'. Is that
what you were looking for?
>> > 2) Unlimited Level Advancement for everyone
>> As opposed to limited advancment for some demihumans? Are you truly the
>> kind of idiot that thinks this was a good rule?
>> <shakes head sadly>
>Actually, I *did* like this rule as a balance. The multiclassing and
>casting in armor and all the cool racial abilities made demi-humans a
>tad bit more powerful. By having the cap (and I just use the psychology
>reason for quitting - e.g. elves get bored, dwarves decide it's time
>to go home) that meant a player had to make a power decision - more now
>for less later.
Humans get a boost in 3e, so the demihumans *don't* get 'more now'. A
different solution to the same problem.
And personally, I *hate* it when a GM tells me how my PC thinks or acts
(unless there's a darn good reason, like a charm spell). As far as I'm
concerned, if he wants to control my character, he can do it without me at
the table. It defeats the purpose of *me* roleplaying the character.
>> > 3) Multiclass up the wazoo.
>> Please show us in the rulebook where it says "yes! multiclass like
>> crazy!". Oh, wait, you *can't*, because you haven't read the rulebooks.
>> Please show us on Eric's site where the designers commented on how
>> multiclassing is always *sooo* much better than single-classing. Oh, wait,
>> you *can't*, because they said that they wrote their rules so as to ensure
>> that players of either kind of character are in parity - and in fact, the
>> single classed character will often have much more raw power.
>I'm still getting used to the idea of switching between classes and calling
>that "multi"...
Well, it's different from the earlier version of 'switching classes'
because you can still use your previous class skills. There was some
foolishness in 1e (and possibly 2) about when you could or couldn't use
your thief skills after changing class to fighter.
> For some reason I still don't understand why in 2e a
>character with two classes *wasn't* half the level of the single class
>folks in each of his classes. However, with the xp chart the same for
>everyone, wouldn't working on two at the same time be as slow as switching
>between classes?
Well...yes. Although you can customize to your heart's content - 3
levels of cleric, 7 of fighter (instead of 5/5) for example, to represent
someone who is concentrating more on his fighting skills than he is on his
spellcasting ability.
>> > 5) No weapons speed factors.
>> Which were utterly and completely wrong.
>Hear, hear! No weapon speeds *without* weapon lengths!
I'm glad someone else understands this, I was beginning to think I was
crazy.
>> > 8) Ability score Increases as level increases
>> It's a good idea. But at least *this* complaint doesn't render you a
>> fool for finding it not your style.
>I used this in 2e - modeled after the Cavalier. Each character could,
>after gaining a level, spend x.p.'s to raise abilities.
A nice idea, and it reflects the way that the character's experience
changed them.
Cerberus AOD
was quite moldy, Michael Scott Brown, a dying weevil, wrote the following with
his antennae:
:-) >"Aristotle" <thre...@threshold-rpg.com> wrote in message
:-) >news:tinv5.13410$%l.313941@news-
:-) >> I agree that the loss of weapon speed factors is a shame,
:-) >
:-) > How is it a shame to toss a rule that was unrealistic and flat-out
:-) >wrong?
:-) >
:-) >-Michael
Because weilding two daggers no longer makes you a powerful fighter?
Blackberry
13:34:45 GMT reached theears of the unsuspecting...
>
>BlakGard wrote:
>[...]
>>"No matter how much I (personally) train with a two-handed sword, I will never
>>EVER (read: 'in a million years') advance my strength the way my character will
>> in the game." Basically, 3e has made it too easy to advance your ability
>> scores.
>
>But you're also not Conan...
>Remember, this is supposed to be a high fantasy game. If you want gritty
>realism,
Eek! Don't recommend GURPS to him. It's even *easier* for a PC to raise
attributes in GURPS -- you just need to save up enough experience points!
Blackberry
2000 09:20:51 -0400 reached theears of the unsuspecting...
>
>Blackberry wrote:
>>
>> >2) Unlimited Level Advancement for everyone
>>
>> This never made any sense to me in 2E. Dwarves, built for fighting, cannot
>>advance past 9th level in Fighter? Gnomes, who excel in illusion magic, cannot
>> advance past 7th level in Illusionist? What is the in-world justification?
>>
>> "I'm sorry, teacher, I just can't cram any more knowledge into my head. You
>>know that thing you just showed me about swinging my axe better? I forgot it.
>> It won't fit in my head. I think it's because I'm an elf and my brain isn't
>> shaped to contain axe-swinging knowledge."
>
>It's not that they *can't*, it's that they *don't*. The cant' part is
>the rule for the player only. In the psychology of the elf, there is
>only so long they desire to keep adventuring and focusing on this
>magic stuff, after awhile it's time to go learn how to paint or
>write poetry, etc. For dwarves their responsibility to home and hearth
>eventually takes over and they go home. Keep going for whatever race
>you want.
The ancient argument is "That's not how it works in my world". Which is in fact
true for my world. That's why the class and level restrictions made no sense in
1E -- it *assumed* you were playing in *its* world, and no other. If you wanted
a different world, you actually had to dismantle rules.
David R. Klassen
>
> Well, every race has a 'preferred class'. And in the description of the
> classes it says things like 'halfling paladins are very rare'. Is that
> what you were looking for?
> Humans get a boost in 3e, so the demihumans *don't* get 'more now'. A
> different solution to the same problem.
I'll reserve judgment (either way) until I see the rules myself. But
from what I've been hearing, it does seem that races are more balanced
so I'd be willing to accept the different balance.
> And personally, I *hate* it when a GM tells me how my PC thinks or acts
> (unless there's a darn good reason, like a charm spell). As far as I'm
> concerned, if he wants to control my character, he can do it without me at
> the table. It defeats the purpose of *me* roleplaying the character.
This is where I differ. I think that for a race/class the DM is well
within rights of outlining a basic philosophical outlook and part of the
role-playing aspect is to play that role *and* make it personal/unique.
That is, if all gnomes in the campaign world have names that begin with
a 'G', then ALL gnomes, the PC's included, will. If all elves get bored
with the outside world after experiencing it for some time (i.e. 12th level)
the ALL elves will get bored. If all dwarves have red hair, then ALL
dwarves, PC's included, will have red hair. It's what makes my world
*my* world; and world design is really the major way the DM get's to "play".
> >> > 5) No weapons speed factors.
> >> Which were utterly and completely wrong.
> >Hear, hear! No weapon speeds *without* weapon lengths!
> I'm glad someone else understands this, I was beginning to think I was
> crazy.
Just because there are others who agree with you does not mean you
are NOT crazy. :)
David R. Klassen
>
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 04:29:51 -0700, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which
> was quite moldy, Michael Scott Brown, a dying weevil, wrote the following with
> his antennae:
> :-) >"Aristotle" <thre...@threshold-rpg.com> wrote in message
> :-) >news:tinv5.13410$%l.313941@news-
> :-) >> I agree that the loss of weapon speed factors is a shame,
> :-) >
> :-) > How is it a shame to toss a rule that was unrealistic and flat-out
> :-) >wrong?
> :-) >
> :-) >-Michael
>
> Because weilding two daggers no longer makes you a powerful fighter?
Two daggers vs. a sword would NOT be powerful if both warriors have
the same skill (level). Swords are simply *better* than daggers.
Intrinsic speed of a weapon is less important than reach.
Xeno
wrote:
>Hiya.
>
> Ok, lately I've been giving my opinions about some 3E stuff...and
>getting a "few" light-flamings. Expected, and I have no problem with that.
>As I've stated many times, I am only going by what I read at Eric's site,
>various other RPG review sites and this (and other) NG's. I almost went
>down and bought the PHB 3E on Friday. Almost. I held off, waiting for some
>more $$$. I am coming into $35 tomorrow so I should have enough now (after
>bills, food, gas, etc) (it's $36.00 canadian here). I've decided to not buy
>right now. My reasons are simple: from the looks of it, I wouldn't be
>playing it anyway. Things I don't like about it...
>
>1) Any Race / Any Class
What's not to like? It wasn't as if everyone and his little brother weren't
breaking these restrictions out of a desire to be rebellious or to have
something new and rare, anyway.
>2) Unlimited Level Advancement for everyone
Racial level caps made no sense, and served no useful purpose except to
make everyone's list of house rules even larger. :)
>3) Multiclass up the wazoo.
3E makes MCing much more balanced by changing the whole relationship
between multiclassing and experience. In 2E, there is no rational reason
*not* to multiclass if you can since the benefits outweigh the consequences
categorically. In 3E, it's much less clear-cut.
>4) Combat 'round' thing.
A 6 second round makes the whole action section of the rules much more
logical and sensible, making the whole system more intuitive.
>5) No weapons speed factors.
On this one I agree. All weapons do not move at the same speed or are as
easy to recover.
>6) Spells *seem* more geared towards "does damage", and "does more damage".
I don't understand. 2E does this too, does it not?
>7) AoO combat stuff (just don't like the way it seems to be done)
I can't think of a better way to do it other than the DM judging whether an
AoO is earned on a case by case basis, which is hardly consistent.
>8) Ability score Increases as level increases
Why not? People improve themselves in real life all the time. There's no
reason why it can't happen in game. Genetics plays a part in a person or
character, but there's also environment and training.
>9) The d20 system in general (to predictable, IMHO)
How so? FWIW, i've seen people on here argue that the d20 method of checks
is too *random*. :)
>10) WotC tend's to lie/exagerate/ignore legal stuff (the OGL and D20 License
>thing); so I don't want to give them more money if at all possible.
Don't know about that one.
>11) Feats seem to powerful/important to the system, and to "players choice"
>for my liking..
Assigning feats randomly would make some pretty illogical characters. It
may be assumed that what a player picks for his character is, in the game,
what his character has picked up on his own anyway.
>12) [Rumor I heard] Assassins casting spells. *shudder*
Yep.
>13) Healing...too much, IMHO.
>14) Healing. Oh, I said that...well, it's still too much.
If you're referring to the swap-for-heals ability of clerics, that's to let
them take some of their other magics without fear of having the party wiped
out because they didn't take enough curing magic. Up to now, clerics had
this as a major obstacle to becoming anything more than a walking
ambulance.
> Those are them in a nutshell. When I come into a LOT more money, I'll
>probably pick one up to check it out. Until then, there just seems to be to
>many thing's in the game I'd have to change to suit my style, making it just
>not worth it.
I doubt you'll find more than a handful of D&D'ers who will settle into 3E
without attaching at least one house rule to it.
--
O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O
Matthew Shelton a.k.a. Xeno
* E-mail: mlsh...@memphis.edu
* Homepage: http://www.people.memphis.edu/~mlsheltn
Standard Notice to SPAMMERS: Disclosure of my e-mail address
does NOT qualify as consent to send me unsolicited advertisements.
Xeno
<The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
>> 1) Any Race / Any Class
>
> So you think that the game should circumscribe *everyone's* choices to
>meet your personal preferences?
>> 2) Unlimited Level Advancement for everyone
>
> As opposed to limited advancment for some demihumans? Are you truly the
>kind of idiot that thinks this was a good rule?
> <shakes head sadly>
Ooh, nice ad hominem there Mikey :) A pity you neglect to explain *why* it
isn't a good rule for those who may not know. This is the difference
between being a dime-a-dozen jerk and actually being helpful.
>> 3) Multiclass up the wazoo.
>
> Please show us in the rulebook where it says "yes! multiclass like
>crazy!". Oh, wait, you *can't*, because you haven't read the rulebooks.
>Please show us on Eric's site where the designers commented on how
>multiclassing is always *sooo* much better than single-classing. Oh, wait,
>you *can't*, because they said that they wrote their rules so as to ensure
>that players of either kind of character are in parity - and in fact, the
>single classed character will often have much more raw power.
Yep.
>> 4) Combat 'round' thing.
>
> Which is a vast improvement over the artificial stupid-fest of the
>original initiative system.
For this to be an accurate statement, you should have added "in my opinion"
:)
2E's init system needed some improvement, but they oversimplified. IMO. :)
>> 5) No weapons speed factors.
>
> Which were utterly and completely wrong.
Bah. :)
>> 6) Spells *seem* more geared towards "does damage", and "does more
>damage".
>
> Please show us in the rulebook how this trend is borne out. Oh, wait,
>you *can't*.
I can. Some spells increase the number of dice used to roll damage
depending on caster level, and spells of lower level inflict less damage
than spells of higher level. Some spells have caps on damage, compelling a
caster to seek spells of higher level if he wants to increase his damage
output.
>> 7) AoO combat stuff (just don't like the way it seems to be done)
>
> What, people that drop their defenses get thwacked is a poor way to do
>it? Perhaps if you ever *learned* what the rules were, but wait, you
>*can't*.
*yawn* This insulting for insulting's sake is getting pretty old, Mikey.
NOw, instead of being an ass, why don't you try explaining why AoO's are a
good idea.
>> 8) Ability score Increases as level increases
>
> It's a good idea. But at least *this* complaint doesn't render you a
>fool for finding it not your style.
*gasp* Mikey actually got close to being more than just a dogmatic Don
Rickles there. How quaint. :)
>> 9) The d20 system in general (to predictable, IMHO)
>
> How does *rolling* a d20 against a success/failure chance become too
>predictable?
I'd like to know too.
>> 10) WotC tend's to lie/exagerate/ignore legal stuff (the OGL and D20
>License
>> thing); so I don't want to give them more money if at all possible.
>
> Please show us where this appears in the PhB. Oh, wait, you *can't* . .
Can you say, "look on the internet"? I knew you could. :) He's talking
about 3E in an abstract, not just "the 3E PHB". There is a difference.
>> 11) Feats seem to powerful/important to the system, and to "players
>choice"
>> for my liking..
>
> Players choice is *bad*?
It depends on the situation. Players generally shouldn't be able to
hand-pick their characters' stats, and a DM is well within his rights to
ban certain classes, races, and even feats if he doesn't like them, whether
out of a belief that they are too abuseable, that they don't fit his
campaign world, or even "just because". The DM doesn't have to allow things
in the game he doesn't like, and the players don't have to play in the game
if they don't like the way the DM operates his game world and rules system.
>> 12) [Rumor I heard] Assassins casting spells. *shudder*
>
> Ninja. Check out the legends. Rangers and Paladins can. So can Bards.
>Wouldn't a character who specializes in killing people *want* to study some
>magic?
Yep.
>> 13) Healing...too much, IMHO.
>
> This statement is one of pure and utter ignorance.
Feh. Do you think that the game should circumscribe *everyone's* choices to
meet your personal preferences about the amount of healing in the game?
Hypocrite!
Xeno
wrote:
>
>"Michael Scott Brown" <The_Z...@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:OqXtCe8GAHA.316@cpmsnbbsa09...
>
><<<snip asshole remarks>>>
>
> Bah.
>
>
>^_^
Ooh, that was *sweet*. :)
Xeno
>The unfortunate translation of Nocturnal's Vogon Poetry reading from Mon, 11 Sep
>2000 10:24:59 GMT reached theears of the unsuspecting...
>>
>>On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 20:56:33 +1200, "Sheitan" <sheit...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Strange.... many of the reasons I *like* about 3E are on your list too.
>>
>>Some of these things do not bother me. Some of them bother me greatly.
>>
>>>
>>>> 1) Any Race / Any Class
>>
>>I have a problem with this. I have problems envisioning some races as
>>some classes.
>
>Isn't that something that should be handled in the GM's *world*, rather than in
>the rules? What if I want to run a different world than you are using? What if
>I want to use a world of my own design, where elves are holy warriors and
>dwarves practice lots of magic?
It isn't the game designer's place to tell the players that they *can't*
play a certain class/race combination, only the DMs'. To that end, they
basically said, "whatever you think is appropriate, have at it." Then if
the DM doesn't like dwarven wizards or gnomish paladins, they can ban them
themselves. The game system ought to be as inclusive of "mainstream D&D" as
possible, which, when it came down to it, precisely meant adding common
house rules as core rules, junking official rules that almost nobody liked
anyway, and sanctioning the choice of a reasonably honorable player[1] to
play whatever kind of character he wanted, with limits being placed on
character choices only by the DM and the player themselves. Some arbitrary
and IMO unnecessary restrictions are a part of 3E, but as a DM that can be
peacefully and bloodlessly resolved under Rule Zero. :)
[1] munchkins and cheaters obviously excluded
Xeno
of being an ass. :) He said much the same things you did, but I'll wager
that Denakhan and the like will pay more attention to him than to you,
because they don't have to read through all that noise and mud to find the
actual point that's trying to be made.
Study this post, Mikey, and learn. :)
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 13:33:46 GMT, green...@my-deja.com wrote:
>In article <ka%u5.283734$8u4.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>,
> "Denakhan the Arch-Mage" <pm...@home.com> wrote:
>> Hiya.
>>
>> Ok, lately I've been giving my opinions about some 3E stuff...and
>> getting a "few" light-flamings. Expected, and I have no problem with
>that.
>> As I've stated many times, I am only going by what I read at Eric's
>site,
>> various other RPG review sites and this (and other) NG's.
>
>I seem to be having this discussion quite a bit in different forums
>lately. The real problem is that (as you acknowledge), you haven't read
>the book and don't have all the facts. However, just by going to the
>web sites you mentioned and read this news group, you should see that
>the vast majority of people seem to prefer the new system (with maybe a
>few gripes). I assure you, most of these people have now read the 3e
>PHB at least and have a better overview of the new rules, and most will
>also have had some previous experience of the *D&D system to compare
>with. I suspect that if you actually read the rules in full, you may
>change your opinion (then again, maybe not, but at least your
>objections will have a better basis).
>
>
>> I almost went
>> down and bought the PHB 3E on Friday. Almost. I held off, waiting
>for some
>> more $$$. I am coming into $35 tomorrow so I should have enough now
>(after
>> bills, food, gas, etc) (it's $36.00 canadian here). I've decided to
>not buy
>> right now. My reasons are simple: from the looks of it, I wouldn't be
>> playing it anyway. Things I don't like about it...
--
Dr Nuncheon
>
>> And personally, I *hate* it when a GM tells me how my PC thinks or acts
>> (unless there's a darn good reason, like a charm spell). As far as I'm
>> concerned, if he wants to control my character, he can do it without me at
>> the table. It defeats the purpose of *me* roleplaying the character.
>
>This is where I differ. I think that for a race/class the DM is well
>within rights of outlining a basic philosophical outlook and part of the
>role-playing aspect is to play that role *and* make it personal/unique.
>That is, if all gnomes in the campaign world have names that begin with
>a 'G', then ALL gnomes, the PC's included, will. If all elves get bored
>with the outside world after experiencing it for some time (i.e. 12th level)
>the ALL elves will get bored. If all dwarves have red hair, then ALL
>dwarves, PC's included, will have red hair. It's what makes my world
>*my* world; and world design is really the major way the DM get's to "play".
Every time I see this sort of thing, though my mind immediately starts
picking it apart. For the dwarves/red hair thing - OK, not much there.
But for the Gnome names - why? Is it a cultural thing? If so, what if he
was raised by halflings? Why wouldn't he have a traditional halfling
name?
For the elven thing - how can it possibly be based on level? Levels don't
exist in the game world, just on the gaming table. Two separate elves
could reach their maximum level in far different amounts of time with far
different experiences, why should they both get inexplicably bored when
they hit the same level of power and go home?
What if my character can't return to the elven lands for some reason?
Maybe he's an outlaw. Maybe he took a vow. Just because he hits a
certain level before fulfilling it, he *must* get bored and go home?
I guess I'm trying to say that I've never seen a DM who was able to make
the level limits seem believable to me (and unfortunately, this example is
exactly the kind of thing I mean). It always seemed like silly
justifications for a silly rule.
Nocturnal Rambler
<kla...@rowan.edu> wrote:
>Cerberus AOD wrote:
>>
[snip]
>> Because weilding two daggers no longer makes you a powerful fighter?
>
>Two daggers vs. a sword would NOT be powerful if both warriors have
>the same skill (level). Swords are simply *better* than daggers.
>Intrinsic speed of a weapon is less important than reach.
That is not necessarily true in all cases. There are cases where
weapon speed would be the decisive factor. If a person with two
daggers drawn were to be approached by a warrior with a long sword
drawn and combat followed, the two dagger person has a slight
advantage. Why is simple when weapon factors are used. SF 2 beats SF4
every day of the week all year round. If both have more or less the
same dex, then the person with the twin daggers will go first. He or
she can slip inside where the long sword can not reach before opening
up the others guts literally. Even if the one dagger is used to parry
the long sword, the person still has advantage as the other dagger can
strike home. If the one or both daggers were to be poisoned as well,
it really could be a short fight.
Nocturnal Rambler
wrote:
>The unfortunate translation of Nocturnal's Vogon Poetry reading from Mon, 11 Sep
>2000 10:24:59 GMT reached theears of the unsuspecting...
[snip]
>>>> 1) Any Race / Any Class
>>
>>I have a problem with this. I have problems envisioning some races as
>>some classes.
>
>Isn't that something that should be handled in the GM's *world*, rather than in
>the rules? What if I want to run a different world than you are using? What if
>I want to use a world of my own design, where elves are holy warriors and
>dwarves practice lots of magic?
That is my point. I can not see certain races going into certain
classes. My campaign will be different than your campaign. Let each
DM choose which race and class options will be allowed and which ones
will not be allowed.
Nocturnal Rambler
<ajp...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>Nocturnal Rambler wrote:
[snip]
>> >> 1) Any Race / Any Class
>>
>> I have a problem with this. I have problems envisioning some races as
>> some classes.
>
>Then disallow some race/class combinations. I can't think of any reason not
>to have dwarven paladins and wizards, so I'm going to allow them, but you
>get to define the parameters of your campaign.
I have done so. I do not mind Dwarven paladins too much. Dwarven Mages
are currently a major stretch for me.
>
>> >> 5) No weapons speed factors.
>>
>> This is something I do hate.
>
>Do you hate weapon speed factors or the lack of them? I hate weapon speed
>factors, they have no real basis in any kind of educated guess about armed
>combat, and in many cases whoever came up with them displayed a stunning
>lack of knowledge about how weapons are used.
I like the general idea of them. I can agree that some of the speed
factors appear to have been created by a small child with no real
grasp of how weapons actually work. I can agree with your dislike of
them just as easily. I have encountered people when 2E was still king
that hated many aspects of what 3E has made official. This is a major
reason there are house rules.
>
>> Bzzzzzzzzzz This would not be allowed in my campaign _if_ I ever go
>> 3E in any form.
>
>So, you are just as strong, smart, wise, agile, healthy and personally
>magnetic as you were when you were seventeen? You haven't improved any
>aspect of yourself since then? If so, you are the exception, and I pity you.
I do not think that any pre arranged ability raising is a smart thing.
I think it is better if one allows ability raising by months or years
of work focusing on improving that ability or abilities.
>
>> >> 11) Feats
>>
>> Some of the feats are not a problem. The one I can think of would be
>> plain discarded and banned forever from my campaign is the magic item
>> creation feat. No way would I allow this to be used. Enchant an Item
>> (6th level mage ), equivalents, and sequals do the job quite nicely.
>
>I see no reason to do this, but whatever you think is best for your campaign
>I guess.
Call it Old Timers reluctance to change if nothing else. Call it "Why
must a PC give up hard earned eeps just to make a magic item?" non
comprehension. Call it what ever you wish. I am glad you understand
that it is what I think is best for my campaign.
>
>Aaron J. Pound, Esquire
Nocturnal Rambler
(Aristotle) wrote:
>In article <21cprs03oq4hfo8go...@4ax.com>, nocturna...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> 1) Any Race / Any Class
>>
>>I have a problem with this. I have problems envisioning some races as
>>some classes.
>
>Why? It is very easy to make a house rule that Race A cannot join Class Z.
I think it is part game prejudice, part intuitive, and part high
fantasy tradition plus a little bit more. I have no problems taking
the game outside normal parameters. I do have problems seeing races
such as a Troll as a Paladin or a Cavalier. I could and have allowed
"One in a Million" special cases come up where the player was allowed
a very non standard and normally non allowed race/class combo. I keep
these to an absolute minimum lest they become too normal. I have
played AD&D too long now to let all of my perceptions of what would be
a acceptable class by race go. These could be getting in the way in
some people's opinion.
Yes it is indeed.
>However, it is a lot easier to ADD support for a certain race to be in a
>certain class, since there might be things that need to be tweaked to do so.
>It is better for the game to allow all combinations, have rules in place for
>such, and then allow you to just nix the ones you don't like.
This is what I have done. Let TSR or Wizards add all the official
classes they wish to the game as you say.
>
>Beyond that, I have to also add that I cannot really see any logical problem
>any race would have with any class.
Your campaign means your rules. I have chosen my rules for my
campaign with the understood right to periodically change my rules.
>
>-Aristotle@Threshold
Cerberus AOD
the thread), one can make a powerful dagger fighter. If some common sense is
taken, with metal gauntlets (or chain at least), one might be able to go against
a sword-weilder. Though such a situation would also be where using a shield
actively would come in handy...
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:12:19 GMT, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which was
quite moldy, David R. Klassen, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his
antennae:
:-) >Cerberus AOD wrote:
:-) >>
:-) >> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 04:29:51 -0700, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which
:-) >> was quite moldy, Michael Scott Brown, a dying weevil, wrote the following with
:-) >> his antennae:
:-) >> :-) >"Aristotle" <thre...@threshold-rpg.com> wrote in message
:-) >> :-) >news:tinv5.13410$%l.313941@news-
:-) >> :-) >> I agree that the loss of weapon speed factors is a shame,
:-) >> :-) >
:-) >> :-) > How is it a shame to toss a rule that was unrealistic and flat-out
:-) >> :-) >wrong?
:-) >> :-) >
:-) >> :-) >-Michael
:-) >>
:-) >> Because weilding two daggers no longer makes you a powerful fighter?
:-) >
:-) >Two daggers vs. a sword would NOT be powerful if both warriors have
:-) >the same skill (level). Swords are simply *better* than daggers.
:-) >Intrinsic speed of a weapon is less important than reach.
David R. Klassen
>
> Every time I see this sort of thing, though my mind immediately starts
an <insert race here>? Why? Why are you trying to make all kinds
of excpetions? Give me the motivation?"
For example --
> picking it apart. For the dwarves/red hair thing - OK, not much there.
So why is *this* acceptible, but the others aren't?
> But for the Gnome names - why? Is it a cultural thing? If so, what if he
Yes.
> was raised by halflings? Why wouldn't he have a traditional halfling
Why was he raised by halflings? If you want to play a race with halfling
mentalities, why not just play a halfling?
> For the elven thing - how can it possibly be based on level? Levels don't
Amount of experience in the world. Amount of stuff done/seen/lived through.
All of this *is* measured by x.p.'s and after so much of it, the elven
mind just turns off from it.
> What if my character can't return to the elven lands for some reason?
This would have been worked out along the way in campaign. Suffice
it to say, elves can *always* go home.
> I guess I'm trying to say that I've never seen a DM who was able to make
> the level limits seem believable to me (and unfortunately, this example is
> exactly the kind of thing I mean). It always seemed like silly
> justifications for a silly rule.
It's an in-game justification for a rule that was. To be honest, I
wouldn't necessarily feel that it would *need* justifying to a player
beyond, "you trade bonus power now for loss of power later". If you
want an in-game explanation, the above is what I was able to work out.