info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
3.0 rules are better than 3.5
28 views
Skip to first unread message
Rollory
Jun 24, 2022, 7:56:03 AM6/24/22
to
Including rangers. Fight me.
Spalls Hurgenson
Jun 24, 2022, 10:19:23 AM6/24/22
to
On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 07:56:00 -0400, Rollory <rol...@dnmx.org> wrote:
>Including rangers. Fight me.
No.
Anyway, all rule systems suck in one way or another. Arguing about
them is silly. Find a rule system you (and your players) are
comfortable with, and just use that, whether its D&D 3.0, OD&D,
Pathfinder, whatever. Switch only when you want to experience the
change, not because you think somehow rules X will somehow improve the
experience.
Far more important is how the rules interface with the setting (for
example, the melee-focused D&D rules tend to do poorly with modern
weaponry, and so don't fare as well in anything but a sword-n-sorcery
theme.) And even more important is the skill, attitude and
compatibility of the GM and the players. Even the most perfect rules
system in the world (not that such a thing exists) won't make a game
fun if you have mismatched players or a GM who isn't into the game
anymore.
All the "rules system X is better than rules system Y" is just feeding
into the hype created by marketing who want you to think that their
product is worth buying. Don't fall for their tricks; you're better
than that.
>Including rangers. Fight me.
No.
Anyway, all rule systems suck in one way or another. Arguing about
them is silly. Find a rule system you (and your players) are
comfortable with, and just use that, whether its D&D 3.0, OD&D,
Pathfinder, whatever. Switch only when you want to experience the
change, not because you think somehow rules X will somehow improve the
experience.
Far more important is how the rules interface with the setting (for
example, the melee-focused D&D rules tend to do poorly with modern
weaponry, and so don't fare as well in anything but a sword-n-sorcery
theme.) And even more important is the skill, attitude and
compatibility of the GM and the players. Even the most perfect rules
system in the world (not that such a thing exists) won't make a game
fun if you have mismatched players or a GM who isn't into the game
anymore.
All the "rules system X is better than rules system Y" is just feeding
into the hype created by marketing who want you to think that their
product is worth buying. Don't fall for their tricks; you're better
than that.
CBRPunk
Jul 26, 2022, 5:28:42 PM7/26/22
to
On 6/24/2022 7:56 AM, Rollory wrote:
> Including rangers. Fight me.
I actually agree with you. I still keep my 3E books around from 2000
> Including rangers. Fight me.
hoping I can trick someone into playing it before they figure out it's
not revised or Pathfinder :/
CBRPunk
Jul 26, 2022, 5:29:03 PM7/26/22
to
Justisaur
Aug 1, 2022, 10:24:55 AM8/1/22
to
On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 4:56:03 AM UTC-7, Rollory wrote:
> Including rangers. Fight me.
Roll for initiative!
> Including rangers. Fight me.
I got a 17!
One of my favorite campaigns I ever ran out of 40+ years of D&D
was in 3.0e. It was fairly heavily house ruled, and it also
had only 3 of my favorite players playing. It did peter out at around
17th level as the two fighter types said they felt useless compared
to the M-U though.
That's not a problem I had running 2e though, I had at least 3
campaigns reach level 20, one of those got to level 27.
I really wish I could get back into 2e, but every time I try to go over the
rules it just seems too much anymore, and I prefer the 1e subclasses.
Rangers, Paladins, Illusionists, and Druids are all far better in 1e,
and Monks don't even appear in 2e except in some obscure book
I don't have. Though 1e OA is being referenced as being compatible
with 2e in the humanoid handbook, and to use that. I did play in one
PBP of 2e that I enjoyed more recently, but like most PBP it quickly
petered out.
- Justisaur
0 new messages