Thoughts on 3e....
DrKan41267
I've always thought D&D was an extraodinarily clunky set of rules. Many rules
were inconsistent; certainly many rules were utterly incosistent in spirit,
with various clunky patches and dozens of different resolution mechanics.
But I've been reading the 3e rules leaks. It seems to me that, despite the
inherent clunkiness of D&D, they've really made an effort to clean the game up.
No longer will there be whole pages of downright baffling rules (Weapon Speed
Modifiers, Armor Types modifiers) or inconsistent/oddball resolution systems
(weaponless combat) that are simply ignored.
Everything looks streamlined, fairly consistent, and fairly integrated.
From what I've seen, the game seems to be approaching the Video Game model of
character advancement-- i.e., just like in Diablo, your characteristics will
rise in a regular fashion. You will add new little "feats" and "skills" at
various levels. This seems to be what the public wants, so what the hell? And
personally, as a player, I always *did* want to raise my ability scores.
You're shooting to be a pulp hero like Conan or the Grey Mouser, after all, at
least at the zenith of your career. So there should be some mechanism for
increasing your stats, so that one day you too can be a Fantasy Superhero.
By providing a mechanism for raising stats, they've reduced the need for
endless fudging of starting stats, and they've reduced the impulse for Power
Gamers to create their own ability-raise house-rules (and such house-rules, it
seems, often result in *ludicrous* ability scores; thus, by providing a slow,
gradual climb for ability stats, the 3e rules might in fact actually achieve
the result of generally lower, more realistic stats).
I still don't think D&D is quite my cup of tea, but they seem to have moved in
the right direction. I expect the new game to be popular with old fans (the
essentials of the old game are still retained, i.e., class & alignment), fans
of other more "modern" rules systems (the system seems to make nods to more
modern rules), as well as the huge corps of potential gamers out there who only
know fantasy gaming from Diablo and Baldur's Gate.
And no: I don't work for WotC. I don't even know them. I don't even know
their address, though I'd imagine they're located on a coast of some sort.
Wayne Shaw
>But I've been reading the 3e rules leaks. It seems to me that, despite the
>inherent clunkiness of D&D, they've really made an effort to clean the game up.
That's my feeling on it too; it's why I'm giving the game some
attention after mostly ignoring it for two decades.
>By providing a mechanism for raising stats, they've reduced the need for
>endless fudging of starting stats, and they've reduced the impulse for Power
>Gamers to create their own ability-raise house-rules (and such house-rules, it
>seems, often result in *ludicrous* ability scores; thus, by providing a slow,
>gradual climb for ability stats, the 3e rules might in fact actually achieve
>the result of generally lower, more realistic stats).
And for those who don't like random rolls in character gen, the first
serious attempt to make a build system for attributes that looks like
it might work right.
>
>I still don't think D&D is quite my cup of tea, but they seem to have moved in
>the right direction. I expect the new game to be popular with old fans (the
>essentials of the old game are still retained, i.e., class & alignment), fans
>of other more "modern" rules systems (the system seems to make nods to more
>modern rules), as well as the huge corps of potential gamers out there who only
>know fantasy gaming from Diablo and Baldur's Gate.
And it may well serve the purposes of a gamer who tends to use "the
tool for the job" like me for some campaigns. I have one I'm in early
development that would likely be served best by either some D&D
varient or Earthdawn...but it would have made me much annoyed to have
to work with older versions of the game.
Barry Smith
> From what I've seen, the game seems to be approaching the Video Game model of
> character advancement-- i.e., just like in Diablo, your characteristics will
> rise in a regular fashion.
That's the scary part: Not character advancement methods in general, but
the "approaching Diablo" techniques that scare me. Anyone who knows
Diablo can attest to that. While it would be interesting to play my 43rd
level mage again from Diablo in D&D3E, and to have him gain in his
intelligence up to what it was (255 without magic items, 335 with),
somehow, this isn't what I would like to see D&D model itself after. And
while the numbers above may be skewed greatly towards the high end, it's
still a concern of mine, and it will take considerable time on my part
to get used to saying, "Congratulations. You've just achieved 45
intelligence in Alcorran your mage."
> By providing a mechanism for raising stats, they've reduced the need
for
> endless fudging of starting stats, and they've reduced the impulse for Power
> Gamers to create their own ability-raise house-rules (and such house-rules, it
> seems, often result in *ludicrous* ability scores; thus, by providing a slow,
> gradual climb for ability stats, the 3e rules might in fact actually achieve
> the result of generally lower, more realistic stats).
I already have a very well done version of character stat improvement
sent to me by a close friend, so this area of 3E will have to be truly
phenomenal to sway me into adopting it.
--
"Oh look! A wild horse! It's coming straight towards us. Awww, it wants
to kiss, I wonder why??!"
'Because that Staff of Power smells really good', thought the
Disenchanter.
Reginald
"Barry Smith" <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote:
>
> DrKan41267 wrote:
>
> > From what I've seen, the game seems to be approaching the Video
> > Game model of character advancement-- i.e., just like in Diablo,
> > your characteristics will rise in a regular fashion.
>
> That's the scary part: Not character advancement methods in
> general, but the "approaching Diablo" techniques that scare me.
> Anyone who knows Diablo can attest to that. While it would be
> interesting to play my 43rd level mage again from Diablo in D&D3E,
> and to have him gain in his intelligence up to what it was (255
> without magic items, 335 with), somehow, this isn't what I would
> like to see D&D model itself after. And while the numbers above
> may be skewed greatly towards the high end, it's still a concern
> of mine, and it will take considerable time on my part to get
> used to saying, "Congratulations. You've just achieved 45
> intelligence in Alcorran your mage."
Fortunately, there is a cap in Ability (or Attribute) scores. I believe
that a heroic PC can have a maximum score of 25 for each attribute.
Besides, the 3E D&D character advancement is tame compared to Diablo's.
I mean you can only increase one attribute by one every 3 (or 4?) levels
of experience, Diablo gives you 5 points to distribute among the
attributes.
FieryBallz
>From: Barry Smith bsm...@premier1.net
>Date: 5/5/00 5:47 PM EST
>Message-id: <39134F6A...@premier1.net>
>I already have a very well done version of character stat improvement
>sent to me by a close friend, so this area of 3E will have to be truly
>phenomenal to sway me into adopting it.
Gimme gimme gimme!
Reginald
"David K." <kav...@aol.comxyzzy> wrote:
>
> "Reginald" <reg...@cchnl.com> writes:
>
> > Fortunately, there is a cap in Ability (or Attribute) scores. I
> > believe that a heroic PC can have a maximum score of 25 for each
> > attribute. Besides, the 3E D&D character advancement is tame
> > compared to Diablo's. I mean you can only increase one
> > attribute by one every 3 (or 4?) levels of experience, Diablo
> > gives you 5 points to distribute among the attributes.
>
> premise that you are playing within the parameters of the PHB --
> standard races only and no characters above 20th level. With a
> maximum roll of 18, a maximum racial adjustment of +2, and +1 to
> an ability score per four levels, the maximum possible ability
> score would indeed be 25. However, I suspect that if you let in
> non-standard races with higher racial adjustments and/or extend
> play beyond level 20, all bets are off.
Then hopefully by then the 3E High-Level Campaign Rulebook will be out
to sort things. As for going beyond the Core Rules, that is up to the
DM's responsibility to keep the game fair for all, and keep track of the
PC's weakness for exploitation. ;)
Reginald
"A'koss" <infi...@home.com> wrote:
>
> "Reginald" <reg...@cchnl.com> wrote:
> >
> > "David K." <kav...@aol.comxyzzy> wrote:
> > >
> > > But keep in mind that that cap is not absolute but is based
> > > on the premise that you are playing within the parameters
> > > of the PHB -- standard races only and no characters above
> > > 20th level. With a maximum roll of 18, a maximum racial
> > > adjustment of +2, and +1 to an ability score per four
> > > levels, the maximum possible ability score would indeed be
> > > 25. However, I suspect that if you let in non-standard
> > > races with higher racial adjustments and/or extend play
> > > beyond level 20, all bets are off.
> >
> > Then hopefully by then the 3E High-Level Campaign Rulebook
> > will be out to sort things. As for going beyond the Core
> > Rules, that is up to the DM's responsibility to keep the game
> > fair for all, and keep track of the PC's weakness for
> > exploitation. ;)
>
> how stats are handled now I have a pretty good idea where that
> will be. After all, even a herioc human can only train to be so
> strong, etc. All magical bonuses to stats (wishes, magic items,
> etc.) have explicit limits already.
Well, that's a given, especially when human is one of the standard races
in the 3E PH. But David is worried about incorporating other
"non-standard" races as PC's. He wants to be sure there is any safety
measure against game imbalance other than allowing the DM to exercise
their authoritative power and disallow non-standard PC race (like say a
Silver Dragon Paladin).
Looney
>I still don't think D&D is quite my cup of tea, but they seem to have moved
>in
>the right direction.
If D&D has never quite been your cup of tea, then I'd have to say that 3e may
not be moving it in the right direction after all :-)
Anthony "Looney" Toohey
Theryn of Nowhere
Yehoota on chess.net/FICS/Yahoo
David K.
writes:
>Fortunately, there is a cap in Ability (or Attribute) scores. I believe
>that a heroic PC can have a maximum score of 25 for each attribute.
>Besides, the 3E D&D character advancement is tame compared to Diablo's.
>I mean you can only increase one attribute by one every 3 (or 4?) levels
>of experience, Diablo gives you 5 points to distribute among the
>attributes.
But keep in mind that that cap is not absolute but is based on the premise
that you are playing within the parameters of the PHB -- standard races
only and no characters above 20th level. With a maximum roll of 18, a
maximum racial adjustment of +2, and +1 to an ability score per four
levels, the maximum possible ability score would indeed be 25. However,
I suspect that if you let in non-standard races with higher racial adjustments
and/or extend play beyond level 20, all bets are off.
David "Kaviyd"
Reading mail from me in a Usenet group does not grant you the
right to send me unsolicited commercial e-mail. All senders of
unsolicited commercial e-mail will be reported to their postmasters
as Usenet abusers.
A'koss
"Reginald" <reg...@cchnl.com> wrote in message
news:8f0gnp$q2n$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com...
>
> "David K." <kav...@aol.comxyzzy> wrote:
> > But keep in mind that that cap is not absolute but is based on the
> > premise that you are playing within the parameters of the PHB --
> > standard races only and no characters above 20th level. With a
> > maximum roll of 18, a maximum racial adjustment of +2, and +1 to
> > an ability score per four levels, the maximum possible ability
> > score would indeed be 25. However, I suspect that if you let in
> > non-standard races with higher racial adjustments and/or extend
> > play beyond level 20, all bets are off.
>
> Then hopefully by then the 3E High-Level Campaign Rulebook will be out
> to sort things. As for going beyond the Core Rules, that is up to the
> DM's responsibility to keep the game fair for all, and keep track of the
> PC's weakness for exploitation. ;)
I believe there will be a stat cap in the 3e HL book and knowing how stats
are handled now I have a pretty good idea where that will be. After all,
even a herioc human can only train to be so strong, etc. All magical bonuses
to stats (wishes, magic items, etc.) have explicit limits already.
A'koss!
A'koss
>
> Well, that's a given, especially when human is one of the standard races
> in the 3E PH. But David is worried about incorporating other
> "non-standard" races as PC's. He wants to be sure there is any safety
> measure against game imbalance other than allowing the DM to exercise
> their authoritative power and disallow non-standard PC race (like say a
> Silver Dragon Paladin).
There *is* a guide to using non-standard races as PCs and the minimum
level party they can be incorporated in. Some monsters will require DM
calls, but the guidelines are there. You can't have a 1st level Ogre Fighter
join a 1st level party of standard PCs for instance, the Ogre is considered
an (X) level character already. There is also a cut-off point as to what
monsters should be allowed by virtue power, special abilities, etc. Classed
Beholder PCs? Not a good idea. ;)
A'koss!
Jerry Love
news:drZQ4.206327$Dv1.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
>
> There *is* a guide to using non-standard races as PCs and the minimum
> level party they can be incorporated in. Some monsters will require DM
> calls, but the guidelines are there. You can't have a 1st level Ogre
Fighter
> join a 1st level party of standard PCs for instance, the Ogre is
considered
> an (X) level character already. There is also a cut-off point as to what
> monsters should be allowed by virtue power, special abilities, etc.
Classed
> Beholder PCs? Not a good idea. ;)
I don't know about the Ogre's but the favorite contribution Dragon made to
my campaigning was the half-ogre. They were too much fun "best darn door
opener there is" Great for intimidating NPCs.
Willow_R
> And no: I don't work for WotC. I don't even know them. I don't even
know
> their address, though I'd imagine they're located on a coast of some
sort.
>
Yeah. Right.