67 replies to this topic

[VigaHrolf]

Since it's been resurrected, I guess I'll weigh in again.

Now, I will admit that some of my arguments are colored in nostalgia. I've got years of time logged into 2nd edition as opposed to maybe a little under a year for 3rd. But I also put that in as a marker to show I have played 3rd, as both player and DM.

My groups were generally good groups. Almost exclusively roleplayers, not so much power munchkins. But, it didn't take long for that to start to creep in. It's because the system lends itself IMHO for powergaming. Paladin thief mages running around blasting things (not that I saw one thankfully) And I noticed myself falling for it too.. when suddenly you can just start tinkering with everything. It's a lot of temptation.

However, this is probably one of those items that people love or hate. Some love it for being able to have whatever you want and others hate it for the same reason. I felt it cheapened the great classes and powers and I also hated having to be the bad guy and turn down an idea. *shrug* that's just me.

As to complexity, I think 3rd edition heaped on too much. The feats (which feats do I have? Which are operating?), the various armor classes (deflection, base, flatfooted, unarmored), the extra rolls with magical spells, and all the modifiers, well, it dragged a lot of situations out for me as both player and DM. When you have limited time to play, I want to spend it roleplaying, not rolling dice. And that's where 3rd edition ticked me off.

And bloody horrible AoO's. I hate em.

Finally, on the stats thing... I understand your point about how a 17 means you're 1 point closer to an 18, which means only 4 levels to get there. But, that also means that for 4 levels, one of the hardest stat combinations to get, a 17, is still only as good as a 16. And if you have all even numbers, well then that 1 point every four levels is rather worthless until you move up 8 levels.

I like the simplified adjustments (for the most part). They're a lot easier to deal with than a lot of the stuff out of version 2. But there weer certain 2nd edition adjustments that were great. Such as wisdom giving lots of extra spells to clerics (not that the 3rd model is bad) or having your actual weight allowance spelled out for easy reference. They just took too many of my tables away, tables that simplified things for me.

Oh and getting rid of exceptional strength is nothing I'm going to complain about. I liked the bonuses.. but yeah. (xx) can go away.

Now, this isn't to say that 3rd edition is crap, in case anyone thought I said that. It isn't bad, it's just... flawed in my opinion. They made things mroe simple and more complicated at the same time. More dice rolling is bad.
Oh well.. continue on.

P.S.: JPS.. no worries

VH

[mr2131]

As to complexity, I think 3rd edition heaped on too much.  The feats (which feats do I have?  Which are operating?), the various armor classes (deflection, base, flatfooted, unarmored), the extra rolls with magical spells, and all the modifiers, well, it dragged a lot of situations out for me as both player and DM.  When you have limited time to play, I want to spend it roleplaying, not rolling dice.  And that's where 3rd edition ticked me off.

Finally, on the stats thing... I understand your point about how a 17 means you're 1 point closer to an 18, which means only 4 levels to get there.  But, that also means that for 4 levels, one of the hardest stat combinations to get, a 17, is still only as good as a 16.  And if you have all even numbers, well then that 1 point every four levels is rather worthless until you move up 8 levels.

Have you ever heard of Chivalry and Sorcery? That was complicated. A beautiful system, but really complicated. Honestly, a lot of gamers simply aren't interested in the challenges of roleplaying. They don't want to invest the time and imagination needed to take average stats and create a truly memorable character.

Happy Trails . . .

Mark

[VigaHrolf]

As to complexity, I think 3rd edition heaped on too much.  The feats (which feats do I have?  Which are operating?), the various armor classes (deflection, base, flatfooted, unarmored), the extra rolls with magical spells, and all the modifiers, well, it dragged a lot of situations out for me as both player and DM.  When you have limited time to play, I want to spend it roleplaying, not rolling dice.  And that's where 3rd edition ticked me off.

Finally, on the stats thing... I understand your point about how a 17 means you're 1 point closer to an 18, which means only 4 levels to get there.  But, that also means that for 4 levels, one of the hardest stat combinations to get, a 17, is still only as good as a 16.  And if you have all even numbers, well then that 1 point every four levels is rather worthless until you move up 8 levels.

Have you ever heard of Chivalry and Sorcery? That was complicated. A beautiful system, but really complicated. Honestly, a lot of gamers simply aren't interested in the challenges of roleplaying. They don't want to invest the time and imagination needed to take average stats and create a truly memorable character.

Happy Trails . . .

Mark

Never heard of it actually. But really, my experience is limited to D&D and White Wolf, both which have their pluses and minuses. And as to the challenges of roleplaying, I think the stats things matter on the campaign. I think the true key is balance, no one character in the group overpowering another. That's the way to get a good flow and good roleplaying going. The way to have the most fun, as it is truly the goal, no?

VH

[Archmage Silver]

Heheh, yes, you're right about that. And you can be the *best* player playing without any munchkin thief-paladin-sorcerers, it's just about roleplaying as you said.

[toughluck]

I've read through the discussion (fascinating stuff), and have come to one conclusion:
How is it that people who prefer 3E (and/or 3.5E) to 2E have used logical and constructed arguments, whilst the majority of votes cast against 3E were derogatory to the point of calling 3E stupid or retarded?


As for HP and AC, it has been well explained, I believe, to the point that if a character has a high HP count, it doesn't mean that some 50 arrows can stick out from his chest like from a pincushion, but it means that the player has learned how to evade them, grew tougher, and so on. Similar with AC - that plate mail has higher means simply that it is easier to avoid being hurt by an attack which the character could not dodge, but was weak or poor enough that it bounced off the tougher armor.


One thing about 3E, though: it didn't manage to rid the Realms (or any other setting, for that matter) of fighter women wearing a full-body thong (or less). One thought about Aribeth in NWN that occured to me was that she would be an extremely easy target for a marksman, or just for a critical hit to her upper torso or neck... And all that to present the wondrous new technique of breast wobbling.

[Kish]

As for HP and AC, it has been well explained, I believe, to the point that if a character has a high HP count, it doesn't mean that some 50 arrows can stick out from his chest like from a pincushion, but it means that the player has learned how to evade them, grew tougher, and so on.

The (non-Edition-specific) trouble with that is that if that's the case, healing spells should always heal a percentage of maximum hit points, not a die roll. The way it is means healing spells grow less effective on the character as attacks do, and a higher-level character has no reason to be trying to dodge most of the effect of Cure Light Wounds.

Edited by Kish, 19 November 2004 - 05:14 PM.

[toughluck]

The (non-Edition-specific) trouble with that is that if that's the case, healing spells should always heal a percentage of maximum hit points, not a die roll.  The way it is means healing spells grow less effective on the character as attacks do, and a higher-level character has no reason to be trying to dodge most of the effect of Cure Light Wounds.

I gave it some thought, and I believe you hit the nail straight on the head here... I've been trying to come up with some ideas why a roll would be better, but all faced a dead-end losing logic, or pointing straight to the percentage.

One thing, though, what about characters that can take a lot of wounds and live (with physiological, not theoretical or notional, hit points), what with that kind of creatures (e.g. dragons, but I doubt they'd have need for any sort of healing, and would still get the best available)? If cure light wounds would be able to cure 10% of damage, how should that be treated? Perhaps a modifier (large/extra large creature)?
And what about physically weak characters - those that may have high HP count, but it is only notional (like frail, but nimble and agile, thieves, I don't know), not physiological? A more serious wound and they're done for, but are able to avoid the more serious ones. What about them? A cure light wounds might heal that 10%, but it would just seal some nick n'scratch here n'ere, not actually heal a wound.

Of course, that might very well be considered a very serious wound for the weak character, so cure light wounds would not help, but come on, a 5 cm long cut, nothing for a dragon, a lot for a human, and both would be treated the same?

I guess nobody had come up with a logical system for that, and nobody ever will (unless somebody has an idea, like basic HP=constitution; dodge, avoid, damage% reduction and damage amount reduction are your only lines of defence; deal with it).

[oralpain]

I guess nobody had come up with a logical system for that, and nobody ever will (unless somebody has an idea, like basic HP=constitution; dodge, avoid, damage% reduction and damage amount reduction are your only lines of defence; deal with it).

Plenty of people have, but they are not, probably will not, and possibly should not, be part of D&D. I think there are several systems out there that are mechanically far superior to any edition of D&D or AD&D. Ars Magica and Alternity come to mind immediatly.

Edited by oralpain, 19 November 2004 - 08:20 PM.