Third Edition: The "Diablo-ization" of Dungeons and Dragons?
Chazbot
OK, let me just say up front:
1) Although I started playing AD&D almost (ye gods) 20 years ago, I've never
played even one round under Third Edition rules.
2) Haven't played "Neverwinter Nights" yet, although I *plan* to play the
living beans out of it once the price comes down a bit.
3) Therefore, this is not an attempt to deride something -- 3E D&D -- that I
know very little about.
I *have,* however, *heard* at least one goofy aspect of the new ruleset: the
ability to keep boosting your character's six main abilities (strength,
intelligence, etc.) as you gain levels. Without limits.
So, I guess if a fighter survives long enough, and keeps boosting his
strength score, he can eventually -- for example -- carry his injured
warhorse to safety, instead of the other way 'round? With a thousand-pound
bag of gold bars slung over the *other* shoulder?
By the time she reaches archmage status, a wizard can figure out, with a few
simple equations, how much God weighs?
A master thief can pick locks by precisely blowing on them? From two rooms
away?
I'm exaggerating, sure, but this sounds like a breeding ground for
SuperMunchkins. A 20th-level fighter is nearly godlike already, and probably
has at least a +3 weapon. Toss in (natural) storm giant strength, and the DM
will be hard-pressed to challenge that player anymore, I'd imagine.
Sure, the rules as published are simply *guidelines.* The DM is, of course,
free to *not* allow strength scores over 18 without magical assistance. And
yeah, we're talking about a FANTASY, after all, in which dragons breathe
fire and mages travel instantly across continents merely by mumbling some
words and waving their arms around. But I *still* think there ought to be
limits to the innate potential of the (demi)human body.
Of course, one could rationalize the superhuman abilities -- only
achieveable, evidently, at VERY high levels -- as that character being
favored by the gods or some such. And it makes sense that mages would get
smarter, thieves quicker and fighters stronger as they endure challenges.
But only up to a point, I say.
(Having said all that, I *do* like hearing about the removal of race-class
restrictions in 3E. Always seemed weird that elves, for example, wouldn't
have their own paladins, and that humans couldn't multi-class. And it's good
that a dwarf *can* be a mage, but that (so I've heard) he won't have the
knack for it that a human might.)
I get the feeling that these questions about 3E are probably on a trail
already well-blazed. Still, any enlightenment here would be appreciated.
-- Chazbot.
imp
> 1) Although I started playing AD&D almost (ye gods) 20 years ago, I've never
> played even one round under Third Edition rules.
You should try it, I think you'll like it.
> 2) Haven't played "Neverwinter Nights" yet, although I *plan* to play the
> living beans out of it once the price comes down a bit.
Well, don't base your opinions of 3E entirely on NWN, as although it makes a
valiant attempt with its little subset, it doesn't reflect the system properly
and it changes things to suit itself.
> I *have,* however, *heard* at least one goofy aspect of the new ruleset: the
> ability to keep boosting your character's six main abilities (strength,
> intelligence, etc.) as you gain levels. Without limits.
Yes, there are no limits, it's true - however, you can only boost one stat per
four levels you gain, so that's a maximum of +5 by the time you reach 20th
level. It's not unbalancing any more because of the smooth modifier
progression. There's no longer a massive difference between a fighter with 17
strength and a fighter with 18 strength (who previously had the benefit of
percentiles). The fighter's main strong point now is his access to feats.
> So, I guess if a fighter survives long enough, and keeps boosting his
> strength score, he can eventually -- for example -- carry his injured
> warhorse to safety, instead of the other way 'round? With a thousand-pound
> bag of gold bars slung over the *other* shoulder?
No, that's not the case.
> By the time she reaches archmage status, a wizard can figure out, with a few
> simple equations, how much God weighs?
Again, no.
> A master thief can pick locks by precisely blowing on them? From two rooms
> away?
Nope.
> I'm exaggerating, sure, but this sounds like a breeding ground for
> SuperMunchkins. A 20th-level fighter is nearly godlike already, and probably
> has at least a +3 weapon. Toss in (natural) storm giant strength, and the DM
> will be hard-pressed to challenge that player anymore, I'd imagine.
25 strength is no longer as powerful as it used to be. A storm giant these
days starts with 39 strength, so you see the fighter isn't going to be
matching it any time soon.
> Sure, the rules as published are simply *guidelines.* The DM is, of course,
> free to *not* allow strength scores over 18 without magical assistance. And
> yeah, we're talking about a FANTASY, after all, in which dragons breathe
> fire and mages travel instantly across continents merely by mumbling some
> words and waving their arms around. But I *still* think there ought to be
> limits to the innate potential of the (demi)human body.
Effectively, there are. There is no need for a DM-posed cap, the new system
works well.
> (Having said all that, I *do* like hearing about the removal of race-class
> restrictions in 3E. Always seemed weird that elves, for example, wouldn't
> have their own paladins, and that humans couldn't multi-class. And it's good
> that a dwarf *can* be a mage, but that (so I've heard) he won't have the
> knack for it that a human might.)
I like this as well, particularly as we never used that particular rule
(except for dwarves and wizards, for some reason). A dwarf mage now is the
equal of his human counterpart, however.
> I get the feeling that these questions about 3E are probably on a trail
> already well-blazed. Still, any enlightenment here would be appreciated.
Splash out on the new PHB, or borrow one, or read the OGL stuff on the web.
That's the best way of really getting to know the new system, rather than
being put off by erroneous hearsay.
imp
>:)
Jonas Lind
"Chazbot" <cge...@goawayspammers.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:OtaZ8.3016$vx7.117...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> Fellow RPGers,
>
> OK, let me just say up front:
>
I think you can rest easy, it's not nearly as bad as that. Your character
gain *one* ability-point pr *four* levels. Thats 2 for an 8-level fíghter,
and 5 for a 20th. If you ever stumble upon a 20th level figher, his +5 to
str (provided that he didn't use it on con or dex) is going to be the least
of your worries. His BAB and some 15 feats of combat madness is going to
cause you far more pain.
We are hardly talking diablo here. That would have been the cavalier from
UA.
jonas
Skelley
cge...@goawayspammers.sbcglobal.net says...
> Fellow RPGers,
>
> OK, let me just say up front:
>
> 1) Although I started playing AD&D almost (ye gods) 20 years ago, I've never
> played even one round under Third Edition rules.
(snip
>
> (Having said all that, I *do* like hearing about the removal of race-class
> restrictions in 3E. Always seemed weird that elves, for example, wouldn't
> have their own paladins, and that humans couldn't multi-class. And it's good
> that a dwarf *can* be a mage, but that (so I've heard) he won't have the
> knack for it that a human might.)
>
Although I've only played the game for about 18 years and have hardly played
3e rules. I decided to remove the race-class restrictions and multiple-class
restrictions in my own campaigns about 3 months after I started playing. Me
and my fellow players used to also make our own classes, spells, creatures
etc. It seems to me that more people should try adapting the rules to their
own personal taste, it is a lot of fun!
Skelley
Knight37
<cge...@goawayspammers.sbcglobal.net>:
> 3) Therefore, this is not an attempt to deride something -- 3E D&D --
> that I know very little about.
I think that says it all right there. Don't knock it until you've tried it.
Diablo, it isn't.
--
Knight37
Texan: Whoo! That is one crazy get-up, mister... Are you in the show?
Austin Powers: No, actually, I'm English.
Texan: Oh... sorry.
-- "Austin Powers"
John Simpson
news:OtaZ8.3016$vx7.117...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> Fellow RPGers,
played even one round under Third Edition rules
Been RPGing for 27 years ( Mostly playing D&D Original , AD&D 1st & 2nd
Ed's,. Traveller Classic and New Era , GURPS and Shadowrun)
<Snippage>
> I *have,* however, *heard* at least one goofy aspect of the new ruleset:
the
> ability to keep boosting your character's six main abilities (strength,
> intelligence, etc.) as you gain levels. Without limits.
Well there are actual Limits, I mean you can only advance your Abilities
once every 4 Levels, and in my experience you rarely just dump them all into
one Attributte.
I haven't actually played a PnP D&D 3e yet but in NWN I tend to put 3 of the
5 into the Primary Ability and 1 into Con ( If it boosts it to an extra
bonus) and 1 into the most appropriatte for the class, especially if
Multiclass.
>
> So, I guess if a fighter survives long enough, and keeps boosting his
> strength score, he can eventually -- for example -- carry his injured
> warhorse to safety, instead of the other way 'round? With a thousand-pound
> bag of gold bars slung over the *other* shoulder?
I seriously doubt you'll see many Fighters with Str of 20+, they would be
too unbalanced.
You'd need to drop your Charisma, Intel or Wisdom into the toilet, and well
that just spells "Dead Character"
>
> By the time she reaches archmage status, a wizard can figure out, with a
few
> simple equations, how much God weighs?
See Above
>
> A master thief can pick locks by precisely blowing on them? From two rooms
> away?
See Above
>
> I'm exaggerating, sure, but this sounds like a breeding ground for
> SuperMunchkins. A 20th-level fighter is nearly godlike already, and
probably
> has at least a +3 weapon. Toss in (natural) storm giant strength, and the
DM
> will be hard-pressed to challenge that player anymore, I'd imagine.
Actually the Ability Scores don't give the same bonuses as before, so a Str
of 21 isn't as bad as you think.
>
> Sure, the rules as published are simply *guidelines.* The DM is, of
course,
> free to *not* allow strength scores over 18 without magical assistance.
And
> yeah, we're talking about a FANTASY, after all, in which dragons breathe
> fire and mages travel instantly across continents merely by mumbling some
> words and waving their arms around. But I *still* think there ought to be
> limits to the innate potential of the (demi)human body.
Hehehe I modify the rules all the time.
>
> Of course, one could rationalize the superhuman abilities -- only
> achieveable, evidently, at VERY high levels -- as that character being
> favored by the gods or some such. And it makes sense that mages would get
> smarter, thieves quicker and fighters stronger as they endure challenges.
> But only up to a point, I say.
There's no need to rationalise them, the ability scores are easily managed
by a good DM, and don't unbalance the game as badly as you seem to think
>
> (Having said all that, I *do* like hearing about the removal of race-class
> restrictions in 3E. Always seemed weird that elves, for example, wouldn't
> have their own paladins, and that humans couldn't multi-class. And it's
good
> that a dwarf *can* be a mage, but that (so I've heard) he won't have the
> knack for it that a human might.)
Yeah this was a major reason I went out and bought the PHB and DMG, and also
the main reason I changed over to GURPS
Also Monsters have levels now, so Orcs are no longer dumb Cannon Fodder, and
can be pretty powerful Shamans and Warriors.
>
> I get the feeling that these questions about 3E are probably on a trail
> already well-blazed. Still, any enlightenment here would be appreciated.
Yeah it is I suppose, but I gotta say, I really hated a lot of the stuff in
1st and 2nd Ed AD&D, and stopped playing either a long time ago, D&D 3e has
made me want to play D&D again ( I still think GURPS is a better overall
system, but D&D is now on my play list again :) )
>
> -- Chazbot.
If you want to look thru a copy of the PHB to see if you like it, try
#rpgbookz on Dalnet, I downloaded and read the PHB to see what it was like,
and then decided it was really worth the money , hoping to be able to afford
some of the extra books soon as well.
>
>
--
John Simpson
Nighthawk on #babylon5 , Oz.Org IRC Servers
http://www.9cy.com/members2/manjil/ ( Suggest getting Adsgone to Remove the
Stupid Popups)
-
James "Hey , Is it worth it?"
K " Oh yeah , Its worth it. If your Strong Enough"
-- --
Chris Basken
> So, I guess if a fighter survives long enough, and keeps boosting his
> strength score, he can eventually -- for example -- carry his injured
> warhorse to safety, instead of the other way 'round? With a thousand-pound
> bag of gold bars slung over the *other* shoulder?
Also, IIRC, Raise Dead costs an EXP level on the part of the recipient, too.
So the longer you've been around, the more likely you are to die and have to
be raised, and this counts against you becoming "godlike," too.
As someone else pointed out, a 20th level character can have a max STR of 23
(unless it's a Half-Orc, who can go to 25). 25 is no longer godlike -- Zeus
has a STR in, I think, the 50s or 60s. A 1st level char with an 18 STR
would need to add 32 points to his STR to get it to 50. That would mean he
needs 128 levels, increasing his STR 1 point every four of them. The
formula for level advancement is ((Lv-1)!)*1000, where Lv is the level you
want to advance to and ! means "factoral" (so if Lv is 5, (5-1)! is 4+3+2+1
or 10, and it would take 10,000 EXP to hit level 5). To get to level 128,
the PC would need to amass 8,256,000 EXP. Experience in 3rd Ed is lower in
general than in 2nd Ed by more than an order of magnitude, so in 2nd Ed
terms, that would be at least 83 million EXP. Compare that last number on a
scale where it would take a Warrior 3 million EXP just to hit level 20, and
you can see how hard it would be (a PC in 3rd Ed needs 190,000 to hit level
20).
Alfred Hailey
> played even one round under Third Edition rules.
> 2) Haven't played "Neverwinter Nights" yet, although I *plan* to play the
> living beans out of it once the price comes down a bit.
> 3) Therefore, this is not an attempt to deride something -- 3E D&D -- that I
> know very little about.
>
> I *have,* however, *heard* at least one goofy aspect of the new ruleset: the
> ability to keep boosting your character's six main abilities (strength,
> intelligence, etc.) as you gain levels. Without limits.
Erm, have you actually read the 3E rules? The complaints about ability
score increases seem rather off base, at least within the core rules; in
20 levels of advancement, the PC will have gained (at most) +2 or +3 to
their bonus from that score from those increases.
--
| Neutronium Dragon | Dragon Code: DC2.D* Gm L+++ W T+++! Phfwlt Sks |
| neutroniumdragon@ | Cwh^ Bpl A+++! Fr+++ N^ M--- O/ H+++! $---! |
| shaw.ca | Fo--- R+ Ac+++ J+ S+ U! I-- V+++! Q--- Tc+ |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Quoth the necromancer: How dare you infringe upon my wights! |
Paul Fedorenko
the
> ability to keep boosting your character's six main abilities (strength,
> intelligence, etc.) as you gain levels. Without limits.
Without going upstairs and digging up my Player's Handbook, completely off
the top of my head, I think you get one point to spend on ability scores
every three or four levels. So a fighter, by the time he reaches level 20,
if he diligently spends every point increase on Strength, could conceivably
have a Strength score that's 5 points higher than it was when he started, at
the cost of the other stats. How's this any different than someone going to
the gym four days a week and benching their max every time for several reps?
Of course your strength is going to increase. Of a long-distance runner.
His/her constitution score would be noticably higher after five years of
constant training than it was at the beginning. So would their Strength. A
fighter can't go through a campaign and expect to stay a 90-pound weakling
the whole way through.
Rod
book?) people started losing STR after a certain age. Which is realistic,
but then you have the problem with the elves that live forever vs. the
humans who live 60 years and stuff... I just scratched those rules in my
campaigns
"Paul Fedorenko" <pfedo...@bite-me.look.ca> wrote in message
news:AfhZ8.5237$QY4.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Alfred Hailey
> book?) people started losing STR after a certain age. Which is realistic,
> but then you have the problem with the elves that live forever vs. the
> humans who live 60 years and stuff... I just scratched those rules in my
> campaigns
Yes. Physical age causes physical ability scores to decline,
chronological age causes mental ability scores to increase.
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Alfred Hailey <neutroni...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> are aging effects still in the 3e rules? In AD&D (was it in the Arcana
>> book?) people started losing STR after a certain age.
>
>chronological age causes mental ability scores to increase.
Though I've never been in a campaign that lasted long enough
(in game-time terms) for this to become an issue.
--
Leif Kj{\o}nn{\o}y | "Its habit of getting up late you'll agree
www.pvv.org/~leifmk| That it carries too far, when I say
Math geek and gamer| That it frequently breakfasts at five-o'clock tea,
GURPS, Harn, CORPS | And dines on the following day." (Carroll)
Nathan
monsters) have the same skill and ability system. The caps were taken off of
the abilities so that a larger creature could have something more than an 18
strength. Also, with this scheme, you can nab any creature in the MM and use it
as a PC! Ive played 3e campeigns where my companions were Half Dragons! I once
played as a Bodak, another was some sort of arch demon! Each with its own
racial abilities along with whever class you'd like to play.
For example: I could play as a Dragon (if the DM allowed it) and have a 30
STR. As opposed to an 18/whatever STR that 2nd edition allowed.
This makes the game MUCH more flexible, and more fun if you ask me.
After playing 3rd edition, i have to say that aside from all of the new
flexibility, i still prefer a good 2nd edition campeign. Ive only been playing
PnP games for about.. 4 years, but i learned on 2nd edition and it just feels
like.. "home" i guess.
Anyway, there ya go. I'd recommend going to the local comic shop and talk to
the guy behind the counter about DnD 3e. If he doesnt just give you a funny
look and point you to the bookshelves where the manuals are stored, maybe youll
learn some interesting things about the 3e ruleset.
Nick Vargish
> 1) Although I started playing AD&D almost (ye gods) 20 years ago, I've never
> played even one round under Third Edition rules.
> 2) Haven't played "Neverwinter Nights" yet, although I *plan* to play the
> living beans out of it once the price comes down a bit.
This sounds a lot like me, before I played NwN.
When the new Pool of Radiance came out, Best Buy was giving away a
free 3E Player's with the game. I flipped through the book and was
turned off by the generic fantasy art and overdone page borders...
I was so intrigued by the system in NwN that I started looking into
the 3E ruleset, and was quite impressed.
Now my gaming group has purchased a couple of 3E PH's, a DMG and an
MM, we're going to start a 3E campaign, and I'm really looking forward
to it.
Some of it's obnoxious, there are some definite money-grabs on the
part of WoTC -- all the little expansion books that cost $20 a shot,
for example... And the art will never be as cool as the original AD&D
art... But overall the d20 system is very nicely thought out, and with
the 3 core books you are really only limited by imagination. (The more
things change...)
And we're a bunch of curmudgeons, so it can't completely suck.
Nick
--
#include<stdio.h> /* SigMask 0.3 (sig.c) 19990429 PUBLIC DOMAIN "Compile Me" */
int main(c,v)char *v;{return !c?putchar(*v-1)&&main(0,v+ /* Tweaks welcomed. */
1):main(0,"Ojdl!Wbshjti!=obwAqbusjpu/ofu?\v\1");} /* build: cc -o sig sig.c */
Rod
plenty of fun and options with the core rules, no need to get 'The Complete
<Class> guide'. Now they're doing pretty much the same with 3E.
"Nick Vargish" <n...@adams.patriot.net> wrote in message
news:yyy1ya2...@adams.patriot.net...
Jeremy Reaban
> I get the feeling that these questions about 3E are probably on a
trail
> already well-blazed. Still, any enlightenment here would be
appreciated.
Well, you're probably just a troll, but several points.
Unlike previous versions of D&D, 3E actually has a comprehensive and
fully functional skill system. So it allows characters to do more
than fighter or be thieves. Previous versions didn't.
An 18 in 3E is not equal to an 18 in previous versions. The ability
score bonuses are linear, not whatever it was in previous versions.
This actually makes characters will scores less than 15 or so
playable.
W Brian McDonald
<cge...@goawayspammers.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Fellow RPGers,
>
>OK, let me just say up front:
>
>
>I *have,* however, *heard* at least one goofy aspect of the new ruleset: the
>ability to keep boosting your character's six main abilities (strength,
>intelligence, etc.) as you gain levels. Without limits.
>
>So, I guess if a fighter survives long enough, and keeps boosting his
>strength score, he can eventually -- for example -- carry his injured
>warhorse to safety, instead of the other way 'round? With a thousand-pound
>bag of gold bars slung over the *other* shoulder?
in 3rd ed the equivalent to a 24 str in 2nd ed is about 34 and even
that won't get you the weight carrying capacity. The stats diverge
significantly after 18 from the old strength charts.
>I'm exaggerating, sure, but this sounds like a breeding ground for
>SuperMunchkins. A 20th-level fighter is nearly godlike already, and probably
>has at least a +3 weapon. Toss in (natural) storm giant strength, and the DM
>will be hard-pressed to challenge that player anymore, I'd imagine.
bear in mind that the monsters are also quite a lot tougher. for
instance introduce the hypothetical fighter to the largish red dragon.
near instant humility will result as the fighter is shredded in a
couple rounds if that.
>
>(Having said all that, I *do* like hearing about the removal of race-class
>restrictions in 3E. Always seemed weird that elves, for example, wouldn't
>have their own paladins, and that humans couldn't multi-class. And it's good
>that a dwarf *can* be a mage, but that (so I've heard) he won't have the
>knack for it that a human might.)
If you think about it elves should rule the fantasy world. natural
aptitude with magic and very long lifespans equates to a lot of
powerful mages and gazillions of magic items. dwarves got work ethic
out the wazoo and nearly as much time but they just don't seem to go
in for magic in any big way. still the odd one who does should be
really powerful and of course dwarven clerics should be very powerful
also.
shren
> In article <3D35AD57...@shaw.ca>,
> Alfred Hailey <neutroni...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>> are aging effects still in the 3e rules? In AD&D (was it in the Arcana
>>> book?) people started losing STR after a certain age.
>>
>>Yes. Physical age causes physical ability scores to decline,
>>chronological age causes mental ability scores to increase.
> Though I've never been in a campaign that lasted long enough
> (in game-time terms) for this to become an issue.
I've seen a game that involved the histoy of successive
generations. Geneology was tracked, and every time a crisis
(read : an adventure) came up, players would flesh out someone
on the family tree alive at that time. I wasn't in it so I
don't know exactly how it worked, but when I saw it 400 years
or so had passed since the beginning of the 'campaign'.
They had some simple rules for genetics - you got +1 to
parent's highest ability score and -1 to your parent's
lowest, for both parents. I think they also had slightly
more complex rules for "half-elves" that changed your
lifespan and abilities depending on "how much" of an elf
you were.
The relevence here is that there were some NPCs for
whom the rules were relevant for, and sometimes they were
relevant for players.
--
<a href="http://www.shren.net/.nail.html">
The client needs a tool built. He sends you a description of a nail...
</a>
shren
> I never jumped into the bandwagon of 'expansion rules' or 'kits'. We had
> plenty of fun and options with the core rules, no need to get 'The Complete
> <Class> guide'. Now they're doing pretty much the same with 3E.
Some of the things in the expansion rules are broken, broken,
broken anyway. Most players wouldn't buy the things if the feats
and prestige classes were weaker than the standard classes, so
they're all stronger, often a whole lot stronger. If I hear
"I wish I could be a duelist in NWN" one more time I'm going to
pop.
Kershek
ch...@nospambasken.com says...
> Also, IIRC, Raise Dead costs an EXP level on the part of the recipient, too.
> So the longer you've been around, the more likely you are to die and have to
> be raised, and this counts against you becoming "godlike," too.
Can you explain this? I don't remember seeing anything like that.
Chris Basken
> > Also, IIRC, Raise Dead costs an EXP level on the part of the recipient,
too.
> > So the longer you've been around, the more likely you are to die and
have to
> > be raised, and this counts against you becoming "godlike," too.
>
> Can you explain this? I don't remember seeing anything like that.
3rd Ed PHB, page 242. "The subject loses a level (or 1 Constitution point,
if she's 1st level) when raised."
Talen
<cge...@goawayspammers.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>I *have,* however, *heard* at least one goofy aspect of the new ruleset: the
>ability to keep boosting your character's six main abilities (strength,
>intelligence, etc.) as you gain levels. Without limits.
Here's a thought; consider actually _learning_ about the system.
Characters get, at best, 5 bonus stat points to play with, and
stat-boosting items exist just like in 2nd ed.
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"They're *French*, what more of an insult do you need?"
- Khendon
The Gurus love you
Philip D'Amato
FWIW, I played the original AD&D rules, and bought - but only read the
"transitional" rule books that arrived just prior to 2nd edition (Wilderness
Adventures, Oriental Adventures and others). Comparing the AD&D rules from
NWN to the original AD&D, I find that the play balance is still there to
some extent, and perhaps even a bit simpler to deal with. For example,
remember that fighters, and the sub-classes were the only characters that
had to deal with STR percentile rolls. Why? Under NWN and I assume 3rd Ed
rules, the percentile dice are replaced with just STR 19 - 26 or so. No
real issue there, it's just simpler. Currently, I've boosted (via magic and
level ups) my fighter to a STR of 29. He's pretty potent, with (iirc) about
a +9 to hit or so, but the game seems to scale well to account for the
broader range.
One recommendation for when you get to play NWN on your own:
There's a four level slider for game difficulty. The "recommended" default
setting is perhaps just a bit too easy - especially if (like me) you're
constantly saving your game. Boost it to the 3rd level, and it's truer to
the rules and definitely more challenging. I won't attempt the highest
level of difficulty as it's weighted against you significantly, and would be
too frustrating in *some* areas of the game.
--
Philip D'Amato
"Chazbot" <cge...@goawayspammers.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:OtaZ8.3016$vx7.117...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Kish
>
> Fellow RPGers,
>
> OK, let me just say up front:
>
> 1) Although I started playing AD&D almost (ye gods) 20 years ago, I've never
> played even one round under Third Edition rules.
> 2) Haven't played "Neverwinter Nights" yet, although I *plan* to play the
> living beans out of it once the price comes down a bit.
> 3) Therefore, this is not an attempt to deride something -- 3E D&D -- that I
> know very little about.
>
> I *have,* however, *heard* at least one goofy aspect of the new ruleset: the
> ability to keep boosting your character's six main abilities (strength,
> intelligence, etc.) as you gain levels. Without limits.
>
> So, I guess if a fighter survives long enough, and keeps boosting his
> strength score, he can eventually -- for example -- carry his injured
> warhorse to safety, instead of the other way 'round? With a thousand-pound
> bag of gold bars slung over the *other* shoulder?
Sure. That would be...hmm, let's see, a Strength of 29 allows a Heavy
load of fourteen hundred pounds, say the warhorse weighs 400
pounds...around level (9x4) 36, assuming a half-orc who started with
Strength 20.
Remember, in 2ed, the greatest gods had stats of 25--anyone could drink
a potion of Storm Giant strength, and be as strong as most gods. So,
logically, anyone who could boost their stats to 25 temporarily in 2ed
should be able to do /all/ the tricks you describe, no?
>
> By the time she reaches archmage status, a wizard can figure out, with a few
> simple equations, how much God weighs?
Which god? Actually, I can figure out the answer to that right now.
The answer is, "As much as the avatar the god is wearing is designed to
weigh. Or nothing, if the god isn't wearing an avatar."
>
> A master thief can pick locks by precisely blowing on them? From two rooms
> away?
That would require both an astronomical Disable Device ability and an
astronomical Strength.
>
> I'm exaggerating, sure, but this sounds like a breeding ground for
> SuperMunchkins. A 20th-level fighter is nearly godlike already, and probably
> has at least a +3 weapon. Toss in (natural) storm giant strength, and the DM
> will be hard-pressed to challenge that player anymore, I'd imagine.
Storm giants have a Strength of 39, now. Only a level 76 character
would have a chance of being as strong as them.
I kind of doubt the lack of stat limits, of all things, will be
unbalancing. It makes more sense than when there was a hard cap of 25
that even applied to gods.
Kish
>
> Chazbot wrote:
> > (Having said all that, I *do* like hearing about the removal of race-class
> > restrictions in 3E. Always seemed weird that elves, for example, wouldn't
> > have their own paladins, and that humans couldn't multi-class. And it's good
> > that a dwarf *can* be a mage, but that (so I've heard) he won't have the
> > knack for it that a human might.)
>
> I like this as well, particularly as we never used that particular rule
> (except for dwarves and wizards, for some reason). A dwarf mage now is the
> equal of his human counterpart, however.
Well, in terms of stats...as long as he doesn't multiclass. (And as
long as he's a wizard and not a sorcerer, with that nasty Charisma
penalty.) The dwarf wizard will be a social outcast, though, regarded
as insane by the other dwarves.
Gandalf Parker
news:OtaZ8.3016$vx7.117...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:
> OK, let me just say up front:
>
> 1) Although I started playing AD&D almost (ye gods) 20 years ago, I've
> never played even one round under Third Edition rules.
> 2) Haven't played "Neverwinter Nights" yet, although I *plan* to play
> the living beans out of it once the price comes down a bit.
> 3) Therefore, this is not an attempt to deride something -- 3E D&D --
> that I know very little about.
I have books for DnD before it was called DnD (chainmail rules).
All thru the years Ive seen the DMs go thru cycles of wanting to simplify
the rules, then trying to complicate the rules (or write their own "better"
game), then finally deciding that Gygax probably went thru the same cycles
before them and ended up in a pretty good system.
However, it was hard for the company to hold out against all of the flak
they got since the people in stage one always outnumbered everyone else.
In 3rd edition I think they finally gave in. They seem to have incorporated
everything that a 1-5 year DM tended to do thinking it was a good idea.
What a sellout.
Gandalf Parker
Eric VanHeest
> The dwarf wizard will be a social outcast, though, regarded as
> insane by the other dwarves.
Yes, but ... who hasn't wanted to play an insane dwarf? :)
Ed Chauvin IV
>In alt.games.neverwinter-nights Rod <j...@ral.com> wrote:
>> I never jumped into the bandwagon of 'expansion rules' or 'kits'. We had
>> plenty of fun and options with the core rules, no need to get 'The Complete
>> <Class> guide'. Now they're doing pretty much the same with 3E.
>
> Some of the things in the expansion rules are broken, broken,
>broken anyway. Most players wouldn't buy the things if the feats
>and prestige classes were weaker than the standard classes, so
>they're all stronger, often a whole lot stronger. If I hear
>"I wish I could be a duelist in NWN" one more time I'm going to
>pop.
I wish I could be a duelist in NWN.
Ed Chauvin IV
--
As our bodies are armoured with adamantium, our souls are protected with our
loyalty. As our bolters are charged with death for the Emperor's enemies, our
thoughts are charged with his wisdom. As our ranks advance, so does our
devotion, for are we not Marines? Are we not the chosen of the Emperor, his
loyal servants unto death?
-Chaplain Fergus Nils
An address to the defenders of Portrein.
sciguy
... And the art will never be as cool as the original AD&D
> art...
I have yet to come across anything as cool as a little cartoon from one of
the original AD&D manuals. I think it was the DMG (in the listing of magic
items):
Wizard holding a wand with a little hand on it.
"It's either a wand of Bigby's Gripping hand, or a +2 backscratcher..."
--
------
Chris Nye cn...@attbi.com
"You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter
how rich you are."
- Colonel Adolphus Busch
W Brian McDonald
>Chazbot wrote:
>>
>>
>> So, I guess if a fighter survives long enough, and keeps boosting his
>> strength score, he can eventually -- for example -- carry his injured
>> warhorse to safety, instead of the other way 'round? With a thousand-pound
>> bag of gold bars slung over the *other* shoulder?
>
>Sure. That would be...hmm, let's see, a Strength of 29 allows a Heavy
>load of fourteen hundred pounds, say the warhorse weighs 400
>pounds...around level (9x4) 36, assuming a half-orc who started with
>Strength 20.
>
man a warhorse of the plate armoured rider kind runs to 1500lb and up
on its own. tack and barding can easily add another 3 to 400 lb if
present.
>Remember, in 2ed, the greatest gods had stats of 25--anyone could drink
>a potion of Storm Giant strength, and be as strong as most gods. So,
>logically, anyone who could boost their stats to 25 temporarily in 2ed
>should be able to do /all/ the tricks you describe, no?
>
>
>>
>> A master thief can pick locks by precisely blowing on them? From two rooms
>> away?
>
>That would require both an astronomical Disable Device ability and an
>astronomical Strength.
merely calls for access to one of the epic level feats for rogues.
should be able to meet the prerequisites for that around 30th level or
so.
Chazbot
"Jeremy Reaban" <j...@Xconnectria.com> wrote in message
news:ujbkl6p...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Chazbot" <cge...@goawayspammers.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:OtaZ8.3016
> <snip>
> > I get the feeling that these questions about 3E are probably on a
> trail
> > already well-blazed. Still, any enlightenment here would be
> appreciated.
>
> Well, you're probably just a troll, but several points.
Well, actually, no I'm not. I'm asking for people's impressions of 3E,
because I haven't tried it yet. Seeing as how these are DISCUSSION groups, I
somehow deluded myself into thinking I could have a civilized DISCUSSION
without somebody insulting me. How foolish.
-- Chazbot.
Chazbot
"Talen" <tal...@spamspamspamspam.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:sc0cjukp0u2dautd5...@4ax.com...
> It has been brought to my attention that "Chazbot"
> <cge...@goawayspammers.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >I *have,* however, *heard* at least one goofy aspect of the new ruleset:
the
> >ability to keep boosting your character's six main abilities (strength,
> >intelligence, etc.) as you gain levels. Without limits.
>
>
> Here's a thought; consider actually _learning_ about the system.
Hey, T, that's what I'm trying to do here: get some info from people who've
experienced 3E. The idea of fighters with a natural strength of 25 -- albeit
at very high levels -- *sounded* goofy, what with my 2E background.
Let's all keep this in mind: It's not like I strolled in here and posted a
subject line like, "I've nevur plaeyd it, but Third Ed. roolz sux!" Boiled
down, all I was saying was, some of the new rules *sounded* sorta weird, and
I was wondering what some 3E vets thought about 'em. And I didn't *really*
believe all the hyperbole I wrote about fighters carrying their horses
around; it was just fun to exaggerate for effect.
Anyways.
-- Chazbot.
imp
> Well, in terms of stats...as long as he doesn't multiclass. (And as
> long as he's a wizard and not a sorcerer, with that nasty Charisma
> penalty.) The dwarf wizard will be a social outcast, though, regarded
> as insane by the other dwarves.
Sounds like a good concept for a character!
imp
>:)
simon.appleton1
Like you, I played PnP DnD about 20 years ago and haven't played PnP 3ed. I have
played a fair amount of 2ed CRPGs (the Infinity Engine Games) and also the 3ed
POR2 and NWN. Here are my impressions:
- the ability increases: don't worry, these are no big deal. You get 1/4 levels
so by level 20 (the maximum for NWN) you'll only have 5 more points. If you dump
them into strength, this will only give you a +2 to hit/ +2 to damage. This is a
pretty small increment compared to the bonuses to hit (+20 + multiple attacks)
from just levelling as a fighter. I quite like having my character able to get
stronger, smarter or whatever over time.
- removing racial restrictions on classes is nice, as you say. You'll meet a
very nice Elf Paladin in NWN ;=)
- I like what they have done to weapons: I hated 2ed the double rate of fire
+2/+1 modifiers for composite bows - maybe "realistic" but if you have played
BG1, you'll know it is almost gamebreaking. I also hated the weapon speed
factors - daggers hitting before pikes, yeah, right.
- Best thing about 3ed is the linear bonuses for attributes: before you need to
have 15+ in an attribute to get bonuses. This meant genuinely rolled 3d6
characters sucked. Re-rolling in a CRPG tended to produce lots of dulll
18/18/18/x/x/x fighters. For what it is worth, I love the weighted point-buy
also: you can have good characters but not supermen.
- On balance I like the multiclassing rules from a playbalance point of view. In
2ed, multi-classes were much more powerful than single class in the earlier
levels (below 11 or so). After level 9 or so, dual class characters were vastly
more powerful. In 3ed, multi-classing generally does not seem to be worth it -
they may have thrown the baby out with the bath water - but it is there for
those who want versatility in a single character. Short of getting rid of
classes altogether, I can't see a better way of doing it.
- I love the feats, especially as they liven up fighter levelling. I'm less
persuaded by the skills.
- They may have balanced out some of the classes - especially the pure thief and
cleric (spontaneous casting rocks).
- I like the principle of no spell memorisation but to be honest, the sorcerer
is a bit of a lame way of implementing it (I'm referring to their very limited
spell choice). I wish they had switched to a mana or just unlimited casting
system (maybe toning down some spells to compensate).
- I don't know much about the combat rules, but some things - eg attacks of
opportunity, spell casters not being disrupted so much etc seem to be an
improvement.
Bottomline: all pluses, some fairly big, I can honestly say, I have not seen a
single criticism of 3ed DnD I agree with. But the core game remains pretty much
the same DnD we played 20 years ago. Give it a go.
Simon
Chazbot wrote:.
<snip>
Chazbot
"Ian Montgomerie" <i...@ianmontgomerie.com> wrote in message
news:dbpcjughkn4u2fe55...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 09:07:58 GMT, "Chazbot"
> <cge...@goawayspammers.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >Fellow RPGers,
> >
> >
> >1) Although I started playing AD&D almost (ye gods) 20 years ago, I've
never
> >played even one round under Third Edition rules.
> >2) Haven't played "Neverwinter Nights" yet, although I *plan* to play the
> >living beans out of it once the price comes down a bit.
> >3) Therefore, this is not an attempt to deride something -- 3E D&D --
that I
> >know very little about.
> >
the
> >ability to keep boosting your character's six main abilities (strength,
> >intelligence, etc.) as you gain levels. Without limits.
>
> godlike.
>
> >So, I guess if a fighter survives long enough, and keeps boosting his
> >strength score, he can eventually -- for example -- carry his injured
> >warhorse to safety, instead of the other way 'round?
>
> 2nd edition, a 16 was nothing to write home about, but a 19 was
> superhuman. 3rd edition is not like that.
>
> >By the time she reaches archmage status, a wizard can figure out, with a
few
> >simple equations, how much God weighs?
> >
rooms
> >away?
>
> shows.
No, actually, I was just exaggerating for effect. Which I stated. *After*
stating that I did, in fact, know very little about the ruleset. Later in
the same post, I said I was just looking for some opinions/info about 3E.
I should have added, "Hold the insults, please."
Well, shame on ME for thinking I could ask for guidance about ... well,
ANYTHING on usenet without getting flamed.
-- Chazbot.
Mike Noren
>Bottomline: all pluses, some fairly big, I can honestly say, I have not seen a
>single criticism of 3ed DnD I agree with. But the core game remains pretty much
>the same DnD we played 20 years ago. Give it a go.
How about the super-all-powerful monks?
It is THE class for munchkins/powergamers, IMO.
>Simon
Mike Noren
>Well, shame on ME for thinking I could ask for guidance about ... well,
>ANYTHING on usenet without getting flamed.
No offense, but you really should develop thicker skin. Just ignore
rude replies - seems to me you've received several non-inflammatory
ones which've adressed your questions.
BTW, I suspect the reason you received so many rude replies is because
of your use of the word 'diablo-ization'.
Just asking if AD&D rules are moving in a Diablo direction will be
considered gravely insulting by hardcore AD&D fans.
>-- Chazbot.
imp
> How about the super-all-powerful monks?
> It is THE class for munchkins/powergamers, IMO.
I find their survival rate is low at low levels. Paladin/Monks are much sicker.
imp
>:)
Mark Cuarto
And in NWN you can add the evil dwarf monk henchman who, imo, is pretty
insane!
etc
Andreas Baus
> The
> formula for level advancement is ((Lv-1)!)*1000, where Lv is the level you
> want to advance to and ! means "factoral" (so if Lv is 5, (5-1)! is 4+3+2+1
> or 10, and it would take 10,000 EXP to hit level 5).
Not quite... in mathematical terms, the factorial n! is the *product* of
all integral numbers from 1 to n (so 5! would be 5*4*3*2*1=120) and that
would mean an *extremly* steep progression in XP requirements...
Using the well known Euler formula 1/2*n*(n-1) for the *sum* of all
integers from 1 to n, the correct formula for the XP required for level L
is 500*L*(L-1).
--
----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Insert joke here.] ----
--
an...@studcs.uni-sb.de (Andreas Baus)
Mark Cuarto
I actually agree somewhat with the view of 3e being more Diablofied in the hack
n slash sense. 3rd edition has a much more sound ruleset. Everyhing except
damage is pretty much rolled on a d20... which makes it simpler and faster to
use. But beyond that, I've noticed that after finishing BG2 and recently NWN
... I am really tired of ANY DnD rulest. I hate the spell memorization thing
and though 3rd edition opens up more options for character building, it still
feels pretty much a level based game... mianly I just wished they reworked the
spell system for 3e though. But its still pretty good. I think 3rd edition is
the best edition anyway.
etc
Jonas Lind
"Gandalf Parker" <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:Xns924EC16ACFE0...@216.168.3.30...
tsk. What a grumpy old gamer you are. 3rd is far superior to dnd, 1st and
2nd combined. It's called evolution.
jonas
>
> Gandalf Parker
>
>
shren
> Mere moments before death, shren hastily scrawled:
>>In alt.games.neverwinter-nights Rod <j...@ral.com> wrote:
>>> I never jumped into the bandwagon of 'expansion rules' or 'kits'. We had
>>> plenty of fun and options with the core rules, no need to get 'The Complete
>>> <Class> guide'. Now they're doing pretty much the same with 3E.
>>
>> Some of the things in the expansion rules are broken, broken,
>>broken anyway. Most players wouldn't buy the things if the feats
>>and prestige classes were weaker than the standard classes, so
>>they're all stronger, often a whole lot stronger. If I hear
>>"I wish I could be a duelist in NWN" one more time I'm going to
>>pop.
> I wish I could be a duelist in NWN.
Well, it's *EASY*!!! All you do is take a rapier, give it
a huge enchantment bonus, add every kind of extra damage in the
book, then run around in no armor killing things in one hit.
Congratualations. You're now a duelist, or as close to as makes
no difference.
shren
> - removing racial restrictions on classes is nice, as you say. You'll meet a
> very nice Elf Paladin in NWN ;=)
I think she used the multiclass rules to be a Heroin Addict/Paladin.
> - I like what they have done to weapons: I hated 2ed the double rate of fire
> +2/+1 modifiers for composite bows - maybe "realistic" but if you have played
> BG1, you'll know it is almost gamebreaking. I also hated the weapon speed
> factors - daggers hitting before pikes, yeah, right.
Differentiating by criticals and by class (simple,exotic,etc) is a
better way to make weapons different than weapon speeds. Personally,
I think they should have given each weapon a different "multiple
attacks" threshhold, such as one weapon getting an extra attack every
4 point of bonus to hit, while another slower one gets an extra attack
every 6.
> - Best thing about 3ed is the linear bonuses for attributes: before you need to
> have 15+ in an attribute to get bonuses. This meant genuinely rolled 3d6
> characters sucked. Re-rolling in a CRPG tended to produce lots of dulll
> 18/18/18/x/x/x fighters. For what it is worth, I love the weighted point-buy
> also: you can have good characters but not supermen.
And almost every stat is to some degree useful to everyone.
> - On balance I like the multiclassing rules from a playbalance point of view. In
> 2ed, multi-classes were much more powerful than single class in the earlier
> levels (below 11 or so). After level 9 or so, dual class characters were vastly
> more powerful. In 3ed, multi-classing generally does not seem to be worth it -
> they may have thrown the baby out with the bath water - but it is there for
> those who want versatility in a single character. Short of getting rid of
> classes altogether, I can't see a better way of doing it.
The thing that breaks multi-classing is spellcasting. Attack
bonuses from different classes stack, saving throws from different
classes stack, spell casting abilities sit there like a bag.
One can easily work some house rules that fix this. Maybe I'll
write them up.
> - I love the feats, especially as they liven up fighter levelling. I'm less
> persuaded by the skills.
They took out too many passive feats and replaced them with
active feats.
Chris Shepherd
> Sure. That would be...hmm, let's see, a Strength of 29 allows a Heavy
> load of fourteen hundred pounds, say the warhorse weighs 400
> pounds...around level (9x4) 36, assuming a half-orc who started with
> Strength 20.
Surely this is a typo. A War Pony won't weigh 400 pounds. :)
> Remember, in 2ed, the greatest gods had stats of 25--anyone could drink
> a potion of Storm Giant strength, and be as strong as most gods. So,
> logically, anyone who could boost their stats to 25 temporarily in 2ed
> should be able to do /all/ the tricks you describe, no?
Actually, a god would never enter single combat, for one. For two, a god
wouldn't be able to be much stronger than a storm giant on the prime
material plane because of physical limitations.
> Storm giants have a Strength of 39, now. Only a level 76 character
> would have a chance of being as strong as them.
See, here's the thing I don't get: by what reasoning are you able to
continually improve your stats? I mean, imagine an elf goes adventuring,
it's not inpheasible for an elven fighter/mage to get to level 50/50
within its life span.
People can only get as strong as their genetics predetermine. You don't
see guys out there benchpressing busses without effort. You see them
doing it for a short while, and with a LOT of effort. There are physical
limitations on how strong the human body could get.
Anyone care to guess at the reasoning behind this?
> I kind of doubt the lack of stat limits, of all things, will be
> unbalancing. It makes more sense than when there was a hard cap of 25
> that even applied to gods.
Not really. IMO, the rules work fine for the prime material. Now, if
you're talking about hopping over to the ethereal to take on Tyr, that's
a whole other matter.
Chris Shepherd
Chris Shepherd
> tsk. What a grumpy old gamer you are. 3rd is far superior to dnd, 1st and
> 2nd combined. It's called evolution.
Out of curiosity, in what way?
Chris Shepherd
shren
Gods, yes. This is almost-sort-of balanced in tabletop when you
have to spend somewhere between 8 to 16 sessions being bad at
everything before you start to ascend to divinityhood. Compare
to NWN, where you rise through the ranks pretty rapidly (and there's
NO way to lose your lawful alignment.) The monk items add insult
to injury - I see monk-specific items as being contrary to the point
of playing a monk. The monk was nasty enough already without that
extra innate haste, +5 to hit, and +1d6 damage.
Monks are just second best at everything. They have most of
the thief abilities, fight nearly as well as a pure fighter,
can't cast spells but have nearly flawless magical defenses,
heal themselves ok, and are immune to most negative effects.
I tried playing fighter after playing the game with a monk, and
got bored of failing will saves.
shren
> No, actually, I was just exaggerating for effect. Which I stated. *After*
> stating that I did, in fact, know very little about the ruleset. Later in
> the same post, I said I was just looking for some opinions/info about 3E.
> I should have added, "Hold the insults, please."
> Well, shame on ME for thinking I could ask for guidance about ... well,
> ANYTHING on usenet without getting flamed.
You deserve to get flamed for a three group crosspost. Anything
else is just a bonus.
Chris Shepherd
> n slash sense. 3rd edition has a much more sound ruleset. Everyhing except
> damage is pretty much rolled on a d20... which makes it simpler and faster to
> use. But beyond that, I've noticed that after finishing BG2 and recently NWN
> ... I am really tired of ANY DnD rulest. I hate the spell memorization thing
> and though 3rd edition opens up more options for character building, it still
> feels pretty much a level based game... mianly I just wished they reworked the
> spell system for 3e though. But its still pretty good. I think 3rd edition is
> the best edition anyway.
A good system to give a shot is to treat mages like clerics. They have
access to a certain number of spells for each level each day. I mean
really, if you've memorized fireball every day in the last year, it's
habitual, and you'd know how to use it. I always thought that the
memorization process was a little crippling to mages, who suffer in
almost every other category. Priests are better fighters, and don't have
to predetermine what spells they will use.
I gave it a shot, and generally speaking, it worked out okay. There were
upsides and downsides to it. Just make sure that any modules you end up
doing get ignored if they say "3rd level mage with an 18 INT has the
following spells..."
Chris Shepherd
shren
> Chris Shepherd
Elegence. The rules work as well or better as 2nd ed and strip
out silly concepts such as THAC0.
Common Sense. A lot of things that were just silly in second
ed are fixed in third ed. Rogues used to be incompetant at every
single one of thier abilities untill at least 3rd level. No matter
how long a rogue stared at a trap, it didn't do him much good -
odds are he was going to fail and kill himself anyway.
Realism. "You always crit on a 20" is gone. Attacks of
Opportunity add some senses to combat wheras before you could
flip around like a ninja with no penalty.
Sensible editing. The spells are actually listed in a useful
way.
Say what you like, but I expected 3rd ed to be a hacked up
wargame, poorly edited and inelegant, like 1st or 2nd edition.
I picked it up in a store, flipped through it, and said, "Wow.
This is actually a good system now. It's no longer the Freud
of the RPG community."
For some reason I liked the second edition Manual of the
Planes better, though, but I can't elaborate why.
imp
> A good system to give a shot is to treat mages like clerics. They have
> access to a certain number of spells for each level each day. I mean
> really, if you've memorized fireball every day in the last year, it's
> habitual, and you'd know how to use it. I always thought that the
> memorization process was a little crippling to mages, who suffer in
> almost every other category. Priests are better fighters, and don't have
> to predetermine what spells they will use.
?? Whatever system that is, it isn't D&D. Unless you mean Sorcerer, not Priest.
imp
>:)
imp
> Surely this is a typo. A War Pony won't weigh 400 pounds. :)
My 14.2hh mare weighs about 400lbs, and she's not big as horses go.
(Probably weighs a bit more at the moment, huge grass belly!)
> Actually, a god would never enter single combat, for one. For two, a god
> wouldn't be able to be much stronger than a storm giant on the prime
> material plane because of physical limitations.
Why shouldn't a god enter single combat? What prime limitations? What are
you talking about?
> Anyone care to guess at the reasoning behind this?
It's called fantasy. Heroes are stronger, smarter, faster etc. You want to
play real life, just look around you.
imp
>:)
imp
> Common Sense. A lot of things that were just silly in second
> ed are fixed in third ed. Rogues used to be incompetant at every
> single one of thier abilities untill at least 3rd level. No matter
> how long a rogue stared at a trap, it didn't do him much good -
> odds are he was going to fail and kill himself anyway.
This still applies to low-level rogues. Except in NWN, of course, where they
let you take 20 on Disable Device!!! WTF?!
> Sensible editing. The spells are actually listed in a useful
> way.
You're kidding! I hate the way the spells are organized. I want by level and
class, dammit!
imp
>:)
shren
> Shren wrote:
>> Common Sense. A lot of things that were just silly in second
>> ed are fixed in third ed. Rogues used to be incompetant at every
>> single one of thier abilities untill at least 3rd level. No matter
>> how long a rogue stared at a trap, it didn't do him much good -
>> odds are he was going to fail and kill himself anyway.
> This still applies to low-level rogues. Except in NWN, of course, where they
> let you take 20 on Disable Device!!! WTF?!
NWN lets you take 20 on Disable Device a bit too often, but
the principle is valid. If you sit there and study the device
for a couple hours, it should be pretty easy to disable the
thing.
>> Sensible editing. The spells are actually listed in a useful
>> way.
> You're kidding! I hate the way the spells are organized. I want by level and
> class, dammit!
I'm thinking of the PG more than the NWN manual. In the
PG you just have to flip to the magic section, where they
have all of the spells by level and class in brief, then
an index with all the descriptions. It's an excellent
compromise between amount of space and ease of use.
Starbuck
> Well, shame on ME for thinking I could ask for guidance about ... well,
> ANYTHING on usenet without getting flamed.
>
> -- Chazbot.
Usenet. "You'll never find a more retched hive of scum and villany."
Seems like everyone has their napalm tanks strapped too tight to their backs
these days...
Starbuck
"Mike Noren" <mike_no...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f70dju442kgoq6dp7...@4ax.com...
What can you do in Diablo? Pump stats. What can you do in 3E? Pump stats. I
would think there is a slight analogy there...
Maybe it's these "hardcore" (that says it ALL) 3E people who should develop
thicker skin, hmm?
> >-- Chazbot.
>
Starbuck
"Chris Shepherd" <chs...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:3D36A9A1...@yahoo.ca...
> > I actually agree somewhat with the view of 3e being more Diablofied in
the hack
> > n slash sense. 3rd edition has a much more sound ruleset. Everyhing
except
> > damage is pretty much rolled on a d20... which makes it simpler and
faster to
> > use. But beyond that, I've noticed that after finishing BG2 and
recently NWN
> > ... I am really tired of ANY DnD rulest. I hate the spell memorization
thing
> > and though 3rd edition opens up more options for character building, it
still
> > feels pretty much a level based game... mianly I just wished they
reworked the
> > spell system for 3e though. But its still pretty good. I think 3rd
edition is
> > the best edition anyway.
>
> A good system to give a shot is to treat mages like clerics. They have
> access to a certain number of spells for each level each day. I mean
> really, if you've memorized fireball every day in the last year, it's
> habitual, and you'd know how to use it. I always thought that the
> memorization process was a little crippling to mages, who suffer in
> almost every other category. Priests are better fighters, and don't have
> to predetermine what spells they will use.
That's because Mages become the most powerful PC's in the game. They have to
have some sort of limit for their grand powers.
I look at it this way; spells are complex, especially if you roll for the
pages it takes in your spellbook to write it down and max it. Now true, a
mage might remember the words themselves after casting it tons of times, but
the inflection, pausing, and such aren't going to come so easily. Plus, it
takes extreme mental control to cast spells, and you have to be at your
sharpest if you don't want your spell to fizzle, or go wild and injure
yourself or others. Without the rest and repetition, it's only a matter of
time before the mage gets into trouble.
Starbuck
"shren" <sh...@hagbard.io.com> wrote in message
news:qlyZ8.158155$Bt1.8...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> In alt.games.neverwinter-nights Chris Shepherd <chs...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > Jonas Lind wrote:
> >> tsk. What a grumpy old gamer you are. 3rd is far superior to dnd, 1st
and
> >> 2nd combined. It's called evolution.
>
> > Out of curiosity, in what way?
>
> > Chris Shepherd
>
> Elegence. The rules work as well or better as 2nd ed and strip
> out silly concepts such as THAC0.
>
> Common Sense. A lot of things that were just silly in second
> ed are fixed in third ed. Rogues used to be incompetant at every
> single one of thier abilities untill at least 3rd level. No matter
> how long a rogue stared at a trap, it didn't do him much good -
> odds are he was going to fail and kill himself anyway.
Don't most rouges die young? Thieving for treasure and all that...
Besides, why wouldn't a first lvl rouge be incompetent? It's not like he
wakes up with 95% in everything the day he decides to take up his/her
"profession."
> Realism. "You always crit on a 20" is gone.
I think rerolling to see if you crit is garbage. You rolled the 20, you
earned the crit. Those suckers are RARE...
>Attacks of
> Opportunity add some senses to combat wheras before you could
> flip around like a ninja with no penalty.
If 2E is played properly you cannot do that.
> Sensible editing. The spells are actually listed in a useful
> way.
I hate the spell listing, 2E did it much better.
shren
> "shren" <sh...@hagbard.io.com> wrote in message
> news:qlyZ8.158155$Bt1.8...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>> In alt.games.neverwinter-nights Chris Shepherd <chs...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> > Jonas Lind wrote:
>> >> tsk. What a grumpy old gamer you are. 3rd is far superior to dnd, 1st
> and
>> >> 2nd combined. It's called evolution.
>>
>> > Out of curiosity, in what way?
>>
>> > Chris Shepherd
>>
>> Elegence. The rules work as well or better as 2nd ed and strip
>> out silly concepts such as THAC0.
>>
>> Common Sense. A lot of things that were just silly in second
>> ed are fixed in third ed. Rogues used to be incompetant at every
>> single one of thier abilities untill at least 3rd level. No matter
>> how long a rogue stared at a trap, it didn't do him much good -
>> odds are he was going to fail and kill himself anyway.
> Don't most rouges die young? Thieving for treasure and all that...
> Besides, why wouldn't a first lvl rouge be incompetent? It's not like he
> wakes up with 95% in everything the day he decides to take up his/her
> "profession."
That would make a first level rogue about 20 times as incompetant
as anything else at first level. Mages cast spells without failure
chances, clerics actually have the ear of thier gods, and fighters
can wield a longsword without cutting themselves - but a rogue will
fail to disarm a trap 4 out of 5 times unless he specialized in it -
then he'll fail everything else 4 out of 5 times.
>> Realism. "You always crit on a 20" is gone.
> I think rerolling to see if you crit is garbage. You rolled the 20, you
> earned the crit. Those suckers are RARE...
It's odd for everything in the game to have an equal chance
of critting, regardless of weapon or skill level.
>>Attacks of
>> Opportunity add some senses to combat wheras before you could
>> flip around like a ninja with no penalty.
> If 2E is played properly you cannot do that.
Perhaps.
Chris Basken
> Chris Basken wrote:
> > The
> > formula for level advancement is ((Lv-1)!)*1000, where Lv is the level
you
> > want to advance to and ! means "factoral" (so if Lv is 5, (5-1)! is
4+3+2+1
> > or 10, and it would take 10,000 EXP to hit level 5).
>
> Not quite... in mathematical terms, the factorial n! is the *product* of
> all integral numbers from 1 to n (so 5! would be 5*4*3*2*1=120) and that
> would mean an *extremly* steep progression in XP requirements...
> Using the well known Euler formula 1/2*n*(n-1) for the *sum* of all
> integers from 1 to n, the correct formula for the XP required for level L
> is 500*L*(L-1).
Right, I've been chastized for the incorrect usage of the word "factoral"
before. Is there a term for adding like that (5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1)?
Chris Basken
> - On balance I like the multiclassing rules from a playbalance point of
view. In
> 2ed, multi-classes were much more powerful than single class in the
earlier
> levels (below 11 or so). After level 9 or so, dual class characters were
vastly
> more powerful. In 3ed, multi-classing generally does not seem to be worth
it -
> they may have thrown the baby out with the bath water - but it is there
for
> those who want versatility in a single character. Short of getting rid of
> classes altogether, I can't see a better way of doing it.
Actually, from what I understand with the new Epic levels, multiclassing has
become "worth it" again. One of the big problems for me with multiclassing
is that you lock yourself out of those nice high-level class features
(because, for those playing along at home, your combined classes can't
exceed 20).
But with Epic levels, you can now have a 20th/5th X/Y class arrangement. I
feel more comfortable multiclassing now (mainly in NWN, since I haven't
gotten a chance to play a char yet in tabletop D&D) because I'll still have
access to the whole range of the class(es). NWN will be coming out with an
Epic expansion pack, according to their web site's FAQ.
Chris Basken
> Kish wrote:
> > Sure. That would be...hmm, let's see, a Strength of 29 allows a Heavy
> > load of fourteen hundred pounds, say the warhorse weighs 400
> > pounds...around level (9x4) 36, assuming a half-orc who started with
> > Strength 20.
>
> Surely this is a typo. A War Pony won't weigh 400 pounds. :)
Guys, some *people* weigh 400lbs (not many, but it's doable for a human). A
Pony weighs 600lbs easily, and a full-sized horse is almost twice that.
Chris Basken
>
> "Mike Noren" wrote":
> > Just asking if AD&D rules are moving in a Diablo direction will be
> > considered gravely insulting by hardcore AD&D fans.
>
> What can you do in Diablo? Pump stats. What can you do in 3E? Pump stats.
I
> would think there is a slight analogy there...
Very slight. You can't "pump" them in 3rd Ed. You "tweak" them, at best.
Starbuck
"Chris Basken" <ch...@nospambasken.com> wrote in message
news:_DAZ8.48597$Wt3.34533@rwcrnsc53...
Ok, so "tweak" them then. But his analogy still holds true to an extent, you
can increase your stats, maybe not "just" like Diablo, but the ability is
still there.
Although I do know 2E players who "tweak" stats as well. All they do is
write "Str exercises" on their Character sheet, and when they go up a level
they gain a point in Str. Same for the other stats except Charisma, that one
would be extremely hard to tweak, IMO. I don't allow this concept in my
games, but I have played with people who do it. Although maybe 2E would
benefit from the stat "tweaking" that 3E allows, because obviously it's more
controlled than the example I mentioned above. Perhaps gaining a point every
5 lvls in your prime requisite?
imp
> NWN lets you take 20 on Disable Device a bit too often, but
> the principle is valid. If you sit there and study the device
> for a couple hours, it should be pretty easy to disable the
> thing.
You can never take 20 on Disable Device, because failure comes with a price (you
could set the trap off).
> I'm thinking of the PG more than the NWN manual. In the
> PG you just have to flip to the magic section, where they
> have all of the spells by level and class in brief, then
> an index with all the descriptions. It's an excellent
> compromise between amount of space and ease of use.
I do mean the PHB. I don't like the way it's done at all.
imp
>:)
hermyhermit
> Fellow RPGers,
>
> OK, let me just say up front:
>
> 1) Although I started playing AD&D almost (ye gods) 20 years ago, I've
never
> played even one round under Third Edition rules.
> 2) Haven't played "Neverwinter Nights" yet, although I *plan* to play the
> living beans out of it once the price comes down a bit.
> 3) Therefore, this is not an attempt to deride something -- 3E D&D -- that
I
> know very little about.
>
You state all this upfront and people still flame the hell out of you and
call you ignorant, tell you go read the rules, etc etc.
I have some news for you pasty faced Usenet goobers that flamed him: He
stated UP FRONT that he was ignorant of the system you fucking Rules
Lawyering nerds. He was asking for INFO about the system and you just had to
flame didn't you? A nice chunk of these newsgroup people need to be
repeatedly kicked in the crotch. Silly geeks.
hh
Kershek
> What can you do in Diablo? Pump stats. What can you do in 3E? Pump stats. I
> would think there is a slight analogy there...
Er, you can pump stats in 2E and 1E as well...
Kershek
> A good system to give a shot is to treat mages like clerics. They have
> access to a certain number of spells for each level each day. I mean
> really, if you've memorized fireball every day in the last year, it's
> habitual, and you'd know how to use it. I always thought that the
> memorization process was a little crippling to mages, who suffer in
> almost every other category. Priests are better fighters, and don't have
> to predetermine what spells they will use.
Sounds like a sorcerer, not a wizard.
Remember that picking your spells isn't that much of a detriment. After
all, you get Scribe Scroll for free and can have as many scrolls on your
belt as you want.
Nick Vargish
> Wizard holding a wand with a little hand on it.
> "It's either a wand of Bigby's Gripping hand, or a +2 backscratcher..."
My favorite is the cartoon of adventurers sitting around a table, clad
in stereotypical gear -- wizard with a pointy hat, fighter in armor,
etc. There's dice and paper on the table. One of them is explaining
what they're doing:
"It's called Papers and Paychecks... You play students and workers in
an advanced, technological society."
I also really like, "Hello, I'd like to report an alignment
violation." Maybe that was in a Dragon, though.
Nick
--
#include<stdio.h> /* SigMask 0.3 (sig.c) 19990429 PUBLIC DOMAIN "Compile Me" */
int main(c,v)char *v;{return !c?putchar(*v-1)&&main(0,v+ /* Tweaks welcomed. */
1):main(0,"Ojdl!Wbshjti!=obwAqbusjpu/ofu?\v\1");} /* build: cc -o sig sig.c */
Jonas Lind
"hermyhermit" <h...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:ujdrp5f...@corp.supernews.com...
I admit that I know nothing about it. But isn't LOTR a crappy movie? Not
that I have seen it or anything..but I mean. Surely starwars was much
better.
jonas
Nick Vargish
with an 18 Str can boost it to 23 by the time they're 20th
level, for a +2 increase to bonuses. From a meta-gaming standpoint,
the character would probably benefit more by increasing their Int for
more skill points, or Con to get the extra HP and Fortitude save
bonus.
It's very interesting, actually. In 3E, you get bonuses and penalties
much closer to the middle of the bell curve -- I think a 9 qualifies
for a -1 penalty, and a 12 gets you a +1. But the numbers increase at
a slower rate. This tends to amplify the differences at more normal
stat ranges while reducing the unbalancing effects of extra-ordinary
stats.
Nick Vargish
> What can you do in Diablo? Pump stats. What can you do in 3E? Pump
> stats.
Omigod, you kill monsters in Diablo. You kill monsters in 3E. 3E has
been Diablofied!
It's even worse that you find gold in Diablo, which the 3E writers
obviously copied in an effort to appeal to the mindless Diablo people.
By the way, this is my way of saying, "You're an idiot, Starbuck."
W Brian McDonald
wrote:
>
>I actually agree somewhat with the view of 3e being more Diablofied in the hack
>n slash sense. 3rd edition has a much more sound ruleset. Everyhing except
>damage is pretty much rolled on a d20... which makes it simpler and faster to
>use. But beyond that, I've noticed that after finishing BG2 and recently NWN
>... I am really tired of ANY DnD rulest. I hate the spell memorization thing
>and though 3rd edition opens up more options for character building, it still
>feels pretty much a level based game... mianly I just wished they reworked the
>spell system for 3e though. But its still pretty good. I think 3rd edition is
>the best edition anyway.
>
>etc
>
think of dnd as being roleplaying 101. not too much of a drain on
your time to show someone how things work and pretty easy for the gm
to run. if you decide you like rpg's enough to invest time in a
serious game you can either put in the effort with dnd or move on to
a better system.
W Brian McDonald
i personally weigh 370 lb. i am nowhere near the size of a horses
torso. the heavy warhorse is a 3/4 scale percheron sized animal.
there is a fellow in spain breeding warhorses i was reading about and
they run to 14 and 1500 lb.
John Twernbold
Chazbot wrote:
> Well, shame on ME for thinking I could ask for guidance about ... well,
> ANYTHING on usenet without getting flamed.
That so many replies were a bit hostile may suggest they were provoked by
*your* original post because it was somewhat inflammatory. Had you asked
for clarification on a few points and refrained from the insulting
exaggerations, people would've been more helpful and less hostile. But
since you came out swingin', people responded in kind. It also would've
helped had you bothered to do even a little research on your own, and if
you had not CROSSPOSTED the message to several newsgroups.
I didn't respond to your initial post, but after reading it I *did* think,
"Man, this guy's an asshole. Or trolling for responses." Perhaps the flames
you've received will encourage you to adopt a friendlier, less-insulting
tone in the future.
Oh, and putting a disclaimer in the beginning of a post saying "this isn't
an attempt to deride something", doesn't help when you spend the rest of
the message doing exactly that...
--
Bold
aka John Twernbold
jtwernbold (at) yahoo.com
Kershek
says...
> My favorite is the cartoon of adventurers sitting around a table, clad
> in stereotypical gear -- wizard with a pointy hat, fighter in armor,
> etc. There's dice and paper on the table. One of them is explaining
> what they're doing:
My favorite is the commoner that runs into a bar and shouts (paraphrased),
"Quick, everyone hide! There's a fighter heading this way that only needs
20 xp to get to 15th level!"
Kershek
says...
> BTW, I just looked in my (shiny, new) 3E PH, and a Fighter starting
> with an 18 Str can boost it to 23 by the time they're 20th
> level, for a +2 increase to bonuses. From a meta-gaming standpoint,
> the character would probably benefit more by increasing their Int for
> more skill points, or Con to get the extra HP and Fortitude save
> bonus.
Just as a note since you're new, increasing your Con will provide
retroactive effects (i.e. an extra hit point per level), but increasing Int
does not. Therefore, when you increase your Int, you only gain 1 more
skill point for each level going forward.
Starbuck
Yes, but are there any schools of thievery other than thieves guilds?
Usually one of the above three has the ability to claim they were schooled
somewhere in their art. Rogues to me are the exception to the rule, because
really thievery and such is trial and error. You hope you survive your
dangerous profession so that you can become better at it and eventually live
and thrive off of it.
Besides, look at the other issues. Mages at first level can cast their spell
without failure, but they get 1. Then they are SOL. Rogues can use all of
their abilities all of the time. They might not be particularly good at them
yet, but if you spread your 60 points even, you're roughly around 20-25% in
each ability (I didn't count read languages or climb walls, climbing is one
thing theives are REALLY good at from the get-go.) That's a pretty fair shot
considering this guy hasn't seen EVERY trap yet, or seen EVERY type of lock
there is to see... he'll get those skills in time. As he sees more locks and
more traps, he becomes more familiar with them. It's trying not to get
killed in the process.
What really do Mages and Clerics have at first level that would help them
with anything that the Rogue can do? Nothing. Knock is a second level spell,
all Clerics can do is detect snares and pits, that doesn't even allow them
to disarm traps.
And a fighter? Ha... ha ha ha... ermm.... he's got a better chance to hit
things with his sword, but other than that he's really SOL. Heck, the best a
fighter can do at first level is with an 18/00 str, a 16 THAC0.
> >> Realism. "You always crit on a 20" is gone.
>
> > I think rerolling to see if you crit is garbage. You rolled the 20, you
> > earned the crit. Those suckers are RARE...
>
> It's odd for everything in the game to have an equal chance
> of critting, regardless of weapon or skill level.
Yes, but it's all about timing and luck. The 20 crit allows for luck to play
a part in the game.
> >>Attacks of
> >> Opportunity add some senses to combat wheras before you could
> >> flip around like a ninja with no penalty.
>
> > If 2E is played properly you cannot do that.
>
> Perhaps.
I know when I DM and others in our group DM, if a PC tried to flip around
like a ninja there would be free attacks on the PC from all over the place.
Starbuck
"Nick Vargish" <n...@adams.patriot.net> wrote in message
news:yyyofd4...@adams.patriot.net...
> "Starbuck" <Starb...@excite.com> writes:
>
> > What can you do in Diablo? Pump stats. What can you do in 3E? Pump
> > stats.
>
> Omigod, you kill monsters in Diablo. You kill monsters in 3E. 3E has
> been Diablofied!
>
> It's even worse that you find gold in Diablo, which the 3E writers
> obviously copied in an effort to appeal to the mindless Diablo people.
>
> By the way, this is my way of saying, "You're an idiot, Starbuck."
I meant his analogy about the stats held true because it happens in both
games. I never mentioned anything else.
And by the way, about the idiot comment... takes one to know one.
lizard
>
> I *have,* however, *heard* at least one goofy aspect of the new ruleset: the
> ability to keep boosting your character's six main abilities (strength,
> intelligence, etc.) as you gain levels. Without limits.
>
If you consider "Once every four levels" and "You cap at 20th level" to
be "Without limits", sure.
Remember, the scale is VERY different in 3e than in 2e. It's a lot
larger. The strongest PC, assuming standard races, would be a 20th level
half-orc who rolled an 18 strength and always added to strength. This
would give him a total of 25 strength. 18 roll+2 for being a half orc+5
for his adds.
By comparison, an average Ogre has a Strength of 21, and an adult Red
Dragon has a strength of 33. And both dragons and ogres (and everything
else) vary as much from their baseline as PCs do, and can gain levels --
so the 20th level half-orc fighter could easily find himself facing a
20th level OGRE fighter, with a strength of 35 or so. (The ogre rolled
high for strngth, just like the half-orc did, and kept adding to it,
just like the half-orc did.)
Ed Chauvin IV
>Replying to "simon.appleton1" <simon.a...@ntlworld.com> :
>
>>Bottomline: all pluses, some fairly big, I can honestly say, I have not seen a
>>single criticism of 3ed DnD I agree with. But the core game remains pretty much
>>the same DnD we played 20 years ago. Give it a go.
>
>How about the super-all-powerful monks?
*What* super-all-powerful monks?
>It is THE class for munchkins/powergamers, IMO.
No such thing in 3e. The classes are amazingly well balanced. Far better than
in previous editions where they had to use artificial balances like bigger
levels.
Ed Chauvin IV
--
As our bodies are armoured with adamantium, our souls are protected with our
loyalty. As our bolters are charged with death for the Emperor's enemies, our
thoughts are charged with his wisdom. As our ranks advance, so does our
devotion, for are we not Marines? Are we not the chosen of the Emperor, his
loyal servants unto death?
-Chaplain Fergus Nils
An address to the defenders of Portrein.
Ed Chauvin IV
>Let's all keep this in mind: It's not like I strolled in here and posted a
>subject line like, "I've nevur plaeyd it, but Third Ed. roolz sux!" Boiled
>down, all I was saying was, some of the new rules *sounded* sorta weird, and
>I was wondering what some 3E vets thought about 'em. And I didn't *really*
>believe all the hyperbole I wrote about fighters carrying their horses
>around; it was just fun to exaggerate for effect.
Well, it sure *sounded* like you believed it and were saying that 3e sux, and I
still don't see any request for information in your original post.
Ed Chauvin IV
>I think rerolling to see if you crit is garbage. You rolled the 20, you
>earned the crit.
What did you do to "earn" it?
>Those suckers are RARE...
Really? I see 20s on almost exactly %5 of the rolls I make. Are you sure all
your d20s actually have a 20 on them?
Ed Chauvin IV
>"Chazbot" <cge...@goawayspammers.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:OtaZ8.3016$vx7.117...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>> Fellow RPGers,
>>
>> OK, let me just say up front:
>>
>> 1) Although I started playing AD&D almost (ye gods) 20 years ago, I've
>never
>> played even one round under Third Edition rules.
>> 2) Haven't played "Neverwinter Nights" yet, although I *plan* to play the
>> living beans out of it once the price comes down a bit.
>> 3) Therefore, this is not an attempt to deride something -- 3E D&D -- that
>I
>> know very little about.
>>
>
>
>You state all this upfront and people still flame the hell out of you and
>call you ignorant, tell you go read the rules, etc etc.
Well, reading the rules is the easiest way to find out what they are, whereas
telling the world you're a moron won't get you very much rules knowledge at all.
>I have some news for you pasty faced Usenet goobers that flamed him: He
>stated UP FRONT that he was ignorant of the system you fucking Rules
And that's why his derision of the rules was flamed. That and the fact that he
claimed he wasn't deriding the rules, when in fact he was.
>Lawyering nerds. He was asking for INFO about the system and you just had to
>flame didn't you?
Would you kindly point to the line in Chazbot's original post that was a request
for information?
Oh yeah, that's right. There isn't one. There are alot of statements designed
to insult the 3e rules that are improperly punctuated with question marks, but
there aren't any actual questions.
>A nice chunk of these newsgroup people need to be
>repeatedly kicked in the crotch. Silly geeks.
Silly sock-puppet.
Ed Chauvin IV
>On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 01:23:43 GMT, Kish <Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>Chazbot wrote:
>>> A master thief can pick locks by precisely blowing on them? From two rooms
>>> away?
>>
>>That would require both an astronomical Disable Device ability and an
>>astronomical Strength.
>
>merely calls for access to one of the epic level feats for rogues.
>should be able to meet the prerequisites for that around 30th level or
>so.
Really? Which feat is that? I don't see any feats allowing you to pick locks
at a distance, let alone without tools.
Ed Chauvin IV
>
>news:yyyofd4...@adams.patriot.net...
>> "Starbuck" <Starb...@excite.com> writes:
>>
>> > What can you do in Diablo? Pump stats. What can you do in 3E? Pump
>> > stats.
>>
>> Omigod, you kill monsters in Diablo. You kill monsters in 3E. 3E has
>> been Diablofied!
>>
>> It's even worse that you find gold in Diablo, which the 3E writers
>> obviously copied in an effort to appeal to the mindless Diablo people.
>>
>> By the way, this is my way of saying, "You're an idiot, Starbuck."
>
>I meant his analogy about the stats held true because it happens in both
>games.
That's all well and good, but...
>I never mentioned anything else.
That's why you're an idiot. One similarity does not a copy make.
Now, if WotC had also turned 3e into a point-n-click hackfest, you'd have a
point.
Insane Ranter
"Ed Chauvin IV" <edc...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:cogejusbun49mskom...@enews.newsguy.com...
> Mere moments before death, Mike Noren hastily scrawled:
> >Replying to "simon.appleton1" <simon.a...@ntlworld.com> :
> >
> >>Bottomline: all pluses, some fairly big, I can honestly say, I have not
seen a
> >>single criticism of 3ed DnD I agree with. But the core game remains
pretty much
> >>the same DnD we played 20 years ago. Give it a go.
> >
> >How about the super-all-powerful monks?
>
> *What* super-all-powerful monks?
I argee.. what is the person smoking? Monks aren't all powerful.. No class
really is..
Brandon Van Every
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 09:07:58 GMT, "Chazbot"
> <cge...@goawayspammers.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >So, I guess if a fighter survives long enough, and keeps boosting his
> >strength score, he can eventually -- for example -- carry his injured
> >warhorse to safety, instead of the other way 'round? With a
thousand-pound
> >bag of gold bars slung over the *other* shoulder?
Why is this a priori goofy? You're talking about the difference between
King Arthur and Hercules. It all depends on the mythological scope you
intend to play at. If you have hangups that D&D "has" to be used to model
realistic medieval combat, well, I would say you picked the wrong game
system for that and you should find something that acutally deals with
realistic constraints. D&D is a fantasy and fantasy can be anything you
want it to be.
Please note the .sig before counterarguing how sick and wrong I am to point
this out. Not saying you will, I'm just saying that clearly, this is a
problem of your perceptions and expectations, there is no inherent merit to
your position.
--
Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.
Rod
"Jeremy Reaban" <j...@Xconnectria.com> wrote in message
news:ujbkl6p...@corp.supernews.com...
> This actually makes characters will scores less than 15 or so
> playable.
>
LOL!!!!
I guess you mean primary stat less than 15? All my chars in AD&D had at
most one stat over 16, and normally at least one under 11, and they were all
very playable :)
>
Lizard
wrote:
Yeah, and that seen in LOTR where Gandalf shoots lightning bolts from
his hands at the Balrog totally sucked. I mean, I don't know if that's
in the movie or not, but I heard from this guy who knows someone who
saw a poster for the movie, and he says it was in there, and that's
just totally lame!
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
"I've heard of this thing men call 'empathy', but I've never
once been afflicted with it, thanks the Gods." Bruno The Bandit
http://www.mrlizard.com
Lizard
wrote:
>I think rerolling to see if you crit is garbage. You rolled the 20, you
>earned the crit. Those suckers are RARE...
Yes, but this means a high-level fighter will crit a lot more than a
low level fighter (since he's more likely to make the second check),
which is a lot more logical. A skilled fighter will score crits more
often.
Insane Ranter
"Rod" <wolf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jSJZ8.243691$Uu2.51924@sccrnsc03...
Never played a fighter with 10 str did ya?
Chris Shepherd
> low level fighter (since he's more likely to make the second check),
> which is a lot more logical. A skilled fighter will score crits more
> often.
I disagree, principally from the standpoints that
A) a skilled fighter gets more attacks already, and thus, higher chances
to critical hit someone anyways.
B) a critical hit is mostly about luck. A skilled fighter will have an
easier chance of hitting someone. Apart from a critical hit, it doesn't
matter at all if you roll a 9 or a 19, as long as you can hit the person.
Take a 15th level fighter. He gets 2 attacks per round, so he is already
twice as likely to critical hit someone as a 5th level fighter. Now you
use a percentile system of 10% + 1%/level of fighter, that means your
15th level fighter is capable of critical hitting a quarter of the time
that he rolls a 20.
So let's say over 200 attack rounds, he gets 400 rolls, and will come up
with the number 20 on average 40 times. Now, of those 40 times, this
15th level fighter will get only 10 actual critical hits. Therefore, he
has gone from a 1 in 20 chance, to a 1 in 40 chance.
Now, how about we look at the 200 attack rounds for a 5th level fighter.
This is 200 die rolls, and he'll roll a 20 on average 20 times. Of
those 20 times, this 5th level fighter will roll only 2 critical hits
(10%), therefore this 5th level fighter has only a 1% chance overall of
rolling a critical hit.
So basically being higher level and having more attacks means that
you've well more than doubled your chances of getting a critical hit.
For something that basically relies on luck, I don't see why this is a
good idea.
Chris Shepherd
Chris Shepherd
> Never played a fighter with 10 str did ya?
You pick your class before your stats? If that was your best stat, I
think that it would be rather amusing. :)
Chris Shepherd
Kish
>
This is the essence of the disagreement:
Position 1, held by D&D3:
> > A skilled fighter will score crits more
> > often.
>
Position 2, held by AD&D2:
Starbuck
> Mere moments before death, Starbuck hastily scrawled:
> >I think rerolling to see if you crit is garbage. You rolled the 20, you
> >earned the crit.
>
> What did you do to "earn" it?
Rolled it of course... luck and fate dictated that you should critically hit
your opponent. Everyone gets lucky now and then, it's part of life.
> >Those suckers are RARE...
>
> Really? I see 20s on almost exactly %5 of the rolls I make. Are you sure
all
> your d20s actually have a 20 on them?
Yes, I'm sure they have a 20 on them. 5% is rare, considering that it's a
1/20 chance. Besides, all you're doing when you reroll in 3E to see if you
"actually" got your crit is doubling the odds to 2/40. Same thing as 1/20 if
you ask me...
Starbuck
> Mere moments before death, Starbuck hastily scrawled:
> >
> >"Nick Vargish" <n...@adams.patriot.net> wrote in message
> >news:yyyofd4...@adams.patriot.net...
> >> "Starbuck" <Starb...@excite.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > What can you do in Diablo? Pump stats. What can you do in 3E? Pump
> >> > stats.
> >>
> >> Omigod, you kill monsters in Diablo. You kill monsters in 3E. 3E has
> >> been Diablofied!
> >>
> >> It's even worse that you find gold in Diablo, which the 3E writers
> >> obviously copied in an effort to appeal to the mindless Diablo people.
> >>
> >> By the way, this is my way of saying, "You're an idiot, Starbuck."
> >
> >I meant his analogy about the stats held true because it happens in both
> >games.
>
> That's all well and good, but...
>
> >I never mentioned anything else.
>
> That's why you're an idiot. One similarity does not a copy make.
You know, you nitpickers are really starting to piss me off....
> Now, if WotC had also turned 3e into a point-n-click hackfest, you'd have
a
> point.
I didn't start this whole goddamn post, and you aren't going to pin the
idiot label on me just because I'm standing behind the guy who phrased it.
Kish
>
> "Ed Chauvin IV" <edc...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:angejuk309ovhea5v...@enews.newsguy.com...
> > Mere moments before death, Starbuck hastily scrawled:
> > >I think rerolling to see if you crit is garbage. You rolled the 20, you
> > >earned the crit.
> >
> > What did you do to "earn" it?
>
> Rolled it of course... luck and fate dictated that you should critically hit
> your opponent. Everyone gets lucky now and then, it's part of life.
>
> > >Those suckers are RARE...
> >
> > Really? I see 20s on almost exactly %5 of the rolls I make. Are you sure
> all
> > your d20s actually have a 20 on them?
>
> Yes, I'm sure they have a 20 on them. 5% is rare, considering that it's a
> 1/20 chance. Besides, all you're doing when you reroll in 3E to see if you
> "actually" got your crit is doubling the odds to 2/40. Same thing as 1/20 if
> you ask me...
Not true. You get a crit if your second roll is any hit at all.
So skill matters in 3e, whereas in 2e, it's pure luck.
Big Bad Joe
wrote:
>People can only get as strong as their genetics predetermine. You don't
>see guys out there benchpressing busses without effort. You see them
>doing it for a short while, and with a LOT of effort.
You do? I want--no, NEED--a link to a video of this.
Big Bad Joe
Trevor MacPhail
>
> Right, I've been chastized for the incorrect usage of the word "factoral"
> before. Is there a term for adding like that (5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1)?
>
It's called a summation from 1 to 5. Pretty simple isnt it?
--
Trevor